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.

1. 2011 MIDWEST REGIONAL
BUILDING ENERGY CODES
CONFERENCE
October 5-6, 2011
Chicago, IL

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. 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. Agenda
• State Updates
• 2012 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-2010
• Utility Programs and Energy Codes
• Compliance Evaluation Pilot Studies
• 3rd Party Enforcement

5. Structure
• Quick Introduction to Subject
• Panel Discussion
• Q&A / Open Commentary

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. 2012 IECC /
ASHRAE 90.1-2010

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. 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. 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. Key New Features - Non-Residential
• Increased focus on daylighting
• Commissioning
• Lighting controls
• HVAC – 3 Approaches (includes
renewables)

12. Midwest Activity
• Illinois
• Minnesota
• Kansas City, MO
• Overland Park, KS

13. UTILITY PROGRAMS AND
ENERGY CODES

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. 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. 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. 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

18. UTILITY PROGRAMS AND ENERGY CODES
CASE STUDIES: MASSACHUSETTS
AND CALIFORNIA

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

26. COMPLIANCE EVALUATION
PILOT STUDIES

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. 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. Pilot Studies Across the US
Source: DOE BECP

30. 3RD PARTY ENFORCEMENT

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. Contact Info
Isaac Elnecave, Senior Policy Manager
ielnecave@mwalliance.org
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA)
www.mwalliance.org
More information & resources
http://www.mwalliance.org/policy/midwest-regional-energy-codes-conference