48152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

TABLE 5.1—TEST LOAD SIZES—Continued 

Container volume Minimum load Maximum load Average load 

cu. ft. liter 

lb kg lb kg lb kg 

≥ < ≥ < 

4.80–4.90 135.9–138.8 3.00 1.36 19.90 9.02 11.45 5.19 

4.90–5.00 138.8–141.6 3.00 1.36 20.30 9.20 11.65 5.28 

5.00–5.10 141.6–144.4 3.00 1.36 20.70 9.39 11.85 5.38 

5.10–5.20 144.4–147.2 3.00 1.36 21.10 9.58 12.05 5.47 

5.20–5.30 147.2–150.1 3.00 1.36 21.50 9.76 12.25 5.56 

5.30–5.40 150.1–152.9 3.00 1.36 21.90 9.95 12.45 5.65 

5.40–5.50 152.9–155.7 3.00 1.36 22.30 10.13 12.65 5.75 

5.50–5.60 155.7–158.6 3.00 1.36 22.80 10.32 12.90 5.84 

5.60–5.70 158.6–161.4 3.00 1.36 23.20 10.51 13.10 5.93 

5.70–5.80 161.4–164.2 3.00 1.36 23.60 10.69 13.30 6.03 

5.80–5.90 164.2–167.1 3.00 1.36 24.00 10.88 13.50 6.12 

5.90–6.00 167.1–169.9 3.00 1.36 24.40 11.06 13.70 6.21 

Notes: (1) All test load weights are bone dry weights. 

(2) Allowable tolerance on the test load weights are ±0.10 lbs (0.05 kg). 

IV. Summary and Request for 

Comments 

Through today’s notice, DOE 

announces receipt of Samsung’s petition 

for waiver from certain parts of the test 

procedure that apply to clothes washers 

and grants an interim waiver to 

Samsung. DOE is publishing Samsung’s 

petition for waiver in its entirety 

pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The 

petition contains no confidential 

information. The petition includes a 

suggested alternate test procedure to 

measure the energy consumption of 

clothes washers with capacities larger 

than the 3.8 cubic feet specified in the 

current DOE test procedure. DOE is 

interested in receiving comments from 

interested parties on all aspects of the 

petition, including the suggested 

alternate test procedure and any other 

alternate test procedure. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), 

any person submitting written 

comments to DOE must also send a copy 

to the petitioner, whose contact 

information is included in the 

ADDRESSES section above. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

June 20, 2011 

Dr. Henry Kelly, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Re: Petition for Waiver and Application for 

Interim Waiver, Clothes Washers 

Capacity Greater than 3.8 Cubic Feet 

Dear Assistant Secretary Kelly: Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., a subsidiary of 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), 

respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver 

and Application for Interim Waiver to the 

Department of Energy (DOE) for the testing of 

clothes washers with capacity greater than 

3.8 cubic feet. 

The 10 CFR Part 430.27(a)(1) allows a 

person to submit a petition to waive for a 

particular basic model any requirements of 

§ 430.23 upon the grounds that the basic 

model contains one or more design 

characteristics which either prevent testing of 

the basic model according to the prescribed 

test procedures, or the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic model in 

a manner so unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate comparative 

data. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 430.27(b)(2) 

allows an applicant to request an Interim 

Waiver if economic hardship and/or 

competitive disadvantage is likely to result 

absent a favorable determination on the 

Application for Interim Waiver. 

Reasoning 

In order to meet current market demands, 

Samsung designed and will be marketing 

clothes washers with capacities greater than 

3.8 cubic feet. Samsung expects that the 

majority of Samsung clothes washers will be 

greater than 3.8 cubic feet in capacity. The 

current test procedure, Appendix J1 to 

Subpart B of Part 430, Table 5.1, does not 

contain load sizes for capacities greater than 

3.8 cubic feet, preventing Samsung from 

appropriately testing clothes washer models 

with capacity greater than 3.8 cubic feet. The 

Department recognized this test method 

deficiency in the Interim Waivers granted to 

Electrolux (76 FR 11440), LG (76 FR 11233), 

Whirlpool (75 FR 69653), General Electric (75 

FR 76968), and Samsung (76 FR 21881). 

The nature of this Application for Interim 

Waiver and Petition for Waiver does not 

differ from Samsung’s original Application 

for Interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver as 

published in 75 FR 57937. 

Conclusion 

Samsung requests that DOE expeditiously 

grants the requested waiver for our Samsung 

clothes washer, model WF501***. This 

request is based upon the grounds that: 

1. Current test methods for clothes washers 

do not allow testing of clothes washers with 

greater than 3.8 cubic feet capacity. 

2. DOE has already granted Samsung an 

Interim Waiver in 75 FR 57937, per Table 5.1, 

for similar models. 

Affected Persons 

Primarily affected persons in the clothes 

washers category include Alliance Laundry 

Systems, LLC., BSH Home Appliances Corp., 

Electrolux Home Products, Fisher & Paykel 

Appliances, Inc., GE Appliances, Haier 

America Trading, L.L.C., LG Electronics Inc., 

Miele Appliances, Inc., and Whirlpool 

Corporation. Samsung will notify all these 

entities as required by the Department’s rules 

and provide them with a version of this 

Petition. A copy was also provided to the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM). 

Sincerely, 

Michael Moss, 

Director of Corporate Environmental Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20015 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–NOA– 

0049] 

Commercial Building Asset Rating 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) seeks 

to develop a voluntary National Asset 

Rating Program for Commercial 

Buildings (AR Program). The AR 

Program would establish an Asset 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48153 

Rating system for commercial buildings 

based on a national standard and would 

evaluate the physical characteristics and 

as-built energy efficiency of these 

buildings. It would also identify 

potential energy efficiency 

improvements. The goal is to facilitate 

cost-effective investment in energy 

efficiency and reduce energy use in the 

commercial building sector. DOE seeks 

comments and information related to 

the development of the AR Program. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

September 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0049, by 

any of the following methods. Your 

response should be limited to 3 pages. 

• E-mail: to AssetRatingRFI–2011– 

NOA–0049@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE– 

2011–BT–NOA–0049 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011– 

BT–NOA–0049, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Mr. Cody 

Taylor, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–287–5842. E-mail: 

Cody.Taylor@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department seeks to develop a 

voluntary AR Program. The AR Program 

would establish an Asset Rating system 

for commercial buildings based on a 

national standard and would evaluate 

the physical characteristics and as-built 

energy efficiency of these buildings. It 

would also identify potential energy 

efficiency improvements. The goal is to 

facilitate cost-effective investment in 

energy efficiency and reduce energy use 

in the commercial building sector. The 

Asset Rating is intended to complement 

other building rating and benchmarking 

tools in the market, DOE’s Better 

Building Challenge (in which partners 

will commit to an energy savings 

pledge, assess the improvement 

opportunities across their portfolio, 

undertake a showcase building retrofit, 

and share their progress), and DOE’s 

partnership with the Appraisal 

Foundation (which would enable 

investors, building owners and 

operators, and others to accurately 

assess the value of energy efficiency as 

part of the overall building appraisal). 

The AR Program will inform building 

owners about the energy efficiency of 

their buildings, enabling comparison of 

the energy performance between 

buildings while controlling for 

differences in building operations and 

occupant behavior. The AR Program 

will also identify opportunities for costeffective improvements in the building 

systems to increase energy efficiency. 

Voluntary green building rating 

systems and ENERGY STAR Portfolio 

Manager have been used to varying 

degrees in the building industry to 

demonstrate building sustainability and 

energy performance. For existing 

buildings, measured energy 

performance based on utility bill history 

has been the dominant way to rate 

building energy performance. However, 

when a complete and continuous utility 

history is missing (for example, a vacant 

or partly empty building or a multitenanted building), it becomes difficult 

to evaluate building energy 

performance. Moreover, building 

stakeholders don’t have a consistent 

basis for determining whether the 

energy use differences between two 

similar buildings are associated 

primarily with installed building 

systems or with operational choices. 

This information is important for 

building owners and investors when 

making decisions about efficiency 

improvement; it also informs 

prospective buyers and tenants who 

may want to compare among existing, 

new, and renovated buildings. 

Therefore, a national program would 

enable building stakeholders to directly 

compare as-built energy performance of 

building systems among similar 

buildings, regardless of occupant 

behavior and building operation. 

Recent regional Asset Rating 

initiatives, such as California’s AB 758 

and the Massachusetts Commercial 

Asset Labeling Program, indicate a 

growing interest in a national Asset 

Rating system. The AR Program would 

facilitate the evaluation of energyrelated building characteristics, which 

include building envelope, HVAC 

systems, lighting systems, and other 

major building service related 

equipment. The program would identify 

opportunities for energy efficiency 

improvements and estimate their likely 

savings. If communicated to potential 

buyers, lessees, and lenders, the Asset 

Rating would provide information 

necessary for the real estate market to 

value building energy efficiency 

measures. 

The Department has aggressive goals 

for facilitating cost-effective energy 

savings in commercial buildings, most 

recently stated in the Better Building 

Initiative as a goal of 20% savings by 

2020. Through the AR Program, the 

Department intends to establish a 

building Asset Rating system that can be 

broadly applied to both new and 

existing commercial buildings, and 

provide affordable and reliable 

information to building stakeholders. 

The Department intends the Asset 

Rating system to work with and 

complement the Portfolio Manager 

Operational Rating system, once the 

Asset Rating system is sufficiently 

demonstrated. Both of these systems 

could be expected to evolve over time, 

providing opportunities for increasing 

integration. An integrated Asset and 

Operational Rating together would 

provide a feedback loop and 

accountability for building owners and 

operators to ensure that their building is 

performing as intended and meeting its 

potential. An integrated system would 

also help building operators track the 

results of upgrades and identify 

potential operation and maintenance 

problems. The Asset Rating and 

Operational Rating would together 

comprise a national building rating 

system that effectively combines the asbuilt building efficiency with a gauge of 

operational success. 

This Request for Information (RFI) 

calls on stakeholders to review the 

considered approaches and provide 

information to assist the Department in 

the development and implementation of 

this program. DOE intends to adopt or 

develop standardized approaches to 

evaluate the potential energy efficiency 

of commercial buildings, provide 

strategies to help building owners 

improve building energy efficiency, and 

establish a framework to convey the 

information to audiences at various 

levels. This RFI presents the following 

aspects of the AR Program: 

• Market needs and opportunities. 

• Guiding principles for the program. 

• Options and approaches for key 

elements of the program. 

• Pros and cons of various 

approaches. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

• Initial proposed approach. 

• Additional work that the 

Department is considering. 

The RFI is structured as follows: 

(1) Program Overview. 

(2) Market Needs and Guiding 

Principles. 

(3) Target Audience and Building 

Types. 

(4) Basic Metrics. 

(5) Rating Methods. 

(6) Rating Scales. 

(7) Recommendations for 

Improvements. 

(8) National Commercial Building 

Energy Database. 

(9) Quality Assurance. 

(10) Potential for Additional 

Supported Options. 

(11) Glossary of Key Terms. 

(12) References. 

The Department will consider all 

input it receives and plans to have an 

initial program design available by the 

end of September 2011. Based on that 

program design, the Department expects 

to pilot the program in partnership with 

interested parties and ongoing 

commercial energy efficiency programs, 

beginning in January 2012. The 

Department welcomes input on issues 

or logistical concerns that could extend 

this timeframe. 

Program Overview 

Limited information on the expected 

efficiency of a building based on as-built 

building systems and opportunities for 

cost-effective energy efficiency 

improvements are identified barriers to 

energy efficiency investments. The 

Department seeks to address these 

barriers by establishing a standardized 

approach for assessing the energy 

performance of commercial building 

assets and developing an easy-to-use 

tool to help building owners and 

stakeholders identify opportunities for 

improvement. Accordingly, the AR 

Program, as considered, has three 

components: 

• A rating system to compute 

building energy efficiency and convey 

energy performance information, taking 

into account the building envelope, 

mechanical and electrical systems, and 

other major energy-using equipment. 

The Department intends to seek ways 

for the Asset Rating to be used in 

coordination with the Portfolio Manager 

Operational Rating to help building 

owners understand the opportunities for 

both capital and operational 

improvements in their buildings. 

• A Web application, included as part 

of a free Asset Rating online software 

tool (AR Tool), to maintain building 

data entered by building owners or 

operators and to analyze building 

energy use, accounting for envelope, 

mechanical and electrical systems, and 

other major energy-using equipment. 

This tool would provide an energy 

rating and enable owners and operators 

to benchmark their building efficiency. 

It would be used to provide an Asset 

Rating Report. 

• A second facet of the AR Tool, 

designed to help building owners and 

operators identify and implement 

strategies to improve efficiency of their 

buildings. In addition to receiving an 

Asset Rating, building owners and 

investors would be able to use the tool 

to analyze the potential for capital 

improvements to increase energy 

efficiency. The potential to improve and 

the potential energy savings would be 

included in the Asset Rating Report. 

DOE intends to support continuous 

improvement of energy efficiency by 

allowing buildings to be re-rated 

following a retrofit. 

Market Needs and Guiding Principles 

The AR Program is intended to enable 

building stakeholders to directly 

compare expected as-built energy 

performance among similar buildings 

and to analyze the potential for capital 

improvements to increase energy 

efficiency cost-effectively. It would give 

building stakeholders insight into a 

property’s long-term energy cost, thus 

informing their valuation of that 

building. The AR Tool would provide 

an as-built rating, identify potential 

energy efficiency improvements, and 

provide the anticipated rating resulting 

from those improvements, illustrating 

for stakeholders the impact of potential 

capital improvements. Research 

(McCabe, 2011; McKinsey, 2009) shows 

a need to communicate energy and cost 

savings to owners, investors, financiers, 

and others to overcome market barriers 

and motivate capital investment in 

building energy efficiency. 

The AR Program is intended to 

complement and coordinate with the 

existing Operational Rating system, 

ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. The 

Department is aware of other rating 

systems and standards that exist or are 

under development. These include but 

are not limited to ASHRAE Building EQ, 

LEED, Green Globes, ASTM Building 

Energy Performance Assessment, 

COMNET Commercial Buildings Energy 

Modeling Guidelines and Procedures. 

The Department will consider 

developments in these rating systems 

and standards as it creates a national 

Asset Rating system. 

The primary goal of the AR Program 

is to spur commercial building energy 

improvements in construction and/or 

retrofits, so the principles that guide the 

program are based on market needs. 

These guiding principles, which drive 

the key program elements, are as 

follows. 

• Information must be credible, 

reliable, and replicable. 

• Information must be transparent 

and easy to understand. 

• Collecting information and 

generating a rating must be affordable. 

• Opportunities identified must be 

relevant and practical. 

• Program must include effective 

quality assurance. 

• Rating must recognize building 

energy performance across the full range 

of building efficiency. 

The Department welcomes 

stakeholder comments on these guiding 

principles as the framework for the 

development of the program. 

Target Audience and Building Types 

The AR Program is aimed at a variety 

of building stakeholders—owners, 

operators, investors, tenants, appraisers, 

and designers. It may also inform 

lenders, local government, utilities, and 

green building rating systems. 

Considering the variety of audiences, 

the AR Program would provide an easyto-understand rating that can convey 

building energy efficiency information 

to those in the general public who have 

no knowledge of building efficiency. 

The AR Tool would also provide 

technical information and identify 

opportunities for improvements to 

building professionals who would be 

implementing the recommendations. 

The Department seeks to develop an 

affordable system that provides a useful 

rating with minimal data collection. The 

Department is considering a two-tiered 

program. The first tier would yield a 

preliminary rating and identified 

opportunities for building 

improvements, as well as an estimate of 

the savings from the improvements. The 

preliminary rating of building efficiency 

would be based on minimum building 

information. The second tier would 

provide a certified rating after a 

qualified professional has validated the 

building information (see Quality 

Assurance section). The preliminary 

rating would give users rapid feedback 

on building efficiency and improvement 

opportunities; the second tier rating 

would be appropriate for the 

communicating the performance of the 

building to others. 

The AR Tool is not intended to 

replace any engineering analysis needed 

for building retrofits, but to provide 

building owners and operators with a 

quick, easy, affordable tool based on a 

national standard. The AR Tool would 

be designed for users who have basic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48155 

knowledge of building systems, such as 

building engineers, facility managers, or 

contractors. Assistance from 

credentialed or third party AR certifiers 

would only be needed to receive a 

certified rating. The Department intends 

to work with interested parties, 

including state and local governments, 

utilities, and energy service companies, 

to develop ways to use the AR Program 

to promote market transformation. 

Because of the different levels of 

complexity due to building type and 

size, the AR Tool development will first 

focus on building types that generally 

have simpler building systems and have 

adequate information sources to 

establish a reliable rating system. These 

building types include office, school, 

retail, warehouse, and assembly. In 

time, other building types will be 

added, including data center, laboratory, 

refrigerated warehouse, health care, 

lodging, food sale, food service, and 

mixed use buildings. 

Basic Metrics 

A building’s expected energy 

performance can be described in a 

variety of ways, including (1) Energy 

use; (2) energy cost; or (3) greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with the 

building’s energy use. The Department 

is considering several options for 

representing building energy 

performance, as described below. 

Energy Metric—Source or Site Energy 

Use 

An energy metric is the most 

straightforward way to represent 

building energy performance. Three 

building energy metrics to be 

considered are site energy use, net 

onsite energy use, and source energy 

use. Site energy use can be directly 

calculated using the sum of electricity 

natural gas and any other fuels used. If 

renewable energy is generated onsite, 

the expected energy generation and net 

energy use can also be calculated. Using 

a source energy metric requires the use 

of a conversion factor to convert site 

electricity use to a source equivalent, 

which would allow consumers to more 

equitably consider all fuel types and the 

environmental consequences of 

electricity generation. Although site 

energy is most closely related to the 

values that customers see on their 

energy bills for each fuel type, using 

source energy as a metric more closely 

reflect the cost tradeoffs among different 

fuels and the long-term cost 

implications of different energy choices. 

Regional source-to-site conversion 

factors vary and the offsite generation 

mix is generally not controlled by the 

consumer. Although regional source 

conversion factors more accurately 

represent actual energy use, a national 

conversion factor allows comparison 

across the nation and ensures that a 

building does not receive a relatively 

low rating just because of its location. 

The Department plans to use source 

energy with a national source-to-site 

conversion factor as the basic metric 

because source energy can most 

accurately represent total energy use of 

a building and the related 

environmental impacts. Also, using 

source energy makes the Asset Rating 

system compatible with ENERGY STAR 

Portfolio Manager, which adopted 

source energy as its basic metric. Source 

energy use is familiar to building 

owners and operators who have been 

using Portfolio Manager or other 

building rating systems relying on 

Portfolio Manager. The Department 

welcomes stakeholder comments on the 

energy metric for Asset Rating. 

Cost Metric 

Consumers are generally more 

familiar with cost metrics. However, 

energy costs for commercial buildings 

vary considerably in different parts of 

the country and change over time, 

including over the course of the day. 

Without much more specific 

information about a building’s 

operations and its time-dependent perunit energy prices, energy cost does not 

provide a durable, comparable metric 

upon which to base a rating. A cost 

metric alone cannot directly be used to 

judge building energy performance or 

guide building owners’ investment 

decisions. 

For the above reasons, the Department 

does not intend to choose cost 

information as the primary metric for 

the program. However, the Department 

is exploring how to use cost information 

to assess opportunities to improve 

building energy efficiency and describe 

the likely cost savings associated with 

these improvements. Though the actual 

Asset Rating would not be affected by 

energy or equipment costs, both of these 

costs may be used to perform a life cycle 

cost analysis, the results of which could 

be used to propose opportunities for 

cost-effective energy savings. 

Greenhouse Gas Metric 

Energy use significantly contributes to 

greenhouse gas emissions, and the AR 

Program would provide an opportunity 

to educate consumers and help them 

reduce their emissions. Using a 

greenhouse gas metric as the primary 

program metric would most closely link 

the Asset Rating to associated 

environmental impact. However, the 

primary focus of the AR program is costeffective energy efficiency 

improvements, which is not perfectly 

aligned with a greenhouse gas metric. 

As noted by the Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships using a 

greenhouse gas metric can ‘‘confuse the 

existence of non-carbon power 

sources—including large hydropower 

and nuclear power—with actual energy 

savings.’’ (Dunsky, et al, 2009). 

Therefore, the Department does not 

intend to choose greenhouse gas 

information as the primary metric for 

the program. However, the Department 

is exploring ways to support greenhouse 

gas information as an optional element 

of the program based on a partner’s 

interest. 

Initial Approach: The Department 

intends to use source energy use 

intensity as the primary performance 

metric. Onsite renewable energy 

generation may be recognized, but 

separately from the rating calculation. 

The Department welcomes stakeholder 

comments on the above metrics. 

Rating Methods 

Various rating methods are possible. 

All methods share some characteristics, 

such as: 

• A data collection phase in which 

the user defines key building 

characteristics. 

• An energy use prediction phase. 

• A comparison/rating phase. 

For the data collection phase, the user 

would enter the characteristics of the 

building being examined; these values 

would then be used in conjunction with 

a set of default building characteristics 

to develop the required inputs for the 

energy use prediction phase. The user 

inputs would fall into six broad 

categories: 

• General characteristics (use type, 

location, age, available fuels, etc.). 

• Design characteristics (geometry, 

orientation, window to wall ratio, 

structure type, etc.). 

• Envelope elements (window types, 

wall constructions, roof constructions, 

etc.). 

• HVAC system characteristics 

(technology used, fuel type, efficiency, 

etc.). 

• Lighting system characteristics 

(lamp type, numbers of lights, sensors 

and controls, etc.). 

• Service hot water (fuel type, 

efficiency, storage capacity, etc.). 

In addition to the above user inputs, 

a set of internal values would be used 

in the analysis. The internal values are 

based purely on a building’s use type 

and would be held constant across all 

models of buildings with similar 

functions. This set of inputs primarily 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

consists of the occupancy and operation 

parameters, such as: 

• Occupancy schedule. 

• HVAC system operation. 

• Hot water use. 

Both the user-entered and the 

internally defined, fixed building 

characteristics would be combined to 

develop the inputs for a building energy 

use prediction tool. 

Several potential methods for 

predicting a building’s energy use are 

being considered, including: 

• Pre-simulating large numbers of 

buildings and using interpolation to 

customize the results to an individual 

case. 

• Detailed energy simulation. 

• Simplified energy simulation. 

Each of the above methods has unique 

strengths and potential issues. Selecting 

the correct method will require tradeoffs 

between flexibility, accuracy, and the 

end-user’s time investment in data 

collection. 

In the case of a pre-simulation 

methodology, the benefits are relative 

ease of use and a level of complexity 

that can be highly tailored to the needs 

of the asset rating methodology. Once 

deployed, this approach is less flexible 

than approaches that use real time 

modeling because each possible 

combination of building attributes must 

be predicted and modeled beforehand. 

For each additional building input 

characteristic that the end-user can 

control, the number of required models 

is greatly increased. Depending on the 

level of effort required per model, it 

could be challenging to implement this 

approach with enough granularity to 

provide useful results. 

There is a wide range of building 

energy modeling tools, each with 

different strengths and weaknesses, 

including differing levels of input and 

output detail, required development 

time, and expected user expertise. Most 

one-off energy models are highly 

detailed to allow the inclusion of all of 

a building’s unique characteristics. 

Using a detailed modeling approach to 

formulate an asset rating would most 

likely provide the greatest flexibility 

and accuracy. Such a tool would, 

however, require a substantial amount 

of development time and would still 

likely require a professional building 

energy modeler to use properly—though 

with greater development time some of 

the expertise requirements could be 

overcome. 

Simplified analysis models use many 

simplifications and assumptions that 

allow an inexperienced user to quickly 

develop robust energy models. In 

general, these modeling tools allow 

fewer input combinations than a 

detailed model and will reduce 

opportunities for error. The primary 

drawback of a purpose-built simplified 

simulation model would be user 

concern about the accuracy of the 

results. 

Whichever rating calculation method 

is selected, the required outputs would 

be the same. The Department intends to 

select one or more metrics (see Basic 

Metrics section) to be the primary 

output of modeling. The metric(s) 

would allow for both the placement of 

the subject building onto a rating scale 

(as defined in Rating Scales section) and 

the comparison of the building with 

similar buildings. 

The Department welcomes 

stakeholder comments on the rating 

calculation methods. 

Rating Scales 

There are several ways to deliver 

building energy performance 

information to consumers. Various types 

of scales have been used in the existing 

building rating systems. The following 

is a discussion of the different methods 

and their applicability to the Asset 

Rating system. 

Numeric Scale Reflecting Physical Units 

This scale method represents a certain 

type of physical unit. For example, the 

EnergyGuide label found on household 

appliances uses a physical scale 

(supplemented with cost information), 

such as kilowatt hours per year in the 

case of refrigerators supplemented with 

the expected annual cost of the 

particular refrigerator. The miles-pergallon (MPG) rating displayed on new 

vehicles is another example of using 

non-converted physical units to convey 

information. The physical units can 

transparently deliver the technical 

information to the consumers; however, 

consumers may be unable to judge if 

they are unfamiliar with the units. 

Unlike cost or MPG rating for vehicles, 

energy units such as kBtu/ft 2 do not 

convey enough information to most 

audiences without engineering or 

energy knowledge. The Asset Rating 

aims to promote market transformation 

and educate consumers, and an absolute 

energy scale could be challenging for 

the general public to interpret. In 

addition, an unprocessed numeric scale 

does not offer a comparison between a 

building and its peers, which is a 

desirable comparison because 

consumers are often motivated by how 

they compare to others. 

Numeric Scale Converting Physical 

Units into Score System 

This rating method converts a metric 

from physical units into a score or 

index, which may be more easily 

understood by consumers. ENERGY 

STAR Portfolio Manager, for example, 

converts energy use in commercial 

buildings into a score on a 100-point 

scale. The Home Energy Rating System 

(HERS) scale, used primarily for new 

homes, also converts energy units into 

an index, where 100 represents a home 

built to 2006 International Energy 

Conservation Code standards. 

The scores can be calculated using 

either a percentile rank method or an 

interval method. ENERGY STAR 

Portfolio Manager uses a 100 point 

percentile rank scale based on 

supporting databases, which provide 

statistical representation of a given 

building type. This approach is not 

appropriate for the Asset Rating because 

there is no reliable database recording 

the efficiency of existing buildings. In 

addition, the AR Program is intended to 

provide information on expected energy 

use (and energy costs) and effective 

energy efficiency strategies across all 

buildings. A percentile rank scale does 

not accomplish this objective 

throughout the entire range of the scale. 

In particular, the high efficiency—on an 

absolute basis—of the most efficient 

buildings is not fully reflected. 

An alternative is a 100-point interval 

scale. Use of a 100 point scale would 

have some consistency with ENERGY 

STAR Portfolio Manager. An advantage 

of a 100-point interval scale is that the 

rating system can recognize building 

efficiency and building efficiency 

improvements in a similar manner at all 

efficiency levels. DOE is also 

considering a simpler numeric scale, 

similar to the 10-point scale used by the 

Home Energy Score (http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

homeenergyscore/). A 10-point scale 

does not imply the same degree of 

precision as a 100-point scale. In this 

sense, a 10-point system, although a 

numeric score, functions as a bin 

system, which is discussed in the next 

section. 

Categorical Scale Assigning Physical 

Units Into Bins 

The physical units can also be 

converted into a category system, which 

could be presented in letters, numbers, 

stars, or other symbols. It has been 

shown that categorical scales, compared 

with continuous numeric scales, lead to 

better comprehension because 

‘‘categorical ratings are easy to use and 

quick to decipher’’ (Thorne and Egan, 

2002a). Viewers can more easily gauge 

a building’s performance relative to 

other buildings or a reference point. 

Categorical ratings using letter grades 

have been used in multiple building 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 48157 

rating systems such as ASHRAE 

Building Energy Quotient and the UK 

Display Energy Certificate. A rating 

system based on letter grading is also a 

common format for several countries in 

the European Union, although the 

meaning of each grade could be very 

different across regions. A series of 

studies on the EnergyGuide label has 

demonstrated that consumers favor a 

stars-based format because it is familiar 

and intuitive, while check marks or 

letter grades are more confusing (Thorne 

and Egan, 2002b). 

While stars and grades simplify things 

for consumers, a binned system also has 

drawbacks. Using a binned system can 

appear qualitative. Including a reference 

value can help alleviate this weakness. 

The number of bins is also important. 

Too many bins may complicate the 

system, while too few bins can make it 

hard for a building to improve from one 

bin to the next, and not be appropriately 

reflective of the investments made and 

the savings being achieved. 

With a well-defined bin range, a 

categorical system would allow easy 

distinction between the categories and 

allow quick comparison between 

buildings as well as changes within a 

building category as improvements are 

made. Star ratings are visually 

appealing, motivating, and quickly draw 

attention. Thorne and Egan’s (2002b) 

research also suggested ‘‘consumers 

found the stars rating system 

complementary with the ENERGY STAR 

label and certification.’’ The 

shortcoming of a stars-based format is 

that the number of stars needs to be 

limited. More than six stars may make 

it difficult for viewers to recognize the 

value quickly. In this case, a numeric 

format (10-point scale) becomes 

advantageous. 

Initial Approach: For the Asset Rating 

system, the Department is considering 

using a scale using physical units, 

possibly accompanied by a numeric 

interval scale. A 100-point interval scale 

would complement Portfolio Manager’s 

100-point range. The Department 

welcomes stakeholder comments on 

rating scales. 

The Department is considering 

including the following basic building 

information on the Asset Rating Report 

to ensure that similar buildings are used 

for comparison: 

• Building name. 

• Year built. 

• Climate zone. 

• Building type. 

• Year rating is issued. 

• Report serial number (for tracking 

purposes). 

Analysis results would be clearly 

displayed and formatted for easy 

reading and understanding, and would 

include: 

• Calculated energy use. 

• Building Asset Rating based on 

calculated energy use. 

• Asset Rating that can be achieved 

with energy efficiency upgrades. 

• Energy and cost savings associated 

with the higher achieved rating. 

Additional information may also be 

provided in the future, such as: 

• A reference point to help users 

understand how their building score 

compares to a chosen energy code. 

• Indication of whether the building 

has systems to provide a certain amount 

of energy from onsite renewables. 

• Greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Department is also considering 

working with interested partners to 

include local benchmark information on 

the Asset Rating Report for comparison. 

For example, a state might wish to 

include information pertaining to 

average asset ratings for a particular 

building type within the state. The 

Department welcomes stakeholder 

comments on the information included 

on the Asset Rating Report. 

Identified Opportunities for Energy 

Efficiency Improvements 

Based on the building information, 

the AR Tool would identify potential 

opportunities for energy efficiency 

upgrades that could cost-effectively 

improve a building’s asset rating. 

The AR Tool would identify 

improvement opportunities in areas 

such as heating, cooling, and ventilation 

equipment; envelope; glazing; service 

hot water; lighting; and electric motors. 

The AR Tool is not intended to 

replace energy audits or any engineering 

analysis required for building retrofits. 

It is intended to provide an affordable 

way for building owners and operators 

to determine which building systems 

are good candidates for an efficiency 

upgrade. The tool may be a gateway for 

building owners who have limited 

internal resources to engage with service 

providers who can provide building 

rating with the AR tool and offer 

products and services that can improve 

energy performance. 

Initial Approach: The Department is 

considering computing cost savings 

estimates for energy efficiency measures 

based on regional energy costs, 

acknowledging that local conditions 

will vary. The AR Tool will not display 

return on investment given that 

equipment and labor costs are likely to 

vary considerably. The Department 

welcomes public comments on the best 

way to assess opportunities for energy 

efficiency improvement. 

National Building Asset Rating 

Database 

The Department intends to establish a 

national building Asset Rating database 

to track Asset Ratings and ensure the 

legitimacy of ratings. The Department is 

aware of potential privacy issues related 

to maintaining this information and the 

desire for some jurisdictions to require 

disclosure of energy Asset Ratings. 

Public comments are welcome regarding 

structure and use of the Asset Rating 

database. 

Quality Assurance 

The ability to generate accurate and 

consistent information is important to 

maintain user confidence. The 

Department intends to include quality 

assurance requirements for the 

following: 

Asset Rating Tool 

The user would receive a warning 

when automated checks suggest that 

data entered may be incorrect or 

incomplete. 

Professional Requirements for Asset 

Rating Application 

Building owners would be able to use 

the free Web application to enter the 

required energy and building 

information, generate a preliminary 

building Asset Rating, and receive 

recommendations. The Department is 

considering requiring a professional 

with specific approved qualifications to 

validate building information inputs for 

a building to be eligible for a certified 

Asset Rating. The Department intends to 

develop a guideline to specify the 

credentials that a professional must 

hold in order to generate a certified 

rating. 

Third-Party Verification 

Third-party verification can be an 

effective way to ensure program quality. 

Some jurisdictions may want to require 

third-party verification of the accuracy 

of data used to acquire a certified rating. 

The third party may require building 

owners to submit supplemental building 

information and/or perform an onsite 

audit. The Department is evaluating 

options for implementing this type of 

requirement, including establishing 

verification standards and approving 

qualified third-party organizations. 

Verification data and reports may be 

integrated into the Asset Rating 

database, software tool, and reports. 

Technical Support 

Full documentation of the rating 

methodology would be available online 

for public review. A user manual, 

guidelines and eligibility requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Notices 

1Source: ConstructionDictionary.com, http:// 

www.construction-dictionary.com/definition/ 

energy-efficiency-measure-EEM.html. 

for the qualified professionals, data 

checklists, and FAQs would be available 

to owners and operators to applying for 

certified Asset Ratings. In addition, help 

for users would be available before, 

during, and after the application 

process. A user feedback survey may be 

implemented to help gauge program 

satisfaction and to gather suggestions for 

improvement. 

Initial Approach: The Department is 

considering ensuring the quality of the 

Asset Rating by providing a free Webbased application to guide standard data 

collection, calculate energy use, and 

generate ratings; requiring professionals 

to review final submissions; enabling 

third-party verification; and providing 

necessary technical support. Public 

comments on the quality assurance 

methods are welcome. 

Potential for Additional Supported 

Options 

While a national performance metric 

and rating system would help ensure 

consistency across the country, the 

Department recognizes that state and 

local governments and other program 

implementers may be interested in 

providing information that goes beyond 

the national metric and rating. 

To that end, the Department intends 

to partner with state and local 

governments to support the sharing of 

additional information as part of this 

effort. For example, while greenhouse 

gas information is unlikely to be a 

standard metric for the AR Program, the 

Department could provide conversion 

factors to states and other partners that 

are interested in providing such 

information. 

This document describes the major 

design questions that the Department is 

considering in developing a voluntary 

AR Program. DOE is seeking comments 

on the issues discussed above. However, 

stakeholders are welcome to raise other 

relevant issues that the Department may 

have overlooked in this design process. 

Glossary of Key Terms 

Asset Rating—An assessment of 

building energy performance that is 

based solely on a building’s physical 

assets, excluding the impacts of 

building operation characteristics. 

Asset Rating Report—A short form 

document showing only key outcomes 

for a building that has undergone the 

Asset Rating process. 

Baseline—The amount of energy that 

is consumed annually before 

implementation of energy efficiency 

measures based on historical metered 

data, engineering calculations, 

submetering of buildings or energyconsuming systems, building load 

simulation models, statistical regression 

analysis, or some combination of these 

methods. 

Benchmark—The building profile 

used as a reference point for comparing 

energy use and other performance 

characteristics. 

ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager—A 

Web-based, portfolio-wide energy and 

water tracking system that tracks many 

metrics of energy use- including total 

site energy, source energy, weather 

normalized energy use index, 

greenhouse gas emissions, indoor and 

outdoor water usage, and (for some 

building types) the ENERGY STAR 

score. 

ENERGY STAR energy performance 

scale—A 1–100 percentile rank score 

that indicates how a building performs 

relative to similar buildings nationwide. 

The scores are adjusted using 

standardized methods to account for 

differences in building attributes, 

operating characteristics, and weather 

variables. Buildings performing better 

than 75% of similar buildings can be 

certified to ENERGY STAR. 

Energy Efficiency Measure—A design, 

operation, or technology change for the 

purpose of reducing energy 

consumption.1

Net Onsite Energy Use—The sum of 

all energies that are consumed in a 

building minus any energy that is 

generated on site. 

Operational Rating—An assessment 

of building performance that is 

developed to reflect the energy 

performance of a building, accounting 

for its physical assets and its specific 

operational characteristics. 

Site Energy Use—The amount of 

energy consumed at a building location 

or other end-use site, as reflected in the 

utility bills. Includes electricity 

generated by onsite renewable energy 

systems. 

Source Energy Use—The total energy 

used at a site, including upstream losses 

in distribution, storage, and dispensing 

of primary fuels, or power generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity. 

Percentile Rank Scale—A percentile 

scale that is defined solely in relation to 

a sample population; the scale itself 

contains no information in absence of 

information regarding the specific 

sample population. The primary 

purpose of a percentile rank scale is 

comparison between peer buildings. 

Interval Scale—A scale for which 

each location along its span relates 

directly to some metric or measurement. 

References 

ASHRAE. 2009. Building Energy Quotient: 

Promoting the Value of Energy Efficiency in 

the Real Estate Market. Atlanta, GA. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers. http:// 

www.sustain-rhythm.com/ 

HPB%20Exchange/files/ 

Energy_ABELFinal.pdf. 

Dunsky, P., Lindberg, J., Piyale-Sheard, E., 

and Raesy, R. 2009 Evaluating Building 

Energy Efficiency Through Disclosure and 

Upgrade Policies, A Roadmap for the 

Northeast U.S. Lexington, KY. Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Dunsky 

Energy Consulting. 

Massachusetts Department of Energy 

Resources. 2010. An MPG Rating for 

Commercial Buildings: Establishing a 

Building Energy Asset Labeling Program in 

Massachusetts. Boston, MA. http://www.

mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/Energy_

Efficiency/Asset_Rating_White_Paper.pdf. 

McCabe, M.J. 2011 High-Performance 

Buildings—Value, Messaging, Financial and 

Policy Mechanisms. Richland, WA. Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory. 

McKinsey & Company. 2009. Unlocking 

Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy. New 

York, NY. McKinsey & Company, Inc. http:// 

www.mckinsey.com/en/Client_Service/

Electric_Power_and_Natural_Gas/Latest_

thinking/Unlocking_energy_efficiency_in_

the_US_economy.aspx. 

Thorne, J., and Egan, C. 2002a. An 

Evaluation of the Federal Trade 

Commission’s EnergyGuide Appliance Label: 

Final Report and Recommendations. 

Washington, DC: American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Thorne, J., and Egan, C. 2002b. The 

EnergyGuide Label: Evaluation and 

Recommendations for an Improved Design. 

Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on 

Buildings, Panel 8: 357. 

Disclaimer and Important Notes 

This is an RFI issued solely for 

information and program planning 

purposes; this RFI does not constitute a 

formal solicitation for proposals or 

abstracts. Your response to this notice 

will be treated as information only. DOE 

will not provide reimbursement for 

costs incurred in responding to this RFI. 

Respondents are advised that DOE is 

under no obligation to acknowledge 

receipt of the information received or 

provide feedback to respondents with 

respect to any information submitted 

under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do 

not bind DOE to any further actions 

related to this topic. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20014 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES