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
I think it is very relevant to the forum.
In my opinion, BEMP would be a useful accreditation for a reviewer as well,
especially since not all PEs may be experienced with the
calculations/programs/etc.
The PE requirement seems to be similar to the tax deduction guidelines, so I
wouldn?t say that it is unprecedented.
David
*
*
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, HBDP
*
*
*From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Diglio
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:58 AM
*To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* [Equest-users] Incentives for NU Modelers and LEED APs
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
David:
The Section 179D allows either a PE or Contractor licensed for the jurisdiction
that the building is located in to provide the model and calculations.
I am a licensed CT HVAC contractor, so I think this is unprecedented and will
add cost and no value. After all, we all know that the simulation is not
intended to predict energy costs with any level of accuracy, it is just meant to
provide a comparison. So there is no way to hold the PE or Contractor
responsible for faulty calculations.
Paul
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
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.
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
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
I have seen numerous e-mails on modeling GSHP with eQuest. Has anyone used eQuest to model GSHP for residential applications?
Ed Garcia
I would like to weigh in supporting Chris on the increased liability that a PE (and a licensed contractor) carry. Yes, I am a PE, so it?s probably not surprising that I feel this way. I also won?t disagree with the assertion that having a PE license doesn?t ensure that the engineer is qualified for the work and it doesn?t preclude an engineer from having shoddy business practices.
Anyone who has done very much building simulation at all, or just monitors this listserve, knows that it takes a certain amount of technical knowledge and time to wade through the innumerable variables, assumptions and bits of data that need to be input in order to perform a decent simulation. Unless the simulation is going to be reviewed in minute detail such as is done with LEED reviews, there are innumerable places where someone can go wrong either through knowingly trying to maximize or minimize the results, through ignorance, or through shoddy workmanship.
While Paul maintains that I can?t be held liable for a bad energy simulation, that may be the case for a non-PE (I don?t know how it applies to Licensed Contractors), but it?s definitely not the case for a PE. As part of my state-issued license to practice engineering, I carry a legal responsibility to act in the best interest of the public (whether ?the public? is my client or not) and to conduct all of my work according to the minimum Standard of Care for that type of service. Anyone can file a complaint with the state PE licensing board alleging that my work does not measure up. If the complaint is found to have merit and the licensing board chooses to pull my license, then I would be out of work since I am self-employed. This is all without ever going to a court and it has nothing to do with whether the energy goals were met or not, only whether the work I did was ?good enough?.
My take on what NU seems to be looking for, is for someone who has some kind of state-issued license (and therefore legal recourse) to review and approve the methodology and assumptions that went into the simulation. The various certifications previously mentioned may indicate adequate technical knowledge, but they carry no legal recourse unless they are backed by a license issued by a government agency.
That?s my take anyway.
Michael L. Hardy, PE, F.NSPE
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
Varkie:
Since energy modeling has not been on the PE tests, who verifies that the PE is
competent to review a complex model? A structural engineer or licensed
architect is qualified? I have not met either that knows more than the very
basics of HVAC design and operation. Have you?
I don't get it.
Paul
Hello,
This is a newly near and dear issue to me as I obtained my PE license last year. My company is now (rightly so) leveraging my licensure to offer the 179D tax cetification services via modeling. The difficultly is in pricing this service given the high level of simulation detail required for both ASHRAE 90.1 baseline modeling. Although I've been doing modeling since 2001 (3-4 per year), given the number of 90.1 models we have done to date (small) the time it's taking times the appropriate billing rates equals more time and money than the market may allow. And given the increase level of liability that a PE has, I err on the side of spending A LOT of time trying to get these right.
My question would be, how much time are you all taking to do one of these 179D models, particularly given whatever potential liability there is for the PE certifiying the results? How many hours? Isn't it annoying to have to switch back to 90.1-2001 when all the other modeling (i.e. LEED) use 2004 or 2007 (soon 2010)?
Thanks,
Edward M. Allen, PE, CEM
There are over 24 different PE exams offered nationally (states can offer their own tests in additional disciplines) including 3 different ?Mechanical? tests (one being HVAC and Refrigeration). However these still don?t verify that a PE is qualified for any specific engineering or design activity. Because the practice of engineering is so diverse, the PE exams cannot test for every possible design scenario. Instead, licensed PEs are legally and ethically required to practice only in areas where they can show competence. As Chris mentioned before, we can have our license revoked for an ethics violation just as quickly as it can be revoked on technical grounds. What constitutes showing competence varies state-by-state, however the bottom line comes down to being able to convince the state PE licensing board that the PE is qualified to practice in a specific area usually by showing a combination of specific education and experience regardless of which subjects may have been included on the original PE test.
Michael L. Hardy, PE, F.NSPE