NEEDED 2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE 61G20.1.001

TEXT

RATIONALE

E1

TABLE 101.4.1

APPLICABILITY NONEXEMPT TO EXISTING BUILDINGS^a

Date-Related
	Permitted before March 1979	Permitted after March 1979
Not previously conditioned (See Section 101.4.5)	Unconditioned space altered to become conditioned space shall be brought into full compliance with meet current code^c. Considered an addition Minimum efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed: Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505
Occupancy type change^a. (See Section 101.4.4)	Spaces that will result in an increase in demand for fossil fuel or electrical energy, shall mMeet current code^c Minimum efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed: Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505
Not Date-Related
Addition	Meet code for addition^,b,c
Renovation^a,^d	Where a building meets the definition of renovation^d, mMinimum code envelope, equipment and lighting efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed^c: Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505
New building systems^a (HVAC, service hot water or pool heating, lighting, motors)	Where nNew products are installed or replaced in existing buildings or structures meeting the definition of Renovation^d, they shall meet the minimum efficiency allowed for that system: Equipment: Sections 101.4.7, 403.6.2 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505 HVAC indoor and outdoor units ≤ 65,000 Btu/h that are not designed to operate together shall be matched. HVAC equipment sizing is required per Sections 403 or 503.

^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 RENOVATION^1,3 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 significant 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.

Item 1 & 2 pulled. Commissioner Smith pulled 1 & 2. Items 3 – 17 remain on consent agenda. Approved as “glitches”.

v See attachment (Kari Comment)

TAC Comment – May 24, 2012 - Glitch

Jon motion that this does meet glitch criteria (b) and (f). 2^nd – Wojcieszak

Vote – unanimous approval.

COMMISSION actions –June 12, 2012 – Glitch (Deferred)

Note: Send back to Energy TAC to come up with a technical recommendation to reconcile differences in table.

E. Lacey has provided comment in Exhibit #1. 75% of windows sold in Florida are replacements.

M. Nau, PGT. Support Lacey’s position.

R. Wright, Custom Window Systems. Support Lacey modifications. FBC has established a standard for windows. Only a slight cost difference between meeting standard and not: have to use a separate piece of glass. Benefits tremendous, cost payback quick.

R. Greeson. On behalf of SEEA, urge support of Lacey proposal. Intent: provide cutting edge issue in state. Report ACEEE, could save consumers $415 billion annually. Opportunity to assist citizen in years to come.

J. Gascon, Miami-Dade. Want to make sure Commission understands implications on other areas of code, including roofing.

Mark Zehnal. Agree with J. Gascon. Will significantly increase cost of roof.

Dudley, Esq. Representing RECA and Custom Windows. Agree that there are glitches in table. Position is that all inconsistencies with state statute are the extent of glitches. If adopt Lacey proposal, clarifies all inconsistencies. This is a legal question.

J. Belcher. Writing in support of staff proposal as supported by TAC. “Window that complies with the code”, means default table values. Section 101.4.1 says to comply with code. If don’t exceed 30%, don’t have to comply with rest of code. When you change windows, impacting the envelope. Only referenced in 553.906.

K. Hebrank. Support TACs recommendation on this Table. S. 553.902 define “renovated building”, as 30% of cost of structure. Definition has been in place since 1978. Table 101.4.1 is a “glitch fix” because there are conflicts in code. “Code compliant windows” were those in effect before code implemented 3/15/12.

E. Lacey. Point by Gascon, roofing. Wouldn’t be changed if not specifically required by code; not aware of such a requirement. Justification used by Belcher and Hebrank specified by statute. Staff’s recommendation takes two categories and applies 30% threshold to both categories.

A. Stewart. Have to disagree with Hebrank that this is the result of unintended consequences. Lots of meetings; 2009 Work Group meeting did consider impact of replacing windows.

L. Olson, Window Industries. Support Hebrank’s comments. [C. Browdy: question. Testimony re: increased cost of window.] Increased cost is between 20 – 30 percent based on manufacturing cost to end user.

AVP Windows & Doors. Believe code and Statutes has been in place since code’s inception, should be maintained as reads. Looking at a differential between 30-40% to the homeowner. Difference is between single pane windows and insulated glass: double glass, frame to allow insulated glass. Safety design pressures are problem. Homeowners like flexibility.

R. Wright, Custom Windows: On cost issue, important to clarify difference between impact windows and non-impact windows. Non-impact window is 2 sheets of glass separated by air space and spacer: relatively inexpensive. If impact window, highest cost is lamination, not extra cost of glass. Incremental window in impact resistance, 15%, non-impact about the same.

L. Ross, Intech representing DOW chemical. Testimony brought up includes other products. This is about energy conservation. Other code that affects alterations is FBC, Existing Building. If staff recommendation is adopted as read, now creating a new conflict with FBC, Existing Building. With staff recommendation will never have increased standards for products.

A. Hickman. Agree with Belcher and Hebrank.

D. Wilkes. Replacement window are exempt in energy code. Belcher has referenced

Stanton: Default table is not code minimums; it is applicable for non-labeled windows.

Commission discussion.

Motion and second: It is a glitch. Approved unanimously.

Fix:

Gregory: If lose a window in a storm, structure is diminished. Re: definition of Renovated building. See window as part of exterior envelope. [Lacey: agree] If homeowner wants to replace 1 window, why require replace with energy efficient window? [Lacey: if just replacing 1 window, not a renovated building, but there is a standard in code for replacement of fenestration]. Gregory sees additional requirement on citizens. Allow choices, not requirement on populace. [Blair: should be deciding how to fix the glitch][Browdy: Need legal opinion from own staff.

Hammond: Statute seems to not be clear. When not clear, not up to the Commission, it is up to Judicial and Legislature. Best Commission can do is act on what is available today. Not a simple issue because statutes is not clear. Rules can help interpret statute, not fix. Laid out as clear as possible without further input.

Anderson-Adams: Laid out as clear as possible.

Shock: In favor of glitch (staff proposal). Impact far-reaching. Cost to homeowner additional when just fixing house. Intent of legislation was to not make measures worse, rather to fix without bringing up to code.

Tolbert: Existing building code has threshold for when code is brought into effect. Hard to believe that an energy code requirements are more important than a life safety requirement.

Smith: This is more reaching in terms of impact, than air-conditioning. Looking at replacement of a/c system or pool pump. Should treat envelope separate from a/c & systems.

Franco: Agree with Lacey. Constantly looking for improvement in energy efficiency. Doesn’t make sense that replacement windows not meet code. Impact on other systems another factor. Cost will come down, will become more affordable. Better for citizens.

Palacios. Has staff looked at Lacey table? [Madani: Lacey proposal is a reversal to staff recommendation. Would change how code considers existing buildings. Additional cost not considered. TAC has approved this as a glitch] Does Lacey table match statute? [Anderson-Adams: depends on which part of the statute, 30% or building systems/components.] [Madani: Re in sink with FL statute, staff recommendation, Yes. Lacey: No]

Boyer: What would it take to get an AG opinion?

Richmond: Chair could ask for one. Not fast.

Scherer Agree with Lacey proposal, question of Lacey, through Chair. What about other new requirements.

Lacey: Other costs need to be met irrespective of cost. First time

Gregory: Respond to Lacey’s suggestion that windows are systems. Don’t think so.

Gregory: Move to accept staff’s recommendation, second Hamrick. Stone: will vote against motion; don’t believe it is a glitch. In favor: 10; opposed 4. Motion fails.

Stone, move to reconsider if it is a glitch. Aye: 6, Nay: 8. Fails.

Franco: Move to send back to TAC to come up with a technical recommendation to reconcile differences in table.

Shearer: If do this, building officials have no guidance as to whether to enforce. Aye: 13, Oppose, 1. Passes.

TAC Comment Aug6 -

Motion by Sanders to withdraw E1; second by Fairey. Vote 11-0, withdraw.

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

NEEDED 2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE 61G20.1.001

TEXT

RATIONALE

E2

Table 101.4.1 NONEXEMPT EXISTING BUILDINGS a

Date-Related
	Permitted before March 1979	Permitted after March 1979
Not previously conditioned	Minimum efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed: Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505	Considered an addition, meet current code
Occupancy type change	Minimum efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed: Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505	Meet current code c
Not Date-Related
Addition	Meet code for addition b, c
Renovation Renovated Building d	Minimum code envelope, equipment and lighting efficiency levels shall be met for components being changed. Envelope: Section 402 or 502 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505
New Installation or replacement of building systems and components (HVAC, service hot water or pool heating, lighting, motors, fenestration)	New products installed or replaced in existing buildings shall meet the minimum efficiency allowed for that replacement system or component. Fenestration: Section 402.3.6 Equipment: Section 403 or 503, 504 Lighting: Section 404 or 505 HVAC indoor and outdoor units ≤ 65,000 Btu/h that are not designed to operate together shall be matched. HVAC equipment sizing is required pe Section 403 or 503.

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.

c If 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).

Amend Chapter 2 as follows:

Renovated Building. A residential or nonresidential building undergoing alteration that varies or changes insulation, HVAC systems, water heating systems, or exterior envelope conditions, provided the estimated cost of renovation exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. Renovation. Any structural repair, reconstruction or restoration to a structure, the costs of which equals or exceeds, over a 1-year period, a cumulative total of 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure when that value is assessed, either:

1. Before the improvement or repair is started; or

2. Before the damage occurred, if the structure has been damaged.

For the purposes of this Code, renovation occurs when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part or mechanical system of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure.

Eric Lacey, Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA)

See attachment Jenah Zweig

Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA)

v See attachment (RECA)

v See attachment (Florida Statute)

TAC Comment Aug6

Motion by Sanders to approve E2, second by Cochell. Vote 0-11, denied.

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

NEEDED 2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE 61G20.1.001

TEXT

RATIONALE

E3

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.

TAC –May 24, 2012- 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 2^nd.

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.

COMMISSION action –June 12, 2012 – Glitch (deferred)

Note: send back to TAC for consideration [in conjunction with 101.4.1] to make a technical evaluation.

Public:

Lacey: Recommend this not be acted on if Table 101.4 sent back to TAC.

Nau: This section addresses how windows treated in code. Looking for consistency. When TAC voted to remove HVAC from glitch, argument reversed. Saw in same light. If HVAC covered by code, so should windows.

Belcher: Proposal solves problem seen by other Commissioners, limits scope only to windows. TAC vote could have been different because two TAC members left call.

Hebrank: PGT representative statement that this only applies to windows. Commission has already broadened it to pool pumps.

Stewart: Changing this has the opportunity to become a nightmare.

Wright: Agree with Lacey, this is directly related to section 101.4.1. Commission action put 402.3.6 in place, manufacturers spend millions to comply.

Vieira: Attended the TAC meeting. Fairey felt this was not a glitch.

- (window supplier). Should not be mandatory, need choice not to buy expensive windows.

Commission:

Schock: Move this is a glitch, Gonzalez second. Franco: Doesn’t seem to be a glitch. Aye 11, Nay 3. Passes.

Gregory: Move to accept staff recommendation, Mollen second. Aye 3 Opposed 10 Fails

Gregory, don’t see that windows are systems.

Public comment:

Dudley: Had a recommendation [didn’t pass] from the TAC that not a glitch. TAC did not make recommendation on technical issue.

Hammond: TAC didn’t make recommendation.

Richmond: Staff recommendation still up for consideration.

Shock: Move to send back to TAC for consideration [in conjunction with 101.4.1] to make a technical evaluation and bring back to Commission, second. Aye unanimous.

Gregory: Move take TAC meet face to face, Palacios second. Aye unanimous.

Dudley: Tried to get TAC face to face before. It didn’t happen.

Richmond: Did have face to face in Tallahassee with teleconference option. May have prevented members from attending. Electronic means for TAC and public to participate.

Palacios: Attending a meeting in Tallahassee is terrible for a meeting.

Browdy: Recommend meet in Tampa so all can attend. Will work out details.

TAC Comment Aug6 –

Motion by Sanders that E3 be withdrawn; second by Fairey. Vote: 11-0 to withdraw.

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

NEEDED 2010 ENERGY CODE FIXES: RULE 61G20.1.001

TEXT

RATIONALE

E4

402.3.6 Replacement fenestration. Where some or all of an existing fenestration unit is replaced with a new fenestration product including sash and glazing, and the estimated cost of the replacement fenestration exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure over a 1-year period or the replacement of the fenestration is part of a larger project exceeding 30 percent of the assessed value over a 1-year period, the replacement fenestration units shall meet the applicable requirements for U-factor and SHGC in Table 402.1.1.

Inconsistency with State law

Joseph D. Belcher

v Attachment

TAC Comment Aug6 –

Motion to approve by Fairey, second by Sanders. Vote 0-11, denied.

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

VCCC

E5

101.4.8 Exempt buildings. Buildings exempt from the provisions of the Florida Building Code, Energy

Conservation, include existing buildings except those considered renovated buildings, changes of

occupancy type, or previously unconditioned buildings to which comfort conditioning is added.

Exempt buildings include those specified in Sections 101.4.8.1 through 101.4.8.5.

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.

5. Buildings containing a system(s) designed and sold for dehumidification purposes only and

controlled only by a humidistat. No thermostat shall be installed on systems thus exempted

from this code.

Comment by R.W. Kicklighter. The proposed exemption (#5) for buildings designed for dehumidification purposes only has been in the Florida energy code for years. There are many buildings used for the sole purpose of storage of materials or objects which are sensitive to the high levels of humidity. Without an exemption for this type of building, it is very difficult or impossible to meet the intent of the FBC-Energy Conservation.

v Attachment

TAC Comment Aug6 –

Motion by Cochell that this is a Glitch based on unintended consequences; seconded by Geyselaers. Vote 11-0, approved.

Motion to approve by Fairey to; Second by Geyselaer. Vote 11-0, approved

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

E6

(a) Opaque assemblies such as roof, floors, doors, and walls shall be modeled as having the same heat capacity as the proposed design but with the maximum minimum U-factor required in the Commission approved compliance software^1 for new non-residential buildings or additions and alterations as shown below: CZ1              CZ2 Roof, walls, doors [No change] Floors Mass                               U-0.322        U-0.137 Steel joist                       U-0.350        U-0.052 Wood framed & other   U-0.282       U-0.051 Slab-on-grade floors UnhHeated                     F-0.730         F-0.730 UnhHeated                     F-1.020         F-1.020 High-rise residential buildings shall be modeled with the maximum U-factors shown below: CZ1              CZ2 Roof, walls, doors [No change] Floors Mass                              U-0.322        U-0.107 Steel joist                      U-0.350        U-0.052 Wood framed & other  U-0.282        U-0.051 Slab-on-grade floors UnhHeated                   F-0.730          F-0.730 UnhHeated                   F-1.020          F-1.020

(a) Any envelope assembly that covers less than 5% of the total area of that assembly type (e.g., exterior walls) need not be separately described. If not separately described, the area of an envelope assembly must be added to the area of the adjacent assembly of that same type.

COMMENT by Jacob Knowles. The standard reference design values specific for heated vs unheated slab-on-grade floors in the proposal are reversed and need to be corrected.

TAC Comment Aug6

Motion by Geyselaers that this is a Glitch based on original determination of Glitch status; also editorial. Seconded by Cochell. Vote 11-0, approved.

Motion to approve by Geyselaers, second by Fairey. Vote 11-0, approved.

Commission action: same as TAC’s recommendation

1. Section 553.903, Florida Statutes, Applicability, states: “This part shall apply to all new and renovated buildings in the state, except exempted buildings, for which building permits are obtained after March 15, 1979, and to the installation or replacement of building systems and components with new products for which thermal efficiency standards are set by the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction.” [NOTE: 2 clauses]

2. Section 101.4.7 of the FBC-Energy Conservation, states: “Thermal efficiency standards are set for the following building systems where new products are installed or replaced in existing building and for which a permit must be obtained. New products shall meet the minimum efficiencies allowed by this code for the following systems: Heating, ventilating or air conditioning systems; Service water or pool heating systems; Electrical systems and motors; Lighting systems.”

3. Sec. 553.902, Florida Statutes, defines RENOVATED BUILDING as “a residential or nonresidential building undergoing alteration that varies or changes insulation, HVAC systems, water heating systems, or exterior envelope conditions, provided the estimated cost of renovation exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure.” Section 202 of the FBC-Energy Conservation, further clarifies that the cost shall be cumulative over a 1 year period.