[Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs

Varkie C Thomas thomasv at iit.edu
Wed Feb 9 15:55:26 PST 2011


I agree with Chris Balbach.  When the Chicago Energy Code was issued, the person submitting the document for building energy compliance had to be registered.  Registration could be architectural or engineering (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical).  The PE or AIA is putting their careers on the line because their registration can be revoked for bad design that results in damage or injury.  The work can be done by any non-registered personell (as is most design work) but the PE makes sure that the person is qualified to do the work and has to check it.
Varkie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110209/e3b05857/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
All;

Alright  - I'll weigh in on this one... There's big difference between licensing and certification.

What I mean by that is that there is a big difference (IMHO) between a PE placing his/her stamp on a document and a BEMP, etc. reviewing and approving the same document. The difference is a level of risk that the PE is assuming when he/she stakes their name and reputation behind something. The engineering profession has, over time, instituted a series of 'checks and balances' for ensuring quality work, for example, there exists a NSPE "Code of Ethics for Engineers" (http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html). There is also licensing board (differs state by state) who both gives and takes away licenses based on professional misconduct, etc. There are also Boards of Ethics who again, review complaints and can recommend to the state board that a PE lose his/her license based on the situation - far,far more than the "continuing education" requirements that currently exist for the BEMP or AEE modeling certifications.

The Engineering Code of Ethics clearly states:

"Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence."

So, if you feel a PE is practicing outside his/her area of competence, then you have grounds to file a complaint with your state's licensing board.  It's been done before.  As a practicing PE, I also had better have "Professional Liability" insurance to manage the known and unknown risks associated with practicing in my field of expertise, because people can and will sue me. When I sign, stamp or seal a document, I am held to a much, much higher standard of performance than a BEMP, or BESA, CMVP, or many of the other certifications that are rapidly forming in the energy services space are currently being held to.

In a nutshell, I think the PE designation is (currently) the only engineering professional designation that has the kind of institutional Q/A that is necessary to prevent rampant abuse. I would love to see BEMP, BESA or other energy modeler certifications grow to this level, but we must acknowledge the inherent balance of (risk/reward) that comes with professional liability. I see why Northeast utilities wants to engage a PE, because if they choose to engage in this service, that PE is accepting a level of professional liability if/when things 'go south'.

I felt similar about Commissioning Certifications that were the rage a few years ago.  The way things were set up, it was the PE, or "design engineer of record" who assumed professional liability for a design, and the commission professional often had very little professional risk yet the potential for great reward (significant commissioning fees as compared to A/E design fees). I don't know if that has changed, but I see the potential for a similar 'set-up' with the energy modeling community.

Thoughts?

All the best,

_Chris

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

Performance Systems Development

124 Brindley Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
www.psdconsulting.com<http://www.psdconsulting.com/>


From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:49 PM
To: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez; Paul Diglio; eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs

As neither a PE (yet) nor a BEMP, I can offer some thoughts/suggestions from the sidelines =).


-          A BEMP certification is certainly a more applicable qualification than having a PE seal from a model-reviewing standpoint.  That said, there is a much smaller pool of BEMP reviewers out there, and the desire for a certain quality standard in model reviews needs to be weighed against the availability of the "BEMP reviewership" out there.

-          179D's tax deduction precedent, which permits locally licensed contractors in addition to PE's involved in the work to produce/certify the calculations, better encompasses the range of commercial work out there on a national level (retrofit upgrades and the like) which may not locally require an Engineer's seal.

-          The suggestion that no certification (BEMP or PE) ought to be required of those compiling the incentive documentation is not a bad idea, provided the utility can manage or sub-contract out the spreadsheet/model/calculation review to those with the desired qualifications... see my next bullet.  Any such requirement will likely have some impact on how widely the incentive program is considered and pursued by building owners.

-          One of our local utilities has a similar incentive program, but they are much less open about who can certify the model/calculations submitted.  They privately hire out and take on the costs of such review as part of the incentive program's costs, so while it's no cost to submit, it's not up to the contractor/engineers seeking to achieve the incentives to decide who's doing the reviewing.  Consider that food for thought.

-          Also concurring this discussion would be better-situated in [bldg-sim], but perhaps this is a wide enough audience based on the quick responses =).

I can address the AE PE as I'm studying right now for April:  Those considering or studying for the Architectural Engineering (AE) PE exam will find experience in building energy modeling, and particularly the inter-discipline communication and design experience/understanding that stems from energy modeling, is pretty helpful.  Energy modeling experience isolated from building system design experience probably won't cut it, however.

The AE exam is unique to the other PE exams in that:

-          Every single question is directly related to the building industry - no questions about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

-          The exam is  very much cross-discipline: questions cover mechanical, electrical, plumbing structural design; envelop analysis, and project management / construction administration

-          There are also some inter-disciplinary questions (i.e. how lighting loads can affect cooling capacities and how fenestration layout/shading affects lighting/HVAC) which require knowledge in more than one area.  These questions are a piece of cake for those practiced in energy modeling.

-          If you practice energy modeling and seek to really understand what you're doing, you'll be forced to understand some fundamentals that the average MEP consultant won't need to be rock-solid on to do his/her job well, and that may put you at an advantage for the AE PE.

I would not conclude an AE PE would be any better/worse-qualified than an EE or ME PE for model reviewing however.  Having a PE of any sort is no guarantee of the modeling experience necessary for a quality review.

~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: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:59 AM
To: Paul Diglio; eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs


I too think you are right to do this, and should post on the other bldg-sim, and maybe all the other lists too.   This is a HUGE mistake and detriment to all simulators, and it is an insult to us experienced simulators to dictate that a PE has to review the sims...majority of the  PE's I know and work with are not simulators and know very little about simulation, let alone enough to review one properly--which is why I'm getting hired by them because I know simulation(s).  I would sooner trust a non-PE with direct simulation experience over a PE with little sim experience to review my own models...

Also I agree with David, and I will recommend to the contact you provided, that the BEMP certification is a much better measure of true simulation understanding, experience, and knowledge for review of simulations.   I think of the BEMP as the 'PE' for simulators--if someone can achieve the BEMP certification, at this point in time it is a better qualifier for simulation experience and knowledge than a PE would anyday---are there even any question on building energy simulation on the MECH PE exam?   Maybe there are sim questions on the new ARCH ENG PE exam for building designers?  Does anyone know?

There is likely to be much BIGGER issues with the quality of simulations that woud be submitted if they are being reviewed by inexperienced PE's who are dictating changes to the model that wouldn't be appropriate based on the software limitations that are so inherent in all of the whole building simulation programs that are on the market currently.  It is less likely for a random PE to be aware of these software limitations than a BEMP.


Pasha
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net<mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
I realize that this message might not be appropriate to the forum, but it is the only way I know to contact the other simulators that will be affected by Northeast Utilities modeling requirements. NU covers CT and Western Massachusetts.

Some of you might know that NU is offering sizable incentives for modeling, improvements over ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED certification.

The program is new for 2011 and NU just made the decision that the model has to be review and approved by a PE, any PE.  Even if LEED approves your application, it still needs to be vetted by a PE to qualify for an incentive.

If you are unhappy with this decision and find it is discriminatory, please e-mail James Motta mottaj at NU.com<mailto:mottaj at NU.com>.

Thank you,

Paul Diglio

_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG<mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>


--
Performance Systems Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity
http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=p19Kw5xf006255&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. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110209/e3b05857/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG


More information about the Equest-users mailing list