Dynamic Energy Management Portfolio for City of Seattle

1
Dynamic Energy Management Portfolio for The City
of Seattle
32nd World Energy Engineering Congress

Presenter Notes
Abstract for 2009 World Energy Engineering
Congress (WEEC)

 

Dynamic Energy Management Portfolio for the City
of Seattle

 

The single most important ingredient for
successful implementation and operation of an
energy management program is commitment to the
program by top management. We have that with our
strong commitment from the Mayor of Seattle.
Greg Nickels, the Mayor of Seattle for the last
eight years, has lead the charge for excellent
and responsive City Government and Energy
Conservation Leadership.

 

Without this commitment the series of programs,
recognized as a Portfolio of Energy, would fail
to reach its objectives. All of Seattle
residents are de facto energy managers and are an
important component in ensuring energy
conservation. The citizens of Seattle and Mayor
Nickels work together in finding methods,
implementing programs, getting the word out to
residents and providing encouragement. So the
question is, how did the City of Seattle get here
and where are they going? Currently they lead
the country in the challenge of energy and green
conservation.

 

Seattle City Light's dedication to conservation
received national attention when they announced,
in light of President George W. Bush's decision
to not support the Kyoto Protocol, which they
promised to reach zero net greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. One of the main goals of this
commitment is to achieve the adding of 100
megawatts of capacity, through energy
conservation efforts. This report provides the
details on the inner workings of energy code
development by reviewing Seattles history for
developing their Energy Code, the involvement of
various city departments and the commitment of
Seattles citizens. An additional 100 megawatts
of non-hydro renewable energy within the next 10
years, is only one of the programs in the Mayors
Portfolio of Energy Management goals.

 

By

John Hogan, A.I.A., P.E. Harry Indig, PMP

Senior Code Development Analyst Mechanical
Energy Plan Reviewer

Seattle Department of Planning and Development
(DPD) Seattle DPD

P.O. Box 34019 P.O. Box 34019

Seattle, Washington 98124-4019 Seattle,
Washington 98124-4019

 

2
Seattles Energy Code Timeline 1927 to 2009

Presenter Notes
Seattle Energy Code History

While the first comprehensive Seattle Energy
Code took effect in February 1980,

Seattle has had residential insulation
requirements since 1974 and the first furnace

sizing and duct insulation requirements took
effect in 1927.

A summary of ordinances and key changes are
contained in our paper.





Charge/Goals 1. Achieve The Energy Savings In
Resolution 30280

20 Improvement Over Current Version Of
ASHRAE/IESNA Std. 90.1 For Nonresidential (No
Seattle Residential Changes, Per State Law)

3
Changes With The Nickels AdministrationMayor
s Priorities

• Transportation Get Seattle Moving
• Keep Our Neighborhoods Safe
• Create Jobs and Opportunity for All
• Build Strong Families and Healthy Communities

• Planning Goal To put Seattle on the planning map!

4
The Creation of the Department of Planning and
Development
5
Code Simplification (Commercial Code)
6
SeattlesComprehensive Plan10-year update
7
Permit Process Improvements

• Interdepartmental Coordination

Small, simple projects 88 reviewed in 48
hoursLarge Projects 92 reviewed within 6
weeksMaster Use Permits (MUPs) 85 reviewed
within 120 days
8
DPD Public Relations Client Assistance Memos
(CAMs) Publications and Monthly Newsletter
9
DPD Public Relations Website
10
Man did not weave the web of life he is merely
a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he
does to himself. Chief Seattle
Plan Review of Designs
DCLU 2002 Permit Process (annually) DPD 2005 DPD 2006 DPD 2007 DPD 2008
6,000 Building Permits 6,556
15,000 Electrical Permits 18,476
80,000 Inspections 80,000 116,000
4,600 Code Compliance (cases/year) 4,075 4,445 4,864 5,038
Physical Inspection of Site

Presenter Notes
DPD creates and enforces rules for land use,

construction and housing, including rental
housing,

within the Seattle city limits. DPD also manages

Seattles long-term growth and development.



Our services include

approving permits for construction, change of
use,

mechanical, electrical systems, boilers and signs

inspecting projects that have proper permits

enforcing rules for rental housing, land use,
shorelines,

tenant relocation assistance, just cause
eviction, vacant

buildings and noise

planning Seattles long-range development for
healthy

urban growth

11
Between 2004 and 2007, DPD saw a 61 increase in
permit revenue

• SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY in 2005
• Plan review (number of applications and value)
  - multifamily (new) 284 applications
  235,000,000 - single-family (new) 882
  applications 250,000,000 - commercial
  (new) 104 applications 834,000,000-
  residential (alterations) 3057 applications
  154,000,000- commercial (alterations) 2854
  applications 568,000,000

• The Department of Planning and Development
  strives to make green building standard practice
  in Seattle through
• Education
• Incentives
• Technical Assistance

12
SEATTLES path to SUSTAINABILITY

• Conservation
• Environmental Stewardship
• Growth Management
• Sustainability

• Seattles Comprehensive Plan
• A 20-year Growth Management Plan to accommodate
  Seattles share of expected regional growth
• A set of policies guiding city decision-makers
• A legal requirement of the State of Washington
  Growth Management Act

13
WAs Energy Code Timeline 1977 to 2009
14
Letter from Governor C. O. Gregoire to WA State
Building Code Council

• Part 1 In the 2009 Washington State Building Code
  adoption cycle, revise the WA State Energy Code
  (WSEC) to achieve a 30 reduction in new building
  energy use compared to the 2007 edition of the
  WSEC.

• Part 2 Provide policy direction in the
  development and implementation of a long term
  building energy efficiency and carbon reduction
  strategy. This includes setting targets for
  building energy efficiency and carbon reduction
  through 2030.

Presenter Notes
In the Governors letter I respectfully request
the State Building Code Council (SBCC) move to
implement CAT objection included in



Part 1. To create a future where efficient
buildings are a meaningful portion of the
building population, improved efficiency



standards need to be implemented as soon as
possible. For Washington State, this process
should begin with full consideration of



a 30 improvement in the state energy code during
2009 building code adoption cycle. As you examine
the technical and



economic feasibility of new standards, please
consider those who will occupy these buildings 10
to 20 years from now and adopt



polices that ensure their homes and commercial
buildings will serve them well, as the nation
addresses the climate impacts of



the built environment.

15
Washington State Building Code Council 2009 Code
Change Cycle Washington State Energy Code
Process via TAG

• Code change proposals accepted by the State
  Building Code Council (SBCC) Jan 1 March 1
• Proposals reviewed by a Technical Advisory group
  (TAG)
• TAG recommends approval or disapproval to SBCC
• SBCC votes to move proposals to public hearings
• SBCC votes approval or disapproval following
  hearings

16
State of Washington Rule-Making Process for
Energy Code Development
Cycle of 7 to 276 days through with four
different paths
17
Conservation

• Energy Conservation Drivers
• Oil embargo 1973
• National legislation
• Professional standards
• WPPSS Seattle rejects nuclear power 1979
• Water for Salmon 1980s-90s
• 2000-2001 Energy debacle
• Seattle Strategies for Energy Conservation
• Rate structure
• Incentives
• Market transformation
• Building codes first adopter

18
Conservation Sustainability

• Seattle Energy Code ? LEED Standard
• Building codes lag technology
• Prescriptive vs. performance-based
• Incentives can be development based
• Engineering/architectural capabilities
• LEED Sets high-performance criteria for
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy Atmosphere
• Materials Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality

• Sustainable Building
• In 2000, Seattle was first city to adopt LEEDTM
  as performance standard for City-funded projects.
• Demonstrate commitment to sustainability
• Yield cost savings to City taxpayers
• Provide healthy work environments
• Protect and enhance natural resources

19
Achieving sustainable development

• Facilitating affordable housing

• New growth targets for 2024
• 50,000 households
• 90,000 jobs

20
City Light Energy Conservation Timeline
21
(No Transcript)

Presenter Notes
Seattle City Light is the public utility
providing electrical power to Seattle, Washington
and parts of its metropolitan area, including all
of



Shoreline and Lake Forest Park and parts of
unincorporated King County, Burien, Normandy
Park, Seatac, Renton, and Tukwila. About 740,000
resi



dents are being served by Seattle City Light. 1



For the year 2006, the fuel mix for Seattle City
Light was approximately 89.8 hydroelectric, 4.6
nuclear, 3.5 wind, 1.1 natural gas, 0.9



coal and 0.1 other sources. 2



The utility owns and operates the Skagit River
Hydroelectric Project, a series of three
hydroelectric dams on the Skagit River in
northern



Washington State. The project supplies
approximately 25 percent of Seattles electric
power. The utility also owns and operates the
Boundary



Hydroelectric Project on the Pend Oreille River
which can provide up to approximately 50 of
Seattle's electric power. 3 The remaining power




comes from a mix of sources, including long-term
contracts with the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). 2 According to SCL
Residential



customers currently pay about 6 cents per
kilowatt-hour of electricity. Seattle has the
lowest residential and commercial electrical
rates amongst

22
30 Years of Conservation Services

• Extensive experience working with facilities in
  all sectors commercial, industrial,
  institutional, governmental
• An array of conservation services to meet our
  customers needs
• Work with the simplest to the most complex
  technologies

Services Overview

• Financial Incentives
• Technical Assistance
• Facility Assessment
• Energy Analysis Assistance

• Lighting Design Lab
• Commissioning
• Sustainable Building
• Renewable

Presenter Notes
History



Public responsibility for electrical energy in
Seattle dates to 1890 with creation of the
Department of Lighting and Water Works. In 1902,
Seattle



voters passed a bond issue to develop
hydroelectric power on the Cedar River
(Washington) under the administration of the
Water Department.



Electricity from this development began to serve
Seattle in 1905. A City Charter amendment in 1910
created the Lighting Department. Under the



leadership of Superintendent James D. Ross, the
department developed the Skagit River
Hydroelectric Project, which began supplying
power in



1924. Both public and private power were supplied
to Seattle until 1951 when the City purchased the
private electrical power supply operations,



making the Lighting Department the sole supplier.
The Boundary Project in northern Washington began
operation in 1967 and currently supplies



over half of City Light's power generation.
Approximately ten percent of City Light's income
comes from the sale of surplus energy to
customers in



the Northwest and Southwest. The current name of
the agency was adopted in 1978 when the
Department was reorganized.4

23
Financial Incentives

• Simple Rebates
• Flat per-unit funding amount for
• Exit Signs
• Occupancy Sensors
• Vending Miser
• Cool Rebate
• Steamer
• Hot Food Holder

• Standard Incentives
• Funding for installation of standard energy
  efficient equipment
• Lighting
• HVAC
• Variable Speed Drives
• Motors Drives
• CO Control
• Vertical Transportation

24
Financial Incentives

• Custom Incentives
• Funding for non-standard energy conservation
  measures
• HVAC Controls
• HVAC System Approach
• Compressors
• Fume Hoods
• Refrigeration
• Cooling Towers
• Transformers

• Incentive Summary
• Based on First Year kWh Saving
• Lighting 0.20 / kWh
• Controls 0.17 to 0.23 / kWh
• HVAC 0.17 to 0.23 / kWh
• Building Envelop 0.23 / kWh
• Process Load 0.15 to 0.23 / kWh
• Additional 10 Bonus for Approved Technology

25
Technical Assistance

• Facility Assessments
• Thorough inspection of your facility
• Recommendations for energy conservation and OM
  measures
• Identify measures that qualify for our financial
  incentives

• Energy Analysis Assistance
• Funding for in-depth energy analysis done by a
  consultant of your choice
• Cost benefit analysis

26
Technical Assistance

• Lighting Design Lab
• Consultation
• Training
• Mock-ups
• Library

• Building Commissioning
• For new commercial and industrial construction
  and major remodel projects
• Independent commissioning agent
• 5000-10,000 funding available
• Final Cx Report with energy impacts

27
Spending Pattern 2006Reflects Level of Advance
Beyond Seattle Energy Code
28
2009 State Building Code Council ActionsAdoption
of 2009 model code editions
Month Event /Action Actual or Last Possible Date Comments
January Council Meeting Council Special Meeting File CR 101 Notice of Inquiry Extend code change deadline to April 1 except for Energy code January 8, 2009 January 29 CR101 notice indicates intent to consider adoption of 2009 codes and amendments to the energy code. ICC and IAPMO provide advance copies of the 2009 codes
February TAG meetings begin TAGs meet monthly through July-- 6 meetings each Set dates for Building, Residential, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing TAGs Other subjects include WUI code and Existing/Historic Bldgs. Energy TAG meets 2/13 WUI TAG meets 2/5 2009 IBC, IMC and UPC available to the public by the end of February TAG (except energy) workplan has 3 tasks Review changes between 06-09 Review existing state amendments Review proposed new state amendments
March Council Meeting Deadline for energy code change proposals, March 1st March 12, 2009 2009 IRC and IFC available to the public during month of March Council reviews energy code change proposals, assigns to TAG as appropriate
April April 1 Deadline for proposals to amend model codes TAGs report to Council Committees TAGs set April meetings contingent on need to review new proposals April 1 April 9 Committees review state amendment proposals, assign to TAGs as appropriate
May Committee meetings (TBA) Council Meeting CR 102 Prepared, Filed, as determined by the Council May 6 May 7, 2009 TAGs report out to committees as available TAGs continue work as necessary Council begins to file proposed rules-CR 102-for UPC, IMC
June Committee meetings (TBA) Council Meeting CR 102 Prepared, Filed, as determined by the Council June 10 June 11, 2009 Council continues to file proposed rules-CR 102-for IBC, IRC, IFC, Energy Code (WAC 51-11) and Historic Bldg Code (WAC 51-19)
29
2009 State Building Code Council ActionsAdoption
of 2009 model code editions
Month Event /Action Actual or Last Possible Date Comments
July Committee meetings (TBA) Council Meeting (TBA) July 8 July 9 July 23, 2009, latest date for Council to direct CR102 to be filed Any remaining TAG reports (energy) completed
August (typically, no meeting) File with Code Reviser??s Office (absolute minimum, 34 days prior to first hearing) August 5 closing date to file CR 102 in WSR 09-16 for hearing on or after Sept 8
September, SeaTac Public Hearing September 10
September, Spokane Public Hearing September 17
October Council Meeting, worksession October 15, 2009
November Meeting Final Rule-Making (Vote) November 12, 2009 November 30, 2009, last day for Council to adopt final rules Adopted Rules Filed with Code Reviser prior to 2010 legislative session
RCW 19.27.074 Requirement Statutory Deadline for Rule-Making ??All decisions to adopt or amend?? December 1, 2009 Codes not effective until after 2010 legislative session Effective date traditionally July 1
30
New Table of R and U values per their individual
applications
Glazing Area Glazing U-Factor 1,10 of Floor Glazing U-Factor Glazing U-Factor Door 9 U-Factor Ceiling2 Vaulted Ceiling3 Wall12 Above Grade Wall int4 Below Grade Wall Floor5 ext4 Below Grade Slab6 on Grade
Vertical Overhead11
13 0.34 0.50 0.20 R-49 or R-38 adv R-38 R-21 R-10 R-30 R-10 2
25 0.32 0.50 0.20 R-38 adv or R-49 R-38 R-21 R-10 R-30 R-10 2
Unlimited 0.30 0.50 0.20 R-49 or R-38 adv R-38 R-15 R-21 R-10 R-30 R-10 2
31
State of Washington Energy Code 2009 Technical
Advisory Group (TAG)
At the table, left to right Joe Andre, Mike
Fowler, Kristyn Clayton, Treasa Sweek, Javad
Maadanian Back row, left to right Chuck
Murray, Chris Whitmyre, Jim McDougal, Gary
Nordeen, Luke Howard, Jeff Harris, John Hogan
Stan Price, Pete Held, Laura Feinstein, Harry
Indig, Kraig Stevenson, and Krista Braaksma

Presenter Notes
!!EDIT!!



ICC Code Development

Any interested individual or group may submit a
code change proposal and participate in the
proceedings in which it and all other proposals
are considered. This open debate and broad
participation before a committee comprised of
representatives from across the construction
industry, including code regulators and
construction industry representatives, ensures a
consensus of the construction community in the
decision-making process. A major advantage of
ICCs consensus-based private-sector code
development process is that it allows both the
ICC code development committees and eligible
voting members at the code change hearings to
participate in establishing the results of each
proposal. Voting members may either ratify the
committees recommendation or make their own
recommendation. The results of all votes are
published in the report of the ICC code
development hearings.

Eligible voting members review the
recommendations of the ICC code development
committee and determine the final action.
Following consideration of all public comments,
each proposal is individually balloted by the
eligible voters. The final action on the
proposals in based on the aggregate count of all
votes cast. This important process ensures that
the International Codes will reflect the latest
technical advances and address the concerns of
those throughout the industry in a fair and
equitable manner. Please visit our codes page.

32
Washington State Building Code Council 2009 Code
Change Cycle Washington State Energy Code
Scorecard

• Initially 172 Code change proposals
• 97 proposals were approved during 18 TAG meetings
  held within the State of WA
• 30 Disapproved
• 42 withdrawn by proponent
• Chapter 19.27A - Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
• Energy Code Act Energy related building
  standards

Presenter Notes
Washington Class A cities may choose to exceed
the state code for non-residential buildings
mandatory statewide. Seattle has implemented a
code that exceeds ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 by 20.

33
New Measures for 2010 Energy Code

• Duct testing for new HVAC systems (already
  approved)
• Duct testing for replaced HVAC Systems
• Strip heat lockout for heat pumps
• Air leakage testing
• 50 high efficacy lamps

34
Credits-minimum 2 credits required

• High Efficiency HVAC Credit
• 0.92 AFUE or 8.5 HSPF 1
• GSHP minimum COP-3.3 2
• DHP 1
• All ducts inside 1
• 3 envelope options 0.5-2
• Air leakage control and efficient ventilation
  0.5
• Additional air leakage control and efficient
  ventilation 1
• Efficient water heating 0.5
• High efficient/solar water heating 1.5
• Small dwelling unit lt1500 ft2 1
• Large dwelling unit gt5000 ft2 -1
• PV/Wind 0.5-3

35
US DOE Legislative History 1977 to 2009
15 Cycles of Legislative Action
The residential and commercial buildings sectors
are the largest consumers of energy throughout
the U.S.

Presenter Notes
Energy Conservation and Production Act (42
U.S.C. 6831 et seq..) as amended



Amended by EPAct 1992 Major Restructuring

P.L. 102-486, Energy Policy Act (EPAct)
(1992)Addressed energy efficiency, renewable
energy, energy conservation, and energy
management, as well as building codes, equipment
efficiency standards, and alternative fuels and
electric vehicles for transportation fleets.

Amended by EPAct 2005 Enhanced Federal Code and
State Enforcement

P.L. 109-58, Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) (2005)Created a research and development
program for energy efficiency and renewable
energy, and other energy sources, and provided
tax incentives for energy efficiency improvements
to homes and commercial buildings, among other
purposes. Authorized loan guarantees for
innovative technologies that avoid greenhouse
gases.

Proposed FY 2007 Amendments HR 3221

P.L. 110-140, Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (EISA) (2007)Established and
modified tax incentives for residential
consumers, businesses, utilities, and government
entities to invest in energy efficiency and
renewable energy improvements to their homes and
commercial buildings. Invested in activities to
increase the production of clean renewable fuels
protect consumers increase the efficiency of
products, buildings, and vehicles promote
research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and
storage options and improve the energy
performance of the federal government.

36
Commercial Building Codes

• IECC 2006, equivalent or better
• IECC 2003 or equivalent
• IECC 2001 1998 or equivalent
• Older or less stringent than IECC 1998
• No Statewide Code
• Adoption by county/jurisdiction above sate
  mandated minimum

Legislative Mandate Support the upgrading of the
IECC and Standard 90.1 model building energy
codes (ECPA 307) DOE and ASHRAE teamed, building
the foundation to achieve 30 savings in new
commercial buildings by 2010.
37
Standing Standard Project Committee 90.1 (SSPC
90.1) Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings

Presenter Notes
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and
Air-Conditioning Engineers

This group publishes the ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1
standard for energy conservation, along with
numerous other standards and guidelines.

38
Residential Building Codes

• IECC 2006, equivalent or better
• IECC 2003 or equivalent
• IECC 2001 1998 or equivalent
• Older or less stringent than IECC 1998
• No Statewide Code
• Adoption by county/jurisdiction above sate
  mandated minimum

DOE is working to improve the IECC 30 by 2012
39
Model Energy Code inputs to Energy Code Timeline


Presenter Notes
Model Code Groups



The State Building Code Council adopts several
National Model Codes by reference and amends them
to form the State Building Code. The Council also
participates at the national level with the
organizations that publish the Model Codes. For
more information on the national process, see the
organizational links below.



Origin



The International Code Council (ICC) was
established in 1994 as a nonprofit organization
dedicated to developing a single set of
comprehensive and coordinated national model
construction codes. The founders of the ICC are
Building Officials and Code Administrators
International, Inc. (BOCA), International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and
Southern Building Code Congress International,
Inc. (SBCCI). Since the early part of the last
century, these nonprofit organizations developed
the three separate sets of model codes used
throughout the United States. Although regional
code development has been effective and
responsive to our countrys needs, the time came
for a single set of codes. The nations three
model code groups responded by creating the
International Code Council and by developing
codes without regional limitations the
International Codes.



40
Priority Green Permitting
Priority Green Permitting
City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development
GREEN SEATTLE INITIATIVE Design Elements Max. pts. Project pts. Submittals Submittals
Describe how the proposal design supports the Citys Green Seattle Initiative select elements to be used in the proposal and detail others you will include. Describe how the proposal design supports the Citys Green Seattle Initiative select elements to be used in the proposal and detail others you will include. Describe how the proposal design supports the Citys Green Seattle Initiative select elements to be used in the proposal and detail others you will include. When What
GS-1 Green Roof 50 or more green roof coverage of all roof surfaces 1 1 DR/MUP Indicate on drawings
GS-2 Urban Forest Min initial 4 caliper trees that provide shade, habitat, or fruit/nut value, providing coverage of 25 of total project land area within five years of occupancy (which can include abutting ROW). This will contribute to the Citys goal of 30 Urban Forest Cover 2 DR/MUP Indicate on drawings
GS-3 - Seattle Green Factor Provide minimum coverage of 0.4 for commercial zones and 0.8 for multi-family zones 1 1 DR/MUP Indicate on drawings. Submit Green Factor worksheet
GS-O Other innovative design elements Provide proposal for alternative strategies equivalent or greater in performance than, but not duplicating, the above 1

Presenter Notes
Washington Class A cities may choose to exceed
the state code for non-residential buildings
mandatory statewide. Seattle has implemented a
code that exceeds ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 by 20.

41
Priority Green Permitting
City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development
Seattle green building standard practice in
Seattle through education, technical assistance
and incentives

• Priority Green Permitting is Seattles green
  permitting service a collaborative effort with
  City Green Building and DPD operations
• The pilot program was designed with the City
  Green Building Team to operationalize their work
  in supporting and encouraging sustainable
  development in Seattle
• The program is structured around the Mayors
  Green Building initiatives, including the 2030
  Challenge for energy efficient buildings as a
  foundational element

42
Priority Green Permitting
City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development
City of Seattle Incentives Assistance

• Seattle City Light
• Renewable Energy Production Incentive annual
  incentive payment 
• Seattle Public Utilities
• Resource-Efficient Clothes Washer Rebate  
• Multifamily new construction incentives
• Water efficient irrigation incentives Rebates
• Seattle Green Building
• Incentives - financial and code-based incentive
  packages for your project, and a referral service
  to utility conservation programs
• Technical Assistance design team coaching,
  assistance with code barriers, design
  charrettes, and integrated design process
  referrals to resources
• Seattle Priority Green
• Green building permitting services for highly
  innovative projects.

43
Priority Green Permitting
City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development
Major Objectives

• To encourage innovative proposals that support
  the Mayors environmental agenda and serve as
  visible models of high performance and
  sustainable development
• To facilitate rather than expedite permitting for
  projects that meet criteria thresholds for green
  building in Seattle

Key Program Elements to Support Objectives

• Define Seattle Green with the Green Building
  Matrix based on the Citys environmental
  priorities.
• Provide a project facilitator for applicants
  demonstrating commitment to innovative, high
  performance, projects that exceed current codes
  and standards
• Pilot Projects receive priority land use and
  building permit review
• Priority Green Permit Team works as an
  interdisciplinary team of reviewers with
  technical assistance from City Green Building

44
ENERGY and CLIMATE PROTECTION
45
Back Up Slides
46
DPDPublic RelationsHome Improvement
Workshops,Landslide Workshops
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL
50
WAs Energy Code Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
2009
In March of 2005, the State Building Code
Council of Washington requested that the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Energy Codes
conduct a comparison of the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) and the International
Residential Code (IRC) with the Washington State
Energy Code to assess the feasibility of adopting
the IECC in the 2006 Code change cycle. Other
building codes have been making the transition
from state codes to the international codes and
the Council felt that it was time to repeat this
exercise, which was originally undertaken in
1999. The TAG began the process in April of 2005,
and preliminary findings were available by the
end of September. This report summarizes this
effort and makes a recommendation as to the
options that the Council could pursue as a
result. The options which are recommended were
selected out of five considered and are three
distinct but ultimately integrated approaches.
The first path would be to maintain status quo
with the WSEC the second path is the start
changing the WSEC to more resemble the IECC, and
the third is to adopt the current IRC for
low-rise residential but keep the non-residential
code for high-rise and multi-family dwellings.
All three options will basically keep the WSEC
intact and functioning as normal until some
future date that amendments could be adopted to
render the two distinct codes more similar and
therefore reducing the impact of a major code
change or revision.
51
(No Transcript)