Advertisement

The monitoring, Evaluation, reporting, verification, and certification of energy-efficiency projects

  • Edward L. Vine
  • Jayant A. Sathaye
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present an overview of guidelinesdeveloped for the monitoring, evaluation, reporting,verification, and certification (MERVC) ofenergy-efficiency projects for climate changemitigation. The monitoring and evaluation ofenergy-efficiency projects is needed to determine moreaccurately their impact on greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions and other attributes, and to ensure that theglobal climate is protected and that countryobligations are met. Reporting, verification andcertification will be needed for addressing therequirements of the Kyoto Protocol. While the cost ofmonitoring and evaluation of energy-efficiencyprojects is expected to be about 5–10% of a project'sbudget, the actual cost of monitoring and evaluationwill vary depending on many factors, including thelevel of precision required for measuring energy andGHG reductions, type of project, and amount of fundingavailable.

certification Clean Development Mechanism energy efficiency evaluation global climate change greenhouse gas emissions joint implementation monitoring reporting verification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. De Jong, B., Tipper, R. and Taylor, J.: 1997, 'A framework for monitoring and evaluating carbon mitigation by farm forestry projects: example of a demonstration project in Chiapas, Mexico', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2(2-3), 231-246.Google Scholar
  2. Eto, J., Prahl, R. and Schlegel, J.: 1996, A Scoping Study on Energy-Efficiency Market Transformation by California Utility DSM Programs. LBNL-39058. Berkeley, CA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  3. Goldberg, M. and Schlegel, J.: 1997, 'Technical and statistical evaluation issues', in J. Schlegel, M. Goldberg, J. Raab, R. Prahl, M. Keneipp and D. Violette (eds.), Evaluating Energy-Efficiency Programs in a Restructured Industry Environment: A Handbook for PUC Staff. Washington, D.C., National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, chapter 7.Google Scholar
  4. Hagler Bailly: 1998, Evaluation of Using Benchmarks to Satisfy the Additionality Criterion for Joint Implementation Projects prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Boulder, CO, Hagler Bailly.Google Scholar
  5. Lashof, D.: 1998, Additionality Under the Clean Development Mechanism unpub. New York, Natural Resources Defense Council.Google Scholar
  6. Michaelowa, A.: 1998, 'Joint implementation-the baseline issue: economic and political aspects', Global Environmental Change 8(1), 81-92.Google Scholar
  7. Prahl, R. and Schlegel, J.: 1993, 'Evaluating market transformation', in The Proceedings of the 1993 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago, IL, National Energy Program Evaluation Conference, pp. 469-477.Google Scholar
  8. Raab, J. and Violette, D.: 1994, Regulating DSM Program Evaluation: Policy and Administrative Issues for Public Utility Commissioners. Washington, DC., National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.Google Scholar
  9. Saxonis, W.: 1991, 'Free riders and other factors that affect net program impacts', in E. Hirst and J. Reed (eds.), Handbook of Evaluation of Utility DSM Programs Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. Schlegel, J., Prahl, R. and Raab, J.: 1997, 'Nest steps for evaluation of market transformation initiatives: an update to the NARUC guidebook', in J. Schlegel, M. Goldberg, J. Raab, R. Prahl, M. Keneipp and D. Violette (eds.), Evaluating Energy-Efficiency Programs in a Restructured Industry Environment: A Handbook for PUC Staff. Washington, D.C., National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, chapter 4.Google Scholar
  11. Swisher, J.: 1997, 'Joint implementation under the U.N. framework convention on climate change: technical and institutional challenges', Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2(1), 57-80.Google Scholar
  12. Swisher, J.: 1998, Project Baselines and Additionality in the Clean Development Mechanism presented at The Aspen Global Forum, Aspen, CO.Google Scholar
  13. Trexler, M. and Kosloff, L.: 1998, 'The 1997 Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for project-based climate change mitigation?' Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3, 1-58.Google Scholar
  14. UNEP/WMO Information Unit on Climate Change: 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, UNEP/WMO Information Unit on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  15. UNFCCC: 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, December 10, 1997. At UNFCCC Web site (under CC:INFO Products): http://www.unfccc.de/ccinfo.Google Scholar
  16. UNFCCC: 1998, Review of the Implementation of Commitments and of Other Provisions of the Convention. Activities Implemented Jointly: Review of Progress Under the Pilot Phase (Decision 5/CP.1) FCCC/CP/1998/INF.3. At UNFCCC Web site (under CC:INFO Products): http://www.unfccc.de/ccinfo.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE): 1997, International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): 1995, Conservation and Verification Protocols, Version 2.0. EPA 430/B-95-012. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): 1996, The User's Guide to the Conservation and Verification Protocols, Version 2.0. EPA 430/B-96-002. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  20. Vine, E. 1994, 'The human dimension of program evaluation', Energy-The International Journal 19(2), 165-178.Google Scholar
  21. Vine, E. and Sathaye, J.: 1997, The Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Verification of Climate Change Mitigation Projects: Discussion of Issues and Methodologies and Review of Existing Protocols and Guidelines. LBNL-40316. Berkeley, CA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at the World Wide Web: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ccm/ccPubs.html.Google Scholar
  22. Vine, E. and Sathaye, J.: 1999, Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification, and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. LBNL-41543. Berkeley, CA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at the World Wide Web: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ccm/ccPubs.html.Google Scholar
  23. Violette, D. and Hanser, P.: 1991, 'Utilizing information from multiple sources in DSM impact evaluation', in The Proceedings of the 5th National Demand-Side Conference July 1991. EPRI CU-7394. Palo Alto, CA, Electric Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Violette, D., Ozog, M., Keneipp, M. and Stern, F.: 1991, Impact Evaluation of Demand-Side Management Programs, Volume I and II: A Guide to Current Practice. EPRI CU-7179. Palo Alto, CA, Electric Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Violette, D., Ragland, S., and Stern, F.: 1998, Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through DSM Projects: Lessons Learned from DSM Evaluation in the United States Boulder, CO, Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Weisbrod, G., Train, K., Hub, A. and Benenson, P.: 1994, DSM Program Spillover Effects. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward L. Vine
    • 1
  • Jayant A. Sathaye
    • 1
  1. 1.Energy Analysis Department, Environmental Energy Technologies DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations