<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2>It looks like my policy
paper </FONT>is triggering a healthy discussion and debate. This was my goal.
Jeff, thanks for your response. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I read into Jeff's response to the policy
paper is a difference of opinion about the recommended policy guidelines. Jeff
is suggesting that it is appropriate for public funds to be used to develop
"simple" end-use interfaces, that are offered free. The private sector,
he argues, would then develop value-added interfaces as commercial
products. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has defended USDOE funding of
ComCheck Plus on this basis. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I disagree with Jeff and PNNL. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>I do not believe that the simple-but-free/enhanced-but-costly
model will work as a guideline for public investment. I certainly do not believe
that users will pay an additional $1,000 for an enhanced version of, say eQuest
or ComCheck Plus. If they won't pay the money, then there is no incentive for
private sector investment. In making my case, let me define the market for
energy analysis tools to be larger than the readers of this list. The market
ought to include mainstream architects, engineers, contractors, and maybe
buildng owners and managers. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Consider the following information. Many in the
market (see above) are currently using Energy10, a single zone model, to analyze
large multiple zone buildings. Either they do not know any better or they are
being mislead by the USDOE funded marketing campaign for Energy10. Most readers
of this list understand that a single-zone model is pretty worthless for large
buildngs, but how can this information be communicated to the larger market for
energy analysis tools. It is expensive to communicate technical information to a
large audience. It requires buying advertising space, going to trade shows,
offering free or below-cost training, writing technical articles and other
costly activities. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I wish I had the exact
figures, but my hunch is that the Passive Solar Industries Council (now the
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council) is spending $200,000 to $400,000 per
year (most of it from USDOE through NREL) promoting Energy10. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>An equal or larger campaign is needed to counter this campaign
and explain the need for multi-zone models. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the past, people at USDOE have asked me why I
care about Energy10. They argue that it is not really a competitor to VisualDOE
or other DOE-2 based tools. I agree that it shouldn't be a competitor, but the
larger market sees the products as equivalent. To the larger market, both
programs estimate building energy use, and that is all they really understand.
The four-color full page adds and glossy brochures for Energy10 do not say
"avoid using this program for multiple zone buildings". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The point of the Energy10 story is, if we can't explain the benefits of
multiple-zone models to the market, how do we communicate esoteric information
on advanced features that distinguish free and enhanced versions of the same
software. The risks and costs are just too high for the private sector to
invest. If an enhanced feature is attractive, what is to prevent it being added
to the free version of the software, thus making it even harder to for the
market to distinguish between the free-ware and enhanced feature
software.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My recommended guidelines would limit public
funding to engines, rule sets and components. In my opinion, development of
end-use applications should be left entirely to the private sector. This is the
only way we will achieve significant investment from the private sector and our
best chance of producing software that is diverse, interoperable, and useful to
the widest possible audience. The stay-away-from-user-interfaces policy is an
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>easy-to-understand guideline that is difficult to
misinterpretate. I believe it should be more widely embraced by those
responsible for investing public funds. In my opinion, the
simple-but-free/enhanced-but-costly model is like the camel's nose under the
tent. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jeff raised some questions about eQuest and
VisualDOE. I am not suggesting that public funds were invested correctly or
responsibly in VisualDOE, eQuest or any other program for that matter. I am
proposing a new and hopefully better policy that will provide guidance for
future public investments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Charles Eley</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eley Associates</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>P. S. Jeff is right that VisualDOE has enjoyed
public funding in the past, but the magnitude of this funding is insignificant
compared to the total development costs. We were willing to invest our own
resources because we want to provide a useful product and because we had an
opportunity to recover some of our costs through sales and support. If our
public investors had told us that they wanted a license that would enable them
distribute VisualDOE free, the Eley Associates investment in
VisualDOE would have be reduced significantly or maybe eliminated. After
all, we have to make payroll every two weeks, our rent comes due once a month,
etc. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I guess I do not understand why Hirsch and
Associates is willing to invest its own resources in eQuest, when the SCE plan
is to offer it for free. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV><PRE>
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE></BODY></HTML>