Technical Forum Call: 3/25/14

Achai Broner (Noesis); Brian McCarter;

Technical Forum Call: 2/25/14

John Jones; Maggie Selig; Ian Shapiro; Chris Diamond, Darrien Crimmin

  1. Technical Forum section of the ICP website - portal for communication
  2. Specific details regarding the actual energy audit and process are not covered in the protocol.  But should we provide more direction regarding building asset data to be collected (Section 2.1 - mention physical attributes, etc.), and more detailed scopes of work for ECMs (is this addressed adequately in Section 4.3?)? Mention equipment inventory in particular; better defined scopes of work for the ECMs. ACTION: added “physical attributes and equipment inventories” specifically to Section 2.1. Added additional text to Section 4.2 requiring detailed descriptions of ECMs.
  3. Model calibration - to avoid overestimating savings, require that calibration be performed to 0 to -10% or -15%. Eliminate +15% piece. CV(RSME) – just 15%, not plus or minus, on a monthly basis. FEMP says +/-5% on annual basis. If we say only -15%, that’s fine.  But don’t allow this to give a “false sense of security.” Still need to check reasonableness of savings calculations. QA mention should be put into the baseline section too. ACTION: suggested 10-15%. with CV[RSME] 15%.
  4. Life cycle metrics - make this a requirement instead of optional? Eliminate simple payback as an acceptable metric? Keep simple payback as an option. SIR as a requirement. ACTION: eliminated recommended SIR>1.
  5. Large / standard / targeted project sizes - can number of units be used as a metric for project size? (Eg., ~$3k in potential ECMs per unit, so 150+ units = large, 50-150 units = standard…). Other resources suggest large = 500+ units.  Or is this based on project cost like commercial (large = ? $1M) I don’t think this matters.  I think we keep the definition as we have it in the commercial.
  6. How do we deal with parking in the square footage - do we need to address parking in the protocol? Attached parking garages are included in the square footage.
  7. Baseline development
  1. We mention noting major renovations; should we include language that specifically excludes these utility data from the baseline development? Yes, include this language, and use the data since the renovation was completed.
  2. Is there a “standard” sampling approach we can suggest for tenant billing? NYSERDA MPP v5 and NYC LL84 requires that 10% of tenant billing (for each “apartment line”) be included to estimate energy usage for the building’s “tenant” portion; is there a HUD resource?
  3. Use of “default” values for tenant energy usage? NYC LL84 allows use of default values (provides these) for NY properties. Can this approach be used?  Are there other sources of these data for other regions?  
  4. Vacancy rates or other related adjustments are primarily a concern when they are anticipated to be different between the pre and post construction periods - should handling these be specifically mentioned in baseline development and M&V activities (can affect tenant energy usage and central heating plant energy usage) This is really an independent variable. Needs to be properly defined in the baseline, and adjusted for in the M&V during your regression analysis. ACTION: added note in M&V section regarding vacancy as an independent variable,
  1.  Savings calculations and implementation cost estimates - discuss uncertainty in more detail? Never done on actual EE projects. Maybe more discussion of it in the M&V section? ACTION: added a line in section 7.2 mentioning that uncertainty does not need to be quantified, but activities should be employed to minimize uncertainty and risk.
  2.     9.    SIR - should we define this specifically in the protocol? We recommend an SIR>1 Maybe a definitions section, or a separate document with definitions to start with? Check that all of the acronyms are spelled out the first time, and maybe include links to definitions of these as links in the protocol. ACTION: developing a definitions sheet in the website.

We should keep in mind that there are other items included in a project, or specific items that don’t pay back very well (like a boiler replacement.  Windows too). So SIR>1 should not be a requirement. ACTION: removed suggestion of SIR>1

   10.  Affordable housing - good part of the utility costs are picked up by the government, so you have a third player. There are many different types of lenders, and they compete regarding whose mortgage takes priority.  Finance side is complicated.  The MF protocol should apply, if a project development team can work out the financial side of an affordable housing scenario. So no need for a different affordable housing protocol? No need for a separate protocol for affordable housing.

   11.    Sections 5, 6 and 7: are these too long?  Are they specific enough?

Should we include an energy audit section in future iterations of the protocol?  We should consider this.  At the very least, refer to the NYSERDA modeling guidelines or an equal guideline.


  1. Master metered baseload electricity: Partner will have the option of scaling the “Number of Units” input to match the actual number of occupied units (i.e., 100 apts. x 90% vacancy = 90 apts.) or scaling the energy consumption to reflect the number of occupied units. When scaling energy consumption, it is important to scale only the level of consumption that is estimated to be used by the apartments, net of common area use.
  2. Master metered heating energy (any fuel): Vacant units are often heated to safeguard from frozen pipes or because apartment-level zoning is not possible. If all units are heated, vacant or not, there is no need for adjustments. However, if heating to the units is zoned by apartment and heat is turned off or to a low “vacant” level, Partner may need to scale the energy consumption to reflect the number of occupied units. As with electricity, it is important to scale only the level of consumption that is estimated to be used by the apartments, net of common area use.
  3. Direct metered: Since energy consumption for direct metered projects will typically be based on a 10% sample per the Utility Data tabs, vacant units should not affect the estimate. However, if vacancy rates vary between the pre and post construction periods, consumption can be scaled by scaling the “Number of Units” to match the number of occupied apartments

NYC Local Law 84 Rule Language

NYSERDA - MF Performance Program, Existing Buildings Component - Simulation Guidelines

Sept 2010

Call: 2/17/14 Ian Shapiro

Call: 2/13/14 Darien Crimmen

Call: 2/10/14 Gus Escher - NJ PACE

Ian Shapiro

2.      It feels like the document is benchmarking-heavy, and M&V-heavy, but is too light on the requirements for the energy audit.  In fact, the energy audit is somewhat loosely captured as the benchmarking stuff and the energy savings section.  But there’s a LOT more to an effective energy audit than these two components.  I have outlined some of the critical missing things, in my view.  A building description that is detailed is absolutely essential, it forms the basis for QC of the energy audit, and to make sure that important measures were not missed.  And separately, very strong written “workscopes” for each measure is absolutely essential.  Otherwise, the scope of work gets lost and what gets installed is usually wrong.

TP: The protocol does not address the energy audit process specifically.  Just elements that are directly related to the project from an investment perspective.  The BPI-1105-S-201x Standard Practice for MF Energy Auditing will address the actual audit process, and will provide a good companion / resource to the protocol.

We do discuss components critical to development of the building description and the ECM workscopes.  Should we add more to these two components - building description and ECM descriptions?

3.        A very important but subtle thing is the goal of the accuracy of the calibration.  At our company, we say that the modeled usage must be within +0% and -10% of the actual.  We never want the model to use more energy than the actual, because that risks over predicting savings.  If you want to loosen it up to between +0% and -15%, that’s fine, but stay on the conservative side.  And if you disagree and you really want +/- 10-15%, then I would clarify that too.

TP: this should probably be incorporated.  Would apply to LC as well.

4.       I would insist on life-cycle metrics, a firm requirement, not suggest loosely suggesting it as optional.  It’s quite standard by any programs that are serious about energy work.  Simple payback is almost universally frowned upon.

TP: Need consensus on this item.

5.       5, 6, and 7 feel like they go on interminably and repeat themselves a good bit.  I would try to tighten these sections up considerably.  We’re mainly trying to make sure that what was installed was installed correctly, and then measure the savings.  You’re going to lose people with vague rambling requirements like this.  Short and strong and leakproof is much better.

TP: Should we shorten these sections?  What does he mean?

2/7/14 Anthony Buonicore

2/5/14 Call with J Moore McDonough

1/31/14 Call with DOE

Joshua Olsen, Jennifer Somers, DOE

Standard Work Specifications for MF Home Energy Upgrades - NREL / WAP / DOE

1/28/14 Working Group

1/22/14 Call with David Hatchimonji, Boulder County Commissioner’s Office

1/15/14 and 1/17/14

Call: Discussion with John Jones,, BPI

BPI-1105-S-201x Standard Practice for MF Energy Auditing

BPI - MF EE Building Operator


From PERL (HDC’s and NYCEEC’s - Program for Energy Retrofit Loans)

BPI Technical Standard for Multifamily Building Analyst (Building Performance Institute)

Fannie Mae - Green Physical Needs Assessment (PNA)

Energy Transparency in the Multifamily Housing Sector (IMP - Institute for Market Transformation)


Call: 12/2/13



Here’s the link for the HDC Technical Guidelines Manual:

Call: 7/15/13

Attendees: Matt, Tracy, Jeff, Audrey, Ron Herbst

Previous Call


Quick update on LC / Allies / Webinars

Intro to what we are trying to do with Multi-Family.

Quick introduction of who are on the call:

On The Call:

  1. Elizabeth Stein - EDF
  2. Matt Golden - EDF
  3. Brian McCarter, SRS
  4. Mary Barber - EDF
  5. Nalin, FirstFuel
  6. Conor Laver, Bright Power
  7. Jeff Staller, HMG
  8. Andy Brooks, AEA
  9. Jerome Gagliano, PSD consulting
  10. Bill Miller, DOE

Conceptual: what do what expect are the key difference between LC / Multi:

Multifamily General thoughts:

Suggestions of existing standards we need to be aware of:

Proposal for moving forward

Parking Lot

Darien Crimmin: “I suggest we consider an "affordable" category, since affordable housing utility structures and utility allowances are governed by HUD and state finance agencies. It would be useful to tailor one deliverable of the ICP to affordable housing, and specifically engage key players (HUD, local housing authorities, state agencies, FHA, Fannie Mae, etc).

Additionally, HUD and DOE have recently rolled out the Better Buildings Challenge for multifamily buildings. It requires whole building benchmarking and could be a good resource”