The Thirty Percent Solution

Myths and Facts

Myths and Facts about the 30% Solution The EECC has identified 15 major misconceptions, misstatements and flat out myths that surround energy efficiency – like the positive cash flow it generates for homeowners, its timing and value, its growing urgency when gasoline reaches $4/gallon, its impact on homebuilders, the role of America’s energy code (the IECC) to improve it, and many others.

This section takes each one “myth” in turn – often quoted verbatim from opponents of “The 30% Solution” and other proposals to boost the energy efficiency of model energy codes – and responds with the simple facts from studies, research, statistics and plain old common sense.

Category
Timing Myth: The code is simple and should be left that way. Myth: The National Association of Homebuilders argues that every $1,000 increase in home prices translates to 10,000 people who cannot afford a home. Myth: The code just changed and should not be changed again so soon. Myth: Improving the code by 30% may be a laudable goal - but not right now.
Impact Myth: Existing homes are the real “low hanging fruit” for energy efficiency gains. Myth: Today’s codes aren’t enforced. Why should we pass stronger codes that also won’t be enforced? This change would only save 30% on paper because we’re not enforcing the current IECC.
Technology Myth: The 30% ‘improvement’ is often technologically impossible to comply with. Myth: “The 30% Solution” is just a proposal from manufacturers of insulation and other energy efficient components and materials to generate new sales.
Cost Myth: “The 30% Solution’s” elimination of trade offs will take away an important tool from the homebuilder that provides flexibility and improves cost effectiveness. Myth: The National Association of Homebuilders argues that all energy efficiency improvements must be evaluated under a 10-year “simple payback” scheme. Myth: Energy efficiency doesn’t sell to home buyers and it doesn’t enhance the future sales price of the home. Myth: We are in the middle of one of the worst housing slumps in the last 30 years. Adding to the cost of new homes will only make them less affordable for more potential buyers and deepen the slump. Myth: The cost of “The 30% Solution” would be “exorbitant.” The cost to build a home to these requirements would be substantial.
Process Myth: Leave the residential energy requirements in both the IRC and IECC codes. Myth: The Role of the Energy Code Isn’t to Constantly Increase Energy Efficiency

Main Menu

Meet our Supporters

Myth or Fact?

Search

Recent News