Final Report on Building Energy Codes
Presented by the Maine Public Utilities Commission
To the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and
Energy January 26, 2004
Executive
Summary
Background
P.L.
2003 ch. 497 requires the Maine Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to
examine building energy codes and standards and to report its findings and
recommendations to the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy by
February 1, 2004. This report contains
the Commission’s findings and discussion of issues associated with building
energy code adoption in Maine.
Our investigation parallels other statewide
investigations of a wider spectrum of building construction and operation
practices. We have monitored some, but
not all, of these investigations, but we have not contributed to their
recommendations. We believe that the
Legislature expects us to develop findings that are independent from the
findings of the broader investigations, and we have generally done so.
The
Commission has significant expertise in energy policy and its impacts on
Maine’s electric and natural gas ratepayers.
We have more limited expertise in the impacts of energy use associated
with building construction and operations.
We present our findings within the context of our own unique
expertise. We expect that the
Legislature will consider our findings in the context of the broader
investigation and that decisions regarding energy codes will complement and be
consistent with these broader decisions.
With
this perspective in mind, we viewed our first task as identifying the goals
that energy codes can achieve, to assist the Legislature in deciding whether
some form of energy codes should be adopted in Maine. We next identified the issues to address and the advantages of available
approaches in meeting energy-related goals, to assist the Legislature in
establishing the most effective procedures in the event it decides to pursue
energy code adoption.
Findings
The
Commission finds that, by reducing the energy and thereby the electricity, oil,
or natural gas used in a building, energy codes provide the following
advantages:
·
Reduced emissions
attributable to electricity generation
·
Guaranteed “reasonable”
minimal building practices
·
Reduced need for public
incentives
·
Financial savings for
building owner over the life of the building
·
Consistency for
contractors
The Commission finds that the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) – the energy component of the I-Codes - is an
effective, usable, and widely adopted energy code that results in reasonably
efficient energy use in buildings constructed according to its specifications.[1]
The I-Codes and the IECC have the following advantages:
·
The I-Codes are
supported by the majority of stakeholders who commented in our proceeding and
by the Statewide Building Code Working Group (although the Group did not
explicitly address the energy component of the I-Codes)
·
The I-Codes or their
predecessors (including the Model Energy Code or MEC, which is the energy
component of the BOCA codes) have been adopted for residential construction in
most other states and many municipalities in Maine
·
The I-Codes adopt the
ASHRAE 90.1 standard for commercial construction, which is the standard
currently established in Maine law and the requirements of most other states
·
Other national codes
offer no apparently significant improvement over the IECC with respect to
energy
·
The Department of
Energy supports the IECC and offers funding and support to assist compliance
The
report examines an economic analysis that determined that, over time, the
energy savings resulting from meeting IECC standards as opposed to Maine’s
current statutory residential building efficiency standards outweigh increased
construction costs.
The report summarizes three models of code adoption:
·
Mandatory (codes are
applicable in all locations in the State)
·
Voluntary (a
municipality may choose to adopt or not, but it may only adopt the
state-sanctioned code)
·
No codes
Six
enforcement models are discussed and adoption in other states is summarized:
·
Local building code
inspectors
·
State agency
enforcement
·
Privatization
·
Self-certification and
disclosure to homeowner
·
Self-certification to a
state agency
·
Civil penalties
The Commission recommends
against retaining the current state model, under which energy codes are
mandatory, but no enforcement occurs and many builders may be unaware of
statutory requirements.
Finally, the Commission makes the following findings:
· If the Legislature concludes that building energy codes should be adopted, the Commission finds that mandatory energy codes – i.e., codes that are required in all municipalities in the State – are most effective at realizing the advantages that codes produce. To the extent that codes apply to only a portion of construction projects, environmental benefits are diluted, some citizens may not benefit from the financial advantages, the advantage to contractors of consistency is diminished, and there is less positive market effect of economies of scale.
However, the ideal practice
will not be successful if it cannot be implemented effectively, and there is a
financial cost to mandatory adoption.
It is not within the Commission’s authority to decide how best to spend
the State’s or municipalities’ limited funds.
However, mandatory codes should only be adopted if an effective
enforcement method is established.
·
The Commission finds
that, if available State and municipal funds are not adequate to support
enforcement of mandatory energy codes, alternative enforcement models exist
that could result in relatively effective enforcement at a lower cost.
·
The Commission finds
that privatizing enforcement procedures may be an effective way to reduce the
level of public funds and resources needed to provide adequate enforcement of
building energy codes. Under this
enforcement model, a municipality could choose one of four options: support a codes enforcement officer at town
expense (as many do now), consolidate with a group of municipalities to hire or
contract with a single enforcement officer, use the state-certified enforcement
officers for a fee paid through municipal funds, or require its citizens to
obtain, at their own expense, the services of a state-certified inspector.
·
The Commission finds
that, if the adoption of voluntary codes is the only means of attaining
acceptance among the entities that must support and implement energy codes,
some limited benefits will result.
However, municipalities might adopt health and safety codes while not
adopting energy codes, and voluntary adoption might have the unintended
consequence of deterring a town from adopting any energy code, because it is
prohibited from adopting the code that the town prefers. Thus, voluntary adoption may be less effective
in introducing energy codes than in introducing other building codes to Maine.
I.
Background
Legislative
Activity
During
the First Regular Session of the 121st Legislature, the Legislature
enacted P.L. 2003 ch. 497, “An Act to Promote Energy Conservation.” Section 4 of Chapter 497 requires the Maine
Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to examine building energy codes and
standards, including above-standard guidelines, and to report its findings and
recommendations to the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy
(U&E) by February 1, 2004.
Concurrently,
the Joint Standing Committee on Business, Research and Economic Development
(BRED) considered bills that would govern other issues associated with building construction. Two bills – one that would establish
State-licensed building code inspectors and one that would require residential
construction contractors to be licensed by the State - have been held over for
consideration during 2004.
As
a result of discussions before the BRED committee, persons with interest in the
State’s building codes formed the Statewide Building Code Working Group (BCWG)
to consider and recommend a family of codes that would govern a wide range of
building operations, including areas as diverse as accessibility, elevators,
fire, and plumbing. The BCWG voted to
recommend that Maine adopt the International Residential Code (IRC) and the
International Building Code (IBC), which are part of the so-called family of
I-Codes. In addition, the BCWG
recommended that building codes be mandatory only if the State provides
adequate funding for enforcement. The
full text of the recommendation may be found on the Commission’s web site: www.state.me.us/mpuc/legislat.
Finally,
the Attorney General’s Office has coordinated a working group to address licensing
issues and the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation has
conducted a review, pursuant to its statutory authority and procedures, of the
advantages and impacts of requiring contractors to be licensed.
Existing
State and Federal Energy Code Laws
Maine
law, at 10 M.R.S.A. Chapter 214,[2]
contains requirements that govern energy efficiency standards that must be
attained during the construction of certain new residential buildings and all
new commercial buildings. The
residential standards are quite limited.
Chapter 214 establishes prescriptive standards governing new residential
building envelope insulation levels, but contains no standards for other
building practices, such as heating and mechanical processes, that influence
energy use. In addition, it exempts
from the requirements new single-family residential buildings constructed under
contract with the resident and new log cabins.
The Chapter’s requirements are more comprehensive for commercial
structures, in that it requires new construction and renovation of these
buildings to conform to ASHRAE energy conservation and ventilation standards.[3]
Chapter
214 also establishes administrative procedures for implementing these energy
standards. It requires the Department
of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to administer and enforce the
standards and to revise a Manual of Accepted Practices for residential energy
efficiency practices, and it allows the “Director of the Energy Conservation
Division” to adopt rules establishing performance-based compliance procedures
for residential buildings. It does not,
however, explicitly establish procedures for enforcing the energy
standards.
Since 1980, the State has maintained a Manual of Accepted
Practices that contains practical descriptions of construction practices that
will result in compliance with the residential standards contained in Chapter
214 as well as practices that go beyond those standards. These practices are based on commonly accepted
approaches that currently are effective in Maine.
However,
enforcement of these statutory energy codes has been problematic. Prior to the First Session of the 121st
Legislature, limited resources prohibited DECD from implementing meaningful
enforcement procedures. Through P.L.
2003 ch. 20, the Energy Conservation Division and its “powers, duties and
functions” were transferred to the Public Utilities Commission, but some of
Chapter 214 remained unchanged, thereby apparently leaving DECD with the
responsibility for enforcing standards.
The current Legislative Session provides an opportunity to resolve this
ambiguity.
Approximately
15% of Maine’s municipalities (representing more than 50% of Maine’s citizens)
have voluntarily adopted and enforce building codes. These municipalities have generally adopted BOCA codes (which
will be discussed later in this report) and generally enforce the codes with
local or shared building code enforcement officers that perform
post-construction inspections. However,
municipalities generally do not enforce the energy component of their
adopted family of codes, but focus on health and safety codes. Thus, it is likely that there is minimal
municipal infrastructure addressing energy standards and their enforcement.
Finally, the federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of
1992[4]
authorizes the federal Department of Energy (DOE) to determine an energy code
that will improve efficiency in residential buildings. Each state must determine whether it is
appropriate to revise its residential code to meet the DOE designated
standard. DOE designated the energy
component of the I-Codes, called the International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC), as its designated standard.
Maine is considered to be one of only ten states that have not
explicitly complied with the EPAct requirement to review and revise their
residential energy codes.
II.
Process
To
carry out its directive, the Commission first monitored the meetings of the
BCWG. It was our belief that the
decisions made in that group regarding the complete family of building codes
would form a basis upon which to consider the narrower category of energy
codes. Upon the conclusion of that
group’s activities, the Commission opened a formal inquiry of energy codes,
solicited written comments from interested persons, and held a public
hearing. Appendix A lists the persons
who provided comments.[5] This list indicates that we received
significant input from groups interested in accomplishing the environmental
improvements that can be attained with building codes and from persons
representing commercial building constructors, but we received no input from
residential building constructors.[6] On January 12, 2004, we issued a draft
report to assist the Legislature in its consideration of bills and to allow
comments from interested persons.
In
addition, we researched other states’ activities, believing that maintaining
consistency among states would result in more effective and less costly
implementation of codes ultimately adopted in Maine.
III.
Goals of Building
Energy Codes
Most
building codes address health and safety concerns such as fire protection and
electrical safety. Energy codes
reduce the use of energy used in a building, thereby reducing the consumption
of electricity, oil, or natural gas.
The advantages of reducing energy can be categorized into two broad
categories – environmental and financial.
Some of the advantages (e.g., environmental improvement or consumer
protection) may form policy goals that drive the adoption of codes. Other advantages (e.g., long-term financial
benefit to a building owner or consumer comfort) may not, in themselves,
provide the basis for adopting codes, but may make imposing codes on Maine’s
citizens more attractive and acceptable.
Reduced emissions attributable to electricity generation. Burning or using fuels to produce energy
creates emissions that can be harmful to human health. According to the Natural Resources Council
of Maine (NRCM), 30% of US greenhouse gases come from buildings and building
construction.[7] In response to a question by the Commission,
the representative of the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) estimated
that 1.25 Million metric tons of CO2 emissions could be saved in
Maine if construction followed the I-Codes as opposed to likely current
construction practices.[8] The Independent System Operator in New
England (ISO-NE), estimates that 1393.9 pounds of CO2, 1.7 pounds of
NOx, and 4.9 pounds of SOX emissions are created when one
incremental MWh of electricity is generated, and fuel oil and natural gas
consumption also create emissions.
Saving energy through more efficient building construction results in a
reduction in these emissions.[9]
Guaranteed “reasonable” minimal building practices. Many
homeowners or commercial building tenants have minimal expertise in
construction practices and are thus dependent upon their builder for good
decision-making. If policy makers
believe that homeowners have an expectation and assumption that buildings are
constructed to some “reasonable” standard, just as electricity and plumbing is
installed safely,[10]
codes are a way to ensure that this occurs.
Furthermore, should a consumer believe that a building has been
constructed in a shoddy or unacceptable manner, the existence of codes will
facilitate evaluation of the complaint by the consumer and by enforcement
agencies.
Reduced need for public incentives. In contrast
to publicly-funded programs that offer financial incentives to citizens who
construct efficient buildings, codes internalize energy efficiency into the
building market. Once enacted, their
consistency ensures that appropriate products are manufactured and sold and
procedures followed. The cost of these
products and procedures reduces through economies of scale, and the market is
transformed faster than through a rebate incentive approach. Not only is the result more consistent, but
the costs are borne by the “right” people, namely those that benefit from the
lower energy costs, rather than by the body of ratepayers or the public as a
whole, many of whom will not benefit because they have not constructed a
building themselves or because the public funding comes from taxing one type of
fuel (e.g., electricity) to save another (e.g., oil).
Financial savings for the building owner or tenant. Constructing
a building using energy-efficient design and materials usually costs more than
constructing a less efficient building.[11] However, over the lifetime of the building,
energy savings usually offset the higher construction costs. High up-front costs and lack of customer
knowledge or focus on life cycle financial analysis may be leading causes of
inefficient practices by consumers.
This effect is magnified when the building is constructed on speculation
or is a rental unit, and the developer does not pay the energy bill. Similarly, to the extent that future owners
do not consider energy costs (and we have not studied the extent to which this
happens), the savings on construction costs do not offset the additional energy
expense of the building owner. Finally,
renovating a building to improve its efficiency is more costly than building it
efficiently to begin with. The fact
that many consumers make short-term decisions is the basis for many government
programs whose goals are to increase the efficiency of the public’s energy
practices.
Consistency for contractors. When codes differ from town to
town, contractors must investigate and learn the applicable requirements each
time they construct a building, adding time and expense and risking
misinterpretation. Furthermore, under
the current situation in which codes exist but are not enforced, contractors
are placed in a difficult position – if they build to code, they may lose jobs
to contractors who do not because of higher up-front quotes, and if they do not
build to code they are in conflict with Maine law. Well-enforced, consistent codes make construction easier and
fairer for contractors.
IV. Existing Building Energy Codes
There
are two generally-accepted families of current building codes and a variety of
older codes that are merging to various degrees into the two current
codes. If policy makers decide to adopt
codes, it is reasonable to choose between the first two; however, the fact that some municipalities
currently operate under the older codes must be considered in implementing
required codes.
ICC I-Codes. The International Code Council (ICC) is an
organization composed of a variety of stakeholders that establishes widely used
building standards called the I-Codes.
The I-Codes may be considered a family of codes that addresses
functional areas of building construction and operation, including fire
protection, elevator safety, mechanical systems, and energy. Codes exist for each functional area
separately, but consistency in approach and practices exists across the
functional areas. In the area of
energy, the I-Codes contain the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC),
which in turn incorporates ASHRAE 90.1[12]
(adopted in Statute as Maine’s energy standards for commercial buildings) and
ASHRAE 90.2 (energy standards for residential buildings).[13] The IECC adds flexibility to builders’ means
of complying with the ASHRAE standards by including prescriptive standards
(e.g., specific R-values) and performance standards (e.g., maximum kWh use for
buildings of a particular size). IECC
standards are differentiated into climate zones. The I-Codes are described in a series of publications.
NFPA Codes. Like ICC, the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) is a group of stakeholders that has developed a family of
codes addressing many functional areas of building construction and
operation. The NFPA codes exist
separately but are consistent in approach and practices across the functional
areas. The NFPA codes contain the NFPA
5000 Building and Construction Code, which in turn incorporates but expands
upon ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 90.2.
Earlier Versions of Codes. Finally, nationally accepted codes exist
that are being superceded by IECC or NFPA, but that were adopted years ago by
various states and municipalities.
These include the widely used Model Energy Code or MEC (produced by the
Council of American Building Officials, or CABO), the Southern Building Codes
(SBC), the National Building Codes (codes produced by the Building Officials
and Code Administrators International or BOCA), and the Uniform Building Codes
(UBC). In turn, BOCA (which is the code
adopted by most Maine communities that have adopted codes) incorporates the
MEC. All these codes are described as
being similar to, or consistent with, the more recently-emerging I-Codes. BOCA, SBC and UBC have merged to become the
ICC. The MEC, which is still the
adopted energy code in approximately 16 states, may be considered simply an
earlier version of the IECC energy code.
Comments Related to all Codes. All the codes we studied are
developed through some sort of consensus process. Stakeholders consider a diverse array of issues before adopting a
code, including technical efficiency, practicality, and
cost-effectiveness. Because of the
accommodation made to differing perspectives, adopted codes are considered by
some to result in buildings that have less than ideal energy efficiency. However, the stakeholder process ensures
that the results are useable and reasonable within the building community as a
whole. Above-code guidelines like
Energy Star®, E-Benchmark, and LEED standards act to identify the next
generation of efficiency practices that, after considerable experimentation and
adoption, may become code through a stakeholder process.
In
addition, codes generally are living documents, with a process whereby
stakeholders can recommend changes and all interested persons comment before
incorporation into the codes. The Model
Energy Codes (MEC) and now the I-Codes are on a three-year revision cycle,
whereby the adopting organization amends the codes and states in turn decide
whether to adopt the newest version.
MEC has 1995 and 1998 versions.
The I-Codes have 2000 and 2003 versions.
The
table and map below display the residential codes adopted by other states
(minor differences are due to timing).
They show that 40 states have adopted, at some level, a nationally
recognized energy code that is either a version of IECC or its predecessor, the
MEC.
V.
Cost
Effectiveness of Energy Codes
The Commission has found
credible studies indicating that, over the life of a residential building, the
savings in energy costs outweigh the higher construction cost associated with
IECC code compliance. The most useful
study was performed by R. J. Karg Associates for the Maine State Planning
Office, in cooperation with the Maine Department of Economic and Community
Development, using funding from the U. S. Department of Energy, and published
in May 2002. The Karg study is useful
to current decision making because it examined buildings modeled specifically
for conditions in northern and southern Maine, and it considered the costs and
benefits of improving a building from efficiencies required by Maine law to
efficiencies required by the current version of the IECC.[14] We conclude that the study results are
reasonable because the study used fuel and building cost assumptions that
remain reasonable today[15]
and it analyzed savings using a widely accepted software package called REM/Rate. The REM/Rate produces a Home Energy
Rating (HERS) that is used nationally by many builders to verify a home’s
efficiency to the homeowner and that has been adopted by U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to verify Energy Star® home compliance.
The Karg study modeled
one-story and two-story houses with 6 glazing percentages, under Portland
weather conditions. It modeled the same
12 buildings under Caribou weather conditions, for a total of 24 model
buildings. It analyzed 7 energy saving
measures individually and as a bundle.
Measures included reducing air leakage, increasing foundation
insulation, upgrading windows, increasing ceiling insulation, and improving
central boiler efficiency. It measured
non-interactive savings (i.e., savings that would occur if just one measure
were undertaken) and interactive savings (i.e., it accounted for the fact that
each measure might reduce the savings of the following measure). The study assumed that the building was
heated with fuel oil, and both electricity and fuel oil savings were
calculated. All measures were more cost
effective in the colder climate of Caribou than Portland. The most cost effective measure for all
buildings was the reduction of air leakage, with simple payback periods of 2.7
to 4.7 years. The least cost effective
measure was window upgrades, which were not cost effective in the Portland
modeled homes. Wall insulation upgrade
was cost effective in all homes, while ceiling insulation upgrade was cost
effective in some homes and not others.
A bundled upgrade, in which all measures were undertaken, was cost
effective in all modeled homes.
Because the Karg study
analyzed improvement from current statutory insulation levels to IECC-2000
levels, it may be conservative. To the
extent homes do not comply with required efficiency levels, the savings from
improvement may be greater. We have no
studies that describe whether Maine’s building stock is generally more or less
efficient than the efficiency level required by Maine law.
The Karg study identified two
other economic analyses of building efficiency. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN), a
division of the U.S. DOE, has published insulation levels that it has
determined to be cost effective in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York.
These levels are consistent with IECC-2000 levels. In addition, Energy Star®, created by the U.S. DOE and the
Environmental Protection Agency, has performed economic analyses of Energy
Star® homes and has determined that life cycle benefits outweigh costs. Of the 24 buildings in the Karg study, 13
would qualify as Energy Star® compliant after meeting IECC-2000 efficiency
levels. This reinforces the
cost-effectiveness findings of the Karg study.
Finally, the Karg study
determined that homeowners with IECC-compliant efficiency levels could obtain
favorable mortgage rates and higher resale values for their homes. While we have not independently verified
these findings, they nonetheless reveal a potential additional value that
decision makers may consider when evaluating building codes.
The Karg study may be found on the Commission’s web page, and
we will provide it to the Legislative committees considering this report. The study displays annual energy savings,
payback periods, and benefit-cost ratios of all measures analyzed.
We have not studied analyses
of whether commercial codes are likely to result in cost-beneficial results when compared to less efficient
practices. Maine law requires commercial
construction to comply with ASHRAE 90.1, which is the efficiency level required
by the IECC. Thus, to the extent that
builders are complying with the law, the adoption of codes would not incur a
cost. On the contrary, IECC could make
codes easier to understand for some builders, thereby lowering initial construction
costs when compared with current practices.
When considering the results
of this study, the question arises – if building an energy efficient building
saves money, why doesn’t everyone do it?
The likely answer is familiar: consumers may make short-term decisions,
thus choosing less costly upfront construction (and thus less efficient
buildings); they focus on other building features; and the savings from energy
efficiency are perceived as small compared with the magnitude of dollars being
considered for construction overall.
In our investigation, some
parties asserted that many consumers are not aware of the tradeoffs in costs
and benefits and that codes would provide value to such consumers in the long
run. An opposing point of view is that
consumers should have the freedom to make such a personal financial decision
for themselves. The latter point of
view might argue for developing a means to guarantee that, at the time a
consumer makes a construction decision, he or she is made aware of the life
cycle impact of construction alternatives.
VI. Commission Findings and Analysis - Energy Codes
The Commission finds that the IECC is an effective,
useable, and widely adopted energy code that results in reasonably efficient
energy use in buildings constructed according to its specifications.[16]
The I-Codes and their energy component, the IECC, have the following
advantages:
I-Codes are supported by the majority of Maine’s
stakeholders, including the BCWG. Most commenters in the Commission’s investigation endorsed the IECC as the most appropriate
code for Maine. The NFPA supported its
NFPA code, and some commenters objected to specific, non-energy portions of the
I-Codes. It has been difficult for us
to determine the position of codes enforcement officers, as comments have
varied. This group was represented on
the BCWG, which endorsed the I-Codes.
However, officers in our investigation have commented that the I-Codes
are complicated, that towns should be free to adopt codes of their own choice,
or that the I-Codes are acceptable but funds must be available for
enforcement.
In addition, as described in the first section of
this report, the statewide Building Code Working Group reached a consensus
recommendation to support the I-Codes as Maine’s building standards. The BCWG did not focus on the energy codes
specifically, and it is our understanding that members intentionally concluded
that energy codes should be addressed at a later date. However, their support for the I-Codes
lends credence to our opinion that the I-Codes are the most appropriate family
of codes to adopt. Finally, the federal
Department of Energy supports the IECC.
The I-Codes or their predecessors have been adopted
for residential construction in most other states and many municipalities in
Maine. As displayed earlier in this report, 25 states have adopted the
IECC for residential buildings, 15 have adopted MEC codes (which are
predecessors to IECC), and all New England and Middle Atlantic states except
Maine have adopted either IECC or MEC.
As discussed earlier, although Maine has not adopted a statewide
comprehensive residential code, the municipalities that have adopted codes
generally follow BOCA codes, whose MEC energy component is similar to IECC
codes (although, as discussed earlier, municipalities have generally not
enforced the energy component). Our
investigation leads us to believe that a movement toward the I-Codes is
generally pervasive nationally.
Consistency across states will result in manufacturers producing only
materials that comply with the prevailing code, will lower the cost of
materials through the effect of high volume production, and will allow
contractors to operate across state lines without the additional cost of
differing construction practices. This
advantage is especially important in a small state like Maine.
The I-Codes incorporate ASHRAE 90.1 for commercial
construction. Maine statute requires commercial construction to
comply with ASHRAE 90.1 energy requirements.
Most states accept the ASHRAE 90.1 standards for commercial buildings,
rather than expand their requirements to include the IECC. We suspect that this is because commercial
buildings are typically designed by engineers who are accustomed to dealing
with codes developed with engineers in mind, whereas residential construction
is performed by a wider variety of individuals who are well-served by the less
technical and more flexible performance compliance procedures that the IECC
provides. We believe that Maine could
follow this approach and retain its current adoption of ASHRAE 90.1 for
commercial buildings, but that adoption of the IECC would be equally
appropriate and would offer more flexibility and assistance to designers of
smaller commercial buildings.
Other national codes apparently offer no significant
improvements. When asked during the course of our
investigation, no commenter, including the NFPA, could describe any significant
differences between the IECC and NFPA energy codes. Indeed, both incorporate ASHRAE 90.1 and ASHRAE 90.2 as core
energy standards. Thus, we could find
no compelling reason to follow a course that differed from virtually every
state in the northeast.
NFPA appears to claim that their consensus
decision-making process is more open than is ICC’s process, and that the codes
thus reflect a less biased view of building construction. We did not find this claim to be compelling.
DOE provides support and compliance tools. The federal
government’s support has resulted in DOE’s development of resources to assist
builders in meeting IECC requirements, including training, computer software
(the REScheck® program is widely used to measure building performance),
and financial assistance.
The I-Codes should be supplemented with ASHRAE 62
standards. A
number of participants in our proceeding assert that the I-Codes do not contain
guidelines adequate to guarantee appropriate indoor air quality, such as ASHRAE
62 or comparable standards. Maine law
currently requires that new commercial construction comply with ASHRAE 62-2001,
which contains ventilation standards for commercial buildings, and we have been
presented with no reason to change this requirement. Maine law does not currently require residential construction to
conform to ASHRAE 62.2-2003 standards, and we cannot make a finding as to
whether Maine should adopt these standards.
However our investigation suggests that, whether or not the IECC is
adopted, further investigation should be done to determine whether ASHRAE
62.2-2003 should be adopted.
VII. Compliance and Enforcement
Perhaps the more difficult
decision to make regarding energy code adoption is the enforcement method the
State should use to ensure their use.
This decision encompasses two issues:
(1) whether codes are “mandatory” or “voluntary,” and (2) how compliance
is enforced.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary
Adoption. For those unfamiliar with the building code
lexicon, the commonly used terms “mandatory” and “voluntary” have misleading
definitions. Three primary code
adoption models exist:
1.
Mandatory: Under mandatory adoption, a state adopts a
code that applies to all locations in the state. Enforcement may be done by municipalities, by a state agency,
through private but licensed officials, or through self-certification, as
discussed later in this report.
2.
Voluntary: Under voluntary adoption, each municipality
may choose to adopt or not adopt a code, but if it adopts a code it may only
adopt the state’s chosen code. In most
states, if a municipality adopts a code, it must enforce the code. However, state or private enforcement and
self-certification are also options. In
many states, municipalities may adopt features that are more stringent than the
state code. In no instance may an
individual builder choose which code (if any) to adopt.
3.
No codes: Under this model, each builder chooses the
practices that will be followed during building construction. In some states, municipalities choose to
adopt codes, but the code is not consistent among adopting towns.
Most participants in the
Commission investigation support mandatory adoption in theory.[17] They believe that allowing towns the
discretion to refuse to adopt a code weakens the effectiveness of the code and
maintains the inconsistency that builders face now. However, members of the BCWG and many of those who commented in
our investigation recognize that mandatory adoption would require enforcement
infrastructure and cost that far exceeds current levels. In particular, the Maine Municipal Association
has made it clear that imposing an enforcement function on towns that do not
now have one, or significantly increasing enforcement requirements for towns,
is unacceptably costly. In response to
this concern, the BCWG conditioned its support for mandatory code adoption on
the existence of funding for enforcement, and commenters in our investigation
suggested enforcement models that would ease municipalities’ and the state’s
administrative and financial burden.
These suggestions are discussed later in this report.
Enforcement Methods. There are
six methods typically used for enforcement of a state’s building codes. They
are not mutually exclusive, are used in combination in some states, and each
can be used with either mandatory or voluntary codes.
Local code enforcement
officers: This approach is used in the vast majority of states and in Maine
today among municipalities that have adopted building codes. Virtually all states that adopt voluntary
codes use this compliance method. A
municipality employs (or contracts with) a code enforcement official. Communities may consolidate their
enforcement responsibility and share a single official, or statewide officials
may serve all communities upon request.
Typically, a builder provides the building design to the official, who
must approve the design before construction may begin. The official then inspects the building
after construction and must approve before the owner may occupy.
State agency enforcement: A State
agency carries out the role of the local building inspector. Under this model, the agency reviews the
design and may or may not perform a post-construction inspection. The agency usually oversees code development
and revision and provides information to builders.
Privatization: A State
agency or some other entity certifies private individuals (or a privately-owned
company) to carry out design review and inspection. The builder or a municipality employs these private individuals,
usually at the builder’s expense.
Self-certification or
disclosure to homeowner: The builder affixes a sticker in the
building, certifying that the building complies with code or explaining the
extent to which it does not. The
builder informs the building owner if the building does not comply with code.
Self-certification to
government agency: The builder sends a certification to the
enforcing agency, certifying that the building complies with code. The government agency has the authority to
inspect, and does so at its discretion.
Civil penalties for
non-compliance: The owner of a substandard building may take
the builder to court.
It is unclear from our
research what actions most typically occur if a builder has constructed a
building that does not comply with codes.
The following table
summarizes the features of each compliance method:
|
Local Building Inspector |
State Agency |
Privatization |
Self-certification to homeowner |
Self-certification to state agency |
Civil penalties |
|
Local
inspectors responsible for other codes and know what is happening in their
towns |
Significant
government infrastructure must be established |
State-supported
certification process must be established |
No
administration required |
Some
government infrastructure must be established. |
Court
involvement required |
|
Significant
cost, borne by town (local taxes) |
Significant
cost, borne by State (state taxes) |
Cost,
borne by builder/owner |
No cost
unless homeowner wants to verify |
Lower
cost than other state-supported methods |
Significant
effort required by owner |
|
Inspection
quality varies |
Consistent
inspection quality |
Consistent
inspection quality |
Requires
knowledgeable builders |
Requires
knowledgeable builders |
Requires
knowledgeable owners |
|
High
likelihood of compliance: procedures already in place |
Likelihood
of compliance |
Likelihood
of compliance |
Risk of
intentional non-compliance if homeowner does not desire efficient building
and no oversite |
Some risk
of intentional non-compliance |
Risk of
consumer difficulty in bringing and winning suit |
|
Responsibility
borne by town |
Responsibility
borne by State |
Responsibility
borne by State |
Responsibility
borne by builder |
Responsibility
borne primarily by builder |
Responsibility
borne by building owner |
Additional methods for
improving energy efficiency in building construction. If codes are
adopted voluntarily, or not at all, the need to have consumers who are educated
in and focused on building practices is more pronounced. There are a variety of tools for raising the
level of consumer knowledge. Policy
makers could fund some or all of these tools, or could establish some of these
tools as legally acceptable means of verifying compliance. The are described in the following
table.
|
Consumer education |
Builder/designer education |
Verification using HERS |
Builder/designer certification or licensing |