Huffington Post reports on ICC's New Code Development System

[CodeWarrior]

After big business showed who's in charge of ICC last year, forcing several IECC Revisions to be removed and cancelling the long held government consenus process, the HuffPost reported on how well the new system is going.

A Battle Over Building Codes May Be The Most Important Climate Fight You’ve Never Heard Of

Big polluters tightened control over the nation’s building codes last year. Now fresh meddling from a gas utility has stoked fears for the future.

www.huffpost.com

It seems the new system still bends to special interests, in this case, Spire Energy. Spire initially persuaded the committee chair to relegate new provisions for electric vehicle charging to a code appendix. He then reversed himself under pressure. When asked why he wanted to dump the provisions, his reason was the vehicle charging requirements would get removed anyway after an appeal. So, this is the type of character to be trusted in putting forth an effective code? A big black eye for ICC, as they have shown again they are in the pocket of big business moneyed interests.

 

[bill1952]

It seems the energy industry influences the energy codes like the homebuilders influence the residential code - neither serving the public's best interest. Does ICC = Industry Code Council?

 

[steveray]

As it is a committee process, no "one entity" did anything by themselves.....I am sure their proposals are just as stupid as the ones outlawing fuel fired appliances such as wood and pellet stoves and gas fired generators...There are bad people on both sides....And usually the building officials get stuck in the middle...

 

[redeyedfly]

Does it always have to be bad people? Can it just be a difference of opinion? People who disagree with you are not necessarily bad, they just disagree.

 

[ICE]

Having been a member of a Standard Making Panel, I can tell you that it is way more imperfect than you might imagine. The panel consisted of building officials, manufacturers and industry experts as well as several NRTLs. It was blatantly obvious that the manufacturers held sway with the rest along for the ride.

The ICC should not allow a committee to create code without a vote from an entirely neutral party.

 

[steveray]

Does it always have to be bad people? Can it just be a difference of opinion? People who disagree with you are not necessarily bad, they just disagree.

If they are telling me I can't have a fireplace or woodstove in my house, they are bad....There are over 1200 pages of code change submittals and info for the 2024 IECC.....I think the book is less than 200 pages with the appendices.

 

[redeyedfly]

If they are telling me I can't have a fireplace or woodstove in my house, they are bad.

No. Your woodstove and fireplaces pollute. You may disagree with the scientific consensus on that, but it doesn't make you, or the person who does agree bad people. You make your argument, other people make their argument and we should be able to find a compromise that each side hates the least.

 

[steveray]

No. Your woodstove and fireplaces pollute. You may disagree with the scientific consensus on that, but it doesn't make you, or the person who does agree bad people. You make your argument, other people make their argument and we should be able to find a compromise that each side hates the least.

When you compromise every time, you never do the right thing.....

 

[redeyedfly]

When you compromise every time, you never do the right thing.....

Absolutely not. We need to live with people who have completely different ideas on everything. We need to compromise on everything. Idealism is how children (and unfortunately a large number of adults) think. The real world is messy and compromise is necessary.

 

[steveray]

And sometimes we can agree to disagree with doing nothing being the end result which is not a compromise.....Doing "something" for the sake of doing something instead of doing the right thing, is not a good course of action...

 

[mtlogcabin]

We need to compromise on everything

No we don't and shouldn't. Compromise by definition is when 2 parties can't agree on something. A compromise is never the answer to the question of is this code proposal right or wrong or even needed for the intent of the codes.

Requiring electrical vehicle charging stations as part of any building/energy code is not the intent of the codes. The intent of the energy codes are limited to the building and its use and energy consumption for interior environmental systems not what is in the parking lot or garage. If the ICC or another group wants to produce a reference standard for the installation of such equipment and reference it within the codes that if installed this is what is required then okay that would be a compromise from requiring something that has nothing to do with saving energy consumed by the building and its operation.

EVCS do not and should not be a requirement within the building or energy code especially buildings regulated by the IRC. Think back to residential sprinkler requirements. Most states amended them out of the code or prohibit there required installation

EFFECTIVE USE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is a model code that regulates minimum energy conservation requirements for new buildings. The IECC addresses energy conservation requirements for all aspects of energy uses in both commercial and residential construction, including heating and ventilating, lighting, water heating, and power usage for appliances and building systems.

The IECC is a design document. For example, before one constructs a building, the designer must determine the minimum insulation R-values and fenestration U-factors for the building exterior envelope. Depending on whether the building is for residential use or for commercial use, the IECC sets forth minimum requirements for exterior envelope insulation, window and door U-factors and SHGC ratings, duct insulation, lighting and power efficiency, and water distribution insulation.

C101.3 Intent.
This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use and conservation of energy over the useful life of each building. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve this objective. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes or ordinances.

 

[redeyedfly]

And sometimes we can agree to disagree with doing nothing being the end result which is not a compromise.....Doing "something" for the sake of doing something instead of doing the right thing, is not a good course of action...

There is no singular "right thing". What you believe to be the "right thing" and what I believe to be the "right thing" may be completely opposite. Again, idealism does not work.
Most of my days are spent figuring out the least bad option.

 

[CodeWarrior]

No we don't and shouldn't. Compromise by definition is when 2 parties can't agree on something. A compromise is never the answer to the question of is this code proposal right or wrong or even needed for the intent of the codes.

Requiring electrical vehicle charging stations as part of any building/energy code is not the intent of the codes. The intent of the energy codes are limited to the building and its use and energy consumption for interior environmental systems not what is in the parking lot or garage. If the ICC or another group wants to produce a reference standard for the installation of such equipment and reference it within the codes that if installed this is what is required then okay that would be a compromise from requiring something that has nothing to do with saving energy consumed by the building and its operation.

EVCS do not and should not be a requirement within the building or energy code especially buildings regulated by the IRC. Think back to residential sprinkler requirements. Most states amended them out of the code or prohibit there required installation

EFFECTIVE USE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is a model code that regulates minimum energy conservation requirements for new buildings. The IECC addresses energy conservation requirements for all aspects of energy uses in both commercial and residential construction, including heating and ventilating, lighting, water heating, and power usage for appliances and building systems.

The IECC is a design document. For example, before one constructs a building, the designer must determine the minimum insulation R-values and fenestration U-factors for the building exterior envelope. Depending on whether the building is for residential use or for commercial use, the IECC sets forth minimum requirements for exterior envelope insulation, window and door U-factors and SHGC ratings, duct insulation, lighting and power efficiency, and water distribution insulation.

C101.3 Intent.
This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use and conservation of energy over the useful life of each building. This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve this objective. This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes or ordinances.

Whether charging stations should be mandatory or built to meet certain standards if chosen or ignored completely should have been decided by the committee and their decision made public for further comment.

ICC selected a commiittee chair to tried to use that position to throw out a proposal without entertaining a discussion that would have allowed the public to know why the proposal was denied. This resulted from a private communication that should gave been ignored and the writer admonished for not expressing their greivances in expected open procedure.

The chair should have resigned or voted off the committee for this mistake, though mistake is too mild to characterize what occurred. That person still holds the chair position so ICC apparently still believes he is doing his job well.

 

[steveray]

There is no singular "right thing". What you believe to be the "right thing" and what I believe to be the "right thing" may be completely opposite. Again, idealism does not work.
Most of my days are spent figuring out the least bad option.

When you are writing rules....You are taking away an option....So the right thing might be to not write the rule.....

 

[Yikes]

I submitted to change 721.1.(3) footnote "m" many years ago. I wonder who in the "Big Asbestos" lobby is keeping this in place.

 

[steveray]

I am going to submit a 2027 proposal to require a van or bus sized garage at all new dwellings in case someone wants to "van-pool" and really save energy.....