Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2011 Midwest Regional Building Energy Codes Conference


Published on

The 2nd Annual Midwest Regional Building Energy Codes Conference was held on October 5-6, 2011 in Chicago. It was attended by 42 guests representing state code officials, state energy officials, utility representatives, energy code advocates, manufacturers, energy efficiency program administrators, architects, and building trades professionals.

The conference built on the previous year's conference and the ongoing codes developments in the region to continue to work towards developing a regional approach to promoting the adoption, implementation, and improving compliance with building energy codes in the Midwest.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2011 Midwest Regional Building Energy Codes Conference

  2. 2. Purpose• Establish a regionally coordinated effort on behalf of adoption, enforcement and evaluation of building energy codes• Increase knowledge and information sharing of Midwest energy code activity• Get to know each other
  3. 3. MEEA’s Role in the Midwest• Nonprofit serving 13 Midwest states• 10 years serving utilities, states and communities• Staff of 24 in Chicago• Actions – Advancing Energy Efficiency Policy – Designing & Administering EE Programs – Delivering Training & Workshops – Coordinating Utility Program Efforts – Regional Voice for DOE/EPA & ENERGY STAR – Evaluating & Promoting Emerging Technologies
  4. 4. Agenda• State Updates• 2012 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-2010• Utility Programs and Energy Codes• Compliance Evaluation Pilot Studies• 3rd Party Enforcement
  5. 5. Structure• Quick Introduction to Subject• Panel Discussion• Q&A / Open Commentary
  6. 6. Norms• No one here is the Smartest Person in the Room.• Respect the knowledge and understanding of others.• Discussions must be civil (especially when there is disagreement).• Statements should be brief, on topic and to the point (and no commandeering of discussion for your pet topic).
  7. 7. 2012 IECC /ASHRAE 90.1-2010
  8. 8. 2012 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2010• 30% more energy efficient than 2006 IECC• 25% more energy efficient than 90.1-2004• Overwhelming support of code officials at ICC Final Action Hearings• Non-residential amendments had broad support
  9. 9. Brief History/Background• RESIDENTIAL – End -point of work on 30% Solution – Whole house approach to energy code.• NON RESIDENTIAL – Suite of amendments originally based on requirements of Core Performance Guide (CPG) – State of Massachusetts adopted a stretch code based on CPG – AIA, New Buildings Institute, and DOE collaborated on set of amendments based on MA stretch code – NBI Analysis indicates that amendments improve the energy efficiency of Chapter 5 by 20-30% over 2006 IECC.
  10. 10. Key New Features - Residential• Whole house continuous ventilation• Restrictions on pipe length• No cavity insulation in Climate Zones 6 & 7 for prescriptive path• Blower door test required• Strengthening of existing requirements• 2012 IRC exactly the same as 2012 IECC
  11. 11. Key New Features - Non-Residential• Increased focus on daylighting• Commissioning• Lighting controls• HVAC – 3 Approaches (includes renewables)
  12. 12. Midwest Activity• Illinois• Minnesota• Kansas City, MO• Overland Park, KS
  14. 14. Rationale• Code compliance tends to be low.• Utilities face increasing energy efficiency requirements; up to 2.0% of energy sales as early as 2015; code related programs can help utilities meet these goals.• Code compliance realizes energy potential of policy.• Utilities can bring resources and expertise to the issue (through programs).• Significant regional potential savings; up to 123 trillion Btu annually by 2020 or the equivalent of the energy use of 1,000,000 households
  15. 15. Anti-Rationale• Utilities may hesitate to support improving the energy efficiency of energy codes – Increasing the energy efficiency of the energy code reduces the amount of energy savings utilities can claim• How can utilities get credit for energy savings from code programs?
  16. 16. Basic Framework• Know relevant state statutory and regulatory requirements.• Know the various stakeholders involved.• Focus on compliance enhancement (and to a lesser extent stretch codes).• Work out appropriate activities (actions that will result in measurable energy savings).• Develop methodology for measuring energy savings (pay attention to difference between natural gas and electricity).• Attribution (not all energy savings due to increased compliance will come directly from utility actions).• Allocation (multiple utilities within state)
  17. 17. How Does A Codes Program Differ• Codes are adopted and enforced by governmental agencies• Multiple organizations (stakeholders) are interested and willing to participate• Codes affect all new buildings• “Customers” cannot choose to participate or not participate• Utility actions affect adoption not behavior• Utility acquisition programs interact with codes
  19. 19. Massachusetts• 2010: All 8 Program Administrators (PAs) took a joint decision towards a state-wide residential & commercial C&S initiative• Why? – Have in-house expertise to assist state with advancing C&S – Need to meet aggressive state mandated energy savings goals through innovative and new program initiatives – Capture market missed by incentive programs & overcome split incentives for building owners/tenants – Proven through California: cost effective program with large energy savings potential• Barriers: regulatory barriers, complex energy savings attribution
  20. 20. Massachusetts - Work in 2010-2011• Began discussions with the state on possible initiatives that PAs can pursue through C&S program• Hired a consultant team to assist PAs in program planning, energy saving estimates, attribution methodology, etc.• Initiated research studies to: – Identification of stakeholders and coordinate communication – Confirm energy savings potential through C&S – Complete Code compliance baseline studies – Design attribution methodology to energy savings
  21. 21. Massachusetts - Timeline• Late 2011: – Submit proposal to the state for approval• 2012: – Focus on completing research & baseline studies – Refine program initiatives based on state feedback: intent, goals, timelines, nature of energy savings• 2013: – Launch C&S program
  22. 22. California• Statewide Codes and Standards• California Enhanced Compliance Subprogram• Near Term (2009-2011) – Research high priority solutions (applies to med and long term) – increase training and support for local code officials. – Investigate regulatory tools such as licensing and registration enforcement. – Evaluate proposed changes to code and compliance approaches. – Work with local governments to: improve code compliance; adopt stretch codes and provide training/education.
  23. 23. California (Cont.)• Medium Term (2012-2015) – Pursue involvement of HERS Raters – Work with trade associations to improve self- policing – Streamlining permit process• Long Term (2016-2020) – Investigate “sticks and carrots” with monetary incentives/penalties – Investigate codes that regulate the operation of buildings
  24. 24. California - Activities• Evaluation of code compliance infrastructure – Conduct gap analysis – Interview market actors; Identify and implement best practices – Establish pilot• Establishment of training program – Role-based training• Investigation of regulatory tools – Identify processes and tools – Evaluation of proposed changes to energy code• Work with local government
  25. 25. Utility Programs - Final Thoughts• Although framework is beginning to get established, many details remain to be worked out.• Work is ongoing to: – Clarify and expand types of utility activities in support of energy codes (move beyond training). – Establish measurement and attribution protocols. – Clarify/address statutory and regulatory hurdles. – Outreach to diverse stakeholders.
  27. 27. Compliance Evaluation Pilot Studies• Recovery Act Requirement for States Receiving Funding Related to Energy Codes• Establish Plan for 90% Compliance with 2009 IECC/90.1-2007 by 2017• Need to Develop Protocol to Provide Consistent Measurement Across States• Save States from Having to Develop Individually
  28. 28. Questions of Methodology• Random Sample of 44 buildings (residential and non-residential)• Follow Protocol Developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Show Link)• How Long Does it Take?• How Much Does it Cost?• Roadblocks?• Biases in Sample?
  29. 29. Pilot Studies Across the US Source: DOE BECP
  31. 31. Issues and Questions• Alleviate issue of lack of resources & add new sources of expertise• Increasing complexity of code (takes longer to learn and enforce)• Successes in past (Washington State/Fairfax County VA)• How to revive effort?• Use of HERS Professionals• Wisconsin experience
  32. 32. Contact Info Isaac Elnecave, Senior Policy Manager Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA) More information & resources