### PNL-10477 Rev. 1 UC-l600



# Technical SupportDocumentfor the Proposed Federal Commercial BuildingEnergyCode S. Somasundaram M. A. Halverson C. C. Jones D. L. Hadley

August 1996


### Prepared for

### the U.S. Department 

### ofEnergy under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 

### 1830
Pacific Northwest Laboratory 

### Operatedforthe U.S. Department of

### Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute 

# OBalteilep 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 ofEnergy under Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830

Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory Richiand, Washington 99352Foreword 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 reportpresents thejustification and technical documentation for all changes and updates to the Energy Codefor Commercial 

### andHigh-RiseResidentialBuildings (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 ofASHRAE/IES Standard

### 90.1-1989, “Energy Efficient Design ofNew Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.’ The changes and updates that were approved by ASHRAE are Addendab, c, d, e, g, and I. The proposed rule would also include provisions that are substantively the same as those in AddendaF, 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 economicjustification for the differences between the proposed rule and the codified version ofASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as ofOctober 1993.

VContents Foreword Abstract Introduction Documentation for the Proposed Federal Commercial References Appendix

- Lighting Analysis Details

V1 Building Energy Code 317 A.1 VII

## Introduction
The 

### U.S. Department ofEnergy (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 ofvarious U.S. vqluntary model codes. The proposed code includes provisions in the areas ofelectric motors, lighting, mechanical ventilation, building envelope materials and rating procedures, and heating and cooling equipment testprocedures that differ from the codified version ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as ofOctober 1993. DOE worked,with the American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standing Standards Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1 and the Illuminating Engineering Society ofNorth America (IESNA) Energy Management Committee when those committees developed addenda to their commercial building energy standard for the private sector, 

### ASHRAE/IES Standard90.1-1989. 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 ofproposed 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 ofthose 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 ofcertain features in its proposed code.

IDocumentation 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. 3Some ofthe 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 ofNEMA StandardMGi-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 ofASHRAE/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 ofenergy by motors should decrease by approximately 2% under Addendum c requirements ifthe motors are directly replaced. As a very rough estimate (based on fan and pump usage), motors consume approximately 12% ofthe total energy used by commercial buildings. This number would decrease by 2%, for a total savings of0.24% ofthe 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 ofthe motor industry, which is already manufacturing to NEMA StandardMGi-1987. The cost impact ofthe 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 unitpower density (UPD) values (lighting requirements) for 106 defined space/areatypes. Most ofthe UPD values in Tables 401.3.2b and 401.3.2c reflectthe 1993 values from the interim standard. The remaining UPD values are the same as those found in Standard 90.1.

4Rationale 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 5to 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 of4. 1 kBtulft 2 lyr is attributable to differences in lighting requirements. Therefore, if75% ofthe 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 ofthe average DOE 1989 building. Cost Impacts In 1992, PNL conducted a case study ofa 27,300-ft 2 law office building in New York. The lifecycle costs (LCCs) ofdifferent 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 of4.6% 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 ofthe LCC analysis for five lighting design options and for a.range ofelectricity prices are shown in Table 3. No reduction in illumination from Standard 90.1 levels is involved in any ofthe 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 ahigher LCC. More energy-efficient lighting designs (more stringent than the levels prescribed in ASHRAE/IES Standard90.1-1989) can be achieved at lower LCCs primarily because ofthe new technologies and products on the market that were not widely available when Standard 90.1 was approved.

6Table 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 7Table 

### 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 2 plus allowance for additional controls.



### 8ASHRAE 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. 9Rationale and Discussion The expansion ofTable 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 ofDirectors onJuly 1, 1993). Addendum g addresses metal stud correction factors. These correction factors 

### are used to account for the presence ofthermally conductive metal studs in insulated walls. Both the existing and revised tables contain precalculated results ofcommonly used heat-transfer calculations. The new tablejust 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. Ifanything, the expanded table reduces calculation time and therefore saves money.

Changes The reference cited in the last sentence in Section 402.1.2.2 ofthe ASHRAE Energy Code was changed from “page 23.2 ofChapter 23 ofRS-4” (1985 ASHRE4EHandbookFundamentals) to page 23.2 ofChapter 23 of 1989ASHRAE HandbookFundamentals. 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

10Rationale 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. 11The 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. Ifwe 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 falso provides revisions to a number oftesting methods and specifications for windows and doors, as well as revisions to current versions ofASHRAE-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 ofwindows and skylights required by the code change. As evidenced by the data in the table above, the same window requirement will simply have a differenttheoretical performance characteristic underthe updated procedure. Therefore, the energy performance ofa 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 fëalI for the same underlying construction (as stated in Estimated Energy Impacts above), there is no cost impact.

12ASIIRAE 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 ofseasonal equipment efficiency ratings and heating seasonal performance factors rather than coefficients ofperformance (per updates inAR! 

### Standard210/240-89). 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 ofDirectors on July 1, 1993) addresses changes needed to update references to testing and rating procedures thathave been modified or revised, since 1989. This addenda also addresses adding an item (4) to exception (a) ofsubsection 9.5.2 ofthe ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 as follows: (4) 300 cfm. This subsection deals with the operational issues ofa 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 ofHVAC equipment for public 

### and private sector buildings is determined by procedures found in section 9.4.1 ofASHRAE Standard 90. 1-1989, which ensures adequate heating and cooling. HVAC systems are designed with the capability ofreducing the supply ofoutside air to the minimum ventilation rates ofSection 6.1.3 of ASHRAE Standard 62-1989. Addenda e, ofASHRAE 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 abuilding 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.

14Change 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 15ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989. None ofthese reference changes affects building design or technology choice or has any impact on energy use or cost.

16References 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/A SHRAE/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 of ASHRAE/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 of Energy 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 Factors for 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. 17Office ofBuildings and Community Systems. 1986. EconomicAnalysis in Support ofProposed 

### InterimEnergy Conservation StandardsforNew Commercial andMultamily High-riseResidential Buildings. DOE/CE-0166 Vol. 2, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Washington, D.C. Petersen, S. R. 1991. The NIST “Building Life-Cycle Cost” (BLCC) Program (Version 3.0) User’s Guide andReferenceManual. NISTIR 4481, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

18AppendixLighting Analysis Details

## Appendix Lighting Analysis Details
Whenthe current

### DOE commercial building energy standard (10 CFR 435, 

### SubpartA) (the federal standard) was firstpromulgated in 1989, it contained two sets ofUPD values.—1989 (D0E89) and 1993 (D0E93) values. The first set ofvalues was taken fromASHRAEIIES Standard90.1-1989 andbecame effectiveuponpromulgation ofthefederal standard. The second set of

### values was more stringent and was due to become effective inJanuary 1993. This second set ofvalues was deemed inappropriately andunjustiflably stringentby alarge segment ofthelighting industry. Unacceptable lighting quality results ifenergy codes require lightingpower densities that are not achievableby practitioners with currently availabletechnology and/or are not economically reasonable. Specifically, excessively low lighting power densities are likely to resultin extreme glare or inadequate illumination levels. Although energy codes and standards do notprovide requirements for lighting quality, these codes and standards ensure the design ofquality environments is possible and not endangered byprohibitively low lightingpower density requirements. To respondto public concerns over the D0E93 UPD values, DOE implemented a demonstration phaseto evaluatethe D0E93 values and make recommended changes where necessary and appropriate. As aresult, thepromulgation oftheD0E93 values was delayedby one yearto awaitthe results ofthe study. The demonstrationphase, calledthe Lighting ImpactAssessmentTask (Assessment), was performed by Pacific NorthwestLaboratory andtheir subcontractors. Thepassage oftheEnergy Policy Actof 1992 (EPAct) legally prohibitedthe amendment ofthe 1989 federal standard. Therefore, theproposed federal Code willbe the firstopportunity to implement the 

### results ofthe Assessment. The following is a descriptionoftheresults ofthe Assessment, whichprovides technical support forthe recommended changes to 

### UPD values inthe federal Code. The supportive rationalebehind theserecommended revisions is presented and its empirical basis is 

### summarized. The recommended revisions remove some previous inconsistencies fromthe D0E93 UPD values and adjustvalues where necessary so Table 401.3.2 reflects a common goal ofprogressive energy-conserving practice without prohibiting the design ofquality lighting in interior environments. 

## Objective Amajor Assessmentobjective was to develop a consistent, empirically supported rationale forthe UPD values in thefederal standard, andto use thatrationaleto recommend appropriate revisions to the UPD values. Revised UPD values were determined by calculating suggested revisions through a statistical procedure designedto smooth out inconsistencies in thevalues. The Assessment included thefollowing complementary efforts:

• athorough review ofany evidence onthe 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 ofview). The lighting energy standard should notmandat’e UPDs higherthanthis bound, which has already been achieved. The lowerbound is represented by lighting mock-ups and simulations of selected space types that extendthe capabilities ofprofessional practice. These mock-ups and simulations demonstrate much more energy-conservinglighting and thathighlighting quality canbe maintained. The lighting energy standard should notmandate UPDs lowerthanthis bound, which describes the bestthat canbe doneunderideal circumstances. Theupperbound, referred to as ALADA (As Low as AchievablewithDemonstrated Acceptability), describes the regionfrom which lighting practice is moving, and the lowerbound, referredto as ALAHSQUA (As Low as Achievable with High Simulated Quality), describes the regiontoward which lighting practice is moving. 

## Analysis Overview The five steps taken in the Assessment were as follows: First, an extensive technical outreach effortwas conductedto identify and obtain any relevant data on UPD values. The technical outreach effort identified currentinformation onthe quality impacts ofenergyefficient lighting in nonresidential environments. This effort involved contacting individuals currently working, or who have,worked, in this field to assistin obtaining unpublished and little-knownreports and to find ongoing lighting evaluation efforts: Copies ofresearch articles and case studies on energy-efficientbuildings were also obtained. In addition, data on energy consumption and expenditures by building type were obtained from theEnergy Information Administration (ErA). Over 60 individuals were contactedby phone and/or inperson. These individuals representthe following entities:

• organizations active in energy efficiency issues

- 

### Natural Resources Defense Council, Electric PowerResearch Institute, Lighting Research Institute, International Association ofLighting Designers, and the illuminating Engineering Society

• laboratories

- 

### LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratory, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, Seattle City Light’s Regional Lighting DesignLaboratory, Lighting Research Center, Pacific Energy Center, National Research Council ofCanada

• universities

- 

### University ofCalifornia atBerkeley, University ofWashington, University of Minnesota, University ofKansas, Cornell University, Penn State University

• states

- 

### California, New York, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon

• utilities

- 

### Pacific Gas andElectric Company, Southern CaliforniaEdison,.SanDiego Gas and Electric, Northern States Power Company, NortheastUtilities, BonnevillePower Administration

• energy management companies

- 

### ADM Associates, SiebenEnergy 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.4Table 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 BanquetRoom 17. Hotel RestRoom 18. Hotel GuestRoom 19. Exhibition Hall 20. MuseumInactive 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 createdthe basis forthe empirical databaseofALADA 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 contractto PNL wereJoAnneLindsley ofSynergy Consultants, Inc. and Naomi Miller ofLighting Research Center atRensselaerPolytechnic Institute (formerly of Architectural Lighting Design, Inc.) The working model ofthe case studies was createdby Hayden McKay ofHayden McKay Lighting Design. Third, based ontheresults ofthe UPD comparative analysis, empirical data (ALADA and ALAHSQUA) was collected foruse in establishingthe statistical model. Case study simulations were performed where insufficientdata existed forALAHSQUA UPD values. Attachments A.1 and A.2 to this Appendix listthe sources ofthe ALADA and ALAHSQUA data points that wererecovered and used as thebasis forthe eventual predictions inthe statistical model. Based onthe comparative analysis ofUPD values, 26 different space types out ofthe 106 listed in the federal standard (‘Table 3.5-1, “Base UPD for ArealActivity”) are represented. Figures A.1 andA.2 plotthe UPD datapoints onbars thatreflectthe 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.5open 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 correlationbetweenthe ALADA:ALAHSQUApairs ofmeans on the original 26 space types. These

### figures are differentfromFigures A.3 

### and A.4 because they includethe missing yalues thatwere estimated intheprevious regression equations. Notethatthe correlation has now moved to 0.910 from 0.873, which is to be expected with the addition ofthese highly correlated estimates. It is worth noting thatthe decisionto usethe line of

### structural relations analysis is superiorto using simple linearregression analysis (i.e., correlation) becausethis procedure allows for an estimation ofstandardvalues fromthe information inboth lighting distributions (lighting as practical and lighting as simulated). Technically, the line ofstructural relations is the weightedmean ofthetwo regressionlines, Y on X and the reciprocal ofX onY, wherethe weighing isproportional to the measurement errors in observing data inthetwo distributions. Because ofthehigh correlation and the similarity of ALADA:ALAHSQUA datapoints, made a simplifying assumption was made thatthe ratio ofthe errorvariances inthetwo distributions was 1.0. This assumptionmade the line ofstructural relations the simple mean ofthesetwo regression lines. Figure A.9 shows the 26pairs ofpoints with the inscribed line ofstructural relations. This line shows the linearrelationtoward whichthe two distributions ofpoints are strongly tending. The predicted D0E93 values based on theALADA:ALAHSQUA linearrelation are determined by perpendiculars to the line ofstructural relations drawnfrom eachpoint. Whenthe original ALADA point is higherthan its corresponding ALAHSQUA, thepredictedvalue is read offofthe ordinate. If the original ALAHSQUA is higher, the value is read offofthe abscissaofthe graph. Table A.2 summarizes the 26predicted UPD values, their corresponding ALADA and ALAHSQUAmeans, and their differences from D0E89 andD0E93 values. There were somepeculiarities inthepredictedvalues, which are expectedwhenworking from a global statistical model. For example, the predicted UPD value of0.60 forLibrary Stacks occurred becausethis point is extremely off-axis, with alarge difference and apositionreversal betweenits ALADA and ALAHSQUA means. The veryhighpredicted UPD value (with respectto D0E89 and D0E93 values) fortheFastFood category occurredbecause the datapoints supporting this category are exclusively from retail fastfood establishments, whilethe federal standard’s values inexplicably include cafeterias inthe same category. This peculiarity suggests thatthere shouldbe two space type categories to accommodate thesevery differenttypes ofeating facilities. Thefinal step in extrapolating to the federal standard’s other spacetype categories is shown in Figure A. 10. This figure correlates the 26predictedUPD values fromTable A.1 withtheir respective D0E89 values and shows theregression equationfor deriving otherpredicted UPD values fortheremaining 80 D0E89 spacetypes. There is a moderate 0.52 R-valuehere, which is sufficient

The straightline thathas aminimum distanceto allpoints in a cloud ofpoints. A.7Table 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 ofthree UPD values was most appropriate forthe space type: the original D0E89 value, the D0E93 value, orthepredicted number fromthe statistical model. Table401.3.2 was revised accordingly as shown intheproposed federal Code. Outofthe 106 Area/Activity spacetypes, 57 have stayedwiththeD0E93 UPDs, 27 havebeen rolledbackto theDOES9 UPDs, and22 havebeen givennew UPDs thatmostly fall betweenthe D0E89 and D0E93 values. A new value was only recommended after substantial empirical evidence hadbeen gathered, or whenthevalue’s predictionby the statistical regression model appearedto be thebestcompromise between substantially differentD0E89 and D0E93 values and no other evidence was available. The guidelines for revisions to the UPD values were as follows:

• Because EPActmandated

### ASHRAE/IES Standard90.1-1989 as the standard to meetor exceed the federal standard, andbecauseD0E89 UPD values are almostidentical to the ASHRAE values, D0E89 values are recommended whenthe model predicted closeto or above the D0E89 values.

• Whenthe model predicted closeto orbelow theD0E93 UPD values, andtherewas no substantial empirical evidence tojustify the lowerpredictionofthemodel, the D0E93 values wererecommended, which areusually lower thanD0E89 values. In a couple ofinstances (e.g., Library Stacks) wherethe model predictedbelow the D0E93 values, and therewas good evidenceto supportit, the new, lower UPD value was recommended.

• Ifthe model predictedbetweentheD0E89 andD0E93 values, and was in arange wherethe model canbe considered mostvalid, the newpredicted UPD value fromthe model was substitutedforthe 00E93 UPD value. Offices have ahigh number ofnew recommended UPOs becausethe substantial amount ofcase study and simulation evidencepoints overwhelminglyto a current capability forfurther lowering office UPDs from theirD0E93 values, with no danger ofdecreasing acceptable lighting quality. The large amount ofoffice space inthe United States means that even this small decrease will resultin significant additional energy savings. In only one casehave we increased aD0E93 office UPD value from 1.3 to 1.5 WIfeto conform withthe model’s prediction. TableA.3 shows thepredictedUPD values derivedfrom theregressionmodel for all Area/Activity space types inTable 3.5-1 ofthe federal standard. Thetable also shows a comparison ofthesevalues withD0E89 andD0E93 UPDs, andmakes arecommendationbasedonthe observed differences and the strength ofthe dataunderlyingthepredicted UPD values. The original 26 space types for which ALADA:ALAHSQUAdata are available are marked with an asterisk 

### (*)• All values are in watts per square foot (WIft).

A.9Table 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 ft 2 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 ft 2 with medium-high, partitionsReading 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.10Open 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.11Med. 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* V V 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 V V 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 Type A 3.4 5.6 60 V D0E89 5.6 Type B 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 Type F 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.124.0

0

S

03

Figure

### A.1. D0E89 UPDs with ALADAIALAHSQUAPoints



### FigureA.2. D0E93 UPOs 

### withALADA/ALAHSQUAPoints



### 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 

# Iff J

# j

# f it 

# j

# I

ActivityArea S4.0 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.140

0• 4. D t*2019 230 • AL.WAM 0 A_’QtL’.M.

,.

. 330

2.

. S

. . .5

V 

# : 4 1 1ii_J 0 

# : :

. - 

### I I I 

## T

-

— •0 •-‘ 1< -4 

### Figure A.5. Means AdivityArea

.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/ALAHSQUAData Sets Plotted on

### Bars Reflecting 

### D0E93 Values


### A.154.0 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.164.0
E

I-.

U, =



### Figure A.9. 

### The 26 Pairs

I 0.0



### ofDataPoints withTheirInscribedLine ofStructural Relations

DOE89 4.0 

### Figure AJO. 

### The Regression Equation forPredicting UPD Revisions for theRemaining 80 DOE Space Types, Using Revised UPDs ofthe 26 DataPoints andTheir 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 ALAHSQUAMeans withRegressionEstimates

0.0 0.5 1.0 LI .0 2.1 3.5 3.0



### A..17

## Attachment Al ALADAData Source List ALADA LPD Activity Area Number Value Source AirportThruway 1 0.50 Minnesota Case Studies Auditorium 1 1.10 Minnesota Case Studies Bar/Lounge 1 2.46 MinnesotaTable 6aExisting Classroom 1 0.77 Lighting DesignLab Classroom 2 0.96 Lighting DesignLab Classroom 3 1.23 Lighting.DesignLab Classroom 4 1.70 Lighting DesignLab Classroom 5 2.85 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 6

- 

### 2.43 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 7 2.20 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 8 2.76 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 9 1.84 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 10 2.79 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 11 1.86 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 12 2.61 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 13 1.90 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 14 2.02 MinnesotaTable 6aExisting Computer/Equipment 1 0.82 Lighting DesignLab Computer/Equipment 2 0.86 Lighting DesignLab Computer/Equipment 3 1.70 Minnesota Case Studies Conference/Meeting 1 0.86 Lighting DesignLab Conference/Meeting 2 0.72 Lighting DesignLab Conference/Meeting 3 0.74 Lighting DesignLab FastFood 1 3.61 MinnesotaTable 6aExisting Leisure Dining 1 1.05 Lighting DesignLab LeisureDining 2 0.65 Lighting DesignLab Library Stacks 1 0.22 Lighting DesignLab Mall 1 1.10 Oregon Market atPortland Industrial Airport
A.19Mall 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 ALAHSQUAData Source List
ALAHSQUA LPD Activity Area Number Value Source AirportTicket 1 1.55 ArchitecturalDesignLab AirportThruway 1 0.83 Architectural DesignLab AirportWaiting 1 0.74 ArchitecturalDesignLab Bar/Lounge 1 2.12 MinnesotaTable 8a State-of-Art
Classroom 1 1.10 Lighting DesignLab Classroom 2 1.72 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 3 1.94 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 4 1.56 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 5 1.53 CaliforniaEnergy Commission Classroom 6 1.69 MinnesotaTable 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 DormBedroom 1 1.20 Synergy Dorm Study Hall 1 1.01 Synergy FastFood 1 2.27 MinnesotaTable 8a State-of-Art Hotel GuestRoom 1 1.08 Lighting DesignLab Hotel GuestRoom 2 0.44 LightingDesignLab Library Stacks 1 1.12 Synergy Library Stacks 2 1.14 Synergy LibraryReading Area 1 0.84 Synergy Library Reading Area 2 1.05 Synergy Library Card Catalog 1 0.74 Synergy
A.21Mall 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


### Goodmorning, I amRonaldB. Majette, ProgramManagerinthe Office ofCodes 

### and Standards. OnbehalfoftheDepartment ofEnergy, Iwould liketo

### thankyou fortakingthetime to participateinthis public hearing concerningtheDepartment’s proposed rule, Energy Codefor New Federal Commercial andMulti-FamilyHighRiseResidentialBuildings. Thepurpose ofthis hearing is to discuss theEnergy CodeforNew Federal Commercial andMulti-FamilyHighRise Residential Buildings with stakeholders andpersonswho have an interest inenergy conservation inFederal commercialbuildings. Apublic notice ofthis workshop waspublishedintheFederal RegisteronTuesday, August 6, 1996. The comments receivedheretoday andthose submitted duringthe writtencomment periodwill assistthe Departmentin developingthefinalrule. Thewritten commentperiodforthe proposedruleEnergy CodeforNewFederal Commercial andMu1ti-FamilHighRiseResidential Buildings endsNovember4, 1996. 

### All comments submitted onthis proposedrulewillbe consideredbeforeDOE publishes afinalrule. Late commentswillnotbe considered dueto time limitations. Asthepresiding officerforthishearing, I will setthe guidelinesforconductingthehearing andprovide otherpertinentinformation. In approximately oneweek, acomplete copy ofthe transcriptwillbe availableforinspectionandcopying attheDepartmentofEnergy’sFreedom of Informationreading room, locatedinroom 1E-190. Anyonewishingto purchase acopy ofthe transcriptmaymake arrangementswiththe courtreporter.

### This hearingwillbe conducted inaccordancewith Section 553 oftheAdministrative Procedures Act, 5 USC Section 553 and Section 501 oftheDOE Organization Act, 42 USC, Section 7191. To providetheDepartmentwithas muchpertinentinformationand as manyviews as can bereasonably obtained, andto enable interestedpersonsto expresstheirviews, thehearingwillbe conducted

### in accordance withthefollowingprocedures: Thefocus ofthis hearing is forthe Departmentto listento comments pertainingto the proposedrule. Wewill discuss the agendafirst and expandifnecessaryto provide everyonewithan opportunityto discuss theirtopic. DOEtopics willremain onthe agendaas leadpresentations in theirrespective areas. We’lltake anhourlunchbreakat aconvenienttime near 12 noon. Itwill reduce interruptions ifeveryonewantsto speakwaits to berecognized, andpleaserememberto state yournamefirstforthe courtreporter. Side conversations shouldbekeptto aminimumto avoidinterruptingthepresenter; ifa lengthyprivate discussionis needed, moveto acorneroftheroomorout oftheroom. Itmaybe necessaryto cut offdebateon sometopicsto maintainthe schedule. Therewill be sometime atthe end oftheworkshopto discuss burning issues. I encourage allpersons presentto participate as much aspossible so thattheDepartmentmayget afull spectrum of 

### opiniononthesetopics. This hearingis scheduledto endby4 p.m. orsooner, ifallitems havebeencompletely discussed. Topics 

### whichhavenotbeencompletely discussedby4p.m. 

### canbe addressedinthe

### written comments. Thewrittencomments are duebyNovember4, 1996, and latecommentswill notbe included inthefinal rule. 

### Allwrittencommentswillbe availableforpublic inspectionattheDOEFreedomof Information Reading Room. Phonenumber (202) 586-6020. Writtencomments shouldbe addressedto theDepartment ofEnergy as notedintheFederal Registernotice fortoday’s hearing.
Eightcopies ofthecomments arerequested. In addition, theDepartmentwould appreciate anelectronic copyofthe comments. TheDepartmentisusing WordPerfect6.1. No faxedcommentswillbe accepted. 

### Anypersons submittinginformationwhichhe or shebelievesto be confidential and exemptbylawfrompublic disclosure should submitone complete copy andi(copiesfromwhich informationclaimedto be confidentialhasbeendeleted. Inaccordancewiththeprocedures establishedat 10 CFR 1004.11, theDepartmentof Energy 

### shallmakeits own determinations asto whethertheinformation shallbe exemptfrom public disclosure. Inkeepingwiththeregulations ofthesefacilities, thereis no smoking allowedinthis
room: Again, we appreciatethetime andeffortyouhavetakeninpreparingforthisworkshop, 

### and arepleasedto receiveyourcomments and opinions. Iwouldliketo reiterate, thepurpose ofthehearingisto listento commentsrelativeto the proposedrule 10 CFR434 Energy CodeforNewFederal Commercial 

### andMulti-FamilyHigh RiseResidentialBuildings.

### TodaytheDOE attendees areFrancinePinto, on myright, fromthe Office ofGeneral Counsel MaryBethZimmerman, onmy leftfromtheOfficeofEnergyEfficiency, Alternative Fuels, and Oil Analysis, Office of Policy. Theproposedruleis only

### partof theprocess toward developing afinal rulemaking. Theproposedrule is completedwiththepublicationofatechnical supportdocument and theFederal RegisterNotice ofProposed RulemakingforEnergy CodeforNewFederal Commerical

### andMulti-FamilyHighRiseResidentialBuildings.:: Atfirst, I wouldliketo proceed aroundtheroomwithintroductions, 

### andthenwe’ll goto the agenda.