Energy Codes 101: A Primer for Sustainability Policy Makers WORKING PAPER

Transcription

1 Energy Codes 101: A Primer for Sustainability Policy Makers WORKING PAPER Ric Cochrane and Liz Dunn Preservation Green Lab National Trust for Historic Preservation

2 Contents Introduction How Energy Codes Work Code Development and Adoption Code Enforcement & Compliance Enforcement Compliance Compliance Paths Stretch Codes and Beyond Code Programs Reach Codes Green Codes Model Green Codes Voluntary Programs Mandatory Disclosure Historic Buildings Energy Code Application: States and Municipalities Washington State Energy Code Washington State Energy Code Basics Residential Energy Code Non-Residential Energy Code Washington State Energy Code Enforcement and Compliance Seattle Energy Code Seattle Energy Code Basics Seattle Energy Code Enforcement and Compliance Reference Standard-29: Nonresidential Building Design by Systems Analysis Historic Buildings Enforcement Process Other Leading Models: California and New York City California Energy Code CALGreen California Energy Code Enforcement and Compliance New York City New York City Energy Conservation Code Audits and Retro-Commissioning Legislation Market Transformation: SEC, Title 24, and NYCECC Next Steps: The Future of Energy Codes Energy Performance Benchmarking and Disclosure Status of Disclosure Nationwide Washington State City of Seattle Outcome-Based Codes: Toward an Absolute Metric

3 Introduction In the United States, residential and commercial buildings together use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide than either the industrial or transportation section. 1 Buildings use 39% of total energy and two-thirds of electricity consumed in the United States. By the year 2035, about 75 percent of the U.S. building sector will be either new or renovated, according to Architecture The energy efficiency requirements of current building codes have substantial impacts on future energy use. Because the efficiency with which a building will use energy is determined in part by decisions made in advance of the actual use of that energy, building energy codes are an important mechanism to address the long-term energy usage of the building sector. Energy codes and standards set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and construction for new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions for the life of the building. Energy codes are part of the broader spectrum building codes, which govern the design and construction of buildings. Building energy codes set a baseline for energy efficiency in new construction by establishing minimum energy efficiency requirements. In theory, improving the energy code increasing performance requirements generates energy savings in a consistent and long lasting manner. This paper provides an introduction to energy codes and how they are developed, adopted, implemented, and enforced. Specific examples from the State of Washington, City of Seattle, New York City, and the State of California, are referenced both to lend context to the code process, and to provide a framework for discussion of current and future code development. 1 United States Department of Energy: 2 Architecture 2030: 3

4 1 How Energy Codes Work Energy codes specify how buildings must be designed and constructed, and are written in mandatory, enforceable language. 3 Energy codes, and building codes as a broad category, do not address postoccupancy building performance. In general, energy code development includes five phases: Code Development, Adoption, Implementation, Enforcement, and Compliance. 1.1 Code Development and Adoption The US Department of Energy is the foremost national authority for energy code determination. While there is currently no mandatory national energy code for residential or commercial buildings, the DOE provides support for states and local jurisdictions to adopt and implement the two model energy codes. This support includes outreach, training, compliance software tools, and financial assistance. DOE supports two model energy codes, the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard , 5 Both IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are established through a consensus process by independent organizations: The International Code Council is responsible for the IECC, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) establishes ASHRAE 90.1, which is one of many ASHRAE standards for ventilation, commissioning, and HVAC systems. IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are adopted at the national level by the Department of Energy, and are the basis for most state codes IECC for residential buildings and 90.1 for commercial buildings. 6 If DOE determines a new version of the IECC to improve energy efficiency in residential buildings relative to its predecessor (this is referred to as a positive determination), all states must consider adopting a code that meets or exceeds the new IECC; and if DOE determines a new version of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 to improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings relative to its predecessor, all states must adopt a code that meets or exceeds the current new Standard For example, DOE issued a 3 The US Department of Energy offers a good primmer on this landscape in Understanding Building Energy Codes and Standards : 4 Standard 90.1 is updated in three-year cycles and is developed jointly by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), and developed under American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus guidelines. 5 IECC is updated in three-year cycles 2009 is the current version and 2012 will be the next code revision cycle. ASHRAE 90.1 is updated in three-year cycles is the current version and is currently under consideration. For more information see 6 With each new edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, DOE issues a determination about whether the new edition will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. The determination is based on analysis by the Building Energy Codes Program and is required by Section 304 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, Public Law ), as modified by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992). 7 In 2007, as part of its Advanced Codes Initiative, DOE signed a memorandum of understanding with ASHRAE to develop advanced commercial codes, with the first being that Standard would be 30% better than Standard This MOU set off the current efforts by BECP and ASRHAE which should culminate in 2010 with the development ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard The Advanced Codes Initiative also called for the 4

5 determination that Standard is more energy efficient than Standard States had two years from the time of official DOE notification to certify that their energy codes were at least as stringent as , or justify why they could not comply. In most cases codes are adopted at the state level through a legislative process (i.e. the code is updated by a bill that is passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor), a regulatory process (i.e. the legislature has granted a state agency the power to issue a code), or most commonly through a process that combines elements of both. Once DOE issues a positive determination, DOE must provide technical assistance and incentive funding to states to: 8 Review and update state energy codes Implement, enforce, and evaluate compliance with state energy codes Permit certification extensions if the state demonstrates good faith to comply and the state has made significant progress toward compliance. DOE must also send a letter to the governor of each state, notifying them of the determination and outlining the state's responsibilities. The letter also advises the governor of the availability for technical assistance and incentive funding from DOE, and provisions for time extensions if needed. Each state's energy offices and the responsible state code office receive letters with the same information, but in more detail than the governor's letter. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided a new goal for DOE's building codes efforts each state must adopt building codes that achieve equivalent or greater energy savings than IECC (residential) or (commercial), and each state must set a plan such that at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space must meet or exceed IECC or within eight years. Many more states adopt the IECC directly than Standard This is because IECC is a model building code written in enforceable language similar to existing codes and part of a coordinated set of building codes regularly adopted by state and local governments to regulate building design and construction, whereas 90.1 is an energy standard a set of non-mandatory recommendations that describe how buildings should be constructed to save energy cost-effectively. However, IECC refers specifically to 90.1 as a compliance option (primarily for commercial buildings), so in effect the two are linked. development of advanced residential codes, with the first being that the 2012 IECC would be 30% better than the 2006 IECC. 8 The residential process is similar to the commercial process in that the latest version of the IECC is analyzed against the previous version. DOE may provide technical assistance to states to improve and implement state residential building energy codes or to otherwise promote the design and construction of energy efficient residential buildings. DOE may also provide incentive funding to states to implement stronger residential building energy codes. The amount of funding will be based on the actions proposed by the state to improve and implement residential energy codes and to promote energy efficiency through the use of energy codes. 5

6 States or local governments adopt and enforce energy codes for jurisdictions, and jurisdictions may in turn add to or enhance energy codes but jurisdictions may not establish codes less stringent than respective state standard. When adopting their own energy codes, states and local governments typically adopt the full-published IECC or develop a state specific amended code. Several states, such as California, Washington, Oregon, and Florida have state energy codes which are independent of the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1, in order to maintain greater flexibility and autonomy of the code development process and desired outcomes. Some states do not have energy codes. Arizona has no statewide energy code, but many counties have adopted the IECC 2006 as an energy efficiency code. Alaska, Missouri, South Dakota, and Wyoming also have no state energy code as of November Jurisdictions in these states often adopt or base local standards on IECC or 90.1, although because versions of these standards differ substantially (development cycles usually lead to increased stringency), the outcomes vary. Before adopting or revising an energy code, states and local governments often assemble an advisory body comprising representatives of the design, building construction, and enforcement communities. This body determines which (if any) energy standards and model energy codes should be adopted, and adjusts for regional building practices. The advisory group also considers the need to modify energy standards and model energy codes to account for local preferences and construction practices. The body also may serve as a source of information during the adoption process. Energy codes generally dictate requirements for the building's envelope, mechanical, and lighting (nonresidential only) requirements. Energy codes must be easy to understand for architects and builders to use and code officials to enforce. For this reason codes cannot incorporate all good design practices and should not be confused with best practices. For instance, significant energy can be saved by considering building orientation, limiting infiltration, planting trees, and using passive solar design strategies none of which is mandated in most energy codes at this time. Also, if durability of building materials is considered, energy can be saved in the manufacturing and installation of replacement materials throughout the life of the building yet durability and overall life-cycle assessment of energy costs and impacts are not considered in energy codes at this time. 1.2 Code Enforcement & Compliance Each adopting jurisdiction must prepare building officials to enforce the energy code and prepare the building construction community for compliance. The role of the jurisdiction includes informing all stakeholders that a new code is coming and providing education specific to new requirements. Many states or jurisdictions start this education process several months in advance of an energy code change often before adoption itself. Reach codes or stretch codes are ways of testing the effectiveness of increasing stringency, and are discussed in the following section Enforcement Enforcement is the process that building inspection departments undertake to ensure that site plans and construction follow the previsions of the energy code. Enforcement strategies vary according to a state or local government's regulatory authority and available resources, both financial and human. 6

7 Enforcement can include all or some of the following activities: Review of plans Review of products, materials, and equipment specifications Review of tests, certification reports, and product listings Review of supporting calculations Inspection of the building and its systems during construction Evaluation of materials substituted in the field Inspection immediately prior to occupancy State enforcement is a common approach in smaller states, in rural jurisdictions that have no code officials, and for state-owned or financed construction. Plan review is generally performed by one office. Although there may be numerous state field inspectors, they are bound under one organization. This arrangement benefits the building construction community by offering a single point of contact. However, if state resources are limited, plan reviews and construction inspections may not be performed as thoroughly as warranted. There are many computer-based tools and services to help automate and streamline the enforcement process. ResCheck and ComCheck are useful programs for determining the energy code compliance of a building when used in conjunction with on-site inspections for energy efficiency requirements. The enforcement cycle refers to the feedback mechanism whereby inspectors reports and data are compiled and analyzed to determine best practices. If code inspectors notice a recurring problem, such as an aspect of the code that builders repeatedly misinterpret, local and state governments can customize education and outreach efforts to builders Compliance Energy code compliance refers to whether the building industry meets the requirements of the energy code at both the design and construction phases. Although it is the responsibility of building professionals to comply with energy code provisions, local and state agencies, energy code advocates, and other stakeholder groups share in this responsibility. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 requires states to adopt mandatory energy codes that meet the 2009 IECC for residential buildings and ASHRAE for commercial buildings, or achieve equivalent outcomes. ARRA also requires states to implement a plan achieving compliance with the building energy code within 8 years of the date of enactment of this Act in at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space. Each state is at a different stage in the process of reaching 90 percent compliance by 2017 from code adoption to implementation and training, from enforcement activities to tracking results. States that have already adopted the model energy codes are primarily focusing on establishing comprehensive implementation plans, or roadmaps, to achieve 90 percent compliance. The Department of Energy (DOE), the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and the Building Codes Assistance Project 7

8 (BCAP), as well as many other local, regional, and national stakeholder groups, provide advocacy, technical training and tools, educational resources, and other support to states in these efforts Compliance Paths Compliance paths can be generally summarized according to three categories: Prescriptive, component performance, and modeled performance. Prescriptive paths are easy-to-use tables that contain required minimum or maximum values. For instance, in prescriptive tables, opaque elements such as walls and roofs will have requirements in terms of thermal resistance (R-values) and thermal transmittance (U-factors). The U-factor includes the effects of insulation as well as framing members and interior and exterior finishes. Component-performance paths are used to trade one energy saving measure for another. For instance, if the wall insulation does not meet the prescriptive requirements, but the ceiling insulation exceeds the prescriptive requirements, then using a component-performance method may show compliance of the whole building with the code. Modeled-performance paths are more comprehensive approaches to predicting overall building performance. Modeled performance refers to the use of computer modeling tools to predict building performance, based on inputs for materials, systems, and use. Important to note is that modeled performance is a predictive approach, limited by inputs to a modeling tool, such as a software program. Additionally, modeled-performance compliance paths reference the theoretical baselines of existing codes and standards typically predicting performance as percent better than code. Some modeledperformance methods predict energy savings beyond code, and are used for sustainability programs or state tax credits. This theoretical approach to predicting performance (and code compliance) is of course subject to inputs and accuracy of the chosen software tools. Software modeling programs cannot account for site context such as tree cover and other shading factors, or adjacencies to other buildings. California Title 24 includes perhaps the most advanced modeled-performance compliance path. Approved programs must simulate or model the thermal behavior of buildings and the interaction of their space conditioning, lighting and service water heating systems. The calculations include: 1. Heat gain and heat loss through walls, roof/ceilings, doors, floors, windows, and skylights. 2. Solar gain from windows, skylights, and opaque surfaces. 3. Heat storage effects of different types of thermal mass. 4. Building operating schedules for people, lighting, equipment and ventilation. 5. Space conditioning system operation including equipment part load performance. As modeled-performance paths develop and gain complexity, the limitations of predictive software tools become more apparent. A new model of codes called outcome-based codes are gaining interest from both policy-makers and the building industry, due to the perceived limitations of prescriptive and modeled-performance codes, and because outcome-based codes address post-occupancy performance (prescriptive and modeled-performance codes are limited to design and construction). The 8

9 distinguishing characteristic of the outcome-based approach is focus on actual performance of a completed building, with flexibility in how to achieve the outcome. 1.3 Stretch Codes and Beyond Code Programs Some states and local jurisdictions with a focus on energy efficiency and/or sustainability are increasingly building upon the baseline building energy codes and adopting stretch codes, reach codes, green codes, and beyond code programs. They direct the design and construction of buildings that go beyond the minimum accepted standards of practice established in energy codes to reduce energy use and environmental impact. The programs are referred to in various terms and have varying degrees of scope and performance requirements. What they have in common as a key component is building energy efficiency. Many federal, state and local incentives are based on reach codes a key to early adoption and testing of efficacy. Most above code programs use the IECC and/or ASHRAE 90.1 as a baseline. Some jurisdictions are mandating above code programs going beyond state codes to achieve certain objectives and some offer them as voluntary compliance tools. They vary widely in scope - from a simple requirement to comply 10% above the current IECC, to comprehensive non-code programs such as the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification standard. More than 275 cities, counties, and states have adopted some level of stretch or beyond code program. 9 Many of them draw elements from LEED and often state a minimum certification level that buildings must achieve. In some jurisdictions, only government-owned buildings are required to meet green code standards. Some cities have both energy codes and green-building codes usually, energy codes precede whole-building codes and serve as the energy requirements for the broader greenbuilding codes Reach Codes Energy codes that incorporate efficiency requirements that are more stringent than the national model energy codes and minimum state code requirements are known as advanced codes, reach codes, or stretch codes. They may be adopted voluntarily by local jurisdictions or agencies. A state or locality might choose to go beyond the baseline state requirements for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that implementing efficiency measures at the time of new construction is significantly more cost-effective than upgrades to existing buildings. 10 The key feature of reach codes is that they are meant to anticipate the next round of codes so that the market and stakeholders are prepared. Reach codes provide an opportunity to test the effectiveness of 9 BCAP National Listing of Above Code, High Performance, and Green Building Programs: 10 For example, the State of Washingon has a mandatory statewide energy code but state law permits local governments to adopt more restrictive standards for energy efficiency. There is no requirement that these more restrictive standards be preapproved, but such local enactments must be filed with the State Building Code Council. 9

10 increasing the stringency of existing codes at a local level prior to disseminating the code on a statewide basis. Additionally, reach codes help to transform the marketplace and shape the development of future model codes by bringing high performing buildings into the mainstream. Market uptake is usually led by owners seeking cost savings through operations and maintenance often associated with green building and energy efficiency Green Codes Green codes take the process a step further by promoting other aspects of sustainable buildings throughout the building life-cycle. In addition to energy efficiency, they incorporate water conservation, building materials, resource management, renewable energy sources, occupant health, and environmental stewardship. Some green codes encourage investment in pedestrian infrastructure, proximity to public transit, and reduction in stormwater through an increase in pervious surfaces. By mandating construction based on these principles and promoting credible and practical building approaches, green codes help to create more sustainable communities Model Green Codes In 2008, the International Codes Council (ICC) and the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) developed the ICC 700, also known as the National Green Building Standard, which provides guidelines to "green" building practices that can be incorporated into new construction, including single and multifamily buildings and remodeled homes. Like the USGBC s LEED for Homes, the National Green Building Standard also has a point-based rating system. In January 2010, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), in conjunction with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), published Standard formally titled Standard for the Design of High Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings the first U.S. commercial green building standard intended to be used in codes. According to a preliminary estimate by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), it is approximately 27 percent more energy efficient than Standard , the national model code. Additionally, the ICC, in conjunction with a number of partners, also created a green code for new and existing commercial buildings in March 2010, the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), Public Version 1.0. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) joined the ICC/AIA/ASTM team in developing the IgCC. The interaction of the two new standards, and IgCC, is clearly stated: ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings is included as an alternative jurisdictional compliance option within the IgCC. California is the first state to develop a statewide green code CALGreen which is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. 11 CALGreen will be 11 See 10

11 effective throughout California and apply to most all new building design and construction beginning on January 1, CALGreen is a whole-building code that references the California Energy Code (Title 24 Chapter 6). The CALGreen energy chapter adds performance on top of State Energy Code: Specifically, a green building should achieve more than a 15 percent reduction in energy usage when compared to the State s mandatory energy efficiency standards. CALGreen adds some requirements related to LEED mandatory commissioning, Basis-of-Design documentation, and some additional requirements for automated controls Voluntary Programs Voluntary programs have been instrumental in helping test performance requirements more stringent than national and state codes, and in many cases have been adopted by jurisdictions in total to encourage higher levels of performance. In addition to the LEED standard, widely used programs include Earth Advantage (new home, commercial, and community certifications), Green Globes, and New Buildings Institute Core Performance. These programs are not codes they are standards or programs that provide a framework for setting targets beyond codes. The State of Massachusetts, as an example, adopted a stretch code that references NBI s Core Performance program as an option for local implementation. 12 Core Performance is a prescriptive approach that can yield almost 30% energy savings above the IECC for commercial buildings smaller than 100,000 square feet. The program enables jurisdictions to select from the Core Performance list or adopt the entire program. Some cities, such as San Francisco, have made green building standards part of code. In 2008, a new chapter of San Francisco s Building Code, Green Building Ordinance, Chapter 13C went into effect. The regulations incorporate elements of the USGBC s LEED rating system as well as the GreenPoint rating system for residential construction and make several of the voluntary systems mandatory practice. San Francisco s standards focus on overall energy reduction and sustainable practices but also focus on stringent requirements in two particular areas, water and waste reduction. The San Francisco codes focus on mandating water reduction by requiring buildings to meet the LEED standard for Sustainable Sites (SS 6.1 and 6.2) which set standards for site imperviousness, prevention of post-development peak discharge rates, and protection of existing on-site stream channels. Additionally, a focus on water efficiency and potable water is achieved by requiring the LEED standard for Water Efficiency (WE 1.1) which includes capturing rainwater, recycling gray water, and choosing to plant specific vegetation onsite that reduces run-off. San Francisco also mandates compliance with the LEED requirement (MR 2.2) mandating on-site separation of materials for recycling and composting during the construction process Mandatory Disclosure A recent development in the regulatory environment is mandatory disclosure of building performance. Cities such as Austin, New York, San Francisco and Seattle require varying levels of disclosure from 12 See 780 Mass. Code Regs. 120.AA (2009), available at: 11

12 building owners. The City of Austin, for example, requires disclosure at point-of-sale. The Cities of Seattle and San Francisco are adding requirements to report via the Energy Star Portfolio Manager software tool, and these cities will use performance data to strategically direct retrofit financing and other incentives Historic Buildings Stretch codes and beyond-code programs focus primarily on new construction and major renovation consideration of energy efficiency and green-building strategies for historic buildings has been mostly left to the discretion of states and jurisdictions. Energy codes are most often applied to historic buildings via subjective processes such as historic board design review. 1.4 Energy Code Application: States and Municipalities State energy codes vary greatly, and even from edition to edition of codes developed by the same authority. Forty-one states have mandatory statewide energy codes (for both commercial and low-rise residential buildings) 16 of which are more stringent than ASHRAE , the most recent version, or the 2009 IECC equivalent; another 17 are more stringent than The difference in reference standard versions is notable: On September 3, 2010, DOE issued a preliminary determination that Standard would achieve greater energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code, than the 2004 edition (Standard or the 2004 edition). The quantitative analysis of the energy consumption of buildings built to Standard , as compared with buildings built to Standard , indicates national source energy savings of approximately 3.7 percent of commercial building energy consumption. The message is that state energy code concurrency with ASHRAE 90.1 or the most recent version of IECC has a direct impact on energy efficiency. As of June 2010, 35 states are on track to meet the minimum requirements of ASHRAE or 2009 IECC equivalent for commercial buildings within the three-year code cycle. But only two states California and Oregon have statewide codes more stringent than or 2009 IECC (Georgia, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Washington State have codes in the process of adoption; Washington State is adopting a code more stringent than that is currently delayed by building industry action). Setting performance requirements for state and local energy codes is an ongoing challenge, requiring participation of political and building industry stakeholders, and encompassing the often competing energy efficiency goals of policy makers and the economic considerations of the building industry. As reference standards increase in stringency to meet increasing energy efficiency targets ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard will be 30% more energy efficient than Standard states and municipalities will face ever more implementation challenges. In the following chapters, the energy code development and implementation processes of Washington State, City of Seattle, and California are presented as examples of how states and cities can set ambitious energy efficiency goals and use energy codes to meet these targets. 12

13 2 Washington State Energy Code Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) is among the most advanced, stringent codes in the nation. Washington State is also a hub of green-building innovation, with progressive county and municipal governments and a thriving technology and construction innovation sector. 2.1 Washington State Energy Code Basics The Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) provides a minimum level of energy efficiency, but allows flexibility in building design, construction and heating equipment efficiencies. The design of this code allows space heating equipment efficiencies to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance. WSEC is an integral piece of the State s Strategic Plan for Enhancing Energy Efficiency and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Homes, Buildings, Districts and Neighborhoods. 13 While the Washington State Building Code is comprised of several different national model codes adopted by reference and amended at the state level, the WSEC is a state-written, state-specific code. WSEC is state law according to Chapter 19.27A RCW Energy-related building standards. Each version of WSEC is approved by the state legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The Washington State Building Code Council (WSBCC) is a state agency created by the legislature to provide independent analysis to the legislature and the Governor's Office regarding state building code issues. The Council establishes minimum building, mechanical, fire, plumbing and energy code requirements, by reviewing, developing and adopting the state building code. 14 Every three years new model codes are published. During the year of release the WSBCC, with the assistance of Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs), reviews and adopts the new editions. In addition, any changes proposed to these new editions, or to the pre-existing state amendments are reviewed. Proposed changes are also accepted during the interim years. In 2005, the Energy Code Technical Advisory Group completed a comparison of the 2004 Washington State Energy Code (2nd edition) and the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code. In performing the comparison, the TAG also made recommendations to the Council as to the viability of adoption of the IECC. On November 17, 2006, the WSBCC voted to adopt the 2006 Editions of the national model energy codes (IECC for residential and 90.1 for commercial) with some new amendments and some changes to existing amendments. The 2006 Washington State Energy Code (WSEC) was adopted in November of 2006 and made effective July 1, For low-rise residential and single-family construction, its stringency exceeds the 2006 IECC standards. For high-rise residential construction (four stories or more), the WSEC is more stringent than ASHRAE in all respects. For commercial buildings, the WSEC is roughly equivalent to ASHRAE (equipment and lighting standards are somewhat more stringent). 13 See details at: 14 Policies and procedures for consideration of statewide and local amendments to the state building code: 13

14 In 2008, the Energy Code TAG updated their review, incorporating changes made to both WSEC and IECC, and anticipating changes that would be incorporated into the 2009 IECC. The deadline to submit code changes proposals for the 2009 WSEC was March 1, This code is expected to exceed the stringency of the 2009 IECC, with an anticipated effective date of October 29, The 2006 WSEC is separated into two sections Chapters 1 through 10 address residential buildings; Chapters 11 through 15 is called the Non-Residential Energy Code (NREC) and addresses non-residential projects. The 2009 NREC, when implemented, will encompass multi-family residential buildings Residential Energy Code The residential codes include three compliance paths: Systems Analysis, Component Performance Approach, and Prescriptive Method. The Prescriptive Method outlines specific values for envelope, lighting and systems with which a project must comply. 15 The Component Performance Approach bases compliance on the sum of energy performance of components of the envelope versus a budget value determined for a specific project, and includes performance requirements for mechanical, lighting and hot water systems. The Systems Analysis approach is the most flexible path and establishes design criteria in terms of total energy use by a building, including all of its systems. The adoption of the 2006 Washington State Energy Code included a provision in Chapter 13 to allow the use of the Seattle EnvStd program to demonstrate envelope compliance for nonresidential (other than Group R occupancy) buildings. This is an alternative to the Prescriptive and Target UA options allowed in Section Non-Residential Energy Code The NREC includes compliance paths similar to residential code Prescriptive, Component Performance, and Systems Analysis but adds specificity to mechanical and lighting systems. Envelope requirements may be met via prescriptive or component performance paths 16, while mechanical systems are separated according to simple and complex designations, and lighting and motors follow either prescriptive or lighting power allowance paths. The third path, Systems Analysis compliance path, called Reference Standard 29 (RS-29), sidesteps both prescriptive and component paths and establishes design criteria in terms of total energy consumption of a building, including all of its systems. 17 The Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC), a non-profit trade association, has created a set of forms to document compliance with the NREC. Although not a part of the Energy Code, many jurisdictions require submittal of compliance forms to show compliance with code requirements. 15 Washington State University's Energy Program provides tools for documenting compliance with the prescriptive standards of the residential code. These files are not a part of the code, but a tool to be used by designers and local governments to show compliance with the energy code. 16 WSEC s component performance path is an area-weighted envelope calculation, based on the prescriptive path, rather than a true envelope performance calculation. 17 See text of RS-29 at: 14

15 2.2 Washington State Energy Code Enforcement and Compliance For commercial buildings, the city or county, or a designated enforcement agency, can enforce the code, and has power to render interpretations of the code and to adopt and enforce rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of code. Fees may be assessed for enforcement of code, and must be listed in an adopted fee schedule. The enforcement entity also may require the building owner to hire a certified nonresidential energy special inspector to perform the plan review and/or field inspection. The energy plan reviewers and special inspectors are certified through a program regulated by the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO.) Certification requires that individuals complete a comprehensive testing program and have specific credentials. Re-certification is required when changes are made to the code. For residential buildings, the city or county, or a designated enforcement agency, regulate enforcement. Compliance is determined by plan review and inspection by the local building official. Plans and specifications must be submitted unless otherwise required by the building official. The building official may also require that the plans be stamped by a registered design professional for more complicated designs. The energy code for residential buildings establishes minimum/maximum requirements for R- values and equipment efficiencies. Field inspections are required before a certificate of occupancy is issued. The energy code for commercial buildings sets minimum inspection requirements for the building envelope, mechanical systems, and lighting installations. The building official has the power to interpret both the residential and commercial energy codes. The building official may also request the WSBCC to render written interpretations of both the residential and commercial energy codes. 3 Seattle Energy Code 3.1 Seattle Energy Code Basics The Seattle Energy Code (SEC) is based on WSEC, and includes amendments that add stringency to energy code baseline requirements. SEC is considered one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation, comparable to California Title 24. SEC recommendations are provided by the Construction Code Advisory Board (CCAB), vetted through public hearings and industry stakeholders, approved by the City Council, and signed into law by the Mayor. Washington Class A cities may choose to exceed the mandatory state code for non-residential buildings. Resolution (Section 1.B.i) directs Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and Seattle City Light to propose to the City Council amendments to the Seattle Energy Code to achieve up to 20% enhanced energy efficiency beyond the current version of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard The 2006 Seattle Energy Code achieved approximately 20% energy savings compared to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard However, since that time, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard has been published and it contains significant energy efficiency improvements, which are being considered for the next SEC code cycle. An additional reference for SEC is ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, which was published in December 2009 and provides criteria for all aspects of green buildings. 15

16 Seattle Energy Code (SEC) requirements are subdivided by occupancy type, as with WSEC. Chapters 1-10 of the SEC contain the requirements for Group R occupancy (single family, multi-family, hotel and motel guest rooms, both low-rise and high-rise) and are referred to as the Residential Energy Code. Chapters contain the requirements for all other occupancies and are referred to as the Nonresidential Energy Code. The 2006 Seattle Energy Code was effective on November 10, 2007, and consists of the 2006 Washington State Energy Code with Seattle amendments. The WSBCC adopted the 2009 WSEC on November 20, After the WSBCC finalized the 2009 WSEC, DPD began working on the 2009 Seattle Energy Code (SEC). The 2009 SEC will consist of the 2009 WSEC with additional Seattle amendments to the nonresidential provisions, and is expected to be adopted in March As is the case with the current Seattle Energy Code, there are no proposed Seattle amendments to the provisions for residential spaces in the Washington State Energy Code. For this update cycle, Seattle amendments to the 2009 WSEC are proposed: to achieve the energy savings specified in Resolution 30280, to incorporate addenda for the 2010 version of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, to incorporate ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA Standard 189.1, and to improve implementation of existing amendments. The 2009 SEC also includes requirements consistent with most LEED prerequisites. 3.2 Seattle Energy Code Enforcement and Compliance As with WSEC, compliance paths include prescriptive, component performance, and systems analysis options. 18 Reference Standard 29 (RS-29) contains requirements that are only applicable to detailed computer analysis Reference Standard-29: Nonresidential Building Design by Systems Analysis Systems Analysis is a compliance path in both WSEC and SEC that allows designers to use advanced modeling tools to predict building energy performance. Compliance with RS-29 requires an analysis of the annual energy usage of a building, called an annual energy analysis the calculated annual energy consumption must not be greater than that of a corresponding "standard design", or an identical building constructed to the prescriptive energy code. For a proposed building design to be considered similar to a "standard design," it must use the same energy source(s) for the same functions and have equal floor area and the same ratio of envelope area to floor area, environmental requirements, occupancy, climate data and usage operational schedule. Inputs to the energy analysis relating to occupancy and usage must correspond to the expected occupancy and usage of the building. 18 Systems analysis is similar in purpose and function to the modeled-performance path described earlier in this document. 16

17 DOE list 389 building software tools for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability in buildings. The tools include databases, spreadsheets, component and systems analyses, and whole-building energy performance simulation programs. Software tools are intended to help researchers, designers, architects, engineers, builders, code officials, and others involved in the building life-cycle to evaluate and rank potential energy-efficiency technologies and renewable energy strategies in new or existing buildings. However, energy models are only as viable as the system assumptions and model inputs. Different tools have different core competencies, depending on age, origin, target, and sophistication. A sophisticated analysis of building performance may require multiple tools specific to daylighting, thermal envelope performance, and computational fluid dynamics, among other specializations. Common whole-building performance modeling tools include DOE-2, Blast 3.0, EnergyPlus, equest, VisualDOE 4.0, EcoTect, ESAS, ESP, Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) 3.24, and Trace. 19 More specific tools for evaluating specific envelope components feed into more powerful tools such as equest, and include EnvStd and THERM (Two-Dimensional Building Heat-Transfer Modeling) Historic Buildings Under Seattle Energy Code, historic buildings are allowed some latitude against code requirements. The building official may modify specific code requirements for historic buildings and instead require alternate strategies that are intended to result in a reasonable degree of energy efficiency. This modification may be allowed for those buildings which have been specifically designated as historically significant by the state or local governing body, or listed in The National Register of Historic Places or which have been determined to be eligible for listing. This allowance is known as Director s Discretion and is applicable to non-residential buildings (residential buildings must comply with State energy code, without local exceptions). 3.3 Enforcement Process The following is an example of Energy Code enforcement in the City of Seattle: The applicant makes an appointment to submit their application for a building permit. The intake staff performs a screening review of the plan review documents to make sure that the design generally complies with the applicable codes and that the drawings are complete enough for the plans examiner to do a detailed review. If the application is complete enough, the applicant submits three complete sets of plans and pays 75% of a fee for plan review and inspection. 19 The tools listed here are specifically identified as capable of performance comparisons for code, but this list does not represent either a comprehensive or recommended tool list for appropriate building analysis. The tools listed are not of equal caliber and capability. 20 Building Energy Code Enforcement, 17

18 1. Specialists in each code review plans for compliance. In addition to Energy Code review, projects are subject to reviews for land use code, building code, fire code, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, historic district, as appropriate. 2. Plan review for Energy Code compliance for nonresidential buildings and high-rise residential buildings is performed by a staff of five specialists whose only tasks are to check the plans for Energy Code compliance and for Mechanical Code compliance. (For single-family houses Energy Code compliance is checked by the same staff that review Building Code compliance.) The Energy Code review staff check the plans and send out a list of corrections that addressing information that is missing from the plans or that is included but incorrect. 3. For large projects such as office buildings, work is often done in phases with separate permits for each. 4. For large projects, it is not unusual to have several cycles of corrections. After changing the plans to respond to all of the corrections, the applicant pays the remaining 25% of the fee and receives a permit for construction. 5. During construction, the applicant must receive approval for each step prior to continuing with the next step of construction. The main field inspection tasks for Energy Code compliance in Seattle are handled by three teams: building inspectors (each of whom is responsible for one of nine districts in the city); electrical inspectors (each of whom is responsible for one of nine districts in the city); and mechanical inspectors (four inspectors without fixed districts). There are other inspectors, such as boiler inspectors and plumbing inspectors, who have Energy Code compliance responsibilities. 6. For Energy Code compliance, there are multiple building envelope inspections. Slab-on-grade insulation and exterior below-grade wall insulation are checked during the foundation work. Window performance (checking for the NFRC labels) can be done during the framing inspection. There is a separate insulation inspection before the walls are enclosed. For the mechanical system, there are usually two inspections: the initial inspection before items are covered so that duct sealing can be checked for instance, and the final inspection after the duct insulation has been installed. For the electrical system, there are usually the same two inspections: initial and final. When problems are identified, the inspector writes up the correction and the problem must be fixed. The inspector's fees are part of the building permit fee, though the jurisdiction does have authorization to charge extra fees if it is necessary for the inspector to come back multiple times because the problem is not fixed after the first notice. 7. When all the inspections are done and all problems are fixed, the city issues a certificate of occupancy. For large projects, there may also be a temporary certificate of occupancy that precedes the final certificate of occupancy. The temporary certificate of occupancy (usually for days) would be given when there were still some remaining problems to be corrected, but none related to the fire and life safety system. For large buildings, it is also typical for there to be a final certificate of occupancy for the common areas, such as elevator lobbies and restrooms, before tenant spaces are completely finished out. The City s legal jurisdiction for enforcement and compliance ends with issuance of the certificate of occupancy. There are no provisions in the Seattle Energy Code for measurement and verification of postoccupancy building performance. The City of Seattle is requiring disclosure of building performance starting in 2011 (more details are provided in the Summary section), but current energy code is based on baseline fire and safety requirements and computer modeling of building energy performance, 18