Commissioning Work Group Update
Green Buildings Executive Order
July 10, 2006
California Commissioning Collaborative
Jim Parks
1
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Work Group Activities
Real Estate Input
Utility Sponsored Commissioning Programs
CCC Activities
2
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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.
3
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
EO Language
1. 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 costeffective 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)
4
on strategies for greater energy and peak demand savings in existing buildings.
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
EO Language
1. 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.
5
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Work Groups
• Energy Efficiency Plan & Strategies
– Gene Rodrigues
• Benchmarking
– Doug Mahone
• Commissioning and Retrocommissioning
– Jim Parks
• Owner Commitment Campaign
– Brenna Walraven
6
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Commissioning Work Group
Activities
7
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Work Group Scope
•
Suggest an approach to promote widespread use of commissioning (Cx)
o New building commissioning
o Retro-commissioning (RCx) existing buildings
o 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.
8
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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 costeffective 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.
9
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
10
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
11
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
12
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Proposed CCC Projects
Draft CCC Projects and Budgets
2006
Toolkit for Cx Providers
$55,000
0%
Scholarship Program
$5,000
100%
Mentorship Program
$5,000
100%
Demonstration Projects
$15,000
60%
Controls Training for RCx Providers
$40,000
0%
Support for Community Colleges
$10,000
100%
Outreach to Owner Groups
$25,000
0%
Case Studies
$25,000
0%
Analysis of Educational Opportunties
$30,000
100%
Training for Contractors: Acceptance Testing
$50,000
100%
Training for In-House RCx Providers
$150,000
0%
Publicize Career Opportunties
$30,000
100%
Toolkit for In-House RCx Providers
$110,000
60%
Quantify Benefits
$50,000
50%
Support for Decision Makers
$100,000
0%
Program Design
$15,000
100%
Verification of Savings
$100,000
100%
Cx and RCx Guidelines
$35,000
100%
Market Research
$120,000
55%
RCx Toolkit
$130,000
65%
Acceptance Testing Training ('05)
$32,000
100%
TOTAL NEW PROGRAMS
2007
100%
0%
0%
40%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
40%
50%
100%
0%
0%
0%
45%
35%
0%
2006
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000 $
5,000 $
9,000 $
$
10,000 $
$
$
30,000 $
50,000 $
$
30,000 $
66,000 $
25,000 $
$
15,000 $
100,000 $
35,000 $
66,000 $
84,500 $
32,000 $
562,500 $
2007
55,000
6,000
40,000
25,000
25,000
150,000
44,000
25,000
100,000
54,000
45,500
569,500
13
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
14
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Real Estate Industry Input
15
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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 complexbuilding processes to his simple buildings (Retrocx Tool Box).
16
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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)
17
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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)
18
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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)
19
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Utility Sponsored Commissioning
Programs Across California
20
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
21
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
22
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Monitoring-Based Commissioning (MBCx)
UC/CSU/IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership Program
Key MBCx Program Features
Improved 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:
monitoring
test protocol-based methods
Benchmarking
Identification of Future Retrofit Projects
Training for Campus Staff
23
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
24
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
SCE-SCG County of Los Angeles Partnership
•
•
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
25
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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.
26
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
27
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
28
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
SCE Retrocommissioning Program 2006-2008
29
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
SMUD Commissioning Program
• 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
30
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
PG&E and Retrocommissioning
• 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
31
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
PG&E and Retrocommissioning
• 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
32
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
PG&E and Retrocommissioning
• 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
33
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
California Commissioning
Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
34
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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.
35
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
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
36
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
37
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
38
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
39
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
40
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
41
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
2006-2007 Program Plan
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.
42
©California
Commissioning Collaborative
Administrative Activities
Administrative Activities Planned
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Website
Library
Case Studies
Provider Listing
Sample Documents
4-5 Meetings/Year
Speakers Bureau
Scholarships
Mentorship program
43
©California
Commissioning Collaborative