You are not logged in.
#1 2003-05-06 17:32:46
- Yusef
- Guest
Consultants are full of it!
I think that the reason so many consultants are pushing option B or option D is that they want to do the work. Option c, I think that is Metrix, can be done by any fool with just a little educated guidance, and that means the energy consultants are not really needed. So of course they will try to stear the industry towards the options that will make lots of work for them.
#2 2003-10-08 09:56:31
- Phillip
- Guest
Re: Consultants are full of it!
Consultants aren't full of it. Consider that the IPMVP says you can't see savings for the noise if the savings are less than 20% of the total energy consumption when looking at monthly utility bills.
Plus, facilities change over time, and that makes Option C difficult at best. I'm currently involved in a dispute between a contractor and a major California utility over the results of an Option C M&V method. The contractor did an HVAC controls retrofit and is using Option C to show savings, but the customer subsecuently performed a lighting retrofit, installed new equipment, remodeled part of the facility (disabling the HVAC controls) and the facility was affected by black-outs during the CA energy crisis which reset the chiller set points making the chiller run inefficiently. Now the contractor is claiming adjustments to the baseline that the utility won't buy and it's all ending up in court. Scenarios like this sure makes the other M&V Options look easy.
#3 2004-01-28 06:24:22
- John Cowan
- Guest
Re: Consultants are full of it!
You oversimplify the Option C situation. But first let me declare my bias: I am a consultant who uses Option C. I also teach an M&V course at AEE.
The most important consideration is the interests of all parties involved. If there is an ESCO, is it responsible for total building energy use, or just its retrofits - the contract should define this? If no contractor is involved, do you care to report on the energy bottom line, or just some action(s) taken?
Other Option C considerations are: is there valid baseyear energy data (or a lot of estimated bills) - might need Option D? Do you want to know the savings of each ECM on its own - might need Option A, B or D? Are the expected savings less than 10% of the total use on the meter or less than the noise in the baseyear energy data - might need Option A or B? Are you likely to be able to keep up with all the changes in facility use since the baseline - might need Option A, B or D? How many different utility companies' billing structures do you have to learn and stay current with - might be easier to use Option A or B? How long do you want to 'measure' savings - if short term Option A or B may be suited? How expensive is the metering of Option A or B - depends on the number of measurment points, number of ECMs to be measured, accuracy of metering desired, length of metering period - may need Option C ..............
Generally I describe Option D as the method of last resort, and remind people to consider all the maintenance costs associated with meters and their data when thinking about Option A or B.
John Cowan
Environmental Interface Ltd
Toronto