[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost

Jason Glazer jglazer at gard.com
Fri May 13 12:37:36 PDT 2011


Julia,

What I am suggesting has to do with the process of designing 
a building using simulation during each step of the process. 
It is not about establishing baseline and determining a 
percentage savings, Appendix G does that already. I would 
hope that both 90.1 Appendix G and this new standard would 
be referenced, G for establishing a measurement and the new 
standard for establishing a process.

Jason

On 5/13/2011 1:49 PM, Julia Beabout wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> could you elaborate a little more on your vision.
>  From the write up, it sounds to me like you're talking more
> about establishing a modeling process protocol - yes?
> It also describes ASHREA 90.1 and 189.1 as being
> prescriptive approaches. But, both those documents have the
> alternative (app G) performance based approach too. As we
> all know, this established modeling rules and the parameters
> for your baseline building etc, but doesn't mandate a
> certain modeling process (i.e. when modeling starts in the
> design, options to be considered etc).
> So, do you see your proposed standard as supplementing those
> in terms of establishing a modeling process protocol? Or,
> would your standard also establish modeling rules and
> baseline building parameters like App G?
>
> Julia
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jason Glazer <jglazer at gard.com>
> *To:* bldg-sim at onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Fri, May 13, 2011 12:35:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
> I have been thinking about trying to establish a new
> standard at ASHRAE that I tentatively titled:
>
> "Simulation Aided Design for High Performance Buildings"
>
> The new standard, once deveoped, could be referenced by
> USGBC and other organizations. The concept is similar to the
> direction that USGBC is considering. Attached is a draft
> describing the concept. I think having a group of practicing
> simulation consultants would be key to making such a
> standard usable and adopted.
>
> Please let me know if you have any comments and if you would
> be interested in participating in developing a new standard.
> If I have enough interest, I will submit the necessary
> paperwork to ASHRAE to get this considered.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason
>
> On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Nick Caton wrote:
>  > Arpan/Omar and others, apologies for continuing to diverge
>  > on the original thread with this sub-topic!
>  >
>  > Marcus and other EA TAG members,
>  >
>  > I have a few ‘informal’ thoughts for discussion of the draft
>  > language below… sorry for the wall of text, but I hope
>  > you’ll find this useful feedback!
>  >
>  > 1.Overall, the process described below sounds very much like
>  > our regular practice with certain clients, who are very into
>  > EUI metrics (2030 challenge).
>  >
>  > 2.I think the credit language should be expanded (and
>  > perhaps the onebuilding.org <http://onebuilding.org>
> lists should be separately
>  > engaged) to suggest more examples of what may be appropriate
>  > studies for “Preliminary modeling.” Many will not be
>  > familiar with the process and be stuck for ideas of what to
>  > explore. In my experience, such modeling most often focuses
>  > on early decisions regarding HVAC system selection, envelope
>  > materials/finishes, glazing quantity/placement/orientation,
>  > building shades (fixed and otherwise), and active/passive
>  > day lighting design. I would note that this is often an
>  > ideal time to investigate the energy effects of landscaping
>  > on the building, as site layout tends to be locked down
>  > early in the design process…
>  >
>  > 3.Potential for a game-killing conflict: A key feature of
>  > such early modeling work is that much of it is very fast and
>  > “loose.” The level of documentation/procedure involved in
>  > today’s EAc1/EAp2 validation models is something I’d still
>  > call “intense,” and still takes up a large fraction of the
>  > time spent altogether on an energy model. I’m not new to
>  > the game, and I’ve certainly learned to streamline my
>  > workflow, but I’m sure there’s no place for *that* degree of
>  > rigorous documentation in the early stages of design. I
>  > suspect many architects would be quick to drop the idea of
>  > engaging their energy modelers early on if they become a
>  > “ball and chain” holding up the design process. It would
>  > appear on this draft of the language that someone has this
>  > issue in mind, but I wanted to vocalize this concern
>  > separately so that this doesn’t get missed!
>  >
>  > 4.Regarding metrics: EUI, due to the 2030 challenge, is the
>  > driving force causing local architects to engage us so early
>  > on projects, and for that I have to give it props... While
>  > metrics like EUI & Carbon footprint may be the best metric
>  > for measuring impact on polar bear habitats (?), the best
>  > metric with regard to most building owners, and their
>  > perception of the “validity” of the whole process, is
>  > unquestionably utility bills. I wouldn’t discourage the
>  > use of alternative metrics, but I’d caution against
>  > requiring any alternative metrics that may be at odds with
>  > the owner’s best interests...
>  >
>  > 5.Validation models based on the construction documents (as
>  > they exist today) are not a bad thing. They are necessary
>  > to prevent value engineering from decimating an otherwise
>  > great building towards the end of design. I would be wary
>  > of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If preliminary
>  > modeling is going to be incorporated into LEED, it should
>  > start out as either as a prerequisite or as a separate
>  > credit (perhaps pulling points from the large pool available
>  > under EAc1)… not as a replacement of the validation model.
>  > At some point in the future, they may become one and the
>  > same credit, but I think standards broader than 90.1
>  > Appendix G will need to be written and established first,
>  > which incorporate practices and procedures for preliminary
>  > modeling (as others are saying).
>  >
>  > 6.I LIKE the inclusion of the ability to use past
>  > studies/design. This mirrors real-world practice and
>  > permits/encourages proven design to carry into multiple
>  > projects. Keep that!
>  >
>  > 7.I LIKE the focus being on the analysis, not the decisions
>  > made. This also reflects real-world decision making, which
>  > always balances budget and other constraints against
>  > relative energy impact.
>  >
>  > 8.Julia’s concern regarding prescribing a set # of
>  > studies/analyses is pertinent and deserves consideration.
>  > Not all projects require a huge investment of time in
>  > preliminary studies, and not all projects would benefit…
>  > then again, these sorts of studies sometimes cause design
>  > teams to learn something they didn’t set out to explore.
>  > The bar has to be set somewhere, and I can’t think of a
>  > better alternative than a minimum number of
>  > studies/iterations per building area (envelope/glazing/HVAC
>  > options, etc…).
>  >
>  > To the broader concern of inefficient strip mall/prototype
>  > projects – I’d agree LEED likely isn’t the tool to reign
>  > that issue in… Developers award this sort of work to design
>  > teams who are fast and efficient at cranking out a design
>  > that will pass review and minimize first costs/CA. They
>  > don’t budget for weeks on quality energy modeling. The only
>  > effective tools to drive down such “fire-and-forget”
>  > projects are the prescriptive energy codes, and their
>  > effective/actual enforcement by local reviewers. Those
>  > codes and their adoption/enforcement drive the market to
>  > produce better products at an economical price point.
>  >
>  > Hope that helps!
>  >
>  > ~Nick
>  >
>  > cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB**
>  >
>  > **
>  >
>  > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>  >
>  > PROJECT ENGINEER
>  >
>  > Smith & Boucher Engineers
>  >
>  > 25501 west valley parkway
>  >
>  > olathe ks 66061
>  >
>  > direct 913 344.0036
>  >
>  > fax 913 345.0617
>  >
>>  www.smithboucher.com__ <http://www.smithboucher.com__>
>  >
>  > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf
>  > Of *Julia Beabout
>  > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 9:22 AM
>  > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>;
>  > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > Omar,
>  > This is cracking me up. I don't think I've ever seen this
>  > much traffic on one issue! LOL.
>  > Regarding the manhours for a LEED model - my opinion is that
>  > the amount of time has much more to do with the level of
>  > certification the project is going for, at what point the
>  > modeling services are engaged in the design, and the type
>  > and complexity of the building (systems). That's not to say
>  > the number of manhours is completely independent of building
>  > size (square footage), but its not particularly sensitive to
>  > it. I find that that there is a high "low" and low "high"
>  > for modeling. In other words, it's hard to complete an
>  > energy model in less than 60-80 hours (all said and done -
>  > paperwork, LEED responses etc), but it rarely take more than
>  > 250 hours. (Although, some rare complex projects going for
>  > platinmum could take up to 350 hours). Like others, I find
>  > the norm for a reasonably complex bldg going for LEED silver
>  > or gold typically requires between 120 and 160 hours.
>  >
>  > Marcus
>  > Here's my two cents on below. I will look for the public
>  > comment period as well. Thanks for the heads up.
>  > I think the idea of incentivizing modeling early in the
>  > design is a great idea, but I think requiring it is
>  > completely inappropriate. Perhaps it could be encouraged by
>  > awarding an extra (innovation? or EA cr 1?) point for
>  > starting modeling in schematic design. Or, perhaps the
>  > credit could be restructured similar to the CX credits where
>  > in order to get the enhanced CX credits, you have to have
>  > the CX agent involved early in the design. In some ways, the
>  > current set up already does this though with the progress
>  > points for increased levels of saving. Quite frankly, if you
>  > are going for 50% savings, you're not gonig to get there
>  > unless you start modeling really early in the process.
>  >
>  > I also think prescribing a certain minimum number of ECMs to
>  > look at is inappropriate and would probably have the adverse
>  > effect of discouraging energy modeling. The appropriate
>  > number of ECMs is highly project dependent - based on
>  > building size, scope, complexity, type, level of LEED
>  > certification shooting for, and not least of all the owner's
>  > budget. Let's face it, the vast majority of bldgs out there
>  > and that consume most of the energy in the US are (strip)
>  > malls, grocery stores, restaurants etc. These projects
>  > barely event have a schematic, design and CD phase. While we
>  > all love to work on the exotic, platinum level, cutting
>  > edge, bldgs that are likely to have a large budget for
>  > design, these are not the majority of bldgs consuming
>  > energy. I think we should be doing more to encourage
>  > modeling and energy savings amongst the every day projects
>  > than the "sexy" projects. It seems to me the best way to do
>  > this is to offer incentives in this direction in lieu of
>  > prescriptive requirements that could discourage/put off
>  > smaller projects from even attempting to incorporate
> modeling.
>  >
>  > Julia
>  >
>  > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf
>  > Of *Will Mak
>  > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 8:14 AM
>  > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>;
>  > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > Do you know where we can get a copy of the existing draft?
>  > I’d like to look more into the new wordage for EAp2/EAc1 and
>  > how energy modeling will have to evolve once that new rating
>  > system is released.
>  >
>  > *William Mak, LEED Green Associate*
>  > Mechanical Design Engineer
>  >
>  > *EPSTEIN*
>  > Architecture
>  > Interiors
>  > Engineering
>  > Construction
>  >
>  > 600 West Fulton Street
>  > Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259
>  >
>  > D: (312) 429-8116
>  > F: (312) 429-8800
>  >
>  > E:wmak at epsteinglobal.com <mailto:wmak at epsteinglobal.com>
> <mailto:wmak at epsteinglobal.com <mailto:wmak at epsteinglobal.com>>
>  > W:www.epsteinglobal.com
> <http://www.epsteinglobal.com><http://www.epsteinglobal.com/>
>  >
>  > þEpstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that
>  > you please consider the environment before printing this
> e-mail.
>  >
>  > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf
>  > Of *Marcus Sheffer
>  > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 7:17 AM
>  > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > If anyone has any good ideas about how to structure the LEED
>  > credits to end the practice of validation models at the end
>  > and encourage/require design phase modeling the folks on the
>  > USGBC EA TAG would love to hear them. The current proposed
>  > credit language from the first public comment phase is
>  > listed below.
>  >
>  > NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,
>  > HOSPITALITY
>  >
>  > Establish an energy performance target no later than the
>  > schematic design phase. The target must be established as
>  > kBTU per square foot-year of source energy use. This target
>  > must be mapped on the same scale as the baseline and
>  > proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.
>  >
>  > OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation
>  >
>  > Analyze a minimum of at least nine efficiency measures
>  > during the design process and account for the results in
>  > design decision-making. Analysis can include energy
>  > simulation of efficiency opportunities, application of past
>  > energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the
>  > project, or application of published data from energy
>  > analyses performed for similar projects to the project (such
>  > as AEDGs).
>  >
>  > A minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load
>  > reduction strategies appropriate for the facility must be
>  > analyzed. This analysis must be performed during the
>  > schematic design phase.
>  >
>  > A minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on
>  > HVAC related strategies must be analyzed (passive measures
>  > are acceptable). This analysis must be performed before the
>  > conclusion of the design development phase.
>  >
>  > The results of the analysis must be summarized in a brief
>  > report or memorandum.
>  >
>  > The next version of LEED will be going out for public
>  > comment again in July, I think, so please comment formally
>  > as well as discussing here.
>  >
>  > Marcus Sheffer
>  >
>  > Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
>  >
>  > 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365
>  >
>  > 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
> <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>
>  > <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com
> <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>>
>  >
>  > www.sevengroup.com
> <http://www.sevengroup.com><http://www.sevengroup.com>
>  >
>  > *From:*John Aulbach [mailto:jra_sac at yahoo.com
> <mailto:jra_sac at yahoo.com>]
>  > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM
>  > *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus Sheffer
>  > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > OK, Carol..now you threw the "bait" out there..older than
>  > dirt, eh?
>  >
>  > I have done very limited LEED "type" modeling where you
>  > compare 20 walls and 40 windows types (well, it seemed that
>  > way). Correct me if I am wrong, but a Base model must be
>  > built to comply with a certain level of ASHRAE 90.1 (now up
>  > to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I am
>  > going to build the model from scrathc and put in all the
>  > relevant baseline data in by hand. And, by the way, the
>  > ASHRAE baseline model might be an entirely different system.
>  > I am just completing an EPACT evaluation (ASHRAE 90.1-2001)
>  > and the Baseline HVAC was screwe chillers, whereas the
>  > Actual building was packaged units with Turbocor compressors
>  > (ask me how I did that).
>  >
>  > It very much depends on the complexity of the building. A
>  > 40,000 sf office or a 500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.
>  >
>  > I am unfamiliar with the LEED paperwork to be filled out
>  > after the modeling has been done. But I would not do
>  > anything of this type in under 120 hours, preferably 160
>  > hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let him.
>  >
>  > Contingency, contingency.
>  >
>  > We won't discuss how old CAROL might be..
>  >
>  > John A.
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > *From:*Carol Gardner <cmg750 at gmail.com
> <mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com>>
>  > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
>  > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > *Sent:* Thu, May 12, 2011 2:59:12 PM
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > Marcus,
>  >
>  > You have inadvertently hit upon why IBPSA worked with ASHRAE
>  > to create a BEMP certification. That's Building Energy
>  > Modeling Professional (BEMP).
>  >
>  > Some of us who have been in the field for awhile began to
>  > worry a couple of years ago when so many new energy modelers
>  > began appearing on the listserv with questions. Their
>  > questions indicated a lack of training and experience that
>  > was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they didn't
>  > seem to realize that they were as inexperienced as they
>  > were; they didn't appear to be pursuing training to learn
>  > how to do what they were doing; and we were uncertain as to
>  > how or if they were practicing quality control. We hoped
>  > that by creating a path to certification that we would give
>  > clients one more qualification to look for in their modelers.
>  >
>  > If you have been in this industry for any length of time,
>  > and by industry I mean the overall construction industry,
>  > you know that you don't get a lot of chances if your work
>  > doesn't pan out. If your energy model says I have a LEED
>  > Gold building and I'm going to save $4,000/year and what I
>  > really get is LEED Silver and $1,000/year, I am not going to
>  > be happy. So, I will probably not give you any more work
>  > but, even worse for all of us, I'll start expressing doubts
>  > about the whole process. LEED - what is it good for?
>  >
>  > So, now we all have more training, right? We read our ASHRAE
>  > Handbooks and technical manuals so we know how to model the
>  > difficult stuff. We can find any topic in the DOE2 Manuals,
>  > all of which are one line, available, and easily searchable.
>  >
>  > So now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours.
>  > Really? Not me and I've been doing it longer than everyone,
>  > except you, John Aulbach. So I'm going to join Marcus in his
>  > rant because he's on to something.
>  >
>  > It's up to us to not under bid this work. It's up to us to
>  > educate our clients about the importance of quality in this
>  > process. If they think they are getting the same analysis in
>  > 40 hours that they used to get in 120 hours, they need to be
>  > led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that GIGO.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Carol
>  >
>  >
>  > Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Marcus Sheffer
>  > <sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
>  > <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>>> wrote:
>  >
>  > In our experience a final model, done right, would take
>  > about 80 hours.
>  >
>  > WARNING – frustrated modeling rant to follow:
>  >
>  > Doing just a final model however completely misses the
>  > point as to why we model – it is to guide design decisions!
>  >
>  > If I saw this RFP and all it asked me for was a model to
>  > determine LEED points, during or after design, I would
>  > try to educate the potential client about the purpose of
>  > modeling.
>  >
>  > Unfortunately too many projects pursuing LEED are only
>  > doing the minimum when it comes to modeling and almost
>  > completely missing all the benefits. Too often the
>  > “market” transforms only based on a least first cost
>  > denominator basis that results in little real
>  > transformation. Doing models to determine LEED points
>  > does not transform the market, save any energy, and just
>  > circumvents the purpose behind LEED. (the next version
>  > actually requires design phase modeling!)
>  >
>  > Any “modeler” who does only final models without
>  > attempting to explain to the owner why this is a bad
>  > idea should be “drummed out of the corp” in my humble
>  > opinion.
>  >
>  > The problem is that if you respond to this RFP with 120
>  > or 160 or more hours to really do the design phase
>  > modeling right, you will go up against the “modeler” who
>  > claims to be able to do it in far less time. So how do
>  > we get the folks who issue the RFPs to ask for a proper
>  > scope of work so that they can compare fees on a level
>  > playing field? It is unfortunate that we are even having
>  > a discussion about doing modeling work in opposition to
>  > its purpose.
>  >
>  > Sorry for the rant but I feel better now. J
>  >
>  > Marcus Sheffer
>  >
>  > Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
>  >
>  > 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365
>  >
>  > 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
> <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>
>  > <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com
> <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>>
>  >
>>  www.sevengroup.com <http://www.sevengroup.com>
> <http://www.sevengroup.com/>
>  >
>  > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>>
>  > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>>] *On
>  > Behalf Of *Demba Ndiaye
>  > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:28 PM
>  > *To:* Omar Delgado; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>>
>  > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > Omar,
>  >
>  > I would expect, for a building this size, approximately
>  > 40 hours (multiply by your hourly rate). The 40 hours
>  > include EAp2/EAc1 LEED documentation, and any review you
>  > may have to respond to later.
>  >
>  > Now, given that you have never done a LEED model, it
>  > will take you more time, possibly up to 40 more hours.
>  >
>  > HTH,
>  >
>  > _______________
>  >
>  > Demba NDIAYE
>  >
>  > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>>
>  > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>>] *On
>  > Behalf Of *Omar Delgado
>  > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM
>  > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>  > <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>>
>  > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>  >
>  > Greetings everyone,
>  >
>  > I have a question regarding the cost of an energy model
>  > for a LEED project. Every energy model I've done so far
>  > has been for
>  >
>  > existing buildings, mainly for optimization purposes.
>  > However, I received an RFP to model a five-story, 41,500
>  > sq. ft. building
>  >
>  > that's currently on the design phase and is pursuing the
>  > LEED-NC Silver certification. I really have no idea what
>  > would be a fair
>  >
>  > price for this model since I'm going to have to use
>  > Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1) to evaluate the difference
>  > between the base
>  >
>  > and proposed buildings. I don't know how much extra
>  > effort this will take. I know the procedure, just
>  > haven't done it before.
>  >
>  > Can you shed any light on this issue?
>  >
>  > Thanks in advance!
>  >
>  > /Omar A. Delgado Colón, P.E., MEnvM., LEED AP BD&C/
>  >
>  > /Vice President/
>  >
>  > *EnerMech*
>  >
>  > PMB 340
>  >
>  > 130 Winston Churchill Ave.
>  >
>  > San Juan, PR 00926-6018
>  >
>  > Cel. (787) 224-6537
>  >
>  > odelgado at enermechpr.com
> <mailto:odelgado at enermechpr.com><http://odelgado@enermechpr.com>
>  >
>  > info at enermechpr.com <mailto:info at enermechpr.com>
> <mailto:info at enermechpr.com <mailto:info at enermechpr.com>>
>  >
>  > www.enermechpr.com
> <http://www.enermechpr.com><http://www.enermechpr.com/>
>  >
>  > cid:image004.gif at 01CAF34A.CAB
> <mailto:image004.gif at 01CAF34A.CAB>15830 /Please consider your
>  > environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail/
>  >
>  > This Email is covered by the Electronics Communications
>  > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally
>  > priviliged. The information in this email is personal
>  > and confidential and is intended solely for the
>  > addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is
>  > unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, you
>  > must not read, use or disseminate the information
>  > contained in the email. Any views expressed in this
>  > message are those of the individual sender and may be
>  > subject to Attorney/Client privilege and/or Work
>  > Product. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>  > distribution or copying of this communications is
>  > strictly prohibited.
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Bldg-sim mailing list
>>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
>  > message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
> <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>  > <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
> <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Carol Gardner PE
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Bldg-sim mailing list
>  >
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>  > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
> message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
> <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>
> --
> Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair
> Admin for onebuilding.org <http://onebuilding.org> building
> performance mailing lists

-- 
Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair
Admin for onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list