[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17461-17469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8609]



[[Page 17461]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program--State, 
Local and Tribal Allocation Formulas

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is today 
publishing three formulas used to distribute funds allocated to (1) 
local government, (2) States, and (3) Indian tribes for the Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, as required by the 
Program's authorizing legislation, Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The purpose of 
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program is to assist 
eligible local governments, States, and Indian tribes in implementing 
strategies to reduce fossil fuel emissions, to reduce total energy use, 
and improve energy efficiency. This notice provides the allocation 
formulas that are used to distribute funds to eligible entities. The 
formulas in today's notice were previously provided as part of the 
funding opportunity announcement issued for the Energy Efficiency and 
Conservation Block Grant Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EERE's Information Center, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter/, or call toll-free at 1-877-
EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463), between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. EST, Monday-
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) is publishing the 
formulas for allocation to States, units of local government, and 
Indian tribes established for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation 
Block Grant Program (EECBG Program or Program), as required by section 
543(e) of the Program's authorizing legislation, Title V, Subtitle E of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 
(EISA), as amended. In fiscal year 2009, the Program is funded with 
appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 
Public Law 111-5 (ARRA).
    ARRA appropriated $3.2 billion for the EECBG Program. The EECBG 
Program provides Federal grants to States, units of local government, 
Indian tribes, and consortia of these entities to reduce energy use and 
fossil fuel emissions, and for energy efficiency programs and projects. 
Grants to local governments are made in two allocations--(1) cities 
with populations of at least 35,000 or are one of the top ten highest 
populated cities and counties with a population of over 200,000 or 
counties of any size population that are one of the ten highest-
populated cities or counties of the State in which they are located 
(``local government-alternative 1''); (2) or cities with populations of 
at least 50,000 and counties of at least 200,000 (``local government-
alternative 2''). The Program is administered by the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of 
Energy.
    Of amounts appropriated by ARRA, DOE will allocate $2.741 billion 
as described in section 543 of EISA, using the most recent and accurate 
population data available:
     34 percent to eligible units of local government-
alternative 1 through formula grants;
     34 percent to eligible units of local government-
alternative 2 through formula grants
     28 percent to States through formula grants;
     2 percent to Indian through formula grants; and
     2 percent for competitive grants to ineligible cities, 
counties, and Indian tribes.
    Of the remaining amounts provided by ARRA, DOE will allocate $398 
million in competitive grants to all entities eligible for Program 
funds as described above, and $61 million will be set aside by the 
Department for technical assistance to grantees and administrative 
costs.
    The funding allocations will be as follows:
     $3,200,000,000 Appropriation in ARRA;
    [cir] $61,000,000 Available to DOE for technical assistance to 
grantees and administrative costs;
    [cir] $398,000,000 Competitive funds for all entities eligible for 
Program funds;
    [cir] $2,741,180,000 EISA funds;
     $1,863,880,000 Available for local governments;
     $931,940,000 Available for 34% to Alternative 1;
     $931,940,000 Available for 34% to Alternative 2;
     $767,480,000 Available for 28% for States;
     $54,820,000 Available for 2% to Indian tribes; and
     $54,820,000 Available for 2% to competitive grants to 
ineligible cities, counties, and Indian tribes.
    EISA directs that the formula for grants to eligible units of local 
government are to be established by the Department according to the 
population served by the eligible unit of local government, the daytime 
population of the eligible unit of local government and other similar 
factors determined by Department (section 543(b)). EISA directs that of 
the amount allocated for States, the Department is to provide not less 
than 1.25 percent to each State, with the remainder distributed among 
the States based on a formula established by the Department. EISA 
directs the State formula to take into account the population of each 
State and any other criteria that the Department determines to be 
appropriate (section 543(c)). EISA directs that the amounts made 
available for Indian tribes is to be distributed based on a formula, 
which is to be established by the Department, taking into account any 
factors that the Department determines to be appropriate (section 
543(d)).
    The first part of today's notice describes the State and local 
government funding allocation formulas and data sources. The second 
part of today's notice describes the Indian tribe funding allocation 
formula and data sources.

Part One: EECBG State and Local Allocation Formulas

I. Definitions

    While EISA directs the Department to provide grants to cities and 
counties that qualify as eligible units of local government, EISA does 
not define ``city,'' ``county,'' or related terms. For the purposes of 
the EECBG Program, DOE is defining ``city'' to include certain city-
equivalent units of local government. Specifically, a city-equivalent 
unit of local government such as a town, village or other municipality 
will be considered eligible if it is listed in the most recent Census 
of Governments as a currently incorporated entity, has a governance 
structure consisting of an elected official and governing body, is 
capable of carrying out the activities set forth in EISA, and meets the 
required population thresholds described above. Additionally, 
consolidated city-county governments will be considered as cities.
    For the purposes of the EECBG Program, a county will be considered 
eligible for direct formula grants from DOE if it is listed in the most 
recent Census of Governments as a currently incorporated county, has a 
governance structure with an elected official and governing body, is 
capable of carrying out the activities set forth in EISA, and

[[Page 17462]]

meets the required population thresholds. To meet the population 
requirement, the county population must be at least 200,000 or the 
county must be within the 10 most populated counties of the State in 
which it is located.
    In evaluating county populations for eligibility for direct formula 
grants, DOE will not include the populations of cities located within 
county boundaries that are eligible for direct formula grants from DOE. 
For the purposes of this program, this population is referred to as the 
``county balance population.'' In determining the formulas for funding 
distribution, DOE has determined that the EECBG Program achieves the 
most equitable funding allocations if done on a per capita basis. By 
removing the population of an eligible city from a county population, 
DOE has reduced the instances of double-counting persons who live in 
both an eligible city, which is located in an eligible county. DOE's 
implementation approach is consistent with the approach developed by 
the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) administered by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program 
allocation process is modeled after the CDBG program because EECBG 
addresses similar issues as a formula grant program using population 
and additional energy-specific data to determine allocations to local 
governments.
    For the purposes of this program, ``balance population'' is the 
population that resides outside the jurisdictions of eligible local 
governments. City and county governments that do not meet the 
eligibility requirements described above for direct formula grants from 
DOE are eligible for program funds through the State in which they are 
located.
    For the purposes of the EECBG Program, ``States'' are the 50 United 
States, the District of Columbia and the following Territories of the 
United States: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    DOE is not including the territories of Palmyra Atoll and Wake 
Atoll in its definition of ``States.'' The territories of Palmyra Atoll 
and Wake Atoll do not have significant permanent populations to warrant 
inclusion in the Program. Palmyra Atoll is a national Wildlife Refuge 
and access to Wake Atoll is restricted. (See, http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/islandfactsheet.htm, last visited March 26, 2009.) The 
absence of permanent populations on Palmyra Atoll and Wake Atoll would 
make the inclusion of these Atolls superfluous.

II. Population Data

    DOE relied on the most recent and accurate population data from the 
U.S. Census to determine eligibility and allocate funds under the 
formula. DOE used and modified, for program purposes, a database of 
publicly available Census data created for HUD's CDBG Program that, 
pursuant to statutory requirement, was updated by the U.S. Census with 
annual population estimates for 2007. DOE modified HUD's database to 
accommodate program requirements specific to EECBG Program as explained 
below.
    Determining the Population of Eligible Cities. In order to 
determine the identity of all eligible cities, DOE constructed a 
database using Census designated places (CDPs). CDPs are delineated for 
each decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated 
places. DOE used the Census 2007 file of CDPs with updates to reflect 
challenges to the 2007 population estimates submitted to and accepted 
by the Census Bureau. The list of successful challenges can be found at 
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2007/07s_challenges.html.
    For the purposes of this program, DOE includes the following 
clarifications to the records used to calculate the universe of cities 
that are eligible for this program:
     In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Municipios are treated 
as cities. Though designated as counties by the Census, governments of 
Municipios have the functionality of city governments.
     Towns, townships, and boroughs that are incorporated 
places are treated as cities. The governments of these places have the 
functionality of city governments.
     For those populations residing in one incorporated place 
that is within another incorporated place, DOE credits that population 
to the first incorporated place. For example, in a State in which a 
town government has incorporated villages with the same authorities 
afforded city-equivalent governments within their geographic 
boundaries, the villages in towns are treated as cities. Since villages 
are recognized as potentially eligible units of local government, DOE 
subtracts their population from the total population of the town in 
which they lie. This is to avoid double-counting of populations.
     A consolidated or unified city-county government in which 
a city and a county overlap geographically and govern as one 
consolidated government, is considered by DOE as an eligible city. 
City-county governments have the functionality of city governments.
    Determining the Population of Eligible Counties. To determine the 
counties eligible for this program, DOE used the county balance 
population. Successful challenges to U.S. Census 2007 county population 
data were incorporated. DOE reconciled the 2007 Census of Governments 
Directory listing of County Governments with the list of counties used 
for the CDBG Program. Doing this captured only those counties with 
functional governments and without double-counting the population of 
consolidated city-county governments.
    In determining county balance populations, DOE identified a number 
of cities with geographic boundaries that cross the borders of multiple 
counties. In calculating county balance populations for those counties 
which contain only a part of an eligible city, DOE subtracted the 
portion of the eligible city's population living within that county.
    For the purposes of this program, DOE includes the following 
clarifications to the records used to calculate the universe of 
counties that are eligible for this program:
     The updated 2007 County file contains population estimates 
for counties and equivalents, including Alaska's Boroughs and 
Louisiana's Parishes. Counties that are not a part of the Census of 
Governments and are without governmental authority are not a part of 
the database, and are thus not eligible for direct formula grants. This 
pertains to some counties in Massachusetts, and Alaska, as well as all 
counties in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As defined by the Census of 
Governments, county governments in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
and Vermont perform only limited functions, and thus all counties in 
these States were determined to be ineligible for Program funds. There 
are also no counties in the District of Columbia.
     Two counties--Arlington, VA and Menominee, WI--that have 
city-county consolidated governments were exceptions that were included 
in the county data files and were relocated to the city list, because, 
as explained above, city-county governments have the functionality of 
city governments.
     DOE used the County Governments file from the 2007 
Governments Integrated Directory (GID) from the U.S. Census Bureau to 
identify the county-equivalents with governments (available at  http://harvester.census.gov/gid/gid_07/options.html).
    Determining State Population. In order that State allocations are 
based on

[[Page 17463]]

the most accurate data, DOE incorporated and aggregated successful 
challenges to 2007 County Population to determine State population as 
was done for county population. DOE used the Census 2007 file of Census 
designated places (CDPs) with updates to reflect challenges to the 2007 
population estimates submitted to and accepted by the Census Bureau.
    Incorporating Daytime Population. EISA directs DOE to include 
considerations of ``daytime population'' in the allocation formula for 
city and county calculations. The concept of the daytime population 
refers to the number of people who are present in an area during normal 
business hours, including workers. This is in contrast to the 
``resident'' population present during the evening and nighttime hours. 
The Census Bureau creates estimates of daytime population by adding the 
total number of workers working in the place minus workers who live and 
work in the same place with the total resident population. The Census 
Bureau estimate of daytime population adjusts only for work-related 
travel, i.e., incommuters to an area and outcommuters from an area. 
Data necessary to adjust for shopping, school, recreation, tourism, 
etc. are not available.
    For EECBG Program purposes, the weighted population is comprised of 
29.75% daytime population and 70.25% resident population. DOE 
determined this weighting scheme based on an estimated 50 working hours 
out of a total 168 hours in a week (50/168 is equal to approximately 
29.75%). Working hours are used because daytime population estimates 
are based on working commutes.
    In places where Census Daytime Population Estimates are not 
consistently available the following three guidelines were observed to 
make the data consistent over time:
    1. Where possible, the 2005-2007 American Community Survey (ACS) 
was used to compute daytime population figures.
    2. In places where 2005-2007 ACS data are not available, DOE used 
daytime population data from the 2000 decennial census.
    3. In places where no Census Daytime Population Estimates were 
available, 2007 Census Population estimates were used. This applies to 
24 locations, in three States: MI, NY, and VT.
    Since Census data for different resident population sources vary 
slightly from the 2007 population estimates and even more significantly 
from the 2000 census, DOE used a ratio process to make the differences 
consistent. This process applied the ratio of the resident population 
for the 2007 Census estimate to the resident population that formed the 
basis for the particular daytime estimate. This calculation corrects 
data inconsistencies caused by using data from different years between 
the 2007 estimates used for allocation and the source of the data.
     Using the 2007 population estimate as a base, this process 
calculates an estimated daytime population for 2007.
     The ratio of the best available daytime population 
estimate to the resident population used in forming that daytime 
estimate is multiplied by the 2007 population estimate.
     The ratio of resident population to daytime population is 
therefore consistent between the 2007 estimates used for allocation and 
the source of the data.
    This process for cities is applied to counties and the city parts 
which lie in different counties to determine their balance daytime 
population. The American Community Survey does not have data available 
for these smaller areas, so the resident population ratio is again used 
to superimpose the daytime estimates on the smaller areas, which can 
then be subtracted from the respective counties.

III. Local Governments and State Formulas

    Determining City Eligibility According to Section 543 of Title V, 
Subtitle E of EISA. In addition to the factors considered in the 
previous sections, EISA provides population thresholds to determine 
city eligibility. DOE determined whether a city meets the population 
criteria for eligibility by ranking each city based on its population, 
as determined in the previous section, relative to all other cities in 
its State. Cities were added to the allocation table according to the 
following:
     A city with a population above 50,000 is eligible for both 
Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 funding.
     If a city's population is above 35,000 but below 50,000, 
it is eligible for Alternative 1 funding only.
     A city with a population that ranks within the ten highest 
populated cities in the State is eligible for Alternative 1 funding, 
even if the city population is below 35,000.
    Determining County Eligibility According to Section 543 of Title V, 
Subtitle E of EISA. EISA provides population thresholds to determine 
eligibility in addition to the population data considerations in the 
previous section. DOE ranked each eligible county relative to all other 
counties in its State. Counties were added to the allocation table 
according to the following:
     A County with a population of 200,000 or more is eligible 
for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 funding.
     A County with a population that ranks within the ten 
highest populated counties in the State is eligible for Alternative 1 
funding only, even if the population is below 200,000.
    Determining State Eligibility and Weighted Population. The 2007 
State file by HUD includes 2007 Population Estimates for the 50 United 
States, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. According to Sec. 541(6) the 
term `State' is defined as:
     A State;
     The District of Columbia;
     The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
     Any other territory or possession of the United States (as 
discussed previously, DOE is only including American Samoa, Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands).
    As stated in Sec. 543(c)(2), the formula for determining 
allocations to States is required to consider:
     The population of each State;
     Any other criteria that the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate.
    Three factors that are considered with equal weight in the formula 
are:
     The total population for the State;
     The population of the State after subtracting the 
populations of all eligible entities;
     Total Energy Consumption, less consumption in the 
industrial sector.
    Total population is based on the 2007 U.S. Census Population 
Estimate. For the U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico, 2000 Census 
population data was used because the U.S. Census Bureau does not 
provide interim population estimates for U.S. Territories, with the 
exception of Puerto Rico. The remaining population of the State is 
calculated by subtracting the populations for all eligible cities and 
all eligible counties in each State. Total Energy Consumption is 
compiled from 2006 per capita energy use by sector data, the most 
recent available, from the EIA. For the U.S. Territories, consumption 
by sector data was unavailable. For each State and for each factor, the 
percent of total compared to all the States is calculated. The three 
percentages are then averaged and multiplied by the total population in 
the United States based on the 2007 U.S. Census estimates data. This 
calculation results in a new population distribution that gives equal 
weight to the three factors mentioned above. The calculation is 
formally described in Appendix B.

[[Page 17464]]

    Funding Allocation Design. The EECBG Funding Allocation Calculator 
(hereafter referred to as ``the calculator'') is a computer program 
which computes the pro-rata allocation levels for each eligible State 
and unit of local government. The total funds available for units of 
local government will be $931,940,000 under Alternative 1 and 
$931,940,000 under Alternative 2. The total funds available for States 
will be $767,480,000.
    Alternative 1 Funding--34%. First, the calculator uses an iterative 
algorithm to determine Alternative 1 of EISA. Then, thirty-four percent 
of the funds are allocated to local governments eligible under 
definition Alternative 1. The funds are apportioned to each local 
government according to their share of population relative to the 
entire set of eligible entities. A minimum level of funding is set at 
$50,000. The calculator then checks if any city or county was allocated 
less than $50,000. Governments which are (1) funded below the minimum 
amount and (2) are not eligible under the definition of Alternative 2, 
are allocated the minimum amount. The remaining funds are apportioned 
in the same manner to all other governments. Cities that fall below the 
$50,000 minimum on reapportionment are increased to the minimum level. 
This process repeats itself until no local government is funded at a 
level below the minimum. For more detail on this calculation see 
Appendix A.
    Alternative 2 Funding--34%. Another thirty-four percent of funds is 
allocated to those governments that are eligible under the definition 
of Alternative 2. The process is the same as the apportionment for 
those eligible under the definition of Alternative 1. In Alternative 2, 
funding allocations from Alternative 1 are included in the total used 
to check the minimum amount. The calculator adds Alternative 2 funding 
to the amount received under Alternative 1 for any eligible entity 
receiving funding under Alternative 2. For more detail on this 
calculation see Appendix A.
    State Funding--28%. The process for allocating funds to States is 
nearly identical to the allocation algorithm for Alternative 1. EISA 
provides a statutory minimum funding allocation for States of 1.25% of 
the State allocation. At the level of funding established in ARRA, this 
minimum is $9,593,500. Using the iterative process, DOE calculates 
which States should be receiving the minimum amount of funding. DOE 
makes the minimum allocations. The remaining funds are then distributed 
pro rata based on the weighted population of States that are not 
designated to receive the minimum amount. For more detail on the math 
of this calculation see Appendix B.
    Final Output. Once calculations have been completed for the two 
alternative definitions, the amounts allocated to each eligible entity 
are summed, and two spreadsheets are written to an allocation file. The 
first contains all eligible units of local government and the second 
contains all States. The spreadsheets contain all relevant data used in 
the calculation including each final allocation rounded to the nearest 
one hundred dollars. A summary text file is also written containing the 
total of all grants to be received by each State.

Appendix A: Local Government Allocation Formulas

ALTERNATIVE 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.003

ALTERNATIVE 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.004

Ai1 = Total amount of funding allocated to Government i under 
Definition Alternative 1
F = Total amount of EECBGP program formula funding allocation
l1 = Percentage of total allocations available to Local Governments 
eligible under definition Alternative 1
l2 = Percentage of total allocations available

[[Page 17465]]

to Local Governments eligible under definition Alternative
\WP\i = Weighted populations average used to allocate funding
\WP\T = Sum of all weighted populations for which the minimum 
funding level is not designated
Di = Daytime Population estimate normalized to 2007 Population 
estimate
d = daytime coefficient
Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for Government i
M = number of governments receiving minimum funding level m
m = minimum amount of funding each entity must receive
n = number of eligible local governments
n2 = number of local governments eligible under Alternative 2 only
Pi = Total residential population based on ACS 2005-2007 or Census 
2000
Wi = Workers working in the jurisdiction of government i based on 
ACS 2005-2007 or Census 2000
Wi = Workers living in the jurisdiction of government i based on ACS 
2005-2007 or Census 2000

    Note: For Counties, all population figures are adjusted to 
reflect only the balance of their population excluding the 
populations of any eligible entities therein. For a local government 
that is eligible under only Alternative 1 and with a weighted 
population ([bond]WP[bond]) above 12,000, this works out to:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.005

    For a local government receiving funding under alternative 2, this 
works out to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.010

Appendix B: State Allocation Formulas

State Formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.006


[[Page 17466]]


s = Percentage of total allocations available to State Governments
M = number of governments receiving minimum funding level m
m = minimum amount of funding each entity must receive
n = number of State Governments
/WP/T = Sum of all weighted populations for which the minimum 
funding level is not designated
/WP/i = Weighted population which accounts for one third total 
population, one third balance population (those living in ineligible 
entities), and one third non-industrial energy consumption
Ci = Energy consumption less the industrial sector's consumption for 
State i
Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for State i
Bi = Balance Population for State i after subtracting the 
populations of eligible cities and counties in State i
ET = Sum of all Population 2007 Estimates for States, or in the case 
of territories 2000 Census population
CT = Sum of energy Consumption minus industrial use for all States, 
except in U.S. territories where total energy Consumption is 
included due to lack of data
BT = Sum of all Balance Populations for the States

    For a State not receiving the minimum amount of funding, the 
equation looks like:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.007

Part Two: EECBG Indian Tribe Allocation Formula

I. EECBG Tribal Allocation
    Section 543(d) of Title V, Subtitle E of EISA provides that, ``of 
amounts available for distribution to Indian tribes under subsection 
(a)(3), the Secretary shall establish a formula for allocation of the 
amounts to Indian tribes, taking into account any factors that the 
Secretary determines to be appropriate.''
    Part Two of this notice applies specifically to the Tribal 
Allocation, as described in section 543(a)(3), for which the total 
funds available will be $54,820,000.
II. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Tribal Formula
Defining Eligible Indian Tribes
    As defined by section 541(4) of Title V, Subtitle E of EISA, `` 
`Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.'' The Indian 
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act states that, `` `Indian 
tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group 
or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or 
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), which is recognized as 
eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United 
States to Indians because of their status as Indians'' (25 U.S.C. 
450b).
    The Tribal Allocation for the EECBG Program will be distributed 
among the 562 Federally recognized Indian tribes, listed in Indian 
Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United 
States Bureau of Indian Affairs published by Department of Interior's 
Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Federal Register on April 4, 2008, 73 
FR 18553; and the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations established 
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (33 U.S.C. 1601 et 
seq.).
    Formula Methodology. Given the relatively broad nature of the 
statutory language (e.g., ``taking into account any factors that the 
Secretary determines to be appropriate''), the Department has taken the 
opportunity with the Tribal Allocation to improve upon a formula based 
solely on population and tailor the distribution of funds to have the 
greatest impact in meeting the needs of Indian tribes most affected. 
However, the formula will draw heavily on relevant existing formulas 
and data sources, which were developed and are used by the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Native American 
Programs' (ONAP) Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG), and EERE's 
Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program's (WIP) 
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
    Summary of Formula. An explanation of the allocation formula is set 
forth below. The formula is calculated based on population data from 
the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census, as adjusted for birth and death rates 
provided by the National Center of Health Statistics used by the Indian 
Health Service, and heating and cooling degree day data from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Formula Factors: The formula is composed of two weighted factors. 
The first factor (F1) is the Tribal Population Factor. The next factor, 
The Tribal Climate Factor (F2), represents the climatic conditions in 
each Indian tribe's State, derived from heating and cooling degree 
days.
    F1 Tribal Population Factor. The first factor in the formula is the 
Tribal Population Factor. This allocates more funds to Tribes with 
larger populations. In the formula, the Tribal Population Factor is 
represented as the ratio of each Indian tribe's American Indian and 
Alaska Native (AIAN) population to the National Total Tribal AIAN 
population. This factor is weighted at 0.75. For an explanation of the 
weighting scheme, please see Weighting of the Formula Factors below.
    The Tribal Population Factor is expressed,

F1 = WF1 x (Indian Tribe's AIAN Persons/Sum of all Tribes' AIAN 
Persons)

Where,

WF1 = Population Weighting Factor (0.75)

    Accumulating population data for Indian tribes presents many 
obstacles, including but not limited to questions regarding 
coordinating an Indian tribe's geographic area with available data 
sources and inaccuracies in available data. Fortunately, HUD maintains 
a database for the need-based portion of the IHBG formula, which 
includes AIAN population data by Formula Area and as adjusted for birth 
and death rates provided by the National Center of Health Statistics 
used by the Indian Health Service, as defined in the IHBG regulations 
(see 24 CFR 1000, Subpart D for a definition of Formula Area and the 
methodology used under HUD's IHBG Program). The EECBG Program uses this 
HUD database in its calculation of the Tribal Allocation formula. The 
data that is used is that which HUD used in its allocation of IHBG 
fiscal year 2008 funds. This is the most recent version of this data 
and includes population estimates for 2007, with updates based on 
successful challenges from that year. Using this database allows DOE to 
comply with the legislative change in ARRA, which requires that the 
most

[[Page 17467]]

recent accurate population updates be used.
    Following HUD IHBG precedent, Indian tribes with populations of 
``zero'' are considered eligible for Tribal Allocation funds. This is 
due to the fact that Census data often does not accurately reflect true 
AIAN populations in a Formula Area.
    The U.S. Census Bureau tracks two sets of population numbers for 
all Indian tribes--single-race and multi-race. An Indian tribe's 
single-race population number includes people who identify themselves 
only as an American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) person. The multi-
race population number includes people who identify themselves only as 
an AIAN person and those who identify as AIAN in combination with one 
or more additional races. Since the definition of multi-race includes 
all single race American Indian and Alaska Native persons, the multi-
race population of any given tribe is always larger than or equal to 
the single race population. But, the allocation formula compares a 
tribe's population to the National Total AIAN population.
    The single race population of each tribe is compared to the total 
single race nationally. The multi-race of each tribe is compared to the 
total multi-race population nationally. In some cases the single race 
to national total single race for a given tribe will produce a larger 
ratio than the comparison of multi-race population and vice versa. To 
ensure that each Indian tribe receives the greatest allocation possible 
the tribal allocation formula is calculated twice, first using single-
race population data and second using multi-race population data. The 
greater of the two allocations is then selected for each Indian tribe.
    The Department uses a methodology whereby the population value that 
leads to the greatest funding level for each Indian tribe is included 
in the calculation. HUD's IHBG Program has incorporated such a 
modification into its formula, to ensure that each Indian tribe 
receives the greatest allocation possible. The EECBG Program will also 
use this methodology in making its tribal formula allocations. A full 
explanation of this method is provided below at Single- Versus Multi-
Racial Population Modification.
    F2 Tribal Climate Factor. The second factor, the Tribal Climate 
Factor, addresses the need for energy generated by weather conditions 
and the disparity of climatic conditions in different regions. Building 
retrofits and other energy efficiency and conservation measures can 
have a greater impact in regions experiencing severe climatic 
conditions relative to regions experiencing mild seasonal variations. 
Given that more than half of all eligible Indian tribes are located 
within the State of Alaska and the extreme climatic conditions 
experienced in that State, addressing climate disparity is of 
particular importance. Energy consumption data, which was selected by 
the Department as a criterion for the State allocation formula, was 
considered for use in the Tribal formula. However, tribal-specific 
energy use data is unavailable, and State energy consumption on a per 
capita basis is not comparable to tribal energy consumption on a per 
capita basis. Thus, climate data is the best indicator available to 
account for disparities in energy demand.
    The Tribal Climate Factor is obtained by adding the heating degree 
days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) for each Indian tribe's State, 
treating the energy needed for heating and cooling proportionately. 
State data are used due to the lack of verifiable site-specific data. 
The calculation of this factor is based largely on the climate factor 
developed for EERE's WAP formula allocation. The Tribal Climate Factor 
is weighted at 0.25. For an explanation of the weighting scheme, please 
see Weighting of the Formula Factors below.
    The Tribal Climate Factor is expressed,

F2 = WF2 x (Indian Tribe's State Climate Factor/Sum of All Tribes' 
State Climate Factors)

Where,
WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor (0.25)
and State Climate Factor is given by,
State Climate Factor = (HDD State Ratio + CDD State Ratio)
The State HDD and CDD Ratios are expressed,
State HDD Ratio = State HDD/National Median HDD
State CDD Ratio = (State CDD/National Median) x 0.1
Where,
Cooling Consumption (0.49 Quadrillion Btu)/Heating Consumption (4.79 
Quadrillion Btu) = 0.1

    The ratio of cooling to heating energy consumption reflects the 
fact that nationally households use, on average, one tenth as much 
energy for cooling as for heating. National heating consumption equals 
4.79 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) and air conditioning 
(cooling) consumption equals 0.49 quadrillion Btu. Cooling consumption 
divided by heating consumption rounds to 0.1. National data are used 
because of the absence of complete State-specific data.
    In order to account for the variation in weather in a simple but 
equitable manner, DOE compares each Indian tribe's State's (or States') 
climate to the National Median. Each State's HDD and CDD are divided by 
the series' median values. Using the median as the denominator ensures 
that half of the States would fall above 1 and half would fall below 1. 
A State HDD Ratio (HDD divided by the median) greater than 1 indicates 
a State with relatively cold winters, while a value greater than 1 for 
a State CDD Ratio indicates a State with a relatively warmer summer. To 
find the median of any odd series of numbers, the series is arranged in 
ascending order and the value that occurs in the middle of series is 
chosen as the median. The series relevant to the Tribal Climate Factor 
is odd because it consists of the 50 States and the District of 
Columbia. The median value occurs at the 26th observation (State). The 
median was chosen, rather than the mean, because of its characteristic 
of being ``insensitive'' to extreme heating and cooling values, such as 
those found in States like Alaska and Florida which tend to skew or 
pull the mean or average towards one extreme or another. Each State CDD 
Ratio is multiplied by 0.1. The final State Climate Factor for each 
State is then the sum of the State HDD and CDD Ratios. The final Tribal 
Climate Factor for each Indian tribe is the result of dividing each 
Indian tribe's corresponding State Climate Factor by the sum of all 
Indian tribes' State Climate Factors. This step normalizes the climate 
factor, so that the sum of all Tribal Climate Factors will now equal 1. 
For those Indian tribes whose Formula Areas are found in more than one 
State, an average of the State Climate Factors is used.
    The formula uses the thirty year averages (1971-2000) of heating 
and cooling degree days as reported by NOAA to account for climatic 
conditions. Heating and cooling consumption data were obtained from 
Table 28 of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Household 
Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1990.
    Weighting of the Formula Factors. In the allocation formula, the 
Tribal Population Factor is weighted at 0.75 and the Tribal Climate 
Factor is weighted at 0.25. This weighting scheme was designed to 
ensure that the tribal formula is consistent with other EECBG formulas 
(local governments and State), in that population will play the 
predominant role in determining an entity's allocation. As with the 
State formula, the factor related to energy (in the case of Indian 
tribes climatic

[[Page 17468]]

conditions, and in the case of States energy use) is given a lesser, 
though still significant, weight. This allows the formula to adjust 
allocations based on the variations in energy demand nationwide, 
without skewing them dramatically away from a per capita basis.
    Formula Share. The above factors are combined into a single formula 
by summing the Tribal Population Factor (F1) and the Tribal Climate 
Factor (F2) to find each Indian tribe's formula share.

The Tribal Formula Share is expressed,
Tribal Formula Share = Tribe's F1 + Tribe's F2

Where,
The Sum of All Tribal Formula Shares = 1

    Each Indian tribe's share of the Tribal Allocation is then 
calculated by multiplying the total Tribal Allocation by each Indian 
tribe's formula share.

The Tribal Formula Allocation is given by,
Tribal Formula Allocation = Tribal Allocation x Indian Tribe's Tribal 
Formula Share

    Minimum Level of Funding. The minimum level of funding for Tribal 
Formula Allocations is $25,000. This is based on the total amount of 
available funding and HUD IHBG precedent. Though currently the need-
based portion of the IHBG allocation formula is a set percentage of 
funds, for many years a minimum amount of $25,000 was employed and 
deemed adequate by HUD as well as the Indian tribes.
    A direct computation of the allocation formula will produce an 
allocated amount for each Indian tribe, in which some tribes may 
receive an allocation value less than $25,000. To resolve this, an 
algorithm is used to make multiple passes through the list of Indian 
tribes, to check if any were allocated less than $25,000. If a Tribal 
Formula Allocation is calculated to be below $25,000, this algorithm 
assigns the tribe the minimum value, subtracts this value from the 
total Tribal Allocation, and then locks-out the Indian tribe from 
further passes. Because some Indian tribes may fall close to the 
minimum funding mark in the first pass, when reallocating funds, they 
may fall below the $25,000 minimum. The algorithm makes another pass of 
the remaining Indian tribes, calculating the new Tribal Formula 
Allocation and checking again for levels below $25,000. This process 
repeats itself until no Indian tribe is funded at a level below the 
minimum.
    Single- Versus Multi-Racial Population Modification. As discussed 
above at F1 Tribal Population Factor, since differences in single-race 
and multi-race populations may lead to significantly different funding 
levels, it is important to incorporate into the overall calculation a 
selection process whereby the population value that leads to the 
greatest funding level for each tribe is chosen. Therefore, the EECBG 
Program will use the following method, modeled after that of HUD's IHBG 
Program, in calculating the final Tribal Formula Allocations:
    1. The Tribal Formula Allocations are calculated using both the 
Single-Race AIAN Persons data and the Multi-Race AIAN Persons numbers 
for each Indian tribe.
    2. The higher of the two Tribal Formula Allocations is selected for 
each Indian tribe.
    3. The sum of the allocations resulting from the selection process 
described in Step 2 will be greater than the total funds available for 
Tribal Allocation. Therefore, an across the board reduction of the 
Tribal Formula Allocations is made to ensure that the sum of all 
allocations is within appropriation levels.
    4. A pro-rata reduction factor is calculated by subtracting the 
total funds available to the Tribal Allocation from the sum described 
in Step 3, and then dividing the remainder by that same sum. The pro-
rata factor is applied to each Tribal Formula Allocation.
    5. As a result of the calculation described in Step 4, some Tribal 
Formula Allocations will drop below the minimum of $25,000. These 
Indian tribes are assigned the minimum value, a sum of all minimums 
assigned is subtracted from the total Tribal Allocation, and the tribes 
receiving the minimum are removed from further calculations. This 
produces a new total funds available to the Tribal Allocation and a new 
sum of allocations.
    6. For the remaining Indian tribes, a new pro-rata reduction factor 
is calculated using the new Tribal Allocation and sum of allocations 
figures described in Step 5, and then applied to each remaining 
allocation as described in Step 4.
    7. Steps 5-6 are repeated, until eventually, no Indian tribes are 
below the minimum allocation after the pro-rata reduction factor is 
applied. At this point the process stops, as all Tribal Formula 
Allocations have been calculated.
    Final Output.
    Once calculations have been completed for the Single- Versus Multi-
Racial Population Modification, the amounts allocated are rounded to 
the nearest one hundred dollars. These are the final Tribal Formula 
Allocations. For a complete version of the formula detailed in Part II, 
see Appendix C.

Appendix C: Tribal Allocation Formula
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.009

Ai = Indian tribe i's Tribal Formula Allocation
WF1 = Population Weighting Factor
Pi = Indian tribe i's AIAN Persons
[Sigma]Indian tribes Pi = Sum of all Tribes' 
AIAN Persons
WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor
HDDs = Heating Degree Days for States
CDDs = Cooling Degree Days for States
[bond]HDD[bond] = National Median HDD
[bond]CDD[bond] = National Median CDD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP09.011


[[Page 17469]]


F = Tribal Allocation

    Approval of the Office of the Secretary. The Secretary of Energy 
has approved publication of this notice.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-8609 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P