U of M Commissioning: Lessons Learned

1
U of M CommissioningLessons Learned
Jay Denny, PE, CEM
2
University of MinnesotaTwin Cities Campus

• Divided into three geographic areas
• Minneapolis East Bank
• Minneapolis West Bank
• St. Paul
• 250 buildings
• 20 Million GSF
• 91 Million Energy Budget

3
Energy Management

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

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

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

6
Commissioning History

• Outside Consultants
• Little OM Involvement
• Documentation Abundant
• Solutions Rare
• Problematic Building Startup

7
Commissioning Changes

• In-House Commissioning Agent
• OM Staff Engaged
• Minimized Documentation
• Logs, no reports
• Focus is on Solutions
• CA is advocate and liaison
• CA involvement extended
• Startup and Warranty

8
Commissioning Results

• New Construction
• MTRF
• Jones Hall
• Nicholson Hall
• Education Sciences (pending)
• Control Retrofits
• LRB, West Bank, St. Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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 (TM)
• Better resource matching
• 3 building pilot program
• Smith Hall, MCB, Regis Center for the Arts

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

16
Recommissioning Lessons

• Resource Constraints
• Timing of phases is critical
• Phase II investigation should drive TAB
• Smaller firms/Higher level resources

17

• Questions ?