[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most LEED points

Morgan Heater morgan at ecotope.com
Wed May 18 11:55:30 PDT 2011


Considering that the NREL benchmark buildings generally under-predict when 
compared with CBECs, EUI targets generated from those models wouldn't 
necessarily be very useful.


Morgan Heater, P.E.
BEMP, LEED AP
morgan at ecotope.com
206-322-3753 ext 209

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Bonnema, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:09 AM
To: Chris Balbach; sheffer at energyopportunities.com; 'Eurek, John S NWO'; 
Hussein Abaza
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most 
LEED points

The 50% Savings Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings 
(publication this fall, free download available from 
www.ashrae.org/freeaedg) will include a chapter on EUI targets for schools. 
This chapter provides a methodology for determining targets for your 
specific project and provides targets (by end use and climate zone) for 
reference. The EUI targets that are provided were generated from energy 
simulations using the DOE reference building schools. A draft of the chapter 
can be downloaded from ftp://aedgpub:3a$ts!d3@ftp.ashrae.org. The chapter is 
provided in DRAFT form and electronic dissemination is limited to Bldg-Sim 
mailing list members only. This file may not be stored on a computer system 
for the purpose of additional distribution. A physical copy may be printed 
from the electronic file only for the personal use of the Bldg-Sim mailing 
list member. The electronic file will be available through June 30 on the 
FTP site.

A procedure similar to what Chris outlined will be added to the chapter 
before publication (it is not currently in the draft). It will discuss a way 
to set your own energy target based on a project specific energy model. In 
summary, the steps will be as follows: (1) start with the appropriate DOE 
reference building school, (2) modify the model to include your schedules 
and climate information, (3) add specialty space types or unique plug loads 
that are not captured in the DOE model, and (4) run a simulation in your 
climate to set your own baseline. Your target is 50% of this EUI.

Any feedback to the draft or this procedure would be very helpful.

Best regards,

Eric

Eric Bonnema | Commercial Buildings Research Group | National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory | 1617 Cole Blvd Golden CO 80401 | 303-384-6185 | 
eric.bonnema at nrel.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Chris Balbach
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:52 AM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com; 'Eurek, John S NWO'; Hussein Abaza
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points

All:

I've been intrigued ever since I saw RMI's presentation on how target EUI's 
were set for the showcase Empire State Building renovation - where an 
innovative approach was used to define the building's "technical potential 
to achieve" and then measuring success by the team's ability to deliver a 
cost effective project than meets the "technical potential to achieve" as 
much as possible, while balancing all other needs.  Here's a nice summary - 
http://www.retrofitdepot.org/Content/Files/ESBCaseStudy.pdf

I've been thinking that, in general, re-framing energy performance success 
(i.e. EA C1 points) not as a "% better than an Appendix G Baseline" but to 
"% below the building's semi-unique technical potential to achieve" - might 
have interesting and positive effects.  By that I mean, imagine an office 
building designed and predicted to consume (on a site EUI basis) an EUI of 
89 kBtu/ft2, while the technical potential to achieve might have been 
determined to be 70 kBtu/ft2.   This represents a (1-(89/70)) = 27% gap, 
which say falls between 25% and 30% and it worth 3 EA C1 pts.

The ASHRAE Standard 100 Revision Committee has been working with some unique 
"hybrid" approaches combining "prototype or reference building energy 
models" and CBECS data to generate regional EUI targets based on building 
composition, building size, and building operating hours. The proposed 
revision of ASHRAE Standard 100 (not yet out for public comment) will 
incorporate a procedure for generating a building specific EUI for setting 
retrofit performance targets.  Here's a link to a presentation by Terry 
Sharp where he describes the basic concept under "Option 3" - 
http://tc76.org/docs/programs/ASRHAE%20std%20100%20%20Sem%2020102520June_Sharp.ppt 
Remember that EPA Target Finder is based exclusively on the EPA Portfolio 
Manager models, which are based on a number of different years of CBECS 
surveys, dependent on the space type.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine, following the general principles 
from above and the methods described in proposed revision to Standard 100, 
to be able to generate a unique 'semi-custom' EUI for your building 
project - maybe it might look something like this:

1) Download appropriate DOE prototype model(s)
2) Add appropriate exterior shading (adjacent buildings, etc.)
3) Replace building fabric elements with appropriate benchmark elements for 
your building type (retrofit / new construction)
4) Replace 'asset' related elements (lights, equipment) with appropriate 
benchmark elements for your building type  (retrofit / new construction)
4) Generate site EUI results with a weather file for your location.
5) If necessary, combine (area weight) EUI to result in whole building 
"Potential to Achieve"

In this way, one ends up with a semi-custom EUI performance target to 
measure success against - a target could be "better defined" than what you 
can currently get from EAP Target Finder.   I can envision a consensus 
document which lays out a specifications and procedure for allowable 
alteration of the DOE models, in order to generate the "Potential to Achieve 
EUI", after which the % difference from an "As Designed" case translate to 
EA C1 points.  I know this is NOT the original purpose of the DOE Benchmark 
Buildings, but with careful thought, and community consensus, I think a 
process of something like this may move the centroid of the community in the 
right direction. The energy usage 'goal' would be known as soon as the 
program was set, and the design team can react from there.  Also, the 
resulting "As Designed" model could be more useful, at would be meant to 
represent actual building performance to the best of the knowledge of the 
design team.

Thoughts?

All the Best,

_Chris

Chris Balbach, PE, CEM, BEMP, CMVP, BESA, BEMP, BEAP Vice President of 
Research and Development
Cell: (607)-327-1647

Performance Systems Development
124 Brindley Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
www.psdconsulting.com


-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Sheffer
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:35 AM
To: 'Eurek, John S NWO'; Hussein Abaza
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points

Read the study for yourself - 
http://www.newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-4-08b.pdf

Here is another study analyzing the same data - 
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc51142.pdf

Marcus Sheffer
Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365 717-292-2636, 
sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Eurek, John S NWO [mailto:John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:12 AM
To: Hussein Abaza; Marcus Sheffer
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points

Here is a link discussing leed and the 50% of the buildings consume as much 
energy as non Leed buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48

After seeing this video Henry Gifford became one of my new heros.

Green is the new Red.

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Hussein Abaza
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:47 PM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points

There is a famous study ( I don't recall the link to it) which shows that 
almost 50% of LEED buildings consume as much and more energy than non LEED 
buildings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Sheffer" <sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
To: "Julia Beabout" <juliabeabout at yahoo.com>, "Nick Caton"
<ncaton at smithboucher.com>, "Hussein Abaza" <ahussein at spsu.edu>, "Bill 
Bishop"
<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 4:36:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points



The primary purpose is to get the conversation started, early.  It is an 
opportunity to educate the owner and the team about energy.  In my 
experience the majority of designers can’t even tell you the metric for 
comparing building energy consumption.  I have often had this conversation 
early in the project design and have been met with blank stares.  It is 
incumbent upon us who do understand these energy issues to get the 
conversation started.
Caveat the heck out of the goal, explain the limitations, discuss the 
relative vs absolute metrics, be open about the issues – so that we can 
raise awareness one conversation at a time.  This is the power of a market 
transformation tool like LEED.  It enables us to have these conversations.



I agree that both of these items are potential issues, talk to your clients 
about them.  If you don’t have a goal, how do you measure success?



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>

www.sevengroup.com



From: Julia Beabout [mailto:juliabeabout at yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Marcus Sheffer; Nick Caton; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points



While I conceptually agree with and understand the kbtu or watts/sf 
approach, to me, there seems to be some series issues with it in reality.

First, I don't agree that generating or coming up with appropriate target 
values during design is always (or even frequently) an easy thing to do or 
easy data to find.  It depends on your bldg type.  I do a lot of labs and 
hospitals.  Manufacturing and industrial use bldgs can have the same issues.
Good EUI data is not easy to come by for these bldg types - partly because 
the user equipment that is installed in them can be a big portion of the 
energy demand and consumption and it's always changing and can be very 
specific to each client.  For example: is it a community hosptial with more 
modest and generic care provide?....a state of the art hospital with 
specialized care functions?....does the lab have primarily biology or a 
chemistry functions....etc etc.  These things all affect the EUI.  In my 
opinion, the best resource for this data is actually utility companies based 
on data from similar customers, but that data is not generally publicly 
available and/or the population of similar comparable buildings may be small 
and difficult to relate to your bldg.

Second, quite frankly, in my opinion, DESIGN phase energy models are poor 
predictors of ACTUAL bldg energy use.  They are best at predicting RELATIVE
(comparative) energy use.  This is not because the tools are not good or 
inaccurate but because we and the owners are so poor at predicting how the 
bldg will actually be used, weather, etc.  One additional factor, is what 
equipment will actually be installed.  It's not uncommon for the technology 
to have changed bewteen the time that we start design and the time the 
equipment is actually purchased closer to the end of construction.  All 
these things effect not only the equipment w/sf usage but the ac w/sf usage 
etc.
So, there seems to me to be a serious disconnect to me if we talking about 
setting energy targets during DESIGNbased on statistical data of ACTUAL 
energy use and trying to use those figure during the design phase for 
predicted energy use.  Again, I love the idea but are we really there yet in 
reality.  It seems to me we need a lot more data that doesn't exist yet - 
and mechanism to collect that data.  (CBECS etc are good, but the population 
and variability for bldgs of these types has a long way to go).

I missing something about what's being proposed/talked about?





________________________________

From: Marcus Sheffer <sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
To: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>; Hussein Abaza <ahussein at spsu.edu>; 
Bill Bishop <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 7:01:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points

First of all the goal is not at all arbitrary but must be based on an 
expected outcome within a reasonable expectation.  It is informed by data 
from similar, actual building energy consumption.  I don’t think I need to 
explain the tools one can use to do this.



Your goal (do the best you can) sounds like, “let’s build an energy 
efficient building”.  This is meaningless.  Energy efficiency in the context 
of new construction is always relative and without a quantification of what 
energy efficient means this is no goal at all.



Like any early stage performance goal the number is adjustable as more is 
discovered in the design process.  If the target is later discovered to be 
unreasonable due to a wide range of potential issues, then the target is 
adjusted.



If you pick your EUI goal the way you describe then yes this is a worthless 
goal but the key point is that it is never selected arbitrarily.



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>

www.sevengroup.com



From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:17 PM
To: Marcus Sheffer; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points



Not to be a jerk, but to ask an honest question: what is the point?  I’ve 
been involved with “established energy target” projects and never really 
picked up on the logic behind it – I would appreciate a layman’s 
explanation.



Put another way:  If you select an arbitrary EUI or watts per square foot at 
the earliest stages of design, what have you gained in design process?
If/when a project “meets the goal” mid-design, are future design decisions 
supposed to de-emphasize energy impact (no!)?  If on the other hand, a 
project finds that target unreasonable down the road, what then?



Not setting a mile-marker like this implies designing the best building you 
can given the time/budget available and any other constraints… that seems 
more likely to result in the best end-result to me.



To draw analogy, if design of a LEED (or any energy-conscious) project is 
like planning a road trip from Kansas to Florida, setting EUI goals seems 
something like choosing a rest stop by throwing a dart at the map 
blindfolded.  It doesn’t help you get to your destination any more 
efficiently, it may be far out of the way, and now you’ve got a hole in the 
wall… what was the point?



Okay, maybe a weak analogy – chalking it up to a very long week =).
Honestly, I’d appreciate someone laying the value behind this approach – I’m 
expect the logic does exist, and I just haven’t yet seen the light!



~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



From: 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 4:36 PM
To: 'Hussein Abaza'; Bill Bishop
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost 
LEED points



Agreed.  The new credit language for the next version of LEED does ask 
project teams to establish an absolute performance goal.



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>

www.sevengroup.com



From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Hussein Abaza
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:15 AM
To: Bill Bishop
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equalmost 
LEED points



Could any one advice why LEED would not put the base design as Watt per 
square foot, or per occupant, or per hotel bed etc. so the Architecture 
becomes more innovative early in the design to save energy?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bishop" <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
To: "Arpan Bakshi" <arpanbakshi at gmail.com>
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:11:30 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal most 
LEED points

Arpan,



Based on the Weidt Group paper, I’m guessing you’re emphasizing 
architectural considerations that affect the energy cost vs. LEED points 
numbers. (The paper uses window-to-wall ratios and daylighting as an 
example.) I would think the goal during the programming and schematic design 
phases should be energy cost, not LEED points relative to the App. G 
baseline. Much of the energy cost savings vs. App. G baseline (EAc1 points) 
is going to come later from the mechanical and lighting designs. The 
suggestions in the paper to establish specific baseline building shapes and 
glazing percentages would add a LOT more modeling time – you’d have to 
create two separate building geometries for the baseline and proposed 
models, not to mention different zoning patterns, space types, lighting 
power per space etc.



For mechanical design, once the size and programming of the project is 
established, the baseline model properties are pretty well set, unless you 
consider fuel-switching and go between baseline systems 1/3/5/7 to systems 
2/4/6/8. One exception I can think of for a design decision that results in 
higher energy cost but better comparison with the App. G baseline is higher 
ventilation rates combined with heat recovery in the proposed and no heat 
recovery in the baseline.



Regards,

Bill



Signature in jpg form



From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Arpan Bakshi
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:09 AM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com
Cc: <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost



Marcus, thank you incorporating this language.



The one scenario we often see in our design guidance work is that a proposed 
design when compared with other design alternates does not necessarily 
provided the largest energy savings when compared against its own baseline 
case model. It is difficult to make a recommendation as consultants when we 
want to present the Owner with both real energy cost savings without 
compromising their LEED certification level targets.

A recent paper presented by the Weidt Group at SimBuild touched on this
issue:



http://www.ibpsa.us/pub/simbuild2010/technicalPresentations/SB10-PPT-TS02A-03
-Baker.pdf







Arpan Bakshi, LEED AP BD+C

YRG sustainability


On May 13, 2011, at 8:16 AM, "Marcus Sheffer"
<sheffer at energyopportunities.com> wrote:

        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>

        www.sevengroup.com



        From: John Aulbach [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
        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>
        To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com
        Cc: 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> 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>

                www.sevengroup.com



                From: 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
                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] On Behalf Of Omar Delgado
                Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM
                To: 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

                info at enermechpr.com

                www.enermechpr.com <http://www.enermechpr.com/>







                <image001.gif> 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




        --
        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


_______________________________________________ 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

--

Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor

Construction Management Department

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE’

CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

 And CONSTRUCTION

1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060-2896

Website: www.spsu.edu/cost  Tel: 678-915-3719 Fax: 678-915-4966

E-mail: ahussein at spsu.edu







--

Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor

Construction Management Department

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE’

CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

 And CONSTRUCTION

1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060-2896

Website: www.spsu.edu/cost <http://www.spsu.edu/cost>   Tel: 678-915-3719
Fax: 678-915-4966

E-mail: ahussein at spsu.edu






_______________________________________________
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

--
Performance Systems Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity
http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=p4GFpPVk014067&from=cbalbach@psdconsulting.com


CONFIDENTIAL
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.

Please contact the sender if you believe that you have received this email 
in error and immediately delete this message.



_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list