Attending the ICC Conference

in Detroit this September

or know someone who is?

Taking 5 minutes to view

this presentation can help ensure

that ICC Final Action energy code

changes deliver a solution

to growing energy use and costs.

Decisions made

at the ICC Conference will

impact homeowners’ ability

to deal with rising energy costs.

Key changes due for Final Action vote at ICC Conference:

IECC - prescriptive R-values in wood frame wall assemblies

– Table 402.1 – Insulation and Fenestration Requirements by Component

– Call for increase of wall insulation values from R-13 to R-15 in moderate climate zones and from R-19 to R-21 in cold climate zones

But, if approved these changes could:

What do these changes mean?

On the outside they may appear to be in the interests of energy efficiency. . .

Contradict intent of IECC

Discourage far greater energy savings

Inhibit homeowners’ ability to cope with soaring energy costs

According to the IECC …

Specific building products can only be disapproved for health or safety reasons.

Section 101.2 states:This code establishes minimum prescriptive and performance-related regulations.

Section 101.3 states:The intent of the code is “to permit the use ofinnovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy.”

Proposed changes could have the opposite effect.

Builders will have 3 options to comply with the new code:

1. Move from 2x4 construction to 2x6 construction – adds an average of $1,000 to the cost of a new home

2. Use a costly high-density fiberglass product -- adds an average of nearly $1,000 to the cost of a new home

3. Attach additional insulation to the outside face of exterior walls – may have a similar cost to OSB or plywood in most markets, but it doesn’t provide a secure nailing surface and there are additional material and labor costs to brace the sheathing

New code changes conventional construction practices

Incremental changes to R-value levels are not an answer

R-value measures an insulation’s ability to inhibit conductive heat flow

Yet up to 50% of energy loss is due to air loss or convection

Source: U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridges Laboratory

93% of conductive heat flow already stopped with R-13 insulation

Additional R-value provides minimal and diminishing returns

Source: Fourier’s Law of Thermodynamics

Incremental changes to R-value levels are not an answer

What will R-value changes deliver in real savings?

According to the Department of Energy only about 2-3% in annual energy cost savings or about $15/year

– Payback would take 40-90 years depending on climate

(Based on 2,000 sq.-ft. home with annual heating/cooling costs of $750)

What will R-value changes deliver in real savings?

Less than what’s achieved by installing a setback thermostat

OptionPotential annual energy

cost savings (%)

Savings for homeownerwith annual heating and

cooling costs of $750

Air sealing/air barrier 50% (source: DOE) $375

Setback thermostat 10% (source: DOE) $75/year

Close basement vents 10% (source: Chicago Tribune) $75/year

Caulk, seal, and weatherstrip seams,cracks, and openings to the outside

10% (source: DOE) $75

Seal off fireplace 5% (source: Chicago Tribune) $37/year

R-value increase ofR-13 to R-15

2-3% (source: DOE) $15-$22/year

OptionPotential annual energy

cost savings (%)

Savings for homeownerwith annual heating and

cooling costs of $750

Air sealing/air barrier 50% (source: DOE) $375

Setback thermostat 10% (source: DOE) $75/year

Close basement vents 10% (source: Chicago Tribune) $75/year

Caulk, seal, and weatherstrip seams,cracks, and openings to the outside

10% (source: DOE) $75

Seal off fireplace 5% (source: Chicago Tribune) $37/year

R-value increase ofR-13 to R-15

2-3% (source: DOE) $15-$22/year

DOE Recommendations

Why consider a return to levels proposed by DOE?

Why consider a return to levels proposed by DOE?

Higher R-value levels increase building costs:

Cost of higher R-value insulation

R-15 high-density batts are currently expensive, not readily available in most areas and are a rarely-used building material (source: NAHB)

Cost of materials and/or structural changes require by other insulation products to comply

NAHB estimates that for every $1,000 cost increase, more than 240,000 U.S. households are priced out of the new home market.

Why consider a return to levels proposed by DOE?

You get a bigger bang for your buck elsewhere in the building envelope -- not by increasing R-values

2-3% savings will not help homeowners cope with rising energy and construction costs

Why consider a return to levels proposed by DOE?

There was doubt at the Code Committee Level: IRC Committee rejected the changes

unanimously-- Said changes were not cost effective, not needed

IECC Committee disapproved changes by a very narrow margin; subsequent floor vote to overturn the committee’s erroneous decision was separated by only a handful of votes

Between now and September

Please weigh the negative impact of higher R-values against the intent of IECC and an opportunity for greater protection of homeowners

Please encourage discussion of the proposed changes and more energy saving options among your colleagues -- especially those voting at ICC Hearings in Detroit

Want more information?

National Association of Home Builders www.nahb.org/ec16

Department of Energy’s Cost Analysis of this code change www.energycodes.gov/2004_2005_iecc_irc.stm

Vote to approve EC-16 as submitted

in Detroit!

Thank you

Start Over

STOP