 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In This Issue:General Updates / AdministrativeRemembering Marty HastingsAnnual RenewalsRandom Testing UpdateTechnical Committee Meeting RecapTechnical Committee Officer ChangesSeptember 22 Technical Committee Meeting UpdatesBoard of Directors Meeting RecapSeptember 8, 2011 Board Meeting UpdatesNovember 16, 2011 Board Meeting UpdatesEvaluation Services Cool Roof Rating CouncilEvaluation Services CRRC Program UpdateRatings, Codes and ProgramsANSI/CRRC-1 Standard: Second Public Comment Period is OpenMembership and OutreachWebsite Redesign UpdateInternational Outreach UpdateGeneral Updates / AdministrativeRemembering Marty Hastings
It is with great sadness that we mourn the passing of Marty Hastings, longtime CRRC Board member, Treasurer and Technical Committee member. Marty was wonderfully dedicated to the CRRC and will be greatly missed. Through his notable career, Marty Hastings made significant contributions to the factory applied coating industry and with this extensive experience, he helped guide the CRRC.
Annual Renewals
The online Renewals system was opened to all CRRC participants in early November. All Licensees and Members received an email with a login and password for the online Renewals payment system. We are continuing to accept credit card payments through Google Checkout. You also have the option to send us a check.
*In accordance with the Board of Directors June vote, the late fee will apply only to Licensee and product fees, not to Membership Fees. Random Testing Update
Random testing is the method by which the CRRC ensures the credibility and accuracy of our rating program. Each year, we test 10% of all active Licensed Seller products in order to guarantee that their reflectance and emittance numbers match their listed values. Products that do not pass random testing are removed from the Rated Products Directory.
The 2010 random testing program is in its final stages with the current results below (“Awaiting Re-Testing” are products that have failed their first or second round of testing, out of a possible total of three tests, thus are not yet considered “failed” products):
The 2011 random testing program is ramping up with 133 products with the following breakdown:
Once each annual round of random testing is completed, we will mail result letters to all licensees who had products tested. If you have any questions about random testing, please contact Ethan Guy at ethan@coolroofs.org or (510) 482-4420 x237. Technical Committee Meeting Recap
The CRRC Technical Committee held its most recent meeting on September 22, 2011, in San Francisco, CA. A conference call meeting is being scheduled for mid to late January, The next in-person meeting will be held on March 14, 2012 in Dallas, TX. Technical Committee Officer ChangesAt the September 9th Board of Directors Meeting, the Board elected Darrel Higgs to the CRRC Board, which rendered him ineligible to serve as a main voting member of the Technical Committee, and hence no longer eligible to serve as the Committee Vice Chair. Rich Slomko of Atlas Material Testing Services was elected as the new Vice Chair during the September 22 Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Higgs was made a voting alternate to Bill Morgan of Malarkey Roofing. Additionally, the Board selected Kurt Shickman of the Global Cool Cities Alliance to replace Neelam Patel from the US EPA as a main voting member of the Technical Committee. September 22 Technical Committee Meeting UpdatesSlide Method Study
Board of Directors Meeting RecapSeptember 8, 2011 Board Meeting Updates On September 8, 2011, the CRRC Board of Directors gathered on a 2–hour conference call. The following items were approved at the meeting: November 16, 2011 Board Meeting Updates On November 16, 2011, the CRRC Board of Directors gathered in San Francisco, CA for an all-day, in-person meeting. The following items were approved at the meeting:
CRRC-1 Test Method #1 Evaluation Services CRRC ProgramEvaluation Services CRRC Program Update As the enhanced ENERGY STAR® program rounds out its first year, ES-CRRC has seen consistently strong growth in certified products. While many products are also CRRC–certified, ES–CRRC has attracted a large amount of participation by manufacturers who are not yet Licensees with the CRRC. The ES–CRRC program continues to be a strong outreach tool for the CRRC in the cool roofing industry. Ratings, Codes and ProgramsANSI/CRRC–1 Standard:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date | Action |
| June 10, 2011 to August 9, 2011 |
1st Public Comment Period (60 Days) |
| November 1, 2011 | Final Consensus Body Ballots Due |
| November 18, 2011 to January 17, 2012 |
2nd Public Comment Period (60 Days) |
| April 9, 2012 | Final Consensus Body Ballots Due |
| May 9, 2012 | Appeals from Public Commenters Due |
| August 8, 2012 | Appeals Decision |
| October 8, 2012 | ANSI Review Process Complete |
Membership and Outreach
Website Redesign Update
The CRRC is excited to undertake the redesign of its website at www.coolroofs.org. The current website has not undergone any major revisions since its creation. We received positive feedback about the many great resources available on the site, but that it can sometimes be difficult to navigate. The goal of this project is to modernize the design and structure of the CRRC’s website and re–work the content to provide a simpler and more informative user experience. Here are the goals identified by the Website Redesign Task Group:
| 1. | Increase the CRRC’s impact by creating an improved website to communicate about cool roofs to the roofing industry, architects and contractors, the general public, and other interested parties. |
| 2. | Modernize the website’s design, organization, and navigation. |
| 3. | Improve user experience by creating user group specific content and navigation. |
| 4. | Simplify content in order to make relevant content more accessible. |
| 5. | Clarify the product rating process for CRRC licensees. |
| 6. | Update the search function for the website’s Rated Products Directory. |
International Outreach Update
Since 2010 the CRRC has shared best practices with international entities interested in developing a roof rating system. This effort has been conducted under the guidance and financial support of the US Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office. The CRRC has presented at international conferences in China, Japan, Thailand, and Brazil.
Many of the events are organized under the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation, which unites economies across the world to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia–Pacific region. The CRRC has worked more directly with China and Thailand in developing and implementing a roof rating system, including harmonizing test methods and protocol for measuring the energy performance of roofing products.
Issue # 4 — 2011
Chairman’s Corner
I am writing this Chairman’s Corner with mixed emotions. The CRRC has made significant progress this year. The Energy Star rating program, ES–CRRC, has gotten off to a fast start. We now have over 1,200 products rated as part of this program. The ANSI/CRRC–1 standard was completed and has been referenced in several energy codes including the International Green Construction Code thanks to the efforts of our staff and Jonathan Humble. In addition, this standard is now in its first review period to coordinate updates to the standard.
So, as you can see the CRRC has seen many accomplishments over the past year. However, along the way we lost a very valuable team member and friend. Marty Hastings, a long time CRRC member and member of the Board, passed in September. Marty was always a voice of reason and compromise that helped us work our way through many controversial issues. More important than that, he was a friend to everyone he met. We will miss him terribly.
Mike Ennis
CRRC Board Chairman
Industry Insights
This section allows Class B members an opportunity to share their insights on trends and new developments in the cool roofing industry. This quarter’s submission is by Brandon J. Audap, Director of Federal Affairs at the National Roofing Contractors Association.
New Legislation Would Create Jobs, Spur Adoption of Cool Roofs
As unemployment in the construction sector remains well above the national average, lawmakers are searching for pro–growth ways to get people back to work. In September, legislation was introduced in Congress that would not only help create jobs in the roofing and manufacturing industries, it would also make significant strides in energy efficiency by accelerating the adoption of better roof insulation and cool roof systems.
The Roofing Efficiency Jobs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2962), introduced by Reps. Tom Reed (R–NY) and Bill Pascrell (D–NJ), and the Energy–Efficient Cool Roof Jobs Act (S. 1575), introduced by Sens. Ben Cardin (D–MD) and Mike Crapo (R–ID) are bipartisan bills with a very laudable goal. H.R. 2962 and S. 1575 would reduce the depreciation recovery period for commercial roof retrofits from 39 to 20 years, if the newly installed roof meets certain energy efficiency standards.
Real property was depreciated over 15 years as recently as the early 1980s, but was increased incrementally until 1993, when nonresidential real property — a commercial building and its structural components — was assigned its current 39–year recovery period as a way for Congress to raise revenue to pay for other programs. For commercial roofs, the current 39–year recovery period represents more than double its average realistic useful life, which is roughly 17 years.
If this glaring flaw in the tax code is rationalized, building owners will be more likely to forgo the current practice of making only piecemeal roof repairs and instead elect to perform full roof retrofits using more energy–efficient technology. Ducker Worldwide, a global industrial research firm, estimates reducing the depreciation schedule to 20 years would create an estimated 40,000 jobs.
The energy efficiency components of the legislation are relatively simple. In order to qualify for the new depreciation schedule, the new roof system must:
1) contain insulation which meets or exceeds the minimum prescriptive requirements in ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2009.
2) in the case of buildings located in climate zones 1 through 5, a primary roof covering which has a cool roof surface as specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
These increased efficiency standards would save building owners an estimated $86 million in energy costs in the first year and eliminate carbon emissions by roughly 1.2 million metric tons (equal to the emissions of 229,000 cars).
This legislation is a practical way to advance the adoption of energy efficient cool roofs, while creating jobs and providing business tax relief. Nearly every business in every industry has a roof, and that roof must be depreciated for tax purposes. Thus, while new job creation and energy efficiency are key benefits of this legislation, the tax relief directly benefits the building owner or lessee. For these reasons, this is a benefit for the roofing industry, the advancement of energy efficiency, and the business community in general.
H.R. 2962 and S. 1575 have the support of a broad coalition of industry, energy efficiency and labor groups. On October 4, this coalition wrote to congressional tax writers, urging them to consider these bills as part of any jobs legislation or tax reform effort. Over the coming year, NRCA will continue working with Congress to move this legislation forward into law.
For more information, the article author, Brandon Audap may be reached at baudap@nrca.net.
Cool Roofing in the News
Cool roofs continue to be a hot topic in the media. The past few months have been particularly exciting, with multiple research papers both praising and questioning the environmental benefits of cool roofs.
UCLA Law Study reports Energy and Pollution Reduction Benefits from Cool Roofs
The UCLA School of Law has recently released a study entitled “Bright Roofs, Big City: Keeping L.A. Cool through an Aggressive Cool–Roof Program.” The study proposes the implementation of cool roofs in law and policy as an effective approach to curb pollution and high cooling energy consumption during the hot L.A. summers. The study cites cooling energy savings of up to $30 million per year for Los Angeles residents, as well as the health benefits of reducing asthma rates and heat–related injury and death. You can learn more about the paper, authored by Cara Horowitz, here.
New Study Questions the Effect of Urban Heat Islands on Global Warming
A high–profile study conducted by Mark Jacobson and John Ten Hoeve of Stanford
University has concluded that urban heat islands may contribute less to global warming than previously thought. With their simulations which include high–resolution images of urban surfaces worldwide, they claim that cooler temperatures in urban centers created by cool roofs may reduce vertical transport of moisture to the air. Jacobson and Ten Hoeve have concluded that this may reduce cloud formation over urban centers and consequently increase temperatures in the atmosphere. You can learn more about the study here.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Heat Island Group released a technical response to Jacobson and Ten Hoeve’s study. While LBNL recognized the Stanford University study as a “useful contribution to the literature on urban heat islands and mitigation potential of reflective surfaces,” the Lab questioned some of the study’s assumptions and conclusions.
LBNL’s response pointed out that the authors themselves state that the uncertainty range associated with the results may be larger than the model range. LBNL also highlighted that the results “strongly depend on the modeling assumptions made since various feedbacks from changes to a small fraction of the total Earth are accounted for at a scale that is exceptionally large.” You can read the Heat Island Group’s press release here, and technical response here.
LBNL Study Monitors Cool Roofs and Pollution
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is expanding its research on cool roofs by studying the impacts of pollution on the efficacy of white roofing. Research is being conducted in India, with measuring equipment installed both in an unpolluted and an industrial/polluted area. The lab’s findings are set to be published next year. You can read more about the study here.
Cool Roofs included in Watsonville’s Urban Greening Plan
Fueled by a state grant, the city of Watsonville, California has been writing a long–range Urban Greening Plan. In addition to community gardens, an expanded pedestrian and bicycle trail system, and a state tree program, the plan will include roofing standards that outline cool roofs as a solution to cool homes and the community. Read more about the plan here.
Product Rating Program
Tips & Tricks
In this section, you will find suggestions and information about Product Rating Applications, Test Results Reports and more.
Field Applied Coatings Manufacturers — Coating Thickness Testing
Because the CRRC has observed failures with coating sample thickness tests, we wanted to offer some tips for a smooth testing process.
For Field-Applied Coatings, the CRRC requires samples to be measured for thickness during the initial testing process at an Accredited Independent Testing Laboratory (AITL). AITLs measure five locations on each sample panel and average these five readings to report the final panel thickness measurement. Each panel must be within ±20% of the manufacturer recommended thickness.
Studies show that the thickness of a field-applied coating has a bearing on the outcome of test results for solar reflection. If it is too thin, the substrate may show through, and if it is thicker than the manufacturer’s recommendation, then it may have a higher reflectance than what would be experienced in the field. The CRRC, in striving for an equitable program, requests coating manufacturers to submit samples at the recommended manufacturer dry mil thickness to replicate as closely as possible the actual rooftop application.
Coating manufacturers can submit manufacturer-prepared coated samples applied to a standard aluminum panel or substrates intended for end use. Use of aluminum panels should be in accordance with ASTM D1730 (with a 3003 H14 uncoated aluminum alloy). Or coating manufacturers have the option to submit liquid samples to the AITL, in cans labeled Batch A and Batch B. Unless specified otherwise by the manufacturer, the CRRC requests the AITLs to use a drawdown bar to apply the coating, resulting in a consistent application thickness.
The CRRC would like to reduce the submission of aluminum panels that have inconsistent thickness and irregular surfaces which result in failed thickness test results. A failed thickness test requires the additional time and expense of testing a new set of coating samples.
An example of a coating sample with an inconsistent thickness.
If you have any questions regarding the field applied coating thickness requirement, please contact Jeff Steuben at jeff@coolroofs.org or (510) 482-4420 x288.
Upcoming Board of Directors Meetings
Board of Directors Meeting
February 21, 2012
Orlando, Florida
9 am to 5 pm PDT
In conjunction with
IRE (February 22 – 24, 2012)
Technical Committee Meeting
March 14, 2012
Dallas, Texas
9 am to 5 pm
In conjunction with
RCI International Convention & Trade Show
(March 15 – 20, 2012)
Upcoming Tradeshows and Seminars
International Roofing Expo
Orlando, Florida
February 22 – 24, 2012
RCI International Convention & Trade Show
Dallas, Texas
March 15 – 20, 2012
Contact Us
Please let us know if you have any comments, questions or items you’d like us to include in future newsletters.
• Visit www.coolroofs.org
• Call (866) 465-2523
• Email info@coolroofs.org