Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes Tuesday January 13, 2015

Transcription

1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 10:05 AM PT by Don Langston, Chair and President of Aire Rite AC and Refrigeration. Meetings are normally scheduled for 60 minutes. Roll Call Quorum for voting organizations = 7 of voting members, 13 non-voting members and 2 guests attended this meeting. A total of 25 members and guests were in attendance. P = present at meeting A = absent voting member; if proxy has been assigned it will be noted below. WHPA Goal 2: CQM Committee VOTING Members Roll Call Air Conditioning Contractors of Donald Prather Contractor Association P America (ACCA) Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration Don Langston Contractor (Nonresidential) P ASHRAE (American Society of Robert Baker Engineering Society Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) (Bob) Conservation Services Group (CSG) Elizabeth DeSouza Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P Field Diagnostic Services Inc. (FDSI) Dale Rossi Third Party Quality Assurance Providers P Honeywell ECC (Commercial Mike Lawing Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P Buildings, Trade Sales) Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions Shayne Holderby Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P Marina Mechanical Denny Mann Contractor (Nonresidential) CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Monica Thilges Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P Pacific Gas and Electric Company Peter Biermayer California IOU P (PG&E) Southern California Edison (SCE) Scott Higa California IOU P Tre' Laine Associates Pepper Hunziker Other Stakeholder P Western Allied Corporation Mike Gallagher Contractor (Nonresidential) WHPA Goal 2: CQM Committee NON-VOTING Members Roll Call ASHRAE Jim Scarborough Engineering Society BELIMO Aircontrols, Inc Darryl DeAngelis Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P Brownson Technical School Bill Brown Educator, Trainer P BuildingMetrics Pete Jacobs Energy Efficiency Program Consultant Clean Energy Horizons Norm Stone Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P Climate Pro Mechanical Ken Robinson Contractor (Nonresidential) Conservation Services Group (CSG) Michael Withers Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P EMCOR Mesa Energy Charles Fletcher Contractor (Nonresidential) EMCOR Mesa Energy Rob Fried Contractor (Nonresidential) Honeywell ECC (Commercial Adrienne Thomle Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P Buildings, Product Management) HVACRedu.net Jeff Taylor Educator, Trainer P Integrity Mechanical Systems Corp. Susan Siegert Contractor (Nonresidential) KEMA/DNV-GL Timothy Devine Energy Efficiency Program Consultant MAS Service/ Dba JB Mechanical John Billheimer Contractor (Nonresidential) Pacific Gas and Electric Company Jeanne Duvall California IOU P (PG&E) CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Benjamin Lipscomb Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Duane Whitehurst Energy Efficiency Program Consultant CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Michael Blazey Energy Efficiency Program Consultant Richard Danks Consulting Richard Danks Other Stakeholder Page 1 of 16

2 San Diego Gas and Electric Company Jeremy Reefe California IOU (SDG&E) San Diego Gas and Electric Company Robert Nacke California IOU (SDG&E) Sheet Metal Workers (SMW) Randy Young Organized Labor Local # 104 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Bruce Baccei Publically Owned Utility P Southern California Edison Steve Clinton California IOU P Southern California Edison Andres Fergadiotti California IOU Transformative Wave Justin Sipe Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) P XCSpec Jeff Aalfs Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) P XCSpec Janet Peterson Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) P WHPA Goal 2: CQM Committee Approved Guests and Staff Roll Call Bay Controls Stephan Parry Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) CalCERTS Barbara Hernesman Certifying Body California Public Utilities Commission Hazlyn Fortune California PUC (CPUC) - Energy Division California Public Utilities Commission Pete Skala+ California PUC (CPUC) - Energy Division Honeywell ECC Daniel Jones Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions Eddy Saleh+ Energy Efficiency Program Consultant (HSGS) HVACRedu.net Chris Compton Educator, Trainer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mary Anderson California IOU (PG&E) Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mangesh Basarkar California IOU (PG&E) Pacific Gas and Electric Company Robert Davis California IOU (PG&E) Pacific Gas and Electric Company Raymond Wong California IOU (PG&E) Southern California Edison (SCE) Tara Becnel California IOU P Southern California Edison (SCE) Ryan Cho+ California IOU Southern California Edison (SCE) Brett Close California IOU Transformative Wave Justin Sipe Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) Western Cooling Efficiency Center, UC Kristin Heinemeier Research Organization Davis (WCEC) STAFF BBI (Better Buildings Inc.) Dale Gustavson WHPA Executive Advisor BNB Consulting/WHPA Staff, host, Bob Sundberg WHPA Staff P admin. support & scribe Enpowered LLC Shea Dibble WHPA Co-Director CLEAResult Paul Kyllo WHPA Senior Advisor Mark Cherniack, Consultant Mark Cherniack WHPA Senior Advisor ** Organization is Not a Member of the WHPA; + Individual is NOT Registered with the WHPA; (P) after last name = Member/Registrant is Pending Approval from the WHPA Executive Committee Page 2 of 16

3 AGENDA Topic Discussion Leader Desired Outcome Welcome, roll call, review agenda, approve past meeting minutes and ACTION items Welcome new members & guests, review new candidates and candidate review options and process New Business - WHPA 2015 Six SMART Goals CQM Program Updates SCE/PG&E/SDG&E Working Group Updates Don Langston and Bob Sundberg Don Langston and Bob Sundberg Don Langston and Bob Sundberg Monica Thilges, Shayne Holderby, Elizabeth DeSouza Dale Rossi for STD 180 Section 5 Maintenance Task Record meeting attendees, finalize past meeting minutes, review status of meeting action items. New members and invited guests welcomed. Decision made on suggested revisions to candidate options and the review process. Don Langston to provide update from Nov. 4/5 WHPA Leadership meetings on key goals selected by the Executive Committee for Gain a current understanding of IOU CQM program status, progress, developments and issues. Better understanding of Working Group status, progress and challenges. 2nd WG Report to be presented at Jan. 14 EC meeting. PG&E / HSGS CQM Program Sales Training presentation OEM responses to PG&E Economizer/DCV measure work paper negative savings in mild coastal climates Review meeting Action Items, set next meeting date/time, adjourn Shayne Holderby Justin Sipe, Transformative Wave and Darryl DeAngelis, Belimo Don Langston and Bob Sundberg Members and guests made aware that a sales training element had been added to the PG&E CQM program. Receive and discuss OEM responses to economizer/dcv measure negative savings modeling currently part of the PG&E approved work paper. Set next meeting date and confirm time. Approve Minutes of Previous Meeting The December 9 CQM Committee meeting minutes were distributed December 15. Approved final minutes would be posted to the CQM Committee site. Review Status of Action Items from Previous Meeting August ACTION: Bob Sundberg would request Honeywell, Belimo and Transformative Wave comments on the expected economizer plus integrated DCV control strategy in the coastal climate and mild AM conditions prior to an initial call for cooling which Ben Lipscomb had described to see whether they agreed that this was how their devices were designed to operate. Also, whether their devices could be improved to take advantage of free-cooling suitable, cooler outside air in the AM prior to a thermostat call for cooling in some way and what sort of device or system (economizer logic module, DCV CO2 sensor, economizer sensors, space thermostat/controller) changes that might require. Done. Honeywell, Transformative Wave and Belimo all provided initial responses. Belimo indicated that they would provide an additional response early in 2015 after conducting further analysis. Page 3 of 16

4 December ACTION: Committee members were all asked to review the sales training presentation provided by Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions, PG&E CQM program implementer. The presentation was a possible topic of discussion for future meetings. New Business Don Langston informed the committee about the WHPA Six Key SMART Goals adopted at the December Executive Committee meeting for Revise HVAC Components of the CA Strategic Plan and HVAC Action Plan In 2015, the WHPA Council of Advisors, using a collaborative process, will continue the development of a current policy, program, market sector, and tangible metrics information toolbox for ten key HVAC topic areas, which will be submitted to the CPUC to support updates of the CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan and HVAC Action Plan. This goal will be measured by the completion and EC approval of the toolbox by December 31, Continue Commercial HVAC Sector Strategy Engagement Process The WHPA Commercial HVAC Sector Strategy Committee (formed at the beginning of 2014) will continue to engage with the Statewide Workforce, Education and Training Team ( Sector Strategy Team ) in a collaborative engagement process, effectively acting as the steering committee for the development of the CPUC-ordered Commercial HVAC Sector Strategy. The Committee will support the development and implementation of the HVAC Sector Strategy throughout the year. This goal will be measured by the input and the review provided by the Committee as documented by meeting minutes and work products. 3. Revise FDD Roadmap The Fault Detection and Diagnostics (FDD) Committee will work collaboratively with stakeholders to substantiate the benefits promised by in-field and embedded FDD for various stakeholders including residential and small commercial HVAC customers, HVAC contractors, utilities, ratepayers, and society at large. Specifically, they will determine which benefits are of value to each category of stakeholders, validate that these benefits are actually achievable, and outline approaches to exhibit these benefits to the different stakeholders. These factors will form the basis of an update to the FDD Roadmap to be completed by December 31, Quantify QI/QM Energy Savings and Engage in DEER Update Process Building on the work conducted in 2014, the WHPA will actively engage in the DEER update process and provide relevant input throughout 2015 into 1) the HVAC research roadmap, 2) the current program cycle research plan, and 3) the scope, methods, and data sources used in specific studies in the research plan, specifically focusing on 1) assessing realistic market baselines for commercial/residential system operating conditions, 2) assessing energy savings from Commercial QM, Residential QM, Commercial QI and Residential QI, and 3) assessing realistic baselines for the current rate of compliance for residential and commercial equipment installations. In parallel, the WHPA will continue to drive capacity building around DEER and ex ante/ex post energy savings evaluation methods through speakers at relevant committee meetings and hosting educational webinars. This goal will be measured by engagement with the DEER update process and HVAC research as documented in committee minutes and work products. 5. Develop HVAC Components of CEC AB 758 Action Plan The WHPA, using a collaborative process, will provide input into the CEC AB 758 Action Plan as desired and necessary throughout This goal will be measured by the input and review provided by the Committee as documented by meeting minutes and work products. (Don Langston commented that this was really a retrocommissioning program for existing residential and non-residential buildings.) 6. Develop Single-Source Permitting Process for Mechanical Change-Outs The WHPA will develop a roadmap through a collaborative process with California Building Officials (CALBO), contractors, city and county representatives, County Building Officials Association of California (CBOAC), Page 4 of 16

5 California State License Board (CSLB), the California Energy Commission (CEC), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), and other relevant stakeholders for web-based single-source permitting of mechanical changeouts. This goal will be measured by the completion of a whitepaper describing this roadmap by December 31, Welcome New Members and Guests; Consider Pending Members Welcomed Janet Peterson and Jeff Aalfs of XCSpec as new "non-voting" members. Welcomed Stephan Parry, Bay Controls as a new approved guest. Graeme Marsh of CLEAN and GREEN HVAC and Louis Tisenchek of KEMA DNV-GL (NY) will be contacted regarding initial participation as approved guests. CQM Program Updates SCE CQM program summary (Monica Thilges of CLEAResult): Monica Thilges, PECI, provided a program status and update. She and Ben Lipscomb had been working closely with Scott Higa on program revisions for They are attempting to keep what is working best and revise areas that needed improvement. It would be an iterative process followed up with a contractor forum to confirm the program proposed changes before being submitted for approval and implemented. They would be looking at technician training, mentoring, further reduction in questions technicians are required to address and how contractors could better educate customers to help get them onboard and transform the market. Their customer pipeline had a lot of big customer including many schools energy savings was lower than expected and planned. Everything took off later than expected so they expect a lot of the results from 2014 efforts to show up in early Page 5 of 16

6 PG&E CQM Program Summary (Jeanne Duvall of PG&E & Shayne Holderby of HSGS) Shayne Holderby, Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions (HSGS), shared that they were continuing to have issues with program data output and he wouldn't be able to share program updates in the monthly summaries for a while yet results were substantially lower than the previous year. They implemented new measures and had large changes to processes which negatively impacted their energy savings and participation during They think they've addressed all the issues from the last year and expect a smooth start in Like the previous year, it looked like the November through February period would again provide large unit enrollment. They were seeing very slow pickup on the economizer/dcv measure and planned to provide additional contractor training to help drive those DCV measures. Page 6 of 16

7 Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, asked Shayne if they had some ideas as to why there was such a strong economizer measure response and such a lag to the DCV measure. Shayne Holderby, HSGS, said that they'd reached out to a number of contractors and suspected that the complexity of the DCV measure might be an issue vs. standard maintenance services. They had also realized that the sales process was substantially longer for the DCV/EVC measures. It was significantly more complicated to get customers to realize the additional benefits. Jeanne Duvall, PG&E, added that changes in 2015 would revolve around tightening up existing processes and making more transparent to contractors. They were beginning to look at the future of CQM as they considered the 2016 program rolling cycle. There were no major details developed yet. SDG&E CQM Program Update (Elizabeth DeSouza of CSG) Liz DeSouza, Conservation Services Group (CSG), said there weren't any major updates to report for the SDG&E commercial rooftop unit related programs. They had received a few new applications for work that was scheduled to be completed in November and December. CSG had just recently received a finalized contract to continue with their program implementation services so programs could move smoothly into They were planning to work on increasing cost-effectiveness for core program measures again early in the year. She reminded attendees that they were not rolling out the DCV measure in their territory because of the low to negative savings predicted by the IOU work paper. They would work to increase penetration of the economizer/vfd measure because of the projected savings. Working Group Updates Standard 180 Maintenance Task Working Group Dale Rossi, Field Diagnostic Services Inc. (FDSI), said the working group had suspended their work during the last month because of the holidays and some personal issues that needed attention. The group will be focused first on understanding economizer system requirements and then about detailing maintenance tasks. The group's second work product was approved by the CQM Committee during December and was on the Executive Committee meeting agenda for January 14 for review and a vote regarding adoption. If adopted as a WHPA work product, it would be posted a the WHPA web site and also forwarded onto the ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 180 Committee which was scheduled to meet later in January at the ASHRAE Winter Session. Don Langston, Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration, added that both Dale and he were members of the Standard 180 Committee. This committee was never envisioned to be a standing, continuously operating committee. It was reactivated in 2008 to review and consider suggested revisions received, primarily from this WHPA committee and they thought they were done and concluded their activity. With all of the utility program activity, mostly in California, and the additional Standard 180 focused efforts and work product of this committee's working groups, ASHRAE and ACCA decided to re-convene the Standard 180 Committee to review suggested revisions. With Bob Baker, Dale Rossi, Mike Gallagher and himself all members, Don thought that the WHPA would be well represented. OEM Responses and Discussion Regarding PG&E Economizer/DCV Measure Savings Work Paper -- Negative Savings in Mild Coastal Climate Zones vs. Base Economizer Savings The following are the three economizer system OEM written responses. 1. Honeywell's representative, Adrienne Thomle, previously provided responses at previous committee meetings and the following written explanation in December. "Ben s statement is correct for the Jade economizer if you are using DCV the damper stays at the effective damper position (EDP) unless there is a call for cooling. So even though the MA air temperature may be rising (or falling) the Page 7 of 16

8 OA damper stays at the DCV min (if occupied and using CO2 sensor) or min position (if occupied and no CO2 sensor) or closed (if not occupied) until there is a call for cooling from the thermostat or system. Although this does not take into account the full opportunity for free cooling for the unoccupied building I would question how it would result in negative savings. I would like to know more about how the negative savings was calculated and have a few questions. 1. What is the leakage rate of the dampers and ducts exposed to the OA? 2. Is the exhaust fan on or off? 3. Is the supply fan on? The answer to these questions would affect the negative savings because even though the damper is not moving leaking dampers and ducts could be bringing in a lot of OA air that may not be accounted for in the system." 2. Justin Sipe, Transformative Wave representative, provided the following response when he was unable to attend the December committee meeting. His described how they modified economizer with integrated DCV operation to take advantage of suitable outside air for some "free cooling" when the building has a disposition to require cooling later in the day and when the unit was in the deadband between calls for heating or cooling. Justin's comments gave rise to whether standalone economizer/dcv controller control logic could be developed which could reduce or eliminate the "negative savings" (lower savings than economizer strategy alone) which the PECI/PG&E modeling analysis determined. TW CATALYST DCV sequence of operation. "We agree with Ben's comments and statements about traditional DCV control. It is very effective in the extreme temperatures, but it robs the space of a free cooling benefit during the mild temperatures (50-65 Deg F). This is something that showed up in early in our data, and we made the change to go to a temperature compensated DCV about four years ago. We have several thousand units in the field, and we are monitoring about 70% of them. Continuous data is invaluable in developing the optimum control sequence for equipment. " "We took the sequence one step further, and we currently have a pending patent for a new DCV controller. Our patent addressed DCV issues, and it also overcomes the issue that economizers don't operate until a thermostat has a cooling call. The cooling call doesn't happen until the temperature exceeds the cooling setpoint. The sequence practices traditional DCV in the extreme temperatures. The CATALYST will track the building and determine when the building has a cooling disposition. Once a cooling a disposition has been establish the damper will open up completely to 100%, and the fan will remain at 40%. This provides 40% outside and typically uses less than.5 kw of fan energy. We operate this way when the unit is in the dead band between the heating and cooling setpoints. By leveraging more outside air we see the need for cooling pushed out to later in the day, and sometimes we will see a system go an entire day without ever having a cooling call. There are some significant savings that are available though this approach. I would be happy to put together a full presentation for the WHPA if you think it would help." 3. Darryl DeAngelis, Belimo's representative, provided the following initial response to the original OEM requests. He indicated that their staff was conducting some additional analysis and would provide those findings at a future meeting. The committee would like each of you to comment on whether you agree that your control systems are programmed to operate the way Ben has summarized below. That is, your economizer system with integrated DCV. Note Darryl's responses in colored font. Explanation of negative savings for economizer + DCV EE measure: Ben Lipscomb, PECI, offered to provide a brief explanation for the cause of the negative savings. He explained that the purpose for integrating DCV with an economizer was to reduce unsuitable outside air normally required by code when there were fewer than the maximum allowed building or space occupants. Otherwise, you'd need to ventilate based on the maximum occupancy for the space which would vastly over-ventilate hot, humid outside air (OA) which would Page 8 of 16

9 waste considerable energy having to cool down while exhausting an equal amount of dry, cool conditioned air from the space. Correct Installing a CO2 sensor in the return duct (or in space per 120.1(c)4B) allows a means to modulate the amount of outside air based upon space occupants. That can result in heating or cooling savings whenever you could reduce unsuitable outside air, typically operating best in really hot or cold climates. In mild climates it resulted in an unintentional reduction of free cooling air. I disagree with the statement for the fact is DCV and Cooling (or heating) are two separate functions. The action of the DCV logic is quite intentional. It is an energy saving function. It is not a space conditioning function. Its purpose is specific; To reduce unintentional heating up or cooling down of the zone air via ventilation air mixing. Those rooftop units with economizers could take advantage of free cooling but only when there was a call for cooling from the thermostat, a demand for cooling from the space This is correct. Whether it be a chilled water valve, heating valve, compressor, or economizer, if it is not integral with the logic that determines the needs of the space, then it can only respond to a command from this logic, not take independent action. Ben walked through a typical day during a spring or fall shoulder season in a coastal climate. When they open the building they are running with reduced outside air that DCV allows you to run. As the day goes on and those internal heat gains build up, eventually you will get a call for cooling in the occupied space. As long as the OA is cool enough, the economizer will function to allow OA to provide free cooling as expected. During those morning hours, the DCV function reduced the amount of OA allowed to enter before there is a call for cooling. This is correct during periods when there is a call for ventilation and not cooling. By putting DCV on, there would be a reduction in the amount of free cooling. I disagree with the statement again as Free Cooling is the act of providing OA suitable for cooling when the space has a requirement for cooling. Unintentional cooling of a space is not Free Cooling. This is like saying the leaky economizer dampers are a benefit because they provide cooling sometimes. which could take place during those AM hours. An opportunity for pre-cooling the space prior was being missed as a result of combining DCV with the economizer. They'd used an hour modeling program and those were the results they found. Here seems to be the problem. A modeling program is not an HVAC system. It only can perform mathematical calculations based on inputs and rules. There is no argument that in the above example, it is possible for benefit of having more OA enter space, but in order to achieve this in a controlled manner, control logic would need to be involved. There would have to be predictive logic, AI, perhaps weather data, and a knowledge of the load in the space. I believe there are few controls out there that function this way. I can also state that an RTU / Economizer / Thermostat are chosen because of economics, not because it can provide the best comfort or energy savings. I wondered about one of Ben's statements. " During those morning hours, the DCV function reduced the amount of OA allowed to enter before there is a call for cooling." It didn't allow a "pre-cooling" strategy, which we all understood. But, it also sounded like the economizer + DCV system restricted all suitable OA to a set minimum position until and unless the thermostat called for stage one cooling. 1) Please comment to confirm whether this is how your system is designed to operate or not. I seemed to recall that economizer systems alone (no DCV) were designed to maintain a set discharge temperature, say 55 degrees F even when there was no call for heating or cooling. This allowed the OA dampers to modulate to help meet the space temperature setpoint within the deadband established between H & C. If the space temperature continued to rise it would trigger stage one cooling which allowed even more OA, when suitable, to be brought into the space. If not sufficient, the space temperature rose until stage two mechanical cooling was brought on. Would that be accurate for economizing alone? If so... No, this is not how the Belimo product functions. Some built up systems (VAV and alike) may be programmed to act this way. However there are energy penalties if the air needs to be heated up again. A reset strategy would best be incorporated. Again all this typically requires more logic and components found in a packaged RTU / Economizer solution. Then, DCV is added. This OA damper modulating feature seems to have been lost (or wasn't there in the first place) when DCV was added. If there was no call for heating OR cooling AND OA was more suitable than return air, why Page 9 of 16

10 wouldn't a smart system maximize, rather than restrict, access to fresh OA? Please see above explanation of DCV purpose. 2) Please comment on whether you think your system could capture this additional OA ventilation AND likely some additional AM additional cooling over what it now probably provides. I do not believe that any of the ADEC solutions of the 3 manufacturers addressed could provide this in current product form. Certainly it is not out of possibility, but it would raise the cost of the solutions, for which already have challenges due to current market prices and reluctance of customers to recognize a need and value for enhanced controls. We'd like to have responses from each of you for the next committee meeting scheduled for December 9. If possible, could you provide a written response with your thoughts in advance? And, I'm pretty sure the group would be most interested to hear of any additional ideas about how the economizer + DCV control strategy might be further optimized to try and capture the maximum savings. The conclusion of negative savings was very unexpected. Not only did this control strategy not capture "pre-cooling" for the space, which was actually expected, BUT it states that throughout the day and year, the total result was that employing this strategy USED greater energy than employing no economizer strategy at all. I for one am very curious about the assumptions made and the conditions pre and post measurement, if in fact there are actual measurements. Every study I am aware of states some savings for DCV. The quantity can certainly vary based on OA requirement percentages and climate zone. The following items can also skew measured results. Leaking dampers, whether providing more than expected reset airflow or providing OA during periods when not required Incorrect setting of DCV damper reset position Incorrect setting of CO2 target Thermostat on with fan and ventilation set Auto instead of On Dampers were previously disabled and in closed position In addition to noting the above, IAQ measurements (CO2 and VOC) should be noted before and during any analysis. The following is a record of new comments provided at the January 13 committee meeting. Darryl DeAngelis, Belimo, clarified that they had provided an initial written response December 8, prior to the committee's December meeting. What they had not yet completed was a review of the data or the results of the analysis. He had confirmed in his response that the control strategy did not match the assumption that Ben/PECI had made during the analysis. Their packaged unit controller looked at either cooling or DCV. As a packaged unit controller, it was not an energy management system (EMA), it would not know what the internal space conditions were so it could not predict whether allowing more or less OA into the space would be beneficial. It worked in response to a room/space controller like a thermostat that directs the unit when to go into cooling or heating mode. In parallel, it responded to a CO2 sensor in order to provide more or less ventilation during those calls for heating or cooling. A built up EMS would have additional information about what the room or space conditions were, how far you were from setpoint and could predict better adjustments in OA in order to take better advantage of suitable OA conditions to provide additional cooling before there was even a call for cooling from the space. Ben Lipscomb, CLEAResult (formerly PECI), confirmed that in the simulations for the work paper the packaged unit and economizer were assumed to receive calls for cooling from a room thermostat and that it wouldn't have the ability to predict. That was where they'd run into the negative savings for DCV issue. They had suggested a possible improvement could be made if the controller or system could take into account the space temperature and OA temperature and predict that cooling would be needed at a later time. Ben thought that the assumptions in the simulation and what Darryl had described did match. Page 10 of 16

11 Darryl DeAngelis agreed that the current economizer control strategy did not provide that predictive capability. And, that current market price pressure for economizer system cost did not allow for that type of improvement to be added. It was possible to add that capability but it was always a struggle to get customers to pay more for any improvements. His team hadn't yet conducted an analysis of what changes to a control strategy might accomplish offsetting the current reduction in free cooling when there was no call for heating or cooling. They also hadn't yet thoroughly reviewed the PG&E "heat map" spreadsheet which Ben referred to and which Keith Forsman of PG&E had introduced. He had the chance for the first time to review the comments Justin Sipe had made and noted that there would be a significant price differential between the CATALYST product and their and Honeywell's economizer/dcv controller solutions. Justin Sipe, Transformative Wave, said that Darryl had highlighted one of the issues and part of their solution which was the need to have feedback from the space. That was the best way they'd found, even when providing mixed air control, of preventing a premature call for heating. What they'd looked at in places where they didn't have that space temperature input was to use the return air temperature (RA) as a reference back from the space. He confirmed that there was a big part of the cost difference for their solution that was tied to adding variable frequency drive control for the supply fan speed. That was a large part of being able to bring in a lot of free cooling without a lot of supply fan current draw between calls for heating and cooling. Adrienne Thomle, Honeywell, agreed with Darryl's comment 100% that you really did need to have information from what was happening in the space. She'd earlier considered using the RA temperature sensor as Justin had described after long discussions with Steve Taylor of Taylor Engineering. She'd become convinced that space temperature was necessary to provide good control and that would not be the case with only RA duct sensor input because it was not a reliable substitute for actual space conditions. There was too much variability in different building types and duct systems. There needed to be communications between the space and packaged unit controllers and sensors. She mentioned a concept introduced by Jim Braun of Purdue years ago about a night purge functionality and predicting when the space would need cooling. She thought that was basically what the white paper which Ben had mentioned talked about. Ben Lipscomb, CLEAResult, thought that the real opportunity was integrating the thermostat with the economizer controller. The thermostat might be used to inform the economizer controller and allow the type of control sequence that was being discussed or the brains for that control logic would have to be built into the thermostat itself. Don Langston, Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration, commented that his firm had retrofitted or refurbished over 500 digital economizer systems in the last couple of years as part of the utility CQM programs. Without feedback from the thermostat, even the new digital economizers were not utilizing all of their potential for delivering savings and other benefits. There were different economizing strategies best suited for different climate zones as well. There were a lot more savings in those control nuances which they were just starting to scratch the surface of. Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, thanked all who had commented for their insights. He thought it had been a very rare discussion which explored how they might extract even greater effectiveness from basic rooftop systems many thought had hit a design plateau. Donald Prather, ACCA, asked the three OEM representatives why use of the return duct sensor wouldn't work as a substitute for space temperature if the return duct design and installation was done correctly. Justin Sipe, Transformative Wave, answered that there was many challenges trying to use the return air duct sensor mainly because of all the differences in many building types and return duct designs. What they'd found was that if they tracked the return air, they could get pretty close to knowing where there'd be a call for cooling or heating. There Page 11 of 16

12 were challenges with getting accurate measurements but thought there were ways where you could be in the ballpark and then apply an offset to avoid encroaching on that heating setpoint. Don Langston, Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration, added that his staff had run across a very large percentage of installations where the return ducts had been severely undersized. On top of that there were often unknown restrictions or breaks in return ductwork that would compound error in substituting actual space temperature with a return air sensor reading that it was difficult to provide an accurate offset, as Justin had described. PG&E CQM Program Sales and Operations Training - Shayne Holderby of HSGS Shayne Holderby, HSGS, introduced the Sales and Operations Training presentation at the December 2014 committee meeting but did not have the opportunity to study it before hand or ask questions. He walked attendees through what he considered to be the three most critical slides, numbers 20 to 22, which focused on a Standard 180 based QC maintenance sales process. He emphasized the importance of providing all of the benefits of a QM approach and return on investment elements which included reduced energy costs, the total value proposition for a customer. SLIDE 20 The core takeaway from slide 20 was that this was not a one-step sale process but rather three distinct sales stages: 1. initial meetings for introductions, data gathering and determining customer wants and needs 2. presentation and review of QM benefits, ROI and a total value proposition and finally 3. closing/asking for the agreement There were numerous reports and studies available which documented the kinds of savings which customers would benefit from. One item frequently overlooked was the avoided cost of a capital expense for unit premature replacement vs. what it cost if it was properly maintained and the life expectancy was extended for years. Shayne had been surprised at the number of meetings he'd attended where a contractor never actually asked for the business. That was something that definitely needed to be driven home as essential. The reason for breaking out the sales process was that commonly contractors used someone who had originally been a tech. They might have been outstanding in terms of technical knowledge but the core skills for sales are entirely different and often foreign. Page 12 of 16

13 Don Langston, Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration, agreed with Shayne's assessment. He noticed that Shayne had alluded to a number of studies which documented energy and other savings differences between units which had been properly maintained and those which hadn't. Don asked all of the IOUs if they could help develop a WHPA resource library where they could point customers to that would not look like a contractor-centric sales piece but would be from industry or neutral parties. Quantifying benefits of maintenance and access to credible sources of information was one of the greatest challenges. Customers tend to be suspicious if a contractor just hands one over. That would be very helpful to support market transformation. Shayne indicated that there were currently ten or twelve studies posted at their contractor portal (access restricted to program participants). Some were DOE, other from particular cities, utilities or engineering firms. None were done by contractors or contractor organizations. Don asked Shayne whether the studies could be released to be posted at a WHPA website location and made available to contractors and their customers. Shayne agreed to run the request through PG&E and didn't anticipate that being an issue. After approval he agreed to release that information. ACTION: Shayne Holderby would request that PG&E approval release of the QM supporting studies to the WHPA for posting at the Alliance website. Bob Sundberg would work with WHPA staff for a location at the WHPA website for posting energy efficiency and QM benefits related studies. SLIDE 21 Page 13 of 16

14 Shayne summarized contractors training on the four key factors which totaled a customer's complete return on investment that were all needed to drive customer participation. Contractors had otherwise often skipped discussing and quantifying what original cost was less participation benefits to show the lower actual cost of maintenance under the program's approach. Don Langston thought the slide was very helpful to outline and list program and approach benefits. A good visual representation. He hoped that they'd be able to see some of the other resources used in the PG&E program to help contractors quantify those benefits for customers. Shayne confirmed that they did have quite a bit of additional material to back up each item on the slides but he'd only been prepared to provide the overview for what they cover in the training. Page 14 of 16

15 SLIDE 22 The big item to solidify during the introductory stage was establishing trust. In the presentation phase it was critical to determine what items are of importance to the customer so that you could gather data needed, crunch the numbers and come back for further discussions about how those needs could be met. Clearly communicating what the program and approach benefits would be. Finally, to close the sale and ask for the business. They need to expect the "not quite sure yet" response. That's when customer liaison support is called in to help drive the sale. Closing Comments/Adjournment The next CQM Committee meeting was planned for Tuesday February 10. Agenda items planned for the next meeting included: 1. An update on the ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 180 Committee meeting scheduled for late January at the ASHRAE Winter Session 2. Additional information from Shayne Holderby regarding the PG&E program Commercial Sales and Operations Training savings and value proposition training. A deeper look at the actual material and training examples used to quantify the value of QM The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 AM PT. * * * * * * Summary of Pending and New Action Items and Key Decisions August ACTION: Bob Sundberg would request Honeywell, Belimo and Transformative Wave comments on the expected economizer plus integrated DCV control strategy in the coastal climate and mild AM conditions prior to an Page 15 of 16

16 initial call for cooling which Ben Lipscomb had described to see whether they agreed that this was how their devices were designed to operate. Also, whether their devices could be improved to take advantage of free-cooling suitable, cooler outside air in the AM prior to a thermostat call for cooling in some way and what sort of device or system (economizer logic module, DCV CO2 sensor, economizer sensors, space thermostat/controller) changes that might require. Done. Honeywell, Transformative Wave and Belimo all provided initial responses. Belimo indicated that they would provide an additional response early in 2015 after conducting further analysis. Pending. January ACTION: Shayne Holderby would request that PG&E approval release of the QM supporting studies to the WHPA for posting at the Alliance website. Bob Sundberg would work with WHPA staff for a location at the WHPA website for posting energy efficiency and QM benefits related studies. Page 16 of 16