Evaluation of the 2010-2012
Custom Impact Energy Efficiency
Programs for the California IOUs
for the
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)
Procedures for Site-Specific Impact Analysis
under Work Order WO033
Prepared by:
Itron, Inc.
1111 Broadway, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 844-2800
and
KEMA, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 891-0446
Version 01: January 2012
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... i
Foreword .................................................................................................................. iv
1 General Project Information .............................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Management and Contact Information ............................................ 1-2
1.3 Project Schedule ......................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 CPUC’s Evaluation Objectives .................................................................... 1-3
1.5 California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols / California Evaluation
Framework ................................................................................................. 1-4
1.6 Useful Definitions ........................................................................................ 1-5
1.7 Level of Effort for Site Work ........................................................................ 1-8
1.8 General Description of Pertinent Program Requirements ........................... 1-9
1.8.1 Participation Eligibility ................................................................................................. 1-9
1.8.2 Ineligible Measures .................................................................................................... 1-9
1.8.3 Measure Baseline ..................................................................................................... 1-10
1.8.4 Early Retirement Claims ........................................................................................... 1-10
1.8.5 Financial Incentive Levels ........................................................................................ 1-11
1.8.6 Itemized Incentives ................................................................................................... 1-11
1.8.7 SPC/NRR-DR Estimation Documentation and Other Software ............................... 1-12
1.8.8 Calculated Approach - Engineering Calculations ..................................................... 1-13
1.8.9 Stages of the Application Process ............................................................................ 1-14
1.8.10 Other Terms and Conditions .................................................................................. 1-15
2 Customer Application Review, Site Specific M&V Plan .................................. 2-1
2.1 Site / Measure Information and Assignment ............................................... 2-1
2.2 Subcontractor Single Point of Contact ........................................................ 2-3
2.3 Quality Control Procedures ......................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Considerations for Safety............................................................................ 2-4
2.5 M&V Rigor Levels ....................................................................................... 2-5
2.6 M&V Protocol for Basic Level of Rigor ........................................................ 2-5
2.6.1 IPMVP Option ............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.6.2 Sources of Stipulated Data ......................................................................................... 2-7
2.6.3 Baseline Definition ...................................................................................................... 2-7
2.6.4 Monitoring Strategy and Duration............................................................................... 2-7
2.6.5 Weather Adjustments ................................................................................................. 2-7
2.7 M&V Protocol for Enhanced Level of Rigor ................................................. 2-7
2.7.1 IPMVP Option ............................................................................................................. 2-8
2.7.2 Sources of Stipulated Data ......................................................................................... 2-9
2.7.3 Baseline Definition ...................................................................................................... 2-9
2.7.4 Monitoring Strategy and Duration............................................................................... 2-9
2.7.5 Weather Adjustments ................................................................................................. 2-9
2.7.6 Calibration Targets ................................................................................................... 2-10
2.8 Gross Energy Impact Protocol .................................................................. 2-10
2.9 Gross Peak Demand Impact Protocol ....................................................... 2-13
Itron, Inc.
i
Table of Contents
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.10 Scope of Application Review and SSMVP Preparation........................... 2-16
2.11 Lower Rigor Points.................................................................................. 2-18
2.12 Application Budget Allowance, Reporting, and Payment ........................ 2-18
2.13 Site Report Template .............................................................................. 2-20
2.14 Application Review.................................................................................. 2-20
2.15 Completing the Site Specific M&V Plan Template .................................. 2-20
2.15.1 Project Information and Site Data .......................................................................... 2-21
2.15.2 IOU Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-22
2.15.3 M&V Plan Summary ............................................................................................... 2-24
2.15.4 Savings Calculation Method, Uncertainty Analysis, Field Data Collection and Site
M&V Cost Estimate.................................................................................................... 2-27
2.16 Calculation Standards ............................................................................. 2-29
2.16.1 Building Simulations ............................................................................................... 2-29
2.16.2 Compressed Air Simulations .................................................................................. 2-30
2.16.3 Annual Hours of Operation ..................................................................................... 2-30
2.16.4 Coincident Peak Demand Reduction / Reported Demand Reduction ................... 2-30
2.16.5 Increases or Decreases in Production ................................................................... 2-31
2.16.6 Interactive Effects ................................................................................................... 2-32
2.17 Electronic File Names, Identification Scheme, and Data Files ................ 2-33
2.18 Itron / KEMA Review of Site Specific SSMVP ......................................... 2-33
3 On-Site Audit Recruiting/Scheduling ............................................................... 3-1
3.1 Utility Representative Contact ..................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Initial Customer Contact.............................................................................. 3-2
3.3 Letter of Introduction ................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Reminder Calls ........................................................................................... 3-3
4 On-Site Audits and Sampling ............................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Photographs ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Measure Installation Verification ................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Data Collection, Monitoring, and Sampling ................................................. 4-2
4.4 Other Relevant Information ......................................................................... 4-2
4.5 Obtain Other Documentation ...................................................................... 4-3
5 Impact Analysis and Final Site Report ............................................................. 5-1
5.1 Analysis and Write-up ................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Completing the Site Specific Ex-post M&V Results Template .................... 5-2
5.2.1 Project Information ..................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2 Summary of M&V Results .......................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Detailed M&V Findings ............................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.4 Discrepancy Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-6
5.3 Itron / KEMA and Subcontractor Review..................................................... 5-8
5.4 Project Process and Subtasks .................................................................... 5-9
6 SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation........................................................... 6-1
7 SSMVP Example ................................................................................................. 7-1
Custom Measure M&V Plan.............................................................................. 7-1
8 Final Site Report (FSR) Template for Impact Evaluation ................................ 8-1
Itron, Inc.
ii
Table of Contents
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
9 Sample Final Site Report Example for Impact Evaluation .............................. 9-1
10 Ex-ante Review Plan Development Guidelines ............................................ 10-1
11 Appendix 1: Site Data Collection Form ........................................................ 11-1
Site Data Collection and Interview Information ............................................... 11-1
Measure Specific Contextual Data .................................................................................... 11-3
12 Appendix 2: Flowchart for Creation of SSMVP and FSRs .......................... 12-1
13 Baseline Guidance ......................................................................................... 13-1
Itron, Inc.
iii
Table of Contents
Foreword
The purpose of this manual is to provide information and instruction to all stakeholders and
parties involved in the site-specific impact analyses for the 2010-2012 evaluation of the custom
energy efficiency measures implemented through energy efficiency programs administered
through the four California IOUs (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SCG). Specific information
relating to the background of the program and instructions for conducting the site work and
preparing the site reports is contained in the various sections of this document.
The procedures in this document were developed in an effort to standardize data collection and
reporting for the sites to be evaluated.
While this procedures document is specific to custom project evaluation reporting for the 20102012 program years, the guidance and direction might be applicable to other impact evaluation
and review efforts. There are several other evaluation efforts being conducted concurrently for
the CPUC, most notably in the commercial and residential sectors, that will be coordinated with
the custom project evaluation.
Note that this procedures document, the level of effort, and the schedules contained herein apply
primarily to the ‘before decision’ or BD period (prior to the CPUC ALJ Decision D-11-07-030
issued on July 14, 2011). The BD period covers the period of calendar year 2010 and 2011 Q1
and Q2 projects. Ex post evaluation will be conducted of custom projects for which the CA
IOUs claim savings during this time period. There will be some projects completed ‘after
decision’ (AD) which are also selected for post-installation evaluation and will require specific
instructions and approaches that may differ from those described in this document.1 These sites
may potentially incorporate pre-retrofit M&V records, site visits, or data collection into the
impact evaluation but savings claims are “frozen” at the values determined during the ex ante
review processes conducted under WO002. More details on the ex ante review process will be
provided as available and needed for this WO033 evaluation.
Background information is provided in Section 1. Section 2 discusses the application review and
the preparation of the site specific measurement and verification plans (SSMVPs). Sections 3
and 4 describe customer contact and site visits, respectively. Section 5 discusses the final
1
We refer to these two periods as “before-decision” (BD) and “after-decision” (AD). The before-decision (BD)
period includes the program cycle period prior to D. 11-07-030; the after-decision (AD) period refers to the
projects completed during the remainder of the program cycle. The BD projects are to be conducted as standard
M&V points as in previous impact evaluations; for the AD points, special requirements relating to ex-ante
freezing and pre-retrofit measurements will apply. The decision language can be found here:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/FINAL_DECISION/139858.htm
Itron, Inc.
iv
Forward
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
analysis and preparation of the ex-post M&V results (Final Site Report or FSR). Sections 6
through 10 conclude with the SSMVP template, SSMVP example, final site report template, final
site report example and a previous cycle site report example and the equations, tables and figures
description section.
Training
The following training sessions are planned for the custom impact evaluations:

January/February 2012: Distribution of WO033 Custom Impact Procedures Manual

February 2012: Half-day webinar-based training sessions on the Procedures Manual
overview, custom impact evaluation engineering orientation, and integration with net to
gross efforts and related topics.

February 2012: Begin monthly / bimonthly 90 minute conference call for all
subcontractors addressing on-going training needs and quality control / consistency
issues.

March 2012: Three (3) hour in office training in San Diego and/or Oakland (instructions
for site visits, M&V protocols, and finalizing site reports) with all project personnel in
respective locations.

Ongoing: On the job, one on one training with subcontractors at sites with KEMA, Itron,
or assigned lead senior evaluator.
Itron, Inc.
v
General Project Information
1
General Project Information
This section provides background information on the 2010-2012 Evaluation of the Custom
Impact Energy Efficiency Programs throughout California.
1.1 Project Description
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has contracted with Itron / KEMA for the
impact evaluation of 2010-2012 California investor-owned utilities’ (IOU) energy efficiency
programs, focusing on custom measures. A total of approximately 117 programs in the 2010
program year across four different IOUs are covered by the Custom Impact evaluation. The
custom impact evaluation includes various programs (e.g. Commercial, Industrial and
Agricultural Deemed and Calculated Incentives programs; IOU-specific programs such as the
Heavy Industry and Refinery energy efficiency (EE) programs) of Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E); and third party programs across all California IOUs.
The custom evaluation includes an ex-post (post installation) assessment of energy savings for a
planned sample of approximately 200 M&V projects implemented throughout the state during
the BD period. Savings claims for an additional 100 low-rigor sample points will be assessed by
carrying out desk reviews and possible verification site visits for larger sites, with or without data
collection. The low-rigor sites would be used for more qualitative data gathering and to support
IOU program assessment. The goal of the M&V effort in the custom impact evaluation is to
compare and contrast the ex-ante (reported) impact estimates found in the financial incentive
applications or frozen ex-ante review assessments to what we find (ex-post). In this process, we
will use a combination of detailed application review, on-site measurement, data collection and
revisions of ex-ante calculations. Additionally, we will collect other project specific information
deemed relevant to the custom evaluation research plan.
The overall goal of the evaluation is to obtain unbiased, reliable estimates of gross and net
energy savings and peak demand reduction over the life of the measure at the project and sample
domain levels.
Itron, Inc.
1-1
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
1.2 Project Management and Contact Information
Itron is providing contract management for this evaluation for the Energy Division (ED) of the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Substantive decisions related to the study
research plan and associated objectives and procedures are made with the direction of the
CPUC’s Energy Division (ED) staff. Ms. Katherine Hardy is the CPUC ED’s manager for this
study. In addition, the CPUC ED utilizes other consultants for technical support reviewing and
managing 2010-2012 program evaluations. Mr. Steve Kromer, Mr. Pete Jacobs, and Mr. Nikhil
Gandhi, Mr. Jeff Hirsch, and the Data Management and Quality Control team (the DMQC) are
assigned to support the CPUC with this evaluation.
Itron, Inc. is the prime contractor for this WO033 evaluation for custom impact measures;
KEMA is the supporting co-prime for the custom impact evaluation. Itron and KEMA are
supported by several subcontractors. Current engineering subcontractors which may be
responsible for energy impact analysis include Energy Metrics, Michaels Engineering, ERS,
SAIC, Robert Thomas Brown, Katin Engineering, and Warren Energy Engineering. Additional
subcontractors will be added, including parties involved with non-impact analyses, such as
behavioral and net to gross analyses.
Mr. Al Lutz (P.E., CEM) is the program manager for the custom impact evaluation and is
supported by Mr. Mike Rufo and Mr. Kris Bradley as technical advisors. He leads the gross
impact efforts. Ms. Jennifer Fagan and Phil Willems will have a key role in NTG evaluation and
reporting. Ms. Fagan will lead the net to gross data collection and analysis efforts.
As discussed above, in addition to the gross energy impact analysis task that is the focus of this
document, Itron / KEMA will be conducting several other tasks as part of the overall evaluation.
These tasks include interviews with utility program managers, participant / non-participant
energy efficiency service providers (EESPs), and participant / non-participant end users. These
interviews will provide information for the process and market assessment aspects of the
evaluation as well as estimation of the program net-to-gross ratio. It is particularly important to
note that a separate team will conduct process evaluation and net-to-gross related interviews with
each of the end users included in the impact evaluation sample and an additional net to gross
only sample. These interviews will be conducted by telephone and will be coordinated with the
on-site work conducted by the engineering team.
Engineering team members should refer to the Research Plan submitted to the CPUC for more
information on specific tasks and overall project objectives. Contact information for lead project
staff will be provided and updated as necessary. However, subcontractors should contact Itron
/ KEMA staff on project-related issues, and SHOULD NOT contact the CPUC ED, ED
consultants, or IOUs directly, unless specifically instructed to do so.
Itron, Inc.
1-2
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
1.3 Project Schedule
Measurement and Verification (M&V) planning, data collection and analysis for the site-specific
impact evaluations will began in December 2011 and is scheduled to be completed by June 2012
for the 300 points in the BD period. Full ramp up of site evaluation should begin in February
2012. This schedule requires approximately 50 M&V sites and 25 Lower Rigor sites being
completed per month in the BD period. Detailed schedule information will be provided in the
task orders (work authorizations) for each subcontractor as required.
1.4 CPUC’s Evaluation Objectives
The ED expects the following objectives to serve as guidance for all 2010-2012 EM&V
activities. All 2010-2012 EM&V work conducted by and for Energy Division should be
consistent with these objectives.
EM&V activities shall be planned and implemented to achieve a balance of precision, accuracy,
and cost effectiveness while meeting the following objectives:

Objective 1 - Evaluation and measurement of programs for the purpose of estimating the
energy, demand, and environmental impacts produced by the energy efficiency
portfolios.

Objective 2 - Development of cost metrics to support portfolio level cost effectiveness
analysis.

Objective 3 - Development of data to improve portfolio planning estimates and energy
efficiency potential analysis.

Objective 4 - Conducting research to inform the CPUC’s energy efficiency policy and
program planning needs, and to provide feedback to program administrators /
implementers for the purpose of improving programs.

Objective 5 - Supporting the CPUC's oversight function of ensuring efficient and
effective expenditure of ratepayer funds on energy efficiency programs.

Objective 6 – Streamlining evaluation efforts by allowing ex-ante freezing of energy
savings estimates and the use of deemed values / methodologies, introducing more
certainty in the treatment of various non-DEER incented measures.
Itron, Inc.
1-3
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
1.5 California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols / California
Evaluation Framework
The “California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological and
Reporting Requirements for Evaluation Professionals”2 (a.k.a. Evaluators’ Protocols, referred to
collectively as the Protocols and individually as the Protocol) is the document that is designed to
achieve compliance with the CPUC’s evaluation objectives. The document was prepared by the
TecMarket Works team - a group of consultants under contract to the CPUC.
The document is used to guide the efforts associated with conducting evaluations of California’s
energy efficiency programs and program portfolios. The Protocol is the primary guidance tool
policymakers use to plan and structure evaluation efforts. It is also the tool that the California
Public Utilities Commission’s Energy Division (CPUC-ED), the California Energy Commission
(CEC) (collectively the Joint Staff), and the portfolio / program administrators (Administrators)
use to plan and oversee the completion of evaluation efforts. The Protocols are also the primary
guidance documents evaluation contractors (i.e., Itron / KEMA and its sub-contractors) use to
design and conduct evaluations for the energy efficiency programs.
The Protocol is a detailed document covering many topics. Topics of particular interest to the
site specific energy impact analysis for this project include but are not limited to the following:


2
Impact Evaluation Protocol: The Impact Evaluation Protocol prescribes the minimum
allowable methods to meet a specified level of rigor that will be used to measure and
document the program (or program component) impacts achieved as a result of
implementing energy efficiency programs and program portfolios. The impact evaluation
protocol discusses the following:
─
Gross Energy Impact Protocol
─
Gross Demand Impact Protocol
─
Participant Net Impact Protocol
─
Indirect Impact Evaluation Protocol
Measurement and Verification (M&V) Protocol: The M&V Protocol is designed to
prescribe how field measurements and data collection will be performed to support
impact evaluations, updates to ex-ante measure savings estimates, and process
evaluations.
http://www.calmac.org/events/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf
Itron, Inc.
1-4
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft

Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol: The Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol is
designed to prescribe the approach for selecting samples and conducting research design
and analysis in order to identify, mitigate and minimize bias in support of the Protocols.

Evaluation Reporting Protocols: The Reporting Protocol prescribes the way in which
evaluation reports are to be delivered and the way information is to be presented in those
reports.
The Impact Evaluation Protocol is meant to guide the design of evaluations to best provide
reliable ex-post participant-focused net impacts. These net impacts include peak kW demand
(kilowatt) savings, electrical energy (kilowatt-hours or kWh) savings, and natural gas savings
(therms), incorporating behavioral impacts. The Protocol is focused such that program level
impacts can be summed to estimate impacts at the Administrator portfolio level.
The Impact Evaluation Protocol does not operate in isolation from the other Protocols. The
M&V Protocol supports impact evaluations and can often serve in a feedback or support role for
process evaluations (if coordinated to allow this function). Similarly, the Sampling and
Uncertainty Protocol is designed to support impact evaluations, M&V evaluations, and process /
market effects evaluations by assuring that the sampling designs provide unbiased estimates
based on the information needs associated with each evaluation effort. Finally, the Reporting
Protocol is designed to support all of the evaluation activities by detailing the information that
must be reported for each type of evaluation.
The California Evaluation Framework June 2004, also compiled by TecMarket Works, is
referenced in the Protocols, and discusses important topics relating to evaluation. This document,
as well as the Protocols, should also be reviewed for a thorough grounding in energy evaluation.
1.6 Useful Definitions
The glossary contained in Appendix B of the California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols:
Technical, Methodological, and Reporting Requirements for Evaluation Professionals”3 contains
useful definitions for both evaluation terms and technical subjects. Other useful definitions are
included in this section.
Application. An application for financial incentives is received from (or on behalf of) a
customer which participates in an energy efficiency program (by way of the installation of
program qualifying energy efficiency measures) at one or more company sites. A customer may
have prepared a single incentive application to cover either multiple measures or multiple sites or
both; an application may also involve a single measure at a single site.
3
http://www.calmac.org/events/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf
Itron, Inc.
1-5
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
California Public Utilities Commission’s Energy Division (CPUC-ED). The CPUC is the end
client for this evaluation study. The Energy Division (ED) is the arm of the CPUC responsible
for overseeing the delivery of the evaluations. The CPUC's Energy Division develops and
administers energy policy and program to serve the public interest, advises the Commission, and
ensures compliance with the Commission decisions and statutory mandates. The Energy Division
provides objective and expert analyses that promote reliable, safe and environmentally sound
energy services at lowest reasonable rates for the people of California.
Customer. A customer is a unique company or corporation which purchases energy from one of
the California IOUs. Customers that utilize IOU funded energy efficiency (EE) incentive
programs are participants.
Data Management and Quality Control (DMQC) Contractor. DMQC is an ED consultant
team that ensures that evaluation data support the ED in performing its tasks and are appropriate
for those purposes. The CPUC ED utilizes ED consultants, including the DMQC, for technical
support reviewing and managing the 2010-2012 program evaluations.
Evaluation Team. The “evaluation team” is composed of all individuals and firms involved in
a specific application review. The evaluation team will review the “ex-ante” (i.e., forward
looking, submitted) calculations that are included in the application documents, perform a site
investigation, and adjust the energy savings or demand reduction estimates “ex-post” (after the
fact and pso-installation) and review the results.
Evaluator. The “evaluator” is the individual responsible for the application specific impact
investigation.
Ex-ante frozen savings values. The “ex-ante” (i.e., forward looking) frozen savings values are
determined by ED based on an ex-ante review (EAR) of the sampled applications of the IOUs’
custom projects. The frozen values will also form the savings basis for the ex post evaluation.
Ex-ante Review (EAR). A review by the ED of the IOUs’ initial savings estimates and
methodologies used to estimate savings for custom measures. This process may involve preinstallation M&V activities. This effort is undertaken under WO002 and encompasses projects
which are currently planned but not yet installed and are in the IOU ‘pipeline’ of prospective
projects. As such, EAR projects will fall in the ‘AD’ period of ex post evaluation. Coordination
is required with WO002 to allow pre/post M&V activities, preferably by the same team where
possible. For sites with EAR performed and savings estimates frozen, the ex-post assessment
will use those values and methodologies for the ex-post determination. In this case, the ex-post
M&V efforts will not be focused on the baseline, but will emphasize the measure verification
and performance after installation.
Itron, Inc.
1-6
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Ex-ante savings / ex-ante calculations. The “ex-ante” (i.e., forward looking) savings estimates
and calculations are included in the application documents and were reported by the IOUs as the
estimated savings. These values and calculations form the savings basis for the evaluation work.
Ex-post savings / ex-post calculations. The “ex-post” (after the fact) savings estimates are the
evaluation results after revised savings parameters or calculation methodologies are applied by
the evaluation team to adjust the ex-ante energy savings or demand reduction estimates. In a few
cases, where operating reports supplement installation reports, the IOUs may have also
conducted some post installation measurements and to true-up initial ex ante savings estimates.
Such revisions are reflected in the tracking database of claimed savings.
Impact Evaluation. Itron / KEMA and its subcontractors are performing an ex-post “impact
evaluation” for the custom measures in the 2010-2012 IOU programs. This evaluation is
designed to yield accurate estimates of energy savings that actually resulted from custom
measures.
Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). The impact evaluation will be focused on custom measures
implemented in energy efficiency programs administered by the four California Investor Owned
Utilities (IOUs): Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern
California Gas (SCG), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).
Project Sponsor. A project sponsor is the entity that executes and submits the application to the
IOU. Customers can serve as their own sponsor or may elect to have a third party (such as an
ESCO, a lighting contractor, a HVAC contractor, or other IOU program implementers,
collectively referred to as energy efficiency service providers or EESPs) execute the agreement
on their behalf. The project sponsor generally receives the incentive payment unless they direct
the IOU to pass it onto the customer.
Gross Realization Rate. The ratio of the ex-post to the ex-ante savings is the “gross realization
rate”. If energy savings result from the measure reviewed, the realization rate is positive. When
a measure increases energy use, the gross realization rate would be negative.
Strata. There are five “stratum” or tiers for this evaluation; these strata refer to the quantity of
expected energy savings for both gas and electric measures.
IOU Reviewer. Many IOU energy efficiency programs typically include a review process. The
“reviewer” may be IOU staff or may be an outside contractor hired by the IOU to review and
approve the applications.
Tracking System. Each IOU has its own tracking system, a database configured to track
various pertinent parameters of the custom (and other EE) project applications. The tracking
Itron, Inc.
1-7
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
system is periodically updated. Itron / KEMA will receive this data periodically from the IOUs
and maintain its own statewide tracking system to support this evaluation. For a given
application, there can be multiple measures (such as high efficiency AC packaged units and the
installation of a VFD on a chiller) that apply to a single end use. Note that multiple tracking
system records may be created when an IOU tracks either multiple measures or multiple
applications for a given customer. Each project (M&V point or sampling unit) may cover one
tracking system entry (record) or combine multiple entries (records). Itron or KEMA will, in
these cases, provide instructions on the specific measures to be evaluated.
1.7 Level of Effort for Site Work
Unlike previous custom evaluations, most site specific impact evaluation efforts for M&V points
will fall into the one category, a standard level of effort, typically involving an average of $7,000
per site (which should encompass all needed expenses and coordination). However, there are
adjustments which might entail more or less work at each site. Table 1-1 details likely
engineering effort levels for the standard, increased, and decreased levels. The levels of effort are
averages. Some sites may require substantially more effort, while some sites may entail less
effort. It will be important to identify sites that may be simple to evaluate and thus require much
less effort in order to allow more effort at more complex sites.
Most site specific impact evaluation efforts for Lower Rigor points will fall into the category for
lower rigor level of effort, typically involving an average of $2,500 per site, which should
encompass all needed expenses and coordination. However, there are exceptions and
adjustments which might entail more or less work at each site.
All adjustments should be noted in the SSMVPs in the cost section for approval before
proceeding with work.
Itron, Inc.
1-8
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 1-1: M&V Description for Proposed Engineering Effort Levels
Effort Level
Description
Increased
Level of
Effort
Largest and most complex projects. Detailed application review,
on-site verification, collection of data on key parameters,
billing/interval data analysis, calibrated simulation models, spot
measurements, long-term post monitoring, pre-verification and
short-term measurement. May require larger teams, including
senior staff and multiple site visits.
Standard
Level of
Effort
Small, medium and large scale projects that may or may not require
monitoring or metering. Detailed application review, on-site
verification, collection of data on key parameters, revised
engineering calculations, billing data analysis, and possible spot
measurements / short term post monitoring.
Decreased
Level of
Effort
Smaller, simpler projects. Detailed application review, on-site
verification, collection of data on key parameters, revised
engineering calculations, billing data analysis, and possible spot
measurements.
Lower Rigor
Level of
Effort
Lower rigor projects. Application desk review, telephone
interviews, verification only site visits (with spot measurement in
rare cases), and possible revised engineering calculations; primarily
for qualitative assessment.
1.8 General Description of Pertinent Program Requirements
The following section includes an overview of pertinent general requirements for the programs.
The individual IOU program policies and procedures manuals and other program documentation
for the appropriate program year(s) contain details on each program. These manuals will be
made available for each program and pertinent information summarized as needed by the prime
contractors.
1.8.1 Participation Eligibility
Each IOU program has its own participation and eligibility rules. A key aspect of the evaluation
is reviewing the program participation rules and determining if the application meets the
requirements. Program eligibility may be restricted by NAICS code, annual energy consumption
or peak demand, measure type, economic criteria, customer type, equipment age, etc.
1.8.2 Ineligible Measures
Most programs exclude certain types of measures. It is very important for the evaluator to
determine if the measure being evaluated is eligible for program participation. Common
ineligible measures often include, but are not limited to:
Itron, Inc.
1-9
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft

Power generation or co-generation projects.

Fuel substitution or fuel-switching projects, especially without the three prong test.

Any repair or maintenance project (generally, replaced equipment must be operable
before retrofitting) – an exception may be retrocommissioning programs.

Measures that save energy because of operational changes.

Measures not permanently installed that can be easily removed.

Technologies with a useful life of less than a minimum number of years.

Measures that are installed before an application is approved.
1.8.3 Measure Baseline
Each program has its own measure baseline definition. Understanding the baseline of the
measures being evaluated is paramount in correctly performing the evaluation. It is extremely
important to determine the appropriateness of the baseline that was used in the ex-ante
calculations. The ex-ante baseline should be verified as meeting the program guidelines, the
evaluation protocols, and ED policy. If the baseline is correct, it is used as the baseline for the
ex-post analysis. If the baseline is not correct, then the correct baseline must be established and
used for the ex-post analysis. When the baseline was established in projects that were reviewed
by ED as part of the Ex-ante Review process, a new baseline assessment should not be made.
In general, incentives are paid only on the energy savings above and beyond minimum federal
and state mandated energy efficiency performance. If there are no standards, current standard (or
standard industry) practices are used to establish the baseline. The sources for these baseline
estimates must be cited and represent current standard industry practice.
More details on baseline and industry standard practice are being developed for these important
overarching issues and will be provided when available.
1.8.4 Early Retirement Claims
Some projects may include an “Early Retirement” claim. This feature describes the acceleration
of the retirement of older less efficient equipment with new high efficiency replacements. This
feature can be typically applied to existing equipment with five or more years of remaining
useful life. Note that the new units must exceed current efficiency standards. The baseline is
set at the efficiency of the existing equipment for the remaining useful life of the replaced
equipment (verses a baseline set at the current existing federal/state efficiency standards or
industry standard practice). To claim early retirement and the generally higher level of savings,
the replacement must be program induced. For the remainder of the useful life of the new
equipment, the baseline is the currently applicable federal/state efficiency standard or standard
Itron, Inc.
1-10
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
practice. Ex-ante and ex-post calculations are calculated with these different baselines for the
respective periods. Evaluators should refer to the baseline and industry standard practice
documents available as projects are being evaluated.
1.8.5 Financial Incentive Levels
Many programs have unique incentive levels. In some cases, the program may use other
established energy efficiency programs (such as the Standard Performance Contract - SPC, Non
Residential Retrofit - NRR, or Express Efficiency) for some (or all) of their incentive levels. In
other cases, incentive levels are unique and may consist of non-financial incentives, such as
technical assistance or advice. For the custom impact evaluation, many of the custom projects
will entail an incentive based on the kWh or therms saved annually.
1.8.6 Itemized Incentives
Some of the programs may use itemized incentives. Itemized incentive measures may also have
energy savings that have been pre-determined or “deemed” based on assumptions concerning the
pre-retrofit and post-retrofit operating parameters. In general, this custom impact evaluation will
not include deemed measures with prescribed savings, unless those measures have gone through
the EAR (ex-ante review) process.
Individual program procedures manuals and other associated program manuals for programs
such as Standard Performance Contract- SPC, Non Residential Retrofit-NRR, Non Residential
New Construction-NRNC, and Express Efficiency have listings of itemized measures and their
incentives.
The measures involving itemized incentives have prescribed incentives as well as prescribed
energy benefits. The energy savings have been predetermined and the incentives based upon the
deemed savings level. Thus, there is no need to provide ex-ante calculations for the energy
savings in the individual incentive applications to document the ex-ante impacts.
For this evaluation, separate baseline and ex-post calculations should be developed (if not
developed in the EAR process) based upon conditions found at the time of the ex-post evaluation
to determine the impacts. In addition, the evaluator will be responsible for reviewing the IOU
specific technical analysis and other relevant program materials available in order to calculate
the baseline energy use and ex-ante savings calculations upon which the program incentive was
based. Ex-post calculations would be made based on actual operating data and analysis based on
the SSMVP and analysis plan.
Itron, Inc.
1-11
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
1.8.7 SPC/NRR-DR Estimation Documentation and Other Software
Some of the programs may use the Statewide Customized Offering program, Standard
Performance Contract program (or SPC) and NRR-DR financial incentive programs for
estimating the ex-ante impacts and financial incentives. The SPC and NRR-DR programs have
developed energy savings estimation software (the “Customized CalculationTool” or CCT) for
many measures. Some of the programs may use their own rules but still use the calculator to
estimate ex-ante impacts. The software and documentation can be downloaded from selected
websites.4 The calculator can be used by the implementation team to complete the details
required to file a project application and also to perform estimates of energy savings and
financial incentives for some of the following energy efficiency measures listed in this section
(although not all of these are expected to be represented in this custom impact evaluation). The
documentation also lists ineligible measures under the Statewide Customized Offering program.





















4
Lighting
Lighting Controls
Packaged A/C and Chiller Replacements (including Early Retirement)
Early Retirement of Process Chillers
Cool Roofs
A/C Economizers
Variable Speed Drives for Cooling Tower Fan Motors
Variable Speed Drives for Centrifugal Chillers
Variable Speed Drives for HVAC Fans with Motors > 100 hp
Demand Control Ventilation (DCV)
Carbon Monoxide Sensors for Parking Garages
Variable Speed Drives for Process Applications
High Efficiency Motor Replacement (including Early Retirement)
Compressed Air System Upgrades
Professional Wet Cleaning Replacement (including Early Retirement)
High-Efficiency Injection Molders
Pulse Cooling for Injection Molders
Cold Storage Rapid Close Doors
Refrigerated Tank Insulation
Dairy Vacuum Pump Variable Speed Drives
Tape Drip Irrigation
Rules and regulations and software may be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.aescinc.com/download/SPC/. Please ensure the year of interest if not the current year (i.e., 2010, etc.) and ensure
that documentation for the applicable program year is used for this evaluation (as opposed to the default current
year documentation).
Itron, Inc.
1-12
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft




Pump Controllers for Oil Wells
Wastewater Retro-commissioning
Natural Gas Boiler Measures
Thermal Oxidizer Upgrades
The CCT (or SPC “calculator” for certain applications) is useful in the context of this evaluation
for the purpose of updating the calculation methods used by the IOU but may not be sufficient
because of the many simplifications it employs. For example, it does not always calculate
interactive effects or other system interactions correctly. It is expected that more comprehensive
calculation tools —potentially custom tools developed by the evaluator — consistent with
CPUC/ED policy, the Evaluation Framework, and the IPMVP will be used by the evaluation
team to calculate the ex post verified savings.
1.8.8 Calculated Approach - Engineering Calculations
Many of the custom projects will have unique customized engineering calculations provided as
the basis of the ex-ante impacts. For some programs, utility staff, utility assigned reviewers, or
program implementers were responsible for determining the appropriateness of the ex-ante
savings calculations and methodologies at the time of application and/or installation. Under this
evaluation, the evaluators are responsible for the review and appropriate modification, if
necessary, of these calculations.
Most programs require that engineering calculations be performed using accepted engineering
procedures with documentation to support the submitted calculations.
Existing calculations and algorithms are acceptable, if accurate and appropriate, given the scope
and budget for this evaluation. New algorithms can be developed and calculations performed by
the evaluators, in conformance with the guidelines included in the protocols and summarized in
this procedures document.
It is reasonable to expect that ex-ante documentation and engineering calculations provided with
each financial incentive application / invoice documentation should:
a.
Include Process / Measure Description
1. Existing process/equipment (without the measure),
2. Proposed new equipment retrofit or enhancement, and
3. Resultant equipment and/or process (post installation).
b. Establish Baseline Annual Energy Use
Most
programs
provide
incentives
to
customers
that
install
equipment/improvements that go beyond standard efficiency or “baseline”
equipment.
“Standard efficiency” refers to equipment that meets either
Itron, Inc.
1-13
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
state/federal efficiency requirements or current industry practice. Therefore,
baseline energy use is established using accepted standards for currently available
equipment.
c.
Establish Post-Installation Annual Energy Use
While the baseline energy use calculation is based on “standard efficiency”
equipment, the post-installation calculation is based on the projected performance
of the new equipment or process.
d. Calculate Energy Savings / Incentive Amount
Once the baseline and post-installation annual energy use estimates are
completed, the savings estimate is calculated as the difference between the annual
baseline and post-installation use estimates.
Savings (kWh/year) = Baseline Energy Use - Post-Installation Energy Use
The total incentive amount is then calculated by multiplying the savings estimate by the
appropriate incentive rate as given in the individual program policy and procedures manual and
applying any limitations or caps if required.
1.8.9 Stages of the Application Process
Each program has its own application process. Refer to the policy and procedures manuals and
documentation for each individual program for specific details. In general, the stages are:

Stage 1 – Application Submission: The customer or project sponsor submits the
application and supporting savings calculations and documentation to the program
administrator.

Stage 2 – Application Review: The application is reviewed and savings calculations
are adjusted, if necessary. The application is then accepted by the program
administrator. This stage may include a pre-installation site inspection to verify the
accuracy of the parameters provided in the application. An incentive offer and project
acceptance is formalized at this stage.

Stage 3 – Installation Report: Following the installation, the program reviewer
performs a site inspection to verify the installation and make adjustments, if necessary,
to the energy and demand savings claim. Except in cases where measurement is
required (see below), the financial incentive is quantified and paid to the project
sponsor based on this assessment. A useful supporting document is the Installation
Report Review (IRR).

Stage 4 – Operating Report: In some cases, the program administrator requires
measurement (commonly referred to as “Measurement and Verification” or “M&V”)
Itron, Inc.
1-14
General Project Information
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
of the savings for the project. In these cases, the financial incentive is based on the
results of the measurement documented in the operating report.
A utility
representative may perform a site inspection as part of the approval process for the
operating report. The incentive is paid after the review and approval of the operating
report with adjustments as necessary.

Stage 5 – Post-Installation Report: Following the installation, the program reviewer
may perform a site inspection to verify the installation and make adjustments, if
necessary, to the energy and demand savings claim. Except in cases where
measurement is required (see below), the financial incentive is quantified and paid to
the project sponsor based on this assessment. This is also a useful form to review to
determine conditions closely following a retrofit or installation.
1.8.10 Other Terms and Conditions
Both the customer and the project sponsor have agreed, by virtue of participating in the
programs, to participate in any evaluation of the program by representatives of the CPUC.
Participation generally includes answering questions about the project and allowing site visits to
verify project details. Any difficulties with site cooperation should be referred to the prime
contractor immediately.
Itron, Inc.
1-15
General Project Information
2
Customer Application Review, Site Specific M&V
Plan
This section describes the initial steps to be undertaken by the evaluators for each of the sites
included in the impact evaluation sample.
2.1 Site / Measure Information and Assignment
Sites will be assigned to each evaluation team based upon the need to cluster evaluators
regionally (to eliminate unnecessary travel) and based on the expertise of a specific evaluator.
Evaluation teams will be assigned packets consisting of several applications with the expectation
that each project’s SSMVP and final site report (FSR) will be completed in a timely manner, as
dictated by the scope and scale of the work required, as outlined in the SSMVP, and the
requirements of the associated task order and work authorization.
The M&V sites will also involve completing an Ex-ante Review Form, and a qualitative Lower
Rigor assessment for that site.
In general, additional applications will not be assigned until there is substantial completion of the
current assignment. Teams that are responsive, complete the work within budget in a timely
manner, and provide high quality work products will receive additional work assignments. In
some cases, sites will need to be reassigned for inability to complete the site visits, or other nonperformance issues, including the ability to produce high quality products within the time
allotted.
Evaluation teams will be provided with hard copy and/or electronic documentation for each site.
A Site Tracking Tool containing IOU tracking information and site assignments (with expected
budgets, report due dates, levels of rigor, etc.) for each application will be provided to each
evaluation team lead. The tool contains fields populated by Itron / KEMA and fields that will be
populated by the evaluator assigned to the site. Evaluators for each site or project will need to
provide details about IOU contact dates, participant (customer) contact dates, SSMVP
submission and resubmission dates, and relevant note for the net to gross impact team for this
work order WO033.
Itron, Inc.
2-1
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
The Site Tracking Tool is expected to be in both an online and an MS Excel™ format. The tool
will be provided electronically to Itron / KEMA and/or uploaded to an accessible website for real
time updates. Itron / KEMA will provide training on using the Site Tracking Tool and on
accessing and navigating the online site and an overview of its contents in a future training
session.
It is expected that the online version of the tool will not include any identifying IOU or
participant information. The online version would be dynamic and updated in real time for
project status and customer contact. The excel version would be relatively static, and contain
most IOU and participant information, including multiple participant points of contact, referred
to by number (and not name) in the online tool.
Application ID numbers come directly from the IOUs and, if provided in any documentation, and
should not be altered. Itron / KEMA Project ID numbers are generated by Itron. Evaluators
should add any additional site contacts that are identified during the Application Review to the
site contacts section of the Site Tracking Tool, the SSMVP and the FSR. Note that the site
address, phone numbers and email addresses for each of the site contacts and IOU executives/
representatives/managers are provided when available.
The Site Tracking Tool data fields include the lead individual in the evaluation team, the relevant
assignments and due dates, the project status, and specific information for that site such as the
level of rigor (enhanced or basic), interactive effects, primary measure to be evaluated, and other
items of interest. More explanation of the evaluation level of rigor can be found in other sections
within this document. Comment tabs for gross impact and net impacts are included and may be
used by Itron / KEMA and the evaluator to enable the sharing of information between these two
teams.
Note that the name and site contact information should be included only in one place within the
SPT, SSMVP, or FSR in order to facilitate the cleansing of the document for public review, in
order to protect the confidentiality of the participant. Confidentiality should be protected by
referring only to Itron / KEMA identifying numbers when feasible and minimizing the inclusion
of information where possible (such as more detailed site descriptions than necessary, locations,
and unique customer identifying numbers, e.g., oil well numbers, etc.).
The SIC code and the 2007 NAICS code must be filled in, if it is not already. SIC codes can be
found on the OSHA website (http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html), and NAICS codes
can be found at the U.S. census website (http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/). The DEER
Building Prototype should also be filled in if available.
The Site Specific M&V Plan (SSMVP), the Final Site Report (FSR), the Ex-ante Review (EAR)
forms and the Lower Rigor assessments are to be completed for each project using Microsoft
Itron, Inc.
2-2
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Word 2007™. Using the templates provided and filling in concise information will save time and
effort. Use of the templates is mandatory. This mandate will also keep product deliverables
consistent. The user-inputted text in the provided template tables and sections should be filled in
using the following default fonts and sizes to ensure consistency across multiple authors and
versions:
Headers: Arial 12
Table Text: Times New Roman – Size 11 (size 10 acceptable only if needed)
Paragraph Text: Times New Roman – Size 12
Additional footnotes or any subscript text: Times New Roman - Size 10
2.2 Subcontractor Single Point of Contact
Each subcontractor will assign a single point of contact (POC) for the custom evaluation project.
The POC will be a senior engineer who is experienced in the energy efficiency field (preferably a
registered professional engineer). Itron or KEMA will also assign a primary POC for each
evaluation team. The subcontractor’s POC will be responsible for coordinating the work of their
team, tracking progress on each project review, becoming intimately familiar with the
documentation and technical requirements of the work to be performed under the evaluation
contract (the Evaluator’s Protocols, Evaluation Framework, IPVMP, etc.), ensuring that quality
control procedures (described below) are implemented, and reporting on project review progress
and any issues to Itron / KEMA on a regular basis.
2.3 Quality Control Procedures
The subcontractor will be responsible for implementing quality control procedures for each site
and application review. At a minimum, the POC will ensure that each draft report has been
reviewed by a registered professional engineer (P.E.) or other qualified person for accuracy,
clarity and adherence to the reporting requirements outlined in this document before the
document is forwarded to Itron / KEMA for review. The peer reviewer may be the POC for that
evaluation team.
Professional level writing is expected for this project. All tables, exhibits, etc. will be numbered
and referenced in the text of the report. Reports are expected to be concise and written at a level
that can be comprehended by an energy efficiency industry professional who may not have an
engineering background but who has a conceptual understanding of the technical aspects of the
profession. Itron / KEMA expect to receive documentation that is clear, concise, and error free.
Itron, Inc.
2-3
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Each report will be tracked from inception through completion and the SPT will include fields
that identify the company and the first and last name of the primary evaluator, as well as the peer
reviewer.
2.4 Considerations for Safety
Evaluators are required to review appropriate OSHA/NFPA guidelines and rulings, and all other
applicable codes and standards regarding electrical and workplace safety. Evaluators should
ensure that all personnel working on this project have received appropriate training on topics
including, but not limited to, the proper use of equipment, safety considerations for all conditions
under which work will be performed, and the use of proper safety equipment (electrical safety
gloves, protective eyewear, earplugs, appropriate footwear and clothing, etc.).
It is envisioned that the effort will involve the placement of data loggers, use of spot measuring
equipment such as clamp-on ammeters, placement of vibration sensors on rotating equipment,
installation of current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs), opening electrical
panels and other control panels, and the placement and removal of other monitoring and
metering equipment.
In general, the monitoring function will be accomplished utilizing the equipment supplied by the
evaluation team. In some cases, measurements may be obtained utilizing instrumentation in
place at the site. Also, in rare instances, the customer may allow use of their own short or long
term monitoring equipment.
When possible, instrument installation, placement, and removal tasks should be performed by
personnel employed by the customer at the facility being evaluated. The safest and most secure
arrangement for installation should be planned prior to the site visit, documented, and then reassessed during the field visit. In the planning and evaluation process, the use of site equipment
or personnel, and their cooperation/timely response should not be presumed at any point of the
evaluation process. Each evaluator is responsible for the labor and costs associated with the safe
and proper placement and installation of monitoring and data acquisition equipment as outlined
in the SSMVP, both as submitted and as adjusted for field conditions.
In addition to electrical safety gear, any persons planning to visit a site shall be prepared to
comply with the customer’s safety requirements for visitors and should have their individual
personal safety glasses, ear plugs, hard hat, electrically insulated rubber-soled boots (steel or
reinforced toe as required by the site) and other required PPE available for use at each site
visit where required.
Itron, Inc.
2-4
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.5 M&V Rigor Levels
Rigor is defined by the level of expected reliability of ex-post savings estimates. Higher levels
of rigor correspond to a higher confidence that the results of the evaluation are both accurate and
precise, i.e., reliable. Reliability is discussed in the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol and in
the Evaluation Framework,5 where it is noted that sampling precision does not equate to
measurement precision and accuracy. Both are important components in the definition of
reliability, as used by the CPUC in guiding these evaluations.
In accordance with the Impact Evaluation Protocol, M&V requirements are set according to two
levels of rigor. The CPUC has in the past set rigor levels for each program according to the
overall evaluation objectives. Itron / KEMA will advise the evaluators on the level of rigor for
each application. Each rigor level provides a set of allowable methods that offers flexibility for
the M&V contractor (or evaluator) to propose the most cost-effective method considering the site
specific conditions for the measure being evaluated. The principle is to establish a minimum set
of expectations. The M&V contractor is free to propose more rigorous M&V activities during
evaluation planning or as directed by Itron/KEMA.
The two levels of rigor are “basic” and “enhanced” and are described in the following sections.
Itron / KEMA has in the past received flexibility for these large site specific evaluations and has
incorporated a new ‘hybrid” rigor level. This level allows incorporation of the best approaches
for each site, and may involve setting the de facto rigor level higher or slightly lower than
indicated by the program. The evaluator should consider the use of hybrid approaches, and Itron
/ KEMA may advise, in select cases, whether or not the evaluator should consider a hybrid
approach.
2.6 M&V Protocol for Basic Level of Rigor
The M&V Protocols for the basic level of rigor are summarized in Table 2-1. Further
explanations of the provisions of this Protocol may be found in the Evaluator’s Protocols.
Note that stipulated sources include utility work papers and common practice, as well as the
Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).
5
California Evaluation Framework, TecMarket Works, pages 287-314.
Itron, Inc.
2-5
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-1: Summary of M&V Protocol for Basic Level of Rigor
Provision
Requirement
Verification
Physical inspection of installation to verify correct measure
installation, measure operation, and installation quality
IPMVP Option
Option A6
Source of Stipulated Data
DEER assumptions, program work papers, engineering
references, manufacturers catalog data, on-site survey data
Baseline Definition
May include federal or Title 20 appliance standards effective at
date of the incented equipment installation or in some cases
manufacture, Title 24 building standards in effect at time of
building permit application, pre-existing equipment conditions,
or common replacement / design practices.
Monitoring Strategy and
Duration
Spot or short-term measurements (depending on measure type)
Weather Adjustments
For weather dependent measures, normalize to long-term
average weather data as directed by the Impact Evaluation
Protocol
Calibration Criteria
Not applicable
Additional Provisions
None
2.6.1 IPMVP Option
The standard M&V Protocol shall conform to IPMVP Option A - Partially Measured Retrofit
Isolation.7 Savings under Option A are determined by partial field measurement of the energy
use of the system(s) to which an energy efficiency measure (EEM) was applied, and are
generally separate from the energy use of the rest of the facility. Measurements may be spot
measurements, short-term or continuous. Partial measurement means that some parameter(s)
affecting the systems (or buildings) energy use may be stipulated, if the total impact of possible
stipulation error(s) is not significant to the resultant savings. Savings are estimated from
engineering calculations based on stipulated values and spot, short-term and/or continuous postretrofit measurements. Field-verified measure installation counts used in conjunction with
deemed savings estimates alone do not meet the level of rigor required by this Protocol.
6
Exceptions to this provision are programs offering comprehensive measure packages with significant measure
interactions; commissioning, and retro commissioning programs; and new construction programs. Evaluation of
measure savings within these programs conducted using engineering methods will typically follow the enhanced
rigor M&V Protocol and use building energy simulation modeling under IPMVP Option D.
7
See the California Evaluation Protocols, pages 57 -59.
Itron, Inc.
2-6
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.6.2 Sources of Stipulated Data
Stipulated data may be able to be obtained from DEER unit energy savings analysis assumptions,
efficiency measure work-papers, secondary research, engineering references, manufacturers’
catalog data, and/or on-site survey data as applicable. Values and sources for stipulated values
must be documented in the SSMVP and FSR.
2.6.3 Baseline Definition
The baseline used for M&V activities shall be determined consistently per guidance issued by
the CPUC in Attachment B of Decision 11.07.030. This may include applicable state and/or
federal efficiency standards or codes for appliance or building energy efficiency, existing
equipment efficiency, or industry common replacement and design practices (standard practice
or industry standard practice).
2.6.4 Monitoring Strategy and Duration
Spot or short-term measurements may be used, considering the timeframe and emphasizing the
importance of the measurement strategy and duration being sufficient to allow calculation of
energy savings and peak demand reduction within the uncertainty bounds prescribed by the
Impact Evaluation Protocol. Pre-installation monitoring may be performed for projects installed
in the AD period as directed by ED in the ex-ante review process.8 The Evaluation Framework
provides more information on monitoring strategy and duration.9
2.6.5 Weather Adjustments
Impacts of weather-dependent measures shall be normalized to long-term average weather data
as directed by the Impact Evaluation Protocol for the standard California climate zones. Weather
conditions prevailing during the monitoring period should be included in the weather
adjustments. Weather data may be obtained from the nearest representative NOAA or utility
weather station or collected on-site. Techniques used to perform the weather adjustments must
be documented in the SSMVP and in the FSR.
2.7 M&V Protocol for Enhanced Level of Rigor
The M&V Protocols for the enhanced level of rigor are summarized in Table 2-2. Additional
explanations of the provisions of this Protocol may be found in the Evaluator’s Protocols. The
M&V contractor is free to propose more rigorous M&V activities during evaluation planning or
as directed by Itron.
8
Specific requirements for pre-installation monitoring are not stated in this Protocol, but are a consequence of the
uncertainty analysis conducted during M&V Planning.
9
California Evaluation Framework, TecMarket Works, 183-188.
Itron, Inc.
2-7
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-2: Summary of M&V Protocol for Enhanced Level of Rigor
Provision
Requirement
Verification
Physical inspection of installation to verify correct measure
installation and installation quality. Review of commissioning
reports or functional performance testing to verify correct operation.
IPMVP Option
Option B or Option D
Source of Stipulated
Data
May include DEER assumptions, measure work papers, engineering
references, manufacturers catalog data, on-site survey data.
Baseline Definition
Consistent with Attachment B of the CPUC Decision 11.07.030.
May include federal or Title 20 appliance standards effective at date
of incented equipment installation, and in some cases manufacture,
Title 24 building standards in effect at time of building permit
application, existing equipment conditions or common replacement /
design practices.
Monitoring Duration Sufficient to capture all operational modes and seasons.
Weather Adjustments For weather dependent measures, normalize to long-term average
weather data as directed by the Impact Evaluation Protocol.
Calibration Criteria
For Option D, building energy simulation models calibrated to
monthly billing or interval demand data, with optional calibration to
end-use metered data.
Additional Provisions Hourly building energy simulation program compliant with
ASHRAE Standard 140-2001.
2.7.1 IPMVP Option
The enhanced rigor described in the M&V Protocols indicate the use of IPMVP Option B Retrofit Isolation10 or IPMVP Option D - Calibrated Simulation.11 Under Option B, savings are
determined by field measurement of the energy use of the systems to which the EEM was
applied, unless these systems are generally separate from the energy use of the rest of the facility.
Savings are estimated from direct measurements and first-hand observations. Stipulated or
deemed values are not allowed. Under Option D, savings are determined through simulation of
the energy use of components or the whole facility. Simulation routines should be demonstrated
to adequately model actual energy performance measured in the facility. Savings are estimated
from energy use simulation, calibrated with utility interval data, monthly utility billing data,
and/or end-use metering. The protocols specified in the Evaluation Framework should be used
as a guide and generally should be followed.
10
See the Evaluation Framework, pages 166-168.
11
See the Evaluation Framework, pages 176-182.
Itron, Inc.
2-8
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.7.2 Sources of Stipulated Data
As mentioned above, stipulations are not allowed under IPMVP Option B. Under IPMVP
Option D, stipulated values used to define the energy simulation model may be used if the
uncertainties are within allowable limits at the discretion of the evaluator. Sources of stipulated
data may include DEER unit energy savings analysis assumptions, efficiency measure work
papers, secondary research, engineering references, simulation program default values,
manufacturers’ catalog data and/or on-site survey data. It is impractical to list and reference all
data used to define a simulation model. However, model input assumptions that are highly
influential in predicting energy and/or peak demand savings shall be identified and documented
within the SSMVP. Simulation program name, full version number including applicable release
information, and input files shall be provided as documentation in electronic formats.
2.7.3 Baseline Definition
The baseline used for the M&V activities shall be determined consistently per guidance issued
by the CPUC in Attachment B of Decision 11.07.030. This may include applicable state and/or
federal efficiency standards or codes for appliance or building energy efficiency, existing
equipment efficiency or industry common replacement and design practices (standard practice or
industry standard practice).
2.7.4 Monitoring Strategy and Duration
While long-term monitoring is preferred, short-term monitoring may be used if sufficient to
capture or infer all operational modes and seasons applicable to measure performance. Preinstallation monitoring may be performed for projects installed in the AD period as directed by
ED in the ex-ante review process.12 The Evaluation Framework provides more information on
monitoring strategy and duration.13
2.7.5 Weather Adjustments
Impacts of weather-dependent measures estimated under Option B shall be normalized to longterm average weather data for the CEC climate zone (CTZ) in which the site is located. Weather
conditions prevailing during the monitoring period should be used to adjust for monitoring
period conditions and reported. Weather data may be obtained from the nearest representative
NOAA or utility weather station or collected on-site. Techniques used to perform the weather
adjustments must be documented. Simulation analysis under Option D shall be conducted using
long-term average weather data for the CEC CTZ in which the site is located.
12
Specific requirements for pre-installation monitoring are not stated in this Protocol, but are a consequence of the
uncertainty analysis conducted during M&V Planning.
13
California Evaluation Framework, TecMarket Works, 183-188.
Itron, Inc.
2-9
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.7.6 Calibration Targets
It is expected that building energy simulation models developed under Option D shall be
calibrated to monthly energy consumption data. If interval demand data or other more discrete
data are available, these data shall be used in lieu of monthly energy consumption data. Certain
conditions govern the proper application of the models used. For instance, for some models, if
the modeled floor space area does not match the metered floor space area within  20%, model
calibration is not required. Modelers shall make reasonable attempts to meet the calibration
targets listed in Table 2-3 below.14 In some cases, forcing a model to meet a particular
calibration target may introduce biases in the energy savings estimates. Models not meeting the
calibration targets shall be identified and reasons why it is not reasonable to meet these targets
must be documented. Itron / KEMA may impose additional requirements for short-term end-use
monitoring of systems affected by the energy conservation measure during evaluation plan
development and review. In the case of interval metered data with a 15 minute interval, the
hourly calibration targets shall be used. Additional guidelines may be issued, depending on the
requirements of other evaluation efforts and parties.
Table 2-3: Model Calibration Targets
Data Interval
Maximum Root Mean Square (RMS) Error
Maximum Mean Bias Error
Monthly
 15%
 5%
Hourly
 30%
 10%
2.8 Gross Energy Impact Protocol
The overall goal of the Direct Impact Evaluation Protocol (which includes the Gross Energy
Impact Protocol) is to obtain unbiased reliable estimates of net energy and demand reduction
over the life of the measure (and thus, the expected net impact).
The Gross Energy Impact Protocol is summarized in Table 2-4. Further description, additional
requirements, clarification, and examples of this specific protocol are presented in the
Evaluator’s Protocols. The methods used and the way in which they are used and the results that
are reported should meet all the requirements in the Evaluator’s Protocols to the maximum extent
possible (i.e., not only those requirements explicitly listed or contained within this document) to
provide unbiased reliable estimates of program level gross energy impacts. The Protocols
sometimes reference the Evaluation Framework or other documents which provide examples of
applicable methods. The governing requirements, however, are those stated in specific and
relevant ED guidance and policy documents and then the Protocols, which take precedence over
all other protocols, unless otherwise countermanded by Itron / KEMA in specific or general
14
California Evaluation Framework, TecMarket Works, 180-183.
Itron, Inc.
2-10
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
application. Guidance documents are being developed by ED and will be made available when
finalized.
All M&V referred to in the Impact Evaluation Protocol should be planned, conducted and
reported according to the M&V Protocol. M&V may be conducted at a higher level of rigor,
with more inputs measured or metered, or with greater precision than the minimum shown within
the Impact Evaluation Protocol, but not with a lower level of rigor, unless specifically
documented in the SSMVP and approved through Itron / KEMA.
Itron, Inc.
2-11
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-4: Required Protocols for Gross Energy Evaluation
Rigor Level
Minimum Allowable Methods for Gross Energy Evaluation
Basic
1. Simple Engineering Model (SEM) with M&V equal to IPMVP Option A and meeting all
requirements in the M&V Protocol for this method. Sampling within sites according to
the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
2. Normalized Annual Consumption (NAC) using pre- and post-program participation
consumption from utility bills from the appropriate meters related to the measures
undertaken, normalized for weather, using identified weather data to normalize for
heating and/or cooling as is appropriate to measures included. Twelve (12) months preretrofit and twelve (12) months post-retrofit consumption data is required. Sampling
according to the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
Enhanced
1. A fully specified regression analysis of consumption information from utility bills with
inclusion/adjustment for changes and background variables over the time period of the
analysis that could potentially be correlated with the gross energy savings being
measured. Twelve (12) months post-retrofit consumption data are required. Twelve (12)
months pre-retrofit consumption data are required, unless program design does not allow
pre-retrofit billing data, such as in new construction. In these cases, well-matched
control groups and post-retrofit consumption analysis is allowable. 15 Sampling must be
according to the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol, ideally utilizing power analysis as
an input to determining required sample size(s). In general, a minimum of six data points
will be required for a valid regression-based estimate.
2. Building energy simulation models that are calibrated as described in IPMVP Option D
requirements in the M&V Protocols. If appropriate, evaluators may alternatively use an
engineering model (e.g., bequest, AIR Master+) with calibration as described in the
M&V Protocols. Sampling according to the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
3. Retrofit isolation engineering models as described in IPMVP Option B requirements in
the M&V Protocols. Sampling according to the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
4. Experimental design established within the program implementation process, designed to
obtain reliable net energy savings based upon differences between energy consumption
between treatment and non-treatment groups from consumption data.16 Sampling
according to the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
15
Post-retrofit only billing analysis collapses the analysis from cross-sectional time-series to cross-sectional.
Given this, extreme diligence is expected with regard to controlling for cross-sectional issues that could
potentially bias the savings estimate.
16
The overall goal of the Direct Impact Protocols is to obtain reliable net energy and demand savings estimates. If
the methodology directly estimates net savings at the same or better rigor than the required level of rigor, then a
gross savings and participant net impact analysis is not required to be shown separately.
Itron, Inc.
2-12
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.9 Gross Peak Demand Impact Protocol
The Gross Demand Impact Protocols are summarized in Table 2-5. Further description,
additional requirements, clarification and examples of these specific Protocols are presented are
presented in the Evaluator’s Protocols on pages 25 to 32. For an evaluation to be in compliance
with the Gross Demand Impact Protocol, the methods used and the way in which data are used
and reported must meet all the requirements in the Evaluator’s Protocols. The intent is to
provide unbiased reliable estimates of program level demand impacts for those programs that are
expected to reduce electricity demand. The Protocols sometimes reference the Evaluation
Framework which provides examples of applicable methods. The governing requirements,
however, are those stated in specific and relevant ED guidance and policy documents and then
the Protocols, which take precedence over all other protocols, unless otherwise countermanded
by Itron / KEMA in specific or general application. Guidance documents are being developed by
ED and will be made available when finalized.
The Gross Demand Impact Protocol has two rigor levels: Basic and Enhanced. The Basic rigor
level uses primarily secondary data to allocate gross energy savings to determine demand
savings. The Enhanced level requires primary data collection either through field measurement
according to the M&V Protocols or using regression analysis of demand or interval consumption
data.
Itron, Inc.
2-13
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-5: Required Protocols for Gross Demand Evaluation
Rigor Level
Minimum Allowable Methods for Gross Demand Evaluation
Basic
Reliance upon secondary data for estimating demand impacts as a function of energy
savings. End-use savings load shapes or end-use load shapes from one of the following will
be used to estimate demand impacts:
1. End-use savings load shapes, end-use load shapes or allocation factors from
simulations conducted for DEER.
2. Allocation factors from CEC forecasting models or utility forecasting models with
approval through the evaluation plan review process.
3. Allocation based on end-use savings load shapes or end-use load shapes from other
studies for related programs / similar markets with approval through the evaluation
plan review process.
Enhanced
Primary demand impact data must be collected during the peak hour during the peak month
for each IOU’s system peak for all sites, as possible. Estimation of demand impact
estimates based on these data is required. If the methodology and data used can readily
provide 8,760 hour annual output, these should also be provided.17 Sampling requirements
can be met at the program level but final reporting should be by climate zone (according to
CEC’s climate zone classification).
1. If interval or time-of-use consumption data are available for participants through
utility bills, these data can be used for regression analysis, accounting for weather,
day type and other pertinent change variables, to determine demand impact
estimates. Pre-retrofit and post-retrofit billing periods must contain peak periods.
This requires using a combination of power analysis, evaluations of similar
programs, and professional judgment to determine sample size requirements for
planning the evaluation. The analysis should be conducted to meet the
requirements of the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
2. Spot or continuous metering/measurement of peak pre-retrofit and post-retrofit
demand during the peak hour of the peak month for the utility system peak to be
used with full measurement (outlined in IPMVP Option B) or a calibrated
engineering model (outlined in IPMVP Option D) meeting all requirements as
provided in the M&V Protocol. Pre-retrofit data must be adjusted for weather and
other pertinent variables. The analysis should be conducted to meet the Sampling
and Uncertainty Protocol with a program target of 10% precision at a 90%
confidence level.
3. Experimental design established within the program implementation process,
designed to obtain reliable net demand savings based upon differences between
energy consumption during peak demand periods between treatment and nontreatment groups from consumption data or spot or continuous metering. 18
Sampling should be complaint with the Sampling and Uncertainty Protocol.
17
This includes the use of 15-minute interval data or building energy simulation models whose output is 8,760
hourly annual data.
18
The overall goal of the Impact Protocols is to obtain reliable net energy and demand savings estimates. If the
methodology directly estimates net savings at the same or better rigor than the required level of rigor, then a
gross savings and participant net impact analysis is not required to be shown separately.
Itron, Inc.
2-14
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Itron and KEMA have reviewed the California statewide utility system peak for 1990-2000.
With the exception of one year, the statewide peak occurred during the months of July or August.
For this evaluation, particularly for the BD period, M&V for all enhanced level rigor weather
sensitive measures or measures with seasonal variation will be performed during July and
August, when possible. September also contains the peak demand days for some climate zones
(see Table 2-6), and this month can also be a desirable month for peak demand measurements.
For the purposes of the Gross Demand Impact Protocol, demand impacts at the program level
must be reported as energy savings estimates for six time periods for each of four months (June,
July, August and September) as follows: 12 pm – 1 pm, 1 pm – 2 pm, 2 pm – 3 pm, 3 pm – 4
pm, 4 pm – 5 pm, and 5 pm – 6 pm. This should be done for each climate zone in which there
are program participants. These demand savings are to be estimated using the Typical
Meteorological Year from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
CEC CTZ long-term average weather data, the Administrator’s long-term average weather year
or the CEC’s rolling average weather year. Other weather sources and weather data collected on
site may be used as approved in the SSMVP.
For reporting average and peak demand impacts in this evaluation, the analysis of peak demand
will utilize the California Energy Efficiency Protocol and the guidelines therein for estimating
peak demand impact at the enhanced or basic rigor level. It will also follow the peak demand
guidelines described in decision R.06-06-063, which established peak as it is currently defined in
DEER. DEER defines peak kW for weather sensitive measures as the average grid-level impact
for the measure between 2 pm and 5 pm during the three consecutive weekdays containing the
weekday with the hottest temperature of the year. These three days vary by climate zone, as
shown in Table 2-6. For non-weather sensitive measures, the peak demand savings is determined
by the average demand savings in the 2 pm to 5 pm period on summer weekdays from June to
September.
Demand savings estimates will be informed from site measurements where possible, using, for
example, model calibration for near-peak conditions.
Itron, Inc.
2-15
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-6: Peak Demand Days by Climate Zone
Climate Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Reference City
Eureka
Napa
Oakland, San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Maria
Los Angeles (LAX)
San Diego
Long Beach
Los Angeles (Civic Center)
Riverside
Red Bluff
Stockton
Fresno
Barstow
Brawley
Bishop
Peak Days*
Sep. 30 – Oct. 2
Jul. 22-24
Jul. 17-19
Jul. 17-19
Sep. 3-5
Jul. 9-11
Sep. 9-11
Sep. 23-25
Aug. 6-8
Jul 8-10
Jul. 31-Aug. 2
Aug 5-7
Aug 14-17
Jul. 9-11
Jul 30-Aug 1
Aug. 6-8
*Based on a 1991 reference year for defining weekdays and long term average weather data from the
California Climate Thermal Zone (CTZ) weather datasets.
Itron / KEMA have required that these studies are to include reporting the kW impacts for all
8,760 hours annually for electric impacts. The 1991 base year will be the base year for the
reporting requirements for this and other 2010-2012 impact evaluations; this is compliant with
current versions of eQuest. This will allow the results of the evaluation work of all evaluation
contract teams in this and other work orders to be rolled-up at the IOU Portfolio level. Itron /
KEMA have developed an Excel-based 8,760 hour reporting tool to facilitate this requirement.
This is separate from the SSMVP and FSR templates provided in this document and to be used in
this evaluation.
2.10 Scope of Application Review and SSMVP Preparation
Itron / KEMA has requested application data from the IOUs, through the CPUC, at the finest
data level available. In most cases, this is at the individual measure level. An application may
contain multiple measures, covering different end uses such as lighting and industrial process.
Different measures within a site may be related or interactive and may need to be considered
together. The assigned applications will include specific instructions from Itron / KEMA on
what measures are to be evaluated, the required level of rigor, what effort level (below average,
average, or above average) they are to be evaluated at, and, in some cases, guidance regarding
the recommended or required evaluation approach. The evaluator’s application review and
Itron, Inc.
2-16
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
SSMVP will focus on the instructions provided. Any questions that the evaluator has regarding
the work assignment should be clarified with the Itron / KEMA before proceeding.
The scope for a given application should cover all of the sites and sub-measures within the target
measure, to the degree possible and with adjustments where necessary, given the budget allotted
to that application. For example, if an application for a customer with multiple refrigerated
warehouses consisted of five facilities with nearly identical refrigeration system retrofits, the
scope would most likely be limited to a comprehensive assessment of impacts at two or three
selected facilities, with the results extrapolated to the remaining facilities. Sampling should be
conducted to comply with the sampling and uncertainty protocol.
Some projects and applications comprising the assigned sampling unit may contain multiple
records (a multi-record site) or contain more than one measure. It may not be possible to
evaluate all measures. In general, if one or some of the measures are chosen for evaluation, the
analysis should isolate the impact for all aspects of those measures or records, including energy
impacts, interactive effects, non-energy benefits, and economic information. The ex-ante
savings claim (kWh and kW) must be extracted if necessary and reported for the realization rate
calculations. This will allow the results of the impact analysis to be valid for the evaluated
components and then extrapolated to the entire program.
Given the timeline of providing results for projects assigned from February 2012 through May
2012 is June 2012, and the level of effort and expenses capped at an average of $7,000 per
project, it will be important to thoroughly understand the ex-ante calculations and assess whether
they can be used, with modifications for variables and other factors that have changed, for the
ex-post savings estimation. For those measures that have had savings values and methodologies
frozen by Ex-ante Review, it will also be critical to identify variables that have changed and may
result in changes to the ‘frozen’ ex-ante values.
There are several requirements in the Protocols relating to ex-post impact evaluation that are
unique to this evaluation and not always performed by energy efficiency professionals. It is
important to keep these objectives in mind when planning site activities. These requirements
include but are not limited to:








Providing the evaluation results in an 8,760 hour annual format.
Using site level sampling techniques when a census is not taken.
Applying qualitative site level uncertainty analysis to the SSMVP.
Compliance with engineering based error tolerance levels for impact estimates.
Development of demand reduction impacts using the Protocols’ definition.
Normalizing for weather sensitive measures.
Attention to RUL and baseline issues.
Consideration of data requirements of, and coordination with, net impact teams.
Itron, Inc.
2-17
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.11 Lower Rigor Points
A unique aspect of this evaluation is the inclusion of Lower Rigor (LR) points. These LR points
are intended to provide a qualitative assessment of how programs are working and the quality of
documentation, baseline decisions, reasonableness of savings, etc. The process for documenting
these low rigor points would require its own form or, as it is developed, a portion in the EAR
forms (which are completed for both the EAR point and the M&V points). Assessment of exante values and methodologies, baselines used, any non-energy benefits, incremental and total
cost review, RUL and EUL estimates, program eligibility determinations, and documentation
quality are examples of information to be reported for LR projects. The on-site data collection
form in the appendices is also expected to be useful for all LR projects that receive a site visit. In
some cases, spot metering or collection of data may be relevant and should be noted. In other
cases, desk review (with or without telephone verification) and reporting are the only
requirements. The determination is made through submission of a brief plan to, and instruction
from, Itron / KEMA.
2.12 Application Budget Allowance, Reporting, and Payment
Each application (or project) has a budget allocated based on the complexity of the project and
the anticipated M&V requirements. It is envisioned that each evaluator will be provided a
number of applications in multiple packets throughout the 2010-2012 evaluation cycle; these
may be concentrated into simple projects allowing a below average level of effort, more common
sites requiring an average level of effort, and more complex sites, requiring a high, above
average level of effort. In aggregate, each evaluator will carefully manage the budget allocated
for each packet of applications. As previously discussed, some applications may require more
hours and expense than the average and as initially assigned, and some may involve fewer hours
and less expense. Each evaluator and their respective team are required to carefully plan and
execute all activities to stay within budget.
Bi-weekly and monthly reporting on overall program progress will be required. These reports
will describe the accomplishments to date (on a percent complete, task, and hourly basis).
Expenses to date and anticipated expenses should also be recorded. Any variation from the
previous plans, changes to the SSMVPs, and changes from previous reports will be noted.
Budgets are assigned for different levels and each level should be grouped to allow easy
comparison. Table 2-7 shows the approximate budgets for each effort level for this project.
Itron, Inc.
2-18
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-7: Approximate Budget by Effort Level
Level
Hours per Site
Average Cost
Maximum Cost
Minimum Cost
Sites per group
M&V
40
$7,000
$12,000
$3,000
200 – BD Period
Lower Rigor
15
$2,500
$ 3,500
$ 500
100 – BD Period
Note: The evaluation (M&V/LR) budgets include labor and all communication / travel / metering expenses.
A standard biweekly / monthly budget and progress report template for evaluator reporting will
be provided by Itron / KEMA by the subcontractor. It is envisioned that these would be excel
based tools that would feed into any site tracking tools used for project tracking for this WO033
custom impact evaluation.
The bi-weekly and monthly progress reports will be used for tracking and approving interim and
final payments. Interim payments will be authorized upon achieving specific milestones relating
to the Lower Rigor reports, the EAR forms, the Site Specific Measurement and Verification
Plans, the site work / field activities, and the Final Site Reports (FSRs); these are set as a
percentage of per-site costs as indicated below in Table 2-8.
Invoices will be based on actual expenses, including rental charges for equipment, and actual
labor hours incurred. Invoiced expenses should not exceed the target payment unless previously
adjusted.
Table 2-8: Task Status with Corresponding Portion of Payment
Task Status Code
Target Payment
Labor Portion of Evaluation Budget
M&V Site Visit(s) Complete - 50%
50% of average cost
Site Completed through ED - 100%
100% of average cost
Lower Rigor Site completed and Site Visit (if
applicable) complete - 50%
50% of average cost
Lower Rigor Site - 100% - Approved by ED
100% of average cost
Invoicing should be provided at monthly intervals on a time and materials basis with a cost not to
exceed as detailed above and as modified via written authorization by Itron / KEMA on a task
order or site-specific basis.
Evaluators are required to provide exception reporting at any time for specific applications for
which budgeted labor or expenses may be exceeded at the earliest indications of this issue.
Itron, Inc.
2-19
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.13 Site Report Template
The templates for the site specific SSMVP and the Final Site Report are included in this
document. These templates will be provided electronically to each evaluation team. Please use
the electronic template for all reports so that there is consistency in the format of the evaluation.
The following sections provide the necessary guidance for completing the SSMVP and Final Site
Report (FSR) templates.
2.14 Application Review
Each team will begin by commencing review of the tracking database information and
application documentation plus any additional details for each application (provided by Itron /
KEMA). The application may include hard copy and electronic application records, utility bills,
tracking system data, customer contact information, etc.
2.15 Completing the Site Specific M&V Plan Template
The following paragraphs below refer to the creation of the Site Specific M&V Plan (SSMVP) in
the form shown in this document.
The evaluator will first contact the IOU account executive to alert the participant of the
evaluation effort. The evaluator will, after briefly reviewing the application, contact the
participant to guarantee access to the project to be evaluated. The evaluator may reference the
CPUC introduction letter in either of these efforts. With assurance of site access, the evaluator
can complete and submit an SSMVP.
The draft SSMVP must include a quality control review by the subcontractor. The draft SSMVP
must be submitted at least one week in advance to Itron / KEMA for approval before
scheduling a site visit. The draft SSMVP will receive review and comments from Itron / KEMA
and the DMQC or other ED consultants. This process will help the evaluator identify new or
missing data that can be collected at the site, requested from site personnel, or requested from the
program administrators.
Preparation of the Site Specific SSMVP also helps ensure that the evaluator is well prepared for
the site visit. The SSMVP developed will be reviewed and refined, as necessary, at this stage.
To streamline and expedite field efforts, the evaluator should aim for an average of two hours per
initial SSMVP write-up, focusing their attention on concisely written bullet steps, tasks, methods
to be employed, and contingency plans.
Evaluators should complete a review of all applications provided in the application packet and
make a comprehensive list of any missing information to be requested from the program
Itron, Inc.
2-20
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
administrators or reviewers. Evaluators should forward this ‘data request’ (DR) to Itron / KEMA
for submittal and tracking. Evaluators should also note any requests to contact IOU personnel or
other implementers or reviewers for each application.
It is important to note that all participants (the IOUs’ customers) are participating anonymously
in the evaluation. The reports and communication (to the extent possible) should not reference
any customer name, account numbers, location, email addresses, phone numbers or other
identifying information in multiple places (i.e., other than those places specifically identified in
the templates) that could allow identification of the customer or IOU (except as noted below).
There should not be any way to identify the customer, location or utility from information
provided in the free-form answers and contextual data provided in the report. This requirement
applies equally to all tables, figures, and spreadsheets that are pasted or embedded into the
document.
The following sections provide instructions on completing each section of the SSMVP template.
A complete example SSMVP is included in the Appendix. Note that all fields require an input.
“Not applicable” (N/A) or “Not provided” are acceptable entries. It is not expected that the
evaluator will be able to – and is not required - to fill in the SSMVP and FSR completely for
all sites. The best effort to complete all relevant entries clearly and concisely within the
budgets for this evaluation is expected. On-site work shall not commence if there is
insufficient information to clearly identify the scope of work. In exceptional cases, KEMA /
Itron staff may conduct initial site visits and/or telephone calls which might be required for
sites where no data was provided.
2.15.1 Project Information and Site Data
The following tables include basic instructions on completing the Project Information and the
Site Data sections.
Project Information
IOU
Application ID
Application Date
Program ID
Program Name
Program Year
Project ID
IOU Claim IDs
Project Description
Itron, Inc.
Fill in the utility name (e.g. PGE)
IOU provided project application number
Date on incentive application
Utility EE Program Number (listed within project application files)
Utility Program Name (e.g. NRR–DR Customized Energy
Efficiency incentive Program)
Year of measure(s) installation
Itron / KEMA assigned project number
Unique Claim IDs – may be more than one per application
Brief (30 word max.) description of the measure from project
application
2-21
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Field Engineer
Supervisor/Reviewer
Type of SSMVP
Name of the assigned site engineer
Name of the reviewing engineer
Select one or of multiple of the following choices:
Pre-Installation M&V
Post-Installation M&V (EAR)
Post-Installation M&V (ex-post impact evaluation)
Pre-Installation verification
Post-Installation verification
Site Data
Contact Name
Contact Title
Contact Phone Number / Email
IOU Representative Name
IOU Representative Phone / Email
19
Site Visit Consent (required)
Date of Scheduled Visit
Name of the site / facility point of contact
Title of the point of contact
Phone number of the facility contact
Name of utility account manager/ representative
Phone number of the utility representative
Yes/No and Date
Date of initial M&V visit
Please note these are the only sections where any customer or IOU identifying information is
included in the report. The information is contained in the draft report to facilitate the Itron /
KEMA review and tracking process only. Other contacts such as alternate site contacts and
implementers should be listed below this section.
2.15.2 IOU Project Description
The IOU Project Description section provides a summary of the IOU measure and full details of
the implemented action. An example of this section may be seen below in a completed Example
SSMVP in this document. The following table includes instructions on completing the IOU
Project Description section.
19
Consent to visit site is a pre-requisite for SSMVP development. A site-specific SSMVP should not be prepared
unless participant has agreed to allow access to perform M&V.
Itron, Inc.
2-22
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 2-9: IOU Project Description
Description
IOU Proposed Ex-ante Data or Frozen
Ex-ante Data
Project Baseline Type (Early Replacement, Normal
Replacement, Capacity Expansion, New
Construction)
Provide a baseline type assessment
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost, Incremental Cost)
Provide the project cost basis as reported in the project
application
RUL (required for early retirement projects only,
otherwise n/a)
Brief notation on the remaining useful life of the baseline
equipment – determined based on application review
EUL
Provide the effective useful life of the measure a listed in
the project documentation or IOU tracking system
extracts. If none provided, refer to other measure life
resources such as DEER to obtain the EUL
First Year kWh Savings
Provide the annual kWh savings as reported in the project
application here
First Year Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Provide the peak coincident Demand reduction (kW) as
reported in the project application here
First Year Therms Savings
Provide the annual therms savings as reported in the
project application here
Annual kWh Savings (RUL Period)
Provide the annual kWh savings for the remaining useful
life period of the baseline equipment here (if applicable)
Peak Demand Reduction (kW) (RUL Period)
Provide the peak coincident Demand reduction (kW) for
the remaining useful life period of the baseline equipment
here (if applicable)
Annual Therms Savings (RUL Period)
Provide the annual therms savings for the remaining
useful life period of the baseline equipment here (if
applicable)
Annual kWh Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
Provide the annual kWh savings for the RUL period and
post-RUL period to verify the (weighted) average savings
over the EUL of the measure.
Peak Demand Reduction (kW) (EUL – RUL Period)
Provide the peak coincident Demand reduction (kW)
resulting from the measure life assessment (effective
useful life period savings – remaining useful life period
savings)
Annual Therms Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
Provide the annual therms savings resulting from the
measure life assessment (effective useful life period
savings – remaining useful life period savings)
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact (RUL Period)
Provide the annual non-IOU fuel impact (if any) resulting
from the measure implementation for the RUL period
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact (EUL – RUL Period)
Provide the annual non-IOU fuel impacts (if any) for the
RUL period and post-RUL period to verify the (weighted)
average savings over the EUL of the measure.
Itron, Inc.
2-23
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.15.3 M&V Plan Summary
The following table provides instructions for completing the M&V Plan Summary section. See A
subsequent section for a completed example M&V plan. Changes to M&V plans may occur
based on in situ conditions and customer input. These changes should be noted in the As
Implemented section by adding text and describing why the change was necessary. If required
documentation is missing, state “Not Provided” and enumerate any filenames or other references
to the underlying calculations, if known. A follow-up data request may be required to obtain the
additional missing information. Generally, the SSMVP provided to the on-site evaluator will
have been subject to an initial review of data requirements and will be as complete as possible.
Changes from an approved M&V plan should be communicated to Itron / KEMA from the site.
M&V Plan Summary
Plan
As Implemented
Measure Type
Provide the measure category and sub-category
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or expansions
Operation
Provide the application or customer self-reported
value for the hours of operation and the M&V
approach to verify
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide the on-site confirmed typical
hours of operation and the method s used
if different than planned
Site & IOU
Data
Dependency
Provide a description of the dependency of the
M&V plan on IOU and facility metered data
(e.g., metered data for pumps at the pre-and postretrofit sites, or EMS/SCADA/other logged data
)
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide revisions or reasons for any
discrepancies or deviations from the
original plan based on data availability
M&V Scope
Provide the boundaries of on-site M&V
activities. The scope must include the following
sections at the least:
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide revisions or reasons for any
discrepancies or deviations from the
original plan for each activity.
Itron, Inc.

Plan for the verification of measure
installation (e.g., verify installation of
new pipes rerouting feedwater and water
processing)

Plan for data collection and
measurement of the implemented
measure and baseline equipment where
available (e.g., collect kW & kWh usage
data for pumps for all leases for pre- and
post-installation)

Address the additional verification items
(e.g., confirm sizes of pumps and verify
that no extra transport energy costs)

Collect contextual data (such as type of
facility, operating characteristics, etc.) –
see the on site data collection form for
more detail
2-24
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Plan
As Implemented
Quantity
Verification
(Full or
Sample)20
Provide the proposed method of installed
measure quantity verification (full or census /
sample); for sampled verification, provide a brief
description of the sampling procedures
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide revisions or reasons for any
discrepancies or deviations from the
original plan
IPMVP Option
Provide the selected IPMVP option. If a hybrid
of IPMVP options is used, provide a brief
description of the combined option (e.g., hybrid
of Option A and Option C)
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide revisions or reasons for any
discrepancies or deviations from the
original plan
Measurement21
This block provides the plan for the basis of onsite metering data and provides the methods used.
This section must also include a description of
the methods proposed for the calibration of
measurement equipment used to collect data at
the site.
To be completed after the initial site visit;
provide any revisions or reasons for any
discrepancies or deviations from the
original plan
An example is as follows:

Use SCADA system and kWh gauges,
collect energy usage, collect flow rates
(in gpm), obtain screen shots.

Confirm pre-retrofit and post-retrofit
flow rates, kW & kWh on the (2) 2000
HP pumps through facility records.

Confirm or obtain RUL estimates of the
existing 11 water processing and 8
individual generator feedwater pumps
that were displaced.

Determine if this is a weather or
seasonally dependent measure.

Determine the frequency of SCADA
instrument calibration.
Specification
Verification
Provide a description of the need to obtain
equipment specifications and for which
equipment
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Eligibility
Verification
Verify measure eligibility by checking the rules
of the program and the retrofit
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Project Cost
Verification
Provide the method of verifying equipment costs,
labor costs, incremental costs, etc. (e.g., invoices,
quotes, determine incremental cost using DEER
for various systems, etc.)
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Billing
History/PPP
Describe use of billing history and verify need to
determine PPP (public purpose program) status
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
20
When using sampling for verification, briefly describe the sampling method.
21
Explain the reasons for the selection of the above mentioned IPMVP option.
Itron, Inc.
2-25
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Plan
As Implemented
Status
Verification22
for participant eligibility
deviations from the planning phase
Fuel Switching
Analysis23
Provide a brief description of the plan for
reviewing pertinent parameters for verifying
inputs for fuel switching analysis, if applicable
(e.g. gathering cost data, source Btu data and
environmental data for use in the three – prong
test to verify a fuel-switching project
qualification)
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase,
including relevant variables that have
changed
RUL
Provide a brief description of the plan for
assessing the remaining useful life and indicate
what was provided in the application
documentation
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Provide a brief description of the plan for
determining the validity of the installed
measure’s baseline using code analysis or market
research; indicate ex-ante baseline determination
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Sample Stratum
Provide the stratum number of which the current
project is a part of, typically provided by Itron or
KEMA
Same as planning phase stratum level if
no changes are reported after the M&V
visit
Sample Weight
Provide the sample weight of current project,
typically provided by Itron
Same as planning phase value if no
changes are reported after the M&V visit
HVAC
Interactive
Effects
Provide a brief description of the plan for
calculating savings due to HVAC interactive
effects resulting from the measure installation
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Non-HVAC
Provide a brief description of the plan for
assessing the non-HVAC interactive effects
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Provide a brief description of the plan for
determining the spillover effect due to current
measure installation
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Provide a brief description of the plan for
contextual data collection
To be completed after the initial site visit;
may include revisions or reasons for
deviations from the planning phase
Assessment24
Code or Industry
Standard
Practice
Determination25
Interactive
Effects26
Spillover
Assessment
Contextual Data
Collection
22
The participant should provide a 12-month billing history and must be paying into PPP funds. Additional details
will be provided.
23
Verification of and data used for the three-prong test for the ex-ante process must be provided by the IOU.
24
Coordinate with the Itron net to gross (NTG) group.
25
Briefly describe the plan to research standard practice, if needed for this project. Include the ex-ante and
proposed ex-post source, if any, for code or standard practice.
26
This would include a direct multiple measure interaction assessment that would impact gross savings.
Itron, Inc.
2-26
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
2.15.4 Savings Calculation Method, Uncertainty Analysis, Field Data Collection
and Site M&V Cost Estimate
The following tables provide instructions for completing the Savings Calculation Method,
Uncertainty Analysis, Field Data Collection and the Site M&V Cost Estimate27sections of the
SSMVP template. A filled in example may be seen in subsequent sections.
Savings Calculation Method
Plan
As Implemented
Engineering
Calculations28
Provide the planned approach and/or
algorithms for ex-ante and proposed
ex-post evaluation
To be completed after the initial
site visit; may include revisions or
reasons for deviations from the
planning phase
Energy Use Modeling29
Provide the type, background and
pertinent information relevant to any
energy modeling tools or methods
that were / will be used
To be completed after the initial
site visit; may include revisions or
reasons for deviations from the
planning phase
DOE Software
(Insulation, AirMaster+,
Fan Systems, Pumping
Systems
Provide the background and
pertinent information relevant to the
use of DOE software tools, where
applicable
To be completed after the initial
site visit; may include revisions or
reasons for deviations from the
planning phase
ED-Approved Custom
Model
Provide the background and
pertinent information relevant to the
use of a custom calculations model,
where applicable
To be completed after the initial
site visit; may include revisions or
reasons for deviations from the
planning phase
8760 Load Shape
Development Method
Provide the basis for calculation of
the 8760 hour load profile (e.g.,
possibly apply average kW
reduction if not seasonally
dependent and maintenance periods
are not fixed.)
To be completed after the initial
site visit; may include revisions or
reasons for deviations from the
planning phase
27
Show either lump sum estimates or line item hours and costs by category if needed for estimating costs: SSMVP
preparation, instrument charge, data collection, data analysis and site-specific reporting.
28
Ex-post engineering calculation formulas may be included now or before preparing an abbreviated site-specific
report.
29
Specify eQuest, DOE2, EnergyPro or other software.
Itron, Inc.
2-27
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
At the M&V planning stage for uncertainty analysis, the evaluators will qualitatively access the
variables and their importance in the savings estimates using the table in the SSMVP for all
projects.
For selected larger projects, Itron or KEMA will instruct the evaluators to more quantitatively
address the combined errors, using techniques such as propagation of errors as described in the
California Evaluation Framework. Propagation of error will be assessed in a standardized
format by utilizing various computer programs, such as Crystal Ball or @ Risk. Other
commercially available programs may also yield acceptable results and may be considered. The
evaluator will estimate the range of low, expected and high values for inputs and measurements
(including instrument errors), along with their respective distribution curves. Evaluators should
also indicate the type of distribution expected for these values (e.g., uniform, normal,
lognormal, etc.) to facilitate this analysis. The low and high values should represent a 90%
confidence interval, i.e., there is a 90% confidence that the actual value will be within the range
selected.
Uncertainty Analysis30
Variable
Provide the base
variable (e..g.,
amps or hours)
for the most
important
savings
determinants
Time Frame
Measurement
period of this
variable (e.g., 1
year, 3 weeks,
etc.)
Estimated
Value
Provide the
estimated
value of the
variable (e.g.,
8,000 hrs/yr)
Accuracy
Min/Max
Provide the
accuracy of
the
sensitive
variable
(e.g.,
accuracy
+/- 0.5%)
Provide the
minimum /
maximum
expected
values of the
variable
(e.g., 7000,
8760 hrs/yr)
Distribution
Type
Provide the
distribution
type (normal,
exponential,
gamma, etc)
Field Data Collection Plan
In the following table, identify the measured variables and provide the measured parameter
range, metering equipment information (name, quantity, rated accuracy and accuracy at the
measured values), metering duration, and measurement interval. Rows are needed only for
parameters measured.
30
Include ex-ante estimate of uncertainty and expected reduction in uncertainty.
Itron, Inc.
2-28
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Parameter to
Parameter
M&V
M&V
Rated
Accuracy of
Planned
Planned
Verify/Measure
Range
Equipment
Instrument
Full Scale
Expected
Metering
Metering
Brand and
Qty
Accuracy
Measurement
Duration
Interval
Model
Operating
Hours31
0 – 168
hours
Dent
SmartLogger
25
+/- 1%
f.s.
. +/- 1%
m.v.
1 week
Continuous
– 1 sec.
resolution
kW
0 – 5,000
kW
IOU and
plant
equipment
3 IOU
meters; 2
plant
meters
+/- 0.5%
+/- 0.5%
1 year
1 hour
Site M&V Cost Estimate32
The total site M&V hours and costs are provided in this section. (e.g., estimate of 40 labor hours,
includes travel costs (5 hrs each way with one site visit), no metering costs, total $7,000).
Ex-ante Savings Calculations (Additional Details)
Provide additional details if needed about the ex-ante and proposed ex-post calculation methods.
2.16 Calculation Standards
This section is a brief overview of the available software tools, expected standards, and
procedures for performing typical custom impact calculations.
2.16.1 Building Simulations
Where required, building simulations performed for the evaluation will generally use DOE 2.2 or
the latest available version. The interface using eQuest may be utilized. Simulations will be
calibrated to metered end uses data, utility bills and weather, when applicable, using IPMVP
option D for guidance. Simulations should be calibrated to both actual energy use and demand
plus actual weather obtained from NOAA or other reliable sources for the pre-retrofit period
(including on site data collection). Simulations will then be run using NOAA actual weather
31
For lighting specify panel-level measurement, CT logging and/or light loggers.
32
Show line item hours and cost by billing category for SSMVP preparation, instrument charge, data collection,
and data analysis and site-specific reporting.
Itron, Inc.
2-29
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
data for site specific impacts (to determine the model validity) and CEC climate zone weather
data for pre- and post-retrofit scenarios to estimate impacts at the climate zone level for the
population. Results will be reported for the weather data applicable to the CEC climate zone.
2.16.2 Compressed Air Simulations
Simulations for compressed air systems will use AIR Master + (latest available version), which
can be down loaded from:
http://mm3.energy.wsu.edu/amplus/default.stm
The simulation shall be calibrated to field measured data.
Complex flow measurements may be available from the site instrumentation or vendor / installer
provided instrumentation (such as during a start up or commissioning exercise). The validity of
this information should be confirmed before using in savings estimations. In all cases, accuracy
of the values should be indicated.
2.16.3 Annual Hours of Operation
All calculations will standardize the number of annual hours to be 365 days/year x 24 hours/day
(8,760 annual hours). Calculations will accurately account for weekends, holidays and actual
hours of operation (determined from the customer representative interview).
2.16.4 Coincident Peak Demand Reduction / Reported Demand Reduction
Coincident peak demand impacts are generally the demand impact from the installed measure
estimated at the highest 15 minute demand interval as recorded by each individual utility. This
value sets the maximum system demand.
For this program, the peak demand will be calculated and reported using the definition provided
in the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued decision R.06-06-063 on June 29, 2006 in which
the definition for peak was established as it is currently defined in DEER.
This definition of peak coincident demand (peak kW) is:
“The average grid level impact for a measure between 2 pm and 5 pm during the three
consecutive weekday periods containing the weekday with the hottest temperature of
the year”.
DEER identifies these three contiguous peak kW days, for each of the 16 California climate
zones, based on the weather data sets developed for the California Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. Therefore, for simulation-based projects, peak kW demand reduction is
always calculated as the difference between the as-built and baseline peak coincident demand
Itron, Inc.
2-30
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
where both kW values are calculated using the appropriate CA climate zone weather files and the
1991 calendar year. The use of or local weather files and corresponding “actual” calendar years
is not appropriate for peak coincident demand reduction calculations for simulation-based
projects.
These may be accessed by the following URL:
http://eega.cpuc.ca.gov/deer/
While this definition of kW does not explicitly segregate weather sensitive measures and nonweather sensitive measures, the peak load kW impact for a non-weather sensitive measure would
be expected to correspond to the average kW reduction on a typical summer weekday (in the
months of June through September) between 2 pm and 5 pm. For weather-dependent measures,
the peak load kW impact for a non-weather sensitive measure would be expected to correspond
to the average kW reduction on the hottest summer weekdays (June through September) between
2 pm and 5 pm (with climatic conditions that are typical of the weather data sets for that climate
zone).
When building simulations are performed, the reporting of peak kW can be calculated accurately
by using the days DEER defined peak kW days.
For other measures, monitoring should be conducted during (or modeling should be performed
using) climactic conditions similar to those contained in the weather data sets. If the monitored
period contains the DEER identified three day period, peak kW impacts should also be reported
at these time periods.
2.16.5 Increases or Decreases in Production
For industrial measures, changes in production capacity between the pre-installation and postinstallation periods must be considered in a manner consistent across this evaluation. Changes in
production capacity, whether exercised during the evaluation period or not, have a direct impact
on total energy usage and impact claims. The procedures to be followed in this evaluation are
consistent with those described in Section 3.4 of Appendix J of the CADMAC evaluation
protocols.33 In order to adjust the baseline, an industrial process application must clearly
elaborate how an increase in production between the base case and the improved case is
traceable to market conditions and not to production improvements due to the implementation of
the incentivized measures. If the causes for production increases are not adequately described,
33
http://www.calmac.org/events/APX_J%200698.pdf. Protocols and Procedures for the Verification of Costs,
Benefits, and Shareholder Earnings from Demand-Side Management Programs. Appendix J. Quality
Assurance Guidelines for Statistical, Engineering, and Self-Report Methods for Estimating DSM Program
Impacts. Revised March 1998.
Itron, Inc.
2-31
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
then impacts shall be calculated using the production prior to the installation of the measures (to
prevent subsidization of additional, load-inducing production equipment).
For example, a baseline condition may have resulted in 4,000 hours per year of equipment use
for 100 units of production. Efficiency increases may have reduced the necessary use to 3,000
hours per year for the same 100 units. Shift schedules then, however, resulted in 4,000 hours per
year of use in which 120 units were produced. If the efficiency improvement induced the
customer to increase the production, then the baseline and post retrofit energy use should be
calculated on the original 100 units of production. However, if market conditions required 120
units of production, and shift hours would have been increased to produce these 120 units with
the original equipment, then the baseline should be adjusted for the 120 units. The determination
of whether market conditions caused the actual change should be investigated through interviews
with the customer during the site visit (or with written documentation from the initial application
file).
There are also cases in which the production has decreased and the measure did not cause the
change in output. The post retrofit equipment and pre retrofit equipment should be evaluated
using the post retrofit production levels. Thus, if production decreased from 100 to 80 units due
to market conditions, the baseline should be adjusted for the 80 units.
In the unlikely event that the output of 80 units was due to the change in process or equipment
(for example, for better quality), the baseline pre-retrofit energy use should be adjusted from the
pre retrofit production of 100 units to 80 units. The intent is to incentivize the production
efficiency for those 80 units.
Decisions on whether adjustments are made for changes in productivity must be reviewed and
approved by Itron / KEMA if there is any uncertainty as to the appropriateness of the adjustment.
2.16.6 Interactive Effects
The protocols require that all impacts be estimated net of interactive effects. For instance, if the
measure is a lighting retrofit in a refrigerated warehouse or cooled space, the potential reduction
in refrigeration energy consumption is included in the ex-post estimate. In a cooled space, this
would be an interactive effect. Other interactive effects could be the reduced steam use due to a
process retrofit in a refinery, where this steam was used in other processes but that now needs to
be provided by another source, such as running an existing boiler at higher loads. When the
interactive effects are large relative to overall energy or costs savings (5% or greater), evaluators
should make clear note of this in the SSMVP and incorporate procedures and measurements to
account for the interactive effects.
Itron, Inc.
2-32
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Note that DEER prescribes cooling and heating interaction factors (energy and demand) for
certain measures, building types and climate zones. These should be used for reference only and
should be calculated when expected for a certain measure.
2.17 Electronic File Names, Identification Scheme, and Data Files
The requirements for file naming schemes shall include the following, in the order indicated,
separated by undercores:

CPUC1012

Itron / KEMA Site ID,

Initials of primary author,

SSMVP or FSR,

Date (expressed as day.month.year)., and

DRAFT or FINAL

An example would be:CPUC1012_B126_AJL_01.09.2012_DRAFT.doc

Another example could be: CPUC1012_CF002_JCB 12.30.2011_FSR_FINAL.doc
All Microsoft Office files (Microsoft Word, and Excel) must be submitted in a Microsoft Office
2007 compatible format.
All raw data files must be provided, and are acceptable in ASCII text format if downloaded from
the data collection device in that format. Raw data and processed (cleaned) data files are required
to be submitted. The SSMVPs and FSRs should, however, be complete and comprehensible and
defensible, as stand-alone documents.
Do not use “embedded” documents inside of Word documents as these often are not compatible
across different versions of MS Word, and sometimes cause problems with email spam and virus
filtering software. Reference any supporting data with document names in the plan or report
submitted if that data or model is required to verify and validate the analysis.
Any updated versions of calculations must also be provided when revisions are made.
2.18 Itron / KEMA Review of Site Specific SSMVP
Itron / KEMA staff will review the site specific SSMVP upon submittal by each evaluation team.
The subcontractor’s point of contact (POC) and senior engineering team will ensure that each
Itron, Inc.
2-33
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
draft report has been peer reviewed by a seasoned energy evaluation professional with a
minimum of ten years experience in the energy field for accuracy, clarity and adherence to the
reporting requirements outlined in this document before the document is forwarded to Itron /
KEMA for review. Professional level writing is required. All tables and exhibits (if used) will
be numbered and referenced in the SSMVP or FSR.
The SSMVP should be submitted within two weeks of assignment to maintain the project
schedule, to enable timely review, and to allow equipment ordering and efficient site visit
scheduling. Itron’s POC will provide guidance for specific situations, including potential
scheduling difficulties, conflicts of interest, baseline and remaining useful life determination, and
interpretations of program rules and measure eligibility. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
exclude or reassign a given application. Each subcontractor is encouraged to engage in active
discussions with Itron / KEMA, particularly at the beginning of the project. This will help
reduce needed time and effort and provide for a better work product.
The SSMVP will be submitted to the CPUC ED and ED assigned consultant(s) for review after
Itron / KEMA has reviewed the document and effected any needed modifications.
The length of time for any review should be minimized; review and comment on each
subsequent draft report submission should occur within one week of receipt by Itron.
Once the SSMVP is approved by pertinent Itron / KEMA project managers and ED consultants,
each evaluator will proceed with the site visit scheduling (following the initial recruitment steps
before the SSMVP was drafted) and continue with the work at that site, coordinating with the
net to gross team and Itron / KEMA, especially with regards to site visits. Whenever possible,
site visits should be scheduled with a lead time of ten calendar days to allow ride along and other
participation by Itron, KEMA, CPUC ED staff, and ED consultants. When a shorter lead time is
required, immediate notification to the evaluation team is critical to allow for last-minute
scheduling changes to accommodate sites with significant impact claims. Late scheduling is
highly undesirable and will be allowed on a case by case basis and only in exceptional cases.
Itron, Inc.
2-34
Customer Application Review, SSMVP
3
On-Site Audit Recruiting/Scheduling
3.1 Utility Representative Contact
Itron / KEMA will provide the contact information for each customer’s utility account executive
or representative, or the local program coordinator. Before contacting the customer, the
evaluator must contact the customer’s utility account representative or the local program
coordinator to inform them of the intent to contact the customer regarding the evaluation. The
utility account representative should identify or confirm the current contact information,
telephone number, email addresses, cellular numbers, and alternate contact information. The
account representative should also be informed that they may wish to alert the customer of the
names of the individuals and firms conducting the evaluation for Itron. The most efficient
approach is generally by direct phone calls to office and cellular lines, followed by emails with a
record of the conversation and the evaluators contact information and Itron’s / KEMA’s POC
contact information. It may be beneficial to include the customer along with the utility
representative in any email correspondence to support legitimacy in the mind of the customer
contact.
All contact (by telephone, email, fax, etc.) with the customer’s utility account representative or
the local program coordinator should be recorded in a IOU / participant contact file that includes
the date, time, name of parties and outline of the discussion or voice message. Include dates of
attempted contact. Pertinent information should be entered in real time in the site tracking
system in the field for gross impact team notes.
It is useful to ask the account representative for a customer contact and honor requests for time
for the customer’s utility account representative or the local program coordinator to advise the
customer. If any difficulties are encountered contacting the IOU representative, Itron / KEMA
should be informed and will provide assistance. The IOU tracking data extracts and other
documentation will, in some instances, contain outdated or inaccurate contact information. Note
that Itron / KEMA may have already contacted the utility account representative for gross or net
activities.
These evaluations will include a net to gross phone interview of many of the program
participants. The individual surveyed may or may not be the same person involved with the site
specific gross impact evaluation. If the phone interview occurs first, Itron / KEMA or the phone
Itron, Inc.
3-1
On-Site Audit Recruiting/Scheduling
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
interviewer will inform the customer that they will be contacted by evaluators for a site specific
on-site evaluation effort. Attempts to verify the site contact information will be made. If
customer contact is first made by the evaluator, the evaluator will inform the customer of the
pending NTG phone interview (and attempt to identify the most appropriate individual – the
‘decision-maker’ - for this interview and their contact information). Itron / KEMA should be
informed when each customer has been alerted and the proper names and contact information for
participant personnel.
3.2 Initial Customer Contact
The evaluator may contact the customer after alerting the IOU representative and reviewing the
application documents provided by Itron / KEMA to assist in the understanding of the project,
the ex-ante savings calculations, any interactions, and the pending formulation of the SSMVP
and upcoming site visit activities. The evaluator may wish to contact the utility reviewer or
reviewing firm at this stage.
Recruiting and scheduling appointments will be the responsibility of the evaluator assigned to a
given application. All contact with the customer should be recorded in an IOU / participant
contact file that includes the date, time, name of parties, and outline of the discussion or
message.
Site contact information will be provided based on program tracking system records and will be
updated by Itron / KEMA as necessary. If any difficulties are encountered contacting with the
customer, Itron / KEMA should be informed and will provide assistance. Tracking data will, in
some instances, contain outdated or inaccurate contact information.
Again, efficient contact is usually performed through a combination of alerting emails and phone
contact to contact participants and schedule site visits.
Senior level engineers familiar with the application should perform initial recruiting efforts.
When contacting the customer, it is important to identify yourself as a consultant acting on
behalf of the CPUC, explain the purpose of the project to the customer, and inform them that you
would like to schedule a site visit. The customer should be informed that the evaluation report
will not reference their company name or the name of any site representative contacted and that
they are participating anonymously. It can be stressed that there are no changes in the incentive
monies and no penalties associated with this review. It also may be noted, as necessary to gain
permission to visit the site; that site visits for post implementation review may be required under
the program application agreement that the customer has executed to participate in the incentive
program.
Itron, Inc.
3-2
On-Site Audit Recruiting/Scheduling
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
It is often helpful to offer some specific details about the application you are evaluating to
increase your credibility. An example would be a statement such as “your company participated
in the 2010 Non-residential Retrofit Program and received incentives for the replacement of five
plastic injection molding machines with higher efficiency machines. At this time we are
evaluating the retrofit of IMM #3, Model DCX400, a 400 ton all-electric machine.”
It is helpful for evaluators to have a complete list of all EE measures or retrofits that the
customer participated in or about that time period, to direct the participant to the correct measure,
to determine any system interaction, and because the project might be best grouped with other
projects at the same facility.
Success in this project will greatly depend on establishing credibility with the customer from the
first telephone contact and continuing through the first meeting and subsequent site visits. It is
usually best to discuss metering or monitoring equipment installation requirements after a level
of credibility has been established (verses during initial telephone conversations or by email).
Also provide an accurate, but somewhat optimistic estimate of time constraints and gain a good
understanding of the customer’s need for oversight of on-site work.
At this stage, special protective equipment (PPE) and the needs for clearances, particularly at
government facilities and refineries, should be identified. Notification to the Itron / KEMA POC
should be made immediately following the scheduling of any visit to any customer. This should
be done on both an individual basis and summarized in the biweekly / monthly reporting.
3.3 Letter of Introduction
Letters from Itron / KEMA (on CPUC letterhead) and picture identification should be carried by
personnel conducting site visits. The site or company contact may call the applicable CPUC
representative identified on the letter or the Itron / KEMA POC to verify the purpose of our
study or to address other concerns. These letters will be made available to all evaluating
subcontractors by Itron / KEMA.
3.4 Reminder Calls
Reminder calls the day prior to a given appointment help ensure that no conflicts have arisen that
would impact the site visit or data collection activities. Arrange an appropriate meeting place
considering site access constraints, identification requirements, and provide your celular phone
number and request the best number to reach the contact upon your arrival at the site, along with
alternate contacts.
Itron, Inc.
3-3
On-Site Audit Recruiting/Scheduling
4
On-Site Audits and Sampling
4.1 Photographs
With the customer’s permission, photographs should be taken for each site visited. Photographs
should focus on items pertinent to the evaluation. Photographs should be taken to document
measurement points, showing the instrument used and where the measurement is taken. For
most sites, ten or fewer photographs should suffice. Photographs should not be included in the
final site reports but should be submitted in a separate electronically labeled MS Word or zipped
file (with separate jpeg files) to Itron. Each photograph will include a description of its
relevance to the evaluation in the title. If a building simulation is proposed, photographs
pertinent to the building model, such as screen shots, exterior exposures, typical spaces, and
mechanical equipment should be included, unless a suitably complete set of plan drawings are
provided. If plan drawings are on-site and a means of copying them is available, ask for
permission to copy the relevant sheets. If not allowed to remove the drawings for this purpose,
high-resolution digital photographs of the drawings and mechanical tables may suffice. For an
evaluation requiring a building simulation, it is possible that more than 10 photographs would be
required to provide the needed background. All photos should be saved with the smallest
resolution possible, while still enabling clarity, in order to facilitate transmission.
4.2 Measure Installation Verification
The objectives of measure installation verification are to confirm that: 1) the measures were
actually installed, 2) the installation meets reasonable quality standards, 3) the measures are
operating correctly and as described in the IOU application, and 4) the measures have the
potential to generate the predicted savings. Measure, make, model number, and capacity data
should be collected and compared to the documentation contained in the application. Taking
photographs (if permitted) of equipment, nameplate data, screen shots, or other pertinent
documents and clearly labeling them, including differentiating between pre-install and postretrofit, can provide useful documentation and supporting information following the site visit.
Good photographs are invaluable, and can provide others performing review or quality control
with better understanding and confidence in the validity of the ex-post analysis.
Itron, Inc.
4-1
On-Site Audits and Sampling
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
As-built construction drawings may be used to verify measures and to establish sampling plans
where access is difficult or impossible. To the extent possible, the installation of all accessible
measures for the site visited should be verified. Forms and templates, such as examples of
measure verification and site data collection forms, will be provided by Itron / KEMA.
4.3 Data Collection, Monitoring, and Sampling
On-site data collection should be completed using the M&V plan developed for this site and the
requirements set forth in Section 2. Opportunities to enhance the original plan should be pursued
as appropriate, given the schedule and budgeted level of effort.
Sampling may be employed at large facilities with numerous measures installed. Itron / KEMA
will work with each assigned site engineer to develop a sampling plan as part of the SSMVP
prior to the engineer arriving on-site. However in some situations, sampling decisions will need
to be made on site. The assigned engineer will attempt to contact the Itron / KEMA POC to
discuss on-site sampling strategies prior to implementing the revised plan. If Itron / KEMA
review is not possible, the assigned engineer shall follow standard procedures for conducting
appropriate measure sampling.
Any substantial deviations from the M&V plan should be communicated by phone from the
site with the Itron / KEMA contact. A determination will be made in real-time on whether to
involve other ED consultants. Substantial deviations would be, for instance, to stipulate values
versus measuring values where measurement would entail placing 18 versus 19 loggers at a
site, necessitated due to unforeseen unavailability of facility staff for fixture or panel access.
Training seminars will highlight other examples of substantial and minor deviations from M&V
plans.
Monitoring shall not be done only on equipment that is convenient to monitor. Random
sampling and stratified sampling (see Chapter 13 of the California Evaluation Framework Study)
shall be employed as appropriate. Evaluation team members should also review the measure
sampling discussion in Chapter 7 (Measurement and Verification), p. 193, of the California
Evaluation Framework Study.
4.4 Other Relevant Information
In addition to developing the ex-post energy savings and demand reduction estimates, evaluators
are required to collect and report on the following items in the appropriate section of the final
site report. This data collection should be performed during a thorough interview with the
customer or knowledgeable site representative.
Itron, Inc.
4-2
On-Site Audits and Sampling
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft

Determine the source of the cost estimate for the energy efficiency measure(s) either onsite or in the application documentation for the measure(s)/project(s) reported in the
application.

Provide a statement in the final site report concerning the perceived accuracy of the cost
estimate.

Special attention should be given as to whether the incentive cap calculation used the full
cost of the measure or the incremental cost of the measure. The evaluator should assess
the appropriateness of this basis, given the program and this evaluation’s baseline
requirements and definitions.

Determine, from the customer’s perspective, the non-energy benefits of the measure(s).
Possibilities include, but are not limited to: replaced aging equipment that was
maintenance intensive, provided increased capacity or production, increased comfort,
provided higher quality energy service (e.g., increased lighting lumens), reduced
emissions, produced water savings, increased security, reduced labor hours, enabled
higher quality product with less rejects, etc. In some instances, customers will indicate
that there are no perceived non-energy benefits; this should also be noted.

Determine if the customer has any reason to believe that there will be changes in the
operation of the primary measure that will impact the energy savings or demand
reduction in the future. For instance, a customer may have retrofitted a compressed air
system and is aware that the current hours of operation of the compressed air system
(upon which the ex-post analysis is to be based) will change in the future. The timing of
these changes is important, as this information might be used to adjust savings figures in
future years.
4.5 Obtain Other Documentation
In many instances, it may prove useful to obtain data from manufacturers’ representatives,
manufacturer’s contact information (telephone number and location), and service provider
information, including IOU reviewers and implementers. Note that contact information or serial
numbers that may reveal the location of the project should not be included in the Final Site
Report.
Itron, Inc.
4-3
On-Site Audits and Sampling
5
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
The Final Site Report will be prepared after the completion of site work, data collection and
analysis. If changes are made to the Site-Specific SSMVP during the review process after the
site visit, the SSMVP must be updated to reflect the final version since the Site Specific SSMVP
contains some information that is not carried over to the Final Site Report. A completed
example of the FSR with the M&V results is included in subsequent sections.
5.1 Analysis and Write-up
The sample Final Site Report (FSR) template is provided below as a guideline that should be
used to complete all sections of the final site report. It is important to note that the final site
report is a stand-alone document and other non-primary source documents should not be
referenced. The report should be intelligible without any attachments; no spreadsheets will be
attached to or embedded with the site reports when released outside the evaluation team. All
required tables and exhibits (if any) should be included in the FSR document in Microsoft (MS)
Word 2007. Supporting documents, including raw and processed data must be provided to
Itron/KEMA with the FSR submission.
The ex-post evaluation should segregate the targeted measure(s) in the application. Generally,
there is only one measure type assigned for each application, however; each application may
have more than one installation of that measure type at any particular site. The work assignment
summary prepared by Itron / KEMA for each application will describe the measure(s) assigned
for ex-post evaluation for each application. In some cases the evaluators will assist in
determining the measures to evaluate. For applications with multiple measures or end uses, the
evaluator must review the application to determine the site(s), measure(s), cost, energy savings
and other parameters associated with the assigned measure. These parameters are segregated and
the ex-ante and ex-post results reported only for the assigned measure (as opposed to the
application as a whole, which may contain more than one end use or multiple measures in one
end use).
As described in previous sections, the installation of other measures should be verified as
possible during the site visit and the verification noted in the verification section of the report.
Evaluating the energy impacts of these additional measures is not included as part of the scope of
the ex-post evaluation work. However, interactive effects for the evaluated measure are part the
Itron, Inc.
5-1
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
evaluation scope. Contact Itron / KEMA for clarification if there is any question about the scope
of the ex-post evaluation.
It is emphasized that customers and IOUs are participating anonymously in the evaluation. The
reports should not reference any customer name, account numbers, location or other information
that could allow identification of the customer or IOU (except in the title block). It should not be
possible to identify the customer, location or utility in the report. This also applies to tables,
exhibits, and other documentation which are pasted into the document.
5.2 Completing the Site Specific Ex-post M&V Results Template
The following sections will provide the necessary guidance required for completion of the site
specific ex-post M&V results contained in the FSR.
Itron, Inc.
5-2
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
5.2.1 Project Information
IOU
From Site Specific SSMVP
Application ID
From Site Specific SSMVP
Application Date
From Site Specific SSMVP
Program ID
From Site Specific SSMVP
Program Name
From Site Specific SSMVP
Program Year
From Site Specific SSMVP
Project ID
From Site Specific SSMVP
Incentive Amount
From Site Specific SSMVP
DEER Building Type
Provide DEER building prototype information here
Sample Stratum
From Site Specific SSMVP
Sample Weight
From Site Specific SSMVP
ED Ex-ante Review Status
Yes/No
Measure Name
Provide the measure name
Project Description
From Site Specific SSMVP
Date of Site Visit
Provide date of M&V visit
Date of Report
Date of Final Site Report
Primary Author and Firm
Provide authorship and firm affiliation details
Review Supervisor and Firm
Provide reviewer and firm
Type of M&V
Provide the evaluation rigor level
Basic or Enhanced and Pre/Post or Post Only
5.2.2 Summary of M&V Results
Description
IOU Ex-ante or Frozen
Ex-post Results
Ex-ante Claim Data
Project Baseline Type (Early
From Site Specific SSMVP
Replacement, Normal
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Replacement, Capacity
Expansion, New Construction)
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost,
From Site Specific SSMVP
Incremental Cost)
Measure Quantity
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Measure quantity from ex-
Verified quantities from M&V visit
ante application data
Itron, Inc.
5-3
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Description
IOU Ex-ante or Frozen
Ex-post Results
Ex-ante Claim Data
RUL (Early retirement
From Site Specific SSMVP
projects only, otherwise n/a)
EUL
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
First Year kWh Savings
From Site Specific SSMVP
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
First Year Peak Demand
From Site Specific SSMVP
reduction (kW)
First Year Therms Savings
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Annual kWh Savings (RUL
From Site Specific SSMVP
Period)
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
(RUL Period)
Annual Therms Impact (RUL
RUL
From Site Specific SSMVP
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
Period)34
Annual Peak Demand
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Period)
Annual kWh Savings (EUL –
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
Reduction (kW) (EUL – RUL
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Period)
Annual Therms Savings (EUL
From Site Specific SSMVP
– RUL Period)
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
(RUL Period)
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
From Site Specific SSMVP
(EUL – RUL Period)
34
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
Report differences if any from the SSMVP and
reasons for change or deviations from SSMVP
Since the RUL does not apply to NC projects, the totals here would be first year savings for NC projects. The
annual savings fields should net out the non-IOU fuel impacts from direct measure savings.
Itron, Inc.
5-4
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Description
IOU Ex-ante or Frozen
Ex-post Results
Ex-ante Claim Data
Net-to-Gross Ratio
From IOU tracking database
Report the ex-post net to gross ratio from the
or n/a if not provided
net impact evaluation
N/A
Ratio of verified quantities from M&V visit and
Installation Rate
the ex-ante project application claimed quantity
(reported in percent – may range from 0% 100%+)
Gross Realization Rate - kWh
N/A
Ratio of ex-post kWh savings and the ex-ante
project application claimed kWh savings
(reported in percent – may range from 0% 100%+)
Gross Realization Rate - kW
N/A
Ratio of ex-post peak coincident kW demand
reduction and the ex-ante project application
claimed peak coincident kW demand reduction
(reported in percent – may range from 0% 100%+)
Gross Realization Rate -
N/A
Ratio of ex-post therms savings and the ex-ante
Therms
project application claimed therms savings
(reported in percent – may range from 0% 100%+)
Itron, Inc.
5-5
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
5.2.3 Detailed M&V Findings
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
IOU Proposal: Provide a detailed summary of the IOU project eligibility
criterion from the ex-ante application.
Project Eligibility
ED Assessment: Provide a detailed summary of the ex-post project eligibility
assessment.
IOU Description and Quantity: Provide a detailed description of the IOU
measure specifications and quantities.
Measure Specification
and Quantity
As-Found Description and Quantity: Provide a detailed summary of the onsite M&V visit findings. Include any discrepancies or changes to the IOU
description. Provide a detailed summary of the desk review activities for
Lower Rigor M&V Projects without an on-site verification visit.
IOU-Documented Operation: Provide a detailed description of the IOU
measure operation and schedules.
Measure Operation
As-Found Operation: Provide a detailed summary of the on-site M&V visit
findings. Include any discrepancies or changes to the IOU description of the
measure operation.
Project Gross Savings
Baseline (for early
retirement projects only,
include RUL through
EUL baseline)
IOU Assignment: Provide details of the IOU baseline description.
Project Cost Review
(for early retirement
projects only, include
RUL through EUL cost
basis treatment)
IOU Documented Cost: Provide a detailed summary of the IOU project costs.
ED Assessment: Provide the evaluated project gross savings baseline
assessment details, as reported in the original SSMVP with changes, if any,
due to the on-site M&V visit findings. Reasons for the change and deviations
from the SSMVP are to be reported, where needed.
ED Assessment: Provide a detailed description of the ex-post project cost
assessment activities.
5.2.4 Discrepancy Analysis35
The following table presents impacts on the claimed project savings as a consequence of various
discrepancies found during the M&V effort. These adjustments are shown as positive or negative
35
Show the difference as positive or negative adjustment to claimed savings.
Itron, Inc.
5-6
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
impact and a percentage (and/or low, medium, or high) impact on the IOU-claimed savings.
Where it is possible to calculate the discrepancy, values should be given for each factor.
Discrepancy Factor
kWh Impact
kW Impact
Therms Impact
Tracking Data Discrepancy
with Application Paperwork
Ineligible Measure
Measure Count
Inappropriate Baseline
Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
Calculation Method
Un-quantified Fuel Impacts
Itron, Inc.
5-7
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
5.3 Itron / KEMA and Subcontractor Review
As Final Site Reports are completed, they should be labeled as DRAFT versions and the
electronic file naming convention for this project should be used (See Section 2.17 ). The
subcontractor will be responsible for implementing quality control procedures for each site and
application review. At a minimum, the POC will ensure that each draft report has been
reviewed by a seasoned energy evaluation professional with a minimum of ten years
experience for accuracy, clarity and adherence to the reporting requirements outlined in this
document before the document is forwarded to Itron / KEMA for review. Professional level
writing is expected for this project. All tables, exhibits, etc. will be numbered and referenced
using MSWord auto-numbering and referencing conventions in the text of the report. Reports
are expected to be concise and written at a level that can be comprehended by an energy
efficiency industry professional who may not have an engineering background but who has a
conceptual understanding of the technical aspects of the profession. Itron / KEMA expect to
receive documentation that is clear, concise, and error free and respect confidentiality
requirements as discussed later in this document.
Each report will be tracked from inception through completion and include a table that identifies
the company and the first and last name of the primary evaluator, as well as the peer reviewer.
Following subcontractor in-house quality control review, all reports and associated supporting
calculations, photographs and collected data should be promptly submitted to Itron / KEMA for
review and approval. All spreadsheets used for calculations, with all cells active so that
underlying formulas and calculations can be reviewed and edited, must also be submitted as an
attachment (no embedded documents). The final savings analysis should be summarized on a
single worksheet and table (with formatting matching the FSR) and with cells referenced to any
other analysis contained in other worksheets or workbooks. A listing of all supporting documents
used in the analysis for each project shall be provided.
Frequent review of the work in progress is anticipated to allow appropriate inputs at various
stages of the project. This will enable projects to meet high technical standards while remaining
on schedule.
Review and comment for each submission of draft reports, plans, comments or questions, by
either Itron / KEMA or by any subcontractor, are targeted for response within one week but must
in all cases occur within two (2) weeks for each submission, to allow proper scheduling and
project completion. It is incumbent upon the members of the evaluation team to effectively
communicate deadlines and priorities.
Itron, Inc.
5-8
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
5.4 Project Process and Subtasks
Several steps or subtasks have been outlined in Section 2 and assigned a payment target based on
the level of effort. Each evaluator is responsible to manage these subtasks and the allotted pool
of site applications within the budget as given in subcontractor task orders. The assigned
payment target sets the costs not to exceed for a particular task, and invoicing is submitted on a
time and materials basis. Expenses are to be reimbursed at cost or the maximum values allowed
by the CPUC ED. These figures and mileage rates will be provided as required to each
subcontractor.
The estimated budget for each level is also indicated in Section 2. These estimates are to be used
for guidance only. The total budget for each site in the SSMVP is the amount not to be exceeded
and includes all expenses such as travel and metering costs. However, in any group of sites,
offsets for one site at a certain level can be used to account for overruns for other sites at the
same level.
The engineering portion of the work includes preparation, Site Specific SSMVP development,
site visit(s), monitoring, analysis, and the FSR / M&V Results (Final Site Report).
The subcontractor management function includes preparation, oversight, quality control and
standardization of results, as well as statistical and analytical tasks.
Itron, Inc.
5-9
Impact Analysis and Final Site Report
6
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Custom Measure SSMVP36
Project Information37
IOU
Application ID
Application Date
Program ID
Program Name
Program Year
Itron Project ID
IOU Claim ID(s)
Project Description
Field Engineer
Supervisor/Reviewer
Type of SSMVP
Select one or of multiple of the following choices:
Pre-Installation M&V
Post-Installation M&V (EAR)
Post-Installation M&V (ex-post impact evaluation)
Pre-Installation verification
Post-Installation verification
36
The electronic most current version of this template is designed for use in conducting pre-installation or postinstallation M&V as part of the ex-ante review process or ex-post impact evaluation. Before visiting a site, only
the plan columns should be filled out. Within a week of the site visit, as implemented column should be filled
out and posted on the Upload site.
37
Many entries are from IOU upload data.
Itron, Inc.
6-1
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Site Data
Contact Name
Contact Title
Contact Phone Number
IOU Representative Name
IOU Representative Phone #
Site Visit Consent (required)38
Date of Scheduled Visit
IOU Project Description
Description
IOU Proposed Ex-ante Data or Frozen
Ex-ante Data
Project Baseline Type (Early Replacement,
Normal Replacement, Capacity Expansion, New
Construction)
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost, Incremental Cost)
RUL (required for early retirement projects only,
otherwise n/a)
EUL
First Year kWh Savings
First Year Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
First Year Therms Savings
Annual kWh Savings (RUL Period)
Peak Demand Reduction (kW) (RUL Period)
Annual Therms Impact (RUL Period)
Annual kWh Savings39 (EUL – RUL Period)
38
Consent to visit site is a pre-requisite for SSMVP development. A site-specific SSMVP should not be prepared
unless participant has agreed to allow access to perform M&V.
39
Since the RUL does not apply to NC projects, the totals here would be the first year annual savings for NC
projects. The total savings fields should net out the non-IOU fuel impacts from direct measure savings.
Itron, Inc.
6-2
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Description
IOU Proposed Ex-ante Data or Frozen
Ex-ante Data
Peak Demand Reduction (kW) (EUL – RUL
Period)
Annual Therms Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact (RUL Period)
Annual non-IOU Fuel Impact (EUL – RUL
Period)
M&V Plan Summary
Plan
As Implemented
Measure Type
Operation
Site Data Dependency
M&V Scope
Quantity Verification (Full or
Sample)40
IPMVP Option
Measurement41
Specification Verification
Eligibility Verification
Project Cost Verification
Billing History/PPP Status
Verification42
Fuel Switching Analysis43
RUL Assessment44
40
When using sampling for verification, briefly describe the sampling method.
41
Explain the reasons for the selection above mentioned IPMVP option.
42
The participant should provide a 12-month billing history and must be paying into PPP funds.
43
Verification and collection of data used for the three-prong test.
Itron, Inc.
6-3
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Plan
As Implemented
Code or Industry Standard
Practice Determination45
Sample Stratum
Sample Weight
HVAC Interactive Effects
Non-HVAC Interactive
Effects46
Spillover Assessment
Contextual Data Collection
Savings Calculation Method
Plan
As Implemented
Engineering Calculations47
Energy Use Modeling48
DOE Software (Insulation,
AirMaster+, Fan Systems,
Pumping Systems
ED-Approved Custom Model
8760 Load Shape Development
Method
44
Coordinate with the NTG group.
45
Briefly describe the plan to research standard practice, if needed for this project. Include an existing source for
code or standard practice (SP).
46
This would include direct multiple measure interaction assessment that would impact gross savings.
47
Engineering calculation formulas may be included now or before preparing an abbreviated site-specific report.
48
Specify eQuest, DOE2, EnergyPro or other ED-approved software.
Itron, Inc.
6-4
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Uncertainty Analysis49
Variable
Time Frame
Estimated
Standard
Value
Deviation
Min, Max
Distribution Type
Field Data Collection Plan
Parameter to
Parameter
M&V
M&V
Rated Full
Accuracy
Planned
Planned
Verify/Measure
Range
Equipment
Instrument
Scale
of
Metering
Metering
Brand and
Quantity
Accuracy
Expected
Duration
Interval
Model
Measurement
Operating
Hours50
Fluid
Temperature
Surface
Temperature
Ambient air
temperature
Exhaust Gas
Temperature
Amperage
Power Factor
Voltage
49
Include ex-ante estimate of uncertainty and expected reduction in uncertainty.
50
For lighting, specify panel-level measurement, CT logging and/or light loggers.
Itron, Inc.
6-5
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Parameter to
Parameter
M&V
M&V
Rated Full
Accuracy
Planned
Planned
Verify/Measure
Range
Equipment
Instrument
Scale
of
Metering
Metering
Brand and
Quantity
Accuracy
Expected
Duration
Interval
Model
Measurement
True Power
Air Pressure
Flow51
Humidity
Leakage
Other (Specify)
Note: Unneeded rows should be deleted.
Site M&V Cost Estimate52
51
Specify air, steam, fluid, etc.
52
Show line item hours and cost by billing category for SSMVP preparation, instrument charge, data collection,
data analysis and site-specific reporting.
Itron, Inc.
6-6
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
7
SSMVP Example
Custom Measure SSMVP
Custom Measure M&V Plan
Table 7-1: Project Information
IOU
SCG
Application ID
5000858938
Application Date
10/15/2009
Program ID
SCG 3611
Program Name
Savings By Design
Program Year
Other Project ID (Claim ID)
2010
2010*3611*5000858938*10
Itron Project IDs
G10
Project Description
The customer produces fruit juice concentrates,
essences and oils. The customer installed a new
high efficiency industrial evaporation system (with
seven effects vs. three effects) to increase facility
throughput. A new 1,500 HP high efficiency steam
boiler with oxygen trim controls, blow down heat
recovery, flue gas heat recovery and increased R
value piping insulation was also installed.
Field Engineer/Firm
Keith Rothenberg/Energy Metrics
Supervisor/Reviewer
Al Lutz/Itron
Type of M&V Plan [Pre-Installation M&V,
Post-Installation M&V (EAR), PostInstallation M&V (ex post impact
evaluation), Pre-Installation Verification, or
Post-Installation verification]
Post-Installation M&V
Itron, Inc.
7-1
SSMVP Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 7-2: Site Data
Contact Name
Michael xxxxxx
Contact Title
VP Operations
Contact Phone Number
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IOU Representative Name
Rebecca Aleshire
IOU Representative Phone #
213.244.1200
Site Visit Consent (required)
Yes
Date of Scheduled Visit
January 9, 2012
Table 7-3: IOU Project Description
Description
IOU Proposed Ex Ante Data or Frozen Ex
Ante Data
Project Baseline Type (Early Replacement,
Normal Replacement, Capacity Expansion, New
Construction)
New Construction
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost, Incremental Cost)
Full Cost
RUL (required for early retirement projects only,
otherwise n/a)
NA
EUL
15 years
First Year kWh Savings
0
First Year Peak Demand kW Savings
0
First Year Therms Savings
583,312
Annual kWh Savings (RUL Period)
0
Peak Demand kW Savings (RUL Period)
0
Annual Therms Impact (RUL Period)
NA
Annual kWh Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
0
Peak Demand kW Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
0
Annual Therms Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
583,312
Annual Non-IOU Fuel Impact (RUL Period)
NA
Annual Non-IOU fuel Impact (EUL – RUL
Period)
NA
Itron, Inc.
7-2
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 7-4: M&V Plan Summary (TBD or NA to be used as appropriate; not all
fields require entries)
Plan
As Implemented
Measure Type
Custom
Custom
Operation
6,570 hours annually
5,475 hours annually
Site Data Dependency
Monthly production data from customer,
monthly gas meter data from IOU,
performance data from equipment
manufacturer
Data obtained.
M&V Scope
M&V scope limited to new evaporator
impacts. This measure’s ex ante impact is
estimated to be 467,633 therms/yr (80%) of
the total ex ante impacts (583,312 therms/yr
for six heating system measures).
No change.
Verify installation of the new evaporator and
as many of the other measures as possible
during the site visit.
Collect monthly evaporator throughput
production data for the pre and post project
periods- minimum 1 year each period.
Obtain manufacturer performance data for ex
ante baseline evaporator and actual installed
evaporator.
Quantity Verification
(Full or Sample)
Full
IPMVP Option
Option A- Partially measured retrofit isolation No change.
Measurement
Obtain customer evaporator throughput
production data in gallons per month or tons
per month.
No change.
Specification
Verification
Obtain manufacturer’s selection data for
baseline and new installed evaporator
showing steam consumption versus product
throughput.
No change.
Eligibility Verification
Eligible under Program rules
Eligible under
Program rules
Itron, Inc.
No change.
7-3
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Plan
As Implemented
Project Cost
Verification
Total cost to be verified by invoices included
in application documentation. Incremental
cost determination beyond the scope of this
assignment due to budget limitations..
No change.
Billing History/PPP
Status Verification
Request monthly gas billing data 2007 to
present from IOU
Data obtained.
Fuel Switching
Analysis
NA
No change.
RUL Assessment
NA
No change.
Code or Industry
Standard Practice
Determination
Beyond the scope of this assignment due to
budget limitations. An industry standard
practice assessment is recommended.
Manufacturers will be queried regarding
typical evaporators used in this application.
No change.
HVAC Interactive
Effects
NA
No change.
Non-HVAC Interactive
Effects
NA
No change.
Sample Stratum
Table 7-5: Savings Calculation Method
Plan
As Implemented
Engineering Calculations
Determine average annual throughput of
new evaporator. Determine pounds of
steam per unit of throughput for the
installed evaporator and the baseline
evaporator. Calculate annual pounds of
steam saved. Convert annual pounds of
steam saved into annual boiler input
therms saved.
No change.
Energy Use Modeling
NA
No change.
DOE Software (Insulation, NA
AirMaster+, Fan Systems,
Pumping Systems
No change.
ED-Approved Custom
Model
NA
No change.
8760 Load Shape
Development Method
NA
No change.
Itron, Inc.
7-4
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Table 7-6: Uncertainty Analysis
Variable
Value in reducing Estimated
(important
uncertainty
Value
savings
(high/medium/low)
determinants)
Accuracy
Min, Max
Distribution
Type
Annual
throughput
(lbs)
High
262,800,000
lbs
+/- 15%
223,380,000- Normal
302,220,000
lbs.
Baseline
evaporator
steam
consumption/
product
throughput
(full capacity)
High
10,300 lb/hr +/- 20%
steam/40,000
lbs/hr
product
8,240-12,360 Normal
lb/hr
steam/40,000
lbs/hr
product
Installed
evaporator
steam
consumption/
product
throughput
(full capacity)
High
4,400 lb/hr
+/- 20%
steam/40,000
lbs/hr
product
3,520-5,280
Normal
lb/hr
steam/40,000
lbs/hr
product
Table 7-7:
Parameter to
Verify/Measure
(delete nonapplicable
rows)
Parameter
Range
Operating Hours
0-7,000
annually
Product Flow
0-40,000
lbs/hr.
M&V
Equipment
Brand and
Model
M&V
Instrument
Qty
Rated
Full
Scale
Accuracy
Accuracy of
Expected
Measurement
Planned
Metering
Duration
Planned
Metering
Interval
na
na
na
na
na
na
Customer
SCADA
TBD
TBD
2 years
TBD
Other (Specify)
Note: Operating hours will be determined from customer interviews.
Itron, Inc.
7-5
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Draft
Site M&V Cost Estimate
M&V plan preparation:
Site Visit preparation:
Instrument charge:
Site Work:
Data collection and data analysis:
Site-specific reporting:
Total:
$ 978
$ 340
$ $ 1,920
$ 2,040
$ 1,700
$ 6,978
Ex-Ante Engineering Calculation (additional details)
NA
Itron, Inc.
7-6
SSMVP Template for Impact Evaluation
8
Final Site Report (FSR) Template for Impact
Evaluation
Site-Specific Ex-post M&V Results
Project Information
IOU
Application ID
Application Date
Program ID
Program Name
Program Year
Project ID
Incentive Amount
DEER Building Type
Sample Stratum
Sample Weight
ED Ex-Ante Review Status
ED Measure Name
Project Description
Date of Site Visit
Date of Report
Primary Reviewer and Firm
Review Supervisor and Firm
Type of M&V
Itron, Inc.
Yes/No
Basic or Enhanced
and
Pre/Post or Post only
8-1 Final Report Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Summary of M&V Results
Description
IOU Claim or Frozen Exante Claim Data
Ex-post Results
Project Baseline Type (Early
Replacement, Normal
Replacement, Capacity
Expansion, New
Construction)
Project Cost Basis (Full
Cost, Incremental Cost)
Measure Quantity
RUL (Early retirement
projects only, otherwise n/a)
EUL
First Year kWh Savings
First Year Peak Demand kW
Savings
First Year Therms Savings
Annual kWh Savings (RUL
Period)
Peak Demand kW Savings
(RUL Period)
Annual Therms Impact
(RUL Period)
Annual kWh Savings (EUL
– RUL Period)
Peak Demand kW Savings
(EUL – RUL Period)
Annual Therms Savings
(EUL – RUL Period)
Annual Non-IOU Fuel
Impact (RUL Period)
Itron, Inc.
8-2 Final Report Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Description
IOU Claim or Frozen Exante Claim Data
Ex-post Results
Annual Non-IOU fuel
Impact (EUL – RUL Period)
Net-to-Gross Ratio
Installation Rate
Gross Realization Rate
Detailed M&V Findings
Reviewed Parameter
Project Eligibility
Analysis
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
Measure Specification and
Quantity
IOU Description and Quantity:
Measure Operation
IOU-Documented Operation:
As-Found Description and Quantity:
As-Found Operation:
IOU Assignment:
Project Gross Savings
Baseline (for early retirement
ED Assessment:
projects only, include RUL
through EUL baseline)
Project Cost Review (for
early retirement projects
only, include RUL through
EUL cost basis treatment)
Itron, Inc.
IOU Documented Cost:
ED Assessment:
8-3 Final Report Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
RUL (required for
early retirement
projects only,
otherwise n/a)
IOU Assignment:
EUL
IOU Assignment:
ED Assessment:
ED Assessment:
Savings Assumptions
IOU Assumptions:
ED Assessment:
Calculation Method
IOU Method:
ED Method:
Pre- and/or PostInstallation M&V53
IOU M&V:
ED M&V Results:
Net-to-Gross Review
IOU Assignment:
ED Assessment:
Reference ED-developed documents such as standard practice research.
Discrepancy Analysis54
The following table presents adjustments made to the claimed project savings on account of
various discrepancies found during the M&V effort. These adjustments are shown as positive or
negative impact on the IOU-claimed savings.
53
Reference SSMVP as appropriate.
54
Show the difference as positive or negative adjustment to claimed savings.
Itron, Inc.
8-4 Final Report Template for Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Discrepancy Factor
kWh Impact
KW Impact
Therms Impact
Tracking Data Discrepancy
Ineligible Measure
Measure Count
Inappropriate Baseline
Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
Calculation Method
Un-quantified Fuel Impacts
Itron, Inc.
8-5 Final Report Template for Impact Evaluation
9
Sample Final Site Report Example for Impact
Evaluation
FSR (Site-Specific Ex-post M&V Results)
Project Information
IOU
SCG
Application ID
5000858938
Application Date
10/15/2009
Program ID
SCG 3611
Program Name
Savings By Design
Program Year
2010
Project ID
2010*3611*5000858938*10
Incentive Amount
$375,000 for the measure evaluated, $500,000 total
DEER Building Type
TBD
Sample Stratum
TBD
Sample Weight
TBD
ED Ex Ante Review Status
No
ED Measure Name
TBD
Project Description
The customer produces fruit juice concentrates, essences
and oils. The customer installed a new high efficiency
industrial evaporation system to increase facility
throughput. A new 1,500 HP high efficiency steam boiler
with oxygen trim controls, blow down heat recovery, flue
gas heat recovery and increased R value piping insulation
was also installed.
Date of Site Visit
1/9/2012
Itron, Inc.
9-1
Sample Final Site Report Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Date of Report
1/13/2012
Primary Reviewer and Firm
Keith Rothenberg/Energy Metrics
Review Supervisor and Firm
Type of M&V
Post-Only
Summary of M&V Results
Description
Frozen Ex Ante
Claim Data
Ex Post Results
Project Baseline Type (Early
Replacement, Normal
Replacement, Capacity
Expansion, New Construction)
New Construction
New Construction
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost,
Incremental Cost)
Incremental Cost
Incremental Cost
Measure Quantity
1
1 for the measure evaluated. Site
visit verification revealed that
boiler blow down heat recovery
was not installed.
RUL (Early retirement projects
only, otherwise n/a)
NA
NA
EUL
20
20
First Year kWh Savings
0
0
First Year KW Savings
0
0
First Year Therms Savings
467,633 therms are
associated with the
measure evaluated
99,162 therms are associated with
the measure evaluated
Total kWh Savings (RUL
Period)
Total KW Savings (RUL Period)
Therms Impact (RUL Period)
Total kWh Savings (EUL – RUL
Itron, Inc.
9-2
Sample Final Site Report Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Description
Frozen Ex Ante
Claim Data
Ex Post Results
Installation Rate
NA
1 for the measure evaluated. Site
visit verification revealed that
boiler blow down heat recovery
was not installed.
Gross Realization Rate
N/A
0.212 (therms)
Period)
Total KW Savings (EUL – RUL
Period)
Total Therms Savings (EUL –
RUL Period)
Total non-IOU Fuel Impact
(RUL Period)
Total non-IOU fuel Impact (EUL
– RUL Period)
Net-to-Gross Ratio
Detailed M&V Findings
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
Project Eligibility
IOU Proposal:
Eligible
ED Assessment
Eligible
Measure
Specification and
Quantity
IOU Description and Quantity
A new 7 effects evaporator was installed with a design feed rate of
40,000 lbs./hr.
As-Found Description and Quantity
Same
Measure Operation
Itron, Inc.
IOU-Documented Operation
9-3
Sample Final Site Report Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
Average feed rate 36,000 lbs./hr., 6,570 hours annually.
As-Found Operation
Average feed rate 33,930 lbs./hr., 5,475 hours annually.
Project Gross
Savings Baseline (for
early retirement
projects only, include
RUL through EUL
baseline)
IOU Assignment:
Project Cost Review
(for early retirement
projects only, include
RUL through EUL
cost basis treatment)
IOU Documented Cost:
$750,000 estimated incremental cost. Documentation for incremental
cost for this measure is not included. Installed measure cost
documentation is included.
3 effects evaporator with a design feed rate of 40,000 lbs./hr.
ED Assessment:
5 effects evaporator with a design feed rate of 40,000 lbs./hr. ED
determined that 5 effects is the current minimum used in the industry.
ED Assessment:
Unable to verify incremental cost for the measure evaluated.
Itron, Inc.
9-4
Sample Final Site Report Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
RUL (required for
early retirement
projects only,
otherwise n/a)
IOU Assignment:
NA
ED Assessment:
NA
EUL
IOU Assignment:
20 years
ED Assessment:
20 Years
Savings Assumptions
IOU Assumptions:
Average feed rate 36,000 lbs./hr., 6,570 hours annually, 7 effects
evaporator compared to 3 effects evaporator baseline.
ED Assessment:
Feed rate and annual hours assumptions were reasonable for ex ante
estimates, however the 3 effects evaporator baseline was not
appropriate.
Calculation Method
IOU Method:
Spreadsheet analysis
ED Method:
Spreadsheet analysis
Pre- and/or PostInstallation M&V
IOU M&V:
None
ED M&V Results:
Average feed rate and annual hours of operation were provided by the
customer.
Net-to-Gross Review
IOU Assignment:
ED Assessment:
Itron, Inc.
9-5
Sample Final Site Report Example
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Discrepancy Analysis
The following table presents adjustments made to the claimed project savings on account of
various discrepancies found during the M&V effort. These adjustments are shown as positive or
negative impact on the IOU-claimed savings.
Discrepancy Factor
kWh Impact
KW Impact
Therms Impact
Tracking Data Discrepancy
Ineligible Measure
Measure Count
Inappropriate Baseline
-341,372 (-73%)
Equipment Specifications
Operating Conditions
-27,099 (-6%)
Calculation Method
Unquantified Fuel Impacts
Itron, Inc.
9-6
Sample Final Site Report Example
10
Ex-ante Review Plan Development Guidelines
This WO033 may be supported by ex ante freezing activities in WO002 and by pre-retrofit
metering in that work order for sites sampled in this custom impact evaluation. The guidelines
for plan development are similar to those in this effort and that document should be reviewed by
evaluators for this evaluation.
Ex Ante Review and Lower Rigor Findings for Program Assessment
Project Information
IOU
Application ID
Application Date
Program ID
Program Name
Program Year
Project ID
IOU Ex Ante Savings Date
ED Measure Name
Project Description
Date of ED Review
Primary Reviewer and Firm
First & Last Name/Itron
Review Supervisor and Firm
First & Last Name/Subcontractor Firm
Type of Review (Desk, Onsite, Full M&V, Tool)
ED Recommendation
Itron, Inc.
(For EARs, sample verbiage: No Approval – Additional
Information Requested. For prospective reviews: “Pending
Delivery of Additional Information Requested.”
10-1
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Measure Description
Insert measure description here; a concise paragraph or two at the most will suffice.
Summary of Review
Describe the documents reviewed in first paragraph. Describe your understanding or lack of
understanding of the project based on all of the documents provided in paragraph 2. Describe
any discrepancies, missing information, problems or issues observed with project or analysis in
the third, fourth, etc. paragraph. The last paragraph can include the final application savings
submitted, such as therm, kWh, and peak demand savings were X therms, Y kWh and Z kW,
respectively, with an incentive level set at $XXX,000. Include any inconsistencies in the values
highlighted in the documents provided.
Review Conclusion
For EARs can say “not approved”, or “pending submission of additional data request and
analysis”. Can provide specific program eligibility issues or baseline issues here. In this section
you can also describe a recommended ISP baseline study or ex ante NTG interview. Any
pertinent conclusions of findings can be listed here, in one concise paragraph.
For prospective reviews, remove any approval language, since this project was implemented.
Description
IOU Proposed Ex Ante
Data
Project Baseline Type (Early
Replacement, Normal Replacement,
Capacity Expansion, System
Optimization)
Concise descriptions in these
boxes.
ED’s Recommendations
Project Cost Basis (Full Cost, Incremental
Cost)
RUL (Early retirement projects only,
otherwise N/A (not applicable)
EUL
First Year kWh Savings
First Year Peak kW Savings
First Year Therms Savings
Total kWh Savings (RUL Period)
Peak kW Savings (RUL Period)
Total Therms Impact (RUL Period)
Total kWh Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
Itron, Inc.
10-2
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Description
IOU Proposed Ex Ante
Data
ED’s Recommendations
Common verbiage: Not
available (spell out “Not
available”, N/A means not
applicable)
Common verbiage:
Assessment not completed
Peak kW Savings (EUL – RUL Period)
Total Therms Savings (EUL – RUL
Period)
Total non-IOU Fuel Impact (RUL Period)
Total non-IOU fuel Impact (EUL – RUL
Period)
Net-to-Gross Ratio
Itron, Inc.
10-3
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Detailed Review Findings
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
Project Gross Savings
Baseline (for early
retirement projects only,
include RUL through
EUL baseline)
IOU Proposal: Provide more detailed descriptions, qualifiers, and
explanations than previous table.
ED Assessment:
ED Recommendation:
Project Cost Basis (for
early retirement projects
only, include RUL
through EUL cost basis
treatment)
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED recommendation:
RUL (required for early
retirement projects only,
otherwise n/a)
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED recommendation:
EUL
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED Recommendation:
Savings Assumptions
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
Itron, Inc.
10-4
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Reviewed Parameter
Analysis
ED Recommendation:
Calculation
Methods/Tool review
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED Recommendation:
Pre- or PostInstallation M&V Plan
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED Recommendation:
Net-to-Gross Review
IOU Proposal:
ED Assessment:
ED Recommendation:
Itron, Inc.
10-5
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Table 10-1: Summary of Lower Rigor Review
Program Assessment
Factor
Required by
Program (yes/no)
Provided for
Project (0 - no, 1 –
partial, 2 -full)
Should be Required /
Provided in Future
Ex ante conditions vary
from as found
Ineligible measure
(maintenance, short life,
etc.)
Code or Industry Standard
Practice
Inappropriate Baseline
Program Rule Violation
RUL considered
Appropriate Calculation
Method
Reasonable Savings Claim
Reasonable Input Values
Interactive Effects
Correctly treated
Properly Quantified
Interactive Impacts
Fuel Switching Allowed
Fuel Switching Supported
with 3 prong Test
Customer Pays Fully into
PPP Charges
Itron, Inc.
10-6
Ex-ante Review Development Guidelines
11
Appendix 1: Site Data Collection Form
This form is used to collect site and contextual data and is for guidance and internal use by each
evaluator. Reporting instruction for this data will be provided in future instructions and trainings.
CPUC 2010-2012 WO033 Custom Impact
Site Data Collection Form
Site Data Collection and Interview Information
Itron Project ID/Customer Name:
Measure(s) Evaluated:
Primary Services or Products:
Seasonal variations in the level of occupancy or use:
Does evaluated measure(s) operate when facility is closed?
Are there any regularly scheduled plant shut downs when the measure does not operate
(hrs/days)?
1) Early retirement requires calculation of energy savings using the existing equipment as the
baseline for energy use (verses the current standards), but only for the remaining useful life
of the equipment. This can apply to all measures, particularly lighting and equipment
replacement. If the measure is an early retirement measure:
a) At the time the equipment was replaced, how many years were left in its useful life
(without major repairs which may have led to replacement)? ____________
b) How old was the equipment that was removed and replaced? _______________
c) Was the existing equipment fully functional, fully functioning but with significant
problems, or non-functional? __________________________________________
d) How often was major non-scheduled maintenance required and of what type?
_____________________________________________________________
Itron, Inc.
11-1
Site Data Collection Form
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
e) How often had the equipment failed recently, and over what time period?
_________________________________________________________________
f) How satisfactory was the performance of the old equipment? ________________
g) How long would the old equipment have met the technical and performance needs of the
facility? _____________________________________________________
2) Does the customer have any reason to believe that there will be any changes in the operation
of the primary measure?
a) Changes in hours ___________________________________________________
b) Changes in load ____________________________________________________
c) Impact on annual kWh savings ________________________________________
d) Impact on peak Demand reduction (kW)
_______________________________________________
3) Any perceived non-energy benefits, e.g., increased production, increased comfort, new
equipment, environmental branding, etc.? _______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
4) Were there any drawbacks to the energy efficiency measure? ___________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
5) Was there a production increase when the new measure was installed? _________ If answer
YES, then:
a) Was the production increase enabled by the new equipment? ________________
_________________________________________________________________
b) Would you have increased your production if you had not installed the new equipment?
________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
6) Record all measure specific contextual data. (see below)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Itron, Inc.
11-2
Baseline Guidance
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Measure Specific Contextual Data
Heating System

Winter occupied setpoint (F)

Monitored heating system type (furnace, air/water/ground source heat pump, boiler)

Monitored heating system year of installation
All Non-Residential Comfort Cooling Measures

Summer occupied setpoint (F)

Total non-backup capacity in tons associated with measure

Monitored system type—type of coils in supply air fan (refrigerant, chilled water)

Monitored system supply air flow control strategy (constant, variable volume, or cycling)

Monitored system outside air strategy (none, fixed %, fixed cfm, economizer)

Monitored compressor type (reciprocating, screw, centrifugal, scroll, other)

Monitored packaged unit or chiller make and model number
Water-Side Measure on Chilled Water-Based Cooling System

Chilled water temperature control strategy (constant, reset based on OAT, reset based on
load, other)

Condenser water temperature control strategy (constant, Outdo reset, OAT wb reset, load
reset, other)
Supply Air Fans

Predominant summer supply air temperature setpoint for areas affected by measure (F)

Supply air temperature control scheme for system affected by measure (constant, reset,
manually adjusted, other)

Supply air pressure reset control scheme for system affected by measure (constant, reset,
manually adjusted, other)

Monitored fan type (forward curved, back inclined, airfoil, vane axial, other)

Monitored fan flow control (constant volume, cycle, VSD, inlet vane, outlet damper,
variable pitch, other)

Monitored motor nameplate hp, volts, amps, efficiency, and power factor
Pumps (Chilled Water and Condenser Water)

Monitored pump flow control (constant volume, cycle, VSD, throttle, other)

Monitored motor nameplate hp, volts, amps, efficiency, and power factor
Cooling Towers

Condenser water temperature control strategy (constant, OAT db reset, OAT wb reset,
load reset, manual reset, other)

Fan control strategy (single speed, two-speed, variable speed, multiple motors,
combination)
Process Refrigeration - Heat Rejection Side Measures

Condenser approach temperature (F)

Minimum head pressure setpoint (psi)
Process Refrigeration - Evaporator Side Measures

Defrost type (hot gas, resistance, timer, etc.)

Load type (refrigerated storage, frozen storage, chilling product, freezing product)
Agricultural Pumping

Acres under irrigation
Itron, Inc.
11-3
Baseline Guidance
12
Appendix 2: Flowchart for Creation of SSMVP and
FSRs
Step 1
Itron ManagementReview Application/Project
File
Step 10
Step 19
CPUC TaskReview Draft SSMVP
Itron ManagementReview Revised Final Report
Step 11
Step 20
Step 2
Itron ManagementReview CPUC Comments
CPUC TaskReview Draft Final Report
Itron ManagementApplication Assignment
Summary (type of eval)
Step 12
Step 21
Evaluator TaskRevise SSMVP if necessary
Itron ManagementReview CPUC Comments
Step 3
Evaluator TaskReview Application/Project
File
Step 13
Step 22
Itron ManagementApprove SSMVP
Evaluator TaskRevise Final Report
Step 4
Itron ManagementDirect M&V Plan
Step 14
Step 23
Evaluator TaskSite Work
Itron ManagementReview and Approve Final
Report
Step 5
Evaluator TaskPrepare Draft SSMVP
Step 15
Evaluator TaskCompile Draft of Final Report
Step 6
Evaluator TaskDraft SSMVP Internal Quality
Control and Review
Step 16
Evaluator TaskDraft FSR QC & Review
Step 7
Itron ManagementReview Draft SSMVP
Step 17
Itron ManagementReview Draft of Final Report
Step 8
Evaluator TaskRevise SSMVP
Step 18
Evaluator TaskRevise Draft of Final Report
Step 9
Itron ManagementReview Final SSMVP
Itron, Inc.
12-1
Baseline Guidance
13
Baseline Guidance
Energy Division Methodology for Determination of Baseline for Gross Savings
Estimate (Current Version)
Itron, Inc.
13-1
Baseline Guidance
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
Review of Baseline for Gross Savings Estimates
The estimation of ex ante saving values requires the selection of a baseline performance for
every project. The baseline selection and specific baseline parameters are of primary importance
to establishing the ex ante savings estimates. The baseline parameters are selected by
establishing the project category from the possible alternatives including New Construction or
Major Renovations, program induced Early Retirement, Standard Retrofit or Normal/Natural
Replacement/Turnover, and Replace on Burnout. These alternative categories result in the
utilization of alternative baseline parameters set by Code or Standard requirements, industry
standard practice, CPUC policy, or other considerations. In the review of IOU projects, Energy
Division will follow the guidelines as presented here in establishing the baseline for all gross
savings estimates.
Pre-existing equipment55 baselines are only used in cases where the preponderance of
evidence indicates the program has induced the replacement rather than merely caused an
increase in efficiency in a replacement that would have occurred in the absence of the
program. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth
or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.
Pre-existing equipment baselines are only used for the portion of the remaining useful life
(RUL) of the pre-existing equipment that was eliminated due to the program. These early or
accelerated retirement cases may require the use of a “dual baseline” analysis that utilizes the
pre-existing equipment baseline during an initial RUL period and a code requirement/industry
standard practice baseline for the balance of the EUL of the new equipment.
 A pre-existing equipment baseline is used as the gross baseline only when there is
compelling evidence that the pre-existing equipment has a remaining useful life and that
the program activity induced or accelerated the equipment replacement. This baseline
can only apply for the RUL of the pre-existing equipment.
 A code requirement or industry standard practice baseline is used for replace on burnout,
natural turnover and new construction (including major rehabilitation projects)
situations. This baseline applies for the entire EUL as well as the RUL+1 through EUL
period of program induced early retirement of pre-existing equipment cases (the second
period of the dual baseline case).
55
Here the term equipment is intended to cover all technology cases including envelope components, HVAC
components and process equipment and may also include configuration and controls options.
Itron, Inc.
13-2
Baseline Guidance
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
CPUC policy rules and IOU program eligibility rules govern the baseline
A careful review of utility and third-party program and CPUC policy rules must be undertaken
and adjustments applied to gross savings in some cases. Adjustments are indicated for gross
savings when there was clear evidence from program or policy rules that savings claims could
not be made nor rebates paid for the baseline in question. Program rules come into play with
respect to gross baseline requirements, for example, when those rules specify:
 a minimum required efficiency level;
 a minimum percentage improvement above applicable minimum code requirement;
 a minimum RUL of the existing equipment;
 the type or range of retrofits that are allowed be included in a program.
CPUC policy may apply to establishing gross baseline when Policy Manual Rules, a CPUC
Decision or a decision maker Ruling includes special requirements or consideration for the
situation or technologies of a measure. For example, projects or sites that involve fuel switching,
co-generation or renewable technologies are usually subject to special baseline considerations (or
other considerations) that must be considered in the savings estimates.
Minimum production level or service requirements govern the baseline
In some situations, a measure for which savings might be claimed could be determined to be the
only acceptable equipment for an application. In such cases, the baseline must be set at the
minimum needed to meet the requirements, which may be the same as the equipment planned for
installation. An example would be an industrial process where only a variable-speed drive
pumping system could meet the production requirements. For situations where the baseline
conditions or requirements were changed (such as production level changes), the baseline
equipment is defined as the minimum equipment needed to meet the revised conditions. If the
pre-existing equipment is not capable of reliably meeting the new requirement (such as
production change) for its remaining life, then a new equipment baseline must be established
utilizing either minimum code requirement or industry standard practice equipment, whichever is
applicable.
Industry standard practice baselines are established to reflect typical actions absent the
program
Industry standard practice baselines establish typically adopted industry-specific efficiency
levels that would be expected to be utilized absent the program. Standard practice determination
must be supported by recent studies or market research that reflects current market activity.
Typically market studies should be less than five years old; however this guideline is dependent
on the rate of change in the market of interest relative to the equipment in question. For example,
Itron, Inc.
13-3
Baseline Guidance
Evaluation of the 2010-2012 Custom Impact Evaluation Procedures Documents – Jan 2012
the lighting markets may change significantly in the next two years while larger process
equipment markets might change more slowly. Regulatory changes might cause very rapid
market practice shifts and must also be considered. For example, changes in federal standards
relating to linear fluorescent ballasts will result in rapid market shifts of equipment use.
Itron, Inc.
13-4
Baseline Guidance