# Industrial Bitcoin Mining Facilities?



## jpranch (May 15, 2018)

Hey folks, I have been following the Bitcoin mining for some time now so I'm familiar with it. I have also inspected and done plan review on large data centers. So again familiar with it. But it is my understanding that the latest technology for the servers used for Bitcoin Mining produce a lot more heat that conventional servers? To give you an idea of the size and scope of what I'm looking at the proposal is for three, 3,000 amp electrical services for the servers. Yep, that's right. 9,000 amps in total. Have any of you had first hand experience with this? I would also appreciate any advise so I can get it right the first time. As always I appreciate the incredible talent on this forum!


----------



## cda (May 15, 2018)

So super air conditioned, like in a cell switching room??

Fire sprinklers or clean agent or none?

I cannot talk to amps


----------



## jpranch (May 15, 2018)

I'm not sure at this time. The building they are looking at is about 12,000Sq.Ft. I don't do amps either. If a room hums I don't go in!


----------



## conarb (May 15, 2018)

This has become absurd, we are penalizing people with sealed-up homes that rot-out, solar panels on roofs that cost more than homes without them, exploding electric cars given free access to our overcrowded toll roads, now bitcoin mining is consuming more energy than we could ever save with our codes and regulations.



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> SAN FRANCISCO — Creating a new Bitcoin requires electricity. A lot of it.
> 
> In the virtual currency world this creation process is called “mining.” There is no physical digging, since Bitcoins are purely digital. But the computer power needed to create each digital token consumes at least as much electricity as the average American household burns through in two years, according to figures from Morgan Stanley and Alex de Vries, an economist who tracks energy use in the industry.
> 
> ...




¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/technology/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumption.html


----------



## steveray (May 16, 2018)

Thanks Conarb!....That's awesome....The amount of time, money, and energy spent to make money not actually "producing" anything beneficial to the world amazes me yet again...


----------



## steveray (May 16, 2018)

Jim,
What is the concern? I can't imagine the servers are really any different technology. Maybe just higher density of equipment or larger would lead to more heat.None of that is really a "code" concern that I can think of....?


----------



## conarb (May 16, 2018)

steveray said:


> Jim,
> What is the concern? I can't imagine the servers are really any different technology. Maybe just higher density of equipment or larger would lead to more heat.None of that is really a "code" concern that I can think of....?



Concern?  You guys are mandating that we have to build energy efficient homes and green homes to "save the planet", in California Jesuit Governor Brown wants you to mandate net zero homes while we are heating the planet mining bitcoin which is soon going to be consuming more energy than our homes and businesses.  If you want an alternative currency okay, but get rid of the codes mandating saving energy.


----------



## jpranch (May 17, 2018)

Thanks for the replies. I have been insanely busy since I posted this. As best as I can figure this will be a business occupancy and fire suppression would not be required unless the building is 55 feet or greater in height. Of course the electrical service would have to be designed by an electrical engineer as well as a mechanical engineer for the HVAC system. As far as these type occupancies being energy pigs the codes as far as I know do not address that. I guess the right or wrong of it would be up to the elected officials to discuss. Bottom line for me: I don't have a dog in that fight.  Any additional thoughts or suggestions very welcome.


----------



## ADAguy (May 17, 2018)

Lucky you are not in CA or our Green code might have something to say about all that energy consumed.
I believe quite a bit of heat will be generated, if you can reclaim it you might be ahead of the game. How do you plan to cool the beast?


----------



## cda (May 17, 2018)

jpranch said:


> Thanks for the replies. I have been insanely busy since I posted this. As best as I can figure this will be a business occupancy and fire suppression would not be required unless the building is 55 feet or greater in height. Of course the electrical service would have to be designed by an electrical engineer as well as a mechanical engineer for the HVAC system. As far as these type occupancies being energy pigs the codes as far as I know do not address that. I guess the right or wrong of it would be up to the elected officials to discuss. Bottom line for me: I don't have a dog in that fight.  Any additional thoughts or suggestions very welcome.




More than likely you will either get a clean agent system or a mix clean and fire sprinkler


----------



## jpranch (May 17, 2018)

Understood. Computer servers and water based systems don't really do well together. I do not see in the IBC or IFC that fire suppression would be required just because of the number of servers and the electrical size unless I have missed something. The other interesting thing is that this operation is only going to run for 6 to 12 months as proposed. This presents another challenge for our city. We are the electrical utility. So if the investment in the supporting infrastructure takes 3 to 5 years to recoup through utility rates and the proposed project is only going to run for 6 to 12 months the city will be out a lot of money. I would expect that another customer needing that amount of power at that specific location would not come along every day.


----------



## jpranch (May 17, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Lucky you are not in CA or our Green code might have something to say about all that energy consumed.
> I believe quite a bit of heat will be generated, if you can reclaim it you might be ahead of the game. How do you plan to cool the beast?



That remains to be seen. Been doing some research on self-contained super cooling systems for the servers. Beyond that a dedicated mechanical engineer design is an absolute requirement.


----------



## conarb (May 17, 2018)

jpranch said:


> ...... the proposed project is only going to run for 6 to 12 months the city will be out a lot of money. I would expect that another customer needing that amount of power at that specific location would not come along every day.



Why on earth would anybody build a facility that was only going to run for 6 to 12 months, they must have future plans.


----------



## steveray (May 18, 2018)

conarb said:


> Why on earth would anybody build a facility that was only going to run for 6 to 12 months, they must have future plans.



Because they can steal a tremendous amount of money in that time....


----------



## conarb (May 18, 2018)

steveray said:


> Because they can steal a tremendous amount of money in that time....



So I repeat my prior question, why are inspectors forcing us to build sealed-up buildings and install energy efficient appliances if more energy is wasted farming bit coin than we will ever save?  We are supposed to be doing this "to save the planet".


----------



## jpranch (May 18, 2018)

conarb said:


> So I repeat my prior question, why are inspectors forcing us to build sealed-up buildings and install energy efficient appliances if more energy is wasted farming bit coin than we will ever save?  We are supposed to be doing this "to save the planet".



The codes do not address or limit service sizes and I cannot address any of that. This is a non-code issue. If the codes did address this it would be a can of worms. Not going down that trail.


----------



## conarb (May 18, 2018)

jpranch said:


> The codes do not address or limit service sizes and I cannot address any of that. This is a non-code issue. If the codes did address this it would be a can of worms. Not going down that trail.



No you can't address it in Wyoming because I don't think you even have green or energy codes up there?  But, you do sit on the ICC Board that does publish codes that do negatively affect most of us.  Just think, if you had to come from inspecting this bitcoin facility to inspecting a single family home and requiring a blower door test to conserve energy.  How could you, in good conscience, do it?


----------



## jpranch (May 18, 2018)

Conscience is one thing. Having no control over an issue like this is another thing. The geographic location does not matter. Wyoming, California, Maine, Florida or any other state the building official has no authority to regulate this. But lets say that I had the authority? So now I'm going to regulate how much power a steel mill in Pennsylvania can use? Or what about a date center for Google or Amazon? How about professional sports stadiums? With the bitcoin thing knowing that I have absolutely no say at all and while I might agree it's an energy pig and grossly using electrical energy I will not loose any sleep over it. As far as being on the ICC board in relation to this I would not support ICC venturing into this knowing the certain disaster that would result from such an ill-conceived idea or proposal. Crucify me if you like for my thoughts but currently that is where I stand.


----------



## conarb (May 18, 2018)

Jim:

Just maybe you could let the ICC know that they have no business regulating energy use in homes.


----------



## jpranch (May 18, 2018)

Understood. I hear you! Gotta go. Doc appointment. Feeling a wee bit rough.


----------



## conarb (May 18, 2018)

Jim:

Overall codes and regulations of all kinds have driven the cost of housing so high that we have people living on the streets, San Francisco County Real Estate is so hot right now that in order to afford a *median priced home of $1,610,000*, a household needs to bring in around *$333,000 in annual income, *according to a quarterly survey by the California Association of Realtors. Nearby San Mateo county isn't much better - where a $1,575,000 median priced home requires an income of $326,000.¹

Average permit time is 7 years, I've heard of as long as 22 years, I know our Bay Area is an exceptional case, but if something isn't done this insanity is planned to sweep the nation. Codes and regulations come one at a time, smoke detectors, then CO detectors, then fire sprinklers to take just one example, soon the cost to build is beyond the average person, of course there are those that want to move humankind to the urban cores and stack and pack them into high rises to leave places like Wyoming for the animals, it's coming.

BTW, California has now mandated that homes be zero energy consumption by 2020, that's not ICC but you guys are going to be enforcing it, when will it come to Wyoming? 


¹ https://www.car.org/en/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2018releases/1qtr2018hai


----------



## JCraver (May 18, 2018)

conarb said:


> So I repeat my prior question, why are inspectors forcing us to build sealed-up buildings and install energy efficient appliances if more energy is wasted farming bit coin than we will ever save?  We are supposed to be doing this "to save the planet".




This is a good question, but not one you're ever going to get a satisfactory answer to from 99.99% of the government, code officials, or the folks at ICC.

There is of course the other .01%, like me, who agree that there is no rational reason whatsoever for energy provisions to be in the building codes.  But this is such an unpopular opinion today that the discussion will lead nowhere, and you'll end up talking/typing 10,000 words and be no further towards convincing any of them.  Sadly, this particular war is already lost...


----------



## north star (May 19, 2018)

*& * &*

***jpranch**,*

I do not know squat about Bitcoin Mining, or the structures
in which the large scale operations are performed......That
said, in doing some very basic searching on the internet, this
type of operation is not new.......Others have been doing this
for awhile now, and still others have been studying these
operations.

What I have found is that:  *(1)* there is a tremendous amount
of upfront investment required in these types of ops......If
your city is considering one of these, I would be talking with
the lawyers to get some ironclad contracts signed, so that
you guys don't lose your shorts, or as much of your shorts as
others have experienced,  *(2)* The amount of heat generated
& lost by these ops. is a serious concern.....Some companies
like 3-M have been developing I.T. Immersion Technology,
where the components in the servers are immersed in a
non-conductive fluid.....That heat capturing is then transferred
to other uses, that "can" provide a Return on the "Upfront"
Investment ( ROI ), such as providing heat to residential &
commercial consumers, ...providing heat to greenhouse ops.,
etc.  [  i.e. - the heat exchange can be used for profit......How
much profit ?.......This will take some very good accountants
to perform the calculations  ]......*(3)* Fire suppression would
be similar to other data centers [ i.e. - at least a two stage
approach....First, with non-water based systems, then Second
with water based.  ].....*(4)* There will be a significant loss in
electrical energy consumption......Currently, the power curves
are not very efficient [ 70-80% efficiency ]....Again, there have
been and currently are, companies that have studied and are
studying and developing concepts & methods to improve the
"power losses".

Here are 3 Links that I looked at & read.....There are tons
more out there:
*(1) 42U - **http://archive.42u.com/cooling/server-room-cooling/server-room-air-conditioner.htm*

*(2) **https://btcmanager.com/bitcoin-pioneer-harnessing-excess-mining-heat-to-produce-cash-crops/*

*(3) **https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/novec-us/applications/immersion-cooling/*

Hope this helps !

*& * &*


----------



## jpranch (May 21, 2018)

The codes for sure affect the cost of a home but I would argue that state, county, or municipal above code provisions have a far greater impact. Geographic location is a huge player. You don't need a million dollars to own a home in most of the country. To lay the loins share of blame just on the codes for home prices and nothing else would not be looking at the whole picture.


----------



## jpranch (May 21, 2018)

BTW, sorry for the delayed reply. Bad thunderstorm took out my home internet service. Hoping to be back online by Wednesday?


----------



## conarb (May 21, 2018)

jpranch said:


> The codes for sure affect the cost of a home but I would argue that state, county, or municipal above code provisions have a far greater impact. Geographic location is a huge player. You don't need a million dollars to own a home in most of the country. To lay the loins share of blame just on the codes for home prices and nothing else would not be looking at the whole picture.



Jim:

True, but everything adds up to create the existing situation, zoning regulations have more to do with price increases but codes do as well, my point is that codes such as Energy and Green drastically increase the costs of construction, and they are based upon this insane global warming hysteria, seismic codes do as well but at least there is some rational for them, do we build for a 100 year event, 500 year event, or a 1,000 year event? 

As I've said my buddy, a guy who spent his career as a construction defects attorney,  just build a new home in Nevada on the eastern side of the Sierras, he had it built for half the price it would have cost a few miles away on the Calfiornia side, his permit fees were about $3,000 in Nevada whereas they would have been $100,000 a few miles away not to mention another $100,000 in special Inspection fees he would have had to pay here, he was also able to have his architect arrange for private inspections so inspection fees were negligible. 

My point is all of these fees and regulations occur when a builder walks through the door of a building department, you are the gatekeepers to something that has spiraled out of control to the point we can't build anywhere, when we can we spend years tied up in the building department plan review. 

As far as you are concerned my question is how did the codes end up encompassing all of these social and political issues?  Why are you writing energy and green codes?  What business are they of the ICC? The UBC didn't have these unnecessary codes. We all know what happened with residential fires sprinklers, you passed it overlooking criminal activity, most states didn't adopt it, but we did and I think only one other state.

BTW, in the 2016 election we elected a President, himself a builder, who ran on a platform to reduce rules and regulations, I understand that has happened in other industries but I haven't seen one regulation eliminated by the ICC.  What do we have to do to reduce rules and regulations?  With the ICC only government members can vote, they make their money enforcing rules and regulations, they are sure not going to vote to reduce anything, changing that one rule would be one thing the ICC could do to reduce rules and regulations.


----------



## jpranch (May 22, 2018)

I'll give this a try one bite at a time. As far as plan review and approval of permits taking years? From where I have served that certainly seems ridiculous. This is not a code issue but a systemic issue for the AHJ. The number 1 factor in the cost of a new home is... location, location, location... Sorry that's three? As far as the actual building permit costs keep in mind that many building departments collect for other agencies. Such as tap fees for water & sewer is typically generated from the AHJ's utility department. Electrical tap fees by the utility provider which is sometimes the AHJ or could be private. This is not to say it's a cheap affair for the actual building permit as it varies wildly from one AHJ to another. I also understand your question about why ICC produces the green & energy codes. First off ICC no longer produces the technical content of the IGCC. That is done by ASHRAE. ICC only maintains the administrative portion I.e. Chapter-1. The energy code is a bit different with the U.S. Department of Energy really pushing the envelope. The energy code is really nothing new. If I remember right back in the 90's the UBC, SBCCI, BOCA, & CABO Codes all referenced the "MEC" or Model Energy Code". I'll be the first to admit that is has grown to... well, you get the idea. ICC looks for opportunities to diversify is revenue stream as the return on investment from printing and selling code books continues to shrink. This is not just an issue for ICC but NFPA, ASHRAE, ASTM, etc... I think the one thing that we all must remember is that while SDO’S like ICC, NFPA, etc… all produce codes & standards and they do not become law until any given jurisdiction adopts it in total or as amended by the jurisdiction. That is where the rubber really meets the road. We at ICC hope you will adopt our codes but it is still up to the individual jurisdictions at the state, county, or municipal levels. As far as the RFS being taken out of the IRC Appendix and put into the main body of IRC the membership voted on that and yes it was not pretty but it did happen and it happened long before I was elected to the ICC board. No excuse on my part but none the less… BTW, I missed the code hearings in Minneapolis but saw the repeat at the code hearings in Baltimore the following year. Back to the green code and the energy code this will sound like a bunch of crap but if ICC did not do it especially in relation to the energy code the alternative would be to let the U.S. Department of Energy do it. I shudder to think of a worse possible scenario. Look how long it took the U.S. DOJ to update Title-III of ADA. As for you last statement / comment “they are sure not going to vote to reduce anything” I would disagree with that. The 2018 updated codes do have some cost increases but overall, I found after reviewing them over the winter that by and large there is cost savings and a few updates have major cost reductions in construction. Below are just a few of the highlights. BTW, please take note of the occupant load factor that has been updated from 100 Sq.Ft. per person to 150 Sq.Ft. per person in IBC Chapter-10 *(Table 1004.5) *combined with the update to the IPC threshold *(Section 403.2). *This is a major cost savings for small businesses. I was very happy to see this! It’s not all bad news! LOL!


*International Residential Code*

*R101.2 Scope: *The IRC will now allow 1) A care facility with five or fewer persons receiving custodial care within a dwelling unit. 2) A care facility with five or fewer persons receiving medical care within a dwelling unit. 3) A care facility for five or fewer persons receiving care within a single-family dwelling.

*Cost Impact:* Construction cost savings as these uses were previously required to use the commercial building code (IBC).

*R 703.2 Water Resistive Barriers: *(“House Wrap”) The exception for accessory buildings such as detached garages have been deleted.

*Cost Impact:* Increased cost. Cost will be determined by the material used. I.e. Number 15 asphalt felt, house wrap, etc. Noteworthy: This change was driven by warranty issues with other building materials such as OSB, siding, etc… that require the same level of water / weather protection as single-family dwellings.   





*International Building Code*

*Section 406.6 Enclosure of Atriums: *New Exception: A fire barrier is not required between the atrium and the adjoining spaces where the atrium is provided with a smoke control system.

*Cost Impact: *Construction cost savings.

*Section 407.5 Maximum Smoke Compartment Size in Use Group I-2: *I-2 Condition-2 where the patient sleeping rooms are single occupant only and I-2 Condition-2 without patient sleeping rooms, allowable smoke compartment size has been raised from 22,500ft2  to 40,000ft2. .

*Cost Impact: *Dramatic construction cost savings.

*Section 420.7: Corridor Protection in Assisted Living Units. Use Group I-1: *Shared living spaces, group meeting spaces, and multipurpose therapeutic spaces are now permitted to be open to fire rated corridors.

*Cost Impact: *Construction cost savings.

*Section 420.10 & 904.13: Dormitory (R-2) and Institutional Type-1 (I-1) Cooking Facilities: *Cooking appliances to include residential type now required to have a domestic hood with fire suppression.  

*Cost Impact: *Increased cost.

*Sections 503.1 & 706.1: Fire Walls:* _“Fire walls” _are no longer required for building exterior walls on a zero-lot line. Fire Barriers may now be used.

*Cost Impact: *Construction cost savings.

*Table 1004.5: Business use occupant load: *The occupant load factor has been raised from 100 gross per person to 150 gross per person.

*Cost Impact: *Construction cost savings.

*International Plumbing Code*

*Section 305.6: Protection from Physical Damage: *The distance from the pipe to the face of any framing member has been reduced from 1 ½” to 1 ¼” for the requirement of nail plates. Exception: Cast iron & galvanized piping. This change makes the plumbing code consistent with the National Electric Code.

*Cost Impact: *Cost Savings

*Section 403.2: Toilet Facilities for Small Business: *The allowable threshold for the requirement for more than one toilet room has been raised from an occupant load of 15 to an occupant load of 25.

*Cost Impact: *Significant construction cost savings for small businesses especially considering the change in IBC Table 1004.5 which raised the occupant load factor for business occupancies from 100ft2 to 150ft2 per occupant. This now means it is possible (depending on the floor plan) that a small business could be 3,750ft2  or less and only have to provide one toilet room as compared to 1,500ft2 under the 2015 edition.   

*International Mechanical Code*

*Table 403.3.1.1 Nail Salons: *Source capture systems are now given credit for exhaust air and can be calculated at 0.6 CFM/FT2.

*Cost Impact: *Potential cost savings in building operation especially in a cold climate state like Wyoming. 

*Section 504.8.2: Clothes Dryer Exhaust Ducts in Framing Cavities: *Where dryer exhaust ducts are enclosed in a framing cavity such cavities shall allow the installation of the duct without deformation. I.e. a 4-inch diameter duct cannot be installed in a nominal 2 X 4 wall etc.…

*Cost Impact: *Potential cost increase depending on the framing design.


----------



## fatboy (May 22, 2018)

"BTW, I missed the code hearings in Minneapolis but saw the repeat at the code hearings in Baltimore the following year. Back to the green code and the energy code this will sound like a bunch of crap but if ICC did not do it especially in relation to the energy code the alternative would be to let the U.S. Department of Energy do it. I shudder to think of a worse possible scenario. Look how long it took the U.S. DOJ to update Title-III of ADA."

I was there in Minneapolis, for the sprinkle fiasco, and the beginning of the energy code push. And it was exactly as you said Jim, the DOE stood right in front of the room and made that statement, "you all do it, or the DOE will". End of story......... I believe that was the night we were in hearings until well after midnight.


----------



## tmurray (May 22, 2018)

conarb said:


> Jim:
> 
> True, but everything adds up to create the existing situation, zoning regulations have more to do with price increases but codes do as well, my point is that codes such as Energy and Green drastically increase the costs of construction, and they are based upon this insane global warming hysteria, seismic codes do as well but at least there is some rational for them, do we build for a 100 year event, 500 year event, or a 1,000 year event?
> 
> ...



Blaming the cost of construction on building inspectors is about as useful as blaming it on builders. What is the saying? Everything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If buildings were not worth what it costs to construct it, no one would pay to build. 

As far as the ICC making codes that are not based on life safety...They are a business. They can make money building those codes so they do.


----------



## jpranch (May 22, 2018)

tmurray, thanks for the comment and you are right on target. Yes, we are a nonprofit but we must have revenue to continue the good work for the benefit of all. But codes are not the only revenue source. There is IAS, ICC-ES, SRCC, SWCC, S.K. Ghosh, and most recently we added General Code to the ICC family of companies. They all contribute to the bottom line so that we can provide goods & services here in the U.S. and beyond. Hey folks, back in the day I was highly critical of ICC as some of you might remember. What I found is that I couldn't have been more wrong on many of the points I used rail about. I got engaged in the whole process and ended up in a leadership position. Btw, I'm still learning and will continue to learn until dirt is shoveled over me. I hope that will be a long time coming! LOL! Last word on this post: Our members are our greatest strength & asset and as code officials and as an ICC board member cost impact always plays a role and is always on our minds.


----------



## tmurray (May 23, 2018)

ICC also provides certification testing for my building official's association.


----------



## cda (May 23, 2018)

Well ICC or NFPA, at least most places in the Great USA, try to build safe, useful buildings.

Or we can go back to Code of Hammurabi or Ben Franklin code. Than you only need one page.

You are doing great JP


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2018)

jpranch said:


> They all contribute to the bottom line so that we can provide goods & services here in the U.S. and beyond. Hey folks, back in the day I was highly critical of ICC as some of you might remember. What I found is that I couldn't have been more wrong on many of the points I used rail about. I got engaged in the whole process and ended up in a leadership position. Btw, I'm still learning and will continue to learn until dirt is shoveled over me. I hope that will be a long time coming! LOL! Last word on this post: Our members are our greatest strength & asset and as code officials and as an ICC board member cost impact always plays a role and is always on our minds.



Well Jim if you can't clean it up I guess nobody can, you said that the DOE made you write the Energy Code under threat of doing it themselves, I remember back when the ICC was formed someone in the old Bulletin Board stated that some government agency told the ICBO and SBC that if they didn't write a universal code they would do it.   I guess the ICC, a NGO, is working under government direction, nobody in the ICC objects to going beyond the old mandate of minimum standards to protect the health and safety?

We've reached the point that only the wealthy can afford to buy or rent code-compliant buildings, I found that myself many years ago and switched to building only for the wealthy.  Actually Zoning codes and regulations drive prices higher than building codes, California has several bills in the legislature now to try force cities to let up on zoning codes, maybe at some point the legislature will address building codes.  BTW, for many years I was a member of the ICBO, mainly for discounts on code books, but I thought it might do some good with building officials getting permits, although I don't think it ever did, I dropped out when the ICC was formed.  

Your words: "here in the U.S. and beyond" bother me, I hope the US isn't going to try to impose this on the rest of the world.


----------



## linnrg (May 23, 2018)

Wyoming - looks like the legislature gave it to you.
http://www.ktva.com/story/38255100/wyoming-makes-rush-for-hyped-new-tech-results-still-virtual

Maybe if Gillette and other places can use up all that coal to create electricity for these folks then maybe when they are gone they will have power to sell to everyone.
JPRANCH - as someone from Wyoming I know first hand that the state has always been considered boom and bust.


----------



## linnrg (May 23, 2018)

CONARB  the ICC and IAPMO are being used in many places in the world.  I believe that their governments forced it to happen because they did not have controls for safety.  I believe they were responding because of great loss of life in factory fires, SARS and other diseases, and other disasters.
It probably is the ICC's and IAPMO's growth area in terms of revenue


----------



## Rick18071 (May 23, 2018)

In my area the cost of construction has barely moved but the cost of real estate has gone over the roof.


----------



## jpranch (May 24, 2018)

And beyond is not a bad thing. Take the UAE as an example and especially Abu Dhabi with their high rise fire problem. They have started to use the I-Codes to address a lot of issues in their country. Puerto Rico is perhaps a better example with all the hurricane disasters that have ravaged the country. They have started using the I-Codes in an effort to minimize building damage. This is amazing considering that their economy is not in the best of shape. Most recently Pakistan is looking at the I-Codes as a source / standard for their construction industry. Again, a good thing for sure. There is nothing wrong with exporting and looking for markets for ICC goods & services beyond our borders and as a steward of ICC it is incumbent me, the ICC board, and ICC staff to take our collective fiduciary responsibilities seriously. BTW, I remember the legacy organizations and I was a member of BOCA & SBCCI back in the day. Been doing this line of work for about 28 years. My point in saying this is that I firmly believe we are much better off with ICC than we were under the legacy organizations. I'll bet you all knew that was coming! LOL! Yes folks... I drank the cool aid.


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2018)

jpranch said:


> And beyond is not a bad thing. Take the UAE as an example and especially Abu Dhabi with their high rise fire problem. They have started to use the I-Codes to address a lot of issues in their country. Puerto Rico is perhaps a better example with all the hurricane disasters that have ravaged the country. They have started using the I-Codes in an effort to minimize building damage. This is amazing considering that their economy is not in the best of shape. Most recently Pakistan is looking at the I-Codes as a source / standard for their construction industry. Again, a good thing for sure. There is nothing wrong with exporting and looking for markets for ICC goods & services beyond our borders and as a steward of ICC it is incumbent me, the ICC board, and ICC staff to take our collective fiduciary responsibilities seriously. BTW, I remember the legacy organizations and I was a member of BOCA & SBCCI back in the day. Been doing this line of work for about 28 years. My point in saying this is that I firmly believe we are much better off with ICC than we were under the legacy organizations. I'll bet you all knew that was coming! LOL! Yes folks... I drank the cool aid.


Jim:

I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you have drank the Kool Aid, I have no objection to an independent code group selling it's codes internationally, my fear is the United Nations mandating codes.  As to the legacy organizations the ICBO published excellent codes, and I believe the current ICC is still the original California corporation that originally wrote the ICBO and now writes the ICC codes (correct me if this has changed).    It's been 68 years since I walked on a construction site and was thrown a hammer allowing me to drop out of school and earn money to go to college, it's been 58 years since an Oakland inspector told me where to drive in San Francisco to buy an ICBO code book (I don't remember the edition year, probably 1955, 56, or 57) and helped me memorize it, it was about ¾" thick, we would meet for beer after work and he would test me on it until I got it down, to his satisfaction anyway.

When the NFPA bribed our Building Industry Standards Commission to adopt their NFPA 5000, in 2003 I helped the fight to recall our Governor Davis and elect the Governator (Swartzenneggar) who immediately fired the commission and reappointed new members who immediately rescinded the adoption and adopted the ICBO (no criminal charges were brought). 

My objection today is the addition of social/political codes, you have stated that the DOE "forced" you to write an Energy Code, the DOE is a political organization:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The department is under the control and supervision of a United States Secretary of Energy, a political appointee of the President of the United States. The Energy Secretary is assisted in managing the department by a United States Deputy Secretary of Energy, also appointed by the president, who assumes the duties of the secretary in his absence. The department also has three under secretaries, each appointed by the president, who oversee the major areas of the department's work. The president also appoints seven officials with the rank of Assistant Secretary of Energy who have line management responsibility for major organizational elements of the Department. The Energy Secretary assigns their functions and duties.
> 
> On March 28, 2017 a supervisor in the Office of International Climate and Clean Energy asked staff to avoid the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication.¹



While campaigning for the presidency Governor Perry planned to scrap the entire department, unfortunately now he runs it.  

You have written disability code, apparently mirroring DOJ regulations, information on corruption in the DOJ is coming out on a daily basis, I won't go into it because it's political but the entire ADA is political, eating lunch with a couple of attorneys they called the corrupt DOJ "Obama's DOJ", I corrected them telling them that the DOJ has been corrupt for a couple of decades, the regulations were written under GHW Bush in 1990 and actually went back to the Access Board in 1973 during Nixon's administration, that's 45 years of corruption in the DOJ.

Green codes are beyond reasonable, as far as being political the Green Parties are worldwide, they are much more powerful in Europe, they are an exercise in deception, starting with certain mandatory provisions then the requiring of Green organizations to write the rest on a cafeteria basis, giving a variety of credits including communitarianism which is collectivism.

To bring this back to where we started, you are inspecting a Bitcoin mining facility, the power usage of mining one Bitcoin is more than the power usage of two average homes for two years, you can't stop them from mining Bitcoin, but it makes a farce of the Energy Code. The same thing with marijuana, states are legalizing it for the huge taxes they can get, in the meantime indoor marijuana growing facilities consume huge amounts of water and power.

Since you are now in a position wherein you can do something, please try to just plain get rid of political and social engineering codes, get back to protecting the health and safety and even then apply a standard of reasonableness, like no more building for thousand year events.  I realize that my problems stem from what Calfiornia has done modifying the codes, like people coming to me, knowing I'm a builder, wanting to know how to get around code-mandated shower heads and toilets, it's reached absurdity when average people hate it. 


¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy


----------



## cda (May 24, 2018)

Don’t committees develop and adopt codes??


----------



## jpranch (May 24, 2018)

conarb, greatly enjoyed reading your last post. Just to be clear ICC is not affiliated with the United Nations. There is absolutely no connection with the U.N. or their Agenda-21. 
*  I make this promise:* If it was ever proposed to do so I would not leave ICC. I would stay and fight like a mad dog. Not going to happen on my watch. I give you my word on that.


----------



## jpranch (May 24, 2018)

Anybody can submit a code change. The code committees study the proposed changes and vote through the code development process in accordance with Council Policy-28. I call CP-28 the rules of engagement!    CP-28 is a bit of a lengthy document and too much to go into detail here but you can find it on the ICC website.


----------



## ADAguy (May 29, 2018)

JP, thank you for bringing some perspective to "others" comments. Our children may benefit from the reduction in environmental pollution in the same way we have reduced smog (though we pay a high price for cars (and higher for trucks)).


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2018)

jpranch said:


> conarb, greatly enjoyed reading your last post. Just to be clear ICC is not affiliated with the United Nations. There is absolutely no connection with the U.N. or their Agenda-21.
> *  I make this promise:* If it was ever proposed to do so I would not leave ICC. I would stay and fight like a mad dog. Not going to happen on my watch. I give you my word on that.


Thanks for that Jim, they have really ramped it up with Agenda 2030 and Vision 2050, I'm gratified that you see the basic problem.  The carbon taxes were supposed to go to the United Nations to redistribute our wealth worldwide, but of course once the state got greedy hands on it they are fighting on how to spend it:



			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> *Proposition 70: High-speed rail or electric cars? How should California spend billions from its climate program? *
> 
> “Last year, California did what Washington, D.C. has failed to do,” Brown said in a statement to this newspaper. “Democrats and Republicans worked together to reduce pollution while protecting jobs and the economy by extending California’s landmark cap-and-trade program. On June 5th, voters have a chance to vote “yes” on Proposition 70 to ensure that the money generated from this program is spent in the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way possible.”
> 
> “Republican legislators have not been climate change activists, to say the least,” said Kathryn Phillips, executive director of Sierra Club California. “A good number in the Legislature are outright deniers, or even if they acknowledge climate change, they aren’t willing to do anything significant about it. Handing decision-making for this funding over to them is like handing the proverbial hen house over to the fox to guard. They would probably prefer to spend the money to fund oil executive pensions than fund things that will cut climate pollution and cut dependence on oil.”¹



Somehow I'd rather see it fund oil executive pensions than state employee pensions, where the bulk of the money is going after token amounts to electric cars and solar panels.  The Sierra Club souldgo backl to its' original mission of exterminating the Indians (John Muir) and eugenics (David Starr Jordan).


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2018)

jpranch said:


> Anybody can submit a code change. The code committees study the proposed changes and vote through the code development process in accordance with Council Policy-28. I call CP-28 the rules of engagement!    CP-28 is a bit of a lengthy document and too much to go into detail here but you can find it on the ICC website.


Jim:

Why can't all members vote?


----------



## jpranch (May 29, 2018)

conarb, 

Great question! And… a tough one as well. So voting privileges are detailed out in the ICC Bylaws. See Article-III and Table 2.1.1.1. LINK: https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/bylaws.pdf

The bigger question is a bit of a challenge and I can only speak for myself here and not in any official capacity that might be misunderstood. In other words, I’m not speaking for ICC here. Just want to be really clear about that. So, the underlying question is who is best for the country, the codes, and ICC to allow to vote. I believe that they got it right in the bylaws. Is it perfect. No. The past has taught us that and changes were made to the council policy(s) to address that. The board can update the Council Policies (CP’S) at will but any proposed changes to the bylaws must be voted on by the membership at the annual business meeting in accordance with Article XIX.

The bottom line is you cannot vote unless you are a “Governmental Member” or "Honorary Member" . Again, I believe they got it right as those who have to enforce the codes are they best ones for the job.

So, let’s say that the bylaws were changed in accordance with the procedures that are detailed in Article XIX and let’s say that anybody that is a member can vote and Table 2.1.1.1 was deleted from the bylaws. I cannot think of a better way to “stack the deck”.  With that change I’m going to pay for membership all my employees (let’s say all 10,000 of them) and I have a very large company that makes widgets.  So it will cost me 1 million dollars for their memberships but if I get my product into the code I will stand to make… let’s say 50 million. Talk about return on investment! Score! Far-fetched? I don’t think so.  

That brings me back to the governmental voting member. (GVM) The GVM does not have a financial interest and cannot benefit monetarily from it. There are also other possible scenarios that you could come up with that is only limited by one’s imagination.

BTW, as volunteers (Non-paid) directors we cannot realize any monetary benefit. No cash Jack! LOL!

I hope this helps a little bit and I’m all ears to thoughts and comments.


----------



## JCraver (May 29, 2018)

I agree with that ^^^, and think it is one of the things ICC did right.  They are model codes, and are meant to be (or should be) amended by the jurisdictions who are enforcing them.  So it makes sense that only jurisdictions should make the model.

The way to fix the codes is LOCALLY.  If your State adopts state-wide codes, you get a vote when the representative from your district votes to adopt them.  If it's your County or your City then it's even easier for your perspective to be heard, you just talk to your board member/councilman.  We elect these people, and then they pass the laws.  The code is just a model until it's adopted.  Pressure on legislators is the way to get it fixed.

Imagine if every jurisdiction who adopted an '09 or newer version of the I-codes deleted the residential sprinkler provisions; do you think there'd be residential sprinkler provisions mandated in the 2018 version, or do you think they'd be back in an appendix where they should be?


----------



## jpranch (May 29, 2018)

"Imagine if every jurisdiction who adopted an '09 or newer version of the I-codes deleted the residential sprinkler provisions; do you think there'd be residential sprinkler provisions mandated in the 2018 version, or do you think they'd be back in an appendix where they should be?'

Just an fyi, the 2018 IRC still has the RFS requirement. This is even though there are about 30 states that preempted that provision and took it out of the main body of code and to my knowledge only two states (California & Maryland) have it state wide. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. JCarver, this just proves your point and you sir are right on target. It's not law until it's adopted. Therefore the adopting authority can amend it any way they want to. It's all handled at the state, county, or municipal levels. BTW, Wyoming does not adopt the IRC. That leaves the local jurisdictions here to amend it as we see fit.


----------



## jpranch (May 30, 2018)

Update on Crypto- Currency here in Wyoming. Attended a webinar and had a discussion with all affected city departments yesterday afternoon. Chelan County Washington PUD hosted the webinar. Very, very informative. They have been dealing with this issue for about 3 to 4 years.  With their cheap electricity with the five hydroelectric dam's on the Columbia River producing electricity at 2.9 cents per kilowatt hour. We are about 9 cents per kilowatt hour. It is my understanding that as long as the approximate rate of 15 cents per kilowatt hour is charged for electricity these type of businesses can be very profitable. Check out their website if you are interested: http://www.chelanpud.org/


----------

