Notice2021-15971
Final Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 28, 2021
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed ANSI/ASHRAE/ IES Standard 90.1-2019: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings and determined the updated edition would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings subject to the code. DOE analysis indicates that buildings meeting Standard 90.1-2019, as compared with buildings meeting the 2016 edition, would result in national site energy savings of 4.7 percent, source energy savings of 4.3 percent, and energy cost savings of approximately 4.3 percent of commercial building energy consumption. Upon publication of this affirmative determination, each State is required to review the provisions of their commercial building code regarding energy efficiency, and, as necessary, update their codes to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2019. Additionally, this notice provides guidance on state code review processes and associated certifications.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40543-40548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15971]
[[Page 40543]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017]
Final Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed ANSI/ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1-2019: Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings and determined the updated edition would improve
energy efficiency in commercial buildings subject to the code. DOE
analysis indicates that buildings meeting Standard 90.1-2019, as
compared with buildings meeting the 2016 edition, would result in
national site energy savings of 4.7 percent, source energy savings of
4.3 percent, and energy cost savings of approximately 4.3 percent of
commercial building energy consumption. Upon publication of this
affirmative determination, each State is required to review the
provisions of their commercial building code regarding energy
efficiency, and, as necessary, update their codes to meet or exceed
Standard 90.1-2019. Additionally, this notice provides guidance on
state code review processes and associated certifications.
DATES: Certification statements provided by States shall be submitted
by July 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the supporting analysis, as well as links to the
Federal docket and public comments received, are available at: <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations">https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations</a>.
Certification Statements must be addressed to the Building
Technologies Office--Building Energy Codes Program Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585.
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; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d37180f1810141c15532a141111141c100e3d181853191218531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9f3dccbdcd4d0d8d197eed0d5d5d0d8d4caf9dcdc97ddd6dc97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.
For legal issues, please contact Matthew Ring; U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, GC-
33, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-2555; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#327f5346465a57451c605b5c55725a431c565d571c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f9d5c0c0dcd1c39ae6dddad3f4dcc59ad0dbd19ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Public Participation
III. Determination Statement
IV. State Certification
I. Background
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for DOE to review consensus-based
building energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.)
Section 304(b), as amended, of ECPA provides that whenever the ANSI/
ASHRAE/IESNA \1\ 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, 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 90.1-2019, the most recent edition, was
published in October 2019, triggering the statutorily required DOE
review process. The Standard is developed under ANSI-approved consensus
procedures,\2\ and is under continuous maintenance under the purview of
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 90.1-2019 is
available at <a href="https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1">https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ANSI--American National Standards Institute; ASHRAE--
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers; IES--Illuminating Engineering Society.
\2\ See <a href="https://www.ansi.org/american-national-standards/info-for-standards-developers/standards-developers">https://www.ansi.org/american-national-standards/info-for-standards-developers/standards-developers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive
Order 13990, ``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25,
2021). The Executive Order directed DOE to consider publishing for
notice and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding
the final technical determination regarding the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2016 by May 2021. Id. at 86 FR 7038. In response, DOE has reviewed the
current Standard 90.1-2019 so that DOE's determination under section
304(b) of ECPA reflects the most recent version of Standard 90.1, and
to facilitate State and local adoption of the Standard, which will
improve energy efficiency in the nation's commercial buildings.
To meet the statutory requirement, and to satisfy the directive
issued under Executive Order 13990, DOE issued a preliminary
determination and published supporting analysis to quantify the
expected energy savings associated with Standard 90.1-2019 relative to
the previous 2016 version. The preliminary determination and analysis
are available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017-0001</a>.
II. Public Participation
In an April 21, 2021 Federal Register notice, DOE requested public
comments on its preliminary analysis of Standard 90.1-2019. (82 FR
34513) DOE received eight public comments, all of which DOE considered
in arriving at its final determination. DOE has now issued the final
analysis of the expected energy savings associated with Standard 90.1-
2019 as compared to Standard 90.1-2016. A summary of public comments
received, and DOE responses, is included in Appendix A of this Notice.
The final analysis is available at: <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations">https://www.energycodes.gov/development/determinations</a>.
III. Determination Statement
Commercial buildings meeting Standard 90.1-2019 (compared to the
previous 2016 edition) are expected to result in the following savings
on a weighted national average basis:
<bullet> 4.7 percent site energy savings
<bullet> 4.3 percent source energy savings
<bullet> 4.3 percent energy cost savings
DOE has rendered the conclusion that Standard 90.1-2019 will
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings, and, therefore,
receives an affirmative determination under Section 304(a) of ECPA.
States can experience significant benefits by updating their codes to
reflect current construction
[[Page 40544]]
standards, a total estimated $63.80 billion in energy cost savings and
476.77 MMT of avoided CO<INF>2</INF> emissions in commercial buildings
(cumulative 2010 through 2040), or $2.80 billion in annual energy cost
savings and 21.16 MMT in annual avoided CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
(annually by 2030). These benefits, including emissions reductions, are
estimated in a revised 2021 interim report addressing building code
impacts.\3\ Though not quantified in the interim report, there may also
be costs to regulated entities as a result of updated commercial
building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See <a href="https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-31437.pdf">https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-31437.pdf</a> for the 2021 interim code impact
report. Financial benefits are calculated by applying historical and
future fuel prices to site energy savings and by discounting future
savings to 2020 dollars. Historical and future real fuel prices are
obtained through EIA's AEO 2015 report (EIA 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. State Certification
Upon publication of this affirmative determination, each State is
required to review and update, as necessary, the provisions of its
commercial building energy code to meet or exceed the provisions of the
2019 edition of Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)) This action
is required not later than 2 years from the date the final Notice of
Determination is published in the Federal Register, unless an extension
is provided.
State Review & Update
DOE recognizes that some States do not have a State commercial
building energy code, or have a State code that does not apply to all
commercial buildings. States may base their certifications on
reasonable actions by units of general-purpose local government. Each
such State must review the information obtained from the local
governments, and gather any additional data and testimony in preparing
its own certification.
The applicability of any State revisions to new or existing
buildings would be governed by the State building codes. States should
be aware that the scope of Standard 90.1 includes high-rise (greater
than three stories) multi-family residential buildings, and hotels,
motels, and other transient residential building types of any height,
as commercial buildings for energy code purposes. Consequently,
commercial buildings, for the purposes of certification to DOE, would
include high-rise multi-family residential buildings, hotels, motels,
and other transient residential building types of any height.
State Certification Statements
Section 304(b) of ECPA, as amended, requires each State to certify
to the Secretary of Energy that it has reviewed and updated the
provisions of its commercial building energy code regarding energy
efficiency to meet or exceed the Standard 90.1-2019. (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)) The certification must include a demonstration that the
provisions of the State's commercial building energy code regarding
energy efficiency meets or exceeds Standard 90.1-2019. If a State
intends to certify that its commercial building energy code already
meets or exceeds the requirements of Standard 90.1-2019, the State
should provide an explanation of the basis for this certification
(e.g., Standard 90.1-2019 is incorporated by reference in the State's
building code regulations). The chief executive of the State (e.g., the
governor), or a designated State official (e.g., director of the State
energy office, State code commission, utility commission, or equivalent
State agency having primary responsibility for commercial building
energy codes), would provide the certification to the Secretary. Such a
designated State official would also provide the certifications
regarding the codes of units of general purpose local government based
on information provided by responsible local officials.
The DOE Building Energy Codes Program tracks and reports State code
adoption and certification.\4\ Once a State has adopted a new
commercial energy code, DOE typically provides software, training, and
support for the new code as long as the new code is based on the
national model code (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019). DOE has issued
previous guidance on how it intends to respond to technical assistance
requests related to implementation resources, such as building energy
code compliance software. (79 FR 15112) DOE Secretary is required to
provide incentive funding to States to implement the requirements of
section 304, and to improve and implement State residential and
commercial building energy efficiency codes, including increasing and
verifying compliance with such codes. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(e)) Some
States develop their own codes that are only loosely related to the
national model codes, and DOE may not be able to provide technical
support for those codes. DOE does not prescribe how each State adopts
and enforces its energy codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available at <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states">https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Extensions
Section 304(c) of ECPA requires that the Secretary permit an
extension of the deadline for complying with the certification
requirements described previously, if a State can demonstrate that it
has made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements and that
it has made significant progress toward meeting its certification
obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations could include one
or both of the following: (1) A plan for response to the requirements
stated in Section 304; or (2) a statement that the State has
appropriated or requested funds (within State funding procedures) to
implement a plan that would respond to the requirements of Section 304
of ECPA. This list is not exhaustive. Requests are to be sent to the
address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cd8fb8a4a1a9a4a3aa88a3a8bfaab48ea2a9a8be8da8a8e3a9a2a8e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ad8eff3f6fef3f4fddff4ffe8fde3d9f5feffe9daffffb4fef5ffb4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.
Appendix A
DOE received comments on its preliminary determination and
supporting analysis of Standard 90.1-2019 from the following
stakeholders:
<bullet> U.S. Army
<bullet> U.S. Air Force
<bullet> Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA)
<bullet> Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
<bullet> Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI)
<bullet> Three individual commenters
The comments are summarized below and are available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-DET-0017-0001/comment</a>. DOE
responded to all comments received. Several issues raised by
commenters are distinct from the energy efficiency analysis DOE has
undertaken pursuant to its statutory obligations. These include the
social cost of carbon, life-cycle cost, and cost effectiveness;
among these issues, social cost of carbon garnered the most
attention from commenters and is therefore emphasized in the
responses below.
Comment: The anonymous submitter of comment ID EERE-2020-BT-DET-
0017-0002 stated that the reduction in emissions is low for a five-
year code cycle and the standards should be stricter.
DOE response: DOE notes that the reported savings estimates
represent a 3-year code cycle--Standard 90.1-2019 compared to the
2016 edition--and not 5 years as stated by the commenter. The
stringency of each version of 90.1 is determined by the ANSI
consensus process used to revise Standard 90.1, as administered by
ASHRAE. While DOE is directed to participate in the ASHRAE consensus
process, the Department holds no special status. DOE's role in code
review and consensus processes for commercial energy codes,
including Standard 90.1, is further described at <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes">https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes</a>.
Comment: The U.S. Army stated that some of the requirements are
not ``reasonable'' or ``practicable'' and that requirements should
[[Page 40545]]
be operable and maintainable with typical maintenance staff and
budgets.
DOE response: DOE notes that, in making its determination, its
directive under ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of
Standard 90.1 would improve energy efficiency in commercial
buildings. DOE believes that the issue of whether code provisions
are ``reasonable'' and ``practicable'' is complex and most
appropriately addressed directly by the established code development
process, as administered by ASHRAE, used for Standard 90.1. That
process is inclusive of a wide range and variety of stakeholders,
and features a robust public comment process to ensure that the
concepts evaluated for inclusion in new versions of Standard 90.1
are indeed reasonable, practicable, feasible and cost effective,
among many other considerations.
Comment: The anonymous submitter of comment ID EERE-2020-BT-DET-
0017-0004 asked, for buildings that are already using 100% renewable
energy, whether the source energy and CO<INF>2</INF> savings are
going to be zero.
DOE response: DOE's determination is focused on a typical new
building meeting the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019. A building that is using 100% renewable energy was not
contemplated in DOE's analysis.
Comment: The anonymous submitter of comment ID EERE-2020-BT-DET-
0017-0005 asked why DOE shows building-only savings for natural gas
and building plus upstream savings for electricity. The commenter
suggested DOE should account for regional variations in gas and
electricity production.
DOE response: Both gas and electricity savings are expressed as
both site energy and source energy. The source energy factors for
natural gas and electricity are shown on pages 16 and 17 of the
technical support document referenced in the preliminary
determination notice. The source energy emissions for electricity
include both the losses in terms of generation as well as losses in
transmission and distribution. For natural gas, the source energy
factor of 1.088 includes losses due to both pipeline leakage and
transmission energy (compression) and the derivations are documented
in the technical support document. Regarding regional variation in
production, DOE considers use of national assumptions for gas and
electricity production the most appropriate way to estimate the
national energy impact of one edition of a model standard compared
to the previous edition, which is consistent with DOE's directive
under ECPA.
Comment: The U.S. Air Force's first comment stated that the
determination does not address institutional, industrial, or campus
buildings that often have mass walls and reduced window area.
DOE response: The suite of prototype building models relied upon
by the Standard 90.1 development committee and applied in DOE's
analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 represents approximately 76%
of U.S. new non-residential construction volume and includes mass
walls, steel framed, metal building, and wood frame construction.
Window-to-wall ratio varies in these models from 1% to 40%, as is
commonly the case in the commercial building stock, as represented
by the prototype models. While the prototypes cannot address every
possible combination of building type and building construction
types in the analysis, they do include a representative range of
building construction types, and are relied upon by established
decision-making processes, including the Standard 90.1 development
process.
Comment: The U.S. Air Force also recommended that the life-cycle
cost analysis (LCCA) should not use U.S. average utility rates.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) With respect to the energy cost savings calculation,
DOE considers use of a national average utility rate the most
appropriate way to estimate the national energy cost savings of one
edition of a model energy standard compared to the previous edition,
which is consistent with DOE's directive under ECPA. The range of
utility tariffs available in the U.S. numbers in the thousands, and
DOE is ultimately charged with issuing a national determination. DOE
notes that it does apply more specific rates in other analyses,
where appropriate, such as in estimating energy code impacts at the
state level.
Comment: The U.S. Air Force's final comment stated it does not
appear that maintenance tail expenses for mechanical requirements
such as enthalpy wheels were incorporated into the LCCA.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) Concepts such as life-cycle cost and cost
effectiveness represent economic analysis and are distinct from the
energy efficiency analysis that DOE is directed to assess through
its determination. However, DOE recognizes the value of such
analysis in informing state and local decisions surrounding code
review and update processes, as well as design decisions associated
with specific buildings and systems. DOE provides a variety of
additional analysis, including cost-effectiveness analysis, outside
the scope of DOE's determination, and in response to the
Department's separate directive to provide technical assistance to
support state code implementation. When conducting analysis such as
cost-effectiveness analysis, DOE does indeed rely upon a life-cycle
perspective and accounts for costs associated with the maintenance
and replacement of building systems and components.
Comment: RECA's first comment recommended that DOE provide
technical support for Standard 90.1.
DOE response: DOE is directed under ECPA to provide technical
assistance supporting the implementation of building energy codes.
Consistent with this directive, DOE intends to continue providing
robust technical assistance supporting state and local
implementation of buildings energy codes. DOE recognizes the
importance of supporting the states and local governments who
ultimately adopt and implement codes, as well as the wide range of
industry stakeholders who rely upon energy codes and strive to
achieve compliance in practice.
Comment: RECA's second comment recommended that DOE provide
cost-effectiveness analysis.
DOE response: As outlined in previous responses, DOE notes that
the current determination is focused solely on whether the revised
Standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
However, DOE recognizes the value of additional forms of technical
analysis supporting building energy codes to support the
implementation of state building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)),
and intends to continue to provide both national and state-level
cost-effectiveness analysis of Standard 90.1-2019 in the future.
Comment: RECA's third comment recommended that DOE provide
state-level energy and cost analyses.
DOE response: Consistent with the previous comment response, DOE
intends to provide state-level energy and cost analyses in the
future.
Comment: RECA's fourth comment recommended that DOE compare
90.1-2019 to the 2021 IECC.
DOE response: DOE recognizes that adopting states and local
governments often review the commercial provisions of the
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and can benefit from
knowing how the IECC compares to Standard 90.1 (i.e., the model
energy code established under ECPA). DOE has provided such analysis
in the past and intends to prepare similar analysis in the future.
Comment: RECA's fifth comment recommended that DOE remove old
versions of Standard 90.1 from COMcheck.
DOE response: In maintaining its compliance resources, such as
the COMcheck software \5\, DOE typically supports the three most
recent editions of the model codes. (79 FR 15112) Following the
current determination, and in accordance with established DOE
policy, this will include the 2019, 2016 and 2013 editions of
Standard 90.1, which represents the range of recent code editions,
and helps ensure limited federal resources remain focused on the
latest model codes. DOE intends to maintain consistency with this
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ COMcheck is a software tool developed and maintained by DOE
for the purpose of verifying compliance in commercial buildings.
Learn more at <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck">https://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: RECA's sixth comment recommended that DOE provide
implementation support for 90.1-2019.
DOE response: Consistent with previous comment responses, DOE
intends to continue providing robust support for states and local
governments implementing building energy codes. DOE notes that
several resources, including training on Standard 90.1-2019, are
already available via the DOE Building
[[Page 40546]]
Energy Codes Program technical assistance website, <a href="https://www.energycodes.gov">https://www.energycodes.gov</a>. DOE intends to provide additional resources
supporting Standard 90.1 implementation in the future.
Comment: RECA's seventh comment recommended that DOE find new
opportunities to support model code adoption, compliance, and
enforcement.
DOE response: DOE appreciates RECA's support in seeking new
opportunities to support code adoption and implementation. DOE
intends to continue to explore new and innovative means of
supporting code implementation and welcomes additional suggestions
in this area.
Comment: RECA's eighth comment stated that RECA agrees with and
supports DOE's positive determination.
DOE response: DOE appreciates the support.
Comment: EEI's first comment stated that the EPA greenhouse gas
equivalencies calculator overstates the emissions impact.
DOE response: As outlined in previous responses, DOE notes that
the current determination is focused solely on whether the revised
Standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
However, DOE recognizes the value of additional forms of technical
analysis supporting state implementation of building energy codes,
including emissions analyses. DOE relies on greenhouse gas emission
coefficients established by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in estimating current year CO<INF>2</INF> savings. EPA's
emission coefficients are designed to reflect marginal
CO<INF>2</INF> savings from electricity savings occurring on the
building site, which DOE considers appropriate for evaluating the
carbon savings stemming from an improved energy standard. This
approach is consistent with how DOE has performed similar
calculations in previous determinations.
Comment: EEI's second comment recommended that DOE's
determination should take into account the commitments utilities
have made to reduce carbon emissions.
DOE response: As outlined in previous responses, DOE notes that
the current determination is focused solely on whether the revised
Standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
However, DOE recognizes the value of additional forms of technical
analysis supporting state implementation of building energy codes,
including emissions analyses. DOE's analysis is based on several
metrics--energy cost, site energy, source energy--and in addition
reports the corresponding carbon emissions on a first-year basis.
DOE recognizes the progress being made by utilities in decarbonizing
the electric grid, and emphasizes that estimates provided in the
supporting technical analysis are based on current emission levels
and are subject to change in the future.
Comment: AHRI, p. 2-5. AHRI commented that historically DOE did
not estimate emission reductions or apply a value to emission
reductions as part of the results and basis for the determination.
They further stated that including emission reductions or their
value, including the SCC, as part of the basis for determination was
outside DOE's authority to consider (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)),
because EPCA is an energy conservation statute and excludes
environmental objectives (see 42 U.S.C. 6312 which excludes
environmental objectives), and that DOE does not have the statutory
authority to consider greenhouse gas estimates in determinations
regarding commercial building codes. AHRI opined that the SCC should
only be included for rulemakings where DOE has clear statutory
authority to do so and stated that it lacks such statutory authority
as to building energy codes.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the estimates pertaining to
CO<INF>2</INF> are provided only as supplemental information and are
not considered as part of the final determination, which is based on
energy efficiency as required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). DOE's
analysis includes an estimate of a one-year reduction in
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions on a normalized per square foot basis for
buildings constructed to 90.1-2019 versus those constructed to 90.1-
2016. Climate benefits associated with the expected CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions reductions are monetized using estimates of the social
cost of carbon (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>) presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (``February 2021
TSD'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information on DOE's use of the estimates from this
document, please section 4.2 and 5 of the TSD for the final
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that the estimates from the February 2021 TSD
are based upon sound analysis and provide well founded estimates for
DOE's analysis of the impacts of CO<INF>2</INF> related to the
reductions of emissions from updating the 90.1 Standard to the 2019
edition. However, DOE emphasizes that DOE is reporting estimates
related to CO<INF>2</INF> only because information on the carbon
emissions associated with buildings are valued by many stakeholders,
including states and local governments who ultimately implement
building codes, and who have expressed a need for this information.
These estimates are not considered as part of DOE's ultimate
determination of whether Standard 90.1-2019 will improve energy
efficiency.
Comment: AHRI, p. 2, 5. AHRI stated that DOE is ignoring clear
Congressional intent in including emissions in the narrowly scoped
building energy code review defined in the statutory text (42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(1). It further stated that Congress could have added global
climate change as a variable to weigh in the determination, but did
not do so and so DOE should not include this in the determination.
DOE response: See response to previous AHRI comment.
Comment: AHRI, p. 2. AHRI requested that DOE remove carbon
emissions from the determination for building energy codes,
including ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
DOE response: See previous response to AHRI comment.
Comment: AHRI p. 2. Irrespective of the authority consideration,
AHRI requested that DOE must act to remedy inaccurate assumptions
and conclusions on the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> benefits analysis. AHRI
opined that the benefits claimed from full fuel cycle and global
impact of emissions and SCC are speculative and tangential and that
these are calculated over a time period (100 years) that greatly
exceeds that used to measure economic costs.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A). DOE emphasizes that the estimates pertaining to
CO<INF>2</INF> are provided only as supplemental information and are
not considered as part of the final determination, which is based on
energy efficiency as required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A).
In calculating related CO<INF>2</INF> impacts, DOE used the
estimates for the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> from February 2021 TSD. DOE has
determined that the estimates from the February 2021 TSD, as
described more below, are based upon sound analysis and provide well
founded estimates for DOE's analysis of the impacts of
CO<INF>2</INF> related to the reductions of emissions from updating
the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 edition. The SC-CO<INF>2</INF>
estimates in the February 2021 TSD are interim values developed
under Executive Order (E.O.) 13990 for use until an improved
estimate of the impacts of climate change can be developed based on
the best available science and economics. The SC-CO<INF>2</INF>
estimates used in this analysis were developed over many years,
using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best
science available at the time of that process, and with input from
the public. Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that
included DOE, the EPA and other executive branch agencies and
offices used three integrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop
the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates and recommended four global values
for use in regulatory analyses. Those estimates were subject to
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as
well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
The SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates were first released in February
2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each IAM. In 2015, as
part of the response to public comments received to a 2013
solicitation for comments on the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, the
IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine review of the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates to offer advice
on how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates
continue to reflect the best available science and methodologies. In
January 2017, the National Academies released their final report,
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for future updates
to the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy
the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term
research needs pertaining to various components of the estimation
process (National Academies 2017). On January 20, 2021, President
Biden
[[Page 40547]]
issued Executive Order 13990, which directed the IWG to ensure that
the U.S. Government's (USG) estimates of the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> and
other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the estimates currently used by the USG and
publishing interim estimates within 30 days of E.O. 13990 that
reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including taking global
damages into account.\7\ The interim SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates
published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate
benefits associated with this determination and related model
building energy code updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of
the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that there are a number of challenges in
attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The science and economic understanding of
climate change and its impacts is improving over time; research
focused on the assessment of climate damages and socioeconomic
emissions projections is particularly important for reducing
uncertainty in the calculation of the social cost of greenhouse
gases (SC-GHG),\8\ as is quantifying and being transparent about
where key uncertainties in the models remain.\9\ But contrary to
AHRI's suggestion that uncertainty should cause DOE to discount or
abandon monetization of the social benefits of reducing
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, as stated by the interagency working group
(``IWG'') that performed the review described in the February 2021
TSD, due to a number of sources of uncertainty, there is a
likelihood that the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) is an
underestimate of the true social cost of emissions.\10\ Despite the
limits of both quantification and monetization, SC-CO<INF>2</INF>
estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of
reducing CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. As a result, DOE has used the
IWG's SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates in monetizing the social benefits
of reducing CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. However, as discussed in
previous comments, DOE's SC-CO<INF>2</INF> analysis using these
estimates was not considered in DOE's ultimate determination of
whether Standard 90.1-2019 will improve energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) is the monetary
value of the net harm to society associated with adding a small
amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year and, therefore,
should reflect the societal value of reducing emissions of the gas
in question by one metric ton. The marginal estimate of social costs
will differ by the type of greenhouse gas (such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide) and by the year in which the emissions
change occurs. The estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-
CO<INF>2</INF>), social cost of methane (SC-CH<INF>4</INF>), and
social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N<INF>2</INF>O) published in the
February 2021 TSD allow agencies to understand the social benefits
of reducing emissions of each of these greenhouse gases, or the
social costs of increasing such emissions, in the policy making
process. Collectively, these values are referenced as the ``social
cost of greenhouse gases'' (SC-GHG).
\9\ National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2017.
\10\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: AHRI p. 2, 3. As part of the rationale for not
including SCC, AHRI further commented that DOE has acknowledged the
uncertainty of SCC estimates and stated that these are both
provisional and revisable. Further, they noted that the interagency
working group developing the SCC noted that the underlying models
were imperfect and incomplete and notes that the intergovernmental
panel on climate change (IPCC) which the IWG relied on also stated
in 2013 that no best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity
could then be given because of the lack of agreement on values
across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the estimates pertaining to
CO<INF>2</INF> are provided only as supplemental information and are
not considered as part of the final determination, which is based on
energy efficiency as required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A).
As noted previously, DOE determined that the estimates from the
February 2021 TSD are based upon sound analysis and provide well
founded estimates for DOE's analysis of the impacts of
CO<INF>2</INF> related to the reductions of emissions from updating
the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 edition. As explained in the February
2021 TSD and while the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate
the latest, peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-
GHG estimates, the IWG has determined that it is appropriate for
agencies to revert to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-
GHG distributions based on three discount rates as were used in
regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and subject to public
comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions
across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal
weight to each) and then selected a set of four values for use in
benefit-cost analyses: An average value resulting from the model
runs for each of three discount rates (2.5%, 3%, and 5%), plus a
fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on
a 3 percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide
information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts
from climate change, conditional on the 3% estimate of the discount
rate. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, this update reflects
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in
regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was
developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies,
and the science available at the time of that process. Those
estimates were subject to public comment in the context of dozens of
proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period
in 2013. However, as discussed in previous comments, DOE's SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> analysis using these estimates was not considered in
DOE's ultimate determination of whether Standard 90.1-2019 will
improve energy efficiency.
Comment: AHRI, p. 3,5. AHRI commented that EPCA's focus is on
benefits accruing with this nation, hence incorporation of SCC at
the global level is beyond the scope and authority of DOE. See 42
U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(I). They further noted that EPCA originally
arose out of the 1970's oil embargo and that nothing in the
subsequent amendments suggests a different statutory focus other
than improving the energy economics within the United States. AHRI
notes that DOE analyzes expected national [domestic] energy savings,
but does not scale back reported SCC calculations to reflect
domestic impacts only.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the estimates pertaining to
CO<INF>2</INF> are provided only as supplemental information and are
not considered as part of the final determination, which is based on
energy efficiency as required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A). As to
the use of a SC-CO<INF>2</INF> value that includes impacts outside
the boundaries of the United States, the February 2021 TSD provides
a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under
E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found that a global perspective
is essential for SC-GHG estimates because climate impacts occurring
outside U.S. borders can directly and indirectly affect the welfare
of U.S. citizens and residents. Thus, U.S. interests are affected by
the climate impacts that occur outside U.S. borders. Examples of
affected interests include: Direct effects on U.S. citizens and
assets located abroad, international trade, and tourism, and
spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization
and global migration. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S.
GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those
actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as
those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to
U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that
affect U.S. citizens and residents.
As noted previously, DOE determined that the estimates from the
February 2021 TSD are based upon sound analysis, and therefore, in
analyzing the impacts of CO<INF>2</INF> related to the reductions of
emissions from updating the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 edition, DOE
has focused on a global measure of SC-GHG. As noted in the February
2021 TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the
literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating SC-
GHG values based on purely domestic damages, and explore ways to
better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts, both
global and domestic. As a member of the IWG, DOE will likewise
continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this
issue. However, as discussed in previous comments, DOE's SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> analysis using these estimates was not considered in
DOE's ultimate determination of whether Standard 90.1-2019 will
improve energy efficiency.
Comment: AHRI, p.3,4. AHRI stated that DOE wrongly assumes that
SCC values
[[Page 40548]]
increase over time in real dollars and states that this is contrary
to ``historical experience and to economic development science'' and
that the more economic development that occurs, the more adaptation
and mitigation efforts a population living in a growing economy can
afford to undertake (AHRI cites the IWG indicating that developed
countries can eliminate 90% of the economic impacts and developing
countries could eventually eliminate 50% of the economic impacts of
climate change). They comment that they see no indication that DOE
considered this separately.
DOE response: In making its determination, DOE's directive under
ECPA is to assess whether updated editions of Standard 90.1 would
improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 42 U.S.C.
6833(b)(2)(A) DOE emphasizes that the estimates pertaining to
CO<INF>2</INF> are provided only as supplemental information and are
not considered as part of the final determination, which is based on
energy efficiency as required under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A).
The model scenarios reported by the IWG demonstrate that the
damage assessments and corresponding valuation (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>),
adjusted for inflation, increase through time. As explained in the
February 2021 TSD, ``[the SC-GHG estimates increase over time within
the models--i.e., the societal harm from one metric ton emitted in
2030 is higher than the harm caused by one metric ton emitted in
2025--because future emissions produce larger incremental damages as
physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to
greater climatic change, and because GDP is growing over time and
many damage categories are modeled as proportional to GDP.'' As
noted previously, DOE determined that the estimates from the
February 2021 TSD are based upon sound analysis and provide well
founded estimates for DOE's analysis of the impacts of
CO<INF>2</INF> related to the reductions of emissions from updating
the 90.1 Standard to the 2019 edition in its building codes impact
analysis. Accordingly, DOE incorporated the IWG's considerations in
its analysis. However, as discussed in previous comments, DOE's SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> analysis using these estimates was not considered in
DOE's ultimate determination of whether Standard 90.1-2019 will
improve energy efficiency.
Comment: AHRI, p. 4. AHRI argued that it is arbitrary and
capricious to use different timeframes and assumptions for costs and
benefits and notes that DOE must clarify precisely why and how it
believes it has statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. 6833(b) to
consider SCC issues and cites why such action is legally arbitrary
without sufficient documented reason for treating similar situations
differently. AHRI notes that DOE, in clarifying why it believes it
has such authority, can establish how it is acting consistently in
terms of the analysis of benefits.
DOE response: See previous response to AHRI comment on the issue
of authority. On the issue of costs and benefits, DOE reemphasizes
that its determination analysis is not assessing the costs and
benefits associated with the updated Standard 90.1, that the
determination is solely based on energy efficiency, and that the
reported carbon emissions are reported only as supplemental
information for the benefit of interested parties and in support of
the directives of Executive Order 12866. To clarify the issue of
timeframe, the emission estimates are based on a one-year time
period (i.e., the annual energy consumption estimated via the energy
efficiency analysis). However, the step of projecting the associated
CO<INF>2</INF> impacts captures the longer-term impact of those
single-year emissions, as they persist in the atmosphere (and drive
the damage impacts over the time they persist), which is then
discounted to present value for the year when the emissions occur.
DOE does not find an economic inconsistency in this approach to
reporting emission benefits. Such a calculation is similar to life-
cycle analysis, for instance, which is performed in a similar
fashion, where a single year event occurs (e.g., a purchase of more
efficient equipment), but the energy savings are calculated over the
time they exist (e.g., the life of the equipment), and discounted
back to the present value to reflect an overall life-cycle cost.
DOE's reporting here of discounted damage impacts is consistent with
that general approach.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 19,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15971 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 28, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.