Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “energy code”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Model Building Energy Codes

The Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) periodically evaluates national and state-level impacts associated with energy codes in residential and commercial buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), funded by DOE, conducted an assessment of the prospective impacts of national model building energy codes from 2010 through 2040. A previous PNNL study evaluated the impact of the Building Energy Codes Program. A 2016 study looked more broadly at overall code impacts and this report describes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the impacts in terms of energy savings, consumer cost savings, and reduced emissions at the state level and at aggregated levels. In 2021, DOE conducted an interim and limited update to its 2016 study to evaluate potential building code updates using the 2016 methodology. That interim update includes estimated savings resulting from updates to the model energy codes, including the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) and 2019 editions, as well as the 2018 and 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In 2023, DOE developed a fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2019 and 2021 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, annual floorspace additions, state code adoption dates, and emission factors, among others. This current version is another fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2022 and 2024 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, state code adoption dates, emission factors, and renewable energy contribution among others. Energy codes follow a three-phase cycle that starts with the development of a new model code, proceeds with the adoption of the new code by states and local jurisdictions, and finishes when the new code is implemented and builders, architects, and engineers are required to comply with the new provisions. The development of new model code editions creates the potential for increased energy savings. After a new model code is adopted, potential savings are realized in the field when new buildings (or additions and alterations) are constructed to comply with the new code. The contributions of all three phases are crucial to the overall impact of codes and are considered in this assessment. Figure ES.1 schematically describes the analysis framework. Energy savings are expressed in terms of energy use intensity (EUI) in the figure.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Building Performance Standards and Energy Code Alignment - Technical Brief

Building energy codes focus on building design, construction and renovation and have significantly increased building efficiency since the first national energy code was published in 1975. Most jurisdictions have energy codes based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (hereto referred to as Standard 90.1) and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Compliance options available in these model energy codes include a prescriptive path, whole building performance paths – including IECC Total Building Performance (TBP), Standard 90.1 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method and Performance Rating Method (PRM) – and system performance paths for envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems. Building performance standard (BPS) policies are an emerging policy tool used by jurisdictions to reduce the operational energy use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the existing commercial building stock. BPS policies vary widely between jurisdictions and are tailored to each location’s climate and energy goals. Intuitively, projects that met a recent edition of the energy code should comply with the BPS targets. However, some new buildings may struggle with meeting the BPS for the following reasons: 1. Energy codes focus on the design of the building and its projected ability to perform efficiently, while BPS compliance is dependent on the actual ongoing performance of the building, considering variables like occupancy, operation, and maintenance. 2. There are significant differences in the methodologies used to determine BPS compliance versus code compliance, including how each handles compliance metrics, handling of building amenities, and renewable energy generation. 3. The prescriptive compliance path in the energy code is based on performance of individual building components, as opposed to the performance compliance path which accounts for holistic building design strategies and interdependent building systems. This can result in a significant variability in post-occupancy performance for buildings built using the prescriptive path. Designs on the lower end of the permitted efficiency range may struggle with meeting the BPS.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest (Final Technical Report)

The primary goal of the “An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest” project was to improve housing through strengthened building energy code implementation in two states, Colorado and Nevada, leading to greater energy and utility bill savings for households. Colorado is a home rule state. Nevada adopts a statewide code, but cities and counties must also adopt the code, making the state function like a home rule state. To broaden the impact of the project, an additional goal was to share and amplify project experiences, findings, and lessons that can be applied in other states. To achieve these goals, the project’s key objectives were to examine how residential energy codes are implemented in partner states; to use these findings to strengthen codes implementation through enhanced education, training, and outreach; and to enhance energy code technical assistance capabilities in the two partner states. In both partner states, the project led to the creation of a quantitative baseline understanding of compliance with high-impact energy code requirements, such as foundation, wall, and ceiling R-value; window U-factor and SHGC; envelope air tightness; duct tightness; and high-efficiency lighting. It then applied this baseline information to directly inform training in geographic areas with high levels of building and construction activity. The project has placed Colorado and Nevada among 23 states across the country that have conducted a single-family residential field study based on the established U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) methodology since 2014. It has also helped each State Energy Office test models for partnership- and relationship-building among government agencies and key stakeholder groups, including the State Energy Office and relevant code administration and professional licensing agencies, building officials, designers, builders, trades and utilities. At the national level, the project helped educate and inform State and Territory Energy Offices on a replicable methodology to assess energy code construction practices, effective stakeholder engagement strategies, and tailored energy code education and training. These findings are particularly pertinent for home-rule states, such as Colorado and Nevada, which rely on local government awareness and action to advance and implement building energy codes. By raising awareness of code adoption and compliance, this project has helped to equip each partner state with data on code compliance, strategies, education, and partnership models to advance building energy codes. This in turn will have an important impact on new construction practices in Colorado and Nevada, leading to more energy efficient and affordable housing. Currently, more than 62 percent of Colorado’s population lives in one of the 55 jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IECC to date, while nearly 95 percent of the state's population lives in one of the 208 jurisdictions that have adopted a code at 2015 IECC levels or higher. In Nevada, the 2018 IECC was adopted by the Governor’s Office of Energy in July 2018. By July 2020, 47 percent of the adopted energy code in the state was 2018 IECC which covers 96.5 percent of Nevada’s population. The training materials funded by this project focus on the 2021 IECC and will continue to be relevant in the two states as additional jurisdictions update their building energy codes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Methodology for Evaluating Energy Savings, Cost-Effectiveness, and Societal Impacts of Commercial Energy Code Changes

This document lays out the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) methodology for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy code and standard proposals and editions. The evaluation is applied to new provisions or editions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and the International Energy Conservation Code. The methodology follows standard lifecycle cost (LCC) economic analysis procedures. A cost-effectiveness evaluation requires three steps: 1) evaluating the energy and energy cost savings of code changes; 2) evaluating the incremental and replacement costs related to the changes; and 3) determining the cost-effectiveness of energy code changes based on those costs and savings over time.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Methodology for Evaluating Commercial Energy Code Updates

This document lays out the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) methodology for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy code and standard proposals and editions. The evaluation is applied to new provisions or editions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and the International Energy Conservation Code. The methodology follows standard lifecycle cost (LCC) economic analysis procedures. A cost-effectiveness evaluation requires three steps: 1) evaluating the energy and energy cost savings of code changes; 2) evaluating the incremental and replacement costs related to the changes; and 3) determining the cost-effectiveness of energy code changes based on those costs and savings over time.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Continuum from Energy Codes to Advanced Technologies: A New Approach to Training

In July of 2020, the unamended 2018 IECC became the statewide energy code for the state of Nebraska. This represented a significant energy code advancement over the previous code – the 2009 IECC. To support the implementation of the new code, the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), along with in-state partners, including the Nebraska Energy Office and the Nebraska Code Officials Association, applied for and received a FOA award for an integrated and innovative training and education program.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Pennsylvania and Delaware Energy Code Field Studies (Final Technical Report (FTR)

Led by Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) in partnership with Performance Systems Development (PSD), the project aimed to conduct energy code compliance field studies for single-family residential buildings in Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as multifamily and commercial buildings in Pennsylvania. Using U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approved methodologies, trained field teams conducted on-site observations and testing to document compliance with key energy efficiency measures, including building envelope insulation, air sealing, duct leakage, windows, and mechanical systems. Data from these studies would then be analyzed to identify construction trends and compliance gaps. The goals included published baseline data for each study, and a training roadmap tailored to each state’s needs. This roadmap would have guided outreach and training for builders, code officials, and other stakeholders on the specific code requirements that offered the greatest opportunity for improvement.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data Driven Commercial Building Energy Code Compliance and Technology Inventory for New York City

Building Performance Standards (BPS) are gaining national traction. A BPS will require new processes in the design, construction, and operation of buildings that take the occupants into account and enable predictive analysis to ensure compliance with current and future GHG emissions caps. In New York City, most buildings over 25,000 square feet will be regulated by a BPS starting in 2024, regardless of whether it is new construction permitted under current energy codes or an existing building. This research is one of the first to begin the evaluation of a long-term series of building policies in the context of an open data ecosystem, in cooperation with city agencies. Existing building policies enacted in NYC have ranged from building energy benchmarking and labeling to energy audits to the regulation of GHG emission in buildings. Through the development of a dataset related to building technologies and energy consumption, this project can help to evaluate if meaningful conclusions can be drawn for the data that has been largely self-reported in compliance with city regulations. This project will also provide lessons learned from a deep dive into these types of datasets to provide best practices for municipalities or states seeking to embark on policies like those enacted in NYC. In addition, a Building Automation System (BAS) Stretch Standard of Care (SSOC) for owners, designers, and building operators will enable the measurement and predictive analysis of energy consumption and GHG emissions at the plant, system, or component level, in anticipation of regulated GHG limits on buildings based on energy use. The SSOC is expected to be suitable for use on a national level. The primary feature of an SSOC is a standardized format for a set of BAS points that can be used to control and to gather data from individual plants, systems, or components that are related to building energy consumption. This project examined how measurements compare to prescriptive or simulation-based energy code targets, finding little correlation between predictive 8760-hour energy modeling and actual energy consumption for a small sample (n=27) of buildings constructed after 2015. Other analysis found that, while large multifamily housing (MFH) buildings showed a general trend similar to predicted reductions in energy use from the implementation of model commercial energy codes, this trend was not evident in the office, K-12 school, and hotel use groups in NYC. No upward or downward trends in energy consumption were found when buildings were grouped by size. Energy audit data were analyzed and it appears that there is bias by audit company on measures recommended to clients. Further research should be performed to cross-analyze this with other attributes, such as building size, vintage, and number of stories. Analysis found that for 281 buildings that were permitted and completed after 2015 and had submitted benchmarking data in 2022, between 81% and 96% (by use group) were found to be in compliance with the 2024 to 2029 NYC BPS emission caps, and between 55% and 89% were in compliance with the 2030-2034 caps. This work is beneficial to the public in helping policymakers and building stakeholders better understand the wide-ranging implications of a BPS.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Readiness in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

This technical brief provides requirements for electric readiness that could be incorporated into model residential energy codes. It provides background on the basis and benefits of the provisions, and model code language that can be plugged into the IECC or adapted into other energy codes. This brief has been updated to reflect changes in the 2024 IECC.

2021 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Market Driven Residential Energy Codes: Comparing Performance in a Changing Technological Environment

The research project is undertaken to better understand the changing relationship between the two basic methods of building energy code compliance – prescriptive and performance – and how those methods relate to each other with respect to advancements in building energy computer simulation standards and capabilities. The International Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) is a model code adopted by many jurisdictions across the United States. Historically, the prescriptive compliance methodology has been preferred in most jurisdictions. The prescriptive methodology requires meeting or exceeding specific efficiency minimums for each envelope component. This tends to be a simple method to teach and verify. A more involved prescriptive alternative called the Total UA alternative is sometimes used. This method requires some multiplication, summing, and comparison to compute, so it is done with a fairly simple computer program. However, advances in computer and building energy simulation technology have resulted in increased use of more detailed performance compliance methods. The performance compliance method establishes the annual energy cost threshold via hourly simulation models. The compliance threshold is determined with a comparison building model simulation with geometry similar to the proposed home and with energy feature parameters and efficiencies as specified in the IECC. This project examines relationships between the two methods of building energy code compliance, including: • Overall annual energy use based on utility bill analysis by compliance method • Code official work processes with respect to compliance methods • Gaps and issues associated with building code compliance methods • Simulated energy use difference between compliance methods • Code compliance cost as a function of compliance method • Code compliance labeling effectiveness for high performance residences • Getting to net zero energy use and net zero greenhouse gas emissions through high performance code alternatives • Electronic code permitting and compliance alternatives

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Methodology to Establish Performance Targets for Building Energy Codes

This report explains the underlying development of the U.S. NZE building sector performance targets reported in Federal Register Notice XX. This document also includes NZE performance targets for U.S. states, which were developed following the same procedures used to develop the national values. These national and state targets are intended to support the establishment and attainment of NZE goals over time. Where residential and commercial building energy code compliance mechanisms apply to new buildings and major renovations and dictate performance requirements, these targets reflect the recommended, minimum levels of performance. Appendix A provides the performance values and targets by U.S. state for residential and commercial buildings. These include each state’s adopted energy code performance, current published MEC performance value, and a nominal NZE code compliance performance target. The current code and NZE values can be compared to the state adopted code value to indicate the level of advancement needed to move towards recommended NZE building performance levels. Additional supplemental resources are available to support states and local governments ready to move from setting NZE policy goals to adopting NZE codes. More information about these resources and the actions states can take to achieve NZE buildings with energy codes are provided in the body of this document.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging for Residential and Commercial Energy Codes: Technical Brief

Numerous studies show that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have grown consistently over recent years in the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated 3 million EVs were on the road in 2022, and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) forecasts a total of 26.4 million EVs on the road by 2030. Based on this forecast, EEI projects the need for an additional 12.9 million EV charge ports by 2030. If EV charging infrastructure fails to keep pace with sales of EVs it could result in consumers stranded without options to power their vehicles. EVs are capable of providing substantial benefits to the consumers. EVs are less expensive to operate than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, have lower maintenance costs, and have the convenience of fueling (charging) at home or work. Studies conducted in California show that costs associated with installing EV charging infrastructure can be substantially more expensive for retrofit scenarios compared to new construction, making inclusion of EV infrastructure in new construction codes a cost-effective policy option to increase infrastructure to meet growing demands. PNNL tracks adoption of mandatory EV provisions across the U.S. As of December 20, 2024, 12 states (California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont) and 53 local governments have added EV provisions to their building codes, local ordinances and zoning requirements. Originally published in 2022, this tech brief has been revised to align with recent model energy code committee discussions and published EV infrastructure code language. This technical brief summarizes market trends, costs and benefits, and provides sample code language for EV charging infrastructure for consideration to be included in model codes, such as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as well as directly by states and local governments in their building codes. The technical brief summarizes related efforts undertaken by states and local governments, and builds upon language considered during the 2021 and 2024 IECC development cycles.

2021 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy Efficiency Field Study: Influence of Key Measures in Home Rules States

The goal of the Energy Efficiency Field Study: Influence of Key Measures in Home Rule States project is to empower and support the states of Utah and Arizona in the successful implementation of their building energy codes. Employing the Department of Energy (DOE) Residential Building Energy Code Field Study Data Collection & Methodology, the research team evaluated real-world implementation status against a baseline, with a particular focus on the unique challenges presented by the dry, hot climates of Utah and Arizona.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy efficiency and thermal resilience analysis for row houses using representative building energy models

Row houses, a prevalent medium-density urban archetype, were popularized during industrial era to accommodate the working class in the U.S. cities. Today, many of these structures are deteriorating, exacerbating the energy cost for residents with limited economic resources. Moreover, many households that lack Air Conditioning (AC) are vulnerable to extreme summer heat, an issue expected to worsen in the future. Energy-efficient retrofits can help mitigate these challenges. However, current literature provides limited insight into how existing building energy codes impact the energy efficiency and thermal resilience of row houses in current and future weather scenarios. This study provides a detailed method to address this gap by employing calibrated representative energy models of row houses as a baseline, and evaluating the annual energy savings and summertime thermal safety improvements from code compliant retrofits under current and future typical weather conditions. Using Baltimore City as a case study, results show that under current weather, retrofitting row houses yields significant energy savings along with notable thermal resilience improvements. The end unit row house realizes higher energy savings, whereas the interior unit experiences greater thermal resilience improvement after retrofitting. In future, retrofitted row houses can still save energy, but residents will face numerous hours of fatal indoor temperatures without AC in summer. Additionally, findings reveal stark zone-wise variations in thermal safety, and elevated humidity risks in certain zones post-retrofit, emphasizing the need for zonal retrofit strategies and better natural ventilation strategies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

National Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2022

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2022 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, which is developed by the ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1 and is the model energy standard for all commercial buildings and multifamily residential buildings over three floors. PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1-2022, compared to the previous 90.1-2019 edition, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. In reviewing proposed changes to Standard 90.1, the SSPC considers the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda). Due to the continuous nature of the development process, however, ASHRAE does not evaluate the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting state and local governments. Providing states with an analysis of cost-effectiveness facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts associated with updated model energy codes, informs the state decision-making process and its authorities, and ultimately encourages greater adoption of updated energy codes. This information also informs the development of future editions of Standard 90.1.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hot Water Recirculation Systems: Designing for Success [Slides]

This presentation will focus on on-demand hot water recirculation systems and how they contribute to energy and water conservation in residential buildings. This work illustrates best practices for designing, installing, and operating these systems, drawing from research and field testing to provide practical recommendations. The ultimate goal is to reduce wait times for hot water, comply with current energy codes, and lower both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, while improving user satisfaction. In the upcoming slides, we'll dive into case studies and explore the latest technological advancements that help achieve these objectives.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Moisture Performance of Unvented Attics With Vapor Diffusion Ports and Buried Ducts in Hot, Humid Climates

Energy efficiency measures, such as cool roofs, radiant barriers, interior radiative control coatings, and buried ducts are increasing in popularity and are promoted by energy codes because of their energy-saving potential. However, these strategies can also pose moisture risks in attics by lowering surface temperatures and increasing condensation potential and moisture accumulation. Of particular concern in hot-humid climates is dripping condensation on cold air-conditioning ductwork in the summer - commonly referred to as duct "sweating" - which threatens the attic floor with conditions conducive to mold growth and rot. One strategy to mitigate these moisture issues is to wrap ductwork in thicker duct-wrap insulation with an integrated exterior vapor barrier, but thick duct wrap can be difficult to come by, expensive, and unwieldy to work with. This study explores an alternative strategy of reducing moisture issues while embracing energy efficiency by using unvented attics with vapor diffusion ports and buried ductwork in hot-humid climates. Vapor diffusion ports have been studied so far in a wide range of U.S. climates, mostly in the context of conditioned attics. In this study, the strategy is implemented in the novel context of hot-humid climates with ductwork sitting atop blown-in attic floor insulation in unconditioned attics. Using a combination of field experiments and hygrothermal modeling, the findings of this project indicate that an unvented attic with vapor diffusion ports and buried ducts may be a key part of a successful low-cost method for reducing the attic moisture load by venting excess moisture out of the attic, keeping duct-jacket surfaces above dew point temperature, and keeping the roof deck safe from winter moisture accumulation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗