Updating State Residential Building Energy Efficiency Codes, 42688-42701 [2011-18080]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42688
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
assessment of the project’s nuclear safety
culture by a group of nuclear industry subject
matter experts, who have experience in INPO
evaluations and/or Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) inspections.
• At both a site and corporate level, we are
also taking steps to enhance reporting
mechanisms for safety-related concerns. At
the Hanford site, we have combined the
Employee Concerns Programs for ORP and
the Richland Operations Office to leverage
existing resources to both strengthen this
important program and increase its visibility
at the site.
• Within EM Headquarters, we have
established ombudsmen to act as advocates
for employees and their concerns. We have
made it easier for employees to use a variety
of avenues to raise concerns, including: the
line management for each project, site
employee concerns programs, union
representatives, EM’s Office of Safety and
Security Programs, HSS, and DOE’s Chief of
Nuclear Safety. Each office now offers
employees access to both a hotline number
and general email inbox, so that workers will
have the opportunity to ask questions or
voice concerns either directly or
anonymously.
• We will also require that both EM
Headquarters and field sites assess nuclear
safety culture and the implementation of a
safety conscious work environment in their
annual submittals for Integrated Safety
Management System (ISMS) declarations.
The specific criteria will build on the
existing requirements for the ISMS
declarations and will be expanded to include
safety culture principles not only from DOE,
but also from INPO and NRC.
• Regarding your final recommendation,
when the Department became aware of Dr.
Tamosaitis’ petition to the Board, the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management immediately requested the
Department’s Inspector General to perform an
investigation into the alleged retaliation
issues raised by Dr. Tamosaitis. The Office of
the Inspector General decided not to examine
the merits of the allegations since they were
already the focus of an ongoing investigation
by DOL, which has jurisdiction and expertise
to review whistle blower claims. The
Department will fully cooperate with the
DOL as requested in its investigation.
Even while DOE fully embraces the
objectives of the Board’s specific
recommendations, it is important to note that
DOE does not agree with all of the findings
included in the Board’s report.
Specifically, the conclusions drawn by the
Board about the overall quality of the safety
culture at WTP differ significantly from the
HSS findings and are not consistent with the
safety culture data and field performance
experience at WTP. We are concerned that
your letter includes the October 2010 HSS
review in the list of ‘‘other examples of a
failed safety culture.’’ The Department
disagrees with this categorization and
believes the HSS report provided an accurate
representation of the nuclear safety culture—
and existing gaps—at the WTP.
As discussed above, the HSS review found
areas in need of immediate improvement;
however, most WTP personnel did not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
express a loss of confidence in management
support, a sense of a chilled environment, or
a fear of retaliation.
Additionally, in its report, the Board
alleges that DOE and contractor management
suppressed technical dissent on the project.
The Department rightly takes any such claim
very seriously. Based on an investigation by
the DOE Office of the General Counsel,
however, we do not necessarily agree with
some of the specific details the Board
provided. For example, our investigation
found no evidence that DOE or its contractors
were aware of and sought to suppress a
technical report.
Moreover, the Board’s findings appear to
rely on a number of accounts describing the
actions and behaviors of both contractor and
DOE personnel that we believe may have
been misunderstood by the Board. The
Department feels compelled to address these
for the public record and in fairness to its
personnel.
To do so effectively, on June 22, 2011, DOE
requested the Board’s full investigative
record, including transcripts, interview
notes, and exhibits. Per your conversation
with Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman
today, we look forward to continuing to
engage with you to obtain additional details
from the Board’s investigation. The Board’s
investigative record or other supporting
information will allow us to provide further
details on specific discrepancies between our
findings and the Board’s and will be of great
use in defining the structure and scope of
follow-on safety culture improvement
initiatives and actions.
We look forward to working with the Board
and its staff as we continue to strive towards
excellence. It is important for the both the
Department and the Board to function
collaboratively and openly as we work to
further improve the safety culture at DOE. To
facilitate that objective and in recognition of
the significance of these concerns, I
recommend we jointly charter a third-party
review, such as the National Academy of
Science, to evaluate how we can strengthen
our relationship and most effectively work
together to achieve our shared objective of
helping DOE to safely perform its mission.
As additional information becomes
available from our actions addressing this
Recommendation, we will make it available
to you. We hope to continue a meaningful,
regular, and open dialogue on this and all
safety matters.
I am designating Mr. Daniel Poneman, the
Deputy Secretary of Energy, as the
Responsible Manager for this
recommendation. He will be charged with
reporting to me regularly on the specific
additional steps we are taking to improve the
safety culture at WTP and all of our facilities.
Sincerely,
Steven Chu.
cc:
D. Poneman, S–2
M. Campagnone, HS–1.1
[FR Doc. 2011–18084 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–0030]
RIN 1904–AC17
Updating State Residential Building
Energy Efficiency Codes
AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE or Department) has
determined that the 2009 edition of the
International Code Council (ICC)
International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) (2009 IECC or 2009 edition)
would achieve greater energy efficiency
in low-rise residential buildings than
the 2006 IECC, with site energy savings
estimated at 14%. Also, DOE has
determined that the 2006 edition of the
ICC IECC (2006 IECC or 2006 edition)
would achieve greater energy efficiency
than the 2003 edition of the ICC IECC
(2003 IECC or 2003 edition), with site
energy savings estimated at 1%. Finally,
DOE has determined that the 2003
edition would not achieve greater
energy efficiency than the 2000 IECC.
Upon publication of this affirmative
final determination, States are required
to file certification statements to DOE
that they have reviewed the provisions
of their residential building code
regarding energy efficiency and made a
determination as to whether to update
their code to meet or exceed the 2009
IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides
guidance to States on how the codes
have changed from previous versions,
how to submit certifications, and how to
request extensions of the deadline to
submit certifications.
DATES: Certification statements by the
States must be provided by July 19,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Certification Statements
must be addressed to the Buildings
Technologies Program-Building Energy
Codes Program Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,
Mail Station EE–2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 287–1874, e-mail:
michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. For legal
issues contact Chris Calamita, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
General Counsel, Forrestal Building,
Mail Station GC–72, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 586–9507, e-mail:
Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
C. Preliminary Determination
D. Public Comments Regarding the
Preliminary Determination
E. DOE’s Final Determination Statements
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006,
and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000
IECC
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003
IECC
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006
IECC
III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 2009
IECC
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
B. Certification
C. Request for Extensions
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism’’
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 1999
G. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Energy Conservation
and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for the
Building Energy Standards Program. (42
U.S.C. 6831–6837) Section 304(b) of
ECPA, as amended, provides that when
the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or
any successor to that code, is revised,
the Secretary must determine, not later
than 12 months after the revision,
whether the revised code would
improve energy efficiency in residential
buildings and must publish notice of the
determination in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The
Department, following precedent set by
the ICC and the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
considers high-rise (greater than three
stories) multifamily residential
buildings and hotel, motel, and other
transient residential building types of
any height as commercial buildings for
energy code purposes. Low-rise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
residential buildings include one- and
two-family detached and attached
buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row
houses, and low-rise multifamily
buildings (not greater than three stories)
such as condominiums and garden
apartments.
If the Secretary determines that the
revision would improve energy
efficiency then, not later than 2 years
after the date of the publication of the
affirmative determination, each State 1 is
required to certify that it has compared
its residential building code regarding
energy efficiency to the revised code
and made a determination whether it is
appropriate to revise its code to meet or
exceed the provisions of the successor
code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State
determinations are to be made: (1) After
public notice and hearing; (2) in writing;
(3) based upon findings included in
such determination and upon evidence
presented at the hearing; and (4)
available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(C)) In addition, if a State
determines that it is not appropriate to
revise its residential building code, the
State is required to submit to the
Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which
are to be made available to the public.
(See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C))
In the specific case of this final
determination, where DOE is publishing
the results of three residential
determinations at once, each state
should certify it has compared its
residential building code regarding
energy efficiency to the 2009 IECC and
made a determination whether it is
appropriate to revise its code to meet or
exceed the provisions of the successor
code.
B. Background
The ICC’s IECC establishes national
energy efficiency requirements for
buildings. In 1997, the Council of
American Building Officials (CABO)
was incorporated into the ICC and the
MEC was renamed to the IECC. A
previous Federal Register notice, 59 FR
36173, July 15, 1994, announced the
Secretary’s determination that the 1993
MEC increased energy efficiency
relative to the 1992 MEC for residential
buildings. Similarly, another Federal
Register notice, 61 FR 64727, December
6, 1996, announced the Secretary’s
determination that the 1995 MEC is an
improvement over the 1993 MEC.
Finally, Federal Register notice 66 FR
1964, January 10, 2001, simultaneously
announced the Secretary’s
1 The term State includes ‘‘each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and any territory and possession of
the United States.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6832(11).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42689
determination that the 1998 IECC is an
improvement over the 1995 MEC and
the 2000 IECC is an improvement over
the 1998 IECC.
C. Preliminary Determination
DOE published in the Federal
Register a Notice of Preliminary
Determination for the 2003, 2006 and
2009 editions of the IECC that
preliminarily concluded that the 2009
version of the IECC would achieve
greater energy efficiency in low-rise
residential buildings than the 2006
IECC. Also, DOE preliminarily
determined that the 2006 version of the
IECC would achieve greater energy
efficiency than the 2003 IECC. Finally,
DOE preliminarily determined that the
2003 version of the IECC would not
achieve greater energy efficiency than
the 2000 IECC. 75 FR 54131 (Sept. 3,
2010).
D. Public Comments Regarding the
Preliminary Determination
DOE accepted public comments on
the preliminary determination for the
2003, 2006, and 2009 editions of the
IECC until October 4, 2010. DOE
received submissions from a total of
seven different entities.
The Responsible Energy Codes
Alliance (RECA) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–
DET–0030–0006.1, pgs. 2–4) stating that
it strongly supports the Department’s
determination that the 2006 and 2009
editions of the IECC would achieve
greater energy efficiency in buildings
than the relative previous editions.
RECA suggests that DOE follow up with
the States after publication of the Final
Determination, as well as making
public, on the Department’s Web site,
the certification letters that States
submit. RECA went on to comment that
the Department’s decision to publish a
Notice of Preliminary Determination
rather than a Notice of Determination is
unnecessary to comply with the Energy
Policy Act and that adding an extra
level of administrative procedure is
likely to further delay determinations on
future editions of the model energy
codes.
In response to RECA’s comment
concerning following up with the States
in their certification efforts, DOE notes
that under section 304(d) and (e) of
ECPA DOE provides technical
assistance and funding to States that
choose to improve and implement State
residential building energy efficiency
codes, including increasing and
verifying compliance with such codes.
As certification letters are received from
the States, they will be made public on
the Department’s Web site at https://
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42690
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
energycodes.gov/states/. The
certification letters will also be
forwarded to the State Energy Program
for their consideration. DOE further
notes that a listing of those States that
have submitted certification letters from
their respective governors under the
requirements of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act is available at
https://www.energy.gov/
InYourState.htm. The letters can be
found on each State’s Web site under
Recovery Act activity.
With regard to issuing a preliminary
determination, the Department believes
that there is value in providing an
opportunity for public comment on its
analysis, particularly given that a
positive determination could potentially
impact States.
The American Chemistry Council
(ACC) submitted a written comment
(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–
0030–0007.1, pg. 1) stating that it
strongly supports the Department’s
determination that the 2009 edition of
the IECC would achieve greater energy
efficiency in buildings than the 2006
edition.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
submitted a written comment (Docket
No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–0030–0002.1,
pgs. 1–2) supporting the preliminary
determination with one concern about
the analysis. Their concern was that the
DOE model estimates the annual
average baseline residential lighting
energy usage at 2,373 kWh per year. EEI
suggests that the annual lighting usage
should be closer to 900 kWh per year.
The basis of DOE’s lighting energy
assumptions comes from the 2006
Mortgage Industry National Home
Energy Rating Standards developed by
the Residential Energy Services Network
(RESNET), https://www.resnet.us/
standards/RESNET_Mortgage_Industry_
National_HERS_Standards.pdf , pg. 3–
19. These standards assume 2,375 kWh/
year of lighting energy use for a newly
constructed 2400 ft 2 house. The EEI
comment references data from the 2001
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS), https://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/
recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html,
which reports average energy usage for
all existing housing in the year 2001 to
be 940 kWh/year. DOE used RESNET as
opposed to RECS, because it was the
most up-to-date lighting energy usage
estimate for a newly constructed 2400
ft 2 house.2 Therefore, DOE considers
the 2,375 kWh for annual lighting
2 Census data reports an average square footage of
2438 ft 2 in 2009. See, https://www.census.gov/const/
C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
energy usage to be a reasonable estimate
based on RESNET’s standards.
The ICC submitted a written comment
(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–
0030–0003.1, pg. 2) stating that DOE’s
conclusion that the use of the 2009 IECC
will improve energy efficiency in
residential buildings that are built to
meet its requirements is correct.
The Building Codes Assistance
Project (BCAP) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–
DET–0030–0004.1, pgs. 1–2) supporting
the DOE’s determination and suggesting
that DOE follow up with the States after
publication of the Final Determination,
as well as making public which States
comply with the statutory requirements
by updating their code, submitting in
writing why they are choosing not to
update their code, or by filing for a
formal extension within two years of
publication. In regards to BCAP’s
comments see response to RECA’s
comments above.
The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition
(EECC) submitted a written comment
(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–
0030–0005.1, pg. 2) stating they strongly
support DOE’s determination that the
2009 IECC achieves greater energy
efficiency than the 2006 IECC.
The Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–
DET–0030–0008.1, pgs. 2–4) stating the
following three issues: (1) It urges DOE
to use this opportunity to clarify States’
commitments with regards to updating
and implementing their building energy
codes; (2) clarify the limits of
preemption of testing and labeling of
energy conservation of consumer
products under section 327 of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297); and (3) revise
the energy efficiency standards for
Federal buildings to reflect the most
recent model energy codes.
In regards to NRDC’s first comment,
see response to RECA’s comments
above. In addition, Section IV below
describes the process for States to file
certification statements with DOE.
NRDC’s second comment is in reference
to the preemption requirements
applicable to the Federal energy
efficiency standards for appliances.
Essentially, section 307(f) of ECPA
limits the ability of State and local
building codes to require minimum
energy efficiency levels of appliances.
(See, 42 U.S.C. 6297(e)) It is important
to note that today’s final determination
does not require States to adopt a
specific building code. Today’s final
determination requires a State to certify
that it has reviewed the provisions of its
residential building code regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
energy efficiency and made a
determination as to whether it is
appropriate for such State to revise such
residential building code provisions to
meet or exceed the revised code for
which the Secretary made such
determination. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B))
Section 304 of ECPA does not prescribe
how State code provisions must achieve
the required energy efficiencies. This
final determination does not require
States to adopt a specific code or to
require energy efficiency levels of
covered appliances as part of that code,
but rather it allows for States to adopt
building codes that meet or exceed the
energy efficiency requirements of
Standard 90.1–2007. As such, there is
no potential conflict between the State
code provisions of ECPA and the
preemption language in EPCA. In
response to NRDC’s final comment, DOE
intends to update the baseline standards
for Federal buildings found in 10 CFR
part 433 and 10 CFR part 435 that
reference IECC following the issuance of
this final determination for 2003, 2006
and 2009 IECC.
E. DOE’s Final Determination Statement
Below is a detailed discussion of the
Department’s final determinations for
the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECCs.
2003 IECC
DOE’s review and evaluation found
that there are not significant differences
in energy efficiency between the 2003
edition and the 2000 edition of the
IECC. Although there are a few changes
that would modestly improve the energy
efficiency of residential buildings, there
are a number of changes that reduce
energy efficiency in certain situations.
Most of the changes to the IECC between
the 2000 and 2003 editions would not
effect energy efficiency but rather make
the code simpler and clearer for
designers, builders, and code
compliance officials to understand and
use. Based on these findings, the
Department has concluded that the 2003
edition of the IECC should not receive
an affirmative determination under
Section 304(b) of ECPA. The
Department concludes that there is at
best a slight improvement in energy
efficiency for some residential
buildings, but this potential
improvement is not sufficient to merit
an affirmative determination. This is
discussed in further detail below. It
should be noted that DOE is not
concluding that the energy efficiency of
the 2003 IECC is less stringent than the
2000 IECC.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
2006 IECC
The residential portion of the 2006
IECC has been extensively changed from
that of the 2003 IECC. However, the
most significant changes to the code
between 2003 and 2006 simplify the
code format rather than fundamentally
changing the overall (national average)
energy efficiency of the code.
Multifamily buildings, which in the past
have had separate, less stringent thermal
requirements, are an exception. By
eliminating the separate requirements,
the 2006 IECC increased the energy
efficiency of multifamily buildings.
Although the most significant 2006
changes did not directly target
efficiency improvements, the new
format of the code does result in some
energy efficiency differences. The
requirements for any given building
may have increased or decreased based
on the specific location (climate) and
building design. The Department has
found that overall the 2006 IECC has an
improvement in energy efficiency
compared to the 2003 IECC. The
Department concludes that the 2006
edition of the IECC receives an
affirmative determination under Section
304(b) of EPCA. A Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the 2006 IECC is
available at the following Web site;
https://www.energycodes.gov/status/
determinations_res.stm. DOE has
prepared a TSD for the 2006 IECC
determination and not for the 2003 IECC
and 2009 IECC determination for the
following reasons. The 2006 IECC
contained a very extensive change in the
format of the code compared to the 2003
IECC. In addition, the changes in the
format to the 2006 IECC reduce energy
efficiency in some cases and increase
energy efficiency in others. DOE
deemed that its analysis to determine
whether energy efficiency was improved
in the 2006 IECC would be better
addressed in a TSD rather than in this
Notice. As discussed above, for the 2003
IECC determination, there were very few
changes from the 2000 IECC and
therefore no TSD is needed. For the
2009 IECC determination, discussed
below, there are a substantial number of
changes that effect energy efficiency, but
nearly all these changes are clear
improvements that will reduce energy
use. Therefore, highly detailed
calculations are not needed to
determine whether energy efficiency is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:56 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
improved overall in the code and these
changes are also discussed in this
Notice rather than a TSD.
2009 IECC
The 2009 IECC has substantial
revisions compared to the 2006 IECC.
Many of these revisions appear to
directly improve energy efficiency, and
the sum results of all changes appear to
result in a significant increase in code
stringency. Therefore, the Department
concludes that the 2009 edition of the
IECC receives an affirmative
determination under Section 304(b) of
EPCA.
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003,
2006, and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000
IECC
As a whole, the 2003 IECC’s
provisions for energy efficiency in
residential buildings are largely
unchanged from the 2000 IECC. There
are some changes in the code that can
have a modest effect on energy
efficiency. These are discussed below.
In addition, there is a variety of minor
changes intended to make the code
more concise, more complete, and better
organized, but not more or less
stringent. For example, more specific
requirements have been added for steel
roofs/ceilings and floors to correspond
to those already in the code for steel
walls. Another example is the relocation
of the 51 pages of state maps from the
middle of the code to the back of the
code. Additionally, the performance
path in chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC
contains a variety of modest
improvements compared to the 2000
IECC, which creates more concise
requirements.
1. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the
2000 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
a. Increased Duct Insulation
Requirements
Duct insulation requirements
generally increased in the 2003 IECC.
The 2003 IECC requirements are shown
in Table 1. These are somewhat difficult
to compare to the 2000 IECC
requirements because the latter are more
complex, differing between ducts in
unconditioned spaces and ducts
completely exterior to the building, and
distinguishing requirements by the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42691
design temperature difference between
the duct air and the space in which the
ducts are located.
The 2000 IECC requirements for ducts
in unconditioned spaces are shown in
Table 2. Assuming typical supply air
temperatures of 55°F for cooling and
95°F for heating (for heat pumps), the
2000 IECC insulation requirement for
supply ducts in unconditioned spaces is
R–5 (minimum) for nearly all cases.
Insulation required by the 2000 IECC for
return ducts in unconditioned spaces
will generally be R–3.3 in warmer
climates and R–5 in colder climates.
For the very common case of supply
ducts in attics, which is likely to have
the greatest impact on energy use, the
2003 IECC always requires at least R–8,
which exceeds the 2000 IECC’s R–5
requirement. For supply ducts in other
unconditioned spaces, the 2003 IECC’s
requirements exceed the 2000 IECC’s
requirements in all cases except very
warm locations (less than 1500 heating
degree-days), where the 2003 IECC
requires R–4 compared to the 2000
IECC’s requirement of R–5. Because
supply ducts transport air in its hottest
(or coldest) condition, insulation has its
greatest impact on these ducts. The 2003
IECC is almost always more stringent
than the 2000 IECC for supply ducts.
This includes all supply ducts in attics
and, based on the distribution of
population,3 more than 80% of ducts in
other unconditioned spaces.
Requirements for return ducts in
attics are slightly more stringent in the
2003 IECC than the 2000 IECC (R–4 vs.
R–3.3) in the warmest climates, slightly
less stringent (R–4 vs. R–5) in mid
climates, and slightly more stringent (R–
6 vs. R–5) in the coldest climates.
Research 4 showing the impact on
heating and cooling energy use due to
duct insulation is summarized in Table
3. Based on this research, the
Department estimates that improved
duct insulation in the 2003 IECC will
reduce heating and cooling energy use
by about 1%.
3 Estimated from USGS Population Places data
that allows mapping of population to climate
(https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/
download_data.htm).
4 Triedler, B., R. Lucas, M. Modera, J. Miller.
1996. Impact of Residential Duct Insulation on
HVAC Energy Use and Life-Cycle Costs to
Consumers. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
42692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
TABLE 1—DUCT INSULATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE 2003 IECC
Insulation R-value (h· ft 2·°F)/Btu
Ducts in unconditioned attics or
outside building
Annual heating degree days base 65 °F
Supply
Below 1,500 .....................................................................................................
1,500 to 3,500 ..................................................................................................
3,501 to 7,500 ..................................................................................................
Above 7,500 .....................................................................................................
Return
8
8
8
11
Ducts in unconditioned basements, crawl spaces, and
other unconditioned spaces
Supply
4
4
4
6
Return
4
6
8
11
0
2
2
2
TABLE 2—INSULATION REQUIREMENTS (R-VALUE, H-FT2-F/BTU) FOR DUCTS IN UNCONDITIONED SPACES IN THE 2000
IECC
Design Temperature Difference (TD) between air temperature in duct and space in which duct is located
(degrees F)
Cooling
TD ≤ 15 ..............................................................................................................................................................
40 ≥ TD > 15 .....................................................................................................................................................
TD > 40 ..............................................................................................................................................................
None required ...
3.3 ....................
5.0 ....................
Heating
None required
3.3
5.0
TABLE 3—HEATING AND COOLING ENERGY SAVINGS (PERCENT) FROM INCREASED DUCT INSULATION (ATLANTA, NATURAL
GAS HEATING)
Attic
R–4 to R–6 ..........................................................................................................................................................
R–6 to R–8 ..........................................................................................................................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
b. Minor Changes to ‘‘Systems Analysis’’
Performance Compliance Method
There are two changes that can
increase the stringency of the
performance path in Chapter 4 of the
2003 IECC in certain cases. First, any
house proposed to use electric
resistance heating must have equal or
lower calculated energy use than a
hypothetical ‘‘standard design’’ that
uses a more efficient electric air source
heat pump. This change makes the
performance approach much more
stringent for designs that have electric
resistance heating. However,
compliance can be achieved for these
designs using the prescriptive
compliance methods in chapters 5 and
6, thereby bypassing the increased
stringency of the performance path.
Second, a provision has also been
added requiring that the least efficient
orientation in terms of energy use be
assumed for a proposed group of
residences with identical designs.
Therefore, in a development where the
same design is built on multiple lots
facing various directions, the
compliance analysis must be based on
the least advantageous orientation. In
most of the United States, this is the
orientation that points the most window
area toward a westerly direction,
maximizing solar heat gains in summer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
afternoons and therefore increasing air
conditioning energy use. Because
proposed building designs must have a
calculated annual energy use equal to or
less than that of a home with window
area equally distributed toward the four
cardinal directions, the requirement to
assume the least efficient orientation
effectively makes the code more
stringent because the increased energy
use from the least efficient orientation
must be offset by improved energy
efficiency. This requirement in the 2003
IECC will have only modest average
impact because it affects only the
performance approach and identical
house designs used repeatedly in a
development.
2. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the
2000 IECC That Decrease Energy
Efficiency
a. Sunroom Additions
A special set of requirements has been
added to Table 502.2.5 of the 2003 IECC
for sunroom additions having a floor
area of less than 500 ft2 (46.5 m2).
Sunroom additions are permitted to
have ceiling, wall insulation, and
window U-factor requirements that are
typically less stringent than the
requirements for all other types of
residential construction. These special
requirements for sunrooms only apply
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2.3
1.4
Basement
Crawlspace
1.6
0.9
1.8
1.1
to additions to existing dwellings, not to
sunrooms that are built as part of a new
dwelling. In the 2000 IECC, there were
no special requirements for sunroom
additions; they had to meet the same
requirements as other residential
construction. To qualify for the less
stringent requirements in the 2003 IECC,
the sunroom addition must be capable
of being controlled as a separately
heated and cooled zone. Additionally,
new walls, doors or windows between
the sunroom and the house must meet
the envelope requirements of the IECC.
Finally, the glazing area must exceed
40% of the gross area of the exterior
walls and roof to qualify as a sunroom
in the IECC.
Testing with the EnergyGuage (DOE–
2) 5 simulation tool indicates that for a
500 ft2 sunroom, the less stringent 2003
requirements could add about $200 to
the annual energy costs in Chicago if the
sunroom is both heated and cooled all
year. Impacts are much smaller in
Houston, about $10 added energy costs.
However, this increase in energy
consumption is mitigated (on average)
by several factors. First, the
requirements apply to a very small
fraction of all new residential
construction. The Wall Street Journal
5 EnergyGuage (DOE–2) simulation tool is
available at https://doe2.com/.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Online (June 3, 2003) reports $3 billion
worth of sunroom construction each
year, or less than one percent of all
residential construction expenditures.
But that fraction includes new
construction as well as additions, so the
fraction representing sunroom additions
is less than 1%. Second, it is expected
that many sunrooms will not be
maintained at comfort conditions all
year, further reducing the overall
impact. Finally, because the 2003 IECC
requires that the sunroom be thermally
isolated from the rest of the house and
that walls, windows, and doors between
the sunroom and house meet the code’s
envelope requirements, the thermal
impact when these spaces are not
actively conditioned is negligible.
Therefore, the overall impact of this
reduction in stringency to national
energy use is expected to be extremely
small.
b. Climate Zone Maps
The IECC contains prescriptive
envelope requirements (insulation Rvalues and glazing U-factors) in Chapter
6 and Section 502.2.4 of the code. In the
2000 IECC, only the heating degree-days
for the city where the housing was to be
built could be used to determine the
applicable prescriptive envelope
requirements. In the 2003 IECC, the
heating degree-days can still be used to
determine the requirements, but
additionally the designer/builder can
use the climate zones provided in the
state maps in the IECC. For most
locations, the Chapter 3 climate zones
and heating degree-days lead to the
exact same requirements. Using the
climate zones in the maps instead of the
heating degree-days will allow about
10% of cities nationwide to have a less
stringent set of prescriptive
requirements. However, about 20% of
cities nationwide will have more
stringent requirements when the climate
zones are used with the prescriptive
requirements. If the designer/builders
select to use the climate zone maps in
the 10% of cities where it lowers
requirements but not in the 20% of
locations where it raises requirements,
the 2003 code effectively is less
stringent. However, DOE believes code
users will make use of the climate zone
maps even in many of the locations
where they raise requirements. DOE
does not anticipate that most code users
will go through the level of effort of
determining which method of
determining climate based requirements
may give less stringent requirements. In
fact, DOE believes most users will not
even be aware of these differences, but
will prefer the climate zone maps
because of their simplicity. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
REScheck compliance materials
developed by the DOE utilize the same
heating degree day based requirements
for both the 2000 and 2003 IECC.
c. Increased U-Factor for Skylight
Replacements
The maximum U-factor for skylight
replacements in existing buildings
(Section 502.2.5 of the IECC) is raised
from a U-factor of 0.50 to a U-factor of
0.60 for locations above 1,999 heating
degree-days. A higher U-factor reduces
energy efficiency.
3. Net Impact of Changes in the 2003
IECC From the 2000 IECC on Energy
Efficiency
Ultimately, the DOE finds that the net
impact of the changes in the 2003 IECC
on energy efficiency is not sufficient to
merit an affirmative determination.
The change in the 2003 IECC that is
expected to have the greatest impact on
the nation’s energy efficiency is the
improved duct insulation, because a
majority of new residential buildings
have ducts that pass through attics,
crawl spaces, unheated basements and
other spaces where the IECC requires
duct insulation. The improved duct
insulation in the 2003 IECC is estimated
to save about 1% of heating and cooling
costs.
DOE believes that the changes to the
system analysis method are not
sufficient to sway the decision on
whether the determination is affirmative
or not. This performance compliance
method is less commonly used, and, as
it is optional, the modest energy savings
from the improvements in this
compliance method can easily be
bypassed by choosing a different
method.
Although the changes that effect
sunroom additions and skylight
replacements reduce energy efficiency,
DOE does not believe that they will lead
to substantial impacts on national
energy use, as they do not apply to new
buildings and only apply to specific
types or retrofits and additions to
existing buildings. The skylight U-factor
change is only a modest reduction in
energy efficiency and sunroom
additions are a small fraction of the
residential construction market.
The addition of the climate zone maps
in the 2003 IECC as an option to using
city-specific heating degree-day data
allows for the possibility of
preferentially lowering thermal
envelope requirements in about 10% of
all national locations. However, it will
be difficult to exploit this change
because the code user must perform
relatively complex calculations rather
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42693
than using the popular and user-friendly
REScheck software.
In sum, DOE concludes the changes to
duct insulation requirements will
slightly improve energy efficiency in
most houses, however, the reductions in
energy efficiency for skylight
replacements and sunroom additions
are expected to at least partially offset
these savings from a national energy
total use perspective. Additionally, the
vast majority of all requirements in the
IECC are unchanged from 2000 to 2003.
For these reasons, DOE finds
insufficient improvements in the 2003
IECC to merit an affirmative
determination.
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003
IECC
1. Changes in the 2006 IECC From the
2003 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
The residential portion of the IECC in
general and the building thermal
envelope (ceilings, walls, doors,
windows, foundations, etc.)
requirements in particular were
completely restructured from 2003 to
2006. This resulted in the code
becoming much shorter and simpler, its
volume reduced from 38 pages to 9
pages. The climate basis on which
envelope requirements depend was
completely reworked. The 2003 IECC
has envelope requirements that vary
continuously with heating degree-days
(HDD),6 or with 17 HDD zones
(geographically-defined based on
counties, roughly following 500–HDD
bins). In contrast, the 2006 IECC has
eight geographically-defined climate
zones with all borders set on county
boundaries.
A major change to envelope
requirements was the combining of
separate 2003 IECC requirements for
two building categories (1) One- and
two-family dwellings, and (2) all other
low-rise residential buildings 7. The
2006 IECC requirements are the same for
all low-rise residential building types,
which has the effect of increasing the
energy efficiency of the second category,
all other low-rise buildings. Also
6 Some compliance paths defined requirements
based on 17 ‘‘zones’’ based on HDD ranges.
7 The 2006 IECC defines residential buildings as
‘‘R–3 buildings, as well as R–2 and R–4 buildings
three stories or less in height above grade’’. The R–
2/3/4 designation is from the International Building
Code and these are defined as follows:
R–2—Apartment houses, boarding houses,
convents, dormitories, fraternities and sororities,
monasteries.
R–3—one or two family dwellings.
R–4—Residential Care/Assisted living.
R–2 and R–4 buildings that have more stories are
covered commercial codes.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
42694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
eliminated were nine related tables that
provided predefined packages of
thermal transmittance prescriptive
requirements (glazing, ceiling-roof,
exterior wall, floor over unconditioned
space, basement and crawl space walls,
and floor slab on grade) for different
window to wall area ratios (WWR). In
their place, the 2006 IECC provides a
single table of predefined packages of
thermal transmittance prescriptive
requirements that do not vary with
WWR.
Table 4 shows a comparison of major
prescriptive envelope requirements for a
single-family house at a typical 15%
WWR. The requirements for the 2003
IECC will differ from those shown in
Table 4 for other WWRs and for
multifamily buildings. The 2006 IECC
climate zones do not exactly map to the
2003 IECC zones. Table 5 shows a more
detailed estimate of how residential
construction maps from the 2006 IECC
compare to the 2003 IECC climate
zones.
TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF THE 2003 IECC AND 2006 IECC ENVELOPE THERMAL COMPONENT PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA
FOR ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AT 15% WINDOW AREA
IECC climate zone
Maximum
Glazing
U-factor
Heating degree days
2003
2006
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
2
................
................
3
................
................
4
................
................
5
................
................
................
5
6
6
7
Minimum
0–499 ........................................................
500–999 ....................................................
1,000–1,499 ..............................................
1,500–1,999 ..............................................
2,000–2,499 ..............................................
2,500–2,999 ..............................................
3,000–3,499 ..............................................
3,500–3,999 ..............................................
4,000–4,499 ..............................................
4,500–4,999 ..............................................
5,000–5,499 ..............................................
5,500–5,999 ..............................................
6,000–6,499 ..............................................
6,500–6,999 ..............................................
7,000–8,499 ..............................................
8,500–8,999 ..............................................
9,000–12,999 ............................................
Ceiling
R-value
2006
Any
0.90
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
2003
1.20
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Wall
R-value
2006
R–13
R–19
R–19
R–26
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–49
R–49
R–49
R–49
2003
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–30
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38
R–38/49
R–49
R–49
Floor
R-value
2006
R–11
R–11
R–11
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–16
R–18
R–18
R–18
R–21
R–21
R–21
R–21
2003
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–21
R–21
R–11
R–11
R–11
R–11
R–11
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–21
R–21
R–21
R–21
R–21
R–21
2006
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–13
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19
R–19/30
R–19/30
R–19/30
R–19/30
R–21
R–21
R–21
TABLE 4 CONTINUED—COMPARISON OF THE 2003 IECC AND 2006 IECC ENVELOPE THERMAL COMPONENT
PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA FOR ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AT 15% WINDOW AREA
IECC climate zone
Minimum
2006
2006
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
2
................
................
3
................
................
4
................
................
5
................
................
................
5
6
6
7
Crawl space wall
R-value
2003
2006
2003
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–10/13
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–4,2
R–4,2
R–5,2
R–5,2
R–6,2
R–6,2
R–9,4
R–9,4
R–11,4
R–13,4
R–14,4
R–18
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,2
R–10,4
R–10,4
Basement wall
R-value
Heating degree days
2003
Slab perimeter
R-value and depth
feet
0–499 ................................................................................................
500–999 ............................................................................................
1,000–1,499 ......................................................................................
1,500–1,999 ......................................................................................
2,000–2,499 ......................................................................................
2,500–2,999 ......................................................................................
3,000–3,499 ......................................................................................
3,500–3,999 ......................................................................................
4,000–4,499 ......................................................................................
4,500–4,999 ......................................................................................
5,000–5,499 ......................................................................................
5,500–5,999 ......................................................................................
6,000–6,499 ......................................................................................
6,500–6,999 ......................................................................................
7,000–8,499 ......................................................................................
8,500–8,999 ......................................................................................
9,000–12,999 ....................................................................................
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–5
R–5
R–6
R–7
R–8
R–8
R–9
R–9
R–10
R–10
R–11
R–11
R–18
R–19
R–0
R–4
R–5
R–5
R–6
R–7
R–8
R–10
R–11
R–17
R–17
R–19
R–20
R–20
R–20
R–20
R–20
2006
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–0
R–5
R–5
R–5
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
R–10
TABLE 5—PERCENTAGE OF HOMES IN EACH 2006 IECC CLIMATE ZONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN EACH 2003 IECC
CLIMATE ZONE
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2006 IECC climate zone
2003 IECC climate zone
1
1
2
3
4
5
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
2
100
0
0
0
0
Fmt 4703
4 except
Marine
3
5
20
40
31
3
Sfmt 4703
5 and
Marine 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
10
18
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
6
7&8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42695
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
TABLE 5—PERCENTAGE OF HOMES IN EACH 2006 IECC CLIMATE ZONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN EACH 2003 IECC
CLIMATE ZONE—Continued
2006 IECC climate zone
2003 IECC climate zone
1
6 ...........................................................................................
7 ...........................................................................................
8 ...........................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
11 .........................................................................................
12 .........................................................................................
13 .........................................................................................
14 .........................................................................................
15 .........................................................................................
16 .........................................................................................
17 .........................................................................................
18 .........................................................................................
19 .........................................................................................
2. Net Impact of Changes From the 2003
to 2006 IECC
The Department has conducted an
analysis and has found that the 2006
IECC would modestly increase energy
efficiency on an overall national average
basis. This analysis is summarized
below; a TSD published in conjunction
with this Notice contains the full
results. The Department stresses that
this increased energy efficiency is based
on an average across all new residential
buildings. The analysis identified
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 except
Marine
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 and
Marine 4
0
4
9
13
28
41
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
8
28
31
20
6
0
0
0
0
28
16
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
combinations of locations and building
design where the 2006 IECC would
slightly reduce energy efficiency;
however, the analysis indicates that the
reductions would be more than offset by
cases where energy efficiency is
improved.
Table 6 provides the overall results of
the comparative analysis of the
prescriptive envelope requirements of
the 2006 IECC and the 2003 IECC. The
DOE–2 energy simulation software was
used to calculate these values. The 2006
IECC has a 1% average overall national
6
7&8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
81
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
85
5
2
energy savings. The table shows
combined results for single-family and
multifamily construction accounting for
weighted average building
characteristics. Table 6 illustrates
significant regional differences that are
primarily a result of the revised climate
zones. In most climates, the two codes
are very nearly equivalent. In climate
zone 5, the 2006 IECC shows a
substantial improvement (about 5%). In
climate zone 3, the 2003 IECC is more
energy efficient (by about 5%).
TABLE 6—ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS (MBTU) OF 2006 IECC COMPARED TO 2003 IECC FOR PRESCRIPTIVE BUILDING
ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS
Foundation Type
2006 IECC climate zone
Heated
basement
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Zone 1 ....................................................................
Zone 2 ....................................................................
Zone 3 ....................................................................
Zone 4 ....................................................................
Zone 5 ....................................................................
Zone 6 ....................................................................
Zone 7 ....................................................................
Average ..................................................................
The analysis underlying the results in
Table 6 does not account for all changes
in the IECC from 2003 to 2006. For
example, the 2006 IECC requires
increased duct insulation in certain
cases. On the other hand, the 2006 IECC
is missing requirements for pool heater
controls (on-off switch) and pool covers
contained in the 2003 IECC. However,
these and a few other miscellaneous
changes do not appear to alter a
determination that the 2006 IECC has a
modest improvement in overall energy
efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Crawl space
0.5
¥0.1
¥8.6
2
5.5
1.1
¥2
2.4
0.4
1.4
¥1
0.8
7.3
3.3
4.5
2.7
Slab-ongrace
0.3
0.9
¥3.3
0.6
4.2
0
0.4
¥0.3
The Department expects all heated
pools to have an on-off switch, basic
pool covers are dependent on the
diligent occupant behavior for
removing/covering the pool, and many
homes do not have a pool or may not
heat their pool. Furthermore, the 2003
IECC allows the pool cover requirement
to be bypassed if 20% of the heating
energy is provided by solar heat from
the sun striking the pool surface.
There was one particular issue that
received the most extensive debate
during the 2006 IECC development
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Unheated
basement
0.4
¥0.1
¥1.5
0.7
6.3
2.3
3.4
3.3
Average
0.3
0.9
¥3.4
1.1
5.7
1.4
¥0.4
1
Percent
savings
2
3
¥5
1
5
1
0
1
process. This issue was how the 2006
IECC sets requirements based on the
window area of a home. There was
considerable concern because a
residential building with unlimited
windows (e.g., an ‘‘all glass’’ house) can
be built without any penalty under the
2006 IECC. This is not the case in the
2003 IECC, where, as the WWR becomes
higher, the code requires improved
performance of windows and/or wall
insulation. However, this effect is offset
in two ways. First, while the 2003 IECC
becomes more stringent at high WWRs,
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
42696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
it also becomes less stringent at low
WWRs, whereas the 2006 IECC does not.
Second, the 2006 IECC increased the
baseline efficiency requirements (Ufactor) of glazing to almost equal thencurrent Energy Star levels in most
locations. The Department’s analysis of
the IECC’s requirements related to
window area indicate that the 2006 code
is not less stringent than the 2003 IECC
when the distribution of window areas
in all residential buildings is accounted
for.
A major factor influencing the
Department’s final determination of
improved efficiency in the 2006 IECC is
the improvement in energy efficiency
for multifamily housing. The building
envelope requirements in 2006 IECC are
identical for all residential building
types. This is not the case in the 2003
IECC where the requirements for
multifamily building types are
considerably less stringent than those
for one and two-family dwellings. This
is shown in the wall requirements in
Figure 502.2(1) of the 2003 IECC. While
multifamily residential construction has
a much smaller market share than
single-family in terms of number of
dwelling units, there is a nearly
universal improvement in requirements
for multifamily buildings regardless of
building design or climate zone. As
indicated below in the certification
discussion, high-rise (greater than three
stories) multifamily residential
buildings and hotel, motel, and other
transient residential building types of
any height are classified as commercial
buildings for energy code purposes.
However, the building envelope
revisions in 2006 IECC would impact
residential buildings such as
townhouses, row houses, and low-rise
multifamily buildings (not greater than
three stories) such as condominiums
and garden apartments.
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006
IECC
1. Changes in the 2009 IECC From the
2006 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
Each of the major changes in the 2009
IECC that impact energy efficiency is
examined individually below. All but
one of the changes improve energy
efficiency.
1. Changes That Improve Energy
Efficiency
a. Lighting
The 2009 IECC has a major new
requirement that a minimum of 50% of
all lamps (bulbs, tubes, etc.) be ‘‘high
efficacy,’’ which is defined to include
compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), T–8
or smaller diameter fluorescent tubes, or
other products achieving comparable or
better lumen-per-watt ratings.
Traditional incandescent bulbs do not
meet this requirement. The 2006 IECC
had no lighting requirements for
residential buildings. The Department
has referenced the 2006 Mortgage
Industry National Home Energy Rating
Standards developed by the Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET) to
assume 2,375 kWh/year of lighting
energy use for a newly constructed 2400
ft2 house. The new lighting
requirements in the 2009 IECC could
reduce this lighting energy use by about
25%.
b. Building Envelope Thermal Measures
The 2009 IECC has a number of
changes that improve energy efficiency
in the building envelope. There are
direct increases in prescriptive building
envelope requirements in Tables 402.1.1
and 402.1.3 of the IECC. Table 7 below
shows these changes. Additionally,
there were a number of minor
improvements, including establishing
an area limit of 24 ft2 on the door
exemption from U-factor requirements.
TABLE 7—IMPROVEMENTS IN PRESCRIPTIVE ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS
Component
2006 IECC
Maximum fenestration U-factor (excluding skylights) .............................
Zone 2: 0.75 ..................................
Zone 3: 0.65 ..................................
Zone 4: 0.40 ..................................
0.40 ................................................
Zone 2: 0.65.
Zone 3: 0.50.
Zone 4: 0.35.
0.30.
Basement wall insulation in northern section of Zone 3 .........................
R–13 cavity or R–10 continuous
insulation.
No insulation required ...................
Wood-Frame wall insulation (all but basements) in Zones 5 and 6 .......
Floor insulation in Zones 7 and 8 ...........................................................
R–19 ..............................................
R–30 ..............................................
R–19 cavity or R–15 continuous
insulation.
R–13 cavity or R–5 continuous insulation.
R–20.
R–38.
Maximum fenestration solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) in Zones 1
through 3.
Basement wall insulation in Zones 6 through 8 ......................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
c. Building Envelope Air Leakage
Although the fundamental
requirement to seal all potential sources
of leaks has not changed, the air leakage
control specifications in Section 402.4
of the 2009 IECC are considerably more
detailed than in the 2006 edition,
requiring either a comprehensive
inspection against a checklist of
component sealing criteria or a wholebuilding pressurization test. There is a
new requirement that fireplaces have
gasketed doors to limit air leakage.
Additionally, compliance with Standard
ASTM E283 is now required to limit air
leakage through recessed light fixtures.
The 2006 IECC only required recessed
light fixtures to be sealed but did not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
require compliance with the ASTM
standard. This testing of fixtures is
expected to help eliminate energy
consuming leaks through these fixtures,
which can be a very common method of
lighting in kitchens and other rooms in
new houses.
d. Duct Leakage Limits and Testing
Requirement
The 2009 IECC contains a new
requirement that buildings with ducts
that pass outside the conditioned space
(for example, if ducts are in
unconditioned attics, garages or
crawlspaces) have the ducts pressure
tested and shown to have a maximum
leakage rate below specified limits.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2009 IECC
While the 2006 IECC also requires ducts
to be sealed, the addition of a specific
leakage limit verified by a pressure test
in each new home or retrofit is expected
to substantially reduce leakage in many
if not most cases.
Testing of completed homes in
Washington State where prescriptive
code requirements for duct sealing
apply without any testing to confirm
compliance, ‘‘showed no significant
improvement’’ over non-code homes.8
Another study from Washington State
8 Washington State University. 2001. Washington
State Energy Code Duct Leakage Study Report.
WSUCEEP01105. Washington State University
Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia,
Washington.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
concluded: ‘‘Comparisons to air leakage
rates reported elsewhere for homes built
before the implementation of the 1991
WSEC show no significant improvement
by the general population’’ despite years
of training emphasizing duct sealing.9
Numerous other studies around the
nation show substantial duct leakage in
new homes, including those in States
with codes requiring duct sealing. For
example, a 2001 study of 186 houses
built under the MEC in Massachusetts
reported ‘‘serious problems were found
in the quality of duct sealing in about
80% of these houses’’.10 Pressurization
tests in 22 of these houses found an
average leakage to the outside of the
house of 183 cfm, or 21.6% of the
system flow, at a pressure of 25 Pascals.
The energy savings of improved duct
sealing are very substantial. A California
study estimated a sales-weighted state
annual average savings from duct
sealing of 38 therms and 239 kWh for
a 1761 ft2 house.11 This is based on an
estimated 12% improvement in duct
efficiency based on previous studies
indicating a 12–15% improvement
potential. The Department concludes
that the 2009 IECC’s requirement that
duct air leakage meet an upper limit and
be verified by a pressure test will save
significant energy compared to the 2006
and prior editions of the IECC.
compliance path in the 2009 IECC. The
glazing area in the baseline ‘‘standard
reference design’’ was reduced from a
maximum of 18% of the conditioned
floor area to 15%. This results in
increased energy efficiency for any
proposed design having a glazing area of
more than 15%. Because use of this
compliance path is completely optional,
these savings will only occur when the
user chooses this compliance path.
Another change does not directly alter
code stringency in the performance path
but may ultimately result in some
energy savings is the removal of the
option to trade high-efficiency HVAC
equipment for reductions in other
requirements in the code, such as
reduced envelope insulation. Because
building envelopes have substantially
longer lives than HVAC and/or water
heating equipment, energy savings from
envelope improvements may persist for
many more years than comparable
equipment improvements. Also, because
high-efficiency equipment is already the
predominant choice in many markets,
disallowing envelope/equipment tradeoffs is likely to result in improved
overall efficiency in many situations.
e. Improvement in Other Requirements
There are a number of changes to the
‘‘simulated performance alternative’’
There is only one change in the 2009
IECC that directly reduces energy
efficiency. Insulation requirements for
many ducts outside the building
thermal envelope are reduced from
R–8 to R–6; exceptions are supply ducts
in attics, which must still have R–8
insulation, and ducts in floor trusses,
which retain the 2006 code’s R–6
requirement.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8 Washington State University. 2001. Washington
State Energy Code Duct Leakage Study Report.
WSUCEEP01105. Washington State University
Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia,
Washington.
9 Hales, D., A. Gordon, and M. Lubliner. 2003.
Duct Leakage in New Washington State Residences:
Findings and Conclusions. ASHRAE Transactions.
KC–2003–1–3.
10 Xenergy. 2001. Impact Analysis Of The
Massachusetts 1998 Residential Energy Code
Revisions. https://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/
inf/inf_bbrs_impact_analysis_final.pdf.
11 Hammon, R. W., and M. P. Modera. 1999.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Changes in the 2009 IECC From the
2006 IECC That Reduce Energy
Efficiency
3. Net Impact of Changes From the 2009
IECC to 2009 IECC on Energy Efficiency
The Department has conducted an
energy simulation analysis of 2009 IECC
compared to the 2006 using the DOE–
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42697
2 simulation tool to model 12 a typical
single family house:
• 2400 ft2 floor area, two-story.
• Crawl space foundation.
• 8.5-ft high ceilings.
• A ceiling area (bordering the
unconditioned attic) of 1,200 ft2,
• A gross exterior wall area of 2,380
ft2,
• And a window area of 357 ft2 (15%
of the wall area) equally oriented north,
south, east, and west.
• Heating with a natural gas furnace
($1.20/therm).
• Central electric air conditioning
($.12/kWh).
High-efficacy lighting was assumed to
increase from 10% to 50% of all lighting
within the building, reducing lighting
energy use by 26%, or $74 a year.
Savings attributable to the lighting
requirements in the IECC will decrease
as Federal law requires improved light
bulbs in 2012 to 2014. Improved duct
sealing was assumed to save 10% of the
heating and cooling costs.
Figure 1 shows the estimated annual
energy cost savings resulting from the
Department’s energy simulation analysis
of the 2009 IECC changes for 14 diverse
climates and for the national average.
The energy simulation analysis, as
described above, takes into account
changes involving the space heating,
space cooling (air conditioning), and
lighting systems. A 10% reduction is
applied to solely the heating and
cooling energy to account for the
improved duct sealing necessary to
achieve the low duct leakage rates
specified in the 2009 IECC. The 10%
reduction is applied post energy
simulation analysis to all 14 climate
locations and is accounted for in the
cost savings presented in Figure 1.
12 The DOE–2 simulation tool is available at
https://doe2.com/.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the
2009 IECC
In the past, some States have adopted
the ICC’s International Residential Code
(IRC) in lieu of the IECC, because the
IRC provides a comprehensive building
construction code (structural, plumbing,
electrical, energy, etc.) in a single book
for one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses. Consequently, DOE
anticipates that some States may wish to
adopt the 2009 IRC in lieu of the 2009
IECC. In order to provide technical
assistance to States that may wish to
adopt the 2009 IRC, DOE has evaluated
the 2009 IRC to compare the stringency
of its energy provisions with those of
the 2009 IECC. Our analysis indicates
that the 2009 IRC would not equal or
exceed the energy efficiency of the 2009
IECC.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Changes That Reduce Energy
Efficiency or Have the Potential To
Increase Energy Consumption
Chapter 11 of the IRC contains energy
efficiency provisions. The IRC allows
compliance with the IECC as an
alternative to complying with Chapter
11. Most of the energy efficiency
requirements in the IRC and IECC are
identical. However, there are several
differences between the two codes that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
result in the 2009 IRC having reduced
energy efficiency compared to the 2009
IECC. All the differences that reduce
efficiency are listed below:
1. The 2009 IECC requires a glazed
fenestration solar heat gain coefficient
(SHGC) of 0.30 or lower whereas the
2009 IRC requires a higher (less
stringent) SHGC of 0.35 or lower, in
climate zones 1, 2, and 3. Further, the
2009 IRC allows impact resistant
fenestration in zones 1 through 3 to
meet an even less stringent SHGC
requirement of 0.40 and less stringent
U-factor requirements in zones 2 and 3.
2. For basement walls, the 2009 IECC
requires either R–15 continuous
insulation or R–19 cavity insulation in
zones 6–8, whereas the 2009 IRC
requires lower (less stringent) R-values
in these zones: R–10 continuous or
R–15 cavity.
3. The 2009 IECC requires R–38 floors
in zones 7 and 8; the 2009 IRC requires
only R–30.
4. The 2009 IECC limits the allowance
for R–30 insulation in ceilings without
attics to 500 ft2 or 20% of the total
insulated ceiling area, whichever is less.
The 2009 IRC limits the allowance to
500 ft2 without regard to the total
ceiling area. Thus, under the 2009 IRC
some smaller homes will have less
efficient ceilings.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Additionally, the 2009 IRC differs
from the 2009 IECC in some ways that,
although they do not reduce the
stringency of code requirements, have
the potential to result in increased
energy consumption in certain
situations:
1. Both the IRC and IECC allow for
‘‘trade-offs’’ by which the efficiency of
one building component can be lowered
in trade for higher efficiency in another.
The 2009 IECC limits the extent to
which glazing properties can be reduced
in such trade-offs. The 2009 IECC sets
a trade-off ‘‘cap’’ on SHGC at a
maximum of 0.50 in climate zones 1, 2,
and 3 and a cap on U-factor trade-offs
of U–0.48 in zones 4 and 5 and U–0.40
in zones 6, 7, and 8. These caps are not
present in the 2009 IRC. As these caps
do not increase stringency of the code
(but rather restrict trade-off options),
there is no direct impact on annual
energy consumption or cost. There may,
however, be some impacts on occupant
comfort and/or resistance to moisture
condensation, either of which could
possibly induce occupants to increase
energy consumption, for example by
raising thermostat set points.
2. The air barrier and insulation
inspection requirements differ slightly
between the codes. The 2009 IECC
requires checking that ‘‘Air-permeable
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
EN19JY11.121</GPH>
42698
42699
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
insulation is inside of an air barrier’’
(right column in the first row). The 2009
IRC is missing this, which could result
in insulation on the exterior side of an
air barrier being exposed to windinduced air movement that reduces its
effective R-value.
3. The definitions of ‘‘conditioned
space’’ are different between the two
codes, which, depending on local
officials’ interpretations, could result in
different portions of a building being
deemed conditioned and hence subject
to the code’s envelope requirements.
4. The three labels ‘‘mandatory,’’
‘‘prescriptive,’’ and ‘‘performance’’ are
used to label many sections in the 2009
IECC, but are not used at all in the 2009
IRC. The provisions that are mandatory
are always required while prescriptive
provisions can be traded off as long as
overall home energy efficiency is not
decreased. Thus the 2009 IRC may
permit trading down the efficiency of
some components with the potential to
induce increased energy consumption
as described above.
5. The 2009 IRC (section N1101.1,
‘‘Scope’’) states that chapter 11 (Energy
Efficiency) does not apply to portions of
the building envelope that do not
enclose conditioned space. Section
101.5.2 of the IECC is more specific,
exempting only building thermal
envelope provisions that do not contain
conditioned space.
B. Impact of the Differences Between the
2009 IRC and 2009 IECC
DOE has performed a limited analysis
of potential impact of the differences
between the 2009 IECC and 2009 IRC.
The analysis involves thermal
simulation of home performance in
several representative locations using
the EnergyGauge (DOE–2) 13 simulation
tool on a typical house:
• 2400 ft2 floor area, two-story.
• Natural gas furnace heating at
$1.20/therm.
• Central air conditioning electricity
at 12 cents/kWh.
• Equipment efficiencies at Federal
minimum levels.
• 360 ft2 window area equally
distributed to the north, east, south, and
west building faces, with no exterior
shading.
The results are shown in Tables 8
through 10. The 2009 IRC yields a
higher annual energy cost in almost all
cases.
TABLE 8—ENERGY SAVINGS OF REDUCING SHGC FROM 0.35 TO 0.30 IN CLIMATE ZONES ONE THROUGH THREE
Climate zone
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
Miami ....................................................................
Houston ................................................................
Phoenix .................................................................
Atlanta ..................................................................
Jackson MS ..........................................................
Memphis ...............................................................
Dallas ....................................................................
El Paso .................................................................
Las Vegas ............................................................
revising the portion of its residential
building code regarding energy
efficiency to meet or exceed the
provisions of the ICC IECC, 2009
edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) A State
determination for the 2009 IECC would
RepresentaEnergy
Climate zone
be sufficient to address all of the DOE
tive city
savings
determinations (e.g. 2006 and 2003) in
6 .................... Burlington ......
$29 this notice. The State determination
7 .................... Duluth ............
34 must be: (1) Made after public notice
8 .................... Fairbanks ......
33 and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based
upon findings and upon the evidence
TABLE 10—ENERGY SAVINGS OF IN- presented at the hearing; and (4) made
CREASING FLOOR INSULATION FROM available to the public. States have
R–30 TO R–38 IN CLIMATE ZONES considerable discretion with regard to
the hearing procedures they use, subject
SEVEN AND EIGHT (FLOOR OVER to providing an adequate opportunity
UNHEATED BASEMENT)
for members of the public to be heard
and to present relevant information. The
RepresentaEnergy
Climate zone
Department recommends publication of
tive city
savings
any notice of public hearing in a
7 .................... Duluth ............
13 newspaper of general circulation and
8 .................... Fairbanks ......
19 online. The determinations are required
to be made not later than two years from
IV. Filing Certification Statements With the date of publication of this notice of
final determination, unless an extension
DOE
is provided (see section B. below for
A. State Determinations
more details).
Upon publication of this final
Note that the applicability of any
determination, each State is required to
State revisions to new or existing
determine the appropriateness of
buildings would be governed by the
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 9—ENERGY SAVINGS OF INCREASING BASEMENT WALL INSULATION FROM R–13 TO R–19 IN CLIMATE ZONES SIX THROUGH EIGHT
13 EnergyGauge
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Cooling
savings
Representative city
$29
18
20
16
19
17
20
18
16
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
$0
9
1
18
15
17
14
17
15
Energy
savings
$29
9
19
¥2
4
0
6
1
1
State building codes. However, it is our
understanding that generally, the
revisions would not apply to existing
buildings unless they are undergoing a
change that requires a building permit.
States should be aware that the
Department considers high-rise (greater
than three stories) multifamily
residential buildings and hotel, motel,
and other transient residential building
types of any height as commercial
buildings for energy code purposes.
Residential buildings include one- and
two-family detached and attached
buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row
houses, and low-rise multifamily
buildings (not greater than three stories)
such as condominiums and garden
apartments.
States should also be aware that the
determinations do not apply to Chapter
5 of the 2009 IECC, which addresses
commercial buildings as defined above.
Therefore, States must certify their
evaluations of their State building codes
for residential buildings with respect to
all provisions of the IECC except for that
chapter.
Section 304(a)(4) of ECPA, as
amended, requires that if a State makes
a determination that it is not
is available at https://doe2.com/.
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Heating
increase
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
42700
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
appropriate to revise the energy
efficiency provisions of its residential
building code, the State must submit to
the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for
this determination and the statement
shall be available to the public. (42
U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))
Some States develop their own codes
that are only loosely related to the
national model codes and DOE does not
typically provide technical support for
those codes. However, DOE does
provide grants to these States through
grant programs administered by the
National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL). DOE does not prescribe how
each State adopts and enforces its
energy codes.
B. Requests for Extensions To Certify
Section 304(c) of ECPA, as amended,
requires that the Secretary permit an
extension of the deadline for complying
with the certification requirements
described above, if a State can
demonstrate that it has made a good
faith effort to comply with such
requirements and that it has made
significant progress toward meeting its
certification obligations. (42 U.S.C.
6833(c)) Such demonstrations could
include one or both of the following: (1)
A plan for response to the requirements
stated in Section 304; and/or (2) a
statement that the State has
appropriated or requested funds (within
State funding procedures) to implement
a plan that would respond to the
requirements of Section 304 of ECPA.
This list is not exhaustive.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today’s action is a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993)). Accordingly, today’s
action was reviewed by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ (67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002)), DOE published
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed today’s rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. Today’s final determination of
improved energy efficiency between
IECC editions requires States to
undertake an analysis of their respective
building codes. As such, the only
entities directly regulated by this
rulemaking would be States. DOE does
not believe that there will be any direct
impacts on small entities such as small
businesses, small organizations, or small
governmental jurisdictions.
On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE’s certification and
supporting statement of factual basis
will be provided to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
C. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has determined that today’s
action is covered under the Categorical
Exclusion found in DOE’s National
Environmental Policy Act regulations at
paragraph A.6. of Appendix A to
subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. That
Categorical Exclusion applies to actions
that are strictly procedural, such as
rulemaking establishing the
administration of grants. Today’s action
impacts whether States must perform an
evaluation of State building codes. The
action would not have direct
environmental impacts. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact
statement.
D. Review Under Executive Order
13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255
(Aug. 4, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating
and implementing policies or
regulations that pre-empt State law or
that have federalism implications.
Agencies are required to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
States and carefully assess the necessity
for such actions. DOE has examined
today’s final rule and has determined
that it will not pre-empt State law and
will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Pursuant
to Section 304(a) of ECPA, DOE is
statutorily required to determine
whether the most recent version of the
1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any
successor to that code, would improve
the level of energy efficiency in
residential buildings compared to the
previous version. If DOE makes a
positive determination, the statute
requires each State to certify that it has
compared its residential building code
regarding energy efficiency to the
revised code and made a determination
whether it is appropriate to revise its
code to meet or exceed the provisions of
the successor code. (42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(B)) Therefore, today’s action
only impacts whether States must
perform an evaluation of State building
codes. No further action is required by
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine
closely the impacts of regulatory actions
on State, local, and tribal governments.
Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law
defines a Federal intergovernmental
mandate to include any regulation that
would impose upon State, local, or
tribal governments an enforceable duty,
except a condition of Federal assistance
or a duty arising from participating in a
voluntary Federal program. Title II of
that law requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, other than to the extent
such actions merely incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in a
statute. Section 202 of that title requires
a Federal agency to perform a detailed
assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a
Federal mandate which may result in
costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Section 204 of
that title requires each agency that
proposes a rule containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate to
develop an effective process for
obtaining meaningful and timely input
from elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices
Today’s action impacts whether States
must perform an evaluation of State
building codes. Today’s action would
not impose a Federal mandate on State,
local or tribal governments, and it
would not result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis
is required under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
G. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s action would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today’s action under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ’’Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the OMB a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Jul 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant
energy action, the agency must give a
detailed statement of any adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use,
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s action would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy and is
therefore not a significant energy action.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175. ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9,
2000)), requires DOE to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ refers to regulations that
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ Today’s
regulatory action is not a policy that has
‘‘tribal implications’’ under Executive
Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today’s
action under executive Order 13175 and
has determined that it is consistent with
applicable policies of that Executive
Order.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13,
2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–18080 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings No. 2
Take notice that the Commission has
received the following Natural Gas
Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Docket Numbers: RP11–2137–001.
Applicants: Dominion Cove Point
LNG, LP.
Description: Supplemental
Information of Dominion Cove Point
LNG, LP.
Filed Date: 07/01/2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42701
Accession Number: 20110701–5303.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Friday, July 15, 2011.
Docket Numbers: RP11–2196–001.
Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
Description: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
submits tariff filing per 154.203: Tariff
Implementation & Compliance
Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998.
Filed Date: 07/06/2011.
Accession Number: 20110706–5102.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Monday, July 18, 2011.
Docket Numbers: RP06–298–014.
Applicants: Public Service
Commission of New York v. National
Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
Description: Semi-Annual Report of
Operational Sales of Gas for the period
ending 06/30/11 of National Fuel Gas
Supply Corporation.
Filed Date: 07/11/2011.
Accession Number: 20110711–5066.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Monday, July 25, 2011.
Docket Numbers: RP11–1940–001.
Applicants: Chesapeake Energy
Marketing Inc, BHP Billiton Petroleum
(Fayetteville) LL.
Description: Request for Limited
Extension of Temporary Waivers and
Request for Expedited Action of BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC
and Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc.
Filed Date: 07/11/2011.
Accession Number: 20110711–5219.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Monday, July 25, 2011.
Docket Numbers: CP01–69–009.
Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
Description: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
Compliance filing.
Filed Date: 06/03/2011.
Accession Number: 20110603–5136.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Monday, July 18, 2011.
Any person desiring to protest this
filing must file in accordance with Rule
211 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211). Protests to this filing will be
considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Such protests must be filed on or before
5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date. Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on
all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at
https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest to
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42688-42701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18080]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030]
RIN 1904-AC17
Updating State Residential Building Energy Efficiency Codes
AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has
determined that the 2009 edition of the International Code Council
(ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (2009 IECC or 2009
edition) would achieve greater energy efficiency in low-rise
residential buildings than the 2006 IECC, with site energy savings
estimated at 14%. Also, DOE has determined that the 2006 edition of the
ICC IECC (2006 IECC or 2006 edition) would achieve greater energy
efficiency than the 2003 edition of the ICC IECC (2003 IECC or 2003
edition), with site energy savings estimated at 1%. Finally, DOE has
determined that the 2003 edition would not achieve greater energy
efficiency than the 2000 IECC. Upon publication of this affirmative
final determination, States are required to file certification
statements to DOE that they have reviewed the provisions of their
residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made a
determination as to whether to update their code to meet or exceed the
2009 IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides guidance to States on how
the codes have changed from previous versions, how to submit
certifications, and how to request extensions of the deadline to submit
certifications.
DATES: Certification statements by the States must be provided by July
19, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Certification Statements must be addressed to the Buildings
Technologies Program-Building Energy Codes Program Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-1874, e-mail:
michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. For legal issues contact Chris Calamita,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
[[Page 42689]]
General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, e-
mail: Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
C. Preliminary Determination
D. Public Comments Regarding the Preliminary Determination
E. DOE's Final Determination Statements
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 IECC
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 IECC
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 IECC
III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 2009 IECC
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
B. Certification
C. Request for Extensions
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for the Building Energy Standards
Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) Section 304(b) of ECPA, as amended,
provides that when the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor
to that code, is revised, the Secretary must determine, not later than
12 months after the revision, whether the revised code would improve
energy efficiency in residential buildings and must publish notice of
the determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A))
The Department, following precedent set by the ICC and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) considers high-rise (greater than three stories) multifamily
residential buildings and hotel, motel, and other transient residential
building types of any height as commercial buildings for energy code
purposes. Low-rise residential buildings include one- and two-family
detached and attached buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and
low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as
condominiums and garden apartments.
If the Secretary determines that the revision would improve energy
efficiency then, not later than 2 years after the date of the
publication of the affirmative determination, each State \1\ is
required to certify that it has compared its residential building code
regarding energy efficiency to the revised code and made a
determination whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or
exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B))
State determinations are to be made: (1) After public notice and
hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings included in such
determination and upon evidence presented at the hearing; and (4)
available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C)) In addition, if
a State determines that it is not appropriate to revise its residential
building code, the State is required to submit to the Secretary, in
writing, the reasons, which are to be made available to the public.
(See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term State includes ``each of the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any
territory and possession of the United States.'' 42 U.S.C. 6832(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the specific case of this final determination, where DOE is
publishing the results of three residential determinations at once,
each state should certify it has compared its residential building code
regarding energy efficiency to the 2009 IECC and made a determination
whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the
provisions of the successor code.
B. Background
The ICC's IECC establishes national energy efficiency requirements
for buildings. In 1997, the Council of American Building Officials
(CABO) was incorporated into the ICC and the MEC was renamed to the
IECC. A previous Federal Register notice, 59 FR 36173, July 15, 1994,
announced the Secretary's determination that the 1993 MEC increased
energy efficiency relative to the 1992 MEC for residential buildings.
Similarly, another Federal Register notice, 61 FR 64727, December 6,
1996, announced the Secretary's determination that the 1995 MEC is an
improvement over the 1993 MEC. Finally, Federal Register notice 66 FR
1964, January 10, 2001, simultaneously announced the Secretary's
determination that the 1998 IECC is an improvement over the 1995 MEC
and the 2000 IECC is an improvement over the 1998 IECC.
C. Preliminary Determination
DOE published in the Federal Register a Notice of Preliminary
Determination for the 2003, 2006 and 2009 editions of the IECC that
preliminarily concluded that the 2009 version of the IECC would achieve
greater energy efficiency in low-rise residential buildings than the
2006 IECC. Also, DOE preliminarily determined that the 2006 version of
the IECC would achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2003 IECC.
Finally, DOE preliminarily determined that the 2003 version of the IECC
would not achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2000 IECC. 75 FR
54131 (Sept. 3, 2010).
D. Public Comments Regarding the Preliminary Determination
DOE accepted public comments on the preliminary determination for
the 2003, 2006, and 2009 editions of the IECC until October 4, 2010.
DOE received submissions from a total of seven different entities.
The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0006.1, pgs. 2-4) stating
that it strongly supports the Department's determination that the 2006
and 2009 editions of the IECC would achieve greater energy efficiency
in buildings than the relative previous editions. RECA suggests that
DOE follow up with the States after publication of the Final
Determination, as well as making public, on the Department's Web site,
the certification letters that States submit. RECA went on to comment
that the Department's decision to publish a Notice of Preliminary
Determination rather than a Notice of Determination is unnecessary to
comply with the Energy Policy Act and that adding an extra level of
administrative procedure is likely to further delay determinations on
future editions of the model energy codes.
In response to RECA's comment concerning following up with the
States in their certification efforts, DOE notes that under section
304(d) and (e) of ECPA DOE provides technical assistance and funding to
States that choose to improve and implement State residential building
energy efficiency codes, including increasing and verifying compliance
with such codes. As certification letters are received from the States,
they will be made public on the Department's Web site at https://
[[Page 42690]]
energycodes.gov/states/. The certification letters will also be
forwarded to the State Energy Program for their consideration. DOE
further notes that a listing of those States that have submitted
certification letters from their respective governors under the
requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is available
at https://www.energy.gov/InYourState.htm. The letters can be found on
each State's Web site under Recovery Act activity.
With regard to issuing a preliminary determination, the Department
believes that there is value in providing an opportunity for public
comment on its analysis, particularly given that a positive
determination could potentially impact States.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) submitted a written comment
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0007.1, pg. 1) stating that it
strongly supports the Department's determination that the 2009 edition
of the IECC would achieve greater energy efficiency in buildings than
the 2006 edition.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) submitted a written comment
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0002.1, pgs. 1-2) supporting the
preliminary determination with one concern about the analysis. Their
concern was that the DOE model estimates the annual average baseline
residential lighting energy usage at 2,373 kWh per year. EEI suggests
that the annual lighting usage should be closer to 900 kWh per year.
The basis of DOE's lighting energy assumptions comes from the 2006
Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards developed by
the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), https://www.resnet.us/standards/RESNET_Mortgage_Industry_National_HERS_Standards.pdf ,
pg. 3-19. These standards assume 2,375 kWh/year of lighting energy use
for a newly constructed 2400 ft \2\ house. The EEI comment references
data from the 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), https://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html, which
reports average energy usage for all existing housing in the year 2001
to be 940 kWh/year. DOE used RESNET as opposed to RECS, because it was
the most up-to-date lighting energy usage estimate for a newly
constructed 2400 ft \2\ house.\2\ Therefore, DOE considers the 2,375
kWh for annual lighting energy usage to be a reasonable estimate based
on RESNET's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Census data reports an average square footage of 2438 ft \2\
in 2009. See, https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICC submitted a written comment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-
0030-0003.1, pg. 2) stating that DOE's conclusion that the use of the
2009 IECC will improve energy efficiency in residential buildings that
are built to meet its requirements is correct.
The Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0004.1, pgs. 1-2) supporting
the DOE's determination and suggesting that DOE follow up with the
States after publication of the Final Determination, as well as making
public which States comply with the statutory requirements by updating
their code, submitting in writing why they are choosing not to update
their code, or by filing for a formal extension within two years of
publication. In regards to BCAP's comments see response to RECA's
comments above.
The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EECC) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0005.1, pg. 2) stating they
strongly support DOE's determination that the 2009 IECC achieves
greater energy efficiency than the 2006 IECC.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted a written
comment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030-0008.1, pgs. 2-4) stating the
following three issues: (1) It urges DOE to use this opportunity to
clarify States' commitments with regards to updating and implementing
their building energy codes; (2) clarify the limits of preemption of
testing and labeling of energy conservation of consumer products under
section 327 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6297); and (3) revise the energy efficiency standards for Federal
buildings to reflect the most recent model energy codes.
In regards to NRDC's first comment, see response to RECA's comments
above. In addition, Section IV below describes the process for States
to file certification statements with DOE. NRDC's second comment is in
reference to the preemption requirements applicable to the Federal
energy efficiency standards for appliances. Essentially, section 307(f)
of ECPA limits the ability of State and local building codes to require
minimum energy efficiency levels of appliances. (See, 42 U.S.C.
6297(e)) It is important to note that today's final determination does
not require States to adopt a specific building code. Today's final
determination requires a State to certify that it has reviewed the
provisions of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency
and made a determination as to whether it is appropriate for such State
to revise such residential building code provisions to meet or exceed
the revised code for which the Secretary made such determination. (42
U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) Section 304 of ECPA does not prescribe how State
code provisions must achieve the required energy efficiencies. This
final determination does not require States to adopt a specific code or
to require energy efficiency levels of covered appliances as part of
that code, but rather it allows for States to adopt building codes that
meet or exceed the energy efficiency requirements of Standard 90.1-
2007. As such, there is no potential conflict between the State code
provisions of ECPA and the preemption language in EPCA. In response to
NRDC's final comment, DOE intends to update the baseline standards for
Federal buildings found in 10 CFR part 433 and 10 CFR part 435 that
reference IECC following the issuance of this final determination for
2003, 2006 and 2009 IECC.
E. DOE's Final Determination Statement
Below is a detailed discussion of the Department's final
determinations for the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECCs.
2003 IECC
DOE's review and evaluation found that there are not significant
differences in energy efficiency between the 2003 edition and the 2000
edition of the IECC. Although there are a few changes that would
modestly improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings, there
are a number of changes that reduce energy efficiency in certain
situations. Most of the changes to the IECC between the 2000 and 2003
editions would not effect energy efficiency but rather make the code
simpler and clearer for designers, builders, and code compliance
officials to understand and use. Based on these findings, the
Department has concluded that the 2003 edition of the IECC should not
receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of ECPA. The
Department concludes that there is at best a slight improvement in
energy efficiency for some residential buildings, but this potential
improvement is not sufficient to merit an affirmative determination.
This is discussed in further detail below. It should be noted that DOE
is not concluding that the energy efficiency of the 2003 IECC is less
stringent than the 2000 IECC.
[[Page 42691]]
2006 IECC
The residential portion of the 2006 IECC has been extensively
changed from that of the 2003 IECC. However, the most significant
changes to the code between 2003 and 2006 simplify the code format
rather than fundamentally changing the overall (national average)
energy efficiency of the code. Multifamily buildings, which in the past
have had separate, less stringent thermal requirements, are an
exception. By eliminating the separate requirements, the 2006 IECC
increased the energy efficiency of multifamily buildings.
Although the most significant 2006 changes did not directly target
efficiency improvements, the new format of the code does result in some
energy efficiency differences. The requirements for any given building
may have increased or decreased based on the specific location
(climate) and building design. The Department has found that overall
the 2006 IECC has an improvement in energy efficiency compared to the
2003 IECC. The Department concludes that the 2006 edition of the IECC
receives an affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of EPCA. A
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2006 IECC is available at the
following Web site; https://www.energycodes.gov/status/determinations_res.stm. DOE has prepared a TSD for the 2006 IECC determination and not
for the 2003 IECC and 2009 IECC determination for the following
reasons. The 2006 IECC contained a very extensive change in the format
of the code compared to the 2003 IECC. In addition, the changes in the
format to the 2006 IECC reduce energy efficiency in some cases and
increase energy efficiency in others. DOE deemed that its analysis to
determine whether energy efficiency was improved in the 2006 IECC would
be better addressed in a TSD rather than in this Notice. As discussed
above, for the 2003 IECC determination, there were very few changes
from the 2000 IECC and therefore no TSD is needed. For the 2009 IECC
determination, discussed below, there are a substantial number of
changes that effect energy efficiency, but nearly all these changes are
clear improvements that will reduce energy use. Therefore, highly
detailed calculations are not needed to determine whether energy
efficiency is improved overall in the code and these changes are also
discussed in this Notice rather than a TSD.
2009 IECC
The 2009 IECC has substantial revisions compared to the 2006 IECC.
Many of these revisions appear to directly improve energy efficiency,
and the sum results of all changes appear to result in a significant
increase in code stringency. Therefore, the Department concludes that
the 2009 edition of the IECC receives an affirmative determination
under Section 304(b) of EPCA.
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 IECC
As a whole, the 2003 IECC's provisions for energy efficiency in
residential buildings are largely unchanged from the 2000 IECC. There
are some changes in the code that can have a modest effect on energy
efficiency. These are discussed below. In addition, there is a variety
of minor changes intended to make the code more concise, more complete,
and better organized, but not more or less stringent. For example, more
specific requirements have been added for steel roofs/ceilings and
floors to correspond to those already in the code for steel walls.
Another example is the relocation of the 51 pages of state maps from
the middle of the code to the back of the code. Additionally, the
performance path in chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC contains a variety of
modest improvements compared to the 2000 IECC, which creates more
concise requirements.
1. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the 2000 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
a. Increased Duct Insulation Requirements
Duct insulation requirements generally increased in the 2003 IECC.
The 2003 IECC requirements are shown in Table 1. These are somewhat
difficult to compare to the 2000 IECC requirements because the latter
are more complex, differing between ducts in unconditioned spaces and
ducts completely exterior to the building, and distinguishing
requirements by the design temperature difference between the duct air
and the space in which the ducts are located.
The 2000 IECC requirements for ducts in unconditioned spaces are
shown in Table 2. Assuming typical supply air temperatures of 55[deg]F
for cooling and 95[deg]F for heating (for heat pumps), the 2000 IECC
insulation requirement for supply ducts in unconditioned spaces is R-5
(minimum) for nearly all cases. Insulation required by the 2000 IECC
for return ducts in unconditioned spaces will generally be R-3.3 in
warmer climates and R-5 in colder climates.
For the very common case of supply ducts in attics, which is likely
to have the greatest impact on energy use, the 2003 IECC always
requires at least R-8, which exceeds the 2000 IECC's R-5 requirement.
For supply ducts in other unconditioned spaces, the 2003 IECC's
requirements exceed the 2000 IECC's requirements in all cases except
very warm locations (less than 1500 heating degree-days), where the
2003 IECC requires R-4 compared to the 2000 IECC's requirement of R-5.
Because supply ducts transport air in its hottest (or coldest)
condition, insulation has its greatest impact on these ducts. The 2003
IECC is almost always more stringent than the 2000 IECC for supply
ducts. This includes all supply ducts in attics and, based on the
distribution of population,\3\ more than 80% of ducts in other
unconditioned spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Estimated from USGS Population Places data that allows
mapping of population to climate (https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/download_data.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for return ducts in attics are slightly more stringent
in the 2003 IECC than the 2000 IECC (R-4 vs. R-3.3) in the warmest
climates, slightly less stringent (R-4 vs. R-5) in mid climates, and
slightly more stringent (R-6 vs. R-5) in the coldest climates.
Research \4\ showing the impact on heating and cooling energy use
due to duct insulation is summarized in Table 3. Based on this
research, the Department estimates that improved duct insulation in the
2003 IECC will reduce heating and cooling energy use by about 1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Triedler, B., R. Lucas, M. Modera, J. Miller. 1996. Impact
of Residential Duct Insulation on HVAC Energy Use and Life-Cycle
Costs to Consumers. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers.
[[Page 42692]]
Table 1--Duct Insulation Requirements in the 2003 IECC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insulation R-value (h[middot] ft \2\[middot][deg]F)/Btu
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ducts in unconditioned attics Ducts in unconditioned
Annual heating degree days base 65 [deg]F or outside building basements, crawl spaces, and
-------------------------------- other unconditioned spaces
-------------------------------
Supply Return Supply Return
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below 1,500..................................... 8 4 4 0
1,500 to 3,500.................................. 8 4 6 2
3,501 to 7,500.................................. 8 4 8 2
Above 7,500..................................... 11 6 11 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Insulation Requirements (R-Value, h-ft\2\-F/Btu) for Ducts in
Unconditioned Spaces in the 2000 IECC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Temperature
Difference (TD) between air
temperature in duct and Cooling Heating
space in which duct is
located (degrees F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TD <= 15.................... None required....... None required
40 >= TD > 15............... 3.3................. 3.3
TD > 40..................... 5.0................. 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Heating and Cooling Energy Savings (percent) From Increased
Duct Insulation (Atlanta, Natural Gas Heating)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attic Basement Crawlspace
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-4 to R-6............................ 2.3 1.6 1.8
R-6 to R-8............................ 1.4 0.9 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Minor Changes to ``Systems Analysis'' Performance Compliance Method
There are two changes that can increase the stringency of the
performance path in Chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC in certain cases. First,
any house proposed to use electric resistance heating must have equal
or lower calculated energy use than a hypothetical ``standard design''
that uses a more efficient electric air source heat pump. This change
makes the performance approach much more stringent for designs that
have electric resistance heating. However, compliance can be achieved
for these designs using the prescriptive compliance methods in chapters
5 and 6, thereby bypassing the increased stringency of the performance
path.
Second, a provision has also been added requiring that the least
efficient orientation in terms of energy use be assumed for a proposed
group of residences with identical designs. Therefore, in a development
where the same design is built on multiple lots facing various
directions, the compliance analysis must be based on the least
advantageous orientation. In most of the United States, this is the
orientation that points the most window area toward a westerly
direction, maximizing solar heat gains in summer afternoons and
therefore increasing air conditioning energy use. Because proposed
building designs must have a calculated annual energy use equal to or
less than that of a home with window area equally distributed toward
the four cardinal directions, the requirement to assume the least
efficient orientation effectively makes the code more stringent because
the increased energy use from the least efficient orientation must be
offset by improved energy efficiency. This requirement in the 2003 IECC
will have only modest average impact because it affects only the
performance approach and identical house designs used repeatedly in a
development.
2. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the 2000 IECC That Decrease Energy
Efficiency
a. Sunroom Additions
A special set of requirements has been added to Table 502.2.5 of
the 2003 IECC for sunroom additions having a floor area of less than
500 ft\2\ (46.5 m\2\). Sunroom additions are permitted to have ceiling,
wall insulation, and window U-factor requirements that are typically
less stringent than the requirements for all other types of residential
construction. These special requirements for sunrooms only apply to
additions to existing dwellings, not to sunrooms that are built as part
of a new dwelling. In the 2000 IECC, there were no special requirements
for sunroom additions; they had to meet the same requirements as other
residential construction. To qualify for the less stringent
requirements in the 2003 IECC, the sunroom addition must be capable of
being controlled as a separately heated and cooled zone. Additionally,
new walls, doors or windows between the sunroom and the house must meet
the envelope requirements of the IECC. Finally, the glazing area must
exceed 40% of the gross area of the exterior walls and roof to qualify
as a sunroom in the IECC.
Testing with the EnergyGuage (DOE-2) \5\ simulation tool indicates
that for a 500 ft\2\ sunroom, the less stringent 2003 requirements
could add about $200 to the annual energy costs in Chicago if the
sunroom is both heated and cooled all year. Impacts are much smaller in
Houston, about $10 added energy costs. However, this increase in energy
consumption is mitigated (on average) by several factors. First, the
requirements apply to a very small fraction of all new residential
construction. The Wall Street Journal
[[Page 42693]]
Online (June 3, 2003) reports $3 billion worth of sunroom construction
each year, or less than one percent of all residential construction
expenditures. But that fraction includes new construction as well as
additions, so the fraction representing sunroom additions is less than
1%. Second, it is expected that many sunrooms will not be maintained at
comfort conditions all year, further reducing the overall impact.
Finally, because the 2003 IECC requires that the sunroom be thermally
isolated from the rest of the house and that walls, windows, and doors
between the sunroom and house meet the code's envelope requirements,
the thermal impact when these spaces are not actively conditioned is
negligible. Therefore, the overall impact of this reduction in
stringency to national energy use is expected to be extremely small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EnergyGuage (DOE-2) simulation tool is available at https://doe2.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Climate Zone Maps
The IECC contains prescriptive envelope requirements (insulation R-
values and glazing U-factors) in Chapter 6 and Section 502.2.4 of the
code. In the 2000 IECC, only the heating degree-days for the city where
the housing was to be built could be used to determine the applicable
prescriptive envelope requirements. In the 2003 IECC, the heating
degree-days can still be used to determine the requirements, but
additionally the designer/builder can use the climate zones provided in
the state maps in the IECC. For most locations, the Chapter 3 climate
zones and heating degree-days lead to the exact same requirements.
Using the climate zones in the maps instead of the heating degree-days
will allow about 10% of cities nationwide to have a less stringent set
of prescriptive requirements. However, about 20% of cities nationwide
will have more stringent requirements when the climate zones are used
with the prescriptive requirements. If the designer/builders select to
use the climate zone maps in the 10% of cities where it lowers
requirements but not in the 20% of locations where it raises
requirements, the 2003 code effectively is less stringent. However, DOE
believes code users will make use of the climate zone maps even in many
of the locations where they raise requirements. DOE does not anticipate
that most code users will go through the level of effort of determining
which method of determining climate based requirements may give less
stringent requirements. In fact, DOE believes most users will not even
be aware of these differences, but will prefer the climate zone maps
because of their simplicity. The REScheck compliance materials
developed by the DOE utilize the same heating degree day based
requirements for both the 2000 and 2003 IECC.
c. Increased U-Factor for Skylight Replacements
The maximum U-factor for skylight replacements in existing
buildings (Section 502.2.5 of the IECC) is raised from a U-factor of
0.50 to a U-factor of 0.60 for locations above 1,999 heating degree-
days. A higher U-factor reduces energy efficiency.
3. Net Impact of Changes in the 2003 IECC From the 2000 IECC on Energy
Efficiency
Ultimately, the DOE finds that the net impact of the changes in the
2003 IECC on energy efficiency is not sufficient to merit an
affirmative determination.
The change in the 2003 IECC that is expected to have the greatest
impact on the nation's energy efficiency is the improved duct
insulation, because a majority of new residential buildings have ducts
that pass through attics, crawl spaces, unheated basements and other
spaces where the IECC requires duct insulation. The improved duct
insulation in the 2003 IECC is estimated to save about 1% of heating
and cooling costs.
DOE believes that the changes to the system analysis method are not
sufficient to sway the decision on whether the determination is
affirmative or not. This performance compliance method is less commonly
used, and, as it is optional, the modest energy savings from the
improvements in this compliance method can easily be bypassed by
choosing a different method.
Although the changes that effect sunroom additions and skylight
replacements reduce energy efficiency, DOE does not believe that they
will lead to substantial impacts on national energy use, as they do not
apply to new buildings and only apply to specific types or retrofits
and additions to existing buildings. The skylight U-factor change is
only a modest reduction in energy efficiency and sunroom additions are
a small fraction of the residential construction market.
The addition of the climate zone maps in the 2003 IECC as an option
to using city-specific heating degree-day data allows for the
possibility of preferentially lowering thermal envelope requirements in
about 10% of all national locations. However, it will be difficult to
exploit this change because the code user must perform relatively
complex calculations rather than using the popular and user-friendly
REScheck software.
In sum, DOE concludes the changes to duct insulation requirements
will slightly improve energy efficiency in most houses, however, the
reductions in energy efficiency for skylight replacements and sunroom
additions are expected to at least partially offset these savings from
a national energy total use perspective. Additionally, the vast
majority of all requirements in the IECC are unchanged from 2000 to
2003. For these reasons, DOE finds insufficient improvements in the
2003 IECC to merit an affirmative determination.
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 IECC
1. Changes in the 2006 IECC From the 2003 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
The residential portion of the IECC in general and the building
thermal envelope (ceilings, walls, doors, windows, foundations, etc.)
requirements in particular were completely restructured from 2003 to
2006. This resulted in the code becoming much shorter and simpler, its
volume reduced from 38 pages to 9 pages. The climate basis on which
envelope requirements depend was completely reworked. The 2003 IECC has
envelope requirements that vary continuously with heating degree-days
(HDD),\6\ or with 17 HDD zones (geographically-defined based on
counties, roughly following 500-HDD bins). In contrast, the 2006 IECC
has eight geographically-defined climate zones with all borders set on
county boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Some compliance paths defined requirements based on 17
``zones'' based on HDD ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major change to envelope requirements was the combining of
separate 2003 IECC requirements for two building categories (1) One-
and two-family dwellings, and (2) all other low-rise residential
buildings \7\. The 2006 IECC requirements are the same for all low-rise
residential building types, which has the effect of increasing the
energy efficiency of the second category, all other low-rise buildings.
Also
[[Page 42694]]
eliminated were nine related tables that provided predefined packages
of thermal transmittance prescriptive requirements (glazing, ceiling-
roof, exterior wall, floor over unconditioned space, basement and crawl
space walls, and floor slab on grade) for different window to wall area
ratios (WWR). In their place, the 2006 IECC provides a single table of
predefined packages of thermal transmittance prescriptive requirements
that do not vary with WWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The 2006 IECC defines residential buildings as ``R-3
buildings, as well as R-2 and R-4 buildings three stories or less in
height above grade''. The R-2/3/4 designation is from the
International Building Code and these are defined as follows:
R-2--Apartment houses, boarding houses, convents, dormitories,
fraternities and sororities, monasteries.
R-3--one or two family dwellings.
R-4--Residential Care/Assisted living.
R-2 and R-4 buildings that have more stories are covered
commercial codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 shows a comparison of major prescriptive envelope
requirements for a single-family house at a typical 15% WWR. The
requirements for the 2003 IECC will differ from those shown in Table 4
for other WWRs and for multifamily buildings. The 2006 IECC climate
zones do not exactly map to the 2003 IECC zones. Table 5 shows a more
detailed estimate of how residential construction maps from the 2006
IECC compare to the 2003 IECC climate zones.
Table 4--Comparison of the 2003 IECC and 2006 IECC Envelope Thermal Component Prescriptive Criteria for One- and Two-Family Dwellings at 15% Window Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IECC climate zone Maximum Minimum
------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating degree days Glazing U-factor Ceiling R-value Wall R-value Floor R-value
2003 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................... 1 2 0-499...................... Any 1.20 R-13 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
2...................... 2 500-999.................... 0.90 0.75 R-19 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
3...................... .......... 1,000-1,499................ 0.75 0.75 R-19 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
4...................... .......... 1,500-1,999................ 0.75 0.75 R-26 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-11 R-13
5...................... 3 2,000-2,499................ 0.65 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-11 R-19
6...................... .......... 2,500-2,999................ 0.60 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
7...................... .......... 3,000-3,499................ 0.55 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
8...................... 4 3,500-3,999................ 0.50 0.40 R-30 R-38 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
9...................... .......... 4,000-4,499................ 0.45 0.40 R-38 R-38 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
10..................... .......... 4,500-4,999................ 0.45 0.40 R-38 R-38 R-16 R-13 R-19 R-19
11..................... 5 5,000-5,499................ 0.45 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-19 R-19/30
12..................... .......... 5,500-5,999................ 0.40 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
13..................... .......... 6,000-6,499................ 0.35 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
14..................... .......... 6,500-6,999................ 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-38 R-21 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
15..................... 5 6 7,000-8,499................ 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-38/49 R-21 R-19 R-21 R-21
16..................... 6 8,500-8,999................ 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-49 R-21 R-21 R-21 R-21
17..................... 7 9,000-12,999............... 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-49 R-21 R-21 R-21 R-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 Continued--Comparison of the 2003 IECC and 2006 IECC Envelope Thermal Component Prescriptive Criteria
for One- and Two-Family Dwellings at 15% Window Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IECC climate zone Minimum
--------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Heating degree Basement wall R- Slab perimeter R- Crawl space wall R-
days value value and depth feet value
2003 2006 -----------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............. 1 2 0-499............. R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0
2............. 2 500-999........... R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-4 R-0
3............. .......... 1,000-1,499....... R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-5 R-0
4............. .......... 1,500-1,999....... R-5 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-5 R-0
5............. 3 2,000-2,499....... R-5 R-10/13 R-0 R-0 R-6 R-5
6............. .......... 2,500-2,999....... R-6 R-10/13 R-4,2 R-0 R-7 R-5
7............. .......... 3,000-3,499....... R-7 R-10/13 R-4,2 R-0 R-8 R-5
8............. 4 3,500-3,999....... R-8 R-10/13 R-5,2 R-10,2 R-10 R-10
9............. .......... 4,000-4,499....... R-8 R-10/13 R-5,2 R-10,2 R-11 R-10
10............ .......... 4,500-4,999....... R-9 R-10/13 R-6,2 R-10,2 R-17 R-10
11............ 5 5,000-5,499....... R-9 R-10/13 R-6,2 R-10,2 R-17 R-10
12............ .......... 5,500-5,999....... R-10 R-10/13 R-9,4 R-10,2 R-19 R-10
13............ .......... 6,000-6,499....... R-10 R-10/13 R-9,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
14............ .......... 6,500-6,999....... R-11 R-10/13 R-11,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
15............ 5 6 7,000-8,499....... R-11 R-10/13 R-13,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
16............ 6 8,500-8,999....... R-18 R-10/13 R-14,4 R-10,4 R-20 R-10
17............ 7 9,000-12,999...... R-19 R-10/13 R-18 R-10,4 R-20 R-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Percentage of Homes in Each 2006 IECC Climate Zone That Would Have Been in Each 2003 IECC Climate Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 IECC climate zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 IECC climate zone 4 except 5 and
1 2 3 Marine Marine 4 6 7 & 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 100 5 0 0 0 0 0
2.................................. 0 20 0 0 0 0 0
3.................................. 0 40 22 0 0 0 0
4.................................. 0 31 10 0 0 0 0
5.................................. 0 3 18 0 0 0 0
[[Page 42695]]
6.................................. 0 0 28 0 0 0 0
7.................................. 0 0 16 4 0 0 0
8.................................. 0 0 6 9 0 0 0
9.................................. 0 0 0 13 1 0 0
10................................. 0 0 0 28 6 0 0
11................................. 0 0 0 41 8 0 0
12................................. 0 0 0 5 28 0 0
13................................. 0 0 0 0 31 0 0
14................................. 0 0 0 0 20 12 0
15................................. 0 0 0 0 6 81 3
16................................. 0 0 0 0 0 5 6
17................................. 0 0 0 0 0 2 85
18................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
19................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Impact of Changes From the 2003 to 2006 IECC
The Department has conducted an analysis and has found that the
2006 IECC would modestly increase energy efficiency on an overall
national average basis. This analysis is summarized below; a TSD
published in conjunction with this Notice contains the full results.
The Department stresses that this increased energy efficiency is based
on an average across all new residential buildings. The analysis
identified combinations of locations and building design where the 2006
IECC would slightly reduce energy efficiency; however, the analysis
indicates that the reductions would be more than offset by cases where
energy efficiency is improved.
Table 6 provides the overall results of the comparative analysis of
the prescriptive envelope requirements of the 2006 IECC and the 2003
IECC. The DOE-2 energy simulation software was used to calculate these
values. The 2006 IECC has a 1% average overall national energy savings.
The table shows combined results for single-family and multifamily
construction accounting for weighted average building characteristics.
Table 6 illustrates significant regional differences that are primarily
a result of the revised climate zones. In most climates, the two codes
are very nearly equivalent. In climate zone 5, the 2006 IECC shows a
substantial improvement (about 5%). In climate zone 3, the 2003 IECC is
more energy efficient (by about 5%).
Table 6--Annual Energy Savings (MBtu) of 2006 IECC Compared to 2003 IECC for Prescriptive Building Envelope
Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundation Type
-------------------------------------------------------- Percent
2006 IECC climate zone Heated Slab-on- Unheated Average savings
basement Crawl space grace basement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1....................... 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 2
Zone 2....................... -0.1 1.4 0.9 -0.1 0.9 3
Zone 3....................... -8.6 -1 -3.3 -1.5 -3.4 -5
Zone 4....................... 2 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.1 1
Zone 5....................... 5.5 7.3 4.2 6.3 5.7 5
Zone 6....................... 1.1 3.3 0 2.3 1.4 1
Zone 7....................... -2 4.5 0.4 3.4 -0.4 0
Average...................... 2.4 2.7 -0.3 3.3 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis underlying the results in Table 6 does not account for
all changes in the IECC from 2003 to 2006. For example, the 2006 IECC
requires increased duct insulation in certain cases. On the other hand,
the 2006 IECC is missing requirements for pool heater controls (on-off
switch) and pool covers contained in the 2003 IECC. However, these and
a few other miscellaneous changes do not appear to alter a
determination that the 2006 IECC has a modest improvement in overall
energy efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC. The Department expects all
heated pools to have an on-off switch, basic pool covers are dependent
on the diligent occupant behavior for removing/covering the pool, and
many homes do not have a pool or may not heat their pool. Furthermore,
the 2003 IECC allows the pool cover requirement to be bypassed if 20%
of the heating energy is provided by solar heat from the sun striking
the pool surface.
There was one particular issue that received the most extensive
debate during the 2006 IECC development process. This issue was how the
2006 IECC sets requirements based on the window area of a home. There
was considerable concern because a residential building with unlimited
windows (e.g., an ``all glass'' house) can be built without any penalty
under the 2006 IECC. This is not the case in the 2003 IECC, where, as
the WWR becomes higher, the code requires improved performance of
windows and/or wall insulation. However, this effect is offset in two
ways. First, while the 2003 IECC becomes more stringent at high WWRs,
[[Page 42696]]
it also becomes less stringent at low WWRs, whereas the 2006 IECC does
not. Second, the 2006 IECC increased the baseline efficiency
requirements (U-factor) of glazing to almost equal then-current Energy
Star levels in most locations. The Department's analysis of the IECC's
requirements related to window area indicate that the 2006 code is not
less stringent than the 2003 IECC when the distribution of window areas
in all residential buildings is accounted for.
A major factor influencing the Department's final determination of
improved efficiency in the 2006 IECC is the improvement in energy
efficiency for multifamily housing. The building envelope requirements
in 2006 IECC are identical for all residential building types. This is
not the case in the 2003 IECC where the requirements for multifamily
building types are considerably less stringent than those for one and
two-family dwellings. This is shown in the wall requirements in Figure
502.2(1) of the 2003 IECC. While multifamily residential construction
has a much smaller market share than single-family in terms of number
of dwelling units, there is a nearly universal improvement in
requirements for multifamily buildings regardless of building design or
climate zone. As indicated below in the certification discussion, high-
rise (greater than three stories) multifamily residential buildings and
hotel, motel, and other transient residential building types of any
height are classified as commercial buildings for energy code purposes.
However, the building envelope revisions in 2006 IECC would impact
residential buildings such as townhouses, row houses, and low-rise
multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as
condominiums and garden apartments.
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 IECC
1. Changes in the 2009 IECC From the 2006 IECC That Improve Energy
Efficiency
Each of the major changes in the 2009 IECC that impact energy
efficiency is examined individually below. All but one of the changes
improve energy efficiency.
1. Changes That Improve Energy Efficiency
a. Lighting
The 2009 IECC has a major new requirement that a minimum of 50% of
all lamps (bulbs, tubes, etc.) be ``high efficacy,'' which is defined
to include compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), T-8 or smaller diameter
fluorescent tubes, or other products achieving comparable or better
lumen-per-watt ratings. Traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet this
requirement. The 2006 IECC had no lighting requirements for residential
buildings. The Department has referenced the 2006 Mortgage Industry
National Home Energy Rating Standards developed by the Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET) to assume 2,375 kWh/year of lighting
energy use for a newly constructed 2400 ft\2\ house. The new lighting
requirements in the 2009 IECC could reduce this lighting energy use by
about 25%.
b. Building Envelope Thermal Measures
The 2009 IECC has a number of changes that improve energy
efficiency in the building envelope. There are direct increases in
prescriptive building envelope requirements in Tables 402.1.1 and
402.1.3 of the IECC. Table 7 below shows these changes. Additionally,
there were a number of minor improvements, including establishing an
area limit of 24 ft\2\ on the door exemption from U-factor
requirements.
Table 7--Improvements in Prescriptive Envelope Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component 2006 IECC 2009 IECC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum fenestration U-factor Zone 2: 0.75...... Zone 2: 0.65.
(excluding skylights). Zone 3: 0.65...... Zone 3: 0.50.
Zone 4: 0.40...... Zone 4: 0.35.
Maximum fenestration solar heat 0.40.............. 0.30.
gain coefficient (SHGC) in
Zones 1 through 3.
Basement wall insulation in R-13 cavity or R- R-19 cavity or R-
Zones 6 through 8. 10 continuous 15 continuous
insulation. insulation.
Basement wall insulation in No insulation R-13 cavity or R-5
northern section of Zone 3. required. continuous
insulation.
Wood-Frame wall insulation (all R-19.............. R-20.
but basements) in Zones 5 and 6.
Floor insulation in Zones 7 and R-30.............. R-38.
8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Building Envelope Air Leakage
Although the fundamental requirement to seal all potential sources
of leaks has not changed, the air leakage control specifications in
Section 402.4 of the 2009 IECC are considerably more detailed than in
the 2006 edition, requiring either a comprehensive inspection against a
checklist of component sealing criteria or a whole-building
pressurization test. There is a new requirement that fireplaces have
gasketed doors to limit air leakage. Additionally, compliance with
Standard ASTM E283 is now required to limit air leakage through
recessed light fixtures. The 2006 IECC only required recessed light
fixtures to be sealed but did not require compliance with the ASTM
standard. This testing of fixtures is expected to help eliminate energy
consuming leaks through these fixtures, which can be a very common
method of lighting in kitchens and other rooms in new houses.
d. Duct Leakage Limits and Testing Requirement
The 2009 IECC contains a new requirement that buildings with ducts
that pass outside the conditioned space (for example, if ducts are in
unconditioned attics, garages or crawlspaces) have the ducts pressure
tested and shown to have a maximum leakage rate below specified limits.
While the 2006 IECC also requires ducts to be sealed, the addition of a
specific leakage limit verified by a pressure test in each new home or
retrofit is expected to substantially reduce leakage in many if not
most cases.
Testing of completed homes in Washington State where prescriptive
code requirements for duct sealing apply without any testing to confirm
compliance, ``showed no significant improvement'' over non-code
homes.\8\ Another study from Washington State
[[Page 42697]]
concluded: ``Comparisons to air leakage rates reported elsewhere for
homes built before the implementation of the 1991 WSEC show no
significant improvement by the general population'' despite years of
training emphasizing duct sealing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Washington State University. 2001. Washington State Energy
Code Duct Leakage Study Report. WSUCEEP01105. Washington State
University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia,
Washington.
\9\ Hales, D., A. Gordon, and M. Lubliner. 2003. Duct Leakage in
New Washington State Residences: Findings and Conclusions. ASHRAE
Transactions. KC-2003-1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous other studies around the nation show substantial duct
leakage in new homes, including those in States with codes requiring
duct sealing. For example, a 2001 study of 186 houses built under the
MEC in Massachusetts reported ``serious problems were found in the
quality of duct sealing in about 80% of these houses''.\10\
Pressurization tests in 22 of these houses found an average leakage to
the outside of the house of 183 cfm, or 21.6% of the system flow, at a
pressure of 25 Pascals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Xenergy. 2001. Impact Analysis Of The Massachusetts 1998
Residential Energy Code Revisions. https://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/inf/inf_bbrs_impact_analysis_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy savings of improved duct sealing are very substantial. A
California study estimated a sales-weighted state annual average
savings from duct sealing of 38 therms and 239 kWh for a 1761 ft\2\
house.\11\ This is based on an estimated 12% improvement in duct
efficiency based on previous studies indicating a 12-15% improvement
potential. The Department concludes that the 2009 IECC's requirement
that duct air leakage meet an upper limit and be verified by a pressure
test will save significant energy compared to the 2006 and prior
editions of the IECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hammon, R. W., and M. P. Modera. 1999. ``Improving the
Efficiency of Air Distribution Systems in New California Homes-
Updated Report.'' Consol. Stockton, California. https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ducttape/documents/IMPROVE_EFFICIENCY_RES.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Improvement in Other Requirements
There are a number of changes to the ``simulated performance
alternative'' compliance path in the 2009 IECC. The glazing area in the
baseline ``standard reference design'' was reduced from a maximum of
18% of the conditioned floor area to 15%. This results in increased
energy efficiency for any proposed design having a glazing area of more
than 15%. Because use of this compliance path is completely optional,
these savings will only occur when the user chooses this compliance
path. Another change does not directly alter code stringency in the
performance path but may ultimately result in some energy savings is
the removal of the option to trade high-efficiency HVAC equipment for
reductions in other requirements in the code, such as reduced envelope
insulation. Because building envelopes have substantially longer lives
than HVAC and/or water heating equipment, energy savings from envelope
improvements may persist for many more years than comparable equipment
improvements. Also, because high-efficiency equipment is already the
predominant choice in many markets, di
