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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RXOOEISLAND AVE., NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 200053701I-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 ~epresentativeclimates 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 

## ................. Adjourn 

### .................... * _A



## -

NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgmss

### (9:09a.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 recognizeDoug 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 thankyou all for taking the time toparticipate in this public workshop. We've chosen the format in order to facilitate the exchangeof ideasand 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISIANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200013701 www.nealrgrosscwn4 

### 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 requestedon these issues and other issues thatpeople 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 twoweeks, a complete set of the transcript will be available for inspectionand copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Reading Room located in Room 1E-190. NWLR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

### Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript may make arrangements with the court reporterhere 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,abrief, terse background again which will be open for discussion. Theproposed 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 COURTREPOATERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200013701 wwwnealrgrosscorn

### 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 commentsand discussion on those particular comments. Attendees will come next and we'll have comments and discussion on those. To provide the Department with

asmuch pertinent information and asmany 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 discussall 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. Theworkshcp is scheduledtoadjourn 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323RHOM.ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnea cam7 

### 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-Pwhen you respond. We would like to have ten copies of your comments and any supporting data, along with an electronic copy of the commentsor data,preferably usingWord Perfect 8.1

### or


### an earlier version. No faxed comments will be 

### accepted. Any person submitting informationwhich 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 copyon 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 inpreparing for this workshop, and we 

### are pleased to receive your comments and opinrc~s NEALR.GROSS COURTREWRTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC 200053701 wwwnealrgrwuam

# II Our purpose today is to listen to your views. 

# Il 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, EdisonElectric 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 

# II Fenestration Rating Council. MR.GLAZER: JasonGlazer,GARDAnalytics

### . MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone with 

### the 

# II American Gas Association. 

# II MR. HEMPHILL: Bob Hemphill, GRI. 

# Ii MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas Association.MR. GREISS: Raoul Greiss, Natural Resources Canada. 

# I1 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, FAMA. 

# II MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski, Pacific 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISIANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200013701 www.nealrgrwsrn9 Northwest Laboratory. MR.MAJETTE: RonMajette,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 yoube concise, 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

### 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 entirelyon the qualityof 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. 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 ISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASXINGTON,D.C.200053701 www.nea1rgross.m11 I 

### also like to allow for follow on comments, so I may have three, four, five people stacked to speak and if someonewishes to make a brief follow on comment, I try and fit that in to keep the discussiongoing. 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAN0TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHUOEISLANDAVE., NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.0C. 200053701number 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 Secretarywithin 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgmw ~gnr13

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. Iguess 

### 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrosscorn14 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 

## NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscorn15 

### 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. 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)2344433 WASHINGTON,D.C.200053701 www.neaIrgross.com16 MR. BOULIN: Okay, if there are no other questions -- MR. GREISS: Raoul Greiss from Natural Resources Canada. Iguess 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 thispoint 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 ASHRAE1sintention, I'm informed, tomove into amode ofcontinuous maintenance which 1s somewhat similar to the code process that we're seerrq and to aggregate those addenda that occur to Wac standard and publish 

### that every threeyears,very much like the codes do. On the residential side, it's been 

### cur practice in the past 

### to make a determination relatrvc 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE..N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.0C.20005-3701 wwwnea17 

### 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 Departmentwould be required tomake a cew 

### determination. 

### My understanding of addenda is tRar 

### they are amendments,minor changes, generally. MR. RANFONE: Well 

### -- MS. 

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

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC 200053701 wwwnealrgnwrcorn18 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com19 methodology orproposed methodology for evaluation of the change from 90.1-89to 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 90.1-89and 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'msorry,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,Idon't think the Department canbase 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.200053701 www.nealrgrosscorn20 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwneairgrosscorn21 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrwscorn22 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 90.1standard in that to the extent possible 90.1-99, the requirements were written in amandatory language. That's not necessarily true for 90.1-89. Because of that, the things that were nonmandatory, but good suggestions for buildingdesignmay have been dropped. That changes the --what the standard actually covers and what canbe 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 Stateswho 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 90.1-99and how that can be incorporated into those State codes. MR. BROOKMAN: Questions,commentson this first slide? 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn23 

### 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 90.1-89version. 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com24 

### 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 analysisison-goingright

now. We're beginning the phases of putting together the quantitative analysis. The goal of the quantitative analysis is to examine thewhole building impact of changes and requirements. The qualitative analysis can be used to assess, for instance, if the R-valueof 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 contributionof eachof those requirements to the entirebuilding energy saving. So thatf s the main purpose of the quantitative analysis. The quantitative analysis againwill focus

on the major energy systems that we feel can be NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com25 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 ornot we believe the standardwill

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? 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgnwscwn26 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

aspossible we will dowhat we can to provide DOE with the type of informationthat will help in making their decision. Thebasis forthe energy savingsestrzates 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-basedenergy 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 awhole and also for each individual sort 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wmornealrgnwscornof 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, Iwas involved inputting 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 framewas 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 electricallyheated, in this case an electric furnace We assumed a 90/10mix across the country when we were coming up with a national aggregation of that. We lookedat 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISIANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com28 

### 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 beenmisquoted

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 90.1-99standard. What I'm going to talk about here is basically enhancementsto thatmethodology. 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www,nealrgross.com29 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 1/11talk about that a little later,howwe 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com30 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 acrossdifferentbuilding sizes. The standard impacts small buildings differently than large buildings. We propose in this analysis that addresses that. Again, the work last summerwas based

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

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrcjross.com2 J. where you made a comment that the presentation, the preliminary results were presented at the June meeting of 90.1and that those preliminary results showed 16 percent site energy and 20 percent source energy savings in two types of buildings. Youmade the comment that some sourcesare 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 individualsorwhatever 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 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscornamuch 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£ ormationhasbeenwidely 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 actuallyg~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 "PastWork, What We Looked At Last Summerw,

### I thought what he was doing there was 

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com33 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 youwould 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 commentson this subject before we move on? Okay,thankyou,Jim. Ibelievewe'renow

on a slide called "EnhancementsProposed." It's page 3 on your handout. MR. WINIARSKI: Right, and actually this is what we just discussed that Jimbrought 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 essentiallya 20 percent window/wall ratio for both the office and 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com34 

### retail buildings. Obviously, there is a significant variation in that number and that impacts the building envelope significantly for the 90.1-99standard. 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 inyour 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 section 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 presentedand obviouslythereare some assumptions in doing that because certain things impact the base loads on the buildings, certain things impact the efficiencyby 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com

### previous work. The proposal talks about using a shipment weighted average efficiency for cooling and heating equipmentwhere possible. Recently,throughwork with ARI 

### and throughwork 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 tobring 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 65,000BTU 

### per hour cooling equipment, three phase cooling equipment. That's in the standard and the standard did not address in its development. The current 90.1-99requirements are the

same essentially as 90.1-89and 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. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.neakgross.cwnMR. GLAZER: Is thevariation of window to wall ratiobeing included in the quantitativeanalysis

or the qualitative analysis? MR. WINIARSKI: I'lldiscuss 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. 

### Ifyoupicked up ahandout,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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com37 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 littlebit 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISIANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com38 

### 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 permutationswe candevelop a set of 90-1

### requirements in terms of the envelope lightingpower 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com39 

### 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 analysiswhat 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 toperimeter, 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~tryor economizer requirement usage for each location of 

### the country. Once we've NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOMISLANDAVE., NW (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorndone 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 significantlydifferent fuelprices and we want to try to capture that variation in the analysis. Using CBECS data, Commercial Buildrnq Energy Consumption Surveydata,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 sixpossible combinatronsof core 

### EUI orperimeter 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,youhave 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISUWDAVE.. NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.DC. 2000!5-3701 www nea rn41 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 sixpossible combinations and thenbring 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 essentiallyyoudevelop 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 characteristicswith the exceptionof thepermutat~s::~ that I've discussed above. We thenbring indata from CBECS again r : heating fuel types, again, if we're going to look Z* electricallyversus fossil fuelheatedbuildings, data is available to some extent in CBECS and we -37, use that toweight those two permutations. similar:^,

we can look at the relative percentage of mass versus 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREWRTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrauurn4L 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. Todo thatwe need the estimates for total construction growth for each sub-censusdivision 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. 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscorn43 presently, the plan is to use -- after 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: JasonGlazer,GARDAnalytics. 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com44 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 inheating 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOMISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHISTON, 0.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.comI 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 inyour 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 

### 11be outlining exactly zfie I steps we took and I'd be happy to discuss those 

### ;n

more detail. MR. BRCOWM: Okay, and "weubeing 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, 

### Iwould 

### like,Jason, foryou,as

### we zcv* through some of those areas to make public comments .R 

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RWODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.200053701 EX?ITI

### thingsyou'd like to seeorvariations 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'11touchor, 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: 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosr,eern47 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 developmany more permutations or awhole bunch of building designs foryouranalysis that rapidly expand beyond the capabilities of our lab, at least, to deal with. What is important is to establish the characteristicsthatdistinguishone 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 constructionwithin 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 aspossible orientation and other 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrossm

### 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

zoneswhich are in alldifferent orientations to scale the results from this building to larger and,smaller buildings. The existing prototype that we use is a 48,000square foot building. That was chosen asbeing

a very median size building, based on CBECS data and curiously it's a median size building for a large number of prototypes, if youactually 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. NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com49 

### 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 orwould 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 youmodel 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.200053701 www.neaIrgross.com50 

### 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 assumptionsbuilt in for the model for the infiltration in the perimeter zones. What it out? 

### We don'tmodel elevators? We don'tmodel 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 

### otheruseswere 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: JasonGlazer,GARDAnalyt1 :s 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOM:ISLANDAVE.,NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC. 200053701 www nea51 You mentioned some difficulties in modeling service water heaters. One thing that you might want to considerdoing 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 90.1-89or 90.1-Rand 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 -:- 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHOOEISLANDAVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005-3701 wwwnealrpm(lm\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 thatyou should use would be the ones that appear in the compliance supplement whichwas developedby 90.1committee members which is going to be published as part of the User's Manual. Those are a good set of schedulesand 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 commentson 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscorn

### 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 90.1-1989work. 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 commercialbuilding metering studies that was done in the U.S.,

### was done at Pacific Northwest Lab back in the earlypart of the 1990~~ that's this ELCAP study that's referenced. And the schedules were modified thereof. The schedules, if I canmake 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 Ibelieve it's referenced in the paper. Again,plug loaddensities,similarlyfrom 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscom54 

### 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. Thepresent proposal looksat 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 90.1-89they're also a functionof the window-wall ratio for the building. In general, the attempt at 90.1-89was 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 gaincoefficientor 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. 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHtWTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.cwn

### The proposed study does only assume single-zoneequipment. 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 issueswhere 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 systemas compared to the efficienc:ee 

### of the single zoned package system, again, the 

### qualitativematter saying

### yeah, this system appears i3 

### be more efficient and then making the point that chs 

### base thermal loads in thebuilding are essentially :he



### same in both systems. NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASWINGTON.DC. 200053701 wwwnea56 

### 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 90.1-89and 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: 

### JasonGlazer,GARD

### Analytics 

### 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 systemsdon't scaae well with the zone 

### by zone approach that you're usizq 

### is a real problem and 

### I guess Iwould encourage

### you * 2 

### reconsider that and perhaps look at whole buildizq EUIS with central systems as well as the zone 

### by zcEa 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.D.C.200053701 www.nealrgnxrrc~rn57 

### evaluation because I think the central systems are reallya criticalpart 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 overestimatedas 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 essentiallyyou 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 orwhat I consider the base thermal loads in the 

### building that are developed from the envelope and NEAL

### R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrwscom58 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 onwhere you think those spec1

### flc 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 approachmight get accomplishedby the Department that 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)2344433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrwscorn22 would be helpful. MR. GLAZER: I'd be glad to, in written comments. MR. WINIARSKI: Inparticular, one of the issues or one of the reasons for the scalableapproach 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-optimizingand reducing the numberof 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.neaIrgross.com60 

### 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 climatesbriefly 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, lookingat 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 climateswere 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com61 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 citieswithout knowing the eventual climate variation of the standard. It was developed, the methodology was developedprior to anykindof 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 thinkyou're actually doingmore simulations in some 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgross.com62 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 90.1-99climate 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 evaluatron 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, Jeanwill be seeing it 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn63 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 climatologicaldata orwhether youpick the --use the standard todirect your choice of climatologicaldata, 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,youprobably 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 sureyou'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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE..N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealqrosscorn64 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn65 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. Doesanybody 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 isand this 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comgets a little bit into how we eventually do the analysis and actually gets into the window-wallratio discussion, but the 1995 CBECS, the most recent version out breaks health care both into in-patient and out-patienthealth care. In some previous work we considered the fractionof buildings that were in-patienthealth care basically 24-hourtype facilitiesas 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 aprototype for thebuilding,they typicallyhave 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-wallratio 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com67 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 informationthat 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 thingwould 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.200053701 www nealrgrosscom68 variation both ineachbuilding 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-familyhousing 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-familyhousing 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-HousingCouncil 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscornmethodology 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn70 MR. 

### WINIARSKI: 

### Again, these are the three permutations that I've really thought are the most significantwithpossiblythe exceptionof 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 economizerusage, 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 thatwe 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200013701 www.neaIrgross.com71 construction, but rather by the surface 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 relativeamount of constructionof 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 sowe consider that conservative assumption on our part in terms of presenting energy savings. The requirements for the other roof constructions,for instance,wood framewith attic are generally muchmore stringentandhave lowerU-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 framingas representativeof most building types. 

### I don't know that it is 

### -- I think that's probably true for 

### -- in terms of a lightweightwall construction formost new commercial 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com72 

### 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 informationsuggests that a largenumber 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 forwarehouse construction,the metal building walls typicallyare lesswell 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 amountvaries by climate,but ingeneral, the idea was that you limit the heating capacity in the space so that the temperature in the space is never such that NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn73 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 asone category and refrigeratedwarehouses

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 terriblygood example 

### far -.lost warehouse construction. Another issue that I'd like to get sxe feedback on frompeople 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, 90.1-99has taken the apprcach of what they can mandate,what canbe inspectedby the 

### NEAL R.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE

## .N W (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005.3701 www nealrgrosscan74 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. Pardonme, with the exception of warehouse. Discussion of window/wall ratio a little bit. This table shows the variation in window/wall ratio for buildingsby building size for eachbuilding 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 withpeople 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISIANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwneaIrgross.comratio 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 inmind, 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 differentiatedby the average building size in CBECS. What's important here is thatyou 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com76 most people know intuitivelyas 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 rationalesbehind 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTFWNSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com77 

### looking at a window/wall ratio approaching the 39 

### percent inyourbase building, the 48,000square 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 youhave,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 surfacewall area of the building and you weight it that way, what happens when you do that is NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwneakgrwscorn'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'twant to do and what I think is important is you don't necessarily want to weight the floor space orweight 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 tookwas to follow the categorization that CBECS 92used, 0 to 10percent, 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn79 

### 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 andvary 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 smy 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 characteristicwindow/wall ratio for that bin thatyou 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 options. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscom80 Again,oneof the advantagesthat 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323R ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgros.cominfluencingwhere 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,asyou referred to earlier,

so I think they're safe to ignore that as far as setting the median. MR.WINIARSKI: Sobasically youhad 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 r3 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE., NW (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.DC 200053701 wwwneaaprouaanto use ENVSTD for the most recent version is 2.4which is a program that attempts to or is basically -- takes the original 90.1-89 envelope regression equations used for establishing the envelopeU-valuesand 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 inmy analysismostly because computationally it's tce intensive and I'm interested to knowwhat 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 choosewhl:: one of those answers you want to use and that's a very labor and computationaily intensiveprocess 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrossm83 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 90.1-89ENVST3 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrosscwn84 federal standard is the ENVSTD equations. As you said,the ENVSTD basically gives you amethod to trade off,once you assesswhat window to wall rationyou1 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 65,000btu 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. Soaminor bug in this secondbullet 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrosscorn85 speak to that a little bit, but that is a deduction that the standard allows for nonelectric heating systems in the unitarypackaged 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 sowe 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 90.1-99standard. 

### 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOMISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC. 200053701 www.nealrgross.comlike 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~pcsedis to use a one acd r quarter inchbase stacbz zstal static pressure for '-:.- systems towhich 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RWDEISLANDAVE.,N W (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,DC 20005-3701 wwwnealrproiucc~,

### commercial equipment standardswork 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. 1/11come back to that. Obviously, one t 

### the issues with fanpower 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANDAVE.. NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 2000!3-3701 wwwnealrgrfas rsnt88 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, Imissed that, Jim. That's a very significant area of discussion. The present proposal

uses the whole building approach that's in both 90.1-89and 90.1-99fordetermining 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 appropriatenumber 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, 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosscom

### 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 inusing the spaceby space method to come up with a direct comparison,primarily because the 90.1-89or the basis of the requirements in 90.1-89 are different than the basis of the requirements in 90.1-99in terms of the 90.1-89has 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

### 90 allowance would be. The 90.1-99requirements 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 illuminationof 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 COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOMISWDAVE.,N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, 0C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrosscorn

### 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 90.1-89lighting 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 lightingpower 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 codesusing tile 

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

## . 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. NEALR. GROSS COURTREWTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE.,NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 200053701 wwwneaI 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 questionwill yes, almost every lighting system designed will both of those and part 

### of the reason is that becad.:- electronic ballasts and higher efficiency fluoresc-.:,: lighting, it's pretty easy to complywith the standar~ and so I think that if you were trying to look at :. d 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgrwsrn93 

### the impact of the lighting sectionswill 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 approximatelythreeinches,but you are allowed excess fan static for things like filtration requirementsacd 

### such, so there's really no defined limit. What we've chosen to use isuse what we consider a typical number and this might get into 

### -- this kind of overlaps with 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgrosscan94 

### lighting in that there's an issue here of whether you' re choosingnumbers that representmost typical or what we think aremost typical orwhetheryou'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,doyou choose the least stringentpath, 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: Ibelieve 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 : 

### Idon'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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISlANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com95 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 90.1-99there are some areas where I think there are some substantial improvements in energy efficiency. There are also some areaswhere I think that the standard has been relaxed in terms of 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHOWElSLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# 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 

### examplemight 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 lightingpower density for a specific applicationand

a specific area of his building. It's not clearthat themajority 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 

### experiencewith modellnq you look at yourproject. :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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RXOOEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.DC. 20005-3701 wwwnea camstringency 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 comfortablewith 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 aggregationapproach,

some of the details here, we have some -- the Census has developed some construction valuation data 

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com98 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 sowhat

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 somewhatmore withboilers,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 asyou start to subset things like the mix of buildings and the Census divisions or 

### NEALR.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross.com99 regions that the sample size in CBECS becomes too small to adequately represent sort of a national or an estimate for that region sowhat 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. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrwscornI think 

### Iwould prefer tobe consistent in that respect between the two data sets andmy guess is that the mix of buildings is not substantially different,given the threeyears of -- the threeyears 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 thequestian. You lost me 

### on that. 

### MR. 

### GLAZER: Well, I guess this comesback to how you're choosing your weather files and what 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTWNSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE..N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwoealrgiwscorn101 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

somepoint 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 isyou 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 fuelmix and as much as possible we know that there is substantial variation 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn102 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 reviewyour 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com103 available so that people can, if they want, the EUI data go through otherpossible permutations of howyou would aggregate it Sub-censusdivisions, 

### I spoke about those briefly. Essentially, they're to split the Pacific and Mountain West sub-censusdivisions. That's done based onpopulationdata,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-footperimeter 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 90.1Committee felt were pretty representative of actual practice. And where it becomes important,primarily where that becomes important iswhen 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 definitionsmean, site-EUIby fuel type consumption in 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn104 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 forpeople'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 10,301number? 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 REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwoealrgrosscwnmuch 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 fromeither the quantitativeviewpc;~: 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscornagenda is listen to some individualsthat 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. Therewas a little bit of confusion onwhich 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 www nealrgrasscorn107 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 Iwas speaking to earlier. What will you use -- how will youmake a decisionwhat 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 significantlyimpact 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com108 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 comparisonsmay 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 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgross. cornwhere 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 thewritten comments thatyou 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'rewelcome 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 commentswill 

### be inserted in the written record,will they not? 

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscornMR. 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 1/11yield to your request since we did submit a written statement. 

### I will NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgrosscorn111 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 ourconcernswith the qualitative comparison. We have some comments on that 

### -- I'm sorry, we did discuss that a little bit. We don't favor a 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE.,N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn112 

### 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 showingor ourallegationsorour estimates thatwe're going to increase the cost to some of the natural gas appliancesand equipment that go into the standard and competing products. And not only gas,but we're talking about electricheat pumps, the cost of thatproduct isgoing to go up and even the oil equipment. We'd like to see somekind 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 NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com113 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 analysiswas done on electric resistancewater 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'11provide 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 likeDodge studies or GRI1s I1Baseline Projection1' because types of buildings, the mix of the types of buildings that are 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 2000!5-3701 www.nealrgross.com114 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 toupdate its standard every threeyears, is 10years an appropriate time frame? MR. RANFONE: Well, for this analysis, I believe it is and when you say they plan to 

### -- what 

### ASHRAE does, Imean 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrciscorn115 

### 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 proposedmethodology,we feel that you have adequately addressed the shortcomings that you identified in that earlier analysis and NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE.. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 wwwnealrgrosscorn116 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

-- 

### Iwant to thank youpersonally forwhat 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'sDay 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. )



### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200053701 www.nealrgmss.comCERTIFICATE



### 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.

NEALR.

### GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON,D.C. 200053701 w.nealrgrosscorn