<html>
<body>
Hi all, <br><br>
The CaGBC Enegy task force and EE Tag has developed a modeling guide and
it is available at CaGBC.org<br><br>
Martin<br><br>
<br>
At 14:49 13/05/2011, Julia Beabout wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Jason,<br>
could you elaborate a little more on your vision. <br>
From the write up, it sounds to me like you're talking more about
establishing a modeling process protocol - yes?<br>
It also describes ASHREA 90.1 and 189.1 as being prescriptive
approaches. But, both those documents have the alternative (app G)
performance based approach too. As we all know, this established
modeling rules and the parameters for your baseline building etc, but
doesn't mandate a certain modeling process (i.e. when modeling starts in
the design, options to be considered etc).<br>
So, do you see your proposed standard as supplementing those in terms of
establishing a modeling process protocol? Or, would your standard
also establish modeling rules and baseline building parameters like App
G?<br><br>
Julia<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Jason Glazer
<jglazer@gard.com><br>
<b>To:</b> bldg-sim@onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Fri, May 13, 2011 12:35:01 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
</font><br>
I have been thinking about trying to establish a new <br>
standard at ASHRAE that I tentatively titled:<br><br>
"Simulation Aided Design for High Performance
Buildings"<br><br>
The new standard, once deveoped, could be referenced by <br>
USGBC and other organizations. The concept is similar to the <br>
direction that USGBC is considering. Attached is a draft <br>
describing the concept. I think having a group of practicing <br>
simulation consultants would be key to making such a <br>
standard usable and adopted.<br><br>
Please let me know if you have any comments and if you would <br>
be interested in participating in developing a new standard. <br>
If I have enough interest, I will submit the necessary <br>
paperwork to ASHRAE to get this considered.<br><br>
Thanks<br><br>
Jason<br><br>
On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Nick Caton wrote:<br>
> Arpan/Omar and others, apologies for continuing to diverge<br>
> on the original thread with this sub-topic!<br>
><br>
> Marcus and other EA TAG members,<br>
><br>
> I have a few ‘informal’ thoughts for discussion of the
draft<br>
> language below… sorry for the wall of text, but I hope<br>
> you’ll find this useful feedback!<br>
><br>
> 1.Overall, the process described below sounds very much like<br>
> our regular practice with certain clients, who are very into<br>
> EUI metrics (2030 challenge).<br>
><br>
> 2.I think the credit language should be expanded (and<br>
> perhaps the <a href="http://onebuilding.org">onebuilding.org</a>
lists should be separately<br>
> engaged) to suggest more examples of what may be appropriate<br>
> studies for “Preliminary modeling.” Many will not be<br>
> familiar with the process and be stuck for ideas of what to<br>
> explore. In my experience, such modeling most often
focuses<br>
> on early decisions regarding HVAC system selection, envelope<br>
> materials/finishes, glazing quantity/placement/orientation,<br>
> building shades (fixed and otherwise), and active/passive<br>
> day lighting design. I would note that this is often an<br>
> ideal time to investigate the energy effects of landscaping<br>
> on the building, as site layout tends to be locked down<br>
> early in the design process<br>
><br>
> 3.Pottential for a game-killing conflict: A key feature
of<br>
> such early modeling work is that much of it is very fast and<br>
> “loose.” The level of documentation/procedure involved
in<br>
> today’s EAc1/EAp2 validation models is something I’d still<br>
> call “intense,” and still takes up a large fraction of
the<br>
> time spent altogether on an energy model. I’m not new
to<br>
> the game, and I’ve certainly learned to streamline my<br>
> workflow, but I’m sure there’s no place for *that* degree
of<br>
> rigorous documentation in the early stages of design. I<br>
> suspect many architects would be quick to drop the idea of<br>
> engaging their energy modelers early on if they become a<br>
> “ball and chain” holding up the design process. It
would<br>
> appear on this draft of the language that someone has this<br>
> issue in mind, but I wanted to vocalize this concern<br>
> separately so that this doesn’t get missed!<br>
><br>
> 4.Regarding metrics: EUI, due to the 2030 challenge, is the<br>
> driving force causing local architects to engage us so early<br>
> on projects, and for that I have to give it props...
While<br>
> metrics like EUI & Carbon footprint may be the best metric<br>
> for measuring impact on polar bear habitats (?), the best<br>
> metric with regard to most building owners, and their<br>
> perception of the “validity” of the whole process, is<br>
> unquestionably utility bills. I wouldn’t discourage the<br>
> use of alternative metrics, but I’d caution against<br>
> requiring any alternative metrics that may be at odds with<br>
> the owner’s best interests...<br>
><br>
> 5.Validation models based on the construction documents (as<br>
> they exist today) are not a bad thing. They are necessary<br>
> to prevent value engineering from decimating an otherwise<br>
> great building towards the end of design. I would be wary<br>
> of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If
preliminary<br>
> modeling is going to be incorporated into LEED, it should<br>
> start out as either as a prerequisite or as a separate<br>
> credit (perhaps pulling points from the large pool available<br>
> under EAc1) not as a replacement of the validation moodel.<br>
> At some point in the future, they may become one and the<br>
> same credit, but I think standards broader than 90.1<br>
> Appendix G will need to be written and established first,<br>
> which incorporate practices and procedures for preliminary<br>
> modeling (as others are saying).<br>
><br>
> 6.I LIKE the inclusion of the ability to use past<br>
> studies/design. This mirrors real-world practice and<br>
> permits/encourages proven design to carry into multiple<br>
> projects. Keep that!<br>
><br>
> 7.I LIKE the focus being on the analysis, not the decisions<br>
> made. This also reflects real-world decision making,
which<br>
> always balances budget and other constraints against<br>
> relative energy impact.<br>
><br>
> 8.Julia’s concern regarding prescribing a set # of<br>
> studies/analyses is pertinent and deserves consideration.<br>
> Not all projects require a huge investment of time in<br>
> preliminary studies, and not all projects would benefit<br>
then again, these sorts of studies sometimes cause design<br>
> teams to learn something they didn’t set out to explore.<br>
> The bar has to be set somewhere, and I can’t think of a<br>
> better alternative than a minimum number of<br>
> studies/iterations per building area (envelope/glazing/HVAC<br>
> options, etc).<br>
><br>
To the broader concern of inefficient strip mall/prototype<br>
> projects I’d agree LEED likely isn’t the tool to reiggn<br>
> that issue in Developers award this sort of work tto
design<br>
> teams who are fast and efficient at cranking out a design<br>
> that will pass review and minimize first costs/CA. They<br>
> don’t budget for weeks on quality energy modeling. The
only<br>
> effective tools to drive down such “fire-and-forget”<br>
> projects are the prescriptive energy codes, and their<br>
> effective/actual enforcement by local reviewers. Those<br>
> codes and their adoption/enforcement drive the market to<br>
> produce better products at an economical price point.<br>
><br>
> Hope that helps!<br>
><br>
> ~Nick<br>
><br>
> cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB**<br>
><br>
> **<br>
><br>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***<br>
><br>
> PROJECT ENGINEER<br>
><br>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers<br>
><br>
> 25501 west valley parkway<br>
><br>
> olathe ks 66061<br>
><br>
> direct 913 344.0036<br>
><br>
> fax 913 345.0617<br>
><br>
>
<a href="http://www.smithboucher.com__">www.smithboucher.com__</a><br>
><br>
>
*From:*<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
> Of *Julia Beabout<br>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 9:22 AM<br>
> *To:*
<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">
sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>;<br>
>
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> Omar,<br>
> This is cracking me up. I don't think I've ever seen this<br>
> much traffic on one issue! LOL.<br>
> Regarding the manhours for a LEED model - my opinion is that<br>
> the amount of time has much more to do with the level of<br>
> certification the project is going for, at what point the<br>
> modeling services are engaged in the design, and the type<br>
> and complexity of the building (systems). That's not to say<br>
> the number of manhours is completely independent of building<br>
> size (square footage), but its not particularly sensitive to<br>
> it. I find that that there is a high "low" and low
"high"<br>
> for modeling. In other words, it's hard to complete an<br>
> energy model in less than 60-80 hours (all said and done -<br>
> paperwork, LEED responses etc), but it rarely take more than<br>
> 250 hours. (Although, some rare complex projects going for<br>
> platinmum could take up to 350 hours). Like others, I find<br>
> the norm for a reasonably complex bldg going for LEED silver<br>
> or gold typically requires between 120 and 160 hours.<br>
><br>
> Marcus<br>
> Here's my two cents on below. I will look for the public<br>
> comment period as well. Thanks for the heads up.<br>
> I think the idea of incentivizing modeling early in the<br>
> design is a great idea, but I think requiring it is<br>
> completely inappropriate. Perhaps it could be encouraged by<br>
> awarding an extra (innovation? or EA cr 1?) point for<br>
> starting modeling in schematic design. Or, perhaps the<br>
> credit could be restructured similar to the CX credits where<br>
> in order to get the enhanced CX credits, you have to have<br>
> the CX agent involved early in the design. In some ways, the<br>
> current set up already does this though with the progress<br>
> points for increased levels of saving. Quite frankly, if you<br>
> are going for 50% savings, you're not gonig to get there<br>
> unless you start modeling really early in the process.<br>
><br>
> I also think prescribing a certain minimum number of ECMs to<br>
> look at is inappropriate and would probably have the adverse<br>
> effect of discouraging energy modeling. The appropriate<br>
> number of ECMs is highly project dependent - based on<br>
> building size, scope, complexity, type, level of LEED<br>
> certification shooting for, and not least of all the owner's<br>
> budget. Let's face it, the vast majority of bldgs out there<br>
> and that consume most of the energy in the US are (strip)<br>
> malls, grocery stores, restaurants etc. These projects<br>
> barely event have a schematic, design and CD phase. While we<br>
> all love to work on the exotic, platinum level, cutting<br>
> edge, bldgs that are likely to have a large budget for<br>
> design, these are not the majority of bldgs consuming<br>
> energy. I think we should be doing more to encourage<br>
> modeling and energy savings amongst the every day projects<br>
> than the "sexy" projects. It seems to me the best way to
do<br>
> this is to offer incentives in this direction in lieu of<br>
> prescriptive requirements that could discourage/put off<br>
> smaller projects from even attempting to incorporate modeling.<br>
><br>
> Julia<br>
><br>
>
*From:*<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
> Of *Will Mak<br>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 8:14 AM<br>
> *To:*
<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">
sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>;<br>
>
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> Do you know where we can get a copy of the existing draft?<br>
> I’d like to look more into the new wordage for EAp2/EAc1 and<br>
> how energy modeling will have to evolve once that new rating<br>
> system is released.<br>
><br>
> *William Mak, LEED Green Associate*<br>
> Mechanical Design Engineer<br>
><br>
> *EPSTEIN*<br>
> Architecture<br>
> Interiors<br>
> Engineering<br>
> Construction<br>
><br>
> 600 West Fulton Street<br>
> Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259<br>
><br>
> D: (312) 429-8116<br>
> F: (312) 429-8800<br>
><br>
> E:<a href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a>><br>
> W:<a href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com">www.epsteinglobal.com</a>
<<a href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com/">
http://www.epsteinglobal.com/</a>><br>
><br>
> þEpstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that<br>
> you please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail.<br>
><br>
>
*From:*<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
> Of *Marcus Sheffer<br>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 7:17 AM<br>
> *To:*
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> If anyone has any good ideas about how to structure the LEED<br>
> credits to end the practice of validation models at the end<br>
> and encourage/require design phase modeling the folks on the<br>
> USGBC EA TAG would love to hear them. The current proposed<br>
> credit language from the first public comment phase is<br>
> listed below.<br>
><br>
> NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,<br>
> HOSPITALITY<br>
><br>
> Establish an energy performance target no later than the<br>
> schematic design phase. The target must be established as<br>
> kBTU per square foot-year of source energy use. This target<br>
> must be mapped on the same scale as the baseline and<br>
> proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.<br>
><br>
> OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation<br>
><br>
> Analyze a minimum of at least nine efficiency measures<br>
> during the design process and account for the results in<br>
> design decision-making. Analysis can include energy<br>
> simulation of efficiency opportunities, application of past<br>
> energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the<br>
> project, or application of published data from energy<br>
> analyses performed for similar projects to the project (such<br>
> as AEDGs).<br>
><br>
> A minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load<br>
> reduction strategies appropriate for the facility must be<br>
> analyzed. This analysis must be performed during the<br>
> schematic design phase.<br>
><br>
> A minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on<br>
> HVAC related strategies must be analyzed (passive measures<br>
> are acceptable). This analysis must be performed before the<br>
> conclusion of the design development phase.<br>
><br>
> The results of the analysis must be summarized in a brief<br>
> report or memorandum.<br>
><br>
> The next version of LEED will be going out for public<br>
> comment again in July, I think, so please comment formally<br>
> as well as discussing here.<br>
><br>
> Marcus Sheffer<br>
><br>
> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
><br>
> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
><br>
> 717-292-2636,
<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.sevengroup.com">www.sevengroup.com</a>
<<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sevengroup.com</a>><br>
><br>
> *From:*John Aulbach
[<a href="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com</a>]<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM<br>
> *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus Sheffer<br>
> *Cc:*
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> OK, Carol..now you threw the "bait" out there..older
than<br>
> dirt, eh?<br>
><br>
> I have done very limited LEED "type" modeling where
you<br>
> compare 20 walls and 40 windows types (well, it seemed that<br>
> way). Correct me if I am wrong, but a Base model must be<br>
> built to comply with a certain level of ASHRAE 90.1 (now up<br>
> to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I am<br>
> going to build the model from scrathc and put in all the<br>
> relevant baseline data in by hand. And, by the way, the<br>
> ASHRAE baseline model might be an entirely different system.<br>
> I am just completing an EPACT evaluation (ASHRAE 90.1-2001)<br>
> and the Baseline HVAC was screwe chillers, whereas the<br>
> Actual building was packaged units with Turbocor compressors<br>
> (ask me how I did that).<br>
><br>
> It very much depends on the complexity of the building. A<br>
> 40,000 sf office or a 500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.<br>
><br>
> I am unfamiliar with the LEED paperwork to be filled out<br>
> after the modeling has been done. But I would not do<br>
> anything of this type in under 120 hours, preferably 160<br>
> hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let him.<br>
><br>
> Contingency, contingency.<br>
><br>
> We won't discuss how old CAROL might be..<br>
><br>
> John A.<br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> *From:*Carol Gardner
<<a href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</a>><br>
> *To:*
<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">
sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>
> *Cc:*
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> *Sent:* Thu, May 12, 2011 2:59:12 PM<br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> Marcus,<br>
><br>
> You have inadvertently hit upon why IBPSA worked with ASHRAE<br>
> to create a BEMP certification. That's Building Energy<br>
> Modeling Professional (BEMP).<br>
><br>
> Some of us who have been in the field for awhile began to<br>
> worry a couple of years ago when so many new energy modelers<br>
> began appearing on the listserv with questions. Their<br>
> questions indicated a lack of training and experience that<br>
> was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they didn't<br>
> seem to realize that they were as inexperienced as they<br>
> were; they didn't appear to be pursuing training to learn<br>
> how to do what they were doing; and we were uncertain as to<br>
> how or if they were practicing quality control. We hoped<br>
> that by creating a path to certification that we would give<br>
> clients one more qualification to look for in their modelers.<br>
><br>
> If you have been in this industry for any length of time,<br>
> and by industry I mean the overall construction industry,<br>
> you know that you don't get a lot of chances if your work<br>
> doesn't pan out. If your energy model says I have a LEED<br>
> Gold building and I'm going to save $4,000/year and what I<br>
> really get is LEED Silver and $1,000/year, I am not going to<br>
> be happy. So, I will probably not give you any more work<br>
> but, even worse for all of us, I'll start expressing doubts<br>
> about the whole process. LEED - what is it good for?<br>
><br>
> So, now we all have more training, right? We read our ASHRAE<br>
> Handbooks and technical manuals so we know how to model the<br>
> difficult stuff. We can find any topic in the DOE2 Manuals,<br>
> all of which are one line, available, and easily searchable.<br>
><br>
> So now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours.<br>
> Really? Not me and I've been doing it longer than everyone,<br>
> except you, John Aulbach. So I'm going to join Marcus in his<br>
> rant because he's on to something.<br>
><br>
> It's up to us to not under bid this work. It's up to us to<br>
> educate our clients about the importance of quality in this<br>
> process. If they think they are getting the same analysis in<br>
> 40 hours that they used to get in 120 hours, they need to be<br>
> led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that GIGO.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Carol<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Marcus Sheffer<br>
>
<<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">
sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> In our experience a final model, done right, would
take<br>
> about 80 hours.<br>
><br>
> WARNING frustrated modeling rant to follow:<br>
><br>
> Doing just a final model however completely misses
the<br>
> point as to why we model it is to guide design
decisionns!<br>
><br>
> If I saw this RFP and all it asked me for was a
model to<br>
> determine LEED points, during or after design, I
would<br>
> try to educate the potential client about the
purpose of<br>
> modeling.<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately too many projects pursuing LEED are
only<br>
> doing the minimum when it comes to modeling and
almost<br>
> completely missing all the benefits. Too often
the<br>
> “market” transforms only based on a least
first cost<br>
> denominator basis that results in little real<br>
> transformation. Doing models to determine LEED
points<br>
> does not transform the market, save any energy,
and just<br>
> circumvents the purpose behind LEED. (the next
version<br>
> actually requires design phase modeling!)<br>
><br>
> Any “modeler” who does only final models
without<br>
> attempting to explain to the owner why this is a
bad<br>
> idea should be “drummed out of the corp” in my
humble<br>
> opinion.<br>
><br>
> The problem is that if you respond to this RFP
with 120<br>
> or 160 or more hours to really do the design
phase<br>
> modeling right, you will go up against the
“modeler” who<br>
> claims to be able to do it in far less time. So
how do<br>
> we get the folks who issue the RFPs to ask for a
proper<br>
> scope of work so that they can compare fees on a
level<br>
> playing field? It is unfortunate that we are even
having<br>
> a discussion about doing modeling work in
opposition to<br>
> its purpose.<br>
><br>
> Sorry for the rant but I feel better now. J<br>
><br>
> Marcus Sheffer<br>
><br>
> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
><br>
> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA
17365<br>
><br>
> 717-292-2636,
<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
><br>
>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com">www.sevengroup.com</a>
<<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sevengroup.com/</a>><br>
><br>
>
*From:*<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>
>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>>] *On<br>
> Behalf Of *Demba Ndiaye<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:28 PM<br>
> *To:* Omar Delgado;
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> Omar,<br>
><br>
> I would expect, for a building this size,
approximately<br>
> 40 hours (multiply by your hourly rate). The 40
hours<br>
> include EAp2/EAc1 LEED documentation, and any
review you<br>
> may have to respond to later.<br>
><br>
> Now, given that you have never done a LEED model,
it<br>
> will take you more time, possibly up to 40 more
hours.<br>
><br>
> HTH,<br>
><br>
> _______________<br>
><br>
> Demba NDIAYE<br>
><br>
>
*From:*<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>
>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>>] *On<br>
> Behalf Of *Omar Delgado<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM<br>
> *To:*
<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
><br>
> Greetings everyone,<br>
><br>
> I have a question regarding the cost of an energy
model<br>
> for a LEED project. Every energy model I've done
so far<br>
> has been for<br>
><br>
> existing buildings, mainly for optimization
purposes.<br>
> However, I received an RFP to model a five-story,
41,500<br>
> sq. ft. building<br>
><br>
> that's currently on the design phase and is
pursuing the<br>
> LEED-NC Silver certification. I really have no
idea what<br>
> would be a fair<br>
><br>
> price for this model since I'm going to have to
use<br>
> Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1) to evaluate the
difference<br>
> between the base<br>
><br>
> and proposed buildings. I don't know how much
extra<br>
> effort this will take. I know the procedure,
just<br>
> haven't done it before.<br>
><br>
> Can you shed any light on this issue?<br>
><br>
> Thanks in advance!<br>
><br>
> /Omar A. Delgado Colón, P.E., MEnvM., LEED AP
BD&C/<br>
><br>
> /Vice President/<br>
><br>
> *EnerMech*<br>
><br>
> PMB 340<br>
><br>
> 130 Winston Churchill Ave.<br>
><br>
> San Juan, PR 00926-6018<br>
><br>
> Cel. (787) 224-6537<br>
><br>
>
<a href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</a>
<<a href="http://odelgado@enermechpr.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://odelgado@enermechpr.com</a>><br>
><br>
>
<a href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:info@enermechpr.com</a>><br>
><br>
>
<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com">www.enermechpr.com</a>
<<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.enermechpr.com/</a>><br>
><br>
>
cid:<a href="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB">
image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB</a>15830 /Please consider your<br>
> environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail/<br>
><br>
> This Email is covered by the Electronics
Communications<br>
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is
legally<br>
> priviliged. The information in this email is
personal<br>
> and confidential and is intended solely for
the<br>
> addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else
is<br>
> unauthorized. If you are not an intended
recipient, you<br>
> must not read, use or disseminate the
information<br>
> contained in the email. Any views expressed in
this<br>
> message are those of the individual sender and may
be<br>
> subject to Attorney/Client privilege and/or
Work<br>
> Product. You are hereby notified that any
dissemination,<br>
> distribution or copying of this communications
is<br>
> strictly prohibited.<br>
><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a
blank<br>
> message to
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
>
<<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Carol Gardner PE<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br><br>
-- <br>
Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair<br>
Admin for <a href="http://onebuilding.org">onebuilding.org</a> building
performance mailing lists<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<hr>
<br>
Martin Roy, ing. PA LEED, prsident<br>
Martin Roy et associs<br>
1805 chemin Oka, <br>
Deux-Montagnes, Qc<br>
J7R 1N3<br><br>
<br>
Tel: 450-623-0340<br>
Cell. 514-594-6352<br><br>
<a href="http://www.mra.qc.ca/" eudora="autourl">www.mra.qc.ca<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</a><b>Message de confidentialit <br>
</b>Ce courriel (de mme que les fichiers joints) est strictement rserv
l'usage de la personne ou de l'entit qui il est adress et peut
contenir de l'information privilgie et confidentielle. Toute
divulgation, distribution ou copie de ce courriel est strictement
prohibe et peut tre lobjet de poursuites judiciaires. Si vous avez
reu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser et le
supprimer de votre systme informatique sans l'imprimer, le copier ou le
faire suivre a quiconque. <br><br>
<b>Devez-vous vraiment imprimer ce courriel ? Pensons
environnement...<br>
</b></body>
</html>