The Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network

Navigating the World of Energy Codes | www.bcap-ocean.org

Energy Foundation 2009, Task 3a - Grant G-0901-10698

Support Long-term Advancement of Energy Codes
Introduction
This memo explores the potential to move the residential energy code towards a higher standard of energy efficiency by 1) cir-
cumventing the ICC development process, and 2) considering alternatives to the state and local adoption processes. Currently
the ICC code update process is cumbersome and a improvements are made on a very small scale on a veritable battlefield.
With DOE and others having set a near-future goal of net-zero energy buildings, this process needs to be reconsidered and re-
tooled. Several of the options presented here to improve the residential code are also applicable to the commercial code.

1) The Development Process

Practical and progressive improvement issues:

Currently there is an imbalance of participants in the ICC code change process: industry, advocacy, and national organiza-
tions outweigh code officials, builders, designers, local governments, and other stakeholders.

Proposed code changes in the ICC process are not held to a consistent standard of cost/benefit and are approved through
a confusing voting process where unverified and/or biased supporting information is often provided to voters.

Changes are not made to the not highly visible ASHRAE Standard 90.2 unless a consensus is reached. Committee mem-
bers are required to develop cost benefit analyses for the development of proposals to that standard.

IECC code change debates often center on small improvements in the insulation value of the envelope, and ignore issues
that affect total building performance.
Alternatives – to be considered separately or in their entirety:
a. A DOE-developed code. Many other countries have a government-developed code (see “Building Energy Codes
Report: Best Practices for APEC Economies” http://bcap-ocean.org/resource/building-energy-codes-report-best-
practices-apec-economies). DOE could connect the code to advanced programs like ENERGY STAR and Building
America, as well as successful state-based programs. This approach might encourage and allow more balanced in-
volvement by builders groups, especially if requirements were tied to builder programs like ENERGY STAR and
Building America’s Builder’s Challenge, etc.
b. Integrate the IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.2 (its residential energy efficiency standard) processes to achieve more
balanced and coordinated proposals, bringing the final proposals to the IECC for vote/approval.
c. Strengthen the commercial code update process by relinquishing IECC Chapter Five (commercial requirements) to
an ASHRAE committee (effecting high-rise residential). Also see the BCAP Energy Foundation task 2d white paper
titled “An Action Plan for Commercial Codes and Standards”. Need link
d. Instead of focusing on provisions that require careful installation and inspection, focus on code provisions that can
be site-tested, set at the time of manufacturing, or do not require an enforcement mechanism, such as:
i. Duct pressure test

1850 M St. NW Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.bcap-ocean.org BCAP

 The Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network | Navigating the World of Energy Codes

ii. Building air tightness test

iii. Residential whole building pressure testing
iv. Higher HVAC efficiencies – condensing furnaces, boilers with modulating aquastats or outdoor sensors
v. Water heating efficiency improvements
vi. Smart meters
vii. House labeling
viii. Increased % of residential high efficacy lamps
ix. Residential E* appliances
x. A HERS rating for code compliance.
xi. Require HVAC installation by a nationally certified or licensed HVAC installer to include education which
focuses specifically on installation and right-sizing of equipment, and requires Manual J/D for ALL residen-
tial installations.
xii. Continuation of coalitions promoting packaged improvements of energy efficiency provisions such as the
Energy Efficiency Codes Coalition – 30% Solution residential packaged code. . (http://
www.thirtypercentsolution.org/)
e. Create a more formal relationship between the ICC process and states and cities that have established, successful,
above-code provisions see also Task 3c case studies
i. California Title 24, Part 6 – occurs outside the ICC process and contains provisions and methods considered
more energy efficient than the national model code. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24
ii. Oregon adopted a prior voluntary above code program. http://bcap-ocean.org/news/2010/february/23/
oregon-board-recommends-commercial-update-2009-iecc
iii. New Mexico 2009 IECC+ http://www.rld.state.nm.us/cid/news.htm
iv. Austin, TX – residential testing protocols and new commissioning program http://www.austinenergy.com/
about%20us/company%20profile/Permits%20and%20Codes/index.htm
2) Code Adoption
Implementation issues:

There is no penalty for a state that does not comply with 1992 EPAct (42 USC 6883 or Sec. 304 of Energy Conservation
and Production Act as amended).

Even with 100% EPAct compliance, we would not have a statewide energy code in every state because EPAct does not
impose a penalty for noncompliance.

States with liberal home rule policies (approximately 12) do not adopt codes statewide, and have a patchwork of code
versions adopted at the local level, and likewise various compliance levels (see “Home Rule for Advocates” http://bcap-
ocean.org/resource/home-rule-advocates).

There is aggressive backlash from certain provisions in the code, primarily by builder’s associations and sometimes by
affected industry.

There is additional backlash from state against “unfunded mandates”.

1850 M St. NW Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.bcap-ocean.org BCAP

 The Online Code Environment and Advocacy Network | Navigating the World of Energy Codes

Alternatives – to be considered separately:

a. A federally mandated national energy code that all states must adopt and implement statewide (could be DOE or
ICC-developed). The concept of a federally mandated code has been considered by groups that work on national
energy policy, such as the Alliance to Save Energy and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The most recently
introduced Senate energy bill and House climate bill both include language describing a federally mandated energy
code. The Senate bill strongly imposes this concept; however, the House bill does not require compliance.

Historically, the only example of a federally mandated code is the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
which mandates its code based on civil law. i.e., if a building doesn’t comply with ADA guidelines, a civil lawsuit
could ensue. This code is enforced by the local code department infrastructure throughout the country and admin-
istered by the Department of Justice. Side note: ARRA criteria requiring states to move towards adoption and 90%
implementation of the IECC 2009 and ASHRAE 90.1 2007, has many states well on their way to an effective date of
these modern requirements. Not surprisingly, most of our 12 home-rule states are not making this leap. How
would these states accept a federally mandated energy code when they don’t allow a state mandated code?
b. If state adoption is to be driven by EPAct, or new federal policy, funding must be attached to the implementation
and compliance of the code to avoid a backlash from states already burdened with unfunded mandates.
c. Impose penalties on states that do not adopt and implement an energy code statewide. Example: In 2000, EPA
threatened stiff penalties on TX air quality non-attainment areas.
d. Some of the backlash from the 2009 IECC is attributed to certain provisions in the code. Remove the questionable
provisions to quell opposition and focus on provisions that can be tested (defer to Alternative 1d, above). Specifi-
cally four provisions seem to be causing most issues:
i. The requirement for ductwork: to either install ducts inside the conditioned space envelope or seal and
pressure test to a prescribed standard. In some regions of the country, installing ducts in the conditioned
space requires a major shift in how buildings are constructed. Pressure testing requires specialized equip-
ment that requires trained test operators and/or HVAC installers.
ii. Increased R-values in (all) climates that would require a change in how residential buildings are con-
structed. Specifically, a change from 2x4 construction to 2x6 construction to accommodate increased R-
value by use of exterior sheathing insulation in addition to 2x4 cavity insulation and framing or finish de-
tails to accommodate those increased sheathing insulation thicknesses.
iii. Restrictions on the trade-off approach (REScheck) and performance approaches which allow unlimited glaz-
ing and disallow HVAC tradeoff.
iv. Pushback against improved whole-house air leakage requirements and concerns regarding the require-
ment and cost of blower-door testing.
In conclusion, moving the residential energy code towards a higher standard of energy efficiency may require several adjust-
ments to the existing development process. However, there are options for a better, more efficient code with increased state
adoption and improved compliance. If the code was generated through DOE, thus circumventing the ICC development process,
careful consideration would have to be given to promote acceptance by the building industry, state and local governments, and
other stakeholders. Though, questions arise such as whether DOE has the capacity to take on such a monumental role. As out-
lined in this memo, all options need to be considered if we are to meet our goal of net zero energy buildings.

BCAP
Dedicated to the adoption, implementation, and advancement of building energy codes
1850 M St. NW Suite 600 | Washington, DC | www.bcap-ocean.org