Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 

Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  

BACKGROUND ally, regionally, or both. In total, 37 participants from

across the energy code spectrum attended, providing
BCAP held a second roundtable discussion (co-hosted
us with a more balanced discussion than the first
by the New York State Energy Research and Develop-
roundtable, which was more heavily weighted towards
ment Authority (NYSERDA)) in Albany, NY in June
the residential sector.
2009. The audience was comprised of a broader col-
lection of stakeholders than the first roundtable, in- We primed the group with information intended to draw
cluding representatives from several states (Texas, their thoughts and encourage feedback during the
New Hampshire, Illinois, Vermont, and Massachu- roundtable discussion, including a presentation on the
setts), national advocacy groups like the Natural Re- summary of the first roundtable. We also provided the
sources Defense Council, the American Council for an audience with new ideas and models for compliance
Energy Efficient Economy, and the Institute for Mar- that were developed during the 1st roundtable (See
ket Transformation, and code development organiza- Roundtable 1 summary ). BCAP then provided the
tions such as the International Code Council (ICC), Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) with an op-
the Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and portunity to deliver a presentation on its progress in
Standards (BBRS), and the New York State Depart- developing the United States Department of Energy’s
ment of State. (DOE) national guidance on meeting the 90% compli-
ance target outlined in the energy code provisions of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
2009.

OVERVIEW 
The second roundtable yielded markedly broader re-
sults than the first. This was due in part to the diverse
constituencies in attendance. The attendees also re-
ceived a summary of the first roundtable several weeks
beforehand, which allowed them to organize their
thoughts and develop follow-up questions prior to at-
tending. The focus of the roundtable was to discuss
improving compliance and measuring the efficacy of
energy codes. The group had the opportunity to discuss
Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Warren Gretz
ARRA, and its impacts and implications. This provided
Also in attendance were representatives from state en- some interesting insight into the progress of PNNL’s
ergy efficiency programs, third party code inspection work. For context and a greater understanding of this
organizations, code officials, public service commis- summary, it is important that the reader reference the
sions, and builder/contractor groups, all of whom are preceding first roundtable summary and introduction
directly involved in residential and/or commercial en- document.
ergy code work in their respective areas, either nation-

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
(e.g. duct sealing, insulation installation, etc.), or
DOE COMPLIANCE STRAWMAN on greatest areas of energy usage intensity, might
draw focus to just those areas in enforcement,
Mark Halverson of PNNL presented an overview of thereby diluting the overall impact of energy codes
the work underway to develop guidance documents down the line.
for the “90 percent compliance requirement.” Mark
presented the current status of the PNNL guidance  Mark clarified that states did not need to measure
work as follows: energy cost savings and job creation for ARRA
compliance.
 PNNL and DOE are developing guidance for the
“90 percent compliance” measurement to help in- PNNL received some excellent feedback from the
crease the consistency of measurement across the roundtable group, especially in the area of defining
country. how to sample building compliance and its future im-
pacts on overall energy code efficacy . PNNL later
 Although the first DOE strawman tended to focus invited this roundtable audience to join the “90 per-
on compliance measurement methods that didn’t cent strawman” comment group, an unanticipated but
rely much on labor-intensive field measurement, welcome outcome of the event that gave our attendees
feedback stressing the need for field verification the opportunity to contribute to this important effort
has influenced PNNL to place a greater emphasis and expand PNNL’s access to qualified reviewers.
on it. For example, it was initially intended that
the compliance data could somehow be collected
electronically without inspecting actual buildings
in the field to gather data on whether or not they
complied with the energy codes. Since then,
PNNL has included the need for in-field compli-
ance verification of actual buildings as a major
component of their guidance.

 PNNL is looking at different systems for deter-

mining a “statistically valid” sample, based on
building types and sizes.
Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Building Science Corporation
 One approach PNNL is considering to determine a
state code’s overall efficacy is to compare its per-
formance against a “top 20” checklist of energy COMPLIANCE
code compliance problem areas. The compliance discussions focused on several areas
of need that were identified by those in the energy
 Generally, the group was concerned that focusing code sector : 1) provide additional energy code infra-
on specific checklists that either addressed major structure; 2) develop new and more effective training
problem areas in code compliance measurement and compliance tools; 3) create multiple consumer
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
and stakeholder “value propositions”’ and, finally 4)  Third-party and special inspections1 are crucial for
run pilot projects to test and develop solutions to the code compliance, generally, and can also be used
needs identified. In more detail: for energy code compliance. Private sector re-
sources exist in this area but they have not been
1. Provide Additional Energy Code Infrastructure: marketed well. Only a small portion of municipali-
ties use this option; even very sophisticated build-
 Should an additional layer of more highly trained
ing departments don’t have the expertise to evalu-
professionals be added to the existing infrastruc-
ate energy code compliance fully. We need a bet-
ture? The concept of Energy Code Professionals
ter definition of what these services are and how
(ECPs) is gaining interest and action in Massachu-
they might be better accessed by jurisdictions. Fur-
setts and around New England. ECPs are gener-
ther, the role of commissioning and how to adapt it
ally third party inspection service professionals ,
as a third party process, where plan review for en-
such as energy raters in a HERS-As-Codes model
ergy code is utilized early in the design phase, was
or true 3rd party commissioning agents acting in
cited as a possible compliance improvement. This
support of code enforcement. The HERS-As-
would help assure that commissioning agents are
Codes model uses home energy rating system
utilized early-on in the compliance process so that
(HERS) certified raters that have received addi-
energy design is positively impacted.
tional training in local or state codes. Since code
enforcement is often not well supported, concern
 The opportunity to use HERS-As-Code compliance
arose with how ECPs might be paid for. Several
needs to be researched, defined, and utilized in a
attendees indicated that splitting responsibility be-
well-organized manner. How and where raters fit
tween ECPs and code enforcement officials
into the process, and how the rating process can be
(CEOs) would need to be well defined so that the
best integrated with code compliance needs investi-
gation. Raters perform comprehensive testing and
inspections, as well as plan reviews on homebuild-
ing projects, usually for Energy Star or similar resi-
dential advanced homes programs.

1– Third party inspector (3rd party; Agent of jurisdic-

tion): Independent consultant will do a task on a par-
ticular job when asked by the community. These indi-
viduals may have broad area of expertise and can
evaluate multiple components of a building.

Special inspector (SI; Agent of building owner): Indi-

Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Warren Gretz vidual is required by code to perform an inspection or
series of inspections. This individual has specific com-
roles of both parties were understood. Might this ponent of building that he/she can evaluate. SI reports
infrastructure development fit in the community on this particular component only.
energy efficiency management (CEEM) concept?
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
Tapping into this infrastructure, where it exists
where it might be easily developed, can have the
impact of improving code compliance while taking
some of the plan review and inspection burden off
of code officials. We need to explore whether this
could be paid for through utility and other effi-
ciency programs that currently use this infrastruc-
ture for beyond-code programs.

 Energy code “mentors” could be added to the com-

pliance stream. The construction industry in-
cludes many potential players that could influence
energy code compliance and efficiency decisions in Courtesy of DOE/NREL, University of Texas at Austin
the design and construction process, including
building supply houses (estimators, outside sales
people), and the design community (architects and mentoring and provide assistance to communities
engineers). For example, interested designers with overall energy planning. They can provide
who receive additional training in energy codes and expert guidance and hands-on training to local code
have an interest in mentoring their peers could be officials in order to raise their general knowledge
designated as energy code mentors for their com- and provide answers to difficult energy code imple-
munity or region. Estimators and field sales people mentation issues. This effort can be further sus-
from building supply houses trained in efficiency tained if the CEEM integrates this work with com-
and energy codes could provide input on code and munity energy efficiency planning, and local, state
beyond-code energy efficiency decisions when and Federal efficiency and incentive programs. En-
builders, developers, and consumers come to them ergy savings identified by the CEEM service could
for pricing on materials for homes. They may even pay for those services to the community, thus
support such services by charging a nominal fee for achieving sustainable support for both codes and
preliminary energy code plan review, as well as other efficiency efforts.
provide actual preliminary compliance advice,
thereby creating a sustainable support infrastruc-  Finally, the interrelated roles of the code enforce-
ture. ment officials (CEOs), builders, and designers with
special third party energy code compliance agents/
 The idea of community energy efficiency manage- agencies must be better defined if the potential
ment (CEEM) is another way to expand the infra- benefit of adding this new infrastructure element is
structure of stakeholders that can influence energy to be fully realized.
efficiency and proper energy code compliance; a
topic of major interest to the whole group when
introduced by BCAP. Community energy effi-
ciency management is a concept whereby energy
efficiency professionals are trained in energy code

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
2. New and better tool and training development/ benefits. This must be accompanied by advanced
deployment: training. Otherwise, this approach could allow for
major “gaming” to evade compliance if code offi-
 The PNNL compliance tools REScheck and COM- cials or other third party reviewers don’t under-
check have made considerable headway in improv- stand these technologies.
ing energy code compliance over the years. Feed-
back from the field has taught us that these are ex-  There was considerable agreement that in light of
cellent tools and that they have improved compli- ARRA and the American Clean Energy and Secu-
ance greatly. The downside and concern is that rity Act of 2009 (ACES), there should be a big
REScheck will be less flexible as the code becomes push to take on the development of tools in a coor-
less flexible. This means that care needs to be dinated manner among the states. Like ARRA, the
taken to maximize its usability. It was suggested ACES Bill and its Senate companion legislation
that REScheck needs to better reflect the perform- provide significant direction to adopt even more
ance compliance approach, which allows greatest stringent codes with stricter compliance targets,
design flexibility of all the code compliance meth- along with financial support for their implementa-
ods in the IECC. tion.

 Texas A&M ESL is developing the International

Code Compliance (IC3) software to not only dem-
onstrate compliance for the IECC residential re-
quirements, but for gathering, compiling and re-
porting data up to DOE for the ARRA “90 percent
compliance” metric. Should the private sector be
encouraged, even incentivized, to provide this ser-
vice and support? Is this primarily a DOE role?
Should DOE provide criteria and guidance for pri-
vate sector support and software development?
These questions were left open at the end of the
meeting.

Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Warren Gretz

 Many CAD programs are now available that inte-
grate codes into their boilerplates; can we promote
this use more consistently for the energy codes?  Research, develop, and promote new methods of
There may be some ways to automate some of the training for all stakeholders. End “silo train-
compliance process into the more complicated ing” (i.e. the habit of training builders, CEOs, and
building design process. Also, working freeware designers separately) and bring the same message/
energy efficiency guidance tools --like EPA’s information to all stakeholders. Work with circuit
“Target Finder”-- into design tools to help optimize riders (trainers who travel from jurisdiction to ju-
design based on energy efficiency gains can yield risdiction supplying hands-on, in-the-field training
energy code and overall energy efficiency design and onsite training) and other in-field, onsite, and
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
distance learning methods to expand the accessibil- the enforcement of the “life-health-safety” (l/h/s)
ity of training and make it easier for busy stake- codes, like fire, mechanical, and plumbing. Energy
holders to receive it. efficiency is secondary in that scheme. There is a
need to promote the l/h/s elements of energy codes,
including their positive impacts on carbon savings
and global warming, occupant comfort, and build-
ing operation and ownership costs.

 Communities from states down to towns and vil-

lages need to be educated on the importance of en-
ergy codes through increased levels of outreach to
all stakeholders, including decision-makers. They
should be reinforced by incentives (i.e. via Wax-
man-Markey) in national, state and local policy.
For example: performance on energy code compli-
Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Eric Telesmanich ance could be linked to state access to federal
funding for infrastructure as an incentive to per-
3. Create consumer and stakeholder “value propo- form better.
sitions”:

 The roundtable discussion identified the need to

create better consumer awareness and demand to
promote additional compliance. One example of
this is the Town of Bedford, NY, where Energy
Star was adopted as the residential energy code.
The REMRate software utilized to demonstrate
compliance contains carbon savings reports which
are used to create an incentive for homeowners and
builders to build more efficient homes. The greater
the energy efficiency and carbon savings reached,
the lower the permit fees charged by the Bedford Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Kenneth Shipp
building codes department. Homeowners tend to
think that energy efficiency happens automatically  There is a need to determine whether or not the
through the codes, which we know is not true. We adoption of advanced codes has had a positive im-
also need to create time-of–sale consumer informa- pact on code compliance in jurisdictions where
tional pieces so that consumers can express a de- they are adopted. There was some indication that
mand for fully demonstrated, transparent energy this had happened from members of the audience,
code compliance from builders and developers. and we need to track that information. At the same
time, we also heard that EPA is specifically dis-
 CEOs are charged with, and pay most attention to, couraging the adoption of Energy Star as code in
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
jurisdictions, even though it has already been other NY towns, and other jurisdictions. There is
adopted in many communities. Can we do a better need and interest in testing a model in VT, MA,
job of coordinating? ME and NY. These states have either included
such approaches in recent legislation (MA, ME), or
 Codes implementation needs to be bought into at are faced with the need (VT), or are interested in
the grassroots level in order to have lasting impact. measuring the impacts to improve compliance
Jurisdictions and states should bring all affected (NY, TX, FL, MN). The most extreme example
parties into the discussion. To this end, stop “silo” and need is VT, where legislation to adopt the
training and outreach by engaging all stakeholders; 2009 IECC and follow ARRA compliance require-
i.e. elected officials, developers, CEOs, builders, ments has been passed, but where there is currently
designers, contractors, homeowners, etc. no code enforcement infrastructure. There are
many states nationwide with weak or sparse code
enforcement infrastructures; VT may provide a
valuable and replicable model for these places.
BCAP, NEEP, VEIC, DOE and others are engag-
ing in a discussion of a pilot project.

Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Warren Gretz

4. Pilots: In response to feedback and needs heard

from the roundtable audience, BCAP has pro-
posed some ideas for pilots. These pilots will be
featured as discussion topics for further feedback
Courtesy of DOE/NREL, FEMA
at roundtable 3. This will help gain further input
from many state and regional players that are al-
ready working on these issues.  Pilot other potential third party compliance models
such as commissioning with true third parties or
 Research existing HERS-As-Codes compliance special inspections through A&E or other firms,
systems at work in other states and jurisdictions and develop guidance criteria for those systems.
and conduct a well-informed, coordinated pilot to BCAP is currently researching and developing
test and design the system with benefits and les- some guidance for the state of ME, and has discov-
sons learned from all current and past examples. ered that this option needs much clarification and
Examples of this model are being used in CA, FL, development for use with energy codes. The cri-
Austin, Texas (TX), Long Island, New York (NY), teria development may be complicated and require

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
or as a stand-alone. This might be worth integrat-
ing with the BCAP community energy efficiency
management (CEEM) model as one approach.
NYSERDA and BCAP have had some discussions
about this; the model will be discussed further at
the US-DOE “Energy Codes 2009” National Con-
ference in Portland , and roundtable 3. Likewise,
other code infrastructure additions such as energy
code mentors should be investigated during the
pilot.

 There were suggestions that BCAP should convene

Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Bill Timmerman a national working group to guide the compliance
new and advanced standards for certification and pilot development coming out of these roundtables.
consistency. This topic needs further study. MA,
NY, NH, and TX are interested. EVALUATION
The discussion was generally less animated around
 Research and report on the impacts of advanced
the issue of evaluation, except for one subject that the
codes on overall code compliance. Select 2 or 3
entire audience agreed on; we as a sector need to get a
jurisdictions that have adopted advanced codes and
much better handle on the impacts and efficacy of
measure the compliance in those jurisdictions. As-
energy codes in terms of energy and carbon savings as
sess what training and other mechanisms exist in
well as in overall compliance. This data is essential to
those advanced code jurisdictions that might have
helping “sell” energy codes and achieve sustainable,
contributed. We have heard from TX representa-
long-term support. To summarize the major points
tives that they have observed such positive impacts
that arose: 1) utilities need to be more involved; 2) we
in TX where advanced codes have been adopted;
may be missing the boat for improving evaluation
BCAP is following up.
through ARRA 90% compliance guidance by focus-
ing on code compliance alone; 3 ) there is a need for
 Develop and conduct training assessments to deter-
a more in-depth national dialogue on energy code
mine what new or existing training models work
evaluation ; and 4) we need to pilot new approaches
best and pilot them to determine their potential for
to evaluation .
improving training efficacy. BCAP is in conversa-
tions with MA, NY, and NEEP on this. 1. Utilities need to be more involved in energy code
evaluation (and energy code support).
 Pilot an Energy Code Professional (ECP) specialist
position in a jurisdiction with a portion of the sal-  For the most part, utilities have been disinclined to
ary funded by a grant, the remainder funded by the be involved in energy codes implementation in the
jurisdiction or some other market-based means. past. We need to determine why this is. Is it be-
This energy code specialist’s work might be con- cause energy code savings were assumed
ducted in conjunction with other efficiency duties,
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
(incorrectly in many cases) to be accruing at high on ranked “top 20” code compliance problems to
rates because they are required? Utilities have gen- measure state compliance, we may diminish the
erally not received credit for energy codes savings overall impact of energy codes when the word gets
in state public benefit (PBF) or demand side man- out. Is it therefore necessary to connect with en-
agement (DSM) programs. Utility PBF and DSM ergy measurement this time around, or is simple
programs are funded by electric utility rate charges compliance worthwhile?
and administered through the utilities and their
ratepayers to provide “credits” to the utilities for  Should concerns about this potential disconnect be
their involvement and offset the costs of their in- carried to the lawmakers through Waxman-Markey
vestment. Explore the CA model where utilities or other means? Since it may be too late via
are credited for energy codes and develop methods ARRA, do we need to express this need to policy
to take that model nationwide. Research the Na- makers soon? Evaluation is costly, too. Perhaps
tional Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE) we need to provide greater incentives for better
and the “CA Model”; http://www.epa.gov/ energy code evaluation via national policy efforts.
cleanenergy/energy-programs/napee/index.html the
paradigm that doesn’t allow utilities to receive
credit for energy code investments needs to
change .

 Energy code advocates, adopters, administrators,

and implementers need to connect more closely
with the energy efficiency evaluation arena to help
establish consensus guidelines for energy code
evaluation; one example is the National Evaluation
Conference; (www.iepec.org)

2. ARRA and DOE: are we “missing the boat” with

the compliance requirements?

 Should there be a closer connection between the

ARRA 90 percent compliance guidance being de-
veloped and current energy efficiency program
evaluation models that measure savings in energy
and carbon savings?

 Can DOE or others emphasize a closer connection

with evaluation of energy codes and measuring
their efficacy in terms of energy savings in setting Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Eric Telesmanich
out the 90 percent compliance guidance? There is
concern that by using checklists or concentrating

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org
 Building Codes Assistance Project & Energy Foundation 
Second Roundtable on Energy Code Compliance and Evaluation  
3. We need to start a national dialogue.  Find funding for a national program to engage en-
ergy code evaluation more actively in the national
 The attendees generally agreed that a national stan- energy efficiency evaluation effort through the In-
dard or guidance for doing energy code evaluation ternational Energy Program Evaluation Conference
needs to be developed to create some consistency. (IEPEC), and related organizations representing
that industry. Efficiency program evaluators in the
 There was an assertion made during the discussion audience indicated that while there are widely rec-
that there is no accurate means by which to evalu- ognized protocols for the measurement of energy
ate the actual performance of buildings relative to savings from single projects (IPMVP, FEMP
energy codes or other models. Do we need to as- M&V Guideline, ASHRAE Guideline 14), these
sess this? There seemed to be considerable dis- need to be further researched and understood.
agreement on this point, however no consensus on There are no similar widely accepted protocols or
an answer or next step. guidance documents for measuring energy savings
from programs, including energy codes.

 Create a National Energy Code Evaluation Work-

ing Group. Work with ASHRAE or other organiza-
tions to develop an energy code evaluation stan-
dard. Promote the use of the standard within state
energy efficiency programs and programs to track
carbon emissions reductions.

Courtesy of DOE/NREL, David Springer

4. Pilots to respond to needs.

 Pilot an evaluation model with a community or

region to test some of the concepts above. This
may be worth an evaluation working group ap-
proach. Look at the DC model (which uses Target
Finder) and the “Canadian” model (needs further
research and definition). Include development of Courtesy of DOE/NREL, IBACOS
model energy use indices (EUI) and true building
performance measurements. Investigate how this For more information please consult the Building
might be integrated with the ARRA 90% compli- Codes Assistance Project website at www.bcap-
energy.org.
ance guidelines.

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-energy.org