How do you feel about the increase in EE standards?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard C. MacCrea on December 15, 2010 at 1:44pm

I read the article from the TV station web site. What was lacking is how the state proposes to make homes 30% more efficient. If they are requiring a higher rating on the energy score, that would be great because it leaves it up to each project to choose how to meet this requirement.This would leave the door open for devising more cost effective ways to meet the standard. We are having even greater results without increasing construction costs.

But if the state is requiring higher standard windows and insulation, this will cost more, and the improvements will be less. Georgia just upgraded their code. They are requiring all new homes to pass a blower door test and a duct blaster test begininng January 1. This is a very good idea because it does not tell builders how to meet the standard. By doing this it leaves more choices, and would help reduce the costs of higher energy efficiency.

In conclusion, there is not enough information to judge the North Carolina legislation. It might work efficiently, or it might raise construction costs too much. Anyone out there know more details?

Permalink Reply by Richard C. MacCrea on December 17, 2010 at 12:35pm

After some research, including reading the proposed code, I realized that this has not been reported accurately. The code is primiarily addressing air leaks, not so much increased insulation. It addresses common construction errors, and requires these holes in new homes to be sealed up. (attic knee walls, behind bathtubs, crawlspaces, etc.) These leaks cost a lot of heating money, and cause moisture and mold problems.

All states that received stimulus money for energy efficiency agreed to increase the standards of their energy codes. Builders and their associations may fight this, but the federal government has already been guaranteed that the states will enact these code changes.

Georgia enacted a similar change effective January 1. An engineer from Southface Institute was part of the committee that planned this code. As a result, Georgia's code will require all new homes to pass a blower door test. This test grades how airtight the home was built. If the house fails, the leaks will need to be found and fixed. This test usually costs less than $400. The proposed North Carolina code will give the choice between a blower door test and a detailed insulation/ air barrier inspection. (Spend the money and find out how air tight your new homes really are).

I say that by designing the home for the direction it faces (to take best advantage of the sun), using a good spray foam insulation contractor, and sizing the HVAC system for the real load, this code can be met without spending a penny more. The extra cost of insulation will be recovered by spending less money on a much smaller HVAC unit. Better, more comfortable, more valuable home, less chance of moisture and mold, and much lower energy bills without exra cost! We should have all been doing this already.

Permalink Reply by Anna Leonard on December 20, 2010 at 12:30pm

Here's the Charlotte Observor's Kevin Sier's opinion: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/20/1923209/new-home-buildi...

Permalink Reply by Anna Leonard on December 28, 2010 at 12:17pm

Here is an article from the Winston-Salem Journal (online) with thoughts on new EE standards

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/dec/26/wsopin01-safety-traded-...

Permalink Reply by Richard C. MacCrea on December 28, 2010 at 12:52pm

Strong words, that article.
But there are several other important factors.

1. The state and federal builders associations are the strongest and best organized of all lobbies. They have the power to make or break a governor.

2. Building codes are written to provide value conscious buildings that are safe and as affordable as possible. They do not adopt new standards unless it is necessary and makes financial sense. Builders sit on their review committees and have a voice in what is revised.

3. More efficient homes do sell for higher prices.

4. Building energy efficient homes is more profitable.

5. There are many ways to build more efficient homes without increasing costs.

6. Buildings consume more energy and cause more polution than vehicles, and it costs less to make buildings more efficient than to do this to vehicles.

7. We will pay for this with higher energy costs.

8. The article did not specify the safety compromises, nor did it say if their choice was final.

Permalink Reply by Andrew J. Courts, Jr. on February 9, 2011 at 5:07pm

The Homebuilder's Association held the Building Council hostage and only after much pressure from environmental groups did the 15% compromise come to pass.  There main argument is that higher (and enforced) EE standards would raise the cost and limit the amount of houses built.   Seeing that some sections of NC have a 5-7 year supply of new homes, this would not be a bad thing.  This may help weed out the weak or poorly performing builders.  The other flaw in their argument is that all builders would be competing on a level playing field.   My primary argument is that low and moderate income households live in the most poorly constructed homes (generally speaking) and they spend up to 25% of their income on utilities versus 2% for more affluent homeowners.  A fifteen per cent increse is better than nothing, but not close to the needed thirty per cent to make NC a leader in the field.  Self testing was also a compromise caused by the builders.   

Permalink Reply by Richard C. MacCrea on February 9, 2011 at 6:22pm

Most of the change was to test the construction to be sure it meets the standard as part of the building inspection. It is not increasing insulation requirements as much as making sure that the insulation is installed correctly, and does not leak air. A lot of the media has reported on this without studying what it is really changing.

Richard C. MacCrea