- Specific details regarding the actual energy audit and process are not covered in the protocol. But should we provide more direction regarding building asset data to be collected (Section 2.1 - mention physical attributes, etc.), and more detailed scopes of work for ECMs (is this addressed adequately in Section 4.3?)?
- Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece.
- Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric?
- Sections 5, 6 and 7: are these too long? Are they specific enough?
- Large / standard / targeted project sizes - can number of units be used as a metric for project size? Eg., ~$3k in potential ECMs per unit, so 150+ units = large ($450,000), 50-150 units = standard ($150,000-$450,000)…
- How do we deal with parking garages in the square footage - do we need to address parking garages in the protocol?
- Baseline - we mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes utility data during the renovation period from the baseline development?
- Savings calculations and implementation cost estimates - discuss uncertainty in more detail?
- SIR - should we provide the definition specifically in the protocol? (We require an SIR>1)
- Affordable housing - good part of the utility costs are picked up by the government, so you have a third player. There are many different types of lenders, and they compete regarding whose mortgage takes priority. Finance side is complicated. The MF protocol should apply, if a project development team can work out the financial side of an affordable housing scenario. So no need for a different affordable housing protocol?
RSS Feed