<html>
<body>
<font size=3>I have a lot of experience with incentive programs and
modelling to energy codes or standards that do not include any inclusion
of economics - ie. how to define utility rates how to avoid fuel
switching between proposed and Baseline cases when the Baselines systems
can look significantly different than the proposed case systems.
Not particularly by choice but more by age. <br><br>
The Canadian Federal government instituted incentives for showing energy
savings over first the ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Baseline. The C2000 program
defined how the energy savings were turned into cost savings
incentives - I can remember any modifications to 90.1 but the way
energy efficiency measures were implemented and modelled or post
simulation adjusted. <br><br>
This effort somehow morphed in the Green Building Challenge of which the
energy model was a very small component of the overall rating.
Again, I don't recall any specific modifications to the 90.1 Baseline
case but how the proposed was modelled and how savings were calculated
was defined for that program. <br><br>
Then the MNECB came out with a whole building performance path.
This was very loosely defined and the first step was to define the
modelling software requirements, then how the Proposed and Reference
cases were to be modelled. The first incentive programs were based
on fairly strict requirements and a "help" system was published
to assist users with the model requirements without defining any
keywords, explicit software etc. DOE2.1d/e was available at the
time - no interface at all. Text editor and debug. <br><br>
The review process was quite interesting. Somehow I had ended up
modelling the first LEED Gold project awarded by the USGBC in
Canada. This qualified me to review MNECB incentive models -
Proposed and Reference case soft ware supplement and the help
system. <br><br>
My main point is that incentives typically regionally based. The
state, or other authority has to base the incentive program on local,
typical "baseline" construction and economics. Appendix G
doesn't necessarily have to be revised to take into account these
regional requirements. I think it would be very difficult do modify
A global standard to include some accounting of regional requirements for
developing local incentive programs. <br><br>
<br>
At 12:05 PM 12/12/2012, Peter Ellis wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Join us <b>Tuesday, January
22</b> for the next meeting of the Rocky Mountain Energy Simulation
Engineers (RMESE). Chris Baker will be presenting on "Minding the
Gap": <br><br>
<br><br>
<b><i>"Minding the Gap"<br>
</i></b><br>
The use of energy modeling to drive design decisions earlier in the
design process has long been recognized as an effective way to increase
building energy performance. With this in mind, several utility-sponsored
Design Assistance programs in the Midwest and Colorado regions expanded
their scope to provide comparative energy analysis of design options as
early as the building programming portion of the design process. These
utility programs attempt to influence decisions that significantly impact
the energy performance of the designed building. To be effective for
market transformation, these programs need to provide incentives for more
energy-efficient decisions that occur in the conceptual stages of design.
To calculate savings in a utility program and provide incentives that can
be defensible, a fair and consistent baseline protocol is needed.
Appendix G to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 is currently the most
robust energy modeling protocol that can be used by such incentive
programs and rating systems. However, this protocol does not provide
adequate baseline criteria to evaluate early design decisions, such as
building shape, glazing and skylight area and programmatic efficiency. To
enable the calculation of savings and incentives, Appendix G needs to be
expanded to provide additional baseline criteria. <br>
<br>
This presentation explores where Appendix G falls short of providing
baseline criteria for decisions made early in the design process, and
proposes changes to Appendix G that would allow these savings to be
captured.<br><br>
</font><h5><b>Chris Baker, AIA, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEEDŽ AP
BD+C</b></h5><font size=3><br><br>
Chris Baker, an Energy Analyst at The Weidt Group, focuses on providing
data and analysis to help design teams understand the energy and
environmental implications of various design options. Since joining The
Weidt Group in 2006, Mr. Baker has consulted on projects totaling more
than 5 million square feet, including fifteen LEED Certified projects and
another 17 LEED Registered projects.<br><br>
Mr. Baker received an MBA from the University of Minnesota and a Bachelor
of Architecture and Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering with
an HVAC emphasis from the University of Kansas. He is a Registered
Architect and Professional Engineer.<br><br>
We will be meeting at <b>The RMH Group in Lakewood at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 22</b> for a short presentation, appetizers, and drinks. The RMH
Group is located roughly 1 mile east of NREL at:<br><br>
<br><br>
The RMH Group, Inc.<br><br>
12600 W Colfax Avenue<br><br>
Suite A-260<br><br>
Lakewood, CO 80215<br>
<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>
>><br>
Christopher Jones, P.Eng.<br>
Suite 1801, 1 Yonge Street<br>
Toronto, ON M5E1W7<br>
Tel. 416-203-7465<br>
Fax. 416-946-1005<br>
email cj@enersave.ca<br>
</font></body>
</html>