Pre-Proposals for Post Summit Work
RMI wrote these “Pre-Proposals” after the Summit, as an attempt to further flesh out the
implementation items identified by the breakout groups. RMI intends for these Pre-Proposals to
be a starting point for anyone pursuing funding for these efforts and anticipates that the group
that is championing each effort will edit these as needed.
Please visit this online form to indicate your interest in either funding or contributing to one of
the following efforts:
1. Reviewing the White Paper on modeling guidelines, produced by the Methods and
Processes group (see Section 1)
2. Helping with improvements to existing professional certification programs (see Section
2)
3. Serving on a committee to examine opportunities to improve higher education for
building energy analysis (see Section 3)
4. Creating webinars and training courses around building energy modeling and building
physics for a wide array of professionals such as architects, building operators,
commissioning agents, etc (see Section 4)
5. Serving on a Steering Committee to address issues related to market drivers and
customer demand for building energy modeling (see Sections 5)
6. Helping to launch an awareness campaign (See Section 6) targeted at potential
customers to:
a. Clearly communicate the value proposition for including building energy
modeling in a variety of applications,
b. Arm potential customers with case studies that demonstrate the tangible benefit
modeling has brought to different “real-world” projects, and
c. Teach potential customers when and how to incorporate modeling into their
decision-making processes.
7. Working to create and maintain the “Knowledgebase” - a new hub of expert-rated
building simulation information that is maintained and continuously populated with
new building science and simulation resources (see Section 7)
8. Contributing to the IBPSA-USA BEMbook Wiki - an online compendium of the domain
of building energy modeling (BEM). The intention is to delineate a cohesive body of
knowledge for building energy modeling.
9. Working to create and maintain the “Database” - a public, centralized resource that
hosts granular operational building data, beyond just energy use (see Section 8)
10. Helping to develop a standardized quality control framework for energy modeling (see
Section 9)
11. Serving on the Software Developer Forum under IBPSA-USA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling Guidelines .................................................................. 3
2
Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling Certification Improvements ..................................................... 5
3
Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling University Program Improvements ........................................ 8
4
Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling Online Training Courses .......................................................... 9
5
Pre-Proposal: BEM Market Opportunities and Sizing Study .................................................... 11
6
Pre-Proposal: BEM Awareness Campaign ................................................................................... 14
7
Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling “Knowledgebase” ................................................... 17
8
Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling “Database” ............................................................... 21
9
Pre-Proposal: Quality Control (QC) Framework ......................................................................... 24
1 Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling Guidelines
Problem Statement
Building energy performance modeling is used to evaluate design options and develop the
business case for incorporating energy efficiency. Modeling supports achieving performance
targets established by owners at the building level or by policy makers at sector level. However,
modeling services suffer from a lack of credibility due to misguided expectations and
inconsistencies in applied methods and lack of reproducibility.
Proposed Solution
To address these issues, we propose to develop a comprehensive set of modeling procedures
that cover key modeling applications and that we can communicate to the market. We envision
that this set of procedures, possibly identified as Methods & Processes Guidelines, would
address energy modeling for new building design, retrofit applications, and operation, as well
as the over arching process for modeling throughout the building lifecycle. The guidelines
would address specific procedures for:










Using performance baselines
Incorporating quality assurance procedures
Using data sources for calculating input values
Developing operating assumptions
Benchmarking
Completing model calibration
Performing uncertainty analysis
Defining the appropriate level of detail
Communicating results
Documenting results
Potential Impact
Creating guidelines that outline industry-accepted modeling procedures would help improve
modeling consistency and reproducibility. The effort would also lead to streamlining methods,
standardization and automation. This will reduce modeling time and improve overall quality.
The guidelines will outline how modeling can be used to inform design and improve operation
on an on-going basis to maximize achieved performance. Thus, the development of modeling
guidelines would support using modeling as a tool to achieve low energy-use performance
targets throughout the building life cycle.
Key Deliverables

A modeling methods and processes White Paper – The paper will outline a methods
framework that includes grouping common elements across applications. In addition,
the paper will recommend the methods approach – e.g. should it be implemented


through: 1) a step-wise process, 2) a standardized procedure, or 3) automated through
software.
Work Plans for creating the Guides - The work plans will stem from the white paper
framework and recommendations for the method framework and approach. The work
plans will serve as the scope of work for the request –for-proposal (RFP) to complete the
work.
Building Energy Modeling Guidelines – These may be developed as four volumes – new
construction, operation, retrofit and modeling throughout the building life cycle.
Implementation Plan
Many steps have to occur before the development of these guidelines:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
White paper published
Identification of funding sources
Commitment of funding dollars
Development of Work Plans
RFP release
Contractor hired
Guidelines published
Guidelines referenced by applications
Items identified for standardization being standardized
Items identified for automation being automated
Table 1: Building Energy Modeling Guidelines Implementation Plan
Action Items
Champion (Partners)
Timeframe
Budget
White Paper
Tom White, Ellen Franconi
and the M&P Group
Draft June 2011,
publish Aug 2011
Volunteer efforts
Identify funding for the M&P
Guidelines
Joe Huang -ASHRAE TC
4.7; IMT, M&P Group
Sept 2011
Volunteer effort
Mar 2012
$35 K
Within 2 yrs
$250 K
TBD
TBD
Methods and Processes
Guidelines
ASHRAE TC 4.7, IMT,
M&P Group, others?
ASHRAE TC 4.7, IMT,
M&P Group, others?
Field testing M&P Guidelines
DOE?, GSA?
Work Plan/Outline
Immediate Next Steps




Develop white paper outline (pending initial outline from E. Franconi, outline for review
by T. White)
Review and comment on outline (M&P Group)
Contributors identified (M&P Group)
Write white paper (M&P Group, possible other contributors)
2 Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling Certification Improvements
Problem Statement
It is difficult for potential customers and employers to assess the skill level of an energy
modeling practitioner. There are currently two professional certification programs available, but
none have gained real traction in the industry, nor are they able to distinguish between skill
levels. The energy modeling community feels that we need to improve these programs before
they can truly serve as an indicator for competency and skill.
Proposed Solution
Champion: ASHRAE’s Certification Committee
Key Contact: Amy Musser
As ASHRAE is championing this effort, and the energy modeling community has thus far
shown more support for the ASHRAE BEMP exam, we propose that the BEMP certification
exam becomes the basis for a single certification exam that all major organizations support and
endorse including:




ASHRAE
AEE
AIA
IES



USGBC
IBPSA-USA
DOE
This single certification exam should be revised to have more stringent application
requirements, including requiring professional recommendations. A deck reference will be
developed that will feature more practice problems and include a clear definition of skill sets
and expertise for energy modelers as they progress along a career path (the ‘Black Belt’
concept).
A marketing campaign should be launched to publicize and create demand for this certification.
Beyond marketing the value to practitioners, this campaign should target potential customers
and employers so that they are aware of this certification as a means of distinguishing among
the field of energy modelers. After demand for this certification has grown, the value of adding
a second, lower level of certification (similar to the Engineer In Training label) should be
examined.
Longer term, actual hands-on energy modeling problems should be added into the verification
exam, utilizing graphical interfaces to track an examinees problem solving process on tool
neutral scenarios.
Separate from the BEMP certification, more building energy analysis content should be
incorporated into the existing measurement and verification certification and training.
Potential Impact
If the above improvements were realized, the demand for, and valuation of, energy modeling
services would increase. Potential customers and employees would have confidence in the skill
and judgment of a certified energy modeler, and would be more likely to trust their services to
inform the design. The career path for energy modelers would be more clear and rewarding,
with opportunities for distinguishing their skills among their peers.
Metrics
Possible metrics for success include:
 A single certification program exists and is supported and endorsed by all major
organization
 At least 50% of potential customers surveyed can identify the certification program for
energy modelers and know where to look to find certified practitioners
 100% of Summit attendees are BEMP certified by the end of 2011
 The number of certified practitioners doubles by the end of 2011
Implementation Plan
Table 2: Certification Implementation Plan
Action Items
Champion (Partners)
Require professional recommendations for
certification as prerequisite
ASHRAE1
Marketing campaign: create demand for BEMP exam
- 1st step: all applicable Summit attendees take exam
Refine ‘Black Belt’ concept (levels of career
progression for BEM) to 2-3 levels
Develop desk reference for BEMP (with more practice
problems and ‘Black Belt’ concept)
Incorporate building energy analysis into
Measurement & Verification certification and training
Form single certification exam with buy-in from
multiple organizations
Develop actual hands-on problems for ASHRAE
BEMP exam2
AEE
ASHRAE (RMI)
RMI
(ASHRAE)
ASHRAE, IBPSA-USA
EVO
(IBPSA-USA, ASHRAE)
Timeline
Budget
6 mo.
$3 K
1 yr
$30 K
6 mo.
$3 K
1 yr
$40 K
1-2 yrs
$20 K
1-2 yrs
$60 K
2-3 yrs
$100 K
ASHRAE
(AEE, AIA, IES,
USGBC, IBPSA-USA)
ASHRAE
(IBPSA-USA, IES, AIA,
Lynn G. Bellenger, current ASHRAE president will work with the ASHRAE BEMP certification committee to get
this addressed.
2 Both the BEMP and BESA exams currently are 100% multiple choice questions
1
Action Items
Champion (Partners)
Timeline
Budget
RMI)
Revise BEMP exam to more stringent and have
requirements on par with AIA and PE Certification
ASHRAE
2-3 yrs
$60 K
Consider expanding BEMP to a two-level certification
(similar to EIT and PE)
ASHRAE
3+ yrs
?
3 Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling University Program Improvements
Problem Statement
There is a need for more experienced and skilled energy modeling practitioners. There are few
Universities that offer a strong curriculum that raise the skill-set of architects and energy
modelers. Education that is provided is not consistent across programs and doesn’t tie into
certification programs. There is also a lack of available curricula for building energy modeling
and building science (due to intellectual property restrictions).
Proposed Solution
We propose to form committee of to examine opportunities to improve higher education for
building energy analysis and investigate the following:
 Agreeing to a common body of knowledge that forms a curricula for a degree in
building science or building energy analysis
 Identify opportunities to develop and groom the next generation of faculty for such a
program.
This committee should be comprised of the current University level educators and program
developers interested in the field of building energy analysis. Ideally, there would be a mix of
Universities with well-established building science programs and those that are hoping to start
new programs.
Please visit this online form to volunteer to serve as the champion for this effort, or to indicate
your interest in participating in this effort.
Potential Impact
If a collaborative committee was formed, this would be a key first step towards developing
consistent scope and boundaries for a degree program that teaches this knowledge and
provides a clear skill set.
4 Pre-Proposal: Energy Modeling Online Training Courses
Problem Statement
There is a need for more experienced and skilled practitioners. Not all energy modelers or other
key design professionals have a solid understanding of building science/system design or know
how to correctly translate building info into simulation inputs. Practitioners struggle with
correctly interpreting the existing vast array of energy codes, performance baselines, and green
building standards. Beyond that, key tasks like quality control and calibration are not widely
understood among practitioners.
Additionally, architects need more education around building science and the role they play in
the energy consumption of buildings and there are limited comprehensive and formalized
training opportunities for all industry professionals, especially building operators and
commissioning agents. The training that is available often requires travel and can be cost
prohibitive.
Proposed Solution
With the support of ASHRAE and IBPSA-USA, Rocky Mountain Institute has developed
training course content for a one day Building Energy Modeling Workshop. This content covers:
 Building science and modeling fundamentals
 ASHRAE Performance Rating Method
 Modeling Best Practices
 Modeling Support Tools
 Using modeling effectively through an integrated design
 Measurement and verification and calibration
The next step is to turn this material into online webinars and training courses that can be made
freely available to industry professionals. Then, additional materials will be developed from
expert practitioners to form a webinar series that targets other industry professionals such as:
 Architects
 Property managers
 Building commissioning agents
 Building operators
Potential Impact
These online training opportunities could help industry professionals develop the knowledge
and experience to effectively use BEM within an integrated design process, and also throughout
the operation of the building, to lower building energy use. With an educated, trained and
certified workforce, customers and other stakeholders have confidence in energy modeling
results, which are now more reproducible and defensible.
Architects would have a free resource to learn more about the role they should play in this
process, and get a primer on how buildings use energy, with a focus on architectural design
decisions.
Key Deliverables

Free, online training courses and webinars for a variety of energy modeling
professionals
Implementation Plan
Table 3: Online Webinar/Training Courses Implementation Plan
Action Items
Champion (Partners)
Timing
Budget
Translate existing BEM Workshop materials into
webinars
IBPSA-USA (RMI)
1 yr
$20 K
Gather additional training content and webinar
materials from industry sources/volunteers. This
content should be targeted at other professionals such
as architects, building operators, commissioning (CX)
agents, etc
IBPSA-USA (RMI,
USGBC)
2 yrs
$40 K
Create additional webinars and training courses for
other professionals such as architects, building
operators, CX agents, etc
IBPSA-USA (USGBC)
2-3 yrs
$150 K
Launch and host webinars, make freely available
IBPSA-USA (USGBC)
3 yrs
$50 K
5 Pre-Proposal: BEM Market Opportunities and Sizing Study
Problem Statement:
Even though market demand has risen steeply over the past 10 years, there is still significant
growth opportunity if, in the long term, value is driven not by only by codes and program
compliance (documentation), but also by energy performance goals that use modeling to make
informed decisions to ensure widespread low-energy building design and operation.
Two major drivers dominate current market demand:
1. Building owner compliance with mandatory requirements for codes, standards, disclosure
and labeling requirements (both federal and local)
2. Building owner desire to meet requirements for certification or financial incentives (i.e. tax
incentives and LEED, utility incentive programs)
While these drivers have helped BEM to enjoy a market uptake in the last decade, emphasis on
“box checking” degrades modeling’s true potential value. Most models are purchased to
answer, “How many LEED points can my building achieve? Does my building qualify for this
specific incentive?” Owners and decision-makers perceive modeling to be an add-on cost that
does not bring real beneficial information into the design process, building operation processes
or energy efficient building systems. As a result, there are a wide range of efficiency-related
decisions that could be informed by quality energy modeling, but are not.
Proposed Solution
The reasons and extent to which energy modeling is used over the next 10 years isn’t just a
matter of what will spontaneously or inevitably happen. This industry can take deliberate
action to generate more demand in areas we think are beneficial.
The first step is identifying what areas these are. We propose a study to:
 Identify the market opportunities for using BEM to inform a range of efficiency-related
decisions, from appliances to systems, buildings, campuses, regions, and the whole
nation.
 Segment the major opportunities by market context. Consider:
o Commercial & institutional, buildings, residential buildings, industrial buildings,
and non-buildings
o New & renovated buildings, existing buildings, tenant spaces
 Identify BEM’s clear value proposition in all of these different applications, tailored to
each level of breadth (i.e. individual building vs. regional) and market context.
 Identify the top stakeholders and decision makers for each proposed application.
 Broadly assess these markets in terms of potential large-scale energy and energy cost
savings, opportunities for competitive advantage and profitability, incentives required
to seed demand, workforce skills and capabilities required to implement, and barriers to
adoption.
The future Steering Committee (formed by the Market Drivers and Customer Demand breakout
group at the BEM Innovation Summit) will manage the study. The Steering Committee will use
the study to determine concrete next steps its members and partners can take to help generate
more demand in identified high-priority market opportunities. Therefore, this study is intended
to be general, open, and consensus-oriented so it can be a starting point from which industry
stakeholders can, if desired, develop more detailed internal analyses. Results from the report
(especially stakeholder-specific value propositions for proposed uses for BEM) will be
distributed to a primary audience of current and potential BEM customers, including federal
and local government, utilities, and building owners. By engaging these individuals with an
educated assessment of “what’s possible,” we can lay a foundation for expectation and demand
around these improved BEM applications. The study should also be shared with a secondary
audience of stakeholders including software and tool makers, service providers and energy
modelers.
Potential Impact
This study will provide ammunition (in the form of clear value propositions, quantified
potential for energy and financial rewards) for the Steering Committee’s future work with key
stakeholders to ensure incentives are aligned to support the best-case uses for energy modeling.
Metrics
We will know this study is successful if it clearly defines future BEM markets in a general way
and articulates the benefit, risks, and opportunities in engaging in each of them. We will know
it has met its objective of providing the Steering Committee with actionable information when
the Committee has successfully identified specific next actions for stimulating demand and
demand incentives for selected market opportunities.
On a broader scale, to ensure a high level of dissemination to the reports’ secondary audience of
stakeholders, the Steering Committee should track online report downloads. Other marketing
metrics and indicators will be identified as part of item four in the Implementation Plan below.
Key Deliverables
This Market Opportunities and Sizing Report will include:
 Expansion and completion of the “Potential Future Market Drivers in the Ten-Year
Horizon” table of the Market Drivers and Customer Demand breakout group summary
from the BEM Innovation Summit Post Report
 Clear value proposition for BEM in each proposed application. What question will BEM
help to answer? What is the tangible benefit of including BEM in the process? How does
this address the largest concerns of key stakeholders?
 Assessment of each market opportunity/proposed application in terms of:
o
o
o
o
Potential impact, through large scale energy savings and cost savings
Resource and incentives requirements to seed demand
Barriers to adoption
Potential timeline
Suggested Implementation Work
Table 4: Market Opportunities and Sizing Report Implementation Plan
Focus Area
1. Set up criteria
and framework for
report
2. Conducts
research and write
report*
3. Devise a strategy
for and executes a
marketing plan for
the report
Intent
To ensure the completed report
will serve the needs of the
Steering Committee. Would
involve understanding of the
primary and secondary market
audience to ensure the report
format and content will resonate.
To generate a quantified and
qualified market sizing and
assessment of different modeling
uses over the next 10 years.
To get the report widely
distributed, to determine success
metrics and track distribution
Funding Required
Timeframe
$5,000 - $20,000
1 month
$100,000-$200,000
6 months
$10,000-$40,000
2 months
* The Steering Committee shall consider the use of a 3rd party organization to guide and/or
conduct sections of the market study, (i.e. McGraw Hill, McKinsey). This could lend integrity to
the report results (ensure results aren’t perceived as biased), and allow the Committee to
capitalize on the 3rd party’s reputation and network of partners to cast a wide net and achieve
high visibility.
Immediate Next Steps

Obtain funding for the report.
6 Pre-Proposal: BEM Awareness Campaign
Problem Statement
Building energy modeling can play a supporting role in a wide range of energy efficiencyrelated processes, and can provide beneficial value to a diverse population of potential
customers. Yet the current capture rate of potential business for building energy modeling is
small. Modeling is only used in a fraction of its potential applications, and by a small
population. This is largely because:



Many potential customers are unaware that modeling services exist or can play a role in
their decision-making process
Many potential customers have misguided expectations of what modeling can and should
provide for different applications
The energy modeling industry has suffered damage to its credibility. Because of a
combination of historical inconsistency and unknowing misuse of results (both on the part
of practitioners and customers), many potential customers do not have confidence in energy
modeling results.
As a result, we are missing great opportunities for the use of modeling to support widespread
adoption of low energy building design and operation.
Proposed Solution
We propose a coalition of industry partners (i.e. ASHRAE, IMT, IBPSA, USGBC, AIA, BOMA,
DOE, RMI) to launch an awareness campaign targeted at potential customers to:
1) Clearly communicate the value proposition for including building energy modeling in a
variety of applications,
2) Arm potential customers with case studies that demonstrate the tangible benefit modeling
has brought to different “real” projects, and
3) Teach potential customers when and how to incorporate modeling into their decision-making
processes.
A successful awareness campaign can improve the credibility of the building energy modeling
industry, and increase demand for energy modeling to benefit potential customers and the built
environment. Launching a campaign through a coalition of industry leaders allows us to:



Leverage our collective partnerships to reach a greater number of potential customers
Leverage the reputation of key partners to increase credibility
Deliver a unified, clear message to potential customers.
Potential Impact
A successful campaign can help building energy modeling to more effectively support lowenergy buildings by:



Increasing market demand for the most impactful uses of energy modeling
Giving potential customers the data they need to address skepticism and justify investment
in modeling
Arming potential customers with the information they need to demand the proper use of
energy modeling services
Key Deliverables
Key deliverables from this awareness campaign will include:

Written campaign strategy that
o Identifies the key targeted audiences of the campaign
o Understands the motivations and barriers to using energy modeling faced by those
target audiences
o Identifies key organizations and individuals with whom the coalition should partner
o Identifies the message (i.e. case studies, content) we will be delivering to the target
audience
o Identifies the best way to reach our target audiences (i.e. media, sites, publications,
events)
o Identifies the metrics by which we will judge the success of the campaign

Online case study database that aggregates BEM success (and “failure”) stories that can
provide content for the campaign. The database can live on existing industry leader
websites (i.e. content could go on RMI’s Retrofit Depot website– www.retrofitdepot.org)
Each case study should identify:
o The purpose of the model. What question did this model answer?
o The key stakeholders in the decision-making process
o The process: What tools were used? What was the method/approach/schedule? How
did stakeholders interact with the energy model?
o How the results from the model were used to inform the decision-making process.
What was implemented? How does this help support adoption of low-energy building
design and operation?
o Any verified data from the design and operation of the building or system that was
modeled
o Lessons learned

Website, publications, and other media products identified in the campaign strategy (may
include periodic update of products as well)

Periodic tracking and report out of success metrics
Proposed Implementation Work
Table 5: BEM Awareness Campaign: Proposed Implementation Work
Focus Area
Intent
Funding Required
Timeframe
1. Champion (TBD)
to spearhead
creation of
formalized Coalition
To form an industry alliance
to deliver a credible, unified
message (and data) to
potential customers
< $5,000
2 months
2. Coalition (or
coalition-hired
marketing expert)
creates Campaign
Strategy
To develop an intentional,
concise, and measurable
campaign for a targeted
audience
$5,000 - $15,000
2 months
3. Coalition
identifies, collects
data for, writes, and
compiles case studies
into a Database
To aggregate BEM success
(and “failure”) stories that can
be drawn from to provide
content for the campaign
$10,000 - $20,000, plus
ongoing fees
Originally 6
months to
launch, updates
ongoing
4. Coalition creates
websites and other
media products
To convey the content in the
most impact venues identified
for the targeted audience
$30,000-$50,000, plus ongoing
fees
(concurrent
with #3)
Originally 6
months to
launch, updates
ongoing
5. Coalition
periodically tracks
success metrics of the
Campaign
To understand the success of
the campaign and continually
course correct and improve
$10,000-$15,000, plus ongoing
fees
Ongoing
Immediate Next Steps


Select a champion to form the campaign coalition
Solidify partnerships with interested parties
7 Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling “Knowledgebase”
Problem Statement
Today, there is no coordinated body of knowledge to support the everyday decisions of energy
modeling practitioners. As a result, energy modelers waste time searching for information and
create inaccuracies by constantly devising new approaches for modeling everything from
simple envelope constructions to complex HVAC systems.
When seeking answers to specific modeling questions, a practitioner may conduct an Internet
search, post the question on a building simulation list-serve, call a service helpline supported by
the software provider (if it exists), or most likely, ask a more experienced colleague. The
information gathered from these sources will vary greatly, and he or she may not even uncover
the fact that somewhere, someone has likely already addressed this question and devised an
acceptable approach, or at least a launching point. There is a need for expanding access to and
vetting existing knowledge of building energy simulation strategies to save everyone time and
money, while also improving the quality and consistency of energy modeling.
Proposed Solution
To remedy the problem of poor accessibility to information, we propose the creation of an
industry “knowledgebase” — a new hub of expert-rated building simulation information that is
continually updated to include new building science and simulation resources. We do not
intend for this knowledgebase to substitute for building science curriculum or training, but
rather propose this as a convenient, organized, and searchable access point to the thousands of
already existing resources about building simulation. Given the current needs and the expected
growth of the building simulation industry, it is important to create a proper foundation for
cataloging and rating the quality of existing resources, as well as new information that is sure to
accumulate in greater quantities in the coming years.
The knowledgebase will primarily serve as a resource to practitioners who are constantly in
need of supporting information to continue their learning and to validate their modeling
approaches. But, it could also evolve to include resources for policymakers and entrepreneurs
hoping to better understand building simulation and its evolution. In addition, software
developers could begin to integrate context-specific information from the knowledgebase
directly into their software (e.g. link users to specific resources in the knowledgebase for more
information).
The proposed approach is three-fold:
1. Develop a framework and collect, catalogue, and rate existing energy modeling
resources
2. Identify and prioritize key gaps in existing resources
3. Fill the knowledge gaps through research and documentation efforts
Phase 1: Develop Framework & Collect, Catalogue, and Rate Existing Information
As a first step, the structure of the knowledgebase will need to be developed by expert website
and/or database experts with input from energy modeling practitioners and content experts. In
tandem with creating an intuitive, accessible, and expandable structure, a separate team will
need to begin collecting and cataloguing the vast amounts of dispersed information ranging
from software documentation to ASHRAE papers to university research outputs to in-house
developed tips and tricks. An expert-information organizing entity should drive this gathering
and cataloguing, with guidance from building simulation practitioners. The last step in the first
phase will be to develop a mechanism for assessing and monitoring the quality of information,
which should be based on a crowd-sourcing model where users can rate the information and
contribute their comments.
Phase 2: Identify and Prioritize Gaps in Existing Information
As information is gathered, efforts to identify major knowledge gaps can begin. A non-profit, a
consulting group, or a university could execute this mammoth literature review. A prioritized
research or “needs” list should be developed based on the literature review and posted on the
knowledgebase so that prominent industry organizations, national laboratories, non-profits,
and university building science programs can prioritize their efforts and alert others when they
choose to tackle issues.
Phase 3: Maintain and Integrate Knowledgebase
In the short-term, some of the gaps that were identified could be filled by documenting known,
but not yet written-down information from experts in the field. In the long-term, the
knowledgebase needs to take a rigorous academic approach to building simulation resources to
ensure we aren’t cutting corners or simplifying solutions to the point of inaccuracy. Information
developed out of university research should be connected to the knowledgebase. Similarly,
industry technical reports, white papers, and publicly funded research must be easily linked.
Policymakers need to be made aware of the resource and incorporate provisions that publicly
funded research must be added to the knowledgebase.
Potential Impact
Collecting, vetting, and improving existing knowledge resources will help to address two key
challenges in the modeling community—the lack of credibility and the limited time for critical
thinking. Practitioners will spend less time searching for relevant information and/or
reinventing the wheel, thus leaving more time to reflect on results and identify design
opportunities. Higher quality and more trusted information will serve as references for
modeling approaches. Together, these improvements will increase the usefulness of energy
models and the impact they have on low energy building design.
Metrics
The success of this new energy modeling knowledgebase will ultimately be reflected in
improvements to the quality of building energy models. However, that direct link is hard to
make. Thus, we could measure the indirect impact of these efforts in these ways:
 Number of users/visits
 Time spent on knowledgebase
 Survey results from users regarding usefulness
 Frequency with which new data is added
 Quantity of contributions by “expert” modelers
 Eventual references or inclusion within building rating systems
 Quantity of state/local requirements for adding information from publicly funded
research
Implementation Plan
IBPSA-USA will champion the initial stages of this effort, as the organization is already
pursuing the creation of the BEMBook wiki, which aims to be a centralized, vetted body of
knowledge for energy modelers. IBPSA-USA will need to coordinate this work with any other
existing knowledge gathering efforts, as well as solidify interest from potential implementation
partners and funders or investors.
Ultimately, a non-profit organization or small business (either new or existing) will need to
“own” the knowledgebase and take responsibility for the development and maintenance of it—
a multi-year and possibly multi-million dollar effort. Knowledgebase development should be
conducted in collaboration with the development of the Building Energy Modeling “Database”
(see Section 8) in order to take advantage of synergies and to minimize redundant efforts.
Table 6: High-level "Knowledgebase" Implementation Plan
Phase
Champion
Estimated
Timeframe
1. Develop Framework &
Collect, Catalogue, and
Rate Existing Information
IBPSA-USA (key
contact: Joe Deringer/
Suzanne Saucy)
2yrs+
2. Identify and Prioritize
Gaps in Existing
Information
University program,
consulting firm, or nonprofit (commissioned
by IBPSA-USA)
6mo
3. Maintain and Integrate
Knowledgebase
Long-term “owner” of
knowledgebase
On-going
Potential
Supporting
Partners
 SBSE
 PIER
 IFMA
 BOMA
 BPI
 CBE
 DOE
 GSA
 NBI
 AIA
 RMI
Potential
Funding
Sources
 Google
Foundation
 Institute For
Building
Efficiency
 Energy
Foundation
 Penn
Buildings
Hub
 DOE
Immediate Next Steps
To get this concept off the ground, the champion of this effort will need to write 1) a project
proposal to obtain funding and 2) a Request for Proposal that fleshes out comprehensive shortterm and long-term action items, which they will send out to various contractors. This alone
will require a $10 – 30k investment and should be completed within the next 6 months.
8 Pre-Proposal: Building Energy Modeling “Database”
Today, energy modelers turn to a variety of resources to determine the numerous inputs
required to generate a model. Even at detailed design stages, many input values are not clearly
defined and modelers must make assumptions to fill in the gaps. While some sources of
operational building data currently exist, they often do not contain data that is granular enough
or that is in a useful format for modeling inputs. In some cases, such as unique building types,
high-level data is not even available. The information that is available is not centralized, and
thus is time-consuming to locate and utilize.
Proposed Solution
Building energy modelers need better data sources to inform modeling inputs that they
typically assume. The proposed solution is the creation of a public, centralized resource that
hosts granular operational building data, beyond just energy use. The vision is that data from
existing commercial buildings helps to inform inputs for the modeling of new buildings, as well
as retrofits.
This database will be largely composed of measured field data from individual buildings that
practitioners can be use to inform modeling inputs such as operating schedules, air infiltration
rates, plug load data, and process load data. Initially, the practitioners will use the database as a
reference to generate better inputs. In the future, the energy modeling community can use more
sophisticated and rigorous statistical methods and data transformation rules to auto-generate
inputs based on information in the database (as opposed to them simply using the data to
inform non-reproducible solutions).
The proposed approach involves three main phases of work:
1. Create database strategy and structure
2. Collect and analyze currently available data
3. Establish partnerships and mechanisms to gather future data
Phase 1: Create Database Strategy & Structure
As a first step, expert website and/or database experts will develop the structure of the database
with input from energy modeling practitioners and content experts. This group will need to
determine the types and formats of data to include in the database, as well as investigate issues
related to liability, privacy, accessibility, and proprietary information. During this phase, the
mechanism for adding information to the database should be established and data quality
requirements should be defined. A mechanism for allowing users to rate the information, such
as a Wiki or Yelp model, should also be developed.
Phase 2: Collect and Analyze Currently Available Data
Once the structure has been established, the database can start to be populated with data from
existing sources, which could include other databases with measured data, Energy Star
Portfolio Manager, and Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), among others. When enough
information has been added, statistical analyses can be conducted to gauge the quality of data
and to start establishing typical ranges for the modeling inputs. The inclusion of both raw data
and meta-data for each input point will be essential for statistical analysis and for keeping track
of where the data came from. Other fields of study, such as sociology and psychology, should
be called upon to collect and analyze data regarding occupancy schedules and occupant
behaviors that affect energy usage in buildings.
Phase 3: Establish Partnerships & Mechanisms to gather Future Data
Over the long-term, information should be consistently added to the database. To enable this
regular updating, partnerships should be established with entities that are continually
generating or collecting data, such as utilities, ESCOs, and property managers. In the future,
data could even be imported directly into the database from building management systems.
Partnerships should also be established with software developers to identify ways that the data
can inform modeling tools. For example, when typical ranges for each input are established, this
sensitivity could get built in to the software. Also, context-sensitive links to the database could
be included in the software tools to enable semi-automated inputs. With this functionality, a
modeler would have access to the most current information, and be able to import the data
directly into the model from the database.
Potential Impact
Practitioners build energy models from a set of assumptions about a building. By using this
resource to inform modeling inputs, energy modelers will be able to make better assumptions
with more confidence. Further, because more modelers will be referencing the same data,
consistency of inputs will improve.
Metrics
The usefulness of a new operational building energy database will ultimately be reflected in
improvements in the quality of building energy models. However, that direct link is hard to
make. We could measure the indirect impact of these efforts in these ways:
 Number of users/visits
 Time spent on database
 Survey results from users regarding usefulness of database
 Frequency with which new data is added
 Quantity and quality of new contributions
 Eventual references or inclusion within building rating systems
 Quantity of state/local requirements for adding information from public buildings or
buildings whose BMS/data monitoring efforts are publicly funded
Implementation Plan
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) will serve as the champion of this effort
and will solidify interest from potential implementation partners and funders or investors. Over
time, NREL will “own” the database and take responsibility for the development and
maintenance of it—a multi-year and possibly multi-million dollar effort. Database development
should be conducted in collaboration with the development of the “Knowledgebase” (see
Section 7) in order to take advantage of synergies and to minimize redundant efforts.
Table 7: High-level "Database" Implementation Plan
Phase
Champion
Estimated
Timeframe
1. Create Database Strategy
& Structure
NREL (key contact:
Nick Long)
1yr
2. Collect and Analyze
Currently Available Data
NREL (key contact:
Nick Long)
6mo
3. Establish Partnerships
and Mechanisms to Gather
Future Data
NREL (key contact:
Nick Long)
On-going
Potential
Supporting
Partners
 SBSE
 PIER
 IFMA
 BOMA
 BPI
 CBE
 DOE
 GSA
 NBI
 AIA
 RMI
Potential
Funding
Sources
 Google
Foundation
 Institute For
Building
Efficiency
 Energy
Foundation
 Penn
Buildings
Hub
 DOE
Immediate Next Steps
To get this concept off the ground, the champion of this effort will need to write 1) a project
proposal to obtain funding and 2) a Request for Proposal that fleshes out comprehensive shortterm and long-term action items, which they will send out to various contractors. This alone
will require a $10 – 30k investment and should be completed within the next 6 months.
9 Pre-Proposal: Quality Control (QC) Framework
Problem Statement
What is a good energy model? Is it one accompanied by a long report, one with lots of inputs
changed from defaults, or one created by an experienced modeler? While these factors can be
indicators of quality, absolute quality for building energy modeling is closely linked to
“reproducibility.” Given the lack of automation, the looseness around modeling assumptions,
and the variations in modeling software, today it is virtually impossible for different modelers
to create energy models from the same information set and arrive at similar outcomes.
Today, basic Quality Control (QC)—used here to mean the review of energy models by an
expert other than the original modeler—is not well practiced in the field of building energy
modeling. Oftentimes, the original modeler is also the entity tasked with checking the model.
The “checks” are not standardized and are often simply quick calculations to verify that global
model results (such as energy intensity, peak demand, and relative energy end-uses) are within
reason. If external reviewers do probe into models, it is challenging to tell which inputs are pure
assumptions versus those based on actual design data. The overall uncertainty level of models
appears static throughout the design process resulting in design teams assuming a schematic
design model is just as accurate as a construction document model. As a result, building energy
modeling results appear cryptic, inaccurate, and are not perceived as a reliable indication of
building performance.
Proposed Solution
While the lack of reproducibility is the fundamental long-term problem to address, there are
many easier short-term actions that will also incrementally improve modeling. We focus this
proposal on addressing this lower hanging fruit through creating a standardized QC
framework. Longer-term solutions will need to address data transformation rules and
accompanying software improvements that semi-automate many inputs and move the industry
towards greater reproducibility.
In the short-term, there is a basic, yet urgent need for standardizing the approach to quality
control for building energy modeling. We focused this proposal on creating a general process
for the QC-ing of models, including the development of standard QC reports for inclusion in all
energy modeling software. The general approach or “Guide to Building Energy Modeling QC”
should be developed to serve as interim guidance while the reports and QC feature
enhancements are developed and incorporated into user software.
Initial ideas for useful QC reports include a standardized smart “echo” report that simply
shows all the inputs that you have entered. A more sophisticated version of this echo report
may even be able to auto-generate a design intent document, allowing for a bottom-up check of
the assumptions against the top-down owner’s requirements. There is also a need to develop a
standardized output report across all simulation software platforms.
Solutions are also needed to better expose assumptions within models. Meta-data output
reports could make comparisons to norms, including how far off a particular value is from the
standard deviation and how many of the inputs have been changed from the default values. For
outputs, variability and uncertainty ranges associated with inputs should be carried through the
calculations so that the output can also carry an overall uncertainty range. We summarize the
characteristics of the proposed QC reporting framework in the table below.
Table 8: QC Reporting Framework
Input
Detailed Data
Smart “Echo” Reports
Meta-Data
Expose Assumptions
Comparisons to Norms:
 Standard Deviations
 Uncertainty
 Quantity of Default vs.
Customized Values
Output
Standardized Output Reports
Design Intent Documents
Output Variability and Uncertainty
In addition to standardizing specific reports, the group that develops the report templates may
also make recommendations for other software features that could aid with QC. These may
include providing a location for the modeler to summarize the model characteristics within the
model, allowing a modeler to document public or private comments for each input, and
creating a feature that graphically shows the location of weather file versus the actual building
location.
Phase 1: Create QC Guide & Identify Needed QC Reports
As a first step, an expert-reviewed, high-level guide to quality control, covering everything
ranging from what inputs and outputs the reviewer should verify to what questions the client
should ask of the modeler, must be documented. This documentation could become the
industry standard “Guide to Building Energy Modeling QC.” ASHRAE Technical Committee
(TC) 4.7 would be ideal to champion this effort as part of the larger effort to create
comprehensive modeling guidelines (see Section 1). In addition to creating the guide, the
champion of this effort will need to first brainstorm and then hone in on the most critically
needed QC reports that should be embedded in modeling software. Other software feature
enhancements that could aid with QC should also be identified.
Phase 2: Develop Standard QC Reports
Once a plan is identified, ASHRAE TC 4.7 must develop the content for the standard QC
reports. Software developers should play an integral role in this process to ensure that the
report content is practical and desirable to deliver.
Phase 3: Incorporate QC Reports into Software Tools
Once the report content is identified and vetted, software developers will need to embed the
industry-vetted reports into their tools. In addition to the new QC reports, other features that
could enhance QC efforts should be considered.
Potential Impact
Creating a standard approach to QC with standard QC reports will help address model quality
and transparency. The guide will help modelers more effectively self-check their work, while
the reports will streamline the review process for third parties. It will be easier for reviewers or
even design teams to judge the quality of modeling results and to understand what results
mean. Time spent on quality control will be more valuable and more revealing. More
transparent and accurate models will be the end result, thus addressing concerns about the
quality and credibility of energy modeling.
Metrics
The success of the QC guide and reports will ultimately be reflected in improvements in the
quality of building energy models. However, that direct link is hard to make. Thus, we could
measure the indirect impact of these efforts in these ways:
 Number of downloads/purchases of QC Guide
 Survey results from users regarding usefulness of new reports
 Use of reports in LEED documentation or other rating systems
 Use of reports in design intent documents
Implementation Plan
To kick off the creation of the QC guide and identification of needed QC reports, the champion
of the effort (possibly ASHRAE TC 4.7) will need to write a detailed project description that
fleshes out comprehensive short-term and long-term action items (coordinated with any other
existing QC efforts). The next steps include developing the guide, identifying the QC reports,
and eventually working with software developers to develop the precise report content.
Table 9: High-level QC Framework Implementation Plan
Phase
Champion
Estimated
Timeframe
1. Create QC Guide and
Identify Needed QC Reports
ASHRAE TC 4.7
1yr
2. Develop Standard QC
Reports
ASHRAE TC 4.7
6mo
3. Incorporate QC reports
into Software Tools
IBPSA-USA Software
Developer Group (key
contact: Tim McDowell)
6mo
Potential
Supporting
Partners
 SBSE
 PIER
 IFMA
 BOMA
 BPI
 CBE
 DOE
 GSA
 NBI
 AIA
 RMI
Potential
Funding
Sources
 Google
Foundation
 Institute For
Building
Efficiency
 Energy
Foundation
 Penn
Buildings
Hub
 DOE
Immediate Next Steps
To get this concept going, it needs to be added to the docket for ASHRAE Technical Committee
4.7. The QC Framework work also needs to be coordinated with efforts to develop broader
energy modeling guidelines (see Section 1).