John M. Avina, CEM, CEA, CMVP, CxA ABSTRACT The Option C Measurement and Verification (M&V) methods for energy service companies (ESCOs) often involve performing regression analysis of utility bills against weather data. We have been advised by the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) that our regressions should yield CV(RMSE)s (coefficients of variation […]
When we use regressions for Option C M&V, we use statistical indicators, such as R2 and CV(RMSE) to determine whether the regression is valid and whether the regression should be used to determine energy and demand savings. Although introduced decades ago, fractional savings uncertainty (FSU), a more complex statistical indicator, is finally becoming known among M&V practitioners. All of these statistical indicators used to qualify Option C regressions are human creations and are not based in reality.
Measurement and verification have become more complicated in recent years to address the concerns of utility energy efficiency practitioners. Their concerns, outlook and background are different than those of performance contractors. Many of the concepts that are applicable to the utility energy efficiency practitioners are not useful to performance contractors. One example is uncertainty calculations which are not necessary for a performance contract. This paper critiques the latent and overlooked inconsistencies associated with uncertainty calculations.
Although created with best intentions, several city-run energy efficiency programs actually hinder energy efficiency. The two programs we are familiar with (San Francisco’s Energy Performance Ordinance and New York City’s Local Law 87) require energy audits on larger commercial buildings. The intent of the programs is to save energy, but the result is instead that energy audits are performed, reports filed, but energy efficiency does not necessarily result.
IFMA Facility Management Journal (FMJ) September-October 2018 Issue Evolving Core Competencies
is a solutions-oriented facilities professional with over 20 years of broad-based experience in facilities management, real estate portfolio management, process & quality improvement, procurement, workplace services,
IFMA Facility Management Journal (FMJ) May-June 2017 Issue Keeping Pace
A veteran facility management and corporate real estate professional, his background includes diverse experiences in facilities organizational development and operations, quality and process management
John M. Avina President, Steve P. Rottmayer, Senior Energy Engineer Abraxas Energy Consulting
Over the decades, the determination of energy savings in performance contracting has undergone an evolution from a utility bill based approach towards a more limited exercise which may sometimes be difficult to relate to actual energy savings in the later years of the contract. These limited measurement and verification (M&V) approaches can reduce the value […]
Perhaps I have become cynical over the years. As we age, we all come to realize that the best of intentions are often waylaid by miscommunication, self-interest and incompetence, and that the end result of what should be a successful plan, often falls short. This can be, and is often, the case for energy efficiency. Every […]
October 2, 2012 It is short-sighted to hire a low cost energy auditor. In the long run, a poor quality energy audit can end up costing a building owner many times the cost of the audit. This paper details eight ways in which a poor quality energy audit can result in decreased energy savings, higher installation costs, and squandered […]