```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47677-47681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18952]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-BC-0036]

DOE Activities and Methodology for Assessing Compliance With 
Building Energy Codes

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is soliciting public input 
on the methodology developed by DOE to assist in assessing compliance 
with building energy codes at the local, state, and national levels. To 
provide technical assistance for states implementing building energy 
codes, DOE developed and piloted a compliance methodology across 
several U.S. states. The experiences of those participating in these 
pilot studies have led to a number of recommendations and potential 
changes to the DOE methodology. DOE is interested in receiving broad 
public input on not only this methodology, but also on fundamental 
assumptions and approaches to measuring compliance with building energy 
codes. This notice identifies several areas in which DOE is 
particularly interested in receiving information; however, any input 
and suggestions considered relevant to the topic are welcome.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before 
September 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments 
electronically. However, comments may be submitted by any of the 
following methods:
     Email to the following address: 
STCodeCompliance2013BC0036@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE-2013-
BT-BC-0036 in the subject line of the message.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-2J, Request for 
Information for Methodology for Energy Code Compliance Evaluation, 
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-BC-0036, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone (202) 586-2945. Please submit one 
signed paper original.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one 
signed paper original.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number.
    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the index. A link to the 
docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-BC-0036. The Regulations.gov Web site 
contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Ms. Kym Carey, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585, Telephone: (202) 
287-1775, Email: Kym.Carey@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kavita Vaidyanathan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence 
Ave, SW., Washington, DC, 20585, Telephone: (202) 586-0669, Email: 
Kavita.Vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.

    For information on how to submit or review public comments or view 
the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies 
Office, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585. Telephone: (202) 586-2945, Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Background
II. Evaluating Compliance with Building

[[Page 47678]]

Energy Codes
III. Request for Information and Comments

I. Statutory Background

    DOE is directed to provide technical assistance to states to 
support implementation of state residential and commercial building 
energy efficiency codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)).

II. Evaluating Compliance with Building Energy Codes

    Building energy codes are commonly utilized to establish minimum 
levels of energy conservation in residential and commercial buildings, 
and greater compliance with code requirements ensures the intended 
efficiency measures are achieved. To assist states in their efforts, 
DOE developed a methodology that states could use to evaluate and 
measure compliance (See http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf). At the highest level, the 
evaluation methodology for code compliance entails 4 steps:
    (1) Identify building sample
    (2) Gather input from local jurisdictions
    (3) Evaluate via plan review and on-site inspections
    (4) Compile results and generate compliance rates.
    For each of these four steps, DOE provided guidance, as well as 
supplemental tools and resources (See http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation). In 2010 and 2011, the methodology was tested in 
a series of eight pilot studies funded by DOE. Individual studies were 
conducted in the states of Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, Utah, 
and Wisconsin. The remaining two studies were conducted in a group of 
Northwest states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana). The studies 
were conducted over a 10-month period, with final reports from 
individual pilots submitted in June 2011. A number of recommendations 
for changes to the methodology resulted from these pilot studies, as 
well as were expressed by additional states conducting their own 
compliance evaluation activities.
    One common observation from states that participated in the pilot 
studies was that the methodology can be costly and time-consuming. More 
specifically, the methodology required significant effort to secure a 
valid building sample, numerous visits to each building, and extensive 
verification of individual code requirements. Revisions suggested to 
DOE in order to reduce state cost and time burden include the following 
examples:
    (1) Make the building sample selection process easier and/or less 
time consuming.
    (2) Reduce the number of site visits that must be made to each 
building.
    (3) Reduce the number of checklist items that must be evaluated at 
each building.
    (4) Reduce the number of buildings evaluated.

However, each of these could have a potentially negative impact on the 
statistical significance of the results of the code compliance 
evaluation.
    Supporting energy code compliance is core to the DOE mission; 
providing technical assistance to states to implement building energy 
codes (42 U.S.C. 6833), including verifying and increasing compliance 
to ensure consumer benefits. As such, DOE seeks stakeholder input on 
fundamental questions related to how compliance should be defined, 
evaluated, and implemented, and has issued this Request for Information 
(RFI). This RFI seeks public input not only on the DOE methodology, but 
also on a number of questions related to general energy code 
compliance. DOE will consider these comments as it seeks to revise its 
approach to energy code compliance evaluation and guide future 
programmatic efforts.

Summary of the DOE Compliance Evaluation Methodology

    DOE has developed a number of resources for states to use to 
evaluate compliance with building energy codes. These resources may be 
found at the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Compliance Evaluation 
page (See http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation). A Step-By-
Step Companion Guide (See http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Step_by_Step_Companion_Guide.pdf) to the compliance 
process summarizes the steps in effective evaluation. The document 
Measuring State Energy Code Compliance (``methodology report'') (See 
http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf), contains a detailed methodology for 
states to determine an overall state metric for building energy code 
compliance. Interested parties should consult the full text of the 
methodology report, however, for convenience the key points of the 
methodology are listed below with the relevant section numbers from 
that document noted in parentheses:
     Evaluate buildings using second-party evaluators for self-
assessments (a second-party evaluation would be performed by local code 
officials) (4.1)
     Evaluate buildings using third-party evaluators for formal 
evaluations (a third-party evaluation would be performed by a party 
that has no direct relationship to the buildings being evaluated) (4.1)
     Evaluate buildings using the DOE-developed checklists for 
the 2009 IECC (residential) and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 
(commercial)(For checklists, see http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation/checklists).
    [cir] States which have adopted the 2009 IECC for commercial 
buildings should use the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 checklists to determine 
compliance. (2.1)
    [cir] Low-rise multifamily buildings are to be evaluated against 
the 2009 IECC Chapter 4 requirements instead of the commercial code. 
(2.3)
     Generate a statistically valid sample across four distinct 
market segments (populations): new residential construction, new 
commercial construction, residential renovations, and commercial 
renovations.
    [cir] A statistically valid sample size was determined to be 
approximately 44 buildings in each population. (5.2.1)
    [cir] The compliance results for the four populations should not be 
combined for the overall state compliance score and rather should be 
reported separately. (5.1)
    [cir] It is recommended that a formal evaluation of a given 
population be completed within a 1-year time period. (5.1)
    [cir] New commercial buildings are further separated into the 
following size strata definitions: (5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3)
    [squf] Small: 1-2 stories, single zone, up to 25,000 ft\2\ in 
conditioned floor area
    [squf] Medium: Larger than 25,000 ft\2\ and up to 60,000 ft\2\
    [squf] Large: Larger than 60,000 ft\2\ and up to 250,000 ft\2\
    [squf] X-Large: Larger than 250,000 ft\2\ and up to 400,000 ft\2\
    [squf] XX-Large: Larger than 400,000 ft\2\.
    [cir] The sample size derivation for commercial buildings assumes 
that 44 samples will be drawn from small, medium, and large, but this 
sample size may increase for states with X-large and XX-large 
buildings, and may decrease for states with less new commercial 
construction. (5.2.2.1)
    [cir] For all four categories, if a state has multiple climate 
zones, distribute the sample across climate zones based on the average 
number of building starts over the previous 3 years. (5.2.2.2)
    [cir] Vary the building samples to include a mix of use type, size, 
complexity, etc. For example, include mixed use residential/commercial 
buildings; townhouses and multifamily structures three stories or less 
above

[[Page 47679]]

grade (residential); and vary sample by building type, size, ownership, 
etc. (commercial). (5.1, 5.2)
    To assist states in generating a statistically significant sample, 
DOE provided the State Sample Generator tool (See https://energycode.pnl.gov/SampleGen). This tool contains building permit data 
for the years 2008 through 2010 from McGraw Hill Dodge (``Dodge'') 
construction dataset for new commercial construction and renovations 
(See http://www.dodgeprojects.construction.com), and building permit 
data from the U.S. Census Bureau (``Census'') for new residential 
construction (See http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc). Residential 
renovation data is not included in the Sample Generator, as there is no 
known significant nationwide source of data available. The sample 
generator can be used to identify which counties should be sampled 
within each climate zone within a particular state, and in what 
proportion to generate statistically significant samples for each 
market segment population (i.e., new residential construction, new 
commercial construction, and commercial renovations). Note that if no 
commercial renovations permits were identified in a state, for example, 
then no commercial renovation sample can be determined using the Sample 
Generator tool. Examples of the use of the State Sample Generator may 
be found in Section 5.2.2.2 of the methodology report.
    The methodology report describes the structure of the compliance 
evaluation checklists. Residential and commercial checklist items are 
each assigned to one of three tiers in an effort to emphasize the most 
important code requirements. Each tier is given a different weight in 
determining the overall building metric. Tier 1 requirements are worth 
3 points. Tier 2 requirements are worth 2 points. Tier 3 requirements 
are worth 1 point. (5.3.2)
    The methodology report also explains that while the checklists are 
based on the prescriptive requirements found in the designated codes 
and standards, the checklists can also be used for buildings that 
demonstrated compliance using a trade-off approach or whole-building 
performance approach, as long as the appropriate documentation is 
available at the time of plan review and inspection. (6.1) The 
checklist items are grouped into sections corresponding to the phase of 
construction where the checklist item is typically inspected.
    While it is not explicitly stated in the methodology, a single 
building is ideally used to complete a compliance evaluation checklist. 
However, the methodology also allows for multiple buildings to 
represent a single evaluation by compiling partial checklists for 
similar buildings into a single representative building. Different 
buildings can be used for different phases of construction; this is 
referred to as the ``construction phases approach'' in the methodology. 
(6.3) The ``primary'' building approach can be used as an alternative 
to evaluate observable checklist items, with a separate (but similar) 
building used for items that were not observable in the primary 
building (e.g., due to timing of the evaluation within the construction 
process). (6.4)
     If multiple buildings are used, they must be from the same 
jurisdiction and type.
     If multiple commercial buildings are used, they must also 
fall in the same size stratum.
    The checklists can also be used to gather data during different 
stages of construction on different buildings that have the same 
general attributes in order to yield a resulting single composite 
building in lieu of evaluating a single building throughout 
construction. For example, several houses in a new subdivision where 
there are homes in various stages of construction might be evaluated. 
The same cautions regarding multiple buildings as noted for the 
``primary'' building applies to this approach as well. (6.3)
    DOE developed the Score + Store tool (See https://energycode.pnl.gov/ScoreStore/login) to help states and local 
jurisdictions determine and report compliance rates for both individual 
buildings and at the state-level in order to meet compliance and 
efficiency goals. A compliance rating of 0-100% for each evaluated 
building is assigned based on the proportion of code requirements met 
applying the tiered weighting system. Scores are then averaged within a 
state to derive an overall compliance metric.
     The overall state compliance metric for residential new 
construction is derived by taking a simple average of all individual 
building scores within the population. (5.4.1)
     For the overall state compliance metric for commercial new 
construction, weighted individual scores for new commercial 
construction are used to estimate average compliance rates for each 
building size stratum within the state. These average compliance rates 
are then rated according to the proportion of total square footage 
constructed within each stratum. (5.4.1)
     Overall state compliance metrics for residential and 
commercial renovations are derived by taking the total number of 
weighted checklist items evaluated for all buildings in the sample as 
the divisor and the number of those weighted items that are in 
compliance as the numerator, multiplied by 100. This does not result in 
an individual metric being assigned to each building, but does provide 
a state-wide metric that takes into account the varied number of code 
requirements against which each observed renovation is evaluated. 
(5.4.2)
    The methodology report also describes a number of pre-evaluation 
information gathering and training activities that could be undertaken 
by a state before it attempts to determine the state compliance rate. 
These activities include (3.1):
    (1) Establish a compliance working group to help plan the code 
evaluation process and to improve communications between stakeholders.
    (2) Perform self-assessments using building department staff to 
evaluate buildings.
    (3) Evaluate results of self-assessments to identify potential code 
compliance issues.
    (4) Train and educate stakeholders to address identified code 
compliance issues and barriers.
    (5) Launch third-party compliance evaluation only after the 
previous activities.
    The methodology also suggests two other possible activities prior 
to full compliance evaluation:
    (1) Survey the jurisdictions regarding local energy code plan 
review, inspection, and administration to assess the policies and 
processes that are currently established. DOE has provided a 
Jurisdictional Survey (See https://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation) that may be used as a sample. (3.2)
    (2) Conduct ``spot checks'' of code requirements considered 
problematic to ensure that those requirements are being met. (3.3)

Summary of findings from the Compliance Pilot Study conducted by DOE

    The DOE methodology was pilot tested in nine U.S. states through 
eight distinct studies funded by DOE under the Recovery Act. In 
addition, three other states utilized parts of the methodology in 
separate, but concurrent, efforts, and are also discussed in the 90% 
Compliance Pilot Studies final report (``pilot study report'') (See 
http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance-pilot-studies-final-report). The 
primary purpose of these pilot studies was to assess the effectiveness 
of the DOE

[[Page 47680]]

guidelines and tools developed under the Recovery Act, and to provide 
suggestions for their improvement. The pilot studies should not be 
interpreted to represent national or state compliance rates.
    The pilot study report summarizes observations and comments 
received by the participants regarding code compliance evaluations. 
Some of the observations and comments were the following:
     State compliance measurement studies can be costly and may 
require multiple visits to the building while under construction. Post-
construction evaluations were implemented in one study in an effort to 
reduce these costs, but many code requirements cannot be evaluated 
post-construction.
     Data sources for generating sample sets of buildings to be 
evaluated are not always accurate and, in some cases, are not available 
(e.g., residential renovations). Generating valid sample sets was 
further complicated by the economic climate and the fact that new 
housing starts were significantly lower than past data predicted.
     Timing onsite visits to observe all code requirements is 
difficult for third-party evaluators.
     Access to buildings under construction is a barrier in 
some locations.
     Consistency is difficult to obtain across studies and 
among individual evaluators.
    States may choose to address these issues by engaging in 
alternative, less costly measurement activities, some of which are 
discussed in Section 10 of the pilot study report. Despite problems in 
accurately measuring compliance, the pilot studies provided several 
insights into where states might focus their efforts in increasing 
compliance rates, including the following observations:
     The top barrier to compliance continues to be lack of 
training, followed by lack of resources and lack of compliance 
information on plan submissions. While training is an ongoing effort, 
and lack of resources may be difficult to address, states can work with 
local enforcement jurisdictions to ensure adequate documentation is 
received and to provide training.
     Buildings that demonstrated compliance using software 
tools showed a strong correlation with higher compliance rates. 
Software reports provide additional documentation of compliance, which 
might partially account for the correlation with higher compliance 
rates.

Other Recent DOE Activity Related to Energy Code Compliance

    Since the methodology was published in 2010, DOE has taken steps to 
improve not only the methodology, but also the supplemental resources 
to assist states in raising compliance levels. These include the pilot 
studies, as well as enhancements to DOE code compliance software tools 
to make the process of code compliance and evaluation more seamless. 
DOE is currently adding functionality to the REScheck (See http://www.energycodes.gov/rescheck) and COMcheck (See http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck) software to augment compliance 
information pertaining to a specific building:
     A Requirements Screen was added to capture information 
about code requirements not currently addressed in REScheck and 
COMcheck.
     Checklists for specific REScheck and COMcheck buildings 
are being incorporated into the software compliance reports and include 
the information gathered in the Requirements Screen.
    DOE is also providing a way for the Score + Store tool to generate 
checklists that are customized for specific buildings based on REScheck 
and COMcheck projects. These custom checklists will include information 
entered into REScheck and COMcheck, and remove code requirements that 
do not apply to that specific building. They can be used to evaluate a 
specific building's compliance rate in the same way that the generic 
checklists have been used in previous studies. Such changes serve to 
improve interoperability between the DOE compliance software tools and 
associated resources.

III. Request for Information and Comments

    DOE has also revisited the methodology for measuring compliance in 
light of the pilot studies with the goal of identifying potential 
enhancements. DOE has received comments from various interested 
parties. Based on feedback already received, potential enhancements are 
incorporated into the list of questions for which DOE is seeking input 
in this Request for Information.
    DOE is particularly interested in receiving information on the 
following questions. The questions are sorted into five categories: 
Defining and Achieving Compliance, Costs and Benefits, Compliance 
Targets, Evaluating Compliance, and DOE Compliance Evaluation Resources 
and Actions.

Defining and Achieving Compliance

     How should DOE define compliance with energy codes?
     What are the barriers to achieving compliance?
     How can those barriers to achieving compliance be 
overcome?

Costs and Benefits

     What state and national policy benefits are related to 
compliance?
     What consumer benefits are related to compliance?
     What are the most cost-effective compliance mechanisms?
     What methodology or assessment provides the highest energy 
savings in the market?
     What is the minimum cost to do a valid compliance study?

Compliance Targets

     How should compliance be measured (i.e., methodology)?
     Should DOE emphasize achieving a particular rate of 
compliance (e.g., 90%) similar to what was specified in ARRA?
     How frequently should compliance be evaluated?
     Should compliance be measured as documentation of energy 
savings associated with energy codes?
     What metric should be used for measuring compliance?
     How should progress be tracked and at what level (i.e., 
national, regional, state, local)?

Evaluating Compliance

     Who should evaluate compliance? (e.g., local building 
department, state building code authority, State Energy Office, 
contractors hired by the state/locality, etc.)
     What are the barriers to evaluating energy code 
compliance?
     How can those barriers to evaluating compliance be 
overcome?
     Are there other approaches to energy code compliance 
measurement (different from the existing DOE methodology) that have 
been used successfully?
     How much emphasis should DOE put on statistical 
significance of compliance evaluation results?
     Do residential and commercial compliance evaluation 
studies require fundamentally different sampling plans and research 
methodologies?
     Are there ways to encourage owners and developers of 
poorer performing buildings to participate in compliance evaluation 
studies?
     How should DOE address buildings that are better than or 
above code in compliance evaluation?
     Are there other approaches to energy code compliance that 
have

[[Page 47681]]

involved public utility commissions and public utilities?
     What roles do public/private utilities have or could take 
in improving energy code compliance? Can evaluation of energy code 
compliance could be considered similarly to evaluation of utility 
``above code'' programs.
     Are there approaches to energy code compliance that have 
the potential to be financially self-sustaining (i.e., approaches to 
energy code compliance that do not require direct government funding)?
     What is the proper way to attribute energy savings from 
compliance programs to various stakeholders?

DOE Compliance Evaluation Resources and Actions

     Should DOE provide resources for compliance evaluation, 
such as software tools, methodologies, checklists, training templates, 
etc.?
     Are there additional resources DOE should be providing for 
energy code compliance that are not currently available?
     How could incentive funding be used to facilitate states 
to increase energy code adoption and compliance efforts?
     Is there a role DOE could play to support third-party 
evaluators?
     What other suggestions would you have for DOE to consider, 
in working with states, municipalities, and the construction community 
to better understand, track, and assist with energy code compliance?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2013.
Roland Risser,
Director, Building Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18952 Filed 8-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```