CCC Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2003
Sacramento, CA
12:30 pm - 4:00 pm
Attendees
Arun Jhaveri
/ Randall HigaEd Becker / Phil Welker
David Jump / Phil Ondler
Mazin Kellow / Mary Ann Piette
Martha Brook / Nancy Jenkins
Gregg Ander / Jim Parks
Bill Pennington / Dale Gustavson
Greg Holzer / Duane Davies
Treasa Sweek / Patrick Eilert
Norm Bourassa / Dave Watson
Mark Levi / Joyce Kinnear
Doug Chamberlin / Chris Scruton
Bryan Welsh / Peter Keithly
Lynn Melby / Tav Commins
Ken Gillespie / Eric Swan
Jeff Johnson / David Reynolds
Grant Duhon / Marti Tsypin
Introductions
Tav Commins, CEC gave a brief history of the CCC.
Stakeholders Report:
Phil Welker, PECI reported out on the Stakeholders meeting. The CCC has $31,000 left from 2002 with $21,000 uncommitted to specific tasks. Completing the remaining project scopes from 2002 would cost $127,000.
The following members were appointed to the Advisory Board:
Tav Commins or Bill Pennington California Energy Commission
Richard Conrad Division of the State Architect
Don Frey Architectural Energy Corporation
Ken Gillespie Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Jeff Johnson New Buildings Institute
Mazin Kellow SMUD
Don Little Farnsworth Group
Tony Pierce Southern California Edison
Mary Ann Piette Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Treasa Sweek or Malcolm Lewis CTG Energetics, Inc.
Dale Gustavson Better Buildings
David Jump Quantum Consulting
Doug Chamberlin Brown Vence and Associates
Martha Brooke PIER
Randall Higa SoCalGas
Don Frey was selected as Chair of the Advisory Board.
Project Ideas
Project ideas were presented and the Advisory Board was asked to prioritize them. Nancy Jenkins introduced PIER's project ideas.
Case study protocol
Several questions were raised. Attendees wondered what will be done with the data, how proprietary it will be and whether there will be the ability to produce tables and analyze the data. It was noted that all buildings accepted into the protocol database must be located in California. The suggestion was made to include functionality to remind the user to provide updated information on regular intervals after the end of the project.
Provider/owner tools
Advisory Board members agreed that the CCC needed to establish criteria for posting commissioning providers to the website, and that the list should be reviewed on a yearly basis. The CCC does not plan to create its own certification process and is monitoring the work currently underway by the BCA. It was suggested that a list of qualifications for contractors and subcontractors also be added to the website.
Training and education projects
The question was raised as to whether the CCC should take on training projects or leave them to the universities and vocational schools. This raised the larger issue of clarifying the CCC’s goals and mission. PECI will address this at the next meeting.
Website
Advisory Board members agreed that the cacx.org website should be a resource to the community. Uses include distributing information about commissioning projects and tools, explaining the CCC structure, links to other commissioning-related websites, meeting notes, workshop announcements, etc. As a result of this discussion, members decided that the CCC needs to create an additional "outreach" task. PECI will address this issue at the next meeting.
Research tools & policy
Attendees discussed the merit of including commissioning on the State’s mechanical and electrical exams. Current research projects were discussed, including an LBNL/SMUD retrocommissioning study of five to 10 buildings, a Texas A&M project, Oakland’s use of utility data in their large commercial building project, NBI's work with building codes, building modeling software. The subject of building screening tools was discussed and it was decided to add the creation of a screening tool as a project idea.
Attendees noted the importance of considering the needs of the market when creating commissioning tools and marketing materials. Two groups were sited specifically: larger owners and contractors. Larger owners are not necessarily energy-driven and their needs must be explored and attended to. Contractors are another market for energy efficiency technologies. In terms of marketing tools to contractors, large-scale demonstration projects and persistence studies at "street level," where contractors are actually using ACRx or the HVAC Service Assistant will be important in helping answer whether these tools are working and whether they can be incorporated into the contractor’s way of doing business. It will be important to keep asking: What is the tool’s business proposition? How much does it cost them to use?
Prioritization of Project Ideas
Projects prioritized by the Stakeholders were not ranked by the Advisory Board. They include: The creation of a 5-10 year plan, case studies, tools, training/education, PIER projects and website work. In the ranking process, Stakeholders and Advisory Board members selected their top five projects, with the resulting list of priorities:
§ Develop a model of the California commissioning market;
§ Conduct persistence studies;
§ Develop a T24 commissioning support tool focusing on design intent, basis of design and sequence of operation; and
§ Develop a screening tool.
Scopes and budgets for these projects will be developed and circulated to the Advisory Board for review, with recommendations to the Stakeholders by the next meeting.
Project Updates
Jeff Johnson, NBI gave an update on the Advanced Building Guidelines, which document best technology practices for promoting good indoor environmental quality and energy use. A second draft will be available for public review on February 10th and posted on the NBI website. The BCA is invited to review and comment. The Guidelines will be published in May and updated every year to 18 months.
Jim Parks, SMUD reviewed their program and previewed his presentation at the National Conference on Building Commissioning. The program included 17 buildings ranging from 2% to 20% savings. A Coroner and Crime Lab had the largest savings and most have persisted.
David Jump, Quantum Consulting reviewed Oakland Energy Partner's Large Buildings Tune-Up Program sponsored by the PUC. This is a $1.8 million program involving up to 40 buildings or 10.5 million square feet, all within the City of Oakland. The program began in September 2002 and is currently in the recruitment phase. The program is targeting a one year payback and $0.10 per sq.ft for all costs. David noted that the MOU has been deterring potential participants because of a clause requiring them to implement measures or pay back a part of the scoping cost. Another issue has been reaching the decision makers at property management companies, who control between 60 and 70% of Oakland’s large commercial building stock.
Ken Gillespie, PG&E/Treasa Sweek, CTG Energetics gave an update on Cx+. The tool allows a user to enter details about the project and receive a recommendation as to the “level” of commissioning that should be applied (abbreviated / standard / comprehensive). Attendees were presented with the website URL and a username and password, and asked to test the tool and provide feedback to Ken or Treasa.
Mary Ann Piette, LBNL introduced HPBCS and reviewed current projects. They include the Functional Test Guide and work with Peralta to develop curricula needs. Mary Ann requested the CCC’s help running focus groups.
Dale Gustavson, ACCA introduced the group to the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and the California chapter. March 12th is the first meeting of CalACCA and attendees are requested to attend. Dale asked for assistance with funding and endorsements. He also noted that board seats will be open to non-contractors, in proportion to their % of total members, and he encouraged commissioning providers to join.
Brian Welsh, Keithly Welsh Associates discussed the Building Commissioning Association’s certification project, funded by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The BCA recently hired a consultant to develop the certification program based on survey results. The BCA is currently looking for input on the program and 10-12 test-writers to create the certification exam, which will occur at the end of May. There will be a two-day seminar plus follow-on work, to be held September 15-19.
Phil Welker, PECI described the agenda for the 11th annual NCBC and requested suggestions for the plenary session covering California activities. He noted that the session will be a high-level discussion appealing to a broad audience and should present California’s commissioning work to other parties around the country. Phil is also looking for recommendations for the second day keynote speaker. Christine Irwin was suggested as a keynote speaker and the CHPS program and Charles Eley were suggested for the plenary session.
Action Items
1. Clarify the CCC’s mission as to target audience and role of projects in the marketplace (PECI)
2. Scope an “outreach” task as part of the CCC’s 2003 priorities (PECI)
3. Scope the four new projects prioritized by the Stakeholders and Advisory Board (PECI):
a. CCC 5-10 year plan
b. Persistence studies
c. Title 24 commissioning support tool
d. Building screening tool
4. Provide feedback on the following projects underway (all attendees):
a. NBI’s Advanced Building Guidelines, available Feb. 10th at www.newbuildings.org
b. PG&E’s Cx+ tool, url and password available from Ken Gillespie
c. BCA’s provider certification project, contact www.bcxa.org
d. Ideas for a plenary session featuring California commissioning at NCBC, contact Phil Welker
5. There will be bi-monthly meetings in the short-term due to the CCC’s heavy workload, probably in March and early May.