Florida
Building Commission
Energy Rating Index Workgroup
July 20, 2016—Meeting I
Hilton
University of Florida Conference Center
1714 S.W.
34th Street—Gainesville, Florida
|
Meeting
Objectives |
|
Ø
To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda
and Procedural Guidelines) Ø To Hear an Overview of Workgroup Charge and Scope Ø To Receive Informational Presentations on Onsite Renewable Power Generation Ø To Identify Issues and Options Regarding Onsite Renewable Power Generation Ø To Discuss and Evaluate Level of Acceptability of Proposed Options Ø To Consider Public Comment ü To Identify Needed Next Steps: Information, Assignments, and Agenda Items for Next Meeting |
|
Meeting Agenda—Wednesday, July 20, 2016 |
||
|
All Agenda Times—Including
Adjournment—Are Approximate and Subject to Change |
||
|
8:30 AM |
A.) |
Welcome and Introductions |
|
|
B.) |
Agenda Review and Approval (July 20, 2016) |
|
|
C.) |
Review
of Commission’s Workgroup Meeting Guidelines, Consensus-Building and Decision-Making
Process, and Sunshine Requirements |
|
|
D.) |
Review of Energy Rating Index
Workgroup Scope and Purpose |
|
|
E.) |
Informational
Presentations Regarding the Use of Onsite Renewable Power Generation |
|
~12:30 PM |
Lunch |
|
|
|
F.) |
Identification
of Issues for Evaluation Regarding the Use of Onsite Renewable Power
Generation · Review of Initial Key Issues · Identification
& Agreement on Key Issues for Workgroup Evaluation |
|
|
G.) |
Identification, Discussion and
Evaluation of Options in Turn |
|
|
H.) |
General Public Comment |
|
|
I.) |
Next Steps: Agenda
Items, Needed Information, Assignments, Date and Location |
|
~5:00 PM |
J.) |
Adjourn |
|
Meeting Dates
and Locations—2016 |
||
|
I. |
July 20, 2016 |
Gainesville |
|
II. |
August 17, 2016 |
Ft. Lauderdale |
|
III. |
September 2016 |
TBD |
|
IV. |
September 2016 |
TBD |
|
Workgroup Membership |
|
|
Member |
Affiliation |
|
1. Amador Barzaga |
Mechanical Code Compliance and Training Office (Miami-Dade County) |
|
2. Steve Bassett |
Mechanical
Engineers (Commissioner) |
|
3. Joe Belcher |
Homebuilders (Florida Homebuilders Association) |
|
4. Kelly Smith Burk |
State Energy Office (FDACS Office of Energy) (Commissioner) |
|
5. Joe Cain |
Solar Energy
Industry (Solar Energy Industry Associates) |
|
6. Brent Caldwell |
Utilities
(TECO) and (Energy TAC Member) |
|
7. Oscar Calleja |
Mechanical
Contractors (Commissioner) |
|
8. Jay
Carlson |
General Contractors (Commissioner) |
|
9. Amanda
Hickman |
Large Scale Homebuilders (Leading
Builders of America) |
|
10.
Michael Kwart |
Building
Product Manufacturers (Insulation
Contractors Ass. of America) |
|
11.
Michael Power |
Building
Product Manufacturers (American
Chemistry Council) |
|
12.
Lorraine Alliso
Ross |
Building
Product Manufacturers (Dow) |
|
13.
Jim Schock |
Building Officials (Commissioner) |
|
14.
Drew Smith |
Green Building
Industry (Commissioner) |
|
15.
Eric Stafford |
Homebuilders (South
Florida Builders Association) |
|
16.
Steve Strawn |
Building
Product Manufacturers (Windows) |
|
17.
Dennis
Stroer |
Energy Raters |
|
18.
Lauren Westmorland |
Energy
Advocates (Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance) |
|
19.
Mark Zehnal |
Roofing
Contractors (Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association) |
|
DBPR Staff |
|
|
April Hammonds |
FBC Legal
Counsel |
|
Mo Madani |
Technical
Manager |
|
Jim Richmond |
Executive
Director |
|
Facilitator |
|
|
Jeff Blair |
FCRC Consensus
Center at Florida State University |
Overview
Energy Rating Index Workgroup
The 2016 Legislature through passage of HB 535 (Section 34) required the Commission to amend the Florida Building Code, 5th Edition (2014) Energy Conservation, to adopt into the Code Section 406 Alternative Performance Path, Energy Rating Index, in conformance with the provisions described in statute. At the June 8, 2016 meeting the Commission conducted a rule development workshop and adopted language to implement this provision.
In addition, Section 34 assigned the Commission with determining by October 1, 2016, whether onsite renewable power generation may be used as a compliance option when using the Energy Rating Index (ERI)
alternative path for
demonstrating compliance with the energy provisions of the Florida Building
Code, Energy Conservation. The commission must also determine whether onsite
renewable power generation may be used for a period longer than three years but
not more than six consecutive years. In response to this Legislative assignment
and based on the Energy TAC’s recommendation, at the June 8, 2016 meeting the
Commission voted to convene an Energy Rating Index Workgroup, and to charge the
Workgroup with developing consensus recommendations to the Commission pursuant
to Section 34 of HB 535 regarding onsite renewable power generation.
Section 34 of HB 535 requires that the Florida Building Commission shall adopt into the Florida Building Code, 5th Edition (2014) Energy Conservation, the following:
"Section 406
relating to the Alternative Performance Path, Energy Rating Index of the 2015
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) may be used except as follows for
Table R406.4 as an option for demonstrating compliance with the Florida
Building Code, Energy Conservation. TABLE R406.4 MAXIMUM ENERGY RATING INDEX
shall reflect the following energy rating index: for Climate Zone 1, an index
of 58; for Climate Zone 2, an index of 58. The Florida Building Commission
shall continue its current adoption process of the 2015 IECC and determine by
October 1, 2016, whether onsite renewable power generation may be used for
compliance. The commission must also determine whether onsite renewable power
generation may be used for a period longer than three years but not more than
six consecutive years."
Workgroup Scope and Timetable for Delivery
The scope of the Energy
Rating Index Workgroup is as follows:
The scope of the Energy
Rating Index Workgroup is to
identify and evaluate relevant issues and options regarding the use of onsite
renewable power generation as an option for demonstrating compliance with the
energy provisions of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation when using
the Energy Rating Index (ERI) as
an alternative compliance path. In
addition, the Workgroup shall also recommend the duration for which onsite
renewable power generation should be provided
with credit toward the ERI score required to comply with the energy provisions
of the Code. The Workgroup shall deliver their consensus recommendations to the
Florida Building Commission in advance of the October 1, 2016 deadline established
for the Commission to report back to the Florida Legislature.
Workgroup Operating Assumptions and Principles, and
Participation Guidelines
We Will Be Successful And Have Good
Conversation When:
ü All voices are invited, respected and heard.
ü All experiences are treated as valid.
ü Notes are captured in writing, on flip charts or on computers.
ü We listen to each other.
ü We observe time frames.
ü We seek common ground and action.
ü Differences and problems are honored—not “worked”.
ü There is full and active attendance.
ü We make the time and space to connect with each other.
The Facilitator Will Seek To:
ü Structure and facilitate a process that will enable us to discover and build on our best moments and practices as stakeholders.
ü Keep us informed of established parameters for time and tasks.
ü Support and facilitate Workgroup discussions.
ü Create the environment that helps people to be at their best.
ü Keep purpose front and center.
ü Suggest and encourage new ways of thinking and doing.
ü Keep us focused and on track.
ü Start and stop on time.
Workgroup Members Will:
ü Participate actively and share opinions in the conversation—engage fully in this process.
ü Tell stories, provide information—make meaning.
ü Experiment & take risks to share, while engaging in conversation with others.
ü Actively contribute to the creation of consensus recommendations to the Commission.
ü Listen actively, attentively, respectfully.
ü Demonstrate caring . . . about the issues and our dialogue.
ü Take responsibility . . . for the conversation and the ideas developed here.
ü Be here (for the entire Workgroup process), be on time, and be here while you’re here.
Four Personal Guiding Principles: Be impeccable with your word, don't take things personally, don't make assumptions, and always do your best.
Workgroup
Procedural Guidelines
Workgroup Members’ Role
ü The Workgroup process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
ü Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.
ü Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
ü Look to the facilitator to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
ü Speak one person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.
ü Focus on issues, not personalities. “Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind.”
ü Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks. “Mud thrown is ground lost.”
ü To the extent possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
ü Represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
ü Refrain from using electronic devices during the meetings; Keep electronic devices turned off or silent.
Facilitators’ Role
(Jeff A. Blair—FCRC Consensus Center at FSU)
ü Design, facilitate and report on a participatory Workgroup process.
ü Assist participants to stay focused and on task.
ü Assure that participants follow Workgroup Participation Guidelines.
ü Accurately and fairly capture summary of key discussion points during the Workgroup meetings.
Guidelines for Brainstorming
ü Speak when recognized by the Facilitator.
ü Offer one idea per person without explanation.
ü No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
ü Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
ü Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.
The Name Stacking Process
ü Determines the speaking order.
ü Participant raises hand to speak. Facilitator will call on participants in turn.
ü Facilitator may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.
Acceptability
Ranking Scale
During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:
Workgroup’s Consensus Process and
Guiding Principles
Consensus
The Florida Building Commission seeks to develop consensus decisions on its recommendations and policy decisions. The Commission provides a forum for stakeholders representing different interests to participate in a consensus-building process where issues affecting the construction industry are discussed and evaluated on their technical merits and cost-benefits to the citizens of the State of Florida. In order to achieve the best possible decisions, the Commission relies on its workgroups, ad hoc committees, technical advisory committees, and program oversight committees to develop consensus recommendations on project specific issues.
Definitions
Consensus is a Process, an Attitude and an Outcome. Consensus processes have the potential of producing better quality, more informed and better-supported outcomes.
As a Process, consensus is a problem solving approach in which all members:
o Jointly share, clarify and distinguish their concerns;
o Jointly develop alternatives to address concerns; and then
o Seek to adopt recommendations everyone can embrace or at least live with.
In a consensus process, members should be able to honestly say:
o I believe that other members understand my point of view;
o I believe I understand other members’ points of view; and
o Whether or not I prefer this decision, I
support it because it was arrived at openly and fairly and because it is the
best solution we can achieve at this time.
Consensus as an Attitude means that each member commits to work toward agreements that meet their own and other member needs and interests so that all can support the outcome.
Consensus as an Outcome means that agreement on decisions is reached by all members or by a significant majority of members after a process of active problem solving. In a consensus outcome, the level of enthusiasm for the agreement may not be the same among all members on any issue, but on balance all should be able to live with the overall package.
Levels of consensus on a committee outcome can include a mix of:
o Participants who strongly support the solution;
o Participants who can “live with” the solution; and
o Some participants who do not support the solution but agree not to veto it.
For Workgroup purposes, consensus recommendations shall be defined as any option/recommendation achieving a 75% or greater number of 4s and 3s in proportion to 2s and 1s based on the results of all members present and voting.
Energy Rating Index Workgroup’s Consensus Process
The Energy Rating Index Workgroup will seek to develop a
package of consensus-based recommendations for submittal to the Florida
Building Commission. General consensus
is a participatory process whereby, on matters of substance, the members strive
for agreements which all of the members can accept, support, live with or agree
not to oppose. In instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance
the members’ support for the final decision on a recommendation, and the
Workgroup finds that 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final
decisions will require at least a 75% favorable vote of all members present and
voting. This super majority decision
rule underscores the importance of actively developing consensus throughout the
process on substantive issues with the participation of all members and which
all can live with. In instances where
the Workgroup finds that even 75% acceptance or support is not achievable,
publication of recommendations will include documentation of the differences
and the options that were considered for which there is more than 50% support
from the Workgroup. The report that will be a product of the Workgroup process
will clearly describe the level of agreement between Workgroup members on each
specific recommendation as well as on the suite of recommendations as a whole.
The Workgroup will develop its recommendations using
consensus-building techniques with the assistance of the facilitator. Techniques such as brainstorming, ranking and
prioritizing approaches will be utilized. The Workgroup’s process will be
conducted as a facilitated consensus-building process.
The Workgroup’s consensus process will be conducted as an open
process consistent with applicable law.
Workgroup members, staff, and facilitator will be the only participants
seated at the table. Only Workgroup members may participate in discussions and
vote on proposals and recommendations. The facilitator, or a Workgroup member
through the facilitator, may request specific clarification from a member of
the public in order to assist the Workgroup in understanding an issue. Members
may request time to consult/caucus with constituent stakeholder representatives.
Members of
the public are welcome to speak during the public comment opportunities
provided at each meeting, and all comments submitted on the public comment
forms provided in the agenda packets will be included in the facilitator’
summary reports.
Facilitator will work with staff and Workgroup members to design agendas that will be both efficient and effective. The staff will help the Workgroup with information and meeting logistics.
To enhance the possibility of constructive discussions as members educate themselves on the issues and engage in consensus-building, members agree to refrain from public statements that may prejudge the outcome of the Workgroup’s consensus process. In discussing the Workgroup process with the media, members agree to be careful to present only their own views and not the views or statements of other participants. In addition, in order to provide balance to the Workgroup process, members agree to represent and consult with their stakeholder interest groups.
Workgroup Guiding Principles
1.) Workgroup members will strive to work together collaboratively, and seek to understand and respect differing perspectives.
2.) The Workgroup will strive to achieve consensus on the evaluation and development of recommendations submitted to the Florida Building Commission.
3.) The Workgroup will operate under policies and procedures that are clear, concise, and consistently and equitably applied.
4.) Workgroup
members will serve as accessible liaisons between the stakeholder groups they
have been appointed to represent and the ERI Workgroup, and should strive to
both inform and seek input on issues the Workgroup is addressing from those
they represent.
Sunshine Law Guidelines
(Section
286.011, Florida Statutes)
Applicability of Sunshine Law
1. Meetings of public groups (workgroups) or commissions must be open to the public;
2. Reasonable notice of such meetings must be given (by publication in FAR at least 7 days in advance of a meeting); and
3. Minutes of the meetings must be taken.
Ø Equally applicable to elected and appointed members and applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same group (Workgroup) to discuss some matter which will foreseeably come before that group (Workgroup) for action. Applies to advisory groups.
Ø Written correspondence (reports) circulated among group members for comments.
Ø Telephone conversations and computer communications including e-mails and attachments.
Ø Delegation of authority to a single individual.
Ø Use of nonmembers as liaisons between group (Workgroup) members.
Issues not Subject to Sunshine Law Requirements
Ø Use of a written report by one member to inform other members of a subject which will be discussed at a public meeting, if prior to the meeting, there is no interaction related to the report among the members.
Ø Members (Workgroup) or designee may be authorized to gather information as a fact-finder only.
Ø Members may meet together socially, provided they refrain from discussing matters on which foreseeable action before the Workgroup are discussed.
Ø
Workgroup
members are subject to the requirements of Florida's Government in the Sunshine
Law, commonly referred to as the Sunshine Law (Section 286.011 F.S.).
Ø There are four basic requirements of
section 286.011, Florida Statutes:
(1) Meetings of public boards or commissions
(workgroups) must be open to the public;
(2) Reasonable notice of such meetings must be
given;
(3)
Any voting of members must be done in public (including discussions
between two or more members
regarding a
matter on which the Workgroup might foreseeably take action); and,
(4)
Minutes of the meetings must be taken.
Key Issues for Workgroup Evaluation
Worksheet
Issues
Identification Exercise—Meeting Notes
What are the key issues that should be evaluated regarding the use of onsite renewable power generation as an option for demonstrating compliance with the energy provisions of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation when using the Energy Rating Index (ERI) as an alternative compliance path?
What issues need to be addressed to achieve the charge of the Workgroup Process?
Please use the following space to jot down your thoughts for each of the key topical issue areas identified for evaluation.
A. Whether onsite renewable power generation should be an option
to achieve compliance when using the ERI path (counted toward the ERI score
adopted into the Code).
|
Considerations
and/or Sub-issues: |
|
|
B. The amount of onsite renewable power
generation that can be credited toward the ERI score.
|
Considerations
and/or Sub-issues: |
|
|
C. The amount of time onsite renewable power generation can be
used as an option for achieving compliance when using the ERI path.
|
Considerations
and/or Sub-issues: |
|
|
D. Other Key Issues.
|
Note below
any additional key issues that need to be addressed: |
|
|
Options Identification Worksheet
Please use the space below to write down possible options to address the key issues identified earlier regarding the use of onsite renewable power generation as an option for demonstrating compliance with the energy provisions of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation when using the Energy Rating Index (ERI) as an alternative compliance path.
A. Whether onsite renewable power generation should be an option
to achieve compliance when using the ERI path (counted toward the ERI score
adopted into the Code).
|
Note below
any Strategies/Options to address the key issue: |
|
|
B. The amount of onsite renewable power
generation that can be credited toward the ERI score.
|
Note below
any Strategies/Options to address the key issue: |
|
|
C. The amount of time onsite renewable power generation can be
used as an option for achieving compliance when using the ERI path.
|
Note below
any Strategies/Options to address the key issue: |
|
|
D. Other Key Issues.
|
Note below
any Strategies/Options to address the key issues: |
|
|
Acceptability Rating Scale for Options and Recommendations
During the evaluation of proposed options Workgroup members will be asked to develop and rate the acceptability of options. Members with concerns about an option should be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address reservations. Following discussion and refinement, members may be asked to do additional acceptability ratings of an option or options if requested. In general, 4s and 3s are in favor of an option and 2s and 1s are opposed. Once rated for acceptability, options(s) with a 75% or greater number of 4s and 3s in proportion to 2s and 1s will be considered preliminary consensus recommendations for inclusion in the final package of recommendations.
At any point during the process, any option may be re-evaluated and rated at the request of any Workgroup member. The status of a rated option will not be final until the final Workgroup meeting, when a vote will be taken on the entire package of consensus ranked recommendations. The following scale will be utilized:
Public Comment Form
The
Florida Building Commission and the Energy
Rating Index Workgroup encourage written comments—All
written comments will be included in the meeting summary report.
Name:
Organization/Representation:
Meeting Date:
Please make your comment(s) as specific as
possible, and offer suggestions to address your concerns.
Please limit comment(s) to topics within the
scope of the Workgroup, and refrain from any personal attacks or derogatory
language.
The facilitator may, at his discretion,
limit public comment to a maximum of three-minutes (3) per person, depending on
the number of individuals wishing to speak.
Comment:
Please
give completed form(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the meeting summary
report.