Linda Connell

Department of Energy
Building Energy Codes Program
Linda.connell@pnl.gov

Dear Ms. Connell,

Thank you for giving BCAP the opportunity to comment on the BCEP State Compliance Evaluation second
draft. We are pleased with how the document has progressed thus far and would like to offer several
comments for your consideration:

1. The document mentions ―expressing compliance‖ several times, yet the meaning is unclear. Could DOE
please clarify this? Does it refer to what the states must do to ―report compliance‖? If so, stating it as such
may avoid unnecessary confusion.
2. How do you plan to demonstrate the correlation between a jurisdiction’s capabilities and processes and
compliance in the field? We are concerned that processes may include strong enforcement, which would
presumably lead to greater compliance, but the link to ―capabilities‖ is especially uncertain from our
perspective. What does DOE mean by the ―interim measurement‖ referenced in that section?
3. There continues to be considerable confusion among the states concerning how much time they have to
adopt the 2009 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2007, equivalent, or better codes. We feel that this draft might add to
this confusion by stating, ―The ARRA-SEP conditions also require the adoption of these target codes within
eight years…” It is our interpretation that the eight-year requirement ONLY applies to the timeframe in
which the state or jurisdiction has to demonstrate 90% compliance with the adopted codes. BCAP
recommends that DOE clarify this further in the next draft. Perhaps DOE could also clarify this requirement
in a statement to the states.
4. A number of states are considering the adoption of the 2009 IRC for both residential building and energy
requirements. Since DOE is conducting comparisons of the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 2007
commercial building ―equivalency‖, we feel it is relevant at this time to conduct a similar comparison of the
IRC/IECC to help guide states in their adoption decisions. Texas, for example, has a legislative charge to
adopt the latest version of the IRC for all single-family residential construction. There is general consensus
nationwide that the IRC is weaker than the IECC, thus it would be important to compare these two codes
and offer an interpretation of how each aligns with ARRA compliance requirements.
5. BCAP staff believes that energy code compliance is low enough in states to merit conducting onsite audits
and that feedback from such compliance measurement activities is critical to their continued improvement.
We would like to know what would represent a ―statistically valid‖ sample and the process for reaching one.
We caution that providing a statistically valid sample might be an extremely difficult task in many
jurisdictions, given their prevailing manpower limitations.
6. BCAP looks forward to reviewing the compliance checklist and guidance materials DOE will develop, as
well as providing commentary and input if given the opportunity. The formulation of these lists and
materials will be crucial to the overall success of compliance evaluation, and the method described in this
draft is a bit vague.
7. BCAP has found that many states and jurisdictions are not aware that renovations are also subject to the
ARRA compliance requirements. The compliance measurement guidelines need to emphasize this point,
since the potential for energy savings is so great, particularly in commercial buildings.
8. We recommend that DOE develop different checklists for renovations versus new construction. Also, we
think it would be extremely helpful for the checklists to spell out the requirements explicitly (i.e. R-values,
U-values, etc.).

Building Codes Assistance Project

1850 M. St. NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036
202.530.2211 www.bcap-energy.org

A joint initiative of the Alliance to Save Energy, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and
the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
9. We agree that DOE should engage and utilize existing auditing infrastructures to assist with the auditing
procedure wherever possible. Moreover, we don’t believe that the wheel needs reinventing to do so, as
most of the program participants referenced—including RESNET Raters, BPI Building analysts, CEE
Building Auditors, and the ISO field staff—know and understand energy systems sufficiently to do the
onsite auditing. However, specific auditing materials and methodologies will require training, and, again,
DOE can quickly draw on these organizations to serve this need.
10. Finally, we hope that DOE gives consideration to providing additional guidance that might help states
measure the actual energy performance of the buildings constructed during the eight-year compliance
measurement window and beyond. BCAP believes that guidance for actual energy savings
measurements—while not the focus of the ARRA compliance charge BECP is addressing here—is
essential in order for the states to actually measure and ―sell‖ long–term, sustainable energy code support
to their policymakers on the basis of actual energy savings realized from energy codes.

We appreciate your hard work in this effort and offer continued support in any way we can.

Regards,

Aleisha Khan Michael C. DeWein Robin Snyder

Executive Director Technical Director Program Director
202-530-2211 518-664-1308 202-530-2226
akhan@ase.org mdewein@ase.org rsnyder@ase.org

Building Codes Assistance Project

1850 M. St. NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036
202.530.2211 www.bcap-energy.org

A joint initiative of the Alliance to Save Energy, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and
the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy