[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54117-54131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22060]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE-2006-BC-0132]
RIN 1904-AC18
Building Energy Standards Program: Preliminary Determination
Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the Energy Standard for
Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2007
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy
ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has preliminarily determined
that the 2007 edition of the Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings, American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) Standard 90.1-2007, (Standard 90.1-2007) would achieve greater
energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code, than the 2004
edition (Standard 90.1-2004 or the 2004 edition). Also, DOE has
preliminarily determined that the quantitative analysis of the energy
consumption of buildings built to Standard 90.1-2007, as compared with
buildings built to Standard 90.1-2004, indicates national source energy
savings of approximately 3.7 percent of commercial building energy
consumption. Additionally, DOE has preliminarily determined site energy
savings are estimated to be approximately 4.4 percent. If these
determinations are finalized, States would be required to certify that
they have reviewed the provisions of their commercial building code
regarding energy efficiency, and as necessary, updated their code to
meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007. Additionally, this Notice provides
guidance to States on Certifications, and Requests for Extensions of
Deadlines for Certification Statements, should the preliminary
determination by adopted as final.
DATES: Comments on the preliminary determination must be provided by
October 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include RIN 1904-AC18
in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 6003, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name,
Department of Energy, and docket number, EERE-2006-BC-0132, or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN), 1904-AC18, for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-586-7935. For legal issues contact
Kavita Patel, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, (202) 586-0669, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
1. Publication of Standard 90.1-2007
2. Analysis Methodology
3. DOE Response to Comments on Previous Analysis
C. Summary of the Comparative Analysis
1. Quantitative Analysis
2. Detailed Textual Analysis
D. Preliminary Determination Statement
II. Results of Quantitative Analysis
III. Discussion of Detailed Textual Analysis
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. Review and Update
B. Certification
C. Requests for Extensions To Certify
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
VI. Public Participation
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for the Building Energy Efficiency
Standards Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(b), as amended,
of ECPA provides that whenever the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989
(Standard 90.1-1989 or 1989 edition), or any successor to that code, is
revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not later than 12
months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve
energy efficiency in commercial buildings and must publish notice of
such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833 (b)(2)(A))
The Secretary may determine that the revision of Standard 90.1-1989 or
any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in
commercial buildings. If so, then not later than two years after the
date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State
is required to certify that it has reviewed and updated the provisions
of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency with
respect to the revised or successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i))
The State must include in its certification a demonstration that the
provisions of its commercial building code, regarding energy
efficiency, meet or exceed the revised standard. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(B)(i))
If the Secretary makes a determination that the revised standard
will not improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings, State
commercial codes shall meet or exceed the last revised standard for
which the Secretary has made a positive determination. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(B)(ii)). On December 30, 2008, the Secretary published a
determination in the Federal Register updating the reference code to
Standard 90.1-2004. 73 FR 79868.
ECPA also requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the
deadlines for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that
it has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of
Section 304(c) of ECPA and that it has made significant progress in
doing so. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c))
[[Page 54118]]
B. Background
1. Publication of Standard 90.1-2007
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA) approved the publication of the 2007 edition of Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-rise Residential Buildings, in
December 2007.
The Standard was developed under American National Standards
Institute approved consensus standard procedures. Standard 90.1 is
under continuous maintenance by a Standing Standard Project Committee
(SSPC) for which the ASHRAE Standard Committee has established a
documented program for regular publication of addenda or revisions,
including procedures for timely, documented, consensus action on
requests for change to any part of the standard. The American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) approves addenda prior to their publication
by ASHRAE and IESNA and therefore prior to their inclusion in a new
version of Standard 90.1. ANSI approved the final addendum for
inclusion in Standard 90.1-2007 on December 18, 2007. The 2007 edition
was published in December 2007.
2. Analysis Methodology
In arriving at a preliminary determination, the DOE first reviewed
all significant changes between the 2004 edition and the 2007 edition
of Standard 90.1. Standard 90.1 is complex and covers a broad spectrum
of the energy related components and systems in buildings ranging from
simple storage buildings to complex hospitals and laboratories. The
size of buildings addressed range from those smaller than single family
homes to the largest buildings in the world. The approach to
development of the standard used in the 2007 edition was not changed
from that used for the 2004 edition, with no changes to the scope or
the way components are defined. We preliminarily determined that
because no significant changes were made to the structure, scope, or
component definitions of Standard 90.1-2004, a similar methodology used
for the analysis of Standard 90.1-2004 could be utilized for the
analysis of Standard 90.1-2007, consisting of a qualitative comparison
of the textual changes to requirements in Standard 90.1-2007 from
Standard 90.1-2004, and a quantitative estimate of the energy savings
developed from whole building simulations of a standard set of
buildings constructed to both Standards over a range of U.S. climates.
DOE chose to modify several details of how the quantitative analysis
would be done, including changes in the simulation tool used, the
building models, and the procedure and data for weighting of results by
building type and climate. DOE held a public workshop on February 18,
2009 to provide for public comment on the proposed analysis
methodology. DOE provided notice of the workshop in the Federal
Register (74 FR 4169; Jan. 23, 2009) in which it outlined changes in
the methodology from previous determinations and identified ten key
issues for which it requested stakeholder input. These issues were:
(1) Specific reductions in stringency in Standard 90.1-2007 that
DOE should be made aware of and that have been identified by
stakeholders.
(2) Specific changes in scope between Standard 90.1-2004 and
Standard 90.1-2007 and how DOE should interpret expansions of scope in
its determination.
(3) DOE's proposed approach to changes in referenced ventilation
standards between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007.
(4) DOE's proposed approach for addressing future effective dates
for mechanical equipment requirements.
(5) The frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance in
building standards (e.g. space-by-space versus whole building lighting
power allowances).
(6) New non-residential building construction data (including Mid-
rise and High-rise residential) by State or census division and
building type.
(7) Data to quantify the impact of Standard 90.1 on additions and
renovations to existing buildings.
(8) The relative prevalence of the semi-heated building envelope
subcategory in the building types proposed for analysis (e.g.
warehouses).
(9) The relative importance of the Mid- and High-rise residential
sector in DOE's determination and data for developing weighting factors
for this sector.
(10) Data describing the relative frequency of use of alternative
paths to compliance.
DOE only received stakeholder input peripherally related to one of
these key issues, that of the relative importance of mid- to high-rise
residential building and their construction. However, DOE received
input on several other issues of concern to stakeholders.
3. DOE Response to Comments on Previous Analysis
DOE sought comment on its general approach to the preliminary
determination analysis and during the public meeting outlined the
proposed approach and responded to questions and to comments received.
DOE reviewed the comments and data submitted regarding issues raised in
the proposed methodology for the quantitative analysis. The more
significant comments are discussed below. DOE received comments in four
general areas regarding the determination analysis methodology: The
treatment of equipment efficiency improvements, characteristics of
multi-family buildings, climates used in the quantitative analysis, and
how DOE addresses the cost-effectiveness of requirements. DOE received
other comments relating to how the determination results were to be
used.
DOE's proposed quantitative analysis methodology includes any
equipment efficiency improvements mandated by Federal equipment
efficiency standards, either established by DOE or by legislation but
not initiated by addenda to ASHRAE 90.1-2004, in the ASHRAE 90.1-2004
baseline. The purpose for this is to prevent inclusion in the
quantitative analysis of energy savings that would occur in new
building construction (due to these mandated equipment efficiency
improvements) regardless of the use of Standard 90.1-2004 or Standard
90.1-2007 as the basis for State building codes. This is consistent
with the approach used in previous DOE determinations.
The National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) commented that DOE's
approach would seem to miss an important energy savings feature and
that the published standard does have a list of equipment efficiencies
that should be the base for the calculations. NMHC commented that
taking this into account would seem to be more important given the
emphasis to improve the efficiency of the standard by a certain
percentage. Also, NMHC commented that there is a time lag between when
equipment improvements are adopted by the standards and when DOE
publishes these as requirements. (NMHC, Public Meeting Transcript, pp.
38, 40-41)
DOE does not use the determination methodology to ascertain whether
the standard has met a minimum percentage improvement and is instead
focused on estimating whether the adoption of the revised standard as
the basis of State building codes would result in energy savings, as
compared to the previous
[[Page 54119]]
version. With regard to the last statement, DOE's quantitative analysis
methodology does include energy savings from improvements in equipment
efficiency first initiated by ASHRAE 90.1 in part because these
improvements can be requirements in building codes before they can be
promulgated as Federal minimum equipment efficiency standards. After
considering the statements of NMHC, DOE determined not to modify its
proposed methodology.
The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) wanted clarification
and assurance that DOE was not providing credit in the assessment of
energy savings for any requirements in 90.1 that would in fact be
preempted by existing Federal equipment efficiency standards and
therefore could not be promulgated in State codes. (RECA, Public
Meeting Transcript, pp. 43-45) DOE notes that there are no such
requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and that this concern does
not exist for this preliminary determination.
In its discussion on the number of climates, NMHC asked if DOE
planned to reduce the number of simulation locations from those
identified in the notice and encouraged DOE not to reduce the number of
locations used for the quantitative analysis simulations. (NMHC, Public
Meeting Transcript, p. 57) In response, DOE will use a single
representative climate for each of the 15 U.S. climate zones identified
in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007
documents. It did not reduce the number of climate zones being used in
the quantitative analysis but rather increased this number when
compared with previous determinations.
In commenting on representativeness of the multi-family building
models, the NMHC commented that wood-frame was the dominant
construction type up to and including four stories. NMHC stated that
above five stories, steel-frame construction is more common, but the
percentage of the construction market represented by these taller
buildings drops off considerably. NMHC suggested that for the mid-rise
multi-family buildings, DOE could assume that wood-frame construction
was representative of the market. NMHC noted a steel-frame building
would be more representative of a high-rise construction (10 stories)
and DOE could assume steel-frame for the high-rise multi-family
building class. (NMHC, Public Meeting Transcript, p. 65) The American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) expressed concern that the
quantitative analysis would not pick up on the fact that multi-family
buildings are built out of wood-frame construction. (AF&PA, Public
Meeting Transcript, p. 73) In response, DOE appreciates the information
provided by the NMHC and points out that wood-frame construction does
form the basis of the mid-rise apartment building model. DOE has not
included a high-rise apartment building model into its quantitative
analysis for the Standard 90.1-2007 determination.
AF&PA expressed concern over how the results of a quantitative
analysis are used by DOE and presented to the building community. In
particular, AF&PA questioned why a quantitative analysis is being done
by DOE, given the legislative charge to DOE regarding the
determination. AF&PA stated that it appeared that doing a quantitative
analysis may be going beyond what is required of DOE. Further, AF&PA
stated that DOE believes that this comparison can be done with a
qualitative analysis, but DOE is choosing to bring in a quantitative
analysis that misses some very significant issues such as construction
type and material choices. They stated that it seems that the DOE goal
for 30 percent savings applies only to Federal buildings and questioned
why DOE isn't looking at a typical pool of Federal buildings if it
wants to do a quantitative analysis toward that goal. Finally, AF&PA
stated that the results of a quantitative analysis would be a driving
factor with the 90.1 committee, and that this would put further
pressure on the committee to increase the stringency of wood-frame
construction. (AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 69-74)
In response, DOE notes that the preliminary determination on ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007 is not related to the legislative goal of 30-percent
improvement in Federal buildings. In addition, while DOE has signed a
memorandum with ASHRAE to improve energy efficiency in commercial
building codes (Memorandum of Understanding between the United States
Department of Energy and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Signed July 2007), DOE does not
consider the purpose of the preliminary determination to measure how
far along a path building standards have progressed from ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2004. DOE does believe that a quantitative analysis of
savings should be done alongside a qualitative analysis and has carried
this through in past ASHRAE Standard 90.1 determinations. The
quantitative analysis allows DOE to examine quantitatively multiple
changes to Standard 90.1, with some reflecting improved efficiency, and
others possibly reduced efficiency to determine in balance whether
there has been an overall improvement in building efficiency. DOE does
not intend for this preliminary determination to be used as a tool to
measure progress toward a 30-percent improvement in commercial building
energy codes beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. In support of both the
preliminary determination and ASHRAE-driven code improvement process,
DOE and ASHRAE are relying on a sample set of commercial buildings
(based on the DOE benchmark buildings developed for DOE's Net-Zero
Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative and available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/benchmark_models.html) for measuring improvement in commercial building
efficiency. DOE is using versions of this same set of building models
for both the preliminary determination quantitative analysis as well as
in a separate project to track improvement in future updates to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. The versions used for this preliminary determination can
be found at http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/determinations_90.1-2007.stm.
Following up on AF&PA comments, ASHRAE commented that the Standard
90.1 development process is done with consensus building following the
ANSI process and is developed through a broad spectrum of
representation. ASHRAE further commented that the 30-percent target
that was reflected in a memorandum with DOE to improve efficiency in
commercial buildings is a goal, not a mandate, since a mandate cannot
be placed on a consensus body. (ASHRAE, Public Meeting Transcript, pp.
81, 82)
AF&PA also commented that the DOE analysis reflects a snapshot in
time and does not consider changes that will occur in the marketplace.
Further, AF&PA believed that there is a legislative charge for DOE to
support the notion of cost-effectiveness and use of readily available
technology. They asked if there is a way for DOE to become more engaged
in how that aspect is driving changes in envelope energy performance.
(AF&PA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 87-88) In response, DOE points
out that the analysis used to set the envelope requirements for
different construction assemblies had cost-effectiveness as its basis.
However, the purpose of the preliminary determination analysis is not
to investigate the validity of the development of ASHRAE Standard
[[Page 54120]]
90.1-2007 but to determine whether it reflects an increase in
efficiency.
AF&PA also asked if a description of the building models, in
particular how infiltration is modeled, could be provided. (AF&PA,
Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 93-94) DOE has included a description of
the benchmark building models and how these were used in the
quantitative analysis documentation published at http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/determinations_90.1-2007.stm.
RECA commented that some States that will adopt the International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for both residential and commercial
building energy codes with the understanding that because ASHRAE is
referenced by the IECC, they are essentially equivalent. RECA asked
whether DOE has prepared any guidance for States to describe what is
acceptable and whether this would be provided in the preliminary
determination. (RECA, Public Meeting Transcript, pp. 111-112)
Currently, DOE has not published any statements that a version of
the IECC is equivalent in terms of energy savings to for ASHRAE 90.1 in
the State code certification process. Each State's submittal with
regard to certification of its energy code is dealt with on a case-by-
case basis. Further, the DOE commercial energy code certification
requirements with regard to meeting or exceeding the efficiency of the
most recent ASHRAE Standard 90.1 version for which a positive
determination has been made are separate from the residential energy
code certification requirements that reference the IECC. Some States
may adopt the IECC and not adopt the commercial code requirements. For
these reasons, DOE considers the commercial and residential building
energy code certification by the States a separate process.
As acknowledged in the previous analysis, DOE recognizes that,
given the numerous assumptions required to simulate the potential
impact of a new commercial building energy standard, reasonable minds
could differ over both the specific building models employed and the
assumptions used in those models. DOE also recognizes the cautions from
AF&PA regarding the quantitative analysis and previous comments about
the complexity of the problem.
DOE recognizes that the methodology proposed for the quantitative
analysis will be insufficient for determining an absolute
quantification of energy savings estimates associated with using
Standard 90.1-2007 (e.g., total quads of energy savings) and makes no
such claim for the analysis on which this preliminary determination
relies. DOE's quantitative analysis includes many of the changes
brought about in Standard 90.1-2007 that can be modeled, but this
quantitative analysis is not able to quantify accurately all the likely
effects of the new standard. In particular, the degree to which the
market may react to certain changes brought about following the
adoption of a new building code, and the degree to which different
requirements are currently being met or will be met in future
construction, are exceedingly difficult to ascertain and would affect
the absolute quantification of energy savings. However, DOE believes
that the quantitative determination process outlined does provide a
reasonable approach to establishing whether, in concert, the changes
brought about by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 will result in improved
energy efficiency in buildings over ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004.
DOE continues to believe that the preliminary determination should
rely on both quantitative and qualitative comparisons. While
quantitative estimates of energy savings are indeed a much preferred
method of comparison, it is not always possible to simulate or provide
appropriate weighting to many features in Standard 90.1. Therefore, DOE
will continue to note changes that individually or in net result in
increased energy efficiency, even where they could not be accurately
quantified. States can use this information when upgrading their energy
codes.
DOE continues to believe that the quantitative analysis should be
based on the minimum requirements of each standard that reflect the
minimum set of options available in new construction. In assessing the
impact of those requirements, DOE also believes that assessment should
be based on an estimate of typical construction practices. DOE believes
that this has been done in the quantitative analysis.
For this preliminary determination, DOE utilized 5 years of
previous building construction data, as developed using proprietary
F.W. Dodge building statistical data by building type and by location
down to the county level and purchased by DOE, to develop weighting
factors to weight the building simulation results. (A summary of the
data is available in a PNNL report--PNNL-19116--Jarnagin and
Bandyopodhyay, 2010, Weighting Factors for the Commercial Building
Prototypes used in the Development of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
2010 at http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19116.pdf.) Past determinations have relied on new
construction floor space growth estimates extracted from the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) National Energy Modeling System
(NEMS) as the basis for weighting energy savings across building types
and regions. DOE believes that for the purpose of this analysis the
F.W. Dodge construction data provides better mapping of actual
construction by region and building type than could be obtained using
the EIA/NEMS data. In particular, the use of county-level construction
data allowed DOE to develop building construction statistics directly
reflecting construction in each of the ASHRAE climate regions, avoiding
many assumptions on regional construction volume that would be
necessary using the EIA/NEMS data.
Consistent with the previous analysis, DOE compared versions of
Standard 90.1 ``as a whole'' and did not issue determinations for
individual addenda. DOE interprets the language in Section 304(b)(2) of
ECPA to mean that when a comprehensive revision of the ASHRAE Standard
is published (which in this case is ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007), then
that revised or successor standard triggers the Secretary's obligation
to issue a determination as to whether the revised standard improves
energy efficiency. This determination is made by comparing the revised
or successor standard to the last predecessor standard. While the
addenda process is part of the ongoing maintenance of the standard and
thus continually modifies or revises the existing standard over time,
it would be an unreasonable reading of the statute to categorize each
addenda in this maintenance process as a ``revised or successor
standard'' within the meaning of Section 304(b)(2) of ECPA, so as to
require a determination by the Secretary. Such an interpretation of the
statute would put an unreasonable burden both on the States and DOE.
For the States, a determination by the Secretary requires some State
action, and what is required depends upon whether the Secretary issues
an affirmative or a negative determination. If the Secretary were
required to issue a determination after each addenda was published, the
States would be constantly required to change their codes. This would
affect the stability and certainty of State commercial building codes.
The statutory language in Section 304(b) of ECPA states that the
Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any
successor standard to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 will improve energy
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)) The Secretary must publish a
notice of this determination in
[[Page 54121]]
the Federal Register. The language does not require that DOE perform an
independent economic analysis as part of the determination process.
Section 304(b) of ECPA does not include any reference to language
concerning economic justification.
However, Congress did address consideration of the technological
feasibility and cost effectiveness of the Voluntary Building Energy
Codes. Section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to participate in the ASHRAE
process and to assist in determining the cost effectiveness and
technical feasibility of the ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6836) It also
requires DOE to periodically review the economic basis of the voluntary
building energy codes and participate in the industry process for
review and modification, including seeking adoption of all
technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency
measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b))
Unlike Section 307 of ECPA (42 U.S.C. 6836), which specifically
includes language concerning economic justification, Section 304 of
ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification. ``It is
generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully
where it includes particular language in one section of a statute but
omits it in another section.'' Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-
30 (1997) (Citations omitted). Accordingly, the statutory scheme cannot
be read to require an economic analysis as part of the determination
process in Section 304(b) of ECPA.
The fact that the Section 304 of ECPA determination process does
not require the Secretary to perform an economic analysis does not
diminish the importance that the ASHRAE standards be technologically
feasible and economically justified. However, the statute addresses
these issues by directing DOE to participate in the ASHRAE process
itself.
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, DOE has determined that it
is not required to perform an economic analysis as part of its
determination process in Section 304 of ECPA.
A significant change in DOE's approach from previous determinations
was the use of specific buildings, as representative of a typical
building type, in the development of building energy use intensity
(EUI), without the scaling approach used in previous determinations.
While the scaling approach used previously provides an assessment of
the impact of building changes over a broad range of building sizes,
DOE determined that the benefits did not outweigh the complexity of
this approach for the purpose of a yes/no determination. The
availability of commercial benchmark building models in EnergyPlus for
a wide variety of building types and typical sizes was deemed
sufficient for the preliminary quantitative determination analysis of
Standard 90.1-2007.
One of the most significant commercial building end-uses regulated
by energy codes and standards is lighting. For the preliminary
quantitative analysis, each of DOE's building models have its internal
lighting power density (LPD) determined using either the building area
lighting compliance path or the space-by-space lighting compliance path
from each ASHRAE Standard 90.1 edition. Building area LPDs are defined
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as maximum lighting power allowance given in
watts (W)/square foot (ft\2\), for specific building types and do not
consider internal variation in the spaces used within a given building.
In contrast, space-by-space LPDs are a specific lighting power
allowance in W/ft\2\ for a given space type regardless of what building
type it is in. Using the space-by-space method, the maximum allowed
lighting power density for a given building is determined by summing up
the product of the area fraction of each defined space-type within the
building and the allowed lighting power within each space-type. The
space-by-space method takes into account variation in the area devoted
to different space types within a particular building. In addition,
both Standard 90.1 editions allow for certain additional lighting power
allowances when the space-by-space method is used.
The building models used for the preliminary quantitative analysis
are specific building designs, in most cases with specific spaces
defined within the prototype and with different lighting schedules for
each space in accordance with its expected use. DOE chose to use the
space-by-space method to establish the overall lighting power within
these prototypes. In the case of one prototype, the strip mall retail
building, DOE also included lighting power to reflect the typical
values for additional lighting power allowances that would be allowed
as display lighting under Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007,
assuming the same display area in the prototype. For building
prototypes where space type distinctions were not deemed as important
or significant, the building area LPD numbers were used (e.g., office
buildings).
The use of the space-by-space lighting method is a deviation from
previous ASHRAE Standard 90.1 determinations where less detailed
building models were utilized in the quantitative analysis. However,
since the base LPD values for either path did not change between
Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 and the change in the
additional lighting power allowance was small and considered for only
one building type, the choice of compliance path was deemed not to
affect significantly the determination of energy savings. For each
building type, Table 1shows the lighting compliance path used for the
quantitative analysis and the average LPD used in the building models.
Once selected, the same compliance path was used for LPD assumptions in
both Standard 90.1 editions being compared. For each building
prototype, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007 building area
LPDs are shown for comparison alongside the values used in the
quantitative analysis.
Table 1--Internal Lighting Power Density Used in Building Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting Simulation lighting Building area lighting
Building compliance path power densityW/ft\2\ power densityW/ft\2\
Building type prototype used for ---------------------------------------------------
simulation model 90.1-2004 90.1-2007 90.1-2004 90.1-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office................ Small Office..... Building Area.... 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.0
Medium Office.... Building Area.... 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.0
Large Office..... Building Area.... 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.0
Retail................ Stand-Alone Space-by-Space... 1.548 1.548 1.5 1.5
Retail.
Strip Mall....... Space-by-Space... 1.645 1.568 1.5 1.5
Education............. Primary School... Space-by-Space... 1.188 1.188 1.2 1.2
Secondary School. Space-by-Space... 1.134 1.134 1.2 1.2
Healthcare............ Outpatient Health Space-by-Space... 1.094 1.094 1.0 1.0
Care.
[[Page 54122]]
Hospital......... Space-by-Space... 1.119 1.119 1.2 1.2
Lodging............... Small Hotel...... Space-by-Space... 0.968 0.968 1.0 1.0
Large Hotel...... Building Area.... 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.0
Warehouse............. Non-Refrigerated Space-by-Space... 0.810 0.810 0.8 0.8
Warehouse.
Food Service.......... Fast Food Space-by-Space... 1.650 1.650 1.4 1.4
Restaurant.
Sit-Down Space-by-Space... 1.855 1.855 1.6 1.6
Restaurant.
Apartment............. Mid-Rise Space-by-Space... 0.402 0.402 0.7 0.7
Apartment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The building area LPDs are identical for both Standard 90.1
versions. The space-by-space LPDs tabulated by space type are also
identical in both Standards. However, in addition, under the space-by-
space compliance path are additional lighting power allowances provided
for specific circumstances (primarily display lighting). Standard 90.1-
2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 both have additional lighting power
allowances for decorative lighting and for retail display lighting to
highlight merchandise. Standard 90.1-2004 also provides a small
additional lighting power allowance for video display terminal
lighting. This latter was removed in Standard 90.1-2007 and considered
seldom used in practice. The additional lighting power for decorative
lighting was not changed between standards. The additional lighting
power allowance for retail display lighting was changed to use four
specific merchandise categories described by lists of merchandise. Only
two general merchandise categories were used in Standard 90.1-2004. DOE
collected limited information on display areas in a small sample of
retail buildings and made a conservative estimate that for the strip
mall prototype, approximately 13 percent of the entire building area
might qualify for the display lighting power allowances. DOE assumed
that the additional lighting power allowance for that display area was
reduced from an average of 2.75 W/ft2 (based on an average
of the two additional lighting power display categories in Standard
90.1-2004) to 2.15 W/ft2 (based on an average of the middle
two additional lighting power display categories in Standard 90.1-
2007). This assumption resulted in a 4.6 percent reduction in whole
building LPD for this prototype. DOE believes that this result is
likely a conservative estimate of the energy savings from this
additional lighting power change.
The final space-by-space calculations used in the quantitative
analysis yield LPDs that differ from the LPDs determined from the
building area compliance paths. For all building models other than
restaurants and the mid-rise apartment, the lighting power densities
used are between 7 percent lower to 8 percent higher than LPD from the
building area compliance path. The LPDs modeled for the two restaurant
prototypes are 16 to 18 percent higher than the LPD from the building
area compliance path in either standard, a direct result of the
relative ratio of kitchen to dining areas used in these prototypes
compared with that assumed in the development of the ASHRAE 90.1
building area LPD values. All else being equal, the impact of higher
LPD assumptions is to result in a somewhat greater cooling load and
lower heating load in these prototypes.
The building average LPD modeled for the mid-rise apartment
prototype is 43 percent lower than the tabulated building area LPD
value shown in both versions of Standard 90.1. However, the lighting
section in both versions states that lighting in living units (i.e.,
apartments within multi-family housing) is not within the scope of
Standard 90.1, implying that the building area method value should be
applied only to common space within multi-family buildings and would
not be suitable for the modeling of building lighting power. To
generate the LPD for the mid-rise apartment building, DOE used the
space-by-space LPD allowances in Standard 90.1. The mid-rise apartment
prototype consists of two defined space types: Office-enclosed and
corridors; and the individual apartment units. Standard 90.1 has space-
by-space LPDs for the office and corridor spaces. DOE assumed a value
of 0.36 W/ft2 for the LPD inside the apartments based on the
lighting power assumptions found in the DOE Residential Building
America Research Benchmark.
Identical lighting schedules were used for the Standard 90.1-2004
and Standard 90.1-2007 building prototypes, as no addenda to Standard
90.1-2004 affected the scheduled usage.
In addition to the internal lighting power density, Standard 90.1
has requirements for exterior lighting power. These requirements are
identical between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007 and are
based on the application of specific exterior lighting power densities
allowances to defined exterior surfaces types (e.g., building entrances
or parking areas). In order for the building prototypes to better
reflect energy use in actual buildings, specific assumptions for the
amount of these defined exterior surfaces present for each building
prototype were developed from detailed building plan data. All exterior
lighting was assumed to be controlled by astronomical time clock for
the prototypes.
Table 2 shows the exterior lighting power assumption, expressed in
W/ft\2\ of building area.
Table 2--Exterior Lighting Power for Both 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007 Building Prototypes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prototype exterior lighting power (normalized to W/
Building Prototype ft2 of building floor area)
Building type prototype floor area -----------------------------------------------------
ft2 Parking lot Doors Fa[ccedil]ade Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office...................... Small Office... 5,502 0.243 0.039 0.015 0.297
Medium Office.. 53,628 0.243 0.010 0.015 0.268
Large Office... 498,588 0.098 0.002 0.026 0.126
[[Page 54123]]
Retail...................... Stand-Alone 24,692 0.213 0.063 0.020 0.297
Retail.
Strip Mall..... 22,500 0.282 0.095 0.030 0.407
Education................... Primary School. 73,959 0.030 0.039 0.004 0.073
Secondary 210,887 0.042 0.021 0.003 0.067
School.
Healthcare.................. Outpatient 40,946 0.304 0.042 0.007 0.353
Health Care.
Hospital....... 241,501 0.048 0.007 0.014 0.069
Lodging..................... Small Hotel.... 43,202 0.117 0.006 0.018 0.140
Large Hotel.... 122,120 0.109 0.004 0.047 0.159
Warehouse................... Non- 52,045 0.058 0.090 0.003 0.151
Refrigerated
Warehouse.
Food Service................ Fast Food 2,501 0.607 0.024 0.065 0.697
Restaurant.
Sit-Down 5,502 0.607 0.027 0.037 0.672
Restaurant.
Apartment................... Mid-Rise 33,741 0.127 0.000 0.011 0.138
Apartment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the exterior lighting power densities did not change
between Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007, the inclusion of
exterior lighting does not affect DOE's determination of energy
savings; however, as it affects the baseline building energy use, it
does have an impact on the percentage savings calculated for each
building type.
DOE's preliminary quantitative determination was carried out using
the EnergyPlus building simulation tool. EnergyPlus was selected for
this determination for several reasons. First, DOE believes that the
underlying calculation methods and the wide variety of systems
available in EnergyPlus version 3.0, used for this preliminary
determination, are sufficiently advanced over those in BLAST and DOE2
to justify the use of EnergyPlus. Quoting from DOE's EnergyPlus Web
site (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/), ``While
originally based on the most popular features and capabilities of BLAST
and DOE-2, EnergyPlus includes many innovative simulation capabilities
such as time steps of less than an hour, modular systems and plant
integrated with heat balance-based zone simulation, multi-zone air
flow, thermal comfort, water use, natural ventilation, and photovoltaic
systems''. Second, DOE had developed a set of commercial building
prototypes in EnergyPlus that could reasonably form the basis of a
national-scale simulation analysis. DOE has received and responded to
much feedback from the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 simulation working group
and other simulation experts on how to improve the representativeness
of these building models. Finally, DOE believes that a critical mass of
EnergyPlus users and sufficiently broad range of DOE contractor
experience with the tools meant that models could be reviewed and
results examined sufficiently for the purpose of the preliminary
determination.
C. Summary of the Comparative Analysis
DOE carried out both a broad quantitative analysis and a detailed
textual analysis of the differences between the requirements and the
stringencies in the 2004 and the 2007 editions of Standard 90.1.
1. Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative comparison of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 was
carried out using whole-building energy simulations of buildings built
to both ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. DOE
simulated 15 representative building types in 15 U.S. climate
locations, each climate location selected to be representative of one
of the 15 U.S. climate zones used in the definition of building energy
code criteria in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007. The
simulations were developed using specific building prototypes based on
the DOE commercial benchmark building models developed for DOE's Net-
Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative.
For each building prototype simulated in each climate the energy
use intensities (EUI) by fuel type and by end-use were extracted. These
EUIs by fuel type for each building were then weighted to national
average EUI figures using weighting factors based on the relative
square footage of construction represented by that prototype in each of
the 15 climate regions. These weighting factors were based on
commercial building construction starts data for a five year period
from 2003 to 2007. The source of data was the McGraw-Hill Construction
Projects Starts Database (MHC). The MHC database captures over 90% of
new commercial construction in any given year and the collection
process is independently monitored to ensure the coverage of most of
the commercial construction in the U.S. The data is used by other
federal agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the Federal Reserve
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for
characterizing building construction in the U.S. For the purpose of
developing construction weighting factors, the strength of this data
lies in the number of samples, the characterization of each sample in
terms of building end-use and size and number of stories, the frequency
of data collection, and the detailed location data. In addition, the
MHC database can be used to identify multi-family residential buildings
that would be covered under ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
DOE's prototypes reflect the use of two fuel types, electricity and
natural gas. Using the weighting factors, DOE was able to preliminarily
establish an estimate of the relative reduction in building energy use,
as determined by a calculated reduction in weighted average site EUI
for each building prototype. Site energy refers to the energy consumed
at the building site. In a corresponding fashion, DOE was also able to
calculate a reduction in terms of weighted average primary EUI and in
terms of weighted average energy cost intensity (ECI) in $/sf of
building floorspace. Primary energy as used here refers to the energy
required to generate and deliver energy to the site. To estimate
primary energy, all electrical energy use intensities were first
converted to primary energy using a factor of 10,800 Btus primary
energy per kWh (based on the 2009 estimated values reported in Table 2
of the EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 2009, April 2009 release available at
http://
[[Page 54124]]
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/). Natural Gas EUIs in the prototypes were
converted to primary energy using a factor of 1.089 Btus primary energy
per Btu of site natural gas use (based on the 2009 national energy use
estimated shown in Table 2 of the AEO 2009). This natural gas source
energy conversion factor was calculated by dividing the sum of all
natural gas usage, including usage for natural gas field production,
leases, plant fuel, and pipeline (compression) supply by delivered gas
energy to the four primary energy sectors (residential, commercial,
industrial, and transportation).
To estimate the reduction in energy cost index, DOE relied on
national average commercial building energy prices of $0.1028/kWh of
electricity and $11.99 per 1000 cubic feet ($1.163/therm) of natural
gas, based on EIA statistics for 2008 (the last complete year of data
available in Table 5.3 Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate
Consumers: Total by End-Use Sector for the commercial sector--available
from EIA at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html
and from the EIA Natural Gas Annual Summary for the commercial sector
available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.) DOE recognizes that actual fuel costs will vary somewhat by
building type within a region, and will in fact vary more across
regions. Nevertheless, DOE believes that the use of simple national
average figures illustrates whether there will be energy cost savings
sufficient for the purposes of the DOE preliminary determination.
Energy use intensities developed for each representative building
type were weighted by total national square footage of each
representative building type to provide an estimate of the difference
between the national energy use in buildings constructed to both
editions of the Standard 90.1. Note that the 15 buildings types used in
the preliminary determination reflect approximately 80% of the total
square footage of commercial construction including multi-family
buildings greater than three stories covered under ASHRAE Standard
90.1.
Note that only differences between new building requirements were
considered in this quantitative analysis. Changes to requirements in
the 2007 edition that pertain to existing buildings only are addressed
in the detailed textual analysis only.
Both the 2007 and 2004 editions address additions and renovations
to existing buildings. Since DOE has preliminarily found insufficient
data to characterize renovations in terms of what energy using features
are utilized, DOE has not determined that the results obtained from the
whole building prototypes used would reasonably reflect the EUI
benefits that would accrue to renovated floor space. For this reason,
renovated floor space is not included in the DOE weighting factors.
Building additions on the other hand are believed to be substantially
equivalent to new construction. For this reason, FW Dodge construction
data on additions has been incorporated into the overall weighting
factors. Floor space additions reflect approximately 13 percent of new
construction floor space based on data captured in the FW Dodge
dataset.
The quantitative analysis assumed the same base ventilation level
for buildings constructed to Standard 90.1-2004 and Standard 90.1-2007.
Neither edition of Standard 90.1 specifies ventilation rates for
commercial building construction. ASHRAE has a separate ventilation
standard for commercial construction, ASHRAE Standard 62.1 Ventilation
for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. This standard is cited only in a few
exceptions within the mechanical sections of either ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or
ASHRAE 90.1-2007, with each edition referencing a different version of
standard 62.1. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 lists ASHRAE 62.1-1999 in its table of
references. ASHRAE 90.1-2007 lists ASHRAE 62.1-2004 in its table of
references. The latest version of ASHRAE Standard 62 is Standard 62.1-
2007.
Ventilation rates can have significant impact on the energy use of
commercial buildings. States and local jurisdictions typically specify
the ventilation requirements for buildings within their respective
building codes and can set these requirements independent of the energy
code requirements. Because of the limited reference to ventilation
within either the 2004 or the 2007 edition of ASHRAE 90.1, the
requirements that States certify that their energy codes meet or exceed
the 2007 edition of ASHRAE 90.1 would in general not require
modification of State ventilation code requirements. However, in many
cases, ventilation requirements can be traced back to requirements
found in one or another version of ASHRAE Standard 62.1. For the
purpose of the quantitative analysis, DOE assumed ventilation rate for
the simulation prototypes based on the requirements ASHRAE 62.1-2004.
DOE also performed a sensitivity analysis which calculated the
quantitative impacts assuming a ventilation rate based on ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-1999.
The quantitative analysis of the energy consumption of buildings
built to Standard 90.1-2007, as compared with buildings built to
Standard 90.1-2004, indicates national primary energy savings of
approximately 3.7 percent of commercial building energy consumption
based on the weighting factors for the 15 buildings simulated. Site
energy savings are estimated to be approximately 4.4 percent. Using
national average fuel prices for electricity and natural gas DOE
estimated a reduction in energy expenditures of 3.8 percent would
result from the use of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 as compared to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2004. As identified previously, these estimated savings
figures do not include energy savings from equipment or appliance
standards that would be in place due to Federal requirements regardless
of their presence in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007.
We also performed a detailed analysis of the differences between
the textual requirements and stringencies of the two editions of
Standard 90.1 in the scope of the standard, the building envelope
requirements, the building lighting and power requirements, and the
building mechanical equipment requirements.
DOE works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory on a variety of projects
related to high-performance buildings. NIST is the main overseer of the
Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) software used to support 10 CFR 436 and
Federal life cycle costing requirements within the Federal sector. DOE
and NIST co-chair the Building Technology Research and Development (BT
R&D) committee under the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
as required under Section 913 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
However, DOE does not typically work with NIST on determinations of
energy efficiency of building standards. The technical work on DOE's
determinations is provided by staff at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory's Building Energy Codes Program.
2. Detailed Textual Analysis
The emphasis of our detailed requirement and stringency analysis
was on looking at the specific changes that ASHRAE made in going from
Standard 90.1-2004 to Standard 90.1-2007. ASHRAE publishes changes to
their standards as addenda to the preceding standard and then bundles
all the addenda together to form the next edition. ASHRAE processed 44
addenda to Standard 90.1-2004 to create Standard 90.1-2007. Each of
these
[[Page 54125]]
addenda was evaluated by DOE in preparing this preliminary
determination.
In addition, each standard has multiple ways to demonstrate
compliance, including a prescriptive set of requirements by section of
the standard, various tradeoff approaches within those same sections,
and a whole building performance method (Energy Cost Budget; ``ECB'').
For each addendum we identified whether it applies to the prescriptive
requirements, or one of the tradeoff paths provided for in the
envelope, lighting, or mechanical sections, or the ECB whole building
performance path. For each addendum DOE identified the impact on the
stringency for that path to compliance.
D. Preliminary Determination Statement
DOE's review and evaluation indicates that there are significant
differences between the 2004 edition and the 2007 edition. Our overall
preliminary conclusion is that the 2007 edition will improve the energy
efficiency of commercial buildings. However, DOE identified two changes
in textual requirements that taken alone appear to represent a
reduction in stringencies and could decrease energy efficiency. The two
changes are addendum ``p'' broadens the implicit definition of
``visually impaired'' as used in exceptions provided in the standard
which allow for lighting power to not be included in the calculated
lighting power densities subject to maximum limits and addendum ``av''
which provides for an explicit shading credit allowed for louvered
projections, where such a credit was not explicitly provided for in
90.1-2004. DOE believes that in these cases, the reduction in
stringency was not considered a major impact. For the other addenda,
DOE preliminarily determined that the remaining addenda either
represented no change in stringency, or indicated a positive change in
stringency corresponding to improved efficiency. Overall, DOE
preliminarily concluded the changes in textual requirements and
stringencies are ``positive,'' in the sense that they would improve
energy efficiency in commercial construction. Our quantitative analysis
preliminarily shows that for the 15 prototype buildings, a weighted
average national improvement in new building efficiency of 3.7 percent,
when considering source energy, and by 4.4 percent, when considering
site energy. As both the 2004 and 2007 editions cover existing
buildings, to the extent that these standards are applied to existing
buildings in retrofits or in new construction addition, the 2007
edition should improve the efficiency of the existing building stock.
DOE has, therefore, preliminarily concluded that Standard 90.1-2007
receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of the ECPA.
II. Results of Quantitative Analysis
Tables 3 and 4 show the aggregated energy use and associated energy
savings by building type for the 15 building prototypes analyzed and on
an aggregated national basis for the 2004 and 2007 editions,
respectively. For each edition of Standard 90.1, the national building
floor area weight used to calculate the national impact on building EUI
or building ECI, is presented. The national average electricity and gas
building energy use intensity is presented separately for each building
prototype analyzed, electricity being the predominant energy usage in
all prototypes. National-average site energy use intensities ranges
from over five hundred Btu per square foot annually for the Fast Food
prototype to approximately 28 Btu per square foot annually for the Non-
refrigerated Warehouse type. Source energy use intensities and building
energy cost intensities ($/sf-yr) are also presented. Further details
on the quantitative analysis can be found in the full preliminary
quantitative analysis report available at http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/determinations_90.1-2007.stm.
Table 3--Estimated Energy Use Intensity by Building Type--2004 Edition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Whole building EUI data for building population kBtu/ft\2\-yr
type floor ----------------------------------------------------------------
Building type Building prototype area weight Electric ECI $/ft2-
% EUI Gas EUI Site EUI Source EUI yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office..................................... Small Office................. 6.16 35.6 3.6 39.2 116.3 $1.11
Medium Office................ 6.64 42.1 4.2 46.3 137.5 1.32
Large Office................. 3.65 34.4 5.7 40.1 114.6 1.10
Retail..................................... Stand-Alone Retail........... 16.76 56.1 15.0 71.1 192.6 1.86
Strip Mall................... 6.23 55.2 20.1 75.2 194.8 1.90
Education.................................. Primary School............... 5.49 47.9 23.5 70.5 175.3 1.72
Secondary School............. 11.38 43.7 19.5 62.4 157.8 1.54
Healthcare................................. Outpatient Health Care....... 4.80 106.7 54.7 153.2 392.6 3.85
Hospital..................... 3.79 96.3 57.6 153.1 362.7 3.57
Lodging.................................... Small Hotel.................. 1.89 48.3 26.1 74.3 179.0 1.76
Large Hotel.................. 5.44 68.5 84.4 152.3 301.2 3.04
Warehouse.................................. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse... 18.36 14.5 10.7 25.2 56.7 0.56
Food Service............................... Fast-Food Restaurant......... 0.64 226.5 326.1 527.9 1043.5 10.62
Sit-Down Restaurant.......... 0.72 179.3 202.1 370.5 770.2 7.75
Apartment.................................. Mid-Rise Apartment........... 8.04 32.5 10.1 42.7 113.1 1.10
National................................... ............................. 100 47.0 22.2 68.4 171.1 1.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Estimated Energy Use Intensity by Building Type--2007 Edition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Whole building EUI data for building population kBtu/ft2-yr
type floor ----------------------------------------------------------------
Building type Building prototype area weight Electric ECI $/ft2-
% EUI Gas EUI Site EUI Source EUI yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office..................................... Small Office................. 6.16 35.3 3.3 38.6 115.2 $1.10
Medium Office................ 6.64 40.2 4.3 44.5 131.5 1.26
Large Office................. 3.65 34.3 4.6 38.9 113.2 1.09
Retail..................................... Stand-Alone Retail........... 16.76 51.4 13.3 64.7 176.1 1.70
[[Page 54126]]
Strip Mall................... 6.23 52.3 16.9 69.2 182.6 1.77
Education.................................. Primary School............... 5.49 46.7 19.9 65.6 167.9 1.64
Secondary School............. 11.38 42.5 16.6 58.4 151.3 1.47
Healthcare................................. Outpatient Health Care....... 4.80 102.1 52.8 147.0 376.4 3.69
Hospital..................... 3.79 95.8 56.2 151.2 359.7 3.54
Lodging.................................... Small Hotel.................. 1.89 46.5 24.7 71.2 172.1 1.69
Large Hotel.................. 5.44 69.1 79.1 147.6 298.0 3.00
Warehouse.................................. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse... 18.36 14.5 10.6 25.2 56.6 0.56
Food Service............................... Fast-Food Restaurant......... 0.64 222.1 319.5 516.9 1023.0 10.41
Sit-Down Restaurant.......... 0.72 177.5 200.0 366.7 762.4 7.67
Apartment.................................. Mid-Rise Apartment........... 8.04 31.8 9.0 40.8 109.8 1.06
National................................... ............................. 100 45.5 20.6 65.4 164.8 1.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 presents the estimated percent energy savings (based on
change in EUI) between the 2004 and 2007 editions. Overall, considering
those differences that can be reasonably quantified, the 2007 edition
is expected to increase the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.
Numbers in Table 5 represent percent energy savings; thus, negative
numbers represent increased energy use. There is a decrease in gas EUI
for all building types except medium office. This decrease in gas EUI
represents the majority of the national site energy savings from the
2007 edition. There is a decrease in electrical EUI for all building
prototypes except for large hotel.
Table 5--Estimated Percent Energy Savings With 2007 Edition--by Building Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Percent savings in whole building energy use intensity (%)
type floor ----------------------------------------------------------------
Building type Building prototype area weight Electric
% EUI Gas EUI Site EUI Source EUI ECI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office..................................... Small Office................. 6.16 0.8 9.0 1.5 1.0 1.1
Medium Office................ 6.64 4.6 -2.3 3.9 4.4 4.3
Large Office................. 3.65 0.3 18.0 2.8 1.2 1.4
Retail..................................... Stand-Alone Retail........... 16.76 8.3 11.2 9.0 8.6 8.6
Strip Mall................... 6.23 5.2 15.6 8.0 6.3 6.5
Education.................................. Primary School............... 5.49 2.5 15.4 6.9 4.2 4.6
Secondary School............. 11.38 2.6 14.8 6.4 4.1 4.4
Healthcare................................. Outpatient Health Care....... 4.80 4.2 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.1
Hospital..................... 3.79 0.6 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.9
Lodging.................................... Small Hotel.................. 1.89 3.6 5.2 4.2 3.9 3.9
Large Hotel.................. 5.44 -1.0 6.3 3.0 1.1 1.4
Warehouse.................................. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse... 18.36 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2
Food Service............................... Fast Food Restaurant......... 0.64 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Sit-Down Restaurant.......... 0.72 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Apartment.................................. Mid-Rise Apartment........... 8.04 2.1 11.5 4.3 2.9 3.1
National................................... ............................. 100 3.2 6.9 4.4 3.7 3.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Detailed Textual Analysis
A qualitative analysis of all addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-2004 that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004
was conducted. All 44 addenda processed by ASHRAE in the creation of
Standard 90.1-2007 from Standard 90.1-2004 were evaluated by DOE for
their impact on energy efficiency. DOE preliminarily determined whether
that addenda would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on
overall building efficiency. Table S-1 shows the potential number of
positive and negative changes for each section of Standard 90.1.
The preliminary results of the textual analysis indicate that the
majority of changes (30 of the total of 44 listed) were neutral. These
include editorial changes, changes to reference standards, changes to
alternative compliance paths, and other changes to the text of the
standard that may improve the usability of the standard, but do not
generally improve or degrade the energy efficiency of building. There
were 11 changes that were evaluated as having a positive impact on
energy efficiency and 2 changes that were evaluated as having a
negative impact on energy efficiency.
The 2 negative impacts on energy efficiency include:
1. Addendum p--Expanded lighting power exceptions allowed for use
with the visually impaired; and
2. Addendum av--Allowance for louvered overhangs.
The 11 positive impacts on energy efficiency include:
1. Addendum c--Increased requirement for building vestibules;
2. Addendum h--Removal of data processing centers from exceptions
to HVAC requirements;
3. Addendum q--Removal of hotel room exceptions to HVAC
requirements;
4. Addendum v--Modification of demand controlled ventilation
requirements;
5. Addendum ac--Modification of fan power limitations;
[[Page 54127]]
6. Addendum ai--Modification of retail display lighting
requirements;
7. Addendum ak--Modification of cooling tower testing requirements;
8. Addendum an--Modification of commercial boiler requirements;
9. Addendum ar--Modification of part load fan requirements;
10. Addendum as--Modification of opaque envelope requirements; and
11. Addendum at--Modification of fenestration envelope
requirements.
The results of the textual analysis are shown in Table 6. Overall,
the potential positive impacts outweigh the potential negative impacts
in a simple numerical comparison.
Table 6--Results of Textual Analysis by Section of Standard 90.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of negative
Number of changes Number of positive Number of Number of neutral (energy
Section of standard made to section (energy saving) unquantifiable (no energy saving) increasing)
changes changes changes changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title, Purpose, and Scope........................... 0 0 0 0 0
Definitions......................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Administration and Enforcement...................... 0 0 0 0 0
Envelope and Normative Appendices................... 11 3 0 7 1
HVAC Equipment and Systems.......................... 13 6 0 7 0
Service Water Heating............................... 0 0 0 0 0
Power............................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Lighting............................................ 9 2 1 5 1
Energy Cost Budget and Appendix G Performance Rating 7 0 0 7 0
Method.............................................
Normative and Informative References................ 4 0 0 4 0
Overall............................................. 44 11 1 30 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. Review and Update
If today's determination is finalized, each State would be required
to review and update, as necessary, the provisions of its commercial
building energy code to meet or exceed the provisions of the 2007
edition of Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) This action
would be required to be taken not later than two years from the date of
the final determination notice, unless an extension is provided.
The DOE recognizes that some States do not have a State commercial
building energy code or have a State code that does not apply to all
commercial buildings. If local building energy codes regulate
commercial building design and construction rather than a State code,
the State must review and make all reasonable efforts to update as
authorized those local codes to determine whether they meet or exceed
the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. States may base their certifications
on reasonable actions by units of general purpose local government.
Each such State must still review the information obtained from the
local governments and gather any additional data and testimony for its
own certification.
States should be aware that the DOE considers high-rise (greater
than three stories) multi-family residential buildings, hotel, motel,
and other transient residential building types of any height as
commercial buildings for energy code purposes. Consequently, commercial
buildings, for the purposes of certification, would include high-rise
(greater than three stories) multi-family residential buildings, hotel,
motel, and other transient residential building types of any height.
B. Certification
Section 304(b) of ECPA requires each State to certify to the
Secretary of Energy that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of
its commercial building energy code regarding energy efficiency to meet
or exceed the Standard 90.1-2007 edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)) The
certification must include a demonstration that the provisions of the
State's commercial building energy code regarding energy efficiency
meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007. If a State intends to certify that
its commercial building energy code already meets or exceeds the
requirements of Standard 90.1-2007, the State should provide an
explanation of the basis for this certification, e.g., Standard 90.1-
2007 is incorporated by reference in the State's building code
regulations. The chief executive of the State (e.g., the Governor) or a
designated State official, such as the Director of the State energy
office, State code commission, utility commission, or equivalent State
agency having primary responsibility for commercial building energy
codes, would provide the certification to the Secretary. Such a
designated State official would also provide the certifications
regarding the codes of units of general purpose local government based
on information provided by responsible local officials.
DOE does list the States that have filed certifications and those
that have or have not adopted new codes. Once a State has adopted a new
commercial code, DOE typically provides software, training, and support
for the new code as long as the new code is based on the national model
codes (in this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1). Some States develop their
own codes that are only loosely related to the national model codes and
DOE does not typically provide technical support for those codes.
However, DOE does provide grants to these States through grant programs
administered by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Each
state is unique in how they go about adopting and enforcing their
energy codes.
C. Request for Extensions To Certify
Section 304(c) of ECPA, requires that the Secretary permit an
extension of the deadline for complying with the certification
requirements described above, if a State can demonstrate that it has
made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements and that it
has made significant progress toward meeting its certification
obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations could include one
or both of the following: (1) A plan for response to the requirements
stated in section 304; or (2) a statement that the State has
appropriated or requested funds (within State funding procedures) to
implement a plan that would respond to the
[[Page 54128]]
requirements of Section 304 of ECPA. This list is not exhaustive.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's action is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
(58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was
reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461; August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. Today's action on the determination of
improved energy efficiency between the ASHRAE 2004 and 2007 of Standard
90.1 would require States to undertake an analysis of their respective
building codes. Today's action does not impact small entities.
Therefore, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act do not apply.
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has preliminarily determined that today's action is covered
under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental
Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6. of Appendix A to subpart D, 10
CFR part 1021. That Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are
strictly procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration
of grants. Today's action is required by Title III of ECPA, as amended,
which provides that whenever the Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor
to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not
later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code
would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings and must
publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)) If the Secretary determines that the revision of
Standard 90.1-1989 or any successor thereof, improves the level of
energy efficiency in commercial buildings then no later than two years
after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination,
each State is required to certify that it has reviewed and updated the
provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency
with respect to the revised or successor code. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) If the Secretary makes a determination that the
revised standard will not improve energy efficiency in commercial
buildings then State commercial codes shall meet or exceed the last
revised standard for which the Secretary has made a positive
determination. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(ii)) Therefore, DOE has
preliminarily determined that the Secretary's determination is not a
major federal action that would have direct environmental impacts.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that pre-empt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE has reviewed the statutory authority.
Congress found that:
(1) Large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily
each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot
water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings
because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features;
(2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed
buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no
longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage;
(3) The failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in
newly constructed buildings increases long-term operating costs that
may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made,
insured, or guaranteed by Federal agencies or made by federally insured
or regulated instrumentalities; and
(4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide
an existing means by which to assure, in coordination with other
building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in
State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain
adequate energy conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831)
Pursuant to Section 304(b) of ECPA, DOE is statutorily required to
determine whether the most recent versions of ASHRAE 90.1 would improve
the level of energy efficiency in commercial buildings as compared to
the previous version. If DOE makes a positive determination, the
statute requires each State to certify that it has reviewed and updated
the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy
efficiency with respect to the revised or successor codes. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(B)(i)).
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications
unless ``funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State
and local governments in complying with the regulation are provided by
the Federal Government.'' (62 FR 43257) Pursuant to Section 304(e) of
ECPA, the DOE Secretary is required to ``provide incentive funding to
States to implement the requirements of [Section 304], and to improve
and implement State residential and commercial building energy
efficiency codes, including increasing and verifying compliance with
such codes. In determining whether, and in what amount, to provide
incentive funding under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider
the actions proposed by the State to implement the requirements of this
section, to improve and implement residential and commercial building
energy efficiency codes, and to promote building energy efficiency
through the use of such codes.'' (42 U.S.C. 6833(e)) Therefore,
consultation with States and local officials regarding this preliminary
determination was not required.
However, DOE notes that State and local governments were invited to
participate in the development Standard 90.1-2007. Standard 90.1-2007,
was developed in a national American National Standards Institute
consensus process open to the public and in which State and local
governments participate along with DOE and other interested parties. It
is the product of a series of amendments to the prior addition of the
[[Page 54129]]
standard. Each addendum is put out for national public review. Anyone
may submit comments, and in the process comments were received from
State and local governments. Comments on the addendum are received,
reviewed and resolved through a consensus process. Members of the
standards project committee have included representatives of State and
local governments.
DOE annually holds a national building energy codes workshop at
which the progress on development of the model energy codes are
presented, along with discussion and sharing of problems and successes
in adoption, implementation, and enforcement of building energy codes.
The predominate attendance of these workshops are State and local
officials responsible for building energy codes. They are consistently
encouraged and urged to participate in the model building energy code
processes, which will be the subject of DOE's next determinations under
section 304 of ECPA. Thus, State and local officials have had the
opportunity to participate in the development of the standard through
the ASHRAE process. Some have done so.
Similarly, the comments of States and local governments about
provisions of the developing Standard 90.1-2007 were received in formal
comment periods and heard and addressed in ASHRAE committee
deliberations open to the public. In addition, concerns and issues
about adoption, implementation and enforcement issues were presented
and discussed at informal sessions at the Department's annual national
workshops on building energy codes. DOE believes that the above process
has given State and local jurisdictions extensive opportunity to
comment on and express their concerns on Standard 90.1-2007, the
subject of this determination.
On issuance of this determination that Standard 90.1-2007 would
improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings, ECPA requires
the States to certify to the Secretary that it has reviewed and updated
the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy
efficiency to meet or exceed the requirements of Standard 90.1-2007.
States are given broad freedom to either adopt Standard 90.1-2007 or
develop their own code that meets equivalent energy efficiency.
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of
Title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to
include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or tribal
governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal
program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to
the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal
agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result
in costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more. Section 204 of that title requires
each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining
meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments.
If today's determination is finalized, each State would be required
under Section 304 of ECPA to review and update, as necessary, the
provisions of its commercial building energy code to meet or exceed the
provisions of the 2007 edition of Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) Section 304 of ECPA requires State action in response
to a positive determination by DOE. While the processes that States may
undertake to update their codes vary widely, as a general rule a State
at a minimum would need to:
Evaluate Standard 90.1-2007 using the background material
provided by DOE
Compare the existing State commercial building energy code
to Standard 90.1-2007 to see if an update is needed
Update the State commercial building energy code to meet
or exceed Standard 90.1-2007.
DOE evaluated the potential for State activity to exceed $100
million in any one year. The approach looked at the 3 steps for minimum
activity listed in the previous paragraph--evaluate, compare and
update. A fourth potential step of providing training on the new code
was also considered as some States may consider training on the new
code to be an integral part of adopting the new code. For the 3 steps
of minimum activity, DOE estimated the following:
Evaluate Standard 90.1-2007--DOE estimated a minimum of 8 hours
of review per State and a maximum review time of 500 hours of review
per State (12.5 work weeks). The minimum review time of 8 hours (one
day) is the estimated minimum amount of time can see states taking
to review Standard 90.1-2007. Simply reading and reviewing the
Federal Register notice, the qualitative analysis document and the
quantitative analysis document will take the average person several
hours. Deciding on whether or not to upgrade to Standard 90.1-2007
may take another couple of hours. The maximum review time of 500
hours (62.5 day, 3 working months) upper limit was estimated as the
amount of time that a state that was not familiar with energy codes
at all or which has a particularly arduous review process within the
state would take to review these documents.
(1) A cost per hour of $100 per hour was assumed based on actual
rates proposed in subcontracts associated with compliance studies
funded by DOE. The average rate calculated from these subcontracts for
10 types of building officials from 6 states was $93.41, so DOE chose
to round this up to $100 per hour.
a. Low estimate--8 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $40,000
b. High estimate--500 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $2,500,000
(2) Compare Standard 90.1-2007 to existing state code--Assuming the
State is familiar with its code and has performed an effective
evaluation of Standard 90.1 in the first step, the range of potential
costs should be similar to Step 1. (See Step 1 for discussion of 8 hour
and 500 hour times and $100 per hour cost estimate).
a. Low estimate--8 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $40,000
b. High estimate--500 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $2,500,000
(3) Update the State Codes to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2007--
Adopting a new energy code could be as simple as updating an order
within the State, or it could be very complex involving hearings,
testimony, etc. Again, the range of potential costs should be similar
to Step 1. (See Step 1 for discussion of origin of 8 hour and 500 hour
times and $100 per hour cost estimate).
a. Low estimate--8 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $40,000
b. High estimate--500 hours * 50 states * $100 per hour = $2,500,000
The potential range of total costs to States to under these
assumptions would be $120,000 to $7.5 million. This range is well below
the $100 million threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Act. DOE has also
considered potential costs were States to include provide training on
the new code.
[[Page 54130]]
(4) Train Code officials on New Code--Assuming every jurisdiction
has at least one person that needs to be trained on energy code. There
are roughly 40,000 general purpose local governments, or jurisdictions,
in the U.S. The total number of jurisdictions in the U.S. that enforce
energy codes is not known with any degree of certainty. The National
League of Cities publishes an estimate of the number of local
governments in the U.S. at http://www.nlc.org/about_cities/cities_101/142.aspx. Their summary indicates the following:
19,429 Municipal governments;
16,504 Town or Township governments;
3,034 County governments;
13,506 School districts; and
35,052 Special district governments.
DOE believes it is reasonable to assume that all of the municipal
governments, town or township governments, and county governments could
be required to acquire training on Standard 90.1-2007 in order to
enforce this standard as an adopted energy code. In addition, the 50
state governments would be required to acquire training. This number
adds up to 19,429 + 16,504 + 3,034 + 50 = 38,667. Another widely
mentioned estimate of the total number of code adopting jurisdictions
in the U.S. is 44,000. This number is based on the National Conference
of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCBCS). See, for example,
http://www.ncsbcs.org/newsite/New%20Releases/RW_Presentation_060602.htm. Both these estimates are in reasonable agreement and so DOE
assumed that there are 40,000 potential jurisdictions that potentially
would need training on a new energy code. This number is likely to be
on the extreme high end of possible values. DOE believes there are
approximately 38,000 to 44,000 jurisdictions that could adopt energy
codes. Many of those jurisdictions do not adopt energy codes and many
of those jurisdictions have already adopted Standard 90.1-2007 or the
2009 IECC as evidenced by the BECP maps that show 14 states have
already adopted 90.1-2007 or the equivalent. DOE believes that 40,000
is very much on the high side of the estimate for jurisdictions that
may need training on Standard 90.1-2007, but in the absence of a lower
defensible value, DOE has chosen to use this higher conservative
number.
Based on training experiences of the Building Energy Codes Program
staff, with conducting training sessions for jurisdictional staff
regarding Standard 90.1, one full-day (8 hours) of training is normally
sufficient . Therefore we have used 8 hours as a low estimate and 16
hours as a high estimate for training hours required if a jurisdiction
were to adopt Standard 90.1-2007.
a. Low estimate--8 hours * 40,000 jurisdictions * $100 per hour =
$32,000,000
b. High Estimate--16 hours * 40,000 jurisdictions * $100 per hour =
$64,000,000
Adding the potential training costs of $32 million to $64 million
to the costs for the 3 steps indicates a potential total costs ranging
from $32.12 million to $71.5 million. The high end of this estimate is
less than the $100 million threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Accordingly, no further action is required under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. Today's action would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must
give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use, should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's action would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000), requires DOE to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications''
refers to regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' Today's regulatory
action is not a policy that has ``tribal implications'' under Executive
Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today's action under Executive Order
13175 and has determined that it is consistent with applicable policies
of that Executive Order.
VI. Public Participation
The public is invited to submit comments on the preliminary
determinations. Comments must be provided by October 4, 2010 using any
of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. If
you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public
disclosure, you should submit one complete copy, as well as one copy
from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public
disclosure has been deleted. DOE is responsible for the final
determination with regard to disclosure or nondisclosure of the
information and for treating it accordingly under the DOE Freedom of
[[Page 54131]]
Information regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
preliminary determination.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-22060 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P