Decoding the green construction codes

Engineers should understand the difference between IgCC and ASHRAE 189.1 energy compliance code provisions.

09/18/2012


Voluntary green building rating systems such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program have had significant impacts on the building industry. Some jurisdictions have attempted to make LEED certification a requirement for new buildings but have encountered a need for a code compliance path to document performance. The USGBC assisted in the development of both the ICC International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and ASHRAE 189.1, Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, to fill this void.

Both codes focus on the five categories of sustainability addressed in LEED New Construction: Site Sustainability, Water Use Efficiency, Energy Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Materials and Resources. Furthermore, both codes include an additional section regarding Operation and Maintenance.

The IgCC and Standard 189.1 are not guides or ratings systems. They are written in mandatory code language and intended for adoption and enforcement by the local and state level. In earlier versions of IgCC, ASHRAE 189.1 was a “jurisdictional compliance option,” meaning the local authority must choose between 189.1 and IgCC. With IgCC 2012, a building may now choose to comply with its standard requirements or those of 189.1.

Several major differences within the energy efficiency sections differentiate the two codes. With all energy units converted to Btus, IgCC is based on source energy use, while ASHRAE 189.1 is based on site energy cost. Just as energy cost and energy consumption are two completely different metrics, so are site and source energy. Different energy-saving measures will apply to a project, depending whether site energy cost or source energy use is the applicable metric. A model executed according to the calculations of one code cannot easily be compared to the other. A section of the IgCC also requires that the person performing the energy simulation be a professional engineer or architect in the state where the project is being constructed; ASHRAE 189.1 currently does not have a similar requirement.

Both codes contain comparable requirement categories in other sections, but with notable differences. The following table summarizes the key differences between ASHRAE 189.1 and IgCC 2012:

The IgCC has more detailed requirements for building energy metering and demand response, while ASHRAE 189.1 provides more detailed sections on fan power and demand controlled ventilation. If a project requires compliance with IgCC, there is always the option of using either IgCC or ASHRAE 189.1. For projects pursuing LEED certification, the energy model will compare energy cost. Overall, using ASHRAE 189.1 as a compliance path can minimize modeling time and increase cost-based savings.

 


Bridgette Baugher is an energy engineer with Southland Industries. Her career focus is on improving energy efficiency in new and existing buildings through the use of analysis and auditing tools. She served on the Center for the Built Environment’s Livable Buildings Jury in 2009 and 2010.   



No comments
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
High-performance buildings; Building envelope and integration; Electrical, HVAC system integration; Smoke control systems; Using BAS for M&V
Pressure piping systems: Designing with ASME; Lab ventilation; Lighting controls; Reduce energy use with VFDs
Smoke control: Designing for proper ventilation; Smart Grid Standard 201P; Commissioning HVAC systems; Boilers and boiler systems
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Consulting-Specifying Engineer case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Protecting standby generators for mission critical facilities; Selecting energy-efficient transformers; Integrating power monitoring systems; Mitigating harmonics in electrical systems
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software
Integrating BAS, electrical systems; Electrical system flexibility; Hospital electrical distribution; Electrical system grounding
Cannon Design’s blog is a place for the many voices of the firm to share thoughts and news related to current projects...
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.