Meg Waltner, Manager, Building Energy Policy, San Francisco, CA
When
you leave Atlantic City with more than you came with, you can count
yourself lucky. This past week public officials at the International
Code Council’s (ICC) Public Action Hearings held in Atlantic City voted
on close to 100 proposed revisions to the residential building energy
code. These officials not only rejected numerous attempts to decrease
the efficiency of the code, but also approved the addition of a new
method for meeting the code that will save homeowners money, improve
code compliance, and pave the way for future energy efficiency
improvements.
The code in question is the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) which is a model energy code that states and localities can adopt
to ensure that new homes and major renovations don’t needlessly waste
energy that costs their owners money and creates pollution.
The
process to update the code occurs every three years and is not for the
weary. Anyone can submit proposals to modify the code and these
proposals are considered one by one over the course of two public
hearings that each last multiple days and often run into the wee hours
of the night. Each proposal is heard, testified for and against, and
then voted on to decide which proposals make it into the final updated
code.
New Energy Rating Index Path a Major Win
One of the biggest successful changes to the code this cycle was a proposal known as RE-188 that was put forth by NRDC, the Institute for Market Transformation
and Britt Makela Group. RE-188 adds a new compliance pathway to the
code that a builder can choose as an alternative to the current
prescriptive and performance paths. This new path would allow the
builder to comply by getting a third-party inspection of the home to
assess its efficiency using an energy rating index (ERI), such as the RESNET HERS index.
The ERI is a measure of the home’s efficiency on a 0 to 100 scale where
0 is equivalent to a net zero energy home and 100 is equivalent a home
compliant with the 2006 version of the IECC. Homebuilders choosing this
path would have to meet or exceed a specific ERI score, in addition to
meeting minimum envelope requirements and other mandatory measures, such
as insulating hot water pipes.
Jurisdictions in states across the
country from Arkansas to Massachusetts have already begun to add these
alternate ratings-based compliance pathways to the IECC when they adopt
it at the local level, making the time ripe to add an ERI path to the
base IECC. The ERI path offers several benefits. From a builder’s
perspective, it offers flexibility in how to achieve the energy-savings
target. This means that Builder X may choose to meet the target through
better windows and air sealing, while Builder Y may choose to meet it
through better attic insulation and improved equipment, as long as they
both meet the same ultimate level of total energy savings and comply
with a set of mandatory requirements. This flexibility will both promote
achieving energy savings at the lowest possible cost, as well as drive
down the price of energy efficiency over time as manufacturers and
vendors find ways to provide energy savings for less money, enabling
even greater cost-effective efficiency over time.
Furthermore, the
energy rating index is certified by a third party, reducing the burden
on code officials and increasing code compliance which adds to overall
energy and cost savings. Finally, many builders will likely highlight
their excellent energy ratings to the home buyer as a marketing tool,
promoting competition and likely incentivizing some builders to build
beyond code.
The addition of this new energy rating index path is a
major win, especially considering that over the last two code update
cycles – 2009 and 2012 – energy efficiency advocates had already made
major headway in improving the level of energy savings in the code, achieving a total of approximately 30 percent energy savings compared to the 2006 edition of the code. The savings achieved in over the last two cycles will deliver significant, cost-effective energy savings to home dwellers for years to come.
Successfully Fighting Off Attacks on Efficiency
These
savings were under attack this time around, with many proposals aimed
at rolling back the energy efficiency gains that had been achieved in
2009 and 2012. For the most part, these attacks were held off and the
savings were maintained in this latest set of hearings.
Most
significantly, one rollback proposal, known as RE-166, was defeated. It
would have created a giant loophole in the code by allowing builders to
“trade off” building envelope measures for installing higher than
minimum efficiency equipment. The issue with this tradeoff is that many
builders today are already installing high efficiency equipment and
code compliant envelopes. RE-166 would have given them an efficiency
credit for installing this equipment that they could use to reduce
insulation or window efficiency below the minimums required by code.
This would have been a major loophole and defeating it is a big win for
consumers and efficiency.
Other Proposals to Advance Efficiency
In
addition to our ERI proposal, NRDC also put forth several other
proposals to modify the IECC, including proposals to reduce the waste of
hot water and expand the applicability of the code to historic
buildings. While NRDC’s specific historic building proposal didn’t pass,
a similar proposal passed that requires historic buildings to comply
with the energy code unless a report is filed demonstrating that
compliance with the code would interfere with the historic nature of the
building (previously these buildings had a blanket exemption).
With
everything that was on the table in Atlantic City, all in all the
result was a major success. Thanks to the public officials who voted to
maintain the efficiency of the code, new homeowners won’t be gambling on
their utility bills and instead will realize energy savings for years
to come while reducing harmful pollution.
http://theenergycollective.com/nrdcswitchboard/288036/efficiency-wins-big-atlantic-city-homeowners-will-benefit
No comments:
Post a Comment