[BLDG-SIM] Hornet's Nest -- Policy for Public Investment in Energy Software

[Charles Eley]

It looks like my policy paper is triggering a healthy discussion and debate. This was my goal. Jeff, thanks for your response. 

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. 
 
I disagree with Jeff and PNNL.  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. 
 
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. 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. An equal or larger campaign is needed to counter this campaign and explain the need for multi-zone models. 
 
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". 

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.

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 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. 

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.


Charles Eley
Eley Associates

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. 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. 
 




===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20000131/83005827/attachment.htm>