2006/2007 code development committee international … · assembly action: none ec4-06/07 committee...

2006 ICC PUBLIC HEARING RESULTS 139

2006/2007 CODE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEINTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE

James H. Jorgensen, PE, CBO — ChairBuilding Codes AdministratorCity of LenexaLenexa, KS

R. Christopher Mathis – Vice ChairPresidentM C SquaredAsheville, NC

Chuck Anderson, PECode and Regulatory Affairs ManagerSimonton WindowsPennsboro, WV

Robert S. Austin Code SpecialistNJ Dept. of Community Affairs

Division of Codes and StandardsTrenton, NJ

James D. Bowman Regional ManagerAmerican Forest & Paper AssociationKirkland, WA

Gary L. Curtis PresidentThe West Wall GroupSalem, OR

Maureen Guttman, AIAFacilities ArchitectPennsylvania Turnpike CommissionHarrisburg, PA

Eric Makela PresidentBritt/Makela Group Inc.Greenleaf, ID

Bill Mattinson PresidentSOLDATA Energy ConsultingSanta Rosa, CA

Shirley Muns, CBO Codes SpecialistEnergy Systems Laboratory, Texas A & MUniversity SystemCollege Station, TX

Robert T. Pierce, Jr. Inspection Services SupervisorCity of PlanoPlano, TX

Gary Pringey Plans ConsultantRep: City of Cherry Hills VillageFrisco, CO

Robert Ross G&R Construction Services LLCRep: National Association of Home BuildersGranger, TX

Stephen J. Turchen Engineer IIFairfax County Department of Public Works and

Environmental ServicesFairfax, VA

David Weitz Director, Applied Building Sciences DivisionConservation Services GroupWestborough, MA

Staff SecretaryDavid BowmanManager, CodesInternational Code CouncilChicago District OfficeCountry Club Hills, IL

2006 ICC PUBLIC HEARING RESULTS140


INTERNATIONALENERGY CONSERVATION CODE

HEARING RESULTS

EC1-06/07Committee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: The code change proposal was denied becausethe committee reasoned that, given that the ICC EC has just beenrecently revamped to simply address residential and commercialbuildings, it would be undesirable to include this new distinction forbuildings by sizes, and blurring this simplification by bringingresidential buildings into Chapter 5. In addition, this change does notinclude other ASHRAE trade-offs that appear in ASHRAE 90.1, sothere was concern over the inconsistency of the resulting requirementswith ASHRAE.

Assembly Action: None

EC2-06/07Committee Action: Approved as Submitted

Committee Reason: The proposed language provides a necessaryclarification of the relationship between different provisions of the codethat might conflict. This helps enforcement of the provisions of thiscode.



Committee Reason: While the committee understands the generallogic of this code change proposal, that certain equipment such aslighting and HVAC systems should not be exempt from the EnergyCode requirements, this code change proposal would give discretionto the code official with no guidelines as to what should or should notbe brought within the code. Therefore, this broad language could havethe effect of creating non-uniform application of the code, and lead toundesirable decisions made regarding the preservation of historicbuildings.



Committee Reason: The proposed language reflects therequirements of the Energy Code, and is redundant language toclearly underscore how to deal with additions. The committee agreedwith proponents that this redundancy in the code was desirable tomake enforcement easier.


EC5-06/07Committee Action: Approved as Modified

Modify the proposal as follows:

101.4.3 Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs. Additions,alterations, renovations or repairs to an existing buildings system orportion thereof shall conform to the provisions of this code as theyrelate to new construction without requiring the unaltered portion(s) ofthe existing building or building system to comply with this code.Additions, alterations, renovations, or repairs shall not create an unsafeor hazardous condition or overload existing building systems.

Exceptions: The following need not comply provided the energyuse of the building is not increased.

1. Storm windows installed over existing fenestration.2. Glass only replacements in an existing sash and frame

provided the U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient(SHGC) will be equal to or lower than before the glassreplacement.

3. Existing ceiling, wall or floor cavities exposed duringconstruction provided that these cavities are filled withinsulation.

4. Construction where the existing roof, wall or floor cavity isnot exposed, provided that any new cavities that arecreated are insulated.

5. Reroofing for roofs where neither the sheathing nor theinsulation are exposed. Roofs without insulation in thecavity and where the sheathing or insulation is exposedduring reroofing shall be insulated either above or belowthe sheathing.

6. Replacement of existing doors that separate conditionedspace from the exterior shall not require the installation ofa vestibule or revolving door, provided, however, that anexisting vestibule that separates a conditioned space fromthe exterior shall not be removed,

7. Alterations that replace less than 50% of the luminaries ina space provided that such alterations do not increase theinstalled interior lighting power.

8. Alterations that replace only the bulb and ballast within theexisting luminaries in a space provided that the alterationdoes not increase the installed interior lighting power.

Committee Reason: The additional proposed exceptions wereconsidered to be reasonable exemptions that would have a smallimpact on energy use. The modification was to leave Exceptions no. 2and 4 unchanged. In the case of Exception 2, such a determination ofexisting values would be very difficult at best. In the case of Exception4, the committee felt that there was no compelling reason to eliminateroofs from this exception.



Committee Reason: This proposed language clarifies that therequired compliance should be to the space that is changingoccupancy, rather than the entire building.


EC7-06/07PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Approved as Submitted


Committee Reason: This proposed language would prevent thepossible “game playing” where one builds a building with a non-conditioned room or space, and then decides shortly afterwards toprovide heating or cooling to that space. While the Energy Coderequires this, the redundant language provides clear direction.


PART II — IRCCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: This proposal could have an adverse impact onexisting equipment and building. This could require removal ofadequate operating equipment just to comply with the Energy Code.Also, may require the removal of existing finish material.



Committee Reason: This enables the possibility of confusedapplication of the code requirements, where the new building would bedesigned in accordance with Chapter 5, and later modifications, etc.would apply the provisions of Chapter 4.


EC9-06/07Note: The following analysis was not in the Code Change Proposalbook but was published in the “Errata to the 2006/2007 ProposedChanges to the International Codes and Analysis of ProposedReference Standards” provided at the code development hearings:

Analysis: Review of proposed new standard indicated that, in theopinion of ICC Staff, the standard did comply with ICC standardscriteria.

Committee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: The proposed AAMA standard does not requirethird-party certification of manufacturers. While the standard doesrequire laboratories to be accredited by NFRC, the committeequestioned what they would be accredited for–the AAMA standard orthe NFRC standard. In addition, there is still some concern as towhether the values determined in the AAMA standard always matchthe values determined from the NFRC standard.

The proponent’s point about the lack of enforcement of the NFRCrequirements was noted and the committee acknowledged was aconcern. However, the lack of enforcement of the NFRC method is notcompletely the fault of the standard, and therefore the additon of theproposed new standard does not necessarily assure betterenforcement.



Committee Reason: The proposed language contradicts the code. Ifthe subject is not regulated by the code, then language addressingsubjects not regulated is contradictory. In addition, the language givesjurisdictions too much authority to impose restrictive requirementsbeyond the scope and intent of the code.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standard indicated that, in theopinion of ICC Staff, the standard did not comply with ICC standardscriteria.

PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Approved as Submitted

Committee Reason: Even though this reference is Federal Law andtherefore applicable, it is desirable to reference this specific method fordetermination of R-Values to assure compliance and assure a levelplaying field.



Committee Reason: Federal regulations should not be in a buildingcode. The proposed referenced standard does not comply with the ICCcriteria.



Committee Reason: The committee’s concern related to the proposedSection 102.2.2, which addresses used material and equipment. Theconcern was whether used equipment, with a shorter service life, wouldtruly be able to be considered equivalent to new materials. In addition,it is difficult to rate existing equipment without re-commissioning.



Committee Reason: The committee voted disapproval for thefollowing reasons:1. The alternative materials section does not mention energy

efficiency.2. The proposed section on modifications, based upon “practical

difficulties” could be a license to allow anything, because “practicaldifficulties” is not narrowly defined.


EC14-06/07PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Disapproved


Committee Reason: Energy efficiency is not mentioned in theproposed text addressing alternative materials and methods.



Committee Reason: This proposal introduces the terms “security ofthe occupants” and “equivalency of quality”, which are not quantifiedin the code and will be difficult to enforce. The list of criteria may beincomplete and this would create problems This change only requiresthe items to be considered and this will weaken the code.



Committee Reason: This language, which is unique to the EnergyCode, provides jurisdictions a validation of the concept that they canchoose to recognize a program for their jurisdiction that results in morestringent energy efficiency requirements. Even though this is allowedon a individual basis through alternative approval, this language allowsthe above code program to be adopted for all projects in thejurisdiction.



Committee Reason: Consistent with the IECC Committee’s action onPart I of the proposal.




104.5 Retention of construction documents. One set of approvedconstruction documents shall be retained by the code official for aperiod of not less than 180 days from date of completion of thepermitted work, or as required by state or local laws.

One set of approved construction documents shall be returned tothe applicant, and said set shall be kept on the site of the building orwork at all times during which the work authorized thereby is inprogress.

(Portions of proposal not shown remain unchanged)

Committee Reason: The proposal would provide clear informationregarding requirements for construction documents. This will aid theplan reviewer as well as the inspector in enforcement of this code. Themodification eliminates proposed requirements that are not germaneto the Energy Code.




104.2 Information on construction documents. Constructiondocuments shall be drawn to scale upon suitable material. Electronicmedia documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by thecode official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity toindicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed, andshow in sufficient detail pertinent data and features of the building,systems and equipment as herein governed. Details shall include, butare not limited to, as applicable, insulation materials and their R-values; fenestration U-factors and SHGCs; area-weighted U-factor andSHGC calculations; mechanical system design criteria; mechanical andservice water heating system and equipment types, sizes andefficiencies; economizer description; equipment and systems controls;fan motor hp and controls; duct sealing, duct and pipe insulation andlocation; lighting fixture schedule with wattages and control narrative;and air sealing details.

Committee Reason: The proposal gives clearer direction and betterdetails for designers requirements for construction documents. Themodification added the phrase “as applicable” because everything onthe laundry list provided might not be required in every case.



Committee Reason: The proposed text would give clearer direction toinspection agencies and to the code official regarding appropriatenotification, and continuing work after successive inspections.




107.1 General. The codes and standards referenced in this code shallbe those listed in Chapter 6, and such codes and standards shall beconsidered as part of the requirements of this code to the prescribedextent of each such reference.

Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violatethe conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance, theconditions of the listing and manufacturer's instructions shall apply.


Committee Reason: The proposed text will provide clarity to therequirement regarding referenced standards. This text is proposed foruniform use in all I-codes. The modification removes an exception thatthe committee felt was not appropriate for the context of the proposedSection 107.1.




Committee Reason: This language provides a clarification regardingfees and issuance of a permit. The language is proposed to beuniformly applied in all of the I-codes.



Committee Reason: The proponent requested disapproval in orderto make modifications to the text.



Committee Reason : This adds a much needed provision to allow thecode official to issue a stop work order when necessary.



Committee Reason: This adds an appropriate provision to allow fordue process that is consistent with provisions in other I-codes.



Committee Reason: The committee was concerned primarily with thelanguage proposed for “gross roof area” which used the terminologyregarding fenestration “in the plane of the roof”, which would beinaccurate, and cause confusion.



Committee Reason: The text proposed for deletion is not appropriatefor the definition of storefront because it implies that all storefrontshave a high degree of resistance to debris impact.



Committee Reason: The primary concern with the proposeddefinitions was the definition of permanent shading device. Thecommittee felt that the definition was too broad in the possible scope,and would allow for items not intended to be treated as permanentshading devices.



Committee Reason: The proposed definition would conflict with thedefinition of residential building in the IBC.




PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Approved as Modified


VAPOR RETARDER CLASS. A measure of a material or assembly’sability to limit the amount of moisture that passes through that materialor assembly. Vapor retarder class shall be defined using the desiccantmethod with Procedure A of ASTM E-96 as follows:

Class I: 0.1 perm or lessClass II: 0.1 < perm <= 1.0 permClass III: 1.0 < perm <= 10 permClass IV: Greater than 10 perm

402.5 Vapor retarders. Class I or II vapor retarders are required onthe interior side of frame walls in zones 5, 6, 7, 8 and Marine 4.

Exceptions:

1. Basement walls.2. Below grade portion of any wall.3. Construction where moisture or its freezing will not

damage the materials.

402.5.2 Material vapor retarder class. The vapor retarder class shallbe based on the manufacturer’s certified testing or a tested assembly.The following shall be deemed to meet the class specified:

Class I: Sheet polyethylene, non-perforated aluminum foilClass II: Kraft faced fiberglass battsClass III: Latex paintClass IV: House wrap, building paper.


402.5.3 Minimum clear air spaces and vented openings for ventedcladding. For the purposes of this section vented cladding shallinclude the following minimum clear air spaces. Other openings withthe equivalent net free vent area shall be permitted.

1. Stucco with a 3/8 inch clear airspace with 3/8 inch continuousslot vent openings at the top and bottom of each wall.

2. Brick with a 2 inch clear airspace behind the brick with ventsat both the top and bottom of the brick. The vents shall be 3/8inch x 2.5 inch openings every third brick at both the bottomand top course of each wall.

3. Stone or Masonry Veneer with a 2 inch clear airspace behindthe stone with vents at the top and bottom. The vents shallhave at least 1 square inch of vent area for every 24 inches ofwall.

4. Panel Siding with 3/8 inch clear airspace with 3/8 inchcontinuous slot vent openings at both the top and bottom ofeach wall.

5. Wood, Wood Based, or Fiber Cement Siding with either a 1/4inch clear airspace; or alternatively a 1/4 inch gap betweenthe horizontal siding laps

6. Vinyl lap siding applied directly to a weather resistive barrier.7. Manufactured Stone Veneer with a 3/8 inch clear airspace

with 3/8 inch continuous slot vent openings at both the topand bottom of each wall.

6.8.Other approved clear air spaces and vented openings.


Committee Reason: The proposed change introduces advances intechnology related to vapor retarders, and provides for more flexibilityin exterior wall design. The proposal moves the code forward from the“one size fits all” approach that is presently in the code, while at thesame time not eliminating any construction that was previously doneusing the present code. The modification eliminates reference to ClassIV, as it is not used in the I-codes anywhere. In addition, themodification adds exceptions regarding clear air space that enableconstruction of common applications without change to the standardmethods for installing vinyl siding and manufactured stone veneer.



Committee Reason: The proposed new text, Section N1102.5.3, isconfusing, unclear and belongs in the wall covering chapter. Thecommittee likes this concept and this is needed in the code. However,this is a much larger problem and this proposal does not fully solve it.The proponent should work with industry and more research anddevelopment is needed in order to find the proper solution.


PART III — IBC GENERALCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: The committee disapproved the proposalprimarily because as proposed the provisions requiring net freeventilating area of not less than 1/150 would never apply. Committeemembers support deleting the exception in its entirety and revising themain section to use 1/300 instead of 1/150. It should also be notedthat the committee felt the proponents proposed modification to thenew definition of VAPOR RETARDER CLASS to delete Class IV wasappropriate.


PART IV — IBC FIRE SAFETYCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: The committee preferred the approach ofFS171-06/07. Instead of simply deleting the reference, the committeepreferred to have the provisions brought into the code. That approachwill help to provide the requirements within the code so that they areknown. See committee reason statement for FS171-06/07.


PART V — IBC STRUCTURALCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: There was some concern with maintaining theintegrity of the vapor retarder under concrete slabs on grade. Also itwas unclear whether the 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder is in fact aclass 1 vapor retarder as this proposal would require. Most of thisinformation belongs in the commentary rather than the code.


PART VI — IMCCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: The definition proposed to be revised wasdeleted by the action taken on M108-06/07.



Committee Reason: The proponent did not provide any data thatwould justify making these climate zones more restrictive. The fact thata state or region chooses more restrictive requirements is not acompelling reason to apply this on a national scale.



Committee Reason: There was no technical data submitted to supportthis change. This is a local issue for Washington State only.


EC30-06/07 Withdrawn By Proponent


Committee Reason: The proposal is a good idea for giving occupantsof the building some idea of the equipment being used in a building inorder to allow them to make appropriate decisions regarding energyuse.


PART II — IRCCommittee Action: Approved as Submitted

Committee Reason: The use of efficiencies may be misleading insome cases. This change eliminates the listing of the efficiencies thatcould be misleading to the consumer.




Committee Reason: The proposed language serves to provide animportant reminder that there is information that should not be coveredup by the certificate required by this code.



Committee Reason: Consistent with the IECC Committee’s action onPart I of this proposal. The certificate should not obstruct anyadditional required information posted on the electrical distributionpanel.




Committee Reason: The footnotes to Tables 402.1.1 and 402.1.3 withthe text changes to Section 402.2.3 present a much clearer and morelogical approach to the presentation of requirements for mass walls.



Committee Reason: No technical data was submitted to justify thechange for some of the U-factor.



Committee Reason: While the committee acknowledges that lowerSHGC values should be looked at for these zones, the proponent didnot provide any cost/benefit analysis to justify these particular values.


PART II — IRC Withdrawn By Proponent


Committee Reason: The proponent requested disapproval to allowtime to remove ambiguous and unclear language.



Committee Reason: Based on proponent’s request, proponent willrevise this and bring it back at another time.



Committee Reason: The trade-offs discussed are available througha performance design in Section 404 of the Code. Over the last codechange cycle the ICC Energy Code committee attempted to simplifythe code with succinct prescriptive methods, and the opportunity to usethe performance method given by Section 404. Adding this trade-offwould open the door for more tradeoffs that will make the code moreconfusing. In addition, there is no definition of the term “airtight”, thusleading to undesirable and avoidable variations in code interpretationand enforcement.



Committee Reason: There is no technical justification and there is alack of clarity. There are no definitions of “AIRTIGHT” and “ANAPPROVED PERSON”. The proponent and opponents are urged towork together and bring this issue back at another time.




Committee Reason: The study cited justifies the 0.37 for these twozones. Products are still available to meet this number, which is areasonable, achievable SHGC rating.



Committee Reason: While the committee acknowledges that lowerSHGC values should be looked at for these zones, the proponent didnot provide any cost/benefit analysis to justify these particular values.




Committee Reason: The trade-off proposed can be achieved byutilizing the performance options given in Section 404. The committeefelt that it would be undesirable to add trade-offs such as this to theprescriptive portion of Chapter 4, given that the intent in the revamp ofthe IECC in 2006 was to simplify the residential requirements. Byadding trade-offs the code begins to become increasingly confusingand difficult to apply.



Committee Reason: Based on proponent’s request to rework andbring this back at another time. Also, consistent with the IECCCommittee’s action on Part I of this proposal.


EC42-06/07PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Approved as Modified


TABLE 402.1.3EQUIVALENT U-FACTORSa

CLIMATEZONE FENESTRATION

U-FACTORSKYLIGHTU-FACTOR

CEILINGU-FACTOR

FRAMEWALL

U-FACTOR

MASS WALLU-FACTOR

FLOORU-FACTOR

BASEMENTWALL

U-FACTOR

CRAWLSPACE WALL

U-FACTOR

1 1.20 0.75 0.035 0.082 0.197 0.064 0.360 0.477

2 0.75 0.75 0.035 0.082 0.165 0.064 0.360 0.477

3 0.65 0.65 0.035 0.082 0.141 0.047 0.3600.220 0.136

(Portions of table not shown remain unchanged)


Committee Reason: Providing insulation on basement walls in Zone3 will provide for significant energy savings, as indicated in theproponent’s reason. The modification simply adds a correlating changeto the U-factor table.



Committee Reason: This proposal does not provide adequate tradeofffor the payback period. The data used is 10 years old and outdated.



Committee Reason: The proposed change would not be cost effectiveat this time, given that for many types of insulation, the wall stud cavitywould need to be increased by using 2 x 8 studs v. 2 x 6 studs. Whileenergy savings and increases in R-values are desirable, the committeefelt that this should not be done until there are more options availablein insulation products.


PART II - IRCCommittee Action: Disapproved


Committee Reason: There is no technical data to demonstrate thatthis is cost effective. R-21 insulation has been shown to be costeffective in cold climates and there is no justification to increase to R-22. The reason stated it is important to increase the R value to 22, butFootnote “h” will allow it to be reduced in some areas.



Committee Reason: Regarding the lowering of SHGC values in Zones1 and 2, the proponent provides no cost/benefit analysis for loweringthese values. Regarding the new concept of introducing minimumSHGC values in northern climates, there are still too many unknownvariables to justify this. For one, the orientation of the building will affecthow much savings is realized. For another, the change in temperaturesover the past few years in northern climates makes it unclear whetherwe can move to the concept of using windows to save on heatingvalues.




Committee Reason: See the reason statement in EC44-06/07.




Committee Reason: The proposed values are necessary correctionsto the equivalent U-Factors for ceilings.



Committee Reason: The values presently in the code were the resultof a compromise in past code development. The committee felt that itwould be appropriate to maintain these values rather than lessen thestringency of the code. The committee felt that it is important to limit theamount of roof area that can be exempted from the insulationrequirement.



Committee Reason: This change would decrease the energyefficiency. A reduction limit of 500 square feet is adequate.



Committee Reason: The committee agreed that attic access openingsneed to be addressed, but felt that the approach in EC49-06/07 whereinsulation equivalent to the insulation used immediately adjacent to theopening would be a more reasonable requirement, v. insulation of thebuilding envelope.



Committee Reason: No cost analysis has been provided and this willincrease cost. There is no definition of “DURABLY SEALED”. Thischange would increase the cost of pull-down attic stairs.



Committee Reason: This proposed text addresses a hole in thebuilding envelope that the code presently does not address.



Committee Reason: This would not be practical to implement. Thiswould be overly restrictive for small access hatches. The secondsentence contains confusing language. The third sentence iscommentary.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standards, ASTM C1371 andC1549, indicated that, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standards didcomply with ICC standards criteria.

Analysis: Review of proposed new standards, ASTM E408, E903 andE1918, indicated that, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standards did notcomply with ICC standards criteria.



Committee Reason: Using trade-offs for high albedo roofs is not agood approach. Rather, high albedo roofs should be a credit in theperformance approach. In addition, there is concern that, since thevalues change based upon the roof surface materials, futuremaintenance of the roof with replacement roofing covering couldchange the thermal emittance value and render the building out ofcompliance.


EC51-06/07 PART I — IECC Withdrawn By Proponent


Committee Reason: This proposal is not in proper code terminology.The proposal contains commentary language.



Committee Reason: Singling out a specific material for an exemptionis not desirable. It is possible to achieve both goals for glass block byusing the performance path in Section 404.



Committee Reason: This change will increase energy loss. There isno technical data to support the 25 square feet allowance. This wouldhave the effect of a product specific exemption.



Committee Reason: The creator of the Canadian standard testifiedthat this equation proposed is only half of the technical requirements,because the equation fails to address different factors for fixed andoperable windows. Therefore, the equation is a misuse of the standard.In addition, the committee felt that the concept of higher SHGCcoefficients in heating climates is suspect because the benefit in doingthis depends upon the orientation of the wall in which the window islocated.



Committee Reason: The proposed equation is from the CanadianStandard “CSA 440.2" but does not bring in all of the Canadianstandard requirements that are needed. The committee was notprovided with the CSA 440.2 for review.



Committee Reason: The concept of heat gain windows in heatingclimates brings concerns as discussed in other code change proposalsregarding the dependency on orientation or other factors that couldlimit solar access to truly gain the advantages from these windows. Inaddition, many of these climates now have longer cooling seasons dueto change in human behavior as well as climate changes.



Committee Reason: The “analysis”, referred to in the proponent’spublished reason, shows there is equivalency in terms of energyperformances. The “analysis” assumed equal orientation for all foursides and this is an appropriate assumption. This will give the builderan option without having to use the IECC which would requiredemonstration of equivalents that are different.



Committee Reason: This proposed text addresses a hole in thebuilding envelope that the code presently does not address.



Committee Reason: Air infiltration around the attic access opening isa problem and this change will provide the sealing requirements.



Committee Reason: The use of recessed luminaries is increasing.The present code requirements are too liberal regarding allowances.This eliminates loopholes for the use of recessed luminaries.




Committee Reason: This proposal is not clear and will causeconfusion and may cause misinterpretation. It eliminates the option ofan airtight sealed box.



Committee Reason: Setting minimum requirements as proposedwould limit the use of the performance path given in Section 404.



Committee Reason: This would place artificial restraints on thehomeowners and builders. The proposed text is not in mandatoryterms.



Committee Reason: Limits on window factors are important becausethe impact of the SHGC rating and U-factor for fenestration isdependent upon the season and the time of day. Therefore, the limitsare needed to assure that other factors created by windows, such asmoisture condensation and creation of hot spots do not cause a needto adjust the thermostat a great degree.



Committee Reason: It has been shown that the market has takencare of this as single-pane glazing is not being installed in coldclimates, therefore this code section is no longer needed. Also, this willeliminate the undefined term “area weighted average maximum”.



Committee Reason: See the committee reason stated in CodeChange Proposal EC58-06/07.



Committee Reason: Based on previous action on EC58-06/07, PartII.



Committee Reason: Since there is no prescriptive SHGC coefficientrequired in Marine zone 3, there should be no limit on the SHGC. Thiscorrects that error in the code.



Committee Reason: For the same reasons that the committee votedfor disapproval of EC58-06/07.


EC62-06/07PART I — IECCCommittee Action: Approved as Modified


403.2.1 Insulation. (Prescriptive) Supply ducts in attics shall beinsulated to a minimum of R-8. All other ducts shall be insulated to aminimum of R-6.

Exception: Ducts or portions thereof located completely inside thebuilding thermal envelope.

Committee Reason: The insulation requirements for ducts arerequired in all ducts, not just ducts in floor trusses. The modificationremoves the parenthetical “(Prescriptive)” because it would be incorrectin this Section 403, which is marked “(Mandatory)”.



Committee Reason: There is no energy savings by requiring R8 onthe return ducts. The return air has changed temperature from thesupply air such that the R6 is adequate for the supply ducts.




Committee Reason: The committee was not comfortable with theprovision of this proposed change, which would single out undergroundducts with more detail requirements than is provided for other ducts.The committee stated that a comprehensive look at all ducts would bein order for future code development.



Committee Reason: The proposed text provides a specific way formanufacturers to comply as an option.



Committee Reason: There is no standard or method specified for thetesting. This is based on the Florida Code and this may not beappropriate for the rest of the nation. Also, this will allow sealing the airhandler with tape and this could effect the warranty and may give theappearance to the homeowner of an inferior product.



Committee Reason: The committee preferred the approach taken inEC64-06/07.



Committee Reason: Based on proponent’s request to disapprove.Also, this is based on the Florida Code and may not be appropriatenationwide.



Committee Reason: This is a needed “pointer” to Chapter 5 to tellusers what to do when designing large systems to deal with multipledwelling units.



Committee Reason: This type of restriction on equipment is notjustified by technical data. Opponents made a compelling argumentthat pilot gas is not necessarily wasted energy. The proponentrequested committee disapproval.



Committee Reason: This proposal would provide for regulations thatprovide a cost effective way to save energy in the use of lighting incommon areas.



Committee Reason: The use of cost, or site energy is appropriate indetermining the appropriate performance based design because in thiscontext, source energy and site energy are interrelated. Theprescriptive provisions of the code relate to provisions that aredependent upon the type of energy used, and the equipment neededtherefore. For instance, if someone were to use electrical power for ahydronic heating system with no duct work and in a building withdouble the insulating values on the external envelope, it would not befair to assess the 3.16 factor to account for the losses in the electricalgrid. Cost is the baseline requirement to use for comparison of theperformance based design and appropriately (not perfectly) accountsfor variables in the design of the total energy package.



Committee Reason: The proposed exception will make it easier forthe builder to document compliance with this code.



Committee Reason: The proposed code change would removeredundant language, and more appropriately reference the section ofthe code that should be referenced.




Committee Reason: This proposed text would provide moreinformation to the plan reviewer regarding the basis for the proposeddesign that will assure that compliance can be verified.



Committee Reason: The proposed text for EC72-06/07 was preferred,given the intent of the two proposals was the same.



Committee Reason: The committee was concerned that this proposedchange would discourage the use of external shading, which thecommittee believes can be an important part of energy conservation.



Committee Reason: The proposed change will clarify use of theequation.



Committee Reason: The proposed change in temperatures wouldraise cooling demand more than heating demand.



Committee Reason: The proponent failed to provide any compellingtechnical data to support this change.



Committee Reason: Consistency with action taken on EC62-06/07.





Committee Reason: The proposed standard does not comply with ICCStandards Criteria.






Committee Reason: The standard proposed for use has beendiscontinued by the promulgator.



Committee Reason: The committee agreed with the proponent thatthe total UA alternative should be contained within the pages of theIECC. This will give designers ready access to that alternative. Thecommittee acknowledged that the values in this proposed change aremore stringent than ASHRAE 90.1 in some cases.




Committee Reason: While the committee acknowledges that theproponent has a good intent to exempt greenhouses, the proposedlanguage is not focused and therefore could open the door for abusesof the code.



Committee Reason: This proposed change is the same as theproposed method given in EC82-06/07 except that it also adds neededdefinitions that aid understanding of the proposed method.




Committee Reason: The committee prefers the approach taken in theproposal given in EC82-06/07.



Committee Reason: The proposed changes to these climate zones isbased upon the regulations imposed by a single state. While any stateor jurisdiction can modify the energy code to use different values, therehas been no technical data or analysis provided to justify theseproposed values for this national code.



Committee Reason: This proposed change would provide anundesirable reduction in the energy efficiency requirements of thecode, with no technical justification.



Committee Reason: The proposed deletion of the row for R19 + R 10is a problem because the information is still needed, while theproposed new row for R 19 + R 13 is not needed because this is notspecified anywhere in the code.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standard indicated that, in theopinion of ICC Staff, the standard did comply with ICC standardscriteria.


Committee Reason: The proposed new text would reduce stringencyof U-Factors in some climate zones. In addition, the committee wasconcerned with ability to apply this method and enforce the code, giventhe possibility that changes in locations of partitions on the interiorcould affect the values determined.



Committee Reason: While the committee agrees that the moreappropriate approach would be for requirements to be “materialneutral”, this table was the result of a needed compromise in the lastcode change cycle; therefore, the committee felt that it would beundesirable to make any changes at this time.



Committee Reason: The committee voted in favor of the stringencyin EC95-06/07; this would reduce that level of stringency.



Committee Reason: The proposed change would reduce the value ofusing projections as a trade-off for SHGC factors, and therefore givethe designer less flexibility in the selection of fenestration products.




Committee Reason: For the same reasons as given in EC93-06/07 fordisapproval.




TABLE 502.3BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS: FENESTRATION

CLIMATE ZONE 1 2 3

4ExceptMarine

5and

Marine 4 6 7 8Skylights (3% maximum)

SHGC0.400.35

0.400.35

0.400.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 NR NR


Committee Reason: The committee agrees that this proposaleliminates an undesirable differential that is based upon differentmaterials. The modification would utilize the more stringent factor of0.35 for skylights, as presently required for plastic skylights, as thecommittee believes that the more restrictive factors should be used inconsolidating these requirements.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standards, ASTM E2178, E2357and E1677, indicated that, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard didcomply with ICC standards criteria.

Analysis: Review of proposed new standard, ASTM E779, indicatedthat, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard did not comply with ICCstandards criteria.


Committee Reason: There was concern expressed as to the validityof the NIST report that was cited, because it had not yet been peerreviewed. In addition, the proposed text would be applicable to all typesof walls, but is written for frame walls.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standards, ASTM E2178, E2357and E1677, indicated that, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard didcomply with ICC standards criteria.

Analysis: Review of proposed new standard, ASTM E779, indicatedthat, in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard did not comply with ICCstandards criteria.


Committee Reason: The test standard is intended for single zones, soit is not clear how this test would be conducted for all buildings. Inaddition, the test would require special equipment to check compliance.In addition, there was a valid concern that this could not be applied toremedial work where compliance is only required for a percentage ofthe building.



Committee Reason: This proposal provides a needed restriction onhot gas bypass and evaporator pressure control systems that will havethe effect of saving energy.




Committee Reason: While the committee acknowledges that thepresent provisions are difficult to apply, the proposed text is confusingas well. The proposed language in Exception no. 6 adds moreconfusion, rather than make the code clearer. In addition, the use ofvestibules in the definition could cause a conflict with the InternationalBuilding Code.



Committee Reason: The proposal fails to provide any metrics toassess deterioration.



Committee Reason: The information proposed to be deleted is usefulinformation for the users of the code.





Committee Action: Approved as Modified


TABLE 503.2.3(1)UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND CONDENSING UNITS, ELECTRICALLY

OPERATED, MINIMUM EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTSEquipment

TypeSize Category Sub-Category or Rating

ConditionMinimum Efficiencyb TestProcedurea

Air Conditioners, Air Cooled

< 65,000 Btu/hd Split System 13.0 SEER

ARI 210/240

Single Package 13.0 SEER

≥³65,000 Btu/h and< 135,000 Btu/h

Split System andSingle Package

10.3 EERc

(before Jan 1, 2010)

11.0 11.2 EERc

(as of Jan 1, 2010)

≥³135,000 Btu/h and< 240,000 Btu/h


9.7 EERc


11.0 EERc

(as of Jan 1, 2010)

ARI 340/360

≥³ 240,000 Btu/h and<760,000 Btu/h


9.5 EERc

9.7 IPLVc


10.0 EERc

9.7 IPLVg

(as of Jan 1, 2010)

≥760,000 Btu/h Split System andSingle Package

9.2 EERc

9.4 IPLVc


9.7 EERc

9.4 IPLVc

(as of Jan 1, 2010)

TABLE 503.2.3(2)UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND CONDENSING UNITS, ELECTRICALLY

OPERATED, MINIMUM EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTSEquipment

TypeSize Category Sub-Category or Rating

ConditionMinimum Efficiencyb TestProcedurea

Air Cooled(Heating Mode)

< 65,000 Btu/hd

(Cooling Capacity)Split System 7.7 HSPF

ARI 210/240

Single Package 7.7 HSPF

≥³65,000 Btu/h and< 135,000 Btu/h

(Cooling Capacity)

47°/F db/43°/F wbOutdoor Air

3.2 COP(before Jan 1, 2010)

3.3 COP(as of Jan 1, 2010)

≥³135,000 Btu/h(Cooling Capacity)

47°/F db/43°/F wbOutdoor Air

3.1 COP(before Jan 1, 2010)

3.2 COP(as of Jan 1, 2010)

ARI 340/36



Committee Reason: The proposed changes are needed to bring thetable up to date with the requirements of the 2005 Federal EnergyPolicy Act. The modification corrects some of the values, based uponthe input from the proponent.



Committee Reason: The proponent offered some changes to thetables to correct some of the values. This modification was ruled out oforder because of the complexity. While the committee does notnecessarily disagree with the proposed concept, the proposal could notbe approved using the wrong values.



Committee Reason: The proposal would bring provisions in the codeconsistent with ASHRAE 90.1 that represent significant energysavings.



Committee Reason: There is no technical justification for treatinglaboratory fume hood systems with higher exhaust rates differently thanthose with lower exhaust rates. The conditions in exception 3 shouldapply to the fans in exception 2.



Committee Reason: The proposed text would exempt hazardousexhaust systems, commercial kitchen exhaust systems and clothesdryer exhaust systems from requirements for an energy recoveryventilation system, but with the accompanying change to the IMC,would not outright prohibit it in these locations. This is a moreappropriate code logic, given advances in technology that can be usedfor energy recovery systems in these locations.


PART II — IMCCommittee Action: Disapproved

Committee Reason: No substantiation was provided to allowhazardous exhaust systems or Type I hood exhaust to be included inan energy recovery system. Such systems can be approved by thecode official as an alternate design with the appropriate scrubbersystems installed. Removing the restrictions in this section could allowsuch systems to be installed without proper cleanup and controls.




503.2.7 Duct and plenum insulation and sealing. All supply andreturn air ducts and plenums shall be insulated with a minimum of R-5insulation when located in unconditioned spaces and with a minimumof R-8 insulation when located outside the building. When locatedwithin a building envelope assembly, the duct or plenum shall beseparated from the building exterior or unconditioned or exempt spacesby a minimum of R-8 insulation.

Exceptions:

1. When located within equipment.2. When the design temperature difference between the

interior and exterior of the duct or plenum does not exceed15/F (8/C).

All ducts, air handlers, and filter boxes, and building cavities usedas ducts shall be sealed. Joints and seams shall comply with Section603.9 of the International Mechanical Code.

Committee Reason: The requirements for sealing ducts isappropriately dealt with in the IMC. Removal of provisions here willavoid conflicts. The modification removes text regarding sealing ofbuilding cavities, as this is not presently covered in this code section.



Analysis: Review of proposed new standard, ARI 840, indicated that,in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard did comply with ICC standardscriteria.

Analysis: Review of proposed new standard, ARI 440, indicated that,in the opinion of ICC Staff, the standard did not comply with ICCstandards criteria.

Committee Action: Approved as Modified


503.2.8 Piping insulation. All piping serving as part of a heating orcooling system shall be thermally insulated in accordance with Table503.2.8.

Exceptions:

1. Factory-installed piping within HVAC equipment testedand rated in accordance with a test procedure referencedby this code.

2. Factory-installed piping within room fan-coils and unitventilators tested and rated according to ARI standards440, except the sampling and variation provisions ofSection 6.5, and 840, respectively.

3. Piping that conveys fluids that have a design operatingtemperature range between 55/F (13/C) and 105/F 41/C).

4. Piping that conveys fluids that have not been heated orcooled through the use of fossil fuels or electric power.

5. Runout piping not exceeding 4 feet (1219 mm) in lengthand 1 inch (25 mm)in diameter between the control valveand HVAC coil.



Committee Reason: The new test standard proposed are acceptablealternatives for piping insulation within these units. The modificationmakes a provision of ARI 440 not applicable, because the language ofthe Section 6.5 of that standard is ambiguous and permissive.



Committee Reason: The proposed change would make this sectionof the code consistent with Section 503.4.2.



Committee Reason: The subject of equipment commissioningsreaches beyond just energy conservation issues. These provisions arenot appropriate for this code; rather, the subject should be covered inthe International Mechanical Code.





Committee Reason: In addition to the concerns stated in EC110-06/07 regarding the appropriateness of this subject for this code, thereferenced standard is not promulgated by a consensus process, asrequired by ICC policy.



Committee Reason: This is a needed exception for computer roomsand other rooms requiring controls for humidity.



Committee Reason: This proposed revision provides a neededclosure of a loophole that allows a designer to install multiple systemssmaller than the threshold in the given climate zones.



Committee Reason: Improvements in technology make this proposalpractical for the climate zones 4A, 5A, and 6A.



Committee Reason: Based upon actions taken on EC117-06/07.



Committee Reason: Based upon actions taken on EC117-06/07.



Committee Reason: This reorganization of the sections makes thecode requirements clearer. The technical changes are necessaryenergy conservation requirements for heat rejection equipment.



Committee Reason: The proposed deletion is based upon an analysisrelated to a single region. The committee was disinclined to approvethis proposal without a consensus from nationwide interests.




Committee Reason: This is a reasonable requirement that willconserve energy.



Committee Reason: The proposed text of Item 6 provides ill-definedand vague terminology that could lead to abuse of the coderequirements.



Committee Reason: The proposed text of Item 5 provides ill-definedand vague terminology that could lead to abuse of the coderequirements.



Committee Reason: The proposed text will provide for a reasonablecontrol of energy in daylight that will conserve energy.



Committee Reason: The proposed change in the section title clarifiesthe code.



Committee Reason: The committee agreed with the proponent thatthese areas should be exempt from the requirements of Section505.5.1.



Committee Reason: The committee considers the proposed revisedtext to be improved language regarding exterior lighting controls, usingterminology consistent with ASHRAE 90.1.



Committee Reason: The proposal reorganizes these exceptions in alogical manner that makes the requirements of the code clearer.



Committee Reason: The provision would make non-compliance withthe code more probable, because it is too easy to change out theequipment.



Committee Reason: The proposed text changes to Section 505.6 aregrammatically incorrect.



Committee Reason: The committee was concerned regarding whether“mini circuit breakers” was correct terminology.



Committee Reason: It is necessary to the integrity of the code to keepreferenced standards current.




Committee Reason: The energy code is a minimum standard. Whilethe proposed measures are probably good information for greaterenergy savings, it is not necessary to put these provisions in theenergy code.



Committee Reason: This provision simplifies the requirements of thecode by putting a hard number on the R-value for insulation of unfiredhot water storage tanks.


2006/2007 code development committee international … · assembly action: none ec4-06/07 committee...

Documents