September 

### OS, 2013

Honorable Ernest 

### J. Moniz Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20515

Dear Secretary Moniz: 

# EKEC-J.013- 

# oo 71¥'6

On behalf ofthe Coalition for Fair Energy Codes and our partners, I am contacting you regarding the July 26, 2013 letter you received from Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) President Kateri Callahan concerning the Department of Energy's (DOE) role in the codes and standards development process and the proposal to reinstate tradeoffs for high-efficiency mechanical equipment in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code {IECC). Our Coalition wishes to express its thoughts regarding the Department's policy declaration announcement in the Federal Register, seek immediate clarification regarding the Department's intentions with respect to its voting policies at the upcoming code hearings, and to refute ASE's assertion that the mechanical tradeoff proposal (RE166) will reduce the stringency ofthe IECC.



### DOE Role

Our Coalition appreciates several components ofthe Department's April 19 Federal Register announcement of its policy (78 Fed. Reg. 23550 (April 19, 2013)) on participation in the development of the International Energy Conservation Code, but the policy is somewhat unclear regarding the Department's voting intentions. We believe that DOE's recently clarified technical role in the code development process is appropriate and we support the Department's efforts to increase transparency through its commitment that all DOE-sponsored code change proposals, as well as the technical analyses performed in support of the proposal, have been thoroughly vetted through the public comment process.

We thank the Department for their professional conduct and for remaining neutral in the often rigorous debates surrounding non-DOE code change proposals, which were heard and voted on by the IECC Residential Energy Committee at the ICC Committee Action Hearings in April 2013. In advance ofthose hearings, DOE appropriately vetted its code change proposal concepts and near-final proposals through
a public process, where stakeholder input was sought and received. The same process was followed this
summer in the development of public comments to DOE IECC code change proposals. We trustthat the Department's neutral stance on non-DOE code proposals will translate to continued neutrality with regard to specific voting procedures during the upcoming Public Comment Hearings.

The Department's recent policy declaration that states "DOE will exercise voting privileges as defined by the guiding ICC rules and procedures" creates tremendous uncertainty. DOE's recent behavior suggests
a position of neutrality with regard to voting on non-DOE code proposals; however, one can reasonably interpret the policy to mean that the Department is free to vote on all submitted code proposals. While the policy recognizes the Department's ability to conduct technical analyses on non-DOE submitted code changes, the Department's engagement should be strictly limited to performing analyses and to refrain from voting on non-DOE proposals. We seek the Department's clarification with regard to its intentions
on voting on non-DOE proposals in conjunction with the upcoming hearings.Equipment Tradeoff Proposal

Regarding the IECC Residential Energy Committee's recommendation to restore the equipment tradeoffs to the 2015 IECC, we strongly reject the ASE statement that this proposal will reduce the stringency of the IECC. The DOE's own Final Determination on the 2009 IECC (76 Fed. Reg. 42688 (July 19, 2011)), which was only partially quoted by the ASE, stated that the removal ofthe option to trade high-efficiency HVAC equipment for reductions in other requirements in the code, "does not directly alter code stringency."

It is important that the DOE remain consistent with its determination on the 2009 IECC and acknowledge that the reinstatement ofthe same mechanical equipment tradeoffs will not directly alter the stringency ofthe 2015 IECC.

The ASE also claimed that all 34 states that have adopted "the newest codes" have not reinstated tradeoffs for high-efficiency equipment. According to the DOE website, only 4 states have adopted the 2012 IECC and 2 others have adopted a state code that is at least as stringent. Three states that are in the final stages of adopting the 2012 IECC are not mentioned on the DOE website. Ofthose 3 states, 2 ofthem, Florida and Utah, have indeed amended the 2012 IECC to permit equipment tradeoffs. It should be noted that other states that are adopting the 2012 IECC have also made significant amendments to other requirements of the code, including stepping back air leakage rates and reducing wall R-value requirements.

Advocates for reinstating equipment tradeoffs in the 2015 IECC are not interested in weakening the code, but wish to improve it by making it more flexible and performance based while maintaining an energy equivalent performance. This will make a more adoptable energy code, which is a goal that we share with DOE.

Thank you for your consideration of and clarification on these important issues. Please contact Tom Kositzky, Executive Director ofthe Coalition for Fair Energy Codes at 253-620-7423 if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Tom Kositzky Executive Director, Coalition for Fair Energy Codes

On behalfof: The Coalition for Fair Energy Codes (see attached list of members) National Association of Home Builders Leading Builders of America Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee National Multi Housing Council National Apartment Association'.:I:::
!l!llajllllll•t1t1111slll!llllit1111::lila•:1111:a•:::•n•s----:•••llllllllllllllllAAAJlll!:nfu.

..

### lllllilMMllMIMM11"1-%11",.~~~11111~---iflJhWlf@i§i&J ·.-Oil tw,111!1!1111,llli)iJIJll"•"''•t%%.
11111

### ----!ll'!'l--l!llllll--------·---·······1**11**

### iljW~'' TheCoa/itionforFairEnergyCodes I 

## Funding Companies (CFEC} is comprisedofcompanies and associations seeking cost-effective, science-based, andimpartialtreatment for allperformance-qualifiedbuilding products, including woodproducts, in nationalmodelenergycodes. CFEC advocatesfor state andlocalenergycode adoptions thatprovide designflexibility andconsideration oflocalconditions. ·



### CFEC Supports:

111 The proposition that energy

efficiency is in the best interests of the nation's economy, environment, and energy independence.

111 Technically credible and costeffective energy conservation.

11 Equitable treatment of all

performance-qualified building materials and construction methods in building codes.

111 Construction industry options,

alternatives, and consideration of trade-offs for meeting defined energy conservation targets.

111 State and local energy codes

that allow design flexibility and consideration of local conditions and factors. ill Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. 111 Plum Creek

Boise Cascade LLC 11111 Potlatch Corporation

:111 Coastal Treated Products 111 Rosboro

Eagle Plywood Specialties Roseburg Forest Products Company

Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC 111 RoyOMartin

Hardel Mutual Plywood Corporation S.D.S. Lumber Company

Hood Industries, Incorporated Savona Specialty Plywood Company Ltd.

LP Scotch Plywood Company, Inc.

Murphy Company Swanson Group Mfg. LLC.

Natron Wood Products 111 Timber Products Company

Norbord Tolko Industries Ltd.

Olympic Panel Products LLC 11.1. Westlam Industries Ltd.

Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc. 1111 Weyerhaeuser

For more information about CFEC, please contact:

.'i, •

## Secretary Moniz

From: Sent: 

### To: Subject: Attachments: Schwartz, Jerry [Jerry_Schwartz@afandpa.org] Friday, September 06, 2013 11 :42 AM Secretary Moniz CFEC Letter Regarding Alliance to Save Energy Letter On Building Codes and Standards CFEC Letter to Secretary Moniz Regarding ASE 09-05-13.pdf; CFEC_Associations_Companies_OSC.PDF

To Whom it May Concern: Please provide the documents from the Coalition for Fair Energy Codes {CFEC) and its partner organizations to Secretary Moniz. The letter is in response to the July 26, 2013 letter to the Secretary from the Alliance to Save Energy on the same subject. Please feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions. Thank you. Jerry Schwartz Senior Director, Energy and Environmental Policy AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL 111119th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20036 

### jschwartz@awc.org 202-463-2581 

### www.awc.org

# $=~:~·~

1

### July 26, 2013

Honorable Ernest J. Moniz Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Secretary Moniz:
First, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to meet with you and key members of your team yesterday. I am more excited than ever about your tenure at DOE having heard your early vision/ideas and having witnessed your “MO” which is so inclusive and so dynamic!
As promised, this letter sets forth serious concerns that energy efficiency advocates harbor regarding DOE’s planned role in the current building energy code cycle. We are most hopeful that you and your leadership team can intercede to ensure that DOE continues to play the very important

–and active

– role in the code process that it has done up until this time.
For example, DOE was instrumental in garnering the historic, 30% efficiency gain in the model energy codes governing both homes and commercial buildings in the past two cycles. Notwithstanding this past success, we understand that DOE now plans to pare back its role at the upcoming October ICC hearings that will complete action on the 2015 IECC model energy code.

• Previously, DOE has taken public positions either for or against all key proposals to change the model code.

• This year, DOE staff (perhaps on advice of GC) has decided not to speak for or against any code proposal except DOE-sponsored proposals.
Unfortunately, without DOE’s active engagement on at least one proposal, there is a very real possibility that efficiency opponents will succeed in winning a “rollback” that could have the effect of rescinding two-thirds of the 30% gains we’ve just achieved.
The proposal, RE-166, would reinstate “equipment trade

-offs” that were removed in the 2009 and 2012 IECCs. Reinstating these equipment trade-offs would allow builders to construct a less efficient envelop in return for installing efficient equipment that they likely would have installed anyway. (Importantly, all 34 states that have adopted the newest codes have rejected calls by builders to reinstate the trade-offs as they moved forward with the adoption process.)
If RE-166 is included in the 2015 IECC, it would be the first time in history that a new IECC is weaker

– and in this case, far weaker

– than its predecessor IECC.

### On behalf of the energy efficiency community, I ask that you and your team consider taking the following actions in advance of the October ICC Final Action Hearings:

• Prepare and publish an independent analysis of the impact of RE-166, to elaborate on its earlier finding that “...because high

-efficiency equipment is already the predominant choice in many markets, disallowing envelope/equipment trade-offs is likely to result in improved overall efficiency in many situations.” (DOE Final Determination on the 2009 IECC, Fed. Reg. 76: 138, 7/19/11, 42688 et. seq.)

• Designate the maximum allowed (12) DOE staff to attend the October Final Action Hearings as ICC governmental voting members and allow them to speak and to vote on this and other code proposals

– whether offered by DOE or not.
This is a critical code cycle, and one in which many important stakeholders, including Mayors, are engaging. For example, the US Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution in June setting forth strong opposition to back-sliding and in support of a 5% boost in the 2015 IECC over the 2012 IECC.
We very much need DOE to stand with those who are fighting roll-back attempts; now is the time we all need to speak up; silence should simply not be an option.
Thanks for any and all help you can lend on this important issue!
With warm regards,

Kateri Callahan President, Alliance to Save Energy