Volume 43, Issue 11 - November 2008


The International Code Council Completes 
the 2007-2008 Code Cycle

The International Code Council (ICC) held its final action hearings in September in Minneapolis, where some modifications were made to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) among others. 

• EC18—Approved as Modified; Proposed by Craig Conner, Building Quality. 
As submitted EC18 part one would have lowered fenestration U-factor ratings, as found in table 402.1.1 insulation and fenestration requirements by component, from 0.75 in climate zone two and 0.65 in zone three to 0.55 in both cases. The same changes were proposed for table 402.1.3 equivalent U-factors. EC18 originally was disapproved by committee action. Part two originally proposed changing table N1102.1 insulation and fenestration requirements by component, fenestration U-factor ratings to 0.55 in both zones two and three. Part two applied the same changes to table N1102.1.2 and was previously approved as modified adjusting only zone two to 0.65 in tables N1102.1 and N1102.1.2.

Arguments for and against EC18 centered around product material usage and aligning hurricane protection and energy conservation needs.

• EC22—Part One Disapproved; Part Two Approved as Modified by Public Comment; Proposed by Craig Conner, Building Quality.
EC22 part one was disapproved as previously recommended by the code committee. Part two, however, was approved as modified by public comment two.

Part one called for changing glazed fenestration solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) requirements in zones one and two from 0.37 to 0.30 and zone three from 0.40 to 0.30 as well. Original and primary reasons included the impact low-SHGC windows have by reducing cooling energy use and increasing heating energy use. The committee’s basis for recommending disapproval was in anticipation of more aggressive values in EC24 and EC26.

Suggested changes in part two included adjusting SHGC ratings for insulation and fenestration requirements by component to 0.30 in zones one through three. Public comment two called for softening those requirements to 0.35, which was ultimately approved

• EC26—Approved as Modified; Proposed by Brian Dean of ICF International, representing the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition; Bill Prindle of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; Jeff Harris of the Alliance to Save Energy; and Steven Rosenstock of the Edison Electric Institute.
Proposal EC26 of the IECC generated an abundance of interest and dragged out debate for nearly half an hour during the code hearings. As submitted, EC26 would have effectively changed the glazed fenestration SHGC from 0.37 in climate zones one and two to 0.35, and from 0.40 to 0.35 in zone three. Committee action, which was ultimately approved, however, called for a 0.30 requirement across all zones.

The committee stated previously that it believed a 0.30 maximum SHGC rating for fenestration in these zones was reasonable. It further reported that it believed an ample number of products are available to achieve this value. The committee suggested that its move to go from 0.35 to 0.30 reflected a more aggressive value that would be consistent with the level of stringency that present energy conservation concerns call for.

• EC4 Disapproved; Proponents: Craig Conner, Building Quality; Julie Ruth, JRuth Code Consulting, representing AAMA; Rand Baldwin, AEC; Margaret Webb, representing the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Association; and Greg Carney, representing the Glass Association of North America.
If approved, EC4 would have allowed for the use of AAMA 507 for rating curtainwall and storefronts as an alternative to NFRC 100 and 200.

According to hearing documents, the committee voted to disapprove the proposal, as it did not include third-party oversight requirements for manufacturers doing the determination of the fenestration ratings. The committee also said the standard was unclear regarding who should be qualified to do the fenestration rating calculations.

• EC14 Disapproved; Proponent: Thom Zaremba, representing the Advanced Building Coalition (ABC). 
Discussions went past 2 a.m. when this proposal was debated, but in the end the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition’s (EECC) IECC E14 proposal and its companion appendix were defeated. 

The EECC’s website says EC14 was proposed to “boost the energy efficiency of the 2009 IECC by 30 percent over the current model code.” 

EC14 proposed changing fenestration U-factors for climate zones one through four. Opponents said this would create inconsistencies with the International Residential Code (IRC).

• EC25 Disapproved; Proponent, Vicki Lovell, representing the Association of Industrial Metallized Coaters and Laminators. 
The proposal would have allowed for the use of overhangs to meet the SHGC requirements. According to the proposal, allowing flexibility in meeting the SGHC through the use of “shading alternatives” would increase the usability of the code for the building and design community while ensuring that the new fenestration is energy-efficient.

“Shading reduces solar gain, so why as a designer wouldn’t you want to do that?” asked Thom Zaremba, representing Pilkington North America, in favor of the measure. “For one thing you wouldn’t get credit for it in the energy code, but with this proposal you would.”

© Copyright 2008 Key Communications Inc. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.