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

The main impetus for this work is the

commercial implementation of

efficiency, clean, and cost-effective

microturbines in distributed generation

and combined heat and power

system(s). It is essential that a

commercialization plan support the

proposed technological development.

Participants doing work under Tasks 3,

4, or 5 shall complete

commercialization plans and strategies

for all relevant functions in the

commercialization process such as costeffective manufacturing, marketing,

production volumes, and support for the

participant’s microturbine system. The

commercialization plan will emphasize

market applications in the Industries of

the Future Companies.

As applicants may apply under one or

more of the five tasks within the

solicitation’s Scope of Work, there is a

wide range in the number of potential

awards and award values. DOE expects

to award six (6) to ten (10) cooperative

agreements under this solicitation. It is

estimated that individual awards will

range in value between approximately

$500,000.00 and $10,000,000.00 of DOE

funding and will require recipient cost

sharing. A minimum non-federal cost

sharing commitment of 30% of the total

cost for Tasks 1 and 2, 45% of the total

cost for Tasks 3 and 4, and 60% of the

total cost for Task 5 is required.

Estimated DOE funding is $40 million

over a five-year period. DOE reserves

the right to fund any, all, or none of the

applications submitted in response to

this solicitation. All awards are subject

to the availability of funds.

Any non-profit or for-profit

organization or other institution of

higher education, or non-federal agency

or entity is eligible to apply, unless

otherwise restricted by the SimpsonCraig Amendment. In addition,

applicants must satisfy the requirements

of the Energy Policy Act in order to be

eligible for award.

Issued in Argonne, Illinois on February 1,

2000.

James R. Bieschke,

Acquisition and Assistance Group, Acting

Group Manager.

[FR Doc. 00–2796 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Science, Basic Energy

Sciences Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notices announces a

meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences

Advisory Committee (BESAC). Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Public Law

92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that

public notice of these meetings be

announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Monday, February 28, 2000, 8:15

a.m. to 5:15 p.m.; Tuesday, February 29,

2000, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and

Wednesday, March 1, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to

12:00 p.m.

ADDRESS: Gaithersburg Washingtonian

Marriott Center, 9751 Washingtonian

Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Long; Office of Basic Energy

Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy;

19901 Germantown Road; Germantown,

MD 20874–1290; Telephone: (301) 903–

5565.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose

of this meeting is to provide advice and

guidance with respect to the basic

energy sciences research program.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will

include discussions of the following:

Monday, February 28, 2000

• Welcome and Introduction

• Remarks from Acting Director, Office

of Science

• News from Basic Energy Sciences

• President’s R&D Focus Areas for FY

2001

• BES Discussion of R&D Focus Areas

for FY 2001

• Report of the Neutron Scattering

Subpanel

• Update on 4th Generation

Synchrotron Light Source Activities

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

• Report of the Electron Beam

Microcharacterization Center

Review Subpanel

• Report of the Advanced Light Source

Subpanel

• Brief overviews of BES programs

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

• Advisory Committee Discussion of

Issues

• Review of Calendar Year 2000

Calendar

Public Participation: The meeting is

open to the public. If you would like to

file a written statement with the

Committee, you may do so either before

or after the meeting. If you would like

to make oral statements regarding any of

the items on the agenda, you should

contact Sharon Long at 301–903–6594

(fax) or sharon.long@science.doe.gov (email). You must make your request for

an oral statement at least 5 business

days prior to the meeting. Reasonable

provision will be made to include the

scheduled oral statements on the

agenda. The Chairperson of the

Committee will conduct the meeting to

facilitate the orderly conduct of

business. Public comment will follow

the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting

will be available for public review and

copying within 30 days at the Freedom

of Information Public Reading Room;

1E–190, Forrestal Building; 1000

Independence Avenue, SW;

Washington, DC 20585; between 9:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 3,

2000.

Rachel Samuel,

Deputy Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2794 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

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,

6196 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

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: Jean.Boulin@EE.DOE.gov

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-byspace 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

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Competitive Financial

Assistance for the Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Competitive Financial

Assistance Solicitation, State Science

Initiative for Applied Research,

Development and Demonstration

Projects.