DRAFT Notes from 1 PM PST QM Subcommittee Meeting

Notes

QM (Non-Res) SUB-Committee Meeting

January6, 2010

11:00 – 12:00 PM (PST)

HVAC Alliance Non-Residential Quality Maintenance

Sub-Committee Task Group

Attendees:

Don Langston – Air Rite (Committee Chairperson)

Jane Coombs – BBI (Scribe) via post meeting recording

Dale Rossi – FDSI

Denny Mann – Marina Mechanical (VP Service)

Donald Prather – ACCA

Jim Lawrence – PECI

Mel Johnson – SCE

Rus Andrews – IES (Indoor Environmental Services)

Guests:

Dale (Gus) Gustavson – BBI for the CPUC

Mark Cherniack – BBI for the CPUC

DonL. (Air Rite)–Just so you know and just a recap, as we do roll-call, everyone is aware this conference call is being recorded for note-taking purposes.

Roll call. Hello to everyone.

Let’s get going gentleman! One of our primary homework assignment last week was to read thru the standard and look at table 5.20 for the roof-top units, so was there any other comments from our last meeting that anyone wanted to bring forward? Any comments from the utilities - Jim?

Jim L (PECI) – No I’m good.

Don (Air Rite) – And I know since this is a sub-committee meeting other people are wondering if they should be here – want to keep it small at this point, not trying to exclude anyone – want to keep us moving at a good pace.

Dale R. (FDSI) – I sent out a document that was the expanded task list to include the roof-top unit stuff, Jane sent that out today.

(Everyone agrees they got it)

Don (Air Rite)– We can talk about that – to get us moving further along here – go over the document first or jump right into table 5.20?

Mel (SCE) – makes sense to me – let’s start with table 5.20 and go.

Dale R. (FDSI) – but did we read over sections 3 and 4 – that was the homework assignment wasn’t it? Has anyone read that?

Don (Air Rite) and Mel (SCE) – I have.

Denny (MM) – has not

Dale R. (FDSI) – Can we talk about that first?

Don (Air Rite) – yes – it is the basis of everything else – let’s go for it

Dale (FDSI) – OK- one thing I saw under 4.1 – that the responsible party is the bldg. owner – I think that’s a critically important piece of information that we haven’t really thought of very well. When we’ve been discussing, I have been thinking the responsible party is the contractor.

Don (Air Rite) – yes I agree – but I don’t want to do is get on a side track – we are talking about maintenance tasking – we know the bldg owners are ultimately responsible – but are our biggest hurdle – they don’t have the money for the budgets, they don’t understand energy cost savings versus the price of a contract - what’s your point?

Dale (FDSI) – so many tasks – so much time and effort – fixed price maintenance can’t get all these things done – I had an epiphany, correct me if I’m wrong but fixed price maintenance is only about checking things and notifying people – doesn’t necessarily mean remediation - whenyou add to that, that the responsible party is the bldg owner and you’ve notified them of the repair – it makes me feel better – not sure why I guess.

Don (Air Rite)–Ok - I agree – when you look at what we are to do and want our techs to do – it is a clean check and inspect - bring issues to the table – Building Owners must make decisions – they are paying the bills – goes back to notification – if we’re being thorough.

Dale (FDSI) – I know – but it’s not part of the fixed price thing – that’s where I thought- Iknow it’s my own problem that I’m stuck on – but I couldn’t imagine how it will get done – need to bring more resources into it – so stating that the Building Owner is responsible and some charges should be additionally quoted – together those things in my mind seem to be critically important points to make this whole thing practical.

Don (Air Rite) – well the Building Owner or whoever leases the bldg - someone will have a bill presented bill to someone – up to them – if we find a problem – noisy bearing, refrigerant leak - someone has to make a decision to pay for it.

Mel (SCE) – I think there is one good point to take from this – last meeting my requestthat we have everyone read those 2 sections – couple reasons for that –one of which is anytime you have an agreement put in place with a customer, who is as Dale is noting, where the customer is responsible for maintaining his assets – there are core elements that need to be included within that program. And part of this was that there are some maintenance programs that mechanical contractors have already put out – and they include each of these core elements underneath implementation and they include the definitions within their maintenance and they insure that it follows those guidelines. Some contractors who have maintenance program in place – are not aware how these implementations – each one of these portions that should be included within maintenance – so part of the reason for doing the reading was to insure that there was an understanding that these items are necessary to be included in any type of maintenance program, in order for that program to meet ASHRAE 180 standards. The reason I’m bringing this up – as we move forward with our tasking later today – it’s important that there is planning and that there is understanding behind the maintenance and that the customer understands it. I feel there is going to be a lot of tasks in here, based upon my own experience and what I’ve read – that you cannot necessarily correlate energy savings to each one of these tasks, and that’s ok, because what we’re trying to get to is that if you have a standard that’s in place, and include these core elements, and there is a process and a technology that enables it to happen, then that agreement or that process that meets the standards, to me it is the process that we’re incentivizing to ensure that it happens. It’s because of the end result that it produces. I want to make sure that that is understood. In the reading that each of us have done –if you have a point where you say – I’ve looked at the standard and yes we do all that and no problem, or maybe we don’t include that and that might be a problem for us – let’s just say we start paying you guys for having maintenance agreements that meet these standards – then you’re like – well wait a minute – I don’t know if I can do that - this is the time to bring it up. Discuss it. Does that help understand the background of why I’ve asked each of us to read that?

Don (Air Rite) – Mel - thanks for expanding on that – and I’ll be the first to admit that reading through this – I’ve looked through this but have not read it cover to cover – reading sections 3, 4 and looking harder at some of the aspects in section 5 - I’ve already had some conversations with other contractors and referring them back to the standard–and I honestly feel a little guilty – because even though a lot of stuff in here I’ve been doing and It’s built into our DNA how we go to business – it’s nice to say “if you go back to ACCA STD 180 and you go to table 5 and section 20 – it gives us all a reference point to have other conversations on – I’m putting in my proposals now and actually referring the standards in my proposals – real gratifying for me.

Mel (SCE) – that’s excellent feedback Don – one of the points that sticks out for me – I sold and performed maintenance for years – the performance objectives are pretty huge and they have to be an internal process within a company to accomplish those objectives – so it really needs to be made clear – I think that you would be excited if you can say that everything in the 180 STDyou’ve incorporated into your agreement with this customer. And every piece of equipment that I show that’s been identified onthat roof – shown in item #5 – tables # 5.1 – 24 is receiving this tasking and we’re doing it this much and this frequency – you might be excited by the fact that the utility might say – show us you are doing these things - according to these standards and producing the reports, we would like to come along side you and the customer with an incentive, because the end result is that this saves energy and we’re putting together the work papers from these tasks that show it’s produced – but we’re not going after an individual component – it’s all encompassing – when you bring that all together, it is the total impact – I’m being frank – I think that’s where it needs to go. Want to be sure that the logic I’m using; the rational is sound – if you think it’s not sound - I’m listening – and if you think it is sound, I just want to make sure we have acceptance, and we’re moving forward with that.

Donald (ACCA) – Let you know that any of the standards that ACCA has there name on – there has been a group of contractors embedded in them – may not be specific from California, but we have representation from different states and regions on the committees that helped to develop them and they had a say in it to make sure it was doable, at least in their location.

Dale R. (FDSI) – may I follow up on that? Only other question I have – related to ACCA and ASHRAE and contractors using this stuff – any obligation that we have to ACCA / ASHRAE you assert the copyright on this stuff – is it available for use – can we refer to this stuff without violating the copyright? Can Field Diagnostics incorporate some of these things into tasking on the palm pilot, say it’s tied to the 180 Standard, and do we owe anything to ACCA/ASHRAE because of that?

Donald (ACCA) – no you would not – in fact we would like people to refer to the standards and if they quoted it, that’s fine. It’s out there, it’s a standard, it’s ANSI. It’s a living document – every 5 years gets reviewed and upgraded – if problems are found in it, then the committee re-meets – it goes back to public comment – so you have a chance to express comments. It’s out there and it’s open for everybody. What we have a problem with is people copying the whole thing and then selling it.

Dale R (FDSI) – I’m talking personally about FDSI – if we took it and incorporate it wholesale into our diagnostic algorithms, as we made inspection questions, that covered every point, would that be a problem?

Donald (ACCA) – No that would be good – singing from the same choir – why we spent time and effort to try and make a standard – a bar that everyone decided this bar is good more people that get on the bus and go in the same direction – the better we are. Most of what is in there has been adopted by the EPA and the DOE we’ve had them onboard from the beginning. Goal – get the industry to say this is what we need to get done and then as an industry raise the bar to that level – and those who are not meeting that level would eventually be out because of customer demand – knew that eventually the utilities are going to move onto something else – we needed something that would stand alone after we got the jump start with their help. That was the goal.

Dale – That makes me feel better thank you.

Mel (SCE) – it should – I think it’s the right thing. That’s excellent dialog that you guys just had. Before we go into the tasking which is critical – sec 5.20 – I think of it this way – again I’m trying to share thoughts with you guys – because if you think that my thinking is off – I’m open to hearing it. Look at sec 5.20 – look at the frequency that it’s put out there. The customer is paying for something to happen and you guys are doing the work. You’re expecting these tasks to produce these performance results, which are indicated in this standard. To me you do a before and after on a unit – what these standards do is ensure you produce a net result. And we just capture what the net result is and the difference it made – it’s all encompassing.

I want to take it to the next step – what I’ve seen in industry when you take best practices into the field; there is a wide range of complex issues in operations and maintenance that need to be dealt with. When we go into this tasking, the tasking is what makes sure that the right things are happening. Now, we have to get reliable data - I think this is what’s being pushed on us by the EM&V (Evaluation, Measurement and Verification) community and I don’t think anybody would argue with that. So the end of the day – we’re producing some form of the data that is a result of doing the right things, right measurements, and right places.

I think the best way, and I’m being frank – is to stand firm – these are the right things to do – I’m actually trying to apply some of the principles of the 6 sigma process – in which you take, define, measure, analyze, improve and control, what these tasks, when they’re performed and what they’ve done. When you have a process in place that’s using some rationale from 6 Sigma – to me it gives some backbone and credence to what we’re doing – not only are we trying to make this productive, but if there’s any deviation to the unit and it’s varying from its goals, we’re using some practices to set it all straight. That’s why when we talk about these tasks – I think it’s so important – because these tasks are going to end up in this 6 Sigma process - that ensures that we’re removing deviation, remediating this stuff, and the end result is – we’ve made a change of a total net effect by doing these things. Any flaws in this thinking – I’d like to hear it, or are you encouraged by these things – I’d like to hear it too.

Don L. (Air Rite) – Mel – really appreciate the perspective – speak as a contractor – my passion to get involved – we’re already doing a lot of these things – and to put it more into a verifiable process – not big on a lot of formal paperwork – let’s go get it done and there is some common sense involved – but once again common sense is a variable from person to person and company to company. We are definitely on the right track and this is the meat of what we are talking about.

Dale (FDSI) – heard on the radio something that really illustrates what was just said. Talking about medical outcomes – there was a Dr. who introduced surgery checklists into his hospital – thought he didn’t need them because he was Harvard trained – but wanted them for other people. As it turned out – he asked his Dr. friends – did you think these checklists were useful and they all said No – then asked, if you were being operated on would you want the surgeon to use these checklists and they all said Yes.

(All laughs, comments love it)

Don (Air Rite) – moving forward – any other sections re: 3 or 4 that we want to review? Any other comments before we get to 5.20?

(No comments.)

Don (Air Rite) – let’s jump into it.

Dale (FDSI) – 5.20 table – contains a lot of stuff that was in 5.1 and 5.2 table. All the stuff that is different, is on the final page of the excel spreadsheet I sent out – page 7.

Mel (SCE) – So we can just go to the excel spreadsheet?

Dale (FDSI) – Yes. Page 7 (Last Page) starts with Steam System. (Reads component column) Steam system, refrigeration cycle, refrigeration oil system, condenser fans and gas heat section are the only things that are in 5.20 that are not in 5.1 and 5.2.

Mel (SCE) – would that be 163 column A

Donald (ACCA) – Yes that’s it.

Mel (SCE) – make sure we’re on the same place.

Dale (FDSI) – (notes to self) – put row numbers on it next time.

Row 1 – Steam System – inspection is to check the steam traps, pumps and controls for proper operation. In my entire career, I’ve only seen 1 roof-top unit with a steam coil in it – but it can happen. Pretty non-controversial, right? Probably need to add more detail about how to check the steam trap, but not going to do today. The most controversial thing we’ll have to deal with is the Refrigeration cycle. Says to check the system pressures and temperatures – but doesn’t say how and you can’t assume that most techs know how. What should we say about this?

Mel (SCE) – I don’t know if it’s controversial – when you look at the context of the standards as you have well labeled here, they’re saying that certain tasks have to be performed – I can understand why they don’t have it here – when you look at all the manufacturers and how they diagnose – as you well know Dale, there’s a lot of different ways that people look at it – so when the standards were put in place they were making sure that whatever that is, gets done - but needs to be flushed out and have a good understanding of what that looks like. Donald how do you feel about that comment? Want to build on that?

Donald (ACCA) – What you said is absolutely correct. It was left as what you were supposed to do with no direction as to how it was to be done in the standard and that was to allow the most options possible, so it can be done according to the OEM requirement. As far as coming up with ways to do it, we had a discussion on that before, with economizers and other things, coming up with a set system and a way to do it is totally fine within your program, because you would be defining what that meant in your program. If you decided you didn’t want to hook up gauges in your program – check the temperatures and pressure on a package system that was all in tact still, but if you could do it by using another OEM method of measuring temperature or enthalpy across coils or whatever, then that would be the preferable way to do it than having techs that maybe weren’t totally trained hooking up the gauges and then doing it that way – then overcharging it because the coil’s dirty or something else.