[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19974-19979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. 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: http://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:
[email protected].
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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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), http://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: http://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