[Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings

[David Yuill]

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!
 
 
David Yuill, P.E.
Principal
==================
Building Solutions, Inc.
3315 S. 96th Street
Omaha, NE 68124
402-556-3382
bsiengineering.com
==================
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hess
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:42 PM
To: Crawley, Drury; Addison Marlin; Hirsch J. James
Cc: EFranconi at archenergy.com; DGoldstein at nrdc.org; Brantley Caleb; Jay
Keazer; BLDG-SIM at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Spam:Re: EPact 2005 tax savings


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
 <mailto:efranconi at archenergy.com> efranconi at archenergy.com
 <http://www.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:*  <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
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:*  <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
>
>     It is currently not submitted for approval.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
>
>      
>
>     David Eldridge, PE
>
>     LEEDR 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:*  <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
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:*  <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>     *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] EPact 2005 tax savings
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/qualified_software.html>
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>
http://www.mullinaxsolutions.com>
>
>      
>
>      
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
>  <http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>   

_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
 <http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
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
<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090226/dc4eadca/attachment-0002.htm>