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 y ou 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 interc ede 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 governin g 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 achieve d.

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 equipmen t 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 adva nce 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, disallow ing 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 wi th 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