1. U of M Commissioning: Lessons Learned
Jay Denny, PE, CEM

2. University of Minnesota: Twin Cities Campus
Divided into three geographic areas
Minneapolis – East Bank
Minneapolis – West Bank
St. Paul
~ 250 buildings
~ 20 Million GSF
$91 Million Energy Budget
Energy Management

3. Energy Management Utilities Services Steam Electricity Chilled Water
Sewer, Sanitary and Storm
Services
Engineering
University Engineering Record Storage and Retrieval
Energy Efficiency/Conservation
Energy Management

4. Energy Management 10 Engineers 7 Engineering Students
4 Energy Management Specialists
3 Engineering Records
1 Energy Administrator
20 Electrical Trades Workers
26 Pipefitters and Laborers
Energy Management

5. Energy Efficiency Group
Dedicated group within EM
4 Engineers, 4 EMS, 2 Students
Responsibilities Include:
Demand-Side Management
Remote Metering
Commissioning
New Construction
Existing Buildings
Energy Management

6. Commissioning: History
Outside Consultants
Little O&M Involvement
Documentation Abundant
Solutions Rare
Problematic Building Startup
At one point in the not-too-distant past, the O&M staff was banned from the construction sites until the operator training took place.
In many cases, the problems in the building were documented by never fixed. The O&M staff would have to work through the problems, with predictable reports.
Energy Management

7. Commissioning: Changes
In-House Commissioning Agent
O&M Staff Engaged
Minimized Documentation
Logs, no reports
Focus is on Solutions
CA is advocate and liaison
CA involvement extended
Startup and Warranty
Clearly, changes needed to be made. To give you a sense of how bad things had gotten, it took the Energy Efficiency group a significant amount of time and effort to convince upper management to let us call our process “Commissioning”.
O&M Staff Engaged: We discovered that other groups (like O&M) were very enthusiastic at the kickoff meeting but when it came time to implement their portion of the process it often was not a priority. We have altered the process to insure that the CA was the driver for each step.
The CA is now a valued technical resource for the project manager. We don’t think of the design intent as a fixed quantity. The goal is a building that performs. As more information is available, sometimes the design intent has to change. The CA is in the best position to arbitrate and advocate for changes.
Time and again we have seen buildings abandoned by the technical resources, including the CA, at the conclusion construction. Getting decent support through the warranty period is the exception rather than the rule. Our process keeps the CA involved with the project throughout the warranty period.
Energy Management

8. Commissioning: Results
New Construction
MTRF
Jones Hall
Nicholson Hall
Education Sciences (pending)
Control Retrofits
LRB, West Bank, St. Paul
We have implemented the new process for three projects to date.
McGuire Translational Research Facility: New construction, biological research, includes a research animal facility
Jones Hall: Complete gut and remodel. Classroom and office space. Under floor VAV.
Nicholson Hall: Complete gut and remodel. Classroom and office space. Conventional VAV.
MTRF Startup. Tell story. Transition between JMD and CP. Testing complete, season change. All the problems. Observed the point where the breakdown has historically happened. I heard all the classic statements. “Nothing Works”, “It never worked”. Lots of stuff put in hand. O&M staff struggling. This was the moment when the designers best intentions were going to be foiled. We arrived and started to look at the problems. What we discovered was that all the stuff worked. Things that were tested and found working were still working. Even when the verification testing is perfect, problems still occurred. Working through the problems essentially provided extended training to the O&M staff. Now the building is worked more or less as designed and the O&M staff is building confidence.
Energy Management

9. Commissioning: Lessons
Training
Everyone wants it. No one knows what it is
Low retention rate
Testing
SRCs are not cost effective
Need financial incentive for deficiency resolution
TAB under commissioning agent?
COR walkthroughs are valuable
When it came time to set up the training, we went through the spec and then asked the O&M staff to tell the contractors what they wanted. The silence was deafening. We changed the process to have the CA drive the training process.
Jones Hall plan is to have the fire alarm company come back for the first monthly test. Refresher course.
SRC: Even with SRCs, the state of the systems are the same as without.
COR: Good training. Helps startup process.
Energy Management

10. Commissioning: Lessons
Training
Everyone wants it. No one knows what it is
Low retention rate
Testing
Need better financial incentive for deficiency resolution
TAB under commissioning agent?
COR walkthroughs are valuable
When it came time to set up the training, we went through the spec and then asked the O&M staff to tell the contractors what they wanted. The silence was deafening. We changed the process to have the CA drive the training process.
Jones Hall plan is to have the fire alarm company come back for the first monthly test. Refresher course.
SRC: Even with SRCs, the state of the systems are the same as without.
COR: Good training. Helps startup process.
Energy Management

11. Commissioning: Lessons
Design intent
Can (Should) be a moving target
New information is available during construction phase
Focus on what the building should do, not just what it was designed to do
Startup is easier
Problems are fixed faster
Even an outside CA can be a good liaison, but you have to build some trust and be willing to challenge the designers, O&M staff, CPPM, and be a vocal advocate.
CA involvement in the startup and season changes is very helpful. This is a valued added service that we would pay for. Tell MTRF story here. (5 minutes max).
Energy Management

12. Recommissioning: History
Formal Program Started 2004
Shared cost with local Utility
Issued RFP for 10 studies
Selected 3 firms
Disappointing Results
High relative cost / few viable ECOs
Overlooked opportunities
Long lead time between study and implementation
I had an advantage here. I was not around for the study part so all I had to do was show up at the study presentation and pick the reports apart. The first couple of times was entertaining. What we soon realized was that the studies were less comprehensive than we had expected.
Still trying to validate some of the recommendations from the 2004 studies. Literally hundreds of hours just trying to figure out if the ideas are viable. Some are, some are not.
Energy Management

13. Recommissioning: Changes
Revised RFP for 2005
Candidate buildings investigated by EM
Collect Documentation
Preliminary Surveys
Excluded Measures
Improved RFP Scope-of-Work
Approval by Utility
RFP Issued
Spring 2005
No contract awarded
Things like not checking CO2 levels in 100% OA research buildings.
We worked with the local utility to get their approval to exclude the low yield items.
Energy Management

14. Recommissioning: Changes
Improved RFP helped, but…
New process devised
Split study into two phases
Phase I: Classic Recommissioning
Phase II: Focused Energy Study
In-house technical and project leadership
Consultants hired as needed (T&M)
Better resource matching
3 building pilot program
Smith Hall, MCB, Regis Center for the Arts
After working through the RFP process, we realized that a little better was not good enough.
Two separate studies. Two separate funding sources (Xcel)
Resources matched for expertise, cost.
Energy Management

15. Recommissioning: Results
Smith Hall study complete. Art and MCB in progress
New process is very flexible
Smith Compressed Air, CHW
More comprehensive
Knowledge remains with customer
ECO Implementation is faster
We can change the scope quickly based on preliminary investigation. So far, we have only had to expand the scope because the buildings have been large and we have found additional items. In the future, this flexibility will allow us to reduce the scope when we find a building that is a dud.
In house PM drives the team to turn over more rocks.
We build internal capabilities for future projects.
Some ECOs are implemented as we go. Especially good for prescriptive rebate programs.
Energy Management

16. Recommissioning: Lessons
Resource Constraints
Timing of phases is critical
Phase II investigation should drive TAB
Smaller firms/Higher level resources
In-house engineering resources have become the bottleneck. We are trying to develop a stable of nimble firms to help us ramp up our throughput. Lots of buildings to get through.
On our first project, Smith Hall, the TAB and phase 1 work got ahead of the engineering study. We ended up calling back the balancer to take additional readings. We could have been more efficient if the Phase 2 resources had been engaged earlier. Rebecca tried to warn me. This was caused in part by resource constraints.
Lower $/hr for a higher level resource.
Energy Management

17. Questions ?