The evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) of energy-efficiency programs has a rich and extensive history in the United States, dating back to the late 1970s. During this time, many different kinds of EM&V issues have been addressed: technical (primarily focusing on EM&V methods and protocols), policy (primarily focusing on how EM&V results will be used by energy-efficiency program managers and policymakers), and infrastructure (primarily focusing on the development of EM&V professionals and an EM&V workforce). We address the issues that are currently important and/or are expected to become more critical in the coming years. We expect many of these issues will also be relevant for a non-US audience, particularly as more attention is paid to the reliability of energy savings and carbon emissions reductions from energy-efficiency programs.

No abstract

The identification of the correct baseline is essential for accurately estimating the gross impacts of any measure. For example, for early replacement, the appropriate baseline is the energy use of the old equipment that was replaced. For replacement on burnout (ROB) or an addition, there are various baselines that could be used including applicable local, state and federal energy codes and standards (code and standards or C&S) with a compliance adjustment as necessary and the market average, current practice, or industry standard practice (hereafter referred to as current practice) to represent the energy use of equipment purchased on average by consumers in the market. Once gross impacts are estimated, the next step typically is to determine what portion of the gross impacts is caused by the program. In many cases, this is done by estimating a net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) and multiplying it by the gross impacts to yield net impacts. However, some evaluators are now arguing that using current practice as the baseline for estimating gross impacts and then adjusting these savings using a NTGR is a mistake since the gross savings are in many ways closer to net than gross. While the authors agree that to refer to the difference between annual energy use associated with current practice and that of the rebated measure is not purely net savings, they disagree about which solutions to recommend. They note that what counts as credible evidence in a given jurisdiction may help to decide which way to proceed.

No abstract

No abstract