• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

J

joetheinspector

REGISTERED
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
152
I have heard people say that the 2009 IECC is 13% more energy efficient than the 2006 IECC.

Does anybody know if this is true???

We (the building department) are going to our County Council to recommend they adopt the 2009 IECC.

Does anyone know if there is any data out there as to how much more energy efficient the 2009 is to the 2006?

If possible i would really like to provide that info to our County Council.

It is really nice to be on this board with so many people from the old ICC board!!! :D
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

My understanding, after participating in the recent code hearings in Baltimore, and discussing this with many of the Energy Code Committee folks, is that the 2009 is anywhere from about 11 to 17% more efficient/conservative than the 2006, depending on geographical and climactic region. For instance, many areas see no change in R-values for walls/ceilings/floors, etc. but others see increases. Some areas see reductions in U-values for windows, while others do not. Depends...

Significant benefits seem to be added in regard to air infiltration/tightness of buildings. So, the 13% number may be a good ball-park number in general, but your results may vary.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

It looks like Illinois is adopting the 2009 which is mostly a requirement for commercial buildings as most residential is exempted. I am already having difficulties with enforcing the 2006 which is what our village has adopted. Does anybody have any good general comments regarding a REScheck vs actual plan notes. What I really need are notes that when someone reads them, they don't sound like I am calling the person a liar. Usually I catch the .28 U factor windows on a REScheck but little or no information is on the plans for these $1000 window units. Or I get R-15 continuous insulation on exterior foundation walls but the plans shows that 2 inches of rigid if they even show that. Mostly though the square feet are just off by a few hundred to a thousand sq. ft..

I am starting to wonder why REScheck is no longer required to be put together by the DP in charge. Now I get them submitted by John Doe-Building maintenance worker or some other unqualified person.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

"rescheck must match plans"

Kick plans back if not.

Also make sure all rescheck paperwork/report is included. A lot of the time only some of the rescheck paper is submitted. As an inspector I need the inspection checklist included. As a plan reviewer I find that a lot of the times the rescheck does not match what is on the plans.

"rescheck does not match plans please clarify"
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

Ditto. Kick'em back. Some of our contractors use rescheck and the plans absolutly have to match the report. We do not require sealed DP for residential but we do require it for buildings that fall under the IBC and using ComCheck.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

I agree! Most of the time they don't match the plan. I think some of the dp's think I don't read this stuff. :roll: I most often have news for then and it is mostly bad! :lol:
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

13%? I don't think so with the perscriptive R-Values table. Zone-6. The only change I saw was an increase in wall R-values from R-19 to R-20. Very, Very sneeky.

The IECC, International Energy CASH COW. Another code co-authored Carl Marx! Come on ladies and Gents. Enough is enough. It is time to tell these liberal greenies...................................
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

In reality this is no worse than falling prey to the engineering and architecture trades who now have some requiring stamps on single family dwellings. And let us not forget the marketing ploys of Simpson Strong Tie and numerous other companies who have designed fixes for largely non-existant problems that are now code required features.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

See page two of below website.

EECC states that zone two is 11.6 more energy efficient from 06 to 09

I don't know how they get from here to there.

http://www.thirtypercentsolution.org/so ... n-2009.pdf

Cash Cow!!! Shouldn't be for that but is.

Codes should be mimimum standard.

Codes should be raised a little.

A higher standard should be from incentives (tax breaks, marketing tools, etc.)

Codes are for life safety and should be for life safety.

This is the U.S. and free market should rule!!!
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

See page two of below website.

EECC states that zone two is 11.6 more energy efficient from 06 to 09

I don't know how they get from here to there.

http://www.thirtypercentsolution.org/so ... n-2009.pdf

Cash Cow!!! Shouldn't be for that but is.

Codes should be mimimum standard.

Codes should be raised a little.

A higher standard should be from incentives (tax breaks, marketing tools, etc.)

Codes are for life safety and should be for life safety.

This is the U.S. and free market should rule!!!
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

There's a lot to take in with the 2009 energy code. with reference to Zone 5:

Beside the change from R-19 to R-20, there is also a way to get to R-18 and comply. R-13 in 2 x 4 wall w/ R-5 foam board over exterior.

R-30 with raised heal trusses, R-38 standard trusses and rafters. Because at the plate full insulation can't be installed.

Vaulted ceiling in areas that require R-38 can use R-30 for up to 500 sf or 20% of the area whichever is less.

Recessed ceiling fixtures are required to be gasketed.

Biggie No. 1: no high-efficiency trade-off for envelope requirements. The only way some houses pssed in the past.

Biggie No. 2: 50% of all lamps (bulbs) to be high efficiency (curly tops, dq's (dairy queens)) whatever they call them in your area). So that huge chandelier in the foyer with 60 - 5 watt bulbs will require 60 dq's in other places in the house. That could be a place for job creation Certified Bulb Counter. (and in the ICC war room :evil: - "we can sell courses in lamp accounting procedures, certifications w/ annual renewal, calculators we say can be used for bulbs w/ the ICC logo, hazmat kits for broken bulbs, patches, jackets, and hats only for bulb counters - Eureka! a calf is born!" :twisted:

I haven't gone through the window and door changes yet.

There is a video with the overview of the residential requirements of the 2009 IEEC at:

http://www.energycodes.gov/training/onl ... 09iecc.wmv
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

The IECC. International Energy CASH COW. The "green" crowd. Do any of you think that R-20 walls in zone-6 was not planned??? What about the RADICAL changes in rescheck from 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009??? The 03 to 06 really stinks in this zone (and any other) and does not work worth a hoot! That leaves you with the only option of following the perscriptive requirements of the iecc. Heck, lets spend another dollar to save less than 1/10 of 1% of a penny.

To say there is a lot to take in is a understatement. It's more like there is a lot to choke down!

Rescheck trade offs for high efficency heating and cooling? Starting in the 06 Rescheck you have to orient EVERY wall, door and window??? How is that working out for you with production (track) housing. Pacific West Lab. Hope you have a good contract?
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

Rescheck - I forgot to add that the model house for comparison has been reduced to 85% of the 2006 model house. Soon we will Soviet block housing with a few portholes and a hallway pot to p!$$ in and every other person flushes to save water.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

For all those that were previously singing the praises of ResCheck---I can only say I told you it was a bad thing a long time ago. You have to be absolutely moronic to promote ResCheck over a simple, easily attained and easily enforced prescriptive method.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

The light bulb thing is redictardulous. Nobody is checking lightbulbs.

The orientation of the building doesn't seem to change anything. I've produced a few RESchecks based on what the submitter has given me to check his numbers. Then orientated the house differently and it never changes the fail or pass %. Maybe I am just doing something wrong but I doubt it.

I also checked the difference in 2009 to 2006 on REScheck and it seems minimal like a percet or three.
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

incognito, That was a well taken "I told you so". I was one of the suckers that bought into that junk. Thanks, jp
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

rktect1

Illinois has adopted the 2009 IECC for residential starting on March 1. In order for this zone to comply, the builders will need 2x6 envelope walls, insulated basements, fireplace doors w/ gaskets, additional duct insulation, to name a few. Is it my imagination or didn't we go through this "seal it up" concept a couple of decades ago and created mold traps out of our homes. Residential homes need to breath to a certain degree to be healthy. Don't get me wrong, I am for conservation but keeping the welfare of the people in mind. I think the Bld Dept well be receiving some additional calls and complaints on mold in 2 to 3 years.

So, where does the white go when the snow melts? :lol:
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

I'm having a problem with this. Doesn't seem like it is adopted at the residential level.

http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/st ... tate_AB=IL

I have also read that the 2009 IECC was adopted but that if you had already adopted the 2006 code, you would still maintain the 2006 code and not the 2009. We already enforce the 2006 so....
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

Nobody was promoting REScheck, it is an alternative if you don't want to use the tables. Just about every section of the code has an alternative to prescriptive. What exactly about REScheck doesn't work? You have to put some numbers in the software? You have to take wall takeoffs?
 
Re: 2009 IECC 13% more energy efficient than 1006 IECC ????

The "energy" codes have become a radical documents causing more problems than solving them. Ah, but wait a minute!!! These codes will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Really??? :evil: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top