Join us *Tuesday, January 22* for the next meeting of the Rocky Mountain
Energy Simulation Engineers (RMESE). Chris Baker will be presenting on
"Minding the Gap":
*"Minding the Gap"*
The use of energy modeling to drive design decisions earlier in the design
process has long been recognized as an effective way to increase building
energy performance. With this in mind, several utility-sponsored Design
Assistance programs in the Midwest and Colorado regions expanded their
scope to provide comparative energy analysis of design options as early as
the building programming portion of the design process. These utility
programs attempt to influence decisions that significantly impact the
energy performance of the designed building. To be effective for market
transformation, these programs need to provide incentives for more
energy-efficient decisions that occur in the conceptual stages of design.
To calculate savings in a utility program and provide incentives that can
be defensible, a fair and consistent baseline protocol is needed. Appendix
G to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 is currently the most robust energy
modeling protocol that can be used by such incentive programs and rating
systems. However, this protocol does not provide adequate baseline criteria
to evaluate early design decisions, such as building shape, glazing and
skylight area and programmatic efficiency. To enable the calculation of
savings and incentives, Appendix G needs to be expanded to provide
additional baseline criteria.
This presentation explores where Appendix G falls short of providing
baseline criteria for decisions made early in the design process, and
proposes changes to Appendix G that would allow these savings to be
captured.
Chris Baker, AIA, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEED? AP BD+C
Chris Baker, an Energy Analyst at The Weidt Group, focuses on providing
data and analysis to help design teams understand the energy and
environmental implications of various design options. Since joining The
Weidt Group in 2006, Mr. Baker has consulted on projects totaling more than
5 million square feet, including fifteen LEED Certified projects and
another 17 LEED Registered projects.
Mr. Baker received an MBA from the University of Minnesota and a Bachelor
of Architecture and Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering with
an HVAC emphasis from the University of Kansas. He is a Registered
Architect and Professional Engineer.
We will be meeting at *The RMH Group in Lakewood at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 22* for a short presentation, appetizers, and drinks. The RMH Group
is located roughly 1 mile east of NREL at:
The RMH Group, Inc.
12600 W Colfax Avenue
Suite A-260
Lakewood, CO 80215
Addendum: We are not yet able to offer our presentations as an on-line
webinar or streaming video. We are looking into it for the future but
we're still just getting RMESE off the ground so it's probably something we
will grow into later. Thanks for all the interest from afar!
I have a lot of experience with incentive
programs and modelling to energy codes or
standards that do not include any inclusion of
economics - ie. how to define utility rates how
to avoid fuel switching between proposed and
Baseline cases when the Baselines systems can
look significantly different than the proposed
case systems. Not particularly by choice but more by age.
The Canadian Federal government instituted
incentives for showing energy savings over first
the ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Baseline. The C2000 program
defined how the energy savings were turned into
cost savings incentives - I can remember any
modifications to 90.1 but the way energy
efficiency measures were implemented and modelled
or post simulation adjusted.
This effort somehow morphed in the Green Building
Challenge of which the energy model was a very
small component of the overall rating. Again, I
don't recall any specific modifications to the
90.1 Baseline case but how the proposed was
modelled and how savings were calculated was defined for that program.
Then the MNECB came out with a whole building
performance path. This was very loosely defined
and the first step was to define the modelling
software requirements, then how the Proposed and
Reference cases were to be modelled. The first
incentive programs were based on fairly strict
requirements and a "help" system was published to
assist users with the model requirements without
defining any keywords, explicit software
etc. DOE2.1d/e was available at the time - no
interface at all. Text editor and debug.
The review process was quite
interesting. Somehow I had ended up modelling
the first LEED Gold project awarded by the USGBC
in Canada. This qualified me to review MNECB
incentive models - Proposed and Reference case
soft ware supplement and the help system.
My main point is that incentives typically
regionally based. The state, or other authority
has to base the incentive program on local,
typical "baseline" construction and
economics. Appendix G doesn't necessarily have
to be revised to take into account these regional
requirements. I think it would be very difficult
do modify A global standard to include some
accounting of regional requirements for developing local incentive programs.
>> Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Join us *Tuesday, January 22* for the next meeting of the Rocky Mountain
Energy Simulation Engineers (RMESE). Chris Baker will be presenting on
"Minding the Gap":
*"Minding the Gap"*
The use of energy modeling to drive design decisions earlier in the design
process has long been recognized as an effective way to increase building
energy performance. With this in mind, several utility-sponsored Design
Assistance programs in the Midwest and Colorado regions expanded their
scope to provide comparative energy analysis of design options as early as
the building programming portion of the design process. These utility
programs attempt to influence decisions that significantly impact the
energy performance of the designed building. To be effective for market
transformation, these programs need to provide incentives for more
energy-efficient decisions that occur in the conceptual stages of design.
To calculate savings in a utility program and provide incentives that can
be defensible, a fair and consistent baseline protocol is needed. Appendix
G to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 is currently the most robust energy
modeling protocol that can be used by such incentive programs and rating
systems. However, this protocol does not provide adequate baseline criteria
to evaluate early design decisions, such as building shape, glazing and
skylight area and programmatic efficiency. To enable the calculation of
savings and incentives, Appendix G needs to be expanded to provide
additional baseline criteria.
This presentation explores where Appendix G falls short of providing
baseline criteria for decisions made early in the design process, and
proposes changes to Appendix G that would allow these savings to be
captured.
Chris Baker, AIA, PE, BEMP, BEAP, LEED? AP BD+C
Chris Baker, an Energy Analyst at The Weidt Group, focuses on providing
data and analysis to help design teams understand the energy and
environmental implications of various design options. Since joining The
Weidt Group in 2006, Mr. Baker has consulted on projects totaling more than
5 million square feet, including fifteen LEED Certified projects and
another 17 LEED Registered projects.
Mr. Baker received an MBA from the University of Minnesota and a Bachelor
of Architecture and Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering with
an HVAC emphasis from the University of Kansas. He is a Registered
Architect and Professional Engineer.
We will be meeting at *The RMH Group in Lakewood at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 22* for a short presentation, appetizers, and drinks. The RMH Group
is located roughly 1 mile east of NREL at:
The RMH Group, Inc.
12600 W Colfax Avenue
Suite A-260
Lakewood, CO 80215