To the extent that homeowners know anything about the building code, most assume the focus is on the safety of crews who build houses and of the people who will occupy them. In this assumption the homeowners would be correct.
But one section of the building code has implications that reach far beyond the individual house and homeowner, and that is the efficiency.
When builders are required to increase the energy efficiency of new houses, the owners will benefit from lower utility bills. Low-income homeowners, the group most vulnerable to foreclosure, will fare especially well because utilities are a big part of the total budget. A house that uses less energy is more affordable to more households, but this is not the position that has been taken by the home building industry.
Its leading trade association, the National Association of Home Builders, has maintained that measures taken to increase energy efficiency will add to the cost of the house and that this added cost will price many thousands of buyers out of the new-home market. This argument prevailed for many years at the code hearings in which energy-efficiency requirements for new houses are determined. (The International Energy Conservation Code, known as the IECC, establishes energy efficiency for all new buildings in the United States. The code hearings are held every three years.)
With the 2009 IECC code hearings, however, things began to change. Bill Fay, at the behest of the Alliance to Save Energy, organized the Energy Efficient Code Coalition, an eclectic mix that now has 55 members, including think tanks, affordable-housing advocates, utility companies, home-building related businesses and environmental organizations not generally associated with housing, such as the Sierra Club.
The goal of the EECC was the "30 percent solution" -- a 2009 version of the IECC that would be 30 percent more efficient than the 2006 version. That goal was also sought by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Although a 30 percent increase seemed like a big jump, Fay said it could be easily done with available building materials and would not unduly burden overworked municipal building inspectors. The groups that advocated for this change, however, were less than 50 percent successful. Averaged nationally, the 2009 IECC ratchets up the efficiency requirement by only 12 percent.
ad_icon
But there is a silver lining: Fay's group has permanently altered the terms of the debate.
First, it demonstrated that vastly increasing energy efficiency does not automatically have a negative effect on home sales.
Mark Wahl, president of Cobblestone Homes in Saginaw, Mich., said he had no problem selling first-time buyers houses that were 15 percent more efficient than what EECC was pressing for, even though this did add, on average, $4,000 to the cost.
Faren Dancer, a Santa Fe builder and president of the Santa Fe Home Builders Association, testified at the code hearings in 2008 that in his market they were already building affordable houses that met the goals of the EECC. Moreover, he said, "you can achieve this with no increase in cost at all. You just have to get up to speed on doing things a little differently."
The EECC also brought many more voices to the discussion. "In the past, builders have said, 'One person buys one house from a home builder, and no one else should be in the debate,' " Fay said. "We argued that the entire community has a vested interest in its housing stock. We brought in many groups who had never weighed in on code issues, including affordable-housing advocates."
This group said that to assess affordability for households with modest incomes, more than the sale price and financing must be considered. The other costs of home ownership, including maintenance and utilities, are even more critical.
"Nationwide, the number two cause of foreclosures is utility bills," said Cliff Majersik of the Institute for Market Transformation, a think tank that follows building code issues.
"Research has shown that owners of Energy Star Homes, which are more energy efficient, have an 11 percent lower default rate when compared to owners of nearly identical houses in the same location," he added.
Harold Simon of the National Housing Institute, which focuses on low-income community issues, did not testify but offered this sobering statistic: "Fifty percent of low-income homeowners within five years of purchase become tenants again."
The problem for low-income families is generally not the purchase of the house, because there are many different assistance programs, Simon said. The problem is staying in the house. Anything that reduces monthly expenses, such as lower utility bills, helps a low-income household accumulate savings. These can provide a buffer against unexpected expenses and increase the chances that a family will be able to stay in its house.
Electric utilities also weighed in on home energy efficiency. Although this group would seem to benefit from homeowners using more energy, the opposite is true, said Steve Rosenstock of the Edison Electric Institute. Many of the institute's members are in states that have set ambitious goals for reducing total energy use in 10 or 15 years. One way to meet this challenge is to make buildings more energy-efficient.
Adding a global perspective, Cammy Watkins of the Sierra Club said her group joined Fay's coalition because building codes that reduce home energy use "save folks money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." When home heating and electricity are produced by burning fossil fuels, the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming are also produced.
Fay's EECC is on target to meet its 30 percent solution goal for the 2012 version of the IECC, which is being written now. Meanwhile, Fay has started work on raising the bar for the 2015 version. The EECC wants to increase energy efficiency by an additional 20 percent.
By Katherine Salant, The Washington Post
© 2010 The Washington Post Company
