Ft Collins new green code

[Lettusbee67]

Our fair city, Fort Collins, CO. wishes to be a step ahead of current national building codes. Come Jan, 2012, they will be incorporating "green code" amendments to the IRC.

Most of it is basic best practices, but some of the requirements have builders up in arms.

One of the requirements is for all window installations to be performed by AAMA certified installers, or for window installations to be third party inspected by an AAMA certified installer.

Yesterday I fixed a leaky window on a house built in 2004, and this house is a perfect example of why we need these requirements written into the code.

There were two windows side by side, and they were installed using fortiflash tape, in an improper fashion. The tape at the sill was done properly, if a little sloppy.
The tape was only run up one side of each window, and it stopped short of the top piece. Essentially providing a path for water to get behind the building paper. The top piece was nearly flush with the building wrap.

In this house, both windows were leaking at the sides were no tape existed, and the water was going into the house, soaking the mdf sill, and on down to the carpet.

Do any other AHJ's require AAMA certified window installers? Do most of you think it is ridiculous or reasonable to have such a code?

[Lettusbee67]

Pics of the Flashing Tape

[Johnson]

My guess is that the installer ran out of flashing and said, "ah, good enough, got to get r done". I don't think regulations will stop this. Probably 98% of the installations install tape all the way to the top already, you just don't get calls on those.

Always consider the unintended consequences of the extra regulation. This is probably why other builders/remodelers have a problem with this.

[Ted S.]

Do any other AHJ's require AAMA certified window installers? Do most of you think it is ridiculous or reasonable to have such a code?

I think most of the veteran posters here know quite well how to install a window; so from their point of view it is just another layer of bureaucracy they could do without. However, nothing about the codes is for contractors convenience, codes exist to protect the public and that's it.

So considering water management will become even more critical with the new energy codes, I don't think more stringent requirements for envelope work is a bad idea, whether AAMA or other. Do you think there are any illegal contractors installing (slapping in) windows and undercutting good contractors?

I don't think ventilation, combustion air requirements, and good water management can be overemphasized with the new tighter envelopes. So if if we are going to seal envelopes to 3 ACH50 under IECC 2012 (ridiculously tight with respect to mainstream const), we better damn well know what we are doing.

[Johnson]

So considering water management will become even more critical with the new energy codes, I don't think more stringent requirements for envelope work is a bad idea, whether AAMA or other. Do you think there are any illegal contractors installing (slapping in) windows and undercutting good contractors?

Ahh, "new energy codes" = more unintended consequences. What would be wrong with a contractor simply marketing energy efficient houses and then charging accordingly and another contractor advertising that the house needs to breath a little bit, so not so tight? And then let the consumer do the research to decide what seems best to him. Forced regulation over a false premise of AGW will do more harm than good.

[Ted S.]

Ahh, "new energy codes" = more unintended consequences. What would be wrong with a contractor simply marketing energy efficient houses and then charging accordingly and another contractor advertising that the house needs to breath a little bit, so not so tight? And then let the consumer do the research to decide what seems best to him. Forced regulation over a false premise of AGW will do more harm than good.

To many folks, I am surprisingly neutral on energy efficiency; it is my industry, and I really enjoy it, but I don't force it on anyone. In fact I am just as likely to build a log cabin with no insulation or drive a muscle car or F350 as anyone. So in respect your point about making it a market based instead of mandated through codes, I have no problem with that.

For one, because there is a ton of work out there for me already, and for two, the number one decision factor on a new car is MPG.

So if the Feds don't get you, your customers eventually will. When that happens, you need to come and see me anyway.

[hdrider_chgo]

Ahh, "new energy codes" = more unintended consequences. What would be wrong with a contractor simply marketing energy efficient houses and then charging accordingly and another contractor advertising that the house needs to breath a little bit, so not so tight? And then let the consumer do the research to decide what seems best to him.

I suppose the same argument could be made about building codes in general. Do we really need them? Builders could just advertise the level of quality that they build houses to, and then let the public decide whether they want to pay extra for a house that complies with plumbing or electrical codes, and structural standards, or just buy a cheap one.

[Dick Seibert]

What you are seeing is the tip of the iceberg, here where we have had green codes in effect for a few years now there are multiple problems including lawsuits against contractors just trying to follow the codes, the Green Codes are in direct conflict with the energy codes.

People assume that green buildings are safe homes. However, a report just released finds many deficiencies in the LEED program. The greatest failings are in the area of protecting the health of occupants.

The report states: The rise in childhood asthma, beginning in the early 1980s, has paralleled an increase in energy efficiency of buildings, and data suggest that increased chemical exposure in indoor environments may be the reason. Greater insulation, less ventilation, and a huge increase in new chemicals and products, within new buildings, collectively induce chemical exposures and potential health effects never previously experienced in human history.

LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides with Human Health was just released by Connecticut-based Environment & Human Health, Inc. Not only does the report find that LEED does not guarantee a healthy building, but LEED buildings may be less healthy than conventional buildings.

Quoting from the report: Thus, only 7 out of a possible 110 points have the primary intent to limit hazardous chemicals within the built environment. Since the highest building rating possible only requires a total score of 80 points, LEED certification is possible, even at the highest “platinum” level, without earning credits in the indoor air category, the category most likely to protect human health.

In the Bay Area, we see the same issue with GreenPoint Rated homes. Just like LEED, GreenPoint Rated fails to adequately address chemical exposures in homes. GreenPoint Rated homes in the Bay Area tend to have higher formaldehyde concentration than conventional homes. People living in those homes will likely experience more respiratory illnesses.¹

Industrial Hygienists like Kinkaid are recommending turning up exhaust fan systems, to get rid of the green chemicals, the problem is that energy costs skyrocket and people disable the fan systems, I posted a link a while back to one of Sim's additions in a town with a Green Code, 3 pages of "G Sheets" mandating OSB,to "save the forests", even Ted commented on putting OSB into a multimillion dollar addition.

Bottom like is that you can have "green" or you can have energy efficiency, but you can't have both, green is to "save the planet", energy efficiency is to "save money", to this generation of cheap consumers saving money is an easier sell than saving the planet.


¹ http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...n-be-unhealthy

[Lettusbee67]

Here in FC, 75% of my business is replacing windows and solving water intrusion issues. The majority of the causes I encounter are improper or no window flashing, and lousy raingutter design/execution.

There are a lot of builders in FC that do an excellent job of Green building, wether it be for energy efficiency or save the planet. We have a little of both. They aren't going to be affected by these codes, because they've already applied most of the practices to their routine. (In fact, their input helped formulate some of these codes)

There are also a lot of builders who build chitty_a@@ houses, using crappy materials, low wage poorly trained labor, and an overall attitude of "Don't care, so long as I get my money"

I have worked on their houses, and I know who they are. I desperately want to besmirch theirnames and broadcast their faults in the local paper, so that the purchasing public can see them for who they really are. However, many of these clients buy based on price, and don't bother to research why the house is so cheap. It's only after they live in the house for awhile, that they realize they will be dumping money into it for years to overcome the shortcuts taken at the build phase.

[Ted S.]

If there's one thing I have grown to appreciate about Dick's posts, is that he makes you think outside the box instead of being a follower. If you don't like it, don't read it, if you can read it with an open mind you are better off. He brings up issues, somewhat unconventionally, nonetheless, issues worth discussing.

He is absolutely right about the bath fans, they are a joke. Whether it's designed to ASHRAE 62.2 and commissioned in the field (bigger joke), it's doesn't matter. Ventilation is (one of the) crux's of energy efficiently and it is just stumbling along in the background. The reason why is to do it correctly it is $2k-$3k for a bottom line HRV or ERV. The bath fan won't cut it because for one, there's an energy penalty by exhausting conditioned air, for two, 25.2 watts constantly, for three, people don't use them.

I feel so strongly about this I bought www.stackventilation.com and www.passivevent.com and my father (Columbia PhD, MIT undergrad) and I (chump) are working on a cost effective natural ventilation product with heat recovery that works off of stack pressure.

I find it's much easier to capitalize on legislation then to lobby to change it.

[jimAKAblue]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all that tape and flashings aren't really necessary.

The key to eliminating water intrusion is better design and adequate maintenance.

If I'm wrong, how did all the houses prior to the invention of these products survive without crumbling into gooey masses of mold?

[Johnson]

I suppose the same argument could be made about building codes in general. Do we really need them? Builders could just advertise the level of quality that they build houses to, and then let the public decide whether they want to pay extra for a house that complies with plumbing or electrical codes, and structural standards, or just buy a cheap one.

I am not against building codes in general and think they do serve a good purpose. We just don't need to go and establish codes based on a questionable premise. I think Ted has the right approach.

[jimAKAblue]

Im living in a house that was built in a locale that did not require building permits or inspections.

I'm cool with it. There are a few things but overall, it's no better or no worse than similar homes in cities that have municipal inspections.

I also don't mind if regulations and rules and licenses are issued, as long as they are voluntary. If I want to go to a Dentist that hasn't passed a state licensing board test, that is my business as long as he doesn't deceive me. The same idea should be applied to housing, cars, etc.

[davenorthup]

I don't think ventilation, combustion air requirements, and good water management can be overemphasized with the new tighter envelopes. So if if we are going to seal envelopes to 3 ACH50 under IECC 2012 (ridiculously tight with respect to mainstream const), we better damn well know what we are doing.

That just needed to be said again....