1. Pre-Installation Evaluation of
Industrial Projects
Jonathan B. Maxwell and Betsy Ricker, ERS
Carley Murray, NYSERDA*
*Any opinions expressed, explicitly or implicitly, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
IEPEC Chicago August 2013

2. Objectives
Primary
 Discuss methods, advantages, and
disadvantages of very early impact evaluator
involvement in a large industrial process
program
Also share
 Procedure
 Case studies of pre‐retrofit activity
IEPEC Chicago 2013

3. What is Pre-Installation Impact
Evaluation?
 Core activity: Project engineering review
before savings claims are finalized
 Pre‐installation savings calculation review
 Baseline characterization
 Pre‐installation metering
 Also/possibly:
 Early free ridership assessment
 Early post‐retrofit review & metering
 Training PA and their technical advisors
IEPEC Chicago 2013

4. Why Do It?
 Benefits for evaluators
 Evaluator inspection in pre‐retrofit state
 Input regarding administrator M&V plan
•
Opportunity for independent direct M&V
 Baseline perspective at time of decision‐making
 Evaluator‐administrator convergence/training
 Bottom Line:
 Increased engineering rigor
 less variability, greater confidence in results
IEPEC Chicago 2013

5. Why Do It?
 Benefits for program administrators
 Evaluator‐administrator convergence/training
 Adjustment to savings estimates prior to incentive
calculation
 Increased depth of engagement with facilitators
 Less disturbance to customers
 Bottom line:
 Better realization rates
 Fewer surprises
IEPEC Chicago 2013

6. Why Not Do It?
 Added cost for evaluators and administrators




Planning
$2k to $10k per project evaluator cost; less but some admin
• Modest ex post savings later
Sunk evaluation costs on projects that don’t matriculate
Monthly meetings
 Risks added calendar time to processing


Short notice rush analysis required
Baseline can require research. Admin waits?
 Added bureaucracy before closing the deal
IEPEC Chicago 2013

7. How It Works
ID candidate projects
Evaluator review
New facility
Existing
facility
Pre-install site
visit. Possible
metering
Tracking
Evaluator & administrator meet on
analysis, baseline, and proposed preinstallation metering.
Evaluation review
memo
Evaluator &
administrator
meet
Post-install site
visit
IEPEC Chicago 2013

8. How It Works – Screening
 Establish screening criteria in advance
Example:
 All over 5 GWh/yr
or 10,000 MMBtu/yr
 All over intermediate size range and process,
complex baseline, capacity expansion, controls, etc
 Sample others in intermediate range
 Evaluator or administrator can ID projects
IEPEC Chicago 2013

9. How It Works - Variations
 Are early evaluator findings advisory or
definitive to program?
 Is free ridership assessed? Is result shared? Is
it considered when setting incentives?
 Formality of communication
 Who does the M&V?
IEPEC Chicago 2013

10. Case Studies
 Paper includes four case studies
Good
 Working together on M&V approach
 Evaluator influencing administrator on baseline
characterization, and vice versa
Bad
 Lost sunk costs
 No consensus on baseline
 Timing challenges
IEPEC Chicago 2013

11. Summary
Pre-Installation Impact Evaluation
 Advantages:
 Better evaluation engineering & statistical quality
 Better realization rates
 Fewer bad surprises at end of evaluation
 Costs:
 More labor
 Calendar concerns
IEPEC Chicago 2013

12. Shameless Plug
3:30 panel this afternoon
“Real Time” Evaluation: Benefits, Drawbacks and Practical
Applications
Perspectives

Different jurisdictions: Oregon, California, and New York

Different subjects: Process, impact, and market effects

Different actors: Evaluator, implementer, administrator
and that is just the panelists!
IEPEC Chicago 2013

13. Thank You!
Co‐authors:
Betsy Ricker, ERS
Carley Murray, NYSERDA
Evaluation Client:
Judeen Byrne, and Jennifer Meissner, NYSERDA
Program Administrator: Cheryl Glanton, NYSERDA
Jon Maxwell, ERS
(978) 521‐2550 x205
jmaxwell@ers‐inc.com
IEPEC Chicago 2013