1

BEFORE THE 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 3

PUBLIC MEETING 4

FOSSIL FUEL

- GENERATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION 5

FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF 6

FEDERAL BUILDINGS 7

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

12 November 2010 21

Washington, D.C. USA 22

___________________________________________________ 23

242

ATTENDEES: 1

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN 2

Public Solutions

108 Newburg Avenue 3

Baltimore, Maryland 21 228

USA 4

MARGO APPEL 5

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 6

Washington, D.C. 20585

USA 7

TIMOTHY BALLO, Esquire 8

Earthjustice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 9

Suite 702

Washington, D.C. 20036 10

USA

11

SARALYN BUNCH

U.S. Department of Energy 12

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 13

USA 20585

14

CHRISTOPHER CALAMITA, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel 15

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 16

Washington, D.C.

USA (Via telephone) 17

18

EMMA CHEUSE, Attorney

Earthjustice 19

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Suite 702 20

Washington, D.C. 20036

USA 21

22

23

243

APPEARANCES (Continued): 1

MARK HALVERSON 2

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

902 Battelle Boulevard 3

Post Office Box 999

M SIN K5

- 16 4

Richland, Washington 99352

USA 5

ELIZA HOTCHKISS 6

Analyst II

Integrated Applications Office 7

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard 8

Golden, Colorado 80401

USA 9

VICKIE HEALEY 10

Analyst

Integrated Applications Office 11

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard 12

MS 1725

Golden, Colorado 80401

- 3393 13

USA

14

JOHN KAUFMANN

Senior Buildings Energy Manager 15

Building Energy Systems & Technologies

Pacific Northwest N ational Laboratory 16

902 Battelle Boulevard

Post Office Box 999 17

MSIN K5

- 16

Richland, Washington 99352 18

USA

john.kaufmann@pnl.gov 19

20

21

22

23

244

APPEARANCES (Continued): 1

PETE LaGUARDIA 2

Industrial Specialist

U.S. department of Justice 3

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Interagency Solution Procurement 4

400 First Street, NW

Seventh Floor 5

Washington, D.C. 20534

USA 6

DAVID LEIPZIGER 7

Institute for Market Transformation

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 8

Suite 815

Washington, D.C. 20 036 9

USA

10

MICHAEL LEWIS

BFOB Union 11

400 Fist Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 12

USA

13

NANCY McNABB

NIST Engineering Lab 14

100 Bureau Drive

MS 8600 15

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

USA 16

CYRUS NASSERI 17

Federal Energy Management Program

U.S. Department of Energy 18

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 19

USA 20585

20

S. PAYNE

BOP 21

400 First Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 22

USA

23

245

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK 2

Manager

Energy Solutions 3

Edison Electric Institute

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 4

Washington, D.C. 20004

- 2696

USA 5

ANDREW K. SOTO, Esquire 6

Senior Managing Counsel

Regulatory Affairs 7

American Gas Association

400 North Capitol Street, NW 8

Washington, D.C. 20001

US A 9

asoto@aga.org

10

AGATHA WEIN

New West Technologies 11

4351 GardeN City Drive

Suite 600 12

Landover, MD 20785

13

JONATHAN WIENER, Esquire

Earthjustice 14

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Suite 702 15

Washington, D.C. 20036

USA 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

246

I N D E X 1

Page

2

OPENING

By Doug Brookman 7 3

WELCOME 4

By Saralyn Bunch 7

5

INTRODUCTIONS

By Doug B rookman 10 6

AGENDA REVIEW 7

By Doug Brookman 12

8

OPENING STATEMENTS

By Saralyn Bunch 14 9

INTERESTED

- PARTY SUMMARY COMMENTS 15 10

OVERVIEW OF FOSSIL FUEL

- GENERATED ENERGY 11

CONSUMPTION REDUCTION FOR NEW FEDERAL

BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF FEDERAL 12

BUILDINGS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

By Margo Appel 16 13

STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS 66 14

CLOSING REMARKS 71 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

247

BEFORE THE 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 3

PUBLIC MEETING 4

FOSSIL FUE L

- GENERATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION 5

FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF 6

FEDERAL BUILDINGS 7

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 8

OPENING: 9

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

Good morni ng, everybody, and welcome. 11

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

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Public 13

Meeting on Fossil Fuel

- Generated Energy Consumption 14

Reduction For New Federal Buildings and Major 15

Renovations of Federal Buildings. 16

Are we on

-- Yes, today is Friday, 17

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

Saralyn Bunch, in the Department of 19

Energy, wishes to make welcoming remarks. 20

WELCOME: 21

MS. BUNCH: Good morning, everyone, and 22

thank you all for coming. We appreciate the 23

248

interest in attending this public meeting for 1

members of the private as well as the public 2

sector. 3

The Department published the Notice of 4

Proposed Ru lemaking to implement the Provisions of 5

the Energy Conservation and Production Act as 6

amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act 7

of 2007 that requires DOE to accomplish revised 8

Performance Standards for the construction of all 9

new federa l buildings, including commercial 10

buildings, multi

- family high

- rise residential 11

buildings, and low

- rise residential buildings. 12

The provisions in this Notice of 13

Proposed Rulemaking specifically reduce the 14

reduction of fossil

- fuel

- gener ated energy 15

consumption in new federal buildings and major 16

renovations of federal buildings. The proposed 17

Rule also addresses how Agencies other than the 18

GSA, General Services Administration, may Petition 19

DOE for a downward adjustment of the req uirements 20

if they believe that meeting the full fossil

- fuel

21

generated energy consumption reduction level is 22

technically impracticable in light of the specified 23

249

functional needs of the building. 1

Today's rulemaking complements the 2

Sustainable Design Standards For Federal Buildings 3

Rulemaking which addresses energy efficiency and 4

greenhouse gas reduction. 5

Everyone who wants to speak today will 6

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

limited. Every one is encouraged to submit more 8

detailed testimony, which we appreciate and prefer. 9

All of the statements will be entered 10

into the Docket and addressed as we develop the 11

follow

- on Rule. Please note that the Building 12

Technologies Pro gram will coordinate the final 13

revisions and development of this Rule, as well as 14

other facilities

- related Rules that apply to the 15

federal sector. 16

The FEMP, Federal Energy Management 17

Program, will continue to provide energy support 18

and outreach to the federal agencies that have a 19

vested interest in the Rules. If there are any 20

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

And, again, I thank everyone for coming. 22

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

2410

was had.) 1

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

we'll go back to you, Doug. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 4

INTRODUCTIONS: 5

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

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

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

the habit of turning the microphone on. 9

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven Rosenstock, 10

Edison Electric Institute. 11

MS. CHEUSE: Emma Cheuse, Earthjustice. 12

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. 13

MR. MINER: John Miner, with 14

Earthjustice. 15

MR. SOTO: Andrew Soto, American Gas 16

Association. 17

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

to introduce yourself? 19

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Over here to John and 21

Mark. 22

MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, Pacific 23

2411

Northwest National Laboratory. 1

MR. HALVERSON: Mark Halverson, Pacific 2

Northwest National Laboratory. 3

MS. BUNCH: Saralyn Bunch. 4

MS. WAYNE: Agatha Wayne, with New West 5

Technologies. Also supporting DOE. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 7

MR. LaGUARDIA: Pete LaGuardia, 8

Department of Justice. 9

MR. LEWIS: Mike Lewis, Department of 10

Justice. 11

MS. PEI (phonetic): Stoi Pei 12

(phonetic), Department of Justice. 13

MS. McNABB: Nancy McNabb, NIST. 14

MR. LEIPZIGER: Dave Leipziger, 15

Institute For Mar ket Transformation. 16

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

brief

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

from the General Counsel's Office here at the 19

Department of Energy. 20

MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita. 21

I hav e joined you by telephone, and Office of the 22

General Counsel. 23

2412

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

also have, I think, several individuals that are 2

joining us via the webinar. 3

Yes. Brief Agenda review and then we'll 4

launch into the more substantive content. 5

AGENDA REVIEW: 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Immediately following 7

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

and a review of the fossil fuel

- generated energy 9

consumption reduction for new federal buildings and 10

major renovations of federal buildings Notice of 11

Proposed Rulemaking that Saralyn was mentioning. 12

Following that there's an opportunity by 13

anybody that wishes to do so to make brief summary 14

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

more detailed content of, of the day. 16

I know a review of information will 17

continue for proposed rulemaking. Margo's going to 18

be presenting that content. 19

I think most o f you are familiar with 20

the general format for this material today. All of 21

you received a copy of the Federal Register Notice, 22

and also these PowerPoint slides which will be the 23

2413

basis for both the presentation and the comment 1

boxes that are int erspersed with it. 2

The Department is specifically speaking, 3

requesting that you provide comment. So, after 4

Margo is going, goes through those various slides 5

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

midmorning at, see where tha t gracefully lands. 7

You'll

-- You can see as you review the 8

Agenda, there are several additional places held 9

there for additional stakeholder comments. My 10

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

till 4:30 or

--

. 12

Today, having looked at, at the slides, 13

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

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

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

opportunity for you to comment as you see fit. 17

So, that's the plan for today. 18

Questions and comments on the Agenda? 19

I would ask for your consideration. 20

Please speak one at a time. 21

Please say your name for the Record. 22

There will be a complete Transcript of this meeting 23

2414

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

the focus here, please turn your cell phones to 2

"Silent" mode, limit the side

- bar conversations, 3

and I guess that is it for the overview. 4

Let's return to Saralyn Bunch. 5

OPENING STATEMENTS: 6

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

Meeting Objectives and Schedule. There 8

we go. 9

The NOPR Notification of Proposed 10

Rulemaking was published on October fifteenth, 11

2010. It's 75 Feder al Register FR

- 63404. 12

Today we are having the Public Hearing 13

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

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

date. 16

We will accept written comments, data, 17

information regar ding this NOPR, no, up until no 18

later than December fourteenth, 2010. DOE expects 19

to issue a Final Rule in August of 2011. 20

The proposed effective date of the Rule 21

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

Rule would apply to covered buildings for which 23

2415

design, and for which construction 1

begins at least one year after the Rule publication 2

date. 3

That's for which design for the 4

construction begins, one year after the publication 5

date . The Rule will be developed concurrent with 6

the NOPR on the Sustainable Design Principles For 7

Federal Buildings, which is 75 FR

- 2993. 8

Both NOPRs propose changes to 10 CFR 9

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

and that's why we are here today. 11

Now I would open it up for interested 12

parties to make a brief summary statement if anyone 13

needs to do that. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name for 15

the Record. Who would like to start? 16

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

was had.) 18

MR. ROSENSTOCK: We'll make comments as 19

we go. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: As you go. Okay. 21

Andrew, nothing at this point? No 22

additional comments here? 23

2416

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

to

-- 2

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

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

this job, rulemaking. Sorry. 5

OVERVIEW OF FOSSIL FUEL

- GENERATED ENERGY 6

CONSUMPTION REDUCTION FOR NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND 7

MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS NOTICE OF 8

PROPOSED RULEMAKING: 9

MS. APPEL: I'd like to acknowledge 10

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

acknowledge the work from our contractors, from 12

PNN L, John Kaufmann and Mark Halverson, and also 13

would like to have people who are here today submit 14

their business cards for the Court Reporter for the 15

Record, please, afterwards. 16

Today's Rule was enabled by the Section 17

433 of the Energ y Independence and Security Act of 18

2007, EISA, which requires DOE to establish fossil 19

fuel

- generated energy consumption reduction 20

requirements for specified new federal buildings 21

and major renovations, based on similar buildings 22

as measured by Co mmercial Buildings Energy 23

2417

Consumption Survey, or the Residential Energy 1

Consumption Survey. 2

EPCA requires graduated reductions in 3

fossil fuel

- generated energy consumption in 4

five

- year increments from FY

- 2010 to FY

- 2030 and 5

beyond. 6

The Administrative Rules will be 7

incorporated into 10 CFR 433 dealing with energy 8

efficiency Standards for the design and 9

construction of new federal commercial and 10

multi

- family high

- rise residential buildings, and 11

into 10 CFR 435, dealing with energy efficiency 12

Standards for new federal low

- rise residential 13

buildings. 14

The requirements of this Rule apply to 15

all new federal buildings and federal buildings 16

undergoing major renovations that are f ed

- , that 17

are public buildings for which GSA must submit a 18

prospectus to Congress, or for which construction 19

costs are at least 2.5 million. 20

"Public buildings," as defined in USC 21

3301, are buildings generally suitable for use as 22

off ice or storage space by one or more federal 23

2418

agencies, or mixed

- ownership government 1

corporations. The list of public buildings can be 2

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

handouts. 4

The definition also lists examples of 5

buildings that are not included. 6

The requirements apply to buildings 7

built with the intent of being leased to a federal 8

agency, and major renovations to leased buildings 9

over which a federal agency has significant control 10

of the desig n. 11

The requirements apply to buildings 12

which begin construction for construction, which 13

begin design for construction one year after 14

adoption of the Final Rule. 15

DOE is addressing the definition of "new 16

federal building" and "major renovation" in the 17

rulemaking relating to sustainable design 18

principles and new federal buildings on a parallel 19

track to this rulemaking. 20

MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve 21

Rosenstock, Edison Electric Instit ute. 22

Trying to go through the NOPR, and just, 23

2419

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

but what if the new buildings are only partially 2

leased by the Federal Government? What is the

-- 3

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

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

the space that's going to be built. 6

Is there any threshold that's been 7

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

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

mix ed

- use building where the Federal Government has 10

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

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

curious how that will have

-- Are there any 13

decisions being made in terms of how those types of 14

sit uations will be handled? 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 16

MS. APPEL: We would like to hear your 17

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

writing. Writing is preferred. 19

Thank you for your comments. 20

MR. CALAMITA: This is, is Chris 21

Calamita. The one thought recently I have been 22

concerned with is, I guess, how much substantial 23

2420

control the Agency would have over the site

-- 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you turn

-- 2

MR. CALAMITA:

-- as

-- 3

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

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

Would you restate that, please? We had 6

a hard time hearing you. 7

MR. CALAMITA: I'm, I'm sorry. On e 8

thing we were asking is: How much control 9

would our agency have over the design of the leased 10

space? 11

So, the amount of leased space that is 12

federal leased space versus private

- sector leased 13

space would likely guide which building s, if they 14

were federal buildings, which were subject to the 15

sustainable design requirements. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thanks. 17

MR. CALAMITA: Again, if we have 18

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

would apprec iate those. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 21

Steve Rosenstock. 22

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 23

2421

Edison Electric Institute. 1

And then the other issue is, of course, 2

short

- term versus long

- term lease. I know that in, 3

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

buildings that had government tenants, and then new 5

space would open up and the government tenants 6

would leave. 7

And some leases mi ght be as short for as 8

the previous space was being renovated. They would 9

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

So, there's

-- 11

MR. CALAMITA: Again, this is Chris 12

Calamita. 13

And on

-- Go back to

-- I refer you back 14

to the proposal and definition of a "federal 15

building." With respect to the leased buildings, 16

it's buildings built for the purpose of being 17

leased by a federal agency. 18

So, whether the building is being 19

designed for construction at that point, it is 20

being designed for construction for the purpose of 21

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

potentially be a, a federal building for the 23

2422

purposes of the Proposal. 1

The situation of looki ng at short

- term 2

leases, or looking to fill overflow space, my 3

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

moving into buildings already built. They're not 5

sitting down and having a building designed to meet 6

their specific needs. 7

But, again, if there are any situations 8

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

that, your comment. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Chris. 11

Additional comments on this section? 12

Do you want to do t he comment box on 13

the

-- 14

MS. APPEL: Yes. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Margo. 16

MS. APPEL: DOE has specifically 17

requested comments on what costs would be 18

considered in determining which buildings meet the 19

$2.5 millio n threshold and are subject to the 20

requirements of this Rule. DOE proposes that 21

construction costs include the cost of design, 22

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

2423

commissioning, but that it would exclude land and 1

legal costs. 2

Are there any comments up to this point? 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 4

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 5

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

land costs be a significant portion of the total 7

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

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

areas of the country,

-- 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 11

MR. ROSENSTOCK:

-- I don't know what 12

the percentage is. 13

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

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

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

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

numbers person here. 18

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

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

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Steve. 22

MS. APPEL: Thank you very much for your 23

2424

comments. We w ould like to see those in writing, 1

as well. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? 3

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

was had.) 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Margo. 6

MS. APPEL: EISA requires that fos sil 7

fuel

- generated energy consumption in new federal 8

buildings and major renovations of federal 9

buildings be reduced by its by 55 percent as 10

compared to energy consumption of a similar 11

building in 2003, beginning one year after adoption 12

of the Rule, and gradually increased to 100 percent 13

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

table is the legislative requirement. 15

Moving to more technical issues, DOE's 16

proposed methodology to determine compliance with 17

the fossil fuel reduction requirements encompasses 18

a three

- step process. 19

Step 1 is to establish the baseline 20

fossil fuel

- generated energy use. 21

Step 2 is to determine the required 22

reduction in fossil fuel energy use, and then 23

2425

convert that into the maximum allowable fossil 1

fuel

- generated energy consumption that must be met. 2

Step 3 is to determine the fossil 3

fuel

- generated energy consumption of the proposed 4

building, and compare it to the maximum allow able 5

from Step 2, to determine compliance. The 6

following slides provide more detail on each step. 7

Step 1, establishing the baseline. EISA 8

sets the baseline as the energy consumption of a 9

similar building in 2003, as measured by the 10

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 11

CBECS, or Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 12

RECS. 13

The CBECS database includes 13 building 14

types. The RECS database includes five building 15

types. 16

DOE proposes to use source energy. 17

Nationally, 71 percent of electricity is generated 18

from fossil fuels, and DOE assumes a conversion 19

efficiency of fossil fuels to electricity of 33 20

percent. 21

The baseline data also includes plug

22

and

- process loads. DOE is considering regional 23

2426

adjustments to the baseline data to account for 1

differences in climate and source of electricity, 2

whether the regional mix is generated from coal, 3

oil, natural gas, or nonfossil fuel sources. 4

These will be described in subsequent, 5

subsequent slides. 6

MR. LEIPZINGER: Can I ask a question? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 8

MR. LEIPZINGER: This is David 9

Leipzinger, from Institute For Market 10

Tran sformation. 11

Understand you're using CBECS and RECS 12

2003, but CBECS and RECS 2007 will be available 13

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

2007 as a baseline when it's released. 15

MS. APPEL: I'd like Mark Halverso n to 16

respond to that. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: You need to find a 18

microphone, Mark. 19

MR. HALVERSON: Mark we would certainly 20

be open

-- 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Turn it on. Yes. 22

MR. HALVERSON: We would certainly b e 23

2427

open to using near CBECS and RECS when they come 1

out. Obviously the near data, the better. 2

And

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

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

out, but

--

. 5

MR. CALAMITA: This is, this is Chris 6

Calamita again. Also to note that the Statute 7

directs us to FY

- 2003, so the, the Proposal at this 8

point is following the Act. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 10

Steve Rosenstock. 11

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 12

Edison Electric Institute. 13

We have some concerns with the 14

Department using source energy because these, these 15

assumptions are, are very static, and the electric 16

generation portfolio is very , very dynamic. For 17

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

power was installed in the United States last year. 19

This year the Department of Interior 20

just approved over 3,000 megawatts of solar thermal 21

and solar voltaic power plants in, just in 22

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

2428

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

assumption doesn't realize it. 2

Also, in terms of conversion efficiency 3

of fossil fuels, most of the power plant s that have 4

been built and installed over the last 10, 15 5

years, the vast majority are gas turbines, where 6

their fuel efficiency or their, their overall 7

efficiency, thermal efficiency is in the 55

- to 8

57

- percent range. Here much more than 33 percent 9

is assumed here. 10

Also, I would like to remind the 11

audience, and we'll submit written comments to 12

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

Targets Committee in ASHRAE, looking at net

- zero 14

energy buildings, released an, a report where they 15

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

and the National Climate Society of North America, 17

that all these groups agreed to use site energy as 18

they looked at net

- zero energy bu ildings, 19

especially with on

- site renewables, especially 20

since they'll

-- I'll paraphrase the report.

-- 21

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

other factors that people might be looking at, 23

2429

including source energy or energy costs, are 1

strictly multipliers of site energy that is, or the 2

net site energy that is produced at the building. 3

So,

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

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

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

little bit of our viewpoints on this issue. 7

Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 9

MS. BUNCH: Thank you. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? 11

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

was had.) 13

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

were completely finished with your presentation. 15

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

asking. 17

MS. BUNCH: Could I say something? We 18

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

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

people

-- Thank you all for

-- 21

MS. APPEL: Thank you all for your 22

comments. 23

2430

To continue, for building types not 1

repo rted in the CBECS and RECS databases it is 2

proposed that agencies use the ASHRAE performance 3

rating method to determine baseline energy use for 4

commercial building types, and the IECC total 5

performance method for residential buildings. 6

Table 1 in the Rule provides the 7

baseline fossil fuel

- generated energy consumption 8

for commercial building prototypes from the CBECS 9

database. The baseline data is given in thousands 10

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

per year. 12

Table 2 in the Rule provides the 13

baseline fossil fuel

- generated energy consumption 14

for residential building prototypes from the RECS 15

data

- base. As with commercial buildings, the 16

baseline data is given in thousands of British 17

Therm al Units, (Kbtus), per square foot per year. 18

Related to baseline energy used, used, 19

DOE has requested comment on these questions. DOE 20

has requested comment on building type categories 21

and definitions. 22

DOE has also requested comment on the 23

2431

proposal to apply the per

- square

- foot energy use 1

for residential space to residential common areas 2

which are otherwise not addressed in the RECS 3

database. 4

And, DOE has requested com ment on how to 5

address plug

- and

- process loads. Plug and process 6

loads are currently included in the baseline, and 7

the methodology to determine the energy use of the 8

proposed design. 9

Should they be included or removed from 10

the cal culations, and on what grounds? We would 11

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

MS. BUNCH: Okay. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Steven? No? 14

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

this. Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electr ic Institute. 16

And I agree with use of CBECS because it 17

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

for federal government facilities, if you look at 19

the table on the previous slide,

-- I don't see the 20

-- Slide 11. I'm sorry.

-- there are some 21

facilities that don't necessarily neatly fall into 22

this category. 23

2432

I know that, talking about the ASHRAE 1

performance method, but with certain buildings, 2

especially like research laboratories and data 3

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

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

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

Data centers in the north basically can 7

use a lot more outside air than data center s in the 8

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

the results 10

Research laboratories obviously depend 11

on the research being done, and this leads into 12

plug

- and

- process, again, depending on the type of 13

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

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

that might be out there, especially for those types 16

of buildings? 17

In terms of plug

- and

- process loads, 18

when I looked in the Federal Register Notice I was 19

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

the proposed formula is going to work is basically 21

a proposed design consumption

-- Wait a minute. 22

The, the reduction is going to be used, 23

2433

percentage improvement calculation, I'm a li ttle 1

worried about because it says it's baseline 2

building consumption minus proposed building 3

consumption in the numerator, and in the 4

denominator it's baseline building consumptions 5

minus process loads. 6

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

basically you're saying they count, receptacle and 8

process loads count in the numerator, but they 9

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

happen is, as you design buildings, the percentage 11

imp rovement will look a lot larger than it is 12

because you're

-- I'll give you an example. 13

Suppose the baseline is 100 proposed 14

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

percent. 16

Well, subtract out the receptacle. So

, 17

suppose receptacle and process loads are, let's 18

say, 50 percent. 19

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

50. So, instead of a 30

- percent improvement, under 21

this it's saying it's more like a 66

- percent 22

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

2434

Or, excuse me, 60

- percent improvement 1

rather than a 30

- percent improvement. So, again, 2

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

being consistent in both the numerator and 4

denominator. 5

An d, for electrical and fossil fuel 6

loads, can be significant, especially if you look 7

at some of these simulations done for 90.1. They 8

can dominate in certain things like health service, 9

food service, healthcare, and obviously in some, 10

certain laboratories. 11

And they literally could be 50, 60 12

percent of the baseline consumption. So, you take 13

those out of the denominator and you get all sorts 14

of, quote, improvements. 15

So, in our view, the plug

- and

- proc ess 16

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

denominator, they need to be in the numerator. 18

Should not be taken out of one for this 19

formula. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson. 21

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

clarification. If you take the proposed minus the 23

2435

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

the plug loads cancel out of the numerator. 2

The equation is correct. You would have 3

-- If you take

-- See what I'm saying? 4

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yeah. 5

MR. HALVERSON: You're saying the plug 6

loads get subtracted out of both the baseline and 7

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

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 9

MR. HALVERSON: This is the same 10

equation used in 10 CFR 433 and 435 for the 11

30

- percent reduction, which also subtracts out the 12

plug loads. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 14

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 15

Edison Electric Institute. 16

If that's the case, that would satisfy 17

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

it appear that the plug loads and process loads are 19

not taken out in the numerator. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Is there a technical 21

support doc ument where there's more specific 22

information? 23

2436

MR. HALVERSON: I think you could add 1

one more equation and show the determination of 2

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

in the numerator, and that would probably

-- 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that, is that 5

accessible somewhere, that, that

-- Is that in the 6

Record somewhere, that additional equation? 7

MR. HALVERSON: We would have to put it 8

in. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Just curious. 10

Oka y, thank you. 11

Other comments? You see the three 12

comment boxes there on the slide? 13

Categories, building type categories and 14

definitions; proposal to apply per

- square

- foot 15

energy use for residential spaces to residential 16

common areas; and how should plug

- and

- process 17

loads be addressed? Additional comments on those 18

three. 19

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

was had.) 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 22

MS. APPEL: DOE is looking at adjusting 23

2437

the baseline CBECS energy use data to account for 1

climate variations. The NOPR uses national average 2

energy consumption, nonadjusted for climate, 3

because the CBECS and RECS databases are not l arge 4

enough to be statistically significant by climate 5

zones. 6

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is 7

developing a procedure to adjust the CBECS data for 8

climate. They'll apply percentage differences 9

between climate zones obtained fro m simulations of 10

prototype buildings built to ASHRAE Standards to 11

the CBECS and RECS data. 12

Adjusting the CBECS and RECS baselines 13

based on climate differences will help ensure 14

equitability between regions. Using a national 15

average baseline rather than a baseline adjusted 16

regionally for climate would require deeper 17

reductions in cold climate zones than in warm ones. 18

If the baseline is the national average, 19

then the baseline and the maximum allowable fossil 20

fuel use for buildings in warm and cold climates 21

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

building in a cold climate uses more energy than 23

2438

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

climate would have to achieve deeper fossil fuel 2

reductions than required in order to meet the same 3

target, while the actual fossil fuel reduction in a 4

building in a warm climate would be less than the 5

requirement. 6

Adjusting for climate ensures that 7

buildings in different climate zones achieve 55 8

percent reduction. After 2030, all buildings must 9

achieve a 100

- percent reduction in fossil 10

fuel

- generated energy consumption, so the effect 11

would be the same in all climate zones. 12

DOE is considering including a clim ate 13

adjustment, and has requested comments on whether 14

the baseline and the maximum allowable fossil 15

fuel

- generated energy consumption targets should be 16

adjusted for climate. 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

I am familiar with both CBECS and RECS; 23

2439

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

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

version of

-- Now they use eight climate zones, as 3

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

Right? I mean, way back when, there 5

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

So, I beli eve

-- Do they break it out by 7

climate zones? 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson. 9

MR. HALVERSON: They still use different 10

sets, primarily those heating

- degree

- based climate 11

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

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

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

eight climate zones, and if CBECS and RECS shows 15

five, I'll say five heating

- degree

- day zones, 16

there, there might be some differences there in 17

terms of which, which climate zones are you going 18

to adjust for,

-- 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 20

MR. ROSENSTOCK:

-- based on the RECS 21

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson. 23

2440

MR. HALVERSON: Mark Halverson, PNNL. 1

We are planning to use on, using the 2

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

433 and 435 already. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 5

You can see the comment box

. 6

Steve Rosenstock. 7

MR. ROSENSTOCK: And I guess the other 8

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

and let's say

-- I think the CBECS database was 10

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

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

again with Saralyn, how are you going to

-- 13

Supposing you only have two buildings in one 14

climate zone, for whatever reason. 15

How does DOE propose to, to obtain more 16

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

going to be by simulation, or

-- 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Mark Halverson. 19

MR. HALVERSON: Yes. The answer, direct 20

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

The work that's being done at Oak Ridge 22

National Laboratory is being done by Terry Sharp, 23

2441

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

of work for ASHRAE on the Energy Targets Committee 2

that you mentioned earlier, and also for ASHRAE 3

Standar d 100. 4

The basic idea is to develop a matrix of 5

building type and climate zone, and to put the 6

observed data from CBECS into each cell of that 7

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

of building types or a large number of cl imate 9

zones. 10

You do end up with some cells that are 11

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

hospital located in Climate Zone 8, and you have 13

absolutely no data whatsoever. 14

And so using statistical techniques of 15

filling in

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

surrounding cells, cells that you believe are, you 17

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

extrapolated somewhat. 19

And the extrapolation that they're using 20

is based on simulations of the DOE reference 21

buildings which are used in a number of programs, 22

including Code development program, but also a 23

2442

number of other programs to try to predict whether, 1

the changes in energy use intensity as you go from 2

one climate to another for a particular building 3

type. 4

So, this is all fairly detailed 5

statistical manipulation of these data, trying to 6

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

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

this is o ne of the downfalls of CBECS, is when you 9

start getting very specific, you start getting 10

holes. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 12

MS. APPEL: Thank you for your comments. 13

Another significant issue for the 14

basel ine is whether it should be adjusted for 15

regional differences in the fossil fuel mix of 16

electric generation. The NOPR uses a national 17

average fossil fuel mix for electric generation of 18

71 percent. 19

That is, 71 percent of the electrici ty 20

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

this number is used in determining the fossil

- fuel 22

component of the electricity use reported in CBECS 23

2443

and RECS. 1

However, some areas use more hydro and 2

nuclear, and less fossil fuel to produce 3

electricity, while other areas may use more fossil 4

fuels. Even within fossil fuels, some areas use 5

more coal; others, more natural gas. 6

DOE is considering a regional source 7

electricity adjus tment. A key question is whether 8

it should vary by fossil fuel

- generated versus 9

nonfossil fuel

- generated electricity, or whether it 10

should vary further by carbon content, whereby coal 11

is weighted more heavily than natural gas. 12

A seco nd question is to determine the 13

appropriate geographic areas on which to base this 14

adjustment. Oak Ridge is looking at applying the 15

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

grid interconnect level. 17

There are about 3,200 el ectric utilities 18

in the United States, too many to consider 19

addressing in the Rule. 20

An additional consideration in making 21

this determination will be the fossil fuel mix of 22

the electricity purchased by retail customers 23

2444

within a give n area as opposed to the fossil fuel 1

mix of the electricity produced within that area. 2

This is important because power may be produced in 3

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

However, most of the data available is 5

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

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

not as readily available. 8

Related to this issue, DOE has requested 9

comments whether it should use national or regional 10

fossil fue l factors for electricity consumption, 11

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

DOE has also requested comments whether 13

coal, oil, and natural gas should be treated 14

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

emissions or s ome other factor. 16

We would like to solicit comments up to 17

this point. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 19

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 20

Edison Electric Institute. 21

Kind of following on for what I had 22

described before is people have looked at these 23

2445

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

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

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

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

and looking at electric generation and electric 5

retail use. 6

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

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

will look significantly different than the way it 9

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

that I've seen, for instance, the EPA e

- grid, they 11

use 2005 data. 12

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

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

you're going upstream in term s of fossil fuels 15

production of electricity. 16

I don't see anything similar for the 17

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

there are fossil fuels used in the production and 19

delivery of those products. 20

So, again, there 's a little 21

inconsistency, especially if a building is using 22

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

2446

especially in the Northeast, using fuel oil. And 1

you have to go overseas. 2

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

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

different tools differently. 5

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

reiterate before, as be

-- You might want to try 7

looking at stages. Concentrate on the site usage 8

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

make that as a separate table. 10

I think in that way, especially with the 11

dynamic nature of both electricity and fossil fuel 12

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

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

percent of the production was shallow

- water 15

drilling, and ten percent was deep

- water drilling. 16

And in 2009, it was about 80 percent 17

deep

- water and ten percent shallow

- water. So, 18

things are changing dynamically on the energy 19

production market. 20

And, again, another issue is looking, 21

you know, looking back versus looking forward. 22

There are going to be so many changes. 23

2447

Some of the estimates will be 1

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

I think that can really have an impact 3

on some of the values that are going to be 4

submitted in these tables in terms of the 5

calculations for the, quote, for the BTUs per 6

square foot per year. 7

Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 9

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

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

writing as well. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Um

- hum. 13

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

go on. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Um

- hum. 16

MS. APPEL: Step 2 is establishing the 17

maximum allowable fossil fuel

- generated energy 18

consumption. The maximum allowable fossil fuel use 19

is established by multiplying the baseline from 20

Step 1 times the required percent reduction, and 21

subtracting the result from the baseline. 22

DOE has decided to base compliance on 23

2448

the maximum allowable fossil fuel use, rather than, 1

ra ther than on reductions because it is easier to 2

measure energy used rather than energy not used. 3

DOE expects this will make it easier to demonstrate 4

compliance. 5

Since the baseline includes plug

- and 6

- process loads, the maximum allowab le fossil fuel 7

use includes plug

- and

- process loads as well. 8

Table 1 provides the baseline and the 9

maximum allowable fossil fuel

- generated energy 10

consumption for commercial buildings. This table 11

may be expanded, and perhaps broken i nto several 12

tables as a result of the climate adjustment 13

described earlier. 14

Table 2 provides the baseline and the 15

maximum allowable fossil fuel

- generated energy 16

consumption for residential buildings. As with 17

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

broken into several tables as a result of the 19

climate adjustment described earlier. 20

Step 3. The final step is to determine 21

the fossil fuel

- generated energy consumption of the 22

proposed design to see whether i t meets the maximum 23

2449

allowable target from Step 2. 1

To determine the fossil fuel

- generated 2

energy use of the proposed building, DOE proposes 3

that agencies use the ASHRAE performance rating 4

method for commercial buildings, and the IECC total 5

performance method for residential buildings. 6

This implies using a whole

- building 7

simulation program. The results would be adjusted, 8

based on the appropriate fossil

- fuel factor for 9

the regional electric power mix described earlier. 10

Since plug

- and

- process loads are 11

included in the baseline and in the maximum 12

allowable target, for cons

- , consistency they are 13

included in this calculation as well. The source 14

e nergy approach used in this Rule provides 15

encouragement to the use of on

- site renewable 16

energy systems and combined heat and power systems. 17

Use of on

- site renewable energy provides 18

benefit as well, as it constitutes a straight 19

reducti on in estimated energy use. On

- site 20

combined heat and power systems benefit from this 21

approach because of their inherent efficiencies 22

compared to purchased electricity. 23

2450

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'll wait. 1

MS. APPEL: A related i ssue is whether 2

the purchase of electricity generated from off

- site 3

renewable energy sources should be allowed. 4

DOE proposes not to allow the purchase 5

of Renewable Energy Certificates, RECs, to count 6

towards meeting the maximum allowable fossil 7

fuel

- generated energy consumption for the building. 8

There is no guarantee of persistence. 9

They can be canceled at any time, and 10

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

way to mee t renewable

- energy goals. However, DOE 12

proposes to allow the direct purchase of 13

electricity from renewable resources through Power 14

Purchase Agreements to count toward meeting the 15

maximum allowable fossil fuel

- generated energy 16

consumption. 17

DOE has requested comments on the 18

following questions related to the energy use of 19

the proposed design. DOE has requested comments on 20

the calculation method to determine compliance. 21

DOE has requested comments whether there 22

ar e reasonable alternatives to whole

- building 23

2451

simulations to determine the energy use of the 1

proposed design as implied by the Rule. 2

DOE has also asked whether credit should 3

be given for electricity from renewable energy 4

sources purcha sed under either Renewable Energy 5

Certificates, or Direct

- Purchase Power Agreements. 6

And last, DOE has asked whether, by 7

using source energy, appropriate credit is given to 8

the use of combined heat and power systems. 9

We wo uld like to solicit comments up to 10

this point. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 12

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 13

Edison Electric Institute. 14

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

the one, one of the issues is the on

- site 16

production of energy, whether it's electric energy 17

or thermal energy or fossil

- fuel energy. And, for 18

example, for electricity, they might have a net 19

meter so the meter can spin backwards, actually. 20

So, for example, just throwing some 21

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

in a time period the on

- site produced 2,000. The 23

2452

net meter would show something that says 8,000 1

kilowatt. 2

However, that building actuall y used 3

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

happened to be from on

- site renewables. And I'm 5

not sure it can, can make methane or on

- site solar 6

thermal

- producing thermal loads for certain things 7

that the meter shows less consumption, but the 8

building's actually consumed the same amount of 9

energy; just happened to be on

- site. 10

So, that could be one issue in terms of 11

the calculations for the buildings going forward. 12

In terms of the tables and the baselines for both 13

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

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

not broken out by climate zone. 16

But, I think one thing to, really would 17

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

now Fiscal Year 2012 begins next year, next 19

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

been any buildings built by the Federal Government 21

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

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

2453

t his. 1

I'd really be curious to see if these 2

numbers are, have been achieved by actual current 3

federal buildings, or new

-- I should say new 4

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

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

with the current technologies that the Federal 7

Government is using? 8

Or, can it be done with advanced 9

technologies that the Federal Government is going 10

to use? 11

In terms of on

- site combined heat and 12

power, I have to respectfully disagree with what it 13

says, inherent efficiencies compared to purchased 14

electricity. It really

-- Combined heat and power 15

is very efficient and some can be very, very 16

efficient if you have a constant such as a 17

laboratory setting or hospital setting or 18

industrial setting. 19

If you have a more commercial, where 20

loads fluctuate up and down, the efficiencies can 21

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

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

2454

the actual conversion to electricity can be 1

equivalent or less than what you're seeing for 2

combined

- cycle capacity you're buying on the 3

marketplace. 4

And, also, certain areas, like, for 5

instance, Pacific Northwest, which is dominated by 6

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

increasing overall fossil

- fuel usage in those 8

areas. So, I have to respectfully disagree with 9

the statement that it's more efficient than 10

purchased electricity, because that is not always 11

the case. 12

And I believe that, again, if the issue 13

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

another issue is you can do combined heat and power 15

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

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

really where we want, for federal buildings using a 18

diesel, quote, heat and power system? 19

I certainly hope not. Thank you. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 21

MR. LEIPZIGER: David Leipziger for 22

Institu te for Market Transformation. 23

2455

I

-- Did we just hear that 1

plug

- and

- process loads are, are included in these 2

calculations? Or, are they not included? 3

Maybe I'm

-- Maybe it's too early for 4

me, but

-- 5

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

Kaufmann, from PNNL, to respond to that. 7

MR. KAUFMANN: Yes. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Turn the microphone on, 9

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

Thank you. 11

MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, PNNL. 12

The answer to that is: Yep, 13

plug

- and

- process loads are included in these 14

calculations. 15

MR. LEIPZIGER: Did we not just have a 16

discussion earlier about them not being included? 17

MR. KAUFMANN: We had the discussion 18

they were being included. 19

MR. LEIPZIGER: Okay, so it is too 20

early. Sorry. 21

MR. ROSENSTOCK: But, the improvement 22

suits the issue. 23

2456

MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the comment 1

box. The Department asks for your comments on 2

several comments related to reasonable alternatives 3

to whole

- building simulation; whether credit should 4

be given for RECS Renewable Energy Certificates and 5

Power Purchase Agreements; and the appropriate 6

credit given on site for use of combined heat and 7

power systems. 8

Steve Rosenstock. 9

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 10

In terms of that RECS purchased versus 11

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

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

Contracts can be very similar in terms of how they 14

are organized and in terms of suppliers within the, 15

the power pool is providing power to the l ocal or 16

regional grid. 17

And I'm

-- I, I guess if there have been 18

issues with Renewable Energy Certificate programs 19

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

their results. 21

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

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

2457

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

Standard 19.1, which is commercial green building 2

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

agreements. 4

The term is ten years. So, that might 5

be one issue. 6

If they're worried about, you know, 7

short

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

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

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

building ow ners flexibility, and it's meeting the 11

goals of this program. 12

Thank you. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 14

Other comments on these specific 15

queries? 16

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

was had.) 18

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

by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, 20

in 2008, concluded that the added costs of 21

low

- energy buildings was one to seven percent 22

greater than common practice. 23

2458

Also, designing to the 30

- percent and 1

50

- percent Advanced Energy Design Guides was 2

estimated to cost up to nine percent more than 3

designing to ASHRAE 90.1. DOE has solicited 4

additional input on the cost impacts of meeting 5

deep energy reductio ns similar to those required by 6

this Rule from buildings already built or currently 7

under construction or in design. 8

We would like to solicit comments up to 9

this point. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 11

MR. RO SENSTOCK: This is Steve 12

Rosenstock, with a question. 13

I haven't had a chance to review that 14

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

with significant process and process loads in 16

particular, because of the nature of the energy 17

loads in those buildings being process dominated. 18

MS. APPEL: I would like John Kaufmann, 19

from PNNL, to respond. 20

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

Kaufmann and Mr. Halverson conferred, out of the 22

hearing of others and off the Record, after which 23

2459

the following occurred:) 1

MR. KAUFMANN: John Kaufmann, PNNL. 2

I actually am unaware. I guess I 3

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

detail, which, whether it includes those processes. 5

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

I'm not a hundred

- percent sure. 7

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 8

Yeah, I thank you, just because it 9

depends. You really have to look at the process 10

technology rather than transitional HVAC lighting 11

envelope packages in terms of actually getting 12

those low energy values. 13

And some of those costs might be more 14

significant. Maybe

-- I'm just, just familiar, 15

especially w ith things like data centers or 16

research labs or something, or even commercial 17

cooking facilities or that. 18

That is really

-- Some of these numbers 19

are, are

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

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

percent. But, with certain facilities Federal 22

Government have, it could be significantly higher. 23

2460

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 1

it? 2

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

was had.) 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 5

MS. APPEL: Agencies may petition the 6

Secretary of Energy requesting a downward 7

adjustment to the percentage reduction requirement. 8

However, the adjustment does not apply to GSA or 9

GSA buildings exce pt that the head of the tenant 10

agency may petition the Secretary. 11

Under the proposed requirements, the 12

head of the petitioning agency must certify that 13

meeting the requirements would be technically 14

impracticable in light of the buildi ng's functional 15

needs. The Agency would also have to demonstrate 16

that the requested adjustment maintains the largest 17

feasible reduction in fossil fuel

- generated energy 18

consumption that can reasonably be achieved. 19

Costs are not specif ically mentioned by 20

Statute as an allowable cause for downward 21

adjustment. DOE is considering allowing cost to be 22

a contributing factor, but not the sole factor in 23

2461

determining whether compliance is technically 1

impracticable. 2

DOE h as requested comments on several 3

issues regarding Petitions for downward adjustments 4

to the numerical requirement. 5

DOE has requested comments on what would 6

be considered technically impracticable as grounds 7

for granting a downward adjustment to the numerical 8

requirement. 9

DOE has requested comments on how one 10

may demonstrate that the adjustment represents the 11

maximum reduction that can reasonably be achieved. 12

And, DOE has re quested comments on 13

whether high costs shall be allowed as a 14

consideration in determining whether compliance is 15

technically impracticable, and if so, how that 16

should be done. We would like to solicit comments 17

up to this point. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 19

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 20

Yeah, I guess kind of a process issue is 21

if an Agency petitions the Secretary of Energy, 22

how, what does

-- does the Secretary of Energy have 23

2462

to

-- how q uickly does the Secretary of Energy have 1

to render a decision on those Petitions? 2

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

respond. 4

MS. BUNCH: No, I'll scale

-- 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Saralyn Bunch. 6

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

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

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

the Department needs to respond to that. So, 10

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

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

these downward adjustments would be appreciated. 13

Chris, do you have anything to add? 14

MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita. 15

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

Saralyn has said, if Agencies had, could provide 17

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

for design and for construction, and if they were 19

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

what would be, I guess, a, a maximum amoun t of time 21

that the Department could review these without, I, 22

I guess,

-- 23

2463

MS. BUNCH: Impacting. 1

MR. CALAMITA:

-- negatively impacting 2

the normal design and construction schedules? 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Seve ral questions 4

in this comment box. 5

How someone might demonstrate maximum 6

reductions, higher costs, whether be allowed in 7

consideration of whether compliance is technically 8

impracticable, and then the final one is about 9

additional tr aining. 10

MR. CALAMITA: This is Chris Calamita. 11

I apologize. Do I understand the 12

question as essentially: What would an Agency need 13

to make a showing to the Secretary? 14

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

demonstrate that the adjustment is, represents the 16

maximum reduction that can be reasonably achieved? 17

So, basically, how do they demonstrate? 18

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

So, basically, what, what type of stu ff 20

would be required to demonstrate that? And, and 21

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

(sic) overall defining factor. 23

2464

MR. CALAMITA: As far as what Agencies 1

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

provide spe cific criteria or specific documentation 3

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

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

very site

- specific demonstrations. 6

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

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

also be an issue related to the availability of the 9

technologies, and the costs associated with 10

bringing those technologies in, and how that cost 11

would negatively impact the mix of the agency and 12

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

building within that mission. 14

And this would not necessarily be a 15

one

- time

- only submission. They submit; the 16

Secretary reviews, or the Department reviews. 17

There's nothing preventing us going with 18

the back

- and

- forth to get additional information. 19

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

based on their experience in having buildings 21

designed and constructed for the purpose of the 22

mission, what type of information would they 23

2465

anticipate submitting. 1

And we would appreciate that as 2

comments. 3

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

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

adjustments are based on the functional needs of 6

the buildin g. So, they are specific to the 7

building. 8

They're not umbrella downward 9

adjustments. This

-- We would be looking at, we 10

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

of a building as opposed to an umbrella. 12

That

-- We do not include the umbrella 13

adjustment option. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Saralyn. 15

Other comments on this series of comment 16

boxes from the Department? 17

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

response was had.) 19

MS. APPEL: DOE welcomes written 20

comments on the proposed Rule. Comments must be 21

submitted no later than December fourteenth, 2010. 22

On the "Subject" line of all comments 23

2466

please include the information shown on the screen : 1

Docket Number EERA dash

- 2010 dash

- BT dash

- STD 2

dash

- 0031; Regulatory ID RIN 1904

- AB96. 3

Comments should be e

- mailed to the 4

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

courier to the Brenda Edwards at the address on the 6

screen. 7

Thank you very much. Are there any 8

comments on the information presented before we 9

open the Hearing to your comments? 10

STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS: 11

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

It's typical in these public meetings to provide 13

another opportunity, once the substantive material 14

has been covered, for anybody that wishes to make 15

additional comments or raise additional relevant 16

issues, to do that now. 17

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

comments. Steve Rosenstock. 19

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 20

Edison Electric Institute. 21

I'd like to thank the Department for 22

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

2467

want federal buildings to be more efficient. 1

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

for the taxpayers. 3

And we just want to make sure that the 4

numbers that are being used are realistic and 5

achievable and supportable, and we're very worried 6

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

are going to make many suggestions in our written 8

comments. 9

And we hope that our comments will be, 10

will be looked at and hopefully modifications can 11

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

going forward. 13

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

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

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

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

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

appeared on the web site at regulations.gov. 19

And I really wanted to compliment the 20

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

comments were posted within a few days of the 22

comment period being closed. And that's a re al 23

2468

paradigm shift, because I just remember several 1

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

would have to write a letter to the Department and 3

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

copies, and pay for the copies. 5

And I realty, I wanted to praise the 6

Department for posting all the comments at 7

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

open and transparent process for all stakeholders. 9

Thank you very much. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Th ank you very much. 11

MS. APPEL: Thank you very much for your 12

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

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

your rationale. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Other closing remarks? 16

Additional issues that anybody here present wishes 17

to make? 18

Andrew. 19

MR. SOTO: Andrew Soto, American Gas 20

Association. 21

I just want to say that we do intend to 22

submit written comments, and largely supportive of 23

2469

the Department's efforts to incorporate source 1

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

more detailed comments in that regard. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 4

Emma? Emma Cheuse, from Earthjustice. 5

MS. CHEUSE: Thank you. Emma Cheuse, 6

from Earthjustice. 7

We also plan to submit comments, and 8

appreciate the Department's careful attention to 9

this important requirement. We have just one 10

question, which would assist stakeholders and 11

members of, of the public interested in considering 12

the effects of this Rule. 13

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

Department is looking at data on the number of new 15

buildings and renovations that are likely and 16

projected to be cover ed by this Rule, and including 17

that in its analysis on issues like construction 18

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

That would be very helpful information, 20

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

Docket to review. And that follows up on another 22

comment on that question, but it would be extremely 23

2470

helpful to understand the number of projected new 1

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

Any level of detail would be useful. We 3

also would follow that up on just encouraging the 4

Department to make information of this type 5

publicly available, and just to help improve 6

transparency and encourage improved decision

- making 7

and feedback in this process from everythin g 8

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

adjustment process, to just providing this kind of 10

information as well. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 12

MS. CHEUSE: Thank you. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 14

Additional comments? 15

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

response was had.) 17

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? 18

Okay. 19

So, then I think we have finished with 20

the material that we intended to cover in the 21

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

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

2471

back to Saralyn, then, or Margo for closing 1

remarks. 2

CLOSING REMARKS: 3

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

everyone once again for coming, and a reminder that 5

the comment period does close December fourteenth. 6

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

approximately one month away for all of those. 8

We do appreciate documentation, 9

supportin g documentation, and we will be looking at 10

that at the close of the comments and throughout 11

the period. And thank you all. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 13

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

Public Meeting was concluded.) 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23