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.
(Haga clic aquí para una versión en español.)
For many years, greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions accounting was helpful to show how and if governments and organizations met – or not – their national or corporate environmental goals and objectives. These reductions were seen mainly as the logical outcome of policies and government interventions for most laypersons. Not much more.
Some have suggested that COVID-19 destroyed the foundation of traditional measurement and verification (M&V) methodologies as codified in the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). This simplistic but oddly compelling marketing claim is misleading.
In general, energy efficiency projects utilize proven, well-understood, and commercially available technologies. With very few exceptions, they do not involve technology development risks. In theory, this reduces the risks of financing an energy efficiency project (EEP).
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.
