## Response to Comments on Preliminary Analyses SupportingDOE'S Determination RegardingANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999

October 19,2001

Office of Building Technology State and CommunityProgram U.S. 

### Department of Energy

### Response to Comments on Preliminary Analyses Supporting DOE'SDetermination Regarding ANSIIASHRAEIIESNAStandard 

### 90.1-1999 Table of Contents
I

### . Introduction


### ................................................................. 1-



### ................................................... A

### . Legislative Background -1- B


### . Public Hearing and Initial Comments on Methodology


### ..........................-1- C


### . Comments on Preliminary Quantitative and Textual Analyses


### ..................... -2- D


### . Numbering and Identification of Comments and Responses


### ....................... -2-



### ..................................................... I1


### . Comments and Responses -2- 

### 1
. Comments by Gersil Kay, Conservation Lighting International


### ..................... -2-



### ..................................................... 1.1. Future Standard -2-



### ......................................................... 1.2. Luminaire -3- 1.3. Efficient lighting systems


### ............................................. -3-



### ................................................. 1.4. Book on fibre optics -3-



### .......................................... 1.5. Americans behind in lighting -3- 2


### . Comments by S

.Gregg Johnson, Johnson, Spellman & Associates


### ..................-4-



### ......................................... 2.1. Delay in making determination -4-



### ................................. 2.2. Statehesitation to adopt the 1999 edition -4- 3


### . Left blank for consistency with internal working documents


### .......................-5- 4


### . Comments by Stuart Cowen, Building Code Commission,


### ........................ -5- 4.1. Delay in making a determination


### .......................................-5- 5


### . Comments by Susan Coakley, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, lnc


### .........-5- 5.1. Analysis reasonable and assessment correct


### .............................. -5-



### ....................................... 5.2. Delay in making a determination -6- 6

### . Comments by Randall Lloyd, Vermont Department of Public Service


### .............. -6-



### ............................................... 6.1. Introductory statement -6-



### ........................................... 6.2. Agreement with assessment -7-



### ............................................ 6.3. Request immediate action -7- 7


### . Comments by John Hogan, Seattle Dept


### .of Design, Construction, and Land Use


### ......-9- 7.1. Envelope criteria for "lodging."


### ........................................ -9- 7.2. Elevators


### .......................................................... -9-



### ................................................... 7.3. Exterior lighting 

### - 10-



### ................................................... 7.4. Parking lighting 

### - 10-



### ................................................. 7.5. Parking ventilation - 11- 8


### . Comments by David Weitz, Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Standards



### ..................................................................... 12-



### ............................................. 8.1. Conclusions reasonable 

### - 12-



### ................................................ 8.2. Achievable standard - 12-



### ............................... 8.3. Encourage timely, positive determination 

### - 12-

### ...................................... 8.4. Standard covers existing buildings 13-



### ..................... 8.5. Support positive determination. concerned about delay -13- 9

### . Commentsby James E

### .Wolf. President ofthe American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and Martyn Timmings. President of the



### .................... Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) 13-



### ......................................... 9.1. Support Standard 90.1 process 13-



### .................................................... 9.2. PNNL, Analysis 14-



### ......... 9.3. Analysis well done, conservative and supports positive determination -14-



### ............................................ 9.4. Existing buildings impact -14-



### ........................................... 9.5. Endorse results of analysis -15-



### .............. 10

### . Commentsby David Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council -15- 10.1. Introduction
....................................................... 

### 5-



### ............................ 10.2. Adequacy of standard and standards process -15-



### ......................................... 10.3. Analysis conclusion correct -16-



### ........................................... 10.4. Significant improvements -16-



### ............................................... 10.5. Alternative analysis -16-



### ...................... 10.6. Significant improvements to Standard 90.1possible -17-



### ......................................... 10.7. Small positive improvement -17-



### ............................ 1

### 0.8. DOE should advocate further improvements -17-



### ................................................. 10.9. Federal standards -17-



### ...................... 1 1

### . Commentsby Robert Hemphill, Gas Technology Institute -18-



### ........................................ 1 1.1. Introduction andbackground -18-



### .......................................... 1 1.2. Scope -

### Existing buildings -19-



### ................................................ 11.3. Subjective analysis -20-



### ........................ 11.4. Performance versus prescriptive compliance path -21-



### ................................................. 11.5. Existing buildings -22-



### ............................................. 11.6. Interior lighting power -23-



### ............................................. 1 1.7. Exterior lighting power -24-



### ............................................ 1 1.8. Interior lighting controls -25-



### ....................................................... 1 1.9. Exit signs -26-



### ............................................ 1 1.10. Interior lighting power -26-



### .............................. 1 1.1 1
. 

### Interior lighting power - 

### space by space -27-



### ............................................. 1

### 1.12. Envelope air leakage -36-



### ..................................... 1 1.13. Speculative building envelopes -37-



### ........................ 1 1.14. Envelope thermal transmittance in cold climates -37- 11.15. Skylight thermal transmittance and solar heat gain


### ...................... -37-



### ......................... 1 1.16. Slab-on-grade andbelow grade wall insulation -38-



### ....................................... 11.17. Roof Thermal Transmittance -38-



### ................................... 11.18. Floors over unconditioned spaces -42-



### .................................. 11.19. Opaque wall thermal transmittance -42- 11.20. Window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain


### ...................... -43- 11.21. Opaquedoors
..................................................... 

### 4-



### ....................................... 11.22. Load calculations and sizing -44-



### ................................... 11.23. Separate Air Distribution Systems -45-

### ............................................. 1 1.24. Temperature controls -45-



### ...................................... 1 1.25. Off-hour controls and setback -45-



### ................................................. 1 1.26. Radiant Heating -46-



### ........................................... 1 1.27. Pipe and duct insulation -46-



### .......................................... 1 1.28. Completion requirements -47-



### ............................ 1 1.29. Simultaneous heating and cooling controls -47-



### .............................................. 1 1.30. Economizer controls -47-



### ......................................... 1

### 1.3 1
. 

### Temperature reset controls -48-



### .......................................... 1

### 1.32. Hot gas bypass reduction -49-



### ..................... 1 1.33. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment -49-



### ........................... 11.34. Service water heating equipment efficiency -50-



### ............................ 1 1.35. Conclusion about detailed textual analysis -51-



### ..................................................... 1 1.36. Exclusions -51-



### ............................... 11.37. Energy cost budget compliance method -52- 11.38. Non-codelanguage ...............................................-5 

### 3-



### .................... Comments by James A
.

### Ranfone, American Gas Association -53-



### ......................... 12.1. Department of Energy legislated responsibilities -53-



### ............................................. 12.2. Peer review of analysis -55-



### ........................................ 12.3. Market impact of fuel choice -55-



### ...................... 12.4. Market share of space and water heating equipment -55-



### .................................................... 12.5. Future factors -56-



### ........................................ 12.6. Energy consumption forecast -56-



### .................................. 12.7. Interior lighting power requirements -56-



### .................................... 12.8. Interior lighting power allowances -57-



### ........................ Comments by Jeffrey Johnson, New Buildings Institute -64-



### ............................... 13.1. Support the Department's determination -64-



### .............................. 13.2. Opportunities for improving the standard -64- Appendix A



### ............................. Invitation to Comment Appendix B



### ............................................. Web Site Invitation to Comments -68-

### I. Introduction This document contains comments from a limited set of interested parties regarding draft preliminary analyses supporting the Department of Energy's determination regarding ANSIIASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-1999,

### Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. It also contains our response to these comments. The preliminary analyses were posted on the web February 7, 2001, at: 

### http:llwwt~.eren.doe.gov/buildings/ 

### codes~standards/buildings/com~determinations. html. A. 

### Legislative Background Title I11 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA), provides that whenever the Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not later than 12months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 6833 (b)(2)(A). The Secretary may determine that the revision of Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in commercial buildings. If so, then not later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency with respect to the revised or successor code. 

### B. 

### Public Hearing and Initial Comments on Methodology In arriving at a determination, the Department first reviewed all significant changes between the 1989 edition and the 1999 edition of Standard 90.1. Standard 90.1 is complex and covers a broad spectrum of the energy related components and systems in buildings ranging from simple storage buildings to complex hospitals and laboratories. The size of buildings addressed range from those smaller than single family homes to the largest buildings in the world. The approach to development of the standard changed from that used for the 1989 edition, as did the scope and the way components were defined. We concluded that 

### a simple comparison ofthe two editions would not be possible. Therefore, we decided to hold a public workshop and seek public comment on our proposed analysis methodology. On February 8, 2000, we proposed a methodology, announced a public workshop, and sought public comment, 65 FR 6195 et seq. On February 17,2000,we held a workshop to obtain comment on the approach we proposed to use. See the summaryofthe proposed approach in Appendix A of the final determination. We requested comments andlor data concerning issues relating to the comparative analysis of Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999 (the 1989 and 1999 editions). We especially expressed interest in any coiments or data regarding: I)the seven building types selected for analysis; 2) the 11representative climate locations proposed for the analysis; 3) the frequency ofuse of alternative paths to compliance in building standards (e.g., space-by-space versus whole building lighting power allowances); 4) new nonresidential building construction data, by state or census division and building type; 

### 5)data to quantify the impact of the 1999 edition on additions and renovations to existing buildings; 6) the prevalence of the semi-heated building envelope subcategory in the building types proposed for analysis; and 7) specific comments on the preliminary energy savings analysis were distributed in June 1999. We received a number of comments, reviewed them, and adjusted the methodologyappropriately, before completing the analysis. A response to these comments is contained in the final determination, not in this document. 

### C. Comments on Preliminary Quantitative and Textual Analyses As a matter of policy to further the determination process, we sought further comments on the application ofthe methodology and the validity of preliminary conclusions posted on our web site at: 

### . An email invitation was sent to the members of Standing Standards Project Committee 90.l,the committee that developed the standard, and to those who had previously commented on our proposed methodology. (See Appendix A.) The invitation to comment was also extended verbally at the January 2001 winter meeting of SSPC 90.1. The invitation was further extended to States by the Department's Regional Offices. An invitation to comment was also posted on the above web site and a page for posting comments was created. (See Appendix 

### B). We received 12 comments. Some were submitted through the web siteresponse page, some were received by e-mail, and still others were submitted by mail. While a deadline for comments was established in the invitation, several comments were received afterthat date, but were considered in completing the determination. This document contains these comments and the Department's response to them. 

### D. Numbering and Identification of Comments and Responses. Each comment was assigned a number in the order received. Each paragraph of each comment was in 

### turn assigned a decimal suffix to the comment number, such that the first paragraph of the first comment was numbered 1.1. These numbers are used in the response to comments to indicate how comments were aggregated and responded to in the final determination. Each person commenting is identified by name and their affiliation is noted. 

### A subject for each comment has been assigned for easy reference. The subject assigned is not intended to encompass all aspects of each comment. Numbering included within a comment has been retained for easy identification by their authors.


### 11. Comments and Responses. The following are the comments received regarding the Department's preliminary analyses supporting the determination, and the Department's responses to thosse comments. 

### 1. Comments by Gersil Kay, Conservatio~l Lighting International 1.1. 

### Future Standard. As a member ofthe lighting subcommittee, 

### I feel strongly that, in addition to wattage restrictions and lighting controls, lighting systems more energy-efficient than the conventional incandescent, halogen and fluorescent lamps specificallymentioned in the Standard, should also be made part of the criteria. This is because even if ingenious occupants get around the wattage restrictions and lighting controls, ifproducts that use less energy to begin with are employed, there will still be conservation.

### Response: This is not a comment on the draft analysis or determination. The comment expresses an opinion on the nature of a future standard. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 1.2. 

### Luminaire As a second-generation commercial electrical contractor, which was the second oldest finn in Philadelphia, I also am concerned that the arbitrary terminology of "luminaire" as defined in the Standard, is confusing and may impair energy conservation. This term neither promotes metric use nor indicates international usage. The British Department of the Environment, counterpart to the 

### U. S. Department of Energy, always modifies the word lurninaire with (lighting fitting). 

### I lecture regularly in Great Britain. In the USA, it has been called a lighting fixture for 100years. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the draft analysis or determination. This comment expresses an opinion as to the terminology that should be used in Standard 90.1. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 1.3. Efficient lighting systems. Lighting systems based on total internal reflection, such as light pipe and glass fibre optics functional architectural lighting, as opposed to individual lighting fixtures, are very energyefficient. They have been used abroad for decades. If inention of such equipment is not included in the Standard, younger or more inexperienced practitioners not familiar with this completely differenttechnology, will not use them to comply with the Standard's or code's parameters. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the draft analysis or determination. The comment expresses an opinion that light pipes and fiber optics should be mentioned in Standard 90.1. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 1.4. 

### Book on fibre optics. Because of the lack of training in these systems, 

### I wrote the first comprehensive book on the subject. Fibre Optics in Architectural Lighting (McGraw-Hill, 1999)is sold worldwide as a textbook and industry reference. It is in its third printing. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the draft analysis or determination. The comment provides information about the person commenting having written a book. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment.


### 1.5. Americans behind in lighting. Our foreign colleagues say Americans are ten years behind in lighting. Isn't it time we catch up?

### Response: This is not a comment on the analysis or determination. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this cormnent.


### 2. Comments by S. Gregg Johnson, Johnson, Spellman & 

### Associates 2.1. Delay in making determination. Thank you for your update on the 90.1 review forwarded to me from Tracy Leath. I have been pressing Tracy on a decision on this issue for several months. Frankly, 

### I am at a loss to understand why it is taking so long to adopt this Standard when there is really no other comprehensive substitute available. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the analysis. The comment expresses concern about the amount of time it is taking DOE to make its determination. It is not relevant that, "


### . . . there is really no other comprehensive substitute available." Aggregate with comment 2.1 (sentence 3), 4, 5.1, 8.4, and 10.8,and report the concern aboutthe delay. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 2.2. State hesitation to adopt the 1999 edition. Georgia, as well as a number of other states, is in the process ofplanning an update to the current state energy code, which uses 90.1, 1989 as the base document. However, Georgia hesitates to adopt the new 90.1 Standard until DOE provides it's blessing. DOE needs to quickly adopt 90.1, 1999 as an encouragement to individual states to follow suit. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the draft analysis. This comment expresses the need for a prompt determination as an encouragement to individual states to update their energy codes and comments on the impact ofthe delay on GA and other states. We aggregated this comment with comments 2.2, 4, 5.1, 6.2, 8.2, 8.3 and 9.5 on the impact on states. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 2.3. Impact of delay compounded. The impact ofthis DOE decision delay is compounded by the recent energy problems in California and cost increases for fuels across the country. Something needs to be done NOW. 

### I am thinking about contacting our entire congressional delegation regarding this issue, but 

### I will wait for your response first. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the analysis. We aggregated this comment with comment 2.1 above. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 3. Left blank for consistency with internal working documents. 4. 

### Comments by Stuart Cowen, Building Code Commission, State of Rhode Island4.1. 

### Delay in making a determination. 

### A positive determinationby DOE will inform the state of Rhode Island efforts to develop and adopt an updated commercial building energy code based on their InternationalEnergy conservation Code 2001 Edition. DOE's failure to meet the deadline for a determination,as specifiedin the Energy Policy Act of1992, is inhibiting the development, adoption and implementation of an updated commercial building energy code in the state of R I. We urge DOE to issue immediately a positive determination. The state of RI hopes to implement the Energy code this current legislative session. Issuance of a timely positive determinationwill greatly facilitate the ability ofthe state of RI to move forward in updating and implementingimproved building energy codes and to secure major potential gains in energy and greenhouse gas reductions in the commercialbuilding sector. Response: 

### This is not a comment on the analysis. We aggregated this coinmentwith comment 2,2.1,4, 5.1, 8.4 and 10.8 on concern about delay and reflected it in the background section of the determination. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. We aggregatedthis comment with comment2.1, 2.2,4, 5.1, 6.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 9.5 on impact of delay and reflected it in the background section ofthe determination. No change has been made to the draft analysis We aggregatedthis commentwith comment4, 5, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8,8.2, 8.4, 9.5 on urging prompt positive determination. We included it in the background section of the determinationto reflect this opinionwith a counter point in comment 12.
5. Comments by Susan Coakley, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. 

### 5.1. Analysis reasonable and assessment correct. 

### This letter is in response to your request for comments on the 

### US Department of Energy's (DOE) analysis of the Detailed Textural Analysis of the estimated differences between the 1989 and 1999 editions of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, Inc. (NEEP) has reviewed DOE's application ofmethodology and the validity ofits preliminary conclusions. NEEP finds that the analysis conductedby DOE is reasonable. Furthermore,NEEP concurswith your assessment that the 1999 edition of Standard 90.1will produce a net positive increase in the energy efficiency of new, altered and renovated commercial buildings. Response: 

### We aggregated this commentwith comment 5 and 9.3 concluding that the analysis is reasonable. We include it in the background section of the determinationto reflect this opinion with a counter point in comment 1 

### 1.1 all, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, and 12.8.We aggregated this comment with 5, 8,9.3, 10.2, 10.3, and 13 agreeing about a net positive impact. We included it in the background section ofthe determination to reflect this opinion with a counter point in comment 12.7. We aggregated this comment with 8.3,9.4, and 10.3 regarding increase energy efficiency due in part to inclusion of existing buildings in 1999 edition. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counter points in 1

### I.1 and 11.5. 

### 5.2. Delay in making a determination. A positive determination by DOE is an essential step to inform the efforts of states in the Northeast region to develop and adopt an updated colnmercial building energy code based on the International Energy Conservation Code 2001 Edition, which references ASHRAEAESNA Standard 90.1-1999 in Chapter 7. DOE'Sfailure to meet the deadline for a determination, as specified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is inhibiting the development, adoption and implementation of an updated commercial building energy code in several Northeast states. NEEP urges the Department of Energy to issue immediately a positive determination. Issuance of a timely positive determination will greatly facilitate the ability of states in the Northeast region to move forward in updating and implementing improved building energy codes and to secure major potential gains in energy and greenhouse gas reductions in the commercial building sector. We urge your immediate action on a positive determination. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the analysis. We aggregated this comment with comments 2.1,2.2,4, 6.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 9.5 on the impact ofthe delay and reflected it in the background section of the determination. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. We aggregated this comment with 2, 2.1, 4, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 8.2, 8.4, and 9.5 urging 

### a prompt positive determination. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counter point 12.


### 6. Comments by Randall Lloyd, Vermont Department of Public Service 6.1. Introductory statement. These comments are offered in response to your request for comments on the US Department of Energy's analysis of the Detailed Textural Analysis ofthe estimated differences between the 1989 and 1999 editions of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the analysis. No response is needed. 

### 6.2. Agreement with assessment.The State of Vermont, Department of Public Service supports your assessment that the 1999 edition of Standard 90.1 will produce a positive increase in the energy efficiency of new, altered and renovated commercial buildings. 

### Response: We aggregated this comment with 8, 9.3, 10.2, 10.3, and 13agreeing about a net positive impact. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counter point 12.7. 6.3. 

### Request immediate action. We in Vermont, and a number of our neighboring states, are in the process of implementing new IECC 200IIASHRAE 90.1

### - 1999coinmercial building energy codes and believe that a positive detenninationby DOE will advance our energy code implementation efforts. I have copied the text of a letter of August 15,2000 from Richard Sedano to Dan Reicher on this matter, below. We continue to believe that a timely determination will greatly facilitate our ability to move forward with the adoption and implementation of iinproved commercial building energy standards. We urge your immediate action on a positive determination and thank you for the opportunity to submitthese comments. Text of previous letter follows


### . August 1 5,2000 Mr. Dan Reicher, Assistant Secretary Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy US Department of Energy 1000Independence Avenue, 

### S W Washington, DC 20585-012 1 RE: Determinations Pursuant to Title 42, Chapter 8 1, Subchapter 11, Section 6833. Updating statebuilding energy efficiency codes Dear Mr. Reicher: This letter is in response to the release of new editions of national model building energy codes and standards. The State of Vermont Department of Public Service encourages you to make positive determinations on the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code and ASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-99. We ask for an expedited completion of the Department of Energy's requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 regarding these model codes and standards. They represent major potential gains in energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions in the residential and commercial building sectors. To accelerate Vermont's residential and commercial energy codes adoption processes, DOE'Sdeterminations are a critical policy step, and we urge you to issue them in this calendar year. In February 1999,the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), 1998 edition, succeeded the CAB0Model Energy Code. Substantial improvements to the energy efficiency provisions were included in this revision. The IECC was again modified in 1999 and published in March 2000. Further improvements were made to the IECC 2000 including a simplified compliance path for residential buildings that simplifies the compliance process. In February 2000, the ASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-99 (Standard 90.1-99) succeeded the ASHRAEIIES Standard 90.1-1989. This spring, the IECC Committee approved referencing the revised ASHRAE Standard in the 2001 Supplement to the IECC 2000. They also approved a number of changes that make the text in Chapter 8, Design by Acceptable Practice, that bring the energy efficiency of that Chapter near Standard 90.1

### - 99 levels. These changes represent a substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of minimum codes and standards in the United States. For the State of Vermont to benefit from these changes, these model codes and standards must be incorporated into state and local codes; building officials, builders and designers in Vermont must be trained and have access to support materials, and the codes must be enforced. Only then will these changes begin to benefit Vermont consumers and the environment. The U.S. Department of Energy's determinations will greatly facilitate Department of Public Service advocacy before the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry, which has indicated a strong preference for a positive U.S. DOE determination when considering rulemaking to adopt updated energy codes. The U.S. Department ofEnergy has played a major role in improving the use of national model codes and standards. Compliance tools, technical support and direct funding to the State ofVermollt by the Department have been instrumental to the success ofVermont's energy code activities. This success has created an environment that supports energy code upgrades at the state level. However, timely determinations are needed in order to facilitate progressive upgrades of Vermont's existing residential and proposed comercial energy codes with the most current national model energy codes. The IECC 2000 and Standard 90.1-99 are superior to their successor codes and standards and immediate action shouldbe taken to issue the Secretary's determinations. The State of Vermont encourages you to request that the Secretary issue such determinations. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely,

### Richard P. 

### Sedano Cominissioner cc: Mark Ginsberg, U.S DOE-HQ Gail McKinley, U.S. DOE-HQ Jean Boulin, U.S. DOE-HQ Christine Rheinfelds, U.S. DOE-Boston Response: We aggregated this comment with cormnent4, 5, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 8.2, 8.4 and 9.5 on urging prompt positive determination. We included it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with a counter point in comment 12. We aggregated the response to the letter with the rest ofthe comment.
7. Comments by John Hogan, Seattle Dept. ofDesign, Construction, and Land Use 7.1. Envelope criteria for "10dging.'~ These comments apply to the QUANTITATIVE analysis for ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. The building envelope criteria for the "lodging" category should be taken from the "residential" column in the tables in Appendix B (ratherthan from the "nonresidential" category). Response: We agree. We have corrected input errors with the relevant envelope parameters in the 1999 edition's residential building category, rerun the quantitative analysis and included the results in the determination. Note that the correction increases the 1999 edition's energy savings. 7.2. Elevators. The analysis should be expanded to include all the energy use in the buildings: add elevators. For elevator schedules, use the values from the U.S. Department ofEnergy Standard Evaluation Technique. For quick reference, these values are included in the Washington State Energy Code in Reference Standard (RS) 29, Tables 3-2A to 3-25, available on the Seattle Energy Code website at: Response: We disagree. Data about the number ofbuildings that have elevators and about the characteristics of those elevators is not available in data bases that we are aware of. Energy use for elevators is not addressed in either the 1989or the 1999 edition. Therefore, elevators would have no impact on the determination regarding the improvement of energy efficiency in commercial buildings.

### Adding energy use for elevators would increase the base electrical load for some buildings. This would reduce the percent energy savings, but cause no change in absolute energy savings. Adding elevators might also increase building cooling loads. Because cooling equipment efficiency is increased in the 1999 edition, it is expectedthat this would slightly increase the cooling energy savings for the 1999 edition. However, the amount ofthe increase will depend heavily on assumptions about the number of elevators in buildings. We made no change to the draft analysis. 7.3. 

### Exterior lighting. 

### The analysis should be expanded to include all the energy use in the buildings: add exterior lighting (specifically: entrances, exits, and facades). Assume that lighting operates 12hoursiday year round. 

### - For the 1989 version: use values from Table 6-1 per Section 6.4.1.1. 

### - For the 1999 version: use values from Table 9.3.2 per Section 9.3.2. Response: 

### Energy use for exterior lighting was not individually examined in the quantitative analysis, but is included in the whole building requirements used in the analysis. (See the rational in the proposed methodology for using whole building lighting criteria rather than space-by-space analysis.) Our review of the requirements of these two editions suggests that the 1999 edition's exterior lighting requirements are equivalent to, or more stringentthan the 1989 edition's, in most instances for lighting ofbuilding exits and entrances, and for building facades in some cases. Hence, addition of exterior lighting power to the quantitative analysis would increase the absolute savings shown for the 1999 edition and would add more support for a positive determination of energy savings with the 1999edition. We made no change to the draft analysis. 7.4. 

### Parking lighting. 

### The analysis should be expanded to include all the energy use in the buildings: add parking lighting. Assume that lighting operates 24 hourslday year round. 

### - For the 1989 version: for surfaceparking use values from Table 6-1 per Section 6.4.1.1, forparking garages use values from Table 6-5 per Section 6.5.4. 

### - For the 1999 version: use values from Table 9.3.1.1 per Section 9.3.1.1. Response: 

### Energy use for exterior lighting was not individually examined in the quantitative analysis, but is included in the whole building requirements used in the analysis. (See the rational in the proposed methodology for using whole building lighting criteria rather than space-by-space analysis.)For building grounds, driveways, walkways,parking lots and loading areas, the1989 edition has lighting requirements in terms of allowable watts per square foot. The 1999 edition replaces these with a requirement that all lighting in these areas have a minimum efficacy of 60 lumens per Watt. We have no way to reasonably compare these requirements. However, we believe that there is some potential for the total lighting power to these areas to increase due to the change in requirements in the 1999 edition. We made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment. Regarding the suggestion to use a 24-hour schedule for parking lot lighting, the 1989 edition has a requirement that, if the exterior lighting is not intended for 24-hour operation, it shall be controlled by timer or photocell or combination thereof. Similar language exists in the 1999 edition, with an exemption for lights at covered entrances or exits for vehicles. We believe that an assumption of 24-hour operation is inappropriate. Perhaps an operating period of 12 hours would be more appropriate for a yearly average. However, we do not believe that one can reasonably define the illuminated area and measure Watts per square foot in the 1989 edition when calculating exterior lighting. We made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 7.5. 

### Parking ventilation. The analysis should be expanded to include all the energy use in the buildings: add parking ventilation. Assume ventilation at 1.5 cfmlsf per Building Code.
- For the 1989 version: assume no automatic shutoff. 

### - For the 1999 version: assume automatic shutoff control for systems over 30,000 cfm per Section 6.2.3.5. 

### Response: Data on the amount ofparking in buildings and about the characteristics of that parking is not available in any data bases that we are aware of. Further, the proposed nlethodology to simulate parking ventilation is incomplete, in that it does not address the total area of parking garages. Nor does the methodology provide typical operating hours for garages or fan pressure requirements. The suggested inclusion of shutoff controls would enhance the absolute energy savings under the 1999 edition. We made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 7.6. Fans and part load operation. The analysis should be expanded to differentiate part load operation between fan systems with and without variable frequency drive.
- For the 1989 version: use values from Section 9.5.4.3.2. 

### - For the 1999 version: use values from Section 6.3.3.2.1. (Note that both threshold and allowed wattage change.) 

### Response: Data on the number and distribution of various fan systems in buildings is not available in any data bases that we are aware of. Therefore, we cannot reliably model this impact. We made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.

### We do know that the requirements for variable frequency drive performance are more stringent in 1999 edition than in 1989edition. Fan systems with variable frequency drive would therefore increase the absolute energy savings under the requirements ofthe 1999 edition.
8. 

### Comments by David Weitz, Massachusetts Board ofBuilding Regulations and Standards 8.1. 

### Conclusions reasonable. I have reviewed the Detailed Textual Analysis, and believe that its conclusions about net positive increase in energy efficiency owing to adoption ofASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 is reasonable. 

### Response: We aggregatedthis comment with 5, 9.3, 10.2, 10.3, and 13 agreeing about a net positive impact. We included it in the background section ofthe determinationto reflect this opinionwith counter point 12.7. 8.2. 

### Achievable standard. Furthermore, this is an achievable standard; the very fact that it was vetted through the ANSI process indicates that all parties can live with. 

### Response: This is not a comment on the analyses. The comment is not relevantto the determination. We cCombineditwith the response to AGA comment on the determination process in earlier commentson the proposed analysismethodology
. 

### We combined it with comment 9 and included it in the background ofthe determinationto reflect this opinionwith a counterpointin comment 12.2. 8.3. 

### Encourage timely, positive determination. Although the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has already adopted a new construction energy code based on the stringencies of Standard 90.1-1999,we still encourage

### DOE to make a positive determination, and to do so in a timely manner. The design and constructionof "commercial"buildings is a regional (indeed, a national) process, with architects, engineers, and construction companiesworking across state boundaries. The degree to which the states in our region, and throughout the nation, share similar requirements will make it easier on all parties to produce energy efficient buildings. 

### Response: This is not a commenton the draft analysis. The commenturges a prompt positive determination. We aggregated this comment with comment4, 5,

### 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 

### 8.2, 8.4 and 9.5 on urging a prompt positive determination. We includedit in the background section of the determinationto reflect this opinion with a counter point in comment 1 2. 8.4. 

### Standard covers existing buildings.

### Another importantvalue ofthe Standardis that it covers existingbuildings. As the Textual Analysis suggests, the impact of the ASHRAE Standard on existing buildings will be significant. Massachusetts is the midst ofupdating its energy conservationprovisions for existing buildings, and guidance from the Standardwill be helpful in both our work's content and the ease of its adoptionwithin the Commonwealth Response: We aggregated this commentwith 8.3, 9.4, and 

### I0.3 regarding increase energy efficiency due in part to inclusion of existing buildings in the 1999 edition. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinionwith counterpoints in comments 11.1 and 11.5. 8.5. Support positive determination, concerned about delay. For all these reasons, 

### I strongly support a positive determinationby DOE as quickly as possible. This process has unfortunately lingered for too long, with expectations being repeatedly disappointed. The time has finally come to act on this important matter. Response: We combined this commentwith comment 8.2 

### and included it in the background section ofthe determinationto reflect this opinion.
9. Comments by James E. Wolf, President of the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and Martyn Timmings, President of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) 9.1. Support Standard 90.1 process. We are writing in response to your request for comments regarding the application of the DOE methodology for the analysis of the energy savings ofANSIIASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1

### - 1999comparedto those of Standard 90.1

### - 1989, and the validity of DOE'S preliminary conclusions. Asjoint developers of Standard 90.1-1999we stand behind its objectivity and the openness, balance, and due process of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus process under which it was approved. With the standard under continuous maintenance,ASHRAE will republish an improved, updated version in 2001 and every three years thereafter. Response: This is not a substantive comment on the draft analysis. We aggregated this commentwith comment 8.1. We included it in 

### the background section of the determinationwith the response to an AGA comment on process in the earlier comments on the analysismethodology. 9.2. PNNL Analysis. Pursuant to the 1992Energy Policy Act, DOE must determinewhether Standard 90.1

### - 1999 would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings compared to the 90.1-1989 version it replaces. To guide this determination,DOE, through the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), conducted an analysis of

### the likely impacts ofthe revised standard on the

### energy efficiency of new buildings in seven commercial building categories, compared to the 1989 version. That analysis concluded that the 1999 revision of the standard would reduce source energy consumption by 5.9% and site energy consumption by 3.9%. Response: 

### This is not a substantive comment onthe draft analysis. We combined it with comment1 0.2 regarding determination requirements. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counterpoint 12. 9.3. 

### Analysis well done, conservative and supports positive determination. 

### We are satisfied that the PNNL analysis was thorough and used a reliable building energy analysis computer program. Carefully constructed prototypes were analyzed for seven building types that accurately represent the energy use patterns of the vast majority of new buildings in the U.S. We believe competent building energy analysts conducted the analysis after their approach and methodology were subjected to open and thorough public review and criticism. However, we believe the source and site energy savings estimates to be conservative because the assumptions made in the modeling are conservative. Nonetheless, we believe the conclusions drawn are adequately accurate to demonstrate that Standard 90.1

### -1999 unquestionably will improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings relative to 90.1

### -1989. Response: 

### We aggregated this comment with 5, 9.3 concluding analysis is reasonable. We reflected it in the background section of the determination with a counter point in comments 11.1all, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, and 12.8. We aggregated this comment with comments 5, 8,9.3, 10.2, 10.3, and 13 agreeing about a net positive impact. We included it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with a counter point in comment 12.7. 9.4. Existing buildings impact. 

### It also should be noted that because Standard 90.1- 1999 applies to renovations and retrofits to existing buildings, which are not covered in 90.1-1989, even more energy savings will result than are estimated by the PNNL analysis. lndustry estimates indicate that at least 60% of heating and cooling equipment sales are for replacement markets, and only 40% for new buildings. Furthermore, the 1999 version is less complex, and thus there should be more incentive to adopt it to replace the 1975 or 1980versions, or where no codes or standards have yet been adopted. While those savings are not reflected in the PNNL analysis, the fact is they are real. Response: 

### We aggregated this comment with 8.3, 9.4, and 10.3 regarding increase energy efficiency due in part to inclusion of existing buildings in 1999 edition. We included it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counter points in comments 1

### I.1 and 1 1.5. 

### 9.5. Endorse results of analysis.Consequently we strongly endorse the results of this analysis as the basis for the determination that Standard 90.1

### -1999 be the new reference standard for state commercial building codes. We urge the DOE to complete its determination quickly sothat the additional savings may accrue as soon as possible. 

### Response: The first sentence is relevant, see comment 9.4. The second sentence does not address the draft analysis. We aggregated the first sentence with comment 9.4 and reflected it in the background section of the determination. We aggregated this comment with comments 4, 

### 5,5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 8, 8.2, 8.4 and 9.5 on urging prompt positive determination. We included it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion with counter point 12.


### 10. Comments by David Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council 10.1. Introduction. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an environmental organization with more than 400,000 members nationwide. NRDC has been participating in energy efficiency standards proceedings for non-residential buildings since the mid-1970's and participated actively in the development of ASHRAE standards 90.1-1989 and 90.1-1999. 

### Response: This is background information and does not comment on the draft analysis. No response is required. 

### 10.2. Adequacy of standard and standards process. The Department ofEnergy is required, under Section 304 ofthe Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA) to "determine whether [a] revision [ofASHRAE 90.1-19891 will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings." NRDC has many grave reservations about the adequacy of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 to serve as a basis for national or state energy policy. We objected to the process by which ASHRAE made its final decisions, and we believe that the content of the standard fails to achieve the improvements in energy efficiency that ASHRAE's own policies, much less its responsibility as a non-profit organization to supportthe public interest, would demand. 

### Response: This does not comment on either the draft analysis or the subject ofthe determination (will the 1999 edition improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings). No response is required. 

### 10.3. Analysis conclusion correct. Nevertheless, the requirements under the law are for the Secretary ofEnergy simply to determine whether the revised standard improves energy efficiency in commercial buildings compared to the 1989 standard. NRDC believes that DOE'Stentative conclusion that it does sois correct.

### Response: 

### We aggregated the first sentence ofthis commentwith 10.3 as counterpointto comment 12.1 regarding determination requirements. We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinionwith counter point 12.1. We aggregated this commentwith comment 5, 

### 8, 9.3, 10.2, 10.3, and 13 agreeing about a net positive impact. We include it in the background section ofthe determinationto reflect this opinion with counter point 12.7. 10.4. Significant improvements. 

### The new standardsmake significant improvements in the efficiency of lighting systemsin most occupancies and in most circumstances. In addition, the HVAC equipment efficiency requirements are higher. Also, the scope of the standard is broader such that it covers remodels and "tenantimprovements" as well as new construction. Response: 

### We aggregated this commentwith co~ments 5, and 8 (general). We include it in the background section of the determination to reflect this opinion. We aggregated this commentwith comments 5, 8, 9.3, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6and 13 agreeing about a net positive impact. We includedit in the background section of the determinationto reflect this opinion with the counter point in comment 12.7. 10.5. Alternative analysis. 

### These observations are consistent with DOE'Sanalysis showingonly slight (about 5%) 

### improvements in energy efficiency due to the standard. Alternative analyses show even weaker savings. Response: 

### We aggregated this comment with comments10.3 above and 10.6below. We aggregated this comment with comment 12.7regarding weaker savings. 10.6. Significant improvements to Standard 90.1 possible. 

### ASHRAE should be embarrassed to be promoting such minimal improvements in energy efficiency from a base that alreadywasn't very stringent. NRDC succeeded in making our own building use one-third the energy of ASHRAE 90.1 in the late 80's, using only cost-effective measures that maintained or improved comfort and productivity. This is distressingly slow progress. It is all the more disturbing in the face of significant improvements in the efficiency of components and subsystems ofnon residential buildings, including much wider availabilityof T

### 8 and electronic ballasts, new T-5 lamps, new availability of dimmable compact fluorescent lamps and smaller compact fluorescent lamps, the developmentofbetter guidance on the use of daylightingto replace electric lighting, the vast improvement in chillers, the much wider

### availability of varied and lower cost, variable speed drives, and widespread experience with more energy conserving designs using existing equipment. Response: This does not commenton the draft analyses or the determination. No response is required. 10.7. Small positive improvement. So, from a strict legal point of view, while a 5% improvement may be embarrassingly small, it is nonetheless an improvement. Response: We aggregated this commentwith comment 10.3 and 10.4. 10.8. DOE should advocate further improvements. NRDC alsobelieves there is a public benefit in DOE'Scertifying the new standard. According to EPCA, an affirmative determinationby the Secretarywill require states to review and update their own commercialenergy codes. NRDC believes that this process provides an opportunity for DOE to advocate further upgrades in state energy codes beyond the minimum requirementin the law of meeting or exceeding the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Response: This does not comment on the draft analyses or the subject of the determination. No response is required.
10.9. Federal standards. Section 305, in particular, requires DOE to compare standards for federalbuildings-- which must include all "those energy efficiency measures that are technologically feasible and economically justifiedw--to the ASHRAE standard. DOE shouldpromptly complete this analysis and issue a federal standard that meets the statutory criteria. Following such issuance, DOE will be in a position to advocate state adoptionofthe federal standard in place of the ASHRAE standard. NRDC believes that by certifying the ASHRAE standard, DOE is taking a first step that can lead to this much more productive process. Response: This does not comment on the draft analyses or on the subject of the determination. Section 305, addresses the Federal energy efficiency code. This is not relevantto this determination. No response is required.
11. Comments by Robert Hemphill, Gas Technology Institute'

The numbering in the text of the following commentswas assigned by the author and refers to the numbering in the Department's draft textual analysis.11.1. 

### Introduction and background. The attached document file entitled Critique ofDOE Commercial Buildings Determinations (Word 2000, SR-1 format) presents the Gas Technology Institute's coinments and critique ofthe following DOE documents: I) Commercial Buildings Determinations? Explanation ofthe Analysis and Spreadsheet (usually referred to as the Quantitative Analysis) 2) Detailed Textual Analysis ofthe Differences Between the 1989 and 1999 Editions of Standard 90.I? Energy Standard for Buildings (usually referred to as the Qualitative Analysis). Background. The sixth paragraph of this section states "if the value of annual investment in building alterations and renovations is a good indicator oftheir impact on energy use, then the expansion of the code to existingbuildings could produce 50percent more savings than if itwere applied tonew buildings alone." The implication of this statement is that the scope of the 1989 standard does not include existing buildings. However, this conclusion runs counter to documented ASHRAE interpretations. A Memorandum from SSPC 90.1 to Standards Committee, dated June 25, 1995, makes the following observation: Our proposed language is merely a clarzfication ofthe language in the original Title,Purpose and Scope (TPS). Item 2.2 

### in the original TPSsaid the Standard applied to "allnew buildings orportions of buildings. "

### It is the considered opinion of the engineeu, building oficials, lighting designers and architects on the SSPC that this means "all new bzcildings or new portions of buildings." Virtuallyall building codes apply to any new construction, whether it is an entirely new building, an addition to a building, or to new remodeling work. There are no new codes that apply solely to buildings that are new out of thegrozind. We have written the Code with this reality in mind Wehave not includedprovisions where new work would trigger requirements to upgrade existing building components that are not otherwise being worked on. The Code only applies to the new work. Our TPSdoes not extend the scope of the existing TPS, it merely clarzjies the description of how it applies. 

### The last paragraph of this section states unequivocally "together, these analyses appear to indicate that the revised code will improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings." Given the differing provisions ofthe two standards, the only way to accurately interpret the impact of the requirement is to set the text side-by-side and allow the reader to reach hidher own conclusions. The entire premise ofthis analysis is suspectbecause the relative weighting of the impacts discussed are not known. There are numerous instances throughout this document in which the conclusions drawn appear biased toward the existence of energy savings. For example, when energy savings appear likely under the 1999 standard, this conclusion is strongly asserted. However, where energy savings appear to be unlikely, the conclusion is generally that there is insufficient data. In addition, energy reduction credits already taken in the quantitative analysis should be clearly identified to avoid double counting. 

### Response: See comment 11.5 regarding the scope (existing buildings). Also, see comment 12.We believe we have clearly identified where the 1999 edition will be less stringent or only modestly beneficial. We have a responsibility to make a determination whether the 1999 edition will improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings and, "[setting] the text side-by-side and [allowing] the reader to reach hislher own conclusions," is not an option. By definition, the textual analysis puts no numeric value on the subject and therefore does not double count. We have made no change to the draft determination in response to this comment. 11.2. 

### Scope 

### -Existing buildings. I. Summaryof the Comparative Analysis; A. Quantitative Analysis 

### (Note: Additional comments regarding the Quantitative Analysis appear on pages 1 

### through 5 

### ofthis docztment.) Paragraph two of this section concludes that the inclusion of additions and renovations to existing buildings in the scope of the 1999 standard will have a significant (albeit unquantifiable) energy impact. It has previously been shown (refer to previous comments under Background) that there is no change in scope between the 1989 and 1999 standards regarding existingbuildings. Therefore, there is no energy impact due to this provision. 

### Response: This is a matter of differing interpretation of the scope ofthe 1989 edition. We aggregated this comment with 5.1, 8.3,9.4, and 10.3 regarding increase energy efficiency due in part to inclusion of existing buildings in 1999 edition. We included it in the background section ofthe determination to reflect this opinion with counter points in 11.1 and 11.5. The memorandum referenced in the comment was written to request the ASHRAE Standards Committee to change the scope of the 1999 edition to include renovations to existing buildings. The scope ofthe 1999 edition was subsequently changed accordingly. The1989 edition specifically applies to "new" buildings in both the purpose and scope statements of that standard. (Section 1 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2) By specifically identifying "new systems and equipment in existingbuildings" in the scope of the 1999 edition, States adopting the 1999 edition in whole orby reference include this provision, which will provide significant energy savings over codes equivalent to the 1989 edition. ASHRAE in its comment on the analysis disagrees with the interpretation in this comment by stating: "It also should be noted that because Standard 90.1-1999 applies to renovations and retrofits to existing buildings, which are not covered in 90.1-1989


### . . . " (See comment 9.4). ASHRAE Standard 100,

### Energy Conservation inExisting Bzdildings was ASHRAE7s definitive work on existingbuildings. In particular, the scope of Standard 100 specifically

### describes building and equipment modification provisions that must be met for a building or building complex to comply with this standard. The most recent update to this standard is ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 100-1995. This standard supersedes Standard 100.2- 1991, Standard 100.3-1985, Standard 100.4- 1984, Standard 100.5-1 991, and Standard 100.6-1991. The fact that the standardwas upgraded after 1992,DOE'S baseline of comparison establishedby Section 101of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,shows that this was still the appropriate document for existing buildings at the time the memorandum cited in the commentwas written. We note that through the mid 1990sthe American National Standards Institute recognized the ASHRAE Standard 100 series, that explicitly addressed existing buildings. Under American National Standards Institutepolicy, two standards (Standard 90.1-1989 and ASHRAE Standard 100) could not address existing buildings. See also comments by others noted at the top ofthis response. 11.3. Subjective analysis. 

### B.

### Detailed Textual Analysis. The fourth paragraph of this section states, "In comparing the envelope requirementswe made judgments of relative stringency and frequency of occurrence of components. A positive or negative national energy impact was then estimated, based on practical application of the design requirements in each edition" (emphasis added). We are deeply concerned that the apparent subjective nature of the analysis ofthe envelope section allowed ample opportunity to introduce the biases of the analystts), bringing the credibilityof the analysis into question. The fifth paragraph of this section states, "We focused on the prescriptive compliance paths in each section,which we believe represent the most common approach to using the standard in question for most buildings." The author, however,provides no basis for drawing this conclusion. It has been argued that the prescriptive conlpliancepath may reflect common practice in the field better than the performance path as it applies to the 1989 standard. Due to the disparityin stringencybetween the prescriptive and performance paths, a lighting design that exceeds the maxiinurn allowance using the whole building method may still be in compliance if the space-by-spacemethod is used. Since this situation is possible, the whole building method does not always act as a true limit on the lighting power by the standard. The true limitation often ends up being the lighting power allowance under the space-by-space method. This situation is even more likely under the 1999 standard than the 1989 standard since the space-by-spacemethod has been simplified. Response: 

### See response to comment 12.6.1. Combine with comments12.6 and 12.6.1. Also, while we focused on the prescriptive compliance paths in each section, which we believe represent the most common approach to using the standard in question for most buildings, we also believe it to be the most reliable way to make the comparison. Reliable data on the number, quantity, and characteristics of spaces in the commercialbuilding stock is not available. Hence, we do not believe that it is appropriate for this analysistocreate prototype buildings that purport to represellt these characteristics with any accuracy. This comment reflects a differing opinion on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this with comments on exit signs, the use of the prescriptive compliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, our conclusions on the lighting power exemptions, window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain, temperature reset controls, and heating equipment.
11.4. 

### Performance versus prescriptive compliance path. In addition, our experience from working with consulting engineers and design-build contractors on commercial projects is that design engineers seek to value-engineer their designs (i.e., maximize flexibility to arrive at design solutions that provide optimumbenefit to the building occupants, while keeping first cost at a minimum). To gain this degree of flexibility with both Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999, the designer must use the performance compliance path rather than the prescriptive path in each section. Resistance to using the performance approach was further lowered with the release of Standard 90.1

### - 1999by a greatly simplified performance compliance path. It seems likely that the real motive forusing the prescriptive rather than performance compliance path is that the additional flexibility in the performance path, especially in Standard 90.1 

### -1999, increases the allowable energy power levels in many applications thereby decreasing the energy savings potential of the new standard. 

### Response: We have experienced a strong demand for prescriptive requirements for standards throughout the revision process leading up to the 1999 edition. The purpose is to provide prescriptive requirements for the majority ofbuildings constructed so as to provide requirements that meet the need of the large number of relatively small and simple buildings constructed. Furthermore, the Standards Hotline has received numerous calls on the application of the 1989 edition for all sections, including lighting. The vast majority are on the use ofthe prescriptive tables or on the use of COMcheck. Both are related to the prescriptive path. The flexible compliance paths (e.g., tradeoff methodologies and the Energy Cost Budget Method) are generally used only if the flexibility is needed by the designer for compliance or if specific tools are developed which can make their use the low first cost method of design. This comment reflects a differing opinion on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis of the envelope section, exit signs, our conclusions on the lighting power exemptions, window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain, temperature reset controls, and heating equipment.

### 11.5. 

### Existing buildings. 11. Discussion of Detailed Textual Analysis; A. Title and Scope. The discussion of the application of Standard 90.1- 1999to alterations andrenovations to existing buildings implies that energy use reduction in this building segmentcould be significant. While acknowledging that "it is difficult to quantify the energy efficiency impact of alterations and renovations," the implication is that it could approach 50percent of the energy use reduction from new construction. Since there is absolutely no basis for this assertion, this implication is wholly inappropriate. In addition, the assertion that the explicit application of the 1999 standard to alterations and renovations to existing buildings greatly expands the scope ofthe standard beyond the 1989 additions is highly questionable (see previous discussion under Detailed Textual Analysis, Section 1 .A). 

### Response: We combined this comment with comments 5, 8.3, 9.4, 10.3, and 11.l. Some of the most common renovations to commercial buildings are lighting and equipment replacement and/or renovation. Lighting renovations in particular are done on a regular basis in many commercial building and generally it is in these two areas where the1999 edition has made great strides forward in terms of system efficiency. Envelope changes, which are considerably less colnmon in commercial building renovation, is an area where the 1999 edition is less stringent for some building constructions. Hence, the savings in energy use intensity may actually be higher for renovation square footage than for new construction. The language in the textual analysis does not state that renovations will provide 50percent ofthe energy saved by 90.1-1 999 for new construction, but rather points out that the dollar value of renovations is close to 50 percent ofthe dollar value for new comlnercial construction. Comments from ASHRAE state that industry estimates indicate that at least 60percent of heating and cooling equipment sales are forreplacement markets, and only 40percent for new buildings. (See comment 9.4)
11.6. 

### Interior lighting power exemptions. B. 

### Lighting and Power; 1. Interior Lighting Power Exemptions. After listing a number of lighting system exemptions in both Standard 90.1

### - 1989 and Standard 90.1- 

### 1999, the author concludes that "the net effect of these differences is expected to be a small increase in efficiency in the 1999edition." Without providing any verifiable basis, making such an assertion is inappropriate. In addition, some of the claimed lighting power exemptions are factually incorrect. For example, the claim "lighting for outdoor manufacturing, commercial greenhouses, and process facilities; and special lighting for research are exempt in the 1989 edition but not in the 1999 edition" is incorrect. The scope of Standard 90.1-1999 specifically exempts "equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing or commercial processes." Also, the claim "lighting integral to open and glass enclosed refrigerator and freezer cases, and lighting integral to food warming and preparation equipment lighting in interior spaces that have been designated as a registered interior historic landmark
.

### ..are not generally controlled by the 1989 edition because they arerarely known at thetime the lighting plans are approved" is incorrect. These lighting systems are integral to the building design and specified by the building designer. 

### Response: The statement that, the net effect of these differences is expected to be a small increase in efficiency in the 1999 edition, is a reasonable subjective judgement provided in lieu ofthe availability of quantifiable data. We believe the scope exception to processes does not apply to lighting unless the lighting is there to provide for processes, such as drying or heating lights in a production process. The overhead lighting in a process portion of a plant provides lighting to the labor force in order to perform their work and to move safely around in the space and is therefore not exempted. This is the same rational that is applied to heating or cooling equipment that is required to comply,because it is used for labor force comfort versus heating and cooling equipment that is exempted because it is used for the processing of materials. The1999 edition has explicit lighting requirements for manufacturing facilities, workshops, and warehouses even though these buildings exist to support processes. This comment reflects a different interpretation of lightingpower exemptions than the one we hold. In the determination we grouped it with comments having to dowith differing interpretations of lighting integral to equipment, transformers, transportation systems, energy management systems, and the energy cost budget compliance path. We disagree with the portion ofthe comment regarding lighting that is integral to open and glass enclosed refrigerator and freezer cases and lighting that is integral to food warming and preparation equipment. Thepoint is not that they are integral to the building design and specified by the building designer. Thepoint is that detailed information on this lighting is rarely known at the time lighting plans are approved by the code official. This is our experience and that of other lighting designers we have talked to. This portion ofthe comment also reflects a different interpretation of the exemptions than we have. In the determination we grouped the comment with comments having to dowith differing interpretations of lighting power exemptions, transformers, transportation systems, energy management systems, and the energy cost budget compliance path. Theportion ofthe comment that states, " 

### . . 

### .and preparation equipment lighting in interior spaces 

### that have been designated as a registered interior historic landmark


### ...are not generally controlled by the 1989 edition because they are rarely known at the time the lighting plans are approved" (italics added), misquotes and distorts our statement. The original statement on historic landmarks is correct. This comment reflects a differing opinion on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this comment with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis of the envelope section, exit signs, the use of the prescriptivecompliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain, temperature reset controls, and heating equipment. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 11.7. Exterior lighting power. 

### 2.Exterior Lighting Power. The first paragraph of this section indicates that under Standard 90.1-1999 the allowable lighting level for entrances without canopies increases while the allowable lighting level for entrances with canopies decreases, and draws the conclusion that the "net impact is an overall energy savings with the 1999 edition." Without quantifying the number ofcanopied and uncanopied entrances as well as the area involved, there is no basis for reaching this conclusion. The secondparagraph of this section indicates that all lighting power density requirements have been eliminated from the 1999 standard and instead sets an efficacy requirement for luminaries used, and concludes that it is impossible to ascertain whether this will lead to a net decrease or increase in energy use. Given the tendency of lighting designers to use exterior lighting as a key architectural element in building design, it seems quite probable that this provision would result in an increase in lighting energy. 

### Response: We agree that there is no basis for reaching a conclusion with regards to the combination of a 

### 5 Watts per linear foot reduction for all building exits and a 1to 

### 7 Watts per square foot reduction for all canopied entrances, a 3 Watts per linear foot increase for uncanopied entrances, and the added efficacy requirement that applies to entrance and exit lighting that is more than 100 Watts. Data on the number and characteristics of building entrances and exits is not available. We have changed our draft analysis to reflect this. The second paragraph, in this section ofthe textual analysis, does not state that all lighting power density requirements have been eliminated from the standard. Rather it points to specific areas where they have been eliminated (i.e., loading areas, loading doors, storage and non-manufacturing work areas, and driveways, walkways, and parking lots). We also disagree with the claim that there is a lighting trend that would result in an increase in lighting energy. No data is provided and we do not find the statement tobe compelling. Accordingly, no change to the draft analysis has been made in response to this comment.
11.8. 

### Interior lighting controls. 3. Lighting Controls 

### - Interior. The first paragraph in this section discusses the two different approaches to establishing minimum lighting control requirements used in Standard 90.1- 1989 and Standard 90.1- 1999. Although the n~inin~um criteria used in the new standard (i.e., automatic lighting shutoff) seems to be much simplerthan the criteria used in the old standard (i.e., control points), it is hard to see how the change will produce energy savings during unoccupied hours as stated in the analysis. The second paragraph in this section discusses the mandatory requirement for manual, automatic or programmable controls in Standard 90.1

### -1989 compared to the requirement for automatic controls in Standard 90.1-1999 and concludes that the

### latter provision is "more likely to reduce lighting energyuse." This conclusion presupposes that in a significant number of instances that manual controls are being used in lieu of automatic and programmable controls under the 1989 standard, however, there is no basis for drawingthat conclusion. The third paragraph in this section discusses the use of lighting control credits in Standard 90.1

### -1989 compared to the use of automatic controls without credits in Standard 90.1

### - 1999 and concludes that "this allows more lighting to be used." While at first glance it may appear that this provision allows for greater lighting energy consumption in buildings utilizing approved lighting control devices, the intent of the standard is that the higher allowed lighting power densities will be more than offset by the reduced operation of lighting systems controlled with these devices. This intent is made clear by theASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1

### -1989 User's Manual,

### which states: "The value ofpower adjustment are determined by a consensus ofexperts. These values are supported by experience and substantial (although not absolutely conclusive) evidence ofrelative effect. The values are intentionally conservative, since in actual practice a control device may not perform as advertised or be rendered inoperativeby improper installationand adjustment." 

### Response: We disagree. The requirement for automatic lighting shutoff in all spaces, using time of day, occupancy sensor or similar methods, is explicitly directed at turning off lights when people are not there, thereby producing energy savings during unoccupied hours. The basis of the assertion, that the requirement for automatic controls in the 1999 edition is more likely to reduce lighting energy use, is that it is mandatory and not merely optional, as in the 1989 edition. While the 1989 standard optional control points could rely on automatic controls, there is no language suggesting they must rely on automatic controls. The comment explains that the intent of the 1989 edition control credits is that the higher allowed lighting power densities will be more than offsetby the reduced operation of lighting systems controlled with these devices. This is correct. However, it ignores the fact that the 1999 edition requires the use of automatic controls without allowing an increase in connected power. Hence, the 1999 edition should save the same energy as offset by controls in the 1989 edition, plus the energy savedby not increasing the allowed lighting power densities, as the 1989 edition increases them. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
1

### 1.9. Exit signs. 5.Exit Signs. The section discusses the minimuin requirements in the 1999 standard for all exit signs,which will essentially eliminate the use of incandescent exit signs. However, sincethe 1989 standard does not contain any explicit criteria for exit signs, the conclusion that this will "thereby reducing energy consumption" does not necessarily follow. 

### Response: We disagree. There will be energy savings where the scope of the 1999 edition is increased to include requirements on building lighting or equipment, that did not exist in the previous edition. There will alsobe energy savings when the new efficiency requirement either constrains the allowed energy use orrequires an efficiency greater than some fraction of the existing market. Incandescent exit signs are marketed and sold today that currently do not meet the efficacy requirements of the 1999 edition. This comment reflects a differing opinion on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis of the envelope section, the use of the prescriptive compliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, our conclusions on the lightingpower exemptions, window thermal transmittance and solarheat gain, temperature reset controls, and heating equipment. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
11.10. 

### Interior lighting power. 6. Interior Lighting Power -Whole Building The first paragraph of this section implies that the 1999 standard treatment of luminairehallast combinations could eliminate the underestimation of installed lighting power in the 1989 standard. While the 1999 standard explicitly states that luminaire wattage is the wattage of the luminaries with permanently installed or remote ballasts or transformers, there is nothing in the 1989 standard to suggest that the luminaire wattage is anything other than the total connected load of the lighting fixture. A comparison of Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999 in the second paragraph shows that for some building types the older standard has more stringent lighting power requirements, for other building types the new standard is more stringent, and in some instances they are substantially the same. The analysis concludes that over all building types there is an average reduction of 0.1 1 Wft2 with the 1999 standard, but further suggests that since the reduction is even greater for office and retail building types, the overall impact is a net reduction in energy use. This is not a valid conclusion unless the 

### weighted average energy impact of all building type lighting power allowances is computed. 

### Response: We disagree. Because the 1989 edition does not specifically call out ballast energy, the potential for misuse exists. Incandescent sources are always called out by their total nominal wattage. Similarly, lamp designations such as, 40 Watt lamp,34 Watt lamp, F40T12, F34T12, or F32T8, are all cominon terms for typical fluorescent lamps. Each of these designations includes the nominal lamp wattage. The designation does not include the combined lamp and ballast wattage. Drawings and other tools reviewed for code compliance would typically not show the connected lighting power including the ballasts. Also, the lamp and ballast total power consumption is often not readily availablefor fixtures. It is this potential misapplication of the language that has been eliminated in the 1999 edition and may lead to increased energy efficiency. With regards to the overall impact of lighting between the two editions, our quantitative analysis compares a scenario of the 1989edition's criteria against the 1989 edition's criteria, with the 1999 edition's lighting levels substituted. This is done for seven general building type categories, using the whole building lighting numbers. The resulting comparison shows an overall electricity reduction of 2.56 thousand Btu per square foot annually across all building types, a 1.55 thousand Btu per year site energy savings, and a 7.04 thousand Btu per square foot annual source energy savings. This analysis takes into account not just the lighting wattage, but the decreased cooling load and increased heating load that result from changes in the internal load density. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
11.1

### 1. Interior lighting power 

### -space 

### by space. Interior Lighting Power -Space-by-Space. The third paragraph in this section describes the difficulty in defining a "typical" space for determining the impact ofthe additional power allowances in Standard 90.1- 1999. While this is undoubtedly true, there is no need to define a typical space to compare the impact of this provision. A more valid comparison is achieved by establishing the maximum lighting power allowed by the standard, which can be easily ascertained by values tabulated in the standard. In addition, the complexity of determining additional lighting power allowances for retail spaces is overstated by the statement that the "application of these allowances will depend on the layout of the retail space and how and for what height the lighting is employed." This is only partially correct, as only how the space is used will impact the deployment of the additional lighting. The maximum lighting level, expressed in Wlft 

### ', is not impacted by the layout of the space or the height at which the lighting is employed. A careful analysis of Table 1 reveals that the author is assuming, in most instances, area factors that are too high for the space types indicated. This assumption has the effect of overstating the effective total lighting power under the 1989 Standard, thereby, overstating the total lighting power reduction due to the 1999 Standard. Although not explicitly stated in the analysis, the underlying area factor assumptions can be easily determined by dividing the 1989 Edition Adjusted Total Power values by the unit power densities provided in the 1989 Standard. Using this method, it can be shown that the author is using an area factor of 1.OO for computing the 1989 Edition Adjusted Total Power values for the 

### Mass Merchandising and

### Food and Miscellaneous Retail space types and an area factor of 1.32for all remaining spaces (see attached Table IA). The area factor, as defined in the 1989 Standard, is a function of the area and the ceiling height ofthe specific space. While both the area and ceiling height will vary from building to building, a range of values can be identified that are fairly representative for the space. Using the graphs provided in the 1989 Standard a space with an area over 5,000 ft%nd a 10-foot ceiling height would result in an area factor of 

### 1.O. This value, therefore, seems quite reasonable for the 

### Mass Merchandising and 

### Food and Miscellaneozrs Retail space types. However an area factor of 1.32, which the analysis uses for all other spaces, would result in ceiling heights of 16

### feet for a 1000ft2 space, 24 feet for a 2500 ft" space, 32 feet for a 5000 ft2 space, and over 36 feet for spaces in excess of 7500 ft2. Clearly, this is not a representative area factor for the space types shown in Table 1.The conclusionfrom the analysis, that with the exception ofthe OfficeEnclosed, Office-Open and Jewelry Retail "the 1989edition lighting values cannot be achieved without additional lightingpower scenarios that are generally unreasonable for the space type," is also dubious. To better ascertain the real impact ofthe additional lighting power allowances provided in the 1999 Standard, Table 1was recreated using areas and ceiling heights more representative of the specific spaces shown (see attached Table 

### IB). Using this approach, an area factor of 1

### .OO was computed for the Hotel Lobby, Office-Open, Mass Merchandise Retail, Department Store Retail, Food and Miscellaneous Retail and Mall Concourse spaces, an area factor of 1.05 was computed for the Jewelry Retail, Fine Merchandise Retail and Service Retail spaces, and an area factor of 1.50was computed for the office-enclosed space. Using these area factors, all additional lighting power allowances are likely to be used in all spaces except the Office-Enclosed, Office Open and Jewelry Retail, and in the case ofthe latter, the entire additional lightingpower allowance couldbe used and still be within full compliance of the 1999 Standard. The DOE analysis reaches the conclusion that "the 1989edition lighting values are more stringent,with the additional lightingpower allowancesmore than compensated forby the reduction in base lightingpower in the 1999edition." However, ifmore reasonable area factor assumptions are made for all space types, this is not the case. Based on our analysis, if the maximum lightingpower allowed by the 1999 Standardis used and reasonable space allocation assumptions are used, the allowable lightingpower levels under the 1999 Standard are 26 percent higher than the 1989 Standard for those spaces for which additional lightingpower allowances are applicable (see attached Table 1 

### C).Table 1A. Calculation of Assumed Area Factors and Additional Lighting Type Used

Notes: 12. All additional power allowances likely to be used with additionallighting type indicated. 13. 1989lighting power letels carulothe achieved with additionalligfiti~ig type indicated, even with the rnaxitnum additional power allowa~ice applied 14. Lighting power values cannotbe achieved with additionallighting type uidicated without 'knreasonable" additionallighting power allowances. 15. 1989 Edition Assumed '4rea Factor = 1989 Edition .4cijusted Total Power (Wft2) 1989Edition Base Power (W!ft2)

Space Type (AdditionalLighting Type)
Hotel Lobby (Decorative) Office- enclosed (Visual Display Tennulal) Office- Open (Visual Display Terminal) Jewelry Retail (Highlight Merchandise) Fine MerchandiseRetail (I-IighlightMerchandise) Mass Mercha~~dise Retail (Highlight Merchandise) Department StoreRetail (Highlight Merchandise) Food & Misc. Retail (HighlightMerchandise) ServiceRetail (Highlight Merchandise) Mall Concourse (HighlightMerchandise)

Textual Analysis Table 1

## - DOE Analysis (Table 1A) 1989Edition Base Power (Wifty

1.90
1.80
1.90
5.60
3.20
3.30
3.10
2.80
2.70
1.40 1989Edition Assumed Area Factor 

### '

1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.OO
1.32
1.00
1.32
1.32 1989 Edition Adjusted Total Power (W!fi2)
2.5 1
2.38
2.51
7.39
4.22
3.30
4.09
2.80
3.56
1.85 1999 Edition Base Power (Wilt2)

1.80
1.50
1.30
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
1.80 Add. Power Allowance (wlft')

1.OO
0.35
0.35
3.90
3.90
1.60
3.90
1.60
1.60
1.60 Max. 1999 Value (W!fi2)
2.80
1.85
1.65
6.00
6.00
3.70
6.00
3.70
3.70
3.40 VDT %

100.00
100.00 Max. Spacew/ Add. Lighting (%)
71.00 1
100.00 2
100.00 2
100.00 2
55.00 3
75.00 3
51.00 3
43.00 3
92.00 3

3.00 1 Decorative YO

70.80 Gen. Merchandise (%)

75.00

43.75
91.SO
3:00 Fine Merchandise (%)

100.00
54.46

51.08rable 1B. Are Factors Based on More Reasonable Building Characteristics

Notes: I. All additionallighting power allowanceslikelyto he used. 2. 1989lightingpower levels cannothe achieved,eve11with the rnaximum additional power allowanceapplied. 3. Lightingpower values camot he achieved ifinaximurnallowable additionallightingpower allowances are used. 4. 1989 Edition Assumed Area Factor = 1989EditionAdjusted Total Power ((W/A2)/1989 Edition BasePower (WIA?. Fme Merchand~se (%)

96 92 

### '
3231 

### '

25 64 

### '

Textual Analysis Table 1

### - DOE Analysis (Table 18) Gen Mercl~and~e (%)

60 00 

### '

43 75 

### '
45 94 

### '
(25 00) 

### ' Space Type (Add~tlonal Llghting Tyye)

IIotel Lobby (Decoratfve) Office - erlclosed (V~sual D~splay Tennu~at) Office- Open (V~sual D~splay Termmal) bwehy Retad (Hlghhght Merchandtse) F~ne Merchatld~se Retall (131ghhgllt Mercha~ldse)
-- - MassMerchand~se Retall (Htghl~ght Merchandae) Department StoreRetall (H~gbhght Merchandae) Food & Mlsc Retall (H~ghl~ght Merchandsc) SemceRetall (H~ghl~ght Merchand~se) Mall Cor~course (Hlghhght Mercha~~dtse) Add Power tZIlowance

(Wlft')

100
0 35
0 35
3 90
3 90
1 60
3 90
1 60
1 60
1 60 Typ Space Sue(ft2)

10,000

100 5,000 2,500 2,500 5,000 10,000 10,000 2,500 10,000 Max 1999 Value

(~Ift~)

2 80
I 85
1 65
6 00
6 00
3 70
6 00
3 70
3 70
3 40 Max Space w

I Add L~ghtuig (yo)
71 00 1 10000 2 10000 2 10000 2 55 00 3 75 00 3 51 00 3 43 00 3 92 00 3 3 00 1 Typ Ce1111lg Nelght (ft)
15
10
10
10
10
I5
15
15
10
15 1989Edd~on Adjusted Total Power (WIft2)
190
2 70
I 90
5 88
3 36
3 30
3 10
2 80
2 84
1 40 Decoratwe O/n

10 00' 1999Ed~t~on Base Power (w/ft2)

1 80
1 50
130
2 10
2 10
2 10
2 10
2 10
2 10
I 80 1989Eda~on Base Power (~lft')

1 90
1 80
1 90
5 60
3 20
3 30
3 10
2 80
2 70
140 VDT %

100 002
100 00 1989Ed~t~on Assumed Area Factor 

### '

100
1 50
1 00
1 05
I 05
100
100
100
1 05
100Table 1C. Comparison of Maximum Allowable Lighting Levels Using More Reasonable Building Characteristics

Notes: 1 Typical applicationof additional power alkowancz likely to result in lighting power increaseover 1989standard. 2 Typical applicationof additional power allowancenot likely to result in lighting power inaease over 1989standards. 3 Additionallighting power allowance appliedto entire space. 4 Additionallightingpower allowal~ce applied to entire space as follows: 80% general mercha~~dise, 2Ooh fule mercl~andise. 5 Additionallighting power allowatlce applied to 20 percent of space.

Space Type (Additional Lighting T.ype) Hotel Lohhy (Decorative) Ofice- enclosed (Visual Display tcnnind) Ofice -@en (Visual Display Terminal) JerwlryRetail c H~ghligl~t Merchandise) Fine Mercbaadzs~. Retail (H,@ll,&t Merchandise) Mass Merclia~~dise Retail (Hlpbil-&i Merchandise) Depamlreiit Store Retail (FI~&ligllt Mercllandise)

FOO~ r~:

M>SC Retail (lil&l~@lt Merchandise) Senrice Retail (Highlight Merchandise) Mall Cm~course (Hiphlight Mercltandise) TpSpace Size (R')

10.000

100

5,000

3.500

2.500

5.000

10.000

10.000

2,500

10.000 1989Edition Base Power (W.A2) 1.90

I .80

1 90

5.60

3.20

3.30

3 10

2 80

2 70

140 TT Ceiiinp He~pht (A) 15
I0

10

I0

10

I5

IS

IS

10

I5 1989 Edition Assumed Area Factor* I.00

I So

1.00

I 05

1.05

100

1.00

I oo

I 05

1 00 1989 Edition Adjusted Total Power (W!A1) 190

2 70

1.90

5.88

3.36

3.30

3.10

z 80

2.84

1.40 Add Power .4.lloW&)

1.00
0.35

0 35

3 90

3.90

1.60

3 90

1.60

I 60

1.60 1999Edition Bam%r
1.80
1.50

1 30

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2 I0

1 80 Max. 1999 ValdWIR')
2.80

I 85

1 65

6 00

6.00

3.70

6.00

3.70

1.70

3.40 Increase Over 1989 Lrvels (%) 47
(31)

(13)

2

79

12

94

32

31

143 Max. Space W'Add. I.~ghtxf&j 71.00

10000

100.0

I00 00

55.iXI

75 00

51 N

43 00

92.(X)

3.00 I999 Value w'?4 Add Ltg(Bb@ 2.51
1.85

1.65

6.00

4.25

3.30

4.09

2 79

3.57

1.85 hlcrease Over 1989 Levels (%j 32 (31)

(13)

2

26

0

32

(0)

26

32 Reasonable Lighting Power Scenario (%)

100.00 3

10000 3

IMiOO 3

100.00 3

10000 3

100.(10 4

100.00 4

Inow 3

I0000 3

20.00 5 1999 Value w? '?o Add. Ug. Shown (U'A') 2.80
1.85

I.65

600

6 00

4.16

4 16

3.70

3 70

2.12 Increase Over 1989 Levels (5)

47 '
131) '

(13) '

2'

79 '

26

34 '

32 I

31 '

51 'Includer hghtmg power rncreasesdeemed unreasonable to DOE Textual Analysn IncludesmaxrtnumIlghtutgpower allowedby 1999 standard, allocated as noted 1989Ed~tan Assuui~ed Area Factor = 1989EdltioiiAdjusted Total Power (w/ft2)11989Edrtlon Base Power (w/ft2)

### Response: We disagree with the comment suggesting that the maximum lighting power density possible for a particular space is the appropriate basis for establishing the impact of the additional power allowances in the 1999 edition. This edition allows additional lighting power, but 

### onlyfor specific luminaries, perfonning eligible lighting functions occurring in a specific space. It allows additional lighting power to meet the requirements of visual display terminals, to highlight certain high end merchandise, and for decorative purposes, such chandeliers or sconces for highlighting art. For example, additional lighting power for sconces used to highlight art may be used in office lobbies, circulation areas, offices, and meeting rooms, but only for a specific sconce(s) illuminating a specific piece of art. A casual inspection reveals that art is not displayed in every lobby, circulation area, office or meeting room, and when it is, it may not be highlighted. Therefore, using the maximum lighting power density for all spaces is inappropriate for establishing the impact of additional power allowances. We disagree with the comment on the layout of retail space. The use of the phrase 

### ".


### ..depend on the layout ofthe retail space.. 

### ." in describing the 1999 edition lighting was meant to refer to those business decisions regarding the layout of sales areas and space functions that effect what lighting is needed. It was not used in reference to the physical size of the space. The statement in the draft analysis has been clarified to make the point clear. The issue of appropriate area factors is a central issue when trying to compare the spaceby-space requirements of these two editions. Accurate data on the actual room cavity ratio or area factor ofrepresentative spaces is not available. The area factor values we used for this comparison were those exacted from the room cavity ratio values used for these space types in development of the 1999 edition. These data will necessarily be quite variable, given that space types vary greatly in size. We reviewed the individual space type assumptions used and note the following: Our assumption for lobbies was incorrect. For the hotel lobby category, our review of the rooin cavity ratio and area factor assumption shows an errorwith this space type. The 1999 edition applied a room cavity ratio category of 1.0 for the hotel" lobby category which equates to an area factor of 1.0 instead of the area factor of 1.32 used in our draft analysis. This room cavity ratio category, used in the development of the draft analysis table, was the basis for all other lobby types. Correcting this category changes the lighting power density from the 1.8Watts per square foot, shown in our table, to 1.7 Watts per square foot. Under this latter scenario, it is estimated that 20percent ofthe space would need to have additional decorative lighting, in order to match the lighting power density allowance in the 1989 edition. We agree that this is a reasonable amount of decorative lighting in such a space type and changed the draft analysis to reflect this. We have changed the text of the draft analysis accordingly. We have reassessed the area factor for the space category, office-open spaces. And we have changed the area factor. But this does not change our conclusion. For the office-open space type, an area factor of 1.32was used, based on the original 1999 lighting work. Upon review, this seems high, when considering the typically larger spaces associated with open offices, with standard 8 foot to 10foot ceilings. Part of the committee rational for a higher room cavity ratio, and therefore an area factor, deals with the commonuse of partitions or cubical arrangements for these spaces. The established room cavityratio calculation for these types ofpartitions involves the consideration of the typically 5-foot high box arrangementof each cubicle. The room cavity ratio for a space so divided is radically different from the same area without partitions. An unpartitioned office, with an area factor of 1.0is reasonable. Such an office would be allowed 1.9 Watts per square foot lightingpower density in the 1989edition. Such a lightingpower densitywould still exceed, by a wide margin, the maximum 1.65Watts per square foot allowed in the 1999 edition. We agree with the comment that area factors we used for our draft analysis equate to spaces that are on the small side for the categories of department store and mall retail, but we find the area factors suggested in the comment inappropriate. For the categories, department store and mall retail, an effective area factor of 1.32equates to spaces with 14 to 24 foot ceilings, and floor areas between 800 and 3000 square feet. However, an area factor of 

### 1 .O, suggested in the comment, equates to spaces with floor areas above 14,000 square feet, which would be inappropriatefor a significant number of such retail category space types. A review of the retail space categories ofjewelry, fine merchandise, and service retail suggests that most of these areas will not have high ceilings, but rather moderate ceiling heights of 8 to 12feet. At an area factor of 1.32 the room areas would vary between 200 and 600 square feet, which would be appropriate for smaller shops and service areas. To arrive at an area factor of 1.05 with the same ceiling height range would require floor areas between 1,300 and 4,000 square feet. While all these space sizes exist for these space types, floor areas of 200 square feet is sinall and 4,000 square feet is large. A more reasonable area factor for these space types would fall between 1.05 and 1.32. Using the lower area factor values proposed in the comment, jewelry stores would require more than 97 percent of the space to be filled with highlightedjewelry, which isimpossible. Spaces housing fine merchandise would require 79 percent ofthe space to be filled with such merchandise and lit with general highlighting or 32 percent ofthe space lit to highlight fine merchandise. This is improbable, but conceivable in some stores. Neither scenarios for the department store nor the mass merchandise space categories are reasonable. These spaces would require 62 percent or 75 percent (respectively)of their spaces to be occupied with merchandise eligable to be highlighted to meet the lighting power densities of the 1989 edition. At most, 70 percent of these spaces contain goods. The remainder ofthe spaces are allocated to aisles, checkout counters, and entrances and exits. These latter areas would not be eligible for the additional lighting allowance.

### We agree that the table should show ranges of area factors and have revised the draft analysis accordingly. We have revised the text and table in the draft analysis to reflect the above. Seethe table below.

### Table 5. Additional lighting power allowance in the 1999

### edition needed to match the 1989 

### edition lighting power allowance. Space Type [Additional Lighting Type]

Hotel Lobby [Decorative] Office - enclosed [Visual Display Terminal] Office - open [Visual Display Terminal] Jewelry Retail [Highlight Merchandise]

Fine Merchandise Retail [Highlight Merchandise]

Mass Merchandise (big box) Retail [Highlight Merchandise] Department Store Retail [Highlight Merchandise]

Food and Misc. Retail [Highlight Merchandise]
Service Retail [Highlight Merchandise]
Mall Concourse [Highlight Merchandise] Possible Scenarios ofuse of additional power in 1999 edition to equal 1989 edition value

Permits 20 percent of the entire space to have decorative lighting Cannot reach the1989 edition's value (Max 1999 value = 1.85) Cannot reach the 1989 edition's value (Max 1999 value = 1.65) In most cases one cannot reach the 1989 edition's value (Max 1999value = 6.00). Need to have 97 percent of the entire space covered with spotlighted fine merchandise displays, to reach the 1989 edition's lower value. Need to have between 32 and 55 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted fine merchandise displays -or, more than 78 percent of the space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 edition's value. 75 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted general displays - OR - 30 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted fine merchandise displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. Need to have between 26 and 5 1 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted fine merchandise displays, or more than 62 percent of the space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. Need to have 43 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. Need to have between 46 and 92 percent of the entire space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. The 1999 value is within or close to possible 1989 values 1989 Edition Adjusted

Total Power 2.51
2.38
2.51
5.88 to 7.40

3.36 to 4.23

3.30

3.10 to4.10

2.80

2.84 to 3.57

1.40to 1.85 1999 Edition

Base Power

1.7
1.5
1.3
2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

1.05- 1.32
1.8

### 1.1. Envelope air leakage. 

### C. BuildingEnvelope; 1.

### Air Leakage. The conclusions in the second paragraph of this section are not consistentwith the accompanying table (Table 2). The paragraph should read as follows: The impact ofthese changes on energy efficiency is hard to evaluate. Air leakage requirements for windows are stringent for 

## sixwindow types, and 

## more stringent in one window type in the 1999 edition. Skylight requirements are more less stringent in the 1999 edition than in the 1989edition. Doors are more stringentfor types less stringent for

## fivetypes, in the 1999 edition.We have no data as to the prevalence of each different type of component and without this data, we have determined that the overall impact on energy efficiency is minimal. Given the total misinterpretationofthe tabulated data, any conclusions drawn from the data are questionable if not totally erroneous. Response: 

### The comment is correct that the overall impact in comparing the requirements for window air leakage is a reduction in stringency for windows. Neither operable nor jalousie windows are a predominatewindow types in commercial construction. However, fixed framewindows are common and there has been a significant increase in the allowed leakage rate in the 1999 edition. We did note that one ofthe reference standards in the 1989edition (vinyl windows and sliding glass doors) has been discontinued. There are also increased leakage rates for all categories ofwood frame windows and for skylights. For doors, there are signifi cant increased leakage rates for wooden doors and slight increased leakage for sliding doors. However, for the categories of, commercial entrance doors and all other commercial doors, there are expected to be significant reductions in allowed leakage. Because of the predominance of commercial steel doors in the latter category,we believe that door air leakage requirements are more stringent in the 1999 edition. The 1999edition also includes additional requirements for loading dock weather seals in colder climates (greater than 3,600 heating degree days, base 65 

### degrees Fahrenheit) and also a requirement for vestibules in commercial building entrance doors. These requirements are not present in the1989 edition. The conlbinationof the more stringent requirements for commercial doors and loading dock and vestibule requirements should improve energy efficiency in buildings where they are required. As there are generally fewer doors than windows, we expect an overall decrease in stringency due to air leakage under the 1999 edition. We have changed the draft analysis where appropriate to reflect these comments.
1.2. 

### Speculative building envelopes.3. Speculative Building Envelopes. The DOE analysis discusses the provision in Standard90.1-1999 that would require the envelope efficiency of a "speculative" building to be upgraded if the building use changes from a semi-heatedto conditioned space (Section 4.1.2.3), and concludes that this would result in no additional energy use compared to Standard 90.1-1989, which does not differentiate between semi-heated and conditioned spaces. While this may be technicallycorrect, it is unlikely that this provision would or could be enforcedby the authorities havingjurisdiction. 

### Response: While we disagree with the comment, we agree that there is an opportunity for a building conversion to be overlooked by code officials under the 1999 edition. However, the 1999edition does require renovations and changes in occupancy to be addressed,whereas the 1989edition does not. We believe that under the 1999 edition, in most instances, the transition from a semi-heated space (e.g., conversion of a warehouse heated for freeze protection only to a conditioned space for other use such as office) would entail the addition ofheating capacity, and likely cooling capacity in most climates. Similarly, changes in lighting would likely occur. Building inspections would normally be required which would trigger a review of energy code requirements. Furthermore, such a transition generally entails a change in occupancy, a matter closely watched by code officials for health and life safety reasons. We have added text explaining this in the draft analysis.


### 1.3. Envelope thermal transmittance in cold climates. 

### 4.Envelope Thermal Transmittance in Cold Climates. This section discusses the differing set ofrequirementsin Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999 for building envelope for extremely cold climates. However, while the narrative refers to climates with more than 15,000 heating degree-days, base 65"

### F (HDD65), the accompanying table (Table 3) comparesthe 1989 requirements for climates with more than 15,000HDD65 with 1999 requirements for climates with 16,201to 19,800HDD65. This is not an "apples-to-apples" comparison. 

### Response: The only U.S. climate in the 1989 or1999 edition's weather data that would fall under the "cold climate" requirementswould be Barrow Alaska, and thus we expect any impact to be negligible. We have added text explaining this in the draft analysis.
1.4. 

### Skylight thermal transmittance and solar heat gain. 5. Skylight Thermal Transmittance and Solar Heat Gain. The last paragraph ofthis section concludes only that the 1999edition solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) requirementis more stringent for virtually all locations in the U.S. comparedwith the 1989 standard. However, it would appear that if both SHGC and U-factor are considered, the overall requirementsofthe 1989 standard are more stringent. 

### Response: We disagree. The comment states that when looking at both SHGC and Ufactor, the 1989 standard is more efficient, but no basis is provided for that statement.There are multiple paths for skylight compliance in the 1989 edition's prescriptive section. We have not attempted to weigh all possible paths. Paragraph three of our textual analysis quite clearly states that the U-factor requirements ofthe 1989 standard are more stringent. It also states that in many instances, a building would be allowed to have a considerably higher total area in skylights using the prescriptive path ofthe 1989 edition, where lighting controls have been installed. We have not concluded whether there is a net stringency increase or decrease with skylights under the 1999 edition. We have noted that solar heat gain coefficient requirements are more stringent for skylights in the 1999 edition. The information on commercial building stock roofs and skylights is insufficient to reach a net conclusion. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.


### 1.5. Slab-on-grade and below grade wall insulation. 6. Slab-On-Grade and Below Grade Wall Insulation. After discussing the reduced stringency for slab-on-grade and below grade wall insulation requirements in Standard 90.1- 1999 compared to Standard 90.1-1989, the observation is made that "the magnitude of the impact will be tempered by the insulating effect of the surrounding earth." However, since the surrounding earth is clearly present regardless ofthe version ofthe standard, the magnitude ofthe impact due to the reduction in stringency is not tempered at all. The true conclusion is that the 1999 standard will result in increased energy consumption relative to the 1989 standard. 

### Response: The original statementholds true, but has been changed to reflect that the statement is relative to the other envelope components exposed to the air or sun. The reduction of slab-on-grade andbelow grade wall insulation requirement in the 1999 edition will result in higher heating loads in cold climates, particularly for small buildings. However, it will also reduce cooling loads during much of the year in cooler climates. While we suspectthat this will increase site energy consumption, it is unknown what the net impact on primary energy consumption will be in many buildings. Note that slab edge insulation was one feature included in the quantitative analysis.
1.6. 

### Roof Thermal Transmittance. 7. Roof Thermal Transmittance. The conclusion of this section is very misleading. The discussion acknowledges that the 1999 edition is "less stringent for buildings with insulation above deck ormetal buildings" and that there is a "predominance of built-up roofs (insulationabove-deck) in commercial buildings." The accompanying table (Table 6) indicates that for 7 out of 11 cities the U-factor in the 1999 edition is less stringent than the 1989 standard for these two roof types. The analysis is understating this impact by concluding "there is a 

### moderate decrease in roof U-factor with the 1999edition" (emphasis added). The statement "a significant decrease in requirements for semi-heated type structures" is very misleading. The contextual implication is that there is a decrease in roof U-factor in the 1999 standard whereas there is actually a significant increase in roof U-factor with a resulting decrease in stringency. In addition, since thetabulated data totally ignores residential buildings, no valid conclusions regarding roofthermal transmittance can be made. 

### Response: We agree that the results can be more clearly stated. Further analysiswas done. We do not believe that the database information on roofs is sufficient to produce defensible quantitative results, only qualified indications ofthe impacts. We estimated the building footprint area (assumed to approximate the roof area) by dividingthe floor area by the nurnber of floors for each building type. We then applied the Co~mnercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) statistical weights to each building type, to develop a table of the estimated roof area for each roof surface type classification for each of the 

### 18building use classifications in the 1992 CBECS. There are 17CBECS roof surface classifications,which were aggregated into the three roof types in the 1999 standard, as shown in the table below. Where a significant fraction of a particular roof surface classification couldbe divided into one or more construction categories, estimates were made of the relative percentage in each category. These estimates are shown in parentheses in the following table. Finally, the fraction of estimatedroof area for each roof constructionis shown for non-residential, semi-heated, and residential space types.
1999 Edition Roof Construction
Insulat~on Entirely Above Deck

Metal Bu~lding
Attic and Other

a)Non-refrigerated warehouse assumed b) Lodgingbwldings only CBECS 1992 Roof Surface Classifications
Built-up, Bult-up & metal, Built-up & slm ply, Composite, Foam/Styrofoam, Smgle/multipleply (33%), Shmgles & bult-up (50%) MetaliRubber (80%), Metal Surfac~ng (80%), Smglelmultipleply (33%) Concrete Roof, MetaVRubber (20%), Metal Surfacmg (20%), Other (specify), Shingles & metal, Shingles& sin1ply, Shingles(not wood), Smgleimultipleply (33%), Sh~ngles & built-up (SO%), Slate & shngles, Slate or tile, Wooden materials EstimatedNonResidential 50.2%

16.5%

33.3% Roof AreaSemiHeated "

45.9%

32.9%

21.2% FractionResidential

45.6%

4.9%

49.4%

### Metal surfacing (about 

### 13percent ofthe floor area) can either be considered part of a metal building roof or part of a roof with metal joists, as, for example, are used in big box buildings such as Walmarts. The 801'20

### split here allocates most of the surfaces to metal buildings which are the more prevalent class of new commercial construction. The roofing categories of shingleslslate and tilelwooden materials, are likely to be in place on roofs with attics or single rafter roofs, because they rely on roof pitch to shed water. The remaining categories cover a variety of combinations ofmaterials, mainly syntheticlrubber surfaces. Some of these may be flat roofs, but they couldbe metal joist roofs or deck roofs. We allocated these evenly over the 1999 edition's roof construction categories. The fractions ofroof types estimated were used to weight the required U-factors from the 1999 edition for each climate and for each category of building, non-residential, semiheated, and residential. The results (shown in the following table) suggest that forrnost non-residential buildings, the 1999 edition has more stringent roof U-factor requirements in warm to mild climates (significantly soin Knoxville and Los Angeles, moderately so in Orlando, Seattle, and Shreveport, and slightly soin Fresno). It is slightly less stringent in the cooler climates of Denver, Detroit, and Providence, and is significantly less stringent in Minneapolis and Phoenix. Overall, we expect a slight increase in heating energy use and slight decrease in cooling energy use for rnost non-residential buildings from these requirements. The semi-heated building category in the 1999 edition shows a substantial increase in average U-factor for all buildings, which is expected to result in increased energy use due to increased heating loads for these buildings. A comparison of the requirements forthe residential space category in the 1999 edition shows a reduction in U-factor (increase in stringency) for all climates except Los Angeles, which shows a substantial increase in U-factor (decrease in stringency). Overall, it is expected that the changes in U-factor requirements in the 1999 edition will result in some increase in heating energyuse, primarily as a result of the significant changes in requirements for semi-heated spaces. It is expected that it will alsoresult in some decrease in cooling energy use in most (but not all climates).

# I Average Roof U-Factor Required 

# I 1999 Edition 1989 Non-Res- Semi- ResCity Edition idential Heated idential Denver 0.05

### 1 0.054 0.123 0.045

IDetroit 0.053 0.054 0.123 0.045
Knoxville 0.1 10 0.054 0.149 0.045
I Los Angeles 0.100 0.070 0.202 0.200 Minneapolis 0.045 0.05 1 0.123 0.045

We have 1. Negative U-factors indicate decreased stringency reflected the above in changes to the draft analysis. 

### Change 1989-1999 Non-Res'

1.7. 

### Floors over unconditioned spaces. 

### 8. Floors Over Unconditioned Spaces. The conclusion to this section, "overall there will be a net decrease in energy use under the floor criteria in the 1999edition" is not clearly substantiated by the data presented in the accompanying table (Table 7). While it is true that the stringency of wood framed floors in non-residential buildings have increased under the 1999 standard, the comparative level of stringency is mixed for steeljoist and mass floors in nonresidential. Of greater impact, however, is the reduced stringency for semi-heated buildings, which account for almost 20 percent of all commercial floorspace. The comparative stringency of residential buildings is totally ignored. Without a more thorough analysis it is inappropriate to make any definitive conclusions as to the impact of the revisions in the 1999 standard. 

### Response: We agree with the comment. We expect semi-heated buildings to primairly include warehouse, parking garage, and automobile service type buildings. Unfortunately, while we can envision very little semi-heated floor space over unconditioned spaces in most semi-heated buildings, we are not aware of reliable data on floor construction in buildings, to make a definitive estimate.

### In comparing U-factor requirements for semi-conditioned spaces, wood frame floors are clearly more stringent under the 1999 edition. For steel framed floors in non-residential spaces, the 1999 edition is approximately 1.5to four times more stringent for moderate to warm climates. They are approximately equal to slightlyless stringent for the climates of Seattle, Denver, Detroit, and Providence. Finally, they are approximately30percent less stringent for Minneapolis, a cold climate. For mass floors, the 1999edition is less stringentby a factor of approximatelytwo for Seattle, Denver, Detroit, Providence, and Minneapolis. It is approximately45 percent less stringent for Knoxville. It is approximately the same for Fresno and Shreveport. It is approximately 24 percent more stringentfor Los Angeles and Phoenix. Finally, it is likely about a factor of two less stringent for Orlando, given a typical U-factor for an uninsulated floor. We have removed the concl~lsion about the net results fromthe draft analysis.
1.8. 

### Opaque wall thermal transmittance. 9. Opaque Wall Thermal Transmittance There are two factual errors in the first paragraph of this section.First, the range ofpossible U-factors for mass walls depends partially on percent fenestration and internal load density,notjust thermal mass as stated. Second, mass walls in the 1999 edition do not generally fall within the range of allowable values in the 1989 edition as stated. Non-residentialmass walls, weightedby climate and floor space, have an allowableUfactor of 0.28 in the 1999 standard comparedto U- 

### Factors ranging from 0.227 to 0.25 1 in the 1989 standard. The conclusion of this paragraph, "since buildings in the semi-heated category are expectedto have relatively low heating loads and no cooling loads, the reduction in stringency is expectedto have minimal impact" doesn't appear to give full consideration to the size ofthe semi-heated category,which accounts for almost 20 percent of total commercial floor space. The last sentence of this section should be revised to read, "Overall, it is expected that the reduced Ufactorrequirements for mass walls in the non-residential and semi-heated categorywill result in increased heating energy use over the 90.1

### - 1989 mass wall requirements and increased cooling energy use over the 90.1

### -1989requirements for non-residentialbuildings." 

### Response: We agree that the range ofpossible U-factors for mass walls depends partially on percent fenestration and internal load density, notjust thermal mass, as stated in the comment. We believe that this is obvious from the remainder of the text of this section of the draft analysis. However, we have changed the draft analysis to alleviate any misunderstanding. The draft analysis already states that the 1999 edition is less stringent for non-residential spaces.We also agree that, overall, it is expected that the reduced U-factor requirements for mass walls in the non-residential and semi-heated category will increase heating energy use over the 1989 edition's mass wall requirements. We have added that language to the draft analysis. We do not agree that this produces an increase in cooling energy use. We believe cooling losses through the envelope can be important, particularly if a building economizer is not installed or operated.


### 1.9. 

### Window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain. 10. Window Thermal Transmittance and Solar Heat Gain. The second paragraph ofthis section uses the phrase "typical levels of internal gains." Without further clarification, this phrase is meaningless and calls into question the conclusion "the requirements for window thermal transmittance in residential and non-residential buildings are very similar in both editions. It is also unclear what is meant by the phrase "marginally more stringent." In the last paragraph in the section, after stating "window solar heat gain requirements in the 1999 edition are typically more stringent in buildings with lower glazing areas but often less stringent in buildings with higher glazing areas" the analysis concludes that "the overall the 1999 edition is more energy efficient in reducing solar heat gain in 

### mostbuildings" (emphasis added). Without quantifying the weighted average percent glazing in commercial buildings, there is insufficient data presented to draw that conclusion. The sentence should be revised to read in part "the overall the 1999 edition is more energy efficient in reducing solar heat gain in most buildings with more than 30 percent glazing." 

### Response: We disagree with the conclusion. The levels of internal gains for both the wall and window assumptions have been clarified. Thephrase, "Marginally more stringent in the rest of the country," has been quantified using an average percent change range to differentiate it from the cold climates. We have shown the average window fraction from the quantitative analysis to supportthe phrase, "most buildings." Finally, the last sentence in the comment is incorrect. It should read "overall the 1999 edition is more energy efficient in reducing solar heat gain in most buildings with 

### less than 30 percent glazing." This comment reflects a different opinion than ours on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this comment with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis of the envelope section, exit signs, the use ofthe prescriptive compliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, our conclusions on the lighting power exemptions, temperature reset controls, and heating equipment.
1.10. 

### Opaque doors.

### 11. 

### Opaque Doors. The conclusion to this section could be clarified by revising the last sentence to read "However, in individual buildings with a significantnumber of doors, like warehouses, the impact may be significant." Response: 

### We agree with the comment if it is changed to read, "some" warehouses. Many large warehouses only have a few doors where trucks or trains enter or exit the building and unload inside, instead ofparking outside the building and unloading through doors. We have changed the conclusion accordingly.
1.1

### 1. Load calculations and sizing. 

### D. Mechanical Equipment and Systems; 1. Load Calculations and Sizing. The omission of explicit sizing requirements for HVAC systems while unlikely to have much impact on large commercial buildings, which are typically designed by engineering professionals, could have a 

### significant impact on smaller commercial buildings, especially design-build facilities. The inclusion of explicit maximum safety factors in the 1989 standard recognizes the tendency for much larger values to be used by system designers. The exclusion of such factors in the 1999 standard has the potential for significantly oversized equipment to be specified, resulting in operating inefficiency. Response: 

### We agree. The exclusion of factors limiting the amount of allowed system over sizing in the 1999 standard has the potential for significantly oversized equipment to be specified, particularly in smaller buildings. Such over sizing would result in operating inefficiency. We have added text to the draft analysis to reflect this.
1.12. 

### Separate Air Distribution Systems. 2. 

### Separate Air Distribution Systems. The conclusion to this section indicates that differences in the requirements for separate air distribution systems between the 1989 and 1999 standards could result in a minor reduction in stringency in a limited number ofbuildings. The impact could be significant, however, in mixed use buildings, which are on the rise. Response: 

### We disagree. The requirements for separate air distribution systems in the 1989 edition refer to systems satisfying process applications. This would not impact mixed use buildings, such as office and retail combinations which generally donot include process applications. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
1.13. 

### Temperature controls. 3. 

### Temperature Controls. This section concludes "the 1999 edition..
.

### will limit reheating and recooling done by separate systems, which will provide improved efficiency over the 1989 edition." The partial basis for this claim is that the 1989 standard "explicitly requires a setpoint overlap restriction when the heating and cooling to a zone are controlled by separate thermostats

### within that zone." However, it is hard to understand how this provision is substantially different from Section 9.4.3.2.3 in the 1989 standard, which states: Where used to control both comfort heating and cooling, zone thermosfatic controls shall be capable ofproviding a ternperatzrre range ofat least 

### 5 "Fwithin which the supply ofheating and cooling energv to the zone isshut offor reduced to a minimum. Response: 

### We believe that the language in the 1989 edition is ambiguous. In the 1989 edition it is not clear whether individual thermostats are required to control both heating and cooling to a 5-degree Fahrenheit deadband, or whether the space should be controlled to provide a 5-degree Fahrenheit deadband. The purpose ofthe revised language in the 1999 edition is to provide clarity. We have added a sentence to the draft analysis to point out the ambiguity in the 1989 edition's temperature control wording.
1.14. 

### Off-hour controls and setback. 

### 4. Off-Hour Controls and Setback. The second paragraph ofthis section describes the zone isolation requirements in Standard 90.1-1 999, which clearly defines maximum airflow in unoccupied areas. Standard 90.1

### -1989 has similarzone isolation requirements, although maximum airflow rates are not specified (Section 9.4.4.3). Given the subtle differences between the two standards (i.e., implicit vs. explicit requirements) the conclusion that "The 1999 edition by requiring maximum setback air volumes has more stringent off-hour requirements" seems to be overstating the case. Response: 

### We agree. We have revised the textual analysis to read, "The 1999 edition, by requiring maximum setback air volun~es, has explicit, and therefore more stringent, offhour requirements."
1.15. 

### Radiant Heating. 

### 7. Radiant Heating. This section claims "the requirements in the 1999 edition that radiant heating be used on unenclosed spaces such as loading docks without air curtains will save energy compared to the use of warm-air systems allowed in the 1989 edition." This statement is factually incorrect. The TPS of the 1999 standard explicitly includes unenclosed spaces by defining a building as "a structure wholly orpartially enclosed within exterior walls." However, the TPS of the 1989 standard does not include such spaces,but rather limits coverage to "new buildings intended for human occupancy." In addition, the 1989 standard requires "radiant heating systems shallbe considered in lieu of convection or all-air heating systems to heat areas which experience infiltration loads in excess of2 

### air changes per hour at design heating conditions." This provision would certainly apply to spaces such as unenclosed loading docks. Response: 

### We disagree. The comment is internally inconsistent. On one hand it states that the title, purpose, and scope of the 1989 edition does not includes such spaces as loading docks without air curtains. But in the next sentence, it states that there arerequirements for such spaces. If the title, purpose, and scope of the 1989edition is not assumed to include unenclosed spaces, then the standard has no requirements for these spaces and air heating systems are allowed by default. By specifically including them in the title, purpose, and scope and requiring radiant heating systems, the 1999 standard will save energy. We have revised the draft analysis to explicitly state the above
1.16. 

### Pipe and duct insulation. 9. Pipe and Duct Insulation. The first paragraph of this section acknowledges "the 1999 edition has slightly less stringent pipe insulation requirements than the 1989 edition for most building applications," but then concludes that "these differences should have minimal impact." This seems like a very unlikely conclusion; especiallygiven the great emphasis placed onpipe insulation projects in demand-side management programs nationwide. 

### Response: We believe that there are significantenergy savings from adding insulation to non-insulated piping. Demand side management and other energy programs nationwide to encourage adding insulation to existing piping, where insulation is old, failing, or absent. However, the marginal net energy savings resulting from differing levels of insulation 

### in insulated piping requirements in the 1989 and 1999editions is expected to have minimal impact. We have added words to the draft analysis that points out that since the piping is insulated under both standards, the incremental reduction in insulation is expected to have minimal impact.
1.17. 

### Completion requirements. 11.Completion Requirements This section discusses the Standard 90.1-1999 requirements for plans and specifications to include commissioning instructions for heating ventilation and air-conditioning systems and concludes that these requirements "have the potential to provide long-term energy efficiency beyond what would be expected under the.. .I989edition." However, given the total lack of any long-term enforcement mechanisms in the 1999 standard, this conclusion is highly optimistic. 

### Response: We used the words, "


### . . .potential long term energy efficiency" and believe the statement is correct. There is a significant amount of literature documenting the benefit of cominissioning buildings and there has been a series of nine annual national conferences on building commissioning which the Department has sponsored to promote building commissioning activities. We believe that ,while over time operations degrade so of the initial efficiency gained from commissioning, systems never having operated at design efficiency will degrade further than those that have been commissioned.

### 1.18. Simultaneous heating and cooling controls. 12. Simultaneous Heating and Cooling Controls. Both the 1989and 1999 standards have essentially identical text designed to prevent the occurrence of simultaneous heating and cooling. While both standards provide commonsense exceptions to this requirement, the 1999 standard provides much more detail regarding the possible characterization of the circumstances under which the exception would apply. Given the similar intent of the two standards, the conclusion that the 1999 standard "should result in significant reduction in building energy use for many common multi-zone HVAC system designs" seems to be overstating the case. 

### Response: We agree. We have added text to the draft analysis stating that the 1999 standard provides much more detail regarding the possible characterization of the circumstances under which the exception would apply. The Department will remove the word "significant" in describing the reduction in energy use.


### 1.19. Economizer controls. 13. Economizer Controls. This section concludes that, in general, 90.1-1999 attempts to provide more economizer standards where economizers are most beneficial, and to not require them in climates where they provide less benefit. In our analysis we found that the 1999 standard actually increased economizer use. 

### Response: We believe our initial statement is correct. It is not clear what is meant in the comment by, 

### "... the 1999 standard actually increased economizer use." We suspect that the increase in economizer usage, that is referred to, is a result of using different assumption than we used. We suspect that the assumptions differed in weighting of climates and in assuming a larger fraction of smaller unitary cooling equipment in the equipment weighting methodology. The comments do not counter our assessmentthat, in the 1999 edition, economizers are required in locations where they are more beneficial. We have made no change in the draft analysis in response to this comment. 

### 1.20. Temperature reset controls. 16. Temperature Reset Controls. This section indicates that "1999 edition removes the air reset requirements, but addresses simultaneous heating and cooling more directly [than the 1989 standard] by better limiting the amount of air reheated or recooled" and concludes by stating "some minimal degradation in efficiency is expected from removal of the air-side reset requirements, but this is likely to be mitigated by the increase in efficiency from requiring reset on smaller hydronic systems." Given the apples and oranges nature of these two requirements, there is no way to draw this conclusion. 

### Response: We disagree. The 1989 edition requires reset of supply air temperatures for multiple zone systems. The 1989 edition requires reset ofhydronic systems greater than 600,000 Btu/h. Both air and hydronic system reset requirements are exempted, if it can beshown that they increase overall building energy, as might be the case with some designs of variable flow hydronic systems. While the 1999 edition's reset requirements on the air side were removed, the requirements for reset on the water side were extended to more (smaller) systems. Neither standard requires reset on variable flow hydronic systems. In practice, for non-variable flow systems, the 1999 edition has more stringent reset requirements, due to the water side reset requirements. For variable flow systems, the 1989 edition has more stringent requirements for air side reset. However, the air supply reset criteria require more water to be pumped and therefore there is a tradeoff between pumping energy and chiller performance. We have no data to show whether this results in energy savings or greater energy cost. (The 90.1 Standing Standards Project Committee was of the belief that the benefits of variable flow outweighed the chiller performance savings.) However, more reheat energy may be required for these systems, since the air supply temperature is not reset. The better language to prevent reheat in the 1999 edition may compensate. For clarification we have replaced the word "offset" with the word "mitigate" in the draft analysis. This comment reflects a different opinion than we hold on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this comment with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis ofthe envelope section, exit signs, the use ofthe prescriptive compliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, our conclusions on the lighting power exemptions, window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain, and heating equipment.
1.21. 

### Hot gas bypass reduction. 17.Hot Gas Bypass Reduction It would be very difficultto document energy savings from this provision. In addition, under the 1999 standard there will be more equipment cycling, which could increase maintenance cost and/or reduce equipment life. Reducing energy costs at the expense of other owning and operating costs is false economy. 

### Response: We disagree. The comment argues that removing the use of hot gas bypasses, (an inefficient method of unloading equipment) could increase maintenance cost and reduce equipment life. Major manufacturers of cooling equipment have aIreadybegun avoiding the use ofhot gas bypasses by providing other and more efficient means of equipment unloading. The argument that this will result in increased maintenance cost or reduced equipment life is speculative and we believe unfounded. For instance, recent conversations with Trane representatives have indicated that hot gas bypass is no longer used on large centrifugal chillers from that manufacturer for efficiency reasons. We have made no change to the draft analysis in response to this comment.1.22. 

### Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. 18. Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning Equipment. The second paragraph in this section and the accompanying table (Table 9) indicates that Standard 90.1-1999 will result in a 5.2 percent full-load efficiency improvement for absorption chillers even though acknowledging that the 1989 edition had no efficiency requirement for absorption chiller equipment. This energy efficiency improvement credit is based on the minimum criteria established by the 3999 standard for double-effect absorption chillers compared to an arbitrary market baseline for comparable units. A similar energy efficiency improvement credit of 25 percent is taken for single-effect absorption chillers. The implication is that if minimum energy efficiency criteria for absorption chillers had been included in the 1989 standard, it would not have exceeded the arbitrary market baselines cited. This is clearly only conjecture on the part of the analyst. The lastparagraph of this section concludes 

### "dZ of these requirements will improve the general efficiency of commercial space conditioning products beyond that required in the 1989 edition, and will thus contribute to energy savings with the 1999 edition" (emphasis added). This is clearly not the case in the following instances: (1) absorption chillers for which there were no minimum criteria in the 1989 standard, (2) room air conditioners whose minimum efficiency requirements were driven by manufacturing standards rather than the 1999 standard, 

### (3) boilers for which there is no change in efficiency between the 1989 and 1999 standards, or (4) heat rejection equipment for which there were no minimum criteria in the 1989 standard. The tabulated data indicates an estimated fullload efficiency improvement of 10.I percent for room air conditioners. This is taking credit for the efficiency improvements mandated by NAECA, which would have been implemented with or without the revised standard. The correct value should be 0 percent. In addition, the tabulated data includes undefined footnotes for several equipment categories that make it impossible to understand the basis of the comparison. 

### Response: Where the 1999 edition has equipment efficiency requirements, but the 1989 edition does not (as in the case with absorption and heat rejection equipment, for example), increased energy efficiency occurs unless the requirements are at orbelow common practice. In these cases, we used ASHRAE's assessment of the minimum performance of the equipment used in common practice, as a baseline. The 1999 edition efficiencies are more stringent than this baseline. When a new piece of equipment is added to the standard, it is reasonable to use a market assessment of stringency to predict impact. The 1999 edition's requirements for thermal efficiency will remove some boilers from the market that currently meet the single 80percent combustion efficiency requirement in the 1989 edition, and have thermal efficiencies of less than 75percent. This is particularly true of steam boilers, as was evidenced by the original the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association submittal of steam boiler efficiency used in the development of the 1999edition's requirements. The point regarding room airconditioning equipment is correct, as we point out in paragraph three ofthe draft analysis. However, we have repeated this in the conclusion of the draft analysis. This comment reflects a different opinion than ours on the most appropriate approach to the analysis. In the determination, we grouped this comment with comments on the subjective nature of the analysis of the envelope section, exit signs, the use oftheprescriptive compliance path and not the performance paths in the analysis, our conclusionson the lightingpower exemptions,window thermal transmittance and solar heat gain, and temperature reset controls.
1.23. 

### Service water heating equipment efficiency. 19. ServiceWater Heating Equipment Efficiency. The second paragraph of this section indicates "for electric water heaters greater than 12 kilowatt input, the 1999edition does appear to allow marginally greater standbyloss" but concludes "since this product is coveredby a Federal national manufacturing standard that is more stringent than the requirements ofthe 1999 edition and the federal standard preempts state or local regulation, unless a waiver is granted, the reduced stringencyin the 1999edition should result in no reduction in efficiency." This conclusion overstates the fact as the federal regulations cited apply only to resistance water heaters less than or equal to 12kW and heat pumps less than or equal to 24 amps and 250 volts. 

### Response: We disagree with the comment. There are federallymandated equipment manufacturing standards for commercial electric resistance water heaters 12kW and over in the Energy Policy and ConservationAct, as amended, and these are the equipment categories that are referred to in our comparison cited above. The Federal equipment manufacturing standards do not separate out heat pump water heaters less than 12kW as a different class and donot require efficiencies beyond that of electric resistance products less than 12kW. We have changed the language in the draft analysis to make this clear.
1.24. 

### Conclusion about detailed textual analysis. 2 1.Conclusion About Detailed Textual Analysis. The predominate factor identified in the detailed textual analysis, the inclusion of alterations and renovations to the scope of the 1999 standard and the exclusion of existing buildings in the 1989 standard,has already been shown to be factually incorrect. SSPC 90.1 has previously acknowledged that the 1999 standard does not extend the scope of the 1989 standardbut merely clarifies the description ofhow it applies. Furthermore, the claiins that the 1999 standard will result in a net positive increase in efficiency for the Lighting, Power and Mechanical Equipment and Systems sections is poorly documented in many instances and factually incorrectin others. The more accurate conclusionfrom the textual analysis is that there will be 

### no increase from the change in scope and an 

### uncertain impactfrom the other changes. 

### Response: We disagree with the comment. The1999 edition specifically applies to existing buildings whereas the 1989 edition specifically does not. Nor was there any intentionby ASHRAE in 1992 to have the 1998 edition apply to existing buildings. At that time, ASHRAE had another standard under development for the explicit purpose of addressing existing buildings (Standard 100). In the draft analysis,we attemptedto present a balanced review of the changes in the standard in each ofthe lighting,power, and mechanical sections and, where possible, provide some statement as to the efficiencydecrease or increase. Any factually incorrect statement brought to our attention has been corrected in the draft analysis.


### 1.25. 

### Exclusions. E. Miscellaneous 1.Exclusions. In addition to the specific areas discussed above, there are several energy systems for which minimum criteria were explicitly provided in the 1989 standard but have been excluded from the 1999 standard. These energy systems include: electric power (e.g., transformers), auxiliary systems (e.g., transportation), and energy management systems. Although the impact of these exclusions is impossible to quantify, the lack of any authority will allow designers to specify inefficient solutions. This will result in higher energy consumption under the 1999 standard. 

### Response: We disagree with the comment. However, we reviewed the material again and identified an area not addressed in the comment. The 1989 edition had requirements for the subdivision of electrical power feeders by use category, to facilitate end-use metering in buildings with more than 250 kVA connected load. In addition it had provisions to check meter the loads of individual tenants with more than 100kVA of connected load. The removal of requirements for subdividing metering loads will make check metering and commissioning of these systems more difficult. In doing so, it will likely result in some increase in energy consumption. The 1989 edition recommended consideration of an energy management system in buildings of more than 40,000 square feet. However this is not a requirement in the 1989 edition. This subject is addressed differently under the 1999 edition (see controls), but it is addressed. We expect no change in efficiency due to the change in how it is addressed. The 1989 edition optionally suggested that building transformers be selected to optimize the combination of no-load, part-load, and full-load losses, and had requirements that an annual operating cost calculation be done and saved with the electrical design documentation for buildings with total building transformers more than 300 kVA. We do not believe that the language for an annual operating cost calculation for large building transformer systems actually provided for a comparison over multiple possible system designs, and thus its removal is unlikely to have a significant impact on building efficiency. The 1989 edition had motor efficiencyrequirements for motors operating more than 500 hours per year. Such motors are less efficient than Federal manufacturing standards enacted in 1992 and thus dropping the requirement will have no impact on building efficiency. The 1989 edition did not have requirements for transportation systems. Its language only suggested that consideration be given to the use of efficiency control devices for such systems. Elimination of this suggestion from the 1999 edition is not expected to have an

### impact on energy efficiency. We have made no change in the draft analysis in response to this comment. This comment also reflects a differing interpretationoftransformers, transportation systems and energy management systems. In the determinationwe grouped it with comments having to do with differing interpretationsof lightingpower exemptions, lighting that is integral to equipment, and the energy cost budget compliance path.
1.26. Energy cost budget compliance method. 2.

### ECB Requirements. The provisions ofthe Energy Cost Budget Method in the 1999 standard are generally less stringent than the comparable Cost Budget Method in the 1989 standard.While it is anticipated that this approachwill be used in a comparably small number of buildings, these buildingstend to be Larger facilities and represent a significant portion of the total commercial building square footage. This reduced stringency can be expectedto result in higher energy usage under the 1 999 standard. Response: 

### No details have been provided in the commenttojustify the statement that the provisions ofthe ECB method are less stringent in the 1999 edition. Forboth editionection provides a whole-buildingtradeoffmethodology to allow innovative or unique buildings to comply with the standard. The ECB section requires the designer to simulate both a baseline building that complieswith the standard and the actual design being proposed. The building design is not allowed to have a greater energy cost than the baseline building that complies with the standard. Neither edition ofthe standard allows designs to exceed the base standard, and as such, the stringencyof the ECB method in each edition is roughly equivalent to the stringency that would be achieved, if the building compliedwith the prescriptive requirementsofthe respective editions of the standard. We have reflected this in revisions to the draft analysis. This coiment also reflects a different interpretation than ours of the energy cost budget compliance path. In the determinationwe grouped it with comments having to dowith differing interpretationsof lightingpower exemptions, lightingwhich is integral to equipment, transformers, transportation systems, and energy management systems.
1.27. Non-code language. 3.

### Non-Code Language. The 1999 standard is written in code language and as a result excludes some ofthe guidance provided in the 1989 standard. Although much ofthe language in the 1989 edition is not enforceable as witten, it provided designers with guidance in implementingenergy efficient solutions. Response: 

### We agree with the observation. Conversely,however, the 1989 edition is difficult to design to and enforce for just that reason.

### 2. Comments by James A. 

### Ranfone, American Gas Association 

### 2.1. Department of Energy legislated responsibilities. On Aprill2,2000, AGA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote Assistant Secretary Reicher concerning statutory requirements of DOE to determine whether all new energy efficiency measures in ASHRAE 90.1(1999) are technologically feasible and economically justified. A copy of this correspondence (Attachment 1), including a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory language prepared by AGA 's Deputy General Council, is attached. AGA maintains its view that, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992,42U.S.C. Section 63 1et seq., it is DOE'S "duty to determine not only whether the revised standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings, but also whether all new energy efficiency measures are technologically feasible and economically justified." To date, no analysis meeting these requirements has been prepared eitherby ASHRAE or DOE. Until such time as an appropriate analysis is prepared, eitherthrough modification of the current PNNL analysis orthrough independent analysis, DOE should not complete its determination called for under Section 304 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act. 

### Response: This is addressed in the determination in the section regarding the workshop and comments on the analysis methodology: "The statutory language in Section 304(b) states that the Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any successor standard to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 will improve energy efficiency. The Secretary must publish a notice ofthis determination in the Federal Register. The language does not require that DOE perform an independent economic analysis as part of the determination process. As a matter of fact, Section 304(b) omits any reference to language concerning economic justification. "However, Congress was concerned that the technological feasibility and cost effectiveness ofthe Voluntary Building Energy Codes be considered. Section 307 clearly requires DOE toparticipate 

### in the ASHRAE process and to assist in determining the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility ofthe ASHRAE standard. It also requires DOE to periodically review the economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes andparticipate in the industry process for review and modification, including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. "Unlike Section 307which specifically includes language concerning economic justification, Section 304 omits any reference to economic justification. "It is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully where it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section." Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (1997). Accordingly, the statutory scheme cannotbe read to require an economic analysis as part of the determination process in Section 304(b).

### "The fact that the Section 304 determination process does not require the Secretary to perform an economic analysis does not diminish the importance that the ASHRAE standards be technologically feasible and economically justified. However, it appears that Congress assumed that these concerns would be worked outby stakeholders, with DOE participating in the ASHRAE process itself. The language of Section 307 clearly delineates DOE as one participant in the process, not the ultimate decision maker of the ASHRAE standard or successor revisions. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, DOE has determined that it is not required to perform an economic analysis as part of its determination process in Section 304 of ECPA, as amended. We have added this comment as a counterpoint in combining it with comments 2,2.1,4, 5.1, 8.4, and 10.8. We have also combined this comment with comments 9.2 and 10.2 as a counter point on the subject of determination requirements. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
2.2. 

### Peer review of analysis. 

### On June 11, 1999, AGA wrote Mr. Ron Jamagin of PNNL, Chairman of the ASHRAE 90.1 Coimitteeconcerningthe lack ofpeer review of PNNL 's analysis ofASHRAE 90.1
. . 

### . Peer review of the PNNL analysis was promised by Assistant Secretary Reicherbut was never implemented, even following this correspondence. Comnlents as you have solicited them here do not constitute peer review. Response: 

### We disagree. We have combined this comment wit11 comment 12. The Secretary is not required to solicit comments from interested parties prior to reaching a determination under Section 304 ofthe Energy Conservation and Production Act. The sole statutory requirement is that the Secretary's determination be published in the Federal Register. During 1999, as a matter ofpolicy to further the determination process, DOE solicited comments on the methodology it intended to use in performing its analysis. Prior to making its final determination, DOE sought further comments on its application of this methodology and the validity of its preliminary conclusions. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment. 2.3. 

### Market impact of fuel choice. 

### On June 11, 1999, AGA wrote Mr. Ron Jainagin of PNNL, Chairman of the ASHRAE 90.1 Committee concerning


### .... and its failure to include market impacts as they might relate to fuel choices and market shares. A copy of this correspondence is provided as Attachment 2..... 

### Response: 

### We disagree. The Secretary is not required to analyze market impacts as they might relate to fuel choices and market shares prior to reaching a determination under Section 304 of the Energy conservation and Production Act. The sole statutoryrequirement is that the Secretary determine whether the revision will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. No change has been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment.
2.4. 

### Market share of space and water heating equipment. The correspondence also points out the use of an erroneous assumption of fixed market shares for electric space heating and water heating (10% of the office and retail market) and gas space heating and water heating (90% of this market). As pointed out, these assumptions are not consistent with the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). 

### Response: We disagree. The comment refers to the Department's preliminary assessment of energy savings done in June 1999. Subsequently the Department did further analysis on the total building square footage with electric resistance heat based on CBECS data. We concluded that the correct fraction was 19.8 percent. It is this latter figure, based on CBECS data, that is used in our draft quantitative analysis of energy savings. Therefore, no changes have been made to the draft analysis in response to this comment.


### 2.5. Future factors. Also, the analysis assumes that market shares for space heating and water heating equipment will remain constant in the future, in spite of factors such as inequitable equipment efficiency requirements in water heating that impact equipment first cost. 

### Response: We disagree. The Secretary is not required to analyze market impacts as they inight relate to fuel choices and market shares prior to reaching a determination under Section 304 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act. The sole statutory requirement is that the Secretary determine whether the revision will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. No change has been made to the draft analysis on the basis of this comment. 

### 2.6. Energy consumption forecast. Furthermore, the PNNL fails to use any published forecasts in predicting energy consumption changes over time. Sources such as the GRI Baseline Projection include changes in relevant categories of commercial building stock over time. Forecasts such as these are needed in the PNNL analysis if future energy consumption and impacts of the 1999 edition are to be plausibly estimated. To date, PNNL has shown no attempt to incorporate these comments in its analysis. As a result, AGA views the PNNL analysis as incomplete. 

### Response: We disagree. The building construction forecast data used in our draft quantitative analysis was derived from the Energy Information Administration's NationalEnergy Modeling System data sets. We believe that this is ttle most appropriate forecast to use for the analysis supporting the determination. No change has been made in the draft analysis based on this comment.


### 2.7. Interior lighting power requirements. From reviewing the PNNL document, it is clear that PNNL is using the lighting power densities developed from the "whole building lighting requirements" for both its analysis ofthe 1989 and 1999 editions. This method does not setthe true limit on the lighting power allowed by either the 1989 or 1999 editions. Sincethe standard is a compendium of minimum requirements, it must be assessed on its most lenient (i.e., most energy intensive) interpretation. To do otherwise (e.g., to rationalize consumption on "industrypractice" or other, non-minimum assumption) would not be an evaluation of a minimum standard. In terms of lighting power densities, PNNL should have used the "space-by-space" method for assessing energy consumption from lighting. 

### Response: We did use the whole building lighting requirements for our draft quantitative analysis. We disagree that a space-by-space analysis is appropriate for use in the quantitative analysis. See response to 12.8 below.


### 2.8. Interior lighting power allowances. The impact ofuse of these alternate lighting assumptions may be critical to DOE'S determination. The following is a comparison oftotal energy consumption estimates conducted PNNL and GARD Analytics, Inc. under these alternate assumptions for lighting:



### Response: We combined this comment with comments 12.6 and 11.3. Our review ofthe GARD analysis revealed it had a number of flaws, particularly the space-by-space method analysis. Data on the number, type, and size of spaces in buildings is not available to reliably rnodel the impact. Assumptions used in the analysis are speculative and not based on statistically reliable information. The results of the space-by-space Percent Energy Savings, ASHRAE 90.1(1999) vs. ASHRAE 90.1 (1989)

Site Energy Savlngs Source Samngs Cost Savmgs PNNL "Whole Bwldmng" Method 3.9% 5.9% 6.2O/a PNNL "Space-by-Space" Method Not Available Not Available Not Available GARD "Whole Bwldmng" Method 5% 8% 8% GARD "Space-bySpace" Method 0% 1 Oh 1%

### analysis can be attributed to incorrect input assumptions about the number, type, and size of spaces being representative ofthe current and future building stock. That is why we did not attempt to quantify the differences between the two editions in space-by-space lighting criteria. Instead this was addressed in our textual analysis. See the interior lighting textual analysis in the determination. We have not made any changes to our draft analysis in response to this comment. 2.9. 

### GTI funded study by GARD Analytics. 

### Finally, attached is a copy of the January 29,2001presentations by Jason Glazer, P.E. of GARD Analytics titled "Energy Savings Analysis ofthe Revisions to ASHRAE Standard 90.1" that was presented to the ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 Committee. Also, in December DOE was provided with a copy of the completed analysis from Robert Hemphi11 of Gas Technology Institute who sponsored the study. Response: 

### We reviewed the study, agreed with some ofthe assumptions and approaches to the analysis, disagreed with others and recommended revisions. We do not agree with the conclusions ofthis study. Also, seethe response to comments 1 1.1 to 1 1.38. Relative to the conclusion, we combined this comment with comment 10.4, about weaker savings, and as a counter point to comments 5,8,9.3, 10.4, 10.6, and 13.-3 

### Energy Savings Analysis ofthe Revision to 

### AS- Standard 

### 90.1

FwuiingandDirectwn Pmvided&: RobertHemphill-GasTechnologyInstitute Anal& by; Jason Glazer,P.E. 

## - GARDAnalytics PresMfedto: ASI3UA.E SSPC90.1 me: January29,2001



### AssessmentMethodology + Assessmentincludes: 10 climates 16buildings (large and sd ofeighttypes) 6 roofandwall cons~on combions 6 combitionsofheating and coolmgequipment 

### + Over 113,000DOE-2 runsbasedondetailedbuildingand

equipmentmodels. 4 UsedDOWCBECSand Censusdatatoweightresults for

nationalsavings.

2



### Changes + RevisedDOE-2 analysiswith changesincorporatedfor: r Edueaiionoccupant density

Smallweightingfactorrevisions r Small lightingcbangs. a Water heaterstandbylossfefficiencyraised

VAV hcurveadjustment Hospitaland lodgingIighting powerandenvelopeclassi~on + Newpermutationofwarehouse usingENVSTD2.1 heatingonly. + New pernumionto include90.1-1989AddendaF-envelopeeriteria

Ehangc afterthe EnergyPoiioyActof 1992. 

### + Manyeditorial improvementstoreporttext

4

### ConclusionsBe Due to the revision ofASHRAE Standard90.1 No meaningNreduction in source energyuse No meaningfulreduction mend-use cost No meaningllreduction in siteenergyuse Increasein gas energyuse Report publishedinNovember, 2000 e Curently availableforpurchase ~.gri.o~pub/abstra~ts/gri00~0116.html

5



### Overall Results m Total Envelope Mechanical Lighting Site Energy Use +3% -2% -1% Site Cost -1% +2% -2% -1% Electricity Use -2% +2% -1 % -2% +I% Negativenumbers are reductionsin energy use and wst and positivenumbers areincreasesin energy use and cost due to the 1999revisionofASHRAE Standard90.1.

6

### Energy Consumption Variation by 

### Climate

Ndc Isaghdmbmm3driI&h~ mdrpnnmdior dndspI,maY. Ords~;&irfma kgcamrmsddmnd~diar~~~~rosndkt. 9


### ScopeComparisons Across Analyses

hdpia %~Iiic A&#I AM2 Ale3 AM Sub5a.A SubmtE %b&C Bsildimw iJgb1I.~ 19(WBv.lopt Waa(nlkla BVAC Bvelopa lypo Ma&& MI&& PerseaW* Tyw CWlbYdinaI All(8typw Muiolunr Prnrriptive TY%IS% 38% 6 6 2 sizes) Allowed ~U(8lypar. Wklr ~~cwiptive lw38K 6 6 21La) Bulld'i.11 AllR~pa, Maximum Pxsaiptive 8% 1%39% 6 6 2552s) Albwed All(BIyp~,t4ar.k~~. Addendn9E.U 7% lm 3sK 6 6 Zeuu) Allowed Prr~rriplivo All(8typw Maxinum Pollbmur. TM*l%38% 6 6 2 sku) AUo-4 (Wnmkowe) AU but Maximum Prcmiptivs TM* 18%,38% 6 6 wusheue Allowed BthlV Maximum PxwPlivc 7%, 1% 36% 6 6 OM'% Albwed BtI.IU WIok Pn~~iptivt 7% LS%,3sK 6 6 ornm n.i~di.g I2.7(Foodsenice) GARD:8 (Healthcareandworship) 1 wvering9 climatebins (3 in bin 17) : loin 1Ocliibins DOE:2 combinations

### -Packagedw/Fmacx,RoomACiFumace GARD: 6 wmbinatims-addsboilers,chillers,katpumps WE: Building-areamethod(notalways maxhumallowed) GARD:Maximumvalue allowedbetweenspace-by-spaceand buildingareamethods



### StatesWereRevision May Resultin

Shaded states have significant number of &ties that am dassified in the four climate binsshowing'nochangewanincreaseinsite energy, source energyor both dueto the revision of 90.1. Nocomparisonsare madewith localenergy codes and some statesshaded also havea numberof citissthat are not located in oneof the four climate bins. See reporlforfull details. LO



### Gas Consumption ChangeVersus Percent Fenestration h141 

### - 20.0%

155%.

5.0% -
0.m-

60% 7- turn WWBl#b'.WRabb 11 -

.. (.I ..........* -.-'- .... ":Z.<:, -- Sbsl-Ok)l 

### -.. 'I. i~aa.- 

### ..- .:... 7



### .. 

### ...,

-.
b.. .-.. _._& ---n '. ..-.. ..._ .-.. ...*

..... ...................... '"- -....-................ -canl-D&* -!,-Mas-Amc -0-Mad-- ...*.. Mas-MPII .....w-AmcGasUsc ElahrcUst 

### ~~ SltcEna~y SltcCost

Al#l WbokbddmgI~ghUng 15% -9% Alt#;2 1% more ghg Iff? -2% AlL#3 Ad- f A18Y4W~W~ lo% SubsetANo WMhousc 4% 4% SUM B OffhlRekd 18% -10% -7% -9% -11% -16%



### Energy Impacts ComparedtoDOE C Measm GARD GARD DOE e WholeButldmgLI* SourceEnergy -1% -8% -S.90? S~te Energy 0% -5% -3.9% Site Cost -1% -8% -6.2% 

### + GARD with whole building lightingmethodvery similarto

DOE 

### + GARDBaselinenumbers showno memkgful savings 

## + IfDOEhad usedmaximum lightingwhat wouldresults

have been?

IS



### Open Questions 

### + Widelymissedcommittee's 25% target. Does it maw What did not work in the 10 year processleadingto 90.1-991 4 Should targetsbe set for thefuture? Ifthey are,how should90.1 be evaluated? Should everyaddendabe evaluated?When? Given compromise, what is thetnreexpectation?

I6

### More Open Questions + Simplifiedanalysesaremisleading. Whattoolsshouldbe usedto performanevaluation? 0 What level ofdetail is enoughto capturethedifferences?

What assumptionsarefair?Maximum reasonableuse? Shouldthe committeeperformtheevaluation? 

### + Do people subminingchangerequests needto provide

energy impacts? Does the committee needto provide guidance?

17

3. 

### Comments 

### by Jeffrey Johnson, New Buildings Institute 3.1. Support the Department's determination. This letter is in response to the US Department of Energy's (Department) determination regarding the ASHRAEAESNA Standard 90.1-1999.1 have reviewed the 

### Commercial Buildings Determinations -

### Explanation ofthe Analysis and Spreadsheet and the 

### 90-lsavingsana1ysis.xls and support the Department's determination that ASHRAEAESNA Standard 90.1-99 will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 

### Response: We have combined this comment with comments 5 and 9.3, concluding that the analysis is reasonable and as a counter point to coinments 1 1 all, 12, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6and 12.7. 3.2. Opportunities for improving the standard. The Institute alsobelieves that the Department should undertake a more thorough analysis and review ofbuilding energy efficiency measures as prescribed by United States Code, Title 42, Section 6836(b)(2). This section requires the Department to: (2)

### seek adoption ofall technologically feasible and economically justzjied energy eficiency measures; and Such an analysis would show that there are substantial opportunities for improving the energy efficiency of new buildings that are cost-effective and technologically feasible. In particular, it would help West coast and Northeast states who face higher than average electricity prices and potential energy supply constraints. The Institute urges the Department to comply with this provision of the Code and would encourage the Institute's partners and allies to support the Department in pursuing such an effort. 

### Response: The comment does not address either the analysis orthe subject of the determination (will the 1999 edition improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings). The comentis not relevant.

### Appendix A 

### Invitation to Comment 

### The following is the e-mail invitation to comment on our draft analysis: 90 1Determination 02/07/2001 05:36 PM Sentby: Jean Boulin To: spielvogel@home.com, KAmrane@ari.org, wpb5@psu.edu, arbarfie@southernco.com,dbeaty@dlbassociates.coin, 

### ablack@mcclureeng.com, ccottrell@naima.org, rcrane@genlyte.com, jderinger@pacbell.net, cfoster@eei.org, rgansler@facstaff.wisc.edu, jgarrigus@marleymeh.com, jglazer@gard.com, mgociina@sears.com, dirkandbjg@aol.com, agupta@nrdc.org, HalversonM@mail.battelle.org,

### rharrold@iesna.org, bud@iwaynet.net, hingea@aol.com, bhinton@mail.doi.state.nc.us,john.hogan@ci. seattle.wa.us, bill.holy@citicorp.com, gchunter@sover.net, Ron.Jarnagin@pnl.gov, jdjones@dhcr.state.ny.us, 

### by-sue@earthlink.net, bciorg2@yahoo.com, steve.d.kennedy@gpc.com, rburkett@msn.com, michael-lane@msn.com, leclairl@marleyct.com, jlindsley@lcilight.com, kluther@fluids.ittind.com, 

### rcmathis 1@aol.com, merle.~ncbride@owenscorning.com, 

### mm-ec@msn.com, fmyers@ix.netcom.com, rnickson@nrnhc.org, eobrien@kravco.com, bprindle@ase.org, jranfone@aga.org, eric.richman@pnl.gov, cramspeck@ashrae.org,jroberts@fanningfaniling.com, bob@ross-construction.com,

### DSaml934@aol.com, peter. simmonds@arup.com, sskalko@compuserve.corn,

### kspain@email.uah.edu, fstanonik@gamanet.org, steiner@henryadams.com, brli@worldnet.att.net, glassmarc@compuserve.com, minh.tran@piedmontng.com,

### ctrueman@ampsc.coin, mackair@hotmail.com, jvallor@nicor.com, nniatson@sshcinc.com, mweber@ashrae.org, pegasus@kuntrynet.com, WlLSONR@RJRT.com, david.winarski@pnl.gov, Woodford@ari.org, wajcsff@nu.com,jhw@nrec.com, Robert.Hemphill@gastechnology.org,JAJollnson@NewBuildings.org, 

### Harold-Crowder@dom.com, SSlote@NEEP.org, dgoldstein@nrdc.org, SCoakley@NEEP.org, David.Weitz@bbr.state.ma.us, 

### RAndrews@DOS.State.NY.US 

### cc: Subject: Analysis for Determination Regarding Standard 90.1- 

### 1999 The Energy Conservation and Production Act provides that whenever the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1

### - 1989, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must determine whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) approved the publication ofthe 1999 edition of Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-rise Residential Buildings, in June 1999. After acting on several appeals, the 1999edition was published in February 2000. The Standard was developed under American National Standards Institute approved consensus standard procedures. The American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers submitted the standard to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for designation as an approved ANSI standard. In December 2000, the 1999 edition of Standard 90.1 was approved as an American National Standard. DOE has performed both a quantitative analysis of the likely impacts of the revised code on the energy efficiency of seven categories of new commercial buildings compared to the 1989 edition, and a non-quantitative assessment ofthe comparative stringency ofthose elements ofthe revised code that could not be analyzed quantitatively. The quantitative analysis concluded that the 1999 revision of the code would likely reduce the source energy consulnption of new commercial buildings by approximately 5.9 percent. Site energy savings were estimated to be approximately 3.9 percent. The comparative assessment of those elements of the 1989 and 1999 revised codes that could not be quantitatively analyzed also concluded that the 1999 standard would increase energy efficiency. The dominant factor in this comparative analysis is the 1999 editioasinclusion of alterations and renovations to existing buildings. If the value of annual investment in building alterations and renovations is a good indicator of their impact on energy use, then the expansion of this code to existing buildings could produce nearly 50% more savings than if it were applied to new buildings alone. The comparative analysis also concluded that the non-quantifiable changes affecting Lighting and Power, and Mechanical Equipment and Systems would also increase overall efficiency, although the changes to the Envelope requirements would reduce efficiency slightly. Together, these analyses appear to indicate that the revised code will improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.
Request for Comment The Secretary is not required to solicit comments from interested parties prior to reaching a determination under Section 304 ofthe Energy Conservation and Production Act. The sole statutory requirement 

### is that the Secretary& determination be published in the Federal Register. During 1999, as a matter ofpolicy to further the determination process, DOE solicited comments on the methodology it intended to use in performing its analysis. Prior to making its final determination, DOE is seeking further comments on its application ofthis methodology and the validity of its preliminary conclusions. Comments received at:

### http://www.eren. doe.gov/buildings/codes-standards/buildingsdnati 

### ons

### . htrnl by March 9, 

### 2001, 

### will be considered in making the final determination. The analyses are also located on the web at: http://www.eren. 

### doe.gov~%uildings/codes~standards/buildings/co~n~deteminati ons.html Thank you for your interest in buildings energy efficiency and particularly building energy codes. Jean J. Boulin Office of Building Technical Assistance 

### U.S. Department of Energy Reply to: 

### 901.Determination@EE.DOE.gov

### Appendix B Web Site Invitation to Comments The followingis the web site invitationto comment and the input screens posted on our web site:

BTS - BuildingEnagy Codes "DetailedTextual AnalysisCommentFonn" httpJhuww.eren.doe.~uildin&Eodes...&~uildin&~-~-~m~.h~1

DetailedTextual Analysis Comment Form During 1999, as a matter of policy to further the determination

use in performing its analysis. Prior to making its final etermination, DOE is seeking further comments on its



### 1,-1 ----.-A Lclear 

### ,---,-.-- Information i

I of2 10117R001 1 :59PM

C:"fEMP\n.notes.&ta\-1(w187s5@, February 8,2002 -68-