Routine vs. Non-Routine Adjustment After a Setpoint Change
A hospital's M&V plan uses Option B for a boiler plant retrofit (new condensing boilers plus outdoor-reset controls) with a baseline model of monthly gas use vs. HDD. Expected savings are 12% of boiler gas. Six months into the reporting period, the facilities team lowers the domestic hot-water setpoint from 140°F to 120°F facility-wide to cut scalding risk - a safety-driven change unrelated to the retrofit. The same month, a wing is closed for renovation for 5 months, removing roughly 15% of the building's occupied area and its hot-water and heating load. The M&V report shows gas use 22% below baseline. The owner's representative argues the 22% is all retrofit savings.
1. Separate the effects. Which changes are routine, which are non-routine, and how does each enter the savings calculation?
Read the worked answer
Under IPMVP, savings = baseline energy adjusted for routine and non-routine adjustments, minus reporting-period energy. The HDD variation is handled by the baseline model (routine adjustment). The DHW setpoint change and the wing closure are both non-routine adjustments - changes in the baseline conditions (load, occupancy, setpoints) not captured by the routine model - and both reduce gas use independently of the boiler retrofit.
So the 22% is not all retrofit savings. The calculation is: adjusted baseline (HDD-normalized, then reduced for the removed wing load and the lower DHW setpoint) minus actual gas. The wing closure should be handled by removing that area's baseline load - via sub-metering, engineering estimate of the closed wing's share, or a model term for occupied area if the baseline data support it. The DHW setpoint change should be adjusted using the DHW load's share of boiler gas and the expected change in demand from the lower setpoint. Both adjustments must be documented before the report is issued, ideally with owner sign-off.
2. The setpoint change was made by the owner, not the ESCO. Does that change how it is treated?
Read the worked answer
No. Non-routine adjustments are about what changed in the baseline conditions, not about who caused it. The M&V plan should specify a process for identifying and quantifying non-routine events regardless of cause, and for notifying the other party. The practical difference is governance: the ESCO should have flagged the setpoint change when it occurred, and the owner should have been told it would reduce measured savings. Retroactively discovering it in the annual report is the failure mode the plan exists to prevent. Record the event, its date, the basis for the adjustment, and any disagreement - do not simply net it out silently.