[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6195-6197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2793]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


Building Energy Codes Program: Workshop on Analysis of Standard 
90.1-1999

AGENCY:  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department 
of Energy.

ACTION:  Notice of public workshop.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Department of Energy is in the process of making a 
determination as to whether ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 would save 
energy in commercial buildings. In doing so, we are performing a 
comparative analysis of the 1989 edition of that standard to the 1999 
edition and seeking input on our proposed approach to carrying out that 
analysis.

DATES:  The Department will hold a public workshop on February 17, 
2000, in Washington, DC. Please send requests to speak at the workshop 
so that we receive them by 4:00 p.m., February 14, 2000. The Department 
must also receive ten (10) copies of statements to be given at the 
public workshop no later than 4:00 p.m., February 15, 2000, and we 
request that you provide a computer diskette of each statement in 
WordPerfect \TM\ at that time.

ADDRESSES:  Please address requests for the proposed methodology for 
the comparative analysis or requests to make statements at the public 
workshop and copies of those statements to Brenda Edwards-Jones at the 
following address: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

[[Page 6196]]

Washington, DC 20585-0121. You should identify documents as either, 
``Request for Proposed Methodology,'' or ``Request to Speak,'' or 
``Statement,'' followed by, ``Workshop on Analysis of Standard 90.1-
1999''. The workshop will begin at 9:00 a.m., on February 17, 2000, in 
Room 1E-245 at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.
    You can read copies of the transcript of the public workshop in the 
Freedom of Information Reading Room (Room No. 1E-190) at the U.S. 
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may obtain copies of the 
referenced standard ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 by request from the 
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, (404) 636-
8400, http://www.ASHRAE.org. You may obtain a copy of the ``Proposed 
Methodology for a Comparative Analysis of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1989 and Standard 90.1-1999'' from the Department by request from the 
address listed above. The proposed methodology may also be downloaded 
from the Office of Building Technical Assistance web site listed below.
    The latest information regarding the public workshop is available 
on the Office of Building Technical Assistance web site at the 
following address: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes--standards/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jean J. Boulin, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-42, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9870, 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024867636c2c406d776e6b6c4247472c464d472c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="773d121619593518021b1e193732325933383259101801">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Section 304(b)(2) of Title III of the Energy Conservation and 
Production Act, as amended (ECPA or Act), requires the Secretary of 
Energy (We, DOE, or the Department) to determine whether the revisions 
of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 embodied in the 1999 edition will improve 
energy efficiency in commercial buildings. A notice of the 
determination is required to be published in the Federal Register. If 
the Secretary makes an affirmative determination, each State is 
required to review and update the provisions of its commercial building 
code regarding energy efficiency in accordance with Standard 90.1-1999. 
Each State is further required, within two years of an affirmative 
determination, to certify and demonstrate to the Secretary that its 
State commercial building code meets or exceeds the revised standard. 
If, on the other hand, the Secretary determines that Standard 90.1-1999 
will not improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings, then State 
commercial code provisions regarding energy efficiency shall continue 
to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-1989.

B. Background

    In preparation for making the determination, we are doing a 
comparative analysis between the 1989 edition and 1999 edition of 
Standard 90.1. An initial analysis was prepared in the summer of 1999 
and the results were presented to the Standing Standards Project 
Committee 90.1, the ASHRAE committee responsible for revising Standard 
90.1. It was also shared with other interested parties. At that time we 
identified the shortcomings that we perceived in the analysis, and 
suggested how some could be resolved. Comments were requested on these 
issues and other issues that people might identify. We have developed 
an approach to complete that analysis that addresses these issues. We 
are holding a workshop to obtain comment on the approach and to 
identify any other issues. This workshop is the subject of today's 
notice.

C. Summary of Proposed Comparative Analysis

    We propose to carry out both a qualitative and quantitative 
comparison of the Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999. The 
proposed analysis would provide qualitative comparisons of the 
stringencies between the two editions of Standard 90.1 in the scope of 
the standard; the building envelope requirements; the building lighting 
requirements; the building mechanical equipment requirements; and the 
paths to compliance. The quantitative comparison of energy codes would 
be done on whole building energy simulations of buildings built to each 
standard. We propose to simulate seven representative building types in 
11 representative U.S. climates. The detailed methodology for the 
quantitative comparison is presented in ``Proposed Methodology for a 
Comparative Analysis of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 
90.1-1999.''

II. Discussion

A. Proposed Comparative Analysis of Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 
90.1-1999

    We propose to carry out both a qualitative and quantitative 
comparison of the Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999.
Qualitative Comparisons
    The proposed analysis would provide qualitative comparisons of the 
stringencies between the two editions of Standard 90.1 in each of the 
following areas:

Scope of the standard,
Building envelope requirements,
Building lighting requirements,
Building mechanical equipment requirements,
Paths to compliance.

    The emphasis of the qualitative comparison would differ between the 
envelope, lighting, and mechanical sections. In the building envelope 
section, the comparison would focus on the impact of the different 
building envelope requirements on the building heating and cooling 
loads for different building types and climates. The envelope 
comparison would examine requirements for all envelope components, 
including roofs, walls, floors, and fenestration as well as explore 
variations in construction types and in the window-to-wall ratio.
    In the lighting requirements comparison, the focus would be 
primarily on the impact the different lighting requirements have on 
lighting energy use, as well as on building loads. The comparison would 
look separately at the whole building and space-by-space lighting 
requirements in both standards in a variety of commercial building 
types, as well as examine the affect of any ``additional lighting power 
allowances.''
    The mechanical requirements comparison would be divided into 
comparisons of equipment efficiency requirements and system design 
requirements. The system design requirements affect both the system 
efficiency, system load, and may have direct energy impacts due for 
instance to fan design. Tables of relative stringency and estimated 
positive or negative national energy impact would be prepared based on 
practical application of the system design requirements in each 
standard.
    Each standard has multiple ways to demonstrate compliance. We would 
enumerate the multiple paths to compliance, but do not propose a 
detailed comparison of the relative

[[Page 6197]]

stringency of alternate paths internal to a single standard or between 
standards. The large quantity of variables among the alternative 
compliance paths would make such analysis prohibitive to undertake. 
Further, we know of no data on which to base the selection of 
representative requirements for such an analysis. Assignment of 
requirements would be arbitrary. Rather we would focus on what we 
believe is the most common approach to using the standard in question 
for particular building types.
Quantitative Comparison
    We propose to base the quantitative comparison of energy codes on 
whole building energy simulations of buildings built to each standard. 
We would simulate seven representative building types in 11 
representative U.S. climates. The simulated buildings would utilize the 
15 zone building prototype used in previous DOE building research, and 
the energy use intensities for each zone from the simulations would be 
scaled to correctly reflect variations in characteristic building sizes 
and shapes for each representative building type. Energy Use 
Intensities (EUIs) developed for each representative building type 
would be weighted by total national square footage in each 
representative building category to provide an estimate of the national 
energy savings. Note that only changes to new buildings would be 
considered in this quantitative analysis. The scope of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 
also addresses additions and renovations to existing buildings. While 
this may have a significant energy impact, we do not believe the data 
is available to quantify this impact. We propose to point out this 
difference in the qualitative comparison of the two standards.

B. Public Workshop

1. Procedures for Submitting Requests To Speak
    You will find the time and place of the public workshop listed at 
the beginning of this notice. The Department invites any person who 
would like to attend the public workshop to notify Brenda Edwards-Jones 
at (202) 586-2945. You may hand deliver requests to speak to the 
address indicated at the beginning of this notice between the hours of 
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays, or send them by mail.
2. Conduct of Workshop
    The workshop will be conducted in an informal, conference style. 
The Department may use a professional facilitator to facilitate 
discussion, and a court reporter will be present to record the 
transcript of the meeting. We will present summaries of comments 
received before the workshop, allow time for presentations by workshop 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting the proposed analysis. Following the workshop, we 
will provide an additional one week comment period, during which 
interested parties will have an opportunity to present further comment 
on the proposed analysis.
    The Department will arrange for a transcript of the workshop and 
will make the entire record of the workshop, including the transcript, 
available for inspection in the Department's Freedom of Information 
Reading Room. Any person may purchase a copy of the transcript from the 
transcribing reporter.

C. Issues Requested for Comment

    The Department of Energy is interested in receiving comments and/or 
data concerning issues relating to the comparative analysis of Standard 
90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999. We are especially interested in any 
comments or data regarding:
    (1) The seven building types listed below and selected for 
analysis.
    (2) The 11 representative climate locations proposed for the 
analysis.
    (3) The frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance in 
building standards (e.g. space-by-space versus whole building lighting 
power allowances).
    (4) New non-residential building construction data by State or 
census division and building type.
    (5) Data to quantify the impact of Standard 90.1-1999 on additions 
and renovations to existing buildings.
    (6) The prevalence of the semi-heated building envelope subcategory 
in the building types proposed for analysis.
    (7) Specific comments on the preliminary energy savings analysis 
distributed in June 1999.
    The seven building types proposed for the analysis are Office, 
Retail, Education, Lodging, Public Assembly, Food Service, and 
Warehouse and Storage. It is currently proposed to include outpatient 
health care buildings in the office building category. These buildings 
together will account for approximately 80% of commercial building 
energy use, and national weights for each of these building categories 
can be readily obtained through the Commercial Buildings Energy 
Consumption Survey (CBECS) data. One category of building which is 
conspicuously absent is multifamily dwellings over three stories above 
grade. Relevant data on current stock, construction, or building 
configuration for this category would allow its inclusion in the 
analysis.
    The 11 climate variations proposed for the analysis are the same as 
those used in the National Energy Model, version 5, and in the initial 
analysis and they are proposed to be represented by the same climate 
locations used in that analysis. The climate locations are: Providence, 
Rhode Island; Detroit, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Knoxville, 
Tennessee; Shreveport, Louisiana, Tampa, Florida; Denver, Colorado; 
Phoenix, Arizona; Seattle Washington; Fresno, California; and Los 
Angeles, California. We would be interested to know of any data or 
analysis that would indicate that these are inappropriate for this 
analysis, and what alternatives are more appropriate and why.
    This analysis proposes to set criteria for buildings using what are 
believed to be the most common paths to compliance. Any data describing 
the relative frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance would 
be appreciated as would more detailed data on building construction by 
State, region and building type. Additionally, we are interested in 
data regarding the type and fraction of buildings which should be 
modeled as semi-heated buildings for the 90.1-1999 standard. Finally, 
as the methodology proposed is an extension of what was done for the 
preliminary analysis in June, any comments on that methodology and the 
questions raised in the presentation, would be appreciated.
    These data will help us to make a determination whether ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 will improve energy efficiency in commercial 
buildings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2000.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 00-2793 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>