Green Outlook Soars Amid Code Proliferations
November 22, 2010The McGraw-Hill Construction Outlook Conference held October 28-29 in Washington D.C. featured predictions that the dramatic growth in the green market that started in 2005 will continue through 2015 – led by the health care market, which is the strongest in this category. Across the non-residential sector, the green market is projected to account for $43-$54 billion in 2010, 35% of the total market (compared to 2% in 2005). In the residential category, the green market should be worth some $12 to $17 billion this year.
Amid this bright outlook, confusion could result from the proliferation of green standards, rating systems and model codes, which have seen significant activity in 2010. This article provides you with details on the current code requirements.
CODES
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
IECC U/SHGC requirements
International Green Construction Code (IGCC)
Local Codes
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Challenges to the Green Promises
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Meeting in late October of this year, more than 500 state and local code officials voted on changes to the IECC to achieve energy savings of 30% relative to the 2006 model code. Allowing for regional climate differences, architects and builders will be able to choose the ways in which to make their buildings use less energy; for example, by adding renewable energy such as solar on rooftops, using more efficient lighting or increasing weather proofing. But the 30% savings in energy must be reached.
The proposals adopted into the new 2012 code address all aspects of residential (Chapter 4) and nonresidential (Chapter 5) building construction, laying a strong foundation for residential efficiency gains and leading commercial building efficiency improvements.
- Residential Changes. Adding to what some in the media are terming a “historic” development, the delegates also voted to eliminate the weaker Energy Chapter of the International Residential Code (IRC) and supplant it with IECC as a single nationwide uniform energy code for residential and commercial buildings. IRC Chapter 11 now references IECC for energy provisions. In the residential sector, improvements will, among other things, improve the efficiency of windows and skylights.
- Commercial Changes. The package of improvements for commercial buildings includes continuous air barriers, daylighting controls, use of economizers in additional climates and a choice of three paths for designers and developers to increase efficiency: renewable energy systems, more efficient HVAC equipment or improved lighting systems. The package also requires commissioning of new buildings to ensure that the actual energy performance of the building meets the design intent.
IECC U-value/SHGC requirements
The new prescriptive window requirements in the 2012 IECC are included in the chart below.
Although not all states have adopted the IECC in the past, the likelihood that many will adopt the 2012 code seems high. For example, under the terms of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), every state that accepted State Energy Program funding had to commit to 90% energy code compliance by 2017. Virtually every state did accept this assistance, which means almost every state will now require efficient buildings. (back to top)
International Green Construction Code (IGCC)
Developed by the International Code Council (ICC) in association with ASTM International and the American Institute of Architects (AIA), with support from both the USGBC and GBI, the IGCC model code is designed to be consistent and coordinated with the ICC’s “I-codes” family of codes and standards – most typically the IBC. Because it was written in mandatory language (unlike voluntary rating systems), the IGCC is said to be positioned to achieve significant market transformation in those segments that are not likely to react to voluntary programs. The first edition of IGCC, issued in March 2010, will be up for adoption with the 2012 International Codes. (back to top)
Local Codes
Just because ICC develops new codes doesn’t mean jurisdictions have to adopt them, and that’s led to a patchwork of energy standards across the country.
Indeed, many states do take the shortcut of referencing the I-codes. In the AAMA Western Region for example, Nevada, Idaho (as of 1/1/11), Montana (residential only) and Utah (residential only) reference the 2006 IECC, while Montana and Utah reference the 2009 version for commercial only. Arizona has no statewide energy code, but many of its counties have adopted IECC 2006.
However, several Western States have developed their own codes, more or less “from scratch.” Washington, Oregon and California are prime examples, with California – often the bellwether for government-related initiatives – having the most impact and being most indicative of future national developments. (back to top)
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, also called Title-24 Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), first adopted in 1977, have been periodically updated on approximately a three-year cycle. After 2010, the code will be updated annually. The most recent update, the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect on January 1, 2010. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is working on the 2011 Standards now, looking to a likely implementation date of January 1, 2014.
The 2011 Standards will continue to build upon the 2008 Standards in newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings, and will continue to implement several policy directives that promise to dramatically change the impact of the state’s regulatory climate. These directives include greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and energy efficiency strategy recommendations designed to reduce the contribution to climate change in the building sector, which is second only to on-road vehicles in statewide GHG emissions.
- Net Zero. In a November 3 webinar sponsored by the AAMA Western Region, Ken Nittler, PE, of WESTLab elaborated on California developments, noting that the CEC's 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) established the goal that new building standards achieve "net zero energy" levels by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings. A net zero energy building consumes only as much energy on an annual basis as can be generated with an on-site renewable energy system.
- GHG Reduction. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 codified an earlier executive order (The Climate Action Initiative) mandating the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and by 2050, to reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Effective building standards tie in as an important tool for achieving these GHG goals.
With specific regard to windows, the mandatory provisions require manufactured windows and doors to meet air leakage standards and certify as to U-value and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC). Two “packages” are defined to meet building efficiency targets. In general, glazed area is limited to 20% of the building’s floor area, 5% on west-facing walls.
- California Green Building Code. The Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), first adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in July 2008, codifies voluntary "reach" standards for energy efficiency as compared with the mandatory standards, for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings such as schools, health facilities and state buildings. It includes both performance-based and prescriptive elements and established tiered energy performance levels of 15% and 30% more stringent than the mandatory 2008 Building Energy Standards. Local jurisdictions may adopt the Green Building Standards Code as mandatory at the local level or may choose privately developed green building standards that are approved by the CEC that are at least as stringent as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code mandatory provisions.
- Window U-value/SHGC “Package” Requirements. Package D, the baseline, is tuned to the 16 different defined California climate zones (e.g., Zone 1 = northwest and Los Angeles-area shorelines; Zone 15 = southern desert; Zone 16 = eastern mountains). It requires windows in all zones to have a U-value of at most 0.40 and zone-variant SHGC of no more than 0.35 in Zone 15 and 0.40 elsewhere, except there is no SHGC requirement in Zones 1, 3 and 16.
A new alternative Package E for metal-framed windows allows higher aluminum framed U-values by introducing tradeoffs with other features. Maximum U-values are 0.50 in the cool Zone 1, 0.45 in Zone 16, and 0.57 in all other zones. Maximum SHGCs range from 0.25 to 0.40 to no requirement, depending on climate zone.
By comparison, current ENERGY STAR windows requirements are maximum 0.32 U-value and 0.40 SHGC in the U.S. North Central zone, 0.35 U-value and 0.30 SHGC in the South Central zone. Together, these two zones cover the entire state of California.
By comparison, current ENERGY STAR windows requirements are maximum 0.32 U-value and 0.40 SHGC in the U.S. North Central zone, 0.35 U-value and 0.30 SHGC in the South Central zone. Together, these two zones cover the entire state of California.
- Prop 23 Defeated. These are very serious and ambitious goals that appear to be on track regardless of economic fallout.
For example, in the November elections, California voters rejected Proposition 23, which would have suspended implementation of A.B.32, the state's 2006 GHG-reduction law, until state unemployment was at or below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. A.B.32, which can be likened to the state's own version of cap-and-trade, sets a target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Critics of A.B.32 say the new regulations will increase energy costs by billions of dollars and destroy more than a million jobs as manufacturers leave the state to avoid them. (back to top)
Critics of A.B.32 say the new regulations will increase energy costs by billions of dollars and destroy more than a million jobs as manufacturers leave the state to avoid them. (back to top)
Challenges to the Green Promises
Over-reaching? Given that the highest profile often attracts the most criticism, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the USGBC in October 2010 in the southern New York U.S. District Court, claiming that the USGBC has engaged in deceptive trade practices, false advertising and anti-trust in promoting the LEED certification program.
The suit alleges that the LEED rating system is supplanting building codes in many jurisdictions, undermining marketplace competition and obscuring other building standards that are proven (unlike LEED) to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. When LEED accredited professionals design and build buildings instead of skilled professionals with years of experience making safe, comfortable and energy-efficient environments, the marketplace, consumers and the environment often suffer, the plaintiffs allege.
Greenwashing? The popularity of green solutions has also attracted the “irrational exuberance” of sales and marketing professionals in many companies, leading to the phenomenon of “greenwashing,” i.e., false or exaggerated claims of green credentials. In response, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is suing at least five major corporations in 2009 for “greenwashing” violations.
In further effort to curb greenwashing, the FTC began in October to develop revisions to its "Green Guides." The revisions, now released for public comment prior to the final rulemaking, are available on the FTC website. The commission will accept public comments on the proposed changes until December 10, 2010. AAMA is currently reviewing the documents in anticipation of submitting comments.
Also partly in response to greenwashing, many in the industry are emphasizing the need for greatly increased third-party testing, validation and certification of products' green characteristics. (back to top)
Going Forward
Overall, a consensus seems to be forming that more strict standards for building energy efficiency are needed and that these standards and/or codes need to be made more uniform across the nation. This unfolding regulatory environment requires careful monitoring for marketing barriers and opportunities and for offering the industry’s perspective during rulemaking proceedings.
American Architectural