Pre-Read for BEM Innovation Summit

This pre-read document, authored by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), provides a comprehensive overview of the building energy modeling (BEM) industry in the United States to prepare attendees for the BEM Innovation Summit. It details the history of BEM, identifies systemic barriers to quality and credibility, analyzes the current state of simulation tools and practitioner training, and explores market drivers such as LEED certification and federal energy regulations.

• The BEM industry suffers from a lack of credibility because customers often lack confidence in results due to poor quality, lack of reproducibility among different practitioners using the same tools, and misguided expectations of what modeling can provide.
• Current BEM tools are fragmented, with approximately 7-10 widely used whole-building tools in the U.S. that lack standardized application program interfaces (APIs), making it impractical to share algorithms and data between them.
• Practitioners are often isolated and self-taught because university programs have only recently begun offering formal instruction on BEM, and many modelers work alone within their firms without in-house support.
• The market for BEM is poorly defined, with many customers unaware of the value of conceptual design studies or life cycle cost analysis, instead focusing on lower-value applications like LEED energy credit calculations.
• Software development is hindered by a shortage of qualified personnel who possess the necessary combined knowledge of numerical solution techniques, building physics, energy transfer, and programming languages.
• There is a significant gap in available data for critical model inputs, specifically regarding user behavior, plug and process loads, and comprehensive hourly weather data for all locations.
• The history of BEM in the U.S. evolved from early 1960s research and military applications (such as NBSLD) to the development of key engines like DOE-2 and EnergyPlus, with growth accelerated by the 1973 oil embargo and subsequent energy standards.
• European BEM traditions tend to be more rigorous than North American ones, favoring formal approaches and experimental data reconciliation, and focusing more on passive design and building envelope options.
• Most BEM programs (including DOE-2, EnergyPlus, and TRNSYS) rely on procedural code, whereas other engineering fields have moved toward declarative languages and general-purpose modeling environments to increase flexibility and code reuse.
• LEED certification has been a primary driver of BEM demand; approximately 90% of LEED School, New Construction, Core and Shell, and Retail projects utilize energy models.
• The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides the most trusted benchmark data through the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), though these rely on interviews rather than metered data.
• Professional certification programs like ASHRAE's BEMP and AEE's BESA have emerged to distinguish capable modelers, but they are pass/fail and do not distinguish between different skill levels.
• Building Information Modeling (BIM) integration is a major goal, but adoption is slowed by poor interoperability between BIM tools and energy simulation software, often requiring models to be rebuilt in different programs.
• Publicly funded tools like eQUEST and EnergyPlus are subject to the priorities of their funders (e.g., California utilities or the DOE), which may not always align with the needs of the broader practitioner community.
• Federal regulations, such as EPAct 2005 and EISA 2007, drive BEM use by requiring new federal facilities to reduce energy costs or fossil-fuel consumption compared to baselines like ASHRAE 90.1 or CBECS.

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} }