<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Ah...thanks Jason. I see now. <br>Sounds like your concept will complement App G in 90.1/189.1 well.<br><br>Molly, perhaps it's something we could ultimately reference in 189.1 and interact with their potential committee.<br><br>Julia<br></div><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Jason Glazer <jglazer@gard.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> bldg-sim@onebuilding.org<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Fri, May 13, 2011 3:37:36 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model
Cost<br></font><br>Julia,<br><br>What I am suggesting has to do with the process of designing <br>a building using simulation during each step of the process. <br>It is not about establishing baseline and determining a <br>percentage savings, Appendix G does that already. I would <br>hope that both 90.1 Appendix G and this new standard would <br>be referenced, G for establishing a measurement and the new <br>standard for establishing a process.<br><br>Jason<br><br>On 5/13/2011 1:49 PM, Julia Beabout wrote:<br>> 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<br>> about establishing a modeling process protocol - yes?<br>> It also describes ASHREA 90.1 and 189.1 as being<br>> prescriptive approaches. But, both those documents have the<br>> alternative (app G) performance based approach too. As we<br>> all know, this established modeling rules
and the parameters<br>> for your baseline building etc, but doesn't mandate a<br>> certain modeling process (i.e. when modeling starts in the<br>> design, options to be considered etc).<br>> So, do you see your proposed standard as supplementing those<br>> in terms of establishing a modeling process protocol? Or,<br>> would your standard also establish modeling rules and<br>> baseline building parameters like App G?<br>><br>> Julia<br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------<br>> *From:* Jason Glazer <<a ymailto="mailto:jglazer@gard.com" href="mailto:jglazer@gard.com">jglazer@gard.com</a>><br>> *To:* <a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@onebuilding.org</a><br>> *Sent:* Fri, May 13, 2011 12:35:01 PM<br>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>><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 onebuilding.org <<a href="http://onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://onebuilding.org</a>><br>> 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.Potential 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 model.<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 reign<br>> > that issue in… Developers award this sort of work to 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><span>>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.smithboucher.com__">www.smithboucher.com__</a> <</span><a href="http://www.smithboucher.com__"
target="_blank">http://www.smithboucher.com__</a>><br>> ><br>> > *From:*<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>>;<br>> > <a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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<br>> modeling.<br>> ><br>> > Julia<br>> ><br>> > *From:*<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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 ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>>;<br>> > <a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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 ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com" href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com" href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a>><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com" href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com" href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a>>><br><span>> > W:<a target="_blank" href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com">www.epsteinglobal.com</a></span><br>> <<a href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com"
target="_blank">http://www.epsteinglobal.com</a>><<a href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com/" target="_blank">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<br>> e-mail.<br>> ><br>> > *From:*<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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 ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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 ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com"
href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>>><br>> ><br><span>> > <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sevengroup.com">www.sevengroup.com</a></span><br>> <<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">http://www.sevengroup.com</a>><<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">http://www.sevengroup.com</a>><br>> ><br>> > *From:*John Aulbach [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com" href="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com">jra_sac@yahoo.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com" href="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com">jra_sac@yahoo.com</a>>]<br>> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM<br>> > *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus Sheffer<br>> > *Cc:* <a
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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 ymailto="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com" href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com" href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</a>>><br>> > *To:* <a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>><br>> > *Cc:* <a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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 ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com" href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">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 decisions!<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
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com" href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>>><br>> ><br><span>>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sevengroup.com">www.sevengroup.com</a> <</span><a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">http://www.sevengroup.com</a>><br>> <<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sevengroup.com/</a>><br>> ><br>> > *From:*<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>>><br>> > [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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 ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" 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>> ><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 ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>>><br>> > [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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 ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">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 ymailto="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</a>><<a href="http://odelgado@enermechpr.com" target="_blank">http://odelgado@enermechpr.com</a>><br>> ><br>> > <a ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a>><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a>
<mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com" href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a>>><br>> ><br><span>> > <a target="_blank" href="http://www.enermechpr.com">www.enermechpr.com</a></span><br>> <<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com" target="_blank">http://www.enermechpr.com</a>><<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.enermechpr.com/</a>><br>> ><br>> > cid:<a ymailto="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB" href="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB">image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB" 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>>><br>> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">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 ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">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>> ><br>> <a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">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 ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" 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 onebuilding.org <<a href="http://onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://onebuilding.org</a>> building<br>> performance mailing lists<br><br>-- <br>Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair<br>Admin for onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists<br>_______________________________________________<br>Bldg-sim mailing list<br><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br></div></div>
</div></body></html>