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

[Paul Diglio]

Chris:

I don't think you get it.  There is no way anyone can hold you to the energy 
savings because a simulation is not intended to accurately forecast a buildings 
energy usage.  A PE can provide a cover letter, charge $2,000 or $3,000 and walk 
away fat and happy.  I am not saying you would do this, but some PEs will.

By the way, I also have liability insurance for commissioning, HVAC Contracting 
and energy auditing.  I can provide the calculations for a Section 179D 
deduction and my license, like yours, is on the line. 


Paul





________________________________
From: Chris Balbach <cbalbach at psdconsulting.com>
To: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez 
<pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>; Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; eQUEST 
Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 3:58:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs

 
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
 
 
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
 
 
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> 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.

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
 
Performance Systems Development Anti-X Message Security: Check Authenticity  
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/20110209/8ad42000/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110209/8ad42000/attachment-0001.jpg>