National Building Code Meas

National Building Code Measure Being Considered - WSJ.com

1 of 1

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091130-710427.html#printMode

NOVEMBER 30, 2009, 2:10 P.M. ET

National Building Code Measure Being Considered By Sari Krieger Of DOW JONES CLEAN TECHNOLOGY INSIGHT NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The idea of a national building code is gaining momentum, having been included in a climate-change bill that was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in June and forming part of a climate proposal currently being worked out by Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.). Having a one-size-fits-all minimum standard of how efficiently buildings should use energy, among other things, would force the hand of builders, who currently operate under a patchwork of state and local rules and voluntary standards. But the idea of forcing that change is controversial. "Over the years, the opponents have focused on things like 'lets not have a mandatory code, let's have a voluntary code,' but they have only reached into a very small percentage of the buildings we have built ... And the result is that most buildings are built inefficiently," said Bill Fay, executive director of the Building Energy Efficient Codes Network, a group formed this summer to promote an upgrade of building codes. The Network, a coalition of utilities, some builders and manufacturers, regional and national energy efficiency organizations, labor and academic groups, has been advocating for the provision included in the House bill, as well as for the right of localities to adopt even more stringent codes than the proposed federal standard, should they so choose. However, the National Home Builders Association opposes a national code. Bill Kilmer, the NAHB's executive vice president for advocacy, said in an interview that the association wants codes to remain locally written because of regional differences such as climate. He also said the NAHB wants more time for builders to ease into building more energy-efficient homes. "We think the industry is best regulated from the ground up," he said. The NAHB supports a 30% increase in energy efficiency over the International Code Council's 2006 guidelines, but it strongly opposes making this efficiency improvement a national law. The climate bill that passed the House of Representatives in June would mandate energy efficiency improvements of 30% for new buildings starting in 2010 and 50% by the middle of the next decade, measured against the guidelines of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers and the ICC, with the ultimate goal of net-zero-energy buildings by 2030. The full Senate has yet to take up any climate bill and Lugar has not yet announced any details of his plan. Generally, he has said he is interested in an alternative to a general "cap and trade" system. His version of legislation would be a cap-and-trade system covering just power plants. Building efficiency standards could play a role in that idea, his office has said. Building codes currently vary greatly across jurisdictions. Some local governments use the ASHRAE and ICC guidelines. The Code Council's 2006 standards have building energy efficiency codes at 65% of a 1975 baseline. But some localities are far behind with their building codes. There is significant interest in the U.S. in building according to environmentally friendly standards. Thousands of buildings are certified under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards and many more are "registered," or on their way to certification. However, energy efficient buildings can be more expensive to build, which causes some of the resistance to green building practices. Still, a national building code wouldn't address the biggest potential for reducing energy use with green building techniques--the existing building stock. Codes only apply to new construction or major renovations. (Dow Jones Clean Technology Insight covers news about public and private clean-technology and alternative-energy companies.) -By Sari Krieger, Dow Jones Clean Technology Insight; 212-416-2016; [email protected]

11/30/2009 3:11 PM