Measurement and Verification Methodology of a Residential Load Management Project.

Prof LJ Grobler and Mr. C.A. van der Merwe School for Mechanical Engineering, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University.

ABSTRACT This case study shows the methodologies and procedures involved to measure and verify (M&V) residential load management (RLM) projects specifically done for demand-side management (DSM) purposes. An actual project is used to provide activity-based examples and give better insight into the way the methodologies and procedures are used. A short introduction into the workings of a residential load management project is given and then the M&V activities are explained to eventually produce the baseline. The baseline is the crucial part of any M&V for it is the reference against with the performance of the project is determined. Then the sustainability part of M&V is discussed as the projects performance is tracked over time.

Introduction
Residential Geysers are major contributors to the peak demand periods experienced by Eskom between 7:00 to 10:00 and 18:00 to 20:00 especially on weekdays when people bath, wash-up and washes clothes. The most common geyser has a heating capacity of 3 kW heating for 150 litres of water. However, the heating capacity can range from 2 kW up to 4 kW and the storage from 50L up to 200L. Geysers of more than 200 L, 4 kW is commonly considered as commercial or industrial geysers or more commonly known as boilers. The demand contribution of the residential geyser is due to the setup of a geysers control systems. Close to the moment the hot water tap is used, be it for hand washing to bathing, dish washing to clothes washing, the electrical heater element is switched on by the thermostat. The thermostat is situated close to the cold water inlet so that the incoming cold water is heated as soon as possible. Certain newer geysers has the thermostat shielded from the direct inrush of cold water so that the cold water lies at the bottom, separated from the hot water by a thermo cline. The moment the thermo cline is above the thermostat, the element is energised and the water is heated. However, most geysers do not have its thermostat shielded from the cold water inlet.

Figure 1: Typical geyser before installation

The aim of the residential load management project is to control the switch-on of residential geysers due to hot water usage during either of the periods of 07:00 10:00 and 18:00 20:00. This case study focuses on the control of these geysers and the Measurement and Verification (M&V) methodology used to track the impact of such control on the electricity use of the residential sector.

Page 1

DSM Activities on the Residential Hot Water System

Geyser control is done through contactor switches installed on the geysers power supply, which can be remotely switched via either radio waves or ripple signals in the power lines (Figure 2). The total geyser population for the project is divided into groups. Each group has a certain amount of geysers assigned to it. These groups are switched alternatively during the control period. As each groups switching period comes to an end, its geysers had experienced hot water drainage and therefore need to reheat the entered cold water. The cold water pick-up demand is then greater than the initial shut-off demand. This greater switch-on demand therefore needs to be taken into account when the next batch of geysers is chosen for switch-off. Each consecutive group of geysers selected must therefore compensate not only for the aimed reduction in demand, but also for the cold-water pickup load generated by the previous group. An alternative is to have one group and switch all geysers off for the entire period. The project used for this case study used the one group strategy to simplify the project. The aim was to reduce the demand caused by about 1 449 geysers on the residential feeders by 0.693 MW during summer and 1.127 MW during winter. No come back load control was implemented since it was not needed yet. The actual maximum demand experienced was during another period of the day than Eskoms peak demand period. The ESCO was asked by the client to implement geyser control during this period (9:00 10:15) as well.

Figure 2: The ripple signal generator installed in a substation

M&V was required to determine the actual impact of the geyser control on the energy use, power demand and electricity cost.

Measurement and Verification

The M&V team becomes involved on the project once they have been instructed by Eskom DSM. It is the function of M&V to quantify the impacts that result from the DSM intervention and to determine whether the impacts are being sustained over time. The M&V teams thus function as an independent party within the DSM project environment.

M&V Scoping Report The first step is to contact the ESCO and obtain a scope of work planned by the ESCO and to gather any other relevant information (project location, number of geysers, proposed schedule of implementation, etc.). A meeting is then scheduled with the ESCO, which can be combined with the first site visit.

Page 2

During the site visit the M&V team confirms the proposed scope of work between the ESCO and the client. To assess the total number of geysers involved, the M&V team can check the methodologies used by the ESCO. Usually the number of electricity accounts from the municipality is used. The true number of geysers can only be assessed by a full door-to-door investigation which forms part of the physical installation. This will be done by the contractor installing the geyser control switches. M&V cant perform a door-to-door check, it is time consuming and expensive. Therefore M&V uses what is available and already in place. The first deliverable from the M&V team is the M&V scoping report. This report is circulated to all the stakeholders (Eskom, ESCO, mine) to ensure that the scope for the M&V project is correctly assessed.

M&V Plan The M&V plan states the planned M&V activities scheduled according to the ESCOs initial scope and project schedule. In this plan the conceptual methodologies and procedures are stated and when and how it will be implemented. The overall methodology is dictated by the SA M&V Framework. This document aims to provide a framework that can be used to consistently develop project-specific M&V plans. The desired outcome of each of these project-specific M&V plans is to quantify the impact or saving as a result of the particular DSM option. According to the Framework classification a RLM M&V project has the following characteristics: In all cases, it is specified that neither the "Post" Operating Hours, nor the Post Load/Requirement may be used for the baseline The service level (warm water usage) will not be affected by the DSM project and that any variations in the service level occurring after the DSM project implementation would have occurred anyway. However, since the service level is different each day because it is connected to human nature and other factors such as seasonal changes, the post service level may NOT be used to determine the baseline; The system efficiencies remain unchanged right before and after the DSM project implementation. The "Post" Load/Requirement may NOT be used for the baseline. Determine a baseline for the Operating Hours of the system before implementation. Determine a baseline for the Service Level of the system before implementation. Determine the Operating Hours of the system after implementation. Determine the Service Level of the system after implementation.

Therefore the M&V plan should focus on the following strategy:

The operating hours for the system before implementation was 24 hours. Any geyser could have come on any time the thermostat switched it. After project implementation the operational hours will change as the power to the geyser will be switched off. The service level in this case is the hot water provided by the geysers. It is assumed that the hot water delivery was satisfactorily, because if the geyser did not provide hot water, a geyser technician Page 3

would be consulted by the resident to fix the problem. The service level will be monitored afterwards via complaints to the municipality. If the complaints indicate a less than 80% satisfaction level, the control will be switched off unknown to the residents and the complaints logged again. Thus the human nature portion is checked. Inherent of any M&V action is metering be it spot check by hand held meter or profiling by billing class meter. The M&V plan states in concept the what, how and where metering should be installed and metered. The difficult part of an RLM project is metering the operational hours and demand profile of the residential geyser system. M&V cannot afford to install metering at each geyser, nor is a representative sample more cost effective to meter. Therefore, an alternative metering methodology is needed. The next level to meter all geysers is at substation level. To isolate the geysers from the rest of the noise metered at substation level, the geysers demand profile should be extracted. This is performed through notch testing and the M&V plan states in concept how and when the notch test should be performed. Notch testing involves that all geysers are simultaneously switched off and then on again every period for about 5 minutes for a week. To confirm the amount of geyser switches installed, a cold water pickup load test is performed. This involves switching all the geysers of for a long period so that the heat loss and hot water usage ensures that all geysers are heating water when the switches are on again. This test should be done before the geyser demand profile is determined. If the installed capacity does not match the number of switches installed, there is a problem that should be rectified first. To pick up these notches when metering at substation level, the metering should be able to handle 1-minute recordings of kWh. The last section of the M&V plan states how the projects impact on power demand, energy consumption and electricity cost is determined. In this case the plan describes in concept the simulation model used to determine the impact of the geyser control.

Post-Implementation Report The post implementation phase assesses whether the equipment needed to produce the intended demand reduction is installed and in operational order. In this case the amount of switches needs to be determined. This phase can then obviously not start when implementation is not completed. Therefore M&V receives in writing a notice from the ESCO that the implementation is completed. Although the contractor has done a count of all geysers as the switches were implemented, it is still unknown how many are still in operational order. Did the resident disconnect or by-pass the switch; is the switch correctly installed? The best way of determining this is to perform a cold-water pick-up test also referred to as an installed capacity test. All geysers are switched off from about 20:00 and then on again at about 04:00 the next morning. By this time the heat loss and hot water withdrawn should enable all geysers to start reheating the water once the switches are switched on again (Figure 3). The pick-up load thus generated can be divided by the average geysers installed capacity to determine the amount of installed switches operating. The average installed capacity of the geysers should be acquired by the contractor installing the switches through a simple tick-off questionnaire.

Page 4

Capacity Test of Installed Switches 12000 11000 10000 kW 9000 8000 7000 6000 03:50 03:52 03:54 03:56 03:58 04:00 04:02 04:04 04:06 04:08 04:10

Figure 3: Cold water pick-up test giving the installed capacity of all controlled geysers.

In this case the average installed capacity of the geysers is 2.35kW. The pickup load is about 3 165kW therefore the number of installed switches is 1 349. The total number of switches installed according to the contractor is 1 446. This indicates that 97 switches (227.95kW) are not operating / connected. This number is too big to hide in the noise of the substation metered data. The baseline model will therefore be build around 1 349 switches operating with an average installed capacity of 2.35kW per switch.

M&V Baseline Report Notch Testing After the installed capacity test the notch test commences. Usually the notch test specification states that a notch event should occur every 30 minutes for about 5 minutes maximum for a full week starting from a Saturday ending on the second Sunday. This week should be representative of the normal routine days. Meaning not during holidays, public holidays, strikes, natural disasters and so forth. One of the weekdays notch test results is shown in Figure 4, below. This can only be obtained when 1-minute or less logging intervals is used. One should be careful when assessing notch data. In the graph below at about 01:00 the data is zero due to a power failure. This is not part of the notch test. One should also be careful not to interpret a power dip as a notch. Therefore any notch-like data outside the specified notch intervals should be disregarded. The geyser load is simply the difference between the total load and the impact of the notch test. Figure 5 shows the impact the notch test made in the substations demand profile every 30 minutes. Note that the average of three of the 1-minute demand values before the notch is compared to the

Page 5

average of the 1-minute demand values inside the notch. This is done to compensate for the noise metered at substation level.
Notch Test of a Weekday
4400 4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 Demand - kW 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 00:00 00:37 01:14 01:51 02:28 03:05 03:42 04:19 04:56 05:33 06:10 06:47 07:24 08:01 08:38 09:15 09:52 10:29 11:06 11:43 12:20 12:57 13:34 14:11 14:48 15:25 16:02 16:39 17:16 17:53 18:30 19:07 19:44 20:21 20:58 21:35 22:12 20:05 22:49 20:09 23:26 20:13

Figure 4: The notch data measured for a weekday.

Zoom-in of Weekday Notch
4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 17:45 17:49 17:53 17:57 18:01 18:05 18:09 18:13 18:17 18:21 18:25 18:29 18:33 18:37 18:41 18:45 18:49 18:53 18:57 19:01 19:05 19:09 19:13 19:17 19:21 19:25 19:29 19:33 19:37 19:41 19:45 19:49 19:53 19:57 20:01

Figure 5: Zoom-in of weekday notch to show geyser notch impact

These 30-minute impact values then gives you the 30-minute geyser demand profile for that week the notch test was run. Inherent of every human activity there is routine and randomness the reason fuzzy logic was developed. For this reason an average weekday, Saturday and Sunday geyser demand profile is developed. Most of the times an average weekday and weekend geyser demand profile is adequate. Page 6

Demand - kW

In this case the average weekday and weekend geyser demand profiles presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7, below is adequate.

Average Weekday Notch Profile

1600 1400 1200 1000 kW 800 600 400 200 0 00:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00 07:30 09:00 10:30 12:00 13:30 15:00 16:30 18:00 19:30 21:00 22:30

Figure 6: Average weekday geyser demand profile

Average Weekend Notch Profile

1600 1400 1200 1000 kW 800 600 400 200 0 00:30 02:00 03:30 05:00 06:30 08:00 09:30 11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30 17:00 18:30 20:00 21:30 23:00

Figure 7: Average weekend geyser demand profile

The only way these profiles can be reproduced is through a simulation model. Therefore the above profiles will be the baseline model calibration profiles. Baseline Simulation Model

Page 7

The simulation model was developed to give the baseline geyser demand profile according to certain inputs, as well as the actual geyser demand profiles. The reasoning for simulating the actual is the same as for the baseline. The actual can only be cost-effectively metered at substation level. A notch test cant be performed each week to provide the actual geyser demand profile as the geyser switches are now used to control the demand of the residential geysers. More on this in the performance assessment section. Before the baseline models output can be accepted, the simulated baseline geyser demand profile must be calibrated to the actual notch profile. Figure 8 below provides a graphical impression of this case studys calibration.

Weekday Notch Profile vs. Baseline Model

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 00:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00 07:30 09:00 10:30 12:00 13:30 15:00 16:30 18:00 19:30 21:00 22:30

kW

Notch

BaseL sim

Figure 8: Comparing the simulated geyser demand profile against the weekday notch profile.

The baseline report is now drawn up and all inputs to the baseline model is described and given so that all stakeholders can replicate the baseline if needed. This report is the crux of the M&V process and needs to be agreed upon by all stakeholders involved in the project. When the stakeholders find the baseline report acceptable, that document is signed as final proof that everyone agreed on the baseline process and its results. Now this baseline model can be put to use to determine the performance of the project. Performance Assessment Reports The M&V performance assessment phase also commences once the baseline and post implementation phase is completed. This phase has a duration of three months. An M&V performance assessment report is issued for each of these months. This report basically provides the results of how the project is performing against the ESCOs promised MW impacts. The baseline geyser load profile is therefore simulated and the control signals to the switches need to be inserted into the model so that the actual controlled load profile can also be simulated (Figure 9). The performance (impact) of the project is simply the difference between the simulated actual and the simulated baseline. The impact is reported as the average impact for a weekday, Saturday and Page 8

Sunday on power demand, energy consumption and electricity cost during the various Megaflex periods. The results of the last month of the performance assessment phase are given in Table 1 to Table 3, below. The intended impact of 0.693kW for the summer period is applicable.

Simulated Actual, Baseline and Notch Profile

2500 2000 kW 1500 1000 500 0 00:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00 07:30 09:00 10:30 12:00 13:30 15:00 16:30 18:00 19:30 21:00 22:30

Notch

Actual Sim

BaseL sim

Figure 9: The simulated actual, baseline and notch profile of the residential geysers.

Table 1 clearly shows how the load was shifted out of the evening (and partially during the morning peak in this case) to the other time-of-use periods.
Table 1: Summarised TOU demand impacts for the last month of performance assessment phase.
Weekday (MW) Morning Morning Morning Midday Evening Evening Evening Off-peak Standard Peak Standard Peak Standard Off-peak 0.386 1.325 1.250 0.812 0.574 0.887 0.596 0.386 1.325 0.847 0.963 0.000 1.440 0.617 0.000 0.000 0.404 -0.151 0.574 -0.553 -0.021 Saturday (MW) Morning Morning Midday Off- Evening Evening Off-Peak Standard peak Standard Off-peak 0.371 1.129 0.702 0.645 0.695 0.371 1.116 0.713 0.000 1.017 0.000 0.013 -0.011 0.645 -0.323 Sunday (MW) Sunday Off-peak 0.698 0.698 0.000

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Table 2 clearly shows how the energy consumption was shifted from the evening (and partially during the morning peak in this case) to the following time-of-use periods. This table also shows that the months energy consumption for the baseline and the actual is the same. This is a good check to determine if the baseline simulation model is working correctly. The same amount of hot water is used for the baseline as well as the actual scenario, therefore the same amount of energy is needed to that amount of water. Page 9

Table 2: Summarised TOU demand impacts for the last month of performance assessment phase.
Weekday (MWh) Morning Morning Morning Midday Evening Evening Evening Off-peak Standard Peak Standard Peak Standard Off-peak 46.3 26.5 75.0 129.9 23.0 35.5 23.8 46.3 26.5 50.8 154.1 0.0 57.6 24.7 0.0 0.0 24.2 -24.2 23.0 -22.1 -0.8 Saturday (MWh) Morning Morning Midday Off- Evening Evening Off-Peak Standard peak Standard Off-peak 13.0 28.2 21.1 6.5 13.9 13.0 27.9 21.4 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.3 -0.3 6.5 -6.5
Weekday Saturdays Sundays Total 360.0 82.6 100.5 543.1 360.0 82.6 100.5 543.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Sunday (MWh) Sunday Off-peak 100.5 100.5 0.0

Table 3 shows that impact a residential load management project has on the electricity costs. In this case the costs are different for the demand and the energy consumption since the load have been shifted to a differently priced time-of-use period of the day.
Table 3: The associated impact of the electricity costs.
Weekdays (Rand) Saturdays (Rand) Sundays (Rand) Electricity Maximum Electricity Maximum Electricity Maximum consumed Demand consumed Demand consumed Demand R 34 951 R 9 008 R 6 005 R 9 147 R 6 233 R 32 404 R 13 944 R 5 832 R 12 911 R 6 233 R 2 547 -R 4 936 R 173 -R 3 765 R0 Total Rand R 56 336 R 58 413 -R 2 077

Baseline Actual Impact

The recovery demand experienced by the come-back load of the geysers after the switched period, is uncontrolled and therefore generates a new maximum demand in a new TOU period. This explains the increase in demand costs and the associated increase in electricity cost after the project. However, the residence is part of a bigger network not metered by M&V and therefore this isolated metering impact can be given to the client so that he/she can determine if the new come-back load has a detrimental effect on the total facility demand profile. Another method to report to the client is to present the results of the geyser load control at substation level. This can be done by getting the difference between the uncontrolled residential demand profile and the controlled residential demand profile. Simply take the actual metered data of the controlled residential load, subtract the simulated controlled geyser demand profile and then add the simulated geyser uncontrolled demand profile.

Page 10

The result is the uncontrolled versus the controlled residential demand profile as shown in Figure 10 below.
Load control impact on substation level
10000.00 9000.00 8000.00 7000.00 6000.00

kW

5000.00 4000.00 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00

Substation data - controlled

Substation data - uncontrolled

Figure 10: The effect of the geyser load control on substation level.

Either of these results is then used by Eskom to determine if penalties or banking applies to the ESCO. After the last performance assessment is done, a M&V certificate of completion is issued that states that the M&V activities are completed and what the projects overall performance is. This certificate is issued to all stakeholders. M&V Performance Tracking Once the performance assessment phase has been completed the responsibility was consequently transferred to the client to sustain and maintain the project impacts for the duration of the contractual agreement with Eskom DSM. The client however has a back-to-back agreement with the ESCO to maintain the system. The project then enters into the M&V performance tracking phase. During this phase the M&V team generates monthly savings reports which are submitted to all stakeholders. Figure 11 shows the average weekday demand profiles (Baseline and Post-Implementation geyser demand profiles) for the first three months within the performance tracking phase. It can clearly be seen how the client kept shifting the load out of the evening peak to the other TOU periods with the aid of the ESCO. The monthly savings reports are generated by the M&V team for the duration of the contractual agreement with Eskom. These reports also provide the monthly cost implications for the client together with a range of other relevant impacts.

Page 11

The average demand impact and accumulated energy and cost impacts for the first three months within the performance tracking phase are provided in Table 4 to Table 6, below.
Average weekday demand profile
3 000 2 500 kW (30 minute) 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00

Baseline_kW

Actual_kW

Figure 11: Average weekday performance during the performance tracking period

Table 4 shows the average impact on the demand during the performance assessment period of three months. It can be clearly seen how the load was shifted out of the evening peak (and the morning peak in this case) to the other TOU periods.
Table 4: Average demand impact during performance tracking period.
Weekday (MW) Morning Off- Morning Morning Midday Evening Evening Evening OffPeak Standard peak peak Standard Peak Standard 1.111 1.230 0.806 0.418 1.402 1.148 0.871 0.418 1.402 0.813 0.997 0.000 2.092 1.026 0.000 0.000 0.335 -0.126 1.111 -0.863 -0.220

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Morning OffPeak 0.412 0.412 0.000

Saturday (MW) Morning Midday Off- Evening Evening OffStandard peak Standard peak 1.128 0.776 1.174 0.935 1.109 0.791 0.000 1.512 0.019 -0.016 1.174 -0.577

Sunday (MW) Sunday Offpeak 0.771 0.770 0.001

Page 12

Table 5 shows the accumulated impact on the energy use (on which the clients performance is assessed in terms of penalties and banking) for the first three months within the performance tracking period.
Table 5: Accumulated energy impact over the performance assessment period
Weekday (MWh) Morning Off- Morning Morning Midday Evening Evening Evening Offpeak Standard Peak Standard Peak Standard peak 160.51 89.73 220.38 446.09 142.10 157.27 103.24 160.51 89.73 156.00 510.47 0.00 267.68 134.92 0.00 0.00 64.38 -64.38 142.10 -110.41 -31.68 Saturday (MWh) Morning Off- Morning Midday Off- Evening Evening OffPeak Standard peak Standard peak 42.15 84.54 69.40 35.39 55.60 42.15 83.13 70.81 0.00 90.99 0.00 1.41 -1.41 35.39 -35.39 Sunday (MWh) Sunday Offpeak 240.70 240.70 0.00

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline Actual Impact

Weekday Saturdays Sundays Total 1319.31 287.09 240.70 1847.09 1319.31 287.09 240.70 1847.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The projects financial performance for the first three months of the performance tracking phase is given in Table 6.
Table 6: Accumulated electricity costs over the performance assessment period.
Saturdays (Rand) Sundays (Rand) Weekdays (Rand) Electricity Maximum Electricity Maximum Electricity Maximum consumed Demand consumed Demand consumed Demand R 290 043 R 11 133 R 27 711 R 10 227 R 17 210 R0 R 212 415 R 17 095 R 25 465 R 11 963 R 17 183 R0 R 77 628 -R 5 962 R 2 246 -R 1 736 R 27 R0 Total Rand R 346 097 R 272 157 R 73 940

Baseline Actual Impact

Baseline periodical recalculation

Human nature is connected to seasonal variations, especially when it comes to hot water usage. Therefore the baseline simulation model needs to be checked periodically to ascertain if it is still calibrated for the various inputs it needs to generate the simulated controlled and uncontrolled geyser demand profiles.

Page 13

The first step is to check the impact of the simulation against the actual metered impact during the switching events. Therefore the metering should again be done in 1-minute intervals or smaller. While the impacts are the same, the model is considered calibrated and a months performance analysis can be done. If the impacts differ slightly, one can try to adjust one or two of the input parameters such as cold water temperature or amount of water used during the impact period until the impact are again calibrated. Note that the notch profile may not be altered, as this is the only parameter that relates the simulation to actual values. If the small adjustments cannot re-calibrate the simulation a new notch test is needed. Then the whole baseline and post implementation process is repeated. The benefit of recalibration is that one will eventually have a baseline for every season or major vacation period. When unforeseen events occur such as a sudden increase in housing or a total geyser revamping project is performed anything that would have altered the original system as well, the baseline must be recalculated. In this instance all seasonal recalibrations become null and void and new recalibration notches may need to be performed. In every instance the baseline and post implementation process is repeated.

DSM Project Impacts

The project performed well against its intended DSM target (0.693 MW) during its M&V performance assessment phase (0.545 MW, 0.574 MW and 1.096 MW for the respective months). This performance was sustained for the first three months within the performance tracking period since the completion of the M&V performance assessment phase. This project is still early in its performance tracking phase and the indication is that this project will sustain its performance. The project managed to achieve a load shift of 1.110 MW on average during the evening peak periods (weekdays) over the total 3-months period. The project also managed to save the client a total of R 73 940.00 in avoided electricity costs over this period. The project is also managed to shift 0.335 MW on average out of the morning peak period over the 3-month period.

Summary
This case study focussed on the M&V deliverable associated when a residential load management project is measured and verified. The steps and methodologies were well described and results were given. An actual projects M&V results were used to illustrate the methodologies and procedures involved to M&V an RLM project. This case study also shows that, when implemented and managed correctly, RLM projects can produce demand reduction as well as electricity cost savings.

Page 14