Presented by: Keith Lockhart

David J. Harris

Jack Foster, Jr.

Springfield Utility BoardNon-Residential Energy CodeCompliance Program

History

Energy and Conservation Services has provided energy code compliance as a service to the City of Springfield since 1993

SUB submitted a RD&D proposal to review and inspect for Non-Residential Energy Code Compliance

Packing the Torch for SUB

December 20, 2001 – proposal was accepted as a qualified RD&D Measure – eligible for C&RD credit

Purposes of SUB’s Involvement In Energy Code Enforcement In

Springfield, Oregon

Four Program Objectives

SUB’s motivation has been to achieve energy conservation through code compliance Uniform Building Code, Chapter 13, Section 1311.2

Evaluate Level of Code Compliance & Energy Savings 2002-2004 – 1.49 million square feet reviewed & inspected 98% compliance rate 2002-2004 – Savings beyond code exceeds 1.56 million

kWh Personal Interaction Lost Opportunities and Energy Savings

It is a lost opportunity to allow the building of non-compliant commercial space

Captured through SUB Conservation Programs

Process of Energy Code Compliance

Plan Review Process

Site Inspection Process

Results

Status of Forms Submitted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004

Nu

mb

er o

f Pro

jec

ts

Submitted Out-of-date Forms

Forms Did Not Match Plans

Submitted Incomplete or No Forms

Forms First Submitted Passed Review

43%

52%

2%

2%

58%

37%

4%1%

4%

53%

37%

6%

Failed Plan Reviews

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2002 2003 2004

Nu

mb

er o

f Pro

jec

ts

Failed Envelope Review

Failed HVAC Review

Failed Lighting Review

50%

33%

17%

80%

20%

25%

75%

Failed Inspections

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2002 2003 2004

Nu

mb

er o

f Pro

jec

ts

Failed HVAC Inspections

Failed Exterior Lighting Inspections

Failed Lighting InspectionsFailed Envelope Inspections

53%

32%

11%

5%

92%

8%

11%

11%

11%

67%

Failed Inspections for New Construction

0123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

1,0

00

3,0

00

5,0

00

7,0

00

9,0

00

11

,00

0

13

,00

0

17

,50

0

30

,00

0

35

,00

0

40

,00

0

60

,00

0

80

,00

0

12

5,0

00

20

0,0

00

Building Area - Square Feet

Nu

mb

er o

f Pro

jec

ts

Projects with NO Failures

Projects WITH Failures

Failed Inspections for Remodel

0123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

1,0

00

3,0

00

5,0

00

7,0

00

9,0

00

11

,00

0

13

,00

0

17

,50

0

30

,00

0

35

,00

0

40

,00

0

60

,00

0

80

,00

0

12

5,0

00

20

0,0

00

Building Area - Square Feet

Nu

mb

er o

f Pro

jec

ts

Projects with NO Failures

Projects WITH Failures

69

Note: The large number of small projects with no failures is due to small, single

component remodels with few or no energy code compliance issues.

Summary

Utility Support for Energy Code Enforcement

Dedication to continue support for a Non-Residential Energy Code Compliance Program at SUB SUB support strengthened by long term

relationship with government and private entities

Non-Residential Energy Code Compliance is an “unfunded mandate” If fire, life & safety not involved – City

enforcement tenuous at best

SUB CAN NOT DO IT ALONE!

Springfield Utility Board Proposal to RTF

Recognition of Non-Residential Code Enforcement as an eligible conservation measure

RTF recommends that BPA allow utilities to claim costs associated with funding code compliance at the local level which would permit SUB to continue to perform plan review and site inspections to verify code compliance

Thank You!