I've added a tad. Richard, i didn't mean to commandeer your initial concept designs by implementing a version of my own - i just thought for consistency's sake that i'd make the north side into seven equal areas of 10-fixtures a piece.

please feel free to edit/change/delete what i've added.

We're missing 4 fixtures in the North wing to make it 7 x 10, zones 6 and 7 have only 8 fixtures each. Other than that, fine.

I think we need to include the potential savings (i.e. total cost of fixtures as they are now, 24 x 7, minus the cost with zones on for the durations they will be on, based on when people typically are in those zones). The former data was in an email Jeff sent, the latter was in an email I sent. I'm going to add those into the wiki in a fairly raw format, would somebody like to take that and do all the math?

i'll do the calcs tonight. no probs!

Okay, I updated the methods & findings section, the current and future costs need to be calculated. If I forgot anything in that section, please let me know. I'll also redo the zone drawings per Jeff's redo to make them a little cleaner. Jeff -- we seem to be missing a South wing drawing; did you update that one as well?

I can write the conclusion and re-work the problem.

I can write the executive summary as well.

sorry for laggin on my part. i've added the cost break downs and explanations for each section. please dissect as necessary :)

Jeff,

I'm emailing the group a more detailed cost breakdown (since most areas of the building are only in use on weekdays). Also, you put the cost with zones under "Current Costs" when that should be under "Potential Savings"; the "Current Costs" section should have the figures with the lights on 24/7/365 (since that's what it currently is). Take a look at the spreadsheet I emailed you for the details.

The other thing is: where did you get that figure for the current rate from NV Energy? I didn't see that figure anywhere on the PDF from their website for commercial buildings (http://www.nvenergy.com/brochures_arch/rate_schedules/np_com_rate.pdf), is it an average or something? Anyway, the spreadsheet has a cell with the rate, all the cost calculations reference that cell so if we use a different figure all we have to do is change it in one place. I know they charge differential rates depending on time of day and season of year, so I'm not sure what to do with that.... do we just go with the lowest rate to get a minimum savings? An average? Or use the highest and lowest rates so we can show the highest and lowest possible savings?

By the way, the more that I think about, I'm thinking that we should probably provide the lowest and highest possible rates. That way the company knows it will fall somewhere in that range (depending on the electric rate; getting people to actually turn off the lights when they're leaving their area is another matter of course!). What does everyone else think?

lol thanks for catchin the 10.53. that is indeed supposed to be cents per kilowatt hour, not 10 dollars.

let me look, i remember i had to dig on their website but i was able to find it.

I need someone to email me the final graphics because I am unable to copy and paste to insert into word doc. Or, please advise as to the name of the file if it was uploaded to the wiki. Thanks!

Jennifer, for the graphics i inserted, they should be downloadable from the "files" section of the navigator box on the right side of the page. Let me/us know if that works.

The updated zone drawings I did are on the wiki:
http://407bgreen.pbworks.com/f/sust_team1_north-office.jpg
http://407bgreen.pbworks.com/f/sust_team1_south-office.jpg

Also, do we have another recommendation besides rewiring? If not, I need to change the format of the document. Thanks!

We should consider deleting the problem section. I doubt GCA will find it useful to see our initial expectations for project non-starters (just a thought). The executive summary and conclusion have been added. Please feel free to review and make changes.

Thank you Antonia!

Jeffrey and Richard, please advise as to your thoughts on Antonia's suggestion. Thanks.

As long as we all agree that the content from "the problem" section is fully addressed in the "Background" section, i'm perfectly fine with deleting it.

Dr. Staggers comments in her feedback: "Nope they should be different. Background might include the info on the company, maybe some discussion of their current interest in either reducing costs because of the economy or company’s general motivation to go green or whatever. Discuss your role as consultants who are going to make recommendations. You could also include any constraints on possible solutions (they have to cost nothing), or you can talk about the fact that Richard is an employee who identified this problem and took the initiative to solve it by doing research and identifying possible solutions."

I've edited the Background section and am working on updating the figures with the current rates listed on NV Energy's website (I'm doing the high/low rates possible, I haven't heard any feedback since I suggested that yesterday morning).

By the way, how are we doing the project assessment memos? Individual or group?

In Dr. Staggers's email she said to write individual ones.

You're right, I didn't notice that. Is someone going to put in the Sources info? I can submit the document at 5 PM if we can all agree on the final version (preferably by 4 PM just in case of any mishaps).

I'm working on incorporating all the changes now and I have to finish writing the beginning...