1

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

PUBLIC HEARING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Thursday,

June 5, 1997

9:30 a.m.

U.S. Department of Enerqy

STEPHEN WALDER

MARY BETH ZIMMERMAN

STEPHEN TURCHEN

JEAN BOULIN

MICHAEL McCABE

RON MAJETTE

BOB MACKIE

Office of Codes and Standards

FR1NCINE PINTO

Office of the General Counsel

Attendees

BOB GROBERG

Department of Housing and Urban Development

BERT KALISCH

JIM RANFONE

TED WILLIAMS

American Gas Association

DEAN BROCKBANK

Anderson Windows Q RI B I N A L

B.J. KUMAR

Energetics

CHUCK FOSTER

EEl

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
2

AGENDA

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE:

I. Purpose of the Hearing 3

II. Welcoming Remarks and Introductions 9

III. Opening Statements 10

IV. Topics 16

V. Closing Remarks 21

VI. Adjournment 21

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
3

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 9:30 a.m.

3 I. Purpose of the Hearing

4 MR. WALDER: Good morning. I am Stephen

5 Walder, Team Leader for the Federal Residential Energy

6 Efficiency Code Program, in the Office of Codes and

7 Standards.

8 Our team of people at the head table consist

9 of Jean Boulin and Stephen Turchen from the Office of

10 Codes and Standards, Ms. Francine Pinto from the Office

11 of General Counsel, and Ms. Mary Beth Zimmerman from

12 the Policy Office.

13 On behalf of the Department of Energy, I

14 would like to thank all of you for taking the time to

15 participate in this public hearing.

16 The purpose of this hearing is to get

17 stakeholder feedback on the issues proposed by the

18 department in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the

19 Federal Residential Energy Efficiency Code, NOPR,

20 published on May 2nd, 1997.

21 The department sent a letter of invitation on

22 March -- on -- excuse me -- May 7th to all interested

23 parties that have previously expressed interest in past

24 federal residential activities. Anyone attending

25 today’s hearing or anyone who submitted comments will

EXECtYIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
4

1 be added to our mailing list for future mailings.

2 The comments received here today, those

3 submitted during the written coment period, and any

4 comments received as a result of today’s hearing will

5 assist the department in guiding its department -- its

6 development -- excuse me -- of the federal rule for the

7 Federal Residential Energy Efficiency Code.

8 I will be the presiding officer and

9 facilitator for this hearing. In addition, I will be

10 setting the guidelines for conducting the hearing and

11 providing other pertinent information.

12 In approximately two weeks, a complete copy

13 of the transcript will be available for inspection and

14 copying at the Department of Energy’s Freedom of

15 Information Reading room, located in Room 1E-l90.

16 Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript may

17 make arrangements with the court reporter.

18 To allow greater participation, today’s

19 public hearing deviates from past approaches as

20 described in the May 2nd, 1997, Notice of Proposed

21 Rule. Instead, the agenda will be structured in a

22 topic—by-topic format, and all interested parties will

23 be given the opportunity to be heard at today’s

24 hearing.

25 The department has reviewed the topics raised

EXECU’rIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
5

1 in statements by the scheduled speaker and believes a

2 topic-to-topic format would adhere to the process

3 improvement rule concerning open communications and

4 dialogues.

5 The department also believes this approach

6 would prompt greater participation from interested

7 persons, and to encourage them to provide the

8 department with as much pertinent information and views

9 as can be reasonably obtained on the featured topic.

10 The department will introduce the topic.

11 Next, the department will invite the scheduled speaker

12 to briefly summarize the key point of his prepared

13 statement.

14 The department may ask questions after each

15 statement and at other points during the discussion.

16 The panel will be asking questions of the commenters.

17 The panel will allow commenters to ask questions of

18 each other in order to encourage open discussion among

19 the public.

20 At the end of all scheduled statements on

21 each topic, the department will invite participants to

22 comment on the statements just presented and/or present

23 her or his view on that topic.

24 After discussion on a topic is completed,

25 each participant will be permitted to briefly clarify

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
6

1 her or his statement and comment on statements made by

2 others.

3 When all agenda topics have been discussed,

4 the department will invite participants to comment on

5 other remaining items pertinent to this rule.

6 Next, the presiding officer will present

7 closing remarks. Afterward, the audience will be

S invited to fill out an evaluation form before the

9 public hearing adjourns.

10 Are there any questions from the audience at

11 this point?

12 (No response)

13 MR. WALDER: We’ll take an hour lunch break

14 at a convenient time near 12 noon, which is on your

15 own. There is a snack bar one floor below us. There

16 is the DOE cafeteria on the second floor of the West

17 Building, and a number of restaurants in the

18 Underground Mall at L’Enf ant Plaza up the street.

19 In addition, a 15-minute break will be taken

20 at a convenient time.

21 The hearing will be expedited, and we will be

22 assured of obtaining each participant’s views if anyone

23 who wishes to speak waits to be recognized. Please

24 remember to speak into the microphones, especially

25 those in the audience, and state your name and your

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
7

1 company name each time before you speak for the court

2 reporter.

3 Side conversations should be kept at a

4 minimum to avoid interrupting the presenter. If a

5 lengthy private discussion is needed, please move to a

6 corner of the room or out of the room.

7 It may be necessary to cut off the debate of

8 some topics to maintain the schedule. There may be

9 time at the end of the hearing for additional

10 discussion of significant issues.

11 I encourage all persons present to

12 participate as much as possible so that the department

13 may get a full spectrum of opinions on these topics.

14 This hearing is scheduled to end by 5:00 p.m.

15 or sooner, if all items have been completely discussed.

16 Topics which have not been completely discussed by 5

17 p.m. can be addressed in additional written comments.

18 The deadline for additional written comments is July

19 14th, 1997. July. The deadline for additional written

20 comments is July 14th, 1997.

21 All written comments and data submissions

22 will be available for public inspection at the DOE

23 Freedom of Information Reading Room. The phone number

24 is (202) 586-6020.

25 Written comments should be addressed to the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
8

1 Department of Energy as noted in the Federal Register

2 notices for today’s hearing. 10 copies of the comments

3 and data are requested.

4 In addition, the department would appreciate

5 an electronic copy of the comments or data. The

6 department is using Word Perfect 6.1. No faxed

7 comments will be accepted.

8 Any persons submitting information which he

9 or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law

10 from public disclosure should submit one complete copy

11 and 10 copies from which information claimed to be

12 confidential has been deleted.

13 In accordance with the procedures established

14 at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy will make

15 its own determinations as to whether the information

16 shall be exempt from public disclosure.

17 In keeping with the regulations for these

18 facilities, there is no smoking allowed in this room or

19 building. The restrooms are down the hall to your left

20 or right. Phones are located in the main lobby area.

21 Again, we appreciate the time and effort you

22 have taken in preparing for this hearing and are

23 pleased to receive your comments and opinions.

24 I would like to reiterate the purpose of this

25 hearing is to listen to your views pertaining to the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
9

1 issues proposed by the department in the Notice of

2 Proposed Rulemaking for the Federal Residential Energy

3 Efficiency Code.

4 I would ask if you have not signed in yet, to

5 please do so in the sign-in table -- at the sign-in

6 table.

7 At this time, I would like to begin the

8 introductions, and then we’ll review the agenda.

9 II. Welcoming Remarks and Introductions

10 MR. WALDER: Our first -- I’ll go around the

11 table and have the panel here introduce themselves to

12 you. Start with Mary Beth.

13 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Mary Beth Zimmerman, Policy

14 Office.

15 MR. TURCHEN: Stephen Turchen with the Office

16 of Codes and Standards.

17 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, the Office of

18 General Counsel.

19 MR. BOULIN: Jean Boulin, Office of Codes and

20 Standards.

21 MR. MAJETTE: Ron Majette, Office of Codes

22 and Standards.

23 MR. WALDER: I’d like to go around the room,

24 and would you introduce yourself, and please state your

25 company or organization? Starting with you, sir.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
10

1 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, Building Codes and

2 Standards, the American Gas Association.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams with American Gas

4 Association.

5 MR. GROBERG: I’m Bob Groberg with the

6 Department of Housing and Urban Development.

7 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe with the

8 Department of Energy’s Office of Codes and Standards.

9 MR. BROCKBANK: My name’s Dean Brockbank, and

10 I’m here representing Anderson Windows.

11 MR. KALISCH: I’m Bert Kalisch. I’m with the

12 American Gas Association.

13 MR. KIJMAR: B.J. Kumar with Energetics.

14 MR. MACKIE: Bob Mackie, Department of

15 Energy, Office of Codes and Standards.

16 MR. WALDER: I’d like to present our only

17 scheduled speaker today, and Mr. James Ranf one from

18 American Gas Association, if you’d like to present your

19 discussion, sir.

20 III. Opening Statements

21 MR. RANFONE: Yes. My name is Jim Ranfone

22 with the American Gas Association, and as a

23 clarification, Mr. Walder, I appreciate first the

24 opportunity to speak, but as I understood your

25 introduction, you were going to not take statements.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
11

1 You were going to do it by issues or did I mis2 understand something?

3 MR. WALDER: We are going to take your

4 statement, and then were going to open the discussion

5 amongst the participants.

6 MR. RANFONE: Thank you very much.

7 I have a prepared statement. With me today

8 is Ted Williams. He’s the Manager of Industry

9 Standards for American Gas Association, and Bert

10 Icalisch, who is in our Government Relations Office.

11 The American Gas Association is a non-profit

12 trade association representing over 200 local natural

13 gas distribution companies in the United States, which

14 together distribute more than 90 percent of the natural

15 gas delivered in this country.

16 These companies deliver gas energy from the

17 welihead to the burner tip and serve nearly 58 million

18 customers.

19 Our members are affected by the energy

20 efficiency issues that are regulated by DOE. This

21 proposed rule establishes minimum energy building

22 standards for new federal residential buildings,

23 including single-family and multi-family low-rise

24 housing.

25 Since the proposed rule would cover all

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
12

1 aspects of residential building thermal envelopes as

2 well as space- and water-heating systems, ventilation

3 and air conditioning systems design, radon and indoor

4 air pollutants, members of AGA will be significantly

5 affected by this action.

6 In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy

7 Act directing the Department of Energy to establish by

8 rule federal building energy standards. The new energy

9 standards, however, must be technologically feasible

10 and economically justified.

11 DOE developed the technical support document,

12 “An Economic Analysis and Environmental Assessment”, to

13 justify the proposed standards. Although AGA continues

14 to review DOE’s support document, we are here today to

15 express our concern with some of the measures that have

16 been identified to date.

17 On the energy efficiency comments, price

18 escalation factor, the document uses the National

19 Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST real fuel

20 price escalation factors through 2020, which are broken

21 into four regions.

22 The escalation factors for all fuels are

23 considered higher than what DOE and AGA are forecasting

24 through 2015.

25 Of greater concern to AGA is the NIST

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
13

1 forecast showing gas increasing at a higher rate than

2 AGA and DOE estimates. DOE should use its own numbers

3 when forecasting, and there is a chart which is

4 provided as part of our comments that illustrate the

5 difference in the fuel price escalation rates.

6 On the blended fuel cost, AGA opposes the use

7 of blended fuel costs in the life cycle cost analysis.

8 Since Congress directed DOE to promulgate rules that

9 are cost effective, use of a blended fuel cost master

10 price mask the price advantage of less-expensive fuels.

11 According to DOE, this is the 1996 numbers,

12 natural gas prices per million btus is about $6.12 and

13 are much lower than electricity prices at $24.35 per

14 million btus, and blending them would disadvantage gas,

15 particularly if inter-fuel comparisons are used.

16 The second part of our comments deal with

17 other issues, other than the energy issues.

18 First is backdrafting requirements. AGA is

19 concerned about the backdrafting test requirement

20 proposed under Section 435.503.5.9.1.

21 The methodology and testing for backdrafting

22 has been and continues to be a challenging technical

23 issue, and before proceeding to adopt the Canadian test

24 method for backdrafting testing, DOE should solicit

25 input or seek peer review from the U.S. scientific

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
14

1 community.

2 It is the position of AGA that safety is an

3 issue second to none. From the extraction,

4 transmission and delivery of natural gas to its end use

5 by the appliance, safety is the paramount concern of

6 our members.

7 However, DOE should not move forward with

8 promulgating rules on indoor air pollutants in reliance

9 upon one standard or methodology, especially when the

10 U.s. scientific community questions the application of

11 that methodology in the manner proposed by DOE.

12 As DOE is probably aware, there’s on-going

13 research in the U.S. aimed at developing national

14 consensus standards for backdrafting testing

15 procedures. While there is a continuing technical

16 debate over the efficacy and interpretation of the

17 spillage test cited in the proposed rule, Canadian

18 Standard 51.75-95, neither this standard nor its

19 underlying test procedures has been adopted in the U.S.

20 through a consensus process.

21 AGA would strongly caution DOE against

22 adopting such a standard at this time, and certainly in

23 view of the on-going technical debate over such tests.

24 AGA will provide a complete discussion of this issue as

25 part of our written comments on the proposed rule.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
16

1 Other provisions. It is the position of AGA

2 that the last line of Section 435.503.5.9 should be

3 deleted. To our knowledge, there is no standard for

4 determining the gas appliance equipment’s

5 depressurization limit, and that’s what would be

6 required in that provision. Adoption of this provision

7 would cause considerable confusion and is

8 unenforceable.

9 AGA’s concerned that the proposed language in

10 Section 435.504.3 is confusing. That section may be

11 interpreted as precluding combination systems, such as

12 natural gas water heaters, though designed to provide

13 both domestic hot water and space heating. AGA is not

14 aware of the technical basis for these provisions.

15 Therefore, it is the position of AGA that they be

16 deleted.

17 There are other provisions and proposed

18 revisions in Sections 435.504 to .507 that deal with

19 additional requirements for appliance controls and

20 other system requirements that should not be part of an

21 energy conservation standard. Therefore, it is the

22 position of AGA that they also be deleted.

23 In conclusion, AGA will provide its full set

24 of comments to DOE by the July 14th deadline, and ask

25 DOE to address the issues raised by this statement and

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
16

1 our subsequent written comments.

2 AGA urges DOE to make appropriate changes in

3 the proposed rule consistent with the comments to

4 ensure that the new efficiency --Energy Efficiency

5 Code for New Federal Residential Buildings is

6 consistent with the energy efficiency environmental

7 goals of EPACT as well as its own existing regulatory

8 scheme.

9 I’d be happy to answer any questions or try

10 to answer any questions you have at this time.

11 IV. Topics

12 MR. WALDER: Are there any questions that the

13 panel would like to address to Mr. Ranfone?

14 (No response)

15 MR. WALDER: Thank you for your statements,

16 sir.

17 MR. RANFONE: I do have one other --Jim

18 Ranfone, American Gas Association. One question for

19 the panel or for DOE.

20 Is the technical support document that was

21 made available, is that -- is that going to be

22 finalized? It noted that it was a draft.

23 And the second part of the question is, who

24 is the author of the technical support document? Is it

25 a DOE-generated document?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
17

1 MR. WALDER: It’s a DOE-generated document,

2 and it will be finalized during the development of the

3 final residential standard. So, it’s not final, so to

4 speak.

5 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. Then it

6 could be changed prior to its final iteration?

7 MR. WALDER: Oh, certainly.

8 MR. RANFONE: Thank you.

9 MR. BOULIN: Mr. Ranfone, when you provide

10 your additional more detailed comments, I would

11 appreciate particularly some information on quite how

12 the blending would disadvantage gas when you get to

13 that part.

14 Also, I would be interested in understanding

15 who you believe in the scientific community questions

16 the methodology that we are proposing, just in case we

17 don’t have all the information on hand.

18 Similarly, if you can advise us of the on19 going research which you are aware of, just so that we

20 don’t miss things along the road, that will help us

21 within the process and to expedite getting this -- this

22 material out.

23 On the other provisions that you’re talking

24 about on your third page of your testimony we have in

25 front of us, you talk about the way the provision is

EXECtTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
18

1 written is confusing.

2 I understand that you are -- you have some --

3 some other problems with it, but if you could comment

4 to us on how that might be -- be worded to avoid

5 confusion that you find in the actual wording portion

6 of that, that would be of some help to us in our

7 deliberations.

8 I guess, finally, I would hope in your --

9 your comments to us, your written comments to us, that

10 in the other proposed provisions there that deal with

11 additional requirements on appliance controls and other

12 system requirements, if you could explain to us why

13 they shouldn’t be included, and, of course, identify

14 those explicitly.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. We certainly

17 will do that in our written comments.

18 MR. WALDER: Thank you again, sir.

19 Yes, sir?

20 MR. TURCHEN: Steve Turchen, Department of

21 Energy. A couple of additional questions for Jim

22 Ranfone.

23 Jim, in the discussion of price escalation

24 factors in your written comments, will it be possible

25 to provide more data or information about how the AGA

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
19

1 escalation rates were determined?

2 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. Yes, we will be

3 able to provide that.

4 MR. TURCHEN: Okay. Also, as kind of a

5 follow-up question to Jean Boulin’s on backdrafting, do

6 you know of any consensus standard group that’s

7 currently working on developing a U.S. standard for

8 backdrafting tests or you mentioned -- you alluded to

9 some research that’s going on.

10 I’m questioning whether there’s actual

11 committee work related to developing such a standard.

12 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. There is an

13 American Society of Testing Materials or ASTM group

14 that is putting together -- reviewing all of the test

15 methodologies for backdrafting, and that would be under

16 national consensus process. I don’t have the number of

17 that particular committee, but it is an on-going

18 activity, and they are considering the Canadian

19 standard.

20 MR. TURCHEN: So, at the present time,

21 they’re reviewing the current work on -- on

22 backdrafting?

23 MR. RANFONE: They’re reviewing the current

24 existing --Jim Ranfone, AGA, -- the current existing

25 methodologies that are out there as well as the

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
20

1 research that’s underway in backdrafting.

2 MR. TURCHEN: Okay. One final question of

3 clarification. Jim, in your -- under Other Provisions,

4 you make reference to 435.504 to .507. I believe you

5 really mean 435.504.5 through .7, is that --

6 MR. RANFONE: Yes. I guess instead of the

7 hyphen, it should have been through. Those are the --

8 those are the sections we’re concerned about. 504.5,

9 504.6 and 504.7. We don’t believe they are energy10 related.

11 MR. TURCHEN: And then on the issue of

12 blended fuel costs, if the department were to go with

13 the promulgation of the rule that would be fuel14 specific, would you be able in your comments to provide

15 some -- at least AGA’s opinion on how such a rule would

16 be -- how the proposal would be presented?

17 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. We will be

18 glad to do that. There are existing or have been

19 existing methodologies in the past that didn’t use fuel

20 blending, came up with separate envelope -- thermal

21 envelope requirements, depending on your source, and

22 that was the approach that we had taken.

23 MR. TURCHEN: Thank you.

24 MR. WALDER: Are there any other speakers or

25 questions on the topics that were discussed here today?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
21

1 Price escalation factor inputs, blended fuel costs,

2 backdrafting requirements, and other provisions of the

3 rule.

4 (No response)

5 MR. WALDER: No other comments or speakers?

6 (No response)

7 V. Closing Remarks

8 MR. WALDER: Okay. I’d like to present my

9 closing remarks.

10 I appreciate the attendance and the time that

11 you gentlemen have taken to attend this hearing, and we

12 will provide our responses to these comments and any

13 others that we get between now and July 14th.

14 Thank you for attending again, and I adjourn

15 this meeting.

16 (Whereupon, the public hearing was

17 adjourned.)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
•1

2 REPORTERS CERTIFICATE

3

This is to certify that the attached

4

proceedings before: DEPT. OF ENERGY

5

6

7 In the Matter of: CODES AND STANDARDS

8

9

10

11

12

were held as herein appears and that this is the

13

original transcript thereof for the file of the

14

Department, Commission, Administrative Law Judge

15

or the Agency.

1 6 (F

20 Dated: JUNE 5, 1997

ç

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS

(301 ) 565—0064