Process for the Acceptance of Energy Savings Protocols

Background

The RTF's deemed savings estimates are based on well-documented evidence, namely generally accepted engineering calculations adjusted to the findings of independently reviewed evaluation report and metering results. For those measures which can not be reliably predicted through deeming the C&RD requires evaluation/verification protocols. The process for estimating savings based on these protocols should have comparable assurance of reliable energy savings to those estimated as deemed savings.

The protocols described in Appendix P are guidelines/general approaches and were not intended to provide detailed instructions on how to conduct the credible analysis required to establish verified energy savings. They do not deal with critical issues, such as, sampling, outlier methodology, or definition of measurement periods which are key factors in estimating energy savings. A process is needed to put in place a detailed protocol that tailors the general approach in Appendix P to specific projects.

Issues

The process for submitting, reviewing, and confirming specific measurement and verification plans involves the following issues:

• Is there a review process for the verification plan or for the verification report?

• Who conducts the review process ? the RTF (by members, staff or contractors) or by Bonneville?

• Does the review process include discussions with sponsors and include suggestions by the reviewers for revisions to the verification plan?

• Is the review process only concerned as to whether the verification plan is consistent with the principal and general protocols in Appendix P?

• Is it necessary that the verification report and results be reviewed and accepted?

• How would revisions to an approved verification plan be made?

• If the review process is extensive, should the sponsoring utility or Bonneville pay for that cost and how should the sponsor recover that cost?

Alternative Approaches for Accepting Energy Savings Protocols

1. Alternative 1: The sponsoring utility would select a general protocol from Appendix P. There would be no review of the specific verification plan for the project but the utility would keep them as part of the program record.

Discussion: This approach minimizes verification requirements and maximizes sponsor flexibility. The RTF was asked to provide a methodology for estimating energy savings for those measures that can not be deemed. This approach would delegate much of this responsibility for saving estimation to the sponsors.

2. Alternative 2: Bonneville would assign engineering staff to review the project protocol. They would determine if the preliminary engineering estimate of savings was reasonable, if the verification plan is adequate. Subsequently staff would review the verification report and accept the final results.

Discussion: This approach follows the general format of Bonneville's Energy Savings Plan program. This review would make the verification plan and results credible but Bonneville has requested the RTF's evaluation responsibilities support the C&RD and take the technical lead in estimating energy savings.

Making appropriate Bonneville staff available to meet this need may be difficult.

3. Alternative 3: This approach would involve verification review and acceptance by an RTF contractor. The sponsoring utility would submit the engineering proposal including an engineering estimate of savings. The sponsor would select one of the RTF's verification methods (Appendix P) or propose one of their own. The verification protocol would be tailored to the specific project. The protocol if necessary would contain a metering plan and sampling method including measure of precision and reliability. The RTF verification contractor would check if the engineering estimate of savings is reasonable and if this specific protocol was consistent with the principle and methods described in Appendix P. The contractor would suggest modifications if something was missing or inappropriate and approve the verification plan. The contractor would review the final report to determine if this methodology should be recommended to others for doing similar projects and to collect information for developing additions to the RTF's list of deemed measures. The contractor's responsibility would not be to approve the report or check for compliance with the verification plan.

Discussion: In this approach the determination of the savings methodology would be the responsibility of the RTF and the implementation of the verification plan would be the responsibility of the sponsoring utility. This approach would be similar to the deemed savings methodology in which the RTF determines energy savings estimation but adherence to measure specifications is the responsibility of the utility. This approach would require the RTF to administer and provide guidance to a task order pool of verification contractors.

^ top