340 Energy Project Financing: Resources and Strategies for Success
- experience and professional qualifications of the people conduct-
ing the savings determination
Often these costs can be shared with other objectives such as real
time control, operational feedback, or tenant sub-billing.
It is difficult to generalize about costs for the different IPMVP Op-
tions since each project will have its own unique set of constraints. How-
ever it should be an objective of M&V Planning to design the process
to incur no more cost than needed to provide adequate certainty and
verifiability in the reported savings, consistent with the overall budget
for the ECMs. Typically however it would not be expected that average
annual savings determination costs exceed more than about 10% of the
average annual savings being assessed.
Table 2 highlights key cost governing factors unique to each Op-
tion, or not listed above.
Table 2: Unique Elements of M&V Costs
————————————————————————————————
Option A Number of measurement points
Complexity of stipulation
Frequency of post-retrofit inspection
Option B Number of measurement points
Option C Number of meters
Number of independent variables needed to account for most of
the variability in energy data.
Option D Number and complexity of systems simulated.
Number of field measurements needed to provide input data.
Skill of professional simulator in achieving calibration
————————————————————————————————
Commonly, since Option A involves stipulation, it will involve
fewer measurement points and lower cost, providing stipulation and
inspection costs do not dominate.
Since new measurement equipment is often involved in Options A
or B, the cost of maintaining this equipment may make Option C a less
costly endeavor for long monitoring periods. However, as mentioned