This moderated forum is for individuals and organizations interested in measurement and verification (M&V) of energy and water savings. The purpose is to provide a public space to discuss the role of M&V from different perspectives but definitely with a strong bias towards policy and financial topics.
The EVO Blog is the place to debate and challenge existing concepts and to discuss new ideas. We want this blog to be engaging and informative.
The EVO Blog complements our popular online magazine, M&V Focus, which presents technical articles and extended case studies.
If you are an EVO subscriber, be sure to login and engage in the discussion via comments! To become an EVO subscriber, follow the instructions at the right.
The need to assess utility and government energy efficiency programs' performance accelerated the emergence of M&V methods. However, in this context, the "M&V" notions are often more in line with monitoring performances than measuring performances.
This distinction exists to this day and roughly differentiates program-level evaluation versus project-specific performance measurement.
Until the second half of the 1990s, the underlying concepts and methods for project-level performance assessments were loosely defined in various protocols and guidelines. Eventually, a need emerged to rationalize M&V activities, and the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) was established by a worldwide consensus in 1996. The IPMVP quickly became the gold standard for M&V.
The strength of the IPMVP framework is its flexibility. The IPMVP framework offers four different options: A, B, C, and D. Two focusing on the measurement of specific and isolated energy efficiency measures (A & B), and two on the impact of multiple energy efficiency measures on the building as a whole when the isolation of specific energy efficiency measure is not possible or practical (C & D).
The choice of an IPMVP option is driven by many factors, including M&V cost and the level of precision needed by the parties involved in a project. Every energy efficiency project is unique and carries its own balance of uncertainty and accuracy.
Despite the flexibility of the four IPMVP options, some claim that M&V is not practical, too expensive, and even impossible. Let us have a closer look at these claims.
When it comes to site-specific M&V, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. But there is a workable solution to all projects' sizes.