Part I of this blog series discussed state requirements for accepting American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding linked to energy code compliance, as well as the procedures and tools developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to assist states in meeting and measuring these requirements. This blog reviews the second half of the TAP webcast from May 31, 2011, Policies and Procedures for Enhancing Code Compliance. (Audio, slides, and transcript for the webcast are archived on the Solution Center’s Webcasts page).
In our last post, we covered how to measure energy code compliance. In this week’s blog, we will take a look at how we can improve energy code compliance rates. As with most things we want to improve upon, it starts with the basics. When talking about energy code compliance, the basics include things like training and communication, enforcement, leveraging existing industry tools, and ensuring that the required resources are in place.
Building energy codes can be one of most cost-effective ways to reduce energy consumption in new construction and substantial renovations, but it won’t happen without compliance. And compliance won’t happen without ongoing enforcement, education, and training. PNNL is currently conducting pilot studies to verify the feasibility of protocols and tools developed for measuring 90% compliance. One of the preliminary findings from those studies is that even in states where training programs have been in place for several years, there is still a lack of knowledge about energy codes in general and/or certain aspects of the code. When stakeholders don’t view energy codes as critical, or specific code requirements are not well understood, compliance is unlikely to happen and potential energy savings are not going to be realized.
Evaluation, as shown by the PNNL pilot studies, is one way to help improve compliance rates. The evaluation process can identify patterns of compliance, i.e. which components are consistently out of compliance and which components are more successful. This knowledge can then be leveraged to better hone education and training efforts, as well as pinpoint policy issues that may need to be addressed.
Third-party enforcement is another way to improve compliance rates. When an entity other than the local jurisdiction is responsible for enforcing energy codes, local code officials are then free to focus on other issues, such as health and safety issues. Third-party energy code inspectors should have specific training and expertise in this field and know how best to achieve compliance. The established Home Energy Rating System community is one example of a potential third-party inspector resource. This entity could either be under contract with the local jurisdiction or hired directly by the developer. This would then relieve the local jurisdiction of budgetary pressures by requiring a fee for energy code inspection. Examples of successful third-party inspection programs can be found in Fairfax County, Virginia and Washington State for the commercial sector, and Denver, Colorado for the residential sector. It should be noted that in Washington State, implementation of a third-party inspection program played a significant role in raising compliance rates from 55% to 94%!
And lastly, utility code programs can be another way to increase compliance rates. If utilities are able to receive credit toward their energy efficiency goals for supporting energy code adoption and/or compliance, they may be encouraged to provide expertise and funding for these activities. This is occurring in California, and research is currently underway in Massachusetts. If you didn’t catch the recent TAP webcast, Exploring Partnerships to Further Building Code Compliance Enhancement, that took place September 9, 2011, visit the Solution Center’s Webcasts page for additional information on this topic.
COMING SOON!
Content for this Blog post courtesy of Leslie Badger, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation