PNL-10477 Rev. 1

UC-l 600

Technical Support Document for

the Proposed Federal Commercial

Building Energy Code

S. Somasundaram

M. A. Halverson

C. C. Jones

D. L. Hadley

August 1996

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy

by Battelle Memorial Institute

OBalteile
p

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of

the United States Government. Neither the Unfted States Government nor any

agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees,

makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its

use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any

specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its

endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government

or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions

of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

United States Government or any agency thereof.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY

operated by

BATTELLE

for the

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830

Printed in the United States of America

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box .62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831

prices available from (615) 576-8401.

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161

This document was printed on recycled paper.
PNL-10477 Rev. 1

UC-1600

Technical Support Document

for the Proposed

Federal Commercial Building

Energy Code

S. Somasundaram

M. A. Halverson

C. C. Jones

IX L. Hadley

August 1996

Prepared for

the U.S. Department of Energy

under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richiand, Washington 99352
Foreword

This report is one in a series of documents describing research activities in support of the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Standards Program. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory

(PNL) leads the program for DOE.

The goal of the program is to develop and encourage the implementation of peribrmance standards

to achieve the maximum practicable energy efficiency in the design of new buildings. Such standards

are required of DOE by Title ifi of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 USC 6831 et

seq.) as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).

The program approach to meeting the goal is to initiate and manage individual research and

standards and guidelines development efforts that are planned and conducted in cooperation with

representatives from throughout the buildings community. Projects under way involve practicing

architects and engineers, professional societies and code organizations, industry representatives, and

researchers from the private sector and national laboratories. Research results and technical

justifications for standards criteria are provided to standards development and model code organizations

and to federal, state, and local jurisdictions as a basis for updating their codes and standards. This

approach helps to ensure that building standards incorporate the latest research results to achieve

maximum energy savings in new buildings, yet remain responsive to the needs of the affected

professions, organizations, and jurisdictions. This approach also assists in the implementation,

deployment, and use of the codes and standards.

This report documents the technical bases for revisions and updates to the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Energy Code. Changes made to

that document, which is the codified version of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, are reflected in the

proposed new federal commercial building energy standard.

Readers with comments, questions, or suggestions about this document or the work it describes are

encouraged to contact the author(s), program managers, or project managers.

Jeffrey A. Johnson Jean 3. Boulin

Building Energy Standards Program Office of Codes and Standards

Pacific Northwest Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy

111
Abstract

This report presents the justification and technical documentation for all changes and updates to

the Energy Code for Commercial and High-Rise Residential Buildings (since 1993), included in the

proposed rule, “Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High-Rise Residential

Buildings.” All changes are in codified form, those that have been adopted by ASHRAE are found in

the codified version of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, “Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings

Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.’ The changes and updates that were approved by ASHRAE

are Addenda b, c, d, e, g, and I. The proposed rule would also include provisions that are

substantively the same as those in Addenda F, which has not been adopted by ASHRAE/IES. Also

included in the proposed rule are changes in the required maximum lighting power densities. This

technical support document describes and presents the technological and economic justification for the

differences between the proposed rule and the codified version of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989

as of October 1993.

V
Contents

Foreword

Abstract

Introduction

Documentation for the Proposed Federal Commercial

References

Appendix -Lighting Analysis Details

V

1

Building Energy Code 3

17

A.1

VII
Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed a new Federal Commercial Building Energy

Code. The proposed code revises the current interim fçderal commercial standard (10 CFR 435,

Subpart A) to generally conform with the format of various U.S. vqluntary model codes. The

proposed code includes provisions in the areas of electric motors, lighting, mechanical ventilation,

building envelope materials and rating procedures, and heating and cooling equipment test procedures

that differ from the codified version ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as of October 1993.

DOE worked, with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standing Standards Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1 and the Illuminating

Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Energy Management Committee when those

committees developed addenda to their commercial building energy standard for the private sector,

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989. Those addenda, which reflect new building technologies and

materials, were not available in 1989 when DOE promulgated its interim standards. DOE is

proposing to include all approved ASHRAE addenda, the substantive content of proposed Addenda F,

and revisions to the DOE 1993 Lighting Power Densities in its new Federal Commercial Building

Energy Code.

This report documents the technical bases underlying inclusion of those addenda and substantive

provisions in the DOE proposed code. Key interrelationships between and among the DOE interim

standard, Standard 90.1, and the ASHRAE Energy Code are described, explaining the rationale for

DOE’s inclusion of certain features in its proposed code.

I
Documentation for the

Proposed Federal Commercial Building Energy Code

The DOE proposed federal commercial building energy code is based largely on the ASHRAE

Energy Code (ASHRAE 1993) with some modifications. This section describes those modifications

and the rationale for making and incorporating them into the federal code. Estimates of the cost and

energy impacts of the changes are also provided.

The changes made are discussed one-by-one in the following pages. Each discussion begins with

a two-column table in bold type. Intended as a map, each table displays the section from the Energy

Code or ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, modified by DOE, opposite the corresponding section in

the proposed federal code that now reflects the modification(s).

Readers will note that the section numbers in bQth the Energy Code and the proposed federal code

are closely matched at first. However, they diverge in the fifth main section of each document

because the proposed federal code also includes material (Subparts E and F) extracted from the 1989

DOE interim standard (10 CFR 435).

ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

401 Electrical Power and Lighting Systems 434.401 Electrical Distribution Systems

401.2 Electric Motors 434.401.2 Electric Motors

401.2.1 Efficiency 434.401.2.1 Efficiency

Changes

Table 401.2.1 in the ASHRAE Energy C’ode is replaced with Table 5-1 from ASHRAE/IES

Standard 90.14989 Addendum c (approved by the ASHRAE Board, of Directors on October 28,

1993). Addendum c addresses changes to motor efficiency requirements (Table 5-1 of Addenda c and

Table 401.2.1 in the ASHRAE Energy Code). The changes include the addition of National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards to the references chapter in the ASHRAE Energy Code

(ASHR.AE 1993) to reflect their in-text citations.

Rationale and Discussion

Addendum c to ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 was developed in response to information

provided by NEMA. The rationale underlying Addendum c was to bring Standard 90.1 in line with

NEMA’s own more stringent requirements for motor eftIciencies.

Most of the changes are simplifications of text and updates to references. In addition, the changes

greatly expand Table 401.2.1 in the proposed code which sets minimum efficiencies for motors.

3
Some of the efficiency values were increased (i.e., became more stringent). These increased

stringencies are also found in EPACT, which establishes standards for electric motors ranging from 1

to 200 horsepower. EPACT defines electric motors in terms of NEMA Standard MGi-1987. “Motors

and Generators” (NEMA 1987).

Because the new efficiency requirements reflect the industry’s own recommendations, it is

anticipated that motor manufacturers will readily support their adoption.

The requirements spelled out in Addendum c were compared with those of ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1-1989. The overall average increase in efficiency required by Addendum 90.lc for motors of

different sizes, types, and pole numbers was found to be approximately 2%. For example, a motor

required by Standard 90.1 to be 76.2% efficient would now be required to be 80% efficient.

Estimated Energy Impacts

The use of energy by motors should decrease by approximately 2% under Addendum c

requirements if the motors are directly replaced. As a very rough estimate (based on fan and pump

usage), motors consume approximately 12% of the total energy used by commercial buildings. This

number would decrease by 2%, for a total savings of 0.24% of the total commercial building energy

usage. For individual buildings, savings may range anywhere from 0% to 0.5%.

Estimated Cost Impacts

The motor efficiencies listed in Addendum c are to become mandatory manufacturing standards

by October 1997, per EPACT. At that time, the cost impact will not be an issue. However, over the

next several years, motors meeting these requirements may be more expensive than less energyefficient motors. Addendum c codifies the current state of the motor industry, which is already

manufacturing to NEMA Standard MGi-1987. The cost impact of the change, therefore, will be

negligible.

ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

401 Electrical Power and Lighting Systems 434.401 Electrical Distribution Systems

401.3 Lighting Power Allowance 434.401.3 Lighting Power Allowance

401.3.2 Building Interiors 434.401.3.2 Building Interiors

Changes

The proposed rule contains unit power density (UPD) values (lighting requirements) for 106

defined space/area types. Most of the UPD values in Tables 401.3.2b and 401.3.2c reflect the 1993

values from the interim standard. The remaining UPD values are the same as those found in Standard

90.1.

4
Rationale and Discussion

The interim federal standard (10 CFR 435, Subpart A) defines two sets of UPD values for 106

space-type categories. One Set became effective in 1989 when the interim standard was published.

The 1989 UPD values are the same as those in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 and its codified

version. The second set of UPD values in the interim standard became effective in 1993. The DOE

1993 values in that set were more stringent (lower) than the 1989 values.

The values selected for the proposed rule are based on an assessment study conducted by the

Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy during a demonstration of the

applicability of the 1993 values in the interim standard. Of the 106 space-type categories, 79 have

proposed UPD values that exceed the stringency of the 1989 values (same as DOE 1993). The

remaining 27 have proposed UPD values identical to those of the 1989 requirements. None of the

proposed values is less stringent than the 1989 values. Therefore, it can be categorically stated that

the proposed federal lighting requirements meet or exceed the requirements in ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1-1989 and its codified version, the ASHRAE Energy Code (ASHRAE 1993). For most space

types, the proposed federal lighting requirements are more stringent than those mandated in EPACT

for private commercial construction. Table 1 provides a comparison by standard or code of UPD

values required for office buildings.

Table 1. UPD Value Comparison for Office Buildings

UPD Value, W/ft 2

Standard or Code Whole Office Building Office Space (Reading)

Standard 90.1 or DOE 1989 1.65 1.9 to 2.2

DOE 1993 1.22 1.5 to 1.7

Proposed Federal Code Not developed 1.5 to 1.7

The proposed updates to Tables 401.3.2b and 401.3.2c of the ASHRAE Energy Code are

supported by the lighting analysis data in the Appendix of this technical support document. That text

documents the assumptions. methodology, and final recommendations of PNL’s lighting assessment

completed in December 1993.

Energy Impacts

The energy consumption impacts of the updated lighting requirements may be estimated as

follows. The UPD values for approximately 75% of the space-type categories will be the same as the

DOE 1993 values. Consequently, we can assume as a first approximation that around 75% of the

lighting energy savings noted in Hadley and Halverson (1993) would be obtained with the proposed

federal code. Hadley and Halverson (1993) compared the energy savings for DOE 1989 and DOE

1993 requirements to ANSI/ASHRAEJIES Standard 90A-1980. Their comparison looked at ten

different building types in six locations in the United States. In the study, the “average’ DOE 1989

building (with DOE 1989 being essentially equivalent to ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989) was found

5
to use 63.8 kBtu/ft 2!yr, while the “average’ DOE 1993 building was found to use 59.7 kBtu/ft 2!yr.

The entire difference of 4. 1 kBtulft 2lyris attributable to differences in lighting requirements.

Therefore, if 75% of the DOE 1993 lighting energy savings are achieved with the proposed lighting

requirements, the “average” building will save about 3 kBtulft 2/yr. This savings represents 4.7% of

the energy consumption of the average DOE 1989 building.

Cost Impacts

In 1992, PNL conducted a case study of a 27,300-ft 2law office building in New York. The lifecycle costs (LCCs) of different lighting design options were assessed using the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) “Building Life-Cycle Cost” (BLCC) program, Version 3.1

(Petersen 1991). Energy prices and discount factors from the 1992 annual supplement to NIST

Handbook 135 (Lippiatt 1991) were used. The BLCC program Version 3.1 automatically accesses

these 1992 values. Table 2 specifies the economic parameters and values used in the analysis.

The discount rate of 4.6% is higher than that currently in use for the BLCC program. Any

efficiency investment that is cost-effective at the 4.6% rate would be cost-effective at the lower rate

currently used to evaluate federal energy-related investments.

Although the applicable electricity price in New York was $0. 12/kWh, the average commercial

building electricity rate in the United States is $0.08/kwh (Energy Information Administration 1994).

Lucas (1994) has noted that federal electric rates are typically 24% lower than rates levied to the

private sector, indicating that the federal electric rates may be expected to be approximately

$0.06/kWh.

The results of the LCC analysis for five lighting design options and for a. range of electricity

prices are shown in Table 3. No reduction in illumination from Standard 90.1 levels is involved in

any of the options considered. Option 2, which uses three energy-saving 32-W T8 lamps with

electronic ballasts and has a UPD level of 1.14 W1ft 2,has the lowest LCC in each case. The other

design options may be used in situations where the electronic ballasts or the T8 lamps are not

available, even though they yield a higher UPD (consume more energy) and have a higher LCC.

More energy-efficient lighting designs (more stringent than the levels prescribed in ASHRAE/IES

Standard 90.1-1989) can be achieved at lower LCCs primarily because of the new technologies and

products on the market that were not widely available when Standard 90.1 was approved.

6
Table 2. Assumptions Underlying the Lighting LCC Analysis

Parameter Value

Base date 1992

Study period 20 years

Planninglconstruction period 0 years

Occupancy date 1992

Discount rate 4.6%

Expected component life 20 years

Energy type Electricity

DOE region I (New York)

DOE rate schedule type Commercial

Energy price per unit S0.12/k-Wh

Annual demand charge $0.00

DOE energy price escalation rates tilename ENCOST92.RAN

Energy price escalation raes by year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

-0.51 -0.14 0.76 -3.15 -2.23 -1.20 -0.73 -0.63 0.69 0.02

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0.08 0.25 -0.08 0.72 0.47 0.78 -0.12 -1.00 1.19 0.64

7
Table 3. Lighting Design Option LCC Analysis Results

Design UPD, Energy Energy First Maint. Total Delta

Option W/ft 2 Use, kWh Cost. $ Cost, S Cost, $ LCC, $ LCC, S Comments

Electricity Cost = SO. 12/kWh

OFF2 1.14 81,246 119,765 144,779 31,073 295,617 0 Lowest LCC

OPT3A 1.42 103,452 152,499 148,651 46,246 347,396 51,769

OPT! 1.52 108.147 159,420 189,354 58,704 407,478 111,851

OPT3B 1.24 93,867 138.370 223,754 46.115 408,239 112,612

OPT4 1.7w 79,920 117.810 339,848 55,654 513,312 217,695 Highest quality

Electricity Cost = 50.08/kWh

OPT2 1.14 81,246 79,843 144,779 31,073 255,695 0 Lowest LCC

OPT3A 1.42 103,452 101,666 148,651 46.246 296,563 40,868

OFTI 1.52 108,147 106,280 189,354 58.704 354,338 98,643

OVI’3B [.24 93,867 92.247 223,754 46,115 362,116 106,421

OPT4 1.7w 79,920 78,540 339,848 55,654 474.407 218,346 Highest quality

Electricity Cost = $0.06/kWh

OPT2 1.14 81,246 59,833 144,779 31,073 235,774 0 Lowest LCC

OPT3A 1.42 103,452 76,250 148,651 46,246 271,147 35,373

OPT1 1.52 108,147 79,710 l89,354 58,704 327,768 91,914

OPT3B 1.24 93,867 69,185 223,754 46,115 339.054 122,260

OP’l’4 1.7w 79,920 58,905 339,848 55,654 454,407 237,613 Highest quality

Electricity Cost = 50.04/kWh

OPT2 1.14 81.246 39,922 144,779 31,073 215,774 0 Lowest LCC

OPT3A 1.42 103,452 50,833 148,651 46,246 245,730 29,956

OPT1 1.52 108,147 53,140 189,354 58,704 301,198 85,425

OFF3B 1.24 93,867 46.123 223,754 46,115 315,992 100.219

OPT4 1.7w 79,920 39,270 339,848 55.654 434,772 218.999 Highest quality

Option 4’s total 1.7 UPD value is based on 1.22W/ft 2plus allowance for additional controls.

8
ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

402 Building Envelope Assemblies and 434.402 Building Envelope Assemblies &

Materials Materials

402.1 Calculations and Supporting 434.402.1 Calculations and Supporting

Information Information

402.1.1 Material Properties 434.402.1.1.1 Material Properties

Changes

The reference cited in the last sentence of the second paragraph was changed from “Table 41,

Chapter 27, of RS-4” (1985 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals) to Table 41, Chapter 27, of 1989

ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals.

Rationale

This change was made to make the proposed federal code consistent with ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1-1989 by referring to the correct table in 1989 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. This change

has no impact on building design, efficiency and/or cost.

ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

402 Building Envelope Assemblies and 434.402 Building Envelope Assemblies and

Materials Materials

402.1 Calculations and Supporting 434.402.1 Calculations and Supporting

Information Information

402.1.2 Thermal Performance 434.402.1.2 Thermal Performance

Calculations Calculations

40.1 .2.1 Envelope Assemblies 434.402.1.2.1 Envelope

Containing Metal Framing Assemblies Containing Metal

Framing

Changes

Table 402.l.2.lb in the ASHRAE Energy Code (based on Table 8C-2 in ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1-1989) was expanded to account for thicker/metal wall studs (2 x 8s) and a larger variety of

higher-performance insulation products.

9
Rationale and Discussion

The expansion of Table 402.1.2.lb in the proposed rule adopts the expanded informational text

contained in Addendum g to Standard 90.1 (approved by the ASHRAE Board of Directors on July 1,

1993). Addendum g addresses metal stud correction factors. These correction factors are used to

account for the presence of thermally conductive metal studs in insulated walls. Both the existing and

revised tables contain precalculated results of commonly used heat-transfer calculations. The new

table just contains more precalculated values.

Estimated Energy Impacts

This change is estimated to result in no energy impacts because the calculations are already

required by Standard 90.1. The table merely precalculates the results for defined situations.

Estimated Cost Impacts

This change is estimated to result in no cost impacts. If anything, the expanded table reduces

calculation time and therefore saves money.

Changes

The reference cited in the last sentence in Section 402.1.2.2 of the ASHRAE Energy Code was

changed from “page 23.2 of Chapter 23 of RS-4” (1985 ASHRE4E Handbook Fundamentals) to page

23.2 of Chapter 23 of 1989 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals.

ASHRAE Energy Code

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements

402 Building Envelope Assemblies and

Materials

Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

434.402 Building Envelope Assemblies &

Materials

402.1 Calculations and Supporting

Information

402.1.1

402.1.2 Thermal Performance

Calculations

402.1.2.1

402.1.2.2 Envelope Assemblies

Containing Nonmetal Framing

434.402.1 Calculations and Supporting

Information

434.402.1.1

434.402.1.2 Thermal Performance

Calculations

434.402.1.2.1

434.402.1.2.2 Envelope

Assemblies Containing Nonmetal

Framing

10
Rationale

This change was made to make the proposed federal code consistent with ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1-1989 by referring to the correct page and chapter in 1989 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals.

This change does not have any impact on building design, efficiency and/or cost.

ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

402 Building Envelope Assemblies and 434.402 Building Envelope Assemblies &

Materials Materials

402.1 Calculations and Supporting 434.402.1 Calculations and Supporting

Information Information

402.1.1 ... 434.402.1.1

402.1.2 Thermal Performance .. 434.402.1.2 Thermal Performance

Calculations Calculations

402.1.2.1 ... 434.402.1.2.1

402.1.2.2 ... 434.402.1.2.2

402.1.2.3 ... 434.402.1.2.3

402.1.2.4 Fenestration 434.402.1.2.4 Fenestration

Assemblies Assemblies

Changes

This section was replaced with new text and an updated method of calculating the thermal

transmittance of fenestration assemblies based on 1989 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. This

change also resulted in revisions to Tables 402.4. 1. 1 and 402.4.1.2 (see page 13).

Rationale and Discussion

The proposed rule would include provisions that are substantively the same as those in Addendum

f (being considered for approval by ASHRAE). Addenda F changes the fenestration requirements

section of ASHRAE/IES Standard. 90.1-1989. The changes made to the text are fairly numerous, but

they all stem from a single source. ASHRAE updated the fenestration calculation procedure in 1989

ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals to provide new descriptions of fenestration properties. The most

significant change was to calculate the overall thermal transmittance of fenestration assemblies

(basically windows and skylights) based on the thermal transmittance of the center-of-glass, edge-of

glass, and frame components. These components are defined and listed in the 1989 ASHRAE

Handbook Fundamentals, whereas the previous edition (1985) of the Handbook contained a procedure

including thermal transmittance values for various fenestration components plus correction factors for

sashes, frames, edges, and other features. Although both procedures have the same ultimate goal

(prediction of overall thermal transmittance), the values calculated using the two methods could be

different.

11
The issue here arises when precalculated thermal transmittance values listed in Standard 90. 1 and

the ASHRAE Energy Code (based on the 1985 procedure) are recalculated using the new 1989

method but under the same assumptions as those that went into the original value. For example, a

requirement to use an overall thermal transmittance of 0.45 for cold elimate skylights (section

8.4.8. id) becomes a requirement to use 0.52 in Addendum f.

If we pick several standard fenestration constructions and calculate the overall thermal

transmittance using the new and the old procedure, we get the following:

. Calculation Procedure for

U-Values, Btufh ft• °F

Glazing 1985 [ 1989

Single-pane 1.15 1.23

Double-pane 0.81 0.72

Enhanced double-pane 0.45 0.52

(vinyl frames. low-emissivity/thermal break)

Note that some precalculated values moved up (became less stringent) while others moved down

(became more stringent).

Addendum f also provides revisions to a number of testing methods and specifications for

windows and doors, as well as revisions to current versions of ASHRAE-supplied compliance

software. These revisions have no significant impact.

Estimated Energy Impacts

The issue here is not whether rating number scale changes, but whether the types of windows and

skylights required by the code change. As evidenced by the data in the table above, the same window

requirement will simply have a different theoretical performance characteristic under the updated

procedure. Therefore, the energy performance of a building will not be any different. Thus, the

changes in fenestration assembly requirements will have no impact on a building’s energy

consumption.

Estimated Cost Impacts

Since the fenestration requirements noted in Standard 90.1 and the ASHRAE Energy Code and

those in Addendum f ëalI for the same underlying construction (as stated in Estimated Energy

Impacts above), there is no cost impact.

12
ASIIRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

402 Building Envelope Assemblies and 434.402 Building Envelope Assemblies &

Materials . Materials

402.1 ... 434.402.1

402.2 ... 434.402.2

402.3 ... 434.402.3

402.4 Exterior Walls 434.402.4 Exterior Walls

402.4.1 Prescriptive Criteria 434.402.4.1 Prescriptive Criteria

402.4.1.1 Opaque Walls 434.402.4.1.1 Opaque Walls

402.4.1.2 Fenestration .434.402.4.1.2 Fenestration

Changes

Table 402.4.1.1 on Maximum Wall Thermal Transmittance (Uow) and Table 402.4.1.2 on

Maximum Window Wall Ratio (WWR) are replaced by new tables.

Rationale and Discussion

Portions of the individual city tables were updated using the fenestration U-value calculation

procedures in Chapter 27 of the 1989 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. (See the changes to Section

402.1.2.4 discussed above.) This change does not have any impact on building design, cost or

efficiency.

ASHRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 4 Building Design Requirements Subpart D - Building Design Requirements

403 Building Mechanical Systems and 434.403 Building Mechanical Systems &

Equipment Equipment

Changes

Changes were made to the text in Subsection 9.5.2 and to the tables and text on HVAC equipment

performance criteria in Section 10 of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 (which corresponds to Section

403 of the ASHRAE Energy Code). The seven changes made to this section are described below.

Change 1. A term was added to Exception (a) of Subsection 9.5.2. The existing exception

allows the use of variable air volume (VAV) with reheat capability if the VAV dampers are designed

to reduce airflow to minimum volumes before reheat occurs. The change allows a slightly higher

airflow for cases where there is a very high heat loss from the space and a relatively small airflow

rate.

13
Change 2. Table 10-1 was modified to provide requirements for small three-phase unitary aircooled equipment in terms of seasonal equipment efficiency ratings and heating seasonal performance

factors rather than coefficients of performance (per updates in AR! Standard 210/240-89). The

requirements for “prior to January 1, 1992” were also dropped.

Change 3. Table 10-2 was modified to update references and drop requirements labeled “prior to

January 1, 1992.”

Change 4. Table 10-3 was modified to update references and drop requirements labeled “prior to

January 1, 1992.”

Change 5. Table l0-4a was modified to update references and drop requirements labeled ‘prior

to January 1, 1992.”

Change 6. Table 10-7 was modified to update references and drop requirements labeled “prior to

January 1, 1992.”

Change 7. Table 10-9 was modified to clarify provisions for National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act (NAECA) of 1987 products and for products not covered by NAECA.

Requirements labeled ‘prior to January 1, 1992” were dropped.

Rationale and Discussion

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 Addendum I (approved by the ASHRAE Board of Directors on

July 1, 1993) addresses changes needed to update references to testing and rating procedures that have

been modified or revised, since 1989. This addenda also addresses adding an item (4) to exception (a)

of subsection 9.5.2 of the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as follows: (4) 300 cfm. This subsection

deals with the operational issues of a zone control for a Variable Air Volume (VAV) system.

Addenda I establishes the minimum operating air flow for a commercial building at 300cfm(cubic feet

per minute). Because Addenda I is a minimum and not a maximum air flow, whether it has a cost or

energy impact depends upon how buildings are currently designed and operated.

With regard to building design, the minimum physical size of HVAC equipment for public and

private sector buildings is determined by procedures found in section 9.4.1 of ASHRAE Standard

90. 1-1989, which ensures adequate heating and cooling. HVAC systems are designed with the

capability of reducing the supply of outside air to the minimum ventilation rates of Section 6.1.3 of

ASHRAE Standard 62-1989. Addenda e, of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989, cites section 6.1.3 of

ASHRAE Standard 62-1989 and allows higher air flow than the minimum. The additional air flow

allows a building operator to respond to actual or anticipated air quality complaints caused by fumes

(even from new construction products), by airborne parasites that cause illnesses in humans and/or

simply from poor air circulation. Because new commercial buildings are already generally being

designed for and operating above the 300 cfm level, the increase in the minimum air flow included in

Addenda I is not expected to have an appreciable effect on energy use or building costs.

Change 1 provides a technical change related to VAV reheat. This change is only a minor part of

a single exception.

14
Change 2 merely restates existing requirements for small air-cooled equipment in terms of

currently used rating terms rather than old rating terms.

Changes 3 through 6 merely update references and eliminate old pre-1992” requirements.

Change 7 provides guidance on equipment covered by the National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act (NAECA) of 1987.

Estimated Energy Impacts

Change 1. No significant energy impact but will allow higher airflow rates because of increased

ventilation requirements.

Change 2. No energy impact, because existing requirements are just being restated.

Changes 3 through 6. No energy impact, because references to test and rating procedures are

just being updated.

Change 7. Changes made to comply with NAECA requirements. Energy impacts of these

changes are beyond the scope of this rule.

Estimated Cost Impacts

Change 1. No cost impact on construction costs. The only cost impacts would be from

increased energy usage that is caused by addenda e requirements. This issue must be balanced against

increased occupant comfort in affected zones.

Changes 2 through 6. No cost impact.

Change 7. Cost impacts of NAECA requirements are outside the scope of 10 CFR 434

documentation.

ASIIRAE Energy Code Proposed Federal Code (10 CFR 434)

Chapter 5 Reference Standards Subpart G - Reference Standards

501 General 434.701 General

Changes

Existing references listed in this section were updated, and new references were added.

Rationale and Discussion

Some existing references were changed, and additional references were cited, to make the Energy

Code document consistent with the updated requirements stemming from the ASHRAE addenda to

15
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989. None of these reference changes affects building design or

technology choice or has any impact on energy use or cost.

16
References

10 CFR 435, Subpart A. January 30, 1989. U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation

Voluntary Performance Standards for Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings;

Mandatory for New Federal Buildings; Interim Rule.” Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1980.

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90A-1980, “Energy Conservation in New Building Design.” New York.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1981. ASI-IR4E

Standard 62-1981. “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.” New York.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1985. 1985

ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. Atlanta.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989. 1989

ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. Atlanta.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989:

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, “Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise

Residential Buildings.” Atlanta.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989. ASFIRAE

Standard 62-1989, “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.” Atlanta.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1993. Energy

Code for Commercial and High-Rise Residential Buildings - Codification ofASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989,

Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta.

Energy Information Administration. 1994. Annual Energy Outlook 1994. DOE/EIA-0383(94), U.S.

Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Hadley, D. L., and M. A. Halverson. 1993. Energy Conservation Potential of the U.S. Department

ofEnergy Interim Commercial Building Standards. PNL-7967, Pacific Northwest Laboratory.

Richland, Washington.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 1987. NEMA Standard Publication MGi-1987,

“Motors and Generators.” Washington, D.C.

Lippiatt, B. C. 1991. Energy Prices and Discount Factorsfor Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 1993.

NISTIR 85-3272-6, Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 135 and NBS Special Publication 709,

National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg,

Maryland.

17
Office of Buildings and Community Systems. 1986. Economic Analysis in Support of Proposed

Interim Energy Conservation Standardsfor New Commercial and Multamily High-rise Residential

Buildings. DOE/CE-0166 Vol. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Petersen, S. R. 1991. The NIST “Building Life-Cycle Cost” (BLCC) Program (Version 3.0) User’s

Guide and Reference Manual. NISTIR 4481, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

18
Appendix

Lighting Analysis Details
Appendix

Lighting Analysis Details

When the current DOE commercial building energy standard (10 CFR 435, Subpart A) (the

federal standard) was first promulgated in 1989, it contained two sets of UPD values.—1989 (D0E89)

and 1993 (D0E93) values. The first set of values was taken from ASHRAEIIES Standard 90.1-1989

and became effective upon promulgation of the federal standard. The second set of values was more

stringent and was due to become effective in January 1993. This second set of values was deemed

inappropriately and unjustiflably stringent by a large segment of the lighting industry. Unacceptable

lighting quality results if energy codes require lighting power densities that are not achievable by

practitioners with currently available technology and/or are not economically reasonable.

Specifically, excessively low lighting power densities are likely to result in extreme glare or

inadequate illumination levels. Although energy codes and standards do not provide requirements for

lighting quality, these codes and standards ensure the design of quality environments is possible and

not endangered by prohibitively low lighting power density requirements.

To respond to public concerns over the D0E93 UPD values, DOE implemented a demonstration

phase to evaluate the D0E93 values and make recommended changes where necessary and

appropriate. As a result, the promulgation of the D0E93 values was delayed by one year to await the

results of the study. The demonstration phase, called the Lighting Impact Assessment Task

(Assessment), was performed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory and their subcontractors. The passage

of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) legally prohibited the amendment of the 1989 federal

standard. Therefore, the proposed federal Code will be the first opportunity to implement the results

of the Assessment.

The following is a description of the results of the Assessment, which provides technical support

for the recommended changes to UPD values in the federal Code. The supportive rationale behind

these recommended revisions is presented and its empirical basis is summarized. The recommended

revisions remove some previous inconsistencies from the D0E93 UPD values and adjust values where

necessary so Table 40 1.3.2 reflects a common goal of progressive energy-conserving practice without

prohibiting the design of quality lighting in interior environments.

Objective

A major Assessment objective was to develop a consistent, empirically supported rationale for the

UPD values in the federal standard, and to use that rationale to recommend appropriate revisions to

the UPD values. Revised UPD values were determined by calculating suggested revisions through a

statistical procedure designed to smooth out inconsistencies in the values. The Assessment included

the following complementary efforts:

• a thorough review of any evidence on the relationship between lighting quality and lighting

power density

A.1
• an intensive outreach effort to locate and utilize all building case studies and post-occupancy

evaluations that reported lighting power densities and occupant satisfaction with lighting in

new and retrofitted installations

• an examination and comparison of variability in lighting power densities from different North

American standards sources and organizations that have published UPD recommendations and

proposed rationales

• a series of lighting simulations by expert lighting designers of exemplar spaces to determine

obtainable lighting power density levels while ensuring high lighting quality for those

environments.

Guiding Principles

The Assessment directly addressed the question of how far an energy standard can go in reducing

lighting energy consumption in buildings before lighting quality is compromised. This question is

currently being widely researched throughout Europe and North America. The Assessment has

combined relevant results from this research with a suitable statistical procedure into a rationale that

generates UPD recommendations for the federal standard. The rationale is guided by the following

principles:

• Lighting power density standards should be grounded in the best available empirical evidence

that shows how building occupants respond to and accept lighting designed to meet those

energy usage levels.

• When consensus in professional judgments is uncertain, an analytical model may be

successfully employed to make informed judgments and augment the limitations of such

judgments.

• Common lighting technologies are used, and common visual tasks are performed by occupants

across a variety of space types. Therefore, a relationship exists between different space types.

• Lighting power density numbers in an energy standard must be based upon assumptions; but

given the societal impact of an energy. standard, all assumptions underlying the resulting

lighting powei densities should be responsibly determined and clearly defined.

Together, these principles suggest a rationale that is data driven, consistently implemented across

all space types, and open to thorough verification at each step.

Rationale

Unit power densities in a lighting energy standard that encourage energy conservation and

maintain lighting quality are bounded by two levels. The upper bound is represented by current

professional practice that produces both energy savings and acceptable lighting (from the occupant’s

A.2
point of view). The lighting energy standard should not mandat’e UPDs higher than this bound, which

has already been achieved. The lower bound is represented by lighting mock-ups and simulations of

selected space types that extend the capabilities of professional practice. These mock-ups and

simulations demonstrate much more energy-conserving lighting and that high lighting quality can be

maintained. The lighting energy standard should not mandate UPDs lower than this bound, which

describes the best that can be done under ideal circumstances. The upper bound, referred to as

ALADA (As Low as Achievable with Demonstrated Acceptability), describes the region from which

lighting practice is moving, and the lower bound, referred to as ALAHSQUA (As Low as Achievable

with High Simulated Quality), describes the region toward which lighting practice is moving.

Analysis Overview

The five steps taken in the Assessment were as follows:

First, an extensive technical outreach effort was conducted to identify and obtain any relevant data

on UPD values.

The technical outreach effort identified current information on the quality impacts of energyefficient lighting in nonresidential environments. This effort involved contacting individuals currently

working, or who have, worked, in this field to assist in obtaining unpublished and little-known reports

and to find ongoing lighting evaluation efforts: Copies of research articles and case studies on

energy-efficient buildings were also obtained. In addition, data on energy consumption and

expenditures by building type were obtained from the Energy Information Administration (ErA).

Over 60 individuals were contacted by phone and/or in person. These individuals represent the

following entities:

• organizations active in energy efficiency issues -Natural Resources Defense Council, Electric

Power Research Institute, Lighting Research Institute, International Association of Lighting

Designers, and the illuminating Engineering Society

• laboratories -Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Seattle City Light’s Regional Lighting Design Laboratory, Lighting Research Center, Pacific

Energy Center, National Research Council of Canada

• universities - University of California at Berkeley, University of Washington, University of

Minnesota, University of Kansas, Cornell University, Penn State University

• states -California, New York, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon

• utilities -Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, .San Diego Gas and

Electric, Northern States Power Company, Northeast Utilities, Bonneville Power Administration

• energy management companies - ADM Associates, Sieben Energy Associates

• lamp and luminaire manufacturers - Osram Corporation, Litecontrol

A.3
• lighting consultants - Synergy Lighting Consultants, Inc., Hayden McKay Lighting Design,

Luminae Souter Lighting Design, Architectural Design Lab, Horton Lees Lighting Design,

Clanton Engineering

Case studies and/or functional space lighting information were acquired for different space types

from the above-listed sources. Post-occupancy evaluations done on seven Bonneville Power

Administration buildings were obtained. Individuals at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Pacific

Gas and Electric Company, involved with post-occupancy evaluations to be done on the Advanced

Customer Technology Test for Maximum Energy Efficiency (ACT 2)buildings, were contacted. Other

utilities provided limited lighting information (in the form of UPDs) from some of their new

commercial construction programs.

The technical outreach phase included a Lighting Quality and Efficiency Technical Exchange

Symposium on July 8-9, 1993 at Seattle City Light’s Regional Lighting Design Lab in Seattle,

Washington. This symposium presented the Assessment and solicited commentary on the rationale

for the revision of the 1993 federal standard UPD values. Lighting researchers, practitioners, and

utility personnel active in lighting design, along with lighting efficiency panels and professional

communities, presented their results and thoughts on issues surrounding lighting standards.

Second, a comparative analysis. of UPD values was performed to determine which of the 106

space types used in the federal standard showed significant inconsistencies and would potentially

require revision and case study simulations.

The comparative UPD analysis began with a comparison between the D0E89 and D0E93 UPD

values in the federal standard. Of the 106 space types used in Table 3.5-1, “Base UPD for

Area/Activity,” in the federal standard, 21 were identified as likely to be significantly impacted by the

proposed changes to the D0E93 UPD values. Specifically, a decrease in the level by 40% or more

and a shift of at least 0.1 Z-score unit or a change in sign from a positive to a negative Z-score in

the distribution of UPD values were considered significant. These combined criteria resulted in the

list of space types displayed in Table A.1.

Additionally, lighting power density values from the following sources were used in UPD

comparisons:

• federal standard (1989 and 1993) values

• ASHRAEIIES Standard 90.1-1989

• California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (CEC 1992)

• New York State Energy Code

• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

• 1990 Northwest Energy Code as adopted by the Northwest Power Planning Council

• National Research Council (NRC) Canada.

(a)The number of standard deviation units above or below the mean of a distribution.

A.4
Table A.1. Potentially Impacted Space Types

Space Type Change. % Absolute Duff.. w/ft 2 Z-Score Duff.

1. Classroom

2. Leisure Dining

3. Bar, Lounge

4. Library Cardflle

5. Library Reading Area

6. Reception & Waiting

7. Elevator Lobbies

8. Atrium, Floors 1-3

9. Air/Bus/Rail Stations

10. Ticket Counter

11. Wait/Lounge Area

12. Church Cong. Area

13. Dormitory Bedroom

14. Study Hall

15. Jail Cell

16. Hotel Banquet Room

17. Hotel Rest Room

18. Hotel Guest Room

19. Exhibition Hall

20. Museum Inactive Stg.

21. Mall Concourse

2.0 to 1.0 = 1.0

2.5 to 1.4 = 1.1

2.5 to 1.3 = 1.2

1.6 to 0.8 = 0.8

1.9 to 1.0 = 0.9

1.0 to 0.55 = 0.45

0.8 to 0.4 = 0.4

0.7 to 0.4 = 0.3

0.9 to 0.45 = 0.45

2.5 to 1.3 = 1.2

1.2 to 0.6 = 0.6

2.3 to 1.3 = 1.0

1.0 to 0.6 = 0.4

1.8 to 0.9 = 0.9

0.8 to 0.4 = 0.4

2.4to 1.4 = 1.0

1.2 to 0.6 = 0.6

1.4 to 0.7 = 0.7

2.6 to 1.3 = 1.3

0.6 to 0.25 = 0.35

1.4 to 0.6 = 0.8

0.258 to -0.406

0.743 to 0.006

0.743 to -0.097

-0.13 to -0.613

0.16 to -0.406

-0.71 to -0.871

-0.906 to -1.026

-1.003 to -1.026

-0.809 to -0.974

0.743 to -0.097

-0.518 to -0.819

0.549 to -0.097

-0.712 to -0.812

0.064 to -0.510

-0.906 to -1.026

0.646 to 0.006

-0.518 to -0.819

-0.324 to -0.716

0.840 to -0.097

-1.1 to -1.8

-0.32 to -0.81

This analysis focused on space types requiring further study, and created the basis for the

empirical database of ALADA and ALAHSQUA UPD values. Where insufficient data existed for

ALAHSQUA UPD values, the need for case study simulations was indicated. The individuals who

performed the case studies under contract to PNL were JoAnne Lindsley of Synergy Consultants, Inc.

and Naomi Miller of Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (formerly of

Architectural Lighting Design, Inc.) The working model of the case studies was created by Hayden

McKay of Hayden McKay Lighting Design.

Third, based on the results of the UPD comparative analysis, empirical data (ALADA and

ALAHSQUA) was collected for use in establishing the statistical model. Case study simulations were

performed where insufficient data existed for ALAHSQUA UPD values.

Attachments A. 1 and A.2 to this Appendix list the sources of the ALADA and ALAHSQUA data

points that were recovered and used as the basis for the eventual predictions in the statistical model.

Based on the comparative analysis of UPD values, 26 different space types out of the 106 listed in

the federal standard (‘Table 3.5-1, “Base UPD for ArealActivity”) are represented.

Figures A.1 and A.2 plot the UPD data points on bars that reflect the federal standard’s D0E89

and D0E93 UPD values. ALADA points are plotted as black circles and ALAHSQUA points as

50

44

48

50

47

45

50

43

50

48

50

43

40

50

50

42

50

50

50

58

57

A.5
open squares. Significant mismatches are evident between data and the federal standard’s values for

several of the space types. For example, the D0E93 UPD value for Classrooms in the federal

standard appears to be far too low to accommodate both current energy-efficient practice and

energy-exemplar simulations. By contrast, the values for Offices seem to show that the DOE value

(an average of the various office UPDs in the federal standard) can be further lowered to gain

additional energy savings.

Figures A. 1. and A.2 also show there are no corresponding ALADA and ALAHSQUA data points

for all space types. For example, Leisure Dining, Conference/Meeting, and Auditorium do not have

corresponding ALAHSQUA points; and Museum Storage (inactive) and Exhibits and Airport Waiting

and Ticketing do not have corresponding ALADA points. In the extant building studies and

simulations available on lighting, some space types are very strongly represented and others are

apparently ignored. This condition in currently available research was considered in the development

of the UPD assessment model.

The first step in developing revised UPDs was to predict the missing values from the basis data

set. Figures A.3 and A.4 use the extant pairs of ALADA:ALAHSQUA points to derive at the linear

regression estimates for those that are missing. The correlation of 0.873 between the sets of points is

high enough to justify this procedure. In each of these figures, the missing points being estimated

belong to those plotted on the y-axis as indicated in the regression equation.

Figures A.5 and A.6 show the means of completed data sets for the 26 space types (including

both original and estimated points) plotted in increasing order of the joint means. Figure A.5 plots

these means on bars that reflect the D0E89 values, while Figure A.6 places these means on bars that

reflect the D0E93 values. These figures show the clearest summative comparisons between the state

of building studies and simulations and the mandates of the federal standard’s values. Two conditions

are noticeably evident. First, there is a better overall fit between the ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs of

means and the D0E89 values than between those means and the D0E93 values. Second, the

differences between ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs of means were much lower than was expected.

The first condition appears to verify the presence of inconsistencies in the DOE93 values that

motivated this research. If the federal standard more appropriately reflected the current

state-of-the-art lighting practice, the tops of the bars would be near or between the

ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs of means. The second condition was surprising because a greater

disparity between real-world case studies and simulations was hypothesized. Either the assessed

buildings are pushing the energy performance envelope, or simulation studies are more closely attuned

to real-world practice than their ideal conditions might suggest.

Fourth, the ALADA and ALAHSQUA data were used as a statistical base to describe a predicted

overall relationship between ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs and indicate where UPD values required

revision. The statistical model produced a target guideline of predicted IJPD values based on the.

principles and rationale of the UPD comparative analysis.

These pairs of means served as a statistical base to describe a predicted overall relationship

between ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs and indicate where the 80 federal standard space type values

(not represented in the original 26 space types) will appear in the overall relationship.

A.6
Figures A.7 and A.8 show the correlation between the ALADA:ALAHSQUA pairs of means on

the original 26 space types. These figures are different from Figures A.3 and A.4 because they

include the missing yalues that were estimated in the previous regression equations. Note that the

correlation has now moved to 0.9 10 from 0.873, which is to be expected with the addition of these

highly correlated estimates.

It is worth noting that the decision to use the line of structural relations analysis is superior to

using simple linear regression analysis (i.e., correlation) because this procedure allows for an

estimation of standard values from the information in both lighting distributions (lighting as practical

and lighting as simulated).

Technically, the line of structural relations is the weighted mean of the two regression lines, Y on

X and the reciprocal of X on Y, where the weighing is proportional to the measurement errors in

observing data in the two distributions. Because of the high correlation and the similarity of

ALADA:ALAHSQUA data points, made a simplifying assumption was made that the ratio of the

error variances in the two distributions was 1.0. This assumption made the line of structural relations

the simple mean of these two regression lines.

Figure A.9 shows the 26 pairs of points with the inscribed line of structural relations. This line

shows the linear relation toward which the two distributions of points are strongly tending. The

predicted D0E93 values based on the ALADA:ALAHSQUA linear relation are determined by

perpendiculars to the line of structural relations drawn from each point. When the original ALADA

point is higher than its corresponding ALAHSQUA, the predicted value is read off of the ordinate. If

the original ALAHSQUA is higher, the value is read off of the abscissa of the graph.

Table A.2 summarizes the 26 predicted UPD values, their corresponding ALADA and

ALAHSQUA means, and their differences from D0E89 and D0E93 values.

There were some peculiarities in the predicted values, which are expected when working from a

global statistical model. For example, the predicted UPD value of 0.60 for Library Stacks occurred

because this point is extremely off-axis, with a large difference and a position reversal between its

ALADA and ALAHSQUA means. The very high predicted UPD value (with respect to D0E89 and

D0E93 values) for the Fast Food category occurred because the data points supporting this category

are exclusively from retail fast food establishments, while the federal standard’s values inexplicably

include cafeterias in the same category. This peculiarity suggests that there should be two space type

categories to accommodate these very different types of eating facilities.

The final step in extrapolating to the federal standard’s other space type categories is shown in

Figure A. 10. This figure correlates the 26 predicted UPD values from Table A. 1 with their

respective D0E89 values and shows the regression equation for deriving other predicted UPD values

for the remaining 80 D0E89 space types. There is a moderate 0.52 R-value here, which is sufficient

The straight line that has a minimum distance to all points in a cloud of points.

A.7
Table A.2. Predicted UPD Values for 26 AreafActivity Space Types

for Which ALADA and ALAHSQUA Data Are Available

ALADA ALAHSQUA Predicted UPD DOES9 D0E93

Area/Activity Mean Mean Value Value Value

0.8

Fast Food 3.61 2.27 3.50 1.30

Museum(Inspection) 2.59 2.02 2.65 3.90 3.0

Bar/Lounge 2.46 2.12 2.60 2.50 1.3

Retail D(Gen Merch) 2.42 1.78 2.40 3.00 2.3

Classroom 1.99 1.62 2.05 2.00 1.0

Airport (Ticket) 1.94 1.55 2.00 2.50 1.3

Mall Concourse 1.81 1.52 1.90 1.40 0.6

Museum (Exhibit) 1.73 1.4 1.75 1.90 1.2

Office 1.47 1.23 1.50 2.44 2.07

Dorm Bedroom 1.45 1.2 1.50 1.00 0.6

P0 Sorting 1.29 1.19 1.35 2.10 2.1

Dorm Study Hall 1.18 1.01 1.20 1.80 0.9

Computer/Equipment 1.13 0.7 1.10 2.10 2.1

Auditorium 1.1 1.03 1.1 1.60 1.4

Library Reading 1.08 0.94 1.10 1.90 1.0

Warehouse Active, Fine 1.0 0.51 0.85 1.00 0.9

Museum Storage Inact. 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.60 0.25

Leisure Dining 0.85 0.89 0.90 2.50 1.4

Hotel Guest Room 0.83 0.76 0.85 1.40 0.7

Airport (Waiting) 0.8 0.74 0.80 1.20 0.6

Library Card Catalogue 0.8 0.74 0.80 1.60 0.8

Conference/Meeting 0.77 0.85 0.80 1.80 1.3

Corridors 0.73 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.8

Service Station, Repair 0.54 0.38 0.45 1.00 0.8

Airport Thruway 0.5 0.83 0.65 0.90 0.45

Library Stacks 0.22 1.13 0.60 1.50 1.50

for this purpose. Each of the remaining 80 space type predicted UPD values was determined by

entering its D0E89 value in the following regression equation:

Predicted D0E93 value = 0.526 * (DOES9 value) + 0.465 (1)

These IJPD values can also be visually determined by entering the D0E89 UPD value on the

abscissa of Figure A. 10 and going vertically up to the regression line, then horizontally over to the

corresponding value on the y-axis. Note that this procedure is not appropriate for the original 26

space types, whose predicted 1993 UPD values were determined from their empirical database.

A.8
Fifth, the model was used to determine which of three UPD values was most appropriate for the

space type: the original D0E89 value, the D0E93 value, or the predicted number from the statistical

model. Table 401.3.2 was revised accordingly as shown in the proposed federal Code.

Out of the 106 Area/Activity space types, 57 have stayed with the D0E93 UPDs, 27 have been

rolled back to the DOES9 UPDs, and 22 have been given new UPDs that mostly fall between the

D0E89 and D0E93 values. A new value was only recommended after substantial empirical evidence

had been gathered, or when the value’s prediction by the statistical regression model appeared to be

the best compromise between substantially different D0E89 and D0E93 values and no other evidence

was available.

The guidelines for revisions to the UPD values were as follows:

• Because EPAct mandated ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as the standard to meet or exceed

the federal standard, and because D0E89 UPD values are almost identical to the ASHRAE

values, D0E89 values are recommended when the model predicted close to or above the

D0E89 values.

• When the model predicted close to or below the D0E93 UPD values, and there was no

substantial empirical evidence to justify the lower prediction of the model, the D0E93 values

were recommended, which are usually lower than D0E89 values. In a couple of instances

(e.g., Library Stacks) where the model predicted below the D0E93 values, and there was

good evidence to support it, the new, lower UPD value was recommended.

• If the model predicted between the D0E89 and D0E93 values, and was in a range where the

model can be considered most valid, the new predicted UPD value from the model was

substituted for the 00E93 UPD value.

Offices have a high number of new recommended UPOs because the substantial amount of case

study and simulation evidence points overwhelmingly to a current capability for further lowering

office UPDs from their D0E93 values, with no danger of decreasing acceptable lighting quality. The

large amount of office space in the United States means that even this small decrease will result in

significant additional energy savings. In only one case have we increased a D0E93 office UPD value

from 1.3 to 1.5 WIfe to conform with the model’s prediction.

Table A.3 shows the predicted UPD values derived from the regression model for all

Area/Activity space types in Table 3.5-1 of the federal standard. The table also shows a comparison

of these values with D0E89 and D0E93 UPDs, and makes a recommendation based on the observed

differences and the strength of the data underlying the predicted UPD values. The original 26 space

types for which ALADA:ALAHSQUA data are available are marked with an asterisk (*)• All values

are in watts per square foot (WIft).

A.9
Table A.3. Predicted UPD Values and Recommendations for Revisions

to the Federal Standard UPD Values

Predicted D0E89 D0E93 Recommended UPD

Area/Activity UPD Value Value Value Value

Auditorium* 1.1 1.6 1.4 D0E93 = 1.4

Corridor* 0.8 0.8 0.8 D0E93 = 0.8

Classrooms 2.05 2.0 1.0 00E89 2.0

Elec/Mech Rm

General 0.7 0.7 0.7 D0E93 0.7

Contri Rm. 1.6 1.5 1.5 D0E93 1.5

Food Service

Fast Food* 3.5 1.3 0.8 D0E89 = 1.3

Leisure Dng.* 0.9 2.5 1.4 D0E93 = 1.4

BarlLounge* 2.6 2.5 1.3 D0E89 2.5

Kitchen 1.2 1.4 1.4 D0E93 = 1.4

RecreationfLnge. 0.7 0.7 0.5 D0E89 = 0.7

Stairs

Active 0.8 0.6 0.6 D0E93 = 0.6

Emergency 0.7 0.4 0.4 D0E93 = 0.4

Toilet & Washroom 0.9 0.8 0.5 D0E89 = 0.8

Garage

Auto/Ped. 0.6 0.3 0.25 00E89 = 0.3

Parking 0.6 0.2 0.2 D0E93 = 0.2

Laboratory 1.7 2.3 2.2 D0E93 = 2.2

Library

AudIVsl. 1.1 1.1 1.1 D0E93 = 1.1

Stacks* 0.6 1.5 1.5 New# = 1.1

Card flle* 0.8 1.6 0.8 D0E93 = 0.8

Reading* 1.1 1.9 1.0 New# 1.1

Lobby (general)

Recpm. 1.0 1.0 0.55 D0E89 = 1.0

Elevator 0.9 0.8 0.4 D0E89 = 0.4

Atrium

First 3 floors 0.8 0.7 0.4 D0E89 = 0.7

Each additional floor 0.6 0.2 0.15 D0E89 = 0.2

Locker Rm & Shower 0.9 0.8 0.6 D0E89 = 0.8

Offlces* <9()iJ ft2

Reading 1.5 1.8 1.3 New # 1.5

Drafting 1.85 2.6 2.2 New# = 1.9

Accnmg. 1.6 2.1 1.8 New# = 1.6

Open Plan Offices = or> 900 ft2 with

medium-high, partitions

Reading 1.5 1.9 1.5 D0E93 = 1.5

Drafting 2.0 2.9 2.6 New # = 2.0

Accntng. 1.75 2.4 2.1 New# = 1.8

A.10
Open Plan Offices

= or

> 900 ft with

high partitions

Reading 1.7 2.2 1.7 D0E93

= 1.7

Drafting 2.3 3.4 3.0 New

#

= 2.3

Accntng. 1.9 2.7 2.4 New

#

= 1.9

Common Activity Areas

Conflmtng* 0.8 1.8 1.3 D0E93

= 1.3

Computer* 1.1 2.1 2.1 New# 1.1

Fling. Inact. 1.0 1.0 1.0 D0E93

= 1.0

Mail Room 1.4 1.8 1.8 D0E93 1.8

Shop (Nonindustrial)

Machinery 1.8 2.5 2.5 D0E93

= 2.5

Electrical 1.8 2.5 2.5 D0E93 2.5

Painting 1.3 1.6 1.6 D0E93

= 1.6

Carpentry 1.7 2.3 2.3 D0E93

= 2.3

Welding 1.1 1.2 1.2 D0E93

= 1.2

Storage

& Warehouse

Inactive 0.6 0.3 0.2 D0E93

= 0.2

Active. Bulky. 0.6 0.3 0.3 D0E93

= 0.3

Active.Fine* 0.85 1.0 0.9 D0E93 0.9

Matri. Hndi. 1.0 1.0 1.0 D0E93 1.0

Unlisted Space 0.6 0.2 0.2 D0E93

= 0.2

Airport, Bus

& Rail Station

Baggage 0.9 0.8 0.75 D0E89

= 0.8

Thruway* 0.65 0.9 0.45 D0E89

= 0.9

Tckt. Cntr.* 2.0 2.5 1.3 New

#

= 2.0

Wtng/Lnge* 0.8 1.2 0.6 New

#

= 0.8

Bank

Custmr. 1.0 1.0 0.8 D0E89

= 1.0

Bnkng.Area 2.0 2.8 2.2 D0E93

= 2.2

Barber&Beauty 1.6 2.0 1.6 D0E93

= 1.6

Church, Synagogue, Chapel

Worship 1.7 2.3 1.3 New# 1.7

Preach/Chr. 1.9 2.7 1.8 D0E93 1.8

Dormitory

Bdrm.* 1.5 1.0 0.6 D0E89 1.0

Bdrmlstdy 1.2 1.3 1.3 D0E93 1.3

StdyHall* 1.2 1.8 0.9 New#

= 1.2

Fire

& Police Dept.

Engine Rm. 0.8 0.7 0.7 D0E93 0.7

Jail Cell 0.9 0.8 0.4 D0E89

= 0.8

Hospital/Nursing Home

Corridor 1.2 1.3 0.9 D0E89

= 1.3

Dental Ste. 1.3 1.6 1.4 D0E89

= 1.6

Emergency 1.7 2.3 2.0 D0E93

= 2.0

Laboratory 1.5 1.9 1.7 D0E93 1.7

Lounge 0.9 0.9 0.6 D0E89

= 0.9

A.11
Med. Supls. 1.7 2.4 2.4 D0E93

= 2.4

Nursery 1.5 2.0 1.6 D0E93

= 1.6

Nurse Sta. 1.6 2.1 1.8 D0E93

= 1.8

Occ/Phys. 1.3 1.6 1.4 D0E93

= 1.4

Patient Rin 1.2 1.4 0.9 New

#= 1.2

Pharmacy 1.4 1.7 1.5 D0E93

= 1.5

Radiology 1.6 2.1 1.8 D0E93

= 1.8

Surgical and OB suites

General 1.6 2.1 1.8 D0E93

= 1.8

Operating 4.4 7.0 6.0 D0E93

= 6.0

Recovery 2.1 3.0 2.0 D0E93

= 2.0

Hotel/Conference Center

Banquet

V

1.7 2.4 1.4 New

#= 1.7

Bath/Pwdr. 1.1 1.2 0.6 D0E89

= 1.2

Guest Rm*

VV 0.9 1.4 0.7 New

#

= 0.9

Public 1.0 1.1 0.8 New#

= 1.0

Exhibition 1.8 2.6 1.3 New

#= 1.8

Conf./Mtng.

V 1.4 1.8 1.5 D0E93

= 1.5

Lobby 1.5 1.9 1.3 New

#= 1.5

Reception 1.7 2.4 2.4 D0E93

= 2.4

Laundry

Washing

V 0.9

V

0.9 0.6 D0E89 0.9

1mg/Sort

V

1.2

VV

1.3 1.3 D0E93 1.3

Museum& Gallery

Genrl Exbt.* 1.8 1.9 1.2 D0E89

= 1.9

Inspctn.*

V

2.65 3.9 3.0 D0E93

= 3.0

Storage(Artifacts)Inactive* 1.0 0.6

V

0.25 D0E89

= 0.6

Storage(Artifacts)Active 08

V

0.7 0.5 D0E89

= 0.7

Post Office

V

Lobby 1.1 1.1 0.8 D0E89 1.1

Sort/Mail* 1.4 2.1 2.1 D0E93 2.1

Srvce Sta. Repr.* 0.5 1.0 0.8 D0E93

= 0.8

Theatre

V

Perf. Arts 1.3 1.5 1.1 New

#

= 1.3

Mot. Pict. 1.0 1.0 0.75 D0E89

= 1.0

Lobby 1.3 1.5 1.0 New#

= 1.3

Retail Establishments

TypeA 3.4 5.6 60

V

D0E89 5.6

TypeB 2.2 3.2 2.9 D0E93 2.9

Type

C 2.2 3.3 2.7 D0E93 2.7

TypeVD* 2.4 3.0 2.5 New

# 2.3

V

Type

E

V

V

2.0 2.8 2.4 D0E93= 2.4

TypeF 1.9 2.7 2.6 D0E93

= 2.6

Mall Concourse* 1.9 1.4 0.6 D0E89= 1.4

Retail Support Area

Tailoring 1.6 2.1 2.1 D0E93 2.1

Dressing 1.2 1.4 1.1 D0E93= 1.1

A.12
4.0

0

S

03

Figure A.1. D0E89 UPDs with ALADAIALAHSQUA Points

Figure A.2. D0E93 UPOs with ALADA/ALAHSQUA Points

A.13

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

0.0

Activity Ares

I.

4.0

23

Ii

1.0

0.5

0.0

fl ALkI4SQUA

.A1DA • .

0 DORO3

a

.

i;i S

I f f J j f it j I

Activity Area

S
4.0

15

3.0

l0

1.5

C

1.0

C

C

0.0 I

0.0 0.5 L0 1.5 10 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

ALAHSQUA Means

Figure A.3. Prediction Equation for Missing ALADA Points from ALAHSQUA Values:

y = l.399x - 0.233, r = 0.873

4.0

3.5

3.0

161

00

ALADA Means

Figure A.4. Prediction Equation for Missing ALAHSQUA Points from ALADA Values:

y = 0.545x + 0.43 1, r = 0.873

A.14
0

0•

4.

D t*2019

230 • AL.WAM

0 A_’QtL’.M.

,.

.

330

2. . S

. .

.5

V

: 411ii_J 0

: : . - I I I T -

— •0

•-‘ 1< -4

Figure A.5. Means

Adivity Area

.4.0

of Completed ALADA/ALAHSQUA Data Sets Plotted on Bars

Reflecting D0E89 Values

2.0

23 0

2.0

1-s

0.5

Av1tyArei

Figure A.(. Means of Completed ALADA/ALAHSQUA Data Sets Plotted on Bars

Reflecting D0E93 Values

A.15
4.0

C

3.5

3.0

Z a C

•( 2.0

-

15

C

1.0

0.5 C

C

0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 ii 2.0 2.5 3.0 15 4.0

ALAHSQUA MEANS

Figure A.7. Regression of ALADA on ALAHSQUA Values for the Completed 26 Pairs

of Data Points: y = 1.430x - 0.302, r = 0.910

4.0

3.5

10

C’,

2.5

1.0 DC

a

a

I I I I

0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 ii 2.0 2.5 10 3.5 4.0

ALADA MEANs

Figure A.8. Regression of ALAHSQUA on ALADA Values for the Completed 26 Pairs

of Data Points: y = 0.578x - 0.375, r = 0.910

A.16
4.0

E

I-.

U,

=

Figure A.9. The 26 Pairs

I

0.0

of Data Points with Their Inscribed Line of Structural Relations

DOE 89

4.0

Figure AJO. The Regression Equation for Predicting UPD Revisions for the Remaining 80 DOE

Space Types, Using Revised UPDs of the 26 Data Points and Their D0E89 Levels

3.5

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 4.0

ALAHSQUA Means with Regression Estimates

0.0 0.5 1.0 LI .0 2.1 3.5 3.0

A..17
Attachment Al

ALADA Data Source List

ALADA LPD

Activity Area Number Value Source

Airport Thruway 1 0.50 Minnesota Case Studies

Auditorium 1 1.10 Minnesota Case Studies

Bar/Lounge 1 2.46 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Classroom 1 0.77 Lighting Design Lab

Classroom 2 0.96 Lighting Design Lab

Classroom 3 1.23 Lighting.Design Lab

Classroom 4 1.70 Lighting Design Lab

Classroom 5 2.85 California Energy Commission

Classroom 6 - 2.43 California Energy Commission

Classroom 7 2.20 California Energy Commission

Classroom 8 2.76 California Energy Commission

Classroom 9 1.84 California Energy Commission

Classroom 10 2.79 California Energy Commission

Classroom 11 1.86 California Energy Commission

Classroom 12 2.61 California Energy Commission

Classroom 13 1.90 California Energy Commission

Classroom 14 2.02 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Computer/Equipment 1 0.82 Lighting Design Lab

Computer/Equipment 2 0.86 Lighting Design Lab

Computer/Equipment 3 1.70 Minnesota Case Studies

Conference/Meeting 1 0.86 Lighting Design Lab

Conference/Meeting 2 0.72 Lighting Design Lab

Conference/Meeting 3 0.74 Lighting Design Lab

Fast Food 1 3.61 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Leisure Dining 1 1.05 Lighting Design Lab

Leisure Dining 2 0.65 Lighting Design Lab

Library Stacks 1 0.22 Lighting Design Lab

Mall 1 1.10 Oregon Market at Portland Industrial

Airport

A.19
Mall 2 2.51 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Post Office Sorting 1 1.29 San Diego Mail Facility

Service Sta Repair 1 0.54 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office 1 1.43 Lighting Design Lab

Office 2 1.20 Lighting Design Lab

Office 3 1.26 Lighting Design Lab

Office 4 1.15 Lighting Design Lab

Office 5 2.00 Belinda Collins

Office 6 1.70 Energy Edge

Office 7 1.60 Energy Edge

Office 8 1.40 Energy Edge

Office 9 1.20 Energy Edge

Office 10 1.00 Energy Edge

Office 11 1.50 R. Sullivan

Office 12 1.20 Lighting Design Lab

Office 13 0.69 RK Watson

Office 14 0.55 RK Watson

Office 15 1.08 Emerald PUD HQ Building

Office 16 1.39 Heiko Schnet.z V

Office 17 0.67 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office 18 1.85 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office 19 2.05 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office 20 2.06 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office V

21 1.37 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office . 22 3.63 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Office 23 1.81 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Retail D (General) 1 1.54 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Retail 1) (General) 2 2.42 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Retail D (General) 3 3.30 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Warehouse (Medium) 1 1.13 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Warehouse (Medium) 2 1.46 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

Warehouse (Medium) .3 0.41 Minnesota Table 6a Existing

A.20 V
Attachment A.2

ALAHSQUA Data Source List

ALAHSQUA LPD

Activity Area Number Value Source

Airport Ticket 1 1.55 Architectural Design Lab

Airport Thruway 1 0.83 Architectural Design Lab

Airport Waiting 1 0.74 Architectural Design Lab

Bar/Lounge 1 2.12 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Classroom 1 1.10 Lighting Design Lab

Classroom 2 1.72 California Energy Commission

Classroom 3 1.94 California Energy Commission

Classroom 4 1.56 California Energy Commission

Classroom 5 1.53 California Energy Commission

Classroom 6 1.69 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Classroom 7 1.81 Synergy

Computer/Equipment 1 0.70 Synergy

Corridor 1 0.69 Synergy

Corridor (Dorm) 2 1.06 Synergy

Dorm Bedroom 1 1.20 Synergy

Dorm Study Hall 1 1.01 Synergy

Fast Food 1 2.27 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Hotel Guest Room 1 1.08 Lighting Design Lab

Hotel Guest Room 2 0.44 Lighting Design Lab

Library Stacks 1 1.12 Synergy

Library Stacks 2 1.14 Synergy

Library Reading Area 1 0.84 Synergy

Library Reading Area 2 1.05 Synergy

Library Card Catalog 1 0.74 Synergy

A.21
Mall 1 1.52 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Museum Exhibit 1 1.40 Architectural Design Lab

Museum Inact Stor 1 0.86 Architectural Design Lab

Museum Inspection 1 2.02 Architectural Design Lab

Office 1 0.77 Kansas Electric Utilites

Office 2 1.25 R. Sullivan

Office 3 0.05 R. Sullivan

Office 4 1.61 Lighting Design Lab

Office 5 1.34 Lighting Design Lab

Office 6 1.08 Lighting Design Lab

Office 7 0.44 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 8 1.47 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 9 1.96 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 10 1.86 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 11 0.96 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 12 2.09 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 13 1.23 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Office 14 1.08 Synergy

Retail D (General) 1 1.43 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Retail D (General) 2 1.84 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Retail D (General) 3 2.06. Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Service Sta Repair 1 0.38 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Warehouse (medium) 1 0.84 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Warehouse (medium) 2 0.32 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

Warehouse (medium) 3 0.36 Minnesota Table 8a State-of-Art

A.22
PROCEEDINGS

Good morning, I am Ronald B. Majette, Program Manager in the Office of Codes and

Standards. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I would like to thank you for taking the time

to participate in this public hearing concerning the Department’s proposed rule, Energy Code for

New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings. The purpose ofthis

hearing is to discuss the Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise

Residential Buildings with stakeholders and persons who have an interest in energy conservation

in Federal commercial buildings. A public notice ofthis workshop was published in the Federal

Register on Tuesday, August 6, 1996.

The comments received here today and those submitted during the written comment

period will assist the Department in developing the final rule. The written comment period for the

proposed rule Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Mu1ti-Famil High Rise Residential

Buildings ends November 4, 1996. All comments submitted on this proposed rule will be

considered before DOE publishes a final rule. Late comments will not be considered due to time

limitations.

As the presiding officer for this hearing, I will set the guidelines for conducting the hearing

and provide other pertinent information. In approximately one week, a complete copy ofthe

transcript will be available for inspection and copying at the Department of Energy’s Freedom of

Information reading room, located in room 1E-190. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy ofthe

transcript may make arrangements with the court reporter.
This hearing will be conducted in accordance with Section 553 ofthe Administrative

Procedures Act, 5 USC Section 553 and Section 501 of the DOE Organization Act, 42 USC,

Section 7191.

To provide the Department with as much pertinent information and as many views as can

be reasonably obtained, and to enable interested persons to express their views, the hearing will be

conducted in accordance with the following procedures:

The focus ofthis hearing is for the Department to listen to comments pertaining to the

proposed rule.

We will discuss the agenda first and expand if necessary to provide everyone with an

opportunity to discuss their topic. DOE topics will remain on the agenda as lead presentations in

their respective areas.

We’ll take an hour lunch break at a convenient time near 12 noon. It will reduce

interruptions if everyone wants to speak waits to be recognized, and please remember to state

your name first for the court reporter.

Side conversations should be kept to a minimum to avoid interrupting the presenter; if a

lengthy private discussion is needed, move to a corner ofthe room or out ofthe room.

It may be necessary to cut off debate on some topics to maintain the schedule. There will

be some time at the end ofthe workshop to discuss burning issues. I encourage all persons

present to participate as much as possible so that the Department may get a full spectrum of

opinion on these topics.

This hearing is scheduled to end by 4 p.m. or sooner, if all items have been completely

discussed. Topics which have not been completely discussed by 4 p.m. can be addressed in the
written comments. The written comments are due by November 4, 1996, and late comments will

not be included in the final rule.

All written comments will be available for public inspection at the DOE Freedom of

Information Reading Room. Phone number (202) 586-6020. Written comments should be

addressed to the Department ofEnergy as noted in the Federal Register notice for today’s

hearing.

Eight copies ofthe comments are requested. In addition, the Department would

appreciate an electronic copy ofthe comments. The Department is using WordPerfect 6.1. No

faxed comments will be accepted.

Any persons submitting information which he or she believes to be confidential and

exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy and i(copies from which

information claimed to be confidential has been deleted.

In accordance with the procedures established at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of

Energy shall make its own determinations as to whether the information shall be exempt from

public disclosure.

In keeping with the regulations ofthese facilities, there is no smoking allowed in this

room: Again, we appreciate the time and effort you have taken in preparing for this workshop,

and are pleased to receive your comments and opinions.

I would like to reiterate, the purpose ofthe hearing is to listen to comments relative to the

proposed rule 10 CFR 434 Energy Code for New Federal Commercial and Multi-Family High

Rise Residential Buildings.
Today the DOE attendees are Francine Pinto, on my right, from the Office of General

Counsel Mary Beth Zimmerman, on my left from the Office of Energy Efficiency, Alternative

Fuels, and Oil Analysis, Office of Policy. The proposed rule is only part of the process

toward developing a final rulemaking.

The proposed rule is completed with the publication of a technical support document and

the Federal Register Notice ofProposed Rulemaking for Energy Code for New Federal

Commerical and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings.::

At first, I would like to proceed around the room with introductions, and then we’ll go to

the agenda.