[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8463-8465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03931]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[EERE-2017-BT-DET-0046]


Final Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in 
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016: Energy Standard for Buildings, 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings

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

ACTION: Notice of order.

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

SUMMARY: After receiving and reviewing public comments, the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) issues this Order finalizing DOE's 
determination that the 2016 edition of the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 
90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential 
Buildings improves overall energy efficiency in buildings subject to 
the code compared to the 2013 edition of Standard 90.1.

DATES: This Order applies as of February 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the final analysis is available at https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW, EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 441-1288; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended 
(ECPA), establishes requirements for building energy conservation 
standards, administered by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program. (42 
U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(b), of ECPA, as amended, provides that 
whenever the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 (Standard 90.1-1989 
or 1989 edition), or any successor to that code, is revised, the 
Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must make a determination, not later 
than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would 
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings required to meet the 
standard, and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)) If the Secretary makes an 
affirmative determination, within two years of the publication of the 
determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed 
and updated the provisions of its commercial building code regarding 
energy efficiency with respect to the revised or successor code and 
include in its certification a demonstration that the provisions of its 
commercial building code, regarding energy efficiency, meet or exceed 
the revised Standard. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i))
    Standard 90.1-2016, the most recent edition, was published by 
ASHRAE in October 2016, triggering the statutorily-required DOE review 
process. The Standard is developed under ANSI-approved consensus 
procedures, and is under continuous maintenance by an ASHRAE Standing 
Standard Project Committee (commonly referenced as SSPC 90.1). ASHRAE 
has an established program for regular publication of addenda, or 
revisions, including procedures for timely, documented, consensus 
action on requested changes to the Standard. More information on the 
consensus process and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 is available 
at: https://www.ashrae.org/resources-publications/bookstore/standard-90-1.
    To meet the statutory requirement, DOE conducted a preliminary 
analysis to quantify the expected energy savings associated with 
Standard 90.1-2016 relative to the previous 2013 version. The 
preliminary analysis is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-DET-0009-0001.

[[Page 8464]]

    Standard 90.1-2016 includes several paths for compliance in order 
to provide flexibility to users of the Standard. The prescriptive path, 
which is widely considered the most traditional, establishes criteria 
for energy-related characteristics of individual building components 
such as minimum insulation levels, maximum lighting power, and controls 
for lighting and HVAC&R systems. Some of those requirements are 
considered ``mandatory'', meaning that they must be met even when one 
of the other optional paths are utilized (e.g., performance path). 
These other optional paths are further described below.
    In addition to the prescriptive path, Standard 90.1 includes two 
optional whole building performance paths. The first, known as the 
Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method, provides flexibility in allowing a 
designer to ``trade-off'' compliance. This effectively allows a 
designer to not meet a given prescriptive requirement if the impact on 
energy cost is offset by exceeding other prescriptive requirements, as 
demonstrated through established energy modeling protocols. A building 
is deemed in compliance when the annual energy cost of the proposed 
design is no greater than the annual energy cost of the reference 
building design (baseline). In addition, Standard 90.1-2016 includes a 
second performance approach, Appendix G, the Performance Rating Method. 
In previous editions of Standard 90.1 (i.e., prior to the current 2016 
edition), Appendix G has been used to rate the performance of buildings 
that exceed the requirements of Standard 90.1 for ``beyond code'' 
programs, including the LEED Rating System, ASHRAE Standard 189.1, the 
International Green Construction Code (IgCC), and other above-code 
programs. Beginning with the 2016 edition of Standard 90.1, Appendix G 
also adds the capability to demonstrate minimum energy code compliance.

II. Public Participation and Error Correction

    In a July 25, 2017, Federal Register notice, DOE requested public 
comments on the preliminary analysis. (82 FR 34513) DOE received four 
public comments, all of which DOE considered (see Appendix A to this 
Order.). In addition, a DOE review of the simulation analysis 
identified a mistake in how much outdoor ventilation air was being 
introduced in two prototypes. Correction of this mistake resulted in 
savings increasing from .6% to 4.9% in Large Office and an increase of 
less than 1% in Mid-rise Apartment. Overall savings from the standard 
increased from 6.7% to 6.8%. These corrections were incorporated into 
the final analysis document but did not impact the determination 
ruling. DOE has now issued the final analysis of the expected energy 
savings associated with Standard 90.1-2016 as compared to Standard 
90.1-2013. The final analysis is available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations.

III. Order

    Based on the requirements of Section 304(b) of ECPA, as amended, 
and DOE's final analysis prepared after consideration of comments on 
the preliminary analysis and correction of the simulation analysis 
describe above, I have determined that the 2016 edition of the ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings would improve overall energy efficiency in 
buildings subject to the code compared to the 2013 edition of Standard 
90.1.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2018.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

Appendix A

    DOE received comments on the preliminary analysis from the 
American Chemistry Council (ACC) Plastics Division, the ACC Foam 
Sheathing Committee, the Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA), 
and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). The comments are summarized 
below and are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-DET-0009.

Addenda Scope

    Comment: The ACC Plastics Division commented that DOE's analysis 
is too conservative because it fails to consider the impact of 
addenda only affecting existing buildings. ACC's Foam Sheathing 
Committee expressed the same concern. ACC recommended that DOE 
analyze provisions affecting existing buildings for consistency with 
statutory requirements and to provide critical guidance to states.
    DOE response: DOE notes that only one addendum (addendum e) in 
the prescriptive and mandatory requirements was applicable to 
existing buildings only and, therefore, was excluded from the 
quantitative analysis. In addition, this addendum was determined to 
decrease energy use through the qualitative analysis, which was 
presented in the preliminary determination. The majority of addenda 
apply to new buildings and the impact of these addenda was captured 
in the analysis. The goal of the determination is to evaluate 
whether the latest edition of Standard 90.1 improves energy 
efficiency of buildings relative to the previous edition, and DOE 
believes that the current methodology is sufficient to make such a 
determination.
    Comment: The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) 
recommended that the magnitude of the impact of requirements for 
existing buildings in the Standard taken as a whole should be 
evaluated.
    DOE response: The impact of individual addenda impacting 
existing buildings are considered as part of DOE's qualitative 
analysis. However, baseline conditions for existing building can 
vary significantly depending upon a wide variety of factors, 
including the age of the building, baseline systems and components, 
and past renovations. While these requirements are part of the 
Standard and do impact energy efficiency in commercial buildings, 
they cannot be adequately represented by the quantitative analysis.

Analyzing Compliance Paths

    Comment: The ACC Plastics Division stated that DOE's analysis is 
too conservative because it fails to consider the impact of addenda 
affecting the performance paths for compliance in Standard 90.1.
    DOE response: DOE notes that evaluating the prescriptive and 
mandatory requirements effectively captures the impact of all 
compliance paths within Standard 90.1-2016. The performance paths 
within Standard 90.1-2016 are intended to provide equivalent 
performance to the prescriptive path. As the energy efficiency 
stringency of the prescriptive path is increased, the performance 
path rules and targets are changed to mirror that increase. Using 
the prescriptive and mandatory requirements therefore effectively 
represents changes to the entire standard. Additionally, the purpose 
of the performance paths is to give designers and builders 
flexibility by allowing an almost unlimited number of trade-off 
combinations which will comply with the Standard. Analytically, it 
is not practical or possible to model all of these design 
combinations.
    Comment: RECA also recommended that DOE make a separate 
determination for each of the compliance paths in Standard 90.1: 
Prescriptive path, Energy Cost Budget, and performance path.
    DOE response: DOE believes that evaluating the prescriptive and 
mandatory requirements effectively captures the impact of all 
compliance paths within Standard 90.1-2016 and is satisfactory for 
the purpose of determining whether the new edition of Standard 90.1 
will save energy in commercial buildings relative to the previous 
edition. The performance paths within Standard 90.1-2016 are 
intended to provide equivalent performance to the prescriptive path. 
As the energy efficiency stringency of the prescriptive path is 
increased, the performance path rules and targets are changed to 
mirror that increase. Thus evaluating the performance paths 
separately, even in simplified form, would provide no additional 
information. The performance paths provide designers and builders 
flexibility by allowing trade-offs between prescriptive requirements 
and makes the Standard easier to comply with--a benefit for states 
looking to adopt the new Standard.

[[Page 8465]]

Site vs. Source Energy

    Comment: EEI's first comment on this topic was that DOE should 
only use site energy and energy cost results in its determination 
and that source energy results should not be used.
    DOE response: DOE notes that EEI submitted a similar comment on 
the Notice of Preliminary Determination for Standards 90.1-2010 and 
2013. DOE continues to believe that source energy estimates are of 
interest to many stakeholders and are important to the discussion of 
global resources and environmental issues. However, DOE realizes 
that site energy is the energy that typically appears on utility 
bills and that is seen by the consumer, and that energy cost (as 
shown on energy bills) is a metric also important to many consumers. 
It is for these reasons that DOE provides all three metrics--site 
energy, source energy, and energy cost--in its determinations.
    Comment: EEI also stated that the value associated with source 
energy for electricity overstates losses and does not appropriately 
characterize the significant improvements in the overall efficiency 
of the electricity sector because: (1) DOE considered only 
commercial customers; (2) the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
(EIA) fossil fuel heat rate assigned to renewable energy is too 
high; (3) estimates of primary energy values should look forward not 
backward; and (4) estimates of primary energy values should account 
for regional differences in electricity generation and renewable 
portfolio standards.
    DOE response: DOE notes that EEI submitted a similar comment on 
the Notice of Preliminary Determination for Standards 90.1-2010 and 
2013. DOE continues to believe that its use of EIA data, conversion 
factors, and treatment of renewable energy is appropriate and 
remains consistent with past determinations and DOE's Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program (AESP) analyses. While it is true that 
the site-to-source conversion factor used in this analysis is 
derived from EIA data for commercial sector energy use, analyzing 
the data from all sectors results in the same conversion factor. The 
determination methodology does not calculate the future impact of 
the new Standard, and thus DOE believes that using conversion 
factors from the year of publication of the Standard is appropriate. 
DOE notes that it makes analyses available for states on the future 
impact of energy codes, which are beneficial for determining the 
long-term benefits of new code adoption. Finally, the use of the 
conversion factor from 2016 in this analysis also mitigates the 
impact of using the fossil fuel equivalency approach to determine 
the conversion factor for electricity because the proportion of 
renewable sources in the overall fuel mix was very small in 2016.

[FR Doc. 2018-03931 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P