charter - Githubissues

Greetings everyone.

There are three emails I’m sending out in this series.

Original BSUG charter with three objectives (see below) – charter members: Earl Johnson* (SAIC – ETO new buildings), Mike Rosenberg (ODOE), Mike Hatten (Solar), Brian Thornton (Thorton Enerrgy), Mitch Dec (Glumac), Tom White (Glumac)
What happened to the BSUG listserv?  Email describing the state of the BSUG listerv and summary of modeling resources.
Summary notes of the 01MAY2015 IBPSA PDX meeting at the Rogue Brewery – to be developed.

I’ll email you the other two parts later this weekend.

Please forward these emails to the rest of the IBPSA-interested folks since I do not have the emailing list... at least these others: Campion Mark; Nicole Hillis; Kevin Campbell; Phil Jordan.

Cheers,

~ Tom

Thomas J. White, P.E., CEM, LEED AP tomjwhite@comcast.net The Green Galaxy Group 1125 SE Nehalem St. Portland, Oregon 97202 503-841-6120 (home) 971-271-4183 (cell) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-white/0/562/a59 http://www.beyond.com/64D0CA24-6424-4B1F-AAC0-F093D6E8273F?preview=1

Earl managed, almost singlehandedly, the BSUG from April 2006 thru April 2011. Earl has since passed on; he died at the end of January 2015 at the age of 74, of pancreatic cancer. See the attached tribute language we all paid to him when he stepped down from BSUG in 2011. The tribute was turned into a framed letter with signatures of those listed.

Yahoo BSUG Group Description (Charter) – April 2006 The Building Simulation User’s Group at Yahoo is the communications outreach of the collegial BSUG, a monthly forum that meets on the third Wednesday of each month from noon to 1:30 PM. There is both an in-person participation meeting and an online webcast option for BSUG.

The purpose of BSUG is threefold:

To make participants more effective as energy analysts and generally raise the quality of building analysis and design in the PNW.
To promote positive interaction between designers and energy modelers.
To provide a forum for ideas and questions about energy-related design and building simulation.

BSUG is sponsored and supported by the Energy Trust of Oregon, NW Natural, the Oregon Department of Energy, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, ASHRAE and Bonneville Power.

Although the group has an Oregon focus, the interests and topics of the BSUG participants range across all modeling subjects including those related to LEED, Oregon SEED and Energy Trust programs, Title 24, and applications of various modeling tools (eQUEST, DOE-2, EnergyPlus, Visual DOE, TRACE, EZ-SIM, CodeComp and others), as well as the entire spectrum of energy analysis and engineering issues.

If you want to participate in the BSUG meetings, contact Earl L. Johnson, representing the Oregon Energy Trust, at EarlLJohnson@Comcast.net. Register for the forums at www.energytrust.org/BSUG.

You can also sign up for this Yahoo Group at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BSUG/. To reduce spamming, our policy is to have all memberships approved. When signing up for membership, please provide your name, title, organization, telephone number, address, and verifiable email address, and reason for joining the BSUG. You can include this information in a comment when you sign up, or email it to the BSUG listserv group moderator directly at tomjwhite@comcast.net.

Thomas J. White, P.E., CEM, LEED AP tomjwhite@comcast.net

What happened to the BSUG listserv? Email describing the state of the BSUG listerv and summary of modeling resources.

Back when Earl Johnson was the chair of the BSUG group (2006 – 2011), we had a Yahoo listserv group that folks could sign up to join and these “BSUGgers” would check into the Yahoo Group and have access to more information, such as the PowerPoint presentations [we did not have the Energy Trust website for archiving back then]. Note that the Yahoo BSUG Group was a parallel or adjunct, more of an archive, to the monthly forum. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BSUG/

After PECI took over BSUG and changed the name to BESF, the Yahoo BSUG Group essentially became defunct.

I often get email requests to “join the BSUG” and my response has been to reply with the message below. NOTE that there are several links that energy analysts can access to learn more about modeling, including the BLDG-SIM listserv that Jason Glazer has managed since 1999. There are quite a few other useful links, I’m sure, that are not even listed here.

I tried to get Glenn Hansen et al at PECI to post the message below somewhere on the BESF website so that those interested in the original BSUG could find their way to BESF, but the www.energytrust.org website manager did not want the information below included on, or linked from, the BESF website page. http://energytrust.org/Business/building-energy-simulation/ Anyway, the INFORMATION in this overview notice below provides continuity or a bridge between BSUG and BESF. Use it as you might find the information appropriate or relevant.

~ Tom

From: Tom White Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:52 AM To: Tom White Subject: Re: BSUG changes (building energy modeling)

This message is being sent to those who have requested membership in the Yahoo BSUG listserv.

Hello BSUGgers,

Most of you probably realize that the BSUG listerv in not a high-activity forum. Formerly, since April 2006, this BSUG listserv was directly affiliated with the monthly BSUG forum in Portland, but the connection has been truncated since April 2011 when PECI took over the BSUG, renamed it to the Building Energy Simulation Forum (BESF), and organized a website to support the forum. (See details below).

To sign up for monthly forums of the Portland-area "BSUG" group (now BESF) go to: http://energytrust.org/Business/building-energy-simulation/

Also, as a point of information, those of you on this Yahoo BSUG emailing list might be interested to know that there are several other listservs and databases that cater to building energy modeling (BEM) topics, which you can find listed here: http://onebuilding.org/

For example if you want to know about how to model heat recovery or VRF/VRV systems in Trace, eQUEST, HAP or other software, check the listservs for software-specific forums, including: http://energy-models.com/forum

Finally, here are three superb website portals for current information and developing innovations in building energy modeling (BEM):

http://www.rmi.org/EnergyModelingWorkstream 
Check out what the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is doing to foster innovative thinking about how we use energy in buildings. In particular, you might be interested in the BEM Summit, held at RMI in March 2011. http://www.rmi.org/BEMSummit

http://www.comnet.org/mgp/portal/?purpose=0  
COMNET is an amazing repository of key BEM information; worth checking out.

https://sites.google.com/site/idlbsug/upcoming-events/bsug20novembermeetingenergymodelcalibration-quickerbetterfasterstronger
The link to the BSUG 2.0 website, managed by the Integrated Design Lab at the University of Idaho (IDL). BSUG 2.0 is a great resource for energy modelers.

Anyway – main point – http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BSUG/ is not the best resource for modeling-specific questions. But, the references provided here, in this email, should prove useful.

Happy BEMing,

...Tom White (doe2_dude)

Thomas J. White, P.E., CEM, LEED AP

Thanks Tom,

Also for reference here is a link to the google doc from 2013 when we last attempted to start up IBPSA PDX.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TR_xUoil3vgXptPIJHJkTcVfcB3IkgHJzGXcUL48RLg/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks, Jeremiah.

Also see the attached brochure, developed for Colorado Energy Office and a related article by Linda Morrison of Ambient Energy and others on a related topic, which was prepared for an IBPSA conference.

These documents clearly delineate the three principal applications of building energy modeling in design: alternative comparisons (“shoe-box” modeling at SD), compliance modeling (for LEED or energy code), and calibrated models of actual operations (for energy management and predictive performance).

~ Tom

Thomas J. White, P.E., CEM, LEED AP

All, I think we need to use caution when it comes to adopting such categories as defined by others…

My experience suggests that the three “principal applications” noted below are already too narrowly described. There are, for example, many ways to use models in the design process for daylighting, thermal comfort, natural ventilation, HVAC design, etc.---not just concerning “energy”---and that these can be conducted with many different levels and iterations of the model at various design stages---i.e., not just “shoebox” models and not just in schematic design.

Within the IES Virtual Environment, for example, users can run quick study models for various purposes, build a full model and run that, place parts of the full model on inactive layers (removing them from simulation) to temporarily simplify things again for other studies of alternatives ranging from envelope to daylighting and electric lighting or HVAC, apply those alternative more broadly, run the full model again, test various HVAC systems, configurations, settings, and control alternatives for the complete model but running only select subsets of the calendar year, do this for thermal comfort studies, ventilation studies, etc., and in the end (and along the way) run a full year with the full building and a smaller set of alternatives to compare results for LEED or similar and ultimately to provide documentation for both code compliance and performance rating systems.

Similarly, it is inappropriate to refer to LEED as “Compliance”. While it is sometimes used that way (e.g., a minimum requirement in some jurisdictions), LEED is a Performance Rating System specifically intended and designed to encourage a broad range of means by which one might do much better than simply complying with requirements. Likewise, in California, we have users building a model in our software, running it through the Title-24 compliance module to generate a compliance certificate for that energy code, and then using a variant of that model both to continue to refine the design and to qualify for utility incentives that pay them to do better than just complying with T24.

Cheers,

Timothy

IES

Timothy Moore Senior Product Manager

I tend to agree with Timothy. I might go so far as to say that modeling and simulation is the future of design and engineering. I would like to see us keep an open mind as to the application of our field.

Thanks Tom. It seems that your attachment did not make it over to Git and not sure how to fix that- Eric can you add Tom's attachments? Anyways the three points are clear, comprehensible and actionable. The added details from Timothy have merit but are a lot longer and harder to communicate. I would like to see these points modified and updated for use as a part of our charter. Specifically each type of modeling has its own workflows and benefits. We could even categorize presentations in these hierarchical levels.

I can add the attachments. Files are not associated with individual issue threads such as this but are added to the top level of the repository, ie: Messages.

PDX IBPSA – purpose and organization. Initial discussion focused on the need to replace the BESF/BSUG, which has devolved away from topics more germane to energy analysts. , Seems like participants might only be coming for the free lunch, and there is not much synergy and active participation has declined and become inconsistent, too, compared to previous years. The general feeling is the there is still a need to have a professional group that supports energy analysis and building energy modeling as a discipline in its own right. Some of the more practical aspects about organizing and sustaining such as group were reviewed including a meeting venue, how to define and connect to primary audiences, recruiting, and outreach and support for professional development. There is general agreement that results of modeling of building energy performance are neither fully appreciated nor understood, so there is a need to deliver integrate modeling and analysis more effectively and PDX IBPSA can be instrumental in achieving this goal. [Note that the AIA COTE delivered a one-day workshop series of presentations in September 2011, title “Energy Modeling for Architects,” just for the purpose of educating architects on the advantages as well as limitations of building energy modeling [BEM].]

Priorities in getting PDX IBPSA off the ground. To build a credible, sustaining PDX IBPSA chapter will require that we “prove” ourselves to the international IBPSA organization. Having three consecutive meetings, a clear program agenda, and a critical mass of participants will be necessary to change tentative status to one of a permanent for the chapter. We also noted that quality presentations and program content will be essential. An emphasis on peer-to-peer sharing would be key to a solid foundation. IBPSA will require dues to be paid, and there should be clear list of corresponding benefits for PDX IBPSA chapter members.

Ultimately, we’d like to have a good showing of PDX delegates to the national IBPSA meetings, sharing presentations that can have an impact on our industry. We could also contribute chapter papers as part of the BEM program at ASHRAE conferences. IBPSA tends to draw a more academic crowd from universities and research labs, but we’d like to emphasize practical approaches and problem-solving to improve building designs and operations. We’ve seen enough use of modeling just for “point chasing” [in LEED] and we’d like to be instrumental in applying modeling for better buildings. People and their success in managing resources efficiently is a value we’d like to promote. We’d like to become known for being integral to the design and operation of better buildings.

Context for a professional organization – going forward. It seems that historically (since April 2006) the Portland ETO-sponsored BSUG/BESF has been a supportive forum for energy analysts to share ideas and learn from one another, but lately the meetings have not been very interactive. We would want the PDX IBPSA to change this kind of passive participation. [Actually, early on, Earl Johnson’s BSUG required consistent commitment and contributions from all participants to step up and present at the forum and make their work accessible to colleagues. In the five years that Earl managed the BSUG only one presentation was withheld from distribution for proprietary reasons – PAE’s PowerPoint on Net- Zero Buildings. Also, during those 5 years, there was on only a single month – December 2008 I believe – that the BSUG was not held, and the cancellation was due to ice-over streets].

Other resources. The group noted that there are many resources available to energy modelers, and the PDX chapter could be instrumental in creating a repository for such useful information. Examples include the BSUG/BESF presentations, IBPSA presentations. Jason Glazer’s UNMET HOURS initiative was cited as another example. The BLDG_SIM, another example, has years worth of archived email addressing modeling issues.

Building momentum. We don’t think IBPSA is going to countenance a disorganized chapter, one that can’t stand on its own. The chapter would need to build a strong foundation. After 2 or 3 regular meetings, election of officers, and establishing a program format, there should be enough momentum to overcome inertia and give the chapter a self-sustaining life.

Website opportunities. Jeremiah proposed mocking up a starter website that could be a resource portal, accessible by PDX IBPSA members. The development and maintenance of the website would need to be very collegial and a collaborative effort, with contributions from many members. In addition, member profiles could be an element for showcasing member capabilities and the specialties of their employer organizations. Possibly include a “tip of the day” or other regular, noteworthy information, such as best practices. We’d want to be sure that information is useful and accurate, so the website would emphasize clear (factual/truthful) information and users can trust the website; diversity and differences of perspective would be respected and accommodated.

Ideally, the PDX IBSPA website would not duplicate content that can be readily linked to at other sites (such as RMI, COMNET, and BEM Book), but a portal for these relevant resources. The website would support one of the chapter’s primary goals, which is to serve as an education resource, especially to students coming up out of college into the profession. [It seems that modeling is often allocated to the more junior technical staff, devaluing the fact that modeling requires knowledge and skill]. However, the PDX IBPSA chapter could be instrumental in reinforcing the benefit of modeling for improving design.

Next steps.

Meeting dates were set to the 2nd Tuesday of every month, in the evening after work hours. Location to be determined, but a classroom at PSU might be a good place to start.
There needs to be some work on an organization vision and mission statement and values (a kind of charter).  It is critical to define who is the audience that the chapter serves. Modeling is about better buildings, and building owners and architects would be the recipients of modeling results.
Put up a starter website which can be a portal for resources accessible by members.

Thomas J. White, P.E., CEM, LEED AP tomjwhite@comcast.net The Green Galaxy Group

Thanks Tom- If my battery would not have died I still would not have laid it out as nicely as you have. Please include a baby pic:)

Also there is this git hub idea of Eric's. Personally I do not like the idea of leaving email behind, and also very much like git hub. I solved this by setting git hub to send me an email when anyone posts to the repo. If anyone has git hub id should send it here and I will invite them to the project.

However github was really confusing for me at first so I do not want to put anyone off who does not git git just yet so---> I propose that we continue email correspondence, but check conversations to git as they progress.

How does everyone else feel about this? Also please send your git hub id's

Jeremiah D. Crossett | Applications Engineer | LEED Green Associate

Sounds good to me. I'm not trying to kill email, just to keep the conversation threads accessible to newcomers and for posterity. I personally try to keep email to a minimum but I understand that others have their work-flow based around it and I respect that. My main concern now is just getting everyone signed up for an account and connected to the group site. If we want to do this in the next meeting, that works for me. I have been taking the liberty of re-posting emails to the issue tracker on the IBPSA Github site. I don't expect this to be a quick or easy transition as the site is built around an collaborative open source software development workflow but I know that we will all benefit from getting familiar with it, especially the next generation of simulation engineers that we are trying to reach out to as we the field expands, and we try to increase the professionalism and sophistication of our craft. Also, I'm fully willing to take on the task of bringing people up to speed on using Github (the website) for now, an presumably Git itself as interest develops. There is a big difference between Github and Git. Git is a version control system, Github is a website built around Git.

--Eric

IBPSA-PDX / Messages

charter #1