B.5.c REPORTING RESULTS CPD's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information without unjustifiable expense or unnecessary delay to the requester. Once the final report has been prepared, the public will be given access to survey data in accordance with EPA's policies and procedures for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. EPA and its contractors will develop a data base and standard report formats for providing data to the public. Specifically, the survey results will be made available to the respondents and the general public through: EPA's web site. EPA's Air and Radiation Docket. A written FOIA request. Raw data and the data base used to manage response data will be available upon to EPA or should be included in a FOIA request. written request Q7. A7. Q8. Page 29 of EPA's Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding EPA's Climate Change Activities states that "EPA will develop a market evaluation plan for the suite of CCTI programs” for the end of 2000, and suggests that these evaluations may be needed for national communications under the FCCC. Again, this suggests that EPA is in the marketing business for these programs, which I question, and I request a basis for engaging in this effort. The market evaluation plan that EPA refers to here would be a plan for evaluating the environmental and economic benefits of EPA's CCTI programs using available marketbased data. EPA is interested in accurate assessments of its programs and is interested in evaluations that reduce the reporting burden on program partners. EPA did not intend to imply that EPA was developing a marketing plan for its suite of CCTI programs. In reply to my question Q6., you again refer the Subcommittee to the EPA Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding EPA's Climate Change Activities, which states on page 33 that “EPA analyses” shows that if all consumers choose only ENERGY STAR products for their if all commercial building owners and managers took advantage of Q8.1 Please provide the analysis and its cost. A8.1 The analyses for these statements are attached. They are spreadsheet analyses based on the work performed for other purposes by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), including the work LBNL did for the report on Scenarios of US Carbon Emissions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond (previously provided). The cost of these analyses was less than $3,000. Table 1: Summary results from 5-Lab Study for U.S. commercial sector100% implementation case (1) Assumes 100% implementation of cost-effective efficiency for all end-uses that replace equipment by 2010 from 5-lab study calculations. Energy and carbon savings adjusted downward by 12/13 = 0.923 to reflect shorter turnover period. (2) Curnulative dollar savings discounted to 1998 using a 4% real discount rate and fuel prices from the AEO 97. (3) Site electricity converted to primary using a heat rate of 10,500 Btu/kWh (3.077 kWh. fuel/kWh.electricity) Table 2: Summary results from 5-Lab Study for U.S. commercial sector plus manufacturing buildings–100% implementation case (1) Assumes 100% implementation of cost-effective efficiency for all end-uses that replace equipment by 2010 from 5-lab study calculations. Energy and carbon savings adjusted downward by 12/13 0.923 to reflect shorter turnover period. (2) Cumulative dollar savings discounted to 1998 using a 4% real discount rate and fuel prices from the AEO 97. (3) Site electricity converted to primary using a heat rate of 10,500 Btu/kWh (3.077 kWh fuel/kWh electricity) (4) Electricity carbon savings calculated assuming a marginal carbon burden of 127 g C/kWh at the meter. (5) Savings from industrial buildings added using scaling factors derived from Niefer and Ashton (1997), |