• 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.

Home builders beat back code updates in NC

CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior

REGISTERED
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
127
Location
Hong Kong
Anyone from NC? The legislature enacted a freeze on residential code updates until 2031. Known as HB 488, the residential building codes, as well as energy, plumbing, and mechanical code will not be modernized. Who is behind this act? The home builders of course. The home builders have infiltrated ICC to keep a lid on construction costs, and are also working to deny ICC code sales with actions like this. Home builders will of course increase profits and smartly use this money as influence to ensure profitability. The state will also lose out on millions of federal funding. More for the other states, then.

www.canarymedia.com

North Carolina kills effort to make its building code energy-efficient

State Republicans have banned residential building-code updates until 2031, a move that will increase energy costs and make it harder to decarbonize…
www.canarymedia.com www.canarymedia.com
 
The North Carolina Home Builders Association's overall message is rooted in their concern over economic implications. They argue that adopting the updated building codes, as planned by the Building Code Council, would increase the construction costs of new homes. This increase, they believe, would subsequently raise housing prices in North Carolina. Their main contention is that the average cost of new homes would go up by approximately $20,000 if the revised building standards were implemented. This perspective is driven by their belief that the immediate financial burden on homeowners outweighs the longer-term energy savings that proponents of the updated codes advocate for.
 
Then there is the actual reality when not skewed by the building industry.

A study from the DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory revealed that while North Carolina’s suggested code updates might increase the average cost of constructing new single-family homes by $4,700 to $6,500, it would decrease household energy bills by roughly 18.7%. This reduction translates to an annual savings of about $400 per household, recouping the added construction costs within 2-4 years. Over three decades, this would culminate in energy savings worth approximately $5.3 billion for North Carolina households. Additionally, CO2 emissions would drop by 130,700 metric tons in the first year, equivalent to the annual emissions from nearly 29,000 cars. A separate study from the ACEEE in January supported these findings, ranking North Carolina second, behind Louisiana, in potential savings from modern building codes.
 
The recent passage of HB 488 in North Carolina carries severe negative implications for both its residents and its environmental efforts:
  1. Federal Funding Loss: Critics express concern that this legislation will deprive the state of hundreds of millions in federal funding, specifically aimed at bolstering resilience against extreme weather conditions.
  2. Hindrance to FEMA Funding: Amittay warns that North Carolina's ability to secure funds from FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program might be compromised. Despite having previously received $73.8 million, the state's chances for future applications could be weaker compared to those with more robust building codes.
  3. Community Safety Concerns: FEMA underscores the importance of "hazard-resistant" building codes, not just for minimizing property damage but crucially for safeguarding human life. A study in 2020 by FEMA projected that modern building codes could cut property damages by $132 billion nationally, while only marginally increasing construction costs.
  4. Increased Natural Disaster Vulnerabilities: There's a growing concern that by neglecting to update residential building codes, North Carolina residents become more susceptible to the devastating impacts of hurricanes and floods. This sentiment was echoed in a letter backed by over 40 state entities, emphasizing that outdated codes can lead to heightened death rates, property damages, prolonged recovery periods, and even business shutdowns during calamities.
  5. Insurance Premiums & Federal Support: The extended freeze on these codes, set to last until 2031, could also mean North Carolinians miss out on insurance premium deductions available only to areas with stringent codes. Furthermore, with HB 488 in effect, North Carolina has also sacrificed its chance to access federal funding for code updates. Amittay points out that initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure law are set to allocate billions for states updating their codes, a pool from which North Carolina will now be excluded.
  6. Comparison with Other States: Notably, Louisiana and Colorado, both prioritized by ACEEE for the substantial benefits they could reap from modernized building codes, successfully secured funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure law, while North Carolina missed out. These funds are not just about regulatory updates, but crucially about fostering a technologically advanced workforce and ensuring widespread benefits of energy efficiency.
In essence, this legislation threatens not just North Carolina's environment and economy but the safety, livelihood, and future prospects of its residents.
 
jar546 said:
increase the average cost of constructing new single-family homes by $4,700 to $6,500, it would decrease household energy bills by roughly 18.7%. This reduction translates to an annual savings of about $400 per household, recouping the added construction costs within 2-4 years.
Click to expand...
The math is fuzzy. 2-4 years? It's closer to 14 years.
 
ICE said:
The math is fuzzy. 2-4 years? It's closer to 14 years.
Click to expand...
One of those could be just talking about direct costs and indirect costs. It's usually best practice to include indirect costs (as you are alluding to) when doing payback periods because this is the cost people will actually be burdened with, not some fictional "this is how it should cost in an imaginary perfect world".
 
If you want to believe MIT and Wentworth and their study....Throw more tax dollars at it and green works....I think there is some good stuff around page 71

7. Conclusion
Increasing the energy efficiency of new residential construction in Massachusetts is an urgent
imperative for the health and well-being of all Massachusetts residents. Increasing the affordability of
housing in Massachusetts is also an urgent imperative for economic growth in the Commonwealth and for
the health and well-being of the state’s residents. These two imperatives exist in some tension with each
other, but there are opportunities to advance both.
Action by the state legislature, by state agencies, and by professional organizations can help move
both decarbonization and housing affordability forward together. Especially important is state and local
legislative action to enable the construction of more multi-family housing and of smaller housing on smaller
parcels. The ability to construct smaller homes on smaller parcels and to build more multi-family units will
simultaneously create more climate friendly housing and more affordable housing. Also important are
efforts at the state and local levels to streamline the permit process, so that the energy-efficient housing the
Commonwealth needs can be built more quickly and more affordably. Expanded and more durable financial
incentives can facilitate the production of more energy-efficient housing that is also more affordable.
Additionally, increasing opportunities for smaller builders and contractors to access technical assistance
regarding energy-efficient construction techniques, enhancing the knowledge of realtors and appraisers
regarding green buildings, creating new financing sources through the new Community Climate Bank,
increasing support for utility costs for low-income renters, and considering new tax classifications or
exemptions for highly energy-efficient buildings will move Massachusetts towards achieving its
decarbonization and affordability goals.

I'll see if I can get a link....
 
Last edited:
hbrama.com

Public Policy for Net Zero Homes and Affordability - Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts

Payam Bakhshi, John Cribbs, Afshin Pourmokhtarian, Justin Steil, Zhengzhen Tan, and Siqi Zheng Wentworth Institute of Technology (WIT), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Home Builders & Remodelers Association of...
hbrama.com hbrama.com

Home builders have it up on their site....PNNL is a joke funded by taxpayer dollars to push a green agenda into the MINIMUM building code....They play with their statistics just like the Homebuilders...At least the homebuilders are self funded...
 
ICE said:
It is easy to pull stats out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Those stats are typically done by modelling a series of homes and comparing the against benchmarks of current code minimums. The issue with how these evaluations are done is that there are a number of buildings that are already exceeding code, so it is not a true representation of the actual shift in the industry unless the upper end of the industry shifts upwards by an equivalent amount. As increasing performance has increasing costs, it may also be reasonable to assume that the upper end of the industry does not always maintain an absolute percentage more efficient than the base code requirements. The upper end of the industry will likely slowly close the gap with the bottom end of the industry, but by how much is anyone's guess...
 
Anyone that has already gone to 2021 IECC/ IRC knows how much of a pain this is (or maybe not):

N1102.4.6 (R402.4.6) Electrical and Communication Outlet Boxes (Air-Sealed Boxes)​


Electrical and communication outlet boxes installed in the building thermal envelope shall be sealed to limit air leakage between conditioned and unconditioned spaces. Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be tested in accordance with NEMA OS 4, Requirements for Air-Sealed Boxes for Electrical and Communication Applications, and shall have an air leakage rate of not greater than 2.0 cubic feet per minute (0.944 L/s) at a pressure differential of 1.57 psf (75 Pa). Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be marked "NEMA OS 4" or "OS 4" in accordance with NEMA OS 4. Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be installed per the manufacturer's instructions and with any supplied components required to achieve compliance with NEMA OS 4.

Because they do not care about writing good code, they just want their way and don't care what it costs and the complications in the field..I think allied molded is the only one I have seen that makes one for a ceiling fan....And lets not even talk about whether or not a bath fan is an electrical outlet box....
 
jar546 said:
. This perspective is driven by their belief that the immediate financial burden on homeowners outweighs the longer-term energy savings that proponents of the updated codes advocate for.
Click to expand...
And that’s the American way. Short term goals.
 
steveray said:
Anyone that has already gone to 2021 IECC/ IRC knows how much of a pain this is (or maybe not):

N1102.4.6 (R402.4.6) Electrical and Communication Outlet Boxes (Air-Sealed Boxes)​


Electrical and communication outlet boxes installed in the building thermal envelope shall be sealed to limit air leakage between conditioned and unconditioned spaces. Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be tested in accordance with NEMA OS 4, Requirements for Air-Sealed Boxes for Electrical and Communication Applications, and shall have an air leakage rate of not greater than 2.0 cubic feet per minute (0.944 L/s) at a pressure differential of 1.57 psf (75 Pa). Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be marked "NEMA OS 4" or "OS 4" in accordance with NEMA OS 4. Electrical and communication outlet boxes shall be installed per the manufacturer's instructions and with any supplied components required to achieve compliance with NEMA OS 4.

Because they do not care about writing good code, they just want their way and don't care what it costs and the complications in the field..I think allied molded is the only one I have seen that makes one for a ceiling fan....And lets not even talk about whether or not a bath fan is an electrical outlet box....
Click to expand...
Our boxes are all sealed here, but we have a poly vapour barrier on the inside to seal them to. Normally, we just have people wrap the poly around the box (you can by pre-fab poly for this). you just need to seal where the wire penetrates the poly.

There are air-tight boxes you can get with gaskets, but they are expensive, so I rarely saw them.
 
Here in the relatively mild climate of Southern California, we switched years ago to high-performing dual glazed low-E vinyl windows, tightened up our building envelopes, all of which added to initial construction cost while lowering energy usage. OK, maybe the energy savings and carbon emissions payoff is in the long term, right?
But wait...
Now our dwellings are so airtight that they are considered "unhealthy". We now have to poke a hole in the wall and add a fresh air supply duct to pull outside air into the unit, typically by creating negative pressure via bath fans that run at low CFM for 24/7, then ***** the fans via a motion + humidity sensor.

So the ventilation that we used to naturally accomplish via cheap aluminum windows is now accomplished via much more expensive and high quality building envelope systems that are then counteracted by mechanical ventilation systems that still allow outside air into the unit, but also required a powered fan.

What did we accomplish?
 
IS it still a bill or was this passed into law? HB=house bill

At any rate, there are many reasons as shown above in post #4.

Fema is directly being cited for the reason Illinois will be mandating all municipalities adopt a code within the last two cycles, rotating and updating every time you are outside of that two code cycle.
 
tmurray said:
There are air-tight boxes you can get with gaskets, but they are expensive, so I rarely saw them.
Click to expand...

Have them at my never-ending stone house build. They're slick.

The major plus of those is that changing a plug, which requires slack wire to be pulled through the box, is easy.

Not so easy if one has sprayfoamed/acoustic sealed a cut through a plastic surround.
 
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/N...energy-efficiency#NCECC2018_Pt02_Ch04_SecR402

No one has mentioned what their current codes are. See above.
They seem pretty weak. For CZ-4, R-38 attic, R-15 walls, visual infiltration inspection, duct testing by builder (not sure how that works). That's not much better than 2009 code though they call it 2018. For those doing ERI it's 63 max. Not sure why you would bother with ERI when doing the prescribed would yield much higher than that. 18.7% sounds reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top