This may be something to represent in the LEED language if EUI is being introduced, how a national CBECS average of 90 kBtuh/SF = 80 k/S actual building, 70 k/S per 2004 model and est. 60 k/S per 2007 models.<div><br></div>
<div>Ref - Modeling a Sustainable World, Bellenger, 2010. <br><div><br><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Morgan Heater <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:morgan@ecotope.com">morgan@ecotope.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Considering that the NREL benchmark buildings generally under-predict when<br>
compared with CBECs, EUI targets generated from those models wouldn't<br>
necessarily be very useful.<br>
<br>
<br>
Morgan Heater, P.E.<br>
BEMP, LEED AP<br>
<a href="mailto:morgan@ecotope.com">morgan@ecotope.com</a><br>
<a href="tel:206-322-3753%20ext%20209" value="+12063223753">206-322-3753 ext 209</a><br>
<div class="im"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
</div>[mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On Behalf Of Bonnema, Eric<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:09 AM<br>
To: Chris Balbach; <a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>; 'Eurek, John S NWO';<br>
<div class="im">Hussein Abaza<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
The 50% Savings Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings<br>
(publication this fall, free download available from<br>
<a href="http://www.ashrae.org/freeaedg" target="_blank">www.ashrae.org/freeaedg</a>) will include a chapter on EUI targets for schools.<br>
This chapter provides a methodology for determining targets for your<br>
specific project and provides targets (by end use and climate zone) for<br>
reference. The EUI targets that are provided were generated from energy<br>
simulations using the DOE reference building schools. A draft of the chapter<br>
can be downloaded from ftp://aedgpub:3a$ts!<a href="mailto:d3@ftp.ashrae.org">d3@ftp.ashrae.org</a>. The chapter is<br>
provided in DRAFT form and electronic dissemination is limited to Bldg-Sim<br>
mailing list members only. This file may not be stored on a computer system<br>
for the purpose of additional distribution. A physical copy may be printed<br>
from the electronic file only for the personal use of the Bldg-Sim mailing<br>
list member. The electronic file will be available through June 30 on the<br>
FTP site.<br>
<br>
A procedure similar to what Chris outlined will be added to the chapter<br>
before publication (it is not currently in the draft). It will discuss a way<br>
to set your own energy target based on a project specific energy model. In<br>
summary, the steps will be as follows: (1) start with the appropriate DOE<br>
reference building school, (2) modify the model to include your schedules<br>
and climate information, (3) add specialty space types or unique plug loads<br>
that are not captured in the DOE model, and (4) run a simulation in your<br>
climate to set your own baseline. Your target is 50% of this EUI.<br>
<br>
Any feedback to the draft or this procedure would be very helpful.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric Bonnema | Commercial Buildings Research Group | National Renewable<br>
Energy Laboratory | 1617 Cole Blvd Golden CO 80401 | <a href="tel:303-384-6185" value="+13033846185">303-384-6185</a> |<br>
<a href="mailto:eric.bonnema@nrel.gov">eric.bonnema@nrel.gov</a><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Chris Balbach<br>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:52 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>; 'Eurek, John S NWO'; Hussein Abaza<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
All:<br>
<br>
I've been intrigued ever since I saw RMI's presentation on how target EUI's<br>
were set for the showcase Empire State Building renovation - where an<br>
innovative approach was used to define the building's "technical potential<br>
to achieve" and then measuring success by the team's ability to deliver a<br>
cost effective project than meets the "technical potential to achieve" as<br>
much as possible, while balancing all other needs. Here's a nice summary -<br>
<a href="http://www.retrofitdepot.org/Content/Files/ESBCaseStudy.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.retrofitdepot.org/Content/Files/ESBCaseStudy.pdf</a><br>
<br>
I've been thinking that, in general, re-framing energy performance success<br>
(i.e. EA C1 points) not as a "% better than an Appendix G Baseline" but to<br>
"% below the building's semi-unique technical potential to achieve" - might<br>
have interesting and positive effects. By that I mean, imagine an office<br>
building designed and predicted to consume (on a site EUI basis) an EUI of<br>
89 kBtu/ft2, while the technical potential to achieve might have been<br>
determined to be 70 kBtu/ft2. This represents a (1-(89/70)) = 27% gap,<br>
which say falls between 25% and 30% and it worth 3 EA C1 pts.<br>
<br>
The ASHRAE Standard 100 Revision Committee has been working with some unique<br>
"hybrid" approaches combining "prototype or reference building energy<br>
models" and CBECS data to generate regional EUI targets based on building<br>
composition, building size, and building operating hours. The proposed<br>
revision of ASHRAE Standard 100 (not yet out for public comment) will<br>
incorporate a procedure for generating a building specific EUI for setting<br>
retrofit performance targets. Here's a link to a presentation by Terry<br>
Sharp where he describes the basic concept under "Option 3" -<br>
<a href="http://tc76.org/docs/programs/ASRHAE%20std%20100%20%20Sem%2020102520June_Sharp.ppt" target="_blank">http://tc76.org/docs/programs/ASRHAE%20std%20100%20%20Sem%2020102520June_Sharp.ppt</a><br>
Remember that EPA Target Finder is based exclusively on the EPA Portfolio<br>
Manager models, which are based on a number of different years of CBECS<br>
surveys, dependent on the space type.<br>
<br>
It's not too much of a stretch to imagine, following the general principles<br>
from above and the methods described in proposed revision to Standard 100,<br>
to be able to generate a unique 'semi-custom' EUI for your building<br>
project - maybe it might look something like this:<br>
<br>
1) Download appropriate DOE prototype model(s)<br>
2) Add appropriate exterior shading (adjacent buildings, etc.)<br>
3) Replace building fabric elements with appropriate benchmark elements for<br>
your building type (retrofit / new construction)<br>
4) Replace 'asset' related elements (lights, equipment) with appropriate<br>
benchmark elements for your building type (retrofit / new construction)<br>
4) Generate site EUI results with a weather file for your location.<br>
5) If necessary, combine (area weight) EUI to result in whole building<br>
"Potential to Achieve"<br>
<br>
In this way, one ends up with a semi-custom EUI performance target to<br>
measure success against - a target could be "better defined" than what you<br>
can currently get from EAP Target Finder. I can envision a consensus<br>
document which lays out a specifications and procedure for allowable<br>
alteration of the DOE models, in order to generate the "Potential to Achieve<br>
EUI", after which the % difference from an "As Designed" case translate to<br>
EA C1 points. I know this is NOT the original purpose of the DOE Benchmark<br>
Buildings, but with careful thought, and community consensus, I think a<br>
process of something like this may move the centroid of the community in the<br>
right direction. The energy usage 'goal' would be known as soon as the<br>
program was set, and the design team can react from there. Also, the<br>
resulting "As Designed" model could be more useful, at would be meant to<br>
represent actual building performance to the best of the knowledge of the<br>
design team.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
All the Best,<br>
<br>
_Chris<br>
<br>
Chris Balbach, PE, CEM, BEMP, CMVP, BESA, BEMP, BEAP Vice President of<br>
Research and Development<br>
Cell: <a href="tel:%28607%29-327-1647" value="+16073271647">(607)-327-1647</a><br>
<br>
Performance Systems Development<br>
124 Brindley Street, Ithaca, NY 14850<br>
<a href="http://www.psdconsulting.com" target="_blank">www.psdconsulting.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Marcus Sheffer<br>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:35 AM<br>
To: 'Eurek, John S NWO'; Hussein Abaza<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
Read the study for yourself -<br>
<a href="http://www.newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-4-08b.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-4-08b.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Here is another study analyzing the same data -<br>
<a href="http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc51142.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc51142.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 <a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>,<br>
<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a> <a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Eurek, John S NWO [mailto:<a href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:12 AM<br>
To: Hussein Abaza; 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 - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
Here is a link discussing leed and the 50% of the buildings consume as much<br>
energy as non Leed buildings.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48</a><br>
<br>
After seeing this video Henry Gifford became one of my new heros.<br>
<br>
Green is the new Red.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Hussein Abaza<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:47 PM<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>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
There is a famous study ( I don't recall the link to it) which shows that<br>
almost 50% of LEED buildings consume as much and more energy than non LEED<br>
buildings.<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Marcus Sheffer" <<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>><br>
To: "Julia Beabout" <<a href="mailto:juliabeabout@yahoo.com">juliabeabout@yahoo.com</a>>, "Nick Caton"<br>
<<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>>, "Hussein Abaza" <<a href="mailto:ahussein@spsu.edu">ahussein@spsu.edu</a>>, "Bill<br>
Bishop"<br>
<<a href="mailto:wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com">wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 4:36:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The primary purpose is to get the conversation started, early. It is an<br>
opportunity to educate the owner and the team about energy. In my<br>
experience the majority of designers can’t even tell you the metric for<br>
comparing building energy consumption. I have often had this conversation<br>
early in the project design and have been met with blank stares. It is<br>
incumbent upon us who do understand these energy issues to get the<br>
conversation started.<br>
Caveat the heck out of the goal, explain the limitations, discuss the<br>
relative vs absolute metrics, be open about the issues – so that we can<br>
raise awareness one conversation at a time. This is the power of a market<br>
transformation tool like LEED. It enables us to have these conversations.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I agree that both of these items are potential issues, talk to your clients<br>
about them. If you don’t have a goal, how do you measure success?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Julia Beabout [mailto:<a href="mailto:juliabeabout@yahoo.com">juliabeabout@yahoo.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:57 AM<br>
To: Marcus Sheffer; Nick Caton; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
While I conceptually agree with and understand the kbtu or watts/sf<br>
approach, to me, there seems to be some series issues with it in reality.<br>
<br>
First, I don't agree that generating or coming up with appropriate target<br>
values during design is always (or even frequently) an easy thing to do or<br>
easy data to find. It depends on your bldg type. I do a lot of labs and<br>
hospitals. Manufacturing and industrial use bldgs can have the same issues.<br>
Good EUI data is not easy to come by for these bldg types - partly because<br>
the user equipment that is installed in them can be a big portion of the<br>
energy demand and consumption and it's always changing and can be very<br>
specific to each client. For example: is it a community hosptial with more<br>
modest and generic care provide?....a state of the art hospital with<br>
specialized care functions?....does the lab have primarily biology or a<br>
chemistry functions....etc etc. These things all affect the EUI. In my<br>
opinion, the best resource for this data is actually utility companies based<br>
on data from similar customers, but that data is not generally publicly<br>
available and/or the population of similar comparable buildings may be small<br>
and difficult to relate to your bldg.<br>
<br>
Second, quite frankly, in my opinion, DESIGN phase energy models are poor<br>
predictors of ACTUAL bldg energy use. They are best at predicting RELATIVE<br>
(comparative) energy use. This is not because the tools are not good or<br>
inaccurate but because we and the owners are so poor at predicting how the<br>
bldg will actually be used, weather, etc. One additional factor, is what<br>
equipment will actually be installed. It's not uncommon for the technology<br>
to have changed bewteen the time that we start design and the time the<br>
equipment is actually purchased closer to the end of construction. All<br>
these things effect not only the equipment w/sf usage but the ac w/sf usage<br>
etc.<br>
So, there seems to me to be a serious disconnect to me if we talking about<br>
setting energy targets during DESIGNbased on statistical data of ACTUAL<br>
energy use and trying to use those figure during the design phase for<br>
predicted energy use. Again, I love the idea but are we really there yet in<br>
reality. It seems to me we need a lot more data that doesn't exist yet -<br>
and mechanism to collect that data. (CBECS etc are good, but the population<br>
and variability for bldgs of these types has a long way to go).<br>
<br>
I missing something about what's being proposed/talked about?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
From: Marcus Sheffer <<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>><br>
To: Nick Caton <<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>>; Hussein Abaza <<a href="mailto:ahussein@spsu.edu">ahussein@spsu.edu</a>>;<br>
Bill Bishop <<a href="mailto:wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com">wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 7:01:25 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
First of all the goal is not at all arbitrary but must be based on an<br>
expected outcome within a reasonable expectation. It is informed by data<br>
from similar, actual building energy consumption. I don’t think I need to<br>
explain the tools one can use to do this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Your goal (do the best you can) sounds like, “let’s build an energy<br>
efficient building”. This is meaningless. Energy efficiency in the context<br>
of new construction is always relative and without a quantification of what<br>
energy efficient means this is no goal at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Like any early stage performance goal the number is adjustable as more is<br>
discovered in the design process. If the target is later discovered to be<br>
unreasonable due to a wide range of potential issues, then the target is<br>
adjusted.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you pick your EUI goal the way you describe then yes this is a worthless<br>
goal but the key point is that it is never selected arbitrarily.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Nick Caton [mailto:<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:17 PM<br>
To: Marcus Sheffer; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Not to be a jerk, but to ask an honest question: what is the point? I’ve<br>
been involved with “established energy target” projects and never really<br>
picked up on the logic behind it – I would appreciate a layman’s<br>
explanation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Put another way: If you select an arbitrary EUI or watts per square foot at<br>
the earliest stages of design, what have you gained in design process?<br>
If/when a project “meets the goal” mid-design, are future design decisions<br>
supposed to de-emphasize energy impact (no!)? If on the other hand, a<br>
project finds that target unreasonable down the road, what then?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Not setting a mile-marker like this implies designing the best building you<br>
can given the time/budget available and any other constraints… that seems<br>
more likely to result in the best end-result to me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To draw analogy, if design of a LEED (or any energy-conscious) project is<br>
like planning a road trip from Kansas to Florida, setting EUI goals seems<br>
something like choosing a rest stop by throwing a dart at the map<br>
blindfolded. It doesn’t help you get to your destination any more<br>
efficiently, it may be far out of the way, and now you’ve got a hole in the<br>
wall… what was the point?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Okay, maybe a weak analogy – chalking it up to a very long week =).<br>
Honestly, I’d appreciate someone laying the value behind this approach – I’m<br>
expect the logic does exist, and I just haven’t yet seen the light!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
~Nick<br>
<br>
<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 <a href="tel:913%20344.0036" value="+19133440036">913 344.0036</a><br>
<br>
fax <a href="tel:913%20345.0617" value="+19133450617">913 345.0617</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.smithboucher.com" target="_blank">www.smithboucher.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Marcus Sheffer<br>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 4:36 PM<br>
To: 'Hussein Abaza'; Bill Bishop<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Agreed. The new credit language for the next version of LEED does ask<br>
project teams to establish an absolute performance goal.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Hussein Abaza<br>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:15 AM<br>
To: Bill Bishop<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equalmost<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Could any one advice why LEED would not put the base design as Watt per<br>
square foot, or per occupant, or per hotel bed etc. so the Architecture<br>
becomes more innovative early in the design to save energy?<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Bill Bishop" <<a href="mailto:wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com">wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com</a>><br>
To: "Arpan Bakshi" <<a href="mailto:arpanbakshi@gmail.com">arpanbakshi@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:11:30 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most<br>
LEED points<br>
<br>
Arpan,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Based on the Weidt Group paper, I’m guessing you’re emphasizing<br>
architectural considerations that affect the energy cost vs. LEED points<br>
numbers. (The paper uses window-to-wall ratios and daylighting as an<br>
example.) I would think the goal during the programming and schematic design<br>
phases should be energy cost, not LEED points relative to the App. G<br>
baseline. Much of the energy cost savings vs. App. G baseline (EAc1 points)<br>
is going to come later from the mechanical and lighting designs. The<br>
suggestions in the paper to establish specific baseline building shapes and<br>
glazing percentages would add a LOT more modeling time – you’d have to<br>
create two separate building geometries for the baseline and proposed<br>
models, not to mention different zoning patterns, space types, lighting<br>
power per space etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For mechanical design, once the size and programming of the project is<br>
established, the baseline model properties are pretty well set, unless you<br>
consider fuel-switching and go between baseline systems 1/3/5/7 to systems<br>
2/4/6/8. One exception I can think of for a design decision that results in<br>
higher energy cost but better comparison with the App. G baseline is higher<br>
ventilation rates combined with heat recovery in the proposed and no heat<br>
recovery in the baseline.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Signature in jpg form<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On Behalf Of Arpan Bakshi<br>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:09 AM<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>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus, thank you incorporating this language.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The one scenario we often see in our design guidance work is that a proposed<br>
design when compared with other design alternates does not necessarily<br>
provided the largest energy savings when compared against its own baseline<br>
case model. It is difficult to make a recommendation as consultants when we<br>
want to present the Owner with both real energy cost savings without<br>
compromising their LEED certification level targets.<br>
<br>
A recent paper presented by the Weidt Group at SimBuild touched on this<br>
issue:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ibpsa.us/pub/simbuild2010/technicalPresentations/SB10-PPT-TS02A-03
-Baker.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ibpsa.us/pub/simbuild2010/technicalPresentations/SB10-PPT-TS02A-03<br>
-Baker.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Arpan Bakshi, LEED AP BD+C<br>
<br>
YRG sustainability<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 13, 2011, at 8:16 AM, "Marcus Sheffer"<br>
<<a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
If anyone has any good ideas about how to structure the LEED credits<br>
to end the practice of validation models at the end and encourage/require<br>
design phase modeling the folks on the USGBC EA TAG would love to hear them.<br>
The current proposed credit language from the first public comment phase is<br>
listed below.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,<br>
HOSPITALITY<br>
<br>
Establish an energy performance target no later than the schematic<br>
design phase. The target must be established as kBTU per square foot-year of<br>
source energy use. This target must be mapped on the same scale as the<br>
baseline and proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation<br>
<br>
Analyze a minimum of at least nine efficiency measures during the<br>
design process and account for the results in design decision-making.<br>
Analysis can include energy simulation of efficiency opportunities,<br>
application of past energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the<br>
project, or application of published data from energy analyses performed for<br>
similar projects to the project (such as AEDGs).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load<br>
reduction strategies appropriate for the facility must be analyzed. This<br>
analysis must be performed during the schematic design phase.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on HVAC<br>
related strategies must be analyzed (passive measures are acceptable). This<br>
analysis must be performed before the conclusion of the design development<br>
phase.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The results of the analysis must be summarized in a brief report or<br>
memorandum.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The next version of LEED will be going out for public comment again<br>
in July, I think, so please comment formally as well as discussing here.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: John Aulbach [mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
OK, Carol..now you threw the "bait" out there..older than dirt, eh?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have done very limited LEED "type" modeling where you compare 20<br>
walls and 40 windows types (well, it seemed that way). Correct me if I am<br>
wrong, but a Base model must be built to comply with a certain level of<br>
ASHRAE 90.1 (now up to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I<br>
am going to build the model from scrathc and put in all the relevant<br>
baseline data in by hand. And, by the way, the ASHRAE baseline model might<br>
be an entirely different system. I am just completing an EPACT evaluation<br>
(ASHRAE<br>
90.1-2001) and the Baseline HVAC was screwe chillers, whereas the Actual<br>
building was packaged units with Turbocor compressors (ask me how I did<br>
that).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It very much depends on the complexity of the building. A 40,000 sf<br>
office or a 500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am unfamiliar with the LEED paperwork to be filled out after the<br>
modeling has been done. But I would not do anything of this type in under<br>
120 hours, preferably 160 hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let<br>
him.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Contingency, contingency.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We won't discuss how old CAROL might be..<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
John A.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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 to<br>
create a BEMP certification. That's Building Energy Modeling Professional<br>
(BEMP).<br>
<br>
Some of us who have been in the field for awhile began to worry a<br>
couple of years ago when so many new energy modelers began appearing on the<br>
listserv with questions. Their questions indicated a lack of training and<br>
experience that was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they didn't<br>
seem to realize that they were as inexperienced as they were; they didn't<br>
appear to be pursuing training to learn how to do what they were doing; and<br>
we were uncertain as to how or if they were practicing quality control. We<br>
hoped that by creating a path to certification that we would give clients<br>
one more qualification to look for in their modelers.<br>
<br>
If you have been in this industry for any length of time, and by<br>
industry I mean the overall construction industry, you know that you don't<br>
get a lot of chances if your work doesn't pan out. If your energy model says<br>
I have a LEED 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 be happy. So, I<br>
will probably not give you any more work but, even worse for all of us, I'll<br>
start expressing doubts 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 difficult stuff.<br>
We can find any topic in the DOE2 Manuals, all of which are one line,<br>
available, and easily searchable.<br>
<br>
So now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours. Really?<br>
Not me and I've been doing it longer than everyone, except you, John<br>
Aulbach.<br>
So I'm going to join Marcus in his 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 educate<br>
our clients about the importance of quality in this process. If they think<br>
they are getting the same analysis in 40 hours that they used to get in 120<br>
hours, they need to be led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that<br>
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>> wrote:<br>
<br>
In our experience a final model, done right, would take<br>
about<br>
80 hours.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
WARNING – frustrated modeling rant to follow:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Doing just a final model however completely misses the point<br>
as to why we model – it is to guide design decisions!<br>
<br>
<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 try to educate the<br>
potential client about the purpose of modeling.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately too many projects pursuing LEED are only doing<br>
the minimum when it comes to modeling and almost completely missing all the<br>
benefits. Too often the “market” transforms only based on a least first<br>
cost denominator basis that results in little real transformation. Doing<br>
models to determine LEED points does not transform the market, save any<br>
energy, and just circumvents the purpose behind LEED. (the next version<br>
actually requires design phase modeling!)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Any “modeler” who does only final models without attempting<br>
to explain to the owner why this is a bad idea should be “drummed out of the<br>
corp” in my humble opinion.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The problem is that if you respond to this RFP with 120 or<br>
160 or more hours to really do the design phase modeling right, you will go<br>
up against the “modeler” who claims to be able to do it in far less time.<br>
So how do we get the folks who issue the RFPs to ask for a proper scope of<br>
work so that they can compare fees on a level playing field? It is<br>
unfortunate that we are even having a discussion about doing modeling work<br>
in opposition to its purpose.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry for the rant but I feel better now. J<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcus Sheffer<br>
<br>
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company<br>
<br>
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365<br>
<br>
<a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On 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>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Omar,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would expect, for a building this size, approximately 40<br>
hours (multiply by your hourly rate). The 40 hours include EAp2/EAc1 LEED<br>
documentation, and any review you may have to respond to later.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now, given that you have never done a LEED model, it will<br>
take you more time, possibly up to 40 more hours.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
HTH,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________<br>
<br>
Demba NDIAYE<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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>] On 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>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Greetings everyone,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have a question regarding the cost of an energy model for<br>
a LEED project. Every energy model I've done so far has been for<br>
<br>
existing buildings, mainly for optimization purposes.<br>
However, I received an RFP to model a five-story, 41,500 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 would be a fair<br>
<br>
price for this model since I'm going to have to use Appendix<br>
G (ASHRAE 90.1) to evaluate the difference between the base<br>
<br>
and proposed buildings. I don't know how much extra effort<br>
this will take. I know the procedure, just haven't done it before.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Can you shed any light on this issue?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance!<br>
<br>
<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. <a href="tel:%28787%29%20224-6537" value="+17872246537">(787) 224-6537</a><br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com" target="_blank">www.enermechpr.com</a> <<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.enermechpr.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<image001.gif> Please consider your environmental<br>
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 priviliged. The<br>
information in this email is personal and confidential and is intended<br>
solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is<br>
unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, you must not read, use<br>
or disseminate the information contained in the email. Any views expressed<br>
in this message are those of the individual sender and may be subject to<br>
Attorney/Client privilege and/or Work Product. You are hereby notified that<br>
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is<br>
strictly prohibited.<br>
<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 message<br>
to <a 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>
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<br>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<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> To<br>
unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor<br>
<br>
Construction Management Department<br>
<br>
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE’<br>
<br>
CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY<br>
<br>
And CONSTRUCTION<br>
<br>
1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060-2896<br>
<br>
Website: <a href="http://www.spsu.edu/cost" target="_blank">www.spsu.edu/cost</a> Tel: <a href="tel:678-915-3719" value="+16789153719">678-915-3719</a> Fax: <a href="tel:678-915-4966" value="+16789154966">678-915-4966</a><br>
<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:ahussein@spsu.edu">ahussein@spsu.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor<br>
<br>
Construction Management Department<br>
<br>
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE’<br>
<br>
CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY<br>
<br>
And CONSTRUCTION<br>
<br>
1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060-2896<br>
<br>
Website: <a href="http://www.spsu.edu/cost" target="_blank">www.spsu.edu/cost</a> <<a href="http://www.spsu.edu/cost" target="_blank">http://www.spsu.edu/cost</a>> Tel: <a href="tel:678-915-3719" value="+16789153719">678-915-3719</a><br>
Fax: <a href="tel:678-915-4966" value="+16789154966">678-915-4966</a><br>
<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:ahussein@spsu.edu">ahussein@spsu.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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<br>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
Performance Systems Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity<br>
<a href="http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=p4GFpPVk014067&from=cbalbach@psdconsulting.com" target="_blank">http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=p4GFpPVk014067&from=cbalbach@psdconsulting.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
CONFIDENTIAL<br>
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the<br>
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information<br>
that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, and/or confidential. If you<br>
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,<br>
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly<br>
prohibited. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author<br>
and do not necessarily represent those of Performance Systems Development.<br>
<br>
Please contact the sender if you believe that you have received this email<br>
in error and immediately delete this message.<br>
<br>
<br>
<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<br>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><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<br>
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><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 href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div><br></div><div><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><p>Arpan Bakshi,<span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif"><i> </i>LEED AP BD+C</span><span style="color:rgb(64, 64, 64);font-size:12px;font-weight:normal"></span></p>
</div><br>
</div></div></div>