© california commissioning collaborative 1 commissioning work group update green buildings...

1©California Commissioning Collaborative

Commissioning Work Group UpdateGreen Buildings Executive Order

July 10, 2006

California Commissioning Collaborative

Jim Parks

2

©California Commissioning Collaborative

Agenda

• Background• Work Group Activities• Real Estate Input• Utility Sponsored Commissioning Programs• CCC Activities

3


Background• Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive

Order S-20-04 on December 14, 2004– Commonly referred to as the Green Buildings EO

• The EO includes the following statement concerning commissioning—5. That the California Energy Commission (CEC) propose by July

2005, a benchmarking methodology and building commissioning guidelines to increase energy efficiency in government and private commercial buildings.

4


EO Language1. That the state commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity usage by retrofitting, building and operating the

most energy and resource efficient buildings by taking all cost-effective measures described in the Green Building Action Plan for facilities owned, funded or leased by the state and to encourage cities, counties and schools to do the same.

2. That state agencies, departments, and other entities under the direct executive authority of the Governor cooperate in taking measures to reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20% by 2015, through cost-effective efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies; these measures should include but not be limited to:

2.1. Designing, constructing and operating all new and renovated state-owned facilities paid for with state funds as "LEED Silver" or higher certified buildings; and

2.2. Identifying the most appropriate financing and project delivery mechanisms to achieve these goals; and 2.3. Seeking out office space leases in buildings with a U.S. EPA Energy Star rating; and 2.4. Purchasing or operating Energy Star electrical equipment whenever cost-effective. 3. The Division of the State Architect in the Department of General Services should adopt guidelines by December 31, 2005, to

enable and encourage schools built with state funds to be resource and energy efficient. 4. That the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is urged to apply its energy efficiency authority to support a campaign

to inform building owners and operators about the compelling economic benefits of energy efficiency measures; improve commercial building efficiency programs to help achieve the 20% goal; and submit a biennial report to the Governor commencing in September 2005, on progress toward meeting these goals.

5. That the California Energy Commission (CEC) propose by July 2005, a benchmarking methodology and building commissioning guidelines to increase energy efficiency in government and private commercial buildings.

6. That the CEC undertake all actions within its authority to increase efficiency by 20% by 2015, compared to Titles 20 and 24 non-residential standards adopted in 2003; collaborate with the building and construction industry state licensing boards to ensure building and contractor compliance; and promptly submit its report as per Assembly Bill 549 (Statutes of 2001) on strategies for greater energy and peak demand savings in existing buildings.

5


EO Language1. 7. The California Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System are

requested to target resource efficient buildings for real estate investments and commit clean technology funds to advanced sustainable and efficiency technologies.

8. Other entities of state government not under the Governor's direct executive authority, including the University of California, California State University, California Community Colleges, constitutional officers, legislative and judicial branches, and CPUC, are requested to actively participate in this effort.

9. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to confer upon any state agency decision-making authority over substantive matters within another agency's jurisdiction, including any informational and public hearing requirements needed to make regulatory and permitting decisions.

10. Commercial building owners are also encouraged to take aggressive action to reduce electricity usage by retrofitting, building and operating the most energy and resource efficient buildings by taking measures described in the Green Building Action Plan.

11. This Order is not intended to, and does not create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

12. That as soon as hereafter possible, this Order shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice shall be given to this Order.

6


Work Groups

• Energy Efficiency Plan & Strategies– Gene Rodrigues

• Benchmarking– Doug Mahone

• Commissioning and Retrocommissioning– Jim Parks

• Owner Commitment Campaign– Brenna Walraven


Commissioning Work Group Activities

8


Work Group Scope

• Suggest an approach to promote widespread use of commissioning (Cx) o New building commissioningo Retro-commissioning (RCx) existing buildingso Maintaining commissioning

To ensure buildings are operated optimally.

Note: The California Commissioning Collaborative may have already addressed many of the technical aspects of Cx and RCx. The work group may focus more on rollout and promotion.

Definitional note: Cx and RCx – brings buildings back to the original design intent and do not necessarily include identification of capital improvements or retrofits. However, capital improvement projects may be identified during the commissioning process.

9


Desired Outcomes• Recognition of standard practice vs. commissioning—most buildings go

through start-up testing but not commissioning and the two are different.

• Building owners and managers recognize importance and value of Cx and RCx.

• Develop commonly accepted methodology and practice to yield highly cost-effective results.

• Becomes a routine practice for owners, managers, & operators.

• Training of building operators becomes standard practice.

• Sufficient trained labor force (cx providers and bldg operators) exists to meet demand.

Note: Real Estate stakeholders would like to see Cx and RCx findings/ recommendations reported in a document that becomes a platform for these buildings’ qualifying for utility incentives for capital measures.

10


Work Group Members Jim Parks, Chair, SMUD

Mark Bramfitt, PG&E

Brenna Walraven, USAA and BOMA (input and comment only)

Steve Press, Shorenstein Realty Services

Tony Pierce, SCE

Nancy Jenkins, CEC

Tav Commins, CEC

11


Work Activities and Products• Identify case studies that can be used to promote cx • Develop best format for case studies to make it easy to identify the salient points• Full case studies and separate executive summary reports• Identify organizations that can get the word out about the benefits of cx—BOMA, DGS,

building departments, etc.• Identify methods to promote cx through organizations, publications, conferences, papers,

etc.• Identify other avenues for promoting/requiring cx such as through building efficiency

standards or through other agencies• Determination if all major technical issues are resolved, or that additional activities are

needed• Determine cx training needs, identify programs that offer training and perform gap analysis• Promotional activities are identified that can convince building owners and managers of

the value proposition of Cx and RCx

12


Work Activities and Products• Identify existing and proposed cx programs sponsored by utilities, 3rd party

providers and local programs

• Identify companies that perform commissioning and why they do it

• Identify certification programs for operators and cx providers

• Identify locations for BOC training

• Quantify the market

• Identify how benchmarking fits with commissioning

13


Proposed CCC Projects2006 2007 2006 2007

Toolkit for Cx Providers $55,000 0% 100% -$ 55,000$ Scholarship Program $5,000 100% 0% 5,000$ -$ Mentorship Program $5,000 100% 0% 5,000$ -$ Demonstration Projects $15,000 60% 40% 9,000$ 6,000$ Controls Training for RCx Providers $40,000 0% 100% -$ 40,000$ Support for Community Colleges $10,000 100% 0% 10,000$ -$ Outreach to Owner Groups $25,000 0% 100% -$ 25,000$ Case Studies $25,000 0% 100% -$ 25,000$ Analysis of Educational Opportunties $30,000 100% 0% 30,000$ -$ Training for Contractors: Acceptance Testing $50,000 100% 0% 50,000$ -$ Training for In-House RCx Providers $150,000 0% 100% -$ 150,000$ Publicize Career Opportunties $30,000 100% 0% 30,000$ -$ Toolkit for In-House RCx Providers $110,000 60% 40% 66,000$ 44,000$ Quantify Benefits $50,000 50% 50% 25,000$ 25,000$ Support for Decision Makers $100,000 0% 100% -$ 100,000$ Program Design $15,000 100% 0% 15,000$ -$ Verification of Savings $100,000 100% 0% 100,000$ -$ Cx and RCx Guidelines $35,000 100% 0% 35,000$ -$ Market Research $120,000 55% 45% 66,000$ 54,000$ RCx Toolkit $130,000 65% 35% 84,500$ 45,500$ Acceptance Testing Training ('05) $32,000 100% 0% 32,000$ -$ TOTAL NEW PROGRAMS 562,500$ 569,500$

Draft CCC Projects and Budgets

14


Next Steps

• Finish getting real estate industry input• Incorporate input into CCC Work Plan• Present final work plan to Cx Work Group and

Green Buildings Team• Develop Cx Work Group Final Report


Real Estate Industry Input

16


The Need for KISS• Too much of Cx/RCx is focused on complicated buildings

(labs, hospitals), and there is little available for simple buildings with Rooftop units, etc.

• There is a need for tools to be used on these simpler buildings (Retrocx Tool Box).

• Cx costs should be proportional to difficulty (or ease) and should be cheaper for “simple” buildings

• There is a need for tools for in-house team to do RCx, especially since third-party providers are applying complex-building processes to his simple buildings (Retrocx Tool Box).

17


The Need for Case Studies

• Case studies (if they’re well targeted) are a very effective way of communicating to owners. (included in Case Studies project…low priority from TAG)

• He has difficulty explaining the benefits of commissioning (doesn’t everyone get a good building?). This is both internally (selling it to mgmt.) and externally.

• Resources to help sell commissioning would be good (included in Market Research project, and Decision maker support project)

18


Back to KISS• There is a need to differentiate between sophisticated owners

and less-sophisticated owners, in providing the message (included in Market Research project, and Decision maker support project)

• Commissioning projects used to be justified on the basis of reducing first year maintenance work orders. Now that energy is more expensive, energy savings are the big emphasis. (He is tracking 3 projects, and estimating the value of energy and non-energy benefits. They have not been cost effective, because the third-party providers are not well-suited to doing simple buildings)

19


Using Names in Case Studies?

• Asked if (hypothetically) we were to decide to do a case study on a BullsEye store, would we be allowed to use their name. He said it’s a problem, but it could be sold as a “corporate good citizen” thing.

• He suggested that we come to the July meeting armed with data on who the major land owners are in CA (existing and construction)


Utility Sponsored Commissioning Programs Across California

21


Overview of 2006-2008 RCx Programs• Different types of programs – Statewide and local; IOU

and Competitive Bid• Statewide

– UC/CSU Partnership (ongoing)– California Community College Partnership (new)– California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (new)

• Local– SDG&E 2006-2008 RCx Program – SCE 2006-2008 RCx Program– SMUD Cx Program– PG&E and Retrocommissioning

22


UC/CSU Partnership - MBCx

• Continuation of the 2004-2005 program• CSU has list of MBCx providers• Incentive cap at 80% of project cost• Incentives paid in 2 payments

– At contract signing

– At completion of project


Monitoring-Based Commissioning (MBCx)UC/CSU/IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership Program

Key MBCx Program FeaturesImproved Operation of Existing Equipment/Systems

(as opposed to retrofit equipment upgrades)

Permanent Monitoring with Trending Capability identifies dysfunction assures verification and persistence of savings

Savings opportunities identified by combination of:monitoringtest protocol-based methods

BenchmarkingIdentification of Future Retrofit ProjectsTraining for Campus Staff

24


California Community College Partnership • Similar to ongoing UC/CSU partnership• Monitoring-Based Commissioning (MBCx) one of the key program

components• Incentives based on annualized kWh and therms saved and are

capped at 80% of the project cost– 32 cents/kWh (for MBCx only)– $1.00/therm (for MBCx only)

• Incentives primarily for permanent monitoring equipment and commissioning consultants

• Training and education program – MBCx and related classes offered throughout the state

25


• Continuation of a project funded by the CPUC

• Partnership members include– Southern California Edison– Southern California Gas– County of Los Angeles

• RCx facilities include those maintained and operated by the Internal Services Department, County of Los Angeles

• Focused on optimized HVAC performance

• Includes EEMIS tracking for persistent savings

SCE-SCG County of Los Angeles Partnership

26


SDG&E 2006-2008 RCx Programs – Competitive Bid

• Similar to the 2004-2005 Third Party Program• Available to all existing large commercial

buildings– >100,000 sq. ft. of conditioned space– High energy use– EMS in place

• Bidder has been selected, but contract is not yet executed –program launch pending.

27


SCE Retrocommissioning Program 2006-2008• Building optimization program that does not include energy

efficiency equipment retrofits – retrofits referred to other programs• Goals

– 39,040,000 net kWh savings

– Reduced summer peak demand of 7,304 kW

– Gas savings of 220,512 therms

– Estimated 300-400 buildings (40 million sq. ft.)

• Incentive budget of approximately $7 million

28


SCE Retrocommissioning Program 2006-2008• Building Qualifications

– Over 100,000 sq. ft. for offices, hospitals, hospitality, retail, educational, museums, etc.

– Over 35,000 sq. ft. for grocery stores

– Owner occupied preferred

– Equipment is still in good operating condition

29


SCE Retrocommissioning Program 2006-2008

30


• Issued RFP to hire Cx agent to assist SMUD customers– $100,000 contract– Focused on State Buildings – Contractor will select 3-5 candidates from a 10-building list

• Actively looking for ways to increase energy efficiency through other SMUD Programs

• Will propose additional Cx spending in 2007• Future program may include customer cost-share

SMUD Commissioning Program

31


• PG&E has no standard RCx program• Recently completed a 3-P solicitation, but did not get what they

were looking for - Need a Utility-Branded RCx Program• New solicitation pending

PG&E and Retrocommissioning

32


• Utility-Branded RCx Program– Establish credibility of RCx as a disciplined service– Set consistent expectations for customers– Leverage reputation of not only utilities but other

national standards (e.g. Energy Star ®)– Establish norms and expectations around “terms of

the art” used in the industry– Support managed growth in the industry


33


• Range of Services– One size probably doesn’t fit all– Services should be based on customer size and complexity as

well as motivation and capability• A-B-C Model

– A: Simplest level, prescriptive, fast (test for customer actions before proceeding)

– B: More intense diagnostics, temporary metering– C: MBCx, may integrate with demand response

• Drive A to B, B to C



California Commissioning Collaborative

2006-2007 Program Plan

35


California Focus

• The CCC recognizes the need to closely coordinate efforts with the Green Buildings Team.

• The 2006-2007 Work Plan will be revised to better reflect real estate industry input.

36


CCC Program Plan• Support for Retrocommissioning Programs

– Program Design– Verification of Savings

• Retrocommissioning Market Development– Market Research– Support for Decision Makers

• Resources for Commissioning of Existing Buildings– Toolkit for RCx Projects

• Resources for Commissioning of New Buildings– Training for Contractors: Acceptance Testing

• Administrative Activities

37


Market Research

• A multi-year project to identify the core values that commissioning provides to building decision-makers, and how to communicate these values effectively. The project will consist of interviews and focus groups, as well as drafting of sample marketing materials.


38


Retrocommissioning Toolkit

• A multi-year project to identify and develop the tools that are most needed by commissioning leads (both in-house and third-party). These tools are expected to consist of sample documents, spreadsheets, analysis tools and sample graphics. All tools will be reviewed by peer reviewers.


39


Verification of Savings

• A project that will determine methods for verifying the benefits of commissioning projects based upon well-established measurement and verification (M&V) protocols, as well as the unique attributes of commissioning interventions. Recommendations from this activity will help utility program planners, and may form the basis for more formal guidelines.


40


Acceptance Testing Training

• An extension of 2005 activities, this project will develop and deliver training related to Title 24’s new requirements for acceptance testing of key building systems prior to occupancy. This activity will also review the requirements and develop modification of the requirements for the next round of code revisions.


41


Program Design

• An Advisory Council Task Force will be convened to collect and document the best practices in utility retrocommissioning program design. This will help support current and future program planning.


42


Decision-Maker Support

• This project will develop the requirements for, and deliver tools and training focused on building decision-making. This industry has long attempted, with limited success, to teach building owners and managers to speak its language. This project aims to understand the decision makers’ language, and present the commissioning and energy efficiency message in a way that it can be acted upon.


43


Administrative Activities Planned• Website• Library• Case Studies• Provider Listing• Sample Documents• 4-5 Meetings/Year• Speakers Bureau• Scholarships• Mentorship program

Administrative Activities