Dive Brief:
- The International Code Council voted Monday to finalize the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code, or IECC. As part of its decision, certain provisions aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, rather than directly improving energy efficiency in buildings, will be moved from the main body of the code to the appendices.
- The provisions that will be excluded from the base code cover heat pump products, demand response, infrastructure for charging electric vehicles, electrical energy storage systems, and readiness of buildings for solar installations and electric systems, the ICC said in its announcement. The ICC, however, faces criticism from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, for favoring certain special interest groups. The ICC “gave no explanation for this. They apparently simply didn’t like the provisions. Every commercial building — every office, every school, every hospital — will be less efficient as a result,” Michael Waite, director of codes and building standards at the ACEEE, told Facilities Dive.
- Even with certain provisions being moved, the code “still delivers pretty significant energy savings” and the provisions addressing decarbonization measures “are not going away,” Ryan Colker, vice president of innovation at the ICC, said in an interview.
Dive Insight:
The 2024 IECC, which builds on the 2021 edition, is expected to boost energy efficiency by approximately 10% for commercial buildings, the ICC said in a March 18 news release.
The scope of the IECC code spans the design and construction of commercial and residential buildings, while the intent involves providing “market-driven, enforceable requirements” for their design and construction, and providing minimum efficiency requirements for buildings that result in the maximum level of energy efficiency that is safe, technologically feasible, and lifecycle cost effective, according to an ICC document laying out the process for 2024 IECC development. The code also provides jurisdictions with supplemental requirements, including ASHRAE 90.1, and optional requirements that the ICC says can help buildings achieve zero emissions by 2030 or additional timelines sought by governments.
Commercial and residential building provisions of the draft 2024 IECC code were reached by consensus among industry bodies, state and local government officials and energy efficiency advocates.
ACEEE expressed displeasure with the ICC’s stance. “The ICC board made its decision after a two-hour hearing, despite three years of deliberation by its committees and three days of hearings by its appeals Board,” the organization said in a news release Thursday.
“The process we have in place is predicated on openness, transparency and due process, particularly as it relates to the appeals process. We felt like giving additional time for appeals, which is an important part of that due process,” Colker said.
The ICC received nine appeals from five appellants representing gas utilities, HVAC equipment manufacturers and apartment building developers. These appeals contested the foregoing provisions in the draft 2024 commercial and residential editions of the IECC, arguing that the IECC’s scope and intent do not allow for provisions aimed at decarbonization and that those provisions must be removed from the base code.
Appellants include the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association and two representatives of ICC’s chapters in the Northeast who came forward on behalf of members, including code officials, Colker said.
The ICC said its board additionally addressed the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute’s concerns that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted aspects of the draft 2024 IECC codes. To address these concerns, the ICC moved provisions regarding all-electric commercial and residential, prescriptive glide path to net zero and compliance options for minimum efficiency equipment in specific climate zones to a resource with a note regarding the risk of preemption, it said.
The American Public Gas Association, which represents over 700 local, municipally-owned natural gas systems across 38 states, said it commends the ICC board’s decision. “We are also reassured to see that the ICC Board aims to publish codes that preserve consumer choice, including the option to choose efficient and reliable natural gas in buildings. Through this action, the ICC Board acknowledged the significant risk of federal preemption from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that a number of provisions posed,” the association said in an email statement.
The ACEEE believes the ICC went beyond its authority to appease appellants. “The ICC decided that placating the gas industry and others was more important than their own credibility,” Waite told Facilities Dive. “The ICC gave no regard for its consensus committees, its own staff or its appeals board. The result is that it will be much more expensive for homes and businesses to install the most efficient appliances and equipment, to charge electric vehicles and to put solar panels on roofs.”
When asked whether there could be a pushback from businesses that could incur high retrofit costs in the future due to the ICC board’s decision, Waite said it is difficult to predict how businesses will respond. Industry organizations, he said, have loud voices, but use them to “represent the lowest common denominator among their members.”
“I suspect most businesses will not even know that the ICC saddled them with a huge bill in the future, since this process is so opaque,” Waite said. “The entire argument for consensus processes is to bring together diverse experts to address challenges of society that [individuals] do not have the bandwidth to dive into themselves. But because that process is so complex and not intuitive, those who administer these processes have a responsibility to do so honestly. The ICC has failed this test.”
Colker acknowledged the challenge of high retrofit costs, but pointed to ongoing innovations and technological advancements in the buildings industry. While the ICC board’s deliberations focused on whether the code’s provisions met the scope and intent requirements, issues related to costs and technical feasibility were left to committees of experts, he said. The commercial and residential development committees, comprising 45 and 48 participants, respectively, also represent wider stakeholder groups, Colker said, emphasizing that both committees spent significant time over the past few years developing these provisions.
ICC staff will work on executing the board’s decision to pull out the provisions from the base code into the appendices, Colker noted, citing an expectation that the code will be finalized by around May.
