NEEDED
2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE 61G20.1.001
|
|
TEXT |
RATIONALE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
TABLE 101.4.1 APPLICABILITY
a An existing building or
portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less
energy efficient than its existing condition. b Minimum equipment efficiencies shall be met only
when equipment is installed to specifically serve the addition or is being
installed in conjunction with the construction of the addition. cIf an existing building is
unable to meet one or more current prescriptive code minimum requirements, it
may be exempt from those minimum requirements if the entire building is
brought into compliance by Section 405 or Section 506, as applicable. d Buildings undergoing
alteration that vary or change insulation, HVAC systems, water heating
systems, or exterior envelope provided that the estimated cost exceeds 30
percent of the assessed value of the structure (See Ch. 2, Definitions). |
Inconsistency with State law. Considerable confusion has ensued concerning the treatment of existing buildings. Because it is so difficult to determine the efficiencies actually installed in existing buildings and because it is so expensive to renovate existing buildings, the mandating legislation in Chapter 553.906, Florida Statutes, exempted buildings not meeting the definition of RENOVATION1,3 from compliance with the code and required only that the component(s) being changed be brought up to code where a major renovation is taking place. Also confusing the issue is recent legislation that requires equipment sizing and duct sealing. Unequal enforcement of these provisions, in conjunction with signi-ficant changes in how refrigerants are treated nationally has caused complete system replacement, additional expense and unlicensed activity. Staff recommends that the original Legislative treatment of Renovations be used across the board. Attachment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Both a and d recommended. J.
Richmond. Fred – introduced Eric Lacey.
Areas of concern: do not believe that all changes proposed meet any of the
criteria for glitch amendments. Lacey – Responsible Energy
Code Alliance. Not enough of an
inconsistency to warrant an amendment.
Code should be consistent with state law. Changes make Table more inconsistent. This table is brand new to code. Also not in IECC or any other code. Table should be revised and not the
statute. 2nd. Term
renovation vs. renovated building – define in statute for renovated building
is not the same as definition for renovation as in FBC. Not defined in IECC or ASHRAE. Inconsistent with statute. Language of statute should
control over language of code and should include statute language in code and
not code language in statute. In
appropriate to overwrite statute. i.e. – staff rational –
inconsistency with state law – 553.906 – Statute refers to renovated
buildings. Definition for renovated
buildings refers to buildings undergoing renovations – Should apply only to
buildings undergoing 30% of renovations.
This table creates inconsistencies with state law. Fundamental misunderstanding –
in meaning of terms. Caution not to make changes
that create more inconsistencies with statute. Use ‘term ‘renovated building’ instead of
‘renovation’. Belcher – recommend support of
staff position on Table 101.4.1 Khebrank – changes proposed by
staff do meet the glitch criteria. (e)
Consistent with state law and provided
relevant statute. Definition for
renovated buildings in statute includes the term renovations and includes
HVAC or systems, etc. Some other codes
also not in Energy Standards and should be applied. Savage – rational – confusing
issue is legislation with equipment sizing and duct ceiling – appears to be
saying going with 30% rule across the board.
If this change seeks to accomplish this – it contrary to state law –
553.912 – regarding size analysis and duct inspection. If replacement activities are consistent
with this then he would accept changes. Stanton – Involved in
admitting 101.4.1 – goal to take FBCEC.
Criteria were intended to input specifics of the law. Conflict with code and not previous
conditions. Not consistent with IECC
and this would clear up reference. Glenn – speaking new building
systems criteria – by inserting the language – this un-doe what was included
in 2007 and 2010 code as a result of FS553.912. How do you get to 101.4? – this leaves no
path to get to threshold. There is no
guidance if greater than 30% threshold on HVAC. Fred - Propose change – 1 -
will make code inconsistent with FS. Section 553.903 does discuss
new and renovated buildings. In 1993
language was added – in 1997 added ‘and to the installation of building
systems and components and products to which standards are set by’.. Misleading is that this box
only discusses new buildings. Should
say ‘installation and replacement of systems and components.” Arlene – questions if we are
off track – Exist code addresses alterations I, II, and III. Khebrank – Clarification if
Glenn’s issue is only to duct testing and ceiling issue? – Glenn Yes. No comment on other recommendations. Philip – under new building
systems, language appears to read the word ‘or” if replacing HVAC, then
minimum efficiencies must be met? Mo -
must be met under federal law. Phil- Fed law for pool heating
and lighting systems? Glenn – this is the point I am
trying to make – the paragraph begins with ‘when the building meets 30%
threshold’. Because adding phrase at beginning
of section – no criteria – by adding this language recreates same problem. Wojcieszak – recently dealing
with existing buildings – misconception on how this table works. Recommend to make it read more clearly that
this relates to installs in new buildings. Jon – current code says should
use Manual J in #1? TAC Comment
– Glitch Jon motion that this does meet
glitch criteria (b) and (f). 2nd
– Wojcieszak Vote – unanimous approval. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2 |
101.4.7 Building systems. Where a building meets the definition of renovation, thermal efficiency standards are set for the following building systems where new products are installed or replaced in existing buildings…. |
Inconsistency with State law. Same as #1 above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Glenn – with the inclusion of the new phrase, no option of what to do
if building does not meet threshold of 30%.
This section becomes non-applicable.
Savage – agrees with Glenn and previously asked if this does away
with sizing direction – and Mo said yes. But later stated no. “553.912 state All replacement AC systems”… Mo – only invoked if “over 30%”.
When exceeding 30%, must go into sizing of existing equipment. Language as written in code with regards to
sizing calculations and duct inspections – has been misapplied and difficult
to deal with. Many concerns and
trying to harmonize statute that is more practical to deal with. Trying to resolve developing problems with
the way code has been written and is unclear. Lacey – There is an area where not quite at 30% and does not qualify
as renovation – there are two categories - - one is for renovated building
and the other for replacement of systems and components which includes sizing
and testing. Goes wrong at point where
applying 30% and seems to include “ALL” systems, not just new. Belcher – Table 101.4.1 says shall not be altered or reduced in level
of standard. Savage – law is black and white in what it requires. Need to work with CBO’s and hold workshops
to train. The law cannot be changed. TAC Cochell – Mr. Savage discussed 553.912 – This language is specific as
to which systems it addresses. This
language is not needed 101.4.7. This
justification that cbo’s and contractors are complaining is enough to
effectively remove this language from code.
There is no HVAC system that costs more than 30% of the appraised
value. Greiner – workgroups spent great deal of time regarding the
replacement of equipment and this does not need to be changed. Mo – staff on the front line taking calls and complaints – and in
dealing with commercial units – many conflicts with implementation. The way it is written is difficult to
apply. If persons are frustrated, code
will not be implemented. How to comply
when replacing components and not full system is the issue. Looking for solutions. Wojcieszak – deal with mechanical contractors. They do not seem to
want to comply when dealing with old equipment and owner does not have funds
to deal with $4-$5K system. Parts and
compressor can be replaced – but replacing condenser—other criteria must be
met. Most contractors will not replace
condenser on a 20 or 30 year old unit.
Rafael – two different scenarios that are concerns – need to replace
air handler and chiller will need to be replaced as well. Residential unit – 10 year old system, air
handler in good shape, but lose compressor – $1000 to replace and 90 days
warranty – or replace with new system that costs $1500 or whole new system
that costs $5000. Sanders – Still replace compressor as long as matched with equipment
maintain performance of equipment. Phillip – chilled water coil, evaporator or condenser unit – should
be able to replace without replacing whole unit. Cochell – on workgroup – everything discussed regarded residential change
outs and did not address commercial units.
Distinction should be made in code and it will end confusion. Phillip – table did have ‘less than 65K Btu limit’ included. Would it not benefit to remove that from
this section? Mo – suggests that TAC could make a proposal to that effect. No wording that indicates commercial in
language but it could be clarified. Wojcieszk – needs more work – needs more clarification. Mo clarify - Limit to residential? Philip – recommending MOTION - ‘for residential buildings’ to be
added at top of 101.4.7. 2nd Mo suggests adding this change to 101.4.7.1 – Jack suggests – adding to 101.4.7.1 and 101.4.7.2 Amend motion. Philip – this could leave out systems in 101.4.7. Friendly amendment accepted. TAC Comment
– Glitch with comment to add “for residential building s“at top of Sections
101.4.7.1 and 101.4.7.2. Vote – 9-0 - unanimously approved as a glitch and change to be made
in 101.4.7.1 and 1.1.4.7.2 not in 101.4.7. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
101.4.8 Exempt buildings. Buildings
exempt from the provisions of the 101.4.8.1 Federal standards. Any building for which federal mandatory standards preempt state energy codes 101.4.8.2 Hunting or recreational buildings < 1,000 square feet. Any building of less than l,000 square feet (93 m2) whose primary use is not as a principal residence and which is constructed and owned by a natural person for hunting or similar recreational purposes is exempt from this code; however, no such person may build more than one exempt building in any 12-month period. 101.4.8.3 Historic buildings. Any building meeting the criteria for historic buildings
in Section 101.4.2. 101.4.8.4
Low energy buildings as described in Section 101.5.2. Such buildings shall not contain electrical,
plumbing or mechanical systems which have been designed to accommodate the
future installation of heating or cooling equipment. 101.4.8.5 Buildings designed for purposes other than
general space comfort conditioning. Any building where heating or
cooling systems are provided which are designed for purposes other than
general space comfort conditioning. Buildings included in this exemption
include: 1. Commercial
service areas where only ceiling radiant heaters or spot coolers are to be
installed which will provide heat or cool only to a single work area and do
not provide general heating or cooling for the space. 2. Buildings heated
with a system designed to provide sufficient heat only to prevent freezing of
products or systems. Such systems shall not provide heating above 50°F
(10°C). 3. Pre-manufactured
freezer or refrigerated storage buildings and areas where the temperature is
set below 40°F (4°C) and in which no operators work on a regular basis. 4. Electrical
equipment switching buildings which provide space conditioning for equipment
only and in which no operators work on a regular basis except that the
provisions of Section 505.7 shall apply. |
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted
Florida-specific amendments with the model code. Buildings previously exempt from the The new base code is not consistent in how it lists exempt buildings, which should be listed together. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Wojcieszak – motion to accept staff recommendation – 2nd
Sanders Vote – 8-0 unanimous approval. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
TABLE 402.1.1.3 EQUIVALENT
U-FACTORSa,f,g
a. Nonfenestration U-factors shall be obtained from measurement, calculation or an
approved source. b. When more than half the insulation is on the exterior c. Basement wall U-factor of 0.360. d. Foundation U-factor requirements shown in Table 402.1.1.3 include wall
construction and interior air films but exclude soil conductivity and
exterior air films. U-factors
for determining code compliance in accordance with Section 402.1.1.3 (total UA alternative) shall be modified to
include soil conductivity and exterior air films. e. Window to floor area, including skylights, shall not exceed
20 percent. See Section 402.1.2.3. f. Limitations to compliance by Section 402 found in Section
402.1.2 shall be met. g. Ducts and air handlers shall be located inside both the
thermal and air barrier of the home. Air leakage shall be no more than
Qn=0.03 when tested per Section 403.2.2.1.
h. Roof reflectance shall be no more than 0.25 in accordance
with testing to Section 405.6.2. |
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted
Florida-specific amendments with the model code. Contrary to requirements of the base code, the equivalent U-factors for mass walls specific to the FBC-Energy Conservation code do not reflect most of the actual R-value of the concrete block, air spaces, stucco, drywall etc. which should be part of the analysis. Further, contrary to Table 402.1.1, Table 402.1.1.3 allows a mass wall with insulation on the interior of the wall to be compared with the U-factor for a concrete block wall with the insulation on the exterior of the wall (and vice versa). DEC statements DS 2012-020 and DS2012-039 request that this table be corrected. DS2012-020 found the table to be in error by the Energy TAC and the Florida Building Commission. DS2012-039 was heard at the May 24, 2012 Energy TAC meeting. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Phillip – commentary states that Dec. will be heard. Should state WAS heard on Feb 24th. Move – glitch based on internal inconsistencies within the code.
2nd – wojcieszak. Vote – 8-0 unanimously approved. |
|
|
5 |
402.3.6 Replacement
fenestration. Where a
building meets the definition of renovation
and some or all of an
existing fenestration unit is replaced with a new fenestration product,
including sash and glazing, the replacement fenestration unit shall meet the
applicable requirements for U-factor and SHGC in Table 402.1.1 |
Inconsistency with State law. Same as #1 above. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Lacey – Note that
they object. Belcher – Supports
proposal Khebrank – supports
staff proposal Ruark – same
situation as item 2 and should be handled the same way. Can’t ignore one part of statute and look
to other. TAC - Comment Jon – do not see
this as a glitch. The code states what
was intended. Greiner – does not
need to add definition of renovation – but because of action on Dec.
statement this does provide clarification. Phillip – unable to
attend last meeting – Mo – Dec. was
reviewed and TAC affirmed first action taken in march that window replacement
does fall under the 30% rule.
Consistent with action taken by TAC at meeting on 5/14/2012. Cochell – that this
is a glitch Wojcieszak 2nd. Vote – Greiner - y Cochell - y Fairey - n Jan - n Palacios – y Sanders - y Wojcieszak - y 5-2 fails. Philip – re-write
to limit number of windows replaced (i.e. – if only one window replaced.) Jon – agrees with
Phil. If changing all windows or
almost all windows should be brought up to code. 30% of windows. Richmond – for
those that voted no – how do reconcile this vote with vote on item #1? Phil – this is
written exclusively for fenestration replacements only. Mo – must still go
through chapter 1. Trying to further
clarify to remove confusion. Phil – 402.3.6 –
replacement – specific to windows and doors only. Mo – must read full
code not take sections separately. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
6 |
403.2 Ducts. 403.2.1
Insulation (Prescriptive). Supply ducts, including air filter enclosures,
air ducts and plenums, located Exceptions: 1. Ducts or portions thereof located completely inside the building thermal envelope. 2. Exhaust air ducts 3. Factory-installed plenums, casings or ductwork furnished as a part of tested and rated HVAC equipment. 403.2.2 Sealing (Mandatory). All ducts, air handlers, filter boxes and building cavities which form the primary air containment passageways for air distribution systems shall be considered ducts or plenum chambers, shall be constructed and sealed in accordance with Section 503.2.7.2 of this code and shall be shown to meet duct tightness criteria in Section 403.2.2.1. 403.2.2.1
Duct tightness. Duct tightness
shall be verified by testing to ASHRAE
Standard 152 by
either a Class 1 BERS rater or a Class A, B or Mechanical air-conditioning
contractor. All ducts and air handlers shall be either located in
conditioned space or tested 1. Post
construction test: Leakage to outdoors shall be less than or equal to 3
cfm (84.9 L/min) per 100 ft2 (9.29 m2) of conditioned
floor area and 2. Rough-in test: Total leakage shall be less than or equal to 4 cfm (113.3 L/min) per 100 ft2 (9.29 m2) of conditioned floor area when tested at a pressure differential of 0.1 inches w.g. (25 Pa) across the roughed-in system, including the manufacturer’s air handler enclosure. All register boots shall be taped or otherwise sealed during the test. If the air handler is not installed at the time of the test, total leakage shall be less than or equal to 2 cfm (56.3 L/min) per 100 ft2 (9.29 m2) of conditioned floor area. Exception: Duct testing is not mandatory for buildings complying by Section 405 of this code. →Submitted
by Rob Viera
|
Conflicts within the updated code. The only place R-8 duct insulation is required for residential buildings in Chapter 4 is on roofs. Section 405.2 specifically allows R-6 ducts for compliance by the performance alternative. Change to State law. HB704 Equivalency of standards. This language is incorrect for the duct test per ASHRAE Standard 152. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Jeff Sonne– states
not in attics – but does reference roofs. Does it refer to table 102.11 regarding R8
on the roof. Suggests removing
R8. Should read – ducts insulated to
minimum of R6 and remove the remainder of language. Rob – references to
being R8 outside of conditioned space causes conflict. Jeff – then
exception would need to be removed, as well, if this is approved. Glenn – are you
stating that if exception 1 goes away then R8 goes away as well? Philip – to comply
with prescriptive code – this causes confusion. Quintela –
questioned if testing for leaking could be done by mechanical contractors? Mo – yes – this
is as per HB 704. TAC Comment – Glitch with comment to amended to read in conditioned space, all
duct work should use the prescriptive method, or use compliance method. 403.2.1 Insulation (Prescriptive) Supply and
return ducts, including air filter enclosures, air ducts and plenums shall be
located Exceptions: 1. Exhaust air ducts 2. Factory‐installed plenums, casings or
ductwork furnished as a part of tested and rated HVAC equipment. Cochell – this is
confusing. Motion to forward
correcting this as a glitch. Supports
comments by Sonne. 2nd Philip. Amended to read in
conditioned space, all duct work should use the prescriptive method, or use
compliance method (see proposed text above). Vote 7-0
unanimously approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
7 |
502.1.1.1 Shell
buildings, renovations and alterations. The building thermal envelope shall meet the requirements of Table
502.1.1.1(1) or Table 502.1.1.1(2). See Section 101.4.3 and Section 101.4.9. |
Conflicts within the updated code. Shell buildings are governed by 101.4.9 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Cochell motion to accept staff recommendation
2nd Fairey Vote 7-0 unanimously approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
8 |
TABLE 502.1.1.1 (2) [rest of the
table, no change] ENVELOPE PRESCRIPTIVE
MEASURES FOR RENOVATIONS AND ALTERATIONS1
→Submitted
by Joe Belcher
|
Conflicts within the updated code. This is a mathematical conversion error that needs to be corrected. DEC statement DS2012-019 requested that this table be corrected; it was found to be in error by the Energy TAC and FBC. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Fairey motion to accept staff
recommendation 2nd Cochell Vote 7-0 unanimously approved. |
|
|
9 |
TABLE 503.2.8
MINIMUM PIPE INSULATION (in.)1
1For insulation outside
the stated conductivity range, the minimum thickness (T) shall be determined
as follows: T=r{(1+t/r)K/k –
1} Where T= minimum insulation thickness
(in.), r=actual outside radius of pipe (in.), t=insulation thickness listed in
this table for applicable fluid temperature and pipe size, K=conductivity of
alternate material at mean rating temperature indicated for the applicable
fluid temperature (Btu.in.[h.ft2.oF]; and k=upper value
of the conductivity range listed in this table for applicable fluid
temperature. 2These thicknesses
are based on energy efficiency considerations only. Additional insulation is
sometimes required relative to safety issues/surface temperatures. 3 Piping insulation is
not required between the control valve and coil on run‐outs when the
control valve is located within 4 feet
of the coil and the pipe size is 1 inch or less. 4 These thicknesses are
based on energy efficiency considerations only. Issues such as water vapor permeability
or surface condensation sometimes require vapor retarders or additional
insulation. |
Equivalency of standards. When updating Table 503.2.8 to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, errors were made which should be corrected. Values listed for 1 to 1˝” and 1˝ to 4” pipe are higher than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2007. Also, footnote 1 is incorrect. The equation should be fixed to agree with ASHRAE 90.1-2007 to obtain the correct minimum insulation thickness. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Cochell - Motion to accept
staff recommendation 2nd – Fairey Vote 7-0 unanimously approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10 |
TABLE
B-1.1.2(1) SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TH ESTANDARD REFERENCE AND PROPOSED DESIGNS [rest
of the table remains the same]
|
Conflicts within the updated code. When |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Cochell – it is a glitch and
motion to accept staff recommendation 2nd Fairy Vote 7-0
unanimously approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11 |
TABLE
B-2.2(1) SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TH ESTANDARD REFERENCE AND PROPOSED DESIGNS [rest
of the table remains the same]
|
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code. This section refers to Commission-approved software (a Florida-specific remnant from the 2007 FBC) to contain the Standard Reference Design component efficiencies, while software developers are directed by the Energy Simulation Tool Technical Assistance Manual to obtain such information from the code. The Standard Reference Design features are now referenced to Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 in a footnote, not contained in the code. Interested parties who want to know what level of efficiency their building is compared to have to go to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 or Chapter 13 of the 2004 Florida Building Code to find the information. These values properly belong in Table B-2.2(1). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Fairey – this clarifies and
should go forward as a proposed glitch.
Accept staff recommendation 2nd Cochell Vote 7-0, unanimously
approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12 |
B-1.1.3.1 Following normalization of the heating, cooling and hot water….If the total normalized modified loads of the Proposed Design home (nMEULtot) are equal to or less than 80 percent of the total reference loads of the Standard Reference Design home (REULtot) the Proposed Design complies with this code. |
Conflicts within the updated code. This section needs to be consistent with Sec. B-1.1.1. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Motion Cochell to accept staff
recommendation 2nd Palacios Vote 7-0, unanimously
approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
13 |
B-2.6 HVAC systems B-2.6.1 Standard reference design. [1 – 7, 9-10 No change] 8. Fan system efficiency (BHP per cfm of
supply air including the effect of belt losses but excluding motor and motor
drive losses) shall be the limit allowed in Table
503.2.10.1(1). |
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code. These Florida-specific clauses which were adopted from Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1 were not previously in the code or in the program. By including them designers are facing an unanticipated increase in overall stringency of the code and are effectively unable to comply with the code in some cases. The previous credit for installing more efficient fans was inadvertently removed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- TAC Comment – Glitch Cochell – accept staff
recommendation 2nd Sanders Vote 7-0, unanimously
approved. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
14 |
Appendix C Form 402-2010 Table
402B MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
Submitted by Rob Viera
|
Conflicts within the updated code. The only place R-8 duct insulation is required for residential buildings in Chapter 4 is on roofs. Change to State law. HB704 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEEDED 2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE
61G20.1.001
|
|
TEXT |
RATIONALE |
|||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Staff suggests approving with
same changes as recommended by FSEC. Fairey – motion to approve as
staff recommends. 2nd
Cochell Palacios – qualifications of
tester? TAC Comment – Glitch Vote – 7-0 unanimously
approved. |
|
|||||
|
15 |
B-2.6 HVAC systems B-2.6.1 Standard reference design. [1 – 7, 10 No change, changes for 8 previously dealt with under 13] 9. The equipment
capacities for the standard reference design shall be sized
proportionally to the capacities in the proposed design based on
sizing runs; i.e., the ratio between the capacities used in the annual
simulations and the capacities determined by the sizing runs shall be the
same for both the proposed design and standard reference design.
|
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code. These Florida-specific clauses which were adopted from Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1 were not previously in the code or in the program. By including them designers, in some cases, are facing an unanticipated increase in overall stringency of the code and, in other cases, there is potential of decreased stringency. |
|||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Swami
– these changes were discussed previously - already making sure inside
program in previous versions to put under user. Since opened, making sure done manually and
has had unintended consequences. TAC Comment – Glitch Fairy
– motion to approved staff recommendation as a glitch – Palacios 2nd. Vote
– 7-0 unanimously approved. |
|
|||||
|
16 |
TABLE B-2.2 SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STANDARD REFERENCE AND PROPOSED
DESIGNS
|
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code. These Florida-specific clauses which were adopted from Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1 were not previously in the code or in the program. By including them, there is the potential of unintentionally decreasing in stringency in some cases. |
|||||
|
|
Notes: May 24 Energy TAC Meeting- Swami
- This clarifies language for users. Sande4rs
motion to accept staff recommendation – Cochell 2nd Vote
7-0, unanimously approved. |
|
|||||
|
17 |
TABLE
504.2 MINIMUM
PERFORMANCE OF WATER-HEATING EQUIPMENT
TAC Comment – Glitch Sanders
- Motion to correct typographical error. As a glitch – Cochell 2nd Vote
7-0 unanimously approved. |
Equivalency of standards. When updating Table 504.2 to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, a typographical error
was made which should be corrected. |
NEEDED
2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: Public Comment
|
18 |
403.1 Controls 403.1.1
Thermostat Provision (Mandatory). At least one
thermostat shall be provided for each separate heating and cooling system. 403.1. 403.1. 403.1. ------------- 401.2 Compliance. Projects shall comply with Sections 401,
402.4, 402.5, and 403.1.1, 403.1.3, 403.1.4,
403.2.2, 403.2.3, and 403.3 through 403.9 (referred to as the mandatory
provisions) and either: 1.
Sections 402.1 through 402.3, 403.1.2, 403.2.1 and 404.1
(prescriptive); or 2.
Section 405 (performance). TAC Comment – Glitch Fairey
– motion this is a glitch and accept staff recommendation. Palacios 2nd Vote
– 7-0 unanimously approved. |
Conflicts within the
updated code. Although Section 403.1, Controls, is
labeled as Mandatory, it is unclear whether all control requirements are.
Table B-1.1.2(1) allows controls other than programmable thermostats to be
used. The proposed language would clarify that programmable thermostats are
Prescriptive for compliance by Section 402.1, Compliance, rather than to
compliance by Section 405 (performance). Changes are also proposed to Section
401.2 to clarify this conflict of code issue. Conflicts
within the updated code. Submitted by the |
||||||
|
19 |
TABLE B-1.1.2(1) [rest of the table
remains the same] SPECIFICATIONS FOR TH ESTANDARD
REFERENCE AND PROPOSED DESIGNS
|
Conflicts within the
updated code. When Florida’s baseline
features were transferred to the FBC-EC,
the design features for programmable thermostats contained in the EG USA
computer program were not included in Table B-1.1.2(1). EG USA uses the
indicated setback schedule to provide consistent credit for use of this
device, which should be specified here to provide for consistency among code
compliance software programs. Submitted by the |
|
20 |
405.6.6 Installation criteria for homes using the
ceiling fan option. The ceiling fan option shall apply a 2% reduction
in cooling energy use for the proposed design if one or more ceiling fans are
installed in each of the bedrooms and a minimum of one ceiling fan is
installed in all primary living areas (living rooms, family rooms, or great
rooms). This shall not include spaces designed to be dining rooms or dining
areas. Areas separated by permanently fixed archways, walls, or dividers
shall be considered separate rooms. The following criteria shall be met: 1. Ceiling fans shall be installed with minimum
fan blade diameters of no less than those listed in Table 405.6.5 for the
size and shape of the room. 2. Where a primary living area is an “L-shaped”
room and the smaller portion of this area is 8 feet by 10 feet (2438 mm by
3048 mm) or larger, a fan shall be installed in both the larger and smaller
portions of the primary living area. Exception:
Credit shall not be taken for both ceiling fans and cross ventilation. TABLE
405.6.6 FAN SIZING TABLE
For SI: 1 inch =
25.4mm, 1 foot = 304.8 mm. [Renumber section 405.6.6
to 405.6.7 and renumber section 405.6.7 to 405.6.8.] |
Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code. The included language for ceiling fans has been in the energy code for years; it appears to have been unintentionally left out of the 2010 FBC- Energy Conservation. Submitted by
the |
||||||||||||
|
|
TAC – Greiner – was this covered
previously? Mo – no. TAC Comment – Glitch Fairey – this was part of
2009. Cochell – this is a glitch –
motion to accept recommendation. 2nd Palacios . Vote 7-0, unanimously
approved. |
|