The 2009 International Energy Conservation Code: Residential

1. The Energy Code Workshop
Understanding the Energy Code

2. I. Review of the “why and the what”
II. Team Exercise: energy efficiency strategies
III. Market-driven data as defined by scalable and market-
proven
IV. Four market-proven case studies that conform to the
2009 IECC
V. Top 5 marketing strategies for crafting the energy
efficiency message

3. Focus group findings:
1. money
2. not practical
3. confusing
4. enviro/eco/sustainable/LEED/green

4. Energy Code Facts
&
a review of the

5. U.S. residential and commercial buildings
together use more energy and emit more
carbon dioxide than either industrial or
transportation sector and:
39% of total energy
2/3 of electricity
1/8 of water

6. Energy Codes and Energy Efficient Buildings:
• set minimum requirements for energy efficient design
and comfort
• are more comfortable, healthy, and cost less to
operate
• can create new economic opportunities for business
by promoting new energy efficient technologies
• Cost less to operate, meaning increased bottom line
• put more money in the consumers pocket
• estimated to generate cost savings of over 2.5B per
year when guided by the IECC 2099

7. Utility bill reduction estimates
2009 IECC versus the 2006 IECC = 17% greater
savings in the Phoenix area.
2012 IECC versus the 2006 IECC = 26.8% - 28.7%
greater savings in Phoenix.
2015 IECC versus the 2006 IECC = 50% savings
goal.

8. Economic impact of the 2009 IECC
· The one-time cost for a builder to build an average home to
the 2009 IECC is $560/home.
· The homeowner is expected to save $211/per year on their
energy bills – for the life of the home.
· If the numbers hold true, the average homeowner’s
mortgage payment will go up less than $3.50 per month, while
their utility bills will drop more than $17.50 per month. Even if we
assume utility costs don’t rise in the next 30 years, the average
homeowner will keep more than $5,000 in their pockets over the
life of their mortgage.
· Building just 10,000 homes will result in roughly $5.6 million
in one-time, taxable construction costs that will return
approximately $50 million in resident savings over the life of their
mortgages.
· A large piece of the $5.6 million in additional construction
costs will be creating jobs for local testing and inspection
companies.

9. 2009 IECC &
a review of the
‘what’

16. Notable requirements in the 2009 IECC for Arizona:
Building envelope must be caulked and sealed.
Slab-on-grade insulation is R-10 to a depth of 2 feet in Zones 4 and 5. Insulation is not required
for slab-on-grade foundations in Zones 2 and 3.
Supply ducts in attics must be insulated to R-8. Return ducts in attics and all ducts in
crawlspaces, unheated basements, garages, or otherwise outside building envelope must be
insulated to R-6.
All ducts must be sealed and either:
o verified by pressure testing – the duct system has to be tested and the air leakage out of ducts
must be kept to an acceptable maximum level.
o installed entirely within the building thermal envelope – testing is not required if all ducts are
inside the building thermal envelope (for example in heated basements), though the ducts still
have to be sealed.
Piping for hydronic (boiler) heating systems must be insulated to R-3.
Although vapor retarders are not required by the IECC, the I-codes do set wall vapor retarder
requirements in Section R601.3 of the 2009 IRC, and vapor retarders are required in Zone 5.
Less insulation is allowed for mass walls and more insulation is required for steel framing.
50% of the lighting “lamps” (bulbs, tubes, etc.) in a building must be high efficacy. Compact
fluorescents qualify, standard incandescent bulbs do not.
Standard I-code administrative requirements (inspections, documentation) apply.
A certificate must be posted near the electrical panel listing insulation levels and other energy
efficiency
measures.

17. Requirements for Arizona
http://energycode.pnl.gov/EnergyCodeReqs/
?state=Arizona

18. 2009 Energy Code Savings vs
2006

19. Stubmbling upon the 2009 IECC and the Unforeseen Outcomes

20. Video: a case study
location, Phoenix
local, market proven, scalable,

22. Phoenix and Maricopa County
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2005 897 851 1239 1229 972 867 783 934 1028 754 774
1108
Maricopa
42727
2006 837 1239 925 632 1218 862 793 710 590 400 512
513
Maricopa
27812
2007 562 813 859 638 693 632 391 352 173 164 155
201
Maricopa
20183
2008 174 204 244 240 213 292 285 108 135 116 72 93 Maricopa
9643
2009 71 39 70 113 138 200
149
Maricopa
3728
131 107 128 100
90
6462
2010
104
(532)
135
(601)
199
(769)
103
(499)
69
(460)
106 94 83 81 43 54
40
7109
2011 60 61 56 113 (2182)

31. BEFORE

41. Pre HERS 208
Post HERS 65 ($48 avg month)
Annual Savings $1200
Water Savings 62%
Purchase 90k
Days on Market 23
Sales Price 240k

42. Denver’s first emerald
purchase price - 92k
improve - 50k
sales price - 185k
EMERALD CERTIFIED

43. 43

44. 44

46. 46
THE 2009 ENERGY CODE

47. Special Thanks to:
City of Phoenix, Economic
Development

48. video

49. tecworkshop.com
facebook.com/gstreetinc