Comments on: Can Energy Efficiency Programs Stay Ahead of Energy Codes?

By: Franklin Menendez

Franklin Menendez — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:28:34 +0000

A little editing comment: 1/2
A little editing comment: 1/2" of XPS has an R value of 2.5 or so, I believe. I think you must have meant 1" of XPS (above grade walls).

Best wishes,

Franklin

By: Chris Barnes

Chris Barnes — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:32:33 +0000

Great article, really made
Great article, really made some good points. From the standpoint of a home remodeler and weatherization business owner, you really hit the nail on the head with third party verification. Just because building code "says so" does not stop drive by inspections and cronyism among builders and inspectors. When a HERS RATER comes through a home there is a chance that any project will be slected for Q.A. audit which means his/her work as a RATER will be inspected yet again.

This is a huge advantage for the client/homeowner and those who truly love building science and want to see home perform.

By: David Butler

David Butler — Tue, 15 May 2012 04:49:56 +0000

I agree, enforcement is the
I agree, enforcement is the key to staying ahead of the codes. By the time 2012 IECC is in place in most states, we'll be on ESv4.

The DOE Builder Challenge program recently underwent a major face lift to stay well ahead of the codes, and even ESv3. Check it out.

As for central returns, that's absolutely the best approach, but as Sean said, it's not the only way to lose wall cavity returns.

In general, the less return ducts the better. If furnace or air handler is inside (as it should be), there's no need for any return ducts. Transfer grille work well, and jump ducts for bedrooms for privacy. This is less expensive than a fully ducted return system, although a bit more than an undersized central return in a hall ceiling. In any case, integrating wall cavities with ducted returns should indeed be banned.

By: Sean @ AlaGBS

Sean @ AlaGBS — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:28:58 +0000

Thanks Neal, I knew Texas was
Thanks Neal, I knew Texas was sitting on the fence & maybe 1 other one so I wasn't sure they went ahead with it or not.

You might want to check the small print - the 2009 gets stripped away by the newest code 2 years after DOE blesses it or by X date (are you sure it is 17 & not 15?)

Amen to eliminating cavities & all I will say is that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat besides going that route

By: Neal Ezell

Neal Ezell — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:08:42 +0000

Sean,

Sean,

Each state must achieve 90% compliance to the 2009 IECC or equivalent by 2017. This was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. And ALL states accepted it.

Another added requirement by the 2012 IECC that was not mentioned is that it also prohibits the use of building cavities for return air vents or plenums. This will cause many builders to simply eliminate them altogether by using central returns that are noisier and require bypass vents to the hallway that sacrifices privacy. Is this an improvement?

By: M. Johnson

M. Johnson — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:12:31 +0000

This puzzles me from a
This puzzles me from a science standpoint:
"...3 ACH50 for all but the two warmest climates, zones 1 and 2, and 5 ACH50 for them..."

What is the reason in Building Science that airtight construction is more important in cold climates? I hope your reply addresses at least latent vs. sensible heat load.

By: Sean @ AlaGBS

Sean @ AlaGBS — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:06:00 +0000

As an FYI - ALL* states must
As an FYI - ALL* states must adopt the 2012 IECC & all future versions within 2 years of DOE issuing it's final review

* this was a provision that all State Governor's had to sign off on if they wanted the money - as I recall all the states (except Texas maybe) accepted this

By: Matthew Cooper

Matthew Cooper — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:42:46 +0000

Sorry, the quoted cost
Sorry, the quoted cost increase wasn't $2,500. Its $3,500!

By: Matthew Cooper

Matthew Cooper — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:39:17 +0000

Unfortunately, there are
Unfortunately, there are those in the home-building industry that distort costs associated with code changes. For example, this article quotes the HBA in Illinois purporting that blower door testing, duct leakage testing, air sealing, duct mastic and Manual J development will increase a house cost by more than $2500! Anyone getting $1,000 to perform blower door and duct-blaster, PLEASE tell me where so I can come get my cake and eat it too! While I am there, the $500 they say it costs to run a Manual J will buy me a nice Bordeaux to wash down my dessert!

http://www.builderonline.com/building-codes/revised-code-could-add-5k-to-illinois-new-home-prices.aspx?cid=BP:051112:FULL2 

By: A Hyde

A Hyde — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:28:28 +0000

@ T.C. Feick
@ T.C. Feick

In PA it is worse than it appears in your comment. After PA adopted the 2009 Code, (1/1/10), there was a study that commented: in Pa about 15% of jusisdictions require third party verification of duct tightness, a slightly larger share of jurisdictions check during plan review but do not follow up with complete inspections while about 50% of jusisdictions pretend the Code has not changed from 2006. Add to this the fact that the home builders lobbied Industry and Trade (committee responsible for Building Codes) to put off adopting the proposed 2012 Code until at least 2016.

If you want an energy efficient home in PA, you need to go with an energy program with third party verification.