2011 MIDWEST REGIONAL

BUILDING ENERGY CODES

CONFERENCE

October 5-6, 2011

Chicago, IL

Purpose

• Establish a regionally coordinated effort

on behalf of adoption, enforcement and

evaluation of building energy codes

• Increase knowledge and information

sharing of Midwest energy code activity

• Get to know each other

MEEA’s Role in the Midwest

• Nonprofit serving 13 Midwest states

• 10 years serving utilities, states and communities

• Staff of 24 in Chicago

• Actions – Advancing Energy Efficiency Policy

– Designing & Administering EE Programs

– Delivering Training & Workshops

– Coordinating Utility Program Efforts

– Regional Voice for DOE/EPA & ENERGY STAR

– Evaluating & Promoting Emerging Technologies

Agenda

• State Updates

• 2012 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-2010

• Utility Programs and Energy Codes

• Compliance Evaluation Pilot Studies

• 3rd Party Enforcement

Structure

• Quick Introduction to Subject

• Panel Discussion

• Q&A / Open Commentary

Norms

• No one here is the Smartest Person in the

Room.

• Respect the knowledge and

understanding of others.

• Discussions must be civil (especially when

there is disagreement).

• Statements should be brief, on topic and

to the point (and no commandeering of

discussion for your pet topic).

2012 IECC /

ASHRAE 90.1-2010

2012 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2010

• 30% more energy efficient than 2006

IECC

• 25% more energy efficient than 90.1-2004

• Overwhelming support of code officials at

ICC Final Action Hearings

• Non-residential amendments had broad

support

Brief History/Background

• RESIDENTIAL

– End -point of work on 30% Solution

– Whole house approach to energy code.

• NON RESIDENTIAL

– Suite of amendments originally based on

requirements of Core Performance Guide (CPG)

– State of Massachusetts adopted a stretch code based on CPG

– AIA, New Buildings Institute, and DOE collaborated

on set of amendments based on MA stretch code

– NBI Analysis indicates that amendments improve the

energy efficiency of Chapter 5 by 20-30% over 2006

IECC.

Key New Features - Residential

• Whole house continuous ventilation

• Restrictions on pipe length

• No cavity insulation in Climate Zones 6 &

7 for prescriptive path

• Blower door test required

• Strengthening of existing requirements

• 2012 IRC exactly the same as 2012 IECC

Key New Features - Non-Residential

• Increased focus on daylighting

• Commissioning

• Lighting controls

• HVAC – 3 Approaches (includes

renewables)

Midwest Activity

• Illinois

• Minnesota

• Kansas City, MO

• Overland Park, KS

UTILITY PROGRAMS AND

ENERGY CODES

Rationale

• Code compliance tends to be low.

• Utilities face increasing energy efficiency requirements; up to 2.0% of energy sales as early as 2015; code related programs can help utilities meet these goals.

• Code compliance realizes energy potential of policy.

• Utilities can bring resources and expertise to the issue (through programs).

• Significant regional potential savings; up to 123 trillion Btu annually by 2020 or the equivalent of the energy use of 1,000,000 households

Anti-Rationale

• Utilities may hesitate to support improving

the energy efficiency of energy codes

– Increasing the energy efficiency of the energy

code reduces the amount of energy savings

utilities can claim

• How can utilities get credit for energy

savings from code programs?

Basic Framework

• Know relevant state statutory and regulatory requirements.

• Know the various stakeholders involved.

• Focus on compliance enhancement (and to a lesser extent stretch codes).

• Work out appropriate activities (actions that will result in measurable energy savings).

• Develop methodology for measuring energy savings (pay attention to difference between natural gas and electricity).

• Attribution (not all energy savings due to increased compliance will come directly from utility actions).

• Allocation (multiple utilities within state)

How Does A Codes Program

Differ

• Codes are adopted and enforced by governmental agencies

• Multiple organizations (stakeholders) are interested and willing to participate

• Codes affect all new buildings

• “Customers” cannot choose to participate or not participate

• Utility actions affect adoption not behavior

• Utility acquisition programs interact with codes

UTILITY PROGRAMS AND ENERGY CODES

CASE STUDIES: MASSACHUSETTS

AND CALIFORNIA

Massachusetts

• 2010: All 8 Program Administrators (PAs) took a joint decision towards a state-wide residential & commercial C&S initiative

• Why? – Have in-house expertise to assist state with advancing

C&S

– Need to meet aggressive state mandated energy savings goals through innovative and new program initiatives

– Capture market missed by incentive programs & overcome split incentives for building owners/tenants

– Proven through California: cost effective program with large energy savings potential

• Barriers: regulatory barriers, complex energy savings attribution

Massachusetts - Work in 2010-2011

• Began discussions with the state on possible initiatives that PAs can pursue through C&S program

• Hired a consultant team to assist PAs in program planning, energy saving estimates, attribution methodology, etc.

• Initiated research studies to: – Identification of stakeholders and coordinate

communication

– Confirm energy savings potential through C&S

– Complete Code compliance baseline studies

– Design attribution methodology to energy savings

Massachusetts - Timeline

• Late 2011:

– Submit proposal to the state for approval

• 2012:

– Focus on completing research & baseline studies

– Refine program initiatives based on state

feedback: intent, goals, timelines, nature of

energy savings

• 2013:

– Launch C&S program

California

• Statewide Codes and Standards

• California Enhanced Compliance Subprogram

• Near Term (2009-2011) – Research high priority solutions (applies to med and long

term)

– increase training and support for local code officials.

– Investigate regulatory tools such as licensing and registration enforcement.

– Evaluate proposed changes to code and compliance approaches.

– Work with local governments to: improve code compliance; adopt stretch codes and provide training/education.

California (Cont.)

• Medium Term (2012-2015) – Pursue involvement of HERS Raters

– Work with trade associations to improve self-policing

– Streamlining permit process

• Long Term (2016-2020) – Investigate “sticks and carrots” with monetary

incentives/penalties

– Investigate codes that regulate the operation of buildings

California - Activities

• Evaluation of code compliance infrastructure – Conduct gap analysis

– Interview market actors; Identify and implement best practices

– Establish pilot

• Establishment of training program – Role-based training

• Investigation of regulatory tools – Identify processes and tools

– Evaluation of proposed changes to energy code

• Work with local government

Utility Programs - Final Thoughts

• Although framework is beginning to get established, many details remain to be worked out.

• Work is ongoing to:

– Clarify and expand types of utility activities in support of energy codes (move beyond training).

– Establish measurement and attribution protocols.

– Clarify/address statutory and regulatory hurdles.

– Outreach to diverse stakeholders.

COMPLIANCE EVALUATION

PILOT STUDIES

Compliance Evaluation Pilot

Studies

• Recovery Act Requirement for States

Receiving Funding Related to Energy

Codes

• Establish Plan for 90% Compliance with

2009 IECC/90.1-2007 by 2017

• Need to Develop Protocol to Provide

Consistent Measurement Across States

• Save States from Having to Develop

Individually

Questions of Methodology

• Random Sample of 44 buildings

(residential and non-residential)

• Follow Protocol Developed by Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory (Show

Link)

• How Long Does it Take?

• How Much Does it Cost?

• Roadblocks?

• Biases in Sample?

• Baseline Compliance Rate?

Pilot Studies Across the US

Source: DOE BECP

3RD PARTY ENFORCEMENT

Issues and Questions

• Alleviate issue of lack of resources & add new sources of expertise

• Increasing complexity of code (takes longer to learn and enforce)

• Successes in past (Washington State/Fairfax County VA)

• How to revive effort?

• Use of HERS Professionals

• Wisconsin experience

Contact Info

Isaac Elnecave, Senior Policy Manager

ielnecave@mwalliance.org

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA)

www.mwalliance.org

More information & resources

http://www.mwalliance.org/policy/midwest-regional-energy-codes-conference