Page 23 - CodeWatcher Summer 2017

“The result of giving one organization so much power over a code that ultimately
regulates them is strikingly clear: After historic efficiency improvements in the
2009 and 2012 IECC raised the profile of the IECC at national and state levels, the
2015 and 2018 IECC have yielded very minor efficiency improvements.”

of significant rollback proposals (many of them submitted should be more clearly defined, and CACs should be
by NAHB) and almost no improvements. strongly encouraged to stick to their mission and avoid
Fortunately, in the end, Governmental Member Voting Rep- controversial issues and unnecessary duplication.
resentatives (GMVRs) rejected nearly all of the weakening Over the last two code cycles, a number of controversial,
amendments, but the IECC and IRC energy provisions only substantive proposals have been addressed first by the CAC.
narrowly avoided huge energy conservation setbacks–set- These proposals are better suited to the Code Development
backs that could have significantly reduced the value of the Process.
IRC and IECC as effective policy tools in states and localities. 4. The current process for setting and modifying the
Stated simply, the 2/3 majority required to approve a proposed hearing order at both the committee and public
pro-efficiency proposal that has a negative Committee comment hearings is problematic and discourages public
recommendation has proved too high a hurdle to clear. participation in the ICC process. In addition to publishing
the proposed hearing order well in advance, ICC Staff should
Improving the Process also approve any changes to hearing order and provide notice
Which brings us to 2017, and this year’s ICC call for to the public well in advance of the hearing. This would
stakeholder feedback on the Code Development Process simplify preparation for, and travel to, the hearings for all
(CDP). The result has been over 100 suggested changes – interested parties.
some good, some bad, and some very bad. 5. Proposed modifications to code change proposals are
We believe the worst of these would severely reduce not provided to the public (or the committee) far enough
Governmental Member participation in the CDP by: in advance to facilitate reasonable testimony and input.
■ Adding a second round of Code Development Commit- All proposed modifications to be considered by the Code
■
tee hearings, which would boost the power and influence of Development Committees should be submitted electronically
committees–only a third of which are code officials–to the and made available publicly prior to the hearing so that all
detriment of the priorities of GMVRs. As discussed earlier, stakeholders have adequate time to review and evaluate these
the committees are already extremely powerful, and far too modifications and prepare for the hearings. In addition, a
much influence over the outcome of the IECC has been given decision on whether proposed modifications are germane (or
to one entity, the NAHB. out of order) should be made and published well in advance
■ Reducing the importance of (or outright eliminating) of the hearing.
■
the Public Comment Hearings where GMVRs can debate Because the very legitimacy of I-Codes stems from the fact
and hear all testimony on the cdpACCESS ballot proposals that they are the product of local and state Governmental
and vote on which motions will be in order on the ballot. Members of ICC, it is incumbent on ICC to protect the
■ Eliminating Assembly Actions, which will further dis- vital role of Its GMVRs throughout its review of the Code
■
courage GMVR participation. Development Process.
EECC’s strong but simple advice to the Board of Directors It is because of GMVRs that the IECC is a true success
is to adopt only those CDP changes that will increase interest, story for the ICC—recognized by federal, state, and local
support for, and participation in the CDP by GMVRs. After agencies and governments as a critical policy tool that sta-
all, one of the principal reasons that states and localities bilizes electricity grids and saves new home buyers tens
readily adopt I-Codes is the vital role local building officials– of millions of dollars in energy savings after quickly re-
the same people who inspect our buildings–play in what’s couping any outlays for the efficiency improvements. It’s
in and what’s out of each code update. no wonder that the vast majority of states now enforce a
EECC then offered five important improvements to version of the IECC.
the Code Development Process that would reinforce that Generations of Americans will benefit from more efficient,
recommendation to the Board: more sustainable, more resilient and more comfortable
1. Builders should not have greater representation buildings, and lower utility bills as a result of work done by
on committees than other stakeholders. If there are participants in the CDP for the IECC.
builder-designated seats, their number should be reduced EECC and its supporters not only participate in the CDP,
substantially below 36% of the Committee’s voting members. but they also invest significant resources and time in helping
2. Assembly actions should be revised in a way that states adopt and properly implement the IECC and other
makes them more meaningful in the CDP; if approved, International Codes. CW
the assembly action should carry more weight than the
Committee decision on the same proposal. Bill Fay leads the broad-based based Energy Efficient Codes
3. The mission and scope of Code Action Committees Coalition (EECC).

www.codewatcher.us Summer 2017 / CodeWatcher 23