[Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?

Dennis Knight dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com
Mon Jan 21 10:31:38 PST 2013


Great Conversation All,
I'd like to jump back in with a few more thoughts (having to jot them down
quickly - so apologize if not well organized):
First, I believe our energy codes will soon have to go to performance based
criteria if we are going to meet the "net zero energy building" goals
ASHRAE and other organizations have agreed to hit by 2030 for new
construction and major renovations.  I think ASHRAE is possibly on to
something with the bEQ rating which is a rating based on a net zero target
and will help drive us toward performance based codes.  Since the bEQ has
both an "as-designed" component and an "as-operated" component user/owner
behavior will have a large impact on the final outcome - which I believe
will be positive - since an owner will be incented to meet the energy
targets they established in the design phase in order to keep the rating
and, hopefully, keep the value of the property up based on its performance.
 It could be a market based, engineering based way to get us to net zero
energy buildings by allowing us to be creative and innovative.  I'd rather
be given a wish list of things the market wants (including a mandatory
energy target) and a fixed budget and let me be as creative as possible at
providing as many things off the wish list as is possible than be given a
wish list in the form of contract documents then receive bids (variable
cost due to bidders) and have to go through the dreaded value engineering
process where line items from the list are often eliminated without any
economic consideration to the long term effects on the building or its
energy consumption.

The marginal cost for a utility to deliver an additional kWh of capacity
that it does not have/own the generation infrastructure to make that kWh is
almost always more expensive than delivering that kWh from existing
generation capacity whether they purchase it from another company off the
grid or have to build more peaking capacity using something like a gas
turbine.  I'm not sure I totally agree with Vikram on his note about LEED
being based on consumption instead of cost: Appendix G and LEED are focused
on one year's cost rather consumption rather than an efficiency standard
something like a kBtu/sf metric (although they are beginning to track such
numbers in EPA's Portfolio Manager).  That's also why thermal storage can
be used to reduce the annual cost of energy consumption at a building and
actually increase consumption by shifting load to the off peak times of the
local utility to use the utility's base line generation capacity and that
is why demand side management programs and incentives by utilities are so
popular.

A global well connected eGrid could fix a lot of this by allowing excess
baseline generation  capacity at night in the US to say - offset peak load
during the day in the far east (12 hour time difference) and vice versa
(can you imagine the politics and trade policies that would have to be in
place to let that happen?). We would need a good many fewer power plants in
general under this scenario.

Sorry I do not have more time to add more details right now - got to run -
hope the additional comments will generate more discussion.
Thanks,
Dennis



On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Peter Simmonds
<peter.simmonds at ibece.net>wrote:

>  Dear all, I too have been following this very sensible discussion and
> now feel the need to throw my comments into the ring. So here goes:****
>
> Where are we going with all our simulation and LEED paraphernalia? It
> would appear that LEED compliance has turned into a numbers game and
> doesn’t require engineering techniques but more like a cross between and
> MBA and an Attorney (I know what was written, but that isn’t the intent of
> what was written). Basic engineering skills have been replaced by wizardry
> and unmet hours and most often than not the comparison of a base case to a
> proposed case are the source of the proposed savings. Why do you think the
> US is so slow into moving towards performance metrics? Maybe it’s because
> the present way buildings are modeled to comply with LEED have no
> relationship to how buildings actually perform or more probably the
> liability of an engineer stating that a certain performance can be achieved
> based upon a simulation model and the possible shortcomings in a real
> building. ****
>
> So what do we do? The easiest way would be to sit back and continue with
> what is accepted or we could look into the future and decide what import
> features are most required. This would most probably require a rigorous
> change to the current standards, but maybe that is what is required?****
>
> We are all stuck with applicable utility rates, buildings need lighting
> and power for equipment, we have people in buildings and architects put
> glass in buildings and the end result is energy and the cost of energy.
> Yes, there are many sources of alternative energy, but these have been
> relatively slow to emerge and are very costly. So if you have immense
> wealth one could attain a net- zero building or many ‘net zero’ buildings
> do not fully utilize lighting and equipment. So why would we require
> simulation models and compliance documents if we simply choose not to
> operate building equipment?****
>
> ** **
>
> *Peter Simmonds, Ph.D. *
> *Senior Associate
> Head of the Advanced Technology Group
> **IBE Consulting Engineers*
> *14130 Riverside Drive, Suite 201*
> *Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
> d: (818) 305-3246 o: (818) 377-8220 f: (818) 377-8230
>
> **Visit our new website! **
> **www.ibece.com
> **Ideas for the built environment*****
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.****
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim Dirkes
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 8:17 AM
> *To:* Joe Parker
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?****
>
> ** **
>
> Hear!  Hear!****
>
> Joe’s comments about how the rate structure affects savings are worth
> emphasizing.  These are in place by local utilities for a reason – meeting
> peak demands is often *very* costly for the utilities and they pass it on
> to their customers.  I don’t recall the details of a talk I heard at
> ASHRAE’s last Energy Modeling Conference, but I’m pretty sure those peak
> power plants are also less efficient than the base power plants (which may
> explain part of the reason for higher peak costs).  I’ve run a couple of
> energy models with and without the demand charges and have seen big
> differences in cost.  That, in turn, has led to more diligence in
> representing the rate structure accurately in my models.****
>
> As a side note, a few years back I was not a fan of locally-generated
> (including renewable) power schemes because their efficiency was uniformly
> dismal and it seemed that their only reason for viability was federal
> government subsidies.  As I’ve become more aware of the base / peak power
> big picture economics, I am reversing my opinion.  Compared to running a
> peak power plant, it seems they can be a very viable economic solution even
> without subsidies.****
>
> ** **
>
> *James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP**
> **www.buildingperformanceteam.com*<http://www.buildingperformanceteam.com/>
> *
> **Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services**
> *1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
> 616 450 8653****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Joe Parker
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 11:01 AM
> *To:* 'Sami, Vikram'; 'Nick Caton'; 'Dennis Knight'; 'RobertWichert'
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?****
>
> ** **
>
> I have been following this discussion, not as an engineer or modeler, but
> as someone interested in the factors influencing the financial return on
> energy saving products.  My concern is in the same area as Vikram Sami
> expressed below but even a little deeper.  Vikram rightly notes that energy
> costs vary from location to location so a unit saved one place is not
> necessarily comparable to another location.  I would add two other factors
> that are very important in an energy efficiency decision - rate structure
> and time of energy saving. The bottom line is that an energy unit saved is
> based on both  the rate structure and the time of day that negative watt
> was earned.****
>
> ** **
>
> Rate structure factors such as demand response, peak demand, and off hours
> rates drive the value of reducing energy usage.  Some utilities offer very
> low rates at night.  If you have a building element - such as our Phase
> Change Material or Ice Energy's storage process - that can store energy
> during the low rate hours; then this energy is available to offset demand
> during a peak rate periods.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> If a product can reduce the energy usage during a high rate period in a
> high rate location then that energy saved should command a higher value in
> not only a LEED certifications calculation but in calculating the value in
> an energy modeling program for ROI.****
>
> ** **
>
> I am not an expert on energy modeling nor do I know about all the models
> available, so this comment needs to be understood from my product
> perspective and most likely, my limited knowledge.  It seems to me that
> most models are driven by weather data.  Weather data and location drive
> the design of the building shell. A building is built to live and work in.
> Efficiently managing the internal environment demands managing energy use
> for not only the effects from the outside environment but also the comfort
> and use of its occupants.  I am excited about the future of building
> control systems based on sensors.  This trend will help solve the problems
> I noted above but they do more than just save units of energy, they will
> save energy at the most expensive moments.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> As an MBA - not an engineer - the key here is twofold.  How much energy
> can I save with the package of energy saving options available to me and
> what is the cost of a unit of energy when I save it.      ****
>
> ** **
>
> Joe Parker****
>
> CEO****
>
> 303.931.1606 global mobile****
>
> 866.616.9870 global fax****
>
> joeparker at esBits.com <brianmurphy at esBits.com>****
>
> www.esBits.com <http://www.esbits.com/>****
>
> ** **
>
> If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
> notify the sender by reply e-mail.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Sami, Vikram
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 7:43 AM
> *To:* Nick Caton; Dennis Knight; RobertWichert
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?****
>
> ** **
>
> My two five cents – adding to the many cents already thrown in the pot. **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> **·         **LEED & Appendix G at this point are based on energy cost –
> not raw BTUs or carbon. So the relative costs of your fuel mix will have an
> effect on final scores (in a place where electricity is cheap and heating
> fuel is not – you are likely going to have less credit for your SEER
> rating). I don’t agree with it, but that’s how the system is set up.****
>
> **·         **The effectiveness depends on your baseline energy usage.
> For example – if you have a building that has very small HVAC component,
> even a 50% reduction won’t get you to 10% overall. ****
>
> **·         **LEED addresses consumption and not efficiency (which is a
> good thing). So you get credit for ‘driving less’. Hours that you don’t
> need to run your HVAC = money in your pocket (the envelope leg of Nick’s
> tripod analogy). ****
>
> **·         **It also depends on other factors like how you deliver the
> energy. For example – using hydronic cooling & heating will likely save you
> more energy than an all air system with a higher EER on the chiller. Using
> a waterside economizer goes back to the ‘driving less’ analogy. Hydronic
> systems are also less prone to reheat (simultaneous heating & cooling)
> issues that you have with all air systems. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The way I like to approach LEED projects is to go after the intent of the
> credits rather than the point – you’ll be surprised at how often you end up
> with a higher LEED score when you do. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Apologies to Robert if this doesn’t directly respond to the original
> question. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> *Vikram Sami*, LEED AP BD+C****
>
> Sustainable Design Analyst****
>
> 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309****
>
> t: 404-443-7462    f: 404.892.5823       e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com
> www.perkinswill.com****
>
> *Perkins+Will.*  Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:09 PM
> *To:* Dennis Knight; RobertWichert
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?****
>
> ** **
>
> Man, every time I start a reply 3 more have come out, haha!  I think we’re
> all pretty much on the same page though =).  This is largely written in
> response to Robert’s most recent reply:****
>
> ** **
>
> Applying 10% improvement to lighting/mechanical equipment/envelope is
> merely a strategy for achieving performance figures in the right ballpark
> once energy modeling begins.  No more and no less.  I can attest this has
> worked well for me in the past, but I *never* meant to imply “..and
> you’re done.”  ****
>
> ** **
>
> This is just a means of getting the ball rolling and ensuring the
> important decision makers understand they have a role to play.****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree completely regarding the limits of SEER and every other
> standardized efficiency rating I’ve worked with.  Seasonal and steady state
> efficiencies are NEVER direct indicators of actual system consumptions,
> they are merely representations of performance under specific conditions.
> That said, they do have a useful time & place which occurs at the beginning
> of a project, before a more detailed analysis can be made with energy
> models or otherwise.  SEER may or may not be an inadequate efficiency
> metric for your specific climate, but that doesn’t change what defines your
> baseline equipment. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If the goal is simply to reduce heating and cooling energy consumptions of
> your HVAC systems by XX%, and I can’t build something resembling the final
> design for an energy model, I simply can’t offer a better answer than
> “improve your heating and cooling efficiencies by XX%,” recognizing this
> alone will not get you there if your lighting consumptions and envelope
> performance do not do their part.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> A black and white answer to what minimum performance is required of any
> system for any specific LEED project goal is truly unapproachable until you
> start the energy model that will determine the results ;). ****
>
> ** **
>
> As it happens however, I can answer Robert’s most recent hypothetical
> almost directly:  I have performed a preliminary study for a building in
> the vicinity of El Paso, TX using 15 SEER AHU’s with energy recovery.  I
> determined a 30% LEED improvement would have been attainable using an
> envelope matching 90.1 baseline constructions, but this entailed a roughly
> 50% LPD reduction (I would have performed the lighting design and can
> attest this was achievable), and a healthy laundry list of EEM’s for
> mechanical, with a heavy service hot water equipment load helping things
> along.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> So to wrap up, I’d say 15 SEER units absolutely can be one part of a
> bigger picture achieving a 10% LEED performance rating.****
>
> ** **
>
> Apologies for the walls of text… sometimes the quick & easy answer is
> “there aren’t any quick and easy answers!”  Hope this discussion is helpful
> to you and yours in any case!****
>
> ** **
>
> ~Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ** **
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Dennis Knight [mailto:dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com<dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:24 PM
> *To:* RobertWichert
> *Cc:* Nick Caton; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org;
> EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?****
>
> ** **
>
> Robert,****
>
> Simple answer is "No" - that is my point - it more than likely never will.
>  You have to include all of your proposed energy conservation measures that
> you are likely to apply into a single model with your user and
> climate/local specific schedules and profiles included to see what
> the aggregated savings maybe.  You can run multiple models changing only
> one component to do some sensitivity analysis to see what
> variables/measures may give you more dramatic changes in total energy
> consumption, cost, carbon  emissions, indoor comfort, life cycle cost, life
> cycle assessment, etc.  (which ever your client and you are using as your
> decision making criteria).****
>
> As for the question regarding 10% energy reduction using 15 SEER
> equipment: I've gotten 10% better energy performance using 90.1 minimum
> SEER compliant equipment and effecting change in lighting power density,
> lighting controls, controllable plug loads and better envelope/less
> infiltration, better ventilation and properly downsizing the mechanical
> systems.  You do not always have to improve the mechanical efficiency of
> the HVAC equipment to achieve an energy efficiency improvement target.  It
> is a whole building analysis that the owner's O&M behavior can have a major
> impact on.  Conversely, I've had bleeding edge efficiency and complexity in
> the energy using systems at some facilities and the buildings perform worse
> than an minimum code compliant building  or a local median EUI when a
> custodian who knows how to turn things off at night could have done better
> - when the owner does not understand how the design team intended the
> building to be operated when they made their analysis.  For example, I just
> investigated a net zero energy house that was donated to an international
> non-profit.  It has 22 SEER geothermal heat pumps, an envelope so tight it
> had no air measurable leakage at 80 pascals, LED lighting, solar water
> heater, energy recovery ventilator, solar PV, SIPS panel wall system,
> commercial grade low e windows and a sophisticated energy monitoring
> system.  It is built right next to a conventionally built house, stick
> framed, minimum residential code compliant construction with 13 SEER air
> source heat pumps.  Both are occupied by single mothers with two children.
>  The net zero house has worse energy performance than the code minimum
> house almost entirely due to occupant behavior. I personally did not
> believe you could operate that house such that it would ever consume much
> energy, but you can.  In this case the owner was not determined until after
> the house was constructed and did not have a stake in the design and was
> not trained on the special features of the house when it was offered to
> her.  Now that she has been educated I can see some reductions - but the
> house is still falling way short of its goal of net zerobecause the owner
> is just unwilling to change her lifestyle no matter what the nergy costs
> are.****
>
> Dennis****
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:28 PM, RobertWichert <robert at wichert.org> wrote:
> ****
>
> I suppose the modeling software and how it treats energy might have
> something to do with it too (Note to CA and TDV), but for starters the
> modeling software will look at actual conditions in the particular place
> where the project is located.  As an absurd case, if there was no cooling
> needed, an infinite SEER would show no improvement.  SEER is for "typical"
> and each project is not necessarily typical.  For somewhere with a high
> cooling demand, SEER should have a greater effect, but cooling is only a
> small part of the energy budget.
>
> I can appreciate that with "10% better walls, 10% better windows (or how
> about 10% less windows), 10% lower lighting wattages, 10% more efficient
> hot water, all compared to the standard, you could get 10% better using a
> SEER 14.3, but I have never gotten that result.  I suppose that I need to
> look harder at the other legs on the stool.  For me, I need SEER 17 to get
> to 10% better in California with a somewhat lopsided stool.  I am curious
> what experience others have.
>
> The theoretical answer may be "Make everything else use 10% less energy
> than standard and have a SEER 14.3 AC unit, and you're done" but to be
> honest, that doesn't ever work for me.
>
> Maybe a better question is; have you ever gotten 10% better than ASHRAE
> 90.1 with a 15 SEER AC system?  In a real project with real people fighting
> over costs, etc.?****
>
> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C****
>
> +1 916 966 9060****
>
> FAX +1 916 966 9068****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ===============================================****
>
> On 1/16/2013 2:25 PM, Dennis Knight wrote:****
>
> Robert, ****
>
> SEER is a seasonal energy efficiency ratio and is unitless.  It is the "cooling
> output during a typical cooling-season divided by the total electric energy
> input during the same period":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio.  A unit
> with 10% or better seasonal cooling energy efficiency over a 13 SEER unit
> would have a SEER rating of 14.3 or greater (1.1x13) if all other operating
> parameters were held constant.  See link for definitions and other
> references.****
>
> Dennis****
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, RobertWichert <robert at wichert.org> wrote:
> ****
>
> My current project has very good windows, "standard" walls, you're right
> about the lighting, it's right on budget (but residential doesn't really
> have a budget, so the small common areas are right on budget), better than
> standard roof.
>
> I absolutely agree with you, Nick, on achieving 10% better, but all the
> trades point to the others.  It's kind of comical, actually.
>
> I guess my question on this list could be rephrased, using your approach,
> as "What SEER is 10% better than SEER 13?"
>
>
>
>
> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
> +1 916 966 9060
> FAX +1 916 966 9068
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
>
> On 1/16/2013 12:34 PM, Nick Caton wrote:****
>
> A very simple way of looking at LEED & energy, which I come back to often
> for discussions on that level, is to consider a building's performance like
> a tripod with three important legs:  Lights, Mechanical, and Envelope.  If
> any of those legs is too short, the tripod falls over.
>
> Building on that analogy, to do 10% better than a LEED baseline, a good
> starting place is to have at least:
> -  10% better lighting (10% lower LPD),
> -  10% better HVAC & hot water heating (10% better efficiencies), and
> -  10% better envelope (10% more insulation in walls/roof, 10% better
> windows).
> For each of these, you can source the baseline/prescriptive levels from
> the standard of your choosing.
>
> Overperforming in one area can sometimes make up for underperfomance in
> another, but with diminishing returns.  Amazing HVAC equipment/design has a
> harder time shining when you have a poor envelope and/or the lighting
> designer treats LPD's as a "budget" they have to use up.  For such reasons,
> it's advisable to always consider building performance in holistic fashion
> in early/broader discussions.
>
> That's my (simple) take anyway!
>
> ~Nick
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> SENIOR ENGINEER
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> www.smithboucher.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of RobertWichert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:24 AM
> To: EnergyPro at yahoogroups.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED - What does it take?
>
> I know that LEED is way more than just energy, and energy is way more than
> just equipment, but just for a basis, what SEER and EER do people have to
> use to get 10% better than ASHRAE 90.1 to qualify for LEED?  I also know
> that you don't have to use ASHRAE 90.1, but that is what I am doing.
>
> So, what does it take?
>
> My shot - Residential Apartment, individual DX units, 17 SEER and 13 EER
> in California CZ 12 (Mostly cooling).
>
>    Next?
>
>
> --
> Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
> +1 916 966 9060
> FAX +1 916 966 9068
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> M. Dennis Knight, P.E. ****
>
> Founder & CEO****
>
> *W*hole *B*uilding *S*ystems, LLC****
>
> P.O. Box 1845****
>
> Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465****
>
> Phone: 843-437-3647****
>
> Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com****
>
> Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> M. Dennis Knight, P.E.****
>
> Founder & CEO****
>
> *W*hole *B*uilding *S*ystems, LLC****
>
> P.O. Box 1845****
>
> Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465****
>
> Phone: 843-437-3647****
>
> Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com****
>
> Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
M. Dennis Knight, P.E.
Founder & CEO
*W*hole *B*uilding *S*ystems, LLC
P.O. Box 1845
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: 843-437-3647
Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com
Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130121/0d958be7/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list