Advanced Codes


Published on

Alliance to Save Energy director of policy, Lowell Ungar, spoke at a Capitol Hill briefing on energy code provisions in the House energy bill, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454), on June 22nd, 2009. The briefing, hosted by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and titled ‘Building Energy Codes: An Important Component of Climate Policy,’ highlighted the importance of strong national building codes provisions and the achievability of the standards proposed in the bill.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • A variety of studies mostly collected in 2005 Definitions of compliance vary, but generally % of homes that fully meet code (from plans or inspection)
  • But home builders oppose…
  • But home builders oppose…
  • But home builders oppose…
  • But home builders oppose…
  • But home builders oppose…
  • But home builders oppose…
  • Advanced Codes

    1. 1. Building Energy Codes Prevent Climate Change House Staff Briefing June 22, 2009 Lowell Ungar Director of Policy Alliance to Save Energy
    2. 2. Presentation Outline <ul><li>About the Alliance… </li></ul><ul><li>Why building codes? </li></ul><ul><li>How building codes are done now </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced codes legislation </li></ul>
    3. 3. What is the Alliance? <ul><li>Mission: The Alliance to Save Energy promotes energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy security </li></ul><ul><li>Chaired by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) and James Rogers (CEO, Duke Energy) with strong bipartisan congressional, corporate & public interest leadership. </li></ul>Jim Rogers, CEO Duke Energy Bi-partisan, bi-cameral Honorary Vice Chairs
    4. 4. What is the Alliance? <ul><li>NGO coalition of 150+ prominent business, government, environmental and consumer leaders. </li></ul><ul><li>Conduct policy, education, research, technology deployment, market transformation and communication initiatives. </li></ul><ul><li>Headquartered in Washington, D.C. with operations in Eastern Europe, South Africa, Mexico, India and several states in the U.S. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Why Buildings? <ul><li>Buildings use 40% of energy in U.S., cause 40% of CO 2 emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Efficient buildings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce stress on power grid and natural gas supplies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve air quality and public health </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid global warming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Save consumers money </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Why Building Energy Codes? <ul><li>Key to making all new buildings more efficient </li></ul><ul><li>Makes homes more affordable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monthly ownership cost lowered: mortgage payment + utility bills </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Overcomes economic barriers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Split incentive: eg builders pay costs, buyers pay energy bills </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Construction is cheapest and easiest time to build in efficiency </li></ul>
    7. 7. Potential Savings <ul><li>If all states improved codes, by 2030 our nation could save each year: </li></ul><ul><li>8% of total building energy use (4 quadrillion Btu) </li></ul><ul><li>$28 billion in consumer energy bills </li></ul><ul><li>greenhouse gas emissions of 46 million autos (250 million tons of carbon dioxide) </li></ul>
    8. 8. How Codes are Set <ul><li>Independent professional organizations develop national model building codes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DOE determines whether updates save energy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>States adopt codes based on national models (sometimes with changes) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>States required to consider residential model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>States required to adopt commercial model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Local governments enforce codes </li></ul>
    9. 9. Codes Savings: inch by inch
    10. 11. Codes - Compliance <ul><li>A wide range of compliance rates: </li></ul><ul><li>Need more training and enforcement </li></ul>AR – 55% MA – 46% CA – 75% MT – 87% IA – 53% OR – 100% ID – 52% VT – 58% LA – 65% WA – 94%
    11. 12. Codes Legislation: Goal <ul><li>Address national energy needs using current process </li></ul><ul><li>Set national goals for energy savings </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure development, adoption, compliance </li></ul>
    12. 13. Codes Legislation: Status <ul><li>Sec. 201 in ACES </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar provision in House-passed energy bills last year </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Similar provision in Senate energy bill, Lieberman-Warner climate bill last year </li></ul>
    13. 14. Proposal – Targets <ul><li>National energy codes with aggressive energy savings targets: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30% savings in 1 year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>50% savings in 2014 (homes), 2015 (comm.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5% more savings every 3 years </li></ul></ul>
    14. 15. New Building Goals <ul><li>American Institute of Architects, U.S. Conference of Mayors, … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce fossil fuel use for new and renovated buildings by 60% in 2010, rising to 100% by 2030 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ASHRAE (commercial building standards) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2010 Standard 30% more stringent than 2004 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>IECC (residential) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 proposals for 30% savings in 2012 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tax incentives require 50% better than code </li></ul><ul><ul><li>50,000 new homes have met criteria </li></ul></ul>
    15. 16. Proposal – Development <ul><li>ICC and ASHRAE get first chance, with DOE help </li></ul><ul><li>Backstop: DOE sets if they don’t </li></ul>
    16. 17. Proposal – Adoption <ul><li>Direct states to adopt national code or equivalent within one year </li></ul><ul><li>Backstop: If state and locality do not, federal code is effective in that area </li></ul>
    17. 18. Proposal – Compliance <ul><li>Direct states to improve compliance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>90% of building space complies within 7 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>DOE help: 0.5% of all allowances to states, localities for code implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Stick: States lose increasing share of total allocation if fail to meet targets </li></ul><ul><li>Backstop: If states + localities still do not enforce, federal enforcement </li></ul>
    18. 19. Support for Codes Provision <ul><li>EEI </li></ul><ul><li>APPA </li></ul><ul><li>NRECA </li></ul><ul><li>Duke </li></ul><ul><li>National Grid </li></ul><ul><li>PNM </li></ul><ul><li>PG&E </li></ul><ul><li>SCE </li></ul><ul><li>NASEO </li></ul><ul><li>AIA </li></ul><ul><li>CFA </li></ul><ul><li>NCLC </li></ul><ul><li>ACEEE </li></ul><ul><li>NEEP </li></ul><ul><li>MEEA </li></ul><ul><li>SWEEP </li></ul><ul><li>SEEA </li></ul><ul><li>Sierra Club </li></ul><ul><li>Audubon </li></ul><ul><li>Environment America </li></ul><ul><li>NWF </li></ul><ul><li>Greenpeace </li></ul><ul><li>NRDC </li></ul><ul><li>UCS </li></ul><ul><li>NAIMA </li></ul><ul><li>PIMA </li></ul><ul><li>NIA </li></ul><ul><li>ICAA </li></ul><ul><li>NFRC </li></ul><ul><li>Johns Manville </li></ul><ul><li>Owens Corning </li></ul><ul><li>Honeywell </li></ul>And many more (some based on last year’s language)
    19. 20. Thank You! <ul><li>Lowell Ungar </li></ul><ul><li>Alliance to Save Energy </li></ul><ul><li>Phone: (202) 857-0666 </li></ul><ul><li>Email: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Website: </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    20. 21. Proposal – Model Codes <ul><li>ICC/ASHRAE would still set models </li></ul>Today Proposed ICC and ASHRAE set models Same DOE determines if models save energy DOE determines if models meet targets If they do not meet targets, DOE sets code that does
    21. 22. Proposal – Adoption <ul><li>States would still set building codes </li></ul>Today Proposed States set codes with DOE help Same States directed to adopt commercial model, consider residential model States directed to adopt both models or equivalent If states and localities don't adopt, DOE does
    22. 23. Proposal – Compliance <ul><li>Localities, states would still enforce building codes </li></ul>Today Proposed Localities usually enforce codes, states assist States directed to measure and improve compliance 0.5% of allowance value for codes implementation (states, localities split) States lose allocation if don't meet targets If locals, state don’t, DOE enforces
    23. 24. Building Codes + Appliance Standards <ul><li>Section 213(j) in ACES: </li></ul><ul><li>In order to meet savings targets, codes must address equipment as well as “envelope” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often more efficient equipment makes sense in new construction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>State codes preempted by federal appliance standards, but need flexibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adopt requirements in national model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide alternative pathways, as long as at least one pathway at base level </li></ul></ul>