<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.maintext
{mso-style-name:maintext;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#365F91;
font-weight:bold;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would like to weigh in supporting Chris on the increased liability that a PE (and a licensed contractor) carry. Yes, I am a PE, so it’s probably not surprising that I feel this way. I also won’t disagree with the assertion that having a PE license doesn’t ensure that the engineer is qualified for the work and it doesn’t preclude an engineer from having shoddy business practices. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Anyone who has done very much building simulation at all, or just monitors this listserve, knows that it takes a certain amount of technical knowledge and time to wade through the innumerable variables, assumptions and bits of data that need to be input in order to perform a decent simulation. Unless the simulation is going to be reviewed in minute detail such as is done with LEED reviews, there are innumerable places where someone can go wrong either through knowingly trying to maximize or minimize the results, through ignorance, or through shoddy workmanship. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>While Paul maintains that I can’t be held liable for a bad energy simulation, that may be the case for a non-PE (I don’t know how it applies to Licensed Contractors), but it’s definitely not the case for a PE. As part of my state-issued license to practice engineering, I carry a legal responsibility to act in the best interest of the public (whether “the public” is my client or not) and to conduct all of my work according to the minimum Standard of Care for that type of service. Anyone can file a complaint with the state PE licensing board alleging that my work does not measure up. If the complaint is found to have merit and the licensing board chooses to pull my license, then I would be out of work since I am self-employed. This is all without ever going to a court and it has nothing to do with whether the energy goals were met or not, only whether the work I did was “good enough”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My take on what NU seems to be looking for, is for someone who has some kind of state-issued license (and therefore legal recourse) to review and approve the methodology and assumptions that went into the simulation. The various certifications previously mentioned may indicate adequate technical knowledge, but they carry no legal recourse unless they are backed by a license issued by a government agency.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That’s my take anyway. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Michael L. Hardy, PE, F.NSPE</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Black Oak Engineering, Inc.</span><span style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>Cell 503.314.5244</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Diglio<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:05 PM<br><b>To:</b> Chris Balbach; Nick Caton; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez; eQUEST Users List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Chris:<br><br>I don't think you get it. There is no way anyone can hold you to the energy savings because a simulation is not intended to accurately forecast a buildings energy usage. A PE can provide a cover letter, charge $2,000 or $3,000 and walk away fat and happy. I am not saying you would do this, but some PEs will.<br><br>By the way, I also have liability insurance for commissioning, HVAC Contracting and energy auditing. I can provide the calculations for a Section 179D deduction and my license, like yours, is on the line. <br><br>Paul <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Chris Balbach <cbalbach@psdconsulting.com><br><b>To:</b> Nick Caton <ncaton@smithboucher.com>; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com>; Paul Diglio <paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net>; eQUEST Users List <equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org><br><b>Sent:</b> Wed, February 9, 2011 3:58:09 PM<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>All;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Alright - I’ll weigh in on this one… There’s big difference between licensing and certification. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>What I mean by that is that there is a big difference (IMHO) between a PE placing his/her stamp on a document and a BEMP, etc. reviewing and approving the same document. The difference is a level of risk that the PE is assuming when he/she stakes their name and reputation behind something. The engineering profession has, over time, instituted a series of ‘checks and balances’ for ensuring quality work, for example, there exists a NSPE “Code of Ethics for Engineers” (<a href="http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html</a>). There is also licensing board (differs state by state) who both gives and takes away licenses based on professional misconduct, etc. There are also Boards of Ethics who again, review complaints and can recommend to the state board that a PE lose his/her license based on the situation – far,far more than the “continuing education” requirements that currently exist for the BEMP or AEE modeling certifications. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The Engineering Code of Ethics clearly states:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=maintext>“Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>So, if you feel a PE is practicing outside his/her area of competence, then you have grounds to file a complaint with your state’s licensing board. It’s been done before. As a practicing PE, I also had better have “Professional Liability” insurance to manage the known and unknown risks associated with practicing in my field of expertise, because people can and will sue me. When I sign, stamp or seal a document, I am held to a much, much higher standard of performance than a BEMP, or BESA, CMVP, or many of the other certifications that are rapidly forming in the energy services space are currently being held to. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>In a nutshell, I think the PE designation is (currently) the only engineering professional designation that has the kind of institutional Q/A that is necessary to prevent rampant abuse. I would love to see BEMP, BESA or other energy modeler certifications grow to this level, but we must acknowledge the inherent balance of (risk/reward) that comes with professional liability. I see why Northeast utilities wants to engage a PE, because if they choose to engage in this service, that PE is accepting a level of professional liability if/when things ‘go south’.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I felt similar about Commissioning Certifications that were the rage a few years ago. The way things were set up, it was the PE, or “design engineer of record” who assumed professional liability for a design, and the commission professional often had very little professional risk yet the potential for great reward (significant commissioning fees as compared to A/E design fees). I don’t know if that has changed, but I see the potential for a similar ‘set-up’ with the energy modeling community. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Thoughts?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>All the best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>_Chris</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Chris Balbach, PE, CEM, BEMP, CMVP, BESA</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Vice President of Research and Development</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Cell: (607)-327-1647</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#639F42'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#639F42'>Performance Systems Development</span></b><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=245 style='width:183.75pt'><tr style='height:3.75pt'><td width=85 style='width:63.75pt;background:#639F42;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;height:3.75pt;background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position-y:0%'></td><td width=65 style='width:48.75pt;background:#84D458;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;height:3.75pt;background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position-y:0%'></td><td width=95 style='width:71.25pt;background:#B5E59B;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;height:3.75pt;background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position-y:0%'></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>124 Brindley Street, Ithaca, NY 14850<br><a href="http://www.psdconsulting.com/" target="_blank">www.psdconsulting.com</a></span><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nick Caton<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:49 PM<br><b>To:</b> Pasha Korber-Gonzalez; Paul Diglio; eQUEST Users List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>As neither a PE (yet) nor a BEMP, I can offer some thoughts/suggestions from the sidelines =).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- A BEMP certification is certainly a more applicable qualification than having a PE seal from a model-reviewing standpoint. That said, there is a much smaller pool of BEMP reviewers out there, and the desire for a certain quality standard in model reviews needs to be weighed against the availability of the “BEMP reviewership” out there.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- 179D’s tax deduction precedent, which permits locally licensed contractors in addition to PE’s involved in the work to produce/certify the calculations, better encompasses the range of commercial work out there on a national level (retrofit upgrades and the like) which may not locally require an Engineer’s seal.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- The suggestion that no certification (BEMP or PE) ought to be required of those compiling the incentive documentation is not a bad idea, provided the utility can manage or sub-contract out the spreadsheet/model/calculation review to those with the desired qualifications… see my next bullet. Any such requirement will likely have some impact on how widely the incentive program is considered and pursued by building owners.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- One of our local utilities has a similar incentive program, but they are much less open about who can certify the model/calculations submitted. They privately hire out and take on the costs of such review as part of the incentive program’s costs, so while it’s no cost to submit, it’s not up to the contractor/engineers seeking to achieve the incentives to decide who’s doing the reviewing. Consider that food for thought.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- Also concurring this discussion would be better-situated in [bldg-sim], but perhaps this is a wide enough audience based on the quick responses =).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I can address the AE PE as I’m studying right now for April: Those considering or studying for the Architectural Engineering (AE) PE exam will find experience in building energy modeling, and particularly the inter-discipline communication and design experience/understanding that stems from energy modeling, is pretty helpful. Energy modeling experience isolated from building system design experience probably won’t cut it, however.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The AE exam is unique to the other PE exams in that:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- Every single question is directly related to the building industry – no questions about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- The exam is very much cross-discipline: questions cover mechanical, electrical, plumbing structural design; envelop analysis, and project management / construction administration</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- There are also some inter-disciplinary questions (i.e. how lighting loads can affect cooling capacities and how fenestration layout/shading affects lighting/HVAC) which require knowledge in more than one area. These questions are a piece of cake for those practiced in energy modeling.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>- If you practice energy modeling and seek to really understand what you’re doing, you’ll be forced to understand some fundamentals that the average MEP consultant won’t need to be rock-solid on to do his/her job well, and that may put you at an advantage for the AE PE.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I would not conclude an AE PE would be any better/worse-qualified than an EE or ME PE for model reviewing however. Having a PE of any sort is no guarantee of the modeling experience necessary for a quality review.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>~Nick</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=119 height=37 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CBC866.F889C930" alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB"></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>NICK CATON, E.I.T.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'>PROJECT ENGINEER</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>25501 west valley parkway</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>olathe ks 66061</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>direct 913 344.0036</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>fax 913 345.0617</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#1F497D'>www.smithboucher.com</span><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'> </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pasha Korber-Gonzalez<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Diglio; eQUEST Users List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I too think you are right to do this, and should post on the other bldg-sim, and maybe all the other lists too. This is a HUGE mistake and detriment to all simulators, and it is an insult to us experienced simulators to dictate that a PE has to review the sims...majority of the PE's I know and work with are not simulators and know very little about simulation, let alone enough to review one properly--which is why I'm getting hired by them because I know simulation(s). I would sooner trust a non-PE with direct simulation experience over a PE with little sim experience to review my own models...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Also I agree with David, and I will recommend to the contact you provided, that the BEMP certification is a much better measure of true simulation understanding, experience, and knowledge for review of simulations. I think of the BEMP as the 'PE' for simulators--if someone can achieve the BEMP certification, at this point in time it is a better qualifier for simulation experience and knowledge than a PE would anyday---are there even any question on building energy simulation on the MECH PE exam? Maybe there are sim questions on the new ARCH ENG PE exam for building designers? Does anyone know?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is likely to be much BIGGER issues with the quality of simulations that woud be submitted if they are being reviewed by inexperienced PE's who are dictating changes to the model that wouldn't be appropriate based on the software limitations that are so inherent in all of the whole building simulation programs that are on the market currently. It is less likely for a random PE to be aware of these software limitations than a BEMP.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Pasha<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Paul Diglio <<a href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>I realize that this message might not be appropriate to the forum, but it is the only way I know to contact the other simulators that will be affected by Northeast Utilities modeling requirements. NU covers CT and Western Massachusetts.<br><br>Some of you might know that NU is offering sizable incentives for modeling, improvements over ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED certification.<br><br>The program is new for 2011 and NU just made the decision that the model has to be review and approved by a PE, any PE. Even if LEED approves your application, it still needs to be vetted by a PE to qualify for an incentive.<br><br>If you are unhappy with this decision and find it is discriminatory, please e-mail James Motta <a href="mailto:mottaj@NU.com" target="_blank">mottaj@NU.com</a>.<br><br>Thank you,<br><br>Paul Diglio</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Equest-users mailing list<br><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><b><span style='color:#00509A'>Performance Systems Development </span><span style='color:#FC9A2D'>Anti-X</span></b> Message Security: <a href="http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=p19Kw5xf006255&from=cbalbach@psdconsulting.com" target="_blank">Check Authenticity </a><o:p></o:p></p><h1><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-weight:normal'>CONFIDENTIAL</span></span><o:p></o:p></h1><p>This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Performance Systems Development.<o:p></o:p></p><p><b>Please contact the sender if you believe that you have received this email in error and immediately delete this message. <o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>