[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost LEED points

[Julia Beabout]

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
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
 
 
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
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
 
 
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
>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
>>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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>><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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110514/be5e54dc/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110514/be5e54dc/attachment-0004.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110514/be5e54dc/attachment-0005.jpeg>