Acceptance Testing and Design Phase Commissioning Topics Stakeholder Meeting #3

Transcription

1 Acceptance Testing and Design Phase Commissioning Topics Stakeholder Meeting #3 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Energy Solutions Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Summit Building Engineering Conference Call Number: Access Code: 61021#

2 2 Agenda 9:30 9:45 Introductions 9:45 10:30 Acc. Test 1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing 10:30 11:15 Acc. Test 2: Retro-commissioning Failure Modes 11:15 12:00 Design Phase Commissioning

3 3 IOU Support for 2011 Title 24 The California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) are actively supporting the California Energy Commission (CEC) in developing the state s building energy efficiency code (Title 24) Their joint intent is to achieve significant energy savings through the development of reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective code change proposals for the 2011 code update and beyond As part of the IOU effort, at the request of the CEC, we are hosting stakeholder meetings to get industry input and feedback on our code change proposals

4 Requirements for a Successful Code Change CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 4 For base code, a measure must: Be cost-effective based on the standards-induced additional first cost, maintenance costs, measure life, and energy cost savings typically according to the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) life-cycle costing methodology and weather data to be provided by the California Energy Commission Be possible to implement using equipment that is available from multiple providers or that is reasonably expected to be available following the code change

5 5 IOU Stakeholder Meetings Process Typically holding three meetings: First: present scope, request data Code change direction and possible options Methodology Best practices, market data Second: present findings Results of data collection and analysis Cost effectiveness Strawman proposed code language Third/final: present proposed code language Will post code change language online in advance Phone/webinar meetings depending on feedback CEC s pre-rulemaking workshops scheduled for April/May

6 6 Submitting Comments Informal Comment Process Comments can be submitted to CASE authors, substantive comments will receive responses Questions and responses will not be posted online, but common or frequent questions will be communicated as necessary between stakeholders The team will work with stakeholders to resolve issues as best we can The CEC has a formal comment process during later stages of the official rulemaking process

7 7 Schedule: Key Dates March 2010 March 2011 CEC develop foundation /methodology IOUs conduct research and analysis, and present results at stakeholder meetings Feb - March 2011 IOUs finalize code change proposals for submittal to CEC April June 2011 CEC conducts pre-rulemaking work shops Sept 2011 Feb 2012 CEC Rulemaking Activities, 45 Day Language March 2012 Title 24 Adoption date January 1, 2014 Title 24 Effective date

8 8 Meeting Protocols Please DO NOT place your phone on HOLD Please mute your microphone, unless you want to speak Ask questions/comment by chat or by voice We want to hear your concerns Opposing viewpoints are encouraged We are seeking information, not resolution Time is limited Clearly state your name and affiliation prior to speaking Speak loudly for the people on the phone Minutes and presentation material will be available online we will distribute link April ,

9 9 Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #3 Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Energy Solutions

10 10 10 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Background Analysis Data / findings Specifics of code change proposals Costs and Savings Draft code language

11 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Background CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 11 PIER CaCx Study: Title 24 Acceptance Testing Requirements and Effectiveness Final Public Report late Outcome Improved Forms Improved Test Processes Outreach and education activities

12 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Analysis (PIER Study) CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 12 Evaluate acceptance testing enforcement activities 28 Phone Interviews, 4 Building Dept. visits Contractors, Engineers, Building Officials, Building Owners Investigate effectiveness of acceptance tests Field Tests: 10 unique tests at 10 commercial buildings 7 Mechanical, 3 Lighting Pre- and post-test technician interview

13 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Analysis Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 13 Form Test # of Times Performed MECH-2A NA7.5.1 Outdoor Air 8 MECH-3A NA7.5.2 Constant Volume Single Zone Unitary Air 2 Conditioner and Heat Pump Systems MECH-4A NA7.5.3 Air Distribution Systems 1 MECH-5A NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls 5 MECH-7A NA7.5.6 Supply Fan Variable Flow Controls 7 MECH-9A NA7.5.8 Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls 2 MECH- 10A NA7.5.9 Hydronic System Variable Flow Controls 2 LTG-3A NA7.6.1 Automatic Daylighting Control 2 LTG-2A NA7.6.3 Manual Daylighting Control, NA7.6.4 Automatic 1 Time Switch Control OLTG-2A NA7.7 Outdoor Lighting 1 Total 31

14 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Phone Interviews CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 14 Acceptance requirements and forms confusing Re-work sometimes needed Tests are sometimes performed, but Financial disincentive to include in bid Often not included in bid unless specified Forms not often requested Incorrect forms used, incomplete Onsite verification uncommon

15 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Phone Interviews CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 15 Who s responsible? Unclear who is responsible to specify tests Design / project engineer Unclear who is responsible to execute tests Installing contractor, TAB contractor, Cx agent Tests are valuable Equipment is functional Equipment meets design intent and code Intent is right, but in practice the requirements are unclear and complex

16 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Building Departments 16 Building departments underfunded and understaffed Acceptance Forms receive little review Training budgets significantly reduced Plans examination outsourced Need training and access to information Lack of training for contractors and building officials = frustration and low enforcement Forms don t reference detailed instruction (At-a-Glance guides), or CEC hotline #

17 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Building Departments 17 Too many forms / forms confusing Compliance Software produces inaccurate forms Not specify necessary test, specify unnecessary test Responsible Party not specified on forms

18 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 18 Most contractors familiar with tests More frequently since January 2010 Confusion in interpretation, forms unclear Most frequently performed: MECH-2A, MECH-3A, MECH-5A, MECH-7A, and LTG-2A If tests not specified on design docs, not performed

19 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 19 Why do tests fail? Technical issues, test effectiveness Technical barriers to compliance Non-technical barriers to compliance

20 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 20 Test Effectiveness Equipment deficiencies 31 tests = 16 passed, 11 failed, 4 neither 52% pass rate (16 of 31) 70% effective at identifying failures (16 out of 23 causes for failure) Test forms unclear, require interpretation Variations in technician interpretation

21 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 21 Faults Identified by Root Cause That Resulted in Failure of Acceptance Test # of Occurrances Broken equipment Sensor out of calibration Outside air damper out of calibration Test procedure Setpoint (not meeting code) Description of Failure

22 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 22 Technical Barriers to Compliance Insufficient contractor training Lack of thorough execution in the tests Confusion about the acceptance test language, and lack of clarifying reference information Poor test design

23 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Key Findings Field Tests CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 23 Non-Technical Barriers to Compliance Lack of enforcement by building departments Financial disincentives to include tests in bid Lack of coordination or assigned responsibility ( ownership )

24 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Code Change Proposals CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 24 Responsible Person s Declaration Statement Allow only a licensed contractor Maintains pathway of professional qualifications Improves the pathway to accountability CEC to retain electronic copies of Certificate of Acceptance documentation Similar to document registration procedures introduced for residential projects

25 25 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Specifics of Code Change Proposals EXAMPLE: MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests Construction Inspection: Changed Responsible Person s Declaration Statement to include Contractor only. Clarify intent statement and increase font size. Added reference to conducting MECH-7A with MECH-2A. Added details to Instrumentation that is needed to conduct the test. Added supporting documentation for reference including Standards and Nonresidential Compliance Manual. Added information under VAV checklist to be consistent with At-a-glance forms. Added information regarding fixed outside air damper as opposed to dynamically controlled damper. Added a notes section under construction inspection for contractor comments.

26 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Specifics of Code Change Proposals 26 EXAMPLE: MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests Functional Testing: Edited formatting to be consistent with At-a-glance forms, i.e. step # s. Added Mechanical Equipment Schedules as a reference document for design outside air requirements. Added Record VFD speed as part of procedure. Include VFD speed at full cooling. Include VFD speed at minimum flow (full heating). Edited part B Testing Calculations & Results: Add comment that intent of test is to ensure minimum outside airflow is achieved. Test required outside airflow within 10% of design value. Some systems not equipped with dynamic damper control thus test would fail. Title 24 only requires minimum outside airflow. Therefore added note to the form to explain if the test fails because of excessive outside air.

27 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Specifics of Code Change Proposals 27 Specific improvements to all other test forms and code language are appended to the end of this presentation and available online.

28 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Costs and Savings CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 28 Costs All tests existing, No new costs assumed Possible cost savings due to easier test processes Energy Savings On a per-test basis, No new energy savings Increased compliance rate Increased statewide savings

29 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Draft Code Language CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 29 Code Language No Changes because all tests are preexisting NA7 Responsible Person: Licensed contractor only Clarify calibration, require documentation Clarify intent, reference code Appended to Draft Report, available online

30 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Draft Code Language CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 30 Compliance Manual: Later update schedule Forms (Certificates of Acceptance) At-A-Glance Guides In development

31 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Remaining Tasks CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 31 Estimated Statewide energy savings 2005 HMG testing and evaluation Evaluation of Nonresidential Acceptance Requirements Recover a portion of savings due to improved testing guidance and increased compliance Scale by new construction square footage

32 32 PIER Study Acceptance Testing QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Matt Tyler, PECI Elizabeth Joyce, ES x229

33 Acceptance Testing #2: Retrocommissioning Failure Modes Stakeholder Meeting 3 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Energy Solutions PECI

34 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Introduction CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 34 Background Analysis Findings Specifics of code change proposals Costs and Savings Draft code language

35 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Background CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 35 PECI CA RCx program dataset > 800 failures across 125 buildings Criteria Frequency Energy Savings Suitability for Acceptance requirements New or Revised Acceptance requirements

36 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Findings CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 36 Concerns Already addressed by an Acceptance Requirement Design or Maintenance Can t be modeled in software, not in NR ACM Final tests Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls Condenser Water Supply Temperature Reset Controls

37 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Proposed Code Change CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 37 Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls NA7.5.15, MECH-16A 144(f)(2): Space Conditioning systems Multizone AHU Reset SAT depending on OSAT, RAT High and Low load conditions hrs

38 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Proposed Code Change CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 38 Condenser Water Supply Temperature Reset Controls NA , MECH-17A Water-cooled chiller w/cooling tower Reset CWST down in low load condition, based on OA WB or load 2-4 hrs

39 39 Estimated Energy Savings SAT Reset Measure analyzed in 2005 by Taylor Engineering 10,000 sq ft simulation model, Office PVAV w/hw reheat 16 CZs SAT reset 55 F up to 65 F (70 F and 65 F OAT) 64% test effectiveness factor (PECI and NW Battelle Division, 2003)

40 40 Estimated Energy Savings SAT Reset Climate Zone Electrical Energy Savings [kwh/yr] Electrical Peak Demand Reduction [kw] Hydeman & Stein, 2007 TDV Electrical Cost Savings [$] Natural Gas Energy Savings [Therms/yr] TDV Gas Cost TDV Total Cost TDV Total Cost Savings [$] Savings [$] Savings Normalized [$/sf] CZ01 8, $17, $9,200 $26,000 $2.6 CZ02 5, $7, $8,300 $15,000 $1.5 CZ03 7, $12, $8,200 $21,000 $2.1 CZ04 6, $9, $7,700 $17,000 $1.7 CZ05 8, $13, $8,700 $22,000 $2.2 CZ06 7, $11, $6,800 $18,000 $1.8 CZ07 7, $11, $6,300 $17,000 $1.7 CZ08 6, $8, $6,200 $15,000 $1.5 CZ09 5, $7, $6,300 $14,000 $1.4 CZ10 4, $6, $6,500 $13,000 $1.3 CZ11 3, $4, $8,100 $12,000 $1.2 CZ12 4, $6, $8,800 $15,000 $1.5 CZ13 3, $4, $7,900 $12,000 $1.2 CZ14 2, $1, $6,300 $8,000 $0.8 CZ15 1, $2, $4,600 $6,000 $0.6 CZ16 2, $3, $5,400 $8,000 $0.8 Minimum 1, $1, $4,600 $6,000 $0.6 Maximum 8, $17, $9,200 $26,000 $2.6 Wtd Avg 5, $7, $7,100 $14,000 $1.4

41 41 Estimated Energy Savings CWST Reset 2 Models 5 CZs CWST according to OA WB 71% test effectiveness factor (PECI and NW Battelle Division, 2003) Office Hotel 117,000 sf 67,500 sf 6 stories 3 stories VAV w/hw reheat, w/central plant 4-Pipe FC w/central plant 230 ton Screw chiller 120 ton Scroll chiller 280 ton CT 150 ton CT 85 deg F CWST (Reset to 66 deg F) 85 deg F CWST (Reset to 70 deg F) 10 deg F approach 6 deg F approach

42 42 Estimated Energy Savings CWST Reset CZ kwh/sf-yr TDV kbtu/sf-yr TDV $/sf Office Hotel Office Hotel Office Hotel $0.14 $ $0.13 $ $0.19 $ $0.193 $ $0.106 $0.155 Wt. Avg $0.15 $ kwh/sf 1.5 kbtu/sf $0.14 $/sf

43 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 43 Initial Testing and Review $80/hr Sheet Metal Contractor Incremental Maintenance $70/hr Skilled Worker ½ hour per year, 15 years

44 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 44 Avg. Test Time (hrs) Review Time (hrs) Test Cost Yearly Maintenance Material & Install Total Cost SAT Reset CWST Reset $318 $418 $800 $1, $556 $418 $0 * $974 Assume 2 persons performing test, 1 person reviewing No costs assumed for equipment, calibration * Because CWST is not prescriptive in code, assume no measure cost (cost of controls + installation)

45 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Measure Cost-Effectiveness CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 45 Cost (PV $/sf) Avg. Savings TDV (PV $/sf) LCC Savings (PV $/sf) Avg. PBP (yrs) SAT Reset CWST Reset $0.15 $0.90 $ $0.011 $0.097 $ Square Footage estimates based on representative building models SAT Reset cost-effective above approx. 1,700 sq ft CWST Reset cost-effective above approx. 10,000 sq ft

46 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Draft Code Language CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 46 SECTION 125 REQUIRED NONRESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE (a) Before an occupancy permit is granted the following equipment and systems shall be certified as meeting the Acceptance Requirements for Code Compliance, as specified by the Reference Nonresidential Appendix NA7. A Certificate of Acceptance shall be submitted to the enforcement agency that certifies that the equipment and systems meet the acceptance requirements: 15. Supply air temperature reset controls shall be tested in accordance with NA Water-cooled chillers with condenser water reset controls shall be tested in accordance with NA

47 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Draft Code Language CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 47 NA Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls NA Condenser Water Supply Temperature Reset Controls NA7 Drafts appended to Draft Report, available online m

48 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Draft Code Language CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 48 Compliance Manual: Later update schedule Forms (Certificates of Acceptance) At-A-Glance Guides In-development

49 49 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Remaining Tasks Statewide Energy Savings Scale by square footage CEC Construction Data Prevalence of Equipment/Feature Recover a portion of savings due to improved testing guidance and increased compliance

50 AT2: RCx Failure Modes CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 50 QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Matt Tyler, PECI Elizabeth Joyce, ES x229

51 51 Design Phase Commissioning Commissioning - Design Review Stakeholder Meeting 3 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Southern California Edison California Commissioning Collaborative Portland Energy Conservation Inc Summit Building Engineering

52 Commissioning Design Review Topics Covered CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 52 Why Design Review Proposed Concept Savings Methodology Savings Results What s Next Stakeholder Discussion

53 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) What is Design Review CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 53 Traditional Review Confirm design conforms to project requirements Check documents are clear and complete Check documents are free from significant error Suggest best practice design enhancements Additional Elements in CA Title 24 Review Confirm design conforms to codes Confirm performance path energy modeling inputs are reflected in design documents Confirm that CALGreen and Acceptance Testing Requirements are reflected in design documents

54 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 54 Cost & Time Reduce number of significant change orders Reduce administrative time issuing RFIs and change orders Reduce delays associated with resolving deficiencies. Save Energy Increase compliance with Title 24 energy requirements Increase best practices that go beyond Title 24 Quality Building Operates as intended Is easier to construct and maintain Has lower long term operating cost

55 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM 55 Key Part of Building Commissioning Protocol Commissioning: a quality assurance process that spans the entire design and construction process.. Includes verifying and documenting that building systems are: Planned and designed properly Design Review Operated and maintained properly Installed and tested properly Reference: CALGreen Description California Green Buildings Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.

56 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review 56 ASHRAE Guideline 0 CALGreen 2010 IGCC LEED 2009 Enhanced Cx Owner's Project Requirements Cx Plan Basis of Design Cx in Construction Documents Construction Checklists Design Review Functional Performance Testing Documentation and Training Final Cx Report Post Occupancy Cx Currently omitted from CALGreen Cxing requirements

57 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept 57 Stakeholder Desired Outcomes: Effective not overly burdensome Practical targets items with most impact Not duplicative to existing T24 compliance Effort and cost scalable to project size Integrated with AT and CALGreen Cx Enforceable

58 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept Basic Elements Design Review for all NR projects Design Review varies with building size and system types (simple or complex) Two Part Process: schematic design kickoff meeting and construction document design review checklists 58 Design Reviewer Qualifications Self Review for simple systems and < 10K sqft In-house review < 50,000 sqft by registered engineer (engineering associate with no project involvement) 3 rd party review > 50,000 sqft or complex HVAC systems by registered engineer

59 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept 59 Timeline DESIGN PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Permit Application Plan Check building <= 10,000 ft 2 building > 10,000 ft 2 Design Review Kickoff Performance Path Compliance Forms T24 Requirements Met? Acceptance Testing Commissioning & Acceptance Testing Design Review Completed Design Review Checklist Certificate of Occupancy

60 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept SD Kick-Off Meeting 60 Part One 1. Initial coordination to define project and Design Review needs 2. Hold kick off meeting with owner and project team 3. Discuss Design Review process and present required and best practice checklists 4. Discuss future CD Design Review approach and timing / scheduling factors

61 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept CD Design Review Part Two 1. Substantially complete design docs distributed 2. Design Reviewer performs checklist review 3. Signed Design Review form sent to owner and project team 4. Project team addresses review comments 5. Design Review forms/sign-off are printed on Bid Set and submitted with application 6. Code official confirms signed forms are included in plans as part of compliance check 61

62 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept Cost of Review 62 Simple and small building (<10,000sqft) with self design review ~ 16 hours Simple and moderate building (30,000 sqft) in house design review ~ 50 hours Larger and complex building (200,000 sqft) 3 rd party design review ~ 145 hours Design Reviewer ~ 40% of hours Designer ~ 60% of hours

63 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Savings Methodology Create and run energy models Modified DEER 2008 models (updated to 2008 T24 code and other needed changes) equest hourly simulation of base case for a well designed building Rerun the model with code issues not in compliance Tabulate energy impacts vs. base case Apply adjustment factors Apply to all climate zones and primary building types (Large & small office, retail, restaurant, school, college) 63

64 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Energy Models 64 Occupancy Type (Residential, Retail, Office, etc) Area (ft 2 ) Number of Stories Other Notes Prototype 1 Large Office 174, HVAC: Chiller, Gas Boiler, AHUs Prototype 2 Small Office 18,000 2 Prototype 3 Retail 8,000 1 Prototype 4 School 75,000 1 Prototype 5 Restaurant 6,000 1 HVAC: DX Rooftop Gas Pack, Variable Air Volume, Single Zone HVAC: DX Rooftop Gas Pack, Constant Volume, Single Zone HVAC: DX Rooftop Gas Pack, VVT, One System per Zone, Six Zones HVAC: DX Rooftop Gas Pack, Constant Volume, Single Zone Prototype 6 College 150,000 N/A Savings extrapolated from Large Office

65 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Large & Small Office Results 65 Measure selection based on following criteria RCxing Annex report findings Project team engineering judgment Energy savings impact Likelihood of not being well specified Ease of identifying during design review

66 66

67 67

68 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Additional Adjustment Factors 68 not all possible non-compliant items modeled; frequency at which non-compliance issues occur; not all non-compliant items will be found; additional best practices being identified and incorporated into design; natural gas measures not addressed as rigorously; penetration factor of design review over time: Assumed 70% average value - actual value will be lower in earlier years and higher in later years Not all jurisdictions implementing design review thoroughly

69 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Example of Adjustment Factors 69 Factor Office- Large Office-Small Impact Fraction of all possible measures that were modeled. [B] Adder Fraction of possible measures that will on average be an issue (be non-compliant at Design Review). [C] Minus Fraction of non-compliant measures expected to be identified at Design Review. [D] Minus Expected savings of Design Review causing designers to incorporate energy saving features beyond code (as Adder a fraction of modeled impacts). [E] Total Savings Adjustment for Elec [F] (C x D x (1+E) / B) Gas measures adjustment as a % of the Elec Adjustment [G] Minus Total Savings Adjustment for Gas [H] (F x G) Additional penetration factor of 70% applied

70 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Net Affect of Savings 70 OL Office Large OS Office- Small RE Restaurant RL Retail SC School CZ Elec Gas Elec Gas Elec Gas Elec Gas Elec Gas 3 4.6% 9.4% 4.8% 4.1% 1.6% 1.0% 2.2% 10.5% 2.5% 6.4% 6 4.4% 9.6% 4.6% 3.3% 1.9% 0.6% 2.5% 9.6% 2.8% 5.4% % 9.5% 5.1% 3.8% 1.8% 0.7% 2.6% 10.1% 3.4% 5.6% % 9.2% 5.2% 3.5% 1.6% 1.1% 2.4% 8.9% 3.3% 6.2% % 8.7% 5.4% 2.7% 1.5% 1.5% 2.3% 6.9% 2.8% 5.4% Ave. 4.3% 9.3% 5.0% 3.5% 1.7% 1.0% 2.4% 9.2% 3.0% 5.8% Savings of total percent building energy use

71 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Net Affect on Cost Effectiveness 71 CZ Cost ($/sf): Value (TDV $/sf) College Office-Large Office-Small Retail $ 0.24 $ 0.22 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.46 $ 0.25 Value /Cost Ratio Value (TDV $/sf) Value /Cost Ratio Value (TDV $/sf) Value /Cost Ratio Value (TDV $/sf) Value /Cost Ratio Restaurant Value (TDV $/sf) Value /Cost Ratio Value (TDV $/sf) 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Wt'd Avg Simple average of all building types = 4.6 School Value /Cost Ratio

72 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Next Steps Make modifications based on CEC workshop findings Generate an effective package of Design Review Checklists for inclusion in Compliance Manual Make suggestions for future training for future design reviewers designers / contractors jurisdiction awareness 72

73 73 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Glenn Hansen, PECI (503) Karl Stum, SBE (360)