[Equest-users] Open Letter to LEED Energy Model Reviewers

Neeraj Arora neeraj at kamalcogentenergy.com
Tue Aug 20 06:21:13 PDT 2013


I do agree with you. Many times we get such comments which are just the
stock text and are asked because they are supposed to ask for the

Mostly, the reviewers say, "it seems" or "it appears", but they never
mention why it so appears? They must mention the reason of doubt and most
of all the solution of the problem.


Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Wesley S. Care <wesley.care at esdaz.com>
Sent: 20-08-2013 04:24 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Open Letter to LEED Energy Model Reviewers

    Dear LEED Energy Model Reviewers:

Let me first say that I believe most of you are doing your best and take
your positions seriously. Also, that I understand your jobs must be
difficult, to decipher modeling results from a variety of users and
software, all of us with our own modeling styles. In my commentary below,
know that I am trying to come from the position of a constructive critic,
and would like the LEED process to be better for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, the opaque, anonymous review process does not allow me any
forum whatsoever to provide feedback which would not threaten the review
status of my clients.

I received several (less than 10) comments on a model today. I expected
some, especially with a fairly unusual method of water heating in my
proposed model which is difficult to explain well with the template
process. However, two are completely unacceptable:

The first comment requests that I make modifications necessary to “reflect
Title-24 modeling protocol.” Ok, that would be fine, except my building is

The other comment includes bracketed notes to the reviewer him/herself,
resulting in a totally incomplete comment: “It is unclear whether the
Baseline case fan air flow rates were sized based on a 20 deg. F
supply-air-to-room-air temperature difference for each Baseline system
because [indicate why you think this has been done incorrectly and what you
are looking at to indicate this issue].” What am I supposed to do with
this? Choose my own adventure?

You may not have perspective on what it is like to be on the LEED submittal
side of this process, or why this might be a big deal. People do these
models as a JOB. A career. Some of us work for a company, others as
independent consultants. All of us do it for money, usually a pretty
substantial amount, and to get the work, we have to present ourselves as
qualified, professional energy modelers. When our clients, who paid a lot
for our professional services, see a “text wall” of comments, what do they
think? It’s one thing when the comments are reasonable, but totally
inappropriate when they are not.

Adding rubber-stamp comments does not make you look better as a reviewer.
It does not make our clients say, “Wow, all that money I paid to USGBC sure
is justified!” It makes us both look foolish, and it does two bad things
(over and above wasting my/my client’s/my company’s time). It delegitimizes
my standing as a modeler, because my client thinks I may not be as good as
I say I am (which impacts my or my company’s ability to negotiate decent
contracts going forward). And it delegitimizes the USGBC as a whole,
because now I know, as many others have attested on this forum as well,
that some of the model reviewing going on is some combination of
incompetent and lazy.

For all the work required to successfully complete a LEED model submission,
and all of the cost, surely we can at least expect you to double check your
own comments, and make sure that they are even relevant. You are not
graduate TAs grading freshman engineering papers. You are professionals,
guiding other professionals in the energy modeling process for tomorrow’s
efficient buildings. We’ve all made mistakes, but please, please take this



[image: ESD 25 LOGO BLACK] <http://www.esdaz.com/>

*Celebrating 25 Years*

Mechanical Engineers + Electrical Engineers + Sustainable

Wesley Care, EIT | Mechanical Project Engineer |* ** <wesley.care at esdaz.com>
 wesley.care at esdaz.com | ( 480.481.4973 | 6 480.481.4903
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130820/22d60d0b/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6362 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130820/22d60d0b/attachment-0002.jpeg>

More information about the Equest-users mailing list