[Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for Discussion

[Maria Karpman]

Justin,

 

I agree with you that it is important for modelers to have a consistent,
clear message on why building energy models make sense for new construction,
and want to reiterate what Jeff wrote below, that their main intent is to
rate building's assets from efficiency standpoint. In this sense,
performance rating calculated via 90.1 Appendix G is conceptually similar to
efficiency ratings of HVAC equipment (EER, COP, etc.), MPG fuel economy for
cars,  or kWh consumption on appliance's Energy Guide label. I don't think
there is any disagreement regarding the usefulness of the standard EER, COP,
MPG, etc. ratings. It is also widely understood that these ratings represent
performance at standard rating conditions and thus will not match the actual
equipment efficiency achieved in a particular installation. All buildings
are different, making it impractical to use field testing to rate their
performance (for one, it would be too late to improve building efficiency if
it is already constructed), so we have to resort to energy modeling. 90.1
App G protocol is not intended for predicting the actual post-construction
building  consumption. This is made very clear in Note 2 to G1.2: "Neither
the proposed building performance nor the baseline building performance are
predictions of actual energy consumption or costs for the proposed design
after construction. Actual experience will differ from these calculations
due to variations such as occupancy, building operation and maintenance,
weather, energy use not covered by this procedure, changes in energy rates
between design of the building and occupancy, and the precision of the
calculation tool."

 

Maria

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Justin Spencer
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Jeff Haberl
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

Thanks, Jeff for the great synopsis and list of sources for calibration
methods, and for others providing an enlightening discussion. Discussions
like this are why I subscribe to the bldg-sim. 

 

I've felt for a while that standardized calibration procedures for different
kinds of buildings would be highly useful for the community of modelers
working on calibrating to existing buildings (like those of us doing impact
evaluation measurement and verification work for utilities and regulators). 

 

I think the whole idea of an uncalibrated model being able to predict energy
consumption of a real building is off base. Look at the BESTEST results for
different simulation engines looking at simplified results. I'm not sure
what a reasonable standard would be for prediction when you have a
well-specified set of building operating parameters, but my gut says its at
least +/-30%, and more like +/- 50%. 

 

This is where modelers need to have a consistent, clear message on why
building energy models make sense for new construction. I'm not a new
construction modeler and never have been, but I see the value from new
construction models being to evaluate different design options for saving
energy compared to some baseline, and for estimating what the savings
fraction relative to a baseline. While these kinds of results aren't
completely independent of actual building occupancy and usage, they are
likely to be accurate enough to provide useful information to the design
process and create real value. We need to remember the inherent uncertainty
in the results, but also remember that the information is still useful for
making decisions about a building's design and which design paths are likely
to offer more cost-effective means of achieving energy efficiency goals. 

 

If we want to come up with target EUIs for newly constructed buildings, then
I think major benchmarking studies are much better ways to go, i.e. what is
the typical consumption of new buildings having X application with X
occupancy patterns in X climate, and what is the distribution. If you're a
standard deviation below the mean, you should have a big opportunity for
improvement. 

 

Last, I think we should have some way of quantifiying the resiliency of
savings associated with different kinds of energy efficiency measures. This
comes down to how sophisticated the building operator needs to be to
maintain the savings as designed. For example, an improvement to the
envelope is pretty close to permanent. A high efficiency chiller or other
primary HVAC device should offer savings regardless of what the operator
does. An enthalpy-controlled economizing system is not very permanent, and
any kind of reset schedule for various airside or waterside heating and
cooling delivered to the space is only going to last with an adept building
operator in charge. It would be nice to standardize a way to differentiate
energy scoring of new buildings on the basis of where the savings are coming
from and have some way of discounting controls-based savings against
envelope or equipment-based savings as a means of showing the true value of
savings that are more resilient to the whims of building operators with a
different objective than energy savings. 

Regards,

Justin Spencer

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:

Hello,

 

There are lots of interesting threads on this conversation. However, I think
that there are also some misconceptions.

 

First, model as you will for new construction, at best, in my opinion, you
are performing a rating of the building's assets compared against a
standard, much like the mileage ratings on a car that you purchase. If you
are using the IECC, 90.1, 189 or the IGCC, you have to use specific rules to
guide the input of internal heat gains, etc. Such rules have been carefully
crafted to avoid gaming and to attempt to deliver the same result regardless
of who performs the simulation.

 

Therefore, it is my opinion that such a simulated asset rating of a building
should not be construed to match the actual energy use of the building
(period). If does happen to match the actual energy use, then a miracle has
just taken place because the probability of this not happening is large. 

 

Second, if you do attempt to match the energy use of a real building, there
is advice about how to go about this in the literature, including the
results of many ASHRAE projects, for example: RP827 for in situ equipment,
RP 1404 (ongoing) for how to use short term/long term measurements to match
a real building, RP1051 for advice about overall calibrations, RP1052 for
advice on AHU modeling, RP1004 for advice on thermal storage modeling, RP865
for advice on secondary system modeling, and soon RP1468 for advice about
modeling and BIM to thermal. So, there's hope that one can actually match a
real building, if you have measured data and if you have real systems that
match your model's systems, and if you have real weather data and if you
have a large budget and tons of patience, etc., etc. Otherwise, getting a
"match" is really an exercise of "matching lumps" against "measured lumps".

 

Third, don't ever forget that simulations of building envelopes are just
great big R-C networks, and when you attach a system simulation to this you
are perhaps adding a bit of psychrometrics, and then a bunch of curve fits
since most widely used programs do not have first principle models of their
chillers, boilers, etc., just curve fits.

 

Fourth, whole-building simulations do a really bad job of simulating faults
or broken systems. For 

example, when a building is badly zoned (i.e., the thermostat and zoning was
wrong from the building and parts of the building are always too cold or too
hot, etc.). In such cases, you can't simulate it very well. In other cases,
where valves are broken and/or the building has weird controls -- best of
luck.

 

Fifth, simulations of building envelopes is still REALLY CRUDE. For example,
simulation programs have no wall thickness. Think about it. The wall is just
a thin 2D construct with the thickness only accounted for in the material
definition. Hence, to get it right, a simulator has to "setback" the
windows, since most windows are located midway in the wall and have a small
2 to 3 inch shade from the overhang of the lintel. Or consider that
simulations do not consider the corners of buildings, just the area of the
wall. So, you've got lots of corners in your building you might need to
compensate. 

 

Sixth, shaded windows in the DOE-2 family of codes use George Walton's
algorithm to assign the calculation point for the shading. This has 10
divisions by default, it splits the window in half vertically, then each
half into fifths.or if you choose 20, 30.up to 40 it keeps going. For most
rectangular windows this doesn't make a difference, but for a shaded, curved
window in elevation, to get the most accurate results, you end up with a bit
of a quilt-looking window - no kidding. RP1468 (forthcoming) will shed some
light on items 5 and 6.

 

So, before we make claims about how to do things better, we need to remember
just how rough we are REALLY doing them now (actually it's can be pretty
good), and then choose our words carefully when we make claims about what is
being simulated - I'm just as guilty of this as anybody.

 

Jeff

 

8=!  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=(  8=)  8=()  8=)  8=|  8=)  :=')  8=)8=?

Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu

Professor............................................................Office
Ph: 979-845-6507

Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065

Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457

Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581

College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu
<http://www.esl.tamu.edu/> 

8=/  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=()  8=)  :=)  8=)  8=!  8=)  8=? 8=)8=0

  _____  

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Karen Walkerman
[kwalkerman at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Matthew W. Higgins
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; Ellis, David 


Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

Two things: 

 

1.  Some modeling software has lots of controls built into default HVAC
system types.  These controls are often better than what is planned or
installed for the building.  For example: economizers, demand controlled
ventilation or outdoor air reset might be assumed.  Similarly, on many
projects the HVAC controls drawings or sequence of operation is either
missing or not useful at all.  Without good information, it's tempting as a
modeler to assume efficient control of equipment.  However, on the actual
building, the opposite is likely to happen.

 

2.  Once I account for usage patterns, if a building I modeled during design
performs poorly in comparison to my model, I generally view at as the
building's "fault", and not the fault of my model.  The model can be a great
diagnostic tool for discovering where/how the building is not operating as
was modeled.  With a cooperative engineer and facilities manager, we can
usually make adjustments in building controls to bring the building more
closely in line with the model.  If the building was not insulated properly,
that is another matter, and post-occupancy adjustments are
difficult/impossible to make.  However, I would argue that the solution is
not to model poor construction and execution, but try to find a way to use
the model's projected energy data to keep the energy target in sight through
construction.

 

--

Karen

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Matthew W. Higgins <MWHiggins at bpce.com>
wrote:

Hi all. I'd like to echo Jim's comment, and express excitement about what
RMI is doing. Related to the "reality factor," I've seen a tremendous gap
between what LEED/GBCI wants and what will actually take place in the
building, and the lack of sanity checks in modeling software. Though it is
the responsibility of the modeler to perform sanity checks, and quality
control, just spending the extra couple of hours each project can make the
world of difference. On that end I've created a slew of my own sanity-check
post-processing tools for eQuest and feel like our deliverables have
improved significantly as a result.

 

What some of the data our clients are sharing has begun to express the
overwhelming need for these checks in all modeling, which includes analyses
I've reviewed on behalf of our clients. In recent projects I've gone so far
as to assume building-user error, reflected in schedules and temperatures,
which has been spot on when comparing to metered data. This is somewhat
taboo, because not many people are likely to voice these foreseeable
shortcomings when delivering EUI's during design that look inflated, for a
new "high performance" building, but as sanity checks and associated tools
develop it may become easier.

 

What we can do, as an industry, is get better at setting expectations
parallel to educating the building community about the usefulness/value of a
good model.

 

Great thread folks.

 

Matthew Higgins, CEM, HBDP, LEED-AP (BD+C) 

Energy Project Manager

 

Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers, Inc.

4600-C Montgomery Blvd. NE

Albuquerque, NM  87109

505.883.4111  (t)

505.888.1436  (f)

 

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Ellen Franconi
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:48 PM
To: Ellis, David
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org


Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

This is a timely issue to be raised. I appreciate David Ellis' overview. As
he states, the industry expects the need for adjustments/corrections to
verified savings models so the same should nominally be expected for
whole-building simulation models developed to inform design decision. 

 

During the RMI Building Energy Modeling Summit
(http://www.rmi.org/ReportsBEMInnovationSummit), the Methods & Processes
break-out group came to agree that part of the modeling credibility
challenge could be managed by addressing owner's expectations. We determined
that modeling was performed for one of three objectives - 1) for making
performance comparisons (e.g. comparing design options), 2) demonstrating
compliance (e.g. LEED baseline or code) or 3) predicting performance.
Depending on the objective, the level of effort and associated costs are
different (as others have acknowledged on this email chain). The owner and
statement of work need to recognize these differences. And as others have
pointed out, a building simulation model assumes ideal conditions. It can be
used to benchmark actual operation against and detect operational issues.
But it can't be expected to reflect conditions other than those assumed in
the model. 

 

Inspired by the work plan developed by the Methods & Processes break out
group (see link for final report and work plan), I submitted a proposal to
DOE to complete work in line with what David proposed for the industry. We
are just getting it underway. We refer to it as the Building Energy Modeling
Library or Modeling for Investor Confidence. While this is a broad area, we
are starting by structuring and documenting modeling best practice
procedures to facilitate their use in modeling guidelines, standards, scopes
of work etc. As much as possible, we aim to include risk
assessment/management into the methods. Once developed, the methods will be
posted on the internet. I'll share our progress as we go with the
list-serve. 

 

I also recently co-authored a paper on risked-based building energy
modeling, which provides a pretty good overview and some new ideas to
support the topic. If anyone is interested to read it. let me know and I'll
email you a copy.

 

Best regards,

Ellen. 

 

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ellis, David <David.Ellis at hdrinc.com> wrote:

Bill, Jim, Dennis, et al 

 

This is a tough nut. In the ESPC or ESCO world, where performance must be
depended upon to achieve financial returns, there are understood and
controlling processes in what equipment is bought, how it is installed, how
it is maintained, how it is operated and expected duty schedule. Contracts
are written to reduce uncertainty to the point that in some cases any
deviance, in seemly minor matters, throws the performance expectations up
for renegotiations.

 

While weather changes can be adjusted for after the fact (and thus readily
understood as a reason for some differences between real and modeled
performance), outside of the ESPC/ESCO arena, a design engineer/modeler can
make their best fine tuned efforts on construction intent equipment and
operations, to be undone by changes in installation, commissioning,
operational practices and occupancy that are not under their control, and
are frequently difficult to document after the fact.

 

In the design arena, modeling is a means to assess options on a level plane,
and should not be offered as a predictor of actual cost unless that risk is
fully evaluated and compensated for (both in labor/risk fees and in the
processes to assure changes are documented). There is a real need to fully
vet an industry standard approach to identifying the risks (for fair
negotiation), and establishing standards in best practices.

 

Yes, our modeling does inform sequences of operations, as strategies can be
involved, and are a combined designer and modeler effort. They do indeed
make their way into construction intent documents . but implementation and
ongoing maintenance are another matter.

 

A calibrated model is an excellent tool for more realistically evaluating
operational and systems changes. But here too, the results should be
considered as a way to evaluate options on a level playing field, as control
over so many variables is out of the modelers scope.

 

I would encourage the development of collective industry guidance towards
understanding these risks and offering clarification on expectations for
client informational purposes.

 


David Ellis
PE (VA, MD, DC)

LEED AP BD+C

CEM

PMP

HDR Architecture Inc
Energy Services Technical Director, NC


1101 King Street, Suite 400  | Alexandria, VA 22314
703.647.7735 | c: 703.343.6758
 <mailto:first.last at hdrinc.com> David.Ellis at hdrinc.com |
<http://www.hdrinc.com/markets/architecture> hdrarchitecture.com

Follow Us -
<http://www.architizer.com/en_us/firms/view/hdr-architecture/8916/>
Architizer |  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/HDR-Inc/142672125757519?ref=ts>
Facebook |  <http://twitter.com/#!/HDR_Inc> Twitter |
<http://www.youtube.com/HDRinc> YouTube |
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdrarchitecture/sets/> Flickr

 

 

From: Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Jim Dirkes; Dennis Knight; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org


Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

Jim said most of what I was going to say. Additionally,

.         An energy modeler's task for a new construction project is rarely
to accurately predict energy use, but to demonstrate compliance with, and
improvement over, code performance.

.         Modelers generally do not fine tune plug loads, occupant numbers
and schedules etc. because these are kept identical for determining improved
performance over code.

.         Sequence of operations. The modeler is usually not the engineer of
record, and should therefore not be dictating the sequence of operations of
HVAC/plant equipment. I may provide the mechanical engineer with suggestions
on controls strategies and setpoints, and sometimes they are receptive.
However, my focus as energy modeler is energy, and not comfort, system
complexity or reliability. Regardless, the exact sequence of operations,
even if meticulously described in the design documents, may not be
implemented, or may be changed many times during the first year or two of
building operation.

.         No/poor commissioning of buildings. Buildings designed to be very
energy efficient often rely on complex controls for HVAC and lighting
systems. Many buildings are not commissioned, and even in the ones that are,
commissioning is often little more than verifying that the equipment and
controls were installed as designed. The commissioning agent rarely has the
time/budget/scope to determine that all control strategies are operating as
designed. Also, the commissioning agent cannot change the weather conditions
during which the building is commissioned, making it next to impossible to
check CHW controls during winter for example.

.         New buildings often go through many changes in operating
conditions during their first year or two. New buildings are often in use
after hours due to people moving into their new offices, or because they are
nice facilities and the demand to utilize them is high.

.         One of the best ways to predict energy performance is data mining
of existing building performance. Hopefully, CBECS and other building
performance databases will be a big area of focus for our field.

 

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> From:
bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jim Dirkes


 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:56
AM
To: Dennis Knight; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Dear Dennis and BldgSim Community,

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 1.       I think the tools are
absolutely up to the task.  My own practice uses EnergyPlus exclusively, but
I know that most of the other tools are based in solid thermodynamic and
physical principles - so they start on a solid foundation.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 2.       Current best practices is
another story altogether!

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> a.       Keeping in mind that I know
only the "Best practices" for my own firm .

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> b.      Energy modelers of new
construction are normally given scant information.  

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> .   Partly this is due to the owner not
knowing exactly how the new facility will be used.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> .   Partly this is due to the Owner and
Designer not caring about, not appreciating the importance of, or just not
needing to gather detailed information about the operation of a building
that hasn't been built.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> .   Partly it's because "as built" is
never "as designed". (Think of fan and pump pressure estimates differing
from actual, weather variances, occupancy schedule changes, etc.)

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> .   The energy modeling community has,
it seems, a lot of bright young men and women who are "learning the ropes".
The fact that they are becoming involved is very exciting!  Their education
must be broadened, however, in order for them to become effective at
modeling existing buildings. It's no longer just theory;  there is a lot of
practical, "hands on" activity that is needed.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 3.       Inferred above is the host of
variables that differ in an actual building's operation from what may have
been assumed.  The older the building, the more variations there are!

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 4.       Most building operators, if
they exist within the building as a full time position, are distracted with
many other details and spent precious little time optimizing energy
performance.  If there is no full time building operator ...

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 5.       This is a field ripe with
opportunity!  The first and hardest task, I think, is to get building owners
convinced that the ROI for optimal building performance is better than any
of their other opportunities for investing.  The next task is to streamline
the process of calibration and identification of opportunities so that they
is faster and more economical.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 6.       . and I'd love to expand this
discussion during the Q&A period at my presentation on this topic during the
ASHRAE Energy Modeling Conference!

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
www.buildingperformanceteam.com 
Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services
1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
616 450 8653

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> From:
bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Knight
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:24 AM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
Discussion

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> I am the Chair of the conference
committee for the ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference that will be held
in Atlanta on October 1, 2 & 3 this year (see link below).  The conference
is focused on bringing practitioners, software developers, researchers and
facility users together for 3 days of in depth discussion on current
modeling software capabilities and current best practices in energy
modeling.  I have two questions that I would like to pose to this group to
get some feedback to help provider richer content for the discussions
planned at the conference;

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 1. Are the current energy modeling tools
available to an energy modeling practitioner reliable enough to allow the
modeler to predict a building's actual energy consumption with a high degree
of confidence such that an accurate energy target can be established and
recommended to the building owner for the new building or a
renovation/retrofit? 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 2. Are the current best practices of the
energy modeling community reliable enough, and well understood by most
practitioners, to allow the modeler to predict a building's actual energy
consumption with a high degree of confidence such that an accurate energy
target can be established and recommended to the building owner for the new
building or a renovation/retrofit? 

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Background for the discussion:

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> These questions recently came up in a
discussion among the conference committee.  It seems that one our colleagues
from the UK indicated that in the UK new schools have performed very poorly
in comparison with their predicted energy use.

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Another comment that was made was as
follows:

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> "Often a building's actual energy
consumption is 1.5 to 2 times as much as the results of an energy model that
was used to make decisions during design about the building's energy using
systems.  Is it the the energy modeling tools or is it the processes used by
energy modelers to describe the systems and how they operate in the
software? Should energy models be used to "predict" a building's future
energy performance or just be used to inform better decisions during design?

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> I have reviewed a good many models and,
almost without fail, I never see a modeler start by writing a sequence of
operation and I also never see the sequence of operation used by the modeler
make its way into a set of construction documents.  

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Also, when I am the modeler and I am
"calibrating" a model to an existing building's actual energy consumption it
is a very iterative process.  I know what things to manipulate in the model
to effect demand and what things to manipulate to effect consumption.  I
just keep going back and forth until I have a model that you can almost lay
its output on top of the building's utility bill history. I also have a good
understanding of how the building is actually being operated and maintained
- which I hope helps make the model more accurate, but, does that process
really give me a better model to make decisions from?"

 

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> I invite everyone to please, tell us
what you think.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Link to conference webpage:
http://www.ashrae.org/membership--conferences/conferences/ashrae-conferences
/emc2012

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 


 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> -- 
M. Dennis Knight, P.E.

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Founder & CEO

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Whole Building Systems, LLC

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> P.O. Box 1845

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Phone: 843-437-3647

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Email: dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> Website: www.wholebuildingsystems.com

 

 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.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

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 



 

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> -- 
Ellen Franconi, PhD, LEED AP, BEMP
Senior Consultant, Built Environment Team

Rocky Mountain Institute
1820 Folsom Street
Boulder, CO 80302
303.567.8609 (Desk)
303.245.7213 (Fax)

Rocky Mountain Institute drives the efficient and restorative use of
resources, creating a world thriving, verdant, and secure, for all, for
ever.

http://www.rmi.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

 

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5252 - Release Date: 09/06/12

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120906/4a70e566/attachment-0002.htm>