RECA supports the codes and development processes of the International
Code Council® and opposes any legislation that would preclude the
adoption of the International family of codes.
Executive Summary
The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance and its members fully support adoption
of the International Codes and, specifically, the International Energy
Conservation Code®. The International Codes™ are,
far and away, the best, most sophisticated and comprehensive model codes
available. Moreover, we believe that the model code development processes
of the International Code Council® (ICC®) are reasonable and well-designed
to ensure public and technical expert participation and an unbiased result.
As a result, we oppose any legislation that would preclude the consideration
of and/or actual adoption of the International Codes in a state or jurisdiction.
Specifically, RECA is very concerned by the recent threat of state legislation
to require the review and adoption of only those codes and standards that
are recommended or accredited by the American National Standards Institute
(“ANSI”). This tactic is intended by supporters of the recently
developed NFPA 5000 (an alternative to the International Codes
recently proffered by the National Fire Protection Agency) to tie the
state's hands and preclude it from adopting the International Codes,
even if they are the better family of codes on the merits. Commissions
responsible for evaluating numerous codes and picking the best one for
their jurisdiction must have the authority to consider and evaluate all
options. While it is legitimate to consider the development processes
for a particular model code in evaluating that code, that issue alone
is not dispositive. Nor does ANSI have a monopoly on the appropriate development
process for model codes. In the end, the merits of the individual model
codes should be given the most weight in choosing among them. The ANSI
debate is really an effort to preclude the jurisdiction from ever getting
to the substance and merits of the alternatives and should be rejected.
ANSI accreditation simply is not and never has been a prerequisite to
a reasonable model code or law. Regrettably, proponents of ANSI-only legislation
have used the ANSI accreditation issue as a means to discredit the I-Codes™,
which is entirely unfair and inappropriate. The I-Codes and their predecessors
have been widely adopted across the nation for many years without ANSI
approval. As a testament to the importance of the final document and not
just the process used to develop it, the federal government does not require
its agencies to use ANSI-accredited standards, nor does it discriminate
in its choice of codes.
Legislation requiring the adoption of ANSI-accredited codes only, is
also discriminatory against the I-Codes. Simply because the ICC has opted
for a somewhat different development process from the ANSI process, the
I-Codes should not be discredited, so long as the I-Code process also
remains open and consensus-based. The I-Code committee voting process
is very similar to ANSI-accredited processes, but the final voting authority
for the I-Codes rests with its building code official members, which is
the primary reason why it is not ANSI-accredited. RECA, along with many
other industry supporters, believes that, for a model code, the I-Code
process is actually better and helps to ensure the best, most unbiased
result. Leaving final voting authority with code officials is effective
because the voting code officials are unbiased and their sole objective
is the creation of a quality end product for all users. Because of the
effective process used and quality document produced, an overwhelming
number of states and jurisdictions have adopted the suite of I-Codes published
by the ICC. The I-Codes are a set of national model codes with broad application
and solid support from industry, government officials, and the public,
among many others.
Legislation requiring ANSI-only building codes could create problem for
states in the energy context as well, since states are required under
the 1992 Energy Policy Act ("EPAct") to review and consider
adoption of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code (a non-ANSI
code). Creating a building code adoption structure in which states could
not evaluate or consider adopting provisions from non-ANSI codes such
as the 2000 IECC would risk violating federal law.
Background on RECA
RECA is a consortium of energy efficiency advocates, product and equipment
manufacturers, and trade associations that is dedicated to improving the
energy efficiency of homes through greater use of energy efficient practices
and materials. Our Objective and Supporting Principles and a list of RECA
members are included at the end of this document.
RECA drafted this position paper to help eliminate the myths surrounding
the debate between competing building codes and code development processes.
Given our expertise in dealing with building energy codes, our position
is largely based on our experience following the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC®), which is part of the I-Code family.
The IECC is the premier building energy code across the country.
I. Unique Issues Involving ANSI-certification and Energy Codes
The IECC and its predecessor, the Model Energy Code (dating back to
the 1992 version), have already been adopted in 40 states and the District
of Columbia and countless counties and municipalities. This code is
fully backed by funding for implementation and technical support provided
by the US Department of Energy. The IECC/MEC has been in existence for
more than a decade and has gone through numerous code development cycles
open to the public, which have considerably improved the document. Furthermore,
the IECC/MEC is the only residential building energy code referenced
in the United States Energy Policy Act (EPAct). The 2000 version of
the IECC is the current national model energy code certified by the
US Department of Energy that all states must review and consider adopting.
Sixteen states and many more jurisdictions have adopted this latest
2000 version of the IECC or equivalent provisions. The IECC's lack of
ANSI-accreditation obviously did not act as a bar to the federal government's
selection of it as the national standard.
If a state passed a law that required it to adopt only ANSI-accredited
codes, the state would not even be able to review the IECC, let alone
consider its adoption. State legislation that would not permit the State
to review and possibly adopt the IECC, or future non-ANSI codes, is
likely to be preempted by EPAct. That is, a contrary state law may not
be a valid excuse in the face of pre-existing federal law. So, even
if a state passed such a law, the state would still have to review and
report back to the DOE on its decision. A state passing a law to require
only ANSI-accredited codes may be taking a chance in the realm of energy
building codes that the law could be challenged. It would also remove
decision-making authority regarding the building codes from state committee
members that have only the public interest as their goal. RECA strongly
opposes the adoption of such a law because it would be discriminatory
and may run afoul of EPAct.
Another very important consideration with regard to energy codes and
ANSI accreditation has to do with the available model energy codes that
are ANSI accredited. The NFPA 5000 code adopts ASHRAE 90.2-1993 as its
energy code (along with some simplified tables pulled out of the 90.2
document for a prescriptive compliance approach). The 90.2 standard
has never been adopted by any state as its energy code, nor is it supported
through funding or technical support from the Department of Energy.
Compliance tools that are available to assist code users with the IECC,
such as REScheck™ and COMcheck™, simply do not exist for NFPA
5000.
Adopting ANSI-only legislation would prevent a state or locality from
being able to tap into the IECC-based wealth of resources. As a result,
states and localities essentially would be on their own in preparing
90.2 for introduction, and implementation would be quite difficult to
achieve and would necessarily be delayed. Moreover, the NFPA 5000 energy
provisions are neither the technical nor practical equal to the IECC.
The IECC reflects many years of practical use and a continual improvement
process that is unmatched by the NFPA 5000. As a result, the IECC is
widely recognized as the best model energy code for improving energy
efficiency, lowering energy-related costs, reducing air pollution emissions,
reducing peak electric demand, and ultimately greater reliability of
utility service.
II. The ICC Governmental Consensus Process Versus the ANSI Industry
Consensus Process
Both the ICC and the NFPA hotly defend their individual code development
processes. NFPA notes that its process is ANSI-accredited almost everywhere
it mentions its codes. But when reduced to brass tacks, the ICC process
is just as democratic and incorporates additional public-interest checks
and balances. While an ANSI-accredited process may be desirable where
industry groups with individual biases are developing standards, the
ICC model codes are ultimately approved by fair, unbiased governmental
officials. As a result, an ANSI process is neither necessary or desirable
for code development by the ICC.
Both organizations rely on technical committees to address particular
building issues. In both, anyone may submit a code proposal. The NFPA
committees have balanced committees, in which no more than one-third
of committees may be comprised of governmental representatives. The
ICC technical committees maintain a mix of interests. Members representing
either user or producer interests may not make up more than one-third
of the committee membership. At least one-third of committees must be
composed of consumers and governmental representatives. This strategy
allows industry representatives to comprise as much as 67% of a technical
committee's membership, but ensures that governmental members will have
some input. All people are guaranteed a chance to speak at the ICC's
technical meetings. The NFPA technical committees are not required to
recognize all speakers.
In both processes, the committee decisions on code proposals are forwarded
to the membership. In the ICC, the Committee votes may be challenged
by the membership, but unless challenged, are considered binding. Proposals
challenged by the membership are forwarded for individual consideration.
Governmental representatives have final voting rights on proposals,
but final votes may be appealed to the ICC Board.
In contrast, the NFPA committee votes are non-binding and simply identify
possible consensus. Official committee votes are taken by letter ballot,
out of view of the public. The membership may overturn a committee vote.
The membership vote may be overturned by the NFPA Standards Council,
which may represent various vested interests. The NFPA Board of Directors
can overturn decisions of the Standards Council "to protect the
integrity of the standards development process and to protect the interests
of the Association."
The ICC process is open, inclusive, and balanced. All views and opinions
are taken into consideration throughout the process. While the NFPA
process can ensure a balanced process, it cannot ensure that the members
making the final decisions are without a vested interest in the outcome
of code proposals. The ICC puts public safety and welfare first by having
a process that allows participation by all, but allows final decisions
only by governmental representatives with no vested interest. For that
reason, RECA believes that the ICC's development process is superior
to that of NFPA.
III. Legislation to Limit Building Codes Only to ANSI-Accredited Codes
Is Misguided
State building code adoption committees/commissions have an important
responsibility to adopt codes that ensure public safety and welfare
and account for the geographic and economic conditions within their
states. A state committee's role is to be a neutral body whose primary
concern is that of the public good. In that role, a committee should
strive to be highly educated regarding the available building codes,
so that when it chooses a particular code, it can be sure to select
the best one for the state. Limiting the field of codes that a state
building codes committee could adopt, therefore, does a disservice to
the residents of a given state. For that reason, state legislative attempts
to limit building codes to only those that are ANSI-accredited would
be detrimental to the code adoption process in the state.
In addition, because only two national model building codes currently
exist (the International Codes and NFPA 5000), such language
would clearly be designed to legislate a discriminatory policy in favor
of NFPA 5000. This is an obvious contrast to federal anti-discrimination
policy with regard to standards. Although the argument is commonly made,
the federal government does not require its agencies to follow an ANSI-accredited
process. A look at the pertinent federal guidelines is instructive.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 codified
a Circular by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB A119), which
recommended that federal agencies use non-governmental standards. The
Act requires agencies to use private voluntary standards, as opposed
to government standards, or explain why it is not feasible to do so.
The terms used in the Circular and the law to embody this concept are
"voluntary consensus standards" and "voluntary consensus
standards body."
The definitions of these terms do not mention ANSI. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (the agency assigned to follow agency progress
in adopting voluntary standards) clarified the terms by referring to
the OMB Circular, which states: "a voluntary consensus standards
body is defined by the following attributes: (1) openness; (2) balance
of interest; (3) due process; (4) an appeals process; and (5) consensus,
which is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity."
The circular goes on to state that "...neither OMB nor NIST can
endorse or recognize one standards developing organization as preferable
to another." Clearly, the ICC process meets all of these requirements
and federal agencies may rely on its standards. To say that the federal
government may only use ANSI-accredited standards is simply false. States
should have the same opportunity to consider non-ANSI-accredited codes.
Conclusion
RECA members have actively participated in the ICC code development process
for many years. Our experience shows that the ICC process is open, inclusive,
and balanced and offers an additional measure of public interest protection
lacking in the NFPA process. RECA is opposed to any requirement of ANSI-certification,
particularly since it will pre-determine which model code is selected.
RECA submits that the decision between competing model codes should be
made on the merits and not elevate form over substance. RECA is unwilling
to support a code that is far behind the IECC in usability, as well as
energy efficiency, and in particular, one that may take years for adopting
jurisdictions to implement, resulting in delays of public safety measures
and energy savings. Finally, RECA strongly disagrees with extreme measures
in state legislation to discriminate against the ICC. Such measures are
contrary to the policies of the federal government and remove authority
from neutral state building code committees.
Objective and Principles of RECA
RECA Primary Objective
RECA's primary objective is to support and urge all states to adopt
and implement the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code,
without substantive local weakening amendments.
RECA Supporting Principles:
RECA believes that:
One nationwide building energy efficiency code is in the best
interest of building and home owners, operators and builders,
manufacturers and the general public welfare. The 2000 IECC has
been certified by the United States Department of Energy under
federal law and is the most up-to-date, fully supported nationwide
model building energy efficiency code for all buildings.
The 2000 IECC is preferable to the 2000 International Residential
Code®, but the IRC is an acceptable alternative for residential
construction.
Adoption of the amendments incorporated in the 2001 Supplement
to the IECC, particularly the incorporation of ASHRAE 90.1- 99
for commercial buildings, are an acceptable alternative that RECA
can support.
While adoption of an earlier version of the MEC or amendments
to the IECC is generally better than no code at all, RECA strongly
urges that all jurisdictions adopt or upgrade to the complete
2000 IECC, without substantive local amendments.
Any desirable improvements to the 2000 IECC should be pursued
through the ICC code change process, rather than through local
amendment.
RECA (RESPONSIBLE ENERGY CODES ALLIANCE)
Alliance to Save Energy
American Architectural Manufacturers Association
American Chemistry Council
American Plastics Council
Building Codes Assistance Project
Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc.
CertainTeed Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Guardian Industries Corporation
Johns Manville Corporation
Knauf Fiber Glass
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
Owens Corning
Pactiv Corporation
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association
