Proving Savings on an Abu Dhabi Retrofit: the M&V Protocol and IPMVP Options A to D

Introduction

An energy performance contract is a promise about the future paid for in the future. The ESCO funds and installs the measures, and the owner pays out of the reduction in utility bills. Everything depends on one number: how much was saved. That number cannot be read off a meter.

In Abu Dhabi, the rules for producing it are set by the Department of Energy’s Abu Dhabi Measurement and Verification Protocol. What follows covers the four IPMVP options, where the money turns in an M&V Plan, and how to choose an option for the measures that dominate Abu Dhabi retrofits.

What the Protocol is

The Protocol is a DoE guidance document: DoE/PD/P04/005, version 0, effective 2 January 2022. As at 11 October 2026 the copy DoE publishes on its website is still version 0.

• Scope. M&V on energy performance contracting (EPC) projects delivered by Energy Service Companies (ESCOs). Energy and water savings are treated alike throughout.
• Audience. It is distributed to Abu Dhabi Energy Services (ADES), the emirate’s Super ESCO, and to all ESCOs operating in Abu Dhabi, and is addressed to landlords and ESCOs alike. It is the rulebook for the retrofit market, not a general facilities obligation.
• Purpose. It supports the Building Retrofits Programme of the Abu Dhabi DSM and Energy Rationalisation Strategy 2030, which targets 22% electricity and 32% water savings by 2030.
• Foundations. It is based on the IPMVP Core Concepts, EVO 10000-1:2016, published by the Efficiency Valuation Organization, the FEMP M&V Guidelines for Performance-Based Contracts, version 4.0, US Department of Energy, November 2015, and industry best practice.

Every saving is an estimate

A saving is energy that was not used, and you cannot meter an absence. Savings are found by comparing measured use after the retrofit with what the building would have used without it, and that second figure is a model.

In outline, savings equal baseline energy, minus reporting period energy, plus or minus adjustments. Adjustments bring the baseline to the conditions of the reporting period: a hotter summer, more occupants, longer operating hours. More measurement improves the accuracy of the estimate. It never turns the estimate into a measurement.

The Protocol names six principles for good M&V: accurate, complete, conservative, consistent, relevant and transparent. Conservative means that where a judgement has to be made about an uncertain quantity, it should lean towards understating savings. Accurate includes proportion: the cost of M&V should be small relative to the value of the savings it is protecting.

Two methods, four options

M&V methods fall into two families. Retrofit isolation draws the measurement boundary around the equipment that was changed. Whole facility draws it around the building’s main meter. IPMVP divides these into four options.

Option	Boundary	What is measured	Typical use
A, key parameter measurement	The retrofitted equipment	The parameter that defines the saving, often power draw, is measured before and after. Others, often operating hours, are stipulated at agreed values from records or manufacturer data	Simple, predictable measures. A lighting replacement where fixture wattage is measured and hours are agreed
B, all parameter measurement	The retrofitted equipment or system	Every parameter that drives energy use, usually by a meter left in place through the reporting period	Loads that vary with conditions. A variable speed drive on a pump or fan motor
C, whole facility	The building or site meter	Utility meter data, usually with a regression model against independent variables such as weather and occupancy	Several interacting measures, where the combined saving is large enough to show at the main meter
D, calibrated simulation	The whole facility, or part of it	An energy model calibrated against actual hourly or monthly metered data	New buildings, or cases where baseline or reporting period data is missing

The Protocol notes that Option C is rarely used in practice, because it needs a detailed inventory of everything behind the meter and of how the building is used. It is appropriate where the measures interact heavily, or where everything on the meter can be accounted for.

How the option is chosen

The Protocol includes an option selection diagram drawn from IPMVP. The logic runs in a few questions.

Is the aim to prove the performance of a specific measure, or of the facility as a whole? If a specific measure, can it be isolated with its own meters? If it can, does the contract need a full demonstration of performance (Option B), or is it enough to measure the key parameter and agree the rest (Option A)? If it cannot be isolated, or the aim is facility performance, are the expected savings large enough relative to the main meter’s consumption to be seen in the data? The diagram uses 10% as the test. If they are, and the measures do not need to be assessed one by one, analyse the main meter (Option C). If they are not, if each measure must be assessed separately, or if baseline or reporting period data is missing, simulate and calibrate (Option D).

Baselines, independent variables and static factors

The baseline period is the stretch of pre-retrofit data the savings are measured against, and the M&V Plan has to say why it was chosen. A baseline drawn from an unusual year misstates every saving that follows. One that includes a fault the retrofit happens to fix inflates them.

Two kinds of condition are recorded with it:

• Independent variables are expected to change and have a measurable effect on energy use. Weather and occupancy are the usual ones. They are built into the baseline model, and the Protocol’s Plan template sets statistical tests the regression must pass, including a coefficient of determination above 0.75 and t-statistics outside the range of minus 2 to 2.
• Static factors are conditions assumed fixed: floor area, operating schedule, set points, the number and capacity of HVAC systems, outdoor air quantity, chilled water temperature. If one changes, the baseline has to be adjusted, temporarily or permanently.

Adjustments: where the money is decided

The Protocol defines two kinds of adjustment. Routine adjustments handle expected movement in the independent variables, and in practice they are calculated inside the baseline model. Non-routine adjustments handle unexpected changes that have nothing to do with the measures: a tenant fit-out, an added floor, a new data room, longer opening hours.

“

When a performance contract ends in argument, the argument is almost never about the arithmetic. It is about whether, and how, the baseline should have been adjusted.

The protection is the M&V Plan, written before anyone has a stake in the answer. It should list the static factors, say how each will be monitored, set out how a non-routine adjustment will be calculated when one changes, and say who has to tell whom. A Plan that is silent on non-routine adjustments leaves every change in the building’s use to be negotiated after the event, when each party already knows which answer pays.

The five steps and the M&V Plan

The Protocol sets out five steps to determine and verify savings:

1. Allocate risks and responsibilities between the ESCO and the customer. The risks are usage (how long equipment runs), performance (whether it works as intended) and stipulation (whether agreed values are wrong). The Protocol provides a risk and responsibility matrix covering financial, operational and performance items.
2. Develop a project-specific M&V Plan, normally during contract negotiation. The Protocol treats it as the most important single element of a savings guarantee.
3. Install and commission the measures. Commissioning proves the systems work as designed; M&V quantifies how much energy they save.
4. Post-installation verification by the ESCO, reported in a Post-Installation Report that lists installed equipment, records the verification measurements and states expected savings for the first year.
5. Regular-interval M&V, typically annual on an EPC, with operational checks in between so problems surface during the year rather than at its end.

The Plan outline in the Protocol covers the target facilities and measures, the option and measurement boundary, the baseline period and conditions, the reporting period, the adjustment method, energy and water prices, meter specifications, monitoring and reporting responsibilities, expected accuracy, the M&V budget, report format and quality assurance. Two details deserve attention. A utility company meter is accepted without further validation; any other meter needs its specification, calibration, reading protocol and handling of lost data set out. And cost savings are valued at the prices defined in the contract, so the price schedule belongs in the Plan, not in a later letter.

The annual report, and the invoice

On an EPC the annual M&V report is not a technical appendix. Once the customer has reviewed and approved it, the savings it documents are the basis of the ESCO’s invoice.

The Protocol expects the report to cover the performance measurements and inspections carried out, the verified savings for the year in energy and cost, a comparison with the guaranteed savings, the full analysis and calculations including the rates used and every baseline adjustment, the operation and maintenance carried out, and any issues needing attention.

The owner’s right to a second pair of eyes

The Protocol’s section on third-party verification is short. Citing IPMVP, it recognises that where the party determining savings has more experience than the owner, the owner may seek assistance in reviewing savings reports. Its Plan outline adds that the M&V Plan may be reviewed by a qualified third party, giving the AEE Certified Measurement and Verification Professional as an example.

That is permission, not a requirement. On most contracts the ESCO writes the Plan, runs the measurement, applies the adjustments and drafts the report. An owner without in-house M&V expertise is approving the ESCO’s invoice on the ESCO’s own working. The full case is in Who checks the ESCO’s savings.

Choosing an option for common Abu Dhabi measures

The Plan has to justify its option for the specific measure, metering and contract. These patterns hold for the measures that dominate Abu Dhabi retrofits.

Chiller plant. Cooling is the largest load in most Abu Dhabi buildings, and chiller load moves with weather and occupancy. A chiller replacement or plant optimisation is usually best served by Option B: continuous metering of electrical input and of chilled water flow and temperatures, so efficiency is measured across the full load range. Option A, with a stipulated cooling load, leaves the largest variable to agreement. Our chiller audits establish the measured plant baseline these contracts need.

Lighting. The classic Option A case: measure fixture power before and after, agree operating hours. The risk sits in the hours, so base them on logged data rather than a schedule. Lighting also cuts cooling load, an interactive effect; if the ESCO claims that saving, the Plan must say how it is estimated.

Controls, BMS and scheduling. Set point changes, scheduling and sequencing touch the whole building and interact with everything else. Where the combined saving is a large enough share of the main meter and the baseline regression is sound, Option C fits. Where it is not, measure the affected plant under Option B. Where controls are part of a larger package in a building without usable baseline data, Option D may be the only route.

Variable speed drives on pumps and fans. The point of a drive is that load varies, so a single spot measurement says little. Option B, with power metered through the reporting period, is the normal choice. Option A is defensible only where the load has been shown to be constant.

Across all four the trade-off is the same. Measuring more costs more and narrows the uncertainty. Stipulating more costs less and moves risk to whoever accepts the stipulated value, usually the owner. Settle that deliberately before the Plan is signed.

How ESGweise helps

ESGweise works on the owner’s side of energy performance contracts. We carry out energy audits that establish the baseline before negotiation, review draft M&V Plans for option choice, boundary, baseline period, static factors and adjustment rules, and independently review ESCO post-installation and annual M&V reports before the owner approves them. We do not sell or install efficiency measures. For where M&V sits among Abu Dhabi’s other energy obligations, see what Abu Dhabi mandates instead of energy audits and our Abu Dhabi environmental compliance guide.

References and sources

• Abu Dhabi Department of Energy, Abu Dhabi Measurement and Verification Protocol, Guidance Document, DoE/PD/P04/005, version 0, effective 2 January 2022
• Efficiency Valuation Organization, IPMVP Core Concepts, EVO 10000-1:2016, and the current edition, EVO 10000-1:2022
• US Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts, version 4.0 (November 2015) and version 5.0 (September 2024)
• Abu Dhabi Department of Energy, Abu Dhabi Energy and Water Efficiency Strategy 2030
• ISO 50015:2014, Energy management systems, Measurement and verification of energy performance of organizations

Conclusion

The Abu Dhabi M&V Protocol does not make savings measurable. Nothing can. It makes the estimate disciplined: a declared option, a defined boundary, a documented baseline, rules for adjusting it, and an annual report that shows its working.

For a building owner, the lesson is about timing. The decisions that set the size of every future invoice, which option, which baseline period, which static factors, how non-routine changes are handled, are made in the M&V Plan during negotiation. That is the moment to have the Plan reviewed by someone with no stake in the result.