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

Arpan Bakshi arpanbakshi at gmail.com
Wed May 18 12:07:47 PDT 2011


This may be something to represent in the LEED language if EUI is being
introduced, how a national CBECS average of 90 kBtuh/SF = 80 k/S actual
building, 70 k/S per 2004 model and est. 60 k/S per 2007 models.

Ref - Modeling a Sustainable World, Bellenger, 2010.



On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Morgan Heater <morgan at ecotope.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 


Arpan Bakshi,* *LEED AP BD+C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110518/969a31c4/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list