Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17461-17469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8609]

[[Page 17461]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program--State,
Local and Tribal Allocation Formulas

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is today
publishing three formulas used to distribute funds allocated to (1)
local government, (2) States, and (3) Indian tribes for the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, as required by the
Program's authorizing legislation, Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The purpose of
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program is to assist
eligible local governments, States, and Indian tribes in implementing
strategies to reduce fossil fuel emissions, to reduce total energy use,
and improve energy efficiency. This notice provides the allocation
formulas that are used to distribute funds to eligible entities. The
formulas in today's notice were previously provided as part of the
funding opportunity announcement issued for the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EERE's Information Center, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter/, or call toll-free at 1-877-
EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463), between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. EST, Monday-
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is publishing the
formulas for allocation to States, units of local government, and
Indian tribes established for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program (EECBG Program or Program), as required by section
543(e) of the Program's authorizing legislation, Title V, Subtitle E of
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140
(EISA), as amended. In fiscal year 2009, the Program is funded with
appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Public Law 111-5 (ARRA).
ARRA appropriated $3.2 billion for the EECBG Program. The EECBG
Program provides Federal grants to States, units of local government,
Indian tribes, and consortia of these entities to reduce energy use and
fossil fuel emissions, and for energy efficiency programs and projects.
Grants to local governments are made in two allocations--(1) cities
with populations of at least 35,000 or are one of the top ten highest
populated cities and counties with a population of over 200,000 or
counties of any size population that are one of the ten highest-
populated cities or counties of the State in which they are located
(``local government-alternative 1''); (2) or cities with populations of
at least 50,000 and counties of at least 200,000 (``local government-
alternative 2''). The Program is administered by the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of
Energy.
Of amounts appropriated by ARRA, DOE will allocate $2.741 billion
as described in section 543 of EISA, using the most recent and accurate
population data available:
34 percent to eligible units of local government-
alternative 1 through formula grants;
34 percent to eligible units of local government-
alternative 2 through formula grants
28 percent to States through formula grants;
2 percent to Indian through formula grants; and
2 percent for competitive grants to ineligible cities,
counties, and Indian tribes.
Of the remaining amounts provided by ARRA, DOE will allocate $398
million in competitive grants to all entities eligible for Program
funds as described above, and $61 million will be set aside by the
Department for technical assistance to grantees and administrative
costs.
The funding allocations will be as follows:
$3,200,000,000 Appropriation in ARRA;
[cir] $61,000,000 Available to DOE for technical assistance to
grantees and administrative costs;
[cir] $398,000,000 Competitive funds for all entities eligible for
Program funds;
[cir] $2,741,180,000 EISA funds;
$1,863,880,000 Available for local governments;
$931,940,000 Available for 34% to Alternative 1;
$931,940,000 Available for 34% to Alternative 2;
$767,480,000 Available for 28% for States;
$54,820,000 Available for 2% to Indian tribes; and
$54,820,000 Available for 2% to competitive grants to
ineligible cities, counties, and Indian tribes.
EISA directs that the formula for grants to eligible units of local
government are to be established by the Department according to the
population served by the eligible unit of local government, the daytime
population of the eligible unit of local government and other similar
factors determined by Department (section 543(b)). EISA directs that of
the amount allocated for States, the Department is to provide not less
than 1.25 percent to each State, with the remainder distributed among
the States based on a formula established by the Department. EISA
directs the State formula to take into account the population of each
State and any other criteria that the Department determines to be
appropriate (section 543(c)). EISA directs that the amounts made
available for Indian tribes is to be distributed based on a formula,
which is to be established by the Department, taking into account any
factors that the Department determines to be appropriate (section
543(d)).
The first part of today's notice describes the State and local
government funding allocation formulas and data sources. The second
part of today's notice describes the Indian tribe funding allocation
formula and data sources.

Part One: EECBG State and Local Allocation Formulas

I. Definitions

While EISA directs the Department to provide grants to cities and
counties that qualify as eligible units of local government, EISA does
not define ``city,'' ``county,'' or related terms. For the purposes of
the EECBG Program, DOE is defining ``city'' to include certain city-
equivalent units of local government. Specifically, a city-equivalent
unit of local government such as a town, village or other municipality
will be considered eligible if it is listed in the most recent Census
of Governments as a currently incorporated entity, has a governance
structure consisting of an elected official and governing body, is
capable of carrying out the activities set forth in EISA, and meets the
required population thresholds described above. Additionally,
consolidated city-county governments will be considered as cities.
For the purposes of the EECBG Program, a county will be considered
eligible for direct formula grants from DOE if it is listed in the most
recent Census of Governments as a currently incorporated county, has a
governance structure with an elected official and governing body, is
capable of carrying out the activities set forth in EISA, and

[[Page 17462]]

meets the required population thresholds. To meet the population
requirement, the county population must be at least 200,000 or the
county must be within the 10 most populated counties of the State in
which it is located.
In evaluating county populations for eligibility for direct formula
grants, DOE will not include the populations of cities located within
county boundaries that are eligible for direct formula grants from DOE.
For the purposes of this program, this population is referred to as the
``county balance population.'' In determining the formulas for funding
distribution, DOE has determined that the EECBG Program achieves the
most equitable funding allocations if done on a per capita basis. By
removing the population of an eligible city from a county population,
DOE has reduced the instances of double-counting persons who live in
both an eligible city, which is located in an eligible county. DOE's
implementation approach is consistent with the approach developed by
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) administered by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program
allocation process is modeled after the CDBG program because EECBG
addresses similar issues as a formula grant program using population
and additional energy-specific data to determine allocations to local
governments.
For the purposes of this program, ``balance population'' is the
population that resides outside the jurisdictions of eligible local
governments. City and county governments that do not meet the
eligibility requirements described above for direct formula grants from
DOE are eligible for program funds through the State in which they are
located.
For the purposes of the EECBG Program, ``States'' are the 50 United
States, the District of Columbia and the following Territories of the
United States: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
DOE is not including the territories of Palmyra Atoll and Wake
Atoll in its definition of ``States.'' The territories of Palmyra Atoll
and Wake Atoll do not have significant permanent populations to warrant
inclusion in the Program. Palmyra Atoll is a national Wildlife Refuge
and access to Wake Atoll is restricted. (See, http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/islandfactsheet.htm, last visited March 26, 2009.) The
absence of permanent populations on Palmyra Atoll and Wake Atoll would
make the inclusion of these Atolls superfluous.

II. Population Data

DOE relied on the most recent and accurate population data from the
U.S. Census to determine eligibility and allocate funds under the
formula. DOE used and modified, for program purposes, a database of
publicly available Census data created for HUD's CDBG Program that,
pursuant to statutory requirement, was updated by the U.S. Census with
annual population estimates for 2007. DOE modified HUD's database to
accommodate program requirements specific to EECBG Program as explained
below.
Determining the Population of Eligible Cities. In order to
determine the identity of all eligible cities, DOE constructed a
database using Census designated places (CDPs). CDPs are delineated for
each decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated
places. DOE used the Census 2007 file of CDPs with updates to reflect
challenges to the 2007 population estimates submitted to and accepted
by the Census Bureau. The list of successful challenges can be found at
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2007/07s_challenges.html.
For the purposes of this program, DOE includes the following
clarifications to the records used to calculate the universe of cities
that are eligible for this program:
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Municipios are treated
as cities. Though designated as counties by the Census, governments of
Municipios have the functionality of city governments.
Towns, townships, and boroughs that are incorporated
places are treated as cities. The governments of these places have the
functionality of city governments.
For those populations residing in one incorporated place
that is within another incorporated place, DOE credits that population
to the first incorporated place. For example, in a State in which a
town government has incorporated villages with the same authorities
afforded city-equivalent governments within their geographic
boundaries, the villages in towns are treated as cities. Since villages
are recognized as potentially eligible units of local government, DOE
subtracts their population from the total population of the town in
which they lie. This is to avoid double-counting of populations.
A consolidated or unified city-county government in which
a city and a county overlap geographically and govern as one
consolidated government, is considered by DOE as an eligible city.
City-county governments have the functionality of city governments.
Determining the Population of Eligible Counties. To determine the
counties eligible for this program, DOE used the county balance
population. Successful challenges to U.S. Census 2007 county population
data were incorporated. DOE reconciled the 2007 Census of Governments
Directory listing of County Governments with the list of counties used
for the CDBG Program. Doing this captured only those counties with
functional governments and without double-counting the population of
consolidated city-county governments.
In determining county balance populations, DOE identified a number
of cities with geographic boundaries that cross the borders of multiple
counties. In calculating county balance populations for those counties
which contain only a part of an eligible city, DOE subtracted the
portion of the eligible city's population living within that county.
For the purposes of this program, DOE includes the following
clarifications to the records used to calculate the universe of
counties that are eligible for this program:
The updated 2007 County file contains population estimates
for counties and equivalents, including Alaska's Boroughs and
Louisiana's Parishes. Counties that are not a part of the Census of
Governments and are without governmental authority are not a part of
the database, and are thus not eligible for direct formula grants. This
pertains to some counties in Massachusetts, and Alaska, as well as all
counties in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As defined by the Census of
Governments, county governments in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Vermont perform only limited functions, and thus all counties in
these States were determined to be ineligible for Program funds. There
are also no counties in the District of Columbia.
Two counties--Arlington, VA and Menominee, WI--that have
city-county consolidated governments were exceptions that were included
in the county data files and were relocated to the city list, because,
as explained above, city-county governments have the functionality of
city governments.
DOE used the County Governments file from the 2007
Governments Integrated Directory (GID) from the U.S. Census Bureau to
identify the county-equivalents with governments (available at http://harvester.census.gov/gid/gid_07/options.html).
Determining State Population. In order that State allocations are
based on

[[Page 17463]]

the most accurate data, DOE incorporated and aggregated successful
challenges to 2007 County Population to determine State population as
was done for county population. DOE used the Census 2007 file of Census
designated places (CDPs) with updates to reflect challenges to the 2007
population estimates submitted to and accepted by the Census Bureau.
Incorporating Daytime Population. EISA directs DOE to include
considerations of ``daytime population'' in the allocation formula for
city and county calculations. The concept of the daytime population
refers to the number of people who are present in an area during normal
business hours, including workers. This is in contrast to the
``resident'' population present during the evening and nighttime hours.
The Census Bureau creates estimates of daytime population by adding the
total number of workers working in the place minus workers who live and
work in the same place with the total resident population. The Census
Bureau estimate of daytime population adjusts only for work-related
travel, i.e., incommuters to an area and outcommuters from an area.
Data necessary to adjust for shopping, school, recreation, tourism,
etc. are not available.
For EECBG Program purposes, the weighted population is comprised of
29.75% daytime population and 70.25% resident population. DOE
determined this weighting scheme based on an estimated 50 working hours
out of a total 168 hours in a week (50/168 is equal to approximately
29.75%). Working hours are used because daytime population estimates
are based on working commutes.
In places where Census Daytime Population Estimates are not
consistently available the following three guidelines were observed to
make the data consistent over time:
1. Where possible, the 2005-2007 American Community Survey (ACS)
was used to compute daytime population figures.
2. In places where 2005-2007 ACS data are not available, DOE used
daytime population data from the 2000 decennial census.
3. In places where no Census Daytime Population Estimates were
available, 2007 Census Population estimates were used. This applies to
24 locations, in three States: MI, NY, and VT.
Since Census data for different resident population sources vary
slightly from the 2007 population estimates and even more significantly
from the 2000 census, DOE used a ratio process to make the differences
consistent. This process applied the ratio of the resident population
for the 2007 Census estimate to the resident population that formed the
basis for the particular daytime estimate. This calculation corrects
data inconsistencies caused by using data from different years between
the 2007 estimates used for allocation and the source of the data.
Using the 2007 population estimate as a base, this process
calculates an estimated daytime population for 2007.
The ratio of the best available daytime population
estimate to the resident population used in forming that daytime
estimate is multiplied by the 2007 population estimate.
The ratio of resident population to daytime population is
therefore consistent between the 2007 estimates used for allocation and
the source of the data.
This process for cities is applied to counties and the city parts
which lie in different counties to determine their balance daytime
population. The American Community Survey does not have data available
for these smaller areas, so the resident population ratio is again used
to superimpose the daytime estimates on the smaller areas, which can
then be subtracted from the respective counties.

III. Local Governments and State Formulas

Determining City Eligibility According to Section 543 of Title V,
Subtitle E of EISA. In addition to the factors considered in the
previous sections, EISA provides population thresholds to determine
city eligibility. DOE determined whether a city meets the population
criteria for eligibility by ranking each city based on its population,
as determined in the previous section, relative to all other cities in
its State. Cities were added to the allocation table according to the
following:
A city with a population above 50,000 is eligible for both
Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 funding.
If a city's population is above 35,000 but below 50,000,
it is eligible for Alternative 1 funding only.
A city with a population that ranks within the ten highest
populated cities in the State is eligible for Alternative 1 funding,
even if the city population is below 35,000.
Determining County Eligibility According to Section 543 of Title V,
Subtitle E of EISA. EISA provides population thresholds to determine
eligibility in addition to the population data considerations in the
previous section. DOE ranked each eligible county relative to all other
counties in its State. Counties were added to the allocation table
according to the following:
A County with a population of 200,000 or more is eligible
for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 funding.
A County with a population that ranks within the ten
highest populated counties in the State is eligible for Alternative 1
funding only, even if the population is below 200,000.
Determining State Eligibility and Weighted Population. The 2007
State file by HUD includes 2007 Population Estimates for the 50 United
States, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. According to Sec. 541(6) the
term `State' is defined as:
A State;
The District of Columbia;
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
Any other territory or possession of the United States (as
discussed previously, DOE is only including American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands).
As stated in Sec. 543(c)(2), the formula for determining
allocations to States is required to consider:
The population of each State;
Any other criteria that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
Three factors that are considered with equal weight in the formula
are:
The total population for the State;
The population of the State after subtracting the
populations of all eligible entities;
Total Energy Consumption, less consumption in the
industrial sector.
Total population is based on the 2007 U.S. Census Population
Estimate. For the U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico, 2000 Census
population data was used because the U.S. Census Bureau does not
provide interim population estimates for U.S. Territories, with the
exception of Puerto Rico. The remaining population of the State is
calculated by subtracting the populations for all eligible cities and
all eligible counties in each State. Total Energy Consumption is
compiled from 2006 per capita energy use by sector data, the most
recent available, from the EIA. For the U.S. Territories, consumption
by sector data was unavailable. For each State and for each factor, the
percent of total compared to all the States is calculated. The three
percentages are then averaged and multiplied by the total population in
the United States based on the 2007 U.S. Census estimates data. This
calculation results in a new population distribution that gives equal
weight to the three factors mentioned above. The calculation is
formally described in Appendix B.

[[Page 17464]]

Funding Allocation Design. The EECBG Funding Allocation Calculator
(hereafter referred to as ``the calculator'') is a computer program
which computes the pro-rata allocation levels for each eligible State
and unit of local government. The total funds available for units of
local government will be $931,940,000 under Alternative 1 and
$931,940,000 under Alternative 2. The total funds available for States
will be $767,480,000.
Alternative 1 Funding--34%. First, the calculator uses an iterative
algorithm to determine Alternative 1 of EISA. Then, thirty-four percent
of the funds are allocated to local governments eligible under
definition Alternative 1. The funds are apportioned to each local
government according to their share of population relative to the
entire set of eligible entities. A minimum level of funding is set at
$50,000. The calculator then checks if any city or county was allocated
less than $50,000. Governments which are (1) funded below the minimum
amount and (2) are not eligible under the definition of Alternative 2,
are allocated the minimum amount. The remaining funds are apportioned
in the same manner to all other governments. Cities that fall below the
$50,000 minimum on reapportionment are increased to the minimum level.
This process repeats itself until no local government is funded at a
level below the minimum. For more detail on this calculation see
Appendix A.
Alternative 2 Funding--34%. Another thirty-four percent of funds is
allocated to those governments that are eligible under the definition
of Alternative 2. The process is the same as the apportionment for
those eligible under the definition of Alternative 1. In Alternative 2,
funding allocations from Alternative 1 are included in the total used
to check the minimum amount. The calculator adds Alternative 2 funding
to the amount received under Alternative 1 for any eligible entity
receiving funding under Alternative 2. For more detail on this
calculation see Appendix A.
State Funding--28%. The process for allocating funds to States is
nearly identical to the allocation algorithm for Alternative 1. EISA
provides a statutory minimum funding allocation for States of 1.25% of
the State allocation. At the level of funding established in ARRA, this
minimum is $9,593,500. Using the iterative process, DOE calculates
which States should be receiving the minimum amount of funding. DOE
makes the minimum allocations. The remaining funds are then distributed
pro rata based on the weighted population of States that are not
designated to receive the minimum amount. For more detail on the math
of this calculation see Appendix B.
Final Output. Once calculations have been completed for the two
alternative definitions, the amounts allocated to each eligible entity
are summed, and two spreadsheets are written to an allocation file. The
first contains all eligible units of local government and the second
contains all States. The spreadsheets contain all relevant data used in
the calculation including each final allocation rounded to the nearest
one hundred dollars. A summary text file is also written containing the
total of all grants to be received by each State.

Appendix A: Local Government Allocation Formulas

ALTERNATIVE 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.003

ALTERNATIVE 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.004

Ai1 = Total amount of funding allocated to Government i under
Definition Alternative 1
F = Total amount of EECBGP program formula funding allocation
l1 = Percentage of total allocations available to Local Governments
eligible under definition Alternative 1
l2 = Percentage of total allocations available

[[Page 17465]]

to Local Governments eligible under definition Alternative
\WP\i = Weighted populations average used to allocate funding
\WP\T = Sum of all weighted populations for which the minimum
funding level is not designated
Di = Daytime Population estimate normalized to 2007 Population
estimate
d = daytime coefficient
Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for Government i
M = number of governments receiving minimum funding level m
m = minimum amount of funding each entity must receive
n = number of eligible local governments
n2 = number of local governments eligible under Alternative 2 only
Pi = Total residential population based on ACS 2005-2007 or Census
2000
Wi = Workers working in the jurisdiction of government i based on
ACS 2005-2007 or Census 2000
Wi = Workers living in the jurisdiction of government i based on ACS
2005-2007 or Census 2000

Note: For Counties, all population figures are adjusted to
reflect only the balance of their population excluding the
populations of any eligible entities therein. For a local government
that is eligible under only Alternative 1 and with a weighted
population ([bond]WP[bond]) above 12,000, this works out to:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.005

For a local government receiving funding under alternative 2, this
works out to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.010

Appendix B: State Allocation Formulas

State Formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.006

[[Page 17466]]

s = Percentage of total allocations available to State Governments
M = number of governments receiving minimum funding level m
m = minimum amount of funding each entity must receive
n = number of State Governments
/WP/T = Sum of all weighted populations for which the minimum
funding level is not designated
/WP/i = Weighted population which accounts for one third total
population, one third balance population (those living in ineligible
entities), and one third non-industrial energy consumption
Ci = Energy consumption less the industrial sector's consumption for
State i
Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for State i
Bi = Balance Population for State i after subtracting the
populations of eligible cities and counties in State i
ET = Sum of all Population 2007 Estimates for States, or in the case
of territories 2000 Census population
CT = Sum of energy Consumption minus industrial use for all States,
except in U.S. territories where total energy Consumption is
included due to lack of data
BT = Sum of all Balance Populations for the States

For a State not receiving the minimum amount of funding, the
equation looks like:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.007

Part Two: EECBG Indian Tribe Allocation Formula

I. EECBG Tribal Allocation
Section 543(d) of Title V, Subtitle E of EISA provides that, ``of
amounts available for distribution to Indian tribes under subsection
(a)(3), the Secretary shall establish a formula for allocation of the
amounts to Indian tribes, taking into account any factors that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.''
Part Two of this notice applies specifically to the Tribal
Allocation, as described in section 543(a)(3), for which the total
funds available will be $54,820,000.
II. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Tribal Formula
Defining Eligible Indian Tribes
As defined by section 541(4) of Title V, Subtitle E of EISA, ``
`Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.'' The Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act states that, `` `Indian
tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group
or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), which is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United
States to Indians because of their status as Indians'' (25 U.S.C.
450b).
The Tribal Allocation for the EECBG Program will be distributed
among the 562 Federally recognized Indian tribes, listed in Indian
Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United
States Bureau of Indian Affairs published by Department of Interior's
Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Federal Register on April 4, 2008, 73
FR 18553; and the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations established
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (33 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.).
Formula Methodology. Given the relatively broad nature of the
statutory language (e.g., ``taking into account any factors that the
Secretary determines to be appropriate''), the Department has taken the
opportunity with the Tribal Allocation to improve upon a formula based
solely on population and tailor the distribution of funds to have the
greatest impact in meeting the needs of Indian tribes most affected.
However, the formula will draw heavily on relevant existing formulas
and data sources, which were developed and are used by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Native American
Programs' (ONAP) Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG), and EERE's
Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program's (WIP)
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
Summary of Formula. An explanation of the allocation formula is set
forth below. The formula is calculated based on population data from
the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census, as adjusted for birth and death rates
provided by the National Center of Health Statistics used by the Indian
Health Service, and heating and cooling degree day data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Formula Factors: The formula is composed of two weighted factors.
The first factor (F1) is the Tribal Population Factor. The next factor,
The Tribal Climate Factor (F2), represents the climatic conditions in
each Indian tribe's State, derived from heating and cooling degree
days.
F1 Tribal Population Factor. The first factor in the formula is the
Tribal Population Factor. This allocates more funds to Tribes with
larger populations. In the formula, the Tribal Population Factor is
represented as the ratio of each Indian tribe's American Indian and
Alaska Native (AIAN) population to the National Total Tribal AIAN
population. This factor is weighted at 0.75. For an explanation of the
weighting scheme, please see Weighting of the Formula Factors below.
The Tribal Population Factor is expressed,

F1 = WF1 x (Indian Tribe's AIAN Persons/Sum of all Tribes' AIAN
Persons)

Where,

WF1 = Population Weighting Factor (0.75)

Accumulating population data for Indian tribes presents many
obstacles, including but not limited to questions regarding
coordinating an Indian tribe's geographic area with available data
sources and inaccuracies in available data. Fortunately, HUD maintains
a database for the need-based portion of the IHBG formula, which
includes AIAN population data by Formula Area and as adjusted for birth
and death rates provided by the National Center of Health Statistics
used by the Indian Health Service, as defined in the IHBG regulations
(see 24 CFR 1000, Subpart D for a definition of Formula Area and the
methodology used under HUD's IHBG Program). The EECBG Program uses this
HUD database in its calculation of the Tribal Allocation formula. The
data that is used is that which HUD used in its allocation of IHBG
fiscal year 2008 funds. This is the most recent version of this data
and includes population estimates for 2007, with updates based on
successful challenges from that year. Using this database allows DOE to
comply with the legislative change in ARRA, which requires that the
most

[[Page 17467]]

recent accurate population updates be used.
Following HUD IHBG precedent, Indian tribes with populations of
``zero'' are considered eligible for Tribal Allocation funds. This is
due to the fact that Census data often does not accurately reflect true
AIAN populations in a Formula Area.
The U.S. Census Bureau tracks two sets of population numbers for
all Indian tribes--single-race and multi-race. An Indian tribe's
single-race population number includes people who identify themselves
only as an American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) person. The multi-
race population number includes people who identify themselves only as
an AIAN person and those who identify as AIAN in combination with one
or more additional races. Since the definition of multi-race includes
all single race American Indian and Alaska Native persons, the multi-
race population of any given tribe is always larger than or equal to
the single race population. But, the allocation formula compares a
tribe's population to the National Total AIAN population.
The single race population of each tribe is compared to the total
single race nationally. The multi-race of each tribe is compared to the
total multi-race population nationally. In some cases the single race
to national total single race for a given tribe will produce a larger
ratio than the comparison of multi-race population and vice versa. To
ensure that each Indian tribe receives the greatest allocation possible
the tribal allocation formula is calculated twice, first using single-
race population data and second using multi-race population data. The
greater of the two allocations is then selected for each Indian tribe.
The Department uses a methodology whereby the population value that
leads to the greatest funding level for each Indian tribe is included
in the calculation. HUD's IHBG Program has incorporated such a
modification into its formula, to ensure that each Indian tribe
receives the greatest allocation possible. The EECBG Program will also
use this methodology in making its tribal formula allocations. A full
explanation of this method is provided below at Single- Versus Multi-
Racial Population Modification.
F2 Tribal Climate Factor. The second factor, the Tribal Climate
Factor, addresses the need for energy generated by weather conditions
and the disparity of climatic conditions in different regions. Building
retrofits and other energy efficiency and conservation measures can
have a greater impact in regions experiencing severe climatic
conditions relative to regions experiencing mild seasonal variations.
Given that more than half of all eligible Indian tribes are located
within the State of Alaska and the extreme climatic conditions
experienced in that State, addressing climate disparity is of
particular importance. Energy consumption data, which was selected by
the Department as a criterion for the State allocation formula, was
considered for use in the Tribal formula. However, tribal-specific
energy use data is unavailable, and State energy consumption on a per
capita basis is not comparable to tribal energy consumption on a per
capita basis. Thus, climate data is the best indicator available to
account for disparities in energy demand.
The Tribal Climate Factor is obtained by adding the heating degree
days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) for each Indian tribe's State,
treating the energy needed for heating and cooling proportionately.
State data are used due to the lack of verifiable site-specific data.
The calculation of this factor is based largely on the climate factor
developed for EERE's WAP formula allocation. The Tribal Climate Factor
is weighted at 0.25. For an explanation of the weighting scheme, please
see Weighting of the Formula Factors below.
The Tribal Climate Factor is expressed,

F2 = WF2 x (Indian Tribe's State Climate Factor/Sum of All Tribes'
State Climate Factors)

Where,
WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor (0.25)
and State Climate Factor is given by,
State Climate Factor = (HDD State Ratio + CDD State Ratio)
The State HDD and CDD Ratios are expressed,
State HDD Ratio = State HDD/National Median HDD
State CDD Ratio = (State CDD/National Median) x 0.1
Where,
Cooling Consumption (0.49 Quadrillion Btu)/Heating Consumption (4.79
Quadrillion Btu) = 0.1

The ratio of cooling to heating energy consumption reflects the
fact that nationally households use, on average, one tenth as much
energy for cooling as for heating. National heating consumption equals
4.79 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) and air conditioning
(cooling) consumption equals 0.49 quadrillion Btu. Cooling consumption
divided by heating consumption rounds to 0.1. National data are used
because of the absence of complete State-specific data.
In order to account for the variation in weather in a simple but
equitable manner, DOE compares each Indian tribe's State's (or States')
climate to the National Median. Each State's HDD and CDD are divided by
the series' median values. Using the median as the denominator ensures
that half of the States would fall above 1 and half would fall below 1.
A State HDD Ratio (HDD divided by the median) greater than 1 indicates
a State with relatively cold winters, while a value greater than 1 for
a State CDD Ratio indicates a State with a relatively warmer summer. To
find the median of any odd series of numbers, the series is arranged in
ascending order and the value that occurs in the middle of series is
chosen as the median. The series relevant to the Tribal Climate Factor
is odd because it consists of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. The median value occurs at the 26th observation (State). The
median was chosen, rather than the mean, because of its characteristic
of being ``insensitive'' to extreme heating and cooling values, such as
those found in States like Alaska and Florida which tend to skew or
pull the mean or average towards one extreme or another. Each State CDD
Ratio is multiplied by 0.1. The final State Climate Factor for each
State is then the sum of the State HDD and CDD Ratios. The final Tribal
Climate Factor for each Indian tribe is the result of dividing each
Indian tribe's corresponding State Climate Factor by the sum of all
Indian tribes' State Climate Factors. This step normalizes the climate
factor, so that the sum of all Tribal Climate Factors will now equal 1.
For those Indian tribes whose Formula Areas are found in more than one
State, an average of the State Climate Factors is used.
The formula uses the thirty year averages (1971-2000) of heating
and cooling degree days as reported by NOAA to account for climatic
conditions. Heating and cooling consumption data were obtained from
Table 28 of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Household
Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1990.
Weighting of the Formula Factors. In the allocation formula, the
Tribal Population Factor is weighted at 0.75 and the Tribal Climate
Factor is weighted at 0.25. This weighting scheme was designed to
ensure that the tribal formula is consistent with other EECBG formulas
(local governments and State), in that population will play the
predominant role in determining an entity's allocation. As with the
State formula, the factor related to energy (in the case of Indian
tribes climatic

[[Page 17468]]

conditions, and in the case of States energy use) is given a lesser,
though still significant, weight. This allows the formula to adjust
allocations based on the variations in energy demand nationwide,
without skewing them dramatically away from a per capita basis.
Formula Share. The above factors are combined into a single formula
by summing the Tribal Population Factor (F1) and the Tribal Climate
Factor (F2) to find each Indian tribe's formula share.

The Tribal Formula Share is expressed,
Tribal Formula Share = Tribe's F1 + Tribe's F2

Where,
The Sum of All Tribal Formula Shares = 1

Each Indian tribe's share of the Tribal Allocation is then
calculated by multiplying the total Tribal Allocation by each Indian
tribe's formula share.

The Tribal Formula Allocation is given by,
Tribal Formula Allocation = Tribal Allocation x Indian Tribe's Tribal
Formula Share

Minimum Level of Funding. The minimum level of funding for Tribal
Formula Allocations is $25,000. This is based on the total amount of
available funding and HUD IHBG precedent. Though currently the need-
based portion of the IHBG allocation formula is a set percentage of
funds, for many years a minimum amount of $25,000 was employed and
deemed adequate by HUD as well as the Indian tribes.
A direct computation of the allocation formula will produce an
allocated amount for each Indian tribe, in which some tribes may
receive an allocation value less than $25,000. To resolve this, an
algorithm is used to make multiple passes through the list of Indian
tribes, to check if any were allocated less than $25,000. If a Tribal
Formula Allocation is calculated to be below $25,000, this algorithm
assigns the tribe the minimum value, subtracts this value from the
total Tribal Allocation, and then locks-out the Indian tribe from
further passes. Because some Indian tribes may fall close to the
minimum funding mark in the first pass, when reallocating funds, they
may fall below the $25,000 minimum. The algorithm makes another pass of
the remaining Indian tribes, calculating the new Tribal Formula
Allocation and checking again for levels below $25,000. This process
repeats itself until no Indian tribe is funded at a level below the
minimum.
Single- Versus Multi-Racial Population Modification. As discussed
above at F1 Tribal Population Factor, since differences in single-race
and multi-race populations may lead to significantly different funding
levels, it is important to incorporate into the overall calculation a
selection process whereby the population value that leads to the
greatest funding level for each tribe is chosen. Therefore, the EECBG
Program will use the following method, modeled after that of HUD's IHBG
Program, in calculating the final Tribal Formula Allocations:
1. The Tribal Formula Allocations are calculated using both the
Single-Race AIAN Persons data and the Multi-Race AIAN Persons numbers
for each Indian tribe.
2. The higher of the two Tribal Formula Allocations is selected for
each Indian tribe.
3. The sum of the allocations resulting from the selection process
described in Step 2 will be greater than the total funds available for
Tribal Allocation. Therefore, an across the board reduction of the
Tribal Formula Allocations is made to ensure that the sum of all
allocations is within appropriation levels.
4. A pro-rata reduction factor is calculated by subtracting the
total funds available to the Tribal Allocation from the sum described
in Step 3, and then dividing the remainder by that same sum. The pro-
rata factor is applied to each Tribal Formula Allocation.
5. As a result of the calculation described in Step 4, some Tribal
Formula Allocations will drop below the minimum of $25,000. These
Indian tribes are assigned the minimum value, a sum of all minimums
assigned is subtracted from the total Tribal Allocation, and the tribes
receiving the minimum are removed from further calculations. This
produces a new total funds available to the Tribal Allocation and a new
sum of allocations.
6. For the remaining Indian tribes, a new pro-rata reduction factor
is calculated using the new Tribal Allocation and sum of allocations
figures described in Step 5, and then applied to each remaining
allocation as described in Step 4.
7. Steps 5-6 are repeated, until eventually, no Indian tribes are
below the minimum allocation after the pro-rata reduction factor is
applied. At this point the process stops, as all Tribal Formula
Allocations have been calculated.
Final Output.
Once calculations have been completed for the Single- Versus Multi-
Racial Population Modification, the amounts allocated are rounded to
the nearest one hundred dollars. These are the final Tribal Formula
Allocations. For a complete version of the formula detailed in Part II,
see Appendix C.

Appendix C: Tribal Allocation Formula
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.009

Ai = Indian tribe i's Tribal Formula Allocation
WF1 = Population Weighting Factor
Pi = Indian tribe i's AIAN Persons
[Sigma]Indian tribes Pi = Sum of all Tribes'
AIAN Persons
WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor
HDDs = Heating Degree Days for States
CDDs = Cooling Degree Days for States
[bond]HDD[bond] = National Median HDD
[bond]CDD[bond] = National Median CDD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.011

[[Page 17469]]

F = Tribal Allocation

Approval of the Office of the Secretary. The Secretary of Energy
has approved publication of this notice.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-8609 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P