Comments for http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:28:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-22 peter reppe Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:28:41 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-22 To all, We have currently 3 staff working more or less full time on the QC reviews, and have completed at least the initial review (and feedback to the audit firm) on 130 of the submitted 156 audits (83%). However, only 53 audits have received final approval so far, as the feedback loop and review of the response often adds one to two weeks to the process. We expect to be catching up in the next 1-2 weeks, as our semi-automated QC review algorithm will be fully functional early next week, and is expected to speed up the initial QC process significantly, freeing up staff time to handle the final review of feedback comments and final approval. Please do let me or Jon Belmont at ODOE know if you have any other questions about this. To all,
We have currently 3 staff working more or less full time on the QC reviews, and have completed at least the initial review (and feedback to the audit firm) on 130 of the submitted 156 audits (83%). However, only 53 audits have received final approval so far, as the feedback loop and review of the response often adds one to two weeks to the process. We expect to be catching up in the next 1-2 weeks, as our semi-automated QC review algorithm will be fully functional early next week, and is expected to speed up the initial QC process significantly, freeing up staff time to handle the final review of feedback comments and final approval.

Please do let me or Jon Belmont at ODOE know if you have any other questions about this.

]]> Comment on Project Blog by Erika Willis http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-21 Erika Willis Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:47:56 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-21 A further clarification on the wall insulation: Visual inspection is still required even if a school representative tells the auditor about the insulation. Otherwise, Not Verified applies. You may put in the comment section what the representative said, but unless it is visually verified by the auditor, the information should not be entered. A further clarification on the wall insulation: Visual inspection is still required even if a school representative tells the auditor about the insulation. Otherwise, Not Verified applies. You may put in the comment section what the representative said, but unless it is visually verified by the auditor, the information should not be entered.

]]> Comment on Project Blog by Erika Willis http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-20 Erika Willis Wed, 06 Jul 2011 02:13:56 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-20 Wall and Roof Insulation: Only enter None if there has been a visual inspection of the wall or roof insulation. Do not rely on building plans/drawings for information. Example: Auditor has access to building plans/drawings of a school. Auditor looks at a wall section and notes that the drawing does not show any insulation. Auditor is unable to visually inspect wall insulation in the school. Auditor will input “Not Verified” as primary wall insulation. If the drawings show insulation, then auditor may enter that type and amount but note in comment section that wall was not visually inspected and information was obtained from drawings. Foot-candle Measurements: Please enter one foot-candle measurement per room (for both fixtures on and fixtures off). If a room has more than one fixture, the foot-candle measurement will be the same for all fixtures (a weighed average). Also, do not enter it for one fixture and then zero (0) for the others. For audits that have been completed prior to this notice, we do not expect you to go back and recalculate however from this point on, please comply. Wall and Roof Insulation:

Only enter None if there has been a visual inspection of the wall or roof insulation. Do not rely on building plans/drawings for information.

Example:
Auditor has access to building plans/drawings of a school. Auditor looks at a wall section and notes that the drawing does not show any insulation. Auditor is unable to visually inspect wall insulation in the school. Auditor will input “Not Verified” as primary wall insulation.
If the drawings show insulation, then auditor may enter that type and amount but note in comment section that wall was not visually inspected and information was obtained from drawings.

Foot-candle Measurements:

Please enter one foot-candle measurement per room (for both fixtures on and fixtures off). If a room has more than one fixture, the foot-candle measurement will be the same for all fixtures (a weighed average). Also, do not enter it for one fixture and then zero (0) for the others.
For audits that have been completed prior to this notice, we do not expect you to go back and recalculate however from this point on, please comply.

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-19 peter reppe Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:33:41 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-19 Some items related to your field work: 1) Contrary to QC feedback from us on some of your earlier "certified" audits, please continue measuring the two required foot-candle readings (luminance ON, luminance OFF) for each fixture type (in one room) separately. There is no need to average foot-candle readings in one room before entering into the database. 2) It is critical that the "fixtures OFF" input reflects the number of fixtures "on" when all circuits are energized, NOT the how many fixtures are off when entering the room. This input is critical for interpreting the foot-candle measurements, since total fixture quantity means little if, for example, 30% of them are burned out. 3) We have noticed some cases (especially after a firm has received QC feedback on a few schools) where the foot-candle entries in the database match exactly the figure that is generated by our simplified QC method (as shared with you all in one tab in our QC spreadsheet). Since that is highly unlikely, we suspect inappropriate short cuts here. I want to remind you all that is essential that you enter the actual footcandle readings in the field, and the actual light fixture information (including the required spot checks on ballasts). Otherwise, ECMs might be recommended and calculated, that are not appropriate for the actual spaces. 4) We have also noticed in some cases that the "building area" matches exactly the "room area". Since that is highly unlikely, we suspect inappropriate short cuts here too. The former should be based in exterior measurements in the field (or take-off from current drawings), while the latter is automatically generated based on your room-by-room inputs. It not appropriate to simply enter the number from the automatically-generated "room area" field into the "building area", as these are intended to be your cross-check that your interior survey indeed captures at at least 85% of the bldg sqft. FYI, we are also checking each facility's reported bldg area against ODOE's current database entry, and will request explanations from an audit firm if there are significant differences. Again, please let me know if you have questions or concerns about this. Thanks much, Some items related to your field work:
1) Contrary to QC feedback from us on some of your earlier “certified” audits, please continue measuring the two required foot-candle readings (luminance ON, luminance OFF) for each fixture type (in one room) separately. There is no need to average foot-candle readings in one room before entering into the database.

2) It is critical that the “fixtures OFF” input reflects the number of fixtures “on” when all circuits are energized, NOT the how many fixtures are off when entering the room. This input is critical for interpreting the foot-candle measurements, since total fixture quantity means little if, for example, 30% of them are burned out.

3) We have noticed some cases (especially after a firm has received QC feedback on a few schools) where the foot-candle entries in the database match exactly the figure that is generated by our simplified QC method (as shared with you all in one tab in our QC spreadsheet). Since that is highly unlikely, we suspect inappropriate short cuts here. I want to remind you all that is essential that you enter the actual footcandle readings in the field, and the actual light fixture information (including the required spot checks on ballasts). Otherwise, ECMs might be recommended and calculated, that are not appropriate for the actual spaces.

4) We have also noticed in some cases that the “building area” matches exactly the “room area”. Since that is highly unlikely, we suspect inappropriate short cuts here too. The former should be based in exterior measurements in the field (or take-off from current drawings), while the latter is automatically generated based on your room-by-room inputs. It not appropriate to simply enter the number from the automatically-generated “room area” field into the “building area”, as these are intended to be your cross-check that your interior survey indeed captures at at least 85% of the bldg sqft.
FYI, we are also checking each facility’s reported bldg area against ODOE’s current database entry, and will request explanations from an audit firm if there are significant differences.

Again, please let me know if you have questions or concerns about this.
Thanks much,

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-18 peter reppe Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:33:15 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-18 To all audit firms: I wanted to give you all a heads-up on the fact that from now on all school-specific QC communication from SOLARC will come/go directly from/to my three team members (Devon, Erika, Zed). This is because our system is now reasonably well running, and I will only have spotty email access for about two weeks (beginning next Tuesday). All three will be able to continue responding to your feedback comments, including the requests to "unlock" audits in the ODOE/SAI database, and to finalize/approve of audits once all concerns are addressed. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about this. To all audit firms:
I wanted to give you all a heads-up on the fact that from now on all school-specific QC communication from SOLARC will come/go directly from/to my three team members (Devon, Erika, Zed). This is because our system is now reasonably well running, and I will only have spotty email access for about two weeks (beginning next Tuesday). All three will be able to continue responding to your feedback comments, including the requests to “unlock” audits in the ODOE/SAI database, and to finalize/approve of audits once all concerns are addressed.

Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about this.

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-17 peter reppe Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:30:42 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-17 To all audit firms, In the lighting portion of your interior survey, please make sure you enter the number for "light fixtures ON" when all circuits are energized, not the number of fixtures ON when you enter the room. The purpose of this input is to correlate the footcandle readings to the energized lighting wattage. For completed audits that have other action items anyway, please attempt to update that "fixtures on" at the same time. For completed audits, we are going to have to live with that. To all audit firms,
In the lighting portion of your interior survey, please make sure you enter the number for “light fixtures ON” when all circuits are energized, not the number of fixtures ON when you enter the room. The purpose of this input is to correlate the footcandle readings to the energized lighting wattage.

For completed audits that have other action items anyway, please attempt to update that “fixtures on” at the same time. For completed audits, we are going to have to live with that.

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-16 peter reppe Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:56:17 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-16 Additional clarification, as sent to one of the audit firms: -distinct space types of significant sqft do need to be entered separately (e.g., hallways, classrooms, major restrooms, gym, dining hall). If completed audits have been lumped those together, those need to be separated. -distinct space types of smaller floor areas (e.g., office cluster with single fixture RR and small hall) can be combined if the predominant space type contains at least roughly 85% of the connected lighting load. Since this approach likely eliminates some lighting (or HVAC) measures (because space types are now "hidden"), it is preferred that even in this case, distinct space types are entered separately. -consolidation of various space types of small floor areas (as described above) in already-completed audits is acceptable. If you are able to separate out space types in retrospect (from memory, or as a quick site visit), please do that. Please let me know which schools should be "unlocked" by ODOE for updating the data set. Peter Reppe Additional clarification, as sent to one of the audit firms:
-distinct space types of significant sqft do need to be entered separately (e.g., hallways, classrooms, major restrooms, gym, dining hall). If completed audits have been lumped those together, those need to be separated.

-distinct space types of smaller floor areas (e.g., office cluster with single fixture RR and small hall) can be combined if the predominant space type contains at least roughly 85% of the connected lighting load. Since this approach likely eliminates some lighting (or HVAC) measures (because space types are now “hidden”), it is preferred that even in this case, distinct space types are entered separately.

-consolidation of various space types of small floor areas (as described above) in already-completed audits is acceptable. If you are able to separate out space types in retrospect (from memory, or as a quick site visit), please do that.

Please let me know which schools should be “unlocked” by ODOE for updating the data set.
Peter Reppe

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-15 peter reppe Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:43:49 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-15 Auditor question was: "I wanted to get some clarification from you on spot checking of lighting ballasts in the field. We do not feel comfortable asking our field auditors to open up a live, powered light fixture and remove screws and covers to verify ballast type. Many of our auditors are not experienced electrical designers or engineers and would not know which wires not to touch, what circuit breaker to shut off, etc. This is a gray area as far as our insurance is concerned as well. We typically will talk to maintenance staff on site and try to locate their supply of ballasts or talk to someone at the school district who might know the ballasts. Is their another work around that we can do to verify ballasts that will be acceptable to you other than opening up the light fixtures?" Answer: "Yes, as you're saying, the second best way to get ballast info is an interview with the maintenance staff and "rifling" through the spare ballasts. Another option (better yet) would be to ask one of the school's maintenance staff (or an hourly hired electrical contractor) to come along, and open the fixtures for you. That might only take 1/2 to 1 hr. (we do that a lot, especially when installing data loggers in panels)" Auditor question was: “I wanted to get some clarification from you on spot checking of lighting ballasts in the field. We do not feel comfortable asking our field auditors to open up a live, powered light fixture and remove screws and covers to verify ballast type. Many of our auditors are not experienced electrical designers or engineers and would not know which wires not to touch, what circuit breaker to shut off, etc. This is a gray area as far as our insurance is concerned as well.

We typically will talk to maintenance staff on site and try to locate their supply of ballasts or talk to someone at the school district who might know the ballasts. Is their another work around that we can do to verify ballasts that will be acceptable to you other than opening up the light fixtures?”

Answer: “Yes, as you’re saying, the second best way to get ballast info is an interview with the maintenance staff and “rifling” through the spare ballasts. Another option (better yet) would be to ask one of the school’s maintenance staff (or an hourly hired electrical contractor) to come along, and open the fixtures for you. That might only take 1/2 to 1 hr. (we do that a lot, especially when installing data loggers in panels)”

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-14 peter reppe Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:14:10 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-14 Clarification on grouping of room types, in response to one audit firm's feedback that they believe it is okay to combine different room types: "I admit that the sketch shown during the training can lead auditors to that conclusion. However, the lighting measures in particular require that the room information entered represents the room types provided in the pull-down menu, and not combine different room types. In line with the overall level of accuracy/detail in the savings calcs on this project however, it is okay to "mix in" a room that doesn't match the room type if the light fixtures in that room does not represent more than 10-15% of the connected wattage in that group of rooms (e.g., a storage room within an office area is okay; but not a storage room AND the restrooms AND the small hallway connecting the offices in the admin area). Sorry if the handbook and our misc verbal instructions on that issue haven't been clear enough." Clarification on grouping of room types, in response to one audit firm’s feedback that they believe it is okay to combine different room types: “I admit that the sketch shown during the training can lead auditors to that conclusion. However, the lighting measures in particular require that the room information entered represents the room types provided in the pull-down menu, and not combine different room types. In line with the overall level of accuracy/detail in the savings calcs on this project however, it is okay to “mix in” a room that doesn’t match the room type if the light fixtures in that room does not represent more than 10-15% of the connected wattage in that group of rooms (e.g., a storage room within an office area is okay; but not a storage room AND the restrooms AND the small hallway connecting the offices in the admin area).

Sorry if the handbook and our misc verbal instructions on that issue haven’t been clear enough.”

]]> Comment on Project Blog by peter reppe http://www.schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-13 peter reppe Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:27:14 +0000 http://schoolauditsinitiative-qc.com/?page_id=2#comment-13 To all audit firms: This is a brief summary of the answers to questions posed at our second webinar (6/16/2011). -How to verify ballast types in high-bay, or otherwise difficult-to-access light fixtures: Interview knowledgeable maintenance person and/or review replacement ballasts stored in utility room and/or review most current drawings and judge if they still reflect actual conditions. Otherwise, pick "not verified" -What to enter when HVAC system encountered in the field does not match any of the options provided in the user interface: Have to rely on professional judgment of auditor to select the closest match, otherwise pick "other". -Does it matter if curtain-wall systems are entered as one large window, or glazing unit by glazing unit? : It doesn't matter. -What heating or cooling setpoints to pick in rooms that are served by through-the-wall units, which often don't have calibrated temperature dials: Attempt to interview a person knowledgeable withe typical room temperatures, or use best judgement. These options are preferred over "not verified" or no input at all. To all audit firms: This is a brief summary of the answers to questions posed at our second webinar (6/16/2011).
-How to verify ballast types in high-bay, or otherwise difficult-to-access light fixtures: Interview knowledgeable maintenance person and/or review replacement ballasts stored in utility room and/or review most current drawings and judge if they still reflect actual conditions. Otherwise, pick “not verified”

-What to enter when HVAC system encountered in the field does not match any of the options provided in the user interface: Have to rely on professional judgment of auditor to select the closest match, otherwise pick “other”.

-Does it matter if curtain-wall systems are entered as one large window, or glazing unit by glazing unit? : It doesn’t matter.

-What heating or cooling setpoints to pick in rooms that are served by through-the-wall units, which often don’t have calibrated temperature dials: Attempt to interview a person knowledgeable withe typical room temperatures, or use best judgement. These options are preferred over “not verified” or no input at all.

]]>