Supporting energy design performance thru code compliance

Editor's Notes

• #2: Bridget = Beginning to Lending Center & Policy section Judy = Lending Center through the IX
• #3: In MN energy savings are based on code as a baseline (to date) Competitive grant process… we were awarded because there was a state compliance analysis that showed 90% compliance, but didn’t look at energy the energy impact of the 10% of requirements that were non-compliant.
• #6: Mention timeline here too (3 year project)
• #7: -touch on each code section -focus on new, most challenging, and most impactful requirements -determined based on interviews with code officials outside of MN & professional interviews inside MN -determined also by potential energy impact (initial analysis)
• #8: -Electrical most noncompliant -electrical and mechanical often are lacking information -many projects to date have not been design build
• #9: -Electrical most noncompliant -electrical and mechanical often are lacking information -many projects to date have not been design build
• #26: -touch on each code section -focus on new, most challenging, and most impactful requirements -determined based on interviews with code officials outside of MN & professional interviews inside MN -determined also by potential energy impact (initial analysis)
• #27: *Step through 1-2 examples?? Economizers are STILL a problem, need them at smaller sizes.; Daylight zone controls; conductor sizer While it looks complex behind the scenes… *Note so many requirements under Mechanical: this section in particular has to account for a greater variety of system type/design, sizing, & exceptions/application (dependent variables) where in the other sections, many requirements are apply more frequently in projects (particularly within a NC and renovation buckets) -Approach 1 participants will have 2 tools -- NC & Reno. -Approach 2 will use feedback forms for city code officials, which will be customized to the project feedback that needs to be shared. *Numbers are from Approach 1 *Cummulatively, the 14% of the code that we are looking at could affect the energy design of our 4 building types between 2.5% and 22%. This depends on many factors, list of which is building use type and mechanical system design.
• #30: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #31: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #32: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #33: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #34: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #35: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #43: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #44: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #45: Some requirements are pushing teams to lean towards performance based paths Ask Russ about his comment here on other things we have learned (ultra low leakage dampers and duct leakage – I feel like we have really only learned stuff about the former thus far) *Economizer: 3 ton and above for IECC, don’t need it until 5 tons for ASHRAE
• #76: *add label column on the left -Targeted approaches: participants, building type & size, need for controls -partner cities -targeting smaller buildings
• #77: -This was code officials in 6 states and 11 cities within those states. -Submission documentation was primary area that was flagged as needing improvement/support *Note, the code officials noted envelope as as large of a problem or larger than mechanical and lighting. This has not been our experience to date, so this may speak to the fact that they are more comfortable or proficient in the building code and envelop space, and less so in mechanical and lighting/electrical – may not have a complete pervue to make this assessment.
• #78: -mention Tier 2 (50% ASHRAE Design Guides) -approach 1: only projects in 7-county metro
• #79: (Describe how the tools provides broad guidelines for early design decisions) Walk through a made up/real scenario of how this part of the tool is helpful *This tool is quite unique for Minnesota (Climate zone, equipment types here, types of buildings being built here/volume trends) Climate specific: envelope, economizer, OA temperature *We have one for New Construction and one for Renovations *Could be created as even more targeted tools, focusing on just one or two building use types, etc.
• #80: (Describe how the tools provides broad guidelines for early design decisions) Walk through a made up/real scenario of how this part of the tool is helpful
• #86: -summer of 2016 meeting (prep for triennial -winter 2017 (after interim report)