[Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

[Pasha Korber-Gonzalez]

I second that whole-heartedly---and if it is a lack of training on the part
of GBCI----well--don't they have enough money to get the training and the
resources they need to support thier reviewer so that they are offering the
best services for the fees that the clients are paying for thier LEED
projects to get reviewed.

pkg

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>  Nathan:
>
> I am being fair and I expect the reviewers to experts in every energy
> modeling program that is allow under Appendix G.  The GBCI should refer
> specific projects using eQuest or Trace or HAP to reviewers that are
> competent in that software.
>
> Paul Diglio
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>
> *To:* Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <
> pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Fri, June 17, 2011 4:45:45 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
>
>  Paul,
>
>
>
> I think you are being a bit unfair to the reviewers (full disclosure, I
> reviewed EAc1 submittals in the pre-GBCI days, when consulting teams
> performed the reviews).
>
>
>
> They don’t go into a review with all of the knowledge that we had while
> building up the model. All they get is the template and the supplementary
> documentation that we as submitters have decided to provide them. Sometimes
> these documents are a bare minimum, and sometimes it is a flood of
> information that is too much to try to go over.
>
>
>
> They have to piece together if the saving you are presenting make sense
> given the building and system components that have been described. It can be
> quite a puzzle to figure out , for example, if it makes sense that someone
> is showing 35% ventilation fan energy savings when comparing their series
> VAV system to the baseline parallel VAV system. Reviewers can try to be
> helpful, and point out specific items they want verified, though sometimes
> they do in fact make mistakes and look like idiots for what they are asking
> (I’m thinking of the electric resistance heating question from earlier in
> the thread). Alternately they can be vague with their comments and put the
> onus on the submitter to prove that the savings make sense, but that can be
> equally frustrating to respond to.
>
>
>
> Additionally I don’t think it is fair for them to be experts in every
> energy modeling program that is allowed under Appendix G. That is completely
> unrealistic. They won’t necessarily know that one program puts boiler
> supplementary energy in the space heating end use category, as that could be
> different with different programs, and certainly isn’t intuitive.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> *Nathan Miller, PE, LEED®AP*
>
> *Senior Energy Engineer/Mechanical Engineer*
>
> * *
>
> *D* 206-788-4577
>
> *www.rushingco.com* <http://www.rushingco.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Diglio
> *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2011 1:03 PM
> *To:* Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
>
>
>
> Pasha:
>
> No problem, it is raping as far as I am concerned.  GBCI is using
> incompetent reviewers and they expect us to train them.  They take the
> application fees and offer nothing in return except ridiculous comments.
>
> I have a similar problem with Northeast Utilities serving CT and MA.  NU
> offers a modeling incentive of $6,000, an efficiency incentive up to $2.00
> ft2 and a LEED incentive up to $15,000.  They employ reviewers that have no
> modeling or eQuest experience.  One reviewer expected that I would explain
> how custom performance curves are built for an eQuest VRV system.
>
> I told them I wasn't in the business of training their employees at the
> client's expense.  I would provide the manufacturer's performance tables and
> my eQuest curve coefficients, but I was not going to spend time to explain
> how to verify that my curves are accurate.  They need to spend money to
> train their reviewers or hire experienced reviewers.
>
> I feel that the comments that you received from the GBCI were indicative of
> a person who has no clue and is not qualified to review building
> simulations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Diglio
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Fri, June 17, 2011 3:45:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
>
> Hi Paul--  thanks for receiving my comment in the most professional sense
> of the term as it relates to the economics of the LEED simulation &
> Compliance markets.
>
>
>
> I didn't really feel it was unprofessional, but I didn't desire to offend
> anyone with the terms that i chose.   I was pretty sure that I wasn't
> completely alone with the 'feeling' or sense I was getting from others
> comments I've seen with the forum (past & present).
>
>
>
> I offer a sincere professional apology if my chosen adjectives offended
> anyone.  (were they adjectives?  I don't know I'm not an english major...)
> :)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pasha
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> Pasha:
>
> I agree with your 'raping' verb and do not think it is inappropriate for
> the forum.  Dan is out of sync.
>
> Paul Diglio
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca>
> *To:* Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Fri, June 17, 2011 3:32:24 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
>
>
> Dear Pasha,
>
>
>
>  client has already paid them.   DEAR USGBC---please stop raping the
> industry for the money monopoly that you have created.  The sense of GREED
> is oozing from everything that comes out of USGBC/GBCI with a price tag on
> it or a cost associated with it.
>
>
>
> I hear that you are very frustrated with the review process, however, I
> find this kind of language inappropriate for a public forum and would ask
> that you take more care in the future.
>
>
>
> With all best wishes,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> —
> Daniel Knapp, PhD, LEED® AP O+M
> danielk at arborus.ca
>
> Arborus Consulting
> Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
> www.arborus.ca
> 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> Fax: (613) 234-0740
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110617/77c83397/attachment.htm>