Starting in June, California’s latest version of its Title 24 building code kicks in, requiring several systems come with demand response capability. Every new or retrofit thermostat, HVAC system, networked lighting controller, and building automation system in the state will have to be ready for two-way, automated utility-to-customer energy management. Non-residential building lighting systems will be required to have daylight-matching adjustment, dimming and demand response capabilities.
These devices and systems will be required to be “capable of receiving and automatically responding to at least one standards-based messaging protocol” to receive signals from utilities. There are a few standards that meet the requirement— OpenADR, SEP 2.0, and HomePlug.
OpenADR was developed by the California Energy Commission and Berkeley Labs. It offers tools to allow buildings and utilities to communicate about energy availability, price, and how buildings can execute and confirm actions to reduce power use.
These standards were enacted after the California Energy Commission identified flaws in the state’s approach to demand response in a 2013 report, including a failure to reach modest goals set in 2007 to reduce peak demand by 5%. The solution may come from a market-based program to encourage users to reduce demand during peak energy use periods. The new demand-response standards pave the way for this option.
Related Stories
| May 8, 2014
Door knob code revisions generating controversy
The City of Vancouver’s ban on doorknobs in all new buildings, which went into effect last month, has drawn a strong reaction from the public and heated debate across Canada as other jurisdictions consider the measure.
| May 8, 2014
Structural concrete code revisions open for public comments
The American Concrete Institute’s completely reorganized ACI 318-14, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is open for public review for a 45-day period.
| May 3, 2014
Controversy rages over cost, benefits of proposed OSHA silica dust rule
Introduced in August 2013, the proposal would lower allowable levels of crystalline silica in all workplaces, standardize how the dust is calculated, and require medical monitoring for employees exposed to high levels.
| May 3, 2014
California’s Title 24 promises to reshape the construction industry
California’s recent revisions to Title 24 contain ambitious performance goals: all residential buildings must be Zero Net Energy by 2020 and commercial buildings must reach that standard by 2030.
| Apr 30, 2014
House Appropriations Committee approves $3 billion cut for military construction
The Army would see the sharpest cuts on a percentage basis, with a $578 million, or 52% reduction in FY 2015.
| Apr 30, 2014
GSA wants to trade D.C. office building for construction and development services
The GSA has issued an RFQ seeking developers who can provide construction and development services in exchange for the GSA Regional Office Building and Cotton Annex located in Southwest Washington, D.C.
| Apr 30, 2014
Mexico City spending big on green roofs to fight air pollution
Although green roofs have been widely adopted in urban areas to reduce the heat island effect and stormwater runoff, Mexico City is hoping that vegetative rooftops can also reduce the city’s air pollution.
| Apr 23, 2014
California bill would make employers responsible for subcontractors' wages, workers' comp
Under the recently revised Assembly Bill 1897, employers would have to pay wages, taxes, and workers compensation on behalf of a subcontractor’s workers if the subcontractor reneges on that responsibility.
| Apr 23, 2014
Obama’s 2015 budget includes $1.7 billion to GSA for building construction, renovations
The Obama Administration has proposed $1.7 billion for construction, renovation, and repairs to federal buildings in fiscal year 2015 under the auspices of the U.S. General Services Administration.
| Apr 18, 2014
Massachusetts Supreme Court clarifies building code liability issue on mixed-use projects
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that distinct portions of a mixed-used building may be treated as distinct and different structures under the state building code.
