Date: October 12, 2001
Location: SeaTac Radisson Hotel
Council Members Present: Jim Lewis, Council Chair; Dave Saunders; Stan Price; Dale Shafer; Steve Nuttall; Sue Alden; Bill Misocky; Dave Baker; Chris Endresen; Rick Ford; John Fulginiti; Terry Poe, Senator Jim Horn
Council Members Absent: Rory Calhoun, Bill Edwardson
Visitors Present: Fred Volkers, Tony Baca, Jerry Barbera, Jim Bowman, Ray Zimmerman, Liz Klumpp, Larry Andrews, Hugh Matheson, Dave Cantrell, Alice Blado, Brian Stimson, Nancy Hirsh, Terri Hotvedt, Donovan Quebedeaux, Bob Eugene, Charles de Montigny, Janet Hansen, Art Hansen, Angela Forster, Larry Stevens, Dave Morse, Frank Mellas, Jon Simpen, Mike Martin, Kraig Stevenson, Bob Eastwood, Jerry Farley, Mike Becker, John McDonald, Rick Jensen, Mark Greenberg, John Ford, John Hogan, Dan Sexton, James Gray, Michael Casey, Larry Fritts, Chuck Eberdt, Jeff Hansell, Ron Gregory, Ty Wavde, Dennis Trester, Jeff Sloan, Lindsy Hubby, Tom Nuehauer, Bill Disney, Victoria Lincoln, Chuck Murray, David Baylon, Patrick Hayes, Brian Minnich, Nathaniel E. Dotson
Staff Present: Tim Nogler, Judy Darst, Al Rhoades, Krista Braaksma, Sue Mathers, Patti Thorn
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Jim Lewis, Council Chair, at 1:00 p.m. Everyone was welcomed and introductions were made.
REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA
The revised agenda was reviewed and approved as written.
REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
The minutes of the September 14, 2001, meeting were reviewed. Sue Alden noted that in the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 16, the word "cable" should be changed to "CABO". The minutes were approved as amended.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
Jim Lewis called the Public Hearing to order at 1:07 p.m. Jim asked Tim Nogler to give a brief update of the process.
Tim noted that the Council is considering whether or not to update to the 2000 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, with state amendments. The Council is also considering changes to the residential and nonresidential energy code, as well as changes to WAC 51-04, Policies and Procedures, on the issue of reconsideration. Tim stated that written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. October 12, 2001. Tim noted that a packet of written testimony received to date was distributed today. A complete written testimony packet, as well as a transcript of the verbal testimony, will be in the November meeting packet. The Council will hold a work session on November 9, 2001 to go over all relevant material. The Council will reach a final decision on proposed code changes later that same day at a full Council meeting. Tim reiterated that any rule-making done by the Council has to be completed by December 1 and then sit through a legislative session before going into effect.
Dave Baker asked when the work session packets would be mailed out. Tim stated that the mailing date for the November 9 meeting is scheduled for October 24. Stan Price asked when the effective date of these code changes would be, if approved. Tim noted that the effective date needs to be determined by the Council as part of their deliberation process. He stated that historically the effective date has been July 1, but earlier dates have been set depending on circumstances.
Plumbing Code
Fred Volkers
Chairman Lewis and State Building Code Council, my name is Fred Volkers. I have been involved in the plumbing industry as a plumber since 1965. I have been a Washington State certified journeyman plumber for over 25 years. I have been an instructor in the apprenticeship program for Local 32 for 20 years. I am the current chapter chairman of the northwest chapter of IAPMO, promulgators of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC). I am the alternate for Sid Cavenaugh on the IAPMO plumbing code technical committee. I am an IAPMO certified plumbing inspector working as a plumbing inspector in the state of Washington. I am an ICBO certified combo dwelling inspector. I have served as a SBCC plumbing TAG member in the past and I am a concerned citizen.
I would like to remind the Council of its duty to adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code by reference as required in RCW 19.27. I would also like to remind the Council that it has asked for, and received, input from the plumbing industry on which code they wish to use in this state.
It is my opinion that there is no technical reason not to adopt the 2000 UPC. The only possible reason I see would be to allow for legislation that would make it possible to adopt the "International" Plumbing Code. It is my opinion that the charge recently given to the Council and its newly appointed members by the Honorable Governor Gary Locke compels you to move forward with the adoption of the 2000 UPC. I have followed the SBCC actions on the plumbing code for many years. I was very interested when I read the SBCC minutes of July 13, 2001, and realized that the SBCC had entered into rule-making and could possibly be moving forward to adopt the 2000 UPC. Then it struck me, this was probably the same feeling that Yogi Berra had when he said, "this is just like deja vu all over again." In other words, most of us have been here and seen this before. In fact, this is the path the SBCC had indicated they were taking in 1993 when they failed to adopt the 1994 UPC, then again last year, when they entered into rule-making and failed to adopt the 2000 UPC. As a matter of fact, when I testified at last year’s October hearing, I thought that the SBCC would proceed as they said they were and at this time we would be using the 2000 UPC.
The reason I was so sure that the Council would adopt the 2000 UPC was that the overwhelming testimony given was in support of adoption. I would like to remind the Council that the testimony given at last year’s hearings should still be considered valid—along with the 592 letters received by the Council from Washington State plumbers. I would like to remind the Council and inform the new members that the refusal by the Council to adopt the 2000 UPC was not consistent with its published intentions. By filing the CR 102 last year, the Council convinced the industry that it intended to adopt the 2000 UPC. By not adopting the 2000 UPC, the Council ignored what the industry that uses this code everyday wanted.
The Mechanical Contractor’s Association, the Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors and union and non-union plumbers alike all overwhelming support moving forward with the 2000 UPC.
At this time I would like to quote from the SBCC minutes of November 17, 2000. The following statements were made at this meeting. Stan Price stated, "Our lack of consistency in our process in not adopting the 2000 UPC will seriously jeopardize our support in order to be successful at the Legislature to achieve the study bill. In the absence of that, we will end up in the worst of all worlds. Which is, the perpetuation of this particular crisis that we’re in today on into the future." Look around, the crisis is still here—you’re in the middle of it. Stan Price, also at the November 17, 2000 meeting, stated, "We have consistently signaled, through a couple of different votes, that in fact we would entertain code change proposals to a variety of codes. The base code that we articulated to our interested parties and to the public was the 2000 UPC." The industry tentatively believed that the SBCC would adopt—that was a mistake.
Bill Misocky stated that, "He still has not heard any solid, technical reasons why not to move forward with the 2000 UPC." He was right. After reading, and re-reading, the minutes of numerous SBCC meetings, there is not stated technical reason for not adopting the 2000 UPC.
At this time I would like to echo the opinions of Larry Andrews, Kraig Stevenson, and Richard Dixon who testified at the last SBCC meeting in Spokane on September 14, 2001. They testified in support of the adoption of the 2000 UPC. The 2000 UPC is truly the only international plumbing code. The UPC has been adopted, or been the basis for adoption by 30 states and numerous cities. It has also been adopted by the countries of Vietnam, several kingdoms within Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Columbia, Taiwan, and the Philippines. It is also in use by the federal government on many foreign projects. It is a code developed by, and supported by, the plumbing industry. The UPC has protected the health of the citizens of the State of Washington since it was first adopted in 1973 as a statewide code. After working with the UPC for over 25 years and after downloading and reading the comparison study by engineers Edward Saltzberg and J. Richard Wagner comparing the 2000 UPC to the 2000 IPC, I am convinced the 2000 UPC is a superior document.
I know that at this time the question is whether or not to adopt the 2000 UPC or stay with the 1997 UPC. In my opinion, to stay with the 1997 UPC will be putting the plumbing inspectors in this state in the same turmoil that they were in when the 1994 UPC was not adopted. We will be trying to educate the industry again through correction notices and handouts. The plumbing industry has over and over again told this Council through petitions, letters and phone calls, that they support the latest edition of the UPC and that it is the document they wish to have adopted.
Sue Alden expressed concern in the November 17, 2000, meeting that the plumbing industry has consistently said they don’t like change and that by asking for the adoption of the 2000 UPC the industry was making an about face. Sue, the plumbing industry has not said it does not like change. What the industry has said is that it does not like, and does not want, wholesale change to an inferior code. The 2000 UPC has evolved with the support of the plumbing industry. The changes have always been incremental, not wholesale. A review of testimony by Richard Dixon in Spokane on September 14, 2001, supports what I have just said.
In conclusion, I would like the Council to consider the fact that the loudest voice for not adopting the 2000 UPC is not the voice of the industry that works with it every day. In fact, I think that more plumbers would be here except that they need to work in order to support their families. I myself, have taken vacation time to be here today to urge you to proceed with the adoption of the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code. Do not disappoint us they way last year’s SBCC did. Thank you.
Jerry Barbera
Good afternoon. I wish to speak against two items. Number one, the proposed Appendix M to the UPC 2000 edition. But I also want to say a few words about the 2000 code itself. I handed out a letter with some enclosures to them for your reading. The article by David Cantrell explains, from his unique perspective, what he’s seen in both the ICC and the IAPMO process.
I spoke about this last year when Chapter 15, which has to do with fire stop penetration methods and procedures, was proposed to be used and adopted by the adoption of the code. It still is a flawed item. I’ve seen that they tried to go through and make some changes to it by referring to certain codes and so forth; however, it’s missing the point. Through penetration fire stops does not belong in a plumbing code. It belongs in the building code. If there’s a problem with plumbing, there’s going to be problems with electrical, there’s going to be problems with duct work and other things that require through penetration fire stops. There is no reason that it should be in there.
The proposal violates four of the pieces of requirements that you’re supposed to be looking for in codes and should be eliminated for that reason alone. Read through the inspection procedure that it requires. The inspector and the contractor go around cutting through the fire prevention material to see if it’s okay. That’s crazy! You’re ruining the material and then they go one after the other after the other, it gets repaired and then presumably it starts over again. It’s not clear if the building inspector or the plumbing inspector does that. It’s very flawed and should not be adopted at all. Please do not adopt it no matter what else you do.
Relative to the 2000 UPC, I don’t really find any significant life safety issues in this code that are different than the 1997 code. I’ve read through the material, including the revised comparison document to see what is said and they are referring to Chapter 6 for revised sizing. I’ve looked through the fixture unit table and I see very minor changes to that particular item. The point was made that you can go through the engineering design requirements in Appendix A and L. I read that as already being in the 1997 code and I have actually used that to help in certain designs in the past.
I think you need to know that since 1993 the IAPMO organization has not been operating under any particular sanctioned type of a code development process. When you read Mr. Cantrell’s article, he says, in essence, that it is his belief that when the 2003 UPC comes out it will be technically the same as the International Code. Isn’t that kind of interesting. They’ve had to revise their process to be in the American National Standard type of process, which has controls on it and voilá what do they produce, but the International Plumbing Code. You should take that into account. The 2003 document then will make this comparison that was done in 1997 backwards actually. It’s the UPC that is different from the IPC rather than the other way around. Please keep that into account, despite the length of it, because it went line-by-line practically. This is meaningless relative to the 2003 UPC. It should not be used for anything in comparison this year, at all.
In short, I am asking that you do not adopt the appendix no matter what, and that you think about changing to the UPC in 2003 when it will be under some sanctioned way of getting it done under control so that no one industry or organization has overwhelming influence into the process.
Bill Misocky
I have a follow-up question on the written material. I was looking over the written statement that you provided the Council and you had a comment in here that the comparison document that I did on the UPC and IPC is largely bogus. Could you tell me which one your specifically referring to?
Jerry Barbera
I’m referring to the larger document and it’s not your document, I agree. This one is largely incorrect now. I agree with you, it’s not your document. It was the document of the Plumbing TAG.
Bob Eugene
Bob Eugene on behalf of Underwriter’s Laboratories, Inc. Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, I’m here to speak on two issues that I want to bring to your attention again. I think I brought both of these issues to your attention when you were considering filing the CR 102 and I feel I need to reiterate those. First, in Table 14-1 in Chapter 14 which is the reference standards, I had indicated in July that there were a number of UL Standards that were outdated standards and I sent a list to staff to update those. I thought those were going to be filed as part of the actual filed CR 102 but those did not get incorporated, so again, I would ask that in your deliberations next month that you correct the dates and the minor title modifications to the UL Standards that were identified in Table 14-1.
The second item I want to address very much tags onto what Mr. Barbera just dealt with and that’s Appendix Chapter M. Jerry took most of the thunder of what I was going to say, so I’m going to abbreviate what was said. Last year to half of this Council Jerry indicated a number of technical flaws in that particular—what it proposed to be an Appendix Chapter, last year it was Chapter 15. Those flaws include references to codes that are not included in the RCW 19.27.031 as the reference codes, such as NFPA 101, such as some of the model codes promulgated by other model code organizations that are no longer being published, similar to the UBC no longer being published. I really want to agree with Mr. Barbera that the through penetration fire stop issues really need to be dealt with in one code so that you don’t have the conflicts amongst the family of codes that you’re adopting. You’ve already got it included in the Washington State Building Code, it does not need to be here in the plumbing code. I would strongly encourage you to not adopt Appendix M and eliminate all references to the fire stop penetration for DWB and storm water applications. The other reason you really want to do this is because it’s incomplete. If you’re really dealing with penetrations, you need to be dealing with potable water penetrations, process water penetrations, med gas penetrations—by adopting this portion, it gives the plumber the implication that the only penetrations that need to be worried about are the DWB penetrations and the storm water penetrations and not the others. So, I would strongly encourage you to not adopt Appendix M. It does not take anything out of the process that you’re going through, in that Appendix Chapters are only mandatory if specifically adopted locally, so all you’re doing is eliminating a tool to create a conflict by not adopting Appendix M.
Bob Eastwood
Good afternoon, thank you for letting me speak on behalf of The Group, the Western Washington Cross Connection Prevention Professionals. We’re about 175 members of cross connection professionals scattered from Vancouver, Washington to Everett, Washington. We are in support of the amendments related to cross connection and we wanted to have an opportunity to speak to the Council to let you know we support the selected items. I have a letter I would like to submit. The cooperation and the enforcement of cross connection between the water purveyors and the SBCC seems to get the message out between the plumbers and the water utilities. Briefly I want to let you know we support those comments.
Larry Fritts
Mr. Chair and Council members, my name is Larry Fritts. Thank you for the opportunity. I am not coming before you to say that we need you to adopt the 2000 UPC because it’s a better code. The plumbing industry has already tried to convince the Council of this for the last six years that I’ve been active in the code adoption process and, to my knowledge, four or five years prior to that. You’ve heard the testimony from all parties on why their code is better. You’ve heard the arguments that we need a family of codes and that one code is more restrictive than the other. We’ve also heard that one code is more user friendly than the other. This Council has even had representatives of the UPC and IPC code groups present to this Council on how they adopt their code changes and how their organizations operate.
I come before this Council to say let’s move on. If it’s the desire of the Council no take the plumbing industry’s recommendation and adopt the 2000 UPC, then take it before the legislators and let them make the call. For the last ten years or more, special interest groups have kept the plumbing code an issue. Why? I’m not aware of any other state that has adopted a family of codes published by ICBO that includes their plumbing code. No state has adopted a family of codes and we should take special interest to note that right now, because of the plumber certification reciprocal agreements we have with surrounding northwestern states, how this will impact us if we adopt another code.
Why does the Council indirectly continue their support for these groups with efforts to change the WAC language that lists the IAPMO UPC. Is it to compare the two codes? This has already been done. Not only by the Plumbing TAG, but you’ve received prior testimony for the last 10 years or more. In my opinion, the Council has the necessary information to make a decision on adoption of the 2000 UPC.
Any further delays compound the problem. Yesterday I was informed that building officials in the City of Lacey are saying that a large project in their jurisdiction will be built using the ICBO codes which includes the International Plumbing Code (IPC). Even though I’ve not been able to confirm this to be true or not, the mere thought that a local jurisdiction would implement a code not acknowledged by the state, or by this Council, has me very concerned. If there is truth, does this mean that in the future I will have to obtain several local plumbing certifications in order to do my work? One can only hope not. Let’s move forward, not backward. My recommendation to this Council is to adopt the 2000 UPC and let’s move on. If the Council truly feels the IPC is a better code, then please say so and make your position clear. Then we in the plumbing industry can move forward and take our issues up with our elected officials at the state level. Either way, I’m afraid we will be definitely be going backwards. If the Council continues to make their position unclear I can’t believe the Council would allow us to move backward. Please, my recommendation is to move forward. Adopt the 2000 UPC. If you can’t support it, make it clear, let us know so we can move forward. It’s hurting the industry. Thank you.
Larry Stevens
Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, I will be brief. My name is Larry Stevens and I represent the mechanical contractor’s association. We are an association of primarily Western Washington and we do primarily mechanical and plumbing construction—we are contractors. I want to endorse the testimony of Mr. Volkers and Mr. Fritts. We do support the 2000 UPC. I was here last year supporting the same thing. We encourage you to adopt that 2000 UPC. We train our workers to that code, we have been for many, many years. We want to move forward. We do hate to be using outdated codes that we have right now. We appreciate you moving forward with the 2000 UPC.
Larry Andrews
My name is Larry Andrews, Andrews Mechanical. The only thing I want to address is what Jerry said about using existing tables in the book, to come through engineering means to get to the proper fixture values. If our people were engineers we probably wouldn’t have the problem, but our people are plumbers. As plumbers they use the book and tables and we have a hard enough time getting them to use the book properly. That’s why we have to have these tables. Our guys need the tables. The other thing I would like to say is we all support the IAPMO plumbing code and the same thing about the mechanical code. Our industry supports the IAPMO mechanical code.
Mike Becker
My name is Mike Becker, from the Highline Water District, representing a local purveyor and also representing the American Water Works Association (AWWA). I would like to encourage the working between the UPC and the Department of Health and the regulations and cooperation that has been going on. I would like to see that continue. Also, I would like to see the amendments supported. I know that AWWA supports passage of the amendments also. Thank you.
Energy Code
Jeff Hansell
I’m a homebuilder from Mount Vernon. I’m also the past president of the Skagit Island County Builders Association and last year’s legislative chair for the Building Industry Association of Washington.
The energy code changes as proposed will have a devastating effect on affordable housing. We’re already challenged as an industry to provide housing for the general wage-earning public. The median sales price for a new home in Washington currently is at $176,300, while median household income is $41,715. Household income needed to afford the median-price home is at $55,000. That’s a shortfall of over $13,000.
So the intentions here are certainly understandable. Who in their right mind would argue that higher efficiency in terms of energy consumption is a bad thing? Well if it didn’t come at a cost, it wouldn’t be.
I decided it would be important for me to use a real world example, not the figures derived from a table or a computer program. My example is from a home that will be complete and occupied next week in Burlington. This home is a one-story home with 1,632 square feet. I’ve built this home a number of times in the Skagit County market. Currently the walls are built out of 2x4s with an R-13 batt. The ceiling has a blown-in
R-30 rating. The floors are R-19. The windows are vinyl, with a U-value of 0.53.
The new code would require wall insulation of R-21, floors of R-30 and ceilings of R-38. Windows would have to have a U-value of 0.40. Here’s what these changes would cost my homeowner. These are actual bids from Milgard, Dale Insulation and Western Forest Products. The insulation cost increases by $1,020. High-density batts in the crawl space would keep me from changing my floor system from 9-1/2 inches to 11-7/8. I’ll need to change my walls to 2x6 construction, which adds $605 to my lumber cost. On the inside the increase in wall width will add another $215 for wider window trim boards and sheet rock graphs and other things that I’ll have to deal with on that thicker wall. The U-0.40 windows will cost me an additional $293. That’s $2,133 so far. Add on $171 for sales and use tax, $69 for my increased loan costs, $150 of increased real estate commission, an additional $75 in title costs for real estate excise taxes. This brings us to a total increased cost of $2,598. If we add in my builder profit of $2, it rounds it out to $2,600.
And my heating contractor, Refrigeration and Heating Inc for Burlington, ran an energy use analysis on this home with the current codes as installed and for the proposed code changes. This analysis showed an annual savings of only $204. If we factor in a two percent annual inflation for energy costs, it would take between 10 and 11 years for this home to pay for its upgrades. And that’s if you don’t factor in the increased costs on my homeowner’s mortgage.
It just makes no sense to me. Let’s stick with the code as it is. Don’t throw a burden like this at the entry-level buyer.
I’ve talked with a number of custom builders that say they are regularly exceeding the code at the request of their customers. Let the parts of the market that can afford it increase their efficiencies on their own. As consumers become more aware of the importance of energy conservation and demand these features in new homes, builders have naturally met these needs and have built to the market’s desires.
My suggestion is this: Think of the energy savings if we concentrated on upgrading the tens of thousands of existing pre-energy code homes with single-pane, aluminum windows, electric resistance heat and little if any insulation. These tens of thousands of homes are bleeding energy. These homes are typically occupied by those who can least afford to pay for their heat. Let’s stick with the current energy code and upgrade these.
Ron Gregory
My company is Home Associates Builders of Port Ludlow, Washington. I’m current chair of the Legislative Policy Committee for the Builders Industry Association of Washington and very active locally in our building association. Basically I’m a custom builder.
My clients are willing to pay more for energy conservation than most people are. I build high-end homes in a high-end community. I can pass these costs on. As Jeff just mentioned, many of these people are already demanding more than what the code requires.
Here’s the problem. I live in a rural community where there is zero affordable housing. Let me repeat that. In Jefferson County there is zero affordable housing. The only industry that’s growing are people that put skirts on mobile homes. If we want our society to live in mobile homes, we are on the right track with everything from the Growth Management Act to further government regulations that add to the cost.
Here’s the problem in my community. We have many people who come to rural counties to retire. Many of these people are on fixed incomes and, particularly with stock portfolios, 401K plans, they have limited resources. They’d like to get from urban areas. They would like to get into a market -- live in somewhat of a rural environment, feel safer, have trees to look at. And we’d like to be able to afford to build for them.
My company is looking at doing some, what you might consider, entry-level homes in a lower price range, say $160,000. These would be very acceptable and very marketable. But the problem I have is right today I can’t build to that market because of my costs. And I have cheap land costs compared to other parts of the state. So these people are excluded, not necessarily from income, [but] simply because they can’t afford to take on a high mortgage payment when you’re 62 years of age. So we need to consider these people in these rural areas.
There’s another concern that surfaces here. We build these houses so tight now that we obviously have to bring air in. What we have done with energy is we’ve added to poorer air quality. We no longer think that opening windows is the way to bring air into a house. We have to have mechanical this and mechanical that. When I build a house these days, there are more protrusions going out of the walls and ceilings than a porcupine has quills. What I’m afraid of is that as we continue to upgrade, continue to vent more and more, we’re going to end up with poorer and poorer air quality. This isn’t something that as a builder I want to face or something I think -- if you lived in a house that was this tight – you’d want to face either.
There’s a liability issue here for builders; there’s a liability issue for consumers. One of the problems that builders have in this state right now is insurance. Most of the insurance carriers are fleeing. And if you are even a medium sized builder you are going to have a difficult time getting insurance. You might say, "Well, what does this have to do with the energy code?" When you add increased costs, when you limit markets, when these insurers start thinking of their legal requirements and what risks they’re going to be put at, they’re going to do just as they’re now doing in this state, they’re leaving small volume builders and they’re going to increase our rates.
So I would like you to look upon what you’re looking at these days and think of the unintended consequences. It’s very easy to get into a technical discussion. And I have to live with these charts and graphs that you put out. But what I don’t see is an economic analysis. And what is the real benefit? I would ask you to focus then on the benefit, not on the charts.
Dennis Trester
I represent Cardinal Glass Industries. My comments will be brief.
The state of Washington was one of the original leaders in energy code issues. Unfortunately we’re dealing with somewhat of an outdated energy code now. Saving energy has become a nationwide movement. And if you look at states like Texas, where basically no concern has ever been given to saving energy, what they have done, almost overnight, is a very aggressive and very progressive energy code now.
What has been proposed by the TAG is updates in the current code that pretty much puts us on par with other states like Oregon. This will pretty much match what Oregon requires currently.
I think if we as a country are ever interested in energy self-sufficiency, we need to avail ourselves of technologies that are available and reasonably priced. And I think that what has been proposed here is certainly affordable. And I encourage the Council to adopt the changes that have been proposed.
Jeff Sloan
I’m a mechanical engineer. I’m employed by the McKinstry Company in Seattle, Washington. I’m the Design Manager. We have for some time considered ourselves to be the largest consumer of permits in the state of Washington. We do somewhere between $100-150 million worth of work each year, all in compliance with the energy code. I work with 20 engineers in my office. We’re all real familiar with the code, using it in the course of our day-to-day activities.
I was appointed by the local Puget Sound ASHRAE chapter to serve on the Energy Code TAG. While I can’t come here today and speak for the ASHRAE Society, I did help write the economizer language that’s been proposed. And I do support it. I’m going to talk a little bit about that. For those of us on the TAG that were asked to consider improvements to performance of equipment in mechanical systems, it became pretty clear to us that the model codes, particularly ASHRAE Standard 90, have gone about bumping mechanical equipment efficiencies. And this is supported by manufacturers nationwide. This is a great effort. Here in this state you really can’t do much more to assist that.
But the biggest remaining opportunity for us is to look at minimum system performance for projects that do comply with the code. And I’m primarily talking nonresidential systems here.
To begin with, the code doesn’t have to be silent on system selection. Right now a given system can have an airside economizer or a water economizer, or in many cases no economizer at all. And this is brought about by broad loopholes in our Section 1401. For systems that have a humidifier, also Section 1433 has exceptions. There are big differences in the energy performance of these systems. There really isn’t any effective challenge for compliance on projects that go either way.
It’s my observation that the current code exempts systems a little too broadly, permitting systems that don’t take advantage of air economizers. It does seem appropriate however that the code should allow for flexibility on small projects and where air economizers have the highest first cost and the lowest benefit. And this the proposed language does do. Although it does reduce the amount of such systems that are allowed in the building, it does preserve the exceptions where the true conflicts exist between your economizer and the purpose of the system. That’s systems that have special filtration or dehumidification in the supermarket display cases. That’s all still allowed. The exceptions would still be allowed.
The economizer exception that’s frequently claimed for systems that use steam humidification only results from a misapplication of that type humidifier on those projects. So the proposed language would specifically require the types of humidifiers that do support an airside economizer. The big opportunity here, for us here in this state, is to require these new large ones. These are projects which are specifically built facilities, containing many megawatts of computers to provide air economizers for their mechanical systems. These new facilities could represent the largest growing segment of load in urban areas. And so the practice has been that the vast majority of these projects have been permitted without airside economizers. The proposed language would correct this by removing the specific exception from air economizers for projects over 500 tons.
In response to Chairman Lewis’ question whether Jeff’s comments are written and available to the Council, his statement is included in the October 11, 2001 Written Testimony packet.
Lindsy Hubby
I’m with Covenant Homes. My home address is Vancouver, Washington. So we’re both Washington and Oregon builders. Most recently though we’ve been building in Oregon. So my experience has really been tailored more toward Oregon recently, down in the Portland metro and the Salem area. As you’re probably well aware we do have a fairly simple energy code down there compared to what most of you are dealing with up here.
I want to be very careful. I’m walking a very fine line because I’m very sensitive to some of my colleagues’ comments on adopting a new energy code and what its impact is on affordability. I’ve seen that. So on one hand I do not want to pass judgment on some of their comments. I think they’re very worthy comments. By the same token I was asked to speak basically on what my impressions are, how easy it is to use the Oregon code. And it has been very easy compared to what I’ve seen in Washington. We go either Path 1 or Path 8.
What’s interesting in Oregon, as far as the general contractor that doesn’t get into the numbers per se, is that we have kind of a break point. Typically 1,500 square feet and above will go Path 1, which would include some more expensive insulation and things like that. If you’re under 1,500 square feet, which tends to be the more affordable product, then you are allowed to go with 2x4 walls and less insulation in some cases at least in your walls.
So they have simplified the process. I’m not here to pass judgment on its affect on cost because we’ve been operating down there so long I think the costs are somewhat invisible to us now. We’ve been using it so long. But I would encourage the Council to be very sensitive to adding some flexibility for what would be considered the affordable home.
I’m actually building much more energy efficient homes than the Oregon code requires. I have been able to, to some degree, pass that on to homebuyers. But what it in effect has done is just make my homes more marketable. And to some extent we’ve been eating the costs involved.
So I think we all want to move toward more energy efficiency. We all know that that’s absolutely critical. But at the same time we need some help. We need partners. We need government. We need the utilities to partner up with us and give this new wave of energy efficiency a kick start. So it’d be very nice if we could have those folks give the builders incentive programs, breaks on our fees, and things like that. That would really kick start it. You’d have very little resistance from the builders if it did not impact the affordability of their homes.
But as far as the usefulness of the code in Oregon, I think it’s far simpler. Like I said I’m not here to weigh in on either side but just to let you know what my impression is, what my working experience has been with it.
Tom Nuebauer
I’m Vice President with Devco Inc. We’re a developer of multifamily, affordable and low-income housing apartments.
I was asked to speak today based on how it affects us and what these changes may do. For us, any time looking at a project or to continue with the feasibility of the costs, are a concern. I can’t say that it’s going to put it over the end, but at any point the increased insulation and other aspects of it will add to the costs of our construction.
The bigger concern on our side is what’s happening with apartments that we’re building. We already have concerns with how airtight they are. It’s not necessarily the cost of insulation. In our ground floor units we are putting lock boxes on the whole house fan. They are writing memos, and we are constantly having to go to the people and saying, "Make sure that they keep the air vents open on the windows." The units are too airtight. We’re having mold issues. We are putting dehumidifiers in all the ground floor units.
What exactly the additional [requirements] will do, I don’t know. But it’s definitely not going to make it any better. The energy costs we’re saving, we’re plugging into a dehumidifier in units. We’re running the whole house fan an extra four to eight hours a day. We are demanding that they keep the air vents open. And so most people try to tape them shut and turn on the heat more.
So my concern is how airtight we’re doing. At a certain point the value is obvious – more insulation, less heat loss. But whether we take into account what other costs are affecting us [is questionable] – the mold issue, also costs for consultants and increased litigation.
In response to Stan Price’s question regarding what specifically Mr. Neubauer sees in the proposed energy code changes that affect indoor ventilation, Mr. Neubauer said: "The increased insulation, R-21, in the walls. I’m not a mechanical engineer or someone who studied that. I guess it’s based on my perspective of what is happening, why when we inspect a unit that people are having mold in there…it feels like 100 percent humidity, it feels like the air is not getting out, that it’s trapped in…it’s more a gut feeling that it is worse and it’s getting worse, especially in three-bedroom and four-bedroom units where we have a large number of people."
Bill Disney
I represent Owens Corning. I am a member of the Energy Code TAG, speaking for the manufacturers. Owens Corning and the Mineral Wool Association support the energy code change.
Specifically I’d like to talk about Chapter 6 and the prescriptive tables. It’s our belief that, as in Oregon, going to these prescriptive tables, eliminating the dual fuel code, will simplify the code to a point that it will make it easier for the builder, specifically [using] Option 3 in Zone 1 and Option 4 in Zone 2. They can put in as much glass as the design of the house and/or their marketing needs dictate, and still build an energy-efficient building.
Further we support Option 1 for the R-15 above and below grade as a simplification matter.
And the last comment I’d like to make is that R-21 and R-15 are standard products. They are inventoried in Portland, Oregon. We supply them to the Oregon market presently, as we have for the last 10 years. So there’s no big change in our special lines.
Nancy Hirsh
I’m the Policy Director for the Northwest Energy Coalition here in Seattle. The Northwest Energy Coalition strongly supports the proposed amendments to the state energy code. We applaud the Council for putting forward these proposed changes.
On the residential code it’s about time that the state went to a fuel-blind residential code. It has been 10 years since the last significant upgrade to the thermal residential code. During the intervening years much has changed in the energy world. The most obvious of these changes is the advance in technologies that allow cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to go beyond the current code.
Secondly the current code allows homes heated by natural gas or electric heat pumps to be built to a lower standard than homes that are heated with electric furnaces. The effectiveness of the gas code has been compromised, as many loopholes have been discovered and exploited. This has caused significant reductions in energy efficiency. This is unacceptable during a time when natural gas is as important a resource for electric homes as it is for gas-heated homes. In 1991 most of the region’s electricity came from hydropower, coal and nuclear. Now almost all marginal electric supply comes from natural gas. And gas prices have a profound impact on electric prices.
During the recent electricity supply crisis, gas prices went through the roof, making electricity prices skyrocket as well. And in the past year the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has approved huge gas rate increases for the state’s gas utilities: Puget Sound Energy, a 64 percent increase; Cascade Natural Gas, a 46 percent increase; Avista, 77 percent; Northwest Natural, 36 percent.
While wholesale gas prices have come down, retail gas and electric rates have not.
The two fuels should be treated equally, such that consumers get the most benefit from the energy code. These amendments fix the problem and simplify the code, while maintaining flexibility sought by builders and designers. These amendments will make almost all new homes more energy-efficient. That means that consumers’ electric and gas bills can be lower than they would be without these amendments. That is money in consumers’ pockets.
Builders complain that improving the energy code raises their costs and makes housing unaffordable. However I think we all know that investments in measures and equipment that increase energy efficiency result in small initial, incremental cost increases that are then paid off within the principal mortgage payments out over the long-term, 5-10 years according to the Office of Trade and Economic Development. Yet these improvements reduce the daily costs that the consumer has to pay to live in the house. Their operating bills are lower; they have improved comfort.
In addition many mortgage lending institutions are increasingly knowledgeable on the benefits of energy efficiency and what it can bring to a home. Lenders grant a larger mortgage to cover the increased upfront costs of the energy-efficiency measures because they know that the investment reduces monthly bills and can create a positive cash flow even in the first year.
The energy savings from the residential energy code amendments seem tremendous, 2.4 million therms of gas, 5.4 million kilowatt hours of electricity in the first year. These savings over the next 15 years will be almost half of our statewide residential natural gas consumption. And the electricity savings over 15 years are substantial, 73 average megawatts in savings.
The environmental benefits from the reduction in electricity and gas futures cannot be overstated. Rising energy demand is driving the construction of new natural gas fire-powered plants in Washington and the West. If even half the proposed gas-fired generating plants in the Northwest were built, it would increase the region’s gas consumption by 50 percent. Each new power plant contributes air and water pollution
and the emission of greenhouse gases. Improving the energy efficiency of our homes will reduce our demand for natural gas and the environmental impacts for fossil fuel generation.
On the nonresidential code, it seems to us that updating the Washington nonresidential code to comply with the national standards in ASHRAE 90.1 is a no-brainer. ASHRAE 90.1 is a consensus standard of the engineering community and establishes a benchmark for manufacturers’ design of HVAC equipment for commercial buildings. We strongly support the move in the nonresidential code up to ASHRAE 90.
Updating the state code to meet the national standards will provide building occupants and building owners with the opportunity to capture the energy efficiency improvements and monetary savings available from current off-the-shelf technology.
Finally energy codes are a vital part of securing an affordable and reliable energy service for all Washington customers. These codes help drive installation of advanced technology that is cost-effective. Technology is constantly evolving, and improving our building codes must do the same.
I was at a meeting yesterday where representatives from Pacific Corp, an electric utility, said that they were designing their energy efficiency programs to push beyond these code amendments. And we said, "Well, what if the Council doesn’t approve those codes? Would you reduce the design standards on your energy-efficiency incentive programs?" And they said, "No. The amendments that you are looking at and considering are the ones that you should adopt." And therefore they’re going to push their programs to go beyond that code whether you adopt it or not. I think that’s a pretty strong statement in support of the codes.
Victoria Lincoln
I’m with the Association of Washington Cities. As luck would have it, our Legislative Committee is meeting today here in the SeaTac area, in fact in a hotel just down the street. So this morning I had the opportunity to go over these code amendments with our Legislative Subcommittee on Energy and Telecommunications.
And our cities talked about a couple of important points that I would like to share with you today. First of all, over the past 10 or 20 years we’ve all experienced the ups and downs of the electric market. But what we haven’t experienced until just this year or even last year was the sudden increase in challenges in the natural gas area.
So one of the things that the cities liked about these amendments, before even today, are bringing the other-fuels homes in line with electric homes today. A lot of homes are built with natural gas and other fuels. And so, with these rising costs, the cities pointed out this is a big concern for them, so bringing them into par with electric homes was something that they were supportive of.
Also we hear over time that building codes are challenging, they’re complicated, they’re difficult to follow. And some of these code amendments eliminate some tables in the code and bring the code into a more flexible, simpler way of reading it. And those are also some things the cities, being code enforcers, appreciate about this.
In the end they wanted to support these amendments. But I do want to point out that we had a long conversation about the affordability issue. And it is a concern in communities, whether you have housing that’s affordable for everyone, housing available, that sort of thing. But you also are faced with challenges of prices of energy that increase the cost every day of living in these communities. So they’ve weighed both sides of it, how much the costs were for these amendments versus the long-term savings in energy. And they’d like me to report today that they are supporting these amendments.
Chuck Eberdt
I manage The Energy Project, which is located in Bellingham, Washington. In my role as manager of The Energy Project, I work with approximately 30 community action agencies around the state, providing energy efficiency and energy assistance services to low-income households every year.
Agencies that insulate and weatherize these homes would be unanimous in telling you one thing they all know - it would have been a lot cheaper and simpler to do it right the first time.
Providing affordable housing is one of the greatest problems society faces today. The agencies I work with run smack into this every day, because they see not just the people who can’t find housing they can afford but the people who find out when they get the heating bill that they can’t afford the housing they found. It’s one of the big four concerns these families have to face: food, medicine, employment, and affordable housing.
Last year we assisted 72,000 households with their heating bills in Washington State. Seventy-six of these households were working households. I would estimate that those 72,000 households represent about 30 percent of the number who would be eligible for this assistance had we had enough funds for it. With vacancies low, it’s hard to find a place with an affordable rent. And then the heating bill comes.
I’m well aware that the typical objection to changes like these is that they will increase the cost to build. It occurs to me however that the difference in first costs is not that great when put into perspective with the normal fluctuation in the cost of building materials. The higher quality windows have virtually become the industry standard. I’m also very aware how much greater by comparison the costs to operate these buildings will be without these changes. The importance of this difference should be more than obvious to anyone cognizant of the impact on consumers from last year’s increasing gas costs.
My point is that while first costs are important, in the long run they are less important than the impact of the operational costs on the overall affordability of the home. The gentleman who gave you his numbers earlier today, very well meaning I’m sure and I really understand the bind he feels in, but he mentioned to you that it was going to take 10 or 12 years for the energy costs in that house to pay for those rising costs. Hopefully that house is going to be around for another 20 to 40 years after that point. And that’s a lot of savings.
Improved energy efficiency doesn’t only reduce the cost to heat or cool to given occupants. It also moderates the negative impact that rate increases will have on the household. These code improvements represent about a 24 percent increase in the minimum efficiency of the energy code. That can reduce the impact of rate increases on heating or cooling loads by about 24 percent. This is especially good for low-income households because a much greater proportion of their income goes to pay heating bills.
Finally, increasing the energy efficiency in buildings offers benefits to far more than just the current occupants of the home. The surrounding community also benefits because of energy efficiencies. Energy efficiency increases the reliability of our existing resources. It addresses the peak capacity restraints. While we’re familiar with this particular problem in electricity, we can expect it now in natural gas as our available infrastructural resources are stretched by increasing demand, because gas is the fuel of choice for heating and for combustion turbines to generate electricity.
Energy efficiency also reduces the amount of pollutants we pump into the air by burning our fossil fuels, whether that fuel is to heat the home or to generate electricity. And finally it provides a buffer against the supply, demand imbalance and the price volatility that results from it. Consider for example how much of last year’s problems are the ripple caused by the shortage of gas in California.
Our agencies have been insulating and weatherizing homes for more than 20 years. Looking back we can remember that we thought the loads of insulation we were installing in 1978 and 1980 were providing the most cost-effective levels for our clients. However now we see how much more energy we could have saved had we just installed a little bit more insulation or a little better window. That additional energy consumption represents critical dollars that these people did not have to pay for the things that they need.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Foresight is even better. Please adopt the proposed changes for the good of all the people of Washington State.
Patrick Hayes
I’m an energy consultant. That’s how I make my living. There’s been a lot of talk and a lot of numbers and in previous times that we’ve discussed this, there has been the same issues. So I’ve prepared – I took four sample houses of current new construction (they aren’t big houses; they range from entry-level to $235,000) – and I totally analyzed the two code changes, and I have them for you here [as well as] for Council staff, all the supporting energy calculations that prove all the math, so that you guys can look at it at your leisure and verify the numbers and go from there.
The reality of it really is, and we’ve heard a lot of numbers floating around. But this is fact. The facts are [with]our existing code when we use U-.50 windows with gas heat, which is current practice, we’re already 22 percent over the code as it stands. Just on a volunteer basis. The proposed code changes increase it to 48 percent over our existing code.
Energy Cost Savings: If you see page 3, I think, the plan number (it’s also the square footage of the house, and it goes existing and proposed) -- you’ll see that you’re basically saving about 100 therms a year. The average monthly savings is, at current PSE rates, $9.52 per month. If the homeowner bought three less lattes, they could probably save the same amount of money.
Window Costs: There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors about what the actual cost of low-E glass is. So I’ve prepared the exact cost based on Best Built’s current price and added the end user’s price per square foot for each house. And the grand total is $271.
Inflation Pricing: We’ve gone through and done walls, floors and the ceiling. And the total comes out $1,260 per month. That is an average number for all four houses, a little house, two ramblers (two-story) and a split-entry.
This is housing for America that working people buy. If you work for the Boeing Company, you would buy one of these houses. Of the buying home public, 90-95 percent of potential homebuyers can qualify for one of these houses. Uniquely enough the 976 square-foot rambler in Arlington right now is $148,000 for an entry-level house.
We have a strict energy code. And we have 100 percent compliance. I don’t necessarily believe that adding another $1,200-1,500 to the house to save $9-10/month is really good math. So I put it together for you: Monthly payments for the increased cost, $5.31; Gross monthly savings from proposed changes, $9.52; Net monthly changes, $4.21.
Unfortunately we’ve had a lot of testimony, and a particular individual, that there’s this grand monthly savings. $4.21. [You could] skip lunch today and save more money. Gross annual savings, $114; net, $63; annual payback -- when you take the $1912, which includes interest, and this all happened right here today, $63, divide into that, it takes 30 years to pay it back.
The other interesting part of this cost analysis is you can buy therms cheap enough to run a gas-fired steam turbine electric generating plant and sell the electricity at $0.09-0.10/killowatt-hour and make a profit. So the grandiose of the therms are evading us faster than we can find them. I don’t know if there’s a lot of merit to making a business out of it.
Increasing the cost of construction when our economy is on a downslide and rapidly [getting worse], I don’t know if that’s a fine economic decision either. In the last 30 days, Polygon, one of the largest single-family builders, has laid off 60 superintendents and is not starting any new plats until the economy turns around. I also represent Best Built Windows. We are in the new construction business of supplying windows for new construction. Ordering has been down 30 percent since September 11 and sliding fast. Who knows what the winter will bring. Increasing costs of new construction at this time – maybe we should revisit this when the economy is back on the upswing.
It could be detrimental to entry-level housing and low-income housing. When you look at the monthly savings – you have the facts there; read them at your office, read them in the evening, read them under the covers – they’re the real numbers, they’re all verifiable. I just don’t feel that the net gains of this code change -- that’s net gains not gross gains or feel-good gains or any of these type of gains – the actual net gains merit a negative impact on the economy, a negative impact on housing.
I hope the Council staff will copy all the envelope calculations. They’re done in Excel, they’re done in Watsun. If you look at page 2 of the Watsun document, you will find decatherms, the quantity of therms between proposed and existing. And you will also find a monthly cost. Now that was a cost basis of a few years ago. But the numbers divide out the same. You can weigh the difference, and you can look at the effort that I put into it. It’s not an emotional thing. It’s for you to use as a tool.
I do this for a living. Last year I probably did between 1,500 and 2,500 envelope calculations. I’m very good at it. I may humbly say that I may do more than anybody else in the state.
Stan asked Patrick, if the Council accepts his numbers on face value, if Patrick contends a $125/year savings is insignificant for a low-income family. Patrick’s response was affirmative.
Dale Shafer asked Patrick for confirmation that rather than his documents comparing the current versus proposed codes, they compare a building built in excess of the current code with the proposed changes. Patrick agreed that is correct. He said he shortened the gap, wanting to show current practice, reality.
Brian Minnich
I’m the Government Affairs Director for the Building Industry Association of Washington.
I’d like to add a few comments to what’s been said already. I’ll try not to beat it to death. One thing that I consistently heard, and certainly this came out in some questions that Stan asked, is what are the life-cycle savings, first-time costs that homebuilders are very concerned about. It certainly is a fundamental difference of looking at this issue, how those that are proposing these changes versus the homebuilders that are objecting, are looking at.
Obviously from the homebuilder’s standpoint, our issue is not getting as many people in the housing as we can. The issue of whether or not $100 or $200 is a significant savings to someone of low income, I don’t think is as relevant a question as is ‘is that person even in a home to begin with.’ I don’t think the heating issue sometimes is even a question. And I understand that there are assistance programs out there that have been helping low-income individuals. And that has increased significantly as energy costs have increased in the state over the last year. And in our region, we certainly have been in a crisis.
I think from our standpoint that what we want you to consider, looking at it in terms of costs, is helping folks to afford housing. Our first builder that testified today, Jeff Hansell, builds what’s considered in today’s market as entry-level housing in Mount Vernon. His numbers indicated an increase of $2,500 per house when you look at the energy package upgrade that would be required. That’s significant.
The other thing I think you have to do when you look at costs is, I don’t think you can look at things in a vacuum. I mean many times when a particular agency or council considers a rule, they’re only looking at the impact of what they have to deal with. You’re looking at the energy code changes. You’re looking at the state building code. You’re not considering the other forces that are out there, the other agencies that are increasing the cost of housing. And this is something where I guess a good analogy is like going to Costco. You go to Costco and you start pulling stuff off the shelf because it’s a great deal, it doesn’t cost much, ‘gee this isn’t bad’ and then you get to checkout and it’s $400. What? Everything was such a great deal? And I think regulations are kind of like that. I think sometimes you look at the State Legislature and the changes they’ve made over the years. And certainly I think you could argue they’re in a regulatory reform mode right now where they’re trying to undo some of that, to decrease the cost of regulation, certainly on housing and development. But a lot of times everything gets developed in a vacuum. And I think you have to consider that there are other costs to building a home.
Certainly the economy has been mentioned and the effect, what we’ve seen at least in the housing market right now. And we’ll look at the other costs and regulations, the taxes, the fees that are paid on housing. You have to look at things like workers’ compensation costs in this state. We’re the third highest in the country when it comes to workers’ compensation. Unemployment insurance – we’re the fifth highest right now in the country. These are all things that add to the cost of housing. And my point, Chairman Lewis and Members of the Council, is that I think you have to look at the big picture. It’s just not the cost to the energy code, but it’s the cost to everything else that’s happening.
Another issue that was mentioned was the general liability insurance issue. And what we’ve seen with residential builders in the state of Washington over the last six months is their rates are increasing exponentially. I just got a call from a homebuilder in Snohomish County. He received notice from his insurance company that he would not be renewed as of December 31st. Currently he pays $25,000 a year for general liability insurance. The initial quotes he is getting from his broker (he is shopping around, looking for an insurance company to cover him), his rates are right now likely to go to $125,00-150,000/year. That’s significant.
What I’d like to do, and I will try to conclude here with just a couple of additional statements, is to submit for the record additional information. As you consider this I know you’re going to be going into a work session at the end of the month before you make a decision at the November meeting. You’re going to be looking at a lot of information and numbers. I’ve got a cost breakdown sheet of a single-family house and the different things such as construction costs and lot costs, plus the additional costs of local and state taxes and government regulation. I’d like to submit that for the record. Also Barriers to Affordable Housing, this is a list of all the federal, state and even local regulations that builders have to comply with to build a house. I’d like to submit that for the record. As well as it’s been mentioned earlier about what the median income is in the state versus what the median income is needed to afford a house. We have a chart on that, sort of backing those numbers up. That’s from the U.S. Census Bureau. Also some numbers showing what the Washington State total housing inventory is versus 2000 building permits, in terms of giving you some perspective of what we’re impacting versus what we’re not impacting. Also this is an interesting chart that I pulled up a month or so ago which shows August 2000 to August 2001 gas prices and electricity prices. I’d like to submit that for the record. And one other piece of information here, some estimated costs of the proposed changes to the insulation requirement. We contacted a local insulation contractor/supplier to get the numbers. And basically he took a couple of real old examples, a couple houses that he had worked on and gave us some breakdowns of some costs. So I’d like to submit that as well.
With that I’d just again like the Council to again consider these changes, what their overall impact is on the housing. Please consider not only these changes but also other changes that are happening to the housing industry in the state that we think are increasingly making housing unaffordable. Please consider that. And then a final note, and many of you know, that if the Governor were here today I should say, because the Governor in April requested the State Building Code Council look at some energy code changes. And I don’t remember the exact wording, but I would like to point you to that letter. In his request the Governor is very specific in his comments that he would like the State Building Code Council to look at the U-value window requirements. And as we’ve discussed today these changes are much more than just window requirements. Much of the cost that we see in increasing the cost of housing is coming from insulation. And so I think as you deliberate on this issue over the next month and make a decision, I think you should refer back to the Governor’s letter and what his request was to start with, in terms of trying perhaps to find some balance in this issue where we’re not putting pressure on entry-level and low-income housing.
David Baylon
I also am an energy consultant and have been here before. After listening to this diatribe for the last few minutes, I’m compelled to depart from my prepared remarks. Over the last five years or so Ecotope, the company I work for, has audited about a thousand houses, audited meaning we went to the houses, we looked at the specifications, we looked at the building techniques of every house that we looked at. These houses were scattered throughout the region, in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. They were random samples, collected from building department records. So they’re not anecdotes. There isn’t just one house some place that looks one way and one house some place that looks the other and we just kind of figure it out. We actually have some idea how the industry looks.
The most important thing I have to tell you today is that we have the very fortuitous comparison. It’s just by coincidence available in this region. We have two codes to look at, the Washington code, which is the code we currently have, and the Oregon code, which is essentially the code that we have in front of us today. So we would expect to see, if we looked at these two, having listened to today’s presentations, we would expect to see a serious problem with the affordability of homes in Oregon. Wouldn’t we? Because these are essentially the same code, the proposed Washington code and the Oregon code. Do we see this? No. Do we see differences in costs? Yes, actually. It’s less expensive to buy homes in Oregon. Do we see difficulties with the builders complying with the code in Oregon? No. Why? Well, as the builder from Oregon pointed out, it’s a very simple code. You don’t have to do hardly anything to figure out how to comply with it.
When you ask Oregon builders ‘what do you think of the energy code?’ they look at you like ‘what do you mean?’ There’s nothing to think about it. It’s just the code. It’s like asking them what the structural code on the window headers was. They don’t talk about that because it’s a part of their business. By the same token here we have in Washington a lesser code, on average about 15 percent lesser in terms of how it’s used in this market. And you hear plenty of discussion about how complicated it is, and how we’re confused about this, and how the ventilation code is that, and so on and so forth. This doesn’t happen in Oregon. Why? What is it that’s different about Washington and Oregon? We have a lesser code and more trouble. The answer is we have a much more complicated code.
The second point that’s important here is how it relates to the building departments. When you have a prescriptive code that has six or seven items in it, the problems of enforcing this code goes completely away. A plans checker can go through. Literally this is how it looks when you go to the building departments in Oregon and you look at their drawings. There’s a stamp in the middle of the cover page of the drawings. And it’s got six or seven items on it that are all checked, little red checks. You see this on any kind of building permit anywhere in the state for different items. In this case in Oregon, the energy code is a stamp, a single stamp, that’s checked off. When the inspector goes out to look at that building, does he measure the windows to see if there’s too much windows, not enough windows, if this window doesn’t meet that, etc.? No. The inspector goes out, does the same check off, and it’s over. It’s not a calculation. It’s not a computer program. It’s not a simulation. It’s not anything. We actually have this comparison. I’d encourage you to use this as the gut guidepost for what really is going to happen with this code as it’s proposed.
There was one other comment that Patrick made that I really feel compelled to at least dispute. This is the problem of how curtain walls don’t meet this code. Curtain walls do meet this code. They have met this code routinely throughout the City of Seattle in many different building types. This point the City of Seattle is proposing, Class 40 windows for almost all large buildings in the nonresidential. And in fact you can observe in several main-line curtain wall manufacturers, performance levels between 0.3 and 0.45 on the market today, being used in buildings today. I don’t know whether these condo developers have in their dreams efficient window systems. We hope they do.
David Morse
I work for a local mechanical contractor as a design engineer. I’m here with a concern regarding the economizer code that was discussed earlier.
In general I’m very supportive of the code, even the particular section. It does close a significant loophole that probably shouldn’t have been there to begin with. However there is one concern I have regarding its application to existing buildings. Over the last period of time we’ve worked with developers that come up with schemes to handle portions of their cooling loads that are difficult to handle with airside economizers. There’s the current exemption that allows a noneconomizer load of up to 20 tons or 10 percent of the building’s economizer mechanical load. This code changes that to 10 tons and 5 percent. Essentially it makes it extremely difficult for building owners to attract the tenants that they’ve built their buildings with the intent of attracting. It’s not fair to retroactively go back and force building owners to make wholesale changes to their buildings that essentially are a means to comply with the code that was in place when they built their buildings.
And I have a written proposal that changes this. I also have a minor suggested change for the same economizer code which simply allows the use of heat pumps with economizer coils as long as they’re 45 percent effective. And I won’t get into the details, but I will present my written proposed changes to the amendments.
Liz Klumpp
I work with the Office of Trade and Economic Development here in Washington in the Energy Policy Division. I’m here to testify in support of the energy code. And hopefully I’ll keep it brief because I have submitted written comments. And I’ve also submitted cost data about a week ago to staff. And if you have questions about where that cost data came from, feel free to call me. We got it from places like – insulation costs from Owens-Corning, window costs from some of the window manufacturers. These are statewide average costs.
The first thing I want to say is these amendments simplify the code. Generally speaking we see these as having value, and I think the builders from Oregon have indicated some of what that value is. So, for example, what is communicated in the new code in one page took six pages in the old code. And this goes on. So that’s in one chapter, 6. In chapter 5, what used to take three pages is now a sentence. So essentially this amendment was intended to bring more than energy savings. It was intended to capture some simplicity.
Now the other thing that was included in this amendment was flexibility. What we did in this amendment, for the first time in Washington State, that again is similar to something our peers in Oregon have adopted, is an unlimited window glazing. We perceive this as giving flexibility to homeowners, architects and builders and developers. I didn’t necessarily expect any builders to come in today in support of this. So I was pleasantly surprised when we had a builder who comes from a part of the state where he works in both Oregon and Washington and recognizes some of the value to the simplicity.
The next thing I want to say is this is not cutting-edge technology we’re talking about. This is current practice in Oregon. This brings Washington into compliance with federal standards. And I guess I want to say that 80 percent of current housing in Washington is built above our current minimum code because in fact our code is out-of-date and doesn’t reflect very cost-effective changes that have occurred in technologies, making technologies such as our windows much more efficient than are referenced in our 1990-1 code.
You know, I think we have some debates about the cost. You have multiple sources of data to consider. I look at some of the homes in Washington that are built on speculation. And they’re ranging in price in Thurston County, Snohomish County from $180,000 to $350,000. And I’m just wondering what does this incremental cost on efficiency do to that pretty significant price for a speculatively built home.
And so where we come from, my sister office deals with low-income. It deals with providing financing assistance for low-income housing development. It deals with bill assistance. And it deals with weatherizing older homes. Where we come from, this amendment improves housing affordability. When we look at the net cash flow at the end of the year, does this cost the homeowner actually more or less? In our analysis it costs them less. They save money. They save energy.
We’re looking at electric and natural gas utilities in Washington that are in the process of, or have in the last year, raised their retail rates by 30-80 percent. This is significant. And it’s significant both for businesses and households.
But most importantly the reason I’m here today is because of the energy savings. And when one of the fellows said ‘Well, what are the benefits?’ The benefits are affordability, in our mind; and the benefits are energy savings. And, you know, is it a huge amount to any particular homeowner over the course of a month or a year? No, it’s not. And the reason the state is involved, and the reason we care is savings cumulatively are vast. For example the savings in the next 15 years in natural gas equal almost one-half of statewide natural gas consumption in the residential sector. The electricity savings over the next 15 years equal the current electricity consumed in the communities of Ellensburg, Elmhurst and Centralia. These are significant. We need these cumulative savings. These savings reduce the growing demand on both our resources and our pipelines. And we have a severely strained transmission system that is on a fine line. And these savings are going to be part of our solution. And they’re cost-effective.
So I hope you support these amendments. I guess I do want to address one thing that came up, I believe - Dr. Tom Karier with the Power Planning Council (he is the Governor’s appointee on energy.) And I believe he offered his remarks in Spokane in support of the amendments.
Larry Andrews
I’m from Andrews Mechanical in Spokane in support of the HVAC Association.
We’ve had numerous contractors complain about UL-181B. And that’s the tape that you expect us to use for flexible air ducts. When you use this UL tape, you can’t get it off the roll. When it comes off the roll, it splits. So the guys ask, ‘Why are we putting this type of tape on our ducts? Because it’s not as good as what the duct tape is.’ But, yes, it has this number. Okay? Which really brings us back to what one of the installer’s questions was, ‘Why aren’t we installing this to manufacturers’ specs that’s on the side of the box?’ The instruction say to tape it with duct tape and then put a nylon strap around the duct. Well, after reviewing this, I don’t see anything about how to use a nylon strap on the flexible duct. The UL 181B is not working. That’s one of our problems—it’s real easy to pull a number out and put it there, but that’s not addressing the problem. The problem is that it’s not being installed to the manufacturer’s instruction. If that’s the way the manufacturer intended it to be used, why are we doing something else. If it’s done that we, we don’t have a problem with this leakage.
Jim Lewis
So you’re opposed to the UL 181B.
Larry Andrews
Yes, and so are 225 mechanical contractors. You need to use the strap because the tape isn’t doing the job.
John Hogan
Good afternoon, my name is John Hogan. I’m with the City of Seattle, Department of Design, Construction and Land Use. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on your proposed revisions to the Washington State Energy Code. Overall we support the proposals and we strongly urge the SBCC to adopt them.
I would like to address both the residential and the nonresidential provisions and I will start with the nonresidential provisions. I think you’re aware of this, but state statute sets the nonresidential as a minimum statewide so local jurisdictions are allowed to make modification to increase the energy savings in their jurisdictions if they want to do that. One month ago Seattle adopted revisions to the nonresidential portions of the code and we estimate that these will achieve a savings of about 15 percent beyond the Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code provisions. We developed these revisions with input from designers, developers, and manufacturers. We had 22 weekly public review meetings between January and June, we had 4 meetings by our construction code advisory board, a half day public forum, and 3 city council hearings. When the city council energy committee recommended adoption, the audience, which included the designers, manufacturer, developers applauded when that happened. I wanted to give you that context and then say that the Seattle amendments are much broader than what’s envisioned for the state on the nonresidential side. Whereas the Seattle amendments address the building envelope, the mechanical and the lighting, the state provisions only address the mechanical sections. Even within the mechanical, the Seattle amendments address many more sections than the mechanical sections addressed in the state proposal.
Of course, you’ve heard previous speakers say that some of the state’s requirements are in woeful need of updating. The mechanical equipment deficiencies for example are taken from the 1989 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. This is the national energy standard for nonresidential buildings. That standard is 12 years out of date. Consequently, we view these state proposals for the nonresidential side as a modest step, but we strongly urge you to take that step.
On to the residential proposals. On the residential side the state statute is a little bit different. The state statute establishes the residential energy code as both the minimum and the maximum so local jurisdictions are not allowed to adopt requirements that will achieve greater energy savings. Consequently in Seattle while we can achieve additional energy savings for our businesses, we can not do the same thing for our homeowners and renters in Seattle. We are dependent on the decisions of the SBCC. Regarding the state residential proposals, these are acceptable but we would have gone further than this. Most of the provisions in the current state energy code were adopted by the SBCC in 1990, which was eleven years ago. I’m sure you’re aware the model codes are updated every three years. That’s equivalent to 4 code change cycles.
The 2000 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) was recently adopted by Texas. It’s gratifying to see that the state proposals are finally close to providing equivalent savings to what’s in the 2000 IECC.
In the state proposals there are two options listed for Table 6-1 and 6-2, we support Option 1. Option 2 the prescriptive path 1 for Table 6-1 allows a reduction in above-grade wall insulation by having more below-grade. Most homes don’t have below-grade walls that are insulated so we don’t think that’s a reasonable trade off. I would point out that that path also allows 2 x 4 walls in both of those options.
In closing I would like to say it’s time to provide our citizens with an energy code that at least meets the national standards. Again, we view the state proposals as a modest step, but strongly encourage you to take that step.
Chuck Murray
My name is Chuck Murray, I’m with Washington State University’s Energy Program. I provide technical assistance on implementing the residential section of the state energy code. I also serve on the technical advisory group. I gave public testimony in Spokane, so I will make it brief. Regardless of the comments we’ve heard about cost, or the analysis on energy use in these homes that we’ve seen, we have seen all of those provide a cost effective resource to the consumers. I think that one is fairly well covered. I think the city governments and counties that serve to enforce this code, as well as the builders, when they get a hold of it they will really see the advantages of the simplification. I encourage you to do it for that reason, if not for the cost effective argument.
Finally, with this upgrade our state will meet the national energy efficiency standards which 37 other states in the nation have adopted. I encourage you to do it for that reason as well.
Policies and Procedures – Reconsideration
No testimony presented.
Jim Lewis adjourned the Public Hearing at 3:07 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes Committee Meeting
No report due to cancellation of October meeting due to lack of business.
Mechanical, Ventilation and Energy Codes Committee
No report due to cancellation of October meeting due to lack of business.
Legislative Committee
The Legislative Committee report was tabled until November.
ADULT FAMILY HOMES
Tim Nogler reported that the Council received a petition from Art Hansen, Golden Years, Inc., to look at a rule adopted last year that governs Adult Family Homes. The issue in front of the Council is whether or not to enter into rule-making to repeal the rule or to deny the petition. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Council has 60 days in which to respond to Mr. Hansen’s request, which gives us until December 1 to reach a decision. Tim stated that a draft response to the petition was included in the supplementary meeting packet along with the revised agenda.
Tim stated that there are three basic issues covered in his draft response:
1) The proposed letter denies the request for repeal of the rule. It points out that the code change was made specifically to assure that Adult Family Homes are considered as single family under the code. It changed them from an LC Group Occupancy to an R3 Occupancy under the building code, the same as single family residences.
2) It responds to the issue of economic analysis that was done at the TAG by providing that information to Mr. Hansen. There was an economic analysis that was done that showed that there was no increase in cost, in fact the change was intended to reduce cost.
3) The issue of compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was addressed. The intent of the code change was to assure that adult family homes are classified the same as single family homes specifically to comply with federal and state laws.
Mr. Hansen addressed the Council and shared his concerns. In particular he is worried that the state is in jeopardy of loosing Medicaid matching funds by being out of compliance with the FFHA and the ADA. He stated that in his view, the state is not in compliance because adult family homes are being treated differently than single family residences. He noted that the federal courts have ruled that regulations cannot be put in place that have additional requirements on adult family homes than those required of other single family homes in the same neighborhood. It is Mr. Hansen’s contention that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is not enforcing the code in a fair manner. He stated that some operators of adult family homes have been forced out of business because of the high cost of upgrading window sizes and sill heights to meet DSHS regulations. He also stated that adult family homes are being required to make these upgrades when the home is occupied, which is not required of single family homes in the same community.
Dave Saunders asked if the closures of adult family homes reported by Mr. Hansen occurred as a result of actions from employees of DSHS who inspected the facilities. Mr. Hansen stated yes, it was after actions taken by DSHS. He also noted that some adult family home operators voluntarily gave up their licenses after they realized they could not afford the window upgrades.
Jim Lewis noted that the Council has 60 days in which to respond to Mr. Hansen's petition. He asked Council staff to obtain a legal opinion on this issue by the Attorney General’s Office to be reviewed in November.
Sue Alden agreed. She stressed that the building code applies only to buildings that are issued a building permit; i.e., new construction or change of occupancy. She noted that single family residencies have the same window requirements as adult family homes.
Steve Nuttall noted that DSHS has been involved in this issue for some time and is prepared to take some steps to mitigate the problem. He encouraged keeping DSHS involved in the resolution of this issue.
Jim asked the Council to come prepared to review this issue again in November and asked that staff provide the legal opinion and any other follow-up information in next month’s meeting packet.
STAFF REPORT
Tim Nogler reported that the Endangered Species Act TAG will be holding a series of meetings on October 18, November 1 and November 15. He stated that with the help of a technical consultant, the TAG will be developing Erosion Control and Spill Prevention standards for non-residential construction projects.
Tim also stated that Council staff will be meeting with the Department of Labor and Industries and the Department of Health on elevator machine room venting provisions, to look at whether or not those agencies will ask for a code amendment to address this issue.
The Council discussed the meeting schedule in November and decided to hold a one-day meeting on November 9, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Jim asked that lunch be provided to allow the Council to work through the lunch hour.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.