• 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.

New York Times, Congress questioning the ICC/NAHB relationship

CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior

REGISTERED
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
127
Location
Hong Kong
The New York Times published a letter questioning ICC's plan to take away the approval of the IECC from local government:

What Will Happen to Your Next Home if Builders Get Their Way?
nyti.ms

Opinion | What Will Happen to Your Next Home if Builders Get Their Way?

A lobby is trying to block codes that save homeowners money and fight climate change.
nyti.ms nyti.ms

Didn't ICC revise their code approval methods to encourage more votes? And now it appears NAHB didn't like the result and convinced ICC to look at changing the IECC development process.

The article also noted that NAHB overturned some of the new provisions in the 2021 IECC anyway.

There is a letter linked from Congress expressing alarm and demanding answers from ICC on how they work with NAHB.

If anyone out there is an ICC member, do you support what has happened? Are the other ICC codes next?
 
This is the way we do it here. There is a committee made up of specific interest holders (even members from the general public) that vote on codes and changes. This is how it works:

1. Anyone sends a proposed change to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes
2. A staff member reviews the submission to confirm it meets with certain requirements (within scope of code, etc.)
3. The proposal is sent to the committee for review
4. For all changes approved to be included in the code, a public review is performed seeking comments from stakeholders and the public alike
5. Comments for the proposal are reviewed. The proposed language can be either deleted, amended, or confirmed by the committee.

And then we get a new code.
 
States have the right to adopt building codes, and some states also allow localities to amend the codes. A state can always refuse to adopt a code if it has somehow been locked to prevent amendments.

The only way this right can be taken away is if the feds adopt a one-size-fits-none national building code. Unfortunately they are often able to do this by holding federal funds for a (vaguely) related program hostage.
 
I think it's great. The energy nonsense in the codes is _ _!t - if the builders can get this done and slow down the madness a little I'm all for it.

Or even easier - How about we just get rid of the IECC all together and focus on building safety, which is what we're supposed to be doing? Spending other peoples' money, even in the guise of saving us all money, is not what we're here for.
 
I wish more people in the code industry would study the history of the code industry. I feel so alone...

Feds and codes... a discussion over a century old.
Feds, money, and energy codes... about half a century.
Builders/designers and code... half a century, and the reason we even have something like the IRC and the ICC.

Paul Sweet said it. The Feds power over codes is financial, not constitutional. This came up in the 30's with various code subjects. It came up in the 70's with energy and that has continued.

Here is a boring video I made about the history of the energy code compliance paths. But at 1:20 you can see a bit of the history of where this energy stuff began in a 1975 Federal Act.

 
CodeWarrior said:
If anyone out there is an ICC member, do you support what has happened? Are the other ICC codes next?
Click to expand...
I support the NAHB far more than I would ever support the EECC.

Selfish people have ruined the energy code by forgetting code development is about contribution and compromise, not competition and manipulation.

Shame on the EECC for the methods they used to win for themselves. They are not respectable contributors to the process and thus will receive my blanket opposition at every opportunity.
 
Read the NYT article. When I read it I saw a different emphasis.

A major takeaway was the undue influence that the NAHB had on the ICC process. This is especially important because most states and local jurisdictions blindly adopt the new code versions without any effective review of the individual changes. This is part of a bigger problem having to do with the ability of special interests to influence the model codes.

Do not get hung up on Federal control. And while federal actions do influence the model code I think that we have much more concern about the influence of special interests. The states have the ability to control the building codes but for the most part they do not.
 
ICE said:
It is the Green New Deal. This could have a huge impact on the construction industry.
Click to expand...
We here in Washington State are not far behind you in California. As an example, the writing is on the wall for prohibition of gas appliances. Hell, the code update going into effect next week here in WA will prohibit continuous burning pilot lights....because of their carbon footprint.

One thing to remember with the energy codes is that it is not really about using less energy, but all about lowering the carbon footprint associated with energy production. If you have clean (carbon free) energy, you can use as much as you want; but get ready to loose any fuel burning energy (heat) sources.
 
classicT said:
We here in Washington State are not far behind you in California. As an example, the writing is on the wall for prohibition of gas appliances. Hell, the code update going into effect next week here in WA will prohibit continuous burning pilot lights....because of their carbon footprint.

One thing to remember with the energy codes is that it is not really about using less energy, but all about lowering the carbon footprint associated with energy production. If you have clean (carbon free) energy, you can use as much as you want; but get ready to loose any fuel burning energy (heat) sources.
Click to expand...
Denver just made noise about the same thing.
 
Ok,

Here's one of the Rep's Tweet. There seems to be alarm about how NAHB fully uses the process to serve their members. The 2021 ICC code releases were delayed by NAHB's appeals.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1351659319645900800

ICC was committed to a governmental consensus process per their own explanation. It sounds like they were contemplating a change, at least for the IECC. But in their appeals process, the ICC board makes a final decision.

www.iccsafe.org

Code Development Principles - ICC

ICC develops construction and public safety codes through the governmental consensus process. This system of code development has provided the citizens of the U.S. the highest level of safety in...
www.iccsafe.org www.iccsafe.org

Anyway, ICC appears to have backed off for now. If ICC goes to an ANSI type true consensus process for the IECC, that is an option, but that may not allow for a three year cycle anymore, especially for a fairly complex document like a code. Other SDO's have moved to a six-year cycle. Interestingly while they begin by saying the IECC has resulted in a 40% improvement in energy usage, ICC still finds a need to make a change? Confusing.

www.iccsafe.org

Next Steps for the IECC - ICC

Next Steps for the IECC Last Thursday the International Code Council Board of Directors met to hear verbal testimony from members and stakeholders in regard to potentially transitioning the International...
www.iccsafe.org www.iccsafe.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top