[Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

[Kelsey VanTassel]

I do not think reviewers need to understand all of the intricacies in the art and science of energy modeling to be competent reviewers. They are judging the energy modeling inputs and results in the context of LEED, not your skills as an energy modeler. It is understood that the team that does the energy modeling for a LEED project already has the necessary skills (whether or not this is actually true). LEED reviewers ought to be trained to spot “fishy” results and get a good feel for what sorts of energy cost savings are expected in various scenarios. Of course experience as an energy modeler would help with this, but I don’t think it is a necessary requirement. Especially since LEED already has a huge database built up of results to compare with.

I say this because I do a lot of energy modeling for Focus on Energy and I have a reviewer who is great a reviewing my modeling results. He knows immediately when something “isn’t right,” but he does not do very much modeling himself. His skills as a reviewer come from having looked at so many different projects.

Kelsey Van Tassel
Mechanical Engineer | kvantassel at sustaineng.com<mailto:kvantassel at sustaineng.com>
608.836.4488 ext. 20 | Fax: 608.836.4477

Sustainable Engineering Group
901 Deming Way, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53717
www.sustaineng.com<http://www.sustaineng.com/>


From: Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:12 PM
To: Kelsey VanTassel; Nathan Miller; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

Kelsey:

I do not understand why you do not expect the GBCI reviewer to be competence in the software used to simulate a particular building.  Your comment does not make sense.

It is the same as saying the modeler does not have to be competent in the software he or she uses to simulate the building.  Get real, there is a minimum level of competency required for both the simulator or reviewer on any project.

Paul Diglio

________________________________
From: Kelsey VanTassel <KVanTassel at sustaineng.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 5:04:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Why should LEED reviewers be expected to be experts in every type of modeling software? The software itself is just a calculator. As long as it meets the requirements, it shouldn’t matter which program was used. The LEED reviewers judge the models on the results and the quality of the inputs. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Kelsey Van Tassel
Mechanical Engineer | kvantassel at sustaineng.com<mailto:kvantassel at sustaineng.com>
608.836.4488 ext. 20 | Fax: 608.836.4477

Sustainable Engineering Group
901 Deming Way, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53717
www.sustaineng.com<http://www.sustaineng.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 3:55 PM
To: Nathan Miller; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

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<mailto: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<mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>>
To: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com<mailto:pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto: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<mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>

Arborus Consulting
Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
www.arborus.ca<http://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/20110617/3ad167e7/attachment.htm>