The document discusses different methods of measurement and verification (M&V) for energy efficiency programs. Traditional M&V directly measures a small sample of sites but provides insights too late and costs scale with desired precision. M&V 2.0 uses utility billing data for a larger number of sites and faster results but lacks precision and individual measure insights. The document proposes an EDGE M&V approach that uses tracking and past M&V data to build predictive models for individual measures, providing precision, insights, timeliness and lower cost. An example Con Edison program used EDGE M&V to continuously report impacts for over 1,500 businesses within 5 days of installation with 5% precision. EDGE M&V is

1. Using Data Analytics to Bridge the
Gap between M&V 1.0 and 2.0
Paul Dobrowsky
ERS

2. WHY DO WE NEED MORE M&V?

3. A Framework for Comparing M&V
1. What happened? – Precision
2. Why did it happen? – Insights
3. Can we apply the insights? – Timeliness
4. And ideally...it’s cost effective – Cost
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

4. Presentation Roadmap
Current Methods
• Traditional M&V (IPMVP A/B)
• M&V 2.0 (AMI)
A New Way Forward?
• EDGE M&V
• Example - Con Edison EDGE M&V
• How does it stack up?

5. Some Quick Caveats….
• All methods are examined under the lens of
the commercial and industrial (C&I) sector
• Different bar heights represent a qualitative,
not quantitative, appraisal of the relative
strengths in each category

6. Traditional M&V
• Precision: Directly coupled with cost through site visits
• Insights: Granular data collection…on a small sample of sites
• Timeliness: Begins after program life cycle
• Cost: Site visit focus is costly
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

7. M&V 2.0
• Analysis of AMI billing data
• No on-site presence
• Results can approach real-time
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?

8. M&V 2.0 - Precision
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?
• “Big Data” analytics – can analyze a larger
number of sites
• Issues finding clean/representative data –
significant data processing

9. M&V 2.0 - Insights
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?
• Reliance on large aggregate analysis and full
building data can make it difficult to parse
outcomes

10. M&V 2.0 - Timeliness
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?
• Data is readily available through utility
platform, analysis results can begin
percolating once projects are installed

11. M&V 2.0 - Cost
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?
• Large amount of data processing/cleaning
• Costs decoupled from number of projects in
analysis group

12. Can We Bridge the Gap?
• Traditional is reliable, but insights come too late.
• Insights tied to small number of projects.
• Cost scales directly with desired precision.
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?

13. Can We Bridge the Gap?
• M&V 2.0 theoretically scales well and brings answers on
performance more quickly.
• Lacks the depth and granularity for individual measure-level
insight.
• Jury still out on precision.
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
?

14. Precision Insights Timeliness Cost
Can We Bridge the Gap?
Neither approach fits every need!
?

15. EDGE M&V
• Energy-focused
• Deep
• Granular
• Evaluation M&V

16. EDGE M&V
• Tracking Data: Coordination with Implementation
• Predictive Features: Flexible (past M&V, AMI…)

17. EDGE M&V
• Automated processing of tracking data
• Engineer oversight

18. EDGE M&V
• Initial Validation: Past M&V Data
• Ongoing validation: Additional Post-Install M&V

19. EDGE M&V
• Results as real-time as Tracking availability
• Work with PA to make model work for them

20. EDGE M&V Implementation
• BQDM target: More than 52 MW of demand reduction
at peak hours
• Primarily through SBDI lighting projects
• Over 4,000 businesses effected so far
• Regulator requires quarterly reporting on achieved
reductions

21. EDGE M&V Implementation
• Completed in 2015
• Over 400 loggers
characterizing SBDI
lighting behavior
• Structured by space
type and business
demographics
• Added additional
structure to tracking
data to allow for
data transformation
• Improved to weekly
reporting of
installations
• Unique opportunity
to utilize an EDGE
approach!

22. EDGE M&V Implementation
• Delivered five-day turnaround on impact of over
1,500 businesses in 2016
• Leveraging findings to plan future implementation
Initial Validation 5% Absolute Precision
Final Validation Results coming in March!

23. EDGE M&V
• Measure-level modeling
• Flexible data sources
• Continuous impact reporting through
integration with tracking data
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

24. EDGE M&V - Precision
• Utilize past M&V data to construct model
• Measure-level modeling on predictive factors
provides precision similar to Traditional M&V
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

25. EDGE M&V - Insights
• Granular analysis of measure-level we can
learn how impacts are trending
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

26. EDGE M&V - Timeliness
• Impact projections are available as
implementation tracking data updates
• Requires cooperation/coordination with
implementation contractor
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

27. EDGE M&V - Cost
• Limited additional site work
• Costs are decoupled from precision, allows
focus to shift to realizing value of insights
Precision Insights Timeliness Cost

28. Methods Overview
EDGE M&V
M&V 2.0
Traditional M&V
?

29. Final Takeaways
• Current M&V methods don’t allow us to
unlock value – M&V is a cost center
• EDGE M&V merges speed and cost
effectiveness with measure-level focus
• Decouple cost from Precision and the focus
shifts to Insights

30. Questions?
Paul Dobrowsky
Engineer – Data Analytics
pdobrowsky@ers-inc.com