Next week, the International Code Council (ICC) will begin their code development hearings in Dallas, Texas, for the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC). Some states have already adopted sustainable building regulations, such as California's "CalGreen" code, for example.
The U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBCs) LEED certification programs have focused the building industry on sustainable construction, but the question seems to be, should there be regulations that require buildings to use a sustainable approach to building construction regulation?
Similar questions were raised when energy codes entered the building code scene. In the beginning, many jurisdictions resisted adopting these codes on the basis that they did not improve building safety, which is the foundation upon which today's building codes are based. Today, many jurisdiction still refuse to adopt energy codes for that same reason.
In my local area, the City of Phoenix has begun adopting the second public version of the IGCC, but conformance to this code is purely voluntary. Even the City of Scottsdale, which has had a long-running green code program, does not make conformance mandatory.
Some speculate that the IGCC will follow the path of energy codes with few adoptions early on, followed by greater numbers in adoption as the concept catches on.
What are your thoughts regarding regulations on sustainable construction?
It is one of the big questions of our time. How far should regulation (government) go? In my opinion, far enough to protect health, safety and welfare but not so far as to corrupt the regulatory system. The definitions of health, safety and welfare may well include environmental factors directly linked to energy use and green building. Those items should be proposed and considered by the code committees for inclusion in the building code. Approaches that drive up costs by mandating particular systems or certifications should be discouraged. Adopting codes written mainly for the purpose of increasing fees, creating new fees, or for selling products (including code books) is an inappropriate use of regulatory authority.
Posted by: Deborah Corr | 05/17/2011 at 11:40 AM