Continuous programming for Smart Energy Buildings

Best practices in high performance buildings recommend continuous commissioning. Keeping building systems at peak performance requires knowing what high performance looks like, and how that performance changes over time. But performance requirements change over time. Policy based system management requires that we know the purpose of each room. We need continuous programming for buildings.

Building programming is the name of the pre-design conversations about what an owner expects to get out of a building. Designers ferret out each purpose. The design team and the owners establish clear expectations of the expected performance for each function. Some praxis defines the energy performance expectations for each space as well. This one time activity is complete before serious design begins.

This program should guide the initial commissioning requirements. Does this space support the ventilation requires of a dining area within it energy budget. Does another space meet its energy budget while supporting high-end retail? Does the ventilation support maintaining alert cubicle workers throughout a long day? These considerations can support policy based building system management.

There are two barriers to developing systems to support this model. There is no standard for passing the original program information to the commissioning process. Programs change.

It is quite common at Universities to spend 100 grand to renovate a brand new building. During the years between programming and construction, some purpose changes, some new program started, and 4 offices are now a classroom. The break area is now a data center. The back lab is now a reception space for the new academic discipline; it now has an exterior door. In commercial buildings, each new tenant may have new requirements. Things change

Even without renovations, the building program changes, and with it, the performance requirements. The squash court becomes a spinning class, supporting many sweating exercisers rather than two. The conference room becomes a break room, and adds a refrigerator and microwave. The new break room must be better ventilated, to avoid tormenting the work force with the smell of microwave popcorn. These changes create new program requirements that should in turn update the energy performance requirements.

To meet their promise, LEED buildings need to be commissioned against their designed performance, the design that was built on the original programming. To maintain that performance, this commissioning should be continuous and automated. To keep that commissioning meaningful, it its targets should be updated as the buildings program requirements change. And that requires continuous programming.

The view from 400 miles, and 100 years away

As I walked the dog to the store this morning, I thought of the different way we know things today. The sky was clear, but I could tell. The air was cool, but I could tell. I didn’t need to hear the announcers from the weather service. I wondered how I knew. And I pondered what it would have been like to know, a hundred years ago, with no way to tell whether it would affect me and my life...

Read More

EnergyStar 2.0 Interfaces and Enterprise Interaction

Earlier this month, a few of us met for the NAESB PAP10 (Energy Usage) task force to discuss EPA EnergyStar Climate Control 2.0. We met to consider how the draft affected the work going on to define a standard for communicating energy usage. The draft EPA specification describes the changing requirements for EnergyStar certification. The EnergyStar certification is aimed for the home markets. Much of the specification discussed consumer interfaces for smart thermostats. My understanding is that the proposed release of this standard is in November of this year.

What caught my eye within the specification were abstract standards for communicating with a home HVAC system. The clear direction of this work is to increase competition and speed innovation in home systems by reducing the integration costs of mixing and matching major system components, i.e., air handler, heat pump, furnace, and smart thermostat.

To me, it is clear that an abstract interface to home systems could be an abstract interface to the small commercial package system. It could also be the abstract interface to each zone in a larger commercial installation. Such an interface would “dis-integrate” commercial building systems in ways that would more easily accept floor-by-floor and even suite-by-suite system and technology upgrades.

Enterprise interfaces to building systems must allow interaction without requiring that enterprise programmers learn mechanical engineering. They must allow coordination and monitoring without letting financial and business programmers screw things up. They must be generic to let one integration work for many technologies.

Don’t look for support for this from the usual standards bodies. Many of the participants are looking to preserve existing business models and fight over scraps. Maybe a newcomer could arrive with an open API and cool enough technology to make everyone else follow.

Or maybe, it could come from outside, from an EPA standard for homes.