As the reaction to EPA's Clean Carbon Plan has demonstrated in living color, environmental regulation is tough in the United States in 2014. For many years, there has been many efforts to use innovative tools to promote adoption and enforcement of energy efficient building codes. I think there is a lot to learn from these efforts, as I discuss in my piece at RegBlog, the blog of the University of Pennsylvania Program on Regulation.
What if there was a technology that had a 20 year track record of saving 4.8 quads of energy and 41 million tons of carbon, while saving consumers more than $44 billion over the past 20 years, and was anticipated to save consumers up to $230 billion on their utility bills, 53 quads of energy and 3,995 million tons of carbon from 2012-2040?
What if the return on that technology was $400:$1--for every $1 of government program money spent, the return in cost savings was $400?
You would think that the EPA would have that technology at the top of its list of ways for states to reduce energy use and carbon emissions to comply with its new Clean Power Plan regulations. Instead, the EPA's response was "meh:"
[Building energy codes*] might have substantial impact, and the EPA does not want to discourage their implementation in state plans, but they might require development of appropriate quantification, monitoring, and verification protocols. The EPA and its federal partners intend to discuss the development of appropriate EM&V protocols for such measures with states in the coming years.
Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 117, Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 34921.
I don't know why the EPA seems to have a thing against energy codes. Perhaps it is that energy codes do not require cool new technology like carbon capture. They do not require states to implement new programs or hire new personnel, because all 50 states already have building codes in place, either at the state or municipal level. Or maybe it is because when you go to a cocktail party and start to talk about building energy codes, people feel compelled to refill their plate of cheez-its.
But what I do know is that the EPA's concerns about building energy codes seem to run contrary to recent scholarship and state experience with building energy code programs.
Two recent publications—one from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and a joint study by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, the Edison Foundation and the Institute for Market Transformation—have protocols for measuring and verifying building energy code program savings. In addition, over 10 states have included building energy code programs in their utility energy efficiency programs, many of which include M&V protocols.
Even if the EPA is correct that there is some uncertainty and variability in M&V of building energy codes, the evidence of energy and carbon reductions for other compliance pathways that EPA supports, like carbon capture and storage, are much, much less certain.
You have until October 16, 2014 to submit a comment on the proposed rule, letting EPA know that building energy codes should be at the top of its list of compliance paths, not the bottom.
* Building energy codes are minimum standards for energy efficient design and construction for new and renovated buildings. Like all construction codes, building energy codes are adopted as law by states and municipalities, and enforced by building code officials.
The Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico handed down a limited win for energy code advocates, holding that adopting changes to building codes that removed energy conservation provisions without any justification violated administrative procedure. The decision is available here.
Between 2006 and 2012, the construction and energy codes adopted in many jurisdictions have incorporated provisions increasing the energy efficiency of buildings built to code by 30% (15% from the 2006 to the 2009 codes, and an additional 15% from 2009 to 2012).
As I have posted about previously, there is a trend nationwide to resist adoption of the 2012 codes, in part based on the increased energy conservation requirements. In the case of New Mexico, the state had adopted codes which had energy conservation requirements beyond those in the 2009 energy codes.
The New Mexico Construction Industries Commission (the "Commission") sought to adopt changes that would have removed any energy conservation provisions from the New Mexico codes that exceeded the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).
The Commission held several public meetings and solicited public comments on the code changes. Then, at a June 2, 2011 meeting, after a brief and (frankly) confusing statement by the Chair of the Commission, the Commission voted to adopt the code changes without further discussion.
Several groups including the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Environment New Mexico, several green builders, the Sierra Club and other sued to overturn the Commission's decision for (among other arguments) being "arbitrary and capricious" due to the Commission's lack of discussion and justification for the decision.
The Court of Appeals held that the Court could not even determine whether the Commission's decision was valid because the Commission failed to provide "what facts and circumstances were considered and the weight given to those facts and circumstances." Southwest Energy Efficiency Project v. New Mexico Construction Industries Comm'n, No. 313838, April 4, 2013 (N.M. Ct. Appeals) at 10. The Court remanded the Codes to the Commission for reconsideration, with a justification of its reasons for its decision.
The reason why I characterize the decision as a "limited win" is that, assuming that the Commissioners are the same, there is no reason why the decision on the code adoption will change. If the code revisions are again adopted, with justification, the Plaintiffs will have to institute another legal action, and demonstrate that the justification provided by the Commission is arbitrary and capricious.
However there may be value to the plaintiffs simply by filing the suit and making the Commissioners justify to the citizens of New Mexico in writing why the homes they live in should not be energy efficient.
A long time ago in a first term far away, there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a.k.a the Stimulus.
As explained by the DOE, The ARRA section on State Energy Program funding included a statutory provision (Section 410) linking SEP funding to building energy code adoption and enforcement. As a condition of accepting the ARRA funding, the states provided assurances through governor’s letters indicating their state would comply with the terms of Section 410.
All 50 states took ARRA SEP money, and all 50 governors provided commitment letters commiting to do three things relating to building energy codes:
Adopt a building energy code for residential buildings that meets or exceeds the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC),
Adopt a building energy code for commercial buildings and high rise residential that meets or exceeds the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, and;
Develop and implement a plan, including active training and enforcement provisions, to achieve 90% compliance with the target codes by 2017, including measuring current compliance each year.
In the four years since ARRA, eighteen states still have no energy code at all or have residential codes that do meet the ARRA requirements, and fifteen states still have no energy code at all or have commercial codes that do not meet the ARRA requirements. A map of the status of every state's energy codes is available here.
I have not been able to find state annual compliance reports or a report by the DOE Office of the Inspector General on the building code commitment aspect of the ARRA funding. So, there is little, if any, data on when or whether states will comply with their ARRA commitments. [NOTE: I would welcome being proven wrong in this area. If you have data, please send me a link and put it in the comment section].
Given the vast research that building energy codes are an inexpensive way to acheive energy efficiency, it was a really good idea to tie the ARRA finding to energy code adoption. Unfortunately, lack of enforcement of ARRA commitments appears to be a missed opportunity to move the country forward in this area.
Although the overall bill has swelled from 600+ pages to 900+ pages, there is still just 1.5 pages on the National Energy Efficiency Building Code, first proposed as Section 201of the Waxman-Markey Bill. In the Waxman-Markey Bill, the House called for:
1. Establishing a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.
2. Setting energy efficiency targets for the national building code: “on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code…effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and…January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.”
3. If consensus based codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under the ACESA, the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.
4. Requiring that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and providing for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.
The original Boxer-Kerry draft backed off of the Waxman-Markey structure entirely, simply mandating that the Department of Energy or "other agency head or heads as may be designated by the President shall promulgate regulations establishing building code energy efficiency targets...beginnning not later than January 1, 2014... "
The exact same language is mirrored in the current version of the Senate Bill at Section 163 (starting at page 200 of the current bill). No structure, no mandatory energy efficiency targets, no requirments that states adopt energy efficiency codes by a certain date.
This is a fascinating development because of the vast energy savings possible through regulation of new buildings and retrofits of old buildings. According to a study by McKinsey on energy efficiency,
by 2020, the United States could reduce annual energy consumption by 23 percent from a business-as-usual projection by deploying an array of...efficiency measures, saving 9.1 quadrillion BTUs of end use energy...
The majority of the 900 page bill is dedicated to defining and establishing a cap-and-trade program. While a worthy goal, I think that the Boxer bill misses the opportunity to grasp low-hanging fruit in energy savings through energy efficient building requirements.
Yesterday, a draft of the Boxer-Kerry senate version of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill was leaked to the media. I have previously posted about the proposed National Energy Efficiency Code in the Waxman-Markey bill and in the first proposed senate bill ACELA.
Both of those proposed Energy Efficiency Codes had specific energy efficiency targets, timelines, adoption and implementation plans, and enforcement, though they differed somewhat in the specifics. Not so the Boxer-Kerry Bill. What had been pages of turgid regulatory prose in the prior two bills has been condensed to a mere page and a half--Section 174, starting on page 113 of the draft bill for those of you following at home.
The most interesting part is that all specifics have disappeared. No mandated energy efficiency savings, no specifics for implementation timeline, no enforcement, nothing. Just a mandate that the Department of Energy or "other agency head or heads as may be designated by the President"
shall promulgate regulations establishing building code energy efficiency targets...beginnning not later than January 1, 2014...
There is also a section requiring the suitable administrator to "promulgate regulations establishing national energy efficiency building codes." The entire specifics of the regulations are as follows:
Such regulations shall be sufficient to meet the national building code energy efficiency targets...in the most cost-effective manner, and may include provisions for State adoption of the national building code standards and certification of State programs.
Many have argued that the Waxman-Markey and ACELA bills went too far--making the energy efficiency requirements too high, and requiring to fast an implementation timeline. I would argue that the Boxer-Kerry draft does not go far enough--it simply does not provide the stick required to urge rapid development and adoption of a national energy efficiency code. It also leaves a lot of room for further politicking at the administrative agency level. What do you think?
On Earth Day, Mayor Bloomberg announced sweeping new green building regulations for New York City. The proposed regulations would:
- mandate energy audits in buildings larger than 50,000 square feet once every decade and require retrofits that are deemed cost effective, which is defined as a five-year payback period
- require property owners to benchmark the energy usage of their buildings
- mandate commercial lighting upgrades by 2022
- require compliance with a new energy code after completing a building renovation of any size
On May 12, the Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) approved Appendix 120AA as an optional appendix to the 7th edition Massachusetts Building Code 780 CMR. According to the BBRS,
the stretch code would be incorporated into the Massachusetts building code as an optional appendix. Towns and cities in Massachusetts would then be able to choose between remaining on the base energy code or adopting the stretch energy code as their mandatory energy code requirement.
The “stretch code”...will end decades of statewide uniformity under the existing building code and will be in direct conflict with the goals of the statewide code — to provide uniformity, predictability and clarity.
These sweeping regulations are interesting from a couple of different perspectives. First, they indicate a political willingness to impose stricter--and potentially costlier--regulations on developers, despite the down real estate market. Second, they indicate a shift in policy making from independent green regulatins to adaptations of the building and energy codes. It will be interesting to see how these schemes are implemented, and what effect they have on development in these localities.