The case for expanding comprehensive US evaluation mandates and considerations for the EU

Panel: 8. Monitoring and evaluation: building confidence and enhancing practices

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Authors:
Gary Epstein, Energy & Resource Solutions (ERS), USA
Jon Maxwell, ERS, USA
Sue Haselhorst, ERS, USA
Jeff Perkins, ERS, USA
Lucy Neiman, ERS, USA
Patrick Hewlett, ERS, USA

Abstract

With new mandates for efficiency, largely associated with the push for carbon emissions reduction, but also driven by the need for energy and economic stability, installed efficiency projects must be able to ensure energy savings and be fully defensible under increasing scrutiny. In the US, comprehensive impact and process evaluations have been a mainstay in the energy efficiency industry for many years, but the quality and rigor of evaluations can vary considerably from state to state or from program to program. In the EU, while mandates for efficiency are strong, a concurrent call for third-party evaluation has not been as evident; the “need” for evaluation is clear, but that responsibility is often left in the hands of the project implementers, and the call for third-party efforts is inconsistent between EU member states.

This paper will discuss the rationale for technically sound and consistent evaluation protocols in both the US and the EU. Through incorporation of appropriate, cost-effective evaluation protocols, efficiency projects will be viewed as progressively dependable, and the efficiency industry will successfully remain a mainstay in the quest to resolve climatic and other energy problems. This paper will focus on key target approaches, including:

– Standardized Protocols for Evaluation – Protocols that are consistent across states and have a US-EU commonality would be preferable.

– Integration of Process and Impact Evaluation – Approaches for integration of process and impact studies will be specified, enabling reduced costs and enhanced insights.

– Coordination with Program Implementers and Immediate Action on Key Findings – Evaluation insights can and must be a source of progressively improving projects and programs.

– Incorporating Pre- and Post-M&V – Dynamic integration of evaluators into key phases of the project install, enabling pre-M&V will facilitate better savings estimates and ultimately, improved projects.

This paper will provide a comprehensive discussion of these and other enhanced evaluation approaches, with details on how to make such protocols customizable to ensure cost-effectiveness for different program structures and budgets.