Post on 29-Mar-2018
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 1 of 14
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 10:03 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 13. 7 voting members, 8 non-voting members and 5 guests and staff attended this
meeting. A total of 20 members, guests and staff attended.
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 Roll
ACCA (Air Conditioning Contractors
of America)
Donald Prather Contractor Association
Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration Don Langston Contractor (Nonresidential) P
ASHRAE (American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers)
Robert
(Bob)
Baker Engineering Society
CSG (Conservation Services Group) Liz
(Elizabeth)
DeSouza Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
FDSI (Field Diagnostic Services Inc.) Dale Rossi Third Party Quality Assurance Providers P
Honeywell ECC (Commercial
Buildings, Trade Sales)
Mike Lawing Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P
HSGS (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
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company)
Peter Biermayer California IOU
SCE (Southern California Edison) 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 Roll
ASHRAE Jim Scarborough Engineering Society
BELIMO Aircontrols, Inc Darryl DeAngelis Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P
Brownson Technical School Bill Brown Educator, Trainer
BuildingMetrics Pete Jacobs Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P
Clean Energy Horizons Norm Stone Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P
Climate Pro Mechanical Ken Robinson Contractor (Nonresidential)
CSG (Conservation Services Group) Michael Withers Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P
EMCOR Mesa Energy Charles Fletcher Contractor (Nonresidential)
EMCOR Mesa Energy Rob Fried Contractor (Nonresidential)
Honeywell ECC (Commercial
Buildings, Product Management)
Adrienne Thomle Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor) P
HVACRedu.net Jeff Taylor Educator, Trainer P
KEMA/DNV-GL Timothy Devine Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
MAS Service/ Dba JB Mechanical John Billheimer Contractor (Nonresidential)
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company)
Jeanne Duvall California IOU
CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Ben Lipscomb Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Duane Whitehurst Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
CLEAResult (formerly PECI) Michael Blazey Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 2 of 14
Richard Danks Consulting Richard Danks Other Stakeholder
SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric
Company)
Jeremy Reefe California IOU
SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric
Company)
Robert Nacke California IOU
SMW (Sheet Metal Workers, Local #
104)
Randy Young Organized Labor
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Bruce Baccei Publically Owned Utility
SCE (Southern California Edison) Steve Clinton California IOU P
SCE (Southern California Edison) Andres Fergadiotti California IOU
Transformative Wave Justin Sipe Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor)
XCSpec Jeff Aalfs Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor) P
XCSpec Janet Peterson Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor)
WHPA Goal 2: CQM Committee Invited Guests and Staff Roll Call
AirTest Technologies Mike Schell HVAC Manufacturer P
Bay Controls Stephan Parry Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor)
CalCERTS Barbara Hernesman Certifying Body
California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) - Energy Division
Joanna Gubman California PUC
California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) - Energy Division
Lola Odunlami California PUC P
California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) - Energy Division
Pete Skala+ California PUC
Honeywell ECC Daniel Jones Controls (Manufacturer or Distributor)
Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions
(HSGS)
Eddy Saleh+ Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
HVACRedu.net Chris Compton Educator, Trainer
ICF (ICF International) Emily Pearce Energy Efficiency Program Consultant P
ICF (ICF International) James Jackson Energy Efficiency Program Consultant
Integrity Mechanical Systems Corp. Susan Siegert Contractor (Nonresidential)
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company)
Mary Anderson California IOU
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company)
Robert Davis California IOU P
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company)
Raymond Wong California IOU
SCE (Southern California Edison) Tara Becnel California IOU
SCE (Southern California Edison) Ryan Cho+ California IOU
SCE (Southern California Edison) Brett Close California IOU
Transformative Wave Justin Sipe Controls (Manufacturer of Distributor)
UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center Kristin Heinemeier Research Organization
STAFF
BBI (Better Buildings Inc.) Dale Gustavson WHPA Executive Advisor
BNB Consulting/WHPA Staff, host,
admin. support & scribe
Bob Sundberg WHPA Staff P
Emeritus Member Mark Cherniack Emeritus
Enpowered LLC Shea Dibble WHPA Co-Director
CLEAResult Paul Kyllo WHPA Senior Advisor
** Organization is Not a Member of the WHPA; + Individual is NOT Registered with the WHPA;
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 3 of 14
(P) after last name = Member/Registrant is Pending Approval from the WHPA Executive Committee
AGENDA
Topic Discussion Leader Desired Outcome
Welcome, roll call, review
agenda, approve past
meeting minutes and
ACTION items
Don Langston and
Bob Sundberg
Record meeting attendees, finalize past meeting minutes,
review status of meeting action items.
Welcome new members &
guests, review new
candidates
Don Langston and
Bob Sundberg
New members and invited guests welcomed. Decision made
on suggested revisions to candidate options and the review
process.
New Business Don Langston Committee informed on new business topics to be shared or
considered.
CQM Program Updates
SCE/PG&E/SDG&E
Monica Thilges, Shayne
Holderby, Liz DeSouza
Gain a current understanding of IOU CQM program status,
progress, developments and issues.
Working Group Update
Dale Rossi for STD 180
Section 5 Maintenance
Task Working Group
Better understanding of Working Group status, progress and
challenges.
CQM Committee 2015
Goals, Implementation
Plan Discussion
Don Langston
Review 2014 Goals - which to continue. Committee to
provide additional goals. Consider a specific EE measure
goal around RTU performance and one around coil
cleaning/heat transfer surface measurement and performance
improvement.
CPUC/ED Public
Comments for CQM
Programs evaluation plan
Don Langston, Pete
Jacobs, Lola Odunlami
Keep committee members informed and engaged with
CPUC/ED program evaluation plan development -- when
posted for public comments
Access to DEER approved
claimed savings and use of
READI key
Pete Jacobs, Liz DeSouza How members can access DEER to view approved claimed
savings for energy efficiency measures
PG&E / HSGS CQM
Program Support Materials Shayne Holderby
Review PG&E CQM program studies supporting value of
CQM.
CPUC/ED 2010-2012
Work Order 32 Final
Report
Don Langston and Pete
Jacobs
Collect any final questions or comments on previous WO32
study. Discuss how CQM C. could be involve earlier in the
process of CQM program evaluation planning.
PG&E Economizer/DCV
measure Heat Map
projected negative savings
in mild coastal climates
Ben Lipscomb of
CLEAResult
Improve committee understanding of where projected
negative savings was projected to occur in Calif. from
PG&E DCV measure work paper.
Review meeting Action
Items , set next meeting
date/time, adjourn
Don Langston and Bob
Sundberg
Set next meeting date and confirm time. (Tuesday May
12?)
Approve Minutes of Previous Meeting
The March 10 CQM Committee meeting draft minutes were distributed March 15. No suggested revisions were
received. Minutes were approved. Final minutes would be posted to the CQM Committee site.
Review Status of Action Items from Previous Meeting
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 4 of 14
February ACTION: Ben Lipscomb was requested to review the DCV savings table supplied which included all
California climate zones and all building types at the next committee meeting.
February ACTION: Don Langston would work with Bob Sundberg to obtain 2015 goal suggestions and possibly an
online survey or poll of suggested 2015 goals prior to the March meeting.
Welcome New Members and Guests; Consider Pending Members
Welcomed James Jackson of ICF Int'l as new approved guests. He joined Emily Pearce also of ICF Int'l on this
committee.
Welcomed Mike Schell of AirTest Technologies, a CO2 sensor manufacturer, as an invited guest. Mike is their VP of
Marketing & Business Development.
New Business - Don Langston
None.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 5 of 14
CQM Program Updates
SCE CQM program summary (Monica Thilges of CLEAResult):
Monica Thilges, CLEAResult, reported on their monthly metrics and other program updates.
Monica Thilges reported:
66 contractor firms were now enrolled, a burst of new interest and processing new applications even without
actively soliciting new participants
318 trained technicians currently participate
43 technicians had completed ADEC training and could install and service digital economizer/DCV systems
with VFD fan speed control
A reminder that contractor and customer incentives paid always lag because they are not allowed to count them
until paid
"Hockey stick" effect finally showing up with > 150 new applications last week alone (econo DCV w/VFD)
from larger customers; school district participation delayed until summer months as could be expected
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 6 of 14
New program launch (see March minutes) still planned for mid-November, intended to provide contractors
with more options to participate
Evaporative cooling and economizer retrofit measures planned for launch later in the year
Some customers are completing their three years in the program; heard from one that their bid for future
maintenance requires that delivered meet the level of Standard 180 -- good indicator of successful transition
Don Langston, Aire Rite AC & Refrigeration and Chair, congratulated Monica and their team. He reminded attendees
that Standard 180 was a written as a minimum level of maintenance but with what was commonly done in the industry
it was really somewhat of a premium service in contrast.
Monica Thilges was also interested to learn what parts of their monthly report were of the most value and which details
were no longer critical or important enough to report on a monthly basis. The format was developed several years ago
when the program was much younger and the committee was interested in early indicators. The program was now
quite mature and they wanted to streamline their reporting efforts. She asked members to review the above report after
minutes were distributed. She was interested to hear comments and suggestions at the May meeting on how they might
streamline the report. Bob Sundberg asked that members send him an email with their comments and copy Don
Langston. Bob would collect a summary of comments to be shared at the May meeting.
PG&E CQM Program Summary (Jeanne Duvall of PG&E & Shayne Holderby of HSGS)
Shayne Holderby, Honeywell Smart Grid Solutions (HSGS), said that they had no written report to share. The MDSS
files were still providing inaccurate kWh/unit and treatment information. He provided a verbal program update.
Unit enrollments were up for 1st quarter, 808 with over 300 with paid incentives for achieving baseline
condition
Seeing a shorter cycle between enrollment and completion of treatment service to reach baseline, good sign
They now had 76 contracting firms enrolled and because of their large territory were still actively seeking
firms, 14 more firms were in the enrollment process
Same issues on slow uptick for DCV and advanced economizer measures being implemented, seeking what
more they could do to drive those additional measures
Are not yet seeing the "hockey stick" effect but they were seeing more contractor and customer interest
SDG&E CQM Program Update (Elizabeth DeSouza of CSG) Liz DeSouza, Conservation Services Group (CSG), was unable to attend and didn't provide a program update report.
Working Group Updates
Standard 180 Maintenance Task Working Group
Dale Rossi, Field Diagnostic Services Inc. (FDSI), reported that the group had pretty well completed their work on analog
economizer system maintenance tasks and were just starting the newer digital economizer systems.
PG&E CQM Program Sales and Operations Training Documents - Shayne Holderby of HSGS
The following list of articles was supplied by Shayne Holderby, HSGS. These documents were used in their program
to assist contractors in dialogues with customers about the value of quality maintenance
Shayne commented that the cpuc.ca.gov and sba.gov reports were probably the most useful across any IOU territory
location and of the value delivered by quality maintenance. The DOE report of a study in 88 cities, including several
in California, was probably the strongest. But, it focused heavily on advanced measures. It was fairly technical in
nature so it would require some translating into layman's terms for most customers.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 7 of 14
List of Sites Containing Articles on Energy Savings and Reasons for Maintenance: PG&E CQM Program, HSGS Implementer http://www.facilitiesnet.com/hvac/article/HVAC-Maintenance-and-Energy-Savings--10680 http://www.institutebe.com/Building-Performance-Management/Studies-Show-HVAC-System-Maintenance-Saves-Energy.aspx https://www.sba.gov/content/hvac-systems https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=heat_cool.pr_maintenance http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/save/rebates/hvac/owners.page http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AA3A8D18-1728-4CE0-BA21-6FCFCF80BB4D/0/201314HVACFactSheet.pdf http://www.alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/@ae/documents/document/mdaw/mdmx/~edisp/031658.pdf
PG&E Economizer/DCV Measure Savings Work Paper -- Additional Modeling Results Providing Negative
Savings in Mild Coastal Climate Zones vs. Base Economizer Savings - Ben Lipscomb CLEAResult
Ben Lipscomb, CLEAResult, provided the modeled savings and negative savings for those mild coastal climates that
were not included in the "heat map" which Keith Forsman/PG&E had provided the committee in 2014. The coastal
climate zones for Southern California included zones 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. See map below for details. Ben was not able
to attend this meeting to provide further clarification. This discussion was postponed to a future meeting where Ben
could help members better understand where economizer + DCV control strategy modeling produced a negative
savings when compared just to the economizer strategy alone in certain climates and for specific building types. Please
review the territories which are labeled zones 6 through 10 in the map provided below. Also, those results might be
compared to economizer vs. economizer + DCV control strategy output from the Honeywell supported Commercial
Unitary HVAC System Savings Estimator software. That software projected energy usage and potential savings for
customers on systems, not the PG&E projections which were for utility program savings for the purposes of their
CPUC/ED work paper. The work paper program savings could then be compared to some expected savings which
property owners/managers might expect b operating different economizer/DCV strategies and the impact of lowered
system efficiency and capacity which would have resulted from little to no system maintenance.
The California climate zone map, commercial savings estimator software screen, PG&E Heat Map and building
abbreviation table follow additional meeting comments.
Don Langston commented that contractors spoke with customers about potential options including better economizer
strategies. His firm worked the entire San Diego County which included climate zone 7 area. When they were
working in the SDG&E territory QM programs they found that the DCV incentives weren't offered. Don asked Darryl
DeAngelis of BELIMO whether they might have any additional information to add to this study since their digital
economizer offering got locations down to the zip code.
Darryl DeAngelis, BELIMO, responded that he didn't yet have any information to add but they intended to conduct
studies in the future.
Dale Rossi, FDSI, asked Darryl whether the technician has access to what the specific changeover set point when they
entered a specific zip code into the ZIP economizer.
Darryl answered that it was provided in the monitoring menu. It would tell you the specific economizer strategy
selected, whether dry bulb or enthalpy, and also the temperature or enthalpy that was appropriate to the selected
strategy. Those values could also be modified in the settings menu.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 8 of 14
Adrienne Thomle, Honeywell ECC, added comments regarding the Honeywell sponsored commercial savings
estimator software. The program, calculations engine and all modeling was the copyright of Dr. Jim Braun of Purdue
University and Dr. Michael Brandemuehl of U. of Colorado, Boulder. The projections were not affected one way or
the other by which manufacturer's equipment or controls were used. It was designed to be manufacturer blind. She
also considered it an estimator, not a complete modeling tool. You could also click on the HELP menu tab (F1) which
would open a full manual in a browser. This included step-by-step explanations of the software tabs and input options
as well as a full explanation of how the calculator worked in the engineering manual and all building prototypes in the
building description manual.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 9 of 14
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 10 of 14
CQM Committee 2015 Goals Discussion - Don Langston
Don Langston read through the mission statement and Goal #1. He thought that evaluating the DCV negative savings
modeling was a perfect example of how they were addressing part of Goal #1 to collaborate with IOUs and the
CPUC/ED on claimed savings and program evaluation. One of his passions was trying to move toward use of real
world measurements. He used as an example a poorly maintained rooftop unit that was a candidate for the CQM
program. There were a whole lot of individual energy savings estimates approved in IOU work papers by the
CPUC/ED for completing specific energy efficiency measures. A lot of this was currently being done in individual
silos with each group not really communicating very well with each other. One of his goals was to break down barriers
between how IOUs design programs and how the CPUC/ED approves IOU claimed savings and evaluates program
savings. To come up with some standard matrix which we could all use, all measure, all getting and keeping the same
score. One issue which was driving him was how the CPUC/ED team was determining the savings from cleaning
condenser coils. Washing some didn't make a big difference while washing others made a huge difference in how
efficiently the units ran. How to measure that impact is the key thing. (Don lost audio)
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 11 of 14
Dale Rossi, FDSI, wanted to know whether anything this committee would discuss would have any impact on changes
to DEER. It seemed to him that they were not the kind of people who were open to suggestions from the outside.
Lola Odunlami deferred to Pete Jacobs, BuildingMetrics and who worked for consultant firm to the CPUC/ED.
Pete Jacobs summarized the two ways that energy efficiency savings estimates were arrived at included the DEER
process and the non-DEER IOU work paper process. Most of the measures involved in quality maintenance are going
through the work paper route, not through DEER evaluation. The people involved in developing those IOU work
papers are also on this committee. So, there is a fairly direct way to feed empirical data to them for consideration.
There is a second piece of the process. Program evaluations of measures can either feed back into DEER or into the
non-DEER work paper process. Programs can collect empirical evidence to prove claimed savings. That process is
heavily reliant on members of this committee. Members of this committee can help CPUC/ED set up experiments and
make measurements. When we get to the point when we schedule field activities like setting up measurements for
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 12 of 14
pre/post coil cleaning to see how this stuff really works, we could affirm to cooperate with each other to make that
process is as smooth as possible to get the information needed.
Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, asked about how this committee could work more closely with CPUC/ED staff, especially
regarding the CQM program evaluation plan which Pete had indicated was going to be released for public comments
shortly. ED hadn't involved members of the committee in development of that plan before posting for public
comments. He thought Dale Rossi's question really applied to where in that process, at what point and in what way,
could this committee provide input and guidance in the development of the CQM program evaluation plan. The plan
for what would be measured and how that would be measured prior to a plan being released for general public
comments.
Pete Jacobs answered that the next step in the plan development process was to release the plan for public comment.
This would include the proposed field protocols and documents they intended to use. He expected the plan to be
available within a matter of a few days. Organizations and individuals could comment at the
www.energydataweb.com/cpuc site once the established an account (email address) and password. This was the same
process used for WHPA members to post comments for the Work Order 32 preliminary and final reports.
Don Langston rejoined the meeting and commented that although the previous discussion wasn't directly involved in
wording committee goals, it was directly involved in the overall goal of better understanding the current CPUC/ED
process for establishing IOU program claimed savings and for program evaluation. Once those measurements were
established, a contractor could teach his technicians the measurements that were going to be used by state agencies to
evaluate the program. Taking score the same way was a pretty critical goal for the committee.
Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, asked whether providing input to the CPUC/ED on the CQM program evaluation plan
might be one key committee goal? What unit measurements were going to be taken to help calculate energy savings?
What and how program elements were going to be evaluated?
No response.
Pete Jacobs commented that this would go a lot easier once the field protocols and measures were finalized and
everyone lined up on the same set of measurements. If contractors were then making those same field measurements
as the evaluators and uploading them so they could be tracked, then ED could develop some experiments to validate
tracked data. That would be huge.
Don Langston mentioned that the process which Pete had just described was his overall goal for the committee.
Key Decision: a committee goal should be included which described the intent to have the same set of unit evaluation
measurements and criteria used in CQM program evaluation be used in program training and by program contractors
when they evaluated units and their performance. Also, that program contractors collect and track unit tracked data
which Energy Division (ED) could then validate for use in program and claimed savings evaluations.
Dale Rossi, FDSI, offered that Field Diagnostics had such a data base which could be made available anyone was
interested. He also thought that if you were going to select this process as a goal, you'd need to create a working group
because the monthly meetings wasn't the place to accomplish the type of work which Don and Pete had just suggested.
Don Langston was in complete agreement. Once the evaluation plan was released, they'd need to form a working
group that could meet more frequently and focus on the CQM program evaluation plan response.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 13 of 14
Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, asked Pete Jacobs whether there would be any opportunity for the working group Don
described to meet with the ED staff or consultants to provide their input after the window of time set for public
comments? Would it be necessary to only meet during the public comment period?
Pete Jacobs said that the public comment period was normally a two week window which would expire before the next
CQM Committee meeting. He would welcome the opportunity to meet with a committee working group after the plan
was released, maybe halfway through the comment period, to answer any questions they had if that would help them
formulate their comments. The normal procedure would be to receive comments from individual organizations. If the
committee compiled individual organization's comments, that would just make the process of reviewing them easier,
especially if it eliminated duplication and provided those of common interest.
Don Langston then asked Pete whether he could think of any additional goals which the committee should be
considering. Pete thought that should be addressed at the next meeting. He wanted to give it some thought. He'd think
about some common data collection strategies and other related ideas. Don asked members to give thought to what the
2015 goals should include for discussion at the next meeting. He suggested they email new ideas into Bob Sundberg
and himself. He also asked that any members interested in helping review the evaluation plan and possibly meeting
with Pete Jacobs before the next committee meeting, to let him know of their interest.
ACTION: Committee members should provide Don Langston and Bob Sundberg with an email including any
additional goals they think the committee should be considering for 2015 before the May meeting.
ACTION: Committee members should notify Don Langston and Bob Sundberg if they were interested to meet and
help review the CQM program evaluation plan during the public comment period in order to facilitate compiling
committee member organization comments.
Bob Sundberg, WHPA staff, asked Lola Odunlami and Pete Jacobs whether the CPUC/ED would welcome and
consider comments made by CQM Committee members after the window of time closed for public comments. Would
comments received after the public comments period had ended be reviewed and considered for revisions to the
evaluation plan?
Lola Odunlami, CPUC/ED, responded that the CPUC/ED was open to receiving comments at any time. She wasn't
sure that the comments could be added to the plan or considered as input for a plan revision once the period for public
commenting had ended.
Pete Jacobs, BuildingMetrics, confirmed her comments. The main plan input would end with the closing of the public
comment period. That didn't mean that all the details of the plan would be nailed down. The plan was there to give a
general direction for the work at a high level. There would certainly be opportunity to weigh in and collaborate on
some of those details. Issues like data collection protocols. He thought that many of the issues that this committee was
interested in probably wouldn't be completely defined in the plan, either. All evaluation plans were considered "living
documents." If they find themselves out in the field and they find something just not working, it was their right and
obligation to call a halt and change direction or procedures.
Pete Jacobs confirmed that he would advise Don and Bob as well as Kristin Heinemeier as soon as the CQM program
evaluation plan was posted. He'd also make himself available for a committee Q&A session and to gather some initial
feedback on the plan.
ACTION: Pete Jacobs would advise Don Langston, Bob Sundberg and Kristin Heinemeier as soon as the CQM
program evaluation plan was posted for public comment. He would also make himself available for a Q&A session
with the committee within the public comment period.
Goal 2: Commercial Quality Maintenance Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday April 14, 2015
4.14.2015 G2 CQM Committee Meeting final minutes.docx Submitted April 24, 2015 by Bob Sundberg, WHPA Staff
www.performancealliance.org Page 14 of 14
Closing Comments/Adjournment
The next CQM Committee meeting was planned for Tuesday May 19. Agenda items planned for the next meeting
included:
1. IOU CQM program updates.
2. Review IOU program reporting format to decide on important information to include and what detail was no
longer critical to report.
3. Maintenance Task Working Group update.
4. 2015 CQM Committee Goals
5. CPUC/ED CQM Program Evaluation Plan discussion
6. PG&E economizer/DCV measure Heat Map projected negative savings in mild coastal climates
The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 am PDT.
* * * * * *
Summary of Pending and New Action Items and Key Decisions
April Key Decision: a committee goal should be included which described the intent to have the same set of unit
evaluation measurements and criteria used in CQM program evaluation be used in program training and by program
contractors when they evaluated units and their performance. Also, that program contractors collect and track unit
tracked data which Energy Division (ED) could then validate for use in program and claimed savings evaluations.
April ACTION: Committee members should provide Don Langston and Bob Sundberg with an email including any
additional goals they think the committee should be considering for 2015 before the May meeting.
April ACTION: Committee members should notify Don Langston and Bob Sundberg if they were interested to meet
and help review the CQM program evaluation plan during the public comment period in order to facilitate compiling
committee member organization comments.