QUOTE
Debates went past 2 a.m. Monday morning, but in the end the Advanced Building Coalition (ABC) defeated the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition's (EECC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) E14 proposal and its companion appendix. Thom Zaremba represented the ABC, which consists of the Association of Industrial Metalized Coaters & Laminators - Window Film Committee; the International Window Film Association; The Aluminum Extruders Council; APA; Nu-Wool Co. Inc.; Pilkington North America Inc.; AGC Flat Glass North America Inc.; Icynene Inc.; Craig Conner, Building Quality; and, Birch Point Consulting. The group's objective is to promote a significant, cost-effective increase in building energy efficiency and sustainability.
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." EC 14 has been dubbed by EECC as "The 30% Solution."
EC 14 proposed changing fenestration U-factors for climate zones one through four. Opponents said this would create inconsistencies with the International Residential Code (IRC).
According to hearing documents, the ABC opposed EC14, as it represented an "effort on the part of its proponents to actually introduce inconsistencies into the ICC family of codes … while we strongly support a cost-effective increase in the building energy codes, the proposed 'solution' in EC14 is flawed." Comments from ABC in the documents said, "as part of a strategy to eliminate the energy provisions from the IRC, the proponents of EC14 did not submit a single corresponding change to Chapter 11 of the IRC. Both the IRC and IECC are widely used, and deviations between the two codes will create confusion and enforcement complications.
Other reasons ABC opposed EC14 included...
Full Article
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." EC 14 has been dubbed by EECC as "The 30% Solution."
EC 14 proposed changing fenestration U-factors for climate zones one through four. Opponents said this would create inconsistencies with the International Residential Code (IRC).
According to hearing documents, the ABC opposed EC14, as it represented an "effort on the part of its proponents to actually introduce inconsistencies into the ICC family of codes … while we strongly support a cost-effective increase in the building energy codes, the proposed 'solution' in EC14 is flawed." Comments from ABC in the documents said, "as part of a strategy to eliminate the energy provisions from the IRC, the proponents of EC14 did not submit a single corresponding change to Chapter 11 of the IRC. Both the IRC and IECC are widely used, and deviations between the two codes will create confusion and enforcement complications.
Other reasons ABC opposed EC14 included...
Full Article