Pacific Energy Center, San Francisco

CCC Minutes

July 25th 2002

Pacific Energy Center, San Francisco

Attending:

Bryan Alcorn, CEC

Gregg Ander, SCE

Norman Bourassa, LBNL

Karl Brown, CIEE

Tav Commins, CEC

Richard Conrad, DSA

Grant Duhon, PG&E

Don Frey, AEC

Ken Gillespie, PG&E

Dale Gustavson, ACCA

Phil Haves, LBNL

Linda Irvine, PECI

Arun Jhaveri, DOE-FEMP

Jeff Johnson, New Buildings Institute

Karl Johnson, KFJ Energy Strategies

Bill Jones, U.S. EPA

David Jump, Quantum Consulting

Joyce Kinnear, Silicon Valley Power

Mark Levi, GSA

Don Little, Farnsworth Group

Richard Michelfelder, Quantum Consulting

Mo Mirseyedi, LADWP

Phil Ondler, SDG&E

Jim Parks, SMUD

Bill Pennington, CEC

Commissioner Robert Pernell, CEC

Mary Ann Piette, LBNL

Chris Scruton, CEC

Ryan Stroupe, Pacific Energy Center

Treasa Sweek, CTG Energetics

Phil Welker, PECI

Historical Introduction

For the benefit of first time attendees, Tav reviewed the history of the CCC, beginning with its inception at ACEEE two years ago, as an ad hoc group to share activities and promote commissioning in California.

Action Item: It was suggested that we develop a 1-page introduction to the CCC (Mission, History, Accomplishments) for new attendees, so that it is not necessary to repeat this introduction at every meeting.

Work Plan Feedback

The group reviewed the latest version of the work plan, focusing on the first work item, developing the Four California Case Studies. Once again, the question of audience was raised. Attendees emphasized that the case studies should speak to both owners and the CPUC, looking at non-energy benefits in addition to energy savings.

The following comments were offered on particular tasks.

Task 1.2: Ken Gillespie suggested that the Case Study Protocol development should begin by identifying resources we already have. He asked for details of how the work would be accomplished and by whom. Other attendees concurred that the protocol development effort should draw on previous work and be coordinated with utility projects. Chris Scruton recommended flexibility in the protocol, to admit new methods and technologies as they emerge.

It was observed that gathering the case study data is a significant part of the cost of retrocommissioning. A question was raised regarding intellectual property and control the protocol. Jeff Johnson pointed out that if the protocol is developed under contract to the CEC, then it is CEC property.

Task 1.1: Establish Criteria for Selecting Case Study Candidate Buildings: Gregg Ander suggested that we ensure a diversity of projects for the 4 case studies, and took a poll of the work currently under way:

·  SDG&E: Pilot commissioning for a retail establishment

·  SMUD: 3 years ago, rcxed a hospital, crime lab, data center and an office (Could look at persistence.)

·  SCE: Currently has K-12 and Community College

·  PG&E: Currently has 2 school projects, new and mixed rehab/new (These will be CHPS best practices schools.)

·  Quantum’s Oakland Project: Will provide retrocommissioning for retail and hospital sectors

Existing Data vs. New Data

The group revisited the question of whether we can use any data already gathered for the four case studies. Mary Ann Piette pointed out that existing-building data is much more robust than new construction data. Furthermore, the Non-energy benefits (a.k.a. “NEBS”) are difficult to quantify for either new or existing buildings. Participants agreed that defining the protocol will help define where the holes in the data are, and expressed strong interest in having the protocol ready for implementation as soon as possible.

Funding Update

The group reviewed the funding contribution targets and funding commitments to date. It was clarified that the “First Year” budget numbers are for an entire 12-month cycle. Several members commented that it would be easier for them to pass money to the CCC if we had a more defined organizational structure. Despite these difficulties, representatives of various organizations agreed to the following initial contributions:

CEC $40,000

DSA: $13,500 for Item 3 (Assess Training Needs and Develop Educational Strategy) and another $4,500 if we can find a scope of work that applies to schools

PG&E: $35,000 (task specific)

SCE $26,000

SDG&E: $10,000

SMUD $15,000

LADWP: $15,000

DOE/FEMP $10,000 (must be given by end of September)

EPA will fund part of the larger education agenda, once it gets fleshed out.

These contributions bring the total committed funding to $134,000 for the Workplan as presented, plus $35,000 (PG&E’s contribution) for specific tasks to be determined.

After the review of funding, Arun Jhaveri moved that the CCC have Jeff Johnson begin work on the protocol (Task 1.2). The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Jeff Johnson offered that his effort would evaluate the rigidity of each piece of the protocol and make accommodations for proprietary methods. The CCC will figure out the next steps (where the data will live, who compiles it) as we move forward.

Organizational Structure

The group reviewed the proposed organizational structure. It was emphasized that the structure is not a set of by-laws, but rather, a description of the organization that will change over time. Commissioner Pernell moved that we adopt the description of the organizational structure, to be amended as needed by the funding stakeholders. Arun seconded the motion. There were no objections.

Next Steps: PECI will work with the funding stakeholders to make a more operational description of the organization and convene a conference call with all of the stakeholders, to facilitate the creation of the Advisory Board.

Informational Updates

Commissioning Conference Agenda Topics

Phil Welker presented a list of potential topics for the 2003 National Conference on Building Commissioning, to be held May 20-22nd in Palm Springs. Traditionally, there has been an owner track, a provider track, and a third track for utility and government programs. Phil requested that attendees email him with feedback on the suggested tracks within the next week.

The group discussed how to use the conference to grow the effectiveness of California providers and the CCC. Tav encouraged participants to help promote the conference by providing mailing lists or by distributing information to their mailing lists, as the CEC has done in the past. If the conference draws a large audience of providers new to commissioning, there will be the need for more “Introduction to Commissioning” programs.

If people are turned away, they should be steered in the direction of other commissioning resources, for example, training workshops or utility programs. At the very least, they should receive a list of the attendees of the CCC meetings, and a List of Providers. (These would both be available at the CCC website, www.cacx.org) In addition, PECI will look at the possibility of encumbering additional space, and present the utilities with a proposed budget for this.

PG&E’s Building Commissioning Guidelines

Grant Duhon distributed copies of PG&E’s “Building Commissioning Guidelines,” a two-part guidebook and CD ROM. Part 1 speaks to owners about the Benefits of Commissioning. Part 2 is a commissioning guide for designers.

PG&E’s Cx+ Web Tool

Treasa Sweek presented an introduction to “Cx+,” a Web Tool for designers, owners, and providers. The tool is intended to build on PG&E’s existing Energy Design Resources website and provide tools and training for commissioning and integrated design. It evaluates the project information and recommends a level of commissioning (Abbreviated, Standard, Comprehensive) for new construction mechanical and electrical systems. In addition, the tool includes a scope generator, spec generator, cost estimator and other resources.

Some participants expressed uneasiness with the cost estimator. Some suggested basing the cost estimates on a percentage of the mechanical and electrical systems’ cost. They felt it was important to maintain the tool’s credibility by not underestimating the costs; at the same time, they did not want to scare owners away from commissioning. It was suggested that the tool should discuss benefits as well as costs. The calculation of project-specific benefits is beyond the scope of the project, but there could be a link to a generic discussion of benefits.

Jeff Johnson noted that this project defines nomenclature for parts of the commissioning process. He would like to use the same terms in the Case Study Protocol. It was also suggested that these projects (that use the Cx+ Tool) could possibly be fed into our forthcoming Database of Commissioning projects.

Quantum Consulting’s Oakland Energy Partners Large Commercial Building Tune-Up Program

David Jump presented an overview of a program that Quantum Consulting (QC) will be implementing under the CPUC-funded 3rd Party Local Initiatives Program. They are working with LBNL and the Oakland Mayor’s Office to provide retrocommissioning services and an Energy Management Plan of capital-intensive measures to 44 large commercial buildings. The program will pay $40,000 per building for engineering, implementation and EM&V. They will also provide up to $30,000 of matching co-funding for improvements.

The group discussed the issue of how to determine the baseline against which savings will be measured. Existing conditions may not be a valid baseline, because they may be in violation of code. A screening process is necessary to ensure that the building is adequately maintained and meets code, before retrocommissioning commences.

PIER

Chris Scruton presented an overview of current PIER projects. Projects include Commissioning and Monitoring for New Construction (the Functional Test Guide) and Monitoring and Commissioning of Existing Buildings.

California Building Energy Initiative (CBEI)

Don Frey of Architectural Energy Inc. presented a review of the California Building Energy Initiative. The program was designed to reduce summertime energy consumption under the 2001 Independent Energy Initiatives. It provided audits and prefunctional tests, functional tests, short term monitoring, and O&M personnel training. Originally, the program required the customer to pay the audit fee if they chose not to implement any measures. However, participation lagged. Once the clause was eliminated, the program easily reached its participation goals. Overall, they achieved 13.4% savings with an average 1.3 year payback.

Don reviewed the Top 4 List of commissioning items by prevalence and cost-effectiveness:

1.  Controls – Schedules for equipment and lighting

2.  Controls – Simultaneous heating and cooling

3.  Variable Speed Drives

4.  Economizers

Lessons

·  Implementation rates were highest in buildings over 100,000 SF, with energy costs of more than $1.50/SF per year.

·  Capital funds are not always available for energy efficiency measures. Marble floors buy more tenants than efficient equipment.

·  Measures may not persist unless they are monitored: an economizer was reset by a service contractor to the original (incorrect) setting within weeks of project completion.

·  HVAC service contractors need training.

The group briefly discussed whether these CBEI projects could go into the retrocommissioning database and who owns the data.

Agenda Items for next meeting

Phil encouraged people to send him ideas for next meeting’s agenda.

Summary of Action Items

Prepare a 1 page summary introduction of the CCC history, goals, objectives, and accomplishments, for newcomer reference. (PECI)

Begin work on the Case Study Protocol (Jeff Johnson)

Deliver pledged contributions to CEC or PECI (various entities)

Send feedback on NCBC topics for 2003 (optional, all)

Send feedback to Treasa Sweek, David Jump on their respective projects (optional, all)

Convene a conference call for Funding Stakeholders, to set up Advisory Board (PECI)