ENERGY CODES AND THE RECOVERY ACT:
GUIDANCE FOR STATES ADDRESSING 90% COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
By
Jeremiah Lee Williams

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Construction Management
2012

ABSTRACT
ENERGY CODES AND THE RECOVERY ACT:
GUIDANCE FOR STATES ADDRESSING 90% COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
By
Jeremiah Lee Williams
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided state financial support aimed at
stimulating the national economy while creating efficiency gains through the implementation of
modern building energy codes. These requirements call for compliance with targeted energy
codes, including a plan to demonstrate a 90% compliance rate by 2017. In support of these
requirements, the Federal Government has published a recommended methodology for states to
reference as they work to demonstrate compliance with new energy codes. Unfortunately, the
path to meeting this goal remains unclear and many questions still exist at the state and
stakeholder levels.
The present study examines compliance issues faced within U.S. states to enable effective policy
decisions, with a primary goal to provide states with guidance and options to address energy
code compliance requirements. A descriptive statistical analysis of survey responses gathered in
code enforcement jurisdictions provides a baseline of local practices and current implementation
issues. State challenges and subsequent recommendations are analyzed through recent case
studies, and considered against expectations of the Federal methodology. Findings culminate in
a set of recommendations with consideration for unique background scenarios and barriers
observed in the study. The resulting guidance can be considered by states as they install policies
and take action in addressing Recovery Act requirements.

Copyright by
JEREMIAH LEE WILLIAMS
2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 The Recovery Act of 2009............................................................................................. 3
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Need for Study ............................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2 Research Question ......................................................................................................... 6
1.3.3 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 7
1.3.4 Expected Contribution ................................................................................................... 9
1.3.5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 POLITICAL BACKDROP ................................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Public Policy Defined .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Environmental and Conservation Segments ................................................................ 12
2.2.3 The Political Environment ........................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Making Environmental Policy ..................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Policy Cycles ............................................................................................................... 16
2.2.6 Energy Code Legislation ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.7 Role of Government .................................................................................................... 19
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 19
2.3.1 Implementation Models ............................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Policy Options ............................................................................................................. 24
2.3.3 Implementation Issues ................................................................................................. 25

iv

2.4 ENERGY CODES AS A POLITICAL MECHANISM .................................................... 31
2.4.1 The Compliance Process ............................................................................................. 32
2.4.2 Benefits of Compliance Policy .................................................................................... 34
2.4.3 Barriers to Energy Code Compliance .......................................................................... 35
2.4.4 Best Practices ............................................................................................................... 38
2.5 EXISTING GUIDANCE AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES .......................................... 40
2.5.1 Recovery Act Requirements ........................................................................................ 41
2.5.2 DOE and PNNL Methodology .................................................................................... 43
2.5.3 PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies ......................................................................... 53
2.5.4 Additional Compliance Measurement Activities ........................................................ 68
2.5.5 Tools and Resources .................................................................................................... 72
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 82
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................. 83
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ............................................................................................. 83
3.1.1 Qualitative Paradigm ................................................................................................... 84
3.1.2 Site and Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 85
3.1.3 Personal Relationship to the Research Question ......................................................... 86
3.1.4 Influential Works ......................................................................................................... 86
3.2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 100
3.2.1 Research Process ....................................................................................................... 101
3.2.2 Survey Analysis ......................................................................................................... 106
3.2.3 Content Analysis........................................................................................................ 111
3.3 DELIVERABLE .............................................................................................................. 118
3.3.1 Validation .................................................................................................................. 120
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 123
4.1 OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................... 123
4.2 SURVEY DATA .............................................................................................................. 125
4.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 161
4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 164

v

CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 165
5.1 OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................... 165
5.2 90% COMPLIANCE STUDIES ...................................................................................... 167
5.2.1 Observed Trends ........................................................................................................ 182
5.3 GAP ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 183
5.3.1 Observed Trends ........................................................................................................ 200
5.4 STRATEGIC COMPLIANCE PLANS ........................................................................... 201
5.4.1 Observed Trends ........................................................................................................ 215
5.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 217
5.5.1 Pilot Studies ............................................................................................................... 217
5.5.2 Gap Analyses ............................................................................................................. 223
5.5.3 Strategic Compliance Plans ....................................................................................... 226
5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 229
CHAPTER 6: DELIVERABLE.............................................................................................. 230
6.1 GUIDANCE FOR STATES............................................................................................. 230
6.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 230
6.1.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 233
6.2 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW……………………………………………………………..270
6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 2551
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 257
7.1 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 257
7.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 268
7.3 EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION ...................................................................................... 271
7.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................................. 272
7.5 CLOSING THOUGHTS .................................................................................................. 274
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................... 281
APPENDIX B: COMPARATIVE STATE SURVEY ANALYSIS ....................................... 297
APPENDIX C: CONTENT CODING SYSTEM ................................................................... 332
APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL .......................................................................................... 339
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 350
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Federal legislation empowering building energy codes ................................................ 17
Table 2: Energy efficiency funding within the Recovery Act ..................................................... 18
Table 3: Pilot study states and focus of their studies ................................................................... 54
Table 4: Time required for the average building evaluation........................................................ 56
Table 5: Least compliant residential checklist requirements ...................................................... 59
Table 6: Least compliant commercial code requirements ........................................................... 60
Table 7: Most compliant residential code requirements.............................................................. 61
Table 8: Most compliant commercial code requirements ............................................................ 62
Table 9: Residential code requirements most often marked “Not Applicable” ........................... 63
Table 10: Residential code requirements most often marked “Not Observable” ........................ 64
Table 11: Commercial code requirements most often marked “Not Observable” ...................... 65
Table 12: PNNL Resource Guide series by partnering organization ........................................... 77
Table 13: Document section addressing study objectives ......................................................... 103
Table 14: Data sources with respective sample size .................................................................. 104
Table 15: Survey respondents by state....................................................................................... 108
Table 16: State reports analyzed for qualitative data ................................................................. 115
Table 17: Survey sample size by state ....................................................................................... 124
Table 18: Overview of state samples by data source ................................................................. 166
Table 19: State pilot study final report and publication date ..................................................... 168
Table 20: Pilot study oversight agency and partner organization by state ................................ 169
Table 21: Pilot study approach by state ..................................................................................... 170

vii

Table 22: Compliance tools utilized .......................................................................................... 171
Table 23: State pilot study characteristics ................................................................................. 172
Table 24: Reported checklists issues in Georgia study .............................................................. 174
Table 25: Gap Analysis partner organization by state ............................................................... 184
Table 26: Summary of state demographics ................................................................................ 186
Table 27: Potential savings through code implementation ........................................................ 187
Table 28: Recent federal funding sources .................................................................................. 188
Table 29: Current state regulatory status ................................................................................... 190
Table 30: State code requirements for government buildings ................................................... 192
Table 31: Climate change initiatives.......................................................................................... 193
Table 32: Inventory of above-code buildings ............................................................................ 194
Table 33: Key stakeholder organizations ................................................................................... 196
Table 34: Professional licensing and certification programs ..................................................... 198
Table 35: Third-part testing and enforcement ........................................................................... 199
Table 36: Strategic Compliance Plan acknowledgements by state ............................................ 201
Table 37: Partnering Regional Energy Efficiency Organization ............................................... 202
Table 38: States compliance working groups identified ............................................................ 203
Table 39: Energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings .................................. 203
Table 40: Regulatory framework by state .................................................................................. 204
Table 41: Summary of state training programs.......................................................................... 213
Table 42: Overview of state survey samples ............................................................................. 297
Table 43: Jurisdiction population by state ................................................................................. 298
Table 44: Number of permits per population by state ............................................................... 301

viii

Table 45: Number of permits issued by state............................................................................. 301
Table 46: Number of residential permits issued by state ........................................................... 304
Table 47: Jurisdictional funding source by state........................................................................ 307
Table 48: Party responsible for conducting plan review by state .............................................. 308
Table 49: Party responsible for conducting field inspection by state ........................................ 310
Table 50: Level of education and training for jurisdictional staff by state ................................ 312
Table 51: Average time spent on residential plan review by state ............................................ 316
Table 52: Time spent on commercial plan review by state ....................................................... 318
Table 53: Time spent on residential field inspection by state .................................................... 319
Table 54: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state ................................................. 321
Table 55: Common residential code infractions by state ........................................................... 326
Table 56: Common commercial code infractions by state......................................................... 328
Table 57: Overview of state samples by data source ................................................................. 333

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Overview of state compliance process ........................................................................... 5
Figure 2: U.S. Climate zones ....................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3: Combination of approaches .......................................................................................... 84
Figure 4: Mayring’s step model for inductive category development ......................................... 93
Figure 5: Dey’s approach to qualitative data analysis ................................................................. 95
Figure 6: Research process ........................................................................................................ 102
Figure 7: Contribution of unique data sources ........................................................................... 105
Figure 8: Orientation of study deliverable ................................................................................. 118
Figure 9: Average jurisdictional population .............................................................................. 127
Figure 10: Population samples by state ..................................................................................... 128
Figure 11: Population sample distribution ................................................................................. 129
Figure 12: Population frequency................................................................................................ 130
Figure 13: Residential permit sample distribution ..................................................................... 131
Figure 14: Total residential permit distribution ......................................................................... 132
Figure 15: Commercial permit sample distribution ................................................................... 132
Figure 16: Total commercial permit distribution ....................................................................... 133
Figure 17: Jurisdictional funding source.................................................................................... 134
Figure 18: Type of jurisdictional funding .................................................................................. 135
Figure 19: Party conducting plan review ................................................................................... 136
Figure 20: Party conducting field inspection ............................................................................. 138
Figure 21: Method of training delivery...................................................................................... 139

x

Figure 22: Rating of training by state ........................................................................................ 140
Figure 23: Residential compliance path ..................................................................................... 143
Figure 24: Commercial compliance path ................................................................................... 144
Figure 25: Average time spent on residential plan review by state ........................................... 145
Figure 26: Time spent on commercial plan review by state ...................................................... 146
Figure 27: Time spent on residential field inspection by state .................................................. 147
Figure 28: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state ................................................ 148
Figure 29: Format used to maintain permit data ........................................................................ 150
Figure 30: Limitations to residential code enforcement ............................................................ 152
Figure 31: Limitations to commercial code enforcement .......................................................... 153
Figure 32: Common residential code infractions (general category)......................................... 154
Figure 33: Common residential code infractions ....................................................................... 155
Figure 34: Common commercial code infractions (general category) ...................................... 157
Figure 35: Common commercial code infractions..................................................................... 158
Figure 36: Information available during field inspections ......................................................... 159
Figure 37: Acceptance of software compliance reports ............................................................. 160
Figure 38: Recommended approach to 90% Compliance demonstration .................................. 234
Figure 39: Compliance evaluation steps .................................................................................... 245
Figure 40: Average jurisdiction population by state .................................................................. 298
Figure 41: Population samples by state ..................................................................................... 299
Figure 42: Population distribution by state ................................................................................ 299
Figure 43: Incremental population distribution by state ............................................................ 300
Figure 44: Residential building permits by state ....................................................................... 302

xi

Figure 45: Residential permits by state (magnified view) ......................................................... 302
Figure 46: Residential permit sample distribution by state ....................................................... 303
Figure 47: Incremental residential permit distribution .............................................................. 303
Figure 48: Number of commercial building permits issued by state ......................................... 304
Figure 49: Number of commercial permits by state (magnified view) ...................................... 305
Figure 50: Commercial permit sample distribution by state ...................................................... 305
Figure 51: Incremental commercial permit distribution by state ............................................... 306
Figure 52: Jurisdictional funding source by state ...................................................................... 307
Figure 53: Party conducting plan review by state ...................................................................... 309
Figure 54: Party conducting field inspection by state................................................................ 311
Figure 55: Energy code training delivery by state ..................................................................... 313
Figure 56: Rating of energy code training by state .................................................................... 313
Figure 57: Residential compliance path by state ....................................................................... 314
Figure 58: Commercial compliance path by state...................................................................... 315
Figure 59: Average time spent on residential plan review by state ........................................... 316
Figure 60: Time spent on residential plan review by state ........................................................ 317
Figure 61: Time spent on commercial plan review by state ...................................................... 317
Figure 62: Time spent on commercial plan review by state ...................................................... 318
Figure 63: Time spent on residential field inspection by state .................................................. 319
Figure 64: Time spent on residential field inspection by state .................................................. 320
Figure 65: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state ................................................ 320
Figure 66: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state ................................................ 321
Figure 67: Format used to maintain permit data by state........................................................... 322

xii

Figure 68: Limitations to residential code enforcement by state ............................................... 324
Figure 69: Limitations to commercial code enforcement by state ............................................. 325
Figure 70: Common residential code infractions by state ......................................................... 326
Figure 71: Common residential code infractions by state ......................................................... 327
Figure 72: Common commercial code infractions by state ....................................................... 328
Figure 73: Common commercial code infractions by state ....................................................... 329
Figure 74: Information available during field inspections by state ........................................... 330
Figure 75: Acceptance of compliance software reports by state ............................................... 331

xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACEEE

American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy

AIA

American Institute of Architects

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

ARRA

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ASHRAE

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-conditioning Engineers

BCAP

Building Codes Assistance Project

BECP

Building Energy Codes Program

BLS

Bureau of Labor Statistics

DOC

U.S. Department of Commerce

DOE

U.S. Department of Energy

EECBG

Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant

EISA 2009

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2009

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 2005

Energy Policy Act of 2005

GSA

General Services Administration

HBA

Home Builders Association

HERS

Home Energy Rating System

IBC

International Building Code

IC

Insulation contact

ICC

International Code Council

ICLEI

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

xiv

IECC

International Energy Conservation Code

IESNA

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

IMT

Institute for Market Transformation

IRC

International Residential Code

LEED

Leaders in Energy and Environmental Design

MSHDA

Michigan State Housing Development Authority

NASEO

National Association of State Energy Officials

NEEA

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEP

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NFRC

National Fenestration Rating Council

PNNL

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

RECA

Responsible Energy Codes Alliance

REEO

Regional Energy Efficiency Organization

RESNET

Residential Energy Services Network

SEHN

Science and Environmental Health Network

SEP

State Energy Program

SHGC

solar heat gain coefficient, dimensionless

SWEEP

Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership

UCS

Union of Concerned Scientists

USGBC

United States Green Building Council

xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the United States, buildings in which we live and work account for about 40 percent of our
total energy consumption, and 70% of the nation’s electricity use. Based on current levels, this
costs the U.S. $400 billion every year. (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012b) In terms of energy
consumption, residential and commercial buildings consume the majority of our energy, even
more than transportation and industry sectors. One approach to increasing energy efficiency and
combating consumption is through the implementation of efficient building energy code policy at
national, state and localized levels.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (identified as the Recovery Act) provided
states with a large sum of funds aimed at stimulating state and national economies through jobproduction and financial security. With part of these funds, the Federal Government aimed to
improve building energy efficiency on a national scale, and took a major step empowering
nationally recognized and accepted model building energy codes. The Recovery Act requires
adoption of more efficient building energy codes for all states and a rate of 90% compliance by
2017 (these requirements hereon referenced as 90% Compliance). As part of this requirement,
states must develop a plan to reach the compliance goal and demonstrate improvement through
annual reporting criteria. Suggested paths and approaches to meet Recovery Act compliance
goals are still without understanding, even to policymakers and stakeholders within the building
construction industry. Although a program to assist compliance has been unrolled by the Federal
Government, several technical and policy barriers to actual code compliance still exist, and the
actions states should take to address compliance requirements remain unclear.

1

The present study sets out to address these problems through a review of relevant literature,
followed by investigations into background conditions, barriers, and recommended actions at
both state and localized levels. These efforts were applied through an approach typical of
qualitative research methods, but also included a descriptive statistical analysis of survey
response data obtained from local code enforcement jurisdictions. Reports from recent case
studies of individual state compliance scenarios in relation to compliance requirements were also
analyzed, providing further insight on implementation issues. Findings from the combined
approach can be generalized into guidance for states to consider as they prepare to address
Recovery Act 90% Compliance requirements.
1.2 BACKGROUND
“Simply put, building energy codes are the quickest, cheapest and cleanest way to
improve energy efficiency in the building sector and should be a critical
component of any comprehensive national or international policy to achieve a
sustainable and prosperous future.”
--Building Codes Assistance Project (2011)
What are Energy Codes?
Building codes set minimum requirements governing safety and occupant welfare within
residential and commercial structures. Energy codes, a subset of building codes, have
historically set minimum efficiency requirements for particular systems within a building. (DOE,
2012b) The systems commonly addressed by the energy code are: building envelope, HVAC,
lighting, and service water heating. Certain requirements in the code are intended to prevent the
gain or loss of heat between the building interior and surrounding environment, while other code
requirements are designed to limit fuel use or mitigate moisture intrusion into building
components.

2

Benefits of Energy Codes
As the largest sector of U.S. energy use, energy efficiency in residential and commercial
buildings provides an enormous opportunity to reduce our country’s overall energy consumption.
Energy codes are often credited with mitigating greater social challenges, can influence the
acceptance of energy efficient technologies within the marketplace, and provide a common
foundation upon which to evaluate building performance (DOE, 2012b). According to the
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP), modern energy codes save consumers money,
stimulate the economy, ensure health and safety, and improve long-term sustainability. In 2008,
the average U.S. household spent approximately $2,225 on energy bills, with another
$183 billion spent to supply commercial buildings. Since buildings last an average of 50 years
(many much longer), decisions surrounding building energy policy today will affect our energy
consumption through 2059 and beyond.
1.2.1 The Recovery Act of 2009
On a national scale, the Recovery Act carried energy code provisions applicable to states
accepting federal government-issued stimulus funds. In acquiring this financial support, states
accepted an obligation to adopt target codes as outlined in Section 410 of the Recovery Act.
These requirements mean states must adopt the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) for residential buildings and ASHRAE Standard 90.1—2007 for commercial buildings,
and prove 90% code compliance within eight years of the Recovery Act’s issuance. This
timeline is not simply a deadline for states to prove compliance, but is issued as a developmental
period to place supportive code training, evaluation, and reporting systems. A measurement of
compliance is also required on an annual basis leading up to the compliance deadline.

3

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Several U.S. states, territories, and local governmental jurisdictions utilize energy codes to set
base levels for energy efficiency within buildings. Unfortunately, this alone does not guarantee
desired levels of energy use, and several circumstances can impede true energy savings. Many
residences and commercial buildings do not comply with the intended code, and, therefore, end
up wasting more energy and money than legally intended for years to come. Many stakeholders
agree; additional resources supporting energy code compliance are vital in generating increased
compliance rates. (IMT, 2010b) The Recovery Act of 2009 addresses the need for higher
compliance with energy codes, sets specific versions of residential and commercial codes for
states to reference, but, in the process, also confronts states with brand new requirements and a
set of challenges surrounding code compliance.
A recent task force, coordinated by the Washington, DC-based Institute for Market
Transformation (IMT) set out to analyze the cost-benefit of compliance with building energy
codes. The group found potential annual energy savings of approximately $2.7 billion attributed
to increased compliance by the year 2020, and growing to a figure almost four times that amount
by 2040. (IMT, 2010b) While energy codes are considered a valid political mechanism for
creating desired levels of efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, true energy savings
must be measured through actual compliance at the state and local levels. This responsibility can
often become burdensome upon states and localities, especially in those jurisdictions adversely
affected by recent economic hardship. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), over
7.2 million people are employed in the U.S. construction industry, most of which have a stake in
the development of our nation’s residential and commercial buildings. For most of them,
additional requirements for energy code compliance may also add to a list of already fatigued

4

responsibilities, and states will need to be able to do more with less money to support these
efforts.

Figure 1: Overview of state compliance process
NOTE: For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other
figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have
created a methodology by which states can work towards satisfying Recovery Act compliance
requirements. As seen in Figure 1.3, the PNNL method suggests a process of self-assessments,
annual measurement, training and education to improve existing state compliance rates. This
process initiates with the formulation of a Compliance Working Group, more recently identified
as an Energy Code Compliance Collaborative.

5

1.3.1 Need for Study
The present study set out to identify and provide guidance to states creating policy and
regulatory infrastructure around energy code compliance requirements resulting from the
Recovery Act of 2009. All 50 U.S. states have accepted stimulus funds spawning from the
Recovery Act, and are, therefore, subject to the requirements and obligations therein. Code
enforcement and regulatory infrastructure varies significantly from state-to-state. State budgets
and local code enforcement jurisdictions are heavily burdened by difficult economic
circumstances, and are unable to immediately satisfy Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Even the first steps in the process have proven difficult, and policymakers unfamiliar with
energy codes have hesitated to implement policy requiring additional government regulation
with limited financial resources.
1.3.2 Research Question
In order to properly understand the reality of Recovery Act compliance requirements, baseline
conditions and issues were analyzed surrounding implementation at state and local levels. An
understanding of the proposed requirements, and outstanding challenges, was needed in order to
make applications across U.S. states. Energy codes are not uniformly implemented or regulated
in all states; therefore it was necessary to pair national guidance with state and localized
perspectives to better understand the true ramifications of such an effort. Generalizing across
state scenarios and informed by local implementation issues, the present study sought to
understand: How should states address energy code 90% Compliance requirements of the
Recovery Act of 2009?

6

1.3.3 Goals and Objectives
In support of the central research question, sub-questions were developed targeting background
information, existing conditions, identified challenges, and recommended actions from both topdown and localized perspectives. These were addressed largely in a sequential manner, yielding
findings aligned with the primary inquiry. The following sub-questions support the central
research question:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

What expectations are contained in the Recovery Act?
What resources and previous state experiences can be referenced?
How are energy codes currently enforced?
What local compliance issues currently exist?
What actions have other states taken?
What hinders a state’s ability to meet compliance goals?
How should states take action to address 90% Compliance requirements?

What expectations are contained in the Recovery Act?
Many of the questions and uncertainties impeding state compliance efforts surround the actual
interpretation of Recovery Act requirements. The Federal Government has issued some limited
guidance at a national level, including a recommended methodology, but many defining
questions remain. Two years after the issuance of the Recovery Act, many states are still unclear
on even general expectations and recommended practices.
What resources and previous state experiences can be referenced?
A number of resources and tools are available to support compliance with building energy codes.
Once general expectations are better understood, states can rely on many existing options to
supplement the implementation of new policy. Insight can also be taken from states who
adopted target codes early, many of which have initiated compliance measurement activities.

7

How are energy codes currently enforced?
Energy code enforcement can vary significantly between regulatory systems, states, and even
across local jurisdictions. It will be important for states to understand practices and processes
relied on by local stakeholders. Localized actors will be depended on to implement compliance
requirements.
What local compliance issues currently exist?
Several barriers have historically sabotaged full compliance with adopted energy codes. States
need be aware of traditional impediments, as well as those specific to new compliance
requirements. A review of enforcement practices and processes was needed to understand local
issues and better inform state-level policy decisions.
What actions have other states taken?
A handful of states have started to take action to address and fulfill 90% Compliance
requirements. Some states have placed compliance working groups and initial strategies, while
others have begun more formalized compliance measurement activities. Actions states have
taken were reviewed to inform future state decisions.
What hinders a state’s ability to meet compliance goals?
At the state level, policymakers need awareness of the underlying regulatory infrastructure and
broader issues surrounding energy code adoption and implementation. Common pitfalls often
can undermine environmental policy as it is passed from federal to localized levels. Statespecific efficiency policies and supporting stakeholders were also leveraged. How should states
take action to address 90% Compliance requirements?
In addition to existing resources and experiences in early adopting states, recent case studies
reviewing individual state scenarios yielded several recommendations. Solutions were extracted

8

with eventual findings generalized for state consideration. In approaching the problem from
multiple angles, comprehensive guidance can be offered to states preparing to address Recovery
Act requirements.
1.3.4 Expected Contribution
Although the Recovery Act was issued three years ago, substantial questions remain surrounding
its expectations. State policymakers could benefit from an easier understanding of building
energy codes, as well as the policies and political mechanisms available for their
implementation. State officials, local enforcement jurisdictions, and other building energy
stakeholders could benefit in better comprehending expectations and their supporting role.
Resources and experiences from states having already initiated measurement activities are
compiled and centralized into recommended guidance and supplemented by available tools. This
guidance can be presented to states to provide an outline of necessary background information,
issues, and recommendations to aid and inform compliance demonstration. These efforts will
serve as a foundation from which to build state policy to support Recovery Act requirements.
1.3.5 Limitations
Certain limitations should be considered within the scope and methods of the present research
study. Although a background is given on energy code compliance policy, the study was
directed specifically at the requirements of the Recovery Act of 2009. It is assumed states must
follow-through in addressing and meeting Recovery Act compliance requirements. The method
provided by PNNL is referenced as a model solution for meeting these requirements, however;
over the course of time this method may be modified. Legal requirements and expectations
surrounding the Recovery Act may also change. A time period of several years and a general set
of expectations are defined in the actual legislation, leaving the door open for changes well after

9

the present study is complete. Model residential energy codes, such as the IECC, are updated on
a three year cycle, and more recent versions have been developed since the issuance of the
Recovery Act. As the 90% Compliance requirements are directed solely at Recovery Act target
codes, direct applications of updated code provisions fall beyond the scope of the present
research. The study is also based on several bodies of pre-existing work, both quantitative and
qualitative. Assumptions and limitations pertaining to specific methods are discussed further in
the Research Methods chapter. Most importantly, while the present study is built upon a
collection of federal reports and may provide specific guidance, it should be considered first and
foremost as an educational exercise.
1.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter provides an introduction to the building energy codes and the compliance
requirements included in the Recovery Act of 2009. The need for research clarifying these
requirements and related expectations is proposed, including an examination of issues facing
states and local code enforcement jurisdictions. The study seeks information which may be
considered relevant for states preparing to consider Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Goals and objectives for the study are presented, followed by the expected contribution and
limitations of potential findings.

10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The implementation of federal policy to the state and localized levels is often littered with
unforeseen challenges and consequences. Not only establishing, but fully understanding and
complying with, what may resemble a national energy code will come with a variety of hurdles,
including some encountered in past implementation of public policy, and many specific to the
requirements of the Recovery Act. A review of relevant literature and existing discourse
indicates typical challenges confronting the implementation of policy. As environmental
protection and conservation measures are often created at the federal level and implemented by
states, these regulations are often viewed through the lens of a mandate. It becomes important to
understand both state and federal roles, existing barriers, and available resources in an effort to
find a common ground strong enough to build a successful base to provoke social change.
2.2 POLITICAL BACKDROP
“Public policy can be defined as a course of government action in response to
social problems; it is what governments choose to do about those problems.”
--Kraft (2011)
“All politics is local.”
--Tip O’Neill (1935)
2.2.1 Public Policy Defined
Public policymaking is said to have many definitions, and is often viewed as occurring across a
continuum. “Some people view public policymaking as simply whatever governments decide to
do. At the opposite end, others think of public policymaking as an intertwined relationship of
offices, public leaders, and issues, all of which constantly change in a kaleidoscope-like

11

fashion.” Implementing modern policy, such as Recovery Act energy code compliance
requirements, can become a highly complex and vulnerable process. Beyond basic definitions, it
is important to understand how those policies are classified, and how they might translate into
successful requirements. “At a minimum, public policymakers attempt to resolve public issues;
questions that most people believe should be decided by officials at the appropriate level of
government—national, state, or local.” (Gerston, 2002)
Environmental Policy and Politics (2011) by Michael E. Kraft sets the stage for many of the
larger policies and political issues behind the implementation of public policy, and classifies
policies within two basic categories. Regulatory policies create choices available to achieve a
designated social goal by encouraging or prohibiting through a series of governed sanctions and
incentives. Most environmental protection policies, such as the Clean Air Act, are considered
regulatory in nature. Historically speaking, many natural resources and conservation policies are
classified as distributive. These policies serve to allocate public resources, often through
financial subsidies or in providing benefits to designated groups. “The purpose has been to
achieve social goals such as providing access to public lands for mining, grazing, forestry, or
recreation; protecting biological diversity; or fostering the development of energy resources,
such as oil, coal, or nuclear power.” These policies are often criticized on the grounds of
inefficient use, or may even be attributed to environmentally destructive practices. (Kraft, 2011)
2.2.2 Environmental and Conservation Segments
Environmental regulation and compliance policies often fall within two specific tracks of public
policy: environmental and conservation segments. Energy policy is generally considered a joint
venture between environmental protection and natural resource policy. These policies are said to
represent a collective decision, based on society’s collective agenda. “Such decisions are at least

12

as important in the United States as they are in other nations, and the ecological consequences
are probably greater here than in any other nation in the world.” (Kraft, 2011) Environmental
policy is best associated with the year 1973, the year in which the Federal Government began
regulating oil prices and supply in response to the oil embargo—the decisions from which the
U.S. Department of Energy was created. “Several years into the twenty-first century, Americans
now have almost four decades of collective experience of unprecedented experimentation in
environmental management. The ultimate test of the ambitious U.S. regime of environmental
regulation will be not how well it was conceived but how well it endures.” Energy, in particular,
finds itself center-stage amidst political agendas as ranging from environmental protection, to
Defense spending and national security. “The nation’s energy agenda in the second decade of
the twenty-first century will become environmental policy by another name.” (Rosenbaum,
2011)
2.2.3 The Political Environment
Energy policies must be accountable to a number of perspectives, both foreign and domestic.
Americans make up approximately 4.5 percent of the world’s population, but consume about
19.6 percent of the world’s energy. (EIA, 2009) Many of the nation’s major pollution problems
are caused directly by current methods of producing and consuming this energy. (Rosenbaum,
2011) While these policies are often controversial, more and more public policymakers are
agreeing on the overall need for action within environmental and conservationist segments,
especially surrounding fossil fuel and Greenhouse Gas (GHG)-producing sources. With 5,903
million metric tons of CO2 (UCS, 2010), the U.S. trails only China in GHG emissions—a trend
rising consistently in recent decades. (Rosenbaum, 2011) In 1970, 23 percent of U.S. oil was
imported from other countries. Today, that number is 58 percent. Of all the energy consumed in

13

the U.S., about 85 percent comes from fossil fuels. (Kraft, 2011) Policymakers operate in a
shifting, influential, and unpredictable political setting. “At any given time, there will be
differences between what policymakers want and what they can accomplish, between what they
are compelled to do and what they would prefer to do, and between what is feasible and what is
not.” Several circumstances contribute to this change and flow, including changing political
parties, shifts in public opinion, economic health, and regulatory control. “These can be called
the changing seasons of policymaking.” (Rosenbaum, 2011)
2.2.4 Making Environmental Policy
Policymaking processes rely on a number of political actors in both government and private
sectors. It is also described as a continuous process, subject to a variety of constraints, checks
and balances. “Policymakers—whether of the legislative, White House, or bureaucratic type—
can seldom act without restraint. Their discretion is bounded and shaped by many constraints:
the constitutional separation of powers, institutional rules and biases, statutory laws, shared
understanding about the ‘rules of the game’ for conflict resolutions, political realities, and more.”
This mixture of political and scientific agendas is often plagued with controversy. (Rosenbaum,
2011) “The U.S. policy-making process is often highly complex, frequently contentious, and
sometimes utterly mystifying in the bargains that must be struck to make progress.” (Kraft, 2011)
Kraft presents several theories and models utilized by political scientists (Kraft, 2011):
Elite Theory: Underscores the role elites, such as a powerful corporate or government
leader, who may hold values or preferences differing from those of the general public.
Group Theory: Policy as produced as a result of the continuous struggle of organized
interests, such as environmental groups.
Institutional Theory: Highlights formal and legal aspects of governments, based on
hierarchy or procedural obligations.
Rational Choice Theory: Explains policy as a collection of actors, who make decisions
based on maximization of personal interests.

14

According to Kraft, “The most sweeping public policies are developed at the national level of
government, where actions of national public policymakers tend to affect almost everyone.” The
role of the states in providing an organizationally similar, yet quite diverse, set of policymaking
environments is also emphasized. (Kraft, 2011)
Energy codes are typically born at the national level. Model codes are developed through the
processes of the International Code Council (ICC) and the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). A wide range of stakeholders are
involved in these processes, which enable anyone to participate. The model codes are generally
considered to include the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) produced by the ICC
and ASHRAE’s Standard 90.1. Once published, these codes can be adopted by states or local
municipalities as law, regulating minimum energy performance requirements in residential and
commercial buildings.
Based on the theories presented by Kraft, the model code developmental process most signifies
Group Theory. On a three year update cycle, stakeholders submit change proposals, public
comments, and defend their positions through a series of two public hearings. A variety of
organized interests participate in this process, including governmental organizations, state and
local officials, environmental interests, product manufacturers, industry professionals, and
contracted third parties. While individuals seek and make decisions upon personal benefit, the
wide range suggests a struggle more applicable to the group perspective. More institutional
mechanisms, such as federal and state regulatory requirements, also enable the adoption of new
versions of model codes.

15

2.2.5 Policy Cycles
An issue passes through several phases on its road to becoming environmental policy, starting
with the placement of a governmental agenda. Environmental Politics and Policy (2011) by
Walter A. Rosenbaum characterizes the general policy cycle as progressing through the
following stages:
1. Agenda Setting: Getting issues heard by decision-makers, on legislative calendars,
before committees, up for bill introduction, accepted by a regulatory agency, or on the
White House’s list of legislative proposals.
2. Formulation and Legitimation: Further developing the problem, by setting goals,
creating plans, and selecting a means for implementation. This can be carried out
through judicial decisions, administrative procedures, or any means by which an issue
can justify public authority.
3. Implementation: Translating of a policy into operational programs.
4. Assessment and Reformulation: Evaluating the social impact of a policy, conducted by
typical actors, such as the courts and mass media.
5. Termination: The assignment of a deliberate conclusion to a particular policy. As many
policies often adapt over their lifetime, some essentially are left everlasting.
Several adaptations of this model are echoed by Kraft, citing several well-recognized and
influential sources: Anderson (2006), Jones (1984), and his own previous work (Kraft and
Furlong, 2010).
Energy code requirements in the Recovery Act of 2009 are assumed to have followed this basic
approach, but perhaps in a uniquely expedited fashion. Three years following the issuance of the
Act, states remain in early implementation phases. Recovery Act legislation contained many
specific goals, but was largely, and in some cases reluctantly, accepted by states in order to
secure much needed stimulus funding. Agenda Setting, as well as Formulation and Legitimation
stages were likely expedited in order to enable immediate access to financial support during a
time of economic duress. While the Recovery Act is not intended for Reformulation, the
eventual Assessment may be the stage by which history defines the stimulus legislation.
Termination of stimulus funds and embedded requirements carry varying deadlines, although
16

those requirements specific 90% Compliance are set due in 2017 (based on language prescribing
an eight year timeline). The penalty for delay or failure to comply has not been defined.
2.2.6 Energy Code Legislation
Environmental policy has evolved into several well-known pieces of legislation. Kraft reviews a
list of major federal environmental laws, including many of those empowering the regulation of
energy through building energy codes (Vig & Kraft, 2010):
Table 1: Federal legislation empowering building energy codes
Year
1969
1992
2005
2007
2009

Legislation
National Environmental Policy Act, PL 91-190
Energy Policy Act, PL 102-486
Energy Policy Act of 2005, PL 109-58
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, PL 110-140
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5

National Environmental Policy Act
Since its initial adoption, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has “transformed
expectations for the way government agencies should consider the effects of their actions on the
environment.” NEPA sets a higher standard for government-owned facilities. For example, as
the single largest owner, the General Services Administration (GSA) is subject to advanced
standards surrounding the design and operation of all federally-owned buildings and facilities.
Beyond the U.S., almost 100 other countries have duplicated and adopted at least portions of
NEPA. (Kraft, 2011)
Energy Policy Act of 1992
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 called for the reduction of foreign oil dependence, and
encouraged cleaner energy use through the use of renewables and efficiency measures.
(Rosenbaum, 2011) In addition, the Act required states to review their building energy codes in

17

comparison to the Model Energy Code. Many states realize significant savings through the
implementation of such provisions. For example, California building and appliance code
programs save an estimated $6 billion per year. (Kraft, 2011)
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2009
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and later Energy Independence and Security Act of 2009 were
directed at increasing the supply of energy resources. These pieces of legislation also called for
improved efficiency, while accelerating energy research and development efforts. These were
prescribed to include a heavy reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power. (Rosenbaum, 2011)
The Recovery Act of 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or the “Recovery Act”)
provided over $100 billion in targeted spending, tax incentives, and loan guarantees directed at
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and climate change control. Rosenbaum provides an
outline of the Recovery Act, which included over $80 billion directed toward the creation of jobs
and technologies aiding cleaner energy. Included were improved standards for buildings,
common household appliances, and activities specific to DOE, including (Rosenbaum, 2011):
Table 2: Energy efficiency funding within the Recovery Act
Allocation ($)
5 billion
4.5 billion
2.5 billion
3.2 billion
500 million
300 million
250 million

Purpose
Weatherize modest-income homes
State and local governments to increase efficiency in federal buildings
Energy efficiency research
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG)
Training of green-collar workers
Purchase of energy efficient appliances
Increase energy efficiency in low-income housing

Estimates provided in the Kraft text indicate $39 billion in funding went to the DOE. “By its
size alone, the measure constituted the biggest energy bill in U.S. history.” (Kraft, 2011)

18

2.2.7 Role of Government
Governments are considered to serve an essential role in resolving environmental problems.
Public bodies are often charged with establishing over-arching efficiency goals or energy targets.
This sets the stage for a cast of supporting energy policies. “We look to government for such
policies because environmental threats represent public or collective goods problems that cannot
be solved through private action alone.” (Kraft, 2011) Unfortunately, the creation of these
policies alone does not satisfy savings goals, nor does it remedy the original social need.
Therefore, government’s role does not cease following the policy creation phases, and is
arguably all the more valuable in assuring policies are implemented properly to reach their full
potential.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Environmental policies can be put in-place through a variety of means, guided by commonly
referenced models for implementation. In the case of the Recovery Act of 2009, a heavy
stimulus of funds was injected into the U.S. economy in an effort to combat economic downturn.
Several requirements were also attached to this funding, including the building energy code 90%
Compliance goal. Motivated by the desire to acquire substantial financial support, all states
accepted stimuli funds, and are now obligated to comply with all requirements set forth in the
Recovery Act. Many have characterized these requirements as an unfunded government
mandate, drawing comparisons to historical instances where state and federal regulatory powers
have collided following the creation of public policy. Rosenbaum reinforces the implementation
phases, highlighting the tall task of converting policy commitments into actual practice. “Much
like the bulky, unseen mass of a huge iceberg, implementation tends to be almost hidden from
public view.” (Gerston, 2002) The following section provides key policy implementation

19

models, addresses some of the primary issues and barriers facing each, and presents options
through which these models can be applied.
2.3.1 Implementation Models
Political and legislative requirements can spawn from a variety of levels, from that of the U.S.
Federal Government to ordinances created by local governmental boards. In certain cases, a
globalized social interest is created at the federal level, but responsibility for implementation is
passed to state and local governments. In contrast, localized concerns often outgrow their grass
roots, and are adopted on the state or even federal levels. Depending on the situation, the models
through which public policy are created, nurtured, and set free can often function on this one or
two way street.
Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches
The broadest theoretical fields surrounding public policy implementation is predominately split
into two perspectives: top-down and bottom-up implementation. Researchers can take a variety
of approaches to these two perspectives, often times adopting one school of thought for the other,
or synthesizing portions of each into a hybrid model. Referencing strategies for top-down
implementation models, Matland (1995) provides the following recommendations:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Make policy goals clear and consistent
Minimize the number of actors
Limit the extent of change necessary
Place the implementation responsibility in an agency sympathetic with the policy’s goals

The article also describes common criticisms facing the top-down approach. In taking statutory
language as a starting point, this fails to consider earlier actions taken in the process model. A
top-down model also can see implementation as a purely administrative process. This often
leads to ignoring political aspects of the decision process, or can even try to eliminate the
political aspect altogether. (Matland, 1995)
20

In contrast, the bottom-up models may contain a more realistic understanding of implementation.
This model views public policy from the perspective of the target population and those who
eventually “deliver the service.” The article builds upon previous theories, which accept policy
implementation as occurring at two levels. These levels are described as macroimplementation
and microimplementation. “At the macroimplementation level, centrally located actors devise a
government program; at the microimplementation level, local organizations react to the macro
level plans, develop their own programs, and implement them.” The article also classifies locallevel implementers as key, and without the freedom for local adaptation, the overall policy is
likely to fail. The article also supports a thorough understanding of the process, stating “Bottomuppers argue that the goals, strategies, activities, and contracts of the actors involved in the
microimplementation process must be understood in order to understand implementation.”
(Matland, 1995) While the top-down model tends to support a prescriptive approach, a bottomup view places more emphasis on factors which prevent reaching stated goals, such as local
challenges and barriers.
Energy code requirements set forth in the Recovery Act largely focus on the demonstration of a
90% compliance rate. This outcome was stated directly in the language of the Recovery Act, and
is considered to represent a common top-down approach by which federal mandates are
deployed to and through different levels of state and local governments. Although mandates
generally follow these models, implementers need to remain aware of the potential for their
efforts to be undermined by increasingly localized issues and barriers.
Federalism
There exists a symbiotic, but often controversial relationship between state and national
governmental bodies, often referenced as Federalism. According to Kraft (2011), “About 75

21

percent of the major environmental protection program functions have been delegated to the
states, a rate that has increased significantly over the past two decades.” As one of the most
predominant environmental implementation models, Federalism is said to fragment government
authority between the national and state levels. A 1967 publication by Grodzins proposes the
timeless remark, “There has never been a time when it was possible to put neat labels on discrete
‘federal’, ‘state’, and ‘local’ functions.”
According to Gerston (2002), state and localized governments have resurged in recent years,
referring to what has been identified as a New Federalism. Still, states are also responsible for
the majority of enforcement, delegated under most federal environmental laws, although these
specific roles have varied significantly over time. Kraft warns of localized limitations, such as
the resources or commitment to put broader social agendas into effect, citing the “reality that
states and localities will continue to depend on federal research and technical support that cannot
be duplicated at the state level.” (Kraft, 2011) Many states argue current federally regulated
programs would be better managed by states and local governments, although such an effort
carries a heavy financial expense and administrative burden. (Rosenbaum, 2011) While policy
implementation may have certain advantages through the models of federalism, these efforts are
often viewed as heavy-handed mandates, and encounter strong opposition at localized levels.
Incrementalism
In opposition to the previous model, Incrementalism favors more gradual political changes over
time. According to Rosenbaum, “Public officials strongly favor making and changing policy
incrementally.” This model relies on past experiences as guidance, carefully considering all
angles of proposition before committing to any changes, and rejecting any innovation deemed
too aggressive. Although this model is credited with being most empathetic to localized needs,

22

this heightened concern may come with its own set of issues. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and Clean Air Act (1970) are said to have been created by congress after
repeated failures to deal with environmental issues in an incremental fashion. “Finally, Congress
put an end to this incrementalism with the avalanche of new, forceful federal environmental laws
in the 1970s mandating national pollution standards and regulations that compelled state
compliance and enforcement.” (Rosenbaum, 2011) While contrary to more federalist
approaches, the incremental approach likely overcompensates, bringing forth a new set of
overwhelming challenges.
The Precautionary Principle
A final, and potentially very real, consideration, known as the Precautionary Principle, has
gained traction with Congress within topics of energy and environmental policy. Faced with
potentially extreme threats, some issues have begun to transcend typical policy implementation
issues and barriers. As these potential threats outgrow common metrics and decision-making
protocols, scientific and environmental communities push to err on a side of caution and
protection not provided for under traditional risk assessment procedures. The principle calls for
precautionary measures to be taken, even when a scientific cause and effect relationship may not
be fully established. (SEHN, 1998) Rosenbaum further describes the principle as mandating
preventative action in response to uncertainty, as opposed to waiting for a clear quantification of
acceptable risk and resolution to existing controversies. He also describes it as shifting the
burden of proof to proponents of a harmful activity or substance, who then assume the role of
defending its safety in the public forum. This principle forms the basis of many modern day
climate change initiatives, as well as Al Gore’s somewhat infamous statement; “Uncertainty is
no excuse for complacency.” (David & Guggenheim, 2006)

23

2.3.2 Policy Options
Following choice of model, one must be familiar with the many options available for
implementing social policies. Kraft (2011) presents a variety of common applications, ranging
from regulatory to incentive-based programs. Potential government actions, followed by a
related example, are explored in the following sections:
Regulation: Establishment and enforcement of standards with sanctions for noncompliance (common environmental regulation, such as the Clean Air Act, Superfund, or
energy efficiency requirements)
Market Incentives: Imposed taxes, charges, or development of tradable permits creating
incentives or disincentives for action (raising gasoline taxes to encourage fuel
conservation, or tradable permits for carbon dioxide emissions)
Education: Information for the public through specific formula programs or other actions
(disclosure of chemical releases, auto efficiency labels, environmental education and
training programs)
Taxing and Spending: Taxation of an activity to encourage or discourage behavior (tax
credits for fuel efficiency vehicles) or deliberate spending on preferred programs (energy
research)
Purchasing Goods and Services: Purchase of products and services for government
agencies (efficient fleet vehicles, recycled paper products)
Rationing: Limiting access to scare resources (permits for camping in National Parks,
restrictions on water use during dry periods, fishing limits)
Privatization and Contracting: Transfer of public services or property from government
ownership to the private sector (concessions on public land, sale of federal property)
Charging Fees: Fees for government services (use of State Parks, contracted land for
grazing or mining, or contracted waste clean-up services)
Use of Subsidies: Loans, direct payment, tax credits and pricing support (agricultural
subsidies, educational loans)
Public Trusts: Placement of property in public trusts (conservation trusts)
Support of Research and Development: Conducting or supporting research efforts (EPA,
NOAA, NSF, DOE)
Assessment for Damages: Use of civil law to award damages (private suits against
corporations, Superfund natural resource damage assessments)
Self-regulation: Voluntary adoption of performance standards (environmental
management standards, responsible care programs, state environmental regulation
programs)
Several of the above programs may be applicable for encouraging compliance with building
energy codes. The regulatory approach is present at the national level, as well as within states
lacking a statewide energy code. Educational training programs in some form are offered in
24

most states, many of which have been recently supported by Recovery Act stimulus funding.
Many training programs and third-party evaluation services are contracted to existing private
businesses, while also creating new opportunities. At the federal level, organizations such as the
U.S. Department of Energy fund research and development through national scientific
laboratories and contracts with private research organizations.
In considering future options, market incentives provide a powerful effect influencing the uptake
of new regulation. Rebate programs could be considered for energy codes, such as have been
successful with emerging technologies and high-efficiency equipment otherwise eluding the
market. Self-regulation mechanisms could also be considered to streamline often burdensome
compliance processes. Although a wide variety of options are present, choice of the appropriate
action will vary significantly by state regulatory and funding scenarios. While some states may
hold legislative authority for increased regulation, others will likely need a more indirect or
voluntary approach. While incentive-based programs are often greeted more positively, current
state economic scenarios may unfortunately limit available resources.
2.3.3 Implementation Issues
In order to fully understand the models by which policy lives, one must consider the various
levels of affected government, as well as challenges and realities facing the created policy as it is
passed from policymaker, to implementer, and to eventual stakeholder. This is often referred to
as the Implementation Dilemma. Osborne (2002) submits; those who carry-out prescribed policy
are often as influential as those who created the policy, stating, “Front-line public managers can
have as much influence in shaping policy by their implementation of it, as do policy makers and
politicians.” He continues in arguing for an approach that not only makes prescription, but also
gives additional consideration for what it might take the successfully implement a given policy

25

measure. “What is needed is a greater integration of policy making and implementation, not
their separation.” (Osborne, 2002)
Local Actors
Osborne examines the relationships and realities at increasingly localized levels of government.
“Every (policy) implementation agency probably has a set of management controls, a firmly
entrenched collection of operating routines, some process for eliciting the involvement of the
implementers, and a set of internal and external bargaining relationships. The important question
is not whether these elements exist or not, but how they affect the implementation process.”
When a particular mandate is deployed at local levels of government, as such is often the case
with federal mandates, the implementer grows increasingly detached from the original intent of
the mandate with each additional level of implementation. Osborne describes actors as “street
level bureaucrats” who “Interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs and have
substantial discretion in the execution of their work.” He argues these intermediary bureaucrats
are forced to find a way to meet demands placed upon them while still confronting the common
reality of resource limitations. He continues in describing the presence of accommodations and
‘coping mechanisms’, the embedded development of behavioral patterns, which essentially
become the government program when delivered to the end stakeholder. “In a significant sense,
then, street level bureaucrats are the policymakers in their respective work arenas.” (Osborne,
2002) In a sense, this would imply policy is renewed with each level of implementation.
The case of the street level bureaucrat can be assumed to be significantly applicable in the case
of the 90% Compliance mandate. Implementers of this policy will be government
representatives, policy makers, compliance officials and even home builders. As a policy will be
implemented and eventually live within a pre-existing network of traditional professional

26

relationships, it is necessary to hear those who will deliver this policy. Special consideration
must be given to those existing roles, responsibilities and relationships, especially in comparing
those realities back to the prescribed desired outcomes of the Recovery Act.
Issues facing actors implementing public policy are further discussed by Rosenbaum, who states,
“There are almost no contemporary environmental problems for which a technical or scientific
solution does not exist or cannot readily be found. . .what could solve the problem is usually
much easier to imagine than how to accomplish it.” He describes a changing political character
and pace, based on changing public moods, resources, and available personnel, while charged by
economic, political, and cultural motivations. “Practically every important environmental ill has
been targeted by a major federal law, but delays and difficulties in program implementation
routinely impede enforcement.” (Rosenbaum, 2011)
The Complex Regulatory Process
Rosenbaum (2011) introduces several challenges surrounding policy implementation, beginning
with a growing complexity of the general regulatory process. “The average size of statutes has
inflated from about fifty pages in the 1970s to more than five hundred pages currently. The
original Clean Air Act (1970) weighed in at 788 pages, and the regulations required for their
implementation will exceed 10,000 pages.” The author also cites a comparison of public agency
responsibility and available resources, referencing a growing discrepancy between expectations
and budget allocations. Many environmental requirements also depend on voluntary compliance
through self-regulation. “Few states, for example, routinely inspect public and private drinking
water systems, even though such inspections are required by the Safe Drinking Water Act
(1974).” Many states lack technical resources to develop these standards and instead are left to
deal with the resulting damage in a reactive manner. Economic and population growth also

27

impose challenges, often diminishing the effectiveness of prescribed controls over time. For
example, automotive emission controls and improved fuel regulation have decreased the average
new car’s emissions significantly. However, the number of automobiles in the U.S. has
increased by 71 percent—80.4 million in 1970 to 137 million in 2006. This population
expansion more than counteracts any achieved reductions, leaving many present day policies illequipped to deal with tomorrow’s social problems. Finally, litigation presented as a significant
barrier, citing bureaucratic disagreements, and difficult coordination between federal, state and
local governments. According to Rosenbaum, “It is easier to defeat legislation and other
governmental policies than to enact them, to frustrate incisive governmental action on issues than
to create it.” (Rosenbaum, 2011)
Financial Allocations
The cost of environmental regulation should also be weighted in deciding how to implement
public environmental policies. “Although some environmental programs are very costly, the
total public and private cost of regulation to the United States appears reasonable.” The U.S.
currently spends 1.5-2.5 percent of its gross domestic product on environmental protection, and
approximately 1.5 percent of recent federal budgets. Compared to other developed nations, these
are actually quite modest figures, especially when compared to other traditional social programs,
such as Medicare (12 percent) and Social Security (22 percent). (EPA, 2001) In terms of costbenefit, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has calculated, for instance, that the
economic benefits from the Clean Air Act (CAA) alone are four times greater than the cost.”
(Rosenbaum, 2011) Similar figures presented for building energy efficiency suggest an energy
savings of six dollars for every dollar spent on energy code compliance (IMT, 2010b), indicating
a strong collective benefit in addressing these large social-scale problems.

28

Government Oversight
The division of responsibility in responding to such large-scale, modern environmental problems
can also be considered an implementation issue. Among federal agencies, twenty-seven separate
entities share these responsibilities. By Rosenbaum, “Regulating even a single pollutant often
necessitates what might appear to be a bureaucratic convention.” (Rosenbaum, 2011)

29

Kraft provides an overview of several agencies within the Executive Branch of government, all
with some level of responsibility for environmental oversight. These are as follows (Kraft,
2011):
Executive Office of the President:
White House Office
o Overall policy
o Agency coordination
Council on Environmental Quality
o Policy coordination
o Oversight of NEPA
o Quality reporting
Office of Management and Budget
o Budget
o Agency coordination
Office of Science & Technology
Policy
o Advises president on issues
Government agencies:
Environmental Protection Agency
o Air and water pollution
o Pesticides and radiation
o Solid waste
o Superfund
o Toxic substances
Department of the Interior
o Public lands and minerals
o Energy
o National parks
o Wilderness and wildlife
o Endangered species
o Continental shelf
Department of Agriculture
o Forestry and Soil
conservation
Department of Commerce
o Atmospheric monitoring
o Coastal zone management
o Marine mammal protection
Department of State
o International environment

Department of Justice
o Environmental litigation
Department of Defense
o Civil works construction
o Dredge and fill permits
o Defense pollution control
o Environmental restoration
Department of Energy
o Energy policy coordination
o Nuclear waste disposal
o Research and development
o Waste management
o Environmental restoration
Department of Transportation
o Mass transit and roads
o Airplane noise
o Oil pollution
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
o Housing
o Urban parks
o Urban planning
Department of Health and Human
Services
o Health and family planning
Department of Labor
o Occupational health
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
o Regulating nuclear power
Tennessee Valley Authority
o Electric power generation
Department of Homeland Security
o Biochemical
o Infrastructure security
o Emergency response

30

Additional Discussion
According to Rosenbaum, “Environmental degradation is a twenty-first century problem
resolved according to eighteenth-century rules.” Policy implementation models suggest a need
for balance between the often heavy-handed federal will, and needs of the acting stakeholders. It
is important to understand the fragile dynamic existing between national and state governments,
while understanding polices so often live or die at the hands of the individual implementing
actors. States preparing to address energy code compliance requirements of the Recovery Act
should be aware of these theoretical models, their inherent issues and challenges, and take
inventory from the range of available implementation options—these realities and the nature of
general policy implementation need not go unnoticed. Following the inaugural Earth Day, the
oil embargo, and 1970s energy crisis, President Jimmy Carter encouraged energy efficiency,
stating; “Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production.” (Rosenbaum,
2011) Almost three decades later, we are still plagued by many of the same challenges.
2.4 ENERGY CODES AS A POLITICAL MECHANISM
Energy codes are generally accepted as a political solution in support of over-arching
conservation policy. To many, energy codes are a one-sized approach to ensure a desired end.
Government agents, elected officials and policymakers look to the code as a functional
mechanism to bring efficiency goals to life. The code must accommodate a wide range of
construction types, climates, and product uses. Product manufacturers and organizational
interests tend to participate heavily in the code development process to influence future
requirements and ensure business alignment. A single specified change can alter traditional and
well-known construction methods, pave the way for a new technology into the market, or even
eliminate the use of a fading technology. Although, the code is designed to create product

31

neutrality, any change will have some degree of ramification on individual stakeholder or
professional groups. Needless to say, this process is of key importance to product manufacturers
and professional trade associations. Advancing codes also seek unprecedented levels of energy
efficiency, however; if too specific, states and adopting jurisdictions may balk at the lack of
flexibility. The function of the code as a political mechanism within greater arenas of
environmental policy need be examined, including benefits of new requirements, as well as
associated barriers impeding energy code compliance.
2.4.1 The Compliance Process
Energy codes function based on a series of traditional models and compliance paths. A number
of factors empower the actual code, such as the scope of included provisions, regulatory
frameworks, and the degree to which the code is enforced. Within the code are further options,
as well, in the form of multiple paths by which compliance can be demonstrated. These
enforcement models and embedded compliance paths are discussed briefly in the following
section.
Compliance Models
A 2008 report by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) identifies four primary models
commonly used across the country in enforcing energy codes (BCAP, 2008):
1.
2.
3.
4.

Self-certification
State agency enforcement
Third-party enforcement
Local enforcement

According to BCAP (2008), local code enforcement, such as that performed by a local building
department, is the most commonly relied upon model. Self-certification, or first-party
assessment, is performed when an entity responsible for compliance certifies their own work.
For example, a builder or contractor submitting a statement of compliance, and indicating all
32

required code provisions have been satisfied. Second-party assessment involves certification by
an otherwise involved party, such as a building owner or financial institution. Finally, thirdparty certification is performed by a non-affiliated body, such as a contracted individual hired for
the sole purpose of measuring and verifying compliance with the building. Parties most
influential in the compliance process are often code officials, zoning departments, fire marshals,
health departments, or other authorities having jurisdiction to enforce the code, as set forth by
state or local law. Other parties can also influence the process, such as product manufacturers,
testing, and certification agencies hired to validate compliance. This validation is often
performed post-construction, but may be performed at several stages, such as initial occupancy
or even post-occupancy (Conover et. al., 2011).
Compliance Paths
Within the actual code, several options exist to demonstrate compliance with the necessary
requirements. A 2011 report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) outlines
traditional paths, as well as some considered to be more progressive. Traditional paths include
(Conover et. al., 2011):
Prescriptive: Simple, singular metrics which individual building components often must
satisfy
Component Performance: Performance of a particular component, system, or sub-system
of a building
Equivalent Performance: Performance of a designed building as compared to the same
building constructed to base code requirements
Several states add alternative paths deemed acceptable as complying with the code.
Amendments may include provisions establishing a minimum alternate performance path, such
as complying with the ENERGY STAR program administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). ENERGY STAR is a federal program through which homes meet efficiency
criteria in excess of typical code requirements. Some states also allow compliance
33

demonstration if a specified HERS score is achieved. The Home Energy Rating System (HERS)
sets criteria for modeling home energy usage, as well as for post-construction testing. Homes are
also scored based on HERS criteria, a number which is often equated to automobile MPG
ratings.
Considered even more progressive are outcome-based or capacity-constrained compliance paths,
where the code abandons exhaustive prescriptive requirements in favor of a simple as-designed
metric. For example, and outcome-based energy code pushes the burden of proof postoccupancy, where compliance is determined by evidence of actual building performance. This
can be accomplished by a square footage metric (i.e., Energy Use Intensity [EUI]), or through a
simple comparison of utility bills. Capacity, or peak, constraints impose limitations on the
design side, such as limiting utility power supplies or setting maximum equipment sizes.
Code compliance is traditionally driven by prescriptive code requirements, which are adopted at
state or local levels and administered through local construction regulation. Plans are often
submitted to a local building department, which then inspects the building during the
construction process to ensure installed features are placed as designed. Upon completion of
construction, the building department will issue a Certificate of Occupancy, granting permission
for the building to be occupied by the owner (Conover et. al., 2011).
2.4.2 Benefits of Compliance Policy
The Washington, DC based Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) recognizes building
energy codes as, “one of the most affordable and effective mechanisms for advancing energy
efficiency in buildings.” Compliance with energy codes, however, is often observed at poor
levels. An IMT task group, consisting of several prominent environmental advocacy
organizations, identified six dollars in energy savings yielded from each dollar of input expense.

34

“By simply enforcing existing energy codes, local governments can achieve dramatic energy
reductions at a relatively modest cost.” (IMT, 2010a)
Buildings that comply with energy codes are also identified as more energy‐efficient and use less
energy in their lifetimes. The benefits of adopting, implementing and enforcing codes extend
well beyond utility bill savings. Energy codes can improve occupant comfort, increase our
country’s energy independence, and reduce emissions of harmful pollutants. Moreover, and
perhaps even more importantly in the current economic climate, well‐enforced building energy
codes can provide local jobs at all skill levels in the building inspection, construction, and design
industries. (IMT, 2011)
A 2011 report released by the Climate Policy Initiative expects modern codes to experience
widespread use with the potential for significant energy savings. Key findings outlined in the
report include an approximate 10% overall decrease in energy consumption in comparison to
homes not built to modern codes. The report goes on to cite energy codes as an inexpensive
option for government to support efficiency policy, especially in comparison to monetary
incentives or financing measures (Deason & Hobbs, 2011). Aside from energy savings alone,
building energy codes may offer additional economic and environmental benefits. “They also
create economic opportunities for business and industry by promoting new energy-efficient
technologies.” (Halverson & Shankle, 2003) A recent Building Energy Codes 101 publication
also cites the potential for reduced building owner and operational costs, in addition to benefits
of significantly reduced carbon emissions over the life of the building. (DOE, 2010a)
2.4.3 Barriers to Energy Code Compliance
Advancement of efficiency policy through the use building energy codes can be confronted by a
variety of barriers throughout multiple stages of the code development and implementation

35

processes. Model energy codes are developed on the national stage by a wide range of
stakeholders, but are then left to states, cities or local jurisdictions to adopt as law and enforce.
True energy savings are only realized through adequate enforcement and actual compliance with
the provisions intended by the code.
The 2008 article, Putting Codes into Action: How Newly Updated Building Codes Translate into
Practice, provides valuable insight into the process of implementing fresh code policy. This
article offers a methodology of evaluating building codes common to most compliance or
baseline studies. Methods utilized in the study included a visit to nine local building department
offices across several California climate zones. A sample of over 400 records was reviewed,
made up of permitting documents, plans, drawings, and project specifications on file. Actual site
inspections were also administered for 144 buildings in the larger sample. “Beyond the noncompliance values themselves, this study was able to provide valuable insight into the various
building department processes and procedures in-place across the state.” (Levy, et. al., 2008)
Many procedural inconsistencies were found, largely attributed to the unique nature of each
building department’s internal policies for determining compliance. “All building departments
keep records of permits by address, date and permit numbers; however, the methods by which
they categorize, store, and support projects differ in every jurisdiction. In particular, we found
that the level of project detail available for viewing was inconsistent throughout the state.” The
study also cites an alignment of compliance evaluations with the goals of supervisors and city
council members whom lack a true understanding of the energy code. Unfortunately, the
discrepancy is reaffirmed between the prescribed code for an area, and what measures are truly
enforced in the field. A lack of knowledge and ‘grandfathering’ clauses are also typically cited
as creating a large gap between code policy and actual enforcement criteria. (Levy, et. al., 2008)

36

A second article, Regulatory Standards and Barriers to Improved Performance for Housing,
identifies many existing barriers impeding a clean implementation of energy code or similar
policy. One of the primary barriers cited is often present within the language, itself. “The main
barriers to progress are located in policy, process and availability of human resources, rather than
in technology as narrowly defined.” (Lowe, et. al., 2008) The verbiage as written in the political
document is mentioned, often written in vague or general terms for the purpose of encompassing
several potential situations. When analyzed or considered by end-users, the result is often
confusion or discrepancy over terminology or intent of the passage. Communication and the
lack of adequate resources are also cited as defiant to policy implementation. “Regulatory
confusion is enhanced by inadequate resources for regulatory development and enforcement.”
Several remedies are suggested, such as improved cooperation within the government, an
integration of demand and supply-side policies for energy performance in housing, and an
improvement in research and training support for energy efficiency. “It will be clear for the
foregoing that the government has a key role to play in setting clear goals in this area and
implementing policies to achieve them.” (Lowe, et. al., 2008)
Energy codes can deliver their potential energy savings only when projects actually comply with
the code. Although many local jurisdictions have adopted or will soon adopt the latest model
energy codes, many new and renovated structures fail to comply with mandatory energy
efficiency requirements, consuming far more energy and money to operate than they should.
Many jurisdictions lack the necessary training and enforcement resources to ensure compliance,
and compliance rates in many states, cities and towns are well below 50 percent. To maximize
the benefits of building energy codes, local efforts to enforce codes must be enhanced by

37

providing education, training and resources to local code officials, plan reviewers and industry
stakeholders. (IMT, 2011)
The 2008 BCAP report also addressed several barriers impeding compliance with building
energy codes. Lack of available manpower for code compliance measures was identified as one
of the top barriers in enforcing residential energy codes. Insufficient time to spend on the energy
code was also cited, resulting from the common need for a single code official to enforce
multiple residential and commercial codes—mechanical, electrical, structural, and plumbing to
name a few. Codes containing life and safety provisions are considered to take precedence over
provisions designed to save energy. “Because it does not qualify as a life-health safety code, the
energy code was reported to be a lower priority, receiving less attention from inspectors resulting
in a lower likelihood of compliance.” (BCAP, 2008) Building code officials were also found to
have a mix of technical knowledge, experience, and educational backgrounds. Many code
officials were labeled as having a desire to improve their knowledge of the energy code, but were
limited by current workloads. (BCAP, 2008)
2.4.4 Best Practices
Looking past barriers, previous studies have extracted best practices and positive outcomes in the
pursuit of energy code compliance. A 2007 Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership (SWEEP)
report (Schlegel & Troncone, 2007) compared best practices related to code compliance and
enforcement in the State of Arizona. Continued education and training was identified as an
important aspect. “Education and training for both the building industry and for code officials
and inspectors is an essential practice in municipalities with successful implementation of
building energy codes.” Regular interaction between building departments and the construction
industry is considered a positive trait, creating venues for information exchange on code updates,

38

compliance options, and advancing construction applications. Many of the more progressive
building departments were found to provide inspectors with software and practical enforcement
tools. Many of these were as simple as checklists of key compliance features. Regular training
was also commonly observed within leading programs, as was the presence of an energy code
champion within the community to pursue optimal compliance strategies. (Schlegel & Troncone,
2007)
BCAP echoes the need for training, stating, “Overwhelmingly, code officials believed energy
code training is essential to effective energy code enforcement.” (BCAP, 2008) Most code
officials included in the BCAP study said their jurisdiction required a certification or licensing
program, presenting the opportunity for energy code-related training through continuing
education requirements. Training programs cited were most often offered by DOE, state energy
offices, local building official organizations, or regional/national energy efficiency groups.
Survey responses suggest a preference for state-specific in-person training, followed by the ease
of online methods, such as webinars, self-paced courses, and supplemental compliance
resources. These were stated as leading to an improved understanding of new code
requirements, “directly impacting compliance and enforcement.” (BCAP, 2008) The use of
computers and other information technologies within the enforcement process was also identified
as streamlining the process, helping to reduce permitting time, improve efficiency, and enhance
the productivity of departmental operating funds. Furthermore, the importance of assigning
value to the energy code was addressed, indicating a need to connect with the consumer through
modern sources, such as through the internet, presentations, newsletters, and other common
media outlets.

39

A third study (Benningfield & Hogan, 2003) reviewed enforcement practices in the State of
California and the City of Seattle, and stresses the importance of involving all key participants in
code development and compliance processes. These stakeholders are identified as including:
architects, mechanical engineers, lighting designers, equipment manufacturers, contractors, and
installers. “One benefit is that the resultant code language will likely end up being clearer and
will likely address common problems. The other benefit, which is not to be underestimated, is
that these participants can then go back to their respective organizations and build support for the
energy code requirements.” This study again cited the importance of educational and training
programs, citing them as necessary to summarize requirements, but also to provide background
and supporting rationale. “This helps later when questions come up for unusual situations that
are not specifically addressed in the code.” The avoidance of risk was also implied as an indirect
benefit to additional knowledge of code requirements, providing the opportunity to remedy
problems and potential code violations earlier in the process before construction is underway.
“Third-party plan review and field inspection can relieve the responsibility from one agency and
assign it to another. In some cases, this works well because typically the third-party agency
specializes in this service and consequently the technical knowledge is quite high.”
(Benningfield & Hogan, 2003)
2.5 EXISTING GUIDANCE AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Energy code compliance requirements were issued in concert with the Recovery Act in 2009.
Today, their application yet remains far from understood by state and local governments. Many
states and code enforcing agencies have hesitated to initiate activities in support of compliance
requirements, and have waited for others to take the lead in this potentially consuming endeavor.
Several states have participated in federal pilot programs, or have even responded with

40

compliance studies of their own. A variety of resources have also been made available by
national and state sources. The following section points readers to many of these resources, and
provides an overview of known guidance specific to Recovery Act requirements.
2.5.1 Recovery Act Requirements
Section 410 of the Recovery Act includes the following language pertaining to building energy
codes (U.S. Congress, 2009):
(2) The State, or the applicable units of local government that have
authority to adopt building codes, will implement the following:
(A) A building energy code (or codes) for residential buildings that
meets or exceeds the most recently published International Energy
Conservation Code, or achieves equivalent or greater energy
savings.
(B) A building energy code (or codes) for commercial buildings
throughout the State that meets or exceeds the
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2007, or achieves equivalent
or greater energy savings.
(C) A plan for the jurisdiction achieving compliance with the
building energy code or codes described in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) within 8 years of the date of enactment of this Act in at least 90
percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building
space. Such plan shall include active training and enforcement
programs and measurement of the rate of compliance each year.
To be eligible for stimulus package funding, governors from all fifty states submitted letters
certifying their states’ obligation to fulfill Recovery Act requirements. While both the Recovery
Act and pre-existing legislation legally requires states to adopt target energy codes, these
requirements are fulfilled in a variety of ways—the two most common being statewide or by
local jurisdiction. “The State, or the applicable units of local government that have authority to
adopt building codes” seems to refer to this dynamic (U.S. Congress, 2009). Whether adopting

41

statewide or local jurisdiction (known as Home Rule), all states appear to fall under the purview
of the Recovery Act.
Part A imposes requirements surrounding energy codes for residential buildings. At the time the
Recovery Act was drafted, the 2009 version of the International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) was still being developed through processes owned by the International Code Council
(ICC). This process had completed by the time the Recovery Act was officially published,
however. Therefore, the 2009 IECC is the best choice in fulfilling, “A building energy code (or
codes) for residential buildings that meets or exceeds the most recently published International
Energy Conservation Code.” (U.S. Congress, 2009) The language also retains flexibility to opt
for a different code deemed to achieve equivalent levels of energy savings, which is considered
to include more recent (and more efficient) versions of the IECC.
Commercial buildings are covered under Part B, which follows a similar format to the previous.
In this case, the target code is specified by name: Standard 90.1—2007, developed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA). Similar language allowing an equivalent or greater energy savings is
provided. While standards are not typically adopted as code (law), Standard 90.1 is an
exception, and is written in enforceable code language. Therefore, commercial adoption
requirement can be met directly, or by reference, as it is also included in the next newer version
of the IECC.
Part C serves as the focus of this thesis, and ventures beyond regulatory requirements paved by
previous legislation. The Recovery Act requires a plan to achieve 90% Compliance in
accordance with the above codes within eight years. Herein lays requirements for training

42

programs, active enforcement, annual compliance measurement, and the majority of state
heartburn. Guidance from DOE and other national organizations have attempted to provide
guidance and resolution to a number of state issues, but no clear marching orders exist. While
many of these concerns are addressed within the PNNL suggested methodology, states may be
left to resolve significant and unprecedented challenges in meeting Recovery Act requirements.
2.5.2 DOE and PNNL Methodology
Perhaps the most centralized document pertaining to the 2009 Recovery Act compliance mandate
is the Measuring State Energy Code Compliance report released by the PNNL and DOE in
March of 2010. This document aggregates a previously developed series of compliance briefs
issued by PNNL over the preceding months, each brief focused on one particular compliance
issue, and culminating in a suggested methodology to address Recovery Act compliance
requirements. The report covers topics, such as: developing a statistically valid sampling of
buildings for evaluation, checklists, implementation resources, and how to meet annual reporting
criteria. Some limited consideration is given to constraints, such as funding and manpower
constraints. The report also directs readers to the eventual evaluation tools suggested to states
for determining building energy code compliance, and provides a limited framework suggesting
how states should plan for new requirements.
Compliance briefs have since been aggregated into a single, comprehensive report, providing; “A
detailed set of procedures that may help states as they engage in (these) activities, most notably
those associated with measuring and reporting rates of compliance.” (DOE, 2010b)
Unfortunately, there exists a significant amount of static friction for states as they start thinking
about the Recovery Act compliance requirements. While the suggested process may provide an
ideal approach, it does not provide guidance detailing how states should initiate this process.

43

Many states remain unaware of what challenges they are likely to face, what resources are at
their disposal, and simply do not know where to begin. The following sections represent a
categorized overview of existing federal guidance, and provide a flavor of expectations for
states.
Introduction
The purpose of the PNNL suggested methodology is to provide states with guidance in meeting
compliance requirements of the Recovery Act. While there is no requirement for states to use
this methodology or supporting materials, it does provide a founding set of expectations deemed
by the Federal Government to meet prescribed compliance requirements. The method also
provides a level of consistency, both in approach and as a means of gathering comparable state
data.
The PNNL methodology seeks four primary types of building samples (DOE, 2010b):
1.
2.
3.
4.

Residential new construction
Commercial new construction
Residential renovations
Commercial renovations

Each type must consist of a statistically valid sample of buildings, and be evaluated against target
codes as defined by the Recovery Act. To achieve continuing benefits, the PNNL methodology
also suggests states may wish to continue compliance measurement activities even after the 90%
compliance rate is demonstrated. (DOE, 2010b)
Code Adoption and Equivalency
This section of the report address code equivalency—a question becoming key as more recent
versions of the IECC and Standard 90.1 are developed. “During (the) 8-year period, it is certain
that more recent codes, such as the 2012 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1—2010, will be developed and
could possibly be adopted by states. If the format of these new codes is similar to the format of
44

the target codes, the checklists developed for the target codes would continue to be applicable.”
(DOE, 2010b) This description also carries an assumption that newer code versions would carry
additional stringency beyond target codes, and therefore meet requirements for equivalent (or
better) energy savings. In state measurements, however, states would remain accountable for
compliance with the target codes.
Annual Measurement
A reminder of the requirement for annual compliance measurement is presented, outlining
alternative options, as well as methods for conducting a formal evaluation. “In some states,
formal annual onsite evaluations may not be feasible or productive because of a lack of
manpower, because nothing has changed since a previous onsite audit, or because the state
intends to wait until a newer code is adopted.” (DOE, 2010b) No single method for conducting
the compliance evaluation is required, and many states are asked to focus early efforts on
adoption before progressing to the following compliance measurement activities. States
initiating the process are encouraged to conduct self-assessments before moving onto formal
evaluations, in attempt to develop an informal baseline. This is suggested in concert with
training and education activities, and the possibility of third-party assistance. States are provided
the following guidance in beginning the process (DOE, 2010b):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Establish Compliance Working Group
Perform Self-assessments
Evaluate results
Train and educate
Launch third-party compliance verification

Surveying the Jurisdictions
A survey approach is suggested as a less costly means of evaluating compliance, especially in
interim years between more robust compliance measurement activities. This application is also

45

suggested to introduce local enforcement jurisdictions to Recovery Act objectives and potential
follow-up needs. The survey is also suggested to emphasize the correlation between
jurisdictional processes and overall compliance rates. “Questions pertaining to the jurisdiction’s
energy code plan review, inspection, and administrative processes could provide some indication
of the degree to which energy code requirements are enforced, which, in turn, can inform
training and educational decisions.” A survey mechanism may also be utilized as a follow-up to
field inspections, or as a spot-check in jurisdictions exhibiting lower compliance rates. “During
formal onsite evaluations, BECP recommends that the evaluators include a short jurisdictional
survey as part of their onsite data collection process.” (DOE, 2010b) The methodology also
recommends the option of focusing the survey on only one of the sample populations each year,
rather than addressing all samples on an annual basis.
Evaluation Approaches
The PNNL suggested methodology puts forth three approaches for evaluating building plans and
construction (DOE, 2010b):
First-party
Second-party
Third-party
A first-party evaluation is defined as self-reporting data, and self-certifying any reported
compliance measurements. The report describes this method as, “Not a recommended approach
for a formal code compliance evaluation.” The second-party approach is conducted by an
overseeing state agency or local government. These entities would be responsible for the
compliance measurement process, and reported data. The third-party approach is recommended
as the most objective of the three. “In this case, the building owner or developer can retain an
accredited and recognized third-party entity that acts on behalf of the state or local agency to

46

conduct a review of the design and construction for purposes of ensuring compliance.” (DOE,
2010b) This third-party would act on behalf of project stakeholders, and be charged with
carrying-out the compliance measurement.
Sample third-party approaches defined in the report include: verification through state or local
regulatory agencies, hiring a non-local inspection agency, or contracting a private sector testing
and verification professional, such as a Home Energy Rater. States are also encouraged to adopt
appropriate certification and accreditation credentials for third-party evaluators, including those
offered by the ICC, ASHRAE, RESNET, or BPI.
Manpower and Funding
Financial and human resource constraints are briefly discussed in the report. PNNL recognizes
the need for additional manpower, regardless of chosen approach, especially in developing
ongoing compliance measurement programs. “When construction activity is down, fewer
resources are available. Additionally, code compliance assessment activities may not be covered
by permitting funds since they are over and above what is covered by the permitting functions.”
Several options for securing additional manpower are presented, including (DOE, 2010b):
Use of Recovery Act funds: Stated as job-creation legislation
Cross-training of existing personnel: To leverage funding to enhance compliance with
energy, as well as health and life safety codes
Adding staff to oversight agencies: Identified as a creative opportunity to bolster
assistance in agencies poised to assist local governments
Retain third-parties: To assist regulatory infrastructure or oversee work
Recruiting volunteers: Described as “unlikely”
Funding is, of course, needed to address above manpower constraints, as well as additional
administrative processes surrounding compliance measurement. The Recovery Act was
suggested as an immediate source of funding to support new requirements, but comes in a

47

limited timeframe. This approach is also recommended to be scaled-back in out years after the
installation of compliance infrastructure.
Suggested funding sources are as follows (DOE, 2010b):
Building Energy Codes Program technical assistance: Funding available through the
PNNL.
Federal energy efficiency funding: State Energy Program (SEP) and Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding.
Revolving Loans: This mechanism skirts Recovery Act expiration dates, and lasts
beyond the three-year ARRA timeline (must be loaned in the in initial three-year funding
period with repayment stretched over several years).
Training and certification costs: Collect fees for third-party training and certification.
Assessment of fees: Higher or tiered fees passed to owners for expedited review and
approval processes.
Utility funding: For example: Utility Code Group (UCG) in Washington State and
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) in Oregon. Also suggests higher utility rates for noncompliant buildings (penalty or disincentive).
Local, State and Federal funding: Matching state grants, or continuation through funding
programs initially setup through Recovery Act funds.
Foundation support from the community: References local program where the
Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan awarded grant to Eight Mile Boulevard
Association to enhance code enforcement in the area.
Streamlining of enforcement processes: Justification through long-term labor savings and
more efficient administrative processes.
Sample Populations
The PNNL suggested methodology recommends separate reporting for each building type
sample within a state. “It is quite possible that a state will find that their compliance rate is
above 90% in one metric, but does not attain 90% in another.” This section of the report focuses
strongly on what constitutes a valid sample. “For most states, BECP recommends a minimum
sample size of 44 in each population. This recommended minimum number of buildings will
vary by state, starting with a minimum of 44 buildings but incorporating fewer or more samples
depending on the degree of building construction in each of the four building populations within
the state.”

48

Two equations are presented for identifying an appropriate sample size (DOE, 2010b):

Where:

n

= the number of buildings that must be evaluated from the state

s2
Z
1-α
1-β
Δ

= the square of the standard deviation (sample variance)
= a standard normal score from a normal distribution
= the confidence level
= the power
= the minimum true difference from 90% that is important to correctly
detect as being different from 90% (the detectable difference)

The first equation provides a state with a 95% confidence rate over the computer compliance
score. A second equation is provided to test if the compliance threshold is met (DOE, 2010b).

Where:
s
n

= the mean
= the standard deviation
= 44 (the number of buildings in the sample)

The report also further breaks down further sample criteria, such as new commercial building
size (classifications for small to XX-Large), and gives consideration for various residential use
types, such as modular homes, detached dwellings, townhouses, and multifamily apartments and
condominiums. The methodology assumes sample buildings will be drawn across all such
classifications.

49

Sample buildings are also recommended taken across weather regions, or climate zones. The
steps for generating such a distribution are as follows (DOE, 2010b):
1. Calculate the average number of building starts for the previous three years in each
climate zone within the state.
2. Calculate the proportion of building starts in each climate zone and remove any climate
zones with a proportion smaller than 0.02 (i.e. 2%).
3. Calculate the number of samples for each included climate zone, excluding the most
densely populated climate zone, by multiplying each proportion by the total number of
samples (n) and round up to the nearest integer.
4. The number of samples for the most densely populated climate zone is the total number
of samples minus the sum of the numbers calculated in Step 3.

Figure 2: U.S. Climate zones (DOE, 2012c)

50

The report continues in identifying a process for generating similar strata within climate zones,
allocated by county (DOE, 2010b):
1. Using the average number of building starts based on the previous three years; identify
the number of building starts for each county. For commercial buildings, identify
building starts within each building size strata for each county.
2. Remove any counties with an average building start value of less than 2 buildings.
3. Create a list of counties, where each county is included in the list as many times as the
number of buildings starts calculated in Step 2.
4. Randomly select the number of buildings needed from the list created in Step 3, and
summarize how many samples were chosen from each county. Random selection can be
from an automated process, using functions in a spreadsheet, or simply by pulling county
names from a hat.
Caution is given in ensuring a final sample represents a reasonable cross-section of buildings
within a particular state. “Recognizing that some buildings of a given type might not be
available in a given state, the state should attempt to select from as varied a sample set as
possible.” Documentation to indicate deliberate attempts to avoid sample bias are also
encouraged.
Once a sample is obtained, the PNNL methodology proposes two potential methods by which
compliance can be measured (DOE, 2010b):
1. Method 1: Evaluated buildings either pass or fail the energy code evaluation, and the
percentage of buildings within the state that are deemed to comply is reported. For
example, if 90% of the buildings sampled in the state receive a passing score, the
reported metric is 90%.
2. Method 2: Evaluated buildings are each assigned a compliance rating of 0-100% based
on the proportion of code requirements that each has met, and the evaluated buildings’
scores within a state are averaged to derive an overall compliance metric.
The reports concludes Method 2 is the more appropriate choice in generating a true compliance
score, and recommends this as the metric for state measurement activities.

51

Compliance Approaches
Several compliance approaches (otherwise identified as compliance paths) are presented by
which a building may comply with target codes. These approaches are consistent with formats
observed within the model codes, such as the IECC. The three approaches are as follows (DOE,
2010b):
Prescriptive
Trade-off
Performance
Compliance evaluators are encouraged to choose the approach as indicated on compliance
documents, such as building plan and specification submissions. The PNNL suggested
methodology is intended to support any one of the three approaches.
Inspection checklists developed to aid compliance evaluation are based on five key phases
during the typical construction process (DOE, 2010b):
Plan review
Foundation
Framing/Rough-in
Insulation
Final
Inspection checklists also allow for the inspection of multiple buildings in generating a single
sample. “The checklists can be used to gather data during different stages of construction on
different buildings that have the same general attributes in order to yield a resulting single
composite building compliance evaluation in lieu of evaluating a single building throughout
construction.” This is a precedence cited as utilized in previous influential residential
compliance studies. The suggested method further allows for one primary building to be used to
generate a single sample, with any missed or non-observable items to be made up in a separate
building.

52

Compliance Measurement Activities
Although many states have been slow to address energy code compliance requirements in the
Recovery Act, some have undertaken forward-leaning activities to study compliance. The PNNL
90% Compliance Pilot Studies are perhaps the most visible inquiry, however; many states have
initiated compliance activities of their own. These studies exhibit a range of efforts, both in
terms of depth and breadth of inquiry. While most have followed the prescription of the PNNLsuggested methodology, others have chosen alternative approaches to better address financial
constraints or state-specific scenarios. Many of the DOE compliance tools and resources have
also found their place within state studies. A summary of state compliance measurement
activities to date is provided in the following section.
2.5.3 PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies
The PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies (PNNL, 2011a) were put into motion in 2010. Fueled
by Recovery Act stimulus funds, the pilot studies were conducted in several states, and can be
considered the core effort in response to Recovery Act compliance requirements. Feedback on
specific building samples, study approaches, and geographic locations were sought, in addition
to general applications of the methodology and accompanying compliance tools. Although no
single pilot study generated a true state baseline compliance rate (based on the PNNL
methodology), each did offer valuable insight into many of the realities, challenges and barriers
impeding energy code compliance.

53

Each Pilot is listed in the following table, along with the partnering Regional Energy Efficiency
Organization (REEO) and focus of each study (PNNL, 2011a):
Table 3: Pilot study states and focus of their studies
State (REEO)

Focus of Pilot Study

Utah (SWEEP)

Utah conducted a study in two phases. The Phase 1 study evaluated 11
new residential and 6 new commercial buildings against the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE/IESNA
90.1-07/2009 IECC respectively. The Phase 2 study evaluated 42 new
residential buildings against the 2006 IECC. A jurisdictional survey
was used as part of the Utah study.

Iowa (MEEA)

Iowa evaluated 50 new residential buildings against the 2009 IECC.

Massachusetts
(NEEP)

Massachusetts evaluated 50 recently constructed homes, and used
Home Energy Rating data from 50 ENERGY STAR qualified homes, to
derive a total of 100 samples. The samples were evaluated against the
2006 IECC. Massachusetts reported compliance in a number of
alternative formats, including Home Energy Rating System (HERS)
scores.

Georgia (SEEA)

Georgia evaluated 69 new commercial buildings, but several were
partial evaluations that were intended to be combined into single
samples for a total of 44 commercial building evaluations. A
jurisdictional survey was used as part of the Georgia study.

Wisconsin (MEEA)

Wisconsin evaluated 44 new commercial buildings, using state
inspectors to conduct the evaluations.

Northwest Lighting
Study (NEEA)

For the Northwest Commercial Lighting Study (Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Montana), plans were reviewed for 91 commercial buildings
to evaluate code lighting requirements, and field inspections were
conducted on 29 buildings.

Northwest
Jurisdictional
Survey
(NEEA)

The Northwest Jurisdictional Survey Study (Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Montana) implemented a survey approach to determine
current residential and commercial data collection, documentation, and
storage practices and identify opportunities for improvement.

Montana (NEEA)

Montana’s study was extended under additional funding and has not yet
been completed. They are evaluating 125 new homes, with half of the
homes being pulled from locations under jurisdictional control and half
from locations where builders self-certify.

54

The objectives of the PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies included (PNNL, 2011a):
Test the PNNL suggested methodology and supporting compliance resources
Revision of procedures and tools based on study feedback
A Better understanding for states conducting a study:
o State compliance rates
o Where to focus training
o Needs of individual jurisdictions
o Common impediments to compliance
o Issues with the energy code itself
Evaluation of national trends using Pilot Study data:
o Common compliant and non-compliant code requirements
o Code requirements often not observed and not applicable
o Alternative approaches
o Aggregated results from jurisdictional surveys
o Further analysis of compliance rates by:
 Building use
 Building system
 Building size
 Compliance path
Pilot studies kicked-off with regional training sessions, conducted in Iowa, Utah, Wisconsin, and
Georgia. PNNL staff provided training on available compliance tools and procedures, including
the PNNL Compliance Checklists developed for field inspections against Recovery Act target
codes. Training attendees included third-party contractors, building officials, state energy office
personnel, and other interested and affected stakeholders. Non-pilot states were also invited to
attend training sessions, many of which would participate in their own follow-on compliance
measurement activities. Georgia, Utah and a collective Northwest study applied the PNNL
Jurisdictional Survey as part of their study. These pilot study states (with the exception of
Georgia), along with a Michigan survey study, are analyzed in the Data Analysis chapter. The
following sections provide an overview of findings, including many of the barriers and
successful practices discovered in Pilot Study activities.

55

Evaluation Time
Compliance measurement activities were found to be a substantial undertaking for states. Pilot
studies were allowed a 10-month timeframe for completion, which proved to be inadequate to
conduct a full, especially first, compliance measurement. Several sources of potential bias
should also be identified, due to the tight timeline. Most pilot states were those who had some
level of existing compliance infrastructure or regulatory system in-place.
Access to sample buildings had to be achieved almost instantly in order to fit the following
building inspections. The amount of time required to evaluate the average building varied
significantly between residential and commercial projects. The four site visits required for
inspections were often challenging, due to timing of the visits. Inspections performed outside of
the pre-defined changes yielded mixed results, with many features not observable later in the
construction process.
Table 4: Time required for the average building evaluation
Building Type
Residential
Commercial

Plan Review (min.)
38
218

Field Inspection (min.)
75
413

General Barriers and Findings
State pilot studies reported a variety of barriers. Many of these were identified through state
survey responses, while others were noted through plan review and field inspection activities. A
summary of reported barriers discovered through pilots are as follows (PNNL, 2011a):
Lack of training
Lack of resources
Lack of compliance information on plan submissions
Data sources used to generate sample sets can be inaccurate
Studies are costly and require multiple visits to the same project site
Timing site visits with desired phases of construction is difficult
Access to building sites
56

Study conclusions also highlighted inconsistencies between evaluators. Most of the pilots relied
upon contracted third-parties to review plans and conducted building inspections. It was
determined many evaluators did not have a clear understanding of the energy code. Many
clarifications requested through PNNL technical support pertained to the code itself, as opposed
to a specific compliance resource.
Feedback on PNNL Methodology and Supporting Tools
Positive feedback was generally offered on the PNNL-suggested methodology and supporting
suite of compliance tools. All 90% Compliance Pilot Studies were required to use the PNNL
method and resources. Study conclusions indicated value, but also several areas for potential
future improvement (PNNL, 2011a):
Checklists were valuable tools for third-party evaluators and were expected to have value
to state and local inspectors in normal enforcement efforts
Use of software tools, such as COMcheck and REScheck, demonstrate strong correlation
with higher compliance rates
Methodology does not work well post-construction
Provide additional guidance to define when ‘Not Applicable’ and ‘Not Observable’
should be used
Many checklist items cannot be easily identified by third-party inspectors (e.g. As-built
drawings submitted post project completion)
Best and Worst Areas for Compliance
The majority of Pilot Studies sought compliance data through plan review and field inspections
for buildings being constructed at the time. These reviews and inspections were performed using
the PNNL Compliance Checklists, which allowed for identification of compliance by specific
code provision. This included the most often compliant items, as well as the most common
infractions. Individual evaluator responses were also examined for instances where the provision
was most often marked ‘not applicable’ or ‘not observable’. As many inspections were
conducted post-construction, many building components affecting energy consumption were

57

hidden behind walls and by later finishes. The tables on the following pages summarize the most
and least compliant code items, and are labeled corresponding to the individual code provision
within the PNNL Compliance Checklists (PNNL, 2011a).

58

Table 5: Least compliant residential checklist requirements (least compliant listed first)
Checklist
ID
FI7
PR2
FI6
FR22
PR1
FR14
FR21
FI5
FI4
FR20
FI2
IN13
FO2
FO9
FO10
IN1
FR12
FI1
FI3
IN15

IN14
FO3

Checklist Text
Certificate posted.
HVAC loads calculations
Heating system size(s):
Cooling system size(s):
Lighting - 50% of lamps are high efficacy.
Fenestration and doors labeled for air leakage.
Construction drawings and documentation available. Documentation sufficiently
demonstrates energy code compliance.
Duct tightness via rough-in test.
Swinging door air leakage.
Heating and cooling equipment type and capacity as per plans.
Duct tightness via post-construction test.
Glazed fenestration air leakage.
Ceiling insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions. Blown insulation
marked every 300 sq. ft.
All installed insulation labeled or installed R-value provided.
Slab edge insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Crawl space continuous vapor retarder installed with joints overlapped by 6" and
sealed, and extending at least 6" up the stem wall.
Exposed foundation insulation protection.
Floor insulation R-value.
Duct insulation.
Ceiling insulation R-value.
Attic access hatch and door insulation.
Air sealing of all envelope joints and seams via visual inspection: dropped
ceilings, knee walls, assemblies separating garage, tubs and showers, common
walls between units, rim joist junctions.
Air sealing of all openings and penetrations via visual inspection: site-built
fenestration, window/door openings, utility penetrations
attic access openings.
Slab edge insulation depth/length.

59

Table 6: Least compliant commercial code requirements (least compliant first)
Checklist ID
FR3
FR12
FR2
FR1
PR1
FR13

PR4

PL4
PR3

PR2
FR14
EL5
FR5
FR8
FR10
IN2

Checklist Text
Fenestration and doors labeled for air leakage.
Fenestration products rated in accordance with NFRC.
Doors meet maximum air leakage requirements.
Fenestration meets maximum air leakage requirements.
Plans and/or specifications provide all information with which compliance can
be determined for the building envelope and delineate and document where
exceptions to the standard are claimed.
Fenestration products are certified as to performance labels or certificates
provided.
Plans, specifications, and/or calculations provide all information with which
compliance can be determined for the lighting and electrical systems and
equipment and delineate and document where exceptions to the standard are
claimed. Information provided should include interior and exterior lighting
power calculations, wattage of bulbs and ballasts, transformers and control
devices.
Heat traps Installed on non-circulating storage water tanks.
Plans, specifications, and/or calculations provide all information with which
compliance can be determined for the service water heating systems and
equipment and delineate and document where exceptions to the standard are
claimed.
Plans, specifications, and/or calculations provide all information with which
compliance can be determined for the mechanical systems and equipment and
delineate and document where exceptions to the standard are claimed.
U-factor of opaque doors associated with the building thermal envelope meets
requirements.
Ballasted one- and three-lamp fixtures with >30 W/lamp have two lamp tandem
wired ballasts when >2 fixtures in same space on same control.
Roof insulation R-value.
Vertical fenestration U-Factor.
Vertical fenestration SHGC value.
Roof insulation R-value.

60

Table 7: Most compliant residential code requirements (most compliant first)
Checklist ID
FR19
FI9
FR2

FR15
FR4
FR3

IN7
FR1
FR16
IN3
IN4
FI10
FR17
IN12

Checklist Text
Dampers installed on all outdoor intake and exhaust openings.
Programmable thermostats installed on forced air furnaces.
Glazing U-factor (area-weighted average). Up to 15 sq. ft. of glazed
fenestration, including skylights, may be exempted from U-factor and SHGC
requirements under the prescriptive approach.
Building cavities NOT used for supply ducts.
Glazing labeled for U-factor (or default values used).
Glazing SHGC value, including sunrooms (area-weighted average). Up to 15
sq. ft. of glazed fenestration, including skylights, may be exempted from Ufactor and SHGC requirements under the prescriptive approach.
Basement wall interior insulation depth.
Door U-factor. One side-hinged door up to 24 sq. ft. can be exempted from the
prescriptive door U-factor requirements.
IC-rated recessed lighting fixtures meet infiltration criteria.
Wall insulation R-value.
Wall insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Heat pump thermostat installed on heat pumps.
HVAC piping insulation.
Air sealing complies with sealing requirements via blower door test.

61

Table 8: Most compliant commercial code requirements (most compliant first)
Checklist ID

Checklist Text

FI2

Heating and cooling to each zone is controlled by a thermostat control.

FI3

Temperature controls have the following features: dead band controls, set point
overlap restrictions, off-hour controls, automatic shutdown, setback controls.

ME10

Ducts and plenums sealed based on static pressure and location.

FI18

Installed lamps and fixtures are consistent with what is shown on the approved
lighting plans.

FI17

Furnished O&M instructions for systems and equipment to the building owner or
designated representative.

ME17

Zone controls can limit simultaneous heating and cooling and sequence heating
and cooling to each zone.

EL7

Exterior grounds lighting over 100 W provides >60 lm/W unless on motion
sensor or fixture is exempt from scope of code or from external LPD.

ME14

Means provided to relieve excess outside air.

ME36

Service water heating equipment meets efficiency requirements.

EL2

Independent lighting control installed per approved lighting plans and all manual
control readily accessible and visible to occupants.

PL2

Temperature controls installed on service water heating systems <=110 oF for
intended use serving dwelling units and <=90 oF serving other occupancies.

ME4

Outdoor air and exhaust systems have motorized dampers that automatically shut
when not in use and meet maximum leakage rates. Check gravity dampers where
allowed.

IN14

Exterior insulation is protected from damage with a protective material.

EL3

Automatic lighting controls for exterior lighting installed.

62

Table 9: Residential code requirements most often marked “Not Applicable”
Checklist ID
FR9
IN10
IN11
IN9
FR10
FR11
FR8
IN8
FI12
FO11
FR6
FO7
FO8
FO9

Checklist Text
Sunroom skylight U-factor.
Sunroom ceiling insulation R-value.
Sunroom ceiling insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Sunroom wall insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Mass wall exterior insulation R-value.
Mass wall exterior insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Sunroom glazing U-factor.
Sunroom wall insulation R-value.
Pool heaters, covers, and automatic or accessible manual controls.
Snow melt controls.
Skylight SHGC value. Up to 15 ft2 of glazed fenestration, including
skylights, may be exempted from U-factor and SHGC requirements under the
prescriptive approach.
Crawl space wall insulation R-value.
Crawl space wall insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Crawl space continuous vapor retarder installed with joints overlapped by 6"
and sealed, and extending at least 6" up the stem wall.

63

Table 10: Residential code requirements most often marked “Not Observable”
(Requirements marked in bold are also included among the least compliant provisions)
Checklist ID
FR21
FR20
FI11

Description
Swinging door air leakage.
Glazed fenestration air leakage.
Circulating service hot water systems have automatic or accessible manual
controls.

FR22
FR18

Fenestration and doors labeled for air leakage.
Circulating hot-water piping insulation.

FO2

Slab edge insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Door U-factor. One side-hinged door up to 24 sq. ft. can be exempted from the
prescriptive door U-factor requirements.
Slab edge insulation depth/length.
Air sealing of all other sources of infiltration, including air barrier, via visual
inspection. If applicable, verification via blower door should be marked N/A.
Slab edge insulation R-value.
Air sealing of all envelope joints and seams via visual inspection:
dropped ceilings, knee walls, assemblies separating garage, tubs and
showers, common walls between units, rim joist junctions.
Basement wall interior insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.

FR1
FO3
IN16
FO1
IN15
IN6
IN14
FI5
FR4
FR2
IN4
FR19
FR13
FO5
FR15
FR17
FI4
FR7
FR16

Air sealing of all openings and penetrations via visual inspection:
Site-built fenestration, Window/door openings, Utility penetrations, Attic
access openings.
Heating and cooling equipment type and capacity as per plans.
Glazing labeled for U-factor (or default values used).
Glazing U-factor (area-weighted average). Up to 15 sq ft of glazed fenestration,
including skylights, may be exempted from U-factor and SHGC requirements
under the prescriptive approach.
Wall insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Dampers installed on all outdoor intake and exhaust openings.
Duct sealing complies with listed sealing methods.
Basement wall exterior insulation installed per manufacturer's instructions.
Building cavities NOT used for supply ducts.
HVAC piping insulation.
Duct tightness via post-construction test.
Skylights labeled for U-factor (or default values used).
IC-rated recessed lighting fixtures meet infiltration criteria.
64

Table 11: Commercial code requirements most often marked “Not Observable”
(Requirements marked in bold are also included among the least compliant provisions)
Checklist ID
FR1
FR2
FR14
ME13
FR3
FR12
FR13
IN4
FR9
ME26
EL3

Description
Fenestration meets maximum air leakage requirements.
Doors meet maximum air leakage requirements.
U-factor of opaque doors associated with the building thermal envelope
meets requirements.
Return air and outdoor air dampers meet minimum air leakage requirements.
Fenestration and doors labeled for air leakage.
Fenestration products rated in accordance with NFRC.
Fenestration products are certified as to performance labels or certificates
provided.
Skylight curbs insulated to the level of roofs with insulation above deck or R-5.
Skylight fenestration U-Factor.
Reduce flow in pumping systems of any size to multiple chillers or boilers when
others are shut down.
Automatic lighting controls for exterior lighting installed.

Potential for Bias
Several sources of potential bias were reported in the PNNL Pilot Studies, many due to the tight
timeframe in which the studies were required to be completed. Many of these sources could
have contributed to higher scores than can be assumed on a statewide or national basis. For
example, many jurisdictions were found to be non-responsive or non-cooperative when project
access was requested. This forced many of the original random samples to be altered, in order to
gain access to the necessary number of sample buildings. Many of the inspections were also
conducted after the building was constructed, or implemented by parties with an active history of
involvement in energy code activities. In general, building access within the required timeframe
may have introduced an element of self-selection to the study samples.

65

Although two of the four building types identified in the PNNL methodology are based on
existing buildings, only a few evaluations were secured for renovations. Therefore, no final
results were reported surrounding those building populations. “Many renovations are completed
without pulling a permit, and accurate data sources for sampling and locating samples are not
available.” This highlights a potential barrier in identifying statistically valid samples of existing
buildings, let alone securing access for inspections and evaluations. The New York study, in
particular, makes notes of this problem, reporting more permits pertaining to existing buildings
than new pulled on an annual basis. Only about 6% of the permits listed in the PNNL data
source applied to renovation projects (PNNL, 2011a).
Alternative Approaches
Several approaches are also presented as alternatives to the PNNL methodology. Although these
are not endorsed as a formal or complete evaluation, states may consider these methods for their
own purposes. While not sanctioned options, they may relieve some of the financial and
logistical burdens of implementing the full PNNL prescribed methodology.
Post-construction evaluation
Many compliance studies rely on post-construction evaluations as a more cost-effective option
for assessing building energy code compliance. “Post-construction evaluations would likely be
less costly, because onsite building evaluation would occur in a single visit rather than two to
four visit during construction.” This approach is also considered effective in rural jurisdictions
where repeat site visits may prove extraordinarily time consuming and expensive. As cited in
Pilot Study results, a disadvantage of this approach is the inability to verify certain items once
construction is completed. “Approximately 58% of the residential checklists requirements and
23% of the commercial checklist requirements were determined to be potentially difficult to

66

evaluate post construction.” (PNNL, 2011a) If such an approach is used, an overall building
testing procedure may be required, such as a blower door test. Infrared camera technologies may
also assist in verifying behind-wall installations where visual inspections may not be feasible. A
subset of post-construction provisions, or even a spot-check of certain measures, could also be
applied, as opposed to the entire checklist.
First or Second-party Evaluations
The second-party evaluation approach is also suggested as a potential alternative. “A secondparty evaluation could be done by building department staff within their own jurisdiction, and a
first-party evaluation could be one where builders self-certify.” Several advantages to these
methods are presented, including (PNNL, 2011a):
Building department staff are often at the building sites, eliminating expensive travel
Department staff have authority over the construction process
Potential for larger sample sets
Checklists and compliance tools can be used as training resources
A number of disadvantages are also discussed, including a lack of sustainability in utilizing
third-party contractors (often hired on a contract of limited duration). Many jurisdictions do not
fully inspect to the energy code, leaving a potential for gaps in inspections. The involvement of
jurisdictional staff in the compliance process may also prove to be a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, some jurisdictions do not have a building department, eliminating this option in
such situations.
UA and Performance Approaches
Many states and local enforcement jurisdictions already recognize compliance reports generated
by DOE REScheck and COMcheck software (i.e. the tradeoff compliance approach). Several
mandatory and prescriptive requirements, however, are not part of the software’s overall UA
calculation, creating a discrepancy between these approaches and the necessary provisions
67

contained in the PNNL Compliance Checklists. “Approximately 28% of the code requirements
on the (PNNL) checklist could be considered as part of a REScheck UA compliance result.”
(PNNL, 2011a) If mandatory code requirements were also verified, an approach incorporating
compliance through the tradeoff approach may be feasible.
2.5.4 Additional Compliance Measurement Activities
In addition to the PNNL Pilot Studies, several states have undertaken their own efforts in
addressing Recovery Act compliance requirements. While some of these states have also based
their actions on all or part of the PNNL methodology, other states are exploring further
alternatives. Activities within three such states—New York, Illinois, and Maine—are discussed
in the following section.
New York
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) started an
assessment in 2010 to establish a baseline rate of compliance. This study included both
residential (New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code) and commercial
(ASHRAE 90.1—2004 or 2007 depending on when project initiated) buildings. The New York
study was based on parts of the PNNL methodology, in concert with other methods chosen by
the state, including approaches relying on tradeoffs and Annual Energy Cost calculations. The
study also conducted surveys and interviews with builders, contractors, designers, engineers,
code officials, and homeowners.
New residential construction was determined to have a compliance rate of 67%, based on 44
building samples. New commercial construction exhibited an 84% rate of compliance, based on
a sample of 26 buildings. Similarities were drawn between the New York and Massachusetts

68

approaches, with both choosing to evaluate buildings post-construction. In contrast to the
Massachusetts study, however, the New York study heavily involved local building departments.
Successful tactics utilized in the New York study included a small financial incentive to
participate in the study ($100 for residential buildings and $150 for commercial). State agencies
also sent introductory letters and a following email to stakeholders, helping to recruit commercial
projects and gain the cooperation of local code officials. The study had difficulty overcoming
non-cooperative jurisdictions, making access to sample projects a significant issue, and
suggesting a self-selection bias. The New York study included several of the PNNL compliance
tools, including COMcheck and REScheck for UA tradeoff calculations. Other software tools,
such as REM/RATE (residential) and eQuest (commercial) were also used to simulate annual
energy performance.
A discrepancy was observed between the New York study and PNNL Pilot Studies. “In the
commercial sector, the New York study found lower compliance rates for smaller buildings
compared to larger buildings.” (PNNL, 2011a) The small sample (26 commercial buildings)
obtained in the New York study was noted, as this trend was not observed in any of the PNNL
studies.
The typical New York residential inspection was performed in approximately 2-3 hours. This
information was obtained through survey response data supplied by local code officials. Other
survey findings include (PNNL, 2011a):
Insulation installation levels and quality are often evaluated, but other code requirements
are not consistently verified.
Residential inspections averaged 100 minutes and commercial inspections averaged 200
minutes (these results are noted as skewed, due to a few respondents who reported
extremely long evaluation times).
Contractor knowledge of energy code requirements was cited as a major impediment to
compliance.

69

Other New York survey findings (continued):
New requirements, such as duct sealing and HVAC loads calculations, were cited as
seldom implemented.
The New York study also included commercial building case studies where additional interviews
were conducted with involved code officials, architects, engineers, and contractors. Conclusions
noted from theses interactions are as follows (PNNL, 2011a):
Contractors typically built what was indicated on the plans, however, in some
circumstances (e.g. budget constraints) changes were made altering energy code
requirements. These changes are seldom questioned.
Most code officials rely on others to document and verify energy code requirements
There was an awareness to look for COMcheck reports (which the state requires), but
COMcheck reports were only found for about one third of the buildings sampled. When
COMcheck documentation as submitted, not much was done beyond ensuring ‘Pass’ was
on the report. When inspections did occur, they were generally for insulation only.
Architects felt there should be a codes ‘hotline’ or other source for code interpretations.
They also felt that continued free access to tools such as COMcheck and REScheck was
critical, as is local training.
Both architects and engineers are required to put their seal on commercial building plans
and are often aware of energy code requirements; however, neither group is responsible
for verifying that the as-built system matches the plans unless the building owner retains
them to oversee construction.
Illinois
A further study of compliance in relation to Recovery Act requirements was conducted in the
State of Illinois. The Illinois Energy Conservation Code is currently based upon the 2009 IECC
(including ASHRAE 90.1—2007). The Illinois study was based conducted through plan reviews
and field inspections, and utilized several pieces of the PNNL methodology. The PNNL Sample
Generator was relied on to create a sample from 35 Illinois jurisdictions, including 44 new
residential buildings, one residential renovation, and 10 new commercial buildings. The overall
compliance scores derived were 87.2% for new residential construction, and 98.2% for new
commercial.

70

Of the new residential buildings evaluated in the Illinois study, approximately 47% were found
to rely on the prescriptive approach, 36% used the UA tradeoff approach (i.e. REScheck), and
the remaining 18% chose the performance approach (i.e. REM/Rate). The most common
infractions discovered through building field inspections included (PNNL, 2011a):
Heating and cooling system sizing, type, and capacity did not match submitted load
calculations
HVAC load calculations were often not submitted at all
Air leakage labels were not attached to most fenestration and doors
For commercial buildings, 70% used the prescriptive approach, and 30% tradeoff (i.e.
COMcheck). The most common violations in the commercial category were (PNNL, 2011a):
Heating and cooling system sizing, type, and capacity did not match submitted load
calculations
Slab-edge insulation R-values were incorrect
Slab-edge insulation was not installed in accordance with code requirements or
manufacturer’s instructions
Many Illinois evaluators noted a discrepancy between COMcheck reports and field installations,
indicating need for additional training on the use of the software tool. An average of 60 minutes
was spent on plan review, and an additional 135 minutes on the average field inspection.
Evaluators also noted building department staff in all jurisdictions was “generally cooperative,
knowledgeable, and helpful.” (PNNL, 2011a)
Maine
The Maine compliance study set out to established baseline practices for commercial buildings
throughout the state. The study utilized post-construction evaluations, and did not rely on the
PNNL-suggested methodology or supporting compliance resources. Reported results may,
therefore, not be entirely comparable to the remaining studies where these methods and resources
were implemented.

71

A series of stakeholder meetings was conducted to initiate the study. Sought attributes focused
on (PNNL, 2011a):
Sample design
Site selection
Recruitment of sample buildings
Plan and specification review
Site visits
Data collection
Building owner and operator interviews
In addition to code compliance, the study also compared energy use intensity (EUI) calculations.
A total of 74 commercial buildings of various types and size were evaluated, including several
existing buildings that were not of recent construction.
Conclusions from the Maine study indicate construction is highly variable within the state. On
average, compliance with code provisions was observed to be significantly lower than those
adopted by the state. The Maine study, however, did indicate high levels of compliance within
schools and grocery stores—possibly due to the State’s High-performance Schools Construction
Program.
2.5.5 Tools and Resources
Resources designed to enable compliance with the energy code are made available through a
variety of sources. Both federal and state governments have provided funding for the creation
and availability of training materials and compliance tools. Some of the more popular options
are provided by DOE. In many cases these tools are accepted by states and local code
enforcement agencies as a means for demonstrating code compliance, or as the foundation for
many state training curricula. In other cases, non-governmental organizations provide resources
to aid compliance. Some of these organizations may offer products for purchase or fee-based
services. It is also common for universities or professional trade organizations to provide such

72

resources. The following section provides an overview of tools and resources available to
support compliance with the energy code.
Federal Sources
The U.S. Department of Energy hosts several compliance tools and resources designed to
support states and local code enforcement. These resources take several forms, starting with
background training courses covering basic residential and commercial code requirements.
Many states also allow for demonstration of code compliance through the use of DOE’s
REScheck and COMcheck software. Several tools were also created specifically to assist states
in demonstrating a 90% compliance rate with the PNNL suggested methodology. The entire
collection of DOE resources are often popular, as they are offered free of charge via the DOE
Building Energy Codes website:
DOE Building Energy Codes Program:
www.energycodes.gov
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Training presentations
DOE provides training presentations covering basic code requirements for both the residential
and commercial energy codes. These presentations form the basis for DOE’s Train-the-trainer
program, and are also available for use in state training programs. Such presentations can also be
customized for use by local code enforcement jurisdictions, or regionalized training programs.
The following training presentations are provided on the DOE Building Energy Codes website:
Residential requirements of the 2009 IECC
Residential requirements of the 2012 IECC
Commercial requirements of the 2009 IECC
Commercial requirements of the 2012 IECC
Commercial requirements for ASHRAE 90.1—2007
Commercial requirements for ASHRAE 90.1—2010

73

Training presentations typically cover all compliance paths included in the applicable code, but
tend to focus predominately on the prescriptive requirements. Special emphasis is placed on
mandatory provisions, or changes in comparison to the previous version of the code. Additional
resources are presented at the end of each presentation.
Jurisdictional survey
To support Recovery Act compliance requirements, PNNL created a Jurisdictional Survey to
assist states as they established contact with local enforcement jurisdictions. This survey
attempts to gather background information on local agencies, their staff, and processes by which
compliance is determined. Questions, such as the number of permits issued, use of third-party
compliance verification, training methods, and commonplace infractions are included in the
survey. (PNNL, 2010) An explanatory letter was provided with the survey, allowing states to
customize and send as a first step in contacting local jurisdictions (PNNL, 2010).
PNNL’s Jurisdictional Survey is valuable to states as part of early compliance measurement
processes. To date, the survey was administered in several states, including Georgia, Idaho,
Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Washington. While some states chose to administer the
original survey, other states modified the content slightly; either in customizing existing
questions, or in providing additional questions to generate desired data. (DOE, 2012a) The
original survey and supplementary letter are also included in Appendix A.
State sample generator
Following the gathering of background information, the PNNL methodology instructs states to
generate a statistically valid sample of buildings. This sample forms the basis for compliance
measurement activities, and will become the subject for later plan reviews and eventual building
inspections. Specific instructions explaining how to generate this sample are outlined in the

74

previously discussed Measuring State Energy Code Compliance report. (DOE, 2010b) To
further automate the sample creation process, DOE created the State Sample Generator tool.
(DOE, 2012a) The State Sample Generator functions based on mathematical equations
presented in the report. Rather than constructing such a sample manually, the Sample Generator
automates the calculation process, and identifies a collection of potential projects of appropriate
building size and type across the desired geographical area. The tool draws upon a database of
recent construction projects, and will produce a statistically valid sample in a matter of minutes,
only requiring minimal user input. (DOE, 2012a)
Users begin by choosing their state and desired sample based on the building types outlined in
the PNNL proposed methodology. The Sample Generator will produce a sample of buildings
across all state climate zones. Weighted by recent-year construction permits, the number of
buildings in each county will be returned to the user. Although the tool does not necessarily
provide specific projects for compliance measurement, it does instruct users where to seek those
projects in order to create a statistically valid sample. Local building departments can then be
contacted to identify specific sample projects.
Inspection checklists
Following the identification of sample buildings, the process of compliance verification is
initiated. PNNL created Inspection Checklists to be used throughout the various stages of the
building construction and permitting process. Starting with the review of submitted plans and
specifications, the checklists guide compliance officials as they verify the building is designed to
meet energy code requirements.
These checklists are later taken into the field to verify the installation of designed elements, such
as prescribed efficiency measures, equipment, and proper installation techniques. The checklists

75

are intended to apply to primary stages of construction, from the early foundation phases,
through later rough-ins, and to eventual final inspections prior to occupancy.
Several checklists versions are offered by DOE, covering recent versions of the model energy
codes. While these checklists were created to support Recovery Act compliance measurement
activities, they may be used for more traditional energy code inspection efforts (DOE, 2012a).
Score + Store
The Score + Store tool is also built upon the PNNL methodology. The suggested approach is
designed to minimize duplicative efforts, and to generate comparable data across states and local
code enforcement jurisdictions. Score + Store was created to house data collected in a particular
state and through individual compliance measurement efforts.
The tool allows users to input information gathered via the Inspection Checklists, and that data is
electronically stored in a centralized database. Each building checklist is assigned a score based
on checklist data, and those are aggregated to generate a statewide compliance score. This
allows for comparisons to be drawn across states and localities, but also from a national
perspective (DOE, 2012a).
REScheck and COMcheck Software
A compliance approach, known as the Trade-off Approach, is included in both the residential and
commercial IECC. This approach allows for comparison between a code-equivalent baseline
design and a proposed building design. An area-weighted U-factor is calculated based on a
proposed building design, and that design is then compared against the same house designed
exactly to code. If the proposed design performs equal or better to the code design (including all
mandatory code criteria), the building should be expected to pass code.

76

DOE produces REScheck and COMcheck software to automate the Trade-off Approach. Users
choose the applicable code, enter basic project information, and input building envelope
dimensions and U-factors. The software then performs the trade-off comparison, as opposed to
demonstrating this compliance approach through manual calculations. To a certain degree, the
software will guide a user through the necessary inputs, and will produce an eventual checklist
and certification label based on user inputs. This information can then be provided for
verification by a building inspector or code official.
Additional training materials are provided specific to the software. Presentations walk users
through the process of entering data, and allow them to become familiar with the software.
Graphic prompts and cues highlight problem areas, such as proper insulation installation.
Projects may also be saved for later access and retrieval (DOE, 2012a).
Resource guides
A series of resource guides were also created by DOE to aid energy code compliance. Each
guide addresses a particular topic or stakeholder group, and can be created and published in
partnership with that group’s professional organization. The following guides are currently
available (DOE, 2011):
Table 12: PNNL Resource Guide series by partnering organization
Title
Code Officials
Policy Makers
Commercial Buildings for Architects
Beyond Code Guide
Air Leakage

Partner Organization
International Code Council (ICC)
N/A
American Institute of Architects (AIA)
N/A
N/A

These resource guides explain basic processes and highlight valuable resources. Sample
resources are included in the guides, as well as additional information specific to related energy

77

code requirements. Additional guides outlining advanced wall insulation techniques and for
lighting designers are also scheduled for future release (DOE, 2011).
State sources
Several resources are also available at the state level. Many of these are provided by state energy
offices or other government agencies. Others may be provided by code compliance or advocacy
organizations, aimed at information regarding general code compliance process or at more
specific state requirements. These resources are discussed in the following sections.
RECA cards
In addition to those provided by the Federal Government, several state-specific resources
supporting energy code compliance also exist. The Responsible Energy Code Alliance (RECA)
provides laminated cards for distribution through state energy code training programs. Cards
outline residential energy code requirements, based on the applicable version of the IECC within
a state. These are also made available to code officials, contractors and designers by request.
(RECA, 2011)
State Energy Code Websites
Many state governments also host energy code websites. These typically fall under the oversight
of a state energy office, division of construction, or other applicable agencies. A few examples
may be referenced as follows:
Colorado Department of Local Affairs:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251591390175
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Michigan Bureau of Construction Codes:
http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-10575---,00.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

78

State Energy Code Websites (continued):
Nebraska Energy Office:
http://www.neo.ne.gov/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Nevada State Energy Office:
http://energy.state.nv.us/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Texas State Energy Conservation Office:
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/tbec/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Many states utilize the website to outline basic requirements or to provide access to empowering
legislation. Other states may take the concept even further, and provide access to training
resources, compliance materials, reference studies, or even a state code history. While the
breadth and depth of information tends to vary from state to state, these sites are often a highly
valuable source of information affecting state energy code compliance.
Other sources
Resources beyond government can also provide a wealth of compliance information.
Professional and stakeholder organizations often provide such resources to their membership
base. Educational institutions, such as colleges or universities, extension outreach and
vocational training programs often contract with state or local governments to provide code
training and instructive services. Local municipalities may provide compliance resources
through a sustainability office or agency responsible for development oversight. Other private
organizations or individual consultant services also commonly provide code interpretations or
additional compliance information.

79

Professional Associations
An array of professional organizations and societies dedicate their business to building energy
efficiency and energy code compliance. The Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP)
provides technical resources supporting energy code compliance, as well as analyses of state
compliance scenarios and cost-benefit reports. (BCAP, 2012a) The National Association of
State Energy Officials (NASEO) maintains a committee of state energy office representative
focused on energy efficiency issues in buildings. Some of NASEO’s recent resources include
webinar presentations, with a 2010 webinar specific to the Section 410 requirements of the
Recovery Act, and a 2011 follow-up on general energy code compliance. (NASEO, 2012a) The
Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) has also provided several recent compliance
resources. IMT has produced a number of case studies exploring various strategies for
generating increased compliance, and partnered a recent webinar with the National League of
Cities outlining local strategies for increasing compliance with building energy codes. (IMT,
2010b)
Educational Institutions
Resources provided by private organizations or educational institutions are also valuable sources
of compliance information. States often leverage federal energy funding through energy code
training contracts. These are often conducted by consultants, professional instructors, or
educational institutions. Training programs, such as those offered by Michigan State University
(MSU) Energy Code Training and Implementation Program (MSU, 2012) and the Washington
State University (WSU) Extension Energy Program (WSU, 2012) provide guidance to code
officials, architects, engineers, and home builders (MSU, 2012). These programs are often a go-

80

to source of information for energy code guidance, technical support, and compliance assistance
within a state.
Michigan State University:
http://energycodes.spdc.msu.edu/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Washington State University Extension:
http://www.energy.wsu.edu/BuildingEfficiency.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Appalachian State University:
http://ncenergystar.org/nc-energy-code-resources
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Municipalities
Many cities also provide energy code compliance resources to support progressive conservation
or sustainability goals. A large number of cities across the U.S. maintain offices dedicated to
sustainable development, many of which rely on energy codes. For instance, the Oklahoma City
Office of Sustainability (City of Oklahoma City, 2012). The City of Seattle maintains a webpage
dedicated to energy codes through its Department of Planning and Development. (City of Seattle,
2012) Some cities, including Seattle, include guidance on alternative compliance mechanisms,
such the use of outcome-based codes. In this situation, compliance is verified in comparing
actual utility bill consumption to designed energy use targets. Cities located in Home Rule
states, such as Peoria, Illinois, often have a webpage or other source of information dedicated to
energy codes. (City of Peoria, 2012)
Consultant Services
Additional private organizations may offer access to compliance resources as part of a service
package or in attempt to generate business. Many states may rely on code consultants for
interpretations describing how to apply or comply with the building energy code. This is

81

especially common in states with codes unique to the individual state, such as California or
Florida. Most of these services are acquired on a time or fee-based structure. It is also common
for interested corporations, such as large building product manufacturers, to retain code
consultants for the purpose of making interpretations, tracking code requirements, and for
product positioning in future code development processes.
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter provides an overview of the political backdrop behind many efficiency policies,
such as 90% Compliance requirements of the Recovery Act. Environmental and conservation
segments of public policy are discusses, followed by common implementation models and
options for policy application. Several barriers, issues and best practices are presented for
general state and policymaker awareness. Primary references include a methodology
recommended by the Federal Government, supplemented by recent pilot studies conducted in
several U.S. states. The closing sections can be considered a summary of existing guidance,
valuable compliance tools, and other available resources which may be appropriate for use by
states and local code enforcement jurisdictions.

82

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The central research question asks how states can address energy code 90% Compliance
requirements included in the Recovery Act of 2009. To address this question, a baseline
understanding of current conditions in local enforcement jurisdictions is needed. Using the
approach recommended by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) as a model, the
study addresses the research question through two complimentary perspectives:
A quantitative analysis of survey response data gathered from code enforcement
jurisdictions to provide local background, including current compliance processes and
associated challenges.
A qualitative analysis of recent compliance studies providing state implementation
barriers and recommendations on how to address 90% Compliance requirements.
Past compliance studies provide a limited background on enforcement barriers, local
implementation issues, and policy options pertaining to energy code compliance. Many of these
studies were, however, standalone efforts within one particular state or region. Present data
sources provide insight across several states, and allow for both a bottom-up, baseline
understanding of current local compliance practices, as well as a top-down review of issues
facing states. This cross-state approach seeks to centralize existing knowledge, concerns, and
potential solutions, culminating in a set of recommendations for states preparing to address 90%
Compliance requirements.

83

Figure 3: Combination of approaches
3.1.1 Qualitative Paradigm
“Interpretation rather than quantification; an emphasis on subjectivity rather
than objectivity; flexibility in the process of conducting research; an orientation
towards process rather than outcome; a concern with context—regarding
behaviour and situation as inextricably linked in forming experience; and finally,
an explicit recognition of the impact of the research process on the research
situation"
--Cassel and Symon (1994)
The study is based on methods typical of qualitative inquiry. Much of the work can be
considered experiential and interpretive, due to a direct relationship between the researcher’s
professional role and the subject matter. An analysis of survey responses across several states
was used to develop a baseline understanding of realities within local code enforcement

84

jurisdictions. Textual reports produced through related studies were then reviewed as case
studies, guided by commonly accepted methods for interpretive content analysis. Educational
and professional experiences also helped to guide the researcher in this inquiry, with inherent
limitations and assumptions discussed in the chapter. The approach relied upon in the study is
considered appropriate in pursuit of the research question, while balancing perspectives between
state and local governments, various stakeholder groups, and complex requirements of
compliance policy implementation.
3.1.2 Site and Participant Selection
An introductory background investigation began in the fall of 2010. The present study was
performed in partial fulfillment of graduate coursework sequence on the campus of Michigan
State University (MSU) at the School of Planning, Design & Construction while under
supervision of faculty members in the Construction Management Program. Later portions of the
study were continued through a fellowship at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Headquarters in Washington, DC. These sites were selected by the researcher primarily out of
convenience of geographic location. While data and resources were originally collected in
several states across the country, all analyses and final reporting was conducted on the MSU
campus and DOE Headquarters.
Several parties contributed to the research, including: Michigan State University faculty, DOE
federal employees, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) scientific staff, state energy
office personnel, and other building energy code stakeholders. Survey participants were not
selected by the researcher, but as the result of previously conducted energy code compliance
studies. These original sample populations were selected based on the needs of an independent

85

collection of studies. Participant and site selection were also limited by the parameters and
timeframe allowed for the completion of the graduate thesis project.
3.1.3 Personal Relationship to the Research Question
As a graduate student assisting energy code training in the State of Michigan, a level of potential
bias likely existed in the decision to pursue the subject matter. A literature review was engaged
for the unique purpose of this study, however; the researcher carried a degree of pre-existing
knowledge into impending applications. The inquiry was conducted while the researcher was
employed as a Fellow at the U.S. Department of Energy, managing projects specific to building
energy efficiency, energy codes, and compliance measures. The researcher’s original graduate
assistantship was also sponsored by flow-through grants from DOE to Michigan State University
(by way of the former Michigan Bureau of Energy Systems) for the purpose of studying energy
code compliance. While the potential for bias should be considered in framing eventual
conclusions drawn from the study, the danger of cross-contamination is not considered
detrimental to, and arguably enhances, research findings.
3.1.4 Influential Works
Influence was drawn from existing theories spawning from quantitative and qualitative roots.
The inquiry held two basic components: a descriptive statistical analysis of survey response data
and an interpretive analysis of textual documents, providing a consistently applied case study
perspective across U.S. states. While conclusions were drawn from both qualitative and
quantitative approaches, the study did not include a comparative test of similarity between
survey samples. As the quantitative portion of the analysis was used only to acquire a
description of the data set, the overall study can be considered qualitative in nature. Several

86

established models guided this process, with the specific contribution of unique works presented
in the following sections.
Survey Analysis
The experiment initiated through the analysis of survey response data previously collected from
local energy code enforcement jurisdictions across several states. Although data had been
previously collected, it was provided to the researcher in raw form. The process was guided by
several influential works, which present the foundation by which survey data is organized,
analyzed, and presented in later chapters. The following sections identify specific reference
works, and provide an overview of how each contributed to the present study.
Much of the survey analysis was framed as presented in Designing and Conducting Survey
Research by Rea and Parker (1997). These methods are appropriate for survey-based research
conducted in the fields of social science and public administration. Commonly accepted
statistical definitions are presented, including basic claims enabling researchers to generalize on
a population through examination of a subset of that population. The authors also present
common measures of central tendency and dispersion within data sets, identifying the
combination as “descriptive statistics.” (Rea & Parker, 1997)
Rea and Parker chapters on ensuring scientific accuracy and analyzing data sets became an
influential focus. Eleven stages of the survey research process are presented, however; the first
nine of these take the user through survey implementation. Stages ten, Coding the completed
questionnaires and computerizing the data and eleven, Analyzing the data and preparing the
final report, were most useful in application, and assisted in reconciling the various degrees of
raw state survey data. Several advantages were also presented, including: cost savings,
convenience of completion, time requirements, reduced interviewer bias, and accessibility.

87

Disadvantages include: reduced response rates, a potential for self-selection, and lessened
researcher control. (Rea & Parker, 1997) These helped to better comprehend the designed
capabilities of the survey instrument, as well as understand the potential for bias inherited
through their original application.
Applied Survey Data Analysis by Heeringa, West and Berglund (2010) reinforces the use of the
quantitative surveys within contemporary social science disciplines. Heeringa et al. recognizes
the ability of these methods to, “measure the preferences, needs, expectations, and experiences of
consumers and to translate these to indices and other statistics that may influence financial
markets or determine quality, reliability, or volume ratings for products as diverse as
automobiles, hotel services, or TV programming.” The authors emphasize the use of large-scale
surveys within our society, stating, “These larger and longer-term programs of survey research
are critically important to social scientists, health professionals, policy makers, and
administrators and thus indirectly to society itself.” In contrast to the stages presented by Rea
and Parker, the authors expand on the survey analysis process through the following steps
(Heeringa et. al., 2010):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Definition of the Problem and Statement of the Objectives
Understanding the Sample Design
Understanding Design Variables, Underlying Constructs, and Missing Data
Analyzing the Data
Interpreting and Evaluating the Results of the Analysis
Reporting of Estimates and Inferences from the Survey Data

Chapter Six, Categorical Data Analysis, was also found valuable, due to the prevalence of
categorical response questions included in the survey instrument used to collect thesis data. The
author claims the majority of survey questions in social science and related fields can be
classified according to four specific response types: binary choice (yes/no), multinomial
response categories (e.g. ethnicity), ordinal scale (e.g. strongly agree to strongly disagree), or a
88

discrete count of events. (Heeringa et. al., 2010)

More specific applications are also further

explored by Lavassani et al., who describes challenges faced when a single observation may be
classified into more than one category. The article provides background in relation to common
statistical tests, and their application within multiple response data sets. Historical developments
are considered, with new statistical tools applied to recent data sets. (Lavassani et. al., 2009)
A step-by-step approach published by the University of Wisconsin was referenced in analyzing
survey responses through the Microsoft Excel software tool. The suggested process can be
summarized in the following progression:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Create an Excel database
Code the data
Enter the data
Clean the data
Analyze the data

A background on the software’s potential for organizing and coding data categories is presented,
followed by a discussion on common entry challenges, such as the handling of unclear,
incomplete, or unexpected responses. The author stresses the importance of consistency in
addressing these problems. Data is cleaned to ensure accuracy, and is then subjected to a range
of common statistical tests to establish a comparison between expected and observed values
(Leahy, 2004).
Data outliers were identified as skewing the analyses, significantly displacing the central
tendency of response curves. The Box Plot Method serves as a means for identifying outliers
within the data set, in attempt to bring descriptive statistical tests in-line with the core response
set. Common statistical calculations are performed, and then presented through a combination of
histograms, box plots, and graphs. (Walfish, 2006) More advanced statistical tests are also
identified for comparing state sample types. These tests include the t-test and analysis of

89

variance (ANOVA). These tests were chosen to draw comparisons between pairs of state
samples, as well as in comparing three or more samples collectively. (Kohlmann & Moock,
2009)
Although not specific to social scientific inquiry, Introductory Biological Statistics by Hampton
and Havel (2006) provides a comprehensive and well-illustrated overview of common statistical
tests applicable to basic quantitative analysis. This text was most influential in understanding
specific statistical tests relevant to the acquired data sample set. It also aided in identifying the
several underlying hypotheses behind each of individual survey questions. This text was
strongly referenced in addressing the survey study, as well as in determining how to present the
final analysis of quantitative data (Hampton & Havel, 2006).
Content Analysis
The second component of the study was conducted through a qualitative process analyzing
reports produced by recent studies surrounding energy code compliance requirements.
Complementing the analysis of survey data, reports were analyzed across several states to
effectively outline compliance scenarios, including state-level adoption and implementation
barriers. These reports also include a set of recommendations provided to states as they work to
meet requirements of the Recovery Act. The process of analyzing these documents was guided
by accepted qualitative methods, and is outlined in the following sections.
Qualitative methods are often relied upon to explore phenomena or seek a better understanding
of a problem. These methods tend to be more open-ended and interpretive in nature, and vary
significantly from the specific inquiries typical of quantitative models. “In a qualitative study,
inquirers state research questions, not objectives (i.e., specific goals for the research) or
hypotheses (i.e., predictions that involve variables and statistical tests). These research questions

90

assume two forms: a central question and associated sub-questions.” The first step in
formulating a qualitative study is establishing the research question. “The central question is a
broad question that asks for an exploration of the central phenomenon or concept in a study. The
inquirer poses this question, consistent with the emerging methodology of qualitative research, as
a general issue so as to not limit the inquiry. To arrive at this question, ask, ‘What is the broadest
question that I can ask in the study?’” This becomes the point from which the study gains its
structure, and by which later sub-questions can be developed. The research question also serves
as the starting point for the more specific content analysis applications, such as the use of textual
reports as case studies. Qualitative methods examine a complicated set of factors in relation to a
central question, attempting to decipher different meanings held. (Creswell, 2009).
Following the formulation of a central research question, a series of supporting sub-questions is
assembled. “Several sub-questions follow each general central question; the sub-questions
narrow the focus of the study but leave open the questioning. Generally, five to seven subquestions are recommended to support the central research question. These questions can evolve
to be more specific in nature, and can be used in later applications, such as in conducting
participant interviews or in reviewing documents as evidence. “Begin the research questions
with the words what or how to convey an open and emerging design.” Other words, for example
why, are said to represent an inquiry more aligned with quantitative methods and the interaction
of specific variables. “Expect the research questions to evolve and change during the study in a
manner consistent with the assumptions of an emerging design. Often in qualitative studies, the
questions are under continual review and reformulation (as in a grounded theory study).” This
approach is also described as, “problematic for individuals accustomed to quantitative designs, in
which the research questions remain fixed throughout the study.” Open-ended questions which

91

do not directly reference the literature or a specific strategy of inquiry are also recommended.
(Creswell, 2009)
The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research by Florian Kohlbacher provides
an introduction to this method, and examines applications as a process of text-interpretation
within case study research. Several related studies are referenced, including translations of work
performed by Mayring (2002), which defines qualitative content analysis as a, “systematic,
theory-guided approach to text analysis using a category system.” The author continues in citing
Glaser and Laudel’s (1999) description of the method as, “synthesizing two contradictory
methodological approaches: openness and theory-guided investigation.” Bryman (2004) is also
cited, who views the method as, “an approach to documents that emphasizes the role of the
investigator in the construction of the meaning of and in texts. There is an emphasis on allowing
categories to emerge out of data.” Earlier work by Cassell and Symon reinforce this submission,
describing content analysis as less imposing and restrictive in comparison to other data collection
methods, as well as, “less driven by very specific hypotheses and categorical frameworks and
more concerned with emergent themes and idiographic descriptions.” (Kohlbacher, 2006)
Further comparisons are also often drawn to the more central ethnographic methods or grounded
theory.
Kohlbacher discusses the specific strategy of inquiry, Qualitative Content Analysis, and adopts
Mayring’s (2006) method as accountable for much of the core body of work making up this
methodology. Several points are emphasized, including the importance of placing emergent
categories at the center of the analysis, which are then revised through the inclusion of feedback
loops throughout the process. Mayring’s approach also reduces the process of qualitative content
analysis to “three distinct analytical procedures,” beginning with a paraphrased summary down

92

to only essential content, followed by an explication of remaining material, and finally the act of
filtering feature categories. “In the course of a first appraisal of the material the data locations
are marked, and in a second scrutiny these are processed and extracted. If necessary the system
of categories is re-examined and revised, which necessitates reappraisal of the material.” Results
are then processed during the final stage. (Kohlbacher, 2006)

Figure 4: Mayring’s step model for inductive category development (Kohlbacher, 2006)

93

Kohlbacher reinforces methods of qualitative content analysis in quoting Yin (2003), who
proposes the addition of a pilot study in preparation for the data collection phase. According to
Hartley (2004), data is then allocated around emerging topics, themes, or questions central to the
data set. Once these expected categories are populated, data is re-examined to discover how well
of a fit was performed. Ryan and Bernard (2000) describe content analysis methods as,
“reducing texts to a unit-by-variable matrix and analyzing that matrix qualitatively to test
hypotheses. The researcher can produce a matrix by applying a set of codes to a set of
qualitative data (e.g. written texts), with the assumption being that the codes of interest have
already been discovered and described beforehand. (Kohlbacher, 2006) This concept of
extracting previously discovered information in a structured manner is perhaps why the process
is recognized as, “the longest established method of text analysis among the set of empirical
methods of social investigation.” (Titscher et al., 2000)
Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-Case Analysis as Knowledge Mobilization by Khan and
VanWynsberghe (1998) expands upon basic content analysis methods and proposes a new model
utilizing case studies as evidence. “Cross-case analysis allows the researcher to compare cases
from one or more settings, communities, or groups. This provides opportunities to learn from
different cases and gather critical evidence to modify policy.” Under this approach, data is
mined from multiple cases, and can then be interpreted for broader purposes. (Khan &
VanWynsberghe, 2008)
On a broader scale, these models should also be considered within the framework of general
qualitative methods. Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists by
Ian Dey (1993) illustrates the general process of analyzing and synthesizing qualitative research
data.

94

Figure 5: Dey’s approach to qualitative data analysis (Dey, 1993)
Across several chapters, Dey presents a series of steps to be followed in analyzing qualitative
data. This process begins in establishing a focus for the inquiry, followed by the reading of
documents. Text is read by the researcher and annotated in a structured approach. Categories
are created, with data extracted from the text to populate categories as assigned. Logical
associations and linkages begin to form within the data, which may then be reorganized into
maps and matrices for better presentation. At this point, additional evidence may be used to
corroborate phenomena observed within the data set. This process culminates in the researcher
producing an account based on findings from the qualitative data set. (Dey, 1993)

95

Further associations can also be drawn to other methods of qualitative research. Donald Ratcliff
(2004) provides an overview of fifteen Methods of Data Analysis in Qualitative Research. The
most recognizable similarities exist in relation to Constant Comparison and Grounded Theory.
By these methods, the researcher reviews a document as evidence and seeks potential categories.
Text is coded within the document, and then allocated to the assigned categories. A point of
saturation is reached when no new codes are formed—all data fits within designated categories.
Eventually certain categories become the central focus, as trends and phenomena within the data
are discovered by the researcher. Ratcliff suggests reviewing documents in search of emerging
themes based on several frequently discussed key trends. He also proposes reading the entire
way through a document before specifying rules for coding.
Triangulation of Methods
A variety of complimentary data sources applicable across several states were used in the study
in attempt to triangulate related findings between qualitative and quantitative analyses. “Recent
developments in the philosophy of science have argued that the two traditions should not have a
separate-but-equal status, and should instead interact.” Olsen (2004) claims the use of this
strategy to deepen understanding, as well as in validating eventual findings through a combined,
mixed-methods approach. (Olsen, 2004) Todd (1979) provides reinforcement, and stresses the
ability to strengthen generalizations in approaching a concept through both quantitative and
qualitative perspectives. “Given basic principles of geometry, multiple viewpoints allow for
greater accuracy. Similarly, organizational researchers can improve the accuracy of their
judgments by collecting different kinds of data bearing on the same phenomenon.” Todd also
proposes the ability of multiple methods in ensuring variance is a result of studied subjects, and
not of the chosen method. (Todd, 1979)

96

Justification for Chosen Methods
The quantitative portion of the study analyzed survey response samples acquired in several
states. As influenced by referenced methods, calculated measures are presented through a
variety of sample curves, charts and graphs to illustrate core properties of the response sets. The
original survey instrument was not created as part of the thesis experiment (data was provided
directly by individual states in raw form), therefore; referenced methods were chosen primarily
based upon analysis methods pertaining to the social sciences. Collectively, a significant
number of survey responses were analyzed, however; comparisons between individual state
samples only qualified for more basic descriptive statistical tests. Most of individual state
samples were not of sufficient sample size for more advanced statistical tests.
In addition to the survey-based inquiry, several reports were also acquired for qualitative
analysis. Starting with the central research question and guided by accepted methods, evidence
was extracted from individual state reports as case studies. As relevant themes were
encountered, they were coded into categories and sub-categories within a database of qualitative
observations. Findings can then be generalized for consideration by other states preparing to
address compliance requirements. An emerging process was deemed appropriate to a structured
review process to the reports; establishing appropriate categories, and allocating coded data.
Findings were collected, and corroborated by interrelated data sources, including related case
studies and perspectives gained through quantitative survey analysis.
Referenced works provided a clear and rigorously sound overview of basic quantitative and
qualitative data analysis procedures. The experiment desired a glimpse of state energy code
compliance and local enforcement scenarios, calling for the acquisition of data across U.S. states.
Multiple cross-state data sets were constructed based upon survey responses and recently

97

published reports specific to compliance requirements of the Recovery Act of 2009. The
designated methods allowed data to be analyzed as distinct sets, with related phenomena and
findings successfully emerging from the collection. Conclusions could then be discovered across
all sets, based on the unique contributions from each experiment.
Inherent Assumptions and Limitations
In relying on existing methods of quantitative and qualitative analysis, several inherent
assumptions must be considered. Each referenced approach contains a unique set of
circumstances which may include bias, and influence study findings and eventual conclusions.
Common limitations associated with referenced models are discussed for both the survey and
content analysis phases of the experiment.
Survey Analysis Methods
The choice of a survey as an instrument of qualitative inquiry is subject to several limitations, as
is the resulting response analysis. A true statistical analysis requires a significantly valid sample
size. A portion of the state survey samples were limited to only a few responses, and, therefore;
do not represent a statistically valid sample set. The potential for self-selection is also present
when using a targeted survey. (PNNL, 2011a) A self-selection bias is also suspected within
results reported by PNNL 90% Compliance states, due to the short time period allowed for
completion of a study.
The original design of a survey instrument may also introduce bias into an experiment, spawning
from the questions’ wording and response format. Further potential for bias exists during
analysis stages, especially when various sets of raw data display inconsistencies, creating the
need for certain points to be judged for inclusion or exclusion. This is often the case where a
response does not exactly match the expected format. Vulnerability is increased when responses

98

are modified from their native format, such as when imported to a database and in accordance
with resulting database formatting decisions. It is also important to consider choices made in the
presentation of quantitative data, as eventual conclusions are displayed based on a certain degree
of researcher preference. The potential for bias in these areas may be reduced through consistent
applications in addressing potential outliers in the data set, and through the utilization of a
common approach to presentation graphics.
Content Analysis Methods
Several assumptions and limitations also accompany methods of qualitative content analysis. As
a researcher produces a matrix through a given set of codes, there is an assumption the codes of
interest have already been discovered by an earlier party. (Kohlbacher, 2006) There is also an
assumption of meaningful linkages within cross-case analyses, which may yield greater
generalizations for the individual. (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008)
The stripping of context is further mentioned as a potential downfall within content analysis
theory. A primary goal is defined as the identification of themes across multiple cases. Such
themes are removed of their contextual origins, which are replaced by membership within a
particular group or category. This new context supplants the importance of the original context.
(Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008)
The selection of cases should also be considered as a potential limitation. A greater number of
sample cases is a tactic of reducing bias within most quantitative methods. In the qualitative
case-oriented approach, fewer cases may be used (not less than two). Saturation is reached not
when a statistically valid number of cases have been explored, but when no new insights are
found to emerge from the data. The unit of analysis is defined as categorical themes, as opposed

99

to typically larger units, such as entire state samples, as found within the survey analysis
experiment. (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008)
Similar to inherent bias affecting quantitative methods, the potential for bias also exists in
choosing a guiding qualitative method. Decisions must be made while coding themes identified
by the researcher and in organizing the dataset. Although these choices are made based on
logical inference, a certain level of discretion is exercised by the researcher as relationships are
discovered, and as data is discovered and consolidated. While the coding of themes is somewhat
an evolutionary process, the resulting categories are considered reliable. Given the codes
assigned and identical data sources, the approach utilized in the study is considered poised for
future repetition.
Lastly, the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods is stated as adding a deeper
understanding to the subject, as well as an increased validity to eventual findings. In drawing on
this possibility, one assumes a balance between methods, that is; weaknesses in one method will
be compensated by the other. (Todd, 1979) Assumptions and limitations present within
individual methods, as well as combined, are considered within all findings and conclusions
flowing from the study.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
Guided by a central research question, research progressed through a process of literature review,
followed by descriptive interpretations guided by qualitative and quantitative frameworks. An
overview of methods is presented in combination with specific instruments utilized within the
study. Applications were administered through the analysis of survey response data and case
study reports investigating compliance requirements. Resulting findings are intended to inform
states as they to address energy code compliance requirements in the Recovery Act of 2009.

100

3.2.1 Research Process
The study entertained realities exhibited at localized levels of policy implementation, as well as
recommendations provided to states from a national perspective. A baseline understanding of
enforcement conditions was sought to help states better understand implementation issues,
including background on processes and associated barriers. Specific recommendations were also
desired to help states understand Recovery Act energy code compliance requirements.
Accepting the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory recommended approach as a model, the
study addresses the central research question through a complimentary approach, including both
quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.
Specific information was desired outlining implementation barriers and recommendations, in
addition to general compliance background information. An analysis of survey data drawn from
several U.S. states was performed to reveal local code enforcement practices. A database
drawing on responses was constructed to allow for a cross-state comparison. In addition, the
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) produced several recent studies reporting on
individual state compliance scenarios. These energy code Gap Analyses and Strategic
Compliance Plans (BCAP, 2012a) were compared across states in an attempt to identify
common challenges, themes and practices applicable to a state preparing to address Recovery
Act requirements. Findings are validated amongst multiple data sources and against those
reported by 90% Compliance Pilot Study states (PNNL, 2011a). The product has also been
reviewed by industry professionals, with feedback incorporated into the study deliverable.
The general process undertaken in forming and executing the study is outlined on the following
page.

101

Figure 6: Research process

102

Research Question: How should states address energy code 90% Compliance requirements of
the Recovery Act of 2009?
Supporting sub-questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

What expectations are contained in the Recovery Act?
What resources and previous state experiences can be referenced?
How are energy codes currently enforced?
What local compliance issues currently exist?
What actions have other states taken?
What hinders a state’s ability to meet compliance goals?
How should states take action to address 90% Compliance?

The following table indicates the document section where each objective is addressed, followed
by contributing data sources:
Table 13: Document section addressing study objectives
Research Sub-question
1. What expectations are contained in the Recovery Act?
2. What resources and previous state experiences can be referenced?
3. How are energy codes currently enforced?
4. What local compliance issues currently exist?
5. What actions have other states taken?
6. What hinders a state’s ability to meet compliance goals?
7. How should states take action to address 90% Compliance?

Primary Category
(Literature Review)
(Literature Review)
Local Background
Local Challenges
State Background
State Challenges
Recommendations

Data Sources
The Recovery Act of 2009 made compliance with building energy codes increasingly relevant.
The U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Building Codes
Assistance Project have provided some of the most recent and comprehensive resources when it
comes to addressing compliance requirements at the state level. These organizations have
conducted studies across several states to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommended
practices in demonstrating energy code compliance. The present study seeks to evaluate these
findings from a cross-state perspective in an attempt to identify the information, trends and
practices most relevant to states strategizing to address 90% Compliance.
103

Four primary sources of data were included in the study:
Table 14: Data sources with respective sample size
Data Source
Jurisdictional survey
Gap Analysis reports
Strategic Compliance Plans
State Pilot Study reports

Number of
States
6
15
12
9

Initial analyses were conducted on survey response data gathered through federally funded pilot
studies testing the PNNL-suggested methodology. Reports published by the Building Codes
Assistance Project (BCAP) were then mined as state case studies for additional information
considered relevant to Recovery Act compliance requirements. Specific information was sought
to identify background scenarios, including local enforcement practices, processes and barriers.
State-level issues were identified through the analysis of BCAP and pilot study reports submitted
by individual states, providing further insight on state-level barriers and recent
recommendations. Findings were generalized based on three primary categories:
1. Background information on compliance processes and local enforcement practices
2. Barriers and implementation issues facing states and local code enforcement jurisdictions
3. Recommended actions to take in addressing Recovery Act 90% Compliance requirements
The preceding categories are designed to orient data in support of sub-questions included in the
study that required investigation beyond the scope of the literature review. These categories also
served as the basis for the qualitative portion of the study, against which findings generated
through the qualitative portion of the study was considered. Individual data sources provide a
collection of perspectives, mixing national, state, and local stakeholder levels.
The following graphic outlines the contribution of each unique data source to the assigned
categories.

104

Figure 7: Contribution of unique data sources
105

3.2.2 Survey Analysis
To support 90% Compliance requirements of the Recovery Act, DOE and PNNL funded a series
of pilot studies. These studies set out to test the suggested PNNL methodology for assessing
baseline conditions and demonstrating a statewide compliance rate. Funding was issued on a
competitive basis, and a selection of several states were chosen based on varying state
conditions, such as: type of building sample proposed, state regulatory infrastructure and control
over jurisdictional practices, expected rates of compliance, and ability to perform the work
within a limited timeframe. While not the sole focus of the pilot studies, a survey of state and
local practices related to the enforcement of building energy codes was included as a component
in several states (Note: the survey was conducted as a component of several pilot studies, but
should not be confused with the final pilot study reports submitted by individual states as a
separate data source). This State Energy Code Jurisdictional Survey (referenced as
Jurisdictional Survey) sought information about local enforcement practices, demographics, and
common challenges witnessed by code officials and building inspectors (the original survey
instrument is included in Appendix A). Although its application varied slightly between states,
response data provides valuable insight in framing localized conditions faced by building energy
code stakeholders.

106

In total, 21 questions are included in the original survey, seeking jurisdictional information, staff
practices, and general processes:
Questions about Your Jurisdiction:
Agency name and location information
Estimate of population served
Respondent contact information
Number of permits issued in the previous year
Funding sources
Questions about Your Staff:
Who conducts plan reviews and field inspections
Level of energy code education and training
Preferred training delivery method
Questions about Your Processes:
Methods used to determine compliance
Time spent on plan review and field inspections
How permit data is maintained
Limitations impeding enforcement capability
Common code infractions
Code aspects covered in plan review and inspection
Information available to inspectors
Compliance reports accepted
Missing information
Usage of software and other information technologies

The original Jurisdictional Survey was designed in a digital, web-based format, and is publicly
available on the DOE Building Energy Codes website (DOE, 2012a). Many of the questions
segregate responses pertaining to residential and commercial buildings. Some questions call for
a numerical response, such as population size and number of permits issued, while most
responses are categorical in nature—check any or all applicable boxes. Many questions also
offer the opportunity to respond ‘other’, in which case a blank is given for the entry of a textbased response. Such questions offer the opportunity for analysis of open-ended responses.

107

Selection of Survey States
Survey responses were collected across multiple states from local code enforcement
jurisdictions. Raw survey response data was provided by pilot states, as well as states choosing
to administer a survey as part of subsequent or independent studies. While the PNNL
Jurisdictional Survey was not issued verbatim in all cases, many questions were consistently
administered across several states and present an opportunity for analysis. States were not bound
by strict rules in implementing the survey, and some chose to add or delete questions, as desired.
Only those questions found to be present across multiple states are included for the purposes of
this thesis. Overall, the survey provides insight on variations of practice between U.S. states.
In total, 390 survey response samples were collected across six U.S. states:
Table 15: Survey respondents by state (sample size)
Survey State
Michigan
Oregon
Utah
Idaho
Montana
Washington
TOTAL

Number of
Respondents
283
50
26
15
10
6
390

The 90% Compliance Pilot Studies did not specifically require implementation of the survey in
all states. The pilot study effort reached beyond the survey inquiry, in attempt to test the overall
PNNL methodology, and to generate baseline state compliance rates for specific building types.
Some states chose to administer a state-specific custom survey in lieu of the Jurisdictional
Survey, while other pilot study states did not administer a survey in any form. In some cases, the
survey was modified, however; most questions are consistent in language and response format,
allowing for an analysis of responses within and across states.

108

For example; Michigan, was not chosen as part of the formal 90% Compliance Pilot Study effort,
and chose to administer a survey in a following project under the Michigan State Housing
Development Authority (MSHDA). In this case, the state administered a modified version of the
PNNL Jurisdictional Survey. As seen in other states, certain questions were omitted, and other
state-specific questions were added to the survey. The original Michigan survey instrument is
provided is Appendix A. (MSHDA, 2011b)
State survey respondents were initially contacted by mail or email, with some follow-up phone
contact. Georgia setup a confidential, online survey for respondents to enter and submit.
(Towson, 2011) Utah contacted select jurisdictions as determined by the PNNL Sample
Generator tool. Selected jurisdictions were asked to complete the survey, and following
inspections were requested. (Navigant, 2011a) The Northwest study sent an online version of the
survey to every state jurisdiction, and followed with in-person interviews to further substantiate
survey responses. (NEEA, 2011b) Michigan followed a similar approach, sending the survey to
all licensed code inspectors within the state. The study also followed in conducting three focus
groups made up of trainers, researchers, state officials, local code enforcement officials, and
builders. State findings generated through such follow-up activities were described as largely
reinforcing survey results. (MSHDA, 2011b)
Some efforts were found to be more in depth than others, often resulting in larger, statistically
valid sample sizes. Other states simply set out to test the survey and targeted a very small
sample, while others targeted a larger number of respondents. For example, the Michigan study
focused solely on the survey, and respondents were pursued more aggressively in comparison to
some other survey states. Within the pilot study states, the survey was often administered as an
exploratory effort in advance of conducting building inspections (the primary focus of the pilots).

109

While the smaller state samples cannot be considered statistically valid, they may still offer some
insight into jurisdictional practices within the state.
Thesis Applications
Raw, non-identifiable survey response data was obtained and input to a database and analyzed
using statistical methods. Data was analyzed to draw conclusions by state, and then compared to
a non-weighted, aggregated total, consisting of responses combined from all six survey states.
This format allowed for conclusions within an individual state, as well as from a broader
perspective across states. The sample is non-weighted, and therefore the resulting aggregate may
be dominated by the larger sample sizes. Some sample sizes were not of adequate size to be
considered statistically valid, yet have been included as an educational exercise, as well as to
avoid excluding any relevant insight into those states’ jurisdictional practices.
The questions included in the survey were found to provide a mix of inquiry and response types.
Some survey questions are formatted to accept a numerical response, however; most are setup
with the potential for multiple categorical responses—the respondent may choose one or more
options in answering a question. Most questions were formatted to result in a non-mutually
exclusive set of responses. Numerical data, such as population size, was analyzed and presented
as a distribution. Categorical data was presented in the manner determined to best describe
commonly selected responses or relative combinations thereof.

A collection of histograms,

population curves, and pie charts is utilized to present and communicate the final analyses of
survey data.
Initial data analysis revealed the need to review the range of numerical responses, and consider
the exclusion of data outliers. Some responses were found to fall well beyond the range of
acceptable responses. For example, in responding to jurisdictional population size, one

110

Michigan respondent indicated serving a population of 50 million people—far more than the
population of the entire state. Not only was this response confounding, it was found to
significantly skew the sample data set.
The Box Plot Method was utilized to identify and eliminate outliers skewing state sample data
sets. This basic and commonly accepted protocol divided the response data into quartiles, and
allowed for identification of those responses exceeding the threshold for inclusion. This practice
ensures a sound approach and representation of the core data set. In all cases, the highest
frequency of responses favored the more common, smaller jurisdictions. As numerical questions
only pertained to non-negative responses (i.e. population size, time spent, etc.), negative outlier
values were not encountered. Outlier values were those varying most significantly in the
positive direction. As a result, sample data sets and results presented are intended to preserve the
average, core set of respondent behaviors.
Quantitative survey response data was analyzed for descriptive trends to identify information
relevant to states addressing Recovery Act requirements. Results of the analysis are presented
for each survey question, followed by overall findings considered relevant for the final
deliverable. This analysis is included in Chapter Four: Quantitative Analysis.
3.2.3 Content Analysis
Energy code compliance scenarios vary significantly between states. While model building
codes are produced on a national stage, the implementation of these policies lies within the hands
of individual states. This results in a range of regulatory scenarios. While some states exhibit a
strong statewide energy code, others lack the authority to require these types of regulations.
To further understand state limitations, DOE funded the Building Codes Assistance Project
(BCAP) in 2010-2011 to conduct a series of analyses to review compliance and enforcement

111

gaps within individual states. Building upon these scenarios, BCAP followed with a series of
guidance, outlining what actions specific states might take in addressing requirements of the
Recovery Act. These reports, in combination with individual state 90% Compliance Pilot Study
reports, were processed to reveal considerations for additional states preparing to address
compliance requirements.
The content analysis portion of the study included three series of documents as data sources:
1. BCAP Gap Analysis Reports
2. BCAP Strategic Compliance Plans
3. 90% Compliance State Pilot Study Reports
Gap Analyses
BCAP’s first approach to the compliance problem reviewed existing conditions within states in
relation to the expectations and compliance goals of the Recovery Act. This initial effort applied
a uniform inquiry across fifteen U.S. states. Known as Gap Analyses, these would effectively
paint much of the background affecting implementation of new building energy codes. The
following provides a summary of information included in Gap Analysis reports for each state:
Demographic information
Energy portfolio
Potential for energy codes
Supporting policies and legislation
Status of state codes
Related initiatives
State and local trends
Compliance potential
Gaps and recommendations
Within this background, areas of vulnerability were identified accompanied by recommended
action. Although the analyses were conducted within individual states, the consistent approach
allows information to be tracked across multiple states included in the effort. For the purposes of

112

the present study, common themes provide insight for other states preparing to approach
compliance requirements of the Recovery Act.
Strategic Compliance Plans
BCAP continued their compliance efforts in developing Strategic Compliance Plans designed to
provide guidance to specific states based on their unique scenario. The plans set out to capture a
state’s existing energy code scenario, and provide actions necessary to achieve a 90%
compliance rate with the 2009 IECC by 2017. Plans were developed for twelve states, some of
which were included in the previous study. Like the Gap Analyses, the Strategic Compliance
Plans follow a similar format and approach across several individual states. In each case, the
plan provides background and guidance directed towards a specific group at the state level. This
group is typically that which is charged with oversight over building energy codes adoption or
compliance efforts within the state. This may be a state agency or designated group. In Texas,
for example, this group is known as the Energy Code Compliance Collaborative.
After a compliance oversight group is established, the plan is organized into several focus areas
with tasks and desired outcomes directed towards the end goal of full compliance with the target
residential energy code. Each report typically provides information and recommendations in the
following areas:
An introduction to energy code compliance
Funding options
State and local policy
Outreach to stakeholders
Training needs and opportunities
Conducting a compliance evaluation
Timeline for implementation
The analysis of this data followed a similar process to the previous Gap Analyses. Final plans
were mined for phenomena contributing to background and recommendation categories. This

113

data was input to a database, and reviewed with considerations for energy code requirements of
the Recovery Act. Data was then allocated, constructing a matrix for comparing similar data
across several states. Trends across the data set were then used to inform the final set of
guidance to states.
State Pilot Study Reports
In response to energy code compliance requirements contained in the Recovery Act, DOE
commissioned a series of 90% Compliance Pilot Studies to test the PNNL suggested
methodology for measuring and demonstrating compliance. The overall study was comprised of
nine U.S. states across six unique studies. Each study was chosen for a specific focus, such as a
desired building type, new or existing construction, sample size, or compliance approach. States
were also able to test areas of specific interest, such as the use of third-party evaluation services,
post-construction inspections, or alternative compliance paths, such as ENERGY STAR or a
Home Energy Rating.
As a requirement of the pilot study, each state produced a final report, providing PNNL details
on the study experience, barriers to compliance, logistics of implementing the suggested
methodology, and other relative information. Individually, these state reports describe the
process and findings of specific states. When assembled as a collection and subject to methods
of qualitative content analysis, findings can be drawn across states, and can be further evaluated
for embedded guidance for states preparing to address Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Selection of Documents
Content chosen for this thesis experiment was identified as applicable through a review of
relevant literature. These documents represent some of the most recently completed work
performed in response to Recovery Act compliance requirements, and include the potential to

114

compare various state scenarios. Each set of reports included a unique collection of sample
states, enabling a cross-state comparison of trends, themes, and consistencies. States examined
within each data source are as follows:
Table 16: State reports analyzed for qualitative data
Gap Analyses
Strategic Compliance
Pilot Study
Reports
Plans
Reports
Alabama
Colorado
Georgia
Arizona
Delaware
Idaho*
Delaware
Illinois
Iowa
Illinois
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Kentucky
Michigan
Montana*
Michigan
New Hampshire
Oregon*
Nebraska
New Mexico
Utah
Nevada
South Carolina
Washington*
New Hampshire
Texas
Wisconsin
New Mexico
West Virginia
Ohio
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia
*Four states participated in a joint Northwest States pilot study
Content analysis data sets were selected from several document sources across multiple states to
secure reliability with overall findings and validate the final guidance set. Themes found to be
present within individual states were considered relevant for consideration, especially when
reinforced by similar themes validated through multiple data sources.
Applications
Guided by accepted qualitative methods, case study reports were analyzed for information,
guidance, and emerging themes to be captured as data relevant to 90% Compliance requirements.
As encountered, themes were coded into categories and sub-categories. This created a
categorical system for housing captured data. Through several reviews of each report, categories

115

were organized, consolidated, and simultaneously populated with data extracted from each state
report (as was available). An overview of the theory underlying this approach is presented in
section 3.1.4.
The following basic process was used to identify and code qualitative applications:
The process is informed by the central research question (and evolving sub-questions).
Sub-questions requiring investigation beyond the literature review were referenced in
assigning the three primary categories to which all extracted data was allocated:
1. Background: Information identified as relevant to 90% Compliance, as well
as information on local enforcement processes and common practices.
2. Barriers: Issues and challenges impeding energy code compliance faced by
stakeholders at state and localized levels of implementation.
3. Recommendations: Actions provided to states encouraging specific
intervention in addressing Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Themes considered relevant to the research question were identified and coded within
each primary category based on general contribution (e.g. energy code ‘Adoption’ or
‘Implementation’). These general categories were largely influenced by the formatting of
the original series of documents under review (i.e. Gap Analysis reports, Compliance
Plans, or Pilot Study reports). Formatting was observed to be consistent across the
majority of textual documents within each series.
As more specific information was encountered, sub-categories were created within
established categories. For example, if a specific stakeholder group was presented as
affecting implementation, this group was placed within the ‘Implementation’ category.
This resulted in an outline or tree structure:
o Assigned Category: Implementation
 Assigned Sub-category: Stakeholder organizations
After reviewing several reports in a series, new categories began to emerge in comparison
to those previously identified. Additional context forced a return to the first documents
to seek information previously overlooked or unrecognized. This process was completed
continually throughout the examination of an entire series of reports.
Categories were organized and re-organized throughout the process as their relationships
were better understood—these relationships often emerged following identification of the
theme category.
Created categories were populated as they were identified and coded.
A single category was populated for each state. If a created category was not addressed
within a particular report, the cell for that state/category was left blank.
A final organization was applied to all populated categories, again checking reliability of
the final data set against all state reports. This provided final assurance that no desired
data had been missed.

116

Overall, over one hundred unique categories were developed for each of the three sets of reports.
These were then edited to focus on more powerful themes and key phenomena. A database was
constructed to hold data in a matrix format, with the constructed category scheme displayed on
the vertical axis and included states displayed on the horizontal axis. This display format is
recommended as effective for specific content analysis methods. A list of the final categories
coded in the study is displayed (by data source) in Appendix C.
A similar process was administered across all sources to establish data sets and produce the
qualitative portion of the study. Individual state reports were reviewed to become familiar with
their content, and eventually to identify and target relevant data. Guided by the central research
objectives, each new data piece was allocated based on fit within established categories, or used
as justification for the creation of a new category. This process continued until all documents
had been reviewed, and no new information could be extracted from the individual document—a
point of saturation. With all data pieces acquired, a check was performed to verify the matrix
adequately represented this information. Texts were also given a final review to ensure no
relevant data pieces had been excluded due to the evolving categorical system. The process was
then closed, with all included data considered eligible for consideration towards the final
deliverable.
Qualitative data was analyzed for themes and emerging phenomena in an attempt to identify
information relevant to states preparing to address Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Overall findings are presented and were used to form the final deliverable. Analysis of this data
is included in Chapter Five: Qualitative Analysis.

117

3.3 DELIVERABLE
The result of the study is a guidance document for states to reference as they address Recovery
Act 90% Compliance requirements. Although compliance measurement activities have been
initiated by some states, information on the subject remains scattered across a variety of sources.
The study helps to centralize information garnished from related studies, and balances it against
conditions, processes, and experiences of states and local enforcement jurisdictions. Findings
are summarized and validated by stakeholders at national and state levels of government. A
summary was formed based on recommended practices, providing guidance to states based on
guidance found in existing literature and related studies.

State
Agency
Existing Conditions

Implementation Issues

Guidance for
Compliance
Working Group

90%
Compliance
Strategy

Recommendations

Figure 8: Orientation of study deliverable
The PNNL recommended methodology is accepted as a model approach to demonstrating a 90%
compliance rate with energy codes targeted by the Recovery Act. Findings of the study are
especially useful in the early stages of the PNNL suggested methodology; formation of a
compliance working group (sometimes referred to as an Energy Code Compliance
Collaborative). This group operates under the oversight of the state agency responsible for
energy code compliance.

118

What value does it have?
Although the Recovery Act was issued three years ago, substantial questions remain surrounding
its expectations. State policymakers benefit from a clearer understanding and step-by-step
guidance to address compliance requirements. This guidance is especially useful to state
agencies less familiar with energy code compliance requirements, as well as those forming a
compliance working group or individual compliance strategy. It also serves to guide policy
decisions as the regulatory infrastructure is placed to support Recovery Act compliance
requirements. Background information, available resources and actions are provided, informed
by experiences observed across early adopting states. In centralizing available information, tools
and recommendations, states coming to the table have a starting foundation from which to build
their own policies to address Recovery Act compliance requirements.
Who does it serve?
The product will prove useful to several groups addressing Recovery Act requirements, with a
primary audience including state officials, policymakers, institutions supporting code
compliance, and general building energy stakeholders. Guidance and recommendations offer
potential within varying state regulatory and code enforcement scenarios. Existing barriers to
energy code compliance are also considered, providing specific emphasis on those issues specific
to the Recovery Act.
The guidance document also informs state compliance working groups as they take initial action
and begin to allocate limited resources. One of the first steps in the PNNL suggested
methodology is the formation of a compliance working group, or Energy Code Compliance
Collaborative. This is the group to be charged with organizing and steering compliance activities
within a state. The delivered framework serves as a template for the compliance group to

119

populate as they come to terms with their own state scenario. Furthermore, the framework
informs state officials in advance of forming a working group, helping to identify the appropriate
parties and organizations from which to solicit membership.
How was it formed?
The deliverable was formed based on findings drawn from the quantitative and qualitative
analyses executed within the study. Findings were rolled-up and generalized from each
independent analysis, and provided insight on local enforcement practices, barriers, and
recommendations coming out of related studies. Information was allocated, combined, and
transformed into a comprehensive set of recommendations for states to consider as they address
90% Compliance requirements. Further description of the applied methods is found in the
Research Methods section of the document.
3.3.1 Validation
Presented findings are drawn across multiple methods of inquiry and unique sources, therefore
providing triangulated reinforcement for generated findings and overall conclusions. Guided by
existing methods, data sources were acquired from previous studies encompassing national, state
and local perspectives. The final product is intended to be broad enough in nature for
applications across varying state scenarios, yet specific enough to inform states of valuable
resources as they approach the requirements of the Recovery Act.
To further substantiate the resulting set of recommendations, a draft version of the guidance
document was also presented to professional stakeholders for review. These individuals
included DOE Building Technologies Program personnel, PNNL Building Energy Codes
Program scientific research staff, and state energy office employees. These stakeholder groups
provide a balance between state and federal perspectives. Feedback was solicited on a voluntary

120

basis the form of a brief questionnaire emailed to reviewers. The questionnaire contained a
combination of binary (yes/no) and open-ended questions. Specific information was sought on
the accuracy of reported information, including gaps or conflicts not adequately addressed. An
opportunity to provide general comments was also provided. Volunteers were recruited by the
researcher, with feedback reviewed, considered, and applied to the final version of the
deliverable.
Who was contacted?
Officials from state energy offices and federal scientific staff were contacted with a request to
review the final deliverable. Approximately 2-3 reviewers were desired, targeting individuals
with a high degree of familiarity with energy code adoption and compliance issues. Reviewers
were identified through interaction at professional conferences and day-to-day business
meetings.
How were they contacted?
A formal email was written and sent to potential reviewers asking for their participation. The
message included a brief introduction to the topic and general purpose of the research study. The
identity of reviewers was kept confidential, with feedback destroyed after processing. Reviewer
comments were gathered via email, and stored on the researcher’s personal computer until
incorporated into the study in a non-identifiable manner. All feedback, including the original
emails, was then permanently deleted to eliminate any unintended risk to participants. The
original email content and accompanying list of questions, is contained in Appendix E.

121

What were reviewers asked?
Reviewers were asked five open-ended questions inquiring upon the quality and accuracy of the
final deliverable. The request for stakeholder review included the following questions:
1. Will the presented guidance empower states to pursue 90% Compliance? (why?)
2. Does the document accurately portray key challenges impeding the adoption and
implementation of building energy codes? (please explain)
3. Is there missing information which should be included in the guidance? (please explain)
4. Do you have any concerns with the guidance provided?
5. Please include any additional questions or comments you may have (feedback may be
written or provided via tracked changes)
Responses were requested via email, with the option for reviewers to input suggested changes
directly into the document for consideration.
How was feedback accommodated?
Reviewer feedback was reviewed and considered for the final deliverable. Only one round of
comments was requested, with feedback accommodated at the discretion of the researcher.
While feedback was incorporated into the final product, individual comments were not retained
for later consideration. A simple thank you message was provided to those able to contribute.
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The chapter provides an overview of theories representative of research methods utilized within
the research study. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on survey response data
acquired through local code enforcement jurisdictions across several U.S. states. Multiple series
of reports were also administered reviewing the capability of specific states in addressing 90%
Compliance requirements in the Recovery Act. Through this combined approach, guidance can
be generalized and further developed for states to consider as they prepare to implement policies
empowering energy code compliance requirements. Assumptions and limitations inherent to
guiding methods were also presented.

122

CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

4.1 OVERVIEW
The investigation initiated through a descriptive statistical analysis of survey response data
gathered from local code enforcement jurisdictions across several U.S. states. The survey,
designed by PNNL and known as the Jurisdictional Survey, was created to help states acquire
consistent background information on baseline compliance conditions within a particular state.
Many of the states administered the survey as part of their 90% Compliance Pilot Study. A
range of questions inquired upon specific enforcement practices, processes for determining
energy code compliance, as well as associated barriers. Survey responses were input to a
database and analyzed to better understand local background and implementation challenges.
State Samples
Survey responses were submitted by individual respondents across six states engaging energy
code compliance measurement activities. All survey states, with the exception of Michigan,
were selected as part of a PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Study. Michigan administered the
survey as a following independent effort to study baseline compliance conditions within the
state. Some states administered the survey as designed, while others provide a customized
version. The survey provides insight on stakeholder perspectives, and a glimpse of practices
undertaken in local code enforcement jurisdictions.

123

Table 17: Survey sample size by state
Survey State
Michigan
Oregon
Utah
Idaho
Montana
Washington
TOTAL

Number of
Respondents
283
50
26
15
10
6
390

Survey samples were analyzed by individual state and aggregated to form a single, uniform
sample. State samples were generated from responses to each survey question, with some
questions yielding a greater response rate than others. Sample sizes also varied based on the
overall role of the survey in each state compliance study. For example, the survey was the
primary inquiry in the Michigan study, and a comparatively robust sample was generated. In all
other studies, the survey was administered as a preliminary and supplementary measure prior to
conducting other evaluation activities as suggested by the PNNL-proposed 90% Compliance
methodology. In these cases, the survey was a portion of a greater study, which prioritized
building inspections and compliance evaluations in an attempt to estimate a baseline state
compliance rate for particular building types.
Scope of Survey
The survey is designed to collect responses in three topic areas: background on the local
jurisdiction or building department, background on inspection and evaluation staff, and
processes for conducting energy code compliance assessments. While personally identifiable
information was provided during the original data collection, this information was not provided
for the present study, and was not included within the analysis.

124

The research study analyzed the following questions:
Questions about Your Jurisdiction:
1. Estimate of population served
2. Number of building code permits issued in the previous calendar year (residential &
commercial)
3. Agency funding sources
Questions about Your Staff:
4. Party responsible for conducting plan reviews
5. Party responsible for conducting field inspections
6. Level of energy codes education received by agency staff
Questions about Your Processes:
7. Methods used for documenting code compliance (paths)
8. Time devoted to energy code plan review
9. Time devoted to energy code field inspection
10. Format used to maintain permitting data
11. Limitations impeding energy code enforcement
12. Residential energy code infractions
13. Commercial energy code infractions
14. Information commonly observed as missing or incomplete
15. Acceptance of software compliance reports
4.2 SURVEY DATA
Survey questions are presented in the original language as administered in survey states. Each
question is formatted based on two classifications:
1. Numerical
2. Categorical
In several cases, questions are formatted to segregate responses applying to residential or
commercial buildings. Numerical questions include the unit of response, such as number of
permits or hours of time spent on a particular activity. In this case, respondents are asked to
input their response to a blank text-entry box. The second classification provides for a
categorical response, presenting several specific options to respondents (check boxes).
Categorical questions include both mutually exclusive, as well as non-mutually exclusive
response properties, which were translated to the eventual data set.

125

To present the final data analysis, the next section introduces each survey question in the
following general format:
Language: (language from the original survey question with any response options listed)
Classification: (numerical or categorical response format)
Each question includes a discussion of trends observed within the respective data set. Through a
descriptive statistical analysis, observations are provided across the aggregate data set.
Questions are organized by the topic areas and ordered as presented in Section 4.1. Where
residential and commercial buildings are inquired upon independently, the analysis is segregated
to mirror the original survey question. Additional state-by-state analysis is also included in
Appendix B. Findings are presented for each question, and generalized at the end of the section
based on their contribution towards the final deliverable.

126

Questions about Your Jurisdiction
These questions gather limited background information and contact information on the agency
completing the survey. The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question #1: Population Served
Language: Estimate of the population served.
Classification: Numerical (number of people)
60000

50000
40000

30000
20000

10000
0

MI (n=204) UT (n=26) WA (n=6) MT (n=10) ID (n=13) OR (n=43)

TOTAL
(n=302)

Figure 9: Average jurisdictional population
This question provides an overview of the state and total respondent populations, and allows for
a basic statistical analysis of the sample. Size of local code enforcement jurisdictions was
measured by population (number of people) residing within the jurisdictional geographic area.
Population is observed to vary significantly by state. Michigan, with the largest sample size,
exhibited the smallest average jurisdictional population with just over 19,000 people. In
contrast, Washington respondents indicated an average population of over 50,000 people. The
average population for all 302 respondents is observed to be 22,617 people residing in the typical
code enforcement jurisdiction.
127

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
MI (n=204) UT (n=26) WA (n=6) MT (n=10) ID (n=13) OR (n=43)

TOTAL
(n=302)

Figure 10: Population samples by state (thousand people)
The aggregate total curve is influenced heavily by the larger sample states due to the nature of
numerical response. Michigan, Utah, Montana, and Oregon samples are nearest to the overall
average. Oregon exhibits the greatest amount of variance in comparison to other survey states.
Montana, Utah and Washington indicate similar values, all below the average variance for the
total sample. Survey states with smaller sample sizes seem to present average populations
furthest from the overall average.

128

0.00003
MI (n=204)
0.000025
UT (n=26)
0.00002
WA (n=6)
0.000015
MT (n=10)
0.00001
ID (n=13)
0.000005
OR (n=43)

0
0

50

100

150
Thousands

TOTAL (n=302)

Figure 11: Population sample distribution (thousand people)
Jurisdictional population was also analyzed incrementally to study the frequency of responses as
population increases. Overall, the majority of survey respondents were found to serve smaller
jurisdictions (in terms of population). In fact, 43% of total respondents indicated serving a
jurisdiction of less than 10,000 people. The largest population bins were observed to contain less
than 1% of the overall respondents. The correlation between population size and number of
respondents is determined to be inversely proportional; the percentage of respondents serving
large jurisdictions decreasing exponentially as sample size increases.

129

5%
4%
43%

8%

11%
22%

<10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
100-110
110-120

Figure 12: Population frequency (thousand people) (n=302)
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
302 total respondents indicated an average jurisdictional population of 22,617 people
Inversely proportional relationship: as sample size increases, the percentage of
respondents serving large jurisdictions decreases
The vast majority of code officials surveyed serve smaller jurisdictions—43% of all
respondents serve a jurisdictional population of less than 10 thousand people
Question #2: Building Permits Issued
Language: In the previous calendar year, how many building permits were issued by your
agency?
a) Residential building permits
b) Commercial building permits
Classification: Numerical (number of permits)
This question identifies the number of residential and commercial building permits issued by the
respondent’s agency or local code enforcement jurisdiction within the previous calendar year.
The question sample size is made up of 256 residential and commercial responses across all six
survey states. Overall, respondents indicated an average of 162 residential and commercial
permits combined, which represents a unit rate of approximately 7.16 permits issued per 1000
people served.
130

Residential
The greatest number of residential permits observed was submitted by a Washington respondent,
indicating 1100 residential permits issued in the previous year. Interestingly, some agencies had
issued no residential permits. In total, the average code enforcement jurisdiction issued 105
residential building permits in the previous calendar year. In comparison to jurisdictional size,
this represents 4.64 residential permits per 1000 people served.
0.016

MI (n=167)

0.014

UT (n=21)

0.012
WA (n=6)

0.01
0.008

MT (n=8)

0.006

ID (n=12)

0.004

OR (n=42)

0.002
TOTAL
(n=256)

0
0

200

400

600

800

Figure 13: Residential permit sample distribution (number of permits)
The majority of jurisdictions indicate having issued fewer residential permits. Approximately
66% of all respondents replied as having issued less than 100 residential building permits in the
previous calendar year. This could be a factor of a slowed building economy, but also must be
considered in relation to population served; most code officials seemingly serve a smaller
jurisdiction in terms of population. However, 6% of all jurisdictions surveyed indicate having
issued in excess of 300 residential permits in the previous year.

131

<100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
900-1000
1000-1100

5%
8%
20%
66%

Figure 14: Total residential permit distribution (number of permits) (n=256)
Commercial
Enforcement jurisdictions in three of the six survey states indicated no commercial permit
activity in the previous calendar year. The average jurisdiction saw 57 commercial building
permits, which equates to 2.52 permits per 1000 people served. The state of Washington
exhibited a high of 1000 commercial permits.
0.014

MI (n=161)

0.012

UT (n=25)

0.01

WA (n=6)

0.008
MT (n=9)

0.006

ID (n=13)

0.004

OR (n=42)

0.002
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

TOTAL
(n=256)

Figure 15: Commercial permit sample distribution (number of permits)
A trend towards fewer permits is again observed in commercial buildings, with a majority of
respondents indicated having issued less than 100 commercial building permits in the previous

132

year. This is even more extreme than the similar trend witnessed for residential permits. Nearly
95% of all jurisdictions issued less than 200 commercial permits. Even Michigan, with 161
respondents, 98% stated issuance of less than 100 commercial permits—100% of respondents in
the less than 200 category.

7%

87%

<100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
900-1000
1000-1100

Figure 16: Total commercial permit distribution (n=256)
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
256 residential and commercial respondents indicated an average of 162 permits issued in
the previous calendar year—an average of 105 residential buildings and 57 commercial
A trend was observed favoring the issuance of fewer building permits—similar to the
trend towards smaller jurisdictional population observed in the previous question
66% and 87% of respondents indicated having issued less than 100 residential and
commercial building permits, respectively
Compared to jurisdictional population, the average respondent saw 7.16 building permits
per 1000 people served—4.64 residential permit and 2.52 commercial

133

Question #3: Funding Source
Language: How is your agency funded? (Check all that apply)
a) Permitting revenue
b) Jurisdictional budget
c) State funded
d) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
The majority of agencies were observed to acquire funding from a single source. Approximately
20% of Michigan and 33% of Utah jurisdictions indicated funding from more than one source.
100% of all respondents from Washington, Montana and Idaho said their jurisdiction pulled
funding from a single source. (Note: Survey data pertaining to jurisdictional funding was not
gathered in the Oregon study)

21%
Multiple sources
A single source
79%

Figure 17: Jurisdictional funding source (n=319)
Funding revenue is often gained as a result of fees charged for plan review and permitting
processes. This option was identified in most states as the primary source of funding. Other
methods of funding often involve formulaic allocation from a municipal budget or secured
through state government agencies. Respondents were asked to indicate applicable funding
sources.

134

Permit Revenue

31%
Jurisdictional
State Funded
87%

Other

Figure 18: Type of jurisdictional funding (n=319)
Permit revenue appears to be the most common form of financial support, with 87% of survey
respondents identifying funding of this form. Approximately one-third of responses indicate
funds spawning from a jurisdictional budget, such as that provided by a local municipality.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Most (79%) code enforcement jurisdictions obtain funding from a single source
87% of respondents stated permit funding as primary funding
Approximately one-third (31%) of respondents also indicated funds were received as part
of a jurisdictional budget—funding from state agencies and other sources were not found
to be of significant contribution

135

Questions about Your Staff
These questions inquire upon characteristics of staff employed for the purpose of energy code
enforcement. The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question #4: Plan Review
Language: Who conducts plan reviews for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
a) In-house staff
b) 3rd party staff
c) Other jurisdictions or government agencies
d) Not done
e) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Local code enforcement jurisdictions were asked to identify the party responsible for conducting
review of building plans. This process typically involves checking building plans, specifications
and other documents when submitted for approval as part of the permitting process. Ideally, an
individual will have ample information to determine compliance with the energy code. This
survey question aims to identify who is performing this assessment.
4%
In-house staff

5%

3rd party entities

11%

Other jurisdictions
or agencies
Not done
79%

Other

Figure 19: Party conducting plan review (n=382)
Most plan reviews were found to be conducted by in-house staff employed by the local
jurisdiction. In most cases, staff persons performing this assessment will be code officials, often
136

completing plan reviews, as well as building inspections in the field. 79% of respondents
indicated in-house staff as performing plan reviews. A second option exercised was the use of
third parties to complete the plan review—11% of respondents indicated this option.
Interestingly, approximately 5% of those responding to the survey stated no plan review step was
performed at all as part of the compliance assessment process.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
In-house jurisdictional staff personnel conduct the majority of plan reviews (79%)
11% of reviews not performed by in-house staff utilize third party contracted reviewers
Approximately 5% of all respondents indicate no plan review is conducted in determining
compliance with building energy codes
Question #5: Field Inspections
Language: Who conducts field inspections for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
a) In-house staff
b) 3rd party staff
c) Other jurisdictions or government agencies
d) Not done
e) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Similar to the previous question surrounding plan review, local jurisdictions were asked a
question seeking the responsible party for performing building energy code field inspections.
This typically involves travel to a project site, accessing the site, and a thorough inspection of all
applicable code provisions. Infractions are marked and must be remedied before a project can
proceed to completion and receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Inspectors may often be the same
party responsible for performing the plan review stage of the compliance assessment process. In
cases of major code infraction, an inspecting official usually carries the authority to shut down

137

the project until problems are resolved. This question aims to identify the party responsible for
performing this inspection.
Field inspections were found to be performed most often by in-house staff. Across all states
surveyed, 83% were completed by staff of the local jurisdiction. Third party contractors were
found to perform approximately 8% of field inspections. Only 1% of respondents indicated this
stage was performed by an outside agency, with 5% of the total stating field inspections were not
conducted at all.
3%
In-house staff
5%
8%

3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or
agencies
Not done
83%
Other

Figure 20: Party conducting field inspection (n=382)
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
In-house staff conduct 83% of building energy code field inspections
8% of inspections are performed by a third party
5% of respondents indicate no field inspection is performed in their jurisdiction

138

Question #6: Education & Training
Language: What level of education and training does your agency staff receive specifically for
energy codes?
a) Residential energy codes training
b) Commercial energy codes training
Classification: Categorical (Choose only one rating 1-4)
Many states and or building official organizations conduct energy code training to better
understand its requirements. A survey question was included to quantify the level of training
code officials received specifically pertaining to the energy code. Several response options were
included, ranging from training required as part of a professional certification or licensure
program, to informal on-the-job training, or even no training at all.
The majority of code officials (56%) were found to receive periodic formal training, commonly
delivered by the International Code Council (ICC), sponsored by the state, or through a code
officials association. The second most frequent response (25%) indicated professional
certification and annual training requirements—a highly positive outcome following a recent
push to increase the availability of energy code training. Approximately 6% of respondents
stated only periodic training received, while 11% reported no training provided.

Professional Certification & Training
11%
6%

Periodic training (professional
association)
Periodic training (other source)

25%

Informal training
56%

Not provided

Figure 21: Method of training delivery (n=299)
139

A spectrum of mutually exclusive response options is included in the question. These range
from a seemingly highly positive condition (professional certification and mandatory training) to
a presumed negative (no training provided). An integer rating was assigned to each response,
ranging from a max score of 4.0 (associated with higher levels of training) to a low score of 0.0
(assigned to responses indicating no provided training). Each state was then scored based on the
level of training available to survey respondents. Unlike many of the survey questions, only one
singular response could be chosen.
Under the scaling method outlined above, an average rating of 2.80/4.00 was observed across all
states. Utah code officials reported the highest levels of energy code training (3.36), with Idaho
achieving a rating of 3.27. Washington and Michigan exhibited a rating of 2.72 and 2.00,
respectively.
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

MI
(n=245)
Average Rating
2.72

UT
(n=25)
3.36

WA
(n=5)
2.00

MT
(n=9)
3.11

Figure 22: Rating of training by state

140

ID
(n=15)
3.27

TOTAL
(n=299)
2.80

Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Most code officials (56%) receive periodic formal training, often provided by the
International Code Council, code officials association, or a state-sponsored training
program
25% of code officials receive mandatory training, such as that tied to a professional
certification or continuing educational program requirement
Approximately 11% of code officials receive no energy code training whatsoever

141

Questions about Your Processes
These questions gather information on processes for assessing compliance with energy codes.
The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question #7: Compliance Path
Language: What methods are used as a basis for documenting energy code compliance and in
what percentages? REScheck and COMcheck are considered trade-off methods. Use whole
numbers without a % sign to complete the question.
a) Prescriptive
b) Trade-off
c) Performance
Classification: Numerical (separate percentage entries for residential and commercial)
Residential
The residential energy code, commonly based on the International Energy Conservation Code
published by the International Code Council, allows for three primary options for demonstrating
compliance with the code. These are often referenced as compliance paths. These options
include a prescriptive checklist or ‘cookbook’ approach, trade-off options where a proposed
design is compared to a baseline home, or a simulated performance approach. Some states allow
compliance to be demonstrated through the use of the REScheck software, produced by the U.S.
Department of Energy, following the trade-off approach (based on an area-weighted heat
resistance factor). Other states also allow for a home energy rating, such as those performed by a
HERS Rater. This survey question seeks the compliance path most often utilized in local
jurisdictions.
The majority of code officials (54%) report the use of REScheck software as the most prominent
option for demonstrating energy code compliance. The prescriptive path is chosen on average
38% of the time; with the performance path option utilized only 8% of the time. It should also
be noted that while all surveyed states acknowledge REScheck as a valid path, not all states
accept this method of demonstrating compliance with the residential energy code.
142

8%
38%

Prescriptive
REScheck

54%

Performance

Figure 23: Residential compliance path (n=230)
Commercial
The commercial energy code is based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, published by
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).
Like the residential code, the commercial code allows similar options for demonstrating
compliance, including the same prescriptive, trade-off, and performance approaches. Some
states allow compliance to be demonstrated through the use of the COMcheck software,
published by DOE as a counterpart to the residential version, and based on the same trade-off
approach. This survey question seeks the compliance path most often utilized in local
jurisdictions to demonstrate commercial code compliance.
The majority of code officials (57%) report the use of COMcheck software as the most common
option for demonstrating compliance with the commercial energy code. The prescriptive path is
chosen on average 34% of the time; with the performance path option utilized only 8% of the
time. While all surveyed states acknowledge COMcheck as a valid approach, not all states
accept this method of demonstrating compliance with the commercial energy code.

143

8%
34%

Prescriptive
COMcheck

57%

Performance

Figure 24: Commercial compliance path (n=211)
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Most projects achieve energy code compliance certification through the trade-off
method—often through REScheck or COMcheck software
The prescriptive method is the second most commonly utilized compliance path
Compliance through building energy performance simulations occur more often on
residential homes than on commercial building projects
Question #8: Time Spent on Plan Review
Language: How many hours are devoted to the average plan review for energy codes? If
energy plan reviews are performed in conjunction with reviews for other code provisions,
estimate the time for the energy-related reviews only.
a) Residential buildings
b) Commercial buildings
Classification: Numerical (hours of time)
Residential
A key question included in the 90% Compliance Pilot Studies surrounded time dedicated to
evaluation processes. Existing studies have cited available resources as a primary barrier to full
enforcement of the energy code. The plan review process typically involves the checking of
plans and specifications to ensure a house is designed to comply with the applicable energy code.
144

The survey set out to capture an estimate of how much time is dedicated to the average
residential plan review.
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

MI
(n=204)
Mean
0.57

UT
(n=27)
0.92

WA
(n=4)
0.60

MT
(n=8)
0.35

ID
(n=14)
0.48

OR
(n=37)
0.36

TOTAL
(N=288)
0.56

Figure 25: Average time spent on residential plan review by state (hours)
The average residential energy code plan review was reported to take 0.56 hours to complete.
Within individual states, Utah was found to spend a high of 0.92 hours, while Oregon stated an
average of 0.36 hours dedicated to energy code plan review. While some individual respondents
reported upwards of an hour spent, and some indicating several hours, all states average less than
one hour to complete the residential energy code plan review process.
Commercial
The survey also sought an estimate of time spent on plan reviews for commercial buildings. The
commercial code is generally considered to be more detailed, and incorporates more complex
systems than are found in residential dwellings. Commercial projects also more often include
licensed architectural or engineering services.

145

1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

MI
UT
(n=203) (n=27)
Mean 0.88
1.29

WA
(n=3)
0.75

MT
(n=8)
0.84

ID
(n=15)
1.01

OR
TOTAL
(n=47)
0.87
0.92

Figure 26: Time spent on commercial plan review by state (hours)
The average commercial plan review was reported to take 0.92 hours to complete. Within
individual states, Utah was found to spend a high of 1.29 hours, while Idaho stated an average of
0.75 hours dedicated. In comparison to residential projects, a greater number of respondents
indicated one or more hours spent on the commercial plan review—observed within the greater
overall average time spent.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Code officials on average spend just over a half hour (0.56) on residential plan reviews—
all states spend an average of one hour or less
The average time for a commercial plan review is approximately 0.92 hours—a longer
process for more complicated commercial buildings than for homes

146

Question #9: Time Spent on Field Inspection
Language: How many hours are devoted to the average field inspection for energy codes? If
energy field inspections are performed in conjunction with inspections for other code provisions,
please estimate the time for the energy-related field inspections only.
a) Residential buildings
b) Commercial buildings
Classification: Numerical (hours of time)
Residential
Building on the previous question, the survey attempted to quantify time requirements for field
inspection. As this stage of the process, verification is conducted at the project site, which is
typically more time consuming in comparison to plan review. Additional resources may also be
required as the process moves from the office setting to the field.
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

MI
(n=223)
Mean 0.65

UT
(n=24)
0.92

MT
(n=8)
0.66

ID
(n=15)
0.82

OR
(n=36)
0.40

TOTAL
(N=306)
0.65

Figure 27: Time spent on residential field inspection by state (hours)
The average residential energy code inspection was conducted in 0.65 hours. Within individual
states, Utah was found to spend a high of 0.92 hours—the same amount of time estimated in the
state for the plan review process. On the low end, Oregon reported an average of 0.40 hours
dedicated to energy code field inspection. Similarly to plan review, although individual
147

respondents stated upwards of an hour spent inspecting each home, all states average less than
one hour to complete the residential inspection.
Commercial
On the commercial side, the survey also sought an estimate of time spent in the field inspection
stage of the compliance assessment process.
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

MI
UT
(n=176) (n=24)
Mean 0.61
1.17

WA
(n=9)
1.00

MT
(n=12)
1.44

ID
(n=14)
1.50

OR
TOTAL
(n=46) (N=272)
0.73
0.76

Figure 28: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state (hours)
The average commercial field inspection was reported to take 0.76 hours to complete—larger
state samples were quite comparable to the amount of time spent inspecting a home. Within
individual states, Idaho was found to spend the most time (1.50 hours) on the inspection process.
Montana exhibited a close second, dedicating on average 1.44 hours to the commercial
inspection. With the exception of Michigan and Oregon, code officials report spending
significantly more time on commercial field inspections than on residential inspections.

148

Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
The average residential field inspection takes approximately 0.65 hours to complete—all
states averaging less than one hour
The commercial energy code inspection averages 0.76 hours
A greater number of respondents indicate more time spent on the commercial inspection
compared to residential, however the averages for each category remain comparable
Question #10: Format of Permitting Data
Language: What format does your agency use to maintain permitting data?
a) Paper
b) Digital
c) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Some building code compliance organizations are starting to utilize technological alternatives to
the standard inspection and compliance assessment process. These may include conversion of
plans, specifications and other compliance reporting documents to digital, or paperless, formats.
Prescriptive checklists may be also be converted. In some cases, inspection data can be entered
through a computer or onsite tablet device, and later exported for storage or further analyses.
This question addresses the format a local jurisdiction uses to maintain permit data collected as
part of the energy code compliance assessment process.

149

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

TOTAL (n=320)

Paper
74%

Digital
57%

Other
0%

Figure 29: Format used to maintain permit data
The majority of local code enforcement jurisdictions (74%) conducts and maintains permit data
in the traditional paper format. At 57%, a significant portion also reports digital maintenance of
this data. At the state level, a similar trend is observed. Most state samples indicate the paper
format. Idaho respondents, however, indicate a greater prevalence of digital.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Local code enforcement agencies most often maintain permit data in paper format—74%
of respondents
57% of local jurisdictions also report maintaining data in digital format

150

Question #11: Limitations
Language: What limitations impede your ability to enforce the energy code? (Check all that
apply)
a) Time or staff
b) Money
c) Code books
d) Education or training
e) Data provided with plans
f) Building access
g) Equipment
h) Not applicable
i) Other
(if responded other, text entry box is included for description of this condition)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses—separate classification for
residential and commercial buildings)
Residential
One of the primary questions included in the survey surrounds limitations and challenges
impeding local jurisdictions. Data was collected classified into nine distinct categories, based on
common barriers. These included: time and staff constraints, financial, availability of code
books, education and training, data provided with plans and specifications, access to the project
site, equipment, not applicable, and other. This portion of the response data quantifies the
prominence of these common barriers to energy code compliance.

151

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Figure 30: Limitations to residential code enforcement (n=354)
The most prominent barriers to impeding residential energy code compliance surround the
availability of resources and information. Nearly half of all respondents (48%) indicated a lack
of information provided with building plans and specifications—a severe impediment to the plan
review and permitting process. Limited time or staff resources were cited by 45% of
respondents, with a lack of education or training following (35%). A general lack of money
(31%) rounds out the top impediments to residential energy code compliance and enforcement.
Commercial
Data was also collected for commercial energy code compliance limitations. The same response
categories as presented in the previous question were used, allowing for a comparison between
residential and commercial trends.

152

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Figure 31: Limitations to commercial code enforcement (n=340)
Limitations to commercial code enforcement follow the same trend across survey states.
Insufficient or incomplete data provided with building plans (46%), and a lack of time or staff
(45%) were identified most frequently. 37% of responses cited a lack of education or training,
while 30% identified money as an impediment.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Factors limiting energy code enforcement are predominately related to the availability of
resources and information
Primary impediments facing local code enforcement jurisdictions include:
1. Availability of adequate data with building plans and specifications submitted for
permitting
2. Time and staff
3. Education or training
4. Money

153

Question #12: Residential Code Infractions
Language: In your jurisdiction, in what plan review and/or inspection items do you generally
find do not comply with the residential building code? (Check all that apply)
a) Envelope insulation levels
b) Envelope insulation installation
c) Envelop sealing (infiltration)
d) Fenestration
e) Duct insulation
f) Duct sealing
g) Piping insulation
h) Lighting fixtures
i) HVAC sizing
j) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
In addition to general limitations, the survey also sought to identify the most common infractions
witnessed by code officials in residential and commercial buildings. Nine residential response
options were provided, and can be classified as related to the building envelope, mechanical, or
lighting systems. A breakdown of these general categories is presented, followed by the direct
analysis of question response options.
60%
50%
40%
Envelope
30%

Mechanical
Lighting

20%
10%
0%
Envelope

Mechanical

Lighting

Figure 32: Common residential code infractions (general category) (n=331)

154

Over half (52%) of survey respondents reported infractions as common within the building
mechanical system. These could include both the efficiency of the actual mechanical unit, or
installation problems, such as duct sealing. Problems in the building envelope are found almost
nearly as often, with 48% of respondents reporting related infractions. Lighting in residential
buildings was identified less; however 33% of respondents reported problems with these
systems, as well.
From a more detailed perspective, envelope air infiltration was identified as the most frequently
occurring residential code infraction (47%), followed by duct sealing (38%) and proper
insulation levels (37%). Improper duct and piping insulation was reported in similar frequency.
Air sealing, both in the building envelope and duct systems, appear to be a common problem in
homes.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Figure 33: Common residential code infractions (n=331)

155

Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
The most common residential code infractions are found in the home mechanical system
(52%), followed closely by problems with the envelope (48%)
Air sealing is specifically identified—envelope air infiltration and sealing of mechanical
ducts
Insulation levels and improper installation was also commonly reported
Fenestration was reported as having the fewest associated code infractions
Question #13: Commercial Code Infractions
Language: In your jurisdiction, in what plan review and/or inspection items do you generally
find code do not comply with the commercial building code? (Check all that apply)
a) Envelope insulation levels
b) Envelope insulation installation
c) Envelop sealing (infiltration)
d) Fenestration
e) Duct insulation
f) Duct sealing
g) Piping insulation
h) Lighting fixtures
i) Lighting controls
j) HVAC system controls
k) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
A question identifying common commercial energy code infractions follows the previous
inquiry. A similar format and set of response options were offered, however; additional options
were offered to capture greater specificity in commercial code provisions related to lighting and
mechanical system controls.

156

80%
70%
60%
50%

Envelope

40%

Mechanical

30%

Lighting

20%
10%
0%
Envelope

Mechanical

Lighting

Figure 34: Common commercial code infractions (general category) (n=331)
On the commercial side, the majority (69%) of infractions reported were found within the
building envelope. A greater number of respondents indicated problems with the building
mechanical and lightings systems, as well. Overall, the frequency of code infractions were
observed to be greater in commercial building responses than for residential.
From a more detailed perspective, envelope air infiltration was identified as the most frequently
occurring residential code infraction (47%), followed by duct sealing (38%) and proper
insulation levels (37%). Improper duct and piping insulation was reported in similar frequency.
Air sealing, both in the building envelope and duct systems, appear to be a common problem in
commercial buildings.

157

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Figure 35: Common commercial code infractions (n=306)
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Energy code infractions observed within commercial projects are most commonly found
in the building envelope (69% of respondents)
Over half (54%) of responses identified the mechanical system as a problem—fewer
(42%) citing lighting as an issue
As seen in residential buildings; fenestration was the least reported infraction
Question #14: Available Information
Language: What information is available to your staff during field inspection?
a) Approved plans
b) Energy code compliance checklist(s)
c) Published energy code and/or standard
d) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
The survey sought to identify information available to code officials during field inspections.
Several pieces of valuable resources were identified, including approved building plans and
158

specifications, prescriptive checklists, codes/standards, and other guidance. The availability of
this information may be correlated with other survey questions, or with best practices and
recommendations surrounding energy code compliance.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

10%
0%
Approved plans

Prescriptive
checklist(s)

Published codes &
standards

Figure 36: Information available during field inspections (n=348)
Approved plans were by far the most frequently cited source of information available during the
field inspection—93% of all respondents indicated having access to them. Only about half of
survey respondents reported having prescriptive checklists (55%), or published codes and
standards (48%). From the list, it appears specifications and other data was cited as least
available, with only 19% of respondents reporting access to this source of information.
Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Approved building plans are the resource most commonly available to code officials
conducting an energy code field inspection
Only about half of code officials report having access to prescriptive checklists or the
actual energy code or standard being enforced

159

Question #15: Software Compliance Reports
Language: Do you accept software compliance reports with permit applications in lieu of a
plan review?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Not applicable
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Many states accept compliance software reports, such as those generated by REScheck and
COMcheck, in replacement of conducting a formal plan review. These programs are generally
considered a desirable option for builders/designers and code officials alike. This question seeks
to identify the frequency of this practice.

17%
Yes
40%
No
N/A
43%

Figure 37: Acceptance of software compliance reports (n=295)
About half of the response distribution reports accepting software compliance reports in lieu of
conducting a plan review. This response rate was about as expected prior to analyzing survey
data. It is unexpected, however, following the prevalence by which the trade-off compliance
path was identified earlier in the survey.

160

Observed Trends
The following trends were observed from the individual question analysis:
Less than half of code enforcement jurisdictions report accepting compliance software
reports in lieu of conducting a plan review
An approximately equal number of jurisdictions accept compliance software reports in
comparison to those who do not accept the reports
4.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Response data was analyzed to provide insight on jurisdictional processes and challenges
impeding code enforcement at localized stakeholder levels. The original survey was directed
towards code officials, who could provide information on building inspection processes,
evaluations, and related issues. General findings from the survey analysis are presented in the
following sections, and contribute to an understanding of local background and challenges facing
90% Compliance.
Population Sample
Approximately 302 responses were gathered from local code enforcement jurisdictions. The
average code official works for a jurisdiction serving 22,617 people. The vast majority of
respondents serve comparatively smaller jurisdictions, with 43% coming from a jurisdiction
serving a population of less than 10,000 people. The average jurisdiction issued 162 permits in
the previous calendar year (105 residential and 57 commercial). Compared to population served,
the average code official saw 7.16 residential permits per 1000 people served (4.64 residential
and 2.52 commercial).
Funding Sources
Most (79%) of code enforcement jurisdictions obtain their funding from a single source. About
87% of all jurisdictions receive their primary funding through revenue gained from issuing

161

permits. About one-third (31%) also receive funding from a local municipality. Most
jurisdictions do not receive funding coming from that state-level.
Responsibilities
The majority (79%) of energy code plan reviews are performed by in-house staff working for the
local jurisdiction. Third-party contractors are used about 11% of the time for this service, and
5% of the time no plan review is conducting as part of the process for determining compliance.
In a similar trend, jurisdictional staff members also perform 83% of field inspections. Thirdparty contractors are used for inspection services about 8% of the time, with, again, no energy
code field inspection used about 5% of the time.
In performing their duties, code officials spend just over a half hour (0.56) on each residential
plan review. The typically more complex commercial plan review process takes significantly
longer, averaging 0.92 hours. The residential field inspection takes only slightly longer than the
plan review at 0.65 hours. The commercial inspection takes a similar amount of time and less
than the average commercial plan review at 0.76 hours.
Compliance processes
Most projects demonstrate compliance with the energy code through the use of the trade-off
approach, such as submitting a REScheck or COMcheck software compliance report. For
residential buildings, the trade-off approach is used 54% of the time, and 57% of time in
commercial projects. The prescriptive path is the second most preferred compliance path in
residential and commercial buildings, and is utilized 38% and 34% of the time, respectively.
Compliance via the performance path is chosen at about the same rate (8%) in both residential
and commercial buildings.

162

Permitting data included in the compliance process is generally (74%) maintained in the more
traditional paper format. Many (54%) also provide an option to maintain data in a digital format,
enabling a greater potential for streamlining processes through technological solutions.
However, a link between the maintenance of digital permitting data and the inclusion of
technologically advanced processes was not included in the survey. Less than half of
enforcement jurisdictions accept software reports in lieu of conducting a formal plan review.
Building plans are often approved earlier in the compliance process, and actual conditions are
later verified in the field. Approved building plans were found to be the most common resource
available to code officials conducting energy code field inspections. However, only about half of
code officials are known to have access to compliance checklists or the actual codebook for
which they are inspecting and verifying compliance.
Education and Training
Over half (56%) of code officials receive at least periodic formal energy code training, which is
often provided by a state-sponsored program or professional association, such as the
International Code Council (ICC). Mandatory training is required for 25% of code officials, for
example that tied to professional certification or continuing education programs. About 11% of
code officials receive no energy code training whatsoever.

163

4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Chapter Four presents survey response data analyzed to better understand processes and
challenges at local levels of code implementation. Data was previously collected in several
states based on a survey instrument designed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Response data is broken down by each survey question, accompanied by trends emerging from
the analysis. A summary of findings resulting from the survey analysis is also presented, and
contributes to conclusions presented in the final chapter.

164

CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

5.1 OVERVIEW
Following the analysis of survey data, the investigation continued in seeking additional
information to aid states in addressing compliance requirements. This portion of the
investigation relied on recent compliance studies reviewed through a process of qualitative
content analysis. Conducted in several states, each report serves as a case study, and provides
insight in three primary areas: state and local background information, challenges, and
recommendations for states. Reports analyzed provide an effective overview of current
conditions and actions taken by states early to address Recovery Act requirements. Findings are
used to both further and compliment findings gained through the survey analysis, and can be
further leveraged to guide states as they address 90% Compliance.
State Samples
Recent studies have taken a preliminary look at states’ ability to accept and meet Recovery Act
90% Compliance requirements. These studies resulted in three series of reports, each providing
a glimpse of existing state conditions, issues, and recommendations provided to individual states.
Reports are analyzed as state case studies and serve as data sources; including two series
produced by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP), as well as the final reports
submitted by states to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) upon conclusion of
individual 90% Compliance Pilot Studies.

165

Table 18: Overview of state samples by data source
PNNL 90%
Report
BCAP
Report
BCAP
Compliance
Publication Gap
Publication Compliance
Pilot Study
Date
Analysis
Date
Plan
Georgia
06/2011
Alabama
07/2010
Colorado
Idaho*
07/2011
Arkansas
12/2010
Delaware
Iowa
06/2011
Delaware
01/2011
Idaho
Massachusetts
07/2011
Illinois
12/2010
Illinois
Montana*
07/2011
Kentucky
02/2011
Kentucky
Oregon*
07/2011
Michigan
12/2010
Michigan
Utah
06/2011
Nebraska
11/2011
Nevada
Washington*
07/2011
Nevada
11/2010
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
N/A
New Hampshire
02/2011
New Mexico
New Mexico
01/2011
South Carolina
Ohio
02/2011
Texas
South Carolina
11/2011
West Virginia
South Dakota
12/2010
Texas
02/2011
West Virginia
02/2011
*States included in combined Northwest Pilot Study

Report
Publication
Date
11/2011
11/2011
06/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
05/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011

Findings were extracted and input to a database. Data was further organized, with a matrix
constructed for each source to effectively display information emerging from each unique report
series. Observations, themes and extracted information is presented by source in the following
sections. A resultant summary of findings across all states is also provided, contributing to an
increased understanding of background scenarios, challenges faced by states and local
implementers, and recommendations for states to consider as they address compliance
requirements.
Coding of Data
The content analysis portion of the study relied upon a coding system to guide the data extraction
process. Categories were defined by and allocated between three primary categories: state and
local background scenarios, challenges impeding implementation, and recommendations for
states. Content was first analyzed and coded for contribution to these three primary categories.

166

Most categories were coded based upon the organizational scheme observed within each reports
series. This led to a natural flow of information from the documents to within the boundaries of
the study. As additional categories were coded, sub-categories were also created to provide an
increasing level of detail, as well as to aid the organizational process and ensure relevant data
remained aligned with targeted knowledge. Data was extracted and allocated by coded
categories, and displayed in a matrix format allowing for a comparison of codes across states
within a single data set. These matrices form the basis for the data tables presented within the
chapter. A more detailed description of the content analysis process is included in the
Methodology chapter. A comprehensive list of codes applied to each data source is also included
in Appendix C.
5.2 90% COMPLIANCE STUDIES
Conducted in several states, the PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies set out to test the
recommended methodology for assessing and demonstrating compliance with Recovery Act
requirements. Reports analyzed provide an effective overview of state experiences and early
actions taken to address Recovery Act requirements. Findings are used to further, as well as
compliment knowledge gained through the survey analysis, and can also be generalization to
guide states in addressing 90% Compliance.
Overview of State Pilots
PNNL 90% Compliance Pilot Studies were conducted across nine U.S. states, including one
conglomerate study combining four Northwest states. Upon completion of each pilot, states
submitted a final report outlining their approach, findings, successful practices, challenges, and
overall feedback on the methodology. These reports serve as case studies from which state
experiences and findings can be analyzed to better understand challenges and successful

167

practices. Each report from the collection of studies was analyzed, with findings complimenting
and trends observed in the survey analysis portion of the study.
An overview of the data sources, including states covered and respective report publication dates
are provided in the following table:
Table 19: State pilot study final report and publication date
PNNL 90%
Report Publication Date
Compliance Pilot
Study
Georgia
06/2011
Idaho*
07/2011
Iowa
06/2011
Massachusetts
07/2011
Montana*
07/2011
Oregon*
07/2011
Utah
06/2011
Washington*
07/2011
Wisconsin
N/A
*States included in combined Northwest Pilot Study
All 90% Compliance Pilot Studies were completed during the 2010-2011 timeframe (NOTE:
The Wisconsin report did not indicate a publish date). PNNL issued a Funding Opportunity
Announcement advertising the need and criteria by which states would be considered for
selection. All pilot studies were required to adhere to the PNNL recommended approach;
however, no single state undertook a comprehensive study addressing all building types or all
requirements within the methodology.
PNNL attempted to select pilot states from several different climate zones across the country,
targeting a diverse population of state compliance scenarios. Regional Energy Efficiency
Organizations (REEO) were enlisted to aid the selection process, as well as to support states and
subcontractors throughout the process.

168

The following table lists each pilot study state, the administrative state agency, and partnering
REEO, along with the publication date for the final report.
Table 20: Pilot study oversight agency and partner organization by state
Pilot State
Georgia

Oversight Agency
Department of
Community Affairs
Iowa
Department of Public Safety
Massachusetts Department of
Energy Resources
Montana
N/A
Northwest
N/A
Utah
N/A
Wisconsin
Safety & Buildings Division

Partner Organization
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
N/A
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

States are observed to have taken multiple approaches in coming to terms with their current
scenario and in administering study requirements. Some states sent a contact letter and flyer to
open communication channels with local enforcement jurisdictions and inform states of the
impending study and requirements. PNNL also created a Jurisdictional Survey designed to
collect data on local compliance processes and procedures (this survey was administered in a
portion of Pilot Study states, with the data presented in the preceding chapter). Several states
also relied upon interviews and focus groups to collect further information on state-specific
conditions, and also to strategize ideal approaches for identifying building samples and
collecting data. The PNNL recommended approach called for multiple requirements in the
building evaluation, involving a review of submitted plans and specifications, as well as several
field inspections at varying stages of the construction process. Energy code training and
educational programs were also suggested to train evaluation personnel. In some cases, these
training sessions were also made available to other interested and affected stakeholders.

169

Table 21: Pilot study approach by state
Instrument
GA IA MA MT NW* UT WI
Contact letter
Yes Yes No No
No N/A N/A
Survey
Yes No No No Yes Yes No
Interviews
N/A N/A No No Yes N/A No
Focus groups
N/A N/A No No
No N/A No
Plan review
Yes Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes
Field inspections
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Evaluator training Yes Yes No No N/A N/A No
*NW denotes the pilot study comprised of the four northwest states
Pilot study states were also chosen for their ability to provide insight upon unique conditions or
areas of uncertainty, such as the inclusion of third-party performance testing, alternative means
of compliance demonstration, or the execution of inspections within home rule states or
unincorporated jurisdictions. The Iowa study was observed to include both a HERS Rating and
REScheck compliance option. The Massachusetts study also included a HERS option, while also
including ENERGY STAR homes within the sample. The Montana study was unique compared
to other pilot states, in that it included an option for self-certifying compliance with the energy
code. Georgia was observed to be one of the earlier states to form a compliance working group,
although other states, both pilot and non-pilot, have since followed suit.
In support of their recommended methodology, PNNL hosts a collection of compliance tools and
resources to aid inspection and evaluation processes. The PNNL method outlines specific
requirements for assembling a statistically valid sample of buildings for compliance evaluation.
This process is automated by the Sample Generator tool. The Jurisdictional Survey is designed
to collect information on local building department staff, current practices, and processes for
determining energy code compliance. Compliance Checklists aid the plan review and field
inspection processes, allowing evaluators to verify checklists requirements and the fulfillment of
their respective code provisions. Once an inspection has been completed, the Score + Store tool

170

is designed to digitally house the data obtained. The tool is also designed to track the sampling
process, as well as report based upon selected metrics.
Table 22: Compliance tools utilized
Compliance Tool
Sample Generator
Jurisdictional Survey
Compliance Checklists
Score + Store

GA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

IA
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes

MA
Yes
No
Yes
No

MT
No
No
Yes
No

NW
No
Yes
Yes
No

UT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

WI
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

The Compliance Checklists were found to be the most popular resource relied upon in the Pilot
Studies, with all states putting them to use. The Sample Generator was also observed to be
widely utilized, with only the Northwest and Montana studies choosing not to rely on the tool as
a means of generating a set of sample buildings. The Wisconsin study used a combination of the
Sample Generator and Departmental software used by the State Safety and Buildings Division.
The Montana and Northwest studies also chose not to upload inspection data to the Score + Store
tool, nor did the Massachusetts study. Data was collected via the Jurisdictional Survey in three
pilot states, and is analyzed in the previous chapter. The Georgia and Utah studies were found to
have utilized the entire suite of compliance tools designed to support the PNNL recommended
methodology.
The PNNL method outlines four sample types based on new or renovated residential or
commercial buildings. As a general rule, 44 buildings of the same type are required to be
considered a statistically valid sample. Buildings could be inspected as a single sample building
during multiple stages of construction (the single-building approach), or evaluations could be
performed based on a combination of multiple buildings making up the entire progression of
required construction stages (multi-building approach). The Recovery Act also identifies targets
codes by which these samples should be measured for compliance. These codes are interpreted
171

to be the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for residential buildings, and
Standard 90.1—2007 for commercial buildings (or better in each case). Some of the pilot states
had not yet adopted the target codes at the time of the study. While many states performed a
compliance baseline against the target codes, other states measured against the code enacted in
the state at the time of the study.
Table 23: State pilot study characteristics
State
Georgia
Iowa
Massachusetts
Montana
Northwest
Utah
Wisconsin

Sample
Type
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Commercial

Sample Size
(no. bldgs.)
44
50
50
125
N/A
42
44

Baseline
Code
90.1-2007
2009 IECC
2006 IECC
2009 IECC
N/A
2006 IECC
2009 IECC
& 90.1-2007

Compliance
Rate
80%
54%
88%
N/A
N/A
87%
95%

Sample
Approach
Multi
Multi
Single
Single
Single
Single
Multi

Pilot states included residential and commercial building samples of various sizes. The final
samples were found to be predominately new or recently constructed buildings. Some states had
committed to include renovated buildings within their sample, however; only a handful of these
buildings were obtained, with no specific details presented within state reports. The Georgia
study focused on new commercial buildings, however the State’s final report indicated an
additional pilot following the PNNL approach would specifically evaluate residential and
commercial renovations.
The smallest building sample was seen in Utah with 42 new commercial buildings inspected.
The State of Montana conducted an expanded pilot study, evaluating 125 newly constructed
residential buildings. All pilot states, with the exception of Massachusetts and Utah, evaluated
compliance against the specified Recovery Act target codes. The Massachusetts study evaluated

172

50 homes against the 2006 IECC, with Utah evaluating 42 commercial buildings against the
commercial energy chapter of the 2006 IECC. The Wisconsin study was unique, in that
commercial buildings were evaluated against both the IECC and Standard 90.1.
All states were found to have contracted third-party services to conduct building evaluations. A
combination of single- and multi-building sampling was utilized across states, and in some cases
these approaches were mixed in order to generate the necessary number of sample buildings. In
some cases, timing of the site visit was also reported difficult, resulting in an inspection
conducted after certain components were no longer visible. In some cases, post-construction
evaluations of recently completed projects were also used, further limiting the evaluator’s ability
to verify certain requirements.
Challenges
Each state reported challenges and other experiences as a result of implementing the PNNL
methodology. While much of this feedback was found to center specific code requirements or
infractions, conclusions could also be drawn upon the value of overall methodology and logistics
of performing a compliance evaluation. These findings are presented in the following sections in
the order analyzed.
Georgia
The final report following the Georgia pilot study provided a number of issues surrounding not
only the overall methodology, but also the ability to verify particular items on the Compliance
Checklists. Issues pertaining to the checklist were indicated in relation to checklists items,
allowing for cross-referencing with the respective code provision.
The following table includes problems with the checklists as reported by the Georgia study,
including the related review or inspection stage and referenced 90.1—2007 provision:

173

Table 24: Reported checklists issues in Georgia study
Checklist Code
Problem Encountered
Item(s)
Provision(s)
PR1
4.2.2
Insufficient information on the plans and specifications, e.g.
insulation R values.
FR4
5.5.4.3a
Fenestration U values and SHGC for windows, doors and skylights
FR5
5.5.4.3b
were not identified and no NFRC rating certification was available.
FR6
5.5.4.4.1
Product labels are not typically affixed to commercial fenestration
FR7
5.5.4.4.2
products and the majority of the buildings evaluated failed to meet
FR8
5.8.2.1
these requirements.
PR3
4.2.2
Mechanical systems were found to be close to full compliance.
7.4.1
However, efficiency labels were consistently lacking on mechanical
equipment and service hot water systems.
EL2
9.4.3
Tandem electrical wiring was missing and wattages for electrical
fixtures were not provided. A simple item, exit signs, rated above the
allowable wattage was commonly found.
PR8
6.7.2.1
The biggest concern of the evaluators was the evaluation checklist.
For example, some of the items on the checklist were not practical or
field verifiable.
PR9
8.4.1.1
Construction documents require “as-built” drawings submitted within
8.4.1.2
90 days of system acceptance’ is not a practical requirement. Other
items were subjective in nature which resulted in comments being
provided by the evaluators rather than having a more definite and
clear yes or no answer.
PR9
8.4.1.1
Feeder connections and voltage drop are addressed by the electrical
8.4.1.2
code, not the energy code. This requirement which is found in the
National Electrical Code seems redundant and cannot be easily
verified as compliant without the design engineer’s calculations.
PL3

7.4.6

Plumbing installations were mostly compliant but some heat traps
were missing.

The study also brought forth challenges related to the general process of conducting compliance
evaluations. Some code provisions were not easily verified during the typical field inspection
process, such as the checklist requirement calling for submission of as-built drawings within 90
days of acceptance. The Georgia study included the example of equipment load and sizing
calculations which allow for verification of a voltage drop. The personal judgment of a
particular evaluator was also called into question in performing inspections. Furthermore,
174

although 90.1—2007 had been adopted within the state, the majority of buildings inspected in
the Georgia study had actually been permitted and constructed under the previous 90.1—2004
code.
General challenges facing energy code compliance presented in the study include a lack of (not
necessarily prioritized, but listed in the order stated):
Education
Time
Money
Equipment
Codebooks
Data provided on plans
According to the report, the Georgia compliance working group and contracted evaluators agreed
upon a need for additional statewide energy code training. Audiences identified include
designers, building inspectors, the construction industry and related trades. In the past six
months, the study also reports having conducted 42 energy code training workshops through the
Southface Energy Institute. Workshops were reported to have included training on air leakage
testing (duct and envelope) and lessons on new code requirements.
Iowa
The Iowa study reported low energy code compliance resulting from a lack of documentation.
Many areas of the state are unregulated (two of these areas were included in the study), and were
not available for participation in the study due to a lack of permit information site information
and construction activity (the PNNL Sample Generator tool functions based on reported recent
construction permitting data). Technical problems were also reported with the Score + Store
software early in the process, although these were stated as eventually solved. The study found
most enforcement jurisdictions were not inspecting to the adopted state energy code. Many local
building departments were reported to not take advantage of free training provided by the state,
175

and see a lack of funding for what is perceived as additional time and effort required to enforce
code requirements.
All Iowa evaluations required a REScheck compliance report or HERS Rating documentation.
Only a small number of jurisdictions were described as actively involved with the Iowa study, as
many were non-responsive to requests to participate. Additional sample buildings were needed
in order to obtain the necessary sample size. Load calculations were reported to have been
calculated in only 12 of 50 homes inspected, with a low compliance rate on seemingly simple
items; examples given were the posting of the compliance certificate on the electrical panel, or
the installation of efficient lighting. The study also highlighted a higher compliance rate
observed in Climate Zone 5 (reported as 71%) in comparison to Climate Zone 6 (64%).
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts study was entirely based on post-construction inspections and evaluations.
One Compliance Checklists was completed for each home through a single site visit. The typical
visit was reported to take between 15 and 60 minutes. The study encountered problems applying
the PNNL Compliance Checklists through a post-construction approach. The report specifically
identified problems with the sample scoring system, citing the ability of a sample building to
comply, even when only a portion of the checklist items are readily observable to the evaluator.
According to the study, when ‘N/A’ or ‘Not Observable’ options are checked for a particular
requirement, zero points are assigned (possible or received) to those items, resulting in . As
many items required by the energy code are not observable post-construction, the study reported
this type of use as non-effective.

176

Montana
The Montana study encountered problems in obtaining sample buildings and gaining access to
project sites. Many phone calls were reported as unreturned, necessitating direct visits to project
sites. Many of the sample homes chosen for an inspection were found to be inaccessible or
based on inaccurate project information. Similar to the Iowa study, the Sample Generator was
not an effective tool in identifying building samples, due to the large number of projects in the
state which occur outside of code enforcement areas.
Plan reviews as part of the compliance process were reported as rare within smaller enforcement
jurisdictions, with energy features generally only checked during site inspections in these areas.
Information included in REScheck compliance reports was also found to be inaccurate in
comparison with values observed in the field. Information on building envelope air leakage,
mechanical equipment and lighting was also stated as not often included.
Northwest
Many of the local enforcement jurisdictions polled in the Northwest pilot study reported permit
revenue as their only source of funding. Third-party inspection was also uncommon. Financial
constraints were reported to limit the amount of time code officials were able to spend in the
field performing building inspections and evaluations. The study also indicated builders have a
particular opposition to assemblies utilizing continuous insulation.
Code officials reported a lack of information provided with buildings plans and specifications.
Mechanical load calculations were found to be a rare practice in residential construction, and
exterior doors often lacked proper labeling as is typically required of fenestration products.
Confusion amongst local enforcement staff was also cited in correctly completing inspection
checklists.

177

Utah
The energy code was reported as less of a priority in Utah compared to other life and safety code
inspections. Similar to other studies, many inspected homes were reported as having
unobservable features related to particular code requirements. This was stated as a problem of
site visit timing between phases of the construction process. A lack of time, money and
resources necessary for performing compliance inspections in local jurisdictions was also
reported as limiting energy code compliance, along with the need for consistent education and
technical support. The Utah report also described confusion among enforcement officials, due to
conflicting information on appropriate construction methods or rules, and the lack of a clear
authority. The State also identified home builders as resisting compliance, frustrated with
inconsistent enforcement between jurisdictions.
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin study also utilized the PNNL Compliance Checklists, and experienced confusion
on certain checklists items where responses were interpreted to have multiple meanings. The
example given referenced the checklist requirement for code provision 502.2.1, stating,
“Insulation intended to meet the roof insulation requirements not installed on top of a suspended
ceiling.” Documentation submitted with building plans was reported as often missing.
Discrepancies between information entered into COMcheck and actual field conditions were also
reported. “Judgment calls” on behalf of individual evaluators was also cited as a barrier, due to
the number of third-party auditors enlisted for the study.

178

Reported Conclusions
Several conclusions can also be drawn from the experiences of pilot study states. The following
section outlines some of the primary takeaways reported by individual states. Findings are
presented by state in the order which they were analyzed.
Georgia
The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reported having been able to “strictly”
follow the guidelines recommended by PNNL, and relied “exclusively” upon the Compliance
Checklists and Score + Store tools. Third-party contractors were also said to have reported
results back to the State relatively seamlessly. The State also pledged to continue energy code
training, while exploring alternative approaches to evaluating and improving compliance.
Overall, Georgia found a compliance rate of 80% within the state, and will use this as a baseline
against which to address Recovery Act requirements. The study described the PNNL guidelines
as “very instrumental” in framing the compliance evaluation process, and allowing for successful
completion of the pilot. The DCA highly recommended use of the PNNL compliance tools and
resources.
Iowa
A broken understanding in the overall value of energy codes was reported in Iowa, including a
tendency to hide deficiencies within the compliance evaluation process. A call to educate city
officials and political leaders on the value of energy codes was stated. The Iowa study
concluded a significant need for local enforcement jurisdictions to require adequate
documentation to demonstrate code requirements. Although evaluation times were found to be
relatively short, they are expected to be up to twice as time consuming once necessary
information is obtained for plan review. Many jurisdictions accepting software compliance

179

reports, such as is provided by REScheck, were described as simply seeking a bottom line pass or
fail score. The actual inputs and field conditions were often found to differ from the indicate
criteria. The study also concluded the insulation inspection (one of the PNNL-suggested
inspection stages) could be conducted during the same visit as the framing/rough-in inspection,
further streamlining the inspection process and limiting the necessary number of site visits. One
inspector included in the study also suggested checklists be created based on the chosen
compliance approach to make the process less confusing in avoiding unnecessary information
and checklist items.
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts study concluded the PNNL Compliance Checklists were not a valuable tool
for conducting post-construction assessments. In inability to observe several checklist items and
verify related code requirements yielded incomplete checklists. However, this condition was
found to have no net impact on the compliance score. The study concluded it would take three
site visits to complete the entire checklist during the construction process. Compliance was
found to be lowest when inspected based on the overall UA approach, due to limited tradeoffs
allowed by REScheck. Compliance was found to be higher when inspected to performancebased paths, allowing more flexibility for tradeoffs. All of the ENERGY STAR homes were
found to comply under prescriptive or UA tradeoff approaches.
The study found general training required to become a certified HERS Rater was sufficient for
completing the PNNL checklists. A period of adaptation was required for evaluators to become
comfortable with the checklists, but the overall learning curve was acceptable. Evaluators did
make a few suggestions for improving the checklists, such as removing the need for a
compliance certificate or emphasizing allowances within code footnotes.

180

Montana
The Montana study was not able to gather the data to complete a building evaluation through a
single site visit. Approximately 2-4 site visits were concluded necessary to fulfill a checklist.
Smaller jurisdictions were reported to seldom conduct a formal plan review, with most
information verified during the field inspection. Information included in software compliance
reports were also concluded to commonly deviate from actual installation conditions.
Northwest
Compliance rates were reported as satisfactory according to the Northwest pilot study. Certain
trades were found to lack sufficient documentation to demonstrate energy code requirements
during the plan review stage, with residential mechanical equipment singled-out as difficult to
verify prior to the field inspection. The study also describes classroom-based training as the
preferred approach to energy code education. The Northwest study report also notes a
prevalence of above-code programs in the region, potentially inflating compliance evaluations in
comparison to Recovery Act target codes.
Utah
The energy code was found to be a lesser priority in comparison to many other building
requirements in Utah. The state reported a need to support building officials in making energy a
higher priority. The study also concluded a need for improved consistency between local
enforcement jurisdictions, citing many as ignoring energy code requirements. A single,
recognized source for technical assistance is proposed as a potential solution to this problem,
such as a clearinghouse for energy code information and resources. The Utah study also reported
an ability to conduct multiple evaluations within a single development, as opposed to inspecting
only single samples.

181

Wisconsin
The Wisconsin pilot concluded documentation missing from the plan review stage was a primary
limitation of energy code compliance. Subjective evaluator judgment was also cited as a source
of inconsistency within the study, especially with a significant number of third-party contracted
personnel. The state suggested rearranging checklists to include a column throughout for plan
review or field-verified observations. Edits were also requested enabling checklists to match the
International Building Code and Construction Specifications Institute taxonomies. The Score +
Store tool was also recommended to accommodate multiple R value ratings for a single assembly
with an automatic calculation of the overall assembly resistance.
5.2.1 Observed Trends
The 90% Compliance Pilot Study reports offer feedback on state experiences and actions taken
to address Recovery Act compliance requirements. For the thesis experiment, reports submitted
by individual pilot states were analyzed, and resultant data was presented throughout the section.
The following represents a summary of findings extracted from the pilots, which allow for a
better understanding of state applications, challenges encountered, and recommendations for
consideration.
The overall use of the PNNL recommended methodology was reported positively, with
more specific feedback received on various pieces of the suggested approach.
Georgia reported implementation without significant difficulty, having relied upon the
recommended methodology, as well as supporting compliance tools and resources.
Several improvements to the Compliance Checklists and instructions were presented,
suggesting the elimination of non-applicable provisions and clarification of items found
confusing by evaluators.
The Massachusetts pilot utilized the Compliance Checklists to conduct post-construction
buildings inspections and evaluations—this application is NOT recommended.
Several studies cited a lack of information and documentation submitted with permit
applications, limiting the ability to assess compliance during plan review stages.
Plan reviews were reported as rare within smaller enforcement jurisdictions, with most
code requirements verified through field inspection in these areas (if at all).
Unregulated areas within states may lack energy code enforcement.
182

Observed Trends (continued):
Building samples relying on recent construction permit data, such as the PNNL Sample
Generator tool, may not adequately represent unregulated regions.
In general, 2-4 site visits are required to complete the Compliance Checklist, as some
studies were able to streamline the process by combining field inspections.
The Massachusetts study field inspection process was based on only one site visit per
sample, however; this approach yielded a significant quantity of ‘N/A’ and ‘Nonobservable’ responses.
Montana encountered difficulty in securing and accessing project sites for sample
buildings.
Many sample buildings identified through data sources were found to be non-existent or
based on inaccurate information.
The timing of site visits were reported as difficult, due to short time periods to observe
certain energy features.
The Massachusetts study reported a potential scoring problem; no points are counted for
or against when ‘N/A’ or ‘Non-observable’ is selected, having no impact on the
compliance score.
Studies yielded several common code infractions, including a lack of mechanical load
calculations, and low compliance rates for many seemingly simpler checklist items.
Choice of compliance path (i.e., prescriptive, UA tradeoff, or performance approaches)
was found to impact compliance, with higher scores resulting from performance-based
approaches.
Conditions entered into compliance software programs were often found inconsistent
with actual conditions as verified in field.
Many sample buildings were found to have been designed to an earlier version of the
energy code than was inspected.
Primary conditions limiting code officials’ ability to enforce the energy code were
identified as education, time and money.
In some states, the energy code was identified as a significant source of confusion
amongst code officials, with home builders described as resisting compliance efforts.
Access to energy code education and training was consistently presented as important
The Iowa study suggested the need for an increased understanding of the value behind
building energy codes, emphasizing the need to educate government officials and
policymakers.
5.3 GAP ANALYSIS
The second series of documents analyzed was the Gap Analysis reports published by the
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP). These documents specifically address shortfalls in
relation to 90% Compliance requirements, and issue recommendations for individual states in
overcoming these challenges. A significant amount of information is included, providing further

183

understanding of state background conditions, challenges and recommendations for
consideration at the state-level.
Overview of State Gap Analysis
A series of underlying assessments lies behind each Gap Analysis report, providing an overview
of state-specific compliance scenarios in relation to 90% Compliance requirements. All reports
were published between mid-2010 and mid-2011, and were conducted in partnership with state
agencies responsible for energy code oversight within the particular state. The Southeast Energy
Efficiency Alliance, a regional efficiency organization, was also found to have contributed to the
Alabama study.
The following table provides an overview of the 15 states where a Gap Analysis was conducted
is provided, along with partnering state agencies and organizations, as well as the respective
report publication dates.
Table 25: Gap Analysis partner organization by state
State

Partner Organization or Agency

Alabama
Arizona

Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
Economic Development Commission:
Energy Office
Energy Office and Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control
N/A
N/A
Department of Energy, Labor &
Economic Growth (former)
Energy Office
Office of Energy
Office of Energy and Planning
Regulation and Licensing Department
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Administration
State Energy Conservation Office
Division of Energy

Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia

184

Publication
Date
July 2010
December 2010
January 2011
December 2010
February 2011
December 2010
June 2011
November 2010
February 2011
January 2011
February 2011
November 2010
December 2010
February 2011
February 2011

State Background
The BCAP Gap Analysis included a fairly well-distributed inventory of states. The smallest
state (by population) included in the analysis was South Dakota at approximately 800,000
people, with the largest being Texas at over 25 million people. The number of metropolitan
population centers and median household income was also included in the reports, helping to
size each state in comparison to others in the collection. Recent housing starts (residential
permits issued) were also included, indicating high and low numbers for each state. An obvious
trend was observed in the year 2009, when all included states issued the least number of
residential building permits. The majority of reports also included a description of primary
industries contributing to the individual state economy.

185

Table 26: Summary of state demographics
State

Metro.
Population
Centers
4

Median
Income

Alabama

Population
(million
people)
4.6

Arizona

2.9

5

$48,745

Delaware

0.9

4

$56,860

Illinois

12.8

8

$53,966

Kentucky

4.3

4

$40,072

Michigan

10.0

6

$45,255

Nebraska

1.8

3

$47,357

Nevada

2.5

3

$53,341

New
Hampshire
New
Mexico
Ohio

1.3

2

$60,567

2.0

5

$43,028

11.5

9

$45,395

4.7

3

$44,625

0.8

2

$45,043

25.0

4

$48,259

1.8

2

$37,435

South
Carolina
South
Dakota
Texas

West
Virginia

$40,489

186

Permit
High
(year)
30,000
(2006)
17,932
(2005)
7,977
(2005)
67,000
(2005)
22,705
(2004)
53,000
(2005)
10,922
(2005)

Permit
Low
(year)
15,000
(2009)
7,056
(2009)
3,140
(2009)
11,000
(2009)
6,878
(2009)
6,000
(2009)
5,180
(2009)

45,000
(2005)
9,263
(2003)
14,200
(2005)
53,000
(2003)
54,157
(2005)
5,839
(2004)
215,000
(2006)

6,000
(2009)
2,160
(2009)
4,600
(2009)
13,000
(2009)
15,529
(2009)
3,691
(2009)
75,000
(2009)

5,399
(2006)

1,966
(2009)

Economy Type

Manufacturing,
fabrication, tourism
Service, agriculture,
manufacturing
Banking, chemicals,
healthcare
Casting, refining,
chemicals, steel
Iron, vehicles,
furniture, machinery
N/A
Agriculture,
chemicals,
manufacturing,
processing,
telecomm.
Gaming,
construction
Machinery, tourism,
manufacturing
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service, agricultural,
tourism
Agricultural, energy
distribution,
technology
Manufacturing,
fabrication, tourism

The Gap Analysis reports also looked at the cost-effectiveness of the residential energy code.
Each state was compared against the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) to
show increases in upfront constructions costs, balanced against longer term energy savings.
These numbers appear tied to a larger BCAP background effort to demonstrate cost-effectiveness
of the residential energy code.
Table 27: Potential savings through code implementation
State

Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New
Mexico
Ohio
South
Carolina
South
Dakota
Texas
West
Virginia

Annual
State
Energy
Savings
by 2030
(trillion
Btu)
42.2*
13.1
6.6*
384.0
9.5*
26.8
70.0
18.4*

Annual
State Cost
Savings
by 2030
($ million)

Annual State
CO2
Reduction by
2030
(million metric
tons)

First Cost
Increase
($)

Utility
Cost
Savings
($)

Simple
Payback
(years)

287*
81
51
307
57
202
786
130*

3.0*
0.9
0.5
2.6
0.7*
1.8*
4.0
1.0*

668.76*
559.49*
N/A
818.72
773.92
965.19
400.00
777.00

205.00*
217.00
N/A
243.37
336.00
274.00
236.00
228.50

3.3*
2.63*
N/A
3.5
2.3
3.5
N/A
3.5

3.0

33

0.20*

777.15*

228.5*

3.4*

6.0*
21.4

45*
177

0.3*
1.4

666.00*
803.00

233.50*
229.00

2.85*
3.5

47.0*

338*

3.3*

692.74

207.00

3.5

7.1*
213.9*

50
1600*

0.4*
15.6*

818.72
818.72

405.00
243.37

3.19*
3.3

5.2
32
0.4*
1293.59*
405.00*
*Referenced BCAP Incremental Costs Analysis (BCAP, 2012b)

3.19*

Based on the BCAP analysis, the 2009 IECC is observed to be cost-effective in all included
states when rolled into a typical consumer mortgage. First costs of construction were observed
to rise from as low as $400 to as high as approximately $1300, with associated utility costs
187

savings ranging from $205-405. This equates to a simple payback in as little as 2.3 years within
included states.
In recent years, the Federal Government has provided three primary sources of funding to
support energy efficiency and renewable energy within the states. Much of this funding came by
the way of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support energy codes adoption and
implementation. The following graphic provides an overview of funding seen in recent years as
distributed to the individual (Gap Analysis) states.
Table 28: Recent federal funding sources
State

EECBG
SEP
Total ARRA
Funding
Funding
Funds Received
($ million) ($ million) ($ billion)
Alabama
10.4
55.5
3.7*
Arizona
9.6*
39.4
7.7*
Delaware
15.9
24.2
1.0*
Illinois
112.2
101.3
12.0*
Kentucky
10.4*
52.5*
3.7*
Michigan
19.6*
82.0*
8.6*
Nebraska
9.6*
31.0
1.3*
Nevada
5.8
34.7
3.0*
New Hampshire 14.5
25.8
1.0*
New Mexico
9.6
31.8
2.8*
Ohio
25.0
96.1*
8.8*
South Carolina
31.1
23.7
4.6*
South Dakota
15.0
23.7
1.4*
Texas
163.1
218.0
16.8*
West Virginia
14.0
32.7
1.8*
*Referenced U.S. Department of Energy Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program
(DOE, 2012d)
Three types of funding are outlined: Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG),
State Energy Program (SEP, and funds spawning from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or Recovery Act). Although these funds are distributed
independently, both EECBG and SEP formulaic funding experienced significant increases as a

188

result of Recovery Act stimulus funding. A portion of this funding supported the adoption and
implementation activities outlined in the remainder of the section.
Adoption
A primary focus of the BCAP Gap Analysis reports covered issues related to energy code
adoption within the states. While model energy codes are produced on the national stage,
individual stakeholders participating in this process come from all levels of government and
private industry. Furthermore, model codes are adopted by states and local municipalities,
leading to a variety of implementation issues and local politics.
Current Status
The following table outlines the energy codes observed within Gap Analysis states in relation to
Recovery Act requirements at the time the respective reports were published. (Note: As of
November 5, 2012 current status of state energy codes can be verified at:
www.energycodes.gov/states). The table also includes each state’s regulatory framework
(statewide or local adoption via Home Rule), state agency responsible for administration and
oversight of the energy code, and typical adoption cycle, if applicable.

189

Table 29: Current state regulatory status
State

Regulatory Residential Commercial Satisfies Administering
Framework
Code
Code
ARRA
State Agency
(based on)
(based on) (YES/NO)
Alabama
Home Rule 2006 IECC 90.1--2007
NO
Alabama Energy
& Residential
Codes Board*
Arkansas
Statewide 2003 IECC 90.1--2001
NO
Arkansas Energy
Office
Delaware
Statewide 2009 IECC 90.1--2007
YES
Delaware Energy
Office
Illinois
Statewide 2009 IECC 90.1--2007
YES
Illinois Capital
Development
Board*
Kentucky
Statewide 2006 IRC
2006 IBC
NO
Department of
Housing,
Buildings &
Construction
Michigan
Statewide 2009
90.1--2007*
YES
Bureau of
IECC*
Construction
Codes
Nebraska
Statewide 2009 IECC 90.1--2007
YES
Nebraska Energy
Office
Nevada
Statewide 2006 IECC 90.1--2004*
NO
Renewable
Energy & Energy
Efficiency
Authority
New
Statewide 2009 IECC 90.1--2007
YES
Bureau of
Hampshire
Building
Construction &
Safety
New
Statewide 2006 IECC 90.1--2004
NO
Construction
Mexico
Industry Division
Ohio
Statewide 2009 IBC* 90.1--2007*
NO
Board of Building
Standards*
South
Statewide 2006 IECC 2009 IBC*
NO
Building Codes
Carolina
Council
South
Home Rule 2006 IECC 2006 IBC
NO
(none)
Dakota
Texas
Home Rule 2009 IRC
2009 IECC
NO
State Energy
Conservation
Office
West
Statewide* 2003 IECC 2003 IECC
NO
State Fire
Virginia
Commission*
*Referenced BCAP (2012c) Code Status
190

Update
Cycle
(years)
N/A

N/A
3*
3*

3*

3*

N/A
3*

N/A

3*
N/A
N/A
N/A
3*

N/A

Three of the fifteen states included in the Gap Analysis were observed to be Home Rule states,
and therefore; adopt the energy code localized levels, such as by city, township or otherwise
local municipality. The remaining states were observed to adopt the energy code on a statewide
basis, requiring all local jurisdictions within the state to enforce the current state energy code. A
variety of codes were found present within the included states, ranging from several variations of
the IECC to the International Residential Code (IRC) and International Building Code (IBC) for
commercial projects. The state agency found to hold administrative responsibility over the
energy code is often the State Energy Office, but may also be a fire commission, designated
board, or otherwise assigned regulatory agency. Only five of the states analyzed were observed
to be in compliance with the energy codes targeted by the Recovery Act. All included states,
when reported, were also observed to adopt codes on a three year cycle; the same on which the
model codes are developed.
Codes for State Facilities
Government owned buildings are often subject to additional requirements to promote increased
efficiency. States may use specific energy savings targets or rely on green building programs to
set minimum requirements for overall energy savings, building components, or sustainable
practices. A specific threshold usually accompanies such requirements, setting a specific level
(i.e. size or cost) at which such requirements go into effect.

191

Table 30: State code requirements for government buildings
State
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
South Carolina
South Dakota

Benchmark
10% less energy than 90.1—2007
LEED Silver
LEED Certification (base level)
LEED Certification (Silver)
LEED Certification
20% energy savings
LEED (Silver) and 50% energy savings
Reduce energy use by 15% in 4 years
LEED (Silver)
LEED (Silver)

Designated Threshold (>)
N/A
10,000 ft.2
N/A
$ 1,000,000
N/A
$1,000,000 or 25,000 ft.2
15,000 ft.2
N/A
10,000 ft.2
All state buildings

Gap Analysis states where requirements for state-owned facilities were observed are summarized
in the above table, along with respective designated thresholds. While some states, such as
Delaware, New Hampshire and Ohio, were observed to have specific energy savings targets for
government buildings, most states who have these requirements rely on the LEED green building
rating system produced by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). While states may use a
specified rating as a design threshold, many do not necessarily require government-owned
facilities to complete the application and rating process.
Of states observed to reference LEED requirements, none were found to exceed a LEED Silver
rating. The LEED system relies on point thresholds to determine which rating is earned. Points
can be gained across several categories, one of which focuses on building energy consumption
(Energy & Atmosphere). To achieve a Silver rating under LEED 2009, a project must earn at
least 50 points across all categories. As a minimum prerequisite, LEED projects must exceed the
Standard 90.1—2007 commercial standard by 10% (based on simulated cost of energy). Projects
wishing to avoid energy simulation may also meet the perquisite and earn points through
adherence to guidance prescribed by the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides or the New
Buildings Institute Core Performance Guide. However, these prescriptive options offer the
192

opportunity for lesser points (up to three points) in comparison to the simulated approach.
Building simulation models can earn additional points, with the first point awarded for 12%
savings, and up to 19 points awarded for 48% savings over the target commercial code.
Constituting nearly half the points required for the Silver rating threshold, the LEED system
places a specific emphasis on the value of above-code energy savings as a core part of green and
high-performance buildings.
Statewide Climate Change Initiatives
In addition to efficiency requirements for state-owned buildings, many states were also observed
to have specified or joined greater climate change initiatives. A variety of programs are elected
by individual states, ranging from regional efforts, such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Accord,
to the installation of state advisory groups, or even joint interstate partnerships with neighboring
states.
Table 31: Climate change initiatives
State
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico

State Climate Change Initiative(s)
University of Alabama State Climate Change Mitigation Study
Governor's Commission on Global Warming Climate Action Plan
Climate Change Consortium
Climate Change Advisory Group
Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord
Intelligent Energy Choice for Kentucky's Future
Climate Action Council
Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord
State Energy Plan and State Energy Conservation Plan
Advisory Board Committee on Climate Change
Department of Environmental Services Climate Action Plan
Member of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Climate Master Program
Southwest Climate Change Initiative (joint with Arizona)

193

Green and Above-code Programs
Gap Analysis reports also provided a glimpse of high-performance and green building activities
within states. Programs covered include LEED and ENERGY STAR projects, Accredited
Professionals (AP), as well as the prevalence of ENERGY STAR builders and HERS Raters. An
overview of these projects and professionals are broken down by individual state in the following
table.
Table 32: Inventory of above-code buildings
State

LEED
LEED
LEED
ENERGY ENERGY HERS
Certified
Registered APs
STAR
STAR
Raters
Buildings Projects
Homes
Builders
Alabama
22
124
1119*
3236
55
11
Arizona
37
90
436
704
59
8
Delaware
10
49
218*
6456
42*
5
Illinois
288
666*
7623*
6307
181
36*
Kentucky
38
179
910*
7162
171
46
Michigan
199
343
3221*
5853
246
35
Nebraska
25
64
804*
2900
72
9*
Nevada
41
156
1000
88848*
21*
13
New Hampshire 27
84
431*
4870
60*
24*
New Mexico
46
310
556*
6079
66*
17*
Ohio
259*
868
4372*
31346
160*
37
South Carolina
60
270
1342*
2861
289
29
South Dakota
7
58
189*
464
27
7*
Texas
301
1240
8566*
320397
822
79
West Virginia
7
33
113*
169
12*
23
*Referenced LEED Project Directory (USGBC, 2012), ENERGY STAR Project Directory (EPA,
2012), and HERS Rater Directory (RESNET, 2012)
Other Programs
A variety of additional programs were also observed within Gap Analysis states. Alabama and
Nebraska were reported to rely on efficiency loan programs through the State. Six of the fifteen
states reported the presence of an appliance rebate program, and three states with a similar utility
rebate program. The State of Delaware also utilizes a rebate program providing incentives for
the construction of green homes, including a requirement for ENERGY STAR appliances and
194

equipment products. Five states reported involvement with ICLEI, a sustainability organization
for local governments.
Illinois reported obtaining funding to support green jobs through the U.S. Department of Labor.
Nebraska supports energy efficiency goals set by the Western Governors Association, and has
implemented an Energy Codes Ambassadors program to support compliance. Five states were
also reported to have entered into the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Some West Virginia cities participate in the Cool Cities program, with Texas cities reporting
participation in the Clean Cities program. New Mexico has adopted codes specifically
addressing earthen building materials, further enabling green construction practices in the state.
Kentucky reports programs supporting green schools, and energy efficient jobs training.
Nebraska and Illinois also operate energy efficiency programs for low-income housing.
Southface Energy Institute of Atlanta produces their EnergyKey and Earthcraft programs on a
regional basis (southeast). Delaware also has a goal for all newly constructed buildings to be
net-zero energy capable by the year 2030.
Implementation
The second primary focus of the BCAP Gap Analysis documents relate to the implementation of
building energy codes. Codes are adopted by the state or local jurisdiction, and true energy
savings are only realized through compliance with those codes. The following provides
additional background information pertaining to the implementation of building energy codes.
Key Organizations
Energy codes affect a wide range of stakeholder groups, including builders, designers,
manufacturers, and the eventual end consumer. Several of these organizations are identified, and

195

presented in the reports. An overview of key organizations reported by individual state is
covered in the following table in the order extracted.
Table 33: Key stakeholder organizations
State
Alabama
Arizona

Delaware

Illinois

Kentucky

Michigan

Nebraska

Nevada
New Hampshire

New Mexico
Ohio

South Carolina
South Dakota

Key Organizations
University of Alabama
Pulaski Technical College
Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas
Northwest Arkansas Community College at Bentonville
University of Delaware Center for Energy and Environmental
Policy
Sustainable Energy Utility
Energize Delaware
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Illinois utilities (several)
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Clean Energy Community Foundation
Kentucky Sustainable Energy Alliance
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Michigan State University
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance
Dow Chemical Company
Nebraska Association of Code Officials
Energy Assistance Network
League of Municipalities
Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership
Home Builders and Remodelers Association
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership
Lake Region Community College
Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership
Department of Development
Better Buildings Coalition
State Extension Service
Energy Office
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance

Stakeholder groups are observed to represent a cross-section of energy efficiency advocates,
industry, and institutional interests. Regional partnerships, such as the Regional Energy

196

Efficiency Organizations, include groups such as the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership. In some states, the Energy Office may take on a role
of energy efficiency advocacy more so than a regulatory function. Universities, such as
Michigan State University and the University of Delaware are also observed as active within
energy codes issues, often in the form of technical assistance, educational and outreach efforts.
National organizations, such as the Responsible Energy Codes Alliance and corporate industry,
such as Dow Chemical, are also observed as present.
Training programs
All states included in the Gap Analysis were observed to have at least general access to energy
code training programs. These were often indicated as provided by national organizations, such
as the International Code Council (ICC), or funded by DOE through a state energy office.
Alabama cited Earthcraft and EnergyKey training provided by the Southface Institute. The State
of Michigan has exercised a training partnership with Michigan State University, which has also
drawn support from Dow Chemical, Guardian Industries, and the Midwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance. The annual EduCode conference is hosted in Nevada, where there is also a training
partnership with the University of Nevada. New Hampshire exhibits a state-sponsored training
series covered under the New Hampshire Building Code Compliance Project. Texas A&M
University also operates a state-sponsored training program in Texas.

197

Table 34: Professional licensing and certification programs
State
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia

Professional Licensing or
Certification Requirement
Local only
Local only
Local only
Local only
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES

Licensing and Certification
Several states were also observed to have professional licensing and certification programs for
code officials and inspectors. Some states were found to have statewide programs, while others
exhibited requirements only at localized levels. State reports highlighted the value of
professional licensing and certification programs, but often stressed the need for these programs
to incorporate requirements specific to energy code training. Overall, eight states were observed
to have some sort of licensing or certification requirements pertaining to code officials.
Third-party Rating and Enforcement
The PNNL method called for the use of third-party inspection and evaluation of sample
buildings. Several states were observed to currently utilize contracted third-party services,
although through a variety of functions. Third-party services are often used to inspect for code
requirements or to test building performance. Although the use of third-party services was

198

observed, the prevalence of these options cannot be interpreted and it should not be assumed to
be a primary method of enforcement.
Table 35: Third-part testing and enforcement
State
Alabama
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
New Mexico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia

Use of Third-party
Enforcement
NO
YES
YES
YES
N/A
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES

Acceptance of
HERS Rating
NO
N/A
YES
YES
YES
N/A
YES
YES
YES
YES

Seven of the included states were found to contract third-party services for enforcement of
energy code provisions. Many of these states were also found to accept a HERS Rating as a
means of demonstrating compliance with energy code requirements. The State of Kentucky
accepts an ENERGY STAR rating as a means of demonstrating compliance with the energy
code. Some states, such as New Hampshire, do not accept a HERS Rating or ENERGY STAR
on a statewide basis, but make allowances for these options within some local enforcement
jurisdictions. The majority of states did not report use of third-party services and were not
included in the table.

199

5.3.1 Observed Trends
The BCAP Gap Analysis reports provide an overview of current scenarios and conditions
impacting a state’s ability to meet 90% Compliance requirements. Data gathered through the
analysis is presented throughout the section, and are summarized based on contribution to the
study. These findings allow for a better understanding of state background information, and are
considered for further generalization towards the final deliverable.
Based on a referenced analysis conducted by BCAP, the 2009 IECC is cost-effective in
all states included in the Gap Analysis when rolled into a typical consumer mortgage.
States have received recent funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to support
energy code adoption and implementation programs through three primary sources:
1. Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants (EECBG)
2. State Energy Program (SEP)
3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
Three of the fifteen Gap Analysis states were observed to be Home Rule states, and
therefore; adopt the energy code at localized levels, such as by city, township, or
municipality.
A variety of energy codes were observed present within states, including several
variations of the IECC, IRC and IBC.
The state agency with administrative oversight over the energy code is often the State
Energy Office, but may also be an alternate state regulatory agency or appointed body.
States may set energy savings targets or rely on green building programs to set minimum
efficiency requirements. A specific building size or cost threshold was observed to
accompany these requirements in several states.
Many states have implemented climate change initiatives, or joined partnerships with
neighboring states within the same geographic region.
Many unique green building programs exist within individual states
A variety of stakeholder groups exist, including energy efficiency advocates, government
officials, industry, and institutional interests.
Eight of fifteen states were observed to have professional licensing and certification
programs for code officials, however these often do not include requirements specific to
the energy code.
All fifteen states have at least general access to energy code training programs, which are
often provided by professional organizations or funded by DOE.
Seven states were found to contract third-party services for energy code enforcement and
building performance testing. Some states may accept a HERS or ENERGY STAR
rating as a means of demonstrating energy code compliance.

200

5.4 STRATEGIC COMPLIANCE PLANS
The third series of documents analyzed in the study was the Strategic Compliance Plans, also
published by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP). These documents further address
individual state scenarios and highlight many components required to support compliance with
building energy codes. Each state plan contains further background and a variety of
recommendations directed at states as they address 90% Compliance requirements.
Overview of State Compliance Plans
The Strategic Compliance Plans were written for 10 states, with all reports published in
November 2011. A portion of the states where a compliance plan was conducted were also
included in BCAP’s Gap Analysis. Each plan acknowledges a state regulatory or administrative
agency as a partner in the effort, with all reports also recognizing the U.S. Department of Energy
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Some state plans also provide
recognition to the respective Regional Energy Efficiency Organization (REEO). The following
table provides a list of states for which a plan was written, as well as the corresponding state
agency acknowledged in each report.
Table 36: Strategic Compliance Plan acknowledgements by state
State
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Mexico
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia

Acknowledgements
Department of Local Affairs and Governor’s Energy
Office
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction
Bureau of Construction Codes
Office of Energy and Planning and Energy Code
Challenge
Regulations and Licensing Department
State Energy Office
State Energy Conservation Office
Department of Commerce Division of Energy
201

REEOs were recognized as contributing to the majority of state compliance plans. The state of
Kentucky actually credited two REEOs, the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the
Southeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, with having been involved with the project. New
Hampshire was the only state compliance plan found to credit a contracted organization,
identifying GDS Associates within the final report.
Table 37: Partnering Regional Energy Efficiency Organization
State
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky

Michigan
New Hampshire

Regional Energy Efficiency
Organization
Southwest Energy Efficiency
Partnership
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnership
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
and Southeast Energy Efficiency
Alliance
Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnership

As a source of data, the Strategic Compliance Plans provide an overview of state scenarios, and
recommendations for state action in several key areas. Each state plan was observed to cover 4-5
of the following topics to which suggested actions were allocated:
Secure Funding
State and Local Policy
Training
Outreach
Compliance Evaluation
All report documents were found to be broken down into these general areas, providing an
overview of background conditions with associated actions intended to drive states towards 90%
Compliance. In all reports, suggested actions initiated and focused on the Energy Code
Compliance Collaborative. This group is often referred to by a variety of names, but is generally
202

understood as equating to the compliance working group suggested in the PNNL recommended
model. While many states have not established such a group, several state compliance plans
identified existing groups. The Colorado report was unique, in that it was the only report to
specifically name ‘state agencies’ as an intended audience.
Table 38: States compliance working groups identified
State
Delaware
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Working Group
Energy Codes Coalition
Energy Code Ad Hoc Committee
Energy Codes Advisory Group
Building Energy Collaborative

State Background
The Strategic Compliance Plans began with a general overview of state compliance scenarios,
placing codes at the center of energy challenging facings states and the nation. The need for
code and compliance was demonstrated in highlighting the percentage of energy consumed
within residential and commercial buildings. Figures were extracted from individual reports and
are presented in the following table.
Table 39: Energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings
State

Colorado
Delaware
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Mexico
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia

Percent of Total
Energy Used in
Buildings
43%
49%
49%
52%
36%
38%
28%
45%

203

Model building codes are generally adopted statewide or by local municipality, which is known
as home rule. Compliance plans were developed for states exhibiting both types of regulatory
infrastructure. The majority of states were found to adopt a statewide energy code, however
Colorado and Texas adopt by city or local jurisdiction.
Table 40: Regulatory framework by state
State

Regulatory
Framework
Home Rule
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
Home Rule
Statewide

Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Mexico
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia

Critical Tasks
The compliance plans continued in identifying critical tasks. Each state was assigned a series of
tasks, which was observed to often vary from state-to-state. The primary critical tasks identified
for states were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Energy Code Compliance Collaborative
Training Program
Consumer and Professional Outreach
Energy Code Ambassadors Program
Compliance Evaluation Study

These were found to be quite consistent between states, with many of the same tasks assigned in
multiple states. Some states included all of the above tasks, with additional tasks found to be
directly related or an off-shoot set of activities under a similar name. The South Carolina and
West Virginia reports contained the fewest number of tasks with only four assigned, while New
Mexico was assigned a total of nine critical tasks.
204

Energy Code Compliance Collaborative
This collaborative is understood to serve as the compliance working group recommended by the
PNNL methodology. In states where such a group has been established, several variations have
been observed. Overall, six of the states for which a compliance plan was written contained a
critical task of the same or similar name.
Training Program
Six compliance plan states included a critical task referencing an energy code training program.
The New Mexico plan contained two similar tasks; recommending the state maintain the energy
code training program, as well as provide advanced training opportunities. The Michigan plan
contained two tasks providing the same instructions, and the Delaware plan suggested
implementing an advanced statewide training program.
Consumer and Professional Outreach
All state compliance plans were found to include this task. Some tasks were described as
outreach to raise consumer awareness, sometimes targeting a specific stakeholder group (e.g.
Colorado real estate, appraisal and lending outreach). Delaware and Texas included a task
instructing the states to create and disseminate factsheets and checklists. The state of Michigan
was instructed to achieve support for the Michigan Uniform Energy Code and to develop a
coordinated outreach strategy. The New Mexico plan also called for achieving support for the
state’s energy code.
Energy Code Ambassadors
All ten states also called for the creation of an Energy Code Ambassadors program. This
program is a collaborative partnership between BCAP and the International Code Council, where
code officials are enlisted to champion the energy code within their state, region or community.

205

These individuals are typically well-versed in code requirements, and also familiar with many
relevant resources and training opportunities surrounding the energy code. Aside from the
Ambassadors program, others states were also observed to have initiated a program of a similar
name and purpose. For example, the Illinois and Kentucky plans recommend creation of an
energy code delegates program.
Compliance Evaluation Study
Five of the compliance plans outlined the need for an evaluation study within the set of assigned
critical tasks. While some states do not call for execution of a specific study, many plans
recommend strategic planning for an eventual study, or preparation through related activities.
The Michigan and New Mexico plans ask states to develop a protocol for conducting a
compliance evaluation, while the South Carolina and West Virginia plans recommend states
pursue an evaluation structure and survey. The New Mexico plan also suggests developing tools
and resource for conducting a compliance evaluation.
Other Critical Tasks Identified
Other critical tasks assigned to states were found to include:
Colorado: Make the argument for state-level support
Kentucky: New energy subcommittee within the State Board of Housing
Michigan and New Mexico: Expand the value of the website homepage
Michigan: Create a centralized online portal for energy codes
New Hampshire: Implement PNNL guidelines

206

Stakeholder Outcomes
In addition to outlining critical tasks for individual states, each plan also included a list of four
desired stakeholder outcomes. An identical set of outcomes was identified for each state:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Policymakers support the code
Consumers expect and demand the code
Professionals build to the code
Officials enforce the code

The same end goal was also presented in each state report: Full Compliance.
Energy Codes Coalition
The remainder of each state report was broken down into key areas upon which the state should
focus, the first of which was the formation and mission of the compliance working group. State
compliance plans identified several tasks and responsibilities for each working group. Tasks
assigned to state working groups include:
Make the economic case for codes
Serve as a clearinghouse for code information
o Source of information for policymakers
o Collective voice on code issues
o A shared forum
Provide targeted outreach
o Build support by utilizing connections
Secure funding for projects
Support energy code implementation programs
o Provide oversight of implementation programs
o Manage programs

207

Secure Funding
The next key area surrounds funding for energy code compliance efforts. Each compliance
report outlined general options for states to consider in generating financial support for energy
code compliance and supporting efforts. Options presented to states are as follows:
Establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard
o Some reports use Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard terminology
o Similar to renewable portfolio standards (%)
o Standard put into place to support long-term energy efficiency benefits
State appropriations
o Include resources for local jurisdictions to ease financial burdens
o SEP funding for compliance
Trust or public benefit funds
o Trusts to support energy efficiency
Raise permit and re-inspection fees
Subsidize training fees
o Nominal training fees
System Benefits Charge
o Fund placed through utility surcharges
Utility support
o Other utility funding
Direct benefit from private companies
Funding is often identified as one of the key factors limiting compliance with the energy code.
This can be considered a primary area of interest to states, especially in times of constrained
budgets and the passing of the economic stimulus. Nine of the Strategic Compliance Plans name
state appropriations as a potential funding source. Eight of the plans call for the placement of an
energy efficiency resource or portfolio standard. Seven states recommended pursuing additional
funding through increased construction permit fees, spreading the burden across the industry and
downstream to project owners or other funding agencies. Seven states plans also recommend the
placement of a public benefit fund, with six states instructed to finance compliance efforts
through increased training and certification fees.

208

State and Local Policy
Compliance plans continue in recommended strategies surrounding state and local policies.
These tend to focus on the adoption of energy codes, but are also observed to relate to other
efficiency or green building programs affecting building energy use within states. This portion
of the state compliance plans were found to be less consistently prescribed in comparison to
other sections of the reports. Recommendations ranged from straight-forward statements calling
for adoption of target codes to more specific state instructions.
States having not yet adopted the target codes prescribed by the Recovery Act of 2009 were
instructed to adopt the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Standard
90.1—2007. In addition, several plans suggested the adoption of a stretch code or otherwise
above-code program statewide or through enabling local jurisdictions. Home Rule states, such
as Colorado, are instructed to adopt a statewide energy code, and promulgate procedures to
certify compliance.
States are advised to incorporate third-party testing and inspection services into their compliance
efforts. Retrofit programs should be enhanced through the use of energy service companies
(ESCO), and housing grant recipients are asked to meet ENERGY STAR program requirements.
States are also instructed to implement an energy code continuing education and certification
program, while amplifying their plan for code enforcement.
The plans also call for additional resources to be allocated to support energy code compliance.
Suggested steps include dedicated funding for free training. States with limited resources or
unincorporated regions are encouraged to utilize state inspectors for rural areas, or possibly apply
funding to borrow inspectors from neighboring building departments. The state of West Virginia
is referenced of having incorporated this practice.

209

Other state-specific policy goals and activities are also referenced in the plans. Compliance
activities are suggested to support Delaware’s net zero goal by the year 2025. The state of
Illinois is asked to install a new energy subcommittee with the State Board of Housing.
Kentucky is given the recommendation to post best practices for stakeholders, such as through a
state website. Increased enforcement within unincorporated areas of the state is suggested for
Texas, while allowing third-party testing and further encouraging localities to reach for net zero
targets.
Outreach
Consumer and professional outreach was a primary focus of the Strategic Compliance Plans.
The reports outline activities currently seen across states, and provide recommendations for
continued outreach efforts. A brief sampling of current programs reported within states include
Colorado’s RechargeColorado.org program and website, the Energize Delaware campaign, an
Illinois pilot outreach program at big box retail stores, and a Texas State Energy Conservation
Office centralized online portal, offering updates on compliance tools and training events.
Methods of Communications
The compliance plans also outline several suggested forms of communication, including:
Maintaining a state energy codes website
Energy code compliance checklists
A press kit for generating earned media
Public service announcements
Policymaker factsheets
Attending conferences and trade shows
Energy code field guides
Coordination with real estate agents, appraisers and lenders
Print media campaigns
TV and radio spots
Producing news story B-rolls (ready-packaged news stories)
Interaction with professional editorial boards
Pod casting code information
210

Several state compliance plans also reference a public service announcement created for the state
of New Hampshire, and available for use in other interested states.
Recommended Messages
The reports also detail specific messages to be communicated through public and professional
outreach efforts. Many of these focus on the benefits associated with energy codes, many of
which are often portrayed from a consumer perspective. Messages suggested for state outreach
efforts include:
Energy codes reduce utility bills for citizens and businesses
Compliance yields full savings potential
Energy codes ensure lower building operating costs
Energy codes create reduced financial risk for lenders
Codes increase a building’s selling potential
If your home or business does not meet code, it will cost you every month
Energy codes reduce utility bills and protect consumers
Front end costs are more affordable and cheaper than later costs to fix
Energy codes increase electric grid reliability
Codes protect citizens from substandard construction
Energy code compliant homes are less likely to default on payments
Compliant homes are a significant selling point
Stakeholder Groups
In conducting outreach activities, the plans name a variety of potential stakeholders. These range
from state agencies advocating for or administering the energy code, to private organizations
providing goodwill support. A list of stakeholders recommended for inclusion in outreach
efforts is as follows:
State agencies and housing authorities
General assembly
Local governments
International Code Council (ICC) chapters
Regional Energy Efficiency Organizations (REEO)
Regional USGBC chapters
State Home Builders Associations

211

List of stakeholders recommended for outreach efforts (continued):
Regional chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AIA)
ASHRAE chapters
Utility companies
Fire Marshal office
Municipal associations
Environmental groups
Product manufacturers
Private organizations
Consumer protection agencies
Real estate, appraisal and lending organizations
Educational institutions
Cool Cities programs
Chamber of Commerce
Advocacy Resources
Compliance plans also identify several resources for use across multiple states. Many of these
are in relation to particular activities, ranging from code advocacy to specific technical
requirements inspected during compliance evaluations. Several of the general items are also
available for customization, and can be tailored to the needs of specific states. Resources
identified within state plans include:
ACEEE reports on the impact of energy efficiency programs:
www.aceee.org/blog/2011/11/how-does-energy-efficiency-create-job
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
BCAP Cost-savings Calculator:
http://energycodesocean.org/resource/energy-code-calculator
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
BCAP fact sheets:
http://energycodesocean.org/consumers-take-action
(accessed November 5, 2012)
BCAP incremental costs information:
http://energycodesocean.org/incremental-cost-analysis
(accessed November 5, 2012)

212

List of advocacy resources (continued):
IMT Policymaker Factsheet:
http://www.imt.org/uploads/resources/files/PolicymakerFactsheetEnergyCodeCompliance.pdf
(accessed November 5, 2012)
NEEP Energy Efficiency at Home video:
www.vimeo.com/16891099
(accessed November 5, 2012)
New Hampshire fact sheets and energy code presentations:
www.nhenergycode.com
(accessed November 5, 2012)
U.S. DOE Resource Guide for State and Local Policymakers:
http://www.energycodes.gov/building-energy-codes-resource-guide-policy-makers
(accessed November 5, 2012)
Training
The importance of energy code training and education programs was also stressed identified
repeatedly within the Strategic Compliance Plans. A number of general training strategies were
provided in each report, along with an example of a training program breakdown. An overview
of recent state-funded training efforts was provided, with a summary of such efforts provided in
the table below.
Table 41: Summary of state training programs
State
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
New
Hampshire

Program Description
Statewide supported by the Department of Local Affairs
with Recovery Act funds
NEEP provided commercial and residential training
Contracted with International Energy Conservation
Consultants
Partnership with state HBA and the University of
Kentucky
Partnership with Michigan State University
Conducted through New Hampshire Building Codes
Compliance (NHBCC) project

213

Recent Attendance
50 sessions
6 sessions
30 sessions
(scheduled)
“several”
5000+ attendees
29 sessions 1100+
attendees

A sample training program was also estimated within plans for several states. Costs of these
sample programs ranged from as little as $16,000 in South Carolina up to about $49,000 in the
state of Illinois. Several general strategies were also recommended, encouraging states to
maintain current programs or install additional energy code training opportunities.
Recommended strategies were observed to include:
Empower energy codes at the community level
Continue with state energy code delegate program
o Provide phone and email support to peers
o Participate in local government meetings
Continue and expand the state energy code training program
Include training on special topics
Develop a centralized energy codes website
Implement the Energy Code Ambassadors program
Compliance Evaluation
Several of the state Strategic Compliance Plans concluded in encouraging the execution of a
formal compliance evaluation. In all cases, these evaluations referenced the PNNL
methodology. In addition, one unique state, Colorado, also referenced a compliance study
conducted in the Fort Collins area during the 1990s.
A consistent set of goals was observed across all states where a compliance evaluation was
recommended. These goals are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Establish energy code compliance baseline
Track progress toward state goals
Monitor energy savings attributed to building energy codes
Document cost-effectiveness of compliance activities

The structure of the formal compliance study was also presented, again referencing the PNNL
methodology.

214

Compliance evaluations were recommended to include:
BCAP or PNNL (original or state-specific) survey
Funding allocation ranging from $75,000-750,000 (references PNNL pilot studies)
PNNL State Sample Generator
Local (first-party), state (second-party) and contracted private sector firms (third-party)
Approach based on the PNNL methodology

5.4.1 Observed Trends
The Strategic Compliance Plans offer an overview of state compliance scenarios and a package
of recommendations for individual states to consider in addressing 90% Compliance
requirements. Plans were analyzed for each included state, with extracted data included
throughout the section.

215

The following list of findings summarizes key takeaways for further consideration in additional
states.
A portion of states were found to have established an energy codes compliance working
group, including Delaware, New Mexico, and West Virginia.
State compliance plans encourage the creation of an energy codes coalition to provide
key functions, such as directing targeted outreach efforts, serving as a clearinghouse for
codes information, and providing oversight for implementation programs.
Several sources of funding are recommended, including Energy Efficiency Resource
Standards, state appropriations, trusts or public benefit funds, construction permitting and
inspection fees, subsidized training fees, a System Benefits Charge, and other funding
from utilities or private organizations.
All states, including those with a Home Rule regulatory infrastructure, are directed to
adopt a statewide energy code, while also allowing for above-code programs.
Compliance plans encourage states to incorporate third-party testing and evaluation
services.
States are encouraged to implement professional licensing and certification programs,
including energy code education in continuing education requirements.
States are directed to allocate additional funding to support compliance requirements,
including free energy code training courses.
Unincorporated or rural regions of a state are encouraged to leverage inspection services
from neighboring jurisdictions, or employ roaming statewide officials.
Several outreach activities are recommended, including maintenance of a state energy
codes website, factsheets and field guides for policymakers, marketing through media
sources, and coordination with professional organizations.
Outreach materials are encouraged to build on specific messaging to highlight the
benefits of energy codes in relation to energy and cost savings, building quality,
consumer protection, and as a selling point to potential homebuyers.
Several key stakeholder groups are identified, including state and local government
agencies, national professional organizations (and regional chapters), environmental
groups, consumer protection agencies and educational institutions.
Resources are identified to assist in advocating for the energy code, which, in many
cases, may be customized by states seeking code adoption or addressing compliance
requirements.
Compliance plans outlined training programs in many states, including recent sessions
Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and New Hampshire—totaling over
100 unique training sessions and upwards of 6000 attendees.
Characteristics of successful training programs are suggested for states, typically
including community energy code ‘champions’, code delegate programs, expansion of
state training programs, training on special topics, a centralized energy codes website,
and the implementation of an energy code ambassadors program.
State compliance evaluations are recommended based on the PNNL methodology.
Evaluations should also include local, state and private sector contracted personnel.

216

5.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The qualitative portion of the study analyzed state case studies from three unique collections of
reports, with identified phenomena extracted and input to a database. A database was
constructed for each source, with information displayed in a matrix format. The following
represents a summary of findings obtained from each collection of reports, helping to better
understand state and local scenarios, challenges faced, and potential resolutions for states to
consider as they address compliance requirements.
5.5.1 Pilot Studies
Pilot studies were conducted in several states to test the methodology recommended by the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and assist states in addressing 90% Compliance
requirements. Reports submitted by individual pilot states shed light on unique compliance
scenarios, challenges faced by states and enforcement officials, and provide an effective outline
of experiences reported by early-adopting states. The resulting findings are summarized below,
helping to understand state needs, as well as challenges and takeaways from previous state
experiences.
Application of PNNL Methodology
The pilot studies offered mixed feedback on a number of the pieces of the PNNL methodology,
but the use of this approach was found to be positive overall. The Georgia study reported having
been able to implement the method without significant difficulty, having been able to follow the
recommended approach using each of the supplementary compliance tools and resources. Thirdparty contractors were also described as having been able to apply and report results easily in the
Georgia study, with the state highly recommending the PNNL approach.

217

A handful of studies offered suggestions to improve the checklists. These requests surrounded
improvement of the checklists and accompanying instructions, elimination of non-applicable
conditions, or clarification of confusing items. The Massachusetts study relied on the checklists
in conducting post-construction building evaluations. This application was not recommended,
due to the inability to observe many checklist items after completion of the construction process.
Plan Review
Several pilot studies cited a lack of information submitted with permit applications, limiting the
plan review stage of the compliance evaluation process. Documentation demonstrating
satisfaction of many code requirements was often found to be missing from plans and
specifications. The Iowa study specifically called upon a need for local enforcement
jurisdictions to require adequate documentation during this stage of the process. Energy code
plan reviews were also reported as rare within smaller enforcement jurisdictions, with code
requirements verified through the field inspection, if at all.
Identifying Sample Buildings
Some pilot study states were found to contain areas unregulated for energy code enforcement.
Without a responsible building department, it was difficult to solicit participating samples in
these areas. Furthermore, the PNNL Sample Generator functions based on recent construction
permitting data reported by local building departments. As unregulated areas have no way of
collecting or reporting such data, they are overlooked in the prescribed process for generating a
building sample.

218

Required Site Visits
Pilot studies reported varying numbers of site visits required to complete the Compliance
Checklists. The Massachusetts study gathered all information to complete the checklist in a
single site visit, but reported encountering many non-observable items due to the postconstruction approach utilized in the study. Other studies reported multiple required visits to
effectively observe checklists items, generally ranging from 2-4 visits to the project site. Pilots
reporting fewer site visits were observed to have combined some of the inspection stages
recommended in the PNNL methodology. For example, the Iowa study combined the insulation
and rough-in inspections to streamline the process and limit the number of required site visits.
Site Access
Access to sample project sites was also found to be a problem in conducting compliance
evaluations. The Montana study had difficulty gaining access to sites identified as sample
buildings. Many phone calls to local jurisdictions and project contacts went unreturned,
resulting in attempts to visit sites directly. These projects were sometimes locked or otherwise
inaccessible. Several building samples chosen for evaluation were also found to be non-existent
or based on inaccurate permitting data. Site access contributed to difficulty in completing the
checklists, as well, due to difficulty in timing the field inspection after desired items were
installed, but while still visible to the evaluator.
Evaluation Times
The amount of time required to evaluate a building sample was found to be relatively short.
However, this time period is reported to significantly increase when proper documentation is
obtained with permit applications. Shorter evaluation times were also reported as a result of the

219

single inspection, post-construction approach, and in the Iowa study where multiple stages were
sometimes combined to streamline the process.
Sample Scoring
The Massachusetts pilot study called attention to potential issues with the scoring system used by
the PNNL methodology and related Score + Store tool. According to the study, the compliance
score assigned to a single sample building is not negatively impacted when a significant quantity
of checklists items are marked as not applicable or non-observable. In such instances, no points
are given for the particular checklists item, however no possible points are scored either. The net
result is an apparently neutral impact on sample scoring.
Code Infractions
Individual state pilot study reports indicated a number of common code infractions. Mechanical
load calculations were found rarely completed in residential evaluations. A low compliance rate
was also observed on many seemingly simple checklists items, such as the posting of compliance
certificates on the home electrical panel, the presence of labels on doors and fenestration
products, and the installation of high efficacy lighting. The Georgia study also addressed a
number of checklists items that were not applicable under the energy code, and suggested as
better-suited for inspection under other building codes (e.g. electrical or mechanical codes).
Compliance Paths
Evaluations were found to differ based on which compliance path the building was scored
against. Compliance was found to be lowest when evaluated against the overall UA, or tradeoff,
approach. REScheck was cited as allowing a limited amount of tradeoffs. Compliance was
reported as higher when inspected against performance-based paths, or when the selected project
was constructed to a standard required by ENERGY STAR or designated HERS Rating.

220

Use of Compliance Software
Several studies encountered problems with compliance software options and submitted reports.
Discrepancies were observed between information entered into the software and conditions seen
in the field. A tendency to seek a bottom line pass or fail score was also described, hiding many
of the conditions actually installed within the building.
Evaluation against Target Codes
A complication was encountered in evaluating buildings against a targeted energy code. Studies
inspected and scored buildings against a designated residential or commercial code, but many
sample buildings were found to have actually been constructed based on a previous code. While
most states had implemented the desired code, a portion of sample buildings had originally been
permitted under an earlier code version, allowing these buildings to be constructed and inspected
against a code other than was currently adopted within the state.
Reported Limitations
Conditions reported as limiting enforcement officials’ ability to uphold the energy code often
surrounded education, time and money. Many states found enforcement jurisdictions to perceive
90% Compliance requirements as an unfunded effort beyond their typical job description and
responsibility. Most jurisdictions were found to receive only one source of funding, typically
based on revenue gained from permit applications. Financial restraints were reported to limit the
amount of time code officials were able to spend performing compliance inspections.
Understanding of Code Requirements
Pilot studies suggest a learning curve associated with energy code requirements, and, in some
cases, the energy code as a significant source of confusion. The Utah study reported confusion
amongst enforcement officials, described as conflicting information on appropriate construction

221

methods, rules, and lack of a single clear authority. The state also specifically reported home
builders as resisting compliance efforts, presenting the group as frustrated with inconsistent
enforcement between jurisdictions.
Education and Training
Access to energy code education and training programs was identified as important in several
pilot studies. This need was often cited as a result of confusion in applying code requirements.
The Iowa study stated reluctance for code officials to take advantage of educational
opportunities, even free training programs recently offered by the state. For completing the
PNNL Compliance Checklists, the training generally required to become a HERS Rater was
referenced as sufficient. Classroom-based programs were also cited as the preferred training
method.
Value of Energy Codes
State pilots also suggested the need for an increased understanding of the value behind energy
codes. The Iowa study reported this understanding as lacking, including an observed tendency to
hide deficiencies. The study also stated a need to educate city officials and political decision
makers on the value of energy codes. The energy code was also reported as lacking value in
Utah, where the code was described as lacking priority in comparison to other safety-oriented
building codes.
Cost of Conducting a Compliance Evaluation
The pilot studies provide a better understanding of many logistical questions surrounding a state
compliance evaluation. While the studies provided an average number of site visits and time
required to complete various stages of the process, the presence of federal funding did not allow
for a direct glimpse of the cost a state faces in conducting a formal compliance evaluation.

222

Outside of the prescribed methodology, the researcher engaged in follow-up communication with
PNNL staff in an attempt to assign an approximate cost to a 90% Compliance Pilot Study.
DOE administered the state pilot studies by way of PNNL, who then contracted with four
Regional Energy Efficiency Partnerships and one state directly. Contracts awarded displayed a
range of costs, depending on the designated building type, supplemental funding sources, and the
overall scope of the study. Overall, a figure of $100,000 to 150,000 is estimated as necessary to
conduct a formal compliance evaluation based on the federal model. (PNNL, personal
communication, July, 19, 2012) This figure is based on the measurement of a single building
type using federal funding, and does not include any supplemental activities necessary to raise
compliance rates. This figure is expected to be reduced, however, if states funded from within,
and directly contracted evaluators or leveraged existing building department personnel.
5.5.2 Gap Analyses
A second series of reports published by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) was
evaluated for further insight on individual state compliance scenarios. Several themes have been
identified to better outline the needs of states and local enforcement jurisdictions. Findings are
summarized in the following section, and provide a better understanding of existing conditions
within individual state scenarios.
Costs of Adopting Energy Codes
The Gap Analysis reports reference a cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2009 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in a variety of states. When rolled into an average mortgage,
the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) defines the 2009 IECC as cost-effective in all
evaluated states. This assessment is performed from consumer perspective, analyzing consumer
cash flows for initial costs and longer term energy and cost savings.

223

Funding Sources
The sources of funding to support building efficiency, energy codes, and related compliance
efforts were found identified as flowing to states from the federal government. Three primary
sources of funding were observed, primarily attributed to the U.S. Department of Energy. These
include Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, State Energy Program funding, and
stimulus funds attributed to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act).
State Regulatory Infrastructure
A minority of states evaluated in the Gap Analysis were found to be Home Rule states, and
therefore; adopt building codes by municipalities or otherwise locality. States were found to
have adopted a variety of codes, such as the IECC, IRC, and IBC. In addition, a range of codes
with the potential to impact building energy consumptions were also observed, such as electrical,
plumbing, mechanical and existing building codes. The state agency typically responsible for
oversight of the energy code was found in many cases to be a State Energy Office, however other
state regulatory agencies or appointed bodies were also observed.
Beyond Code Programs
Many states were found to have adopted statewide energy savings targets or goals. A percentage
savings target or specific green building program rating is often used as a threshold for
government-owned facilities. The majority of states evaluated were also found to have adopted
the goals of greater climate change initiatives, or have joined partnerships with nearby states.
Many state-specific high-performance or green building initiatives were also found within
individual states.

224

Stakeholder Groups
A variety of stakeholder groups were found in relation to energy code adoption and
implementation. These groups typically include energy efficiency advocates, government
officials, private industry, or institutional interests, such as university or extension programs.
Professional Licensing and Certification
Over half of the states evaluated were found to have professional licensing and certification
programs for code officials. While many of these programs were observed to include training
opportunities and continuing education requirements, they often do not include requirements
specific to the energy code, and may focus predominately on building safety or other industryrelated topics.
Education and Training
All evaluated states were found to have at least general access to energy code training programs.
These opportunities are often state-sponsored, with funding spawning from DOE. Additional
training programs are also provided by professional organizations, such as the International Code
Council (ICC) or regional Home Builders Association chapters.
Third-party Enforcement
Contracted third-party services were found in less than half of the states evaluated. These
services include both enforcement and performance testing, such as that performed by a HERS
Rater.
Alternative Compliance Paths
A handful of states were found to accept alternative means of complying with the energy code, in
lieu of the more traditional approaches specifically identified within the IECC. Some states
allow for design and eventual verification through a HERS Rating. Other states also deem

225

homes designed and constructed to ENERGY STAR criteria as meeting energy code
requirements.
5.5.3 Strategic Compliance Plans
The third series of case study reports included plans written for individual states in relation to
Recovery Act compliance requirements. These reports provide some additional insight on
individual states scenarios, and offer a packaged set of recommendations for states to consider as
they address compliance requirements. The following list provides a summary of findings, and
supports a greater understanding of guidance directed to states to meet 90% Compliance.
Energy Code Working Group
Compliance plans for individual states called for the creation of a coalition to serve several key
functions in relation to compliance requirement implementation. This group is identified by a
variety of titles, but is called upon to provide relatively consistent functions, including oversight
of targeted outreach, serving as a source of codes information and interpretation, and direction of
compliance implementation programs.
Funding Sources
Several general strategies for securing funding to support compliance requirements are offered to
states. These include Energy Efficiency Resource Standards, state appropriations, trusts, public
benefits funds, revenue construction permitting and inspections fees, subsidized training fees, a
Systems Benefits Charge, and additional options provided by utilities or private organizations
with similar interests. State governments are directed to allocate additional funding to support
compliance requirements. The inclusion of free training courses is also recommended within
such allocations.

226

Regulatory Infrastructure
All state plans, including those states lacking statewide authority, are to adopt a statewide energy
code. Furthermore, states are encouraged to allow above-code requirements and programs
within cities and local municipalities.
Third-party Enforcement
State compliance plans encourage states to incorporate third-party testing and building
evaluation services. Plans reference the protocol and approach recommended within the
methodology proposed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
Unincorporated or Rural Enforcement Regions
Many states have rural or unincorporated areas where the energy code is not inspected or
adequately enforced. In these areas, states are recommended to rely upon roaming stateemployed officials. Building departments without the proper enforcement staff are also
encouraged to contract services from nearby enforcement jurisdictions.
Stakeholder Groups
State plans present key stakeholder groups impacted by compliance requirements. These include
state and local government agencies, professional organizations (national, state and regional
chapters), environmental groups, consumer protection agencies, and educational institutions.
Outreach
Several outreach activities are encouraged within states, including the maintenance of a state
energy code website, policymaker factsheets, field guides for code officials, and media
marketing. These efforts are suggested in coordination with a variety of professional stakeholder
organizations. Outreach materials should build on a number of sample messages, many of which
are focused on consumer savings, protection, and building quality. A number of resources are

227

also identified to assist in advocating for energy code adoption and compliance, and most can be
customized for use within individual states.
Education and Training
Compliance plans outline several state training programs, and provide recommendations for
additional training efforts. Recent efforts in several states have presented over 100 individual
training sessions, covering over 6000 attendees. States are directed to continue their training
programs, and encouraged to offer additional advanced opportunities free of charge. Several
characteristics of successful training programs are provided, including the installation of
community-level energy code delegates, training on special topics, inclusion of a state training
website, and implementation of an energy code ambassadors program.
Professional Licensing and Certification
Many state compliance plans direct states to implement professional licensing and certification
programs for code officials. These programs are recommended to include training and
continuing education requirements specific to the energy code.
Compliance Evaluation
All states are directed to investigate, plan, or execute a formal compliance evaluation based on
the PNNL methodology for addressing 90% Compliance. Evaluations are suggested to include
local, state and private sector personnel. A supplementary training program should also be
included to increase knowledge of and familiarity with the energy code, as well as a means to
train evaluators conducting audits and gathering data for compliance measurement.

228

5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This section presents data gathered from multiple sources through a process of qualitative
content analysis. Three collections of reports were utilized as state case studies, providing
insight on state-specific scenarios, challenges, and recommendations for further consideration in
other states working to address 90% Compliance. Data is presented by source, followed by a
synopsis of trends observed from each unique set of documents. The chapter closes through a
summary of findings for each data source, which are further synthesized in Chapter Six to draw
guidance for states addressing Recovery Act requirements.

229

CHAPTER 6: DELIVERABLE

6.1 GUIDANCE FOR STATES
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”) established
requirements for states to adopt and demonstrate compliance with building energy codes. In
response to these requirements, the Federal Government issued a methodology to further define
expectations, and put forth an approach by which states may satisfy Recovery Act obligations.
Based on the federal model, the following guidance is presented for states to consider as they
strive to demonstrate 90% Compliance with Section 410 of the Recovery Act.
6.1.1 Background
The Recovery Act provided states with funding aimed at stimulating the economy, job creation,
and a transition to clean energy technologies. Part of this funding included support for energy
efficiency programs, specifically requiring the adoption and implementation of energy codes for
residential and commercial buildings. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a
methodology elaborating on Recovery Act language, and further outlining state expectations in
pursuit of the legislative mandate.
State Expectations
Section 410 of the Recovery Act includes the following requirements for building energy codes:
Adoption of target energy codes for residential and commercial buildings.
A plan to achieve compliance with target codes within eight years, including active
training and enforcement programs and annual compliance measurement.
These requirements are applicable to states, as well as local code-adopting and enforcing
jurisdictions, covering both statewide and Home Rule regulatory infrastructures. Target energy
codes are defined for residential and commercial buildings, and are based on model codes

230

produced by the International Code Council and ASHRAE. For residential buildings, states are
instructed to adopt into law the most recently published version of the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC). As of the publish date of the Recovery Act, this was the 2009
version of the IECC. For commercial buildings, states are specifically instructed to adopt
Standard 90.1—2007. Together, the IECC and Standard 90.1 are typically known as ‘model’
energy codes for residential and commercial buildings. States have the option of adopting these
codes independently, or states may choose to adopt only the IECC, which incorporates the most
recent version of Standard 90.1 by reference.
Further requirements of the Recovery Act include a plan to achieve 90% Compliance with target
energy codes within eight years, placing the deadline for compliance demonstration in early
2017. Energy code training and educational programs are specified to support the process.
Active measurement and enforcement is also referenced, placing an emphasis on the process
leading to 90% Compliance, as opposed to a simple deadline.
The original language from the Recovery Act of 2009 is available at the following:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Section 410):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
A Snapshot of Current Conditions
The following list represents current conditions gathered through a survey of code officials,
providing insight on practices and processes relied upon within local enforcement jurisdictions:
Implementation of 90% Compliance requirements depends on local stakeholders, many
of which are code officials serving smaller jurisdictions.
Most projects demonstrate compliance with the energy code through the Tradeoff
approach, often through use of DOE REScheck or COMcheck software.
Permit documentation is most often maintained in a paper format, with many
jurisdictions moving toward digital application and documentation processes.

231

Current conditions provided by code officials (continued):
Plans and specifications are often approved as a first step, with conditions later verified
through a field inspection. However, adequate documentation to support permit
applications is often lacking.
Only about half of code officials have access to compliance checklists or actual
codebooks, with approved building plans serving as the most common resource available
during field inspections.
The most common code infractions reported within residential buildings are generally within the
mechanical or envelope systems. Infractions are often found related to requirements for air
sealing for envelope infiltration and mechanical duct systems. Proper mechanical system load
and sizing calculations are often lacking for residential projects. Issues surrounding insulation
and its installation are also commonly reported. Fenestration exhibits the fewest number of
infractions within residential buildings. Within commercial buildings, the envelope is also
identified as a common source of code infractions, with over half of code officials reporting
problems in this portion of the building. Lighting is referenced as the least common infraction
within commercial projects. (Survey findings)
A Model Approach
The expectations of the Recovery Act are further defined through a methodology published by
DOE, developed with the assistance of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The
federal method elaborates upon the basic requirements of the Recovery Act, and provides a
comprehensive model for states to follow in measuring building energy code compliance rates.
The approach recommends the formation of a compliance working group within each state, and
outlines requirements for approaching local jurisdictions, establishing a baseline of current
practices, developing a valid building sample, evaluating compliance, and reporting eventual
findings. Additional topics, such as general funding sources, as well as supplemental training
programs are also addressed.
232

States have initiated compliance measurement activities, including several 90% Compliance
Pilot Studies administered in several states. Pilots were commissioned by the Federal
Government to test the recommended approach, and gather feedback on the process through state
experiences. Overall, the federal model was found successful, with specific feedback offered on
portions of the methodology and supporting compliance tools.
For more information on the federal methodology and state compliance activities, visit the DOE
Building Energy Codes website:
Measuring State Energy Code Compliance Report:
www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
6.1.2 Recommendations
The following sections provide guidance for states addressing Recovery Act 90% Compliance
requirements. A general approach overlaying the Federal model is presented, outlining
requirements against issues identified within states, as well as local levels of energy code
enforcement. Recommendations are provided for states to consider as they implement
supporting policies and take action to meet compliance requirements. The source of each
recommendation as it emerged through the study is also provided. Finally, related tools and
valuable resources are presented to assist states and support each step of the process.

233

Figure 38: Recommended approach to 90% Compliance demonstration
Establish a Compliance Working Group
Source: Federal methodology, Strategic Compliance Plans
The federal model for demonstrating 90% Compliance with Section 410 of the Recovery Act
suggests the formation of a Compliance Working Group within each state. This group is
intended to work with state agencies and provide oversight for many of the compliance activities
within a state. The federal approach does not outline specific requirements that apply to the
working group, however; states are directed to establish this group prior to performing selfassessments, building evaluations, or executing training and education programs.
Issues and Findings
Several states have already established a compliance working group, typically recognized as a
coalition, collaborative, or otherwise advisory group. These groups are often observed to include

234

government officials, environmental or energy efficiency advocates, private corporations,
institutional personnel, and members of the construction industry. A compliance working group
can serve several key functions in relation to Recovery Act compliance requirements, such as
oversight of training programs, targeted outreach efforts, a source for code information and
interpretations, as well as providing general direction for compliance implementation programs.
A variety of outreach materials are available to states, ranging from policymaker factsheets to
field guides for code officials. These efforts are suggested in coordination with professional
stakeholder organizations. (Strategic Compliance Plans) State pilots also suggest the need for an
increased understanding of the value behind energy codes, including their use, implementation
and enforcement, with a specific focus on government officials and political decision-makers.
Recommendations
States should establish a compliance working group to assist with 90% Compliance planning and
implementation. Such a group should include a diverse group of representatives with the ability
to provide multiple perspectives on compliance issues, as well as connect compliance activities
to interested and affected stakeholder populations. A compliance working group can rely on
volunteer members, and function in a committee format under the oversight of a state regulatory
(or otherwise assigned) agency. A charter should be established by the responsible agency, with
clear goals put in-place to align work efforts and support compliance requirements. Compliance
groups consisting of professional stakeholders will be amply qualified to guide state training
efforts, as well as recommend potential funding options. Technical assistance and a variety of
outreach materials are available from the federal government and many national organizations.
These materials can be customized for state-specific applications, and technical assistance is
highly valuable to states initiating compliance activities. (Strategic Compliance Plans) As

235

energy codes are often chosen as a mechanism to support greater energy savings, climate change,
or sustainability policies, it becomes all the more important to engage the appropriate policy and
decision-makers beyond simply code officials, including lawmakers, governmental officials, city
council members, designers, builders, and manufacturers.
Resources
U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program:
http://www.energycodes.gov
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) Webinar: Energy Code Best
Practices: How to Establish an Energy Codes Compliance Collaborative:
http://www.naseo.org/codes/events/2012-04-17/NASEOBCAP_Codes_Collaborative_Webinar-2012-04-17.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Idaho Energy Code Collaborative:
http://idahoenergycollaborative.weebly.com/1/post/2011/02/feb-11-idaho-energyupdate.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Nevada Energy Codes Collaborative:
http://renewableenergy.state.nv.us/resources-forms/necc.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network (OCEAN):
http://energycodesocean.org/research-topics/outreach
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Institute for Market Transformation Building Energy Code Compliance Resources:
http://www.imt.org/codecompliance.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Secure Financial Support
Source: Federal methodology, Gap Analyses, Strategic Compliance Plans
A variety of general funding options to support Recovery Act compliance requirements are
outlined within federal guidance, however, many of these are tied to associated stimulus funding,
and will soon no longer be available for states to support ongoing programs. Options include a
236

handful of federal sources designed to support energy efficiency in buildings, including DOE
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) and State Energy Program (SEP)
funding. States are encouraged to allocate support within their budgets for energy code training
programs. Remaining stimulus funding input to revolving loan programs are suggested as an
option in some states, as well as the potential to leverage utility efficiency programs. Local
governments are also encouraged to pursue options, such as increased permit and inspection fees,
or training fees to subsidize overhead costs. However, it is recognized that when construction
activity is down, the potential for many of these options is reduced.
Issues and Findings
The Federal model and recent compliance studies identify funding as a primary impediment to
compliance with building energy codes, and specifically to the implementation of Recovery Act
compliance requirements. Based on the survey of local code enforcement officials, jurisdictions
are found to be severely limited in the number of functions they can perform, especially those
over and above current workloads. Most local jurisdictions obtain funding from a single source,
which is most often a product of permit revenue. Only about one-third of jurisdictions are
supported by a municipal budget. In addition, other top limitations reported by local code
enforcement jurisdictions center around the availability of time, knowledge, and resources—
arguably also linked to financial stability. (Survey)
Several general strategies for securing funding are available to support state compliance efforts.
Solutions currently exercised within states include Energy Efficiency Resource (or Portfolio)
Standards, state appropriations, public trusts or benefits funds, and Systems Benefits Charges.
Some states have also established relationships with utility companies or private organizations
with overlapping interests in energy efficiency. Some local governments have been successful in

237

finding revenue for general training; however most are limited in funding options to support
compliance specific to the energy code. (Gap Analyses and Strategic Compliance Plans)
Recommendations
States need to take action early to develop a funding model to financially support efforts to
demonstrate 90% Compliance. This step is included early in the process, as it has the ability to
severely limit progress, if not impede state compliance efforts altogether. Several options do
exist, but none is as attainable as they have been in recent years, and traditional funding sources
are tight following the passing of the Recovery Act. Realistic and sustainable funding sources
will require adequate buy-in from state policy makers and officials, further emphasizing the need
to communicate the value of energy codes and compliance efforts to the appropriate decisionmakers. At the present time, accurate estimates for performing baseline compliance studies and
increasing compliance rates are largely unknown. States having initiated activities may be able
to provide further insight on necessary funding allocations, however no states have yet to
complete a full study or fully meet the 90% Compliance requirements. The organization of the
study and current conditions are expected to significantly impact required funding, but may vary
significantly from state-to-state. Members of a compliance working group may also be able to
provide additional insight on state-specific sources of funding, or localized organizations with
similar interests. (Strategic Compliance Plans)
Resources
U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy State Energy Program:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/sep.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

238

Resources (continued):
Environmental Protection Agency Green Building Funding Opportunities:
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/tools/funding.htm
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy: Building Energy Codes Technical Assistance:
https://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center/state-assistance-request
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(DSIRE):
http://www.dsireusa.org/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) State Member Directory:
http://www.naseo.org/members/states/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Energy Foundation:
http://www.ef.org/home.cfm
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority:
http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Funding-Opportunities.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
New York State Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard:
http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/06F2FEE55575BD8A852576E4006F9AF7
?OpenDocument
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Bonneville Power Administration Energy Efficiency Utility Summits:
http://www.bpa.gov/Energy/N/Utilities_Sharing_EE/Utility_Summit/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Oak Ridge National Lab: Electric Utilities and Energy Efficiency:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/uti.htm
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Green Building Council: Financing and Encouraging Community Green Building:
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6247
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

239

Install Education and Training programs
Source: Federal methodology, Pilot studies, Gap Analyses, Strategic Compliance Plans
The original language of the Recovery Act specifically calls for inclusion of education and
training programs to support target energy codes and 90% Compliance requirements. The
federal model echoes a need for these programs, and encourages states to establish ongoing
training programs throughout the process of benchmarking current processes and conducting
measurement activities. Programs are intended to focus on evaluators and enforcement officials,
but may also be extended to include practitioners and other affected stakeholders.
Issues and Findings
The importance of energy code training programs was highlighted by several states in 90%
Compliance pilot study findings. Over half of code officials are known to have at least general
access to training, however; many programs do not include courses specific to the energy code.
Only about a quarter of local enforcement jurisdictions require energy code training as part of a
mandatory program, and many code officials report receiving no training at all. Training is also
reported as one of the most prominent limitation to compliance. (Survey)
Some states have implemented professional training and certification programs for code officials,
however, many of these programs focus on building safety or other industry-related topics
without specifically targeting the energy code. Training programs are most often performed
through state-sponsored programs, or commissioned through a professional organization, such as
the International Code Council (ICC) or regional Home Builders Association chapter.
Successful state training programs are also found to include attributes such as community-level
energy code delegates, state or specialized training websites, and training on advanced code
topics. (Gap Analyses and Strategic Compliance Plans)

240

Recommendations
Training and educational programs are core to improving compliance with building energy
codes. It is important that code implementers receive training to learn practices yielding higher
compliance rates, but also to have access to general educational programs and resources to better
understand the intent and principles behind specific code provisions. States should make every
effort to ensure continuity of these programs to increase general compliance, as well as to
support Recovery Act requirements. Energy code training programs are most often
recommended to be offered on a no-cost basis; however, states where such training is in demand
may consider charging a prudent fee to cover program costs. (Federal methodology) States
might also consider tying professional certification requirements to licensing programs in order
to ensure prerequisite knowledge. (Gap Analyses) Adequate training and educational resources
are paramount in generating a state energy code compliance rate above the 90% threshold.
Resources
U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program:
www.energycodes.gov
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Building Codes Assistance Project:
http://bcap-energy.org/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network: Training:
http://energycodesocean.org/research-topic/training
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Georgia Department of Community Affairs:
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/ConstructionCodes/programs/EnergyCodeTraini
ngWorkshops.asp
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

241

Resources (continued):
Texas State Energy Conservation Office:
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/tbec/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Michigan State University Energy Code Training and Implementation Program:
http://energycodes.spdc.msu.edu/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Washington State University Extension Energy Program:
http://www.energy.wsu.edu/buildingefficiency/energycode.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Efficiency Vermont:
http://efficiencyvermont.com/for_our_partners/res_nc_partners/training_opportunities
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Code College Network:
http://www.codecollegenetwork.com/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Southface Energy Institute:
http://www.southface.org/learning-center/trainings/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

Adopt Target Energy Codes
Source: Federal methodology, Gap Analyses, Strategic Compliance Plans
A crucial legislative step for states in satisfying Recovery Act requirements is the adoption of
target energy codes for residential and commercial buildings.
The federal model, in combination with the original Recovery Act language, establishes these
targets as:
2009 IECC for residential buildings
Standard 90.1—2007 for commercial buildings
States may adopt these codes directly, or must establish a state code that offers equivalent or
better energy savings. (ARRA Section 410)
242

Issues and Findings
The majority of existing guidance encourages the adoption of energy codes on a statewide basis.
This creates a complication for states which adopt codes by individual locality, called Home
Rule, as this regulatory infrastructure extends beyond energy codes alone. States are also found
to adopt a variety of building codes which may impact the energy code, such as those
establishing requirements for mechanical, plumbing, electrical, or specialized building systems.
Currently, it is difficult for Home Rule states to comply with legislative requirements for energy
code adoption. Although some cities within these states have adopted quite progressive codes
and standards, conditions tend to vary between localities within those states. (Gap Analyses)
Code adoption is often challenged due to uncertainties surrounding potential energy savings and
increased construction costs. The Building Codes Assistance Project recently conducted a series
of cost assessments analyzing the effect of code adoption in a variety of U.S. states. The analysis
is presented from a consumer cash flows perspective, with increased costs rolled into a typical
homeowner mortgage, and balanced against energy savings. (Gap Analyses) A similar analysis
has been conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy on a national scale, in addition to stateby-state analyses. The National Association of Home Builders also published a national cost
analysis for the 2009 and 2012 IECC.

243

Recommendations
To satisfy Recovery Act requirements, states must adopt at least the 2009 IECC for residential
buildings and Standard 90.1—2007 for commercial buildings. (Federal methodology) Many
states have adopted both options by way of solely adopting the 2009 IECC, which incorporates
90.1—2007 by reference. A portion of states have gone the route of establishing their own statespecific code, however; these codes must be analyzed and demonstrate equivalent or greater
levels of energy savings than the Recovery Act target codes. To meet the legislative mandate,
Home Rule states will need to allow for an exception and incorporate a minimum statewide
energy code, or will need to seek an alternative method. (Gap Analyses)
Several organizations support increased energy efficiency through code adoption. Many of these
can be leveraged to create and support legislative proposals, provide technical guidance, and in
identifying applicable resources. States should also consider adoption of the more recent 2012
IECC and 90.1—2010. These model codes have been determined to be more efficient than the
target codes, therefore meeting the requirements of the Recovery Act. In addition, these more
recent versions achieve significant energy savings, which have been shown to be cost-effective
by the referenced analyses. (Gap Analyses)
Resources
U.S. Department of Energy Status of State Code Adoption:
http://www.energycodes.gov/states/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy Model Adoption and Compliance Policies:
http://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center/model-policies
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Regional Energy Efficiency Organizations:
http://energycodesocean.org/regional-energy-efficiency-groups
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

244

Resources (continued):
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance:
http://www.reca-codes.org/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Conduct a Compliance Evaluation
Source: Federal methodology, Strategic Compliance Plans
Once Recovery Act target codes have been adopted and supporting activities have been selected,
states are expected to conduct a compliance evaluation. This is intended to be an ongoing
process, starting with the establishment of a baseline compliance rate, and continuing with
subsequent training and evaluations until a rate of 90% energy code compliance has been
achieved. The evaluation is the last stage in the Recovery Act compliance process, but is the
primary undertaking and should not be underestimated. (Federal methodology) The following
graphic outlines a more detailed view of compliance evaluation stage.

Figure 39: Compliance evaluation steps

245

Benchmark Practices
The federal model outlines methods for states to benchmark current practices used within local
code enforcement jurisdictions. As a first step in preparation for the actual compliance
evaluation, it is recommended that states survey stakeholders to better understand conditions and
processes used within local code enforcement jurisdictions. The Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory developed an instrument known as the Jurisdictional Survey to assist states in
benchmarking current practices and conditions. The survey includes a variety of questions
characterizing local building departments, their staff, and inquiring upon the processes by which
the energy code compliance is determined. The survey is recommended in preparation for the
compliance evaluation, as well as to supplement the inspection of individual buildings. These
benchmarking activities can also be continued until 90% Compliance is achieved, allowing a
state to spot-check progress or provide feedback to accompanying training programs. (Federal
methodology)
Issues and Findings
Pilot studies found the survey to be a successful method of benchmarking current scenarios and
gathering early compliance data. Several pilot states administered the survey to varying degrees,
with additional non-pilot states gathering survey data. Response data indicates nearly half of
code officials serve smaller jurisdictions of less than ten thousand people. (Survey) This would
indicate states require a means of coordinating with a large number of local implementation
actors. A portion of pilot study states also conducted stakeholder interviews and focus groups to
augment or in replacement of the survey approach.

246

Recommendations
States should consider surveying stakeholders early in the evaluation stage. As a less-expensive
part of the process, states can gather valuable data in programming training curricula,
communicating with local building departments, and in developing an eventual building sample.
(Pilot studies) The survey may also help to establish first contact with local enforcement
jurisdictions, or to further recruit participants. Accompanying letters and supplemental
information should also be included to explain the overall process. (Strategic Compliance Plans)
Resources
DOE Compliance Evaluation Procedures Overview:
http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
PNNL Jurisdictional Survey:
https://survey.pnl.gov/se.ashx?s=4D1929A5207AB413
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
North Carolina Energy Code Compliance Survey:
http://www.mathisconsulting.com/storage/NC%20Code%20Compliance%20Survey%20
Report%20electronic.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
International Code Council (ICC) Chapter Directory:
http://www.iccsafe.org/Chapters/Pages/default.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
American Institute of Architects (AIA) Chapter Directory:
http://www.aia.org/about/structure/components/AIAS078541
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
ASHRAE Chapter Directory:
http://www.ashrae.org/society-groups/chapters
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
National Association of Home Builders Chapter Directory:
http://www.nahb.org/local_association_search_form.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

247

Develop Sample
The next step in the compliance evaluation process is to develop a building sample from which
energy code compliance measurements can be gathered. The federal model requires a
statistically valid sample from both new and existing residential and commercial buildings. State
samples must include at least 44 buildings from each of the following construction types:
New residential
New commercial
Residential renovations
Commercial renovations
Some states may require a smaller or larger building sample, depending on the amount of recent
construction activity within the state. The federal model also calls for further consideration
within the designated categories, such as multifamily projects, modular housing, and large or
specialty commercial projects. The building sample also needs to draw a weighted sample
across all state climate zones. (Federal methodology)
Issues and Findings
The majority of pilot study states relied upon the PNNL Sample Generator tool to calculate and
define the building sample. (Pilot studies) This web-based tool creates a statistically valid
sample across all state climate zones based on recent construction permitting data. Projects are
generated by county, directing evaluators where to focus their efforts and work with local
jurisdictions to identify specific projects.
Some pilot studies did encounter some difficulty in establishing a building sample of adequate
size. Unregulated areas within a state (without an assigned building department or agency
responsible for energy code enforcement) were found to be under-reported within recent
permitting data, and therefore not fully represented by the Sample Generator. Many states also

248

had difficulty in identifying specific projects within designated areas, and had to expand their
original sample to secure the necessary number of inspections. (Pilot studies)
Recommendations
The PNNL Sample Generator was created specifically to create state building samples for 90%
Compliance evaluations. States should use the tool to establish a starting sample, and then
expand the sample as needed to secure adequate buildings for each construction type. States
should not overlook the importance of communicating with and generating buy-in from local
stakeholders and enforcement jurisdictions. Identifying local partners and working with
cooperative jurisdictions early in the process is recommended. States should also plan to
establish a larger sample than necessary, as some projects may not work out due to timing,
availability of necessary data, and factors beyond control of the evaluation. (Pilot studies)
Resources
PNNL Sample Generator Tool:
http://energycode.pnl.gov/SampleGen/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits Survey:
http://www.census.gov/construction/bps/
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Select Approach
The federal model for measuring 90% Compliance recommends the use of third-party evaluators
to conduct building inspections. The methodology suggests hiring private sector testing and
verification professionals, such as a Home Energy Rater. Personnel from a non-local inspection
agency may be used to fulfill the third-party approach. States are encouraged to support these
industries by establishing credentials for professional certification.

249

Several compliance approaches are also outlined in the federal model, often referenced as
compliance paths. Compliance may be demonstrated by any of the options typically included
within the model codes; prescriptive, tradeoff, or performance paths. Evaluators are encouraged
to select the path as indicated on compliance documents, as appropriate, to match the path to
which the building was designed.
Issues and Findings
The approach by which samples were evaluated was found to impact pilot study findings in
several ways. Individual evaluations were found to differ based on which path the building was
scored against. Compliance was found to be highest when buildings were evaluated through the
performance-based path. In states where software reports are accepted, pilots reported
discrepancies between information contained on the compliance report and actual field
conditions. States should note which code a building was designed and constructed to satisfy, as
buildings currently under construction may not necessarily have been permitted to meet the
currently adopted energy code. Pilots also concluded the PNNL Compliance Checklists were not
a valuable approach when applied in a post-construction format, due to the inability to observe a
large portion of required provisions.
The use of contracted third-party services was found in less than half of the pilot states.
Performance rating and verification professionals are observed in several states, however; not on
a widespread basis. Some states have also experimented with alternative means of
demonstrating compliance with the energy code, such as design and verification through a HERS
Rating. Other states may also recognize ENERGY STAR homes as code-compliant. (Pilot
studies)

250

Recommendations
States should select one or more approaches to 90% Compliance evaluations, as is suitable for
their particular scenario. States where alternative means of demonstrating compliance are inplace should leverage these methods in gathering data. The Federal model provides the most
comprehensive approach to evaluating compliance rates in relation to 90% Compliance
requirements. Third-party services are a viable approach; however, limited funding may prohibit
use of contracted services in some states. Although the federal model specifically recommends
the third-party approach, alternative approaches are not removed and should be considered, if
advantageous. (Pilot studies) In particular, states with limited funding might further consider a
self-evaluation model relying on existing jurisdictional staff.
Resources
Compliance Verification Paths for Residential and Commercial Buildings:
http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20822.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Residential Energy Services Network: Find a HERS Rater:
http://www.resnet.us/directory/search/searchtype/auditor
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Find an ENERGY STAR Builder:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=new_homes_partners.locator
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Conduct Inspections
The Federal model outlines the evaluation of a single building over two stages: review of
building plans and specifications submitted with the permit application, followed by a series of
field inspections performed on the project site. These inspections strategically target specific
stages of the building construction process in hopes of observing all features required by the
energy code, including placement of the building foundation, framing or rough-in stages,

251

installation of insulation, and a final inspection. The federal model allows for the inspection of a
single building through each designated stage of construction, or the creation of a single sample
through the evaluation of each stage via separate buildings, or a combination thereof.
Issues and Findings
Several state 90% Compliance pilot studies reported a lack of information submitted with
building permit applications, severely limiting the plan review stage of the compliance
evaluation process. Plan reviews were cited as rare within smaller jurisdictions. In-house staff
was found to perform the vast majority of plan reviews and field inspections for energy code
compliance.
State pilots reported varying numbers of site visits required to gather the necessary compliance
data. This was often dependent on the chosen approach, or how thoroughly checklists were
completed. Access to projects was reported as challenging, due to timing issues or inaccurate
project information. The amount of time necessary to evaluate a single building sample was
found to be relatively short, however; this process may take longer when adequate
documentation is obtained with building permit applications.
Recommendations
Establishing a robust building sample and understanding unique conditions within a state is
paramount to obtaining adequate compliance data. (Pilot studies) States should first become
familiar with current practices and the financial capability of their study. While all portions of
the federal model are encouraged as an ideal target, states may wish to consider alternatives to
gather necessary information.
The depth of plan review and field inspections efforts depends upon the ability of local
jurisdictions to require and enforce necessary practices. Efforts should focus on installing

252

successful practices for evaluation longer-term and on a permanent basis, enabling local
jurisdictions to uphold energy code requirements. These efforts should also be integrated with
state training programs to increase understanding and the underlying need for proper
enforcement. (Federal methodology and Strategic Compliance Plans)
Resources
PNNL Compliance Checklists:
http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation/checklists
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
REScheck and COMcheck Software Tools:
http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/tools
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Report Findings
Following the evaluation of building samples, the federal model calls for the reporting of
findings to establish a state compliance rate. States are directed to establish separate reporting
for each building type, as compliance may vary between samples. Individual buildings are
assigned a compliance rating of 0-100%, based on the proportion of code requirements satisfied.
A tiered system is incorporated to set the importance of individual code provisions. Data
gathered within a state is reported at multiple levels, allowing for a comparison of compliance
between local jurisdictions, as well as for an overall state rate. Data is also intended to
eventually be aggregated across states to establish a glimpse of national energy code compliance
rates. (Federal methodology)
Issues and Findings
State 90% Compliance pilot studies reported an overall positive experience with the process of
reporting evaluation data on energy code compliance rates. Final inspection data was reported
through the PNNL Score + Store tool, which is designed to electronically capture data entered

253

into the Compliance Checklists. A variety of reports can then be run to establish baseline rates,
eventually leading to a final state compliance rate to demonstrate 90% Compliance based on
Section 410 of the Recovery Act. In addition, use of the Score + Store tool also ensures
alignment with national metrics.
One pilot study reported early technical problems in using the Score + Store tool, but these were
indicated as resolved as the study progressed. The study also noted a problem states should be
aware of pertaining to the scoring system. Items marked non-applicable or non-observable have
no effect on the scoring of an individual building. (Pilot studies)
Recommendations
States should plan to use the Score + Store tool to report 90% Compliance evaluation data, as it
has the ability to streamline data storage, handling and reporting processes. In addition, the tool
is programmed to run many of the report types which will be desirable to states, as well as
serving as a means to report a final compliance rate comparable with other states. A single
account can be created for overseeing state personnel, with data submitted for entry by a
responsible party. States should also address scoring issues early in the process, to ensure
expectations are met and adequate data is gathered and reported for individual sample buildings.
(Pilot studies)
Resources
PNNL Score + Store tool:
https://energycode.pnl.gov/ScoreStore/login
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) Compliance Planning Assistance Program:
http://energycodesocean.org/compliance-planning-assistance-program
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

254

Resources (continued):
BCAP State Gap Analysis Reports:
http://energycodesocean.org/gap-analysis-reports
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
BCAP State Strategic Compliance Plans:
http://energycodesocean.org/strategic-compliance-plans
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
6.2 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW
In order to substantiate study findings, the guidance for states was extracted and distributed to
interested professionals familiar with energy codes and Recovery Act compliance requirements.
These stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on a voluntary basis in accordance with
Institutional Review Board requirements (see Appendix E for more information on Michigan
State University IRB requirements).
Commenters were provided content for review, as well as a list of guiding questions (see Section
3.3.1). Feedback was secured from six independent reviewers, with comments incorporated into
the final thesis document as deemed appropriate by the researcher and faculty advisor. Overall
feedback indicated that the recommended guidance was useful in addressing a complex issue,
aligned with Recovery Act compliance requirements, and backed by the findings of state pilot
studies. The shorter and concise nature of the document was well-received, and considered
straight-forward, yet flexible enough for state officials to implement. Other commenters
appreciated the inclusion of specific topic areas, such as the ability of states to secure funding, as
well as linkages to existing resources and training materials. Several modifications were also
made based on stakeholder feedback. The majority of these focused on editorial changes and
clarifications. A discussion on technical assistance options and the need for increased awareness

255

amongst policymakers was also added. Transcripts of stakeholder feedback are included in
Appendix D.
6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter presented the study deliverable; guidance for states to consider as they address 90%
Compliance requirements. An overview of Recovery Act requirements is provided, with
portions of the federal model balanced against study findings, including challenges and realities
faced within states and local enforcement jurisdictions. Guidance is provided for state
consideration in the form of recommended actions paired with valuable tools and resources. The
chapter also includes a brief summary of the stakeholder review process utilized to substantiate
study recommendations.

256

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

7.1 CONCLUSIONS
The Recovery Act of 2009 put forth requirements for states to adopt target energy codes, and
then demonstrate 90% Compliance with those codes by the year 2017. In response to these
requirements, the Federal Government issued a methodology further defining expectations and
approaches states should apply in preparing for new requirements, and eventually in measuring
actual state compliance rates. Unfortunately, uncertainties remain, and many states have been
complacent to establish supporting policies and initiate activities to pursue the 90% Compliance
goal.
The present study set out to better understand existing conditions and compliance scenarios
within U.S. states, while analyzing barriers and potential resolutions for states to consider in
addressing compliance requirements. Issues facing states and local enforcement jurisdictions
were identified and considered against the components of the federal methodology.
Recommendations and experiences present in earlier studies are also drawn upon and generalized
to provide guidance to states preparing to address Recovery Act requirements.
Conclusions resulting from the study are presented below. Findings have been synthesized based
on contributions from multiple data sources across several states, poising federal requirements
against both state and local perspectives. A summary of general assumptions and limitations, the
expected contribution to the existing knowledge base, and potential for future research in this
area is also discussed later in the chapter.

257

Some uncertainty remains surrounding the recommended 90% Compliance methodology.
A number of problems and uncertainties were discovered surrounding use of the suggested
approach, as well as the collection of supplemental tools and resources. Many of these were
uncovered through pilot studies designed to test the methodology conducted in several states.
Pilot states offered specific feedback identifying uncertainties encountered while applying the
method, and suggested areas for clarification. States may wish to proceed using the
methodology as a guiding model, but should be aware of issues experienced in preceding
applications.
Feedback from pilot states was clear in ruling the Compliance Checklists ineffective when
applied through a single, post-construction inspection. Other states conducted up to four site
inspections on a single project, while others were able to streamline the process through 2-3 site
inspections. It can be concluded; the prescribed inspections will require more than a single site
visit to gather adequate information, but may not require all visits suggested for a single sample
building.
The scoring system behind the web-based Score + Store tool was also reported as unclear.
Checklist items not observed or marked ‘N/A’ by evaluators had no impact on the overall
scoring of a building sample. Therefore, this begs the question; how much of the checklist needs
to be completed for a sample score to be considered valid? Validity rules governing the overall
sample size could be applied on a provision-by-provision level, but this approach would likely
require a much larger overall sample size in order to acquire statistically valid samples for every
provision. It should also be noted; pilot states reported difficulty in generating a sample of the
current size, let alone moving towards yet a larger sample. States may want to seek clarification
on this issue to assure sample validity.

258

States may encounter difficulty in generating an unbiased, statistically valid sample.
Pilot study states reported difficulty in generating a statistically valid sample of buildings upon
which to conduct a compliance evaluation. Many of these difficulties were encountered after
sample buildings were identified, at the point where evaluators attempted to establish contact or
gain entry to the project sites. Other states encountered samples based on inaccurate data, with
some sample buildings found to be non-existent. This problem may be further amplified due to a
recent decline in construction activity. Several states were forced to expand their original
sample, due to an inability to access a portion of sample buildings, a lack of cooperation from
local jurisdictions, or problems in gathering adequate information to complete the Compliance
Checklists.
The PNNL methodology includes an approach to generating a statistically valid sample, and
suggests ways to avoid bias in doing so. However, survey responses indicate the majority of
code officials serve jurisdictions of lesser population; a potential bias towards experiences and
perceptions in these smaller jurisdictions or more rural areas. At the same time, the PNNL
Sample Generator was used by most states to identify their building sample. This tool bases its
random selection of buildings on recent construction permit data. Rural or unincorporated areas
of a state may often not have a local building department or fall under regulation. As
construction permit data is typically reported by local building departments, the Sample
Generator may not adequately represent projects in rural areas.
States need not only understand the timing of conducting building inspections, but also of
conducting a compliance evaluation against target codes, in general. Many states have only
adopted the Recovery Act target codes within the past couple years, or more recently. Other
states have yet to adopt target codes, but are required to demonstrate compliance by 2017.

259

Construction of a building takes time—in many cases up to several years. Many sample
buildings are likely to have been permitted to an older, less stringent version of the energy code.
In short, inspections could be seeking code provisions and features which were not required by
the code to which the building was designed and constructed. Furthermore, the energy code
allows for multiple means of demonstrating compliance (i.e. prescriptive, UA tradeoff, and
performance-based approaches). In evaluating sample buildings solely on a prescriptive,
checklist-based approach, code-compliant buildings could be scored as if less than 100% in
compliance with the energy code, even if they do indeed comply via another path.
90% Compliance depends on policy implementers detached from federal requirements.
The PNNL recommended methodology and 90% Compliance requirements are largely based on
a top-down implementation structure. However, the implementation of these requirements
depends on a vast collection of localized actors nationwide, including code officials, designers,
builders, and product manufacturers working for a significant number of independent
organizations. This creates a potential problem for states, in that any improvements on the road
to compliance will apply to a great number of people spread across many smaller municipalities.
The PNNL method calls for a uniform approach across states and jurisdictions, which has
benefits in avoiding duplicative efforts and in reporting eventual compliance data. While this
may represent an ideal situation from a national perspective, malfunction may occur within
states, as there is no guarantee implementers will empathize with federal goals. This may
reinforce the need for a bottom-up approach, adding value and generating support at local levels.
Few jurisdictions utilize third-party inspection services.
The PNNL 90% Compliance methodology recommends the use of third-party contractors for
performing building sample evaluations, however; in-house jurisdictional staff currently perform

260

the majority of plan review and field inspections. This presents a conflict between what states
have been directed to do, and the means by which enforcement is currently conducted. With rare
use of third-party contracted services and limitations surrounding human and financial resources,
the ability of local jurisdictions to rely on this option is unlikely.
The building performance and testing industry is also more developed in some states compared
to others, leaving states dependent on professionals who may not sufficiently exist in certain
areas of the country. States saturated with HERS Raters, or those which accept a HERS or
ENERGY STAR rating as a means to demonstrating energy code compliance, may be better
poised to entertain a third-party inspection approach. This option may be less feasible in some
states.
Jurisdictions do not have adequate resources
Factors limiting proper energy code enforcement are often equated to the availability of
information and resources. In this context, these are classified as financial or human resources
for performing regular enforcement-related activities. The PNNL methodology provides several
suggestions for generating increased manpower, such as contracting third-party services, hiring
state or neighboring enforcement agents to conduct inspections in less populated areas, crosstraining the current workforce, or even recruiting volunteers. The second most prevalent
limitation to energy code enforcement is due to time and staff constraints, followed by education
and training, and finally money. As most jurisdictions are smaller in size, these limitations are
expected to have significant impacts on available resources.
Furthermore, many rural or unincorporated areas within states were found to be unregulated by
energy code enforcement. In these areas, states are recommended to provide traveling state

261

officials or contract nearby jurisdictions to conduct plan review and field inspections. In either
case, this requires action even in areas where no resources presently exist for this purpose.
Funding for energy code compliance is becoming increasingly limited.
Most code enforcement jurisdictions receive funding from a single source, most of which
typically comes from permit revenue. The PNNL methodology recommends the use of
contracted third-party services to perform compliance evaluations. This creates a problem for
local jurisdictions, in that any new requirements or activities to support 90% Compliance will
need to be administered within traditionally limited, often formulaic budgets. Any additional
expense above and beyond that which is performed by the average code enforcement jurisdiction
is assumed to require additional revenue or new funding sources. Unfortunately, many of the
recommended federal sources have now dissipated, and traditional state formula funding has
been cut significantly with the passing of the Recovery Act.
In addition, construction activity has declined heavily due to overall economic circumstances.
Financial constraints were reported to result in less time spent by code officials in the field
performing inspection duties. Fewer construction projects equate to reduced permit applications,
reducing the amount of income generated from permit revenue at the local level. Money was
also cited as the fourth most common limitation facing local code enforcement jurisdictions.
Time and the availability of resources are also cited as primary limitations; these situations
arguably tired directly to funding availability.
State compliance plans suggest a number of ways states might address the need for additional
funding. Recommended options are directed at states, many of which have been applied through
previous compliance measurement activities, including: Energy Efficiency Resource (or
Portfolio) Standards, state appropriations, trust or public benefit funds. States might also work

262

with utility providers to establish a System Benefits Charge, or other programs to offset current
consumption levels with energy efficiency targets. Localities might consider increasing
construction permit and inspection fees or subsidized training to provide an increased emphasis
on the energy code, while attempting to leverage the interests of affected stakeholder
organizations.
Funding was found to be a primary limitation to both states and local enforcement jurisdictions.
Many states initiated compliance measurement activities and boosted energy code training
programs on a wave of Recovery Act stimulus funding. Much of this funding was provided by
the U.S. Department of Energy, and directed specifically at energy efficiency and job-creation.
States have observed high demand for energy code training, however; many of these programs
were provided free of charge. With the economic stimulus now in the past, it is unclear if
demand will continue to yield participation in paid training sessions. States may encounter
problems maintaining existing programs, let alone advancing these efforts amongst a host of
other challenges.
There exists a lack of clear responsibility for demonstrating 90% Compliance.
One of the key remaining questions surrounding compliance requirements is focused on who is
actually responsible for meeting the mandate. The Recovery Act was created through federal
legislation tied to the economic stimulus. In order to obtain stimulus funds, governors from each
U.S. state certified a commitment to meet the terms of the Recovery Act, which included energy
code adoption and compliance requirements. Building energy code compliance, however, is
most often determined through local permitting processes within code enforcement jurisdictions.
This is typically handled through a municipal building department. This creates a tension

263

between an intent created on the national state, compliance infrastructure which has historically
existed (if existing within a state at all) at localized levels, and state agencies left in the middle.
Although the commitment to demonstrate 90% Compliance was made at the state level, it will
require significant coordination with local enforcement actors, as well as guidance from the
national level to further clarify expectations and streamline the process. The federal government
has created a methodology and several supporting tools for approaching the problem. A variety
of organizations also provide compliance resources to states and interested parties. Several
strategies can be taken in conducting compliance evaluations, but it is the responsibility of the
state to lead this process. State agencies or appointed parties may wish to work with groups of
affected stakeholders to establish expectations, as well as assign roles and responsibilities. Data
collection and measurement activities will need to be conducted within actual building projects.
Depending on the designated evaluation approach, many states will find it necessary to work
through the existing compliance infrastructure provided by local enforcement jurisdictions.
Energy code training is available but not typically required
Section 410 of the Recovery Act specifically identifies the need for energy code training and
educational programs to supplement 90% Compliance requirements. The PNNL methodology
echoes the need for these programs, but does not spell-out specific characteristics. Over half of
code officials report receiving training surrounding the energy code, however, only a quarter of
those surveyed indicated energy code training as part of a mandatory program, such as is
sometimes required for many professional certification or continuing education requirements. A
significant amount of training was delivered as a result of the Recovery Act stimulus, however;
over 10% of code officials still report having received no energy code training at all.
Furthermore, model energy codes are developed on a three year cycle and have increased in

264

stringency to become far more progressive in the last few years. This means the most advanced
code requirements have not even been enacted yet. Energy code training and education is also
reported as the third most prominent limitation to compliance, emphasizing a need for these
programs to remain available.
Pilot studies indicate a knowledge base similar to that required for a home performance rater is
generally sufficient for application of the PNNL methodology and completion of the associated
checklists. Further examination of evaluator feedback, however, might indicate they fall subject
to many of the common fallacies and misunderstandings experienced by code officials, in
general. Some areas of confusion reported on the Compliance Checklists seemed to indicate a
greater misunderstanding of the requirements of the code, as opposed to problems with the
checklist alone. Suggestions included the removal of elements required within the code, such as
the posting of a compliance certificate on the electrical panel. This was an item described in
another pilot as a simpler code requirement with a surprisingly low rate of compliance, perhaps
indicating low awareness. Others suggested emphasizing code footnotes within the checklists to
provide further clarity on exceptions and allowances embedded within the code itself. These
findings may suggest evaluators are prone to many of the same problems, errors and areas of
confusion as the typical code official or building inspector.
Lastly, pilot studies described a lack of understanding of the value behind energy codes. Some
state educational programs extend beyond the technical requirements of the code and cross-cut
general public awareness, energy efficiency, and green building initiatives. All three series of
reports analyzed in the present study suggested the need for additional education and outreach to
government officials and policymakers.

265

Commonly Reported Code Infractions
The majority of residential code infractions reported by surveyed code officials are within the
home mechanical system. These infractions are followed closely by problems seen in the
building envelope. Infractions related to proper air sealing for envelope infiltration and
mechanical ducts are specifically referenced, with insulation levels and installation issues also
reported. Pilot studies also emphasized a lack of mechanical system sizing and load calculations.
Of those specified, fenestration was found to exhibit the fewest infractions.
Within commercial buildings, the envelope was pointed to as the primary culprit, with over twothirds of code officials reporting problems in that area. Over half also identified commercial
mechanical systems as exhibiting common infractions. Fewer code officials, although still
almost half of those surveyed, reference lighting as a common code infraction.
Compliance Software may ease the process, but actual conditions require verification
The PNNL Jurisdictional Survey, as well as customized state surveys, inquired about the use of
compliance software within local jurisdictions. According to survey respondents, this is the most
common means of demonstrating compliance with the energy code. This compliance path is
typically preferred, due to its simpler, bottom-line pass/fail score. Pilot studies, however,
reported common discrepancies between information displayed in software compliance reports
and the installation conditions actually observed within the following field inspection. While
software reporting has the ability to significantly streamline the compliance process, verification
of the design remains important, especially when considering a common lack of information
submitted when applying for a construction permit.

266

Inspectors need to require adequate information and documentation
The most commonly cited limitation to energy code enforcement stated by survey respondents is
the availability of adequate information submitted with buildings plans and specifications for
permitting approvals. This creates a problem, in that approved building plans are the most
commonly stated resource available, and are used for conducting later field inspections.
Although only 14% of code officials indicated the availability of code books as a limitation, only
about half reported even having access to prescriptive checklists or the actual codebook or
standard being enforced. This condition is somewhat perplexing in relation to other findings,
such as the need for additional training, and the overall perceived value of energy codes.
Several pilot studies found a lack of information submitted with permit applications, which limits
the ability to identify compliance issues during plan review stages. Some states described the
plan review process as falsely short, due to a lack of information obtained within plans and
specifications. If not documented and identified in the earlier stages, code infractions may go
undetected until caught in the field inspection, if detected at all. This not only places more
responsibility on the building inspector, but pushes resultant modifications downstream at a point
where products have been purchased, labor has been conducted, and rework is likely required.
Further standardization of the information required within permit application documents,
combined with strict enforcement by local jurisdictions could perhaps avoid a significant portion
these negative repercussions entirely.

267

A state compliance working group may assist in meeting compliance requirements
One of the first steps suggested by the PNNL methodology is the formation of a compliance
working group within a state. Several variations of these groups were observed within pilot
states testing the recommended methodology, as well as non-pilot state conducting their own
compliance measurement activities. These groups were found to perform several functions,
ranging from stewarding the review and adoption of target energy codes, to assistance of
following compliance activities. Many of the stakeholders required to staff such a group are
already present within states, and active participation is often garnished on a voluntary basis.
States can utilize such a group in managing their own unique scenario, and may choose to have a
group work closely with a designated oversight agency, or empowered more openly to address
issues as they see fit. States may be able to leverage such a group to assist with more traditional
energy code issues, as well as receive new requirements, such as those surrounding 90%
Compliance.
7.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The reader should be aware of several assumptions and limitations identified within the study.
Challenges and recommendations for states were sought in relation to energy code requirements
within the Recovery Act of 2009. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were applied,
drawing upon data generated across several U.S. states. Limitations inherent within the specific
methods applied in the study are discussed earlier within the Influential Works section of Chapter
Three: Research Methods (found under Methodology). The following assumptions and
limitations range from surrounding the overall research topic, to specific characteristics of the
researcher’s decisions and included data sources.

268

Firstly, the methodology formulated and recommended by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) is taken as the model by which states will need to demonstrate 90%
Compliance. The original language of the Recovery Act includes some specifics, but leaves
many questions surrounding how states will fulfill the overall requirements. In response to the
Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Energy charged PNNL with installing further detail and
establishing state expectations. Many questions remain, providing states some flexibility, but
also uncertainty as they form their own plan to address compliance requirements.
Behind the recommended methodology, there is an assumption that feedback offered through
state pilot studies and other data sources represent some level of truth that is not understood,
achievable, or acted upon by the regularly commissioned code officials. This assumes evaluators
will find a hidden reality behind code enforcement, building design, construction, and the general
industry. This condition somewhat ignores the possibility that evaluators will be subject to the
same or similar set of problems and limitations facing professional compliance officials, such as
a lack of or difficulty in obtaining certain information, working with fewer resources than truly
needed, and while not always getting full cooperation from builders, contractors, and other
involved parties who want to see projects moved to completion.
Survey response data analyzed in the experiment was the result of an instrument designed for
and directed at code officials serving local enforcement jurisdictions. This can be considered
both an assumption and limitation. It is assumed the perspectives gained from the statistical
analysis can be extrapolated to the general population of these individuals. At the same time,
study conclusions generalized from the survey are limited to this same perspective. All findings
are based on the inherent quality of the previous studies and resulting data sets.

269

Individual state survey samples varied significantly in size. Many state samples were small
enough where they cannot be considered a statistically valid sample in comparing the state
sample to the overall population of code officials within a state. More advanced statistical
testing to compare phenomena within state samples did not meet common statistical tests of
significance. For most survey questions, state samples were combined, with the aggregate
sample used to generalize findings and draw conclusions. The overall sample was not weighted,
and is therefore heavily influenced by the larger state samples. The study was also subject to
existing and available survey response sets, and did not have the ability to return to subject
populations in seek of additional data. First and foremost, findings and conclusions should be
considered the result of an educational exercise.
Reports analyzed in the study are also subject to a set of assumptions and limitations. States
reports are assumed to have adequately and accurately captured the conditions and realities
present within the particular state. In the case of pilot study reports, states and their contractors
reported their own findings through a report submitted upon completion of the pilot. State Gap
Analysis reports and Strategic Compliance Plans were often conducted in correspondence with a
state regulatory or oversight agency, but are taken to represent the realities and unique conditions
within the particular state. No issues or discrepancies with the information included in these
reports were known at the time the present study was completed.
Lastly, the topic of energy code compliance in relation to the Recovery Act can be considered
recently and continually changing. The topic is, and will be, affected by the release of further
information from the federal government, and further molded by the experiences of states
addressing compliance requirements. While the researcher made every effort to accommodate
all changes during the course of the study, the final document can be considered to best represent

270

the period starting with the issuance of the Recovery Act and culminating with the completion of
the 90% Compliance Pilot Studies. Furthermore, state experiences are expected to change over
time as conditions change and new codes replace previous versions. For example, recent code
versions include unprecedented requirements, such as air leakage testing and additional scope.
Current survey responses are based on more traditional provisions and associated infractions and
limitations. The existing set of challenges will likely change when more advanced requirements
go into effect.
7.3 EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION
The Recovery Act of 2009 set forth requirements for states to demonstrate 90% Compliance with
target energy codes by the year 2017. The primary goal of the study is to provide states with
guidance and options to address compliance requirements. A methodology recommended by the
federal government is compared against conditions within states and enforcement jurisdictions to
better understand the realities facing prospective policy actors at state and local levels of
implementation.
Background information gathered within states provides a baseline understanding of the
practices and processes utilized to implement and enforce energy codes. These implementation
issues can be considered within broader environmental legislation, such as the issues and
political mechanisms discovered through the study Literature Review. An increased
understanding may lead to a better alignment between top-down policies, bottom-up needs, and
recommended solutions. States can take this information and the experiences of early adopting
states into consideration when formulating their own plans to address compliance requirements.
A primary need is for states to understand what is expected, and what they can do about it.
Taking the methodology recommended by the Federal government, the study deliverable breaks

271

down the primary components of the method. The expectations coming with the Recovery Act
are discussed and clearly defined. Challenges are presented as identified at the state and local
levels of implementation. These influence a simple set of recommendations designed with states
in mind, supplemented with available solutions and resources for states to leverage in
implementing policies to support 90% Compliance.
7.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study presents a general inquiry into 90% Compliance requirements, and builds upon
an existing knowledge base within the general topic of energy code compliance. The study seeks
to connect local realities with federal requirements in an effort to provide guidance to states.
Existing knowledge specific to the Recovery Act are also centralized, with resources to be drawn
upon by states seeking to address compliance requirements. As additional states take action,
future research potential is expected to present itself. Several inquiries can also be suggested in
furthering the present study.
Many of the 90% Compliance Pilot Studies administered a state compliance survey and followed
with actual building inspections. Within the survey, common code infractions and limitations
impeding 90% Compliance are explored. A future study could take these perceived conditions,
and compare them against observations obtained from independent field inspections and sample
building evaluations. This approach may better indicate if reported barriers indeed show up
within the findings of a third-party. Subject to the availability of a full data set, such a
comparison could further establish or delineate earlier studies where the perspectives of survey
respondents, such as enforcement officials, are heavily and solely relied upon.
Attainment of additional state survey responses would allow for a comparison of unique
conditions between individual state samples. Data analyzed in the present study was gathered

272

across several states of significantly varying sample size, with the largest sample outweighing
the smallest by a factor of ten. Gathering additional data within the smaller sample states, or
adding further states to the analysis would allow for a better understanding of conditions within
individual states, as well as a more event distributed aggregate sample.
A future study could also focus more specifically on the present survey response data set. While
the present study sought a general descriptive analysis, a more advanced statistical analysis, such
as a linear regression, could correlate individual responses across multiple survey questions,
allowing for a more detailed understanding of specific perspectives within the sample.
Additional phenomena may also be present beyond the scope of a descriptive analysis. As the
original survey instrument included mostly categorical response questions, a more advanced
analysis could include correlation between individual response choices, and a comparison
between categorical and numerical response questions.
Data reviewed within the study suggested the inclusions of technological advancements within
code enforcement processes. Web-based permitting, digital checklists completed through tablet
devices, and software packages could dramatically improve and streamline traditional inspection
and compliance demonstration processes. Future research could further investigate this
potential, as well as explore solutions for specific portions of the compliance process.
Aside from technical advancements in energy code compliance and enforcement processes, there
may also be room for further evaluation of political mechanisms to support energy code
compliance. Chapter Two provides a thorough review of related legislation and over-arching
environmental policy. Compliance is a tall order, and many of the primary impediments
identified at the state and local levels are centered on a lack of resources. There may be more of

273

an opportunity to address compliance issues through larger policies at the federal and state
levels, especially in aligning needs with adequate sources of funding.
Finally, limited funding and uncertain state expectations surrounding 90% Compliance suggest a
need to more adequately explore alternative means of demonstrating energy code compliance.
The PNNL methodology included a brief introduction to some alternatives, but settled on the
more prescriptive, checklist-driven approach performed by third-party contractors. Although
arguably more comprehensive, limited funding and support for energy code compliance within
states may threaten the potential of this approach. Alternative methods with the ability to better
leverage existing resources and encourage participation by local stakeholders may remove
significant burden from the process, and allow for a more sustainable evaluation of state
compliance rates.
7.5 CLOSING THOUGHTS
When it comes to compliance with building energy codes, states have unique needs and
practices. Building construction is a very traditional and method-driven field, with an immense
variety of skill sets and players needed to bring a project from concept to occupancy. While the
energy code is looked toward as an efficiency solution, it remains far from the single priority of
enforcement officials. We are not going to get there with 90% Compliance alone.
Building energy codes have become an important topic within the industry. At first glance, there
have been many changes in the past few years. Following the Recovery Act, many states made a
decision to adopt target codes. The high profile nature of the Recovery Act and associated
stimulus funding made the directive clear, and generated buy-in from the often absent higher
levels of decision-making within state and local governments. Although expectations
surrounding compliance requirements may be unclear, energy gains through increased code

274

adoption cannot be disputed, especially considering the additional savings the targeted (and
newer) codes contain compared to previous versions. Savings relative to this action will have an
impact for years to come. Back in the present tense, the passing of the economic stimulus,
changing political winds, and remaining uncertainty surrounding the country’s economy have
left budgets at all levels of government without clear direction. If funding for energy efficiency
continues to dissipate, one must assume energy code compliance will follow suit. Without
funding and proper governmental support, compliance requirements could become a significant
burden on already strained stakeholders crucial for successful implementation. We then simply
have to ask; where is the value, what actually helps, and what pieces result in true savings?
The implementation of 90% Compliance policy reminds me personally of issues I formerly
experienced as a high school science teacher. In the field of Education, No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) brought new requirements in the name of a social wellness—a fair public education for
all students. Similar to energy savings, the burden of a very necessary social need falls squarely
upon the professionals who are left to implement it. To teachers, new requirements meant more
work and increased risk in a time of heavy competition and perpetual cuts. Many argued funding
was inadequate to address such a large-scale problem, and many even classified NCLB as an
unfunded mandate imposed upon an already faltering public educational system. Although the
Federal Government further developed the program and supplemental resources, many within the
field of Education still question NCLB’s impact on the greater social problem it was intended to
remedy. Time will better inform us on how code construction industry stakeholders will receive
compliance requirements in the long-run.
To address 90% Compliance requirements in the Recovery Act, the federal government
recommended a methodology which would yield a fairly robust glimpse into energy code

275

compliance rates both within and across U.S. states. Unfortunately, successful policy
implementation depends on more than this direction alone, and states may not be eager to jump
on the compliance bandwagon after the stimulus money runs dry. At a point in time where many
recommendations surrounding 90% Compliance are pushing full steam ahead, states may want to
first check the financial sustainability of their existing and core efficiency programs.
Furthermore, the recommended approach assumes that a re-evaluation of buildings will find a
hidden truth in the form of lower than ideal compliance rates. While previous compliance
studies indicate this is likely the case, new evaluators are still subject to the same problems,
limitations, and may hold roughly the same background as the traditional code official. There
may be a logical fallacy in measuring a so-called reality by proceeding through the same
challenges and limitations which led to the original problem.
Several portions of the compliance process come to mind when considering what is good for
energy efficiency through building codes. Energy code training seems to be the base piece to the
equation, providing a solid platform for educational and outreach efforts. Clear code
requirements also go a long way. Right now, the game seems often to see what you can get
approved by your local code official and less about complying with the actual requirements—let
alone the larger picture social needs and building science applications.
Let the design and construction professionals do their job, and let there be heightened
accountability to go with it. Let code officials do their job, as well, but not with the
unreasonable expectation that one individual can possibly catch every requirement for every
code in every building. We regulate safety in other industries through intermittent inspections,
and it’s probably good enough for the energy code, too, but not without adequate penalties for
non-compliance. There is also a growing rating and verification industry which can add another

276

level of accountability and transparency. These individuals have the ability to substantiate good
work, can label the less-than-good work, and hand a final report to the increasingly interested,
and arguably most important, driver of the entire process—the consumer.
In terms of 90% Compliance, I would recommend states further explore alternative paths to
demonstrating energy code compliance, as well as options for reducing the costs of performing a
compliance evaluation. The recommended methodology serves as a valuable model, but thirdparty evaluation is not the prevalent method for enforcing the energy code. Depending on the
relationship between ongoing code enforcement and efforts related to 90% Compliance, existing
building departmental staff, or even student assistance, could be garnished in gathering
compliance data. States without adequate funding or political support will face challenges in
implementing the full methodology or recommendations offered by many national organizations.
This approach also puts additional cost and workload upon an already weakened system.
Simultaneously, builders and code officials voluntarily enter compliance information into
software programs every day. This represents a large, untapped source of data aimed at a similar
end goal. In addition, many states already use and recognize this approach, and buildings have
yet to see the effects of the data revolution.
Before taking 90% Compliance requirements as-is, some states may also consider a re-think of
the intent behind the original policy. The policy was aimed at energy savings through the
implementation of building energy codes, and there is general agreement that the responsibility
for continued action falls primarily upon states. As presented earlier in the Literature Review
(Chapter Two), Section 410 of the Recovery Act is based on a top-down approach, through
which a national or social desire is imposed upon states and lower levels of government through
a Federalist perspective.

277

Building energy codes have historically been developed and implemented through gradual
incremental advancement. The Recovery Act and associated stimulus changed all that, and led
to previously unrealized code adoption rates—hence now all this talk of compliance. A clear
agenda combined with ample funding created immediate state motivation and buy-in all the way
up to the Governor’s office. This left little opportunity or time for complex political systems and
complicated regulatory processes to weigh-in. Although Recovery Act legislation focused on
clean energy sources and efficiency, the primary intent was aimed at job-creation and the
injection of funds back into the American economy. Beyond current implementation issues, this
resulted in additional common fallacies of basic policy creation. Codes are associated with many
common political mechanisms: regulation, incentives, education, research spending, and, in
some cases, self-regulation. I would propose building energy code policy at the Federal level is
often spread too thinly and caught between carrot and stick identities. This is exemplified by
significantly reduced current funding levels in comparison to the stimulus funds which initiated
compliance efforts. At the same time, the Federal government lacks a clear regulatory role in
developing and enforcing building energy codes. Unlike most federal standards, building energy
codes are not developed through a Federal rulemaking process. Although several existing
federal statutes require the adoption and implementation of energy codes, certain states regularly
find loopholes and ignore these laws, slowing adoption and compliance rates, and leaving some
areas of the country yet without clear building energy efficiency requirements. Combine limited
funding with a regulatory infrastructure dependent on state and local implementers, and any such
policy has the potential to lose its way.
While there may be more scientific value in the federal methodology, alternative approaches may
yield better economics or more sensible solutions for individual states. It is also important for

278

energy code compliance not to be overtaken by Compliance (of the 90% variety). While
Recovery Act requirements are expected to increase compliance rates, it is important for states to
avoid losing sight of the intent behind the original policy. Many of the issues that first brought
national attention to energy codes come down to practitioner application and social education.
Regardless of how states choose to approach compliance requirements, ensuring follow-through
to actually save energy in buildings is undoubtedly a good thing. As is often the case with policy
implementation, the result will probably fall somewhere in the middle.

279

APPENDIX

280

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
The following section contains the original survey instruments administered within states
referenced in the study. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) designed the
Jurisdictional Survey to help benchmark current practices and processes utilized within states
and local enforcement jurisdictions. The instrument is preceded by an informational flier
designed to introduce the 90% Compliance effort to recipients, and assist in establishing ongoing
communications between the study and its stakeholders. The survey administered in Michigan,
which is based on the PNNL survey, is also included for review.
A.1 PNNL JURISDICTIONAL FLYER
Measuring Energy Code Compliance Jurisdictional Assistance
Buildings account for roughly 40 percent of the nation’s energy consumption. Enhancing their
efficiency will lead to a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and decreased dependence on
imported oil. With this goal in mind, the <State organization>, with support from the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Building Energy Codes Program (BECP), is asking local jurisdictions to
participate in a statewide study to measure compliance rates with building energy codes. This
letter is meant to familiarize you with the study and to solicit your support for this important
activity.
The study is part of a major national effort to support and improve vital efficiency measures that
will help us address our energy and environmental challenges. As carefully as our energy codes
are written, they don’t save energy unless buildings actually comply. Further, knowing on-theground code implementation and compliance challenges can foster improvements in the codes,
increase educational and support activities, and reinforce the continuing need to support code
enforcement efforts. While informative and helpful, the compliance data collected from individual

281

buildings and jurisdictions will not be made public. Our aggregated state compliance rate will be
the study’s only public result.
For our local jurisdictions, your participation is crucial, and it comes with key benefits: energy
code training for local personnel, the chance to identify areas for code compliance improvement,
and the availability of data to document the need for additional resources to support code
compliance initiatives.
The overall benefit, of course, is to help increase energy savings for your citizens. As documented
by FEMA, every dollar spent on building safety codes saves four dollars in post-disaster
mitigation costs. This activity will help develop a similar message for energy codes.
State and Jurisdictional Roles
BECP has released a protocol for conducting the statewide study in a technical report and a brief
“Step-by-Step Companion Guide”. If interested, you can find these and other related resources at
www.energycodes.gov/arra/compliance_evaluation.stm.
Our state is conducting the study in partnership with building evaluators from <evaluator
contracting agency, if applicable> We will begin in <month, year> and continue for <X months>.
In total, we will evaluate a randomly generated sample of approximately (X) building projects.
This number includes <new construction and renovations of both residential and commercial, if
applicable> buildings. <If known, add the number and type of samples needed in this
jurisdiction.>
What to Expect
Prior to the Visit. <Contact name/affiliation> will contact you to set up a date and time for a
visit with your building department, and to request information on your plan review, inspection,
and permitting process. This will help create a plan for the onsite visit and assess the time it will

282

take to collect data in your jurisdiction. You will learn the number, types, and construction
phases of the projects needed for the study. Ideally, jurisdictions would then randomly select the
projects prior to the evaluator’s visit. However, if there are questions or concerns, the evaluator
can help select projects upon arrival.
During the Visit. On the day of the visit, the evaluator will perform the following tasks:
Conduct a short interview on plan review and inspection processes associated with the
energy code
Answer questions about the study
Review the data collection forms for residential and commercial projects
Collect energy-related information from plans, specifications, and related project
documentation
Determine a contact person for each of the projects selected in order to arrange onsite
visits to projects
In the Field. Over a few visits, evaluators will collect data on a building’s energy-relevant
features, using checklists that follow a typical jurisdictional inspection process. Data will be
gathered at these stages:
Foundation
Rough-in (electrical, mechanical, plumbing, framing)
Insulation
Final
Building inspectors are encouraged to join the evaluator on site to gain valuable energy codesrelated experience, noting that the same forms used for the study can also be used on a daily
basis for code enforcement efforts in your jurisdiction.
Thank you very much for your consideration—we hope to collaborate with you for the sake of
saving energy.
Contact name
State Organization
<name@state.gov>

283

A.2 PNNL JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY
PNNL Survey
The following sample survey questions were designed for use by states wishing to conduct a
survey of their building jurisdictions as one method of better understanding energy code
compliance rates in their state. The use of surveys for this purpose is discussed in Measuring
State Energy Code Compliance (DOE, 2010b), which was recently released by DOE’s Building
Energy Codes Program (BECP). As stated in this document, jurisdictional surveys alone are not
a statistically valid method for deriving a state code compliance rate, but are valuable for
informing the state of practices in their jurisdictions and for identifying specific training needs by
location.

284

There are many alternative ways to administer the jurisdictional surveys:
1. Where states choose to do onsite evaluations of buildings, the evaluators are encouraged
to complete a jurisdictional survey as part of their visit to each jurisdiction. Conducting
the survey in person is the preferred approach, and will secure the highest response rate.
2. The state may choose to send the surveys by mail. In this case, the state will want to
develop some introductory information to accompany the survey which provides a
compelling reason why the survey should be completed.
3. The BECP will also provide an online survey tool. The tool will also provide information
about the value of the survey and how the results will be used.
The online survey tool will by default contain the following set of standard questions. States will
have the option to remove and add questions. States are encouraged, however, to use the standard
questions as provided in order to have consistent and comparable results across states. Results
from the online survey will be stored in a centralized database where they can be aggregated to
provide various views of state, regional, and national results. Regardless of which approach is
used, the BECP can assist states in adding their survey results into this same centralized
database.
All survey data contributed to this effort will further become part of a study attempting to
correlate jurisdictional best practices with measured code compliance rates. The results of such a
study will be made publically available, but the individual jurisdictional survey results will be
considered confidential and will not be distributed.

285

Questions About Your Jurisdiction:
Agency name:
Jurisdiction served
Estimate of the population served:
Name, title, and contact for person completing this survey:
Name:
Title:
Email address:
Telephone number:
During the previous year, how many building permits were issued by your agency?
Residential building permits:
Commercial building permit:
How is your agency funded? (Check all that apply)
Permitting revenue
Jurisdictional budget
State funded
Other
Questions About Your Staff:
Who conducts plan reviews for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or government agencies
Not done
Other
Who conducts field inspections for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply)
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or government agencies
Not done
Other

286

What level of education and training does your agency staff receive specifically for energy
codes?
Residential energy codes training (Choose one)
Professional certification and annual training
Periodic formal training
On-the-job training, but seldom formal training
Training not provided
Commercial energy codes training (Choose one)
Professional certification and annual training
Periodic formal training
On-the-job training, but seldom formal training
Training not provided
How would you prefer to receive training? (Check all that apply)
Webinar / Online
Classroom
In the field
Other
Questions About Your Processes
What methods are used as a basis for documenting energy code compliance and in what
percentages? REScheck and COMcheck are considered trade-off methods. Use whole numbers
only.
Residential Buildings
Commercial Buildings
Prescriptive:
%
Prescriptive:
%
Trade-off:
%
Trade-off:
%
Performance:
%
Performance:
%
How many hours are devoted to the average plan review for energy codes? If energy plan
reviews are performed in conjunction with reviews for other code provisions, please estimate the
time for the energy-related reviews only.
Residential Buildings:
hours
Commercial Buildings:
hours
How many hours are devoted to the average field inspection for energy codes? If energy field
inspections are performed in conjunction with inspections for other code provisions, please
estimate the time for the energy-related field inspections only.
Residential Buildings:
hours
Commercial Buildings:
hours
What format does your agency use to maintain permitting data?
Paper
Digital
Other
287

How many years does your agency maintain permitting data? (Choose one)
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-7 years
More than 7 years
What limitations impede your ability to enforce the energy code? (Check all that apply)
Residential Buildings
Commercial Buildings
Time or staff
Time or staff
Money
Money
Code books
Code books
Education or training
Education or training
Data provided with the plans
Data provided with the plans
Building access
Building access
Equipment
Equipment
Not applicable
Not applicable
Other
Other
In your jurisdiction, what plan review and/or inspection items do you generally find do not
comply with the code? (Check all that apply)
Residential Buildings
Commercial Buildings
Envelope insulation levels
Envelope insulation levels
Envelope insulation installation
Envelope insulation installation
Envelope sealing (infiltration)
Envelope sealing (infiltration)
Fenestration
Fenestration
Duct insulation
Duct insulation
Duct sealing
Duct sealing
Piping insulation
Piping insulation
Lighting fixtures
Lighting fixtures
Other
Lighting controls
HVAC system controls
Other
Does the energy plan review and inspection cover all aspects of the energy code?
Choose One
Yes
No
If No, what aspects are not covered?
What information is available to your staff during field inspection? (Check all that apply)
Approved plans
Energy code compliance checklist(s)
Published energy codes and/or standards
Other

288

Do you accept software compliance reports with permit applications in lieu of a plan review?
Choose One
Yes
No
Not applicable
What information is typically missing from plans, specifications and/or actual construction that
prevents you from determining compliance?
Residential Buildings:
Commercial Buildings:
What software and/or other information technologies do you use to facilitate the plan reviews,
inspection processes, record keeping, and communications with permittees?

289

A.3 MICHIGAN SURVEY
Michigan Uniform Energy Code (MUEC) Survey Instrument:
The capacity of jurisdictions to enforce the Michigan Uniform Energy Code (MUEC) varies
greatly due to differences in available resources. This survey will help the Michigan State
Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and other agencies to understand what obstacles
jurisdictions face as they try to enforce the recently adopted revisions to the MUEC. The state
intends to use the data collected in this survey, as well as surveys of other stakeholder groups, to
develop a plan to help local jurisdictions to meet a 90% compliance rate with the new code by
2017.
Your answers to these questions will be kept strictly confidential. Your survey code is used only
for administration of the survey, and will not be associated in any way with your response. This
survey is being administered by Public Sector Consultants Inc. and the Michigan State
University School of Planning, Construction and Design through a grant from the Michigan State
Housing Development Authority.
Please take about ten minutes to answer this survey. We appreciate your response.
Questions about Your Jurisdiction
1. Survey Code: _______________ (This code is on the letter you received informing you of
the survey, in the subject heading under the address.)
2. Region of Michigan: (Check one.)
 Southeast

 Central

 Northern Lower
Peninsula

 Western

 Upper
Peninsula

3. Estimate of the population served: _______________
4. Do you serve or have you recently served as any of the following? (Check all that apply.)
 Building Code Official
 Building Inspector
 Plan Reviewer





Mechanical Inspector
Plumbing Inspector
Electrical Inspector

5. During the previous year, how many building permits were issued by your agency?
Residential building
permits:
Commercial building
permits:

290

6. How is your agency funded? (Check all that apply.)
 Permitting revenue
 Jurisdictional budget

 State funded
 Other

Questions about Your Staff
7. Who conducts plan reviews for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply.)






In-house staff
Third-party entities
Other jurisdictions or government agencies
Not done
Other

8. Who conducts field inspections for energy code compliance? (Check all that apply.)






In-house staff
Third-party entities
Other jurisdictions or government agencies
Not done
Other

9. What level of education and training does your agency staff receive specifically for
energy codes?
Residential energy codes training
(Choose one.)
 Professional certification and annual
training (mandatory)
 Periodic formal training from
International Code Council, statesponsored entity, or code officials
association
 Periodic formal training from another
source
 On-the-job training, but seldom formal
training
 Training not provided

291

Commercial energy codes training (Choose
one.)
 Professional certification and annual
training (mandatory)
 Periodic formal training from
International Code Council, statesponsored entity, or code officials
association
 Periodic formal training from another
source
 On-the-job training, but seldom formal
training
 Training not provided

10. Please rank training method in order of preference:
Rank
Online conference – scheduled, live sessions
Online – presentations, recorded video, and other prepared
media
Classroom
In the field
Other

__
__
__
__
__

Questions about Your Processes
11. Can you estimate the percentage of residential buildings in your jurisdiction that are in
compliance with the Michigan Uniform Energy Code? _____ %
12. Can you estimate the percentage of commercial buildings in your jurisdiction that are
in compliance with the Michigan Uniform Energy Code? ___ %
13. What methods are used as a basis for documenting energy code compliance and in what
percentages? REScheck and COMcheck are considered trade-off methods. Use whole
numbers only.
Residential Buildings
Commercial Buildings
Prescriptive
______ % Prescriptive
_______ %
REScheck (trade-off)
______ % COMcheck (trade-off)
_______ %
Performance
______ % Performance
_______ %
(i.e., RESNET HERS Rater)
(i.e., Energy Cost Budget)

292

14. How much time is devoted to the average plan review for energy codes? If energy plan
reviews are performed in conjunction with reviews for other code provisions, please estimate
the time for the energy-related reviews only. Note partial hours as decimals (i.e., 30 minutes
is 0.5 hours). Note 0 hours if staff time is insufficient to allow for energy code review.
Residential Buildings:
Commercial Buildings:

________ hours
________ hours

15. How much time is devoted to the average field inspection for energy codes? If energy
field inspections are performed in conjunction with inspections for other code provisions,
please estimate the time for the energy-related field inspections only. Note partial hours as
decimals (i.e., 30 minutes is 0.5 hours). Note 0 hours if staff time is insufficient to allow for
site inspection dedicated to energy codes.
Residential
Buildings:
Commercial
Buildings:

________ hours
________ hours

16. During site inspections, does the installation of drywall often prohibit inspections for
wall insulation?
 Yes



No

If yes, is an insulation certificate required?
 Yes
 No
17. Do you mandate a second review in the case of an energy code violation?
 Yes



No

18. Do you issue stop-work orders for energy code violations?
 Yes



No

19. What format does your agency use to maintain permitting data?




Paper
Digital
Other

293

20. What limitations impede your ability to enforce the energy code? (Check all that apply.)
Residential Buildings
 Time or staff
 Money
 Code books
 Education or training
 Data provided with the plans
 Building access
 Equipment
 Not applicable
 Other _____________________

Commercial Buildings
 Time or staff
 Money
 Code books
 Education or training
 Data provided with the plans
 Building access
 Equipment
 Not applicable
 Other ________________________

21. In your jurisdiction, in what plan review/inspection items do you generally find code
violations? (Check all that apply.)
Residential Buildings
 Envelope insulation levels
 Envelope insulation installation
 Envelope sealing (infiltration)
 Fenestration
 Duct insulation
 Duct sealing
 Piping insulation
 Lighting fixtures
 Other ____________________

Commercial Buildings
 Envelope insulation levels
 Envelope insulation installation
 Envelope sealing (infiltration)
 Fenestration
 Duct insulation
 Duct sealing
 Piping insulation
 Lighting fixtures
 Lighting controls
 HVAC system controls
 Other _________________________

22. In your view, roughly how much of the MUEC is covered by the energy plan review and
inspection? (Choose one.)
Residential
Commercial

0–25%



26–50%



294

51–75%



76–100%



23. What information is available to your staff during field inspection? (Check all that
apply.)







Approved plans
Energy code compliance checklist(s)
Published energy codes and/or standards
Product and equipment specifications and other data
Insulation certification sheets
Other

24. Do you require energy code compliance documents to be submitted with the permit
application?
 Yes



No

25. What information is typically missing from plans, specifications, and/or actual
construction that prevents you from determining compliance?
Residential

_________________________________________________________

Buildings:
Commercial

_________________________________________________________

Buildings:

26. What software and/or other information technologies do you use to facilitate plan
reviews, inspection processes, record keeping, and communications with permittees?
_________________________________________________________________________

27. Do you accept software compliance reports with permit applications in lieu of a plan
review? (Choose one.)
 Yes

 No

 Not applicable

Questions about Your Familiarity with Regulatory Tools
28. Do you possess a current copy of the MUEC?
 Yes



No

295

29. If asked, could you instantly list any of the following? (Check all that apply.)





R-value requirements in the MUEC
U-value requirements of the MUEC?
The different energy zones of the MUEC?
The two methods for compliance for air sealing in the current MUEC

30. Would you describe yourself as fairly or very familiar with any of the following
programs? (Check all that apply.)






Energy Star
Home Energy Rating System (HERS)
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
MUEC-prescriptive
Component Modeling Approach for commercial glazing from the National Fenestration
Rating Council

31. Have you had any formal training on the following programs? (Check all that apply.)






Energy Star
Home Energy Rating System (HERS)
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
MUEC-prescriptive
NFRC's Component Modeling Approach for commercial glazing

32. What types of code support and information would help increase energy code
compliance in your community? _____________________________________________

296

APPENDIX B: COMPARATIVE STATE SURVEY ANALYSIS
The descriptive analysis of survey data performed in the study focused primarily on
characteristics of the aggregate sample gathered across states. Overall, six state samples
gathered through previous independent studies were analyzed in the present research. Although
some individual state samples are not of adequate size to be considered statistically comparable,
a basic analysis was performed to compare trends observed between individual states. This
analysis is presented in the following sections, referencing the questions and language included
in the original survey instrument.
The following survey samples were acquired for each state:
Table 42: Overview of state survey samples
Survey State

No. of
Respondents
283
50
26
15
10
6
390

Michigan
Oregon
Utah
Idaho
Montana
Washington
TOTAL

297

B.1 QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR JURISDICTION
These questions gather limited background information and contact information on the agency
completing the survey. The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question: Estimate of the population served.
Classification: Numerical (number of people)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
MI (n=204) UT (n=26) WA (n=6) MT (n=10) ID (n=13) OR (n=43) TOTAL
(n=302)
Figure 40: Average jurisdiction population by state (number of people)

Table 43: Jurisdiction population by state (number of people)
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
204
26
6
10
13
43
n=
302
100
2900
8700
864
1500
1440
Min.
100
Q1 (25%)
5000
9750
24675
3125
19900
8900
6000
Q2 (50%)
10725
25000
49500
17750
47068.5
16500
14000
Q3 (75%)
25000
57000
75000
61250
58000
26500
30000
90173
110000
120000
105000
83500
65000
Max.
120000
19003
35996
52950
30686
41260
19929
Mean
22617
10725
23500
49500
17750
44137
16000
Median
14000
21030.64 32359.93 34723.85 33489.84 22636.44 15269.44 23789.13
St. Dev.
4.42E+08 1.05E+09 1.21E+09 1.12E+09 5.12E+08 2.33E+08 5.66E+08
Var.

298

Thousands

140
120
100
80
60
40

20
0
MI (n=204) UT (n=26) WA (n=6) MT (n=10) ID (n=13) OR (n=43) TOTAL
(n=302)
Figure 41: Population samples by state (thousand people)

0.00003
0.000025

MI (n=204)

0.00002

UT (n=26)

0.000015

WA (n=6)

0.00001

MT (n=10)
ID (n=13)

0.000005

OR (n=43)

0
0

50

100

150
Thousands

TOTAL (n=302)

Figure 42: Population distribution by state (thousand people)

299

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MI
(n=204)
110-120
0%
100-110
0%
90-100
1%
80-90
2%
70-80
2%
60-70
2%
50-60
2%
40-50
3%
30-40
7%
20-30
9%
10-20
23%
<10
49%

UT
(n=26)
0%
12%
0%
4%
0%
0%
12%
4%
15%
8%
15%
31%

WA
(n=6)
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
17%
17%
0%
17%

MT
(n=10)
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
20%
0%
50%

ID (n=13)
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
8%
23%
15%
8%
15%
15%
8%

OR
(n=43)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
5%
2%
9%
19%
28%
35%

TOTAL
(n=302)
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
5%
4%
8%
11%
22%
43%

Figure 43: Incremental population distribution by state (thousand people)
300

Question: In the previous calendar year, how many building permits were issued by your
agency?
a) Residential building permits
b) Commercial building permits
Classification: Numerical (number of permits)
Table 44: Number of permits per population by state
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR TOTAL
Average Population
19003 35996 52950 30686 41260 19929 22617
No. Permits Issued:
Residential
102
26
426
161
124
92
105
Commercial
21
181
318
216
38
54
57
Total
123
207
744
377
162
146
162
No. Permits per 1000 People 6.47
5.76 14.05 12.29 3.93
7.33
7.16

Table 45: Number of permits issued by state
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
167
21
6
8
12
42
n=
256
0
0
26
7
27
5
min.
0
Q1 (25%)
25
6
39.5
13.25
65
29.75
24
Q2 (50%)
62
15
353
54
136.5
70.5
60
Q3 (75%)
150
40
782.75
181.5
158.25
143.25
147.25
400
100
1100
829
213
285
Max.
1100
102
26
426
161
124
92
Mean
105
62
15
353
54
136.5
70.5
Median
60
104.78
28.64
382.33
260.26
56.19
74.06
St. Dev.
129.95
1.10E+04 8.20E+02 1.46E+05 6.77E+04 3.16E+03 5.49E+03 1.69E+04
Var.

301

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

800
600
400
200
0
MI (n=167) UT (n=21) WA (n=6) MT (n=8) ID (n=12) OR (n=42)

TOTAL
(n=256)

Figure 44: Residential building permits by state (number of permits)

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MI (n=167) UT (n=21) WA (n=6) MT (n=8)

ID (n=12) OR (n=42)

Figure 45: Residential permits by state (magnified view)

302

TOTAL
(n=256)

MI (n=167)

0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0

UT (n=21)
WA (n=6)
MT (n=8)
ID (n=12)
OR (n=42)
0

200

400

600

TOTAL
(n=256)

800

Figure 46: Residential permit sample distribution by state

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MI
(n=167)
1000-1100
0%
900-1000
0%
800-900
0%
700-800
0%
600-700
0%
500-600
0%
400-500
0%
300-400
8%
200-300
8%
100-200
18%
<100
66%

UT
(n=21)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%

WA
(n=6)
17%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
17%
0%
17%
0%
33%

MT
(n=8)
0%
0%
13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
0%
75%

ID
(n=12)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
67%
25%

OR
(n=42)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
29%
64%

Figure 47: Incremental residential permit distribution

303

TOTAL
(n=256)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
8%
20%
66%

Table 46: Number of residential permits issued by state
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
161
25
6
9
13
42
n=
256
0
0
3
6
0
1
min.
0
Q1 (25%)
1
46.5
5.25
10.5
0
12
2
Q2 (50%)
5
97
145
146
22
29.5
12
Q3 (75%)
26
248.5
708.25
456
74
73.25
60
130
685
1000
684
109
212
Max.
1000
21
181
318
216
38
54
Mean
57
5
97
145
146
22
29.5
Median
12
32.11
197.21
366.84
253.24
37.40
56.35
St. Dev.
123.67
1.03E+03 3.89E+04 1.35E+05 6.41E+04 1.40E+03 3.17E+03 1.53E+04
Var.

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MI (n=161) UT (n=25) WA (n=6) MT (n=9) ID (n=13) OR (n=42)

Figure 48: Number of commercial building permits issued by state

304

TOTAL
(n=256)

300
250

200
150
100
50
0
MI (n=161) UT (n=25) WA (n=6) MT (n=9)

ID (n=13) OR (n=42)

TOTAL
(n=256)

Figure 49: Number of commercial permits by state (magnified view)

0.014
MI
(n=161)
UT (n=25)

0.012
0.01

WA (n=6)
0.008
MT (n=9)

0.006

ID (n=13)

0.004

OR (n=42)

0.002
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Figure 50: Commercial permit sample distribution by state
305

TOTAL
(n=256)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MI
(n=161)
1000-1100
0%
900-1000
0%
800-900
0%
700-800
0%
600-700
0%
500-600
0%
400-500
0%
300-400
0%
200-300
0%
100-200
2%
<100
98%

UT
(n=25)
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
8%
4%
4%
24%
52%

WA
(n=6)
0%
17%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
33%

MT
(n=9)
0%
0%
0%
0%
22%
0%
0%
0%
11%
22%
44%

ID
(n=13)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
92%

OR
(n=42)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
10%
83%

Figure 51: Incremental commercial permit distribution by state

306

TOTAL
(n=256)
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
2%
7%
87%

Question: How is your agency funded? (check all that apply)
a) Permitting revenue
b) Jurisdictional budget
c) State funded
d) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Table 47: Jurisdictional funding source by state
SAMPLE

MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
TOTAL
(n=279) (n=27) (n=6) (n=1) (n=6) (n=319)
Permit Revenue
91%
52%
50%
0% 100%
87%
Jurisdictional
27%
81%
33% 100% 0%
31%
State Funded
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
Other
4%
0%
17%
0%
0%
4%

100%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MI (n=279)
UT (n=27)
WA (n=6)
MT (n=1)
ID (n=6)
TOTAL (n=319)

Permit
Revenue
91%
52%
50%
0%
100%
87%

Jurisdictional

State Funded

Other

27%
81%
33%
100%
0%
31%

2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%

4%
0%
17%
0%
0%
4%

Figure 52: Jurisdictional funding source by state

307

B.2 QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR STAFF
These questions inquire about characteristics of staff employed for the purpose of energy code
enforcement. The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question: Who conducts plan reviews for energy code compliance? (check all that apply)
a) In-house staff
b) 3rd party staff
c) Other jurisdictions or government agencies
d) Not done
e) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Table 48: Party responsible for conducting plan review by state
SAMPLE
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or
agencies
Not done
Other

MI
(n=277)
74%
14%
1%

UT
(n=25)
86%
11%
0%

WA
(n=6)
75%
25%
0%

MT
(n=10)
91%
9%
0%

ID
(n=15)
100%
0%
0%

OR
(n=48)
100%
0%
0%

TOTAL
(n=382)
79%
11%
1%

6%
5%

4%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

5%
4%

308

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or
agencies
Not done
Other

MI
UT
(n=277) (n=25)
74%
86%
14%
11%

WA
(n=6)
75%
25%

MT
(n=10)
91%
9%

ID
(n=15)
100%
0%

OR
TOTAL
(n=48) (n=382)
100%
79%
0%
11%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

6%
5%

4%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

5%
4%

Figure 53: Party conducting plan review by state

309

Question: Who conducts field inspections for energy code compliance? (check all that apply)
a) In-house staff
b) 3rd party staff
c) Other jurisdictions or government agencies
d) Not done
e) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Table 49: Party responsible for conducting field inspection by state
SAMPLE
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or
agencies
Not done
Other

MI
(n=276)
80%
8%
1%

UT
(n=27)
78%
16%
0%

WA
(n=6)
86%
14%
0%

MT
(n=10)
83%
17%
0%

ID
(n=15)
100%
0%
0%

OR
(n=48)
100%
0%
0%

TOTAL
(n=382)
83%
8%
1%

6%
5%

6%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

5%
3%

310

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
In-house staff
3rd party entities
Other jurisdictions or
agencies
Not done
Other

MI
UT
(n=276) (n=27)
80%
78%
8%
16%

WA
(n=6)
86%
14%

MT
(n=10)
83%
17%

ID
(n=15)
100%
0%

OR
TOTAL
(n=48) (n=382)
100%
83%
0%
8%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

6%
5%

6%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

0%
0%

5%
3%

Figure 54: Party conducting field inspection by state

311

Question: What level of education and training does your agency staff receive specifically for
energy codes?
a) Residential energy codes training
b) Commercial energy codes training
Classification: Categorical (Choose only one rating 1-4)
Table 50: Level of education and training for jurisdictional staff by state
Rating SAMPLE
4 Professional
certification and
annual training
(mandatory)
3 Periodic formal
training from
International Code
Council, statesponsored entity, or
code officials
association
2 Periodic formal
training from
another source
1 On-the-job
training, but seldom
formal training
0 Training not
provided
Average Rating

MI
(n=245)

UT
(n=25)

WA
(n=5)

MT
(n=9)

22%

48%

0%

33%

27%

N/A

25%

56%

40%

60%

56%

73%

N/A

56%

6%

12%

0%

0%

0%

N/A

6%

3%

0%

20%

11%

0%

N/A

3%

13%
2.72

0%
3.36

20%
2.00

0%
3.11

0%
3.27

N/A
N/A

11%
2.80

312

ID
OR TOTAL
(n=15) (N=0) (n=299)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MI
(n=245)

Professional Certification &
Training
Periodic training
(professional association)
Periodic training (other
source)
Informal training
Not provided

UT
(n=25)

WA
(n=5)

MT
(n=9)

ID
(n=15)

TOTAL
(n=299)

22%

48%

0%

33%

27%

25%

56%

40%

60%

56%

73%

56%

6%

12%

0%

0%

0%

6%

3%
13%

0%
0%

20%
20%

11%
0%

0%
0%

3%
11%

Figure 55: Energy code training delivery by state

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Average Rating

MI
(n=245)
2.72

UT (n=25) WA (n=5) MT (n=9) ID (n=15)
3.36

2.00

3.11

3.27

Figure 56: Rating of energy code training by state

313

TOTAL
(n=299)
2.80

B.3 QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PROCESSES
These questions gather information on processes for assessing compliance with energy codes.
The following questions were included in the data analysis.
Question: What methods are used as a basis for documenting energy code compliance and in
what percentages? REScheck and COMcheck are considered trade-off methods. Use whole
numbers without a % sign to complete the question.
a) Prescriptive
b) Trade-off
c) Performance
Classification: Numerical (separate percentage entries for residential and commercial)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Performance
REScheck
Prescriptive

MI
(n=157)
8%
53%
39%

UT (n=26) WA (n=5)
15%
61%
24%

0%
10%
90%

MT (n=8)

ID (n=15)

TOTAL

6%
46%
49%

1%
76%
24%

8%
54%
38%

Figure 57: Residential compliance path by state (n=211)

314

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Performance
REScheck
Prescriptive

MI
(n=157)
8%
54%
38%

UT (n=26) WA (n=5)
17%
59%
24%

2%
62%
36%

MT (n=8)

ID (n=15)

TOTAL

6%
53%
40%

0%
89%
11%

8%
57%
34%

Figure 58: Commercial compliance path by state (n=211)

315

Question: How many hours are devoted to the average plan review for energy codes? If energy
plan reviews are performed in conjunction with reviews for other code provisions, estimate the
time for the energy-related reviews only.
a) Residential buildings
b) Commercial buildings
Classification: Numerical (hours of time)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

MI
(n=204)
Mean 0.57

UT
(n=27)
0.92

WA
(n=4)
0.60

MT
(n=8)
0.35

ID
(n=14)
0.48

OR
(n=37)
0.36

TOTAL
(N=288)
0.56

Figure 59: Average time spent on residential plan review by state (hours)

Table 51: Average time spent on residential plan review by state (hours)
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
204
24
4
8
14
37
n=
288
0
0
0.5
0.25
0.08
0.25
min.
0
Q2 (25%)
0.425
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Q3 (50%)
0.5
1
0.29
0.5
0.25
0.5
Q4 (75%)
1
1
0.5
0.54
0.5
1
1.5
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
Max.
1.5
0.57
0.92
0.60
0.35
0.48
0.36
Mean
0.56
0.5
1
0.5
0.29
0.5
0.25
Median
0.5
0.5
1
0.25
0.5
0.25
Mode
0.5
0.36
0.28
0.20
0.12
0.27
0.12
St. Dev.
0.35
1.28E-01 7.64E-02
1.35E-02 7.12E-02 1.55E-02 1.21E-01
Var.

316

4

MI (n=204)

3

UT (n=27)
MT (n=8)

2
ID (n=14)
OR (n=37)
1
TOTAL
(N=288)
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Figure 60: Time spent on residential plan review by state (hours)

1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

MI
UT
(n=203) (n=27)
Mean 0.88
1.29

WA
(n=3)
0.75

MT
(n=8)
0.84

ID
(n=15)
1.01

OR
TOTAL
(n=47)
0.87
0.92

Figure 61: Time spent on commercial plan review by state (hours)

317

Table 52: Time spent on commercial plan review by state (hours)
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
188
24
4
9
15
47
n=
283
0
0
0.5
0.415
0.08
0.5
min.
0
Q2 (25%)
0.5
1
0.5625
0.495
0.5
0.5
Q3 (50%)
0.775
1
0.75
1
1
1
Q4 (75%)
1
2
1.125
1.5
1
1
3
3
1
1.5
2.25
1
Max.
3
0.88
1.29
0.75
0.84
1.01
0.87
Mean
0.92
0.775
1
1
0.75
1
1
Median
1
1
1
0.75
0.75
1
Mode
1
0.70
0.68
0.25
0.33
0.60
0.22
St. Dev.
0.64
4.94E-01 4.57E-01
1.11E-01 3.55E-01 4.75E-02 4.11E-01
Var.

2

MI (n=188)
UT (n=24)
WA (n=4)
MT (n=9)

1

ID (n=15)
OR (n=47)
TOTAL
(N=283)
0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Figure 62: Time spent on commercial plan review by state (hours)

318

Question: How many hours are devoted to the average field inspection for energy codes? If
energy field inspections are performed in conjunction with inspections for other code provisions,
please estimate the time for the energy-related field inspections only.
a) Residential buildings
b) Commercial buildings
Classification: Numerical (hours of time)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

MI
(n=223)
Mean 0.65

UT
(n=24)
0.92

MT
(n=8)
0.66

ID
(n=15)
0.82

OR
(n=36)
0.40

TOTAL
(N=306)
0.65

Figure 63: Time spent on residential field inspection by state (hours)

Table 53: Time spent on residential field inspection by state (hours)
SAMPLE
MI
UT
WA
MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
223
24
5
8
15
36
n=
306
0
0
0.1
0.25
0.25
0.25
min.
0
Q2 (25%)
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
Q3 (50%)
0.5
1
0.5
0.66
0.5
0.5
Q4 (75%)
1
1
1
1.5
0.5
1
2
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.5
max.
2
0.65
0.92
1.17
0.66
0.82
0.40
Mean
0.65
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.66
0.5
Median
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
Mode
0.5
0.49
0.28
0.48
0.28
0.46
0.12
St. Dev.
0.46
2.39E-01 7.64E-02
7.71E-02 2.11E-01 1.49E-02 2.08E-01
Var.

319

4
MI (n=223)
3

UT (n=24)
WA (n=5)
MT (n=8)

2

ID (n=15)
OR (n=36)

1

TOTAL
(N=306)
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Figure 64: Time spent on residential field inspection by state (hours)

1.60
1.40

1.20
1.00
0.80

0.60
0.40
0.20

0.00

MI
UT
(n=176) (n=24)
Mean 0.61
1.17

WA
(n=9)
1.00

MT
(n=12)
1.44

ID
(n=14)
1.50

OR
TOTAL
(n=46) (N=272)
0.73
0.76

Figure 65: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state (hours)

320

Table 54: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state (hours)
SAMPLE
MI
UT
176
24
n=
0
0
min.
Q2 (25%)
0.25
1
Q3 (50%)
0.5
1
Q4 (75%)
1
1.75
1.75
2
max.
0.61
1.17
Mean
0.5
1
Median
0.5
1
Mode
0.41
0.55
St. Dev.
1.72E-01 3.06E-01
Var.

WA
9
0.25

MT
ID
OR
TOTAL
12
14
46
272
0.33
0.25
0.25
0
0.625
0.57
0.5
0.5
1
1.25
1
0.5
2.375
2
1
1
1
3.5
5.25
1
5.25
1.00
1.44
1.50
0.73
0.76
1
1
1.25
1
0.5
0.625
1.25
1
1
4.02
0.98
1.29
0.29
0.60
9.63E-01 1.67E+00 8.26E-02 3.59E-01

1.6
1.4
MI (n=176)
1.2
UT (n=24)
1

WA (n=9)
MT (n=12)

0.8

ID (n=14)

0.6

OR (n=46)
0.4
TOTAL
(N=272)

0.2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 66: Time spent on commercial field inspection by state (hours)

321

Question: What format does your agency use to maintain permitting data?
a) Paper
b) Digital
c) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%
10%
0%
MI (n=262)
UT (n=27)
WA (n=6)
MT (n=10)
ID (n=15)
OR (n=0)
TOTAL (n=320)

Paper
75%
74%
83%
70%
67%
0%
74%

Digital
56%
52%
50%
60%
80%
0%
57%

Figure 67: Format used to maintain permit data by state

322

Other
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%

Question: What limitations impede your ability to enforce the energy code? (check all that
apply)
a) Time or staff
b) Money
c) Code books
d) Education or training
e) Data provided with plans
f) Building access
g) Equipment
h) Not applicable
i) Other
(if responded other, text entry box is included for description of this condition)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses—separate classification for
residential and commercial buildings)

323

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Time or staff

Money

Code books Education or
training

Plan data

Building
access

Equipment

Figure 68: Limitations to residential code enforcement by state
324

N/A

Other

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Time or staff

Money

Code books Education or
training

Plan data

Building
access

Equipment

Figure 69: Limitations to commercial code enforcement by state

325

N/A

Other

Question: In your jurisdiction, in what plan review and/or inspection items do you generally
find code do not comply with the residential building code? (Check all that apply)
a) Envelope insulation levels
b) Envelope insulation installation
c) Envelop sealing (infiltration)
d) Fenestration
e) Duct insulation
f) Duct sealing
g) Piping insulation
h) Lighting fixtures
i) HVAC sizing
j) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Table 55: Common residential code infractions by state
SAMPLE

MI
(n=238)
Envelope
33%
Mechanical
44%
Lighting
34%

UT
(n=23)
100%
83%
13%

WA
(n=5)
80%
100%
60%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MT
(n=10)
100%
60%
30%

ID
(n=11)
55%
55%
27%

OR
(n=44)
86%
73%
41%

TOTAL
(n=331)
48%
52%
33%

Envelope
Mechanical
Lighting

Figure 70: Common residential code infractions by state

326

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Insulation
levels

Insulation Envelope air Fenestration
installation infiltration

Duct
Duct sealing
Piping
insulation
insulation

Figure 71: Common residential code infractions by state

327

Lighting
fixtures

Other

Question: In your jurisdiction, in what plan review and/or inspection items do you generally
find code do not comply with the commercial building code? (Check all that apply)
1. Envelope insulation levels
2. Envelope insulation installation
3. Envelop sealing (infiltration)
4. Fenestration
5. Duct insulation
6. Duct sealing
7. Piping insulation
8. Lighting fixtures
9. Lighting controls
10. HVAC system controls
11. Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)
Table 56: Common commercial code infractions by state
SAMPLE

MI
(n=238)
Envelope
66%
Mechanical
49%
Lighting
36%

UT
(n=23)
92%
73%
69%

WA
(n=5)
60%
100%
80%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

MT
(n=10)
78%
56%
22%

ID
(n=11)
46%
54%
62%

OR
(n=44)
76%
63%
49%

TOTAL
(n=331)
69%
54%
42%

Envelope
Mechanical
Lighting

Figure 72: Common commercial code infractions by state

328

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 73: Common commercial code infractions by state

329

Question: What information is available to your staff during field inspection?
a) Approved plans
b) Energy code compliance checklist(s)
c) Published energy code and/or standard
d) Other (please specify)
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Prescriptive
checklist(s)
53%
60%
67%
50%
100%
45%
55%

Approved plans
MI (n=247)
UT (n=25)
WA (n=6)
MT (n=10)
ID (n=13)
OR (n=47)
TOTAL (n=348)

90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
93%

Published codes &
standards
42%
72%
67%
60%
77%
53%
48%

Figure 74: Information available during field inspections by state

330

Question: Do you accept software compliance reports with permit applications in lieu of a plan
review?
Yes
No
Not applicable
Classification: Categorical (check all applicable responses)

100%
90%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

10%
0%
N/A
No
Yes

MI
(n=239)
18%
40%
42%

UT (n=26) WA (n=6)
8%
58%
35%

0%
50%
50%

MT
(n=10)
40%
20%
40%

ID (n=14)
0%
93%
7%

TOTAL
(n=295)
17%
43%
40%

Figure 75: Acceptance of compliance software reports by state

331

APPENDIX C: CONTENT CODING SYSTEM
Based on existing qualitative methods for content analysis, a coding system was used to extract
data from three series of case study reports. The study sought information on existing state
scenarios, challenges, and recommendations offered to states as they address 90% Compliance
requirements. After becoming familiar with the documents, a categorized coding system was
developed to identify and extract phenomena emerging from qualitative data sources. Series of
categories and sub-categories were developed based on consistent formatting schemes observed
within each set of reports. These were employed until all relevant data was captured within
created categories.
As more reports were analyzed, the coding system was organized, consolidated, and transformed
into a database comparing coded categories across states. This information was then displayed
as a matrix, with portions extracted from the database and displayed in the Qualitative Data
Analysis chapter. Eventual findings were allocated as contributing to an increased understanding
of existing conditions within states and localities, challenges faced, and potential
recommendations for states to consider in addressing Recovery Act compliance requirements.
The following sections present the coding system employed for each report series.
NOTE: Coded data categories and sub-categories presented below represent the full list. Only
those which were able to be consistently populated and were found to contribute to study
findings were applied towards the final project.

332

Table 57: Overview of state samples by data source
PNNL 90%
Compliance
Pilot Study
Georgia
Idaho*
Iowa
Massachusetts
Montana*
Oregon*
Utah
Washington*
Wisconsin

Report
Publication
Date
06/2011
07/2011
06/2011
07/2011
07/2011
07/2011
06/2011
07/2011
N/A

BCAP
Report
BCAP
Gap
Publication Compliance
Analysis
Date
Plan
Alabama
07/2010
Colorado
Arkansas
12/2010
Delaware
Delaware
01/2011
Idaho
Illinois
12/2010
Illinois
Kentucky
02/2011
Kentucky
Michigan
12/2010
Michigan
Nebraska
11/2011
Nevada
Nevada
11/2010
New Hampshire
New
02/2011
New Mexico
Hampshire
New
01/2011
South Carolina
Mexico
Ohio
02/2011
Texas
South
11/2011
West Virginia
Carolina
South
12/2010
Dakota
Texas
02/2011
West
02/2011
Virginia
*States included in combined Northwest Pilot Study

C.1 90% COMPLIANCE PILOT STUDY FINAL REPORTS
General:
o State agency
o Partner organization
o Publication date
Methods:
o Contact letter
o Survey
o Interviews
o Focus groups
o Plan review
o Field inspections
o Evaluator training
o Compliance working group
o Other

333

Report
Publication
Date
11/2011
11/2011
06/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
05/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011
11/2011

Compliance Tools:
o Sample Generator
o Jurisdictional Survey
o Compliance Checklists
o Score + Store
Methodology:
o Sample type
o Sample size (number of buildings or surveys)
o Code evaluated
o Reported compliance rate
o Inspection approach
o Sample approach
o Number of state climate zones covered
o Number of total state code enforcement jurisdictions
o Evaluator training description
Compliance Approach:
o Prescriptive
o Trade-off
o Performance
Barriers Identified:
o (list)
Accomplishments Reported:
o (list)
C.2 BCAP GAP ANALYSIS REPORTS
General:
o Report publish date
o Partner organization(s)(list)
State Overview:
o Population
o National population rank
o Number of metropolitan population centers
o Median household income
o National income rank
o Residential permit high (number)
o Residential permit high (year)
o Residential permit low (number)
o Residential permit low (year)
o Economy type (major sectors)

334

State Energy Portfolio:
o Energy produced (%)
o Energy imported (%)
By Source:
o Petroleum (%)
o Natural gas (%)
o Nuclear (%)
o (% of national)
o Coal (%)
o Renewables (%)
o (% of national)
o Renewable portfolio requirement
o Residential electricity cost (cents per kWh)
o Commercial electricity costs (cents per kWh)
Potential Savings from Code Implementation:
o Annual statewide energy savings by 2030 (trillion Btu)
o Annual statewide cost savings by 2030 (based on 2006 prices)($)
o Annual carbon emissions reduction by 2030 (million metric tons)
o Residential additional first costs
o Residential cost savings (annual)
o Simple payback (years)
o Rolled into mortgage (30 years):
o Down payment increase (monthly)
o Mortgage payment increase (monthly)
o Utility bill savings (monthly)
o Payback period (months)
o EECBG funding (million $)
o SEP funding (million $)
o Total ARRA funds (billion $)
Adoption:
o Regulatory framework
o Model code basis for residential code
o Model code basis for commercial code
o Satisfies ARRA target codes (Y/N)
o Administering agency
o Update cycle (years)
Other state codes:
o International Building Code (IBC)
o International Mechanical Code (IMC)
o International Code for Existing Buildings (IEBC)
o International Residential Code (IRC)
o International Fire Code (IFC)
o International Plumbing Code (IPC)
o International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
335

o NFPA National Electric Code (NEC)
o ASME Boiler and Vessel Pressure Code
o NFPA Life Safety Code
Codes for State Facilities:
o Benchmark reference
o Required threshold
Statewide Climate Change Initiatives:
o Initiative name(s)
Green & Above-code Programs:
o LEED Certified Buildings (number)
o LEED Registered Buildings (number)
o LEED APs (number)
o Energy Star Homes (number)
o Energy Star Builders (number)
o HERS Raters (number)
Implementation:
o Key organizations (list)
o Training program (Y/N)
o (Description)
o Building Officials (number)
o General inspector licensing/certification requirement (Y/N)
o Energy code specialization (Y/N)
o Use of third-party enforcement (Y/N)
o Acceptance of HERS rating (Y/N)
C.3 BCAP STRATEGIC COMPLIANCE PLANS
General:
o Report publish date
o Acknowledgements (list)
o Special thanks to REEO (list)
Introduction:
o Energy consumption in buildings (% of state total)
o Code regulatory framework (Home Rule or Statewide)
o (if Home Rule, % of jurisdictions having adopted the IECC (any version))
o (% of state population above number represents)
o Primary actors identified (list)
o Focus areas identified (list)
Critical Tasks:
o Critical Tasks Identified (list)
336

o Stakeholder outcomes identified (list)
o End goal identified (cite)
Energy Codes Coalition:
o Secure funding:
 Funding mechanisms recommended (list)
 Spotlight state example referenced
 (spotlight state regulatory framework)
o State and local policy:
 Recommended adoption strategies (list)
 Current residential code(s)
 Parties named to carry-out strategies
o Outreach:
 Current outreach efforts (list)
 Suggested forms of communication (list)
 Recommended activities (list)
 Recommended audience (list)
 Recommended messages (list)
 Recommended partners (list)
State agencies
State Energy Office
State Housing Authority
General Assembly
Local governments
State ICC chapter(s)
Regional Energy Efficiency Organization
State and regional USGBC chapters
State and regional Home Builders Associations
State and regional American Institute of Architects (AIA)
organizations
Regional ASHRAE organizations
State and regional professional organizations
Third-party firms
Utility companies
Fire Marshall Office
Municipal associations
Environmental groups
Manufacturers
Private organizations
Consumer protection organizations
Real estate organizations
Appraisal organizations
Lending organizations
Educational Institutions
Cool Cities programs
337

Chamber of Commerce
Other
 Suggested meeting location
 Recommended dissemination strategies (list)
o Training:
 Recent training programs (name)
 (Description)
 Number of recent sessions
 Recommended strategies (list)
 Estimate for program ($)
o Compliance Evaluation:
 ARRA funds received
 Current activities (list)
 Referenced study (list)
 State compliance evaluation goals (list)
 Total buildings constructed 2008-10 (number)
 Recommended structure of study:
Survey
Cost
Sample size
Evaluation approach
Buildings
State contact information (list)

338

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF REVIEWER FEEDBACK
This section contains transcripts of feedback submitted by reviewers of the study deliverable.
Several stakeholders were recruited on a voluntary basis, and provided commentary on the
guidance for states contained in Chapter Six. This review helped to substantiate study findings,
and was conducted in accordance with Michigan State University Institutional Review Board
(IRB) requirements. The required IRB Approval can be viewed in Appendix E.
Commenters were provided content for review, as well as a list of guiding validation questions
(see Section 3.3.1). Feedback is presented by reviewer, with an indication of the response type;
hardcopy mark-up, digital mark-up (via Tracked Changes in MS Word), or responses to guiding
validation questions. The identity of each reviewer is withheld to protect participant privacy.
Overall, feedback was secured from six independent reviewers. Comments received were
incorporated into the final thesis document as deemed appropriate by the researcher and faculty
advisor. The following section provides a summary of comments and feedback received as a
result of the stakeholder review.
Commenter #1: Hardcopy mark-up
Remove discussion of stimulus when referencing Recovery Act—not included
consistently throughout and generally understood within the document.
Remove redundancy within training section—no need to reference ‘training trend’ when
already within the education and training programs section.
Avoid phrases like ‘can be considered’—make a definitive statement.
Use of the word ‘placed’ when describing state activities seems odd.
A larger sample is suggested as a buffer. How much larger? 5%? 10%?
Could possibly reword, clean-up and shorten parts of the Select Approach section.

339

Commenter #2: Validation question responses

1. Will the presented guidance empower states to pursue 90% Compliance? (why or why not)
Yes. Mr. Williams provides a comprehensive guide of addressing 90% compliance. The
issues are clearly identified. The recommendations are concise enough for state officials to
put them into action.
2. Does the document accurately portray barriers impeding the adoption and implementation of
building energy codes? (please explain)
The document captures the critical barriers for implementation and includes a section on
securing final support which is typically ignored in studies of this nature.
3. Is there missing information which should be included in the guidance? (please explain)
no
4. Do you have any concerns with the guidance provided?
no
5. Please include any additional questions or comments you may have (feedback may be written
or provided via tracked changes)
(no response provided)

Commenter #3: Validation question responses

1. Will the presented guidance empower states to pursue 90% Compliance? (why or why not)
I think that you summarized the problems that the states are having trying to implement the
90% compliance evaluation. The section on funding was a good addition to the paper. One
thing that I was looking for was a discussion on options for evaluating 90% compliance that
were less expensive but would still work. You alluded to other options in one section but it
might be worth a discussion on self-evaluation (first party) from a jurisdictional standpoint. I
think that this is where evaluation could go just from an affordability standpoint.

340

2. Does the document accurately portray barriers impeding the adoption and implementation of
building energy codes? (please explain)
Yes. Your portrayal of the barriers were right on. Unfortunately this all comes down to
funding – funding for training and support and evaluation. Even if the code is adopted it is
difficult to gain any traction of you don’t have the mechanisms in place in the state.
3. Is there missing information which should be included in the guidance? (please explain)
Your section on training was good but the missing element in this section was a discussion
on technical assistance. Effective training programs are often accompanied by follow-up
technical assistance (e.g. BECP User Support) so that builders, designers, etc. can get their
questions answered fairly quickly.
4. Do you have any concerns with the guidance provided?
No. The guidance is consistent with the DOE BECP Guidance and is backed by information
gleaned from the pilot studies.
5. Please include any additional questions or comments you may have (feedback may be written
or provided via tracked changes)
(no response provided)

Commenter #4: Validation question responses
1. Will the presented guidance empower states to pursue 90% Compliance? (why or why not)
It certainly will inform states, but it is hard to predict how empowered they will become.
There is no indication of “the force of the mandate requiring states to adopt codes and show
compliance”, so therefore it seems uncertain that states will treat this as a mandate and
therefore respond with priority action.
2. Does the document accurately portray barriers impeding the adoption and implementation of
building energy codes? (please explain)
Yes, I think that the first part of the document does a nice job addressing the barriers.
3. Is there missing information which should be included in the guidance? (please explain)
One of the things that could be emphasized is the need for policy makers to increase their
level of awareness and concern regarding this issue. In order for the other activities to take
place (additional education for stakeholders as well as allocating funding for compliance
focused strategies in the states), policy makers need to make this a priority for policy action.

341

4. Do you have any concerns with the guidance provided?
Under PDF pg. 7 (document pg. 6) in the “Secure Financial Support” section, you state
“States are encouraged to allocate support within their budgets for energy code training
programs”. My comment for #3 above directly applies to this statement. When policy
makers are choosing financial priorities, I feel that energy code enhancement will not make
the grade as a focused priority unless there is a dedicated effort to educate and persuade
policy makers about the need for this action as well as the financial benefits to the state’s
economy.
I agree with the suggestions in this paragraph from PDF pg. 7 (document pg. 6):
“Several general strategies for securing funding are available to support state compliance
efforts. Solutions currently exercised within states include Energy Efficiency Resource (or
Portfolio) Standards, state appropriations, public trusts or benefits funds, and Systems
Benefits Charges. Some states have also established relationships with utility companies or
private organizations with overlapping interests in energy efficiency. Some local
governments have been successful in finding revenue for general training; however most are
limited in funding options to support compliance specific to the energy code.” However, I
see difficulties with establishing system benefit charges or other related policy driven
revenue solutions without complete buy-in from policy makers ahead of time.
5. Please include any additional questions or comments you may have (feedback may be written
or provided via tracked changes)
Overall, I think the document is reader friendly and guides the reader through the issues
while providing the web links for resources should the reader choose to investigate those
resources. The document also addresses all the main issues surrounding this code
establishment & compliance challenge.
The document could use another “once-over” as I noticed there were some words and/or
phrases that needed some attention (sorry I did not specifically identify these words and/or
phrases, but another editing look will surely catch them).

Commenter #5: Validation question responses
1. Will the presented guidance empower states to pursue 90% Compliance? (why or why not)
The guidance report provides a strong framework for how states could approach indicating
90% compliance. If a state had adequate resources, expertise, and staff time, the guidance
would certainly be helpful. My sense is that the purpose was to provide an overview of the
issues and approaches, and refer states to the resources for more detailed information. The
ability to thoroughly indicate 90% Compliance will likely depend on a given states’
resources and ability to execute the details of the approach (e.g., forming and coordinating a
compliance working group, conducting a compliance evaluation, etc.).

342

2. Does the document accurately portray barriers impeding the adoption and implementation of
building energy codes? (please explain)
The document effectively identifies the main barriers (concerns about cost). Other barriers,
including general political resistance to perceived regulations, lack of education about
building energy codes among state and local lawmakers, and difficulty in creating uniform
code implementation within a given state, could also be mentioned.
3. Is there missing information which should be included in the guidance? (please explain)
One thing that could be helpful to states is some range of costs/resources needed to conduct
compliance assessments or organize other phases of the process that is described. I know
that some of the states that were a part of the pilot studies, or did some studies on their own,
probably have this information. It’s tough because it’s very state-specific (and depends on
how the process is organized), but I know this is a concern of states, so having some
information on other states’ experiences might be helpful.
In terms of education and training programs, one thing I’ve definitely heard from states is
that it is important to make sure to reach a broad range of audiences with those programs,
beyond code officials. This would include lawmakers, city council members, architects,
builders, designers, etc. This could be something to highlight in the report.
4. Do you have any concerns with the guidance provided?
No.
5. Please include any additional questions or comments you may have (feedback may be written
or provided via tracked changes)
NA

Commenter #6: Digital tracked changes within document
Portions of the document need additional context for reader understanding.
Certain terminology, such as ‘90% Compliance’ may not be clear to some readers—
suggest stating as ‘90% Compliance requirement in Section 410 of the Recovery Act.’
In case it’s worth seeing or referencing: (redacted to protect reviewer identity)
It might be helpful to clarify that Section 410 is not mandatory unless states accepted
SEP money. As you know, all states accepted the money, but not all states are taking the
requirements seriously.
You might consider briefly explaining “adoption” below, as it may not be clear to all
readers. “Adopt into law the building energy efficiency and code administration
requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code” might be helpful for more
of a lay-person to understand. On more recent reads of the requirements, and in talking
to a few people, I believe the actual adoption of the commercial code is required, but a
343

plan for adoption and compliance is only required for residential buildings. I haven’t rechecked any of my sources since that conversation, but just wanted to flag for you…
While I don’t think they choose to spell out their name anymore, it may be helpful to say,
“Formerly known as the American Society of….”
To be extra clear for any reader, you might choose to say “the 2009 version of the IECC
(2009 IECC), so as not to launch too quickly into industry lingo.
Explain what (Standard 90.1) is.
A lot of my audiences don’t understand when we talk about the “model codes” as codes.
You might consider being a bit more deliberate in delineating the two.
I always think it’s helpful, when writing dense material, to re-introduce what you’re
talking about. “Further requirements of Section 410 include…” or something like that…
I don’t think (90% Compliance) needs to be capitalized.
Not sure if it’s helpful to call out that Sec. 410 appears on PDF page 32… See also
clarifying statement linked above.
Current local conditions of what? Seems like an additional explanatory clause/sentence
would be helpful here.
I think that this may also need some defining – partly because the term “compliance” can
be difficult for even industry folk to understand… also because you’re using it as a
proper noun which, without context, will not mean much to most readers.
Not sure if you’re trying to project resource constraints/capacity challenges here, but if
so, I don’t think it’s clear enough.
How are you doing citations? You might find the paper I co-authored (redacted to
protect reviewer identity) to be helpful. It was released at (redacted). We cite a number
of energy code compliance studies… but nothing that specifically touches on where most
infractions occur. (URL redacted)
It’s not 100% clear what the blame is for…. i.e. “building system that fails to comply
with the energy code…”
If you choose to talk about them again, add (PNNL).
Does the methodology “discuss” these things? Maybe it addresses them?
Most people don’t know what these are. The next sentence does not clearly modify this.
I would recommend explaining what these are…. Probably by replacing this specific
reference in the first sentence with more of an explanation, then clearly name it in the
second.
“Found to be successful” - once again, what’s the citation?
(Recovery Act 90% Compliance requirements) could be clearer.
Feels like something’s missing… maybe “to support”…?
Do you want to spend any real estate mentioning “compliance with what?” I think this
way because it’s easy for folks to just skim to a graphic or a different section of a paper
and it’s typically a good rule of thumb not to assume that your audience knows too
much… !
Since we’re now a page or two away from it, I would recommend restating what it is…
i.e. “the federal model for demonstrating compliance with Section 410 of ARRA…”
In the last sentence you said model. Not sure if this is intentional.
Might consider avoiding the passive voice. i.e. “In research presented by the National
Labs in 2011, PNNL found…” (I made that up, btw.)
344

‘Value’ of energy codes—and their proper use/enforcement, no?
How are states encouraged… through Section 410 of ARRA?
‘Remaining stimulus funding input to revolving loan programs are suggested…’ Not
sure I understand.
‘Importance of energy code training programs…’ Would be good to substantiate.
‘Third most prominent limitation…’ Behind which and which?
‘Some states have initiated…’ Notably X and Y.
Remove weak statements that take a passive position.
‘A first step for states…’ Feels funny to say “a first step” this far in the paper… but I get
it. Just an observation.
‘Home Rule…’ Is there a reason to italicize?
‘…beyond simply energy codes alone.’ Simply and alone are redundant. I would
remove one or the other.
In other sections you pointed to AIA, despite it being a code administrator, but instead
because they are a network of interested stakeholders. (organization redacted to protect
reviewer identity) manages a (title redacted) campaign… not sure if it’s helpful.
Alternatively, you can find any (redacted) chapter here: (URL redacted) Also might be
useful/interesting to list other energy code advocates here…?
What does it mean to place an activity?
‘Response data indicates nearly half of code officials serve smaller jurisdictions of less
than ten thousand people’ Interesting!
‘…were also found…’ Consider active voice, i.e. the study found that a portion of pilot
study states conducted…
‘…to develop a building sample.’ Seems to me like it should be clear to the reader what
exactly the sample is for…
‘The Sample Generator…’ PNNL Sample Generator.
‘…use of third-party evaluators…’ To evaluate the sample data set, to evaluate the
buildings, ?. Should be clear in this first sentence.
Not clear why (Compliance Checklists) is capitalized?
‘…however, not in all states on a widespread basis.’ Awkward.
‘…to follow in conducting the actual building evaluations…’ Consider rephrasing for
simpler construction.
Colon or double dash instead?
‘…installing successful practices…’ Word choice?
As a general comment, it’s not always obvious to me why resources are listed underneath
each of the sections. You might consider a quick, half sentence about what each one is
and/or why it matters in the context that you’ve provided.
Since this is the last section, this is one of the sections more likely to be read, even if the
rest of the document was mostly skimmed. To prepare for that, consider making the
language very clear, not assuming that your audience actually read a lot of the paper…
‘…reporting evaluation data…’ …on energy code compliance rates.
‘…demonstrate 90% Compliance’ The 90% Compliance requirement in Section 410 of
ARRA.

345

APPENDIX E: IRB APPROVAL
The design of the thesis project was submitted for review by the Michigan State University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure protection for any human subjects involved with or
impacted by the research project. Primary data sources referenced in the thesis project were
collected during separate, independent and pre-existing research efforts. For this reason, the
majority of the methodology was classified as non-human subjects research. In order to validate
study findings, the final set of recommendations was submitted to industry professionals for
review and comment. Reviewer feedback was collected and incorporated into the final thesis
document in attempt to further substantiate guidance intended for states. The addition of
reviewers can be classified as interaction with human research subjects.
The application for MSU IRB Exempt project approval was submitted by Professor Tim
Mrozowski (Principal Investigator) and Jeremiah Williams (Graduate Research Assistant and
Master’s Candidate). Approval for the project was granted by the IRB under Exempt status.
Information allowing for reference of the MSU IRB approval is:
Application: IRB# x12-618e Category: Exempt 2
Approval Date: July 30, 2012
Title: Jeremiah Williams Thesis Project: Energy Code Compliance
The following figures represent the MSU IRB Approval Letter and Consent Form sent to
reviewers contributing to the validation of project recommendations.

346

Michigan State University
School of Planning, Design and Construction
Construction Management Program
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Energy Code Professionals
ENERGY CODES AND THE RECOVERY ACT:
GUIDANCE FOR STATES ADDRESSING 90% COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Principal Investigator: Tim Mrozowski
Secondary Investigator: Jeremiah Williams
Reviewer Comments
The School of Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State University is
conducting research to evaluate the impact of energy code compliance requirements in relation
to the Recovery Act of 2009. The Recovery Act establishes several requirements for the adoption
and implementation of building energy codes, and calls for states to demonstrate a 90%
compliance rate with specific codes. This research aims to improve understanding of those
requirements, and provides recommendations for states to consider as they address compliance
requirements.
As a participant in this research, you are being asked to answer questions related to your
experience with building energy codes and compliance issues. You must be at least 18 years old
to participate in this research. Your participation in this research project is completely
voluntary. You have the right to say no. If you are uncomfortable, you may change your mind at
any time and withdraw from the questionnaire. You may choose not to answer specific questions,
or to stop participating at any time. Whether you choose to participate or not will result in no
negative effect. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your
name and title will not be used in any publication. The estimated time to complete this
questionnaire is approximately 20-30 minutes. As a participant, you may request a copy of this
consent letter for your records.
This research project is not funded. The research is conducted by Michigan State
University and the data collected will be used for a graduate Master’s thesis.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do
any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact:
Tim Mrozowski, A.I.A., LEED® AP
Professor of Construction Management, School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan
State University, 102B H.E. Bldg., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, Email:
mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu, Phone number : +1 517.353.0781.

347

Participant Consent Form (continued):
Jeremiah Williams
Graduate Student, Construction Management Program
School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University, 520 John Carlyle St.
#320, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA. Email:remylee@msu.edu, Phone number: +1 231.468.9441
If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this
research study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail
irb@msu.edu, or mail at: 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by submitting your responses. Responses
may be submitted to the email contact information presented above.

348

REFERENCES

349

REFERENCES

Benningfield, Lynn & Hogan, John. (2003). Building Energy Code Enforcement: A look at
California and Seattle. Prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Bishop et. al. (2011). Iowa Energy Code Evaluation Pilot Study Final Report. Iowa
Department of Public Safety: Division of State Fire Marshal: State Building Code Bureau.
Prepared for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2008). Residential Building Energy Codes – Enforcement
and Compliance Study. Prepared for the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010a). Alabama Gap Analysis. The Energy Codes
Outreach and Advocacy Project. Prepared for the Alabama Department of Economic and
Community Affairs.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010b). Arkansas Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Arkansas
Energy Office for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010c). Illinois Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010d). Michigan Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Michigan
Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010e). Nevada Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project in cooperation with
the Nevada Energy and Energy Efficiency Authority for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010f). South Carolina Gap Analysis. Compliance
Planning Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and South
Carolina Energy Office for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2010g). South Dakota Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the South
Dakota Bureau of Administration for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011a). Colorado Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Colorado’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Colorado Department
of Local Affairs for the U.S. Department of Energy.
350

Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011b). Delaware Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Delaware
Energy Office for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011c). Delaware Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Delaware’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011d). Illinois Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Illinois’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011e). Kentucky Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and Kentucky
Department of Housing, Building and Construction—Division of Building Code
Enforcement for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011f). Kentucky Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Kentucky’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Kentucky Department
of Housing, Buildings and Construction for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011g). Michigan Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Michigan’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Michigan Department
of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Bureau of Construction Codes for the U.S. Department
of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011h). Nebraska Gap Analysis. Prepared for the
Nebraska Energy Office.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011i). New Hampshire Gap Analysis. Compliance
Planning Assistance Program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011j). New Hampshire Strategic Compliance Plan:
Improving energy code compliance in New Hampshire’s buildings. The Compliance
Planning Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the
New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011k). New Mexico Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the New
Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department for the U.S. Department of Energy.

351

Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011l). New Mexico Strategic Compliance Plan:
Improving energy code compliance in New Mexico’s buildings. The Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the New
Mexico Regulations and Licensing Department for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011m). Ohio Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011n). South Carolina Strategic Compliance Plan:
Improving energy code compliance in South Carolina’s buildings. The Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the South
Carolina State Energy Office for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011o). Texas Gap Analysis. Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Prepared by the Building
Codes Assistance Project and the Texas State Energy Conservation Office for the U.S.
Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011p). Texas Strategic Compliance Plan: Improving
energy code compliance in Texas’s buildings. The Compliance Planning Assistance
Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the Texas State Energy
Conservation Office for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011q). West Virginia Gap Analysis. Compliance
Planning Assistance Program. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Prepared by the
Building Codes Assistance Project and the West Virginia Division of Energy for the U.S.
Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2011r). West Virginia Strategic Compliance Plan:
Improving energy code compliance in West Virginia’s buildings. The Compliance Planning
Assistance Program. Prepared by the Building Codes Assistance Project and the West
Virginia Department of Commerce for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Building Codes Assistance Project et. al. (2011). Five-Year Strategic Plan for the Adoption and
Implementation of New Energy Codes 2012-2017. Prepared for the Nevada State Office of
Energy and Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Authority.
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2012a) Compliance Planning Assistance Program.
Retrieved from http://bcap-ocean.org/compliance-planning-assistance-program
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Building Codes Assistance Project. (2012b). Code Status. Online Code Environment and
Advocacy Network (OCEAN). Retrieved from http://energycodesocean.org/code-status
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

352

Building Codes Assistance Project. (2012c). Incremental Cost Analysis. Online Code
Environment and Advocacy Network (OCEAN). Retrieved from
http://energycodesocean.org/incremental-cost-analysis (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Career Guide to Industries 2010-2011 ed. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs003.htm (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Cassell, Catherine, & Symon, Gillian (1994). Qualitative research in work contexts. In Catherine
Cassell & Gillian Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research, a practical
guide (pp.1-13). London: Sage.
City of Oklahoma City. (2012). Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Office of
Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.okc.gov/sustain/EECS.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
City of Peoria. (2012). Energy Code Information. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.peoria.il.us/energycode (accessed: November 5, 2012)
City of Seattle. (2012). Seattle Energy Code. Retrieved from
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Codes/Energy_Code/Overview/default.asp
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Conover, D., Makela, E, Stacey, J, & Sullivan, R. (2011). Energy code compliance paths for
residential and commercial buildings (PNNL-20822). Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20822.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Creswell, John W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
David, Laurie et al. & Guggenheim, Davis. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth. [Motion picture].
USA: Paramount.
Deason, Jeff. & Hobbs, Andrew. (2011). Codes to Cleaner Buildings. Climate Policy Initiative.
Report version 1.
Dey, Ian. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Galbraith, Kate. (2010). A Mundane Approach to a Vexing Problem. NYTimes.com. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/business/energy-environment/29iht-green.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Gerston, Larry N. (2002). Public Policymaking in a Democratic Society: A guide to civic
engagement. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
353

Grodzins, Morton. (1967). The Federal System. American Federalism in Perspective, ed.
Aaron Wildavsky. Boston, MA: Little, Brown
Halverson, Mark & Shankle, Diana. (2003). Understanding Building Energy Codes and
Standards. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Hampton, Raymond E. & Havel, John E. (2006). Introductory Biological Statistics (2nd
Edition). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Hartley, Jean (2004). Case study research. In Catherine Cassell & Gillian Symon (Eds.),
Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp.323-333). London:
Sage.
Heeringa, Steven G., West, Brady T. & Berglund, Patricia A. (2010). Applied Survey Data
Analysis. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Idaho Energy Codes Collaborative. (2011). Idaho Strategic Plan for 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code Compliance. Prepared for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Institute for Market Transformation. (2010a). $810 Million Funding Needed to Achieve 90%
Compliance with Building Energy Codes. Retrieved from
http://www.imt.org/resources/detail/building-energy-code-compliance-a-low-cost-tool-toboost-jobs-cut-pollution (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Institute for Market Transformation. (2010b). Building Energy Code Compliance. Retrieved
from http://www.imt.org/codecompliance.html (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Institute for Market Transformation. (2011). Commercial Energy Policy Fact Sheet 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.imt.org/uploads/resources/files/PolicymakerFactsheetEnergyCodeCompliance.pdf (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Jick, Todd D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in
Action. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 24, No. 4.
Khan, Samia & VanWynsberghe, Robert. (2008). Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-Case
Analysis as Knowledge Mobilization. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Online Journal.
Vol. 9, No. 1, Article 34.
Kohlbacher, Florian. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Vol. 7, No. 1, Article 21.
Kohlmann, Thomas & Jorn Moock. (2009). Chapter Five: How to Analyze Your Data.
Handbook—Statistics and Data Management. Retrieved from
http://www.aopublishing.org/handb_stat/Sample_HBStatistic.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
354

Kraft, Michael E., & Furlong, Scott R. (2010). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and
Alternatives (3rd Edition). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kraft, Michael E. (2011). Environmental Policy and Politics (5th Edition). New York, NY:
Pearson Education.
Lavassani, Kayvan M., Movahedi, Bahar & Kumar, Vinod. (2009). Developments in Analysis
of Multiple Response Survey Data in Categorical Data Analysis: The Case of Enterprise
System Implementation in Large North America Firms. Journal of Applied Quantitative
Methods. Vol. 4 No. 1.
Leahy, Jennifer. (2004). Using Excel for Analyzing Survey Questionnaires. University of
Wisconsin: Program of Development and Evaluation. Publication Number: G3658-14.
Retrieved from https://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3658-14.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Levy, M., Khawaja, M.S & Benningfield, L. (2008). Putting codes into action: How newly
updated building codes translate into practice. Quantec, LLC in partnership with The
Benningfield Group. Retrieved from
http://bcapocean.org/sites/default/files/resources/How_Building_Codes_Translate_Into_Practice.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Lowe, R. & Oreszczyn, T. (2008). Regulatory standards and barriers to improved performance
for housing. Energy Policy, 36: 4475—4481.
Matland, Richard E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguityconflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 5(2): 145-174.
Mayring, Philipp (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research.
Online Journal. Vol. 1, No. 2, Article 20.
Michigan State Housing Development Authority. (2011a). Michigan Pilot Study Survey Data.
[data file].
Michigan State Housing Development Authority. (2011b). Michigan Uniform Energy Code
Survey. Prepared under contract with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Michigan State University. (2012). Michigan Uniform Energy Code Training and
Implementation. School of Planning Design and Construction. Retrieved from
http://energycodes.spdc.msu.edu/energycodes/training_programs
(accessed: November 5, 2012)

355

National Association of State Energy Officials (2010). ARRA and building energy codes:
Information for state and local officials. Restricted access webinar held February 26, 2010.
National Association of State Energy Officials. (2012a). Energy Codes. Retrieved from
http://www.naseo.org/codes/index.htm (accessed: November 5, 2012)
National Association of State Energy Officials. (2012b). Webinar: Energy Codes
Collaborative. Live broadcast April 17, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.naseo.org/codes/events/2012-04-17/ (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Navigant Consulting. (2011a). 2006 IECC Residential Compliance Study. Prepared for the
State of Utah and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Navigant Consulting. (2011b). Utah Energy Code Compliance Roadmap: A Best Path
Forward. Prepared for the State of Utah and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
NMR Group, Inc. (2011). Massachusetts Energy Code Pilot Report. Submitted to
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and the Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnership. Prepared for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. (2011a). Energy Code-Related Data Collection
Practices in Northwest Building Jurisdictions. Prepared for the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. (2011b). Montana Residential Compliance Comparison
Pilot Project: Status Report. Prepared for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Olsen, Wendy. (2004). Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Can
Really Be Mixed. Retrieved from http://research.apc.org/images/5/54/Triangulation.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Osborne, Stephen P. (Ed.). (2002). Public management: Critical perspectives. London, UK:
Published by Routledge.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (2010). Jurisdictional Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation.stm (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (2011a). 90% Compliance Pilot Studies Final Report.
Unpublished report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Pacific Northwest National laboratory. (2011b). Northwest Pilot Study Survey Data. [data file].
Pacific Northwest National laboratory. (2011c). Utah Pilot Study Survey Data. [data file].
Rea, Luis M. & Parker, Richard A. (1997). Designing and Conducting Social Research: A
comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
356

Residential Energy Services Network. (2012). HERS Rater Directory. Retrieved from
http://www.resnet.us/directory/search (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance. (2011). IECC Compliance Guides. Responsible Energy
Codes Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.reca-codes.org/iecc-compliance-guides.php
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Rosenbaum, Walter A. (2011). Environmental Politics and Policy (8th Edition). Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
Ryan, Gery W., & Bernard, H. Russell (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In
Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.769802). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schlegel, Jeff & Troncone, Beth. (2007). Building Energy Codes in Arizona: Best Practices in
Code Support, Compliance, and Enforcement. Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership.
Prepared for the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Science and Environmental Health Network. (1998). Wingspread Conference on the
Precautionary Principle. Retrieved from www.sehn.org/wing.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Southface Energy Institute. (2012). Removing Barriers to Compliance: Energy Code
Compliance Task Force Recommendations . Sustainable Atlanta.
Spalding, John. (2011). MEEA/BECP Pilot Energy Study: 90% Compliance: Commercial
Building. Prepared by the State of Wisconsin Safety & Buildings Division for the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.
State of Colorado. (2012). Colorado Energy Codes. Colorado Department of Local Affairs.
Retrieved from http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251591390175
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
State of Michigan. (2012). Construction Codes. Michigan Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs Bureau of Construction Codes. Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-35299_10575---,00.html
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
State of Nebraska. (2012). Nebraska Energy Codes. Nebraska State Energy Office. Retrieved
from http://www.neo.ne.gov/home_const/iecc/iecc_codes.htm
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
State of Nevada. (2012). Nevada State Energy Office. Nevada State Energy Office. Retrieved
from http://energy.state.nv.us/ (accessed: November 5, 2012)

357

State of Texas. (2012). Texas Building Energy Code. Texas State Energy and Conservation
Office. Retrieved from http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/tbec/ (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth, & Vetter, Eva (2000). Methods of text and
discourse analysis (Bryan Jenner, Trans.). London: Sage.
Towson, Bill. (2011). Final Report: State Energy Code Compliance Evaluation Pilot Study for
Commercial New Buildings and Additions. Georgian Department of Community Affairs:
Local Government Assistance Division: Construction Codes and Research. Prepared for the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2010). Global Warming: Each Country’s Share of CO2
Emissions. Retrieved from
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-shareof-co2.html (accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Congress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. H.R. 1. 111th Cong., 1st
sess. (January 6, 2009). (2009) Section 410. 111th United States Congress. (accessed
November 2009). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf (accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2001). Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000 Bureau
of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2010a). Energy Codes 101. (PNNL-SA-70586). Richland, WA:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
U.S. Department of Energy. (2010b). Measuring State Energy Code Compliance (PNNL19281). Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Retrieved March 2010,
from
http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy. (2011). Resource Guide Series. Produced by Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved January 2011 from
http://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center/resource-guides (accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012a). Building Energy Codes: State compliance evaluation
procedures. Retrieved from http://www.energycodes.gov/compliance/evaluation
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012b). Building Energy Codes: Why Building Energy Codes?
Retrieved from http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/ (accessed: March 25, 2012)
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012c). Graphic #973. Building Energy Codes Resource Center.
Retrieved from http://www.energycodes.gov/resource-center (accessed: November 5, 2012)
358

U.S. Department of Energy. (2012d). Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program.
Retrieved from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/index.html (accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,
1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress. Office of Policy and Office of Air and Radiation.
Report no. EPA-410-R-99-01, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Environmental Protection: Is It Bad for the
Economy? National Center for Environmental Economics. Retrieved from
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/homepage (accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). ENERGY STAR New Homes Partner Locator.
Retrieved from
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=new_homes_partners.locator
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
U.S. Green Building Council. (2012). LEED Project Directory. Retrieved from
http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/Project/CertifiedProjectList.aspx
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Vig, Norman & Kraft, Michael, E. (2010). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the
Twenty-First Century (7th Edition). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Walfish, Steven. (2006). A Review of Statistical Outlier Methods. Pharmaceutical Technology.
Retrieved from http://www.pharmtech.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=384716
(accessed: November 5, 2012)
Washington State University. (2012). WSU Extension Energy Program. Retrieved from
http://www.energy.wsu.edu/ (accessed: November 5, 2012)
Yin, Robert (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

359