Questioning a widely accepted standard for energy engineering is not to be taken lightly. Yet in 2014 I found myself doing just that. While collaborating on the Department of Energy-sponsored Building Asset Rating (BAR) program, my faith in the gold standard of energy analysis was shattered.
In the process, I came to the conclusion that computer-based energy modeling platforms like eQuest and EnergyPlus are not statistically accurate for quantifying energy use in office buildings. Perhaps more significantly, I realized that the energy models they produce cannot be relied upon when evaluating the economic viability of efficiency upgrades. These findings call into question not only energy modeling but also the technical review standards required for most energy efficiency programs and even the emerging Investor Confidence Project.
This post is the first in a three-part series that outlines the inherent deficiencies within building modeling. I’ll explain why, in hindsight, it’s not surprising that current modeling practices struggle to meet the needs of the energy-engineering world. And finally, I’ll introduce a new approach that promises to deliver the accuracy and reliability needed to advance building energy saving opportunities as a commodity for financial markets
View Article