CCC Meeting Agenda
California Commissioning Collaborative
Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2005
9:30 am to 12:30 pm
Pacific Energy Center, San Francisco
Board / Advisory Council / AttendeesDan Burgoyne, DGS / Martha Brook, PIER / Mark Bramfitt, PG&E
Grant Duhon, PG&E / Tav Commins, CEC / Kevin Brock, Jacobs Engineering
Jim Parks, SMUD / Greg Cunningham, Enovity / Karl Brown, UC
Bill Pennington, CEC / Glen Friedman, Taylor Engineering / Joe Derenger, The Derenger Group
Chuck Poindexter, SDG&E / Ken Gillespie, PG&E / Erik Durst, Keema
Phil Welker, CCC Executive Director / Phil Haves, LBNL / Cliff Federspiel, Federspiel Controls
David Jump, QuEST / Liz Fischer, BCA
Pete Keithly, Keithly Barber Associates / Marti Frank, CCC Staff
Kristin Heinemeier, CCC Staff
Len Pettis, CSU / Erik Kolderup, AEC
Pat Pico, Bay Area Sheet Metal Training Centers / Ed Jerome, Cogent Energy
Tony Pierce, SCE / Brian Smith, TRC-EASI
Scott Williams, Target Corp. / Ryan Stroupe, PG&E
John Wimer NCEMBT / Brian Smith, TRC-EASI
Janet Whittick, Flex Your Power
1. Welcome and Introductions - Phil Welker, CCC
Mr. Welker welcomed the group. Announcements and introductions were made.
Action Item: Send BCA course announcement to CCC list
2. Discussion of CCC Objectives – Phil Welker, PECI
CCC’s original mission was reviewed: to function as an organization that promoted Cx education, research, infrastructure, collaboration and tools. It was reiterated that CCC is not intended to fund specific implementation projects and programs.
The CCC’s objectives from its Strategic Plan (Dec, 2003) were reviewed: improving the perception of Cx, addressing market drivers, targeting specific market sectors, strengthening CA’s infrastructure, expanding market intelligence for the Cx industry.
Attendees commented that the CCC could target research/tools to specific market sectors, that the goals need to be normalized because they overlap, and that the East coast is struggling to define and sell Cx.
A lively discussion followed over the split between strengthening the Cx infrastructure versus changing perceptions of Cx. This was summarized as a supply versus demand issue. Opinions were offered on both sides, and the group concluded that the challenge is building both in sync.
· Attendees who thought building demand was more important noted that engineering companies will move into Cx if the demand and profit margins are there – so if the CCC can help create demand and market will move to supply it. Also, utility programs have been driving demand so in the long term it will be important to build a business case demonstrating Cx’s value without incentives.
· Attendees who thought building supply was more important noted that from an owner’s perspective, contractors have had good tactics selling Cx, but the people they sent out to do the work didn’t produce the desired results. This was noted by other attendees as a situation that would lead to a major setback for Cx, and the need to focus on skills building was reemphasized. It was further noted that bad experiences in one aspect of energy efficiency can sour a decision maker on other aspects – a carry over of perceptions. The example of T8 lighting in the early 1990s was given and the need for balance in demand and supply issues was reiterated.
· It was noted that it takes longer to build infrastructure (skills) than demand (educating owners). It was commented that Nexant built infrastructure locally in Colorado in about 12 mos, and that they did it “from the ground up” building on small engineering offices.
· It was noted that a major barrier is a lack of consensus about what the process is/should be, that it can’t just focus on comprehensive Cx and needs to be a more standardize approach. It was suggested that a standard concept be created for each market sector with demonstration projects to deliver consistency in expectations and results. A fundamental problem, it was noted, is that that owners can’t distinguish good from bad proposals.
Action item: rewrite CCC objectives in light of upcoming activities
The group also discussed changes in the Cx industry since 2003:
· LEED has spiked demand for Cx and continues to evolve in its requirements and their effects on the Cx process. LEED will be revised in coming years so there’s opportunity to influence it.
· Acceptance of Cx/RCx as an energy efficiency measure, for funding by utilities means there is no longer a need to convince the CPUC of its effectiveness. There has been much success in having utilities buy into programs for Cx/RCx. But does that lead to a stay-the-course attitude in working to continue and expand utility involvement?
· There is an increased emphasis on RCx, more now in CA than at any previous time. Perhaps this justifies more resources for RCx.
· There is increased participation of contractors in Cx. Contractors have Cx requirements in their spec and look to Cx providers for assistance, sometimes employing a Cx Coordinator model.
· Question about CCC’s funding from energy companies with mandate to produce savings, but need, for success of Cx, to include focus on other benefits
Action Item: The CCC should engage the building industry in attending CCC meetings
The group presented several thoughts on what direction the CCC should head:
· The CCC been energy focused, but now that there is more involvement from the building trades the group may need to address other benefits of Cx.
· Need to do whatever is necessary to support utility programs
· Need to consolidate, document, discuss results, move existing work forward
· Need to continue to capitalize on the ability of the CCC to bridge gaps between owners/practitioners/people in the field with practical experience, and policy makers in government/utilities.
· Concern was expressed that the CCC’s focus on energy savings will prevent the long-term stability of market because Cx won’t be profitable/sustainable business without incentives
· Suggested to put someone from CCC on the ASHRAE GL0 committee.
3. Recap of CCC 2005 Activities – Kristin Heinemeier, PECI
Activities in 2005 were summarized.
Administrative activities were:
• Held 5 meetings
• Distribution list rose about 50% to 300 people
• Added 6 members to the Advisory Council
• Sent out 3 editions of CaCx News
• Added 84 documents to Library
• Redesigned website
• Added certification review, guidance, and sample documents to help owners select a provider
• Added paid provider listings to website
• Added over 50 Case Studies to website
• Developed pool of pre-qualified contractors
Program accomplishments were:
• Published “Support for Utility Cx Programs”
• Published “Commissioning Training Strategy Report”
• Drafted two federal building case studies
• Tested pilot Cx Seminar for Owners
• Completed drafts of Cx and RCx Guides
• Delivered CEC T24 training
4. Brainstorm New Activities – Phil Welker, PECI
Attendees brainstormed and prioritized potential project activities for 2006, as follows:
Technical Research / High priority / Moderate priorityVerification of Savings / 13 / 1
Quantifying non-energy benefits / 7 / -
Benchmarking / 2 / 1
Evaluate acceptance requirements / 2 / 1
Document real world problems / - / 3
Building delivery – hand-off to occupancy / - / -
Training / High priority / Moderate priority
Acceptance testing for code compliance (New Const) / 5 / 1
Facilities staff – fundamentals and hands-on (In-house) / 4 / 3
Controls Courses (New Const) / 4 / 1
Comprehensive education analysis / 3 / 4
Ongoing training – distance learning/on-the-job training (Long) / 4 / 1
Guest lectures – slides, pool of presenters (Long) / 3 / 3
Community Colleges – Laney support (Long) / 3 / 3
Mentorship (RCx Prov) / 2 / 4
Research existing extension programs and other opps (Long) / 2 / 4
Curriculum guidelines (others provide actual training) / - / 6
Curriculum and train-the-trainer (licensed) / 1 / 3
Workshop series – technical (RCx Prov) / 1 / 3
LEED and Cx (New Const) / 2 / 1
Industry Advisory Board (Long) / 2 / 1
Owners/management – how to manage Cx activities (In-house) / - / 4
Owners – engineers – contractors – technicians (RCx Prov) / 1 / 2
On-the-job training – guidelines for RFP (In-house) / - / 3
Advocate for accreditation (RCx Prov) / - / 3
LEED – EB (RCx Prov) / - / 2
UW Process Training (New Const) / 1 / -
Extension program (RCx Prov) / - / -
Marketing / High priority / Moderate priority
Training and toolkits for decision-makers by sector / 5 / 4
Non-energy benefits by sector / 5 / 2
Alliances with building owner groups (BOMA, IFMA, APPA) / 4 / 1
Case studies – market specific / 3 / 3
Demonstration projects – tied to mentoring, Cx Database, case studies / 3 / 2
Case studies – utility program “winners” / 2 / 1
Present at owners’ events / 1 / 2
Outreach to owners / 1 / 1
New construction trends / - / 1
Awards / - / 1
Advertising / - / -
Case studies – searchable / - / -
Revisit case studies – persistence / - / -
Infrastructure / High priority / Moderate priority
Mentoring toolkit – in-house toolkit / 6 / 1
Career opportunities – scenarios for 12 year olds / 1 / 10
Cx toolkits / 1 / 4
Cx Assistant / 1 / 1
Job site / - / -
Email forum / - / -
There was the following discussion about the potential projects:
Technical Research
Verification of savings: research and recommendations
· CA programs will have M&V run by the CPUC – utilities can tell them what the best methodologies are and how to judge persistence. The CPUC will be measuring, and we (the CCC) need to supply them with the best methods and help them understand what to measure – ie. recommend a protocol. There will be over $150m in M&V money (not all for Cx). It is a short time frame – the protocol would need to be ready within one year. General protocols are currently out for draft review. Specifics will have to wait until the programs are designed.
· Need to be careful to make something useful outside the program context
· Should this be a high level protocol that describes what do you look at and gives metrics for each building/system?
· Need a process to compare programs – BTU v. MBCx – what’s the best approach? Need to get same information from each.
· Persistence should be integrated with M&V.
Benchmarking
· Link between M&V and benchmarking – helps identify potential for savings through RCx. Need to integrate benchmarking in with all the projects that will be undertaken.
Evaluate acceptance requirements
· Need to wait for market to deliver buildings with them. Then the CEC needs feedback on how they’re working, what’s too hard, fine tuning, new strategies.
Quantifying Non-Energy Benefits
· Is it worthy research?
· Construction industry can probably contribute to this
· Encourage more owners in this aspect
· Quantifying in financial terms, vs. qualitative terms – need to document them as drivers because they are more important, but face the challenge that they’re very difficult to document
· Involve CA health care industry
Contractors and Hand-off process
· Getting Cx as a part of the building delivery process – getting Cx written in to contract documents
Training – New Construction
· Need for balance between long and short term projects; three audiences: owners, providers, technicians
· Curriculum v. train-the-trainers v. accreditation are not contradictory, all part of portfolio
Educational programs for engineering students
· Existing programs are design-oriented and limited to 10% HVAC to keep their accreditation
Internship program
· First step is identifying mentors
· BCA ran a similar program
Training - Topics
Series of technical hands-on workshops (RCx)
Courses in fundamentals – in house
Hands on guidelines
Collaborate with other groups to reach larger audience - SMACNA
Controls Courses
LEED & Cx
Research on existing programs/extensions
· See how applicable Cx is to them, then take action
Guest lecture program
· Common pool of slides and people trained to give them
Integrate with “career ladder training”
· Usually on the job training or distance learning, occurs every 3-4 years
Document real world problems for use in training
Research report on general training needs
Infrastructure Development
RCx Toolkits
Cx Toolkit
Job site on website (openings)
· Career opportunities – case studies of individuals for young people to emulate
Cx Assistant (in process)
Marketing
Research
Decision maker research
Owners
Demonstration projects
· Merge with mentorship/internship with going through doing demonstration projects
Awards
Database
Case studies
· Target market specific case studies
· Need to have systems that are applicable to the building owner
· Revisit previously studied buildings and write up persistence case study
· Coming out of utility programs
Alliances with other building owner organizations – information delivery to them
Media/trade pubs/radio advertising
CCC_Minutes_12.06.05.doc 1