FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

ENERGY CODE TRANSITION STUDY WORKGROUP 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

JUNE 22, 2006

Cocoa, Florida

Meeting Design & Facilitation By

Report By Jeff A. Blair

Florida State University

jblair@fsu.edu

http:// consensus.fsu.edu

ENERGY CODE TRANSITION STUDY WORKGROUP REPORT

JUNE 22, 2006

Overview

Chairman Rodriguez announced that as a result of discussions on amendments proposed to the Energy TAC, the TAC recommended that the proposed transition to the International Energy Conservation Code be evaluated and recommendations developed during the next code update process. In order to accomplish this, the Chair appointed an IECC Transition Study Workgroup. The Workgroup will be a conducted as a facilitated stakeholder consensus-building process.

Workgroup Membership

The following members were appointed to serve on the Energy Code Transition Study Workgroup:

Bob Andrews, Steve Bassett, Bob Cochell, Phillip Fairey, Jack Glenn, Dale Greiner,

Gary Griffin, Jeff Householder, Patty Krause, Larry Nelson, Pete Quintella, Roger Sanders,

and Ivan Zuniga.

Opening and Meeting Attendance

The meeting started at 9:00 AM, and the following Workgroup members were present:

Steve Bassett, Bob Cochell, Phillip Fairey, Jack Glenn, Dale Greiner, Gary Griffin,

Jeff Householder, Patty Krause, Larry Nelson, Pete Quintella, Roger Sanders,

and Ivan Zuniga.

DCA Staff Present

Rick Dixon, Mo Madani, and Ann Stanton .

Meeting Facilitation

The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair from the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium at Florida State University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

Project Webpage

Information on the project, including agenda packets, meeting reports, and related documents may be found in downloadable formats at the project webpage below:

http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/ectswg.html

Meeting Objectives

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 8 - 0 in favor, to approve the agenda as presented including the following objectives:

•  To Review and Adopt Work Group Procedures and Guidelines

•  To Hear an Overview of Workgroup Charge and Scope

•  To Review Side-by-Side Comparison between Florida Energy and International Energy Codes

•  To Propose Options for Evaluation

•  To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed Options

•  To Consider Public Comment

•  To Identify Needed Next Steps and Agenda Items For Next Meeting

Work Group's Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines

Jeff Blair reviewed the Workgroup's decision-making procedures found on page 3 of the agenda packet.

Issue Identification and Meeting Scope

Jeff Blair explained that the scope and purpose of the Workgroup is to evaluate the consultant's comparison and recommendations regarding the Florida Energy Code and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The Workgroup's charge is to make a recommendation to the Commission on whether to keep the Florida Energy Code as the template, or to adopt the IERC as the template for Florida's energy code provisions.

Overview of Meeting Process

The meeting process was as follows.

Presentation by the consultant, FSEC's Mansgesh Basarkar, on a comparison between the Florida Energy Code and the IECC.

Presentation from Ann Stanton, DCA staff, on a relative stringency analysis of the Florida Energy Code and the IECC.

Clarifying questions from members on the presentations.

Overview of options (maintain Florida Energy Code, or adopt the IECC).

General discussion on options by Workgroup members.

Identification of any additional options (adopt IECC and IRC with Florida amendments).

Public comment.

Initial ranking of options and identification of member's reservations.

General discussion on options, those enjoying support, by Workgroup members.

Public comment.

Second ranking of remaining options with support and identification of member's reservations.

Agreement on recommendations to the Commission.

Evaluation of Options—Ranking and Refinement of Options

Full results are found starting on page 4 of this Report.

Summary of Workgroup's Key Decisions

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 12 – 0 in favor, to recommend to the Florida Building Commission, that the Commission maintain the Florida Energy Code, and charge the Workgroup with reviewing the IECC code provisions and developing recommendations on which, if any, provisions should be adopted into the Code. In addition, the Commission seek legislative authority to allow the Commission to adopt the IECC as the foundation code, if the Commission determines it is in the best interest of the State.

OPTIONS EVALUATION RESULTS

FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (Chapter 13 Residential Energy Code) —INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSER V VATION CODE (IECC)

During the meeting, members were asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, were asked to do additional rankings of the options as refined. Members were asked to b e prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. A four-point ranking scale was used, and in general, 4's and 3's indicate support and 2's and 1's indicate opposition to the option. A 75% threshold of 4's and 3's was required for an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. The following scale was utilized for the ranking exercise(s):

Overview

First, three options were evaluated with the following results (4's and 3's count for the option, and 2's and 1's against the options):

Option 1: Maintain Florida Energy Code: 10 – 2 in support.

Option 2: Adopt IECC as the code: 1 – 11 in favor.

Option 3: Adopt IECC and IRC, and maintain Florida specific amendments: 9 – 3 in support.

Second, a straw poll was taken to gauge member's preferences between option 1 and option 3.

7 members preferred option 1 and 5 members preferred option 3.

Third, a second ranking was taken on options 1 and 3, with the following results:

Option 1: Maintain Florida Energy Code: 10 – 2 in support.

Option 3: Adopt IECC and IRC, and maintain Florida specific amendments: 8 – 4 in support.

Finally, a motion was made and unanimously supported,, 12 – 0 in favor, to recommend to the Florida Building Commission, that the Commission maintain the Florida Energy Code, and charge the Workgroup with reviewing the IECC code provisions and developing recommendations on which, if any, provisions should be adopted into the Code. In addition, the Commission seek legislative authority to allow the Commission to adopt the IECC as the foundation code, if the Commission determines it is in the best interest of the State.

Option 1

Maintain the residential provisions of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Energy Efficiency as the Code . May be updated to include preferred IECC provisions.

Members Comments and Reservations on first ranking (6/22/06):

Krauss: Would like to come in line with IECC with exceptions specific to Florida.

Glenn: I Don't think we've taken enough testimony to make a decision. Disagree with FSEC as the consultant.

Zuniga: Based on presentations, haven't explored all benefits of 2006 IECC for builders and owners.

Option 2

Adopt the IECC as the energy code for the Florida Building Code .

Members Comments and Reservations (6/22/06):

Greiner: No ability to do Florida specific amendments with this option.

Bassett: Current code is not broken, why change it.

Option 3

Adopt the IECC as the energy code for the Florida Building Code, including the IRC,

and maintain Florida specific amendments.

Members Comments and Reservations on first ranking (6/22/06) :

Clarifications.

Greiner: What are the specific differences with the IRC.

Glenn: My concerns have been addressed with this option.

The IRC does not have the .5 SHGC average requirement.

Concerns:

Bassett: Florida climate is not taken into account adequately by having whole country folded into FL tropical climate.

Sanders: Re simplifying climate zones, if code general enough to simply, has to be either real good. Almost never use simple method.

Glenn: If you look at chart, code recognizes that FL is like Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, others.

Option 4: Suggest tell Commission, 1) keep current code with modifications. Keep working to bring amendments forward through continuation of this work group. 2) Ask for legislative change for authority to adopt IECC if they choose with FL amendments. Keep working to integrate.

Option 4

Maintain the Florida Energy Code, and continue the Workgroup with the charge of reviewing the IECC code provisions and developing recommendations on which, if any, provisions should be adopted into the Code. In addition, the Commission should seek legislative authority to allow the Commission to adopt the IECC as the foundation code maintaining Florida specific, if the Commission determines it is in the best interest of the State. The Workgroup will work to integrate IECC provisions as appropriate into the Code.

Members Comments and Reservations (6/22/06) :

Zuniga: Hebrank's comment about making the Workgroup more representative of all interest groups, since both codes are comparable. Should continue the Workgroup.

Greiner: Recommend to Chair to consider expanding the Workgroup (i.e., insulation, plumbers, and electrical interests).

General Workgroup Discussion Before First Ranking Exercise:

Greiner: Two fairly close codes. Should be looking at what's best for state of Florida. The code should be usable by builders and inspectors.

Householder: Concerned with non-performance criteria. Linkage into national, tax credits.

Glenn: When we talk about the IECC, Ch 11 IRC, is that up for consideration in discussion as third option? % glass in IRC.

Bassett: Energy TAC supports going to IECC to use readily available computer program. However, Commission would have to modify program to fit Florida criteria. Cost of adding shutters would exceed ability of homeowners, double pane glass doesn't pay for itself in our area.

Zuniga: From presentations earlier, we looking at two identical codes. Look at benefits in other areas. Need to keep an open mind, look at other considerations.

Quintella : Are there any comparisons with IRC option?

Sanders: If option is simplified, it may have merit.

Fairey: 2006 IRC is identical with IECC requirements. IRC says if you don't like prescriptive, go to IECC for performance. Caution that analysis was done with glass area of 18%. No where near identical if taken to limits of glazing. Codes not the same with more glazing. Need to limit glass to 18%. Also as far as simplicity goes: you have the ability to make prescriptive options. Over the years, builders have been using the performance option because it allowed them choices; over 90% are performance based.

Glenn: Biggest problem is compliance. Did study, don't really know what is being built. Doubt building departments are enforcing the Florida's energy code.

Bassett: If it isn't broke don't fix it. Part of the problem is that everyone expects mechanical designers and inspectors to comply/enforce. Don't see how changing the code will make it easier. We have an education problem. Address how the code is “broken”.

Griffin: Sounds like we're choosing between adopting a national standard without ability to modify and the Florida code. Seems a national standard is perhaps not best for Florida. Would like to see how to modify the IECC to meet Florida's needs. If IECC is adopted, it will need to be modified for Florida. Many aspects are not under responsibility of Commission to enforce.

Krauss: Inspections in WPB assign responsibility for different areas to different inspectors. Big issue is that many people don't understand the energy code.

Fairey: Regarding Glenn's comment on compliance. In 1993, did study for large power company, collected 426 homes in multiple counties, on portfolio basis, found those homes did comply with the Florida Energy Code at the time.

Glenn: Energy calculations typically done by a/c contractor and insulator. Sometimes builder does it himself. Since 1993, with construction boom, doubtful if building departments are looking at energy.

Quintella : This is a compliance issue. Requested from FBC, whose responsibility it is to enforce. It is all pushed onto mechanical. Not in scope of license. If just a code comparison, what is Florida going to gain by going to IECC. Will still have the same enforcement and education problems.

Nelson: Big concern about amount of glass going into a house, it has significant impact on electric capacity. Have other states adopted the 2006 IECC? Are we considering commercial applications?

Cochell: Reason people are in Florida is because of air conditioning. Need to make it so a/c works. Heat load is sensible and latent. If remove sensible, latent skyrockets. If reduce by 50%, prevent cooling problems like mold.

Bassett: Already there. We are trashing buildings because we are trying to save energy.

Griffin: Is this easier to address by altering existing code or adopting something new.

Householder: Performance based compliance in IECC moves you into cost based compliance. Cost factor takes to local, problematic.

Glenn: ASHRAE 62.1, moving to -04 in December.

PUBLIC COMMENT 1:

Stewart (AZT Consult): Bassett asked what's broken in the energy code. Last year, requested DCA database from Shimberg center. My analysis by input alone, 25% error rate. Entire calculation is suspect. Huge population does not understand complexity of code.

Conner (PNNL): Found no correlation to % glass. By making it simpler, bring in allies. Would like to see Florida get involved in national code.

Loyer (Icynene): Florida is not unique. If you have questions, ask colleagues in other states. Have to pay for software. Florida specific version of RESchek easy to put together.

Vieira (FSEC): Most of big development homes going in use less glass than 18%, helps them pass. Greater burden on affordable housing. Question of simplicity: have had option for years, most builders don't go there. IECC philosophy: most would choose easy. Hasn't shown to be true in Florida. Discussion about California & Florida having more window area: Florida has problem with cooling load & Solar heat gain. Cause & effect. Houses with a lot of glass should come in at reasonable energy load.

Anderson (Simonton): Don't care what type of window they buy. Plenty of products out there to meet code. Good data saying that performance-based code of IECC is very similar to Florida. IECC has two other prescriptive options. There is no minimum window requirements. Uo option would limit the number of windows. IRC: 2004 equal to IECC. Since then, 2006 commercial different. Several states have their own replacement pages. Not a hindrance. Can also participate in national code change process. IECC has a couple of additional compliance paths that could be of value in Florida.

Pittman (Orlando BD): Getting off onto wrong track. Key issue is do we want to go to IECC. Enforcement part will take care of itself, dilutes the issue. Some jurisdictions do a good job of enforcement.

Lucas (PNNL): IECC requires .4 SHGC, limits impact of windows. In starter houses doesn't allow watered down requirements. Since more stringent window, will save energy. Could lower peak load when consider all houses.

Hebrank: Enforcement is a big issue, are people complying. The Florida code is complex, tedious, difficult to use. Cost to purchase software. Not aligned with federal tax credits. IECC nationally recognized code, developed by experts, people up to speed. I am novice, I can figure it out. Need calculator in Florida. Builders more likely to comply where easy to understand. Read materials that show .4 SHGC would help with federal highway funds. Why wouldn't you want to build efficient home, more affordable to use.

Stewart: FL relies on tradeoffs, decreasing thermal envelope by putting in higher efficiency equipment. As housing stock ages, more stringent envelope better.

Anderson: At the BOAF meeting,, understood that change to federal appliance requirements would affect builders in Florida. Appliance act making you change what's happening in FL.

Stewart: By changing baseline to NAECA, tradeoffs previously used no longer significant options, supply, sensible heat ratio create differences. Anticipating increase in building envelope stringency, question is how much.

Dixon: Regarding Arlene's comment, I have been energy advocate in national scene for years. Rationale: even pushing to logical basis, Florida energy code hangs out there on cost effective basis. See same thing happening in different realms. Small increases add up; aggregate drives up cost. Once at certain level, ethics problem. .4 SHGC is fine in a performance methodology. Can trade off. .5 average SHGC overall can't be gotten around.

SECOND DISCUSSION ON 2 REMAINING OPTIONS:

Members General Discussion:

Glenn: Think we need an enforceable code.

Fairey: Comparison of code shows Florida specific issues in text. Florida has text that clearly treats duct construction options. Best practices for Florida. Would be like throwing baby out with bath water.

Glenn: Can Philip support Option 2 with amendments.

Fairey: Would have to insert most of the Florida code to support change. Have certain statutory requirements about how to adopt.

Dixon: 2 options: If you call it a base code, requirements on foundation become amendment. If adopt Florida energy code, I code stuff becomes amendments.

Glenn: There are safeguards in the law for a reason.

Bassett: Can't do Option 2 because of statutory requirements. Better to take good parts of I Code and bring into Florida. Not broken. Lack of enforcement is a different issue.

Sanders: Makes more sense to bring in I Code issues into Florida code.

Griffin: Biggest reservation, it appears that IECC will limit flexibility. Not a good idea.

Zuniga: Sun entering homes via glazing is major component of energy load in homes. Requiring a lower SHGC is a way to lower heat gain in Florida homes. Have seen owners move in and add things to home to make home more energy efficient.

Bassett: See lack of consensus. Is default of no consensus, what now have.

Blair: Decision goes to the Commission with report of this meeting.

Quintella: Assuming vote goes to keep Florida code, repeat a request for training. Respectfully ask Commission for guidance in how to enforce.

Griffin: Is it a budget problem.

Glenn: Not sure lack of training is the problem. Problem is work load issue. Inability to allocate resources.

Krauss: Prior meeting suggested a separate license for energy inspector.

Fairey: General comment. Enforcement side muddies the waters. Stick to central question.

Griffin: Haven't heard anything that shows the enforcement issue is solved with the IECC.

Bassett: Change Option 1 with provisions from IECC to update.

Glenn: Currently, that is the IECC option. No choice but to bring IECC into document. Alternative is to bring into statute IECC.

Public Comment 2:

Connell: FL is a leader. Other states get there. Suggest Florida participate in I-Codes. Enforcement: Manufacturers de facto create enforcement.

David Margenton: Consumers do not have the information they need. Should address where the cost benefits? Windows ignored in Florida.

Vieira: Want affordable housing to be very affordable. Think high end houses should meet energy budget. Everybody likes to focus on special characteristics of their area. Relying on IECC to make code negates this.

Loyer (Icynen): Easy answer to education. Get training from ICC.

Stewart: 18%: most houses are below this because of other constraints. Better envelope lowers energy costs.

Lucas (PNNL): Bigger houses have more window area.

Lovich (O/C): Option 1, clarified that Commission has ability to change code. If read literally, sounds like only IECC amendments.

Baker (St Johns BD): problem with enforcement is two fold. Not a matter of apathy. Commercial is more time consuming. Forms need to be user friendly, info easily found.

Member's Concerns Regarding Second Ranking of Options 1 and 3

Fairey: If specifics are right, could vote on options.

Zuniga: FMA had a proposal, IECC with FL provisions. Use as this as a vision of what the document could look like for our review and evaluation.

Bassett: Glitch cycle amendments. Many code changes, suggested study group. There are good things in IECC. Support making a level playing field. Can get there faster by staying where we are plus good IECC changes.

Greiner: Is there a specific timeline? Can this Workgroup meet again? Can we go to the Commission with recommendation to stay with Option 1 but make legislative change so can go to Option 3.

Dixon: We have a little more time. But have a lot of other work to be done in the fall. Would need a recommendation to Commission by August.

Bassett: 1) Suggest tell Commission, keep current code with modifications. Keep working to bring FL amendments forward. 2) Ask for legislative change for authority to adopt IECC if they choose with FL amendments. Keep working to integrate.

Greiner: Energy is a separate statute. Want it to look more like the rest of the Code.

Glenn: Believe current Florida law allows it now.

Dixon: Need exceptions from current criteria.

ATTACHMENT 1

ENERGY CODE TRANSITION STUDY WORKGROUP

June 22, 2006—Cocoa, Florida

Meeting Evaluation Results

Average rank using a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means totally disagree and 10 means totally agree.

1. Please assess the overall meeting.

8.12 The background information was very useful.

8.50 The agenda packet was very useful.

9.00 The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset.

8.62 Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved.

8.62 Side-by-Side Comparison between Florida Energy and International Energy Codes.

8.75 Identification and Evaluation of Proposed Options .

8.50 Adoption of Workgroup's Energy Code Recommendations .

2. Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting.

9.00 The members followed the direction of the Facilitator.

9.87 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard.

9.50 The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well.

9.50 Participant input was documented accurately.

3. What is your level of satisfaction with the meeting?

9.50 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting.

9.37 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator.

9.12 I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting.

•  What progress did you make?

9.50 I know what the next steps following this meeting will be.

8.62 I know who is responsible for the next steps.

5. Member's Written Evaluation Comments.

•  Good meeting management and presentations.