Page 22 - CodeWatcher Fall 2016 Issue

The ICC’s
Nightmare
on Elm Street
The Trade-Off Loophole in the proposed 2018 IECC
may earn first-ever “negative” determination from DOE.
IBY BILL FAY
N THE 2009 IECC, the ICC’s Governmental
Member Voting Representatives (GMVRs) closed
the equipment trade-off (ETO) loophole once and
for all. This was good news: An analysis by ICF
International, one of the world’s leading energy
analytics firms found that stopping equipment
trade-offs added at least 6-9% to the 2009
IECC’s already historic 12% boost in new home efficiency.
Furthermore, the analysis found that an individual home
built using all available equipment trade-offs could have
consumed as much as 22% more energy than a home that
didn’t use them.
Did I say “once and for all?”
Actually, efficiency opponents have forced the GMVRs to
vote three more times on the ETO loophole – twice during
22 CodeWatcher / Fall 2016
consideration of the 2012 IECC and again during hearings
on the 2015 IECC.
Like Freddy Kruger, the ETO is the loophole that just won’t
die.
This year, a builder-stacked and builder-dominated
Residential Energy Committee once again recommended
reinstating the ETO (RE-134), then added its support for two
other trade-off loopholes for windows and lighting.
Not only are trade-offs a zero-sum game at best, but with
very few proposals that boost efficiency, these three trade-
offs could end up sinking the 2018 IECC itself.
RE-134 will add at least 6-9% to new home energy use.
The ETO allows a builder to weaken a new home’s envelope
features—most of which will perform for the 80- to 100-year
life of the home—in exchange for installing more efficient
equipment that may last 20-25 years. In other words, when
the equipment is replaced after a few years, the trade-off
www.codewatcher.us