Long, Boring, but Comical notes on the NFRC

As promised some thoughts on recent NFRC events… its long… and boring…. And I really was considering not writing it… but I did anyway…

This coming week is a membership meeting for NFRC, so I think you can expect many details to come out. I was asked yesterday if someone could just show up to the portion of the meeting that affects them. (You know like glazier or fabricator) and the answer is, you’d have to pay for the entire event to attend- as NFRC doesn’t want to make it easy for people to just attend ala carte. Even the Department of Energy requested NFRC look into making the meetings easier and more affordable to attend (IE- pricing for just specific sessions) and of course those requests, like the request to offer training last year in Minnesota, (at Viracon) were summarily ignored.

From the pure comedy section… the NFRC had their PR agency, Potomac Communications do a “Case Study” with code officials. You can read HERE. The highlites…
My first reaction after I read it was that it was made up. I mean I surely hope that if these 3 code officials exist, that they have more clue about the important parts of the codes (safety) than ours.

-- How about the one code official, when asked if he was familiar with NFRC on commercial.. “I’m not but I should be” Wow grand, what a comment. I wonder if they gave him a lollipop after that classic.

-- Then I loved how these clueless code officials somehow had the ability to “question” the validity of the ratings, playing into the profiteering side of the NFRC’s hopes to make sure that evil and cheating manufacturers will be not allowed to do testing.

-- But the best part was this comment, after being so “informed” about the way things are done, was followed by this doozy:

One official kept coming back to the notion of that if all of the IGUs, frames, and spacers are sitting in a warehouse and they’re sent to the site to be assembled, how does one know if they’re put together and installed correctly.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? See this almost proves its made up… they took the three categories and lumped together, forgetting you can’t have an IGU without SPACER! Or does clueless code guy think that the glazier insulates the glass on site too? This study smells so cooked. I mean there’s 1000 things wrong with this comment, I am just too frustrated to type more.

On the rest of it, I could go on and on, but I’ve went on enough on this. This piece was one of the most pathetic case studies I have ever read, I seriously have a hard time believing its real- especially when the compliments rolled in and Potomac made sure to give it a blown up box.

“I like what you have here, gives a holistic approach on a sitebuilt window. If I don’t like what they’re assembling, we’ll challenge it, and if it’s right, it’s right.”
- Arizona Building Official

Yep, sure. As soon as you figure out where that “spacer” goes. Regardless, the sad thing is right now someone at DoE is probably lauding this incredible piece of fluff as “proof” that this program is so desperately needed. And that is sad.

As for what’s happening now… it looks like there’s a new membership cost structure. The good part is that the test labs and IA’s are no longer in that simple $400 category, they have to pay on a sliding scale based on sales like the glazier and manufacturer do. So look for a test lab like ATI to go from a $400 bill to $12,000 or more. The bad news is that the fees were raised across the board- meaning all of the residential members will now have to pay more because of NFRC’s efforts on the commercial side. In addition the fees charged to Trade groups went up 250%- I guess that’s the penalty for trying to protect your membership. Lastly they created a category to try and entice General Contractors… good luck with that.

On the CMA program itself. The debate rages on. The last ballot put to vote amongst the membership was voted down, (and people on both sides actually voted it down) because it has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Still work continues. GANA, AEC, IGMA, and yes even AAMA are all still working pretty hard to ensure that whatever comes out, it makes sense for the end user. The biggest problem is there is still little desire from the Architectural community for it. And those that “want it” totally misunderstand what the program, as it is set up right now, will do. And not surprisingly the NFRC had fed that misunderstanding, telling architects about this simple computer program they’ll be able to plug in values on and all will be just cherry! In addition, on another on line chat board, on Architect noted that NFRC told him that they “welcome competition” on their effort. That was hilarious considering NFRC went to great lengths to fight the AAMA 507 proposal at IECC. Bottom line on the CMA is that if a program comes out that is not streamlined, simple and cost effective (in the real world, not the NFRC’s) it will be an unmitigated disaster and will push designers away from glass and custom materials because of the unnecessary adventures and costs.

I finish with the fact; that again, I am not against a program that figures whole system calculations. I think it will be a huge help to the designer and in promoting more energy efficient products and would support it wholeheartedly. The basis for my frustration is that the group charged with this responsibility simply can not and will not do the right thing by the public it serves. It would rather pay groups like Potomac to do hokey case studies instead of learning the way things could work that would make sense. It would rather raise membership fees and try and make its “investments” back in break neck speed than do the right thing by the standards of being a charity would normally provide.

Anyway I know I am up against on this. All I can do is bring the issues up. Hopefully the level headed professionals out there in Denver (Greg Carney, Tom Culp, Margaret Webb etc) for the meeting will be successful in getting the messages across. By their efforts, they’ll actually be doing more for the “public” than the NFRC will, because at least they are fighting for what’s sensible.