The International Code Council’s (ICC) Group C Public Comment Hearings wrapped up in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this past weekend. The hearings, which ran from Wednesday to Saturday, saw the approval and disapproval of a few industry-related code proposals.

Code proposal GEW66-14 passed as submitted. GEW66-14 altered section 605.1.1 “Insulation and fenestration criteria” by increasing thermal envelope stringency by 5 percent as it relates to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

“What this means is that if the prescriptive path is used for compliance, the envelope components must have 5 percent lower U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) than in the 2015 IECC,” Tom Culp of Birch Point Consulting told DWM magazine.

Code change proponent Paul Coats of the American Wood Council wrote of the proposal, “Although an official DOE determination has not been issued, it is anticipated that the 2012 IECC improves on the previous edition of that code. The percent of building envelope improvement required by the IgCC should be adjusted to recognize this.”

That change is not yet final, as it will go to a final online vote over the next few weeks. At that time, it will still need a majority of the online vote to be approved.

Code proposal GEW68-14, meanwhile was disapproved, deleting without substitution section 605.1.1.1 of the code, which deals with “permanent shading devices for fenestration.”

Related proposals GEW70 and GEW 71 were also rejected, though they’ll all go to a final online vote, which will require a two-thirds majority to be approved.

“This means the shading requirement in the prescriptive path will remain the same, requiring either a 0.25 projection factor, dynamic glazing, or automated shading devices,” says Culp. “This is consistent with the options in ASHRAE 189.1, although 189.1 actually requires a larger shading projection of 0.5.”

Proponent Eric DeVito of Brickfield, Burchette Ritts & Stone, representing Cardinal Glass Industries, wrote in the proposal, “As it is currently written, the IgCC prescriptive shading option unnecessarily complicates what otherwise would be a very straightforward and simple-to-apply prescriptive compliance option based on a reasonable level of improvement over the IECC.”

GG320, which sought to completely re-write the IgCC, was also disapproved according to Culp.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *