No abstract

The purpose of this study is to present key findings regarding costs associated with enforcing building energy code compliance-primarily focusing on costs borne by local government. Building codes, if complied with, have the ability to save a significant amount of energy. However, energy code compliance rates have been significantly lower than 100%. [See Williams et al. 2013 for summary.] Renewed interest in building codes has focused efforts on increasing compliance, particularly as a result of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirement that states implement a plan to achieve 90% compliance by 2017 in order to receive additional energy grants (Public Law 111-5). 1 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program offers several tools and resources to address energy code compliance. 2 Although the incremental cost of the construction measures needed to comply with building energy codes has been well documented, particularly by the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) (Pacquette, Miller, and DeWein 2011), the cost of enforcement and other activities that may improve compliance has received little attention. However, the estimated cost is thought to be significant. For example, one study by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) estimated the costs associated with reaching 90% compliance to be $810 million, or $610 million in additional funding over existing expenditures, a non-trivial value. 3 [Majersik & Stellberg 2010] In order to further inform a national dialogue about the investment needed to improve compliance with building energy codes, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) conducted a two-phase study to better pinpoint the costs of enforcement with a goal towards 100% compliance. Phase 1 was a literature review designed to identify the current breadth of information on compliance rates, barriers associated with non-compliance, strategies to overcome them, DOE and key stakeholder involvement in improving compliance, 4 and, in particular, the local government costs associated with energy code enforcement for residential and commercial buildings. Phase 1 was conducted in early 2013, and a report on the findings from that study was published in April 2013. [Williams et al. 2013] More than 150 documents that discussed code compliance and enforcement were reviewed. Costs 1 In Section 410, in order for states to receive additional energy grants, the states, or the applicable units of local government that have authority to adopt building codes, will implement "a plan for the jurisdiction achieving compliance with the building energy code or codes … 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." 2 See www.energycodes.gov/compliance for more information. 3 IMT estimates the $810 million from the following components: 1) plan review and inspection cost...

No abstract

EXECUTfVES~YWe present the findings of a mail questionnaire sent to all participants III the Residential Standards Demonstration Program (RSDP) during the Summer of 1986. The primary objective of this investigation is to compare occupants of MCS ("super" energyefficient) houses with occupants of "Control" ("current practice") houses to see whether the two groups are similar or different with respect to energy-related behavior, house characteristics, attitudes, and demographics.The results indicate that the MCS and Control groups are different from one another, but the effect of these variables on space conditioning energy use is not uniform .Chapter 1.

This report summarizes the responses to a mail survey of college and university physical plant directors carried out as part of an evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Institutional Conservation Program (ICP). The overall goal of the evaluation project is to identify the most successful conservation measures (equipmen t and activities) available to the institutional buildings sector. To accomplish this goal, four specific research objectives were defined: (1) to determine the impact of the ICP grant program on fostering energy efficiency and saving energy; (2) to determine key characteristics of institutional conservation efforts outside the federal program; (3) to determine the technical, organizational, and institutional conditions that create the opportunity for energy conservation measures to be most effective; and (4) to identify key technology transfer opportunities. The work conducted as part of this evaluation includes a retrospective evaluation of the ICP grants program to date and recommendations for future conservation efforts in the institutional sector. This report focuses on those characteristics of colleges and universities that might be expected to influence the identification, implementation, operation, and impacts of institutional energy conservation efforts. Information about institutional characteristics was gathered through a mail survey of colleges and universities. Two mailings yielded 773 completed questionnaires out of the population of 3,434 colleges and universities, yielding a response rate of 22%.