I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM: 

WORKSHOP ON ANALYSIS OF STANDARD 

90.1-1999 

THURSDAY, 

FEBRUARY 17, 2000 I 

The public workshop was held at 9:00 a.m. ~n 

Room 13-245 at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C., Jean J. Boulin, presiding. 

Present : i i i 

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN, Facilitator, 

Public Solutions, Inc. 

JEAN J. BOULIN, DOE 

HAROLD N. CROWDER, Virginia Power 

ERIC DeVITO, Andersen Windows and Cardinal 13 

SUSAN DOUGLAS, NFRC 

CHARLES R. FOSTER, EEI 

JASON GLAZER, CARD Analytics, Inc. 

RAOUL GREISS, Natlonal Resources Canada 

HAROLD W. HEISS, American Electric Power 

ROBERT J. HEMPWILL, GRI 

RONALD MAJETTE, DOE 

JOSEPH M. MATTXNGLY, GAMA 

FRANCINE PINTO, XE 

JAMES A. RANFONZ, AGA 

STEVE TURCHEN, SGE 

TED A. WILLIAMS, AGA 

DAVID W. WINIARSKI, PNNL 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RXOOE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
I-N-D-E-X 

Opening Statement and Introduction . 3 I 

Format of Workshop ..... 

Background 11 ................... 

Proposed Methodology . . 

What we would like you to do 

Qualitative analysis 

Quantitative analysis 

Basis for energy savings 

Past work: What we looked at last summer 

Enhancements proposed 

Overview approach 

Why a generic building approach 

Generic building prototype 

Modeled systems 

Building descriptions 

~epresentative climates 

Commercial building types 

Permutations 

Building characterization issues 

Average window to wall ratio (WWR) 

Variations in WWR 

Determining envelope requirements 

~ighting power densities 

Mechanical systems 

Aggregation of energy use index (EUI) data 

EUI Issues 

Calculation of utilization indices 

What we can do 

Scheduled Speakers -- additional comments , . Jason Glazer, GARD Analytics, Inc. ... -&- 

James A. Ranfone, American Gas 

Association .............. , - 

Harold L . Crowder , Jr . , Virginia 

- + Power ................. 

Adj ourn ....... ............. * _A - 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgmss 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
(9:09 a.m.) 

MR. BOULIN: My name is Jean Boulin. I ' m 

presiding officer for this workshop. 

The others joining me today are Francine 

Pinto from our Office of General Counsel; Ron Majette 

from the Off ice of Building Research and Standards; 

 avid Winiarski from our Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory; and at the head of the table here many of 

you will recognize Doug Brookman of Public Solutions, 

Inc. He will facilitate and set the guidelines for 

conducting this workshop. 

On behalf of the Department I would like 

to thank you all for taking the time to participate in 

this public workshop. 

We've chosen the format in order to 

facilitate the exchange of ideas and information in an 

informal manner. The Department is required by 

Section 304(b) (2) of Title I11 of the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act, as amended, to 

determine whether the revisions to ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1 embodied in the 1999 edition will 

improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 

In preparation for making the 

determination, we are doing a comparative analysis 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200013701 www.nealrgross cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
4 

between the 1989 edition and the 1999 edition of 

standard 90.1. An initial analysis was prepared in 

the summer of 1999 and the results were presented to 

the Standing Standards Project Committee 90.1, the 

ASHRAE committee responsible for revising the 

standard. It was also shared with other interested 

parties. 

At that time we identified the 

shortcomings that we perceived in the analysis, and 

suggested how some could be resolved. Comments were 

requested on these issues and other issues that people 

might identify. We have developed an approach to 

complete the analysis and that address these issues 

that we identified last summer. 

We are holding a workshop today to obtain 

comments on the approach and to identify any other 

issues. This workshop was the subject of a notice 

published in the Federal Resister on February 8, 2000. 

Materials relating to this workshop will be posted on 

our web site at: http://www.energycodes.org -- all 

one word "energycodes." 

In approximately two weeks, a complete set 

of the transcript will be available for inspection and 

copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of 

Information Reading Room located in Room 1E-190. 

NWL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript 

may make arrangements with the court reporter here in 

the front of the room. 

Our agenda will basically be this opening 

statement, a review of the format of this session. 

We'll go around the table with introductions, a brief, 

terse background again which will be open for 

discussion. The proposed methodology. We'll first go 

through a presentation followed by comments. We1 11 

then have scheduled speakers, if they want to make 

additional comments and then people who have not 

scheduled with us we'll have time for additional 

comments to be made. 

The format of the workshop, we have a 

facilitator, who is as I have said, Doug will 

facilitate for us. We'll go through the methodology 

in the following way: first a presentation by 

component. We'll take these one slat at a time. 

Comment and discussion on the immediate subject 

matter. We'll then go on to the next item. We will 

do comments and discussions first by scheduled 

speakers who have something in their remarks on the 

subject and then to :he rest of the room. If you 

agree with something that's been said, please don't 

say it again, affirm that you agree with the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200013701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
statement. ~t will keep our time to a better 

situation. 

We'll get into the scheduled speakers, as 

I've said, with other comments. We will then have 

comments and discussion on those particular comments. 

Attendees will come next and we'll have comments and 

discussion on those. To provide the Department with 

as much pertinent information and as many views as can 

be reasonably obtained and to enable interested 

parties to express their views, we will follow this 

format. 

We expect that we will have ample time ~3 

raise and discuss all important issues. We would ask, 

however, that you refrain from making overly lengtky 

i 

statements, so everyone gets a chance to speak .x~l?: I 

I 

Doug will enforce our ground rules. 

During the short presentations, pie3ae 

hold your comments. We will make sure there :a 

sufficient time to c~rnment and have discussions as de 

move from one subject ED the next. 

The workshcp is scheduled to adjourn t.r: 3ay 

at 4 o'clock unless, 2f course, we finish e3r-L~ 

Topics which have cot been completely discussed r'f 

that time can be addressed in additional wrrrtepi 

comments which are due by February 24th, a week Ir 9 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM. ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nea cam 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
7 

today. All written comments and data submissions 

should be available for public inspection at the 

Department of Energy of Information Reading Room. The 

phone number for that is 202/585-5020. 

Please send written comments to Brenda 

Edwards here at the Department of Energy and reference 

the docket number 6450-01-P when you respond. We 

would like to have ten copies of your comments and any 

supporting data, along with an electronic copy of the 

comments or data, preferably using Word Perfect 8.1 or 

an earlier version. No faxed comments will be 

accepted. 

Any person submitting information which he 

or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law 

from public disclosure should submit one complete 

signed copy, plus ten copies and a copy on a disk frcm 

which information claimed to be confidential has beez 

deleted. In accordance with the procedures 

established at 10 CFR Part 1004.11, the Department -t 

Energy will make its own determination as to whetcer 

the information shall be exempt from pub:,: 

disclosure. 

Again, we appreciate the time and effzrt 

you have taken in preparing for this workshop, and we 

are pleased to receive your comments and opinrc~s 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REWRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 200053701 www nealrgrwu am 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
I I Our purpose today is to listen to your views. 

I l With that, I'd like to go around the table 

and have you introduce yourself so that we all know 

who's here. 

I i Can we start with you, Harold? 

MR. CROWDER: Sure. Harold Crowder, 

Virginia Power. 

MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, Edison Electric 

Institute. 

MR. HEISS: Harold Heiss, American 

~lectric Power. 

MR. DeVITO: Eric DeVito, I represent 

)I Andersen Windows and Cardinal IG. 

MS. DOUGLAS: Susan Douglas, National 

I I Fenestration Rating Council. 

MR. GLAZER: Jason Glazer, GARD Analytics . 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone with the 

I I American Gas Association. 

I I MR. HEMPHILL: Bob Hemphill, GRI. 

I i MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas 

Association. 

MR. GREISS: Raoul Greiss, Natural 

Resources Canada. 

I 1 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, FAMA. I I MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski, Pacific 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200013701 www.nealrgrws rn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
9 

Northwest Laboratory. 

MR. MAJETTE: Ron Majette, U. S. Department 

of Energy. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Department of 

Energy, General Counsel's Office. 

MR. BOULIN: Okay, what I' d like to do now 

is to have Doug take over, review the agenda and 

provide some housekeeping details, provide a few 

additional ground rules. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Can you pick 

that up? 

COURT REPORTER: Itf s nicer if you have a 

microphone, but for introductions, it's okay. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning. I'm Doug 

Brookman. I've had a chance to meet many of you in 

the past. Nice to see you again. Thanks for being 

here on time so we can start just about on time. 

What have emerged as norms for these 

working sessions over the years are as follows and I'd 

like to ask that you consider them and conform to them 

today as we go along. I'm going to ask that you speak 

one at a time, say your name and use the microphones. 

This will be a recorded session today and as Jean 

said, a transcript will be available. 

I'm going to ask also that you be concise, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
10 

share the air time. We want to fit in as much 

diversity of views as possible as we go along here 

today. 

Listen as an ally. I find that the 

discussion and that's what we hope to encourage here 

today hinges entirely on the quality of the listening. 

so if you can focus in on that. we'll all be better 

off for it. 

I'm going to ask also that you limit side 

bars and interruptions. Those of you that need to 

make a telephone call on your cell phone or have your 

pager ring or something like that, please take it 

outside or wait until a break to conduct that 

business. I'd like to see if we can keep focused on 

the matter at hand here today. 

We will take a break this morning around 

about 10:30, 10:45 and this afternoon around about 

2:15 or 2:30 so you can anticipate there will be one 

almost no matter where we are, you can anticipate 

that. 

If d also just like to acquaint you with 

what I typically try and do which is to queue people 

to speak based on when I: see that hands go up or 

somehow showing to me they wish to comment on the 

slides or the matter being discussed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1 323 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASXINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www. nea1rgross.m 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
11 

I also like to allow for follow on 

comments, so I may have three, four, five people 

stacked to speak and if someone wishes to make a brief 

follow on comment, I try and fit that in to keep the 

discussion going. So it's a complicated system and if 

I leave you out of the queue, don't let me get away 

with it. Flag me down, chase me down at the break and 

do something, but just make me aware that I've 

forgotten you and I will correct it on the spot. 

So thatf s what I'd suggest as simple 

ground rules, norms for the meeting today. As Jean 

said, the purpose here is to generate some useful 

discussion, to listen, and that's what we hope to do. 

Do we need any additional ground rules or 

norms for today? Okay, thank you. So then, let's 

proceed. 

MR. BOULIN: That's much easier. I wanc 

to focus us again on what wef re talking about here 

We're talking about bullding energy codes. EP :A 

Section 304 (b) (2) (A) requires the Secretary to make a 

determination as to whether the revisions in ASH 

= * Standard 90.1 in this case a 1999 version, w:,, 

improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 

A preliminary analysis of office 2nd 

retail buildings was done in June and shared with i 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AN0 TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHUOE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0 C. 200053701 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
number of people. This workshop is in preparation for 

completing that analysis and making the subsequent 

determination that the Secretary must make. 

The notice of this determination will be 

published in the Federal Resister, we hope this 

spring. And affirmative determination in this case 

would cause States to certify to the Secretary within 

two years that their codes meet or exceed 90.1-1999, 

the implications of some of the things we're about 

today. 

With that, 1/11 open it up for any 

comments on this subject. Are there any comments on 

what we're about to hear today? I 

i 

Jason? 1 i 

MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name for the 

record. 

MR. GLAZER: Jason Glazer. I was 

wondering what the determination has been in the pas: 

for addenda to the 1989 version of the standard. 

MR. BOULIN: We have not made any 

determinations relative to the 1989 version of tRe 

standard . 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone with AGA. 3sea 

the law require DOE to do that on addendum or not? 

MR. BOULIN: The law is silent exp1icitL-y 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www. nealrgmw ~gnr 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
13 

on when the Department makes those changes. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone again. Just a 

clarification then. When the addenda was issued on 

the 1989 version, is that considered a new standard, 

therefore DOE has within one year to -- 

MR. BOULIN: We are generally making a 

determination when a new standard is published. In 

those cases a new standard was not per se published. 

MR. GLAZER: Jason Glazer. Actually, I 

believe there was a version of the 1989 standard that 

was published with addenda incorporated after EPAC. 

MR. BOULIN: Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: This is Doug. I'm trying 

to understand where you're going with this question, 

Jim. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. I guess if 

there's some historical precedent on what DOE did 

prior to the issuance of this new standard, we'd like 

to know methodology was used then on addenda to make 

this determination and if nothing was done, we'd like 

to know that too. Legally is DOE required to make 

that -- were they required to make that determination 

even prior to the issuance of the 1999 standard? 

Basically, what we're trying to find out 

is was there anything done and what was the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
14 

methodology done on those addenda and how does that 

impact or how would that be portrayed or utilized in 

this process that you're talking about now that we're 

involved in now. That's the reason for the question. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I understand. So in 

addition to the methodology which I think is fairly 

well described in the documentation here today, you 

wish to know about the precedential nature of those 

others? 

MR. RANFONE: Right. Perhaps, Jim 

Ranfone, does legal counsel have a comment? 

MS. PINTO: Well, I think that Jean has 

answeredthe first question -- Francine Pinto, General 

Counsel. Jean answered, Jean Boulin answered your 

question that the Department has not done that in the 

past. So there isn't any previous methodology. We 

have never looked at that issue as to whether on 

specific addenda we would have to do it. The 

legislation talks about the standard as a whole, so I 

don't have a specific answer to that. We haven't done 

it though. 

MR. RANFONE: Would we be able to get an 

answer in the future? Jim Ranfone. 

MS. PINTO: I'm sure we can look at it and 

address it in the determination if it becomes 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
15 

necessary. Do you see a particular reason why it 

needs to be addressed? 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. Again, the 

reason is if an analysis was done and DOE made a 

determination, what methodology was used? And if 

there was a methodology that's consistent or 

inconsistent with what is being proposed today we 

would just like to know that. 

MS. PINTO: Well, it hasn't been done. 

MR. BOULIN: There has been nothing that 

has been done. 

MS. PINTO: Has definitely been done. 

MR. BOULIN: We made no determination. We 

did not analysis on the addenda. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. So you feel 

that DOE did not have to do a determination back then 

on those addenda? 

MS. PINTO: Are you speaking of just our 

addenda? 

MR. RANFCNE: Yes. If that's the answer, 

that's fine. 

MS. PINTO: I believe so and I havenf t 

actually spent a 1st of time thinking about that 

particular issue. 

MR. RANFONE: Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www. neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
16 

MR. BOULIN: Okay, if there are no other 

questions -- 

MR. GREISS: Raoul Greiss from Natural 

Resources Canada. I guess it is an important issue if 

the addenda applied to the current version of the 

standard and if the standard is referenced, will the 

addenda be applicable on an on-going basis and will 

they be considered parts of the ruling or not? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that a subject to be 

determined based on the analysis or does the 

Department have a predisposition on this point of the 

addenda now? 

MS. PINTO: I believe the addenda -- da 

you agree with me, Jean, that the addenda would be 

included as part of the total standard? 

MR. BOULIN: The addenda -- we're mov:ng 

into a different situation now that the 1999 standard 

is published. It's ASHRAE1s intention, I'm informed, 

to move into a mode of continuous maintenance which 1s 

somewhat similar to the code process that we' re see rrq 

and to aggregate those addenda that occur to Wac 

standard and publish that every three years, very much 

like the codes do. 

On the residential side, it's been cur 

practice in the past to make a determination relatrvc 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20005-3701 www nea 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
17 

to the model energy code and now the IECC when it is 

republished. And we have followed that previously. 

It has been our intention in thinking about this to 

make a determination at the next publication of 

standard 90.1 in the same way so if they republish 

that say in 2002, we would expect to make a 

determination relative to that point. 

The issue that we are looking at in 

considering this has been an issue of the actions that 

causes States to take and the time and effort for 

those States to update their codes. If we made a 

determination on addenda every year, this would cause 

the States to have to consider updating their codes 

every year and this has been a point that we have 

thought about, this has been behind our thinking. 

MS. PINTO: Jim, I just want to add cze 

thing. In just looking at the language here, it says 

-- this is Francine Pinto -- it says the standard zs 

any successor standard, so I would tend to agree wrcs 

Jean that every time an addenda came out, I don': 

believe the Department would be required to make a cew 

determination. My understanding of addenda is t Rar 

they are amendments, minor changes, generally. 

MR. RANFONE: Well -- 

MS. PINTO: Well, that would be my in it.;^; 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 200053701 www nealrgnwr corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
18 

reading of that. As I said, we haven't spent a lot of 

time talking about it, but that would be my opinion at 

this minute. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. It is an 

important issue. You say that some of the addenda may 

be minor and that they shouldn't be analyzed, but 

besides the methodology issue what we're interested in 

is what's the baseline that PNNL or anybody else using 

to do the comparison. Is it going to be straight 1989 

version without the additional addenda that were 

approved or will it be with the approved addenda. So 

as a baseline issue here too. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I think it's useful and I 

appreciate it, I'm sure everyone does the Department 

trying to interpret here real time on the spot what 

some of this might mean, but maybe it's an issue for 

further consideration as we go along. 

MR. RANFONE: That would be fine. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So I'm going to suggest 

that we move on with the items that come next, Jean. 

MR. BOULIN: Thank you. With that, Dave? 

MR. WINIARSKI: Well, as in the 

introductions my name is David Winiarski. I'm a 

research engineer with Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory. And I'm going to talk about this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
19 

methodology or proposed methodology for evaluation of 

the change from 90.1-89 to 90.1-99. 

Jim, one of the things I want to say is 

I've asked myself that same question. I think it's a 

very good question. I'm not sure how we're going to 

deal with this. The proposal, at least that we're 

looking at is to look at the latest version of the 

standard 90.1-89 and compare that with the published 

version of 90.1-99. We may address some of the 

proposed addenda and what the implications of those 

may be for the 90.1-99 standard in a qualitative 

manner, but -- go ahead. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. I 'm sorry, you 

are going to also look at the addendum that in the 

process for the 99 version? 

MR. WINIARSKI: We may look at them from 

a qualitative standard, qualitative look at them 

whether we think that those will be improvements. 

Certainly, I don't think the Department can base their 

determination on those addenda until they're approved 

and reevaluated as a whole. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. Well, I guess 

we'll have some discussion about the qualitative 

analysis, but -- 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
20 

MR. RANFONE: Or the need for it. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right. 

MR. BR0OKMA.N: As a process clarification, 

we intend to essentially one slide -- or if there's a 

major point that sticks out that you'd like to comment 

as we're going. We'll have discussion after each 

individual slide, okay? 

MR. WINIARSKI: Let me back up here. Back 

UP. I'm going to talk a little bit about the 

methodology. What I would like the folks in this room 

to do is to -- with the overview and the methodology, 

we will come up with areas where we have made 

assumptions. We would like to get your input on those 

assumptions, both positive or if you have additional 

data that you can come in and present or data that 

will fill in our assumptions or expand them or 

possibly change them. Again, this is an on-going 

process. 

We'd like you to provide information on 

the areas of the study that are important and if there 

are areas that we feel are not important or that can 

be glossed over in favor of doing more detailed 

analysis somewhere else, we'd like that type of 

information. Again, provide as much as constructive 

criticism on how to make this a better product. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www neairgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
21 

Finally, we will have results both from a 

quantitative assessment of the entire standard as a 

whole and also from individual criterion and 

requirements in the standard and I'd like you to 

consider the impact of this assessment and possible 

modifications to the standard or to State codes which 

are derived thereof. 

The standard or the analysis is going to 

be twofold. Part of the analysis will be based on 

what I call a qualitative look at the standard. Part 

will be based on a quantitative look. I'll talk very 

briefly on the qualitative analysis. The goal of that 

is to provide for a comparison of efficiency by major 

sections of the standard and by individual 

requirements of the standard where that's possible. 

Identify areas where the scope of the 

standards are different and examine the impact of that 

change in scope on efficiency. That scope rs both 

small s and capital s. There is a scope sectrsn of 

the standard that discusses what buildings are 

covered, but there are also changes in scope :n that 

some requirements have fallen out of the standard and 

new ones have been introduced. 

And obviously comparison of a new 

requirement where one wasn't there before can be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgrws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
22 

difficult. So that's part of what goes into the 

qualitative analysis, basically an assessment of that 

and once that goes out, we'd like other persons' input 

on our assessment. 

There was a change in the structure of the 

90.1 standard in that to the extent possible 90.1-99, 

the requirements were written in a mandatory language. 

That's not necessarily true for 90.1-89. Because of 

that, the things that were nonmandatory, but good 

suggestions for building design may have been dropped. 

That changes the -- what the standard actually covers 

and what can be impacted. That's an area that we want 

to look at in the qualitative analysis. 

There are areas where the 90.1-99 

stringency has been relaxed and it's fairly obvious 

that that's happened. We'd like to examine the reason 

why that was done. Again, that may be information 

best used for States who are looking at adopting their 

own codes. 

And again, another large - - importance of 

the qualitative analysis is to provide data for the 

individual State by State evaluations of 90.1-99 and 

how that can be incorporated into those State codes. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions, comments on this 

first slide? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
23 

MR. WINIARSKI: The qualitative analysis, 

these are sort of the principal areas that we will 

look at. The general - - the scope of the standard, 

what's being covered, what's not being covered. One 

of the big changes in 90.1-99 is that there is 

introductions for requirements for building 

alterations that didn't exist in the 90.1-89 version. 

There are probably vastly more building 

alterations that go on than new building construction 

in terms of total square footage, but the 90.1-99 

requirements can't be assumed to be applied quite as 

completely to those alterations. There's lots of 

exceptions. So we're going to try and look at that 

and the impact of that. 

And also the fact that a number of States 

may, by themselves have been using 90.1-89 also in 

their own requirements for changes in existing 

buildings. 

We're going to look at the three major 

sections of the standard that we believe are 

important, the envelop requirements, lighting 

requirements for buildings, mechanical equipment and 

system designs. That covers both HVAC and service 

water heating equipment as well as some just general 

electrical equipment in a building. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
24 

We will briefly touch on the different 

paths to compliance in the standard both in terms of 

whole building paths to compliance and individual 

paths in each of the above three sections. In 

general, we will be taking or examining what we feel 

to be the most common paths to compliance and in the 

quantitative analysis and assessing alternative paths 

more in a qualitative manner, whether we feel that 

they're going to be equal energy paths to compliance 

as much as possible. 

The qualitative analysis is on-going right 

now. We're beginning the phases of putting together 

the quantitative analysis. The goal of the 

quantitative analysis is to examine the whole building 

impact of changes and requirements. The qualitative 

analysis can be used to assess, for instance, if the 

R-value of insulation in a wall has been increased or 

decreased fora given common type of construction, but 

where all kinds of different requirements are being 

change din the building, it's hard to assess the 

relative contribution of each of those requirements to 

the entire building energy saving. So thatf s the main 

purpose of the quantitative analysis. 

The quantitative analysis again will focus 

on the major energy systems that we feel can be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
25 

modeled effectively. It will attempt to cover a broad 

range of building types and also of locations in the 

country to get an idea of the national impact on 

building energy efficiency. 

We'll also look or try to account for 

variation in buildings and system designs where we 

feel those are important for the determination tasks. 

Again, the focus here is going to be an analysis that 

determines whether or not we believe the standard will 

save energy. I personally don't believe we can come 

up with a real good assessment of the actual 

percentage of energy saved in commercial buildings 

I don't think that we can describe our baseline well 

enough so that there's enough information to do that. 

For that reason it's primarily a standard to standard 

comparison, instead of a comparison between current 

practice and future practice. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Turchen, ase the 

microphone, please. 

MR. TURCHEN: Steve Turchen, 3.S. 

Department of Energy. You touched, Dave, on both the 

qualitative analysis and you started on the 

quantitative analysis. Is the determination 

ultimately to be based on one or the other or some 

combination thereof? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgnws cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
26 

MR. WINIARSKI: That's really a question 

for DOE. I don't know if Jean you want to touch on 

that. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you in a position to 

answer that yet or is that -- 

MR. BOULIN: I don't believe until we see 

the analysis that we are in a position to make any 

statement as to what that determination will be fully 

based on. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right, in general, I view 

our role as a provider of information here and as much 

as possible we will do what we can to provide DOE with 

the type of information that will help in making their 

decision. 

The basis for the energy savings estrzates 

that we're going to do are a utilization :cdex 

comparison between 90.1-89 and 90.1-99. By that I 

mean something like energy use, BTUs per square foot. 

We plan to look at both a site-based energy use, what 

would be in the building, a source energy use that 

accounts for the generation efficiencies in producrng 

electricity which is obviously important and an energy 

dollars per square foot estimate for commercial 

buildings as a whole and also for each individual sort 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wmor nealrgnws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
of slice of the building pie that we're analyzing so 

that that information will be available for public 

consumption. 

Briefly, I' 11 touch on what was done last 

summer that Jean alluded to. In the spring of 1999, 

I was involved in putting together a real cursory look 

at energy savings from the standard in two building 

types, an office and a retail building. We looked at 

two types of wall construction, a lightweight wall 

construction. Here, steel frame was used as the basis 

for that. And mass wall constructions. The reason 

behind that is that's been a topic of consideration in 

the standard and the R-value or U-value requirements 

for the walls change quite a bit for the mass wall 

construction in particular. 

We looked at buildings that were heated by 

fossil fuel, in this case a gas furnace or 

electrically heated, in this case an electric furnace 

We assumed a 90/10 mix across the country when we were 

coming up with a national aggregation of that. We 

looked at the 11 representative climates. In general, 

that analysis suggested energy savings for these 

building types on the order of, I believe, 16 to 18 

percent depending on what -- or 16 to 20 percent 

depending on what type of metric you used. And I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www. nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
28 

wasn't, unfortunately, able to -- that work was 

presented in the June ASHRAE meeting, June 1999. I 

didn't present it. 

I think to some extent it's been misquoted 

a little bit. I want to make that clear that this is 

again for two building types. They are the two most 

important building types that we have in the 

commercial sector, but it is only two and we actually 

expect that the results that we get from this 

determination will have a lower energy savings from 

that. 

The rationale behind that is that in 

90.1-99 a large portion of the energy savings comes 

from improvements in cooling efficiency and in 

lighting. These two building types, cooling loads, 

can be very high, for other building types and we use 

the example of warehouse buildings. This certainly 

won't be the case and that's one building type where 

we actually expect to see an increase in energy is 

what the 90.1-99 standard. 

What I'm going to talk about here is 

basically enhancements to that methodology. First, on 

the order of the enhancements is that we recognize 

that there's a lot of things that we simply can't 

model either from time and budget constraints or from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www,nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
29 

the difficulties of actually using a tool or 

developing an analysis that models something very 

effectively, or more importantly, from which we don't 

have data to assess the national impact. 

We can't aggregate that to a national 

level because we don't have enough information, for 

instance, how often a particular requirement gets put 

in place in a building. So that's a primary reason 

for the qualitative analysis, to look at different 

requirements in the standard and the standards and say 

are we going in the right direction in terms of energy 

efficiency. 

Another enhancement that we proposed is 

more building types and 1/11 talk about that a little 

later, how we identify the building types that we plan 

to use in this work. Try to get more stakeholder 

input on assumptions. Although we got a limited 

amount of that in the spring, we got very little 

stakeholder input after the presentation. Part of 

this work is to get people to make comments, both 

positive comments if they affirm that those 

assumptions are good or if they feel that there are 

better assumptions to come back to us and give us 

better assumptions in the data sources leaving to 

those better assumptions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
3 0 

In the work that was presented last 

summer, the dollar energy cost index was based on the 

8 cents per kilowatt hour, 56 cents per therm, costs 

that were used by the ASHRAE Committee in development 

of the standard. One of the things that we propose to 

do is to modify that and use regional fuel costs and 

data that has been developed through Department of 

Energy's annual energy outlook. 

We also plan to be able to use a regional 

heating fuel mix. We use again this 90/10 split 

across the country last summer. That's obviously not 

right. There are certain areas in the country where 

electric -- more buildings are electrically heated 

than in others. We want to try to capture that type 

of variation in this analysis. 

Another thing we'd like to do is develop 

some aggregation across different building sizes. The 

standard impacts small buildings differently than 

large buildings. We propose in this analysis that 

addresses that. Again, the work last summer was based 

on a single size building so that's one of the 

enhancements that we've brought into the picture here. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, AGA. I'm 

sorry, I want to go back to the slide before this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www. nealrcjross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
2 J. 

where you made a comment that the presentation, the 

preliminary results were presented at the June meeting 

of 90.1 and that those preliminary results showed 16 

percent site energy and 20 percent source energy 

savings in two types of buildings. 

You made the comment that some sources are 

misquoting or misinterpreting that data or that 

comment or that result, rather, and has the Department 

or PNNL come out with anything to say that those 

results should not be quoted for the entire standard 

because now we're in a phase where the standard is 

available, it's being sold and individuals or whatever 

groups may want to purchase it and utilize it may be 

of the mind that based on using that standard for the 

type of building that you didn't analyze would be 

obtaining those kinds of results of 16 percent site 

savings. 

So has anything been sent out from SOE? 

I'm reading from press releases of some of your 

organizations and these statements are being made 

without any qualifications. 

MR. BOULIN: The Department, Jean Boulin, 

the Department made it perfectly clear when :his 

information was shared with people that this was a 

preliminary analysis and that we were intending to do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
a much more extensive analysis and that we were asking 

for comments on the approach we took. No, we have not 

gone out and tried to police the country and tell 

people they shouldnt t say certain things about the 

standard or that they should. 

We believe the in£ ormation has been widely 

disseminated as to what it was and we are not in a 

position to police what other people say. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone again, AGA. I 

know you' re not in the position, but if the savings 

are being mischaracterized -- 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, are you suggesting 

that DOE do something about that? 

MR. RANFONE: Well, I think DOE perhaps 

should indicate that the -- be more specific on what 

those results really mean. I mean if PNNL is now 

saying that some building types, you're actually g~ing 

to see a difference or an increase in energy csage, I 

think when consumers or users of the standard are 

looking at this document and seeing information 

promoting it for sale and use, this needs to be 

addressed. 

MR. BROOKMAN: When David was describing 

the earlier slide entitled "Past Work, What We Looked 

At Last Summerw, I thought what he was doing there was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
33 

differentiating what came before and separating that 

from this methodology that is going to be examined in 

detail today. That's what I thought. 

That's what I thought we were going with 

this. That's why I'm asking what you would like to see 

DOE do with this, Jim. 

MR. RANFONE: I'd like DOE at least to 

inform users of the standard, sellers of the standard 

that they should cease and desist making blanket 

statements that this standard is going to save 16 

percent site energy and 20 percent source energy. 

That's an important aspect. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on this 

subject before we move on? 

Okay, thank you, Jim. I believe we' re now 

on a slide called "Enhancements Proposed." It's page 

3 on your handout. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right, and actually this 

is what we just discussed that Jim brought me back to. 

Another enhancement that we'd like to do with this 

analysis is to examine the effect of window/wall ratio 

on energy savings. This has been a topic of 

discussion that we didn't look at in the prior 

analysis. The prior analysis assumed essentially a 20 

percent window/wall ratio for both the office and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
34 

retail buildings. Obviously, there is a significant 

variation in that number and that impacts the building 

envelope significantly for the 90.1-99 standard. 

So we want to examine that, where 

possible. Also to, if possible, come up with a way to 

aggregate that into the national savings estimate. 

Although it's not discussed in your write 

up, one of the proposals is to look at the impact of 

the different major sections of the standard alone, 

for instance, what if only the envelope is adopted, 

what if only the mechanical systems sect ion is 

adopted, what if only the lighting sections are 

changed. That was not done -- or it was done in the 

work that we did last summer. I don't know that it 

was presented and obviouslythere are some assumptions 

in doing that because certain things impact the base 

loads on the buildings, certain things impact the 

efficiency by which that load is met. And so there's 

some assumptions in doing that, but we want to spend 

some time addressing that in this work. 

Some of the other enhancements that we 

looked at, better accounting for the use of 

economizers across the nation. The write up 

discussions, the methodology proposed for that and I 

think that will be a significant improvement on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
previous work. 

The proposal talks about using a shipment 

weighted average efficiency for cooling and heating 

equipment where possible. Recently, through work with 

ARI and through work with GAMA on equipment standards, 

commercial equipment standards, we've gotten better 

information on equipment shipments and we hope to 

bring that into the analysis to come up with different 

or improved estimates of the relative changes in 

efficiency. 

Another enhancement that I want to bring 

into the work right now is to bring in the residential 

size cooling equipment efficiencies. That's another 

piece of the puzzle that wasn't done last summer. We 

didn't have shipment data on the less than 65,000 BTU 

per hour cooling equipment, three phase cooling 

equipment. That's in the standard and the standard 

did not address in its development. 

The current 90.1-99 requirements are the 

same essentially as 90.1-89 and obviously there's no 

change in efficiency there. So that's one of the 

things that we're trying to bring into this analysis 

when we do the shipment weighted average efficiency 

improvements. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Jason. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.neakgross.cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
MR. GLAZER: Is the variation of window to 

wall ratio being included in the quantitative analysis 

or the qualitative analysis? 

MR. WINIARSKI: I'll discuss that a little 

bit later. The present proposal that you've read on 

the -- or downloaded from the website talks about 

assuming a single window to wall ratio for the -- each 

building type in the quantitative analysis, but doing 

a sensitivity study of the effect of changing that 

window/wall ratio in a number of billing types to see 

what the effect would be. 

There are some other ways to handle that 

and I' d like to get some input on that. One of the 

difficulties is the quality of data in terms of doing 

an aggregation with window/wall ratio. But I'll 

discuss that a little bit later. 

If you picked up a handout, something chat 

was not on the website that you might want to lzok at 

is a flow chart that talks about the general process 

and as we walk through different sections, please 

refer to the flow chart in terms of where it fits in. 

Let's see if this is the slide here. 

(Pause. 1 

The basic proposed analysis utilizes a 

generic square building prototype. The prototype has 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www. nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
37 

15 zones, 5 independent zones per floor, a core and 4 

perimeter zones facing each of the cardinal 

directions, east, west, north and south. It has three 

stories, a bottom floor, a middle floor and a top 

floor obviously. And we've used this prototype in a 

lot of the 90.1 work because we have a zone, a 

separate zone that faces essentially each possible 

orientation of the building and it has a unique 

exposure and therefore we can use that building 

prototype to examine the effects of changing building 

size, shape, orientation or aspect ratio. 

We'll talk a little bit later about this, 

but we've proposed to examine 7 building types: 

office, retail, education, lodging, public assembly, 

warehouse and food service. We've proposed 11 

climates that were used in the ASHRAE analysis with 

one minor exception, that we proposed to use a typical 

meteorological year, two tapes. 

That data wasn't available in some of the 

early 90.1 work. We are switching one of the climate 

sites because of that and the rationale is discussed 

in the write up, but that climate is going from 

Orlando to Tampa. There is no TMY2 tape for ~rlando. 

And those two climates are very, very similar in terms 

of their weather data. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
38 

We proposed to look at -- well, for each 

of the building types there are some characteristics 

that are relatively constant in the analysis. The 

schedules, occupancy, ventilation for the building, 

the equipment power density is assumed to be constant 

between both versions of the standard. Window/wall 

ratio in the proposed analysis is constant. We may 

look at modifying that, based on the assessment oft he 

folks here as well as at the laboratory. 

We have talked about -- we'll look at the 

three permutations in terms of building wall type, 

again, a light weight wall or mass wall, heating 

systems and economizer usage, no economizer versus 

economizer for each climate. And each set of those 

permutations we can develop a set of 90 -1 requirements 

in terms of the envelope lighting power densities for 

the building, HVAC and service water heating 

efficiencies. All that information is fed into a 

simulation engine. In this case we plan to use BLAST 

and out of that comes EUI data for each of the 

individual zones, for each of the individual 

simulations. 

That's primarily what I call the energy 

side of the analysis. The next part of it is how do 

you aggregate that since you've got all these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
3 9 

different simulations for different regions of the 

country, different building types. 

MR. BROOKMAN: David, any questions on 

that first flow chart? 

(Pause. ) 

We can return to it. Keep going, David. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Again, the next step in 

the analysis what I call the aggregation to a national 

commercial building energy use intensity estimates. 

You can follow through this flow chart. Basically, 

the process is to take that zonal EUI from each 

building, convert it to perimeter, total perimeter and 

total core EUIs for each floor of the building. 

The purpose of that step is to -- well, 

the major purpose of that step is to wash out issues 

with building orientation. We aggregate the -- come 

up with the perimeter EUI that's an average for the 

building and washout the effect that some zones are 

north, some are south. Because in an actual building 

we don't know how rt's gsrng to be oriented. 

The next: strep, we bring in the cooling 

equipment shipment data 3x3 use that to assess the 

relative prevalence :f economizer usage in each 

location of the cou~try or economizer requirement 

usage for each location of the country. Once we've 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM ISLAND AVE., N W 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
done that we move down to -- or take the individual 

climates and map them to what I call sub-census 

divisions. There are 9 census divisions. We actually 

are proposing to use 11. We split the east or western 

and mountain census divisions into two parts. The 

reason behind that is there's some significantly 

different climates, for instance, in the northwest 

versus California. And also there's some 

significantly different fuel prices and we want to try 

to capture that variation in the analysis. 

Using CBECS data, Commercial Buildrnq 

Energy Consumption Survey data, we collect informatizn 

for each census division on building size, build~~q 

aspect ratio, number of floors, locations, aga;n, 

perhaps window/wall ratio depending on how cRe 

analysis actually gets done. And use that -3 

aggregate or to scale the results from the protor;Tc 

building to the typlcai floor space in terms of 

six possible combinatrons of core EUI or perimeter E"J: 

for each floor of the bullding. 

So for ;zsrztnce, if you have a 7 st-z-f 

building, you have 3 tcp floor, you have a botc * 

floor, you have five ".;:dale floors that are relatlqJ-, 

similar and you have a core and perimeter area : r 

each of those floors. The idea is to develop from r:*c 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISUWD AVE.. N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000!5-3701 www nea rn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
41 

census or from the CBECS data the square footage for 

each of the possible core perimeter combinations in 

that building, come up with relative weights for each 

of those six possible combinations and then bring them 

down to weight the EUI data for that building from the 

prototype 

We actually will do that probably at the 

census division level. We won't do it in individual 

building, but essentially you develop the total amount 

of square footage that would be applied to each of 

those six possible orientations int eh prototme 

building and then weight all the resuits 

appropriately. 

Once we've done that we have -- for each 

of the sub-census divisions, we essentially have 3 

number of building types that represent sort of the 

average building size, average build::-. z 

characteristics with the exception of the permutat~s::~ 

that I've discussed above. 

We then bring in data from CBECS again r : 

heating fuel types, again, if we're going to look Z* 

electrically versus fossil fuel heated buildings, 

data is available to some extent in CBECS and we -37, 

use that to weight those two permutations. similar:^, 

we can look at the relative percentage of mass versus 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REWRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrau urn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
4L 

framed wall types and in each of those census regions 

or census subregions and use that to weight the 

results for those two permutations so weighting by 

heating fuel, wall construction data process. 

Walk a little -- next step down, we have 

the data for each of the representative building types 

for each of the sub-census divisions. We want to 

weight the results for each representative building 

type in here by the total floor space for each of 

those building types in the census division. The next 

step is to aggregate across each of the sub-census 

divisions. 

To do that we need the estimates for total 

construction growth for each sub-census division and 

also at that stage we try to bring in the variation on 

fuel prices across the country prior to doing that 

aggregation, so up to this point, the aggregation 

here, we essentially have site based fuel, site based 

EUI estimates for the whole building by fuel. In this 

case, we'll probably look at electricity and natural 

gas as being representative of fossil fuels. 

Because theref s variation in fuel coscs 

across the country, we try to capture that in this 

step before we aggregate it across all the census 

divisions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
43 

presently, the plan is to use -- af ter 

we've done that, aggregate to a national level using 

EUI'S estimates for sort of the site source energy 

conversion efficiency. There's some question as to 

whether you should do that at the previous step or at 

that step. There's always some question as to what 

that conversion efficiency actually is and we'll 

probably get a lot of comments on that and I hope DOE 

can look at that and think what's the best way to do 

that particular step. 

And then so finally the result is a 

national average site based energy use intensity for 

the building, BTUs per square foot, source based 

energy use intensity for the building and energy cost 

intensity for the building, dollars per square foot of 

commercial construction. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jason Glazer. 

MR. GLAZER: Jason Glazer, GARD Analytics. 

I'm concerned that the approach being used with the 

number of permutations and the weighting is overly 

simplistic. It seems like there's a lot more factors 

in the standard and as many of you know I've recently 

completed very similar analysis and I found that I 

needed well over 12,000 simulation runs to properly 

capture the effect of the standard and the approach 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
44 

that was outlined here and also in the paper implies 

that it can be done with about 600 runs. 

I just don't see any justification for 

that level of simplicity on the importance of this 

determination. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you describe what 

additional elements you would have the Department 

consider and undertake? 

MR. GLAZER: Well, one of the elements 

Dave was talking about already is window to wall 

ratio. That's a definite that needs to be explored. 

Building size, he also mentioned in important, but I 

think that should be included in the permutations. 

Others would be more variations in 

envelope construction, more variations in cooling 

equipment chosen, more variations in heating equipment 

chosen. 

MR. %ROO : Choose one of them. Let's 

take heating or cooling equipment. He's doing a class 

by class comparison, I presume. What would you 

suggest? 

MR. GMZER: Did you say for cooling 

equipment? 

MR. BROC> : Yes, or heating. 

MR. GLAZER: Well, for cooling equipment 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHISTON, 0.C. 200053701 www. nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
I think his plan right now is to do a single type of I 

cooling equipment and it ignores smaller patched 1 

equipment like room air conditioners and also ignores I 

chillers. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So in your analysis you've 

done a much broader distribution in your simulations. 

MR. GLAZER: Yes, I have. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other things that 

stand out for you that the Department should consider 

if they were to expand their analysis beyond tke 

methodology described here? 

MR. GLAZER: I guess in general I'd 

recommend an approach that's at least as thorough as 

what I've chosen and the report that wef re going to be I 

f 

publishing fairly soon, wef 11 be outlining exactly zfie I 

steps we took and I'd be happy to discuss those ;n 

more detail. 

MR. BRCOWM: Okay, and "weu being 3XR2 

Analytics? 

MR. GLAZER: That's correct. 

MR. BRCO : Okay. David or Jean, I :, 

you have questions Dr fsllow on from Jason's -- 

MR. WINZARSKI : I might mention cw.: 

things. One, I would like, Jason, for you, as we zcv* 

through some of those areas to make public comments .R 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RWODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 EX?ITI 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
things you'd like to see or variations expanded again. 

This was sort of the overview of the process. I think 

there will be a place for that in a number of the 

other slides. And two, I don't know if it's possible, 

I know that you're going through sort of the internal 

peer review. I don't know if it's possible to get an 

overview of a lot of those permutations that you 

looked at sent in early to DOE. I know we've 

discussed them. I don't have all of them and so that 

would be useful. 

MR. BOULIN: We've been invited to revlew 

that work. We appreciate the invitation and lcoic 

forward to looking at the work. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me say that these two 

1 

pages of diagrams, these flow charts I think are i 

especially useful so I thank the Department and FXXL I 

for taking the time and trouble to array it this way I 

I think it makes it followable, whereas otherwise ,* 

would not be. So thanks. 

MR. WINIARSKI : Briefly, I' 11 touch or, ze 

of the -- why we use a generic building approach t.r 

this type of analysis. I discussed briefly *r 

generic building and it's a three story protor-+ 

One of the feelings that we have is as we've seen wfc? 

some other work that's been done, particularly T: 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrosr, eern 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
47 

State codes there is a tendency to grab a building and 

model it, an existing building and one of the issues 

with that is that it can bias the results 

significantly one way or the other. 

That's part of the rationale behind 

choosing a generic prototype because choosing very 

specific buildings often doesn't add any value when 

you're trying to develop a national estimate unless 

you develop many more permutations or a whole bunch of 

building designs for your analysis that rapidly expand 

beyond the capabilities of our lab, at least, to deal 

with. 

What is important is to establish the 

characteristics that distinguish one class of building 

from one another. Those building characteristics 

chiefly will focus upon building envelope, equipment 

usage, the building schedules and, in general, we can 

discuss building schedules in terms of the type of 

building although there's quite a bit of variation of 

building schedules and individual building 

construction within each building type, for instance, 

office or retail. 

Again, characterizing a large class of 

buildings that have yet to be built requires 

eliminating as much as possible orientation and other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross m 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
48 

biases that would exist in choosing the actual 

buildings or actual buildings that are under 

construction or have been constructed. 

Basically, this is an overview of the 

generic building prototype against three story, 

15-zone. We have major parameters such as internal 

loads and schedules that differ by the type or 

representative type of building, again, the office 

retail warehouse. We then can use these individual 

zones which are in all different orientations to scale 

the results from this building to larger and,smaller 

buildings. 

The existing prototype that we use is a 

48,000 square foot building. That was chosen as being 

a very median size building, based on CBECS data and 

curiously it's a median size building for a large 

number of prototypes, if you actually look through the 

data. Typically, you have around 40,000 to 50,000 

square feet as being the median of the buildings for 

I think office retail and a number of others. 

The systems that we try to model in this, 

again, we model the envelope, we model the interior 

lighting, power density for the building and those 

schedules thereof. For HVAC equipment, we model the 

different equipment efficiencies and the standard. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
49 

Again, we are trying to use a weighted aggregate and 

the efficiencies or how we weight that or how we 

develop that aggregate efficiency actually does take 

into account a large number of both roof top systems 

as well as things like package terminal units, what 

we've done in the past. We've looked at shipments for 

package terminals, looked at the shipments for roof 

tops and tried to come up with sort of an average 

efficiency for all those. 

Again, the economizer usage, what we're 

looking at is modeling, the economizer use as a 

permutation and then as described in the analysis, 

looking for each individual climate the total amount 

of equipment that would be or would have an economizer 

installed for that climate based on the shipped 

capacity of equipment. 

Service water hearing is modeled in the 

building. There's a number of issues of how you model 

service water heating that we'd like to get input on. 

The present proposal is to size systems based on the 

ASH- Handbook fundamentals and develop both a 

standby loss for an average water heater based on 

shipments as well as the load or the energy used that 

goes to meeting the water load in the building. 

One of the things that we don't model very 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
50 

well is losses from the system components of the 

service water heating system, the tools that we have 

simply don't do that very well and that's an issue in 

the analysis. Again, that's one of those issues that 

we tried to look at in the qualitative analysis. This 

is the model results. This is how much we can be off 

because of those type of system effects. 

Infiltration in buildings is modeled 

again. We have assumptions built in for the model for 

the infiltration in the perimeter zones. What it out? 

We don' t model elevators? We don' t model cooking. Xe 

don't model exterior lighting. We have assumed base 

plug loads for the building. Those don't chacge?. 

between the 90.1-89 and 90.1R standards. So there's 

-- when you're coming up with a final percentage 

savings, you must be cognizant of the fact that these 

other uses were not included in the baseload. I tkrnx 

that's relevant. 

It is not terribly relevant for 

certainly elevators and cooking are not terr~c1y 

relevant for DOE' s determination of energy savlnqs 

But they are relevant when you're looking at sort f 

a percent improvemenr. 

MR. BROC : Jason Glazer. 

MR. GLAZER: Jason Glazer, GARD Analyt 1 :s 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM: ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nea 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
51 

You mentioned some difficulties in modeling service 

water heaters. One thing that you might want to 

consider doing is instead of using BLAST, use the DOE2 

simulation engine. It has a pretty good water heater 

model. In addition to DOE2, I think it's probably 

used a little more widespread. The BLAST generally 

has probably a little more industry consensus as far 

as its applicability. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That's a 

helpful comment. So what I heard you saying there, 

Dave, is that -- well, let me clarify. These ite~s 

that are out, they weren't modeled previously in 

90.1-89 or 90.1-R and so that's consistent with what 

you said earlier on about this being a standard r3 

standard comparison. 

MR. WINIARSKI: The types of issues yr~ 

get into are things like motor requirements that wczll 

have gone into elevators and efficiency requiremenrs 

That may be different between the two standards, jzi 

that we would not be addressing. Primarily, a:s: 

those things are impacted by other federa, 

legislation. The cooking again is not ~ometP:;:~g 

that's covered in the standard, although there i:e 

things that affect, or there are building HVAC Icaas 

that may be affected by cooking usage. That's -:- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 www nealrpm (lm\ 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
52 

modeled in our work. 

Again, what we tend to look at are -- 

there are aspects again of cooking that -- for 

instance, washing or hot water usage for restaurants, 

that would get modeled. It will be based on whatever 

schedules and hot water use intensities we have. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional questions on 

these slides? 

Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: On the issue of schedules, I 

recommend that the schedules that you should use would 

be the ones that appear in the compliance supplement 

which was developed by 90.1 committee members which is 

going to be published as part of the User's Manual. 

Those are a good set of schedules and a lot of thought 

was put into them, although there are a few small 

errors which I can discuss with you later. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Okay. Yes, I would be 

interested. Jason, is that what you've used for the 

GARD Analytics analysis? 

MR. GLAZER: Yes, I did. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on this 

before we move on to the next slide? 

Okay, let's keep moving, Dave. We're 

going to go for about another 15 minutes. Then we're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
53 

going to take a break. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Again, talking a little 

bit about the schedules that have been proposed, the 

schedules and plug loads that have been proposed were 

based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989 work. Those schedules, we 

looked at them back in 1995 and 1996 and felt that 

there were some issues with how representative those 

would be and based on a number of different utility 

studies, metering studies, including one of the 

largest commercial building metering studies that was 

done in the U. S., was done at Pacific Northwest Lab 

back in the early part of the 1990~~ that's this ELCAP 

study that's referenced. And the schedules were 

modified thereof. 

The schedules, if I can make available to 

those who have interest in them, they're fairly 

detailed and there's a discussion of those schedules 

in a 1996 work that was produced looking at equipment 

efficiencies for EPACT covered products and I believe 

it's referenced in the paper. 

Again, plug load densities, similarly from 

the same source. Ventilation requirements. Our plan 

was to base the ventilation requirements on Standard 

62-1989. Generally, those requirements are roughly 15 

to 20 CFM per person. That is the requirements and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
54 

the standard for new construction. Again, that's one 

of the areas where there may be significant variation 

between what's required in the standard and what 

1 actually gets put in in practice and if there's any I 

comments that people want to make thereof, that would 

be useful information. 

The present proposal looks at the envelope 

characteristics. It assumes an average window to wall 

ratio by each building type based on the CBECS data 

source. The U-values for the walls and roofs that 

would go into the prototype building are based on the 

selective version of Standard 90.1 and the selected 

walls and roof types for the analysis. I'll go into 

that in a little more detail later. 

For 90.1-89 they're also a function of the 

window-wall ratio for the building. In general, the 

attempt at 90.1-89 was to produce a constant whole 

building U-value, so if you added lots of windows you 

had to modify the construction of those windows to 

make them more efficient. 

The solar heat gain coefficient or shading 

coefficient, depending on which version of the 

standard you choose to reference is also based again 

on the standard version and on the window-wall ratio 

chosen for the building prototype. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHtWTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
The proposed study does only assume 

single-zone equipment. It does cover a wide range of 

products or the aggregate efficiency would cover a 

wide range of products that would use single zone 

equipment, but -- or would be considered single zone 

equipment, but it does not address central systems. 

There's a lot of issues with modeling 

central systems. They certainly, I don't feel, could 

be modeied terribly effectively with a scalable 

building model. You have lots of issues where you're 

modeling in terms of how you've zoned the building. 

It's relatively easy to make a change in building 

zoning that can drastically affect the whole building 

energy use. 

What I have proposed is to look at thls 

from the point of view of the determination and can we 

effectively address the relative change in enerw 

performance in the buildings for centrally zcned 

systems by looking at the efficiencies of the 

centrally zoned system as compared to the efficienc:ee 

of the single zoned package system, again, the 

qualitative matter saying yeah, this system appears i3 

be more efficient and then making the point that chs 

base thermal loads in the building are essentially :he 

same in both systems. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASWINGTON. D C. 200053701 www nea 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
56 

That may not be the most appropriate way 

to do it. There's some other methods we can look at. 

One would be to basically do some comparison 

sensitivity studies where we take a given building 

size, zoned in a given way and compare the relative 

energy use for a central system in 90.1-89 and 

90.1-99. We may want to look at that for some of the 

-- or for the types -- the building representative 

types that we think are some of the less well 

performing in terms of the energy savings. 

Obviously, there's some issues here. You 

don't see a lot of large central zoned chillers 

applied to warehouse building construction types. So 

there's some issues in how you would choose that 

representative type for the sensitivity study. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason. 

MR. GLAZER : Jason Glazer, GARD Analyt ics 

I guess you're bringing a flaw of the way that t-c 

building zoning methodology that you' re using IS 

applicable. 

The fact that central systems don't scaae 

well with the zone by zone approach that you're usizq 

is a real problem and I guess I would encourage you * 2 

reconsider that and perhaps look at whole buildizq 

EUIS with central systems as well as the zone by zcEa 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www. nealrgnxrr c~rn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
57 

evaluation because I think the central systems are 

really a critical part of 90.1 and as you say there is 

a possibility that including them would reduce the 

energy savings and if that's the case it's possible 

that your determination by excluding that type of 

equipment could end up being overestimated as savings. 

So I think I guess I'd really recommend that you not 

follow the approach of ignoring central systems. 

MR. WINIARSKI : I think I may have 

misspoke there. And again, it gets into what your 

definition of energy savings is. I don't think 

including central systems will reduce the energy 

savings in terms of the absolute magnitude of energy 

savings for the country. 

It may reduce the percent of energy 

savings that you get, but essentially you are -- what 

you have in a -- or the issues that you're faced with 

in central savings typically are you have higher fan 

statics, often with central systems. You have more 

chances or needs for reheating of previously cooled 

air in the system. But those are system efficiency 

changes. 

They are not a change in the base thermal 

loads or what I consider the base thermal loads in the 

building that are developed from the envelope and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgrws com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
58 

internal loads or internal gains in the building. 

The issue would be if there was a 

significant reduction in total system efficiency for 

central chiller boiler systems as compared to single 

package zoned systems and I haven't seen any evidence 

that there would be in the case with the standard, 

although that's one of the issues I'd like people to 

comment on. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason. 

MR. GLAZER: Well, I think that the loads 

are very different for central systems assuming you 

use a variable air volume approach. I don't think you 

can make the assertion there that you're making, that 

you don't believe it's necessary and have a feel for 

what the energy savings will be. I think that's the 

reason to do an analysis is to discover just that and 

MR. WINIARSKI: It would be useful, Jason, 

if you can elaborate on where you think those spec1 f lc 

differences might be in written comment. 

MR. BROOKMAN: And beyond those 

differences, Jason, I heard you say a moment ago 

questioning the basic approach and so if you could say 

either now or in your written comments how that basic 

approach might get accomplished by the Department that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
22 

would be helpful. 

MR. GLAZER: I'd be glad to, in written 

comments. 

MR. WINIARSKI: In particular, one of the 

issues or one of the reasons for the scalable approach 

is to develop an aggregated estimate. Obviously, 

there's some tradeoffs and what we're discussing here 

is one of the tradeoffs between aggregating up to a 

national number effectively and modeling sort of a 

more specific building. 

MR. BROOKMAN: What I hear Dave, I think 

trying to characterize here is a kind of a best bang 

for the buck that methodology that tries to be 

adequately -- address complexity adequately, but not 

as vigorously as Jason, you said, by ail the 

simulations and runs you did in your analysis. 

That's what I think I hear being 

described. 

MR. GLAZER: There's a point at wk;ch 

over-optimizing and reducing the number of simuiatlons 

starts introducing larger errors. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. GLAZER: And I think that the proposal 

being laid out here is probably in that territory. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So that's where the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
60 

Department would benefit best from your comments on 

the methodology and also what you used as the basis, 

both methodologically and data wise. 

Okay, how are we -- I'd like to do one 

more slide and then we're going to take a break. 

MR. WINIARSKI: That's probably a good 

time for this. Again, the plan to use the 11 

representative climates that I showed before in the 

flow chart, those climates briefly were the result of 

a clustering, statistical clustering analysis of the 

data from 230 odd TMY weather tapes. I think that 

work was done back in the early part of the 1990s. 

Basically, looking at 11 different climate 

parameters developed for each of those weather sites 

and statistically determining a set of climates, in 

this case, a relatively small set of climates that 

best represented national weather data for specific, 

for another large section of climates. 

Those same climates were used by the 90.1 

Committee in developing 90.1-99. There is a summary 

in the back of I believe what got put out on the 

website or if it's not there, it can be sent out to 

anyone, that describes that process and how that was 

developed. I think there were a number of papers that 

were actually published based on that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
61 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason. 

MR. GLAZER: I have a comment about every 

slide, of course. I looked over that paper carefully 

and it seems to me the concept behind it was to select 

cities without knowing the eventual climate variation 

of the standard. 

It was developed, the methodology was 

developed prior to any kind of specific climatological 

distinctions in the standard and I think using it now 

creates a bit of a flaw in the analysis because right 

now we do know what the climate variation and the 

standard is and it seems to me if you want to capture 

any effect of climate, the best thing to do is to look 

at the climate bins of the 1989 standard and the 1999 

standard and make a determination, perhaps to a 

clustering analysis of all TMY cities within each one 

of those climates and determine what the best 

representative cities are, but the 11 that were chosen 

ignore some climates that have significant 

construction and in fact, end up overloading some of 

the climate bins in the 1999 standard that are all, 

have identical criteria. 

So if you're talking about bang for the 

buck, this isnl t necessarily the best way to do it. 

I think you're actually doing more simulations in some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
62 

areas that are not going to give you really any added 

benefit. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Jason, in your analysis 

there were 14, is that right? 

MR. GLAZER: Actually, I ended up finding 

that 10 climates were sufficient, but the climates 

that I chose were based on the trying to find a city 

that was most representative of the 90.1-99 climate 

bins as they appear in the envelope section. 

MR. WINIARSKI: So it looked at the, 

again, it looked at the changes or it looked at the 

requirements and then picked cities that were 

representative of the requirements? 

MR. GLAZER: That's right. 

MR. WINIARSKI: And then -- 

MR. GLAZER: That way I captured as much 

as possible variation in the requirements of the 

standard. 

I think these 11 cities were very good for 

the development of the standard, but in the evaluat ron 

of the standard I think they are really not the most 

representative things that could be chosen. 

MR. BROOKMAN: And so would you also 

provide those -- that analysis to the Department? 

MR. GLAZER: Well, Jean will be seeing it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
63 

next week at the peer review. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right, I'd like to be 

looking at the overlap there. I think that there is 

obviously an issue of whether you look at sort of the 

base climatological data and try and represent that 

first and then choose the cities or the -- let the 

standard sort of fall into that mix of base 

climatological data or whether you pick the -- use the 

standard to direct your choice of climatological data, 

but yeah, that will be good to look at. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 

climate slide? 

Okay, I see none. It's now 10:45. ~'rn 

going to suggest we go to break. Before I do let me 

say those of you who walked into the building with 

computers, personal PCs, laptops, you probably need to 

get a property pass to get it back out if you haven't 

already signed up for one. They're serious about 

security in this building, typically, so when you 

leave here today, make sure you've got your vis~tor's 

tag clipped to you somewhere. 

The snackbar is one floor below us and 

across the hall. There's stairs about 50 feet that 

way and the restrooms are also down on that end and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealqross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
64 

also on the very opposite end of the hall. 

So it's now 10:45. Let's start up back 

again at 11. Have I forgotten any other housekeeping 

items? 

MR. BOULIN: I think that's about it. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for a good start 

this morning. We'll commence at 11. 

(Off the record.) 

MR. BROOKMAN: One housekeeping item, 

regarding the computers and the property passes that 

you'll require to get out of the building. How many 

of you have computers with you today? Just: one or two 

of you, just a few of you. 

Do you have a property pass yet? You do, 

you're all set. We want to make sure. Because they 

won't let you out. 

Let me float one other housekeeping :cem 

past you. It seems like we're making real good 

progress moving through the slides and I know we have 

a few written comments and perhaps some other thlngs 

to be said once we go through the slides as we 

anticipate. 

I'd like to suggest though if we get on 

towards noon or 12 : 15 or 12 : 30 and we' re getting near 

the end of this material that we just plug on through 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
65 

it and not break for lunch at that time and call it an 

early day and press on with it. That would be my 

suggestion. I checked with a few of you at the break, 

that seemed to work for everybody. 

Does anybody have an objection to doing it 

that way? Speak now. Okay, we' re going to do it that 

way. 

becomes opportunity, take 

it. We're not here to truncate this, but if we're 

moving right along as we have been, we'll press on 

with that plan. 

Okay, Dave, it's yours. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Briefly, this slide simply 

is a map of the climate locations in the country and 

in general, the areas that have been weighted to those 

climate locations. 

The proposed study is based on seven 

commercial building types that are in bold on this 

table: office, mercantile and service or retail, as 

I refer to it often, education, lodging, public 

assembly, food service and warehouse and storage. 

Together, those represent I believe it's close to 70 

percent of energy use in this country based on CBECS 

energy data. 

What we actually propose to do is and this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
gets a little bit into how we eventually do the 

analysis and actually gets into the window-wall ratio 

discussion, but the 1995 CBECS, the most recent 

version out breaks health care both into in-patient 

and out-patient health care. 

In some previous work we considered the 

fraction of buildings that were in-patient health care 

basically 24-hour type facilities as hospitals as one 

building category and then took the fraction that was 

out-patient health care, essentially clinics and 

lumped those in with offices in terms of coming up 

with a prototype for the building, they typically have 

similar schedules, similar internal loads. 

I don't know that that can be done with 

the previous version of CBECS quite as easily, so that 

may be an issue in terms of where we proceed with the 

window-wall ratio discussion later on. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason has a question. 

MR. GLAZER: You said that clinics, you 

thought, had similar hours of operation and internal 

loading to offices. That's not been my experience 

with them. They usually have higher loads and often 

longer operation. 

I was wondering if you had any data to 

support that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
67 

MR. WINIARSKI : Probably not as much as 

we'd like and I think that's one of the areas that we 

should probably look at the 1995 CBECS data and 

potentially if other people have sources of 

information that might change that assumption, I think 

it would be useful to bring them into the mix. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason, is it your comment 

that clinics would be more like say a hospital, 24 

hour service, than they would be more like an office 

building? 

MR. GLAZER: That was the conclusion that 

I came to 

MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, interesting. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Because clinics generally 

do have usually very long hours of operation and any 

more they have a lot of high power equipment in them 

also. It's not unusual to see MRI and lots of x-ray 

machinery and such. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting, so I'm sure 

that -- getting support for that -- of that data, chat 

sort of thing would be very useful for the Department. 

MR. WINIARSKI: And one option is simply 

to -- if we want to remove that building type again 

from the office building category as being not well 

represented, I'm not sure that there isn't enough 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
68 

variation both in each building type, there's probably 

a lot of overlap and there will be different extremes. 

I'm not sure that we will have enough information to 

characterize them as substantially different, but 

whatever can be provided will be great. 

One key building type or I should say not 

a key building type but one that's been discussed and 

was not brought into this analysis was multi-family 

housing. Multi-family housing above three stories is 

covered by the standard and CBECS, in its residential 

counterpart, the Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey, really don' t do a very good job of defining 

multi-family housing above three stories, either in 

terms of energy use or even total building square 

footage 

I have some data from Ron Nickson of che 

~ulti-Housing Council and have looked at :hat. 

Believe that when you actually examine rniz it 

actually falls below warehouse and storage. In f~ct, 

I think it falls below food service. It represents 

perhaps one and a half to two percent of the exergy 

use for buildings that would be covered by type 

standard . 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: We ended up using a similar 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
methodology as this to choose buildings that we used 

in our analysis, but instead of annual energy use, we 

looked at floor space as a criteria to select the 

buildings and one of the reasons for that is energy 

use is what's directly affected by the standard and 

seem to be -- have the potential of slightly skewing 

the results. 

And the result of that ended up being that 

food service was not on our list and worship was, that 

ends up being a larger floor space area. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right, and that gets into 

sort of the issue, like we discussed with envelope, 

whether you direct your analysis based on the 

standards requirements or whether you base them 

directed on sort of a more fundamental basis. 

In general, I was going to ask, in 

general, the building types are real similar though. 

MR. GLAZER: Yes, they are. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Between both studies. 

MR. BROOKMAN : Does anyone have any 

opinions as to whether we should be addressing 

multi-family housing in this? The legislation makes 

a separate distinction between residential and 

commercial buildings. 

Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
70 

MR. WINIARSKI: Again, these are the three 

permutations that I've really thought are the most 

significant with possiblythe exception of the central 

to single zone type equipment. They are wall 

constructions, I know that the electric resistance 

versus fossil fuel heating sources has been brought up 

before and I think that we're sort of obligated to 

look at that as a significant issue. 

And economizer usage, economizer usage is 

one of those areas where I think the 90.1, the 

stringency of the requirements in 90.1-99 have backed 

down. There were more economizers required in more 

climates, but there is some variation in that because 

the requirements cover more sizes of equipment in 

90.1-99, but less climates. 

So the impact of that is something that we 

really wanted to study. Let me drop back here for a 

second. 

Again, we have proposed steel frame 

construction as the characteristic or most 

characteristic construction representative of light 

weight. Again, this gets a little bit into the issue 

of doing aggregations because the data source that we 

primarily use for some of this does not do a good job 

of distinguishing construction by actual wall 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200013701 www.neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
71 

construction, but rather by the surf ace 

characteristics, what it looks like on the outside 

surface, whether it's got a masonry finish or whether 

it has a wood finish, something like that. And less 

in terms of how the wall was actually constructed. So 

any information that people have that looks at the 

relative amount of construction of the different types 

of steel frame, mass wall, metal building would be 

useful. 

With the steel frame the present analysis 

assumes the use of a built up roof. That is to 

simplify the analysis, in general, in 90.1 -- well, 

the requirements in 90.1 are the least stringent for 

the most part are the least stringent for the built up 

roof assumptions and so we consider that conservative 

assumption on our part in terms of presenting energy 

savings. The requirements for the other roof 

constructions, for instance, wood frame with attic are 

generally much more stringent and have lower U-values. 

One of the questions that I had and an 

issue that I'd like to get input if anyone has data 

on, again, we chose steel framing as representative of 

most building types. I don't know that it is -- I 

think that's probably true for -- in terms of a 

lightweight wall construction for most new commercial 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
72 

building. I have some question about warehouse. 

There's a significant amount, I think it's on the 

order of 10 to 11 percent of new commercial 

construction that's done using metal building, 

Butler-type building construction and anecdotal 

information suggests that a large number of warehouses 

would be constructed that way. But I don't have any 

data source to show that. 

One of the reasons that may be important 

is that for warehouse construction, the metal building 

walls typically are less well insulated than the other 

building types and so if there's a significant amount 

of heating usage in metal or in warehouses, then 

having a less insulated wall becomes significant. 

Again, another question that I have about 

warehouses and I'd like to get whatever data we can is 

how should we treat them in 90.1-99. In the 

development of the standard, warehouses were sort of 

linked to what's called a semi-heated space. 

Basically, the definition of a semi-heated space rn 

90.1-99 is a space that -- where the total heating 

capacity has been limited to a certain amount. That 

amount varies by climate, but in general, the idea was 

that you limit the heating capacity in the space so 

that the temperature in the space is never such that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
73 

there's a lot of heating usage. 

The internal temperature to external 

temperature variation is low. That's probably a 

relatively good assumption for most warehouses, at 

least most nonrefrigerated warehouses and in general, 

when I've done the analysis here, I think of 

warehouses as one category and refrigerated warehouses 

as a separate category and not including refrigerated 

warehouses. 

But there is some question as to what 

should be chosen as the typical heating setpoint 

temperature. A lot of warehouse buildings are heated 

primarily to prevent freezing, heated to 40 degrees. 

That was not how the requirements were developed. I 

believe the requirements were developed In 30.1-99 

based on a 55 degree heating temperature. 9;t ~t's 

not clear that that's a terribly good example far -.lost 

warehouse construction. 

Another issue that I'd like to get sxe 

feedback on from people is the assumptions for 32tcack 

and setup in the building. The building temperacsre 

setback is not mandated in the standard, however, the 

requirement for the capability to use setbac~ is 

mandated. In general, 90.1-99 has taken the apprcach 

of what they can mandate, what can be inspected by the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE . N W 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005.3701 www nealrgross can 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
74 

building official. Obviously, things that deal with 

how things are controlled are difficult to assess and 

so what they've done is mandated the requirement. 

Some background data, CBECS suggest that 

virtually all buildings utilize some setback. 

Anecdotal information suggests that that's not 

terribly true and so any input either anecdotal or 

better data sources on that assumption would be 

useful. 

The present assumption is to assume a 

temperature setback in all building types. Pardon me, 

with the exception of warehouse. 

Discussion of window/wall ratio a little 

bit. This table shows the variation in window/wall 

ratio for buildings by building size for each building 

categories and based on the CBECS data source. 

Window/wall ratio is available in the 92 CBECS. It 

was dropped in the 1995 CBECS. Personal conversations 

with people suggest, the Census Bureau suggests one of 

the reasons it was dropped is that there was 

substantial difficulty in understanding the estimates 

for window/wall ratio. 

To give an example of that, if you 

actually go into the data set, there are a large 

number of buildings where the actual window to wall 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISIAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www neaIrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
ratio is expressed to 75 percent or above. Anyone 

who' s involved in real construction knows that it ' s 

pretty difficult to build a wall that's 75 percent 

glass, particularly when you consider things like 

internal plenums. 

I think that's -- what you get is people 

who have gone out and looked at the buildings from the 

sides to see a curtain/wall construction building and 

have said oh, that's 100 percent glass, and again, 

looking at the outside of the building and not at the 

actual construction. So again, that's one of the 

issues. 

But bearing that in mind, this is the type 

of variation that you see for small and average -- 

small buildings, the entire data set, and large 

buildings, by building,type where the small and large 

have been differentiated by the average building size 

in CBECS. 

What's important here is that you see that 

for office buildings there is substantial variation in 

window/wall ratio reported. For most other building 

types the variation is on the order of 50 percent, so 

choosing something that's an average, at least as a 

function of size here isn't all that significant, but 

for office buildings, which is something that I think 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
76 

most people know intuitively as you get to larger and 

larger buildings, you see a lot more glass used in 

them. And so that may be one of those areas where we 

want to modify the analysis to address either from a 

sensitivity study or from a methodology that can 

actually aggregate the data better. 

MR. CROWDER: Harold Crowder. Dave, just 

a question on that. I'm wondering how you correlate 

these square foot numbers to the 48,000 square foot 

number that you -- 

MR. WINIARSKI : Differences between 

averages and medians. The 48,000 square foot number 

basically represents a median, half the building is 

above, half the building is below in terms of what's 

out there. The average tends to be significantly 

smaller. There are lots of smaller buildings. 

Where that type of information comes into 

play in terms of doing an analysis is obviously when 

you get to smaller buildings there's per square foot 

larger amount of surface area exposed and again, 

that's one of the rationales behind doing the scaling 

is to try to come up with a methodology that can 

really take care of that type of variation. 

MR. CROWDER: Harold Crowder again. Would 

my assumption be correct then that you would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TFWNSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
77 

looking at a window/wall ratio approaching the 39 

percent in your base building, the 48,000 square feet? 

What was the window/wall ratio -- 

MR. WINIARSKI : No. The window/wall 

ratio, I've actually done this two different ways and 

I've come up with -- well, three different ways and 

I've come up with essentially the same answer for the 

two that I think are most representative. This 

window/wall ratio that you see here is basically if 

you took each building in CBECS, applied the 

appropriate weights because each of those buildings 

are a sample, part of a sample set. 

Applied the appropriate weights to that 

sample as to how many buildings in the country it 

represents and averaged them. Not average, not 

weighting by floor space, but averaging across 

buildings. That's what these numbers represent. 

The other way that you can do that or the 

other way that I think is fairly reasonable that you 

can do that is you can go through and for each 

building where you have, where you can take the aspect 

ratio of the building, the number of floors, and you 

make an estimate based on that of the surface area, 

the exposed surface wall area of the building and you 

weight it that way, what happens when you do that is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www neakgrws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
'78 

these numbers vary about 1 percent, 0 to 1 -- I think 

in some cases maybe up to 2 percent from the numbers 

you see here. It's not a significant variation. 

What you don' t want to do and what I think 

is important is you don't necessarily want to weight 

the floor space or weight these buildings by the floor 

space they represent. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason. 

MR. GLAZER: This is a difficult issue, 

especially given that CBECS 92's data is somewhat 

questionable, especially at the larger end of the 

percent of fenestration. 

The approach that I took was to follow the 

categorization that CBECS 92 used, 0 to 10 percent, 11 

to 25 and 26 to 50 percent and then over 50 percent 

and looked at the amount of floor space that each of 

those categories represented for each building type 

and I'm actually doing simulations at each one of 

those window to wall ratios and at the basically the 

medians at each one of those categories and ther, 

weighting the results by the floor space represented 

there. So it's a little different approach and 

actually those numbers look like they're a little more 

clustered than I would have expected. 

There's a little bit -- from my 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
79 

perspective, it seemed like there was a greater 

variation than that. 

MR. WINIARSKI: I would say I agree with 

you, Jason, and one of the points that or one of the 

issues that I wanted to bring up here, I haven't seen 

your analysis, but that is a good way to do it and 

that's my -- this is sort of the -- one is sort of 

what wef re proposing here and then looking at stuff 

from a sensitivity standpoint, what happens if we take 

that building type, where there is substantial 

variation and vary the window/wall ratio, how much did 

that change the answer? 

The other option is to do exactly what 

you've talked about and thatf s my Option 2 here where 

you go through and you take each of the window/wall 

ratio bins and CBECS 92 for each bin or -- establish 

a characteristic window/wall ratio. The bins are 

fairly large and the upper bins are basically 

quartiles of 75 to 100, 50 to 75, but establish some 

characteristic window/wall ratio for that bin that you 

believe is representative and do the aggregation 

thereof so you basically -- window/wall ratio becomes 

a permutation in the analysis and I'm actually 

considering that as pretty strongly one of the 

opt ions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
80 

Again, one of the advantages that you have 

when you do that is that you capture, for each of 

those -- each building type, the entire variation of 

window/wall ratio that you could get in that building 

type and youf 11 find that, for instance, warehouses 

with 50 percent windows drop out because there aren' t 

any. But one of the - - two issues for doing that, one 

- - and the approach that wef ve represented where we 

try and weight all these zones by the aggregate floor 

space, you do -- you force yourself into using the 

1992 CBECS data set. That's not a big issue, but it's 

an issue that has to be addressed. 

Two, picking the characteristic 

window/wall ratio for each bin has to be done. And 

again, one of the proposals that might suggest is for 

that upper bin, you don't use the average, you use 

something like 75 percent or I donf t know what you 

did, but something like that as perhaps more 

representative. 

Anyway, comments that might have come in 

support or in argument wlth that approach would be 

useful. 

MR. BRCO : Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: The approach that I used is 

to look at the over 50 percent bin as not really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 R ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgros.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
influencing where the median is. I set the median by 

the 26 to 50 percent bin. The over 50 percent bin, 

especially for offices, the percentages are probably 

errors in data collection, as you referred to earlier, 

so I think they're safe to ignore that as far as 

setting the median. 

MR. WINIARSKI: So basically you had three 

bins? 

MR. GLAZER: That's right. 

MR. WINIARSKI: The 0 to -- 

MR. GLAZER: Zero to lo, 11 to 25, 26 ED i i 

50 and I did still include the weight of the greater 1 

i 

than 50 percent as part of the 26 to 50 percent bin, 

d 1 

I MR. WINIARSKI: And you used the average ; 

, 

as characteristic for each bin? I 

I 

MR. GLAZER: I used 7 percent window r 3 I 

wall ratio for the O to 10; 18 percent for 11 to :-, 

and 38 percent for the 26 to 50. 

MR. WINImSKI: Okay. 

MR. BROCKYAV: Which includes all aks-;e 

50. 

MR. GLi;ZE2: Xhlch includes all above : 

also in terms of the weighting. 

MR. WINIARSKI: The proposal talks abc,t 

determining envelope requirements. What we propose :a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N W 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 200053701 www neaaprou aan 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
to use ENVSTD for the most recent version is 2.4 which 

is a program that attempts to or is basically -- takes 

the original 90.1-89 envelope regression equations 

used for establishing the envelope U-values and brings 

them into a computer form for people to use. Those 

values in theory should be the most representative of 

what's in the -- the requirements in the standard are. 

For 90.1-99, there are prescriptive envelope tables of 

U-values for each of the constructions and we wo~ld 

use those as the primary data source. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: I ended up not using ENVSC3 

in my analysis mostly because computationally it's tce 

intensive and I'm interested to know what the approacn I 

is going to be that you're going to use more precisely 

because ENVSTD doesn't give you an answer. It gives 

you a whole set of possible answers and then you nesl 

to optimize using some other variables to choose whl:: 

one of those answers you want to use and that's a very 

labor and computationaily intensive process that I I: I 

not think it was -- I personally didn't think it wls 

worth it because the ACP tables in the 1989 standar I 

are only slightly different than the results of t:.- 

ENVSTD . 

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you describe brie:ly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross m 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
83 

what methodology you used? 

MR. GLAZER: I used the ACP tables. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Just took them as they are? 

MR. GLAZER: That's right. And I think 

that there's -- this was a simplification on my part, 

but greatly reduced the number of other assumptions 

that have to make in using the ENVSTD also. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Just to add something 

here, I think that this is one of those areas where 

the qualitative analysis comes in really useful. 

There are obviously two different ways to do this. 

There are two different approaches to 

compliance for the 90 .l-89 standard and given that 

there are two different sets of baselines that you can 

have, just on this one particular variable and I think 

this is something that we should bring into the 

qualitative analysis in looking at the comparisons 

between what we come up with for the 90.1-89 ENVST3 

method and then the ACP table method. 

MR. BROOKMAN: How are you going to kc-l 

picking the values with ENVSTD? 

MR. WINIARSKI: What I will probably have 

is have Mark Halverson who has done this before speak 

to you a little bit more directly on that. The 

analysis that was done for the federal, proposed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
84 

federal standard is the ENVSTD equations. As you 

said, the ENVSTD basically gives you a method to trade 

off, once you assess what window to wall ration you1 re 

going to have to trade off the U-value requirements 

for the windows and the walls. 

And I believe what he did at that point 

was to look at sort of an optimum from an economic 

standpoint in using the cost data for the window and 

wall constructions that were used in development of 

the standard, pick what seemed to be the most 

reasonable set of window U-value and wall U-value 

criteria for a given construction type. Yes, it's 

labor intensive. 

Again, the cooling efficiency will be 

based on shipped capacity weighting of the 

efficiencies of packaged cooling equipment. We're 

going to bring in the smaller three phase 65,000 btu 

per hour cooling equipment now that we have -- at 

least what we think are reasonable estimates of the 

amount of shipments in that category that would go 

into commercial construction. 

So a minor bug in this second bullet here, 

account for the allowed 0.2 EER deduction for the 

equipment for which that's in the standard. 

Basically, I wish Larry Westley was here. He could 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
85 

speak to that a little bit, but that is a deduction 

that the standard allows for nonelectric heating 

systems in the unitary packaged equipment. Basically, 

the reason for the allowance is the pressure drop over 

the heating section for a gas, for instance, for a gas 

heating system it's larger. It's significant fan 

energy. 

What we propose to do is based on the 

given piece of equipment, go through and that fan 

pressure drop turns out also to be on the order of two 

tenths of an inch that would correspond to that 

particular 0.2 EER deduction and so we built that into 

the model. 

And then as we talked about before we use 

a shipment weighted economizer usage by each census 

division. There is an improvement in jacket loss for 

both gas and electric furnaces that is built into the 

90.1-99 standard. I shouldn't say improvement. There 

is a requirement in the development of the standard, 

manufacturers commented that the jacket loss in both 

gas and commercial furnaces was on the order of 1.5 

percent. That was used in the baseline development 

A requirement for a :acket loss no greater than 0.75 

percent was mandated in the standard and we have 

proposed the use of that. I think that's an area I'd 

NfEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
like to get some comment on from manufacturers, if I 

possible. 

We need that basically to come up with a 

thermal efficiency for furnaces which goes into the 

simulation. The standard doesn't rate a thermal 

efficiency for furnaces. It rates a combustion 

efficiency and so what we've said is a thermal 

efficiency is essentially equal to the combustion 

efficiency minus jacket losses. And as I said we used 

the ASHRAE Applications Handbook to size the servrce 

hot water heating systems to come up with the 

characteristic standby loss versus energy used ?x 1 

serve the load in hot water systems. 

Again, we're really into details here. 

Fan power assumptions. I discussed that in the wrrte 

up. Fan power and lighting are two very similar 

issues in terms of how you treat them in the standarj 

and what you assume for them in that they both have an 

impact on -- a direct r-pact on energy use as weli AS 

an impact on the loads 3f the building. 

What we pr~pcsed is to use a one acd r 

quarter inch base stacbz zstal static pressure for '-:.- 

systems to which we have bullt in some adders that IX-c 

defined by building type, what we believe rra 

characteristic. These were also used in some of tEc 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RWDE ISLAND AVE., N W 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 www nealrproiu cc~, 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
commercial equipment standards work that's been done 

recently. And then adders for both these and 

economizers and the gas furnace as I talked about 

before. 

Again, the gas furnace adder is designed 

to provide a constant compressor performance for the 

system, the cooling system. 

One of the issues with fan static 

obviously is that the standard -- go ahead. 

MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone. I think yo~ 

missed a slide, lighting density, power densities. 

I 

Did we discuss that? It was mechanical. i 

MR. WINIARSKI: Let me drop back here. i ! 

I 

After mechanical, there's a slide that's missing? , I 

MR. BROOKMAN: No, before mechanical. J 

MR. WINIARSKI: Okay. It did go througn. 

Let me talk about that one then. 

Let me finish doing fan power for a 

second. 1/11 come back to that. Obviously, one t 

the issues with fan power is the standard doesn't see, 

the standard has a limit that's probably at the k~rn 

limit of what would t!..olcally be used for this systew 

Generally, I think the limit is on the order of three 

inches and you're allowed extra allowances so le "5 

hard to know what you should actually set it for, tr:e 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE.. N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000!3-3701 www nealrgrfas rsnt 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
88 

extra allowances, if you've got extra filtration 

systems or something. 

What we've done is try to assume what's a 

reasonable basis to come up with for this particular 

system type. If we went to a different system type, 

for instance, the central system, you would probably 

have higher fan statics. And again, this work comes 

out of, these numbers basically come out of 

discussions with manufacturers and 90.1 Committee 

Members. 

1/11 drop back here. Lighting power 

densities. Sorry, I missed that, Jim. That's a very 

significant area of discussion. The present proposal 

uses the whole building approach that's in both 

90.1-89 and 90.1-99 for determining the lighting power 

densities used for the simulations. I think that 

there's some really good arguments to be made that 

it's -- that that's the appropriate or the most 

appropriate number to be used in terms of representing 

the savings that you're going to get by the standard, 

but we're looking for a lot of input on this 

particular issue. 

90.1-89 and 90.1-99 both the whole 

building approaches attempt to capture the variation 

in lighting power density that you would find ir, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
89 

commercial buildings of given categories. And what 

1 they've done is they've mandated a prescriptive 

requirement for a maximum lighting power density in 

those buildings. 

There's a second approach to compliance, 

however in both and that's a space by space approach 

where you go through your building, each individual 

space, the office, the hallway, the restroom and you 

have a requirement that you have to meet for those 

spaces. You add up all the requirements in terms of 

the lighting power for each of those spaces in the 

building and then the compliance requirement is that 

you have to have a total lighting power density less 

than that number that you get from adding up each 

individual space by space component. 

It's difficult in using the space by space 

method to come up with a direct comparison, primarily 

because the 90.1-89 or the basis of the requirements 

in 90.1-89 are different than the basis of the 

requirements in 90.1-99 in terms of the 90.1-89 has a 

lighting power density requirement for space that is 

adjusted by an area factor that reflects the -- sort 

of the size of the space, the ceiling height, the wall 

height. You need all that information in the space to 

come up with what the actual lighting power density 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
90 

allowance would be. 

The 90.1-99 requirements already include 

all that information, so they're not a direct one to 

one comparison. 

More importantly, perhaps at issue, I'm 

not sure it's more important, but one of the issues 

with the 90.1-99 requirements is that you have -- 

well, in both cases you have some additional lighting 

power allowances that you can take. Those allowances 

are for specific applications, for instance, for the 

use of special louvered lighting for visual -- video 

display terminals, for illumination of merchandise in 

retail applications. 

Again, the requirements for the -- are by 

application and you don't really have a good idea of 

how often those requirements are actually going to be 

used in practice. It is an issue. It's one that we 

want to try to address in terms of the qualitative 

analysis. 

One approach that we've looked at is to 

take the spaces that the 90.1-99 lighting committee 

used in determining their whole building or their 

space by space and whole building numbers, take those 

spaces, assume that you use the same space by space 

lighting power density requirements from 90.1-89 in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOM ISWD AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
91 

those spaces, generate the effects of the room walls 

and size and develop a comparison table for those 

particular spaces that were used by the lighting 

committee and then add in or look at where those 

additional lighting power allowances would come in, 

how much of the floor space would have to be taken up 

to meet or exceed the 90.1-89 lighting requirement, 

would have to be used in these additional lighting 

power allowances. 

I think that's a real good approach. in 

most cases, those numbers are fairly high on the order 

of maybe of 70 to 80 percent, for instance, in 3 

retail facility would have to use some of those 

additional lighting power allowances. But we' 11 ifzc~ 

at that in some detail. 

The other area that we'd like to jei: 

information on if possible is the fraction -f 

buildings which comply to local energy codes using tile 

space by space as cpposed to the whole buii3:::~ 

met hods . And that ~zformation is going to :e 

difficult to come by. I chink California has a space 

by space approach. XeeSJe made some calls down tkerc 

and got numbers that *.*3ry from as little as five to as 

much as 50 percent, de~ending on building type. 

MR. BROO : Jason and then Harold. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REWTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 200053701 www nea 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
I 92 

MR. GLAZER: The approach that I took, 

this is a very difficult issue and because there's 

multiple paths through both standards, it's difficult 

to say what exactly, a comparison between two 

standards is, but the approach that I took was can you 

design a building -- which is the most lenient path 

for designing a building? And in most cases it's the 

space by space method and I believe that the EPACT 

question is just that. 

Will a building that just complies with 

the 1989 standard use more energy or less energy chan 

a building that complies with the 1999 standard? AE~ 

the problem using the whole building number is that 

they're not necessarily typical design practice 3: 

all. 

I think what real design practice is ,s 

you put your lighting system together and then ycz : 

see if it complies or not and in most cases, in al~:sr 

all cases, given the additional power allowances tzar 

other add ons in both standards, the question will 

yes, almost every lighting system designed will 

both of those and part of the reason is that becad.:- 

electronic ballasts and higher efficiency f luoresc-.:,: 

lighting, it's pretty easy to comply with the standar~ 

and so I think that if you were trying to look at :. d 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgrws rn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
93 

the impact of the lighting sections will affect actual 

lighting practice design in the country. 

On a typical basis, the answer should 

probably be it will have no impact. If your question 

is buildings that minimally comply with both 

standards, then I think you have to look at the 

performance path or space by space method on a 

quantitative basis. That's the approach that I took 

and I think it's the one that's most warranted. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harold. 

MR. CROWDER: Yes, my question is actually 

back on the mechanical, your last slide of the 

mechanical. Just clarification, what I thought you 

said was in the 1989 version the base static fan 

pressure could be 3 and in this modeling you're 

actually going to reduce that down to 1.25, is that 

correct? 

MR. WINIARSKI: Not quite. The maximum 

allowed static pressure for both standards, I donf t 

have the number off the top of my head, but it's 

approximatelythree inches, but you are allowed excess 

fan static for things like filtration requirements acd 

such, so there's really no defined limit. What we've 

chosen to use is use what we consider a typical number 

and this might get into -- this kind of overlaps with 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross can 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
94 

lighting in that there's an issue here of whether 

you' re choosing numbers that represent most typical or 

what we think are most typical or whether you're using 

numbers that represent sort of the maximum allowance 

of the standard, sort of the worse possible building 

design. 

And similarly, you have the same issue 

with sort of the ACP tables. If you're got two paths 

to compliance, do you choose the least stringent path, 

the worse possible case or do you use one that most 

people you think are going to use? There are 

obviously sort of fundamental definitional issues. 

We'll let DOE work with those. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I believe we're going back 

to mechanical systems now. 

MR. WINIARSKI: I don't need those two. 

MR. BROOKKAN : I think wef re perhaps on 

the third slide under mechanical systems. 

MR. WINIARSKI : I don' t know if there were 

any other questions on the fan power? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: Actually, you just deferred 

to DOE on the decision of whether it's typical or 

maximum which is being evaluated here and I guess I'd 

like to know what DOE'S opinion on this is. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
95 

MR. BOULIN: We've made no decision on 

that factor. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Yes. I think that's one 

of the reasons, at least my understanding is that's 

one of the reasons for this type of workshop is to 

really address these issues as sort of an open forum. 

MR. BOULIN: We' re looking to be informed 

on this. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, say your name 

for the record. 

MR. GREISS: If we are looking a code, we 

should try to see what is the least energy efficient 

way of complying with it and considering this to be 

what we are imposing. We cannot assume good faith 

from the designer if we are imposing a code. 

MR. WINIARSKI: This gets -- if I can 

speak to that a little bit, this gets somewhat into 

the issue of what's the end purpose of this 

determination and I' if speak a little bit, not from 

DOE'S perspective, but from sort of my own 

perspective. 

In terms sf 90.1-99 there are some areas 

where I think there are some substantial improvements 

in energy efficiency. There are also some areas where 

I think that the standard has been relaxed in terms of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOWE lSLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
1 stringency. In areas where people felt that basic 

practice or common practice of commercial designers 

was not to choose these areas where it would be 

terribly less efficient, but there may be particular 

instances where those areas are used. 

An example might be, for instance, in the 

case of retail lighting for jewelry display or 

something like that where there is a reason that a 

building owner has decided to put in a very high 

lighting power density for a specific application and 

a specific area of his building. 

It's not clear that the majority of people 

would choose that path and in fact, if the medlan 

improvement of the standard is better, but the ranqe 

of possible variation is larger it's hard to know hcw 

DOE should make that decision. If that makes sc-e 

sense. There could be wide variation in the eZ3 

produced by the standard if there's wide varlas::n 

allowed in the given requirement. 

MR. IIEISS: Harold Heiss. In --f 

experience with modellnq you look at your project. :r, 

this case it is a m;z:murn standard and I agree w:rn 

that and from that lob you develop your programmlzq 

philosophy. For example, maybe if you had another 

type of job where you were trying to put the maxi-sn 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1 323 RXOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 www nea cam 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
stringency in you might start your modeling in a 

specific -- in that direction to look for the most 

stringent. So the modeling philosophy, I believe, to 

be used should be to gain the minimum standard and 

consistently do that in every section. That's my 

experience in my modeling careering. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Basically, the aggregation 

approach is kind of what we talked about before in the 

flow chart. Extract the zone EUI, convert to 

perimeter and core EUI data for each building floor, 

weight to account to economizer usage and so forth. 

let kind read through that. It's 

basically what was discussed in the flow chart. 

Some key steps -- 

MR. BROOKMAN: Letts make sure everybody 

is comfortable with that slide. There's a lot there. 

This tracks the flow chart which I thought was a very 

helpful and much easier to follow than this slide. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Is everybody comfortable 

with that? Okay. 

MR. WINIARSKI: The aggregation approach, 

some of the details here, we have some -- the Census 

has developed some construction valuation data 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
98 

recently for commercial buildings. We propose to use 

that data and again, it's valuation data so it's like 

dollars per square foot for a given region and so what 

we would do is modify that data somewhat using MEANS 

construction estimates for cost data by square foot 

for each of the Census divisions to come up with an 

estimate of total square foot growth for each -- for 

commercial buildings in each Census division. 

We use CBECS as the primary data source 

for splitting the heating by the two primary fuel 

types, the electric and fossil fuel heating source. 

We would probably lump oil with fossil fuel or with 

gas as a possible fuel source for most commercial 

buildings. There's not a tremendous amount of oil 

usage, at least with single, with packaged equipment. 

There's somewhat more with boilers, although it's less 

common than gas. 

CBECS again would be used as the regional 

or national data source for wall construction weights 

by building type. What I propose here is to assume 

that the mix of buildings that will be built is the 

same as the historical mix. 

You get into issues with using CBECS as a 

data source in that as you start to subset things like 

the mix of buildings and the Census divisions or 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
99 

regions that the sample size in CBECS becomes too 

small to adequately represent sort of a national or an 

estimate for that region so what we propose here is to 

use the historical mix. Another option might be to 

use something like the last 20 years of data or you 

may want to vary that or we may want to vary that by 

building type. If there's a lot of office buildings 

you could use maybe the last 10 years of data, but 

that would not be appropriate for a smaller population 

of buildings and CBECS like food service or 

warehouses. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Harold Crowder. 

MR. CROWDER: Yes, the question is, Dave, 

you've mentioned in a couple of different times 

different CBECS. Which CBECS are you using in this 

case? Is it the 1992 or the 1995? 

MR. WINIARSKI: Well, in this case it 

depends on sort of where we go with the windowiwali 

ratio assumptions. If we do a single windowiwall 

ratio and vary the -- a single window/wall ratio for 

a given building type and do a sensitivity analysis, 

then I'd be very comfortable using the 1995 CBECS for 

this. If we go to the bins such as Jason used, I 

probably would go with the 1992 CBECS for the entire 

data set. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgrws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
I think I would prefer to be consistent in 

that respect between the two data sets and my guess is 

that the mix of buildings is not substantially 

different, given the three years of -- the three years 

of growth that were brought in between those two data 

sets. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: We ended up using the 1995 

CBECS data set except in cases where the information 

wasn' t present. 

One question I have about the aggregation 

methodology is that there seems to be the possibility 

of a little bit of extra error introduced in the 

weighting process by going first to regional and then 

to national numbers. 

Wouldn't it be more effective to use the 

data set directly on the climate bins that are berng 

simulated and then use that to come up more drrezriy 

within one step to the national numbers? 

MR. WINIARSKI: I'm not sure how zhat 

would be done. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason, repeat the questian. 

You lost me on that. 

MR. GLAZER: Well, I guess this comes back 

to how you're choosing your weather files and what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TWNSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www oealrgiws corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
101 

they're representing, but the way we chose it each 

weather file represented a climate bin in the 1999 

standard, the envelope portion of the 1999 standard 

and we use the CBECS data, disaggregated to that level 

whenever possible. And it seems like a more direct 

way than what you're proposing here. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Let me go back. What 

we're proposing essentially maps the relative 

contribution of the given climate types to each of the 

Census divisions. And what you're proposing 1s to -- 

MR. GLAZER: Well, I used a different 

approach. I guess the best thing to do would be at 

some point you should probably look at the aggregation 

strategy I decided upon. It's a very complicated 

topic. But you need to be careful -- I guess the one 

word of caution is you need to be careful adding extra 

steps. If you don' t need the regional information for 

an answer, I wouldn't go there unless it's rztrrns;~ 

in the way you're doing your weighting. 

MR. WINIARSKI: Right. The regional data 

primarily again here is used to assess the relative 

contributions of the things that the permutation is 

on. For instance, the wall type construction, the 

relative contributions of the fuel mix and as much as 

possible we know that there is substantial variation 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
102 

in the country, try and assess that variation. And 

hence, going from the climate zones first, figuring 

out what's the contribution of climate zones to each 

set of data or each region or in this case the subCensus regions and then looking at the variation in 

these permutations in that region, if possible. In 

some cases where we can't do that, we may have to use 

sort of maybe national data, if there's not enough 

data points to come up with something thatf s 

statistically significant. But it is a complex 

subject and certainly getting a chance to review your 

data will be helpful. 

And that's just what we talked about, 

statistical significance of CBECS data. Again, the 

question about whether the historical mix, if that's 

what we should be using or if there's a better data 

source in terms of representing the building types, 

construction types or any other permutations that 

we're looking at, like window/wall ratio. The other 

thing I'd ask people to look at is the order of the 

aggregation steps and whether they believe that seems 

to be the correct order for doing the aggregation and 

will provide the type of numbers at each subset that 

are going to be useful for people who want to look at 

the analysis. What we propose to do is have the data 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
103 

available so that people can, if they want, the EUI 

data go through other possible permutations of how you 

would aggregate it 

Sub-census divisions, I spoke about those 

briefly. Essentially, they' re to split the Pacific 

and Mountain West sub-census divisions. That's done 

based on population data, primarily. Again, the three 

zone model I talked a little bit here, there's a 

building level aggregation that's done, that's based 

on the use of a 15-foot perimeter depth assumed for 

the building and scaling appropriately. That can be 

varied. That's simply the values that we've used in 

the past and what the 90.1 Committee felt were pretty 

representative of actual practice. 

And where it becomes important, primarily 

where that becomes important is when you start getting 

into a central system type design where zoning becomes 

much more of an issue in terms of reheat and other 

things. 

The last step in the aggregation or the 

last two steps deal with the calculation of the 

utilization indices for source and energy costs. I 

talked about in the flow chart where that occurs. 

This is simply a discussion of what we believe those 

definitions mean, site-EUI by fuel type consumption in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
104 

terms of btus measured at the customer's site. Source 

EUI, what we propose to use of national basis, the 

DOE/EIA electricity source conversion efficiency. We 

may want to look at that from a sensitivity analysis 

if we looked at perhaps regional source sufficiency 

data if that's available. And finally, the energy 

cost. 

The number will be calculated using EIA's 

estimates for fuel cost data by Census division. We 

have done some splits for the EPACT standards work to 

look at how that varies across the two sub-census 

division splits, the Mountain and Pacific again and 

that will be out for people's review here in terms of 

whether they think that's reasonable, whether that's 

the best possible data source that we have. I think 

that's one that we felt was most representative. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Jason? 

MR. GLAZER: What's the specific reference 

for the 10,301 number? 

MR. WINIARSKI: Off the top of my head, 

I'll see if I can find that for you. I believe it 

might be -- it's in the AEO 2000, but I'd have to find 

the actual page and reference it. 

What we will try and do is again want to 

get this sort of proposal flushed out, want to get as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www oealrgross cwn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
much comment and input and if possible sort of 

constructive criticism on what's a good way to 

approach it and how much -- what sort of a level, a 

variation that's needed for DOE to do this analysis. 

Again, it's focused more on the determination of 

whether there will be energy savings rather than the 

actual number and again, it's focused more on the 

comparison of standard to standard rather than in 

actual construction which we recognize we don't have 

a very good baseline for. 

We will provide again, as much detail as 

we can on the assumptions, the input parameters for 

the simulations that are developed based on those 

assumptions. Copies of input decks and detailed 

results at each step of the quantitative analysis. 

And if possible we would like to participate in 

discussions with people on inputs and agarn the 

additional simulations that we felt might be 

appropriate from either the quantitative viewpc;~: 2nd 

the aggregation or from a qualitative assessmesz of 

particular details. 

I think that about wraps it up for xe. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions for Dave about 

the -- all these slides collectively or comments at 

this point. What we're scheduled to do next on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
agenda is listen to some individuals that have already 

written comments that are scheduled to speak and take 

other comments at that time and then I guess we'll 

assess where we are for the rest of the day. 

Questions directed at Dave following his 

presentation. 

Harold? 

MR. CROWDER: Yes. Harold Crowder. Dave, 

is this available, have you put it on a website so 

that we could have a copy of your presentation? 

MR. BOULIN: We will post that on the 

website. There was a little bit of confusion on which 

portion of the site it will be on. It will be posted 

on the energy codes portion of our website. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that a new website? 

MR. BOULIN: No, that's an old website 

that's -- they're linked together, but chat's 

maintained at our Pacific Northwest Natrocal 

Laboratory. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Because normally 

the website is www.eren.doe.gov. 

MR. BOULIN: You can get there that way 

too. It's just harder. 

MR. HEISS: Harold Heiss, again. Dave, 

you're going to take all the input that we give you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrass corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
107 

and we've heard that in modeling there's numbers of 

different ways you can go about anything. And it goes 

back to the philosophy that I was speaking to earlier. 

What will you use -- how will you make a decision what 

elements to use and what means to use. Is that your 

decision in the end? Speak to that, please. 

MR. WINIARSKI: I suppose since I'm kind 

of the task manager it is my decision in the end. I 

will try and get as much input, if possible, where 

people have a -- would request a change in the 

analysis or would request an increase amount of 

analysis, looking at a particular issue, I have to 

sort of make a judgment between the time and funding 

available and whether I think that's the most 

appropriate avenue. Obviously, this could become 

extremely extensive very quickly, as Jason, I'm sure, 

knows. 

It's -- there's also a lot of issues 

whether the -- if the additional variation is the type 

of thing that will significantly impact energy savings 

or are there more important variations or more 

important assumptions early on that get into -- that 

would affect the energy savings that you should 

address first. It's sort of easy to get into the 

weeds on this. But I will look for as much input 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
108 

where people are putting in a proposal, to be as 

detailed as possible about why this is a better 

assumption or a better approach and what would be the 

real difficulties, scientifically, with the approach 

that we presented out 

We also have some -- there' s always 

limitations again on resources to do this type of 

work. And I think we have to be very cognizant of. 

MR. BROOW: Other questions, specific 

or more broad as Dave is about to sit back down, I 

think, and we're going to move on to the next aspect 

of the agenda 

MR. BOULIN: Let me make a comment on 

that. I think the ultimate decisions on what 

assumptions are used in the analysis will be made by 

the Department. We will be looking for the advice and 

input of the people at PNNL and the people around this 

table and those who send comments in. 

MR. WINIARSKI : The other thing, if I can 

broach this, also consider if possible where the 

comparisons may not - - may be fairly straight forward. 

Look at stuff and whether that can be done in a simple 

requirement by requirement type comparison in the 

qualitative analysis. 

I think that we may end up looking at that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www. nealrgross. corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
where we get into some issues on individual, for 

instance, individual system requirements, things like 

what do you have for setback on chill water systems, 

something like that, where it's very difficult to 

model and it ' s not sure how you would aggregate the 

data if you did model it. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Final questions or 

comments. We're going to move on, I believe. 

Thanks, Dave, very nice, nicely done. 

We have three individuals that are 

scheduled to speak and I believe your comments relate 

to the written comments that you had submitted already 

to DOE. 

Are there other people who wish to speak 

at this time in addition to Jason Glazer, Jim Ranfone 

and Harold Crowder? 

Okay, I donf t see anybody else. If 

anybody decides they wish to - - you' re welcome to ;ern 

in at the end. 

I'm wondering if it's possible, seeing as 

how you've already prepared a written comment to 

summarize these comments rather than read them in 

their entirety into the record. Am I correct in this, 

Jean? These written comments will be inserted in the 

written record, will they not? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
MR. BOULIN: Yes, they will. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So If m wondering if it's 

possible to do that. If it isn't, then I guess we'll 

listen. 

Jim, youf re first -- excuse me, Jason' s 

first on the list. 

Jason, you want to start off, please? 

MR. GLAZER: Actually, I think a lot of 

the comments that I've made already are very relevant 

to my statement, but I guess the only thing in 

addition I'd like to mention specifically is that the 

one week period after this meeting for further 

comments is just not sufficient for the level of 

technical information that you're looking for to be 

provided and I'd encourage you to do 30 days or 

something more on that order. 

MR. BOULIN: I don't see any problem with 

that. I was thinking about that when we have been 

asking for various input. I think we can -- we will 

extend that period. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, thanks for :hat 

comment. Next is Jim Ranfone. 

MR. RANFONE: Okay, thank you, Doug. Jim 

Ranfone with AGA. And 1/11 yield to your request 

since we did submit a written statement. I will 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
111 

provide you with an updated version of that, so it's 

slightly modified, with some additional information, 

but I'd like that to be added on the record. Just 

summarizing one thing, we do also request a 30-day 

time frame. We felt that this was just a little too 

fast. We appreciate DOE'S efforts to accelerate this 

process, but we were a little surprised that getting 

an announcement on February 8th and a workshop on the 

17th and one week to comment on, so we do appreciate 

the suggestion that there will be a 30-day. 

One other thing on a couple of other 

things, peer review of the DOE analysis. We did meet 

with Assistant Secretary Reicher back in October and 

one of the things we asked for and we believe we had 

an agreement is that we would be able to participate 

as other interested parties in a peer review and 

secondly that if there are differences between :he 

analysis that GARD is doing versus what PNNL cows xp 

with that there will be a third party available to 

review both analyses and make some Icrr,d of 

determination of why there's differences. 

One issue that wasn't discussed today, 

well, is our concerns with the qualitative comparison. 

We have some comments on that -- I'm sorry, we did 

discuss that a little bit. We don't favor a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
112 

qualitative comparison. I think the law is very clear 

as to what needs to be done here in terms of does the 

new standard save energy or not and we recognize 

there's a lot of gray area there, but putting a lot of 

time into a qualitative analysis without really 

knowing how that's going to be used by the Department 

and I think some comment from DOE staffer sort of 

summarized everything, how you' re going to do that, 

what's going to be used. We don't favor an extensive 

qualitative analysis to be done. 

Another issue that we have is on the 

concern with fuel switching. We believe that that 

should be a part of this analysis in terms of looking 

at what the impact will be on adoption of the 99 

version. We do go into a little bit of detail in 

showing or our allegations or our estimates that we're 

going to increase the cost to some of the natural gas 

appliances and equipment that go into the standard and 

competing products. 

And not only gas, but we're talking about 

electric heat pumps, the cost of that product is going 

to go up and even the oil equipment. We'd like to see 

some kind of analysis done on fuel switching, what the 

potential would be if that should occur because the 

Committee in their deliberations and some of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
113 

analysis that DOE supported on the equipment side did 

show an increase of cost of somewhere in the area, for 

example, 8 to 10 percent on gas water heaters and no 

similar analysis was done on electric resistance water 

heaters. 

One other thing is that we think that DOE 

should consider forecast of commercial construction 

activities in their analysis, what -- how that's going 

to impact the types of buildings that are going to be 

built because the standard only applies to what's 

going to be built in the future and not what's 

currently being built. And 1/11 just summarize it 

that way. Again, we' 11 provide a copy of the detailed 

MR. BOULIN: Would you comment a little 

bit more on that last piece on -- 

MR. RANFONE: On forecasting? 

MR. BOULIN: Yes, what do you think the 

Department should do in that area? 

MR. RANFONE: Well, what we think is'that 

you ought to take a look at some of the forecast on 

the types of buildings that are going to be built 

using publicly available sources like Dodge studies or 

GRI1s I1Baseline Projection1' because types of 

buildings, the mix of the types of buildings that are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000!5-3701 www. nealrgross.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
114 

going to be built or are going to be impacted by the 

99 version and that's the analysis should be centered 

around that projection, not on existing building 

stocks as we know today. 

MR. BOULIN: Do you have any opinions 

about the time frame? 

MR. RANFONE: The time frame for? 

MR. BOULIN: Of the forecast? 

MR. RANFONE: Ten years, 5 to 10 years 

out, whatever the baseline is. 

MR. BOULIN: If ASHRAE plans to update its 

standard every three years, is 10 years an appropriate 

time frame? 

MR. RANFONE: Well, for this analysis, I 

believe it is and when you say they plan to -- what 

ASHRAE does, I mean we've already had this discussion 

this morning on addendum and on how that could be 

evaluated. If we're looking at a bulk analysis rlght 

now based on the 1999, 1989 version, I would project 

it out for the 10 years. 

MR. BOULIN: Thank you. 

MR. RANFONE: We also appreciate the 

opportunity we had to present here and the workshop. 

I think there's a lot of good information being 

discussed. A lot of this data and the work that both 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrcis corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
115 

PNNL and GARD are doing are going to help in the 

promulgation of additional changes to the 90.1 

standard, so it's not just an ending process. I think 

the evaluations, the assumptions, the decisions that 

are being made and the technical judgments that are 

being made are going to be fed into the process again. 

MR. BROOKMAN : Thanks, Jim. Harold 

Crowder is next. 

MR. CROWDER: Yes, thank you. I too would 

like to echo Virginia Power's appreciation for the 

invitation and the chance to participate in this 

workshop and this process. I will summarize my 

comment, written comments as well. Unfortunately, I 

get to call attention to a typo that I made and it 

allows me to make some -- place undue emphasis here, 

unintended emphasis. 

In my second bullet where I talk about 

Virginia Power having taken a look at the study that 

was presented in June of 1999 to ASHRAE, I should 

insert the following, ASHRAE 90.1-99, that it will, in 

our opinion, save energy over the previous version. 

Then secondly, I'd like to say that in 

looking at this current proposed methodology, we feel 

that you have adequately addressed the shortcomings 

that you identified in that earlier analysis and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
116 

finally, that Virginia Power endorses the maintenance 

of fuel neutrality in codes and standards such as 

ASHRAE 1999, 90.1-99. 

Thank you 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I am going to 

-- I want to thank you personally for what I think was 

a really an informative and well done workshop and I'm 

going to turn it back to Jean Boulin. Jean, thank 

you, and I'm going to hand out evaluation forms and 

I'd like to ask you to fill them out and it's going to 

take you a very brief amount of time. So I'm going to 

pass these out. 

MR. BOULIN: I would like to echo Doug's 

appreciation for your participation and the time you 

spent here and particularly responding to such short 

notice of this meeting. We will extend the comment 

period until March 17th, that's St. Patrick's Day and 

we do appreciate your additional input and ycur 

response to our queries here. 

I think that's all we really have to say 

here and travel back home safely. 

Thank you. 

(Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the workshop 

was concluded. ) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgmss.com 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20
CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in th~ 

matter of: 

Before: 

BUILDING ENERGY CODES PROGRAM: 

WORKSHOP ON ANALYSIS OF STANDARD 

90.1-1999 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Date : FEBRUARY 17, 2000 

Place: WASHINGTON, DC 

represents the full and complete proceedings of the 

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to 

typewriting. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 w.nealrgross corn 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 20