A4ri-3rSl -7ttr£M

Reference NBS

Pubii - cations

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

II II II AlllOb T7A74S

ISiBSIR 78-1489

Building Regulatory Data

Analysis National Solar

Heating and Cooling

Demonstration Program

Progress Report - From

Inception through September

30, 1977

Joseph Greenberg

Sandra Berry

lleana Martinez

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

June 1978

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20234

and

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Conservation and Solar Applications

J.S. Department of Energy

06 Washington, D.C. 20545

100

1)56

78-1489

isffoita? tsrean of Standards APR 1? W§

NBSIR 78-1489

4 * I BUILDING REGULATORY DATA

ANALYSIS NATIONAL SOLAR

HEATING AND COOLING

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

PROGRESS REPORT - From

Inception through September

30. 1977

Joseph Greenberg

Sandra Berry

lleana Martinez

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1 978

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

and

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Conservation and Solar Applications

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20545

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director

NBSIR 78-1489

BUILDING REGULATORY DATA

ANALYSIS NATIONAL SOLAR

HEATING AND COOLING

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

PROGRESS REPORT - From

Inception through September

30, 1977

Joseph Greenberg

Sandra Berry

lleana Martinez

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1 978

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

and

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Conservation and Solar Applications

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20545

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kr©ps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Project Description 3

3. Methodology 5

4. Identification of Data Sources and Instruments Applicable to

the Solar Regulatory Study 10

4.1 Residential Program 10

4.2 Commercial Program 15

5. Status of Data 19

5.1 Residential Program 19

5.2 Commercial Program 27

6. Analysis of Code Data 32

6.1 Residential Solar Demonstration Sites 32

6.1.1 Distribution of Sites 32

6.1.2 Distribution of New and Retrofit Sites 42

6.1.3 Conclusion 45

6.2 Commercial Solar Demonstration Sites 45

6.2.1 Distribution of Sites 45

6.2.2 Distribution of Building Type 52

6.2.3 Conclusion 55

/. Preliminary Results and Future Actions 5 6

8. Summary 58

APPENDIX I Data Collection Instruments

APPENDIX II Literature Survey 96

APPENDIX III Building Regulatory Process 106

i
FIGURES

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Page

Project Methodology 6

RERC Data Collection Instruments 11

AIA/RC Data Collection Instruments 14

HUD/Boeing Data Collection Instruments 16

PRC Data Collection Instruments 18

Statewide and Major Cities Building Codes: Technical Basis

for Regulations in Exi st ence (Map ) 33

Residential Program Site/Population Distribution in Cycles . . 41

1,2, 3 (Total New and Retrofit Sites)

Residential Program. Site/Population Distribution in Cycles . 43

1, 2, 3 (Total New Sites)

Residential Program. Si te/ Popula t i on Distribution in Cycles . 44

1, 2, 3 (Total Retrofit Sites)

Commercial Program. Si te/ Population Distribution in Cycles . 5C

1, 2 (Total New and Retrofit Sites)

TABLES

Regulatory Data Summary - Residential Program - Cycle 1 .... 21

Regulatory Data Summary - Residential Program - Cycle 2 .... 23

Regulatory Data Summary - Commercial Program - Cycle 1 .... 30

Residential Program. Sites Per Cycle and Model Code Base ... 35

Residential Program. Building Code Distribution 37

Residential Program. Summary of Code Distribution 38

Commercial Program. Sites Per Cycle and Model Code Base .... 46

Commercial Program. Building Code Distribution 48

Commercial Program. Summary of Code Distribution 49

Commercial Program. Building Types by State in Cycles 1 and 2. 53
1 . INTRODUCTION

This report is prepared jointly for the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Energy (DoE) under activities

carried out by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) relative to the National

Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Programs. The report encompasses both

the residential and commercial building demonstration programs and covers the

period from project inception through September 30, 1977.

The effort expended during the period was in the identification and

organization of sources of material, in the establishment of a methodology

for processing data to be received from the demonstration programs relative

to the building regulatory process and in the preliminary analyses of the

sites selected for the early phases of the demonstration programs. In th-_

context of this report, it is to be understood that the building regulatory

process excludes zoning questions.

It had been hoped that some analysis regarding problems being encountered

in the field with code officials or barriers presented by existing codes and

standards would be included in this report. However, due to the scarcity of

this information during the time period covered, no analysis is possible. The

report, nevertheless, contains several observations relative to the building

regulatory process based on informal discussions with individuals collecting

questionnaire data during the conduct of the demonstration programs. In addition, the current status regarding the availability of information for both

the residential and commercial programs is reported.

This report also contains a preliminary analysis of the geographical

and code base distribution of the demonstration sites selected for both

the residential and commercial demonstration programs. This initial analysis identifies certain inconsistencies in site selection, from a regulatory

viewpoint, and recommends adjustments to be considered in subsequent cycles

of the programs

1
A brief literature search which addresses the problems of building

regulation as related to the installation and use of solar energy systems

is included as Appendix II. Although the literature cited points to codes

as barriers to solar technology and advocates a performance based solution,

the conclusions stated may not be supported by a subsequent analysis of the

data gathered under the demonstration programs. However, judgment must

be reserved until supporting data are gathered and analyzed.

2
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The objectives of this project are to work within the data gathering

mechanisms established by HUD and DoE for the solar demonstration programs

and to analyze this data and identify those aspects of the building regulatory process that needlessly inhibit, impede, or otherwise adversely affect

the installation of solar hot water systems and space heating and/or cooling

systems. In addition, definitive information will be compiled which will

provide useful input to appropriate standards generating committees, building

code promulgating organizations, and regulatory jurisdictions. This detailed

information will guide the building regulatory community in the United States

in creating a regulatory environment which will stimulate the acceptance of

the use of solar hot water systems and space heating and/or cooling systems.

In order to accomplish the above objectives, this project is designed

to provide

a. An analysis of the building regulatory waivers granted throughout

the demonstration programs to gain an insight into the technical

causes for these waivers, and to develop recommended solutions to

alleviate these regulatory constraints by identifying those areas where additional study is required.

b. An analysis of the response by the participants in the demonstration

programs as to their real or perceived regulatory problems encountered during the conduct of the programs and recommendations for

proposed solutions to alleviate these real or perceived regulatory

di f f i cul ties.

c. An analysis of the adverse impacts, if any, resulting from differences in various regulatory statutes by identifying these differences and providing recommended solutions. Toward this objective,

"A Survey of State Legislation Relating to Solar Energy as of 1975"

(NBSIR 76-1082) and "State Solar Energy Legislation of 1976: A

Review of Statutes Relating to Building" (NBSIR 77-1297) will be

useful in conducting this analysis.

3
The demonstration programs are structured in a series of cycles, with

various projects being awarded for each cycle. The HUD residential demonstration

program is expected to have 5 cycles, while the DoE commercial cycles probably

will not exceed 4. The analyses for this study are made on a cycle-by-cycle

basis, using site-specific regulatory and other related data collected under

both the residential and commercial programs. In addition, the effects of varying

time frames for the respective cycles will be considered to determine any regulatory impacts on later installations, if early difficulties with solar hardware

and systems are encountered. Consolidated non-cycle related studies will also

be prepared if meaningful assessments can be derived by such studies.

4
3. METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this project is formatted to take full advantage of

the various data bases established by HUD and DoE for the solar demonstration

programs. These overall data bases, when fully implemented, will contain a large amount of information and care must be taken to identify and capture

all pertinent information so that a proper study can be made. Caution must

be exercised, however, to establish a retrieval system that does not extract

needless or superfluous information - a process that is costly and time consuming

and one which makes the task at hand more difficult. The methodology described in this report is developed for the collection of building regulatory information, but could be used for the study of any other aspect of the

solar demonstration programs. The same methodology is used for both the

residential and commercial programs.

The specific methodology used is shown in flow chart form in Figure 1.

The identifying numbers are keyed to the flow chart in the following description:

(1) Identify Organizations Collecting Data - Each organization

collecting data for the demonstration programs is identified.

A single organization is performing this function for DoE in the

commercial program and several organizations are involved in the

HUD residential demonstrations. An understanding of each organization, its data collecting role, and its relationships to the other

organizations involved is essential.

(2) Identify Data Collection Instruments - Each data collection

instrument is identified. Since each instrument varies in style,

format and use, an overall understanding of these instruments

is required. Care must be taken to obtain the most current data

collection instrument in use and liaison was established with the

administering organization so that notification is received if any

changes are made to them. The NBS also expects to recommend change

(see step 10), as warranted, to the building regulatory information

being collected to assure that the information received is useful

to the analysis.

5
PROJECT

METHODOLOGY

A\

o

HJ O H <

pH H^hUH pr (j p ^ < w a; < J q

a o t-j .j M O

ANALYSIS

>

CIES

QUESTIONNAIRE
( 3 ) Identify Questions Applicable to the Building Regulatory Process - Each data collection instrument identified in step (2) is carefully

reviewed and questions pertinent to, the building regulatory process

selected as a primary information source for this study. The response

to these identified questions represents the limits to any analysis

made in the conduct of this study. However, the narrative responses

which are, in effect, open ended co;ld contain information which

is not anticipated.

(4) Identify Data Repository - Once the determination is made regarding

the questions of interest, the next step is to determine the

location of the completed questionnaire. In most cases, the

completed questionnaire is computer coded and the information

entered into the NBS Solar Data Base. In these cases, printouts

prepared for general use are made available for this study or special printouts requested. In some cases where the completed

source documents are not forwarded to NBS, arrangements were made

to obtain this data directly from the repository custodian.

(3) Establish Mechanism to Retrieve Data - Each source of data needed

for this study will have to be available for analysis. As notec

in step (4), some data come directly from the NBS Solar Data Basc- while other data come from different sources. In either case,

the frequency for the receipt of these data must be determined

and a mechanism developed to obtain the data in suitable format.

A balance must be achieved in querying the data source to establish

a frequency that is useful to the building regulatory process

study, yet not too burdensome and disruptive to the data custodian.

(6) Obtain Data - Data are received from the sources identified in step

(4) using the mechanism established in step (5) at the predetermined

f requency

7
(7) Analyze Data - The data are aggregated and when a meaningful sample

is obtained, it is analyzed. The analysis is oriented toward answer

ing the questions addressed in the stated objectives of this project

(8) Prepare Report - Once enough data are analyzed and meaningful

trends determined, appropriate NBS publications are prepared

to document these results.

(9) Identify Data Deficiencies - As data are received, deficiencies

may be noted and, if not corrected, will preclude the development

of reasonably reliable conclusions. Once deficiencies are identified, a feedback mechanism is set in motion to reassess

the situation and take corrective action. In addition, potential

data deficiencies may be identified through the development of

parameters for analyses (see step 12), by reviewing the applicable

questionnaires. Corrective action will be taken in this case. However, data may be of insufficient quantity to reach generally

valid conclusions.

(10) Prepare Recommended Changes to Questionnaire - This is accomplished at any point when it is felt the study lacks adequate

data, either as a result of an inspection of data received

or as a result of data requirements identified through analysis

of the source questionnaires. Recommendations are made to the

data collecting organizations to modify their data collection

instruments, including the rationale behind such requests.

(11) Monitor Status of Data - The collection of data by the appropriate

organization is monitored so that the NBS effort is guided

properly during the course of the study. Certain analyses

are not started if additional data are forthcoming shortly

or, conversely, analytical attempts are accomplished using only

the data at hand if no additional data are anticipated.

8
(12) Develop Parameters for Analyses - Based on the identification of

the applicable questionnaires relative to building regulations,

a preliminary attempt is made to determine the most meaningful

parameters to be studied and the combinations which might give

the best insight into satisfying the objectives of this study.

This parametric overview determines which data are important

to the study. Data not identified as being included in the

questonnaire are handled as noted in step (9).

9
4. IDENTIFICATION OF DATA SOURCES AND INSTRUMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE SOLAR

REGULATORY STUDY

This section addresses the establishment of the baseline sources for

this study and covers the first five (5) steps discussed under Section 3 - Methodology, and shown in Figure 1:

(1) Identify Organizations Collecting Data

(2) Identify Data Collection Instruments

(3) Identify Questions Applicable to the Building Regulatory

Process

(4) Identify Data Repository

(5) Establish Mechanism to Retrieve Data

These five steps are documented, based on information available as oi

September 30, 1977. Any changes in data sources or to the data collection

instruments that are noted during the conduct of this study will be

documented in subsequent reports.

4.1 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM

Each of the organizations involved in collecting data for the Residential

Solar Demonstration Program is identified separately. The data collecting

instruments are indicated and the specific questions directly applicable to

the building regulatory study are identified. Appendixes are included which

exhibit the instruments used and an inspection of these instruments gives an idea of the scope and depth of the questions.

4.1.1. Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC)

This organization prepared three volumes for use in the Residential Solar

Demonstration Program. These volumes, dated January 1977, are all non- technical in scope and are intended to document responses to questions oriented

toward marketing, the consumer, and the institutional sectors. The general

layout of these volumes is illustrated in Figure 2. A control mechanism is

built into several of the questionnaires in that visits are planned to

10
11
comparative organizations {i.e., organizations that are not directly involved

in the Residential Solar Demonstration Program) so that there is the potential

to analyze the perceived differences in reactions by the different organizations to a similar situation. For example, a solar demonstration builder

is asked if he has had any trouble in processing his plans and specifications

through a particular code approval process. The reactions of other builders

regarding their experiences with the same code officials on non-solar related

activities are also obtained. Although not all sites are visited, the questionnaires are answered in sets and data are gathered for all information

pertinent to a site. To illustrate, if a particular site is to be visited

at all, the builder, comparative builder, code official, tax assessor, etc.,

are all contacted and the respective questionnaires completed.

In addition to showing the three volumes to be used, Figure 2 illustrates

the various questionnaires contained in each volume. (Volume I, incidentally,

contains no questions.) There is a separate questionnaire containing numerous questions oriented toward "The Purchaser," "The Comparative Purchaser," "The

Prospective Purchaser," etc., and these questionnaires are listed on the chart.

Each questionnaire was reviewed to identify those questions containing useful

input to this study. The questions of interest are identified in Figure 2 and given in Appendix I-Section A. Of the 14 questionnaires contained in

Volume II, only four (4) questionnaries are directly relevant to codes and

standards. Furthermore, only one question within each of those four (4)

questionnaires relate to regulatory concerns. In Volume III, only one questionnaire of the eight (8) identified is of interest. However, this questionnaire,

"Local Building Code Official," is of interest in its entirety--all 56 questions

Appendix I-Section A consists of the pages of the RERC interview guide which

contain all the questions applicable to this study.

To receive the initial input to this study, contact was made with

RERC at the following location:

Real Estate Research Corporation

72 West Adams

Chicago, Illinois 60603

12
Arrangements were made with RERC to receive the initial data on an ad

hoc basis. Subsequent data could be received by tapping the KBS computerized

Solar Data Base, but initial efforts indicate some delay may be encountered.

This delay is due to the time lag between the period the data are collected

and the time required to code, transmit, input, and retrieve the data from

the system.

Section 5 of this report discusses the status of the data actually avai

able as of this reporting period.

4.1.2. American Institute of Architects Research Corporation (AIA/RC)

This organization developed a Design Integration Monitor's Handbook,

dated March 3, 1977. The handbook is divided into four (4) sections (see

Figure 3) and is oriented toward collecting a major portion of the technical

data for the Residential Solar Demonstration Program. Information collected

by AIA/RC using these forms is limited to those sites which have been fully

instrumented to collect detailed technical data. The data collected are coded by AIA/RC and the coded sheets sent for input into the KBS Solar

Data Base.

As noted in Figure 3, only two (2) sections of the four (4) that make

up the Design Integration Monitor's Handbook are applicable to this study

and each of the questionnaires contain only one question which provides

data. Appendix I-Section B shows these questions.

Contact was made with AIA/RC regarding this study. The original

completed questionnaires are maintained at:

American Institute of Architects Research

Corporation

1735 New York Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20006

13
14
A visit was made to AIA/RC and it was determined that data relative

to this study can be easily obtained by periodically searching the files

where the originals of the completed questionnaires are kept. These data,

of course, could be obtained through the NBS Solar Data Base. However, there

would be a time lag from the time the data are received until the data are coded and inserted into the NBS Solar Data Base. The file search method for

collecting these data from AIA/RC is quick, is not sensitive to errors

in coding, and requires a minimum of effort by AIA/RC personnel. This

method will be tried unless AIA/RC finds that it is interfering with its

operations, in which case, the data will be extracted from the NBS Solar

Data Base.

Section 5 of this report discusses the status of the data actually

available as of this reporting period.

A . 1 . 3 . U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Boeing

Additional documents identified as containing data pertinent to the

Residential Solar Demonstration Program are the Grantee Reports. Inspection

of these reports reveals that only one question (in Report No. 3 - Construction Report) is of interest for this study. Figure A indicates the four

(A) individual reports comprising the Grantee Reports and Appendix I-Section C shows the single question in Report No. 3 - Construction Report - that is

directly applicable to this study.

Coding sheets are submitted for inclusion into the NBS Solar Data

Base, and are used in obtaining input to this study. The status of these

data is discussed in Section 5.

A. 2. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM

A single organization is collecting data from the Commercial Solar

Demonstration Program, namely:

PRC Energy Analysis Company

8130 Boone Boulevard

McLean, Virginia 22101

15
16
The PRC developed five (5) data collection instruments (dated May 1977)

which are packaged as a series of documents. These documents are shown in

Figure 5 and the questions applicable to this study are identified. In the

various documents, a total of nine (9) questions identified in Appendix ISection D are of interest. Many of these questions are narrative in format

and do not lend themselves to computerized tabulation.

The data collected by PRC are not coded for inclusion in the MBS

Solar Data Base, and NBS deals directly with PRC to obtain the data.

Contact was made with PRC and arrangements established so that information

needed for this study is extracted by PRC onto a format developed by NBS

for this purpose. If this mode of operation becomes too burdensome to PRC,

alternative means will be developed.

Section 5 of this report discusses the status of the data available

regarding building regulations for the commercial demonstration program as o September 30, 1977.

17
18
5. STATUS OF DATA

This section reports on the status of questionnaire data and corresponds

to step (11) on the Project Methodology Chart (Figure 1) as described in

Section 3. Each organization identified in Section 4 was contacted and

asked to provide the status of responses for the questions identified

as pertinent to the building regulatory study. Arrangements were made with

these organizations to receive these data on an ad hoc basis with

a more formal arrangement to be definitized at a later date.

To organize the data for future analysis and maintain a system which

could include studies with time as a variable, information is presented

on a cycle-by-cycle basis. This is possible because each demonstration

cycle is sequential and falls within a specified time frame. The status of

information available is tabulated by cycle. Because of the limited data

available, it must be emphasized that this report makes no attempt to analyze

the regulatory environment relative to the demonstration program but rather

presents the data base available as of September 30, 1977. As the data base

expands, analyses will be made and as the data gathering is completed, final

results will be presented in subsequent reports.

5.1. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM

The information available for the Residential Solar Demonstration Program, as of the end of this reporting period is shown in Tables 1 and 2 for Cycles

1 and 2 respectively. The data include some general information (following

the Solar Grant Summary format), as well as the status of the availability

of completed questionnaires. The general information includes:

1. Project Location

State

City

2. Grantee

19
3. Housing Type

SFD - Single Family Detached

SFA - Single Family Attached

GAL - Garden Apartment and Low Rise

MFM - Multi-family Medium Rise

MFH - Multi-family High Rise

4. Construction

New/Retrof it

5. Number of Units

6. System Type

H - Heating

H/C - Heating and Cooling

W - Hot Water

7. Kind of System

A - Active

P - Passive

The specific information shown on the remainder of each chart indicates

the organization collecting the data and the exhibit description used throughout this report to identify each solar regulatory related question. Only

those sites that are part of the demonstration program as of September 30,

1977, are given and subsequent iterations will not include any sites that are eliminated from the demonstration program. Special analyses will be made

of situations, if any, where the sites were eliminated because of regulatory

issue s

Table 1 illustrates the data available for Cycle 1 of the Residential

Solar Demonstration Program. As can be noted, there are 41 grantees

identified and most of the available data are from the HUD Grantee Reports

(Appendix I-Section Cl). This question, in effect, queries the grantee on the code in force by the local jurisdiction. These responses are not of great

value in this analysis because the codes applicable to that site can be obtained

from other sources, although data from the grantee may give some indication as to the builder's understanding of the local building code. (A preliminary

study, using data from non-demonstration sources is included in Section 6 of

this report .

)

20
TABLE

1.

RESIDENTIAL

PROCRAM.

RECULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE

21

Ij|piin<i.1y u|B)|

<11

>|K H

0|
TABLE 1.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE 1

--

CONTINUED

22

Ref

rri

to

RuMhlte

In

Appendices )
TABLE

2.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE

CN

23

Infers

to

Exhibit*

In

Appendlc
TAELE

2.

RESIDENTIAL

FROGRAM.

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE 2' —

CONTINUED

24

Prf^r«

to

Exhibit*

In

Apprndli
TABLE

2.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE 2—

CONTINUED

25

H«t«rn

to

KxiilbllH

In

Append

lr<
TABLE

2.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

RECUT,

ATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE 2—

CONTINUED

26

Riifnra

to

Exhibits

in

Appandlraa
It can also be noted that only four (4) builders' questionnaires

(Appendix I-Section A1 ) and three (3) comparative builders' questionnaires

are available, and the two sets do not exactly coincide. There are, however,

eleven (11) Local Building Code Official questionnaires (Appendix I-Section

A5) available and this is encouraging as these questionnaires will be

a major source of input to subsequent studies. No data are identified

as being available from AIA/RC (Appendix 1-Section B) for Cycle 1.

With regard to Cycle 2 (Table 2), the only data identified as being

available through September 30, 1977, are twenty (20) sets of AlA/RC data

(Appendix I-Section B). No tabulation is presented for Cycle 3 and subsequent

cycles as no data are identified. Charts for subsequent cycles indicating

available data will be prepared, when appropriate.

5.2. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM

The information available for the commercial demonstration program as of the end of this reporting period is shown in Table 3 for Cycle 1. These data, following a PRC format, include some general information and

the status of the availability of completed questionnaires. The general

information includes:

1. Project Location

State

City

2. Collector Manufacturer

3. Building Type

Ail - Apartment, High Rise

AL - Apartment, Low Rise

AU - Auditorium, concert hall, convention center, theater

BC - Bowling center

BR - Bar, nite club

CF - Cafeteria

CH - Church

DR - Dormitory

DS - Department Store

ED - Educational facility (class rooms, lecture halls, etc.)

FS - Fire Station

27
GS - Gymnasium, sports arena

CL - Health Facility, clinic

HO - Health Facility, hospital

NS - Health Facility, nursing home

HM - Hotel/Mo tel

IH - Industrial Building, Heavy

IL - Industrial Building, Light

LA - Laboratory

LB - Library

ML - Shopping Mall

OH - High rise office building, over 3 story

OL - Low rise office building, 1 to 3 story

PO - Post Office

PS - Police Station

RT - Restaurant

SS - Small Store

VS - Variety Store

SM - Supermarket

WH - Warehouse

4. Kind of System

X - New

R - Retrofit

3. Collector Type

C - Concentrating

F - Flat Plate

P - Passive

T - Tubular

6. Collector Medium

A - Air

L - Liquid

S - Steam

7. System Type

H - Heating

C - Cooling

W - Hot Water

The specific information shown on the remainder of each chart indicates

the exhibit description used throughout this report to identify each regulatory

related question in the PRC questionnaire package. Again, only current sites

are included in each chart and subsequent iterations will eliminate those

sites that are no longer a part of the demonstration program.

28
Also included are those sites established under National Science Foundation grants, prior to the DoE Commercial Solar Demonstration Program.

As can be noted, there are fifty (50) sites identified with some data

available for fourteen (14) of these sites. Analysis of these data will

begin once received by NBS. Data are not available for subsequent cycles;

charts will be prepared by cycle at the appropriate time.

29
TABLE

'3.

COMMERCIAL

PROGRAM.

REGULATORY

DATA

SUMMARY.

CYCLE

30

Kefara

to

Exhibit*

to

Appen.llce*
31

Richland

gf>nrrnl

Flectrlr
6. ANALYSIS OF CODE' DATA

This preliminary analysis is made to assess the adequacy of the sites

selected for the demonstration programs from a building regulatory point of

view. Sites can be selected on a technical basis alone to demonstrate

various solar systems in different climatic environments, but consideration

must also be given to the regulatory thrust of this program. In this regard,

the site locations selected for the demonstration program are analyzed for

balance from a regulatory perspective and recommendations suggested for

future site selection in subsequent demonstration cycles.

Since very little questionnaire data are available, this study is being

made independently of the demonstration program data. As the location of the

sites are known, code information can be obtained for those locations from sources not dependent on the demonstration program. From one of these

sources^, an overview of statewide and major city building codes is presented

in Figure 6. The map is distorted from the usual geographic presentation

to depict the size of the states as determined by population. States with

regulatory codes based on the three nationally recognized model codes are

shown, as well as states with their own codes and states that have adopted

no statewide code. In addition, code information is also shown for major

cities. A tabulation is included in the legend to indicate the number of

states and major cities in each category.

6.1 . RESIDENTIAL SOLAR DEMONSTRATION SITES

6.1.1 Distribution of Sites

A large number of sites were selected for the Solar Demonstration

Program on the basis of various criteria. This section reviews the distribution of the location of these sites from one of these criteria, the buildin

regulatory viewpoint. A non-representative mix of site locations may provide

^NBSIR 77-1390 - A Preliminary Examination of Building Regulations Adopted

by the States and Major Cities, Patrick W. Cooke and Robert M. Eisenhard.

32

inadequate data to present a total and meaningful comparison. Moreover, the

conclusion reached may not be general in nature but biased and misleading.

The overview which follows attempts to provide general information relative to residential site selection for the 3 cycles already awarded. Table 4 is a tabulation of the various sites, by cycle, and state, indicating whether

the sites are retrofit sites or new sites. This breakdown is desirable for

any future analysis regarding codes as applied to new construction and/or

existing building construction.

Using the data shown on the population map (Figure 6), the building code

applicable to each state is identified. However, it is recognized that the

states listed as having no statewide code may in fact contain jurisdictions

which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model

codes. For the purposes of this study, these states are grouped separately.

The data tabulated in Table 5 shows that of the 50 States, ten (201) are covered by the Uniform Building Code (UBC); seven (14%) by the Basic Building

Code (BBC); three (6%) by the Southern Building Code (SBC); three (6%) by

a State building code; and 27 (54%) by no statewide code.

This type of analysis does not take population into account and since

the more densely populated states are better candidates for the exploitation

of solar energy (all other matters being equal), the analysis must somehow

be weighted by population.

A tabulation was added to Table 5 to show the various percentages

of population affected by the model codes. This indicates that 20 percent

of the population is influenced by the Uniform Building Code; 17 percent

by the Basic Building Code; 8 percent by the Southern Building Code;

16 percent by a state code; and 39 percent of the population live in states

that have not adopted a statewide code. These percentages, summarized

in Table 6, are selected as the comparison baseline.

34
TABLE 4. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM

SITES PER CYCLE AND MODEL CODE BASE

STATE

POPUL.

(mi 1 1

)

NUMBER OF SITES

IN CYCLE NEW SITESIN CYCLE RETROFIT SITES

IN CYCLE

B oil: :nc CODE BASED ON STATE NON.

1 2 3 Tot al 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 T oral UBC BEC SBC

AL 3.4 0 2 i 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 X AK 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X AR 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X AZ 1.8 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 X CA 19.7 3 11 9 23 3 3 8 14 0 8 1 9 X

CO 2.2 7 7 11 25 7 5 10 22 0 2 1 3 X CT 3.0 0 1 4 5 0 1 3 4 0 0 1 1 X DE 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 X FL 6.7 2 2 5 9 1 2 1 4 1 0 4 5 X GA 4.5 3 9 1 13 3 8 0 11 0 1 1 2 X

HI 0.7 0 3 1 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 X IA 2.8 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 X ID 0.7 0 1 2 3 0 1 i 2 0 0 1 1 X IL 11.0 1 0 3 4 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 X IN 5.1 0 1 10 11 0 1 9 10 0 0 1 1 X

KS 2.2 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 X KY 3.1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 X

LA. 3.6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 X MA 5.6 0 3 15 18 0 1 12 13 0 2 3 5 X MD 3.9 0 3 3 6 0 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 X

ME 1.0

j

i 0 1 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3

i

1 X MI 8.8

1 0 3 * 7 0 2 4 6 0 1 0 1 i X MN 3.6 ! i 4 3 8 1 4 3 8 0 0 0 0 X MO 4.6 0 1 6 7 ! o 1 5 6 0 0 0 0

i X KS 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V

KT 0.7 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 x NC 5.6 i o 6 4 10 0 6 4 10 0 0 0 0 X ND 0.6 i 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 X NE 1.5 j 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 X NH 0.7 i o 3 4 7 0 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 X

NJ 7.1

! 3 3 2 8 3 2 0 5 0 1 2 3 X NK 1.0 1 1 4 5 10 1 4 5 10 0 0 0 0 X NV 0.5 1 0 0 1 1 i 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 X NY 18.0

1 2 5 8 15 : 2 4 2 8 0 1 6 7 X OH 10.5 0 2 8 10

! 0 2 8 10 0 0 0 0 X

k J —K —J * These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one o£ tne nationally recognized model codes.

35
TABLE 4. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM

SITES PER CYCLE AND MODEL CODE BASE — CONTINUED

NUMBER OF SITES NEW SITES RETROFIT SITES BUILDING COD: POPUL. IN CYCLE IN CYCLE IN CYCLE BASED ON ! STATE (nn 1 1

STATE NONE

1 2 3 Bot a 1 1 4- 3 Tot al 1 2 3 Teal UBC be: S3 ^

OK 2.5 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0

"

_\* OR 2.0 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 X PA 11.7 2 3 8 13 1 3 5 9 1 0 3 4 X RI 0.9 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 X SC 2.5 2 4 3 9 2 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 X

SD 0.7 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 X TN 3.8 0 6 2 8 0 5 2 7 0 1 0 1 X TX 11.0 3 3 5 11 3 1 2 6 0 2 3 5 X UT 1.0 1 0 3 4 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 X VA 4.5 3 1 4 6 3 1 3 7 0 0 1 1 X

VT 0.4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 X WA 3.4 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 X VI 4.4 2 2 6 10 1 2 5 8 1 0 1 2 X WV 1.7 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 X WY 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X

TOT ALS 41 105 172 318 38 83 138 259 3 22 34 59 10 7 3 3 27

DC 0.7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 X PR 2.9 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 X VI 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X

TOTALS 42 106 172 320 39 84 138 261 3 22 34 59 - - - - -

* These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

36
TABLE 5. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM. BUILDING CODE DISTRIBUTION

CODE

L'BC (ICBC

bb:

1 BOCA

SBC SBCCJ

STATE CODE

NOSTATEWIDE

CODE

ft*

NO. OF STATES

I OF STATES COVERED BY CODE

10

TOTALS

:

27

20

14

54

50 ioo:

STATE/POP.

CA 19.7

IN 5. 1 KN 3.8 WA 3.4

LA 2.8 OR 2.0

NM 1.0 ID 0.7 MT 0.7

*AF 0.4

MI 8.8

NJ 7. 1 KA 5.6

VA 4.5

KD 3.9

CT 3.0

R1 0.9

FL 6.7

NC 5.6

GA 4.5

NY 18.0

OH 1C.

5

VI 4.4

PA 11.7

1L 11.0

TX 11.0 MO 4.6 TN 3.6

LA. 3.6

A1 3.4 KY 3.1

OF 2.5

SC 2.5 *KS 2.3 CO 2.2

RS 2.2 *AR 2.1 A2 1.8 W 1.7 NE 1.5 MI 1.0

L'T 1.0

HI 0.7 NH 0.7 SD 0.7 ND 0.6

DE 0.5

NY 0.5

VT 0.4 *WY 0.4

TOTAL POP.

(IN MILLIONS 1

39.6

33.8

32.9

77.5

I OF POP. COVERED BY CODE

20

17

NO. OF DEMONSTRATION

SITES

16

39

35

200.6 ioo:

126

I OF DEMONSTRATION

SITES COVEREl

BY CODE

40

318 ioo:

NOTE: This information does not include Puerto Rico (one Bite). District of Columbia (one site), Virgin Islands (no site).

* These states do not have residential sites.

** These states may contain Jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

37
Code

/ Population

Covered by

Code

% of

Demonstration

Site Covered

by Code

UBC 20 22

BBC 17 17

SBC 8 10

State Code 16 11

No Statewide Code*

39 40

Total 100 100

* These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantely

use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

Table 6. Residential Program

Summary of Code Distribution

It appears, from Table 6, that a reasonable overall selection of sites was made for the residential demonstration program, although more sites were chosen from UBC, SBC, and states that have no statewide code at the expense

of states that have written their own state codes.

The distribution of the number of sites by state population is charted

in Figure 7, where the number of sites for a particular location is plotted

against the population of the state. In Figure 7, the states are identified

by a code-related symbol. However, the site/population distribution is

code-independent. As such, this graph serves the dual purpose of showing

the overall distribution and, upon closer scrutiny, identifies the code

used in the state.

The general premise postulated is that, from a regulatory viewpoint, more demonstration sites should be selected from the most populated states.

38
To facilitate this analysis, a diagonal line was initally added to

the chart with a slope representing the number of sites to be included

in the demonstration based on the population percentage and the total

number of sites in the demonstration program to date. Since California

has approximately 9.8 % of the national population, it is reasoned that

9.8% of the sites should be in California or a total of 31 of the 317

sites currently comprising cycles 1, 2, and 3. The line was drawn fror

the origin through the coordinates representing 31 sites and a population

of 19.7 million. (Although the coordinates are off-scale in Figure 7 to give greater detail to the actual sites plotted, the slope indicated

uses the methodology described above.)

The resulting slope, however, is not unique to California, but in

effect is a constant slope for all states for the total number of sites

in the cycles plotted. However, since each state cannot have a fractional

number of sites, it is more appropriate to have a band-width (represented

by the shaded portion of the graph) than a single line which would in most cases represent fractional sites for a particular state. This wholeinteger band-width turns out to be 2 sites wide. For this study, however,

the band-width was doubled to a 4 site-wide dimension as representing a more reasonable area for analysis purposes, although any reasonable bandwidth would be appropriate and offer similar conclusions.

By viewing this presentation, and also referring back to the percentage

summary shown in Table 6, the following recommendations are offered with

regard to site selection for the remaining cycles.

Uniform Building Code Sites - Table 6 indicates a slightly higher

number of UBC sites than desirable. In attempting to approach 2' percent of the sites, in total, emphasis could be placed on selecting some sites in Washington and more in California (because these States

fall below the band-width shown in Figure 7) and conversely, few situs,

if any, should be selected in New Mexico and Montana. The selection of

sites in Arkansas (no sites identified in the first three residential

demonstration cycles) could also be considered.

39
Basic Building Code Sites - Table 6 indicates a good balance of the Basic

Building Code sites in relation to the overall number of sites, but

within that number the distribution could be adjusted slightly to provide

better coverage. For example, a heavier selection of sites could be

considered for Michigan and perhaps New Jersey for subsequent cycles,

while Massachusetts with its 18 sites appears to have a sufficient number

of sites for the overall demonstration program.

Standard Building Code Sites - The number of Standard Building Code sites

is greater than desired, as indicated in Table 6, and adjustments could

be made in site selection. In reducing the number of sites selected

for the next cycles, fewer sites could be selected in Georgia, while the

number of sites in Florida and North Carolina seem adequate for the first

three cycles.

State Code Sites - The sites using state codes are the least represented from an overall point of view. A heavier selection of sites from

New York would be in order, and some consideration should be given to

increasing the number of sites in Ohio, while, of course, increasing

the overall number of these sites from this group of states.

No Statewide Code Sites - Although the twenty-seven (27) no code states seem to be represented adequately as a group, as indicated in Table 6,

a study of Figure 7 indicates an inconsistent distribution as witnessed

by the number of states falling outside the band-width established.

Obviously, Colorado, with its 25 sites should not be a candidate for

additional installations. New Hampshire and South Carolina fall outside

of the band-width and could not be assigned too many additional sites.

On the other hand, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania,

and certainly Illinois are site shy in relation to the overall population

scheme. Mississippi, Arkansas, and Wyoming have no sites at all-a

situation which could be considered in the next demonstration cycle.

40
FIGURE

7.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

SITE/POPULATION

DISTRIBUTION.

CYCLES

41

POPULATION (

IN

Mil I

IONS }
6.1.2. Distribution of New and Retrofit Sites (Residential Program)

Since building regulations present different problems to the builders of new buildings as compared to the builder who must retrofit an existing building, it is also important to determine a proper mix of these units if any

meaningful conclusions are to be reached. There are five states which

have no new solar sites; however, there are a disproportionate twenty-nine

states that have no retrofit solar sites. Based on these figures, it

is recommended that greater emphasis be placed on the selection of retrofit

units and that the demonstration be conducted in states that have no sites presently assigned.

Figures 8 and 9 indicate the distribution of sites on a population

basis for new and retrofit sites.

The new site distribution chart (Figure 8) includes a band-width con- structed as previously described. The basis for this slope, however, is

the premise that new sites should constitute 50% of the demonstration

program and retrofit sites the other 50%. From Figure 8, it appears

that Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico, South Carolina, New Hampshire,

Montana, Tennessee, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina,

and Georgia perhaps contain too many new sites while Texas, Illinois,

and certainly New York could be said to be low on new demonstration

sites.

A plot of retrofit sites compared to population is also made and

included in Figure 9 and a band-width added using the slope as described

previously under new sites. It is recommended that retrofit demonstration

sites be selected in at least some states that presently contain none

and perhaps additional retrofit demonstration sites be assigned to Indiana,

New Jersey, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York and California.

42
FIGURE

8.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

SITE/POPULAT

TON

DISTRIBUTION.

CYCLES

43
FIGURE

9.

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM.

SITE/POPULATION

DISTRIBUTION.

GYCEES

S31IS dO H3aiAJHN

44

POPULATION

IN(

Mil

LIONS

)
6.1.3. Conclusion

Although a reasonable overall distribution of demonstration sites

presently exists, it is recommended that subsequent cycles be used to

adjust demonstration site locations, as indicated, to more closely approach

the population distribution of the United States. It is recognized that

the above recommendations are offered to provide the baseline for subsequent

definitive regulatory studies and that other conditions, such as technical,

climatological, geographical, political, and operational concerns may override

the recommendations offered. However, the regulatory component of this

project should be considered, and given appropriate priority.

6.2. COMMERCIAL SOLAR DEMONSTRATION SITES

6.2.1 Distribution of Sites

This part of the report reviews the distribution of the solar energy

commercial sites selected for the demonstration program and the adequacy of

the distribution for subsequent analyses of regulatory problems. The methodology used is similar to that described under the residential demonstration program with some changes in approach, as appropriate, as it is

recognized that the commercial program differs from the residential program,

with respect to types of installations, numbers of units, and variety

of applications.

The basis for this analysis is a tabulation in Table 7 of the various

states showing the distribution of the units per cycle for both cycles 1 and

As is done for the residential study, the applicable codes are indicated from

data contained in NBSIR 77-1390. Again, it is recognized that the states

listed as having no statewide code may in fact contain jurisdictions which

predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

However, for the purposes of this study, these states are grouped separately.

The data tabulated in Table 8 are developed using the same methodology

as described in the residential section. It shows the number of states

45
TABLE 7. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM

SITES PER CYCLE AND MODEL CODE BASE

STATE POPUL.

(mi 1 1

)

NUMBER OF SITES

IN CYCLE

NEW SITES

IN CYCLE RETROFIT SITES

IN CYCLE BUILDING CODE BASED ON STATE

* NONE

1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 . 2 Total UBC BEC SEC

- - - |

Hill j

AL 3.4 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 X AK 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X AR 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X A2 1.8 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 X CA 19.7 8 11 19 3 8 11 5 3 8 X

CO 2.2 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 1 1 X CT 3.0 2 4 6 1 3 4 1 1 2 X DE 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X FL 6.7 3 3 6 3 1 4 0 2 2 X GA 4.5 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 X

HI 0.7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 X IA 2.8 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 X ID 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X IL 11.0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 X IN 5.1 0

O 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 X

KS 2.2 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 X KY 3.1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 X LA 3.6 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 X

MA. 5.6 1 4 5 0 2 2 1 2 3 X MD 3.9 5 3 8 1 3 4 4 0 4 X

ME 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I TM" ' " 1

0 0 0 X

MI OD OO 1 3 4 1 2 3 0 1 1 X KN 3.8 4 2 6 3 2 5 1 0 1 X MO 4.6 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 X MS 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X

NT 0.7 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 X NC 5.6 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 X ND 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X NE 1.5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 X NH 0.7 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 X

NJ 7.1 2 2 4 2 1 3 0 1 1 X NM 1.0 2 3 5 1 2 3 1 1 2 X NV 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X NY 18.0 0 5 5 0 3 3 0 2 2 X OH 10.5 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 X

. - - -

1 i

* These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

46
TAELE 7. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM

SITES PER CYCLE AND MODEL CODE BASE — CONTINUED

NUMBER OF SITES NEW SITES 1 RETROFIT SITES I BUILDING CODE STATE POPUL. IN CYCLE IN CYCLE IN CYCLE BASED ON * (na 1 1

)

STATE NON!

1 2 Total 1 2 T c : a 1 1 2 Total ub: BBC SBC

OK 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X OR 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X PA 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X RI 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o X SC 2.5 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 X

SD 0.7 1 2 3 0 2 2 1 0 1 X TN 3.8 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 X TX 11.0 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 0 1 X UT 1.0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 X VA 4.5 3 1 4 2 1 3 1 0 1 X

VT 0.4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 X VA 3 .4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 X VI 4.4 c 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 X wv 1.7 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 >: VY 0.4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 X.

TOTALS 48 80 128 28 56 84 20 24 44 (0 7 J J 27

DC 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x PR 2.9 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 x VI 0.6 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 U_J X

TOTALS 50 80 130 29 56 85 21 24 1 45

-- - - - -

* These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.
TABLE B. COMMERCIAL PROGRAM BUILDING CODE DISTRIBUTION

NO OF STATES

2 OF STATES COVERED BY CODE STATE/POP. TOTAL POP.

(IN MILLIONS)

2 OF POE . COVERED BY CODE

NO. OF DEMONSTRATION

SITES

2 OF DEMONSTRATION

SITES covert:

BY CODS

lb:

•' 1 CBO

10 20

CA IS .7 IN 5.1 KN 3.6 WA 3.4 IA 2.8

OF 2.0

N“ 1 .0 ID 0.7 MT 0.7

*AF 0.4 35.6 20 35

eb: BOCA 1

MI 6.6

n; 7.1 KA 5.6 VA 4.5

MI 3 . 5 CT 3.0

R1 0.5

33.6 17 31 2 -

FLNCGafc .

'

16.6

STATE CODE

NY 1 6 . C OH 10.

5

VT 4.4

32.5 1C

NCSEAT •PA 11.7

IL i : . c TX 11 .c MC 4 .6 TN 3.6 LA 3.6

A1 3.4

ICY 3.1 •OF 2.5

SC 2 5 •MS 2.3 CG 2.2 KS 2.2

•AF 2.1 A2 1.6

VY 1.7 NE 1.5 •MI 1 .0 IT 1.0

H! 0.7

NK 0.7

SI 0.7

* KT 0.6 *DE 0.5

* N. 0.5

VT 0.4

•WY 0.4

TOTALS: 50 1001 200.6 1002 128 1002

This 1 nf orma t ion does not Include Puerto Rlro (one site), District of Columbia (no site). Virgin Islands (one site).

* These states do not have commercial sites.

** These Btatcs nay contain jurisdictions which predominantly use a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

48
covered by each code, the corresponding population and the number of sites.

The information is summarized in Table 9.

Code

% Population

Covered by

Code

% of Demonstration

Sites Covered by

Code

UBC 20 27

BBC 17 24

SBC 8 9 State Code 16 8

No Statewide Code* 39 32

Total 100 100

* These states may contain jurisdictions which predominantely use

a version of one of the nationally recognized model codes.

Table 9. Commercial Program

Summary of Code Distribution

This comparison reveals a disproportionate mix of commercial sites, as compared to the percentage of population covered by each code with the exception

of the Standard Building Code sites. The Uniform Building Code states seer,

to have too many sites, while the states with no statewide code and states

that have their own code are site deficient, from a codes and standards

viewpoint. Subsequent site selection could, of course, alleviate this situation.

To further analyze the distribution of the commercial demonstration sites,

a site/population distribution (Figure 10) is made as described in the residential section of this report. Again, a band-width of four sites is

49
FIGURE

10.

COMMERCIAL

PROGRAM.

SITE/POPULATION

DISTRIBUTION.

CYCLES

1,

2

(Tota

S31IS dO H38lMnM

50

com

a1

n

lurludlct

Ions

whirl,

predominantly

one

a

version

of

on.

of

the
constructed using a slope appropriate for the total number of sites in

the commercial program to indicate a reasonable tolerance for site distribution,

but as indicated previously, any reasonable band-width will give basically

the same results. Comments and recommendations concerning the commercial

sites are given by applicable codes:

Uniform Building Code Sites - A disproportionate number of sites fall

into this category. Sites selected for subsequent cycles could be proportionately fewer than selected for the first two cycles. New Mexico,

Minnesota and California may also contain a sufficient number of sites

for the entire demonstration and a more desirable choice would be to select

sites in Oregon, Indiana, and Arkansas, which contain no commercial sites.

Basic Building Code Sites - The number of Basic Building Code sites is

also excessive when compared to the percentage of the population covered

by the Basic Building Code. Figure 10 leads to the recommendation of

not selecting Maryland or Connecticut for additional sites, as well

as reducing the total number of sites to be selected for subsequent

demonstration cycles.

Standard Building Code Sites - The total percentage and the distribution of sites basing their regulations on the Southern Building Code

seems reasonable, and no changes are recommended.

State Code Sites - The selection of sites within these states should

be emphasized during subsequent cycles if a good mix of code data

is to be obtained. Additional sites could be chosen in Ohio

and certainly New York.

No Statewide Code Sites - These states also need emphasis for site

selection during the remainder of the commercial demonstration program. From an inspection of the site/population distribution

(Figure 10), the states with no commercial sites should be prime

candidates; namely Arizona, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, North

51
Dakota, Oklahoma, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and

certainly Pennsylvania. Additional sites in Illinois and Texas are also recommended.

Again, it must be stated that these suggestions are made with regard

to developing an adequate distribution for regulatory analysis purposes.

Compelling reasons could change this distribution if technical, climatological,

geographical, political, or operational concerns are warranted. In addition,

it is recognized that commercial solar demonstration sites may be difficult

to establish in certain states.

No analysis is made regarding the mix of new and retrofit sites. Such

an analysis is meaningless at this time, because of the relatively small

number of sites in the commercial demonstration program; however, for subsequent site selection, an attempt to achieve a proper balance of new

and retrofit sites could be considered.

6.2.2. Distribution of Building Type

Another parameter examined is the distribution of building types

(occupancy) within the commercial solar demonstration program. A larger

variety of building types over a wide distribution of locations is desirable.

These could demonstrate various technologies and applications and lay the

groundwork to assess any regulatory difficulties encountered because of

building usage.

The sites selected for demonstration cycles 1 and 2 are tabulated along

with building type (see Table 10). From this tabulation it appears that educational facilities (ED) and low rise office buildings, one to three stories

(OL) , are more than adequately represented. It would, of course, be impossible

(or perhaps even undesirable) to demonstrate each building type in each state;

however, a more homogeneous matrix should be developed through subsequent

site/building selection. Perhaps dormitories (DR), department stores (DS),

shopping malls (ML), post offices (PO), and supermarkets (SM) can be represented if the other parameters affecting site selection can also be satisfied.

52
TABLE

10.

COMMERCIAL

PKOGKAM

-

BUILDING

TYPES

BY

STATE

IN

CYCLES

1

AND

53
TABLE

10

CONTINUED

OTHER CM - |WH - -

SM = c

VS <r -»

ss - - -

RT - -

PS

—

_

= o

Cu o o

OL - -i — - - -

c - -

r = =

az in lr <

CM (N1

- - X

- - CM

<T - in

NS Cm

i

CM

OH - -O

= i

t c

SO u - in

, —

i m

cr. MT

t

>?

c

— CM — CM

<r

r~, «

cc O

! o

zc

i o c

= o o

O - -

o

i

I o

02 o

; c

< -

o

ji

o

J

< m

t L - ^

i

i

m

2C< o i

i C

3 C r-M 0- ~< —

<

C w

o- e ^ c r- O' m

(N N - O <*S N CO C o ^

o c-i —. — <r

<r -o O <T •— O

r~- o *£> C CM o

to

STATE

i-: x < o

O C cl. o: co C z X f- < w t- h 3 > £53 S3

CO

-J<

(—oH OX —

Q & >

<H

C

H

0£

III I < < < x

54

Apartment,

High

Rise

FS

-

Fire

Station

ML

-

Shopping

Mali

Apartment,

Low

Rise

GS

-

Gymnasium,

sports

arnui

OH

-

High

Rise*

Off

Auditorium,

concert

hall,

CL

-

Health

Facility,

clinic

over

3

story
6.2.3. Conclusion

The distribution of sites for the first two cycles of the commercial

demonstration program with respect to codes and standards is not generally

in accord with the population distribution of the United States. Moreover,

consideration should be given to diversifying the selection of building

type to demonstrate a broader mix of application. It is, therefore,

recommended that subsequent commercial demonstration sites be selected

to bring greater balance, if the technical, climatological, geographical,

political, and operational concerns can also be satisfied.

55
7. PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND FUTURE ACTIONS

Most of the data identified in Section 5 were not received as of the

closing date of this report. As indicated, contacts were made with

all appropriate data collecting organizations and arrangements were made

to receive these data. Upon receipt, data will be reviewed and the rest of the

methodology shown in Figure 1 implemented, including the analysis (step 7), the

identification of data deficiencies (step 9), the preparation of changes to

questionnaires (step 10), and the preparation of reports (step 8). The develop

ment of parameters for analysis (step 12) is, of course, not dependent upon

the receipt of data and can progress independently.

Although very limited data have been received, informal discussions with

individuals in the field indicate that very few problems are perceived in

the regulatory area. If these perceptions are correct, does this mean that:

(1) There are no problems with existing regulations and they are not,

and will not be a barrier to the development of solar applications as a vi able source of non-depletable energy?

or,

(2) Problems do not exist because the individual jurisdictions have

confidence in the system being installed because they have the endorsement and are under the sponsorship of the Federal Government.

or,

(3) The local jurisdictions are not perceptive enough to know they

might have problems because they do not really understand the solar systems

being installed (and there is a 100 percent auxiliary backup)? Will they

over-react, in a regulatory sense, in subsequent installations if presently

installed systems start to fail and complaints are received?

It is anticipated that as this program develops and hard data are received

an insight into the solar regulatory system will be achieved and enlightened

answers to the above questions forthcoming. On the other hand, attempting to

56
develop meaningful conclusions in the field of codes and standards from data

based on a Federally-funded demonstration program may be futile or not efiec

tive. It might be more productive to collect data from a more "real world

situation" by not relying on demonstration data at all, but rather on collecting

data from independent builders of solar installations and analyzing their

regulatory difficulties. An attempt will be made to address these issues

in subsequent reports.

57
8 . SUMMARY

As noted, the reporting period covered by this document is dominated

by initial planning and preparation to receive and analyze building regulator',

data. The time frame covered is such that the data collection effort

expended by the various organizations was just starting to become effective

as the initial flow of data appeared. The next thrust in this program,

as the data flow increases and the data base broadens, is the effective

gathering of these data and the initiation of preliminary analyses with feedback to the data collection system, as required, to assure a meaningful overall assessment.

58
APPENDIX I

SECTIONS A, B, C, D

59

APPENDIX I

SECTION A

Selected Questions from RERC Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Appendix

Reference Volume II

I. Al Single Family Builder /Developer Question 21e

I. A2 Comparative Single Family Builder /Developer Question 17e

I. A3 Multifamily Builder /Developer Question 20e

I. A4 Comparative Multifamily Builder /Developer Question 19e

I. A5

Volume III

Local Building Code Official Entire Questionnaire

(56 Questions)

60

21 . Did you hove ony problems with the following during the plonning and

construction phose of the project?

Yes No

o. Getting construction loans

for development 1 for solar houses 1

If yes, please explain

2

2

b. Getting permanent financing

for development 1 2

for solar houses 1 2

If yes, please explain

c. Getting zoning approval

for development 1 2

for solar houses 1 2

If yes, please explain

d. Getting site plans opproved

for development 1 2

for solar houses 1 2

If yes, please explain

e

C=£>

Obtaining approval from building inspectors

for development 1 for solar houses 1

If yes, please explain

f. Getting solar equipment

If yes, please explain

A.ppenefi* I A\ | “ FdmJ^ 0)Ui 1 Jer/Pc/eUpcr

61
II. PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT

A. Construction Phase

Now, I'd like to ask you o few questions about the construction phase of the development and the houses:

17 . Did you hove any problems with the following during the planning and

construction phase of the project? Yes No

o. Getting construction loans

for development 2

If yes, pluose explain

b. Getting permanent financing

for development

If yes, please explain

2

Getting zoning approval

for development I 2

If yes, please exploin

d. Getting site plans approved

for development 1 2

If yes, please explain

Obtaining opprovol from building inspectors

for development ] C^> If yes, please explain

Append<<lA2 “ Comparati/c Single Bui Icier ft); ft lof>c

62
SLO.

b. Getting permanent financing

for development

for solar ap*

If yes, please explain

Yes Nc

1 2

1 2

c. Getting zoning approval

for development 1 2

for solar opt. 1 2

If yes, please explain

d. Getting site plans approved

for development 1 2

for solar opt. I 2

If yes, please explain

e

Obtaining approval from building inspectors

for development I for solar apt. 1

If yes, please explain

2

2

f. Getting solar equipment

If yes, please explain

g.

Securing servicing for the solar units

If yes, please explain

h. Securing warrantees for the solar systems 1

If yes, please explain

Appends I A3 - Mulfi-Fin.'.ljBu'ilJ er De/e leper

63
II. PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT

A. Construction Phase

Now, I'd like to ask you c few questions about the construction phase o

f the development and the rental units:

19. Did you have any problems with the following during the planning ar construction p'ncse of the pro|ect? Yes No

a. Getting construction loans

for development 1 2

If yes, please explain

b. Getting permanent financing

for development

If yes, please explcin

Getting zoning approval

for development

If yes, please explain

b. Getting sire plans approved

for development

If yes, please explain

*=>

Obtaining approval from building inspectors

for development 1

If yes, please explain

AppfrtcU I A4 " CotopioVe. tlullz-Fd*;/'! Quildtr/D^elo^r

64
/ / / /

(Cycle (Grc~:l (Surveyee (Do - :

• dent.) ident.) ident.) Source)

Respondent 1D # {Circle one)

Porticipotinc Construction Lender EA Alternative Utility E Porticipotlng Permanent Lender EB Loco! Planning ''Zoning

Non-F'orticipoting Lender BC Officio 1 E Participating Insurance Co/Agency BD Loco! Buildina Code B Aux i I iary Ut i 1 i ty BE Official Loco! Tox Assessor E

HUD GRANT NO.

LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME OF RESPONDENT

TITLE NAME OF AGENCY/DEPARTMENT

JURISDICTION

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

DATE OF INTERVIEW

NAME OF INTERVIEWER

(Detoch ofter completing Interview)

Appends IA5

65
Rea! Estate Research Corporation

•tier TTh STREET N VV • WASHINGTON D C ?rr>

LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Real Estate Research Corporation is conducting a study of market acceptance of solar energy in residential dwelling units for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This research effort is part of a national demonstration program fo" resiaential solar heating and cooling. Part of our research is focused on the role of institutions which, moy or may not be involved in the development of solar energy in residential construction. In order to assess institutional response to solar energy we

are talking to representatives of banks, savings and loans, planning and zoning officials, tax assessors, utility companies, and others. Essentially, we are interested in finding

out what these institutions think about solar, what impact, if any, solar development

would have on the institution, and whether their existing or projected policies would

have a material impact on the development of solar.

66
/ / / /

LOCAL BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. PROFILE Oc BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION

1. Where is your department located within the government's organizational

structure ?

2 . This department is part of whc* level of government?

City

C ity/County

Regional

Other; specify

123

3. How many inspectors do you have in the department?

EXACT

A. Does your department have (an) established bjildino code(s'

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

12 (skip to o.e

3 (skip to Q . E A (skip to Q . £

5. What is (are) the name(s) of the code(s)?

67
6 . On wfiot code(s) is (are) it (they) modeled?

BOCA — Basic 1 A1A — National 2

SBCC — Southern 3 1C BO — Uniform 4 IAPMO — Uniform Plumbing 5 NFPA — NEC and life safety 6 ANSI 7 FHA-MPS 8 Other, specify Don't know/not applicable 9

Hov. closely does (do) your code(s) conform to the model code(s)?

Modeled with some variations Mandatory minimum

Mandatory

Don't know

Does not apply

Other, specify

1 (skip to G . 9) 2 (sk ip to G . 9; 3 (skip to Q . 9) 4 (skip to G.9,

5 (skip to Q . 9;

8. If not, how are buildings and structures evaluated with regard to public health and safety?

68
II. EXPERIENCE WITH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided c local builder with, o grant to install o solar system in one (or more: of bis residential units.

9. Are you familiar with the sola' house {s)/oparr me n t (s) that was (were; bjil’ w

o federal grant in your jurisdiction.?

Yes I No 2 (skip to 0.21;

10. Were any waivers requested to accommodate the solar system.'

Yes 1 No 2 (skip tc G . 12) Don’t know/not applicable 3 (skiptcG.12

Did no* onswe' 4 (skiptcG.12

Other; specify

If yes, please exptoin

11.

Were these woivers gronted?

Yes 1 Nc 2 Don’t know/no‘ applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

Please explain

12.

V.'ere any design chonges required prior to approval ?

Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

69
13. Were system opprovols hondled in the normot monner by regulatory

personnel or die special considerat ions prevail? Plecse exploin.

14. Was special training needed for regulatory staff or field inspectors?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please exploin

15. Were job site inspections handled in o norma! way or by special personnel?

Please explain

.

16. Were any additional job site inspections necessary?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please exploin

70
17 . Did it take longer to process the sola’ application than it would have

for conventional property?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other, specify

If "yes”, please explain

) 2 (skip to O . 19; 3 (skip to G . 1 9; A (skip to Q . 1 9;

18. If the time factor was increased, would this hold true for future residen applications using solar energy systems?

Yes 1 Nc 2

Dor,

1 * know/not applicable 3 Did not answer A

Other, specify

Please explain

19. Did the fact that the solar unit(s) was (were' funded by a federal ore"

impact the approval process?

Yes 1 Nc 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answe- A

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

71
20. Would the process hove differed for o solar unit built outside of the demonstration project?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

If "yes", please exploin

72
Ill

BUILDING CODE AND SOlA^ SYSTEMS APPLICATION IN GENERAL

21 Has your off ice/agency reviewed or processed on.y opp! leaf ions fo _ b- permits for other solor units ir, this jurisoictiori ?

Yes No

Don't know,/'not applicable

Did not answer

12 (skip to Q . 31

)

3 (skip to Q . 3 1

A (skip to G . 31 )

If "yes", how many and what type o

f units were they?

22. Were ony waivers requested to accommodate the sola' systemfs' ?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

12 (skip to G . 24

3 (skip to G . 24 4 (skip to G . 24,

If "yes", please explain

23. Were these waivers granted?

Yes 1 Nc 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer A

Other; specify

Please explain

73
Were any design changes required prior to approval?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3

Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explcin

Were system approvals handled in the normal manner by regulatory

personnel or did speciol considerat ions prevail? Please explain.

W'as special training needed for regulatory staff or field inspectors?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

If “yes", please explain

Were job inspections handled in a normal way or by special personnel?

Please expla in

.
28.

Were any additional jot site inspections necessary?

Yes 1 No 2 Don 1 ) know/not applicable 3 Did not answer A

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

29.

Did it take longer to process the solar opplicotior than it would have

fo' conventional property?

Yes No

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other, specify

12 (skip to G . 3 1

3 (skip to Q . 31) A (skip to Q . 3 1

If "yes", pleose explain

30.

If the time foctor was increased, would this hold true for futur e residentiol opplicotions using sole: energy systems?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer A Other; specify

Pleose explain

75
IV. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IMPACT ON BUILDING CODE

31.

Does your code contoin provisions for solar systems instol I at ion ?

Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

If "yes", please explain these provisions. (Interviewer obtain cooies).

32. Has yojr department studies the Cuestion of the potential impact o

; solar energy systems on the building coae ?

Yes 1 No 2 (sk ip to Q . 35) Don't knov*/not applicable 3 (skip to Q . 35; Did not answer 4 (skip to Q.35

Other; specify

33. V.'nat were the conclusions of the study? (Interviewer try to obtain copy of study)

.

34.

As a result of this study, have procedures or regulations been modified

or chonged to facilitate the installation of solar energy systems in residential developments?

Yes No

Don’t know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other; specify

Please explain

1 (skip to Q . 36) 2 (skip to Q . 36) 3 (skip to Q . 36) 4 (sk ip to Q . 36)

76
35.

Would such o study be useful?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not opplicable 3 Did not answer A Other; specify

36.

Are you seeking organizational certification, (product opprovo!) o

f c solar energy system as c prerequisite to issuing o building permit?

Yes Nc

Don't know/not applicable

Did not answer

Other, specify

12 (sk ip to Q .38; 3 (skip to Q . 36

A (skip to C .36,

If "yes", please explain who? type o

r approve! would be necessa - /:

37.

To which organ izat ion (s) would you look fo _ product opprovo!?

36. What kinds o

1 solar energy systems would have problems meeting code requirements? Why?

77
39. Does this jurisdiction require compliance with FHA-MPS?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

40.

Would there by building code problems in retrofitting c solar system

in an older structure?

Yes 1 Nc 2

Dor. 't know/not applicable 3 D .d not answer A Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

41.

Apart from norma! differences, would any unique considerations prevail

for a multifamily vs. single-family solar residence?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

42.

About how long does it take to get a major building code change approved?

Please explain.

78
43. Is enabling legislation necessary in order to omend or modify the building code ?

Yes 1 No 2

Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other, specify

If "yes", please explain the nature o

! this legislation and the administrative process

44. Are there administrative rules and regulations which could impede the widespread occep'ance o

r sola' energy systems in residenrio’ develocmen*

Yes 1 Nc 2 Don’t know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please explain

79
V. BUILDING CODE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

-45. V*ould you soy that the existing building code tends to encourage

or discourage energy conservation?

Encouroge

Discouroge

No impact

Don't know/not applicable

12

3 (skip tc G . 47; 4 (skip to G .47;

46. In who? way does the code encourage (or discourage' energy conservation;

47. Does the building department hove or es'ablished energy conse r va‘ion program that it promotes among builders in the area?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4

Other; specify

If "yes", please describe the program:

4S . Does an energy conservation, program exis* within the city - county

government ?

Yes 1 No 2 Don't know/not applicable 3 Did not answer 4 Other; specify

If "yes", please describe the program and its relation to the building

department:

80
VI. KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDES RE: SOLAP ENERGY SYSTEMS

49. How knowledgeable ore you and the others in you' department/ogenc y obojt residential solar energy systems?

Very knowledgeable 1 Somewhat knowledgeable 2 Slightly knowledgeable 3 Not at all knowledgeable A

Dor, *t know 5 Did not answer 6

Other; specify

52 . What is the eoucotiooal backa'ojno’ and training o

f the $tc tr avcilcb'e

to process applications dealing with sola: energy systems in residence' de ve I opment ?

51. V/here did you learn about solar energy systems?

Newspaper 1 Popular mogezines 2 Trode publications 3

Professional journals A Television 5 Rodio t

Other, specify

52. In your position, what major txerriers do you see today regarding builain codes which may impede the installation of sola: energy systems in your

jurisdiction ?

81
53. What problems do you foresee regarding building codes for the future application o

r residential solar energy systems in this jurisdiction;?

54. Please identify specific areas where assistance to the building official might be required for solar applications:

(Note to interviewer: cite these as examples)

Check

Training of Eval uotors, ''Inspectors 1 Manuals o

c Accepted Procfice 2 Inspection Guiaelines 3

Certification; 4

Technical Support 'Additional Staff 5 Mode: Codes 'Ordinances 6

Others, please explain

55. What specific kinds of information do you need to make a better decision regarding solar systems applications in residential development?

82
56. To which o

1 the following sources would you normally look for buildino code issues related to solar energy systems? Please rank them, by oroeof importance.

Rani

Trade Publications Banks Developers

Manufacturers

National/Local Associations

Universities & Independent Organizations

Government Agencies

Other; specify

Note to Interviewer: Ootoin copies of all building code regulations and related mcte-i- applicable for solar energy systems in residential development.

END OF INTERVIEW

Time elopsed

Comments

83
APPENDIX I

SECTION B

Selected Questions From AIA/RC Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Appendix

Ref erence

I. B1 Building and Site Description

I. B2 Design Process Data

Page A-2

Page C-ll;

Question 19

84
TYPE OF SO^AR SYSTEM INTEGRATION

. . The design is:

( ) o new design

( ) on odoplolion of an existing desio"

( )o retrofit, original building completed, 19 REGULATORY CODES

. The applicable codes are:

( ) state

( ) local

( ) otner (specify)

NAME OF STATE OR LOCAL CODE/REGULATI0’

. Building

Edition (Yea')

. Mechanical

. Electrical

- Piumbing ’ *

. Other

MODEL CODES WHICH ARE THE BASIS FOR REGULATIONS

NOTE: Use abbreviations from below

. Building

. Mechanical

. Electrical

. Plumbing

. Other (specify)

Abbreviations

ICBO - Uniform

BOCA - Basic Building Code

SBCC - Southern Building Code

AIA - National Building Code

HUD - Miinimum Property Standards

NON - None

OTH - Other (specify)

Edition (Year)

A - 2 page 2 of 6 App<r\dtklE) | ' Building Site De-Jcr«pf/<?n

85
IB. Did the use of solar energy affect the specifications normally used by the

buil der/developer?

{ ) no (go to Q.19) ( ) yes. How were they affected and why?

How

:

why =

i5. Did the governing building code or other regulations affect the cesicr. of the building specifically relate to the use of solar energy?

( ) no (go to Q. 20) ( ) yes. What was the effect?

20. Did the cost of the solar syster affect the design of the building?

( ) no (go to Q.21) ( ) yes. What was the effect?

21. Was energy conservation considered during the design process?

( ) no

( ) yes, the building was designed to require % less energy for space heating than buildings normally built by the buiider/devolcper

.

Why was this done? Was it a direct result of the use of solar enercy?

What techniques, methods, products or devices were used?

( ) yes, other (specify what, why and how)

AppcnJirl B 2

C - 11 Proc^sy Daf**

86
APPENIDX I

SECTION C

Selected Questions From HUD/Boeing Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Appendix

Reference

I . Cl Report No. 3, Construction Report Page 3;

Question Od
Q d. Building Code:

Page 3

Name of Local Building Code:

Is this code based on a National Model Code:

Yes ( ) ; No ( )

If "Yes", which Model Code:

e . Back-up System E nercv

1) Back-up system energy used. Name & Address of Utility

Company or Supplier

a. Gas ( )

b. Electric ( )

c. Fuel Cil ( 1

c. Otner ( )

Identify type: (Propane, Wooc, Coal, etc..

2} Rate Structure requested:

3) Rate Structure granted:

4) Current Cost of Fuel Oil or other:

5) Experience (including problems, if any) in obtaining back-up

energy:

l=£>

1 )

2 )

Appendix IC I ~ Report *3 ' Construction Report

88
APPENDIX I

SECTION D

Selected Questions From PRC Data Collection

Instruments Relative to Codes and Standards

Appendix

Reference - Series 10

I

D1 Building Description Question 11

I

D2a Solar System Design Progress Report Question £

I

D2b Question 10

Series 20

I. D3 Construction Progress Report Question £

Series 30

I. D4a Demonstration Observation Report

I • D4b

Question £ Question 9(

Series 40

I • D5a

I • D5b

Owner/User Attitudinal Data Question 3c

Question 11
NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

EUILUIUG DESCRIPTION

Page 2 o f

3 REGULATORY CODES

State ST Local Q

Other (speci fy)_

LO

Name of State or Local Code/

Regulation

Bui 1 d i ng

Ed i t i on

Meehan i ca 1_ Electrical.

P 1 umb i ng

Year. Year _ Year.

Yea r

Ot her ( spec i f y ) Model Codes which are the basis for Regulation (Use abDrev i a t i ons in Table 3) Edition (year)

Building

Mechanical.

Electical __

Plumbing

Other (spec i fy).

12. A. Number of Stories

Above Ground AG. Below Ground BG.

B. Total Height Above Ground.

C. Conditioned Floor Area

Total

.FT

. FT

2 -Using Solar Energy FT

D. Exterior Wall Geometry (Total Area)

Walls .FT

ft' ft'

boor Openings

Windows _

E . Roof

Flat Fl

S 1 oped SL Pitch Angle °

F. Attic: Ventilated No [~

| 0 Yes ’

G. Crawl Space: Vented No 0 Yes

13- BUILDING VENTILATION RATES Mechanical, heatinc Changes /hr

Mechanical, coolinc C ha noes/hr

Natural, heatinc Chances/hr

Natural , cool i nc Changes /hr

lA. INTERNAL HEAT RELEASE (MA X 1 LOAD

j

Occupant s BTU/hr

Lighting BTU/hr

Appl i ance £> Equ i pment BTU/hr

15. H VAC SYSTEM OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS

A. Number of Zones

B. Type: Perimeter | | P Interior 1 Other (Spec i fy)

C. System Designation (See Table A)

D. Principle of Operation (Check One)

Heating-Coo! ing-Off h :o Air Volume Variation AW

Air Mixing Con t rol | I AMC Temperature Variation TMA Other (spec i f y ) !

E. Heat Dissipating Devices (Check One)

Evaporative Condenser EC Air-Cooled Condenser AC- Cool i ng Tower

Other (spec i fy)

1 F. Energy Conservation and Recovery

Dev i ces (See Table 5)

G. System Operating Temperature Set Points Hea ting: Cool

i

ng : °F hrs/dSy

Niqht °F hrs/dav,

0

F hrs/day

Weekend F hrs/dav! °F hrs/dav

ApptfnJijc -1DI

90
NATIONAL PROGRAM FOP SOLAR HEATING AND COO.

-SOLAR SYSTEM DESIGN PROCESS REPORT

IN'

Pa ce 1 c

'

PROJECT IDEM 1 F 1 CAT 1 ON NO 2. PROJECT

4. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT LOCATION: Street

City State 7 p

S SOLAR SYSTEM DESIGN Name

CONTRACTOR

Project Manager

Te 1 ephone Nc . ( )

fc . A l E CONTRACTOR ( 1

F

Name

D I Rft RE N

7 FROM ABOVE

P ro i e - t Manaoe r Te 1 ephone No . ( )

3. DATE

HO DAY > :

7. SOLA- SYSTEM FUNCTION (CHEOi ONE

Hot Water (Domestic or Service)

Space Heatinc

S pa ce Coo liny

Heating l Coo line

Heating l Hot Water

Cool ing l Hot Water

Heat me. Coclme f Hot Wate'

JL

8. DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE H.ETHODOLOGY ANC STANDARDS USED TC DEVELOP THE DESIGN Ci THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE. IDENTIFY THE EFFECTS OF REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS. CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS AS APPROPRIATE.

I T L - i A ENERGY

Appendix ']P2a

91
NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

SOLAR SYSTEM DESIGN PROCESS REPORT

Pace 2 of 2

A. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE any system JUSTIFICATION AND TRADE-O'F STUDIES UNDERTAKEN IN the SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE AND/OR THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE

IDENTIFY GOVERNING CODE

10. PROBLEMS O SOLUTIONS (DESCRIES THOSE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING DESIGN AND INTEGRATION

OF SOLAP.SYSTEm ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. BUILDING CODES. land USE, ZONING, SUN ACCESS, insurance, AESTHETICS. ALSO DESCRIBE HOW THESE WERE ALLEVIATED)

11. SYSTEM SAVINGS & PAYBACK PERIOD (ATTACH WORKSHEETS OF COM D UTAT I ONS )

A. Estimated cost o

c Solar System l Auxiliary System

B. Estinated cost of Conventional Energy System,

C. Incremental cost of Solar System (C) c (A) - (B)

D. Estimated cost of Solar System Operation (including Aux i I i a r

, E ne rgy

)

E. Estimated cost of Conventional System Operation

F. Energy cost savings IF) *= (E) - (D)

C. Simple Payback Period (C)/(F)

1[\

) s

(P)

$

(c)

s

( D)

^

V V I /YEAR

(r

} $ /YE^P

( f) ^ /yeap

(G) YEARS

PREPARED BY: Appendix IVZb
93
I

NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

DEMONSTRATION OBSERVATION REPORT -

Pang 1 of 2

1. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION ND 2. PROJECT TITLE 3. DATE*0 t-AY -YP.

A. SIT£ INSPECTOR

Name

Org

Name .

S t ree

t

City State 2 i p Telephone No (

S. OTHER PERSONS CONTACTED

(Name C Organization)

A. Name

Org

B . Name . Org

C. Name . Oro

6. PROJECT SCHEDULE COMMENTS (Describe project status and report anticipated schedule

s 1

i ppages ,

i f any)

1. COMMENTS REGARDING SOlAR SYSTEM INSTALLATION

ik LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE CONCERNS (Including building codes, sun rights,

financial, etc.)

fc. COHttENTS ON PERFORMANCE OF KAN UFAC TUR I NG/S UPP U E R AND INSTAILER (Special assistance,

do I i very, t|uu I i ly )

Appendix - !D4a

94
NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

DENCMSTRATION OBSERVATION REPORT

face 2 of 2

$. LOCAL 1NTERFST IK SOI AR ENERGY (Please check -one bo* for each item. Check unknown if the basis for observation does not e*ist)

Unknown Little Moderate S t rang

Publ i c

'

Bu i 1 der/De ve 1 ope r HVAC /Arc h i t ec t . Regulatory Authorities D „ u Tjzzrn

Financial Community

Media (TV, radio, newspaper) D

Other

10. COMMENTS ON SYSTEM STARTUP (Initia 1 Operation)

II. REMARKS OF THE SITE INSPECTOR

PREPARED 6Y

:

AppenJ/x ”ID4b

95
NATiONAi. PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

OWNER/USER ATTITUDII1AL DATA

Page 1 of E

1. -PROJECT IDENTIFICATION NO 2. PROJECT TITLE 3. X)AT£MO DAY YR

3. WHEN CONSIDERING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS USUALLY INFLUENCE

THE DECISION-MAKER- PLEASE INDICATE HOW YOU VIEW THEM AT THE PRESENT TIME BY CHECKING ONE BOX FOR EACH FACTOR. Jon Highly

Rest r i ct i ve Res t r i c i i ve Rest r i c t i ve

A. High first cost cf Solar System

B. Difficulty in obtaining financing for Solar

C. Estimated cost and time required for D

ma i n t enance

D. Actual cost and time required for maintenance

E Increased property taxes

F. Unce r tain appreciate of the property

with solar system

G. Possibility of scla r system being made

economically obsolete tv availability of

less expensive and higher performing

equ i prr.en t H. Safety and Security of the Solar System,

l. Space i equ i remen t s of Solar System

J. Availability of parts, components C personnel

K. Willingness of the building trade to adopt Solar Energ , a

L. Availability of data on perforirance

reliability an d ma ' n ta i nap i I i t y of

Solar Systens

H. Societal factors, such as views of

neighbors and community

N. Aesthetic considerations, attractiveness

C appearance n

0. Difficulty in obtaining insurance

for Soiar System

P. Cost of insurance a n •

Q. Regulerory comp 1 i anc e , bu i 1 d i n g codes,

zon i ng . etc. d R . Other (Spec i f y)

i. SOLAR SYSTEM OFFERS THE FOLL 0W 1 NG AD VANTAGE S . PLEASE INDICATE YOUR VIEWS BY CHECK'NG

ONE BOX fCR EACH FACTOR.

A. Savinqs on utility bills

NONE MINOR TT

B. Hedge aqainst ever rising fuel prices

C. Insurance against fuel sho r taqes/ou t ages

D Environmental ly dean l inexhaustible enerovl | Apoendix * lD5a

S,

!
.NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SOLAR HEATING AND COOLING

01MEI7USER ATT 1TUD INAL DATA

Page 3 o' L

B. PlEwSE CHARACTERIZE YOUR ATT 1 TUDE TOWARD SOLAR ENERGY

Neutral

A. At t i me of project initiation __

( comm i tme r, t to build/instal 1 solar system] 1 1

Modera te Support

S t rc"

c

Sur:c't

B. After System is operational

3 . DID YOU ENCOUNTER ANY SPECIFIC PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE BUILDING h SY STE M (IF YES. DESCRIBE Th E M IN ADDITIONAL SPACE PROVIDED BY NUMBERS BA. 9B . ETC.)

AS SClAF EN

1 DENT 1 FY INC ITEM

A Obtaining financing 7 O o YES CD '

B. Public, private interest groups, neiqnbors atti’udes

C. Obtaining insurance

n o d] c NO Q 0

YES CD 1 yes cd •,

10. WOULD YOU CHOOSE A SOLAP ENERGY BUILDING IF YOU WERE TO START OVER AGA'N

no D : IF NO, PLEASE DESCRIBE BRIEFLY.

Y£ S

11. PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF LOCAL INTEREST IN SOLAR ENERG v BY THE FOLLOWING

SECTORS. CHECK UNKNOWN IF THE BASIS FOR OBSERVATION DOES NOT EXIST Unknown None Modena t e A . Pus 1 i c B 8 u i 1 o i n g/ oe ve ’ ODe

r

C . -HVAC/ arch i te ' t s D p

D. Peculator authorities j h i E. Financial community J

f . Utility cor par

.

G Insurance companies

H News Tied i a (TV, radio, newspaper)

1. Other (Specify)

Appcndik * 1 D5 b

97
APPENDIX II LITERATURE SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this literature survey was to determine the perceived con- straints identified as barriers to the installation and use of solar energy

systems as contained in published reports, trade magazines, professional

journals, newspapers, etc. The identification of barriers and constraints to

acceptance of solar energy systems in residential development is one of the

objectives of the HUD Solar Demonstration Program^.

The publications surveyed do not specifically document constraints, but

generally discuss problems which could inhibit the use of solar energy systems.

Discussions are focused on the long-standing premise that prescriptive codes

inhibit innovation and that the only reasonable solution to effective solar

codes is the performance approach.

Another perceived difficulty is the lack of standards in the solar area,

but this problem should be resolved as the solar industry matures with the

development of a full range of standards, test procedures, accepted practices,

etc.

Other perceived problems, although isolated and speculative at this time,

should be confirmed or dismissed as data are collected and analyzed during the

Solar Demonstration Program.

2. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The "Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974" calls for the

development of interim performance criteria for solar heating and combined

solar heating and cooling components and systems to be used in residential

* "Plan for Non-Technical Survey Research Activities for the HUD Residential

Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program" - Volume I, p. 9, Real

Estate Research Corporation, January 1977.

98
dwellings, and for interim performance criteria for the dwellings themselves.

The key word in these . provisions is "performance."

Over the years, various public and private committees, commissions, task

forces, etc., established to study the impacts of building standards and

codes on innovative technologies have recommended that standards and codes

be written to stress the performance approach rather than a specification

approach; e.g., performance statements specify the intent, the quantifiable

goal to be achieved through design solutions as contrasted with the specification (prescriptive) approach which specifies the design solution to be adopted.

Some such early reports are those of the National Commission on Urban

Problems^ and various committee reports of the National Conference of States

on Building Codes and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS). These reports cited a need

for a system which unleashes our innovative and entrepreneurial genius and

whereby standards of performance, based upon objectives and scientific methocs,

are set by bodies with high reputation and prestige. As the performance

concept becomes incorporated in building construction regulations, the full

potential of expanded research in building technology can be made generally

available; and (standards) must be performance-oriented to the extent practical and where current knowledge is inadequate as a basis for performance

criteria, research must be undertaken.

One of the major difficulties impeding utilization of solar technology was said by its early users to be a lack of usable and reliable performance information from solar product manufacturers and also the absence of a set of user requirements to define how solar buildings should perform. The

early users also believed that the development and adoption of a set of

industry-wide performance standards and tests would help to facilitate widespread utilization.

"Building the American City," U.S. National Commission on Urban Problems

(Douglas Commission), December 1968.

99
3 A study conducted by the AIA Research Corporation notes that there are

few building codes which directly affect use of solar energy; however, the

possibility exists that they may develop into a barrier—either by being too

prescriptive or by establishment of performance requirements which cannot

reasonably be met.

Although dealing with energy conservation generally, and not solar energy

in particular, a report prepared by the National Bureau of Standards for

the Federal Energy Administration4 states that further problems with enforcing

the performance-based type of standards may develop because of difficulties

in making objective judgments in the field. This report also cites a need

for assistance in the area of product and equipment acceptance.

In referring to a report' developed by ERDA (now incorporated into

the Department of Energy), the Energy Research Digest cites "the absence

of nationally-recognized performance criteria" as one of six barriers

to the introduction of new products. This report criticizes prescriptive

standards as "antithetical to the development of new and innovative products."

A study done by TRW Systems Group0 cited as a result of its analysis

one conclusion to be that performance-oriented rather than prescriptive

codes will be required in the solar energy area, but that no major technical

3 "Early Use of Solar Energy in Buildings. A Study of Barriers and Incentives to Widespread Use of Solar Heating and Cooling Systems. Summary Report

to the National Science Foundation", May 1976.

4 NBSIR 77-1259, "Building Energy Conservation Program—A Preliminary Examination of Regulatory Activities at the State Level," Robert M. Eisenhard

and Patrick W. Cooke, June 1977.

1:1 Energy Research Digest, April 25, 1977 , pp. 5-6.

b "Solar Heating and Cooling of Building" (Phase 0), pp. 2-8, 2-9, 7-55,

7-56, 11-3, 11-4, TRW Systems Group, May 1974.
obstacles are foreseen. It states that codes do not provide incentives or opportunities, and the infrastructure problems relating to building codes

will have to be identified and overcome. It continued with, "As pressure

is brought to bear on code-writing authorities to improve the semantics of

model codes... the better chance there is for entry of solar energy systems

into the building construction market."

Solar energy programs, projects and performance criteria may be the

first phase —the initial occurrence--of the development and/or revision

of building standards and codes toward a more performance-oriented system.

3. BUILDING STANDARDS AND CODES

With the enactment of the Solar Demonstration Act came numerous studies

relative to the use of solar energy as a feasible alternative to fossil

fuels. The majority of these studies cite present building standards and

codes as barriers to solar energy utilization. Articles published in newspapers, trade journals, etc., also cite codes as barriers to new technolog'.'

in gentral, and solar technology in particular. Excerpts from four such

articles are:

1. Contractor Magazine of June 1, 1977, noted that early results

from a New England solar project, which installed solar heating systems in 100 residences, pointed to problems resulting

from a lack of standards for installing solar equipment and

from a lack of standards for design and manufacturer of such

equipment.

2. The Christian Science Monitor of August 27, 1976, reports the

tangle of building codes and real estate tax laws needs sorting out to encourage domestic solar energy.

3. The Washington Post of April 3, 1977, in an article relative to

solar technology, states that obstacles remain—such as some 30,000 independent building code jurisdictions in the U.S.,

all of which have their own rules about what can and cannot be

used in construction.

101
4. In an article of the Engineering News-Record of February 24, 1977,

entitled "Simmering solar heating market awaits cost-effective

products", building codes are cited as a significant barrier to

widespread use (of solar energy).

Prior to actual selection of the HUD residential and DoE commercial

demonstration sites, various studies of building standards, building codes,

zoning laws, etc., were conducted so as to identify any obvious problems

which may affect the demonstration programs.

A study conducted by the American Institute of Architects Research

Corporation under a National Science Foundation grant was partially

based on the assumption that the importance of potential barriers to the

widespread use of solar energy can only be fully understood over time as they clearly emerge.

A survey of some 3,000 architects, although inconclusive because of

insufficient response, revealed that architects believe one of the most formidable barriers to the adoption of solar technologies in design is building

O code restrictions. In speaking on the subject of innovation, this study

states that very few innovations really offer substantial economic advantage

to the building project as a whole, and rarely does the stated advantages

of an innovation overcome the increased sense of risk associated with it.

9 The second volume of a May 1976 study , analyzing personal contacts of

on-site visits and telephone inquiries made of over 900 persons in some

"Early Use of Solar Energy in Buildings. A Study of Barriers and Incentives to Widespread Use of Solar Heating and Cooling Systems, Summary

Report to the National Science Foundation", May 1976.

O Solar Heating and Cooling of Buildings, Phase 0, "Feasibility and Planning

Study" - Final Report, General Electric Company, May 1974.

9 "A Location Matrix Plan for the Residential Solar Heating and Cooling

Demonstration Program," Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1976.

102
way connected with the building community, revealed that a model code is

used by about 3/4 of the metropolitan areas in the United States and the

code issue would be insignificant if solar systems were designed to minimize

code problems and are coupled with an effort to make modifications, where

necessary. However, a few areas were found where specific local code provisions would impede installation and use of solar systems.

The study suggested that more problems are apt to materialize in con- gested urban areas than in rapid growth areas, which are more open to innovative technologies.

Although some areas of existing codes might be interpreted as applicable

to solar HYAC equipment, one study ^ '- 1 suggests that ERDA should encourage

the model code organizations to establish regulations relating to solar,

separate from the actual model code documents. These separate regulations

will provide clear-cut building construction requirements. It suggests

that much of the confusion associated with interpreting and judging existing

codes, probably will be eased by the addition of such regulations to

the model codes.

Although a Federally-funded solar demonstration program is mandated

by the "Solar Heating and Cooling Act of 1974," the Energy Research and

Development Administration stressed that participation by state and local

government is important as these groups will be involved in revising the

building codes to accommodate innovative technologies.^'

^

"General Electric Company Survey to Define Import of Statewide Building

Codes on Solar HVAC Systems", Commercial Buildings Space Division, General

Electric Company, July 1976.

ERDA report to Congress and the President--A National Plan for Energy

Research Development and Demonstration, "Creating Energy Choices for the

Future," pp. VII-3, ERDA - 48, Volume 1 and 2, June 28, 1975.

103
1

2

A report prepared under a National Science Foundation Grant , summarizes that a significant fraction of the U.S. energy budget can be provided

by solar energy and that to encourage use of solar energy requires investigation and revision, if necessary, of land use, zoning restrictions and

building codes. It further states that "Freedom is essential for further

advancement in the field of solar energy utilization."

It states that traditionally, new code provisions or interpretations

develop as an outgrowth of reactions either to unfavorable events or fear

of unfavorable events.

4. CODES AND PRODUCT APPROVALS

O A very comprehensive study previously referenced revealed that in

spite of the recent upsurge in interest in solar technologies because

of the energy crisis, experience suggests that the rapid commercial development, introduction, and diffusion of solar technologies within the construction industry will not be a simple matter. It also suggests that to the

extent that innovation is not compatible with laws and regulations, professional practices, building department approval processes, etc., barriers

to its use will appear.

1 3 In a study dealing with a specific product for use in a solar energy

system, the building industry is referred to as fragmented, and made up of

groups, some of which encourages and some of which discourages innovation.

The product is cited as an innovation in the building industry which must

be introduced to and accepted by it.

12“ .."Solar Heated Residence Annual Research Report," (Colorado Springs,

Colorado); pp. 91, 92, 147, 153, July 1975, James D. Phillips.

1

3

Phase Zero - Goal Study for the Technical and Economic Evaluation of the

Compound PARABOLIC Concentration Concept Applied to Solar, Thermal and

Photovoltaic Conditions," Bechtel Corporation, June 1975, pp. 7-6, 1-3.

104
One study ^ 4 states that a lack of proper regulation also may present

a barrier to acceptance of solar technology. However, it adds that present

building codes themselves will not prohibit the installation of solar systems.

q The first volume of a previously mentioned report , prepared for HUD

relative to the demonstration program, cites standards and code constraints.

However, this report reflects the attitude that builder support can overcome

many of the obvious constraints. Obstacles presented by zoning and code

authorities are often cited as the most significant factor in resisting the

introduction of new products--this report disagrees with these statements.

In the economic area, the report states "If the economic performance of solar

systems is favorable, there will be an incentive for potential participants

in the industry, from manufacturer to consumer, to overcome whatever con- straints may exist."

9 The following quote from reference sums up the issue of building

codes as the barrier or the constraint to utilization of solar energy:

"If the (solar) systems, through product testing, meet established

specifications, are proven through experience to be reliable, and

are compatible with current regulations, and if procedure modifications are pursued, the constraints should not be significant."

^ Inter-Technology Corporation Proposed System Level Plan for Solar Heating

and Cooling Commercial Building, National Solar Demonstration Program, Volume

I , Ma y 1976.

105
APPPENDIX III

BUILDING REGULATORY PROCESS

1. BACKGROUND

A building code is a legal document which sets forth requirements to

protect the public health, safety and general welfare as related to the

construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. The building code

development process in the United States is quite complex. Building codes

are normally enacted into law by local governments exercising the police

power of the state delegated to them for this purpose. One consequence

of this is a considerable diversity of substantive provisions among the

thousands of locally-enacted codes. This is true even though three-quarters

of locally-enacted codes are based on one of the nationally recognized

model codes. Possible reasons for this diversity are:

local governments frequently alter provisions of the model codes;

local codes are infrequently updated;

the model codes are not uniform; and, some municipalities write their own codes.

Except for some of the largest cities, drafting of building codes in the

United States is accomplished by the model code organizations and allied groups.

The first model building code was published in 1905 by the National

Board of Fire Underwriters (now the American Insurance Association - AlnA)

to guide municipalities concerned with reducing the fire hazard in and

about buildings. This is now known as the National Building Code, which

is drafted by engineers of AlnA with assistance from many sources.

The first model code prepared by building officials was the Uniform

Building Code developed in 1927 by the Pacific Coast Building Officials

(now ICBO). This Code is currently used extensively on the West Coast and

in the Central Midwest. The Southern Building Code Congress International,

Inc., recognizing the unique problem affecting construction in the South,

prepared the Standard Building Code in 1945. This is the dominant building

106
code in the Southern States. The Basic Building Code was first published

in 1950 by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International,

Inc. and is extensively used in the Upper Midwest, New England and the

Middle Atlantic States.

BOCA, ICBO and SBCC consider annual code revisions and publish completely

new code editions every three years. Generally, this allows the model codes

to be up-to-date and permits the use of most new materials and new techniques

in building construction. Two other important functions provided by these

model code organizations are those of plan review and product approval. Product approval allows a manufacturer to get a single approval, which can generally

apply in all locations where the model code is used.

2. BUILDING CODES AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS

Within the past several years, many states have assumed more active

roles in writing, promulgating and enforcing building codes. A growing

minority of states have withdrawn virtually all authority to enact building

codes from their respective municipalities. They exercise their building

code authority in various ways. Some states have mandatory statewide

codes, but in several states their adoption by localities is voluntary.

The application of the codes also varies since they may include minimum

requirements only or may include both maximum and minimum requirements.

When a statewide minimum code is provided, the locality is free to adopt

stricter requirements; however, for the minimum/maximum type, the locality

must secure state approval of its proposed change on the basis of some unusual condition or special need.

Statewide code enforcement is usually delegated to the local authority

with some supervision, training and assistance from the state. Within single

municipalities, the authority to enforce codes may be fragmented among different departments without coordinated supervision. These considerations cause quite a variation among localities in the interpretation of similar

code requirements.

1 j7
NBS-114A (rev. 1 1-77)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 78-1489

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Building Regulatory Data Analysis - National Solar Heating & Cooling

Demonstration Program

5. Publication Date June 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

J. Greenberg, S. A. Berry, I. M. Martinez

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract /Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Department of Housing & Urban Development Department of Energ}

Division of Energy, Bldg. Tech. & Standards Division of Solar

Office of Policy Development & Research Application

Washington, D.C. 20410 Washington, D.C. 20!

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

Interim

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

45

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. It document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This is a progress report detailing the activities and other preliminary work accomplish]

ed in analyzing the availability of codes and standards data associated with the HUD

and DoE Solar Energy Demonstration Programs. The renort delineates the methodology

used and an assessment of the availability of collected data as of September 30, 1977.

Also included is an analysis of the site locations chosen for the early cycles of the

program and a brief literature search which addresses the problems of building regulations as related to the installation and use of solar energy systems.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Codes and standards; demonstration program; solar energy; solar regulatory system.

18. AVAILABILITY ^ Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES

(THIS REPORT)

/X For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED

1

! Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office 20. SECURITY CLASS 22. Price

Washington. D.C. 20402. SD Stock No. SNOO 3 -OO3 (THIS PAGET

!

1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM-DC 6603S-P78

I