<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>This is a good discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Just a question, if eQuest is DOE 2.1E (which has been accepted) but with bug fixes and enhancements, why wouldn't it already be accepted, or acceptable? What documentation needs to be submitted? I'm not understanding this discussion I guess. Are we not splitting hairs?</div><div><br></div><div>Another area I don't understand is why anybody is still using DOE2.1E, if DOE2.2 corrected many known errors present in DOE2.1E???<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); "> </span></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe part of the reason eQuest is not being submitted/approved/upgraded is lack of funding. I have never understood why the eQuest program is strictly tied to receiving funding only from the California energy commission.</div><div><br></div><div>Like Ellen said, eQuest is one of the most widely used energy analysis programs in the US. We use it because it works for the production environment we work in (which does not allow for runtimes of hours). It's fast, very capable, accurate, & enables us to generate acceptable results for 99% of our projects while staying within our cost budgets. Whatever we can't do in eQuest, we can generally do with Excel supplementing. </div><div><br></div><div>That said, the program could use some<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); "> upgrades. I'm guessing that there are users out here like myself that would gladly pay a general users fee if it meant getting upgrades to the program. Upgrades that are relevant to the user base and delivered in a more timely fashion. I'm saying I don't understand why the funding has to come only from California Energy Cx. Not saying that the CEC funding isn't appreciated, but that alternative funding by the general users at large could allow more features to be integrated into the program. Currently, the features that get upgraded into the program are determined by the CEC and their limited funding. This is why important features such as exhaust air energy recovery for dedicated outdoor air systems are missing. </span></div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">Appreciate any follow up thoughts by anybody.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373);"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">Regards,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373);"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">James Hess</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">TME</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">Little Rock, AR </span></div><div><br><div>Sent from James' iPod</div></div><div><br>On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:48 PM, "Crawley, Drury" <<a href="mailto:Drury.Crawley@ee.doe.gov">Drury.Crawley@ee.doe.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p><font size="2" color="navy" face="Arial">
Any tool that has the required documentation is reviewed promptly by DOE and the results posted if the tool meets the qualification requirements. No documentation for eQuest has been submitted to DOE to date.<br></font></p>
<p></p><hr size="2" width="100%" align="center" tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<b>From</b>: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> <bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org>
<br><b>To</b>: Xiaobing Liu <xliu@climatemaster.com>; Joe Huang <joe@drawbdl.com>
<br><b>Cc</b>: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a> <bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org>; David Goldstein <dgoldstein@nrdc.org>
<br><b>Sent</b>: Wed Feb 25 19:25:31 2009<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
<br></dgoldstein@nrdc.org></bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org></joe@drawbdl.com></xliu@climatemaster.com></bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org></font><p></p>
<div>Joe, thanks for shedding some light on the acceptance criteria and how it compares to other approaches.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is truly a shame that eQUEST has not been approved yet. I do not know what the hold up is but I believe the program was submitted years ago to DOE for acceptance. VisualDOE was accepted a couple of months after its application was submitted. It makes you wonder what DOE 2.2 is missing that DOE 2.1E has. Better submittal documentation?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>eQUEST is probably the most widely used program for performing simulation analysis in the U.S. With our current administration's initiative to promote an energy-efficient economy and have Federal Buildings achieve 30% better performance than 90.1-2004, it is inconsistent that this program is not fast-tracked for acceptance. With construction costs climbing dramatically, these tax incentives could go a long way to help achieve what they were designed for - promoting energy efficient buildings in the U.S. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If anyone on BLDG-SIM can provide insights into why eQUEST has not been accepted, please share this with the rest of us. And if no explanation can be provided, perhaps we can use our BLDG-SIM critical mass to encourage DOE and/or the software developers to push this through the acceptance process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ellen</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Ellen Franconi, Ph.D., LEED AP</div>
<div>Energy Analysis Group Manager</div>
<div>Architectural Energy Corporation</div>
<div>2540 Frontier Avenue</div>
<div>Boulder, CO 80301</div>
<div>tel. 303-444-4149</div>
<div>fax 303-444-4303</div>
<div><a href="mailto:efranconi@archenergy.com"><a href="mailto:efranconi@archenergy.com">efranconi@archenergy.com</a></a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.archenergy.com/"><a href="http://www.archenergy.com/">http://www.archenergy.com/</a></a></div><br><br>>>> Joe Huang <<a href="mailto:joe@drawbdl.com">joe@drawbdl.com</a>> 02/25/09 2:17 PM >>><br>I frankly don't understand the criteria of acceptance for software <br>approval. It seems to accept any program that's self-described as <br>capable of dynamic simulations with time-varying inputs and outputs, and <br>has gone through the ASHRAE/ANSI Standard 140 comparisons. But Standard <br>140 is just a cross-program comparison for very simplified cases, sort <br>of digital hot-box experiments, if you will. Does this mean that all <br>simulations done with these programs are valid and credible ? Any DOE-2 <br>simulation ? Any EnergyPlus simulation ? Of course not. It's all in the <br>inputs, and if the inputs or modeling are faulty, the results could be <br>all over the map. If we compare this criteria of acceptance to <br>California's Title-24 Certification of compliance programs, the <br>approaches are almost completely opposite. Here, the criteria are <br>whether the programs have the right fundamentals or "intentions" ; <br>there, the criteria are whether the programs give the right results. <br>I'm afraid we're leaving the barn door open for a lot of questionable <br>claims backed up by the use (or abuse) of supposedly approved software.<br><br>Joe Huang<br><br><br><br>Xiaobing Liu wrote:<br>> As I remember, Green Building Studio (GBS) is on the list. Since GBS <br>> runs eQUEST (and other software?) behind the screen, can the tax <br>> credits be granted if the building performance simulation is conducted <br>> by eQUEST through GBS. I'm a bit confused here. Can anyone shed light <br>> on this issue?<br>> <br>> Xiaobing<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> *From:* <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"><a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a></a><br>> [<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]*On Behalf Of<br>> *David S Eldridge<br>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:22 PM<br>> *To:* <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"><a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a></a><br>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings<br>><br>> It is currently not submitted for approval.<br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br>><br>> <br>><br>> David Eldridge, PE<br>><br>> LEED® AP<br>><br>><br>> *Grumman/Butkus Associates* | 820 Davis Street, STE 300 |<br>> Evanston, IL 60201 | Ph: (847) 328-3555, ext 224 | Fax: (847) 328-4550<br>><br>> <br>><br>> Energy Consultants and Design Engineers<br>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> *From:* <a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"><a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a></a><br>> [<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>> *Chris Mullinax<br>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:26 PM<br>> *To:* <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"><a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a></a><br>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings<br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/qualified_software.html"><a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/qualified_software.html">http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/qualified_software.html</a></a><br>><br>> <br>><br>> Epact 2005 tax credits were extended to 2013 in the recent<br>> “Stimulus Package.”<br>><br>> <br>><br>> I’m looking at a page on the DOE web site that lists approved<br>> software used obtain Epact 2005 tax credits, and I notice eQuest<br>> is not specifically listed. DOE-2.1 is listed however. Does anyone<br>> know if eQuest will be acceptable for EPact 2005 simulations?<br>><br>> <br>><br>> The link to the list is given above.<br>><br>> Any help is appreciated.<br>><br>> <br>><br>> Thanks,<br>><br>> Chris Mullinax, P.E. LEED AP<br>><br>> <br>><br>> pn: 770-387-1334<br>><br>> fx: 770-387-1383<br>><br>> <a href="mailto:chris@mullinaxsolutions.com">chris@mullinaxsolutions.com</a> <<a href="mailto:chris@mullinaxsolutions.com">mailto:chris@mullinaxsolutions.com</a>><br>><br>> <a href="http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com">www.mullinaxsolutions.com</a> <<a href="http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com"><a href="http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com">http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com</a></a>><br>><br>> <br>><br>> <br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Bldg-sim mailing list<br>> <a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg"><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg</a></a>-sim-onebuilding.org<br>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"><a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></a><br>> <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Bldg-sim mailing list<br><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg"><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg</a></a>-sim-onebuilding.org<br>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"><a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></a><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Bldg-sim mailing list</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a></span><br><span>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"><a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>