# Presentation: 683037

## California’s 2005 Standards(how they came about and how they raise the bar)

**California’s 2005 Standards****(how they came about and how they raise the bar)**

***Architectural******Energy ***
***Corporation***

***Peter C. Jacobs, PE, ****Architectural Energy Corporation**** ***

## Per Capita Energy Use in California

**Notes:**
Per capita energy use in California has remained relatively flat since the late 1970s while per capita use in the rest of the country has increased by about 50% (Rosenfeld 2003). One of the reasons that California has been able to achieve zero growth in per capita energy use is that the state has been aggressive in developing and implementing energy efficiency standards for newly constructed buildings, additions, and alterations. 

## A Short History

***1977 Energy Commission created***
***1978 First standards adopted***
***1980’s Jerry Brown Commission pushes solar. ***
***1984 AB 163 standards take effect***
***1985-1988 Standards adopted for separate occupancies***
***1988 Custom budget approach adopted for residential***
***1992 Nonresidential reorganized and updated***
***1995 Minor Changes***
***1998 Lighting power limits lowered to be consistent with electronic ballasts and T-8 lamps***
***2001 AB 970 emergency regulations adopted and enforced***
***2003 The 2005 standards adopted***
***2005 The 2005 standards become effective***

**Notes:**
The first standards were adopted in 1978, shortly after the California Energy Commission (CEC) was created. The first nonresidential standards were an adaptation of ASHRAE 90.1-1975 – prescriptive in nature, requiring minimum insulation levels and equipment performance. Since then, the standards have been updated periodically (at least every 3 years) to embrace new design strategies and to reflect maturing technologies. The CEC has maintained prescriptive and performance standards for both residential and nonresidential buildings, as required by statue. 
The last standards update responded to the California electricity crisis in 2001. The savings associated with the 2001 update were estimated to be 176 GWh/y and 218 MW/y (Eley 2001).  These changes were adopted on an emergency basis and took effect in June 2001. 

## A Breakdown of the 2005 Savings

***2004-2005 Efficiency Program Portfolio: 3913 GWh, 792 MW, 56 Mth***

**Notes:**
The CEC estimated the savings potential from the standards by using both a prototype and database approach for residential buildings and a database approach for nonresidential buildings (Eley 2003). Table 1 summarizes the savings potential. Newly constructed buildings account for about 54.7% of the electricity savings, while requirements for building alternations account for 45.2%. The mix for demand savings is 60.5% for newly constructed buildings and 39.2% for alternations. 
Nonresidential buildings represent the largest savings for alterations and interior lighting accounting for the biggest share.  For newly constructed buildings, changes in the interior lighting standards generated the most annual electricity savings. Of the 262 GWh of estimated savings, 64.6 GWh are related to improvements in the residential lighting standards and 84.1 GWh are related to the nonresidential lighting standards. Interior lighting represents 57% of the total electricity savings. The remaining savings are related to improvements in HVAC design and performance, and building envelope changes.
 If the savings from the 2001 update are combined with the savings for the 2005 update, they total 654 GWh/y, 400 MW/y, and 10.3 million therms/y. 

## Impact Analysis using NRNC Database 

## California vs. ASHRAE 

**Scatter Plot of California 2001 and ASHRAE 1999**(Note T24 is the same as California 2001)

## Standards Change Process

**Notes:**
The process of developing the 2005 standards began almost immediately after the 2001 standards were adopted. The CEC selected a contractor team to provide support. A call for change ideas for the standards was issued in the fall of 2001. A wide range of stakeholders, including building industry groups, manufacturers, utilities, and environmentalists, developed change proposals for the standards. These ideas were evaluated in a methodical manner; the ones that passed an initial screening were further evaluated; and the ones that were still considered viable after additional study were incorporated into the standards and the associated Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manuals.  Specific 2005 changes to the standards are discussed later in this paper. 
Way before this process begin, PG&E, through the CASE program was doing research on TDV and other issues. 

## Template for Standards Change Ideas

- Energy and non-energy benefits
- How Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) would affect the benefits
- Any potential adverse environmental impacts
- Type of change (e.g., mandatory measure, prescriptive requirement, compliance option, or modeling procedure)
- Market availability of the measure and cost estimate
- Useful life, persistence, and maintenance implications of the measure
- Performance verification that would be needed to ensure that the measure is properly installed and/or performs as designed
- Analysis that would be necessary to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the measure
- Analysis tools would be needed to quantify the energy savings and peak demand reductions
- Relationship of this measure to other measures
- Existing research studies or reports on the measure, research that is currently underway and additional research/analysis that would be needed.

**Notes:**
The entire building industry in California was invited to suggest changes to the standards. Each person was asked to prepare a code change proposal in a consistent format. 
To develop the 2005 standards, an extensive public process was held to identify proposals for changes to the standards, to review the technical and cost analysis of potential changes, and to obtain public comment on multiple drafts of standards language. The CEC held 16 full days of public workshops during this process, including discussions on outdoor lighting.

## Screening the Proposals

- A total of 270 code changes were proposed
- About 1 in 10 were selected based on methodical screening
- Screening criteria developed, including:
- Energy savings
- Demand savings
- Commitments and previous investments
- Market availability
- Resources
- Responsibility for analysis and development of measures shared with CEC contractor, utility partners and other interested parties

**Notes:**
CEC staff, contractors, and stakeholders proposed more than 270 changes. Pursuing all 270 measures was not possible given finite resources and fixed schedule, so the CEC and its contractors screened each of the code change proposals based on a number of criteria with particular emphasis placed on the following considerations:
Based on that review, the CEC chose about one proposal in ten for additional feasibility and cost effectiveness analysis. However, many of the original ideas were related in some respect to the subset of code change ideas selected for more extensive evaluation and thus were included. Further work to develop the selected subset of ideas was funded by the CEC and through California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) public goods charge funds. The CEC also placed priority on some additional proposed revision areas that were beyond the resources of the CEC and utilities to develop – inviting private proponents of those revisions to sponsor completion of the evaluation and developmental work. 

## Criteria for Cost Effectiveness Established 

- Two methods permitted: hourly life-cycle cost method or annual life-cycle cost method
- Assumptions agreed to:
- 3% discount rate
- 15 year life assumed for nonresidential lighting and HVAC measures
- 30 years assumed for residential and nonresidential building envelope
- Price projections for electricity and natural gas are taken from the CEC forecasting group.
- Present value of electricity savings $1.37/kWh and $7.30/therm for 15 years and $2.10/kWh and $12.64/therm for 30 years

**Notes:**
By contrast, the ASHRAE 901 standards were based on $064/kWh and $4.48/therm 

## Feedback on the Process

- "the CEC has set a whole new precedent where the proposals that were put forth were asked to not only be cost effective, they were asked to account for market conditions, demonstrate that the measures were ready for prime time, that the market was mature enough. .”
- "It's been extremely well organized, considering the vast number of questions, different issues, and everything else that have come up. .”
- "This has been a long road and I think it's been actually a very positive and cooperative road ...”
- "The changes that are proposed are very comprehensive, covering all areas of energy use including the building shell, the lighting, HVAC, and building controls ... “

## Collaborating with the Utilities

- PG&E Codes and Standards Enhancements (CASE) Program sponsored many of the code change initiatives, including Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)
- Model for collaboration between policy makers and utilities
- Measures encouraged by utility programs until they are “mature” and then they are incorporated in codes and standards
- CPUC policy shifting (information to rebates to resource acquisition to market transformation)

**Notes:**
Of the standards changes that were extensively evaluated by the CEC during the revision process, many were sponsored by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) through its statewide public goods funded Codes and Standards Enhancements (CASE) program. The collaboration is an excellent example of how public and private interests can work toward a common good. One of the more significant outcomes of the partnership was the change from source energy to TDV. It also shows how utilities can enhance the standards improvement process to an extent greater than the CEC or environmental interest groups can do alone.
In the late 1970s, subsequent to the first national energy crisis, the CPUC formally ordered the state’s investor-owned utilities to offer energy-efficiency programs. These early programs were mostly informational and educational (energy-efficiency audit based). Financial incentives (rebates) were added in the mid 1980s to help influence consumers to purchase more efficient products than they would otherwise have selected for their homes and commercial buildings. By the early 1990s, when utility energy-efficiency programs reached their highest level of sophistication and effectiveness, PG&E program developers recognized an evolutionary improvement model, which took improvement opportunities from the research and development phase, through demonstration, commercialization, and incentives to help build market share, to widespread acceptance and eventual inclusion in applicable codes and standards.
The CPUC’s regulatory policy goal of the early 1990s was one of “resource acquisition,” where utilities were rewarded for influencing the selection of appliances, building materials, and design practices that were more efficient than the standard (or what would otherwise have been selected). With savings estimates based on the standards, it was not particularly in utilities’ self-interest to pursue raising the standards, as that would reduce savings and the utilities’ rewards for their efforts. Nonetheless, PG&E efficiency program managers aided the CEC on an ad-hoc basis by providing information on the market effects and results obtained through the efficiency incentives programs. This information and advocacy aided the CEC’s staff in supporting arguments for improving the standards.
In the late 1990s, the regulatory policy goal changed from resource acquisition to market transformation. In this paradigm, the objective was not so much to count the “widgets” with their associated savings, but to bring about a permanent improvement in efficiency where support for building the market for greater efficiency through incentives could be eventually eliminated by an “exit strategy.” With utility rewards no longer tied to savings measured against a baseline, PG&E program planners reasoned that program effectiveness in the market transformation paradigm would be greatly enhanced by a more focused codes and standards improvement effort.
PG&E’s energy standards program was proposed to the CPUC in October 1997. It offered to form the foundation of market transformation efforts at PG&E by focusing on capturing the fruits of equipment, materials, and design practices market transformation program work in the appropriate state and federal energy standards. PG&E had done a good job in the past of working with the CEC and other standards-setting bodies, but these ad-hoc efforts could be made more effective if a focused program were initiated, featuring better representation and the development of technical supporting material that would be better integrated into the energy-efficiency standards modification processes. 
In particular, this program planned to address the idea of changing the economic basis of Title 24 from “Source Energy Values” to “Seasonally and Time Differentiated Source Energy Values,” which later became known as Time Dependent Valuation (PG&E 2002). This peak demand reduction initiative later became particularly important relative to the California electric energy crisis of 2001. TDV was probably the single most significant change to the 2005 efficiency standards, and the first major revision to the economic basis of the standards since they were developed in 1978. This change was proposed by PG&E primarily to try to provide increased utility electric and gas asset use (by building) for inclusion in the energy code with an emphasis on decreasing demand relative to overall energy use. The resulting economic benefits would be returned to customers through the lower costs associated with the need to provide facilities of high capacity – where the cost of high capacity facilities is largely recovered over a long time, based on the total energy delivered and sold through them. 

## Highlights – All Buildings

- Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)
- New Water Heater and Air-Conditioner Standards

**Notes:**
TDV. Source energy (which has served California well) was replaced with TDV energy. TDV energy values energy savings greater during periods of likely peak demand, such as hot summer weekday afternoons, and values energy savings less during off peak periods. TDV gives more credit to measures such as daylighting and thermal energy storage that are more effective during peak periods. 
New Water Heater and Air-Conditioner Standards. Coincident with the 2005 standards, new standards for water heaters and air conditioners took effect. These changes affect all residential buildings but also affect many commercial buildings that use water heaters and/or “residential size” air conditioners. 

## Highlights – Residential Buildings

- Efficient Lighting
- Duct Insulation
- Pipe Insulation
- Loopholes Closed
- Replacement Windows
- Duct Sealing
- Compliance Credit
- Third-Party Field Verification

**Notes:**
Efficient Lighting. High efficacy lighting (e.g., fluorescent) is required for all permanent lighting applications or controls; high efficacy is required in kitchens; high efficacy or motion sensor is required in bathrooms, utility rooms, garages, laundry rooms; high efficacy or combined photo sensor/motion sensor is required for exterior lights; high efficacy, or dimmer is required for other lighting; and airtight type IC luminaires are required in recessed ceilings.
Duct Insulation. Insulation levels depend on climate zones: R-4.2 is required for mild climates, R-6 is required for moderately hot summer and cold winter climates, and R-8 is required for deserts and mountains.
Pipe Insulation. Hot water pipes greater than 3⁄4 in. diameter in the kitchen are required to have an inch of insulation.
Loopholes Closed. Credit is no longer given for reduced glazing area or for using a central water heating system in multi-family buildings.
Replacement Windows. These have to meet the same requirements as windows in new buildings. 
Duct Sealing. Ducts must be tested and verified to have low leakage when the air conditioner/furnace is replaced or ducts are replaced
Compliance Credit. High EER air conditioners, gas cooling, high quality insulation installation, properly sized air conditioners, efficient air conditioner fan motors, and ducts buried in attic insulation may be used to comply with the performance standards.
Third-Party Field Verification. Procedures for third-party testing and verification are improved, and new verification protocols are added to encourage quality insulation installation.

## Highlights – Nonresidential Buildings

**Highlights – Nonresidential Buildings**

- Water Cooled Chillers
- Cooling Towers
- Cool Roofs
- Acceptance Requirements
- Demand Control Ventilation
- T-Bar Ceilings
- Relocatable Public School Buildings
- Duct Efficiency
- Indoor Lighting
- Skylights for Daylighting in Buildings
- Thermal Breaks for Metal Building Roofs
- Efficient Space Conditioning Systems
- Unconditioned Buildings
- Compliance Credits

**Notes:**
Water Cooled Chillers. Large chilled water plants weighing more than 300 tons must be water-cooled.
Cooling Towers. The use of centrifugal cooling towers is restricted. 
Cool Roofs. The nonresidential prescriptive standards require cool roofs (high reflectance and high emittance) in all low-slope applications. The cool roof requirements also apply to roof replacements in existing buildings. 
Acceptance Requirements. Basic “building commissioning” is required for electrical and mechanical equipment that is prone to be installed improperly, such as economizers, daylighting controls, and occupant sensors. 
Demand Control Ventilation. Controls that measure CO2 concentrations, and vary outside air ventilation, are required for spaces such as conference rooms, dining rooms, lounges, and gyms. 
T-Bar Ceilings. Placing insulation directly over suspended ceilings is not permitted as a means of compliance, except for limited applications, since the suspended ceiling does not provide an adequate air barrier and insulation is not continuous. 
Relocatable Public School Buildings. Climate-independent insulation requirements are added for relocatable classrooms since they can be moved to any climate zone. 
Duct Efficiency. R-8 duct insulation and duct sealing with field verification is required for ducts in unconditioned spaces. This requirement applies to new buildings but also to existing buildings when the air conditioner is replaced. 
Indoor Lighting. The lighting power limits for interior lighting are reduced in response to advances in lighting technology. 
Skylights for Daylighting in Buildings. Skylights with controls to shut off the electric lights are required for top story of large, open spaces (spaces larger than 25,000 ft2 with ceilings higher than 15 ft).
Thermal Breaks for Metal Building Roofs. Continuous insulation or thermal blocks at the supports are required for metal building roofs. 
Efficient Space Conditioning Systems. A number of measures are required that improve the efficiency of HVAC systems, including variable speed drives for fan and pump motors greater than 10 hp, electronically commutated motors for series fan boxes, better controls, efficient cooling towers, and water cooled chillers for large systems. 
Unconditioned Buildings. Lighting controls and power limits apply to unconditioned buildings, including warehouses and parking garages. Lighting power tradeoffs are not permitted between conditioned and unconditioned spaces.
Compliance Credits. Compliance credit established for gas cooling and underfloor ventilation.

## Cool Roofs

- In 2001, a credit for cool roofs was added that can be used with both the prescriptive overall envelope approach and the whole building performance method
- In 2005, Cool roofs will became a prescriptive requirement for low-slope applications

**Notes:**
Cool roofs have both a high reflectance and a high emittance. The high reflectance keeps much of the sun’s energy from being absorbed and becoming a component of heat transfer. The high emittance assures that when the roof does warm up, its heat can escape through radiation to the sky. Cool roofs were not previously considered in the standards. 

## Skylights in Large Open Spaces

- Applies to spaces larger than 25,000 ft2
- Automatic controls required
- Minimum area depends on light transmission of the glazing and well factor

**Notes:**
This is a significant new prescriptive requirement. 

Think Home Depot, or large manufacturing space. And other large single story spaces.  

Automatic control can be a timeclock or photocell.

There is also a minimum skylight area requirement that depends on the light transmission of the skylight in addition to the well factor. The well factor depends on the geometry and reflectance of the skylight well. This is published by the IES. 

Currently can get credit for skylight and lighting savings. But in 2005 won’t be able to get credit because skylights will be the baseline.

## Performance Verification of Nonresidential Systems and Equipment

**Outdoor Air Systems**
- Variable Air Volume Systems
- Constant Volume System
- Constant Volume Packaged HVAC Systems
**Air Distribution Systems**
**Lighting Control Systems**
- Automatic/Manual Daylighting Controls
- Occupancy Sensor
- Automatic Time Switch
**Air Economizer Controls**
**Demand Control Ventilation**
**Variable Frequency Drives**
**Hydronic System Controls**
- Variable Flow Controls
- Automatic Isolation Controls
- Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls
- Water-loop Heat Pump Controls
- Variable Frequency Drive Controls

**Notes:**
“Part-way to commissoining” requirements. 
Actually called “Acceptance Requirements” in the Standard. 
Defined as the application of targeted inspection checks and testing to determine whether specific building systems conform to the criteria set forth in the Standards and to plans or specifications 
Can be performed by the contractor. A certification form must be signed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
NJ.3.1 Variable Air Volume Systems Outdoor Air Acceptance
NJ.3.2 Constant Volume Systems Outdoor Air Acceptance
NJ.4.1 Constant Volume Packaged HVAC Systems Acceptance
NJ.5.1 Air Distribution Acceptance
NJ.7.1 Economizer Acceptance
NJ8.1 Packaged Systems DCV Acceptance
NJ9.1 Supply Fan Variable Flow Controls
NJ10.1 Variable Flow Controls
NJ10.2 Automatic Isolation Controls
NJ10.3 Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls
NJ10.4 Water-loop Heat Pump Controls
NJ10.5 Variable Frequency Drive Control

LIGHTING SYSTEMS
NJ6.1 Automatic Daylighting Controls Acceptance
NJ6.2 Occupancy Sensor Acceptance
NJ6.3 Manual Daylight Controls Acceptance
NJ6.4 Automatic Time Switch Control Acceptance

## Cooling Towers and Hydronic Measures

- New in 2005
- Chilled water plants  300 tons may have no more than 100 ton air cooled chillers
- Variable fluid flow required for CHW and HW systems serving more than three control valves.
- VFDs on CHW pumps  5 hp in variable flow systems

**Notes:**
In the 2005 Standard anything more that 300 tons will have to be water cooled. 

## Update of Lighting Power Densities

- Efficacy of fluorescent lighting is improved with premium T-8 and T-5 lamps and ballasts
- Ceramic metal halide lamps are available that may be used in display lighting applications.
- Pulse start metal halide is the industry standard.

**Notes:**
Eliminate Retail from Complete Building Approach (Public Comments - Farber)
Eliminate Credit for Low LPDs in Merchandise Sales Areas (Public Comments - Farber)
Establish Limits for Wall Display Lighting (Public Comments - Farber)
Eliminate Feature Sales Display Credits ( Public Comments - Farber)
Public Display Credit (Public Comments - Farber)
Tailored LPD Approach (Gabel) 

## Outdoor Lighting

**Outdoor Lighting**

- Lighting Power Limits
- LZ1 - State and national parks, recreational areas, wildlife preserves,
- LZ2 – U.S. Census rural areas.
- LZ3 - US Census urban areas
- LZ4 - special districts
- Shielding

**Notes:**
Lighting Power Limits. The standards set limits on the power that can be used for outdoor lighting applications such as parking lots, driveways, pedestrian areas, sales canopies, and car lots. The limits vary by lighting zones that recognize varying ambient levels in nature preserves, rural areas, urban areas, and areas with high intensity nighttime use. Lighting power tradeoffs are not permitted between outdoor lighting and indoor lighting.
Shielding. Luminaires in hardscape areas larger than 175 W are required to be cutoff luminaries, which will save energy by reducing glare.

## Signs 

| Type | Allowed Lighting Power |
| --- | --- |
| Internally Illuminated | 12 W/ft2  |
| Externally Illuminated | 2.3 W/ft2  |

**Notes:**
Lighting Requirements. Lighting power limits or alternative equipment efficiency requirements apply to externally and internally illuminated signs used either indoors or outdoors. 

## Summary

- New power plant is deferred every nine months
- California 2001 is about 12% more stringent than ASHRAE 1999/2001
- California 2005 is about 11% more stringent than California 2001
- California 2005 is estimated to be about 20% more stringent than ASHRAE 1999/2001

***Raising the bar***

**Notes:**
The average power plant in California is about 250 MW  300 MW. The CEC estimates that the 2005 standards will reduce growth in demand by 181 MW. If these savings are combined with the recently adopted 2001 standards, peak demand is reduced by 400 MW every year. This means that every nine months, California can defer construction of a new power plant from these changes alone. Not only are these changes good in terms of the electricity grid, they also save owners money and create buildings that are more comfortable and productive. 
The process pursued in California is a model for how utilities can work with state energy offices to develop more effective standards. Indeed, the process shows how all stakeholders can be more effectively engaged in the process and encouraged to work more cooperatively with the standards writers. 
The California standard breaks new ground in a number of significant ways. TDV provides a better “currency” for performance evaluation, giving proper weight to design strategies and technologies that reduce peak demand. Extending the role of third-party inspectors (HERS raters) takes a burden from building officials and brings better diagnostic and verification skills to the code enforcement process. Nonresidential requirements for acceptance testing add verification and testing requirements to building equipment and controls that are prone to failure. Requiring skylights (with lighting controls) in large, high volume spaces breaks the paradigm of restricting glass and moves toward encouraging low-cost integrated solutions. New requirements for chilled water plants for the first time require large plants to be water cooled, restrict the use of centrifugal cooling towers, and encourage many other energy efficiency measures. Outdoor lighting and signs are regulated in California for the first time and the concept of lighting zones is introduced, whereby less lighting is permitted in areas with ambient darkness. 
The California 2001 standard has been shown to be about 12% more stringent than American Society of Heating Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-1999/2001 (Eley 2001). The changes discussed in this paper result in an additional 10.7% improvement between the California 2001 and 2005 standards.  This means that the 2005 California standard is more than 20% more stringent than ASHRAE. California has clearly shown that this level of stringency is cost effective, justified, and even supported by the building industry. This raises the bar for ASHRAE Standard 90.1, the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and other organizations. 

## Where to Get More Information 

- General Title 24 Information: _http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/index.html_
- 2005 Title 24 Update:_http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_standards/index.html_
- Outdoor Lighting: _http://www.energy.ca.gov/outdoor_lighting/index.html_
- Support Documents for the AB 970 Changes: _http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/associated_documents/index.html_