little green houses for you and me

The case for a national building energy code 10

Recently, there has been a good deal of media attention given to building energy codes, generally and specifically, the codes provision of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), both good and bad. A couple of these articles piqued my interest by asking if building energy codes should be a matter of federal importance or if it should be left to states and localities.

I am fascinated by this issue, as before coming to NRDC I worked in the commercial building industry where beating code was how you were evaluated as an engineer. The sum of those energy decisions made by architects, engineers, and builders drive the largest portion of our energy consumption and our national energy policy. Much of the recent press has focused on the feds taking responsibility for something that has historically been a matter of local concern, but this miscasts the issue. In fact, since 1992 the federal government has required states to adopt energy codes for commercial buildings, but let’s move to the philosophical question. Who guides the decision makers in the building process—the federal government, the state government, or the building industry? How strong is the case for a national energy code?

The situation now

A little background: right now model energy codes are set by private non-profit organizations (IECC and ASHRAE) about every three years. States can adopt these codes or write their own (as California does). This system has not been very successful (take a look at all the blank spots on the BCAP code maps for commercial and residential codes).

ACES will fix this by:

  • Creating a national building energy code set by the Department of Energy (which could be based on the codes written by ASHRAE and IECC)
  • Setting targets for 30 percent more efficient new buildings after the bill is enacted, 50 percent in 2014/15, and then at least 5 percent in each following version
  • Providing funding for states to actually enforce the codes (novel idea!)
  • Allowing the DOE to enforce the codes if a state fails to do so

 The bill will not infringe on a state’s right to go above and beyond the national code. Leading states like California and Massachusetts (where consumers have been saving money without hurting the building industry for years) could still go above and beyond the national code.

Why do we need a national building energy code?

1 - Because more efficient buildings save consumers money

It is hard to fathom how someone would decide not to invest a little bit of money now for a lot of money later, but that is exactly the argument that is made against building energy codes. An inefficient house might be cheaper up front but will waste tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the mortgage. An efficient house is a much better decision. The same principle applies in commercial buildings.

Consumers probably would make the right decision if given the choice, but they aren’t the ones deciding. In most cases, the builder decides how efficient a building will be and the asking price is the foremost concern on their mind. To keep the price low, some builders create the worst possible building that the law will allow. The code makes sure that this building is still a good decision for the buyer and for everyone that uses energy. Consumers shouldn’t have to pay for a builder to cut corners on efficiency.

2 - Because new buildings matter

I’ve heard it stated several times that new buildings are a small fraction of energy use compared to existing buildings. The conclusion that is often drawn from this statement is that we should only focus on efficiency in existing buildings and let new buildings (and builders) get a free pass. Maybe those that draw this conclusion think that the housing market will never recover and that new development will cease, but this is not an opinion that many share.

The simple fact of the matter is that we can’t afford to give new buildings a free pass because it’s much more expensive to retrofit a building than to just build it right the first time. Building an inefficient home today commits us all to either wasting money on energy for decades and contributing to global climate change or footing the bill for an expensive retrofit later. Building it right the first time is a much better option and protects consumers and taxpayers.

In the context of global climate change, reducing emissions today and emissions in 2050 are critically important. The buildings we build today can last for a century or more and we can’t continue to put off efficiency and waste energy. Just think of the 25 years of inefficient homes we could have avoided if a national code had been implemented in the 80s when the discussions first began. Let’s stop making the same mistakes and thinking the problem will take care of itself.

3 - Because “just leave us alone” means “just let us keep taking your money”

Debates over energy efficiency and specifically codes and standards often degenerate into “why don’t you just leave us alone?” I often wonder who exactly it is that needs be left alone if consumers are saving money and the benefits to the country are huge.

The codes provision of ACES doesn’t tell consumers they can’t do anything. It does tell the worst builders they can’t continue to make inefficient buildings and stick the buyer with the energy bill. The code will help consumers say “stop wasting my money.” While the bill’s opponents may like to portray efficiency advocates as controlling tree-huggers trying to tell normal folks how to live, the reality is that certain interests are fighting to protect the system that allows them to profit at the expense of consumers.

4 - Because when the power company needs a new power plant to run all the inefficient homes, you have to pay for it

The opponents of a cap on carbon like to pretend that if we don’t act, then energy prices will just stay right where they are. Those folks are also generally opposed to building codes and efficiency standards. This doesn’t make any sense. If inefficient buildings continue to be built and use the worst equipment, then energy demand will skyrocket. So to get more juice, the power company is going to try to build a new power plant and the utility customers are going to pay for it. In the case of natural gas, prices just skyrocket. You never get to say “just leave me alone” when the bill comes.

5 - Because someone who answers to the people should decide how to build our homes and offices

Building codes are only a matter of local concern if the local government is motivated to make a decision to protect its citizens. When the local representatives don’t make a decision, then builders decide how to build local homes and workplaces, and they don’t always have the best consumer’s interest at heart.

Even if the state has made a decision and adopted a good code, it may not always have the ability to update when a new version comes out. Or worse, the opponents of efficiency could have weakened the code the state adopts. Consumers lose money in either situation. A baseline national energy code and funds for states to actually enforce the code will keep this from happening.

6 - Because states have done a (mostly) bad job

I already mentioned this, but the BCAP maps make this point very clearly.  Blank spots mean no code and lighter colors mean older codes.

It is hard to understand how anyone can decry additional federal attention, direction, and funding for energy codes given the spotty track record of the states. A map that is completely filled in is not too much to ask given the importance of buildings to our national energy policy.

7 - Because the consequences of wasting energy do not follow state lines

We live in a time of national electric grids and global energy prices. One state’s failure to save energy in buildings raises rates for everyone else. We are already paying higher energy prices right now because we did not enact policies that promote energy efficiency when we should have. Enough is enough.

What’s next?

The case for a national energy code is very strong. We know how crucial good codes are to our national energy policy and we know that inefficient buildings are a drain on our economy and drive greenhouse gas emissions. The champions of ACES have recognized this and put a policy in place that will create a floor for states and code organizations so that we don’t keep missing opportunities to save.

The stakes are way too high for us to pretend like we don’t need to fix a broken system. We need energy efficiency and aggressive building energy codes to help us bring down the cost of reducing carbon emissions and save consumers money. We can’t afford to be distracted by the interests protecting the status quo or those who want to hold fast to a failed process for purely ideological reasons. It is time to move forward.

 

Lane Burt is the Manager of Building Energy Policy with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, DC. He is an engineer and works on federal efficiency policies and green building issues.

Lane writes about energy policy on NRDC’s Switchboard blog.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Username's avatar

    Username Posted 4:17 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    WHat's next?

    Permalink

  2. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 6:00 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    Not much being built these days, so I would create incentives to renovating existing buildings as best as possible.  What's the building stock of unsold, empty, foreclosed, or partially built homes these days, like over a million? People like voluntary incentive codes because it pays them cash for better equipment and reduced downstream monthly payments.  Furnaces, hot water heaters, air conditioners, insulation, caulking, storm windows or multi-pane glass, programmable thermostats, and things like that really work.  In addition, people like the idea of a solar panel, mini wind turbine, underground passive heat storage, rainwater collection devices, and even solar hot water heaters.  I think that such retrofitting should be part of the Plan and not required as some law. And let's not forget storm hardening for higher winds, bigger rains, flooding, hurricanes, and small tornadoes.  We all know that mobile homes are "tornado magnets right?  We all know that rebuilding on some highly eroded hurricane coastlines doesn't make any sense, correct? Please don't get me wrong and I support DOING something about the issue.  But I like to cover all my bases. But I would like to make a point that many new building are simply way too airtight, which locks the air pollution inside, doesn't allow for air circulation, aids in creating rots and mildew, and for temperate area, really ain't such a great idea.  Like any orgnic thing, a house needs to breathe.  Nearly all new energy standards attempt to stop this effect.  How come we have 200 year old building doing just fine but a 20 year old building built with the best of energy efficiency in the industry is about to fall down? Kill the furnace monster!  Strangle the air conditioning condenser!  Put the hot water heater on a diet!  Make the houses more durable. You know, the way we build houses is sometimes a shame, resembling a trash dump when you finally put in gardens.  No amount of new building standards will fix that.  Great idea but we probably habe 10 years of work on just what we have. And great job on the article.  In no way am I dissing a thing.  Just some observations from being a 50 year old fart.  If you could think about how to integrate rebuilds with new build, I would be very happy.

    Permalink

  3. enviroperk Posted 7:10 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    The end goal is so much more efficiently accomplished by a carbon tax. Though the endless bureaucracy, and hiring firms to help "beat the new code", will employ a large number of people.

    Permalink

    1. Clifford Wells's avatar

      Clifford Wells Posted 7:49 pm
      16 Jul 2009

      We already pay a carbon tax.  Anything that involves energy, diesel for farming and trucking, shipping, rail, electricity, heat, and so forth is a carbon tax.  Wind, solar, nukes, and hydro usually have some perks and subsidies that help offset the electrical side, but hey we pay taxes for every barrel of crude, therm of natural gas, gallon of gasoline, or gallon of diesel.  You pay for a carbon tax when you buy steel, aluminum, plastic, or about any structural material.  You want more taxes?  Think about that.  You're already paying a carbon tax.  I think it's bad social, fiscal, and economic theory.  The proper solution is a "tax holiday" for clean new technology like all-electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, and other emergent technologies.What strikes me is how many of the "greens" think that cap 'n' trade or a carbon tax really motivates people to change their behavior. How young, innocent, and gullible.  People like cash!  If I gace you $100 to prove you installed a super-efficient, on-demand water heater, you'd take it right?Goodness knows, we're being underpaid tens of billions of dollars from oil leases and wellhead taxes just from leased federal lands and offshore tracts.  If we straightened out all the corporate money NOT being paid to the IRS, MMS, and BLM we could fund many things related to clean energy - since oil, natural gas, and condensate is simply energy storage in the form of carbon.  Remember "windfall profits"?  Remember Clinton's huge brain fart by allowing companies to hide profits as "research"? I also think that we don't need consultants, LEEDS professional, and all kinds of wonks to make this work right.  Certain states and cities are way ahead of the curve here, like California and Austin, TX.  It's not bigger government we need, but more efficient revenue collection and fair spending that won't put us in debt for a generation.  And come on now, how many more nerds would we need to hire to implement and operate a "carbon tax"?  Sorry, I am baffled by some of the ideas put forth these days, when we have ALL the tools and resources we need today.

      Permalink

  4. enviroperk Posted 7:29 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    <   

    Permalink

  5. enviroperk Posted 7:29 pm
    16 Jul 2009

    Due to the recent email I have received, a clarification of my previous comment appears to be in order. The problem now is that energy is too cheap. There is not a sufficient return on investment for many energy saving measures as a result. If energy was more expensive, the total operating cost of an inefficient building would be so high, that it would not be built. Yes, the people buying these buildings understand that. The Architects that design them do not need ASHRAE to tell them how to design an energy efficient building. It just does not provide the best return on investment because energy is too cheap. A carbon tax changes the calculus without needless regulations.One example I could go on about is how the current LEED system and tax credits reward energy savings in only new construction or backwards historical renovation. I say backwards historical renovation of turn of the century buildings, if returned to their original design, utilizing natural ventilation and lighting that is quite efficient, are discouraged. The solution that receives LEED and tax credits are sealing up everything and putting a monstrous amount of cooling technology into the building... or better still .. tear down the old building and put up a new one.  

    Permalink

  6. jlbaerg Posted 7:25 am
    17 Jul 2009

    In our state, the code is applied by local urban jurisdictions.  In the rural areas, commercial buildings are inspected by the state, but residential buildings aren't required to meet code.I wish the code maps you linked to would show this level of detail.I assume that a national code would apply in rural areas too, which would be a good thing.The down side of this, not mentioned in the article, is that the federal government is enlarging its jurisdiction over what has been state authority.  In general, I think that there is a strong argument to be made for citizen participation, self reliance and local production of energy.  All of these are going out the window as we begin the transition to a more efficient energy system.

    Permalink

  7. raphsperry Posted 1:34 pm
    17 Jul 2009

    Increasing energy prices is actually not enough to motivate building owners and developers to make buildings more efficient.  For one thing, most commercial buildings and new homes are built on spec, and the developer won't be around to see the energy savings.  Consumers should look for savings, but consumer behavior has been shown not to put a huge premium on energy cost, and even if it doubled, it would be be a small cost compared to a mortgage or, for commercial buildings, other operating expenses.California has achieved the level of energy efficiency we have precisely because of minimum codes; it's time for the rest of the country to follow our example, because this is a proven win-win situation for all parties.  It's not like California home builders have suffered for 30 years under our energy codes.   Having a federal agency review energy performance would be a real intrusion on building regulation,and is a good issue to raise. The ADA is an interesting precedent to consider of federal standards being applied in the area of building standards.  My opinion is that ADA enforcement is poorly coordinated with other building codes; maybe the fear of another federal program would motivate all states to adopt tough standards!

    Permalink

    1. vball Posted 10:29 pm
      19 Jul 2009

      Its hard to argue against a greater federal role when building codes are independently converging.  It also pretty clear that the devil is in the details.  If there is a prescriptive code, then there should be a flexible energy budget as well.

      Permalink

  8. Lisa Hymas's avatar

    Lisa Hymas Posted 12:04 pm
    18 Jul 2009

    There's a good article in The New York Times about this topic today, with a quote from occasional Grist contributor Ed Mazria.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement