McGee Young's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
A few questions to consider, just dumping them in here: General: any consideration into specifying a standard set of data cleaning procedures and/or data-quality checks?General: Given the non-CA interest, it seems most important to test whether the existing specs work as intended outside of PG&E's service territory. Will this be part of the 2.0 process?Task A: How do we know these are the issues most important to spend time on?Task C (hourly): There is always risk of getting too sophisticated. We recommend ensuring vigilance to ensure that the effort remains focused on the *minimum* sophistication necessary to serve the intended use casesGeneral: Will there be any ability to consider creating a second tier of methods that do control for exogenous changes? Not all jurisdictions will have this split between “payable” and “claimable” savings. It doesn’t necessarily exist in nature.
Where can we find a summary of the Caltrack 1.0 process and conclusions?
Question: for the balance point search range, have you explored a number of climate zones? If so, how diverse are the results? Have you aligned this work with California building climate zones?
As for a name... let's go with something that is more descriptive of what this actually is. Like "PfP Analysis Methods" or "Energy Analysis for PfP"
Have you looked at the idea of developing prototype load shapes by building type? Have you looked at aligning this analysis with the current work being done for the new CEUS?
Earlier on the call you mentioned that existing methods (IPMVP, G14, UMP) weren't very specific. Is CalTrack intended to fill the gaps and reference other industry guidance, or is it intended as standalone all-in-one guidance?
Do you have the questions for each Task (as reviewed by Hassan Shaban and any other questions pertaining to current scope written in planning document? It may be helpful for NY and OR test teams to have concrete and consistent plan
Caltrack 1 archive: https://github.com/CalTRACK-2/caltrack/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed
I'm looking for more of an overview -for last cycle.
Sue - I have found the Caltrack.org site to be a good summary too (docs is more detailed)
How will these tasks be prioritized? Using requirements from existing P4P contracts?
In regards to testing, the deck says "Test assumptions and questions with data sets available to you." I assume then there is no central source of data shared among participants. Is this correct?
Uncertainty in estimates?
Given that a lot of participants are not so deep in the weeds to propose issues and do testing, what do you propose their main role is, or what they will take away?
More background in how this fits in the market. If the results don't match evaluated savings - hasn't this missed the mark? Is this a defacto evaluation method? Is this a proxy for an evaluated response. Who do you think will be running the open source codes to determine for P4P - the PAs?
Thanks Carmen. I think the industry could use some help separating what these methods are or can be from certain tools (e.g., OEEM). There is a great deal of confusion out there and some of it is just because the methods are linked to product marketing. If the overall industry was just more clear on how anyone who wants to follow tehse methods can follow them taht would help everyone. Could the non-technical partciapants assist with that?
For implementers who are getting paid based on CalTrack results, will calculation methodologies change in mid-stream? What might be the associated business risks to implementers?