Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes


Energy Efficiency Program
Administrators and Building
Energy Codes

A RESOURCE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

SEPTEMBER 2009

-------
The Leadership Group of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is committed to taking action to increase
investment in cost-effective energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes
was developed under the guidance of and with input from the Leadership Group. The document does not necessarily
represent a consensus view and does not represent an endorsement by the organizations of Leadership Group members.

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes is a product of the National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency and does not reflect the views, policies, or otherwise of the federal government. The role of the U.S.
Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is limited to facilitation of the Action Plan.

This document was finalized in October 2009 to incorporate minor modifications to the original September 2009 release.

If this document is referenced, it should be cited as:

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2009). Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes.

For More Information

Regarding Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes, please contact:

Niko Dietsch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Tel: (202) 343-9299
E-mail: dietsch.nikolaas@epa.gov

Regarding the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, please contact:

Stacy Angel

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Tel: (202) 343-9606
E-mail: angel.stacy@epa.gov

Larry Mansueti

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Tel: (202) 586-2588

E-mail: lawrence.mansueti@hq.doe.gov

or visit www.epa.gov/eeactionplan

-------
Table of Contents

List of Figures	iii

List of Tables	iii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms	iii

Acknowledgements	iv

Executive Summary	1

Advancing Building Energy Codes	1

Key Findings	1

Next Steps	2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes	5

Status of Mandatory Minimum Building Energy Codes	6

Status of Beyond-Code Programs and Other Voluntary Initiatives	6

Steps to Achieving Effective Mandatory Building Energy Codes	7

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Codes	11

Role for Regulators	15

Next Steps for Program Administrators and Regulators	16

Notes	17

Appendix A: National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Leadership Group	A-1

Appendix B: Background on Code Development, Adoption, and
Implementation Processes	B-1

National Code Development	B-1

State Code Adoption	B-2

Local Implementation and Enforcement	B-3

Appendix C: Examples of Program Administrator Activities to Advance
Codes	C-1

National Code Development	C-1

Regional, State, and Local Code Development and Adoption Efforts	C-1

Local Implementation and Compliance	C-2

Other Activities	C-4

Appendix D: Administrator Participation in Regional Efficiency

Organizations	D-1

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency	i

-------
Appendix E: Resources for More Information	E-1

Selected Organizations	E-1

Federal Initiatives	E-1

Appendix F: References	F-1

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
List of Figures

Figure 1. Ten Implementation Goals of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change	5

Figure 2. Barriers to Achieving Effective Building Codes	10

Figure B-1. Commercial State Energy Code Status as of September 2009	B-2

Figure B-2. Residential State Energy Code Status as of September 2009 	B-3

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of Program Administrator Activities Supported by Voluntary Code

Programs and Other Initiatives	9

Table 2. Selected Program Administrator Roles and Examples With Codes	12

Table D-1. Utility Members of Regional Efficiency Organizations	D-1

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASHRAE

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission

DOE

U.S. Department of Energy

EM&V

evaluation, measurement, and verification

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct

Energy Policy Act

EVT

Efficiency Vermont

GHG

greenhouse gas

ICC

International Code Council

IECC

International Energy Conservation Code

IOU

investor-owned utility

IRC

International Residential Code

ISO

independent system operator

kWh

kilowatt-hour

MEEA

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NBI

New Buildings Institute

NEEA

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEP

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

NWECG

Northwest Energy Codes Group

NWPCC

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

NWPPC

Northwest Power Planning Council

NYSERDA

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

PG&E

Pacific Gas & Electric

PIER

Public Interest Energy Research

SWEEP

Southwest Energy Efficiency Project

UCG

Utility Code Group

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
Acknowledgements

This brief, Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes, is a key
product of the Year Four Work Plan for the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. The work
plan was developed based on Action Plan Leadership Group discussions and feedback
expressed during and in response to the January 2009 Leadership Group Meeting. A full list of
Leadership Group members is provided in Appendix A and at www.epa.gov/eeactionplan.

With direction and comment from the Action Plan Leadership Group, research assistance for
this briefing was provided by Allen Lee and Charlie Stephens at the Cadmus Group, Inc. The
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is facilitated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Key staff include Larry Mansueti
(DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability), Dan Beckley (DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy), and Kathleen Hogan, Niko Dietsch, Stacy Angel, and
Katrina Pielli (EPA Climate Protection Partnerships Division).

Eastern Research Group, Inc., provided copyediting and production services.

iv

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Executive Summary

This brief documents how energy efficiency program administrators have used technical,
institutional, financial, and other resources to help advance building energy codes at the
federal, state, and local levels, and describes the issues involved in fostering an
expanded administrator role for the future. This brief is provided as part of a
comprehensive suite of tools and resources to assist organizations in meeting the
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency goal to achieve all cost-effective energy
efficiency by 2025.

Improving the energy efficiency of newly constructed and renovated buildings through the
adoption and implementation of building codes is one of the most cost-effective options for
addressing the challenges of high energy prices, energy security, air pollution, and global
climate change. Despite these benefits, building codes are not evenly adopted and enforced
across the country. Energy efficiency program administrators—including utilities, state energy
offices, third parties, or other entities that operate formal energy efficiency programs—have
played important roles in advancing new building codes and improving the savings from existing
codes. It is important to explore the opportunity for utilities and other program administrators to
play an expanded role as part of achieving all cost-effective energy efficiency.

Advancing Building Energy Codes

The building codes process in the United States currently involves specific efforts at the
national, state, and local levels, as well as periodic updates as energy-efficient technologies and
practices evolve. The key steps are:

• Development of national model codes to establish minimum levels of efficiency for new
and renovated buildings.

• State and local adoption of the model energy codes.

• Local implementation and enforcement of energy codes.

• Measurement of costs and benefits from codes.

• Incorporation of code-related energy system benefits in state or regional energy
resource plans.

Energy efficiency program administrators with experience in beyond-code programs and other
voluntary initiatives have experience, skills, and resources that position them to make important
contributions at each of these steps in the building codes process and to contribute to greater
energy savings from building code policies.

Key Findings

• Mandatory building energy codes are an important state policy for overcoming the
market barriers to greater energy efficiency in new buildings and buildings undergoing
renovation.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
•	There are several important elements to effective state codes, including: regular
updating of national model codes, state and local adoption and implementation of new
model codes, measurement of costs and benefits, and inclusion of the benefits from
codes in resource planning.

•	Certain challenges can make it difficult to successfully implement these steps and to
achieve the full benefits that codes can offer.

•	Voluntary beyond-code programs give program administrators important technical
knowledge, market experience, and analytical resources that can be used to improve the
mandatory building codes themselves, as well as compliance with these improved
codes.

•	Improving mandatory building energy codes can assist in meeting program administrator
objectives such as energy or capacity targets, state or regional environmental or
greenhouse gas goals, providing customer service, and lowering customer bills.

•	There is no single best approach or delivery mechanism for administrators working to
improve mandatory building energy codes or code compliance. To date, administrators
have engaged at all steps in the codes process using a wide range of strategies that are
tailored to their unique circumstances.

•	By working to advance codes, administrators can enhance integration with other public
policies (e.g., appliance standards, voluntary ratepayer-funded programs, time-of-sale
disclosure, and building benchmarking) and increase the overall savings that are
achieved.

Next Steps

For program administrators interested in pursuing a role with mandatory codes, the following

steps might be appropriate:

•	Work with regulators and state energy offices to assess the potential for greater energy
savings from up-to-date and well-enforced building codes.

•	Assess how voluntary beyond-code programs can provide useful information, services,
and expertise to advance mandatory building codes.

•	Explore options for measuring the costs and benefits of mandatory code-related
activities.

State utility regulators can take steps to explore the role of mandatory codes, including:

•	Assess the potential for greater energy savings from up-to-date and well-enforced
building codes, as well as the potential impact on energy system requirements.

•	Determine the costs and benefits of program administrator involvement to advance
building codes.

•	Work with utilities to address issues related to program baselines, cost recovery,
mandatory savings targets, and other utility policies.

2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Convene affected stakeholders and encourage dialogue on key questions pertaining to
an expanded administrator role with codes.

Explore options for integrating building code policies into resource plans and linking
codes to related state policies for improving building performance and measurement.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

3

-------

-------
Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and
Building Energy Codes

A suite of effective energy efficiency policies and programs is necessary to capture the
available cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025, as outlined in the National Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency Vision for 2025 (see Figure 1). If broadly implemented, these
programs and policies can offset the expected growth in electricity and natural gas
demand by more than 50 percent, while saving the nation billions on energy bills and
avoiding significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).1 Adopting building energy
codes is one of the key policies that needs to be effectively implemented, as reflected
under Goal Six of the Vision for 2025.

This brief focuses on strategies for increasing the energy savings from building energy codes2
and, in particular, the contributions that program administrators—including utilities, state energy
offices, third parties, and other entities that operate energy efficiency programs—can make to
increase the stringency and effectiveness of mandatory codes by leveraging experience gained
in the voluntary beyond-codes arena. Issues addressed in this brief include the current status of
building codes across the United States, the elements of a successful codes policy, the roles
that energy efficiency program administrators have played in the past, and the key challenges
and questions that need to be addressed to further engage program administrators in the
advancement of building energy codes.

Figure 1. Ten Implementation Goals of the National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change

Goal

One:

Establishing Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency as a High-Priority Resource

Goal

Two:

Developing Processes to Align Utility and Other Program Administrator
Incentives Such That Efficiency and Supply Resources Are on a Level Playing
Field

Goal

Three:

Establishing Cost-Effectiveness Tests

Goal

Four:

Establishing Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Mechanisms

Goal

Five:

Establishing Effective Energy Efficiency Delivery Mechanisms

Goal

Six:

Developing State Policies to Ensure Robust Energy Efficiency Practices

Goal

Seven:

Aligning Customer Pricing and Incentives to Encourage Investment in Energy
Efficiency

Goal

Eight:

Establishing State of the Art Billing Systems

Goal

Nine:

Implementing State of the Art Efficiency Information Sharing and Delivery
Systems

Goal

Ten:

Implementing Advanced Technologies

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

5

-------
Status of Mandatory Minimum Building Energy Codes

Mandatory building energy codes for residential and commercial construction, as well as
renovations, establish a minimum "floor" on energy-related building practices. Upon adoption,
codes require that specific energy efficiency measures be put in place at the time of major
construction, allowing for deeper and more cost-effective savings relative to the opportunities
available after a building has been constructed. Building energy codes work to overcome the
substantial market barriers to greater energy efficiency in new buildings and buildings
undergoing renovation in both the commercial and residential sectors.

Prior to taking effect, model codes are typically developed at the national level, adopted at the
state and/or local level, and implemented and enforced locally. To date, 37 states have adopted
energy codes for both commercial and residential construction (BCAP, 2009). These numbers
are expected to increase due to provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 that link the receipt of stimulus funds to adoption of and compliance with the latest
residential and commercial codes. Such recent-vintage codes are estimated to yield buildings
that are 8-35 percent more efficient than they otherwise would be,3 and are achieved at
reasonable up-front costs to builders.4 From the perspective of home and building owners and
occupants, energy codes are affordable and cost-effective, generating energy bill savings and
increases in monthly cash flow (i.e., reductions in energy bills that exceed any increase in
mortgage payments associated with code compliance).5 Several states, including California and
Oregon, have developed mandatory codes that are more stringent than the national models,
and yet remain cost-effective. While codes address only about 1-2 percent of the total building
stock in an average year (Hewitt, 2009; Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources,
2009), the potential for energy and cost savings increases over time as the fraction of newly
constructed buildings increases in comparison to the total stock.

Status of Beyond-Code Programs and Other Voluntary Initiatives

Beyond-code programs establish requirements that are substantially above those of the
minimum code, whether or not mandatory codes have been adopted. A leading example of a
voluntary initiative is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ENERGY STAR®
Qualified New Homes program. Under this initiative, specifications for energy performance and
verification—including the use of a Home Energy Rating System and onsite inspections—are
defined at the national level and implemented locally by energy efficiency program
administrators. To ensure effectiveness, administrators provide builder training, incentives for
more efficient buildings, verification of construction practices, and savings measurement.
ENERGY STAR currently requires homes to be 20-30 percent more efficient than those built to
the model code, International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2006 (ENERGY STAR,
2009b). As of early 2009, there was substantial market infrastructure for ENERGY STAR homes
in more than 13 states, and about 1 million new homes have been built to ENERGY STAR
requirements (ENERGY STAR, 2009a).6

Program administrators have also taken steps to establish beyond-code programs in
commercial buildings that are linked to the development of future mandatory codes. For
example, administrators in seven states have adopted the New Buildings Institute's (NBI's) Core
Performance specification (Hewitt, 2009). In addition, states in the Northeast and elsewhere are
exploring the option of adding an informative appendix to existing codes that municipalities can
adopt as an alternative to the mandatory model code. This appendix is specified on a state-by-
state basis, and is designed to be consistent with incumbent program administrators' voluntary

6

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
programs. For example, the Massachusetts informative appendix to the state code is based on
NBI's Core Performance for commercial construction and on ENERGY STAR for residential
construction (NEEP, 2009). In municipalities that adopt the appendix, utilities retain the ability to
provide financial incentives and claim savings, even though the new, higher efficiency levels are
mandatory.

Energy efficiency program administrators are also undertaking other voluntary initiatives to
assess and establish the savings and costs of newer technologies, systems, and practices than
those reflected in the current code programs and to facilitate their incorporation in mandatory
codes.

Steps to Achieving Effective Mandatory Building Energy Codes

For mandatory codes to be effective, a number of key steps must be followed:

• National model code development. Routinely reviewing, developing, and updating
national model building codes provides the foundation for code policies. For code
policies to be successful, it is important to collect and maintain data on the costs, energy
savings, and performance of candidate energy efficiency measures so that codes are
updated on the basis of accurate and up-to-date information. The "model codes" most
frequently adopted by the states are developed by the International Code Council (ICC)
and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), respectively for residential and commercial buildings. The model codes are
updated every three years on the basis of stakeholder deliberation and technical
analysis to validate improvements.

• State and local code adoption. Once new versions of the national model codes are
published, state and local governments can update their codes accordingly. As of
September 2009, 37 states have adopted residential codes and 37 states have adopted
commercial codes (BCAP, 2009). In addition, many large cities and local governments in
states with home rule laws—in which municipalities are granted self-government on
building and construction policy—have taken similar steps. In many jurisdictions, code
adoption occurs through a combination of legislative and administrative processes, and
is informed and influenced by substantial stakeholder participation; however, states are
increasingly moving to streamline this process with automatic upgrades that coincide
with the release of national model codes. As of 2007, 28 states had state policies in
place that require routinely reviewing and updating building codes (National Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency, 2009). This is a key policy step of the Vision for 2025.

• Local code implementation, compliance, and enforcement. After building energy
codes have been adopted, a number of implementation steps are necessary to achieve
the energy savings and bill reductions that codes offer. These steps, including builder
training, compliance assurance, and enforcement, are typically the responsibility of state
and local governments. These steps, however, are often not fully or uniformly
implemented for numerous reasons, including an emphasis on health and safety issues
over the proper functioning of mechanical equipment, a lack of trained staff to review
building plans and conduct onsite inspections, and limited funding to carry out key
implementation activities. As a result, most jurisdictions do not have the capacity to
analyze code compliance and to identify the measures and strategies that should be
targeted for improved implementation. In states and municipalities where data exist, they
frequently indicate compliance rates between 40 and 60 percent, although much lower

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
levels of performance have been documented (NEEP, 2009). This gap in data and
understanding has been identified as an important issue in the Vision for 2025 and other
venues.7

Appendix B provides detailed information on the code development, adoption, and
implementation processes. Additional steps that are not included in typical code cycle, but that
are nevertheless critical to achieving more effective mandatory codes, include:

• Measurement and understanding of costs and benefits. Measuring the energy,
economic, and environmental impacts of mandatory codes is necessary to assess their
overall effectiveness and to provide the information needed to make improvements.
Currently, limited data are available on key parameters, including the upfront costs to
builders; energy bill impacts to building owners and tenants; and statewide energy,
capacity, and GHG savings from complying with the code. Taking steps to address these
shortcomings and improve codes measurement is a key component of a comprehensive
approach for improving building efficiency and establishing a market value for efficient
homes and buildings. In contrast to the limited data availability with mandatory codes,
many states and jurisdictions have robust data and tracking systems for their voluntary
efforts. These ratepayer-funded programs are typically subject to standard industry
protocols and procedures for savings evaluation, measurement, and verification
(EM&V).8

• Linkage of codes to energy resource planning. To capture the full benefits from
mandatory codes, mid- and long-term estimates of energy and capacity savings can be
integrated into state and utility energy resource plans. Currently, these benefits are
rarely considered in the resource planning process, and the contribution of codes
policies is not accounted for. In contrast, the energy savings from voluntary beyond-code
programs are typically included in resource plans when administered as part of a larger
portfolio of energy efficiency programs. The Action Plan highlights the inclusion of long-
term savings from building codes in resource planning as an important step in advancing
energy efficiency; however, this step has rarely been taken (National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency, 2008).

A separate step that can improve the effectiveness of codes is the establishment of voluntary
beyond-code programs for new construction and emerging technologies where they do not
already exist. This is a necessary first step for states seeking to take advantage of administrator
contributions to mandatory codes that are described in this brief. Such voluntary efforts leverage
the interest of builders seeking to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. These efforts
involve:

• Identifying and promoting efficient measures and construction techniques.

• Monitoring baseline new construction practices and related trends.

• Updating voluntary program specifications to levels that exceed existing mandatory
codes.

• Providing builder training, compliance verification, and enforcement services.9

Table 1 provides additional examples of the activities involved in administering voluntary new
construction and emerging technologies programs.

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Table 1. Types of Program Administrator Activities Supported by Voluntary Code
Programs and Other Initiatives

Program Types of Activities Examples

New

construction
programs

¦ Assess costs, expected savings (e.g.,
annual, lifetime, peak day), and
overall cost-effectiveness of
measures.

¦ Provide training and ongoing
technical support services to builders
and contractors.

¦ Provide marketing support to
builders.

¦ Conduct onsite verification (e.g., pre-
drywall site inspections of insulation
and air sealing, building
commissioning, blower door testing).

¦ Fund incremental costs of efficient
systems and equipment.

¦ Provide code compliance assistance
and/or certification.

¦ In 2006, utilities participating in
NWECG proposed 14 code
changes to the IECC, 10 of
which were fully incorporated
into the code.

¦ Oregon utilities, working through
NEEA, successfully integrated
the Northwest Energy Homes
specification, on a provision-by-
provision basis, into the state's
2008 residential code.

Emerging

technology

and

practices
programs*

¦ Establish technology evaluation
criteria for reliability, quality, and
performance.

¦ Conduct studies to understand
current market conditions and the
potential for energy savings from
emerging technologies.

¦ Identify candidate technologies for
study and promotion.

¦ Assess major market barriers and the
likelihood of success.

¦ Manage pilot programs and
demonstrations, and assess energy,
demand, and environmental
performance.

¦ A Florida utility funded studies
on duct sealing and cool roof
technologies for inclusion in the
state code. These measures
have since been added to the
state's mandatory building code
for new construction.

¦ California utilities are currently
working with the state's PIER
program to establish a utility
retrofit program that achieves
energy and demand savings
from increased daylighting of
existing office buildings and to
inform the next round of Title 24
building code changes.

IECC = International Energy Conservation Code; NEEA = Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance;
NWECG = Northwest Energy Codes Group; PIER = Public Interest Energy Research.

* Emerging technologies are those that are pre-commercial but near commercialization and those that
have already entered the market but currently have a small market share.

By establishing voluntary programs for new construction and emerging technologies, states are
better positioned to overcome challenges that have hindered the success of mandatory codes in
the past,10 including:

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
•	Lack of information on the costs and benefits of measures being considered for inclusion
in the building code.

•	Complexity of codes and the need for extensive training of builders, tradespeople, and
inspectors.

•	Scarcity of measured ex post data on the energy savings and other benefits achieved
from codes currently in place.

•	Limited quantity of resources at the local level for verification and enforcement, leading
to low compliance rates.

Figure 2 describes these and other barriers to more effective codes. Corresponding actions that
program administrators have taken to address these barriers are provided in Table 2,

Figure 2. Barriers to Achieving Effective Building Codes

National Code Development

•	Important energy uses are
not addressed

•	Key technologies are not
included

•	Limited participation by
codes advocates

Local Code Implementation

•	Financial resources are limited

•	Training infrastructure and
materials are not available

•	Insufficient understanding of
code provisions

•	Direct technical assistance is
not available

•	Resources are not targeted to
code deficiencies

Potential Barriers

With a Typical
Three-Year Codes
Process

State Code Adoption

•	Automatic updates are not
established

•	Data on costs and benefits
are limited

¦ Limited participation by
codes advocates

•	Codes are not addressed in
resource planning

•	Political opposition

10

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Codes

A growing number of energy efficiency program administrators are taking steps to improve the
effectiveness of existing building codes and to upgrade to the most recent national model codes
(see Table 2). This experience demonstrates early success in leveraging beyond-code
programs and other voluntary initiatives to address the barriers to more effective mandatory
codes. Administrators are taking the following steps to enhance and upgrade codes:

• Demonstrating specific measures and emerging practices that might be targeted for
inclusion in subsequent model codes.11

• Participating directly in national, state, and local efforts to develop, adopt, and implement
codes.

• Sharing technical expertise gained from voluntary program experience with advanced
techniques and systems.

• Contributing energy savings and cost data for specific measures being considered under
mandatory codes.

• Providing education and training resources to builders, contractors, and code officials in
support of existing codes or code upgrades.

• Measuring energy savings, code compliance, and baseline market conditions.

• Linking the development of model codes to strategies and measures currently being
advanced under voluntary new construction and emerging technologies programs.

By working within the codes process, administrators also contribute to an improved
understanding of how to better integrate existing state efficiency policies to maximize overall
energy savings. These existing state efficiency policies potentially include building codes,
appliance standards, voluntary ratepayer funded programs, time-of-sale disclosure, and building
benchmarking, among other things. Contributing to code upgrades and improvements can
assist program administrators in achieving their own objectives and requirements. These might
include:

• State-regulated targets for energy and capacity reductions

• State and regional environmental or GHG reduction goals

• Customer energy bill reductions and customer service improvements

Table 2 summarizes the full list of contributions that program administrators can make to
advance residential and commercial building energy codes. For more detailed examples and
case studies, see Appendix C.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
Table 2. Selected Program Administrator Roles and Examples With Codes

Selected Administrator Roles

Examples

Development, Adoption, and Implementation of Mandatory Minimum Codes

Development of National Model Codes

¦ Participate directly in IECC or ASHRAE
committees that develop and advance
model codes.

¦ PG&E, Southern California Edison, and
Sempra Utilities (San Diego Gas & Electric
and Southern California Gas)

¦ Participate indirectly through regional
or national consortia and/or
associations.

¦ Edison Electric Institute, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, and
American Public Power Association

¦ Conduct research, development, and
demonstration for new technologies
and building practices that are included
in future codes.

¦ Florida Power & Light

Regional, State, and Local Code Development and Adoption Efforts

¦ Build coalitions and/or collaborate with
stakeholders to support code adoption
and upgrade processes.

¦ NEEA (including Bonneville Power Authority,
PacifiCorp, Idaho Power Company, and
others), MEEA, and NEEP (including
participating utilities)

¦ Participate directly in legislative or
administrative code adoption and
upgrades (e.g., testify).

¦ California lOUs, Georgia Power, National Grid,
and the Cape Light Compact (Massachusetts)

¦ Conduct outreach and education in
support of code adoption.

¦ SWEEP and NEEP

Local Implementation and Compliance

¦ Fund code compliance/enforcement
activities in jurisdictions with
inadequate resources.

¦ Iowa utilities and Seattle City Light

¦ Provide training and materials for code
officials, building trades, and product
distributors/suppliers.

¦ Efficiency Vermont, PG&E, Nevada Power,
Sierra Pacific, Rocky Mountain Power,
QuestarGas, United Illuminating, and NEEP

¦ Manage a quality assurance and
evaluation program to track progress
and improve coordination.

¦ UCG (funded by Washington State utilities)

12

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Other Activities

Measurement of Energy Savings

¦ Estimate achieved (i.e., ex post)

energy savings and other impacts from
codes.

¦ Austin Energy, California lOUs, and
NYSERDA

¦ Use measured results from voluntary
programs to verify compliance with
mandatory codes (e.g., "deemed-to-
comply" strategies).

¦ New Jersey and Texas

Resource Planning

¦ Integrate codes savings into energy
resource plans.

¦ NWPCC and the California Energy

Commission, including affected administrators

ASHRAE = American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers;

IECC = International Energy Conservation Code; IOU = investor-owned utility;

MEEA = Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance; NEEA = Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance;

NEEP = Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships;

NWPCC = Northwest Power and Conservation Council;

NYSERDA = New York State Energy Research and Development Authority;

PG&E = Pacific Gas & Electric; SWEEP = Southwest Energy Efficiency Project;

UCG = Utility Code Group

Development, Adoption, and Implementation of Mandatory Codes

Energy efficiency program administrators have opportunities to assist in the development,
adoption, and implementation phases of mandatory codes, and can help achieve energy and
capacity savings at relatively low program costs per unit of energy saved. For example, during
the 2006-2008 investor-owned utility (IOU) program cycle in California, program expenditure
data from the utilities indicated that codes-related savings were achieved at a cost of about
$0.01 per first-year kilowatt-hour (kWh) (Lee et al., 2008).

National model code development. Based on current examples, program administrators can
engage in model code development processes by:

•	Participating in the ICC/IECC or ASHRAE12 committees that develop and advance
model codes.

•	Developing and submitting specific code upgrade proposals.

•	Participating in regional efficiency organizations (see Appendix D), national associations,
and other organizations seeking to advance model codes.

•	Conducting pilot studies and analyses of measures targeted for inclusion in future codes.

State and local code adoption. Program administrators have played and can play a role in
code adoption at the state and local levels by:

•	Building coalitions with other administrators and stakeholders to advocate for specific
code proposals.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

13

-------
• Participating directly in technical working groups or committees to advance a specific
code upgrade.

• Conducting outreach and education to key industry stakeholders on the costs and
benefits of proposed code upgrades.

• Developing marketplace infrastructure to support new codes.

• Funding and conducting programs designed to increase the market penetration of
successful technologies and advance future model code proposals.

• Analyzing and deploying promising building technologies and practices.

Local code implementation. Program administrators have participated in the implementation
processes in various states and localities by:

• Conducting studies of baseline construction practices.

• Providing resources to enhance enforcement in jurisdictions with inadequate staff or
funding (e.g., support third-party or other specialized energy code inspectors).

• Providing training and materials for code officials, building trades, and product
distributors and suppliers.

• Managing a quality assurance and evaluation program to track progress and improve
policy effectiveness.

• Conducting original research on compliance rates, with recommendations for addressing
deficiencies.

• Using existing data from voluntary new construction programs to document or support
code compliance requirements.

These activities require varying degrees of program resources (BCAP, 2008). The amount of
resources an activity requires influences how frequently it has been pursued to date. Program
administrator participation in national and regional processes, as well as builder and contractor
training, are relatively common and can be conducted with limited new contributions of staff time
or financial resources. In contrast, activities such as funding expanded enforcement capabilities
or compliance studies are pursued in fewer jurisdictions, typically where building codes are
more closely linked to voluntary energy efficiency programs under a robust energy policy
framework with regulator oversight.

Other Activities

Energy efficiency program administrators also have opportunities to assist with the
measurement of energy savings from codes and to integrate the expected energy savings into
energy resource plans.

Measurement of energy savings. To date, there are only limited data on the energy and
demand savings achieved through mandatory energy code policies. Where data exist, they tend
to be ex ante projections of future savings from a specific policy proposal and not rigorous ex

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
post estimates of achieved savings that can be used to assess cost-effectiveness and inform
policy and program decisions. With experience conducting detailed EM&V in the voluntary
arena, many program administrators are well-positioned to play a role in measuring savings
from codes and other building efficiency initiatives and to use this information to document code
compliance. Administrators can:

• Identify standard building practice and construction baselines in their jurisdiction, as well
as shortcomings.

• Link the verification step in voluntary new construction programs to successful code
compliance.

• Quantify the ex post impacts of existing mandatory codes and the ex ante savings from
proposed code changes.

• Measure the cost of compliance to builders and assess the overall cost-effectiveness of
proposed measures—and the code overall—using regulator-approved cost tests.

• Present information on the costs and benefits of individual measures being considered
for the code during the code development phase.

• Provide equipment to conduct building energy measurement and coordinate information
flow across stakeholders.

In California, lOUs conducted third-party measurement of their activities to enhance the Title 24
code during the 2006-2008 program cycle. Results indicate that savings equivalent to 10-12
percent of the total IOU goals were achieved. Based on program expenditure data from the
utilities, codes-related savings cost about $0.01 per first-year kWh (Lee et al., 2008).

Energy resource plans. To capture the "resource value" of mandatory codes, the projected
energy savings must be integrated into state and regional resource planning processes.
Building code savings are additive to forecast savings from the efficiency program portfolio and
can be reported separately.13 Using this approach, state utility commissions can require that
savings from building codes be estimated and incorporated into the resource planning process.
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) and the California Energy
Commission are two organizations that capture code savings in the regional and state planning
processes (as distinct from a regulated utility's integrated resource plan). A key lesson from this
experience is that successfully reflecting the impacts of codes in energy resource plans requires
robust savings evaluation. Independent system operators (ISOs) can also explore ways to
capture codes impacts in their capacity planning and transmission and distribution analysis.

Role for Regulators

Like other efficiency program investments, administrator expenditures on codes are typically
subject to the approval of state public utility commissions or other oversight bodies. The degree
and type of oversight varies significantly across the country, depending on jurisdictional
requirements, existing practices, and the magnitude of investment. In cases where codes are
viewed as an integral part of the state or jurisdiction's overall energy policy strategy, regulators
and other oversight bodies are likely to perform a detailed review of the administrator's plan and
budget. In other cases, regulatory entities might view codes activities as a minor element of the
administrator's overall efficiency portfolio, and thus subject to limited oversight.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------
Oversight is typically more thorough for lOUs in states where cost-recovery and shareholder
incentive mechanisms require detailed scrutiny of all costs. For public utilities, the jurisdictional
entity overseeing the utility and administering the building code might be identical. In these
instances, it can be administratively easier to include codes activities in the utility's portfolio. In
most states and localities, however, utility regulation and code administration fall under separate
agency jurisdictions so effective coordination between regulators and building departments is
required.

Next Steps for Program Administrators and Regulators

Energy efficiency program administrators are effectively using their experience with voluntary
codes programs to assist in the process of developing, adopting, and implementing mandatory
building energy codes. With evidence that these contributions can be cost-effective and result in
mandatory codes that are more effective than they would otherwise be, administrators and
regulators can initiate and expand their efforts. Administrators interested in exploring or initiating
a role with mandatory codes can take the following steps:

• Work with regulators and state energy offices to assess the potential for greater energy
savings from up-to-date and well-enforced building codes.

• Assess how beyond-code programs provide useful information, services, and expertise
for advancing building codes.

• Explore options for accounting for the costs and benefits of mandatory code-related
activities.

State utility regulators can take steps to explore the role of mandatory codes, including:

• Assess the potential for greater energy savings from up-to-date and well-enforced
building codes and the potential impact on energy system requirements.

• Determine the costs and benefits of program administrator involvement with advancing
building codes.

• Work with utilities to address issues related to program baselines, cost recovery,
mandatory savings targets, and other utility policies.

• Convene affected stakeholders and encourage dialogue on key questions pertaining to
an expanded administrator role with codes.

• Explore options for integrating building code policies into resource plans and linking
codes to related state policies for improving building performance and measurement.

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Notes

1 Energy efficiency savings as a percent of load growth depend on forecast assumptions used, and they
vary by region. This magnitude of savings is consistent with the potential savings documented in a
number of recent studies, which are listed in Appendix B of the Action Plan's Vision for 2025 (National
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, 2008).

2 Building codes are written legal requirements governing the design and construction of buildings. Most
of the codes adopted by state and local governments set minimum standards for safe occupancy to
protect individuals from substandard living and working conditions. Building energy codes are
construction specifications that require new commercial and residential buildings and existing buildings
undergoing renovations to meet minimum energy efficiency requirements.

3 Compared with the previous versions of these codes (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE] 90.1-2004 and the 2006 International Energy Conservation
Code [IECC]), the most recent versions—ASHRAE 90.1-2007 and the 2009 IECC—represent
efficiency improvements of 8-15 percent, respectively. Because many states have older codes in
place, adopting the most current codes can lead to savings from 20 percent (commercial) to 35
percent (residential), depending on the climate zone. These savings were modeled by the Building
Codes Assistance Project.

4 For example, see Cort et al. (2002) and Anderson et al. (2006).

5 The Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA) has conducted state-level analyses of ex ante
benefits of code upgrades for the states in its territory. For example, see MEEA (2009). For detailed
information on the methods for determining the cost-effectiveness of codes, see Florida Solar Energy
Center (2009).

6 "Substantial market penetration" refers to states with a penetration rate of 20 percent or higher.

7 Step 18 under Goal Six of the Vision for 2025 is effective enforcement of building codes (National
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, 2008).

8 For more information, see National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007c).

9 Beyond-code programs and voluntary initiatives define building efficiency specifications that are more
stringent than the national model codes or adopted state energy codes. Beyond-code programs are
alternatively referred to as "stretch code," "advanced code," or "above code."

10 The barriers to more effective building energy codes are described in EPA (2006).

11 Examples of the specific measures and strategies included in the most recent commercial and
residential codes are provided in a presentation by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Bartlett
et al., 2009).

12 The IECC is the predominant model code for residential construction. The ASHRAE 90.1 specification
is the basis for most commercial codes.

13 For more information on incorporating energy efficiency in resource planning, see National Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency (2007b).

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

-------

-------
Appendix A: National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency Leadership Group

Co-Chairs

Marsha Smith

Commissioner, Idaho Public
Utilities Commission
Past President, National
Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners

James E. Rogers
Chairman, President, and
C.E.O.

Duke Energy

Leadership Group

Barry Abramson
Senior Vice President
Servidyne Systems, LLC

Tracy Babbidge
Director, Air Planning
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection

Angela Beehler
Senior Director, Energy
Regulation/Legislation
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Bruce Braine

Vice President, Strategic Policy
Analysis

American Electric Power
Jeff Burks

Director of Environmental

Sustainability

PNM Resources

Sandra Byrd

Vice President, Strategic Affairs
Arkansas Electric Cooperative
Corporation

Kateri Callahan
President

Alliance to Save Energy

Jorge Carrasco
Superintendent
Seattle City Light

Lonnie Carter
President and C.E.O.

Santee Cooper

Sheryl Carter

Co-Director, Energy Program
Natural Resources Defense
Council

Gary Connett
Director of Environmental
Stewardship and Member
Services

Great River Energy

Larry Downes
Chairman and C.E.O.
New Jersey Natural Gas (New
Jersey Resources Corporation)

Roger Duncan
General Manager
Austin Energy

Neal Elliott

Associate Director for Research
American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy

Angelo Esposito
Senior Vice President, Energy
Services and Technology
New York Power Authority

Jeanne Fox
President

New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities

Philip Giudice
Commissioner

Massachusetts Department of
Energy Resources

Dian Grueneich
Commissioner
California Public Utilities
Commission

Blair Hamilton
Policy Director
Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation

Stephen Harper
Global Director, Environment
and Energy Policy
Intel Corporation

Maureen Harris
Commissioner

New York State Public Service
Commission

Mary Healey

Consumer Counsel for the State
of Connecticut

Connecticut Consumer Counsel

Joe Hoagland
Vice President, Energy
Efficiency and Demand
Response

Tennessee Valley Authority
Val Jensen

Vice President, Marketing and
Environmental Programs
ComEd (Exelon Corporation)

Mary Kenkel
Consultant, Alliance One
Duke Energy

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

A-1

-------
Ruth Kiselewich
Director, Demand Side
Management Programs
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company

Harris McDowell
Senator

Delaware General Assembly

Ed Melendreras

Vice President, Sales and

Marketing

Entergy Corporation

Janine Migden-Ostrander
Consumers' Counsel
Office of the Ohio Consumers'
Counsel

Michael Moehn

Vice President, Corporate

Planning

Ameren

Fred Moore

Director, Manufacturing and

Technology, Energy

The Dow Chemical Company

Richard Morgan
Commissioner
District of Columbia Public
Service Commission

Diane Munns

Vice President, Regulatory
Relations and Energy Efficiency
MidAmerican Energy Company

Clay Nesler

Vice President, Global Energy
and Sustainability
Johnson Controls, Inc.

Brock Nicholson

Deputy Director, Division of Air

Quality

North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources

Jed Nosal

Chief, Office of Ratepayer
Advocacy

Massachusetts Office of
Attorney General Martha
Coakley

Pat Oshie
Commissioner
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission

Jim Parks

Manager, Energy Efficiency and
Customer R&D
Sacramento Municipal Utility
District

John Perkins
Consumer Advocate
Iowa Office of Consumer
Advocate

Doug Petitt

Vice President, Marketing and

Conservation

Vectren Corporation

Phyllis Reha
Commissioner
Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission

Roland Risser

Director, Customer Energy

Efficiency

Pacific Gas and Electric

Gene Rodrigues
Director, Energy Efficiency
Southern California Edison

Wayne Rosa

Energy and Maintenance

Manager

Food Lion, LLC

Art Rosenfeld
Commissioner

California Energy Commission

Ted Schultz

Vice President, Energy

Efficiency

Duke Energy

Larry Shirley

Division Director

North Carolina Energy Office

Paul Sotkiewicz
Senior Economist, Market
Services Division
PJM Interconnection

Jim Spiers

Senior Manager, Planning,
Rates, and Member Services
Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc.

Susan Story

President and C.E.O.

Gulf Power Company (Southern

Company)

Tim Stout

Vice President, Energy

Efficiency

National Grid

Debra Sundin
Director, Energy Efficiency
Marketing
Xcel Energy

Paul Suskie
Chairman

Arkansas Public Service
Commission

Dub Taylor
Director

Texas State Energy
Conservation Office

David Van Holde
Energy Manager, Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
King County, Washington

Brenna Walraven
Managing Director, National
Property Management
USAA Realty Company

J. Mack Wathen

Vice President, Regulatory

Affairs

Pepco Holdings, Inc.

A-2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Mike Weedall

Vice President, Energy

Efficiency

Bonneville Power Administration

Michael Wehling
Strategic Planning and
Research

Puget Sound Energy

Henry Yoshimura
Manager, Demand Response
ISO New England, Inc.

Dan Zaweski
Assistant Vice President,

Energy Efficiency and
Distributed Generation
Long Island Power Authority

Observers

Rex Boynton
President

North American Technician
Excellence

James W. (Jay) Brew
Counsel

Steel Manufacturers Association

Susan Coakley
Executive Director
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships

Roger Cooper

Executive Vice President, Policy
and Planning

American Gas Association

Mark Crisson
President and C.E.O.

American Public Power
Association

Dan Delurey
Executive Director
Demand Response
Coordinating Committee

Reid Detchon
Executive Director
Energy Future Coalition

Ron Edelstein
Director, Regulatory and
Government Relations
Gas Technology Institute

Claire Fulenwider
Executive Director
Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance

Sue Gander

Director, Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources Division
National Governors
Association—Center for Best
Practices

Jeff Genzer
General Counsel
National Association of State
Energy Officials

Donald Gilligan
President

National Association of Energy
Service Companies

Chuck Gray
Executive Director
National Association of
Regulatory Utility
Commissioners

Katherine Hamilton
President
GridWise Alliance

William Hederman
Member, IEEE-USA Energy
Policy Committee
Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers

Marc Hoffman
Executive Director
Consortium for Energy
Efficiency

John Holt

Senior Manager, Generation
and Fuel

National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association

Eric Hsieh

Manager, Government
Relations
National Electrical
Manufacturers Association

Lisa Jacobson
Executive Director
Business Council for
Sustainable Energy

Wendy Jaehn
Executive Director
Midwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance

Meg Matt

President and C.E.O.
Association of Energy Services
Professionals

Joseph Mattingly

Vice President, Secretary and

General Counsel

Gas Appliance Manufacturers

Association

Kate Offringa
President and C.E.O.

North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association

Ellen Petrill

Director, Public/Private
Partnerships
Electric Power Research
Institute

Christie Rewey
Senior Policy Specialist
National Conference of State
Legislatures

Steven Schiller
Board Director
Efficiency Valuation
Organization

Jerry Schwartz
Senior Director, Energy and
Environmental Policy
American Forest and Paper
Association

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

A-3

-------
Andrew Spahn
Executive Director
National Council on Electricity
Policy

Ben Taube
Executive Director
Southeast Energy Efficiency
Alliance

Rick Tempchin
Executive Director,

Retail Energy Services
Edison Electric Institute

Mark Wolfe

Executive Director

Energy Programs Consortium

Lisa Wood

Executive Director

Institute for Electric Efficiency

Facilitators

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

A-4

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Appendix B: Background on Code Development,
Adoption, and Implementation Processes

Program administrators exploring opportunities with codes should understand the basic process
and roles involved in developing and implementing energy codes. Although there are
exceptions, building energy codes are usually:

• Developed at the national level

• Enacted into statute or rule at the state level

• Implemented and enforced at the local level (typically by cities and counties)

Background information on this hierarchy for codes-related activities is described below.

National Code Development

The two major organizations currently involved in maintaining and upgrading building codes are
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and
the International Code Council (ICC). On the nonresidential side, most states use ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 as the basis for their codes, which provides both prescriptive and performance-
based compliance paths for commercial building designers. Several other states have adopted
the ICC's International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as their nonresidential code.

The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 initially specified the process for updating Standard 90.1.
This legislation required U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine if a proposed upgrade
to the standard improved energy efficiency in nonresidential buildings. If this finding was
affirmative, states had to update their codes to meet or exceed the new ASHRAE standard
within two years. This upgrade cycle has played out three times, with the 1999, 2004, and 2007
standards. Although DOE has yet to certify the energy savings status of Standards 90.1-2004 or
90.1-2007, Congress stipulated in EPAct 2005 that the 2004 version of the ASHRAE 90.1
Standard is the current basis for state nonresidential energy codes.

For residential construction, most states follow the ICC's IECC, although a few instead adopt the
energy chapter (Chapter 11) of the ICC's International Residential Code (IRC). The IECC has a
prescriptive, simple trade-off approach, as well as a performance-based path for compliance. In
contrast, Chapter 11 of the IRC has prescriptive and simple trade-off-based options, but refers
to the IECC for a performance path. Both the IECC and the IRC are updated every three years,
with code change proposals considered from all interested stakeholders. As with the
nonresidential codes, DOE has not made a determination for the 2003 or 2006 IECC, although
Congress declared in EPAct 2005 that the 2004 versions of the model energy codes should be
the current basis for comparison.

In addition to the majority of states that adopt national model codes, a few states have
developed and adopted their own energy codes (e.g., California, New York, Oregon,
Washington). These codes are typically influenced by the national models but are tailored to
local circumstances and are often more stringent than their national counterparts.

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

B-1

-------
State Code Adoption

Building energy codes developed nationally must be adopted by individual jurisdictions to bring
them into force. In most cases, this is done at the state level to establish a uniform, mandatory
statewide code. Following the approach set forth in EPAct 1992, states are required to consider
minimum energy codes for residential buildings based on current model codes, and to certify to
the Secretary of Energy within two years that their nonresidential energy code meets or exceeds
Standard 90.1.

There are instances, however, where mandatory statewide codes have not been adopted. For
example, some states have a voluntary code, and others have codes that are one or more
upgrade cycles out of date. Other states have home-rule provisions that give cities or counties
the autonomy to adopt their own local code. Arizona is an example of a state in which multiple
local jurisdictions have adopted energy codes. The current status of state code adoption is
shown in Figures B-1 and B-2.

Figure B-1. Commercial State Energy Code Status as of September 2009

ND I

More efficient | Meets 2009 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-2007 or equivalent
Meets 2006 IECC I ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or equivalent
Meets 1998-2003 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-1999/2001 or equivalent

Less efficient Precedes 1998 IECC / ASHRAE 90.1-1999 or no statewide code

State has adopted a code effective at a later date

Source: BCAP, 2009.

B-2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Figure B-2. Residential State Energy Code Status as of September 2009

Meets 2006 IECC or equivalent

Meets 1998-2003 IECC or equivalent (meets EPCA)

Less efficient Precedes 1998 IECC or no statewide code

State has adopted a code effective at a later date

Source: BCAP, 2009.

States use both legislative arid administrative pathways for the adoption and upgrade process.
In a purely legislative jurisdiction, the adoption of an energy code or upgrade is approved by a
legislative body regardless of whether the proposal or legislation is drafted under an
administrative process. In other states, such as Washington and Virginia, the sole authority for
adoption and upgrade of the code is administrative. Many other states use a combined
approach in which legislation directs the upgrade and implementation steps, while authority for
the adoption rests with an administrative agency. This is the case in states such as California,
Oregon, Maryland, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts, with similar processes
occurring in many cities and counties.

Local implementation and Enforcement

Effective implementation at the local level is critical to achieving the potential benefits of an
energy code. Implementation, as defined here, refers to the dual process of compliance with the
code by the building industry and trades and enforcement by jurisdictions. Effective compliance

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

B-3

-------
and enforcement are key steps to realizing energy savings from a code once it has been
adopted. Because these activities occur primarily at the local level, compliance and enforcement
have historically been the elements of the codes process most directly targeted by program
administrators.

To ensure adequate code compliance, it is typically necessary to inform, educate, and train
code officials, building trade organizations, architects, and engineers about the requirements of
the code and the benefits of compliance. Building departments have traditionally emphasized
life and safety codes, and they may need additional information to adequately address energy
efficiency provisions. Ensuring compliance also requires participation by product suppliers and
trade associations (such as local contractor groups) in advance of code implementation, as well
as collaboration with the building industry and DOE's Building Energy Codes Program to
provide guidance, resources, and tools. Partnering with industry groups can be another effective
strategy for efficiently distributing guidance and for organizing training efforts. A readily
accessible source of technical information, such as a "hotline," is another option for increasing
compliance.

On the enforcement side, code officials will also benefit from information and tools that help
them execute this step. Typically, enforcement takes place at two levels: plans examination and
field inspection. The plans examination phase is important to prevent the need to correct
mistakes in the field. Post-construction field inspections are also necessary for ensuring that the
building plans were followed and that energy savings are likely to be achieved upon occupancy.
To be successful, field inspections for energy codes should be integrated into the code officials'
usual process without undue disruptions or added costs. Simplified procedures or guidance can
be especially useful at this stage. In addition, many states have associations of building officials
that can assist in communicating information and resources to local code officials. Because
local governments often face resource and staffing constraints, direct assistance with
enforcement—through the provision of funding or personnel—can be effective.

B-4

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Appendix C: Examples of Program Administrator
Activities to Advance Codes

National Code Development

Energy Efficient Codes Coalition: The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition is a collaborative
group formed to advocate for a 30 percent improvement in the 2009 lECC's residential energy
code provisions compared with the 2006 version of the standard. Key program administrators in
the coalition include electric utilities—represented through the Edison Electric Institute—the
American Public Power Association, and regional energy efficiency organizations (e.g.,
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships [NEEP] and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
[NEEA]). The coalition was successful in seeing the ICC's voting members adopt 55 of the
coalition's 80 recommendations and 13 of the 21 elements of the coalition's comprehensive
proposal ("The 30% Solution"), resulting in energy efficiency gains of approximately 12 percent
nationwide compared with the 2006 IECC. This group now operates as the Building Energy
Efficient Codes Network, and it is continuing to work toward improvements during the next code
cycle.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison, and Sempra Utilities (San
Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas): California's investor-owned utilities
(lOUs) have been involved in advancing the state's Title 24 building codes since the mid 1990s.
These administrators have since become active participants in national code development,
engaging with ASHRAE and the ICC. For example, program engineers from California lOUs
have served on ASHRAE technical committees and assisted in the development of test
procedures and design requirements for Standard 90.1. A key reason for the California
administrators' involvement is the potential to expand the market share for technologies
required under Title 24 and thus drive down the costs faced by local builders and residents. The
national code developers also benefit from the experience and knowledge that California utilities
bring to the process. In addition to assisting ASHRAE and the ICC, California lOUs interact at
the national level with DOE, major national building organizations, and national building product
manufacturers and suppliers to advance specific code upgrades.

Northwest Energy Codes Group (NWECG): NEEA is a regional organization that both
advocates for and delivers energy efficiency programs to businesses and residences. It has
played a role in national model code development for more than 25 years, and it has
successfully leveraged the expertise of utility members and contractors to develop code
upgrade proposals and advance them through the national upgrade process. To assist in this
process and to represent the region at the national level, NEEA and its members formally
established NWECG in 2004. Since then, NWECG has demonstrated how administrators with
significant voluntary program experience at the state and regional levels can influence a
national model code. For example, in 2006, NWECG proposed 14 code changes to the IECC,
10 of which were fully incorporated into the code.

Regional, State, and Local Code Development and Adoption Efforts

NEEP: NEEP is a regional efficiency organization with significant experience providing technical
assistance to states on building codes. For example, in 2008, NEEP worked with the Maine
Public Utilities Commission to adopt and implement the state's first energy code. NEEP and its

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

C-1

-------
program administrator members helped Massachusetts upgrade its code to the most recent
versions of the IECC (2009) and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (2007), and then in the spring of 2009
they helped the state adopt a first-in-the-nation "informative appendix" to the building energy
code, or "stretch code," which provides municipalities with a state-approved option for an above-
code building standard, should they desire it. In all cases, NEEP played a key role in bringing a
wide range of partners, including program administrator members, to the table to educate and
inform decision-makers about the benefits of codes and related issues. Appendix D provides a
list of NEEP's administrator members.

NEEA: As the regional efficiency organization for the Northwest, NEEA draws heavily on the
expertise of its 139 program administrator members, including public and private utilities, in
offering technical assistance to states on code adoption and upgrades. For example, NEEA
recently assisted Idaho and Montana in the adoption of their first statewide energy codes, and it
played a role in upgrading codes in both Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, NEEA
successfully integrated its Northwest Energy Homes specification, on a provision-by-provision
basis, into the state's 2008 residential code. For 2009, NEEA is working to assemble and fund a
team to assist the Oregon Department of Energy with the implementation of a 20-30 percent
upgrade in its nonresidential code. Appendix D provides a list of NEEA's administrator
members.

Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP): SWEEP, the regional efficiency organization
for the Southwest, includes several program administrator members that it calls on to advance
codes. These administrators have played roles providing data on cost-effectiveness, assisting in
the adoption of statewide energy codes (often by providing testimony on specific code
elements), and helping local stakeholders understand key provisions in the national model
codes. For example, in 2009 SWEEP is working to help communities in Arizona better
understand the costs and benefits of adopting the most recent residential IECC. At the national
level, SWEEP partnered with the NWECG and the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition in 2008 to
achieve a significant upgrade to the lECC's residential code. Appendix D provides a list of
SWEEP'S administrator members.

Local Implementation and Compliance

Efficiency Vermont (EVT): EVT is the sole administrator of electric efficiency programs and
services in Vermont. Wth aggressive statewide goals for efficiency savings and a limited codes
infrastructure, EVT and the Department of Public Service identified code compliance as a key
opportunity. Unlike municipalities in most states, Vermont municipalities are not required to
conduct health and safety inspections of new homes, nor do they issue occupancy permits. In
the absence of on-the-ground inspection and enforcement of energy codes, builders are
responsible for self-certifying compliance. Recognizing this gap, EVT instituted a training and
technical assistance package designed to increase understanding and compliance. One
component of their approach is a telephone hotline, operated by EVT experts, which builders
and tradespeople can call with codes-related questions. In addition, EVT works to educate and
train selected participants in their voluntary programs on code provisions. Wth a relatively small
building market, EVT has been successful in reaching the majority of large builders.

Utility Code Group (UCG): In 1991, Washington State began a 3-year process to revise its
nonresidential energy code. The goal of the region's utilities and the Northwest Power Planning
Council (NWPPC) was to increase the energy efficiency of new commercial buildings to levels
proposed by the NWPPC. To achieve this objective and coordinate the program administrator

C-2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
roles, the UCG was established later that year as a nonprofit entity overseen by a board of utility
representatives. Key activities funded and conducted by the UCG included:

• Developing and implementing a training program.

• Marketing energy code information and training to industry audiences.

• Cooperating with code officials and funding the development of the Special Plans
Examiner and Inspector Program.

• Managing a quality assurance and evaluation program to track progress.

• Coordinating with all stakeholders to assure the successful implementation of the code.

The UCG was in operation for three and a half years, culminating in the successful adoption and
implementation of the NWPPC code recommendations in 1994. (Note that the NWPPC became
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NWPCC] in 2003.)

Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific: In 2005, the State of Nevada adopted the 2003 IECC as its
residential code. To prepare and educate the market for this change, Nevada Power and Sierra
Pacific worked ahead of the code adoption schedule to provide funding for the training and
education of builders and local code officials. DOE contributed additional resources, and the
Nevada Energy Office coordinated the overall adoption process.

PG&E: PG&E developed and delivers a training course on California's Title 24 energy code at
its Energy Training Center in Stockton. PG&E designed the course to focus on high-impact
changes, including duct installation standards and leakage testing requirements in commercial
and residential buildings, and explicitly links the utility's energy efficiency incentive programs to
the code training curriculum. For example, PG&E develops analytical tools and test methods
derived from program experience to estimate energy savings and verify performance of code
measures. This supports California's 2008 energy efficiency strategic plan (CPUC, 2008), which
emphasizes the need for improved energy code compliance and enforcement. The plan states
that: "This strategy will require a strong, coordinated effort among Federal, State and local
entities, the utilities, California building officials (and their association, CALBO) and other code
compliance organizations, trade and professional licensing/registration agencies, and
building/developer/ contractor/manufacturers associations."

State of Maine: In 2004, the Maine Public Utilities Commission was legislatively directed to
study the implementation of building energy codes and report its findings and recommendations
to the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy. With the Public Utilities Commission's
subsequent recommendation, Maine adopted the latest commercial and residential codes,
including a requirement to provide code training to builders and local officials. To assist in
carrying out this requirement, Maine's nonprofit program administrator, Efficiency Maine,
developed a suite of training resources that address basic and advanced topics related to legal
and technical code considerations. Efficiency Maine also delivers the training program and
directly assists builders in securing their certification of occupancy.

State of Iowa: In 2008, the Iowa legislature passed a ruling that requires the state's lOUs, as
well as cooperative and municipal utilities, to set energy savings goals, create plans for
achieving these goals, and report their progress to the Iowa Utilities Board. Although many
utilities viewed the new state codes as a strategy for achieving these goals, they had questions

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

C-3

-------
about low compliance levels and the resulting impact on energy savings. To address these
concerns, the utilities made a commitment, in conjunction with the Iowa Office of Consumer
Advocate, to analyze compliance levels, determine the reasons for low compliance, and identify
options and best practices for improvement. A study was initiated in late 2007, for which data
were gathered via onsite home inspections, leakage tests, and software analyses. Once the
results are available, the utilities intend to develop a strategy for improving compliance and
enforcement as needed.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA): Under New
York's 2008 energy portfolio standard proceeding, NYSERDA, the state's largest program
administrator, was tasked with expanding its role to advance the commercial and residential
building codes. As a first step, NYSERDA will conduct analysis and gather data to assist
stakeholders in understanding market conditions and key issues involved in improving code
compliance. Other activities include conducting a baseline study to document current building
practices in different regions of the state and initiating basic research aimed at identifying areas
of low compliance. Once these efforts are complete, NYSERDA will use the results to inform its
curriculum for training code officials.

Other Activities

Codes Evaluation—California lOUs: In the late 1990s, California lOUs began actively
collaborating with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to identify, research, and
promote codes as a programmatic strategy for achieving efficiency savings at low cost relative
to existing resource acquisition programs. Unlike traditional efforts, however, energy savings
from utility codes activities are implemented by multiple parties over a long period of time, and
are therefore comparatively difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, the CPUC determined that codes
held the potential for large and cost-effective savings, and authorized incentive payments for
utilities that demonstrated successful efforts. In a sophisticated evaluation protocol, the CPUC
subsequently specified the metrics for measuring savings. The protocol estimates net ex post
energy savings achieved from program administrator-induced code changes above and beyond
what would naturally occur in the market. Initial evaluations of the utility codes activities in the
2006-2008 program cycle indicate that savings equivalent to 10-12 percent of the total IOU
goals were achieved. Based on program expenditure data from the utilities, codes-related
savings cost about $0.01 per first-year kilowatt-hour (kWh) (Lee et al., 2008).

C-4

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Appendix D: Administrator Participation in Regional
Efficiency Organizations

Experience has shown that, in many parts of the country, one of the most effective strategies
that program administrators can use to influence code development, adoption, or
implementation is to work with their regional energy-efficiency organizations. Table D-1 lists
these regional efficiency "consortia" and their participating administrators.

Table D-1. Utility Members of Regional Efficiency Organizations

Organization

Utility Members

Midwest Energy

¦ Alliant

Efficiency Alliance

¦ Ameren



¦ American Electric Power



¦ Associated Electric Cooperative



¦ City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri



¦ Columbia Gas of Ohio



¦ Columbia Water and Light



¦ Commonwealth Edison



¦ DTE Energy



¦ Duke Energy



¦ Hoosier Energy



¦ Indianapolis Power & Light



¦ MidAmerican Energy



¦ Minnesota Energy Resources



¦ Minnesota Power



¦ Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency



¦ Wabash Valley Power Association



¦ Wisconsin Public Service



¦ Xcel Energy

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

D-1

-------
Organization

Utility Members

Northeast Energy

¦ Cape Light Compact

Efficiency Partnerships

¦ Connecticut Light and Power



¦ Efficiency Maine



¦ Efficiency Vermont



¦ Long Island Power Authority



¦ National Grid (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode



Island)



¦ New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Clean Energy Program



¦ NSTAR Electric and Gas



¦ NYSERDA



¦ United Illuminating



¦ Unitil



¦ Western Massachusetts Electric Co.

Northwest Energy

¦ Avista Utilities

Efficiency Alliance

¦ Idaho Power Company



¦ Northwestern Energy



¦ PacifiCorp



¦ Puget Sound Energy



¦ Many public utility districts, municipal utilities, and rural electric



cooperatives. See the full list at



.

Southeast Energy

¦ Duke Energy

Efficiency Alliance

¦ Southern Company



¦ Tennessee Valley Authority

Southwest Energy

¦ Salt River Project

Efficiency Project

¦ Sierra Pacific



¦ Southwest Gas



¦ Xcel Energy

NYSERDA = New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

D-2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------
Appendix E: Resources for More Information

Selected Organizations

American Public Power Association, 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE],


Building Codes Assistance Project, 

Edison Electric Institute, 

Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, 

International Code Council, 

National Association of Home Builders, 

Residential Energy Services Network, 

Responsible Energy Codes Alliance, 

Federal Initiatives

ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes.



ENERGY STAR Commercial Buildings and Plants.


National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Building Energy Codes Program.


U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program, 

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

E-1

-------

-------
Appendix F: References

Alliance to Save Energy. Improving Building Energy Codes to Fight Climate Change.


Anderson, R., C. Christensen, and S. Horowitz (2006). Analysis of Residential System
Strategies Targeting Least-Cost Solutions Leading to Net Zero Energy Homes. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Bartlett, R., L. Connell, D. Conover, M. Halverson, and E. Richman (2009). Update on
Residential and Commercial Codes and Standards. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.


Building Codes Assistance Project [BCAP] (2008). Residential Building Energy Codes—
Enforcement and Compliance Study. 

Building Codes Assistance Project [BCAP] (2009). Code Status and Maps. Accessed
September 2009. 

Cort, K.A., D.B. Belzer, D.W. Winiarski, and E.E. Richman (2002). Analysis of Potential Benefits
and Costs of Updating the Commercial Building Energy Code in Iowa. Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, 

California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] (2008). California Long-Term Energy Efficiency
Strategic Plan, 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (2009). Rules, Regulations &
Policies.



ENERGY STAR (2009a). Benefits for Homeowners. Accessed September 2009.


ENERGY STAR (2009b). Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes. Accessed
September 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2006). Clean Energy-Environment Guide to
Action. See Section 4.3, Building Codes for Energy Efficiency.


Florida Solar Energy Center (2009). Energy Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Tests for Residential
Code Update Processes. 

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency

F-1

-------
Hewitt, D. (2009). National Buildings Institute. Personal communication, September 2009.

Lee, A., H. Haeri, K. Keating, A. Osman, and J. Stoops (2008). Utility Codes and Standards
Programs: How Much Energy Do They Save? 2008 American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (2009). Building Energy Codes: An Important
Component of Climate Policy.



Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance [MEEA] (2009). Energy Efficiency Fact Sheet: Impact on
Homeowners of Advancing Energy Codes in Illinois.



National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007a). Building Codes for Energy Efficiency.


National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007b). Guide to Resource Planning with Energy
Efficiency. Prepared by Snuller Price, et al., Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.


National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007c). Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide. Prepared by Steven R. Schiller, Schiller Consulting, Inc.


National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2008). Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change.


National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2009). Measuring Progress at the State Level—
Advancing the Vision for 2025 Implementation Goals and Policy Steps.


New Buildings Institute [NBI] (n.d.). Advanced Buildings Core Performance.


Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships [NEEP] (2009). Model Progressive Building Energy
Codes Policy for Northeast States.



Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (2008). Going Beyond Code: A Guide to Creating Energy
Efficient and Sustainable Buildings in the Southwest.


F-2

Energy Efficiency Program Administrators and Building Energy Codes

-------

-------
Funding and printing for this report was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in their capacity as co-sponsors for the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.

-------