As with the AARA, the ACESA requires states to adopt and enforce energy efficiency building codes. At least two sets of funds and or allotments designated for states require certification of compliance to national building selected and updated by the US DOE. Also, the targets for increased energy efficiency requirements for the national code established by the bill are more aggressive than those established by Florida law.

Titles of Interest: Title II, Subtitles A & B Sec. 201 Building Codes Sec. 204 Building Performance Labeling Program Sec. 211 Lighting Efficiency Standards Sec. 212 Other Appliance Efficiency Standards Sec. 213 Appliance Efficiency Determinations and Procedures Sec. 215 WaterSource Sec. 218 Certified Stoves Program Sec. 219 Energy Star Standards

Energy Code Required Improvements: Improvement referenced to –

• Residential 2006 IECC

• Commercial2004 ASHRAE Std 90.1

• Schedule of improvement targets – Effective date of the bill 30% 2017 Res/2018 Com 50% 2020 Res/2021 Com 5% additional 2023 Res/2024 Com 5% additional 2026 Res/2027 Com 5% additional 2029 Res/2030 Com 5% additional 2033 and beyond DOE to set target
• Building code complying with target within 1 year of the target date

• DOE can modify target lower or higher based on cost effectiveness.

• Cost effectiveness to consider externalities, e.g. climate change and peak energy demand.

• If there is a national consensus code that meets the target improvement at the 1 year from target time point then it becomes the national building code.

• DOE to support development of consensus codes and standards.

• For residential code DOE to consider:
• ASHRAE standards

• IECC

• RESNET data on measures to qualify for tax credits

• DOE Build America Program

• Energy Star Program data

• New Building Institute data

• State and local standards for cool roof

• For commercial code DOE to consider:
• ASHRAE codes

• IECC

• Core Performance Criteria of NBI

• Commercial High-Performance Green Building Office of DOE data

• Energy Star

• RESNET data

• Cool roofs of state & local codes

• If DOE selects a consensus model code it must:
• Notify state and local entities

• Provide distribution on internet and to state and local entities at no cost

• Contract with an entity to provide training

• Can give grants to the entity

• Provide input to the model code process for how to achieve the next target

• States shall:
• Within 1 year – certify equivalence of state code or adoption of national code to DOE (for states that adopt the energy code).

• DOE has 90 days to accept or reject certification.

• Within 2 years states must certify it has achieved compliance based on 90 percent and measures adopted by DOE or equivalent.

• Incentives to states: Incentive for compliance –
• For states with certifications accepted by DOE will get state allowances “pursuant to 782(g)(2) of the “Clean Air Act””

• 1/5 of total in equal amount allotted to all states

• 2/5 based on state energy use

• 2/5 based on construction starts/new building permits

• Amount not used due to states not in compliance will be distributed to state in compliance.

• In states where locals enforce the code a minimum of 50% of the state’s allowance must go to the local governments based on population.

• DOE is provided $100,000,000 annually for supporting this section.

• Penalty for non-compliance –
• State does not get its Emission Allowances

• State does not get $ in excess of its share of the $125,000,000 annual allocation to DOE under sec. 323 of the bill.

• Penalty schedule – Additional (beyond base allowance) reduced by:
• 25% year 1

• 50% year 2

• 75% year 3

• 100% year 4 and later

• State Emission Allowances – 2012 – 2050 Deposited into the state’s SEED account
• 1/3 Equal amounts to states

• 1/3 Prorated by population

• 1/3 Prorated by state energy use

Use of Allowances –

(2)

(A) Building Code

(B)

Energy Efficiency Manufactured Home Program

(C)

Building Energy Performance Labeling Program

(D)

Smart Grid

(E)

Transportation Planning

(F)

Low income community Energy Efficiency Programs

(G)

Other cost effective Energy Efficiency programs for end use customers

(3)

REEP – Retrofit Energy and Environmental Performance

(4)

Capital grants, tax credits, production incentive loans, loan guarantees, forgivable loans, and interest buy-down

Schedule for allowances –

• 15% for (2)

• 12.5% for pass through to local governments

• 5% for (3)

• 20% for (4)

• 47.5% for (2)(A)-(F), (3) and (4)

Energy Analysis Calculations Methodology

Energy analysis necessary to determine energy savings for Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) be accomplished using Florida’s code compliance software, EnergyGauge®.

Energy simulation analysis will be conducted for both single ECMs and packages of ECMs.

Economic Analysis Assumptions

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) costs will be the full, installed incremental cost of improvements, where the incremental cost is equal to the difference between the baseline measure cost and the improved measure cost unencumbered by any federal tax credits, utility incentives or state rebates.

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) costs will be the full, installed incremental cost of improvements, where the incremental cost is equal to the difference between the baseline measure cost and the improved measure cost unencumbered by any federal tax credits, utility incentives or state rebates, with option to consider encumbering utility incentives, etc. later, if possible.

Cost Effectiveness Criteria

For present value cost-to-benefit ratio (PVCB) a value of 1.0 or greater.

For the internal rate of return (IRR) on investments, a value equal to 8%. {The recommended value is approximately 1.5% greater than the guaranteed return on State of Florida DROPS (retirement account) investments and is considered large enough that any rational investor would consider the investment wise compared with any other long-term investment.}

For the levelized cost of conserved energy (LCCE), a value equal to the statewide residential revenue-based retail cost of electricity adjusted at the fuel escalation rate over one-half of the life of the measure (yields average over the measure life). {This is based on the fact that, over their life, accepted measures will cost consumers the same or less than purchasing electricity from the utility, where: LCCE criteria = (current price) * [(1+fuelEsc) ^ (life/2)].}

Evaluation Methodology for Measures and Packages of Measures

Create multiple packages of ECMs that result in the target % efficiency increase for each code cycle update (20, 30, 40 and 50%), based on comparison to the 2007 FBC as adopted October 31, 2007 (without the 2009 supplement).

Evaluate each ECM using adopted cost effectiveness indicators (PVBC, IRR, LCCE), within their specific package of ECMs. PVBC will be considered the primary measure with IRR and LCEE used as measures for illustration and communication of individual ECMs and packages of ECMs comparative economic viability.

Validation of the cost effectiveness of Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction changes shall mean that a number of ECM packages evaluated to comply with the statutory percent energy efficiency increase requirements have a greater benefit than cost as measured in present value dollars.

1.B. ENERGY EFFICIENCY COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS FOR COMMERCIAL CODE CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS

Economic Analysis Assumptions

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) costs will be the full, installed incremental cost of improvements, where the incremental cost is equal to the difference between the baseline measure cost and the improved measure cost unencumbered by any federal tax credits, utility incentives or state rebates.

Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) costs will be the full, installed incremental cost of improvements, where the incremental cost is equal to the difference between the baseline measure cost and the improved measure cost unencumbered by any federal tax credits, utility incentives or state rebates, with option to consider encumbering utility incentives, etc. later, if possible.

Cost Effectiveness Criteria

For present value cost-to-benefit ratio (PVCB) a value of 1.0 or greater.

For the internal rate of return (IRR) on investments, a value equal to 7%.

For the levelized cost of conserved energy (LCCE), a value equal to the statewide commercial revenue-based retail cost of electricity adjusted at the fuel escalation rate over one-half of the life of the measure (yields average over the measure life). {This is based on the fact that, over their life, accepted measures will cost consumers the same or less than purchasing

electricity from the utility, where: LCCE criteria = (current price) * [(1+fuelEsc) ^ (life/2)].}

Evaluation Methodology for Measures and Packages of Measures

Create multiple packages of ECMs that result in the target % efficiency increase for each code cycle update (20, 30, 40 and 50%), based on comparison to the 2007 FBC as adopted October 31, 2007 (without the 2009 supplement).

Evaluate each ECM using adopted cost effectiveness indicators (PVBC, IRR, LCCE), within their specific package of ECMs. PVBC will be considered the primary measure with IRR and LCEE used as measures for illustration and communication of individual ECMs and packages of ECMs comparative economic viability.

Validation of the cost effectiveness of Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction changes shall mean that a number of ECM packages evaluated to comply with the statutory percent energy efficiency increase requirements have a greater benefit than cost as measured in present value dollars.

3. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Consensus Recommendations:

Strategic Plan Criteria

1. The Strategic Plan must implement s.553.9061(1), F.S., scheduled increases in the Code’s energy performance standard.

2. The Strategic plan must consider cost effectiveness of the incremental changes in efficiency required by the Code.

3. The Strategic Plan must implement s.553.73(6)(a), F.S., selection of the IECC as a foundation code and its modification to maintain the efficiencies of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, s.553.901, F.S..

4. The Strategic Plan must implement s.553.9061(2), F.S., requiring the Code to recognize

including energy efficiency performance options and elements including but not limited to: Solar water heating; Energy efficient appliances; Energy efficient windows, doors and skylights; Low solar absorption roofs/cool roofs; Enhanced ceiling and wall insulation;

Reduced leak duct systems; Programmable thermostats; and Energy efficient lighting systems.

1. The Strategic Plan should identify compliance methods with the best potential for complying with the schedule for increasing efficiency standards.

2. The Strategic Plan should be adaptable for all potential mandated efficiency performance standard increase schedule.

3. The Strategic Plan should allow flexibility for builders to choose different ways to adapt their construction.

4. The Strategic Plan should provide flexibility appropriate to product innovation.

5. The Strategic Plan should provide for easy measurement and demonstration of compliance with the energy efficiency increases required by s.553.9061, F.S..

6. The Strategic Plan should require that compliance meets an equivalent energy standard regardless of the compliance method.

Strategic Plan Consensus Recommendation

Commission Select The IECC As Foundation Code For Florida Building Code, Energy Pursuant To S.553.73(6)(A), F.S.

Commission Adopt The Florida Energy Efficiency Code For Building Construction (FEC) Within The Florida Building Code Pursuant To S.553.901, F.S. By -

Modifying The IECC To Maintain The Efficiencies Of The FEC Adopted And Amended Pursuant To S.553.901, F.S. As Directed By S.553.73(6)(A), F.S.

5. OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING HUMIDITY AND MOISTURE CONTROL PROBLEMS FOR HOT AND HUMID CLIMATES

Issues for Evaluation:

• Minimum efficiency equipment can result in problems with indoor humidity control for situations where AC equipment is oversized and sensible heat loads are diminished by advanced ECMs relative to latent loads contributed by outdoor moisture infiltration/diffusion and indoor moisture generation.

• Energy conservation achieved by sensible load reduction measures must be balanced with equipment requirements for improved moisture removal and latent loading control measures.

• High efficiency variable speed and variable capacity AC systems provide load matching capability and increase moisture removal effectiveness.

• Building envelope tightening to limit outdoor moisture infiltration/diffusion typically reduce air exchange resulting in building performance characteristics that may lead to required forced air ventilation of homes.

• Forced ventilation of homes will require preconditioning of ventilation air to remove moisture to achieve indoor humidity control.

Primary Task

7. Study Energy Conservation Measures Code Compliance Methods and Develop a Plan for

Origination:	The 2008 Legislature directed the Commission to enact specific increase in building energy efficiency requirements in HB 697 (Building Code) and HB 7135 (Energy). This task initiates the study and development of a schedule of increasing requirements, the first of which are to be enacted in the 2010 FBC whose development begins in 2009.
Sub-Tasks –

Schedule for Sub-Task 27:
Appoint Work Group		12/9/08
Work Group/TAC meetings to develop recommendation		2/3/09
		3/5/09
		3/27/09
Rule Development Workshop		4/09
Rule Adoption Hearing		6/09
Notice of Change published		7/3/09
Rule Effective		9/1/09
Status:	Complete
% Complete

Origination: The Commission was directed by the 2008 Florida Legislature in HB 697 and HB 7135 to develop a cost effectiveness test criteria by rule to be applied to justification for increased residential building energy efficiency requirements.

7b. Study Energy Conservation Measures for Replacement of Air Conditioning Equipment

Origination: Recommendation of the Energy TAC resulting from consideration of Energy Code amendment proposals regarding replacement air-conditioning systems at the October

7c. Develop Strategic Plan for Energy Standards Revision Pursuant to s.553.9061, F.S.

Subtask 46

Schedule:

Workgroup appointed 12/9/08

Workgroup meetings 4/30/09 5/28/09 8/11/09 9/3/09

Recommendation Adopted 10/14/10 11/12/09 Recommendation to Commission 12/09

Status: In Progress

% Complete

Origination: The 2008 Legislature directed the Commission to enact specific increases in building energy efficiency requirements in HB 697 (Building Code) and HB 7135 (Energy). This sub- task initiates the study and development of a schedule.

7d. Develop Recommendations for 20% Increased Energy Efficiency Requirement for 2010

This task integrates the outputs of Task 35 and the Sub-tasks to develop a draft of Energy Code chapters for the 2010 FBC.

Schedule:

Workgroup appointed 12/9/08 Commission approves output of Task 27 and adopts requisite Rule 6/9/09 Workgroup adopts strategic plan for Commission approval 10/12/09 Contractor and Workgroup develop draft 2010 Energy chapters 9/09 -12/09 Proposals for 2010 FBC submitted for adoption 3/09

Status: Pending

% Complete

Origination: In addition to the directives indicated in Task 35 and sub-tasks, the 2008 Legislature amended the building code law to require the IECC be adopted as a foundation code to be amended not less stringent than the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction. The building code law requires updating the Code every three years with the 2010 FBC the next edition.

Schedule:

To be conducted as part of 2010 FEC recommendations development Task 47

Origination: Energy act of 2008 (HB 7135) directs the Commission to include, as a minimum, certain technologies for achieving enhanced building efficiency targets established by the Act in the Florida Energy Code. The Building Code act of 2008 (HB 697) directs the Commission to facilitate and promote the use of certain renewable energy technologies.

7f. Investigate Humidity Control Problems for Hot and Humid Climates

Schedule: In Progress

To be conducted throughout the project

Origination: The original workgroup recommended not pursuing special ratings for AC equipment used in hot and humid climates and recommended addressing the concerns with matching equipment moisture removal capabilities to building latent and sensible heat loads through the Florida Energy Code. Potential moisture control problems will be a part of the consideration for how to achieve improved building energy efficiencies directed by law.

Status: Pending

7g.	Develop Criteria for Energy Efficient Pool and Spa Systems
Subtask 29 Schedule: Pool Sub-workgroup appointed Workgroup meetings Proposals for 2010 FBC submitted for adoption (See 2010 FBC development schedule)			4/8/09 6/8/09 8/12/09 2/3/10 3/10
Status:		Pending
% Complete

Origination: Energy act of 2008 (HB 7135) directs adoption of pool pump efficiencies in the 2010 FBC. During discussions with the Florida Spa and Pool Association regarding energy efficiency requirements for pool pumps members suggested improved efficiency could be achieved through criteria for pool hydronic system design.

7h. Evaluate Requirements for Green Roofs Recognition in Florida Building Code

Subtask 45

Schedule:

Cool Roofs Workgroup appointed 4/8/09 Workgroup meeting 2/2/10 Proposals for 2010 FBC submitted for adoption 3/10

(See 2010 FBC development schedule)

Status: Pending

% Complete

Origination: Energy act of 2008 (HB 7135) directs the Commission to include, as a minimum, certain technologies for achieving enhanced building efficiency targets established by the Act in the Florida Energy Code. Energy efficient roofs are one category. The Building Code act of 2008 (HB 697) directs the Commission to facilitate and promote the use of certain renewable energy technologies.

The Roofing TAC requested a special committee to address green roofs at the December 2008 Commission meeting.

PARTICIPANTS’ ROLE

• The Workgroup process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.

• Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.

• Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.

• Look to the facilitator(s) to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.

• Speak one person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.

• Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.

• To the extent possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.

• Participate fully in discussions, and complete meeting assignments as requested.

• Serve as an accessible liaison, and represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).

FACILITATORS’ ROLE (FCRC Consensus Center @ FSU)

• Design and facilitate a participatory workgroup process.

• Assist the Workgroup to build consensus on a package of recommendations for delivery to the Florida Building Commission.

• Provide process design and procedural recommendations to staff and the Workgroup.

• Assist participants to stay focused and on task.

• Assure that participants follow ground rules.

• Prepare and post agenda packets, worksheets and meeting summary reports.

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

• Speak when recognized by the Facilitator(s).

• Offer one idea per person without explanation.

• No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.

• Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.

• Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

• Determines the speaking order.

• Participant raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.

• Facilitator(s) may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.

ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE

During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:

Organization: Meeting Date:

Please make your comment(s) as specific as possible, and offer suggestions to address your concerns.

Please limit comment(s) to topics within the scope of the Workgroup, and refrain from any personal attacks or derogatory language.

The facilitator may, at his discretion, limit public comment to a maximum of three-minutes (3) per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.

COMMENT:

Please give completed form(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the meeting summary report.