[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