The Construction Thread

A National Building Code?

From Dow Jones:

"NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The idea of a national building code is gaining momentum, having been included in a climate-change bill that was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in June and forming part of a climate proposal currently being worked out by Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.).
Having a one-size-fits-all minimum standard of how efficiently buildings should use energy, among other things, would force the hand of builders, who currently operate under a patchwork of state and local rules and voluntary standards.
But the idea of forcing that change is controversial.
"Over the years, the opponents have focused on things like 'lets not have a mandatory code, let's have a voluntary code,' but they have only reached into a very small percentage of the buildings we have built ... And the result is that most buildings are built inefficiently," said Bill Fay, executive director of the Building Energy Efficient Codes Network, a group formed this summer to promote an upgrade of building codes.
The Network, a coalition of utilities, some builders and manufacturers, regional and national energy efficiency organizations, labor and academic groups, has been advocating for the provision included in the House bill, as well as for the right of localities to adopt even more stringent codes than the proposed federal standard, should they so choose.
However, the National Home Builders Association opposes a national code. Bill Kilmer, the NAHB's executive vice president for advocacy, said in an interview that the association wants codes to remain locally written because of regional differences such as climate. He also said the NAHB wants more time for builders to ease into building more energy-efficient homes. "We think the industry is best regulated from the ground up," he said.
The NAHB supports a 30% increase in energy efficiency over the International Code Council's 2006 guidelines, but it strongly opposes making this efficiency improvement a national law.
The climate bill that passed the House of Representatives in June would mandate energy efficiency improvements of 30% for new buildings starting in 2010 and 50% by the middle of the next decade, measured against the guidelines of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers and the ICC, with the ultimate goal of net-zero-energy buildings by 2030.
The full Senate has yet to take up any climate bill and Lugar has not yet announced any details of his plan. Generally, he has said he is interested in an alternative to a general "cap and trade" system. His version of legislation would be a cap-and-trade system covering just power plants. Building efficiency standards could play a role in that idea, his office has said.
Building codes currently vary greatly across jurisdictions. Some local governments use the ASHRAE and ICC guidelines. The Code Council's 2006 standards have building energy efficiency codes at 65% of a 1975 baseline.
But some localities are far behind with their building codes.
There is significant interest in the U.S. in building according to environmentally friendly standards. Thousands of buildings are certified under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards and many more are "registered," or on their way to certification. However, energy efficient buildings can be more expensive to build, which causes some of the resistance to green building practices.
Still, a national building code wouldn't address the biggest potential for reducing energy use with green building techniques--the existing building stock. Codes only apply to new construction or major renovations."
 
From the ADN.com:

"In a series of major cost-cutting decisions, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. said it is finalizing new agreements with contractors that could shift hundreds of trans-Alaska pipeline jobs away from unions.

The company says it is trying to become a leaner operation because the amount of oil flowing through the 800-mile pipeline is declining. In all it is slashing its spending by 15 percent next year, to $600 million, Alyeska officials said.

The company isn't just targeting labor expenses. Alyeska said this week it also plans to shrink its office space in Alaska, and the first steps may involve closing one or more of its offices in Fairbanks and Valdez and shifting an unknown number of workers to Anchorage.

The goal of the changes is to keep the pipeline running as long as possible, said Alyeska spokeswoman Michelle Egan.

She said the company will know exactly how many jobs might be shifted out of Fairbanks and Valdez by the end of the year.

Egan added that Alyeska doesn't plan to shut down its operations in those cities or Anchorage, and it isn't trying to end its relationship with unions, which still provide spill-response, construction and other services to Alyeska at the tanker port in Valdez and along the pipeline.

But the impact on unions will be significant. Alyeska said that 300 to 400 contract jobs could transfer from unionized Chugach Alaska Corp. to non-unionized ASRC Energy Services under a proposed new contract for maintenance work. Both contractors are Alaska Native firms.

Egan said ASRC Energy offered Alyeska a proposal for maintenance work that will save the pipeline company "tens of millions of dollars per year," mainly due to lower costs per worker for wages and benefits, and also reduced overhead costs, Egan said.

The Alyeska announcements are bad news for the Fairbanks economy and for the five unions that make up the Alaska Petroleum Joint Craft Council, a coalition of unions that has supplied workers under Alyeska's maintenance contracts for the past 30 years or so, said Jim Laiti, business manager for Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 375. He is also president of the craft council.

Laiti said he didn't know yet whether the craft council will dispute the contract changes. He said the unions' benefit packages can be costlier than non-union employers because of training programs, pensions and other perks.

"We're looking at whatever options we can," he said.

Alyeska is owned by BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and Chevron -- the companies that own the pipeline and tanker port."
 
Hey fellas, check out this sweet item I just got for my site visits!
 
Last edited:
I didn't want to look at them but I did and now I'm bummed. I'm on the bench here! :(


I'm bummed...the fucking steel mill here can't meet delivery dates so they didn't get any steel sales for this job. This in turn has put me out of the fabrication loop.
It would have been a t least a million dollar job for us.:mad:
 
I'm bummed...the fucking steel mill here can't meet delivery dates so they didn't get any steel sales for this job. This in turn has put me out of the fabrication loop.
It would have been a t least a million dollar job for us.:mad:

OK, that made me feel better.
 
Back
Top