Skip to content
Request An Audit
Energy Audit & Compliance

Measurement & Verification That Proves What Your Project Delivered

Independent, IPMVP-based verification of completed energy projects for industrial sites that need to prove savings to a funding body, an obligated party or an internal business case.

  • Carried out in line with the IPMVP, using the option that fits your project and data
  • Defines the boundary, baseline, reporting period and calculation method properly
  • Identifies metering gaps early, before a weak submission is made
  • Evidence formatted for EEOS, SEAI, Enterprise Ireland or internal review
Book a MeetingRequest a proposal
  • Part of SHV Energy
  • ISO 50001
Engineer in protective equipment taking readings at an industrial electrical panel with a tablet
What we do

What This Service Is

Measurement and Verification is the work EM3 carries out when a client needs to prove, with evidence, what a completed project actually delivered. Not every energy project ends when installation is complete. Often the real requirement starts afterwards: the client, funding body or obligated party needs to know whether the expected savings were actually achieved, how they were calculated, and whether the method is robust enough to stand up to scrutiny.

This is not a generic review. It is a structured process that defines the project boundary, baseline, reporting period, measurement method and calculation approach required to verify savings properly. The work is carried out in line with the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), using the option that best fits the project and the available data.

Governing standardIPMVP

The challenge

The Challenge It Solves

By the time a client asks for M&V, the project itself has usually already happened. The question is no longer what to do, but how to prove what the project delivered. A completed measure has an expected saving attached to it, but the site does not yet have a defensible method for showing what the actual saving was. Three issues recur.

The first is method: there is no agreed boundary, baseline and calculation approach strong enough to stand behind the number. The second is metering adequacy: there may not be enough metering in place to evaluate performance, and the gaps need to be found before the reporting period closes. The third is data quality: where a first submission has already been made, weak data can mean the result does not meet SEAI or EEOS requirements and the verification has to be rebuilt.

  • No defensible boundary, baseline and calculation method behind the claimed saving
  • Uncertainty about whether the metering is adequate to evaluate performance
  • A first submission already made, but the data is not good enough to verify
  • A funding or compliance requirement that demands evidence, not estimates
Stainless process vessel with a pressure gauge and instrumentation in a plant
Our method

How EM3 Delivers It

  1. Define the scope of verification

    We set out the project description and intent, the M&V boundary, the methodology, the baseline and the reporting-period and data analysis. Verification is always tied to a defined boundary and a defined approach, not treated as a broad review of overall site performance.

  2. Select the IPMVP option

    We select the right IPMVP option for the project: Option A (retrofit isolation, key parameter measurement), Option B (retrofit isolation, all parameter measurement), Option C (whole facility) or Option D (calibrated simulation). The choice depends on the nature of the Energy Conservation Measure, the metering available and the verification boundary.

  3. Establish baseline and reporting period

    For a plan, we define exactly what data is needed before savings can be verified. For a report, we analyse actual operating data against the defined baseline over the reporting period and apply the chosen IPMVP method.

  4. Review the metering

    We identify whether sufficient metering exists to evaluate performance and highlight any gaps or improvements needed, early, before the reporting period closes and before a weak submission is produced.

  5. Analyse and calculate the saving

    We apply the chosen method to the data. For a compressed-air project that can mean an Option A regression model on flow and electrical consumption; for an LED upgrade, quantifying the combined effect of reduced connected load and reduced operating hours from controls. The analysis fits the project, not a template.

  6. Report and prepare the evidence

    We deliver an M&V Plan or Report that documents the method, boundary, analysis and verified savings, formatted as an evidence base suitable for external review by EEOS, SEAI or Enterprise Ireland where required, and prepared by qualified practitioners.

What you receive

What You Receive

  • M&V Plan

    Prepared before the reporting period: the project boundary, chosen methodology, baseline requirements, metering review and the recommendations needed so the future M&V report can be completed successfully.

  • M&V Report

    Prepared after the reporting period: the chosen IPMVP method, the boundary, the analysis procedure, the baseline and reporting-period data, and the resulting verified savings.

  • IPMVP option selection

    A clear rationale for the chosen option (A, B, C or D), tied to the Energy Conservation Measure, the available metering and the verification boundary, with the four options compared.

  • Metering gap review

    An assessment of whether the metering in place is sufficient to verify the saving, with specific recommendations where gaps could prevent successful verification.

  • Baseline and reporting-period analysis

    A defined baseline and an analysis of actual operating data over the reporting period, typically around twelve months of measured data.

  • External-ready evidence base

    Outputs prepared in a format and to a standard suitable for Enterprise Ireland, EEOS and SEAI verification, not just an internal technical note.

Proven outcome

Proven Outcome

~750,000 kWhVerified annual electricity saving, one project
52 weeksOf measured data behind the result
IPMVPEvery saving verified to protocol

For a compressed-air replacement at an industrial site, EM3 set the compressed-air system as the M&V boundary, installed project-specific metering on electricity and airflow, applied an IPMVP Option A retrofit-isolation approach with a regression model, and verified an annualised electricity saving of around 750,000 kWh from roughly fifty-two weeks of measured data. On a separate LED upgrade at a pharmaceutical site, the same discipline captured both the reduced connected load from high-efficiency luminaires and the reduced operating hours from sensor control.

Just as important is knowing when a result cannot yet be proven. On one heat-pump project, metering gaps and missing electrical-consumption data meant the first submission could not be fully verified, so EM3 set out a repeat M&V once the metering was resolved and a compliant twelve-month reporting period was available. That is the real role of M&V in funded and compliance-linked projects: not claiming savings, but proving them to the standard required.

Book a Meeting
Clean pharmaceutical process plant with instrumented stainless vessels
EM3 engineer auditing industrial switchgear with a tablet on site
Why EM3

Why EM3

  • Technical credibility

    The work is carried out in accordance with the IPMVP, and our reports include practitioner detail showing the qualifications and experience of the people generating and reviewing it. Reviews are carried out by competent, experienced individuals.

  • Tied to the project and the data

    The method is not fixed in advance. We choose the IPMVP option and the analytical approach based on the measure, the metering and the boundary, so the verification reflects how the project actually behaves.

  • Practical about metering

    We find metering gaps early, before the reporting period is complete and before a weak submission is produced, and we will rebuild an assessment on better metering and a compliant reporting period where a first attempt fell short.

  • Independent

    With no ties to equipment vendors, the verification is an honest measurement of what was delivered, not a number shaped to suit a supplier.

How we engage

How We Engage

Typical durationFrom two weeks to six weeks or more
Engagement model

M&V is not one single product. It ranges from a focused desktop verification of around two weeks, through EEOS tender and M&V support of two to four weeks, to a full plan-and-report scope of around six weeks or more. The verified report itself follows a reporting period of measured data, typically around twelve months. Work is delivered as a fixed-price project with milestone payments, and the exact scope is confirmed in a proposal.

Request a proposal
Where it applies

Where It Applies

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

What is M&V and why do I need it?

Measurement and Verification proves, with evidence, what a completed energy project actually delivered. It is needed when a funding body, an obligated party or an internal business case requires proof of the saving rather than an estimate, and when the result has to stand up to external scrutiny.

What standard do you follow?

The work is carried out in line with the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). We select the option, A, B, C or D, that fits the Energy Conservation Measure, the available metering and the verification boundary.

What is the difference between an M&V Plan and an M&V Report?

An M&V Plan defines how savings will be verified later, before the reporting period: the boundary, methodology, baseline requirements and metering review. An M&V Report quantifies the verified savings after the reporting period, typically around twelve months of measured data.

What if our metering is not adequate?

We identify metering gaps early and recommend improvements before the reporting period closes, so you do not produce a weak submission. Where a first submission has already fallen short, we can rebuild the assessment on better metering and a compliant reporting period.

Can you prepare evidence for SEAI, EEOS or Enterprise Ireland?

Yes. The output is a technical analysis and an evidence base prepared in a format and to a standard suitable for external review by Enterprise Ireland, EEOS and SEAI where required.

How long does it take?

It depends on scope, from around two weeks for a focused desktop verification to six weeks or more for a full plan-and-report. The verified report itself follows a reporting period of measured data, typically around twelve months.

Keep exploring

Related Services

Read the European Industrial Energy Funding Atlas

More from EM3

Dig Deeper