<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>James
and Ellen suggest that eQuest is one of the most widely used energy analysis
programs in the US. I'm interested in getting hold of the user
numbers. Could Ellen or James (or another Bldg-Sim-ist) provide a
reference? Thanks!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>David Yuill,
P.E.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>Principal</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009>==================</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>Building Solutions,
Inc.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>3315 S. 96th
Street</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=732031804-27022009>Omaha, NE
68124</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009>402-556-3382</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009>bsiengineering.com</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009>==================</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=732031804-27022009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>James
Hess<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:42 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Crawley, Drury; Addison Marlin; Hirsch J. James<BR><B>Cc:</B>
EFranconi@archenergy.com; DGoldstein@nrdc.org; Brantley Caleb; Jay Keazer;
BLDG-SIM@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Spam:Re:
EPact 2005 tax savings<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<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 face=Arial color=navy size=2>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 tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>