02.06.13 EAB Packet
CITY OF BOULDER
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARDMEETING AGENDA
DATE:
February 6,2012
TIME:
6p.m.
st
PLACE:
Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, 1Floor West Conference Room
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.November 28January 9
The and Environmental Advisory Board minutes are scheduled for
approval.
3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.DISCUSSION ITEMS
2013Building Code Updates
A.-Dave Thacker, Chief Building official
5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.None
6.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND
CITY ATTORNEY
7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8.ADJOURNMENT
For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, at the Boulder
Public Main Library’s Reference Desk, or at the Planning and Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor.
CITY OF BOULDERENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING GUIDELINES
CALL TO ORDER
The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order.
AGENDA
The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring public notice.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is welcome to address the board (three minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any
item not scheduled for a public hearing.The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on
the agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board
and admission into the record.
DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS
Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows:
1.Presentations
Staff presentation (15 minutes maximum*) Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to
the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record.
Environmental Advisory Board questioning of staff for information only.
2.Public Hearing
Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (three minutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time
allotted will be determined by the Chair. Two minutes will be added to the pooled speaker for each such speaker’s allotted time up to a
maximum of 10 minutes total.
Time remaining is presented by a green blinking light that means one minute remains, a yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a red
light and beep means time has expired.
Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group please state that for the record as well.
Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement.
Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a
part of the official record.
Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the
board and admission into the record.
Interested persons can send a letter to the Community Planning and Sustainability staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks
before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, to be included in the board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be
distributed at the board meeting.
3.Board Action
Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. Motions are generally used to approve (with or without conditions), deny,or continue
agenda item to a later date (generally in order to obtain additional information).
Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. Members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon
by the Chair.
Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion approving any action.
MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORYBOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY
Any Environmental Advisory Board member, City Manager, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board matters which are not included in the
formal agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 8 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 8 p.m.except by majority vote of board members
present.
*The Chair may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION:
Environmental Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING:
November 28, 2012
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY:
Susan Meissner,
303-441-4464
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
Environmental Advisory Board Members Present:
Chair: Brian Vickers; Vicky
Mandell, Mara Abbott, Tim Hillman and Stephen Morgan.
Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent:
None.
Staff Members Present:
David Driskell, Executive Director, Community Planning and Sustainability
Susan Richstone, Deputy Director, Community Planning and Sustainability
Susan Meissner, Administrative Assistant III
1.Introduction and welcome from Chair
B. Vickers
The Environmental Advisory Board Chair declared a quorum and the
meeting was called to order at 5:09 p.m.
2.Review Meeting Objectives/Desired Outcomes
a.3 key focus areas for January 2013 letter to City Council
b.Prioritized area goals
3.Debrief of2012
A.Key accomplishments for 2012
a.CAP Tax
b.Items included in Attachment A
What worked in 2012? What was successful?
B.
a.Overall,the board felt it was more organized, active, accomplished its
objectives, had more robust and respectful discussions,and made an
impactin the community.
b.The public meeting in Chambers for Robert’s Rules was a good
learning experience and laid good groundwork forfuture interactions
with the public.The board appreciated different perspectives
introduced at the public meeting.
c.The board felt that staff presence opened discussions for more
dialogue and better outcomes.
d.Jonathan took good anddetailed notes.
e.Staff did a good job putting together memos. They covered bases and
provided good, interesting background information.
f.A good kickoff in March provided a helpful framework for the
subsequent meetings.
g.Flexibility in the schedule allowed the board to address timely items
that arose.
h.Because EAB’s goals were aligned with Council, the group was able
to weigh in on pertinent topics and relevant policies, and stay engaged
in the process. i.e. Commercial building efficiency was recommended
by EAB and picked up by Council as a priority.
i.New members provided new energy and didn’t slow progress.
B. Vickers
j.did a good job keeping the board on track.
k.EAB wrote a letter to the Daily Camera editor and Council. Members
cooperated and provided good feedback throughout the process.
What did we learn?
C.
a.The priority-setting process for 2012 was an iterative process informed
by areas of staff focus during the year. EAB’s role was to advise on
relevant topics. Once topics reached anexecution phase, the board
only received updates. Having an organized agenda for the year made
EAB more accountable and effective.
B. Vickers
b.did a good job of orienting the new members. Maintain a
process for orienting new members to give them the confidence to
provide input.
c.The board enjoyed a greater level of public participation and would
like to encourage more of it in the future.
D.What changes should be made for 2013?
a.Keep the current setup but be mindful of theneed for all board
members to speak. The board needs to provide different perspectives
to staff in order to be of value.
b.Solicit external perspectives to better inform staff and Council of
S. Morgan
possible barriers and input from the public. would like
board members to be in better touch with community perspectives and
recommended that each member meet with members of their
individual networks to assure that the board is reflective of the
community.
c.The board would like to encourage more public participation in the
future.
d.Check in on other issues. Step back from the “moment” toleave space
for “open” items in agendas and to allow topics of discussion to be
carried over to maintain momentum on pertinent issues. Discuss and
decide the best means to do this.
e.Members could take greater ownership of issues and keepeach other
accountable regarding follow up. The2013 focus area document, will
assign to topics to members who will be responsible for providing
quarterly check-ins and updates. The board recommended defining key
issues and objectives in January and refining them after the Council
retreat.
f.Acknowledge, thank and provide positive reinforcement for staff for
their work.
g.Continue to be action-oriented, come up with its ownnew actions, find
new ways to engage the private sector/small companies, and challenge
one anotherto take things to the next level. Have quarterly check-ins
with this objective.
h.Revisit volunteer positions on other boards.
4.Dinner Break at 6:22
Operation Issuesfor Board Discussion
5.
a.Theboard felt that the current bylaws from Robert’s Rules are clear and
helpful. If bylaws become outdated, they can be addressed at a later date.
b.The board liked the changes in meeting format and location at 1777
Broadway, West Conference Room.
V. Mandell
c.will take over the chair position in 2013. She will overlap
B. VickersM. Abbott
with until a new member is appointed in April. will
be the vice chair.
Brainstorm Potential Focus Areas for 2013
6.
Staff presentation of 2013 work program. D. Driskell
a.thanked the board
for its exceptional workand explained that this is Council’s second year in
term. Priorities are generally more of a continuation of ongoing projects
but some new ones are added. He presented some foreseen Council
priorities and Staff workplan areasfor2013:
i.Energy Future: Council study session in February will discuss
resource modeling, methods,metrics and charter requirements to
begin acquisition process.
ii.Climate Action and Boulder’s Climate Commitment: Integrate
GHG reduction into other master plans, more comprehensive
greenhouse gas inventory, interdepartmental data tracking,
building code revisions,and energy efficiency programs for the
commercial and residential sectors.
iii.Ten for Change will be re-launched.
iv.Energy Smart hadgood participation due to SmartRegs. City will
lose AARA Funds next year but the County will continue to fund a
portion of the services. The city will look for additional funding
opportunities.
v.CAP Tax:aMarket Innovation RFP will launch in 2013.
vi.Behavior Change platform will aim to increase energy efficiency
in City Buildings by 45%.
vii.Code changes will be proposed to improve energy efficiency and
to allow additional solar and residential wind facilities within the
city.
viii.Civic Area update:priorities include creek interaction, floodplain
issues and local agriculture.
ix.Uni-Hill revitalization
x.Homelessness
xi.Boulder Junction
xii.Housing:It is important for sustainability to allow people to live
close to their work.
xiii.Disposable bag fee implementation
xiv.Zero Waste Master Plan update
xv.Mosquito Control
xvi.Bear Management
xvii.Climate Adaptation Plan: City and County Open Space roles in
local agriculture and foodproduction.
xviii.Transportation Master Plan:determine appropriate policies and
tracking tools.
b.Discuss most pressing environmental issues facing Boulder in the next
few years
T. Hillman
i.Education:suggested that the City partner with the
school system in a more coordinated effort to adoptlocal
educational programspertaining to regional water resources,
energy, zero waste, etc.
ii.Fracking:This may be discussed at the Council retreat.
iii.Fire mitigation and the GHG benefit from preventing fires.
S. Morgan
iv.Public-Private Partnerships:would like to investigate
what the EAB can do foster these partnerships.
v.GHG Protocols: EAB could be helpful in influencingEnergy
Future metrics, etc.
7.Prioritize Area Goals for 2013
S.
a.Energy Options in the event that municipalization does not take place.(
Morgan
).
S. Morgan
b.Public/Private Integration-recruit partners in conservation. ()
S. Morgan
c.Market Innovation RFP. ()
M. Abbott
d.Energy Future: resource modeling and vision ()
M. Abbott
e.Climate Commitment:vision and goals. ()
V.
f.Commercial Energy:reporting on what the city and others have done. (
Mandell
)
g.GHG Emission Protocols: EAB could be helpful in influencingEnergy
V. Mandell
Future metrics, etc.()
T. Hillman
h.Behavior Changes()
T. Hillman
i.Public Engagement ()
8.Next Steps/Action Items
a.What is the Board’s role in helping the City to reach these goals?
D. Driskell
i.explained that the city looks to EABto represent a
citizen perspective. Staff willcome to the board to ask for input
and ideas butdoesn’t expect the board to lead an implementation
effort. Board members could be involved with working groups.
T.Hillman
ii.asked that the Citykeepthe board apprised of pilots.
He wouldalsolike to learn more about the bag fee behavior
change.
S.Richstone
iii.explained that the city is still shaping the 2013 work
plan. There would be greater EAB involvement in these issues if
J.Harkins
they are selectedfor the work plan.could present on
Behavior Change conference at future EAB meeting.
iv.The board wantedthe public to be apprised of what EAB is doing
and to promote more public participation.
Letter to City Council:B. Vickers
b.will send a draft to the board for
revision and discussion at the next meeting.
Focus area document:V. Mandell
c.will compile the key objectives. Each
member will contribute a pieceper prior retreat discussion.
i.EAB will wait to set final goals and key metrics in its focus
document until March, after Council retreat. The board will check
in throughout the year to assure that focus goals are still relevant.
2013Draft Meeting Calendar
d.
V. MandellJ. Koehn
i.and will meet monthly to determine the
meeting calendar and agenda items.
e.The board would like the agenda to remain somewhat flexible
and dynamic to address issues at relevant times.
g.The board will discuss the Focus document in Jan or after the
Council retreat.
9.ADJOURNMENT
Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at9:01 p.m.
Approved:
________________________________
ChairDate
Attachment A
Environmental Advisory Board Accomplishments-2012
Focus Area: Climate ActionPlan
Climate Action Program analysis-RMI Report/ Brendle Report (March 22,
May 10)
Input on ClimateAction Framework (March 22, July 12)
Input on new long-term climate action goal(March 22, April 26)
Review and recommendation of CAP Tax extension options (May 10, May
24)
CAP Investment Package recommendations (May 24)
Review and input on CAP program targets and metrics (June 14)
Focus Area: Energy Future
Input on Energy Action Plan (March 22, July 12)
Reviewed scope of renewables modeling (May 10)
Comments on municipalization work plan (August 14)
Focus Area: Commercial Buildings Energy Conservation and Efficiency
Program
Input on Commercial Energy Efficiency Strategy (March 22, May 10, July
12)
Other Environmental Topics
Input on Integrated Pest management Policy and Ordinance (April 12)
Input on initial design of disposable bag ordinance (April 26,September 12)
Input on 2012 Building Codes update(October 3)
Input to Greenways Advisory Committee
Input to City’s Public Utilities Commission dockets
Board Development
2012 Letter to City Council(January 2)
2012 Focus AreasDocument(January 4)
Board training on meeting management/rules of order and public hearings
(March 22)
Updated and adopted new Board Bylaws(March 22)
2 new board membersjoined EAB (April 12)
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION:
Environmental Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING:
January 9, 2013
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY:
Susan Meissner,
303-441-4464
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
Environmental Advisory Board Members Present:
Chair: Brian Vickers;Tim
Hillman,Vicky Mandelland Stephen Morgan.
Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent:
Mara Abbott
Staff Members Present:
Jonathan Koehn, Susan Meissner
1.CALL TO ORDER
B. Vickers
The Environmental Advisory Board Chair declared a quorum and the
meeting was called to order at 06:07p.m.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 5, 2012
The Environmental Advisory Board minute are scheduled for
approval.
S. MorganB. Vickers
On a motion brought forth by and seconded by , the
M. Abbott
Environmental Advisory Board approved(4-0(absent) the December
5, 2012 meeting minutesas amended.
3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
4.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A.Finalize the 2013 EAB Key Focus area document
V. Mandell
proposed a process for completing the key focus areadescriptions.
She would like to send an email to the group with minutes from the retreat, a draft
template for the focus area document, deadlines,and responsibilities.Upon
V. Mandell
receipt of the members’ responses,will compile all comments into a
complete document.
B.Recap of December 11 City Council Study Session-next steps for 2013
Work Plan (see attached memo for December 11 City Council Study
Session)
J. Koehn
presented the item to the board.
T. Hillman
believed that SmartRegs was extremely instrumental in the success of
EnergySmart. The looming idea that regulations were imminentcreated a ‘carrot
and stick’ approach that proved effective.He asked to see the breakdown in
funding between SmartRegs and general rebates for owner-occupied residents.
The cityshould know how much of an uptick it hashad asresult of other DSM
programsto determine whether rebates orservicesaremore instrumental in
driving participation.This data should be used for future M&V.
S.Morgan
wantedto try to get similar or better results with fewer dollarsby
working smarter.Government, like private industry,should try toimproveyear
after year.
J. Koehn
referenced the Navigant progress report and said that higher goals have
been set and exceeded each year as the program progresses He willsend the
Navigant progress reportto the board.
B. Vickers
reiterated that thedecrease in program funding has beenanticipated.
Staff’s plan should setclear expectations to clarifythe implementationprocess
and explain why the commercial program will be phased in more gradually and
residential phased out more gradually than originally planned.
V. Mandell
was pleased that the Market Innovation prong of the CAP Tax
funding and timing willremain intact as recommended. There are many potential
advantages to that program.
C.Update on municipalization exploration project and the city’s white paper:
(see attached Exploring Opportunities for Reaching Boulder’s Energy Future
Goals)
J. Koehn
presented the item to the board. He gave an update and asked for
feedback on the whitepaper, follow-upand next steps.
T. Hillman
thought that the white paper did a good job of outlining important
considerationsandnoted that the amount of work being done for thefew dollars
that eachhousehold is paying through the occupation tax per monthis impressive.
He appreciatedthe city’s commitment to due diligenceandhopedthat the
conversations with Xcel will spur innovationwithin Boulder and benefitother
municipalities outside of Boulder.
S. Morgan
thought that the white paper was a good olive branch and appreciated
Xcel’s cooperation andwillingness to look at more creative solutions. He
encouraged the city to paredown factors in their model and to vet the high impact
and medium/high certainty factors as soon as possible.
B. Vickers
cautionedthat the parallel processes could divert resources and derail
the municipilization discussion. He appreciatedtheconsideration ofoptions but
thoughtnegotiations with Xcel could delay the process and Xcel may be aware of
this.He recommended that the initial response to Xcel’s lettermanage
expectations and setmilestones and objectives to assure that the two paths run in
parallelnot collide. He also stressed the importance of recognizing what is
achievable in the discussions.
V. Mandell
noted that negotiations can often achieve better results, save money
and take fewer resources than the other processes.She hoped that the talks will be
T. Hillman’s
well structured. She liked idea of messaging Xcel to come up with
opportunities to develop tools that can benefit other municipalities as well. She
thought the white paper was very well done substantively and was intrigued by
the concept of autility that would focuson demand-side issues.This would bethe
most effective means of achieving GHG reductionandmeetingthe city’sgoals; it
is exciting and innovative.
T.Hillman
noted that talks with Xcel need to be well managed. Regardless of
whether the city moves forward withmunicipalization, it will have an ongoing
relationship with Xcel pertaining tonatural gas.Improved efficiencies in building
envelopesand use of solar thermal and other renewable resources couldsave large
amounts of natural gas.The entities must work together to invest in local demand
side management (DSM) strategies.
S. Morgan
asked that the city define cleargoalsand remainconsistentwith them
throughout deft negotiations.He recommended that the city own the intellectual
property of research that is being done. This could beleveragedmovingforward
andcreate revenues for the city.
J. Koehn
explained thatthecity wants to support other municipalities intheir
reduction of emissionsand is simultaneouslyworking to export the learnings of
the municipalization exploration process .
B.Vickers
reminded the board that though the energy future dovetails with
Climate Commitment and GHG future, the board has not been asked to play an
advisory role in the municipalization effort. There are other team members with
moreknowledge. EABcan share ideas, but should also ground themselves in their
mission.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. None
6.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY
MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY
B. Vickers
reminded the board that the recruiting process for the new board
member will begin in February and appointments will take place in April.
7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
V. MandellJ. Koehn
and will work together to come up with agenda items for
the year. They will bring the topics to the board for discussion.
8.ADJOURNMENT
Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at7:59p.m.
Approved:
ChairDate
M E M O R A N D U M
February 6, 2013
TO:
Environmental Advisory Board
FROM:
Dave Thacker, Building Services Manager/Chief Building Official
Kirk Moors, Senior Plans Examiner/Asst. Building Official
Megan Cuzzolino, Residential Sustainability Specialist
SUBJECT:
2012 International Building Codes Adoption Update
Executive Summary:
The City of Boulder continues to be proactive in its approach to green building standards
even as national standards evolve. With the goal of adopting an updated building code in
May of 2013 that exceeds the current standards of the 2012 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) by 20 percent and the 2012 International Green Construction
Code (IGCC) thermal envelope standards by 10 percent. The City of Boulder, in
conjunction with the Brendle Group, has been defining through engineering analysis what
the premium cost of these updates will be to building owners involved in new
construction and major renovations. This information will serve to inform the content of
this update such that the goals are achieved and the minimum cost premium is defined.
The City is also gathering public input and is reaching out to the commercial
construction, development, and real estate industry as part of this analysis for a view of
cost impacts.
Brendle Group and its partner, Colorado Code Consulting, conductedresearch and
developed a methodology for estimating energy savings and costs for a variety of code
measures and scenarios. The team engaged community and industry stakeholders to
inform cost estimating parameters and vet measures. On the basis of this background
effort, the team identified, analyzed, and prioritized measures to achieve the desired 20
percent energy efficiency improvements for two baseline building types.
The analysis indicates that exceeding 2012 IECC by 20 percent has an associated cost
premium of 1 to 2 percent of project cost for commercial and mixed use building owners.
The associated cost savings to building owners is 33 to 35 percent of annual utility
energy costs, for an average payback of 7 to 8 years, depending on building type. These
estimates are the results of energy savings analyses for building efficiency improvement
measures and cost analyses that included direct feedback from local industry
representatives.
February 2013 EAB Memo Page 1 of 3
Background:
Staff is currently working on the 2012 codes update. The base documents from the
International Code Council (ICC) have caught up with the locally amended version of the
2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). For the 2012 code update it must
be determined if energy efficiency requirements should be increased and if so, by how
much.
For residential construction the current Green Building Green Points (GBGP) energy
efficiency requirements are tiered according to house size and compare to the 2012 IECC
as follows:
- For multifamily dwellings and houses 3,000 square feet and smaller, existing GBGP
requirements are equal to the base 2012 IECC requirements;
- GBGP requires that houses between 3,001 and 5,000 square feet in area are 20 percent
more efficient than IECC base requirements, and;
- GBGP requires that houses 5,001 square feet and larger are 45 percent more efficient
than IECC base requirements.
Evaluation of input from applicants and energy raters indicate that the current residential
efficiency requirements are still progressive and viable. Energy raters have also
expressed concern that recent changes to the HERS program make compliance for
smaller homes more difficult than before.
For commercial construction, the 2012 IECC achieves parity with the locally amended
2006 IECC. A series of documents called the Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG),
published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), are designed to achieve energy efficiency 20 percent better than
the base 2012 energy code. Based on the city’s previous experience enforcing above-code
energy provisions, such a set of prescriptive guidelines is critical to being able to make a
locally amended energy code viable for improving existing buildings.
Staff’s recommendation is to maintain the current residential energy efficiency levels
which will still result in maintaining an above-code energy efficiency requirement for all
but the smallest category of houses and multifamily dwellings. For commercial
construction an energy consultant has been hired to evaluate the premium cost of building
20% above the 2012 base Energy Code.
Moving forward staff has scheduled several code update and public input meetings to be
held at various locations throughout the first quarter 2013. Once all of the data is
collected and public input has been considered, staff will make a recommendation to
council in the second quarter of 2013.
February 2013 EAB Memo Page 2 of 3
Next Steps:
Using this analysis as a starting point, the City of Boulder can evaluate its options for
best translating the outcomes into related code language. In addition, given the pending
update schedules for IECC 2015 and ASHRAE 90.1, the City may opt to delay its own
update to incorporate any significant changes that may arise as a result of those
processes.
Regardless of the compliance path, enforcement of energy code compliance is
challenging at best. While building departments today often have a wide variety of
expertise, the majority do not have energy code expertise. This expertise is critical to any
‘above code’ energy program such as Boulder is exploring. One particular benefit of this
capabilityis the capacity to train plans examiners and field personnel. The more
comfortable the plans examiners and field inspectors are with energy code requirements
and related construction details, the better they will be in supporting the builders and
designers with code compliance. In today’s buildings, the majority of energy savings
results from building systems integration. To achieve projected energy savings, the full
performance and operation of this integration must be realized. Well trained andeducated
building department personnel can help in achieving this integration and the related
energy savings.
Finally, the objective of this effort was to determine the premium cost of exceeding
energy efficiency requirements of 2012 IECC code by 20 percent and 2012 IGCC
thermal envelope code by 10 percent. The combination of measures presented in this
report achieves this target. However, now that the groundwork of achieving the target has
been established, greater resolution relative to cost effectiveness of various scenarios may
be an appropriate next step. That is, any number of additional measures (e.g., wholesale
mechanical system changes) also could achieve the 20 percent energy improvements and
also would increase the first cost premium. However, other measures may also yield
more energy savings and prove to be more cost effective in the long run. Any additional
analysis should incorporate the related practicality (e.g., availability of related products)
of measures for this region.
February 2013 EAB Memo Page 3 of 3