Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6195 

DEPARTMENTOFENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

Building Energy Codes Program: 

Workshop on Analysis of Standard 

90.1 -1 999 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy is 

in the process of making a 

determination as to whether ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 would save 

energy in commercial buildings. In 

doing so, we are performing a 

comparative analysis of the 1989 edition 

of that standard to the 1999 edition and 

seeking input on our proposed approach 

to carrying out that analysis. 

DATES: The Department will hold a 

public workshop on February 17, 2000, 

in Washington, DC. Please send requests 

to speak at the workshop so that we 

receive them by 4:00 p.m., February 14, 

2000. The Department must also receive 

ten (10) copies of statements to be given 

at the public workshop no later than 

4:00 p.m., February 15,2000, and we 

request that you provide a computer 

diskette of each statement in 

Wordperfect TM at that time. 

ADDRESSES: Please address requests for 

the proposed methodology for the 

comparative analysis or requests to 

make statements at the public workshop 

and copies of those statements to 

Brenda Edwards-Jones at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, EE--41,1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 01A
, 6196 Federal Reeister / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesdav, Februarv 8, 2000 / Notices 

Washington. DC 205854121, You commercial building code regarding 11. 'Discussion 

shollld identify documents as either, energy efficiency ineccordalce wiih P_pored Comparative of 

"Request for Proposed Methodology," or Standard 90.1-1999. Each State is Stnndard 90.1-1989 and Stnndard 90. I- "Request to Speak," or "Statement," further required, within two years of an 199g followed by, "'iYorkshop on Analysis of affirmative determination, to certify and 

Standard 90 1-1999". The workshop demonstrate to the Secretary that its We propose to carry out both a 

will begin at 9:00 a.m., on February 17, State building code meets qualitative and quantitative comparison 

2000, in Room 1E-245 at the 1J.S. or exceeds the revised standard. If. on of the Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 

Department of Energy, Forrestal the other hand, the Secretarv determines 90.1-1999. 

~uilding, 1000 independence Avenue, 

SW, 'ISashington, DC. 

You can mad copies of the transcript 

of the public workshop in the Freedom 

of Information Reading Room (Room 

No. iE-190) at the 1i.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington. DC, between the hours of 

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may obtain copies of the referenced 

standard ASIIRAEIIESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 by request from the American 

Society of Fieating, Refrigerating artd 

Air-(:onditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 

Tullie (:ircie. YE, Atlanta, CA 30329, 

(404) 636-8400, hffp:// 

ww~~.ASIfR.iE.org. You may obtain a 

copy of the "Proposed Methodology for 

a Comparative Analysis of ASFIRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and 

Standard 90.1-1999" from the 

Department by request from the address 

listed above. The proposed methodology 

may also be downloaded from the Office 

of Building Technical Assistance web 

site listed below. 

The latest information regarding the 

public workshop is avaiIable on the 

Office of Building Technical Assistance 

web site at the following address: http:/ 

!www.cre~~.doe.gov/kuildingsIcodesstandartisi. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTA~: Jnan 

J. Boulin, 1T.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, EE-42, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington. DC 203854121, (202) 586- 

9870, emaii: Jean.BoulinQEE.DOE.~v 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

'4. Authoriiy 

Section 304(b)(2) of Title 111 of the 

Energy Consarvation and Production 

Act, as amended (ECPA or Act), requires 

the Secretary of Energy (We, DOE. or the 

Department; to determine whether the 

revisions of .lSHRAEIIESNA Standard 

90.1 embodied in the 1999 edition will 

improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings. A notice of the 

determination is required to be 

published in the Federal Register. If the 

Secretarv rna~es an affirmative 

determination, each State is required to 

review and update the provisions of its 

that Standard 90.1-1999 wiil not 

improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings, then State 

commercial code provisions regarding 

energy efficiency shall continue to meet 

or exceed Standard 90.1-1989. 

B. Background 

In preparation for making the 

determination, we are doing a 

comparative analysis between the 1989 

edition and 1999 edition of Standard 

90.1. An initial analysis was prepared in 

the summer of 1999 and the results were 

presented to the Standing Standards 

Project Committee 90.1, the ASHRAE 

committee responsible for revising 

Standard 90.1. It was also shared with 

other interested parties. At that time we 

identified the shortcomings that we 

perceived in the analysis, and suggested 

how some could be resolved. Comments 

were requested on these issues and 

other issues that people might identify. 

We have developed an approach to 

complete that analysis that addresses 

these issues. We are holding a workshop 

to obtain comment on the approach and 

to identify any other issues. This 

workshop is the subject of today's 

notice. 

We propose to carry nut both a 

qualitative and quantitative comparison 

of the Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 

90.1-1999. The proposed analysis 

would provide qualitative comparisons 

of the stringencies between the two 

editions of Standard 90.1 in the scope 

of the standard; the building envelope 

requirements; the building iighting 

requirements; the building mechanical 

equipment requirements; and the paths 

to compliance. The quantitative 

comparison of energy codes would be 

done on whole building energy 

simulations of buildings built to each 

standard. We propose to simulate seven 

representative building types in 11 

represeniative I1.S. climates. The 

detailed methodology for the 

quantitative comparison is presented in 

"Proposed Methodology for a 

Comparative Analysis of ASHRAEi 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and 

Standard 90.1-1999." 

Qualitative Chmparisons 

The proposed analysis would provide 

qualitative comparisons of the 

stringencies between the two editions of 

Standard 90.1 in each of the following 

areas: 

Scope of the standard, 

Building envelope requirements, 

Building lighting requirements, 

Building mechanical equipment 

requirements, 

Paths to compliance. 

The emphasis of the qualitative 

comparison wot~ld differ between the 

envelope, lighting, and mechanical 

sections. In the huiiding envelope 

section, the comparison would focus on 

the impact of the different building 

envelope requirements on the building 

heating and cooling loads for different 

building types and climates. The 

envelope comparison would examine 

requirements for all envelope 

components, including roofs, walls, 

floors, and fenestration as well as 

explore variations in construction types 

and in the window-to-wall ratio. 

In the lighting requirements 

comparison, the focus would be 

primarily on the impact the different 

lighting requirements have on lighting 

energy use, as well as on building loads. 

The comparison ~vould look separateiy 

at the whole building and space-byspace iighting requirements in both 

standards in a variety of commercial 

building types, as well as examine the 

affect of any "additional lighting power 

allowances." 

The mechanical requirements 

comparison ~vould be divided into 

comparisons of equipment efficiency 

requirements and system design 

requirements. The system design 

requirements affect both the system 

efficiency, system load, and may have 

direct energy impacts due for instance 

to fan design. Tables of relative 

stringency and estimated positive or 

negative national energy impact would 

be prepared based on practical 

application of the system design 

requirements in each standard. 

Each standard has multiple ways to 

demonstrate compliance. We would 

enumerate the multiple paths to 

compiiance, but do not propose a 

detailed comparison of the relative 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 01A
Federal Register / Voi. 65, No. 26 / Tuesdav. Februarv 

stringency of alternate paths internal to 

a single standard or between standards. 

The large quantity of variables among 

the alternative compliance paths would 

make such analysis prohibitive to 

undertake. Further, we know of no data 

on which to base the selectton of 

representative requirements for such an 

analysis. Assignment of requirements 

would be arbitrary. Rather we would 

focus on what we believe 1s the most 

commorl approach to using the standard 

In question for particular building types. 

Quantitative Comparison 

We propose to base the quantitative 

comparison of energy codes on whole 

building energy simulations of buildings 

built to each standard. We wotlld 

simtllate seven representative building 

types in 11 representative U.S. climates. 

The simulated buildings would utilize 

the 15 zone building prototype used in 

previous DOE butlding research, and the 

cnergy use intens~ties for each zone 

from the simulations would be scaled to 

correctly reflect variations in 

characteristic building sizes and shapes 

for each representative building type. 

Encrgy lJse Intensities (EUIs) developed 

for each representative building type 

would be weighted by total national 

square footage in each representativc 

building category to provide an estimate 

of the national energy savings. Note that 

only changes to new buildings wolild be 

considered in this quantitative analysis. 

The scope of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 also 

addresses additions and renovations to 

existing buildings. While this may have 

a significant energy impact, we do not 

believe the data is available to quantify 

this impact. We propose to point out 

this difference in the qualitative 

comparison of the two standards. 

1. Procedures for Submitting Requests 

To Speak 

You will find the time and place of 

the public workshop listed at the 

beginning of this notice. The 

Department invites any person who 

would like to attend the public 

workshop to notify Brenda EdwarcisJones at (202) 586-2943. You may hand 

deliver requests to speak to the address 

indicated at the beginning of this notice 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays, or send them by mail. 

2. <:onduct of Workshop 

The workshop will be conducted in 

an informal, conference style. The 

Department may use a professional 

facilitator to facilitate discussion, and a 

court reporter will be present to record 

the transcript of the meeting. We will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the workshop, allow 

time for presentations by workshop 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting the proposed analysis. 

Following the workshop, we will 

provide an additional one week 

comment period, during which 

interested parties will have an 

opportunity to present further comment 

on the proposed analysis. 

The Department will arrange for a 

transcript of the workshop and will 

make the entire record of the workshop, 

including the transcript, available for 

inspection in the Department's Freedom 

of Information Reading Room. Any 

person may purchase a copy of the 

transcript from the transcribing reporter. 

C. Issues Requested for Comment 

The Department of Energy is 

interested in receiving comments andlor 

data concerning issues relating to the 

comparative analysis of Standard 90.1- 

1989 and Standard 90.1-1999. We are 

especially interested in any comments 

or data regarding: 

(I) The seven building types listed 

below and selected for analysis. 

(2) The 11 representative climate 

locations proposed for the analysis. 

(3) The frequency of use of alternative 

paths to compliance in building 

standards (e.g. space-by-space versus 

whole building lighting power 

allowances). 

(4) New non-residential building 

construction data by State or census 

division and building type. 

(3) Data to quantify the impact of 

Standard 90.1-1999 on additions ancl 

renovations to existing buildings. 

(6) The prevalence of the semi-heated 

building envelope subcategory in the 

building types proposed for analysis. 

(7) Speclfic comments on the 

preliminary energy savings analysis 

distributed in June 1999. 

The seven building types proposed for 

the analysis are Office, Retail, 

Education, Lodging, Public Assembly, 

Food Service, and Warehouse and 

Storage. It is currently proposed to 

include outpatient health care buildings 

in the office building category. These 

buildings together will account for 

approximately 80% of commercial 

huilding energy use, and national 

~veights for each of these building 

categories can be readily obtained 

through the Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 

data. One category of building which is 

conspicuously absent is multifamily 

dwellings over three stories above grade. 

Relevant data on current stock, 

8. 2000 / Notices 6197 

-- - - 

construction, or huilding configuration 

for this category would allow its 

inclusion in the analysis. 

The 11 climate variations proposed 

for the analysis are the same as those 

used in the National Energy Model, 

version 5, and in the initial analysis and 

they are proposed to be represented by 

the same climate locations used in that 

analysis. The climate locations are: 

Providence, Rhode Island; Detroit, 

Michigan, Pvlinneapolis, Minnesota: 

Knoxville, Tennessee; Shreveport, 

Louisiana, Tampa, Florida; Denver, 

Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona: Seattle 

Washington; Fresno, California; and Los 

Angeles, California. We would be 

interested to know of any data or 

analysis that would indicate that these 

are inappropriate for this analysis, and 

what alternatives are more appropriate 

and why. 

This analysis proposes to set criteria 

for buildings using what are believed to 

be the most common paths to 

compliance. Any data describing the 

relative frequency of use of alternative 

paths to compliance would be 

appreciated as would more detailed data 

on building construction by State, 

region and building type. Additionally, 

we are interested in data regarding the 

type and fraction of buildings which 

should be modeled as semi-heated 

buildings for the 90.1-1999 standard. 

Finally, as the methodology proposed is 

an extension of what was done for the 

preliminary analysis in June, any 

comments on that methodology and the 

questions raised in the presentation, 

would be appreciated. 

These data will help us to make a 

determination tvhether ASFiRAEiIESNrl 

Standard 90.1-1999 will improve 

energy efficiency in commercial 

buildings. 

Issued in ivashington, DC, on February 2. 

2000, 

Dan W. Reicher, 

Assistant Secretar)., Energy Eficiency and 

Rene wabie Energ-v. 

[FR Doc. 00-2793 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-014' 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 01A