goal 2: commercial quality maintenance committee summary ... · pdf filegoal 2: commercial...

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 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)


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





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



Lola Odunlami California PUC P



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)


Company)

Mary Anderson California IOU


Company)

Robert Davis California IOU P


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;





(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





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.





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





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.





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.

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

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

http://www.alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/@ae/documents/document/mdaw/mdmx/~edisp/031658.pdf





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.





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)





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





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.





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.





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.