|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online March/April 1997
State Energy Codes: An Uphill Battle
by Steven Bodzin
Energy codes have helped many states and
counties to achieve higher efficiency in new construction. But builders
and efficiency advocates continue to struggle over how and when to change
these codes.
Since the mid-1970s, building code officials and energy professionals
have developed and promoted energy codes throughout the United States.
Some states have developed their own codes, while others have incorporated
the national Model Energy Code, or MEC, into local building codes. MEC
received a big boost when the 1992 Energy Policy Act required states to
consider adopting it. Since then, however, the building industry in Michigan
has succeeded in repealing MEC, while the very conservative state of Georgia
implemented the most recent version. Every state has its own story.
MEC is a national energy code based on the concept
of energy credits (see "Making Sense of the
Model Energy Code," HE Mar/Apr '96, p. 21). Like most building
codes, MEC requires some measures in all homes, such as a caulked and sealed
envelope and insulated, sealed ducts. It also assumes a base-case home
with reasonable energy efficiency measures for the local climate, and allows
builders to reduce some measures in return for increasing others. The goal
is a building with no more than a certain amount of heat loss. MEC is updated
every three years by the Council of American Building Officials (CABO);
the most up-to-date version is from 1995.
Some states, especially in the South and West,
have developed their own codes. In Florida, the heat and humidity drove
code officials to develop a locally relevant code that deals more with
moisture problems, heat gain, and cooling systems. In the West, the great
variety of climates--from Alaskan tundra to California deserts--have pushed
states to develop energy codes that are sometimes stricter than the current
MEC, especially in prescribing air sealing, ventilation, and insulation
for extremely hot or cold climates.
In November, Massachusetts became the third state,
after North Carolina and Georgia, to choose 1995 MEC as the statewide residential
energy code. For Massachusetts, this represents a repeat of 1988, when
it became one of the first states to update its energy code since the energy
shocks of the early 1970s.
1995 MEC is likely to become the most widely
adopted one yet, as it is referenced in the 1996 edition of the popular
National Building Code from the Building Officials and Code Administrators
(BOCA). This effectively makes MEC the official energy code in jurisdictions
that adopt BOCA, unless those jurisdictions specifically exclude the energy
provisions, as may happen in West Virginia.
 |
| Figure 1. Statewide code distribution based on MEC
standards. |
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced
what it considered the most significant changes from 1993 MEC. The 1995
iteration changes requirements for air leakage control; uses Uo
to describe metal-framed walls (weighting the results by building area,
energy use, and overall envelope area); and is more specific in its treatment
of windows, ducts, and crawlspaces. It requires windows to be certified
by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) and mandates a maximum
window assembly U-value of 0.44. 1995 MEC also closed some loopholes in
the energy credit system.
Meanwhile, there has also been an anticode backlash.
In December 1995, the Michigan Home Builders Association succeeded in repealing
1993 MEC, only six months after it was implemented. Ohio builders were
stymied in a similar attempt in 1996.
At the same time, DOE has been distributing State
Energy Program, or SEP, funds. These funds are often used to help implement
a state or local energy code, or to help train contractors in code compliance.
A recent study by Ed Vine at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found
that code support is an important part of encouraging compliance. He analyzed
the code compliance of homes built under utility residential new construction
programs. He found that in a given region, homes built without utility
support were out of compliance ten times as often as those built under
such a program.
Here's an update on the latest developments in
residential energy codes from around the states, reprinted with permission
from Bi-Monthly Status of State Energy Codes, published regularly
by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP).
In the five states omitted--New Mexico, South
Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, and Louisiana--statewide energy codes are limited
or nonexistent, and no changes are currently proposed.
| Table 1. Residential Energy Codes |
| Code |
Description |
| ASHRAE 90B |
Primitive residential building standards, written in 1975 by a committee
of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE); written as recommendations, not as a building code |
| ASHRAE 90.2 |
More current version of 90B, written in code language and accepted
by ASHRAE in 1993 |
| Model Code for Energy Conservation |
The first model energy code, accepted in 1977, based on ASHRAE 90B.
CABO took over revising the code in the early 1980s, and began releasing
revisions on a three-year cycle in 1983, 86, 89, and 92 |
| 93 MEC |
More wall insulation in multifamily buildings
More wall and ceiling insulation in single-family homes in southern
locations
Minimum R-value requirements for new duct installations
More readable, but generally more stringent, requirements than 92 MEC |
| 95 MEC |
Air sealing requirements for recessed light fixtures
Refers to National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) standard for U-values
of glazing assemblies
Provides U-value for products without NFRC ratings
Uses Uo to describe metal-framed walls (weighting the results
by building area, energy use, and overall envelope area)
Duct sealing required on all supply and return ducts; specifically disallows
duct tape
Bases assumptions on a newer version of ASHRAE Fundamentals
Assumes more wall framing
Eliminates option of insulating walls of ventilated crawl space rather
than floor above |
| 98 MEC |
Will probably pay more attention to cooling climates, including solar
heat gain coefficients, shading, orientation, and other items gleaned from
ASHRAE 90.2 |
| Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, DOE. |
State-by-State Status of Residential Energy Codes
|
| Alabama |
A simplified version of 93 MEC, called the Residential Energy Code
for Alabama (RECA), was adopted in March 1996. Two cities are considering
adoption of RECA. |
| Alaska |
92 MEC is mandatory for all residential buildings. A Technical Advisory
Group is currently reviewing the unique state Building Energy Efficiency
Standard (BEES) based on four years of experience. Airtightness and ventilation
requirements will be up for discussion. |
| Arizona |
Use of Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) for residential structures
is widespread. The city of Tucson, and the rest of Pima County, have adopted
95 MEC, but there are no initiatives for statewide residential codes. |
| Arkansas |
Arkansas adopted a statewide mandatory residential energy code based
on 92 MEC. Builder self-certification is required even if local governments
do not enforce the codes. The state is training HVAC contractors with DOE
SEP funds. |
| California |
California's region-specific Title 24 regulations are mandatory statewide,
with all areas at least meeting 92 MEC. Training has been provided to building
departments and designers. State Energy Commission officials are considering
changes to Title 24, and may eventually adopt MEC if they consider it strict
enough. |
| Colorado |
Colorado's residential energy provisions, which do not meet 92 MEC,
are mandatory minimum requirements only for jurisdictions that adopt a
building code. For residential standards, the state energy office is partnering
with the Colorado Home Builders Association and Energy Rated Homes of Colorado
for voluntary compliance. The city of Fort Collins adopted a modified 95
MEC, which took effect July 1, 1996. |
| Connecticut |
Connecticut is likely to adopt the 96 BOCA codes by fall. The state
received DOE funding to facilitate adoption of MEC and to provide MEC training. |
| Delaware |
93 MEC has been adopted and implemented. The state received DOE funding
to continue providing MEC training. |
| District of Columbia |
Residential energy codes do not meet 92 MEC. A Building Code Advisory
Committee is scheduled to meet monthly, but the Energy Subcommittee has
been inactive. |
| Florida |
Locally developed residential energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and
are mandatory statewide. The state is in the process of revising the Florida
energy efficiency code for implementation in September 1997. The state
received federal funding to establish a Southern States Energy Board and
to encourage market-driven energy-efficient construction. |
| Georgia |
95 MEC has been adopted; it took effect April 1, 1996. |
| Hawaii |
Hawaii's residential energy guidelines meet or exceed 92 MEC but are
not mandatory statewide; due to strong builder resistance, no counties
have adopted the residential code. The state received DOE funding to update
and distribute lighting standards. |
| Idaho |
New residential energy standards, which do not meet 92 MEC because
of lack of floor insulation, took effect January 1, 1996. Builder self-certification
is required if local jurisdictions do not enforce a code. Many jurisdictions
adopt the Northwest Energy Code or MEC. |
| Illinois |
No statewide residential energy codes. The state and Chicago are pursuing
voluntary residential compliance ventures through Illinois Energy Rated
Homes training. |
| Indiana |
92 MEC with state amendments adopted and enforced statewide. The state
is also reviewing adoption of 95 MEC and has just completed code compliance
and HERS training through a DOE grant. The state received DOE funding to
provide consumer education about homes meeting the code. |
| Iowa |
92 MEC adopted statewide, mandatory and enforced by local jurisdictions.
Iowa is providing MEC training and education and training to integrate
the use of HERS as a method of code compliance. Local utilities also support
the HERS program with rebates. The Home Builders Association of Iowa petitioned
the Building Code Commissioner to remove basement insulation requirements
from the state residential energy code. A public hearing was held in December
1996. The Building Code Advisory Committee had not decided on the petition
at press time. |
| Kansas* |
The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) adopted 93 MEC, which utilities
are expected to put into effect by the end of 1996. However, in early 1996,
legislation was introduced, passed in the house, and sent to the senate,
to eliminate the KCC's authority to adopt and enforce energy standards
for residential structures. In early May, the legislature adjourned without
the bill getting out of conference committee. Similar initiatives will
be introduced in the 1997 legislative session.
MEC training has been provided. The state received DOE funding to provide
more training and to develop maximum trade-off flexibility. |
| Kentucky |
92 MEC adopted statewide; the state is considering adoption of 96 BOCA
(with either 93 or 95 MEC), with proposed July 1997 implementation. |
| Maryland |
Statewide energy codes are based on BOCA. The latest edition of BOCA
is mandated as the state building code; a comment period on 96 BOCA began
in January. The new code is expected to take effect in October 1997. The
state received DOE funding to establish a comprehensive code training system. |
| Massachusetts |
The statewide residential code does not meet 92 MEC for certain fuel-specific
structures. A modified 95 MEC was finalized by the Board of Building Regulations
and Standards in December 1996, and will take effect September 1, 1997.
The state received DOE funding for residential and commercial training. |
| Michigan |
93 MEC, adopted statewide in July 1995, was repealed by the legislature
in December 1995. The state energy code reverted back to ASHRAE Standards
90A and 90B; the State Construction Code Commission (which approved and
proposed the adoption of the 1993 MEC) was then directed to adopt cost-effective
energy efficiency standards by April 1, 1997. An Energy Code Ad Hoc Committee
is stalemated. |
| Minnesota |
Residential energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC. A state version of
MECcheck, called MNcheck, is now available and is being distributed to
builders. The state is focusing on airtightness and mechanical ventilation
in homes for the next code revisions. The state received DOE funding to
achieve implementation of proposed 1998 updated residential code. |
| Mississippi |
Residential energy codes do not meet 92 MEC. State legislation to adopt
current national energy standards died in the 1994 legislative session,
but state officials are introducing energy code adoption legislation this
year. |
| Missouri |
No statewide energy codes. Legislation to adopt a statewide building
code died in the 1994 legislative session. Legislation similar to the 1994
bill (voluntary codes) failed in the 1996 session. Reintroduction may occur
next session. |
| Montana |
The statewide residential energy code is 93 MEC. Cities authorized
to issue building permits are bound by the new code. The state received
DOE funding to provide training and technical support for builders, designers,
and code officials. |
| Nebraska |
The statewide residential energy codes do not meet 92 MEC. Legislation
to adopt 92 MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature. The state is developing
an incentive program to reduce the mortgage interest rate for homes built
at or above MEC levels. The reduction in the interest rate will be achieved
through a loan participation by the Nebraska Energy Office. Some pilot
testing with builders has occurred. The earliest date any new codes might
be adopted is spring 1997. |
| Nevada |
The state energy code does not meet MEC. Legislation to adopt 92 MEC
died with adjournment of the 1995 legislative session. The state is pursuing
voluntary compliance strategies. State code adoption has been impeded by
a two year moratorium on new state energy regulations.
The counties of Las Vegas, Henderson, and Clark have adopted 92 MEC. |
| New Hampshire |
The state residential code does not meet 92 MEC. The Public Utilities
Commission is reviewing 95 MEC and expects the process to be completed
by spring 1997. |
| New Jersey |
The residential energy code, based on 93 BOCA, does not meet 92 MEC.
The latest edition of BOCA has traditionally been adopted unamended as
a statewide code. However, legislation froze the codes at the July 1, 1995
level unless the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) deems certain provisions
of the new codes essential to carry out the intent of the law. The Codes
Office of DCA has recommended that 96 BOCA be adopted with changes, possibly
including deleting reference to 95 MEC and substituting ASHRAE Standards
90A and B as the energy standard for residential construction. A coalition
of state stakeholders is working with DCA to improve New Jersey's residential
energy standards.
A Code Advisory Board will review DCA's recommendations and will publish
its findings in the New Jersey Register, probably in early 1997;
a 30-day public comment period will follow. The state received DOE funding
to promote the adoption of an energy code that meets or exceeds MEC and
to provide training and certification for MEC. |
| New York |
State energy code meets or exceeds 92 MEC. Legislation has been introduced
by homebuilders to replace the New York State Building Code, which is not
based on a national code, with the latest version of BOCA. |
| North Carolina |
The residential code is a simplified 95 MEC. Training in the state
is focused on the design community. |
| North Dakota |
The state has adopted 93 MEC, but the state codes are voluntary unless
a jurisdiction adopts them. The state received DOE funding to promote local
adoption of MEC and to integrate MEC training into the state's vocational
education system. |
| Ohio |
93 MEC adopted. Last year, the legislature considered, but did not
pass, two bills. One would have eliminated the requirement to change energy
standards when technological advances make old standards obsolete or inadequate;
the other was a MEC repeal amendment pushed by the Ohio Home Builders Association
(OHBA)
In November, the state removed criminal penalties for noncompliance
with the state energy code. The state received DOE funding to provide code
training in Cincinnati, and to work with utilities, bankers, and realtors
who are involved in Ohio's HERS program. |
| Oklahoma |
There is no state energy code, except for state-owned buildings. However,
state contractor licensing requires compliance with BOCA codes for some
trades; the 1996 International Mechanical Code, which references 95 MEC,
took effect in August and is the minimum installation standard statewide
for mechanical contractors.
The State Fire Marshal's Office is reviewing the 1996 BOCA codes, and
may make them mandatory for jurisdictions without local codes by July 1997. |
| Oregon |
Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC. Some code changes were
adopted in April 1996, with various others likely to be adopted in 1999.
DOE money is paying for training sessions through the public utilities'
Circuit Rider program. Oregon and Washington are both suffering from the
loss of Bonneville Power Administration funds to pay for code enforcement,
administration, and promotion. |
| Pennsylvania |
Statewide energy code does not meet 92 MEC. Legislation that calls
for the statewide adoption of 96 BOCA including 95 MEC and repeal of Act
222, the old energy standards based on ASHRAE 90, passed the house the
end of June 1996, but died in committee. It will be reintroduced this year. |
| Rhode Island |
93 MEC took effect in January. |
| South Carolina |
The statewide residential energy code is 92 MEC with amendments that
make it less stringent. Legislation was introduced to mandate the latest
codes from the Southern Building Code Congress, Incorporated, and the MEC
statewide (currently only 57% of counties have adopted a building code,
with fewer actually enforcing the energy code). The bill passed the senate
in 1996 but was rejected in the house after a contentious debate over requiring
a supermajority (2/3 vote) in local governments to raise taxes or fees.
The bill will be reintroduced this year. |
| Tennessee |
State energy code is 92 MEC. The state and the design community are
reviewing 95 MEC for adoption. |
| Texas |
There are no state energy codes. Residential code training is currently
being offered for designers and code officials, especially in jurisdictions
that have voluntarily adopted MEC. The state received FY96 DOE funding
to implement an energy efficiency mortgage program called Loan Star for
new residential construction. |
| Utah |
State energy code is 93 MEC. Training workshops have been held. The
state received FY96 DOE funding to complete the implementation of the new
codes and to provide public education about exceeding the codes. |
| Vermont |
Mandatory energy efficiency standards, which meet or exceed 92 MEC,
are contained in Vermont's land use regulations (Act 250), which cover
approximately 50% of construction.
There are no state energy codes for the remaining commercial and residential
construction. A Governor's Task Force was convened to study energy standards
and recommended the adoption of a modified 95 MEC for all residential construction.
The state Home Builders Association supported the bill. It died in the
house early last year, but will be reintroduced again this year.
The state will introduce new workable residential code legislation in
January 1997 that may have a better chance of passing. The state received
FY96 DOE funding to provide compliance training. |
| Virginia |
93 MEC is in place statewide. The Board of Housing and Community Development
is soliciting public comments on adoption of the 1996 BOCA codes, which
are expected to be adopted in April 1997. Though BOCA references 95 MEC,
the energy code is receiving little attention. |
| Washington |
Washington statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC. The State
Energy Office was terminated on July 1, 1996, with its functions assumed
by other agencies. Washington State University will provide technical assistance.
There is no threat to residential codes, although Bonneville Power Administration
funding for code enforcement support has been eliminated. DOE granted FY96
funds to the state to provide code training and support through transition
of utility restructuring and to support a codes hotline. As in Oregon,
Washington's loss of Bonneville Power Administration funds will cut into
code enforcement. |
| West Virginia |
The state energy code, based on 93 BOCA, does not meet 92 MEC. The
State Fire Commission, through a compromise with the Home Builders Association,
will introduce legislation in early 1997 to adopt 96 BOCA without 95 MEC.
Stakeholders are working to get 95 MEC included. Residential and commercial
energy code workshops are being held. |
| Wisconsin |
The unique residential energy code nominally meets 92 MEC; a state
energy task force is studying adoption of 95 MEC in lieu of developing
state-written standards. A draft proposal is nearing completion, for submission
to the codes council. The state received FY96 DOE funding to promote home
energy ratings to comply with residential code. |
| This list was adapted from BCAP's
Bi-Monthly
Status of State Energy Codes, January 1997.
* Late-breaking News: Under
presure from homebuilders, Kansas is considering a repeal of 93 MEC. Also,
New Mexico has adopted 92 MEC. |
Further Reading
The Building Codes Assistance Project updates this
list every two months with the latest developments. To get on their mailing
list for future copies, contact BCAP, 1200 19th St. NW, Suite 900, Washington,
DC 20036. Tel:(202)530-2200; Fax:(202)331-9588.
The study of utility programs, Residential
Building Code Compliance: Implications for Evaluating the Performance of
Utility New Construction Programs is available from Ed Vine, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Building 90-2000, Berkeley, CA 94720. Tel:(510)486-6047;
Fax:(510)486-4673; E-mail: ELVine@lbl.gov.
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright
Notice
|