[Bldg-sim] Spam:Re: EPact 2005 tax savings
James Hess
JHess at tmecorp.com
Wed Feb 25 21:41:40 PST 2009
This is a good discussion.
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?
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???
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.
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.
That said, the program could use some 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.
Appreciate any follow up thoughts by anybody.
Regards,
James Hess
TME
Little Rock, AR
Sent from James' iPod
On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:48 PM, "Crawley, Drury"
<Drury.Crawley at ee.doe.gov> wrote:
> 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.
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> To: Xiaobing Liu ; Joe Huang
> Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org ; David Goldstein
> Sent: Wed Feb 25 19:25:31 2009
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
> Joe, thanks for shedding some light on the acceptance criteria and
> how it compares to other approaches.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Ellen
>
>
> Ellen Franconi, Ph.D., LEED AP
> Energy Analysis Group Manager
> Architectural Energy Corporation
> 2540 Frontier Avenue
> Boulder, CO 80301
> tel. 303-444-4149
> fax 303-444-4303
> efranconi at archenergy.com
> http://www.archenergy.com/
>
>
> >>> Joe Huang <joe at drawbdl.com> 02/25/09 2:17 PM >>>
> I frankly don't understand the criteria of acceptance for software
> approval. It seems to accept any program that's self-described as
> capable of dynamic simulations with time-varying inputs and outputs,
> and
> has gone through the ASHRAE/ANSI Standard 140 comparisons. But
> Standard
> 140 is just a cross-program comparison for very simplified cases, sort
> of digital hot-box experiments, if you will. Does this mean that all
> simulations done with these programs are valid and credible ? Any
> DOE-2
> simulation ? Any EnergyPlus simulation ? Of course not. It's all in
> the
> inputs, and if the inputs or modeling are faulty, the results could be
> all over the map. If we compare this criteria of acceptance to
> California's Title-24 Certification of compliance programs, the
> approaches are almost completely opposite. Here, the criteria are
> whether the programs have the right fundamentals or "intentions" ;
> there, the criteria are whether the programs give the right results.
> I'm afraid we're leaving the barn door open for a lot of questionable
> claims backed up by the use (or abuse) of supposedly approved
> software.
>
> Joe Huang
>
>
>
> Xiaobing Liu wrote:
> > As I remember, Green Building Studio (GBS) is on the list. Since GBS
> > runs eQUEST (and other software?) behind the screen, can the tax
> > credits be granted if the building performance simulation is
> conducted
> > by eQUEST through GBS. I'm a bit confused here. Can anyone shed
> light
> > on this issue?
> >
> > Xiaobing
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org]*On Behalf Of
> > *David S Eldridge
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:22 PM
> > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
> >
> > It is currently not submitted for approval.
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > David Eldridge, PE
> >
> > LEED® AP
> >
> >
> > *Grumman/Butkus Associates* | 820 Davis Street, STE 300 |
> > Evanston, IL 60201 | Ph: (847) 328-3555, ext 224 | Fax: (847)
> 328-4550
> >
> >
> >
> > Energy Consultants and Design Engineers
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of
> > *Chris Mullinax
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:26 PM
> > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/qualified_software.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Epact 2005 tax credits were extended to 2013 in the recent
> > “Stimulus Package.”
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m looking at a page on the DOE web site that lists approved
> > software used obtain Epact 2005 tax credits, and I notice eQuest
> > is not specifically listed. DOE-2.1 is listed however. Does
> anyone
> > know if eQuest will be acceptable for EPact 2005 simulations?
> >
> >
> >
> > The link to the list is given above.
> >
> > Any help is appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris Mullinax, P.E. LEED AP
> >
> >
> >
> > pn: 770-387-1334
> >
> > fx: 770-387-1383
> >
> > chris at mullinaxsolutions.com <mailto:chris at mullinaxsolutions.com>
> >
> > www.mullinaxsolutions.com <http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bldg-sim mailing list
> > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090225/99ac9a7c/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list