Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit

The document analyzes the U.S. building energy modeling (BEM) sector, identifying a lack of credibility, fragmented software tools, and a shortage of skilled practitioners as primary barriers. It details the evolution of BEM from early computer programs to modern BIM integration and examines the role of market drivers like LEED and ASHRAE standards. The text proposes a collaborative roadmap to standardize methods, improve education, and enhance the accuracy of energy predictions to support low-energy building solutions.

• The BEM industry suffers from a lack of credibility because results often do not reflect realistic energy consumption, lack reproducibility between practitioners, and are hindered by customers' misguided expectations.
• Software tools in the U.S. are fragmented, with 7-10 widely used whole-building tools that lack standardized application program interfaces, making data sharing impractical.
• Practitioners are often isolated and self-taught, as university programs have only recently begun offering formal instruction in BEM.
• The demand for BEM is primarily driven by compliance requirements for energy codes, federal legislation, and green building rating systems like LEED.
• LEED certification has significantly increased BEM demand, with approximately 90% of School, New Construction, Core and Shell, and Retail LEED projects utilizing energy models.
• There is a significant gap in the availability of quality input data for models, specifically regarding part-load performance curves, plug load power density, and user behavior.
• The U.S. BEM field is dominated by procedural software, whereas international communities (e.g., UK, Ireland, Australia) use more modular frameworks and flexible modeling languages like Modelica.
• BIM adoption for energy performance simulations is hindered by poor software integration and a perception among contractors that there is no need for energy analysis.
• Publicly funded tools like eQUEST and EnergyPlus are influenced by their funding sources; eQUEST is heavily driven by California utility program needs, while EnergyPlus is prioritized for DOE research and CEC analysis.
• Standardization of BEM methods is lacking, forcing practitioners to develop ad-hoc procedures for converting manufacturer data and performing quality assurance.
• The ASHRAE Standard 140 is the primary tool for algorithm verification, but it often cannot keep pace with new technologies and focuses more on precision than empirical accuracy.
• Professional certification programs like ASHRAE's BEMP and AEE's BESA have emerged to distinguish skilled modelers, but they are pass/fail and do not differentiate between skill levels.

APA

Tupper, K., Franconi, E., Chan, C., Fluhrer, C., Jenkins, M., & Hodgin, S. (n.d.). Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2011-21_BEMPre-read.pdf

Chicago

Tupper, Kendra, Ellen Franconi, Coreina Chan, Caroline Fluhrer, Merritt Jenkins, and Stephanie Hodgin. Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit. RMI, n.d. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2011-21_BEMPre-read.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Tupper |first1=Kendra |last2=Franconi |first2=Ellen |last3=Chan |first3=Coreina |last4=Fluhrer |first4=Caroline |last5=Jenkins |first5=Merritt |last6=Hodgin |first6=Stephanie |title=Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit |publisher=RMI |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2011-21_BEMPre-read.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{tupperndpreread, author = {Tupper, Kendra and Franconi, Ellen and Chan, Coreina and Fluhrer, Caroline and Jenkins, Merritt and Hodgin, Stephanie}, title = {{Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit}}, institution = {RMI}, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2011-21_BEMPre-read.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }