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 of the 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 of the 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 of those 

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 of the 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 of the same mechanical equipment tradeoffs will not directly alter the stringency 

of the 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. Of those 3 states, 2 

of them, 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 of the 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--------·---·······111iljW~'' 

TheCoa/itionforFairEnergyCodes I Funding Companies 

(CFEC} is comprised of companies and 

associations seeking cost-effective, 

science-based, and impartial treatment 

for all performance-qualified building 

products, including wood products, in 

national model energy codes. CFEC 

advocates for state and local energy code 

adoptions that provide design flexibility 

and consideration of local conditions. · 

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 if you 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