U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Public and Indian Housing

Public Housing Agencies; Indian Notice PIH 97-16 (HA)

Housing Authorities; Secretary\'s Issued: April 17, 1997

Representatives; Field Office Expires: April 30, 1998

Public Housing Directors;

Administrators; Offices of Native

American Programs; Resident

Management Corporations

Energy Standards and State Energy Codes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this notice is to provide Public Housing Agencies

and Indian Housing Authorities (referred to as HAs) with

information relative to HUD\'s policy on energy standards for

new construction, sources of energy code information and status

of state adoption of energy codes for single and multifamily

properties.

BACKGROUND

New construction assisted by HUD must meet energy efficiency

standards. (See Section 101 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992;

P.L. 102-486, Oct 24, 1992, which amended Sec. 109 \-- 42 U.S.C.

12709 of the 1990 National Affordable Housing Act.) This covers

public and assisted housing and one and two family and

multifamily dwellings three stories or less residential housing

(other than manufactured housing) sub-ject to mortgages insured

under the National Housing Act. It also includes the HOME

program. (See: 24 CFR 92.251.) HUD implemented the requirement

of Section 101 by amending the Minimum Property Standards (MPS)

for Housing.

(See: 24 CFR 200.925; 24 CFR 200.926d(e).)

\* For one and two family and multifamily dwellings three

stories or less, the provisions of the Council of

American Building Officials (CABO) 1992 Model Energy

Code (MEC) apply.

\* For multifamily high-rise buildings, the requirement is

Standard 90.1-1989 of the American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

(IES).

As the standards in these codes are revised by the organiza-

tions that create them, HAs are required to meet or exceed the

new requirements unless it is determined that compliance would

not result in a significant increase in energy efficiency or

would not be technologically feasible or economically justified.

INFORMATION

The Office of Community Planning and Development has prepared a

summary of information relating to the Energy Standards for

compliance along with a state by state summary of Energy Codes.

This information, Attachments 1 and 2, is being provided for use

by HAs as well as HUD Field Office Staff as it relates to newly

constructed units.

/s/

Kevin Emanuel Marchman

Acting Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

ATTACHMENT 1

Status of State Energy Codes

January 1, 1997

Alabama: No statewide commercial energy codes, except for state-

owned or funded buildings, which must comply with ASHRAE/ IES

90.1. In 1995, with the support of homebuilders, a Residen-tial

Energy Code Board was created; in March, 1996, the Board adopted

a simplified version of 93 MEC, called the Residential Energy

Code for Alabama (RECA). Two cities are considering adoption of

RECA. The state received FY96 DOE State Energy Program (SEP)

funding to assist municipalities in adopting the RECA and to

introduce a commercial code.

Alaska: 92 MEC is mandatory for all residential buildings. No

commercial energy code and no known initiatives to adopt one.

Changes are being reviewed by a Technical Advisory Group to

improve the state residential code. Air tightness and ventila-

tion requirements are the most critical issues. When changes are

approved, public hearings will be held around the state; the

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation will implement code changes

when they are! finalized.

Arizona: No statewide commercial or residential energy codes.

HERS for residential structures is widespread. Pima County and

Tucson have adopted the 95 MEC. No initiatives for state

adoption of residential or commercial codes. The state received

DOE SEP funding to support Tucson/Pima County\'s progressive

efforts.

Arkansas: Arkansas has adopted ASHRAE/IES 90.1 for commercial

construction and a residential energy code based on 92 MEC. Both

are state requirements. Builder self-certification is required

even if local governments do not enforce the codes. The state

received FY96 DOE SEP funding to facilitate the use of the

Arkansas Energy Code through a Circuit Rider Project and to

train HVAC contractors. Arkansas has implemented an Arkansas

Energy Efficiency Partnership which deals primarily with

consumer education.

California: California\'s Title 24 regulations meet or exceed

ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide. State

officials are reviewing adoption of nationally recognized energy

codes as a possibility in the future. Training has been provided

to building departments and designers. Further training is being

provided for builders and construction superintendents.

Colorado: Colorado\'s residential energy provisions, which do not

meet 92 MEC, are mandatory minimum requirements only for juris-

dictions that adopt a building code. There is currently no

statewide commercial energy code. New commercial standards based

on 90.1 will be released for public review on January 30, 1997.

For residential standards, the SEO is partnering with the state

HBA and Energy Rated Homes of Colorado for voluntary compliance.

The City of Ft. Collins adopted a modified 95 MEC and modified

90.1, both of which took effect 7-1-96. The state received FY96

DOE funding to promote the adoption of 90.1 by local jurisdic-

tions and to provide 90.1 training.

Connecticut: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 has been adopted for commercial

buildings. The statewide residential energy code does not meet

92 MEC, as it is based on 90 BOCA. The state is reviewing the 96

BOCA codes (which include 95 MEC) for adoption anticipated by

Fall 97. The state received FY96 DOE funding to facilitate

adoption of the MEC and to provide 90.1 and MEC training.

Delaware: 93 MEC (and therefore 90.1) has been adopted and

implemented. The state received FY96 DOE funding to continue

providing MEC and 90.1 training.

District of Columbia: Commercial and residential energy codes do

not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC. A Building Code Advisory

Committee is scheduled to meet monthly; the Energy Subcommittee

has been inactive.

Florida: Commercial and residential energy codes meet or exceed

ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC and are mandatory statewide. The

state is revising the Florida energy efficiency code for imple-

mentation in September 1997. A public hearing and public comment

period will occur in February 97. The state received FY96 fund-

ing to establish a Southern States Energy Board and to encourage

market-driven energy efficient construction.

Georgia: 95 MEC (and therefore 90.1 code) has been adopted and

took effect 4-1-96. Training for 90.1 is currently being held. A

commercial code amendment lessening the U-value requirement for

roof coverings with high albedo surface has been proposed; a

public hearing will be held on February 6, and if approved by

the Department of Community Affairs, the code change will take

effect April 1997.

Hawaii: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 with modifications has been adopted for

commercial; all counties have adopted except Maui, which is

still resistant to adoption. Hawaii\'s residential energy

guidelines meet or exceed 92 MEC but are not mandatory

statewide. The state received FY 96 funding to update and

distribute lighting standards.

Idaho: Currently, no statewide commercial energy code. A newly

developed commercial code, which exceeds 90.1, is in a public

review period and will be sent to the state legislature in

January 1997. New residential energy standards, which do not

meet 92 MEC because of lack of floor insulation, took effect 1-

1-96; builder self-certification is required if local juris-

dictions do not enforce a code. Many jurisdictions adopt the

Northwest Energy Code or the MEC. The state received FY96 DOE

funding to develop an infrastructure for use of 90.1.

Illinois: No statewide commercial or residential energy codes,

except for state-owned buildings which must comply with

ASHRAE/IES 90.1. The City of Chicago also requires 90.1 for city

buildings. The state and Chicago are pursuing voluntary

residential compliance ventures through Illinois Energy Rated

Homes training.

Indiana: 92 MEC with state amendments adopted and enforced

statewide. Commercial energy standards do not meet or exceed

ASHRAE/IES 90.1. The SEO is participating in the Multi-State

Commercial Code group that is developing enhancements to 90.1.

The state is also reviewing adoption of 95 MEC and has just

completed code compliance and HERS training through a DOE grant.

The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide consumer

education about homes meeting the code.

Iowa: 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are adopted statewide,

mandatory and enforced by local jurisdictions. The Home Builders

Associa-tion of Iowa, through the Secretary of State, petitioned

the Building Code Commissioner to remove basement insulation

require-ments from the state residential energy code. A public

hearing was held in December 1996. In late January or early

February 1997, the Iowa Building Code Advisory Committee will

vote on the petition and make a recommendation to the Building

Code Commis-sioner. Iowa is providing 90.1 and MEC training and

education and training to integrate the use of HERS as a method

of code compliance. Local utilities also support the HERS

program with rebates.

Kansas: The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) adopted 93 MEC

and ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, which utilities are expected to

\"put it into effect\" by the end of 1996. In early 96, legisla-

tion was introduced, passed in the House, and sent the Senate,

to eliminate the KCC\'s authority to adopt and enforce energy

standards for residential structures. In early May, the legisla-

ture adjourned without the bill getting out of conference

committee. A similar initiative will be introduced in the 1997

legislative session. MEC and 90.1 training has been provided.

The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide more training and

to develop maximum trade-off flexibility.

Kentucky: 92 MEC adopted statewide; the state is considering

adoption of 1996 BOCA (with either 93 or 95 MEC), with proposed

July 1997 implementation. Commercial energy code does not

currently meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1.

Louisiana: No statewide energy codes. The state is pursuing

adoption of a commercial code and received FY96 DOE funding to

enact the commercial code and to promote local adoption of the

MEC. Development of commercial standards for the state is

proceeding through a technical advisory group of stakeholders.

Maine: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted statewide. The residential energy

code does not meet 92 MEC. No known initiatives to revise the

residential code.

Maryland: Statewide energy codes do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or

92 MEC, as they are based on 93 BOCA. 96 BOCA has been reviewed

and proposed for adoption. Notice of intent to adopt 96 BOCA

(including 95 MEC) will appear in the Maryland Register in

January 97, with a public comment period to follow. The new

codes are expected to take effect in October 1997. The state

received FY96 DOE funding to establish a comprehensive code

training system.

Massachusetts: The statewide commercial energy code meets or

exceeds ASHRAE/IES 90.1; the residential code does not meet 92

MEC for certain fuel-specific structures. Adoption of the 95

MEC, with amendments, for residential was finalized in December

1996 by the Board of Building Regulations and Standards, and the

new code will become effective September 1, 1997. Commercial

code development is proceeding through the Multi-State

Commercial Code project, which is seeking an enhanced 90.1 that

is \"usable and enforceable.\" The state received FY96 DOE funding

for residential and commercial training and to continue the

multi-state commercial code project.

Michigan: 93 MEC, adopted statewide in July 1995, was repealed

by the legislature in December 1995. The state energy code

reverts back to ASHRAE Standards 90A and 90B; the State

Construction Code Commission (which approved and proposed the

adoption of the 1993 MEC) has been directed to adopt cost-

effective energy efficiency standards by 4-1-97. An Energy Code

Ad Hoc Committee is stalemated. Although there was no apparent

problem with the commercial criteria in 90.1, the repeal of 93

MEC also eliminated 90.1.

Minnesota: Commercial and residential energy codes meet or

exceed ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 92 MEC. The state has proposed

commercial code upgrades and improvements to be effective in

mid-1997. A MN version of MECcheck, called MNcheck, is now

available and being distributed to builders. The state is

focusing on air tightness and mechanical ventilation in homes

for the next code revisions. The state received FY96 DOE funding

to achieve implementation of proposed 1998 updated residential

code.

Mississippi: Residential and commercial energy codes do not meet

92 MEC or ASHRAE/IES 90.1. State legislation to adopt current

national energy standards died in 1995. Legislation is being

drafted to adopt current energy codes in the 1997 legislative

session.

Missouri: No statewide energy codes, except for state facilities

which must comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1. Legislation to adopt a

statewide building code died in the 1994 legislative session.

Legislation similar to the 1994 bill (voluntary codes) failed in

the 1996 session. Reintroduction may occur next session.

Montana: Statewide residential energy code is 93 MEC, and

ASHRAE/ IES 90.1 took effect 1-1-96. Cities authorized to issue

building permits are bound by the new code. The state received

FY96 DOE funding to provide training and technical support for

builders, designers, and code officials.

Nebraska: The statewide commercial and residential energy codes

do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or 92 MEC. Legislatin to adopt 92

MEC failed in the 1994 state legislature. The state has

developed an incentive program to reduce the mortgage interest

rate for homes built at or above MEC levels. The reduction in

the interest rate is achieved through a loan participation by

the Nebraska Energy Office. The NE Energy Efficiency Mortgage

program is now operational.

Nevada: State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1 or the

MEC. Legislation to adopt 92 MEC died with adjournment of the

1995 legislative session. The state is pursuing voluntary

compliance strategies. State code adoption has been impeded by a

two year moratorium on new state energy regulations. Las Vegas,

Henderson, and Clark County have adopted the 92 MEC.

New Hampshire: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted. The state residential

code does not meet 92 MEC. The Public Utilities Commission is

reviewing 95 MEC and expects the process to be completed by

Spring 1997. No training for ASHRAE 90.1 has occurred yet.

New Jersey: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 adopted. The residential energy code

does not meet 92 MEC, as it is based on 93 BOCA. The latest

edition of BOCA has traditionally been adopted as a statewide

code unamended. However, 1996 legislation froze the codes at the

July 1, 1995 level unless the Department of Community Affairs

(DCA) deems certain provisions of the new codes as essential to

carry out the intent of the law. The Codes Office of DCA is

reviewing 96 BOCA for adoption, but may delete reference to the

95 MEC and substitute ASHRAE Standards 90A and B as the energy

standard for residential construction. A coalition of state

stakeholders is working with DCA to improve New Jersey\'s

residential energy standards. The Board of Public Utilities

received FY96 DOE funding to promote the adoption of an energy

code that meets or exceeds the MEC and to provide training and

certification for the MEC.

New Mexico: 92 MEC adopted. Commercial code does not currently

meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1. However, a new study committee has

reconvened to review adoption of 90.1. Final recommendations are

expected in April 1997. Adoption of the code may occur by the

end of 1997. The Governor has signed an Executive Order for

state energy management, calling for 90.1 compliance for new

state buildings. The state received FY96 DOE funding for MEC

training and updating residential code to 95 MEC.

New York: State energy code meets or exceeds ASHRAE 90.1 and 92

MEC. Legislation was introduced in 1995 by homebuilders to

replace the New York State Building Code with the latest version

of BOCA, which references 95 MEC in its 1996 codes. The

legislation will be reintroduced in the 1997 legislative

session.

North Carolina: The residential code is a simplified 95 MEC.

ASHRAE/IES took effect 7/1/96. North Carolina is participating

in the Multi-State Commercial Code Project to improve commercial

energy codes. Training in the state is focused on the design

community.

North Dakota: The state has adopted 93 MEC, but the state codes

are voluntary unless a jurisdiction adopts them. The state

received FY96 DOE funding to promote local adoption of the MEC

and to integrate MEC training into the state\'s vocational

education system.

Ohio: 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1) adopted, effective

July 1995. The OH legislature recessed in June without acting on

a bill that eliminates the requirement to change energy

standards when technological advances make old standards

obsolete or inadequate and without the homebuilders attaching a

MEC repeal amendment to other legislation. The legislature in a

short session after the November elections removed criminal

penalties for non-compliance with the energy code. The OHBA and

stakeholders are currently working to develop prescriptive code

requirements that will satisfy the OHBA, OBBS, and energy

advocates. The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide code

training in Cincinnati, and to work with utilities, bankers, and

realtors, who are involved in OH\'s HERS program.

Oklahoma: No state energy codes adopted, except for state-owned

buildings. State contractor licensing requires compliance with

BOCA codes for some trades; the 1996 International Mechanical

Code, which references 95 MEC, took effect in August and is the

minimum installation standard statewide for mechanical

contractors. The 1996 BOCA codes, which also reference 95 MEC,

are being reviewed by the State Fire Marshal\'s Office as the

mandatory for jurisdictions without codes; effective date

anticipated by July 97.

Oregon: Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 92 MEC and

ASHRAE/IES 90.1. The state received FY96 DOE funding to support

implementation of the non-residential energy code through the

Circuit Rider Program, which is sponsored by public utilities.

Pennsylvania: Statewide energy code does not meet 92 MEC or AS

HRAE/IES 90.1. Legislation that calls for the statewide adoption

of 96 BOCA including 95 MEC and repeal of Act 222, the old

energy standards based on ASHRAE 90, passed the PA House the end

of June 96, went to the state Senate in late September, and died

in committee upon adjournment. The legislation will be

reintroduced in early 1997.

Rhode Island: 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1) has been

adopted statewide and is expected to take effect in January 97.

South Carolina: The statewide commercial code meets ASHRAE/IES

90.1; the residential energy code is 92 MEC with amendments that

make it less stringent. Legislation was introduced to mandate

the latest SBCCI codes and the MEC statewide (currently only 57%

of counties have adopted a building code, with fewer actually

enforcing the energy code). The bill passed the Senate in 1996

but was rejected in the House after a contentious debate over

requiring a \"super\" majority (2/3) in local governments to raise

taxes or fees. The bill will be reintroduced in 1997.

South Dakota: No state energy codes. The state is considering an

initiative to adopt a commercial energy code in the 1997

legislative session.

Tennessee: State energy code is 92 MEC; therefore, commercial

standards do not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1. The state and the design

community are reviewing 95 MEC for adoption.

Texas: No state energy codes, except for state-owned buildings.

Residential code training is currently being offered for design-

ers and code officials, especially in jurisdictions that have

voluntarily adopted the MEC. The state received FY96 DOE funding

to provide commercial compliance training and to implement an

EEM program for new residential construction.

Utah: State energy codes are ASHRAE/IES 90.1 and 93 MEC.

Training workshops have been held. The state received FY96 DOE

funding to complete the implementation of the new codes and to

provide public education about exceeding the codes.

Vermont: Mandatory energy efficiency standards which meet or

exceed 92 MEC and ASHRAE/IES 90.1 are contained within Vermont\'s

land use regulations (Act 250), and cover approximately 50% of

construction. The Governor\'s Task Force voted unanimously to

reintroduce legislation in 1997 on the adoption of a modified 95

MEC, for all residential construction. In early February 1996,

the MEC bill died in the House. Vermont is working with the

Multi-State Working Group to promote an enhanced commercial code

based on 90.1R or equivalent. The state received FY96 DOE

funding to promote commercial energy code adoption and to

provide compliance training.

Virginia: 93 MEC (and therefore ASHRAE/IES 90.1) adopted

statewide. The Board of Housing and Community Development is

soliciting public comments on adoption of the 1996 BOCA codes,

which are expected to be adopted in April 97; 95 MEC is

receiving little attention.

Washington: Statewide energy codes meet or exceed 90.1 and 92

MEC. The State Energy Office was terminated on 7-1-96, with its

functions assumed by other agencies. Energy code training

programs will e integrated with those of the building industry.

The state received FY96 DOE funding to provide code training and

support through transition of utility restructuring and to

support a codes hotline.

West Virginia: State energy code does not meet ASHRAE/IES 90.1

or 92 MEC, as it is based on 93 BOCA. The State Fire Commission,

through a compromise with the homebuilders association, will

introduce legislation in early 1997 to adopt 96 BOCA without the

95 MEC. Stakeholders are working to get the 95 MEC included.

Residential and commercial energy code workshops are being held.

Wisconsin: ASHRAE/IES 90.1 was scheduled to take effect on 4-1-

96 but last minute political resistance forced the date back one

year. A modified conversion package was introduced and passed in

November 1996 by the state legislature. Public review is

expected in February 1997. Adoption is expected April 1, 1997.

The residential energy code nominally meets 92 MEC; a state

energy task force is studying adoption of 95 MEC in lieu of

developing state-written standards. The state received FY96 DOE

funding to provide commercial code training and to promote home

energy ratings to comply with residential code.

Wyoming: State energy codes do not meet 92 MEC and ASHRAE/ IES

90.1. No known initiatives to revise energy standards.

MULTI-STATE COMMERCIAL CODE WORKING GROUP: Representatives from

various states are working to accelerate the development of an

advanced and enforceable commercial energy code. The Multi-State

Working Gr-9oup (MSWG) has three objectives: improve efficiency

standards, foster simplicity, and develop support. The following

states are involved in this effort: California, Connecticut,

Florida, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New

Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Other states are invited to join.

First, these states want a code that improves the levels of

efficiency found in ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989. In the seven years

since 90.1 was published, there have been numerous efficiency

gains in lighting, appliances, and general construction. MSWG

members feel that the aforementioned code no longer serves the

goals set by those states that wish to adopt current commercial

codes.

Second, these states want a code that can be understood by

design professionals and enforced by local code enforcement

officials. The members feel that 90.1 is overly complex,

evidenced by recurring problems of interpretation and

implementation of the code.

Finally, the MSWG members want a code that can be easily

supported by training and administrative tools \-- manuals,

software, etc. \-- generated by a technically competent national

source. COMcheck-EZ, developed by Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory (PNNL) is currently being reviewed by many states in

the group. Any state interested in joining this effort or

needing more information should contact Southface Energy

Institute, (704) 265-4888 Next report: March 1997.

Kate McQueen

Executive Director

Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP)

1200 18th St., N.W., Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 530-2221

FAX: (202) 331-9588

ATTACHMENT 2

A. SOURCES OF INFORMATION CODES

1\. Copies of the 1992 MEC cost \$10 and can be obtained from

the Building Officials and Code Administrators Inter-

national: BOCA International, 4051 Flossmore Road, Country

Club Hills IL 60478

2\. The ASHRAE standard is available from ASHRAE, 1791 Tullie

Circle, Atlanta, GA 30329-2305, 1-800-527-4723. Cost: \$98

(\$65 for members), available in 5 1/4\" disk (86237) or 3

1/2\" disk (86238).

3\. HUD USER now distributes four resources developed by the

Department of Energy (DOE) on compliance with CABO MEC

1992\. Call HUD USER at 1-800-245-2691.

\- The MECcheck Manual describes the basic requirements of

the code for building components, approaches for

attaining compliance and guidance for plan checkers and

inspectors.

\- MECcheck Prescriptive Packages enables design and

construction professionals to select features for any

climate zone.

\- MECcheck Software and its User\'s Guide calculate

tradeoffs between building envelope components and

heating and cooling equipment efficiencies.

4\. The Department of Energy (DOE) provides technical

assistance to help States meet these standards. It

maintains a Hotline: 1-800-270-CODE (2633) for infor-

mation on building energy codes and standards. DOE also

supports the Building Code Assistance Project whose

mission is \"accelerating implementation of building energy

codes.\" See below.

B. THE MODEL ENERGY CODE - A LAYMAN\'S SUMMARY

The Model Energy Code (MEC) establishes minimum requirements for

energy-related features of new buildings and additions to exist-

ing buildings. It covers low-rise buildings three stories or

less as well as one- and two-family and multifamily buildings.

It does not apply to existing buildings (including those being

rehabilitated) unless there is a change in use that increases

the building\'s energy use. The MEC is applicable to all types of

residential and non-residential buildings; it is not applicable

to historic structures. HUD has other energy standards for

manufactured housing. (See: Manufactured Home Construction and

Safety Standards, 24CFR3280 Subpart F-Thermal Protection.)

The MEC emphasizes flexibility to suit local needs and

conditions by offering three means of achieving compliance:

\- an approach based on each separate building component or

system;

\- a systems approach that determines compliance based on the

building\'s total energy use;

\- specified acceptable practice. This approach can be used

only for buildings of 5000 square feet or less and of three

stories or less.

Each of the three approaches takes into account the following:

\- the resistance of the \"building envelope\" (walls,roof/

ceiling, floors) to heat loss (or gain) through the

materials and as a result of air infiltration;

\- the efficiency of the mechanical systems for heating and

cooling;

\- the efficiency of the system for providing hot water;

\- the efficiency of the electrical and lighting systems.

The \"component\" approach calls for meeting energy

conservation standards for each of the above areas, and the

MEC spells out detailed criteria that the builder must

satisfy. For example, tables are provided that specify the

thermal resistance required for each part of the building

envelope, considering the climate (as expressed in degree

days); required coefficients of perfor-mance are specified

for various types of heating and cooling equipment; and

illumination level criteria are established for the

lighting system. The MEC, of course, includes considerable

technical detail relevant to these and many other aspects

of construction.

The \"systems\" approach provides that the building, as a whole,

must be as energy effiicent as one constructed under the

component approach. This is based on annual use.

The \"acceptable practice\" approach is designed to offer a some-

what simplified way to comply with the code, although there is

considerable relationship to the standards spelled out in the

component approach. Generally, the MEC states one or more

acceptable practices, and using it is deemed to satisfy the

code. As mentioned above, this approach is limited to 5000

square foot buildings of three stories or less. It is further

limited to residential buildings or non-residential buildings

that are heated only (i.e., not mechanically cooled).

C. STATUS OF STATE CODES

To keep up with energy code developments in each state, we rely

on DOE\'s Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) which tracks

information on the status of energy codes in each state. For

direct access, BCAP\'s telephone is (202) 530-2200. To assist HUD

field offices, HUD Energy Division secures this information from

BCAP and shares it with HUD offices. A summary of the status of

State Energy Codes in relation to CABO MEC 92 for single-family

and ASHRAE 90.1 for multi-family properties follows below.

Additional information on developments in each state will be

provided from time to time.

1\. CABO MEC for single family properties: By November, 1996, 28

states had adopted building energy codes that meet or exceed

the CABO Model Energy Code (MEC) 1992 required by HUD for

single-family. Some adopted a state code, others the MEC

1992, 1993 or 1995 versions.

Note: RI postponed the effective date. Idaho meets CABO, except

for floor insulation, and thus is not listed below. Hawaii\'s is

not state-wide. There are at least five local governments that

have adopted CABO MEC.

States that meet or exceed MEC 1992:

1\. Alaska 92 MEC

2\. Alabama 92 (voluntary for local adoption)

3\. Arkansas 92 MEC

4\. California state version

5\. Delaware 93 MEC

6\. Florida state version

7\. Georgia 95 MEC

8\. Hawaii 92 MEC (but not mandated state-wide)

9\. Indiana 92 MEC

10\. Iowa 92 MEC

11\. Kansas 93 MEC

12\. Kentucky 92 MEC

13\. Massachusets state (state code is fuel specific: electric

homes meet MEC 92; gas homes probably do not)

14\. Minnesota state version

15\. Montana 93 MEC

16\. New Mexico 92 MEC

17\. New York state version

18\. North Carolina state version

19\. North Dakota 93 MEC (voluntary)

20\. Ohio 93 MEC

21\. Oregon state version

22\. Rhode Island 93 MEC (effective date postponed)

23\. South Carolina state version (amended: less stringent than

92 Also voluntary-only 50% of counties adopt

state code.)

24\. Tennessee 92 MEC

25\. Utah 93 MEC

26\. Virginia 93 MEC

27\. Washington state version

28\. Wisconsin state version

Local adoption:

\- Clark County and Las Vegas, Nevada

\- Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado

\- Austin, El Paso, Texas (and possibly more).

\- Idaho Falls, Idaho

\- Tucson and Pima County, Arizona (95 MEC) 11-1-96

2\. ASHRAE standard for multifamily properties: 25 States had

adopted codes and standards that either meet or exceed

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, required by HUD. Note that RI

and WI have 1997 effective dates.

States that meet or exceed ASHRAE Standard 90.1:

1\. Arkansas

2\. California

3\. Connecticut

4\. Delaware

5\. Florida

6\. Georgia

7\. Hawaii (exc. Maui)

8\. Iowa

9\. Maine

10\. Massachusetts

11\. Minnesota

12\. Montana

13\. New Hampshire

14\. New Jersey

15\. New York

16\. North Carolina

17\. North Dakota (state codes voluntary until adopted locally)

18\. Ohio

19\. Oregon

20\. Rhode Island (effective date expected to be 1-97)

21\. South Carolina

22\. Utah

23\. Virginia

24\. Washington

25\. Wisconsin (effective date 4-97)

Source: BCAP

cc: PHMM - OLSON 4214 (H:\\execsec\\ENGYNTC.ATT 1/31/97 slb)

PHMM - THORSON 4214; PH-RUSS 4204