1 / 42

IECC 90% Compliance Pilot

IECC 90% Compliance Pilot. Residential Review Montgomery County, Maryland Prepared for Maryland Energy Administration January 2013. Prepared by Newport Partners LLC. Disclaimer.

glen
Télécharger la présentation

IECC 90% Compliance Pilot

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IECC 90% Compliance Pilot Residential Review Montgomery County, Maryland Prepared for Maryland Energy Administration January 2013 Prepared by Newport Partners LLC

  2. Disclaimer This report was prepared by Newport Partners LLC for the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). The contents of the report are the responsibility of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Maryland Energy Administration. January 2013

  3. Background

  4. Background • Maryland committed to 90% energy code compliance as a condition of SEP funding under ARRA • MEA supported the development of a Roadmap with significant stakeholder involvement • Through the Roadmap process it became clear that code adoption and enforcement varied widely across the state. • The Compliance Roadmap (http://energy.maryland.gov/codes/index.html) suggested a county by county approach to assessing compliance.

  5. Background • Montgomery County expressed a willingness and interest to test compliance with the 2009 code • Under this task, MEA initiated a 90% code compliance “test out” residential new construction pilot, in Montgomery County, Maryland • Goals were to assess compliance, as well as to establish a methodology to use throughout the state moving forward

  6. Methodology • Measure residential compliance with 2009 IECC • Measure commercial compliance with 2009 IECC or ASHRAE 90.1-2007 • Use DOE’s sample generation tool for 90% compliance evaluations to generate state-wide buildings • https://energycode.pnl.gov/SampleGen/ • Base the Plan Review and Site Inspection criteria and scoring on DOE Residential & Commercial checklists • 90% compliance will be measured by showing that of the sampled buildings; the average compliance is at least 90%

  7. Methodology Notes Field Inspections • Extensive use of “hybrid” inspection system • Analysts ensured that insulation-inspected home was same home as plan-reviewed home. This was necessary to verify UA Tradeoff compliance approach. • Minimized use of the “Not Observable” option, although timing of foundation inspections proved challenging. • Accepted Field Inspection compliance even if Plan Review did not indicate compliance for a given provision; however Plan Review points were still deducted when documentation was lacking.

  8. Methodology Adjustments Plan Review • On a few provisions, the analysts applied a 3-tiered methodology of point allocation rather than simply compliant or non-compliant. This scoring model allowed “partial credit” and was based on how the DOE scoring protocol handled some other provisions (e.g. air sealing). • Mechanical calculations were allowed to be submitted with mechanical permit, usually after building permit was issued.

  9. Collaboration Strategy • Develop collaborative relationship with Montgomery County (MC) Department of Permitting Service to: • Understand Plan Review & Site Inspection practices; documentation; scheduling & work flow; • Select appropriate sample of residential buildings balancing builder type; house type; • Review & Inspect only those buildings already approved by the county. • Inspect buildings at key stages as dictated by inspection checklists (e.g. foundation; pre-insulation; pre-drywall; final) • Respect builder participants • Our inspections do not constitute code compliance • Timely inspections by our staff are critical; cannot hold up schedule; • Complete confidentiality of builders; plans; • Develop findings to document compliance and ALSO provide constructive feedback to the jurisdiction

  10. Generate Sample New Residential • Needed 7 new residential per DOE Sample Generator • Sought representative mix of detached and attached; production and custom; • No exclusion of homes participating in ENERGY STAR • 2012 IECC Permits would have been accepted, although none were sampled due to timing

  11. Coordinate and Communicate • Coordinate with County to ensure minimal disruptions • Be “on call”; have ability to review and inspect on short notice • Communicate with Builders for additional inspection by third party after County’s inspection was complete • Informal Findings; communicate with County throughout review process

  12. Review and Inspect • Hybrid Sample Selection • Greatly expedites assessment • Followed DOE guidance on using multiple buildings to constitute 1 sample • Plan Reviews • Work within County’s constraints • Allowance of delayed mechanical calcs • Inspections Required • Foundation (fdn./slab insul.) • Framing (air sealing, ducts) • Insulation (levels, locations, installation quality) • Final (lighting, mechanicals, ceiling insul., Manual J, panel certificate, duct leakage, attic access, programmable thermostat, SHW controls, manuf. manuals)

  13. Review and Inspect – Using the Checklist

  14. Results

  15. Findings: Plan Review

  16. Findings: Field Inspections

  17. Slab Edge Insulation POOR Newport Ventures POOR Newport Ventures

  18. Insulation Installation Common Issues POOR Newport Ventures GOOD Newport Ventures

  19. Newport Ventures Posted ComplianceCertificate – Common Issues Newport Ventures NON-COMPLIANT COMPLIANT Newport Ventures

  20. High Efficacy Lamps Common Issues COMPLIANT Newport Ventures Newport Ventures

  21. Manufacturer Manuals Newport Ventures Common Issues COMPLIANT

  22. Findings Plan Review

  23. Findings Foundation Inspection

  24. Findings Framing Inspection

  25. Findings Framing Inspection (continued)

  26. Findings Framing Inspection (continued)

  27. Findings Insulation Inspection

  28. Findings Final Inspection

  29. Findings Final Inspection (continued)

  30. Findings Final Inspection (continued)

  31. Summary & Lessons Learned • Montgomery County Residential Compliance Rate: 92.3% • CEO’s cover dozens of inspections per site daily; energy code is a small portion of that - yet most IECC provisions are met consistently • Prioritize energy code issues by red, orange and yellow shaded areas in above checklist compilation • Training/education should be provided for issues that are lacking

  32. Summary & Lessons Learned

  33. Summary & Lessons Learned In pilot unobservable in 6 of 7 homes but important for energy savings. Need to revisit protocol to observe and train on this requirement.

  34. Slab-on-grade Edge Details 402.2.8 Slab-on-grade floors. …The insulation shall extend downward from the top of the slab on the outside or inside of the foundation wall…

  35. Energy Impact of Slab Edge Insulation * Does not meet 2009 IECC • Modeling Details: • 1.5-story, 1685 ft2, single-family home with slab-on-grade foundation; (slab is 1038 ft2) • Home meets 2009 IECC • Model with R-10 includes 24 lineal inches of slab edge insulation, from top edge of slab downward; • Modeled in REM Rate Version 14

  36. Energy Impact of Slab Edge Insulation * Does not meet 2009 IECC • Modeling Details: • 1.5-story, 1685 ft2, single-family home with slab-on-grade foundation; (slab is 1038 ft2) • Home meets 2009 IECC • Model with R-10 includes 24 lineal inches of slab edge insulation, from top edge of slab downward; • Modeled in REM Rate Version 14

  37. Code Ambiguity • Table 402.4.2 – Air Barrier and Insulation Inspection Component Criteria • “Shower/tub on exterior wall: showers and tubs on exterior walls have insulation and an air barrier separating them from the exterior wall • Line item can be interpreted as meaning that an exterior air barrier is sufficient for this line item OR • An air barrier is required on the inside face of the wall directly behind the tub/shower separating it from the exterior wall

  38. Air Barrier at ExteriorTub/Shower Code Interpretation? Newport Ventures Newport Ventures Code-compliant? Above-code? Newport Ventures

  39. Suggested Methodology Changes Lessons Learned • Checklist Line Item 402.4.2, 402.4.2.1 [FI17]: • Building envelope tightness should be split and provide an either/or approach. Air sealing and visual inspection should be verified during Framing Inspection, OR the building envelope test result verified during final inspection • Checklist Line Items 403.3, 403.4 & 403.5 [FR17, 18 & 19] • Piping insulation and gravity dampers should be verified during final inspection • Checklist Line Item402.4.5 [FR16] • IC-rated recessed fixtures should be split into two inspections, verify the fixture is correct at framing inspection then verify that it is sealed to the finishes at final inspection • Plan Review construction drawing line items should be scored on a 3-point, tiered basis

  40. Commercial Energy Code Compliance (Preliminary) • Currently in Preliminary Plan Review Stage • Began with Commercial Renovations • Sample requires 6 renovations • Preliminary Plan Review Findings • Building envelope generally not involved • Missing mechanical load calculations • Missing detailed mechanical controls narrative • Missing lighting power allowance calculations • Missing lighting controls narrative

  41. Contact: David St. Jean dstjean@energy.state.md.us

More Related