Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Richman, Eric E..
This article answers four questions posed by Facility Executive Magazine regarding the new 2016 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The discussion centers on new lighting power limits, lighting controls, and the new simulation based performance path in the standard.
The roundtable discussion: A Conversation on Standard 90.1-2016, highlights some of the major changes one can expect to see in building envelope, mechanical system, and lighting requirements. In addition, the article highlights a new performance-based compliance path, climate zone revisions, and the strategic initiatives resulting in the new format. This roundtable was conducted by ASHRAE Journal with Drake Erbe, Member ASHRAE; Dick Lord, Fellow ASHRAE; Len Sciarra, AIA, Member ASHRAE; Eric Richman, Member ASHRAE; Michael Rosenberg, Member ASHRAE; Rahul Athalye, Associate Member ASHRAE; Bing Liu, P.E., Member ASHRAE; and Jason Glazer, P.E., Member ASHRAE.
This report is GSA Green Proving Ground M&V study that assesses the performance of Linear LED Retrofit products for fluorescent lighting troffers. The study evaluates describes energy efficiency, photometric performance, economic analysis, occupant satisfaction and recommendations for broad implementation within GSA facilities.
This report provides information about the evaluation of a field installation of a one-for-one Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamp replacement that uses the existing fluorescent ballast. The evaluation was part of a study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the Green Proving Ground program (GPG). The evaluation includes field-collected energy data, light-level data, and occupant and system installer survey responses. The report also provides recommendations based on the data collected during this field evaluation as well as other research-based sources, for applying this technology to other locations.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the District of Columbia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alabama. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alaska. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arizona. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arkansas. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of California. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Colorado. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Connecticut. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Delaware. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Florida. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Georgia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Hawaii. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.
Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Idaho. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.