Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), 33250-33263 [2015-14297]

Download as PDF 33250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices • Presentation by DOE • Public Comment Period • Adjourn Public Participation: The NNMCAB’s Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: https://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/. Issued at Washington, DC, on June 8, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–14301 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority B. Background C. Public Comments Regarding the Determination II. Methodology III. Summary of Findings IV. Determination Statement V. State Certification VI. Regulatory Review & Analysis DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030] RIN 1904–AD33 Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of determination. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the 2015 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would improve energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code compared to the 2012 edition. DOE analysis indicates that buildings meeting the 2015 IECC (as compared with buildings meeting the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 2012 IECC) would result in national source energy savings of approximately 0.87 percent, site energy savings of approximately 0.98 percent, and energy cost savings of approximately 0.73 percent of residential building energy consumption, as regulated by the IECC. Upon publication of this affirmative determination, each State is required by statute to certify that it has reviewed the provisions of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to whether to update its code to meet or exceed the 2015 IECC. Additionally, this notice provides guidance to States on these processes and associated certifications. DATES: Certification statements provided by States must be submitted by June 12, 2017. ADDRESSES: Certification Statements must be addressed to the Building Technologies Office—Building Energy Codes Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., EE–5B, Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., EE–5B, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 287–1941; Jeremiah.Williams@ee.doe.gov. For legal issues, please contact Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., GC– 33, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586– 0669; Kavita.Vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as amended, establishes requirements for building energy conservation standards, administered by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(a), as amended, of ECPA provides that whenever the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings, and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The Secretary may determine that the revision of the 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings. If so, then not later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to 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)(2)) 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)(4)) ECPA requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the deadlines for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of section 304(a) of ECPA, and that it has made significant progress in doing so. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) DOE is also directed to provide technical assistance to States to support implementation of State residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes. (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)) B. Background The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is the national model code establishing energy efficiency requirements for residential buildings. The IECC is revised every 3 years through a code development and consensus process administered by the International Code Council (ICC) 1. Code change proposals may be submitted by any interested party, and are evaluated through a series of public hearings. As part of the ICC process, any interested party may submit proposals, as well as written comments or suggested changes to any proposal, and make arguments before a committee of experts assembled by the ICC. At the final public hearing, arguments are presented to and voted 1 More information on the ICC code development and consensus process is described at https:// www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/procedures.aspx. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices upon by the ICC Governmental Member Representatives, with the collection of accepted proposals forming the revised edition of the IECC. The ICC published the 2015 edition of the IECC (2015 IECC or 2015 edition) on June 3, 2014, which forms the basis of this determination notice. In arriving at its determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC with respect to residential buildings. Accordingly, DOE published a Notice of Preliminary Determination regarding the 2015 IECC in the Federal Register on September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57915). 33251 C. Public Comments Regarding the Determination DOE accepted public comments on the Notice of Preliminary Determination for the 2015 IECC until October 27, 2014. DOE received timely submissions from a total of five submitters. TABLE I—INVENTORY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Number of comments Submitter International Code Council (ICC) ....................................................................................... National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ................................................................ Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) .................................................................... Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) .................................................................... Individual Commenter (Conner) ......................................................................................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ICC’s first comment offers general support for DOE’s preliminary determination. (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2) 2 In its second comment, ICC suggests DOE accompany its 2015 IECC determination with ‘‘previously released information regarding the increased efficiency of the 2012 IECC over the 2009 version, and the increased efficiency of the 2009 version over the 2006 version, in order to make it abundantly clear that the efficiency of the 2015 IECC is much higher than versions of the IECC in use in many states and jurisdictions around the nation.’’ (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2–3) DOE agrees with ICC’s assessment that the provisions of the 2015 edition of the IECC are much more energy efficient than several earlier editions of the model code. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the expected national impact of the new edition of the model code, in this case the 2015 IECC, against the most recent previous edition receiving an affirmative determination of energy savings, in this case the 2012 IECC (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)). However, DOE recognizes that the updated code represents a significant savings opportunity—in many cases up to 30 percent savings relative to codes currently adopted by U.S. states.3 In 2 A notation in the form ‘‘ICC, No. 2 at p. 2’’ identifies a written comment that DOE received and has included in the docket of DOE’s ‘‘Preliminary Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT– DET–0030), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by ICC; (2) filed as document number 2 of the docket, and (3) appearing on page 2 of that document. 3 Mendon et al., Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the 2009 and 2012 IECC Residential provisions— Technical Support Document (PNNL, Richland, WA, April 2013), available at https://www. energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ State_CostEffectiveness_TSD_Final.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 response, DOE has added references to earlier determinations, as well as the associated energy savings estimates, in Section V of this notice. In its third comment, ICC suggests DOE ‘‘emphasize that states are to compare the provisions of their current codes with the provisions and requirements of the 2015 IECC, and not assume that the percentage increase in efficiency for their respective state will be the same as the 1% increase measured by DOE over the provisions in the 2012 IECC.’’ (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that States and localities should indeed consider the impact of updated model codes relative to the specific requirements in effect within the state or locality. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the updated model code relative to the previous model code, and estimates the aggregate impact on national energy consumption. As many adopting states and localities make modifications to the model code, these entities should evaluate the impacts of the updated code relative to their own provisions. ICC further offers suggested communication options for DOE to consider: ‘‘(1) DOE should transmit, with a cover letter offering assistance and cooperation, a copy of the final determination to the governor of each state, with a copy to the State Energy Office, and post a copy of the cover letter template on the DOE Building Energy Codes Web site. (2) DOE should provide, along with the cover letter and determination, a simple form response ‘state determination form’ in a format that allows the state officials charged with complying with the law the ability to check off whether the state (a) has reviewed its code, (b) has provided notice and an opportunity for comment in the state, (c) has made findings, (d) has published such findings, and (e) if PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Public docket reference 3 2 9 4 1 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0002 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0003 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0004 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0005 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0006 the state has determined to revise its code a description of the new code, and if it has decided not to revise its residential building energy code, a space to provide the reasons for such decision. (3) The cover letter, as well as the proposed form for response to DOE, should prominently note the date on which the response to DOE is due. (4) DOE should publish on its Building Energy Codes Web site the response received from each state, as well as a list of states from which a response has not been received, updated on a regular basis. (5) Publishing the information on each state, and its response or nonresponse would allow citizens to become involved and ask questions of their public officials, and otherwise determine whether their state is in compliance with the law.’’ (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE is currently evaluating the means by which it tracks the national implementation of building energy codes, and will consider the communication options proposed by ICC. NAHB’s first comment suggests that ‘‘DOE’s analysis of the pipe insulation was not properly calculated’’ and noted that the actual net change made by this proposal was to increase the length of 3⁄4-inch pipe requiring insulation by including runs shorter than 10 feet, while eliminating insulation requirements on smaller diameter piping. NAHB suggests ‘‘by properly applying the new hot water pipe insulation requirements, the resulting energy savings will change.’’ (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1) DOE agrees with NAHB’s comments relative to the net energy savings surrounding this particular proposal, and has revised its analysis accordingly. The revised estimated total energy cost savings compared to the 2012 IECC are now 0.73% compared to the preliminary estimate of 0.90% (see E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices Section III of this notice). NAHB’s second comment notes that the ‘‘International Code Council (ICC) originally had proposal RE112–13 listed as being approved to be included in the 2015 edition of the IECC. This proposal, however, was actually withdrawn by the proponent before it was approved on the consent agenda. As a result, the changes were not included in the 2015 IECC and thus, any reference to RE112–13 should be removed from the analysis.’’ (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 2) DOE agrees with NAHB’s comment and acknowledges that the subject proposal is not included in the 2015 IECC. DOE notes that the original documentation published by the ICC following the public hearing process inadvertently included this proposal, and it has since been confirmed that the proposal was withdrawn from consideration during the hearing process. DOE has revised this notice and supporting documentation accordingly. (Note that RECA offered a similar comment on RE112–13; see RECA, No. 4 at p. 3.) RECA’s first comment expresses general support for DOE’s Preliminary Determination on the 2015 edition of IECC, DOE’s evaluation methodology in both its quantitative and qualitative aspects, and DOE’s conclusion that the 2015 IECC’s weakening amendments are outweighed by its strengthening amendments. (RECA No. 4 at p. 1) In its second comment, RECA ‘‘urges the Department to move ahead to finalize its Determination endorsing the 2015 IECC for state adoption’’; ‘‘to continue to provide materials to states and localities that will facilitate the adoption of, and compliance with, this latest edition of the IECC’’; ‘‘to expeditiously make training and compliance software available to states that adopt the 2015 IECC’’; and ‘‘to provide additional funding to those states that are early adopters of the 2015 IECC.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 1, and 3) DOE acknowledges the need for materials that can assist in facilitating the adoption of the latest editions of the model code. While these activities are not directly within the scope of the DOE determination analysis, DOE is directed to provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)), and does so through a variety of activities, such as statespecific energy and cost analysis, code compliance software, and a collection of technical resources. DOE intends to continue to provide such resources to assist states in implementing updated model codes, including adoption of such codes by states and localities, and increasing compliance with building VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 energy codes to ensure intended consumer energy and cost savings. In its third comment, RECA agrees with DOE that, ‘‘proposal RE68–13 slightly weakens sunroom fenestration requirements’’, ‘‘the impact should be very small’’, and it, ‘‘does not affect SHGC requirements’’, but notes that ‘‘the impact is on climate zones 2–3, not climate zone 1.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 2) DOE agrees with RECA’s comment and assessment of the subject proposal, and has revised the determination notice and supporting analysis accordingly. In its fourth comment, RECA disagrees with DOE that duct tightness levels tend to always be a ‘‘zero sum trade-off’’ as claimed in the Preliminary Determination, and suggests that ‘‘the Department explicitly and correctly recognize the value of mandatory measures, and that removal of this mandatory backstop is a reduction in stringency in some cases, albeit likely modest, depending on the measure that replaces duct efficiency.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 2–3) DOE agrees in principle with RECA’s comment that energy neutrality depends on a variety of factors, including impacts over the useful life of alternative energy measures. In the case of building energy efficiency tradeoffs, the impact on longer-term energy savings can vary significantly between the measures being traded and the chosen alternative designs. In addition, DOE understands the purpose of mandatory requirements within the code, and while the subject proposal cannot directly be captured within the DOE quantitative analysis, DOE indeed acknowledges the potential effect on building energy efficiency in application. In its fifth comment, RECA notes that proposal RE112–13 ‘‘was withdrawn prior to final consideration, and is thus not part of the 2015 IECC.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) DOE agrees with this comment, as detailed above in response to NAHB’s similar comment. In its sixth comment, RECA suggests that DOE should ‘‘continue to assess the potential impact of changes to the IECC for compliance paths outside the prescriptive path’’ averring that expanding the Department’s ability to further assess such changes is in the public interest. (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) With specific reference to DOE’s evaluation of the new ERI compliance path, RECA agrees with DOE’s use of the prescriptive compliance path as the generally predominant path, but recommends ‘‘this emphasis on the prescriptive path for the numerical analysis should not be read as limiting the overall assessment of all changes in the code, nor should it suggest that an PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 edition of the code will receive a positive or negative determination solely on the basis of this quantitative analysis.’’ RECA notes that in previous determinations, DOE has not historically limited itself to analyzing only changes to the prescriptive path, and encourages DOE not to limit itself to only considering changes to the prescriptive path in the future. RECA ‘‘urges the Department to clarify in its Determination that it will continue to assess any changes made to the performance path, and any new compliance options (like ERI) that are added to the IECC going forward in future Determinations.’’ DOE agrees with RECA’s comment in principle, and acknowledges that changes in the 2015 IECC, as well as potential future changes to the IECC, are likely to require increasingly nuanced analyses of the changes’ impacts. As stated in the preliminary notice, DOE plans to collect data specifically on the ERI path, and will consider means to broaden the scope of that commitment, as necessary, in the future. In addition, while the DOE Determination has typically focused on the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of the IECC, the Department reserves the right to evaluate other means of compliance when adequate information is available. In its seventh comment, RECA agrees with DOE that ‘‘it is difficult to assess the impact of the new Energy Rating Index in the context of a Determination,’’ but argues that ‘‘DOE could reasonably conclude, based on the results of a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study, that the new compliance path is reasonably likely to save energy as compared to compliance with the 2012 IECC prescriptive requirements on average, even if some individual homes could be weaker than those built to the 2012 IECC.’’ 4 (RECA No. 4 at p. 5) DOE appreciates the comment and agrees, based on the referenced PNNL analysis, that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path. In its eighth comment, RECA urges DOE to ‘‘promote the proper adoption and implementation of the ERI as contained in the 2015 IECC, without any weakening amendments, including monitoring its deployment in states and cities going forward.’’ RECA also 4 Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS Index Values Corresponding to Minimal Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland, WA, May 2014), available at https://www.energycodes. gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices recommends ‘‘DOE develop and/or fund comprehensive support materials and training to help to ensure that the ERI is properly implemented,’’ and that ‘‘DOE should also consider how it can help to ensure that the ERI process produces consistent, repeatable, and credible results for code compliance.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 5–7) DOE acknowledges the importance of the new ERI path in the 2015 IECC and its potential impact on energy as the code is implemented. While code implementation activities are outside the direct scope of the DOE determination, DOE does provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)). DOE recognizes the need for continued analysis and support for states adopting the 2015 IECC, and will consider the requested activities, as able and appropriate, through the Building Energy Codes Program. In its ninth comment, RECA supports the ‘‘Department’s stated plan to collect data relevant to the ERI, as well as all compliance options allowed in the IECC.’’ RECA further encourages the Department to ‘‘reach out to industry and nonprofit partners to aggregate the data already available, and to explore new methods for collecting and analyzing data on the various compliance options and tools used across the country.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 7) DOE acknowledges and appreciates RECA’s support, and plans to work with the industry and stakeholders in evaluating the new ERI path and associated energy impact. As previously stated, DOE intends to collect relevant data and track the implementation of the ERI path relative to the traditional compliance options provided by the IECC. DOE will continue to communicate with interested and affected parties as the 2015 IECC is implemented and as further data and resulting analysis becomes available. NRDC’s first two comments offer general support for DOE’s determination that the 2015 IECC saves energy compared to the 2012 IECC, for DOE’s quantitative finding of energy savings, and for DOE’s qualitative assessment of the specific code changes that will result in energy savings. (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 1–2) In its third comment NRDC suggests that ‘‘actual energy savings from the 2015 IECC are likely to be much larger than indicated by DOE’s analysis’’, specifically suggesting that the ‘‘new Energy Rating Index (ERI) pathway created by RE188–13 is likely to result in significant energy savings.’’ (NRDC, No.5 at p.2) NRDC acknowledges that it is not knowable VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 exactly how many homes will comply using the ERI pathway, but suggests it is certainly not zero. NRDC suggests that ‘‘currently about half of new homes constructed in the U.S. are rated using the RESNET HERS rating’’, and that ‘‘it is likely a large percentage of these homes will choose to comply with the code via the ERI pathway, since this will likely be the simplest method of compliance.’’ (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) NRDC further notes that a ‘‘Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analysis of the HERS index’s relationship to the 2012 IECC performance path found that for all climate zones the ERI values adopted in the 2015 IECC ranged from at least as efficient to substantially more efficient than the 2012 IECC, indicating that homes complying with the ERI path will on average achieve large energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC.’’ (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE agrees that the new alternative ERI compliance path, including the associated thresholds as published in the 2015 IECC, is reasonably likely to result in energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC and the majority of current state codes. However, DOE remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE continues to base its evaluation of the new path on the recent analysis conducted by PNNL, as referenced in the preliminary determination notice. In its fourth comment, NRDC appreciates DOE’s indication in the preliminary determination that ‘‘it will attempt to collect data on the utilization of the various compliance pathways and evaluate whether it can quantify savings from compliance pathways other than the prescriptive path in future determinations’’, and urges DOE to ‘‘evaluate energy savings from the ERI pathway in future determinations, as currently the analysis leaves out this potential source of significant energy savings.’’ (NRDC, No. 5 at p.2) DOE acknowledges the importance of evaluating the energy impact of the ERI alternative, but remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE, therefore, maintains its intentions to track the adoption of the ERI path relative to traditional application of the IECC, and may further evaluate this path in future analyses. One comment was received from an individual submitter, Craig Conner, who indicated that ‘‘DOE made errors in estimating the residential energy savings for the change that included a new tropical option for residential construction (CE66-13 Part II, or CE66- PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33253 II).’’ (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner suggests that ‘‘DOE modeling was not done in accordance with the IECC standard reference design, and therefore is not as required for a determination.’’ He further suggests that ‘‘several major energy saving requirements provided by this new option were ignored or underestimated’’, and argues that ‘‘the definition of the Tropical Zone, which is a subset of existing IECC Climate Zone 1, does not by itself increase or decrease energy’’, but that ‘‘it is the associated requirements that would potentially affect energy use.’’ (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner cites three aspects of proposal CE66-13 Part II that should have been considered new energy-saving requirements rather than conditions under which other requirements may be lessened, as DOE interpreted them: The restriction that the home not be heated and that 50% of the home be uncooled, the restriction that 80% of domestic water heating be by solar or other renewable sources, and the restriction that natural ventilation be facilitated by operable windows. (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) In response, DOE appreciates Mr. Conner’s comments, but does not agree with his assessment regarding the particular proposal. The IECC Standard Reference Design (SRD) is intended for demonstrating compliance of individual buildings, which differs from the aggregate national analysis applied in DOE determinations. Although the DOE building modeling prototypes and simulation methodology occasionally draw on SRD assumptions, where appropriate, they are also informed by additional sources that may better represent typical construction practices, and to estimate an expected impact of code changes. In this case, DOE considered typical construction affected by the newly defined Tropical Zone, and acknowledges the modified criteria associated with partially-conditioned homes (e.g., with solar water heating systems and operable windows). However, it is not clear that these changes will encourage additional use of energy-saving features, and DOE has maintained its original assessment. II. Methodology In arriving at a determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC. The IECC covers a broad spectrum of the energyrelated components and systems in buildings, ranging from simpler residential buildings to more complex multifamily facilities. For the purposes of its determination, DOE focused only on low-rise residential buildings, defined in a manner consistent with the E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices for the technical assistance of the 2015 IECC. Consideration for Technological and Economic Factors Section 304(a) of ECPA states that the Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any successor standard to the 1992 MEC will improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) Section 304 of ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification, although such criteria are considered directly by the ICC code development and consensus process, as applicable. Each proposal submitted to the ICC code development process also requires a declaration of whether the proposed code change will increase the cost of construction. Separate from the Secretary’s determination under section 304(a), section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to periodically review the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes, and participate in the industry process for review and modification, including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)) In fulfillment of this directive, DOE evaluates its code change proposals submitted to the ICC, analyzing energy savings and cost-effectiveness, as applicable, and otherwise participates in the ICC process. In addition, DOE performs independent technical and economic analysis of the IECC as part of its direction to provide assistance to States implementing building energy codes. This approach allows DOE to meet its statutory obligation to participate in the industry process for review and modification of the IECC, and to seek adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)). In preparation for technical assistance activities, DOE previously developed a standardized methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of code changes through a public process. (78 FR 47677) This methodology is published on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site, and has been applied by DOE in the development of code change proposals for the IECC, as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of published editions of the IECC. DOE expects to update this methodology periodically to ensure its assumptions and economic criteria remain valid and adequate for the analysis of potential code change proposals, and for States considering adoption of model building energy codes. DOE will continue to use the currently established methodology and parameters for developing materials 5 See https://www.energycodes.gov/development/ residential/methodology. 6 Mendon et al., 2015 IECC: Energy Savings Analysis (PNNL, Richland, WA, December 2014), available at https://www.energycodes.gov/ determinations. ICC and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Airconditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Low-rise residential buildings include one- and two-family detached and attached buildings, and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories), such as condominiums and garden apartments. The 2015 IECC was developed through the same approach as the previous 2012 edition with approval through the ICC consensus process. The 2015 edition contains no significant changes to the overall scope or the structure of the prescriptive and mandatory provisions of the code, which form the basis of the DOE determination analyses. As a result, DOE determined that the methodology used for the analysis of the 2012 IECC should again be utilized for the analysis of the 2015 IECC. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Overview of Methodology The analysis methodology used by DOE contains both qualitative and quantitative components. A qualitative comparison is undertaken to identify textual changes between requirements in the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC, followed by a quantitative assessment of energy savings conducted through whole-building simulations of buildings constructed to meet the minimum requirements of each code over a range of U.S. climates. The analysis methodology, which was previously developed through a public comment process, is available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.5 Consistent with its previous determinations, DOE compared overall editions of the IECC, and did not issue determinations for individual code changes. DOE interprets the language in section 304(a) of ECPA to mean that when a comprehensive revision of the 1992 MEC, or its successor (which in this case is the 2015 IECC), is published, then that revised or successor code triggers the Secretary’s obligation to issue a determination as to whether the revised code improves energy efficiency in residential buildings. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) This determination is made by comparing the revised or successor code to the last predecessor code. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 III. Summary of Findings In performing its determination, DOE performed both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the prescriptive and mandatory requirements contained in the 2015 IECC. The chosen methodology for these analyses is consistent with actions of recent determinations, and provides a reasonable assessment of how the code will affect energy savings in residential buildings. A summary of the analyses supporting DOE’s determination is outlined in the following sections. Qualitative Analysis DOE performed a comparative analysis of the textual requirements of the 2015 IECC, examining the specific changes (approved code changes) made between the 2012 and the 2015 editions. The ICC Code Hearing process considers individual code changes for approval, and then bundles all the approved code changes together to form the next published edition. In creating the 2015 IECC, ICC processed 76 approved code change proposals. DOE evaluated each of these code change proposals in preparing its determination. In conducting the revised analysis, DOE also took into consideration NAHB’s comment about DOE’s analysis of pipe insulation requirements (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1). Overall, DOE found that the vast majority of changes in the 2015 IECC appear to be neutral (i.e., have no direct impact on energy savings) within the context of the determination analysis. DOE also found that beneficial changes (i.e., increased energy savings) outweigh any changes with a detrimental effect on energy efficiency in residential buildings. Of the 76 total changes: • 6 were considered beneficial; • 62 were considered neutral; • 5 were considered negligible; • 2 were considered detrimental; and • 1 was considered to have an unquantifiable impact. Table III.1 presents the findings resulting from the qualitative analysis, along with a description of the change, as well as an assessment of the anticipated impact on energy savings in residential buildings. Additional details pertaining to the qualitative analysis are presented in a technical support document.6 E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33255 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS Impact on energy efficiency Reason Deletes the exception for vestibules in the provisions pertaining to additions, alterations, renovations, and repairs. R103.2 (IRC N1101.8) ................. Deletes text relating to commercial building components in ‘‘Information on Construction Documents.’’ R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... Deletes the definition of ‘‘entrance door.’’ R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 Adds definition of ‘‘Insulating Sid(NEW)). ing’’ and notes that the insulation level of this siding must be R–2 or greater. R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 Adds an appendix with non-man(NEW)), R304 (NEW) (IRC datory provisions for homes to N1101.16 (NEW)). be ‘‘solar-ready.’’ Designed to be readily referenced by adopting authorities as needed. R401.2 (IRC N1101.15) ............... Minor clarification that the code’s mandatory requirements should be met in all compliance paths. R401.3 (IRC N1101.16) ............... Adds more options for the allowable locations for posting the certificate of occupancy. R401.3 (IRC N1101.16) ............... Similar to RE14–13. Allows more options for the allowable locations for posting the certificate of occupancy. R402.1 (IRC N1102.1), R402.1.1 Cross-references vapor barrier (NEW) (IRC N1102.1.1 (NEW)). requirements by referencing IRC R702.7. Table R402.1.1, (IRC Table Modifies footnote h to these taN1102.1.1). bles to allow combined sheathing/siding. R402.1.2 (IRC N1102.1.2) ........... Adds use of term ‘‘continuous insulation’’ instead of ‘‘insulating sheathing.’’ Table R402.1.3 (IRC N1102.1.3) Slightly increases frame wall Ufactor in climate zones 1 and 2. The R-value table remains unchanged. Neutral ......... The residential code has no requirements for vestibules. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ........ The definition applied to nonresidential buildings only. Addition of definition. RE50–13 ................. Table R402.1.3 N1102.1.3). Table Slightly increases frame wall Ufactor in climate zones 1–5 but reduces it in climate zones 6– 8. The R-value table remains unchanged. Negligible .... RE53–13 ................. R402.2.1 (IRC N1102.2.1) ........... Neutral ......... RE58–13 ................. R402.2.4 (IRC N1102.2.4) ........... RE60–13 ................. R402.2.7 (IRC N1102.2.7), Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1). Clarifies decreased ceiling insulation allowance for ceilings with attic spaces only. Clarifies that vertical doors are not ‘‘access doors’’ in R402.2.4 and shall be permitted to meet the fenestration requirements of Table 402.1.1. Allows the floor cavity insulation to not be in contact with the underside of the subfloor decking if it is in contact with the topside of sheathing or continuous insulation installed on the bottom side of floor framing. Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a RE1–13 ................... R101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3) .............. RE3–13 ................... RE5–13 ................... RE6–13 ................... RE9–13 ................... RE12–13 ................. RE14–13 ................. RE16–13 ................. RE18–13 ................. RE30–13 ................. RE43–13 ................. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES RE45–13 ................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 (IRC PO 00000 Description of changes Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Neutral ........ Neutral ......... No direct impact, but has the potential to increase efficiency in the future. Neutral ......... Clarification ments. of Neutral ......... related but does small enforcement Neutral ......... Not energy eliminate a hindrance. Not energy eliminate a hindrance. Neutral ......... Adds consistency and clarifies code requirements. Neutral ......... Adds an option for combined insulated sheathing/siding that meets code requirements. Minor clarification of terminology. Neutral ......... Negligible .... code require- related but does small enforcement Intended to correct a perceived misalignment between the code’s R-value-based requirements and the alternative Ufactor-based requirements. The changes are very small and unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes. Intended to correct a perceived misalignment between the code’s R-value-based requirements and the alternative Ufactor-based requirements. The changes are very small and unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes. Clarification of the code requirement. Neutral ......... Clarification of the code requirement. Neutral ......... Allows a combination of cavity and continuous insulation to meet the floor R-value requirement. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued Impact on energy efficiency Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes RE63–13 ................. Table R402.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.1.1), R402.2.13 (NNEW) (IRC N1102.2.13 (NEW)). R402.3.5 (IRC N1102.3.5) ........... Clarifies footnote h text by rewording it and moving it to new section R402.2.13. Neutral ........ Clarification ments. Slightly increases sunroom U-factor. Detrimental .. Clarifies requirements for wall corner and headers to have insulation that has at least R–3 per inch, and clarifies that it is the cavities in such components that require the insulation. Allows a combination of cavity and continuous insulation to meet the floor R-value requirement. Reorganizes Table 402.4.1.1 by adding an additional column and separating ‘‘air barrier criteria’’ from ‘‘insulation installation criteria,’’ for clarity. Clarifies language relating to fireplace sealing/door requirements. Adds references to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards E779 and E1827 for blower door testing. Adds requirements for the thermostat to be pre-programmed by the manufacturer. Makes the programmable thermostat requirement apply to any heating/cooling system. Increases insulation requirements for return ducts in attics from R–6 to R–8. Makes the maximum allowable duct leakage rates prescriptive, allowing performance path trade-offs. Neutral ........ Applies to only climate zones 2 and 3; impacts only thermally isolated sunrooms. Minor addition and clarification of code requirements. RE68–13 ................. RE83–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 N1102.4.1.1). (IRC Table RE84–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 N1102.4.1.1). (IRC Table RE85–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 N1102.4.1.1). (IRC Table RE86–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1), R402.4.2 (IRC N1102.4.2). R402.4.1.2 (IRC N1102.4.1.2), Chapter 5. RE91–13 ................. R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1) ........... RE105–13 ............... R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1) ........... RE107–13 ............... R403.2.1 (IRC N1103.2.1) ........... RE109–13 ............... RE111–13 ............... R403.2 (IRC N1103.2), R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2), R403.2.3 (NEW) (IRC N1103.2.3 (NEW)), R403.2.4 (NEW) (IRC N1103.2.4 (NEW)). R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... RE117–13 ............... R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... RE118–13 ............... R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... RE125–13, Part I .... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES RE103–13 ............... R403.4.1 (IRC N1103.4.1), R403.4.1.1 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.1.1 (NEW)), R403.4.1.2 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.1.2 (NEW)), Chapter 5, IPC [E] 607.2.1, [E] 607.2.1.1 (NEW), [E] 607.2.1.1.1 (NEW), [E] 607.2.1.1.2 (NEW), IPC Chapter 14, IRC P2905 (NEW), IRC P2905.1 (NEW). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 require- Neutral ......... Clarification ments. of code require- Neutral ......... Clarification ments. of code require- Neutral ......... Adds more detailed references for procedures. Neutral ......... Clarifies that the requirement is the manufacturer’s responsibility. No direct impact on energy. Neutral ......... Beneficial ..... Neutral ......... Deletes exception relating to partially inaccessible duct connections. Reverses the order of how the two duct testing options are presented. Adds requirements for demandactivated control on hot water circulation systems and heat trace systems. Makes IECC, IRC, and IPC consistent and clarifies requirements for these systems. Neutral ......... Sfmt 4703 code Subset of RE60–13; makes minor clarifying revisions to wording. Neutral ......... Fmt 4703 of Neutral ......... Aligns the IECC with the International Mechanical Code (IMC) by removing exception from duct sealing for low-pressure continuously welded ducts. Frm 00029 Reason Modestly reduces conduction losses from return ducts in attics. Zero-sum tradeoff within IECC performance path rules; applies only to compliance via performance path. Requires sealing of additional locking joints for consistency between the IECC and IMC. Impact is negligible because the mandatory duct pressure test governs duct leakage regardless of specific sealing strategies. Editorial change to eliminate irrelevant text. Neutral ........ Rearrangement of text. Beneficial ..... Demand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation pumps. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33257 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued Impact on energy efficiency Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes RE132–13 ............... R403.4.2 (IRC N1103.4.2), Table R403.4.2 (IRC Table N1103.4.2). Deletes requirement for domestic hot water (DHW) pipe insulation to kitchen and the generic requirement on long/large-diameter pipes. However, adds DHW pipe insulation for 3/4inch pipes. Beneficial ..... RE136–13, Part I .... R403.4.2 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.2 (NEW)), IPC 202, IPC [E]607.2.1.1 (NEW), IRC P2905 (NEW), IRC P2905.1 (NEW). R403.6 (IRC N1103.6) ................. Adds demand control requirements for recirculating systems that use a cold water supply pipe to return water to the tank. Beneficial ..... Requires heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment to meet Federal efficiency standards. Neutral ......... Specifies details of a compliance report for the performance approach. Neutral ........ Neutral ......... RE142–13 ............... RE163–13 ............... RE173–13 ............... Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table N1105.5.2(1)). RE184–13 ............... R101.4.3, R202, R406 (NEW), (IRC N1101. 3, N1101.9, N1106 (NEW)). Fixes missing standard reference design specifications for thermal distribution systems. Adjusts Table R405.5.2(1) (the performance path) terminology for doors and fenestration. Revamps alterations language and moves it from chapter 1 to section R406. RE188–13 ............... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)), R401.2 (IRC N1101.15), R406 (NEW) (IRC N1106 NEW). Optional new approach in section 406 requiring an ERI with a tradeoff limitation on the thermal envelope requirements. Not quantifiable at this time. RE193–13 ............... R202 (IRC N1101.9), 403.10 (New) (IRC N1103.10 (New)). R402.1.2 ...................................... RB96–13, Part I ...... Table R402.4.1.1 ......................... RB100–13 ............... R303.4 ......................................... SP19–13, Part III .... 303.1; IECC R403.9. ADM22–13, Part III IECC: R108.2 ............................... ADM30–13, Part III IECC: R103.4 ............................... ADM40–13, Part III IECC: R103.1 ............................... Adds requirements for testing of combustion venting systems. Subtracts out R–0.6 for insulating siding from R-value table to prevent double counting of siding. Specifies that air sealing shall be provided in fire separation assemblies. Corrects the air infiltration threshold in R303.4 to be 5 air changes per hour or less to align it with the infiltration limits set by the code. Makes numerous wording changes to pool and spa requirements. Doesn’t appear to make substantive changes. Revises ‘‘owner’s agent’’ to ‘‘owner’s authorized agent’’ in R108.2. Adds ‘‘work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents’’ to R103.4. Adds ‘‘technical reports’’ as acceptable data for submittal with a permit application. Neutral ........ RE195–13 ............... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES RE167–13 ............... R405.4.2 (IRC N1105.4.2), R405.4.2.1 (NEW) (IRC N1105.4.2.1 (NEW)), R405.2.2 (NEW) (IRC N1105.4.2.2 (NEW)). Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table B1105.5.2(1)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 C404.7; Jkt 235001 PO 00000 IECC Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Neutral ......... Neutral ......... Neutral ......... Reason Energy lost due to the elimination of hot water pipe insulation on the kitchen pipe is typically more than made up by added insulation requirements for pipes 3/4 inches in diameter, the most common size for trunk lines. Demand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation pumps. DOE’s Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program regulates the minimum efficiency of units produced by equipment manufacturers. No direct impact on energy. Adds details for modeling the standard reference design in the performance path. Simple clarification of the intent of the code. Trade-offs between weakened and strengthened requirements possible but there is no feasible method for quantifying the energy impact of these tradeoffs. New alternative compliance path—no data is currently available to adequately estimate the number of homes that may be constructed using this compliance path. Impacts air quality; no direct impact on home energy usage. Adds consistency in R-value calculations. Neutral ........ Minor clarification of code requirements. Neutral ........ Consistency change. Neutral ......... No direct impact on home energy usage. Neutral ......... Simple language change. Neutral ......... Simple language change. Neutral ......... Simple language change. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued Code section(s) affected a Description of changes ADM51–13, Part III IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) ......... ADM57–13, Part III IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) (New). IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) ......... R101.4, R202 (IRC N1101.9); R402.3.6 (IRC N1102.3.6), Chapter 5 (RE) (NEW) (IRC N1106 (NEW)). R101.4.2, R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)). Adds ‘‘retrofit’’ and other terms to definition of ‘‘alteration.’’ Adds definition of ‘‘approved agency.’’ Revises definition of ‘‘repairs.’’ Editorial relocation of code text pertaining to ‘‘existing buildings’’ to a separate chapter. Proposal No. ADM60–13, Part III CE4–13, Part II ....... CE8–13, Part II ....... CE11–13, Part II ..... R101.4.3, (IRC N1101.3) ............. CE15–13, Part II ..... CE23–13, Part II ..... R101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3), R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)). R101.5.2 (IRC N1101.6), R402.1 (IRC N1102.1). CE33–13, Part II ..... R102, R102.1.1 (NEW) ................ CE37–13, Part II ..... R103.2.1 (NEW) .......................... CE38–13, Part II ..... CE43–13, Part II ..... R103.3, R104.1, R104.2 (NEW), R104.3, R104.3.1 (NEW), R014.3.2 (NEW), R104.3.3 (NEW), R104.3.4 (NEW), R104.3.5 (NEW), R104.3.6 (NEW), R104.5. R106.2 ......................................... CE44–13, Part II ..... R108.4 ......................................... CE49–13, Part III .... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)). R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)). R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... CE50–13, Part II ..... CE51–13, part II ...... CE59–13, Part II ..... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)). R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... CE61–13, Part II ..... Table R301.1 ............................... CE62–13, Part II ..... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES CE52–13, Part II ..... Figure R301.1 (IRC Figure N1101.10), Table R301.1 (IRC Table N1101.10). CE63–13, Part II ..... R303.1.1 (IRC N1101.12.1) ......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Revises language requiring the code to apply to historic buildings if no ‘‘compromise to the historic nature and function of the building’’ occurs. Adds existing single-pane fenestration with surface films to the list of exceptions in R101.4.3. Revises exemption for roofing replacement. Relocates exception for ‘‘low energy’’ buildings from R101.5.2 to R402.1. Changes title of section R102 to ‘‘Applicability—Duties and powers of the Code Official’’ and revises language on ‘‘alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.’’ Requires the building’s thermal envelope to be represented on construction documents. Revises a number of administrative requirements to enhance the ability to ensure compliance with the code and improve the usability of the code. Deletes R106.2 ‘‘Conflicting requirements’’ because it is redundant with ‘‘Conflicts’’ in R106.1.1. Revises language pertaining to ‘‘fines’’ in section R108.4. Adds definition of a ‘‘circulating hot water system.’’ Add definition of ‘‘climate zone.’’ Revises the definition of ‘‘conditioned space.’’ Adds definition of ‘‘continuous insulation.’’ Revises the definition of ‘‘vertical glazing.’’ Adds ‘‘Broomfield County’’ to Table C301.1 and R301.1. Eliminates the ‘‘warm humid’’ designation for counties in the ‘‘dry’’ moisture regime in Southwest Texas. Requires labeling R-value on packaging of insulated siding and listing of same on the certification. Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Impact on energy efficiency Reason Neutral ......... Simple language change. Neutral ......... Simple language change. Neutral ......... Neutral ......... Simple language change. Editorial change. Beneficial ..... Additional buildings must meet the code requirements. Neutral ......... Exceptions are allowed only if energy use is not increased. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Simple documentation ment. Neutral ......... No direct impact on energy. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ......... Editorial change. Neutral ........ Revision of definition. Neutral ......... Definition addition. Neutral ......... Revision of definition. Neutral ........ Editorial change. Neutral ........ No efficiency requirements depend on the warm-humid designation in Climate Zone 2/Dry. Neutral ......... Labeling requirement. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 require- 33259 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a CE65–13, Part II ..... R303.1.3 (IRC Chapter 5. N1101.12.3), CE66–13, Part II ..... R301.4 (NEW) (IRC N1101.10.3 (NEW)), R406 (NEW) (IRC N1106 (NEW)). CE67–13, Part II ..... R303.1.4.1 (N1101.12.4) (NEW), Chapter 5. CE161–13, Part II ... R402.3.2 (IRC N1102.3.2) ........... CE177–13, Part II ... R402.1.2 (NEW), N1102.4.1.2 (NEW)). CE179–13, Part II ... CE283–13, Part II ... Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1). R403.4.3 (NEW) (N1103.5 (NEW)), Chapter 5, IRC P2903.11 (NEW). CE362–13, Part II ... R403.2 (New) (New)). (IRC Impact on energy efficiency Description of changes (IRC N1103.2 Adds the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (DASMA) standard 105 as an alternative to National Fenestration and Rating Council (NFRC) 100 for determining U-factors of garage doors, where required. Defines a new ‘‘Tropical’’ climate zone and adds an optional compliance path for semi-conditioned residential buildings with a list of pre-defined criteria to be deemed as code compliant in this climate zone. Adds ASTM C1363 as the required test standard for determining the thermal resistance (R-value) of insulating siding. Allows dynamic glazing to satisfy the SHGC requirements provided the ratio of upper to lower SHGC is 2.4 or greater and is automatically controlled to modulate the amount of solar gain into the space. Requires open combustion appliances to be outside conditioned space or in a room isolated from conditioned space and ducted to the outside. Exempts fire sprinklers from air sealing requirements. Requires drain water heat recovery systems to comply with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard 55 and adds references to CSA Standard 55 to chapter 5. Adds requirement for outdoor setback control for hot water boilers that controls the boiler water temperature based on the outdoor temperature. Reason Neutral ......... Adds an option of using ANSI/ DASMA 105 instead of NFRC 100. Detrimental .. Exception to code requirements applicable to a small number of homes in tropical areas. Neutral ......... Addition of testing requirements. Negligible .... Similar energy impact to non-dynamic glazing. Neutral ......... Relates to indoor air quality and does not impact energy directly. Negligible .... The home/unit would still have to pass the blower door test. Enables credit for efficiency improvements due to the use of drain water heat recovery devices. Negligible .... Beneficial ..... Lowering boiler water temperature during periods of moderate outdoor temperature reduces energy consumption of the boiler. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES a Code sections refer to the 2012 IECC. KEY: The following terms are used to characterize the effect of individual code change on energy efficiency (as contained in the above table): Beneficial indicates that a code change is anticipated to improve energy efficiency; Detrimental indicates a code change may increase energy use in certain applications; Neutral indicates that a code change is not anticipated to impact energy efficiency; Negligible indicates a code change may have energy impacts but too small to quantify; and Not Quantifiable indicates that a code change may have energy impacts but can’t be quantified at this time. In addition to the changes approved for inclusion in the prescriptive and mandatory paths, ICC also approved a proposal based on an Energy Rating Index (ERI) in the 2015 IECC. While this change does not directly alter stringency of the code, it does provide an additional compliance path as an alternative to the traditional IECC prescriptive and performance paths. DOE determination analyses have historically focused on the prescriptive compliance path. This has been done because: (1) The prescriptive path is generally considered the predominant VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 compliance path in practice, and; (2) the performance path effectively allows a limitless number of ways to comply with the code, and no accepted methodology exists for how to analyze it. Equally important, there is no aggregated source of data allowing for documentation of how buildings meet the performance path criteria. In the absence of such data, an analysis of the performance path would have no empirical basis. The inclusion of a new type of compliance path in the 2015 IECC, which is based on an Energy Rating PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Index (ERI), prompted DOE to review its historical approach, and make a decision as to whether a change in methodology would be appropriate for the current determination analysis. Three primary points were considered: (1) The impact of the ERI path on national residential energy consumption is dependent on the number of homes that use this new path, and the unique building characteristics of those homes. As no jurisdiction has yet implemented the 2015 IECC, there is no way to know how many homes will use this path. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices (2) An analysis conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) suggests that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path.7 (3) Including the new ERI path but not the traditional performance path would be arbitrary relative to historical determination analysis. An accepted methodology, along with a supporting data source, by which to analyze the performance path would also be necessary, and is not currently available. Based on these three points, DOE concluded that it is appropriate to follow its historical approach for the current determination. However, DOE acknowledges that the landscape of code compliance may be changing, and therefore plans to track the implementation and application of the new ERI path, as well as collect relevant data that may enable DOE to further evaluate the ERI path in future analyses. It will also investigate the possibility of collecting data that could provide the basis for a broader analysis of performance-based compliance paths. Finally, DOE will explore whether the total number of homes built under each path can be determined and tracked over time. DOE anticipates that multiple paths may be considered in future determinations, but will only be included if the potential energy savings are relative to the traditional DOE analysis. Table III.2 summarizes the overall impact of the code change proposals in the qualitative analysis. Overall, the sum of the beneficial code changes (6) is greater than the number of the detrimental code change proposals (2). TABLE III.2—OVERALL SUMMARY OF CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL IMPACT IN QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Detriment Neutral Benefit Negligible impact Unquantifiable at this time Total 2 62 6 5 1 76 Quantitative Analysis The quantitative analysis of the 2015 IECC was carried out using wholebuilding energy simulations of prototype buildings designed to meet the requirements of the 2012 IECC and the 2015 IECC. DOE simulated 32 representative residential building types across 15 U.S. climate locations, with locations selected to be representative of all U.S climate zones, as defined by the IECC. Energy use intensities (EUI) by fuel type and by end-use, as regulated by the IECC (i.e., heating, cooling, domestic water heating and lighting) were extracted for each building type, and weighted by the relative square footage of construction (represented by building type in each climate regions). The methodology used for carrying out the quantitative analysis remains unchanged from the preliminary determination of the 2015 IECC, however, the overall findings have been updated based on comments received (see Public Comments Regarding the Determination section of this notice). The quantitative analysis of buildings designed to meet the requirements of the 2015 IECC indicates national site energy savings of 0.98 percent of residential building energy consumption, as regulated by the IECC (in comparison to the 2012 IECC). Associated source energy savings are estimated to be approximately 0.87 percent, and national average energy cost savings are estimated to be approximately 0.73 percent. Table III.3 and Table III.4 show the energy use and associated savings resulting from the 2015 IECC by climate zone and on an aggregated national basis. Further details on the quantitative analysis can be found in the technical support document. TABLE III.3—ESTIMATED REGULATED ANNUAL SITE AND SOURCE ENERGY USE INTENSITIES (EUI), AND ENERGY COSTS BY CLIMATE-ZONE [2012 IECC] Energy costs ($/residence-yr) ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... 13.96 16.99 16.90 19.52 27.62 29.28 36.18 50.28 38.57 43.24 40.43 44.00 47.49 49.21 63.25 89.49 845 1,104 988 1,069 1,162 1,195 1,501 2,320 National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Source EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Site EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Climate zone 20.82 44.17 1,086 7 Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS Index Values Corresponding to Minimal VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland, WA, PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 May 2014), available at https://www.energycodes. gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33261 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices TABLE III.4—ESTIMATED REGULATED ANNUAL SITE AND SOURCE ENERGY USE INTENSITIES (EUI), AND ENERGY COSTS BY CLIMATE-ZONE [2015 IECC] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Source EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Site EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Climate zone Energy costs ($/residence-yr) ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... 13.85 16.84 16.71 19.31 27.38 29.03 35.86 49.80 38.33 42.90 40.03 43.56 47.14 48.84 62.72 88.65 841 1,096 980 1,060 1,155 1,187 1,490 2,299 National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... 20.61 43.78 1,078 Table III.5 presents the estimated energy savings (based on percent change in EUI and energy costs) associated with the 2015 IECC. Overall, the quantitative analysis indicates increased energy efficiency of residential buildings, as regulated by the updated code. TABLE III.5—REGULATED ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATED FROM THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Site EUI a (percent) Climate zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Source EUI a (percent) Energy costs a (percent) ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... 0.78 0.88 1.13 1.08 0.87 0.85 0.88 0.95 0.61 0.79 0.99 0.99 0.74 0.75 0.84 0.94 0.43 0.68 0.83 0.82 0.63 0.61 0.71 0.94 National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... 0.98 0.87 0.73 a Percentages are calculated before rounding and may not exactly match percentages calculated between Table III.3 and Table III.4. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES IV. Determination Statement V. State Certification Review and evaluation of the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC indicate that there are differences between the two editions. Qualitative analysis of the updated code reveals that many of the code changes are anticipated to have a neutral impact on energy efficiency, while a small number of code changes are anticipated to yield improved energy efficiency, and a smaller number of code changes are anticipated to be detrimental to energy efficiency. In addition, quantitative analysis of the code indicates regulated site energy, source energy, and energy cost savings of 0.98 percent, 0.87 percent and 0.73 percent, respectively. Finally, DOE acknowledges the reasonable probability that the new ERI compliance path will result in energy efficiency improvements that cannot be quantified at this time. DOE has rendered the conclusion that the 2015 IECC will improve energy efficiency in residential buildings, and, therefore, should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(a) of ECPA. Based on today’s determination, each State is required to review the provisions of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and determine whether it is appropriate for such state to revise its building code to meet or exceed the energy efficiency provisions of the 2015 IECC. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) This action must be made not later than 2 years from the date of publication of a Notice of Determination, unless an extension is provided. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 State Review and Update The State determination must be: (1) Made after public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings and upon the evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) made available to the public. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) States have discretion with regard to the hearing procedures they use, subject to providing an adequate opportunity for members of the public to be heard and to present relevant information. The Department recommends publication of any notice of public hearing through PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 appropriate and prominent media outlets, such as in a newspaper of general circulation. States should also be aware that this determination does not apply to IECC chapters specific to nonresidential buildings, as defined in the IECC. Therefore, States must certify their evaluations of their State building codes for residential buildings with respect to all provisions of the IECC, except for those chapters not affecting residential buildings. Because state codes are based on a variety of model code editions, DOE encourages States to consider the energy efficiency improvements of the 2015 IECC, as well as other recent editions of the IECC, which may also represent a significant energy and cost savings opportunity. DOE determinations regarding earlier editions of the IECC are available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.8 Further national and state analysis is also available.9 8 Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/ regulations/determinations/previous. 9 Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/ development/residential/iecc_analysis. E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 33262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices State Certification Statements VI. Regulatory Review and Analysis State certifications are to be sent to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov, and must be submitted in accordance with the deadline identified in the DATES section. If a State makes a determination that it is not 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, which shall be made available to the public. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4)) The DOE Building Energy Codes Program tracks and reports State code adoption and certifications.10 Once a State has adopted an updated residential code, DOE typically provides software, training, and support for the new code, as long as the new code is based on the national model code (i.e., the 2015 IECC). DOE has issued previous guidance on how it intends to respond to technical assistance requests related to implementation resources, such as building energy code compliance software. (79 FR 15112) DOE also recognizes that 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. DOE does not prescribe how each State adopts and enforces its energy codes. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Today’s action is not a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735). Accordingly, today’s action was not reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281) Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Requests for Extensions Section 304(c) of ECPA 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 substantive plan for response to the requirements stated in Section 304; 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. Requests are to be sent to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov. 10 Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/ adoption/states. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 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), DOE published 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 also made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel Web site.11 DOE has reviewed today’s action under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published in February 2003. Today’s action on the determination of improved energy efficiency between IECC editions requires States to undertake an analysis of their respective building codes. Today’s action does not impact small entities. Therefore, DOE has certified that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 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 11 Available at https://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration of grants. Today’s action is required by Title III of ECPA, as amended, which provides that whenever the 1992 MEC, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) If the Secretary determines that the revision of 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings, then no later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency 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)) 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. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) 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 States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. Congress found that: (1) Large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features; (2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage; (3) The failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in newly constructed buildings increases longterm operating costs that may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made, insured, or guaranteed E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES by Federal agencies or made by federally insured or regulated instrumentalities; and (4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide an existing means by which to ensure, in coordination with other building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain adequate energy conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831) Pursuant to Section 304(a) of ECPA, DOE is statutorily required to determine whether the most recent edition of the MEC (or its successor) would improve the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings as compared to the previous edition. If DOE makes an affirmative determination, the statute requires each State to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency 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)) Executive Order 13132 requires meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and local governments in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government. (62 FR 43257) DOE has examined today’s action 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. Today’s action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State building codes. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. Review Under 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:06 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 235001 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 an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate that 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. Consistent with previous determinations, DOE has completed its review, and concluded that impacts on state, local, and tribal governments are less than the $100 million threshold specified in the Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no further action is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 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. 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) 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. Both OMB and DOE have published established relevant guidelines (67 FR 8452 and 67 FR 62446, respectively). 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. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33263 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 OMB 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. Review Under Executive Order 13175 Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments’’, (65 FR 67249), 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 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 May 29, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2015–14297 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee; Meetings Office of Science, Department of Energy. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33250-33263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14297]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030]
RIN 1904-AD33

Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the
2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the
2015 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would
improve energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code compared to
the 2012 edition. DOE analysis indicates that buildings meeting the
2015 IECC (as compared with buildings meeting the 2012 IECC) would
result in national source energy savings of approximately 0.87 percent,
site energy savings of approximately 0.98 percent, and energy cost
savings of approximately 0.73 percent of residential building energy
consumption, as regulated by the IECC. Upon publication of this
affirmative determination, each State is required by statute to certify
that it has reviewed the provisions of its residential building code
regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to whether to
update its code to meet or exceed the 2015 IECC. Additionally, this
notice provides guidance to States on these processes and associated
certifications.

DATES: Certification statements provided by States must be submitted by
June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Certification Statements must be addressed to the Building
Technologies Office--Building Energy Codes Program Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 287-1941;
Jeremiah.Williams@ee.doe.gov.
For legal issues, please contact Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., GC-33, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-0669;
Kavita.Vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background
C. Public Comments Regarding the Determination
II. Methodology
III. Summary of Findings
IV. Determination Statement
V. State Certification
VI. Regulatory Review & Analysis

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as
amended, establishes requirements for building energy conservation
standards, administered by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program. (42
U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(a), as amended, of ECPA provides that
whenever the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor to that
code, is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must make a
determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether
the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential
buildings, and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The Secretary may determine that
the revision of the 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the
level of energy efficiency in residential buildings. If so, then not
later than two years after the date of the publication of such
affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it
has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency,
and made a determination as to 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)(2)) 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)(4))
ECPA requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the deadlines
for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that it has made
a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of section 304(a)
of ECPA, and that it has made significant progress in doing so. (42
U.S.C. 6833(c)) DOE is also directed to provide technical assistance to
States to support implementation of State residential and commercial
building energy efficiency codes. (42 U.S.C. 6833(d))

B. Background

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is the national
model code establishing energy efficiency requirements for residential
buildings. The IECC is revised every 3 years through a code development
and consensus process administered by the International Code Council
(ICC) \1\. Code change proposals may be submitted by any interested
party, and are evaluated through a series of public hearings. As part
of the ICC process, any interested party may submit proposals, as well
as written comments or suggested changes to any proposal, and make
arguments before a committee of experts assembled by the ICC. At the
final public hearing, arguments are presented to and voted

[[Page 33251]]

upon by the ICC Governmental Member Representatives, with the
collection of accepted proposals forming the revised edition of the
IECC. The ICC published the 2015 edition of the IECC (2015 IECC or 2015
edition) on June 3, 2014, which forms the basis of this determination
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ More information on the ICC code development and consensus
process is described at https://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/procedures.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In arriving at its determination, DOE reviewed all changes between
the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC with respect to residential
buildings. Accordingly, DOE published a Notice of Preliminary
Determination regarding the 2015 IECC in the Federal Register on
September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57915).

C. Public Comments Regarding the Determination

DOE accepted public comments on the Notice of Preliminary
Determination for the 2015 IECC until October 27, 2014. DOE received
timely submissions from a total of five submitters.

Table I--Inventory of Public Comments Received
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Submitter comments Public docket reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Code Council (ICC)....... 3 EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030-0002
National Association of Home Builders 2 EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030-0003
(NAHB).
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance 9 EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030-0004
(RECA).
Natural Resources Defense Council 4 EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030-0005
(NRDC).
Individual Commenter (Conner).......... 1 EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030-0006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICC's first comment offers general support for DOE's preliminary
determination. (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2) \2\ In its second comment, ICC
suggests DOE accompany its 2015 IECC determination with ``previously
released information regarding the increased efficiency of the 2012
IECC over the 2009 version, and the increased efficiency of the 2009
version over the 2006 version, in order to make it abundantly clear
that the efficiency of the 2015 IECC is much higher than versions of
the IECC in use in many states and jurisdictions around the nation.''
(ICC, No. 2 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees with ICC's assessment that the
provisions of the 2015 edition of the IECC are much more energy
efficient than several earlier editions of the model code. In
performing its determination, DOE evaluates the expected national
impact of the new edition of the model code, in this case the 2015
IECC, against the most recent previous edition receiving an affirmative
determination of energy savings, in this case the 2012 IECC (42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(A)). However, DOE recognizes that the updated code
represents a significant savings opportunity--in many cases up to 30
percent savings relative to codes currently adopted by U.S. states.\3\
In response, DOE has added references to earlier determinations, as
well as the associated energy savings estimates, in Section V of this
notice. In its third comment, ICC suggests DOE ``emphasize that states
are to compare the provisions of their current codes with the
provisions and requirements of the 2015 IECC, and not assume that the
percentage increase in efficiency for their respective state will be
the same as the 1% increase measured by DOE over the provisions in the
2012 IECC.'' (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that States and
localities should indeed consider the impact of updated model codes
relative to the specific requirements in effect within the state or
locality. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the updated
model code relative to the previous model code, and estimates the
aggregate impact on national energy consumption. As many adopting
states and localities make modifications to the model code, these
entities should evaluate the impacts of the updated code relative to
their own provisions. ICC further offers suggested communication
options for DOE to consider: ``(1) DOE should transmit, with a cover
letter offering assistance and cooperation, a copy of the final
determination to the governor of each state, with a copy to the State
Energy Office, and post a copy of the cover letter template on the DOE
Building Energy Codes Web site. (2) DOE should provide, along with the
cover letter and determination, a simple form response `state
determination form' in a format that allows the state officials charged
with complying with the law the ability to check off whether the state
(a) has reviewed its code, (b) has provided notice and an opportunity
for comment in the state, (c) has made findings, (d) has published such
findings, and (e) if the state has determined to revise its code a
description of the new code, and if it has decided not to revise its
residential building energy code, a space to provide the reasons for
such decision. (3) The cover letter, as well as the proposed form for
response to DOE, should prominently note the date on which the response
to DOE is due. (4) DOE should publish on its Building Energy Codes Web
site the response received from each state, as well as a list of states
from which a response has not been received, updated on a regular
basis. (5) Publishing the information on each state, and its response
or non-response would allow citizens to become involved and ask
questions of their public officials, and otherwise determine whether
their state is in compliance with the law.'' (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE
is currently evaluating the means by which it tracks the national
implementation of building energy codes, and will consider the
communication options proposed by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ A notation in the form ``ICC, No. 2 at p. 2'' identifies a
written comment that DOE received and has included in the docket of
DOE's ``Preliminary Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency
Improvements in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code
(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030), which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment:
(1) Submitted by ICC; (2) filed as document number 2 of the docket,
and (3) appearing on page 2 of that document.
\3\ Mendon et al., Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the 2009 and
2012 IECC Residential provisions--Technical Support Document (PNNL,
Richland, WA, April 2013), available at https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/State_CostEffectiveness_TSD_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAHB's first comment suggests that ``DOE's analysis of the pipe
insulation was not properly calculated'' and noted that the actual net
change made by this proposal was to increase the length of \3/4\-inch
pipe requiring insulation by including runs shorter than 10 feet, while
eliminating insulation requirements on smaller diameter piping. NAHB
suggests ``by properly applying the new hot water pipe insulation
requirements, the resulting energy savings will change.'' (NAHB, No. 3
at p. 1) DOE agrees with NAHB's comments relative to the net energy
savings surrounding this particular proposal, and has revised its
analysis accordingly. The revised estimated total energy cost savings
compared to the 2012 IECC are now 0.73% compared to the preliminary
estimate of 0.90% (see

[[Page 33252]]

Section III of this notice). NAHB's second comment notes that the
``International Code Council (ICC) originally had proposal RE112-13
listed as being approved to be included in the 2015 edition of the
IECC. This proposal, however, was actually withdrawn by the proponent
before it was approved on the consent agenda. As a result, the changes
were not included in the 2015 IECC and thus, any reference to RE112-13
should be removed from the analysis.'' (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 2) DOE agrees
with NAHB's comment and acknowledges that the subject proposal is not
included in the 2015 IECC. DOE notes that the original documentation
published by the ICC following the public hearing process inadvertently
included this proposal, and it has since been confirmed that the
proposal was withdrawn from consideration during the hearing process.
DOE has revised this notice and supporting documentation accordingly.
(Note that RECA offered a similar comment on RE112-13; see RECA, No. 4
at p. 3.)
RECA's first comment expresses general support for DOE's
Preliminary Determination on the 2015 edition of IECC, DOE's evaluation
methodology in both its quantitative and qualitative aspects, and DOE's
conclusion that the 2015 IECC's weakening amendments are outweighed by
its strengthening amendments. (RECA No. 4 at p. 1) In its second
comment, RECA ``urges the Department to move ahead to finalize its
Determination endorsing the 2015 IECC for state adoption''; ``to
continue to provide materials to states and localities that will
facilitate the adoption of, and compliance with, this latest edition of
the IECC''; ``to expeditiously make training and compliance software
available to states that adopt the 2015 IECC''; and ``to provide
additional funding to those states that are early adopters of the 2015
IECC.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 1, and 3) DOE acknowledges the need for
materials that can assist in facilitating the adoption of the latest
editions of the model code. While these activities are not directly
within the scope of the DOE determination analysis, DOE is directed to
provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy
codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)), and does so through a variety of activities,
such as state-specific energy and cost analysis, code compliance
software, and a collection of technical resources. DOE intends to
continue to provide such resources to assist states in implementing
updated model codes, including adoption of such codes by states and
localities, and increasing compliance with building energy codes to
ensure intended consumer energy and cost savings. In its third comment,
RECA agrees with DOE that, ``proposal RE68-13 slightly weakens sunroom
fenestration requirements'', ``the impact should be very small'', and
it, ``does not affect SHGC requirements'', but notes that ``the impact
is on climate zones 2-3, not climate zone 1.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 2) DOE
agrees with RECA's comment and assessment of the subject proposal, and
has revised the determination notice and supporting analysis
accordingly. In its fourth comment, RECA disagrees with DOE that duct
tightness levels tend to always be a ``zero sum trade-off'' as claimed
in the Preliminary Determination, and suggests that ``the Department
explicitly and correctly recognize the value of mandatory measures, and
that removal of this mandatory backstop is a reduction in stringency in
some cases, albeit likely modest, depending on the measure that
replaces duct efficiency.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees in
principle with RECA's comment that energy neutrality depends on a
variety of factors, including impacts over the useful life of
alternative energy measures. In the case of building energy efficiency
tradeoffs, the impact on longer-term energy savings can vary
significantly between the measures being traded and the chosen
alternative designs. In addition, DOE understands the purpose of
mandatory requirements within the code, and while the subject proposal
cannot directly be captured within the DOE quantitative analysis, DOE
indeed acknowledges the potential effect on building energy efficiency
in application. In its fifth comment, RECA notes that proposal RE112-13
``was withdrawn prior to final consideration, and is thus not part of
the 2015 IECC.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) DOE agrees with this comment, as
detailed above in response to NAHB's similar comment. In its sixth
comment, RECA suggests that DOE should ``continue to assess the
potential impact of changes to the IECC for compliance paths outside
the prescriptive path'' averring that expanding the Department's
ability to further assess such changes is in the public interest. (RECA
No. 4 at p. 3) With specific reference to DOE's evaluation of the new
ERI compliance path, RECA agrees with DOE's use of the prescriptive
compliance path as the generally predominant path, but recommends
``this emphasis on the prescriptive path for the numerical analysis
should not be read as limiting the overall assessment of all changes in
the code, nor should it suggest that an edition of the code will
receive a positive or negative determination solely on the basis of
this quantitative analysis.'' RECA notes that in previous
determinations, DOE has not historically limited itself to analyzing
only changes to the prescriptive path, and encourages DOE not to limit
itself to only considering changes to the prescriptive path in the
future. RECA ``urges the Department to clarify in its Determination
that it will continue to assess any changes made to the performance
path, and any new compliance options (like ERI) that are added to the
IECC going forward in future Determinations.'' DOE agrees with RECA's
comment in principle, and acknowledges that changes in the 2015 IECC,
as well as potential future changes to the IECC, are likely to require
increasingly nuanced analyses of the changes' impacts. As stated in the
preliminary notice, DOE plans to collect data specifically on the ERI
path, and will consider means to broaden the scope of that commitment,
as necessary, in the future. In addition, while the DOE Determination
has typically focused on the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of
the IECC, the Department reserves the right to evaluate other means of
compliance when adequate information is available. In its seventh
comment, RECA agrees with DOE that ``it is difficult to assess the
impact of the new Energy Rating Index in the context of a
Determination,'' but argues that ``DOE could reasonably conclude, based
on the results of a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study, that
the new compliance path is reasonably likely to save energy as compared
to compliance with the 2012 IECC prescriptive requirements on average,
even if some individual homes could be weaker than those built to the
2012 IECC.'' \4\ (RECA No. 4 at p. 5) DOE appreciates the comment and
agrees, based on the referenced PNNL analysis, that most homes built
using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at
least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive
requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path. In its
eighth comment, RECA urges DOE to ``promote the proper adoption and
implementation of the ERI as contained in the 2015 IECC, without any
weakening amendments, including monitoring its deployment in states and
cities going forward.'' RECA also

[[Page 33253]]

recommends ``DOE develop and/or fund comprehensive support materials
and training to help to ensure that the ERI is properly implemented,''
and that ``DOE should also consider how it can help to ensure that the
ERI process produces consistent, repeatable, and credible results for
code compliance.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 5-7) DOE acknowledges the
importance of the new ERI path in the 2015 IECC and its potential
impact on energy as the code is implemented. While code implementation
activities are outside the direct scope of the DOE determination, DOE
does provide technical assistance to states implementing building
energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)). DOE recognizes the need for continued
analysis and support for states adopting the 2015 IECC, and will
consider the requested activities, as able and appropriate, through the
Building Energy Codes Program. In its ninth comment, RECA supports the
``Department's stated plan to collect data relevant to the ERI, as well
as all compliance options allowed in the IECC.'' RECA further
encourages the Department to ``reach out to industry and nonprofit
partners to aggregate the data already available, and to explore new
methods for collecting and analyzing data on the various compliance
options and tools used across the country.'' (RECA No. 4 at p. 7) DOE
acknowledges and appreciates RECA's support, and plans to work with the
industry and stakeholders in evaluating the new ERI path and associated
energy impact. As previously stated, DOE intends to collect relevant
data and track the implementation of the ERI path relative to the
traditional compliance options provided by the IECC. DOE will continue
to communicate with interested and affected parties as the 2015 IECC is
implemented and as further data and resulting analysis becomes
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS Index Values
Corresponding to Minimal Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland,
WA, May 2014), available at https://www.energycodes.gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NRDC's first two comments offer general support for DOE's
determination that the 2015 IECC saves energy compared to the 2012
IECC, for DOE's quantitative finding of energy savings, and for DOE's
qualitative assessment of the specific code changes that will result in
energy savings. (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 1-2) In its third comment NRDC
suggests that ``actual energy savings from the 2015 IECC are likely to
be much larger than indicated by DOE's analysis'', specifically
suggesting that the ``new Energy Rating Index (ERI) pathway created by
RE188-13 is likely to result in significant energy savings.'' (NRDC,
No.5 at p.2) NRDC acknowledges that it is not knowable exactly how many
homes will comply using the ERI pathway, but suggests it is certainly
not zero. NRDC suggests that ``currently about half of new homes
constructed in the U.S. are rated using the RESNET HERS rating'', and
that ``it is likely a large percentage of these homes will choose to
comply with the code via the ERI pathway, since this will likely be the
simplest method of compliance.'' (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) NRDC further
notes that a ``Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analysis of the
HERS index's relationship to the 2012 IECC performance path found that
for all climate zones the ERI values adopted in the 2015 IECC ranged
from at least as efficient to substantially more efficient than the
2012 IECC, indicating that homes complying with the ERI path will on
average achieve large energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC.''
(NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE agrees that the new alternative ERI
compliance path, including the associated thresholds as published in
the 2015 IECC, is reasonably likely to result in energy savings
compared to the 2012 IECC and the majority of current state codes.
However, DOE remains unaware of any current data source that would
allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE continues
to base its evaluation of the new path on the recent analysis conducted
by PNNL, as referenced in the preliminary determination notice. In its
fourth comment, NRDC appreciates DOE's indication in the preliminary
determination that ``it will attempt to collect data on the utilization
of the various compliance pathways and evaluate whether it can quantify
savings from compliance pathways other than the prescriptive path in
future determinations'', and urges DOE to ``evaluate energy savings
from the ERI pathway in future determinations, as currently the
analysis leaves out this potential source of significant energy
savings.'' (NRDC, No. 5 at p.2) DOE acknowledges the importance of
evaluating the energy impact of the ERI alternative, but remains
unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate
evaluation of the newly created path. DOE, therefore, maintains its
intentions to track the adoption of the ERI path relative to
traditional application of the IECC, and may further evaluate this path
in future analyses.
One comment was received from an individual submitter, Craig
Conner, who indicated that ``DOE made errors in estimating the
residential energy savings for the change that included a new tropical
option for residential construction (CE66-13 Part II, or CE66-II).''
(Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner suggests that ``DOE modeling was not
done in accordance with the IECC standard reference design, and
therefore is not as required for a determination.'' He further suggests
that ``several major energy saving requirements provided by this new
option were ignored or underestimated'', and argues that ``the
definition of the Tropical Zone, which is a subset of existing IECC
Climate Zone 1, does not by itself increase or decrease energy'', but
that ``it is the associated requirements that would potentially affect
energy use.'' (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner cites three aspects of
proposal CE66-13 Part II that should have been considered new energy-
saving requirements rather than conditions under which other
requirements may be lessened, as DOE interpreted them: The restriction
that the home not be heated and that 50% of the home be uncooled, the
restriction that 80% of domestic water heating be by solar or other
renewable sources, and the restriction that natural ventilation be
facilitated by operable windows. (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) In response,
DOE appreciates Mr. Conner's comments, but does not agree with his
assessment regarding the particular proposal. The IECC Standard
Reference Design (SRD) is intended for demonstrating compliance of
individual buildings, which differs from the aggregate national
analysis applied in DOE determinations. Although the DOE building
modeling prototypes and simulation methodology occasionally draw on SRD
assumptions, where appropriate, they are also informed by additional
sources that may better represent typical construction practices, and
to estimate an expected impact of code changes. In this case, DOE
considered typical construction affected by the newly defined Tropical
Zone, and acknowledges the modified criteria associated with partially-
conditioned homes (e.g., with solar water heating systems and operable
windows). However, it is not clear that these changes will encourage
additional use of energy-saving features, and DOE has maintained its
original assessment.

II. Methodology

In arriving at a determination, DOE reviewed all changes between
the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC. The IECC covers a broad
spectrum of the energy-related components and systems in buildings,
ranging from simpler residential buildings to more complex multifamily
facilities. For the purposes of its determination, DOE focused only on
low-rise residential buildings, defined in a manner consistent with the

[[Page 33254]]

ICC and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Low-rise residential buildings include
one- and two-family detached and attached buildings, and low-rise
multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories), such as
condominiums and garden apartments. The 2015 IECC was developed through
the same approach as the previous 2012 edition with approval through
the ICC consensus process. The 2015 edition contains no significant
changes to the overall scope or the structure of the prescriptive and
mandatory provisions of the code, which form the basis of the DOE
determination analyses. As a result, DOE determined that the
methodology used for the analysis of the 2012 IECC should again be
utilized for the analysis of the 2015 IECC.

Overview of Methodology

The analysis methodology used by DOE contains both qualitative and
quantitative components. A qualitative comparison is undertaken to
identify textual changes between requirements in the 2015 and 2012
editions of the IECC, followed by a quantitative assessment of energy
savings conducted through whole-building simulations of buildings
constructed to meet the minimum requirements of each code over a range
of U.S. climates. The analysis methodology, which was previously
developed through a public comment process, is available on the DOE
Building Energy Codes Program Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See https://www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with its previous determinations, DOE compared overall
editions of the IECC, and did not issue determinations for individual
code changes. DOE interprets the language in section 304(a) of ECPA to
mean that when a comprehensive revision of the 1992 MEC, or its
successor (which in this case is the 2015 IECC), is published, then
that revised or successor code triggers the Secretary's obligation to
issue a determination as to whether the revised code improves energy
efficiency in residential buildings. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) This
determination is made by comparing the revised or successor code to the
last predecessor code.

Consideration for Technological and Economic Factors

Section 304(a) of ECPA states that the Secretary is required to
make a determination as to whether any successor standard to the 1992
MEC will improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) Section
304 of ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification,
although such criteria are considered directly by the ICC code
development and consensus process, as applicable. Each proposal
submitted to the ICC code development process also requires a
declaration of whether the proposed code change will increase the cost
of construction.
Separate from the Secretary's determination under section 304(a),
section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to periodically review the technical
and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes, and
participate in the industry process for review and modification,
including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and
economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b))
In fulfillment of this directive, DOE evaluates its code change
proposals submitted to the ICC, analyzing energy savings and cost-
effectiveness, as applicable, and otherwise participates in the ICC
process. In addition, DOE performs independent technical and economic
analysis of the IECC as part of its direction to provide assistance to
States implementing building energy codes. This approach allows DOE to
meet its statutory obligation to participate in the industry process
for review and modification of the IECC, and to seek adoption of all
technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency
measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)).
In preparation for technical assistance activities, DOE previously
developed a standardized methodology for assessing the cost-
effectiveness of code changes through a public process. (78 FR 47677)
This methodology is published on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program
Web site, and has been applied by DOE in the development of code change
proposals for the IECC, as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of
published editions of the IECC. DOE expects to update this methodology
periodically to ensure its assumptions and economic criteria remain
valid and adequate for the analysis of potential code change proposals,
and for States considering adoption of model building energy codes. DOE
will continue to use the currently established methodology and
parameters for developing materials for the technical assistance of the
2015 IECC.

III. Summary of Findings

In performing its determination, DOE performed both a qualitative
and quantitative analysis of the prescriptive and mandatory
requirements contained in the 2015 IECC. The chosen methodology for
these analyses is consistent with actions of recent determinations, and
provides a reasonable assessment of how the code will affect energy
savings in residential buildings. A summary of the analyses supporting
DOE's determination is outlined in the following sections.

Qualitative Analysis

DOE performed a comparative analysis of the textual requirements of
the 2015 IECC, examining the specific changes (approved code changes)
made between the 2012 and the 2015 editions. The ICC Code Hearing
process considers individual code changes for approval, and then
bundles all the approved code changes together to form the next
published edition. In creating the 2015 IECC, ICC processed 76 approved
code change proposals. DOE evaluated each of these code change
proposals in preparing its determination. In conducting the revised
analysis, DOE also took into consideration NAHB's comment about DOE's
analysis of pipe insulation requirements (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1).
Overall, DOE found that the vast majority of changes in the 2015
IECC appear to be neutral (i.e., have no direct impact on energy
savings) within the context of the determination analysis. DOE also
found that beneficial changes (i.e., increased energy savings) outweigh
any changes with a detrimental effect on energy efficiency in
residential buildings. Of the 76 total changes:
6 were considered beneficial;
62 were considered neutral;
5 were considered negligible;
2 were considered detrimental; and
1 was considered to have an unquantifiable impact.
Table III.1 presents the findings resulting from the qualitative
analysis, along with a description of the change, as well as an
assessment of the anticipated impact on energy savings in residential
buildings. Additional details pertaining to the qualitative analysis
are presented in a technical support document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Mendon et al., 2015 IECC: Energy Savings Analysis (PNNL,
Richland, WA, December 2014), available at https://www.energycodes.gov/determinations.

[[Page 33255]]

Table III.1--Qualitative Analysis Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code section(s) Description of Impact on energy
Proposal No. affected \a\ changes efficiency Reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE1-13....................... R101.4.3 (IRC Deletes the Neutral............ The residential
N1101.3). exception for code has no
vestibules in the requirements for
provisions vestibules.
pertaining to
additions,
alterations,
renovations, and
repairs.
RE3-13....................... R103.2 (IRC Deletes text Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.8). relating to
commercial
building
components in
``Information on
Construction
Documents.''
RE5-13....................... R202 (IRC N1101.9). Deletes the Neutral............ The definition
definition of applied to
``entrance door.'' nonresidential
buildings only.
RE6-13....................... R202 (NEW) (IRC Adds definition of Neutral............ Addition of
N1101.9 (NEW)). ``Insulating definition.
Siding'' and notes
that the
insulation level
of this siding
must be R-2 or
greater.
RE9-13....................... R202 (NEW) (IRC Adds an appendix Neutral............ No direct impact,
N1101.9 (NEW)), with non-mandatory but has the
R304 (NEW) (IRC provisions for potential to
N1101.16 (NEW)). homes to be increase
``solar-ready.'' efficiency in the
Designed to be future.
readily referenced
by adopting
authorities as
needed.
RE12-13...................... R401.2 (IRC Minor clarification Neutral............ Clarification of
N1101.15). that the code's code
mandatory requirements.
requirements
should be met in
all compliance
paths.
RE14-13...................... R401.3 (IRC Adds more options Neutral............ Not energy related
N1101.16). for the allowable but does
locations for eliminate a small
posting the enforcement
certificate of hindrance.
occupancy.
RE16-13...................... R401.3 (IRC Similar to RE14-13. Neutral............ Not energy related
N1101.16). Allows more but does
options for the eliminate a small
allowable enforcement
locations for hindrance.
posting the
certificate of
occupancy.
RE18-13...................... R402.1 (IRC Cross-references Neutral............ Adds consistency
N1102.1), R402.1.1 vapor barrier and clarifies
(NEW) (IRC requirements by code
N1102.1.1 (NEW)). referencing IRC requirements.
R702.7.
RE30-13...................... Table R402.1.1, Modifies footnote h Neutral............ Adds an option for
(IRC Table to these tables to combined
N1102.1.1). allow combined insulated
sheathing/siding. sheathing/siding
that meets code
requirements.
RE43-13...................... R402.1.2 (IRC Adds use of term Neutral............ Minor
N1102.1.2). ``continuous clarification of
insulation'' terminology.
instead of
``insulating
sheathing.''
RE45-13...................... Table R402.1.3 (IRC Slightly increases Negligible......... Intended to
N1102.1.3). frame wall U- correct a
factor in climate perceived
zones 1 and 2. The misalignment
R-value table between the
remains unchanged. code's R-value-
based
requirements and
the alternative U-
factor-based
requirements. The
changes are very
small and
unlikely to
change wall
insulation levels
in most homes.
RE50-13...................... Table R402.1.3 (IRC Slightly increases Negligible......... Intended to
Table N1102.1.3). frame wall U- correct a
factor in climate perceived
zones 1-5 but misalignment
reduces it in between the
climate zones 6-8. code's R-value-
The R-value table based
remains unchanged. requirements and
the alternative U-
factor-based
requirements. The
changes are very
small and
unlikely to
change wall
insulation levels
in most homes.
RE53-13...................... R402.2.1 (IRC Clarifies decreased Neutral............ Clarification of
N1102.2.1). ceiling insulation the code
allowance for requirement.
ceilings with
attic spaces only.
RE58-13...................... R402.2.4 (IRC Clarifies that Neutral............ Clarification of
N1102.2.4). vertical doors are the code
not ``access requirement.
doors'' in
R402.2.4 and shall
be permitted to
meet the
fenestration
requirements of
Table 402.1.1.
RE60-13...................... R402.2.7 (IRC Allows the floor Neutral............ Allows a
N1102.2.7), Table cavity insulation combination of
R402.4.1.1 (IRC to not be in cavity and
Table N1102.4.1.1). contact with the continuous
underside of the insulation to
subfloor decking meet the floor R-
if it is in value
contact with the requirement.
topside of
sheathing or
continuous
insulation
installed on the
bottom side of
floor framing.

[[Page 33256]]

RE63-13...................... Table R402.1.1 (IRC Clarifies footnote Neutral............ Clarification of
Table N1102.1.1), h text by code
R402.2.13 (NNEW) rewording it and requirements.
(IRC N1102.2.13 moving it to new
(NEW)). section R402.2.13.
RE68-13...................... R402.3.5 (IRC Slightly increases Detrimental........ Applies to only
N1102.3.5). sunroom U-factor. climate zones 2
and 3; impacts
only thermally
isolated
sunrooms.
RE83-13...................... Table R402.4.1.1 Clarifies Neutral............ Minor addition and
(IRC Table requirements for clarification of
N1102.4.1.1). wall corner and code
headers to have requirements.
insulation that
has at least R-3
per inch, and
clarifies that it
is the cavities in
such components
that require the
insulation.
RE84-13...................... Table R402.4.1.1 Allows a Neutral............ Subset of RE60-13;
(IRC Table combination of makes minor
N1102.4.1.1). cavity and clarifying
continuous revisions to
insulation to meet wording.
the floor R-value
requirement.
RE85-13...................... Table R402.4.1.1 Reorganizes Table Neutral............ Clarification of
(IRC Table 402.4.1.1 by code
N1102.4.1.1). adding an requirements.
additional column
and separating
``air barrier
criteria'' from
``insulation
installation
criteria,'' for
clarity.
RE86-13...................... Table R402.4.1.1 Clarifies language Neutral............ Clarification of
(IRC Table relating to code
N1102.4.1.1), fireplace sealing/ requirements.
R402.4.2 (IRC door requirements.
N1102.4.2).
RE91-13...................... R402.4.1.2 (IRC Adds references to Neutral............ Adds more detailed
N1102.4.1.2), the American references for
Chapter 5. Society for procedures.
Testing and
Materials (ASTM)
standards E779 and
E1827 for blower
door testing.
RE103-13..................... R403.1.1 (IRC Adds requirements Neutral............ Clarifies that the
N1103.1.1). for the thermostat requirement is
to be pre- the
programmed by the manufacturer's
manufacturer. responsibility.
RE105-13..................... R403.1.1 (IRC Makes the Neutral............ No direct impact
N1103.1.1). programmable on energy.
thermostat
requirement apply
to any heating/
cooling system.
RE107-13..................... R403.2.1 (IRC Increases Beneficial......... Modestly reduces
N1103.2.1). insulation conduction losses
requirements for from return ducts
return ducts in in attics.
attics from R-6 to
R-8.
RE109-13..................... R403.2 (IRC Makes the maximum Neutral............ Zero-sum tradeoff
N1103.2), R403.2.2 allowable duct within IECC
(IRC N1103.2.2), leakage rates performance path
R403.2.3 (NEW) prescriptive, rules; applies
(IRC N1103.2.3 allowing only to
(NEW)), R403.2.4 performance path compliance via
(NEW) (IRC trade-offs. performance path.
N1103.2.4 (NEW)).
RE111-13..................... R403.2.2 (IRC Aligns the IECC Neutral............ Requires sealing
N1103.2.2). with the of additional
International locking joints
Mechanical Code for consistency
(IMC) by removing between the IECC
exception from and IMC. Impact
duct sealing for is negligible
low-pressure because the
continuously mandatory duct
welded ducts. pressure test
governs duct
leakage
regardless of
specific sealing
strategies.
RE117-13..................... R403.2.2 (IRC Deletes exception Neutral............ Editorial change
N1103.2.2). relating to to eliminate
partially irrelevant text.
inaccessible duct
connections.
RE118-13..................... R403.2.2 (IRC Reverses the order Neutral............ Rearrangement of
N1103.2.2). of how the two text.
duct testing
options are
presented.
RE125-13, Part I............. R403.4.1 (IRC Adds requirements Beneficial......... Demand activated
N1103.4.1), for demand- control reduces
R403.4.1.1 (NEW) activated control the runtime of
(IRC N1103.4.1.1 on hot water circulation
(NEW)), R403.4.1.2 circulation pumps.
(NEW) (IRC systems and heat
N1103.4.1.2 trace systems.
(NEW)), Chapter 5, Makes IECC, IRC,
IPC [E] 607.2.1, and IPC consistent
[E] 607.2.1.1 and clarifies
(NEW), [E] requirements for
607.2.1.1.1 (NEW), these systems.
[E] 607.2.1.1.2
(NEW), IPC Chapter
14, IRC P2905
(NEW), IRC P2905.1
(NEW).

[[Page 33257]]

RE132-13..................... R403.4.2 (IRC Deletes requirement Beneficial......... Energy lost due to
N1103.4.2), Table for domestic hot the elimination
R403.4.2 (IRC water (DHW) pipe of hot water pipe
Table N1103.4.2). insulation to insulation on the
kitchen and the kitchen pipe is
generic typically more
requirement on than made up by
long/large- added insulation
diameter pipes. requirements for
However, adds DHW pipes 3/4 inches
pipe insulation in diameter, the
for 3/4-inch most common size
pipes. for trunk lines.
RE136-13, Part I............. R403.4.2 (NEW) (IRC Adds demand control Beneficial......... Demand activated
N1103.4.2 (NEW)), requirements for control reduces
IPC 202, IPC recirculating the runtime of
[E]607.2.1.1 systems that use a circulation
(NEW), IRC P2905 cold water supply pumps.
(NEW), IRC P2905.1 pipe to return
(NEW). water to the tank.
RE142-13..................... R403.6 (IRC Requires heating, Neutral............ DOE's Appliances
N1103.6). ventilation, and and Commercial
air-conditioning Equipment
equipment to meet Standards Program
Federal efficiency regulates the
standards. minimum
efficiency of
units produced by
equipment
manufacturers.
RE163-13..................... R405.4.2 (IRC Specifies details Neutral............ No direct impact
N1105.4.2), of a compliance on energy.
R405.4.2.1 (NEW) report for the
(IRC N1105.4.2.1 performance
(NEW)), R405.2.2 approach.
(NEW) (IRC
N1105.4.2.2 (NEW)).
RE167-13..................... Table R405.5.2(1) Fixes missing Neutral............ Adds details for
(IRC Table standard reference modeling the
B1105.5.2(1)). design standard
specifications for reference design
thermal in the
distribution performance path.
systems.
RE173-13..................... Table R405.5.2(1) Adjusts Table Neutral............ Simple
(IRC Table R405.5.2(1) (the clarification of
N1105.5.2(1)). performance path) the intent of the
terminology for code.
doors and
fenestration.
RE184-13..................... R101.4.3, R202, Revamps alterations Neutral............ Trade-offs between
R406 (NEW), (IRC language and moves weakened and
N1101. 3, N1101.9, it from chapter 1 strengthened
N1106 (NEW)). to section R406. requirements
possible but
there is no
feasible method
for quantifying
the energy impact
of these trade-
offs.
RE188-13..................... R202 (NEW) (IRC Optional new Not quantifiable at New alternative
N1101.9 (NEW)), approach in this time. compliance path--
R401.2 (IRC section 406 no data is
N1101.15), R406 requiring an ERI currently
(NEW) (IRC N1106 with a tradeoff available to
NEW). limitation on the adequately
thermal envelope estimate the
requirements. number of homes
that may be
constructed using
this compliance
path.
RE193-13..................... R202 (IRC N1101.9), Adds requirements Neutral............ Impacts air
403.10 (New) (IRC for testing of quality; no
N1103.10 (New)). combustion venting direct impact on
systems. home energy
usage.
RE195-13..................... R402.1.2........... Subtracts out R-0.6 Neutral............ Adds consistency
for insulating in R-value
siding from R- calculations.
value table to
prevent double
counting of
siding.
RB96-13, Part I.............. Table R402.4.1.1... Specifies that air Neutral............ Minor
sealing shall be clarification of
provided in fire code
separation requirements.
assemblies.
RB100-13..................... R303.4............. Corrects the air Neutral............ Consistency
infiltration change.
threshold in
R303.4 to be 5 air
changes per hour
or less to align
it with the
infiltration
limits set by the
code.
SP19-13, Part III............ 303.1; IECC C404.7; Makes numerous Neutral............ No direct impact
IECC R403.9. wording changes to on home energy
pool and spa usage.
requirements.
Doesn't appear to
make substantive
changes.
ADM22-13, Part III........... IECC: R108.2....... Revises ``owner's Neutral............ Simple language
agent'' to change.
``owner's
authorized agent''
in R108.2.
ADM30-13, Part III........... IECC: R103.4....... Adds ``work shall Neutral............ Simple language
be installed in change.
accordance with
the approved
construction
documents'' to
R103.4.
ADM40-13, Part III........... IECC: R103.1....... Adds ``technical Neutral............ Simple language
reports'' as change.
acceptable data
for submittal with
a permit
application.

[[Page 33258]]

ADM51-13, Part III........... IECC: R202 (IRC Adds ``retrofit'' Neutral............ Simple language
N1101.9). and other terms to change.
definition of
``alteration.''
ADM57-13, Part III........... IECC: R202 (IRC Adds definition of Neutral............ Simple language
N1101.9) (New). ``approved change.
agency.''
ADM60-13, Part III........... IECC: R202 (IRC Revises definition Neutral............ Simple language
N1101.9). of ``repairs.'' change.
CE4-13, Part II.............. R101.4, R202 (IRC Editorial Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.9); R402.3.6 relocation of code
(IRC N1102.3.6), text pertaining to
Chapter 5 (RE) ``existing
(NEW) (IRC N1106 buildings'' to a
(NEW)). separate chapter.
CE8-13, Part II.............. R101.4.2, R202 Revises language Beneficial......... Additional
(NEW) (IRC N1101.9 requiring the code buildings must
(NEW)). to apply to meet the code
historic buildings requirements.
if no ``compromise
to the historic
nature and
function of the
building'' occurs.
CE11-13, Part II............. R101.4.3, (IRC Adds existing Neutral............ Exceptions are
N1101.3). single-pane allowed only if
fenestration with energy use is not
surface films to increased.
the list of
exceptions in
R101.4.3.
CE15-13, Part II............. R101.4.3 (IRC Revises exemption Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.3), R202 for roofing
(NEW) (IRC N1101.9 replacement.
(NEW)).
CE23-13, Part II............. R101.5.2 (IRC Relocates exception Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.6), R402.1 for ``low energy''
(IRC N1102.1). buildings from
R101.5.2 to
R402.1.
CE33-13, Part II............. R102, R102.1.1 Changes title of Neutral............ Editorial change.
(NEW). section R102 to
``Applicability--D
uties and powers
of the Code
Official'' and
revises language
on ``alternative
materials, design
and methods of
construction and
equipment.''
CE37-13, Part II............. R103.2.1 (NEW)..... Requires the Neutral............ Simple
building's thermal documentation
envelope to be requirement.
represented on
construction
documents.
CE38-13, Part II............. R103.3, R104.1, Revises a number of Neutral............ No direct impact
R104.2 (NEW), administrative on energy.
R104.3, R104.3.1 requirements to
(NEW), R014.3.2 enhance the
(NEW), R104.3.3 ability to ensure
(NEW), R104.3.4 compliance with
(NEW), R104.3.5 the code and
(NEW), R104.3.6 improve the
(NEW), R104.5. usability of the
code.
CE43-13, Part II............. R106.2............. Deletes R106.2 Neutral............ Editorial change.
``Conflicting
requirements''
because it is
redundant with
``Conflicts'' in
R106.1.1.
CE44-13, Part II............. R108.4............. Revises language Neutral............ Editorial change.
pertaining to
``fines'' in
section R108.4.
CE49-13, Part III............ R202 (NEW) (IRC Adds definition of Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.9 (NEW)). a ``circulating
hot water
system.''
CE50-13, Part II............. R202 (NEW) (IRC Add definition of Neutral............ Editorial change.
N1101.9 (NEW)). ``climate zone.''
CE51-13, part II............. R202 (IRC N1101.9). Revises the Neutral............ Revision of
definition of definition.
``conditioned
space.''
CE52-13, Part II............. R202 (NEW) (IRC Adds definition of Neutral............ Definition
N1101.9 (NEW)). ``continuous addition.
insulation.''
CE59-13, Part II............. R202 (IRC N1101.9). Revises the Neutral............ Revision of
definition of definition.
``vertical
glazing.''
CE61-13, Part II............. Table R301.1....... Adds ``Broomfield Neutral............ Editorial change.
County'' to Table
C301.1 and R301.1.
CE62-13, Part II............. Figure R301.1 (IRC Eliminates the Neutral............ No efficiency
Figure N1101.10), ``warm humid'' requirements
Table R301.1 (IRC designation for depend on the
Table N1101.10). counties in the warm-humid
``dry'' moisture designation in
regime in Climate Zone 2/
Southwest Texas. Dry.
CE63-13, Part II............. R303.1.1 (IRC Requires labeling R- Neutral............ Labeling
N1101.12.1). value on packaging requirement.
of insulated
siding and listing
of same on the
certification.

[[Page 33259]]

CE65-13, Part II............. R303.1.3 (IRC Adds the American Neutral............ Adds an option of
N1101.12.3), National Standards using ANSI/DASMA
Chapter 5. Institute (ANSI)/ 105 instead of
Door and Access NFRC 100.
Systems
Manufacturers
Association
(DASMA) standard
105 as an
alternative to
National
Fenestration and
Rating Council
(NFRC) 100 for
determining U-
factors of garage
doors, where
required.
CE66-13, Part II............. R301.4 (NEW) (IRC Defines a new Detrimental........ Exception to code
N1101.10.3 (NEW)), ``Tropical'' requirements
R406 (NEW) (IRC climate zone and applicable to a
N1106 (NEW)). adds an optional small number of
compliance path homes in tropical
for semi- areas.
conditioned
residential
buildings with a
list of pre-
defined criteria
to be deemed as
code compliant in
this climate zone.
CE67-13, Part II............. R303.1.4.1 Adds ASTM C1363 as Neutral............ Addition of
(N1101.12.4) the required test testing
(NEW), Chapter 5. standard for requirements.
determining the
thermal resistance
(R-value) of
insulating siding.
CE161-13, Part II............ R402.3.2 (IRC Allows dynamic Negligible......... Similar energy
N1102.3.2). glazing to satisfy impact to non-
the SHGC dynamic glazing.
requirements
provided the ratio
of upper to lower
SHGC is 2.4 or
greater and is
automatically
controlled to
modulate the
amount of solar
gain into the
space.
CE177-13, Part II............ R402.1.2 (NEW), Requires open Neutral............ Relates to indoor
(IRC N1102.4.1.2 combustion air quality and
(NEW)). appliances to be does not impact
outside energy directly.
conditioned space
or in a room
isolated from
conditioned space
and ducted to the
outside.
CE179-13, Part II............ Table R402.4.1.1 Exempts fire Negligible......... The home/unit
(IRC Table sprinklers from would still have
N1102.4.1.1). air sealing to pass the
requirements. blower door test.
CE283-13, Part II............ R403.4.3 (NEW) Requires drain Negligible......... Enables credit for
(N1103.5 (NEW)), water heat efficiency
Chapter 5, IRC recovery systems improvements due
P2903.11 (NEW). to comply with to the use of
Canadian Standards drain water heat
Association (CSA) recovery devices.
Standard 55 and
adds references to
CSA Standard 55 to
chapter 5.
CE362-13, Part II............ R403.2 (New) (IRC Adds requirement Beneficial......... Lowering boiler
N1103.2 (New)). for outdoor water temperature
setback control during periods of
for hot water moderate outdoor
boilers that temperature
controls the reduces energy
boiler water consumption of
temperature based the boiler.
on the outdoor
temperature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Code sections refer to the 2012 IECC.
KEY: The following terms are used to characterize the effect of individual code change on energy efficiency (as
contained in the above table): Beneficial indicates that a code change is anticipated to improve energy
efficiency; Detrimental indicates a code change may increase energy use in certain applications; Neutral
indicates that a code change is not anticipated to impact energy efficiency; Negligible indicates a code
change may have energy impacts but too small to quantify; and Not Quantifiable indicates that a code change
may have energy impacts but can't be quantified at this time.

In addition to the changes approved for inclusion in the
prescriptive and mandatory paths, ICC also approved a proposal based on
an Energy Rating Index (ERI) in the 2015 IECC. While this change does
not directly alter stringency of the code, it does provide an
additional compliance path as an alternative to the traditional IECC
prescriptive and performance paths. DOE determination analyses have
historically focused on the prescriptive compliance path. This has been
done because: (1) The prescriptive path is generally considered the
predominant compliance path in practice, and; (2) the performance path
effectively allows a limitless number of ways to comply with the code,
and no accepted methodology exists for how to analyze it. Equally
important, there is no aggregated source of data allowing for
documentation of how buildings meet the performance path criteria. In
the absence of such data, an analysis of the performance path would
have no empirical basis.
The inclusion of a new type of compliance path in the 2015 IECC,
which is based on an Energy Rating Index (ERI), prompted DOE to review
its historical approach, and make a decision as to whether a change in
methodology would be appropriate for the current determination
analysis. Three primary points were considered:
(1) The impact of the ERI path on national residential energy
consumption is dependent on the number of homes that use this new path,
and the unique building characteristics of those homes. As no
jurisdiction has yet implemented the 2015 IECC, there is no way to know
how many homes will use this path.

[[Page 33260]]

(2) An analysis conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) suggests that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified
in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes
built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the
traditional performance path.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS Index Values
Corresponding to Minimal Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland,
WA, May 2014), available at https://www.energycodes.gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Including the new ERI path but not the traditional performance
path would be arbitrary relative to historical determination analysis.
An accepted methodology, along with a supporting data source, by which
to analyze the performance path would also be necessary, and is not
currently available.
Based on these three points, DOE concluded that it is appropriate
to follow its historical approach for the current determination.
However, DOE acknowledges that the landscape of code compliance may be
changing, and therefore plans to track the implementation and
application of the new ERI path, as well as collect relevant data that
may enable DOE to further evaluate the ERI path in future analyses. It
will also investigate the possibility of collecting data that could
provide the basis for a broader analysis of performance-based
compliance paths. Finally, DOE will explore whether the total number of
homes built under each path can be determined and tracked over time.
DOE anticipates that multiple paths may be considered in future
determinations, but will only be included if the potential energy
savings are relative to the traditional DOE analysis.
Table III.2 summarizes the overall impact of the code change
proposals in the qualitative analysis. Overall, the sum of the
beneficial code changes (6) is greater than the number of the
detrimental code change proposals (2).

Table III.2--Overall Summary of Code Change Proposal Impact in Qualitative Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantifiable at
Detriment Neutral Benefit Negligible impact this time Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 62 6 5 1 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative analysis of the 2015 IECC was carried out using
whole-building energy simulations of prototype buildings designed to
meet the requirements of the 2012 IECC and the 2015 IECC. DOE simulated
32 representative residential building types across 15 U.S. climate
locations, with locations selected to be representative of all U.S
climate zones, as defined by the IECC. Energy use intensities (EUI) by
fuel type and by end-use, as regulated by the IECC (i.e., heating,
cooling, domestic water heating and lighting) were extracted for each
building type, and weighted by the relative square footage of
construction (represented by building type in each climate regions).
The methodology used for carrying out the quantitative analysis remains
unchanged from the preliminary determination of the 2015 IECC, however,
the overall findings have been updated based on comments received (see
Public Comments Regarding the Determination section of this notice).
The quantitative analysis of buildings designed to meet the
requirements of the 2015 IECC indicates national site energy savings of
0.98 percent of residential building energy consumption, as regulated
by the IECC (in comparison to the 2012 IECC). Associated source energy
savings are estimated to be approximately 0.87 percent, and national
average energy cost savings are estimated to be approximately 0.73
percent. Table III.3 and Table III.4 show the energy use and associated
savings resulting from the 2015 IECC by climate zone and on an
aggregated national basis. Further details on the quantitative analysis
can be found in the technical support document.

Table III.3--Estimated Regulated Annual Site and Source Energy Use Intensities (EUI), and Energy Costs by
Climate-Zone
[2012 IECC]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site EUI (kBtu/ Source EUI (kBtu/ Energy costs ($/
Climate zone ft\2\-yr) ft\2\-yr) residence-yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 13.96 38.57 845
2......................................................... 16.99 43.24 1,104
3......................................................... 16.90 40.43 988
4......................................................... 19.52 44.00 1,069
5......................................................... 27.62 47.49 1,162
6......................................................... 29.28 49.21 1,195
7......................................................... 36.18 63.25 1,501
8......................................................... 50.28 89.49 2,320
-----------------------------------------------------
National Weighted Average............................. 20.82 44.17 1,086
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 33261]]

Table III.4--Estimated Regulated Annual Site and Source Energy Use Intensities (EUI), and Energy Costs by
Climate-Zone
[2015 IECC]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site EUI (kBtu/ Source EUI (kBtu/ Energy costs ($/
Climate zone ft\2\-yr) ft\2\-yr) residence-yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 13.85 38.33 841
2......................................................... 16.84 42.90 1,096
3......................................................... 16.71 40.03 980
4......................................................... 19.31 43.56 1,060
5......................................................... 27.38 47.14 1,155
6......................................................... 29.03 48.84 1,187
7......................................................... 35.86 62.72 1,490
8......................................................... 49.80 88.65 2,299
-----------------------------------------------------
National Weighted Average............................. 20.61 43.78 1,078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table III.5 presents the estimated energy savings (based on percent
change in EUI and energy costs) associated with the 2015 IECC. Overall,
the quantitative analysis indicates increased energy efficiency of
residential buildings, as regulated by the updated code.

Table III.5--Regulated Annual Energy Savings Estimated from the Quantitative Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site EUI \a\ Source EUI \a\ Energy costs \a\
Climate zone (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 0.78 0.61 0.43
2......................................................... 0.88 0.79 0.68
3......................................................... 1.13 0.99 0.83
4......................................................... 1.08 0.99 0.82
5......................................................... 0.87 0.74 0.63
6......................................................... 0.85 0.75 0.61
7......................................................... 0.88 0.84 0.71
8......................................................... 0.95 0.94 0.94
-----------------------------------------------------
National Weighted Average............................. 0.98 0.87 0.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Percentages are calculated before rounding and may not exactly match percentages calculated between Table
III.3 and Table III.4.

IV. Determination Statement

Review and evaluation of the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC
indicate that there are differences between the two editions.
Qualitative analysis of the updated code reveals that many of the code
changes are anticipated to have a neutral impact on energy efficiency,
while a small number of code changes are anticipated to yield improved
energy efficiency, and a smaller number of code changes are anticipated
to be detrimental to energy efficiency. In addition, quantitative
analysis of the code indicates regulated site energy, source energy,
and energy cost savings of 0.98 percent, 0.87 percent and 0.73 percent,
respectively. Finally, DOE acknowledges the reasonable probability that
the new ERI compliance path will result in energy efficiency
improvements that cannot be quantified at this time. DOE has rendered
the conclusion that the 2015 IECC will improve energy efficiency in
residential buildings, and, therefore, should receive an affirmative
determination under Section 304(a) of ECPA.

V. State Certification

Based on today's determination, each State is required to review
the provisions of its residential building code regarding energy
efficiency, and determine whether it is appropriate for such state to
revise its building code to meet or exceed the energy efficiency
provisions of the 2015 IECC. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) This action must
be made not later than 2 years from the date of publication of a Notice
of Determination, unless an extension is provided.

State Review and Update

The State determination must be: (1) Made after public notice and
hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings and upon the evidence
presented at the hearing; and (4) made available to the public. (42
U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) States have discretion with regard to the hearing
procedures they use, subject to providing an adequate opportunity for
members of the public to be heard and to present relevant information.
The Department recommends publication of any notice of public hearing
through appropriate and prominent media outlets, such as in a newspaper
of general circulation. States should also be aware that this
determination does not apply to IECC chapters specific to
nonresidential buildings, as defined in the IECC. Therefore, States
must certify their evaluations of their State building codes for
residential buildings with respect to all provisions of the IECC,
except for those chapters not affecting residential buildings. Because
state codes are based on a variety of model code editions, DOE
encourages States to consider the energy efficiency improvements of the
2015 IECC, as well as other recent editions of the IECC, which may also
represent a significant energy and cost savings opportunity. DOE
determinations regarding earlier editions of the IECC are available on
the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.\8\ Further national and
state analysis is also available.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/determinations/previous.
\9\ Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/iecc_analysis.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 33262]]

State Certification Statements

State certifications are to be sent to the address provided in the
ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to
BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov, and must be submitted in accordance
with the deadline identified in the DATES section. If a State makes a
determination that it is not 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, which shall be made available to the public. (42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(4))
The DOE Building Energy Codes Program tracks and reports State code
adoption and certifications.\10\ Once a State has adopted an updated
residential code, DOE typically provides software, training, and
support for the new code, as long as the new code is based on the
national model code (i.e., the 2015 IECC). DOE has issued previous
guidance on how it intends to respond to technical assistance requests
related to implementation resources, such as building energy code
compliance software. (79 FR 15112) DOE also recognizes that 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. DOE does not prescribe how each State adopts and enforces
its energy codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Available at https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Extensions

Section 304(c) of ECPA 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 substantive plan for response to the
requirements stated in Section 304; 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. Requests are to be sent to
the address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to
BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov.

VI. Regulatory Review and Analysis

Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Today's action is not a significant regulatory action under Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735). Accordingly, today's action was not reviewed by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). DOE has also reviewed this regulation
pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR
3281) Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms
the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.

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), DOE published 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 also made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of General Counsel Web site.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Available at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has reviewed today's action under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published in
February 2003. Today's action on the determination of improved energy
efficiency between IECC editions requires States to undertake an
analysis of their respective building codes. Today's action does not
impact small entities. Therefore, DOE has certified that there is no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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 is required
by Title III of ECPA, as amended, which provides that whenever the 1992
MEC, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make
a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether
the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential
buildings and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) If the Secretary determines that
the revision of 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level
of energy efficiency in residential buildings, then no later than two
years after the date of the publication of such affirmative
determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed
its residential building code regarding energy efficiency 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))
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.

Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) 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 States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions.
Congress found that:
(1) Large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily
each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot
water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings
because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features;
(2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed
buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no
longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage;
(3) The failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in
newly constructed buildings increases long-term operating costs that
may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made,
insured, or guaranteed

[[Page 33263]]

by Federal agencies or made by federally insured or regulated
instrumentalities; and
(4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide
an existing means by which to ensure, in coordination with other
building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in
State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain
adequate energy conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831)
Pursuant to Section 304(a) of ECPA, DOE is statutorily required to
determine whether the most recent edition of the MEC (or its successor)
would improve the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings
as compared to the previous edition. If DOE makes an affirmative
determination, the statute requires each State to certify that it has
reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency 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))
Executive Order 13132 requires meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the State and local governments in complying with the
regulation are provided by the Federal Government. (62 FR 43257)
DOE has examined today's action 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. Today's action impacts whether States
must perform an evaluation of State building codes. No further action
is required by Executive Order 13132.

Review Under 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 an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits
of any rule that includes a Federal mandate that 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.
Consistent with previous determinations, DOE has completed its
review, and concluded that impacts on state, local, and tribal
governments are less than the $100 million threshold specified in the
Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no further action is required under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

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.

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) 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. Both OMB and DOE have published established relevant guidelines
(67 FR 8452 and 67 FR 62446, respectively). 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.

Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355), 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 OMB 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.

Review Under Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
tribal Governments'', (65 FR 67249), 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 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 May 29, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-14297 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.