The Evolution of M&V Protocols as Counterfactual Species

Measurement and Verification (M&V) protocols can be understood as variant species within the genus of counterfactual analysis—each adapted to survive in a distinct policy, regulatory, or technical ecosystem.

Like biological species, M&V protocols share a common ancestor: the need to infer what would have happened in the absence of an intervention. In this sense, they are all rooted in the counterfactual method. But over time, they’ve evolved to serve different niches.

• IPMVP developed to standardize approaches across utility programs and facilitate the growth of performance contracting.

• ASHRAE Guideline 14 focused on rigor in statistical modeling and engineering-grade analysis.

• Other frameworks, like FEMP or regional protocols, have adapted to federal contracting environments, ISO/RTO markets, or ESG reporting.

As the energy ecosystem undergoes rapid change—more renewables, responsive loads, decentralized assets—new selective pressures emerge. Protocols that once thrived in stable, utility-driven environments may no longer suffice. New forms of M&V are evolving to address:

• High-resolution, real-time data streams;

• Behavioral and AI-optimized systems;

• Greater demands for transparency and trust in impact claims.

The challenge now is not just selecting the “best” protocol, but understanding which species is best suited to a given environment of need.

Let’s treat M&V not as a fixed set of rules, but as a living, evolving practice—rooted in the counterfactual, but shaped by the world it seeks to measure.