Technology Evaluation Process, 30696-30699 [2011-13096]
Download as PDF
30696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Issued at Washington, DC on May 20, 2011.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–13063 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial
Action at Active Uranium and Thorium
Processing Sites
Department of Energy.
Revised notice of the acceptance
of Title X claims during fiscal year (FY)
2011.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This Notice announces
revisions to the Department of Energy
(DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2011
from eligible active uranium and
thorium processing site licensees for
reimbursement under Title X of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. In our
Federal Register Notice of November
24, 2010 (75 FR 71677), the Department
announced the closing date for the
submission of claims in FY 2011 as
April 29, 2011. In a subsequent Federal
Register Notice of May 3, 2011, (76 FR
24871), the Department announced it
had become necessary to defer that
closing date for acceptance of claims;
and at a later date, the Department
would announce a new closing date for
the submission of FY 2011 claims and
a new address for submitting the claims.
DATES: The revised closing date for the
submission of claims in FY 2011 is June
3, 2011. These new claims will be
processed for payment by June 1, 2012,
together with any eligible unpaid
approved claim balances from prior
years. All reimbursements are subject to
the availability of funds from
congressional appropriations.
ADDRESSES: Claims should be forwarded
by certified or registered mail, return
receipt requested, to U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Legacy Management,
Attn: Title X Coordinator, 2597 Legacy
Way, Grand Junction, Colorado 81503.
Two copies of the claim should be
included with each submission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact David Mathes at (301) 903–7222
of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Environmental Management, Office of
Disposal Operations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
published a final rule under 10 CFR part
765 in the Federal Register on May 23,
1994 (59 FR 26714), to carry out the
requirements of Title X of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001–1004
of Pub. L. 102–486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et
seq.) and to establish the procedures for
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
eligible licensees to submit claims for
reimbursement. DOE amended the final
rule on June 3, 2003 (68 FR 32955), to
adopt several technical and
administrative amendments (e.g.,
statutory increases in the
reimbursement ceilings). Title X
requires DOE to reimburse eligible
uranium and thorium licensees for
certain costs of decontamination,
decommissioning, reclamation, and
other remedial action incurred by
licensees at active uranium and thorium
processing sites to remediate byproduct
material generated as an incident of
sales to the United States Government.
To be reimbursable, costs of remedial
action must be for work which is
necessary to comply with applicable
requirements of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
(42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or, where
appropriate, with requirements
established by a State pursuant to a
discontinuance agreement under section
274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for
reimbursement must be supported by
reasonable documentation as
determined by DOE in accordance with
10 CFR Part 765. Funds for
reimbursement will be provided from
the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund established at the Department of
Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2297g). Payment or obligation of funds
shall be subject to the requirements of
the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C.
1341).
Authority: Section 1001–1004 of Public
Law 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C.
2296a et seq.).
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 19th of
May 2011.
David E. Mathes,
Office of Disposal Operations, Office of
Technical and Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. 2011–13064 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–NOA–
0039]
Technology Evaluation Process
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of request for
information (RFI).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) seeks comments and
information related to a commercial
buildings technology evaluation
process. DOE is seeking to create a
process for evaluating emerging and
underutilized energy efficient
technologies for commercial buildings
based on the voluntary submittal of
product test data. The program would
be centered on a publicly accessible
listing of products that meet minimum
energy efficiency criteria specified for
the applicable technology type.
Evaluation under the criteria would be
based on product test data submitted by
manufacturers, then analyzed by DOE to
generate information related to the
energy savings of the products. For
those products that met the specified
minimum energy efficiency criteria, the
results of such analyses would be made
publicly available. The program would
provide centralized information on the
analysis factors in a manner that would
make results directly comparable
between products within the same
technology type or area.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested on or before
June 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0039, by
any of the following methods. Your
response should be limited to 3 pages.
Questions relative to responding to this
RFI may be sent to the same mailbox in
advance of your response, and will be
answered via e-mail.
• E-mail: to TechID-RFI-2011-NOA0039@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011–
BT–NOA–0039 in the subject line of the
message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
Revisions to Energy Efficiency
Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011–
BT–NOA–0039, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202)
586–2945. Please submit one signed
paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct requests for additional
information may be sent to Mr. Alan
Schroeder, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: 202–586–0158. E-mail:
Alan.Schroeder@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Program Overview
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
is seeking to create a process for
evaluating emerging and underutilized
energy efficient technologies for
commercial buildings based on the
voluntary submittal of product test data.
The program would be centered on a
publicly accessible listing of products
that meet minimum energy efficiency
criteria specified for the applicable
technology type. Evaluation under the
criteria would be based on product test
data submitted by manufacturers, then
analyzed by DOE to generate
information related to the energy
savings of the products. For those
products that met the specified
minimum energy efficiency criteria, the
results of such analyses would be made
publicly available. The program would
provide centralized information on the
analysis factors in a manner that would
make results directly comparable
between products within the same
technology type or area.
DOE recognizes that building owners
and operators, utilities, states, and local
governments, among others, could
greatly benefit from a central listing of
product test data and a standard process
for evaluating potential commercial
building technologies, thus potentially
preventing the duplication of product
evaluation efforts. The goal of creating
this standard process is to evaluate
energy-saving technologies in a common
manner utilizing product test data. The
process is intended to help accelerate
the adoption of energy-saving
commercial building equipment by
providing information to owners,
operators, utilities, states, and local
governments to facilitate decisions
regarding the purchase/implementation
of the technologies. To facilitate
awareness of the new process, and to
allow interested parties to provide
suggestions, comments, and
information, DOE is publishing this
Request for Information (RFI).
DOE envisions the new technology
evaluation process will be based on
several central elements. As proposed,
the evaluations would be based on
qualified third-party laboratory test data
using only qualified procedures.
Manufacturers, and possibly utilities,
suppliers, and energy programs would
submit third-party test data to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
program through a Web site portal.
Technology areas of interest would be
identified by DOE and test data
submissions would need to fall within
these areas of interest. The up-to-date
technology areas of interest would be
identified on the test data submission
Web site.
As currently being considered, the
test data would be reviewed to ensure
it comports with program specifications
and subsequently evaluated using
standard methodologies. The
evaluations would use the test data as
input for DOE models to perform
analyses such as energy savings
analyses, life-cycle cost analyses, and
payback analyses for the technology
being evaluated. Results of the
technology evaluations would be
publicly available for those products
that met specified minimum criteria.
Test data submitters would have an
opportunity to comment on the results
of the evaluations of their test data prior
to a determination of whether the
evaluations were posted.
Detailed Description
The following describes the
considered framework through which
DOE intends to develop a new voluntary
commercial building technology
evaluation process. Participation in this
program would be strictly voluntary;
however, evaluations conducted
through this program would be available
to the public.
The screening would consist of a
three-step review followed by specified
energy- and cost-related analyses. The
first review would be to ensure that the
product is of a type identified by DOE
as a technology of interest. The second
review would be of the data source.
DOE is considering specifying that data
be generated by an industry-accredited
test laboratory. The third review would
ensure that the data was generated
according to a recognized test
procedure. If a submission does meet all
three criteria in the reviews, DOE would
perform the following analyses: Annual
operating expense, energy savings, lifecycle cost, and payback analysis. DOE is
also interested in recommendations of
additional analyses that would assist
building owners and managers in
making investment decisions. DOE has
not yet identified what results would be
necessary under each analysis in order
for a product to be publicly listed under
the program, and is accepting comment
on this issue. For submitted test data
that does not meet the review criteria,
DOE would still accept the test data, but
is unlikely to conduct any analyses.
The first review would be to ensure
that the test data is for a product within
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30697
the current technology scope of this new
process, as identified by DOE. The
current technology areas of interest
would be listed on the test data
submission Web site. This list of areas
of interest would be updated
approximately every six months.
The second review would be to
ensure that submitted test data
originated from an accredited
laboratory. As stated above, DOE
intends to have the process rely on
third-party test data from sources
recognized under an industry
accreditation program. Generally, thirdparty test data can support accurate and
reliable evaluations of technologies
related to the energy savings potential of
implementing, or switching to, certain
commercial building technologies. To
qualify as an accredited third party
laboratory, the laboratory that generates
the test data would need to be
accredited to ISO 17025 General
Requirements for the Competence of
Testing and Calibration Laboratories, or
an equivalent standard as determined by
DOE in its evaluation methodology.
The third review of the test data
would be to ensure that the test data
was collected according to a qualified
test plan. To be considered a qualified
test plan, the test procedure run by the
third party laboratory would need to be
one of the following:
(a) A Federal test procedure
established in regulation (e.g., a DOE
appliance efficiency test procedure).
(b) A test procedure relied upon by a
Federal program (e.g., an ENERGY
STAR-qualified test procedure).
(c) A test procedure established under
an industry consensus process.
DOE anticipates that a Web site would
serve as both a portal for submitting test
data and accessing the product
evaluation listings by technology area.
The Web site would contain a test data
submission form to provide DOE with a
technology description and features,
qualifying test data, cost information,
manufacturer-estimated energy savings
achievable, and the intended scope of
applicability for the product, all of
which would be used to evaluate or
characterize the technology or product.
DOE’s primary interest in structuring
the technology evaluations is to provide
objective product energy savings
information that commercial building
owners and operators would need to
determine whether to make a capital
investment in a particular technology.
Products that did not meet the specified
level of energy efficiency would not be
listed. The technology evaluations
would be model-based and are not
expected to involve any field testing.
The submitted product test data and
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30698
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
cost data would serve as the basis for
DOE’s various analyses. These analyses
would utilize models that would be
standard for similar products and
technology areas (e.g. all condensing
water heater test data will be input into
the same models and will undergo the
same analyses as other water heating
technologies). This would make analysis
results comparable within similar
technology groups. Each of the analyses
that would be performed as part of the
evaluation is described below. The
methodologies for performing the
analyses would vary by product type,
but would be the same within product
groups so that results are directly
comparable. Submitters would provide
the expected use-case conditions for the
product, thus identifying the conditions
under which it would be evaluated. The
use-case conditions would be included
in the final evaluation report.
Annual Operating Expense: The
annual operating expense calculation
would estimate the total cost of
operating, repairing, and maintaining
the technology over the course of a year.
The annual operating expense would
take into account the energy
consumption of the product and energy
price models to calculate an annual
energy expense for specific regions of
the country. The annual energy expense
would be combined with estimated
repair and maintenance costs for the
product to calculate the annual
operating expense for the submitted
product test data.
Energy Savings Analysis: The energy
savings analysis would calculate the
total energy savings from an overnight
switch to the new technology. The
energy savings would be calculated as
the difference between the annual unit
energy consumption of a baseline
technology and the annual unit energy
consumption of the submitted product.
The annual unit energy consumption of
the new product would come from the
test data. The baseline technology
annual unit energy consumption would
be determined by evaluating the
distribution of product efficiencies
currently in the marketplace.
DOE is suggesting that cost data for a
product, specifically total installed cost
data, be submitted along with the
product test data. Then, more extensive
and detailed analyses may be
performed, such as a Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis and a Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: The lifecycle cost is the total consumer expense
over the life of a product, including
purchase expenses and operating costs
(including energy expenditures). Future
operating costs are discounted to the
time of purchase and then are summed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
over the anticipated lifetime of the
product.
The life-cycle cost is equal to the total
installed cost plus the summation over
the lifetime of the product of the
operating costs discounted back to
present day. The parameters to be
defined for a life-cycle cost analysis are
therefore:
(A) The total installed cost, in dollars.
(B) The lifetime of the technology, in
years.
(C) The operating cost, in dollars.
(D) The discount rate.
(E) The year for which operating cost
is to be determined.
The total installed cost would be
submitted by the manufacturer along
with the product test data. The primary
inputs for establishing the operating
cost are:
(C.1) Equipment energy consumption.
(C.2) Equipment efficiency.
(C.3) Energy prices.
(C.4) Energy price trends.
(C.5) Repair and maintenance costs.
(C.6) Lifetime.
(C.7) Discount rate.
DOE would utilize standard models
and values for Energy Prices and Energy
Price Trends based on compiled
databases. Discount rate would be
assumed by DOE. Repair and
Maintenance Costs and Product Lifetime
for all products of the same technology
type would also be assumed if
additional third-party test data is not
provided to support manufacturersuggested values for these fields.
Remaining are Equipment Energy
Consumption and Equipment Efficiency
to be determined in order to calculate
the operating cost. Energy Consumption
and Energy Prices would be used to
calculate the Annual Energy Expense.
The Annual Energy Expense and Repair
and Maintenance Cost would be used to
calculate the Annual Operating
Expense. The Annual Operating
Expense combined with the assumed
Lifetime, Discount Rate, and Energy
Price Trends would be used to calculate
the Lifetime Operating Expense. Finally,
the Lifetime Operating Expense
combined with the Total Installed Cost
would be used to calculate the LifeCycle Cost of the product.
As stated, Equipment Energy
Consumption and Equipment Efficiency
would come from the product test data
submitted to the program by
manufacturers. Energy consumption and
efficiency data would be extracted from
the submitted test data and will be fed
into the standard DOE models,
combined with standard assumed
parameters, and the output would be
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
(described below).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Payback Analysis: The payback
period is the change in purchase
expense of the new product (from a less
efficient design to a more efficient
design) divided by the change in annual
operating expense that results from
switching to the new product. It
represents the number of years it will
take the user to recover the assumed
increased purchase expense of more
energy-efficient equipment through
decreased operating expenses. This
calculation is known as a ‘‘simple’’
payback period because it does not take
into account changes in operating
expense over time or the time value of
money (i.e., uses an effective discount
rate of zero percent).
The data inputs to this analysis would
be the total installed cost of the
equipment to the consumer and the
annual (first year) operating
expenditures. From the Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis, the same methodology would
be used and the Total Installed Cost,
provided by the submitter or assumed in
the analysis, would be combined with
the Annual Operating Expense to
calculate the Payback Period for the
product. A payback period analysis
compares the savings from switching to
a more efficient product with the cost of
a less efficient product, or baseline. For
these analyses, the baseline would be
determined by evaluating the
distribution of product efficiencies
currently in the marketplace. The
resulting estimates would be used as the
base case for the analysis.
As noted above, DOE is interested in
receiving comments on the analyses
proposed as part of the evaluation
process. In addition, DOE is interested
in what subsequent analyses or data
would be most useful in assisting
investment decisions. Evaluation results
would first be sent to the manufacturer
for comment following completion and
prior to a decision of whether to list the
product. The manufacturer would have
a period of three weeks to return
comments on the results of the
evaluation. The comment period is
intended to provide the manufacturer
with a fair opportunity to justify or
comment on whatever the evaluation
results might reflect. DOE would
develop a mechanism for creating
awareness of completed and posted
evaluation reports to ensure that the
technology evaluations facilitate market
adoption. Only products that meet a
minimum energy efficiency
improvement threshold would be
posted to the program Web site. DOE
seeks comments on what these
threshold levels should be for different
products.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Commentand Information
DOE invites comments from
respondents on all the specific elements
discussed above, as well as any
additional issues the respondent deems
important. Specifically, DOE is
requesting comment as to what level of
analysis results should be necessary for
a product to be listed. DOE is also
requesting comment on the
appropriateness of the analyses as
described.
DOE is also interested in information
from organizations currently conducting
technology evaluations or housing
product test data to create a listing for
commercial building technologies based
on the evaluation of test data. DOE seeks
input from stakeholders conducting
similar technology evaluation programs.
Those stakeholders should respond to
the following queries:
(1) How could DOE compliment
existing efforts?
(2) Comments on the potential to use
the proposed DOE evaluation process.
(3) Examples of your current
technology evaluation program. The
summary should include, at a
minimum, the purpose of the program,
the procedure and test plan followed for
evaluations, and the reporting format of
results. A sample evaluation may be
included as an additional attachment.
(4) Example test data used either in
other evaluation programs (see query 3
above) or as potential input into the
process.
(5) Comments on the DOE-proposed
review criteria.
(6) What commercial building
technologies have been evaluated, or are
planned for future evaluation, in your
program?
(7) What organizations, if any, are
qualified to accredit test facilities for
this type of program?
DOE is also requesting notice of the
availability of, and willingness to share,
test data (that meets the established
criteria) within the technology scope of
the new Technology EvaluationProcess,
as outlined in this RFI. DOE also
requests that, once functional,
manufacturers, utilities, research
organizations, state and municipal
energy programs, and other stakeholders
submit test data through the program
Web site via the nomination form.
Disclaimer and Important Notes
This is an RFI issued solely for
information and program planning
purposes; this RFI does not constitute a
formal solicitation for proposals or
abstracts. Your response to this notice
will be treated as information only. DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
will not provide reimbursement for
costs incurred in responding to this RFI.
Respondents are advised that DOE is
under no obligation to acknowledge
receipt of the information received or
provide feedback to respondents with
respect to any information submitted
under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do
not bind DOE to any further actions
related to this topic.
Confidential Business Information
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via e-mail, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via e-mail or
on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
Issued in Washington, DC on May 18,
2011.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–13096 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30699
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric corporate
filings:
Docket Numbers: EC11–80–000.
Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power,
LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC,
Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC,
Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC,
Stetson Wind II, LLC, Evergreen Gen
Lead, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC, Niagara
Wind Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind
Power III, LLC, Northeast Wind
Holdings, LLC.
Description: Application for Approval
under FPA Section 203 of Niagara Wind
Power, LLC, et al.
Filed Date: 05/18/2011.
Accession Number: 20110518–5204.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Wednesday, June 8, 2011.
Docket Numbers: EC11–81–000.
Applicants: Dayton Power and Light
Company, The AES Corporation, DPL
Inc., DPL Energy, LLC.
Description: Application for
Authorization of Disposition of
Jurisdictional Assets and Merger of The
AES Corporation and DPL Inc.
Filed Date: 05/19/2011.
Accession Number: 20110519–5027.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Thursday, June 9, 2011.
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER10–787–007,
EL10–50–005, EL10–57–005.
Applicants: ISO New England Inc.,
New England Power Pool Participants
Committee.
Description: ISO–NE Compliance
Filing in Response to FERC Order
issued on April 13, 2011.
Filed Date: 05/13/2011.
Accession Number: 20110513–5170.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Friday, June 3, 2011.
Docket Numbers: ER10–3323–004.
Applicants: Indeck-Olean Limited
Partnership.
Description: Indeck-Olean Limited
Partnership submits tariff filing per 35:
Indeck-Olean Compliance File Baseline
FERC Electric MBR Tariff No. 1 to be
effective 5/18/2011.
Filed Date: 05/18/2011.
Accession Number: 20110518–5137.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Wednesday, June 8, 2011.
Docket Numbers: ER11–2908–001.
Applicants: Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30696-30699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0039]
Technology Evaluation Process
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of request for information (RFI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments and
information related to a commercial buildings technology evaluation
process. DOE is seeking to create a process for evaluating emerging and
underutilized energy efficient technologies for commercial buildings
based on the voluntary submittal of product test data. The program
would be centered on a publicly accessible listing of products that
meet minimum energy efficiency criteria specified for the applicable
technology type. Evaluation under the criteria would be based on
product test data submitted by manufacturers, then analyzed by DOE to
generate information related to the energy savings of the products. For
those products that met the specified minimum energy efficiency
criteria, the results of such analyses would be made publicly
available. The program would provide centralized information on the
analysis factors in a manner that would make results directly
comparable between products within the same technology type or area.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before June
27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0039, by any of the following methods. Your
response should be limited to 3 pages. Questions relative to responding
to this RFI may be sent to the same mailbox in advance of your
response, and will be answered via e-mail.
E-mail: to TechID-RFI-2011-NOA-0039@ee.doe.gov. Include
EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0039 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Revisions to Energy
Efficiency Enforcement Regulations, EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0039, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-
2945. Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit
one signed paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional
information may be sent to Mr. Alan Schroeder, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
[[Page 30697]]
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-
586-0158. E-mail: Alan.Schroeder@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Program Overview
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to create a process
for evaluating emerging and underutilized energy efficient technologies
for commercial buildings based on the voluntary submittal of product
test data. The program would be centered on a publicly accessible
listing of products that meet minimum energy efficiency criteria
specified for the applicable technology type. Evaluation under the
criteria would be based on product test data submitted by
manufacturers, then analyzed by DOE to generate information related to
the energy savings of the products. For those products that met the
specified minimum energy efficiency criteria, the results of such
analyses would be made publicly available. The program would provide
centralized information on the analysis factors in a manner that would
make results directly comparable between products within the same
technology type or area.
DOE recognizes that building owners and operators, utilities,
states, and local governments, among others, could greatly benefit from
a central listing of product test data and a standard process for
evaluating potential commercial building technologies, thus potentially
preventing the duplication of product evaluation efforts. The goal of
creating this standard process is to evaluate energy-saving
technologies in a common manner utilizing product test data. The
process is intended to help accelerate the adoption of energy-saving
commercial building equipment by providing information to owners,
operators, utilities, states, and local governments to facilitate
decisions regarding the purchase/implementation of the technologies. To
facilitate awareness of the new process, and to allow interested
parties to provide suggestions, comments, and information, DOE is
publishing this Request for Information (RFI).
DOE envisions the new technology evaluation process will be based
on several central elements. As proposed, the evaluations would be
based on qualified third-party laboratory test data using only
qualified procedures. Manufacturers, and possibly utilities, suppliers,
and energy programs would submit third-party test data to the program
through a Web site portal. Technology areas of interest would be
identified by DOE and test data submissions would need to fall within
these areas of interest. The up-to-date technology areas of interest
would be identified on the test data submission Web site.
As currently being considered, the test data would be reviewed to
ensure it comports with program specifications and subsequently
evaluated using standard methodologies. The evaluations would use the
test data as input for DOE models to perform analyses such as energy
savings analyses, life-cycle cost analyses, and payback analyses for
the technology being evaluated. Results of the technology evaluations
would be publicly available for those products that met specified
minimum criteria. Test data submitters would have an opportunity to
comment on the results of the evaluations of their test data prior to a
determination of whether the evaluations were posted.
Detailed Description
The following describes the considered framework through which DOE
intends to develop a new voluntary commercial building technology
evaluation process. Participation in this program would be strictly
voluntary; however, evaluations conducted through this program would be
available to the public.
The screening would consist of a three-step review followed by
specified energy- and cost-related analyses. The first review would be
to ensure that the product is of a type identified by DOE as a
technology of interest. The second review would be of the data source.
DOE is considering specifying that data be generated by an industry-
accredited test laboratory. The third review would ensure that the data
was generated according to a recognized test procedure. If a submission
does meet all three criteria in the reviews, DOE would perform the
following analyses: Annual operating expense, energy savings, life-
cycle cost, and payback analysis. DOE is also interested in
recommendations of additional analyses that would assist building
owners and managers in making investment decisions. DOE has not yet
identified what results would be necessary under each analysis in order
for a product to be publicly listed under the program, and is accepting
comment on this issue. For submitted test data that does not meet the
review criteria, DOE would still accept the test data, but is unlikely
to conduct any analyses.
The first review would be to ensure that the test data is for a
product within the current technology scope of this new process, as
identified by DOE. The current technology areas of interest would be
listed on the test data submission Web site. This list of areas of
interest would be updated approximately every six months.
The second review would be to ensure that submitted test data
originated from an accredited laboratory. As stated above, DOE intends
to have the process rely on third-party test data from sources
recognized under an industry accreditation program. Generally, third-
party test data can support accurate and reliable evaluations of
technologies related to the energy savings potential of implementing,
or switching to, certain commercial building technologies. To qualify
as an accredited third party laboratory, the laboratory that generates
the test data would need to be accredited to ISO 17025 General
Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration
Laboratories, or an equivalent standard as determined by DOE in its
evaluation methodology.
The third review of the test data would be to ensure that the test
data was collected according to a qualified test plan. To be considered
a qualified test plan, the test procedure run by the third party
laboratory would need to be one of the following:
(a) A Federal test procedure established in regulation (e.g., a DOE
appliance efficiency test procedure).
(b) A test procedure relied upon by a Federal program (e.g., an
ENERGY STAR-qualified test procedure).
(c) A test procedure established under an industry consensus
process.
DOE anticipates that a Web site would serve as both a portal for
submitting test data and accessing the product evaluation listings by
technology area. The Web site would contain a test data submission form
to provide DOE with a technology description and features, qualifying
test data, cost information, manufacturer-estimated energy savings
achievable, and the intended scope of applicability for the product,
all of which would be used to evaluate or characterize the technology
or product.
DOE's primary interest in structuring the technology evaluations is
to provide objective product energy savings information that commercial
building owners and operators would need to determine whether to make a
capital investment in a particular technology. Products that did not
meet the specified level of energy efficiency would not be listed. The
technology evaluations would be model-based and are not expected to
involve any field testing. The submitted product test data and
[[Page 30698]]
cost data would serve as the basis for DOE's various analyses. These
analyses would utilize models that would be standard for similar
products and technology areas (e.g. all condensing water heater test
data will be input into the same models and will undergo the same
analyses as other water heating technologies). This would make analysis
results comparable within similar technology groups. Each of the
analyses that would be performed as part of the evaluation is described
below. The methodologies for performing the analyses would vary by
product type, but would be the same within product groups so that
results are directly comparable. Submitters would provide the expected
use-case conditions for the product, thus identifying the conditions
under which it would be evaluated. The use-case conditions would be
included in the final evaluation report.
Annual Operating Expense: The annual operating expense calculation
would estimate the total cost of operating, repairing, and maintaining
the technology over the course of a year. The annual operating expense
would take into account the energy consumption of the product and
energy price models to calculate an annual energy expense for specific
regions of the country. The annual energy expense would be combined
with estimated repair and maintenance costs for the product to
calculate the annual operating expense for the submitted product test
data.
Energy Savings Analysis: The energy savings analysis would
calculate the total energy savings from an overnight switch to the new
technology. The energy savings would be calculated as the difference
between the annual unit energy consumption of a baseline technology and
the annual unit energy consumption of the submitted product. The annual
unit energy consumption of the new product would come from the test
data. The baseline technology annual unit energy consumption would be
determined by evaluating the distribution of product efficiencies
currently in the marketplace.
DOE is suggesting that cost data for a product, specifically total
installed cost data, be submitted along with the product test data.
Then, more extensive and detailed analyses may be performed, such as a
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and a Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: The life-cycle cost is the total consumer
expense over the life of a product, including purchase expenses and
operating costs (including energy expenditures). Future operating costs
are discounted to the time of purchase and then are summed over the
anticipated lifetime of the product.
The life-cycle cost is equal to the total installed cost plus the
summation over the lifetime of the product of the operating costs
discounted back to present day. The parameters to be defined for a
life-cycle cost analysis are therefore:
(A) The total installed cost, in dollars.
(B) The lifetime of the technology, in years.
(C) The operating cost, in dollars.
(D) The discount rate.
(E) The year for which operating cost is to be determined.
The total installed cost would be submitted by the manufacturer
along with the product test data. The primary inputs for establishing
the operating cost are:
(C.1) Equipment energy consumption.
(C.2) Equipment efficiency.
(C.3) Energy prices.
(C.4) Energy price trends.
(C.5) Repair and maintenance costs.
(C.6) Lifetime.
(C.7) Discount rate.
DOE would utilize standard models and values for Energy Prices and
Energy Price Trends based on compiled databases. Discount rate would be
assumed by DOE. Repair and Maintenance Costs and Product Lifetime for
all products of the same technology type would also be assumed if
additional third-party test data is not provided to support
manufacturer-suggested values for these fields. Remaining are Equipment
Energy Consumption and Equipment Efficiency to be determined in order
to calculate the operating cost. Energy Consumption and Energy Prices
would be used to calculate the Annual Energy Expense. The Annual Energy
Expense and Repair and Maintenance Cost would be used to calculate the
Annual Operating Expense. The Annual Operating Expense combined with
the assumed Lifetime, Discount Rate, and Energy Price Trends would be
used to calculate the Lifetime Operating Expense. Finally, the Lifetime
Operating Expense combined with the Total Installed Cost would be used
to calculate the Life-Cycle Cost of the product.
As stated, Equipment Energy Consumption and Equipment Efficiency
would come from the product test data submitted to the program by
manufacturers. Energy consumption and efficiency data would be
extracted from the submitted test data and will be fed into the
standard DOE models, combined with standard assumed parameters, and the
output would be Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period (described below).
Payback Analysis: The payback period is the change in purchase
expense of the new product (from a less efficient design to a more
efficient design) divided by the change in annual operating expense
that results from switching to the new product. It represents the
number of years it will take the user to recover the assumed increased
purchase expense of more energy-efficient equipment through decreased
operating expenses. This calculation is known as a ``simple'' payback
period because it does not take into account changes in operating
expense over time or the time value of money (i.e., uses an effective
discount rate of zero percent).
The data inputs to this analysis would be the total installed cost
of the equipment to the consumer and the annual (first year) operating
expenditures. From the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, the same methodology
would be used and the Total Installed Cost, provided by the submitter
or assumed in the analysis, would be combined with the Annual Operating
Expense to calculate the Payback Period for the product. A payback
period analysis compares the savings from switching to a more efficient
product with the cost of a less efficient product, or baseline. For
these analyses, the baseline would be determined by evaluating the
distribution of product efficiencies currently in the marketplace. The
resulting estimates would be used as the base case for the analysis.
As noted above, DOE is interested in receiving comments on the
analyses proposed as part of the evaluation process. In addition, DOE
is interested in what subsequent analyses or data would be most useful
in assisting investment decisions. Evaluation results would first be
sent to the manufacturer for comment following completion and prior to
a decision of whether to list the product. The manufacturer would have
a period of three weeks to return comments on the results of the
evaluation. The comment period is intended to provide the manufacturer
with a fair opportunity to justify or comment on whatever the
evaluation results might reflect. DOE would develop a mechanism for
creating awareness of completed and posted evaluation reports to ensure
that the technology evaluations facilitate market adoption. Only
products that meet a minimum energy efficiency improvement threshold
would be posted to the program Web site. DOE seeks comments on what
these threshold levels should be for different products.
[[Page 30699]]
Issues on Which DOE Seeks Commentand Information
DOE invites comments from respondents on all the specific elements
discussed above, as well as any additional issues the respondent deems
important. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment as to what level of
analysis results should be necessary for a product to be listed. DOE is
also requesting comment on the appropriateness of the analyses as
described.
DOE is also interested in information from organizations currently
conducting technology evaluations or housing product test data to
create a listing for commercial building technologies based on the
evaluation of test data. DOE seeks input from stakeholders conducting
similar technology evaluation programs. Those stakeholders should
respond to the following queries:
(1) How could DOE compliment existing efforts?
(2) Comments on the potential to use the proposed DOE evaluation
process.
(3) Examples of your current technology evaluation program. The
summary should include, at a minimum, the purpose of the program, the
procedure and test plan followed for evaluations, and the reporting
format of results. A sample evaluation may be included as an additional
attachment.
(4) Example test data used either in other evaluation programs (see
query 3 above) or as potential input into the process.
(5) Comments on the DOE-proposed review criteria.
(6) What commercial building technologies have been evaluated, or
are planned for future evaluation, in your program?
(7) What organizations, if any, are qualified to accredit test
facilities for this type of program?
DOE is also requesting notice of the availability of, and
willingness to share, test data (that meets the established criteria)
within the technology scope of the new Technology EvaluationProcess, as
outlined in this RFI. DOE also requests that, once functional,
manufacturers, utilities, research organizations, state and municipal
energy programs, and other stakeholders submit test data through the
program Web site via the nomination form.
Disclaimer and Important Notes
This is an RFI issued solely for information and program planning
purposes; this RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for
proposals or abstracts. Your response to this notice will be treated as
information only. DOE will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred
in responding to this RFI. Respondents are advised that DOE is under no
obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or
provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information
submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any
further actions related to this topic.
Confidential Business Information
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he
or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public
disclosure should submit via e-mail, postal mail, or hand delivery/
courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents
via e-mail or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination
about the confidential status of the information and treat it according
to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
Issued in Washington, DC on May 18, 2011.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-13096 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P