...now that the tax incentives from EPACT 2005 have been extended for
another 5 years, wouldn't it be nice if DOE 2.2 (eQuest) as approved for
use as energy modeling software?
I wonder if it would make sense to put together a petition by eQUEST users
identifying the features of eQUEST that make it comparable / better than
other software (particularly DOE-2.1e) both in terms of its accuracy,
usability, and market share.
In my experience reviewing hundreds of energy simulations that use eQUEST
alongside of energy simulation software approved for use with EPACT, any
contentions raised about "accuracy" of eQUEST (though entirely dubious to
begin with) are more than offset by the improved usability / error checking
abilities for users in eQUEST (the whole trash in / trash out concept
definitely applies). I also don't understand how the DOE-2.1e engine with
minimal capabilities for modeling chilled water systems could be approved
while eQUEST is not. Furthermore, Green Building Studio is approved with
"the underlying DOE-2.2-44e4 software", meaning that DOE-2.2-44e4 has been
tested according to ANSI/ASHRAE 140-2004 Standard Method of Test for the
Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer programs, and meets all
other Internal Revenue Code ?179D (c)(1) and (d) Regulations Notice 2006-52,
Section 6 requirements, so I see no possible justification for not approving
eQUEST with its underlying DOE-2.2 software.
It certainly would be.
I wonder if it would make sense to put together a petition by eQUEST users
identifying the features of eQUEST that make it comparable / better than
other software (particularly DOE-2.1e) both in terms of its accuracy,
usability, and market share.
In my experience reviewing hundreds of energy simulations that use eQUEST
alongside of energy simulation software approved for use with EPACT, any
contentions raised about "accuracy" of eQUEST (though entirely dubious to
begin with) are more than offset by the improved usability / error checking
abilities for users in eQUEST (the whole trash in / trash out concept
definitely applies). I also don't understand how the DOE-2.1e engine with
minimal capabilities for modeling chilled water systems could be approved
while eQUEST is not. Furthermore, Green Building Studio is approved with
"the underlying DOE-2.2-44e4 software", meaning that DOE-2.2-44e4 has been
tested according to ANSI/ASHRAE 140-2004 Standard Method of Test for the
Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer programs, and meets all
other Internal Revenue Code ?179D (c)(1) and (d) Regulations Notice 2006-52,
Section 6 requirements, so I see no possible justification for not approving
eQUEST with its underlying DOE-2.2 software.
Best Regards,
Gail Stranske