SPECIAL DISCUSSION - GREENGUIDE FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, RETROFIT AND OPERATION OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EFFICIENT REFRIGERATED STORAGE FACILITIES – Hugh Crowther from Special Publications
From time to time ASHRAE decides that a special need exists and they need to develop a publication like the AEDG’s (Advanced Energy Design Guides). Typically they find funding from DOE or another organization to fund it and then ASHRAE donates time and expertise to the document development.
Hugh is here to talk about the GreenGuide for the Design, Construction, Retrofit and Operation of Sustainable Energy Efficient Refrigerated Storage Facilities. At the moment, TC 2.8, the “sustainability” TC has voted to be the cognizant/co-cognizant TC for the project.
1.) Would 10.5 like to be another cognizant TC?
2.) If yes, will 10.5 approve the SOW so we can get this on the books and chase money from CEC.
3.) If we have a SOW, would we like to approve the proposed contractors?
Question #1
MOTION: Siller, 2nd from Vallort
Move that 10.5 be the cognizant committee responsible for the development of a GREENGUIDE FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, RETROFIT AND OPERATION OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EFFICIENT REFRIGERATED STORAGE FACILITIES.
Discussion:
McHugh – The NWEffciency alliance has a 100 page efficiency document for refrigerated facilities. Is this a duplicate of this?
Group – No, that is different. This document would not be a repeat of anything out in print.
Dettmers - Clarified for the record that this proposal was looked at the last meeting, the TC did not vote to be cognizant but made several recommendations to the proposes regarding the outline.
Other comments from the group:
AEDG done by ASHRAE volunteers, with only travel paid for.
No definition for the GreenGuide, except for one all ready written.
AEDG specifically cite energy consumption. The Green Guide will probably get around that.
Vote: 6-0-0 CNV
Question #2
He has a SOW and a Proposal in his hand. Can you do either of the following:
1.) Ignore it now.
2.) Push the work statement it through Tech council and get the ball rolling
MOTION: Vallort, 2nd from Siller
Move to approve the SOW as modified by the committee.
Discussion:
Vallort -I would prefer we take time to look at it because once it gets into the system we set a precedent and I would rather do it right the first time.
Everyone agreed that we needed to look at it and discussion.
Vallort - Can we leave submitter blank or switch it to the committee
Crowther -Yes…that would be best.
Halsey - Perhaps we can move to fast without much thought…but if we can edit it after submission to move forward.
Crowther - Others change their SOW all the time, change their focus…etc.
Siller - Yes, I ‘m not comfortable with how this proposed scope looks and we will need to edit the verbage at a later time.
Vote 6-0-0 CNV
Question #3
The committee decided not to act upon the selection of the contractor until a committee headed by Don Siller had a chance to further refine the SOW.