**The Washington State Energy Code:**

**Energy Code Privatization -**

**The Utility Code Group Story**

**by**

**Rick Kunkle**

Washington State University

Cooperative Extension Energy Program

Prepared under an Exemplary Award

for the U.S. Department of Energy's

Building Standards and Guidelines Program

![](media/image1.emf){width="3.798611111111111in"
height="0.7597222222222222in"}

January 1997

WSU/EEP 97-008

This case study is one in a series documenting successful building
energy code programs for use by other states as technical assistance
models in support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building
Standards and Guidelines Program.

The primary issue addressed by the Program (and other programs at DOE)
is that new commercial and residential buildings being designed, built
and occupied do not use currently available, technically feasible, and
economically justified technologies and practices to eliminate the
wasteful use of energy. The Program seeks to advance the
energy-conserving design and construction of buildings by promoting and
assisting the development and implementation of energy efficient codes
and standards that are technically feasible, economically justified and
environmentally beneficial. These activities are required of DOE by
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act as amended by
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). The long-term goal of the Program
is to make sustainable, energy-efficient building design and
construction common practice.

The Program's approach to meeting this goal is to initiate and manage
individual research, standards and guidelines development efforts that
are planned and conducted in cooperation with representatives from
throughout the buildings community. Current projects involve practicing
architects and engineers, professional societies and code organizations,
industry representatives, and researchers from the private sector and
national laboratories. Research results and the technical justification
for standards criteria are provided to standards development and model
code organizations and to federal, state and local jurisdictions as a
basis to update their codes and standards. This approach helps to ensure
that the standards incorporate the latest research results to achieve
maximum energy savings in new buildings, yet remain responsive to the
needs of the affected professions, organizations and jurisdictions. It
also assists in the implementation, deployment and use of the codes and
standards.

Eric Makela Margo D. Appel

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

Background

Achievements

Lessons Learned

Introduction: What is the Washington State Energy Code?

Energy Code Administration

Historical Perspective

The Energy Code in Action - Who Does What

The Utility Code Group Story

Why was the decision to revise the non-residential energy code made?

What was the process for revising the non-residential energy code?

What were some of the political interests?

What were some of the building official issues?

What were some of the building industry issues?

What were some of the utility industry issues?

Why was the UCG formed?

How was the UCG created?

What were the goals of the UCG?

How was the UCG funded?

What were the functions of the UCG?

How did the UCG carry out its functions?

What were the components of the training program?

B+D 2000 Training Program

UCG Training Program

Brown Bag Training

Technical Assistance Services and Products

What is the Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Program?

How was local government coordination handled?

How did the UCG market its services?

What was included in the Quality Assurance Program?

How well did the UCG model work?

Did the UCG meet its goals?

Establish a comprehensive training program that reaches a diverse
audience across industry lines

Raise awareness about the NREC

Increase code compliance through training and enforcement innovation

Cost-effectively implement the NREC

Transfer and institutionalize implementation of the energy code to
private industry.

What is the future of NREC implementation?

What were the lessons learned from the UCG experience?

Bibliography

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Table of Figures

Figure 1: Timeline for the Non-Residential Energy Code Revision

Figure 1: Chronology of Major Energy Code Efforts in Washington State

Figure 2: Responsibilities for Functions of the Washington State Energy
Code

Figure 4: Distribution of Funds for NREC Code

Figure 5: Functions of the UCG, its Contractors and Partners

Figure 6: Summary of Training and Technical Assistance Services

Figure 7: Distribution of Type of Firms who Participated in Training

Figure 8: Jurisdictions Reporting they were Enforcing the NREC

#   {#section-1 .unnumbered}

# Acknowledgments

This project was awarded through an Exemplary Grant funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) Building Standards and Guidelines Program.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) heads the program for
DOE. The project benefited from direction and oversight provided by the
project manager, Eric Makela, PNNL. The author is grateful for his
support.

Much of the information and ideas presented in this report came from
interviews with those who have been involved in implementing the
non-residential Energy Code in Washington State. We would like to thank
individuals from the utilities, Association of Washington Cities,
Building and Design 2000, and Washington Association of Building
Officials who were kind enough to share their experiences. In
particular, we would like to thank the staff at the Utility Code Group
for their time providing information for this report and for reviewing
the completed products. Staff at the Washington State University
Cooperative Extension Energy Program also made valuable contributions to
the development and review of this report.

# Executive Summary

## Background

In 1991, Washington State began the process of revising its
non-residential energy code. The non-residential code at the time had
been adopted in 1985 and was based on the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Energy Design
Standard 90-80. The update to the code was largely driven by the desire
of the region's utilities and the Northwest Power Planning Council
(NWPPC) to increase the energy efficiency of new commercial buildings by
raising the energy code up to the model conservation standard developed
by the NWPPC.

There was resistance to the energy code revision process from the
building industry and building code officials. The entire revision
process was very political in nature from the initial legislation
authorizing the State Building Code Council to revise the energy code in
1991, to the approval of the new code in September 1993 (with an
effective date of April 1994, see **Figure 1**). An Implementation Plan
was developed during the revision process that specified how the energy
code would be implemented. The plan contained many of the compromises
that were reached to satisfy all the parties involved.

**Figure 1**

**Timeline for the Non-Residential Energy Code Revision**

The Utility Code Group (UCG) was created to fund, manage, and coordinate
the Implementation Plan for the 1994 code. It was a non-profit
corporation formed by the state's electric and gas utilities. A board of
utility representatives provided oversight. The goals of the UCG were:

-   to establish a comprehensive training program that reaches a diverse
    audience across industry lines,

-   to raise awareness about the non-residential energy code,

-   to increase energy code compliance through training and enforcement
    innovation,

-   to cost-effectively implement the code, and

-   to transfer and institutionalize implementation of the energy code
    to private industry.

To achieve its goals, the UCG carried out the following key functions:

-   develop and implement a training program,

-   oversee the disbursement of funds for the training plan,

-   market energy code information and training to industry audiences,

-   cooperate with code officials and fund the development of the
    Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Program,

-   manage a quality assurance and evaluation program to track progress,
    and

-   coordinate with all stakeholders to assure the successful
    implementation of the code.

The implementation of the code was funded by electric and natural gas
utilities. The amount contributed by each utility was based on their
energy sales in Washington State. Revenue from sales of products and
services and other funding sources was less than two percent of the
funding. Over the three and a half year life of the program, total
expenditures are expected to be a little less than five million dollars.
Education and training accounted for approximately two thirds of the
total expenditures.

## Achievements

Did the UCG meet its goals? Achievement of each of the group's goals
listed above is summarized in the text below.

***Establish a comprehensive training program that reaches a diverse
audience across industry lines:*** The UCG developed a comprehensive
training program on key aspects of the energy code targeted to different
industry groups, training over 7,500 participants. In addition, there
were 910 participants in brown bag trainings targeted to key
architecture/engineering firms. A hot line responded to 2,700 calls. A
variety of information products (technical manuals, field guides,
compliance forms) were developed and distributed. There was broad
representation across the various building industry groups in the
training program.

***Raise awareness about the non-residential energy code:*** An
awareness survey conducted approximately one year after the effective
date of the revised code showed that almost three-quarters of the
individuals surveyed were aware the code had changed in the last two
years. More than one-third of the respondents had participated in some
code informational activity. Participation and awareness was highest
among building officials. A follow up survey will be conducted in
January 1997 to assess awareness of the code and use of Utility Code
Group (UCG) services by the building industry. Anecdotal evidence
suggests awareness is high across all groups.

***Increase energy code compliance through training and enforcement
innovation:*** One of the major successes of the non-residential energy
code implementation effort was to show that high levels of energy code
compliance are possible. While it is too early to tell what the
compliance levels will be (the code compliance study will be done in
February 1997), preliminary analysis suggests compliance will be
significantly higher than levels prior to implementation of the revised
code. A preliminary analysis of 36 buildings showed 94 percent
compliance in cases where a special plans examiner or inspector was used
and 55 percent in all other cases (previous compliance levels were about
50 percent). A survey of local jurisdictions shows that over 80 percent
were enforcing the code.

***Cost-effectively implement the non-residential energy code:*** A goal
of the utilities was to implement the non-residential energy code at a
cost that was significantly less than residential energy code
implementation. They achieved this goal. The cost for code
implementation was an order of magnitude less than the residential
energy code. Since the residential energy code has proven to be
cost-effective, it is likely that the code implementation effort was
very cost effective. Although analysis has yet to be performed, the cost
to the electric utilities for code implementation will likely produce
electricity savings at a cost of less than 0.1 cents/kWh.

***Transfer and institutionalize implementation of the energy code to
private industry:*** The UCG has worked very hard to develop products
and services that will be attractive and valuable to industry. The group
has been actively soliciting private industry to take over energy code
training. So far, out of 20 organizations contacted, 8 have agreed to
offer energy code training and products. It is too early to tell how
successful this transfer will be.

The UCG is scheduled to sunset in March 1997. There is a strong desire
among all the parties involved, including UCG staff, to keep this
commitment. However, there is recognition that the goal of transferring
energy code implementation to private industry has not been fully
achieved. At a minimum, it seems that some kind of entity to facilitate
this transfer is necessary. Some believe there needs to be a minimal
level of on-going technical assistance available to support effective
long-term enforcement of the code as well as an organization responsible
for maintaining and advocating for an effective energy code.

## Lessons Learned

The success of the Utility Code Group (UCG) was dependent on the
willingness of the stakeholders to make non-residential implementation
happen. Some of the key lessons learned from the UCG experience include:

-   Funding for energy code implementation and a commitment from all the
    partners is critical.

-   Select partners that are truly interested and committed to
    implementing the non-residential energy code. Nurture these
    relationships. Avoid, if possible, alliances driven by politics with
    organizations that do not share similar goals. Make sure that
    agreements with partnership organizations clearly state roles and
    expectations.

-   Get started 12 to 18 months before the effective date of the energy
    code, so that products and services are available prior to the
    effective date of the code.

-   Plan with the end results in mind. Think about sustainability early
    on and nurture the relationships that will carry on the energy code.

-   An effective marketing program is key for success. Develop an
    overall marketing strategy and develop and market products and
    services to meet specific needs of particular market segments.

-   Evaluation and quality assurance are essential. This helps maintain
    and improve program quality and it keeps the stakeholders informed
    and satisfied that their resources are being used effectively.

# Introduction: What is the Washington State Energy Code?

The Washington State Energy Code provides energy efficiency standards
for new and altered residential and commercial buildings in Washington
State.[^1] The first Washington State Energy Code appeared in 1978;
since then, it has been revised in light of advances in building science
and new energy efficient technologies.

The current versions of the Washington residential and non-residential
energy codes were implemented in 1991 and 1994, respectively. The state
legislature passed a bill in 1990 that upgraded energy codes for
residential structures; in 1991, the legislature authorized the State
Building Code Council to upgrade the energy code for non-residential
structures.

## Energy Code Administration

In Washington State, the legislature is given the authority to revise
building codes, including the Energy Code. The State Building Code
Council administers the building code and ensures that the state's
interests are met according to state law. The Council includes
representatives from the building industry, local government, and code
enforcement officials. Building codes are enforced by local
jurisdictions. Cities and counties have building departments with code
officials who conduct plan reviews and building inspections. Enforcement
is funded at the local level.

## Historical Perspective

The Washington State Energy Code did not appear in its present form
overnight. The current code is the result of a gradual process over a
period of sixteen years. **Figure 1** presents a chronology of major
events and efforts leading up to the current code.

**Figure 1**

**Chronology of Major Energy Code Efforts in Washington State**

## The Energy Code in Action - Who Does What

The successful functioning of both the residential and non-residential
energy codes are due to participation by a number of different entities.
**Figure 2** outlines the functions provided by the various agencies and
associations as of December 1996.

**Figure 2**

**Responsibilities for Functions of the Washington State Energy Code**

![](media/image4.emf)**Key**

SBCC State Building Code Council

WSU Washington State University Cooperative Extension Energy Program -
formerly the Washington State Energy Office

CTED Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic
Development

SPE/I Special Plans Examiners and Inspectors

UCG Utility Code Group - Typically acting through subcontractors

# The Utility Code Group Story

## Why was the decision to revise the non-residential energy code made?

In the Pacific Northwest, residential building energy codes have
historically played an important role in the development of energy
conservation resources. At the Federal level, the passage of the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning Act led to the creation of the
Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). The role of the NWPPC was to
develop a long range, least cost power plan for the region. One of the
responsibilities of the NWPPC was to develop a model conservation
standard for new residential and commercial buildings. In 1989, the
NWPPC revised its model conservation standard for commercial buildings
to incorporate the envelope and mechanical provisions of the new
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Design Standard 90.1 and the 1993 lighting provisions
of the Federal non-residential building standards (this resulted in the
1990 Model Conservation Standards).

In 1990, the NWPPC model conservation standard went well beyond the
existing non-residential energy code. The NWPPC, the Bonneville Power
Administration and other utilities in the region were interested in
seeing the Pacific Northwest States adopt the new model conservation
standard. Also, there was evidence from regional utility sponsored
energy efficiency programs that good practice was exceeding the existing
energy code. It was time for the outdated code to catch up with industry
practice.

In 1991, the outgoing chairman of the State Building Code Council (SBCC)
submitted legislation to authorize the SBCC to administratively revise
the energy code for commercial buildings. The Washington State
Legislature passed the legislation which started the process that
ultimately produced the 1994 non-residential energy code.

## What was the process for revising the non-residential energy code?

The legislation that authorized the SBCC to revise the energy code
provided the forum for allowing the necessary level of technical
discussion to occur before the adoption of the code. It specified that
an inclusive process involving all interested parties be conducted. It
stipulated that energy code provisions must be "technically feasible,
commercially available, and cost effective to building owners and
tenants."

In the Fall of 1991, a consortium of interested parties led by the NWPPC
and electric utilities petitioned the SBCC to enter into formal
rulemaking to revise the non-residential energy code based on the new
model conservation standard. The chairman of the SBCC appointed a
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to produce a draft code. The TAG included
members from local government, building code officials, contractors,
utilities, the building code council, engineers, architects, public
interest and environmental groups. The TAG started meeting in January
1992. It used the NWPPC model conservation standard (based on ASHRAE
90.1) as its starting point.

By the end of June 1992, the TAG had produced a draft energy code to be
considered by the SBCC. The size of the draft code and the fact that it
was a complete revision of the existing code caused serious concerns for
some members of the State Building Code Council (SBCC). They believed
the draft was too complex and difficult to enforce. In addition, they
realized that the scope of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) could not
address the fundamental question of how to ensure adequate
implementation of the code.

To address these concerns the SBCC set up two committees: the Code
Simplification Committee to simplify the code language without reducing
energy efficiency and the Implementation Committee to establish a plan
that would ensure the code was effectively put into practice.

The Code Simplification Committee was a small group of industry
professionals. After six weeks of intense effort they produced a draft
code that was 50 percent smaller than the original draft. The simplified
version reformatted the code into separate chapters for building
envelopes, mechanical systems, and lighting. This makes the code more
consistent with typical building design practices where different
building systems are designed by different design professionals. The
committee emphasized making the code as simple and practical as possible
to make it easier to use and to enforce.

The Implementation Committee was chaired by the Western Washington
member of the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) and included
members from utilities, building officials, architects, engineers, the
Washington State Energy Office, local governments, contractors, and the
SBCC. They spent seven months developing an Implementation Plan. The
Implementation Plan provided the framework for the Utility Code Group
(UCG). The UCG was established to carry out the Implementation Plan
(this is discussed in more detail below).

The SBCC voted to adopt the simplified code and the Implementation Plan
in September 1993. The effective date for the code was April 1, 1994.

## What were some of the political interests?

The process of revising and implementing the non-residential code was
very political. The result was ultimately a compromise to accommodate
sometimes competing political interests. It is important to understand
the various political interests, because this is the environment the UCG
operated in. The UCG had a very significant challenge developing
effective relationships with parties that had very different interests
that were not necessarily consistent with the goals of the
Implementation Plan.

The political interests can be split among three primary groups:
building officials, the building industry, and utilities (primarily
electric utilities). The issues for each group are addressed in the
following three sections.

## What were some of the building official issues?

Building officials at the local government level are responsible for
enforcing the building code. Building officials tended to be opposed to
the energy code revisions for the following reasons:

-   Unfunded mandates: The energy code was viewed as another requirement
    passed down to local government without funding. Local building
    departments lack the staff and resources to enforce the code.

-   Not health and life safety: Many building officials feel they are
    only responsible for health and life safety codes. They viewed the
    energy code as a social code. Social programs should be handled by
    those entities that benefit.

-   Complex and unenforceable: The model conservation standard (based on
    the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1) was viewed as a design standard
    that was aimed at engineers. It was too complex and impossible to
    enforce. This sentiment was one of the primary reasons the initial
    draft code produced by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was sent
    by the State Building Code Council (SBCC) to a simplification
    committee for further revision.

If a new energy code was put in place, building officials wanted to be
sure they received the training and support they needed to enforce the
code. They also felt that the utility groups that wanted the energy code
should fund the cost of implementing the code.

## What were some of the building industry issues?

The building contractor and development community generally oppose
additional regulation. They viewed a more stringent energy code as
additional, unnecessary regulation. They believed the energy code adds
to their costs in terms of:

-   additional or more expensive materials,

-   additional time to learn the code and apply it, and

-   additional and more complex requirements that have the potential to
    delay the construction process.

They also believed the energy code was not needed. From their
perspective, the energy code does not add any value to their customers;
standard practice is adequate. If energy efficiency is important, the
market will demand it.

The building industry had the expectation that if an energy code was
implemented, they would be in charge of developing and implementing a
training program on the new code. They also believed the energy code
implementation should be funded by the utilities.

## What were some of the utility industry issues?

The utility industry was interested in raising the energy code level. As
a result of the Northwest Power Planning Act, there was some obligation
to bring state codes up to model conservation standard levels. The
Bonneville Power Administration, in particular, was strongly supportive
of this effort.

At the time the code revisions were made, many utilities in Washington
offered incentives for energy efficiency improvements to new buildings.
The building code was often used as a baseline for determining the level
of incentive paid by the energy efficiency program. Since the existing
code was often below standard industry practice, the utilities were
concerned they were paying to bring efficiency up to standard practice.
By raising building standards, the baseline is raised, thus reducing
incentive costs.

Early in the energy code revision process, energy code compliance became
an important issue. In 1991, the Bonneville Power Administration and the
state energy offices sponsored a study of compliance with the existing
commercial energy code in Washington and Oregon. On the basis of a
randomly drawn sample of approximately 200 buildings in the two states,
the study concluded that compliance with the commercial energy code was
roughly 50 percent in both states. Follow-up interviews with those in
the building industry strongly supported this finding. This study
provided some useful recommendations for improving and simplifying the
commercial energy code. It also created a certain amount of tension with
the code enforcement community, who felt the study did not accurately
portray the difficulty enforcing the energy code and achieving high
levels of compliance.

The utilities were resistant to paying for enforcement of the energy
code. They did not view enforcement as their responsibility. However,
they were willing to contribute to the implementation of the energy code
and seed "creative enforcement" approaches. They recognized that
implementation of a stronger energy code was to their benefit and they
were willing to pay for this. They also realized that an effective
implementation program would increase energy code compliance.

In return for contributing to energy code implementation, the utilities
wanted to have fiscal control over how the money was spent. They wanted
to have input and involvement in the development of the program and how
it would be delivered.

## Why was the UCG formed?

The Utility Code Group (UCG) was formed to fund, manage, and coordinate
the Implementation Plan for the 1994 Washington State Non-Residential
Energy Code (NREC). The Implementation Plan established a cooperative
framework for carrying out the NREC. It specified that a non-profit
cooperative with a Board of Directors would be formed by the funding
utilities to coordinate code implementation. The Implementation Plan was
the result of the political process to address the various political
interests of the parties involved. It proposed a training program for
the building industry, provided a framework for utilities to fund code
implementation, gave utilities oversight responsibility, and created
strategies to improve energy code enforcement.

## How was the UCG created?

The UCG was formed by the utilities. Representatives from some of the
major public and private utilities played the key roles in its
formation. The utilities sought the advice of the Electric League in
Washington State, which acted as a guide in the process of forming the
UCG. The legal documents for creating a non-profit were created, the
utilities signed off, and the non-profit was registered with the state.

The Board of Directors was formed with representatives from each of the
contributing utilities. Many of the smaller public utilities were
represented by the Bonneville Power Administration. Each utility had one
vote, regardless of the amount of money they contributed. This was done
to encourage collaboration. It was possible for a utility to ask for a
vote based on the shares of contribution, but this option was never
used.

## What were the goals of the UCG?

The primary goal of the Utility Code Group (UCG) was to fund, manage,
and coordinate the Implementation Plan for the 1994 Washington State
Non-Residential Energy Code (NREC). The following objectives can be used
to define the success of the UCG:

-   to establish a comprehensive training program that reaches a diverse
    audience across industry lines,

-   to raise awareness about the NREC,

-   to increase energy code compliance through training and enforcement
    innovation,

-   to cost-effectively implement the NREC, and

-   to transfer and institutionalize implementation of the energy code
    to private industry.

The Implementation Plan included a quality assurance and evaluation
program to monitor progress, to make mid-point corrections, and to
demonstrate effectiveness.

## How was the UCG funded?

Over 98 percent of the funding came from gas and electric utilities. The
amount contributed by each utility was based on their energy sales
within the state. Revenue from the sale of UCG products and training was
less than one percent of the funding. The U.S. Department of Energy
contributed some funding in 1996.

The program budget was approximately 1.2 - 1.5 million dollars per year.
Over the three and a half year life of the program (ending in March
1997), total expenditures should be a little less than five million
dollars. **Figure 4** shows how the funds were dispersed. Education and
training accounted for the majority of expenditures. SPE/I coordination
refers to the Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Certification
Program.

**Figure 4**

**Distribution of Funds for NREC Code**

![](media/image5.emf){width="5.293055555555555in"
height="2.442361111111111in"}

## What were the functions of the UCG?

The key functions of the Utility Code Group (UCG) included:

-   developing and implementing a training program,

-   overseeing the disbursement of funds for the training plan,

-   marketing energy code information and training to industry
    audiences,

-   cooperating with code officials and fund the development of the
    Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Program,

-   managing a quality assurance and evaluation program to track
    progress, and

-   coordinating with all stakeholders to assure the successful
    implementation of the energy code.

## How did the UCG carry out its functions?

The goal was for the UCG to manage the implementation effort, but to
contract out most of the implementation activities. **Figure 5**
illustrates the functions of the UCG and how they were conducted by the
UCG and industry partner organizations and contractors.

The UCG had a variety of management and facilitator functions to ensure
the successful implementation of the non-residential energy code (NREC),
as follows:.

-   Project Management: The UCG provided management oversight for over
    25 projects identified by the Implementation Plan. Development and
    delivery of the training program was the most significant project
    managed by the UCG.

-   Coordinate with Stakeholders: UCG interacted with its utility
    sponsors through an Executive Committee and Board of Directors. It
    also relied on input from its Policy Advisory Board, which was
    comprised of approximately 20 members representing general
    contractors, electrical contractors, mechanical contractors,
    architects, engineers, building departments and governmental
    agencies.

-   Contract Management: The UCG managed contracts with industry
    partners for the training program, the special plans examiner and
    inspector program, and local government coordination. In working
    with the partners, a critical UCG role was to keep the partners
    focused on the objectives of the Implementation Plan. There was also
    a set of contracts with the contractors to the UCG.

-   Fund Management: The UCG collected utility funds and managed and
    accounted for their disbursement.

**Figure 5**

**Functions of the UCG, its Contractors and Partners**

![](media/image6.emf){width="5.820138888888889in"
height="2.9618055555555554in"}

> **Note**: Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) provided the training
> program for approximately 22 months. Beginning in January 1996, the
> Utility Code Group (UCG) and its contractors implemented the training
> program.

The UCG assembled a team of contractors to work with UCG staff to carry
out its management functions. These contractors were included as part of
the UCG team. They learned and became part of the UCG philosophy. Some
of the functions involving contractors included:

-   Quality Assurance: The UCG contracted with a local consulting firm
    familiar with energy code compliance issues for quality assurance
    and evaluation activities. This consultant also provided technical
    support to UCG staff.

-   Marketing: The UCG hired a marketing firm to improve outreach to
    targeted industry groups and to improve the quality and
    effectiveness of program products and services.

-   Training: The UCG used contractors to help develop training
    materials and to deliver training and technical assistance.
    Initially, one of the industry partner organizations was responsible
    for training, as noted below. However, in January 1996, the UCG took
    over this function.

The UCG worked with and provided funding support to several industry
partner organizations to conduct some of the non-residential energy code
(NREC) implementation activities. The organizations that conducted these
activities were already determined before the UCG was formed as part of
the political process leading up to approval of the new code.

-   Training Program: B+D 2000 initially provided the training program.
    B+D 2000 was a consortium of industry partners headed up by the
    Association of General Contractors (AGC). The Utility Code Group
    (UCG) took over the training program in January 1996.

-   Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Program: The Washington
    Association of Building Officials (WABO) developed a testing and
    registration program for special plans examiners and inspectors for
    the energy code. WABO periodically publishes a list of registered
    examiners and inspectors. The UCG contracted with the International
    Congress of Building Officials (ICBO) to help develop the testing
    program.

-   Local Government Coordination: The Association of Washington Cities
    (AWC) provided information, a newsletter, a conference and other
    support to local jurisdictions responsible for enforcing the code.
    They also represented the interests of their constituents throughout
    the implementation process.

The UCG had four full-time staff to carry out its functions. These
included an executive director, a projects director, a communications
director, and administrative/clerical support. They also had a part-time
bookkeeper. The UCG was housed with the Electric League. This provided
some valuable synergies and helped the UCG to become operational more
quickly.

## What were the components of the training program?

The development of the classroom training program was evolutionary.
Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) developed and delivered the initial
training courses. Beginning in late 1995, the UCG developed a new series
of training modules and started delivering these courses in February
1996.

### B+D 2000 Training Program

B+D 2000 developed and offered five courses; one on energy code changes,
one to prepare for the certification exam, and a class for each of the
three main sections in the energy code (envelope, mechanical, and
lighting). Brief descriptions of these courses follow.

*Non-Residential Energy Code (NREC) Change Class (Four hour class for
all segments of the design, construction, and enforcement communities):*
This class reviewed NREC on a chapter by chapter, line by line basis. It
compared the previous energy code language with the revised and
reformatted language of the 1994 NREC.

*NREC Plans Examiner and Inspector Preparation Class (Intense eight hour
course for building officials, plans examiners, inspectors, engineers,
contractors and utility personnel):* This class taught all the NREC
provisions and other information needed to prepare for the certification
examination given by WABO. Successful completion of the examination
qualified the applicant as a Special Plans Examiner or Inspector for the
NREC.

*NREC Building Envelope Workshop (Four hour class for all segments of
the design, construction, and enforcement communities):* This class
provided a comprehensive review of NREC envelope requirements, including
some calculations.

*NREC Mechanical Systems and Motors Workshop (Four hour class for all
segments of the design, construction, and enforcement communities):*
This workshop provided a comprehensive review of non-residential energy
code (NREC) heating, cooling, and water heating requirements, including
examples of calculations.

*NREC Lighting Workshop (Four hour class for all segments of the design,
construction, and enforcement communities):* This class gave a
comprehensive review of NREC lighting requirements, including some
example calculations.

The attendance at these classes was approximately 3,400 from March 1994
through the end of 1995. In late 1995, Building and Design 2000 (B+D
2000) informed the Utility Code Group (UCG) that it had trained everyone
who needed to be trained and had completed its work. B+D 2000 and UCG
agreed to end their relationship. B+D 2000 closed its doors on\
December 31, 1995 and transitioned its staff to the Associated General
Contractors Educational Foundation.

### UCG Training Program

In late 1995, the UCG took the basic training materials developed by B+D
2000 and redesigned them into audience specific modules. The redesign
was based in part on feedback from quality assurance surveys that
indicated that designers and contractors had different interests and
wanted training targeted more to their needs. The Building Envelope,
Mechanical, and Lighting classes were reformatted creating three classes
targeted to architects and engineers and three classes for contractors.
These six classes are described below.

*NREC Design Strategies for Building Envelope (3 hour course for
architects, engineers and other designers):* Addresses the prescriptive
approach, glazing shading coefficient and target UA tradeoff, U-factors
for metal stud walls, ENVSTD software tradeoff procedure for exterior
walls, additions, alterations and remodels, documentation requirements
for insulation and glazing and what inspectors look for in the field.

*Constructing the Building Envelope to the NREC (3 hour course for
contractors, manufacturers, distributors and representatives):*
Addresses general design considerations for the building envelope,
code-compliant products and systems, building alterations, construction
techniques and what inspectors look for on the job site.

*NREC Design Strategies for HVAC and Water Heating (3 hour course for
mechanical engineers, design-build engineers and contractors):*
Addresses equipment efficiency, temperature controls, economizers, heat
recovery, variable-speed drives, duct insulation, insulating water
piping, fan power, duct and pipe insulation R-values, documentation
requirements on drawings and what inspectors look for in the field.

*Building Heating and Cooling Systems to NREC Specifications (3 hour
course for mechanical contractors, their field supervisors, and trades
personnel):* Addresses general design considerations for heating and
cooling systems, code-compliant products and systems, construction
techniques and what inspectors look for on the job site.

*NREC Design Strategies for Interior and Exterior Lighting (3 hour
course for electrical engineers, lighting designers, and design-build
electrical contractors):* Addresses prescriptive lighting options,
lighting power allowances based on space use, wattage of lamps and
ballasts, rules for automatic lighting controls, lighting power
allowance forms, lighting controls, separate controls for daylight
zones, remodels and tenant improvements and what inspectors look for in
the field.

*Building an Indoor or Outdoor Lighting System to the non-residential
energy code (NREC) (3 hour course for electrical contractors, field
supervisors, and electricians):* Addresses general design considerations
for interior and exterior lighting systems, code-compliant products and
systems, installation techniques, control and wiring requirements and
what inspectors look for on the job site.

In addition, the Utility Code Group (UCG) developed overview classes and
a Job Site Inspection class which are described below.

*Understanding the Components of the NREC - A Comprehensive Course (8
hour course for those needing detailed information about all aspects of
the NREC) and a Short Course (3 hours for those needing a general
overview):* Addresses NREC terms and definitions, detailed provisions of
envelope, heating, cooling, water heating, and lighting requirements,
simple and complex compliance strategies and NREC documentation
requirements for plan review.

*Incorporating the NREC in Your Job Site Inspection (3 hour course for
building officials, inspectors and related building department staff):*
Addresses locating key building envelope, lighting, heating and cooling
documentation on drawings, code-compliant products and systems,
construction techniques and what to look for on the job site as part of
your standard inspection procedure.

There is also a specialized module on glazing developed by UCG that is
available for parties interested in receiving specific training on this
topic.

Note that the Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Preparation Courses
developed by Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) were modified and
continue to be offered by the UCG.

These targeted classes were well received by the design, construction,
and enforcement communities. From February to June 1996, attendance at
these trainings was 4,000.

The training courses are as practical as possible. They tell people what
they need to know to apply the NREC. There is an emphasis on keeping it
as simple and basic as possible. The code is not complicated for 95
percent of all cases. What complicates the code is all the compliance
paths. There is a temptation to teach the most complicated compliance
paths and get bogged down in engineering details. There is a desire to
provide people with enough knowledge to do everything. However, most
people do not need to do everything and this unnecessarily complicates
the training process.

The UCG relies on three circuit riders to conduct most of the training
activities. Each of the circuit riders focuses on a specific region of
the state. There are a group of back-up trainers that can also be used,
as well as a group of specialized trainers that are used for specific
training courses.

### Brown Bag Training

In addition to classroom training, the circuit riders offer brown bag
training. This training is targeted at the top 20 percent of the
architecture/engineering firms, general contractors, and electrical and
mechanical contractors in the state that do 80 percent of the work. The
circuit riders solicit the firms to conduct a two to three hour session
on a portion of the NREC of interest to the firm.

### Technical Assistance Services and Products

The Implementation Plan called for providing technical assistance
services and products for the non-residential energy code (NREC). The
following services were developed and provided.

-   1-800 Hotline. The primary purpose of the Hotline was to answer
    technical questions related to the NREC. It was available to
    architects, engineers, contractors, and building officials. It was
    unusual in that it was available to more than just building
    officials. The Washington State Energy Office provided the Hotline
    technical assistance services from its office in Olympia,
    Washington.

-   Centralized Service Distribution. The 1-800 Hotline was modified
    into a "centralized service distribution number." Callers could
    access not only technical information through the Washington State
    Energy Office, but could also be connected with the Washington
    Association of Building Officials (WABO) for information about the
    special plans examiners and inspectors (SPE/I) Program, the
    Association of Washington Cities (AWC) with the local government
    coordination, Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) for training
    information, and the Utility Code Group (UCG) for general program
    and management information. This multi-directional approach worked
    quite well.

-   1-900 Hotline. The Hotline for technical assistance was further
    modified in mid-1996. Building officials were allowed continued free
    access, but members of the private sector (architects, engineers,
    contractors) were referred to a 1-900 "pay for service" number. The
    reason for this change in service was a desire by UCG to test the
    market value of such a service. Early indications suggest
    significantly fewer people are willing to pay for this service
    relative to the numbers that used the service when it was free.

-   Circuit Riders. Three circuit riders, one for eastern, central, and
    western Washington, were hired by B+D 2000 (and retained by UCG) to
    assist jurisdictions and the private sector with technical questions
    related to the NREC. The circuit riders were also used as the
    primary instructors for the training classes.

The following technical assistance products were developed by UCG and
its partners for NREC implementation.

[Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Handbook]{.underline}: Guidelines
for using special plans examiners and inspectors and obtaining utility
reimbursements.

[NREC Field Guide]{.underline}: This is a durable, compact, 175 page,
spiral-bound book that provides installation and inspection assistance
for building envelope, mechanical systems, lighting and motors and
systems analysis requirements. The guide is targeted to inspectors and
contractors regarding what to look for in the field to achieve
compliance

[Technical Reference Manual]{.underline}: This is a technical supplement
to the energy code aimed at the design community featuring simple
explanations of the NREC. It includes 325 pages of complete guidance and
examples for all compliance approaches.

NREC Compliance Forms: Self instructional forms for envelope,
mechanical, and lighting systems. Available as master copies and as a
spreadsheet on disc.

NREC Materials Kit: A handy, simple compilation of core NREC materials,
forms, and programs.

[E-Code News]{.underline}: Bi-monthly newsletter with compliance
information, technical assistance and updates on non-residential energy
code (NREC) products and activities.

Code books are also available from the Utility Code Group (UCG). At the
beginning of the program, UCG made available a Reference Kit to all
requesting jurisdictions. The kit contained source documents for various
citations found in the Non-Residential Energy Code (NREC). All the
technical assistance products were available for a modest fee or were
free.

## What is the Special Plans Examiner and Inspector Program?

The Special Plans Examiner/Inspector (SPE/I) Program is an optional
enforcement mechanism designed to increase compliance and give local
jurisdictions more flexibility enforcing the NREC. The program is based
on the special inspector requirements in Section 1701 of the Uniform
Building Code. The program tests and certifies qualified SPE/Is. If a
jurisdiction chooses to use the SPE/I program, then the building
applicant is responsible for contracting with and paying for a certified
SPE/I. The SPE/I performs all, or part of, the plans check and site
inspection work, depending on the jurisdiction's policies and
requirements. The building permit holder can send proof of code
compliance and the SPE/I bill to their electric utility for
reimbursement. Reimbursement is based on a standard fee schedule.

Some of the advantages of the SPE/I program include:

-   the SPE/I is well versed in the NREC and is accountable for his or
    her work,

-   the local jurisdiction does not need to hire additional staff or
    extensively train existing staff,

-   the building industry becomes more familiar with the NREC by working
    with the SPE/I, and

-   the turn around time can be faster relative to jurisdictions with
    limited resources.

The Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO) was responsible
for developing and administering the SPE/I Program. The UCG contracted
with the International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) to develop
the certification test. WABO maintained a list of certified examiners
and inspectors and made it available to local building departments. This
list was updated quarterly.

## How was local government coordination handled?

The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) was responsible for
coordination with local jurisdictions. One of the important functions of
the UCG was to coordinate NREC implementation with all stakeholders. The
enforcement community was one of the critical stakeholders.

The AWC was a good partner to provide this coordination to local
jurisdictions. The AWC delivers a variety of membership services such as
training, information, and representation. Regarding NREC
implementation, the AWC disseminated code information through
newsletters, conducted several code conferences that included
information and training, and conducted special projects for the UCG,
such as surveying their members and talking to elected officials about
the code.

## How did the UCG market its services?

Marketing was an area that received increased attention during the life
of the project. This was a result of advice from the Utility Code
Group's (UCG) marketing consultant and its Policy Advisory Board. This
helped the UCG better target its products and market those products to
the appropriate audience. The growing success of the UCG's products and
services can in part be attributed to an effective marketing strategy
designed to show that compliance with the energy code is simple.

The baseline quality assurance survey was the starting point. This was
recommended by the marketing consultant as a way for the UCG to be more
informed about their customers. Questions were aimed at finding out
where people wanted to get information about the non-residential energy
code (NREC). What were their needs? Where were the holes in NREC
implementation activities?

The marketing approach had two components. On a broad scale, marketing
materials were developed with a consistent look and feel. The market was
then segmented to develop specific products and services that were
marketed to the target audience.

## What was included in the Quality Assurance Program?

Quality assurance and evaluation were critical given the political
environment that created the UCG. Everyone agreed that the NREC needed
to produce increased levels of compliance. The supporters of the program
wanted to be sure that their resources were used wisely to produce
results. Those that were not supportive of the code demanded evidence
that it was worthwhile. Segments of the State Building Code Council
(SBCC) that represented industry groups were some of the loudest voices
demanding to know how well the NREC was working. The quality assurance
and evaluation program provided the material to respond to these
individuals and helped maintain the credibility of the UCG. The quality
assurance program demonstrated that the UCG was committed to doing a
good job and it provided them with the information to improve the
quality of their products. The components of the quality assurance
program included:

*Baseline Survey:* The objectives of this survey were to (1) assess
awareness of the newest version of the NREC; and (2) elicit feedback on
the use and utility of NREC marketing, training, and information
products. A 20 minute telephone survey was administered in\
March and April 1995 to 400 architects, engineers, building officials,
and contractors.

*Mid-Course Quality Assurance Review:* The goal of this project was to
provide a quality control review of the implementation of, and
compliance with the NREC. There were three primary objectives: (1) a
review of the procedures, successes, and failures of the special plans
examiners and inspectors (SPE/I) program in the jurisdictions using it;
(2) an assessment of the compliance of buildings using the SPE/I
procedures relative to those that did not; and (3) an assessment of the
attitudes and approaches of individual building departments, and an
attempt to link these approaches to compliance records in buildings
constructed in particular jurisdictions. The project developed a sample
of buildings to study compliance issues, conducted interviews with 76
architects, engineers, and owners associated with those buildings, and
interviewed SPE/I and building officials in 20 jurisdictions involved
with these projects.

*Compliance Study:* The goal of the compliance study is to assess the
level of compliance with the non-residential energy code (NREC). This
can be used to assess the effectiveness of NREC implementation efforts
by comparing NREC compliance levels with compliance prior to NREC. The
study is scheduled to be completed in February 1997. It is based on a
sample of buildings permitted from January 1995 through February 1996.
Compliance is evaluated by establishing key measures for each of the
major elements in the code (envelope, mechanical, and lighting).

*Classroom Surveys:* Surveys were conducted after a sample of initial
training courses. These surveys provided valuable information for
revising the training program to more closely meet specific client
needs. The revised courses are more specialized. They are also more
practical and less engineering oriented. They tell people what they
really need to know.

*Program Tracking:* The Utility Code Group (UCG) tracked the delivery of
most of its products and services. This was somewhat complicated because
there were a variety of partners providing information. There are gaps
in the information available. However, the available tracking
information gives a good picture of the output of the UCG.

## How well did the UCG model work?

The UCG model worked very effectively for involving utilities in the
funding and management of the implementation of the NREC. This was one
of the significant successes of the UCG. The UCG Board, made up of
utility representatives, functioned in a collaborative manner. On
contentious issues, compromise positions were reached. The utilities all
lived up to their commitment for funding of the NREC implementation
effort. One of the reasons for this success was the ability of the Board
to stay focused on the specific goals of NREC implementation.

The UCG developed strong working relationships with its contractors. The
contractors for quality assurance, marketing, and training development
became team members with UCG in the code implementation effort. The
ability of the UCG to select these contractors and develop relationships
with them was important to its success. By making the contractors part
of the UCG team, they became a part of the effort to meet the goals of
NREC implementation.

The UCG had a significant challenge working with building industry and
code official groups. Some members of the building industry were opposed
to the energy code and code officials were somewhat resistant to the
energy code. On the opposite side were the utilities and other public
interest groups who believed the energy code was not stringent enough
and was not being effectively enforced. The SBCC in the early stages of
the Implementation Plan was generally skeptical. Working with these
diverse groups and their different interests was a delicate balancing
act. Most parties agree the UCG did a very good job.

The UCG was effective working with these diverse groups because it was
able to stay focused on the specific task of implementing the NREC. It
avoided getting into the politics of the energy code. It reminded the
partners of the goals of the Implementation Plan. It developed
professional working relationships with the partners. The UCG recognized
the competing interests of the partner organizations and worked to
support them in carrying out their tasks related to implementation of
the NREC.

The Implementation Plan and evaluation and quality assurance program
also provided a solid framework for the entire effort. As results of the
Plan were reported by the UCG, the various stakeholders gained
confidence in the process. It became apparent that architects,
engineers, and contractors could in fact design and build to the energy
code. How the stakeholders will ultimately evaluate the success of the
Implementation Plan and of the non-residential energy code (NREC) is
still to be determined.

However, not everything worked perfectly. One of the disappointments in
the NREC implementation efforts was the early departure of Building and
Design 2000 (B+D 2000). The decision by the B+D 2000 Board that they had
completed their work and could no longer add value to the process was in
part driven by some underlying factors in the relationship between B+D
2000 and the NREC implementation process. These factors largely revolved
around roles that were not well defined and expectations that were not
met. It is important to recognize the challenge of forging relationships
between organizations that were matched in a very political process and
that have different perspectives and goals. The Utility Code Group (UCG)
model was a new approach and much credit needs to be given to all the
partners for giving it a try.

The UCG was created only four months before the effective date of the
new code. As a result, energy code training was not in place when the
code took effect. In some cases, it took up to several months before the
training courses and related material were ready. This hampered the
effectiveness and the credibility of the UCG. Along with the challenges
of working with many diverse partners in a collaborative process, this
contributed to the UCG getting a slow start.

## Did the UCG meet its goals?

Achievement of each of the UCG goals is discussed below.

### Establish a comprehensive training program that reaches a diverse audience across industry lines

The UCG developed a comprehensive training and technical assistance
program. It included a set of training modules that can be used to
provide training classes to targeted groups, circuit riders to provide
more individualized assistance, a hot line to answer questions, and a
variety of manuals, guides, and tools that were distributed. **Figure
6** summarizes the amount of service provided by the UCG. **Figure 7**
shows the distribution of clients among industry groups.

**Figure 6**

**Summary of Training and Technical Assistance Services**

  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
  Training Seats Filled                              7,500

  Technical Resource Manuals                         1,500

  Energy Code Field Guides                           800

  Hotline Calls                                      2,700

  Compliance Forms                                   2,000+

  Code Books                                         1,200+

  Brown Bag Forum Participants                       910
  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------

Note: These values are estimates and cover the period from 4/94 through
8/96

**Figure 7**

**Distribution of Type of Firms who Participated in Training**

![](media/image7.emf){width="4.979166666666667in"
height="2.6458333333333335in"}

### Raise awareness about the NREC

Part way through the non-residential energy code (NREC) implementation
effort, the Utility Code Group (UCG) realized that marketing to raise
awareness and increase participation was necessary. This mid-course
correction was the result of information from the quality assurance
program. The UCG worked with a contractor to develop a marketing program
to better target specific industry groups. One clear result of this
effort is the increase in participation in training. Of the 7,500
training participants in the three and a half year life of the program,
4,000 were in the last eight months.

The Utility Code Group (UCG) commissioned a baseline awareness survey
about the non-residential energy code (NREC) approximately a year after
the revised code was implemented. Almost three-quarters of the
individuals surveyed were aware the code had changed in the last two
years. Awareness was highest among building code officials (86 percent)
and least among engineers (65 percent). More than one-third of all
respondents had participated in some NREC informational activity, with
participation much higher among building officials than private sector
professionals.

These levels show awareness prior to the launch by UCG of many of the
services targeted to industry groups. A follow up survey will be
conducted in January 1997, to assess awareness of the code and use of
UCG services in the building industry. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
awareness is high across all groups.

### Increase code compliance through training and enforcement innovation

One of the major successes of the UCG effort was to show that high
levels of compliance are possible. The 1992 Code Compliance Study showed
that compliance with the energy code was approximately 50 percent. The
implication of this study was that high levels of compliance with the
energy code were not possible.

At this time, it is difficult to measure the impact of the NREC
implementation program on code compliance because of the lag time
between when someone receives assistance from the program and a building
they are involved with is constructed. The energy code compliance study
commissioned by the UCG will be completed in February 1997. It is based
on building projects that were started between January 1995 and February
1996.

A mid-term quality assurance study was started in June 1995 on a sample
of 36 buildings. Because the code had only been in effect for a year at
this time, the sample was limited and not representative. It provides a
case study on code implementation. The results showed compliance was 94
percent in those cases where a special plans examiner or inspector was
used and was 55 percent in all other cases. It is important to note that
the non-complying rate is strongly influenced by one jurisdiction that
decided not to enforce the energy code, but instead relied on
self-certification from the building industry.

Research shows there was an increase in the number of jurisdictions
reporting they were enforcing the NREC (see **Figure 8**). Over 80
percent of the jurisdictions reported they were enforcing the NREC.

The special plans examiners and inspectors (SPE/I) program was one of
the innovations introduced as part of NREC implementation. Demonstrating
this alternative enforcement approach was one of the program successes.
Preliminary results indicate compliance is higher in jurisdictions that
use SPE/I. Six certification tests for special plans examiners and
inspectors were given. The pass rate for the plans examiners was 65
percent and for the inspectors was 40 percent. As of June 1996, there
were 156 registered plans examiners and 140 inspectors. However, only a
little over 10 percent of the jurisdictions used special plans examiners
or inspectors for energy code enforcement. Fewer than 10 percent of the
buildings permitted during

the three year period of non-residential energy code (NREC)
implementation used this alternative approach. Most jurisdictions
decided to do the enforcement themselves.

**Figure 8**

**Jurisdictions Reporting they were Enforcing the NREC**

  ------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------
  **Enforcement Status**         **September 1995**   **March 1996**

  Enforcing                      192                  217

  Enforcing using SPE/I          41                   37

  Not Enforcing                  61                   43

  No Building Activity           16                   13

  Total                          310                  310
  ------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------

### Cost-effectively implement the NREC

The Utility Code Group (UCG) kept close account of program expenditures.
The program will complete its efforts in March 1997 under the target
amount of five million dollars. It is difficult to assess the
cost-effectiveness of NREC implementation because there is no similar
program to compare to and the research has not been completed to make an
estimate of the savings achieved by the program. However, some simple
estimates illustrate that the implementation of the NREC was
cost-effective.

Based on analysis by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC),
buildings built to the NREC over the next ten years will save 15 to 50
billion kWh over their 50 year lives. The levelized cost to consumers
for these measures averages slightly less than two cents per kWh of
energy saved. The levelized cost to implement the NREC will likely be
less than 0.1 cents per kWh of energy saved. This assumes energy savings
at the low end of the above range and some continued investment over the
next five years to maintain compliance with the energy code.

A goal of the utilities was to implement the NREC using an approach that
was less costly then residential energy code implementation. Directly
comparing the NREC implementation costs with the residential energy code
implementation costs is not a valid comparison because the two
industries are dramatically different, the codes are very different, and
the nature of the issues were very different at the time of residential
energy code implementation. However, the comparison does help illustrate
the cost effectiveness of NREC implementation.

The cost to implement the residential energy code in Washington State
was approximately 40 to 50 million dollars (it is difficult to precisely
identify the cost of implementation because of a variety of inter
related programs). The results of the residential code implementation
effort have been measured and the program proved to be very
cost-effective (0.3 cents/kWh). Since the residential code proved to be
cost effective and the cost of NREC implementation was much less with
evidence of improved levels of compliance, it is likely that the
non-residential energy code (NREC) implementation effort was cost
effective.

### Transfer and institutionalize implementation of the energy code to private industry.

The exit of Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) was a setback in the
effort to transfer and institutionalize implementation of the NREC to
private industry. The late creation of the Utility Code Group (UCG) and
late start carrying out the Implementation Plan relative to the
effective date of the code also hampered transfer efforts. However, the
UCG worked very hard to develop products and services that would be
attractive and valuable to private industry. The UCG has been actively
soliciting private industry and trade associations representing private
industry to take over energy code training. The UCG would provide the
training materials and access to trainers and the associations would
arrange for the training, market it to their members, and charge a fee
for the training. This approach allows the association to utilize the
materials and trainers developed by the UCG, tailor the training to
their organization program needs, and charge a fee to generate revenue
for their organization. So far, out of 20 organizations contacted, eight
have agreed to offer energy code training and products. It is too early
to tell how successful this transfer will be.

## What is the future of NREC implementation?

The plan was for the UCG to function for three and a half years. It is
scheduled to close in March 1997. There is a strong desire among all the
parties involved, including UCG staff, to keep this commitment. However,
there is a recognition that the goal of transferring energy code
implementation to private industry has not been fully achieved.

One of the reasons for closing the UCG is the belief that implementation
of the energy code needs to be decentralized like other building codes.
Private organizations and industry need to take responsibility for
knowing the code and implementing it. Maintenance of the energy code
needs to be institutionalized in industry. In some respects, continued
existence of a central entity like the UCG can be a detriment to
industry taking responsibility for the code.

However, there are other perspectives. Some believe there needs to be an
advocate for maintaining an effective energy code. A minimal level of
technical assistance is necessary for supporting effective energy code
enforcement. The various energy code materials need to be maintained and
updated to account for technology changes and changes in practice.

Increasing interest in the commercial energy code at a national level
may provide critical support and motivation for sustaining the energy
code in the states. The national Energy Policy Act legislation contains
minimum energy code standards. The U.S. Department of Energy along with
some of the national labs has a Building Standards and Guidelines
Program to support energy code implementation. Growing interest from the
International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) in a national energy
code could provide a mechanism for industry to maintain a national
energy code like other building codes.

Significant changes in the utility industry impact how future energy
code implementation efforts will be funded. In the Pacific Northwest,
efforts are underway to create the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
The goal of this effort is to promote regional market transformation
efforts for energy efficiency. Energy codes will be a part of this. The
Alliance will identify which energy code implementation activities (and
funding levels) are appropriate.

The future of the energy code also depends on whether public policy
supports it. Public policy support for a strong energy code has been
waning. Real energy prices have declined since the mid-1980's.
Deregulation in the utility industry and the availability of relatively
inexpensive energy in the marketplace has diminished the interest in
energy efficiency. A political environment that tends to oppose
regulation will not be an advocate for strong energy code enforcement.
The lack of public policy support for an effective energy code sends a
signal to the building industry that the energy code is not important.

## What were the lessons learned from the UCG experience?

There were a variety of lessons learned from the Utility Code Group
(UCG) experience which are summarized in the following list.

-   Equitable funding and commitment are critical. It is important for
    the partners to spend their own money, to be willing to control how
    the money is spent, and to truly want to be successful. In this
    case, the utilities worked together in a cooperative, collaborative
    manner and kept their commitment. This was one of the keys to
    success.

-   Align yourself with the right partners to do the right things. Allow
    the UCG entity to select partners that are interested in
    implementing the code. Let them nurture these relationships. One of
    the reasons the UCG was successful was that they were able, in many
    cases, to hire and work with the right people to get the job done.
    Avoid, if possible, alliances driven by politics with organizations
    that do not share similar goals. If agreements are made, make sure
    the roles and expectations are very clear up front.

-   Develop good working relationships with your partners. Include them
    in your processes. Link them to your philosophy. Make them members
    of the team. Be sure that there is something in it for the
    organizations that are involved. Recognize the issues driving
    partner organizations and their limitations.

-   Marketing is a key for success that was somewhat overlooked in the
    Implementation Plan. An overall marketing program needs to be
    developed. All products should have a consistent look and feel so
    they can be easily associated with the program. There needs to be an
    underlying message; in this case it was to show that compliance with
    the energy code is easy. The marketing strategy needs to identify
    and develop targeted products and services and then effectively
    market them to the appropriate industry segments.

-   A UCG type organization needs to start 12-18 months before the
    effective date of the code. Otherwise, materials and services will
    not be ready. This can seriously hamper the effectiveness of
    implementation efforts.

-   Plan with the end result in mind. Think about sustainability early
    on and nurture the relationships that will carry on the energy code.

-   Charge a fee for services. Building and Design 2000 (B+D 2000) chose
    to offer a majority of training and technical services for free or
    low cost. While this may encourage participation early on, it
    ultimately reduces the value of the services offered and makes it
    more difficult to transfer the implementation program to private
    industry where it needs to be self-sustaining. Approximately 25 to
    30 percent of the funding for the Implementation Plan could have
    been generated by fees for service.

-   Evaluation and quality assurance are essential. This was an integral
    part of the Implementation Plan. The Utility Code Group (UCG) did
    mid-course corrections as a result of their quality assurance
    program. Information from the quality assurance program helped to
    keep the utilities satisfied that their resources were being used
    effectively.

-   Keep focused on the task of implementing the non-residential energy
    code (NREC). Establish a plan with clear goals and objectives and
    pursue the activities necessary to achieve the goals and objectives.

-   In the end, the UCG was recognized for providing quality products
    and services. The long run success of the UCG and the NREC
    implementation effort is dependent on the quality of the products
    and services which are the legacy of the UCG when it closes. Other
    organizations will recognize the quality of these products and
    services and will continue using them.

# Bibliography

Baylon, David, Maureen Quaid, Aaron Houseknecht, Mark Frankel. [Quality
Assurance Review for the Non-Residential Energy Code]{.underline}**.**
Utility Code Group, November 1995.

Baylon, David, Kevin Madison. "The 1994 Washington State Nonresidential
Energy Code: Quality Assurance Program Results," [Proceedings of the
1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings]{.underline}**.** American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, August 1996.

Madison, Kevin, David Baylon, Maureen Quiad, Jackie Weisse. [1994
Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Report: Baseline Awareness
Survey]{.underline}. Utility Code Group, June 1995.

Madison, Kevin, Tony Usibelli, Jeffrey Harris. "The Washington State
Non-Residential Energy Code: A New Model Process for Code Development,"
[Proceedings of the 1994 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings]{.underline}**.** American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, August 1994.

Non-Residential Energy Code Implementation Committee. [Implementation
Plan for the Proposed 1994 Non-Residential Energy Code]{.underline}**.**
Washington State Building Code Council, September 1993.

Schwartz, Howard, Richard Byers, and Alan Mountjoy Venning. [Getting to
Code: Costs and Benefits of Developing and Implementing Washington
State's Residential Energy Code, 1983-2003]{.underline}**.** Washington
State Energy Office, July 1993.

[^1]: ^\*^ The Energy Code defines residential buildings as "buildings
    and structures that provide facilities or shelter for residential
    occupancies."

    The Energy Code defines non-residential buildings as "buildings and
    structures or portions thereof that provide facilities or shelter
    for public assembly, educational, business, mercantile,
    institutional, storage, factory and industrial occupancies."