Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFY95 climate change building code 1994Accelerating Implementation of Building Energy Codes .April 12,1995 Mr.David Lockard .ee ive.Community and Regional Affairs 333 West 4th Avenue APR 17 1995 Suite 220 Anchorage,AK 99501-2341 OO")OF ENERGYIP® Dear Mr.Lockard: Enclosed is a brochure explaining the services of the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP),which may be of interest to you.This new project,initiated by the Alliance to Save Energy,the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)),is staffed to provide customized assistance to the states to adopt and implement energy-efficient building codes. I may have spoken with your staff about the energy code situation in your state, and am eager to provide whatever assistance BCAP can.Our capabilities are focused on political advocacy and policy development,technical analyses,and code training for designers,builders,and code officials.Limited funding of BCAP necessitates setting priorities for the allocation of staff time,but I intend to provide whatever assistance possible to as many states as request it. Please take a moment to read the brochure.If I haven't contacted your office and you believe you might want BCAP assistance,contact us. If you have questions or concerns,please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely yours, Katherine L.McQueen Executive Director KLM/dr Enclosure AJoint Initiative of The Alliance to Save Energy,The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,and The Natural Resources Defense Council :”t1725 K Street NW e Suite 509 e Washington,D.C.20006-1401 e Tel:(202)429-9607 «Fax:(202)331-9588 ALLIANCESNEWS: The Alliance welcomes to its staff Program Assistant Toni Nelson and Communications Assistant Gayatri Bhalla. Also joining us are interns Carrie Cullen, Cathleen Kelly, Robin Oswald and Matt Schwartz. page 12 Alliance opens its doors to Clean Energy Campaign After expanding its offices in December,the Alliance is now providing office space to the Clean Energy Campaign -a project of the Campaign for an Environmental Economy. The Clean Energy Campaign works to edu- cate the public about the potential economic and environmental benefits of renewable sources of energy,as well as technologies that use energy more efficiently.It promotes allocating a greater share of federal energy expenditures toward these clean energy sources,including a $1 billion bud- get shift within the Department of Energy. The Alliance is a supporting organization of the Campaign -a national coalition of more than 1,000 organizations that includes labor unions,religious organizations,senior citizens groups and other non-traditional organizations. Last year the Campaign worked with grassroots partners in more than 10 target states to ensure that the perspectives of people at the state and local level were combined with national infor- mation to provide a balanced view of clean energy in local media markets. For more information about the Clean En- ergy Campaign,call Tom Rosenberg at (202) 466-5122. In addition to the Clean Energy Campaign, the Alliance offices also house the Business Coun- cil for a Sustainable Energy Future,phone (202) 785-0507,and the Building Codes Assistance Project,phone (202)429-9607. Staffer to teach efficiency course on island of Palau Alliance Program Manager Anita Fenichel has moved with her family to the island of Palau for a year-long teaching appointment.Palau is located east of the Philippines and north of New Guinea.Fenichel will teach a course on Energy Efficiency and Conservation in Developing Coun- tries at the Center for Island Management of the School for Field Studies,which conducts envi- ronmental and resource management study- abroad programs for college juniors. Annual Alliance awards dinner slated for June 20 in Washington,D.C. Honorees: Hon.Mark Hatfield Dr.Arthur Rosenfeld 3M Company Honorary Chair: Hon.Charles H.Percy Co-Chairs: Shirley Wiseman Lach,Past President,National Association of Home Builders Dean Langford,President,OSRAM SYLVANIA INC. Congressional Co-Chairs: Hon.Jeff Bingaman Hon.James Jeffords Black Tie Individual tickets -$1,000 Tables -$10,000 For more information,contact Vicki Valandra at (202)857-0666 Alliance to Save Energy,1725 K Street,N.W.,Suite 509,Washington,D.C.20006 Editor:Mary Ann Gourlay Associate Editor:Sigrid Wright Printed on Recycled Paper wc cUCEIVe. APR 10 1995 DOE programs under Congressional siege in wake of November election surprise Opinion poll finds broad public support for continued funding of efficiency programs The landslide Republican victory in the Novem- ber elections turned prospects for federal energy efficiency activities on their ear.While the Clinton Administration is fighting to increase funding for energy efficiency,efforts to balance the federal bud- get and plans to provide a middle-class tax cut has produced the impetus to slash deeply into the civilian energy budget. Just two weeks after President Clinton proposed a FY-96 budget that includes a 17-percent jump for the Department of Energy's energy efficiency pro- grams (see story on p.3),a House subcommittee passed a rescission bill that takes away more than $58 million from the FY-95 DOE energy efficiency budget approved last fall. The rescission bill cut almost $103 million from the overall FY-95 DOE budget,including a reduction of $8 million for buildings efficiency programs,$16 million for industrial efficiency programs and almost $15 million for the weatherization assistance program. It appeared likely as Alliance Update went to press that there would be several attempts to deepen the cuts as the bill made its way through the Appro- priations Committee and to the House floor. The active defense of DOE and its efficiency pro- grams by groups such as the Alliance,as well as strong support for the agency by Vice President Albert Gore, appears to have discouraged the Clinton Administra- tion from recommending DOE's elimination.But that hasn't stopped efforts within the Congress to dismantle the agency. The Department of Energy is a bureaucracy whose time has come - and gone. It's time to turn out the lights at DOE. -Freshman Rep.Todd Tiabrt oD Alliance to Save Energy Alliance Update is published quarterly by the Alliance to Save Energy At a press conference in February,five freshmen Republican Congressmen joined with several other of their colleagues to call for the "massacre”of four fed- eral agencies,including DOE."The Department of Energy is a bureaucracy whose time has come -and gone,”said Rep.Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.)."It's time to turn out the lights”at DOE,Tiahrt said. The proposals put forth at the press conference broke little new ground and are similar to initiatives already discussed either in Congress or within the Clin- ton Administration. Ina letter to President Clinton,Sen.Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)and Sen.James Jeffords (R-Vt.);Alliance Co- Chairmen expressed support for DOE,noting the "growing effectiveness of DOE's energy efficiency pro- grams in recent years and the benefit they provide to homeowners,businesses and the economy overall.” The letter urged Clinton to "oppose any hastily drawn efforts to radically restructure the Department of Energy,”and it noted that "placing DOE functions in other agencies that do not have the appropriate expertise or commitment will only be a 'disorganiza- tion'that consumes resources and disrupts important programs.” Clinton responded that he has "no plans to abol- ish the Department of Energy”but emphasized that the Administration would "work to bring the depart- ment up to date.” The Congressional efforts to wrest programs and funding from DOE are being met by resistance from continued on page 2 WASHINGTON The Department of Energy's influence over the U.S.economy, national security, international competitiveness and the environment is profound,and there are numerous reasons why it would be imprudent and short-sighted to disassemble the department. -Sen.Jeff Bingaman and Sen.Jim Jeffords, Alliance Co-Chairmen oD page 2 DOE under siege (continued) industry leaders,who are calling for full support of the agency's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In a letter sent to the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,more than 200 businesses from across the United States expressed support for reducing the budget deficit but urged Congress to test all federal programs to ensure that they are effective and valued. The group,ranging in size from Fortune 500 companies to small entrepreneurial firms,said that "energy efficiency and renewable energy pro- grams at DOE pass such a test ...they produce new and improved products that create tens of thousands of domestic jobs,strengthen U.S.com- petitiveness in rapidly growing international markets,and,through cost-shared partnerships with the private sector,leverage limited federal resources in support of technology development and deployment.” Their position was bolstered by a national opinion poll sponsored by the Alliance and nearly 40 other organizations which found strong and bipartisan support for continued federal funding of energy efficiency programs. Forty-nine percent of the respondents said energy efficiency and renewable energy technolo- gies should be the highest or second-highest priority for federal energy funding.In addition, 74 percent said that the government should pro- vide tax incentives or other federal support to expand development and use of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Eighty-five percent of the respondents said that the federal government should continue to support partnerships with American business to promote the sales of energy efficiency and renew- able energy technologies through research and development programs and through efforts to open new domestic and international markets. "The reason for the overwhelming response in favor of energy efficiency programs is quite simple,”said Alliance President David Nemtzow. "Energy efficiency cuts waste and saves money -for the government,for businesses and for con- sumers.That's exactly the kind of service that taxpayers are demanding more of from the gov- ernment.” The poll revealed strong bipartisan support for clean energy programs -71 percent of the Republicans and 80 percent of the Democrats polled said that while the overall budget for the Department of Energy should be reduced,re- sources should be redirected toward efficiency and renewable energy technologies and away from nuclear power and fossil fuel technologies. November elections bring host of new players to Congressional committees While the elections introduced numerous challenges to energy efficiency,they also con- tained very positive results.Both Alliance Co-Chairmen -Sen.Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen.James Jeffords (R-Vt.)-were re-elected by comfortable margins. The elections also put Alaskans in charge of two key Committees -Sen.Frank Murkowski at Senate Energy,and Rep.Don Young at Public Lands and Resources.Both have track records as strong advocates for oil and gas interests. Former House Energy and Commerce Chair- man John Dingell (D-Mich.)was replaced by Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-Va.),and Rep.Dan Schaefer (R-Colo.)took over the Energy Subcommittee. A silver lining came in the ascension of Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.)to the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.Unlike Sen.Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.),a staunch coal advocate,Hatfield strongly supports clean energy sources.His back- ing of efficiency will be essential for maintaining a productive DOE efficiency program. At the House Appropriations Committee, former chair David Obey (D-Wis.)was a staunch supporter of efficiency,while new chair Bob Livingston (R-La.)is likely to back his home state's producer interests.The Appropriations In- terior Subcommittee picture is somewhat brighter with veteran Ralph Regula (R-Ohio),who is re- ceptive to energy efficiency,as chairman. Alliance tackles elusive task of creating definition for the 'energy efficiency industry' Over the last decade,the Alliance has worked closely with the energy efficiency industry to bring suppliers of efficient products and services to the table with leaders from government,utilities,and environmental and consumer groups to discuss issues of common interest.The Alliance also has represented the industry's interests in numerous forums,ranging from Congressional hearings on the Energy policy Act to negotiations with the Department of Energy regarding appliance effi- ciency standards. Until recently,there has been little need for the Alliance to formally define "the energy effi- ciency industry.”Rather,our industry constituents have been largely self-selective,con- sisting of companies that market their products and services based on their energy efficiency char- acteristics or that otherwise benefit from policies and programs that improve energy efficiency. As part of work being conducted for the New York State Energy Research and Development Au- thority,we have been asked to "distinguish between standard and energy efficient versions” of various types of products.The Alliance will include companies that supply energy efficiency products and services in a directory of the New York State energy efficiency industry that will be used to promote New York State energy efficiency products for export. In addition to the New York project,the fi- nance subcommittee of the Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT)said in December that it also needs a definition of energy efficiency products and services. A general definition is fairly easy to arrive at and will probably not cause too much debate. Energy efficiency products and services gener- ally fall into one or more of the following three categories: 1)Energy efficient end-use products - products that use energy but are more efficient than their standard counterparts.They include energy-efficient lighting equipment,office equip- ment,home appliances,heat pumps,furnaces and boilers,air conditioning systems,water heat- ers,commercial refrigeration systems,and a variety of industrial processes such as paint dry- ing. 2)Energy efficiency enhancing products -products that reduce heating and cooling losses in building shells,or that reduce energy consump- tion of energy using products or processes.They include building and pipe insulation,energy management and control systems. 3)Energy efficiency enhancing services - services provided to reduce energy use in build- ings,energy end-use products,or industrial processes. The "energy efficiency industry”could com- prise any or all parts of the supply chain for energy efficiency products and services,includ- ing:manufacturing,fabrication and assembly, distribution and sales,installation and service, architectural and engineering services,financing, metering and testing,research and development, and others. Further defining energy efficiency products and services is far more difficult -and far more controversial.For one,there are any number of thresholds that might be used in determining whether an end-use product is to be considered "energy efficient”for purposes of export promo- tion or other reasons.The definition might include only flagship technologies (the most en- ergy-efficient product in a particular category). Alternatively,the definition might include only products whose efficiency levels rank in a specified upper percentile of available products. A more controversial definition might include all export products that are more energy efficient than products that would otherwise have been sold in the export market. The Alliance is carefully examining these questions and other issues as we work to develop a definition of the energy efficiency industry that is both manageable and meaningful.Keeping in mind that there probably is no definition of the industry that would be universally accepted,we welcome your comments and suggestions on this effort.For more information,contact Senior Re- search Associate Joe Loper,phone (202) 857-0666. EFFICIENCY;INC? Until recently,there has been little need for the Alliance to formally define the "energy efficiency industry.” Rather,our industry constituents have been largely self-selective, consisting of companies that market products and services based on their energy efficiency characteristics or companies that otherwise benefit from policies and programs that improve efficiency. page 11 INTERNATIONAL The Asian Development Bank (ADB)is providing a $125 million loan for industrial energy efficiency projects in India.ADB and other development banks loan directly to national governments which,on a competitive bid basis, select the companies that supply the equipment and services.For more information,call Janet Thomas,U.S.Liaison to the ADB in Manila (632-816-7684). page 10 Hungarian delegation gets tips on promoting energy efficiency 'American-style' As part of its efforts to increase energy effi- ciency abroad,particularly in Hungary and other former Communist nations,the Alliance orga- nized a two-week training program late last year for four Hungarian energy specialists. The Alliance has been working for several months with the Hungarian Energy Consumers Association (MESZ)to promote energy efficiency policies and programs.The Alliance has provided assistance on developing the organization's stra- tegic plan,fundraising strategy and policy agenda. The MESZ delegation visited the United States in December to learn more about how the Alli- ance and other non-profit groups promote energy efficiency policies,raise money and disseminate information.The group attended the Association of Energy Engineers conference in Atlanta and also met with officials from the Department of Energy,the Environmental Protection Agency,the Senate Energy Committee,and various energy ef- ficiency companies and organizations. MESZ is now working on proposals to begin a demand-side management program and to as- sist utilities in doing integrated resource planning. The group also wants to begin an energy educa- tion effort and will soon begin lobbying the government to create a utility regulatory system similar to that of the United States.Finally,based on the Alliance's experience,MESZ will try to de- velop a newsletter and initiate an annual awards dinner. The Alliance will continue its work with MESZ and also plans to expand the program in the Czech Republic and in Poland. New Alliance international advisory committee sets its sights on educating top-level decisionmakers in Eastern Europe To help guide the Alliance's Eastern Europe projects and other international activities,the Al- liance created an International Advisory Committee that met for the first time in January. John Fox of Ontario Hydro and Peter Garforth of Landis &Gyr Co-Chair the Committee;other Committee Members include Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewables Christine Ervin,Doug Bloss of Armstrong Inter- national,Henri-Claude Bailly of RCG/Hagler, Bailly,John Palmisano of Enron,Tom Dreessen of Energy Performance Services,Catherine Nystedt-Ringborg of ABB,Bernard Jamet of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment,and Richard Stern of the World Bank. At the January meeting,participants dis- cussed the need to work with government and banking officials in developing countries to cre- ate the policy framework necessary to complete energy efficiency projects one after another with- out much difficulty. The Committee decided to target a country in Eastern Europe and bring this debate to the major players in the selected country:policymak- ers,government officials,end-users and bank lenders.The Committee's representatives from the energy efficiency industry,as well as Bernard Jamet of the EBRD,plan to initiate a major edu- cation effort for top-level decisionmakers about the potential for energy efficiency. For more information,contact Alliance Re- search Associate Seth Baruch at (202)857-0666. Market for efficient products opening up in Mexico The Alliance,in cooperation with the Com- mittee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade, is surveying large industrial and commercial en- ergy users in Monterrey,Mexico,to assess their energy efficiency needs.Despite its present eco- nomic difficulties,Mexico represents a promising longer-term opportunity for efficiency exports. For information on how the Alliance can help US.energy efficiency companies get trade leads in Monterrey,contact Research Associate Seth Baruch at (202)857-0666. Growing efficiency budget seen as potential target of Congressional budget cutters The Clinton Administration in February pre- sented Congress with a FY-96 Department of Energy budget that is slightly higher than the lev- els appropriated for FY-95,but the Administration was quick to point out that DOE's budget is slated to decrease by $14 billion over the next five years. The proposed $17.8 billion DOE budget in- cludes a 17-percent increase for energy efficiency programs and a 9-percent increase for renewable energy programs,which represents a continued shift in the department's budget priorities to sus- tainable energy resources. In continuing to refocus DOE's priorities, President Clinton "has reinforced his commit- ment to promoting energy efficiency as a tool for job creation,increased competitiveness,economic growth and environmental protection,”said Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.),Alliance Co-Chairman. "While deficit reduction and improvement in the efficiency of the federal government re- main at the top of my agenda,the benefits reaped by continued investment in energy efficiency are too great to dismiss,”Jeffords said,noting that even with the proposed increase,efficiency pro- grams still would make up only five percent of the department's budget. Under the proposed energy efficiency bud- get,funding for building technologies programs would increase by 39 percent,to $134 million, industrial programs would jump 29 percent,to $186 million,transportation program funding would grow by 25 percent,to $300 million,and allocations for utility programs would increase 5 percent,to $322 million.The budget for the fed- eral energy management program would remain relatively constant. The Clinton Administration also proposed a 22-percent increase,to $80 million,for the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency's "green programs,” which include Green Lights,Energy Star Build- ings and Energy Star Computers. The continued growth in energy efficiency programs is expected to be a prime target of the new,more fiscally conservative Congress,which has already attacked the FY-95 DOE budget and is sharpening its ax in anticipation of taking a whack at the proposed FY-96 budget and possi- bly even the department itself (see story on p.1). Utilities Transportation As Congress and the American people consider this budget,we must throw out many of the assumptions that dominated energy and economic debates in the past.The last time most of us thought about energy was the last time there was a crisis,nearly 20 years ago.The world has changed. -christine Ervin, DOE Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy oe page 3 At the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse,"we dig a little deeper and look a little longer to meet your needs.” -DOE brochure on its information sources page 4 DOE customer service center offers instant,on-line access to efficiency information The Department of Energy has opened a Cus- tomer Service Center -featuring a multimedia, Internet-based information system -to provide industry,utilities,small businesses and the pub- lic easier access to the department's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The center offers two information hotlines that deliver the latest information and advice on such subjects as diverse as home insulation and bringing solar technologies to market. A year ago,DOE opened an office in Wash- ington,D.C.,known as the "Green Room”to offer consumers,businesses and utilities energy effi- ciency and renewable energy information.The Customer Service Center allows DOE to stream- line its operations by closing the Green Room. "The Customer Service Center will offer state- of-the-art customer service and help individuals and businesses save money by saving energy, while also contributing to competitiveness,eco- nomic growth and job creation,”said Christine Ervin,Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The first hotline,the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN),is a World Wide Web site on the Internet that gives users a gateway to information from national laborato- ries and other organizations.The information may include maps,images,video,sound and text; it can be accessed by browsing through an al- phabetical listing of Internet sites,broad subject divisions,types of services,or types of organiza- tions. EREN can be accessed by using the network's Uniform Resource Locator and by typing in hitp/ /www.eren.doe.gov The second hotline,the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC),offers technical assistance,business planning,market assessments and information on all areas of en- ergy efficiency and renewable energy technologies -biomass,solar,wind,hydroelectric,HVAC/me- chanical systems,efficient appliances,alternative fuels,geothermal and recycling. EREC can be accessed by telephone,written correspondence,facsimile,telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDD),the Internet,and the EREC Bulletin Board Service.Trained EREC staff respond by mail,facsimile or e-mail (Internet). EREC maintains a comprehensive library that contains more than 4,000 technical reference books,reports,pamphlets and subscriptions. For more information,contact EREC at 800- 363-3732 (phone),800-273-2957 (TDD),800- 273-2955 (bulletin board service),703-893-0400 (fax),energyinfo@delphi.com (Internet),or write to P.O.Box 3048,Merrifield,VA 22116. IRS allows SoCal Edison to deduct DSM program expenditures from mid-1980s The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that Southern California Edison Co.can deduct the bulk of its demand-side management program expenditures from the mid-1980s as "ordinary and necessary business expenses,”a decision which overturned a previous IRS ruling and could signal the end of a lengthy debate over the de- ductibility of utility conservation expenses. An IRS District Office previously ruled that capitalization of the costs related to SoCal Ed's DSM programs "is appropriate”because the pro- grams help reduce the utility's fuel costs, financing requirements and operating costs,and they eliminate the need for additional capacity. But the IRS National Office said on appeal that "the potential reduction of [SoCal Ed's]op- erating costs is not in and of itself sufficient to require capitalization.”The Technical Advice Memorandum concluded that because SoCal Ed's non-ratebase DSM and load management expen- ditures from the years in question (1983-88) "produced neither a separate and distinct asset nor a significant long-term benefit,”the utility may deduct them. SoCal Edison noted in a statement that it is "working with the IRS to obtain similar tax treat- ment for conservation program expenditures that are eligible for performance incentive payments.” Alliance gives 12 states failing grades on residential energy building codes The Alliance began last summer to survey by mail all state offices in charge of building code administration.The survey determined whether the state had a uniform statewide building code, which model building code the state code refer- enced (if any),and which model code it referenced for residential and commercial build- ings.To verify the results,the Alliance followed up with telephone interviews with officials in each state.In addition,the Alliance compared its re- sults with those gathered by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory,the North report card American Insulation Manufacturers Association, and the National Conference of States on Build- ing Codes and Standards. In evaluating the results and determining the report card grades,the Alliance considered two key factors:1)the type of energy code (if any) used in the state for new residential buildings; and 2)the scope of the code,or the degree to which the code is mandatory.For each state,both of these criteria were given equal weight,with the level of state activity (e.g.,public hearings on upgraded codes)given some consideration. REPOR RD_ON RESID RGY BUILD ODES eae a CODE SCOPE FINAL CODE SCOPE FINAL STATE GRADE |GRADE |GRADE STATE GRADE |GRADE |GRADE Alabama F F F Montana A A A Alaska A+C B Nebraska Cc Cc Cc Arizona D D D Nevada C D D+ Arkansas | A-A-New Hampshire D A C+ California At A A+New Jersey C+A Colorado F F New Mexico A A A Connecticut A C+New York B A B+ District of Columbia A C+North Carolina A-A A- Delaware F F F North Dakota A B- Florida A+A A+Ohio A A A Georgia A A A Oklahoma F F F Hawaii F F F /Oregon At A At Idaho D D D |Pennsylvania D A C+ Illinois F F F Rhode Island Cc A B Indiana A A A South Carolina A D C+ lowa B A B South Dakota F F F Kansas D F i FO Tennessee ok B+A Kentucky =|AHA |Texas OF F F Louisiana F :F F Utah - B ;A B+ Maine |p c |p+[vermont D+|oD DMaryland-fe ra -AL 7 B Virginia Oe A+A A+ Massachusetts B A B+|Washington B A B+ Michigan D A C+-|West Virginia C+A B Minnesota A+A A+Wisconsin B A B+ Mississippi i F F F Wyoming oT B A-:B+ Missouri F+[oF F -- UA EGS The Alliance recently joined with the Department of Energy and other energy analysts from the public and private sectors to discuss how much of the technically available energy savings is achievable in the buildings sector.The forum explored practical and promising methods of analysis,as well as approaches to improving building efficiency through technical assistance,financial incentives and information programs. page 9 BIUJIILEDITIN(G'S The typical home built in 1990 uses 35 percent less energy than a comparable home built in 1970,in large part because of increased insulation and window standards,as well as improved mechanical equipment efficiencies in heating systems,air conditioners,and refrigerators and other appliances. page 8 State residential energy building codes don't make the grade,Alliance survey finds At least half of the states have out-of-date residential energy building codes that force their residents to waste millions of dollars a year on high energy bills,the Alliance to Save Energy found in a nationwide survey released in early February. The survey,which covered the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia,found that many states have not adopted the model building en- ergy standards created with their input.In a report card based on the survey results,the Alli- ance assigned "F's”to 12 states for their existing codes,"D's”to five states,"C's”to seven states, "B's”to 12 states and "A's”to 15 states. "These grades show that too many states are not taking seriously their responsibility of adopt- ing codes which ensure access to affordable and comfortable homes for their residents,”said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),Chairman of the Alli- ance."Strong building energy codes are critical to ensuring that we capture the enormous en- ergy efficiency potential of our more than 1 million annual housing starts.” The Alliance survey compared existing state energy codes with the 1992 version of the "Model Energy Code,”a widely accepted model standard published by the Council of American Building Officials.The standard is developed in an open process involving code officials,builders,manu- facturers,state and federal officials and researchers.The Energy Policy Act of 1992 di- rected the U.S.Department of Energy to oversee state efforts to review the stringency of their ex- isting codes. The survey found that at least 10 states - Arkansas,Georgia,Indiana,Kentucky,North Carolina,North Dakota,New Mexico,Ohio,Ten- nessee and Virginia -recently adopted codes that meet the requirements of the 1992 Model Energy Code.By upgrading their codes,these states have decreased their total annual energy expenditures by $26 million,saved 2.5 trillion Btu of energy a year and cut annual air pollution emissions by 197,000 tons. "Strong building energy codes are an easy way to help consumers save energy that would be nearly impossible to capture later,”said Carson D.Culbreth,Director of the Energy Division of the North Carolina Department of Commerce and an Alliance Board Member."What's more,the savings are significant,”Culbreth said,noting that efforts to improve residential building codes in North Carolina are saving homeowners in that state more than $2 million a year. "Strong energy codes put dollars into con- sumers'pockets,and they protect those pockets into the future,”said Alliance President David Nemtzow."Energy codes can help overcome market barriers ...to using energy more effi- ciently.” Nemtzow encouraged states to take advan- tage of the resources offered by the new "Building Codes Assistance Project,”a joint effort by the Alliance,the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy to work directly with states to adopt and implement improved energy-efficient codes for residential and commercial buildings. For more information on the survey and re- port card,contact Ted Jones,Alliance Research Associate,phone (202)857-0666. What is the Model Energy Code and why is it important? The most widely accepted model energy stan- dard is the Model Energy Code of the Council of American Building Officials.The Model Energy Code,or MEC,translates the advisory language of building energy standards into action lan- guage. The latest version of the MEC (1993)makes multi-family building walls and thermal enve- lopes in the southern United States more energy efficient.It also references standards for com- mercial buildings developed by the American Society of Heating,Refrigerating and Air Condi- tioning Engineers (ASHRAE). By adopting the 1993 MEC,states can most directly comply with the Energy Policy Act of 1992,which contains provisions related to mak- ing buildings more energy efficient. The 104th Congress:why the energy efficiency industry must get down to business by Jared Blum There is much gnashing of teeth in the en- ergy efficiency advocacy community with the advent of the Republican-controlled Congress. The Energy Department is under budgetary siege, several outspoken Congressional supporters for governmental inspired efficiency initiatives have retired or been defeated,and global warming cer- tainly is not mentioned in the Contract with America.The traditional reaction in the efficiency community is "circle the wagons”and save what we can save. On the contrary,I believe opportunity is knocking. First of all,there are still significant num- bers of legislators who understand and support the role of efficiency in national energy policy. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 had widespread bipartisan support,and still will serve as the cor- nerstone for energy policy in this country.Yes, the new Congress is more anti-government,and more inclined to let the marketplace decide on technology's winners and losers.But this Con- gress is also more inclined to listen to the business equation,especially the small and entrepreneur- ial side.Therefore,it is the opportunity of developers and manufacturers of efficiency prod- ucts to not just frame our issues in terms of carbon dioxide reductions,but rather focus on the real job and export benefits that accrue from our mar- ket activities. The new Congress will be populated by jun- ior members.One-hundred and twenty-two of the Republicans -over one-half of their new membership -will have served two years or less. A third of the Democrats are equally new. In short,many members of Congress will not have had any governing experience on the issues presented by the efficiency community.They will be looking for data and policy input from the busi- ness community in many areas.It is incumbent upon those of us in business to show the eco- nomic return of energy efficiency research and implementation,as well as the benefits from joint public-private partnerships with the Department of Energy,the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency for International Development and other government-financed initiatives. All the efficiency technologies,whether pho- tovoltaics,wind,solar,amorphous metal transformers,building insulation,or desiccant cooling (to name a few)should see this new Con- gress as in need of information on their technologies and the first-cost or life-cycle ben- efits derived from them. Get up there on Capitol Hill and make sure Congress knows that government investments in technology development and market deployment for energy efficiency are creating buildings and cars of advanced design.This design process, coupled with the new power generation that will allow Americans to spend their limited capital on other things besides fossil fuels,is creating op- portunity for dominance by American industry in international markets that has been unseen since the days this country was preeminent in the auto and civil aviation areas. Jared Blum is President ofthe Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association,an Al- liance Associate. Your company can make a difference in ensuring full funding for efficiency The Alliance is actively working with the busi- ness community to educate policymakers about the economic and competitive benefits of the energy efficiency programs sponsored by the Department of Energy and other fed- eral agencies.If your company is interested in participating in this important collabora- tive effort,please contact Dave Hamilton, Alliance Director of State and Federal Poli- cies,phone (202)857-0666. It is incumbent upon those of us in business to show the economic return of energy efficiency research and implementation ... as well as the benefits from joint public-private partnerships. -Jared Blum, PIMA President oY page 5 --eE---TapaGAY) S'P,O;TIL'L:G{HiT Ja Aggressive DSM programs that are cost-effective can compete in a competitive world.If you get into a retail world where price is the only consideration,then it becomes a great deal more difficult for DSM programs to survive.If price and service are both part of the equation,then they can be an important part of the marking strategy of a company. -Thomas Kuhn, President of the Edison Electric Institute oY page 6 Cost-effective DSM programs can exist in a competitive utility industry,Kuhn says The following is an interview with Thomas Kuhn,President of the Edison Electric Institute and a Member of the Alliance Board of Direc- tors.Edison Electric Institute is the association of investor-owned utilities.Its members serve 76 percent of the nation's consumers of elec- tricity. Alliance Update:Every industry,when it is faced with change -whether technical,economical or regulatory -has to approach it differently. How is your industry facing change,and how is it approaching future challenges? Tom Kuhn:Change is the name of the game in the world today,but the electric utility industry is prepared.There have been many industries that have experienced significant transformations.Our industry has learned from the telecommunica- tions and railroad industries.The lessons from these industries will help us establish a vision for the industry that will lead us into a more com- petitive environment. Alliance Update:Does EEI have a formal posi- tion on retail competition and retail wheeling? Tom Kuhn:EEI believes we ought to stay on the path of increasing wholesale competition,but that retail wheeling is not a good idea at this time. Average electricity prices in this country have declined by more than 20 percent,adjusted for inflation,over the last decade.With increased wholesale competition,rates are being adjusted, particularly to the benefit of industrial custom- ers.The idea of injecting retail wheeling at this point in time would very much be to the disad- vantage of the small residential and commercial customers who do not have the market or bar- gaining power of the large industrial customers. Alliance Update:How will retail wheeling affect demand-side management (DSM)programs? Tom Kuhn:Retail wheeling would have a major deleterious effect.The electric utility industry is very proud of its aggressive campaign to help our customers become more energy efficient. With DSM programs,we have been able to be on the customers'side by going into their homes or businesses and advising them on how to use our product more efficiently -not to waste it;not to use electricity that they don't need,and what new electric technologies may help them use en- ergy more economically.In many instances,that has lowered the customer's electric utility bill. Retail wheeling is designed to look at the price side of the equation alone.You can lower a customer's price,but if they are using a lot of energy or using it in a wasteful way,their bills will increase.It is very important from a busi- ness standpoint,from an efficiency standpoint and from an environmental standpoint,that we preserve cost-effective DSM programs. Alliance Update:Why is it important from an environmental standpoint? Tom Kuhn:Again,I believe our industry is an industry that is very much committed to doing everything we can to address environmental is- sues in a proactive and positive way.On the global climate change issue,we have signed an accord with Vice President Gore and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary to voluntarily work to reduce emis- sions of greenhouse gases.We are doing that to a great extent through DSM programs. Furthermore,we are increasing energy effi- ciency by introducing new energy efficient technologies on the customer side of the equa- tion....|would hate to see these kinds of activities go away because of the introduction of retail wheeling. Alliance Update:Are DSM programs good busi- ness and should they be part of a utility's business plan? Tom Kuhn:Cost-effective DSM programs are very good business.A company can put itself on the customer's side.We are going to work with the customer and say "we just don't want you to use more of our product,we want you to use our prod- uct as efficiently as possible.We want you to see the benefit of using that product most efficiently -so that you can do it in the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial way.” Alliance Update:What are the business impli- cations for the industries that have become more competitive?For example,in the telephone in- dustry,some companies provide a full spectrum of services,while some are low-cost providers.Do you expect that to happen in the utility industry? Tom Kuhn:In a competitive world,the customer looks at what you provide on two bases:the ser- vice that is provided,and the price.In my opinion, the customer highly values the services that the electric utility companies are providing,although they are also very price conscious. In the future,as you look toward a more com- petitive industry,the customer will remain very interested in the service side of the equation - and that includes the full line of services,like DSM programs. Alliance Update:Can aggressive DSM programs exist in a competitive world? Tom Kuhn:Aggressive DSM programs that are cost-effective can compete in a competitive world. If you get into a retail world where price is the only consideration,then it becomes a great deal more difficult for DSM programs to survive.If price and service are both part of the equation, then they can be an important part of the mark- ing strategy of a company. Alliance Update:Several of the state commis- sions that are most aggressive on retail competition are the same ones that were pioneers in DSM -such as California,Massachusetts and New York,as well as others.Is that a coincidence? Tom Kuhn:They did it first because of environ- mental concerns.California now wants competition because of price concerns.Prices in California have been driven up for a number of reasons.For example,some DSM investments were not economic.Probably more important, utilities have been forced to purchase power well above avoided cost.But California should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Alliance Update:What do you think the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)role is? Tom Kuhn:FERC is a critical player in the equa- tion.They have a notice of proposed rulemaking on stranded investment.Stranded investment is very important as you transition from a wholly regulated to a more competitive industry.The transition and the stranded investment questions will be extremely important in terms of retention of DSM programs. Alliance Update:Is the new Congress expected to be a player in this debate? Tom Kuhn:Congress has signaled that it intends to hold hearings on the implementation of the Energy Policy Act and what's happening with the states.The Senate Energy Committee has an- nounced hearings that will begin early this year. They are looking at various issues out there such as the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act, which was passed in the late 1970s.Congress will be very active and engaged in the issue. Alliance Update:Is there any way to character- ize how the new Congress and the newly elected Governors will be thinking about utility issues? Tom Kuhn:Many of them are new to these is- sues,so there needs to be a period of time in which they come up to speed.I believe the newly elected Congress and Governors are sensitive to increas- ing competition,but they also will be sensitive to issues like conservation and DSM. Alliance Update:Can you make a prediction about what the year 2000 will look like in the world of retail competition and DSM programs? Tom Kuhn:In the year 2000,there will be an aggressive wholesale market,and customers will see the benefits of that market.There will have been a transitional period in which a number of issues concerning stranded investment costs will have been worked out because the federal gov- ernment will have taken a responsible role working with the states.Conservation and DSM programs that are economic will still be in place because they will make good business sense and utilities will continue to want to promote them. And,we will see customers expanding their use of energy-efficient electric technologies. S{P,0,T,LU,Gi HiT, cS In the future,as you look toward a more competitive industry,the customer will remain very interested in the service side of the equation -and that includes the full line of services,like DSM programs. -Thomas Kuhn, President of the Edison Electric Institute oD page 7 ioneFY 1995 Program Plan for | Climate Change Action No.10: Update Commercial and Residential Building Codes' Prepared by:, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S.Department of Energy Fall 1994 FY 1995 Program Plan for . Climate Change Action No.10:Update Commercial and Residential Building Codes Table of Contents Section ,Page Goals 200 ee eee ee eRe ee eee eet ee ee tee ee eee ] Strategy 0...eeeeeeeeeens 1 Milestones ...........eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoe..6 | Metrics,Measurement,and Evaluation Lecce bec ee eee e eee ee eee beeen beeen eee eene neces 8 'Inter/Intra-Agency Coordination...0.0.0...00.ce ee eee neeCleese 10 Partners 2.0...eee eee ee ee eee ene ee 11 Stakeholders .....eeeee occ eseeevuneeeetteteteeree.eeveececeeeeeeeeeees 11 Resource Requirements ........20...0.s eee eee eee ene Leeeeeeeeee Lees 13 Related Private Industry Projects .................voveeeeseeees 14 Lead Program Contact (Acting)...0...0...cece ee eee ee 14 List of Tables Table No.Description ;Page 1 Updating and Implementing the Energy Efficiency Provisions in Building Codes ....0...0...2c ee ee eee eee 3 2 Summary of Major Code Actions Through Year 2000 .....7 cee eee eee eee 6 3 Short-Term Milestones and Schedule ..................----4-ween eee 8 4 Individual Action Progress and Performance Targets ...............2000s 10 5 Partners and Their Roles ..20...0...cc ccc eee eee ee ee teense 12 6 Stakeholders and Their Roles ..2...0...0...ce eee ee eee ees 14 ATTACHMENTA -Summary of State Actions To Update Building Energy Efficiency Codes ........15 Climate Change Action No.10 Goals The goal of Action No.10-Update Commercial and Residential Building Codes-is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 by an estimated 4.4 million metric tons (MMT)of carbon equivalent per year in residential buildings and 3.8 MMT of carbon equivalent per year in commercial buildings.This Action will reduce the total emissions and energy use in new buildings from 1990 levels by 3.5 percent. The objectives of Action No.10 are to: ¢Update State codes.Update the energy-related provisions of the residential and commercial building codes of 40 States,including their local governments.Update standards to meet or exceed those of the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC)of the Council of American Building Officials (CABO)for residential buildings,as well as those of the American Society of Heating,Refrigerating,and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America's (IES)Standard 90,1-1989,for commercial buildings. ¢Use updated codes.Train 80 percent of designers and builders to understand and apply the upgraded residential and commercial codes. ¢Enforce updated codes.Train 80 percent of code officials to perform effective plan checks and field inspections of buildings designed to assure they meet the updated codes. These activities will provide benefits to new homebuyers,building tenants,State Energy Offices (SEOs),and State and local governments.The benefits include the following: ¢The building and housing community will benefit from homes built to updated State building codes. Consumers are unaware of energy features included in most new homes.Buyers expect homes to be efficient,even though the new home market contains a wide range of home efficiencies.Builders who build efficient homes are competing with builders who build inefficient homes and have lower building costs. Without home rating systems,codes create a level playing field for both builder and buyer,assuring consumers of an efficient product. ¢SEO programs funded by this Action can benefit homebuyers,small business tenants,and builders.Code implementation and compliance support activities sponsored by SEOs has been critical to the success of codes.Without this support,codes will not meet their savings targets.SEO funding will ensure that a State's residents receive the full benefit of energy codes. ¢State and local governments are having to justify actions in support of unfunded Federal mandates.Many States have adopted laws that require an economic analysis of unfunded mandates to document the benefits - to the citizens of the State.Funding through this action plan can 'Support such studies and act as partial ©funding for the Federal mandate. Strategy Action No.10 builds on Section 101 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT)to further address use and enforcement of building energy codes.Under Section 101 of EPACT,States are required to update their commercial building codes to meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 and to consider whether to update their residential codes to meet or exceed the 1992 MEC.DOE is required to provide technical assistance and incentive funding to States to respond to the legislative requirements. Climate Change Action No.10 Until building designers,contractors,and code officials adopt and use building energy codes in design, construction,and inspection of new buildings,however,energy savings will not be realized.Knowledge of actual compliance exists in only a few States (e.g.,California,Florida,New York,Washington,and Oregon).This indicates that full compliance with the updated codes will not be achieved without significant effort.Other anecdotal information supports these findings and indicates that significant room for improvement exists relative to compliance with energy codes. DOE will act as a catalyst and facilitator in concert with those responsible for actually updating,using,and enforcing codes.In this role,activities DOE will perform include the following: ¢Seek out and assess needs; ¢Develop and obtain core materials and "train-the-trainer”programs; *Use and build on existing networks and programs; ¢Enlist natural allies and interests; ¢Implement internal systems to assess resources;and ¢Monitor and evaluate progress. The SEOs will be a prime resource in these activities.Their existing networks and programs will be critical in forging links and establishing partnerships with other primary actors.The primary responsibility for updating State codes belongs to State legislators (and their staffs),and those State or local officials responsible for revising regulations or codes governing building design and construction.Designers (e.g.,architects,engineers,and lighting designers),builders and contractors,and building owners are seen as the primary users of codes. Enforcement is seen as the provence of code officials or their surrogates.The actual actors vary from State to © State., The initial needs assessment has been completed by contacting all of the States directly and through a series of regional workshops.Attendees included representatives from SEOs,offices responsible for building codes,and associations of State and local governments.Forty-six States,two protectorates,and the District of Columbia sent representatives to a 2-day workshop to discuss codes and related new building efficiency programs.Workshop attendees provided DOE with considerable information on their needs.| Based on the needs identified,the highest priority materials were obtained.Existing exemplary State materials and processes that can be transferred to other States are being sought and packaged.Existing key stakeholder training programs have been identified and others are being sought.Initial train-the-trainer programs are being developed using national stakeholder groups.They are also seen as one major delivery pipeline to get the materials to code users. Where possible,existing infrastructure will be used from which to launch training programs on updated energy codes and to tailor,customize,and disseminate the materials to the appropriate stakeholders.Delivery of the materials will be achieved through regional,State,and local stakeholders at the State and local level.Table 1 illustrates this strategy. States need support beyond core materials.This includes direct funding of activities that the SEOs can undertake to support State code activities.Incentive grants to SEOs and other organizations on a competitive cost-shared basis will be used to support a wide spectrum of State needs in updating,using,and enforcing their energy codes. A majority of the funds will be used for two key activities-transfer of exemplary State programs from States with successful code programs to other States,and providing basic support to States in their efforts to support the adoption and implementation of energy codes.Other support may address training for stakeholder organizations, support materials for users of codes,and program evaluation. -2- Climate Change Action No.10 Table 1 Updating and Implementing the - Energy Efficiency Provisions in Building Codes National Level -Implementati(With Stakeholders)Materlais ¥v DOE Regional Workshops Regional Level ;State and LocalBuildersDesignersUtilitiesCode Other Organizations Groups v A 4 Vv State to.StateStateLevelAssociationsChaptersAgencies A q Vv y v ¥v Building vices Code 'OtherLocalLevelContractorsAEsUtilitiesOfficialsOfficials In States where code-making authority and energy programs are centralized,the States could utilize these resourcesasanincentivetoleverageotherenergyefficiencyprograms.In States where code-making authority is distributed between State and local agencies,energy code training can be incorporated into existing building code training programs.In such cases,SEOs are often the entity charged with incorporating energy efficiency measures into code manuals and are usually the agency responsible for advocating the integration of efficiency into building code legislation.The State organizations responsible for training and other residential and commercial programs can leverage this activity strongly to further strengthen and enforce energy provisions in State building codes. DOE will work through both its Headquarters and Regional support offices to establish co-funded training and information programs.National organizations will be sought to provide information and training to their regional constituents.This activity will build on FY 1994 program investments in providing materials for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)Federal Housing Assistance Program,and core materials being developed in conjunction with ASHRAE and code officials to simplify the use of Standard 90.1. Needs and Barriers . This strategy recognizes that transactions necessary to adopt,enact,and enforce updated energy efficiency-related building code provisions take place at the State and local levels.They involve a wide variety of decisionmakers and implementors,including legislators and administrators,architects,engineers,designers and builders,code officials,building product manufacturers and vendors,and allied professional and trade organizations.This -3- Climate Change Action No.10 - strategy also recognizes that energy efficiency is just one of many concerns facing those responsible for implementing building codes,and it is rarely their first priority.This section of the Action plan describes major needs and barriers and ways the strategy delineated above will address them to achieve the three key objectives of Action No.10.Needs and barriers to implementing this Action are listed below: Before updated energy codes can be enforced locally,they must be legislatively or administratively adopted by the State or local jurisdiction with authority.Building codes are updated either by legislative or administrative action.Furthermore,those responsible for these actions have limited time and generally give higher priority to health and life safety provisions than to energy and environmental issues.Public hearings, legislative debate,and consultation with interested stakeholders and constituents are part of the adoption process.In addition to the legislation or administrative rule,experts or materials explaining the technical proposals and their costs and benefits (energy,environmental,and economic)are needed to carry out this dialogue.These materials are not easy or inexpensive to produce.Experts must be identified and brought into the dialogue.Consideration must be given to administration of the code as well as to related programs and how they may be crafted together to produce maximum results for the public dollar. To be effective,code provisions must be knowledgeably integrated into buildings by designers and builders. An effective code program relies on more than enforcement.Buildings,particularly commercial buildings, are complex,dynamic systems made up of numerous components and subsystems.Early code provisions targeted individual measures.As energy codes have advanced,they have provided greater design flexibility to take advantage of the benefits of more integrated design.For example,the benefits of daylighting cannot be realized without the integration of fenestration,lighting,and controls.Experience has shown that architects,engineers,designers,and builders who understand new energy code provisions can and will integrate them into buildings more cost-effectively.They will often do so at a cost which is less than with current construction.- A new code on the books does not guarantee positive implementation.Training and information can minimize the cost of design and construction after new codes are introduced.It can be costly and frustrating to make changes due to building design omissions caught at plan reviews and field inspections. Market uncertainties exist about the performance of building products relative to new code criteria.Product information is designed to provide decisionmakers with information that will enhance its selection and incorporation into building designs.New energy code criteria may provide increased opportunity for products to compete,but only if decisionmakers are aware of a product's ability to meet the criteria and have confidence in its long-term performance.For example,residential envelope criteria have opened a market for high-performance windows,but substantiated product literature and peer information for designers and builders must be available to promote use of these windows. A related issue is product substitution at the time of construction.Both builder and designer must be confident that the substituted product will meet code-related design criteria. Market uncertainties exist about the amount of savings to be derived from code criteria that require attention - to construction.Even when a building is properly designed,the realization and persistence of predicted savings depend highly on the quality of the installation and commissioning of its component parts.Attention in many code programs focuses strongly on getting the code on the books and the building designed to the code,but often inferior attention is placed on the quality of installation and commissioning of building components.. Climate Change Action No.10 ¢Energy and environmental benefits will not be realized without an effective enforcement program.Many code officials come from the mechanical and electrical trades and have experience in health,life,and safety issues.In all cases,limited time exists during plan review and field inspection to check all areas of concern. Energy code criteria generally require attention to additional features.Effective plan checking and field inspection rely on knowing what to look for and where.In addition,effective field inspection depends largely on when in the construction process the inspection is made.(For example,insulation cannot be checked when wallboardis in place;lighting fixtures are difficult to check after ceiling tiles are installed.) Furthermore,some design or construction measures have a higher probability than others of not complying with the code.Information and education on these matters can make the difference between successful and 'unsuccessful programs. *Unless leaders in the legislative,design,construction,and code communities strongly "buy into”and assume ownership of energy efficiency as a high priority,an effective energy code program is not likely. With the exception of its own buildings,DOE is not a prime implementor of energy codes.Rather,DOE's mission is to enable and catalyze others to implement actions in their own interest.Meeting the goals of this Action will require that leaders of the design,construction,and code communities have a sufficient stake in energy efficiency's value to pursue implementing actions throughout their States and the nation as a whole. Neither this perception of value nor the desire of these leaders to serve as facilitators for energy efficiency exists strongly today. Response to Needs and Barriers The strategies for Action No.10 are designed to broaden the penetration and enhance the effectiveness of upgraded building energy efficiency codes.The education and information strategy is designed to build on a number of existing resources and to utilize existing stakeholder delivery programs and vehicles wherever possible.These activities will do the following: ¢Build on exemplary industry,State,and local code implementation programs and materials; ¢Foster regional partnerships; *Develop,with stakeholder groups,core materials that will be customized for and targeted to a broad spectrumofusergroups; *Use a "teach-the-teacher”pyramid to enhance delivery;and *Provide advocacy support and expert testimony at the request of States. The market strategy is designed to complement and leverage the legislative requirements of Section 101 of EPACT and the leadership of the legislative,design,builder,and code communities by linking energy efficiency with the broader concerns of States and local communities. Education and information barriers will be addressed by the development of such core materials as: *Codified versions of standards to facilitate legislative and administrative adoption and subsequent enforcement (developed in cooperation with ASHRAE and IES in the model code format); ¢Energy,economic,and environmental analyses to support the legislative and administrative adoption dialogue; -5- 'Climate Change Action No.10 *Code user manuals to provide detailed information and examples about code criteria to architects,engineers, designers,and code officials (manuals developedin cooperation with producer interests and organizationssponsoringvoluntaryconsensuscodesandstandards); Code compliance tools to help designers minimize first-cost and maximize energy savings (these tools also help code officials determine compliance through the consistent enforcement of compliance rules and to provide.a common format for inspection checklists), Training courses focused on the various user groups and based on user manuals,compliance workbooks, software,inspection forms,and similar relevant materials. Milestones Program milestones are based on the schedule of code-related actions displayed in Table 1. initiated by the upgrading of the voluntary codes. anticipation of State needs. These actions are However,DOE does not have direct control of the upgrade process;consequently,DOE's actions must be planned based on an anticipated upgrade schedule.State adoption,-material development,and training are actions that DOE will be prepared to support once a code upgrade is approved.Table 2 lists the anticipated schedule of code upgrades and subsequent actions that DOE will take in Table 2 Summary of Major Code Actions Through Year 2000 Action FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 Residential Model Energy Code Upgrade State/Local Adoption Code Implementation Materials Compliance and Enforcement Training Commercial ' ASHRAEVIES Code Upgrade State/Local Adoption Code Implementation Materials Compliance and Enforcement Training Climate Change Action No.10 The DOE activities will be planned according to expanded State needs.The general approach to meeting project milestones is to produce generic materials that directly reflect the application of the MEC,then prepare the materials in advance of State requests.Once States request the materials,custom modifications can be made to adapt them to each State's specific needs.The following activities will result from the code upgrade actions described in Table 2: Model Energy Code/DOE is an active participant in both the CABO and ASHRAE code ASHRAE/IES Upgrade _forums.Participation enables DOE to assess the impact of code changes on States and ensure that these impacts are minimized. State/Local Adoption Participation in the MEC and ASHRAE forums enhances DOE's ability to provide expert testimony in State and local code hearings. In addition,support materials including environmental and economic analysis can be presented.to support the State code change position.The Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) works cooperatively with DOE to provide advocacy and organize stakeholders in support of State-sponsored code changes. Combined with targeted technical support activities to assess specific State impacts of code adoption,these activities provide an excellent resource for States. Code Implementation Materials Code implementation materials currently exist for the MEC but are 'inadequate,according to States.These materials are being revised and simplified to assist States in implementing and enforcing codes and codes.National code materials are being developed with State review and will be distributed through the State energy offices, HUD regional offices,MEC groups,and the various building industry associations.Currently,materials developed by DOE are receiving widespread support and are in great demand.The materials will be customized for States as requested and revised when major changes to the MEC are made in 1995 and 1998. Compliance and The code implementation materials will be distributed to builders, Enforcement Training designers,engineers,and code enforcement officials through State- sponsored training activities.These activities will use DOE-and partner-developed training curricula and DOE-and partner-trained instructors as the cornerstone of their programs.DOE anticipates customizing the programs for the States.It is anticipated that a sustained training program of 20 code training sessions per State over the next five years is needed to adequately train more than 500,000 designers and builders on code compliance.Code officials will need more distributed training;therefore,80 sessions per State will be performed.This training program will not only provide adequate industry training opportunities,but will significantly .increase awareness of codes throughout the country. Immediate actions will be necessary to fulfill State resource needs.These actions are based on needs assessments and personal contact through the regional workshops recently held with the States.From these meetings,short- term milestones were developed.The short-term milestones for this program plan are presented in Table 3. -7- Climate Change Action No.10 Table 3 Short-Term Milestones and Schedule Milestone ,Scheduled Completion Establish implementation grant award policy and criteria.4th quarter FY 1994 Issue solicitation for packaging exemplary State programs and materials that are.4th quarter FY 1994 transferable to other States. Receive State certifications and requests for extension regarding residential and 4th quarter FY 1994 commercial codes.; . Issue solicitation for State proposals for implementation funding and requests for Ist quarter FY 1995 technical assistance.. ; Receive State funding proposals to package exemplary programs and materials that Ist quarter FY 1995 are transferable to other States. Receive State proposals for implementation grants and requests for technical _2nd quarter FY 1995 assistance. _Award implementation funding grants. -*2nd quarter FY 1995 Award funding for States to package exemplary programs and materials that are 2nd quarter FY 1995 transferable to other States Metrics,Measurement,and Evaluation Measurement and evaluation are a key part of program implementation.Performance goals of this Action are to adopt,implement,and enforce updated building energy codes for the purpose of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.The methodology to be used to assess the impact of this Action from 1995 through 2020 assumes a combination of actions that will be taken to deliver the projected greenhouse gas savings.The savings are based on assumptions regarding technical savings potential,technology risk,adoption rate,and compliance rates. The following formula will be used to estimate outyear savings and calculate the mid-and long-term savings: Total Savings =Gross Potential x Technology Savings Risk x State Adoption x Compliance In this equation,"Gross Potential”is the savings potential between current practice and the new codes encouraged and mandated by Section 101 of EPACT;"Technology Savings Risk”is the risk of achieving the gross savings posed by the quality of installation,start-up,and the operation of the technology;"State Adoption”is the percentage of State adoption and other Federal agency supporting efforts (such as HUD's adoption of the code Climate Change Action No.10 _as requirements for its loan and loan guarantee programs);and "Compliance”is the percentage of buildings actually built to the efficiency levels specified in the code once it is adopted and enforced. DOE initially will be looking at the effectiveness of the process,such as number of codes updated,partnerships formed,workshops held,and persons trained.As progress is made,DOE will be looking at such things as customer satisfaction,the success of voluntary partnerships,the success in overcoming identified barriers,and how the various mechanisms such as market transformation and training contributed to the success-.of this Action. Multiple methods of investigation and third party verification of impacts will be used and encouraged. Actions that will affect the rate of code adoption include providing expert testimony at State code hearings, working with the model code organizations to upgrade their codes,providing information to States on the benefits of code adoption and implementation,and funding stakeholder groups to advocate standard adoption at the State level.Currently,15 States have codes that meet or exceed national model energy codes.* DOE's FY 1995 goal is to assist five States in adopting energy codes that exceed the national model energy codes.| To reach year 2000 goals,an additional five,gradually reduced to two,States per year will be assisted,resulting in 35 States meeting or exceeding national model energy codes. Actions that will affect the rate of code compliance include the development and dissemination of materials that assist code users (e.g.,designers,builders,and code officials)in understanding the provisions of their respective State codes.Currently,few materials exist that adequately translate code documents into a usable form.DOE is completing the development of materials that function for the national model enérgy codes. DOE's goal in FY 1995 is to use these materials (or State-modified versions of these materials)in over 1,000 training sessions.To reach year 2000 goals,DOE will continue with 1,000 sessions per year for 2 years,reduced to 500 sessions per year through the year 2000.This will result in energy code awareness levels in designers, builders,and code officials of over 50 percent in the year 2000. While increasing the performance of technologies used to meet the code is not a direct action by DOE,the above actions will indirectly affect the performance of code-related technologies.As the industry becomes more familiar with the use of code-related technologies,and the awareness of the code increases,the quality of the installation of these technologies will improve.DOE's goal is to indirectly improve the performance of code-related technologies through code compliance training by 5 percent by the year 2000. Table 4 lists specific program activities and the metrics by which progress will be measured. In addition to program-specific measures,evaluation of Action No.10 will support the coordinated DOE evaluation of CCAP programs.Coordinated evaluation issues include performance and progress and,more specifically, customer satisfaction,the success of voluntary partnerships,success in overcoming identified barriers,and how the various sectors and mechanisms,such as market transformation and training,contributed to plan success. Periodic reports will be issued through the White House Office of Environmental Policy,in concert with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and other Federal agencies.The final evaluation report will be readyin2001,preceded by two interim evaluation reports. Climate Change Action No.10 Table 4 Individual Action Progress and Performance Targets Progress Targets FY 1995 |FY 1996 |FY 1997 |FY 1998 |FY 1999 |FY 2000 |FYs 1995-2000 States adopting updated energy 5 5 3 3 2 2 35* codes" Number of training sessions"1,000 °1,000 800 500 500 500 4,300 Percent improved compliance®_0.5 1 1 1 1.5 5.0 Customer satisfaction (EE TBD 'TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD surveys)”: Longer Term Outcomes/Targets |FY 1995 |FY 1996 |FY 1997 |FY 1998 |FY 1999 |FY 2000 |FYs 1995-2000 Carbon equivalent emissions 0.11 0.23 0.39 0.60 .0.86 1.13 3.32 savings (MMTons)*, Total primary energy 0.007 0.015 0.026 0.040 0.057 0.074 0.22 production/savings due to EE program (Quad Btu)* DOE investment (million $).6.5 .8.97 9.26 9.46 9.68 9.88 53.75 Total non-Federal investment 1,558 1,916 2,275 2,633 2,992 3,350 14,724 (million $), Employment impacts TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD (net '000 jobs) Notes:"="hard"number,can be demonstrated 8 between the two extremes) To be determined_TBD= Inter/Intra-Agency Coordination Intra-Agency Coordination Section 101 of EPACT requires DOE to support the upgrading of voluntary building energy codes such as the MEC and Standard 90.1-1989,and their successors.DOE is charged with recommending amendments to the voluntary codes that are technologically feasible and economically justified.These actions will form the basis for updating the State codes after actions in 1995,1997,and 1998 (see Table 2).Section 101 of EPACT also requires DOE to promulgate new Federal building energy efficiency codes.DOE expects that the Federal codes will have the same format as the voluntary codes and be similar to what the States adopt.This will facilitate using the same core materials developed in this action to be adapted by Federal agencies.DOE is also responsible for reporting =This total incorporates the 15 States that adopted updated codes in FY 1994. ="soft”number,an estimate based on program intuition (no superscript indicates the number is somewhere -10- Climate Change Action No.1 0 to Congress on actions taken pursuant to Section 101.The status of State code updates will be a part of that action. Action No.8 of the CCAP,which fosters actions relating to Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS)and Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEMs)and loans,and the integration of both in the home sales and retrofit market provides a level playing field for introducing updated residential energy efficiency codes.It also provides the mechanismsforassigningvaluetohomesbuilttotheupdatedcodes.As such,the rating system will be correlated to the requirements of the voluntary residential code and education and information activities in each will reference and provide insight into each other. 'Action No.10 also has a common basis with Action No.1 of the CCAP (Rebuild America),in that major commercial building renovation often comes under the permitting requirements of building codes.In cases where existing equipment and construction is replaced,the new work must generally meet the requirements of current codes.The education and information portions of these actions will be coordinated and workin conjunction with each other,where possible. Technical and financial assistance programs will be coordinated with this activity to encourage complimentary and coordinated State planning and actions.Regional support offices will provide direct liaison with the States andgrantsadministrationaspartoftheBuildingEnergyCodeAssistanceTeam. Inter-Agency Coordination HUD,the U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),and the:U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)will be affected by and have input to DOE's efforts to update State building energy efficiency codes.The HUD Federal . Housing Administration program,the USDA Farmers Home Administration program,and the DVA provide direct mortgage lending or mortgage guarantees for a significant portion of new housing (mostly entry-level).Because this housing must comply with the 1992 MEC or Standard 90.1 under EPACT,these agencies must be informed of how changes in State codes or enforcement strategies affect compliance of housing under their programs.DOE is working with these agencies to provide guidance and assist in the development of compliance tools and training. EPA will be solicited for recommendations or comments on strategies to control indoor air pollutants that could be includedin building energy codes. Partners A listing of partners and their roles is presented in Table 5.- Stakeholders Key Considerations States A wide spectrum of State perspectives exists.Several States have consistently led implementation of advanced energy codes,and they have either seen the benefits for their constituents or conditions in their jurisdictions have made the benefits obvious.Although some States have seen the advantage of implementing codes,they do not have the initiative or resources to move beyond the national consensus.Other States have responded to thenationalinterest,given support to do so.Finally,some States'populations believe that individuals or localities, rather than the State,should make the decisions about health,life,safety and energy in buildings.Most States -ll- Climate Change Action No.10 Table 5 Partners and Their Roles Organizations Implementation Roles Pacific Northwest Laboratory Provides primary technical support on building energy code program,-manages caller "Hotline,”performs some direct outreach to stakeholders. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; National Renewable Energy Laboratory Provides technical input on building code matters related to indoor airpollutionandsolardesign,respectively. SEOs;National Association of State Energy Officials Define energy code status and needs,provide liaison with other State agencies and legislature,and assist in developing and executing implementation strategies. State legislatures;National Conference of State Legislatures Update code legislation,and provide liaison with other State legislators and information on legislation in other States The Energy Foundation Through the Building Codes Assistance Project,provides direct assistance to state and local officials to upgrade,use,and enforce building energy codes. Alliance to Save Energy,Natural Resources Defense Council, American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy These "green”groups assist in disseminating information on benefits of improved energy codes and help lobby State and local iegislators to enact codes into law. Building code organizations (CABO, Building Officials and Code Administration [BOCA],International Conference of Building Officials, Southern Building Code Congress International [SBCCI}) Provide the structural framework for many building energy codes to permit their adoption directly or by reference,assist DOE in processing code change proposals to improve energy conservation, provide a public forum for input on new code requirements,and provide a critical "reality check”on whether energy codes can _Tealistically be implemented. Northwest Power Planning Council Advises DOE and State officials on how to work through the State legislative process to increase chances of successful adoption of energy codes,and supports other implementation activities. *Consumers Union Provides legislative and lobbying support for energy codes on behalf of homeowners,and permits information exchange through Consumer Reports magazine. ASHRAE and IES Develops,maintains and improves building energy codes through a consensus process,and provides products that can be adopted by States and that promote code use and enforcement. National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards Disseminates information to appropriate state offices on building code matters,and provides a critical technical review of implementation "tools”and other standard-related materials. -12- Climate Change Action No.10 need definition of benefits and support in implementation (i.e.,adoption,use,and enforcement of energy codes). Numerous stakeholders also exist at the State level and within the States.At the State level these include elected officials,such as the governor and legislature,as well as regulatory officials.From a regulatory standpoint, various agencies manage responsibility for building codes and codes,including the fire marshal,energy office, code commission,insurance commission,industrial development office and public utility commission.At the local level these include elected officials such as the mayor and city council and appointed officials such as the building official and fire chief. Building Owners/Occupants Owners and occupants need information on the costs and benefits of energy efficiency and are concerned with energy efficiency,because it concerns first-cost,operating costs,and lifecycle costs versus investments and returns on other business or lifestyle objectives.Energy efficiency also affects comfort and related productivity of employees and impacts image., Building Designers In the design phase energy competes with numerous other building requirements and financial concerns,including the owner's objective and budget,sales and rental market factors,building function and aesthetic appearance, -health and life safety requirements,building construction and operation liabilities,handicapped access requirementsandenvironmentalconcerns.Designers need tools and information to incorporate energy efficiency into the design process and to do so with minimum effort and time.They also need to know how to expedite energy code compliance during the plan review and field inspection phases. Builders/Developers Although familiar with the sales benefits of energy efficiency,builders and developers concurrently need flexibility to respond quickly to changing markets and product availability.A pervasive perception exists that the.increased first-cost due to energy conservation measures is narrowing their market.Reviewing whether energy measures comply with codes takes time,especially during permit approval and field inspection processes.Designers and builders must plan for and allocate this additional time and effort. Product Manufacturers/Producers Energy efficiency becomes an issue for manufacturers and producers if it affects market share and new market opportunities or if payback occurs on sunk costs for existing plant and equipment.Also,if energy efficiency maximizes benefits from new investment and narrows a manufacturer's/producer's product line(s),it will diminish its ability to sell up.Advanced notice of the required energy efficiency change and a deadline for its implementation is necessary to adapt product lines.Manufacturers and producers may need time to recoup their initial investment and promote market awareness of the need for and benefits of the energy efficiency of their products. A list of stakeholders and their implementation roles is presented in Table 6. Resource Requirements The funding appropriated in FY 1995 for Action No.10 is $6.5 million. Climate Change Action No.10 Table 6 Stakeholders and Their Roles Types of Organizations Implementation Roles Federal Agencies:EPA,HUD,USDA,DVA EPA provides input on controlling indoor air quality,and HUD,USDA,and DVA help implement better energy standards through mortgage and guarantee programs. State and local governments:each State, many counties,larger cities,National . Association of State Energy Officials,National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards Provide knowledge of local issues,markets,processes and interest groups;on the "front line”for code implementation. D Industry:architects/designers,engineers, builders,equipment and material manufacturers; (e.g.,AJA,NAHB,National Concrete Masonry 'Association,Solar Energy Industries Association,National Multi-Housing Council) Professional and trade associations provide information, education,and training to their members,as well as knowledge of products,design and construction processes, legal requirements,and profit and job impacts (perceived or real). Uncommon:Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy,National Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union,ASHRAE,model building code groups Provides education and information to members through newsletters and other mechanisms,advocacy at State and local levels,provide technical expertise on developing and structuring codes,advertise and promote conservation benefits;and legitimize and promote recognition for the standards implementation process. Related Private Industry Projects Utility demand-side management programs for new homes are the only private industry projects related to this action.; Lead Program Contact (Acting) Jean J.Boulin,(202)586-0517 Office of Codes and Standards Buildings Division Office of Building Technologies U.S.Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue,S.W. Washington,D.C.20585 -14- Climate Change Action No.10 Attachment A Summary of State Actions to Update Building Energy Efficiency Codes September 30,1993 Commercial Building Code Residential Building Code State Meets |Actions or Plans to Actions or Plans to or Exceeds Update Codes to State Meets Update Codes to Current Mandatory Standard Meet EPACT Current Mandatory |or Exceeds Meet EPACTStateCode'90.1-1989 Provisions Code"1992 MEC Provisions Alabama State developed?No review code 1/94 None No ,None Alaska None No Unknown State developed®No (yes for Will review code in :electric &all |1995 fuels; unknown for gas) Arizona None No Undetermined -None No Unknown Arkansas 1977 Measurement No Updating to 1992 1977 MCEC No -Trying to update to and Control!MEC with ref.to 1992 MEC Engineering Center 90.1 in 1994 (MCEC) California State developed Undetermined N/A State developed Yes N/A Colorado None No Collecting local 1977 MCEC No Collecting local information information Connecticut 1987 BOCA w/88 No Update after 4/94 1987 national codes No Update after 4/94 supplement and w/88 sup® amendments Delaware Undetermined®Undetermined Unknown None No Unknown Florida State developed No 1/94 willbe based |State developed Undetermined N/A on Standard 90.1-89 Georgia Based on 1986 MEC No Developing updated |Based on 1996 MEC No Developing code updated code Hawaii State developed Undetermined N/A State developed Undetermined N/A Idaho 1989 MEC®No Unknown State developed No Unknown Mlinois Standard 90-75°No Unknown None No Unknown Indiana 1992 MEC No State believes it 1992 MEC Yes N/A complies lowa 1992 MEC No Unknown 1992 MEC Yes N/A Kansas State developed No Planning to comply |State developed No Planning to comply Kentucky 1990 BOCA No Unknown 1990 BOCA No Unknown Louisiana None No Adopting Standard None No Adopting 1992 90.1-1989 in 1994 MEC in 1994 -15- Climate Change Action No.10 Commercial Building Code Residential Building Code State Meets Actions or Plans to Actions or Plans to electric;no for non-electric) or Exceeds Update Codes to State Meets Update Codes to Current Mandatory Standard Meet EPACT Current Mandatory |or Exceeds Meet EPACTStateCode'90.1-1989 Provisions Code"1992 MEC Provisions Maine Standard 90.1-89 Yes "N/A State developed”®No Review and study needed action Maryland 1993 BOCA No Under development |1993 BOCA No N/A Massachusetts |Based on Standard |Undetermined Unknown State developed No for gas;Unknown .90.1-89 unknown for electric) Michigan Standard 90A-1980 No Updated on a3 ASHRAE 90.A-80 No Update on a 3-year year cycle cycle Minnesota 1989 MEC and Undetermined N/A -1989 MEC and Yes N/A amendments amendments Mississippi State developed No Looking at Standard |State developed No Looking at . 90.1-89 ASHRAE 90.2 Missouri None No Under legislative None No Under legislative study , study Montana 1989 MEC with No Legislate new codes |1989 MEC with Yes Legislaie new amendments .amendments '|codes Nebraska 1983 MEC No Draft legislation in 11983 MEC No Draft legislation in late 1994 late 1994 Nevada 1986 MEC No Unknown 1986 MEC No N/A New Based on Standard |Undetermined N/A State developed Undetermined |Planning to get upHampshire90.1-89 to 1992 MEC New Jersey .|1993 BOCA”No Under review 1993 BOCA'No Conducting study New Mexico 1989 MEC No Unknown 1989 MEC Yes®N/A New York State developed Undetermined Unknown State developed No (yes for Unknown developed North Carolina |State developed Undetermined |Will probably update |State developed Yes Just updated code in the next year North Dakota |1989 MEC No Advisory group 1989 MEC'Yes®Advisory group reviewing reviewing Ohio 1990 BOCA No Unknown 1990 BOCA No There is a proposal to update to 1993 BOCA Oklahoma Standard 90.1-89°No N/A None No Unknown Oregon State developed Undetermined N/A State developed Yes N/A Pennsylvania |State developed No New code being State developed No New code being developed '-16- Climate Change Action No.10 Commercial Building Code Residential Building Code _SOPNOMEONState Meets |Actions or Plans to Actions or Plans to or Exceeds Update Codes to State Meets Update Codes to Current Mandatory Standard Meet EPACT Current Mandatory |or Exceeds Meet EPACT State Code"90.1-1989 Provisions Code"1992 MEC Provisions Rhode island |State developed No Next code revision |State developed No for non-Next code revision in 1996 electric;in 1996 unknown for electric South Carolina |1991 SBCCI No Wiil reference State code,base on Yes N/A 1994-SBCCI in SBCCI and 1992 future MEC South Dakota |State developed No Reviewing codes State code No Reviewing codes Tennessee 1977 MEG No Revising to 1977 MEC No Revising to 1992 1992 MEC effective MEC effective Jan January 1994 1994 Texas Standard 90.1-89"No N/A None .No Unknown Utah 1989 MEC No Unknown 1989 MEC Yes?N/A Vermont State developed”®No N/A None No Reviewing options Virginia 1990 BOCA No Updating to 1993 1990 BOCA No Updating to 1993 - BOCA 4/94 BOCA 4/94 Washington State developed Undetermined N/A State developed No for non-N/A electric;yes for electric West Virginia |1990 BOCA No Updating to 1993 1990 BOCA No Updating to 1993 BOCA in 1994 BOCA in 1994 Wisconsin State developed Undetermined |Going to try to go to |State developed No for gas;Unknown Standard 90.1-89 yes for electric Wyoming 1989 MEC No Unknown 1989 MEC Yes?N/A Footnotes Unless otherwise noted,code applies to all new buildings where the scope of the code is limited.Local governments may adopt other codes for other buildings.. Applies to State-owned/leased buildings and schools. Applies to structures funded through Alaska Housing Finance Corp. Where local government has not adopted a building code,it is not applicable. Allows as an option the Model Energy Code. For State-owned buildings only. Multi-family dwellings must comply with commercial code. Applies to speculatively built homes only-this accounts for about 5 percent of new construction on single-family homes. Thisis based on information received by phone.The codein its entirety has not been reviewed.0.Applies to State-funded buildings. -17- What is BCAP? Building Codes AssistanceProject) The Building Codes Assistance Project provides custom-tailored assistance on building energy code adoption and The Building Codesimplementation.It assists state and local A S si st anc e Pr oj e ctregulatoryandlegislativebodiesandhelps coordinate others representing environmental interests,consumers,labor,1725 K Street,N.W.Suite 509andindustry.Washington,D.C.20006-1401 i OSSBCAPhelpsthosestatesthatrequest assistance,and because it is funded by the U.S.Department of Energy and the Energy Foundation,its services are available at no cost.=_ The project is an aggressive endeavor of the (202)429-9607 |(i |NnAlliancetoSaveEnergy,the American fax (202)331-9588 = Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.Katherine L.McQueen,CBO yan Resources are focused through assessments Executive Director a (2 eyconductedbyBCAPstaff,its technical - support contractors,and an Advisory . Council of nationally recognized experts on . building efficiency issues.BCAP is ,Wor lstructuredtoquicklydeliverassistance where it is needed most -at the state or local level where construction regulation works. Why bother with energy codes? So what's the problem? |Buildings account for more than one-third of the total energy used in the U.S.Using this energy efficiently is one of the The 1992 Energy Policy Act calls upon states to review their state energy codes and determine whether they meet or exceed current national standards. Currently about half of the states still have inefficient residential energy codes -or none at all -while two-thirds have inefficient or no commercial energy codes. This means that residents and building owners waste millions of dollars a year on high energy bills. lowest-cost ways to meet consumer demand for energy,reduce utility bills,and produce real consumer savings. By applying current national building energy standards and using existing cost-effective technologies,building energy use can be reduced by more than In 1994,residential construction totaled40percent.$300 billion and commercial construction $200 billion.That's $500 immediately reduce monthly energy billion spent each year on buildings bills and can pay for themselves I ais m that have an estimated life of 50 to in 3 to 5 years for commercial '7 70 years.BCAP believes that buildings and 2 to 10 years these 1 million-plus building for residences.And -starts each year represent even better -these an opportunity to capture investments continue to the enormous efficiency be profitable over the potential of the building building's lifetime,sector.With outdated Such energy efficiency investments without any ff.'Tv "yy =building energy codes,additional 'these opportunities investment.are lost forever. S sirect Advocacy BCAP can... Bring together local groups and recognized experts; Support local energy efficiency advocates; Prepare technical support materials on codes and standards issues; Help constituencies confront and overcome resistance by special interests; Develop model legislation. reguiatory Policy Development BCAP can... Collaborate with state energy officials,buildingofficials,legislators,advocacy groups,utilities and others to formulate regulations and policies; Provide expert testimony on codes and standards; 'Access current technical information on policy development; Furnish independent recommendations on energy regulations to state and local governments; Produce publications,newsletters,and bibliographical information. A stratesic Field Support BCAP can... Undertake field visits for strategic planning and networking with local groups; Create state-specific needs assessments; Adapt successful code implementation mechanisms to specific state needs; Create recognition programs for local "early adopters”or successful implementers; Sponsor workshops and seminars on codes adoption,implementation,and enforcement. What is BCAP? |Building |CodesAssistance]ProjectJ The Building Codes Assistance Project provides custom-tailored assistance on building energy code adoption and implementation.It assists state and local regulatory and legislative bodies and helps - _,coordinate others representing environmental interests,consumers,labor,. and industry. BCAP helps those states that request assistance,and because it is funded by the U.S.Department of Energy and the Energy Foundation,its services are available at no cost. The project is an aggressive endeavor of the Alliance to Save Energy,the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Resources are focused through assessments - conducted by BCAP staff,its technical support contractors,and an Advisory Council of nationally recognized experts on building efficiency issues.BCAP is structured to quickly deliver assistance where it is needed most -at the state or local level where construction regulation works. The Building Codes Assistance Project 1725 K Street,N.W. Suite 509 Washington,D.C.20006-1401 (202)429-9607 fax (202)331-9588 Katherine L.McQueen,CBO Executive Di:ector Why bother with energy codes? So what's the problem? The 1992 Energy Policy Act calls upon states to review their state energy codes and determine whether they meet or exceed current national standards. |Buildings account for '¥more than one-third of the total energy used in the U.S.Using this energy efficiently is one of the lowest-cost ways to meet consumer demand for energy,reduce utility bills,and produce real consumer savings. Currently about half of the states still have inefficient residential energy codes -or none at all -while two-thirds have inefficient or no commercial energy codes. '.This means that residents and building owners waste millions of dollars a year on high energy bills. Did you Know..... In 1994,residential construction totaled $300 billion and commercial construction $200 billion.That's $500 billion spent each year on buildings By applying current national building energy standards and using existing cost-effective technologies,building energy use can be reduced by more than 40 percent. Such energy efficiency investments immediately reduce monthly energy bills and can pay for themselves I j that have an estimated life of 50 to in 3 to 5 years for commercial 70 years.BCAP believes that buildings and 2 to 10 years these 1 million-plus building for residences.And -starts each year represent even better -these an opportunity to capture investments continue to the enormous efficiency be profitable over the potential of the building building's lifetime,sector.With outdated without any a is yy =building energy codes,additional these opportunities investment.are lost forever. J virect Advocacy BCAP can... Bring together local groups and recognized experts; Support local energy efficiency advocates; Prepare technical support materials on codes and standards issues; Help constituencies confront and overcome resistance by special interests; Develop model legislation. /Regulatory Policy Development BCAP can... Collaborate with state energy officials,buildingofficials,legislators,advocacy groups,utilities and others to formulate regulations and policies; Provide expert testimony on codes and standards; Access current technical information on policy development; Furnish independent recommendations on energy regulations to state and local governments; Produce publications,newsletters,and bibliographical information. A stratesic Field Support BCAP can... Undertake field visits for strategic planning and networking with local groups; Create state-specific needs assessments; Adapt successful code implementation mechanisms to specific state needs; Create recognition programs for local "early adopters”or successful implementers; Sponsor workshops and seminars on codes adoption,implementation,and enforcement. he eee {Building {Codes ¥Assistance'Project § Accelerating Implementation of Building Energy Codes December 7,1995 Mr.David Lockard Community and Regional Affairs 333 West 4th Avenue,Suite 220 Anchorage,AK 99501-2341 Dear Mr.Lockard: As you may know,the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP)was set up last year to provide assistance to the states (at no cost)to adopt and implement more energy-efficient building codes.A number of states have received technical or political advocacy assistance during 1995,and BCAP is working with other states on a continuing basis.If you are considering adopting or revising state energy codes,please don't hesitate to contact us. Enclosed is a document that BCAP sends out regularly (usually bi-monthly)to a number of trade associations and others interested in energy efficiency in new building construction, which highlights the energy code situation in each state.Please take a moment to read the entry for your state.If the information included is inaccurate,incomplete,or incomprehensible,or if you have late-breaking energy code news on your state,I'd like to hear from you. In closing,I must re-iterate that BCAP exists to help you in the states.Let us know if we can be of service. Sincerely yours, a ¢frrteWehbe Katherine L.McQueen,CBO Executive Director KLM:dr Enclosure NASEO 12/07/95 AJoint Initiative of The Alliance to Save Energy,The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,and The Natural Resources Defense Council *)1725 K Street NW e Suite 509 e Washington,D.C.20006-1401 e Tel:(202)429-9607 e Fax:(202)331-9588 a.t Accelerating Implementation of Building Energy Codes Alabama: Alaska: Arizona: Arkansas: California: Colorado: 1725 K Street NW e Suite 509 e Washington,D.C.20006-1401 «Tel:(202)429-9607 «Fax:(202)331-9588 Status of State Energy Codes November 10,1995 No statewide residential or commercial energy codes,except for state-owned or funded buildings.In 1995,a Residential Energy Code Board was created to oversee the adoption of the 1993 MEC by the state and to assist local governments in adopting and implementing the MEC. 92 MEC mandatory for all residential buildings.No commercial energy code and no known initiatives to adopt one. Alaska is a partner with Nevada for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No statewide commercial or residential energy codes.HERS for residential structures is widespread.Pima County has adopted 93 MEC.No known initiatives for state adoption of residential or commercial codes. Arkansas has adopted ASHRAE 90.1 for commercial construction and a residential energy code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC.The residential code needs to be adopted by local government to be implemented. California's Title 24 regulations meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC ard are mandatory statewide.California was: awarded CCAP funds from DOE to replicate its materials and process for other states. Colorado's residential energy provisions are mandatory minimum requirements only for jurisdictions that adopt a building code,but do not meet 92 MEC.There is no statewide commercial energy code.Work is underway to develop new energy standards suitable for Colorado. AJoint Initiative of The Alliance to Save Energy,The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,and The Natural Resources Defense Council VY SIS 6CEH-13°F ayrlyé Connecticut: Delaware: District of Columbia: Florida: Georgia: Hawaii: Idaho: ASHRAE 90.1 has been adopted for commercial buildings. The statewide residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC, as it is based on BOCA.The state codes are reviewed with the publication of new editions of BOCA,so the new BOCA code change to MEC will suffice if Connecticut adopts the 1996 BOCA codes. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE 90.1)has been adopted. Mandatory effective date statewide is expected to be 3/1/96. Commercial and residential.energy codes do not meet ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC.A Building Code Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet monthly;the Energy Subcommittee has been inactive but 93 MEC "is on the table." Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide.The state is further revising the energy standards,expected by December 1996. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide.Georgia is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from'DOE. ASHRAE 90.1 has been adopted for commercial.Hawaii's residential energy guidelines meet or exceed 92 MEC but are not mandatory statewide.The Department of Business and Economic Development is pursuing incentives for voluntary compliance with the Energy Guidelines.Hawaii received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No statewide commercial energy code.Statewide residential energy standards do not meet or exceed 92 MEC.Many jurisdictions adopt the Northwest Energy Code.The state is aiming for adoption of 93 MEC in 1995.Idaho received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE for code revision and compliance training. Illinois: Indiana: Iowa: Kansas: Kentucky: Louisiana: Maine: Maryland: No statewide commercial or residential energy codes,except for state-owned buildings which must comply with ASHRAE 90.1.The state and the City of Chicago are pursuing voluntary compliance ventures.Additionally,the state code officials organization is forming a coalition,with some builder association backing,to adopt a statewide building code. Energy efficiency provisions have not yet been spelled out. 92 MEC with state amendments adopted and enforced statewide.Commercial energy standards do not meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1.The state is reviewing adoption of 95 MEC (and therefore 90.1)by the end of the year.Indiana received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to coordinate MEC enforcement with HERS program. 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1 are adopted statewide and mandatory when adopted by local governments or for buildings over 100,000 cubic feet.Iowa received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Statewide energy standards do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1.Kansas is pursuing voluntary compliance strategies. v 92 MEC adopted statewide.Commercial energy code does not meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1.Kentucky is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No statewide energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt state energy codes. ASHRAE 90.1 adopted statewide.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC.No known initiatives to revise the residential code. Statewide energy codes do not meet ASHRAE 90.1 or 92 MEC,as they are based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is mandated as the state building code,so the new BOCA code change to reference MEC will suffice when adopted in 1996. Massachusetts: Michigan: Minnesota: Mississippi: Missouri: Montana: Nebraska: The statewide commercial energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE 90.1;the residential code does not meet or exceed 92 MEC.Revisions to the energy code are being developed (probably equivalent to 95 MEC and 90.1+)and will be reviewed in Spring 1996 by the Board of Building Regulations and Standards. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE 90.1)adopted statewide. Legislation is currently pending to repeal the MEC and to re- adopt ASHRAE Standards 90A and 90B.Michigan received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE.. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC.The state is undertaking a two- year project to upgrade and improve implementation of the Minnesota Energy Code.Minnesota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Residential and commercial energy codes do not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE 90.1.State legislation to adopt current national energy standards died in the 1994 legislative session.A new initiative is underway to develop support throughout the state for energy codes,or perhaps a statewide building code. Mississippi received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE. No statewide energy codes,except for state facilities which must comply with ASHRAE 90.1.Legislation to adopt a statewide building code died in the 1994 legislative session. The state building officials organization is garnering local support to introduce another state building code bill in the next session.Current nationally recognized energy standards will likely be included in such legislation. Statewide residential energy code is 92 MEC with minimal changes.The commercial energy code does not meet ASHRAE 90.1.The state anticipates adopting 93 MEC (and therefore 90.1)in June 1996. The statewide commercial and residential energy codes do not meet ASHRAE 90.1 or 92 MEC.Legislation to adopt 92 MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature.The state is pursuing an incentive program to reduce loan points for homes built at or above MEC levels. Nevada: New Hampshire: New Jersey: New Mexico: New York: North Carolina: North Dakota: Ohio: State energy code does not meet ASHRAE 90.1 or 92 MEC. Legislation to adopt 93 MEC died with adjournment of the 1995 legislative session.The state is pursuing voluntary compliance strategies and perhaps re-introduction of a bill in the 1997 session.Nevada received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE. ASHRAE 90.1 adopted.The state residential code does not meet 92 MEC.The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission is in the process of revising the residential standards,anticipated to be based on 95 MEC. ASHRAE 90.1 adepted.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC,as it is based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is adopted as a statewide code,so the new BOCA code change will suffice when adopted in 1996.However, legislation is pending in the New Jersey Assembly to allow the state to revert back to earlier code provisions if deemed "unaffordable.”New Jersey received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. 92 MEC adopted.Commercial code does not meet ASHRAE 90.1.The Construction Industries Commission is looking at adoption of 90.1,but views it as an unfunded mandate. New Mexico received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. State energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC.Legislation has been introduced to replace the New York State Building Code with a model code,presumably the latest version of BOCA. The statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1 (90.1 takes effect 1/1/96).North Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. The state has adopted the 93 MEC,but the state codes are voluntary unless a jurisdiction adopts them.North Dakota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE 90.1)adopted.Ohio received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Oklahoma: Oregon: Pennsylvania: Rhode Island: South Carolina: South Dakota: Tennessee: Texas: No state energy codes adopted,except for state-owned buildings.State contractor licensing requires compliance with BOCA codes for some trades,so the new BOCA code change will help Oklahoma when adopted in 1996.There is interest in mandating the MEC statewide. Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1.Received a CCAP grant from DOE. Statewide energy code does not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE 90.1.State legislation is pending to adopt BOCA as the statewide building code;the current Pennsylvania energy standards (which are less stringent than MEC)have been referenced.Negotiations are underway with the PBA,the legislative committee hearing the bill,and the Pennsylvania Electric Association to improve the energy provisions to meet the MEC. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE 90.1)adopted statewide,to take effect 1-1-96.Received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. The statewide commercial code meets ASHRAE 90.1;the residential Energy code is 92 MEC with amendments that make it less stringent.Legislation to update standards to the most current MEC died in committee when the legislature adjourned.Reintroduction in January 1996 is possible.The state codes are mandatory only when adopted by counties or municipalities.South Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to conduct training. No state energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt codes. South Dakota is a partner with Minnesota for a CCAP grant from DOE. State energy code is 92 MEC;therefore,commercial standards do not meet ASHRAE 90.1.Tennessee is a partner with other Southern states fora CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No state energy codes,except for state-owned buildings. Texas received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to develop appropriate residential standards for the state (based on ASHRAE 90.2)and to encourage adoption by local Jurisdictions. Utah: Vermont: Virginia: Washington: West Virginia: Wisconsin: Wyoming: STATES4 31/08/95 State energy codes are ASHRAE 90.1 and 93 MEC.Utah received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Mandatory energy efficiency standards which meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1 are contained within Vermont's land use regulations (Act 250),and cover approximately 50% of construction.There are no state energy codes for the remaining commercial and_residential construction. Legislation to eliminate Act 250 energy efficiency provisions and adopt MEC died when the legislature adjourned.A state Task Force has been convened to study energy standards and to make recommendations to the 1996 legislative session. Vermont received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE 90.1)adopted statewide. Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92 MEC. Washington received CCAP funds to replicate its materials and process for other states.The SEO is slated for phase-out on 7/1/96. State energy code does not meet ASHRAE 90.1 or 92 MEC,as it is based on BOCA.The new BOCA code change will suffice if the 1996 BOCA codes are adopted.West Virginia received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. ASHRAE 90.1 takes effect 12-1-95.The residential energy code meets or exceeds 92 MEC.A state energy task force is studying the feasibility of adopting the current MEC in lieu of developing specific state standards.Wisconsin received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. State energy codes do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE 90.1.. No known initiatives to revise energy standards. Post-it®Fax Note 7671 |Date V2ed [pages iTamesNoloate.From 1)vid hoe keg vi-_-CO4 1?D}v of Lora -Phone te B/D EF.4Sy) Accelerating Implementation of Building Energy Codes SE OSE.71-672 Fax # Status of State Energy Codes January 10,1996 Alabama:No statewide residential or commercial energy codes,except for state-owned or funded buildings.In 1995,a Residential Energy Code Board was created to oversee the adoption of the 1993 MEC by the state and to assist local governments in adopting and implementing the MEC. Alaska:92 MEC is mandatory for all residential buildings.No commercial energy code and no known initiatives to adopt one. Alaska is a partner with Nevada for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Arizona:No statewide commercial or residential energy codes.HERS for residential structures is widespread.Pima County has adopted 93 MEC.No known initiatives for state adoption of residential or commercial codes. Arkansas:Arkansas has adopted ASHRAE/IES 90.1 for commercial construction and a residential energy code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC.Both are state requirements.Builder self-certification required even if local governments do not enforce the codes.An ad campaign,partially funded by utilities,will begin in early 1996 to infcrm consumers about the energy code and builder requirements. California:California's Title 24 regulations meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide.California was awarded CCAP funds from DOE to replicate its materials and process for other states. A Joint Initiative of The Alliance to Save Energy, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,and The Natural Resources Defense Council :Oete1725 K Street NW e Suite 509 e Washington,D.C.20006-1401 e Tel:(202)429-9607 «Fax:(202)331-9588 "N Colorado: Connecticut: Delaware: District of Columbia: Florida: Georgia: Hawaii: Colorado's residential energy provisions,which do not meet 92 MEC,are mandatory minimum requirements only for jurisdictions that adopt a building code.There is no statewide commercial energy code.The process is underway at the SEO to develop new voluntary residential energy standards suitable for Colorado,working with Energy Rated Homes of Colorado, Public Service Company,and the state HBA.A Commercial Advisory Group has been formed to develop commercial standards which will then be taken to local governments for adoption.The City of Ft.Collins adopted a modified 95 MEC and modified 90.1,both of which take effect 7-1-96. ASHRAE/JIES 90.1 has been adopted for commercial buildings. The statewide residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC,as it is based on BOCA.The state codes are reviewed with the publication of new editions of BOCA,so the new BOCA code change to MEC will suffice if Connecticut adopts the 1996 BOCA codes. 93 MEC (and therefore 90.1)has been adopted.Mandatory effective date statewide is expected to be 3/1/96. Commercial and residential energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC.A Building Code Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet monthly;the Energy Subcommittee has been inactive but 93 MEC "is on the table." Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide. The state is further revising the energy standards,expected by December 1996. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide.Georgia is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. ASHRAE/JIES 90.1 has been adopted for commercial.Hawaii's residential energy guidelines meet or exceed 92 MEC but are not mandatory statewide.The Department of Business and Economic Development is pursuing incentives for voluntary compliance with the Energy Guidelines.Hawaii received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide assistance to counties to adopt and implement the Hawaii residential code. Idaho: Hlinois: Indiana: Jowa: Kansas: No statewide commercial energy code.A stakeholders'group is working to create a commercial code that meets the needs of Idaho business and citizens.This process is expected to take at least one year.New residential energy standards took effect 1-1-96;builder self-certification will be required if local jurisdictions do not enforce a code.There is disagreement as to whether the new code meets 92 MEC.Many jurisdictions adopt the Northwest Energy Code or the MEC.Idaho received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE for code compliance training and preparatory work to adopt the 95 MEC. No statewide commercial or residential energy codes,except for state-owned buildings which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1.The state and the City of Chicago are pursuing voluntary compliance ventures through Illinois Energy Rated Homes training.The state code officials organization is pursuing the concept of a statewide building code,and is working with local elected officials to get municipal support. 92 MEC with state amendments adopted and enforced statewide. Commercial energy standards do not meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1.The SEO is participating in the Multi-State Commercial Code group that is developing enhancements to 90.1.The state is also reviewing adoption of 95 MEC.Indiana received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to train builders and building officials on code compliance and to integrate Indiana's home energy rating system with code enforcement. 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are adopted statewide and mandatory when adopted by local governments or for buildings over 100,000 cubic feet.A legislatively created committee (Iowa Housing Development Study Committee),charged with 'recommending revisions to the State Housing Code during 1996, heard testimony that energy efficiency standards were a high cost item that should be examined.The SEO will follow the report when released in January.JIowa received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training and education and to integrate the use of HERS as a method of code compliance. Statewide energy standards do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Kansas is pursuing voluntary compliance Strategies. Kentucky: Louisiana: Maine: Maryland: Massachusetts: Michigan: Minnesota: 92 MEC adopted statewide.Commercial energy code does not meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Kentucky is a partner with other Southern states fora CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No statewide energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt state energy codes. ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted statewide.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC.No known initiatives to revise the residential code. Statewide energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC,as they are based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is mandated as the state building code,so the new BOCA code change to reference MEC will suffice when adopted in 1996. The statewide commercial energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE/VIES 90.1;the residential code does not meet or exceed 92 MEC.Revisions to the energy code are being developed (probably equivalent to 95 MEC and 90.1+)and will be reviewed in Spring 1996 by the Board of Building Regulations and Standards. 93 MEC,adopted statewide in July 1995,was repealed by the legislature in December 1995 and signed by the governor on January 8,1996.The state energy code reverts back to ASHRAE Standards 90A and 90B;the State Construction Code Commission (which approved and proposed the adoption of the 1993 MEC)has been directed to adopt cost-effective energy efficiency standards by 4-1-97.Michigan received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training to builders,designers,code officials,and new homebuyers. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE/ES 90.1 and 92 MEC.The state is undertaking a two-year project to upgrade and improve implementation of the Minnesota Energy Code.Minnesota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE for this work and to train stakeholders in North Dakota and South Dakota regarding energy standards and building science. Mississippi: Missouri: Montana: Nebraska: Nevada: New Hampshire:- Residential and commercial energy codes do not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE/IES 90.1.State legislation to adopt current national energy standards died in the 1994 legislative session.No initiatives are underway to push for adoption of upgraded energy codes for the state.Mississippi was approved for a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE to provide 90.1,MEC,and HERS training and education (with Energy Rated Homes of Mississippi),but the state has not accepted nor implemented the grant. No statewide energy codes,except for state facilities which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Legislation to adopt a statewide building code died in the 1994 legislative session.The state building officials organization is garnering local support to introduce another state building code bill in the next session. Current nationally recognized energy standards will likely be included in such legislation. Statewide residential energy code is 92 MEC with minimal changes.ASHRAE/IES 90.1 took effect 1-1-96. The statewide commercial and residential energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC.Legislation to adopt 92 MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature.The state is pursuing an incentive program to reduce loan points for homes built at or above MEC levels. State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC. Legislation to adopt 93 MEC died with adjournment of the 1995 legislative session.The state is pursuing voluntary compliance strategies and perhaps re-introduction of a bill in the 1997 session.Nevada received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE to develop a HERS program based on Alaska's experience. ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted.The state residential code does not meet 92 MEC.The Public Utilities Commission is in the process of revising the residential standards,anticipated to be based on 95 MEC.Action is expected in Spring 1996. New Jersey: New Mexico: New York: North Carolina: North Dakota: ASHRAE/VIES 90.1 adopted.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC,as it is based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is adopted as a statewide code,so the new BOCA code change will suffice when adopted in 1996.However,legislation was introduced in 1995 in the New Jersey Assembly to allow the state to revert back to earlier code provisions if deemed "unaffordable.”The bill did not get out of committee when the Assembly adjourned in early January 1996;the same legislation is likely to be re-introduced when the Assembly reconvenes in mid-January.New Jersey received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 training. 92 MEC adopted.Commercial code does not meet ASHRAEAES 90.1.The Construction Industries Commission is looking at adoption of 90.1 in the Summer of 1996.New Mexico received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 901.1 training. State energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC. Legislation has been introduced to replace the New York State Building Code with a model code,presumably the latest version of BOCA,which references 95 MEC in its 1996 codes.BCAP is providing technical assistance and advocacy to the stakeholders, state agencies and homebuilders,to help produce a successful transition to MEC. The statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/VIES 90.1 (90.1 takes effect 1/1/96).North Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training in North Carolina,Kentucky,Georgia,and Tennessee. The state has adopted 93 MEC,but the state codes are voluntary unless a jurisdiction adopts them.North Dakota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to promote adoption, implementation,and enforcement of residential and commercial energy codes in the 14 most populated jurisdictions. Ohio: Oklahoma: Oregon: Pennsylvania: Rhode Island: 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)adopted,effective 7-1-95.Legislation has been introduced that,among many other things,eliminates the State Board of Building Standards directive to adopt new energy standards when advances in technology make the old standards obsolete or inadequate and to base state energy standards on the insulation requirements of HUD'S minimum property standard.The Ohio HBA supports the passage of this bill and has stated its desire to repeal the MEC.Ohio received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide training for code officials and HERS contractors. No state energy codes adopted,except for state-owned buildings. State contractor licensing requires compliance with BOCA codes for some trades,so the new BOCA code change will help Oklahoma when adopted in 1996.There is interest in mandating the MEC statewide. Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Received a CCAP grant from DOE to document successful approaches to enforcement of the state energy code. Statewide energy code does not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Legislation was introduced in Fall 1995 to adopt the 1995 BOCA codes as the statewide building code and to maintain Act 222,the current prescriptive energy standard based on ASHRAE 90A and 90B.A legislative sub-committee worked on the bill throughout the fall and will present a revised building code bill to the full committee in early 1996.Currently,the bill calls for the adoption of the latest edition of the BOCA codes,including its referenced energy standards;passage of the bill would mean repeal of Act 222 and adoption of the 1996 BOCA codes,which eference 95 MEC. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)adopted statewide, to take effect 1-1-96.Received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide MEC training to all stakeholders. South Carolina: South Dakota: Tennessee: Texas: Utah: Vermont: Virginia: The statewide commercial code meets ASHRAE/IES 90.1;the residential energy code is 92 MEC with amendments that make it less stringent.Legislation to update standards to the most current MEC died in committee when the legislature adjourned. Reintroduction in January 1996 is possible.The state codes are mandatory statewide;however only 57%of counties have adopted a building code,with fewer actually enforcing the energy code.South Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to conduct training. No state energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt codes. South Dakota is a partner with Minnesota for a CCAP grant from DOE. State energy code is 92 MEC;therefore,commercial standards do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Tennessee is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No state energy codes,except for state-owned buildings.Texas received.a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to assist local jurisdictions in implementing the MEC where it's already adopted and to provide code awareness training. State energy codes are ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 93 MEC.Utah received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide code training and education. Mandatory energy efficiency standards which meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are contained within Vermont's land use regulations (Act 250),and cover approximately 50%of construction.There are no state energy codes for the remaining commercial and residential construction.A Governor's Task Force has been convened to study energy standards and to make recommendations to the 1996 legislative session.The report of the Task Force will be presented in early 1996 and will propose the adoption of 95 MEC,with some state modifications,for all residential construction.Vermont is working with Massachusetts to promote an enhanced commercial code based on 90.1R or equivalent.Vermont received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)adopted statewide. Washington: West Virginia: Wisconsin: Wyoming: STATESS 01/10/96 Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92 MEC. Washington received CCAP funds to replicate its materials and process for other states.The SEO is slated for phase-out on 7-1-96. State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC, as it is based on BOCA.The new BOCA code change will suffice if the 1996 BOCA codes are adopted.West Virginia received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide code training for builders,designers,and code officials. Commercial standards that meet or exceed 90.1 will take effect on 4-1-96.The residential energy code meets or exceeds 92 MEC.A state energy task force is studying the feasibility of adopting the current MEC in lieu of developing state-written standards.Wisconsin received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide commercial and residential training and to promote the MEC and HERS. State energy codes do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1. No known initiatives to revise energy standards. en wa 2 "1”Due date for SISB CCI change proposds ; 1 Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Sos June 22-26 -me_|ASHRAE Meeting -San Antonio,Texas oo-Contact:(404)636-8400.ae fax (404)321-9478.-Calendar ASHRAL Meung =November 14-17 Ronse Atlanta,Georgia .'y 1996 EEBA Excellence in Housing ConferenceHyatt_ Regency,Minneapolis:oe Contact:.+(612)8851-7940,eeContact:ASHRAE at (404)636-8400,6 9 ne.fax (404):321-5478, 4 March 11 to the Standard Codes __.Contact:SBCCI,900 Montclair Road_Birmingham,AL 35213-1206,©(205)591-1853, "|codes and standards-related meetings,seminarpore:ieee distributethe informatstedreadersaetheendinfor-13-14 i af Sn Ss7waySymposiumoonnImprovingBuildingSystemsain.Hot and Humid Climates-Radisson Plaza Hotel,-Fort Worth,Texas >Contact:Liz Trahan,Energy Systems Lab/"WERC 053,College Station,TX 77843-(409)862-2291,fax (409)862-2457... oS'secting)the Standard%U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY_es#BUILDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES PROBRAM ;,WeeeeeeneeeartweaKM.Shoop': 'P.O.Box 999-MSIN K5-16 --By a:Richalnd,Washington 99352 0 Sat eels a ee ae : "Address Correction Requested coe vo ee eta? David Lockhard Alaska Division of Energy333W.4th Ave.,Suite 220 Anchorage,AK 99501-2341 "U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.7 _BUILDING STANDARDS ANO GUIDELINES PROGRAM *implementationactivities and will- .the MEC if a unit of local construction.|ae '.Florida held hearings and certi-7.-fied to the U.S.Department of '|.Standard);at the same time it eliminated. os Setting the Standard |_4th Quarter 1995."Volume 3,Issue 4 :States moved forward to ado=cigHere's an update ofsstate actions and:activities as we-went to press at the year's end::: os "Alabama On July 31,1995,House Bill eB)616%was -signed by the Governor.HB 616 requires cities and©_counties that choose to adopt a residential building.|"energy code to adopt the 1993 CABO MEC orits .-successors.HB 616 created the "Alabama Residential_ .Energy Code Board,”which has the duty to promote_ "|-the use and implementation of the Model Energy Code - -|=(MEC)in the state.The Board will advise.the Ala-ms:bama Department of Economic and.Community Affairs (ADECA)onprovideforthemandatoryimple"mentation of,and adherence to, -government chooses to adopt iit.-in whole or in part.This new...'code applies only to>residential oa Florida On May 24,1995, Energy (DOE)that the state.:.has reviewed the provisions of its residential and.-commercial building code regarding energy efficiency-and has determined that such provisions meet or *'1.exceed those of the 1992 MEC or ASHRAE/IES .:Standard 90.1-89 (Standard 90.1);respectively.|Georgia.On February 22,1995,Georgiacertified tto)«DOE that the energy efficiency provisions of its.commercial and residential building codes meet or +« -exceed those of the 1993 MEC or Standard.90.1,Idaho In March 1995,Ydaho passed Senate Bill (SB).1208.SB 1208 upgraded the efficiency provisions of”.the existing state-developed statewide mini-a "mum code (1990 Idaho Residential energysomeoftheenforcement/compliance poeprovisions.. hada:lide"A Better Climate for,Yo attaoot:t Al ttbonalladduitslbechiesdiial ehedn:SOR re Sed eke al PEO Ae Sate Ae Delo Laie _energy.codes iin 19-"Maryland Maryland's lawspecifies tthatthe state code-.is the "current”version of the Building Officials and"Code Administrators International,Inc.(BOCA)©.-'.code;therefore,since the 1996 edition of the BOCA.acodeadoptedthe1995MEConSeptember19,1995,'the Maryland code should become the 1995 MEC |when the BOCA code iis published iin 1996.ao New Jersey.New Jersey's law specifies that the state.|codeis the "current”version of the BOCA code,thus *:© "since the 1996 Edition of the BOCA code adopted themt.1995 MEC onn September 19,1995,the New Jersey.-:code should become the ©...1995 MEC whenthe ..*BOCA codeispublishedPin1996,However,there'.as legislation iin New Jersey |"that would"allow the 9.Department of CommunityAffairsDirectortorevisethe -affect homebuilders.”-North Carolina.North |:Carolina's Building Code /Council adopted VolumeX:Energy(a"reprint of the codified version of Standard 90.1 with- .North Carolina amendments)as the new energy'codeforcommercialbuildingsinNorthCarolina,These. new energy requirements became effective on._January 1,1996,ae .|North Dakota.North Dakota'sOffice of Intergor=on ernmental Assistance Energy Codes Committee |-,recently adopted the 1993 MEC and published the new.codein October.The new code was to become effec-tive upon publication.The 1993 MEC references:_Standard 90.1 so commercial buildings and high-rise - .(more than three stories)residential buildings willbeacoveredbyStandard90.1.ome8S "Rhode Island The state,building code iis -on currently based on the 1990 BOCA%National Building CCode and the 1990 code when found to adversely op "A Better Climate for Jobs” Be A a i ee eee ae The 1993 MEC was expected to go into effect inthesecondhalfof1995;however,the governorplacedamoratoriumonrulemaking,and the 1993-MEC became law January 1,1996.Rhode Island | _has formed a compliance team to benchmark'-current construction Practices in the field.: _2 issued to the Uniform Building Standards Act,|which adopted Appendix Chapter 13 of the Uni-. .residential and commercial buildings. ;Chairman appointed tcto.a ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 _ -west National Laboratory (PNNL)has been ©.appointed chairman of the American Society of-:Heating,Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning _.Committee (SSPC)90.1.His term of officeis._,through June 1998.Jarnagin succeeds Merle . as chairman from 1991-1995.-'Jarnagin previously served asa member of the|-SSPC 90.1 Criteria Development and Envelope-Panel and as chairman of the HVAC Panel from _1992 through 1995.He has been actively involved proposed standard.Jarnagin's main focus as 'Standard 90.1-1989R to public review and to .develop the consensus support necessary for.acceptance..Jamagin has been involvedin onergy-related_research for more than 20 years,which has.7 included working iin the areas5 offluid flow,power: -National Mechanical Code with state amendments. Utah On February 14,1995,amendments were '_form Building Code (UBC)witha sole reference | to the 1993 MEC for low-rise residential buildings »_and a sole reference to Standard 90.1 for high-rise:A eo Ronald E.Jarnagin of the DOE?ss Pacific North:oo _Engineers (ASHRAE)Standing Standards Project .o 'McBride of Owens Corning Fiberglas,who served -_ -in the development of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-.-1989R and has worked closely with industryand-government to develop consensuspositions onthe -«: chairman of SSPC 90.1 will be to bring ASHRAE os Northwest Laboratory.:Its purpose is to encourage informationexchangeamongbuildingsindustryprofessionalsandorganizations, timely development and early adoption of the building energyconservationstandards.We welcome reader comments andcontributions.-:.. _,Editor:Rosalind4 Schrempf e Layout:Kathy Neiderhiser Setting the Standardis published quarterly for the U.S.Department ofEnergybytheBuildingStandardsandGuidelinesProgramatthePacific state and local code officials,and researchers.The poalis to facilitate - Ss a Hotline:1-(800)270-CODE i ASHRAE seen henewember for oB5,F SSPC90.1:2 The'American Society.of Heating,Refrigerating.and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)iseekingnewmembersforStandingStandard_.Project Committee (SSPC)90.1.sThereis an'.-ongoing need for participants in the developmen|)process due to tenure limitationson the comn-|.tee andits associatedpanels.'Tn particular,-_ASHRAEisseekingexpertsinsemi-heatespaces,and warehouses andstorage spaces,-Personsinterested.in participating :should cont_|Jim Heldenbrand,ASHRAE}_dards,at(404)636-8400. plants,automotive 'and transportation systems,HVAC_systems,energy use in buildings,and energy standardsdevelopment.Jarnagin has served on numerous utility,"government,and business advisory boards,and was a"member of the team that developed and implemented °Florida's Energy Efficiency Code for Building Con--7 struction.At PNNL,Jarnagin has managed DOE's -.*.Building Energy Standards Program (now the BuildingStandardsandGuidelinesProgram),a multiyear,multi- -million-dollar effort directed toward the devclopment ___.and implementation of energy efficiency standards for--..new buildings.He currently plays a key rolein manag--.:mding DOE''s Commercial Equipment Standards Program.:x States provided valuable iinput |.during 1995 codes and standards:workshops * Representatives from 38 statess and two5 U.S.territories *, .attended the four Regional Building Energy Codes and-Standards Workshops sponsored by the U.S.Depart----...ment of Energy (DOE)Office of Codes and Standards-2 in 1995.Held j . -..Atlanta,the workshops were designed to benefit state---level officials including staff of building code commis-|.-*'sions;energy offices,public utility commissions,and in Chicago,Denver,Rhode Island,and 'others involved with adopting/updating,implementing,_and enforcing building energy codesin their states.Workshop participants also had an opportunity to."_provideinput on code adoptionissues,building industry ."-training issues;building designissues,and exemplary.-programs across the United States.'Thisinput was-carefully considered as codes and standards tools and -_materials continue to be developed and modified by..DOE to meet states "needs. -Topics of greatest concern to states in 1995 were code-implementation and enforcement.Many participants __ .realtors and educational materials for builders.yo Many participants said that their.state's adoption of|-the Model Energy Code (MEC),ASHRAE/IES stressed that stakeholders need to be informed of theenergycoderequirements.and that code officials,-builders,designers,etc.,need to be trained.They_urged that simplified methods and tools for code.-compliance be developed.Some also asked DOE to |provide analyses showing the cost benefits of code”adoptionin their state.Many who attended requestedmarketingmaterialsforconsumers,lenders,and Standard 90.1-1989,or state-developed energy codeswastheirbiggestaccomplishmenttowardimproving'|.the energy efficiency of buildingsin their state.Par-"ticipants were encouraged about continuing thecooperationthatdevelopedbetweenstakeholders iin-their state's code adoption Process.The workshops provided ann opportunity for stateofficialstolearnmoreaboutspecificresidentialand.-commercial building energycodes and standards,the mo-role of DOE and the Building Standards and Guide-lines Program,related activities at Pacific Northwest-National Laboratory,Home Energy Rating Systems.,ficient Mortgages (EEM),training ©|(HERS),Energy|Effissues,and other topics related to the development,-adoption,implementation,and enforcement of build- _|.ing energy codes.Workshop participants heard - _success stories,got tips on enforcement training,and -.received technical support material.Asummary report giving the highlights of the 1995-workshopsis available.'To receive a copy,call Linda:Sandahl at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of(303)331-2626.aa | ,'Training:Program Update a .Three new training products will be available soon for:- _use by those who are interested in providing training._on building energy codes to the design,construction,©and code enforcement community.-Training Resource ManualTheTrainingResourceManualiisaisting of partici.oS_pants who successfully completed the Train-the-7-Trainer training heldin Rindge,NH or Reno,NV last.summer.The Train-the-Trainer program was created «-by the Building Standards and Guidelines Program to.ensure that states and stakeholders will have access to"qualified trainers to instruct on using the CABO 1992.-,-Model Energy Code or ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989.Those interested iin providing a seminar,training -.session,or developing a training program for either the |MEC or ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 may select a.trained trainer listedin the Training Resource Manual..ae The manual lists graduates of both the MEC and.)ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 training and includes their -me phone numbers and addresses.1993 MECcheck™Version 2 0 Training.|Materials 7 coTrainingmaterialsbased:on the 1993 MECcheck™-Version 2.0 compliance materials are now available."These materials include an instructor's guide,faculty.notes,andin-class training materials for teachinga class_.*.that comprises members of the building,design,andenforcementindustry.The materials based on the 1992MECcheck™(Version 2.0)training materials are-designed to be modified for local pulling practice:and =.the state-adopted code,:”Field Inspection for the Model Energy Code."Video:aThis22-minute video ccovers techniques for verifying.that construction meets or exceeds the MEC.The video_focuses on how to incorporate inspection forenergy--relateditems into a typical homeinspection.The targetaudienceisfieldinspectionpersonnelorbuildersiinter-estedin energy code topics.For:more"e information on these training resources,:acontactEricMakelaatPacificNorthwestNationaletLaboratory(509)372-4744.a - oe Hotlineavailable to help iin11996Thanks:to all who called the DOE/Building StandardsandGuidelinesProgramHotline(800-270-CODE)in._1995 with questions or comments about building energy.-codes and standardsissues.The Hotline has been.."established as a resource for contractors,architects,i_builders,code officials,state officials,and others who°.have questions about building energy codes and stan-dards.Callers also can use the Hotline to request'commerical and residential compliance materials .designed to help show compliance with the 1992 CABO: .Model Energy Code (MEC)anddASHRAE/IES Stan-dard 90.1-1989.a ee In 1995,'the Hotline responded to more'ethan:2,800 calls©-:from 48 states.Many calls reflected the states'ongoing--activities in adopting and implementing new residentialandcommercialcodesinresponsetotheEnergyPolicy*-Act of 1992 (EPACT).Approximately 425 callers had:technical questions about the MEC,and more than"1,300 callers requested copies of MECcheck™,. 4]4 [Building Codes}AssistanceProject& Accelerating Implementation of Building Energy Codes Status of State Energy Codes March 1,1996 Alabama:No statewide commercial energy codes,except for state-owned or funded buildings.In 1995,with the support of homebuilders, a Residential Energy Code Board was created to oversee the adoption of the 1993 MEC by the state and to assist local governments in adopting and implementing the MEC.The 1993 MEC is now required in cities and counties that choose to adopt a residential energy code. Alaska:92 MEC is mandatory for all residential buildings.No commercial energy code and no known initiatives to adopt ene. Aiaska is a partner with Nevada for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE, Arizona:No statewide commercial or residential energy codes.HERS for residential structures is widespread.Pima County has adopted 93 MEC.No known initiatives for state adoption of residential or commercial codes. Arkansas:'Arkansas has adopted ASHRAE/IES 90.1 for commercial construction and a residential energy code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC.Both are state requirements.Builder self-certification is required even if local governments do not enforce the codes. An ad campaign,partially funded by utilities,will begin in early 1996 to inform consumers about the energy code and builder requirements. California:California's Title 24 regulations meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide.California was awarded CCAP funds from DOE to replicate its materials and process for other states. AJoint Initiative of The Alliance to Save Energy, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,and The Natural Resources Defense Council 1725 K Street NW e Suite 509 e Washington,D.C.20006-1401 «Tel:(202)429-9607 e«Fax:(202)331-9588 a3 Colorado: Connecticut: ; tN '.Delaware: District of Columbia: Florida: Georgia: Colorado's residential energy provisions,which do not meet 92 MEC,are mandatory minimum requirements only for jurisdictions that adopt a building code.There is no statewide commercial energy code.The SEO has begun to develop new voluntary residential incentives suitable for Colorado,working with Energy Rated Homes of Colorado,Public Service Company of Colorado,building departments,and the state HBA.A Commercial Advisory Group has been formed to develop a commercial energy standard which will then be given to local governments for use on a voluntary basis.The City of Ft. Collins adopted a modified 95 MEC and modified 90.1,both of which will take effect 7-1-96. ASHRAE/VIES 90.1 has been adopted for commercial buildings. The statewide residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC,as 'it is based on BOCA.The state codes are reviewed with the publication of new editions of BOCA,so the new BOCA code change to MEC will suffice if Connecticut adopts the 1996 BOCA codes. 93 MEC (and therefore 90.1)has been adopted."Mandatory effective date statewide has been moved back to 6-1-96.A home energy rating system will also be considered. Commercial and residential energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/ES 90.1 and 92 MEC.A Building Code Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet monthly;the Energy Subcommittee has been inactive but 93 MEC "is on the table." Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide. The state is further reviewing the energy standards. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 93 MEC and are mandatory statewide.The Department of Community Affairs is moving toward adoption of 95 MEC. Georgia is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. Hawaii: Idaho: Tllinois: Indiana: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 with modifications has been adopted for commercial;all counties except Maui have adopted.Hawaii's residential energy guidelines meet or exceed 92 MEC but are not mandatory statewide.The Department of Business and *Economic Development is pursuing incentives for voluntary compliance with the Energy Guidelines.Homebuilders are pressuring counties to reject the state residential code because it calls for ceiling insulation.|Hawaii received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide assistance to counties to adopt and implement the Hawaii residential code. No statewide commercial energy code.A stakeholders'group is working to create a commercial code that meets the needs of Idaho business and citizens.This process is expected to take at least one year.New residential energy standards took effect 1-1-96;builder self-certification will be required if local jurisdictions do not enforce a code.There is disagreement as to whether the new code meets 92 MEC.Many jurisdictions adopt the Northwest Energy Code or the MEC.Idaho received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE for code compliance training and preparatory work to adopt the 95 MEC.; No statewide commercial or residential energy codes,except for state-owned buildings which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1.The state and the City of Chicago are pursuing voluntary compliance ventures through Illinois Energy Rated Homes training.The state code officials organization is pursuing the concept of a statewide building code,and is working with local elected officials to get municipal support. 92 MEC with state amendments adopted and enforced statewide. Commercial energy standards do not meet or exceed ASHRAE/VIES 90.1.The SEO is participating in the Multi-State Commercial Code group that is developing enhancements to 90.1.The state is also reviewing adoption of 95 MEC.Indiana received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to train builders and building officials on code compliance and to integrate Indiana's home energy rating system with code enforcement. Jowa: Kansas: Kentucky: « Louisiana: Maine: Maryland: Massachusetts: 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are adopted statewide and mandatory when adopted by local governments or for buildings over 100,000 cubic feet.A legislatively created committee (Iowa Housing Development Study Committee),charged with recommending revisions to the State Housing Code during 1996, heard testimony that energy efficiency standards were a high cost item that should be examined.The SEO will follow the report when released.Iowa received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training and education and to integrate the use of HERS as a method of code compliance. The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC)has adopted 93 MEC and ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1;utilities are expected to "put it into effect”by the end of 1996.However,legislation has been introduced,passed in the House,and sent to the Senate, which eliminates the KCC's authority to adopt and enforce energy standards for residential structures. 92 MEC adopted statewide;the 93 MEC will be considered for adoption in 1996.Commercial energy code does not meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Kentucky is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No statewide energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt state energy codes. ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted statewide.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC.No known initiatives to revise the residential code. Statewide energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC,as they are based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is mandated as the state building code,so the new BOCA code change to reference MEC will suffice when adopted in 1996. The statewide commercial energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1;the residential code does not meet or exceed 92 MEC for certain fuel-specific structures.Revisions to the energy code are being developed;a modified 95 MEC will be submitted to the Board of Building Regulations and Standards in March.Commercial code development is proceeding through the Multi-State Commercial Code project,which is seeking an enhanced 90.1 that is "usable and enforceable.” Michigan: Minnesota: 'Mississippi: Missouri: Montana: 93 MEC,adopted statewide in July 1995,was repealed by the legislature in December 1995 and signed by the governor on January 8,1996.The state energy code reverts back to ASHRAE Standards 90A and 90B;the State Construction Code Commission (which approved and proposed the adoption of the 1993 MEC)has been directed to adopt cost-effective energy efficiency standards by 4-1-97.An Energy Code Ad Hoc Committee has been established,has begun its work,and expects recommendations for new energy standards in June 1996. Michigan received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training to builders,designers,code officials,and new homebuyers. Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC.The state is undertaking a two-year project to upgrade and improve implementation of the Minnesota Energy Code.By 1998,the state is expected to have energy standards comparable to Canada's R2000 standards. Minnesota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE for this work and to train stakeholders in North Dakota and South Dakota regarding energy standards and building science. Residential and commercial energy codes do not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE/IES 90.1.State legislation to adopt current national energy standards died in the 1994 legislative session.No initiatives are underway to push for adoption of upgraded energy codes for the state.Mississippi was approved for a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE to provide 90.1,MEC,and HERS training and education (with Energy Rated Homes of Mississippi),but the state has not accepted nor implemented the grant. No statewide energy codes,except for state facilities which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Legislation to adopt a statewide building code died in the 1994 legislative session.The state building officials organization is garnering local support to introduce another state building code bill. Statewide residential energy code is 92 MEC with minimal changes.ASHRAE/IES 90.1 took effect 1-1-96.The Building Codes Bureau anticipates adoption of 93 MEC in early 1996. Cities authorized to issue building permits will be bound by the new code. Nebraska: Nevada: New Hampshire: New Jersey: New Mexico: New York: The statewide commercial and residential energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC.Legislation to adopt 92 MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature.The state is pursuing an incentive program to reduce the mortgage interest rate for homes built at or above MEC levels.The reduction in the interest rate will be achieved through a loan participation by the Nebraska Energy Office. State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC. Legislation to adopt 93 MEC died with adjournment of the 1995 legislative session.The state is pursuing voluntary compliance strategies and perhaps re-introduction of a bill in the 1997 session.Nevada received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE to develop a HERS program based on Alaska's experience. ASHRAEJIES 90.1 adopted.The state residential code does not meet 92 MEC.The Public Utilities Commission is in the 'process of revising the residential standards to 95 MEC. ASHRAE/JIES 90.1 adopted.The residential energy code does not meet 92 MEC,as it is based on BOCA.The latest edition of BOCA is adopted as a statewide code,so the new BOCA code change will suffice when adopted in 1996.However,legislation was introduced in 1995 in the New Jersey Assembly to allow the state to revert back to earlier code provisions if the new code is unduly restrictive and unnecessary.”The bill did not get out of committee when the Assembly adjourned in early January 1996; the same legislation may be re-introduced.The Codes Office of the Department of Community Affairs supports the legislation to give them more flexibility.New Jersey received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 training. 92 MEC adopted.Commercial code does not meet ASHRAE/ES 90.1.In early February 1996,the Construction Industries Commission tabled further consideration of the adoption of 90.1 because of the budget and sunset review uncertainties of the Construction Industries Division.New Mexico received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 901.1 training. State energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE 90.1 and 92 MEC. Legislation has been introduced to replace the New York State Building Code with a model code,presumably the latest version of BOCA,which references 95 MEC in its 1996 codes. North Carolina: North Dakota: Ohio: Oklahoma: Oregon: Pennsylvania: The statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/VIES 90.1 (90.1 takes effect 7/1/96).North Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide 90.1 and MEC training in North Carolina,Kentucky,Georgia,and Tennessee. The state has adopted 93 MEC,but the state codes are voluntary unless a jurisdiction adopts them.North Dakota received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE 'to promote adoption, implementation,and enforcement of residential and commercial energy codes in the 14 most populated jurisdictions. 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)adopted,effective 7-1-95.Legislation has been introduced that,among many other things,eliminates the State Board of Building Standards directive to adopt new energy standards when advances in technology make the old standards obsolete or inadequate and to base state energy standards on the insulation requirements of HUD's minimum property standard.The Ohio HBA supports the passage of this bill and has stated its desire to repeal the MEC.Ohio received a CCAP Progressive grant from.DOE to provide training for code officials and HERS contractors. No state energy codes adopted,except for state-owned buildings.. State contractor licensing requires compliance with BOCA codes for some trades,so the new BOCA code change will help Oklahoma when adopted in 1996.There is interest in mandating the MEC statewide. Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Received a CCAP grant from DOE to document successful approaches to enforcement of the state energy code. Statewide energy code does not meet 92 MEC or ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Legislation was introduced in Fall 1995 to adopt the.1993 BOCA codes as the statewide building code and to maintain Act 222,the current prescriptive energy standard based on ASHRAE90Aand90B.A legislative sub-committee worked on the bill throughout the Fall and will likely present a revised building code bill to the full committee in March 1996.The bill is expected to call for the adoption of the latest edition of the BOCA codes,including its referenced energy standards;passage of the bill would mean repeal of Act 222 and adoption of the 1996 BOCA codes,which reference 95 MEC. Rhode Island: South Carolina: South Dakota: Tennessee: Texas: Utah: 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)has been adopted statewide,but the effective date has been moved back to at least 4-1-96.Received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide MEC training to all stakeholders. The statewide commercial code meets ASHRAE/IES 90.1;the residential energy code is 92 MEC with amendments that make it less stringent.Legislation to update standards to the most current MEC died in committee in 1995 when the legislature adjourned.The state codes are mandatory statewide;however only 57%of counties have adopted a building code,with fewer actually enforcing the energy code.South Carolina received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to conduct training. No state energy codes.No known initiatives to adopt codes. South Dakota is a partner with Minnesota for a CCAP grant from DOE. State energy code is 92 MEC;therefore,commercial standards do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1.Since the Public Service Commission was dismantled in 1994,no state agency has regulatory authority over the energy code,and enforcement is lacking,according-to insulation contractors.The MEC is. scheduled to be reviewed in Summer 1996,and the 92 MEC is expected to be retained.Tennessee is a partner with other Southern states for a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE. No state energy codes,except for state-owned buildings.Texas received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to assist local jurisdictions in implementing the MEC where it's already adopted and to provide code awareness training. State energy codes are ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 93 MEC.Utah received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide code training and education. Vermont: Virginia: » Washington: West Virginia: Wisconsin: Wyoming: STATES6 02/29/96 Mandatory energy efficiency standards which meet or exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are contained within Vermont's land use regulations (Act 250),and cover approximately 50%of construction.There are no state energy codes for the remaining commercial and residential construction.In Fall 1995,a Governor's Task Force was convened to study energy standards. The Task Force recommended the adoption of 95 MEC,with some state modifications,for all residential construction.In early February 1996,the MEC bill was stalled in the House because of another (non-energy)building code issue.Further action is in doubt.Vermont is working with Massachusetts to promote an enhanced commercial code based on 90.1R or equivalent.Vermont received a CCAP Developmental grant from DOE.cee oo 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1)adopted statewide. The Board of Housing and Community Development is currently considering adoption of the 1996 BOCA codes (which reference 95 MEC).If adopted,the new codes would take effect on 4-1-97, Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92 MEC. Washington received CCAP funds to replicate its materials and process for other states.The SEO is slated for phase-out on 7-1-96. State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC, as it is based on BOCA.The new BOCA code change will suffice if the 1996 BOCA codes are adopted.West Virginia received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide code training for builders,designers,and code officials. Commercial standards that meet or exceed 90.1 will take effect on 4-1-96.The residential energy code meets or exceeds 92 MEC.A state energy task force is studying the feasibility of adopting the current MEC in lieu of developing state-written standards.Wisconsin received a CCAP Progressive grant from DOE to provide commercial and residential training and to promote the MEC and HERS. State energy codes do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1. No known initiatives to revise energy standards. Accelerating Imp rege PNP,eer Residential Energy Code:Residential Energy Code for Alabama (RECA),a simplified version of 93 MEC; contingent upon local adoption. Commercial Energy Code:No statewide commercial energy code,except for state-owned or funded buildings, which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. In 1995,with the support of home builders,a Residential Energy Code Board was created.In March 1996,the Board adopted a simplified version of 93 MEC,called the Residential Energy Code for Alabama.The RECA is dependent on local adoption;as of yet,no local governments have adopted it.The state received FY96 DOE State Energy Program (SEP)funding to assist municipalities in adopting the RECA and to introduce a commercial code.Two commercial training workshops have been conducted. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC,mandatory for state funded residential construction.State funding is common in Alaska. Commercial Energy Code:None Changes to improve Alaska's current residential energy code are currently under review by a Technical Advisory Group.Code changes were presented last month at an energy conference.Air tightness and ventilation requirements are the most critical issues.Once changesareapprovedbytheTechnicalAdvisoryGroup,public hearings will take place this Summer,secondary reviewbytheTechnicalAdvisoryGroupwillbethisFall,andtheimplementationdateisexpectedtobe1-1-98.The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation will implement code changes when they are finalized.Home builders are concerned about the proposed changes. Residential Energy Code:None;Pima County and the city of Tucson have adopted the 95 MEC locally. Commercial Energy Code:None,except for state owned facilities which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. There are no planned initiatives for state adoption of residential or commercial codes.A bill (HB2422)was passed by the House and has been assigned to three Senate committees.This bill mandates solar and efficiency designs in state buildings if simple pay back is achieved within 8 years and also provides for income tax credits for the purchase of energy efficient homes with a HERS rating of 85 or better.HERS for residential structures is widespread.The state received DOE SEP funding to support Tucson/Pima County's progressive efforts. Residential Energy Code:State developed code based on 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide.ASHRAE/IES =90.1, In response to the destruction caused by the recent tornadoes in Arkansas,a coalition of interested parties are working to encourage the disaster victims to rebuild their homes to be _energy efficient. Government agencies and secondary lenders are expanding their existing energy efficient financing programs to disaster victims.Fannie Mae conducted a lender training workshop for energy efficient mortgages (EEMs)in April in Arkansas.The state has implemented an Arkansas Energy Efficiency Partnership which has developed a video and consumer education materials.The state received FY96 DOE SEP funding to facilitate the use of the Arkansas Energy Code through a Circuit Rider Project and to train HVAC contractors. Residential Energy Code:State developed code,Title 24, meets or exceeds 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code,Title 24,meets or exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide, The California Energy Commission (CEC),the agency responsible for developing,implementing,and updating energy efficiency standards for new 1200 18th Street.NW e Suite 900 ¢Washington.D.C.20036 «Tel:(202)530-2200 «Fax:(202)331-9588 eo buildings,is in the rulemaking process of updating the energy code.The CEC has written a staff paper to discuss the proposed amendments to the 1998 standards.The focus of the proposed amendments is to eliminate requirements that do not provide reliable energy savings while at the same time upgrading baseline standards for energy saving measures such as insulation,fenestration,building orientation and overhangs;features that provide the most value if installed at the time of construction.The 1998 standards will become effective on January 1,1999. State officials are reviewing adoption of nationallyrecognizedenergycodesasapossibilityinthefuture. Residential Energy Code:State provisions that do not meet 92 MEC;these requirements are only mandatory for jurisdictions that adopt a building code. Commercial Energy Code:None. New commercial standards based on ASHRAE/IES 90.1,"Energy Guidelines for Commercial and High- Rise Residential Buildings in Colorado,"were released for public review and are expected to be available May 1st for voluntary adoption by local governments.For residential standards,the SEO is partnering with the state HBA and Energy Rated Homes of Colorado for voluntary compliance.The City of Ft.Collins adopted a modified 95 MEC and modified 90.1,both of which took effect 7-1-96.The state received FY96 DOE funding to promote the adoption of 90.1 by local jurisdictions and to provide 90.1 training. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that does not meet 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide. The state is reviewing the 96 BOCA codes (which include 95 MEC)for adoption anticipated by Fall 1997.The expected effective date is Spring 1998.The statereceivedFY96DOEfundingtofacilitateadoptionofthe MEC and to provide 90.1 and MEC training.Training on the MEC for building officials took place in April, with training on ASHRAF/IES 90.1 to be conducted in May. Residential Energy Code:93 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide. ASHRAE/IES 90.1, The state received FY96 DOE funding to continue providing MEC and 90.1 training.There are six 1/2 day workshops planned in May covering commercial code and COMcheck-EZ™.Three full day workshops on the same subject are scheduled for June. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975 with city amendments,mandatory districtwide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975 with city amendments,mandatory districtwide. A Building Code Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet monthly.A proposal to update energy codes to 95 MEC has been drafted and is expected to be adopted by this Summer.The District of Columbia Energy Office in conjunction with the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs has submitted a proposal seeking funding to train building officials and design professionals to the MEC. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide. The state is revising the Florida energy efficiency code for implementation in October 1997.Public hearings were held in April,which resulted in minor changes to the proposed updates.The Florida Board of Building Codes and Standards is still in the process of revising the proposal before its adoption.The state received FY96 funding to establish a Southern States Energy Board and to encourage market-driven energy efficient construction. Georgia Residential Energy Code:95 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide.: A commercial code amendment lessening the U-value requirement for roof coverings with a high albedo surface has been approved by the Dept.of Community Affairs (DCA);the code change took effect April 1997. Currently,the DCA is reviewing a proposal to eliminate perimeter slab insulation requirements.The motivation for the proposal is to protect buildings from possible termite infestations.The proposal will be voted on in June,and if approved,will take effect October 1st.Residential code workshops will be held in May,June and the Fall. Residential Energy Code:State developed voluntary code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1 with modifications;adopted by all counties except for Maui. Maui is currently reviewing legislation which includes both commercial and residential energy codes.Hawaii County has adopted revisions to the lighting section of ASHRABF/IES 90.1.The state is hoping to promote incentives such as EEMs to encourage voluntary usage of the Hawaii residential energy code.The state received FY96 funding to update and distribute lighting standards. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that does not meet 92 MEC,mandatory minimum statewide. Commercial Energy Code:None,except that state owned buildings must comply with ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975. A newly developed commercial code,which exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1,did not make it out of the governor's office.Introduction of a bill to adopt the code will depend on another entity taking the lead.Builder self- certification is required if local jurisdictions do not enforce a code.Nampa,Lewiston,Coeur d'Alene,and Idaho Falis have adopted 95 MEC.Kenyon County is in the process of adopting 95 MEC.Residential workshops are being offered in areas that have adopted 95 MEC.Information sessions for builders will be held this Fall.The state received FY96 DOE funding to develop an infrastructure for use of ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Blin Residential Energy Code:None Commercial Energy Code:State owned buildings as well as city owned buildings in Chicago must comply with ASHRAE 90A-1980. The state is pursuing voluntary residential compliance ventures through Illinois Energy Rated Homes training. Residential Energy Code:92 MEC,with stateamendments,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code thatdoesnotmeetASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide. The State Energy Office is participating in the Multi-State Commercial Code group that is developing enhancements to 90.1.The state is waiting to update its code until the 98 MEC is available.The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide consumer education about homes meeting the code. Residential Energy Code:92 MEC,mandatory statewide Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide The Home Builders Association of Iowa,through the Secretary of State,petitioned the Building Code Commissioner to remove basement insulation requirements from the state residential energy code.A public hearing was held in December 1996.In February 1997,the Iowa Building Code Advisory Council voted 4 - 1 to halt the rule change.The Building Code Commissioner concurred with the Council's decision. There are rumors that a repeal bill could be introduced toward the end of the legislative session.Iowa is providing 90.1 and MEC training and education.Local utilities support the HERS program with rebates which encourage energy efficient construction. Kas: Residential Energy Code:93 MEC, statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide. mandatory ASHRAE/IES 90.1, In 1996 and early 1997,legislation was introduced to eliminate the Kansas Corporation Commission's (KCC) authority to adopt and enforce energy standards for residential structures.This legislation died in 1996 and was amended in 1997.Senate Bill 333 passed the House and the Senate on April 11,1997,and was signed by the Governor on April 24th.This bill places the authority for energy code promulgation in the state legislature and requires disclosure of whether or not new residential construction meets the 93 MEC.Seven MEC workshops were held last month.The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide more training and to develop maximum trade-off flexibility. Residential Energy Code:92 MEC,mandatory statewide Commercial Energy Code:State developed code based on ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975,mandatory statewide. Although the state has adopted 96 BOCA which references the 95 MEC,the state decided to continue to reference the 92 MEC.The 96 BOCA codes are to take effect on July 1,1997. Residential Energy Code:None Commercial Energy Code:None HB1793 and SB650 are currently in the legislature; these bills propose the creation of a "Commercial Building Energy Conservation Code”based on ASHRABF/IES 90.1 with enforcement by the State Fire Marshal.The state received FY96 DOE funding to enact a commercial code and to promote local adoption of the MEC. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that does not meet 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide. No known initiatives to revise the residential code.The State Housing Authority conducts energy code training. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. 96 BOCA (with state amendments)and the 95 MEC were adopted administratively in April.The new codes (95 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1)will take effect in October 1997.The state received FY96 DOE funding to establish a comprehensive code training system.Code training is still in the planning stage. Residential Energy Code:95 MEC with amendments, mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and additional state developed codes,mandatory statewide. The 95 MEC,recently adopted as the state's residential code,is scheduled to become effective September 1,1997. Window distributors in the state have made a formal submission to the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS)to delay the implementation of the 95 MEC.The distributors assert that their present inventory will not be able to be sold under the new requirements.The submission will be reviewed by the BBRS at a public hearing on May 27,1997.Commercial code development is proceeding through the Multi-State Commercial Code project,which is seeking an enhanced 90.1 that is "usable and enforceable."The BBRS will review adoption of COMcheck-EZ™as part of their commercial code.The state received FY96 DOE funding # for residential and commercial training and to continue the Multi-State Commercial Code Project. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975,mandatory if adopted by a local jurisdiction. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory if adopted bya local jurisdiction. The legislature repealed the energy code (93 MEC)in December 1995.The state energy code reverted back to ASHRAE Standard 90B-1975.Although there was no apparent problem with the commercial criteria in 90.1, the repeal of 93 MEC also eliminated 90.1.An Energy Code Ad Hoc Committee was formed and was directed to adopt cost-effective energy efficient standards by 4-1- 97.They did not met this deadline.On April 17,1997, the Committee -with a majority representation of home builders -approved a proposed standard (submitted by the state home builders association)that purportedly exceeds ASHRAE 90B-1975,but that would not meet the energy saving requirements of the 92 MEC.The proposed standards will be reviewed by the state agency responsible for codes,and a hearing will be held. Residential Energy Code:State developed code which meets or exceeds 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State amended version of ASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide. The state has proposed commercial code upgrades and improvements to be effective in mid-1997.A Minnesota version of MECcheck™,called MNcheck,is now available and being distributed to builders.The state is focusing on air tightness and mechanical ventilation in homes for the next code revisions.State Officials expect the new residential standards to exceed 95 MEC.The state received FY96 DOE funding to achieve implementation of the proposed updated residential code.Training is on-going for design professionals, building officials and home builders.Minnesota is collaborating with North and South Dakota to provide energy code training in those states. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90-1975. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90-1975,mandatory for state owned buildings,public buildings,and high rise buildings. State legislation to adopt current national energy standards died in 1995.Legislation introduced in January 1997 to adopt commercial -standards s](ASHRAE/IES 90.1),House Bill 1686,died in committee in February 1997.Home builders are helping to prepare legislation for next year. Residential Energy Code:None. Commercial Energy Code:None,except that state owned buildings must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Legislation to adopt a statewide building code died in the 1994 legislative session.Legislation similar to the 1994 bill (voluntary codes)failed in the 1996 session. Two bills introduced in 1997,HB87 and HB264,passed the House and a Senate executive session.These bills allow certain counties to put building codes to a public vote. Residential Energy Code:93 MEC with state amendments,mandatory statewide for jurisdictions that adopt codes. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide,for jurisdictions that adopt codes. The complexity of the commercial code has been cited as a reason for non-compliance.The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide training and technical support for builders,designers,and code officials. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Legislation to adopt 92 MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature.The state has developed an incentive program to reduce the mortgage interest rate for homes built at or above MEC levels.Homeowners receive 0.25%reduction on their mortgage interest rate,if their home meets the 93 MEC.Homes that are built 30% better than the MEC receive a reduction of 1%.The reduction in the interest rate is achieved through loan participation by the Nebraska Energy Office.The Nebraska Energy Efficiency Mortgage program is now operational,and additional funds are expected to be allocated to the program by the legislature. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975;state owned facilities which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Legislation to adopt 92 MEC died with adjournment of the 1995 legislative session.The state is pursuing voluntary compliance strategies.State code adoption has been impeded by a two year moratorium on new state energy regulations.Las Vegas,Henderson,and Clark and Lyon Counties have adopted the 92 MEC. The Nevada State Energy Office is developing a HERS program which it plans to start by 1998. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90-1975 with state amendments,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing 95 MEC for adoption,but other rule changes are currently taking precedence.No training for ASHRAE 90.1 has occurred yet. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide. ASHRAE/IES 90.1, The latest edition of BOCA has traditionally been adopted as a statewide code unamended.However, 1996 legislation froze the codes at the July 1,1995 level unless the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) deems certain provisions of the new codes as essential to carry out the intent of the law.The Codes Office of DCA is reviewing 96 BOCA for adoption.It is expected to take another 6 months.A coalition of state stakeholders is working with DCA to improve New_Jersey's residential energy standards.DCA will form an advisory committee to set the parameters for a study that will analyze the cost-effectiveness of the MEC.An independent consultant will be hired to perform the study.DCA will use the study to decide how te revise residential energy codes.The Board of Public Utilities received FY96 DOE funding to promote the adoption of an energy code that meets or exceeds the MEC and to provide training and certification for the MEC. Residential Energy Code:92 MEC with state amendments,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. A new study committee has reconvened to review adoption of a simplified 90.1.Final recommendations are expected in May 1997.Adoption of the code may occur by the end of 1997.Staff engineers from the Energy,Minerals,and Natural Resources Department haat have prepared prescriptive packages for use in residential construction;currently under consideration for adoption.The Governor has signed an Executive Order for state energy management,calling for 90.1 compliance for new state buildings.The state received FY96 DOE funding for MEC training and updating residential code to 95 MEC. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that nominally meets the 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code that nominally meets ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Legislation was introduced in 1995 by home builders to replace the New York State Building Code with 96 BOCA,which references 95 MEC.The legislation is expected to be reintroduced during the 1997 legislative session.NYSERDA is working on a New York Energy Plan for the Governor;95 MEC may be part of that plan. A white paper that speaks to the benefits of adopting the MEC in New York has been circulated to New York stakeholders. Residential Energy Code:State developed code which is a simplified 95 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1 with state provisions,mandatory statewide. North Carolina is participating in the Multi-State Commercial Code Project to improve commercial energy codes.Commercial training for code officials and contractors and 95 MEC training for the design community are planned for this Fall. Residential Energy Code:93 MEC,mandatory only in jurisdictions that adopt it. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory only in jurisdictions that adopt it. The state received FY96 DOE funding to promote local adoption of the MEC and to integrate MEC training into the state's vocational education system.Training for vocational instructors is planned for the Fall. Residential Energy Code:93 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide. In 1996,the Ohio legislature recessed without acting on a bill that eliminates the requirement to change energy standards when technological advances make old standards obsolete or inadequate and without the home builders attaching a MEC repeal amendment to other legislation.The legislature in a short session after the November 1996 elections removed criminal penalties for non-compliance with the energy code.The OHBA and stakeholders are currently working to develop prescriptive code requirements that will satisfy the OHBA,OBBS,and energy advocates.A repeal of the MEC may still be introduced in the 1997 legislature. The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide code training in Cincinnati,and to work with utilities, bankers,and realtors,who are involved in Ohio's HERS program. Residential Energy Code:None. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1 for all state owned and leased facilities. State contractor licensing requires compliance with BOCA codes for some trades;the 1996 International Mechanical Code,which references 95 MEC,took effect in August 1996 and is the minimum installation standard statewide for mechanical contractors.The 96 BOCA codes,which also reference 95 MEC,are being reviewed by the State Fire Marshal's Office as a mandate for jurisdictions without codes;effective date anticipated by July 1997. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide. The state received FY96 DOE funding to support implementation of the non-residential energy code through the Circuit Rider Program,which is sponsored by public utilities.Legislation has been introduced and passed in the Senate which proposes to allow local jurisdictions to reduce residential building standards and to base new revisions of residential codes on Oregon specific criteria rather than nationally accepted standards. Residential Energy Code:State developed based on ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980, mandatory statewide. Legislation that called for the statewide adoption of 96 BOCA including 95 MEC and the repeal of Act 222,the old energy standards,passed the House in June 1996, . , . 'went to the state Senate in late September and died in committee upon adjournment.The legislation has not been reintroduced yet,but is expected in 1997. Residential Energy Code: statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide. 95 MEC,mandatory ASHRAE/IES 90.1, 95 MEC adoption has_been ffinalized;the implementation date is May 1,1997.Homes with no more than 15%glazing may use prescriptive packages, while those with more than 15%must use MECcheck™, Builders are on record as opposing the new energy standards. Residential Energy Code:State developed code based on ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide. Legislation was introduced in 1996 to mandate the latest SBCCI codes and the MEC statewide;the bill passed the Senate,but was rejected in the House after a contentious debate over requiring a "super"majority (2/3)in local governments to raise taxes or fees.Statewide building code bills were introduced in both houses in 1997.S.236 has passed the Senate and is in the House (Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee);H.3175 has passed the House and is in the Senate (Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.)Committee mark-up is expected to join these bills,and legislative approval is expected. Residential Energy Code:None. Commercial Energy Code:None. The state is considering adopting ASHRAE/IES 90.1 in the 1997 legislative session.Training for ASHRAE/IES 90.1 is being conducted for architects and engineers,in hopes that design professionals will promote such legislation. Residential Energy Code:92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. The state and the design community are reviewing 95 MEC,for legislative adoption next year. Residential Energy Code:None,except for (low rise) state owned or funded buildings which must comply with 92 MEC. Commercial Energy Code:None,except for state owned buildings and state supported institutions which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Since Texas is a home rule state,local jurisdictions may adopt their own energy codes.The city of Austin has adopted 93 MEC and is working with the Texas State Energy Conservation Office to start a pilot HERS program.Residential code training is currently being offered for designers and code officials,especially in jurisdictions that have voluntarily adopted the MEC. The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide commercial compliance training and to implement an EEM program for new residential construction. Residential Energy Code:93 MEC, statewide. Commercial Energy Code: mandatory statewide. mandatory ASHRAE/IES 90.1, Utah Office of Energy Services is implementing a HERS/EEMs program.The state received FY96 DOE funding to complete the implementation of the new codes and to provide public education about exceeding the codes. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds 92 MEC.(Mandatory for approximately 50%of construction through land use regulations,Act 250). Commercial Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1 (Mandatory for approximately 50%of construction through land use regulations,Act 250). The Governor's Task Force reintroduced legislation in 1997 to adopt a modified 95 MEC,for all residential construction.House Bill 43 passed the House and is awaiting a Senate vote.Vermont is working with the Multi-State Working Group to promote an enhanced commercial code based on 90.1R or equivalent.The state received FY96 DOE funding to promote commercial energy code adoption and to provide compliance training. Residential Energy Code:95 MEC, statewide. mandatory Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1, mandatory statewide. 96 BOCA,including the 95 MEC,was administratively adopted on April 15,1997.Designs initiated after that date must comply with 95 MEC;all construction must comply with 95 MEC as of April 1,1998. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that meets or exceeds the 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:State developed code that meets of exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1,mandatory statewide. The State Energy Office was terminated on 7-1-96,with its functions assumed by other agencies.There is currently a proposal before the State Building Code Council to update residential energy codes.Overall, the proposed updates to the energy code would have more stringent requirements than current code,but would incorporate better trade-off choices.The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide code training and support through transition of utility restructuring and to support a codes hot-line. Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975. 96 BOCA was adopted without the 95 MEC in March 1997.The energy codes that are referenced are ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975.The Fire Marshal's Office intends to create an ad hoc committee this summer to review updating the residential energy codes,for adoption in the next legislative session. Residential and commercial energy code workshops are being held. Residential Energy Code:State developed code that approximately meets 92 MEC,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:ASHRAE/IES 90.1 with state modifications. The Uniform Dwelling Code Council has given approval to revise the residential code to 95 MEC with amendments.Public hearings will be held in Summer, 1997.The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide commercial code training and to promote home energy ratings to comply with residential code. L Residential Energy Code:ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B- 1975,mandatory statewide. Commercial Energy Code:: 90B-1975,mandatory statewide. ASHRAE 90A-1980 and No known initiatives to revise energy standards.The state is working to develop a HERS program. QOQ000000000000000000000000000000 MULTI-STATE COMMERCIAL CODE WORKING GROUP Representatives from various states are working to accelerate the development of an advanced and enforceable commercial energy code.The Multi-State Working Group (MSWG)has three objectives:improveefficiencystandards,foster simplicity,and develop support.The following states are involved in this effort: California,Connecticut,Florida,Indiana,Maine, Massachusetts,Minnesota,New Hampshire,North Carolina,Oregon,Rhode Island,and Vermont.Other states are invited to join. First,these states want a code that improves the levels of efficiency found in ASHRAE/TES 90.1-1989.In the seven years since 90.1 was published,there have been numerous efficiency gains in lighting,appliances,and general construction.MSWG members feel that the aforementioned code no longer serves the goals set by those states that wish to adopt current commercial codes. Second,these states want a code that can be understood by design professionals and enforced by local code enforcement officials.The members feel that 90.1 is overly complex,evidenced by recurring problems of interpretation and implementation of the code. Finally,the MSWG members want a code that can be easily supported by training and administrative tools -- manuals,software,etc.--generated by a technically competent national source.COMcheck-EZ™,developed by the U.S.Department of Energy,has been released and is being used now by the MSWG states.Idaho's commercial energy code is being reviewed as a model for developing a simple code for complex buildings.Any state interested in joining this effort or needing more information should contact Southface Energy Institute, (704)265-4888. Glossary of Terms: ASHRAE:American Society of Heating,Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. BOCA:Building Officials and Code Administrators,Inc. CABO:Council of America Building Officials. DOE/SEP:U.S.Department of Energy/State Energy Program. EEM:Energy efficient mortgage. HBA:Home builders association. HERS:Home Energy Rating System. HVAC:Heating,ventilating,and air conditioning. ICBO:International Conference of Building Officials. Ice:International Code Council. IES:Illuminating Engineers Society of North America. MEC:Model Energy Code,now developed by the International Code Council.The 92,93,and 95 editions are considered relatively current. PNNL:Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. SEO:State energy office. ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989 is available both as a code anda standard.For simplicity,this report refers to both as ASHRAE/IES 90.1. ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 and 90B-1975 are standards superceded by ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989.In this report they are referred to as ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975. 95 MEC is a code for low-rise residential construction, and also references ASHRAE/IES 90.1 as a commercial code. 93 MEC is a code for low-rise residential construction, and also references ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 as a commercial code. The bi-monthly "Status of State Energy Codes"is now available through electronic mail.To start receiving this report via email,please contact Cassandra D'Amante (cdamante_bcap@ase.org) In addition,the "Status of State Energy Codes”is posted on the BCAP web site: http://www.crest.org/efficiency/bcap/ To obtain a copy of MECcheck™software;call the PNNL hot-line at 1-800-270-CODE.There is a $20.00 charge to receive these materials. This report was published on May 1,1997. Bold text indicates changes from March/April 1997 report.Next report:July 1,1997. a {Building]Codes¥Assistancej Project3 The Building Codes Assistance Project provides custom-tailored assistance on building energy code adoption and implementation.It assists state and local regulatory and legislative bodies and helps coordinate others representing environmental interests,consumers,labor,and industry. BCAP helps those states that request assistance,and because it is funded by the U.S.Department of Energy and the Energy Foundation,its services are available at no cost. The project is an aggressive endeavor of the Alliance to Save Energy,the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy,and the Natural Resources Defense Council.Resources are focused through assessments conducted by BCAP staff,its technical support contractors and an Advisory Council of nationally recognized experts on building efficiency issues.BCAP is structured to quickly deliver assistance where it is needed most -at the state or local level where construction regulation works. Contact Information: Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) 1200 18"Street,NW Suite 900 Washington,DC 20036 Phone:202-530-2200 Fax:202-331-9588 Email:cdamante_bcap@ase.org http://www.crest.org/efficiency/bcap/ What assistance can BCAP provide? 7 Direct Advocacy e Bring together local and recognized experts; e Support local energy efficiency advocates; e Prepare technical support materials on codes and standards issues; e Develop model legislation. groups J Regulatory Policy Development e Collaborate with state energy officials, building officials,legislators,advocacy groups,utilities,and others to formulate regulations and policies; e Provide expert testimony on codes and standards: e Access current technical information on policy development; e Furnish independent recommendations on energy regulations to state and_local government; e Produce publications,newsletters,and bibliographical information. WA Strategic Field Support e Undertake field visits for strategic planning and networking with local groups; e Create state specific needs assessments; e Adapt successful code implementation mechanisms to specific state needs; e Sponsor workshops and seminars on codes adoption,implementation,and enforcement.