Thursday, October 1, 2015
Andy Bardwell – Ph.D., CEO - Optimiser
Energy Auditing and Data Quality:
A Collaborative Approach between
Implementation and Software
The Partnerships
Software Capabilities
❏ Residential, Weatherization, Multi-Family
❏ Large and Small Commercial
❏ HPwES, HES & HPXML Standards
❏ Program Management
❏
GoodCents
❏ Integrated DSM Provider
Roanoke Electric Cooperative
❏
Implementation
Residential and commercial energy audit software, combining
accuracy, streamlined workflow and custom reports
Features
❏ Utility-calibrated energy modeling
❏ Low-cost customized solutions to meet program requirements ❏ Automated file handling and data extraction and integration ❏ Customizable vector-PDF reports
Supports
❏ Residential, Multifamily, and Commercial Audits ❏ Utilities, Implementer and Contractors
❏ Weatherization Agencies
The approach Market knowledge and Program Design Integrated Technology Platform GoodCents Connect Innovative Customer Acquisition Proven Field Operations Turn Key Program Results
GoodCents is an integrated DSM provider that values Excellence in quality service. We strive to provide our Utility partners with the best program Solutions to meet your complex energy goals while delivering an integrated approach that streamlines efforts and Increases Results.
About GoodCents
Collaborative Efforts
GoodCents Needs
Improve program efficiency and consistency with a goal
of ensuring superior EM&V outcomes
❏
Higher quality program data
❏
Data security to meet and exceed industry standards
❏
Capture and data element evolution
❏
Custom reports produced for 4 utilities
❏
In-field quality assurance processes
❏
Complete data capture
❏
Process assurance
The Partnership
Required Software Capabilities
❏ Multiple programs in one software
❏ Auto-switch to correct utility version
❏ Program-specific workflow
❏ Program-specific quality management
❏
GoodCents Goals
❏ Elevate M&V outcomes
❏ Increase program participation
❏ Program requirements and “black box”
file submission results in rejected files ➥ added auditor or desk reviewer time
❏ Insufficient feedback to auditors to
correct rejection
➥ added auditor time
The Challenge
❏ Poor quality control necessitates more field reviews
➥ added field reviewer time
❏ Incomplete or incorrect data inputs results in
compromised program data
➥ added data handling time (or bad results)
❏ Compromised program data leads to lost energy and
❏
Software automation to aid the completion of the data
inputs
○ Required Fields ○ Data Types
○ Allowable Entry Ranges
❏
Default values when practical and needed
❏
On-entry page notifications
❏
Post audit completion review
❏
Assurance of more accurate report generation
❏
Assurance of successful file submission
❏
Integration with legacy data
Required Collaboration
❏
Program Rules Establishment – SOW Driven
❏
Project Team Engagement
○ Implementation
❏ Acceptable range development
❏ Data type allowable
❏ Process milestone identification
❏ Point of contact establishment for issue identification and testing
○ Software
❏ Active data validation enablement ❏ Error reporting and linking
❏ Point of contact establishment for issue logging and
implementation
Ever-present ability to communicate:
❏ Sends complete status report to speed diagnosis ❏ Communicates directly to development team
❏ Automated ticket generation encourages program and software
improvements
❏ Use of messaging to ensure process
adherence
❏ Requirement of fields at time of entry ❏ Assurance of completed data for analysis
❏ Appliance testing to ensure safety of
customer and auditor
❏ Ambient condition testing and required
plan of action
❏
Validation of proper and
allowable data entry
❏
Exception handling to
explain variances
Automate Forms: Work Authorization
Work Authorization
Automated form generation &
❏
Pre-implementation
○ Rejected Audits ○ Incomplete Data ○ Erroneous Data
○ Lower Realization Rates
❏
Post-implementation
○ Improved Process
○ Clean Data and Analytics ○ Accurate Customer Reports ○ Higher Realization Rates
Results
More effort + poor result
❏ add desk review time
❏ add auditor time
❏ add field review time
❏ add data handling time
and poor results
❏ add EM&V time,
expense and lost
Pre-implementation
Less effort + better result
❏ nearly eliminated
❏ cut in half
❏ nearly eliminated
❏ flexible, automated
and reliable
❏ no surprises, less
effort, more
Post-implementation
Collaboration Impact
DSM Report by The Energy Center of
Wisconsin for the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission:
❏
Documents the benefits, costs and
energy savings from collaboration
❏
$3.00 in benefits for each dollar
❏
Collaborative relationship between implementation
and software is paramount
❏
Clear communication and identification of changes
and enhancements
❏
Active validation of data entry to ensure data
quality and process adherence
❏
Summary of quality assurance prior to data
submission and customer report generation
❏
Established points of contact to form
feedback loop
About Roanoke EC
❏
Upgrade to $ave Program
❏
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program
(EECLP)
❏
Progressive Co-op Focused on Community Service
❏
2000 & 2005 National Rural Electric Co-op
Collaborative Efforts
Deliver low-risk on-bill-financing through Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program (EECLP)
❏
Rapid servicing of Co-op Members
❏
Consistent audits and accurate savings estimates
❏
In-field agreement generation and signature capture
❏
In-field quality assurance processes
❏
Custom report production
❏
Complete data capture
❏
Process assurance
The Partnerships
Required Software Capabilities
❏ Low Income
❏ Heat Pump Conversions
❏ On-Bill-Financing Analysis
❏ On-Bill-Financing Agreement Production
Roanoke Electric Cooperative Goals
❏ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program (EECLP)
❏ Without simple, bullet-proof software for
current staff
➥ risk of improper audits
❏ Hundreds of Co-op Members already
waiting for program
➥ compromise Member relationships
The Challenge
❏ Risk of inaccurate long term project energy savings
➥ potential program losses
❏ Avoid including behavioral or inappropriate improvements
➥ risk of unrealized savings
❏ Complex financial analysis to find break-even package
➥ require multiple what-if audits tested in spreadsheet
❏ Complex legal agreement prepared by auditor
The Challenge
1. Conduct audit
2. Transfer savings to spreadsheet 3. Test Pass/Co-pay/Fail
❏
Automated QA ensures quality of required data
❏
Custom improvement lists and defaults
❏
Custom step-by-step audit finalization process
❏
Custom improvement package builder
❏
Custom report and Form generation
❏
Built-in EECLP on-bill financing analysis
❏
Pre-filled EECLP Member Co-op agreement
❏
In-field signature capture
Simple and Robust
Custom project completion Simplified step-by-step audit Simplified inputsControl Improvements
Program-specific improvements
Automated QA
Program-specific list of
requirements for completion
1. Each requirement hyperlinks to needed change 2. Line removed after correcting issue
Automated QA
1. Each requirement hyperlinks to needed change
2. Line removed after correcting issue
Auto-Build Packages
1. Auto-build Packages 2. Evaluate financials 3. Pick Package 4. Prepare forms & agreementDocument Collection
❏ Generate legal agreement
❏ Agreement pre-filled
❏ Collect signatures
Document Collection
Improvement descriptions
