Southeast Regional Energy Codes Needs Assesment

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
ENERGY CODES NEEDS
ASSESSMENT

A Project of the Southeast Energy
Efficiency Alliance

Prepared for:
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s
Building Energy Codes Program
Southeast Regional Energy Codes Needs Assessment Page 1

The Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) promotes energy efficiency for a
cleaner environment, a more prosperous economy, and a higher quality of life in
the Southeastern region of the United States. Based in Atlanta, and working in
eleven states, SEEA brings together businesses, utilities, governments, public utility commissions, energy
service companies, manufacturers, retailers, energy and environmental organizations, low‐income
energy advocates, large energy consumers, and universities to promote energy‐efficient policies and
practices.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Current Energy Code Activity .................................................................................................................. 14
Adoption and Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 14
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Arkansas ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Florida ......................................................................................................................................................... 23
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Louisiana ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................... 47
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 49
North Carolina ............................................................................................................................................. 52
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 54
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 55
South Carolina ............................................................................................................................................. 58
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 60
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 61
Tennessee ................................................................................................................................................... 63
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 65
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 66
Virginia ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
State Level ........................................................................................................................................... 69
Local Level ........................................................................................................................................... 71
References .................................................................................................................................................. 73

Acronyms
ACRONYMS

ADECA – Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
AEO – Arkansas Energy Office
ASHRAE – American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers
BCAP – Building Codes Assistance Project
BECP – DOE Building Energy Codes Program
BTU – British Thermal Unit
CEU – Continuing Education Unit
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
CPA Program – Compliance Planning Assistance Program
DOE – United States Department of Energy
FBL – Florida Building Commission
FSEC – Florida Solar Energy Center
GEC – Georgia Energy Code
GEFA – Georgia Environmental Finance Authority
HBA – Home Builders Association
HBAA – Home Builders Association of Alabama
HERS – Home Energy Rating System
HVAC – Heating, Ventilating, and Air‐Conditioning
IBC – International Building Code
ICC – International Code Council
I‐Codes – International Codes
IECC – International Energy Conservation Code
IRC – International Residential Code
KCAPC – Kentucky Climate Action Plan Council
MMT – Million Metric Tons
NAIMA – North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
NCBIA – North Carolina Building Inspector’s Association
Recovery Act – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
R‐Value – Measure of Thermal Resistance
SBCC – North Carolina State Building Code Council
SCAC – Georgia State Code Advisory Committee
SEEA – Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
SEP – State Energy Program
SHGC – Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
USBC – Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
USGBC – United States Green Building Council

Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) created a document outlining the needs of eleven states
in SEEA’s region in terms of energy code adoption, enforcement and compliance. This document
outlines the obstacles, accomplishments, current adoption activities and enforcement initiatives in
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Virginia. The reasons for adopting and enforcing the latest model energy codes are
explained in terms of the economic benefits for residents, businesses, and the states and region as a
whole. Through the investigation of the needs of each state, SEEA found that there are common
benefits and obstacles to adopting and enforcing energy codes across the region. Common benefits
include the reduction in both costs and energy use for residents and businesses in the Southeast as well
as opportunities for increased energy self‐sufficiency at the state level. The difficulties surrounding
energy code enforcement stem mostly from a lack of available funding for such activities as training and
education. In addition, most states share the difficulties of enforcing energy codes in rural areas.

Both specific needs of each state as well as the benefits of adopting and enforcing energy codes in the
Southeast region are addressed below. There are many common benefits and obstacles that the region
faces.

Common obstacles to adopting and enforcing energy codes in the Southeast:
 Insufficient funding
 Lack of knowledge of energy codes
 Rural nature of the region
 Need for training and education
 Not engaging all stakeholders to gain support and input
 Scarce involvement of utilities
 Unbalanced makeup of states’ building codes councils
 Lack of mandatory training requirements specific to energy codes for building inspectors
Common benefits of adopting and enforcing energy codes in the Southeast:
 Reduced energy use
 Lessened dependence on outside sources of energy
 Opportunity for economic development
 Lower utility bills for residents and businesses
 Increased competitiveness of businesses
 Increased quality of life
 Energy independence
 Cost effective means of meeting the goals of climate action plans in place in seven states

Introduction
INTRODUCTION

The Southeast is often considered to be the region of the United
States that lags the furthest behind on energy code adoption and
enforcement. But the Southeast is deserving of more credit on
this front than it is given. Two states have already adopted the
International Codes Council’s (ICC) 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) and two are on track to adopt the 2009
IECC by the end of this year with major enforcement initiatives
underway in all of these four states. In addition, every state in the
Southeast region has an energy code in place with the exception
of Mississippi and Alabama. Tennessee has a residential code but lacks a commercial energy code.
Despite having no mandatory code in place, Alabama is in the process of adopting a mandatory energy
code that will be based on either the 2006 IECC or the 2009 IECC with major enforcement initiatives in
place to prepare for an impending energy code.

The potential savings in the Southeast as a result of the adoption and implementation of energy codes is
substantial in both the residential and commercial sectors.

Average Annual Potential Savings Per
Home ($)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
*Florida is not included in this analysis because of the state's unique energy code

Using real time construction data from manufacturers and builders, studies conducted by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) show that the average
annual potential savings per home in the southeast is $228 while the average incremental cost of
building a home to the ICC’s) 2009 IECC is $718. These savings and costs lead to a very short average
payback period of just over three years with a range of two to five years in the Southeast.
Introduction

The potential savings for residents of the Southeast is an opportunity that should not be ignored. The
ability to reduce the utility bills of households and increase the disposable income of consumers is an
important strategy during a time when the economy needs a boost. The average per capita income in
the Southeast is well below the national average. Only Virginia has a per capita income above the
national average with the majority of the states ranking in the bottom 20 percent of the U.S.

Utility bills disproportionately affect low income households. According to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Division of Energy Assistance, households in the U.S. spend an average of
seven percent of their income on utility bills. Low income households, however, spend 14 to 16 percent
of their income on utility bills while spending nearly 14 percent less on energy than the average
household. High energy bills and this burden on low‐income households take money out of local
economies and have a detrimental effect on economic development.

The opportunity to lower energy bills through the implementation of an energy code not only exists for
households in the Southeast, but for businesses as well. According to a study done by DOE, businesses in
the Southeast can save an average of six percent per square foot on energy in non‐residential buildings,
five percent in residential high‐rise buildings, and 0.5 percent on semi‐heated buildings if states adopt
and enforce the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1‐2007. Not surprisingly, those states that do not have a commercial energy code in place
have the most to gain from adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007. Energy costs can be a burden on
businesses. Decreasing this burden can increase the competitiveness of businesses particularly during a
time when unnecessary costs are particularly detrimental.

Average Annual Potential Savings per ft2 (%)
14
12
10
8
6 Non‐
residential
4
Residential
2 High‐Rise
0 Semi‐heated
*Florida is not included in this analysis because of the state's unique energy code
Introduction
Despite the progress the Southeast shows in terms of adopting and enforcing codes, there is still a lot of
room for improvement. Those states with no code or weak enforcement of the energy code are missing
out on substantial savings that would lessen the stress on multiple sectors of the economy. Funding is
clearly the biggest obstacle to enforcement in the Southeast region. More education and training is
needed in order to make builders and consumers aware of the realities of energy codes and the benefits
to both the building business and homes. But without funding, the creation of programs is not possible.

During a time where the economy is struggling and state’s budgets are tight, it is hard to justify any
additional spending. But energy codes are the most cost effective way to lower energy use and utility
bills for residents and businesses. A recent study by the Institute for Market Transformation found that
every $1 spent on enforcement of energy codes, yields $6 in energy savings. Despite these clear cut
benefits, many states in the Southeast are clearly lagging behind. The chart below shows the scores
awarded by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE) Scorecard for 2010. The
maximum score is 7. Components of the scores include assessment of both energy code stringency and
enforcement. Virginia, Florida and North Carolina top the Southeast with scores of 6.5, 5.5 and 5,
respectively, while Mississippi and Alabama score at the bottom of the Southeast and the nation both
with scores of zero.

ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard 2010
7
3 Enforcement
Stringency
2

According to a BCAP estimate, if states in the Southeast begin implementing the 2009 IECC by 2011,
states will save an average of $136 million annually by 2020 and $272 million annually by 2030.

Introduction
Cost Savings Annually By 2030
600
500
$ Savings Annually
400 by 2020
300
$ Savings Annually
200 by 2030
100

Adopting and enforcing the energy code will not only save states millions of dollars annually but will
cost‐effectively help states reach their goals to reduce energy use and mitigate climate change. Seven
out of eleven states in the Southeast have climate action plans in place. According to the same BCAP
estimate, states in the Southeast can reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by an average of 2.64
million metric tons (MMT) per year by 2030.

CO2 Reduction Annually (MMT)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
CO2 Reduction
1 by 2030
0.5
0

Introduction
The obstacles the Southeast faces in terms of adoption and enforcement of energy codes are consistent
across the region. The lack of funding, the rural nature of states in the region, the need for education
and training of consumers, builders, and energy providers is common across all eleven states.

Energy codes are a strong tool for economic development, enhancement of quality of life, energy use
reduction and climate change mitigation. There is widespread misunderstanding of what energy codes
are and why they are important. Energy codes are a baseline that new buildings should not be built
below. They are not a green building rating system such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC)
LEED or a green building standard. Energy codes are a standard that contribute to quality building.
Addressing building quality during construction is a good investment and is much less expensive than
improving energy efficiency later on in the life of the building. States should adopt and implement
energy codes and consumers should not accept anything lower than this minimum standard in their
homes or businesses.

Alabama
ALABAMA

Alabama currently has a non‐mandatory commercial and
residential energy code. Alabama is a home rule state.
Therefore, local municipalities have the authority to adopt
policies that they feel best fit the needs of their
communities. Meaningful adoption and enforcement can
only occur at the local level. A detrimental consequence of
this system is that the State does not have mandatory
statewide energy codes. Alabama does however have the
2009 IECC in place as a mandatory code for all state
buildings. The Alabama Building Commission is responsible
for revising and updating this State Building Code. Alabama
does not have an automatic code review cycle in place and
in order to update the code the State Legislature must
initiate the process.

Alabama received a zero (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes
category for both the stringency of the code as well as the state of enforcement. It ranked last in the
country and in the Southeast along with Mississippi, indicating a serious need to improve in all areas of
the energy code.

Alabama is the thirteenth largest energy producer in the United States making energy production a very
important sector of the economy. Energy codes will reduce the energy demand within the state.
Reduced consumption will enable Alabama to decrease dependency on other states and eventually will
enable it to export unneeded energy. Alabama is currently a net energy importer, producing only
eighteen percent of the energy needed. The state has the eleventh highest per capita consumption of
energy in the United States due to the need for air‐conditioning in very hot summers and the common
use of electric heaters in the winter months. The high per capita consumption also has a larger impact
on the state given the low per capita income of residents, ranking 42nd in the country. In states where
energy production is a very important sector of the economy, energy efficiency is often seen as a threat
to this industry. In reality, reducing energy consumption and lowering per capita energy consumption
can have very positive effects on both the residents and businesses in Alabama as well as bring Alabama
closer to being self‐sufficient.

In 2009, Alabama received $55.6 million in State Energy Program (SEP) funding from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funding in order to improve energy efficiency in the
state. As a stipulation of accepting this funding, a state is required to adopt an energy code that is
equivalent to the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007. In addition, the state must implement a
plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Alabama Governor Bob Riley sent a
Alabama
letter of assurance to DOE stating that he would request that the State Legislature consider taking
actions to improve the building energy code in accordance with the Recovery Act requirements.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Alabama’s
energy code. BCAP calculates that if Alabama began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐
2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $143 million annually by
2020 and $287 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices). Additionally,
implementing the 2009 IECC would help avoid about 42.2 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) of primary
annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 2.96 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030.

DOE Estimated Energy and Cost Savings – Residential
Residential Savings ($/yr) Savings (%)
Climate Zone 2A (Mobile) 173 15
Climate Zone 3A (Montgomery) 237 19

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $173 or 15 percent in climate zone two and $237
or 19 percent in climate zone three, if Alabama adopts the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis
estimates that the average incremental cost of adopting the 2009 IECC in Alabama is only $668.76 per
home with a simple payback period of 3.26 years. Average energy savings per home would total $205
per year across the state.

DOE Estimated Energy and Cost Savings – Commercial
Non‐Residential Energy Savings (%) Cost Savings (%)
Climate Zone 2A (Mobile) 8.2 8.4
Climate Zone 3A (Montgomery) 13.6 14.1
Residential High‐Rise
Semi‐Heated

According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Alabama adopts a commercial energy code equivalent
to Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 5.7 to 13.6 percent and cost
savings between 4.2 and 14.1 percent as shown in the chart above (excluding semi‐heated commercial
buildings). DOE defines non‐residential buildings as any mid rise commercial building, residential
buildings as high rise residential buildings and semi‐heated buildings as commercial warehouses. A
commercial energy code will not only reduce energy use, but will increase the competitiveness of
businesses.

Alabama
Current Energy Code Activity

Although Alabama does not currently have a mandatory commercial or residential energy code, the
Alabama Energy and Residential Codes Board was recently created with the goal of adopting mandatory
statewide building codes, including an energy code. There is no mandatory effective date. As of
November 30, 2010, the committee had already met twice and is currently discussing which code to
begin with before amendments are added. The committee will either begin with the 2006 IECC and
amend the code to make it more stringent, or start with the 2009 IECC and make amendments that will
possibly weaken the code. Controversial sections of the 2009 IECC, such as mandatory fire sprinkler
systems in residential buildings, have already been ruled out. This effort has likely been successful to this
point in part because of the efforts of the Home Builders Association of Alabama (HBAA). HBAA assisted
in writing the legislation, jump starting the code adoption process.

Despite the fact that the committee is likely to adopt a code that is somewhat weaker than the 2009
IECC, a mandatory code for the state would be a huge success. This initial code provides the starting
point for future improvement, as the new state legislation requires an update within two years of each
publication of the most recent model energy code. This code committee will need support during the
adoption process; however, once an energy code is adopted, enforcement assistance will be the biggest
need of the state.

Adoption and Enforcement
State Level

There are a number of state‐wide implementation activities currently underway in Alabama to help local
jurisdictions to prepare for the coming code. A Gap Analysis and Implementation Action Kit were
recently completed by BCAP and SEEA, prepared for the Alabama Department of Economic and
Community Affairs (ADECA). These reports outline the biggest needs of the state as well as provide a
plan and resources for implementing a code when adopted. The Implementation Action Kit focuses on
five of the biggest jurisdictions in the state (Huntsville, Birmingham, Auburn, Montgomery and Mobile)
and was delivered in person to each jurisdiction’s building inspection department along with a 2009 IECC
code book. Although the document used the information gathered from these jurisdictions, it is
designed to be used by any location in the state as the needs and obstacles these jurisdictions face are
similar across the state. Alabama was also the recipient of a recent DOE grant for $350,000 to contribute
to enforcement efforts in the state. BCAP and Southface Energy Institute (Southface) will be supporting
these efforts.

To address the lack of training opportunities, ADECA is currently sponsoring energy code and high
performance building workshops administered by Southface in multiple regions of Alabama. Each
workshop is relatively inexpensive requiring a fee of $50 for each of the two high performance building
workshops (with an option of $75 for both), $50 for the residential energy codes workshop and $50 for
the commercial energy codes workshop. This training series will continue through 2011.
Alabama

Alabama was also the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code
adoption, training, and compliance which may enable the state to implement even more enforcement
initiatives in the near future.

Another statewide energy efficient building initiative is the HBAA EnergyKey program developed by
ADECA and Southface. This green home program is administered by HBAA and uses existing energy
benchmarks in its compliance requirements including the 2006 IECC energy chapter in its first tier,
Energy Star in the second tier and an even more advanced compliance checklist in the third tier. The
second and third tiers also require sign off by a third party Home Energy Rater (HERS). Along with energy
requirements, the program includes water and waste reduction requirements in each tier. There are
roughly 77 EnergyKey builders in the state and 16 companies providing HERS ratings. In order to become
an EnergyKey builder, a four to six hour training program must be completed by the builder at a cost of
$100 for HBAA members and $200 for non‐members. The application fee for qualifying homes
depending on the level of achievement is $100‐$300 per home.

Similar to EnergyKey, EarthCraft House provides an additional green homes program available in
Alabama. EarthCraft House is a partnership between Southface and the greater Atlanta Homebuilders
Association that uses a whole home approach to stress the importance of understanding how the
systems of a house work together. The program’s guidelines address energy efficiency, durability, indoor
air quality, resource efficiency, waste management, and water conservation. There is both a new homes
program and a renovations program in which a technical advisor will make recommendations before
improvements are made. There are also programs that address communities and multifamily buildings.
To become an EarthCraft House builder, you must join a local Home Builders Association Chapter, join
the EarthCraft House program, attend a one‐day EarthCraft House training session, attend a design
review and participate in a walk through with EarthCraft House staff. This process costs a total of $825
(which also includes Home Builder Association dues). There are currently eleven companies that employ
EarthCraft House builders.

Although Alabama’s increased focus on energy codes is apparent through the efforts at the state level,
energy efficiency and green building activity are still among the lowest in the country and in the
southeast with only a total of 3,671 Energy Star Homes built and 24 LEED Certified buildings in the state.
While these numbers are low compared to other states, they are higher than neighboring states and
reveal a large increase in activity in recent years. Of the Energy Star Homes built, 59 percent of them
have been built since 2009. Alabama also has the professional capacity to support green and efficient
building with 62 Energy Star builders, 133 registered LEED projects pending as well as the 390 LEED
Accredited Professionals (APs). This existing capacity demonstrates the recent trend towards energy
efficient building as well as an existing infrastructure to assist in energy code enforcement.

Alabama
Local Level

As a home rule state, it is the responsibility of each jurisdiction to adopt and enforce building codes
locally. Although the code that will be recommended by the Alabama Energy and Residential Codes
Board will be mandatory for all jurisdictions to adopt, the obstacles facing building departments in terms
of enforcing building codes will remain.

The lack of funding and capacity in building departments hinders the enforcement process and has been
exacerbated by the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. New single
family housing permits have dropped by 24 percent since 2000 taking away the business of builders
which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Alabama
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000 New
Housing
10,000 Units
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This lack of funding impacts the number of inspectors employed, the time available for plan review and
on‐site inspections as well as the ability to access training and building code books. Since the energy
code is often viewed as the least necessary of building codes, it is the most likely to be left out of the
adoption and enforcement process. Out of the five major jurisdictions visited in Alabama by BCAP and
SEEA, none had adopted any version of the IECC. Auburn was the most advanced of these five with the
2009 International Codes (I‐Codes) with the energy chapter replaced by the 2006 code. Birmingham,
Montgomery, and Huntsville have the 2003 I‐Codes in place, while Mobile enforces the 2000
International Residential Code (IRC) and International Building Code (IBC) (they are in the process of
updating the code to the 2009 IRC and IBC without an energy chapter).

Alabama
The lack of knowledge of and interest in energy codes also stems from the absence of training
requirements at the state level. Although builders must have a certain amount of training, there is
currently no training requirement for code inspectors and therefore no Continuing Education (CEU)
requirements either. Without requirements mandated at the state level, it will be difficult to convince
inspectors to voluntarily attend trainings. An additional issue at the local level is the uncertainty of the
impending decision by the state on the mandatory building codes. Some are looking to update building
codes including the energy code, but they are hesitating to adopt an energy code until the state makes a
final decision on a code. The sooner the state code is finalized, the sooner jurisdictions in Alabama can
prepare for the code.

An additional barrier to enforcement in Alabama is the rural nature of the state. Despite the ability of
many major cities to enforce building structural codes, roughly half of the population is not covered by
any building code at all. Although the impending energy code will be mandatory, the state will still face
difficulties enforcing the codes in rural and unincorporated areas. A mechanism will need to be created
to address this problem and could include municipalities contracting inspections out to county
departments or hiring third party evaluators to conduct the work within a town that is unable to fund an
inspection department.

Alabama has historically lagged behind other states in energy efficiency and green initiatives. There are,
however, some positive indications at the local level which reveals an increase in the understanding of
the importance of reducing energy use. The City of Homewood near Birmingham is the only city in the
state that has adopted the 2009 IECC according to ICC and is making significant efforts to enforce this
code. The city has participated in both residential and commercial trainings offered by Southface in
order to increase the familiarity with both the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐2007. In addition the city is
conducting education and outreach to local contractors.

Another Alabama locality that has had significant success in adopting and enforcing energy codes is
Shelby County. They have adopted all 2009 International Codes (I‐Codes) and provide a successful
strategy of enforcing building codes in rural areas that lack the capacity to provide the service
themselves. Many municipalities contract out to Shelby County which, in turn, provides these
municipalities with all of the services within its own building department. Other positive indications in
the state include seven cities signing on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
and one county that is an ICLEI member (Calhoun County).

Alabama is making a real effort to adopt and enforce a mandatory energy code. The state is
demonstrating this commitment through training and enforcement initiatives as well as engaging a very
diverse stakeholder group to ensure success in the adoption process.

Arkansas
ARKANSAS

The Arkansas Energy Code is equivalent to the 2003 IECC
and ASHRAE 90.1‐2001 and is mandatory for all
commercial and residential buildings. Although the
statewide energy code is outdated, all state buildings and
institutions of higher education must be built to ASHRAE
90.1‐2007 as a part of the Arkansas Sustainable Energy
Efficient Buildings Program. Arkansas does not have an
automatic code review cycle in place. A code change must
first be initiated by the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) and
is then reviewed by all stakeholders affected by the code.
Any changes to the proposed code are then submitted for
a public hearing. After being approved, the proposed
change is reviewed by the AEO and two legislative
committees before the code is updated.

Arkansas received a three (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy
codes category. The state received a two (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a one (out of
two) for the state of enforcement. It ranked 38th in the country and eighth in the Southeast. The state’s
score in the effectiveness of code enforcement dropped by one point from last year’s scorecard. These
results indicate a serious need to improve in all areas of the energy code.

Arkansas is not a large producer of energy. The state is ranked fifth in the Southeast in per capita
consumption of energy and 17th in the nation. This high per capita energy consumption is mainly due to
residents using electric heat for homes and the existence of an energy intensive industrial sector.
Arkansas currently imports 21 percent of the energy consumed from other states. The state and its
residents would benefit greatly from the energy and cost savings that accompany building energy codes.
Currently, low income households spend roughly 14‐16 percent of their income on utility bills. Arkansas
has a lower than average per capita income. The state ranks 46th in the U.S. and has a high percentage of
households below the poverty line. Reducing energy use can have a large impact on residents by greatly
reducing utility bills. More advanced energy codes can have a very positive effect in Arkansas, especially
given the economic benefits to residents and the ability to enable Arkansas to become less dependent
energy imported into the state.

In 2009, the state received $39.4 million in SEP funding from the Recovery Act in order to improve
energy efficiency in the state. As a stipulation of accepting this funding, a state is required to adopt an
energy code that is equivalent to the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐2007. In addition, the state must
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Arkansas Governor Mike
Beebe sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that he would request that the Arkansas General
Arkansas
Assembly consider improving the building energy code but would only “consider the statutory language
contained in ARRA.”

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Arkansas’
energy code. BCAP calculates that if Arkansas began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐
implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 13.1 trillion BTU of primary annual energy
use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 0.92 MMT of CO2 by 2030.

Residential Savings ($/yr) Percent Savings (%)
Climate Zone 3A (Little Rock) 242 15
Climate Zone 4A (Fayetteville) 245 14

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $242 or 15 percent in climate zone three and
$245 or 14 percent in climate zone four if Arkansas adopts the 2009 IECC. BCAP did not conduct an
incremental cost analysis for the state of Arkansas.


Non‐residential Energy Savings (%) Cost Savings (%)

Climate Zone 3A (Little Rock) 4 3.9

Climate Zone 4A (Fayetteville) 3.4 3.2

Climate Zone 3A (Little Rock) 12.4 9.0
Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 3A (Little Rock) 0.6 0.3
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Arkansas adopts a commercial energy code equivalent
to ASHRAE 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 3.4 to 12.4 percent and cost
buildings as high rise residential buildings and semi‐heated as commercial warehouses. A commercial
energy code will not only reduce energy use, but will increase the competitiveness of businesses.

Arkansas’ state energy code is out of date, but there are some indications that the state is looking to
update its energy code. Originally the state was only considering commercial codes, but most recently
discussions have started to trend towards updating both the commercial and residential code.

The Arkansas Economic Development Commission, which houses the AEO, will be submitting legislation
to be filed before December 2010 encouraging the adoption of the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐2007.
Arkansas
The outcome will be determined in Arkansas’ February session. A coalition to support this legislation is
currently being built in a cooperative effort by SEEA and BCAP. The adoption of a commercial code
seems much more likely than a residential. The state believes that a significant amount of education of
builders will be necessary in order to adopt the residential code. An additional difficulty in code
adoption is that the legislature only meets every other year rendering each code update more difficult.
Every session in which the state chooses not to update the energy code makes the current code even
more outdated and harder to improve. Arkansas is a state where both adoption and enforcement
assistance will be needed at the state level.

State Level

There is currently one enforcement initiative underway in Arkansas to assist the state in meeting the
Recovery Act requirements. Arkansas was one of 18 states selected by BCAP to participate in the
Compliance Planning Assistance Program (CPA Program). As a part of this program BCAP will conduct a
gap analysis to assess the current gaps in enforcement and compliance. It will then assist in developing a
plan to meet the federal requirements tailored to the needs at the state and local level. This project is
already under way and a gap analysis is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2010.

Although there are currently no additional efforts at the state level to specifically increase compliance
with energy codes, Arkansas provides an abundance of information including energy saving tips and
information, easily accessible information on the energy code and a number of climate change
mitigation and green building initiatives that will be beneficial when developing the capacity to comply
with the current and future energy code.

In 2007, Governor Beebe established the Governor’s Commission on Global Warming through Act 696 of
the Arkansas General Assembly. The Commission was charged with setting a goal and creating a plan
with recommendations for mitigating the effects of global warming. The Center for Climate Strategies
assisted Arkansas to create the final report completed in October 2008 and includes recommendations
to reduce the energy use in new and existing buildings. In addition, Arkansas is one of the oldest
members of the Clean Cities Coalition (15 years). To ensure that residents, builders and design
professionals know the opportunities and benefits that exist through saving energy, the AEO website
provides a wealth of easy to access information on energy savings, the current energy code, incentives
and upcoming events focused on energy issues.

Although it is apparent that Arkansas’s State Energy Office is making efforts to increase energy efficiency
and green building activity including energy code adoption, the state still lags significantly behind all
other states in the Southeast region. There are currently only 642 Energy Star homes and 33 LEED
Certified Buildings. There is definitely a trend of increased building efficiency, but this trend is not
increasing as quickly as most other states. There are only 83 registered LEED Buildings and only 35
percent of Energy Star homes have been built since 2009. Arkansas also does not have the infrastructure
Arkansas
that many other neighboring states have. There are only 396 LEED APs and 53 qualified Energy Star
builders.
Local Level

Despite the fact that the Arkansas Energy Code is mandatory, it is still difficult to ensure that all
jurisdictions are enforcing and are capable of enforcing the energy code. The lack of funding and
capacity in building departments has hindered the enforcement process of the code. This has been
exacerbated by the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. New single
family housing permits dropped by 23 percent since 2000 taking away the business of builders which in
turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Arkansas
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
New Housing
8,000
Units
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This lack of funding impacts the number of inspectors employed at building departments, the time
available for plan review and on‐site inspections as well as the ability to access training and building
code books. Since the energy code is often viewed as the least necessary of building codes, it is the most
likely to be left out of the adoption and enforcement process.

There is also a lack of training opportunities at both the state and local level. There are no training
requirements for builders or CEUs required in order to maintain a license. To require training would put
more strain on the already struggling home builders. The number of licensed home builders has gone
from 5,000 to 1,700 across the state and mandating training would meet with heavy resistance.

There are, however, certification requirements for inspectors to become licensed. The Arkansas Home
Inspector Registration Board requires home inspectors to register and complete 80 hours of classroom
Arkansas
training. ICC training completion is acceptable as well. In addition, inspectors must complete 14 hours of
board‐approved CEUs annually with a maximum of four hours of online training. The state enables
consumers to locate qualified home inspectors online, increasing the transparency and ensuring quality
control throughout the state. These requirements at the state level will contribute to capacity building
of inspection departments as well as the ability to effectively enforce the energy code.

There are two examples of successful implementation of advanced codes and adoption of codes that are
above the current Arkansas Energy Code. Fayetteville adopted a Municipal Building Standard in 2007.
According to this standard, all new city‐owned facilities greater than 5,000 square feet must achieve a
minimum of LEED Silver certification. The standard also requires all other new construction in the city to
submit a LEED checklist with a permit application. In addition, all new homes are required to display an
energy score‐card. Fayetteville has had success in implementing a creative strategy for enforcing
standards through its ‘Code Ranger’ Program which includes a Code Activity Book, a Code Education
Program and Program Guide. This code compliance program currently does not seem to stress the
energy code but is a resourceful strategy for making compliance with city codes easier and more
understandable using cartoon characters and pictures. In addition to Fayetteville’s efforts, one other city
has adopted a code above the mandatory statewide energy code. According to the ICC’s records, the
City of Lowell is the only city in the state to adopt an energy code above the state code (2006 IECC).

Although we do see some success stories, these are a product of the size of the city and resources of
building departments. It will be a challenge to find approaches to enforce the energy code in
jurisdictions that do not have the resources and funding to develop the necessary capacity.

It is also very difficult to cover rural and unincorporated areas. The ability to address this issue may be
even more difficult than in neighboring states given the lack of third party inspectors residing in
Arkansas. In addition to the low number of green buildings, such as LEED and Energy Star, only nine
companies have Home Energy Raters (HERS)in the state. Green initiatives in the state are also
uncommon. There are only five cities that have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement, and three ICLEI members. This lack of focus on energy efficiency and green
building combined with the poor rating by ACEEE, especially in the enforcement sector, indicates that
Arkansas may be lacking the capacity to effectively enforce the energy code.

Arkansas will need assistance building its infrastructure at the local level as well as support in adopting
an updated energy code especially in the areas of education, training, and incremental cost information
on the commercial side.

Florida
FLORIDA

The 2007 Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building
Construction is currently in effect and is approximately
17 percent more efficient than homes built to the
standards of the 2006 IECC and about 3 percent less
than the 2009 IECC. The Florida Building Commission
(FBC) is responsible for updating the code which is
reviewed every three years.

In addition to historically being on track to adopt a
code that is equivalent to the most recent model
codes, Florida established a state building standard in
2008 that requires all new construction and
renovations of state buildings to be LEED certified or to
follow another green building rating system including Green Globes and the Florida Green Building
Coalition standards. The requirement also extends to all counties, municipalities, school districts, water
management districts, state universities, community colleges, and Florida state courts. In addition, all
new leases of state‐occupied office space must meet Energy Star.

Florida received a 5.5 (out of 7) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes
category. The state received a 4.5 (out of 5) for the stringency of the code and a 1 (out of 2) for the state
of enforcement. It is ranked twelfth in the country and second in the Southeast behind Virginia. The
state’s score in the stringency of code enforcement is indicative of the state’s historically effective code
adoption process. Despite Florida’s leadership in the Southeast for code adoption, the effectiveness of
code enforcement score reveals the need to concentrate resources on compliance in order to gain the
full benefits of the energy code.

Florida is a net importer of energy despite being a relatively large producer of energy. Florida is 27th in
the nation and seventh in the Southeast in total energy production and is the second highest net
electricity producer in the U.S. Florida’s per capita energy consumption ranks 43rd in the country and last
in the Southeast. However, the state only produces 13 percent of the energy it needs. Despite its
relatively low overall per capita consumption, its residential per capita energy consumption is high
because of the need for air‐conditioning and the common use of electric heaters. Given the high per
capita use of energy in the residential sector, continuing to update energy codes and improving
enforcement at each review cycle will continue to lower energy use in the state. Reducing energy use
will enable Florida to lessen its dependence on outside states and will cost effectively lower the utility
bills of many residents.

In 2009, the state received $126 million in SEP funding from the Recovery Act in order to improve
Florida
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Florida Governor Charlie
Crist sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that Florida’s energy code was already substantially
equivalent to the requirements. In addition, he assured that the energy code would be at least 20
percent more stringent than these current standards within eight years. The state also stated that the
code will be 30 percent, 40 percent, and 50 percent more efficient in 2013, 2016, 2019 than the 2007
respectively.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Florida’s
compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if Florida began implementing the 2009 IECC and
Standard 90.1‐2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $256
million annually by 2020 and $499 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices).
Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 65.2 trillion BTU of primary
annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 4.55 MMT of CO2 by 2030.

Unfortunately, because Florida’s energy code is so different from those of the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐
2007, no cost savings estimates for commercial or residential buildings or incremental cost estimates of
building a new home by implementing the 2009 IECC exist from either DOE or BCAP.


Florida traditionally stays on track adopting energy codes that are equivalent to the most recent
standards and are currently on track to adopt a new energy code that includes amendments to bring the
code up to the standards of the 2009 IECC. The public comment period has ended and a hearing will be
held on December 7‐8, 2010 with a final ruling on February 1, 2010

Since Florida tends to have little trouble in the adoption process, efforts in this state should be focused
on supporting the enforcement of the energy code and collaborating with current stakeholders that are
involved currently in this effort.

State Level

Florida already has good enforcement mechanisms in place as well as the capacity in the green and
efficient building sector to achieve substantial compliance with energy codes. Training on the energy
code is the biggest obstacle to enforcement in Florida. The state does not have any training programs in
place currently, though there are indications that there may be efforts in the future to provide more
education. Although there is no training offered through the state, the FBC has an informative and easily
accessible website that contains useful information on the Florida Building Code. Through this site,
anyone can access information on becoming a trainer, registering for a course, finding a trainer, and an
electronic version of the building code. An online resource like this can help builders, professional
Florida
designers, consumers, inspectors and trainers to understand the energy code, making it much more
enforceable. Also assisting in compliance with the code, Florida has developed its own compliance
software. Energy Gauge FlaRes and FlaCom can be used to demonstrate compliance much like DOE’s
COMCheck and REScheck.

Another online educational resource, MyFlorida Green Building, provides information on green building
in Florida to a diverse audience. The website is operated by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), a
research institute of the University of Central Florida that was charged by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs and the Florida Building Commission to create a Green Building Website. Through
this initiative, a Green Buildings Workgroup was established. The group published two documents on
model green building ordinances and a public awareness campaign. The group, formed by the FBC,
consists of local and state officials, building officials, industry representatives and conservation
advocates. This website includes information on developing programs, an incentives database and
multiple resources to increase the understanding of green building and increase the number of
initiatives in this area across the state.

Florida also demonstrates commitment to climate change mitigation. Through three executive orders,
Governor Crist established the Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change, conducted an
emissions inventory, and set emissions reduction goals for the state. The Action Team with assistance
from the Center for Climate Strategies was charged with creating the Florida Energy and Climate Change
Action Plan which was completed on October 15, 2008. It included recommendations to improve the
efficiency of existing residential buildings. In addition, Florida is developing its own cap‐and‐trade
program through the Department of Environmental Protection in order to address the emissions of
electric utilities.

Florida is clearly a leader in energy efficiency and green building efforts in the Southeast. Florida leads
the Southeast in both Energy Star homes, with 24,473 built to date, and LEED certified buildings, with
255 certified in the state. The state also shows a trend towards increased efficiency. Twenty‐four
percent of the Energy Star homes have been built since 2009. In addition, the state has 1,140 registered
LEED projects. There are 304 Energy Star qualified builders, 7,392 LEED APs, and 49 HERS raters in
Florida. The available capacity and infrastructure in the state reveals why enforcement is more
successful than other locations, but also demonstrates the ability to improve.
Local Level

Despite Florida’s current ability to comply with the energy code, it is still difficult to ensure that all
capacity in building departments hinders the enforcement process of energy codes and has been
exacerbated by the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. Florida was
particularly hard hit with new single family housing permits dropping by 77 percent since 2000 taking
away the business of builders which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of
most inspection departments.
Florida
New Housing Units ‐ Florida
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000 New Housing
Units
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Unfortunately, although there are rigorous mandatory training requirement for becoming a licensed
building inspector including the completion of 120 hours of training on all aspects of the building and
mandatory requirements of 14 hours of CEUs every two years, there is no specialization for an energy
inspector. The lack of this specialization does not ensure that there are any training requirements for
enforcing the energy code. Without this requirement, it is difficult to ensure that energy codes remain a
focus of local building departments.

There are training opportunities that local officials and builders can take advantage of in Florida. The
FSEC offers building science training for commercial buildings, residential buildings and energy rating.
The courses are offered via webinar as well as in the classroom in various regions of the state.

Another building code training opportunity can be found through a variety of community colleges. The
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) has partnered with ten technical
institutes, community colleges and local unions to offer training courses to ensure the proper
installation of materials in order to meet building codes and energy codes.

In Florida, jurisdictions cannot adopt any code other than the current Florida Building Code. They may
make amendments, but these amendments may be rejected. Although jurisdictions cannot adopt any
Florida
advanced energy codes, there have been successful cases of implementing green codes at the local
level. There are seven communities that have adopted green codes (Deltona, Gainesville County,
Jacksonville, Broward County, Lake County, Miami‐Dade County, and Tampa). Most of the standards are
based on building publicly‐owned buildings to LEED Certification or other recognized green building
standards. There are also a few incentive‐based programs including reduced permit fees in Deltona,
Gainesville, and Jacksonville.

The ability to address energy code enforcement is made much easier with the strong green building
capacity in the state and the positive outlook on green and efficient building. In addition to local green
building standards, 20 cities and counties are ICLEI members and 75 cities have signed on to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Florida shows a real commitment to advancing
energy codes and appears to have the capacity needed to effectively comply with the energy code.
Florida will likely need the most support creating strategies to enforce or measure compliance with the
energy code.

Georgia
GEORGIA

Georgia currently has the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE
90.1‐2004 in place as a mandatory energy code.
Changes to the code are made through a multi‐
step process. Recommendations to update the
energy code are first sent to the Department of
Community Affairs. These are subsequently
reviewed by a task force made up of diverse
stakeholders. Once the proposal is evaluated, it is
sent to a State Codes Advisory Committee (SCAC)
which will review the proposal and then submit it
for public hearing. Once the proposal is approved
by the SCAC it is included in the next code edition
by the Board of Community Affairs and is finally
approved by the Department of Community Affairs
in a final rulemaking. Although there is no set code update cycle, Georgia traditionally updates
amendments each year and reviews its code upon the publication of new editions of the model energy
code.

On November, 3, 2010, Georgia approved an energy code based on the 2009 IECC with amendments
and ASHRAE 90.1‐2007. The new code will take effect on January 1, 2011.

Georgia is a home rule state making it difficult to ensure compliance with each adopted energy code.
Although the Georgia Energy Code (GEC) is mandatory, enforcement at the local level is not, leaving it
up to local jurisdictions to enforce the state‐wide code.

Georgia received a 4.5 (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes
category. The state received a four (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a 0.5 (out of 2) for the
state of enforcement. It ranked 24th in the country and fourth in the Southeast. The state’s score on the
stringency of the energy code increased by one point since last year’s score card while enforcement
remained the same. The state’s score in the effectiveness of code enforcement is consistent with the
difficulties associated with enforcing energy codes in a home rule state.

Georgia is a net importer of energy, producing only 17 percent of the energy consumed. Georgia is 29th
in the nation and ninth in the Southeast in total energy production and is the ninth largest net electricity
producer in the U.S. Although Georgia’s per capita energy consumption ranks 31st in the country and
ninth in the Southeast, its electricity consumption is among the highest in the nation. Given the large
amount of electricity that is both produced and consumed, continuing to update energy codes and
improving enforcement will lower electricity use in the state enabling Georgia to lessen the gap
between energy production and consumption.
Georgia

implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Georgia Governor Sonny
Perdue sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that Georgia would update its energy code to meet or
exceed the most up to date energy code in both the commercial and residential sectors and will
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance by 2017. He also stated that the compliance plan
would include training and enforcement programs and annual measurements of compliance rates.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Georgia’s
compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if Georgia began implementing the 2009 IECC
and Standard 90.1‐2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $217
Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 63 trillion BTU of primary

Climate Zone 2A (Savannah) 183 15
Climate Zone 3A (Atlanta) 229 16
Climate Zone 4A (Rome) 213 15

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $183 or 15 percent in climate zone two, $229 or
16 percent in climate zone three, and $213 and 15 percent in climate zone four if Georgia adopts and
implements the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis estimates that the average incremental cost of
adopting the 2009 IECC in Georgia is only $675.36 per home with a simple payback period of 3.28 years
and energy savings totaling $206 per home annually across the state.


Climate Zone 2A (Savannah) 1.7 1.6

Climate Zone 3A (Atlanta) 3.4 3.3


Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 4A (Rome) 0.7 0.4
Georgia
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Georgia adopts a commercial energy code equivalent
to Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 1.7 to 5 percent and cost
savings between 1.6 and 3 percent as shown in the chart above (excluding semi‐heated commercial


As noted earlier, on November, 3, 2010, Georgia approved an energy code based on the 2009 IECC with
amendments and ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007. There are several strengthening amendments in the
residential code that include mandatory blower door tests for all residential buildings, a requirement
that is often opposed in other states. The new code will take effect on January 1, 2011.

Georgia’s next code update will likely occur upon the publication of the next version of energy codes.
Since the state tends to stay on track adopting updated codes, the state should focus on efforts to
support the enforcement of the GEC and measuring compliance.

State Level

Despite the difficulties of enforcing the GEC at a local level, there are several mechanisms in place that
support increasing the level of enforcement in the state. Georgia has shown a demonstrated
commitment to achieving 90 percent compliance through both a DOE Energy Codes Compliance Pilot
Study as well as the issuance of an RFP designed to provide activities to increase and monitor
compliance with the Georgia State Energy Code.

Georgia was chosen to participate in DOE’s Energy Code Compliance Pilot study. Through this pilot the
DOE’s Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) funds projects with the objective of determining effective
methods of measuring compliance in states. The results of this pilot will ensure that states have the
capability to meet the Recovery Act requirements. Georgia is responsible for identifying 44 sample new
commercial buildings and determining the compliance rate of these buildings throughout the state. The
buildings will be distributed across size, climate zone, building type, building use, owner, complexity and
county. The ultimate goal of this project is to determine the most effective process to measure energy
code compliance.

The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) recently issued an RFP to support the enforcement
of the GEC. The RFP consists of three phases: 1) training, 2) a compliance study, and 3) a pilot project.
The first phase will address the training needs in the state through multiple commercial and residential
trainings, online resource development and technical college outreach. The second phase will include a
compliance evaluation identical to the current Georgia Compliance Pilot with the inclusion of new and
Georgia
renovated residential buildings and renovated commercial buildings. The third phase is a local building
department pilot project with the objective of evaluating the effectiveness of the department and
supplying recommendations for improvements.

Georgia was the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code adoption,
training, and compliance which may enable the state to implement even more enforcement initiatives in
the near future.

In addition to these state efforts, Southface offers many training opportunities throughout Georgia. The
organization is based in Atlanta and offers trainings in high‐performance building and design and
operation and maintenance, BPI certification training and exams, HERS, LEED, Earth Craft, home
performance, and Energy Star. Although energy code specific training is necessary, all of these courses
are essential in ensuring builders and design professionals understand the importance of efficient
building.

Southface also acts as a third party rater, inspector and offers many more services in the green and
efficient building sector including energy modeling, LEED administration, and building assessments. In
addition, the organization administers the Building America program funded through the DOE which
promotes green and efficient building on a community wide scale. Builders can participate in this
program at no cost and will receive Southface’s expert technical guidance throughout the Southeast.

EarthCraft House provides an additional green homes program available in Georgia, Alabama, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. EarthCraft House is a partnership between Southface and the greater
Atlanta Homebuilders Association that uses a whole home approach to stress the importance of
understanding how the systems of a house work together. The program’s guidelines address energy
efficiency, durability, indoor air quality, resource efficiency, waste management, and water
conservation. There is both a new homes program and a renovations program in which a technical
advisor will make recommendations before improvements are made. There are also programs that
address communities and multifamily buildings. To become an EarthCraft House builder, you must join a
local Home Builders Association Chapter, join the EarthCraft House program, attend a one‐day
EarthCraft House training session, attend a design review and participate in a walk through with
EarthCraft House staff. This process costs a total of $825 (which includes Home Builder Association
dues).

The state of Georgia’s participation in and sponsorship of green building initiatives increase the
effectiveness of available trainings throughout the state. GEFA currently sponsors energy code trainings
through Southface as well as an annual sustainable communities conference, Greenprints Conference
and Trade Show. This conference is co‐hosted by Southface each year and will take place on March 14‐
15, 2011. Another partnership between GEFA and Southface are energy code trainings that address the
ever evolving energy code. Unfortunately, Georgia does not have any training or CEU requirements to
become a licensed building inspector. With certification requirements, the state could increase the
Georgia
effectiveness of training programs throughout the state by requiring inspectors to attend approved
workshops and courses.

Georgia’s apparent commitment to reducing energy use and climate change mitigation also supports
efforts to enforce the energy code by bringing energy efficiency initiatives to the focus of residents,
builders and local governments. Although the state does not have a formal climate action plan, GEFA
houses the Governor’s Energy Challenge which aims to reduce consumption by 15 percent by 2020. The
website gives residents, schools, state and local governments, businesses, and non‐profits the
opportunity to sign up for the challenge and gain tips to saving energy. Georgia also has a state utility
program that provides technical assistance to other Georgia agencies to optimize energy purchases in
state facilities and to promote the most efficient use of energy in both building construction and
renovation.

Georgia is clearly a leader in energy efficiency and green building efforts in the Southeast. There are
10,963 Energy Star homes and 200 LEED certified buildings in Georgia. In addition, the state also shows a
trend towards increased efficiency. Forty‐one percent of the Energy Star homes have been built since
2009. In addition, the state has 565 registered LEED projects. There are 152 Energy Star qualified
builders, 4,199 LEED APs, and 31 companies with HERS raters in the state. The available capacity and
infrastructure in the state reveals that there is a great opportunity to successfully improve enforcement
of the energy code in Georgia.
Local Level

Local jurisdictions’ authority to enforce energy codes is not the only obstacle to ensuring compliance.
The lack of funding and capacity in building departments hinders the enforcement process of energy
codes and has been exacerbated by the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction
starts. Georgia was particularly hard hit with new single family housing permits dropping by 80 percent
since 2000 taking away the business of builders which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a
large portion of most inspection departments.
Georgia
New Housing Units ‐ Georgia
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
New Housing
Units
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This lack of funding impacts the number of inspectors employed at inspection departments, the time

Unfortunately, without statewide certification requirements for building inspector training, the only
incentive to received training will remain at the local level. Local governments will have to take
responsibility for ensuring the proper training of building inspectors in order increase the importance of
efficient building practices.

There are several successful cases of implementing advanced energy codes and green building
ordinances in Georgia. Four cities have adopted green codes that revolve around LEED or EarthCraft
House certification (Athens, Atlanta, Chamblee, and Conyers). Most of the cities do not require buildings
to actually be registered with LEED, avoiding costly fees. Athens Georgia goes a step further to ensure
the efficiency of buildings through the green code. Not only must a building be LEED certified, but the
building must be at least 10 percent more efficient than the standards established in ASHRAE 90.1‐2007.

In addition to local green building standards, four cities and counties are ICLEI members and nine cities
have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Georgia shows a real
commitment to advancing energy codes and appears to have the capacity needed for effective
enforcement.

Georgia
Although green building capacity and sustainable community commitment does not appear to be as high
in Georgia as a few other states in the Southeast such as Florida and North Carolina, the state’s training
infrastructure and professional capacity will greatly benefit any efforts made by Georgia to strengthen
enforcement and compliance with the energy code. As a result of enforcement being determined on the
local level, Georgia will likely need the most support creating strategies to encourage energy code
enforcement and to bring capacity and resources at the state level to local jurisdictions.

Kentucky
KENTUCKY

The 2007 Kentucky Building Code and Kentucky
Residential Code are currently in place as mandatory
codes. The Kentucky Building Code is based on the
2006 IBC with amendments, none of which affect the
energy chapter. The current Kentucky Residential
Code is based on the 2006 IRC with several
amendments that affect the energy chapter. All
Heating, Ventilating and Air‐Conditioning (HVAC)
systems are required to be inspected (including
commercial) and a certificate is required to be posted
on the electrical distribution panel listing important
building features that affect energy performance.
Unfortunately, the insulation requirements in the
residential code are slightly weakened. All local
governments are required to adopt this code, and no other code. The Department of Buildings, Housing,
and Construction enforces the commercial code and the Board of Housing proposed all changes to the
code. Kentucky reviews its code every three year.

Kentucky received a four (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy
codes category. The state received a three (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a one (out of
two) for the state of enforcement. It is ranked 28th in the country and fifth in the Southeast. The state’s
score on the stringency reveals the need to update the energy code. Although Kentucky is more
effective in enforcing the energy code than many other states in the Southeast, the score on
effectiveness of enforcement shows that the state has room for improvement.

Kentucky is a net exporter of energy, using only 65 percent of the energy produced. Kentucky is fifth in
the nation and second in the Southeast in total energy production and is the third largest producer of
coal in the U.S. Despite being one of the largest energy producers in the country, Kentucky is also one of
the biggest consumers in the country. Kentucky has the seventh highest per capita consumption in the
U.S. and the second highest in the Southeast behind Louisiana. In states where energy production is a
very important sector of the economy energy efficiency is often seen as a threat to this industry. In
contrast, reducing energy consumption and lowering per capita energy consumption can have very
positive effects on both the residents of Kentucky as well as the energy production sector.

The per capita income in Kentucky is below the national average, ranking 47th in the U.S. with a higher
than average percentage of people living below the poverty level. Energy codes can substantially reduce
the amount of money that low‐income households spend on utility bills. Low‐income households spend
roughly 14‐16 percent of their income on energy. Reducing the amount of energy used in homes can
greatly benefit these residents. In addition, reducing energy consumption in all sectors enables the state
Kentucky
of Kentucky to export even more energy than it does currently, increasing the capital that flows in from
other states.

implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Kentucky Governor
Steven Beshear sent a letter of assurance to the U.S. DOE stating that Kentucky would update its energy
code to meet the Recovery Act requirements.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Kentucky’s
compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if Kentucky began implementing the 2009 IECC
and Standard 90.1‐2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $28

Climate Zone 4A (Lexington) 336 18

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $336 or 18 percent in Kentucky which is
completely in climate zone four. In addition, a BCAP analysis estimates that the average incremental
cost of adopting the 2009 IECC in Kentucky is only $2,254.31 per home with a simple payback period of
6.71 years and energy savings totaling $336 per home annually across the state.



Climate Zone 4A (Lexington) 5.6 5.1
Climate Zone 4A (Lexington) 10 6.5
Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 4A (Lexington) 0.5 0.3
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Kentucky adopts a commercial energy code equivalent
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 5.6 to 10 percent
and cost savings between 5.1 and 6.5 percent as shown in the chart above (excluding semi‐heated
commercial buildings). DOE defines non‐residential buildings as any mid rise commercial building,
residential buildings as high rise residential buildings and semi‐heated as commercial warehouses. A
businesses.

Kentucky

Kentucky is currently in the process of updating its energy code to ensure it is equivalent with the most
recent model energy codes. The state is still determining if it will adopt the 2009 IECC pending
information gathered.

State Level

Kentucky currently does not currently have many energy code enforcement mechanisms at the state
level. One initiative that will effect code compliance in Kentucky is the BCAP CPA Program. Kentucky was
one of three states in the Southeast selected to participate in this program. Over the next year, BCAP
will create and implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with the most recent code, assuming
Kentucky adopts the 2009 IECC. By December, BCAP will have completed an in depth gap analysis in
order to assess the needs of the state in terms of energy code enforcement and compliance.

Another new energy code enforcement initiative is the Code Ambassadors Project. Kentucky was
recently approved for this training and certification pilot program. The code ambassadors program is a
partnership between BCAP and ICC to train ambassadors or “mentors” at the ICC chapter level to aid in a
state or region’s enforcement of energy codes.

Kentucky was also the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code

Despite the fact that there are the only two substantial enforcement initiatives in the state currently,
Kentucky adopted a high performance building standard in 2005 which was expanded in 2008 and 2009.
The Public Building Energy Standard of 2009 requires all projects with 50 percent or greater funding
from state to achieve LEED certification. Additional requirements are determined by the budget of the
project. For example, projects between $5 and $25 million must earn a minimum of seven points under
the Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1, Optimize Energy Performance Standards. High‐performance
building standards can be difficult to enforce, but the adoption of such standards demonstrates a
commitment to green and efficient building.

Another indication that Kentucky is focused on energy efficiency and conservation is Governor Beshear’s
Energy Plan. Although energy codes are not specifically addressed as a strategy, the first strategy is
energy efficiency. The Governor’s goals consist of setting targets including an energy efficiency resource
standard (EERS) and an energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) and education and outreach including
the Kentucky Energy Efficiency Program for Schools. The Energy Efficiency Program for Schools is a
partnership between the University of Louisville and the Energy and Environmental Cabinet. This
requires all 174 public school districts to be enrolled in the program by 2010.
Kentucky

Another potential resource in Kentucky is the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center (KPCC) which is the
state’s primary resource to help businesses, industries and other organizations develop environmentally
sustainable solutions for improved efficiency. The KPCC is based in the University of Louisville’s School of
Engineering and is a state mandated technical assistance resource center. This established and trusted
resource center serves as an ideal place to build on existing programs that contribute to the same
mission. Expanding this program to include technical assistance in terms of energy code training would
be an efficient vehicle to introduce a new statewide energy code enforcement mechanism.

Another indication of the state’s trend in commitments to efficiency efforts is the state’s intent to create
a climate mitigation strategy. In June 2009, Governor Beshear created the Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet which developed the Kentucky Climate Action Plan Council (KCAPC) in December
2009. Through five working groups, KCAPC will provide recommendations and create an action plan to
address climate change. This plan is scheduled to be completed in December 2010. The Center for
Climate Strategies is assisting KCAPC in their efforts. It is not yet clear if the plan will address improved
energy codes.

Although Kentucky does not lead in efficient building in the Southeast, the state clearly is more
advanced than many of the neighboring states. Currently there are 7,162 Energy Star homes and 30
LEED certified buildings in Kentucky. In addition, the state also shows a trend towards increased
efficiency. Forty percent of the Energy Star homes have been built since 2009. In addition, the state has
121 registered LEED projects. There are 142 Energy Star qualified builders, 756 LEED APs, and 22
companies with HERS raters in the state. The available capacity in Kentucky reveals that there is a great
opportunity to successfully improve enforcement of the energy codes using existing infrastructure.
Local Level

Although there are many obstacles, the lack of funding and capacity in building departments hinders the
enforcement process of energy codes and has been exacerbated by the recession which caused a
detrimental drop in new construction starts. Kentucky was particularly hard hit with new single family
housing permits dropping by 60 percent since 2000 taking away the business of builders which in turn
has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection departments.

Kentucky
New Housing Units ‐ Kentucky
25,000
20,000
15,000
New Housing
10,000 Units
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

likely to be left out of the enforcement process even though it is mandatory across the state.

Fortunately, the state requires training in order to become a licensed building inspector. The Kentucky
Board of Home Inspectors requires every inspector to pass a pre‐licensing training course, have a high
school diploma or General Education Degree, complete a board approved training program and pass a
final exam. In regard to the commercial sector, the Kentucky Certified Building Inspectors Program,
through the Department of Housing, Buildings, and Construction, requires the same requirements as
above plus at least three years of directly related experience in the field of inspection you wish to enter.
In addition to preliminary licensing requirements, home inspectors must renew their license every two
years which requires 14 hours of CEUs from an approved provider (three hours in manufacturing, three
hours in Kentucky laws and regulations, and eight hours in standards and practice). All commercial
building inspectors must complete 12 hours of in class room training from the Department of Housing,
Buildings, and Construction. States that require training decrease the likelihood that energy codes will
be ignored in the enforcement process at the local level.

In Kentucky, each local jurisdiction must adopt the Kentucky code, and no other. This type of rule
fortunately does not allow any jurisdiction to enforce a weaker code, but also does not allow for the
adoption of advanced or ‘stretch’ codes. Since no jurisdiction may go above code, it is difficult to identify
individual success stories in the state. There are various cities that engage in green initiatives and are
Kentucky
clearly committed to sustainability. There are four cities and counties that are members of ICLEI and six
cities that have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Kentucky does show a commitment to adopting and enforcing the most recent energy codes upon
publication. The state still needs to increase the effectiveness of the energy code by strengthening
enforcement efforts. Kentucky has the capacity to engage in more effective enforcement activities, but
will likely need assistance in order to efficiently deploy this capacity to the greatest advantage of the
state and its residents and businesses.

Louisiana
LOUISIANA

The Louisiana State Uniform Construction includes
the 2006 IRC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2004 as a
mandatory energy code. The Louisiana State Uniform
Code Council is responsible for code adoption with a
review process occurring every three years. The most
recent update takes effect on January 1, 2011.

Louisiana is a net exporter of energy using only 56
percent of the energy produced. Louisiana is third in
the nation and first in the Southeast in total energy
production and is the fifth largest producer of crude
oil and sixth largest producer of natural gas in the
U.S. Louisiana is also one of the biggest consumers in
the country. Louisiana has the third highest per capita consumption in the U.S. and the highest in the
Southeast. The high per capita consumption is attributed to the energy intensive industrial sector as
well as the residential sector where there is a high demand for electricity use for air‐conditioning as well
as heaters. In states where energy production is a very important sector of the economy, energy
efficiency is often seen as a threat to this industry. In reality, reducing energy consumption and lowering
per capita energy use can have very positive effects on both the residents and businesses in Louisiana as
well as the energy production sector.

The per capita income in Louisiana is below the national average. It ranks 31st in the nation with a
greater than average percentage of people living below the poverty level. Energy codes can substantially
reduce the amount of money that low‐income households spend on utility bills. Low‐income households
spend roughly 14‐16 percent of their income on energy. Reducing the amount of energy used in homes
can greatly benefit these residents. In addition, reducing energy consumption in all sectors enables the
state of Louisiana to export even more energy than it does currently, increasing the capital that flows in
from other states.

Louisiana received a four (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes
category. The state received a three (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a one (out of two)
for the state of enforcement. It ranked 32nd in the country and sixth in the Southeast. The state’s score
on the stringency reveals the need to adopt a more stringent code that is closer to or equivalent to the
2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐2007. Although the score on effectiveness of enforcement shows that the
state can do a better job enforcing its code, Louisiana received a higher rating in the enforcement
category than in 2009 indicating an increased effort to enforce the energy code.

Louisiana
energy code that is equivalent to the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007. In addition, the state
must implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal sent a letter of assurance to the U.S. DOE stating that Louisiana would update its energy
code to meet the Recovery Act requirements. Unfortunately, Louisiana’s interpretation of this ruling was
that the 2006 IRC was the “most recently published code.” According to Louisiana’s interpretation, the
state is already complying with the Recovery Act Requirements on the residential side.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to adopt the most recent
energy code and improve Louisiana’s compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if Louisiana
began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and
homeowners would save an estimated $67 million annually by 2020 and $135 million annually by 2030
in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices). Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help
avoid about 17 trillion BTU of primary annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 1.2
MMT of CO2 by 2030.

Climate Zone 2A (Baton Rouge) 171 16
Climate Zone 3A (Shreveport) 206 16

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $171 or 16 percent per year in Louisiana in
climate zone two and $206 and 16 percent per year in climate zone three. In addition, a BCAP analysis
estimates that the average incremental cost of adopting the 2009 IECC in Louisiana is only $572.43 per
home with a simple payback period of 3.04 years and energy savings totaling $188.5 per home annually
across the state.



Climate Zone 2A (Baton Rouge) 1.3 1.2

Climate Zone 3A (Shreveport) 7.6 7.5

Semi‐Heated
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Louisiana adopts a commercial energy code equivalent
to Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 1.3 to 7.6 percent and cost

Louisiana

Louisiana recently updated its code to the 2009 IRC with the 2006 IRC energy chapter and ASHRAE
Standard 90.1‐2004 with an effective date of January 1, 2011. Although the code update originally was
intended to include the 2009 IRC energy chapter, Chapter 11 was removed in the final meeting of the
code council. Although there are significant obstacles in the adoption of a more advanced residential
code, the state believes that the adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2007 is likely with a hopeful
effective date of July, 1 2011. The fate of residential energy code adoption greatly relies on the make‐up
of the State Uniform Construction Code Council members.

State Level

The Facility Planning and Control Section of the Division of Administration ensures compliance of state‐
owned facilities and the State Fire Marshall has the authority to enforce commercial codes in Louisiana.
All other enforcement is handled at the local level. Louisiana requires all home inspectors to participate
in 90 hours in classroom training, have 30 hours of pre‐training and attend ten inspections before
attaining a license. All of the information on the licensing process is very easy to access online. In
addition, Louisiana has an online plan tracking system for those waiting for commercial plans to be
reviewed by the State Fire Marshall’s office.

One very important initiative at the state level is the development of a database to measure compliance.
The project is in its early stages with the RFP for the development of the software just released recently.
Given the lack of authority to enforce the residential code as well as the obstacles in adopting the 2009
energy code, Louisiana is focusing its efforts on helping the state to comply with the current energy
code. The development and deployment of the compliance database will be the biggest challenge the
state will face in the next few years. Following the development of the software, the state will create a
strategy for measuring state compliance and inputting collected data into the system. Only a few years
ago Louisiana did not have a mandatory energy code. Given how recently Louisiana had no energy code
in place, the successful enforcement of the 2006 IRC will be a huge accomplishment in the state.

Despite the difficulty of deploying enforcement initiatives at the state level, Louisiana has made efforts
to support efficient and green building. In 2007, the state adopted a high performance building
standard, Louisiana’s Green Building Policy, mandating that all major facilities must be designed,
constructed, and certified to exceed the requirements of the state energy code by at least thirty
percent. Such improvements must also prove to be cost effective based on a life cycle cost analysis with
a payback of no more than thirty years. The size of the project will gradually decrease in order to include
a greater number of buildings over time. On January 1, 2011 the building scaling will reach its final phase
to include all projects larger than 5,000 square feet.

Louisiana
The efficient building practices in Louisiana indicate that there is the infrastructure necessary to
effectively enforce the energy code. Currently there are 9,906 Energy Star homes and 13 LEED certified
buildings in Louisiana. These numbers are high compared to many neighboring states, but Louisiana
does not show the sharp increase in these numbers that many of the other Southeastern states are
seeing. Only three percent of the Energy Star homes were built since 2009 and there are only 121
registered LEED projects. Louisiana does have the capacity available to support green and efficient
building with 24 Energy Star qualified builders and 431 LEED APs. This available capacity and
infrastructure in the state indicates that there is a great opportunity to successfully improve
enforcement of the energy code in Louisiana.
Local Level

Residential enforcement occurs at the local level. The lack of funding in building departments hinders
the enforcement process of energy codes and has been exacerbated by the recession which caused a
detrimental drop in new construction starts. Although Louisiana did not see a large a drop in
construction, as compared with other neighboring states, new single family housing permits still
dropped by 15 percent since 2000 and since the industry’s peak in 2006 has dropped by 56 percent
taking away the business of builders which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion
of most inspection departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Louisiana
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000 New Housing
Units
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

likely to be left out of the enforcement process even though it is mandatory across the state.
Louisiana

An added difficulty to the lack of funding leading to insufficient manpower is the rural nature of the
state. It is much easier for bigger cities and areas in south Louisiana to enforce the code because of
funding as well as the hard felt consequences of Hurricane Katrina. Enforcing the energy code in
northern rural Louisiana will be a challenge and one that will probably be met with the use of third party
enforcement of the energy code. Both the mandatory training for inspectors at the state level along with
the impact felt by Hurricane Katrina has decreased the likelihood that energy codes will be ignored in
the enforcement process at the local level.

One effort that is giving inspectors and builders exposure to energy code enforcement in the field is the
product of a partnership between Louisiana State University and a neighborhood developer. In one
development, three buildings were left partially complete in different stages of construction. These
buildings can now be used to train inspectors and builders in the field on elements of the energy code
and building science techniques. The three homes will be left open for about a year and a half. If the
program is successful there is a possibility that it will be continued.

Since residential code enforcement occurs at the local level in Louisiana, every jurisdiction must enforce
the statewide code, but also has the option to adopt a more advanced code. According to the ICC, there
are currently no jurisdictions that have adopted any code above the 2006 IECC, and there is only one city
that is a member of ICLEI (New Orleans) and only five cities that have signed onto the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Although success stories are scarce at the local level because of enforcement challenges, there have
been a few initiatives that demonstrate the affordability of building a home to a more advanced energy
code. For example, Project Home Again, a not‐for‐profit created by the Leonard and Louise Riggio
Foundation, is building affordable housing in New Orleans that are roughly 42 percent more efficient
than homes built to the 2006 IECC. To achieve this level of energy savings the team integrated DOE’s
Building America upgrades in the production of the homes. Building America is an industry driven
research program sponsored by DOE to guide the residential building industry to improve the efficiency
and quality of homes by using a whole home approach that includes advanced framing, efficient
windows, and integrated envelope sealing packages. The first project involved building 20 homes in
Gentilly and was completed in April 2009. Now, more than 40 efficient homes have been built after the
successes of the initial project. Each home is given to qualifying families who lost homes or were not
fully compensated based on income qualifications. The income levels range from $57,450 for a two
person family to $83,250 for a six member family.

Another extremely successful initiative to rebuild New Orleans with affordable green building practices
was headed by the Make It Right Foundation founded by Brad Pitt. The organization’s goal is to build
150 green weather resistant homes in the hard hit lower 9th Ward by December 2010. The
neighborhood is designed to be the greenest most technologically advanced community in the country
and it is hoped that this project will advance the discussion and information available to spur more
developments like this.
Louisiana

Louisiana will need to both update its energy code as well as work to improve the existing enforcement
infrastructure. The most assistance in the coming years will be needed in assisting the state in leveraging
existing enforcement mechanisms as well as providing guidance in best practices on measuring state
compliance.

Mississippi
MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi’s energy code is outdated, with the last
update occurring in 1980. The state is a home rule state
with meaningful adoption and enforcement occurring
only at the local level. A detrimental consequence of
this system is that enforcement of an energy code is
difficult when it is not mandatory at the local level. The
adoption of a statewide mandatory energy code must
proceed through the state legislature.

Mississippi received a zero (out of seven) on ACEEE’s
2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes
category for both the stringency of the code as well as
the state of enforcement. It ranked last in the country and in the Southeast along with Alabama,
indicating a serious need to improve in all areas of the energy code.

Mississippi is the 12th largest producer of crude oil and the 19th largest producer of natural gas in the
United States. Energy codes will reduce the energy demand within the state. In states where energy
production is a very important sector of the economy, energy efficiency is often seen as a threat to this
industry. But Mississippi still does not produce enough energy to meet the demands of the state. By
reducing consumption, Mississippi will be able to decrease dependency on energy produced by other
states and eventually begin exporting unneeded energy. Mississippi is currently a net energy importer,
producing 65 percent of the energy needed by the state. Mississippi has the 16th highest per capita
consumption of energy in the United States due to the need for air‐conditioning during the very hot
summer months and the common use of electric heaters in the winter. High per capita consumption also
has a larger impact on the state given the low per capita income of residents, ranking 50th in the
country. Updating the energy code in conjunction with the state’s increased focus on alternative energy,
particularly through the use of biomass, can both reduce the high per capita residential energy use and
bring Mississippi closer to being self‐sufficient and eventually eliminate the need to purchase energy
from outside of the state.

In 2009, Mississippi received $40.4 million in SEP funding from the Recovery Act in order to improve
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Mississippi Governor
Haley Barbour sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that he would request that the State Legislature
consider taking actions to improve the building energy code in accordance with the Recovery Act
requirements.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Mississippi’s
energy code. BCAP calculates that if Mississippi began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐
Mississippi
implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 22 trillion BTU of primary annual energy
Residential Savings ($/yr) Savings (%)
Climate Zone 2A (Biloxi) 173 15
Climate Zone 3A (Jackson) 250 18

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $173 or 15 percent in climate zone two and $250
or 18 percent in climate zone three if Mississippi adopts the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis
estimates that the average incremental cost of adopting the 2009 IECC in Mississippi is only $646.08 per
home with a simple payback period of 3.05 years and energy savings totaling $211.50 per year across
the state.

Climate Zone 2A (Biloxi) 8.2 8.4
Climate Zone 3A (Jackson) 14 14.5
Climate Zone 3A (Jackson) 6.8 5.0
Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 3A (Jackson) 0.7 0.4
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Mississippi adopts a commercial energy code
equivalent to Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 5.7 to 14 percent
businesses.


There are currently no concrete plans in Mississippi to update the energy code. The Mississippi Building
Codes Council has been in existence for three years through the Mississippi Energy Policy Institute and is
currently charged with code adoption in the state.

Mississippi
State Level

There are currently no enforcement mechanism or implementation efforts in Mississippi. Without an
energy code adopted, the state is left with nothing to enforce. There are, however, training
requirements at the state level in order obtain a home inspector’s license. In order to become a
registered home inspector, 60 hours of training must be completed and 20 hours of CEUs are required
every two years in order to maintain the license. Although there is no energy code training aspect to this
requirement, this could easily be added to the curriculum with the adoption of an energy code.

Mississippi was the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code adoption,
training, and compliance which will enable the state to implement some kind of enforcement initiative
in the near future.

Although there is a clear lack of focus on energy codes, there are increasing efforts at the state level to
promote energy efficiency and green building. On June 10, 2009, Governor Barbour announced the
creation of the Mississippi Energy Policy Institute (MEPI) in order to “promote policies supporting long
term economic growth through reliable and affordable energy.” In addition, the Mississippi
Development Authority Energy Division promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, provides
energy audits for government institutions and commercial buildings, and supports the development of
biomass energy for cogeneration. The Energy Division has a number of programs to aid in promoting
energy efficiency including a Sustainable Communities Program and an Energy Investment Loan
Program. The Energy Division appears to be well positioned to execute code implementation in the
future.

Even with these new efforts, energy efficiency and green building activity are still among the lowest in
the country and the southeast with a total of 2,775 Energy Star Homes built and 13 LEED Certified
buildings in the state. There has been an increase in efficient building recently. While 33 percent of the
Energy Star Homes have been built since 2009 and there are 75 registered LEED projects, the increase is
much smaller than in neighboring states. Mississippi does not have the level of capacity to support
efficient building compared to other states. Mississippi has only 16 Energy Star builders and 275 LEED
APs. Mississippi will not only need support to adopt a code, but will also need assistance in building
capacity in the state.
Local Level

As a home rule state, it is the responsibility of each jurisdiction to adopt and enforce building codes
locally. Even if Mississippi does adopt an energy code, the obstacles facing building departments in
terms of enforcing building codes will remain.

The lack of funding and capacity in building departments hinders the enforcement process greatly and
has been exacerbated by the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. New
Mississippi
single family housing permits have fallen by 38 percent since 2000 taking away the business of builders
which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Mississippi
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000 New Housing
Units
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

This lack of funding impacts the number of inspectors employed at local building departments, the time

The lack of knowledge of and interest in energy codes will remain at the local level unless the state takes
some action to adopt a mandatory energy code. Until then, inconsistency in code adoption and
enforcement across Mississippi will result in confusion and make a builder’s ability to comply with the
code much more difficult. There are several indications at the local level that jurisdictions would benefit
from having a consistent state code. Although not required, there are several jurisdictions that have
adopted an energy code. Three jurisdictions have adopted the 2003 IECC and 19 have adopted the 2003
IBC. These all contain an energy chapter that is well above the current state code. In addition, three
jurisdictions have adopted the 2006 IECC and 12 have adopted the 2006 IBC. (In addition to the
preceding, there are 16 jurisdictions that have the 2003 IRC and the 12 that have the 2006 IRC in place,
but these are not included here because there is no indication that the residential energy chapter was
included in the adoption process.)

An additional barrier to enforcement in Mississippi is the rural nature of the state. Even with a
mandatory code, the state would still face difficulties enforcing the codes in rural and unincorporated
areas. A mechanism will need to be created to address this problem and could include municipalities
Mississippi
contracting inspections out to county departments or hiring third party evaluators to conduct the work
within a town that is unable to fund an inspection department. The state or local jurisdictions would
have to promote these strategies because there are currently only 14 HERS raters in the state, indicating
a lack of available capacity for third party inspections.

Mississippi has historically lagged behind other states in energy efficiency and green initiatives. There
are, however, some positive indications at the local level that reveal an increase in the understanding of
the importance of reducing energy use. The City of Starkville is one jurisdiction in Mississippi that has
adopted a green building standard. The city’s sustainability policy, adopted in 2008, requires all new
municipal buildings or major renovations 3,000 square feet or larger to attain LEED Silver certification.
The city encourages private developers to build LEED Certified buildings as well. Other positive
indications in the state include seven cities signing on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement and one county becoming an ICLEI member (Calhoun County).

Mississippi is the farthest behind all Southeastern states in adopting and enforcing an energy code. In
order to assist the state in adoption of an energy code, education of builders, consumers, and other
stakeholders will be very important. Until all of the stakeholders understand the importance of a
consistent energy code, progress in this state will be difficult.

North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA

The current North Carolina Energy Conservation
Code is based on the 2006 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐
2004 and is a mandatory state code. An amendment
requiring a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of .40
and a requirement preventing the trade off of
envelope requirements for high‐efficiency heating
and cooling equipment adds stringency to the
current code.

Although the state legislature has the final authority
to adopt new codes, the North Carolina State
Building Code Council (SBCC) is responsible for
developing all state codes. The Commissioner of
Insurance has general supervision over the administration and enforcement of the North Carolina state
building code and Engineering Division staff assists the SBCC. Public hearings are conducted quarterly to
consider proposals for the building code. North Carolina generally develops new codes every three
years.

North Carolina received a five (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy
codes category. The state received a four (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a one (out of 2)
for the state of enforcement. It ranked 22th in the country and third in the Southeast. The state’s score
on the stringency of the energy code increased by 0.5 since last year’s score card while enforcement
remained the same. The state’s score indicates that the state is relatively effective in updating its energy
code while room for improvement remains in the enforcement of energy codes.

North Carolina is a net importer of energy, producing only 21 percent of the energy consumed. The state
is one of the top producers of nuclear energy in the U.S., is tenth in the nation in electricity production
and ranks in the top ten states for wind generation capacity. Although North Carolina’s per capita
energy consumption ranks 37th in the country and tenth in the Southeast, its electricity consumption is
very high. Given the large amount of electricity that is both produced and consumed, updating energy
codes and improving enforcement will continue to lower electricity use in the state, enabling North
Carolina to reduce its dependence on outside states and to begin to lessen the gap between energy
production and consumption.

In 2009, the state received $76 million in SEP funding from the Recovery Act in order to improve energy
efficiency in the state. As a stipulation of accepting this funding, a state is required to adopt an energy
code that is equivalent to the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1‐2007. In addition, the state must implement a
plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. North Carolina Governor Beverly
Purdue sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that North Carolina would update its energy code to
North Carolina
meet or exceed the most up to date energy code in both the commercial and residential sectors and will
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance by 2017.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve North Carolina’s
compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if North Carolina began implementing the 2009
IECC and Standard 90.1‐2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated
$221 million annually by 2020 and $443 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices).


Climate Zone 3A (Charlotte) 234 16

Climate Zone 4A (Raleigh) 209 15
Climate Zone 5A (Elkins, WV) 224 13

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $234 or 16 percent in climate zone three, $209 or
15 percent in climate zone four, and $224 and 13 percent in climate zone five if North Carolina adopts
and implements the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis estimates that the average incremental cost
of adopting the 2009 IECC in North Carolina is only $1,718.38 per home with a simple payback period of
7.76 years and energy savings totaling $221.50 per home annually across the state.

Climate Zone 3A (Charlotte) 3.5 3.3
Climate Zone 4A (Raleigh) 3.9 3.7
Climate Zone 5A (Boone) 4.2 3.5
Climate Zone 5A (Boone) 5.3 3
Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 5A (Boone) 0.4 0.3

According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if North Carolina adopts a commercial energy code
equivalent to Standard 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 3.5 to 8.3 percent
and cost savings between 3 and 5.3 percent as shown in the chart above (excluding semi‐heated
businesses.
North Carolina

In 2008, North Carolina received a grant for $500,000 from the U.S. DOE with a requirement that the
state update its energy code to be equivalent to 30 percent above the 2006 IECC. North Carolina also
must improve enforcement with this code through comprehensive training and education.

Although amendments were proposed to the SBCC, on September 14, 2010, the SBCC voted 8‐6 to defer
any action on the adoption of the state’s energy code until 2015. After questions of the validity of the
vote, two more meetings of the SBCC were scheduled. One took place on November 8, 2010 and the
second on November 17, 2010. In the first meeting, public comments were heard on the proposed
energy code followed by discussion by the council. It was clear from the discussion that no compromise
would be made and that many had no intention of a compromise. Even an attempt to pass only the
commercial code, which received no negative public comments, or to fall back and adopt the 2009 IECC
failed.

At the second meeting on November 17, 2010, the SBCC created a compromise in which the new
residential code will be 15 percent more efficient than the 2006 IECC and will include an appendix that
contains the code created to be 30 percent above the 2006 IECC as an optional compliance path. The
commercial code remained at 30 percent above the 2006 IECC but with a delayed effective date of July
14, 2014 and the ability to use the current 2009 NC Energy Code until 2015. These provisions will be
voted on at a meeting on December 14, 2010. The provisions may be approved or changed at the
meeting.

State Level

Despite difficulties reaching a compromise to enable the adoption of the 2012 North Carolina Building
Code, the recent DOE grant provided a multitude of opportunities to increase the effectiveness of
enforcement in the state. Mathis Consulting Company has been providing training workshops across the
state in preparation for the adoption of a more advanced energy code. In addition, the Mathis
Consulting team conducts frequent training seminars for architects, builders, manufacturers, code
officials and others addressing energy and performance issues including improved building energy
efficiency and comfort, energy and power planning, improved building and energy codes, and the
challenges of sustainability and green building. In addition to Mathis Consulting’s training opportunities,
the North Carolina Building Inspector’s Association (NCBIA) offers frequent code training workshops in
multiple locations across the state. The NCBIA was very supportive of the results of the ICC hearings on
the 2012 IECC as well as in promoting state and local officials attendance.

The North Carolina State Energy Office promotes energy efficiency and conservation in buildings by
offering an Energy Management Program, supporting the North Carolina Green Builder Training
North Carolina
Certificate Program, enabling public school improvement, and by creating a guide for conducting an
energy code assessment.

North Carolina was the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code

In addition to North Carolina’s energy code enforcement efforts, the state demonstrates a commitment
to reducing energy use and climate change mitigation which assists in bringing energy efficiency
initiatives to the focus of residents, builders and local governments. In the fall of 1998, North Carolina
Project Green was created for government facilities. This project is meant for sharing of information and
best practices as well as to lead by example. There are numerous case studies from state agencies,
universities, and local government in the areas of energy, water, buildings, waste reduction,
transportation, and procurement. In 2005, the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group
(CAPAG) was formed and charged with creating a report with recommendations for addressing climate
change. The final report was released on October 16, 2007 and includes plans for improving the
efficiency of new and existing buildings.

There is also an initiative in North Carolina to promote green building in the construction of small to
medium‐sized homes. The HealthyBuilt Homes Program is a collaboration between the North Carolina
Solar Center, the State Energy Office, the North Carolina Department of Administration, and local
building professional organizations. The Program helps home builders compete with larger builders in
the growing green building industry. In order for builders to enroll in this program, they must be a
registered general contractor, attend a HealthyBuilt Homes Program training session and pay a fee of
$475 in the first year and $400 each following year. The program also offers other services and
equipment to builders at a lower cost than if each builder acquired them separately.

North Carolina is clearly a leader in energy efficiency and green building efforts in the Southeast. There
are 20,046 Energy Star homes and 163 LEED certified buildings in North Carolina. In addition, the state
shows a trend towards increased efficiency. Forty‐three percent of the Energy Star homes have been
built since 2009 and there are 658 registered LEED projects. There are 724 Energy Star qualified builders,
3,565 LEED APs, 173 HealthyBuilt Homes builders, and 50 companies with HERS raters in the state. The
available capacity and infrastructure in North Carolina reveals that there is a great opportunity to
successfully improve enforcement of the energy code in the state by using existing resources.
Local Level

North Carolina discourages local jurisdictions from adopting more or less stringent codes, although this
requirement does not apply to municipal buildings. This requirement results in the ability to consistently
enforce the energy codes across the state. Despite this consistency, the lack of funding and capacity in
building departments hinders the enforcement process of energy codes and has been exacerbated by
the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. North Carolina was
North Carolina


New Housing Units ‐ North Carolina
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
New Housing
Units
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

likely to be left out of the adoption and enforcement process. Despite the obstacles, local governments
will have to take responsibility for ensuring the proper training of building inspectors in order increase
the importance of efficient building practices.

North Carolina requires that building inspectors complete 100 home inspections or have education and
experience that the board considers to be equivalent to the inspection requirement in order to obtain a
license. As an alternative, an inspector may be a licensed general contractor, an architect, or a
professional engineer. At least twelve hours of approved CEUs must be completed each year. Having
certification requirements at the state level increases the probability that energy codes will be
understood and enforced at the local level.

There are several successful cases of implementing green building ordinances in North Carolina. Three
cities have adopted green codes that revolve around green building rating systems. In Asheville, all new
city‐owned buildings over 5,000 square feet must be built to LEED Gold certification and strive for LEED
Platinum. All new city‐owned buildings under 5,000 square feet must be meet LEED Silver certification.
Similarly, Chapel Hill requires all municipal buildings greater than 5,000 square feet to achieve LEED
North Carolina
Silver certification and retains the right to require certain buildings smaller than 5,000 square feet meet
LEED Silver certification.

Two localities have instituted incentives for green building as well. The City of Asheville waives fees for
building permits and plan reviews for certain renewable energy technologies and green building
certifications for homes and mixed‐use commercial buildings. Qualifying standards and rating systems
include, Energy Star, HealthyBuilt Home Certification, and LEED Certification. Catawba County offers
rebates on permit fees and plan reviews for buildings designed and constructed in accordance with
LEED, NC HealthyBuilt Homes, Energy Star, the National Association of Home Builders' Model Green
Home Building Guidelines, or National Green Building Standard. Buildings can receive a 25 percent
blanket permit fee rebate, not to exceed $500. Catawba County will also rebate 50 percent of fees
related to plan review or express plan review for commercial buildings seeking LEED certification.

building standards, nine cities and counties are ICLEI members, 40 cities have signed on to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and four cities have sustainability plans in place.
North Carolina has the capacity needed to effectively comply with the energy code.

Despite North Carolina’s green building capacity and commitment to sustainability, the commitment
made by the state to update the energy code beyond the national model codes has faltered. North
Carolina will need substantial support from a diverse group of stakeholders as well as consumers that
demand quality building standards in order to gain the necessary support to adopt an advanced energy
code.

South Carolina
SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina currently has the 2006 IECC in place
as the state energy code. Unfortunately,
amendments in the residential portion reduce the
stringency of the code to be equivalent to the 1992
model energy code by allowing homes to meet the
code through four prescriptive R‐values. The South
Carolina Building Codes Council (BCC) is charged
with adopting and amending the statewide building
codes. Adoption of the latest version of the national
model codes is done through the publication of a
notice of intent in the state register, followed by a
comment period and at least one public hearing. A
study committee may be convened to consider
public feedback, and once adopted, the code becomes effective on the first day of January or July. There
is no set code change cycle in South Carolina.

South Carolina received a three (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the
energy codes category. The state received a three (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a zero
(out of two) for the state of enforcement. It ranked 35th in the country and seventh in the Southeast.
South Carolina’s score indicates that the state is in need of updating its energy code as well as initiating
more effective mechanisms to enforce existing energy codes.

South Carolina is a net importer of energy, producing only 38 percent of the energy consumed. South
Carolina ranks sixteenth in net electricity generation in the nation but also has the nineteenth highest
per capita energy consumption in the U.S and sixth in the Southeast. Given the large amount of
electricity that is both produced and consumed, updating energy codes and improving enforcement will
continue to lower electricity use in the state, enabling South Carolina to lessen its dependence on
outside states. South Carolina also has a per capita income that is below the U.S. average ranking 45th in
the nation as well as a higher than average percentage of population below the poverty level. Low‐
income households typically spend 14‐16 percent of their income on utility bills. Reducing energy use
through updated energy codes and effective enforcement will greatly benefit the lower income
residents of South Carolina.

implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. South Carolina Governor
Mark Sanford sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that he would inform the State Legislature that
they must consider improving building energy codes consistent to the Recovery Act requirements.
South Carolina

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve South Carolina’s
compliance with the energy code. BCAP calculates that if South Carolina began implementing the 2009

Climate Zone 3A (Columbia) 207 16

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $207 or 16 percent if South Carolina adopts and
implements the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis estimates that the average incremental cost of
adopting the 2009 IECC in South Carolina is only $692.72 per home with a simple payback period of 3.35
years and energy savings totaling $207 per home annually across the state.

Climate Zone 3A (Columbia) 2.4 2.2
Semi‐Heated
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if South Carolina adopts a commercial energy code
equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1‐2007, commercial buildings can gain energy savings from 2.4 to 6.6 percent
businesses.


South Carolina recently updated its building codes applying the 2009 I‐codes. The update was approved
on March 22, 2010 and includes the 2009 IRC and IBC. Unfortunately, this adoption does not include the
energy chapter. The new building codes will be effective on January 1, 2011 while the 2006 IECC remains
as the energy code.

South Carolina
State Level

Compliance is determined through the building permit and inspection process by local building code
officials and the State Building Commission. The State Building Commissioner enforces the code for all
state buildings and buildings built on state‐owned property. There is currently one enforcement
initiative underway in South Carolina to assist the state in meeting the Recovery Act requirements.
South Carolina was one of 18 states selected by BCAP to participate in the CPA Program. As a part of this
program BCAP will conduct a gap analysis to assess the current gaps in enforcement and compliance and
will then assist in developing a plan to meet the federal requirements tailored to the needs at the state
and local level. This project is already under way and a gap analysis is scheduled to be completed by the
end of 2010.

South Carolina was the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code

Although the BCAP CPA project is the first substantial enforcement effort by South Carolina, the state
has shown a commitment to reducing energy use and mitigating climate change. In 2008, South Carolina
established an energy use reduction goal of one percent annually for five years and a 20 percent
reduction relative to 2000 by July 1, 2020. In addition, all major state facilities must be constructed to
achieve LEED Silver or receive two Globes under the Green Globe rating system. An alternative
compliance path includes a thirty‐year life cycle cost analysis that demonstrates that the building is
designed and constructed to achieve the lowest possible thirty‐year life cycle cost.

In September 2008, the South Carolina Governor accepted recommendations to address climate change.
Energy efficiency of buildings was included among the areas to be addressed. Specifically, goals were
established to ensure that 100% of South Carolina's local governments adopt and fully enforce the 2006
IECC in 2009 and the 2012 IECC in 2015 and ensure that ENERGY STAR‐certified manufactured homes
achieve 25% market penetration for new manufactured homes by 2010 and 75% by 2020.

In addition, EarthCraft House provides a green homes program available in Georgia, Alabama, South
South Carolina
dues).

Despite these green building efforts, energy efficiency and green building activity are still among the
lowest in the Southeast with only a total of 2,861 Energy Star Homes built and 63 LEED Certified
buildings in the state. Although these numbers are lower than in neighboring states, there has been an
increase in efficient building recently. Sixty‐five percent of the Energy Star Homes have been built since
2009 and there are 279 registered LEED projects. In addition, South Carolina clearly has the capacity to
support efficient building with 160 Energy Star builders and 1,115 LEED APs in the state. South Carolina
has the resources to support effective enforcement of the energy code but will need assistance in using
existing capacity to the greatest extent possible.
Local Level

The energy code in South Carolina is mandatory in all jurisdictions and amendments are only allowed
based on geographic or climate‐related reasons. This requirement makes enforcement of the energy
codes across the state more consistent. Despite this consistency, the lack of funding and capacity in
building departments hinders the enforcement process of energy codes and has been exacerbated by
the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. South Carolina was

New Housing Units ‐ South Carolina
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
New
Housing
20,000 Units
10,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

South Carolina
likely to be left out of the adoption and enforcement process. Although difficult to accomplish, local
governments will have to take responsibility for ensuring the proper training of building inspectors in
order increase the importance of efficient building practices.

South Carolina requires that all building inspectors be certified by a nationally recognized entity such as
the ICC. Every two years inspectors must complete 24 hours of CEUs or complete ICC’s license
maintenance program in order to renew the license.

The ability to address energy code enforcement will be much easier with the growing green building
capacity in the state. In addition to state green building efforts, five cities and counties are ICLEI
members and five cities have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement. South Carolina has the capacity needed to effectively comply with the energy code although
more awareness and education is needed at the local level.

Tennessee
TENNESSEE

On October 1, 2010, the 2009 IRC and 2006 IECC
became effective in Tennessee. All local
jurisdictions must adopt an energy code that is
within seven years of the currently adopted energy
code but may also opt out of adoption with a two‐
thirds majority vote. If opting out, the vote must be
completed after each local election. The current
minimum commercial code predates the 1998 IECC
and all state buildings must comply with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1‐2007. Any changes to the state’s
energy code proceed through the state legislature
or the Fire Marshal’s Office. In June 2009, the
Tennessee legislature placed residential energy
codes under the purview of the State Fire Marshall who selects the ICC code editions to be implemented
in the state.

Tennessee received a two (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010 Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy
codes category. The state received a 1.5 (out of five) for the stringency of the code and a one (out of
two) for the state of enforcement. It ranked 44th in the country and ninth in the Southeast. The state’s
score in the effectiveness of code enforcement and stringency of the energy code both rose by 0.5
points from last year’s scorecard. It is important to note that because there is an outdated commercial
code in Tennessee, the total results do not give a good picture of the state of enforcement and
stringency of the code when only looking at the residential energy code. The stringency of the code
(residential) rose one point from 2009 from two to three points. These results indicate a serious need to
adopt a commercial energy code as well as to improve the enforcement capabilities in Tennessee.

Tennessee is not a large producer of energy and is ranked seventh in the Southeast in per capita
consumption of energy and 20th in the nation. Tennessee only produces 21 percent of the energy
consumed by the state. The state and its residents would benefit greatly from the energy and cost
savings that accompany building energy codes. Low income households spend roughly 14‐16 percent of
their income on utility bills. Tennessee has a lower than average per capita income raking 36th in the U.S.
and a high percentage of residents below the poverty line. Updated and well enforced energy codes can
have a very positive effect in Tennessee, especially given the economic benefits that reducing energy
use can have on residents and on a state with a high per capita energy consumption.

implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Tennessee Governor Phil
Tennessee
Bredesen sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that he would request that the State Legislature
consider improving the building energy code to be consistent with the statutory language contained in
the Recovery Act.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Tennessee’s
energy code. BCAP calculates that if Tennessee began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1‐
implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 47.3 trillion BTU of primary annual energy

Climate Zone 3A (Memphis) 242 16
Climate Zone 4A (Nashville) 231 14

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $242 or 16 percent in climate zone three and
$231 or 14 percent in climate zone four if Tennessee adopts the 2009 IECC. (Note that, BCAP did not
conduct and incremental cost analysis for Tennessee.)

Climate Zone 3A (Memphis) 9.2 9.4
Climate Zone 4A (Nashville) 10.7 10.9
Climate Zone 3A (Memphis) 3.4 3
Semi‐Heated
Climate Zone 3A (Memphis) 0.6 0.3

According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Tennessee adopts a commercial energy code
businesses.


There is no formal code cycle in Tennessee and the energy code was last updated with an effective date
of October 1, 2010.
Tennessee

State Level

Although the minimum commercial code is outdated, the Tennessee Fire Prevention Division enforces
the 2006 IBC for all buildings under its purview. This includes all commercial buildings three stories and
above. Beginning in the fall of 2010, the state offered training for local code officials across the state on
the 2006 IECC. Code books are also being provided in jurisdictions in Tennessee in order to educate
officials on the content of the code as well as to promote the adoption and enforcement of the energy
code. The Fire and Codes Academy in Tennessee also offers classes on the IRC and IBC.

Despite the lack of substantial efforts at the state level to specifically increase compliance with energy
codes, Tennessee has shown a commitment to reducing energy use and climate change mitigation
through its policies and programs across the state. In 2008, Governor Bredesen created the Governor's
Task Force on Energy Policy in order to develop strategies to become a leader in developing renewable
energy as well as to address the State's large energy consumption to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions. Part of this program supports education on energy issues for young people across the state
including workshops in schools and curriculum guides.

Another education and efficiency initiative in Tennessee is the Green Schools Program, run by the
Alliance to Save Energy through a TVA program. Green Schools educates students about energy
efficiency and gives them the tools and strategies to reduce the energy use in the schools. Funding for
this program comes from utility companies, municipalities and school systems. There are currently 81
schools in the TVA program, 58 of which are in Tennessee.

dues.)

There are clearly ongoing efforts to increase energy efficiency and green building activity, but Tennessee
still lags behind many states in the Southeast region. There are currently only 2,628 Energy Star homes
and 63 LEED Certified buildings in Tennessee. There has, however, been a trend recently towards an
Tennessee
increase in efficient building. Forty‐one percent of Energy Star homes have been built since 2009. There
is also a growing capacity in the state for efficient building with 110 Energy Star builders and 1,522 LEED
APs. With this existing infrastructure and an increase in enforcement efforts at the state level,
Tennessee could greatly improve the level of compliance with the energy code.
Local Level

Although the Tennessee energy code is mandatory, it is still difficult to ensure that all jurisdictions are
enforcing and are capable of enforcing the energy code. The lack of funding and capacity in building
departments hinders the enforcement of energy codes and has been exacerbated by the recession
which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. New single family housing permits have
dropped by 53 percent since 2000 taking away the business of builders which in turn has reduced the
permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Tennessee
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
New Housing
20,000 Units
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Fortunately, the existence of mandatory training for inspectors at the state level does help to increase
awareness of the energy code across the state. Tennessee requires all building inspectors to complete
90 hours of training and to pass an exam. Inspectors are also required to complete 32 hours of CEUs for
renewal every two years.

Tennessee
In addition to these recent difficulties, jurisdictions in Tennessee are also able to adopt any energy code
that is within seven years of the most recent edition (currently the 2006 IECC). Jurisdictions may also opt
out of an energy code adoption with a vote of 2/3. This vote must be taken after each local election. This
loophole reduces the effectiveness of the energy code adopted by the state.

Tennessee does permit the adoption of more advanced codes in jurisdictions giving cities and counties
the opportunity to gain more energy savings. Two locations have adopted the 2009 IECC as their energy
code (Ashland City and the Town of Pleasant View) and two cities have adopted green codes at the
municipal level. In 2007, Germantown adopted a Smart Code which requires new municipal construction
to earn LEED certification. This applies to municipal buildings in which at least 60 percent of the square
footage is occupied space. Nashville adopted a voluntary green certificate program which offers density
bonus incentives in designated neighborhoods and has a mandatory requirement for municipal
buildings. All public and publicly‐funded buildings of 5,000 square feet or more must be built to LEED
Silver certification. To receive a green certificate, commercial buildings must be LEED Certified and
achieve specific credits within the rating system and residential buildings must be LEED or EarthCraft
Homes certified.

In addition to green building ordinances, there are a number of jurisdictions that already have a code in
place that is more advanced than the state energy code. Although there is no mandatory commercial
energy code in Tennessee, 49 jurisdictions have adopted the 2003 IBC or above. The adoption of the IBC
indicates that there is a commercial energy code in place in these locations. Adopting a mandatory
commercial code would give jurisdictions a model to follow as well as bring a consistent code to the
state. There are also eleven jurisdictions that have adopted the 2006 IECC. Even with the loophole
provided by the state, these locations have chosen to adopt the code indicating that there is interest
and understanding of the energy code at the local level.

The ability to address energy code enforcement will be much easier with the growing green building
capacity in the state. In addition to state green building efforts, six cities and counties are ICLEI
members, six cities have signed on to the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and
there are 22 HERS raters in the state.

Tennessee is in great need of further education on the energy code across the state. With no mandatory
commercial code and many jurisdictions choosing not to adopt up to date residential codes, there are
many lost energy savings opportunities. Education and training will reduce the misunderstandings of the
energy codes as well as enable jurisdictions to better enforce the existing energy codes.

Virginia
VIRGINIA

The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) is
currently based on the 2006 IECC. The Virginia Board of
Housing and Community Development, which is a
Governor appointed board, has authority to adopt
changes to the USBC. There is a public comment
session at the beginning of each meeting to allow the
public to address the board on any issue. The board
generally meets monthly and the code is updated every
three years. Compliance for non‐state buildings is
demonstrated at the local level while the Director of
the Virginia Department of General Services enforces
the energy code in state buildings.

Virginia received a 6.5 (out of seven) on ACEEE’s 2010
Energy Efficiency Scorecard in the energy codes category. The state received a five (out of five) for the
stringency of the code and 1.5 (out of two) for the state of enforcement. It ranked fourth in the country
and first in the Southeast. The state’s score on the stringency of the energy code increased by two
points since 2009. This increase is indicative of the state’s effective code adoption process. Virginia’s
score in code enforcement also reveals the state’s leadership in the Southeast and the country for the
application of enforcement mechanisms.

Virginia is a net importer of energy despite being a large producer of energy. The state is 16th in the
nation and fourth in the Southeast in total energy production and is the 20th highest net electricity
producer in the U.S. Virginia’s per capita energy consumption ranks 28th in the country and eighth in the
Southeast, producing 46 percent of the energy it needs. Given the energy production potential,
continuing to update and enforce energy codes will continue to lower energy use in the state enabling
Virginia to lessen its dependence on outside states. The enforcement of the energy code is also a very
cost effective way to lower the utility bills of residents.

energy efficiency in the state As a stipulation of accepting this funding, a state is required to adopt an
implement a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance with these codes by 2017. Virginia Governor
Timothy Kaine sent a letter of assurance to DOE stating that Virginia was taking actions to update its
building energy code to be consistent with the Recovery Act language.

The requirements of receiving Recovery Act funding are not the only reason to improve Virginia’s
compliance with the energy code. The BCAP calculates that if Virginia began implementing the 2009
Virginia
annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of about 2.2 MMT of CO2 by 2030.

Climate Zone 4A (Richmond) 225 15

DOE estimates an average per home energy savings of $225 or 15 percent in climate zone four if Virginia
adopts the 2009 IECC. In addition, a BCAP analysis estimates that the average incremental cost of
adopting the 2009 IECC in Virginia is only $582.07 per home with a simple payback period of 2.59 years
and energy savings totaling $225 per home annually across the state.

Climate Zone 4A (Richmond) 4.4 4.1
Semi‐Heated
According to a similar study conducted by DOE, if Tennessee adopts a commercial energy code
businesses.


Virginia recently voted to adopt the 2009 IECC as its energy code. The code is effective on March 1, 2011
with a one year phase‐in period during which builders and designers can still use the current USBC
version based on the 2006 IECC. The code does contain one weakening amendment that allows for the
visual inspection of ducts which will make the energy code slightly less effective.

State Level

Virginia already has effective enforcement mechanisms in place as well as the capacity in the green and
efficient building sector to achieve substantial compliance with energy codes. The state has two‐day
energy code trainings planned for 2011 in eight locations for code enforcement officials and is in the
planning stages for a similar training series in 2012 for code officials, designers, builders and contractors.
Virginia
In an effort to work towards the 90 percent compliance mandated by the Recovery Act, compliance
studies will be developed for late 2011 and early 2012.

Virginia was the recipient of a recent grant from DOE for $350,000 targeted at energy code adoption,
training, and compliance which may enable the state to implement even more enforcement initiatives in
the near future.

Virginia shows its commitment to climate change mitigation and green and efficient building through
multiple policies at the state level. In December 2007, Governor Kaine established the Governor’s
Commission on Climate Change which was charged with creating a plan with recommendations for
climate change mitigation. The Commission conducted an emissions inventory, evaluated the potential
impacts of climate change, and identified approaches to mitigation. Using these finding the Commission
completed the Virginia Energy Plan in September 2007 which includes energy independence, education,
and economic development as actions to mitigating the effects of climate change. Virginia also
established a voluntary renewable portfolio goal that encourages utilities to generate 12 percent of
base‐year 2007 sales from renewable sources by 2022.

In 2009, Governor Kaine passed an Executive Order creating the Virginia Greening of State Government.
All state agencies and institutions constructing state‐owned facilities over 5,000 gross square feet in
size, and renovations of such buildings valued at 50 percent of the assessed building value, must be
designed and constructed to be consistent with energy performance standards at least as stringent as
LEED Silver or earn Two Globes through the Green Globes Standard. In addition, agencies and
institutions are instructed to purchase or lease Energy Star‐rated appliances and equipment. The state
encourages the private sector to adopt energy‐efficient building standards by giving preference when
leasing facilities for state use to facilities meeting LEED Silver or earn Two Globes through the Green
Globes standard.

dues).

Virginia’s green and efficient building infrastructure is clear through the number of efficient buildings as
well as the professional building capacity available in the state. 6,593 Energy Star homes and 181 LEED
Virginia
Certified buildings have been built in Virginia. The state has seen an increasing trend in green and
efficient building. Forty‐eight percent of the Energy Star homes have been built since 2009 and there are
781 registered LEED projects. The state has 300 Energy Star qualified builders, 1,035 LEED APs, and 64
HERS raters. The available capacity and infrastructure reveals why enforcement is more successful than
in other states as well as the potential and ability to improve.
Local Level

Despite Virginia’s current ability to comply with the energy code, it is still difficult to ensure that all
capacity in building departments hinders the enforcement of energy codes and has been exacerbated by
the recession which caused a detrimental drop in new construction starts. Virginia was particularly hard
hit with new single family housing permits dropping by 56 percent since 2000 taking away the business
of builders which in turn has reduced the permit fees that fund a large portion of most inspection
departments.

New Housing Units ‐ Virginia
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000 New Housing
Units
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Not only are there numerous training opportunities available throughout the state, there are rigorous
mandatory training requirements for becoming a licensed building inspector. All home inspectors must
complete 120 hours of training on all aspects of the building and pass an exam to become licensed.
Virginia
There is a mandatory requirement of 14 hours of CEUs every two years in order to maintain a license.
State license requirements assist in ensuring that energy codes remain a focus of local building
departments.

The Virginia Building Code Academy, a Statewide Code Training and Certification Program, offers classes
on energy codes at no cost. The basic course is a week‐long and is a prerequisite for the more advanced
classes. In addition, trainings are offered periodically at various locations across Virginia. The program
was established by the Department of Housing and Community Development and is funded by a one
percent levy on building permits.

There are successful cases of implementing green building ordinances. Alexandria, Richmond, and
Fairfax all have green building standards in place that require LEED Certification as the municipal
building code. In 2009, Arlington County established the Green Building Density Incentive Policy for Site
Plans and the Green Building Fund. The Green Building Density Incentive Policy uses the LEED rating
system and the floor to area ratio to promote green building in commercial and high rise residential
buildings. The Green Building Fund is designed to incent building to LEED standards. Those builders that
do not build to LEED certification contribute to the Fund at a rate of $0.045 per square feet. The Fund is
then used to provide education and outreach to developers and the community on green building
issues.

In addition to successes in implementing green building ordinances, a local home builders associations
and code officials are showing tremendous leadership in the support of green and efficient building.
Virginia Code Officials and Home Builders Association won the ICC "Raising the Profile Award" because
of their "Better Building. Safer Homes” campaign. This public‐private partnership’s goal was to ensure
that buildings and communities were as safe and comfortable as possible.

building standards, 12 cities and counties are ICLEI members and nine cities have signed on to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Virginia shows a real commitment to advancing
energy codes and appears to have the capacity needed to effectively comply with the energy code.

References
REFERENCES

ACEEE 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard

Building Energy Codes Program (BECP), Status of State Energy Codes

Building Permits – Annual History by State, U.S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/const/www/permitsindex.html

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE)

ENERGY STAR, New Homes Partner Locator

Galbraith, Kate. “A Mundane Approach to a Vexing Problem.” New York Time. 11/28/10.

Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), LEED Professional Directory

International Code Council (ICC), International Codes ‐ Adoption by Jurisdiction (updated 8/25/10)

LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for Fiscal Year 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Division of Energy Services. June 2009.

RESNET Qualified Home Energy Raters (HERS)

State Energy Profiles, U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/?featureclicked=4&

State Rankings, U. S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_rankings.cfm?keyid=89&orderid=1

U.S. Census Bureau, State Rankings

US Green Building Council (USGBC)
 LEED Certified Project Directory
 Registered LEED Projects

ALABAMA
 Alabama Gap Analysis
 Alabama Implementation Action Kit
 BCAP, State Code Status Page
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Riley
References
 Southface, Alabama Workshop Series
 Stakeholder interviews:
o Andy Meeks, Building Official, Codes Public Safety, Codes Enforcement Division
o Jeffery H. Jenkins, Senior Plans Examiner, Inspection Department, Huntsville
o Jerry Russell, Building Plans Coordinator, City of Montgomery
o Karen Clifton, Energy Division, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
o Katherine Lynn, Director, State of Alabama Building Commission
o Lindsey Carter, Chief Plans Examiner/Inspection Services Supervisor, Shelby County
o Ray Richardson, Environmental Manager, Environmental Services Department, City of
Mobile

ARKANSAS
 Arkansas Home Inspectors Board
 BCAP State Code Status Page
 Fayetteville Arkansas, Code Ranger Program
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Arkansas, Governor, Mike Beebe
 Stakeholder Interview:
o Evan Brown, Building Codes & Emergency Response Coordinator, Arkansas Energy
Economic Development Commission

FLORIDA
 Florida Building Commission
 Florida Solar Energy Center, Building Science Training
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Charlie Crist
 My Florida Green Building
 NAIMA Trainings
o Ann Stanton, Energy Analyst, Florida Department of Community Affairs

GEORGIA
 GEFA, State Energy Program
 Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
 Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA)
 Governor’s Energy Challenge
 Letter of Assurance ‐ Governor Sonny Perdue
o Bill Towson, Project Coordinator, Construction Codes and Industrialized Buildings,
Department of Community Affairs

References
KENTUCKY
 Department of Housing, Buildings, and Construction
 Governor Steve Beshear’s Energy Plan
 Kentucky Climate Action Plan Council
 Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors
 Kentucky Certified Building Inspectors Program
 Letter of Assurance ‐ Governor Steven Beshear

LOUISIANA
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Bobby Jindal
 Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal
 Louisiana State Board of Home Inspectors
 Louisiana State Department of Public Safety, Uniform Construction Code
o Billy Williamson, Technology Assessment Division Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources

MISSISSIPPI
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Haley Barbour
 Mississippi Development Authority, Energy Services
 Mississippi Economic Council, Press Release: Mississippi Energy Policy Institute
 Mississippi Home Inspector Board
 Stakeholder Interviews:
o Brent Bailey, State Alliance Team, 25 x 25
o Marty Milstead, Executive Vice President, Home Builders Association of Mississippi

NORTH CAROLINA
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Beverly Perdue
 Mathis Consulting Company
 North Carolina Building Inspectors Association
 North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group
 North Carolina Code Officials Qualification Board
 North Carolina Healthy Built Homes
 North Carolina Project Green
 North Carolina State Energy Office, Building Programs
 Stakeholder Interviews:
References
o Billy Hinton, Code Consultant, North Carolina Department of Insurance, Engineering
Division
o Chris Mathis, President, Mathis Consulting Company

SOUTH CAROLINA
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Mark Sanford

TENNESSEE
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Phil Bredesen
 Tennessee Department of Commerce, Home Inspector Licensing Program
 Stakeholder Interview
o Patrick Merkel, Chief Counsel for Fire Prevention and Law Enforcement, Department of
Commerce and Insurance

VIRGINIA
 ICC Press Release, Virginia Code Officials, Home Builders Association Earn Code Council 2010
Raising the Profile Award
 Letter of Assurance to DOE ‐ Governor Timothy Kaine
 Virginia Building and Code Officials Association
o Certification Standards
 Virginia Building Code Academy
 Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development


Southeast Regional Energy Codes Needs Assesment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Southeast Regional Energy Codes Needs Assesment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL

particularly hard hit with new single family housing permits dropping by 57 percent since 2000 taking

You might also like