<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-link:"List Paragraph Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-link:"List Paragraph Char";
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-link:"List Paragraph Char";
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-link:"List Paragraph Char";
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.ListParagraphChar
{mso-style-name:"List Paragraph Char";
mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-link:"List Paragraph";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Hi Eric,</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In my experience, the use of IECC Total Building Performance is on decline. Some jurisdictions (New York City, Rode Island) no longer allow it, in part because it hasn’t been continuously maintained. The graphs below are based on a survey of 25 jurisdictions and 5 above-code programs across the country that was done as part of a research project, and illustrate popularity of different performance-based compliance options. As you can see, 90.1 Appendix G came out as the winner based on the responses we got. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Starting with the 90.1 2016 edition, Appendix G Performance Rating Method (PRM) has become an approved path of compliance with 90.1, but many jurisdictions with earlier base codes already accept it. For example, New York and Connecticut have a Standard 90.1 2013 base code but allow using the 90.1 2016 version of the PRM. Many jurisdictions accept documented participation in approved above-code programs as a proxy for code compliance, which is consistent with the IECC Section C102.1.1, that allows jurisdictions to “deem a national, state or local energy efficiency program to exceed the energy efficiency required by this code [to be considered in compliance]”. Since many utility incentive programs and above-code programs such as LEED and EPA EnergyStar Multifamily High-rise Program are based on 90.1 Appendix G, projects that pursue these programs should be able to recycle the models for code compliance. (If this is not yet allowed in a particular jurisdiction, design teams can submit an official interstation request to get it approved.) FYI, both LEED and EPA allow using 2016 version of Appendix G. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Question</b>: What performance-based compliance options are allowed in your jurisdiction or above-code program? If several options are allowed, select all that apply in the "Performance-based Compliance Option" column. In the "Year" column, indicate the edition used. For example, if 90.1 2016 Appendix G is allowed, enter "2016". For each option, enter approximate percentage of projects that use it. </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"> </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><img width="480" height="241" style="width:5.0in;height:2.5083in" id="Chart_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D55347.4C91E1B0"></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"> </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><img width="624" height="266" style="width:6.5in;height:2.775in" id="Chart_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01D55347.4C91E1B0"></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"> </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">Hope this helps,</p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"> </p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">Maria</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Bldg-sim <<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Erik Kolderup via Bldg-sim<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:19 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Bldg-sim] IECC vs 90.1 compliance modeling "survey"</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">For those of you who do 2015 IECC compliance modeling, do you use the IECC’s Total Building Performance method or do you use ASHRAE 90.1-2013 Energy Cost Budget Method instead? Main reasons you use one or the other?</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The State of Hawaii is considering holding training on the performance method for local designers, and I'm curious about standard practice elsewhere.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Regards,</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Erik</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Erik Kolderup, PE, LEED AP</b></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:erik@kolderupconsulting.com" target="_blank">erik@kolderupconsulting.com</a><span style="color:#999999"> | 415.531.5198 | </span><a href="http://www.kolderupconsulting.com" target="_blank">www.kolderupconsulting.com</a><span style="color:#999999"> </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>