[Bldg-sim] RMESE Meeting January 22

[Chris Jones]

I have a lot of experience with incentive 
programs and modelling to energy codes or 
standards that do not include any inclusion of 
economics - ie. how to define utility rates how 
to avoid fuel switching between proposed and 
Baseline cases when the Baselines systems can 
look significantly different than the proposed 
case systems.  Not particularly by choice but more by age.

The Canadian Federal government instituted 
incentives for showing energy savings over first 
the ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Baseline.  The C2000 program 
defined how the energy savings were turned into 
cost savings incentives  - I can remember any 
modifications to 90.1 but the way energy 
efficiency measures were implemented and modelled 
or post simulation adjusted.

This effort somehow morphed in the Green Building 
Challenge of which the energy model was a very 
small component of the overall rating.  Again, I 
don't recall any specific modifications to the 
90.1 Baseline case but how the proposed was 
modelled and how savings were calculated was defined for that program.

Then the MNECB came out with a whole building 
performance path.  This was very loosely defined 
and the first step was to define the modelling 
software requirements, then how the Proposed and 
Reference cases were to be modelled.  The first 
incentive programs were based on fairly strict 
requirements and a "help" system was published to 
assist users with the model requirements without 
defining any keywords, explicit software 
etc.  DOE2.1d/e was available at the time - no 
interface at all.  Text editor and debug.

The review process was quite 
interesting.  Somehow I had ended up modelling 
the first LEED Gold project awarded by the USGBC 
in Canada.  This qualified me to review MNECB 
incentive models - Proposed and Reference case 
soft ware supplement and the help system.

My main point is that incentives typically 
regionally based.  The state, or other authority 
has to base the incentive program on local, 
typical "baseline" construction and 
economics.  Appendix G doesn't necessarily have 
to be revised to take into account these regional 
requirements.  I think it would be very difficult 
do modify A global standard to include some 
accounting of regional requirements for developing local incentive programs.


At 12:05 PM 12/12/2012, Peter Ellis wrote:

>Join us Tuesday, January 22 for the next meeting 
>of the Rocky Mountain Energy Simulation 
>Engineers (RMESE). Chris Baker will be presenting on "Minding the Gap":
>
>
>
>"Minding the Gap"
>
>The use of energy modeling to drive design 
>decisions earlier in the design process has long 
>been recognized as an effective way to increase 
>building energy performance. With this in mind, 
>several utility-sponsored Design Assistance 
>programs in the Midwest and Colorado regions 
>expanded their scope to provide comparative 
>energy analysis of design options as early as 
>the building programming portion of the design 
>process. These utility programs attempt to 
>influence decisions that significantly impact 
>the energy performance of the designed building. 
>To be effective for market transformation, these 
>programs need to provide incentives for more 
>energy-efficient decisions that occur in the 
>conceptual stages of design. To calculate 
>savings in a utility program and provide 
>incentives that can be defensible, a fair and 
>consistent baseline protocol is needed. Appendix 
>G to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 is 
>currently the most robust energy modeling 
>protocol that can be used by such incentive 
>programs and rating systems. However, this 
>protocol does not provide adequate baseline 
>criteria to evaluate early design decisions, 
>such as building shape, glazing and skylight 
>area and programmatic efficiency. To enable the 
>calculation of savings and incentives, Appendix 
>G needs to be expanded to provide additional baseline criteria.
>
>This presentation explores where Appendix G 
>falls short of providing baseline criteria for 
>decisions made early in the design process, and 
>proposes changes to Appendix G that would allow these savings to be captured.
>
>
>Chris Baker, AIA, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEED® AP BD+C
>
>
>
>Chris Baker, an Energy Analyst at The Weidt 
>Group, focuses on providing data and analysis to 
>help design teams understand the energy and 
>environmental implications of various design 
>options. Since joining The Weidt Group in 2006, 
>Mr. Baker has consulted on projects totaling 
>more than 5 million square feet, including 
>fifteen LEED Certified projects and another 17 LEED Registered projects.
>
>Mr. Baker received an MBA from the University of 
>Minnesota and a Bachelor of Architecture and 
>Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering 
>with an HVAC emphasis from the University of 
>Kansas. He is a Registered Architect and Professional Engineer.
>
>We will be meeting at The RMH Group in Lakewood 
>at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, January 22 for a short 
>presentation, appetizers, and drinks. The RMH 
>Group is located roughly 1 mile east of NREL at:
>
>
>
>The RMH Group, Inc.
>
>12600 W Colfax Avenue
>
>Suite A-260
>
>Lakewood, CO 80215
>
>_______________________________________________
>Bldg-sim mailing list
>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a 
>blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG

 >>
Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Suite 1801, 1 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E1W7
Tel. 416-203-7465
Fax. 416-946-1005
email cj at enersave.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20121213/4d014685/attachment.htm>