Request for Information: Updating and Improving the DOE Methodology for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy Codes, 19974-19979 [2015-08601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19974
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
III. Public Participation in the
Development of DOE Proposals
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Stakeholder Input
The public will have the following
opportunities to provide DOE with
input:
1. Comments on posted proposals and
2. Participation in public meetings.
Public Comment on DOE Proposals:
DOE intends to make information
available to the general public as it
comes available. As information will be
updated continually throughout the
process, interested parties are urged to
closely monitor the DOE Building
Energy Codes Program Web page and
stakeholder mailing lists to remain
current with DOE activities. As
materials will be posted over an
extended period of time, the Web site
will provide additional instructions on
submitting comments on DOE
proposals, including associated
comment deadlines.
DOE will publish a notice in the
Federal Register when its draft
proposals and supporting materials
begin to become available for public
review. Note that DOE will not provide
responses to individual public
comments, but will consider all
information received, and will
incorporate all appropriate information
into updated versions of its proposals.
All DOE proposals and supporting
documentation will be made available
for review at https://
www.energycodes.gov/development.
Participation in Public Meetings. DOE
intends to convene one or more public
meetings during each code cycle to
present its proposals and supporting
information, and to receive questions
and feedback from interested and
affected stakeholders. Such meetings
will also be used to encourage and
facilitate the free exchange of ideas,
with the intent of improving proposals
from all parties. DOE will both moderate
and participate in these meetings. Note
that DOE will not attempt to bring
stakeholders to a consensus; rather
DOE’s role will be to increase
understanding of the concepts
discussed. These meetings will also be
announced in the Federal Register.
B. Ex-Parte Guidance
DOE anticipates that it or its
contractors may be contacted regarding
code concepts, ideas or change
proposals prior to and during the code
hearings. While DOE code change
proposals submitted to the ICC are not
regulations, DOE will follow its ex parte
communication policy for such
communications prior to the code
hearings. DOE guidance on ex parte
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
communications was published on
January 21, 2009 (74 FR 4685).4 As
described in the guidance, individuals
or entities that communicate with DOE
or its contractors prior to the code
hearing must provide a memorandum
summarizing the communication, which
will be included in the public docket
consistent with the ex parte guidance.
During each ICC hearing process, DOE
will maintain a published Web site
containing submitted DOE proposals,
which will also contain a link directed
to the Web site and materials
maintained by the ICC. DOE recognizes
that the code development and public
hearing process is based on processes
established by the ICC, which do not
constitute ex parte communications,
and therefore, any discussions of the
process at code hearings do not need to
follow the guidance.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7,
2015.
David Cohan,
Manager, Building Energy Codes Program,
Building Technologies Office, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–08599 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Docket Number EERE–2015–BT–BC–0001]
Request for Information: Updating and
Improving the DOE Methodology for
Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of
Building Energy Codes
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is seeking input on how
it may update and improve its
methodology for assessing the costeffectiveness (which includes an energy
savings assessment) of residential and
commercial building energy codes. DOE
is directed by statute to provide
technical assistance to states to support
the implementation of model building
energy codes. As part of this role, DOE
conducts national and state-level
analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness
of building energy codes and proposed
changes. DOE is interested in feedback
on its analysis methodology, preferred
sources of cost data, and parameter
assumptions surrounding its cost-
SUMMARY:
4 See https://energy.gov/gc/downloads/guidanceex-parte-communications.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
effectiveness assessment. In addition,
DOE is seeking information on the
general costs, benefits, and economic
impacts associated with building energy
codes. This notice identifies several
areas where interested parties may
provide suggestions, comments, and
other information.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested by May 14,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments must identify the
docket number EERE–2015–BT–BC–
0001 and may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
1. Regulations.gov: https://www.
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2015-BT-BC-0001. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: BCMethodology2015
BC0001@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–
2015–BT–BC–0001 in the subject line of
the message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards;
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202)
586–2945. Please submit one signed
paper original.
Further instructions, including the
use of topic identifiers, are provided in
the Public Participation section of this
notice. Comments submitted in
response to this notice will become a
matter of public records and will be
made publicly available.
Public Docket: The docket, which
includes notices published in the
Federal Register and public comments
received, is available for review at
Regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the Regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed
in the index, such as those containing
information exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found under Public Participation at:
https://www.energycodes.gov/events.
This Web page will also contain a link
to the docket for this notice on
Regulations.gov. The Regulations.gov
site will contain instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review comments
received, or otherwise participate in the
public comment process, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586–
2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
Technologies Office EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202)
287–1941, Email: jeremiah.williams@
ee.doe.gov.
For legal matters, contact: Kavita
Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC–33,
1000 Independence Ave SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202)
586–0669, Email: kavita.vaidyanathan@
hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Analysis of Residential Buildings
A. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
1. Prototypes
2. Weather Locations
B. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating the Cost-effectiveness of Code
Changes
III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings
A. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
B. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Code
Changes
1. Property Tax Impact
IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and
Commercial Buildings
A. Addressing Code Changes With
Multiple Approaches to Compliance
B. Economic Parameters and Inputs
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Information
B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Information
C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Information
D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Information
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
I. Authority and Background
Section 307(b) of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act
(ECPA, Pub. L. 102–486), as amended,
directs DOE to support voluntary
building energy codes by periodically
reviewing the technical and economic
basis of the voluntary building energy
codes and to ‘‘seek adoption of all
technologically feasible and
economically justified energy efficiency
measures; and . . . otherwise
participate in any industry process for
review and modification of such codes’’
(42 U.S.C. 6836(b)(2) and (3)). DOE
participates in the development of the
International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC), maintained by the International
Code Council (ICC) for residential and
commercial buildings, and in the
development of Standard 90.1,
maintained by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for
commercial buildings.
This Request for Information (RFI)
seeks public input on revisions to DOE’s
established methodologies for assessing
the cost-effectiveness of proposed
changes to residential and commercial
building energy codes and new editions
of such codes. DOE has previously
expressed interest in receiving
information surrounding the costs and
benefits associated with building energy
codes (78 FR 47677 and 79 FR 27778).
The current request for information will
ensure that DOE is able to maintain
appropriate means of evaluating the
cost-effectiveness of building energy
codes, including the selection of
appropriate data sources and methods to
analyze the economic impacts
associated with code updates. This
notice is intended to communicate
relevant updates to the general public
and solicit feedback on the specific
analysis parameters subject to revision.
In addition, this request provides a
broader opportunity for input on DOE’s
designated methods. DOE uses these
methodologies to inform its
participation in the update processes of
the IECC, ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and
other building energy codes—both in
developing proposals and in assessing
the proposals of others, when necessary.
DOE also uses these methodologies in
assessing the cost-effectiveness of new
code editions. DOE evaluates energy
codes and code proposals based on lifecycle cost analysis, accounting for
energy savings, incremental investment
for energy efficiency measures, and
other economic impacts.
The value of future savings and costs
are discounted to a present value, with
improvements deemed cost-effective
when the net savings is positive.
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a
proposed code change or a newly
revised code involves three primary
steps:
1. Estimating the energy savings of the
changed code provision(s),
2. estimating the first cost of the
changed provision(s), and
3. calculating the corresponding
economic impacts of the changed
provision(s).
These steps are detailed in the
established residential and commercial
methodologies, as referenced later in
this RFI (see the Analysis of Residential
Buildings and Analysis of Commercial
Buildings sections of this notice). The
DOE methodologies for residential and
commercial buildings have the same
life-cycle cost basis and parallel one
another closely. However, because there
is variation in the economic criteria
associated with different types of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19975
commercial building ownership, up to
three scenarios may be used for
commercial cost-effective analysis:
• Scenario 1 (also referred to as the
Publicly-Owned Method): Life-cycle cost
analysis method representing
government or public ownership
(without borrowing or taxes).
• Scenario 2: (also referred to as the
Privately-Owned Method): Life-cycle
cost analysis method representing
private or business ownership (includes
loan and tax impacts).
• Scenario 3: (also referred to as the
ASHRAE 90.1 Scalar Method 1):
Represents a pre-tax private investment
point of view, and uses economic inputs
established by the ASHRAE 90.1
Standing Standard Project Committee
(SSPC).
For the commercial methodology DOE
is seeking public input only on the
method and sources for parameters of
Scenario 2, as the method and
parameters for Scenario 1 are
established by federal regulation, and
the method and parameters for Scenario
3 are established by the ASHRAE 90.1
SSPC. DOE intends to continue to rely
on Scenarios 1 and 3 since they are
required for federal projects and
addenda to ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
respectively.
In preparation for this RFI, DOE
reviewed the established residential and
commercial methodologies and is
proposing revisions. These revisions are
limited to minor clarifications and
attempts to streamline certain portions;
the overall methodology remains
unchanged in terms of procedure and
content. For brevity, only the proposed
revisions to the methodologies are
discussed here; the entire residential
methodology and commercial
methodology are available for review, as
referenced below (see Analysis for
Residential Buildings and Analysis for
Commercial Buildings sections of this
notice) and are not published in full
within the current RFI.
II. Analysis of Residential Buildings
The focus of this section of the RFI is
residential buildings, which DOE
defines in a manner consistent with the
IECC—one- and two-family dwellings,
townhouses, and low-rise (three stories
or less above grade) multifamily
residential buildings. DOE previously
established a methodology for assessing
1 McBride M.F., ‘‘Development of Economic
Scalar Ratios for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 R,’’ in
Proceedings of Thermal Performance of the Exterior
Envelopes of Buildings VI, ASHRAE (presented at
the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes
of Buildings VI, ASHRAE, 1995), https://
consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/
901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
19976
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
the cost-effectiveness of changes made
to the residential building energy code
through an RFI process published in the
Federal Register on September 13, 2011
(76 FR 56413). DOE took into
consideration the information it
received during the public comment
period, and published the final
methodology in 2012.2 This
methodology, hereafter referred to as the
‘‘established residential methodology,’’
was used for assessing cost-effectiveness
of the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared
with the 2006 IECC at the national and
state levels,3 and in analyzing costeffectiveness of code change proposals
developed by DOE for submission to the
ICC in the development of the 2015
IECC.4
A. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
The established methodology for
estimating energy savings of residential
code changes remains unchanged except
for the following proposed revisions:
1. Prototypes
Single-family and multifamily
residential building prototypes are used
to assess the energy and cost impact of
residential energy codes.5 Minor
revisions are proposed to prototype
building characteristics to better align
them with current construction
practices or simplify the energy
modeling process. These characteristics
are summarized in are summarized in
are summarized in Table II.1 and Table
II.2 with proposed changes indicated in
italics (with the unchanged
characteristics included to provide
context).
The first proposed change to the DOE
residential building prototypes
surrounds the assumption for ‘‘area
below roofs/ceilings’’ for both singleand multifamily buildings. DOE
proposes to modify the former value of
70 percent with attic (and the remaining
30 percent cathedral) to a revised value
of 100 percent with attic. This change is
intended to simplify the energy
modeling process. The second proposed
change focuses on the ‘‘internal gains’’
assumption for the single-family
prototype, which is revised from a value
of 91,436 Btu/day to 87,332 Btu/day.
This change updates the previous
assumption to align with Section 405 of
the 2015 IECC. The third and final
change modifies the ‘‘window area’’
assumption for the multifamily
prototype, revised from a value of 14
percent relative to conditioned floor
area to 23 percent relative to exterior
wall area not including breezeway
walls. Note that the revised exterior wall
area metric is the target of the change
(i.e., not the actual quantity of window
area), and is considered to better reflect
typical multifamily building
construction.
DOE is seeking public input on these
proposed revisions (Topic R01). Note
that the non-revised content in the
tables remains unchanged from the
established methodology.
TABLE II.1—SINGLE-FAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter
Assumption
Conditioned floor area ....................
Footprint and height ........................
Area above unconditioned space ...
Area below roofs/ceilings ................
Perimeter length ..............................
Gross exterior wall area ..................
Window area (relative to conditioned floor area).
Door area ........................................
Internal gains ..................................
Heating system ...............................
Cooling system ...............................
Water heating ..................................
Foundation type ..............................
2,400 ft2 (plus 1,200 ft2 of conditioned basement, where applicable).
30-ft-by-40 ft, two-story, 8.5-ft-high ceilings.
1,200 ft2.
1,200 ft2, 100% with attic.
140 ft.
2,380 ft2.
Fifteen percent equally distributed to the four cardinal directions (or as required to evaluate glazing-specific
code changes).
42 ft2.
87,332 Btu/day.
Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace.
Central electric air conditioning.
Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes.
Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement.
Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics.
TABLE II.2—MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS
Assumption
Conditioned floor area ....................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Parameter
1,200 ft 2 per unit, or 21,600 ft 2 total (plus 1,200 ft 2 of conditioned basement on ground-floor units, where
applicable).
Each unit is 40 ft wide by 30 ft deep, with 8.5-ft-high ceilings. The building footprint is 120 ft by 65 ft.
1,200 ft2 on ground-floor units.
None.
Footprint and height ........................
Area above unconditioned space ...
Wall area adjacent to unconditioned
space.
Area below roofs/ceilings ................
Perimeter length ..............................
Gross wall area ...............................
Window area (relative to exterior
wall area not including breezeway walls).
Door area ........................................
Internal gains ..................................
1,200 ft 2, 100% with attic on top-floor units.
370 ft (total for the building), 10 ft of which borders the open breezeway.
5,100 ft 2 per story, 2,040 ft 2 of which faces the open breezeway (15,300 ft 2 total).
23%.
21 ft2 per unit (378 ft2 total)
54,668 Btu/day per unit (984,024 Btu/day total)
2 Taylor, T, N. Fernandez, and R. Lucas. 2012.
Methodology for Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of
Residential Energy Code Changes. DOE EERE
Building Energy Codes Program. Available at:
www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/residential_methodology.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
3 See: www.energycodes.gov/development/
residential/iecc_analysis.
4 See: www.energycodes.gov/residential-codechange-proposals-2015-iecc.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5 Mendon, V., and Z.T. Taylor. 2014.
Development of Residential Prototype Building
Models and Analysis System for Large-Scale Energy
Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. 2014
ASHRAE/IBPSA–USA Building Simulation
Conference. Atlanta, GA.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
19977
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
TABLE II.2—MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS—Continued
Parameter
Assumption
Heating system ...............................
Cooling system ...............................
Water heating ..................................
Foundation type ..............................
Natural gas furnace, heat pump, electric furnace, or oil-fired furnace.
Central electric air conditioning.
Natural gas, or as required to evaluate domestic hot water-specific code changes.
Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace, heated basement and unheated basement.
Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics.
2. Weather Locations
DOE will continue to draw from a set
of 119 climate locations comprised of
one representative location for each
climate zone and moisture regime
within each state. The overall set of
climate locations are described in the
established residential methodology.
However, DOE is proposing to apply
fewer climate locations when a subset of
locations is sufficient for specific
analyses, such as DOE has applied in
the past as part of its analysis
surrounding commercial buildings.
In conducting national analyses,
which tend to be less sensitive to
regional variations in climates, DOE
intends to utilize one representative
weather location per climate zone,
including a separate location for each
moisture regime. This approach is
intended to conserve time and
computing resources in situations where
regional variation does not significantly
impact overall findings. In addition,
DOE may apply this approach in
performing analyses that are
preliminary or limited in nature, such as
in analyzing individual code change
proposals. The simulation results will
be weighted to the national level using
weighting factors from the established
methodology rolled up to the national
climate zone level for consistency
between the two schemes. For
aggregating results across foundation,
heating system and building types the
method will be similar to the current
approach, but with fewer discrete
weather locations.
A similar approach will be followed
for state-level or other regional analyses,
with DOE utilizing those climate
locations (from the overall set) that are
representative of the geographic area
being analyzed. This selection will often
include a number of distinct locations
that adequately capture regional
variation within the scope of the
analysis, such as within a target state. In
addition, the selection of locations in
conducting state-level analyses may be
modified based on what is deemed
credible by the target audience. For
analyses targeting a particular climate
zone, results will be weighted using the
regime weight within the climate zone.
The weather locations and resulting
overall location construction weights for
the national climate zones are
summarized in Table II.3. DOE is
seeking public input on the
appropriateness of using fewer weather
stations for national and preliminary
analysis (Topic R02).
TABLE II.3—CLIMATE LOCATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL SCHEME WITH WEIGHTING FACTORS
Representative location
Climate
zone
1 ............
Tropical .......................................
Moist ...........................................
Dry ..............................................
Moist ...........................................
Dry ..............................................
Marine .........................................
Moist ...........................................
Dry ..............................................
Marine .........................................
Moist ...........................................
Dry ..............................................
Moist ...........................................
Dry ..............................................
Moist ...........................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
2 ............
3 ............
4 ............
5 ............
6 ............
7 ............
8 ............
State
B. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of
Code Changes
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Regime
weight
within zone
(%)
Moisture regime
DOE noticed typographical errors in
two equations published in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
City
Hawaii .........................................
Florida .........................................
Arizona .......................................
Texas ..........................................
Texas ..........................................
California ....................................
Tennessee ..................................
New Mexico ................................
Oregon ........................................
Maryland .....................................
Idaho ...........................................
Illinois ..........................................
Montana ......................................
Vermont ......................................
Minnesota ...................................
Alaska .........................................
Honolulu .....................................
Miami ..........................................
Phoenix .......................................
Houston ......................................
El Paso .......................................
San Francisco ............................
Memphis .....................................
Albuquerque ...............................
Salem .........................................
Baltimore ....................................
Boise ...........................................
Chicago ......................................
Helena ........................................
Burlington ...................................
Duluth .........................................
Fairbanks ....................................
established methodology where a term
was not reproduced as intended. The
corrected Equations 1 and 2 are
included below (missing term is
underlined):
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
42
58
10
90
30
5
65
2
15
83
23
77
18
82
100
100
Overall
location
weight
(%)
0.5
0.7
2.1
18.4
7.9
1.3
16.9
0.6
3.4
19.2
4.9
16.0
1.2
5.6
1.3
0.0
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings
The focus of this section of the RFI is
commercial buildings, which DOE
defines in a manner consistent with
both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the
IECC—buildings except one- and twofamily dwellings, townhouses, and lowrise (three stories or less above grade)
multifamily residential buildings. DOE
has developed a consistent and
transparent methodology for assessing
the cost-effectiveness of commercial
code change proposals and for assessing
the cost-effectiveness of new code
versions.6 This methodology, hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘established
commercial methodology,’’ was used for
Where:
PV(P) = present value of property tax net of
federal income tax benefit
C = incremental first costs
RP = property tax rate
Dr = real discount rate
L = period of analysis
RTF = income tax rate, federal
This proposed change from prior
commercial cost-effectiveness practice
to include property tax impacts makes
the commercial method more robust and
further consistent with the residential
method. DOE is seeking public input on
the appropriateness of the addition of
property tax impact analysis to Scenario
2 of the cost-effectiveness methodology.
(Topic C01).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Common Issues for Both Residential
and Commercial Buildings
There are common issues for both
residential and commercial buildings
related to cost estimate development
when there are multiple paths to
compliance and regarding the preferred
6 Hart, R, and B. Liu. 2015. ‘‘Methodology for
Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Commercial Energy
Code Changes.’’ DOE EERE Building Energy Codes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
assessing cost-effectiveness of ASHRAE
Standards 90.1–2010 and 90.1–2013 and
in supplementing cost-effectiveness
criteria of certain code change proposals
developed by DOE for submission to the
ICC in the development of the 2015
IECC.7
comment on the use of the new
representative cities for its analysis.
A. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has updated its
representative cities based on changes
in ASHRAE Standard 169–2013
(Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards), and has adopted the revised
climate zones into ASHRAE Standard
90.1. DOE has noted this change in the
code, itself, as affecting DOE analysis.
However, DOE is not seeking public
The proposed commercial
methodology includes an adjustment to
the life-cycle cost for the impact of
property taxes. This is a change from the
established commercial method that
was used for the state cost-effectiveness
analyses of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2010 and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2013 analysis.8 Under the revised
commercial methodology, the property
tax impact is proposed to be included in
Scenario 2 life-cycle cost as follows:
sources of economic and other
parameters.
provide similar energy cost and
performance.
For any of these situations with
multiple compliance paths, DOE
intends to focus on the least-cost
approach deemed to be effective and
meet the code requirement rather than
include the cost of niche or optional
technology. For example, if there are
multiple options available to comply
with the code, and if one widely
applicable and accepted option is found
to be cost-effective, then the approach
would be deemed cost-effective. This is
because there is one cost-effective path
through the code, and if a higher cost
option is chosen, that is the developer
or designer’s choice.
Furthermore, some new code
provisions may come with no specific
construction changes at all, but rather be
expressed purely as a performance
requirement. DOE intends to evaluate
any such code changes case-by-case and
will search the research literature or
conduct new analyses to determine the
reasonable set of construction changes
A. Addressing Code Changes With
Multiple Approaches to Compliance
As discussed in both methodologies,
DOE anticipates that some new code
provisions may have significantly
different first costs depending on
unrelated aesthetic choices or
exceptions and flexibility options in the
code. For example, a requirement for
window shading could be met with
interior blinds, electro-chromatic
windows, static exterior shades, or an
active tracking exterior shading system.
Or, a reasonable window-to-wall ratio
may be set as a baseline for standard
efficiency heating, ventilation, and
cooling (HVAC) equipment, and
exceeding that ratio may require more
expensive higher efficiency HVAC
equipment. It has been suggested, for
example, that a future code may replace
or supplement independent prescriptive
requirements with options expected to
Program. Available at: www.energycodes.gov/
development/commercial/methodology.
7 See: www.energycodes.gov/development/
commercial/2015IECC.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
B. Changes and Issues Related to
Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of
Code Changes
1. Property Tax Impact
8 See: https://www.energycodes.gov/development/
commercial/cost_effectiveness.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
EN14AP15.005</GPH>
DOE is not seeking public input on
the changes to Equations 1 and 2.
EN14AP15.004</GPH>
19978
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Information
C01. The appropriateness of the
addition of property tax impact
analysis to the Scenario 2 costeffectiveness methodology
C02. Other comments on DOE’s
commercial cost-effectiveness
methodology for code change analysis
that could be expected to emerge in
response to such new requirements.
DOE is seeking public input on the
appropriateness of assessing the first
cost where a new or changed
requirement can be met by multiple
construction approaches with varying
cost implications (Topic G01).
B. Economic Parameters and Inputs
The data sources and procedures for
establishing economic parameters
required for calculating the metrics
described above are described in detail
in the established residential
methodology and established
commercial methodology (see Analysis
for Residential Buildings and Analysis
for Commercial Buildings sections of
this notice). DOE will use the most
recent values of these parameters
available at the time an analysis is
begun. DOE is seeking public input on
whether this approach can be improved
through use of data sources not
included in the established commercial
and residential methodologies (Topic
G02).
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Information
DOE will accept information in
response to this notice under the
timeline provided in the DATES section
of this notice. Comments should be
submitted by one of the methods listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Comments should include the topic
identifier (e.g., G01, R01, R02, C01, C02,
etc.) in the subject line and throughout
the submission, as applicable, to aid in
associating comments with the
requested topics. In summary, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
information on the following issues/
topics:
B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Information
G01. The appropriateness of assessing
the first cost where a new or changed
requirement can be met by multiple
construction approaches with varying
cost implications
G02. Suggestions for preferred cost and
economic parameter data sources
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Residential Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Information
R01. The appropriateness of revisions to
the prototypes used for residential
analysis
R02. The appropriateness of using fewer
weather stations for national and
preliminary analysis
R03. Other comments on DOE’s
residential cost-effectiveness
methodology for code change analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Apr 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7,
2015.
David Cohan,
Manager, Building Energy Codes Program,
Building Technologies Office, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–08601 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
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: EC15–82–000.
Applicants: Spokane Energy, LLC,
Avista Corporation.
Description: Supplement to March 2,
2015 Joint Application of Spokane
Energy, LLC and Avista Corporation for
Approval of Assignment of Capacity
Sales Agreement.
Filed Date: 4/8/15.
Accession Number: 20150408–5136.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/15.
Docket Numbers: EC15–115–000.
Applicants: American Transmission
Company LLC.
Description: Application for
Authority to Acquire Transmission
Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA
of American Transmission Company
LLC.
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5253.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER15–697–001.
Applicants: Tonopah Solar Energy,
LLC.
Description: Third supplement to
December 22, 2014 Tonopah Solar
Energy, LLC tariff filing.
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5257.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1019–000.
Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind
Farm LLC.
Description: Supplement to February
10, 2015 Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm
LLC tariff filing.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19979
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5256.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1332–001.
Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind
Farm LLC.
Description: Tariff Amendment per
35.17(b): Supplement to MBR
Application to be effective 5/18/2015.
Filed Date: 4/8/15.
Accession Number: 20150408–5095.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1333–001.
Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.
Description: Tariff Amendment per
35.17(b): Supplement to MBR
Application to be effective 5/18/2015.
Filed Date: 4/8/15.
Accession Number: 20150408–5096.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1470–000.
Applicants: PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Description: Compliance filing per 35:
Request for Expedited Grant of Waiver
to be effective N/A.
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5215.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1471–000.
Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.
Description: Initial rate filing per
35.12 Application for Market-Based Rate
Authority to be effective 6/1/2015.
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5239.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1472–000.
Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation.
Description: Notice of Cancellation of
Borderline Sales Agreement with
Pennsylvania Electric Co., Rate
Schedule No. 185 of Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation.
Filed Date: 4/7/15.
Accession Number: 20150407–5252.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1473–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Description: Section 205(d) rate filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015–04–08_SA
2771 ATC-Cloverland Common
Facilities Agreement to be effective 6/8/
2015.
Filed Date: 4/8/15.
Accession Number: 20150408–5037.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/15.
Docket Numbers: ER15–1474–000.
Applicants: Southern California
Edison Company.
Description: Section 205(d) rate filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA and Distrib Serv
Agmt Boomer Solar 12 LLC 810
Wanamaker Ave. Ontario Project to be
effective 4/9/2015.
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19974-19979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08601]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001]
Request for Information: Updating and Improving the DOE
Methodology for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy
Codes
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking input on how it
may update and improve its methodology for assessing the cost-
effectiveness (which includes an energy savings assessment) of
residential and commercial building energy codes. DOE is directed by
statute to provide technical assistance to states to support the
implementation of model building energy codes. As part of this role,
DOE conducts national and state-level analysis to assess the cost-
effectiveness of building energy codes and proposed changes. DOE is
interested in feedback on its analysis methodology, preferred sources
of cost data, and parameter assumptions surrounding its cost-
effectiveness assessment. In addition, DOE is seeking information on
the general costs, benefits, and economic impacts associated with
building energy codes. This notice identifies several areas where
interested parties may provide suggestions, comments, and other
information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested by May 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments must identify the docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-
0001 and may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: BCMethodology2015BC0001@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE-2015-BT-
BC-0001 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards; U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed
paper original.
Further instructions, including the use of topic identifiers, are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. Comments
submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public
records and will be made publicly available.
Public Docket: The docket, which includes notices published in the
Federal Register and public comments received, is available for review
at Regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information exempt from public disclosure, may
not be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found under Public
Participation at: https://www.energycodes.gov/events. This Web page will
also contain a link to the docket for this notice on Regulations.gov.
The Regulations.gov site will contain instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review comments
received, or otherwise participate in the public comment process,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586-2945 or email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
[[Page 19975]]
Technologies Office EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585; Phone: (202) 287-1941, Email: jeremiah.williams@ee.doe.gov.
For legal matters, contact: Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-
33, 1000 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-
0669, Email: kavita.vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Analysis of Residential Buildings
A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of
Code Changes
1. Prototypes
2. Weather Locations
B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-
effectiveness of Code Changes
III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings
A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of
Code Changes
B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-
Effectiveness of Code Changes
1. Property Tax Impact
IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and Commercial Buildings
A. Addressing Code Changes With Multiple Approaches to
Compliance
B. Economic Parameters and Inputs
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Information
B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
I. Authority and Background
Section 307(b) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA,
Pub. L. 102-486), as amended, directs DOE to support voluntary building
energy codes by periodically reviewing the technical and economic basis
of the voluntary building energy codes and to ``seek adoption of all
technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency
measures; and . . . otherwise participate in any industry process for
review and modification of such codes'' (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)(2) and (3)).
DOE participates in the development of the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC), maintained by the International Code Council
(ICC) for residential and commercial buildings, and in the development
of Standard 90.1, maintained by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for commercial
buildings.
This Request for Information (RFI) seeks public input on revisions
to DOE's established methodologies for assessing the cost-effectiveness
of proposed changes to residential and commercial building energy codes
and new editions of such codes. DOE has previously expressed interest
in receiving information surrounding the costs and benefits associated
with building energy codes (78 FR 47677 and 79 FR 27778). The current
request for information will ensure that DOE is able to maintain
appropriate means of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of building
energy codes, including the selection of appropriate data sources and
methods to analyze the economic impacts associated with code updates.
This notice is intended to communicate relevant updates to the general
public and solicit feedback on the specific analysis parameters subject
to revision. In addition, this request provides a broader opportunity
for input on DOE's designated methods. DOE uses these methodologies to
inform its participation in the update processes of the IECC, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, and other building energy codes--both in developing
proposals and in assessing the proposals of others, when necessary. DOE
also uses these methodologies in assessing the cost-effectiveness of
new code editions. DOE evaluates energy codes and code proposals based
on life-cycle cost analysis, accounting for energy savings, incremental
investment for energy efficiency measures, and other economic impacts.
The value of future savings and costs are discounted to a present
value, with improvements deemed cost-effective when the net savings is
positive. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a proposed code change or
a newly revised code involves three primary steps:
1. Estimating the energy savings of the changed code provision(s),
2. estimating the first cost of the changed provision(s), and
3. calculating the corresponding economic impacts of the changed
provision(s).
These steps are detailed in the established residential and
commercial methodologies, as referenced later in this RFI (see the
Analysis of Residential Buildings and Analysis of Commercial Buildings
sections of this notice). The DOE methodologies for residential and
commercial buildings have the same life-cycle cost basis and parallel
one another closely. However, because there is variation in the
economic criteria associated with different types of commercial
building ownership, up to three scenarios may be used for commercial
cost-effective analysis:
Scenario 1 (also referred to as the Publicly-Owned
Method): Life-cycle cost analysis method representing government or
public ownership (without borrowing or taxes).
Scenario 2: (also referred to as the Privately-Owned
Method): Life-cycle cost analysis method representing private or
business ownership (includes loan and tax impacts).
Scenario 3: (also referred to as the ASHRAE 90.1 Scalar
Method \1\): Represents a pre-tax private investment point of view, and
uses economic inputs established by the ASHRAE 90.1 Standing Standard
Project Committee (SSPC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ McBride M.F., ``Development of Economic Scalar Ratios for
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 R,'' in Proceedings of Thermal Performance of
the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VI, ASHRAE (presented at the
Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VI,
ASHRAE, 1995), https://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/2010-Florida-Energy-Code/901_Scalar_Ratio_Development.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the commercial methodology DOE is seeking public input only on
the method and sources for parameters of Scenario 2, as the method and
parameters for Scenario 1 are established by federal regulation, and
the method and parameters for Scenario 3 are established by the ASHRAE
90.1 SSPC. DOE intends to continue to rely on Scenarios 1 and 3 since
they are required for federal projects and addenda to ASHRAE Standard
90.1, respectively.
In preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed the established
residential and commercial methodologies and is proposing revisions.
These revisions are limited to minor clarifications and attempts to
streamline certain portions; the overall methodology remains unchanged
in terms of procedure and content. For brevity, only the proposed
revisions to the methodologies are discussed here; the entire
residential methodology and commercial methodology are available for
review, as referenced below (see Analysis for Residential Buildings and
Analysis for Commercial Buildings sections of this notice) and are not
published in full within the current RFI.
II. Analysis of Residential Buildings
The focus of this section of the RFI is residential buildings,
which DOE defines in a manner consistent with the IECC--one- and two-
family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise (three stories or less above
grade) multifamily residential buildings. DOE previously established a
methodology for assessing
[[Page 19976]]
the cost-effectiveness of changes made to the residential building
energy code through an RFI process published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2011 (76 FR 56413). DOE took into consideration the
information it received during the public comment period, and published
the final methodology in 2012.\2\ This methodology, hereafter referred
to as the ``established residential methodology,'' was used for
assessing cost-effectiveness of the 2009 and 2012 IECC compared with
the 2006 IECC at the national and state levels,\3\ and in analyzing
cost-effectiveness of code change proposals developed by DOE for
submission to the ICC in the development of the 2015 IECC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Taylor, T, N. Fernandez, and R. Lucas. 2012. Methodology for
Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Residential Energy Code Changes.
DOE EERE Building Energy Codes Program. Available at:
www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/residential_methodology.pdf.
\3\ See: www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/iecc_analysis.
\4\ See: www.energycodes.gov/residential-code-change-proposals-2015-iecc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
The established methodology for estimating energy savings of
residential code changes remains unchanged except for the following
proposed revisions:
1. Prototypes
Single-family and multifamily residential building prototypes are
used to assess the energy and cost impact of residential energy
codes.\5\ Minor revisions are proposed to prototype building
characteristics to better align them with current construction
practices or simplify the energy modeling process. These
characteristics are summarized in are summarized in are summarized in
Table II.1 and Table II.2 with proposed changes indicated in italics
(with the unchanged characteristics included to provide context).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mendon, V., and Z.T. Taylor. 2014. Development of
Residential Prototype Building Models and Analysis System for Large-
Scale Energy Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. 2014 ASHRAE/IBPSA-
USA Building Simulation Conference. Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first proposed change to the DOE residential building
prototypes surrounds the assumption for ``area below roofs/ceilings''
for both single- and multifamily buildings. DOE proposes to modify the
former value of 70 percent with attic (and the remaining 30 percent
cathedral) to a revised value of 100 percent with attic. This change is
intended to simplify the energy modeling process. The second proposed
change focuses on the ``internal gains'' assumption for the single-
family prototype, which is revised from a value of 91,436 Btu/day to
87,332 Btu/day. This change updates the previous assumption to align
with Section 405 of the 2015 IECC. The third and final change modifies
the ``window area'' assumption for the multifamily prototype, revised
from a value of 14 percent relative to conditioned floor area to 23
percent relative to exterior wall area not including breezeway walls.
Note that the revised exterior wall area metric is the target of the
change (i.e., not the actual quantity of window area), and is
considered to better reflect typical multifamily building construction.
DOE is seeking public input on these proposed revisions (Topic
R01). Note that the non-revised content in the tables remains unchanged
from the established methodology.
Table II.1--Single-Family Prototype Characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Assumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditioned floor area............ 2,400 ft\2\ (plus 1,200 ft\2\ of
conditioned basement, where
applicable).
Footprint and height.............. 30-ft-by-40 ft, two-story, 8.5-ft-
high ceilings.
Area above unconditioned space.... 1,200 ft\2\.
Area below roofs/ceilings......... 1,200 ft\2\, 100% with attic.
Perimeter length.................. 140 ft.
Gross exterior wall area.......... 2,380 ft\2\.
Window area (relative to Fifteen percent equally distributed
conditioned floor area). to the four cardinal directions (or
as required to evaluate glazing-
specific code changes).
Door area......................... 42 ft\2\.
Internal gains.................... 87,332 Btu/day.
Heating system.................... Natural gas furnace, heat pump,
electric furnace, or oil-fired
furnace.
Cooling system.................... Central electric air conditioning.
Water heating..................... Natural gas, or as required to
evaluate domestic hot water-
specific code changes.
Foundation type................... Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace,
heated basement and unheated
basement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics.
Table II.2--Multifamily Prototype Characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Assumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditioned floor area............ 1,200 ft \2\ per unit, or 21,600 ft
\2\ total (plus 1,200 ft \2\ of
conditioned basement on ground-
floor units, where applicable).
Footprint and height.............. Each unit is 40 ft wide by 30 ft
deep, with 8.5-ft-high ceilings.
The building footprint is 120 ft by
65 ft.
Area above unconditioned space.... 1,200 ft\2\ on ground-floor units.
Wall area adjacent to None.
unconditioned space.
Area below roofs/ceilings......... 1,200 ft \2\, 100% with attic on top-
floor units.
Perimeter length.................. 370 ft (total for the building), 10
ft of which borders the open
breezeway.
Gross wall area................... 5,100 ft \2\ per story, 2,040 ft \2\
of which faces the open breezeway
(15,300 ft \2\ total).
Window area (relative to exterior 23%.
wall area not including breezeway
walls).
Door area......................... 21 ft\2\ per unit (378 ft\2\ total)
Internal gains.................... 54,668 Btu/day per unit (984,024 Btu/
day total)
[[Page 19977]]
Heating system.................... Natural gas furnace, heat pump,
electric furnace, or oil-fired
furnace.
Cooling system.................... Central electric air conditioning.
Water heating..................... Natural gas, or as required to
evaluate domestic hot water-
specific code changes.
Foundation type................... Slab-on-grade, vented crawlspace,
heated basement and unheated
basement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Proposed changes indicated in italics.
2. Weather Locations
DOE will continue to draw from a set of 119 climate locations
comprised of one representative location for each climate zone and
moisture regime within each state. The overall set of climate locations
are described in the established residential methodology. However, DOE
is proposing to apply fewer climate locations when a subset of
locations is sufficient for specific analyses, such as DOE has applied
in the past as part of its analysis surrounding commercial buildings.
In conducting national analyses, which tend to be less sensitive to
regional variations in climates, DOE intends to utilize one
representative weather location per climate zone, including a separate
location for each moisture regime. This approach is intended to
conserve time and computing resources in situations where regional
variation does not significantly impact overall findings. In addition,
DOE may apply this approach in performing analyses that are preliminary
or limited in nature, such as in analyzing individual code change
proposals. The simulation results will be weighted to the national
level using weighting factors from the established methodology rolled
up to the national climate zone level for consistency between the two
schemes. For aggregating results across foundation, heating system and
building types the method will be similar to the current approach, but
with fewer discrete weather locations.
A similar approach will be followed for state-level or other
regional analyses, with DOE utilizing those climate locations (from the
overall set) that are representative of the geographic area being
analyzed. This selection will often include a number of distinct
locations that adequately capture regional variation within the scope
of the analysis, such as within a target state. In addition, the
selection of locations in conducting state-level analyses may be
modified based on what is deemed credible by the target audience. For
analyses targeting a particular climate zone, results will be weighted
using the regime weight within the climate zone.
The weather locations and resulting overall location construction
weights for the national climate zones are summarized in Table II.3.
DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of using fewer
weather stations for national and preliminary analysis (Topic R02).
Table II.3--Climate Locations for the National Scheme With Weighting Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative location Regime
---------------------------------------------- weight Overall
Climate zone Moisture regime within zone location
State City (%) weight (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Tropical............. Hawaii............... Honolulu............. 42 0.5
Moist................ Florida.............. Miami................ 58 0.7
2................ Dry.................. Arizona.............. Phoenix.............. 10 2.1
Moist................ Texas................ Houston.............. 90 18.4
3................ Dry.................. Texas................ El Paso.............. 30 7.9
Marine............... California........... San Francisco........ 5 1.3
Moist................ Tennessee............ Memphis.............. 65 16.9
4................ Dry.................. New Mexico........... Albuquerque.......... 2 0.6
Marine............... Oregon............... Salem................ 15 3.4
Moist................ Maryland............. Baltimore............ 83 19.2
5................ Dry.................. Idaho................ Boise................ 23 4.9
Moist................ Illinois............. Chicago.............. 77 16.0
6................ Dry.................. Montana.............. Helena............... 18 1.2
Moist................ Vermont.............. Burlington........... 82 5.6
7................ ..................... Minnesota............ Duluth............... 100 1.3
8................ ..................... Alaska............... Fairbanks............ 100 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of
Code Changes
DOE noticed typographical errors in two equations published in the
established methodology where a term was not reproduced as intended.
The corrected Equations 1 and 2 are included below (missing term is
underlined):
[[Page 19978]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP15.004
DOE is not seeking public input on the changes to Equations 1 and
2.
III. Analysis of Commercial Buildings
The focus of this section of the RFI is commercial buildings, which
DOE defines in a manner consistent with both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and
the IECC--buildings except one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses,
and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily
residential buildings. DOE has developed a consistent and transparent
methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of commercial code
change proposals and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of new code
versions.\6\ This methodology, hereafter referred to as the
``established commercial methodology,'' was used for assessing cost-
effectiveness of ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2010 and 90.1-2013 and in
supplementing cost-effectiveness criteria of certain code change
proposals developed by DOE for submission to the ICC in the development
of the 2015 IECC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hart, R, and B. Liu. 2015. ``Methodology for Evaluating
Cost-effectiveness of Commercial Energy Code Changes.'' DOE EERE
Building Energy Codes Program. Available at: www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/methodology.
\7\ See: www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/2015IECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating Energy Savings of Code
Changes
ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has updated its representative cities based on
changes in ASHRAE Standard 169-2013 (Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards), and has adopted the revised climate zones into ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. DOE has noted this change in the code, itself, as
affecting DOE analysis. However, DOE is not seeking public comment on
the use of the new representative cities for its analysis.
B. Changes and Issues Related to Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of
Code Changes
1. Property Tax Impact
The proposed commercial methodology includes an adjustment to the
life-cycle cost for the impact of property taxes. This is a change from
the established commercial method that was used for the state cost-
effectiveness analyses of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2013 analysis.\8\ Under the revised commercial
methodology, the property tax impact is proposed to be included in
Scenario 2 life-cycle cost as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See: https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/cost_effectiveness.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP15.005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
PV(P) = present value of property tax net of federal income tax
benefit
C = incremental first costs
RP = property tax rate
Dr = real discount rate
L = period of analysis
RTF = income tax rate, federal
This proposed change from prior commercial cost-effectiveness
practice to include property tax impacts makes the commercial method
more robust and further consistent with the residential method. DOE is
seeking public input on the appropriateness of the addition of property
tax impact analysis to Scenario 2 of the cost-effectiveness
methodology. (Topic C01).
IV. Common Issues for Both Residential and Commercial Buildings
There are common issues for both residential and commercial
buildings related to cost estimate development when there are multiple
paths to compliance and regarding the preferred sources of economic and
other parameters.
A. Addressing Code Changes With Multiple Approaches to Compliance
As discussed in both methodologies, DOE anticipates that some new
code provisions may have significantly different first costs depending
on unrelated aesthetic choices or exceptions and flexibility options in
the code. For example, a requirement for window shading could be met
with interior blinds, electro-chromatic windows, static exterior
shades, or an active tracking exterior shading system. Or, a reasonable
window-to-wall ratio may be set as a baseline for standard efficiency
heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) equipment, and exceeding that
ratio may require more expensive higher efficiency HVAC equipment. It
has been suggested, for example, that a future code may replace or
supplement independent prescriptive requirements with options expected
to provide similar energy cost and performance.
For any of these situations with multiple compliance paths, DOE
intends to focus on the least-cost approach deemed to be effective and
meet the code requirement rather than include the cost of niche or
optional technology. For example, if there are multiple options
available to comply with the code, and if one widely applicable and
accepted option is found to be cost-effective, then the approach would
be deemed cost-effective. This is because there is one cost-effective
path through the code, and if a higher cost option is chosen, that is
the developer or designer's choice.
Furthermore, some new code provisions may come with no specific
construction changes at all, but rather be expressed purely as a
performance requirement. DOE intends to evaluate any such code changes
case-by-case and will search the research literature or conduct new
analyses to determine the reasonable set of construction changes
[[Page 19979]]
that could be expected to emerge in response to such new requirements.
DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of assessing the
first cost where a new or changed requirement can be met by multiple
construction approaches with varying cost implications (Topic G01).
B. Economic Parameters and Inputs
The data sources and procedures for establishing economic
parameters required for calculating the metrics described above are
described in detail in the established residential methodology and
established commercial methodology (see Analysis for Residential
Buildings and Analysis for Commercial Buildings sections of this
notice). DOE will use the most recent values of these parameters
available at the time an analysis is begun. DOE is seeking public input
on whether this approach can be improved through use of data sources
not included in the established commercial and residential
methodologies (Topic G02).
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Information
DOE will accept information in response to this notice under the
timeline provided in the DATES section of this notice. Comments should
be submitted by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this notice. Comments should include the topic identifier (e.g., G01,
R01, R02, C01, C02, etc.) in the subject line and throughout the
submission, as applicable, to aid in associating comments with the
requested topics. In summary, DOE is particularly interested in
receiving information on the following issues/topics:
B. General Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
G01. The appropriateness of assessing the first cost where a new or
changed requirement can be met by multiple construction approaches with
varying cost implications
G02. Suggestions for preferred cost and economic parameter data sources
C. Residential Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
R01. The appropriateness of revisions to the prototypes used for
residential analysis
R02. The appropriateness of using fewer weather stations for national
and preliminary analysis
R03. Other comments on DOE's residential cost-effectiveness methodology
for code change analysis
D. Commercial Issues on Which DOE Seeks Information
C01. The appropriateness of the addition of property tax impact
analysis to the Scenario 2 cost-effectiveness methodology
C02. Other comments on DOE's commercial cost-effectiveness methodology
for code change analysis
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2015.
David Cohan,
Manager, Building Energy Codes Program, Building Technologies Office,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08601 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
