Q: We are working on a project in a drought prone village in India to improve energy and water use efficiency and water availability for pumping; both for irrigation and drinking water.

Since energy-water-food nexus is complex , the energy and water savings and their impact on population cannot be measured and verified using existing IPMVP standards. Is there a special edition of IPMVP for agriculture? Any advice?

A:While IPMVP can offer guidance regarding the energy and water efficiency improvements and the verification of the associated savings, the associated impact on the population is beyond the scope of what IPMVP can offer. IPMVP can provide guidance regarding measurement of improved pumping systems, various water reduction efforts as well as the measurement of potential solar PV systems employed to assist in these projects. Quantification of non-energy benefits and other externalities can be complex as stated above. Recommend reaching out to the World Bank and other programs such as the Clean Development Mechanism to help in quantifying any associated emissions reductions.

Q: We are working on a project in a drought prone village in India to improve energy and water use efficiency and water availability for pumping; both for irrigation and drinking water.

Since energy-water-food nexus is complex , the energy and water savings and their impact on population cannot be measured and verified using existing IPMVP standards. Is there a special edition of IPMVP for agriculture? Any advice?

A:While IPMVP can offer guidance regarding the energy and water efficiency improvements and the verification of the associated savings, the associated impact on the population is beyond the scope of what IPMVP can offer. IPMVP can provide guidance regarding measurement of improved pumping systems, various water reduction efforts as well as the measurement of potential solar PV systems employed to assist in these projects. Quantification of non-energy benefits and other externalities can be complex as stated above. Recommend reaching out to the World Bank and other programs such as the Clean Development Mechanism to help in quantifying any associated emissions reductions.

Q: Hello, My name is Sharon and I am from Dubai. My question is with regard to the M&V Plan. I have a project that started in Aug 2017. I selected Option C for the Chiller MDB savings with dB and wB as independent variables. Recently, I came across this article https://evo-world.org/en/news-media/m-v-focus/868-m-v-focus-issue-5/1164-why-r2-doesn-t-matter, in which they advocate "the independent variables need to be independent of one another. For example, Tdry bulb and Twet bulb are not independent – they are highly correlated. Use Tdry bulb and Tdew point instead. Or better yet, use enthalpy H." I tried dB and H as my new independent variables over the same 2017 dependent variable(kWh) and got better results. My question is, can I change/revise the regression model/equation in between the project as the EPC is for 6 years. And if I can, please guide me to an article that says that.

A: Regarding IPMVP adherence and changing the model, I think you are fine to change the model if all parties to the EPC agree.  For the modeling approach and the linked article stating, "the independent variables need to be independent of one another. For example, Tdry bulb and Twet bulb are not independent – they are highly correlated. Use Tdry bulb and Tdew point instead. Or better yet, use enthalpy H." It appears to me that the author's intent in writing that was to use enthalpy as a single independent variable, not combined with Tdb. I haven't checked, but I believe enthalpy is more highly correlated with Tdb than Twb is correlated with Tdb. That said, I think using Tdb and Tdp might be the best approach. It should depend upon the system and type of chiller, and perhaps the control sequence.  So I suggest trying one model using only enthalpy as an independent variable, and one model using Tdb and Tdp, and see if the latter provides a notable improvement, and that the Tdp variable is statistically significant.

Q: What is the relationship between IPMVP and cost-effectiveness testing?

A: I assume that cost effectiveness tests (CET) is referring to standard demand-side energy management program tests such as Participant Cost Test, Total Resource Cost Test, etc. (see http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cost-effectiveness.pdf). CET's require a number of inputs, including energy or "resource" savings and utility bill savings. Energy and utility bill savings are common outcomes (or outputs) of M&V activity, and these outcomes can be used as inputs to various CETs. CET's can be calculated based on pre-project estimates of expected energy and utility bill savings, in which case the CET's could not use M&V results.

Q: estimating the man hours required to deploy sensors and take readings

A: In order to estimate the labor hours required to deploy sensors/metering equipment, there are quite a few items to consider including, but not limited to, the following:
- Overall purpose and intent of the measurement activity
- Type of sensor and complexity of the device and associated deployment/installation
- Is the deployment of the sensor/device non-intrusive or intrusive to the equipment being monitored?
- A non-intrusive sensor/device, such as a motor logger, can be simply and quickly deployed on the motor. Intrusive devices, such as sensors to be installed within an operating AHU, would require more planning and labor hours including potentially planning for multiple personnel to deploy the device.
- Safety requirements also need to be considered to ensure that proper qualified personnel are involved in the installation such as deployment of electric meters or CTs. Also ease of access to the equipment or area to be monitored.
- Quantity of sensors/devices.
- Facility access requirements. Need to determine if the facility where devices are to be deployed require escorts and/or other access and coordination activities.
- Data collection/retrieval process. Will the device have remote data collection abilities or will the data need to be retrieved manually at the site?
- Duration of deployment. In addition to the data collection items above, short term vs long term requirements need to be taken into account.

There are industry guidance documents available, such as ASHRAE 14 Guideline, to assist in determining measurement plans and selecting appropriate sensors/measurement devices to further assist in estimating labor hours for the effort.

Q:  I have a little doubt about the IPMVP Option to choose. The ECM I'm talking about is the implementation of a new algorithm to control and regulate the heat delivered by centralized haeting systems of condominiums, in order to reduce the natural gas consumption. The ECM can be turned on and off easily, so I would use the adjacent measurement periods method explained in the paragraph 5.4.3 of Core Concepts. But with which option? I thought about Option B, since we can test the algorithm in lab with a certain energy demand and we can measure the heat delivered by the generator and the natural gas supplied to it. Is it correct?

A: Yes, Option B Retrofit-Isolation All Parameter Measurement, would be the most suitable Option for the described situation and proposed methodology. As stated in your comment, the critical item is to keep the conditions (heating load, etc) constant under both measurement periods.

Q= When estimating the total yearly absolute precision with a regression model, we need to consider both the modelling uncertainty and the meter/measurement uncertainty is that correct? Or the modelling uncertainty is sufficient especially if a class 0.5s meter is used for measuring electricity used?

Now, if we need to consider both uncertainties, how exactly do we calculate the total meter uncertainty/precision of the energy reading?

The IPMVP Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings, Volume I, January 2012 seems to suggest that we need to take the square root of the sum of the square of precision/standard error of each data interval to get the total precision for say the year long baseline period

However, based on my understanding, since the same meter is used to measure the energy for each interval, then this is considered as dependent uncertainty and therefore to estimate the total precision by the meter we need to directly add the precision of each interval rather than the square root of the sum of the squares (i.e. SE_tot=SE1+SE2 +...SEn rather than sqrt(SE1^2+ SE2^2+...SEn^2)

A= Savings uncertainty for a project or a measure can arise from different sources including measurement, sampling, modeling. Typically all these different uncertainties are independent of each other, hence the total uncertainty of the project/measure is calculated as the square root of the sum of the squares of these different errors. In most cases, we more or less assume the measurement error is very small compared to the modeling error for Option B and C, especially if you are relying on a revenue-grade meter, and can be ignored. Sampling error is mostly applicable for Option A.

Uncertainties can be thought of as standard deviations in the data set, and hence can not be simply added as +ve deviations can offset -ve ones, hence masking the true variability in data. Only variances the sum of squared distances from the mean, can be added for a given data. The square root of this variance is the standard deviation which provides an assessment of the variability in the data in its native units.

In addition, it is probably a good practice to compare meter data to utility (if whole building) just to make sure they look similar. Or another reference such as a portable power meter. CT error is usually greater than the meter, especially if split core or Rogowski, so that will drive system error.
Also basic things like checking line voltage, orientation of CT’s and wiring. Otherwise, overall error of revenue grade meter and CT’s typically 1-2% or less.

Please also refer to the IPMVP Application Guide "Uncertainty Assessment for IPMVP, July 2019"

Q: Rambam hospital in Israel has light power saving project with contractor "T.P.V".
The contractor replaces Lighting fixtures, old noun fluorescent light fixture to L.E.D light fixture.
The old noun fluorescent light fixture with magnetic ballast has cos ph. 0.7 to 0.8.
The contractor measured the power by this method:
"METER SPECIFICATIONS
Power will be measured by a freshly calibrated wattmeter owned by the contractor. The model chosen is
Fluke 287 True RMS AC/DC Clamp Meter with LH41A AC Current Clamp Probe. The meter directly measure
Voltage and current. The power consumption is calculated simply multiply the 2 values."
Fluke 287 True RMS AC/DC Clamp Meter with LH41A AC Current Clamp Probe is not watt meter!!
The measurement with this method will be in volt-amperes not in watt, the value will be bigger than if it will be measure with watt meter.
Can you give the right instruction or recommendation for the measurement?
Thank you very much.

A: IPMVP Core Concepts, Section 6.2.2.1 Electricity Measurements, recommends utilization of a true RMS meter to accurately measure wattage, for loads that are not purely resistive. Therefore the statement above is correct - voltage, amperage and power factor need to be measured with a true RMS meter to accurately measure wattage.

Q: As you know , there needs to be a minimum of 10 diameter straight pipe length in order to accurately measure the flow rate with an ultrasonic flow meter.
What should one do if there is not long enough straight pipe length ?
Does the lack of long straight pipe mean that an ultrasonic flow meter should not be used ?
Can a correction factor for the flow rate reading be estimated and applied? If yes, does the estimation of correction factor violate IPMVP adherence ?
Thank you for your guidance

A: I would use recommendations from the meter manufacturer for the use of this and any other meter. The accuracy of thsi meter will suffer with fewer upstream diameters downsteam diameters are less critical). There is no reliable correction factor that i know of, the flow will be more turbulent with the lack of straight pipe and readins less reliable.

Q: Can you give me an example of method how to adjust baseline ?

A: One example to share can be at a facility with an established baseline energy model within a well-defined measurement boundary. Into the reporting period an energy team review of energy performance observes an unexpected change in actual reporting period electrical consumption, which in this example negatively impacts the energy savings performance. Investigations by the energy team reveal the source of change is new fan equipment installed to meet new environmental requirements. The fan equipment is expected to operate in future reporting periods and to have minimal interactive effects with other facility equipment. Depending upon energy efficiency program M&V requirements or party contracts, quantifying the change in electrical consumption from the added environmental equipment can be accomplished by a number of well-established energy engineering methods based on energy impact and predictability of the new load. For example: