Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC Topics Stakeholder Meeting #2

Transcription

1 Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC Topics Stakeholder Meeting #2 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Energy Solutions Heschong Mahone Group Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Summit Building Engineering CTG Energetics December 7, 2010 Conference Call Number: Access Code: 16746#

2 2 Agenda 9:00 9:15 Introductions 9:15 10:15 Acc. Test 1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing 10:15 11:15 Acc. Test 2: Retro-commissioning Failure Modes 11:15-11:30 Break 11:30 12:30 Design Phase Commissioning 12:30 1:00 Lunch 1:00 3:00 HVAC Controls and Economizing 3:00 3:15 Break 3:15 4:15 Outside Air 4:15 4:45 Closing Comments

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 4 Code Change Activity 2011 T-24 Base Code (Part 6 of Title 24) 2011 Reach Standard (Part 11 of Title 24) Green Building Standard i.e. CalGreen Voluntary standards that local governments can adopt Some mandatory measures Future Codes 2014 T-24 Future Reach Codes

5 Requirements for a Successful Code Change 5 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

6 Requirements for a Successful Code Change 6 For reach code: The CEC is developing a separate set of costeffectiveness metrics Measure benefits may include emissions benefits to state, benefits of water saved in energy production, etc.

7 Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Cx, & NR HVAC CASE Topics for 2011 Title 24 Cycle 7 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Topics Acceptance Testing 1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Acceptance Testing 2: Retro-commissioning Failure Modes Design Phase Commissioning HVAC Controls and Economizing Outside Air These CASE topics may have Base Code and/or Reach Code recommendations

8 8 Stakeholder Meetings Process Minimum of 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 All meetings can be attended remotely

9 9 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

10 10 Schedule: Key Dates Mar Dec 2010 CEC develop foundation /methodology IOUs: Conduct research, and cost effectiveness analysis Present results at stakeholder meetings Feb 2011 IOUs finalize code change proposals for submittal to CEC Feb-July 2011 Pre-Rulemaking activities CEC workshops/ First Draft Language September 2011 CEC rulemaking CEC opens Rulemaking for Title 24, develop 45-day language March 1, 2012 Title 24 Adoption date Jan. 1, 2014 Title 24 Implementation date

11 11 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 Raise your hand and be acknowledged by presenter 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

12 12 Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #2 PECI Energy Solutions December 7, 2010 Date

13 13 13 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Summary of current code requirements Typical practice Summary of code change proposals Data/findings Specifics of code change proposals Remaining data collection and analysis

14 14 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Current Code Requirements (Mandatory) 125 Acceptance requirements Functional tests (performance verification) performed on select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems Acceptance tests are conducted: After construction and start-up Before occupancy and normal use of the equipment Who can perform the tests: Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or contractor

15 15 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Current Code Requirements (Mandatory) NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls Acceptance Test In-field functional tests 1. Cooling demand, economizer 100% open 2. Cooling demand, minimum position 3. Heating demand, minimum position If the economizer is factory installed and certified by the manufacturer to the CEC, no field testing is required

16 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Typical Practice 16 Performance verification is uncommon Low compliance and enforcement Responsible party not specified on forms (MECH-1C) Building officials not requesting/checking forms Building departments are underfunded and understaffed Reduced/eliminated training budgets Outsourcing plans examinations Inspectors not familiar with requirements Contractors unfamiliar with tests

17 17 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Code Change Proposals Increase compliance and enforcement Improve test protocols Modify as needed: code language test forms compliance manual reporting procedures enforcement procedures Outreach and education activities MEP firms involved with plans examinations

18 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Code Change Proposals 18 Responsible Person s Declaration Statement Allow only a licensed contractor Prohibit architect and engineer 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

19 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Data Collection and Analysis 19 Evaluate acceptance testing enforcement activities Phone interviews, BD visits Investigate effectiveness of acceptance tests Observe field tests: 9 sites finished, 3 scheduled Characterize the findings and make recommendations

20 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Data Collection and Analysis 20

21 21 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Specifics of Code Change Proposals MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests Construction Inspection: 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-aglance forms. Added information regarding fixed outside air damper as opposed to dynamically controlled damper. Added a notes section under construction inspection for contractor comments.

22 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Specifics of Code Change Proposals 22 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. Edited part B Testing Calculations & Results. 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.

23 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Remaining Data Collection & Analysis 23 Estimated energy savings Use ex-post evaluation of savings, which accounts for compliance Recover a portion of these savings due to improved testing guidance and increased compliance

24 PIER Study Acceptance Testing Connections to Design Phase Cx 24 Incorporate tests into construction documents Responsible party specified on Cx plan Require the Cx Authority to collect/review forms

25 25 PIER Study Acceptance Testing QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Matt Tyler, PECI

26 Acceptance Testing #2: Retrocommissioning Failure Modes Stakeholder Meeting 2 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Energy Solutions PECI December 7, 2010

27 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Introduction: Current Code Requirements (Mandatory) Acceptance requirements Functional tests (performance verification) performed on select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems Acceptance tests are conducted: After construction and start-up Before occupancy and normal use Who can perform the tests: Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or contractor Performance verification is uncommon Low compliance and enforcement / 207 / 2010 Date

28 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 28 Introduction: Background Research PECI CA RCx program dataset > 800 failures across 125 buildings Criteria Frequency Energy Savings Suitability for Acceptance requirements New or Revised Acceptance requirements

29 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 29 Proposed Code Change Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls Condenser Supply Water Temp Reset Controls (NA 7.5.8) Chiller Staging Boiler Lockout Whole Building Optimum Startup

30 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 30 Proposed Code Change Supply Air Temperature Reset Reset SAT depending on OSAT, RAT High and Low Load Conditions 144(f): Space Conditioning systems 2 4 hrs

31 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 31 Proposed Code Change Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls: Condenser Water Supply NA High and Low Load Conditions Water-cooled CHW Systems, Section 144(j) + 1 hr (1 5 hrs total)

32 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 32 Proposed Code Change Chiller Staging Sequential Chiller Loading & Startup Multi-chiller systems, Section 144 Chiller Schedule DPCx 2 6 hrs

33 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 33 Proposed Code Change Boiler Lockout Boiler shutoff below SAT/OAT setpoint 70F OAT DB calculations HW Heating Boilers with shutoff controls, Section 144(j) 2 4 hrs

34 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 34 Proposed Code Change Whole Building Startup (BAS Startup) BAS Optimal System Startup (morning condition) Any BAS or EMCS, Section hrs

35 35 Estimated Energy Savings EnergyPro Models Four prototypes: Office, Hotel, School, Retail T24 ACM HVAC Baseline systems 16 CZs (CZ 3 so far) PECI RCx Measured Savings Measured by RCx program Sample size between Site (per sq ft) Site (per sq ft)

36 36 Estimated Energy Savings Effectiveness: Prevalence of Equipment Prevalence of Failures Likelihood of Being Detected by Testing / Commissioning Compliance / Testing Effectiveness (Not Considered for This Analysis)

37 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Energy Savings: RCx 37 Measure Site Savings (RCx Dataset) kwh / sf therms / sf kwh/sf Therms / sf Supply Air Temperature Reset Supply Water Temperature Reset Boiler Lockout Optimum Chiller Staging System Startup

38 38 Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling kwh / sf SAT Reset Savings kwh / SF Base Case: Constant Control Heating, Warmest Zone Reset Cooling Savings Case: OA Reset both Heating & Cooling $0.60 $0.50 SAT Reset Savings TDV $ / SF Office, Hotel, Retail Models TDV $ / sf $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $-

39 39 Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling CWST Reset Savings kwh / SF Base Case: No CWST Reset Savings Case: CWST Reset kwh / sf $- $(0.05) CWST Reset Savings TDV $ / SF Office, Hotel Models TDV $ / sf $(0.10) $(0.15) $(0.20) $(0.25) $(0.30)

40 40 Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling therms / sf Boiler Lockout Savings therms / SF Base Case: Normal Operation Savings Case: Lockout Below 70F $ $ Boiler Lockout Savings TDV $ / SF Office, Hotel, Retail Models TDV $ / sf $ $ $-

41 41 Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling 0.12 Optimum Start Savings kwh / SF Base Case: Normal Operation Savings Case: Early by 1 Hr 0.1 kwh / sf $0.25 $0.20 Optimum Start Savings TDV $ / SF Office, Hotel, Retail, School Models TDV $ / sf $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $-

42 42 Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling kwh / sf Chiller Staging Savings kwh / SF $0.60 $0.50 Base Case: Parallel to 90% Savings Case: Parallel to 90%, Inefficient-Order Chiller Staging Savings TDV $ / SF Office, Hotel Models TDV $ / sf $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $-

43 43 Statewide Energy Savings Scale by square footage CEC Construction Data Prevalence of Equipment/Feature Scale by system characteristics CBECS

44 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Statewide Energy Savings 44 Estimated First-year CA Electric Savings (GWh) GWh Supply Air Temperature Reset Condenser Water Temperature Reset Boiler Lockout Optimum System Startup Chiller Staging

45 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Statewide Energy Savings 45 Estimated First-year CA Gas Savings (Therms) Therms Supply Air Temperature Reset Condenser Water Temperature Reset Boiler Lockout Optimum System Startup Chiller Staging

46 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs 46 Salary for Functional Tests: Hourly + O&P (56%) Salary for Forms Review: Responsible Person HVAC Contractor (US BLS) Controls Contractor (US BLS) Open Shop + O&P $36.19 $42.28

47 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs 47 No testing equipment costs assumed Sensors, etc. No cost savings assumed Reduced need for repair Longer equipment lifetime No costs for Building Department Review

48 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs 48 Max Test Time (hrs) Review Time (hrs) Total Pertest Cost SAT Reset $177 CWST Reset $216 Boiler Lockout $137 Optimum System Start $137 Chiller Staging $255

49 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Measure Cost-Effectiveness 49 Cost (PV $) Avg. Savings TDV (PV $) LCC Savings (PV $) SAT Reset $177 $158,744 $158,568 CWST Reset $216 - $60,109 - $60,215 Boiler Lockout $137 $123 -$15 Optimum System Start $137 $13,158 $13,021 Chiller Staging $255 $35,239 $34,984

50 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Measure Cost-Effectiveness 50 Average Measure LCC ($ / sf) $ / sf $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 -$0.20 -$0.40 -$0.60 -$0.80 -$1.00 -$1.20 -$1.40 -$1.60 -$1.80 Supply Air Temperature Reset Condenser Water Temperature Reset Boiler Lockout Optimum System Start Chiller Staging

51 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Next Steps 51 Modeling additional CZs Calculations Scaling to Statewide Savings O&M Costs Degradation of Savings over Time Integration with AT #1(Compliance & Enforcement Issues)

52 AT2: RCx Failure Modes Remaining Issues 52 Costs Modeling Energy Savings Calculation Per square footage vs. per system characteristics Savings degradation Scope Compliance Issues

53 AT2: RCx Failure Modes 53 Questions and Comments Elizabeth Joyce Energy Solutions x229

54 Design Phase Commissioning Stakeholder Meeting 2 California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program Southern California Edison California Commissioning Collaborative Portland Energy Conservation Inc Summit Building Engineering December 7, 2010

55 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Topics Covered 55 Why Design Review Background Research Proposed Concept Savings Methodology Large Office Results What s Next Stakeholder Discussion CS2 Date

56 Slide 55 CS2 We need to put a date in the footer. Cindy Strecker, 12/1/2010

57 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) What is Design Review 56 Experienced professional: Confirms design conforms to project requirements Confirms design conforms to codes Checks that documents are clear and complete Checks that documents are free from significant error Suggests design enhancements Date

58 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review 57 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 low long term operating cost Date

59 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review 58 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 Installed and tested properly Operated and maintained properly Reference: CALGreen Description California Green Buildings Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Date

60 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review 59 Early involvement generates greatest impact Date

61 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research 60 Stakeholder Surveys Published commissioning protocols T24 Requirements Part 6 Compliance Paths Part 6 Acceptance Requirements Part 11 CALGreen Commissioning Date

62 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research - Stakeholder Surveys 61 MEP Designers General support for the design review Currently some internal design review Concern with added complexity to an already complex compliance process Commissioning Providers Design review is part of successful commissioning Concern with qualifications of design reviewer Date

63 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research - Stakeholder Surveys 62 Owners Mixed experience with commissioning Value is varied based on who is the commissioning authority (CA) (process, tech. skill, communication) Concern of added coordination time and cost Code Officials No additional review or compliance checks Single point of sign off by Design Reviewer Date

64 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research Cx Protocols 63 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 Date

65 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept - Survey Attributes 64 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 Date

66 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept CEC / Utility Attributes 65 Desired Outcomes: Compliance Integrate current T24 requirements in construction documents Compliment T24 acceptance testing requirements Add key Cxing element (Design Review) to CALGreen for a comprehensive commissioning protocol Implementation of design best practices Date

67 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept 66 Basic Elements Design Review required for all NR projects that obtain permit Design Review varies with building size and system types (simple or complex) Two Steps: schematic design project review meeting and construction document design review checklists Design Reviewer (DR) Qualifications Self Review for simple systems and < 10K sqft In-house review <? sqft by registered engineer 3 rd party review >? sqft by registered engineer Target square footage in the range of K sqft Date

68 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept 67 Date

69 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept SD Project Review 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 Date

70 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept CD Design Review Substantially complete design doc.s 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 Date

71 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept Extent of Review 70 Simple system Design Review is estimated at 16 hours Complex system in smaller building, Design Review is estimated at 32 hours Complex system in larger building, Design Review is estimated at 54 hours Date

72 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept 71 Relationship to AT & CALGreen Cxing Design review checklist should include checking for acceptance requirements If CALGreen Cxing (Title 24, Part 11) is applicable: Confirm CALGreen Cx requirements are included in plans/specs Confirm Cx specification are clear and complete CALGreen Cx plan should clarify who is responsible for performing Acceptance Testing Date

73 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept Integration of Design Review 72 Schedule Acceptance Testing Title 24 Compliance CALGreen Commissioning Design Review Schematic Design CxA DR/CxA Design Development PE/EC CxA Construction Documents PE PE/EC CxA DR/CxA Permitting PE/EC CxA Build AA/CxA CxA AA Acceptance Agent CxA EC PE DR Commissioning Agent/Authority Energy Consultant or Energy Compliance Professional Professional Engineer Design Reviewer Date

74 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Typical Design Review Checklist 73 Title 24 Prescriptive Non-Residential Energy Measures--Reviewer Checks 10/12/2010 From 2010 Title 24 Part 6 Reviewer Disposition (date or note #) Code Section 144 Prescriptive Requirements for HVAC Systems 144(a) Sizing and equipment selection. 144(b) Calculations. Measure 144( c)1. CV fan system with more than 25 hp shall not exceed 0.8 W/cfm of supply air. VAV: fan power at design conditions for total system horsepower over 25 hp shall be less than ( c)2.a W/cfm of supply air. For VAV fans 10 hp or greater: Variable speed drive, and motor demand must be controlled to be no 144( c)2.b.iii. more than 30% of the total design wattage at 50% of design cfm when static pressure set point equals 1/3 of the total design static pressure, based on certified mfr data. Static pressure sensor location in VAV system. If pressure isn't reset (system isn't DDC), sensor 144( c)2.c. must be located so the set point is less than 1/3 the total design fan static pressure. If sensor must be after branch takeoffs, sensors in each branch are r Reset. In VAV systems, static pressure must be reset if there are DDC controls at the zone level. 144( c)2.d. Control must reset down until one zone damper is nearly wide open. Air treatment or filtering shall comply with a fan power index using Eq. 144-A. (Adjusted FPI = FPI 144( c)3 x Fan adjustment. Where Fan adjustment = 1 - ((S Pa - 1) / S Pf), where S Pa = air pressure drop of the treatment or filter; S Pf = total pressure drop acr Fan motors of series fan powered terminal units. Fans of FPTU of 1 hp our less shall be ECM 144( c)4 or have a minimum efficiency of 70% per NEMA Std MG at full load. Space conditioning zone controls shall be provided (in each zone) to prevent reheating, 144(d) recooling and simultaneous heating and cooling. Air terminals' primary airflow shall be at most 50% or the min % OA rate during reheat and 20% or the min % OA rate during deadband, whichever is the larger rate in each case. Exceptions: 144(d)3-A Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less. Air terminals' without DDC primary airflow shall be at most 30% during reheat. Exceptions: 144(d)3-B Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less. Economizers (water or air) are required on fan systems with a design supply capacity over 2, (e) cfm and total mechanical cooling capacity over 75,000 Btu/hr Air economizers. OA and RA dampers must be able to modulate to supply 100% of the design 144(e)1.A. supply air as outside air. Water economizers. Must provide 100 percent of cooling load at outside air temperatures of (e)1.B. degrees dry bulb/45 degrees wet bulb and below. 144(e)2.A. Economizer operation shall not increase building heating energy use during normal operation. Complies Does Not Comply Note ID Date

75 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Example of Design Review Checklist 74 Inclusion of Best Practice Date

76 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Confirming CALGreen Cx 75 The design review confirms the following CALGreen Cx are complete and Acceptance Testing requirements included, prior to permitting: Basis of design Owners project requirements Commissioning plan Commissioning requirements are in the specifications AT requirements in specifications and tied to Cx Review design for other commissioning facilitation issues, such as sufficient sensors, valves and control points for testing. Date

77 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Savings Methodology 76 Create and run energy models Modified DEER 2008 models (updated to 2008 T24 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 factor for how often each code measure not in compliance Estimate impacts of Better Practice suggestions and other design review comments Date

78 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Large Office Preliminary Results 77 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 Date

79 Large Office, CZ3 Potential KWh Impacts of Design Review % 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%% of Total kwh VAV duct static pressure reset (none) Thermostat settings (70-72) Window SHGC (N.7, O.57) Variable flow chilled & hot w ater loops (CV) Window U-factor (.86) Cooling tow er staging (1 Tw r, 1 CH) Lighting controls (-10%) Oversizing of chiller, boiler & coils (+10%) VAV supply air temperature reset (poor reset) Clg Tw r fan size vs gpm (10%) CHW and HW temp reset (none) % West Glass (50%) Supply fan oversizing (15%) Air terminal turndow n ratio (45%) Specifying acceptance reqr'ts (-2%) Daylighting (-20%) Simultaneous htg & clg (4 pr TU's) CHW & HW pressure reset (none) Clg Tw r approach temp (12F) Ventilation rate (+20%) Roof Color (medium) Annual kwh Parentheses indicates noncompliant Im pact CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder 0 Meeting for Proposed Code Changes Date value

80 Large Office, CZ3 Potential Therm Impacts of Design Review 79 VAV duct static pressure reset (none) Thermostat settings (70-72) Window SHGC (N.7, O.57) Variable flow chilled & hot w ater loops (CV) Window U-factor (.86) Cooling tow er staging (1 Tw r, 1 CH) Lighting controls (-10%) Oversizing of chiller, boiler & coils (+10%) VAV supply air temperature reset (poor reset) Clg Tw r fan size vs gpm (10%) CHW and HW temp reset (none) % West Glass (50%) Supply fan oversizing (15%) -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% % of Total Therm s Air terminal turndow n ratio (45%) Specifying acceptance reqr'ts (-2%) Daylighting (-20%) Simultaneous htg & clg (4 pr TU's) Insert CASE Author Name Insert contact info CHW & HW pressure reset (none) Clg Tw r approach temp (12F) Ventilation rate (+20%) Roof Color (medium) Parentheses indicates non-compliant value CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder -100 Meeting 400 for Proposed Code Changes Annual Therm Im pact Date

81 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Next Steps 80 Solidify design review measures to be examined Complete savings analysis in additional buildings office S&L / retail / restaurant / school Run models for multiple climate zones Extrapolate to statewide new building stock Perform additional costing exercise Run cost effectiveness analysis Re-examine Design Review concept based on cost effectiveness results Date

82 81 Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) QUESTIONS & COMMENTS Glenn Hansen, PECI (503) Karl Stum, SBE (360) Date

83 82 Lunch Break The call will drop during the break. Please call back in at 1pm using the same information. Conference Call Number: Access Code: 16746#