# Local Governments Lose Right To Vote.



## Keystone (Mar 6, 2021)

After Championing Greener Building Codes, Local Governments Lose Right To Vote
					

The nonprofit consortium that oversees much of the nation's building codes just gave the construction and gas industries more control over the process.




					www.huffpost.com
				





Here’s a bit of the article, goes further on the link.

The private consortium that oversees the model building codes for much of the United States and parts of the Caribbean and Latin America on Thursday stripped local governments of their right to vote on future energy-efficiency codes. 

The decision came more than a year after the construction and gas industry groups that wield heavy influence at the International Code Council objected to aggressive new energy codes for which government officials voted. 

The change, though technical and wonky, marks what environmental advocates say is one of the most consequential roadblocks to decarbonizing the U.S. economy. It also illustrates the limits of both the new Biden administration’s powers and the causes for which activists can mobilize public support. Local governments, members of Congress, environmentalists and architects overwhelmingly opposed the proposal.

Under the new system, the building codes that govern energy systems and insulation ― once subject to a vote by the city and state governments tasked with implementing them ― will instead fall under a separate “standards” process that, despite soliciting input from local officials, will give industry more control over the outcome. 

The ICC said it would create a new body to help oversee the process and give government officials “the strongest voice on the committee,” promising “one-third of the seats” on that entity to “government regulators.” It’s unclear which groups would occupy the other two thirds. 

“Well, my sense is the committee will be comprised of people who have an interest in energy efficiency and building science,” Dominic Sims, the ICC’s chief executive, said in a phone interview. “So, I don’t know that there’s that big of a separation between people.” 

The committee is a significant departure from the old process, which allowed government officials from across the country — including representatives from cities’ sustainability and energy departments — to register to vote on the codes. 

Sims said it would actually hasten the transition away from fossil fuels. 

“I will say this: The impetus and the discussion around this issue is not just about the last 12 months,” he said. “Each code cycle, it’s been different. There’s been winners and there’s been losers. That sort of unevenness has not produced quick enough results, or else we’d be at net zero already.” 

But city officials saw the move as a way for “private industry to maximize profit” and warned that it could encourage governments to shift away from using the ICC’s code. 

“This is a classic example of leaving the fox to guard the hen house,” said Kim Havey, the sustainability director for the city of Minneapolis, who cast a vote in the last code-making cycle. “City leaders and their supporters will be meeting to discuss our options. One may be to ask the White House and Congress to throw the ICC in the compost bin of history and create a new oversight body to develop an energy code that works for the benefit of the people and our planet.”

The American Institute of Architects called the decision “a step backwards for climate action” that “will no doubt erode progress towards the modern codes that are desperately needed to heal our planet.”

Industry groups that supported the change cheered Thursday’s announcement as a victory. The American Gas Association said it “supports the new framework released today by the International Code Council and believes that the new standards process is inclusive of the stakeholders needed to help ensure reasonable, viable efficiency improvements for the built environment.” The National Association of Home Builders called it “an important change that we expect to result in a model energy code that meets the needs of consumers, builders, building officials and energy efficiency advocates.”

In late 2019, hundreds of new government officials registered to vote with the ICC, drawing scrutiny from industry groups ― particularly the National Association of Home Builders and the American Gas Association. The last two rounds of codes, which are voted on every three years, had made only paltry 1% energy efficiency increases, so cities across the country enlisted more officials from sustainability, energy and building departments to cast ballots.

Prior to 2019, most officials had been unaware that they qualified to vote in the highly technical process but were seeking new ways to slash emissions from buildings, the top source of climate pollution in most cities. Buildings use roughly 40% of all energy produced in the U.S. for heating, power and cooking appliances, and generate a proportional share of the country’s planet-heating gases.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 7, 2021)

What is new?  The industry and special interests have always had a major influence on building codes.  Also remember that at its core ICC is interested in promoting its monopoly and benefiting from that monopoly.

Remember that the Feds have no direct control over building regulation.  The Federal government can indirectly influence some content of the building codes but the building codes can only be adopted by the states or where delegated by the states to local city or county jurisdictions.

We can do what is needed to address climate change with minimal changes to the building code.  While conserving energy is nice, the problem is not with the amount of energy used but with the source of energy.  Replacing all coal and natural gas power plants with renewable energy will have a much greater impact than improving energy efficiency.  Such decisions are made by Public Utility Commissions not through building codes.  

Replacing the existing cement manufacturing plants with plants that do not release carbon to the atmosphere will eliminate the need to minimize the use of cement.  This may be  best implemented by federal clean air regulations not by building codes.

The solution is not to change the building codes, rather we need to address the source of carbon emissions which are not regulated by building codes.  Building codes are not the way to solve all problems.


----------



## mp25 (Mar 7, 2021)

ICC not addressing these items in the building code does not prevent local jurisdiction from addressing them at the local level. It would be nice to have consistent rules throughout, but what works for one region does not necessarily work for another - regardless of where this would end up some people would say it has gone too far, others would say it has not gone far enough. Leaving this to localities might be for the best.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 7, 2021)

What are the limits on what can/should be in the building code?


----------



## steveray (Mar 8, 2021)

mp25 said:


> ICC not addressing these items in the building code does not prevent local jurisdiction from addressing them at the local level. It would be nice to have consistent rules throughout, but what works for one region does not necessarily work for another - regardless of where this would end up some people would say it has gone too far, others would say it has not gone far enough. Leaving this to localities might be for the best.


Correct....Be lazy and adopt theirs, or write your own if you do not like it....Quit crying about it.....Only about 300 governmental members vote at the final hearings and probably even less at committee time....That is where we need more representation. The homebuilders and industry folks just have more time/ money to work the system than the people who are out there enforcing it all year....


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 8, 2021)

Virginia and several other states adopt the I Codes at the state level with state amendments.  It might be easier to cultivate good relations with state code officials and get to state meetings than to be involved at the national level.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 8, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What are the limits on what can/should be in the building code?



That's easy.  The building codes should ensure that a building, when built, is reasonably safe for the people who are going to be in it during it's expected lifetime.  That's it.

Energy codes shouldn't exist.  Nothing in any version of ICC's energy or green codes has ever made anyone any safer.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 8, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> Virginia and several other states adopt the I Codes at the state level with state amendments.  It might be easier to cultivate good relations with state code officials and get to state meetings than to be involved at the national level.



Illinois does that for the energy code and the plumbing code.  Local governments get no say in either, other than the standard public comment period that's open before they pass it.  Very little to no participation available to locals up to the time the first version is drafted and released.  For energy, a couple years ago they decided they didn't even want to do that and just made it a state law that whenever a new energy code comes out, the State automatically adopts it and we have to enforce it.  High quality governance right there....


----------



## jpranch (Mar 8, 2021)

ICC’s Energy Code — or should I say "Standard" — is moving to zero
					

After months of meetings, emails, articles, and hours of testimony and concerns voiced about the validity of a new concept, the International Code Council




					www.swenergy.org


----------



## Mark K (Mar 8, 2021)

The statement is interesting in that it may be be illegal.

"For energy, a couple years ago they decided they didn't even want to do that and just made it a state law that whenever a new energy code comes out, the State automatically adopts it and we have to enforce it."​​The "new" energy code is a model code produced by a private entity.  If the state were to adopt adopt a specific version of the code there would be no problem from a legal perspective.  But if they try to automatically adopt a new version of a private standard without governmental review then they have delegated state authority to a private entity.  State supreme courts have found this to be in conflict with the state constitution and hence illegal.  The government review can be minimal but the legislature or state agency has to specifically make the decision to adopt the specific code provisions.

Similarly a local jurisdiction cannot enforce a standard that had not been formally adopted.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 8, 2021)

ICC’s recent move to have a greater energy certification, IECC/HERS Compliance Specialist  








						IECC/HERS Compliance Specialist Designation - ICC
					

The International Code Council is pleased to announce a new combination designation, the IECC/HERS Compliance Specialist. You must be a current RESNET HERS Rater or Rating Field Inspector (RFI) and...




					www.iccsafe.org
				




And let’s not overlook article such a this. 








						Code Inspection Isn’t Working - GreenBuildingAdvisor
					

Builders love to argue about their local building code. Some may think that the code’s energy provisions are too strict; others may think they’re too lax. But all of these […]




					www.greenbuildingadvisor.com
				




If I had to guess I’d say we will witness and be part of significant energy code changes coming very very soon. Maybe separate and dedicated third party energy inspections as mandatory. Time will tell.


----------



## JCraver (Mar 9, 2021)

Mark K said:


> The statement is interesting in that it may be be illegal.
> 
> "For energy, a couple years ago they decided they didn't even want to do that and just made it a state law that whenever a new energy code comes out, the State automatically adopts it and we have to enforce it."​​The "new" energy code is a model code produced by a private entity.  If the state were to adopt adopt a specific version of the code there would be no problem from a legal perspective.  But if they try to automatically adopt a new version of a private standard without governmental review then they have delegated state authority to a private entity.  State supreme courts have found this to be in conflict with the state constitution and hence illegal.  The government review can be minimal but the legislature or state agency has to specifically make the decision to adopt the specific code provisions.
> 
> Similarly a local jurisdiction cannot enforce a standard that had not been formally adopted.



This is Illinois.  Half the crap Springfield does is illegal and/or unconstitutional.  Aren't you a California guy?  You should know how that works.....


----------



## tmurray (Mar 10, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What is new?  The industry and special interests have always had a major influence on building codes.  Also remember that at its core ICC is interested in promoting its monopoly and benefiting from that monopoly.
> 
> Remember that the Feds have no direct control over building regulation.  The Federal government can indirectly influence some content of the building codes but the building codes can only be adopted by the states or where delegated by the states to local city or county jurisdictions.
> 
> ...


I am appointed by my governor general to sit on a national committee that deals with building energy use to reduce the carbon impact of construction. The statement that we do not need to minimize the energy use of buildings, just migrate your grid to renewables, goes against any modeling or scientific white papers that have been presented to us. There is a relatively strong consensus that we (Canada at least) needs to transition to net zero buildings in order to curb carbon emissions. 

Without making the buildings more efficient, the amount of renewables we would need are simply unmanageable. What your saying may well be true for southern US states, but I would opine that it is likely untrue for the majority of the US. Also, keeping in mind the impact of severe weather we have been experiencing lately, efficient buildings are better able to support shelter in place, particularly when there are on-site renewables. Even here in the great white north, a photovoltaic array covered in snow receives enough energy to help ensure the temperature of a house stays above freezing.


----------



## steveray (Mar 10, 2021)

Maybe we just have to mandate tiny houses for everyone......1000ft house is way more green than a 3000ft house....Remember the triangle, REDUCE/ reuse/ recycle....


----------



## Mark K (Mar 11, 2021)

To get to where we need to be we need to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels not just reduce the amount we use.

This may be more difficult in the north but I suggest that there are ways to adapt.


----------



## steveray (Mar 11, 2021)

Yep...Burn all the trees....


----------



## tmurray (Mar 11, 2021)

steveray said:


> Yep...Burn all the trees....


There is a joke that Canada should cut down all the trees and store the lumber them in salt mines until we are ready to use it. Mature trees do not sequester very much carbon in comparison to new trees that are actively growing.


----------

