bca-eforum at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Certifying Building Performance

Pete Keithly — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:14:54 GMT

Are you saying that the building's energy usage will actually be measured (metered) or will the energy usage only be predicted through modeling and simulation?

Certifying Building Performance

Pittgirl — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:07:04 GMT

ASHRAE's new "Building Energy Quotient program, which will be known as Building EQ, will include both As Designed (asset) and In Operation (as operated)

Re: Legitimacy?

Pete Keithly — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:54:00 GMT

Yes, it has been a long-winded discussion, but I for one have learned much that relates directly to the practice (and business) of Cx. Please understand that

Re: Legitimacy?

Robin Weyand-Gardner — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:54:03 GMT

I wholeheartly agree with Al Tibbs. This discussion, at least to me, has been long-winded and has long ago lost revelancy. The commissioning process is a

Legitimacy?

bldg_commissioning — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:22:12 GMT

I hear alot of discussion here about legitimacy? I do agree 100% that Cx needs legitimacy. However, I have seen this issue before, with IAQ. When a select

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

LOGARZO, JEFFREY DTG — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:36:16 GMT

... From: bca-eforum@yahoogroups.com To: bca-eforum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat Dec 12 22:27:29 2009

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Pete Keithly — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:11:20 GMT

Oneil, my issue is narrowly focused to the question of whether or not the state P.E. boards should have the exclusive right to decide that only a licensed P.E.

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Gayle, Oneil — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:27:33 GMT

Pete, The reason why I say that this topic is missing the point is that debating whether or not having a PE license makes you a better Cx provider is not

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Pete Keithly — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:46:07 GMT

Whoops, sorry I called you Gaylon. I now see your name is O'Neil. My bad. Pete Peter Keithly Keithly Barber Associates (206) 835-8254 Cell: (206) 910-8624 ...

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Pete Keithly — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:43:16 GMT

Thanks for your comments Gaylon, While I do agree with most of what you have to say, I am not sure I agree that we are missing the point. The very clear and

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Gayle, Oneil — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:30:40 GMT

I think that everyone is missing the point by continuing down this road of PE vs. Non PE. Ultimately what has to recognized is the need for training and

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Pete Keithly — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:51:32 GMT

So what you are saying is that if a firm has say a licensed building operating engineer on staff, and that firm also has E&O insurance, then they meet your

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Garrison — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:55:11 GMT

... qualified to commission a building system. They are also leaving it up to a PE to decide if they are qualified to design a building system. Should we have

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

Al Tibbs — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:01:48 GMT

I have carried E & O insurance since 1992. Have performed over 5000 building related inspections. Have commissioned building for government entities, state

Re: P.E. versus Non-P.E. Discussion

pete@... — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:18:13 GMT

In response to the second part of David's posting where he says: "As far as laws governing what area an engineer can work in. Note I said in his "area of