[Ibpsausa] [Bldg-sim] DOE Job Task Analysis for EnergyModelers:Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Fri Nov 18 11:23:46 PST 2011

Apologies for the following wall of text… those recognizing me from the lists know this is a tendency of mine =)!

This discussion is beginning to serve as a great example for why a formal assessment/clarification of the job would be requested!  Following are some thoughts that may serve as further input for the study:

“Energy Modeling”  is a service that means many things to many people.  These lists include a large body of highly intelligent and competent practitioners.  Those who have earned my respect collectively have a very diverse background of education levels, design experience, day-to-day responsibilities, and often unique expertise/perspectives within the realm of energy modeling.  

Contrary to Varkie (who I hold in very high regard), I can assert my modeling efforts are most often engaged for the primary purpose of informing and improving design, across the trades.  Compliance/LEED modeling comes in at a close second within my experience pool.  The importance of this skillset is most recognizable by the satisfaction of the design team members and owners who are constantly learning new things and seeing their buildings designed in a more cohesive & energy-informed fashion, not by a LEED plaque.  I believe today’s design teams and owners (including the government) are incrementally learning and recognizing the potential value a competent energy modeler brings to the table during the building design process, and it is showing in the language used for contracting new work.  LEED as a whole deserves credit as a catalyst for bringing this to light.  As more and more quality modelers join our ranks and blow away owners and design teams with quality work,  I think we can expect the demand to rise, and the need to differentiate who out there is a quality modeler will become more prominent.  I see this JTA study (and the legislation initiating it) as a natural progression by the powers-that-be to approach this challenge in a very deliberate fashion.  Defining the job would be a necessary early step along this path.

The best modelers (and to be clear I merely aspire to join this category) each have differing ideas regarding what represents an “appropriate” degree of effort (hours for a given model), what constitutes and “acceptable” degree of modeled accuracy and what value this skillset/service really represents.  I think any study trying to nail down those particular issues by asking the modelers would come up short.  The answers vary per-project and are ultimately answered by those paying the bills.

My experience is almost certainly different than both Michael and Varkie in terms of what degree of accuracy/time-investment is required on my “average” project.  Select past discussions on the lists have helped me to understand that I personally spend a relatively high number of hours on any given project, but also have some more stringent expectations for what my models represent.  This is partially the result of my personal abilities, experience and standards of quality, however a large driver is the clients & fellow consultants who I work with and the relative complexity of their associated projects.

This discussion is brushing up against a very delicate topic requiring nuanced language…  I want to make some positions of mine crystal-clear for those soliciting energy modeling services today, those seeking input for this JTA study, and those who may use (or mis-use) this study’s results:  

1.       One cannot measure or judge the quality of an energy modeler or his/her work by the amount of time they spend on a project or any given part of a project.  What is appropriate for one project and modeler will be different for the next.  I expect modelers with less experience than me to produce high quality work, but to require more time to do so.  On the flip side, more experienced modelers should be capable of producing an equal quality of work in less time.  

2.       Neither can you rely on the how close a predictive model matches reality (utility bills) to evaluate a modeler.  Calibration modeling for existing/renovation work is a particular and distinct skill set within energy modeling, for which this metric has limited application… but predictive modeling is far too often mischaracterized and mis-used at a means of knowing the unknowable.

3.       Modelers, when permitted (and compensated) to be actively engaged in the design process, are to be regarded as a full and distinct member of the design team.  Our industry and even our modelers often undervalue the potential for these services.  I hope the weight and responsibilities of this “active” role is conveyed in the JTA.  My current sense is someone might on first reading this come away with the impression energy modelers are only ever periphery to the design process, and someone may not realize the potential impact a modeler can have as an integral part of the design process.  To be certain, both roles exist for today’s modelers, and I expect this trend to continue.

4.       I want to echo/reinforce Maria’s concerns.  I think it is logical that those referencing this study in the future would be well served to be made aware of the present BEMP certification, who is behind it, and what it entails relative to the definition of what an energy modeler is.  I recognize there’s an aversion to referencing or drawing from any industry groups… but ignoring them entirely makes the task of defining the trade all the more difficult, at best.

5.       I’ve said a lot regarding metrics you cannot effectively use to identify a quality modeler … and I realize that is only so helpful.  Perhaps none of this is considered appropriate for defining the job…?  Still, if I were interviewing to hire a modeler, prioritizing quality in the end result and pushing speed/budget concerns to the side, I think a good start would be to compare how willing/comfortable the modeler is to discuss and share their modeling decisions.  Put another way, how “open book” are the calculations?

~Nick

PS:  I propose whoever is in charge of collecting input for the JTA simply submit a copy of the discussion threads as they branch about and resolve themselves here on the lists.  Any single post or contribution taken out of context of the ongoing discussion might be misunderstood otherwise.

NICK CATON, P.E.

SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway, suite 200

olathe, ks 66061

direct 913.344.0036

fax 913.345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Will Mak
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:09 PM
To: thomasv at iit.edu; Michael A. Eustice
Cc: Kendra Tupper; Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for EnergyModelers:Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

I may be stepping out of line here but aren’t we in this energy mess because buildings weren’t design for energy efficiency at all due to extremely low fuel costs back in the day?? Isn’t one of the main points of modeling to justify ROI investments as opposed to the cheapest first cost systems by owners? 

We finally have some documentation process to justify to owners/clients that hey, you can’t just keep putting the cheapest systems, it’ll cost more long term!!! Are you OK with that? Or do you want to look at other options with this data analysis I’ve done??

“Michael: I am retired and I think like someone who lived in days when there was no LEED certification and no energy code compliance.  Since the first ASHRAE Std.90 came out, most if not all commercial buildings in the US were designed for energy efficieny.  The last sentence should have read "The importance of building energy analysis appears to be inflated relative to the total building design because of the amount attention given to it by lawmakers".  Example - DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers.  Energy efficient buiding design is important both in education and practice but it is just one small subject in the A-E design process. I am now a Research Professor with CoA Ph.D. program at IIT specializing in this minor topic. Varkie”

William Mak, LEED AP BD+C
Mechanical Design Engineer

EPSTEIN
600 West Fulton Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259
D: (312) 429-8116

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Varkie C Thomas
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Michael A. Eustice
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org; Kendra Tupper
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for EnergyModelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Michael: I am retired and I think like someone who lived in days when there was no LEED certification and no energy code compliance.  Since the first ASHRAE Std.90 came out, most if not all commercial buildings in the US were designed for energy efficieny.  The last sentence should have read "The importance of building energy analysis appears to be inflated relative to the total building design because of the amount attention given to it by lawmakers".  Example - DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers.  Energy efficient buiding design is important both in education and practice but it is just one small subject in the A-E design process. I am now a Research Professor with CoA Ph.D. program at IIT specializing in this minor topic. Varkie

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Michael A. Eustice" <MAEustice at htlyons.com> 

Date: Friday, November 18, 2011 11:04 am 

Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for EnergyModelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th 

> My experience is different than yours Varkie.  We often need to 
> simulate buildings to a high level of accuracy (too high in my 
> opinion) in order to obtain state and federal rebates and 
> incentives.  An entry level designer will most likely not be able 
> to hit those targets and I would even say most staff level 
> engineers would have a difficult time.   It takes some senior 
> level engineering to understand how the building systems operate; 
> what is a normal result; and most importantly, how the program is 
> going to react when the inputs are changed. 
> 
> I guess if the output reports are not reviewed with any scrutiny 
> and the targets have a wide range of acceptance, you could hand it 
> off to an entry level engineer.  But hitting an electric and 
> natural gas utility bill, month-to-month and a yearly overall, 
> simultaneously within +/- 10% accuracy will take a senior level 
> understanding.  Also, it�s not the time that is important as much 
> as the ability to do it.  The cost to my company for my time to 
> perform the simulation is irrelevant compared to the rebates and 
> incentives that will be unavailable, and as a consequence the 
> construction project that won�t move forward,  if the simulation 
> can�t be performed. 
> 
> Michael 
> 
> 
> The importance of building energy analysis is inflated. 
> Varkie Thomas 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111118/89d9cbf8/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111118/89d9cbf8/attachment-0002.jpeg>