Attending the ICC Conference in Detroit this September or know someone who is?

1. Attending the ICC Conference in Detroit this September or know someone who is?

2. 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.

3. Decisions made at the ICC Conference will impact homeowners’ ability to deal with rising energy costs.

4. 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

5. What do these changes mean? On the outside they may appear to be in the interests of energy efficiency. . . But, if approved these changes could: • Contradict intent of IECC • Discourage far greater energy savings • Inhibit homeowners’ ability to cope with soaring energy costs

6. 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 of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve the effective use of energy.”

7. Proposed changes could have the opposite effect.

8. New code changes conventional construction practices Builders will have 3 options to comply with the new code: • 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

9. 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

10. Incremental changes to R-value levels are not an answer • 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

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

12. What will R-value changes deliver in real savings? Less than what’s achieved by installing a setback thermostat

13. DOE Recommendations Why consider a return to levels proposed by DOE?

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Vote to approve EC-16 as submitted in Detroit!

20. Thank you STOP Start Over