Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40543 

1ANSI—American National Standards Institute; 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers; 

IES—Illuminating Engineering Society. 

2See https://www.ansi.org/american-nationalstandards/info-for-standards-developers/standardsdevelopers. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[EERE–2020–BT–DET–0017] 

Final Determination Regarding Energy 

Efficiency Improvements in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2019 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has reviewed ANSI/ 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2019: 

Energy Standard for Buildings, Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings and 

determined the updated edition would 

improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings subject to the 

code. DOE analysis indicates that 

buildings meeting Standard 90.1–2019, 

as compared with buildings meeting the 

2016 edition, would result in national 

site energy savings of 4.7 percent, 

source energy savings of 4.3 percent, 

and energy cost savings of 

approximately 4.3 percent of 

commercial building energy 

consumption. Upon publication of this 

affirmative determination, each State is 

required to review the provisions of 

their commercial building code 

regarding energy efficiency, and, as 

necessary, update their codes to meet or 

exceed Standard 90.1–2019. 

Additionally, this notice provides 

guidance on state code review processes 

and associated certifications. 

DATES: Certification statements provided 

by States shall be submitted by July 28, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the supporting 

analysis, as well as links to the Federal 

docket and public comments received, 

are available at: https://

www.energycodes.gov/development/ 

determinations. 

Certification Statements must be 

addressed to the Building Technologies 

Office—Building Energy Codes Program 

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, EE–5B, Washington, DC 

20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, EE–5B, 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 441–1288; 

Jeremiah.Williams@ee.doe.gov. 

For legal issues, please contact 

Matthew Ring; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, GC–33, 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–2555; 

Matthew.Ring@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Public Participation 

III. Determination Statement 

IV. State Certification 

I. Background 

Title III of the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act, as amended 

(ECPA), establishes requirements for 

DOE to review consensus-based 

building energy conservation standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(b), 

as amended, of ECPA provides that 

whenever the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 1

Standard 90.1–1989 (Standard 90.1– 

1989 or 1989 edition), or any successor 

to that code, is revised, the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) must make a 

determination, not later than 12 months 

after such revision, whether the revised 

code would improve energy efficiency 

in commercial buildings, and must 

publish notice of such determination in 

the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A)) If the Secretary makes an 

affirmative determination, within two 

years of the publication of the 

determination, each State is required to 

certify that it has reviewed and updated 

the provisions of its commercial 

building code regarding energy 

efficiency with respect to the revised or 

successor code and include in its 

certification a demonstration that the 

provisions of its commercial building 

code, regarding energy efficiency, meet 

or exceed the revised Standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) Standard 90.1– 

2019, the most recent edition, was 

published in October 2019, triggering 

the statutorily required DOE review 

process. The Standard is developed 

under ANSI-approved consensus 

procedures,2 and is under continuous 

maintenance under the purview of an 

ASHRAE Standing Standard Project 

Committee (commonly referenced as 

SSPC 90.1). ASHRAE has an established 

program for regular publication of 

addenda, or revisions, including 

procedures for timely, documented, 

consensus action on requested changes 

to the Standard. More information on 

the consensus process and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2019 is 

available at https://www.ashrae.org/ 

technical-resources/bookstore/standard90-1. 

In addition, on January 20, 2021, the 

President issued Executive Order 13990, 

‘‘Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science to 

Tackle the Climate Crisis.’’ 86 FR 7037 

(Jan. 25, 2021). The Executive Order 

directed DOE to consider publishing for 

notice and comment a proposed rule 

suspending, revising, or rescinding the 

final technical determination regarding 

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 by 

May 2021. Id. at 86 FR 7038. In 

response, DOE has reviewed the current 

Standard 90.1–2019 so that DOE’s 

determination under section 304(b) of 

ECPA reflects the most recent version of 

Standard 90.1, and to facilitate State and 

local adoption of the Standard, which 

will improve energy efficiency in the 

nation’s commercial buildings. 

To meet the statutory requirement, 

and to satisfy the directive issued under 

Executive Order 13990, DOE issued a 

preliminary determination and 

published supporting analysis to 

quantify the expected energy savings 

associated with Standard 90.1–2019 

relative to the previous 2016 version. 

The preliminary determination and 

analysis are available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2020-BT-DET-0017-0001. 

II. Public Participation 

In an April 21, 2021 Federal Register 

notice, DOE requested public comments 

on its preliminary analysis of Standard 

90.1–2019. (82 FR 34513) DOE received 

eight public comments, all of which 

DOE considered in arriving at its final 

determination. DOE has now issued the 

final analysis of the expected energy 

savings associated with Standard 

90.1–2019 as compared to Standard 

90.1–2016. A summary of public 

comments received, and DOE responses, 

is included in Appendix A of this 

Notice. The final analysis is available at: 

https://www.energycodes.gov/ 

development/determinations. 

III. Determination Statement 

Commercial buildings meeting 

Standard 90.1–2019 (compared to the 

previous 2016 edition) are expected to 

result in the following savings on a 

weighted national average basis: 

• 4.7 percent site energy savings 

• 4.3 percent source energy savings 

• 4.3 percent energy cost savings 

DOE has rendered the conclusion that 

Standard 90.1–2019 will improve 

energy efficiency in commercial 

buildings, and, therefore, receives an 

affirmative determination under Section 

304(a) of ECPA. States can experience 

significant benefits by updating their 

codes to reflect current construction 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40544 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

3See https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/ 

external/technical_reports/PNNL-31437.pdf for the 

2021 interim code impact report. Financial benefits 

are calculated by applying historical and future fuel 

prices to site energy savings and by discounting 

future savings to 2020 dollars. Historical and future 

real fuel prices are obtained through EIA’s AEO 

2015 report (EIA 2015). 

4Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/ 

adoption/states. 

standards, a total estimated $63.80 

billion in energy cost savings and 

476.77 MMT of avoided CO2 emissions 

in commercial buildings (cumulative 

2010 through 2040), or $2.80 billion in 

annual energy cost savings and 21.16 

MMT in annual avoided CO2 emissions 

(annually by 2030). These benefits, 

including emissions reductions, are 

estimated in a revised 2021 interim 

report addressing building code 

impacts.3 Though not quantified in the 

interim report, there may also be costs 

to regulated entities as a result of 

updated commercial building codes. 

IV. State Certification 

Upon publication of this affirmative 

determination, each State is required to 

review and update, as necessary, the 

provisions of its commercial building 

energy code to meet or exceed the 

provisions of the 2019 edition of 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) This action is required 

not later than 2 years from the date the 

final Notice of Determination is 

published in the Federal Register, 

unless an extension is provided. 

State Review & Update 

DOE recognizes that some States do 

not have a State commercial building 

energy code, or have a State code that 

does not apply to all commercial 

buildings. States may base their 

certifications on reasonable actions by 

units of general-purpose local 

government. Each such State must 

review the information obtained from 

the local governments, and gather any 

additional data and testimony in 

preparing its own certification. 

The applicability of any State 

revisions to new or existing buildings 

would be governed by the State building 

codes. States should be aware that the 

scope of Standard 90.1 includes highrise (greater than three stories) multifamily residential buildings, and hotels, 

motels, and other transient residential 

building types of any height, as 

commercial buildings for energy code 

purposes. Consequently, commercial 

buildings, for the purposes of 

certification to DOE, would include 

high-rise multi-family residential 

buildings, hotels, motels, and other 

transient residential building types of 

any height. 

State Certification Statements 

Section 304(b) of ECPA, as amended, 

requires each State to certify to the 

Secretary of Energy that it has reviewed 

and updated the provisions of its 

commercial building energy code 

regarding energy efficiency to meet or 

exceed the Standard 90.1–2019. (42 

U.S.C. 6833(b)) The certification must 

include a demonstration that the 

provisions of the State’s commercial 

building energy code regarding energy 

efficiency meets or exceeds Standard 

90.1–2019. If a State intends to certify 

that its commercial building energy 

code already meets or exceeds the 

requirements of Standard 90.1–2019, the 

State should provide an explanation of 

the basis for this certification (e.g., 

Standard 90.1–2019 is incorporated by 

reference in the State’s building code 

regulations). The chief executive of the 

State (e.g., the governor), or a designated 

State official (e.g., director of the State 

energy office, State code commission, 

utility commission, or equivalent State 

agency having primary responsibility for 

commercial building energy codes), 

would provide the certification to the 

Secretary. Such a designated State 

official would also provide the 

certifications regarding the codes of 

units of general purpose local 

government based on information 

provided by responsible local officials. 

The DOE Building Energy Codes 

Program tracks and reports State code 

adoption and certification.4 Once a State 

has adopted a new commercial energy 

code, DOE typically provides software, 

training, and support for the new code 

as long as the new code is based on the 

national model code (i.e., ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019). DOE has issued 

previous guidance on how it intends to 

respond to technical assistance requests 

related to implementation resources, 

such as building energy code 

compliance software. (79 FR 15112) 

DOE Secretary is required to provide 

incentive funding to States to 

implement the requirements of section 

304, and to improve and implement 

State residential and commercial 

building energy efficiency codes, 

including increasing and verifying 

compliance with such codes. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6833(e)) Some States develop 

their own codes that are only loosely 

related to the national model codes, and 

DOE may not be able to provide 

technical support for those codes. DOE 

does not prescribe how each State 

adopts and enforces its energy codes. 

Requests for Extensions 

Section 304(c) of ECPA requires that 

the Secretary permit an extension of the 

deadline for complying with the 

certification requirements described 

previously, if a State can demonstrate 

that it has made a good faith effort to 

comply with such requirements and that 

it has made significant progress toward 

meeting its certification obligations. (42 

U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations 

could include one or both of the 

following: (1) A plan for response to the 

requirements stated in Section 304; or 

(2) a statement that the State has 

appropriated or requested funds (within 

State funding procedures) to implement 

a plan that would respond to the 

requirements of Section 304 of ECPA. 

This list is not exhaustive. Requests are 

to be sent to the address provided in the 

ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted 

to BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov. 

Appendix A 

DOE received comments on its preliminary 

determination and supporting analysis of 

Standard 90.1–2019 from the following 

stakeholders: 

• U.S. Army 

• U.S. Air Force 

• Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) 

• Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

• Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 

• Three individual commenters 

The comments are summarized below and 

are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017-0001/ 

comment. DOE responded to all comments 

received. Several issues raised by 

commenters are distinct from the energy 

efficiency analysis DOE has undertaken 

pursuant to its statutory obligations. These 

include the social cost of carbon, life-cycle 

cost, and cost effectiveness; among these 

issues, social cost of carbon garnered the 

most attention from commenters and is 

therefore emphasized in the responses below. 

Comment: The anonymous submitter of 

comment ID EERE–2020–BT–DET–0017– 

0002 stated that the reduction in emissions 

is low for a five-year code cycle and the 

standards should be stricter. 

DOE response: DOE notes that the reported 

savings estimates represent a 3-year code 

cycle—Standard 90.1–2019 compared to the 

2016 edition—and not 5 years as stated by 

the commenter. The stringency of each 

version of 90.1 is determined by the ANSI 

consensus process used to revise Standard 

90.1, as administered by ASHRAE. While 

DOE is directed to participate in the 

ASHRAE consensus process, the Department 

holds no special status. DOE’s role in code 

review and consensus processes for 

commercial energy codes, including 

Standard 90.1, is further described at https:// 

www.energycodes.gov/development/ 

commercial/codes. 

Comment: The U.S. Army stated that some 

of the requirements are not ‘‘reasonable’’ or 

‘‘practicable’’ and that requirements should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40545 

5COMcheck is a software tool developed and 

maintained by DOE for the purpose of verifying 

compliance in commercial buildings. Learn more at 

https://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck. 

be operable and maintainable with typical 

maintenance staff and budgets. 

DOE response: DOE notes that, in making 

its determination, its directive under ECPA is 

to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. DOE 

believes that the issue of whether code 

provisions are ‘‘reasonable’’ and 

‘‘practicable’’ is complex and most 

appropriately addressed directly by the 

established code development process, as 

administered by ASHRAE, used for Standard 

90.1. That process is inclusive of a wide 

range and variety of stakeholders, and 

features a robust public comment process to 

ensure that the concepts evaluated for 

inclusion in new versions of Standard 90.1 

are indeed reasonable, practicable, feasible 

and cost effective, among many other 

considerations. 

Comment: The anonymous submitter of 

comment ID EERE–2020–BT–DET–0017– 

0004 asked, for buildings that are already 

using 100% renewable energy, whether the 

source energy and CO2 savings are going to 

be zero. 

DOE response: DOE’s determination is 

focused on a typical new building meeting 

the minimum requirements of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019. A building that is using 

100% renewable energy was not 

contemplated in DOE’s analysis. 

Comment: The anonymous submitter of 

comment ID EERE–2020–BT–DET–0017– 

0005 asked why DOE shows building-only 

savings for natural gas and building plus 

upstream savings for electricity. The 

commenter suggested DOE should account 

for regional variations in gas and electricity 

production. 

DOE response: Both gas and electricity 

savings are expressed as both site energy and 

source energy. The source energy factors for 

natural gas and electricity are shown on 

pages 16 and 17 of the technical support 

document referenced in the preliminary 

determination notice. The source energy 

emissions for electricity include both the 

losses in terms of generation as well as losses 

in transmission and distribution. For natural 

gas, the source energy factor of 1.088 

includes losses due to both pipeline leakage 

and transmission energy (compression) and 

the derivations are documented in the 

technical support document. Regarding 

regional variation in production, DOE 

considers use of national assumptions for gas 

and electricity production the most 

appropriate way to estimate the national 

energy impact of one edition of a model 

standard compared to the previous edition, 

which is consistent with DOE’s directive 

under ECPA. 

Comment: The U.S. Air Force’s first 

comment stated that the determination does 

not address institutional, industrial, or 

campus buildings that often have mass walls 

and reduced window area. 

DOE response: The suite of prototype 

building models relied upon by the Standard 

90.1 development committee and applied in 

DOE’s analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 represents approximately 76% of U.S. 

new non-residential construction volume and 

includes mass walls, steel framed, metal 

building, and wood frame construction. 

Window-to-wall ratio varies in these models 

from 1% to 40%, as is commonly the case in 

the commercial building stock, as 

represented by the prototype models. While 

the prototypes cannot address every possible 

combination of building type and building 

construction types in the analysis, they do 

include a representative range of building 

construction types, and are relied upon by 

established decision-making processes, 

including the Standard 90.1 development 

process. 

Comment: The U.S. Air Force also 

recommended that the life-cycle cost analysis 

(LCCA) should not use U.S. average utility 

rates. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) With respect to the energy cost 

savings calculation, DOE considers use of a 

national average utility rate the most 

appropriate way to estimate the national 

energy cost savings of one edition of a model 

energy standard compared to the previous 

edition, which is consistent with DOE’s 

directive under ECPA. The range of utility 

tariffs available in the U.S. numbers in the 

thousands, and DOE is ultimately charged 

with issuing a national determination. DOE 

notes that it does apply more specific rates 

in other analyses, where appropriate, such as 

in estimating energy code impacts at the state 

level. 

Comment: The U.S. Air Force’s final 

comment stated it does not appear that 

maintenance tail expenses for mechanical 

requirements such as enthalpy wheels were 

incorporated into the LCCA. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) Concepts such as life-cycle cost 

and cost effectiveness represent economic 

analysis and are distinct from the energy 

efficiency analysis that DOE is directed to 

assess through its determination. However, 

DOE recognizes the value of such analysis in 

informing state and local decisions 

surrounding code review and update 

processes, as well as design decisions 

associated with specific buildings and 

systems. DOE provides a variety of additional 

analysis, including cost-effectiveness 

analysis, outside the scope of DOE’s 

determination, and in response to the 

Department’s separate directive to provide 

technical assistance to support state code 

implementation. When conducting analysis 

such as cost-effectiveness analysis, DOE does 

indeed rely upon a life-cycle perspective and 

accounts for costs associated with the 

maintenance and replacement of building 

systems and components. 

Comment: RECA’s first comment 

recommended that DOE provide technical 

support for Standard 90.1. 

DOE response: DOE is directed under 

ECPA to provide technical assistance 

supporting the implementation of building 

energy codes. Consistent with this directive, 

DOE intends to continue providing robust 

technical assistance supporting state and 

local implementation of buildings energy 

codes. DOE recognizes the importance of 

supporting the states and local governments 

who ultimately adopt and implement codes, 

as well as the wide range of industry 

stakeholders who rely upon energy codes and 

strive to achieve compliance in practice. 

Comment: RECA’s second comment 

recommended that DOE provide costeffectiveness analysis. 

DOE response: As outlined in previous 

responses, DOE notes that the current 

determination is focused solely on whether 

the revised Standard would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. However, 

DOE recognizes the value of additional forms 

of technical analysis supporting building 

energy codes to support the implementation 

of state building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 

6833(d)), and intends to continue to provide 

both national and state-level costeffectiveness analysis of Standard 90.1–2019 

in the future. 

Comment: RECA’s third comment 

recommended that DOE provide state-level 

energy and cost analyses. 

DOE response: Consistent with the 

previous comment response, DOE intends to 

provide state-level energy and cost analyses 

in the future. 

Comment: RECA’s fourth comment 

recommended that DOE compare 90.1–2019 

to the 2021 IECC. 

DOE response: DOE recognizes that 

adopting states and local governments often 

review the commercial provisions of the 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC), and can benefit from knowing how 

the IECC compares to Standard 90.1 (i.e., the 

model energy code established under ECPA). 

DOE has provided such analysis in the past 

and intends to prepare similar analysis in the 

future. 

Comment: RECA’s fifth comment 

recommended that DOE remove old versions 

of Standard 90.1 from COMcheck. 

DOE response: In maintaining its 

compliance resources, such as the COMcheck 

software 5, DOE typically supports the three 

most recent editions of the model codes. (79 

FR 15112) Following the current 

determination, and in accordance with 

established DOE policy, this will include the 

2019, 2016 and 2013 editions of Standard 

90.1, which represents the range of recent 

code editions, and helps ensure limited 

federal resources remain focused on the latest 

model codes. DOE intends to maintain 

consistency with this approach. 

Comment: RECA’s sixth comment 

recommended that DOE provide 

implementation support for 90.1–2019. 

DOE response: Consistent with previous 

comment responses, DOE intends to continue 

providing robust support for states and local 

governments implementing building energy 

codes. DOE notes that several resources, 

including training on Standard 90.1–2019, 

are already available via the DOE Building 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40546 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

6For more information on DOE’s use of the 

estimates from this document, please section 4.2 

and 5 of the TSD for the final determination. 

Energy Codes Program technical assistance 

website, https://www.energycodes.gov. DOE 

intends to provide additional resources 

supporting Standard 90.1 implementation in 

the future. 

Comment: RECA’s seventh comment 

recommended that DOE find new 

opportunities to support model code 

adoption, compliance, and enforcement. 

DOE response: DOE appreciates RECA’s 

support in seeking new opportunities to 

support code adoption and implementation. 

DOE intends to continue to explore new and 

innovative means of supporting code 

implementation and welcomes additional 

suggestions in this area. 

Comment: RECA’s eighth comment stated 

that RECA agrees with and supports DOE’s 

positive determination. 

DOE response: DOE appreciates the 

support. 

Comment: EEI’s first comment stated that 

the EPA greenhouse gas equivalencies 

calculator overstates the emissions impact. 

DOE response: As outlined in previous 

responses, DOE notes that the current 

determination is focused solely on whether 

the revised Standard would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. However, 

DOE recognizes the value of additional forms 

of technical analysis supporting state 

implementation of building energy codes, 

including emissions analyses. DOE relies on 

greenhouse gas emission coefficients 

established by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in estimating current year CO2

savings. EPA’s emission coefficients are 

designed to reflect marginal CO2 savings from 

electricity savings occurring on the building 

site, which DOE considers appropriate for 

evaluating the carbon savings stemming from 

an improved energy standard. This approach 

is consistent with how DOE has performed 

similar calculations in previous 

determinations. 

Comment: EEI’s second comment 

recommended that DOE’s determination 

should take into account the commitments 

utilities have made to reduce carbon 

emissions. 

DOE response: As outlined in previous 

responses, DOE notes that the current 

determination is focused solely on whether 

the revised Standard would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. However, 

DOE recognizes the value of additional forms 

of technical analysis supporting state 

implementation of building energy codes, 

including emissions analyses. DOE’s analysis 

is based on several metrics—energy cost, site 

energy, source energy—and in addition 

reports the corresponding carbon emissions 

on a first-year basis. DOE recognizes the 

progress being made by utilities in 

decarbonizing the electric grid, and 

emphasizes that estimates provided in the 

supporting technical analysis are based on 

current emission levels and are subject to 

change in the future. 

Comment: AHRI, p. 2–5. AHRI commented 

that historically DOE did not estimate 

emission reductions or apply a value to 

emission reductions as part of the results and 

basis for the determination. They further 

stated that including emission reductions or 

their value, including the SCC, as part of the 

basis for determination was outside DOE’s 

authority to consider (42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A)), because EPCA is an energy 

conservation statute and excludes 

environmental objectives (see 42 U.S.C. 6312 

which excludes environmental objectives), 

and that DOE does not have the statutory 

authority to consider greenhouse gas 

estimates in determinations regarding 

commercial building codes. AHRI opined 

that the SCC should only be included for 

rulemakings where DOE has clear statutory 

authority to do so and stated that it lacks 

such statutory authority as to building energy 

codes. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the 

estimates pertaining to CO2 are provided only 

as supplemental information and are not 

considered as part of the final determination, 

which is based on energy efficiency as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). 

DOE’s analysis includes an estimate of a oneyear reduction in CO2 emissions on a 

normalized per square foot basis for 

buildings constructed to 90.1–2019 versus 

those constructed to 90.1–2016. Climate 

benefits associated with the expected CO2

emissions reductions are monetized using 

estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC– 

CO2) presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 

and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under 

Executive Order 13990 (‘‘February 2021 

TSD’’).6

DOE has determined that the estimates 

from the February 2021 TSD are based upon 

sound analysis and provide well founded 

estimates for DOE’s analysis of the impacts 

of CO2 related to the reductions of emissions 

from updating the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 

edition. However, DOE emphasizes that DOE 

is reporting estimates related to CO2 only 

because information on the carbon emissions 

associated with buildings are valued by many 

stakeholders, including states and local 

governments who ultimately implement 

building codes, and who have expressed a 

need for this information. These estimates are 

not considered as part of DOE’s ultimate 

determination of whether Standard 90.1– 

2019 will improve energy efficiency. 

Comment: AHRI, p. 2, 5. AHRI stated that 

DOE is ignoring clear Congressional intent in 

including emissions in the narrowly scoped 

building energy code review defined in the 

statutory text (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(1). It further 

stated that Congress could have added global 

climate change as a variable to weigh in the 

determination, but did not do so and so DOE 

should not include this in the determination. 

DOE response: See response to previous 

AHRI comment. 

Comment: AHRI, p. 2. AHRI requested that 

DOE remove carbon emissions from the 

determination for building energy codes, 

including ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

DOE response: See previous response to 

AHRI comment. 

Comment: AHRI p. 2. Irrespective of the 

authority consideration, AHRI requested that 

DOE must act to remedy inaccurate 

assumptions and conclusions on the SC–CO2

benefits analysis. AHRI opined that the 

benefits claimed from full fuel cycle and 

global impact of emissions and SCC are 

speculative and tangential and that these are 

calculated over a time period (100 years) that 

greatly exceeds that used to measure 

economic costs. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A). DOE emphasizes that the 

estimates pertaining to CO2 are provided only 

as supplemental information and are not 

considered as part of the final determination, 

which is based on energy efficiency as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). 

In calculating related CO2 impacts, DOE 

used the estimates for the SC–CO2 from 

February 2021 TSD. DOE has determined that 

the estimates from the February 2021 TSD, as 

described more below, are based upon sound 

analysis and provide well founded estimates 

for DOE’s analysis of the impacts of CO2

related to the reductions of emissions from 

updating the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 

edition. The SC–CO2 estimates in the 

February 2021 TSD are interim values 

developed under Executive Order (E.O.) 

13990 for use until an improved estimate of 

the impacts of climate change can be 

developed based on the best available science 

and economics. The SC–CO2 estimates used 

in this analysis were developed over many 

years, using a transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best science 

available at the time of that process, and with 

input from the public. Specifically, an 

interagency working group (IWG) that 

included DOE, the EPA and other executive 

branch agencies and offices used three 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) to 

develop the SC–CO2 estimates and 

recommended four global values for use in 

regulatory analyses. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the context of 

dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in 

a dedicated public comment period in 2013. 

The SC–CO2 estimates were first released 

in February 2010 and updated in 2013 using 

new versions of each IAM. In 2015, as part 

of the response to public comments received 

to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the 

SC–CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a 

National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC– 

CO2 estimates to offer advice on how to 

approach future updates to ensure that the 

estimates continue to reflect the best 

available science and methodologies. In 

January 2017, the National Academies 

released their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social 

Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended 

specific criteria for future updates to the SC– 

CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to 

satisfy the specified criteria, and both nearterm updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National Academies 

2017). On January 20, 2021, President Biden 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40547 

7The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 

update of the SC–GHG estimates by January 2022. 

8The social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG) 

is the monetary value of the net harm to society 

associated with adding a small amount of that GHG 

to the atmosphere in a given year and, therefore, 

should reflect the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. 

The marginal estimate of social costs will differ by 

the type of greenhouse gas (such as carbon dioxide, 

methane, and nitrous oxide) and by the year in 

which the emissions change occurs. The estimates 

of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), social cost of 

methane (SC–CH4), and social cost of nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) published in the February 2021 TSD 

allow agencies to understand the social benefits of 

reducing emissions of each of these greenhouse 

gases, or the social costs of increasing such 

emissions, in the policy making process. 

Collectively, these values are referenced as the 

‘‘social cost of greenhouse gases’’ (SC–GHG). 

9National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2017. 

10See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. 

issued Executive Order 13990, which 

directed the IWG to ensure that the U.S. 

Government’s (USG) estimates of the SC–CO2

and other greenhouse gases reflect the best 

available science and the recommendations 

of the National Academies (2017). The IWG 

was tasked with first reviewing the estimates 

currently used by the USG and publishing 

interim estimates within 30 days of E.O. 

13990 that reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including taking global damages 

into account.7 The interim SC–CO2 estimates 

published in February 2021 are used here to 

estimate the climate benefits associated with 

this determination and related model 

building energy code updates. 

DOE acknowledges that there are a number 

of challenges in attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions. The science and economic 

understanding of climate change and its 

impacts is improving over time; research 

focused on the assessment of climate 

damages and socioeconomic emissions 

projections is particularly important for 

reducing uncertainty in the calculation of the 

social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG),8

as is quantifying and being transparent about 

where key uncertainties in the models 

remain.9 But contrary to AHRI’s suggestion 

that uncertainty should cause DOE to 

discount or abandon monetization of the 

social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, as 

stated by the interagency working group 

(‘‘IWG’’) that performed the review described 

in the February 2021 TSD, due to a number 

of sources of uncertainty, there is a 

likelihood that the social cost of greenhouse 

gases (SC–GHG) is an underestimate of the 

true social cost of emissions.10 Despite the 

limits of both quantification and 

monetization, SC–CO2 estimates can be 

useful in estimating the social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. As a result, DOE has 

used the IWG’s SC–CO2 estimates in 

monetizing the social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions. However, as discussed in 

previous comments, DOE’s SC–CO2 analysis 

using these estimates was not considered in 

DOE’s ultimate determination of whether 

Standard 90.1–2019 will improve energy 

efficiency. 

Comment: AHRI p. 2, 3. As part of the 

rationale for not including SCC, AHRI further 

commented that DOE has acknowledged the 

uncertainty of SCC estimates and stated that 

these are both provisional and revisable. 

Further, they noted that the interagency 

working group developing the SCC noted that 

the underlying models were imperfect and 

incomplete and notes that the 

intergovernmental panel on climate change 

(IPCC) which the IWG relied on also stated 

in 2013 that no best estimate for equilibrium 

climate sensitivity could then be given 

because of the lack of agreement on values 

across assessed lines of evidence and studies. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the 

estimates pertaining to CO2 are provided only 

as supplemental information and are not 

considered as part of the final determination, 

which is based on energy efficiency as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). 

As noted previously, DOE determined that 

the estimates from the February 2021 TSD are 

based upon sound analysis and provide well 

founded estimates for DOE’s analysis of the 

impacts of CO2 related to the reductions of 

emissions from updating the 90.1 Standard to 

the 2019 edition. As explained in the 

February 2021 TSD and while the IWG works 

to assess how best to incorporate the latest, 

peer reviewed science to develop an updated 

set of SC–GHG estimates, the IWG has 

determined that it is appropriate for agencies 

to revert to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based on 

three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 

and subject to public comment. For each 

discount rate, the IWG combined the 

distributions across models and 

socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying 

equal weight to each) and then selected a set 

of four values for use in benefit-cost analyses: 

An average value resulting from the model 

runs for each of three discount rates (2.5%, 

3%, and 5%), plus a fourth value, selected 

as the 95th percentile of estimates based on 

a 3 percent discount rate. The fourth value 

was included to provide information on 

potentially higher-than-expected economic 

impacts from climate change, conditional on 

the 3% estimate of the discount rate. As 

explained in the February 2021 TSD, this 

update reflects the immediate need to have 

an operational SC–GHG for use in regulatory 

benefit-cost analyses and other applications 

that was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and 

the science available at the time of that 

process. Those estimates were subject to 

public comment in the context of dozens of 

proposed rulemakings as well as in a 

dedicated public comment period in 2013. 

However, as discussed in previous 

comments, DOE’s SC–CO2 analysis using 

these estimates was not considered in DOE’s 

ultimate determination of whether Standard 

90.1–2019 will improve energy efficiency. 

Comment: AHRI, p. 3,5. AHRI commented 

that EPCA’s focus is on benefits accruing 

with this nation, hence incorporation of SCC 

at the global level is beyond the scope and 

authority of DOE. See 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(B)(I). They further noted that 

EPCA originally arose out of the 1970’s oil 

embargo and that nothing in the subsequent 

amendments suggests a different statutory 

focus other than improving the energy 

economics within the United States. AHRI 

notes that DOE analyzes expected national 

[domestic] energy savings, but does not scale 

back reported SCC calculations to reflect 

domestic impacts only. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the 

estimates pertaining to CO2 are provided only 

as supplemental information and are not 

considered as part of the final determination, 

which is based on energy efficiency as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). As to 

the use of a SC–CO2 value that includes 

impacts outside the boundaries of the United 

States, the February 2021 TSD provides a 

complete discussion of the IWG’s initial 

review conducted under E.O. 13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that a global 

perspective is essential for SC–GHG 

estimates because climate impacts occurring 

outside U.S. borders can directly and 

indirectly affect the welfare of U.S. citizens 

and residents. Thus, U.S. interests are 

affected by the climate impacts that occur 

outside U.S. borders. Examples of affected 

interests include: Direct effects on U.S. 

citizens and assets located abroad, 

international trade, and tourism, and 

spillover pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global migration. 

In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. 

GHG mitigation activities requires 

consideration of how those actions may affect 

mitigation activities by other countries, as 

those international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts that 

affect U.S. citizens and residents. 

As noted previously, DOE determined that 

the estimates from the February 2021 TSD are 

based upon sound analysis, and therefore, in 

analyzing the impacts of CO2 related to the 

reductions of emissions from updating the 

90.1 Standard to the 2019 edition, DOE has 

focused on a global measure of SC–GHG. As 

noted in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG 

will continue to review developments in the 

literature, including more robust 

methodologies for estimating SC–GHG values 

based on purely domestic damages, and 

explore ways to better inform the public of 

the full range of carbon impacts, both global 

and domestic. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will likewise continue to follow 

developments in the literature pertaining to 

this issue. However, as discussed in previous 

comments, DOE’s SC–CO2 analysis using 

these estimates was not considered in DOE’s 

ultimate determination of whether Standard 

90.1–2019 will improve energy efficiency. 

Comment: AHRI, p.3,4. AHRI stated that 

DOE wrongly assumes that SCC values 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40548 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

increase over time in real dollars and states 

that this is contrary to ‘‘historical experience 

and to economic development science’’ and 

that the more economic development that 

occurs, the more adaptation and mitigation 

efforts a population living in a growing 

economy can afford to undertake (AHRI cites 

the IWG indicating that developed countries 

can eliminate 90% of the economic impacts 

and developing countries could eventually 

eliminate 50% of the economic impacts of 

climate change). They comment that they see 

no indication that DOE considered this 

separately. 

DOE response: In making its 

determination, DOE’s directive under ECPA 

is to assess whether updated editions of 

Standard 90.1 would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the 

estimates pertaining to CO2 are provided only 

as supplemental information and are not 

considered as part of the final determination, 

which is based on energy efficiency as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). 

The model scenarios reported by the IWG 

demonstrate that the damage assessments 

and corresponding valuation (SC–CO2), 

adjusted for inflation, increase through time. 

As explained in the February 2021 TSD, 

‘‘[the SC–GHG estimates increase over time 

within the models—i.e., the societal harm 

from one metric ton emitted in 2030 is higher 

than the harm caused by one metric ton 

emitted in 2025—because future emissions 

produce larger incremental damages as 

physical and economic systems become more 

stressed in response to greater climatic 

change, and because GDP is growing over 

time and many damage categories are 

modeled as proportional to GDP.’’ As noted 

previously, DOE determined that the 

estimates from the February 2021 TSD are 

based upon sound analysis and provide well 

founded estimates for DOE’s analysis of the 

impacts of CO2 related to the reductions of 

emissions from updating the 90.1 Standard to 

the 2019 edition in its building codes impact 

analysis. Accordingly, DOE incorporated the 

IWG’s considerations in its analysis. 

However, as discussed in previous 

comments, DOE’s SC–CO2 analysis using 

these estimates was not considered in DOE’s 

ultimate determination of whether Standard 

90.1–2019 will improve energy efficiency. 

Comment: AHRI, p. 4. AHRI argued that it 

is arbitrary and capricious to use different 

timeframes and assumptions for costs and 

benefits and notes that DOE must clarify 

precisely why and how it believes it has 

statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b) to 

consider SCC issues and cites why such 

action is legally arbitrary without sufficient 

documented reason for treating similar 

situations differently. AHRI notes that DOE, 

in clarifying why it believes it has such 

authority, can establish how it is acting 

consistently in terms of the analysis of 

benefits. 

DOE response: See previous response to 

AHRI comment on the issue of authority. On 

the issue of costs and benefits, DOE 

reemphasizes that its determination analysis 

is not assessing the costs and benefits 

associated with the updated Standard 90.1, 

that the determination is solely based on 

energy efficiency, and that the reported 

carbon emissions are reported only as 

supplemental information for the benefit of 

interested parties and in support of the 

directives of Executive Order 12866. To 

clarify the issue of timeframe, the emission 

estimates are based on a one-year time period 

(i.e., the annual energy consumption 

estimated via the energy efficiency analysis). 

However, the step of projecting the 

associated CO2 impacts captures the longerterm impact of those single-year emissions, 

as they persist in the atmosphere (and drive 

the damage impacts over the time they 

persist), which is then discounted to present 

value for the year when the emissions occur. 

DOE does not find an economic 

inconsistency in this approach to reporting 

emission benefits. Such a calculation is 

similar to life-cycle analysis, for instance, 

which is performed in a similar fashion, 

where a single year event occurs (e.g., a 

purchase of more efficient equipment), but 

the energy savings are calculated over the 

time they exist (e.g., the life of the 

equipment), and discounted back to the 

present value to reflect an overall life-cycle 

cost. DOE’s reporting here of discounted 

damage impacts is consistent with that 

general approach. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 19, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 22, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15971 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Case Number 2020–003; EERE–2020–BT– 

WAV–0020] 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Notification of Petition for Waiver of 

Hussmann Corporation From the 

Department of Energy Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers and 

Refrigerator-Freezers Test Procedure 

and Notification of Grant of Interim 

Waiver 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of petition for 

waiver and grant of an interim waiver; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notification announces 

receipt of and publishes a petition for 

waiver and interim waiver from 

Hussmann Corporation (‘‘Hussmann’’), 

which seeks a waiver for specified 

Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and 

Refrigerator-Freezer (‘‘CRE’’) basic 

models from the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) test procedure used for 

determining the energy consumption of 

CRE. DOE also gives notification of an 

Interim Waiver Order that requires 

Hussmann to test and rate the specified 

CRE basic models in accordance with 

the alternate test procedure set forth in 

the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits 

comments, data, and information 

concerning Hussmann’s petition, its 

suggested alternate test procedure, and 

the alternate test procedure required 

under the Interim Waiver Order so as to 

inform DOE’s final decision on 

Hussmann’s waiver request. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2020–BT–WAV–0020, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: to 

HussmannCRE2020WAV0020@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2020–BT–WAV–0020 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES