Proposed Changes by the ICC Board Will Delay Higher Energy Code Standards
This message was provided by Sarah Dodge, Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Relationships, AIA.
Dear AIA Component Executives:
In early January, AIA wrote to you about our opposition to a proposal from the International Code Council (ICC) Board of Directors that would significantly impact the future of our national model energy code and the full participation of public officials in its development. AIA also urged you to consider taking action and express opposition to the ICC Board. Thank you to the many of you that wrote to the ICC. Today, I want to provide an update on the situation and where AIA stands.
Last fall, the ICC Board directed its Long-Term Code Development Process Committee (LTCDPC) to consider a proposal to remove the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Chapter 11 ("Energy Efficiency") of the International Residential Code (IRC) from the Governmental Consensus Process for code development. This proposal sought to replace the IECC with a new energy efficiency standard developed through ICC's Standard Consensus Procedures. AIA opposes this proposal. From the start, AIA worked with ICC staff and committees, outside the organization, and through coalitions and the media to ensure that the ICC proposal is defeated.
AIA remains extremely concerned about how this fundamental change to the development of energy efficiency requirements. We believe it will tilt an already uneven playing field further in the direction of special interest groups, such as the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the American Gas Association (AGA), and the Leading Builders of America (LBA).
On January 6, AIA submitted a public comment letter formally opposing the proposal, one of almost 200 public comments received by the ICC, including several from AIA components. Of those comments, roughly 75% opposed the ICC proposal. On January 21, the ICC Board held a public hearing; two AIA representatives were among 55 individuals that testified. Again, opponents outnumbered supporters by a roughly three to one margin. Joining us in opposition was the U.S. Department of Energy and many organizations – including Architecture 2030, ASHRAE, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy – and code officials from across the country.
That same day, the New York Times published an opinion article, "What Will Happen to Your Next Home If Builders Get Their Way?" Citing the ICC's "influence over the construction of nearly every new building in America," opinion writer Justin Gillis called for the ICC "to become a major target of scrutiny and of climate activism," if it "persists in undermining the public interest" by continuing to "indulge the stalling tactics of the home builders."
The ICC proposal has also attracted interest from the federal government. On January 19, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote a letter to ICC leadership requesting information about the code development process and the IECC. Citing the Committee's broad jurisdiction over the energy sector and its "leading role to play in ensuring building codes are developed in a transparent manner and meet the needs of the American people," the letter recognized the IECC as an "important element of national energy policy and a major tool in our efforts to address climate change." The Committee also asked for more information about the nature of the ICC's exclusive organizational relationship with the NAHB and the increased role and influence the proposed revised process would offer "an industry trade group representing companies whose work is regulated by the codes." On February 2, the ICC responded to the Committee by making public the full text of its exclusive agreement with NAHB.
AIA remains firmly opposed to the ICC proposal for several reasons – but perhaps the most important reason is that if the ICC changes the IECC to a standard, the development process will become more insular, opaque, and slow. This move will hinder efforts to improve energy efficiency in buildings and severely limit the architect's voice in the process. In a worst-case scenario, it could weaken energy efficiency requirements and a rollback of earlier gains.
The most recent opportunity for action by the ICC Board was (3/3/2021) in a closed session. While the ICC Board is not certain to act at this time, we will continue engaging inside and outside of the ICC, and of course, we will update you on the situation through its conclusion.
If you have questions, please contact Paul Karrer, Sr. Manager of Building Cody Policy, at paulkarrer@aia.org or (402) 968-1384.
Thank you for helping with this critical matter.
Sarah Dodge
Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Relationships