Engagement Focus Group:
Retrofit Manager Tool
Workshop Date: December 6th, 2013
Workshop Location: Navy Yards
Report Date: December 23rd, 2013
Submitted by: Valerie Patrick, Leslie Billhymer, Marissa Rosen
2
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
EEB Hub Summary Report on December 6th, 2013 Engagement Focus Group:
Focus Group on Retrofit Manager Tool for Comprehensive Building Analysis
Location: Building 101 Philadelphia Navy Yards
Date of Report: December 23rd, 2013
Submitted by: Valerie Patrick, Bayer MaterialScience
Leslie Billhymer, University of Pennsylvania
Marissa Rosen, University of Pennsylvania
Table of Contents
Overview
1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…......3
2. Key Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….......…3
3. Recommendations………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………......5
Details
4. Participants……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..….6
5. Agenda……………………………………………………………………………….………………………..………….…………..…..6
6. Group Input on Retrofit Manager Tool…......................................................................................7
Appendices
7. RMT Slides Presented…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………11
8. RMT Focus Group Task Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….15
9. RMT Information Sheet…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………....17
10. Energy Efficiency Measures Handout………………………………………………………………………………..…….18
11. Feedback Survey Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
3
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Overview
1. Executive Summary
Two construction service providers, 3 building engineers and 2 architects together with 15 members of
the EEB (Energy Efficient Building) Hub participated in a focus group on the Retrofit Manager Tool (RMT)
at the Navy Yards on Friday December 6th 2013. The overall purpose of this workshop was to engage
building architects, engineers, and construction service providers for small- and medium-sized (less than
250,000 ft2) commercial buildings in order to help build a Retrofit Manager Tool (RMT) that supports
energy-smart building retrofit decisions so that the EEB Hub can help catalyze more advanced energy
retrofits for commercial buildings in the region and beyond.
This workshop had two primary objectives. First, for EEB Hub researchers together with building
architects, engineers, and construction service providers to provide advantages and limitations with
using the RMT for an actual building retrofit project. Second, for EEB Hub researchers together with
building architects, engineers, and construction service providers to react to the Energy Efficiency
Measures (EEMs) data in the context of using it for an actual building retrofit project.
To meet these objectives, the workshop began with a welcome from Task 9 Leader Leslie Billhymer who
also level-set the participants’ understanding of their importance to the EEB Hub, described the purpose
and agenda for the focus group, and led a round of introductions for everyone in the room. Next, Jelena
Srebric provided context for the Retrofit Manager Tool (slides 1 through 8 in Appendix 7). Next, Rick
Mistrick described the daylighting features in the RMT (slides 9 through 12 in Appendix 7). Next, Jason
DeGraw described the air flow capabilities in the RMT (slides 13 through 19 in Appendix 7). Next, Matt
Dahlhausen described the energy modeling capabilities in the RMT (slides 20 through 23 in Appendix 7).
Then Mohammed Heidarinejad demonstrated the tool capability by running analyses based on input
data from Building 101 as a case study (see http://tools.eebhub.org/game to access the demonstration
site). Finally, the demonstration was followed by a group feedback session on the advantages and
limitations of the RMT as well as reactions to the Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) data currently being
used for the RMT (see Appendix 8 for task summary and Appendices 9 and 10 for group handouts).
The engagement and excellent work of the focus group participants provided valuable input on the RMT
and associated energy efficiency measures data that will help guide future research in directions of most
benefit to the market. In total, 27 advantages and 28 limitations were identified as well as 41 reactions
to the energy efficiency measure data currently being used for the RMT.
2. Key Results
Focus group participants identified 27 advantages for using the Retrofit Manager Tool which showed the
following:

Market actors most appreciated that the RMT provided a "one-stop" shop for building energy
efficiency.

EEB Hub researchers most appreciated that the RMT provided accessibility to different
stakeholders in the building energy retrofit market.
4
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Focus group participants also identified 28 limitations for using the Retrofit Manager Tool which showed
the following:

Market actors cared most about incorporating a robust business case, accommodating nonstandard buildings, and "baking in" building systems thinking to the RMT.

EEB Hub researchers cared most about insuring confidence in RMT output, providing
meaningful guidance to clients, the ability to benchmark, and incorporating a robust business
case.
3. Recommendations
Recommended next steps from the input collected at this focus group are as follows:
1. Launch a first version of this "comprehensive analysis" tool (RMT) at the end of BP3

Work with Kat Hinkle to create an informational marketing brochure to launch Version 1.0 of
the "comprehensive analysis" tool for small- and medium-sized buildings (also create one for
each of the other scales of analysis: lite analysis, partial analysis, and substantial analysis):
o Work with Kat Hinkle to incorporate advantages identified into marketing messages for
launch of the tool to DOE/BTO and the public.
o Provide examples of valuable insights the tool can provide to enable energy-smart
decision-making on building retrofits
o Explain the benefits and challenges associated with systems thinking for building retrofits
(manage expectations for user expertise needed to get the most out of the tool)
o Highlight how the tool can benefit different building retrofit stakeholders
o Provide a web link for users of the tool to provide input on future features and capabilities
for the tool (can give examples of those already planned)

Recruit a "user group" to meet monthly or quarterly (virtually or in person) to discuss
experiences with the tool and help debug as needed as well as inform launch plans and future
versions/releases of the tool going forward.
2. Address the top limitation from market actors present: incorporate some functionality to glean
return-on-investment impacts of different building retrofit scenarios (specifically: add payback period
and dollars to tracking sheet)
3. Address the top recommendations for the EEM's to address another important limitation from market
actors to have a broader range of building inputs. The top recommendations are as follows (note
green dots were priorities identified by market actors while blue dots were priorities identified by EEB
Hub researchers):

Thermostat setpoints need to be adjustable (2 green dots, 2 blue dots)

Sub-metered spaces (1 green dot)
5
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1

Heating/cooling hourly temperature and schedule, editable (1 green dot, 2 blue dots)

Demand control ventilation based on occupancy (1 green dot, 3 blue dots)

Allow separation of plug loads by type (1 green dot, 3 blue dots)

Occupancy-based sensors: variable, show research results to help our decisions (1 green dot,
4 blue dots)

Lamp/ballast needs to have options such as Super T-8, LED, T-9 (1 green dot, 1 blue dot)

Motor replacements to increase efficiency (1 green dot)

VPO's (Voltage Power Optimization) in pumps and VFD's (variable frequency drives) of HVAC
system (2 green dots)

Make it possible for selection of input included by R-value or by insulation type and thickness
etc. (1 green dot)

Window upgrade: vary performance attributes of retrofit systems (1 green dot, 2 blue dots)
6
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Details
4. Participants
The table below summarizes the Focus Group participants with their perspective and affiliation.
Participants in the December 6th Retrofit Manager Tool Focus Group:
Name
Alon Abramson
Jin An
Leslie Billhymer
Matt Dahlhausen
Jason DeGraw
Payam Delgashai
Steve Emmerick
Luke Fogel
Mohammed Heidarinejad
Rick Mistrick
Valerie Patrick
Kinga Porst
Brad Randall
Marissa Rosen
Lela Shimaka
Jelena Srebric
Mark Stutman
Ying Sun
Mitchell Swan
Chris Sylvia
Roya Taheri
Josh Wentz
Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania
Penn State University
University of Pennsylvania
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
NIST
MaGrann Associates
Penn State University
Penn State University
Bayer MaterialScience
Government Services Administration
Bruce Brooks & Associates
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pennsylvania
University of Maryland
Penn State University
Penn State University
MDC Systems
Concord Engineering
Taheri Architecture
Penn State University
Retrofit Market Perspective
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
Engineering
Construction
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
Architecture/Design
Engineering
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
Construction
Engineering
Architecture/Design
EEB (Energy-Efficient Building) Hub
5. Agenda
The agenda for the December 6th Focus Group was as follows:
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:50
PM
PM
PM
PM
Welcome, Introductions –Leslie Billhymer (UPenn)
Context for Retrofit Manager Tool – Jelena Srebric (UMD)
DAYSYM for Retrofit Manager Tool – Rick Mistrick (PSU)
CONTAM for RMT – Jason DeGraw (PSU)
7
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
2:10
2:30
3:55
4:00
PM
PM
PM
PM
Energy Modeling in the RMT – Matt Dahlhausen (PSU)
Group Work – Val Patrick (BMS) and Leslie Billhymer (UPenn)
Closing Remarks and Feedback – Jelena Srebric (UMD) and Leslie Billhymer (UPenn)
END
Note: UPenn is University of Pennsylvania, UMD is University of Maryland, PSU is Penn State University,
and BMS is Bayer MaterialScience.
6. Group Input on the Retrofit Manager Tool
The group referred to the handout on the RMT (Appendix 8) in identifying both advantages and
limitations for the RMT which is summarized in the tables below.
Advantages for the Retrofit Manager Tool:
Market Actor Perspective
EEB Hub Researcher Perspective
 Allow the owner to easily see the energy and
financial implications of the proposed retrofit
project
 Measures and scenario analyses with annual
strengths follows Facility Management planning
 Integration of ECMs "one-stop shop"
 Compatibility with other software
 Allows the engineer to quickly determine a nogo/go answer if an energy project is applicable
 Multiple analyses from a single data source - no
need to enter and re-enter data into difficult tools.
 Brad C.: Could demonstrate the advantages of
considering the building and systems as a whole
and justifying expenditures
 Saves time for energy efficiency professional in  Good inverse modeling applications
production of model and presentation to client.  Retrofit data in one place
 The tool provides third-party input and
verification which is beneficial for building
rapport and customer relationship
management
 Opportunity of owner to participate in
decision-making
 Analysis is not very time-consuming
 Easy to compare data from different software
packages quick
 EnergyPlus inside results are (relatively)
trustworthy
 Real procedure showing in the progress bar.
 Remove engineering black box
 Visible assumptions
 Simulations can be performed without knowledge
of Open Studio or EnergyPlus
 Online, cloud-based so no need to install software
 Software-guided workflow, works at the level of
8
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Market Actor Perspective
EEB Hub Researcher Perspective
detail needed
 Interface is easy to use
 Easy to characterize building
 Pull-down menus provide some suggestions
 More than a static audit document
 Don't need an expensive computer
 Don't need to install engine
Limitations for the UQ Tool:
Market Actor Perspective
EEB Hub Researcher Perspective
 How to add payback period and dollar figures
to tracking sheet (2 green dots)
 How to address the challenge that the answers are
only as good as the inputs perhaps through
examples (1 green dot, 3 blue dots)
 How to insure confidence in the costs (1 green
dot, 3 blue dots)
 How to incorporate and disclose all costs both
energy and construction and location and
market-dependent
 How to include utility and other program
incentives based on the region in calculating
costs
 How to incorporate more complicated and
exceptional conditions in the model (2 green
dots, 1 blue dot)
 How to know that my base model is accurate (1
green dot, 1 blue dot)
 How to understand uncertainties (1 green dot, 1
blue dot)
 How to proceed if RMT annual energy does not
match my power bills (1 blue dot)
 How to understand the risk or uncertainty
associated with retrofit measures (1 blue dot)
 How to account for shadowing from surrounding
buildings
 How to have a broader range for building
inputs (1 green dot, 1 blue dot)
 How to input specific material properties such as
glass VT, U
 How to not lead people down the wrong path
from plug-and-play approach without proper
understanding of building energy systems (1
green dot)
 How to take into account cost savings from lower
maintenance and operating costs associated with
an EEM
 How to insure that this can be used not only by
experienced professionals
 How to know that I am accounting for all the
variables from other building components that
could significantly impact energy use (1 green dot)
 How to integrate with LCA/LCCA (Life Cycle
Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Assessment)
tool
 How to give retrofit suggestions or strategy
guidance (1 green dot, 1 blue dot)
 How to add comparison to similar buildings to
 How to tell the tool that my AC systems needs
9
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Market Actor Perspective
tracking sheet (2 blue dots)
 No current database for comparing energy
performance to similar buildings in the region
(1 blue dot)
EEB Hub Researcher Perspective
replacement in 5 years (2 blue dots)
 How to incorporate no-cost and low-cost
operational measures - everything is capitalintensive or asset-based(1 blue dot)
 How to make data private and understand where
data will reside (1 blue dot)
 How to make results graphical since it is hard to
look at numbers
 How to account for no benchmarking either for
whole buildings or subsystems - no notion or
guidance is energy use is good
 How to compare to both an average building
energy performer for the state and to a
progressive building energy performer for the state
as a benchmark
 How to make extensible with other tools and make
inputs comparative with other tool inputs
Another view on the focus group input is categorized which is shown in the table below.
Categorized Advantages for RMT
Categorized Limitations for RMT
10
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Categorized Advantages for RMT
Categorized Limitations for RMT
11
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Appendix 7
7. RMT Slides Presented
12
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
13
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
14
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
See Appendix 10 for a table of these measures.
15
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Appendix 8
8. RMT Focus Group Task Summary
Task Statement: The EEB Hub needs the perspective of regional building architects, engineers, and
service providers on the value and usefulness of a web-based Retrofit Manager Tool (RMT) designed to
support energy-smart building retrofit decisions in order to help unleash the competitiveness of the
region’s buildings.
Key Background:
1. The EEB Hub engaged architect John Boecker to align EEB Hub demonstration project participants
on the principles of integrative design. John provided two examples of missed opportunities to
optimize building retrofit design based on the “as is” approach to building retrofits. One example
is more than 95% of architects do not discuss the light reflectance value of surfaces in the space
to be retrofitted with the electrical engineers on the project. An increase in light reflectance from
65 to 75 can reduce the number of light fixtures needed by 25% and lighting is the highest
consumer of energy in most office buildings. The second example is that no mechanical engineers
are discussing what the calculated lighting power density is with the electrical engineers before
sizing the HVAC for cooling. A drop in lighting power density can dramatically decrease the size of
the HVAC needed for cooling. These are examples of the kinds of integration opportunities that
can transform the business case for a building energy retrofit that are being missed because the
technical expertise of the trades are not being brought together to design the optimal approach
given the project constraints up-front.
2. The EEB Hub held a stakeholder engagement meeting last year and learned from building owners
and operators that a high-priority need was improving the communication of integrated design
results including a view of individual contributions to energy savings to accommodate busy
decision-makers.
3. The EEB Hub is developing a web-based Retrofit Manager Tool (RMT) based on an integrated
stakeholder systems approach to decision-making. The RMT has built-in expertise and systems to
take into account the complex relationships between building components dictated by building
science across different disciplines to improve the reliability of predicted building energy savings.
Session Outcome I: A comprehensive list of how the Retrofit Manager Tool helps and does not help
regional building architects, engineers, energy service providers, and construction service providers
improve building energy performance.
Working Statements:
A. Imagine that you are part of a building energy retrofit project for an owner progressive on energy
savings. What about the Retrofit Manager Tool (RMT) works for you and your project based on
your perspective/knowledge? What will really contribute to designing and delivering a successful
building energy retrofit?
B. Again, imagine that you part of a building energy retrofit project for an owner progressive on
energy savings. What about the RMT doesn’t work for you and your project? What about the
RMT will limit success or be a barrier to designing and delivering a successful building energy
16
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
retrofit? What kinds of activities are missing, or problematic for the building energy retrofit
project?
Sample Options:
Advantages
 The tool enables me to take into account the impact of air leakage through the roof on
energy consumption
 The tool enables me to easily coordinate the input of several different stakeholders
Limitations
 How to understand the top three technical variables outside the component that most
strongly influence the component’s contribution to energy savings
 How to be able to input technical specifications into RMT and understand what variables
most influence the specification in terms of energy use benefits and penalties
Session Outcome II: A comprehensive list of participants’ reactions (facts and opinions such as
information, feelings, observations, impressions, and questions plus who, what, where, when, why, how)
to the EEM data presented.
Working Statement: Based on your perspective and needs when it comes to a building energy retrofit
for a small- or medium-sized (less than or equal to 250,000 ft2) commercial building, the RMT research
team wanted your reaction to the EEM’s they have included. Do you have any questions about the EEM
data presented? Do you have any input or information to consider if you want to view your building as a
system and need to take into account all interactions between different building components to reduce
energy use in the retrofit design? Are there any EEMs missing that should be added? Do you have any
thoughts on what resources the EEB Hub researchers should use for EEM data?
Sample Options:
 For lighting, need light reflectance of all surfaces as a variable
 For HVAC, need lighting power density as a variable
Session Outcome III: A comprehensive list of options for how on-line tools like RMT can accelerate
energy retrofits in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings.
Working Statement: How can this and other tools support penetration of retrofits into small and
medium commercial buildings?
Sample Options:
 Provide enough accuracy inexpensively for an investment-grade projection of energy
savings to enable financing for small building retrofit projects
 Enable the retrofit service provider and building owner to have data transparency for
higher trust and better management of project risks and uncertainties
17
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Appendix 9
9. RMT Information Sheet
“Web software to support decision-making in building retrofit projects”
tools.eebhub.org
Retrofit Manager Tool
RMT uses energy audit data, building geometry, air tightness level, and typical room information to construct a baseline energy model from
which to select and analyze energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The tool provides output capability for .idf, .osm, and other files so that
experienced energy auditors, engineers, and facility mangers can utilize the full functionality of the underlying tools. The output interface is
designed to stage implementation of EEMs so retrofits fit into deferred maintenance and capital plans.
18
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Appendix 10
10. Energy Efficiency Measures Handout
Measure Name
Description
Occupancy/Schedule
Heating Set Back
Cooling Set Back
Ventilation Set Back
Plug Load
EnergyStar Equipment
Plug Load Control
Set back the thermostat heating set point from 21°C(70°F) to 13°C(55°F) when
unoccupied
Set back the thermostat cooling set point from 24°C(75°F) to 32°C(90°F) when
unoccupied
Turn off building ventilation when unoccupied
Require that new office equipment be EnergyStar certified, assuming a 15% reduction in
equipment power density
During unoccupied hours, reduce plug load to 60% of prior unoccupied equipment
power density
Lighting
Occupancy-Based Lighting Sensors
Daylight-Based Dimming
Office Lamp/Ballast Retrofit
Luminaire Retrofit
Enclosure
Increase Roof Insulation by R-10
Increase Wall Insulation by R-10
Increase Wall Insulation by R-20
Window Upgrade
Window Film
Door Weatherization
Exterior Wall Weatherization
HVAC
Outdoor Air Economizer
Condensing Boiler
Condensing Unit Replacement
During unoccupied hours, reduce lighting power to 80% of prior unoccupied lighting
power density
Change lighting schedule to dim lighting to target lighting level when daylight available
Replace lamps and ballasts in all office fixtures to T8 with low ballast factor
Convert lighting system to 90% of ASHRAE 90.1 Lighting Power Density values
Add R-20 insulation to roof
Add R-10 insulation to exterior walls
Add R-20 insulation to exterior walls
Replace windows with low-e, double pane, argon fill windows
Install a reflective window coating to lower solar heat gain
Weather-strip doors to reduce infiltration by 5%
Air seal exterior wall to reduce infiltration by 15%
Install an outdoor-air economizer for the ventilation system
Install a condensing boiler with 95% efficiency at 120°F return temperature
Replace condensing units with 30% higher efficiency units
19
EEB HUB Engagement Focus Group 6Dec2013 Summary Report V1
Appendix 11
11. Feedback Survey1 Results
1. What about the focus group worked well for you?
Excellent critical feedback on advantages, limitations
Detailed presentation, opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions
I enjoyed the involvement and collaboration between professionals of various backgrounds; the live
demonstration was helpful in seeing the applicability of the tool.
The focus group was structured enough to keep the process streamlined but flexible enough to
brainstorm ideas.
2. What about the focus group did not work well for you?
Needed more non-Hub participants; EEM Measure part not ready for Beta release
Nothing outside of my limited experience/perspective – I wish I could have contributed more.
Did not have enough time to review tools prior to discussion.
3. What did you learn that will help you contribute to the EEB Hub’s goal to grow building energy
retrofits in the region?
Hub researchers have a pretty good idea of development priorities.
Learning about models available to download and easy to use.
Given that this is only my third week in the industry, I learned about a lot of the resources that are
available (eebhub.org/visitors; /games, etc.). It was also good to hear some of the technical
terms in use.
Someone is actually taking the time to understand the needs and desires from an owner and
designer.
4. Please advise of any business connections that you were able to make as a result of participating
in the focus group today and any other comments are also welcome.
N/A
N/A
Name (optional):
Matt Dalhausen
Roya Taheri
Chris Sylvin
1
Provided by Marissa Rosen