California Commissioning CollaborativeMeeting Minutes

April 25, 2002SCE

Attending:

Gregg Ander, SCE

Cyril Charles, City of LA

Tav Commins, CEC

Richard Conrad, DSA

Don Cunningham, LADWP

Ken Gillespie, PG&E

Tudi Haasl, PECI

Randall Higa, So Cal Gas

Linda Irvine, PECI

Aaron F. Latt, Project Management Collaborative

Katrina Ling, Grace Consulting Corp.

Don Little, Farnsworth Group

Ann McCormick, Newcomb Anderson Assoc.

Phil Ondler, SDG&E

Jim Parks, SMUD

Bill Pennington, CEC

Robert Pernell, CEC

Tony Pierce, SCE

Mary Ann Piette, LBNL

Treasa Sweek, CTG Energetics

Scott Thigpen, D&R International

Phil Welker, PECI

Bryan Welsh, Keithly Welsh Associates

Update on PIER Meeting on Commissioning and Diagnostics

Research Issues

The CEC is striving to ensure that the R&D agenda fits the Market needs. They are currently doing a portfolio analysis of the total PIER portfolio. PIER would like the CCC to recommend issues for funding. They might consider funding for developing a case study protocol.

Ken Gillespie reported that he has a proposal on table with PG&E to fund the case study protocol, unilaterally or in concert with other entities.

Marketing Issues

The CEC is focusing on “Market Connectivity” with the goal of getting research projects to market. Phil Welker outlined a market model composed of three segments: innovators/researchers, the main market, and laggards. Most of the current commissioning case studies are of innovators/researchers (e.g. university buildings), but we need case studies of the main market actors to move commissioning “across the chasm” into the mainstream.


From: Crossing the Chasm, Moore, 1999

The group discussed the efficacy of a regulatory approach, such as legislation to give a regulatory mandate to the DSA. Richard Conrad mentioned the voluntary model in Commissioning for Schools. If the $25 Billion bond bill passes, the State will offer an additional 5% for schools that meet Title 24 by a certain window. The incentive is not linked to Commissioning.

Commissioner Pernell reiterated that the regulatory approach to commissioning would not be feasible without proof of cost-effectiveness.

Members concurred that our first priority should be to define a case study protocol for the purposes of documenting costs and benefits of both new and existing building commissioning. The first step is to define the purpose and scope of the protocol development: in-depth technical case studies or lighter marketing case studies? The group agreed that work to develop a protocol should be started as soon as possible. The protocol would then be included in the contracts for performing case studies.

Priorities and Scopes of Work

Attendees reviewed the original objectives.

Objective 1. Four California Demonstration Projects

These could be executed by utilities or we could use new projects from commissioning providers, if the case study protocol (Objective 3) is not too different from what they already perform.

Objective 2. Establish a position on Characteristics and Qualities for Commissioning Providers

The governance of the website and qualifications for providers were discussed. Gregg Ander suggested we might consider 501[c]3 status. Tav Commins pointed out that the website has its own address (www.cacx.org) and that it is not directly connected to the CEC website, although it is hosted on the CEC server.

Attendees discussed whether the Collaborative should adopt the BCA model for certification. Some were concerned that merely adhering to the BCA attributes would not provide sufficient quality control. Bryan Welsh, Chair of BCA certification program, explained that the BCA is putting out an RFP for a contractor to provide guidelines for certification. The certification course would certify providers in the “classic” process: getting involved in design, doing peer review, and following the process through construction and turnover.

Tav noted that he started a list of requirements for California providers.

Objective 3: Case Studies on Costs and Benefits

The discussion returned to the need for a case study protocol. The cost of the case studies will be less if we have a solid case study protocol in place. Again, the group addressed the scope of the case studies. Bill Pennington suggested that it should be the goal of the CCC to provide the technically detailed case studies to convince the CPUC to fund commissioning.

Objective 4: Title 24

Bill Pennington reported that after the CEC adopts the new code requirements, they will look to the CCC for help training people and for help in assessing the efficacy of the new requirements. The training will start in 2004.

Objective 5: Website

Discussion returned to the question of where the website should reside. For now, Tav is handling it at the CEC. Attendees expressed interest in contributing more resources to go on the website: success stories, case studies, existing documents, canned specs (e.g. the EDR specs, written by PECI)

Objective 6: Commissioning Training

The group addressed several questions regarding training:

·  Are we paying for needs identification or actual training?

·  Are we establishing a curriculum or a list of classes?

·  Who’s the audience? Owners? and/or Providers?

Phil Welker clarified that the funding was targeted for needs identification and identifying existing trainings, but the objective could shift to actually implementing trainings. Several members raised the potential to co-brand the DSA curriculum in their commissioning for schools training. Gregg Ander asked that the DSA share the curriculum as it is developed.

Bryan Welsh noted that BCA has put substantial effort behind the training process. In general, it was observed that curricula are based around certain organizations (ASHRAE, NIBS, NEBB) and each will have a different focus.

Funding Update

To date, the CCC has the following commitments:

SCE: $17,000 contract

SMUD: $15,000 contract

CEC: $10,000 initially with more to follow

DGS: $15,000 initially

LADWP: working a proposal for initial $15,000

PG&E: Ken’s services as direct in-kind

SDG&E: has expressed interest

So Cal Gas: still sorting out budgets

These commitments bring the total initial budget to approximately $72,000. The larger budget will be $290,000 - $500,000. Other funding options discussed were FEMP and Rebuild. PECI will follow up with them. Commissioner Pernell noted that while in-kind services are valuable, the CCC needs financial resources to seriously address the goals and objectives.

Next Steps: PECI will gather feedback on objectives, develop a work plan, refine the budget and define the financial load on the CCC vs. other providers. It was noted that individuals at the table might not have the unilateral authority to commit funds, so it was decided that representatives to the CCC should reply with funding commitments within two weeks of the meeting.

Work Plan Overview

Phil Welker presented an overview of a possible work plan for the CCC, with the goal of gaining feedback toward a draft work plan for the next meeting. The following tasks were discussed:

Define Case Study Protocol

Attendees discussed the need for standard data requirements, a process for collecting data, metrics, and a standard analysis method. The question of using existing projects for case studies was explored. Although the majority of existing case studies are marketing oriented, and the data is not robust enough for a technical level study, the attendees felt that it would take significant time to collect data for case studies on new construction projects that haven’t yet begun. Mary Ann suggested a two-tiered approach: Gather a little information about a lot of projects, and develop a deep level of information about a few.

Action Item for all: Think specifically about data requirements, protocols to build into the case study protocol. Send ideas to Phil.

Develop database of Commissioning activities

The group discussed creating a database of existing commissioning activities. Some felt that it would be difficult to get the hard numbers that regulators need to convince them of cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, to start over, documenting only activity that meets all of our database requirements would mean we won’t have any new building data for several years.

A 2-pronged approach was suggested:

·  Short tem: Database of Retrocommissioning projects, including existing projects

·  Long term: Database of New Construction Commissioning projects

It was suggested that we try to include the Capitol East End Project and other utility projects. It was noted that if the schools bond passes, some of the new High Performance Schools could be case studies, but that we need to diversify the case study subjects to include other sectors as well.

Commercial Building Market Model

Ken proposed taking the market models currently available (e.g. on the CIEE website and the NEEA website) and meshing them with the case study protocol, defining the metrics and doing sensitivity studies to determine where market interventions will work best. The market model could provide information on hardware (building types, HVAC systems, etc.) and market actors (How do owners make decisions? Where does intervention make sense?)

FEMP or PIER R&D might fund such a project.

Analyze database and produce white paper on value of commissioning in CA

This would be a high-level data analysis for policy purposes. The first part would be based on existing data. The second phase would require funds for M&V.

Characterize Providers

The goal of creating a list of providers is to raise the bar. Several questions were discussed: Who sets the standard? Who manages the list and enforces quality control? Are we duplicating other efforts? (e.g. BCA)

Title 24

After standards are adopted, it would be useful to get a reaction from CCC.

Website

Attendees discussed how to manage the website going forward. PECI will write up a discussion of website functionality.

Training

Phil Welker asked for feedback on choosing a single training vs. setting a standard for trainings. In the mid-term, the objective is to provide a series of trainings for providers.

Organizational Model

PECI proposed a three-tiered model:

1. Funders to decide budgetary priorities/project selection

2. “Steering Committee” to evaluate/recommend work plans

3. Other Stakeholders in the information loop

PECI will prepare a more fleshed out model of the organizational structure for the next meeting. A discussion ensued on how the group will be chartered. Possibilities are joint action of the CCC funders or joint action of the CCC members.

New Business

·  EDR materials will be ready soon. Oliver will send a copy to all CCC Members

·  SMUD’s Retrocommissioning Projects: Evaluating proposals

·  CCC would like PG&E to fund the Case Study Protocol (but Ken couldn’t promise it!)

·  Mary Ann attended the International Energy Agency meeting in Sweden. Their Commissioning Annex is developing terminology and case studies. They meet every 6 months and the next meetings are in Belgium, Kyoto, and Berkeley.

Recap

Two-week window for feedback on:

·  Funding Commitments

·  Priorities, scopes of work (email to Phil at )

·  Organizational Model

·  Website

Next Meeting

·  in June? Avoid ASHRAE (May 18 – 28) and Energy 2002 (June 1-6)

·  Host: PG&E

Action Items

PECI: Recommend R&D issues for PIER funding

Richard Conrad: Share Commissioning Schools training curriculum as it is developed

PECI: Write up website functionality

PECI: Prepare a model of the organizational structure

Oliver: Send a copy of EDR materials to all CCC members

All: Send feedback to Phil on Scopes of work, organizational model, funding commitments, website.

All: Send feedback specifically about data requirements, protocols to build into the case study protocol.