Energy modeling and its review is a very complex and detailed endeavor on both sides. It would be good if there could be more than one round of review, comment, address, finalize. Adding just one more round where both reviewers and modelers can respond would ovoid a lot of appeals and angst in this extremely important part of the process.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Alison Y Rivenburgh
223 thumbs up
May 2, 2012 - 5:22 pm
This is another situation where it would be helpful to have a conference call, webex or Go To Meeting between the energy modeler and the reviewer either before initial documentation is submitted, or before clarifications are submitted.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
May 31, 2012 - 11:57 am
A more open flow communication would bring a lot of benefit to both sides...the danger is only that the expert reviewer turns into a mentor/educator for which they are not paid. Nevertheless this point should be thought about in more depth.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
June 1, 2012 - 8:25 am
While we have been pretty successful in addressing review comments, when you have so many comments at one time, something can be missed or misunderstood. It is always good to have both the narrative comment, and a little background. You are right Jean, if you did not have someone doing the model that was experienced, it could turn into an education session, but I am guessing that GBCI could handle that. Dialogue between knowledgeable modelers can make the process go very quickly in this vital part of the LEED standard.
Energy modeling is complex, it will never be “simple” unless the building is simple. I welcome Sarah’s comments related to an early review of the baseline assumptions…anything that helps move the process will be welcome.