Energy Code Survey Suggests 80% Compliance Rate

By Craig DiLouie, Lighting Controls Association

Published February 2007

Energy codes are designed to set minimum standards for design and construction and can significantly reduce building system life-cycle costs while serving as a positive driver for adoption of energy-efficient building technologies.

In 2004, all states were required by a U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) ruling to establish a commercial energy code that is at least as stringent as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. As of August 2006, according to the Building Codes Assistance Project, 36 states had adopted a code at least as stringent as Standard 90.1-1999, while 14 states had not yet complied. Standard 90.1-1999 addresses lighting by setting lighting power density (LPD) limits on lighting and also mandating automatic lighting shutoff controls.

How often is the code actually complied with? How is the code enforced and who enforces it? Who on the design team carries the most responsibility and decision-making authority related to compliance? What are the most significant barriers to compliance?

A recent study conducted by ZING Communications, Inc., sponsored by Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association, attempted to answer these questions. The study was based on a survey distributed to 11,000 commercial architects, electrical engineers, lighting designers and building contractors.

Compliance

Architect, engineer and lighting designer respondents in states with an energy code at least as stringent as Standard 90.1-1999 were asked to estimate what percentage of their projects complies with 1) all lighting requirements of the commercial energy code, 2) the code’s LPD limits, and 3) its automatic lighting shutoff requirements.

Interestingly, a majority of respondents estimated their project energy code lighting requirement compliance to be higher than their compliance with the code’s automatic lighting shutoff requirements, suggestive of a lack of awareness of the code’s complete requirements regarding lighting.

“Mandatory requirements for controls have followed reductions in LPD, so increased levels of compliance for controls naturally lag,” says David Peterson, Director Strategic Marketing for Watt Stopper/Legrand.

Using the lowest number as a common denominator, among respondents who know, or are willing to share, their compliance rate, the specifier respondent complies with the lighting requirements of the code in an estimated 80% of his or her firm's new construction projects (weighted average). This drops to 76%, or about three out of four projects, when the West Coast respondents (California, Oregon, Washington) are removed. West Coast specifiers, on average, comply with code on about 86% of their projects. One element of this is that West Coast specifiers have a significantly higher rate of compliance with the code’s mandatory automatic lighting shutoff requirements than specifiers in other states.

“California leads the nation not only in code definition but also in code enforcement,” says Scott Jordan, Product Marketing Manager for Schneider Electric. California has one of the most aggressive energy codes in the country—Title 24-2005, and requires a compliance inspection before issuing a certificate of occupancy. Education is also a factor. “The trades in California also have a better understanding of the entire process due to the number of years the codes have been in place.”

Jordan adds that although four out of five projects, as a weighted average across all respondents, complies with code lighting requirements, the rate of compliance nonetheless appears higher than he believes many manufacturers have seen in the field. “The level of quoted compliance stated by the design community appears far greater than what is actually found on finished jobs,” he says. “One inspector I spoke with stated she was not surprised. In essence, she said, consultants know the liability of not conforming to code. On the other hand, many contractors know there will not be any job site inspection, and they are free to value engineer as they please.”

Eric Richman, LC, Senior Research Engineer for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, believes the lack of inspection of code requirements in some jurisdictions presents an opportunity for occasional and/or systematic avoidance of obligations. However, he adds, “It is not clear that all builders would take advantage of this situation. In fact, it is likely that many continue to build to the energy codes in order to avoid issues later and to simply produce a quality product.”

He adds that it can be easy to ignore energy codes when faced with seemingly more important building code issues, but all building codes are typically equal in their legal standing, and jurisdictions should therefore treat the energy code with the same importance.

In all states, but less so on the West Coast, a significant number of survey respondents did not know their compliance rate or were unwilling to share it. This may be because other project participants have more responsibility for ensuring code compliance than the respondent.

The survey results suggest that in a typical new construction project, the electrical engineer more often than not has the primary responsibility for ensuring commercial energy code compliance, and has the highest level of influence in decision-making related to compliance. If a lighting designer is involved in a project, however, the designer may acquire this responsibility and with it, a higher level of influence in decision-making.

Enforcement

Jurisdictions are more likely than not to require documentation or intent to comply with the applicable commercial energy code as a prerequisite for obtaining a commercial building permit, according to the survey results. It is more common that the organization with the authority to interpret the code, approve its application, and then inspect the project to verify compliance, is the local building department—specifically, an individual who also handles structural, plumbing, etc.

As a weighted average of all respondents, about one in 10 reports that compliance inspections do not occur in their jurisdictions.

Barriers to Compliance

Value engineering, or a focus on initial cost that can result in the removal of critical lighting choices, is the most significant barrier to code compliance, according to respondents.

“Whoever holds the purse strings on the project and has the opportunity to value-engineer the job should be educated on energy codes and compliance,” says Bill Brosius, Director-Field Services for Universal Lighting Technologies. “Architects, engineers, lighting designers and contractors should all be educated about the requirements and consequences of value engineering.”

Engineer respondents, in particular, also consider lack of strict code enforcement to be a significant barrier to code compliance.

Susan Anderson, Manager of Energy Relations for OSRAM SYLVANIA, agrees: “The local authority has to step up to the plate and review specifications before plans are approved and follow through to make sure that the products that are installed meet the energy codes that apply to the project.”

Brosius adds: “The tendency would be to say that if there is no enforcement, then initial cost will be minimized, probably compromising energy code compliance.”

Lack of awareness about code requirements and the compliance process was also cited by respondents as significant.

Says Jordan: “In some states that are recent adopters, there is little awareness for how to meet code. Contractors have limited experience with accepting jobs with controls and also may be intimidated to think they might have to commission such a system.”

“The control requirements are simply not as well known, or understood,” Richman adds.

Improving Compliance

Overall, the results suggest that education about the code, compliance process and encouraged/required equipment in turn leads to code compliance, but even awareness of the code’s lighting requirements do not guarantee compliance due to a focus on initial cost that can result in the removal of critical lighting choices. The results suggest that states with a longer track record with certain code requirements, such as automatic shutoff, have a higher rate of compliance with those requirements. And the results suggest that states in which a compliance inspection occurs prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, such as California, have a higher overall rate of compliance.

“There are two ways of looking at the problem,” says Peterson. “First, you could address the education of the individuals responsible for creating the lighting design, such as architects, lighting designers, etc. The second approach would be to require that each facility comply with the energy code by linking the certificate of occupancy to successfully passing a compliance inspection. This second approach has a much higher probability of success in that it’s very focused.”

Peterson believes California, which is more aggressive about energy, is a model the rest of the country should emulate.

Anderson says the owner should also be educated about its responsibilities, particularly regarding controls, mandatory requirements about which are still a fairly recent development in energy codes. “Educate the owner of the value of automatic shutoff in terms of energy savings and that automatic shutoff is required by the energy code,” she says. “Then ensure that energy codes are enforced at the plan approval stage and at the inspection stage, and efficient lighting choices such as controls could not be value-engineered away.”

Another solution might be for the country to adopt a single energy code, instead of the patchwork of current codes based on a minimum energy standard.

“A single code would certainly simplify design efforts for those that work in multiple jurisdictions as it would tend to eliminate much of the current confusion with multiple code interpretation and application,” says Richman. Anderson adds that education would become simpler, even take place within a national education program.

On the other hand, Peterson points out: “On the negative side, a single code would discourage the development of new solutions and better practices such as those in California. Without Title 24 as a model, change would be slower.”

Brosius concludes with this advice for architects: “Make it known what your needs are. Communicate with the industry and your code-making bodies to drive new development of products and services to fulfill your needs.”

More Information

Learn more about energy codes at www.bcap-energy.org (Building Codes Assistance Project) and www.energycodes.gov (U.S. DoE).

For a complete downloadable copy of this energy code study, click here (735K PDF).

RETURN TO KEY ISSUES