170 likes | 355 Views
U of M Commissioning: Lessons Learned. Jay Denny, PE, CEM. 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. Utilities
E N D
U of M Commissioning:Lessons Learned Jay Denny, PE, CEM
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 • Utilities • Steam • Electricity • Chilled Water • Water • Sewer, Sanitary and Storm • Services • Engineering • University Engineering Record Storage and Retrieval • Energy Efficiency/Conservation
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
Commissioning: History • Outside Consultants • Little O&M Involvement • Documentation Abundant • Solutions Rare • Problematic Building Startup
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
Commissioning: Results • New Construction • MTRF • Jones Hall • Nicholson Hall • Education Sciences (pending) • Control Retrofits • LRB, West Bank, St. Paul
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
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
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
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
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
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
Recommissioning: Lessons • Resource Constraints • Timing of phases is critical • Phase II investigation should drive TAB • Smaller firms/Higher level resources