Report To The
Florida Building Commission
Energy Technical Advisory Committee
Teleconferenced Meeting 5/14/2012
Brent Caldwell, Bob Cochell, Jan Geyselaer, Larry Maxwell, Roger Sanders, Drew Smith, David Wojcieszak, Rob Vieira for Philip Fairey and Dale Greiner, Chair.
Staff Present: Mo Madani, Ann Stanton, Joe Bigelow, Leslie Anderson-Adams, Ila Jones.
Facilitated by: Jeff Blair
1. To Approve the Agenda and Minutes of the 3/26/2012 meeting
2. To review and reconsider/enlarge recommendations on DEC statement request DS 2012-021 by Joe Belcher.
Agenda Review and Approval
The meeting was opened by Chairman Dale Greiner at 2:00 pm with a quorum of nine. The TAC unanimously approved the amended agenda and the minutes of the March 26, 2012 meeting. Facilitator Blair went over the policies for conducting a teleconferenced meeting.
Mo Madani reviewed the DEC request and amendments and described comments and motions to intervene received since this issue was addressed at the March 26, 2012, meeting of the Energy TAC. The Florida Building Commission returned the DEC request to the Energy TAC for further action based on information provided by RECA that the TAC did not have time to review before the March 26 meeting. Also, Petitioner amended DS2012-021 again on April 23, 2012, where Tropical Windows, Inc. provided the following additional case for consideration:
Tropical Windows, Inc. is a company in the business of selling and installing windows in existing and new buildings and structures. Currently, Tropical Windows is in the process of providing an estimate for the replacement of all the windows of a single-family dwelling in Citrus County, Florida. The project consists solely of replacing the windows of the residential dwelling and the value of the project does not exceed 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. Tropical Windows, Inc. requests clarification of a Supplemental question by Declaratory Statement.
Testimony was provided pro and con on the previous Questions 1 through 4 and the Supplemental question as follows:
Joe Belcher, Petitioner, representing AAF, AWP, CGI, Keymark and Tropical Windows, provided written testimony and made the following verbal points.
· It is a simple case of whether the code is applicable to the building in question. Section 101.4.1 and Table 101.4.1 describe a 30% cost of renovation clause that determines applicability. This is reflected in BOAF Interpretation 6981.
· The RECA comments state that “System” is not defined in the Florida code; it is defined as “A combination of equipment and auxiliary devices (e.g., controls, accessories, interconnecting means, and terminal elements) by which energy is transformed so it performs a specific function such as HVAC, service water heating, or lighting.”
· Ch. 553.906, Florida Statutes, is the only place windows are mentioned in this part of the law—relative to thermal efficiency standards for renovated buildings.
· At issue is what the code says in Section 101.4 and what Florida law says in Ch. 553.906, F.S.
Kari Hebrank, representing AWP and Keymark, argued that the code is not applicable to window replacements where the cost of changes to the building is less than 30% of the assessed value of the building.
· The estimated cost of the job in question is less than 30% of the value of the building.
· Florida law supersedes code or agency rules. Ch. 553.906, F.S. gives a specific directive concerning applicability of the code toward renovations.
· The 2010 Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation, includes provisions that limit its scope for existing buildings to renovations (Table 101.4.1, footnote d) and define what a renovation is (Chapter 2).
· The Florida Building Commission has already found that the provisions of Table 101.4.1 apply in the matter of replacement swimming pool filtration pumps.
· BOAF has issued a non-binding interpretation citing Table 101.4.1, footnote d.
· More expensive windows will have a chilling effect in these hard economic times, causing less efficient window not to be replaced and unlicensed/unpermitted replacement of windows.
· Section 402.3.6 sets standards for windows in renovated buildings.
Doug Harvey, Building Officials Association of Florida, stated that BOAF plans to revisit Non-Binding Opinion 6981 to make necessary grammar corrections..
Public comment was requested in favor of the DEC request. No-one responded.
Fred Dudley, representing the Responsible Energy Code Alliance (RECA) and Custom Window Systems, made the following points:
Eric Lacey, representing the Responsible Energy Code Alliance (RECA), made the following points:
Dean Rourke with PGT stated the PGT has been active in code development, has spent millions to meet the new code for replacement equipment. Enforcement has been delayed.
Mike Nau with PGT concurred that they have been involved in the code development process. He stated that PGT’s business plan depended on what was in the code. The window replacement section is unambiguous.
Tom Larson, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, testified that the 2010 Energy Conservation code was tasked with complying with the IECC while maintaining Florida efficiencies. Of nine million homes in Florida, most need improvement.
Richard Wright, Custom Window Systems, provided information on incremental costs of windows: to meet Table 402.1.1, would see @ 15% increase in cost, no increase in the cost of labor. A U-0.65, SHGC 0.3 window is a mid-range window. See the intent of the code as to provide greater efficiency windows.
Joe Belcher, addressing Dudley’s comments, stated that there was no intent to remove authority from the code official. It is a case of whether the code applies. The Commission did the right thing to support both the code and law.
Kari Hebrank stated that the DEC would in no way prevent the discretion of the code official. Local jurisdictions need code clarity to enforce. Section 402.3.6 applies to renovated buildings; applicability of code per law. PGT code participation, business plan are not relevant to the issue. No-one is arguing against energy efficiency.
Fred Dudley: The issue is for the Commission to decide. The DEC statement is only binding on the Petitioner’s case. The rulemaking process is the better way to go. Harm has not been demonstrated with only a 15% increase in cost.
Mo Madani stated that Section 102.1 is not relevant to the case. The code is structured to provide applicability, then requirements within. The alternate materials clause applies to the occasional circumstance where a new or different method is proposed to be used.
The Chair then turned the discussion over to the TAC. Roger Sanders made the point that different sections of the code can have more stringent requirements. Jan Geyselaers commented that he was concerned that the TAC is ruling on something outside of their scope. Dave Wojcieszak agreed with the staff recommendation. Rob Vieira commented that it appears to be a legal issue.
Wojcieszak moved that the TAC accept the staff recommendation for the four original questions as well as the supplemental question; Cochell seconded. On a roll call, all 9 voting members voted in favor of the motion.
Regarding the disposition of DS2012-021 by Joe Belcher, petitioner:
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the code definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of the FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the statutory definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. The definition in Florida Statutes has been appropriately clarified by the code. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.
On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Is Note d to Table 101.4.1 intended to codify Chapter 553.902 [and 553.903] Florida Statutes?, the answer is YES, when Florida law was superimposed upon the language in the base document (the International Energy Conservation Code), the renovations clause was included under Section 101.4 of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation, Applicability, as footnote d to Table 101.4.1. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.
On a seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding the conflict between Sections 101.4.1 and 402.3.6, does 101.4.1 prevail since it reflects statutory requirements?, the answer is YES, the criteria of Section 101.4, including footnote “d” to Table 101.4.1, take precedence to the requirements of Section 402.3.6 because they determine applicability of the code to existing buildings as determined by Florida law. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.
On a seconded motion from Wojcieszak, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Since the project does not exceed 30 percent of the assessed value of the residential dwelling in accordance with Section 101.4.1and Table101.4.1 Note d, does Florida Building Code-Energy Conservation Section 402.3.6 apply to the project? The answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure.
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Greiner at 3:40 p.m.