[Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

[Paul Diglio]

Kelsey:

I apologize for my caustic comments of yesterday.  Everyone is entitled to an 
opinion.  I got carried away.

This is an emotional subject for me.  I expect the design and review teams to be 
competent.  Some of the review comments coming back from the GBCI indicate a 
lack of understanding of both 90.1 and simulation software.

Paul Diglio




________________________________
From: Kelsey VanTassel <KVanTassel at sustaineng.com>
To: James Hansen <JHANSEN at ghtltd.com>; 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 5:55:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans


Of course I expect the modeler to understand all of the ins and outs of a 
particular software. Ideally, they would know exactly what every line of code 
means. But, the reviewer does not need anywhere near this level of understanding 
to judge whether or not Appendix G is being followed properly. For example, if 
they see that you did not use the correct baseline glass assembly U-factor and 
tell you to change it, they do not need to know what you should enter for the 
GLASS-CONDUCTANCE in eQUEST. The modeler had better know, though!
 
Kelsey Van Tassel
Mechanical Engineer | 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
 
 
From:James Hansen [mailto:JHANSEN at ghtltd.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Paul Diglio; Kelsey VanTassel; Nathan Miller; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
 
In my experience, out of the hundreds of GBCI comments that I’ve received for 
EAc1 over the years, all but a few of them have been good comments.  Courtesy 
and explanation go a long way (for those of you that have worked with the DOB 
and DEP in NYC, you know what I mean).  GBCI has tried to minimize some of the 
work that us engineers have to do (like implementing the Licensed Professional 
Exemptions) – if we end up getting more comments for EAc1, or some of them are 
not 100% accurate, no offense, but you may just have to deal with it.  If you 
disagree with a reviewer, explain it in polite terms, and 99% of the time, 
you’re explanation will be accepted.  After all, you’re the engineer (or 
modeler).  And again, I reiterate that if you have questions that are fairly 
easy to answer, just shoot an email to the project coordinator at GBCI and they 
can probably find someone that can answer your question (and you can then 
reference that response).
 
GHT Limited
James Hansen, PE, LEED AP
Senior Associate
1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200
Arlington, VA  22201-4749
703-338-5754 (Cell)
703-243-1200 (Office)
703-276-1376 (Fax)
www.ghtltd.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 5:12 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
608.836.4488 ext. 20 | Fax: 608.836.4477
 
Sustainable Engineering Group
901 Deming Way, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53717
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
 
D206-788-4577
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/20110618/ebaa9ced/attachment.htm>