1

1 BEFORE THE

2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

3 OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

4 PUBLIC MEETING

5 FOSSIL FUEL-GENERATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION

6 FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF

7 FEDERAL BUILDINGS

8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 12 November 2010

22 Washington, D.C. USA

23 ___________________________________________________

24
2

1 ATTENDEES: 2 DOUGLAS BROOKMAN

 Public Solutions

3 108 Newburg Avenue

 Baltimore, Maryland 21228

4 USA 5 MARGO APPEL

 U.S. Department of Energy

6 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C. 20585

7 USA 8 TIMOTHY BALLO, Esquire

 Earthjustice

9 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

 Suite 702

10 Washington, D.C. 20036

 USA

11 

 SARALYN BUNCH

12 U.S. Department of Energy

 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

13 Washington, D.C.

 USA 20585

14 

 CHRISTOPHER CALAMITA, Esquire

15 Office of the General Counsel

 U.S. Department of Energy

16 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

 Washington, D.C.

17 USA (Via telephone)

18 

 EMMA CHEUSE, Attorney

19 Earthjustice

 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

20 Suite 702

 Washington, D.C. 20036

21 USA

22 

23 

24
3

1 APPEARANCES (Continued):

2 MARK HALVERSON

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

3 902 Battelle Boulevard

 Post Office Box 999

4 MSIN K5-16

 Richland, Washington 99352

5 USA

6 ELIZA HOTCHKISS

 Analyst II

7 Integrated Applications Office

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

8 1617 Cole Boulevard

 Golden, Colorado 80401

9 USA

10 VICKIE HEALEY

 Analyst

11 Integrated Applications Office

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

12 1617 Cole Boulevard

 MS 1725

13 Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

 USA

14 

 JOHN KAUFMANN

15 Senior Buildings Energy Manager

 Building Energy Systems & Technologies

16 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 902 Battelle Boulevard

17 Post Office Box 999

 MSIN K5-16

18 Richland, Washington 99352

 USA

19 john.kaufmann@pnl.gov

20 

21 

22 

23 

24
4

1 APPEARANCES (Continued): 2 PETE LaGUARDIA

 Industrial Specialist

3 U.S. department of Justice

 Federal Bureau of Prisons

4 Interagency Solution Procurement

 400 First Street, NW

5 Seventh Floor

 Washington, D.C. 20534

6 USA 7 DAVID LEIPZIGER

 Institute for Market Transformation

8 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

 Suite 815

9 Washington, D.C. 20036

 USA

10 

 MICHAEL LEWIS

11 BFOB Union

 400 Fist Street, NW

12 Washington, D.C.

 USA

13 

 NANCY McNABB

14 NIST Engineering Lab

 100 Bureau Drive

15 MS 8600

 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

16 USA

17 CYRUS NASSERI

 Federal Energy Management Program

18 U.S. Department of Energy

 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

19 Washington, D.C.

 USA 20585

20 

 S. PAYNE

21 BOP

 400 First Street, NW

22 Washington, D.C.

 USA

23 

24
5

1 ATTENDEES (Continued): 2 STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK

 Manager

3 Energy Solutions

 Edison Electric Institute

4 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

 Washington, D.C. 20004-2696

5 USA 6 ANDREW K. SOTO, Esquire

 Senior Managing Counsel

7 Regulatory Affairs

 American Gas Association

8 400 North Capitol Street, NW

 Washington, D.C. 20001

9 USA

 asoto@aga.org

10 

 AGATHA WEIN

11 New West Technologies

 4351 GardeN City Drive

12 Suite 600

 Landover, MD 20785

13 

 JONATHAN WIENER, Esquire

14 Earthjustice

 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

15 Suite 702

 Washington, D.C. 20036

16 USA

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24
6

1 I N D E X

 Page

2 

 OPENING

3 By Doug Brookman 7

4 WELCOME

 By Saralyn Bunch 7

5 

 INTRODUCTIONS

6 By Doug Brookman 10

7 AGENDA REVIEW

 By Doug Brookman 12

8 

 OPENING STATEMENTS

9 By Saralyn Bunch 14

10 INTERESTED-PARTY SUMMARY COMMENTS 15

11 OVERVIEW OF FOSSIL FUEL-GENERATED ENERGY

 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION FOR NEW FEDERAL

12 BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF FEDERAL

 BUILDINGS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

13 By Margo Appel 16

14 STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS 66

15 CLOSING REMARKS 71

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24
7

1 BEFORE THE

2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

3 OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

4 PUBLIC MEETING

5 FOSSIL FUEL-GENERATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION

6 FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF

7 FEDERAL BUILDINGS

8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

9 OPENING:

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's start.

11 Good morning, everybody, and welcome.

12 This is the U.S. Department of Energy Office of

13 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Public

14 Meeting on Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy Consumption

15 Reduction For New Federal Buildings and Major

16 Renovations of Federal Buildings.

17 Are we on -- Yes, today is Friday,

18 November twelfth. So, glad you could join us.

19 Saralyn Bunch, in the Department of

20 Energy, wishes to make welcoming remarks.

21 WELCOME:

22 MS. BUNCH: Good morning, everyone, and

23 thank you all for coming. We appreciate the

24
8

1 interest in attending this public meeting for

2 members of the private as well as the public

3 sector.

4 The Department published the Notice of

5 Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Provisions of

6 the Energy Conservation and Production Act as

7 amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act

8 of 2007 that requires DOE to accomplish revised

9 Performance Standards for the construction of all

10 new federal buildings, including commercial

11 buildings, multi-family high-rise residential

12 buildings, and low-rise residential buildings.

13 The provisions in this Notice of

14 Proposed Rulemaking specifically reduce the

15 reduction of fossil-fuel-generated energy

16 consumption in new federal buildings and major

17 renovations of federal buildings. The proposed

18 Rule also addresses how Agencies other than the

19 GSA, General Services Administration, may Petition

20 DOE for a downward adjustment of the requirements

21 if they believe that meeting the full fossil -fuel22 generated energy consumption reduction level is

23 technically impracticable in light of the specified

24
9

1 functional needs of the building.

2 Today's rulemaking complements the

3 Sustainable Design Standards For Federal Buildings

4 Rulemaking which addresses energy efficiency and

5 greenhouse gas reduction.

6 Everyone who wants to speak today will

7 have the opportunity to do so, although time may be

8 limited. Everyone is encouraged to submit more

9 detailed testimony, which we appreciate and prefer.

10 All of the statements will be entered

11 into the Docket and addressed as we develop the

12 follow-on Rule. Please note that the Building

13 Technologies Program will coordinate the final

14 revisions and development of this Rule, as well as

15 other facilities-related Rules that apply to the

16 federal sector.

17 The FEMP, Federal Energy Management

18 Program, will continue to provide energy support

19 and outreach to the federal agencies that have a

20 vested interest in the Rules. If there are any

21 questions, I will be happy to take them now.

22 And, again, I thank everyone for coming.

23 (Whereupon, at 9:04 a.m. ET, no response

24
10

1 was had.)

2 MS. BUNCH: If there's no question,

3 we'll go back to you, Doug.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

5 INTRODUCTIONS:

6 MR. BROOKMAN: It's our tradition to do

7 introductions right at the outset. I'm going to

8 start over here, please, and then you can get in

9 the habit of turning the microphone on.

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven Rosenstock,

11 Edison Electric Institute.

12 MS. CHEUSE: Emma Cheuse, Earthjustice.

13 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice.

14 MR. MINER: John Miner, with

15 Earthjustice.

16 MR. SOTO: Andrew Soto, American Gas

17 Association.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And, Margo, do you want

19 to introduce yourself?

20 MS. APPEL: Yes. Margo Appel, DOE.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Over here to John and

22 Mark.

23 MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, Pacific

24
11

1 Northwest National Laboratory.

2 MR. HALVERSON: Mark Halverson, Pacific

3 Northwest National Laboratory.

4 MS. BUNCH: Saralyn Bunch.

5 MS. WAYNE: Agatha Wayne, with New West

6 Technologies. Also supporting DOE.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Please.

8 MR. LaGUARDIA: Pete LaGuardia,

9 Department of Justice.

10 MR. LEWIS: Mike Lewis, Department of

11 Justice.

12 MS. PEI (phonetic): Stoi Pei

13 (phonetic), Department of Justice.

14 MS. McNABB: Nancy McNabb, NIST.

15 MR. LEIPZIGER: Dave Leipziger,

16 Institute For Market Transformation.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to do a very

18 brief -- Oh, yes. And Chris Calamita (phonetic),

19 from the General Counsel's Office here at the

20 Department of Energy.

21 MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita.

22 I have joined you by telephone, and Office of the

23 General Counsel.

24
12

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Chris. And we

2 also have, I think, several individuals that are

3 joining us via the webinar.

4 Yes. Brief Agenda review and then we'll

5 launch into the more substantive content.

6 AGENDA REVIEW:

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Immediately following

8 this Agenda Review we're going to have an overview

9 and a review of the fossil fuel-generated energy

10 consumption reduction for new federal buildings and

11 major renovations of federal buildings Notice of

12 Proposed Rulemaking that Saralyn was mentioning.

13 Following that there's an opportunity by

14 anybody that wishes to do so to make brief summary

15 remarks. And from there we're going to go into the

16 more detailed content of, of the day.

17 I know a review of information will

18 continue for proposed rulemaking. Margo's going to

19 be presenting that content.

20 I think most of you are familiar with

21 the general format for this material today. All of

22 you received a copy of the Federal Register Notice,

23 and also these PowerPoint slides which will be the

24
13

1 basis for both the presentation and the comment

2 boxes that are interspersed with it.

3 The Department is specifically speaking,

4 requesting that you provide comment. So, after

5 Margo is going, goes through those various slides

6 and the comment, there is a, we'll take a break

7 midmorning at, see where that gracefully lands.

8 You'll -- You can see as you review the

9 Agenda, there are several additional places held

10 there for additional stakeholder comments. My

11 version of the Agenda suggests we're going to go

12 till 4:30 or --.

13 Today, having looked at, at the slides,

14 it looks like we're not going to take that long.

15 I'm not sure how long it will take, but we'll try

16 to be efficient, and, of course, provide every

17 opportunity for you to comment as you see fit.

18 So, that's the plan for today.

19 Questions and comments on the Agenda?

20 I would ask for your consideration.

21 Please speak one at a time.

22 Please say your name for the Record.

23 There will be a complete Transcript of this meeting

24
14

1 available and posted on EERE, and if you can keep

2 the focus here, please turn your cell phones to

3 "Silent" mode, limit the side-bar conversations,

4 and I guess that is it for the overview.

5 Let's return to Saralyn Bunch.

6 OPENING STATEMENTS:

7 MS. BUNCH: Okay, next slide, please.

8 Meeting Objectives and Schedule. There

9 we go.

10 The NOPR Notification of Proposed

11 Rulemaking was published on October fifteenth,

12 2010. It's 75 Federal Register FR- 63404.

13 Today we are having the Public Hearing

14 to accept public comments on this NOPR. It's

15 November twelfth, in case anyone doesn't know the

16 date.

17 We will accept written comments, data,

18 information regarding this NOPR, no, up until no

19 later than December fourteenth, 2010. DOE expects

20 to issue a Final Rule in August of 2011.

21 The proposed effective date of the Rule

22 is one year after the publication of the Rule. The

23 Rule would apply to covered buildings for which

24
15

1 design, and for which construction

2 begins at least one year after the Rule publication

3 date.

4 That's for which design for the

5 construction begins, one year after the publication

6 date. The Rule will be developed concurrent with

7 the NOPR on the Sustainable Design Principles For

8 Federal Buildings, which is 75 FR- 2993.

9 Both NOPRs propose changes to 10 CFR

10 Parts 433 and 435. So, this is, A, our schedule,

11 and that's why we are here today.

12 Now I would open it up for interested

13 parties to make a brief summary statement if anyone

14 needs to do that.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name for

16 the Record. Who would like to start?

17 (Whereupon, AT 9:09 a.m. ET, no response

18 was had.)

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: We'll make comments as

20 we go.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: As you go. Okay.

22 Andrew, nothing at this point? No

23 additional comments here?

24
16

1 Okay, then I think we're in a position

2 to --

3 MS. BUNCH: We're going to turn it over,

4 then, to Margo Appel, who's Project Manager for

5 this job, rulemaking. Sorry.

6 OVERVIEW OF FOSSIL FUEL-GENERATED ENERGY

7 CONSUMPTION REDUCTION FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND

8 MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS NOTICE OF

9 PROPOSED RULEMAKING:

10 MS. APPEL: I'd like to acknowledge

11 FEMP's work on the Fossil Fuels rulemaking, and

12 acknowledge the work from our contractors, from

13 PNNL, John Kaufmann and Mark Halverson, and also

14 would like to have people who are here today submit

15 their business cards for the Court Reporter for the

16 Record, please, afterwards.

17 Today's Rule was enabled by the Section

18 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

19 2007, EISA, which requires DOE to establish fossil

20 fuel-generated energy consumption reduction

21 requirements for specified new federal buildings

22 and major renovations, based on similar buildings

23 as measured by Commercial Buildings Energy

24
17

1 Consumption Survey, or the Residential Energy

2 Consumption Survey.

3 EPCA requires graduated reductions in

4 fossil fuel-generated energy consumption in

5 five-year increments from FY-2010 to FY-2030 and

6 beyond.

7 The Administrative Rules will be

8 incorporated into 10 CFR 433 dealing with energy

9 efficiency Standards for the design and

10 construction of new federal commercial and

11 multi-family high-rise residential buildings, and

12 into 10 CFR 435, dealing with energy efficiency

13 Standards for new federal low-rise residential

14 buildings.

15 The requirements of this Rule apply to

16 all new federal buildings and federal buildings

17 undergoing major renovations that are fed-, that

18 are public buildings for which GSA must submit a

19 prospectus to Congress, or for which construction

20 costs are at least 2.5 million.

21 "Public buildings," as defined in USC

22 3301, are buildings generally suitable for use as

23 office or storage space by one or more federal

24
18

1 agencies, or mixed-ownership government

2 corporations. The list of public buildings can be

3 found in the NOPR, and that is included in your

4 handouts.

5 The definition also lists examples of

6 buildings that are not included.

7 The requirements apply to buildings

8 built with the intent of being leased to a federal

9 agency, and major renovations to leased buildings

10 over which a federal agency has significant control

11 of the design.

12 The requirements apply to buildings

13 which begin construction for construction, which

14 begin design for construction one year after

15 adoption of the Final Rule.

16 DOE is addressing the definition of "new

17 federal building" and "major renovation" in the

18 rulemaking relating to sustainable design

19 principles and new federal buildings on a parallel

20 track to this rulemaking.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve

22 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute.

23 Trying to go through the NOPR, and just,

24
19

1 I don't know if there, this is a policy decision,

2 but what if the new buildings are only partially

3 leased by the Federal Government? What is the --

4 You know, there, there's an issue of, you know,

5 the, the Government is, only wants X percentage of

6 the space that's going to be built.

7 Is there any threshold that's been

8 decided? And then, I guess another issue will be

9 how, you know, even if you have, if there is a

10 mixed-use building where the Federal Government has

11 more than 50 percent of the space, but there is a

12 retail area for other tenants, I'm just kind of

13 curious how that will have -- Are there any

14 decisions being made in terms of how those types of

15 situations will be handled?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

17 MS. APPEL: We would like to hear your

18 comments on this, and we would like to see those in

19 writing. Writing is preferred.

20 Thank you for your comments.

21 MR. CALAMITA: This is, is Chris

22 Calamita. The one thought recently I have been

23 concerned with is, I guess, how much substantial

24
20

1 control the Agency would have over the site --

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you turn --

3 MR. CALAMITA: -- as --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, Chris, hang on one

5 second. Turn the volume up if you can, Chris.

6 Would you restate that, please? We had

7 a hard time hearing you.

8 MR. CALAMITA: I'm, I'm sorry. One

9 thing we were asking is: How much control

10 would our agency have over the design of the leased

11 space?

12 So, the amount of leased space that is

13 federal leased space versus private-sector leased

14 space would likely guide which buildings, if they

15 were federal buildings, which were subject to the

16 sustainable design requirements.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thanks.

18 MR. CALAMITA: Again, if we have

19 comments on how this would play out in practice, we

20 would appreciate those.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

22 Steve Rosenstock.

23 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

24
21

1 Edison Electric Institute.

2 And then the other issue is, of course,

3 short-term versus long-term lease. I know that in,

4 from being in Washington, D.C., I know there were

5 buildings that had government tenants, and then new

6 space would open up and the government tenants

7 would leave.

8 And some leases might be as short for as

9 the previous space was being renovated. They would

10 lease new space and then go back to the old space.

11 So, there's --

12 MR. CALAMITA: Again, this is Chris

13 Calamita.

14 And on -- Go back to -- I refer you back

15 to the proposal and definition of a "federal

16 building." With respect to the leased buildings,

17 it's buildings built for the purpose of being

18 leased by a federal agency.

19 So, whether the building is being

20 designed for construction at that point, it is

21 being designed for construction for the purpose of

22 a federal agency, then it's potentially, would be,

23 potentially be a, a federal building for the

24
22

1 purposes of the Proposal.

2 The situation of looking at short-term

3 leases, or looking to fill overflow space, my

4 understanding is: Generally, they're, they're

5 moving into buildings already built. They're not

6 sitting down and having a building designed to meet

7 their specific needs.

8 But, again, if there are any situations

9 where this may be an issue, we would love to hear

10 that, your comment.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Chris.

12 Additional comments on this section?

13 Do you want to do the comment box on

14 the --

15 MS. APPEL: Yes.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Margo.

17 MS. APPEL: DOE has specifically

18 requested comments on what costs would be

19 considered in determining which buildings meet the

20 $2.5 million threshold and are subject to the

21 requirements of this Rule. DOE proposes that

22 construction costs include the cost of design,

23 construction, i.e. materials and labor, and

24
23

1 commissioning, but that it would exclude land and

2 legal costs.

3 Are there any comments up to this point?

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

6 I'm not a property manager, but wouldn't

7 land costs be a significant portion of the total

8 cost of a new building? I'm not sure what the,

9 what the, especially in the, in the more expensive

10 areas of the country, --

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: -- I don't know what

13 the percentage is.

14 And, again, I'm not a lawyer, so someone

15 -- I don't know how much legal costs are there for

16 new buildings. But, again, if the percentage is

17 less than five percent, I don't want to be a

18 numbers person here.

19 If it's less than five percent, it's not

20 an issue. But, if land and legal costs are ten,

21 15, 20 percent, then I think it might be an issue.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Steve.

23 MS. APPEL: Thank you very much for your

24
24

1 comments. We would like to see those in writing,

2 as well.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments?

4 (Whereupon, at 9:18 a.m. ET, no response

5 was had.)

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Margo.

7 MS. APPEL: EISA requires that fossil

8 fuel-generated energy consumption in new federal

9 buildings and major renovations of federal

10 buildings be reduced by its by 55 percent as

11 compared to energy consumption of a similar

12 building in 2003, beginning one year after adoption

13 of the Rule, and gradually increased to 100 percent

14 by 2030, based on the schedule in the table. This

15 table is the legislative requirement.

16 Moving to more technical issues, DOE's

17 proposed methodology to determine compliance with

18 the fossil fuel reduction requirements encompasses

19 a three-step process.

20 Step 1 is to establish the baseline

21 fossil fuel-generated energy use.

22 Step 2 is to determine the required

23 reduction in fossil fuel energy use, and then

24
25

1 convert that into the maximum allowable fossil

2 fuel-generated energy consumption that must be met.

3 Step 3 is to determine the fossil

4 fuel-generated energy consumption of the proposed

5 building, and compare it to the maximum allowable

6 from Step 2, to determine compliance. The

7 following slides provide more detail on each step.

8 Step 1, establishing the baseline. EISA

9 sets the baseline as the energy consumption of a

10 similar building in 2003, as measured by the

11 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey,

12 CBECS, or Residential Energy Consumption Survey,

13 RECS.

14 The CBECS database includes 13 building

15 types. The RECS database includes five building

16 types.

17 DOE proposes to use source energy.

18 Nationally, 71 percent of electricity is generated

19 from fossil fuels, and DOE assumes a conversion

20 efficiency of fossil fuels to electricity of 33

21 percent.

22 The baseline data also includes plug23 and- process loads. DOE is considering regional

24
26

1 adjustments to the baseline data to account for

2 differences in climate and source of electricity,

3 whether the regional mix is generated from coal,

4 oil, natural gas, or nonfossil fuel sources.

5 These will be described in subsequent,

6 subsequent slides.

7 MR. LEIPZINGER: Can I ask a question?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

9 MR. LEIPZINGER: This is David

10 Leipzinger, from Institute For Market

11 Transformation.

12 Understand you're using CBECS and RECS

13 2003, but CBECS and RECS 2007 will be available

14 soon. Just wanted to know if you're going to use

15 2007 as a baseline when it's released.

16 MS. APPEL: I'd like Mark Halverson to

17 respond to that.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: You need to find a

19 microphone, Mark.

20 MR. HALVERSON: Mark we would certainly

21 be open --

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Turn it on. Yes.

23 MR. HALVERSON: We would certainly be

24
27

1 open to using near CBECS and RECS when they come

2 out. Obviously the near data, the better.

3 And -- But we, we haven't made any plans

4 for that yet. I'm not sure exactly when it will be

5 out, but --.

6 MR. CALAMITA: This is, this is Chris

7 Calamita again. Also to note that the Statute

8 directs us to FY-2003, so the, the Proposal at this

9 point is following the Act.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

11 Steve Rosenstock.

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

13 Edison Electric Institute.

14 We have some concerns with the

15 Department using source energy because these, these

16 assumptions are, are very static, and the electric

17 generation portfolio is very, very dynamic. For

18 example, 10,000, almost 10,000 megawatts of wind

19 power was installed in the United States last year.

20 This year the Department of Interior

21 just approved over 3,000 megawatts of solar thermal

22 and solar voltaic power plants in, just in

23 California alone. And these values, the, the, the

24
28

1 percentage is, is going to go down, but this, this

2 assumption doesn't realize it.

3 Also, in terms of conversion efficiency

4 of fossil fuels, most of the power plants that have

5 been built and installed over the last 10, 15

6 years, the vast majority are gas turbines, where

7 their fuel efficiency or their, their overall

8 efficiency, thermal efficiency is in the 55- to

9 57-percent range. Here much more than 33 percent

10 is assumed here.

11 Also, I would like to remind the

12 audience, and we'll submit written comments to

13 this, that in June of 2010, the Ad Hoc Energy

14 Targets Committee in ASHRAE, looking at net-zero

15 energy buildings, released an, a report where they

16 sited an ASHRAE, the U.S. Green Building Council,

17 and the National Climate Society of North America,

18 that all these groups agreed to use site energy as

19 they looked at net-zero energy buildings,

20 especially with on-site renewables, especially

21 since they'll -- I'll paraphrase the report. --

22 that site energy is a basic metric, and other,

23 other factors that people might be looking at,

24
29

1 including source energy or energy costs, are

2 strictly multipliers of site energy that is, or the

3 net site energy that is produced at the building.

4 So, -- And, again, we'll provide more

5 written comments in that. So, again, just to

6 provide the Department with a little bit of, just a

7 little bit of our viewpoints on this issue.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

10 MS. BUNCH: Thank you.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments?

12 (Whereupon, at 9:24 a.m. ET, no response

13 was had.)

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Margo, I wasn't sure you

15 were completely finished with your presentation.

16 MS. APPEL: No, I'm not. Thank you for

17 asking.

18 MS. BUNCH: Could I say something? We

19 do have break points at the end of three steps, so

20 it might be helpful for Margo, as, and, and other

21 people -- Thank you all for --

22 MS. APPEL: Thank you all for your

23 comments.

24
30

1 To continue, for building types not

2 reported in the CBECS and RECS databases it is

3 proposed that agencies use the ASHRAE performance

4 rating method to determine baseline energy use for

5 commercial building types, and the IECC total

6 performance method for residential buildings.

7 Table 1 in the Rule provides the

8 baseline fossil fuel-generated energy consumption

9 for commercial building prototypes from the CBECS

10 database. The baseline data is given in thousands

11 of British Thermal Units, (Kbtus), per square foot

12 per year.

13 Table 2 in the Rule provides the

14 baseline fossil fuel-generated energy consumption

15 for residential building prototypes from the RECS

16 data-base. As with commercial buildings, the

17 baseline data is given in thousands of British

18 Thermal Units, (Kbtus), per square foot per year.

19 Related to baseline energy used, used,

20 DOE has requested comment on these questions. DOE

21 has requested comment on building type categories

22 and definitions.

23 DOE has also requested comment on the

24
31

1 proposal to apply the per-square-foot energy use

2 for residential space to residential common areas

3 which are otherwise not addressed in the RECS

4 database.

5 And, DOE has requested comment on how to

6 address plug- and- process loads. Plug and process

7 loads are currently included in the baseline, and

8 the methodology to determine the energy use of the

9 proposed design.

10 Should they be included or removed from

11 the calculations, and on what grounds? We would

12 like to solicit comments on, up to this point.

13 MS. BUNCH: Okay.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Steven? No?

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I don't want to hog

16 this. Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute.

17 And I agree with use of CBECS because it

18 is a very good data set. But, I think, especially

19 for federal government facilities, if you look at

20 the table on the previous slide, -- I don't see the

21 -- Slide 11. I'm sorry. -- there are some

22 facilities that don't necessarily neatly fall into

23 this category.

24
32

1 I know that, talking about the ASHRAE

2 performance method, but with certain buildings,

3 especially like research laboratories and data

4 centers, they're, they're, there are going to be

5 such a wide variety of, of energy intensity, I'll

6 just say it that way, especially based on climates.

7 Data centers in the north basically can

8 use a lot more outside air than data centers in the

9 south. And that's going to have a huge impact on

10 the results

11 Research laboratories obviously depend

12 on the research being done, and this leads into

13 plug- and- process, again, depending on the type of

14 research being done. Again, it's a matter of: How

15 do you, you know, slice and dice all of the data

16 that might be out there, especially for those types

17 of buildings?

18 In terms of plug- and- process loads,

19 when I looked in the Federal Register Notice I was

20 very concerned, because the way the, the way the,

21 the proposed formula is going to work is basically

22 a proposed design consumption -- Wait a minute.

23 The, the reduction is going to be used,

24
33

1 percentage improvement calculation, I'm a little

2 worried about because it says it's baseline

3 building consumption minus proposed building

4 consumption in the numerator, and in the

5 denominator it's baseline building consumptions

6 minus process loads.

7 So, when you do all this, it's,

8 basically you're saying they count, receptacle and

9 process loads count in the numerator, but they

10 don't count in the denominator. So, what could

11 happen is, as you design buildings, the percentage

12 improvement will look a lot larger than it is

13 because you're -- I'll give you an example.

14 Suppose the baseline is 100 proposed

15 buildings, is 70. So, 100 minus 70 over 100 is 30

16 percent.

17 Well, subtract out the receptacle. So,

18 suppose receptacle and process loads are, let's

19 say, 50 percent.

20 So, instead of 30 over 100, it's 30 over

21 50. So, instead of a 30-percent improvement, under

22 this it's saying it's more like a 66-percent

23 improvement, or 60 percent; three divided by five.

24
34

1 Or, excuse me, 60-percent improvement

2 rather than a 30-percent improvement. So, again,

3 it's going to distort some of the numbers by not

4 being consistent in both the numerator and

5 denominator.

6 And, for electrical and fossil fuel

7 loads, can be significant, especially if you look

8 at some of these simulations done for 90.1. They

9 can dominate in certain things like health service,

10 food service, healthcare, and obviously in some,

11 certain laboratories.

12 And they literally could be 50, 60

13 percent of the baseline consumption. So, you take

14 those out of the denominator and you get all sorts

15 of, quote, improvements.

16 So, in our view, the plug -and- process

17 need to be consistent. If they're in the

18 denominator, they need to be in the numerator.

19 Should not be taken out of one for this

20 formula.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson.

22 MR. HALVERSON: I'd like to provide some

23 clarification. If you take the proposed minus the

24
35

1 plug loads, and the baseline minus the plug loads,

2 the plug loads cancel out of the numerator.

3 The equation is correct. You would have

4 -- If you take -- See what I'm saying?

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yeah.

6 MR. HALVERSON: You're saying the plug

7 loads get subtracted out of both the baseline and

8 so they don't show up in the equation.

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay.

10 MR. HALVERSON: This is the same

11 equation used in 10 CFR 433 and 435 for the

12 30-percent reduction, which also subtracts out the

13 plug loads.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

16 Edison Electric Institute.

17 If that's the case, that would satisfy

18 me. But, the way it looks in this NOPR, it makes

19 it appear that the plug loads and process loads are

20 not taken out in the numerator.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there a technical

22 support document where there's more specific

23 information?

24
36

1 MR. HALVERSON: I think you could add

2 one more equation and show the determination of

3 that final, and show how the plug loads cancel out

4 in the numerator, and that would probably --

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that, is that

6 accessible somewhere, that, that -- Is that in the

7 Record somewhere, that additional equation?

8 MR. HALVERSON: We would have to put it

9 in.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Just curious.

11 Okay, thank you.

12 Other comments? You see the three

13 comment boxes there on the slide?

14 Categories, building type categories and

15 definitions; proposal to apply per- square- foot

16 energy use for residential spaces to residential

17 common areas; and how should plug- and- process

18 loads be addressed? Additional comments on those

19 three.

20 (Whereupon, at 9:32 a.m. ET, no response

21 was had.)

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

23 MS. APPEL: DOE is looking at adjusting

24
37

1 the baseline CBECS energy use data to account for

2 climate variations. The NOPR uses national average

3 energy consumption, nonadjusted for climate,

4 because the CBECS and RECS databases are not large

5 enough to be statistically significant by climate

6 zones.

7 The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is

8 developing a procedure to adjust the CBECS data for

9 climate. They'll apply percentage differences

10 between climate zones obtained from simulations of

11 prototype buildings built to ASHRAE Standards to

12 the CBECS and RECS data.

13 Adjusting the CBECS and RECS baselines

14 based on climate differences will help ensure

15 equitability between regions. Using a national

16 average baseline rather than a baseline adjusted

17 regionally for climate would require deeper

18 reductions in cold climate zones than in warm ones.

19 If the baseline is the national average,

20 then the baseline and the maximum allowable fossil

21 fuel use for buildings in warm and cold climates

22 would be the same. However, since, in reality, a

23 building in a cold climate uses more energy than

24
38

1 one in a warm climate, the building in the cold

2 climate would have to achieve deeper fossil fuel

3 reductions than required in order to meet the same

4 target, while the actual fossil fuel reduction in a

5 building in a warm climate would be less than the

6 requirement.

7 Adjusting for climate ensures that

8 buildings in different climate zones achieve 55

9 percent reduction. After 2030, all buildings must

10 achieve a 100-percent reduction in fossil

11 fuel-generated energy consumption, so the effect

12 would be the same in all climate zones.

13 DOE is considering including a climate

14 adjustment, and has requested comments on whether

15 the baseline and the maximum allowable fossil

16 fuel-generated energy consumption targets should be

17 adjusted for climate.

18 We would like to solicit comments up to

19 this point.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

22 Edison Electric Institute.

23 I am familiar with both CBECS and RECS;

24
39

1 does show the data for the buildings which the, the

2 CBECS and RECS are used, and still they use the old

3 version of -- Now they use eight climate zones, as

4 I recall, for the eight, the most recent version.

5 Right? I mean, way back when, there

6 were five climate zones, and now there's eight.

7 So, I believe -- Do they break it out by

8 climate zones?

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson.

10 MR. HALVERSON: They still use different

11 sets, primarily those heating-degree-based climate

12 zones that they've used for many, many years.

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So, there's that issue

14 there, that ASHRAE and ICC and others have gone to

15 eight climate zones, and if CBECS and RECS shows

16 five, I'll say five heating-degree-day zones,

17 there, there might be some differences there in

18 terms of which, which climate zones are you going

19 to adjust for, --

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: -- based on the RECS

22 data, or I'll say the ICC Building Code?

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson.

24
40

1 MR. HALVERSON: Mark Halverson, PNNL.

2 We are planning to use on, using the

3 ASHRAE. Those are used in other parts of 43 CFR

4 433 and 435 already.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

6 You can see the comment box.

7 Steve Rosenstock.

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And I guess the other

9 thing is in terms of, as you go to climate zones,

10 and let's say -- I think the CBECS database was

11 about 8,000 buildings. As you're trying to adjust

12 for climate zones, how are you going to supplement,

13 again with Saralyn, how are you going to --

14 Supposing you only have two buildings in one

15 climate zone, for whatever reason.

16 How does DOE propose to, to obtain more

17 data for the buildings in that climate zone? Is it

18 going to be by simulation, or --

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson.

20 MR. HALVERSON: Yes. The answer, direct

21 answer is yes, it is going to be by simulation.

22 The work that's being done at Oak Ridge

23 National Laboratory is being done by Terry Sharp,

24
41

1 who is also the person who's been doing quite a bit

2 of work for ASHRAE on the Energy Targets Committee

3 that you mentioned earlier, and also for ASHRAE

4 Standard 100.

5 The basic idea is to develop a matrix of

6 building type and climate zone, and to put the

7 observed data from CBECS into each cell of that

8 matrix. When you do that, we have a large number

9 of building types or a large number of climate

10 zones.

11 You do end up with some cells that are

12 entirely blank. For example, there may not be a

13 hospital located in Climate Zone 8, and you have

14 absolutely no data whatsoever.

15 And so using statistical techniques of

16 filling in -- What you want to do is look at the

17 surrounding cells, cells that you believe are, you

18 know, more or less close to it. And that could be

19 extrapolated somewhat.

20 And the extrapolation that they're using

21 is based on simulations of the DOE reference

22 buildings which are used in a number of programs,

23 including Code development program, but also a

24
42

1 number of other programs to try to predict whether,

2 the changes in energy use intensity as you go from

3 one climate to another for a particular building

4 type.

5 So, this is all fairly detailed

6 statistical manipulation of these data, trying to

7 fill in the holes in the CBECS. I believe Steve

8 noted that CBECS is a pretty good data set, but

9 this is one of the downfalls of CBECS, is when you

10 start getting very specific, you start getting

11 holes.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

13 MS. APPEL: Thank you for your comments.

14 Another significant issue for the

15 baseline is whether it should be adjusted for

16 regional differences in the fossil fuel mix of

17 electric generation. The NOPR uses a national

18 average fossil fuel mix for electric generation of

19 71 percent.

20 That is, 71 percent of the electricity

21 in the U.S. is produced from fossil fuels. And

22 this number is used in determining the fossil-fuel

23 component of the electricity use reported in CBECS

24
43

1 and RECS.

2 However, some areas use more hydro and

3 nuclear, and less fossil fuel to produce

4 electricity, while other areas may use more fossil

5 fuels. Even within fossil fuels, some areas use

6 more coal; others, more natural gas.

7 DOE is considering a regional source

8 electricity adjustment. A key question is whether

9 it should vary by fossil fuel-generated versus

10 nonfossil fuel-generated electricity, or whether it

11 should vary further by carbon content, whereby coal

12 is weighted more heavily than natural gas.

13 A second question is to determine the

14 appropriate geographic areas on which to base this

15 adjustment. Oak Ridge is looking at applying the

16 adjustment at the state level, power pool level, or

17 grid interconnect level.

18 There are about 3,200 electric utilities

19 in the United States, too many to consider

20 addressing in the Rule.

21 An additional consideration in making

22 this determination will be the fossil fuel mix of

23 the electricity purchased by retail customers

24
44

1 within a given area as opposed to the fossil fuel

2 mix of the electricity produced within that area.

3 This is important because power may be produced in

4 one area, but sold and used in another area.

5 However, most of the data available is

6 on a mix of electricity produced in an area. Data

7 on the source of the electricity used in an area is

8 not as readily available.

9 Related to this issue, DOE has requested

10 comments whether it should use national or regional

11 fossil fuel factors for electricity consumption,

12 and if regional factors, how it should be done.

13 DOE has also requested comments whether

14 coal, oil, and natural gas should be treated

15 differently, based on carbon content; i.e., CO2

16 emissions or some other factor.

17 We would like to solicit comments up to

18 this point.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

21 Edison Electric Institute.

22 Kind of following on for what I had

23 described before is people have looked at these

24
45

1 issues before, and it really depends on how, how

2 deep you want to go into the weeds. This, this

3 slide really does a good job of saying: Here's all

4 the different ways, again, of looking at the data

5 and looking at electric generation and electric

6 retail use.

7 I, I, I think one thing is, as, as these

8 Rules that might go into effect in 2012, the grid

9 will look significantly different than the way it

10 looks in 2010. And also, for the other programs

11 that I've seen, for instance, the EPA e-grid, they

12 use 2005 data.

13 So, it's already five years out of date.

14 And, again, the other issue is: It looks like

15 you're going upstream in terms of fossil fuels

16 production of electricity.

17 I don't see anything similar for the

18 production of propane, natural gas, or oil. And

19 there are fossil fuels used in the production and

20 delivery of those products.

21 So, again, there 's a little

22 inconsistency, especially if a building is using

23 fuel oil, which there are buildings in New England,

24
46

1 especially in the Northeast, using fuel oil. And

2 you have to go overseas.

3 But, I don't see that in the NOPR. So,

4 I'm very concerned about that, that you're treating

5 different tools differently.

6 So, again, as I said, as, as I will

7 reiterate before, as be -- You might want to try

8 looking at stages. Concentrate on the site usage

9 first, and then if you're doing upstream estimates,

10 make that as a separate table.

11 I think in that way, especially with the

12 dynamic nature of both electricity and fossil fuel

13 production, as we've seen, for example, in the Gulf

14 of Mexico, as I recall, 15 years ago, 80 to 90

15 percent of the production was shallow-water

16 drilling, and ten percent was deep-water drilling.

17 And in 2009, it was about 80 percent

18 deep-water and ten percent shallow-water. So,

19 things are changing dynamically on the energy

20 production market.

21 And, again, another issue is looking,

22 you know, looking back versus looking forward.

23 There are going to be so many changes.

24
47

1 Some of the estimates will be

2 significantly different. And I, I don't know.

3 I think that can really have an impact

4 on some of the values that are going to be

5 submitted in these tables in terms of the

6 calculations for the, quote, for the BTUs per

7 square foot per year.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

10 MS. APPEL: Thank you, Mr. Rosenstock,

11 for your comments. We would like to see those in

12 writing as well.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Um-hum.

14 MS. APPEL: Well, okay. I think we can

15 go on.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Um-hum.

17 MS. APPEL: Step 2 is establishing the

18 maximum allowable fossil fuel-generated energy

19 consumption. The maximum allowable fossil fuel use

20 is established by multiplying the baseline from

21 Step 1 times the required percent reduction, and

22 subtracting the result from the baseline.

23 DOE has decided to base compliance on

24
48

1 the maximum allowable fossil fuel use, rather than,

2 rather than on reductions because it is easier to

3 measure energy used rather than energy not used.

4 DOE expects this will make it easier to demonstrate

5 compliance.

6 Since the baseline includes plug- and

7 -process loads, the maximum allowable fossil fuel

8 use includes plug -and -process loads as well.

9 Table 1 provides the baseline and the

10 maximum allowable fossil fuel-generated energy

11 consumption for commercial buildings. This table

12 may be expanded, and perhaps broken into several

13 tables as a result of the climate adjustment

14 described earlier.

15 Table 2 provides the baseline and the

16 maximum allowable fossil fuel-generated energy

17 consumption for residential buildings. As with

18 Table 1, this table may be expanded, and perhaps

19 broken into several tables as a result of the

20 climate adjustment described earlier.

21 Step 3. The final step is to determine

22 the fossil fuel-generated energy consumption of the

23 proposed design to see whether it meets the maximum

24
49

1 allowable target from Step 2.

2 To determine the fossil fuel-generated

3 energy use of the proposed building, DOE proposes

4 that agencies use the ASHRAE performance rating

5 method for commercial buildings, and the IECC total

6 performance method for residential buildings.

7 This implies using a whole-building

8 simulation program. The results would be adjusted,

9 based on the appropriate fossil- fuel factor for

10 the regional electric power mix described earlier.

11 Since plug -and -process loads are

12 included in the baseline and in the maximum

13 allowable target, for cons-, consistency they are

14 included in this calculation as well. The source

15 energy approach used in this Rule provides

16 encouragement to the use of on-site renewable

17 energy systems and combined heat and power systems.

18 Use of on-site renewable energy provides

19 benefit as well, as it constitutes a straight

20 reduction in estimated energy use. On-site

21 combined heat and power systems benefit from this

22 approach because of their inherent efficiencies

23 compared to purchased electricity.

24
50

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'll wait.

2 MS. APPEL: A related issue is whether

3 the purchase of electricity generated from off-site

4 renewable energy sources should be allowed.

5 DOE proposes not to allow the purchase

6 of Renewable Energy Certificates, RECs, to count

7 towards meeting the maximum allowable fossil

8 fuel-generated energy consumption for the building.

9 There is no guarantee of persistence.

10 They can be canceled at any time, and

11 FEMP is phasing out the use of RECs by 2012 as a

12 way to meet renewable-energy goals. However, DOE

13 proposes to allow the direct purchase of

14 electricity from renewable resources through Power

15 Purchase Agreements to count toward meeting the

16 maximum allowable fossil fuel-generated energy

17 consumption.

18 DOE has requested comments on the

19 following questions related to the energy use of

20 the proposed design. DOE has requested comments on

21 the calculation method to determine compliance.

22 DOE has requested comments whether there

23 are reasonable alternatives to whole-building

24
51

1 simulations to determine the energy use of the

2 proposed design as implied by the Rule.

3 DOE has also asked whether credit should

4 be given for electricity from renewable energy

5 sources purchased under either Renewable Energy

6 Certificates, or Direct-Purchase Power Agreements.

7 And last, DOE has asked whether, by

8 using source energy, appropriate credit is given to

9 the use of combined heat and power systems.

10 We would like to solicit comments up to

11 this point.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

14 Edison Electric Institute.

15 In terms of some of these, I, I think

16 the one, one of the issues is the on-site

17 production of energy, whether it's electric energy

18 or thermal energy or fossil-fuel energy. And, for

19 example, for electricity, they might have a net

20 meter so the meter can spin backwards, actually.

21 So, for example, just throwing some

22 numbers out, a building uses 10,000 kilowatt hours

23 in a time period the on-site produced 2,000. The

24
52

1 net meter would show something that says 8,000

2 kilowatt.

3 However, that building actually used

4 10,000 kilowatts of electricity; just that 2,000

5 happened to be from on-site renewables. And I'm

6 not sure it can, can make methane or on-site solar

7 thermal-producing thermal loads for certain things

8 that the meter shows less consumption, but the

9 building's actually consumed the same amount of

10 energy; just happened to be on-site.

11 So, that could be one issue in terms of

12 the calculations for the buildings going forward.

13 In terms of the tables and the baselines for both

14 Table 1 and Table 2, I guess my, my thought is, is

15 that, again, these are just national numbers, not,

16 not broken out by climate zone.

17 But, I think one thing to, really would

18 be kind of interesting to see is, you know, right

19 now Fiscal Year 2012 begins next year, next

20 October. And I'm just kind of curious if there's

21 been any buildings built by the Federal Government

22 in the last one or two years where there's some

23 actual data that shows they've been able to meet

24
53

1 this.

2 I'd really be curious to see if these

3 numbers are, have been achieved by actual current

4 federal buildings, or new -- I should say new

5 buildings. I think that is one of the other things

6 to consider in terms of, you know: Can it be done

7 with the current technologies that the Federal

8 Government is using?

9 Or, can it be done with advanced

10 technologies that the Federal Government is going

11 to use?

12 In terms of on-site combined heat and

13 power, I have to respectfully disagree with what it

14 says, inherent efficiencies compared to purchased

15 electricity. It really -- Combined heat and power

16 is very efficient and some can be very, very

17 efficient if you have a constant such as a

18 laboratory setting or hospital setting or

19 industrial setting.

20 If you have a more commercial, where

21 loads fluctuate up and down, the efficiencies can

22 be quite a bit lower. And the actual conversion,

23 if you don't, aren't able to use that thermal load,

24
54

1 the actual conversion to electricity can be

2 equivalent or less than what you're seeing for

3 combined-cycle capacity you're buying on the

4 marketplace.

5 And, also, certain areas, like, for

6 instance, Pacific Northwest, which is dominated by

7 hydro and now wind, the actual, you're actually

8 increasing overall fossil-fuel usage in those

9 areas. So, I have to respectfully disagree with

10 the statement that it's more efficient than

11 purchased electricity, because that is not always

12 the case.

13 And I believe that, again, if the issue

14 is reducing fossil fuels, again, one of the,

15 another issue is you can do combined heat and power

16 with a diesel engine, and if it gets, quote, more

17 credit, what have we really done here? Is that

18 really where we want, for federal buildings using a

19 diesel, quote, heat and power system?

20 I certainly hope not. Thank you.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

22 MR. LEIPZIGER: David Leipziger for

23 Institute for Market Transformation.

24
55

1 I -- Did we just hear that

2 plug-and-process loads are, are included in these

3 calculations? Or, are they not included?

4 Maybe I'm -- Maybe it's too early for

5 me, but --

6 MS. APPEL: I'd like to ask John

7 Kaufmann, from PNNL, to respond to that.

8 MR. KAUFMANN: Yes.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Turn the microphone on,

10 John. John, turn on, the microphone on.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, PNNL.

13 The answer to that is: Yep,

14 plug-and-process loads are included in these

15 calculations.

16 MR. LEIPZIGER: Did we not just have a

17 discussion earlier about them not being included?

18 MR. KAUFMANN: We had the discussion

19 they were being included.

20 MR. LEIPZIGER: Okay, so it is too

21 early. Sorry.

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But, the improvement

23 suits the issue.

24
56

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the comment

2 box. The Department asks for your comments on

3 several comments related to reasonable alternatives

4 to whole-building simulation; whether credit should

5 be given for RECS Renewable Energy Certificates and

6 Power Purchase Agreements; and the appropriate

7 credit given on site for use of combined heat and

8 power systems.

9 Steve Rosenstock.

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

11 In terms of that RECS purchased versus

12 purchase Power Agreements, I, I, I think there is

13 an issue because of the fact that in many ways the

14 Contracts can be very similar in terms of how they

15 are organized and in terms of suppliers within the,

16 the power pool is providing power to the local or

17 regional grid.

18 And I'm -- I, I guess if there have been

19 issues with Renewable Energy Certificate programs

20 in terms of their operation, but not in terms of

21 their results.

22 I, I guess I, I would err on the side of

23 flexibility, to allow both. But, the way certain

24
57

1 entities have handled it is, for example, in ASHRAE

2 Standard 19.1, which is commercial green building

3 standard, they've required a minimum term for these

4 agreements.

5 The term is ten years. So, that might

6 be one issue.

7 If they're worried about, you know,

8 short-term projects canceled, whether it's a REC or

9 a PPA, why not just require a certain term to be

10 used for this program? That way you're giving

11 building owners flexibility, and it's meeting the

12 goals of this program.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

15 Other comments on these specific

16 queries?

17 (Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m. ET, no response

18 was had.)

19 MS. APPEL: In terms of costs, a study

20 by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL,

21 in 2008, concluded that the added costs of

22 low-energy buildings was one to seven percent

23 greater than common practice.

24
58

1 Also, designing to the 30-percent and

2 50-percent Advanced Energy Design Guides was

3 estimated to cost up to nine percent more than

4 designing to ASHRAE 90.1. DOE has solicited

5 additional input on the cost impacts of meeting

6 deep energy reductions similar to those required by

7 this Rule from buildings already built or currently

8 under construction or in design.

9 We would like to solicit comments up to

10 this point.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve

13 Rosenstock, with a question.

14 I haven't had a chance to review that

15 study, but I'm curious if it looked at buildings

16 with significant process and process loads in

17 particular, because of the nature of the energy

18 loads in those buildings being process dominated.

19 MS. APPEL: I would like John Kaufmann,

20 from PNNL, to respond.

21 (Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m. ET, Mr.

22 Kaufmann and Mr. Halverson conferred, out of the

23 hearing of others and off the Record, after which

24
59

1 the following occurred:)

2 MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, PNNL.

3 I actually am unaware. I guess I

4 haven't looked at it, or don't recall whether, that

5 detail, which, whether it includes those processes.

6 I presume they do. I think they do, but

7 I'm not a hundred-percent sure.

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

9 Yeah, I thank you, just because it

10 depends. You really have to look at the process

11 technology rather than transitional HVAC lighting

12 envelope packages in terms of actually getting

13 those low energy values.

14 And some of those costs might be more

15 significant. Maybe -- I'm just, just familiar,

16 especially with things like data centers or

17 research labs or something, or even commercial

18 cooking facilities or that.

19 That is really -- Some of these numbers

20 are, are -- We've seen that from USGBC, that, you

21 know, the delta increases, you know, one to seven

22 percent. But, with certain facilities Federal

23 Government have, it could be significantly higher.

24
60

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on

2 it?

3 (Whereupon, at 9:57 a.m. ET, no response

4 was had.)

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

6 MS. APPEL: Agencies may petition the

7 Secretary of Energy requesting a downward

8 adjustment to the percentage reduction requirement.

9 However, the adjustment does not apply to GSA or

10 GSA buildings except that the head of the tenant

11 agency may petition the Secretary.

12 Under the proposed requirements, the

13 head of the petitioning agency must certify that

14 meeting the requirements would be technically

15 impracticable in light of the building's functional

16 needs. The Agency would also have to demonstrate

17 that the requested adjustment maintains the largest

18 feasible reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy

19 consumption that can reasonably be achieved.

20 Costs are not specifically mentioned by

21 Statute as an allowable cause for downward

22 adjustment. DOE is considering allowing cost to be

23 a contributing factor, but not the sole factor in

24
61

1 determining whether compliance is technically

2 impracticable.

3 DOE has requested comments on several

4 issues regarding Petitions for downward adjustments

5 to the numerical requirement.

6 DOE has requested comments on what would

7 be considered technically impracticable as grounds

8 for granting a downward adjustment to the numerical

9 requirement.

10 DOE has requested comments on how one

11 may demonstrate that the adjustment represents the

12 maximum reduction that can reasonably be achieved.

13 And, DOE has requested comments on

14 whether high costs shall be allowed as a

15 consideration in determining whether compliance is

16 technically impracticable, and if so, how that

17 should be done. We would like to solicit comments

18 up to this point.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

21 Yeah, I guess kind of a process issue is

22 if an Agency petitions the Secretary of Energy,

23 how, what does -- does the Secretary of Energy have

24
62

1 to -- how quickly does the Secretary of Energy have

2 to render a decision on those Petitions?

3 MS. APPEL: I'd ask Mark Halverson to

4 respond.

5 MS. BUNCH: No, I'll scale --

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Saralyn Bunch.

7 MS. BUNCH: I'm actually going to ask if

8 it, in conjunction with Chris Calamita, I, I do not

9 believe that we've made a decision on how quickly

10 the Department needs to respond to that. So,

11 comments on that, on, on the input from the Federal

12 Agencies would be, would be, you know, requesting

13 these downward adjustments would be appreciated.

14 Chris, do you have anything to add?

15 MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita.

16 You know, just to kind of add on to what

17 Saralyn has said, if Agencies had, could provide

18 us, I guess, a, an understanding of the timeline

19 for design and for construction, and if they were

20 to seek, you know, a reduction in the requirement,

21 what would be, I guess, a, a maximum amount of time

22 that the Department could review these without, I,

23 I guess, --

24
63

1 MS. BUNCH: Impacting.

2 MR. CALAMITA: -- negatively impacting

3 the normal design and construction schedules?

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Several questions

5 in this comment box.

6 How someone might demonstrate maximum

7 reductions, higher costs, whether be allowed in

8 consideration of whether compliance is technically

9 impracticable, and then the final one is about

10 additional training.

11 MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita.

12 I apologize. Do I understand the

13 question as essentially: What would an Agency need

14 to make a showing to the Secretary?

15 MS. BUNCH: Yes, Chris. How does one

16 demonstrate that the adjustment is, represents the

17 maximum reduction that can be reasonably achieved?

18 So, basically, how do they demonstrate?

19 That was one of the, one of the questions.

20 So, basically, what, what type of stuff

21 would be required to demonstrate that? And, and

22 the, the cost being a consideration, yet not a

23 (sic) overall defining factor.

24
64

1 MR. CALAMITA: As far as what Agencies

2 would need to show the, the Department, we did not

3 provide specific criteria or specific documentation

4 that would need to be provided. And, in part, I

5 believe that's because the, a lot of these may be

6 very site-specific demonstrations.

7 You know, it may be a function of, you

8 know, actually where this thing is located. It may

9 also be an issue related to the availability of the

10 technologies, and the costs associated with

11 bringing those technologies in, and how that cost

12 would negatively impact the mix of the agency and

13 the, the, the, and how the, the purpose of that

14 building within that mission.

15 And this would not necessarily be a

16 one-time-only submission. They submit; the

17 Secretary reviews, or the Department reviews.

18 There's nothing preventing us going with

19 the back-and-forth to get additional information.

20 But, again, we would ask the federal Agencies,

21 based on their experience in having buildings

22 designed and constructed for the purpose of the

23 mission, what type of information would they

24
65

1 anticipate submitting.

2 And we would appreciate that as

3 comments.

4 MS. BUNCH: And, and I would like to add

5 on to that, if you, if you note that these downward

6 adjustments are based on the functional needs of

7 the building. So, they are specific to the

8 building.

9 They're not umbrella downward

10 adjustments. This -- We would be looking at, we

11 would be looking at a, a design for a functionality

12 of a building as opposed to an umbrella.

13 That -- We do not include the umbrella

14 adjustment option.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Saralyn.

16 Other comments on this series of comment

17 boxes from the Department?

18 (Whereupon, at 10:04 a.m. ET, no

19 response was had.)

20 MS. APPEL: DOE welcomes written

21 comments on the proposed Rule. Comments must be

22 submitted no later than December fourteenth, 2010.

23 On the "Subject" line of all comments

24
66

1 please include the information shown on the screen:

2 Docket Number EERA dash-2010 dash-BT dash-STD

3 dash-0031; Regulatory ID RIN 1904-AB96.

4 Comments should be e-mailed to the

5 address on the screen, or sent by postal mail or

6 courier to the Brenda Edwards at the address on the

7 screen.

8 Thank you very much. Are there any

9 comments on the information presented before we

10 open the Hearing to your comments?

11 STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS:

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So, let's then, proceed.

13 It's typical in these public meetings to provide

14 another opportunity, once the substantive material

15 has been covered, for anybody that wishes to make

16 additional comments or raise additional relevant

17 issues, to do that now.

18 So, let's, let's have any additional

19 comments. Steve Rosenstock.

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

21 Edison Electric Institute.

22 I'd like to thank the Department for

23 having this Hearing today. And, you know, we all

24
67

1 want federal buildings to be more efficient.

2 It's good for the country. It's good

3 for the taxpayers.

4 And we just want to make sure that the

5 numbers that are being used are realistic and

6 achievable and supportable, and we're very worried

7 about what, what we've seen in this Rule. And we

8 are going to make many suggestions in our written

9 comments.

10 And we hope that our comments will be,

11 will be looked at and hopefully modifications can

12 be made to make this a more improved type of action

13 going forward.

14 I also wanted to say that we, in the, in

15 terms of the DOE being more open, I, I know there

16 was a recent Docket on fuel cycle, and I believe,

17 at least as far as I, I recall, was really one of

18 the first times that the DOE, the, all the comments

19 appeared on the web site at regulations.gov.

20 And I really wanted to compliment the

21 Department, because the Hearings, all, most of the

22 comments were posted within a few days of the

23 comment period being closed. And that's a real

24
68

1 paradigm shift, because I just remember several

2 years ago, if you wanted to look at comments, you

3 would have to write a letter to the Department and

4 come to the, come to the room and ask them to make

5 copies, and pay for the copies.

6 And I realty, I wanted to praise the

7 Department for posting all the comments at

8 regulations.gov, because it makes it a much more

9 open and transparent process for all stakeholders.

10 Thank you very much.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much.

12 MS. APPEL: Thank you very much for your

13 comments, and, yes, we'll consider all comments.

14 And we would like to see those in writing, with

15 your rationale.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Other closing remarks?

17 Additional issues that anybody here present wishes

18 to make?

19 Andrew.

20 MR. SOTO: Andrew Soto, American Gas

21 Association.

22 I just want to say that we do intend to

23 submit written comments, and largely supportive of

24
69

1 the Department's efforts to incorporate source

2 energy metrics into the proposal. And we'll have

3 more detailed comments in that regard.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

5 Emma? Emma Cheuse, from Earthjustice.

6 MS. CHEUSE: Thank you. Emma Cheuse,

7 from Earthjustice.

8 We also plan to submit comments, and

9 appreciate the Department's careful attention to

10 this important requirement. We have just one

11 question, which would assist stakeholders and

12 members of, of the public interested in considering

13 the effects of this Rule.

14 If it, if it is available, and if the

15 Department is looking at data on the number of new

16 buildings and renovations that are likely and

17 projected to be covered by this Rule, and including

18 that in its analysis on issues like construction

19 costs and the question of the scope of the rule.

20 That would be very helpful information,

21 for those of us looking at the Rule, to have in the

22 Docket to review. And that follows up on another

23 comment on that question, but it would be extremely

24
70

1 helpful to understand the number of projected new

2 buildings to be covered by the Agency, if possible.

3 Any level of detail would be useful. We

4 also would follow that up on just encouraging the

5 Department to make information of this type

6 publicly available, and just to help improve

7 transparency and encourage improved decision-making

8 and feedback in this process from everything

9 included in the Rule, from the exempt, the downward

10 adjustment process, to just providing this kind of

11 information as well.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

13 MS. CHEUSE: Thank you.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

15 Additional comments?

16 (Whereupon, at 10:09 a.m. ET, no

17 response was had.)

18 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments?

19 Okay.

20 So, then I think we have finished with

21 the material that we intended to cover in the

22 Agenda, and I, for my part, would thank all of you

23 for your participation, and I guess I'll turn it

24
71

1 back to Saralyn, then, or Margo for closing

2 remarks.

3 CLOSING REMARKS:

4 MS. BUNCH: I'd just like to thank

5 everyone once again for coming, and a reminder that

6 the comment period does close December fourteenth.

7 So, it's now November twelfth, so that's

8 approximately one month away for all of those.

9 We do appreciate documentation,

10 supporting documentation, and we will be looking at

11 that at the close of the comments and throughout

12 the period. And thank you all.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

14 (Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m. ET, the above

15 Public Meeting was concluded.)

16

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23