• 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.

Boy, am I glad I'm not involved with the IECC

2024 IECC Notice of Appeals Hearings​


The International Energy Conservation Code® (IECC) Notice of Appeals Hearings is now available. Download it here.
The Appeals Board has decided to consider the appeals in four groups as noted below.
  • Scope and Intent
  • Consensus Building Approaches
  • Procedural Specific Issues
  • Subject Specific Issues
The Appeals Board hearings will be conducted virtually and are scheduled for February 21, 22, and 23, 2024.

Interested parties, or their representatives, are hereby invited to respond to the appeal(s) by submitting their comments in writing for consideration by the ICC Appeals Board and/or participating in and presenting information at the Appeals Board hearings pursuant to Council Policy 1. Written comments and a notice of attendance must be submitted by all interested participants, including appellants, by filling out the online form “Appeals Viewpoint and Notice of Attendance.”

The deadline for submissions is 11:59 pm Pacific Time (PT) on February 5, 2024.

Interested parties not wishing to present can view the Appeals Board hearings live online without registering for the event. The links to watch the Appeals Board hearings live will be posted on the 2024 IECC Appeals web page.

For more information, visit www.iccsafe.org/2024-iecc-appeals.
 
I did receive that and was a little puzzled by something. I have been told that the IECC is no longer a consensus code, at least a consensus the same way all the other codes are. I was told that there are no code change proposals or votes on the codes similar to what is used for the other codes. But then I see an appeal to the consensus approach. I wonder if this is an appeal to the fact that there is not a real consensus approach.

Is the IECC using a process for code development and implementation different from the rest of the codes?
 
Sifu said:
I did receive that and was a little puzzled by something. I have been told that the IECC is no longer a consensus code, at least a consensus the same way all the other codes are. I was told that there are no code change proposals or votes on the codes similar to what is used for the other codes. But then I see an appeal to the consensus approach. I wonder if this is an appeal to the fact that there is not a real consensus approach.

Is the IECC using a process for code development and implementation different from the rest of the codes?
Click to expand...
Check out the FAQ - https://support.iccsafe.org/article-categories/iecc-development-process/

Basically, the process is consensus development process via committee, subcommittee, and work groups. The process mimics how other ICC standards are developed, moving away from the process used for the other codes (IBC, IRC, etc.). One of the major differences being that the final voting is by the committees, which are constituted with 9 interest categories, and not by the AHJ governmental voting members.
 
Sifu said:
Is the IECC using a process for code development and implementation different from the rest of the codes?
Click to expand...

CT kinda nailed it...no final governmental vote and actual "code enforcers" were barely represented on the committee....Problem is they jammed in a bunch of electrification stuff into the base code that has nothing to do with "Energy Conservation" and does not fit in the scope and intent as written by the ICC BOD. To get that they made a "backroom" deal with another of the big players on the committee to reduce the minimum ceiling insulation which will have a negative effect on energy conservation, but hey, it's what they had to do to get the thing that shouldn't be there in....

Ask me how I really feel...
 
classicT said:
Check out the FAQ - https://support.iccsafe.org/article-categories/iecc-development-process/

Basically, the process is consensus development process via committee, subcommittee, and work groups. The process mimics how other ICC standards are developed, moving away from the process used for the other codes (IBC, IRC, etc.). One of the major differences being that the final voting is by the committees, which are constituted with 9 interest categories, and not by the AHJ governmental voting members.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. Do the appeals work for specific provisions, or for administrative issues only?
 
steveray said:
CT kinda nailed it...no final governmental vote and actual "code enforcers" were barely represented on the committee....Problem is they jammed in a bunch of electrification stuff into the base code that has nothing to do with "Energy Conservation" and does not fit in the scope and intent as written by the ICC BOD. To get that they made a "backroom" deal with another of the big players on the committee to reduce the minimum ceiling insulation which will have a negative effect on energy conservation, but hey, it's what they had to do to get the thing that shouldn't be there in....

Ask me how I really feel...
Click to expand...
Likely the same way I do.
 
Sifu said:
Thanks for the clarification. Do the appeals work for specific provisions, or for administrative issues only?
Click to expand...
I'd suggest reviewing the appeals that were submitted. There are 9, submitted by 5 organizations.

www.iccsafe.org

2024 IECC Appeals - ICC

2024 IECC Appeals The rigorous, transparent development process for the International Energy Conservation Code® meets the fundamental principles of Office of Management and Budget Circular No A-119 (Federal Participation in...
www.iccsafe.org www.iccsafe.org
 
The IECC is getting so complicated and costly to comply with that many states just won't adopt future editions or will modify them heavily. For example, R404.1 requires only high efficiency lights, then R404.2 requires dimmers or occupancy sensors on top of that!
 
Paul Sweet said:
The IECC is getting so complicated and costly to comply with that many states just won't adopt future editions or will modify them heavily. For example, R404.1 requires only high efficiency lights, then R404.2 requires dimmers or occupancy sensors on top of that!
Click to expand...
Agree. They have jumped the shark.
 
R404.5 Electric readiness. Systems using fossil fuel: water heaters, household clothes dryers,conventional cooking tops or conventional ovens shall comply with the requirements of SectionsR404.5.1 through R404.5.4

R404.5.1 Cooking products. An individual branch circuit outlet with a rating not less than250-volts, 40-amperes shall be installed, and terminate within three feet of conventionalcooking tops, conventional ovens or cooking products combining both.Exception: Cooking products not installed in an individual dwelling unit.

R404.5.2 Household Clothes Dryers. An individual branch circuit outlet with a rating notless than 240-volts, 30-amperes shall be installed, and terminate within three feet (304 mm) ofeach household clothes dryer.Exception: Clothes dryers that serve more than one dwelling unit and are located outsideof a dwelling unit.

R404.5.3 Water heaters. An individual branch circuit outlet with a rating not less than either240-volts, 30-amperes or 120V, 20-amperes shall be installed, and terminate within three feet(304 mm) of each fossil fuel water heater.Exception: Water heaters in a centralized water heating system serving multiple dwellingunits in a R-2 occupancy.
 
Paul Sweet said:
The IECC is getting so complicated and costly to comply with that many states just won't adopt future editions or will modify them heavily. For example, R404.1 requires only high efficiency lights, then R404.2 requires dimmers or occupancy sensors on top of that!
Click to expand...
I worry if jurisdictions and states don't make more effort at this, the feds will step in, and that never seems to go well.
 
Overall, there is a difference among the interests in what the IECC should or should not contain. The BOD could have moved the controversial provisions into an appendix so localities more friendly to electricity could adopt them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top