Prepared for

Battelle Memorial Institute

Pacific Northwest Division

Prepared by
Isaac R. Elnecave; Senior Policy Manager

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

 2

Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................3
2. Regional Needs .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.1. Lack of Resources ............................................................................................................................................4
2.2. Increasing Complexity of the Energy Code ......................................................................................................4
2.3 Prioritization of Energy Codes: .........................................................................................................................4
3. State Needs.............................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Illinois................................................................................................................................................................5
3.2 Indiana ..............................................................................................................................................................6
3.3 Iowa ..................................................................................................................................................................7
3.4 Kansas ...............................................................................................................................................................9
3.5 Michigan ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
3.6 Minnesota...................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.7 Missouri ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.8 Nebraska ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.9 North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.10 Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.11 South Dakota ............................................................................................................................................... 16
3.12 Wisconsin..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1: Enabling Statutes/Relevant Regulations ............................................................................................. 19

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 3

1. Introduction
MEEA is pleased to submit the following needs analysis on behalf of Midwest states. Part of the deliverables for
Grant No. 135069 includes the submittal of a needs analysis to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that
aims to identify state specific needs with respect to code adoption, implementation, enforcement and
compliance to help PNNL better target assistance and resources.

In terms of energy code adoption and development, the Midwest is in a unique position. First, it contains a huge
disparity in terms of code adoption, implementation and enforcement. The region contains some of the most
advanced states in the country (Minnesota and Wisconsin), states that have begun serious efforts (Illinois,
Indiana and Michigan) and states that have not even adopted a state energy code. Consequently, the needs
within states will vary and any analysis should take that into account.

This paper will describe needs on two levels:

1. Regional needs.
2. Individual State Needs

For the regional analysis, this paper will briefly look at:
 Specific region wide issues that should be addressed.
 The needs related to those issues.

For the individual state needs section, the paper will give:
 Brief overview of state status including statutory requirements, current code, status of code
enforcement activities.
 Describe state specific barriers to code adoption, implementation and compliance.
 Detail state needs based on discussions with key stakeholders and general understanding of the state.
 Recommendations that can address the needs.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 4

2. Regional Needs
Before entering a discussion of specific state needs, Section 2 will briefly go over problems and needs that
extend across the region. These three items act in a complementary manner to frustrate progress on energy
codes. Within this environment, energy codes get progressively less attention which inevitably results in an
underperforming building.

2.1. Lack of Resources

Jurisdictions at every level, state, county and municipal, suffer from a lack of funds. Typically, local jurisdictions
are funded through building fees, state funds or a combination of both. Without exception, over the last few
years, funds directed toward building energy code enforcement have decreased. Much of this is due to
decreasing building activity but it also arises from decreasing contributions from the state (which inevitably has
its own budgetary problems). Due to lack of resources, local and state code officials are increasingly unable to
fully discharge their duties resulting in underperforming energy codes.

Need: Development of a steady funding source for local and state code offices.

2.2. Increasing Complexity of the Energy Code

Over the last few code cycles, as the energy code has become more energy efficient, it has also become more
complex. Because of this emerging complexity, building practitioners must spend more time and effort in
learning the code, moreover, more time has to be devoted to meeting its requirements (both from the point of
view of the practitioner and the building official). This compounds the first issue. First, practitioners are
receiving lower fees for design and construction; second, building officials have less time than they had before
to review and inspect buildings.

Need: Development of multiple levels/pathways of training materials. Sufficient funding of training

that can reach all affected stakeholders. Reducing the cost and barriers to effectively training
practitioners.

2.3 Prioritization of Energy Codes:

Both practitioners and building officials, because of legal issues, tradition and general concern for welfare,
prioritize health and safety over energy. This prioritization goes on top of the first issue. Building practitioners
and officials have less and less time and with the prioritization of health and safety, it is most likely that energy
codes will have disproportionately less time devoted to them.

Need: Education program for building practitioners that emphasizes the direct and indirect benefits
of the energy code.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 5

3. State Needs
3.1 Illinois

Current Status

The State of Illinois enacted HB 3987 in February 2010 which established a statewide energy code initially set at
the 2009 IECC for both residential and commercial buildings. Prior to this action, the state had adopted a
commercial code (ASHRAE 90.1-2004), and some local jurisdictions had adopted a residential code in addition.
The statute includes the following requirements:

1. Automatic Update of the energy code every three years.

2. Residential code is “min-max,” meaning that it cannot be amended in any way.
3. Commercial code can be made more stringent but cannot be weakened.
4. Local jurisdictions that had adopted a code prior to XXX can strengthen the residential code.
5. Jurisdictions over 1,000,000 people can also amend code to make it more energy efficient.

The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) has embarked on an aggressive effort
to train officials and practitioners on the energy code. It has contracted with the International Code Council to
run a number of trainings across the state. DCEO is working with the Building Codes Assistance Project to
conduct Phase 1 of the BCAP gap analysis project. Additionally, DCEO received funding from the Department of
Energy to conduct its own gap analysis run by the Metropolitan Mayor’s Council (which will cover different
jurisdictions than those covered by BCAP) and to do a baseline compliance analysis based on the PNNL protocol
(much like the work being done through the pilot studies).

Code Barriers
 Illinois has just recently adopted a statewide code
 Illinois remains fragmented in the way that codes are adopted, implemented and enforced.
 Certain part of the state, for example, Chicago and some of the surrounding suburbs have enforced
energy codes for years; others have not. Within this latter group, there will be significant resistance to
enforcing energy codes.
 Second, as local jurisdictions still have discretion in adopting a code, problems arise as suboptimal codes
are adopted. For example, the city of Chicago has adopted the 2006 IECC for climate zone 6 which is less
energy efficient than the 2009 IECC, and the city of Evanston has adopted LEED Silver for its commercial
code.

Needs
 Means of enforcement. DCEO acts only as an informational resource; it is not an enforcement division of
the state. Other building codes, such as the Accessibility and Plumbing code have enforcement bodies
that ensure the code is properly administered throughout the state.
 Providing home builders, developers, and new homebuyers with better metric that explain energy
savings, cost of new construction practices as they related to the energy code, and shows return on
investments. These metrics will help to overcome hurdles and improve compliance rates and education
to homeowners. The Department of Energy could develop metrics as new codes are adopted that can be
distributed throughout the country for each state.
 Outreach in downstate areas

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 6

Recommendations
 Development of a 3rd party enforcement system to help assist local officials.
 Continual development of informational materials related to energy use and cost/benefits.

Resources

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Energy and Recycling

www.illinoisenergy.org

Bruce Selway
Energy Efficiency Program Specialist
IL Dept. of Commerce & Economic Opportunity
620 E. Adams Street
Springfield, IL 62701
217.785.2023 Phone
217.785.2618 Fax
Bruce.Selway@Illinois.gov

3.2 Indiana

Current Status

Indiana has recently adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its commercial code. It is in the process of adopting the
2009 International Residential Code with amendments that will make it equivalent to the 2009 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The Indiana Department of Homeland Security recently awarded a $500,000
grant to help with implementation of both the residential and commercial code. Work under this code would
include: developing a strategic plan to achieve 90% compliance with the code as well as training on both the
residential and commercial code.

Code Barriers
 Although the state of Indiana has had an energy code dating back to 1978, it has rarely been enforced.
 The recent adoption of a new commercial energy code has caused some concern among the building
community. Very few practitioners in the state pay attention to the code at all. As a result, there is
worry of a backlash among architects, engineers and builders about the enforcement of the code.
 There is widespread lack of understanding of even simple tools such as RESCheck and COMCheck.
 The code adoption process is burdensome and slow. Any new adoption of the code has to go through a
stakeholder committee that moves at a very slow pace and which is dominated by members of the
homebuilder association.
 Indiana state law requires the development of a cost analysis for each new rule without incorporating
the benefits of the new rule. As a result, even very non-costly rules such as a new building energy code
can be made to look extremely expensive providing a clear path for opponents.
 Energy code requirements are bound up with other building code requirements. For example, even
though the ASHRAE code does not require an upgrade upon change of use of a building, the Indiana
building code does. As a result, there is some resistance to adding what many feel is an added expense
to the redevelopment efforts in older cities.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 7

Needs
 Information on design tools such as COMCheck and RESCheck as well as more sophisticated tools such
as EQuest.
 Information on the availability and cost of specific technologies such as energy efficient windows, air
and duct sealing and lighting.
 General informational efforts on the energy code explaining need, benefits, costs and how to comply.
 Support for building inspectors who cannot handle the additional load of checking for an energy code.

Recommendations
 Outreach to in state design professionals to cover issues dealing with COMCheck (knowledge of the
specific state regulations is very important).
 Development of easy accessible database that includes in-state and national information on availability
of key technologies.
 Development of a third party plan review/inspection system.
 Development and dissemination of informational metrics and how-tos.

Resources

Indiana Department of Homeland Security; Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission
http://www.in.gov/dhs/2375.htm

Mara Snyder
Branch Director and Chief Counsel
Indiana Department of Homeland Security
302 W. Washington St., Room W-246
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-233-5341

3.3 Iowa

Current Status

The Iowa Department of Public Safety adopted the 2009 IECC for both residential and commercial buildings at
the beginning of the year. Current statutes require the adoption of the latest edition of the IECC for both
residential and non-residential buildings. Moreover, the statute created the Commission on Energy Efficiency
Standards and Practices which is charged with:

 Evaluate energy efficiency standards applicable to existing or newly constructed residential, commercial,
and industrial buildings and vertical infrastructure at the state and local level and make suggestions for
their improvement and enforcement. The evaluation of energy efficiency standards shall include but not
be limited to a review of the following:
(1) the reduction in energy usage likely to result from the adoption and enforcement of the standards.
(2) The effect of compliance with the standards on indoor air quality.
(3) The relationship of the standards to weatherization programs for existing housing stock and to the
availability of affordable housing, including rental units.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 8

 Develop recommendations for new energy efficiency standards, specifications, or guidelines applicable
to newly constructed residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and vertical infrastructure.
 Develop recommendations for the establishment of incentives for energy efficiency construction
projects which exceed currently applicable state and local building codes.
 Develop recommendations for adoption of a statewide energy efficiency building labeling or rating
system for residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and complexes.

Currently, the Commission is focusing on developing recommendations for a third party enforcement system.

Iowa can be viewed as a “hybrid” home rule state. Iowa requires statewide enforcement of the energy code
while the rest of the codes are subject to home rule. This creates a difficult enforcement situation. The IDPS has
recently hired two engineers who are responsible for helping to implement the new energy code.

Code Barriers
 The lack of a statewide building code poses the most difficult problem.
 Many jurisdictions across the state, particularly those located in rural areas, may not have any code
enforcement at all. Those jurisdictions are unlikely to set up a department just to enforce the energy
code.

Needs
 Method for enforcing the energy code outside of major urban areas.
 Central information area to respond to questions and concerns from practitioners, building officials,
developers and homebuilders.
 Information on building energy rating systems.

Recommendations
 A group of stakeholders have submitted recommendations designed to improve enforcement. The
recommendations envision developing a statewide third party enforcement system administered by the
Department of Safety to diminish chances of gaming the system i.e. allowing developers and
homebuilders to choose “friendly” inspectors.
 Work with the DPS to educate on the new DOE protocol for building energy measurement.

Resources

Iowa Department of Public Safety; State Fire Marshall Division; Building Code Bureau
http://www.dps.state.ia.us/fm/building/provisions/index.shtml

Brian Bishop
Construction/ Design Engineer
Iowa Department of Public Safety
State Fire Marshal's Office
Building Code Bureau
215 E. 7th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0047
Phone: 515-725-6158

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 9

3.4 Kansas

Current Status

A statewide energy code in Kansas is only mandated for commercial and industrial buildings. While there is no
residential building energy code, home energy performance information must be disclosed and provided to
potential homebuyers by means of a Kansas Energy Efficiency Disclosure form. Kansas has set an “applicable
state standard” at the 2006 IECC. However, local jurisdictions can either amend or not adopt the standard
altogether. There is a general belief that in the absence of a local commercial code, builders builds to the state
standard. In May, 2009 the Kansas Energy Office, a division of the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC)
established the Energy Efficiency Building Codes Working Group to guarantee the state complies with federal
requirements set forth by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and will convene on December 2nd to
discuss further action.

Code Barriers

Multiple barriers exist in the state. The first barrier is the perception that adopting the 2009 (let alone the 2012)
would increase costs. An example was noted in the city of Overland Park which rescinded its adoption due to
this concern. The second barrier is the lack of capacity, particularly in smaller towns, to enforce the code.

Needs
 The state needs a way to achieve the Recovery Act goals without establishing a statewide code.
 The Commission is considering establishing a certification program but does not know if it is feasible.
 Detailed cost estimates of adopting the 2009 IECC.
 Ways of enhancing the capacity of building departments.
 Ways on doing outreach to different stakeholders.

Recommendations
 Establish regional sub groups to help monitor and aid activity in different regions of the state.
 Provide cost estimates that show the modest cost of building to the 2009 IECC (along with cost benefit
analyses).
 Provide policy recommendations on establishing third party enforcement mechanisms.
 Develop coordinated outreach plan using workgroup members and other interested parties.

Resources

Kansas Energy Office

http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy/index.htm

Liz Brosius
Energy & Outreach Manager
State Energy Office, Kansas Corporation Commission
l.brosius@kcc.ks.gov

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 10

3.5 Michigan

Current Status

The Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth (DELEG) has just finalized the adoption of the
2009 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The new energy code will become effective in March, 2011. This new code
comes at the end of a long, bitter battle between advocates and homebuilders that included a multi-year
lawsuit. Current statute requires DELEG to review and update codes through a codes commission. In practice,
this occurs sporadically. A key problem is that any code upgrade must meet a 7 year payback test.

While this effort to finalize the 2009 IECC/90.1-2007 was underway, the code agency partnered with the
Construction Management Department of Michigan State University (MSU), is building a new energy code
training curriculum and will conduct training sessions across the state. This effort was very successful the last
time it was attempted (after the adoption of the 2003 IECC) and it reached several hundred homebuilders, code
officials, architects and other practitioners. MSU provides a very strong partnership in the codes effort. It has
established a department devoted to construction management which provides an additional outlet to help
adopt and implement codes. Through MSU, the possibility exists to explore non-traditional approaches to
enforcement and compliance measurement. For example, training includes both classroom style and field
training efforts. However, MSU could use climate specific resources such as streamlined checklists and best
practices for building officials; these resources should include videos, detailed photos, exercises and online
resources.

Currently, the MI (What department) has posted an RFP based on the Indiana example for about $500,000.
Unlike Indiana, this RFP is not funded out of Recovery Act funds. The state has also received funding from the
DOE to pursue innovative methods in training for the energy code.

Code Barriers
 The first major barrier is the statutory requirement that any upgrade to the code must pay itself back
within 7 years. This places a very difficult hurdle to overcome. It lengthened the adoption process and
it required a significant amount of extra work from the department.
 Extremely hostile homebuilder association.
 Cumbersome adoption process that is not helped by the 7 year rule.
 Lack of understanding among code officials about their roles in the 90% compliance mandate.

Needs
 Possible amendment of the 7 year rule.
 Bringing the HBA into the adoption and implementation process.
 Establishing non-traditional ways of training.
 Feedback upon practices and experiences identified in pilot states.
 Communications to code officials to further clarify their role in the 90% compliance mandate.
 Deeper insight into local jurisdictional practices.

Recommendations
 Coordinate efforts with MSU on developing innovative training methods.
 Utilities, particularly DTE, have shown interest in getting involved in the codes process as part of the
EEPS.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 11

 Continue outreach to homebuilders to bring them in on the training process.

 Direct outreach to code officials.
 Development of communication channels to disseminate information on the pilot study work.

Resources

Department of Energy Labor and Economic Growth; Bureau of Construction Codes

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-10575---,00.html

3.6 Minnesota

Current Status

Minnesota currently has a statewide code based on the 2006 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2004. The model codes have
been extensively amended and made more energy efficient. For example, the Minnesota residential energy
code contains important requirements related to ventilation. The DLI has not made any effort to adopt the 2009
IECC as it believes its amendments make their state code equivalent. The DLI might, however, work to adopt the
2012 IECC/ASHRAE 90.1-2010 once the codes are published.

Typically, the DLI has funded code training centers throughout the state. Recently, this effort has been scrapped
due to funding concerns.

The Minnesota legislature recently passed legislation that requires the Department of Commerce to design an
energy efficiency portfolio standard that requires 1.5% of the state’s energy needs be met by energy efficiency.
A taskforce was developed that is finalizing recommendation on what activities utilities can take to help meet
the goal. One of the recommendations will focus on having utilities fund compliance activities.

Code Barriers
 The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) faces a challenge in terms of statewide enforcement.
 Building departments in the main population centers tend to be reasonably well-staffed; however, in
large portions of the state (primarily the western portion of the state) there is spotty enforcement.

Needs
 The DLI needs to develop mechanisms for enforcing the code in areas that have little or no enforcement.
 The DLI would like to reestablish the training centers.
 Development of a larger stable of qualified technicians for blower door and duct blaster tests.

Recommendations
 Enlist utilities across the state to help fund compliance activities by leveraging the 1.5% EEPS
requirement.
 Develop training plan/strategy to guide the utility work.
 Work with established trainers such as BPI and RESNET to accelerate the accreditation of properly
qualified technicians.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 12

Resources

Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry

http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/Codes.asp

Don Sivigny
Senior Code Development Representative
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
433 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-254-5874

3.7 Missouri

Current Status

Missouri is a home-rule state where the adoption of codes occurs at the local level. State-owned, single-family,
and multi-family residential buildings must comply with the latest edition of the MEC or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
90.2-1993. Commercial structures are not mandated by any statewide code; however, state owned buildings
must comply with the 2006 IECC. St. Louis County, which also oversees the city of St. Louis, has adopted the
2009 IECC as their energy code. Missouri’s diverse landscape is made up of large rural regions and few urban
areas, resulting in a lack of consistency with respect to energy code adoption and enforcement. However, with
larger jurisdictions adopting the code, more counties and cities might follow as a few are looking into adoption.

Code Barriers
 Split between urban and rural populations. Although the largest cities have adopted codes, most of the
rural areas (which make up the majority of the state) continue to resist this action.
 Moreover, the state lacks a strong force dedicated towards moving forward with codes. There are a lot
of interested and supportive parties such as utilities, building officials and activists. However, there is a
lack of organized effort on behalf of codes. Work is needed to knit supportive parties into a cohesive
force.
 Lack of understanding on the part of builders, consumers, realtors, appraisers and other key
stakeholders.
 The opposition from homebuilders, in particular, makes any progress difficult.

Needs
 Consumer awareness to drive energy efficiency and advance energy codes
 Consistency throughout state
 Support from professional organizations such as Realtors, and Appraisers
 Organized support from key stakeholders such as utilities, activists, green builders and code officials.

Recommendations
 Training builders and energy auditors on building science principles
 Education of home building and new buyers on benefits of energy efficiency and energy codes
 Adoption of Energy Code by more populated counties and cities. This could cause a ripple effect through
many smaller counties throughout the state.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 13

 Outreach to utilities, green builders and other key players.

 Comprehensive strategies for advocacy that ties all the groups together and helps them act and speak
with one message.

Resources

Missouri Department of Natural Resource; Division of Energy

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/

Tom Appelbaum
Missouri Association of Accredited Energy Professionals
www.maaep.org
Tom@MAAEP.org

3.8 Nebraska

Current Status

Nebraska’s current Energy Code, the 2003 IECC was adopted by statute on July 1st, 2005, replacing the outdated
1983 Model Energy Code. The Code applies to all new buildings, or renovations of or additions to any existing
buildings. Renovations that cost more than 50 percent of the replacement cost of the building must comply with
the code. Nebraska held a preliminary hearing in front of the Urban Affairs Committee on November 19 2010 to
discuss the statewide impact of updating to the 2009 IECC. The bill to adopt the 2009 IECC will be introduced
into the Nebraska legislature in early January of 2011. The Nebraska Energy Office has received grants to adopt
the 2009 IECC, educate individuals on the code, and have completed studies outlining the energy and cost
impacts pertaining to the 2009 energy code. Nebraska has also received funds to adopt on the commercial side a
code that is 30% beyond ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 2006 IECC levels. A study has been published that outlines the
basis of this 30% beyond code and can be found in the link below. Representatives from the city of Omaha have
stated that the city plans to adopt the 2012 IECC. The state has also received funding from the DOE to perform a
gap analysis on the state’s enforcement infrastructure.

Code Barriers
 While the state has enacted a statewide code; unfortunately, the enabling legislation did not provide an
enforcement mechanism.
 Currently, code enforcement happens through a complaint system. The state will look into any
complaint by a homeowner. However, this is a haphazard system that provides no way of knowing (the
complaints obviously occur after the home has been completed) or checking whether the builder has
met the code.
 The level of understanding with respect to the energy code remains very low among the key
stakeholders which exacerbate the problems related to compliance.

Needs
 Enforcement infrastructure consisting of enabling statutes and rules, well-trained local building officials
and well trained building practitioners.
 Legislation that requires code enforcement
 Energy Raters/Auditors and other trained building science experts

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 14

Recommendations
 Training and education to build up a properly trained workforce
 Establish rules/regulations for incorporating energy raters/auditors into the enforcement infrastructure
 Perform a Compliance study

Resources

Nebraska Energy Office

www.neo.ne.gov

Lynn Chamberlin
Architect II
Nebraska Energy Office
PO Box 95085
Lincoln, NE
lynn.chamberlin@nebraska.gov

Nebraska specific Advanced Commercial Building Energy Code Study

http://www.neo.ne.gov/home_const/iecc/documents/NebraskaEnergyStudyFinalReport.pdf

3.9 North Dakota

Current Status

There is currently no mandatory state wide energy code in the state of North Dakota. In September, eligible
voting jurisdictions approved to update the current voluntary Energy Code, ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 to the
2009 IECC beginning January 1st, 2011. The basis of this action was spurred by North Dakota’s commitment to
abide by all American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requirements. Energy provisions were lightened as the
requirement for basement insulation were removed and will be slowly grandfathered into the code. While the
state does not enforce or track compliance with the energy code; a city, county, or township that elects to adopt
and enforce building codes must adopt and enforce the statewide adopted Building Code. Several cities and
counties have already held training sessions on how to enforce the Code. The city of Fargo, which has the
largest inspections department within the state, will be conducting seminars for designers to bring them up to
speed on the IECC requirements. The Department of Commerce only assists in the adoption of the latest code
for the state; it does not enforce or provide resources for compliance measures. However, the Department of
Commerce will assist jurisdictions with the adoption of that code.

Code Barriers
 North Dakota suffers from haphazard code enforcement as there is no established statewide
infrastructure.
 Code enforcement mainly falls on certain jurisdictions that have decided to adopt and enforce the code.
 Building officials continue to suffer from lack training on the new code.
 The general political culture also works against the adoption and implementation of a statewide code
there is little support beyond architects and some building officials.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 15

Needs
 Training centers/courses through a statewide education program
 Establishment of an enforcement infrastructure outside of building officials.
 New training methodologies that will incorporate more than just on-site training.
 General education of stakeholders on the importance of energy codes.

Recommendations
 Establish third party inspections for regular and manufactured housing.
 Perform gap analysis similar to work done by the Building Codes Assistance Project
 Outreach to key stakeholders across the state (focused on largest municipalities)

Resources

North Dakota Department of Commerce Division of Community Services;

Government & Technical Assistance: State Building Code
www.ndbuildingcodes.com

James C. Simpson, AIA

Chairman of the North Dakota State Building Code Advisory Committee
YHR Partners
Principal/Project Manager
jsimpson@yhr.com

3.10 Ohio

Current Status

Currently, Ohio requires the use of the 2006 IECC for residential dwellings and 90.10-2004 for commercial
buildings. Work to update the code has been stalled due to ferocious opposition from homebuilders who object
to: the requirement to use 2x6 walls and full-depth insulation in the basement. The objections have been based
primarily on cost considerations but also include issues around the ability of members to actually correctly
implement the requirements (many object having to change master plans to accommodate 2x6 construction
and others are worried about moisture problems in basements). Advocates, including the Sierra Club, the Ohio
Chemical Technology Council, the Ohio Consumers Council and MEEA have been working on an innovative way
to surmount this challenge based on trading off lower wall insulation for enhanced building infiltration. Work on
the commercial code has been stalled until a resolution to the residential code issues is found.

Code Barriers
 Opposition mounted by the Ohio Homebuilders Association. This group has the ability to stop or
indefinitely delay any update to the 2009 IECC and also, by extension, can hold up the development of
the commercial code.
 The new code will probably include requirements for mandatory blower door tests. A major concern
rests on how such testers will be trained and certified.

Needs
 Development of acceptable methodologies that address homebuilder concerns.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 16

 Strategies to help increase the supply of people qualified to perform building infiltration and duct
testing. The possible compromise solution will require the use of duct blaster and blower door tests.
This will increase the demand for these services.

Recommendations
 Establish a link between utility code programs and testing. For example, if utilities can find a way to help
cover the cost of blower door testing, the utilities should receive credit towards their Energy Efficiency
Portfolio Standards goals.
 Partner with homebuilders and advocates to develop alternative strategies of meeting the energy
requirements of the 2009 IECC.
 Partner with stakeholders to figure out new ways to adequately ventilate air tight homes.

Resources

Ohio Bureau of Building Standards

http://www.com.ohio.gov/dico/bbs.aspx

Steve Regoli/Debbie Ohler

Ohio Board of Building Standards
Staff Architect/Staff Engineer
6606 Tussing Rd,
Reynoldsburg OH 43068
dohler@com.state.oh.us
spregoli@com.state.oh.us

3.11 South Dakota

Current Status

South Dakota does not have a statewide code. Current statutory language merely requires that local
jurisdictions that adopt a code use the 2009 International Building Code. Even this requirement does not help
very much with respect to the energy code. While the 2009 IBC does contain a reference to the IECC, many
jurisdictions that adopt the 2009 IBC remove the 2009 IECC. On the other hand, given the very severe weather
typically experienced in the state, the general consensus is that most builders use tight 2x6 construction.

The governor recently appointed a committee to look into the possibility of adopting the 2009 IECC statewide as
per Recovery Act requirements. Moreover, there has been a significant amount of discussion in the committee
on how to meet the 90% compliance requirement. Discussion has centered on the possibility of meeting the
requirement without adopting a statewide code. The logic behind this reasoning rests on the fact that many of
the largest jurisdictions have already adopted the code and that most of the construction in the state takes
place in these jurisdictions.

Code Barriers
 Many of the key decision makers in the state have a strong libertarian streak and oppose any kind of
regulation. Although state leaders feel a certain amount of responsibility in taking Recovery Act money,
the general consensus is to find ways of meeting the requirements without adopting a statewide code.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 17

 A significant portion of the opposition arises due to a lack of familiarity with the energy code.

Needs
 Statewide education program on energy codes. The majority of practitioners appear to be unaware of
the code and its requirement and that poses a major obstacle to either adopting a statewide code or
getting the type of general compliance needed.

Recommendations
 Continue gap analysis to determine the specific needs in the different municipalities.
 Enlist utilities in the adoption and compliance effort. Determine whether there is an EEPS in the state
and if it can be leveraged to provide code help.
 Perform a baseline compliance study to learn where the state stands with respect to the 90%
requirement.

Resources

South Dakota Bureau of Administration

http://www.state.sd.us/boa/ose/OSE_Statewide_Energy.htm

Michele Farris
Statewide Energy Manager
Energy Management Office
523 E. Capitol Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501
Michele.Farris@state.sd.us

3.12 Wisconsin

Current Status

Wisconsin has a history of adopting the most recent Energy Code that is available and employing many
innovative strategies to ensure enforcement. Current law requires the Department of Commerce to consider
upgrades to the building code (including the energy code) on a regular basis. Wisconsin had a minor setback this
past year when the 2009 IECC was not adopted as the statewide code. Presently, the state’s mandatory building
code is the 2006 IECC. Wisconsin held a hearing in October to discuss the approval and impact of adopting the
2009 IECC as the Commercial code in the state. Once approved, this code will become effective in March of
2011. The Department of Commerce, which oversees building code regulations, has regional offices setup
throughout the state through which it coordinates enforcement work. The Department of Commerce also must
give jurisdictions clearance before they can start enforcing the code; otherwise, enforcement is done through
the DOC. This ensures that all building departments performing plan reviews and inspections are, in fact,
capable of doing the work. Another innovative process is through the use of a database that tracks and records
all Commercial buildings constructed in the state. This type of database is unique in the Midwest.

Code Barriers
 A lack of commitment from the Governor. With the Governor not seeking a third term, energy codes
were not a key priority before stepping down from office.

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 18

 Key supporters of the energy code missed an opportunity that would have ensured adoption of the
code.
 Cumbersome adoption process which must go through a code committee, a public hearing process and
a legislative review prior to adoption.

Needs
 Better enforcement on residential energy codes
 Stronger commitment from key governmental leaders.

Recommendations
 Residential enforcement training and education
 Development of third party enforcement structure to supplement regular enforcement of residential
energy code.
 Greater utility involvement

Resources

State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce

http://commerce.wi.gov

Brian Ferris
Section Chief
Division of Safety and Buildings Bureau of Integrated Services
(608) 785-9335

Brian.ferris@wi.gov

John Spalding
Section Chief
Division of Safety and Buildings Bureau of Integrated Services
(608) 789-4693
John.spalding@wi.gov

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611
 19

Appendix 1: Enabling Statutes/Relevant Regulations

State Enabling Legislation Relevant Regulation

Illinois Public Act 096-0778
Title 675 Article 19; Section 3-1
Indiana IC 22-13-2-2
through 3-76
Administrative Code: Public Safety;
Iowa Title 111; Subtitle 6; 103A.8A
Section 661; Chapters 303.1-303.5
Chapter 12, Article 12; Section 27
Kansas KSA 66-1227
Chapter 12, Article 33; Sections 01 through 05.
Construction Code 10 R408.31059-
31086 (Res)
Michigan Section 125.504
Construction Code 10A R408.31087-
31099 (Com)
Minnesota Chapter 326B; Section 118 Chapter 1322 and Chapter 1323
Missouri None None
Chapter 81 (Sections 1608-1626) State Energy Office
Nebraska
Chapter 72 (Sections 804-806) (state buildings) Title 107, Chapters 1-6
North Dakota
Chapter 4101:1-13 and
Ohio Title 37; Chapter 3781 Section 10A
Chapter 4101:1-35-01
South Dakota Title 11, Chapter 10
Wisconsin Chapter 101.027 Comm. 63; Comm 22

Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611