19974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

4See http://energy.gov/gc/downloads/guidanceex-parte-communications. 

III. Public Participation in the 

Development of DOE Proposals 

A. Stakeholder Input 

The public will have the following 

opportunities to provide DOE with 

input: 

1. Comments on posted proposals and 

2. Participation in public meetings. 

Public Comment on DOE Proposals: 

DOE intends to make information 

available to the general public as it 

comes available. As information will be 

updated continually throughout the 

process, interested parties are urged to 

closely monitor the DOE Building 

Energy Codes Program Web page and 

stakeholder mailing lists to remain 

current with DOE activities. As 

materials will be posted over an 

extended period of time, the Web site 

will provide additional instructions on 

submitting comments on DOE 

proposals, including associated 

comment deadlines. 

DOE will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register when its draft 

proposals and supporting materials 

begin to become available for public 

review. Note that DOE will not provide 

responses to individual public 

comments, but will consider all 

information received, and will 

incorporate all appropriate information 

into updated versions of its proposals. 

All DOE proposals and supporting 

documentation will be made available 

for review at http://

www.energycodes.gov/development. 

Participation in Public Meetings. DOE 

intends to convene one or more public 

meetings during each code cycle to 

present its proposals and supporting 

information, and to receive questions 

and feedback from interested and 

affected stakeholders. Such meetings 

will also be used to encourage and 

facilitate the free exchange of ideas, 

with the intent of improving proposals 

from all parties. DOE will both moderate 

and participate in these meetings. Note 

that DOE will not attempt to bring 

stakeholders to a consensus; rather 

DOE’s role will be to increase 

understanding of the concepts 

discussed. These meetings will also be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

B. Ex-Parte Guidance 

DOE anticipates that it or its 

contractors may be contacted regarding 

code concepts, ideas or change 

proposals prior to and during the code 

hearings. While DOE code change 

proposals submitted to the ICC are not 

regulations, DOE will follow its ex parte 

communication policy for such 

communications prior to the code 

hearings. DOE guidance on ex parte 

communications was published on 

January 21, 2009 (74 FR 4685).4 As 

described in the guidance, individuals 

or entities that communicate with DOE 

or its contractors prior to the code 

hearing must provide a memorandum 

summarizing the communication, which 

will be included in the public docket 

consistent with the ex parte guidance. 

During each ICC hearing process, DOE 

will maintain a published Web site 

containing submitted DOE proposals, 

which will also contain a link directed 

to the Web site and materials 

maintained by the ICC. DOE recognizes 

that the code development and public 

hearing process is based on processes 

established by the ICC, which do not 

constitute ex parte communications, 

and therefore, any discussions of the 

process at code hearings do not need to 

follow the guidance. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 

2015. 

David Cohan, 

Manager, Building Energy Codes Program, 

Building Technologies Office, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08599 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number EERE–2015–BT–BC–0001] 

Request for Information: Updating and 

Improving the DOE Methodology for 

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of 

Building Energy Codes 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is seeking input on how 

it may update and improve its 

methodology for assessing the costeffectiveness (which includes an energy 

savings assessment) of residential and 

commercial building energy codes. DOE 

is directed by statute to provide 

technical assistance to states to support 

the implementation of model building 

energy codes. As part of this role, DOE 

conducts national and state-level 

analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness 

of building energy codes and proposed 

changes. DOE is interested in feedback 

on its analysis methodology, preferred 

sources of cost data, and parameter 

assumptions surrounding its costeffectiveness assessment. In addition, 

DOE is seeking information on the 

general costs, benefits, and economic 

impacts associated with building energy 

codes. This notice identifies several 

areas where interested parties may 

provide suggestions, comments, and 

other information. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested by May 14, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must identify the 

docket number EERE–2015–BT–BC– 

0001 and may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

1. Regulations.gov: http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2015-BT-BC-0001. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: BCMethodology2015

BC0001@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE– 

2015–BT–BC–0001 in the subject line of 

the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards; 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Further instructions, including the 

use of topic identifiers, are provided in 

the Public Participation section of this 

notice. Comments submitted in 

response to this notice will become a 

matter of public records and will be 

made publicly available. 

Public Docket: The docket, which 

includes notices published in the 

Federal Register and public comments 

received, is available for review at 

Regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the Regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed 

in the index, such as those containing 

information exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found under Public Participation at: 

http://www.energycodes.gov/events. 

This Web page will also contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on 

Regulations.gov. The Regulations.gov 

site will contain instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review comments 

received, or otherwise participate in the 

public comment process, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586– 

2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 19975 

1McBride M.F., ‘‘Development of Economic 

Scalar Ratios for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 R,’’ in 

Proceedings of Thermal Performance of the Exterior 

Envelopes of Buildings VI, ASHRAE (presented at 

the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes 

of Buildings VI, ASHRAE, 1995), http://

consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/

901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf. 

Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

287–1941, Email: jeremiah.williams@

ee.doe.gov. 

For legal matters, contact: Kavita 

Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC–33, 

1000 Independence Ave SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 

586–0669, Email: kavita.vaidyanathan@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Analysis of Residential Buildings 

A. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating Energy Savings of Code 

Changes 

1. Prototypes 

2. Weather Locations 

B. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating the Cost-effectiveness of Code 

Changes 

III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings 

A. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating Energy Savings of Code 

Changes 

B. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Code 

Changes 

1. Property Tax Impact 

IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and 

Commercial Buildings 

A. Addressing Code Changes With 

Multiple Approaches to Compliance 

B. Economic Parameters and Inputs 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Information 

B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

I. Authority and Background 

Section 307(b) of the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act 

(ECPA, Pub. L. 102–486), as amended, 

directs DOE to support voluntary 

building energy codes by periodically 

reviewing the technical and economic 

basis of the voluntary building energy 

codes and to ‘‘seek adoption of all 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified energy efficiency 

measures; and . . . otherwise 

participate in any industry process for 

review and modification of such codes’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6836(b)(2) and (3)). DOE 

participates in the development of the 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC), maintained by the International 

Code Council (ICC) for residential and 

commercial buildings, and in the 

development of Standard 90.1, 

maintained by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for 

commercial buildings. 

This Request for Information (RFI) 

seeks public input on revisions to DOE’s 

established methodologies for assessing 

the cost-effectiveness of proposed 

changes to residential and commercial 

building energy codes and new editions 

of such codes. DOE has previously 

expressed interest in receiving 

information surrounding the costs and 

benefits associated with building energy 

codes (78 FR 47677 and 79 FR 27778). 

The current request for information will 

ensure that DOE is able to maintain 

appropriate means of evaluating the 

cost-effectiveness of building energy 

codes, including the selection of 

appropriate data sources and methods to 

analyze the economic impacts 

associated with code updates. This 

notice is intended to communicate 

relevant updates to the general public 

and solicit feedback on the specific 

analysis parameters subject to revision. 

In addition, this request provides a 

broader opportunity for input on DOE’s 

designated methods. DOE uses these 

methodologies to inform its 

participation in the update processes of 

the IECC, ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and 

other building energy codes—both in 

developing proposals and in assessing 

the proposals of others, when necessary. 

DOE also uses these methodologies in 

assessing the cost-effectiveness of new 

code editions. DOE evaluates energy 

codes and code proposals based on lifecycle cost analysis, accounting for 

energy savings, incremental investment 

for energy efficiency measures, and 

other economic impacts. 

The value of future savings and costs 

are discounted to a present value, with 

improvements deemed cost-effective 

when the net savings is positive. 

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a 

proposed code change or a newly 

revised code involves three primary 

steps: 

1. Estimating the energy savings of the 

changed code provision(s), 

2. estimating the first cost of the 

changed provision(s), and 

3. calculating the corresponding 

economic impacts of the changed 

provision(s). 

These steps are detailed in the 

established residential and commercial 

methodologies, as referenced later in 

this RFI (see the Analysis of Residential 

Buildings and Analysis of Commercial 

Buildings sections of this notice). The 

DOE methodologies for residential and 

commercial buildings have the same 

life-cycle cost basis and parallel one 

another closely. However, because there 

is variation in the economic criteria 

associated with different types of 

commercial building ownership, up to 

three scenarios may be used for 

commercial cost-effective analysis: 

• Scenario 1 (also referred to as the 

Publicly-Owned Method): Life-cycle cost 

analysis method representing 

government or public ownership 

(without borrowing or taxes). 

• Scenario 2: (also referred to as the 

Privately-Owned Method): Life-cycle 

cost analysis method representing 

private or business ownership (includes 

loan and tax impacts). 

• Scenario 3: (also referred to as the 

ASHRAE 90.1 Scalar Method 1): 

Represents a pre-tax private investment 

point of view, and uses economic inputs 

established by the ASHRAE 90.1 

Standing Standard Project Committee 

(SSPC). 

For the commercial methodology DOE 

is seeking public input only on the 

method and sources for parameters of 

Scenario 2, as the method and 

parameters for Scenario 1 are 

established by federal regulation, and 

the method and parameters for Scenario 

3 are established by the ASHRAE 90.1 

SSPC. DOE intends to continue to rely 

on Scenarios 1 and 3 since they are 

required for federal projects and 

addenda to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

respectively. 

In preparation for this RFI, DOE 

reviewed the established residential and 

commercial methodologies and is 

proposing revisions. These revisions are 

limited to minor clarifications and 

attempts to streamline certain portions; 

the overall methodology remains 

unchanged in terms of procedure and 

content. For brevity, only the proposed 

revisions to the methodologies are 

discussed here; the entire residential 

methodology and commercial 

methodology are available for review, as 

referenced below (see Analysis for 

Residential Buildings and Analysis for 

Commercial Buildings sections of this 

notice) and are not published in full 

within the current RFI. 

II. Analysis of Residential Buildings 

The focus of this section of the RFI is 

residential buildings, which DOE 

defines in a manner consistent with the 

IECC—one- and two-family dwellings, 

townhouses, and low-rise (three stories 

or less above grade) multifamily 

residential buildings. DOE previously 

established a methodology for assessing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

2Taylor, T, N. Fernandez, and R. Lucas. 2012. 

Methodology for Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of 

Residential Energy Code Changes. DOE EERE 

Building Energy Codes Program. Available at: 

www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/residential_methodology.pdf. 

3See: www.energycodes.gov/development/

residential/iecc_analysis. 

4See: www.energycodes.gov/residential-codechange-proposals-2015-iecc. 

5Mendon, V., and Z.T. Taylor. 2014. 

Development of Residential Prototype Building 

Models and Analysis System for Large-Scale Energy 

Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. 2014 

ASHRAE/IBPSA–USA Building Simulation 

Conference. Atlanta, GA. 

the cost-effectiveness of changes made 

to the residential building energy code 

through an RFI process published in the 

Federal Register on September 13, 2011 

(76 FR 56413). DOE took into 

consideration the information it 

received during the public comment 

period, and published the final 

methodology in 2012.2 This 

methodology, hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘established residential methodology,’’ 

was used for assessing cost-effectiveness 

of the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared 

with the 2006 IECC at the national and 

state levels,3 and in analyzing costeffectiveness of code change proposals 

developed by DOE for submission to the 

ICC in the development of the 2015 

IECC.4

A. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating Energy Savings of Code 

Changes 

The established methodology for 

estimating energy savings of residential 

code changes remains unchanged except 

for the following proposed revisions: 

1. Prototypes 

Single-family and multifamily 

residential building prototypes are used 

to assess the energy and cost impact of 

residential energy codes.5 Minor 

revisions are proposed to prototype 

building characteristics to better align 

them with current construction 

practices or simplify the energy 

modeling process. These characteristics 

are summarized in are summarized in 

are summarized in Table II.1 and Table 

II.2 with proposed changes indicated in 

italics (with the unchanged 

characteristics included to provide 

context). 

The first proposed change to the DOE 

residential building prototypes 

surrounds the assumption for ‘‘area 

below roofs/ceilings’’ for both singleand multifamily buildings. DOE 

proposes to modify the former value of 

70 percent with attic (and the remaining 

30 percent cathedral) to a revised value 

of 100 percent with attic. This change is 

intended to simplify the energy 

modeling process. The second proposed 

change focuses on the ‘‘internal gains’’ 

assumption for the single-family 

prototype, which is revised from a value 

of 91,436 Btu/day to 87,332 Btu/day. 

This change updates the previous 

assumption to align with Section 405 of 

the 2015 IECC. The third and final 

change modifies the ‘‘window area’’ 

assumption for the multifamily 

prototype, revised from a value of 14 

percent relative to conditioned floor 

area to 23 percent relative to exterior 

wall area not including breezeway 

walls. Note that the revised exterior wall 

area metric is the target of the change 

(i.e., not the actual quantity of window 

area), and is considered to better reflect 

typical multifamily building 

construction. 

DOE is seeking public input on these 

proposed revisions (Topic R01). Note 

that the non-revised content in the 

tables remains unchanged from the 

established methodology. 

TABLE II.1—SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS

Parameter Assumption 

Conditioned floor area .................... 2,400 ft2 (plus 1,200 ft2 of conditioned basement, where applicable). 

Footprint and height ........................ 30-ft-by-40 ft, two-story, 8.5-ft-high ceilings. 

Area above unconditioned space ... 1,200 ft2. 

Area below roofs/ceilings ................ 1,200 ft2, 100% with attic. 

Perimeter length .............................. 140 ft. 

Gross exterior wall area .................. 2,380 ft2. 

Window area (relative to conditioned floor area).Fifteen percent equally distributed to the four cardinal directions (or as required to evaluate glazing-specific 

code changes). 

Door area ........................................ 42 ft2. 

Internal gains .................................. 87,332 Btu/day. 

Heating system ............................... Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace. 

Cooling system ............................... Central electric air conditioning. 

Water heating .................................. Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes. 

Foundation type .............................. Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement. 

Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics. 

TABLE II.2—MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS

Parameter Assumption 

Conditioned floor area .................... 1,200 ft 2 per unit, or 21,600 ft 2 total (plus 1,200 ft 2 of conditioned basement on ground-floor units, where 

applicable). 

Footprint and height ........................ Each unit is 40 ft wide by 30 ft deep, with 8.5-ft-high ceilings. The building footprint is 120 ft by 65 ft. 

Area above unconditioned space ... 1,200 ft2 on ground-floor units. 

Wall area adjacent to unconditioned 

space.

None. 

Area below roofs/ceilings ................ 1,200 ft 2, 100% with attic on top-floor units. 

Perimeter length .............................. 370 ft (total for the building), 10 ft of which borders the open breezeway. 

Gross wall area ............................... 5,100 ft 2 per story, 2,040 ft 2 of which faces the open breezeway (15,300 ft 2 total). 

Window area (relative to exterior 

wall area not including breezeway walls).

23%. 

Door area ........................................ 21 ft2 per unit (378 ft2 total) 

Internal gains .................................. 54,668 Btu/day per unit (984,024 Btu/day total) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 19977 

TABLE II.2—MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS—Continued 

Parameter Assumption 

Heating system ............................... Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace. 

Cooling system ............................... Central electric air conditioning. 

Water heating .................................. Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes. 

Foundation type .............................. Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement. 

Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics. 

2. Weather Locations 

DOE will continue to draw from a set 

of 119 climate locations comprised of 

one representative location for each 

climate zone and moisture regime 

within each state. The overall set of 

climate locations are described in the 

established residential methodology. 

However, DOE is proposing to apply 

fewer climate locations when a subset of 

locations is sufficient for specific 

analyses, such as DOE has applied in 

the past as part of its analysis 

surrounding commercial buildings. 

In conducting national analyses, 

which tend to be less sensitive to 

regional variations in climates, DOE 

intends to utilize one representative 

weather location per climate zone, 

including a separate location for each 

moisture regime. This approach is 

intended to conserve time and 

computing resources in situations where 

regional variation does not significantly 

impact overall findings. In addition, 

DOE may apply this approach in 

performing analyses that are 

preliminary or limited in nature, such as 

in analyzing individual code change 

proposals. The simulation results will 

be weighted to the national level using 

weighting factors from the established 

methodology rolled up to the national 

climate zone level for consistency 

between the two schemes. For 

aggregating results across foundation, 

heating system and building types the 

method will be similar to the current 

approach, but with fewer discrete 

weather locations. 

A similar approach will be followed 

for state-level or other regional analyses, 

with DOE utilizing those climate 

locations (from the overall set) that are 

representative of the geographic area 

being analyzed. This selection will often 

include a number of distinct locations 

that adequately capture regional 

variation within the scope of the 

analysis, such as within a target state. In 

addition, the selection of locations in 

conducting state-level analyses may be 

modified based on what is deemed 

credible by the target audience. For 

analyses targeting a particular climate 

zone, results will be weighted using the 

regime weight within the climate zone. 

The weather locations and resulting 

overall location construction weights for 

the national climate zones are 

summarized in Table II.3. DOE is 

seeking public input on the 

appropriateness of using fewer weather 

stations for national and preliminary 

analysis (Topic R02). 

TABLE II.3—CLIMATE LOCATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL SCHEME WITH WEIGHTING FACTORS

Climate 

zone Moisture regime 

Representative location Regime 

weight 

within zone 

(%) 

Overall 

location 

weight 

(%) State City 

1 ............ Tropical ....................................... Hawaii ......................................... Honolulu ..................................... 42 0.5 

Moist ........................................... Florida ......................................... Miami .......................................... 58 0.7 

2 ............ Dry .............................................. Arizona ....................................... Phoenix ....................................... 10 2.1 

Moist ........................................... Texas .......................................... Houston ...................................... 90 18.4 

3 ............ Dry .............................................. Texas .......................................... El Paso ....................................... 30 7.9 

Marine ......................................... California .................................... San Francisco ............................ 5 1.3 

Moist ........................................... Tennessee .................................. Memphis ..................................... 65 16.9 

4 ............ Dry .............................................. New Mexico ................................ Albuquerque ............................... 2 0.6 

Marine ......................................... Oregon ........................................ Salem ......................................... 15 3.4 

Moist ........................................... Maryland ..................................... Baltimore .................................... 83 19.2 

5 ............ Dry .............................................. Idaho ........................................... Boise ........................................... 23 4.9 

Moist ........................................... Illinois .......................................... Chicago ...................................... 77 16.0 

6 ............ Dry .............................................. Montana ...................................... Helena ........................................ 18 1.2 

Moist ........................................... Vermont ...................................... Burlington ................................... 82 5.6 

7 ............ ..................................................... Minnesota ................................... Duluth ......................................... 100 1.3 

8 ............ ..................................................... Alaska ......................................... Fairbanks .................................... 100 0.0 

B. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of 

Code Changes 

DOE noticed typographical errors in 

two equations published in the 

established methodology where a term 

was not reproduced as intended. The 

corrected Equations 1 and 2 are 

included below (missing term is 

underlined): 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 

6Hart, R, and B. Liu. 2015. ‘‘Methodology for 

Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Commercial Energy 

Code Changes.’’ DOE EERE Building Energy Codes 

Program. Available at: www.energycodes.gov/

development/commercial/methodology. 

7See: www.energycodes.gov/development/

commercial/2015IECC. 

8See: http://www.energycodes.gov/development/

commercial/cost_effectiveness. 

DOE is not seeking public input on 

the changes to Equations 1 and 2. 

III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings 

The focus of this section of the RFI is 

commercial buildings, which DOE 

defines in a manner consistent with 

both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the 

IECC—buildings except one- and twofamily dwellings, townhouses, and lowrise (three stories or less above grade) 

multifamily residential buildings. DOE 

has developed a consistent and 

transparent methodology for assessing 

the cost-effectiveness of commercial 

code change proposals and for assessing 

the cost-effectiveness of new code 

versions.6 This methodology, hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘established 

commercial methodology,’’ was used for 

assessing cost-effectiveness of ASHRAE 

Standards 90.1–2010 and 90.1–2013 and 

in supplementing cost-effectiveness 

criteria of certain code change proposals 

developed by DOE for submission to the 

ICC in the development of the 2015 

IECC.7

A. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating Energy Savings of Code 

Changes 

ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has updated its 

representative cities based on changes 

in ASHRAE Standard 169–2013 

(Climatic Data for Building Design 

Standards), and has adopted the revised 

climate zones into ASHRAE Standard 

90.1. DOE has noted this change in the 

code, itself, as affecting DOE analysis. 

However, DOE is not seeking public 

comment on the use of the new 

representative cities for its analysis. 

B. Changes and Issues Related to 

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of 

Code Changes 

1. Property Tax Impact 

The proposed commercial 

methodology includes an adjustment to 

the life-cycle cost for the impact of 

property taxes. This is a change from the 

established commercial method that 

was used for the state cost-effectiveness 

analyses of ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 analysis.8 Under the revised 

commercial methodology, the property 

tax impact is proposed to be included in 

Scenario 2 life-cycle cost as follows: 

Where: 

PV(P) = present value of property tax net of 

federal income tax benefit 

C = incremental first costs 

RP = property tax rate 

Dr = real discount rate 

L = period of analysis 

RTF = income tax rate, federal 

This proposed change from prior 

commercial cost-effectiveness practice 

to include property tax impacts makes 

the commercial method more robust and 

further consistent with the residential 

method. DOE is seeking public input on 

the appropriateness of the addition of 

property tax impact analysis to Scenario 

2 of the cost-effectiveness methodology. 

(Topic C01). 

IV. Common Issues for Both Residential 

and Commercial Buildings 

There are common issues for both 

residential and commercial buildings 

related to cost estimate development 

when there are multiple paths to 

compliance and regarding the preferred 

sources of economic and other 

parameters. 

A. Addressing Code Changes With 

Multiple Approaches to Compliance 

As discussed in both methodologies, 

DOE anticipates that some new code 

provisions may have significantly 

different first costs depending on 

unrelated aesthetic choices or 

exceptions and flexibility options in the 

code. For example, a requirement for 

window shading could be met with 

interior blinds, electro-chromatic 

windows, static exterior shades, or an 

active tracking exterior shading system. 

Or, a reasonable window-to-wall ratio 

may be set as a baseline for standard 

efficiency heating, ventilation, and 

cooling (HVAC) equipment, and 

exceeding that ratio may require more 

expensive higher efficiency HVAC 

equipment. It has been suggested, for 

example, that a future code may replace 

or supplement independent prescriptive 

requirements with options expected to 

provide similar energy cost and 

performance. 

For any of these situations with 

multiple compliance paths, DOE 

intends to focus on the least-cost 

approach deemed to be effective and 

meet the code requirement rather than 

include the cost of niche or optional 

technology. For example, if there are 

multiple options available to comply 

with the code, and if one widely 

applicable and accepted option is found 

to be cost-effective, then the approach 

would be deemed cost-effective. This is 

because there is one cost-effective path 

through the code, and if a higher cost 

option is chosen, that is the developer 

or designer’s choice. 

Furthermore, some new code 

provisions may come with no specific 

construction changes at all, but rather be 

expressed purely as a performance 

requirement. DOE intends to evaluate 

any such code changes case-by-case and 

will search the research literature or 

conduct new analyses to determine the 

reasonable set of construction changes 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP15.004</GPH> EN14AP15.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 19979 

that could be expected to emerge in 

response to such new requirements. 

DOE is seeking public input on the 

appropriateness of assessing the first 

cost where a new or changed 

requirement can be met by multiple 

construction approaches with varying 

cost implications (Topic G01). 

B. Economic Parameters and Inputs 

The data sources and procedures for 

establishing economic parameters 

required for calculating the metrics 

described above are described in detail 

in the established residential 

methodology and established 

commercial methodology (see Analysis 

for Residential Buildings and Analysis 

for Commercial Buildings sections of 

this notice). DOE will use the most 

recent values of these parameters 

available at the time an analysis is 

begun. DOE is seeking public input on 

whether this approach can be improved 

through use of data sources not 

included in the established commercial 

and residential methodologies (Topic 

G02). 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Information 

DOE will accept information in 

response to this notice under the 

timeline provided in the DATES section 

of this notice. Comments should be 

submitted by one of the methods listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Comments should include the topic 

identifier (e.g., G01, R01, R02, C01, C02, 

etc.) in the subject line and throughout 

the submission, as applicable, to aid in 

associating comments with the 

requested topics. In summary, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

information on the following issues/

topics: 

B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

G01. The appropriateness of assessing 

the first cost where a new or changed 

requirement can be met by multiple 

construction approaches with varying 

cost implications 

G02. Suggestions for preferred cost and 

economic parameter data sources 

C. Residential Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Information 

R01. The appropriateness of revisions to 

the prototypes used for residential 

analysis 

R02. The appropriateness of using fewer 

weather stations for national and 

preliminary analysis 

R03. Other comments on DOE’s 

residential cost-effectiveness 

methodology for code change analysis 

D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Information 

C01. The appropriateness of the 

addition of property tax impact 

analysis to the Scenario 2 costeffectiveness methodology 

C02. Other comments on DOE’s 

commercial cost-effectiveness 

methodology for code change analysis 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 

2015. 

David Cohan, 

Manager, Building Energy Codes Program, 

Building Technologies Office, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08601 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC15–82–000. 

Applicants: Spokane Energy, LLC, 

Avista Corporation. 

Description: Supplement to March 2, 

2015 Joint Application of Spokane 

Energy, LLC and Avista Corporation for 

Approval of Assignment of Capacity 

Sales Agreement. 

Filed Date: 4/8/15. 

Accession Number: 20150408–5136. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15. 

Docket Numbers: EC15–115–000. 

Applicants: American Transmission 

Company LLC. 

Description: Application for 

Authority to Acquire Transmission 

Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA 

of American Transmission Company 

LLC. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5253. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER15–697–001. 

Applicants: Tonopah Solar Energy, 

LLC. 

Description: Third supplement to 

December 22, 2014 Tonopah Solar 

Energy, LLC tariff filing. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5257. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1019–000. 

Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind 

Farm LLC. 

Description: Supplement to February 

10, 2015 Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm 

LLC tariff filing. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5256. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1332–001. 

Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind 

Farm LLC. 

Description: Tariff Amendment per 

35.17(b): Supplement to MBR 

Application to be effective 5/18/2015. 

Filed Date: 4/8/15. 

Accession Number: 20150408–5095. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1333–001. 

Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC. 

Description: Tariff Amendment per 

35.17(b): Supplement to MBR 

Application to be effective 5/18/2015. 

Filed Date: 4/8/15. 

Accession Number: 20150408–5096. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1470–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Compliance filing per 35: 

Request for Expedited Grant of Waiver 

to be effective N/A. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5215. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1471–000. 

Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC. 

Description: Initial rate filing per 

35.12 Application for Market-Based Rate 

Authority to be effective 6/1/2015. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5239. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1472–000. 

Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power 

Corporation. 

Description: Notice of Cancellation of 

Borderline Sales Agreement with 

Pennsylvania Electric Co., Rate 

Schedule No. 185 of Niagara Mohawk 

Power Corporation. 

Filed Date: 4/7/15. 

Accession Number: 20150407–5252. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1473–000. 

Applicants: Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

Description: Section 205(d) rate filing 

per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–04–08_SA 

2771 ATC-Cloverland Common 

Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/8/ 

2015. 

Filed Date: 4/8/15. 

Accession Number: 20150408–5037. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER15–1474–000. 

Applicants: Southern California 

Edison Company. 

Description: Section 205(d) rate filing 

per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and Distrib Serv 

Agmt Boomer Solar 12 LLC 810 

Wanamaker Ave. Ontario Project to be 

effective 4/9/2015. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES