• 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.

The "Scandal" that won't go away.

CodeWarrior

CodeWarrior

REGISTERED
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
127
Location
Hong Kong
The Huffington Post has just put out a story on how industry groups got ICC to revise the IECC code-development process to favor their interests. But it didn't work out very smoothly.

What a mess. No wonder ICC hired a PR firm to smooth out communications. If there any ICC board members out there, maybe they can tell us if they know (?) and agree with what is going on.

www.huffpost.com

The Industry ‘Scandal’ That Might Completely Upend How America Builds Houses

A long-simmering feud over building codes is boiling over and may discredit the system the U.S. has relied on for decades.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
Wow, that story seems like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

ICC changed the process for the IECC to a consensus committee approach that allowed the eco/green policy advocates to gain majority representation on many of the committees. Having majority, the 2024 IECC is set to incorporate many advancements in energy policy - many opposed by industries of a diverse representation. Those entities, following ICC procedure, filed appeals during the accepted period (which was extended by the board). Now these eco/green policy advocates, who really set the tone for the code development process, are upset that appeals are approaching.

How is this a scandal?!
 
It seems like there have been more irregularities and departures from the normal procedures than just the single one you list parenthetically.
 
When I see this guy "aligning a beam" my first impression is that there was no construction people involved with writing the article.
Screen Shot 2024-02-06 at 6.08.55 PM.png
The walls are still being framed and the bottom plate is already cut out of the opening.... who does that. Sorta missed with the anchor bolts too.
 
Apparently the ICC is going to allow the fossil fuel industry to weigh in on the energy code. The climate warriors are upset that someone disagrees with them. The green coalition is doing all that it can to destroy the fossil fuel industry. It is awful that the fossil fuel industry is fighting back??? They just want to be heard and their message so offends that they are shouted down. The completely disingenuous title of the article is proof enough that the game is rigged.

The ICC defended changing its rules to allow for the gas industry’s challenge, but touted the energy-efficiency gains in its latest codebook and said it was wrong to assume the appeals board would rule on behalf of the fossil fuel companies.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
 
Last edited:
classicT said:
Wow, that story seems like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

ICC changed the process for the IECC to a consensus committee approach that allowed the eco/green policy advocates to gain majority representation on many of the committees. Having majority, the 2024 IECC is set to incorporate many advancements in energy policy - many opposed by industries of a diverse representation. Those entities, following ICC procedure, filed appeals during the accepted period (which was extended by the board). Now these eco/green policy advocates, who really set the tone for the code development process, are upset that appeals are approaching.

How is this a scandal?!
Click to expand...
From someone involved....Pretty good analysis....

The bottom line is that GHG reduction and electrifcation crap has no place (other than in an appendix by the way the new intent was written) in the energy CONSERVATION code....Shirley not at the expense of reducing insulation that would actually save energy which was the backroom deal that was made.....
 
Consensus vs. voting is not the issue they appear to be in these cases. Both systems have their positives and negatives.

The larger issue is how these groups define conflicts of interest and how they handle them. It likely is not consistent with the principles of a western democracies to completely bar these people from participating in the process. People generally have a right to make their position known on issues. Also, these people tend to have advanced or specialized knowledge on the subject that may not be available to everyone, so it also could be argued that preventing them from participating in the discussion actually damages the decision-making process. However, it may not be proper to permit them to participate in the vote/consensus on the issue based on their conflict of interest.

These codes also need to clearly delineate their objective. Some are simply for reducing energy, while others are for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Code changes should be evaluated within the defined scope of each code.
 
steveray said:
From someone involved....Pretty good analysis....

The bottom line is that GHG reduction and electrifcation crap has no place (other than in an appendix by the way the new intent was written) in the energy CONSERVATION code....Shirley not at the expense of reducing insulation that would actually save energy which was the backroom deal that was made.....
Click to expand...
Overall, I am not significantly opposed to the 2024 IECC. I believe it is a pretty decent code. Much of what needed to be kept to the appendices, was put there. Albeit local AHJ will need to be very careful in adoption given preemption under federal law.

That said, as someone who was also involved, the backroom deal that you are referring to was incredibly questionable and will surely lead to a passionate and lengthy discussion during the appeals hearing. How a reduction in insulation requirements was brokered into a deal...o_O
 
This BS started years ago with the fire sprinkler vote in Minneapolis and has only spread and gotten worse. The main users of the codes need to be determining what is actually in the codes. ICC needs to claw everything back and allow only code officials with relevant certifications to vote on actual code content. Industry gets to advocate at code hearings but has zero voting privileges. The selling of voting privileges needs to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top