Thank you for this very helpful forum. I have read every comment on EAc5 as I prepare to submit our first M&V plan. Under NC2009, I am pursuing M&V but I am looking at significant additional cost to "recalibrate" the model. I am looking to make the argument that actual measured data is more effective than recalibrating the model.

My questions are:

1. Does option D require recalibrating the model or is it sufficient to take measurements and compare to the original modeling predictions to highlight deficiencies? sect. 4.5.7. of IPMVP says you must calibrate both baseline and asbuilt models, 4.5.8 method 2 says you can subtract metered asbuilt energy from a calibrated baseline energy model to determine savings. This would give actual savings which is what we are after right?

2. If option D does require calibration of the model, I am considering option B but I see the comments that option B is rarely accepted for NC. Can we avoid the issue with interdependent ECM's if we just measure everything such that interdependencies are quantified? Our manufacturing processes require intensive monitoring and control (+/-0.1degF and %RH) so most points are existing with portable instruments to cover gaps. For example, we stream all chiller, pump, fan data and trend flows and delta T’s so isolating ECM’s to validate a metric like kW/ton is readily available. This way I could compare work in (kW) to work out (btuh to kW) and assume that the remaining converts to heat to the ambient space.

Interested to hear whether you think this is viable with GBCI. Tks so much for any guidance you would be willing to offer.