The Race for Better Building Codes

By Kate Galbraith
ConstructionAgence France-Presse/Getty Creating stricter building codes can help fight global warming, experts say.

Buildings account for more than one-third of national energy use and 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Green Building Council.

Experts say that there is an easy way to reduce that number: tightening up building codes, so that they require more effective insulation and other improvements.

The stimulus package passed in February aims to do this, by requiring that states receiving certain types of energy monies pledge to bring their codes up to an internationally accepted standard — and draft a plan to achieve 90 percent compliance in new and renovated buildings by 2017 (see Section 410 in the law).

Only Alaska has failed to make this pledge, though some state lawmakers are urging the governor, Sarah Palin, to change her mind.

“My best understanding is that buildings that meet these codes use about 35-40 percent less energy for heating and cooling (and lighting for commercial buildings) than typical buildings before energy codes were instituted,” Lowell Ungar, of the Alliance to Save Energy, said in an e-mail message.

Owing to the stimulus package, there is plenty of state-level activity to tighten up building codes, according to Aleisha Khan, the executive director of the Building Codes Assistance Project.

Massachusetts is likely to adopt the codes specified in the stimulus early next year, according to Isaac Elnecave, a building-code expert with the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. Significantly, the state also just changed its code to give municipalities — which were previously bound to the state code — the option of adopting codes that are even more stringent.

Mr. Elnecave said that several cities, including Cambridge and Northampton, have expressed interest in adopting stricter codes.

Across the Northeast, “almost the entire region should be meeting the stimulus requirement soon,” Mr. Elnecave said in an e-mail message, noting that several states in the region are required to adopt a version of the latest international codes. There are also strong existing codes on the West Coast, where California’s Title 24 energy code is considered a model for other states.

The states that are furthest behind on their building codes lie in the heartland, as this map of residential requirements from the Building Codes Assistance Project shows. There is also resistance to stricter requirements from the construction industry in some states. In Delaware, for example, builders have complained that new codes working their way through the state legislature — to replace residential and commercial codes that are nine to 10 years old — will make construction more expensive at a time when the industry is already hobbled.

The proposed codes would “add cost to the construction of new homes at the worst possible time,” Steve Bomberger, president of the Home Builders Association of Delaware, told the News-Journal, a local newspaper.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Greenpa May 21, 2009 · 11:55 am

Better energy use in buildings is certainly the sensible direction. It would be nice, however, if building codes could incorporate flexibility to allow for innovation.

In the past- codes have squelched innovation, regularly. “Not in the code- you can’t do it.” We really do need to put tolerance for diversity into law- in building, also.

Dave Kliman May 21, 2009 · 12:09 pm

Leave it to extremist Sarah Palin to be the odd one out on saving the world.

Ross May 21, 2009 · 12:14 pm

While we’re at it, could we use this opportunity to eliminate some building code absurdities such as requiring minimum parking for cars which exists in the code of many communities?

AppDev May 21, 2009 · 12:24 pm

Since widespread adoption of BOCA codes in the 1970s, most building codes have become performance-oriented, leaving plenty of room for innovation.

The real issue with energy efficiency through building codes is that only about 2 percent of building space per year is newly built or heavily renovated. To get half of the potential improvement takes more than 20 years.

To do better than that will require strong incentives for building owners to renovate, bearing in mind that since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 sent the first major price shock, almost all the easy steps have already been taken.

David Fourer May 21, 2009 · 12:41 pm

I wish the article explained some of the code changes, or had a link to an explanation of code changes.

Here in Chicago, and Illinois generally, a number of building codes seem behind the rest of the country. This includes the use of newer and less expensive materials. For example, there is no “Romex” electrical wire here, and little use of plastic drain plumbing.

The replacement of copper water pipes with flexible plastic has been rumored for many years. It would save water heating costs, bring hot water to the spigot faster, and save money.

Chris Dudley May 21, 2009 · 12:42 pm

The map is very helpful. I notice Hawaii is well behind. In terms of energy used for heating and air conditioning, this may not be very important since the climate requires little. But, my experience with building inspectors in Hawaii is that they are very corrupt, ignoring flagrant safety violation such as ground faults on mains in areas where children play. Until this sort of problem is addressed, changing the building code will have little effect.

Joe Bob May 21, 2009 · 12:42 pm

I often find the residential construction trade groups a little disingenuous when they harp on how energy efficiency improvements add to the costs of housing.

In some cases the costs of improvement are marginal. The cost difference between R-28 and R-38 attic insulation is miniscule in relation to the overall price of a house. In other cases, I think the builders know that in order to meet the new codes they are no longer going to be able get away with less-than-thoughtful construction practices that result in excess heat gain/loss and air leakage.

Likewise, they are going to have to better educate themselves and their employees. Many, many times I have dealt with contractors and tradesmen who know how to do something but don’t know why they are doing it. The result is that too many of the plethora of small decisions that go into how to put a building together are made to the detriment of energy efficiency goals.

Finally, anyone familiar with the builders’ arguments know that they are talking about higher initial costs and not cost of ownership. The higher incremental costs of items dictated by the newer model energy codes will pay for themselves in the form of reduced energy costs (not to mention other tangible and intangible benefits like fewer condensation problems and improved thermal comfort) in anywhere from 3 to 15 years, and return savings to the owner every year after that.

lee schipper May 21, 2009 · 1:03 pm

I published a book in the 1980s, “Coming in from the cold: energy wise housing from Sweden” (Seven Locks Press) that analyzed Sweden’s system of both strong building codes AND financing of the extra costs of insulation, heat exchangers and other saving methods AND brought in the construction and building supply industries AND provided ample training for practitioners AND taxed oil and electricity. Their single family dwellings still remain the most heat efficient in the world, although the other Nordic Countries are close. WE do little of this, although California does more of this than other states.

We do very little of this because we approach the building energy problem as an energy problem. Sweden approached it as a comfort and buildings problem. Their 1967 code mandated the most efficient practices in the world without even mentioning the word “energy”.

In the final, the Swedes and other Nordic countries build good shelter. We build tax shelter.

Lee Schipper
Precourt Energy Efficiency Center
Stanford

Stubenville May 21, 2009 · 1:09 pm

How would you like it if you needed a different drivers license for each state and the rules of the road varied significantly from state to state? Unworkable! Who would put up with the hassle!

Well that’s how building and energy codes work. Engineering and architectural registrations, too. So how about a single national building code and a single national energy code?

As a lighting designer I have to look up the applicable code for every new project and there are dozens upon dozens of variations. Oh and thanks Massachusetts, for making it an even more chaotic mess.

Rob May 21, 2009 · 1:17 pm

As a contractor I am continually amazed at the loss of heat in most homes and shoddy spec house practices. As the costs of heating and cooling will skyrocket in the future I am not opposed to making walls 2 feet thick with insulation. The roof could be twice that. I could go on, but you get my point.

ChrisD May 21, 2009 · 1:30 pm

Why not dispense with this command and control approach and raise the price of energy consumption? Dinking with code does nothing to encourage higher than required efficiency or downsizing homes (what does it mean for a 5,000 square foot single family home to be “efficient”?).

lee schipper May 21, 2009 · 2:45 pm

Chris D seems a bit naive to me (#11). While making prices reflect costs–raising them-is important, the consumer/home buyer has absolutely no way of checking the levels of insulation etc, and only “chooses” in t he 5-10% of homes that are stick built from start on the owner’s initiative. The rest is all scams about efficiency etc. And thirty years of careful research shows how unwilling the consumer/buyer is to invest in even basic insulation, coated windows, etc when a full wet bar in the master bedroom is more interesting and a better investment for the builder.

Yes in colder climates insulation levels are better than in milder climates, but studies show clearly the underinvestment BY THE BUILDER in good practices. That’s because the builder always sees the buyer as uninterested, even at high energy prices.

So we have a public policy program. Have no building codes, let the buyer beware, and spend LITERALLY hundreds of billions of extra dollars each year to heat and cool inefficient homes (whose occupants will be colder in winter and hotter in summer because of higher costs), or mandate the most sensible options. We also need to raise energy prices; that is necesary, but by no means efficient.

As for using cold war era words like “command and control”, building codes are increasingly performance oriented so that what only matters is the bottom line i btu/sq ft
WE also have “command and control” rules about emitting toxic substances and pollution, and another “command and control” rule that says “right of way to the driver on the right (sic)”.
As for the good point about large homes, well, we have a mortgage interest tax deduction and the near lack of taxes on profits from selling a home to thank for pumping up the size of homes. Try to change that one
lee schipper

Buckeye May 21, 2009 · 3:15 pm

Joe Bob is correct.

In the majority of cases, builders are more concerned with the initial cost than the ongoing costs. The reason is a simple one – that is what the customer is most interested in. There are few builders that would not build a more efficient building if the end user was willing to pay for it. Even with today’s focus on energy efficiency, it is a minority of commercial and residential clients that are willing to absorb the extra costs up front to save money down the road.

Architects can design buildings to LEED Platinum all day long, but if no one is willing to pay, what is the end result? Same ‘ole, same ‘ole.

To generalize, builders and developers are not in it for altruistic reasons. They are capitalists to the core. And that is not a bad thing.

norcalguy101 May 22, 2009 · 10:43 am

The regional building codes have been infiltrated by special interest groups to promote their products by proprietary sepcifications. This is continued practice as well by materiele suppliers to State department of transportation or DOT organizations.

This has nothing to do with making the planet green. Rather, making corporations green.

paulwesterberg May 22, 2009 · 1:06 pm

Traditional looking houses are wasteful in terms of energy usage, requiring much more energy to heat and cool. A house that is well designed for the climate and oriented to the angle of the sun could be built such that it would absorb solar heat during the winter, but redirect solar heat during the summer. Houses should be designed to for easy installation of solar panels, radiant geothermal heat, low energy lighting fixtures, solar water heating with tankless backup etc.

If these items are integrated into the design of a house it will be much easier to create low energy housing.

mike roddy May 24, 2009 · 12:39 pm

We could start by eliminating use of wood for home construction. Logging is responsible for emitting about 400 million tons of CO2 annually in this country, not to mention the removal of carbon sinks. This fact is little known because of the lobbying power of the timber industry.

scott mills July 15, 2009 · 10:30 am

According to the U.S. Department of Energy: “Our nation’s buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy, including transportation and industry.” Inefficient American buildings consume 76% of all electricity generated in the U.S. A recent study by the Green Building Council and other real-estate and architectural groups found that building a Zero Energy Home (ZEH) has a median cost of 1.6 percent over the cost of a home built to present code standards. In fact, a recent survey found that more than 85 percent of Americans planning to build or buy a home within the next two years would choose one home over another based on energy efficiency.
Integrated Energy Design is a collaborative process that involves studying the interactions and relationships of energy systems, in order to design systems that are a net gain rather than a net loss of energy, which also increases comfort, well-being, and air quality.
This is about saving energy and money with a zero energy designed home. The planning and integration of your major energy systems before you build your home is the most cost effective way to save energy and money, simple low cost, no cost best practice strategies that in the life of your home will return dividends year after year in both pleasure and dollars.
We need to address an outmoded idea about the cost of building zero energy homes. You hear a lot about pay back times on your investment taking years. With proper design you can save up to 90% on your heating and cooling cost with out investing in any additional systems. By reducing your major energy loads the cost of adding photovoltaic and solar thermal to bring your energy footprint to zero becomes progressively smaller. Over the past 30 years the cost of energy saving technology (high efficient doors and windows, air heat exchangers, computer modeling of energy usage) have dropped dramatically. Now you can pay for your upgrades from your energy savings, which will pay into the mortgage day one.
A simple formula is that for every $100 in monthly utility savings you can pay for an additional $10,000 in energy saving strategies for your home, through your mortgage. By building a ZEH you will not only gain through cost and utility savings but you will have a higher resale value and a shorter time on the market when you decide to sell. According to the Appraisal Journal of the National Appraiser’s Association, home values increase $20 for every $1 in annual energy savings. So saving $1250 a year in electricity could increase your home value by $25,000. With the U.S. Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM) program a Zero Energy Home can now have monthly payments that are less than a conventional home. This means lower monthly payments, and lower total payments over the life of the home – This is a cost effective instant investment with payback on day one. The 25-year reinvested savings on an average-sized three-bedroom ZEH home can be more than $550,000. And, much more for larger ZEH homes. Remember mortgage interest is deductible, utility bills are not.
Finally the most important decision you can make is to have your ideas laid out on paper before you begin your design. Rewriting your mistakes is a lot cheaper than rebuilding them. There are now zero energy design consultants available to keep your vision intact through out the process.

So lets get started!
R. Scott Mills