International Code Council Caves to Special Interests, Axes Decarbonization Measures from Model Building Code
bcade
| Posted in Energy Efficiency and Durability on
I haven’t seen this mentioned here yet and figured others might be interested.
In a nutshell, the ICC board of directors voted to strip various provisions from the 2024 IECC at the last minute. The source is a lobbying group so you may want to take some of their claims with a grain of salt.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
On the plus side, the upgraded insulation requirements in the 2021 IRC were proving possible for most builders to meet only with copious amounts of closed-cell spray foam which comes with high levels of embodied carbon emissions--even the less-bad, HFO-blown products. I have not found it challenging to get R-40 walls and R-60 (or higher) roofs with low-carbon cellulose insulation, but the details required are slightly different than how we've mostly been building for the last 50 years and apparently stymie most builders and architects. On that front, I welcome the reduced requirements if it means reduced embodied carbon emissions, as those are all spent before the occupants move in and have a much larger impact in the 10-20 year timeframe than operating carbon emissions. We don't have time to wait 100 years for high-carbon insulation to recover its carbon debt.
However, I heard an anecdote a few days ago about just how far back they rolled the requirements. I forget the details but the knowledgeable person I was talking with was horrified.
I probably should've done a better job summarizing things... This is specifically about electrification related requirements which moved from the model code to appendices at the last minute giving a big win to developers and the natural gas industry.
We already have requirements like this in California, so I'm more familiar with our codes. To oversimplify, whether you're using gas or electric appliances in the original build, you have to install some level of infrastructure so that electrification is less of a burden initially down the road. E.g. conduits for EV chargers and solar, clear areas for solar on roofs, electric power to gas appliances, etc.
One big impact we've seen is that it makes electrification less costly initially since you're forced to put in the infrastructure for it anyway. If natural gas appliances are still used, they are much simpler to swap out later, avoiding the need for compromises like 120v hpwhs.
The sections of note are:
Sections C406.1.1.1 and C502.3.7.1 (heat pump products)
Sections C403.4.6, C404.10, C405.2.8, R403.5.4 and N1103.5.4 (demand response)
Sections C405.14, R404.7, and N1104.7 (electric vehicle charging infrastructure)
Section C405.16 (electrical energy storage system readiness)
Sections R404.6 and N1104.6 (solar readiness)
Sections R404.5 and N1104.5 (electric readiness)
The ICC press release is here https://www.iccsafe.org/about/periodicals-and-newsroom/icc-pulse/the-international-code-council-board-of-directors-makes-final-decision-on-2024-iecc-appeals-and-addresses-preemption-challenges/
Of course the American Gas Association thinks its a great idea... https://www.aga.org/news/news-releases/in-a-step-that-will-safeguard-affordability-for-consumers-icc-board-of-directors-removes-anti-competitive-provisions-from-2024-international-energy-conservation-code/
I think the code council is concerned about the actual science of climate change, and also about the fragile nature of the electric grid. Heat pumps are great until you see the big electric bill after a week of -22F. NG is about 3 times more cost effective than electric. Or from a different perspective, use NG when the COP of the heat pump drops below 3.0. Most zones don’t need NG as a heat pump stays above 3.0 year round.
Agreed that some extreme climates should have backups for safety, though I don't believe any of what they removed would preclude the use of combustion appliances. Even if it did, areas with these climates could always make amendments during the adoption process.
FWIW their press release does not make any mention of grid impacts and instead that the reasoning for this is that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions does not fall under their purview:
"The International Code Council Board of Directors determined that the scope and intent governing the 2024 IECC prohibited the inclusion of measures that did not directly affect building energy conservation within the base of the draft 2024 IECC, as the intent of both the commercial and residential 2024 IECC codes is limited to “providing minimum efficiency requirements for buildings that result in the maximum level of energy efficiency that is safe, technologically feasible, and life cycle cost effective considering economic feasibility, including potential costs and saving for consumers and building owners, and return on investment.” The Board further determined that alternative measures, including measures without direct impacts to building energy conservation, but that may reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could be included as appendix materials given the intent of both the residential and commercial IECC codes provides that “[t]he code may include nonmandatory appendices incorporating additional energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction resources.
Based on this interpretation, the Board resolved that several challenged provisions that the Board viewed as concerning greenhouse gas reduction and not building energy conservation be removed from within the base of the draft 2024 IECC codes and placed in appendices to accompany the codes.”
RE: infrastructure for EVs
Having lived with one for 3 years, a 20 amp 240 volt plug is more than sufficient.
Average person drives 15k miles 300 miles a week, less than 60 miles a day. With a Rivian, that is less than 7 hours of charging on a hunk of 12 ga. [2.2m/kwh 4kw charging]
In my case I would most likely have been fine with a 120 volt charger, as I get closer to 4 mi/kwh and closer to 30 miles a day, would have been again,. under 7 hours at 120 volts.
I generally charged weekly[240v20a] and it was generally done by the time I left in the morning.
The notion that a 40 amp or more charger is required is silly, and contributes to the story that EVs require burdensome 'infrastructure'
I am not familiar with the details of the original code provisions, but if the panel is located in or adjacent to the garage, 'nothing' would be the correct answer. If not 20 amps per bay would make sense and be reasonable