As a reminder, we have a meeting tomorrow at 10 AM Pacific. Our agenda will focus on overarching CalTRACK and CalTRACK WG issues. Please take some time before the meeting to formulate some concrete improvements that could be made in those areas.
See you there! (Meeting info below)
Apex Analytics, LLC
345 W. Washington Ave., Ste. 301 | Madison, WI 53703
Office: (303)590-9888, x106 | Cell: (412)576-8100
jonk@... | www.apexanalyticsllc.com
Additional HEA comments in blue below ("HEA>").
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:34 PM Jon Koliner <jonk@...> wrote:
HEA> Too slow given the early stage we're at with CalTRACK and NMEC, where initial programs are struggling. But clearly the pace is constrained by the current "all volunteer" status.
HEA> We'd like to see more attention given to existing P4P projects.
HEA> Works great; no issues here.
HEA> Accuracy and associated automated testing of a "reference implementation". This will identify key areas to focus on.
HEA> We hope for continued improvement, which should result in increased cost effectiveness for all NMEC programs. But this requires a test suite to measure & record progress. At minimum, our CVRMSE values should be much closer to ASHRAE guidelines.
HEA> We would prefer a focus on P4P until several programs have demonstrated financial viability in both residential and commercial sectors.
HEA> Perhaps compare and contrast current methods with a more mature process, such as the one used for Java (https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide)? Java is similar to CalTRACK in that the standard is defined by written specifications (methods), and new implementations are certified based on their results against a test suite.
|1 - 2 of 2|