PTCS Subcommittee Report - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 7
About This Presentation
Title:

PTCS Subcommittee Report

Description:

Check Me/Proctor jobs and issue with lack of data being submitted to PTCS Data Base. ... RTF should request that Proctor record utility name on all future jobs ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 8
Provided by: AdamHa5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: PTCS Subcommittee Report


1
PTCS Subcommittee Report Recommendations
  • June 2nd, 2009
  • Regional Technical Forum

2
Subcommittee Meeting
  •  Agenda Items
  • Service Provider Specifications and HP Install
    Specifications changes for the simplified "pen
    paper" heat pump sizing method.
  • Check Me/Proctor jobs and issue with lack of data
    being submitted to PTCS Data Base.
  • Allowable variances to PTCS standards for
    qualifying jobs that almost meet the PTCS
    specification.
  • Role of enforcement for PTCS specification and
    documentation requirements define whose job is
    it to enforce PTCS specifications make
    recommendation to BPA on how to handle payment on
    jobs that don't meet the specification.
  • When and how the RTFs recommendations should go
    into effect.
  • May 29, 2009
  • Attendees
  • Andres Morrison
  • Gary Curtis
  • Bryan Boe
  • David Hales
  • Mark Jerome
  • Mark Johnson
  • Ted Haskell
  • Adam Hadley

3
Item 1 Simplified HP Sizing
  • Background
  • There was a desire to have the PTCS Service
    Provider collect and verify heat pump sizing in
    an effort to help utilities, many of whom
    struggle with verifying proper sizing. A sizing
    method simple enough to be included on the PTCS
    forms, which mimics the already-approved HP
    Sizing Calculator, has been developed and is
    awaiting RTF approval.
  • Issues
  • The group wasnt sure how big of an issue this
    was and whether it would be worth the effort to
    change the forms and the requirements.
  • Solution
  • ECOS offered to perform a comparison of the
    sizing paperwork in the utilities files with
    sizing calculation results that QA agents will
    perform on (50-ish) upcoming QA site visits.
  • Recommendation
  • The RTF should wait for the results of the ECOS
    mini-study, which will provide a sense of the
    magnitude of any undersizing issues.

4
Item 2 CheckMe Data
  • Background
  • ECOS provides QA for CheckMe jobs. Proctor
    sends ECOS the job data.
  • Issue
  • Proctor is not recording the utility name, so
    Ecos is having difficulty setting up QA visits.
  • Solution
  • RTF should request that Proctor record utility
    name on all future jobs (Recording the utility
    name is already a requirement of registry PTCS
    Service Providers)
  • Recommendation
  • RTF should discuss setting up a system for
    verifying PTCS Service Providers are meeting the
    standards

5
Item 3 Allowable Variances
  • Background
  • Some technicians are turning in forms for jobs
    that do not meet the PTCS Standards (i.e. have
    low airflow, too leaky ducts, etc.). If these
    jobs get entered into the database, or turned
    into the utility, utilities feel the program
    requirement for PTCS certification has been met.
  • Issue
  • Should technician certified systems that dont
    meet the standards be entered into the PTCS
    qualifying database?
  • Solution
  • No, they should not be entered into the
    database. ECOS will continue calling technicians
    in these cases, to ensure understanding of the
    specifications. If a system doesnt meet the
    specification, it cannot be certified (by
    definition), so the technician should not sign
    the form nor turn it in to the utility or ECOS.
  • Recommendation
  • For the purposes of a technician certifying a
    system, there are no allowable variances.

6
Item 4 Service Provider Standards Enforcement
  • Background
  • To date, the RTF has acted only to approve PTCS
    Service Providers
  • Issue
  • There is no system in place to oversee PTCS
    Service Providers to ensure theyre complying
    with the standards.
  • Solution
  • Set up a system. For example On an annual
    basis, check in with service providers, asking
    them for their list of approved trainers,
    technicians, and systems, and ask them for their
    QC and QA records, as applicable spend the time
    necessary to review the data for inconsistencies
    with the specs. (Another solution would be to
    continue as is, enforcing deviations in rules as
    they come to peoples attention.)
  • Recommendation
  • Realizing the above solution would take RTF
    resources, the subcommittee recommends the RTF
    discuss the issue and possible solutions, and
    provide direction to the subcommittee for how to
    proceed.

7
Item 5 Specification Updates
  • Background
  • The RTF makes spec changes throughout the year,
    as issues come up.
  • Issue
  • The RTF does not typically state when spec
    changes must be implemented, so program
    implementers are confused about which
    specification version to use. How out of date
    does a specification need to be before the
    installed measure does not meet the RTF/PTCS
    standards? In these cases, does that mean the
    deemed savings dont apply?
  • Solution
  • Since the RTF makes recommendations, spec
    changes and deemed energy savings can be used at
    the will of the program implementers.
  • Recommendation
  • The RTF will post all versions of its specs on
    its website so all recent and previous versions
    are available.
  • The subcommittee wanted to get the RTFs opinion
    on publishing all spec changes on a regular
    schedule (once per year), to make it easier to
    plan for changes.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com