The International Code Council (ICC) wrapped up its committee hearings yesterday in Dallas, and as the event came to a close a proposal by the Glazing Industry Code Committee (GICC) to revise Table C407.5.1(1) in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) was approved.

Presented by Thomas Culp of Birch Point Consulting LLC on behalf of the GICC, the change adjusts the wording in the table to change the word “Doors” to “Opaque Doors” and to change the word “Glazing” to “Vertical Fenestration Other than Opaque Doors.”

“This corrects the terminology in the performance path table to be consistent with the rest of the chapter,” wrote Culp in his proposal. “‘Doors’ can include both glazed and opaque doors, but the intent was clearly meant to be opaque doors, since it is referring to only the U-factor in Table C402.2. It is then unclear where to put glazed doors. This proposal clarifies the three fenestration rows as ‘opaque doors,’ ‘vertical fenestration other than opaque doors’ and ‘skylights.’”

While many in the glass industry spoke in support of CE343-13, which would have added sections C407.2 and C407.2.1 to the IECC, creating maximum trade-off limits for fenestration under the commercial performance path, it was disapproved.

The proposal was made by Brian Dean, ICC International, representing Energy Efficient Codes Coalition; Garrett Stone, Brickfield Burchette Ritts & Stone, PC; Jeff Harris, Alliance to Save Energy; Harry Misuriello, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; Bill Prindle, Energy Efficient Codes Coalition; and Don Vigneau, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.

“This proposal imports, from the residential IECC provisions, an effective backstop on fenestration trade-offs that has been in the IECC since 2004, but with some additional modifications and improvements,” wrote the proponents. “This new provision [would] ensure that modern, highly efficient commercial buildings are required to have at least moderately efficient windows … New section C407.2.1 would ensure that whenever the simulated performance alternative is used, the windows on a weighted average basis will meet a reasonable level of efficiency (no worse than 25 percent greater U-factor and 50 percent greater SHGC than the prescriptive requirements).”