California Energy Code Requirements for Furnace Change-out with Existing Duct-work

[Joe.B]

Specific scenarios: Contractor pulls a permit for a furnace replacement only connecting to the existing ductwork. They have passed off the permit and any required HERS testing to the home-owner saying that it is their responsibility to get the testing and call me for final inspection. Same contractor pulled a different permit for a different house and does a furnace replacement with all new ductwork. The new ductwork clearly requires the duct sealing test, but is it okay for the contractor to sluff off this responsibility to the homeowner? Is a 3rd party duct sealing test required if no work was done to the ducting? Normally I would ask the Building Official to make this call but once again my City is without a BO since January 1st. That was the 5th BO I've worked under in my less than 4-year inspector career, all working for the same city.

I have spent several hours reading the various codes and regulations regarding furnace change-outs. Unfortunately I was not able to clearly answer the question so I have several calls into various government agencies (CA Energy Commission, CA Building Standards Commission, CalCerts, Cheers, and Energy Code Ace) as well as the only local HERS rating company that I know of.

2019 Referenced Appendices, part of Title 24. Specifically RA2.4 found on page 221, RA2.8 on page 233, RA3.1 on page 237, and RA3.4 on page 269. RA2.4.1 Builder “The builder shall make arrangements for submittal of the Certificate of Compliance information and certification signatures to the HERS Provider data registry for dwelling units with features that require HERS verification. The builder shall make arrangements for the services of a certified HERS Rater prior to installation of the features, so that once the installation is complete the HERS Rater has ample time to complete the field verification and diagnostic testing without delaying final approval of the building permit by the enforcement agency. The Builder shall make available to the HERS Rater a copy of the Certificate of Compliance that was approved/signed by the building designer or owner and submitted to the enforcement agency.” It goes on from there and appears to me that it’s stating that the builder (contractor) is responsible for hiring the 3rd party tester, not the home owner. How does your department handle this? Do you allow home-owners to follow up on energy requirements, and final inspection for that matter, or do you require the contractor to complete the process?

The other part that I have been researching is the 2019 CA Energy Code, commonly referred to as Title 24. Title 24 is actually the entire CA Building Standards Code, Part 6 is the Energy Code. The entire code is available for viewing at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes, click the link to 2019 Triennial Edition of Title 24 (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes - accordion-23dd3f48-0422-4483-b072-69c76e6395c4) then scroll down to click on the link to Part 6 (which redirects you to https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAEC2019/cover). Specifically Sections 110.2 on page 34, 150.0(m) on page 143, and 150.2(b)1.D. on page 166.

Basically where I’m stuck is 150(b)1. states “The altered component and any newly installed equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through (1), 150.0(m)1 through (m)10, and 150.0(o) through (q); and … D. Altered duct systems-duct sealing. In all climate zones when more than 40 feet of new or replacement space conditioning system ducts are installed…” Note that it references 150.0(m)1 through (m)10 which stops just short of (m)11 which is the “Duct system sealing and leakage testing” section. Since it doesn’t include (m)11 and specifically states “more than 40 feet of new or replacement” I am interpreting that to mean that HERS testing may not be required when doing a furnace change-out with less than 40 feet of new or altered ducting. NOTE: It appears that the duct sealing is still required but it may not need to be 3rd party tested. That’s my interpretation anyways and that’s what I’m looking to verify.

Any help is much appreciated.

 

[mark handler]

CONTACT the California Energy Commission​

Building Energy Efficiency Standards -2019 Title 24
Toll-free in California: 800-772-3300

 

[Yikes]

2019 Referenced Appendices, part of Title 24. Specifically RA2.4 found on page 221, RA2.8 on page 233, RA3.1 on page 237, and RA3.4 on page 269. RA2.4.1 Builder “The builder shall make arrangements for submittal of the Certificate of Compliance information and certification signatures to the HERS Provider data registry for dwelling units with features that require HERS verification. The builder shall make arrangements for the services of a certified HERS Rater prior to installation of the features, so that once the installation is complete the HERS Rater has ample time to complete the field verification and diagnostic testing without delaying final approval of the building permit by the enforcement agency. The Builder shall make available to the HERS Rater a copy of the Certificate of Compliance that was approved/signed by the building designer or owner and submitted to the enforcement agency.” It goes on from there and appears to me that it’s stating that the builder (contractor) is responsible for hiring the 3rd party tester, not the home owner.

Joe, I'm assuming you are a city inspector, working withou benefit of a CBO in your department.
There's an assumption in your statement that "Builder" = contractor. The builder might be a contractor - - or it might be an owner/builder.

for your own purposes, I would simply look to the permit application itself, which (in California) identifies the builder for purposes of Workman's Compensation. That's who should be responsible to provide you, the inspector, with the arrangements for the Certificate of Compliance.

Assuming there's a contractor listed as builder, then the contractor needs to submit the certs to you. As to how they get the certs, who performs the HERS test, etc., that's probably beyond your concern; it may be an internal contractual issue between the contractor /owner as to who does what. If their contract was otherwise silent on the issue of 3rd party inspections or other scope limitations, my guess is that the owner could use the RA2.4 code section you cited above to force the contractor to provide the necessary inspections.

 

[Joe.B]

Joe, I'm assuming you are a city inspector, working without benefit of a CBO in your department.
There's an assumption in your statement that "Builder" = contractor. The builder might be a contractor - - or it might be an owner/builder.

Yes, small city inspector all by myself. Agreed the builder could be the owner, but I have yet to see a permit for a furnace swap-out that was applied for under owner-builder. Most likely because they don't pull a permit, not great, but that's not what I'm concerned about right now.

for your own purposes, I would simply look to the permit application itself, which (in California) identifies the builder for purposes of Workman's Compensation. That's who should be responsible to provide you, the inspector, with the arrangements for the Certificate of Compliance.

Correct, when the contractor applies for a permit they typically provide a CF1R form that the admin will ask me to check before they issue the permit. The "good" companies call for inspection and have the follow-up forms at inspection. easy-peasy.

Assuming there's a contractor listed as builder, then the contractor needs to submit the certs to you. As to how they get the certs, who performs the HERS test, etc., that's probably beyond your concern; it may be an internal contractual issue between the contractor /owner as to who does what. If their contract was otherwise silent on the issue of 3rd party inspections or other scope limitations, my guess is that the owner could use the RA2.4 code section you cited above to force the contractor to provide the necessary inspections.

This came up because of several inspections that were called for by the owner even though they hired the contractor to do the work. They consistently have corrections (lack of sediment trap, working platform, convenience light, etc...) including the lack of the follow up forms, CF2R & CF3R. When I pressed the contractor for this information they sent me a copy of the contract with the homeowner that basically says "owner will handle all energy forms, tests, and inspections." or something to that effect. Based on what I could find that doesn't seem right.

Then there is the question of when the duct sealing test is required? Always? Only when adding new ducting?

Thank you very much for your response!

 

[BN4537]

Yes, small city inspector all by myself. Agreed the builder could be the owner, but I have yet to see a permit for a furnace swap-out that was applied for under owner-builder. Most likely because they don't pull a permit, not great, but that's not what I'm concerned about right now.

Correct, when the contractor applies for a permit they typically provide a CF1R form that the admin will ask me to check before they issue the permit. The "good" companies call for inspection and have the follow-up forms at inspection. easy-peasy.

This came up because of several inspections that were called for by the owner even though they hired the contractor to do the work. They consistently have corrections (lack of sediment trap, working platform, convenience light, etc...) including the lack of the follow up forms, CF2R & CF3R. When I pressed the contractor for this information they sent me a copy of the contract with the homeowner that basically says "owner will handle all energy forms, tests, and inspections." or something to that effect. Based on what I could find that doesn't seem right.

Then there is the question of when the duct sealing test is required? Always? Only when adding new ducting?

Thank you very much for your response!

They pull the permit, they are required to get all of the work and inspections and special reports taken care of to get the permit closed.

I don't care what they do in regard to "scope of work" deals that they make between their clients and other contractors - they can hire a subcontractor who hires subcontractor who hires his cousin who lets his brother-in-law do the work, but if the work or special inspections or anything else doesn't get done, the guy who pulled the permit is responsible to the building department. If he didn't want to be responsible for the items to close the permit, he should have canceled the permit.

 

[BN4537]

I had a situation in my jurisdiction where a contractor pulled a demo permit to demo a building. Part of the responsibility of a demo permit is to remove and cap the sewer within 5' of the lot line.

When the permit expired after 180 days without an inspection for the sewer cap, I contacted the contractor. He emailed me back and said the owner had contracted with a different company to deal with the sewer, and it wasn't in his scope of work. He then tried to get me the other contractors contact info.

I told him that since he had pulled the permit, and the sewer cap was part of that permit, he was legally responsible to get this issue resolved. (Politely, of course.)

Fortunately, the other contractor was on top of things and was able to prove that he had capped the sewer and where it was, without having to dig it back up... but if he had been less ethical, or organized, the first contractor would have been in a very difficult position - the owners of the property had changed in the meantime, and I think that the new owners would not have been happy about him wanting to dig up their yard...

 

[steveray]

See here, we have no real authority to go after a contractor, Licensing/ legal performance of the work is handled by the State.....I will fail the inspection, but it is not like I can make him come back and fix it, that is on the owner....If the contractor has satisfied his contractual obligation to the owner, there should be no recourse really....