Inside this issue...Setting the Standard
1st Quarter 1999, Volume 8, Issue 1
The International Code Council (ICC) hosted its spring public hearings in Costa Mesa, California, March 15 through 26. The hearings were held to address several thousand proposed changes to ICC's family of building codes: general building construction, "residential" building construction, plumbing, mechanical, energy, zoning, fuel gas, fire, and private sewage disposal. Many of these codes contain provisions relating to energy efficiency/conservation in general and to specific efficiency technologies.
Under ICC's rules of procedure for maintenance of its codes, each submitted and published code change proposal is reviewed by the appropriate Code Development Committee (CDC), a group of individuals having expertise in the code's technical area. Proponents and opponents debate the change in an open forum and answer any CDC member's questions. After all public discussion, the CDC votes to recommend that the change be approved, disapproved, or approved as modified. A member of the audience can make a motion to overturn the CDC's recommendation. Only building code officials of standing can vote in response to such floor motions.
The overall results of the spring hearings were generally favorable to promoting energy efficiency in the ICC codes. Some highlights...
This year, for the first time, a representative from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) served on the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) CDC as one of 10 members responsible for reviewing 74 proposed changes to the IECC, plus approximately 20 "coordinating" changes from other codes that might impact the IECC. The CDC approved some important changes to the 1998 IECC:
In addition, a proposal to remove single-family dwellings (SFDs) and townhouses from the scope of the IECC (in deference to the International Residential Code; see below) and two proposals to weaken Chapter 4 ("Systems Analysis") were defeated. Many minor improvements/clarifications not listed above also were approved.
On many important issues heard by the International Residential Code (IRC) CDCs, floor votes reversed the Committee decisions. However, neither vote represents the final decision on a particular proposal. A split decision assures only that the proposal will be discussed before the full membership of the model code organizations attending the ICC fall hearing. (See "What Happens Next," below.)
Following are some of the more significant decisions resulting from the hearings on the IRC:
Many other minor proposals addressed cooking appliances, ventilation air, and exhaust systems, all of which can affect energy consumption as a consequence of fuel use, loss of conditioned air, intake of unconditioned air, and parasitic electricity demands.
Various DOE program offices and National Laboratory staff are doing developmental work on new energy efficiency technologies. Building codes and equipment standards are a very important infrastructure consideration for eventual acceptance of these technologies. For example, DOE has worked for many years to develop alternative fuel vehicles that run on batteries, compressed natural gas, fuel cells, hydrogen, or other nongasoline fuels. These vehicles will impact buildings in many ways; for example, code provisions or standards will have to be developed for public parking garages, private home garages, fueling stations, storage depots for fuel tanks, and fuel processing facilities. Ideally, the building codes will recognize and accommodate these new technologies, and consensus standards will cover their manufacture and installation. At worst, no technical standards exist and the codes never mention these technologies. The latter case would pose a significant institutional barrier against widespread acceptance and use of a new technology.
In addition to alternative fuel vehicles, other new technologies will be affected by the provisions of the ICC codes:
The ICC committees reviewed literally scores of change proposals that could potentially impact one or more of these new technologies. The results of the Committees' deliberations are too numerous to mention here, but can generally be characterized as "mixed": some favorable, many not so favorable. The complete results of the spring hearings will be published soon. Readers can contact the ICC at (703) 931-9475 to obtain a copy of the publication.
Decisions made at the March hearings are only recommendations. They are the opinions of the respective CDCs, or of the floor assembly where the assembly's opinion differed from that of the CDCs, regarding how the full membership of all three model code groups should vote on each item at the Annual Business Meeting in September. The full membership makes the final decisions at that meeting, so no outcome can be considered certain at this time.
Procedurally, the membership will vote at the Annual Business Meeting more or less as follows:
The ICC Board of Directors is considering the following procedural variation: They will likely permit anyone to submit any modification to any proposal submitted for the spring hearing, as long as the modification is within the scope/intent of the original change proposal. Proposals receiving such modifications will also be individually considered and voted upon at the Annual Business Meeting in the fall. So, for example, if a proposal was denied because it was written poorly, or because the CDC cited a particular technical deficiency, the proponent (or anyone else) could submit a modified proposal to correct the deficiency and possibly get the suggestion approved this year and into the final published code next year. This ICC suggestion has the potential for vastly increasing the number of proposals that must be individually considered at the meeting.
Inside this issue...
How does a designer account for using an overhead door's
area for natural ventilation? Using the average value of the exterior walls would seem to permit a three-sided building
with R-19 insulation and a totally open fourth side, yielding an average value of 14.25.
Martin Simon
Plans Examiner, Department of Building Inspections
Hamilton County, Ohio
Concerning the Michael Holtz letter in the last issue [3Q1998:7(3)]: I must commend Mr. Holtz for the foresight to be a leader in the field of energy conservation by being the first to provide a simple-to-use program for rating homes. Normally I would be on the side of private business, but in this case I believe the current lack of availability of a reasonably priced rating program is holding back efforts in energy conservation. Mr. Holtz charges an annual fee plus a fee for each house rated by the program. This pricing method probably comes from the early policies of Energy Rated Homes, and from the fact that he has no current certified competition. Other heat load and simulation programs are typically available at an initial cost and an annual fee. These programs are frequently more involved and inclusive than RemRate but have not been certified. Although Mr. Holtz's pricing is advantageous if a few houses are to be rated, the fees are unreasonable for larger numbers of ratings. The program is primarily used by state governments or state-sponsored organizations. It seems to me that it would be more economical for the government to develop its own program for its own use and for sponsored programs rather than pay the fees as they are structured by Architectural Energy Corporation. If programs were available at reasonable costs, it probably would not be to the government's advantage to provide the programs.
Mr. Holtz is pleased that you are encouraging the adoption and enforcement of building energy codes. Where such codes are adopted and enforced, economical tools should be available for compliance. If the government were to provide that tool, Mr. Holtz would have to provide a more efficient or effective tool that is worth the cost difference to remain in competition. I believe Architectural Energy Corporation could accomplish that by staying ahead in technology and rethinking their fee structure.
Richard Barrett, P.E.
ThermoScan, El Paso, Texas
Letters for the next issue of Setting the Standard must be received by June 1. Send your letters to:
Kathy Blanchard, Editor - Setting the Standard
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PO Box 999, MS K9-41 Richland, WA 99352
Fax: (509) 372-6328 E-mail: kathy.blanchard@pnl.gov
Three new exams to certify competency with the International Code Council's new model energy code, the 1998 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), will soon be available. The Residential Energy Plans Examiner/Inspector certification exam will cover the residential provisions in the 1998 IECC, formerly the 1995 Model Energy Code (MEC). Two exams, the Commercial Energy Plans Examiner and the Commercial Energy Inspector, will test on the commercial provisions in chapters 6 and 7 of the 1998 IECC. Chapter 6 references the ASHRAE 90.1-1989 energy code (first printing). Chapter 7 is limited to small commercial construction less than four stories and 40% of the gross wall area in glazing.
These exams have been developed with the support and sponsorship of the North America Insulation Manufacturers Association, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). They are part of a national program focused on increasing energy code compliance through the certification of individuals competent with the IECC. Representatives from ICBO, Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), and DOE worked in committee to develop the exams.
The exams are expected to be available in computer-based form in April 1999. Those interested in purchasing a copy of the IECC or in becoming certified in one or more of the energy areas can contact BOCA (1-800-323-1103 x334), ICBO (1-800-423-6587), or SBCCI (1-205-591-1853).
The computerized testing will be available through Assessment Systems Inc. (ASI). Call one of these numbers to make reservations to take the tests:
BOCA (708) 799-2300 x334; E-mail, cert@bocai.org
ICBO (800) 275-8301
SBCCI (205) 591-1853 (SBCCI will not begin administering the exams until September 1999)
(Ed. Note: This article summarizes a paper presented by Stephen Turchen, from DOE's Office of Codes and Standards, at the Energy Efficient Building Association's Sixteenth Annual Excellence in Building Conference, held in Washington, D.C. in October 1998.
The last two years have seen significant developments and revisions to the national model building codes and standards that are adopted by many states and jurisdictions in the United States. One of the areas most affected is the criteria for energy efficiency. The paper summarized in this article addresses the status of energy efficiency requirements in the four major codes and standards most often cited in regulations affecting residential construction: International Energy Conservation Code, International Building Code (draft), International Residential Code (draft), and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.2-1993.
The 1995 Model Energy Code (MEC) and prior editions have been the standard reference for energy-related requirements for both residential and commercial construction. In 1998, the MEC was re-published by the International Code Council as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The new IECC presents major revisions, a few of which are given here (see full paper for a comprehensive list):
The International Building Code (IBC), presently in Second Draft form, will be finalized in 2000. It covers general construction regulations for all types of buildings and structures, including both commercial and residential categories. Public reviews and comments on various iterations of the IBC have been or are being reviewed and adjudicated. Following its publication in 2000, the three model code organizations (BOCA, SBCCI, and ICBO) will no longer publish their respective regional building codes. The IBC presents a variety of energy-related provisions throughout its chapters, including a chapter (Chapter 13) titled "Energy Efficiency," which directs the reader to the IECC.
Since mid-1977, an International Code Council (ICC) Drafting Committee has been developing working drafts of the International Residential Code (IRC), a "stand-alone" code for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses (three stories or less). The IRC will cover all aspects of residential construction, including structural, mechanical, plumbing, and fuel gas requirements. The second draft of the document is now progressing through the ICC's formal Code Development Cycle; formal publication of the IRC is expected in April 2000. Many of the energy provisions in the IRC differ from those in the IECC, notably the IRC's treatment of glazing area. The IRC gives no limitation on glazing area for any type of residential construction, whereas the IECC specifically accounts for glazing area for all building types.
ASHRAE published its Standard 90.2, "Energy-Efficient Design of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings," in 1993, and the codified version of that standard, "Energy Code for New Low-Rise Residential Buildings," in 1995. Presently, neither the original nor the codified version of the standard has been adopted as the residential energy code by any jurisdiction or state, probably because of the perceived complexity associated with implementing the standard and the lack of any supporting products to help with adoption and implementation. ASHRAE's Standing Standards Project Committee (SSPC) is charged with maintaining and improving the original Standard. The committee has published several addenda that address the following topics: Clarification of certain provisions of the thermal envelope criteria, revisions to the trade-off equation for determining the compliance of thermal envelope elements, and simplified paths for thermal envelope compliance when large amounts of glazing are proposed. Other addenda currently being considered by the SSPC include slab edge insulation, shading coefficients, and resistance heat backup for air source heat pumps. ASHRAE put the original standard in a "continuous maintenance" category in 1997, meaning anyone can submit a proposed change to any part of the standard for review and consideration by the SSPC at its annual meetings. The SSPC follows specific procedures developed by ASHRAE for considering and implementing proposed changes to the original standard.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring the 1999 National Conference on State Building Energy Codes, to be held July 13-14, 1999, at the Sheraton Tacoma Hotel in Tacoma, Washington. A Technical Issues session will precede the conference on July 12 and a States Roundtable will follow on July 15. The conference will provide state agencies and other interested parties involved in advocating, adopting, implementing, and enforcing building energy codes with information on energy code-related topics, plus an opportunity for attendees to exchange information with their peers.
Conference attendees have historically been staff from state energy offices, building code commissions, public utility commissions, regional power authorities, regional utilities, and utility organizations. Others whose work is impacted by building energy codes are encouraged to attend, such as staff from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offices, industry (suppliers/manufacturers), architects and engineers, the insurance industry, builders, and local code officials.
DOE is planning and organizing the conference with help from the DOE Seattle Regional Support Office, Washington State University (WSU) Energy Programs, and the Building Energy Codes Program at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Topics currently being considered by the planning committee include:
Pre- and post-conference activities include the July 12 Technical Issues session and the July 15 States Roundtable. The Technical Issues session will explore building design and construction considerations not addressed in most energy codes. Topics may include duct sealing, ventilation, and building commissioning. The States Roundtable will be a forum where states can share their suggestions for needed revisions and enhancements to the national model codes and standards.
Visit the Exposition during the conference. The exhibit/display area will showcase the latest in energy-efficient products, code implementation support materials, and more! Other activities planned for the week include building tours and an evening reception.
For additional information and to be added to the mailing list, please contact Karen Messmer at WSU's Energy Program, (360) 956-2090, or access the conference website at www.energy.wsu.edu/buildings/ncsbec/.
The 1998 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is now at the forefront of state code activities and is being referenced in legislation in many states. In New York, uniform building code legislation is included in the Governor's Budget Bill. The bill calls for the mandatory statewide adoption of the 1998 IECC and allocates funds for code training and implementation. The bill is expected to be heard this spring.
Nebraska, which follows the outdated ASHRAE 90A-1975 and 90B-1980 energy standards, is attempting to upgrade the energy efficiency of its state-owned and/or state-funded buildings. The legislature introduced a bill this year that would require those buildings to comply with the 1998 IECC. In addition, Nebraska's Department of Economic Development incorporated the 1995 Model Energy Code (MEC) into community development block grants and applications to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for new construction.
A house bill was just introduced in Arizona that would establish an energy code commission to evaluate a voluntary energy code for the state. The bill would direct the commission to adopt, by rule, a voluntary energy code based on the 1998 IECC, which in turn could be adopted by local municipalities.
In Texas, the city of Austin is interested in upgrading its energy code to the 1998 IECC, with modifications. Texas is a home-rule state that does not mandate any type of building code on localities, but the city of Austin has been progressive in its attention to energy efficiency in the built environment. It currently follows the 1993 MEC, with amendments, and has successfully implemented the code in its buildings. By adopting the 1998 IECC and building on its earlier successes, Austin has the potential to model for other Texas jurisdictions the adoption and implementation of up-to-date energy codes.
Meanwhile, a few more states are reviewing the 1998 IECC or 1995 MEC for possible adoption this year. The Pennsylvania House has reintroduced legislation to adopt the 1996 Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) building code. The state was not successful in moving the legislation through the Senate during the previous sessions, but will try once again. Connecticut will address 1995 MEC adoption this spring. Last, Indiana has scheduled a technical hearing on the 1998 IECC for March. The state currently follows the 1992 MEC and is considering upgrading its mandatory energy standards.
This article continues our series of responses to questions about the 1995 Model Energy Code (MEC) and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 that have been initiated by builders, code officials, and others involved in residential and commercial construction. [For the first article in the series, see Setting the Standard 3Q1998:7(3)]. Please be aware that the interpretations and guidance given here are not legally binding and represent the opinion of the professional staff of DOE's Building Energy Codes Program. For your specific situation, please consult with your local building official or other construction regulatory authority for a binding interpretation. We also welcome letters to the editor with your alternative opinions and explanations.
1995 MEC: Elevated Conditioned Rooms, Insulation under Slabs, Insulated SWH Piping, Multiple Occupancy Buildings
Q. A conditioned room of my single-family house is built on piers and is thus elevated off the ground. I "enclose" the piers with a decorative plywood skirt or a lattice board. When applying the MEC, is the floor of this room a "floor over unconditioned space" or a "floor over outside air"?
A. Because a lattice board is mostly open space (about 50%), the air temperature inside the latticework would be the same as the outside air. Therefore, this configuration can be considered "floor over outside air." If you use solid plywood for the enclosure instead of lattice board, the air in the enclosed space will generally be at a different temperature than the outside air. This configuration would be considered "floor over unconditioned space." To qualify as unconditioned space, the key is to provide a generally continuous barrier to bulk air movement into the enclosed space. A secondary consideration is that the separating membrane should have some modest R-value: wrapping the outside piers with plastic sheeting would, in our view, still result in a floor over outside air.
Q. The MEC gives requirements for insulating around the perimeter of slab foundations. If I install a radiant heating system (hydronic loop or electrical cable) in the slab, it would make sense to provide some additional insulation directly under the slab as well. Does the MEC provide those additional insulation requirements?
A. The edges of the slab are the critical areas to insulate and the MEC already requires insulation of slab edges. The path of conductive heat loss is from the slab directly to the air at the edges, or from the slab through the ground to the air. When the radiant system is running, the ground beneath the center of the slab will be close to slab temperature and thus subject to only minimal conductive heat loss. Therefore, most heat loss will be from radiative and conductive losses at the slab perimeter. Note that the MEC says if the slab is heated (which would be the case with an embedded radiant system), then the code-required R-value for slab-edge insulation for an unheated slab must be increased by R-2. As an example, the MEC requires that, for a particular location, you must insulate your unheated slab to R-5 for a total developed depth of 48 in. Then when you add a heating source to the slab, the new requirement is R-7 and the 48-in. depth still applies.
Q. The MEC requires insulation of piping for service water-heating systems (SWH) only when the system is a recirculating type (a rarity in residential construction). More commonly, SWH piping often runs through unconditioned spaces (basements, crawl spaces), where the pipes can lose heat or are subject to freezing. Where are the requirements (if any) for insulating SWH piping in unconditioned spaces?
A. The MEC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 both require insulation only for circulating systems. Neither requires any type of insulation for noncirculating runs through basements and crawl spaces. Dealing with pipes that run through unconditioned spaces is usually the province of a building or plumbing code. For example, the International Plumbing Code (International Code Council, 1997) contains Section 305, "Protection of Pipes and Plumbing System Components," in which Sub-Section 305.6 states, in part,
"305.6 Freezing. A water, soil, or waste pipe shall not be installed outside of a building, in attics or crawl spaces, concealed in outside walls, or in any other place subjected to freezing temperatures, unless adequate provision is made to protect them from freezing by insulation or heat or both."
Q. What is the classification of a multiple occupancy building, over three stories in height, that contains some dwelling units? For example, is a building that has a retail occupancy on the first floor and a residential occupancy on the second through fourth floors to be treated as a commercial or residential building for energy code compliance?
A. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 covers both retail and residential buildings over three stories in height. You could make a good case that the building in this example would fall under 90.1. In fact, any occupancy building of three or more stories would fall under 90.1, except for single-family detached and duplex detached. (The single-family and duplex detached Type "A-1" buildings have no height limitations per MEC Section 101.4.1.1.)
Another very valid interpretation, however, is to say the building is a mixed occupancy building and is therefore governed by Section 101.4.4 of the MEC. Under that section, logically you could treat the first floor as a commercial building subject to Standard 90.1, and the second through fourth floors as multi-family residential subject to the "A-2" requirements of the MEC. As a practical matter, it may be preferable to treat the entire building as one type (commercial or residential) for purposes of administering an energy code. DOE has, in fact, proposed a change to this provision in the 1998 International Energy Conservation Code to clarify that any building over three stories in height will be considered a commercial building. This change was approved at the ICC spring hearings (see p.1).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989: Natural Gas in Outside Lighting, Radiant Heaters in Commercial Spaces, Exterior Radiant Heating Systems
Q. Are outside lighting fixtures that use natural gas for illumination subject to MEC or ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements?
A. There is no provision in either the MEC or ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that covers this situation in terms of regulating the amount of gas that could be used. However, the installation of the gas piping leading to the outside lights would be subject to the provisions of any plumbing or gas code in effect in the local jurisdiction, such as the International Fuel Gas Code.
Q. Are radiant heaters used to warm diners on the outside patios of restaurants subject to any ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements?
A. The only requirements related to radiant heaters in commercial spaces is that the designer consider their use in applications where there are high (2 ACH or greater) infiltration loads. Thus, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would encourage (but not require) the use of radiant heaters in this situation. There are no requirements regarding the efficiency of radiant heaters, in part because there are no test procedures for testing them.
Q. In cold climate locations, people sometimes use radiant heating systems in their driveways or sidewalks to prevent accumulations of ice and snow. Are these applications within the purview of the MEC or ASHRAE Standard 90.1?
A. Again, neither code covers this type of system. However, the installation and safety requirements for the appliances providing heat to the driveways and sidewalks will be governed by a non-energy code, if one is in force in the local jurisdiction. For example, electrical appliances are likely to be subject to the National Electrical Code, while hot water or steam appliances will be covered by a plumbing or mechanical code. Note that a state or local code may have provisions that explicitly address these exterior radiant heating systems, such as is the case in Wisconsin.
Several states adopted new state energy codes or updated their existing energy codes last year. As part of their strategy to implement energy codes, many of the states requested and received customized versions of the Building Energy Codes Program MECcheck™ and COMcheck-EZ™ software and compliance products. States can request that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) develop customized versions of these products.
Most of the residential codes adopted by states are based on the Model Energy Code (MEC), or present requirements in a format similar to the MEC. The MECcheck compliance products have played a key role in the successful adoption of many of these codes. MEC-based codes are time-consuming and difficult for builders to understand and building departments to enforce. The MECcheck software and compliance materials simplify the code, and in doing so help gain the support of constituents who may have to use or enforce the MEC. Over the past two years, the Building Energy Codes program has provided MECcheck-based software and/or compliance materials to Arkansas (ARKcheck), Minnesota (MNcheck), Massachusetts (MAScheck), Vermont (VTcheck), Wisconsin (WIScheck), and New Hampshire (NHcheck). Some states even name the MECcheck-derived products in their legislation as valid options for determining compliance with their codes.
The customized versions of the MECcheck products exhibit the same simplicity found in the original products. In some cases, the requirements are different to reflect the requirements of the given state. The location and weather files may be altered to allow the user to select their county rather than their city, or the state may choose to base requirements on a single location in the state. Some states have adopted the MEC only for single-family homes, so the multi-family option is removed. Other states have different requirements for electric-heated homes and non-electric-heated homes. Several state versions also offer a "splash screen," displayed upon start-up, that identifies the agency in the state responsible for their energy code and a point of contact for that agency.
Most energy codes for commercial buildings are based on the ASHRAE 90.1 code. The standard version of COMcheck-EZ - consisting of printed guides and Windows software - is suitable for use in states that have adopted ASHRAE 90.1 by reference or through Chapter 6 of the MEC, which references 90.1. Several states that have adopted codes based on 90.1, but with significant modifications, have requested customized versions of COMcheck-EZ. To date, customized versions have been delivered to four states: Minnesota, Louisiana, Colorado, and Idaho. A version of 90.1 for use with Massachusetts' proposed commercial code, which incorporates lighting requirements from the BSR/ASHRAE/IESNA1 90.1-1989R (ASHRAE's latest proposed version of 90.1), is in progress. COMcheck-EZ Version 2.0, to be released later this year, is designed to accommodate special state code requirements through a code selection menu option within the software. This feature will minimize the need for separate state versions.
The Program also creates versions of state compliance materials that can be downloaded from the Web. A state may choose to place these materials on their own website or to place them on the Program's website. In the former case, a link on the 's website to the state's website directs users to the correct software and materials.
Your state can obtain customized, state-specific software, compliance materials, and training materials by submitting a request for technical assistance through its DOE Regional Support Office. Besides receiving DOE's support in developing custom compliance materials, states may request electronic copies of all the MECcheck materials and modify them to reflect the requirements in their state. For example, many states have chosen to pull out the climate zone map and prescriptive packages for their state and to rewrite the examples in the materials to be specific to their state. There is no charge for the materials, although DOE requests that they be allowed to review the final materials.
For additional information, contact your DOE Regional Support Office:
|
Boston |
Sam Thomas |
(617) 565-9732 |
|
Philadelphia |
Darren Stevenson |
(215) 656-6970 |
|
Atlanta |
Traci Goins |
(404) 347-0236 |
|
Chicago |
Michael Peterson |
(312) 886-8577 |
|
Denver |
Steve Palomo |
(303) 275-4838 |
|
Seattle |
Carole Gates |
(206) 553-1165 |
CalendarMay 6-8, AIA Expo '99, Dallas. Contact: American Institute of Architects, (202) 626-7395; see also www.aiaonline.com.
May 11-13, Light Fair International '99, San Franciso. Contact: Light Fair International 1999, (404) 220-2221; see also www.lightfair.com.
June 19-23, 1999 ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Seattle. Contact: ASHRAE, (404) 636-8400; see also www.ashrae.org.
July 13-14, National Conference on State Building Energy Codes, Tacoma, Washington. Contact: WSU Energy Programs, (360) 956-2090; see also www.energy.wsu.edu/buildings/ncsbec.
September 12-17, Joint Annual Conference of BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI, St. Louis, Missouri. Contact: ICBO, (800) 284-4406; see also www.icbo.org.
Comments? Questions? E-mail ruth.taylor@pnl.gov or call 800-270-CODE
(2633).
Updated May 26, 1999