BCAP Commercial BEC Usability Compliance
Content
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENERGY CODES - USABILITY AND
COMPLIANCE METHODS
October 2008
Developed by
Building Codes Assistance Project
Submitted to
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Commercial Building Energy Codes – Usability and Compliance Methods
October 2008
Developed by the Building Codes Assistance Project Submitted to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Introduction
Key Findings Recommendations
I. Project Description & Methodology Project goals Literature review Project and survey design Survey distribution Sample size and accuracy Interviews Data analysis
II. Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers
Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o End Users o Code Enforcers
III. Using the Energy Code
Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o Codes in use o Expertise with codes o Code language and clarity o Issues with available products and technologies o Compliance approaches o Meeting prescriptive requirements o Meeting performance requirements o Meeting component trade-off requirements o Compliance tools o Effectiveness
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 2
IV. Education and Training Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o Code assistance o Training o Resources V. Code Enforcement
Background Question Topics Key findings Questions/results o Management of code compliance o Non-compliance areas o Demonstrating compliance o Evaluation of enforcement Best practices case study
VI. Summary Appendix A
Literature review references
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 3
Introduction
Despite the dearth of research to-date on the subject, energy code compliance in commercial buildings across the US is highly suspect of falling far short of 100 percent. There is a lack of both definitive national-level studies regarding building energy code compliance and state studies which can be compared and contrasted; nevertheless the signals still clearly point to significant and widespread lack of compliance with energy efficiency requirements. Working under the premise that energy code compliance is low, on average, this project was designed to uncover the issues that contribute to non-compliance in the commercial sector (i.e. code language, tools, and enforcement methods). The goal was to develop a level of detail sufficient to inform an effective response to compliance through simplifying the use of codes and/or improving the enforcement process. ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) recently embraced an organization-wide goal to significantly improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. This included a goal adopted by the Standard 90.1 committee to improve the associated efficiency of the 2010 edition by 30 percent above the standard set in 2004. This would be a significant improvement and it is one which the US Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to provide support in meeting. To this end, this study is meant to provide DOE with specific recommendations to ASHRAE on developing more useable and enforceable codes. A fundamental element of this study is a nation-wide survey aimed at collecting representative data from all regions and states. Based on over fourteen years of experience advocating for energy codes, the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) designed the survey and associated interviews and research to also take a look at factors outside of the codes themselves. While language and format can affect use and enforcement, BCAP believes that education and local funding also play major roles in how well the market complies with codes. ASHRAE has an education/training element, for example, that could benefit from feedback on how changes to this type of activity could improve compliance. In addition, a literature review was used to build off of previous studies and to design “next-step” questions about issues like training and resources. The survey developed into a unique opportunity to understand not only what ASHRAE can do, but also what DOE, the International Code Council (ICC), and code advocates can also do to improve how commercial energy codes are understood, used, and enforced.
Key Findings
Below is a list of findings derived from the survey, interview, and research data collected in this study. These conclusions are expanded on throughout the paper and accompanied with supporting survey data:
Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers:
Finding 1 – Engineers and Designers/Architects are the prime targets for energy code training and resources; however, other groups also have significant influence on the energy aspects of commercial buildings.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 4
Finding 2 – The most common profile of a code official is one who works for their local building office, is licensed or certified to enforce the code, works with both commercial and residential energy codes, and enforces mechanical, structural, and/or electrical codes as well as the energy code.
Using the Energy Code:
Finding 1 – End users report using a wide variety of energy codes even though most code officials say they enforce the 2006 IECC. Finding 2 – Problems with unclear and ambiguous language are reported across all codes; however, code officials using Standard 90.1-2004, report the largest problem with this issue. Finding 3 – Conflicts between energy codes and new technologies lie in software issues and barriers in reporting on code compliance. Finding 4 – Most end users prefer the performance compliance path; yet problems exist in the perceived opportunity to “game” compliance by end users and in the lack of software documentation accepted by code officials to demonstrate compliance. Finding 5 – COMcheck rates the highest in satisfaction for compliance tools among end users but perceived levels of gaming are high. Finding 6 – Of performance-based software, most end users use (and consider the most effective) TRACE 700, eQuest, and DOE-2.1E. Finding 7 – End users and code officials have similar perceptions about each other and about the effectiveness of energy codes.
Education and Training:
Finding 1 – End users consult multiple sources to interpret codes. Finding 2 – End users take advantage of multiple trainings and resources currently available, preferring in-person workshops and supporting resources from ASHRAE, DOE, and ICC to other sources. Finding 3 – Code officials consistently view code resources as effective training tools. Finding 4 – Code officials and end users request state-specific training on codes.
Code Enforcement:
Finding 1 – Although many code officials report a lack of time and staff to enforce the energy code, third party enforcement is occurring in only a small percent of the market. Finding 2 – Noncompliance appears to primarily be a problem of interpretation by the end user, plan checker, and/or site inspector, and disagreement among one or more of these parties. Finding 3 – Of the compliance paths available to end users, code officials most often enforce the code through the prescriptive path, but all compliance methods are used.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 5
Finding 4 – Plan reviews and site inspections are established in most building departments as a required enforcement process; however, these activities do not always include energy code requirements. Finding 5 – The codes are open to different interpretations by code officials, which are exacerbated when plan reviews and site inspections are completed by different individuals. Finding 6 – Both end users and code officials need resources and training to improve their part in code compliance, despite the fact that they blame each other for compliance shortfalls.
List of Recommendations
[The following list provides recommendations for ASHRAE, as well as DOE, ICC, and the many other organizations and individuals providing market assistance for the commercial energy code.] Recommendation 1 Review the 90.1 public review process for sufficient involvement of code officials and consideration of feedback on interpretation and implementation issues. Recommendation 2 Establish training guidelines to improve content, and assure inclusion of appropriat e compliance and enforcement methods. Recommendation 3 Evaluate compliance software used for the performance and component trade-off compliance paths for gaming opportunities and provide expanded training. Recommendation 4 ASHRAE and ICC should jointly develop and promote clear guidelines on the application of Standard 90.1 and IECC. Recommendation 5 Provide code officials with assistance in enforcing Standard 90.1 Recommendation 6 Increase outreach to building owners and their organizations and provide targeted information on energy code benefits.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 6
I. Project Description & Methodology
Project Goals
As mentioned above, while prior studies at the state and regional levels have not been conclusive, they have shed light on the lack of compliance with energy codes. Noncompliance is particularly problematic because codes are mandatory and generally assumed to establish baseline energy use for incentive and voluntary programs. They are also used to project minimum energy efficiency over time in the building sector. If compliance is significantly poor in some locations, then the building sector is using a great deal more energy that is assumed by local policy makers, utilities, and others involved in managing energy demand and use. Compliance rates are best addressed at the state and local levels through studies which collect significant, uniform data tied to specific jurisdictions. This project did not look at rates, but set specific goals to develop information on addressing compliance which could then be applied to address compliance failures both at the national code development level and at the state and local implementation levels. Local governments need to understand and benchmark their respective compliance rates, and then apply recommendations, such as those found in this study, to work on improvement over time. The project (which consisted of surveys, interviews, and analysis) was designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of end users’ perspective on their use of commercial building energy codes and of code officials’ perspective on enforcing them. The survey and interview questions were framed to provide insight into what can be done to make commercial building energy codes easier for designers and builders to use effectively to achieve compliance. Project objectives were to: 1. Identify known or perceived usability issues with prevailing commercial building energy codes such as Standard 90.1 and its derivatives. 2. Identify the methods applied by end users (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) to determine compliance with their current commercial building energy codes. 3. Identify any compliance issues identified such as the need for compliance forms, computer software and tools or training. 4. Identify the enforcement methods used by states and jurisdictions for ensuring compliance with their commercial building energy codes.
Literature Review
BCAP identified and reviewed prior studies developed at the national and local levels on energy code compliance. Studies on residential codes were included since early review indicated that the majority of code officials are responsible for enforcing the code in both building sectors. Therefore, both types of studies had potential to provide valuable background in designing this project on commercial energy codes. The studies were reviewed for: 1) Gaps in code compliance research, 2) Insight into compliance issues, and 3) Findings that could be further explored in more detail.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 7
At this time, few national studies are available and only one, focused on lighting requirements added to Standard 90.1-2004, took an exclusive look at the commercial sector. The review also included commercial and residential sector state studies in Rhode Island and New Hampshire, and regional studies in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast. Residential-only studies from Arizona and a 2005 national meta-study were also included. Because state studies generally make an attempt to report on compliance rates and not the underlying issues, there is a gap in understanding issues causing non-compliance. Below are a few of the primary findings from the literature review which highlighted specific areas for questions about compliance in the national market: Building Department Activity – The Arizona study 1 highlighted the importance of training and education, involving the building industry in writing amendments, providing advanced notice of code changes, and developing energy champions. However, due to the small sample size of officials in the study (11), and the focus on the residential sector, it is difficult to translate these recommended practices to the national commercial building sector without further information. Expertise on Codes – The 2000 study in Rhode Island and New Hampshire2 by the Peregrine Energy Group shows code officials reporting a higher level of knowledge of residential energy codes as compared to commercial energy codes. This may be consistent across the US and, if true, may indicate an opportunity to improve enforcement with education. Attitudes – A 2005 study for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)3 found that a very low percentage of code officials expressed no knowledge of the energy code. The study also determined that trainings had a high impact on the practices of code officials who attended. If basic awareness and understanding are issues across the country, the activities supporting codes in the Northwest which were evaluated in this study may provide proven recommendations for other states. Enforcement Process – A small but national study in 2007 on commercial code compliance4 suggested that a significant number of code officials do not verify compliance by inspecting projects. It went on to also suggest that engineers consider inconsistent and variable code enforcement as a significant barrier to code compliance. This is a significant finding and was deemed important to verify on a larger scale.
Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP) – Building Energy Codes in Arizona: Best Practices in Code Support, Compliance, and Enforcement, (August 2007). 2 The Peregrine Energy Group – studied New Hampshire and Rhode Island to determine if specific factors (e.g. community size, level of building, level of building activity, training, etc.) affect energy code compliance (November 2001) 3 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Energy Code Support – Market Research Report, prepared by Quantec, (August 2005). 4 ZING Communications, Inc. – 2007 Commercial Energy Code Compliance Study, completed for Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association.
1
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 8
Levels of Compliance – The BCAP meta-study5 summarized 16 state-level residential code compliance studies and revealed a lack of consistency in state report methodology to the level where it prevented exact comparison between results. Nevertheless, all states reported relatively low compliance for energy codes, with the possible exception of those in the Pacific Northwest (Montana, Oregon, and Washington) and California. The conclusion was that these states had enjoyed relatively large levels of support from utilities or the state energy offices or both, and that there was a great deal of training, outreach and above code program work that helped push energy code efficacy. The methodology of the state studies also prevented BCAP from determining the “energy savings gap” – the opportunity lost due to low compliance levels. This was due largely to wild inconsistencies in how code compliance was measured, actual modeled energy savings vs. baseline, pass or fail via REScheck/ COMcheck software, a lack of consistent criteria for measurement, and other survey characteristics.
Project & Survey Design
To complete this study, BCAP designed a national survey that targeted “end users” and “enforcers.” END USERS: People who use commercial codes to design and build buildings (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) ENFORCERS: People who check and/or inspect commercial buildings to confirm compliance with commercial energy codes – most typically, code officials. A dual purpose survey instrument was developed to identify and assess issues faced by the design and construction sectors in using and implementing commercial energy codes, as well as the issues that the code enforcement communities deal with in assuring that code requirements are followed. The dual design allowed for the sample size to be divided into subgroups of End Users and Enforcers. The users included engineers, designers, builders, product manufacturers, contractors and installers. The enforcement authorities included building code officials, plan reviewers, and inspectors. During the development phase of this survey, BCAP capitalized on its established relationships with state energy and building code offices, builder associations, and other local and national organizations to solicit input. BCAP also identified model code trainers as a group with insight into possible questions from end users and invited individuals to be interviewed on effective questions to ask survey participants. Early in January 2008, 15 trainers were consulted and asked the following questions, in regards to the commercial building energy code: What version do you usually provide training on? How often do you provide training? Do you focus on any specific area? (Lighting, HVAC, Envelope, all) What kind of attendance do you have for your sessions? What regions/cities do you cover?
5
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) – Residential Energy Code Evaluations – Review and Future Directions, (June 2005).
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 9
Are evaluations done after the training? Known usability issues? (is it difficult to read, to complex to understand) Know compliances issues? Known issues with ASHRAE 90.1? A draft survey was developed using the recommendations of this group and input from others. The draft survey was then further reviewed by selected potential participants, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, DOE, and industry partners. The responses of both groups shaped the final survey instrument. Due to the timeline established for the project, and to improve participation, BCAP selected an automated process to host and collect the survey results. The survey link was available and distributed between March 3 and May 9, 2008 via email through a survey vendor, to automatically track results.6
Survey Distribution
In sending out the survey, BCAP used a multi-level outreach strategy to acquire the data quickly and to ensure representation of a wide cross-section of the country. Early on in the survey development phase, BCAP recognized the diverse nature of potential end user participants. To achieve well-represented results, a high priority for the project was to include engineers, designers, developers, product manufacturers, contractors and installers. Representing both large and small jurisdictions was also a high priority. BCAP capitalized on several current industry partners to aid in distribution of the survey, as well as new partners. Potential end user participants were identified from the membership and contact lists of the following organizations:
Alliance to Save Energy Association of Energy Engineers American Institute of Architects (state chapters) Associated General Contractors of America International Association of Lighting Designers WTCA-Representing the Structural Buildings Component Industry The Construction Specification Institute American Council of Engineering Companies Association of Electrical Engineers New Buildings Institute Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) US Green Building Council (state chapters) North American Insulation Manufacturers Association New Jersey Institute of Technology MaGrann Associates Steven Winter Associates Northeast By Northwest AIA of New York State
Similarly, BCAP recognized the importance of reaching out to a large variety of building code officials and inspectors to represent the diversity of the country’s code enforcement population. The outreach strategy included maximizing collaboration with relevant organizations. Therefore, potential “enforcers” were comprised of contacts and membership lists of the following:
6
Surveymonkey.com was selected as the survey vendor.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 10
International Code Council (state chapters) Building Code Official Association (state chapters) National Governors Association National Association of Counties (NACo) National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI– Local Governments for Sustainability)
For both groups, BCAP also capitalized on its own state contacts and the regional energy efficiency organizations, including the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA), the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), the Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). In addition to sending the survey to members and contacts, many organizations involved in the outreach effort posted the survey on their websites, highlighted it in their newsletters, and distributed information at code trainings and conferences. BCAP used its own newsletter and website to publicize the survey and also announced it in presentations, trainings, and at conferences. - Website/newsletter: BCAP posted the survey internet link on March 3 on its homepage and highlighted it in its April code newsletter that has a distribution list of approximately 5,000 subscribers. - Trainings: New York and New Hampshire code trainings by BCAP in March and April included information on accessing the online survey. Information was also provided at various ICC trainings in the southwest and southeast by NAIMA and GreenFiber staff. - Conferences: BCAP hosted a booth at the 2008 GreenPrints conference expo in April and had laptops available for attendees to take the survey in real time. BCAP also provided the Arizona Building Officials (AZBO) with 750 postcardannouncements of the survey which were included in the materials for all attendees at their April Education Institute.
Sample Size and Accuracy
As a result of these efforts 1,783 participants logged into the survey over nine weeks. BCAP obtained 1057 completed surveys and an additional 278 surveys where respondents completed most but not all questions. In all, there were a total of 660 Enforcers/Code Officials and 675 End Users who participated; based on an estimated population of 1,000,000 or greater, this participation produced a resulting 95 percent confidence level that the results are accurate to within +/- 3 percent.7 The survey participants represented all regions of the US and almost every state. While there is not sufficient state-level participation to draw assumptions about local deviations from the collected data, there is adequate data to develop high-level conclusions about end users and code officials across the country.
7
The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant, unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 11
In some states there are additional participants in the code application process which are not represented in this study. For example, California has established a network of specialists who test and inspect various building systems. However, most states have a simple structure where local building department code officials interact with the architects and engineers who are designing commercial buildings, all of which are wellrepresented in this study.
Interviews
BCAP conducted in-person interviews to gain additional insight into some perspectives voiced by participants, taking advantage of energy code training events in Arizona to meet with several attendees. The interview questions were broader but directly related to the questions used in the online survey instrument, thereby providing additional relevant input from building professionals from the southwest, which was identified as an area of interest from the literature review (due to a gap in participation in other studies). Overall, 8 interviews were conducted, including the following professionals: City Building Code Examiner City Building Officials Retired City Code Official Private Designer Architect Energy Engineer Green Building Professional The interviews provided critical insights into the efficacy of building code implementation efforts and sought to determine its best practices.
Data Analysis
A strategic approach to data analysis was needed to accommodate the large amount of survey participants and extensive length of the survey. BCAP capitalized on a flexible survey vendor and specialized survey data analysis application to maximize the validity of the survey results and to ensure statistically sound results. An important goal of the survey was to provide a comprehensive assessment of usability and compliance issues. To reach this goal, BCAP recognized the need for developing a survey that included a variety of multiple-choice, rating scales and open ended questions. BCAP selected SurveyMonkey as the survey vendor, in part for the vender’s capability to provide real-time results during the time in which the input was collected. This was beneficial in assessing preliminary results to develop interview questions and to use in forming hypotheses for detailed analysis. In order to analyze the valuable insight available in the collected survey data, BCAP used the features of MarketSight® to simplify and streamline the analysis. For example, cross-tab analyses were used to look at important relationships in responses, as well as to investigate hypotheses proposed from the preliminary results. Statistically significant differences were identified by running various data tests to investigate and form new hypotheses. The analyses from the survey data, research, and interviews were combined with field experience to be synthesized into this final report. A draft report was reviewed by DOE and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 12
II. Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers
Background
Commercial energy codes are used by a variety of individuals. The purpose of this section of the study is to clearly define those main groups who affect how the energy code is applied in commercial buildings. This includes those who use the code to design buildings and their systems, as well as those who are responsible for enforcing all the requirements.
Question Topics: End Users Enforcers Key Findings:
#1 – Engineers are the prime targets for energy code training and resources; however, other groups also have significant influence on the energy aspects of commercial buildings. In the literature review, a 2007 national commercial energy code survey by Zing Communications8 surveyed 431 end users and found that an engineer on the project team is most often responsible for ensuring compliance with the commercial energy code. Based on this information, BCAP’s study specifically targeted engineers during outreach to end users and approximately 41 percent of end users participating in the study are engineers. However, it is noteworthy that other end users have participatory and influential roles. Product suppliers, builders, construction managers, subcontractors, and installers all report that they “influence” design decisions. Most significant is the influence of producers/supplies, of which 9 percent use the code for designs, and 21 percent influence designing decisions related to building systems. Suppliers bring their products to market by introducing them to the design and construction community; for example, a lighting supplier may suggest the type, amount and placement of lighting fixtures in an office space – making them a prime target audience for specialized code education. Finding #2 – The most common profile of a code official is one who works for their local building office, is licensed or certified to enforce the code, works with both commercial and residential energy codes, and enforces mechanical, structural, and/or electrical codes as well as the energy code. Much of the discussion around energy code requirements and enforcement focuses on the time, or perceived lack of time, spent by code officials in enforcing the code. The 2001 survey in New Hampshire and Rhode Island9 found that 96 percent and 100 percent of code officials, respectively, are responsible for enforcing both commercial and residential energy codes. The dual responsibility that occurs across the US was confirmed by this study which found a slightly smaller, yet still high, rate of 83 percent of officials enforcing the energy code in both sectors.
8 9
ZING Communications, Inc. The Peregrine Energy Group
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 13
Only a small number of total code officials (8 percent) work outside their local building department as third-party inspectors. Although this type of enforcement is gaining interest in the market, it is not a widely used practice. Making up the 8 percent were thirteen states with between 1 and 3 third-party inspectors each, and Pennsylvania which reported 38 third-party inspectors (of 88 total code official participants). The fact that most code officials enforce codes for a variety of building systems, in different types of buildings and use a variety of code versions (as discussed later in the section Codes in Use), indicates a situation where there is not specialized enforcement of energy codes or other codes. We cannot infer for this survey that any building department code official is solely responsible for the energy code anywhere in the country.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 14
END USERS: Q (End User): Which of the following most accurately describes you? (Check all that apply)
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 15
(Question continued) Within that category, Q (End User): How do you use commercial building energy codes?
Design
Engineer 21%
Influence
48% 52%
Designer
45% 21% 9% 12% 2% 8% 4% 8% 3% 7% 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Producer/Supplier
Builder
Construction Manager
Sub Contractor
Installer
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 16
Q (End User): Please indicate the primary state/jurisdiction you work in.
[675 respondents – see key below for distribution relative to state code]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 17
ENFORCERS: Q (Code Official): Which of the following most accurately describes your code enforcement role? (Check all that apply)
Local building department Third party code inspector 8% Third party code inspector
Local building department 92%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 18
Q (Code Official): Are you licensed or certified to enforce the code in your state or jurisdiction?
Yes
No
No 11%
Yes 89%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 19
Q4: Please indicate the primary state/jurisdiction where you enforce the commercial energy code.
[660 respondents – see key below for distribution relative to state code]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 20
Q (Code Official): In addition to the energy code, what other types of codes are you responsible for? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
100%
90%
90% 80%
88%
70%
60%
% Valid Cases
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Structural
Mechanical
Electrical
Fire
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 21
Q (Code Official): Which building energy code are you responsible for?
[Chart below shows numbers rounded up; Commercial = 8.6 percent; Residential = 8.7 percent; Both = 82.7 percent]
Commercial
Residential
Both
Commercial 9% Residential 9%
Both 83%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 22
III. Using the Energy Code
Background
Several factors are responsible for the many different versions of energy codes that exist across the US. First, although the national model energy code for commercial buildings (Standard 90.1 developed by ASHRAE) is updated approximately every three years, there are a variety of subsequent actions that must take place for it to affect local jurisdictions. States have individual processes set up that govern local adoption and enforcement. As a result, energy codes can not only vary greatly from state to state, but also among jurisdictions within a state because of changes between editions of the code. This is further complicated in “home rule” states where jurisdictions can adopt the code of their choice. In addition, states often formally adopt the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) developed by the International Code Council as their commercial code. This is the national model energy code for the residential sector but it contains a chapter on commercial building requirements and references Standard 90.1 as an alternate compliance path. The IECC commercial requirements are brief and simplified compared to those found in Standard 90.1 and there are no requirements to align either of these with each other. This adds another layer of diversity, not only within editions of a code, but because of different codes. Finally, some states develop their own code to take into account state-specific opinions on climate, the state’s economy and history, and impact on local building communities. Many other states introduce state-specific amendments when they adopt the national model code. The West Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California) are among those which have independently developed energy codes. All three states have progressive codes whose stringency sometimes exceeds that of the national model codes. California, in particular, stands out as a model for effective update cycles and implementation success. Florida also has an independently developed code at least as stringent as the national model codes. This section analyzes the codes in use and how they are being followed, while looking for differences between end users and code officials, and explores perceived issues regarding effectiveness.
Question Topics:
Codes in use Expertise with codes Code language and clarity Issues with available products & technologies Compliance approaches Meeting prescriptive requirements Meeting performance requirements Meeting component trade-off requirements Compliance Tools Effectiveness
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 23
Key Findings:
Finding #1 – End users report using a wide variety of energy codes even though most code officials say they enforce the 2006 IECC. End users report using multiple codes – Standard 90.1-2007, 2006 IECC, 2003 IECC, and Standards 90.1-2001 and 1999 are each applied in projects by 25 to 29 percent of end users. As expected, older codes are reported to be used less often. However, Standard 90.1-2004 was reported as applied by fewer end users than any other single code. The 2004 standard is referenced in the 2006 IECC and would be expected to have widespread application, especially since the newer 2007 standard had not been adopted by any states at the time of the survey. One possible explanation is that end users who had been applying 90.1-2004 had already begun to reference the more recent code, 90.1-2007, despite the absence of updated local codes. In contrast, while code officials also report that they enforce different energy codes, the majority report enforcing the 2006 IECC (63 percent) – much more than the number of end users reporting that they use this code (26 percent). Further discrepancy occurs in reported use of Standard 90.1. Almost twice the percentage of code officials report enforcing the 2004 standard than end users who reported using it (24 percent compared to 13 percent). The case with the 2007 standard is the opposite; 14 percent of code officials enforce it even though more than double that percentage of end users says they use it (29 percent). More research is needed to understand if designers/engineers and code officials are applying the requirements of different codes to the same projects. This finding does seem to indicate that code officials need more training on enforcing the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if that is being used to such a degree as the data suggests. Finding #2 – Problems with unclear and ambiguous language are reported across all codes; however, code officials using Standard 90.1-2004, report the largest problem with this issue. A little over a quarter of end users report problems with ambiguous or unclear code language when they use any version of the IECC or Standard 90.1. For example, in one of this study’s interviews of a principal architect, we encountered an incorrect interpretation that buildings needed to follow code only if glazing equals more than 25 percent of the building’s envelope area. (Although he did not acknowledge this as a misinterpretation) The same interviewee discussed the complexity of the energy code and pointed to the National Electrical Code (NEC 2008), which has been reformatted and revised to increase clarity, while also including more definitions and installation details. The result, he said, was improved interpretation. Code officials also cited problems with different codes. However, of the code officials who enforce Standard 90.1-2004, 35 percent reported that it contains unclear and ambiguous language. This drops to 27 percent among those enforcing the 2000 IECC, and 25 and 22 percent for Standard 90.1-2006 and 2003, respectively. Less than 10 percent of those enforcing other codes reported problems with language clarity. More research is needed on 90.1-2004 to identify the specific requirements that are unclear, especially to code officials. If these carried over to 90.1-2007, the problem would be expected to continue. There also does not seem to be a perceived improvement in clarity between commercial provisions in the 2003 and 2006 IECC,
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 24
although there were many changes that improved usability of the 2006. Input from other survey questions points to 1) the issue of interpretation among code officials and between officials and end users as a primary problem, and 2) the need for requirements that can be enforced in the field. These appear to be the primary general issues that need to be addressed, and indicate a stronger need for consistent training in addition to improvements/changes in language. Finding #3 – Conflicts between energy codes and new technologies lie in software issues and compliance reporting barriers. The role of energy codes is to establish the minimum efficiency level for buildings. In doing so, it is not the intent of codes to prevent end users from going beyond the code requirements to include more efficient technology and construction practices in buildings. With the increasing interest in ecologically sound construction and “green” building requirements, there is some discussion in the code community as to whether the code limits these practices. The survey comments indicate that while there does not appear to be a conflict created by energy code requirement language, new technologies face barriers in 1) modeling software that is typically not set up to recognize advanced designs and 2) in communicating compliance to code officials who do not always understand the technology. Interviews indicate energy modeling software tools provide justification for a “holistic/energy systems approach” but modeling programs do not work together. Additionally, while end users have several different modeling tools available, the tools are not capable of assessing advanced systems. Finding #4 – Many end users follow the performance compliance path; yet problems exist in the perceived opportunity to “game” compliance by end users and in the lack of software documentation accepted by code officials to demonstrate compliance. End users follow the performance compliance path for many of their projects (38 percent) though the prescriptive approach is still used most often (50 percent). The majority of end users (68 percent) report that the performance path provides needed flexibility; yet, the same numbers agree with the statement that requirements can be gamed to achieve compliance. Comments vary but indicate that perceived gaming may be due to failures in modeling software. Appendix G in Standard 90.1 was also identified in the comments as well as in one of the interviews as a source of problems – specifically, in the way the baseline is established. Other issues seem to include the lack of clear code language and effective enforcement. It is unclear whether or not end users associate “gaming” with flexibility, and if the potential to get around performance requirements was eliminated, the satisfaction with flexibility would decrease. Another issue is that despite the large numbers of end users that reported following the performance compliance path, the majority of code officials (ranging from 62 to 88 percent) report that they do not accept modeling software documentation to demonstrate compliance. Interviews indicate that in many cases end users may follow 90.1 for mechanical requirements, but follow component trade-off requirements for the remaining systems and run a COMcheck report – which is typical practice in the jurisdiction of the interviewee.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 25
Finding #5 – COMcheck rates the highest in satisfaction for compliance tools among end users but perceived levels of gaming are still high. Similar to finding #4 above, a large majority of end users (69 percent) report that the component trade-off approach (available through use of either the COMcheck or ASHRAE EnvStd tools) can be gamed to achieve compliance. It is not obvious how end users believe they are “gaming” trade-off requirements and it would be helpful to understand if and how this is related to the software or if there is a perception that tradeoffs inherently bypass some code requirements. It is possible that users are manipulating COMcheck to receive a passing score but then not following up with the same provisions on plans and in the field. If enforcement is lacking, as reported elsewhere in the study, then end users will not expect to be caught. Information collected in interviews indicates that even though end users will use modeling software and the performance path, they will frequently generate a COMcheck report for enforcement purposes. As one interviewee put it, “COMcheck will get through permitting easier – they are used to it and it looks official.” Finding #6 – Of performance-based software, most end users use (and consider the most effective) TRACE 700, eQuest, and DOE-2.1E. Mechanical engineers typically use Trane Trace (used by 48 respondents and rated as most useful by 34 percent), as well as Carrier (which came in fifth for use). Energy Pro got a strong mention under “Other” and is freeware used for Title 24 in California. eQuest is also freeware and was the second most used software (by 44 percent) and rated the most useful by 32 percent. It is the predecessor to Power DOE – the front end of DOE 2.2.10 DOE 2.1E is an older version but it is one of the software programs that can officially be used to calculate federal tax credits deductions. Designers use CAD (computer aided design) programs which can show 3-dimentional building modeling. One interviewee pointed out that all the information needed for energy modeling is in this program and it’s too bad that it cannot be used to model energy. With all software, the issues appear to be primarily about the need and current inability to generate reports to demonstrate compliance, as well as the lack of capability in the software to handle different building systems. Finding #7 – End users and code officials have similar perceptions about each other and about the effectiveness of energy codes. The majority of code officials reported that end users don’t understand code requirements – commenting on how end users don’t follow the “right code” and don’t know the requirements. The majority of end users commented similarly about code officials. The comments of both groups indicate very strong beliefs regarding effectiveness that stereotype the other and dismiss their contribution to achieving code compliance. Considering finding #1 above, this finding could be related to the possibility that designs are following code requirements different than those being enforced. On their perceptions about the effectiveness of energy codes, end users and code officials also agree on the lack of clarity of code requirements – similarly rating the effectiveness of conveying requirements as low (34 to 38 percent). Comments on this question reveal that most end users report that code requirements need to be clarified to avoid various interpretations by building inspectors. Interviews indicated that there is a
10
See www.doe2.com
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 26
need for standardized checklists at the state level for compliance. Currently, local jurisdictions develop their own but, according to this end user; checklists are different across jurisdictions based on individual building department interpretations. Application of codes also seems inconsistent as evidenced by the comment of one end user, below, who incorrectly states that Standard 90.1 exempts existing buildings: While the aim of code officials is admirable, the blanket adoption of certain standards as codes ignores the underlying discrepancies in code language. The language of certain exceptions found in these standards renders these "codes" non-applicable to many buildings; yet code bodies mandate these "codes" apply to such buildings. Ex. ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2004 & 2007 clearly exempt existing buildings from having to follow these codes, yet building codes accepting Std. 90.1 mandate performance of these buildings as if they were new. This is clear discrepancy between the intent of the standard and its use in public and private industry. Overall, close to half of both groups chose “somewhat effective” to describe how codes rate in conveying requirements and meeting design needs. Almost half of end users also thought that codes improve building efficiency. However, code officials were more optimistic and 66 percent rated codes as effective at improving efficiency. Nevertheless, this indicates a clear disconnect between the point of application and the intent of the energy code to clearly convey requirements, meet design needs, and improve efficiency.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 27
CODES IN USE Q (Code Official): What energy code(s) is/are in effect for commercial buildings in the areas where you enforce the code? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
63% 24% 24% 14% 9% 4% 3% 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
IECC 2006 ASHRAE 90.1-2004 IECC 2003 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 ASHRAE 90.1-2001 or 1999 IECC 2000 ASHRAE 90.1-1989 or earlier IECC 1998
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 28
EXPERTISE WITH CODES Q (End User): Please indicate the energy code(s) you use for commercial buildings and rate your level of experience with each you use.
Beginner ASHRAE 90.1 2007 IECC 2006 IECC 2003 ASHRAE 90.1 2001 or 1999 IECC 2000 ASHRAE 90.1 1989 or earlier IECC 1998 ASHRAE 90.1 2004 Other 4% 3% 0% 3% 5% 12% 9% 8% 6% 7% 7% 9% 7% 5% 10% 15%
% of Responses
Competent 14% 12% 12%
Expert 3% 5% 6% 7%
12% 9% 9% 7% 2% 4% 4% 2%
20%
25%
30%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 29
Q (Code Official): Please indicate your level of knowledge of the requirements for [the following energy codes]:
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 30
CODE LANGUAGE & CLARITY Q (End User & Code Official): Are there particular areas of the commercial energy code which you find ambiguous or otherwise unclear in the way it is written? If yes, please explain.
Yes 80% 70% 60% No 73% No No 72%
% of Responses
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% End User Opinion Code Officials Opinion Yes 27% Yes 28%
Notes:
Across different energy codes and standards, a consistent number of end users (between 26 and 31 percent) reported ambiguous or unclear language. Selected Comments: “In general, the entire local industry ignores the Energy Code, therefore owners, contractors and managers, are not supportive of the time and cost to do energy analysis. They all want low bills, but they do not have knowledge or comfort that 90.1 will help them get there. They don’t expect or understand energy analysis. They understand building codes, and environmental regulations, energy codes need to rise to the same level of respect.” “All of the requirements related to ventilation and reheat limitations are poorly written. There is no mention of ventilation effectiveness or ventilation efficiency. A draft needs to be created by someone who has an intimate understanding of the ventilation standards.” “Lighting control differences bi-level switching requirements and atrium requirements in ASHRAE and IECC.” “Roof insulation required to be in contact with interior of roof deck, but is allowed parallel to purlins which may be 8" below roof deck. Also unclear whether rigid frame is the primary framing member, or the purlin for the purpose of the discussion on roof insulation for metal buildings.“
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 31
“In 90.1, the fan power requirements are not clear if the calculated fan power applies to each fan or to the sum of all fans in the system. How to deal with shading from adjacent buildings in the Performance Method should be addressed. The Performance Method should also outline a control strategy for staging on multiple boilers and chillers. What part load curves should be used for Baseline equipment in the Performance method??”
The greatest percentage of code officials reported ambiguous or lack of clarity in the 90.1-1989 or earlier versions (44%). The following percentages were reported for the remaining codes: 90.1-2004 (35%) IECC 1998 (33%) IECC 2000 (27%) IECC 2006 (25%) IECC 2003 (22%) 90.1-2001 or 1999 (21%) 90.1-2007 (16%)
Selected Comments: “Slab insulation: The way a monolithically poured slab is to be insulated on its exterior is a poor design and very impractical. To many times have my contractor's complained , along with myself , that insulation applied to the exterior and then encapsulated is nothing more than an inefficient method of insulating and a waste of money. Secondly, if this insulation is not encapsulated, it will definitely be damaged or more realistically, cut to grade level with a utility knife.” “The 2006 IECC is very difficult to follow and I believe that the upcoming code cycles will make it more understandable. Energy conservation is very new but as we continue to learn we will understand more and will be able to enforce the code better.” “Too many to list. Codes are generally not written clearly. Need more examples instead of just words. (pictures speak louder than words)” “It takes too much time to verify whether the information that has been provided is correct, and accurately reflects what will be installed. How do you verify during a site inspection that a light installed 30 feet up is a 400 watt or a 750 watt unit? This could be switched at the site and you have no way of knowing without a bucket truck. In the project described above, the designer does not know the code well enough to accurately demonstrate compliance with the code. If the municipality did not have a consultant to assist us, we would have never picked up the discrepancies.” “Section 502.3.2 they assume U-factor & SHGC are the same. Section 502.5 "not ventilated to allow moisture to escape”??? (fireblocking) Section 503.2.1 energy recovery systems - most people do not understand how an economizer works with this equipment. I find very few people including myself spend the money for the ASHRAE fundamentals or Systems handbooks. Calculation is a joke.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 32
ISSUES WITH AVAILABLE PRODUCTS & TECHNOLOGIES Q (End User): When using the prescriptive path for compliance, do you have problems finding code-compliant products for the following building components?
Yes
80%
No
No 69%
70%
No 65%
No 71%
No 69%
No 65%
60%
% of Responses
50%
40%
30%
No 21% Yes 12% Yes 10% Yes 11% Yes 9% Yes 11% Yes 14%
20%
10%
0%
Windows
Lighting
Fans
Motors
Ducts
Other
Selected Comments: In addition to those listed, end users have problems finding additional code-compliant components including hot water heaters, evaporative coolers, and dehumidification equipment.
“Low-e coatings that meet the prescriptive SHGC requirement for our area can be difficult to find if clear glass or very much visible light is required, especially on public projects where there may be a requirement to specify 3 or more competing manufacturers.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 33
Q (End User): Do you encounter barriers in the codes that prevent the use of new or green technologies?
Yes
No
Yes 33%
No 47%
Selected Comments: “…the basic cost of these products is like buying medical equipment. As soon as it is noted that it is for some kind of energy saving requirement, the cost goes up two hundred percent.” “[We] cannot model the most advanced, proven methods, such as variable direct pumped chilled water.” “Not in the energy code. Yes in other codes.” “Alternate systems are not allowed in the baseline. Natural ventilation, expanded comfort, uncooled
buildings; all discouraged by baseline requirements.”
“Lack of familiarity by enforcement agencies (cities) creates real problems with acceptance.” “Low energy or passive strategies”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 34
Q (End User): In general, do you believe the code requirements reflect evolving technologies and new products available in the market?
Yes
No
No 32%
Yes 68%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 35
COMPLIANCE APPROACHES Q (End User): For commercial building energy codes, compliance can be achieved by 1) Prescriptive Path, 2) Performance Path, or 3) Component trade-off Estimate the percentage of projects where you follow [choices listed]: Q (Code Official): For commercial building energy codes, compliance can be achieved by: 1) Prescriptive Path, 2) Performance Path, or 3) Component trade-off Estimate the percentage of projects that follow [choices listed]: (Choices must add up to 100%)
Mean (User)
60
Mean (Code Official)
50
User 50%
Code Official 54%
40
User 38% Code Official 31% User Code Official 31%
Mean Response
30
27%
20
10
0
Prescriptive Path %
Component Trade-Off Approach %
Performance Path %
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 36
Meeting Prescriptive Requirements Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Prescriptive Path.
Disagree
Demonstrating compliance is less costly than with the performance path. Requirements are too limiting for most projects.
Agree
Agree 59%
Disagree 29% Agree 35%
Disagree 57% Agree 38% Disagree 55% Agree 69% Disagree 27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Requirements are not well-suited to my climate zones.
Requirements Clearly Outlined
% of Responses
Selected Comments: (Requirements) “[I am] finding some issues with how 90.1 Appendix G addresses buildings with complex geometry - with all
glass less than 60 degrees from the horizontal as skylight, it becomes difficult (needlessly so?) to compare to a building that meets Appendix G baseline conditions.” “Confusing differences between IECC and ASHRAE requirements .” “[We] need [an] exception to airside economizers requirements for locations where outside air is heavily polluted such as at heavy industrial plants with chlorine and sulfur pollution.” “Humidity, etc, are major design requirements in this area that are not addressed in the code.” “The requirements themselves are not too limiting by any means! The only problem is the code is written in a way that is more complex than what is needed! Simplification in the way the codes are written will make using the codes much easier on us.” “For decorative lighting or lighting that is more complex than office buildings, there are some issues with stringency of lighting requirements. Based on what I've heard, CA Title 24 might be a better model for lighting power density requirements. Code should continue to allow quality lighting designs per IESNA recommended practice.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 37
Selected Comments: (Demonstrating Compliance)
“All requirements need to be conveyed to contractors in a clear and concise manner. Proving compliance with the requirements needs to be easier. In the case of glazing, the NFRC route is very complicated and cumbersome. It needs to be streamlined and simplified.” “There are always nagging holes in the code language. The California Energy Commission does a fair job of trying to patch these up. However, I often find myself trying to explain the code to less knowledgeable enforcement personnel who are overwhelmed by too many codes…” “Since Title 24 has an "automatic Standard Budget" generator, it is easier to input a project and let the program handle the Prescriptive requirements. We review these as a sanity check, but do not have to calc them directly.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 38
Meeting Performance Requirements Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Performance Path.
Selected Comments:
“Ventilation requirements are not defined as zone or system level requirements. Reheat limitations for VAV systems are not well defined. Requirements for modeling zones that do not have cooling as having cooling, creates a fictitious building that gives false energy numbers.” “ASH 90.1 is more subject to gaming than T24, because the baseline is built by hand. For T24, games are possible, but not a big problem. For ASH 90.1, I would Agree or Strongly Agree that gaming would be a problem. However, this could be substantially reduced by certifying energy models as T24 does.” “The "gaming" would abate if the code language were tightened, if enforcers were better educated, and if compliance analysts were licensed.” “You want a glass building with electric heat? Just use the performance approach and a computer program and you can get whatever you want.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 39
Q (End User): For the Performance Path – what problems, if any, do you find in following the whole building energy performance method?
Selected Comments:
“Energy modeling for 90.1 is too time consuming because there is no software tool that creates the baseline & proposed models per 90.1 rules automatically. In California we have software that significantly speeds up performance path calculations.” “Energy modeling should be done by a PE not an architect intern.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 40
M EETING COMPONENT TRADE- OFF REQUIREMENTS Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Component Trade-off Approach.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 41
COMPLIANCE TOOLS Q (End User): Please indicate what software, if any, you use to comply with the code and rate its usefulness for showing and demonstrating compliance.
Not Useful Somewhat Useful Useful
Other 2% 3% TRACE 700 4% VisualDOE 5% 10% 7%
22% 34% 15% 21% 17% 24%
Carrier HAP 4% 10% ASHRAE ENVSTD DOE-2.1E EnergyGauge Summit EnergyPlus 5% 5% 10% 13%
5% 5% 10% 6% 12% 20% 32% 55% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
eQuest 4% 8% COMcheck 3% 0% 16% 10%
% of Responses
Selected Comments:
In general, there were many comments regarding problems with specific tools. “The 2006 IECC Version of REScheck requires that individual walls be orientated in lieu of the corresponding windows to demonstrate compliance using the performance approach. This method leads to excessive entries and significantly increases the amount of time necessary to conduct a takeoff.” “ASHRAE 90.1 modeling is not intuitive. None of the DOE II front ends are very user friendly. You basically need to be a mechanical engineer to do the modeling correctly.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 42
Q (Code Official): Indicate the software documentation accepted to show compliance. Rate how useful it is to you in determining compliance.
Not Effective Somewhat Effective 76% 30% 19% 18% 13% Effective
COMcheck 3%4% Other
5% 3%
ASHRAE ENVSTD 4% 4% EnergyPlus 2%4% DOE-2.1E 3%4% TRACE 700
5% 3% 10%
Carrier HAP 4% 4% 9% EnergyGauge Summit 4% 3% 8% eQuest 3% 4% 7% VisualDOE 4% 3% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 43
Effectiveness Q (End User & Enforcer): How effective do you consider the energy code to be in [the following areas]?
End User
Not Effective
100% 90% 80% 50% 70% 60% % of Responses 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% Improving building energy efficiency 8% Clearly conveying requirements 7% Meeting design needs 45% 54% 56% 38% 37%
Somewhat Effective
Effective
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 44
Code Officials Not Effective
120%
Somewhat Effective
Effective
100%
% of Responses
80% 66% 60%
34% 47%
40%
55% 49%
20%
32% 12% Clearly conveying requirements
0%
2% Improving building energy efficiency
4% Meeting design needs
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 45
Q (End User): Do you think there is a strong level of understanding of code requirements among building code officials? Q (Code Official): Do you think there is a strong level of understanding of code requirements among designers and engineers:
End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials Code Officials Perspective of End-Users
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
% of Responses
End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials 45%
Code Officials Perspective of End-Users 40%
Code Officials Perspective of End-Users 60% End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials 55%
Yes
No
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 46
IV. Education and Training
Background
Energy codes are constantly under revision, often to improve clarity and stringency. Builders, designers, and developers are responsible for implementing code language and ensuring that code requirements are achieved; while code officials are responsible for enforcement of the code. Code changes affect all of these groups as well as product manufacturers and suppliers, who need time to clear current inventories and ensure that newly compliant products are available when the code takes affect. Consequently, there is diversity among the building community that can present a major barrier to the diffusion of new technologies and practices. Various entities, such as state energy offices, local building official organizations, and regional and national energy efficiency groups train building professionals in energy code compliance and energy efficiency. These workshops also provide information about new products and advances in energy-efficient design and building science to help building professionals keep pace with changes in the industry. This section examines the building community’s perspective on available educational and training opportunities.
Question Topics:
Code Assistance Training Resources
Key Findings:
Finding #1 – End users consult multiple sources to interpret codes. Approximately half of all end users currently receive assistance with code interpretations from their local building departments and the ASHRAE Users Manual. High percentages also consult product manufacturers (42 percent) and ICC code commentaries (40 percent). Half of end users consult their local building department for commercial energy code interpretation; however, many more (82 percent) indicated they would like to receive additional code information from the state code authority or local building departments. Finding #2 – End users take advantage of multiple trainings and resources currently available, preferring in-person workshops and supporting resources from ASHRAE, DOE, and ICC to other sources. Not only do end users report using these resources and participating in in-person trainings in high numbers, the overall data indicates that most end users rely on a combination of training and supporting resources to stay up to date with energy code requirements. Of the top four resources used, 75 to 88 percent of end users rated them as effective. Web seminars and self-paced courses were not ranked high for use; just over half of end users participate in any one type of web seminar, and under half in self-paced courses. However of those choosing these resources, ASHRAE web seminars and self paced courses were ranked as useful by about 64 percent of end users. DOE ranked just lower, with around 56 of end users finding them effective.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 47
Only a little over half of all the end users reported a need for additional resources and/or delivery methods despite the lack of training they reported receiving – 1 to 2 times a year for most end users; a third receiving no training. Finding #3 – Code officials consistently view code resources as effective training tools. When asked about specific types of resources and training that they used, 14 to 23 percent of code officials selected each one. When asked if each was effective, 82 to 93 percent of those using each resource confirmed this. When asked which of the trainings and resources they would like to receive more of, many more code officials selected each resource than had previously reported using it. For example, only 14 percent of code officials indicated they participated in ASHRAE web seminars but 65 percent said that this would be a “preferred” (to “strongly preferred”) method of receiving information/training about the commercial code. The interest in other resources similarly rose – with interest in in-person workshops at 66 percent and ICC self-paced courses at 68 percent, for example. Code officials receive slightly more training each year than end users – the same amounts of both groups (60 percent) receive training 1 to 2 times a year but a smaller percentage of code officials have no training (11 percent) and a higher amount (19 percent) get training 3-4 times a year. Though they report this higher overall frequency for training, almost all code officials report a need for additional code information. Finding #4 – Code officials and end users request state-specific training on codes. The survey asked code officials about other types of resources and trainings which, while offered in some locations, are not widely available. More than other options, code officials supported the idea of state-specific online trainings (77 percent). It is generally accepted that code officials have a shortage of time and budget available for training and online options focused on enforcement would avoid travel costs and time. Many end users and code officials specifically mentioned the state-specific aspect of training in discussing needed resources in the survey. This group of end users and code officials asking for state-specific in-person training represented 44 states, with the highest number of requests coming from California, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Florida, Idaho, New York, Ohio, Utah, W ashington, and South Carolina; however, four of these states have their own state-developed code.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 48
CODE ASSISTANCE Q (End User): When you have questions about a commercial energy code interpretation, who do you consult? (Check all that apply)
Product manufacturers ASHRAE Users Manual
Local building department ICC Code Commentary
DOE Hotline
ICC Code Commentary
40%
Product Manufacturers 42%
ASHRAE Users Manual 48%
Local building department 50%
16% DOE Hotline
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 49
Q (End User): Do you believe there is a need for increased assistance on code interpretation?
Yes No
No 21%
Yes 79%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 50
TRAINING Q (End User): Please indicate how you keep current with commercial energy code requirements. For each method you use, please rate how effective it is.
Not Effective Somewhat Effective Effective
ASHRAE supporting documents/resources 2% 15% In-person workshops 2% 7% DOE supporting documents/resources 4% 14% ICC supporting documents/resources 3% 14% ASHRAE Web seminars 4% 17% DOE Web seminars 5% 20% 39% 28% 24%
20% 30% 40%
66% 66% 55% 56% 38% 33%
Other 5% 8% ASHRAE Self-paced courses 2% 14% DOE Self-paced courses 4% 15%
0% 10%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 51
Q (Code Official): Please indicate how you keep current with commercial energy code requirements. For each method you use, please rate how effective it is.
Not Effective
In Person ICC Supporting Documents/Resources DOE Self-Paced Courses DOE Web Seminars ASHRAE Supporting Documents/Resources DOE Supporting Resources/Documents ASHRAE Self-Paced Courses ICC Self-Paced Courses ASHRAE Web Seminars
2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 6% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 13%
Somewhat Effective
21% 18%
Effective
Other 1%
0%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 52
Q (End User): In a given year, how often do you receive training on the commercial code? (Number of times per year)
% Frequency
7 or more times 0%
5-6 times
1%
3-4 times
8%
1-2 times
59%
Never
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% of Responses
Q (Code Official): In a given year, how often do you receive training on the commercial code? (Number of times per year)
% Frequency 7 or more times 6% 5%
5-6 times 3-4 times 1-2 times
19% 60%
Never 0%
11% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 53
Q (End User): Please rank the following methods of receiving additional information/training about the commercial code. Rank your MOST preferred method as “1”, and your LEAST preferred method as “10”.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 54
Q (Code Official): Please rank the following methods of receiving additional information/training about the commercial code. Rank your MOST preferred method as “1”, and your LEAST preferred method as “10”.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 55
Q (End User): When you receive additional code information, who would you like to see deliver this information? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases) Product Manufacturers/Suppliers Local building departments
24%
35%
Code Trainers
42%
U.S. Department of Energy
44%
State Code Authority
46%
Model code developer (ASHRAE, ICC, ect)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
55%
60%
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 56
RESOURCES Q (End User & Code Official): Would you like to see additional resources and/or delivery methods for code information?
Yes Yes 95%
No
100% 90% 80%
% of Responses
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Code Officials No 5% Yes 45%
No 55%
End-Users
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 57
Q (Code Official): Are there any other resources, assistance, training, and/or specific delivery methods you would like to see available to improve commercial code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
90% 80% 70% 60%
% Valid Cases
77%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% State-specific online training In-field circuit-rider training Mentors Third party code inspectors 27% 24%
21%
Selected Comments:
“Inexpensive seminars held in local areas.” “A more common sense approach of what the code is trying to achieve.” “All energy requirements should be verified via 3rd party.” “Additional DOE financial support of state and local enforcements workshops.” “In house ICC energy training.” “State Building Code Council needs to emphasize the IECC in their training offerings.” “Required training for licensure.” “More day seminars regarding commercial or residential applications”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 58
V. Code Enforcement
Background
When adopting a model code, states typically provide resources to support municipalities on implementation and enforcement. Local funds are used to help code officials and builders understand and comply with the code’s requirements. Many states wish to understand compliance at their local levels so funding can be funneled effectively toward needed resources. While state compliance studies typically attempt to develop a number to articulate compliance and noncompliance levels, this section explores issues driving noncompliance in the application of codes, as well as in the process set up to enforce them.
Question Topics: Management of Code Compliance Non-compliance Areas Demonstrating Compliance Evaluation of Enforcement Best Practices Case Study Key Findings:
Finding #1 – Although many code officials report a lack of time and staff to enforce the energy code, third party enforcement is occurring in only a small percent of the market. With increasing understanding of the scale of noncompliance, there is much talk among code advocates regarding third party enforcement. While the survey shows only a small percentage of jurisdictions currently use this method, further research is needed to determine if this number is growing and to evaluate its effectiveness. An interview with a building code examiner brought up a thoughtful perspective and approach –energy is integrated into mechanical, electrical, and architectural/structural reviews in this particular city. Because energy is fundamental to these other areas, removing it so that a third party would conduct an energy-specific review would be highly inefficient under this process. Finding #2 – Noncompliance appears to primarily be a problem of interpretation by the end user, plan checker, and/or site inspector, and disagreement among one or more of these parties. Although code officials in the survey identified many building components and systems where codes are not met, the comments do not indicate a specific failure in any one area of the code to define requirements. Instead, the problem of noncompliance appears to be a comprehensive one where, for example, end users are referencing the wrong codes or interpreting the requirements differently, and/or plan reviewers and site inspectors disagree on code interpretation.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 59
Finding #3 – Of the compliance paths available to end users, code officials most often enforce the code through the prescriptive path, but all compliance methods are used. Code officials are verifying compliance through all of the options given to end users. Training and resources need to address all paths of compliance in order to serve code officials in applicable enforcement practices. Finding #4 – Plan reviews and site inspections are established in most building departments as a required enforcement process; however, these activities do not always include energy code requirements. Code officials report that jurisdictions generally require both plan reviews and site inspections to enforce codes for commercial buildings. End users verify the high number of plan reviews but when asked specifically about required documentation, less than three quarters of all end users reported that they are required to submit plans. This indicates that both groups may be overestimating the number of plan reviews that take place. End users also cite a lower number than code officials (69 percent compared to 90 percent) of jurisdictions that conduct site inspections. We also asked code officials about the systems they cover in plan reviews and site inspections. The building envelope is covered in 90 to 94 percent of these activities. Other systems receive decreasing reviews and inspections: HVAC (81 to 84 percent), lighting (62 to 71 percent), power (47 to 53 percent), and service water heating (52 to 55 percent). Some end users commented that the building envelope appears to be the area where code officials have the most expertise. Although HVAC and lighting systems are included in most reviews and inspections, end users report that code officials rely on documentation rather than doing their own review and verification. Lighting systems are included more often in plan reviews (62 percent) than in site inspections (71 percent). Code officials in the survey who conduct plan reviews praised the role this step plays in catching problems before the site inspection and at a time when they can be addressed effectively by designers and engineers. Still, some of the problems discovered in site inspections arise during construction and include inadequate installation which the inspector may or may not be knowledgeable about and be able to catch. Finding #5 – The codes are open to different interpretations by code officials, which is exacerbated when plan reviews and site inspections are completed by different individuals. Many end users referred to the various interpretations of codes by code officials – across different projects and sometimes within the same project. We have also heard this issue from other end users in the field, outside of this study. While this finding relates to education and training, it also relates to code language clarity (discussed in a previous section). Finding #6 – Both end users and code officials need resources and training to improve their part in code compliance, despite the fact that they blame each other for compliance shortfalls. End users and code officials request additional training, and perhaps penalties, for each other to improve code compliance. However, when combining the data received on use
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 60
and education with the data on compliance, it is clearly a matter of failures in both groups. The majority of end users report that enforcement of the energy code would be a strong motivator for them to comply with the requirements. A little more than half believe that it is sufficiently enforced now but comments reveal that end users are not sure that code officials are looking at energy compliance thoroughly, if at all. Comments from end users indicate that enforcement often falls short by not covering all systems (as described above by code officials). One of the most oft-cited reasons for why code enforcement officials struggle to implement or enforce energy codes is that they are short of resources for their primary charge: the enforcement of life-health safety codes. In addition, the energy codes are cited as subservient to the interests of life health safety codes in Section 100 of the IECC:
101.3 Intent. This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use of energy. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes, laws or regulations.
In BCAP’s experience, code officials refer to this section as the reason why they can downplay the enforcement of the energy code in lieu of applying their limited resources to these “more important” codes.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 61
M ANAGEMENT OF C ODE COMPLIANCE Q (End User): What authority manages code compliance for your jurisdiction? (Check all that apply)
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 62
Non-compliance Areas Q (End User): If one of your projects is not code compliant the first time documentation is submitted, what are the most common reasons?
Selected Comments: “Errors in code interpretation” “Plan and COMcheck documentation do not match.” “Clarity issues in the contract documents/drawings cause confusion in the code inspection process.” “Insufficient energy related data or systems specifications.” “Zones for simple vs. complex and VAV systems, and % efficiency of systems.” “Unclear of what building inspector needs - there is a very inconsistent response to drawing packages.”
Q (Code Official): If you find a project is not code compliant, what are the most common reasons?
Selected Comments:
“Construction details not match the requirements listed in the attached COMcheck.”
“Misunderstanding of the code or lack of communication of the code requirements to the contractor.” “Lack of understanding of a too complex code.” “Plans not followed in field.” “Lighting energy usage. Not double checking work. Hate to say, omitting information to meet compliance.” “Lack of knowledge on the designers’ part of the existence of the requirements and where to find them.” “Too much cheap glazing”
“The HVAC and lighting systems are typically the ones that do not comply. Most of the design professio nals that we deal with have a good understanding of the building envelope requirements, but many times the HVAC and lighting systems are value engineered due to budget constraints and these systems then have problems complying with the overall building energy requirements.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 63
DEMONSTRATING C OMPLIANCE Q (Code Official): Estimate the percentage of projects that follow the [Prescriptive Path, Component Trade-Off Approach, Performance Path] (Choices must add up to 100%)
Code Officials
Mean 60 50
54%
Mean Response
40 31% 30 20 10 0 Prescriptive Path Component Trade-Off Approach Performance Path 31%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 64
Q (End User): Does the organization with authority for code compliance in your jurisdiction regularly conduct [the following]?
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
100%
93%
90%
80%
70%
69%
% Valid Cases
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Plan Review
Site Inspection
Q (Code Official): Does your local jurisdiction require any of the following?
Yes
120%
No
100%
Yes 97%
Yes 96%
Yes 90%
80%
% of Responses
60%
40%
20%
No 2%
0%
No 3%
Site inspections
No 9%
Plan review
Architect or P.E. stamp
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 65
Q (End User): What documentation, if any, are you required to submit to demonstrate compliance in your jurisdiction?
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
No documentation 7%
Software generated documents Self Certification documentation
50%
15%
Certification Forms
51%
Specification
54%
Plans
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
72%
80%
% Valid Cases
Selected Comments:
“I always ask, no one knows what I'm talking about.” “Technically the code requires documentation but in our state there is no one to collect this information.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 66
Q (Code Official): For which of the following building components, if any, does your code jurisdiction require Plan Review for commercial energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Does not provide a plan review Other Equipment 4%
14%
Service Water Heating
52%
Power
53%
Lighting
71%
HVAC
84%
Building Envelope
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
94%
100%
% Valid Cases
Q (Code Official): For those you use, do you find them effective for enforcement?
Selected Comments: (How effective do you consider plan reviews?)
“They sometimes take the back seat to other codes. We get spread a little thin sometimes and the environment takes the hit. Also, a lot of mechanical systems are too complicated for plan checkers or inspectors to understand.” “Yes in the design stages. Requiring the engineers design and compliance calculations before permit issuance forces the architect to coordinate the design functions better.” “Plan review is the only method to obtain the inform ation necessary to effectively complete the field inspections.” “Plan reviews of these building components make enforcement 100% easier than just catching everything in the field. Major problems with design are encountered much earlier in the process, thus making it easy to enforce.” “Yes, I find I can delete some frustration on the part of the contractors by reviewing the requirements ahead of time, rather than making all the calls in the field. Plan review is the first inspection of the project.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 67
Q (Code Official): For which of the following building components, if any, does your code jurisdiction require an On-Site Inspection for commercial energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Does not provide an On-Site Inspection Other Equipment 7%
14%
Power
47%
Service Water Heating
55%
Lighting
62%
HVAC
81%
Building Envelope
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
90%
90% 100%
% Valid Cases
Q (Code Official): For those you use, do you find them effective for enforcement?
Selected Comments:
“Yes, but remember our inspectors are not engineers and many of the operational aspects of the equipment and lighting controls are evaluated separately by them more than by inspections.” “Again when inspection time comes, installers are unaware of [the] correct way to install different items like batt insulation, rigid form board etc.” “Inspections are only as good as the inspector. On large projects, Building Officials do not have the qualifications to make sure the energy code requirements are met when it relates to lighting, power, etc.. Electrical Inspectors don't care. They are only concerned about their code, NEC. Make the energy requirements and enforcement of the energy code part of their requirements and code.” “Absolutely, there are many instances where the contractor has missed significant compliance issues that would not surface unless there were destructive testing to determine where a problem existed.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 68
EVALUATION OF ENFORCEMENT Q (End User): Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement. “In my jurisdiction, the commercial energy code is sufficiently enforced.”
% Frequency
70%
60%
58%
50%
% of Responses
42%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Disagree
Agree
Selected Comments: (Why or why not?)
“Most systems installed are sufficiently justified "as designed" most times, in "the spirit of continuing the job". I rarely see code officials force code compliance on issues that are not life-safety items.”
“I work in a facilities department at a DOD site, and most times the budget rules the design features
regardless of the 'executive orders' to follow energy codes etc.”
“They don't spend the time to check the efficiency of the equipment. Just the installation requirements.” “Local officials understand the building envelope fairly well and perform adequate site inspections, but rely
on the design engineers Code Compliance forms for lighting and HVAC.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 69
Q (End User): Overall, what would improve your ability to comply with the code?
Selected Comments:
“An accountability system that monitors performance of code officials.” “More consistency between plan reviewers and inspectors.” “If the jurisdiction having authority and us went to the same training.” “Database of Code Complying Documents.” “more staff = more time”
Q (Code Official) Overall, what would improve your ability to enforce the commercial building energy code?
Selected Comments:
“Third party Special Inspectors for Energy Code Compliance and more up to speed design professionals.” “Training for inspectors, plans examiners, contractors and designers.” Better compliance forms.” “The ability to require only 1 type of alternative trade off software being submitted. We are Most familiar with COMcheck - however we are not permitted to require only COMcheck - we must accept whatever software type they use. Our proficiency in other software types is less and we have more difficulty in knowing that the submitter is actually complying not just working the numbers.” “Ability to limit use of building if it fails to comply with energy code with nationally specified penalties” “Simplification of the performance and trade off methods.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 70
Q (End User): Do you consider code enforcement to be a strong motivator for code compliance?
Yes
No 19%
No
Yes 81%
Q (Code Official): What types of enforcement methods do you believe would improve compliance (be a sufficient motivator for the design/construction industry)?
Selected Comments: Rather than discussing enforcement, many respondents commented on the need for additional education for contractors/engineers “Use of training is less time consuming than enforcement.” “More classes for contractor to understand energy codes.” “Mandatory training for repeat violators.” Many comments were made suggesting better plan reviews, site inspections, and penalties. “Get utilities involved to give perks or discounts for making a more efficient system that would help balance
out the cost involved.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 71
Q (Code Official): What do you believe are the largest barriers in enforcing the commercial energy codes, if any? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Lack of resources (training) Priority is given to other codes Complexity of the code Lack of resources ("manpower") Lack of funding Lack of resources (tools) None
0%
65%
53%
46%
40%
25%
20%
7%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% Valid Cases
Selected Comments:
“If I have a limited amount of resources, and I have the choice of either performing fire suppression/alarm review or energy review, for purposes of public review at a later time, which do YOU feel would be given greater scrutiny if a calamity would occur at the site? ” “To effectively incorporate the Energy Requirements into the Structural Requirements would significantly enhance their application and implementation in the field.” “I believe it is a lack of understanding first, then lack of manpower secondly. I would propose adding a required permit type to all buildings. Let’s call it an energy compliance permit. This permit cost would cover the cost of assuring compliance with the energy code. In most buildings, the actual cost to the jurisdiction is about .05 per square foot to provide adequate manpower to inspect for energy compliance. An average single family residence that equates to about $100 more in permit fees. That also equates to about $250 for a 5,000 commercial building. I believe that cost would be recovered in the first year.”
“Our issue is having the staff levels required to adequately enforce energy codes. We struggle to get enough
staff to handle the life-safety code provisions and life-safety comes before energy when establishing priorities for resources and staff allocation. No manpower resources are left for energy.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 72
Q (Code Official): Please identify best practices, if any, in your jurisdictions that promote stronger compliance.
Selected Comments:
“Integrated and preliminary plan reviews 2007 Albuquerque Energy Conservation Code developed through consensus process by task force composed of broad cross-section of stakeholders. Mayor required City buildings to meet higher energy efficiency standards before imposing higher standards on private sector.” “Attending classes from various sources to hear different sides” “Mandated state training seminars.” “Permit Denials, Stop Work” “Meeting w/designers during plan development.” “Every inspector does the plan review on the work he inspects every inspector does the plan review.” “We explain all errors at the planning review and during on-site inspections.” “We require more inspections throughout construction than most municipalities; we are w ell trained and make more on site visits to check for compliance throughout construction.” “Daily or weekly site observation visits and weekly meeting with the general contractors and sub contractor to review minimum acceptable requirements.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 73
Case Study: The Texas Building Professional Institute
OVERVIEW: The University of Texas at Arlington established the Construction Research Center (CRC) as a medium for the development of construction technology and dissemination of newly developed technology to the professional community. The primary continuing education program is the annual Building Professional Institute (BPI), held each May on the UTA campus. This is a week-long program that typically provides over 80 presentations on current issues including building energy codes and green building. Background: In recognizing the critical training and education needs of the building community, the Texas State ICC chapter also realized the extreme cost associated with training. It was improbable to justify the typical training expenditures of $250 to $300 per day. Texas set out to build off the lessons learned from the initial training institute in Colorado and to model new approaches for subsequent venues. CASE STUDY FEATURES: The Texas BPI demonstrates impressive cost effective training methods. In just 16 years, BPI has grown from training 250 code officials per year to training over 2,200 building industry professionals including, architects, engineers, electricians, plumbers, sanitarians, real estate inspectors, code officials, and others. BPI’s innovative approach not only recognizes the importance of training but also cost effectiveness. Arizona and Minnesota, and possibly others, have since followed suit with their own successful training institutes based on this model. LESSONS LEARNED: The following are lessons learned by BPI as they built their successful training program: VOLUME: Increasing the volume of participants allows the institute to offer expert training at a fraction of the cost (½ day training and full day training for $50 and $75). MINIMIZED VENUE COSTS: BPI saves costs for the event by using volunteers to run the institute and work the event. Marketing and registration are electronic which eliminates mail/print cost and wasted time on the day of the event. BRANDING: By holding the training the same day each year and sending out reminders throughout the year, BPI has become a recognized and respected organization for training in the state. KNOWING PARTICIPANTS NEEDS AND WANTS: BPI utilizes information given by moderators and evaluations regarding the needs and wants of the participants. For example, a week long track on energy codes and energy efficiency was added when the state adopted the energy code in the early 2000’s. Also, they recently offered 3.5 days on green buildings. These classes are fully registered. TRAINING: The institute’s primary goal is focused on quality rather than quantity to turn a profit. Offering curriculum that is available for continuing education credit, and keeping topics current, original and interesting allows the content to sell itself. For more information please consult the Building Professional Institute Web-Site at http://www3.uta.edu/bpi2/index.aspx.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 74
VI. Summary
The project objectives were to: 1. Identify known or perceived usability issues with prevailing commercial building energy codes such as Standard 90.1 and its derivatives. 2. Identify the methods applied by end users (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) to determine compliance with their current commercial building energy codes. 3. Identify any compliance issues identified such as the need for compliance forms, computer software and tools or training. 4. Identify the enforcement methods used by states and jurisdictions for ensuring compliance with their commercial building energy codes. The intent of this study was also to provide recommendations that can be used by ASHRAE to develop more useable and enforceable codes. In pursuing this, it became clear that improving the language of the commercial code, while helpful, does not represent the full extent of what needs to be accomplished to improve code implementation. The results of this study address the broad community of ASHRAE, DOE, ICC, state energy offices, local building departments, trainers, and others regarding activities that should be undertaken both independently and collectively. They follow several themes derived from the above objectives: USABILITY: There is a need to improve the clarity of code requirements, making them less open to interpretation, and to ensure that enforcement of each requirement is practical and possible. ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE: There is a lot of education delivered on codes, and more requested, yet a significant amount of non-compliance and misinterpretation (by BOTH end users and code officials). Training should be improved, rather than simply increased, so that it is consistent, and includes not only what is in the code but how to follow, demonstrate, and inspect for the requirements. Code officials can also support end users in achieving compliance if they conduct effective, consistent plan reviews and site inspections. DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE: Code officials need to become more familiar with compliance software so that end users do not convert building data into COMcheck or follow other means that changes components “on paper” only to get approval. End users are generally satisfied with the software tools currently available so code officials need to know how to understand the program output. ENFORCEMENT: Many end users perceive enforcement as very low and a reason not to comply with energy codes; many code officials give the lowest priority of enforcement to the energy code. The level of importance and value for
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 75
the energy code has to be raised to increase enforcement and drive better compliance. Recommendation #1 – Review the 90.1 public review process for sufficient involvement of code officials and consideration of feedback on interpretation and implementation issues. ASHRAE 90.1 is developed by a system of committees and specialized subcommittees. Requirements are voted on and put out for public comment. However, the extent of issues brought up in the survey regarding misinterpretation and enforcement problems indicate a lack of feedback flow to the 90.1 committee. ASHRAE may need to make a focused effort to invite comment regarding requirements in effect. Creation of a specialized committee could also provide a forum where multiple interpretations of language and enforcement issues are cataloged and reviewed for possible changes in 90.1. Recommendation #2 – Establish training guidelines to improve content, and assure inclusion of appropriate compliance and enforcement methods. To address inconsistent application of codes, training clearly has an important role. However, increasing the number of workshops, for example, is not a sufficient strategy to address this widespread problem. Since training and education is delivered by many different organizations and individuals, ASHRAE could develop and release training guidelines to support consistent and thorough training on requirements. Recommendation #3 – Evaluate compliance software used for the performance and component trade-off compliance paths for gaming opportunities and provide expanded training. Since there is a perception that requirements can be gamed using the performance path and component trade-off path, it is evident that the enforcement community needs to be better educated on modeling software and/or made better aware of compliance using these approaches. It would be helpful to conduct additional research on the tools themselves; evaluating and addressing gaming opportunities, and ensuring that documentation can be generated to demonstrate compliance, would be a significant step forward. Recommendation #4 – ASHRAE and ICC should jointly develop and promote clear guidelines on the application of Standard 90.1 and IECC Due the practice of interchanging 90.1 and IECC, as well as the magnitude of the code official’s job in enforcing different codes and vintages of codes, there is a need for highlevel guidance on code application. This guidance needs to address a variety of questions, including if compliance through IECC is allowable if Standard 90.1 is the adopted commercial energy code in a location. End users and code officials need to know if there are situations where one should be followed over the other. For this to be effective, there also needs to be coordination between the codes. ASHRAE has chartered a path for improved stringency in Standard 90.1 which does not apply to IECC. If they are interchanged within a building or a city, this will affect the overall energy savings achieved by the state/city in adopting their code, in addition to confusion it will create within an individual project.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 76
Recommendation #5 – Provide code officials with assistance in enforcing Standard 90.1 The more complicated the code language and the more involved the inspection requirements, it appears the more likely that code officials will not be able to follow through on enforcement. Many of the responses in our study indicate that code officials believe the energy codes to be unnecessarily complicated and report that they do not have the time to do thorough plan reviews and inspections. End users report that code officials do not have the expertise needed in all areas of the code to enforce the provisions. If the goal is to expand use of 90.1 in the design and construction industry, code officials need to understand it better and have resources to improve compliance checking. Most code officials are also checking structural, mechanical and electrical code compliance, so there is an opportunity to integrate energy training into training on other codes so code officials don’t leave it out. Recommendation #6 – Increase outreach to building owners and their organizations and provide targeted information on energy code benefits. Many end users commented on building owners as decision makers on which energy code a building design should follow. This survey found end users to be following a wide range of energy codes and if owners are the main driver behind this activity, it is critical that owners are educated. More research in this area is needed to understand the role of owners.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 77
APPENDIX A Literature Review References Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) – Residential Energy Code Evaluations – Review and Future Directions, (June 2005). Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Energy Code Support – Market Research Report, prepared by Quantec, (August 2005). The Peregrine Energy Group – studied New Hampshire and Rhode Island to determine if specific factors (e.g. community size, level of building, level of building activity, training, etc.) affect energy code compliance (November 2001) Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP) – Building Energy Codes in Arizona: Best Practices in Code Support, Compliance, and Enforcement, (August 2007). ZING Communications, Inc. – 2007 Commercial Energy Code Compliance Study, completed for Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 78
COMPLIANCE METHODS
October 2008
Developed by
Building Codes Assistance Project
Submitted to
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Commercial Building Energy Codes – Usability and Compliance Methods
October 2008
Developed by the Building Codes Assistance Project Submitted to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Introduction
Key Findings Recommendations
I. Project Description & Methodology Project goals Literature review Project and survey design Survey distribution Sample size and accuracy Interviews Data analysis
II. Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers
Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o End Users o Code Enforcers
III. Using the Energy Code
Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o Codes in use o Expertise with codes o Code language and clarity o Issues with available products and technologies o Compliance approaches o Meeting prescriptive requirements o Meeting performance requirements o Meeting component trade-off requirements o Compliance tools o Effectiveness
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 2
IV. Education and Training Background Question topics Key findings Questions/results o Code assistance o Training o Resources V. Code Enforcement
Background Question Topics Key findings Questions/results o Management of code compliance o Non-compliance areas o Demonstrating compliance o Evaluation of enforcement Best practices case study
VI. Summary Appendix A
Literature review references
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 3
Introduction
Despite the dearth of research to-date on the subject, energy code compliance in commercial buildings across the US is highly suspect of falling far short of 100 percent. There is a lack of both definitive national-level studies regarding building energy code compliance and state studies which can be compared and contrasted; nevertheless the signals still clearly point to significant and widespread lack of compliance with energy efficiency requirements. Working under the premise that energy code compliance is low, on average, this project was designed to uncover the issues that contribute to non-compliance in the commercial sector (i.e. code language, tools, and enforcement methods). The goal was to develop a level of detail sufficient to inform an effective response to compliance through simplifying the use of codes and/or improving the enforcement process. ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) recently embraced an organization-wide goal to significantly improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. This included a goal adopted by the Standard 90.1 committee to improve the associated efficiency of the 2010 edition by 30 percent above the standard set in 2004. This would be a significant improvement and it is one which the US Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to provide support in meeting. To this end, this study is meant to provide DOE with specific recommendations to ASHRAE on developing more useable and enforceable codes. A fundamental element of this study is a nation-wide survey aimed at collecting representative data from all regions and states. Based on over fourteen years of experience advocating for energy codes, the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) designed the survey and associated interviews and research to also take a look at factors outside of the codes themselves. While language and format can affect use and enforcement, BCAP believes that education and local funding also play major roles in how well the market complies with codes. ASHRAE has an education/training element, for example, that could benefit from feedback on how changes to this type of activity could improve compliance. In addition, a literature review was used to build off of previous studies and to design “next-step” questions about issues like training and resources. The survey developed into a unique opportunity to understand not only what ASHRAE can do, but also what DOE, the International Code Council (ICC), and code advocates can also do to improve how commercial energy codes are understood, used, and enforced.
Key Findings
Below is a list of findings derived from the survey, interview, and research data collected in this study. These conclusions are expanded on throughout the paper and accompanied with supporting survey data:
Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers:
Finding 1 – Engineers and Designers/Architects are the prime targets for energy code training and resources; however, other groups also have significant influence on the energy aspects of commercial buildings.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 4
Finding 2 – The most common profile of a code official is one who works for their local building office, is licensed or certified to enforce the code, works with both commercial and residential energy codes, and enforces mechanical, structural, and/or electrical codes as well as the energy code.
Using the Energy Code:
Finding 1 – End users report using a wide variety of energy codes even though most code officials say they enforce the 2006 IECC. Finding 2 – Problems with unclear and ambiguous language are reported across all codes; however, code officials using Standard 90.1-2004, report the largest problem with this issue. Finding 3 – Conflicts between energy codes and new technologies lie in software issues and barriers in reporting on code compliance. Finding 4 – Most end users prefer the performance compliance path; yet problems exist in the perceived opportunity to “game” compliance by end users and in the lack of software documentation accepted by code officials to demonstrate compliance. Finding 5 – COMcheck rates the highest in satisfaction for compliance tools among end users but perceived levels of gaming are high. Finding 6 – Of performance-based software, most end users use (and consider the most effective) TRACE 700, eQuest, and DOE-2.1E. Finding 7 – End users and code officials have similar perceptions about each other and about the effectiveness of energy codes.
Education and Training:
Finding 1 – End users consult multiple sources to interpret codes. Finding 2 – End users take advantage of multiple trainings and resources currently available, preferring in-person workshops and supporting resources from ASHRAE, DOE, and ICC to other sources. Finding 3 – Code officials consistently view code resources as effective training tools. Finding 4 – Code officials and end users request state-specific training on codes.
Code Enforcement:
Finding 1 – Although many code officials report a lack of time and staff to enforce the energy code, third party enforcement is occurring in only a small percent of the market. Finding 2 – Noncompliance appears to primarily be a problem of interpretation by the end user, plan checker, and/or site inspector, and disagreement among one or more of these parties. Finding 3 – Of the compliance paths available to end users, code officials most often enforce the code through the prescriptive path, but all compliance methods are used.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 5
Finding 4 – Plan reviews and site inspections are established in most building departments as a required enforcement process; however, these activities do not always include energy code requirements. Finding 5 – The codes are open to different interpretations by code officials, which are exacerbated when plan reviews and site inspections are completed by different individuals. Finding 6 – Both end users and code officials need resources and training to improve their part in code compliance, despite the fact that they blame each other for compliance shortfalls.
List of Recommendations
[The following list provides recommendations for ASHRAE, as well as DOE, ICC, and the many other organizations and individuals providing market assistance for the commercial energy code.] Recommendation 1 Review the 90.1 public review process for sufficient involvement of code officials and consideration of feedback on interpretation and implementation issues. Recommendation 2 Establish training guidelines to improve content, and assure inclusion of appropriat e compliance and enforcement methods. Recommendation 3 Evaluate compliance software used for the performance and component trade-off compliance paths for gaming opportunities and provide expanded training. Recommendation 4 ASHRAE and ICC should jointly develop and promote clear guidelines on the application of Standard 90.1 and IECC. Recommendation 5 Provide code officials with assistance in enforcing Standard 90.1 Recommendation 6 Increase outreach to building owners and their organizations and provide targeted information on energy code benefits.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 6
I. Project Description & Methodology
Project Goals
As mentioned above, while prior studies at the state and regional levels have not been conclusive, they have shed light on the lack of compliance with energy codes. Noncompliance is particularly problematic because codes are mandatory and generally assumed to establish baseline energy use for incentive and voluntary programs. They are also used to project minimum energy efficiency over time in the building sector. If compliance is significantly poor in some locations, then the building sector is using a great deal more energy that is assumed by local policy makers, utilities, and others involved in managing energy demand and use. Compliance rates are best addressed at the state and local levels through studies which collect significant, uniform data tied to specific jurisdictions. This project did not look at rates, but set specific goals to develop information on addressing compliance which could then be applied to address compliance failures both at the national code development level and at the state and local implementation levels. Local governments need to understand and benchmark their respective compliance rates, and then apply recommendations, such as those found in this study, to work on improvement over time. The project (which consisted of surveys, interviews, and analysis) was designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of end users’ perspective on their use of commercial building energy codes and of code officials’ perspective on enforcing them. The survey and interview questions were framed to provide insight into what can be done to make commercial building energy codes easier for designers and builders to use effectively to achieve compliance. Project objectives were to: 1. Identify known or perceived usability issues with prevailing commercial building energy codes such as Standard 90.1 and its derivatives. 2. Identify the methods applied by end users (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) to determine compliance with their current commercial building energy codes. 3. Identify any compliance issues identified such as the need for compliance forms, computer software and tools or training. 4. Identify the enforcement methods used by states and jurisdictions for ensuring compliance with their commercial building energy codes.
Literature Review
BCAP identified and reviewed prior studies developed at the national and local levels on energy code compliance. Studies on residential codes were included since early review indicated that the majority of code officials are responsible for enforcing the code in both building sectors. Therefore, both types of studies had potential to provide valuable background in designing this project on commercial energy codes. The studies were reviewed for: 1) Gaps in code compliance research, 2) Insight into compliance issues, and 3) Findings that could be further explored in more detail.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 7
At this time, few national studies are available and only one, focused on lighting requirements added to Standard 90.1-2004, took an exclusive look at the commercial sector. The review also included commercial and residential sector state studies in Rhode Island and New Hampshire, and regional studies in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast. Residential-only studies from Arizona and a 2005 national meta-study were also included. Because state studies generally make an attempt to report on compliance rates and not the underlying issues, there is a gap in understanding issues causing non-compliance. Below are a few of the primary findings from the literature review which highlighted specific areas for questions about compliance in the national market: Building Department Activity – The Arizona study 1 highlighted the importance of training and education, involving the building industry in writing amendments, providing advanced notice of code changes, and developing energy champions. However, due to the small sample size of officials in the study (11), and the focus on the residential sector, it is difficult to translate these recommended practices to the national commercial building sector without further information. Expertise on Codes – The 2000 study in Rhode Island and New Hampshire2 by the Peregrine Energy Group shows code officials reporting a higher level of knowledge of residential energy codes as compared to commercial energy codes. This may be consistent across the US and, if true, may indicate an opportunity to improve enforcement with education. Attitudes – A 2005 study for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)3 found that a very low percentage of code officials expressed no knowledge of the energy code. The study also determined that trainings had a high impact on the practices of code officials who attended. If basic awareness and understanding are issues across the country, the activities supporting codes in the Northwest which were evaluated in this study may provide proven recommendations for other states. Enforcement Process – A small but national study in 2007 on commercial code compliance4 suggested that a significant number of code officials do not verify compliance by inspecting projects. It went on to also suggest that engineers consider inconsistent and variable code enforcement as a significant barrier to code compliance. This is a significant finding and was deemed important to verify on a larger scale.
Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP) – Building Energy Codes in Arizona: Best Practices in Code Support, Compliance, and Enforcement, (August 2007). 2 The Peregrine Energy Group – studied New Hampshire and Rhode Island to determine if specific factors (e.g. community size, level of building, level of building activity, training, etc.) affect energy code compliance (November 2001) 3 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Energy Code Support – Market Research Report, prepared by Quantec, (August 2005). 4 ZING Communications, Inc. – 2007 Commercial Energy Code Compliance Study, completed for Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association.
1
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 8
Levels of Compliance – The BCAP meta-study5 summarized 16 state-level residential code compliance studies and revealed a lack of consistency in state report methodology to the level where it prevented exact comparison between results. Nevertheless, all states reported relatively low compliance for energy codes, with the possible exception of those in the Pacific Northwest (Montana, Oregon, and Washington) and California. The conclusion was that these states had enjoyed relatively large levels of support from utilities or the state energy offices or both, and that there was a great deal of training, outreach and above code program work that helped push energy code efficacy. The methodology of the state studies also prevented BCAP from determining the “energy savings gap” – the opportunity lost due to low compliance levels. This was due largely to wild inconsistencies in how code compliance was measured, actual modeled energy savings vs. baseline, pass or fail via REScheck/ COMcheck software, a lack of consistent criteria for measurement, and other survey characteristics.
Project & Survey Design
To complete this study, BCAP designed a national survey that targeted “end users” and “enforcers.” END USERS: People who use commercial codes to design and build buildings (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) ENFORCERS: People who check and/or inspect commercial buildings to confirm compliance with commercial energy codes – most typically, code officials. A dual purpose survey instrument was developed to identify and assess issues faced by the design and construction sectors in using and implementing commercial energy codes, as well as the issues that the code enforcement communities deal with in assuring that code requirements are followed. The dual design allowed for the sample size to be divided into subgroups of End Users and Enforcers. The users included engineers, designers, builders, product manufacturers, contractors and installers. The enforcement authorities included building code officials, plan reviewers, and inspectors. During the development phase of this survey, BCAP capitalized on its established relationships with state energy and building code offices, builder associations, and other local and national organizations to solicit input. BCAP also identified model code trainers as a group with insight into possible questions from end users and invited individuals to be interviewed on effective questions to ask survey participants. Early in January 2008, 15 trainers were consulted and asked the following questions, in regards to the commercial building energy code: What version do you usually provide training on? How often do you provide training? Do you focus on any specific area? (Lighting, HVAC, Envelope, all) What kind of attendance do you have for your sessions? What regions/cities do you cover?
5
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) – Residential Energy Code Evaluations – Review and Future Directions, (June 2005).
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 9
Are evaluations done after the training? Known usability issues? (is it difficult to read, to complex to understand) Know compliances issues? Known issues with ASHRAE 90.1? A draft survey was developed using the recommendations of this group and input from others. The draft survey was then further reviewed by selected potential participants, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, DOE, and industry partners. The responses of both groups shaped the final survey instrument. Due to the timeline established for the project, and to improve participation, BCAP selected an automated process to host and collect the survey results. The survey link was available and distributed between March 3 and May 9, 2008 via email through a survey vendor, to automatically track results.6
Survey Distribution
In sending out the survey, BCAP used a multi-level outreach strategy to acquire the data quickly and to ensure representation of a wide cross-section of the country. Early on in the survey development phase, BCAP recognized the diverse nature of potential end user participants. To achieve well-represented results, a high priority for the project was to include engineers, designers, developers, product manufacturers, contractors and installers. Representing both large and small jurisdictions was also a high priority. BCAP capitalized on several current industry partners to aid in distribution of the survey, as well as new partners. Potential end user participants were identified from the membership and contact lists of the following organizations:
Alliance to Save Energy Association of Energy Engineers American Institute of Architects (state chapters) Associated General Contractors of America International Association of Lighting Designers WTCA-Representing the Structural Buildings Component Industry The Construction Specification Institute American Council of Engineering Companies Association of Electrical Engineers New Buildings Institute Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) US Green Building Council (state chapters) North American Insulation Manufacturers Association New Jersey Institute of Technology MaGrann Associates Steven Winter Associates Northeast By Northwest AIA of New York State
Similarly, BCAP recognized the importance of reaching out to a large variety of building code officials and inspectors to represent the diversity of the country’s code enforcement population. The outreach strategy included maximizing collaboration with relevant organizations. Therefore, potential “enforcers” were comprised of contacts and membership lists of the following:
6
Surveymonkey.com was selected as the survey vendor.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 10
International Code Council (state chapters) Building Code Official Association (state chapters) National Governors Association National Association of Counties (NACo) National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI– Local Governments for Sustainability)
For both groups, BCAP also capitalized on its own state contacts and the regional energy efficiency organizations, including the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA), the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), the Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). In addition to sending the survey to members and contacts, many organizations involved in the outreach effort posted the survey on their websites, highlighted it in their newsletters, and distributed information at code trainings and conferences. BCAP used its own newsletter and website to publicize the survey and also announced it in presentations, trainings, and at conferences. - Website/newsletter: BCAP posted the survey internet link on March 3 on its homepage and highlighted it in its April code newsletter that has a distribution list of approximately 5,000 subscribers. - Trainings: New York and New Hampshire code trainings by BCAP in March and April included information on accessing the online survey. Information was also provided at various ICC trainings in the southwest and southeast by NAIMA and GreenFiber staff. - Conferences: BCAP hosted a booth at the 2008 GreenPrints conference expo in April and had laptops available for attendees to take the survey in real time. BCAP also provided the Arizona Building Officials (AZBO) with 750 postcardannouncements of the survey which were included in the materials for all attendees at their April Education Institute.
Sample Size and Accuracy
As a result of these efforts 1,783 participants logged into the survey over nine weeks. BCAP obtained 1057 completed surveys and an additional 278 surveys where respondents completed most but not all questions. In all, there were a total of 660 Enforcers/Code Officials and 675 End Users who participated; based on an estimated population of 1,000,000 or greater, this participation produced a resulting 95 percent confidence level that the results are accurate to within +/- 3 percent.7 The survey participants represented all regions of the US and almost every state. While there is not sufficient state-level participation to draw assumptions about local deviations from the collected data, there is adequate data to develop high-level conclusions about end users and code officials across the country.
7
The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant, unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 11
In some states there are additional participants in the code application process which are not represented in this study. For example, California has established a network of specialists who test and inspect various building systems. However, most states have a simple structure where local building department code officials interact with the architects and engineers who are designing commercial buildings, all of which are wellrepresented in this study.
Interviews
BCAP conducted in-person interviews to gain additional insight into some perspectives voiced by participants, taking advantage of energy code training events in Arizona to meet with several attendees. The interview questions were broader but directly related to the questions used in the online survey instrument, thereby providing additional relevant input from building professionals from the southwest, which was identified as an area of interest from the literature review (due to a gap in participation in other studies). Overall, 8 interviews were conducted, including the following professionals: City Building Code Examiner City Building Officials Retired City Code Official Private Designer Architect Energy Engineer Green Building Professional The interviews provided critical insights into the efficacy of building code implementation efforts and sought to determine its best practices.
Data Analysis
A strategic approach to data analysis was needed to accommodate the large amount of survey participants and extensive length of the survey. BCAP capitalized on a flexible survey vendor and specialized survey data analysis application to maximize the validity of the survey results and to ensure statistically sound results. An important goal of the survey was to provide a comprehensive assessment of usability and compliance issues. To reach this goal, BCAP recognized the need for developing a survey that included a variety of multiple-choice, rating scales and open ended questions. BCAP selected SurveyMonkey as the survey vendor, in part for the vender’s capability to provide real-time results during the time in which the input was collected. This was beneficial in assessing preliminary results to develop interview questions and to use in forming hypotheses for detailed analysis. In order to analyze the valuable insight available in the collected survey data, BCAP used the features of MarketSight® to simplify and streamline the analysis. For example, cross-tab analyses were used to look at important relationships in responses, as well as to investigate hypotheses proposed from the preliminary results. Statistically significant differences were identified by running various data tests to investigate and form new hypotheses. The analyses from the survey data, research, and interviews were combined with field experience to be synthesized into this final report. A draft report was reviewed by DOE and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 12
II. Understanding End Users and Code Enforcers
Background
Commercial energy codes are used by a variety of individuals. The purpose of this section of the study is to clearly define those main groups who affect how the energy code is applied in commercial buildings. This includes those who use the code to design buildings and their systems, as well as those who are responsible for enforcing all the requirements.
Question Topics: End Users Enforcers Key Findings:
#1 – Engineers are the prime targets for energy code training and resources; however, other groups also have significant influence on the energy aspects of commercial buildings. In the literature review, a 2007 national commercial energy code survey by Zing Communications8 surveyed 431 end users and found that an engineer on the project team is most often responsible for ensuring compliance with the commercial energy code. Based on this information, BCAP’s study specifically targeted engineers during outreach to end users and approximately 41 percent of end users participating in the study are engineers. However, it is noteworthy that other end users have participatory and influential roles. Product suppliers, builders, construction managers, subcontractors, and installers all report that they “influence” design decisions. Most significant is the influence of producers/supplies, of which 9 percent use the code for designs, and 21 percent influence designing decisions related to building systems. Suppliers bring their products to market by introducing them to the design and construction community; for example, a lighting supplier may suggest the type, amount and placement of lighting fixtures in an office space – making them a prime target audience for specialized code education. Finding #2 – The most common profile of a code official is one who works for their local building office, is licensed or certified to enforce the code, works with both commercial and residential energy codes, and enforces mechanical, structural, and/or electrical codes as well as the energy code. Much of the discussion around energy code requirements and enforcement focuses on the time, or perceived lack of time, spent by code officials in enforcing the code. The 2001 survey in New Hampshire and Rhode Island9 found that 96 percent and 100 percent of code officials, respectively, are responsible for enforcing both commercial and residential energy codes. The dual responsibility that occurs across the US was confirmed by this study which found a slightly smaller, yet still high, rate of 83 percent of officials enforcing the energy code in both sectors.
8 9
ZING Communications, Inc. The Peregrine Energy Group
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 13
Only a small number of total code officials (8 percent) work outside their local building department as third-party inspectors. Although this type of enforcement is gaining interest in the market, it is not a widely used practice. Making up the 8 percent were thirteen states with between 1 and 3 third-party inspectors each, and Pennsylvania which reported 38 third-party inspectors (of 88 total code official participants). The fact that most code officials enforce codes for a variety of building systems, in different types of buildings and use a variety of code versions (as discussed later in the section Codes in Use), indicates a situation where there is not specialized enforcement of energy codes or other codes. We cannot infer for this survey that any building department code official is solely responsible for the energy code anywhere in the country.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 14
END USERS: Q (End User): Which of the following most accurately describes you? (Check all that apply)
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 15
(Question continued) Within that category, Q (End User): How do you use commercial building energy codes?
Design
Engineer 21%
Influence
48% 52%
Designer
45% 21% 9% 12% 2% 8% 4% 8% 3% 7% 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Producer/Supplier
Builder
Construction Manager
Sub Contractor
Installer
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 16
Q (End User): Please indicate the primary state/jurisdiction you work in.
[675 respondents – see key below for distribution relative to state code]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 17
ENFORCERS: Q (Code Official): Which of the following most accurately describes your code enforcement role? (Check all that apply)
Local building department Third party code inspector 8% Third party code inspector
Local building department 92%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 18
Q (Code Official): Are you licensed or certified to enforce the code in your state or jurisdiction?
Yes
No
No 11%
Yes 89%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 19
Q4: Please indicate the primary state/jurisdiction where you enforce the commercial energy code.
[660 respondents – see key below for distribution relative to state code]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 20
Q (Code Official): In addition to the energy code, what other types of codes are you responsible for? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
100%
90%
90% 80%
88%
70%
60%
% Valid Cases
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Structural
Mechanical
Electrical
Fire
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 21
Q (Code Official): Which building energy code are you responsible for?
[Chart below shows numbers rounded up; Commercial = 8.6 percent; Residential = 8.7 percent; Both = 82.7 percent]
Commercial
Residential
Both
Commercial 9% Residential 9%
Both 83%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 22
III. Using the Energy Code
Background
Several factors are responsible for the many different versions of energy codes that exist across the US. First, although the national model energy code for commercial buildings (Standard 90.1 developed by ASHRAE) is updated approximately every three years, there are a variety of subsequent actions that must take place for it to affect local jurisdictions. States have individual processes set up that govern local adoption and enforcement. As a result, energy codes can not only vary greatly from state to state, but also among jurisdictions within a state because of changes between editions of the code. This is further complicated in “home rule” states where jurisdictions can adopt the code of their choice. In addition, states often formally adopt the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) developed by the International Code Council as their commercial code. This is the national model energy code for the residential sector but it contains a chapter on commercial building requirements and references Standard 90.1 as an alternate compliance path. The IECC commercial requirements are brief and simplified compared to those found in Standard 90.1 and there are no requirements to align either of these with each other. This adds another layer of diversity, not only within editions of a code, but because of different codes. Finally, some states develop their own code to take into account state-specific opinions on climate, the state’s economy and history, and impact on local building communities. Many other states introduce state-specific amendments when they adopt the national model code. The West Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California) are among those which have independently developed energy codes. All three states have progressive codes whose stringency sometimes exceeds that of the national model codes. California, in particular, stands out as a model for effective update cycles and implementation success. Florida also has an independently developed code at least as stringent as the national model codes. This section analyzes the codes in use and how they are being followed, while looking for differences between end users and code officials, and explores perceived issues regarding effectiveness.
Question Topics:
Codes in use Expertise with codes Code language and clarity Issues with available products & technologies Compliance approaches Meeting prescriptive requirements Meeting performance requirements Meeting component trade-off requirements Compliance Tools Effectiveness
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 23
Key Findings:
Finding #1 – End users report using a wide variety of energy codes even though most code officials say they enforce the 2006 IECC. End users report using multiple codes – Standard 90.1-2007, 2006 IECC, 2003 IECC, and Standards 90.1-2001 and 1999 are each applied in projects by 25 to 29 percent of end users. As expected, older codes are reported to be used less often. However, Standard 90.1-2004 was reported as applied by fewer end users than any other single code. The 2004 standard is referenced in the 2006 IECC and would be expected to have widespread application, especially since the newer 2007 standard had not been adopted by any states at the time of the survey. One possible explanation is that end users who had been applying 90.1-2004 had already begun to reference the more recent code, 90.1-2007, despite the absence of updated local codes. In contrast, while code officials also report that they enforce different energy codes, the majority report enforcing the 2006 IECC (63 percent) – much more than the number of end users reporting that they use this code (26 percent). Further discrepancy occurs in reported use of Standard 90.1. Almost twice the percentage of code officials report enforcing the 2004 standard than end users who reported using it (24 percent compared to 13 percent). The case with the 2007 standard is the opposite; 14 percent of code officials enforce it even though more than double that percentage of end users says they use it (29 percent). More research is needed to understand if designers/engineers and code officials are applying the requirements of different codes to the same projects. This finding does seem to indicate that code officials need more training on enforcing the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if that is being used to such a degree as the data suggests. Finding #2 – Problems with unclear and ambiguous language are reported across all codes; however, code officials using Standard 90.1-2004, report the largest problem with this issue. A little over a quarter of end users report problems with ambiguous or unclear code language when they use any version of the IECC or Standard 90.1. For example, in one of this study’s interviews of a principal architect, we encountered an incorrect interpretation that buildings needed to follow code only if glazing equals more than 25 percent of the building’s envelope area. (Although he did not acknowledge this as a misinterpretation) The same interviewee discussed the complexity of the energy code and pointed to the National Electrical Code (NEC 2008), which has been reformatted and revised to increase clarity, while also including more definitions and installation details. The result, he said, was improved interpretation. Code officials also cited problems with different codes. However, of the code officials who enforce Standard 90.1-2004, 35 percent reported that it contains unclear and ambiguous language. This drops to 27 percent among those enforcing the 2000 IECC, and 25 and 22 percent for Standard 90.1-2006 and 2003, respectively. Less than 10 percent of those enforcing other codes reported problems with language clarity. More research is needed on 90.1-2004 to identify the specific requirements that are unclear, especially to code officials. If these carried over to 90.1-2007, the problem would be expected to continue. There also does not seem to be a perceived improvement in clarity between commercial provisions in the 2003 and 2006 IECC,
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 24
although there were many changes that improved usability of the 2006. Input from other survey questions points to 1) the issue of interpretation among code officials and between officials and end users as a primary problem, and 2) the need for requirements that can be enforced in the field. These appear to be the primary general issues that need to be addressed, and indicate a stronger need for consistent training in addition to improvements/changes in language. Finding #3 – Conflicts between energy codes and new technologies lie in software issues and compliance reporting barriers. The role of energy codes is to establish the minimum efficiency level for buildings. In doing so, it is not the intent of codes to prevent end users from going beyond the code requirements to include more efficient technology and construction practices in buildings. With the increasing interest in ecologically sound construction and “green” building requirements, there is some discussion in the code community as to whether the code limits these practices. The survey comments indicate that while there does not appear to be a conflict created by energy code requirement language, new technologies face barriers in 1) modeling software that is typically not set up to recognize advanced designs and 2) in communicating compliance to code officials who do not always understand the technology. Interviews indicate energy modeling software tools provide justification for a “holistic/energy systems approach” but modeling programs do not work together. Additionally, while end users have several different modeling tools available, the tools are not capable of assessing advanced systems. Finding #4 – Many end users follow the performance compliance path; yet problems exist in the perceived opportunity to “game” compliance by end users and in the lack of software documentation accepted by code officials to demonstrate compliance. End users follow the performance compliance path for many of their projects (38 percent) though the prescriptive approach is still used most often (50 percent). The majority of end users (68 percent) report that the performance path provides needed flexibility; yet, the same numbers agree with the statement that requirements can be gamed to achieve compliance. Comments vary but indicate that perceived gaming may be due to failures in modeling software. Appendix G in Standard 90.1 was also identified in the comments as well as in one of the interviews as a source of problems – specifically, in the way the baseline is established. Other issues seem to include the lack of clear code language and effective enforcement. It is unclear whether or not end users associate “gaming” with flexibility, and if the potential to get around performance requirements was eliminated, the satisfaction with flexibility would decrease. Another issue is that despite the large numbers of end users that reported following the performance compliance path, the majority of code officials (ranging from 62 to 88 percent) report that they do not accept modeling software documentation to demonstrate compliance. Interviews indicate that in many cases end users may follow 90.1 for mechanical requirements, but follow component trade-off requirements for the remaining systems and run a COMcheck report – which is typical practice in the jurisdiction of the interviewee.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 25
Finding #5 – COMcheck rates the highest in satisfaction for compliance tools among end users but perceived levels of gaming are still high. Similar to finding #4 above, a large majority of end users (69 percent) report that the component trade-off approach (available through use of either the COMcheck or ASHRAE EnvStd tools) can be gamed to achieve compliance. It is not obvious how end users believe they are “gaming” trade-off requirements and it would be helpful to understand if and how this is related to the software or if there is a perception that tradeoffs inherently bypass some code requirements. It is possible that users are manipulating COMcheck to receive a passing score but then not following up with the same provisions on plans and in the field. If enforcement is lacking, as reported elsewhere in the study, then end users will not expect to be caught. Information collected in interviews indicates that even though end users will use modeling software and the performance path, they will frequently generate a COMcheck report for enforcement purposes. As one interviewee put it, “COMcheck will get through permitting easier – they are used to it and it looks official.” Finding #6 – Of performance-based software, most end users use (and consider the most effective) TRACE 700, eQuest, and DOE-2.1E. Mechanical engineers typically use Trane Trace (used by 48 respondents and rated as most useful by 34 percent), as well as Carrier (which came in fifth for use). Energy Pro got a strong mention under “Other” and is freeware used for Title 24 in California. eQuest is also freeware and was the second most used software (by 44 percent) and rated the most useful by 32 percent. It is the predecessor to Power DOE – the front end of DOE 2.2.10 DOE 2.1E is an older version but it is one of the software programs that can officially be used to calculate federal tax credits deductions. Designers use CAD (computer aided design) programs which can show 3-dimentional building modeling. One interviewee pointed out that all the information needed for energy modeling is in this program and it’s too bad that it cannot be used to model energy. With all software, the issues appear to be primarily about the need and current inability to generate reports to demonstrate compliance, as well as the lack of capability in the software to handle different building systems. Finding #7 – End users and code officials have similar perceptions about each other and about the effectiveness of energy codes. The majority of code officials reported that end users don’t understand code requirements – commenting on how end users don’t follow the “right code” and don’t know the requirements. The majority of end users commented similarly about code officials. The comments of both groups indicate very strong beliefs regarding effectiveness that stereotype the other and dismiss their contribution to achieving code compliance. Considering finding #1 above, this finding could be related to the possibility that designs are following code requirements different than those being enforced. On their perceptions about the effectiveness of energy codes, end users and code officials also agree on the lack of clarity of code requirements – similarly rating the effectiveness of conveying requirements as low (34 to 38 percent). Comments on this question reveal that most end users report that code requirements need to be clarified to avoid various interpretations by building inspectors. Interviews indicated that there is a
10
See www.doe2.com
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 26
need for standardized checklists at the state level for compliance. Currently, local jurisdictions develop their own but, according to this end user; checklists are different across jurisdictions based on individual building department interpretations. Application of codes also seems inconsistent as evidenced by the comment of one end user, below, who incorrectly states that Standard 90.1 exempts existing buildings: While the aim of code officials is admirable, the blanket adoption of certain standards as codes ignores the underlying discrepancies in code language. The language of certain exceptions found in these standards renders these "codes" non-applicable to many buildings; yet code bodies mandate these "codes" apply to such buildings. Ex. ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2004 & 2007 clearly exempt existing buildings from having to follow these codes, yet building codes accepting Std. 90.1 mandate performance of these buildings as if they were new. This is clear discrepancy between the intent of the standard and its use in public and private industry. Overall, close to half of both groups chose “somewhat effective” to describe how codes rate in conveying requirements and meeting design needs. Almost half of end users also thought that codes improve building efficiency. However, code officials were more optimistic and 66 percent rated codes as effective at improving efficiency. Nevertheless, this indicates a clear disconnect between the point of application and the intent of the energy code to clearly convey requirements, meet design needs, and improve efficiency.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 27
CODES IN USE Q (Code Official): What energy code(s) is/are in effect for commercial buildings in the areas where you enforce the code? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
63% 24% 24% 14% 9% 4% 3% 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
IECC 2006 ASHRAE 90.1-2004 IECC 2003 ASHRAE 90.1-2007 ASHRAE 90.1-2001 or 1999 IECC 2000 ASHRAE 90.1-1989 or earlier IECC 1998
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 28
EXPERTISE WITH CODES Q (End User): Please indicate the energy code(s) you use for commercial buildings and rate your level of experience with each you use.
Beginner ASHRAE 90.1 2007 IECC 2006 IECC 2003 ASHRAE 90.1 2001 or 1999 IECC 2000 ASHRAE 90.1 1989 or earlier IECC 1998 ASHRAE 90.1 2004 Other 4% 3% 0% 3% 5% 12% 9% 8% 6% 7% 7% 9% 7% 5% 10% 15%
% of Responses
Competent 14% 12% 12%
Expert 3% 5% 6% 7%
12% 9% 9% 7% 2% 4% 4% 2%
20%
25%
30%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 29
Q (Code Official): Please indicate your level of knowledge of the requirements for [the following energy codes]:
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 30
CODE LANGUAGE & CLARITY Q (End User & Code Official): Are there particular areas of the commercial energy code which you find ambiguous or otherwise unclear in the way it is written? If yes, please explain.
Yes 80% 70% 60% No 73% No No 72%
% of Responses
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% End User Opinion Code Officials Opinion Yes 27% Yes 28%
Notes:
Across different energy codes and standards, a consistent number of end users (between 26 and 31 percent) reported ambiguous or unclear language. Selected Comments: “In general, the entire local industry ignores the Energy Code, therefore owners, contractors and managers, are not supportive of the time and cost to do energy analysis. They all want low bills, but they do not have knowledge or comfort that 90.1 will help them get there. They don’t expect or understand energy analysis. They understand building codes, and environmental regulations, energy codes need to rise to the same level of respect.” “All of the requirements related to ventilation and reheat limitations are poorly written. There is no mention of ventilation effectiveness or ventilation efficiency. A draft needs to be created by someone who has an intimate understanding of the ventilation standards.” “Lighting control differences bi-level switching requirements and atrium requirements in ASHRAE and IECC.” “Roof insulation required to be in contact with interior of roof deck, but is allowed parallel to purlins which may be 8" below roof deck. Also unclear whether rigid frame is the primary framing member, or the purlin for the purpose of the discussion on roof insulation for metal buildings.“
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 31
“In 90.1, the fan power requirements are not clear if the calculated fan power applies to each fan or to the sum of all fans in the system. How to deal with shading from adjacent buildings in the Performance Method should be addressed. The Performance Method should also outline a control strategy for staging on multiple boilers and chillers. What part load curves should be used for Baseline equipment in the Performance method??”
The greatest percentage of code officials reported ambiguous or lack of clarity in the 90.1-1989 or earlier versions (44%). The following percentages were reported for the remaining codes: 90.1-2004 (35%) IECC 1998 (33%) IECC 2000 (27%) IECC 2006 (25%) IECC 2003 (22%) 90.1-2001 or 1999 (21%) 90.1-2007 (16%)
Selected Comments: “Slab insulation: The way a monolithically poured slab is to be insulated on its exterior is a poor design and very impractical. To many times have my contractor's complained , along with myself , that insulation applied to the exterior and then encapsulated is nothing more than an inefficient method of insulating and a waste of money. Secondly, if this insulation is not encapsulated, it will definitely be damaged or more realistically, cut to grade level with a utility knife.” “The 2006 IECC is very difficult to follow and I believe that the upcoming code cycles will make it more understandable. Energy conservation is very new but as we continue to learn we will understand more and will be able to enforce the code better.” “Too many to list. Codes are generally not written clearly. Need more examples instead of just words. (pictures speak louder than words)” “It takes too much time to verify whether the information that has been provided is correct, and accurately reflects what will be installed. How do you verify during a site inspection that a light installed 30 feet up is a 400 watt or a 750 watt unit? This could be switched at the site and you have no way of knowing without a bucket truck. In the project described above, the designer does not know the code well enough to accurately demonstrate compliance with the code. If the municipality did not have a consultant to assist us, we would have never picked up the discrepancies.” “Section 502.3.2 they assume U-factor & SHGC are the same. Section 502.5 "not ventilated to allow moisture to escape”??? (fireblocking) Section 503.2.1 energy recovery systems - most people do not understand how an economizer works with this equipment. I find very few people including myself spend the money for the ASHRAE fundamentals or Systems handbooks. Calculation is a joke.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 32
ISSUES WITH AVAILABLE PRODUCTS & TECHNOLOGIES Q (End User): When using the prescriptive path for compliance, do you have problems finding code-compliant products for the following building components?
Yes
80%
No
No 69%
70%
No 65%
No 71%
No 69%
No 65%
60%
% of Responses
50%
40%
30%
No 21% Yes 12% Yes 10% Yes 11% Yes 9% Yes 11% Yes 14%
20%
10%
0%
Windows
Lighting
Fans
Motors
Ducts
Other
Selected Comments: In addition to those listed, end users have problems finding additional code-compliant components including hot water heaters, evaporative coolers, and dehumidification equipment.
“Low-e coatings that meet the prescriptive SHGC requirement for our area can be difficult to find if clear glass or very much visible light is required, especially on public projects where there may be a requirement to specify 3 or more competing manufacturers.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 33
Q (End User): Do you encounter barriers in the codes that prevent the use of new or green technologies?
Yes
No
Yes 33%
No 47%
Selected Comments: “…the basic cost of these products is like buying medical equipment. As soon as it is noted that it is for some kind of energy saving requirement, the cost goes up two hundred percent.” “[We] cannot model the most advanced, proven methods, such as variable direct pumped chilled water.” “Not in the energy code. Yes in other codes.” “Alternate systems are not allowed in the baseline. Natural ventilation, expanded comfort, uncooled
buildings; all discouraged by baseline requirements.”
“Lack of familiarity by enforcement agencies (cities) creates real problems with acceptance.” “Low energy or passive strategies”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 34
Q (End User): In general, do you believe the code requirements reflect evolving technologies and new products available in the market?
Yes
No
No 32%
Yes 68%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 35
COMPLIANCE APPROACHES Q (End User): For commercial building energy codes, compliance can be achieved by 1) Prescriptive Path, 2) Performance Path, or 3) Component trade-off Estimate the percentage of projects where you follow [choices listed]: Q (Code Official): For commercial building energy codes, compliance can be achieved by: 1) Prescriptive Path, 2) Performance Path, or 3) Component trade-off Estimate the percentage of projects that follow [choices listed]: (Choices must add up to 100%)
Mean (User)
60
Mean (Code Official)
50
User 50%
Code Official 54%
40
User 38% Code Official 31% User Code Official 31%
Mean Response
30
27%
20
10
0
Prescriptive Path %
Component Trade-Off Approach %
Performance Path %
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 36
Meeting Prescriptive Requirements Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Prescriptive Path.
Disagree
Demonstrating compliance is less costly than with the performance path. Requirements are too limiting for most projects.
Agree
Agree 59%
Disagree 29% Agree 35%
Disagree 57% Agree 38% Disagree 55% Agree 69% Disagree 27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Requirements are not well-suited to my climate zones.
Requirements Clearly Outlined
% of Responses
Selected Comments: (Requirements) “[I am] finding some issues with how 90.1 Appendix G addresses buildings with complex geometry - with all
glass less than 60 degrees from the horizontal as skylight, it becomes difficult (needlessly so?) to compare to a building that meets Appendix G baseline conditions.” “Confusing differences between IECC and ASHRAE requirements .” “[We] need [an] exception to airside economizers requirements for locations where outside air is heavily polluted such as at heavy industrial plants with chlorine and sulfur pollution.” “Humidity, etc, are major design requirements in this area that are not addressed in the code.” “The requirements themselves are not too limiting by any means! The only problem is the code is written in a way that is more complex than what is needed! Simplification in the way the codes are written will make using the codes much easier on us.” “For decorative lighting or lighting that is more complex than office buildings, there are some issues with stringency of lighting requirements. Based on what I've heard, CA Title 24 might be a better model for lighting power density requirements. Code should continue to allow quality lighting designs per IESNA recommended practice.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 37
Selected Comments: (Demonstrating Compliance)
“All requirements need to be conveyed to contractors in a clear and concise manner. Proving compliance with the requirements needs to be easier. In the case of glazing, the NFRC route is very complicated and cumbersome. It needs to be streamlined and simplified.” “There are always nagging holes in the code language. The California Energy Commission does a fair job of trying to patch these up. However, I often find myself trying to explain the code to less knowledgeable enforcement personnel who are overwhelmed by too many codes…” “Since Title 24 has an "automatic Standard Budget" generator, it is easier to input a project and let the program handle the Prescriptive requirements. We review these as a sanity check, but do not have to calc them directly.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 38
Meeting Performance Requirements Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Performance Path.
Selected Comments:
“Ventilation requirements are not defined as zone or system level requirements. Reheat limitations for VAV systems are not well defined. Requirements for modeling zones that do not have cooling as having cooling, creates a fictitious building that gives false energy numbers.” “ASH 90.1 is more subject to gaming than T24, because the baseline is built by hand. For T24, games are possible, but not a big problem. For ASH 90.1, I would Agree or Strongly Agree that gaming would be a problem. However, this could be substantially reduced by certifying energy models as T24 does.” “The "gaming" would abate if the code language were tightened, if enforcers were better educated, and if compliance analysts were licensed.” “You want a glass building with electric heat? Just use the performance approach and a computer program and you can get whatever you want.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 39
Q (End User): For the Performance Path – what problems, if any, do you find in following the whole building energy performance method?
Selected Comments:
“Energy modeling for 90.1 is too time consuming because there is no software tool that creates the baseline & proposed models per 90.1 rules automatically. In California we have software that significantly speeds up performance path calculations.” “Energy modeling should be done by a PE not an architect intern.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 40
M EETING COMPONENT TRADE- OFF REQUIREMENTS Q (End User): Code language can substantially affect compliance. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in reference to clarity and understanding of the Component Trade-off Approach.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 41
COMPLIANCE TOOLS Q (End User): Please indicate what software, if any, you use to comply with the code and rate its usefulness for showing and demonstrating compliance.
Not Useful Somewhat Useful Useful
Other 2% 3% TRACE 700 4% VisualDOE 5% 10% 7%
22% 34% 15% 21% 17% 24%
Carrier HAP 4% 10% ASHRAE ENVSTD DOE-2.1E EnergyGauge Summit EnergyPlus 5% 5% 10% 13%
5% 5% 10% 6% 12% 20% 32% 55% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
eQuest 4% 8% COMcheck 3% 0% 16% 10%
% of Responses
Selected Comments:
In general, there were many comments regarding problems with specific tools. “The 2006 IECC Version of REScheck requires that individual walls be orientated in lieu of the corresponding windows to demonstrate compliance using the performance approach. This method leads to excessive entries and significantly increases the amount of time necessary to conduct a takeoff.” “ASHRAE 90.1 modeling is not intuitive. None of the DOE II front ends are very user friendly. You basically need to be a mechanical engineer to do the modeling correctly.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 42
Q (Code Official): Indicate the software documentation accepted to show compliance. Rate how useful it is to you in determining compliance.
Not Effective Somewhat Effective 76% 30% 19% 18% 13% Effective
COMcheck 3%4% Other
5% 3%
ASHRAE ENVSTD 4% 4% EnergyPlus 2%4% DOE-2.1E 3%4% TRACE 700
5% 3% 10%
Carrier HAP 4% 4% 9% EnergyGauge Summit 4% 3% 8% eQuest 3% 4% 7% VisualDOE 4% 3% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 43
Effectiveness Q (End User & Enforcer): How effective do you consider the energy code to be in [the following areas]?
End User
Not Effective
100% 90% 80% 50% 70% 60% % of Responses 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5% Improving building energy efficiency 8% Clearly conveying requirements 7% Meeting design needs 45% 54% 56% 38% 37%
Somewhat Effective
Effective
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 44
Code Officials Not Effective
120%
Somewhat Effective
Effective
100%
% of Responses
80% 66% 60%
34% 47%
40%
55% 49%
20%
32% 12% Clearly conveying requirements
0%
2% Improving building energy efficiency
4% Meeting design needs
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 45
Q (End User): Do you think there is a strong level of understanding of code requirements among building code officials? Q (Code Official): Do you think there is a strong level of understanding of code requirements among designers and engineers:
End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials Code Officials Perspective of End-Users
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
% of Responses
End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials 45%
Code Officials Perspective of End-Users 40%
Code Officials Perspective of End-Users 60% End-User Perspective of Building Code Officials 55%
Yes
No
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 46
IV. Education and Training
Background
Energy codes are constantly under revision, often to improve clarity and stringency. Builders, designers, and developers are responsible for implementing code language and ensuring that code requirements are achieved; while code officials are responsible for enforcement of the code. Code changes affect all of these groups as well as product manufacturers and suppliers, who need time to clear current inventories and ensure that newly compliant products are available when the code takes affect. Consequently, there is diversity among the building community that can present a major barrier to the diffusion of new technologies and practices. Various entities, such as state energy offices, local building official organizations, and regional and national energy efficiency groups train building professionals in energy code compliance and energy efficiency. These workshops also provide information about new products and advances in energy-efficient design and building science to help building professionals keep pace with changes in the industry. This section examines the building community’s perspective on available educational and training opportunities.
Question Topics:
Code Assistance Training Resources
Key Findings:
Finding #1 – End users consult multiple sources to interpret codes. Approximately half of all end users currently receive assistance with code interpretations from their local building departments and the ASHRAE Users Manual. High percentages also consult product manufacturers (42 percent) and ICC code commentaries (40 percent). Half of end users consult their local building department for commercial energy code interpretation; however, many more (82 percent) indicated they would like to receive additional code information from the state code authority or local building departments. Finding #2 – End users take advantage of multiple trainings and resources currently available, preferring in-person workshops and supporting resources from ASHRAE, DOE, and ICC to other sources. Not only do end users report using these resources and participating in in-person trainings in high numbers, the overall data indicates that most end users rely on a combination of training and supporting resources to stay up to date with energy code requirements. Of the top four resources used, 75 to 88 percent of end users rated them as effective. Web seminars and self-paced courses were not ranked high for use; just over half of end users participate in any one type of web seminar, and under half in self-paced courses. However of those choosing these resources, ASHRAE web seminars and self paced courses were ranked as useful by about 64 percent of end users. DOE ranked just lower, with around 56 of end users finding them effective.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 47
Only a little over half of all the end users reported a need for additional resources and/or delivery methods despite the lack of training they reported receiving – 1 to 2 times a year for most end users; a third receiving no training. Finding #3 – Code officials consistently view code resources as effective training tools. When asked about specific types of resources and training that they used, 14 to 23 percent of code officials selected each one. When asked if each was effective, 82 to 93 percent of those using each resource confirmed this. When asked which of the trainings and resources they would like to receive more of, many more code officials selected each resource than had previously reported using it. For example, only 14 percent of code officials indicated they participated in ASHRAE web seminars but 65 percent said that this would be a “preferred” (to “strongly preferred”) method of receiving information/training about the commercial code. The interest in other resources similarly rose – with interest in in-person workshops at 66 percent and ICC self-paced courses at 68 percent, for example. Code officials receive slightly more training each year than end users – the same amounts of both groups (60 percent) receive training 1 to 2 times a year but a smaller percentage of code officials have no training (11 percent) and a higher amount (19 percent) get training 3-4 times a year. Though they report this higher overall frequency for training, almost all code officials report a need for additional code information. Finding #4 – Code officials and end users request state-specific training on codes. The survey asked code officials about other types of resources and trainings which, while offered in some locations, are not widely available. More than other options, code officials supported the idea of state-specific online trainings (77 percent). It is generally accepted that code officials have a shortage of time and budget available for training and online options focused on enforcement would avoid travel costs and time. Many end users and code officials specifically mentioned the state-specific aspect of training in discussing needed resources in the survey. This group of end users and code officials asking for state-specific in-person training represented 44 states, with the highest number of requests coming from California, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Florida, Idaho, New York, Ohio, Utah, W ashington, and South Carolina; however, four of these states have their own state-developed code.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 48
CODE ASSISTANCE Q (End User): When you have questions about a commercial energy code interpretation, who do you consult? (Check all that apply)
Product manufacturers ASHRAE Users Manual
Local building department ICC Code Commentary
DOE Hotline
ICC Code Commentary
40%
Product Manufacturers 42%
ASHRAE Users Manual 48%
Local building department 50%
16% DOE Hotline
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 49
Q (End User): Do you believe there is a need for increased assistance on code interpretation?
Yes No
No 21%
Yes 79%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 50
TRAINING Q (End User): Please indicate how you keep current with commercial energy code requirements. For each method you use, please rate how effective it is.
Not Effective Somewhat Effective Effective
ASHRAE supporting documents/resources 2% 15% In-person workshops 2% 7% DOE supporting documents/resources 4% 14% ICC supporting documents/resources 3% 14% ASHRAE Web seminars 4% 17% DOE Web seminars 5% 20% 39% 28% 24%
20% 30% 40%
66% 66% 55% 56% 38% 33%
Other 5% 8% ASHRAE Self-paced courses 2% 14% DOE Self-paced courses 4% 15%
0% 10%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 51
Q (Code Official): Please indicate how you keep current with commercial energy code requirements. For each method you use, please rate how effective it is.
Not Effective
In Person ICC Supporting Documents/Resources DOE Self-Paced Courses DOE Web Seminars ASHRAE Supporting Documents/Resources DOE Supporting Resources/Documents ASHRAE Self-Paced Courses ICC Self-Paced Courses ASHRAE Web Seminars
2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 6% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 13%
Somewhat Effective
21% 18%
Effective
Other 1%
0%
% of Responses
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 52
Q (End User): In a given year, how often do you receive training on the commercial code? (Number of times per year)
% Frequency
7 or more times 0%
5-6 times
1%
3-4 times
8%
1-2 times
59%
Never
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% of Responses
Q (Code Official): In a given year, how often do you receive training on the commercial code? (Number of times per year)
% Frequency 7 or more times 6% 5%
5-6 times 3-4 times 1-2 times
19% 60%
Never 0%
11% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 53
Q (End User): Please rank the following methods of receiving additional information/training about the commercial code. Rank your MOST preferred method as “1”, and your LEAST preferred method as “10”.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 54
Q (Code Official): Please rank the following methods of receiving additional information/training about the commercial code. Rank your MOST preferred method as “1”, and your LEAST preferred method as “10”.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 55
Q (End User): When you receive additional code information, who would you like to see deliver this information? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases) Product Manufacturers/Suppliers Local building departments
24%
35%
Code Trainers
42%
U.S. Department of Energy
44%
State Code Authority
46%
Model code developer (ASHRAE, ICC, ect)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
55%
60%
% Valid Cases
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 56
RESOURCES Q (End User & Code Official): Would you like to see additional resources and/or delivery methods for code information?
Yes Yes 95%
No
100% 90% 80%
% of Responses
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Code Officials No 5% Yes 45%
No 55%
End-Users
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 57
Q (Code Official): Are there any other resources, assistance, training, and/or specific delivery methods you would like to see available to improve commercial code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
90% 80% 70% 60%
% Valid Cases
77%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% State-specific online training In-field circuit-rider training Mentors Third party code inspectors 27% 24%
21%
Selected Comments:
“Inexpensive seminars held in local areas.” “A more common sense approach of what the code is trying to achieve.” “All energy requirements should be verified via 3rd party.” “Additional DOE financial support of state and local enforcements workshops.” “In house ICC energy training.” “State Building Code Council needs to emphasize the IECC in their training offerings.” “Required training for licensure.” “More day seminars regarding commercial or residential applications”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 58
V. Code Enforcement
Background
When adopting a model code, states typically provide resources to support municipalities on implementation and enforcement. Local funds are used to help code officials and builders understand and comply with the code’s requirements. Many states wish to understand compliance at their local levels so funding can be funneled effectively toward needed resources. While state compliance studies typically attempt to develop a number to articulate compliance and noncompliance levels, this section explores issues driving noncompliance in the application of codes, as well as in the process set up to enforce them.
Question Topics: Management of Code Compliance Non-compliance Areas Demonstrating Compliance Evaluation of Enforcement Best Practices Case Study Key Findings:
Finding #1 – Although many code officials report a lack of time and staff to enforce the energy code, third party enforcement is occurring in only a small percent of the market. With increasing understanding of the scale of noncompliance, there is much talk among code advocates regarding third party enforcement. While the survey shows only a small percentage of jurisdictions currently use this method, further research is needed to determine if this number is growing and to evaluate its effectiveness. An interview with a building code examiner brought up a thoughtful perspective and approach –energy is integrated into mechanical, electrical, and architectural/structural reviews in this particular city. Because energy is fundamental to these other areas, removing it so that a third party would conduct an energy-specific review would be highly inefficient under this process. Finding #2 – Noncompliance appears to primarily be a problem of interpretation by the end user, plan checker, and/or site inspector, and disagreement among one or more of these parties. Although code officials in the survey identified many building components and systems where codes are not met, the comments do not indicate a specific failure in any one area of the code to define requirements. Instead, the problem of noncompliance appears to be a comprehensive one where, for example, end users are referencing the wrong codes or interpreting the requirements differently, and/or plan reviewers and site inspectors disagree on code interpretation.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 59
Finding #3 – Of the compliance paths available to end users, code officials most often enforce the code through the prescriptive path, but all compliance methods are used. Code officials are verifying compliance through all of the options given to end users. Training and resources need to address all paths of compliance in order to serve code officials in applicable enforcement practices. Finding #4 – Plan reviews and site inspections are established in most building departments as a required enforcement process; however, these activities do not always include energy code requirements. Code officials report that jurisdictions generally require both plan reviews and site inspections to enforce codes for commercial buildings. End users verify the high number of plan reviews but when asked specifically about required documentation, less than three quarters of all end users reported that they are required to submit plans. This indicates that both groups may be overestimating the number of plan reviews that take place. End users also cite a lower number than code officials (69 percent compared to 90 percent) of jurisdictions that conduct site inspections. We also asked code officials about the systems they cover in plan reviews and site inspections. The building envelope is covered in 90 to 94 percent of these activities. Other systems receive decreasing reviews and inspections: HVAC (81 to 84 percent), lighting (62 to 71 percent), power (47 to 53 percent), and service water heating (52 to 55 percent). Some end users commented that the building envelope appears to be the area where code officials have the most expertise. Although HVAC and lighting systems are included in most reviews and inspections, end users report that code officials rely on documentation rather than doing their own review and verification. Lighting systems are included more often in plan reviews (62 percent) than in site inspections (71 percent). Code officials in the survey who conduct plan reviews praised the role this step plays in catching problems before the site inspection and at a time when they can be addressed effectively by designers and engineers. Still, some of the problems discovered in site inspections arise during construction and include inadequate installation which the inspector may or may not be knowledgeable about and be able to catch. Finding #5 – The codes are open to different interpretations by code officials, which is exacerbated when plan reviews and site inspections are completed by different individuals. Many end users referred to the various interpretations of codes by code officials – across different projects and sometimes within the same project. We have also heard this issue from other end users in the field, outside of this study. While this finding relates to education and training, it also relates to code language clarity (discussed in a previous section). Finding #6 – Both end users and code officials need resources and training to improve their part in code compliance, despite the fact that they blame each other for compliance shortfalls. End users and code officials request additional training, and perhaps penalties, for each other to improve code compliance. However, when combining the data received on use
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 60
and education with the data on compliance, it is clearly a matter of failures in both groups. The majority of end users report that enforcement of the energy code would be a strong motivator for them to comply with the requirements. A little more than half believe that it is sufficiently enforced now but comments reveal that end users are not sure that code officials are looking at energy compliance thoroughly, if at all. Comments from end users indicate that enforcement often falls short by not covering all systems (as described above by code officials). One of the most oft-cited reasons for why code enforcement officials struggle to implement or enforce energy codes is that they are short of resources for their primary charge: the enforcement of life-health safety codes. In addition, the energy codes are cited as subservient to the interests of life health safety codes in Section 100 of the IECC:
101.3 Intent. This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use of energy. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes, laws or regulations.
In BCAP’s experience, code officials refer to this section as the reason why they can downplay the enforcement of the energy code in lieu of applying their limited resources to these “more important” codes.
Questions/ Results:
[See next page]
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 61
M ANAGEMENT OF C ODE COMPLIANCE Q (End User): What authority manages code compliance for your jurisdiction? (Check all that apply)
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 62
Non-compliance Areas Q (End User): If one of your projects is not code compliant the first time documentation is submitted, what are the most common reasons?
Selected Comments: “Errors in code interpretation” “Plan and COMcheck documentation do not match.” “Clarity issues in the contract documents/drawings cause confusion in the code inspection process.” “Insufficient energy related data or systems specifications.” “Zones for simple vs. complex and VAV systems, and % efficiency of systems.” “Unclear of what building inspector needs - there is a very inconsistent response to drawing packages.”
Q (Code Official): If you find a project is not code compliant, what are the most common reasons?
Selected Comments:
“Construction details not match the requirements listed in the attached COMcheck.”
“Misunderstanding of the code or lack of communication of the code requirements to the contractor.” “Lack of understanding of a too complex code.” “Plans not followed in field.” “Lighting energy usage. Not double checking work. Hate to say, omitting information to meet compliance.” “Lack of knowledge on the designers’ part of the existence of the requirements and where to find them.” “Too much cheap glazing”
“The HVAC and lighting systems are typically the ones that do not comply. Most of the design professio nals that we deal with have a good understanding of the building envelope requirements, but many times the HVAC and lighting systems are value engineered due to budget constraints and these systems then have problems complying with the overall building energy requirements.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 63
DEMONSTRATING C OMPLIANCE Q (Code Official): Estimate the percentage of projects that follow the [Prescriptive Path, Component Trade-Off Approach, Performance Path] (Choices must add up to 100%)
Code Officials
Mean 60 50
54%
Mean Response
40 31% 30 20 10 0 Prescriptive Path Component Trade-Off Approach Performance Path 31%
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 64
Q (End User): Does the organization with authority for code compliance in your jurisdiction regularly conduct [the following]?
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
100%
93%
90%
80%
70%
69%
% Valid Cases
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Plan Review
Site Inspection
Q (Code Official): Does your local jurisdiction require any of the following?
Yes
120%
No
100%
Yes 97%
Yes 96%
Yes 90%
80%
% of Responses
60%
40%
20%
No 2%
0%
No 3%
Site inspections
No 9%
Plan review
Architect or P.E. stamp
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 65
Q (End User): What documentation, if any, are you required to submit to demonstrate compliance in your jurisdiction?
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
No documentation 7%
Software generated documents Self Certification documentation
50%
15%
Certification Forms
51%
Specification
54%
Plans
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
72%
80%
% Valid Cases
Selected Comments:
“I always ask, no one knows what I'm talking about.” “Technically the code requires documentation but in our state there is no one to collect this information.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 66
Q (Code Official): For which of the following building components, if any, does your code jurisdiction require Plan Review for commercial energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Does not provide a plan review Other Equipment 4%
14%
Service Water Heating
52%
Power
53%
Lighting
71%
HVAC
84%
Building Envelope
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
94%
100%
% Valid Cases
Q (Code Official): For those you use, do you find them effective for enforcement?
Selected Comments: (How effective do you consider plan reviews?)
“They sometimes take the back seat to other codes. We get spread a little thin sometimes and the environment takes the hit. Also, a lot of mechanical systems are too complicated for plan checkers or inspectors to understand.” “Yes in the design stages. Requiring the engineers design and compliance calculations before permit issuance forces the architect to coordinate the design functions better.” “Plan review is the only method to obtain the inform ation necessary to effectively complete the field inspections.” “Plan reviews of these building components make enforcement 100% easier than just catching everything in the field. Major problems with design are encountered much earlier in the process, thus making it easy to enforce.” “Yes, I find I can delete some frustration on the part of the contractors by reviewing the requirements ahead of time, rather than making all the calls in the field. Plan review is the first inspection of the project.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 67
Q (Code Official): For which of the following building components, if any, does your code jurisdiction require an On-Site Inspection for commercial energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Does not provide an On-Site Inspection Other Equipment 7%
14%
Power
47%
Service Water Heating
55%
Lighting
62%
HVAC
81%
Building Envelope
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
90%
90% 100%
% Valid Cases
Q (Code Official): For those you use, do you find them effective for enforcement?
Selected Comments:
“Yes, but remember our inspectors are not engineers and many of the operational aspects of the equipment and lighting controls are evaluated separately by them more than by inspections.” “Again when inspection time comes, installers are unaware of [the] correct way to install different items like batt insulation, rigid form board etc.” “Inspections are only as good as the inspector. On large projects, Building Officials do not have the qualifications to make sure the energy code requirements are met when it relates to lighting, power, etc.. Electrical Inspectors don't care. They are only concerned about their code, NEC. Make the energy requirements and enforcement of the energy code part of their requirements and code.” “Absolutely, there are many instances where the contractor has missed significant compliance issues that would not surface unless there were destructive testing to determine where a problem existed.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 68
EVALUATION OF ENFORCEMENT Q (End User): Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement. “In my jurisdiction, the commercial energy code is sufficiently enforced.”
% Frequency
70%
60%
58%
50%
% of Responses
42%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Disagree
Agree
Selected Comments: (Why or why not?)
“Most systems installed are sufficiently justified "as designed" most times, in "the spirit of continuing the job". I rarely see code officials force code compliance on issues that are not life-safety items.”
“I work in a facilities department at a DOD site, and most times the budget rules the design features
regardless of the 'executive orders' to follow energy codes etc.”
“They don't spend the time to check the efficiency of the equipment. Just the installation requirements.” “Local officials understand the building envelope fairly well and perform adequate site inspections, but rely
on the design engineers Code Compliance forms for lighting and HVAC.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 69
Q (End User): Overall, what would improve your ability to comply with the code?
Selected Comments:
“An accountability system that monitors performance of code officials.” “More consistency between plan reviewers and inspectors.” “If the jurisdiction having authority and us went to the same training.” “Database of Code Complying Documents.” “more staff = more time”
Q (Code Official) Overall, what would improve your ability to enforce the commercial building energy code?
Selected Comments:
“Third party Special Inspectors for Energy Code Compliance and more up to speed design professionals.” “Training for inspectors, plans examiners, contractors and designers.” Better compliance forms.” “The ability to require only 1 type of alternative trade off software being submitted. We are Most familiar with COMcheck - however we are not permitted to require only COMcheck - we must accept whatever software type they use. Our proficiency in other software types is less and we have more difficulty in knowing that the submitter is actually complying not just working the numbers.” “Ability to limit use of building if it fails to comply with energy code with nationally specified penalties” “Simplification of the performance and trade off methods.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 70
Q (End User): Do you consider code enforcement to be a strong motivator for code compliance?
Yes
No 19%
No
Yes 81%
Q (Code Official): What types of enforcement methods do you believe would improve compliance (be a sufficient motivator for the design/construction industry)?
Selected Comments: Rather than discussing enforcement, many respondents commented on the need for additional education for contractors/engineers “Use of training is less time consuming than enforcement.” “More classes for contractor to understand energy codes.” “Mandatory training for repeat violators.” Many comments were made suggesting better plan reviews, site inspections, and penalties. “Get utilities involved to give perks or discounts for making a more efficient system that would help balance
out the cost involved.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 71
Q (Code Official): What do you believe are the largest barriers in enforcing the commercial energy codes, if any? (Check all that apply)
% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)
Lack of resources (training) Priority is given to other codes Complexity of the code Lack of resources ("manpower") Lack of funding Lack of resources (tools) None
0%
65%
53%
46%
40%
25%
20%
7%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
% Valid Cases
Selected Comments:
“If I have a limited amount of resources, and I have the choice of either performing fire suppression/alarm review or energy review, for purposes of public review at a later time, which do YOU feel would be given greater scrutiny if a calamity would occur at the site? ” “To effectively incorporate the Energy Requirements into the Structural Requirements would significantly enhance their application and implementation in the field.” “I believe it is a lack of understanding first, then lack of manpower secondly. I would propose adding a required permit type to all buildings. Let’s call it an energy compliance permit. This permit cost would cover the cost of assuring compliance with the energy code. In most buildings, the actual cost to the jurisdiction is about .05 per square foot to provide adequate manpower to inspect for energy compliance. An average single family residence that equates to about $100 more in permit fees. That also equates to about $250 for a 5,000 commercial building. I believe that cost would be recovered in the first year.”
“Our issue is having the staff levels required to adequately enforce energy codes. We struggle to get enough
staff to handle the life-safety code provisions and life-safety comes before energy when establishing priorities for resources and staff allocation. No manpower resources are left for energy.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 72
Q (Code Official): Please identify best practices, if any, in your jurisdictions that promote stronger compliance.
Selected Comments:
“Integrated and preliminary plan reviews 2007 Albuquerque Energy Conservation Code developed through consensus process by task force composed of broad cross-section of stakeholders. Mayor required City buildings to meet higher energy efficiency standards before imposing higher standards on private sector.” “Attending classes from various sources to hear different sides” “Mandated state training seminars.” “Permit Denials, Stop Work” “Meeting w/designers during plan development.” “Every inspector does the plan review on the work he inspects every inspector does the plan review.” “We explain all errors at the planning review and during on-site inspections.” “We require more inspections throughout construction than most municipalities; we are w ell trained and make more on site visits to check for compliance throughout construction.” “Daily or weekly site observation visits and weekly meeting with the general contractors and sub contractor to review minimum acceptable requirements.”
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 73
Case Study: The Texas Building Professional Institute
OVERVIEW: The University of Texas at Arlington established the Construction Research Center (CRC) as a medium for the development of construction technology and dissemination of newly developed technology to the professional community. The primary continuing education program is the annual Building Professional Institute (BPI), held each May on the UTA campus. This is a week-long program that typically provides over 80 presentations on current issues including building energy codes and green building. Background: In recognizing the critical training and education needs of the building community, the Texas State ICC chapter also realized the extreme cost associated with training. It was improbable to justify the typical training expenditures of $250 to $300 per day. Texas set out to build off the lessons learned from the initial training institute in Colorado and to model new approaches for subsequent venues. CASE STUDY FEATURES: The Texas BPI demonstrates impressive cost effective training methods. In just 16 years, BPI has grown from training 250 code officials per year to training over 2,200 building industry professionals including, architects, engineers, electricians, plumbers, sanitarians, real estate inspectors, code officials, and others. BPI’s innovative approach not only recognizes the importance of training but also cost effectiveness. Arizona and Minnesota, and possibly others, have since followed suit with their own successful training institutes based on this model. LESSONS LEARNED: The following are lessons learned by BPI as they built their successful training program: VOLUME: Increasing the volume of participants allows the institute to offer expert training at a fraction of the cost (½ day training and full day training for $50 and $75). MINIMIZED VENUE COSTS: BPI saves costs for the event by using volunteers to run the institute and work the event. Marketing and registration are electronic which eliminates mail/print cost and wasted time on the day of the event. BRANDING: By holding the training the same day each year and sending out reminders throughout the year, BPI has become a recognized and respected organization for training in the state. KNOWING PARTICIPANTS NEEDS AND WANTS: BPI utilizes information given by moderators and evaluations regarding the needs and wants of the participants. For example, a week long track on energy codes and energy efficiency was added when the state adopted the energy code in the early 2000’s. Also, they recently offered 3.5 days on green buildings. These classes are fully registered. TRAINING: The institute’s primary goal is focused on quality rather than quantity to turn a profit. Offering curriculum that is available for continuing education credit, and keeping topics current, original and interesting allows the content to sell itself. For more information please consult the Building Professional Institute Web-Site at http://www3.uta.edu/bpi2/index.aspx.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 74
VI. Summary
The project objectives were to: 1. Identify known or perceived usability issues with prevailing commercial building energy codes such as Standard 90.1 and its derivatives. 2. Identify the methods applied by end users (i.e. architects, engineers, and contractors) to determine compliance with their current commercial building energy codes. 3. Identify any compliance issues identified such as the need for compliance forms, computer software and tools or training. 4. Identify the enforcement methods used by states and jurisdictions for ensuring compliance with their commercial building energy codes. The intent of this study was also to provide recommendations that can be used by ASHRAE to develop more useable and enforceable codes. In pursuing this, it became clear that improving the language of the commercial code, while helpful, does not represent the full extent of what needs to be accomplished to improve code implementation. The results of this study address the broad community of ASHRAE, DOE, ICC, state energy offices, local building departments, trainers, and others regarding activities that should be undertaken both independently and collectively. They follow several themes derived from the above objectives: USABILITY: There is a need to improve the clarity of code requirements, making them less open to interpretation, and to ensure that enforcement of each requirement is practical and possible. ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE: There is a lot of education delivered on codes, and more requested, yet a significant amount of non-compliance and misinterpretation (by BOTH end users and code officials). Training should be improved, rather than simply increased, so that it is consistent, and includes not only what is in the code but how to follow, demonstrate, and inspect for the requirements. Code officials can also support end users in achieving compliance if they conduct effective, consistent plan reviews and site inspections. DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE: Code officials need to become more familiar with compliance software so that end users do not convert building data into COMcheck or follow other means that changes components “on paper” only to get approval. End users are generally satisfied with the software tools currently available so code officials need to know how to understand the program output. ENFORCEMENT: Many end users perceive enforcement as very low and a reason not to comply with energy codes; many code officials give the lowest priority of enforcement to the energy code. The level of importance and value for
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 75
the energy code has to be raised to increase enforcement and drive better compliance. Recommendation #1 – Review the 90.1 public review process for sufficient involvement of code officials and consideration of feedback on interpretation and implementation issues. ASHRAE 90.1 is developed by a system of committees and specialized subcommittees. Requirements are voted on and put out for public comment. However, the extent of issues brought up in the survey regarding misinterpretation and enforcement problems indicate a lack of feedback flow to the 90.1 committee. ASHRAE may need to make a focused effort to invite comment regarding requirements in effect. Creation of a specialized committee could also provide a forum where multiple interpretations of language and enforcement issues are cataloged and reviewed for possible changes in 90.1. Recommendation #2 – Establish training guidelines to improve content, and assure inclusion of appropriate compliance and enforcement methods. To address inconsistent application of codes, training clearly has an important role. However, increasing the number of workshops, for example, is not a sufficient strategy to address this widespread problem. Since training and education is delivered by many different organizations and individuals, ASHRAE could develop and release training guidelines to support consistent and thorough training on requirements. Recommendation #3 – Evaluate compliance software used for the performance and component trade-off compliance paths for gaming opportunities and provide expanded training. Since there is a perception that requirements can be gamed using the performance path and component trade-off path, it is evident that the enforcement community needs to be better educated on modeling software and/or made better aware of compliance using these approaches. It would be helpful to conduct additional research on the tools themselves; evaluating and addressing gaming opportunities, and ensuring that documentation can be generated to demonstrate compliance, would be a significant step forward. Recommendation #4 – ASHRAE and ICC should jointly develop and promote clear guidelines on the application of Standard 90.1 and IECC Due the practice of interchanging 90.1 and IECC, as well as the magnitude of the code official’s job in enforcing different codes and vintages of codes, there is a need for highlevel guidance on code application. This guidance needs to address a variety of questions, including if compliance through IECC is allowable if Standard 90.1 is the adopted commercial energy code in a location. End users and code officials need to know if there are situations where one should be followed over the other. For this to be effective, there also needs to be coordination between the codes. ASHRAE has chartered a path for improved stringency in Standard 90.1 which does not apply to IECC. If they are interchanged within a building or a city, this will affect the overall energy savings achieved by the state/city in adopting their code, in addition to confusion it will create within an individual project.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 76
Recommendation #5 – Provide code officials with assistance in enforcing Standard 90.1 The more complicated the code language and the more involved the inspection requirements, it appears the more likely that code officials will not be able to follow through on enforcement. Many of the responses in our study indicate that code officials believe the energy codes to be unnecessarily complicated and report that they do not have the time to do thorough plan reviews and inspections. End users report that code officials do not have the expertise needed in all areas of the code to enforce the provisions. If the goal is to expand use of 90.1 in the design and construction industry, code officials need to understand it better and have resources to improve compliance checking. Most code officials are also checking structural, mechanical and electrical code compliance, so there is an opportunity to integrate energy training into training on other codes so code officials don’t leave it out. Recommendation #6 – Increase outreach to building owners and their organizations and provide targeted information on energy code benefits. Many end users commented on building owners as decision makers on which energy code a building design should follow. This survey found end users to be following a wide range of energy codes and if owners are the main driver behind this activity, it is critical that owners are educated. More research in this area is needed to understand the role of owners.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 77
APPENDIX A Literature Review References Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) – Residential Energy Code Evaluations – Review and Future Directions, (June 2005). Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Energy Code Support – Market Research Report, prepared by Quantec, (August 2005). The Peregrine Energy Group – studied New Hampshire and Rhode Island to determine if specific factors (e.g. community size, level of building, level of building activity, training, etc.) affect energy code compliance (November 2001) Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP) – Building Energy Codes in Arizona: Best Practices in Code Support, Compliance, and Enforcement, (August 2007). ZING Communications, Inc. – 2007 Commercial Energy Code Compliance Study, completed for Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association.
Commercial Building Energy Codes - 2008
Page 78
