[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
CLEANER, STRONGER BUILDINGS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
OCTOBER 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-11
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-974 WASHINGTON : 2020
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
JULIA BROWNLEY, California MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
----------
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov
C O N T E N T S
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
WITNESSES
Anica Landreneau, Senior Principal, Director of Sustainable
Design, HOK
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Kara Saul Rinaldi, Vice President of Government Affairs, Policy,
and Programs, Building Performance Association
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Prepared Statement........................................... 40
James Rutland, President, Lowder Homes, on behalf of National
Association of Home Builders
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Prepared Statement........................................... 50
Khalil Shahyd, Senior Policy Advocate, Healthy People/Thriving
Communities, Natural Resources Defense Council
Oral Statement............................................... 59
Prepared Statement........................................... 61
Roy Wright, President, Insurance Institute for Business and Home
Safety
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Prepared Statement........................................... 69
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Report, Energy Efficiency Jobs in America, submitted for the
record by Ms. Castor........................................... 93
Report, Implementing an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy
Codes: Guidance for Cities, submitted for the record by Ms.
Castor......................................................... 93
Report, Understanding Code Change Proposal CE264-19: Zero Code
Renewable Energy Appendix, submitted for the record by Ms.
Castor......................................................... 93
Letter from PG&E, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor......... 93
APPENDIX
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Anica
Landreneau..................................................... 96
Question for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Anica
Landreneau..................................................... 104
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Kara Saul
Rinaldi........................................................ 113
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to James Rutland 120
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Khalil Shahyd. 123
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Roy Wright.... 127
Question for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Roy Wright.... 129
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: CLEANER, STRONGER BUILDINGS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in Room
2020, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, Casten, Graves, Griffith, Palmer, Carter, and Miller.
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time of
this committee, without objection.
I would like to start off the committee hearing this
morning with a moment of silence for one of our colleagues. We
have very heavy hearts this morning due to the passing of our
colleague, Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland.
He was a champion for the people, an outspoken advocate for
fairness, equality. He was a true hero to his district in the
Baltimore area, and everyone can take a page out of his life.
So would you join me at this time in a moment of silence
for this great American champion?
[Moment of silence.]
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Well, good morning, everyone.
This year, our committee has discussed ways to reduce
emissions in the transportation sector, the power sector, the
industrial sector. And, today, we are looking at the building
sector.
Whether it is houses or apartment complexes or office
buildings, the places where we live and work use a lot of
energy, and they are responsible for a significant share of
carbon pollution. In fact, just last year, residential and
commercial buildings were the source of more than one-fourth of
all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
When Americans think of pollution, they usually think of
smokestacks, but the reality is more complicated. About three-
fourths of electricity sold in the United States is used in
building, and natural gas, oil, and propane are used to heat up
showers or keep homes and offices warm. Even the manufacturing,
transportation, and construction of building materials are
contributing to carbon pollution.
The climate crisis also leaves us with a resiliency
problem. Many existing homes, businesses, and hospitals were
not built to withstand the sorts of extreme events made worse
by climate change, including extreme heat, flooding, storms,
and wildfires. Over the last decade, extreme weather events
have caused more than $750 billion in damage, with many of
these losses occurring to buildings.
We have a big challenge before us. In the United States,
most of the homes and commercial buildings that we have right
now will remain standing in 2050. They have already been built.
By that year, scientists say we need to have hit zero net
emissions to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis. We
need nothing short of an ambitious national plan to make sure
new buildings are net-zero energy--that is, that they produce
as much energy as they use.
We also need to help property owners and business owners
make existing buildings more energy-efficient, helping them
rely more and more on clean energy rather than on fossil fuels.
Of course, we must also work to make sure our homes and
buildings don't end up as storm debris, and that starts by
making them resilient to the physical impacts of climate
change. In Florida, we saw the importance of strong building
design codes and standards in the devastating aftermath of
Category 5 Hurricane Michael that hit the Florida panhandle.
The storm leveled many homes, but some were able to withstand
the strong winds and the flooding because they incorporated
more resilient building techniques.
There is also an economic incentive to act. More resilient
and efficient buildings not only pollute less, they also cost
less to operate and to insure. That is more money in the
pockets of homeowners and business owners across America. When
we talk about constructing new buildings and retrofitting old
ones, that means construction jobs--lots of well-paying, often
unionized jobs. Many innovations already have been developed by
businesses large and small, entrepreneurs, and our academic
research centers and more, and we need to scale them up.
Buildings are the foundation of our communities, so it is
not surprising that State and local governments have taken the
lead in developing a climate smart-building policy. In May, New
York City set carbon emissions caps for energy use in buildings
over 25,000 square feet. Last year, California created a
program to incentivize the use of low-carbon technologies in
new building construction. And we have seen how cities facing
an existential threat from climate change, like Boston, Miami,
and Norfolk, are at the forefront of developing resilient
strategies to protect vulnerable communities.
Now we must step up to help them. An ambitious national
plan for cleaner, stronger buildings requires national
leadership. And Congress needs to offer smart incentives to set
a direction for the numerous Federal, State, and local
officials involved in the building sector. We also have the
responsibility to ensure communities on the front lines of
climate change, including low-income and communities of color,
are front of mind when we craft policy.
I look forward to learning from our witnesses today.
Welcome to all of you. We look forward to hearing your ideas
for an ambitious, equitable building policy.
At this time, I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Graves,
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
----------
Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor (As Prepared for Delivery)
Hearing on ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings''
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 17, 2019
This year, our committee has discussed ways to reduce emissions in
the transportation sector, the power sector, and the industrial sector.
Today, we're looking at the buildings sector.
Whether it's houses, apartment complexes, or office buildings, the
places where we live and work use a lot of energy. And they're
responsible for a significant share of carbon pollution. In fact, just
last year, residential and commercial buildings were the source of more
than one-fourth of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
When Americans think of pollution, they usually think of
smokestacks. But the reality is more complicated. About three-fourths
of the electricity sold in the United States is used in buildings. And
natural gas, oil, and propane are used to heat up showers, or to keep
homes and offices warm. Even the manufacturing, transportation and
construction of building materials are contributing to carbon
pollution.
The climate crisis also leaves us with a resiliency problem. Many
existing homes, businesses, and hospitals were not built to withstand
the sorts of extreme events made worse by climate change, including
extreme heat, flooding, storms, and wildfires. Over the last decade,
extreme weather events have caused more than $750 billion in damage,
with much of those losses occurring to buildings.
We have a big challenge before us. In the United States, most of
the homes and commercial buildings that will be standing in 2050 have
already been built. By that year, scientists say we need to have hit
zero net emissions to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
We need nothing short of an ambitious national plan to make sure
new buildings are net zero energy--that is, that they produce as much
energy as they use. We also need to help property owners and business
owners make existing buildings more energy-efficient, helping them rely
more and more on clean electricity, rather than fossil fuels.
Of course, we must also work to make sure our homes and buildings
don't end up as storm debris. And that starts by making them resilient
to the physical impacts of climate change. In Florida, we saw the
importance of building design, codes, and standards in the devastating
aftermath of Category 5 Hurricane Michael. The storm leveled many
homes, but some were able to withstand the strong winds and the
flooding because of more resilient construction techniques.
There's also an economic incentive to act. More resilient and
efficient buildings not only pollute less--they also cost less to
operate and to insure. That's more money in the pockets of homeowners
and business owners. And when we talk about constructing new buildings
and retrofitting old ones, that means construction jobs. Lots of well-
paying, often-unionized jobs.
Many innovations already have been developed by businesses--large
and small--entrepreneurs, our academic research centers, and more. We
just need to scale them up.
Buildings are the foundation of our communities, so it's not
surprising that state and local governments have taken the lead in
developing climate-smart building policy. In May, New York City set
carbon emissions caps for energy use in buildings over 25,000 square
feet. Last year, California created a program to incentivize the use of
low-carbon technologies in new building construction. And we've seen
how cities facing an existential threat from climate change--like
Boston, Miami, and Norfolk--are at the forefront of developing
resilience strategies to protect vulnerable communities.
Now we must step up to help them. An ambitious national plan for
cleaner, stronger buildings requires national leadership. And Congress
needs to offer smart incentives, to set a direction for the numerous
federal, state, and local officials involved in the buildings sector.
We also have the responsibility to ensure communities on the frontlines
of climate change--including low-income communities and communities of
color--are front-of-mind when we craft policy.
I look forward to learning from out witnesses today, and hearing
their ideas for ambitious, equitable building policy.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Madam Chair, first, I want to thank you for
recognizing our colleague, Elijah Cummings, and just the shock
that we all learned this morning of his passing. I, like
everyone, had the opportunity to work with him, and I respected
the fact that he did fight for the people that he represented.
And had very good, respectful interactions with him. And a loss
to this Congress and to the State of Maryland, and I am just
really devastated by the loss there.
Secondly, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. I
think this is a really important topic. I do. I think it is a
really important topic.
Third, I would like to thank you for--you put out an
inquiry to the public asking for feedback on climate, and you
and your staff, you all have been great about sharing that
information and the feedback. And I do think it is important
that we have those open lines of communication to ensure that
we are looking at the same data and information to make sure
that, as we move forward to a report, that we are seeing the
same stuff so we can move in the same direction and ensure that
we are being constructive moving forward.
Madam Chair, you know I am from Louisiana, and you probably
get aggravated listening to me talk about all the experiences
from home, but we have in the last several years been through
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Isaac, and it has caused
just really unbelievable consequences to our community.
And, more recently, in 2016, we had this unnamed storm that
was projected to be a 1,000-year storm. I think that our
friends at NIFP at the time said that it was looking to be the
fourth-most-costly flood disaster in U.S. history, and it was
an unnamed storm. What was it? Thirty-two inches of rain in 36
hours in some areas. I mean, where do you put that? Louisiana
is as flat as can be; there is no way to evacuate the water.
And it caused devastating consequences.
In a previous life, I worked on resiliency measures. I
helped to rebuild south Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, specifically rebuilding the coastal wetlands, rebuilding
the levees, and just focused on resiliency and sustainability
in communities.
And one of the things we learned in all that process,
through that $25 billion effort, one of the largest civil works
programs in U.S. history, is we learned that we have more tools
than just levees and restoring wetlands; that you have barrier
islands and the dunes that go along with those. You have, of
course, wetlands, which are really important. You have cheniers
or ridges that are native to coastal Louisiana and many other
coastal communities.
You do have structural protection like levees and flood
walls. You have pump stations. You have elevation of homes. You
have zoning. You have building standards.
And that last group of them, those are important tools, but
they are not tools that are often in the tool chest of the
Congress, of the Federal Government. But they are really
important tools, and they need to be integrated into this
overall objective of our desire to achieve certain resiliency
standards.
And I know that Mr. Wright has been outspoken about this
issue and ensuring that we properly use those tools, and I
think you are right on that. They are an important set of tools
that we need to make sure we are properly investing in.
And it is not just about the resilient construction and
making sure of the right elevation and right materials. It also
is ensuring that we are conveying lessons learned and successes
in energy efficiency and conservation. That is important as
well, and I think it is part of our overall resiliency.
But, but, but, as I have said at other hearings, we have to
make sure we get it right. And that means that we don't come in
and tell these people, oh, you have to have this gold-plated
shingle and this gold-plated window and other things that are
going to make homes unaffordable.
That is part of our overall resiliency goal, is making sure
that we make safe houses affordable and accessible and that we
are not going to be punitive to low-income folks and prevent
them from having access to houses. And so we have to make sure
that we are not sole-sourcing different building materials or
standards to where there is only one company that makes a
product.
So I do think it is an important tool in the tool chest in
terms of building standards and resiliency and elevation of
homes and other things, but we have to be careful about how we
are proceeding to ensure that the standards, the
recommendations that we move forward with--and whether it is
through the Flood Insurance Program reauthorization or other
tools--that we do it in a way that truly advances the goal of
resiliency, of affordability, of energy efficiency,
conservation. I think that we can achieve multiple goals.
I want to say it again. I really appreciate you holding
this hearing. I think this is a great topic for us to be
working together on.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and
I am looking forward to hearing your testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Perfect.
Without objection, members who wish to enter opening
statements into the record may have 5 business days to do so.
Ms. Castor. Now I would like to welcome our witnesses. I
will proceed with an introduction, and then we will go to each
one of you.
Welcome, Anica Landreneau. She is a senior principal and
director of sustainable design for the architecture firm HOK.
Anica also serves on Washington, D.C.'s Green Construction and
Energy Commercial Technical Advisory Group as well as on Mayor
Bowser's Green Building Advisory Council.
Kara Saul Rinaldi is vice president of government affairs
and policy for the Building Performance Association. She is a
leading energy and climate policy expert with more than 20
years of experience. Previously, she was the director of
government and public affairs for Owens Corning.
Jimmy Rutland is president of Lowder New Homes and is on
the board of directors for the National Association of Home
Builders. He also serves on the State of Alabama Energy and
Residential Codes Board and is a Certified Green Professional
and a Green Energy Key Builder.
Khalil Shahyd is a senior policy advocate for the Healthy
People and Thriving Communities Program at the Natural
Resources Defense Council. Khalil works to advance Federal
policy supporting energy-efficiency programs targeting the
affordable multifamily housing sector.
And Roy Wright is the president of the Insurance Institute
for Business and Home Safety. Previously, he was the Chief
Executive of the National Flood Insurance Program and Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation in FEMA's
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration.
Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
be made part of the record.
And, with that, Ms. Landreneau, you are now recognized to
give a 5-minute presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF ANICA LANDRENEAU, SENIOR PRINCIPAL, DIRECTOR OF
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN, HOK; KARA SAUL RINALDI, VICE PRESIDENT OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND POLICY, BUILDING PERFORMANCE
ASSOCIATION; JAMES RUTLAND, PRESIDENT, LOWDER NEW HOMES, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; KHALIL
SHAHYD, SENIOR POLICY ADVOCATE, HEALTHY PEOPLE/THRIVING
COMMUNITIES, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND ROY WRIGHT,
PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS AND HOME SAFETY
STATEMENT OF ANICA LANDRENEAU
Ms. Landreneau. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
Graves, as well as members of the committee, for recognizing
the important role our built environment has to play in
providing a safe, resilient future for our country.
In order to leverage the opportunity we have in the
building sector, we need to reduce emissions from the built
environment by at least 50 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by
2050. We do this by addressing energy efficiency in new and
existing buildings, electrification, grid harmonization,
renewable energy, and embodied carbon.
New buildings and alterations to existing buildings are
subject to building codes, which have been developed since the
1800s to protect people and communities. Building codes are
updated in 3-year cycles by members of the building industry in
a public stakeholder engagement process.
And while model codes are updated every 3 years, they are
not adopted uniformly across the United States. There are 11
States with no statewide adoption or codes that predate the
2006 Commercial International Energy Conservation Code, or
IECC. In fact, nearly half the country is still on the 2009 or
an older energy code at the State level. Half the country is
building buildings that will consume energy for 60 or more
years on decade-old energy codes.
The U.S. is projected to construct 45 billion square feet
over the next decade. The first step is simply to bring all of
our States and cities up to the most current code.
Many jurisdictions do not advance the code more
consistently because they are challenged to maintain a
sufficient code enforcement workforce or funds for training to
address the new codes every 3 years. Analysis indicates $6 are
lost for every $1 we don't spend on code compliance.
Congress can provide assistance to jurisdictions who wish
to convert to an e-plan review process or leverage integrated
technology solutions to streamline permitting and inspections,
enabling better code enforcement for more consistent code
updates.
Congress can also incentivize jurisdictions by replicating
a highly successful program implemented under the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act that provided free training and
resources along with strong incentives for jurisdictions to
adopt the 2009 IECC.
I also serve on the 2021 IECC Commercial Development
Committee. That is up for a final vote in November, and it is
estimated to be 10 to 15 percent more efficient than the 2018
code.
In addition to cost-effective efficiency measures, it
includes a Zero Code appendix. This is built into the code
enforcement framework of the IECC but is voluntarily adopted by
jurisdictions and may be adjusted locally. The provisions
contained in the appendix only become mandatory when specified
as such in the jurisdictions adopting ordinance.
Congress can offer incentives to state and local
governments to increase the rate of adoption and encourage use
of the Zero Code appendix. Congress can link existing Federal
tax incentives to zero-energy and zero-carbon goals. Congress
can maintain and increase Federal tax incentives for renewable-
energy technologies, including storage.
A few cities and states are phasing in zero-energy and zero
building codes already, including Santa Monica, California;
Oregon; Washington, D.C.; and Cambridge, Massachusetts; among
others.
Energy codes address new construction and alteration
projects that require a permit. However, in most established
U.S. cities, 80 to 90 percent of the buildings that will be
consuming energy in 2050 already exist. Therefore, other
complementary policy solutions, such as transparency and
benchmarking, are required.
Transparency and benchmarking policies have been
implemented in over two dozen jurisdictions: Austin, Chicago,
Denver, Portland, Salt Lake City, and San Diego, just to name a
few. These policies encompass nearly 92,000 properties at 11
billion square feet of floor area reported every year, and,
through transparency alone, they are seeing an average of 4 to
13 percent improvement in energy efficiency.
Investment in energy efficiency is an investment in local
jobs. The city of Atlanta determined such investment returned
$41 in local benefits for every $1 invested, and they now
require commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet and larger
to report annual Energy Star scores and perform energy audits
every 10 years.
Once jurisdictions have created transparency
infrastructure, they may want to require buildings to take
additional steps beyond reporting. Washington, D.C., Washington
State, and New York City have already passed legislation to
address existing building performance standards, elevating
existing building performance through Energy Star, energy use
intensity, and greenhouse gas emissions per building type.
Congress can incentivize States and cities to adopt these
policies, particularly when they are linked to national
benchmarking platforms such as Energy Star Portfolio Manager.
Support could include co-funding of staff or providing
resources, tools, and training.
Local policy can serve as a laboratory for innovative
policy ideas that can be leveled up to State and eventually
Federal policy. Eighty-two percent of the U.S. population lives
in urban areas, and that number is growing. This growth in
migration means we will see investment in new construction as
well as reinvestment in our existing neighborhoods and
communities.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Landreneau follows:]
----------
Testimony of Anica Landreneau
Senior Principal, Director of Sustainable Design, HOK
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings
October 17, 2019
Thank you for recognizing the important role our built environment
has to play in meeting our climate goals and providing a safe,
resilient future for our country.
Why Buildings?
Buildings and construction account for approximately 40% of global
CO2 emissions.\1\ In order to leverage the opportunity we have in the
building sector to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement, we need to
reduce emissions from the built environment by at least 50% by 2030,
optimally 65% by 2030, and completely eliminate emissions from the
built environment by 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UN Environment Annual Report (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do this by addressing the operational efficiency in new and
existing building stock--targeting net zero or net positive
performance, electrification, grid harmonization, renewable energy
generation onsite and offsite, land use and development policies, as
well as the embodied carbon in our building materials.
Energy Performance in New Buildings and Alterations
New buildings and alterations to existing buildings are subject to
building codes through a permitting and inspections process. Building
codes are regulations for issues such as fire and life safety that have
been developed since the 1800s to protect people and communities.
In order to stay current and relevant, model building codes are
updated in 3-year cycles by volunteer code committees comprised of
members of the building industry, such as architects, engineers,
manufacturers, building industry associations and building code
officials. Anyone can submit code change proposals, code hearings are
public and live webcast, draft code changes are subject to public
comment and each new edition of the model code is ultimately voted on
by members of the codes council after a lengthy stakeholder engagement
process.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
From 2006 to 2012, model energy codes increased energy savings
potential by nearly 30%.\3\ While model codes are updated every three
years, they are not adopted uniformly across the US. There are 11
states with no statewide adoption or codes that predate the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In fact, nearly half the
country is still on the 2009 or an older energy code at the state
level.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://aceee.org/blog/2016/02/take-ride-energy-slide-building-
codes.
\3\ Assessment Methodology for Code Compliance in Medium to Large
Cities (NRDC, IMT; 2018).
\4\ http://bcapcodes.org/code-status/commercial/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half the country is constructing buildings that will consume energy
for 60 or more years on decade-old energy codes. Fortunately, cities
(or counties) are able to adopt more stringent energy codes than the
state level, and there are many instances where local code adoption has
significantly outpaced the state.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Standard/Code Cycle Equivalency
ASHRAE 90.1-2004 IECC 2006
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 IECC 2009
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 IECC 2012
ASHRAE 90.1-2013 IECC 2015
ASHRAE 90.1-2016 IECC 2018
ASHRAE 90.1-2018 IECC 2021*
*Final vote November 2019, publication 2020
The U.S. is projected to construct 45 billion square feet over the
next decade.\5\ One of the biggest opportunities and one of the
simplest solutions is to simply bring all of our states and cities up
to the most current energy codes so that this new building stock is as
efficient as possible for the next few generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't jurisdictions adopt the newest codes more regularly? Many
jurisdictions do not advance the code more consistently because they
are increasingly challenged to maintain sufficient code enforcement
staff to effectively provide services and to fund the training, tools,
and resources necessary to maintain skills let alone the capacity to
address new codes every three years.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Future of Code Officials: Results and Recommendations from
a Demographic Survey (NIBS, ICC; 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much does it cost to enforce the energy code?
A study conducted by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory found
the average cost of enforcing the energy code to be $139 per commercial
building and $49 per single-family home. These figures are based on a
survey of 23 local building departments with an average time to conduct
plan review and on-site inspections of five hours for commercial
projects and 1.9 hours for residential projects. The authors of the
study acknowledge that the cost estimates are only representative of
personnel time and are exclusive of overhead, benefits, or travel cost
(for on-site inspection), which could triple or quadruple the figures.
Larger cities with higher overhead and labor costs may need to spend
$400-$500 per new commercial building and $150-$200 per new single-
family residential home as the full cost of enforcing the energy code.
How much does it cost not to enforce the energy code?
The direct result for building owners of legacy energy codes or a
lack of code enforcement is higher utility bills. Analysis indicates
for every dollar invested in energy code compliance six dollars are
saved.\7\ That is six dollars lost for every dollar we don't spend on
code compliance. In addition to monetary savings, adoption of and
compliance with current energy code has many non-energy related
benefits such as improved occupant comfort, better indoor air quality,
and a more resilient building stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Assessment Methodology for Code Compliance in Medium to Large
Cities (NRDC, IMT; 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can Congress do?
Congress can provide resources to state and local governments in
many ways. Congress can provide assistance to jurisdictions who wish to
convert to an e-plan review process or to leverage integrated
technology solutions that work with Building Information Modeling (BIM)
design tools to facilitate virtual inspections through Augmented
Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR) or drone site visits, all of which
can streamline the permitting and inspection process and creates more
efficient use of staff resources, enabling better code enforcement
procedures and more consistent code updates.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Disruption, Evolution, and Change: AIA's vision for the future
of design and construction (AIA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can also incentivize jurisdictions to adopt the latest
codes by offering to co-fund staff or provide training for code
officials using the existing U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy
code training modules. There was a highly successful Federal program in
the wake of the last recession with the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act that provided free training and 2009 IECC code books
and workbooks along with strong incentives for all jurisdictions to
adopt the 2009 IECC.\9\ This incentive program is likely a major factor
leading 88% of the U.S. to at least be on the 2009 energy code or a
later edition now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://bcapcodes.org/topics/federal-funding/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are Outcome-Based Codes and why do they matter?
Ultimately if we want to meet our climate goals and advance our
buildings to zero carbon, our codes need to move away from component-
based prescriptive manuals and predictive energy models to outcome-
based codes.
Our current model code structure has limited potential impact on
overall energy use because it applies only to new construction, major
renovations, and installed building features. The efficiency of many of
these installed features is actually limited by Federal law.\10\ In
1975 Congress enacted the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
(NAECA) to set national standards for equipment like heaters, boilers
and rooftop air conditioners, but this legislation also disallows
states and other jurisdictions from setting more stringent local
standards on these products. The International Code Council (ICC), the
states, and or cities that adopt stretch energy codes, are still
strictly limited in how much efficiency they can achieve in the
products covered by NAECA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Federal Preemption as a Barrier to Cost Savings and High-
Performance in Local Codes (NBI, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, because of the robust (and lengthy) stakeholder
engagement process, codes are also slow to embrace new technologies or
materials, or innovative methods. A prescriptive code therefore by
definition isn't always keeping up with the latest available
technology, material or methods. A code enforcement official has some
leeway to interpret the code but may feel restricted by code language
and err on the side of excluding new means or methods.
More importantly, the energy code doesn't address operations,
maintenance, or occupant behavior that occurs after the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy and that will impact performance over the
lifecycle of a building.\11\ While a predicted performance compliance
path does exist in the current code structure, and energy simulation
tools and processes have become more seamlessly integrated into project
design and delivery, and the cost of energy modeling pays for itself in
well under a year of operational savings,\12\ simulation tools often
don't account for the wide variation in operations and maintenance,
occupant behavior or plug-loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Implementing an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy Codes
(NIBS, 2017).
\12\ Architect's Guide to Building Performance: Integrating
performance simulation in the design process (AIA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outcome-based codes establish a target energy use level or energy
allowance, then require measured and reported actual energy use in
relation to that target once the building is completed and occupied. At
a minimum, an outcome-based energy code requires 12 consecutive months
of post-occupancy performance within the allowed energy or carbon
budget, typically within the first 18-36 months of use to normalize for
weather and allow for commissioning. If the building doesn't meet
performance requirements, the builder or owner forfeits a financial
penalty.
Many jurisdictions do not have the personnel or fiscal resources to
adequately ensure compliance with energy requirements. By focusing on
the outcome, code officials and communities can be assured that
requirements are being met while not incurring additional enforcement
burdens. Outcome-based codes mean that there would be less reliance on
design documentation to obtain a permit, alleviating the pressure on a
diminishing code enforcement workforce and freeing that workforce up to
focus on building lifecycle performance policies such as transparency
(annual benchmarking) and building performance standards. Typically,
communities that are prepared for an outcome-based code already have
adopted public and commercial building benchmarking policies, thus
establishing an annual communication channel between building owner and
building performance oversight agency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Implementing an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy Codes
(NIBS, NBI; 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This simplification of the energy code would allow for more rapid
escalation of performance expectations without the burden of retraining
the entire code enforcement workforce every code cycle. It will also
link escalation design expectations to more rigorous oversight of
construction quality and ongoing performance optimization as an
integral part of operations and maintenance activities. The National
Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and New Building Institute NBI)
have provided energy code appendix language in the guide Implementing
an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy Codes to help jurisdictions
interested in moving towards an outcome-based code.
What can Congress do?
Congress can incentivize states and cities to be early adopters of
outcome-based codes by supporting the transition of staff and
permitting infrastructure, public education and engagement programs,
annual benchmarking and reporting infrastructure and the development of
shared tools and lessons learned.
Congress can also link existing Federal tax incentives to outcomes,
such as target Energy Use Intensity (EUI) metrics or Zero Energy and
Zero Carbon goals. By leveraging existing financial incentives but
tying them to outcome-based requirements, Congress not only uses its
buying power to reduce carbon emissions in the built environment but
also creates a replicable framework that smaller jurisdictions can
emulate and normalizes the expectation of performance outcomes.
Where is the model Energy Code now?
The proposed International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2021 has
concluded public comments and is up for final hearings in October and
final vote in November 2019. It is estimated the proposed model code is
approximately 10%-15% more efficient that the 2018 IECC. It includes
cost effective advances in enclosure efficiencies, lighting, building
commissioning and smart building operation infrastructure.
The 2021 model energy code includes a Zero Code appendix, a
platform that jurisdictions can opt into to incentivize or make
mandatory for certain building types or sizes to help them meet their
climate goals. As an appendix it is built into the code enforcement
framework of the IECC but is voluntarily adopted by jurisdictions and
could be adjusted locally to align with a step code or other local
programs. The provisions contained in this appendix will become
mandatory when specified as such in the jurisdiction's adopting
ordinance.
The Zero Code appendix to the 2021 IECC is constructed to require
that new commercial, institutional, and mid- to high-rise residential
buildings install or procure enough renewable energy to achieve zero
net carbon annually.\14\ The appendix encourages on-site renewable
energy systems when feasible but also supports off-site procurement of
renewable energy through a variety of methods. This appendix does not
allow renewable energy to be traded off against the energy efficiency
required by the 2021 IECC. Buildings are required to comply with the
2021 IECC using either the prescriptive or performance approach. When
the prescriptive approach is used, the renewable energy that must be
installed or procured is specified based on building type and climate
zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Understanding Code Change Proposal CE264-19 Zero Code
Renewable Energy Appendix (AIA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ZERO Code Renewable Energy Appendix is unique because of its:
1. Incorporation into the 2021 IECC, a highly efficient
national building energy code;
2. Availability of sophisticated easy-to-use code compliance
tools and software (developed by the U.S. Department of Energy)
such as COMcheck, EnergyPlus, and a multitude of private sector
energy performance programs;
3. Renewable energy default table and calculator for all US
locations that determines the renewable energy required and
estimates the potential on-site renewable energy production and
off-site renewable energy procurement needed to achieve zero
net carbon; and
4. Recognition of off-site renewable energy options that
result in renewable energy generation that exceeds what
utilities are already required to provide by their mandated
RPS.
Once the IECC 2021 model code is published Congress can offer
incentives to state and local governments to increase speed of adoption
and encourage use of the Zero Code appendix.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://architecture2030.org/wp-content/uploads/ZERO-Code-RE-
Appendix-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire draft 2021 energy code has been endorsed by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors \16\ as a key part of getting to net zero building
construction by 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ July 1, 2019 USCM Resolution 59.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Why do we need a Zero Code?
Zero Net Energy (ZNE) buildings are picking up momentum in the
market and the early adopters have shown that our industry has the
materials and technology available to complete 67 ZNE buildings and
have another 415 on the way.\17\ These projects are located in every
climate zone in the U.S. The majority of completed and verified ZNE
buildings (roughly 80%) are smaller than 25,000 square feet. However,
there are signs the market is ready to take on larger projects with
than 40% of projects registered as `emerging zero energy' at 50,000 sf
or larger. Advancing to a zero energy or zero carbon code, particularly
in jurisdictions with advanced climate policies who are ready to take
on the challenge, will move the market faster than waiting for
voluntary market adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Getting to Zero Status Update and List of Zero Energy Projects
(NBI, 2018).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Who is adopting Zero Codes and policies?
Many cities and a few states are already phasing in zero energy and
zero carbon building codes. For example (see timeline, following page):
The city of Santa Monica, CA started enforcing a
Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Code for single family and low-rise
residential buildings in 2017.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/
Green_Building/Energy_Reach_Code_and_ZNE.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California \19\ requires all new
residential construction to be ZNE by 2030, all new commercial
construction to be ZNE by 2030. California also addresses
existing buildings, requiring 50% of commercial buildings to be
retrofitted to ZNE by 2030, and 50% of renovations to state-
owned buildings to be ZNE by 2025%. 100% of state-owned
buildings by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ZNE/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Oregon \20\ requires state-owned
buildings to achieve carbon neutral operations starting in
2022. The residential code must be solar-ready starting in 2020
and Zero-Energy ready in 2023. In 2022, the commercial code
must be solar-ready, and parking structures, commercial or
residential, are required to install a minimum of 2 Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging stations. All new commercial and state-
owned buildings must be Net Zero by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Oregon State Climate Action EO No. 17-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Washington, DC \21\ the Clean Energy DC Omnibus
Act requires a Net Zero building code by 2026 and a net-zero
retrofit to at least 12.5% of its building stock by 2032. DC
currently has a voluntary ``Appendix Z'' to its proposed Energy
Code update awaiting final approval to go into effect in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/22-257.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge, MA \22\ has committed to be a Net Zero
community, requires all new buildings to be Net Zero by 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.cambridgema.gov/ cents/media/Images/
CDD/Climate/NetZero/netzero_20150408_infographic.jpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other cities that have signed on as part of a global
C40 Cities Net Zero Carbon Buildings Declaration \23\ to net
zero carbon new construction by 2030 and existing buildings by
2050 include Los Angeles, New York City, Portland, San
Francisco, Seattle, San Jose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.c40.org/other/net-zero-carbon-buildings-
declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
[EISA Sec. 433] requires New Federal buildings and Federal
buildings undergoing major renovations to reduce fossil fuel-
generated energy consumption (baseline 2003) by 80% (2020), 90%
(2025), and 100% (2030).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What can Congress do?
Congress can incentivize states and cities to be early adopters of
Zero Energy and Zero Carbon codes by supporting the staff and
permitting infrastructure, public education and engagement programs,
annual benchmarking and reporting infrastructure and the development of
shared tools and lessons learned.
Congress can also link existing Federal tax incentives to Zero
Energy and Zero Carbon goals. By leveraging existing financial
incentives but tying them to Zero Energy or Zero Carbon, Congress not
only uses its buying power to reduce carbon emissions in the built
environment but also creates a replicable framework that smaller
jurisdictions can emulate and normalizes the expectation of performance
outcomes.
Congress can maintain and increase Federal tax incentives for
Renewable Energy technologies, including storage. As more production
comes online, the ability to store energy and control how and when it
flows onto the grid will be critical to maintaining our infrastructure
and energy autonomy.
What do we need beyond Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to
achieve Zero Carbon buildings?
Energy efficiency and renewable energy are key components to
achieving a low carbon built environment. Another critical element is
the electrification of buildings. While Renewable Portfolio Standards
are addressing the combustion of fossil fuels at the utility level, we
must also address the consumption of fossil fuels on site at the
building and central plant. This means replacing fossil fuel-based
cooking, water heating, space heating and cooling equipment with
electric equipment in our codes for new construction and alterations,
as well as in our existing buildings through retrofits.
What can Congress do?
Congress can offer incentives for the replacement of fossil fuel-
based equipment, particularly water heaters, furnaces, boilers and
space heating/cooling equipment (i.e. heat pumps), or rebates to buy
down the cost premium for first-time installation of electric
equipment. Studies indicate regional state-led incentive programs \24\
have been successful to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/a1803.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating onsite combustion of fossil fuels can have co-benefits
such as improved safety, indoor air quality and grid flexibility.
In many cases natural gas or coal is used in large central plant
facilities serving multiple buildings, particularly at hospitals,
airports, universities and other campuses or networks that serve our
communities. Providing resources to help these facilities convert to
electric districts, renewable-ready districts and zero energy-ready
districts can help them to be more resilient and prepared for the
future.
What is the role of Existing Buildings and how do we get to them?
Building codes in many states don't address existing buildings. The
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) was created in 2003 and is
adopted in approximately half of the Unites States.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Role of Existing Building Codes in Safely, Cost-
Effectively Transforming the Nation's Building Stock (NIBS, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model energy code addresses new construction and planned
alterations projects that require a permit. The construction activity
triggers the code. Buildings with no planned construction activity are
not typically addressed by energy codes.
In most established U.S. cities, 80-90% of the buildings that will
be consuming energy in 2050 already exist. U.S. cities only see 1-2%
turnover (renovation or replacement) of building stock every year on
average. Even cities with a lot of construction activity, like
Washington, DC, still turn over less than 3% of building stock per
year. And yet, in cities, buildings represent on average 50-70% of GHG
emissions inventory. Buildings are the single largest opportunity to
meet climate goals. For example:
Boston, MA: buildings generate 75% of emissions \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/
boston_ghg_inventory_2005-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge, MA: buildings generate 65.8% of emissions
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/climateandenergy/
greenhousegasemissions/communityemissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL: buildings generate 53.7% of emissions
\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/progs/env/
GHG_Inventory/CityofChicago_2015_GHG_Emissions_Inventory_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis, MN: buildings generate 63% of emissions
\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/PriorFileDocument/-
63089/WCMSP-178225.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City, NY: buildings generate 71% of
emissions \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ http://www.nyc.gov/html/builttolast/assets/downloads/pdf/
OneCity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC: buildings generate 75% of emissions
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, building codes alone won't address the issue of
emissions in the built environment. Other complementary policy
solutions, such as energy transparency and benchmarking, as well as
building performance standards are required.
Transparency and Benchmarking Policies
Energy benchmarking and transparency ordinances are being adopted
by cities and states across the country, making publicly and privately-
owned building annual performance data available to jurisdictions and
the public. The performance of all buildings, whether newly constructed
or existing in place for decades, is the focus of the transparency
movement, as cities create data-driven market mechanisms and public
policies to support their climate commitments.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Leveraging Energy Transparency (AIA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency and benchmarking policies have been implemented in
over two dozen jurisdictions,\33\ including cities, counties and
states, such as: \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://www.imt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IMT-
Benchmarking-Map-CityCountyState-CURRENT-062019.jpg.
\34\ https://www.building rating.org/graphic/us-commercial-
building-policy-comparison-matrix.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
40% of the United States are represented with benchmarking and
transparency policies at city, county or state level, indicating the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
widespread appeal.
These policies encompass nearly 92,000 properties \35\ at 11
billion square feet of floor area \36\ reported every year. Through
transparency alone these cities are seeing an average of 4-13% energy
improvement in their existing building stock. Just starting to use the
benchmarking and reporting tools, such as EnergyStar Portfolio Manager,
shining a light on building performance, and introducing a comparative
metric has already inspired improved operations and maintenance as well
as investment in energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://www.buildingrating.org/graphic/us-number-properties-
covered-annually.
\36\ https://www.buildingrating.org/graphic/us-building-area-
covered-annually.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The economic impact of investments in Energy Efficiency
Investment in Energy Efficiency is investment in local jobs and the
local economy. Building improvements focused on improved energy
efficiency in existing building stock cannot be shipped overseas. They
are labor intensive and site-specific projects, driving the creation of
local jobs in construction, renovation, installation, operations and
maintenance.\37\ According to the 2019 U.S. Energy and Employment
Report, Energy Efficiency produced more new jobs in the United States
in 2018 than any other energy sector, and accounted for more than 2.3
million jobs overall, as compared with about 534,000 in renewable
energy and about 200,000 in coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Energy Efficiency in Buildings: the key to Effective and
Equitable Clean Energy Action for Cities (IMT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency and benchmarking policies encourage the private sector
to invest in energy efficiency projects. Building owners want to
maintain Class ratings for their portfolio and remain competitive in
the real estate market. In order to get to 100% clean energy by 2035,
the City of Atlanta determined that an approach including investment in
energy efficiency would return $41 in local benefits for every $1
invested.\38\ The City of Atlanta now requires commercial buildings
25,000 square feet and larger to report annual EnergyStar scores and
perform energy audits every 10 years.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Clean Energy Atlanta, Resolution No. 17-R-3510 (2017).
\39\ https://atlantabuildingbenchmarking.files.wordpress.com/2019/
02/nrdc_100ce_plan_021319_v8_low-res.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can Congress do?
Congress can incentivize states and cities to adopt transparency
and benchmarking policies, by co-funding staff or providing resources
and tools, particularly when policies are linked to a national
benchmarking platform such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) EnergyStar Portfolio Manager tool. Congress can ensure EnergyStar
Portfolio Manager remains relevant by maintaining funding for the
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey which populates the
database on the backend.
Congress can leverage the National Laboratories and the U.S.
Department of Energy Building Technologies Office (BTO) to provide
demonstration and field validation of advanced technologies so that
American businesses may foster innovative solutions to our building
energy challenges, these technologies may become shelf-ready and cost-
competitive, and building owners may confidently employ these
technologies in existing buildings to improve their performance.
Congress can also incentivize building owners by providing
financial incentives (tax incentives or rebates) for energy audits,
retro-commissioning, deep green retrofits, systems or component
replacement, and building operator training programs.
Building Performance Standards
Once jurisdictions have established transparency and benchmarking
infrastructure with its annual communication channels between building
owners and a building performance oversight agency, it is easier to put
a building performance standard into place. Cities may want to require
building owners to take additional steps beyond just reporting
performance such as improving buildings that exceed energy- or water-
consumption thresholds or fall below peer building EnergyStar scores.
There are a small number of jurisdictions that have already passed
building performance standards, but many more are looking at similar
policies to address their existing building stock. The next most likely
jurisdictions to pass similar policies will be those with existing
transparency and benchmarking policies already in effect.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Clean Energy DC Plan \40\ establishes a clear path to achieve
over 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2032. Savings from new Net Zero
buildings are estimated to comprise 10% of the District's GHG emissions
reduction plan and savings from existing building retrofits are
estimated to comprise 20% of the District's GHG emissions reduction
plan (see Targeted Action Areas).
\40\ https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/
page_content/attachments/Clean%20Energy%20DC%20-%20Full%20Report_0.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In order to realize the GHG emissions reduction articulated in the
Clean Energy DC Plan, in 2018 Washington, DC passed the Clean Energy DC
Omnibus Amendment Act \41\ reducing benchmarking requirements to all
buildings 10,000 square feet or larger (public and private owned) and
creating a Building Energy Performance Standard (BEPS) to address the
ongoing lifecycle performance of its existing building stock. Starting
in 2021, buildings must meet the BEPS (which can be no lower than the
local median EnergyStar score for each building type), or owners will
have five years to bring the building into compliance through:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/22-257.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) Prescriptive Compliance Path: a set of previously
identified measures, such as commissioning, energy audits,
boiler replacement, lighting retrofits, roof replacement,
building operator training, calculated to approximate 20%
performance improvement. These prescriptive measures will vary
by building type, as the measures will have varying levels of
impact based on the load profiles of each building type. This
option leaves nothing to chance--if the owner is able to
document in year five proof that the required activities were
conducted, and that equipment or systems were purchased and
installed, the building will be deemed in compliance for that
BEPS cycle. However if the building's EnergyStar score is still
below the local median for its building type in year five
(baseline year for the next BEPS cycle), it will be required to
repeat the prescriptive compliance path or to look at another
compliance path for the next BEPS cycle.
b) Performance Compliance Path: a 20% improvement in building
performance calculated by evaluating performance in year five
against performance in the baseline year. This path allows
building owners to work with their consultants to evaluate
different options and identify the best path forward for that
building. Owners may choose to leverage energy modeling tools
to evaluate different design options and quantify their
potential impact on building energy savings as well as project
simple payback. This option may work well for owners already
considering or planning to undertake building renovation or
repositioning projects, into which energy efficiency upgrades
can be folded in. It also gives the owner more flexibility and
choice. It is less predictable and requires the projects to be
undertaken and completed sufficiently early in the cycle for
the savings to be realized by the completion of year five so
that the 20% performance improvement can be documented. If the
owner is able to document in year five proof that the building
has improved by at least 20% from its baseline year, the
building will be deemed in compliance for that BEPS cycle.
However if the building's EnergyStar score is still below the
local median for its building type in year five (baseline year
for the next BEPS cycle), it will be required to repeat the
performance compliance path or to look at another compliance
path for the next BEPS cycle.
c) Alternative Compliance Path: the DC Department of Energy
and Environment (DOEE) is tasked by the Act to develop
alternative compliance pathways. These may include third party
green building certifications or ratings, such as BREEAM In-
Use, LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance,
EnergyStar, WELL or others. The alternative compliance path may
allow for some combination of portfolio trade-offs for multiple
building or large real estate portfolio owners, or even
tradeable credits between building owners, with a combination
of on-site and offsite efficiency improvements or on-site and
offsite renewable energy generation. A similar construct exists
now with tradeable stormwater credits, requiring buildings to
meet at least 50% of their stormwater obligations onsite but
allowing the remainder to be treated offsite so long as that
treatment remains within the District. This alternative pathway
has not yet been defined but will be developed in further
detail by the DOEE and the BEPS Task Force, comprised of local
building industry stakeholders.
The distinguishing characteristic of Washington, DC's building
performance standard is that it is on a five-year cycle, and
benchmarked against a local median EnergyStar score, which by
definition will rise over time as new high performance and net zero
buildings come on line (Net Zero Building Code required for new
construction in 2026) and the existing building stock improves in its
energy performance. Building owners can be impacted in consecutive BEPS
cycles, so careful consideration will need to be taken into determining
whether incremental building performance improvement is the right path,
or deep green retrofits that position a building well ahead of the
median to leapfrog over the next few BEPS cycles is the better way to
go. This decision may depend on existing tenant lease agreements,
financing options and how recently the building has undergone
renovation.
With EnergyStar scores, based on a percentile, higher is better.
Therefore, the standard is in and of itself a self-improving threshold
or benchmark. It will automatically rise over time, and the five-year
cycle will generate economic activity in the construction industry, as
well as investment in buildings, neighborhoods, communities and
infrastructure that improve quality of life for all residents, and
encourage infill development and growth in the District as the built
environment and services improve. The Act provides other pathways for
addressing the improvement in performance of Affordable Housing stock
and allows for flexibility in compliance with the BEPS in order to
avoid unintended consequences with displacement of low-income
residents.
The Act provides funding for the newly establish Green Bank, a
revolving green fund intended to help finance energy efficiency
projects in the District, complementing DC Pace Bonds, the DC
Sustainable Energy Utility and DC Solar for All programs that provide
alternative financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects (in addition to private capital). If buildings failing to
comply with the building energy performance requirements at the end of
the 5-year compliance period shall pay an alternative compliance
penalty established by DOEE.
The Act additionally calls for a 100% Renewable Portfolio Standard
by 2032 and an electrification of fleet vehicles, integral parts of
decarbonizing the grid and bringing additional storage capacity to
improve building and grid flexibility.
The Act also establishes a Sustainable Energy Infrastructure
Capacity Building and Pipeline Program with the purpose of increasing
the participation and capacity of certified business enterprises,
directing the Office of Contracting and Procurement to includes
Certified Business Enterprise utilization as an evaluation factor when
shortlisting and selecting businesses for professional services and
when selecting contractors in best value procurements with a contract
value of more than $250,000.
In Washington, DC, buildings represent 75% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(2016): \42\
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\42\ https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories.
Washington State determined efficiency to be the `largest,
cheapest, lowest risk energy resource' and that `with an aggressive new
energy efficiency policy the region can potentially meet 100 percent of
its electricity load growth over the next twenty years with energy
efficiency.' A 2017 report documented that energy efficiency programs
in the state had created 65,000 jobs, primarily in the construction
sector, and that the number is continuing to grow. In 2019, Washington
State passed House Bill 1257 \43\ that requires a building performance
standard go into effect between 2026 and 2029, affecting buildings
50,000 square feet and larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/
House%20Passed%20Legislature/1257-S3.PL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard shall establish Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets by
building type, require energy management plans, operations and
maintenance programs, energy efficiency audits, investment in energy
efficiency measures and shall be developed based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES
standard 100-2018. The standard must be updated every five years. In
contrast to EnergyStar scores which are based on a percentile, Energy
Use Intensity is a measurement of total annual energy use over the
course of a year, divided by building area. It is often depicted in
British thermal units per square foot per year (kBtu/sf/yr) or kilowatt
hours per square foot per year (kWh/sf/yr). Therefore, when it comes to
EUI, lower is better.
The EUI targets can be no greater than the average EUI for building
occupancy type, and may implement lower EUI targets for more recently
built commercial buildings based on the state energy code in place when
the buildings were constructed. Therefore, older building stock must be
brought up to at least average performance and newer building stock may
be held to a higher performance standard. The standard may become
higher more stringent over time, assuming the average EUI improves
(lowers) with the addition of new building stock and the improvement of
energy performance in existing building stock. The standard for more
recently constructed buildings is not necessarily self-improving, as it
requires consideration and manual calibration, but it is clear the
legislative intent is that this standard keep pace ahead of the
building code as well.
Buildings falling short of the performance standard must implement
energy efficiency measures identified by energy audits to achieve its
energy use intensity target. The bill requires investment criteria be
developed that requires a building owner to adopt an implementation
plan to either:
a) Meet the energy intensity target
b) Implement an optimized bundle of energy efficiency
measures that provides maximum energy savings without resulting
in a savings-to-investment ratio of less than 1.0
Administrative penalties may be imposed upon a building owner for
failing to submit documentation demonstrating compliance. The penalty
may not exceed an amount equal to five thousand dollars plus an amount
based on the duration of any continuing violation (may not exceed one
dollar per year per gross square foot of floor area). Administrative
penalties collected must be deposited into the low-income
weatherization and structural rehabilitation assistance account.
The state is required to develop an incentive program for early
adoption and for buildings whose baseline EUI exceeds its target by at
least fifteen EUI units (i.e. it is 15 units lower than the target
EUI). The incentive is eighty-five cents per gross square foot of floor
area, excluding parking, unconditioned, or semi-conditioned spaces
(such as mechanical rooms or penthouses).
The bill also requires that the building code council adopt rules
for vehicle charging capability at all new buildings that provide on-
site parking. Where parking is provided, the greater of one parking
space or ten percent of parking spaces, rounded to the next whole
number, must be provided. Electric vehicles are integral parts of
decarbonizing the grid and bringing additional storage capacity to
improve building and grid flexibility.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 7: Washington Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3 year average (2013-
2015)
In 2015, Washington's largest contributors of greenhouse gases
were: \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ublications/documents/1802043.pdf.
Transportation sector at 42.5%
Residential, commercial, and industrial sector at
21.3%
Electricity sector at 19.5%
Buildings make up 71% of GHG emissions in New York City.\45\ Energy
consumption from electricity use, heating, and cooling all contribute.
Building owners and managers can improve energy efficiency of building
systems and operations and invest in cleaner on-site power generation.
They can also support market growth for renewables through power
purchase agreements and other mechanisms to procure cleaner energy that
is generated off-site. Building tenants and occupants can reduce their
energy consumption, which accounts for 40-60% of a building's energy
use. Emissions from the city's power supply can be reduced by power
suppliers switching to cleaner energy sources, and by fuel distributors
offering low-carbon fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ http://www.nyc.gov/html/builttolast/assets/downloads/pdf/
OneCity.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 2019, New York City passed the Climate Mobilization Act,
including Bill 1253 which sets emissions caps on buildings over 25,000
square feet and establishes an Office of Building Energy and Emissions
Performance. The bill sets one standard to go into effect between 2024-
2029 and a more stringent standard to go into effect in 2030.
The limits are calculated to require emissions reductions from the
highest emitting 20% of buildings in each occupancy group for the first
compliance date beginning in 2024, and the highest emitting 75% of
buildings in each occupancy group for the second compliance date
beginning in 2030.
The Bill includes prescriptive performance improvement requirements
for rent-controlled/rent-regulated housing units in order to prevent
the legislation from displacing low- residents or increasing the cost
of their housing.
The Bill establishes a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
program in the City. PACE is a voluntary financing mechanism that
enables energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to receive
long-term financing for little or no money down. Further, debt service
is generally limited to the amount of money saved through the resulting
reductions in energy use. Typically PACE financing is tied to property
title rather than individual or company so that if a building transfers
ownership before the completion of the payback period of an energy
efficiency project, the new owner of the building continues to pay off
the PACE bond.
Specific emissions limits for each building occupancy type in
calendar years 2035-2050 have yet to be established, but the end goal
by 2050 has been defined: annual building emissions limits and building
emissions intensity limits applicable for calendar years 2035 through
2039 and building emissions limits and building emissions intensity
limits applicable for calendar years 2040 through 2049 shall be set to
achieve an average building emissions intensity for all covered
buildings of no more than 0.0014 tCO2e/sf/yr by 2050.
On and after January 1, 2050 building emissions limits and building
emissions intensity limits shall achieve an average building emissions
intensity for all covered buildings of no more than 0.0014 tCO2e/sf/yr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What distinguishes this legislation is that is does explicitly
allow for renewable energy credits (RECs), greenhouse gas offsets, or
clean distributed energy resources. To be eligible, the source of the
renewable energy credits must be considered by the New York independent
system operator to be a capacity resource located in or directly
deliverable into zone J load zone for the reporting calendar year. For
calendar years 2024-2029, a greenhouse gas offset can only be
authorized for up to 10 percent of the annual building emissions limit.
For calendar years 2024-2029, a greenhouse gas deduction can only be
authorized based upon the calculated output of a clean distributed
energy resource located at, on, in, or directly connected to the
building.
The Act also included Bill 1318, which requires a feasibility
assessment of replacing the City's gas-fired power plants with battery
storage powered by renewable energy sources, as well as Bills 276 and
1032 which equip the roofs of smaller new residential buildings and
non-residential buildings with solar photovoltaic systems or green
roofs.
The bill acknowledges that of these use groups, hospitals have the
highest GHG emissions per square foot in New York City, but that by law
hospitals are required to maintain certain ventilation and exhaust
rates, which is energy intensive. In addition, plug loads for mission-
specific equipment such as MRIs also contribute to high energy demand.
Therefore, the bill includes provisions to ensure hospitals reduce
emissions without impeding their mission.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
New York City's average GHG emissions intensity by building use type
What can Congress do?
Congress can incentivize states and cities to adopt Building
Performance Standards, particularly when policies are linked to a
national benchmarking platform such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) EnergyStar Portfolio Manager tool. Support may
include co-funding staff or providing resources, tools and training for
jurisdictions.
Congress can continue to support the development and improvement of
energy simulation tools that aid building owners in making financial
investment decisions, as well as EPA EnergyStar Portfolio Manager
platform, and ensure it remains relevant by maintaining funding for the
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey which populates the
database on the backend.
Congress can leverage the National Laboratories and the U.S.
Department of Energy Building Technologies Office (BTO) to provide
demonstration and field validation of advanced technologies so that
American businesses may foster innovative solutions to our building
energy challenges, these technologies may become shelf-ready and cost-
competitive, and building owners may confidently employ these
technologies in existing buildings to improve their performance.
Congress can also incentivize building owners by providing
financial incentives (tax incentives or rebates) for energy audits,
retro-commissioning, deep green retrofits, systems or component
replacement, and building operator training programs.
Why should Congress Incentivize Local Policy?
Why is there such an emphasis on local policies and programs? Local
policy can often be the most nimble and serve as a laboratory for
innovative ideas that--once tested and proven at the local level, can
be leveled up to state and eventually Federal policy. Local leadership
is also where we see the most ambitious and sustained commitment to
climate policy.
82% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas \46\--and the
number is growing. This growth and migration to cities means we will
see investment in new construction as well as reinvestment in our
existing neighborhoods and communities. More buildings could
potentially mean more demand for energy but also more opportunity for
density, transit-oriented development, as well as healthy, walkable and
resilient cities, and transformation of our existing building stock and
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ UN World Urbanization prospects (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cities and urban counties are the loci for 85% of our Gross
Domestic Product.\47\ This means they are the center of economic
activity and commerce. Catalyzing local policies with Federal
incentives and resources can normalize low- and zero-carbon development
patterns, reducing market barriers and establishing a template for any
city, town, county or state that wants to focus on resource efficiency,
mitigation, resiliency, economic revitalization, jobs, equity and
community redevelopment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ www.bea.gov.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What can the Federal Government do with its own portfolio?
Some Federal projects are procured through a Design-Bid-Build
process. In this process, the Federal government describes the program
(scope of work) and hires an architect (and its team of consultants) to
design a building or project, and the design is ultimately translated
into construction documents and issued for bid so that it can be
awarded to a contractor for construction. The architect is typically
contracted through a qualifications-based selection process, and
performance metrics can be integrated into the contract documents to
ensure the contractors are bidding on minimum performance requirements.
Starting in 2006, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
started requiring a minimum level of LEED Silver certification for
Federally owned buildings. In 2010 this was increased to a minimum
level of LEED Gold. Request for Proposal (RFP) documents or contracts
do not typically reference project-specific performance metrics such as
energy use intensity (EUI), water consumption or greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The default is usually to rely on Executive Orders and the
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) to define those targets
generally, however these performance expectations are not contractually
binding if they are determined not to be cost effective' and energy
efficiency, water efficiency, reduced carbon emissions or renewable
energy generation can be excluded from a project with the intent of
managing project costs.
Some Federal projects are procured through a lease-back process
where the Federal government issues a Request for Lease Proposals,
issues its requirements relative to location, tenant area, amenities,
rental rates, and other selection criteria. The private sector competes
in a design competition to win and build a project that will be leased
back to a government tenant. This allows the Federal government to move
into new buildings that are built to suit' without having to provide
the capital for construction. The lease agreements are usually for 10-
year increments and can be renewed at the end of the agreement. These
buildings are often good investment vehicles for real estate investment
trusts. Historically, a Request for Lease Proposals (formerly
Solicitation for Offers) will include requirements that the base
building be certified LEED Silver or EnergyStar rated and that the
tenant fitout be consistent with LEED Silver as well as specific LEED
credit criteria. Under the current Executive Order 13834 \48\ base
building requirements for sustainability criteria or certifications
have been omitted from solicitations for lease proposals as these
requirements have been deemed unnecessary for lease agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/22/2018-
11101/efficient-federal-operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Federal projects are procured through a Design-Build
contracting method, where the project will be directly awarded to a
general contractor with a proposed design, and the Federal government
is seeking a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). This is usually
precipitated by the Federal government hiring a design firm to create a
set of Bridging Documents, or a preliminary design, in order to get
funding approval from Congress. This preliminary design defines the
criteria of the Design-Build contract. But not all Design-Build
contracts begin with Bridging documents. Contractors partner with a
design team to develop the design enough to put together a cost
estimate and submit a GMP. Although Design-Build contracts are
evaluated and weighted based on many factors, including design and
sustainability, the most heavily weighted factor is always price. The
proposal with the lowest price is most likely to win. This encourages
teams to propose a design that meets the minimum performance
requirements rather than a design that meets the Federal government's
climate goals.
What can Congress do to improve its procurement process?
Congress can direct the Federal government to explicitly include
project-specific and binding performance metrics in design and
construction contracts, such as Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets,
reduction in water use (from EPAct 1992 baseline), reduction in fossil
fuel consumption, reduction in GHG emissions, onsite renewable energy
generation, Lighting Power Density (LPD), spatial daylight autonomy
(sDA), or embodied carbon (GWP). These should be benchmarked at each
stage of the design, included in the construction bid and any changes
in the Value Engineering process should have to be cross checked
against these metrics. Contractors already forfeit penalties for
projects that are delivered over schedule. Performance metrics will
continue to be eroded in the Value Engineering process unless they are
tied to end of project contract expectations.
Congress can direct the Federal government to explicitly include
performance metrics in solicitation for lease proposals, such as Zero
Energy buildings, Zero Carbon buildings, Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
targets, reduction in water use (from EPAct 1992 baseline), reduction
in fossil fuel consumption, reduction in GHG emissions, onsite
renewable energy generation, Lighting Power Density (LPD), spatial
daylight autonomy (sDA), or low embodied carbon (GWP). If these
characteristics are prioritized in the selection process, it will
incentivize the private sector to invest in advanced building
technology. When the Federal government required LEED Silver in its
lease agreements, it became the new default for commercial office
buildings seeking Federal tenants. Furthermore, most developers went
beyond LEED Silver to achieve LEED Gold or Platinum certification for
their buildings. Expressing a preference or placing value on a
characteristic sends a signal to the market.
Congress can direct the Federal government to solicit stepped
design options and fees in Design-Build proposals. For example, the
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) section 433 requires a
reduction in fossil fuel consumption in buildings by 80% in 2020, 90%
in 2025 and 100% in 2030.\49\ A project team might be able to show a
pathway to zero fossil fuels and zero carbon emissions by 2030, but if
the team can only submit a single project price and feels it would not
win the project unless it submits the lowest price, then it will not be
incentivized to show the lowest carbon solution. It is possible to
design a project so efficiently that the design becomes reductive
rather than additive. Peak loads are reduced through orientation,
massing, a high-performance envelope and the result is a reduction in
HVAC system sizing. A low carbon or zero carbon design might not carry
as high of a cost premium or as long of a payback timeframe as
anticipated. Solicitations should provide bidders with an opportunity
to demonstrate a lowest price option (often the least performance
option as well) as well as stepped packages that offer progress towards
the Federal carbon reduction goals and the pricing of those packages.
If a Zero Carbon design could be offered at a very nominal premium and
with <10 year payback, procurement officers should have an opportunity
to evaluate that option in concert with the lowest cost/lowest
performance options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ [EISA Sec. 433]: New Federal buildings and Federal buildings
undergoing major renovations shall reduce their fossil fuel-generated
energy consumption (baseline 2003) by 55% (2010), 65% (2015), 80%
(2020), 90% (2025), and 100% (2030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment in high performance buildings has proven to have payback
that benefits American taxpayers. GSA inventoried its portfolio and
determined \50\ that operating expenses in high performance buildings
cost 10% less per square foot to operate than industry benchmarks and
23% less per square foot to operate than other Federal buildings
(legacy stock).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The Impact of High-Performance Buildings (GSA, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress makes decisions about the priorities for buildings it
constructs, leases or retrofits. Expressing a preference or placing
value on a characteristic sends a signal to the market. If the
investments Congress makes with tax dollars prioritize low carbon and
carbon neutral projects, then Congress has established value and
created demand. The economy is a social construct that we create
through policy and priorities; matter and energy, carbon and currency
exist within the larger ecosystem and are subject to its constraints.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``The Government's economic decision-making tools should be used in
a manner that supports environmentally and socially responsible
operations in programs and major acquisitions extending into the future
. . . Tools and policies must support sustainable government
operations, so that we can make the most preferable environmental and
social choice when purchasing goods and services.''
``The traditional economic paradigm upon which our financial
decision-making is based . . . assumes that the economy functions
independent of the natural world, with the environment as a subset of
no value except as a source of resources and a ``sink'' for wastes
(Figure 2). Social inputs beyond labor costs are not considered at
all.'
``The new ecological economic paradigm nests the economy within the
environment, rather than independent of it. And, rather than
shortchanging the role of society, as in the traditional economic
model, this paradigm defines the economy as a construct of society that
moves goods and services (matter and energy) through it while
determining what has value and is economically viable (Figure 4). In
this paradigm, solar energy sustains the ecosystem, whose products are
used as factors of economic production. The economy then sends its
wastes back into the ecosystem, to be broken down by natural processes.
The economy can only be sustained if there are healthy societies,
living in healthy ecosystems that furnish renewable resources and
assimilate wastes.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
2009_New_Sustainable_Frontier_Complete_Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of High-Performance Federal Projects in HOK's Portfolio
HOK has designed tens of millions of square feet of building space
for the Federal government, including New Construction projects,
Adaptive Reuse, and Deep Green Retrofits.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NASA Building 20 in Clear Lake, TX (LEED Platinum) 83,205 sq. feet.
Primarily open office environment with access to daylight and views.
Measures include a highly efficient building envelope, underfloor air
distribution, a total energy recovery wheel and solar hot water
harvesting supplying 18% of the building's domestic hot water
consumption. The project was designed to be 57% more energy efficient
than a similar office building, with gross square footage 6% below
program.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NOAA Daniel K. Inouye Regional Center at Pearl Harbor, HI (LEED
Gold, AIA COTE Top 10) 350,000 sq. feet. Located on a national historic
landmark site on Oahu's Ford Island, NOAA's Inouye Regional Center
features the adaptive reuse of two World War II-era airplane hangars
linked by a new steel and glass building. The new complex houses a
diverse range of critical programs, functions and Federal departments,
including the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. The facility has a
comprehensive skylight diffuser system that virtually eliminates the
need for artificial light during the day and Hawaii's first hydronic
passive cooling unit (PCU) system which uses cold water drawn from a
deep sea well to cool air before it is distributed through an
underfloor air system. Combined these systems contribute to 42% energy
use savings compared to a similarly programmed facility. A graywater
system irrigates the native landscaping.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters at St. Elizabeths West Campus in
Washington, DC (LEED Gold) 1.2 million sq. feet. HOK provided landscape
architecture, sustainable design and interior design services for the
Coast Guard. HOK's design for the step-down courtyards, edges and green
roofs provides continuity between the surrounding woodlands and an
adjacent historic government campus. Rainwater that falls onto the
green roofs permeates through the plant roots and soil and into a
drainage system that leads to a stormwater pond for reuse in
irrigation. Advanced HVAC system, lighting controls and high-
performance enclosure contributed to 33% energy use savings compared to
a typical office building.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Byron Rogers Federal Building and Courthouse in Denver, CO (LEED
Gold) 494,156 sq. feet. Due to its age and condition, the 18-story
project was selected to receive funding for a complete remodel through
the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). GSA received
additional ARRA funding to incorporate then emerging energy-efficiency
technologies such as LED lighting into the design. The building
underwent deep green retrofits to enclosure, HVAC, lighting and
plumbing systems. GSA articulated a performance requirement in the
contract (Target: 39.1 kBtu/sf/yr). The Federal building renovation
contributed to the combined 46% EUI reduction of the Federal building
and courthouse (former combined site EUI 79.1 kBtu/sf/yr, post-
renovation EUI 42.5 kBtu/sf/yr).
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KARA SAUL RINALDI
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify here today. I am pleased to represent the Building
Performance Association.
Addressing climate change is critical to our future. In
fact, I brought a piece of that future with me here today. My
daughter, Annabella, and son, Dylan, are sitting in the
audience behind me.
Ms. Castor. Would you all stand up?
Mr. Graves. Are you supposed to be in school?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. They got a pass, just for today--just the
morning.
While buildings are a significant contributor to our
climate crisis, they can also be a key part of the solution.
Policies aimed at retrofitting the over 115 million homes
across the country will not only help reduce carbon emissions
from the Nation's residential building stock but will also help
homeowners save money on their monthly utility bills and
improve the comfort, health, safety, and resiliency of their
homes.
Ultimately, the cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy
you don't use in the first place. The residential building
sector remains an untapped resource of carbon-reduction goals.
A new report from ACEEE found that energy efficiency alone can
cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2050.
Buildings deliver 33 percent of the total emissions from that
model.
But simply put, energy efficiency creates jobs. According
to this year's ``Energy Efficiency Jobs in America'' report
released by E4TheFuture and submitted with this testimony, the
energy-efficiency sector employs 2.3 million Americans, twice
as many workers as the entire U.S. fossil fuel industry, and
energy efficiency is leading the Nation's energy economy in new
job creation, accounting for half of the entire energy industry
job growth in 2018.
These local, family-sustaining jobs exist all across the
country. In fact, the report found that 99.7 percent of U.S.
counties have energy-efficiency jobs, and more than 300,000 of
these jobs are in rural areas.
A significant portion of energy-efficiency jobs in the U.S.
are in the residential sector, and approximately 56 percent of
energy-efficiency jobs involve construction and repair. These
are the contractors, the boots on the ground, installing
energy-efficiency products and technologies and working to
reduce energy waste in homes and commercial buildings across
the country.
Importantly, policies that provide incentives for building
efficiency retrofit, such as the HOMES Act, H.R. 2043, or tax
policy like the 25C tax credit or 179D tax deduction, or
legislation that supports valuing energy efficiency like the
SAVE Act, which is a part of H.R. 3962, create a ripple effect
on jobs. Demand for insulation, air sealing, and high-
efficiency HVAC will not only create work for those who install
these products but will also create jobs in manufacturing and
distributing of those technologies. These create jobs around
the industrial centers where workers eat, shop, and live.
It is also important to note that the energy-efficiency
industry is comprised of mainly small businesses. Eighty
percent of energy-efficiency businesses in America have fewer
than 20 employees.
These small businesses need resources to help train new
hires and provide ongoing education to existing employees,
keeping them up to date on certifications and training in the
latest energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies. We
recommend Congress pass the Blue Collar to Green Collar Jobs
Development Act, H.R. 1315, which would provide a
comprehensive, nationwide program to improve energy-efficiency
and renewable-energy training.
In addressing climate change, policymakers must look at
buildings as an integral part of the grid. Buildings not only
use energy but they can generate clean power, store energy, and
shift demand from times of high cost and strain on resources to
times when wind and solar power are abundant and energy is
cheapest.
I am the lead author of a new report on grid-interactive
efficient buildings, released today by the National Association
of State Energy Officials, that describes how homes with
energy-efficiency measures combined with smart technologies and
small-scale storage and generation resources can support grid
needs and achieve carbon reductions while benefiting consumers.
This report includes policy recommendations, and I have
submitted the report with my testimony.
With the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, I
must emphasize the important climate role this body has to
advance energy-efficiency research, development, and deployment
in the appropriations process. Dollar for dollar, Federal
investment in energy efficiency creates more jobs than
investments in the utilities sector or fossil fuels. And
Federal investments in DOE programs that support energy
efficiency, like the Building Technologies Office and
Weatherization Assistance Program, lead to job creation and
carbon reductions.
In closing, I thank you, and I ask that you consider the
buildings you live and work in as a part of the solution to
climate change. The built environment is one of the largest
consumers of energy and, thus, emitters of greenhouse gas
emissions.
With energy policy and program innovation in the building
sector, we can reduce the need for new power plants, deliver
more reliable energy services at lower cost, all while making
homes like the ones Annabella, Dylan, and their children will
live in healthier and more comfortable places to live.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Saul Rinaldi follows:]
----------
Testimony of Kara Saul Rinaldi
Vice President of Government Affairs, Policy, and Programs, Building
Performance Association
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger buildings
October 17, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today on the important role that
buildings can play in reducing America's contribution to global climate
change. As you may know, the buildings sector is responsible for 31% of
all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.\1\ While buildings are a significant
contributor to our climate crisis, they can also be a key part of the
solution. I will discuss commercial and federal buildings but will
focus in particular on how the residential sector is key to carbon
reductions and achieving numerous other benefits. Policies aimed at
retrofitting the over 115 million homes across the country will not
only help reduce carbon emissions from the nation's residential
building stock but will also help homeowners save money on their
monthly utility bills and improve the comfort, health, safety, and
resiliency of their homes. Advancing energy efficiency in buildings
across the U.S. will support climate change mitigation and resilience,
while also being an engine for job growth and economic opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/
us-ghg-inventory-2019-main-text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am President and CEO of the AnnDyl Policy Group, an energy and
environmental policy strategy firm, and I serve as the Vice President
of Government Affairs, Policy, and Programs for the Building
Performance Association (BPA), formerly known as the Home Performance
Coalition, a national non-profit 501c3 organization that works with
industry leaders in the home performance and weatherization industries
to advance energy-efficient, healthy and safe homes retrofit policies,
programs and standards through research, education, training and
outreach. I am pleased to represent BPA here today.
Energy Efficient Buildings are a Pathway to Deep Decarbonization
There is significant opportunity to decarbonize the buildings
sector by adopting policies that advance energy efficiency. Energy
efficiency is a critical pathway to achieving deep decarbonization
because it is cleaner and cheaper than building new low-carbon or
carbon-free generation. Deploying energy efficiency reduces demand for
primary energy and generating capacity needs and therefore lowers the
overall costs of shifting to a low-carbon energy system.\2\ Ultimately,
the cleanest and cheapest energy is the energy you don't use in the
first place. A new report from ACEEE found that energy efficiency alone
can cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.\3\
Buildings deliver 33% of the total emissions reductions in the report's
model, and upgrades to existing buildings and homes and appliance and
equipment efficiency are identified as some of the largest cost-
effective opportunities to achieve these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An NRDC study found that 80% emissions reductions in the U.S.
by 2050 is achievable and cost-effective using existing clean energy
technologies. Energy efficiency is the single greatest contributor to
emissions reductions in the model scenario which assumes an aggressive,
but technically and economically achievable, deployment of energy
efficiency across the U.S. economy. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/
files/americas-clean-energy-frontier-report.pdf.
\3\ https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/u1907.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The residential buildings sector in particular remains a largely
untapped resource for carbon reduction goals. I will discuss specific
policy opportunities to address barriers and advance energy efficiency
in the residential sector in a moment.
Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs
Energy efficiency is the largest employer and fastest growing
sector in the energy industry. Put simply, energy efficiency equals
jobs. According to this year's ``Energy Efficiency Jobs in America''
\4\ report released by E4TheFuture and attached to this testimony, the
energy efficiency sector employs 2.3 million Americans, twice as many
workers as the entire U.S. fossil fuel industry, and energy efficiency
is leading the nation's energy economy in new job creation, accounting
for half of the entire energy industry's job growth in 2018. These
local, family-sustaining jobs exist all across the country. In fact,
the E4TheFuture report found that 99.7% of U.S. counties have energy
efficiency jobs and more than 300,000 of these jobs are in rural areas.
A significant portion of energy efficiency jobs in the U.S. are in the
residential sector, and approximately 56 percent of energy efficiency
jobs involve construction and repairs. These are the contractors--the
``boots on the ground''--installing energy efficiency products and
technologies and working to reduce energy waste in homes and commercial
buildings across the country. These jobs are, by their very nature,
inherently local and cannot be exported. Contractors are local--their
kids go to the same schools as their clients, they sponsor baseball
teams, they share in community successes and failures. Policies that
encourage investment in energy efficiency can further advance growth in
this industry, creating even more well-paying jobs all across America
and generating economic opportunity through the decarbonization
transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs-in-America-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, policies that provide incentives for building
efficiency retrofits, such as the HOMES act or tax policy like the 25C
or 179D federal credits, create a ripple effect on jobs. Demand for
insulation, air sealing, HVAC will certainly create work for those who
install these products, but it also creates jobs in the manufacturing
and distributing of those products. This creates jobs around those
industrial centers where workers eat, shop, and live.
Not only is energy efficiency the largest employer in the energy
sector, it has the most potential for even more job growth moving
forward. With an aging building stock across the country we have only
scratched the surface on investing in energy efficiency improvements.
Addressing barriers to retrofitting these existing homes and buildings
and advancing energy efficiency across the entire buildings sector will
simultaneously support decarbonization and job creation.
It is also important to note that the energy efficiency industry is
comprised mainly of small businesses: 80% of energy efficiency
businesses in America have fewer than 20 employees.\5\ These small
businesses are the heart of the American economy--creating jobs,
driving growth, and saving us all money through improved energy
efficiency. They are also the ones that are in need of assistance when
it comes to ensuring that there are qualified workers to fill these
jobs. Small energy efficiency businesses need resources to help train
new hires and provide ongoing education to existing employees, keeping
them up to date on certifications and trained in the latest
technologies and health and safety practices. To prepare more American
workers for quality jobs in energy efficiency and drive further growth
in this industry, Congress should act to support workforce development
and jobs training. The Blue Collar to Green Collar Jobs Development Act
of 2019 (HR 1315) would create a comprehensive, nationwide program to
improve education and training for workers in the energy efficiency
industry, including manufacturing, engineering, construction, and
building retrofitting jobs. This legislation will result in more
American workers who are equipped to provide energy efficiency products
and services and whose work will reduce energy waste and save money for
homes and businesses across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs-in-America-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Efficiency Provides Building Resilience
Energy efficiency measures not only save energy and reduce carbon
pollution, they also improve the physical structure of the building.
Building envelope improvements like high performing insulation and air
sealing increase the durability of the building and its ability to
withstand extreme weather and keep occupants safe. Studies have shown
that buildings built to the latest energy code, with efficient, well-
sealed structures, are able to maintain safe indoor temperatures
through extreme heat and cold and allow residents to remain safe and
comfortable for longer during a power outage.\6\ Beyond the durability
and resilience of the physical buildings themselves, energy efficiency
enhances resilience in other ways: providing health and safety benefits
like improved indoor air quality, delivering cost savings to families
and businesses which creates new opportunities for productive spending
and local investment, and supporting the reliability and resilience of
our power grid which I will discuss further in a moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2014/data/papers/1-
439.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Efficiency Policy as a part of Equity Policy
Energy efficiency is a key strategy for both reducing carbon
emissions and improving the lives of Americans. Legislation that
advances energy efficiency in buildings, especially residential
buildings, provides many benefits in addition to energy and pollution
reductions including increased comfort, health, and energy
affordability.
The occupants of the vast majority of homes in the U.S. experience
building-related comfort problems, health issues, and/or high utility
bills--problems which could all be significantly mitigated by proper
construction techniques and energy efficiency upgrades.\7\ Studies have
shown that improvements in occupant health from residential energy
efficiency are strongest among vulnerable groups: lower income
households and residents with pre-existing health conditions linked to
housing risks.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.building-performance.org/sites/default/files/0819-
EE-high-performing-homes-blueprint-v8.pdf.
\8\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Occupant-
Health-Benefits-Residential-EE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy costs are a significant living expense. For the nearly one-
third of U.S. households who face challenges paying energy bills or
sustaining adequate heating and cooling in their homes, the cost
savings provided by energy efficiency are critical.\9\ Congress should
advance policies aimed at helping middle income Americans make
efficiency upgrades to their homes (e.g. HOMES Act) as well as programs
designed to make efficiency upgrades to low income homes (e.g.
Weatherization Assistance Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost-savings benefits to homeowners, efficiency
upgrades also have health and safety benefits. A U.S. Department of
Energy report on the Weatherization Assistance Program found that home
improvements focused on energy efficiency can improve indoor air
quality, which reduces respiratory illness and sick days, and reduce
thermal stress caused by exposure to extreme indoor thermal conditions
(temperature, humidity, drafts).\10\ A report from E4TheFuture,
entitled ``Occupant Health Benefits of Residential Energy Efficiency,''
\11\ which reviews existing research on the link between resident
health benefits and energy efficiency upgrades, also found that
residential energy efficiency upgrades can produce significant
improvements in asthma symptoms and help improve overall physical and
mental health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://weatherization.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/
WAPRetroEvalFinalReports/ORNL_TM-2014_345.pdf.
\11\ https://e4thefuture.org/occupant-health-benefits-of-
residential-energy-efficiency/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is critical that Congress continue to support and expand the
Weatherization Assistance Program. I was the lead author of a report
\12\ in 2017, published by the Home Performance Coalition, that offered
recommendations for improvements to the program, opportunities for
streamlining, and ways to encourage the use of private sector
contractors. Some of these ideas are included in the Weatherization
Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency Investment and Accountability
Act (HR 2041) which would reauthorize and make updates to the
Weatherization Assistance Program. This bill has passed out of
Committee this year and awaits a floor vote. I urge Congress to act on
this important legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.building-performance.org/sites/default/files/
Weatherization%20%26%20HP%20Recommendations%20Report2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Energy-Efficient Buildings are a Pathway to a Clean, Affordable,
Resilient Grid
When we talk about clean energy and decarbonizing the electric
grid, buildings and energy efficiency must be part of that
conversation. When we discuss grid resilience and stability concerns,
building efficiency must be a part of the conversation, because it is
buildings that are being asked not only to generate power (through
renewables) but to reduce their energy consumption at certain times of
the day (through demand response).
There is a growing need for policymakers to look at buildings as an
integral part of the grid that not only use energy but can also
generate power, store energy, and shift demand from times of high
demand and cost to times when wind and solar power are abundant and
energy is cheapest. Thanks to advances in technology, our nation's
buildings--and the residential sector in particular--can be enabled to
play an important role in managing energy demand to support grid
efficiency, reliability, and resilience and achieve significant carbon
reductions.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office
(BTO) has been doing a lot of work in the area of ``Grid-interactive
Efficient Buildings'' (GEBs). I am the lead author of a new report
released today by the National Association of State Energy Officials
(NASEO) entitled ``Residential Grid-Interactive Efficient Building
Technology and Policy: Harnessing the Power of Homes for a Clean,
Affordable, Resilient Grid of the Future,'' that describes how homes
with energy efficiency measures, combined with smart technologies, and
small-scale storage and generation resources can support grid needs and
achieve carbon reductions while consumers benefit from utility bill
savings, increased comfort, and amenity.\13\ GEB technologies (e.g.
smart thermostats, efficient connected appliances, battery and thermal
storage, and home energy management systems) make homes smart,
connected, efficient and flexible, allowing them to reduce or shift
energy use to take advantage of variable renewable energy and support a
cleaner grid, while helping American families lower their utility bills
and increase comfort and convenience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The report, released today, is attached to this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, GEBs can provide energy savings and demand flexibility
as a cost-effective clean energy solution that reduces carbon
emissions. Smart grid-interactive technologies provide two-way
communication between a home and the grid and offer new tools to target
load shedding and shifting more precisely and continuously, exactly
when and where it is needed, while maintaining occupant comfort and
needs. For example, a smart water heater is able to receive a signal
when there is overproduction of renewable energy and respond by
adjusting its heating cycle to use that clean power and then store the
hot water for use later in the day. With intelligent controls smart
water heaters ensure that residents always have access to hot water,
while maximizing the use of carbon-free generation by responding
dynamically to grid conditions. The building efficiency sector is
undergoing rapid change and is increasingly a source of innovation and
new technology, with more sophisticated solutions for home energy
management. As the sensors, controls, software, and machine learning
that comprise home energy management systems advance and integrate with
more technologies, these platforms can support the interconnection of
solar, storage, and flexible end uses in the home to coordinate load
management strategies for grid and user benefit.
Energy efficiency measures are the foundation of a smart, grid-
interactive efficient home. They reduce the baseline load of a home,
lowering overall electricity use. Conventional energy efficiency
measures include building envelope improvements and replacement of
existing equipment and systems (e.g., appliances, lighting, HVAC,
boilers) with higher-efficiency models. All of these measures provide a
foundation for other solutions' effectiveness: minimizing the load size
that requires shifting, enabling homes to hold a comfortable
temperature for longer periods of time, and ensuring distributed
generation and storage are appropriately sized. Smart technologies help
advance energy efficiency in buildings, driving additional savings and
connecting efficiency measures with new opportunities to provide load
flexibility. Smart thermostats, for example, offer monitoring, control,
and optimization of HVAC systems to take advantage of energy saving
opportunities (e.g., via learned schedules and low energy ``away''
modes) and can also be used for demand response. On the hottest days of
the year, smart thermostats can respond by raising the setpoint
slightly to save energy and ease strain on the grid, when paired with
other efficiency measures like a tight, well-insulated building
envelope and dynamic efficient window shading keep the home cool and
comfortable--all with little to no effort from the homeowner.
Deploying these solutions in an integrated way can cost-effectively
reduce peak demand, address capacity constraints, and provide other
grid services--deferring transmission and distribution upgrades and
reducing the need for new power plants. A recent study by Rocky
Mountain Institute \14\ found that Clean Energy Portfolios of wind,
solar, storage, energy efficiency, and demand flexibility are now cost-
competitive with new natural gas plants, while providing the same grid
reliability services currently serviced by natural gas.\15\ In order to
integrate these clean energy resources and maximize carbon reductions
across the power system, the grid needs ``intelligence.'' Smart grid
technologies in the buildings sector like smart meters, sensors and
controls, and software solutions provide enhanced monitoring,
detection, and control capabilities. These technologies are an
important and cost-effective way to increase the reliability and
efficiency of the grid and maximize the use of renewable energy, by
providing increased visibility into grid conditions and allowing
utilities to better manage increasingly complex energy systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://rmi.org/insight/clean-energy-portfolios-pipelines-and-
plants.
\15\ The study also found that energy efficiency and demand
flexibility_resources that GEBs can provide--are the least-cost route
to meeting energy, capacity, and flexibility needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to break down the silos between energy efficiency,
renewables, and distributed energy resources such as electric vehicles
and battery storage. Advancing energy efficiency and smart energy
management technologies will help homes and buildings save energy and
use energy more flexibly to minimize our carbon footprint. Plans for
interoperability, incentives, and maximizing data use is critical for
tapping this great energy resource. With policy and program innovation
that brings all of these pieces together to optimize energy usage we
can reduce the need for new power plants, deliver more reliable energy
services at lower costs, all while making homes healthier, more
comfortable places to live.
As noted in the Residential Grid-Interactive Efficient Building
Technology and Policy report, the Building Performance Association also
encourages federal investment in the following areas to advance
innovation with residential GEBs, supporting both decarbonization in
the buildings sector and a cleaner, more resilient grid:
Grid modernization. Investment in full deployment of
smart meters (AMI) across the entire residential sector would
create an enabling infrastructure for grid-interactive energy
optimization. Smart meters provide two-way communication
between a home and utility and provide much more granular
energy usage information, creating new opportunities for
targeted energy efficiency and demand response and supporting
the integration of customer-sited resources like rooftop solar
and battery storage, enabling a broad range of GEB solutions.
Residential GEB demonstration and deployment. To
build on research on grid-interactive efficient building
solutions, funding should focus on demonstration and deployment
to (1) evaluate energy optimization strategies integrating
energy efficiency and smart technology in real homes and (2)
assess the potential of different retrofit measures to increase
energy efficiency, grid interactivity, and demand flexibility
in existing homes.
Advance workforce education. Curriculum development
and resources to train home performance contractors on
integrating smart technology within home performance retrofits
to further advance residential energy efficiency and demand
flexibility.
Research to quantify the value of residential GEBs
and their benefits. New methods and tools for valuing the hard-
to-quantify benefits residential GEBs provide, including energy
resiliency and non-energy benefits like convenience and safety.
Development and promotion of standards for
interoperability. Standard communications protocols and
interoperability are key to ensuring that different
technologies can work together effectively, and integrated
solutions are cost-effective and future-proofed.
Residential Sector is Key to Carbon Reductions
The residential buildings sector remains a largely untapped
resource for carbon reduction goals. Residential buildings consume more
electricity than any other sector \16\ and are the largest contributor
to peak demand,\17\ which makes this sector especially important from a
carbon emissions reduction standpoint. I authored a report in 2016,
published by the Home Performance Coalition, which outlines how
residential energy efficiency can play an important role as a proven,
low-cost, and accessible way to help meet carbon emission reduction
goals.\18\ The residential buildings sector is often overlooked by
policymakers because of its diversity and complication: over 70% of our
nation's housing stock was built before 1990, with almost 40% older
than 1970,\19\ and the characteristics of homes vary considerably by
the year they were built, meaning they need individualized attention.
Retrofitting and providing certifications to allow for the valuation of
these homes could achieve significant energy and carbon savings. Each
house is unique and the barriers that exist in terms of financing,
homeowner education and engagement, and proper valuation of efficiency
characteristics of residential buildings all make it a difficult sector
to tackle from a policy perspective. The following pieces of
legislation and policy proposals represent a multi-pronged policy
approach to reducing carbon emissions in the residential building
stock:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html.
\17\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/04/f61/bto-
geb_overview-4.15.19.pdf.
\18\ https://www.building-performance.org/sites/default/files/
A%20Policymaker%E2%80%99s%20
Guide%20to%20Incorporating%20Existing%20Homes%20into%20Carbon%20Reductio
n%20Strat- egies%20and%20Clean%20Power%20Plan%20Compliance_0.pdf.
\19\ https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/hc/php/
hc2.3.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Legislative and Policy Proposals to Incentivize Residential
Energy Efficiency:
Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Act of
2019 (116th--HR 2043, Rep. Welch). Would establish a grant
program for rebates to make residential energy efficiency
upgrades with a network of rebate aggregators, quality
assurance, and pilot on pay for performance. Earlier iterations
of the HOMES Act from previous Congresses have been bipartisan
with Rep. McKinley (R-WV).
Access to Consumer Energy Information Act or the E-
Access Act (116th--discussion draft, Rep. Welch) (114th--HR
1980/S 1044, Rep. Welch (D-VT), Rep. Cartwright (D-PA) / Sen.
Markey): Would allow DOE to facilitate customers' access to
their own electricity data, adds consumer access to energy use
and price data to State energy conservation plans, and provides
for establishment of voluntary guidelines with access to third
parties according to a protocol established by the Secretary.
Residential Energy Efficiency Valuation Act
``REEVA'': A short term grant program to states to provide
incentives based on measured energy savings from energy
efficiency upgrades of residential buildings. Payments are to
contractors/aggregators based on performance. The contractor/
aggregator is to utilize financing to provide market-based
incentives for their customers. Language available from the
Building Performance Association.
Sensible Accounting to Value Energy (SAVE) Act
(114th--HR 614/ 113th--S 1106, Rep. Murphy, Rep. Jolly/Sen.
Bennet, Sen. Isakson): HUD to develop and issue guidelines to
all federal mortgage agencies to implement enhanced loan
eligibility based on energy cost savings due to efficiency
upgrades. Supported by the NAHB and many others. Included in
the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (HR 3962,
S2137).
Tax credit. We recommend support for tax incentives
for homeowners that invest in sound residential energy
efficiency home upgrades; tax incentives like a forward-
looking, expanded 25C tax credit. The 25C tax credit is the
only energy efficiency tax credit provided to consumers,
everyday homeowners who struggle to pay their utility bills.
Residential tax incentives are critical to reducing the upfront
cost of energy efficiency improvements, thereby allowing more
Americans access to the efficiency market, reducing monthly
utility bills, increasing the health and safety of homes, and
reducing carbon emissions. We support a forward-looking
extension of a tax credit for residential energy efficiency
upgrades and recommend improving the 25C credit by updating
goals and transitioning the credit into permanent performance-
based instead of prescriptive incentive.
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS). Direct
electric and natural gas utilities to achieve increasing levels
of energy savings through cost-effective customer energy
efficiency programs.\20\ States could administer the program,
and limited credit trading would be allowed. While traditional
EERS models set resource-specific savings targets, a national
standard could be designed more flexibly with an overarching
GHG emissions reduction goal, which would allow for beneficial
electrification where clean electricity replaces direct fossil
fuel use to reduce emissions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ According to ACEEE analysis, a federal EERS of 20% electricity
and 12% natural gas savings by 2030 would save utility customers nearly
$150 billion on their energy bills and would achieve CO2 emissions
reductions equivalent to taking nearly 50 million cars of the road.
https://aceee.org/policy-brief/energy-efficiency-resource-standard-
eers.
\21\ ACEEE recently published ``Next-Generation Energy Efficiency
Resource Standards'' which looks at new EERS approaches that can help
meet aggressive climate goals, along with delivering cost, grid and
equity benefits. https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/u1905.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings
Some of the policy proposals above also will help to advance energy
efficiency in the commercial buildings sector including support for
workforce development (H.R. 1315), Access to utility data, implementing
a federal EERS. Support for the retrofit of existing commercial
buildings is important because it is estimated that over half of the
buildings that will be in use in 2050 are already built.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://buildingefficiencyinitiative.org/articles/why-focus-
existing-buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to advancing commercial energy efficiency is a forward-looking,
permanent extension of the 179D Energy Efficient Buildings tax
deduction which will help support building owners and investors in
retrofitting existing buildings, as well as in constructing new above-
code buildings. Importantly this deduction has included performance
criteria, incentivizes whole building efficiency, and requires
verification. Congress should consider making the 179D tax deduction
permanent in order to incentivize more and broader energy efficiency
improvements in commercial buildings and reduce carbon emissions from
this sector.
Federal Investment in Energy Efficiency Provides Significant Returns
With the ``power of the purse'' in the hands of Congress, it would
be remiss for me to fail to mention the important role this body has to
advance energy efficiency research, development, and deployment in the
appropriations process. Dollar for dollar, federal investments in
energy efficiency create more jobs than investment in the utility
sector or fossil-fuels,\23\ and federal investments in DOE programs
that support energy efficiency--like the Building Technologies Office,
Weatherization Assistance Program, and State Energy Program--lead to
job creation and economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ACEEE. N.d. Energy Efficiency and Economic Opportunity.
Retrieved from http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/ee-economic-
opportunity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following programs at the Department of Energy deserve the
support of the American taxpayer as these programs are proven to
provide a significant return on investment. When funded they will
continue to provide energy cost relief to households, support American-
based industry and American jobs, ameliorate issues with the aging
electrical grid, and support national security goals.
Building Technologies Office (BTO), which develops
critical technologies, tools, and solutions that help U.S.
consumers and businesses achieve peak efficiency performance in
new and existing homes and buildings across all sectors of our
economy. Programs like Home Performance with Energy Star, which
advances contractor engagement in high efficiency equipment
installations, and Home Energy Score, which helps ensure that
energy efficiency is valued in real estate transactions--are
just two examples of crucial residential programs within BTO.
The Residential Building Integration program within BTO has the
capacity to fundamentally transform the performance of homes
and greatly improve the energy efficiency in the 115 million
existing residential buildings throughout this country. We
recommend funding be focused on facilitating later-stage
research, demonstration, and widespread deployment of
technology solutions in new and existing homes, with an
emphasis on whole-house energy efficiency retrofits (including
outreach, engagement and training to private sector
contractors) and continuing efforts to advance smart home
technology. BTO's programs can significantly improve the energy
efficiency in the residential sector through its partnerships
with the thousands of small businesses in this sector, the
construction trades, equipment, smart grid technology and
systems suppliers, integrators and state and local governments.
We encourage the direct engagement with residential contractors
and businesses, which are crucial to the success of buildings
programs.
State Energy Program (SEP), which provides funding
and technical assistance to states, territories, and the
District of Columbia to enhance energy security, advance state-
led energy initiatives, and maximize the benefits of decreasing
energy waste. Over the past 30 years, SEP has proven to be the
critical link in helping states improve efficiency in hospitals
and schools, establish business incubators and job training
programs, and establish relationships with energy service
companies and small businesses to implement cost-effective
energy efficiency programs across their state. The Oak Ridge
National Laboratory found that every dollar invested in SEP by
the federal government yields over $10 leveraged for energy-
related economic development and realizes $7.22 in energy cost
savings for U.S. citizens and businesses--a tremendous economic
value. SEP provides extraordinary value and flexibility, which
is why governors across the country strongly support continued
funding. It is important to note that SEP defers to the
governors all decisions on allocating resources provided by DOE
to meet their states' priorities such as energy emergency
planning and response and energy related economic development.
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which helps
low-income and rural families, seniors, and individuals with
disabilities make lasting energy efficiency improvements to
their homes. WAP has a proven track record of creating new jobs
and contributing to the economy through the program's large
supply chain of vendors, suppliers, and manufacturers. Since
1976, WAP has helped make more than 7 million homes more
efficient, saving the average recipient about $4,200 over the
lifetime of their home. A peer-reviewed study from the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory found that the program is cost-
effective at even conservative levels of evaluation. Each
dollar that goes toward weatherization assistance yields at
least $2.30 in benefits, and by some estimates as much as $4.10
to the home and society. The President's FY20 budget request,
which zeroes out funding for the WAP program, would be a
devastating blow to America's low- and moderate-income
citizens: making those who are already vulnerable, more
vulnerable, and those who are already poor, poorer.
Aside from the very important programs noted above, we recommend
Congress do everything in its power to support the later-stage research
and development, field validation, deployment, demonstration, consumer
education, and technical assistance activities performed within the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). While the
Administration continues to place an emphasis on early-stage research
activities within EERE, if the results of that early-stage research are
not then integrated and pushed out into the market through
demonstration and deployment activities, these innovative energy
technologies, practices, and information cannot be fully utilized by
American consumers and companies to reduce carbon emissions. This is
particularly the case with complex systems and structures such as
America's homes and buildings. We urge Congress to support--and hold
the Administration accountable to advancing--a comprehensive and real-
world strategy that includes medium- and later-stage research,
deployment, and demonstration activities that are designed to utilize
the most effective means to increase buildings' energy efficiency in
order to reduce carbon emissions.
Leading By Example: Energy Efficiency in Federal Buildings
There are also important opportunities to simultaneously save
American taxpayer money and reduce carbon emissions by improving the
energy performance of federal buildings. Energy Savings Performance
Contracts (ESPCs) are an innovative and effective model for public-
private partnerships to improve building energy efficiency. ESPCs allow
federal agencies to procure energy savings and facility improvements
with no up-front capital costs or special appropriations from Congress
and provide savings guarantees, reducing government risk. Studies by
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory show that actual cost savings exceed
guaranteed savings for many ESPC projects allowing significant cost
savings to accrue to the government.\24\ In the short term, Congress
should enable more of these successful public-private partnerships
through the following pieces of legislation and policy proposals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub41816.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation:
Federal Energy and Water Management Performance Act
of 2019 (S. 1857, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Manchin): Would
reauthorize the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) at $36
million and improve federal energy and water requirements.
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of
2019 (S. 2137, Sen. Portman, Sen. Shaheen; H.R. 3962, Rep.
Welch, Rep. McKinley): Would reauthorize the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) at $36 million and improve federal
energy and water requirements. It extends energy use reduction
goals and would expand the scope of existing energy standards
for new federal buildings to include major renovations.
Energy Savings through Public-Private Partnerships
Act of 2019, (S. 1706, Sen. Gardner, Sen. Coons; H.R. 3079,
Rep. Welch): Would encourage the increased use of ESPCs in
federal facilities by addressing barriers and increasing the
use of energy efficiency and distributed generation.
Federal Appropriations:
Congress should ensure adequate funding for the following programs
to continue to improve the performance and cost savings for federal
buildings:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). In
addition to reauthorizing this important program (S. 1857),
Congress should ensure continued adequate funding for FEMP
including carveouts for the Assisting Federal Facilities with
Energy Conservation Technologies (AFFECT) program which
provides grants to federal agencies to support the use of
ESPCs, to achieve energy savings and implement other important
climate-related measures like resiliency that might not
generate utility bill savings.
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Office of
Federal High-Performance Buildings. Through ESPCs, construction
and leasing policies, and other public private partnership
models GSA has saved millions of dollars. GSA has reported, for
example, that sustainable building standards helped GSA avoid
more than $250 million in energy and water costs from 2008 to
2014.\25\ These programs save taxpayers money while reducing
energy-related carbon emissions and should continue to be
funded by Congress to ensure continued progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://app_gsagov_prod_rdcgwaajp7wr.s3.amazonaws.com/
GSA_FY_2015_SSPP_Final.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In conclusion, Madam Chair and esteemed members of the committee, I
ask you to consider the buildings you live and work in as a part of the
solution to the climate crisis. The built environment is one of the
largest consumers of energy and thus emitters of greenhouse gas
emissions. We need to break down the silos between energy efficiency,
renewables, and distributed energy resources such as electric vehicles
and battery storage. With policy and program innovation that brings all
of these pieces together to optimize energy usage we can reduce the
need for new power plants, deliver more reliable energy services at
lower costs, all while making homes healthier, more comfortable places
to live.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. And, without objection, we
will make sure that the National Association of State Energy
Officials report issued today is included in the record.
[The information follows:]
----------
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 17, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Residential Grid-Interactive Efficient Building
Technology and Policy: Harnessing the Power of Homes for a Clean,
Affordable, Resilient Grid of the Future. National Association of State
Energy Officials, October 2019.
This report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/AnnDyl-NASEO-GEB-
Report.pdf.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Rutland, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES RUTLAND
Mr. Rutland. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, members of the committee. I am pleased to appear before
you today on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders. I would like to share our views regarding resiliency
and energy within residential buildings.
My name is Jimmy Rutland. I am a third-generation home
builder from Montgomery, Alabama. I am the president of Lowder
New Homes, which focuses on building quality and energy-
efficient homes.
I also serve on the State of Alabama's Energy and
Residential Codes Board, where I work with others involved in
the residential and commercial construction industries to adopt
and amend energy and building codes for the entire State.
NAHB has been a longtime leader in the drive to make homes
more energy-efficient and has repeatedly demonstrated a
commitment to sound Federal disaster and flood plain management
policies and cost-effective, market-driven resiliency solutions
that maintain housing affordability while balancing the needs
of growing communities.
Housing affordability is currently a real concern. It is at
a 10-year low for the single-family market. Almost a third of
the Nation's households pay more than 30 percent of their
income for housing. NAHB estimates that if the median U.S. new
home price goes up by just $1,000, more than 127,000 households
would be priced out of the housing market nationwide.
Recognizing this crisis, Congress must factor in housing
affordability when looking at solutions to build a cleaner and
stronger economy.
Similarly, there are 130 million homes in the U.S. that
were built before 2010 and are much less energy-efficient and
resilient than today's homes. Therefore, in addition to housing
affordability, any efforts to address the performance of homes
must prioritize the inefficiencies of existing homes over new
homes.
Through the myriad of proposals from legislators and
stakeholders, many have suggested that mandates and more
stringent building codes or the immediate adoption of the
latest published code is the answer to improving residential
resiliency and energy efficiency. This is unnecessary and
unwise.
Codes are nearing a point of diminishing returns in terms
of the cost-benefit ratio, so further increasing their
stringency may not make economic sense. To put it simply,
mandates fail to consider the needs or desires of consumers,
like the flexibility needed for realistic, widespread
application, and add unnecessary cost to home construction.
Model building codes are designed to establish minimum
requirements for public health and safety for commercial and
residential structures. Homes constructed following these
requirements are built to withstand damage from disasters and
provide substantial resiliency for many catastrophic events.
Because modern codes are already efficient and resilient, any
changes must be carefully evaluated.
Further, State and local jurisdictions are already taking
the lead in ensuring their codes are adequate. To do so, they
evaluate each new edition of the model codes and add, remove,
or revise provisions so that the codes better fit their local
construction practices, geography, risk, and market conditions.
This could mean adding a hurricane clip to roofs that are in
areas prone to hurricanes or elevating homes in areas prone to
flooding.
Recognizing these different conditions, it is essential to
States, like my home State of Alabama, are able to adopt of the
codes that are best suited for them while other States are able
to do the same. Any Federal intervention into this process will
be extremely problematic and undermine the outcome.
Instead of mandates, Congress should support voluntary
programs and incentives, both of which are proven ways to drive
consumer behavior. For example, Alabama has established a grant
program and makes tax credits up to $3,000 available for
retrofitting homes to make them more resistant to disasters.
On the national front, tax incentive programs such as 45L
and 25C have permeated the market and assisted many families
and building owners to invest in energy-efficient homes. These
incentives are critical to helping offset the high initial cost
associated with some of the high-performance features needed to
upgrade homes.
Therefore, I urge you today to retain and expand the
current offerings and work hand-in-hand with other stakeholders
to offer additional ways to recognize the value and benefit of
upgrades.
In conclusion, I urge Congress to promote voluntary and
market-driven programs which promote lower total ownership cost
through utility savings as well as provide the flexibility
builders need to construct homes that are cost-effective,
affordable, and appropriate to a home's geographic location.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I recommend Congress seriously consider and address housing
affordability when exploring solutions to build a cleaner and
resilient economy.
[The statement of Mr. Rutland follows:]
----------
Testimony of James Rutland
President, Lowder New Homes
On behalf of National Association of Home Builders
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings
October 17, 2019
Introduction
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, I am pleased to appear
before you today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) to share our views regarding resiliency and energy use within
residential buildings. My name is Jimmy Rutland and I am a third-
generation home builder and developer from Montgomery, Alabama. I am
the former President of the Greater Montgomery Home Builders
Association and serve on the board of directors of NAHB. In addition to
my service with the local, state and national home builders
associations, I serve on the State of Alabama Energy and Residential
Codes Board. In this capacity, I work with various industries and
regulators involved in Alabama's residential and commercial
construction industry to adopt and amend energy and building codes for
the entire state.
NAHB represents more than 140,000 members who are involved in land
development and building single-family and multifamily housing,
remodeling and other aspects of residential and light commercial
construction. NAHB's members construct approximately 80 percent of all
new housing built in the United States each year.
NAHB's mission is to enhance the climate for housing and the
building industry, including providing and expanding opportunities for
all people to have access to safe, decent and affordable homes. Due to
the wide range of activities they conduct on a regular basis to house
the nation's residents, our members are often required to comply with
various regulatory and incentive-based programs to address issues
related to climate change and resilience.
NAHB is leading the way to improve resiliency and the performance
of new and existing homes. As a longtime leader in the drive to make
homes more energy efficient, NAHB has also repeatedly demonstrated a
commitment to sound federal disaster and floodplain management policies
and cost-effective, market-driven solutions that maintain housing
affordability while balancing the needs of growing communities with the
need for reasonable protection of life and property.
As stakeholders in both the public and private sectors wrestle with
finding the right balance of regulations and programs to protect homes
and their occupants from severe weather events and hazards, some argue
that more should be done. But most additional efforts come at costs
that not only curtail homeownership and significantly hinder housing
affordability, but also can severely impact state and local economies.
This is because these policies can greatly influence how existing
structures and cities are reengineered, rebuilt and/or remodeled and
impact how and where new homes and communities are built. Depending on
how they are developed and implemented, they can also be inflexible and
overly protective, fail to target areas of highest risk, reduce
availability of buildable land, tax limited resources, and have
significant cost implications that can have a detrimental impact on
housing affordability in many areas of the country.
To address these questions regarding the role clean energy and
resiliency plays in the housing market and to identify the challenges
the industry faces in doing so, this testimony highlights the following
points:
Maintaining housing affordability must be the
cornerstone to any efforts to create cleaner and stronger
homes. Any efforts to improve or increase the efficiency or
resiliency of the U.S. housing stock should focus on cost-
effective, market-driven solutions.
Homes built following modern building codes are
resilient. Improving the performance of the 130 million homes
built before 2010 that are much less energy efficient and
resilient than today's new homes is a much more effective way
to achieve energy savings and improve resiliency than targeting
new homes.
State and local governments must retain authority
over land use and their code adoption processes so they can
continue to direct community development and implement the
codes that best fit their jurisdictions.
Climate change mitigation programs that recognize
and promote voluntary-above code compliance have a proven track
record and demonstrate that mandates are not necessary.
Incentives play an important role in providing
homeowners a cost-effective way to invest in energy efficiency
and resiliency. Mandates, which fail to consider the needs or
desires of consumers, lack the flexibility needed for
realistic, widespread application, and add unnecessary costs to
home construction and retrofits, are an unwise approach to
improving efficiency and home performance.
Status of the Nation's Housing Stock
The American housing stock continues to age, especially as
residential construction continues its modest rebound after the Great
Recession. Because recent production has fallen short of even the
levels needed to accommodate the number of net new households, there is
increasing pressure to keep existing homes in service longer--homes
that may not perform as well or be as resilient as newer homes.
One hundred and thirty million homes out of the nation's housing
stock of 137 million were built before 2010, and therefore, most were
not subject to the modern building codes that are now in effect.
Equally problematic, the latest Census statistics show the number of
homes built before 1970 that are taken out of commission is only about
six out of every 1,000 being retired per year.
These low rates of replacement mean that the built environment in
the U.S. will change slowly and continue to be dominated by structures
that are at least several decades old. Indeed, optimistic estimates
suggest that if 1.2 million homes were built every year, after 20 years
only 16 percent of the conventional housing stock would consist of new
homes built between now and then. In comparison, 68 percent would still
consist of homes that were built before 1990.
Older homes are less resilient and energy efficient than new homes.
They were not built to the stringent requirements contained in modern
codes, use (and lose) more energy, and are more susceptible to damage
from natural disasters. Many of FEMA's post-disaster investigations
support this conclusion. For example, FEMA's Mitigation Assessment Team
Report regarding Hurricane Sandy reads, ``Many of the low-rise and
residential buildings in coastal areas [that had observable damage]
were of older construction that pre-dates the NFIP.'' Similarly, the
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety stated in its
preliminary findings report for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma that,
``[t]otal destruction from wind occurred to mobile homes, as well as
older site built conventional homes,'' and ``[n]ewer homes generally
performed better than older buildings.''
Clearly, these statistics and studies demonstrate that improvements
in construction practices and building codes have made significant
strides in improving the efficiency and resiliency of new construction
and that further gains will be difficult and costly. As policymakers
seek to improve efficiency and mitigate the effects of future natural
disasters, they need to create opportunities and incentives to
facilitate upgrades and improvements to the older homes, structures and
infrastructure that are less resilient to natural disasters.
These structures make up the majority of the housing stock and will
for the foreseeable future. They were built when there were no national
model codes or constructed following codes that are now outdated, and
thus provide a wealth of opportunities for improvement. Because they
also represent the biggest energy users and are the least resilient,
programs and policies that focus on the existing housing stock would
reap the most benefits.
Housing Affordability
According to a nationwide survey conducted for NAHB in August 2019,
four out of five American households believe the nation is suffering a
housing affordability crisis and at least 75 percent report this is a
problem at the state and local level as well. Other NAHB research shows
that housing affordability in the single-family market is near a 10-
year low. Only 61.4 percent of new and existing homes sold in the first
quarter of 2019 were affordable to families earning the U.S. median
income of $75,500, and if the median U.S. new home price goes up by
$1,000, more than 127,000 households would be priced out of the housing
market nationwide.
As a result, owning or renting a suitable home is increasingly out
of financial reach for many households. In fact, almost a third of the
nation's households are cost burdened and pay more than 30 percent of
their income for housing. At the same time, net new households are
being formed faster than new single-family and multifamily homes are
coming on line to accommodate them, so there is both a surge in need
and not nearly enough supply.
And finally, making things worse, NAHB estimates that nearly 25
percent of the final cost of a single-family home and more than 30
percent of the cost of a multifamily home is due to government
regulations at all levels of government--regulations such as building
codes, energy efficiency mandates and zoning requirements. This is
further exacerbating the supply/demand curve and making the housing
market even more challenging.
Clearly, the nation is experiencing a regulatory and housing
affordability crisis. President Trump recognized this earlier this year
when he issued an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on
Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing through which he
directed federal agencies and others to address, reduce and remove the
multitude of overly burdensome regulatory barriers that artificially
raise the cost of housing development and help to cause the lack of
housing supply.
Despite these real challenges, many continue to suggest that home
builders should make their homes more resilient and/or efficient in an
effort to respond to and stem the impacts of climate change, meet
carbon emissions limits or further environmental goals, among others.
Unfortunately, many of the suggestions made to date will only
exacerbate the current housing crisis.
Many people cannot afford to purchase a home, much less one that
exceeds current building requirements. In Louisiana, after a new code
was adopted in 2017, builders saw an increase in construction costs of
about 8 percent. Compliance with many code changes and conducting
certain building retrofit activities can be even costlier. For example,
building costs can increase between $4,800 and $14,000 due to the
changes from the 2006 to the 2009 code and the national average cost
for a typical residential 6-kilowatt photovoltaic system, a basic
requirement for a net zero home, is close to $18,000. Obviously, those
costs are passed along to the consumer and can have a significant
impact on the pool of eligible buyers.
Additionally, recent research has found that taking steps toward
achieving near-zero carbon consumption will increase a renter or
homeowner's monthly costs from $55 to $311. Most potential home buyers
and those who are renovating or upgrading their existing homes do not
have the financial resources to cover such exuberant costs.
At the end of the day, stricter construction standards and
mitigation comes with a price tag. Regardless of the level of benefit,
the benefit must be obvious to the homeowner in the form of reasonable
paybacks in energy, insurance premiums, or other savings, and some
entity must provide the upfront funding required to conduct the
construction or mitigation activities or they will not occur.
This is where the challenge lies for most consumers and homeowners.
Just because more stringent codes or pre-disaster mitigation may
provide a benefit doesn't mean it can or will be implemented. While the
increased funding from the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA)
can help, because most of these sources have been consistently
oversubscribed and target the highest risk structures, it is unlikely
they will be able to fully serve the array of mitigation needs
associated with existing housing. New sources, avenues and incentives
must be found to make upgrades and overall housing more affordable.
Options to Improve Resiliency and Energy
There have been a number of legislative proposals, regulatory
suggestions and strategy recommendations about ways to make our
buildings cleaner and more resilient. Most have focused on increasing
mandates and creating funding streams or other incentives. Few have
centered on facilitating or recognizing voluntary efforts. NAHB
strongly believes that incentives and voluntary, market-based programs
are the only ways to meet these goals in a cost-effective manner.
Further, given the significant improvements that can be gained from
improving the existing building stock, NAHB strongly encourages
Congress to focus on the highest risk areas and improving the older
homes, structures and infrastructure that are less energy efficient and
less resilient to natural disasters.
Federal Building Code Mandates Problematic
Many have suggested that more stringent building codes or
meeting mandatory energy requirements, such as net-zero, are
the only answers to improving residential resiliency and energy
efficiency. NAHB strongly disagrees, as both options are
problematic, unnecessary and adversely affect housing
affordability. Further, states traditionally have, and continue
to take the lead on these issues, so federal intervention is
not necessary.
Modern Codes are Resilient
Building codes are designed to establish minimum
requirements for public health and safety for
commercial and residential structures. Although they
have existed in various forms for decades, building
codes in the United States achieved a milestone in 2000
when the three regional code organizations were
consolidated into the International Code Council (ICC)
and their codes were combined to create the first set
of ``I-Codes,'' which were published in 2000.
Although there are other building codes available,
the I-Codes are the most widely used model building
codes, with some form of the International Building
Code (IBC) adopted in all 50 states and versions of the
International Residential Code (IRC) adopted in 49
states. The I-Codes are modified through a formal
public consensus process every three years. This has
resulted in the publication of a new edition in 2003,
2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Work has commenced on
the 2021 version of the code and final votes will take
place in the fall of 2019.
When the I-Codes were created, a number of major
improvements were immediately made to the traditional
building code requirements within the residential
building code to address issues observed after
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the California earthquakes
of 1989 and 1994. Although additional improvements have
been made since the I-Codes' debut in 2000, the number
of changes incorporated into the newer editions of the
IRC that dramatically impact structural reliability and
occupant life safety within residential structures have
greatly diminished. In other words, the modern building
codes (e.g., post-2000) have proven to be resilient and
the need for triannual updates is not necessary for
improved resilience.
Despite this, many believe that homes built following
the ``latest published edition'' of the building code
equate to more resilient homes, but that is not
necessarily the case when compared to those built to
previous editions of the IRC. Homes built to modern
building codes--defined as any edition of the IRC--have
been shown to be resilient. Evidence from FEMA and
others demonstrate the IRC, throughout its history, has
been very effective in preventing the destruction of
homes due to various storms and earthquakes and
significantly reducing damage to wall and roof
coverings. Further, because many of today's new homes
are built with additional sustainable and high-
performance building features, they are even more
durable and resilient.
The successful performance of the IRC is also an
indication of the ``maturing'' of building codes as
they have gone through the iterative process of
refinement since 2000. While tweaking the code to
reflect technological advances will continue, it is
clear that major changes aren't as necessary as they
used to be. Similarly, because the codes are nearing a
point of diminishing returns in terms of the cost/
benefit ratio, additional updates may not be cost
effective. Homes can be built to withstand any
disaster, but homes cannot yet consistently be built to
withstand any disaster and be affordable. New homes
built to modern codes are efficient. New homes built to
modern codes are safe. New homes built to modern codes
are resilient. There is no need to require adherence to
the latest published edition of the code--especially if
that is interpreted to mean the most recent version.
Use of Latest Published Codes
Problematic
A number of recent proposals, like those enacted in
the DRRA, are targeted at making buildings more
resilient through various avenues, such as providing
additional resources for the implementation of building
codes post disaster, allowing certain funds to be used
for code adoption and enforcement, and requiring repair
and rebuilding of federally-assisted facilities to
follow certain building codes. Many of these efforts
are predicated on requiring the use of ``latest
published editions'' of certain codes or standards.
This is unnecessary and creates a number of challenges.
First, homes designed and constructed to the national
model building codes are built to withstand damage from
disasters and already provide substantial resiliency
for many high-seismic, high-wind, heavy snow, wildfire
and flooding events while maintaining housing
affordability. Because modern codes already are
resilient, increasing the stringency is not necessary.
Second, it is not clear that this definition
recognizes and accommodates the different risks,
building technologies and landforms that occur across
the country or specifically allows the model codes to
be amended. State and local governments play a key role
in the building code adoption process and determining
the value of and need for each model code requirement.
This is done through a thorough consideration of the
code's applicability within the jurisdiction, along
with costs, technology, and resources, among other
factors.
Because many states and local governments don't fit
the mold of the national averages reflected in the
model codes, they frequently find the need to amend the
model codes prior to adoption. They do so by adding,
removing, or revising provisions so that the codes
better fit the construction practices and techniques,
geography and risks, and economic and market conditions
within the region. If they were unable to make these
vital changes, state and local governments would be
stuck trying to fit the square peg of national codes
into the round hole that represents local conditions.
Equally problematic, doing so would impose numerous
unnecessary requirements on builders--requirements that
translate into higher costs for buyers.
Third, each state and local government follows its
own code adoption, implementation, and enforcement
processes and has limited dedicated resources, which
may not be conducive to adopting the latest published
codes within expected timeframes. Evaluating and
adopting a new building code is a time consuming and
costly undertaking--a multi-step process that
oftentimes requires state legislative, as well as
administrative action.
Recognizing the level of effort required to update
the codes, coupled with resource constraints and the
controversial changes made to the codes in the past,
many state and local governments have elected to follow
a six-year or longer cycle for updating their building
codes instead of a three-year cycle. In this way, they
are able to maintain building safety without
compromising their ability to oversee, administer and
enforce the requirements or keep up with emerging
technology.
Given these realities, mandating the adoption of the
``latest published editions'' creates an unintended
disadvantage for many states and localities that, under
other measures, would be considered fairly up to date
in maintaining their codes (e.g., following a standard
and predictable process and timeline).
States are Already Taking the Lead
For decades, state and local governments have been
responsible for evaluating each new edition of the
model consensus-based building codes and determining
which provisions are applicable within their borders.
Some states make few changes to the model codes, others
hand-pick the provisions and/or amend certain
requirements, and others use the model code as a
baseline to create their own state-specific code.
Under this rubric, Nevada is free to identify the
risks it faces and adopt the codes that are best suited
to its locale, geography and economic conditions, while
North Carolina is able to do the same. In fact, the
model codes are intended to be tailored and amendments
are made to nearly every code that is adopted at the
state or local level, whether it applies to only the
administrative requirements or major rewrite of the
entire document.
For example, North Carolina adopted its 2018 building
codes based on the 2015 I-Codes on January 1 of this
year with 38 pages of amendments. Similarly, Nevada
adopts the building codes at the local level, but
collaborates statewide on the amending process and had
14 pages of amendments on the residential code alone.
State and local governments take their building code
adoption and enforcement responsibilities seriously, as
demonstrated by the time and effort spent on tweaking
and tailoring the codes to get them right. Federal
intervention into this process is neither prudent nor
necessary. Any federal intrusion into this process
could have a dramatic impact on each state's ability to
implement the codes that best fit their jurisdiction.
Likewise, federal mandates that impose building code
requirements across the board will have similar
unacceptable results. One reason the codes work is
because they can be tailored to local conditions,
market forces, and consumer wants and needs. A blanket
mandate ignores these factors; a federal mandate is not
needed.
Federal Energy Code Mandates Problematic
Like structural building codes, more stringent federal
building energy codes needlessly raise housing costs and fail
to reduce energy usage in a cost-effective manner. Therefore,
they are unnecessary.
New Homes Are Efficient
New construction is more energy-efficient than
existing construction because of better insulation,
energy efficient appliances and HVAC equipment, among
other improvements. For example, single-family detached
homes built in 2000-2009 on average used about 100.1
Btu per square foot of heated area per year, in
contrast to 120.6 Btu for homes built in 1970-1979 and
135.4 Btu for homes built before 1950. Although the
size of new homes has increased, the total energy used
on heating and cooling has not, especially when newer
homes are compared to homes built before 1950. With the
growing interest in voluntary efforts to further reduce
energy usage in new construction, overall consumption
is likely to continue to decrease.
Despite these gains over time, new homes are still
being targeted for increased energy efficiency. This
makes little sense because savings will be minimal and
doing so will create a host of new problems. The energy
codes are nearing a point of diminishing returns in
terms of the cost/benefit ratio, meaning that most
updates will probably not be cost effective. Further,
if policies are adopted that apply more stringent
energy conservation requirements to new homes, the cost
of these homes will significantly increase. This may
encourage people to remain in older, less energy-
efficient homes, which would result in higher energy
usage, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and lower
standards of living, among other impacts--all of which
are contrary to the intended goals.
Energy efficiency policies must not inadvertently
penalize new construction. Instead of relying on new
homes to provide desired use reductions at a cost-
prohibitive pace, Congress should focus on increasing
the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock
because this is where the real energy savings will
occur.
Net Zero is Impractical
Even more problematic than more stringent energy
mandates would be any requirement for homes to meet net
zero or near zero emissions or energy usage. The
current demand for net or near zero energy homes
represents a sliver of the housing market. Designed and
built to produce as much energy as they consume, net
zero homes require careful planning, which increases
upfront design and engineering costs. Net zero design
also creates further challenges because it uses passive
techniques, such as orienting the house to take
advantage of the sun for heating and cooling, which
requires treating the home as a system instead of
discrete elements. This requires additional thought and
consideration because changing one aspect of the design
may affect another part of the house and additional
modifications may be required.
Equally challenging is that to achieve net zero,
additional systems must be incorporated, such as solar
photovoltaics (PV), solar hot water and special
controls for heat pumps to maintain needed comfort
levels. Other aspects typically include highly-
efficient windows, lighting and appliances. While
individually some of these installations may be
workable from a cost standpoint, because achieving net
zero energy generally requires the installation of most
of them, the total costs can be prohibitive. In
addition, some of the required elements do not work
well in certain geographic regions, so requiring their
installation and use would be nonsensical. As a result,
mandating net zero or near net zero is extremely
difficult, costly and impractical in most if not all of
the country.
While NAHB has long been an advocate for energy
efficiency codes that are cost-effective and affordable
for home buyers throughout the nation, the energy codes
are growing increasingly stringent, increasingly
unworkable and marginally cost-effective, at best.
Mandating adherence to overly burdensome requirements--
particularly for new construction--adversely impacts
housing affordability, disadvantages new construction,
and may not yield the intended results.
NAHB strongly discourages Congress from including mandates,
such as building codes or meeting a net zero standard as
solutions toward a clean economy. Building codes have little to
offer in the form of emissions reductions and can impose
significant costs on new home construction, supporting
industries, and, ultimately, consumers. Likewise, any other
federal initiatives that would impact where or how homes are
built would be equally problematic.
State and local governments maintain primary authority over
local land use and building practices and no federal policy
should change that. In addition to maintaining their self-
interests, these entities have the knowledge of local
conditions, market and housing needs, risks and opportunities.
Rather than impeding this proven system, Congress should
support voluntary programs, retrofitting existing buildings,
education and other policies aimed at encouraging consumers to
improve the performance of their homes and use energy more
wisely.
Voluntary Programs Promote High Performance
NAHB supports climate change mitigation programs that
recognize and promote voluntary-above code compliance for
energy efficiency and resilience in lieu of mandates because
they provide choices, have been proven to produce results, show
value to consumers and are cost-effective. In other words, they
are driven by the market. NAHB continues to lead the industry
in developing and providing solutions to facilitate and promote
the use of voluntary means to update the housing stock.
Respond to Market Demand
Because one size never fits most, it is important
that builders, home buyers and homeowners have choices
when it comes to finding strategies to reduce energy
usage or increase the resiliency of their homes. As
such, one reason NAHB strongly opposes federal mandates
is because they fail to take into account the needs or
desires of consumers and others, and typically lack the
flexibility needed for realistic, widespread
application. Flexibility allows builders to choose the
specific efficiency component(s), program or green
certification that best suits their needs and the
desires of the home buyers based on their ability to
afford and willingness to pay. In other words, having
options versus requirements allows the market to
function as intended.
As a result, voluntary, above-code programs such as
ENERGY STAR for homes, DOE's Better Buildings program,
the ICC700 National Green Building Standard, Leadership
in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Resilient
Design Pilot credits, RELi 2.0 pilot, FORTIFIED Home
and the U.S. Resiliency Council (USRC) rating all have
widespread participation.
Numerous similar initiatives have also been
successful and many homeowners voluntarily take steps
to improve their home's performance on their own. The
popularity of these programs has led to proven track
records in reducing energy usage and/or improving home
resiliency. For example, over 190,000 units have been
certified to the ICC 700 National Green Building
Standard to date; more than 98,000 ENERGY STAR
certified single-family homes and multifamily units
were built in 2018 alone, for a total of nearly 2
million homes since 1995; and 10,700 homes have the
FORTIFIED designation.
In addition to increasing resiliency and energy
efficiency in residential structures, these programs
provide value to consumers through decreased energy
bills, insurance discounts, peace of mind and other
benefits. The many choices also allow stakeholders to
pick and choose the specific elements that fit their
needs and budgets, which make voluntary alternatives
inherently cost-effective. Consumers are taking notice.
NAHB's recent What Home Buyers Really Want survey found
that energy-saving features, such as ENERGY STAR
appliances, windows and whole house certification are
among the most-wanted home features. Clearly,
voluntary, above-code federal programs that allow for
competition and choice in the market are in demand and
thriving. The broad participation in these programs
demonstrate that mandates are unnecessary and Congress
should not upset this established market.
Provide Cost-Effective Options
NAHB continues to lead the way to improve energy
efficiency and resiliency in the residential sector for
new and existing homes through two specific efforts--
the ICC 700 National Green Building Standard and the
Retrofit Tech Notes.
In 2008, seeing the value of providing our members
and others with a measurable and recognized way to
build sustainable homes, NAHB launched the development
of a green building standard for residential buildings,
now known as the ICC 700 National Green Building
Standard (NGBS). The NGBS is an affordable yet rigorous
standard that applies to all types of residential
buildings, from single-family homes to multifamily
buildings of all sizes, retrofits and land development.
It focuses on energy efficiency, water conservation,
resource conservation, indoor environmental quality,
site design and homeowner education and is the basis of
a national certification program administered by the
Home Innovation Research Labs.
This rigorous certification requires buildings to
improve in every category to achieve a higher
certification level. The NGBS is also the first and
only residential green building standard approved by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which
guarantees that the NGBS was developed using a true
consensus process.
The NGBS continues to evolve and is updated on a
continuous basis to quickly respond to new solutions
and innovations in design, materials, technologies,
commissioning, building operation strategies, market
preferences, financial transactions, etc. The NGBS is
directly tied to the national building codes published
by ICC to ensure compatibility and seamless
implementation by all stakeholders, including
developers, designers, jurisdictions and building
operators. The upcoming 2020 edition of the NGBS is
expected to be released in early 2020. The NGBS has
proven to be a useful and relied-upon voluntary option
for green building and increasing energy efficiency and
resiliency in the residential sector.
Although the NGBS can be used for retrofits, many
households do not have the interest or means to conduct
the larger scale renovation projects to which the NGBS
may apply. Recognizing this challenge, NAHB, in concert
with FEMA, the International Code Council, and the
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, is
developing a series of Tech Notes that describe
different types of retrofit techniques that can be used
to increase the resiliency of existing buildings.
Importantly, these will focus on strategies that
require minimal costs (preferably less than $1,000 for
a typical home) but have a significant impact on
reducing damage.
The first six topics include sealed roof decks, attachment of
roof coverings, flashing and sealing of roof penetrations, use
of hurricane shutters, use of impact resistant doors and
methods of preventing ice dams. It is hoped that these new
resources will help homeowners understand their options,
recognize that certain mitigation options can be cost
effective, and compel them to take action. The first set of
Tech Notes is scheduled to be completed by early 2020.
NAHB continues to demonstrate its commitment to increase the
performance of homes through the development of these
resources. We strongly urge Congress to recognize and promote
voluntary, market-driven, and viable green building, high
performance and resiliency initiatives. Unlike mandates, these
programs can promote lower total ownership costs through
utility savings as well as provide the flexibility builders
need to construct homes that are recognized as being cost-
effective, affordable and appropriate to a home's geographic
location.
Incentives are Crucial to Success
Incentive programs that offset the increased costs for above-
code and mitigation activities are an important tool to reduce
the barriers that many energy efficiency and resiliency
opportunities pose and encourage more homeowners to invest in
home modernization. For example, due to the high initial costs
associated with purchasing and/or installing certain energy
efficient features, many homeowners are unable to finance
desired or necessary upgrades and, without assistance, would
likely forego the improvements. Incentives that are available
at the federal and state levels, as well as those that could be
offered through the real estate valuation and transaction
processes, can address this issue, produce results and have
proven to be attractive alternatives to mandates.
Federal Incentives
Congress has taken a number of steps to alleviate the
challenges associated with funding retrofits and energy
efficiency upgrades. The most prominent are federal
funding for pre-disaster mitigation and tax incentives.
The DRRA includes a number of actions related to
improving the ability of existing structures to
withstand catastrophes, including the creation of the
National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program. States and tribal governments that have
received a major disaster declaration in the past seven
years will be eligible to competitively apply for these
grants, which estimates suggest could range from $800
million to $1 billion annually. NAHB asserts that
increasing the resiliency of the existing housing stock
would be a prudent use of this funding stream.
Tax incentives are also a proven way to realize
results and, in fact, are the most effective at
advancing energy efficiency improvements. Sections 25C
for qualified improvements in existing homes (building
components), 45L for new homes and 179D for commercial
buildings have permeated the market and assisted many
families and building owners to invest in efficiency.
Not only does this reduce energy consumption, NAHB
estimates that for every $100,000 spent on remodeling,
1.11 full-time equivalent jobs are created. The
remodeling activity generated by the 25C tax credit in
2009 was associated with over 278,000 full-time jobs.
Unfortunately, because these tax incentives keep
expiring and being retroactively renewed, the positive
impact of these incentives has decreased since 2011.
Continuing and expanding programs like these, which
have demonstrable results, will compel more homeowners
to take positive actions.
State Incentives
States can also play a role in enticing positive
behavior. One alternative that has been used in several
states is providing insurance discounts to homeowners
who conduct specific activities. In Texas, the state's
hurricane insurance pool, the Texas Windstorm Insurance
Association, offers premium discounts of 19 percent to
33 percent for building code compliance. In Rhode
Island, insurers are required to waive the hurricane
deductible for insured homeowners who voluntarily
implement mitigation measures that are specified in the
insurance regulation. In Alabama, tax credits of up to
$3,000 are available for retrofitting a taxpayer's
legal residence to make it more resistant to
hurricanes, tornadoes, other catastrophic windstorm
events, or rising floodwaters.
In addition, the Alabama State Legislature
established the Strengthen Alabama Homes Act in 2011 to
provide grants to qualified homeowners to retrofit
their homes to reduce property damage caused by
hurricanes or other catastrophic windstorm events.
Currently, the response to the program has been so
overwhelming that the program administrator has
temporarily stopped taking new grant applications.
Clearly, these state programs have proven to be
popular, as they provide value through loss reduction,
yet enable and facilitate broader participation through
reduced costs. The recognition and expansion of
programs like these is one way to engage participation
while offsetting the hefty costs associated with
upgrades.
Other Incentives
There are a number of other opportunities to
facilitate, incentivize, and offset the costs of
voluntary above-code construction and/or pre-disaster
mitigation that could be achieved through public-
private partnerships and other collaboration. These
options include modifications to property valuation and
financing protocols; loans, grants and other funding
programs; and insurance premium reductions within the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), among others.
Under current practice, in most instances, mortgage
companies, appraisers and real estate professionals do
not consider the costs or benefits associated with
various resiliency or energy efficiency upgrades. This
creates a disincentive to take proactive steps to
reduce a home's exposure, as those expenditures are not
necessarily considered to add value. If the
improvements are not included in the appraisal or
appraised value of the structure, not only is the buyer
uninformed about the home's qualities, his or her
willingness to pay more can be significantly
diminished.
In an effort to spur private investment in efficiency
and resiliency, the value and benefit of above code
practices and mitigation measures should be
incorporated into standard real estate lending
practices and real estate listings. By recognizing and
valuating the upgrades, appraisers can consistently
give weight to these improvements, lenders may
reconsider qualifying loan ratios, realtors can promote
their benefits, homeowners would get assurances that
the investments they have made will retain value and be
recognized in resale and homes would be more likely to
get the upgrades needed to improve their performance.
Similar to the valuation process and state insurance
discounts, recognizing improved resiliency can also be
done by tweaking the NFIP. Currently, all improvements
to fortify a home against flood hazards do not result
in flood insurance premium discounts. For example, in
its ``Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Buildings That
Cannot Be Elevated'' document, FEMA outlines several
alternative actions that can be taken in lieu of
elevation. Of the measures discussed, however, only 50
percent of them are eligible for flood insurance
premium reductions.
This limitation clearly registered with homeowners
because FEMA's Office of Flood Insurance Advocate, in
its 2017 Annual Report, identified customer frustration
with the inability to obtain reduced premiums after
conducting certain mitigation activities as a problem.
More confounding is the fact that some of the projects
identified in the report were undertaken through a
qualified FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant.
Clearly, changes to the NFIP that recognize, allow and
credit homeowners who take any of the suggested steps
(and others) could go a long way toward improving
resiliency.
Incentives are a proven way to drive efficiency and
improve home performance while preserving housing
affordability. Congress is urged to retain and expand
the current offerings and work collaboratively with
state and local governments and the finance, insurance
and real estate industries to offer additional ways to
recognize and offset the increased costs associated
with many energy efficiency and resiliency designs,
techniques and construction practices.
Conclusion
NAHB is committed to working as a partner with all levels of
government to encourage energy efficiency and resilience. However,
housing affordability cannot be jeopardized in the process. NAHB urges
Congress to focus on solutions that are market driven, such as above
code voluntary programs and other incentives, and to focus on
increasing the energy efficiency and resiliency of the existing housing
stock. Any federal mandates or further push to require the adoption of
more stringent building codes is unnecessary, may not achieve the
intended results and will prevent healthy competition in the
marketplace. NAHB looks forward to working with the committee to find
reasonable ways to increase community resilience and move the nation to
a clean energy economy.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Dr. Shahyd, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KHALIL SHAHYD
Dr. Shahyd. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves,
and distinguished members of the select committee. Thank you
for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify.
My name Khalil Shahyd. I am a senior policy advocate with
the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is part of Energy
Efficiency for All, or EEFA. We are a national partnership
working to bring awareness to and increase energy-efficiency
services in affordable multifamily housing. Affordable housing
is generally defined as spending less than 30 percent of
household income on housing.
America is being confronted today with two existential
crises, and how we respond will determine the type of Nation we
are for generations to come. They are the climate crisis and
the increasing cost of housing. And these two issues are
absolutely linked, creating extreme burdens for households and
families across this country. These include renters, female-
headed households, the elderly, African-Americans, and other
communities of color.
Often, low-income and vulnerable households have very few
housing options. They are left to rely on low-quality housing
due to residential segregation, long-term neighborhood
disinvestment, and deferred maintenance to the housing stock.
These homes tend to waste energy so that low-income families
pay more per square foot for energy than higher-income
residents.
The result is that nearly one-third of households in the
U.S. struggle to pay energy bills. And, in fact, one in five
households have been forced to choose between buying food,
medicine, or other necessities over paying an energy bill.
As if this were not enough, Americans are increasingly
facing the prospects of dealing with major weather disasters
such as hurricanes, flooding, wildfire, and other climate-
related emergencies that place vulnerable housing stock at risk
of destruction. And that leads to displacement and
destabilization of families and communities.
To avert the worst impacts of climate change, our policies
must ensure both the reduction of emissions that cause climate
change and that people can live in safe, affordable housing.
With decisive leadership, Congress can address the dual
crises of affordable housing and climate change while helping
to produce hundreds of thousands of new clean jobs and
alleviate the negative health impacts of indoor and outdoor air
pollution.
NRDC's report, ``America's Clean Energy Frontier,'' shows
that we can reduce carbon emissions by at least 80 percent by
2050, with fully half coming from energy efficiency. This means
that energy efficiency is absolutely critical to achieving U.S.
emissions-reduction goals and doing so in an affordable manner.
Consider that residential energy efficiency is the largest
single measure that can reduce climate pollution in the U.S.
Along with cutting pollution and reducing energy bills,
efficiency has considerable health and safety benefits,
including improved indoor air quality, which reduces the
likelihood of asthma.
And we have a report coming soon that shows that
retrofitting America's affordable multifamily housing can
create hundreds of thousands of local jobs that can't be
outsourced. Already, energy efficiency accounts for more than
2.2 million jobs nationally. That is 10 times more than oil and
gas drilling and 30 times more than coal mining.
There are two major programs that fund energy efficiency
and affordable housing at the Federal level, and both need more
resources from Congress. There are also several pending pieces
of legislation that could help, but, in the interest of time,
let me focus for a minute on the Department of Energy's
Weatherization Assistance Program.
Every year, the program's efficiency improvements help
reduce energy costs for thousands of low-income families,
cutting America's climate pollution by 2 million metric tons.
In total, residential energy-efficiency improvements can
account for carbon reductions as high as 550 million metric
tons every year by 2050.
Unfortunately, there are many barriers to increasing energy
efficiency in the Nation's affordable housing, but Congress can
help. Despite the considerable need for efficiency improvements
in low-income housing, many programs that facilitate retrofits
are sorely underfunded. Across the country, only about 35,000
homes can enroll in the Weatherization Assistance Program on a
yearly basis, and the maximum per-unit expenditure is only
about $6,000. That is not enough.
There is not a State in the country where there isn't a
waiting list for services that is not extremely long, sometimes
years, for the Weatherization Assistance Program. For example,
at the current rate, it would take Ohio almost 150 years to
weatherize all currently eligible homes.
The cost of regular maintenance and upgrades for
multifamily housing are among the most significant barriers to
preserving affordable, quality homes for low-income households.
Without attention, the properties deteriorate. Federal action
is needed to incentivize investments in hard-to-reach sectors
of the housing markets. Without it, there will be greater
inequity and greater costs to families who are least able to
afford it.
We have a housing affordability crisis in America. Millions
of affordable rental homes have already been lost, demolished
because housing providers could not afford the cost of
maintaining those buildings. Much of the remaining affordable
rental homes are aging and in need of repair. The escalating
climate crisis will only worsen this situation.
Energy efficiency can help bridge the growing gap between
renter incomes and rising housing costs. And retrofitting
existing housing can preserve and expand the affordable housing
stock for low-income tenants. Energy efficiency can be a win
for everyone, but Congress needs to act. And we hope this
committee can help.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Shahyd follows:]
----------
Testimony of Khalil Shahyd
Senior Policy Advocate, Health People/Thriving Communities Program,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings
October 17, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members of
the Committee; thank you for holding this hearing and for the
opportunity to testify today on the critically important topic of
``solving the climate crisis: cleaner, stronger buildings''.
My name is Khalil Shahyd, I am a Senior Policy Advocate with the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is an international,
non-profit environmental organization representing more than three
million members and online activists. Since 1970, our environmental
experts have worked to protect the world's natural resources, improve
public health, and ensure a safe and sustainable environment for all.
NRDC's top institutional priorities include advocacy to avert the
worst consequences of climate change, creating a healthy environment
and clean jobs by scaling up clean energy and increasing investments in
energy efficiency.
NRDC has a long history of engagement on federal and state energy
efficiency standards as a key policy to lower energy bills, improve
indoor air quality and reduce greenhouse gas and other forms of
pollution. Since 2014, we've worked with the Energy Efficiency for All
(EEFA) coalition partnering with leaders and advocates across the
nation to ensure that utility rate-payer-funded energy efficiency
programs respond to the needs, potential and benefits of increased
energy efficiency investments in the affordable multi-family housing
sector.
EEFA unites people from diverse sectors, including housing, health,
energy efficiency, environmental, and community advocacy organizations,
that have not typically worked together in the past to collectively
make multifamily affordable homes energy and water efficient. Our
national includes the National Housing Trust, Elevate Energy, Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Energy Foundation as well nearly 50
state and community-based organizations.
What began as a project involving eight state-level partnerships
has now grown to twelve states and an expanded network of leaders and
practitioners in the Network for Energy, Water, and Health in
Affordable Buildings (NEWHAB). NEWHAB is a platform for coalition
members and diverse sector leaders to convene, learn from one another,
and develop collective solutions to increase access to healthy and
affordable homes.
Together, our coalition partners work to ensure that utility,
state, local, and federal entities provide equitable investment to
improve the efficiency of affordable multifamily homes; advance proven
best practices in efficiency program design and implementation to help
meet the needs of affordable housing building owners and residents; and
advocate for policy solutions to ensure that non-toxic, healthy
building materials are used in all home improvements. EEFA's advocacy
has led to nearly $500 million in new confirmed and expected funding
for efficiency upgrades and 19 new or improved energy efficiency
programs that specifically serve affordable multifamily housing. More
than 100,000 affordable apartments have received upgrades via these
programs, benefitting an estimated 200,000+ low-income renters.
Congressional action to address climate change can deliver positive
benefits for the environment and people, with targeted policies to
ensure safe, healthy and energy efficient affordable housing affordable
housing. Benefits including;
Preserving affordable housing
Lowering household energy cost
Improving indoor air quality and health outcomes
Creating jobs with career opportunities for workers
Why energy efficiency?
Many households in the United States are currently experiencing a
dual crisis related to the affordability and quality of residential
housing. Nearly two-thirds of renters nationwide say they can't afford
to buy a home, as home prices are rising at twice the rate of wage
growth while more than 11 million Americans (roughly the population of
New York City and Chicago combined) spend more than half their paycheck
on rent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.curbed.com/2019/5/15/18617763/affordable-housing-
policy-rent-real-estate-apartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legacy of housing discrimination, redlining and disinvestment
also exacerbate the housing burden for low-income families, which often
face few options but to rely on inadequate or lower quality housing to
secure their families. Many low-income and vulnerable households have
few residential options but to rely on low-quality housing due to
residential segregation, long-term neighborhood disinvestment and
deferred maintenance of the housing stock. These homes tend to be
energy inefficient, impacting the stability of many families due to
high utility bills and recurring illnesses from inadequate indoor air
quality. Struggling families sometimes spend more than 20 percent of
their incomes on electricity and heat--far more than the national
average of 2.7 percent and nearly one-third of households in the United
States have struggled to pay their energy bills, while about one in
five households had to choose between purchasing food, medicine or
other necessities to pay an energy bill.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor ventilation can cause homes to be drafty in winter and allow
in moisture in summer that leads to mold and illness. Poor construction
and inefficient appliances leave families unable to safely maintain
comfortable temperatures, leaving them further vulnerable to illness or
potentially deadly accidents. In fact, 79 percent of fatal home heating
fires are started by space heaters or stoves used when home heating
systems are inadequate or malfunctioning.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/
US-Fire-Problem/Heating-equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, rising energy costs place an additional burden on
families that have little flexibility in their household budgets to
meet their needs. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), retail residential electricity rates (the amount
one pays per kilowatt-hour, or cents/kWh) have risen across the nation
at a rate of about four percent on average over the last 10 years--
faster even than the rise in average rent cost. Climate change will
likely exacerbate these trends, as average temperatures rise and
unpredictable weather gives rise to greater extremes of both hot and
cold. Because of these and other factors, the use of energy at home
imposes costs and consequences that vary significantly based on where
one lives.
Rural Energy Burden
These burdens are particularly acute for rural households. Across
the nation over a quarter of all rural low-income households devote
more than 10 percent of their income to energy expenses.\4\ That's a
significant expense, and for a household it often means deciding
between keeping heat or lights on versus paying rent, buying food or
paying for medicines or school supplies. Such high energy burdens
increase the likelihood that these households will see their utility
services shut off at some point. Once shut off, additional fees
increase the cost of reestablishing service, and inability to pay can
lead to arrears that damage credit ratings, making reopening services
or even qualifying for better housing difficult or impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/the-high-cost-
of-energy-in-rural-america-household-energy-burdens-and/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the lower densities of the population over wider areas, the
cost of delivering energy and energy efficiency services to rural
households is on average higher than for their urban counterparts.
Rural communities are more likely to be serviced by smaller rural coops
or publicly owned utilities that may lack the capacity or resources to
invest in comprehensive energy efficiency programs. Consequently, rural
energy costs are vastly higher than the national averages and higher
than in metro areas.
Rural families are caught in a vise, since they are also more
likely to be impoverished while facing higher costs. Approximately 43
percent of households in rural areas have incomes below 200 percent of
the federal poverty level, increasing vulnerability to high energy
burdens. Low incomes, high energy use, non-ownership status, and
inefficient housing stock are some of the key drivers of high energy
burdens, which can place significant financial stress on families and
other households.
Rural households are also much more likely to live in manufactured
housing than their urban counterparts. More popularly known as mobile
homes--which are built in a factory, transported to a site on a flatbed
truck, and installed on-site--manufactured housing tends to be less
energy efficient and more costly to repair than traditional homes.
About 20 percent of all rural households live in manufactured homes,
making provision of energy efficiency services costlier and less likely
to happen.
Urban Energy Burdens Highest for Low-Income Renters and Households of
Color
Similarly, low-income households in large metros pay 7.2 percent of
household income on utilities--more than twice as much as the median
household and three times as much as higher income households who often
have the luxury to live in more modern and energy efficient homes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/lifting-the-
high-energy-burden-in-americas-largest-cities-how-energy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affordability is a particularly acute challenge for renters in
multifamily buildings, where close to 50 percent of our nation's low-
income renters--nearly 10 million people, live.\6\ Almost half of these
residences were built 50 years ago. Energy cost and energy related
maintenance cost in multifamily housing, including public housing are
usually the highest recurring expenditure to maintain affordable,
quality homes. In fact, low-income households--in affordable
multifamily buildings--spend, on average, 7.2 percent of their income
on utility bills, which amounts to about $1,700 annually out of a
median household income of $25,000. That is more than triple the 2.3
percent spent for electricity, heating and cooling by higher-income
households. Increasing energy efficiency in these homes could cut
electricity use as much as 32 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/
jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf.
\7\ https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/potential-for-
energy-savings-in-affordable-multifamily-housing/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When viewed by race/ethnicity, communities of color are more
burdened by energy cost than white families. Poverty and discrimination
in rental and housing markets drive low-income households and people of
color into older, less efficient buildings leading to higher energy
costs. As a result, African-American households experienced a median
energy burden 64 percent greater than white households, and Latino
households had a median burden 24 percent greater than white
households.
Meanwhile, Memphis had the highest energy burden for low-income
households, with residents spending, on average, 13.2 percent of their
income for energy. The median annual income for low-income residents of
Memphis is $19,157, meaning that a family would be paying a whopping
$200 a month ($2,400 a year) for energy to keep the lights on and their
homes comfortable.
In fact, in 17 of the nation's largest cities, a fourth of low-
income households experienced an energy burden greater than 14 percent.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Low income households and affordable housing owners face a
multitude of barriers when making efficiency investments including:
``split incentives'' and the need for upfront financing to pay for
upgrades. Where renters pay energy bills but owners make investments in
durable equipment in the building, neither party can fully capture the
benefit of an investment in energy efficiency leading to the split
incentive. Since these tenants are more likely to move, they have less
incentive to spend their own money on efficiency since they will not
enjoy the benefits of long-lived investments. Low income households,
including most renters, have little surplus in their budget to pay for
the upfront cost of energy efficiency upgrades.
Thankfully there are solutions to these huge burdens. Reducing the
cost of energy through increased efficiency and regular maintenance
that can improve residential energy performance by reducing energy
consumption can help to preserve the long-term affordability of homes.
Federal Programs Falling Short of the Need
Federal support for energy efficiency through programs such as the
U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
have played an important role establishing the techniques and
technologies used by energy efficiency professionals across the home
performance sector.\8\ The creation of WAP has led to the establishment
of workforce training centers, best practices and the deployment of
adoption of more advanced energy audits and diagnostic equipment to
assess home energy performance.\9\ However, despite the considerable
and persistent need for energy efficiency improvements in low income
housing, many programs that facilitate retrofits are sorely
underfunded. Across the country, only about 35,000 homes can enroll in
WAP on a yearly basis with a maximum per unit expenditure of just over
$6,000. Not enough to achieve the type of savings through whole
building retrofits that will be required. At the current rate of
service provision, it would take the State of Ohio roughly 150 years to
weatherize all the homes currently eligible for the Department of
Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/wipo/weatherization-assistance-
program-history.
\9\ ibid.
\10\ Dave Rinebolt, Executive Director and Counsel at Ohio Partners
for Affordable Energy; ``comments during a panel discussion on the
Multiple Benefits of Federal Energy programs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Action
Preserving Affordability of Housing
The cost of regular maintenance and upgrades for multifamily
housing are the most significant barriers to preserving affordable,
quality residential housing for low-income families. As negligence and
neglect inflate the cost of repairs, federal action will be required to
incentivize investments in hard to reach sectors of the housing market.
Failure to act will ultimately will result in greater inequity and
greater costs to local and state budgets. According to a recent report
by the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative; ``Investments that address
social inequities in housing, energy and health are necessary to
produce greater affordability, housing stability, energy security,
resiliency, health equity and social justice for all Americans''.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://assets.ctfassets.net/ntcn17ss1ow9/
2CMLkZBwlL3n37tfwNfqWS/e5dc2cfc9d74f6a39b5149f922707583/
AchievingHealth_SocialEquity_final-lo_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without needed support for reinvestment in and preservation of
existing affordable housing, we run the risk of exacerbating the
affordable housing crisis. Millions of affordable rental homes have
already been demolished because housing providers could not afford the
cost of maintaining the buildings. Much of the nation's remaining
affordable rental homes are in buildings that are aging and in need of
repair. Climate change, and climate induced disasters from hurricanes,
flooding or fires risk further damage to homes critical for enabling
access to affordable housing to America's low-income families.
Improving the energy and water efficiency of buildings is an
essential strategy to preserve existing affordable rentals. Efficiency
upgrades can result in significant financial savings to the property by
lowering operating expenses that can be reinvested in property
improvements. The saved financial resources for building owners can be
used to replenish reserves that are set aside for future building
repair needs, and/or free up capital to offset potential rent
increases. There are several ways that efficiency upgrades can help to
preserve affordable housing by improving the financial stability of the
property;
1. Utility bills can comprise up to a fifth of operating
expenses in multifamily affordable homes and often are the
largest controllable, variable expense.
2. Replacing older building equipment with new, more
efficient equipment can result in lower maintenance costs.
3. Savings from efficiency upgrades improve the cash flow of
the property, which can then be used to leverage additional
debt financing that can be reinvested to make other capital
improvements to the building.
Lowering Energy Cost for Renters
Energy efficiency investments provide a critical cross sector
opportunity to stimulate multiple household and societal benefits.
First, weatherizing a home for low-income families offers numerous
benefits. Weatherization saves an average of $283 per year for families
living at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level--which is
just over $12,000 for a single person household and $25,000 for a four-
person household. Households residing in rural manufactured homes would
see savings of $458 per year or more than one-quarter of their energy
bill and a full 1.5 percent of their household income. Rural renting,
low-income, elderly, and non-white families would all save over $100
per year if they had the same utility costs per square foot as the
metropolitan median household.
Investing in energy efficiency is the most cost-effective path to
reducing the demand for energy, thus reducing the amount families need
to spend on energy services. If we were just able to bring the low
income and low-income multifamily housing stock up to the efficiency of
the median household in our largest cities, we would eliminate at least
35 percent of the excess energy burden these families face. The average
family could save as much as $300 annually on utility bills in addition
to improvements in health, comfort and safety.
Health Benefits of Energy Efficiency
Direct energy savings benefits to households from efficiency are
just one potential benefit from efficiency upgrades. Improving the
energy efficiency of homes when coupled with actions addressing social
determinants of health and prioritizing the use of healthy building
materials can provide a number of ``non-energy'' health benefits to
households.
Energy efficiency measures can improve indoor air quality by
reducing criteria air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, lead, ground-
level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide.\12\ Persistent exposure to these pollutants can increase the
likelihood of cardiovascular disorders, respiratory illness and risk of
carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition, outdoor particulate matter (PM)
can enter a home through cracks and gaps in the doorways or walls but
also through open windows and HVAC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Washington State, the Department of Commerce, who operates the
state's weatherization program, incorporates asthma and Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) among the outcomes administrators
would use to measure program achievements. The Weatherization Plus
Health program, partnering with local public health organizations to
assist in recruitment and assessment served more than 500 families
across the state of Washington and is expanding to provide services to
more households.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/energy/
weatherization-and-energy-efficiency/matchmaker/weatherization-plus-
health-wxh/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Energy Efficiency Creates Jobs
In addition to the health and cost saving benefits of investing in
energy efficiency, there are job \14\ and economic development \15\
benefits that provide opportunities for families. For every dollar
invested in energy efficiency for low income families, two dollars are
put back into the economy through energy savings and increased income
from job creation. In fact, energy efficiency is a labor-intensive
industry that already accounts for more than 2.2 million jobs across
the nation. Ten times more than oil and gas drilling, and thirty times
more than coal mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/ee-job-creation.pdf.
\15\ https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2014/september/energy-
efficiency-a-key.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These include direct jobs for contractors hired to implement
efficiency measures in the home, indirect ``supply-chain'' jobs
generated from the purchase and provision of the materials required to
complete the projects, and the final boost in economic activity from
the increased combined expenditure of job related income for
contractors and energy cost savings for families who receive the
services.
A soon to be released report by EEFA on the job potential in
retrofitting affordable multifamily housing found that more than
700,000 jobs can be created by deploying energy efficiency upgrades in
eleven states with active EEFA coalitions.
Environment and Climate Benefits of Energy Efficiency
Finally, boosting energy efficiency also means we avoid the cost of
building out expensive energy infrastructure like power plants and
transmission lines, reducing the nation's energy-related utility costs.
Further, everyone's health improves when we reduce the amount of
hazardous mercury, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter spewing out of
power plant smokestacks and furnaces.
NRDC's 2018 analysis and report, America's Clean Energy Frontier:
The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future, shows that the U.S. economy can
reduce carbon emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, with fully half
of those savings coming from energy efficiency. This means that
maintaining and accelerating energy efficiency improvements is
absolutely critical to achieving U.S. emissions reduction goals and
doing so in an affordable manner. Aggressive deployment of energy
efficiency technologies and system-wide energy efficiency services will
be needed across all economic sectors, to slash our energy demand by 40
percent.
The residential sector has a key role to play in meeting those
goals. Residential energy efficiency is the largest single measure
source of potential carbon reduction in the nation.\16\ Every year
improvements undertaken through WAP alone cuts America's climate
pollution by two million metric tons.\17\ In total, residential
efficiency can account for as much as 550 million metric tons of
CO2 equivalent emissions reductions annually by 2050 (equal
to the combined electric power emissions of California, Texas, New
York, Florida, Illinois, and Virginia in 2016).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.nrdc.org/resources/americas-clean-energy-frontier-
pathway-safer-climate-future.
\17\ https://energy.gov/eere/articles/celebrating-40-years-america-
s-weatherization-assistance-program.
\18\ https://www.nrdc.org/resources/americas-clean-energy-frontier-
pathway-safer-climate-future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need Congressional leadership to realize these benefits
To avert the worst impacts of climate change, our policy must
ensure both the reduction of emissions that cause climate change and
also support people's capacity to adapt and thrive in a post carbon
world. In order to act on climate change while also addressing the
threat of rising inequality, we must accelerate action on all fronts
and in particular create a more supportive policy environment for
affordable housing and accelerate residential energy efficiency. We
need Congressional action to lead our nation in its response to climate
change and to realize the enormous benefits of these investments.
Through decisive action, Congressional leaders can address the dual
crisis of affordable housing and climate change, while producing
hundreds of thousands of clean jobs and alleviating the negative health
impacts of indoor and outdoor air pollution.
Addressing these core policy areas will enable affordable housing
and low-income families to be engaged as partners in actions that
contribute to meaningful emissions reductions by reducing household
energy use and demand. Key policies congress should support toward
these outcomes are;
Preserving Affordable Housing
Expand the National Housing Trust Fund from $367m
now to $3.5 billion/year. Affordable housing is in short supply
across the country, and this is one of the newer sources of
funding to improve it. The support can be used to reduce energy
use and increase resiliency of housing, depending on state
allocation plan requirements. But the need vastly outstrips the
funding currently available.
Support and utilize S. 1703 the Affordable Housing
Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) \19\ and S. 1288 the Clean
Energy for America Act \20\ to enable Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) properties to take advantage of tax incentives
available for energy efficiency investments.\21\ The LIHTC is
the largest and most successful tool for creating and
preserving affordable housing. The Clean Energy for America Act
amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax
incentives for increased efficiency investments in retrofitting
existing and new residential and commercial buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/
sb_1703_ahcia_060419.pdf.
\20\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1288/
text.
\21\ https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/using-energy-
efficient-practices-preserve-affordable-homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support H.R. 4307, the Build More Housing Near
Transit Act.\22\ The legislation would require major transit
projects using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts
capital investment grant funding to incorporate an evaluation
of housing development near transit station areas as a part of
the application process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4307/
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowering Household Energy Cost
Support reauthorization of S. 983, the
Weatherization Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency
Investment and Accountability Act.\23\ This bill reauthorizes
the DOE WAP, creates a new innovation fund for special
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/983/
cosponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support S. 185 the Investing in State Energy
Act.\24\ This bill would require that the Department of Energy
(DOE) distribute funding appropriated for WAP and SEP by
Congress to implementing agencies within 60 days.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/185/
text.
\25\ https://www.nrdc.org/experts/deron-lovaas/congress-must-pass-
investing-state-energy-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Indoor Air Quality and Health
Support H.R. 3590, the Environmental Justice and
Civil Rights Restoration and Enforcement Act.\26\ This bill
reinforces that Federal agencies are to comply and be held
accountable to the Title VI Civil Rights Act and that
disparities and outcomes shown to have disparate impact must be
address through Environmental Justice actions.\27\ This bill
gives communities the legal tools to hold Federal agencies
including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable
to unequal burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3590/
text.
\27\ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy-
resources/publications/trends/2011_12/march_april/
environmental_justice_title_vi_civil_rights_act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support H.R. 3923, the Environmental Justice
Act.\28\ Requires Federal agencies to address environmental
justice, to require consideration of cumulative impacts in
certain permitting decisions, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3923/
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation Jobs with Career Opportunities for Workers
Support H.R. 4061, the Blue Collar and Green Collar
Jobs Development Act.\29\ Directs the Secretary of Energy to
establish and carry out a comprehensive, nationwide, energy-
related industries jobs program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4061/
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support H.R. 4148, the Green Jobs and Opportunity
Act.\30\ Requires the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Education, to submit a
report on current and future trends and shortages in the clean
energy technology industry to achieve a clean energy economy,
and to provide grants to establish and enhance training
programs for any occupation or field of work for which a
shortage is identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4148/
text.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROY WRIGHT
Mr. Wright. Good morning, Chair Castor, Mr. Graves, and
members of the committee. I am Roy Wright. After years of
leading FEMA's work on flood insurance and disaster resilience,
today I have the honor of leading the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety.
We know that severe weather disrupts lives, displaces
families, and drives financial loss. The forces of Mother
Nature will not be constrained, yet much of the damage that is
caused by these severe weather events is avoidable. The
catastrophic disasters of 2017 and 2018 make this plain. These
experiences focused the public's attention and should drive
climate adaptation.
IBHS knows that putting proven building science solutions
in place now will reduce disaster losses in the future. Given
its important societal and economic benefits, adaptation is a
public health objective, a humanitarian obligation, and a sound
fiscal strategy. It touches both fiscal economics and
environmental justice.
First, how do we prevent avoidable losses, preventing the
avoidable portion of the damages that disasters ravage on homes
and communities? Simply, we need to narrow the path of damage.
For example, the zone of the strongest winds for a Cat 4
hurricane will cause destruction, there is no question about
it. Yet the damages that can occur at 120-miles, 110-, 100-
miles-an-hour wind can be significantly reduced.
To that end, we spend a lot of time talking about roofs,
that most basic level of need. When the roof fails because of
severe weather, it kickstarts a cascade of failures. When the
roof fails, we see damages in homes, we see disruptions in
businesses, it breaks up families, it derails careers, it
destroys the financial security of a family.
All too often, these policy discussions miss the most
vulnerable populations in our Nation--the disabled, elderly,
low-income, and other disadvantaged people who are less likely
to prepare for disasters, evacuate safely, avoid the physical
and psychological trauma. Frankly, they are less likely to
recover quickly and fully.
Those who live in rental units are dependent on landlords
and public housing agencies for structural loss prevention.
This places an even higher priority on adaptation measures that
prevent avoidable damage to the places where they live and
work.
Understanding this, Habitat for Humanity created the
Habitat Strong program, which is built to our FORTIFIED Home
standard. We are particularly proud of the performance of the
five Habitat Strong homes that were affected by Hurricane
Michael. They stood strong against those fierce winds of that
Cat 5 in 2018. The only reported damage to these single-family,
1,200-square-foot homes was a single piece of lost siding.
At the State and local level, it clearly begins with the
building code, but today I want to focus on the Federal side.
Last year, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation that will
reduce the severity of disasters and the amount of taxpayer
funds directed towards recovery.
Chief among them is the Disaster Recovery Reform Act.
Though its implementation has been too slow by FEMA, the DRRA
will deliver the largest investment by the Federal Government
to buy down the risk of natural disasters prior to the
devastation occurring.
That is important, yet insufficient. Resilience and
adaptation cannot be funded by the government alone. That is
neither feasible nor responsible. Any practical agenda requires
an emphasis on individual Americans leaning in and taking
action, making their own investments.
Congress needs to move forward with a homeowners disaster
resilience tax credit for making improvements on their own that
buy down the risk of future disasters. This holds potential
across every State in the Union, whether your principal risk is
wildfire, hurricane, high wind, earthquake, flooding, or severe
winter weather.
And where States are doing the right thing and funding
their own grants, Congress needs to eliminate the tax penalties
associated with implementing those catastrophic loss resilience
programs. Alabama, North Carolina, and California would
immediately benefit, and this could incent other States to lean
in with their own resources.
Americans are not powerless against severe weather and
changes to the climate. It is possible to reduce the damage
inflicted today and in the future. We know it is practical,
affordable, and just makes plain good sense.
I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with
you today, and I look forward to the questions from the
committee.
[The statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
----------
Testimony of Roy Wright
President and CEO, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings
October 17, 2019
Members of the Select Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about the importance of the built environment as
we think about ways to adapt to the adverse effects of future climate
conditions. My name is Roy Wright, and I am President & CEO of the
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). IBHS is a
501(c)(3) organization, enabled by the property insurance industry's
investment, to fund building safety research that leads to real-world
solutions for home and business owners, helping to create more
resilient communities.
Severe weather disrupts lives, displaces families, and drives
financial loss. IBHS delivers top-tier science and translates it into
action so we can prevent avoidable suffering, strengthen our homes and
businesses, inform the insurance industry, and support thriving
communities.
The forces of Mother Nature will not be constrained, yet much of
the damage caused by severe weather is avoidable. If the devastating
hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters of 2017 made the case for
resilience, those of 2018 underscored the urgency of IBHS' mission and
the importance of these questions to the Nation.
The perils we study at IBHS are part of the natural world in which
we live, but social and economic disasters occur when these perils meet
human populations that live or work in harm's way. In order to break
the cycle of destruction, it is essential to address all aspects of the
building performance chain: where you build, how you design and
construct, and how well you maintain and repair. As a building science
institute, IBHS focuses on the ways that weather behaves, what makes
homes and businesses vulnerable, and how our buildings can be better
protected. We exist to help ensure that the places where people live,
learn, work, worship, and gather are safe, stable and as strong as the
best science can equip them to be.
The Importance of Adaptation
The goal of climate change adaptation is to take actions today to
reduce losses tomorrow. Recognizing that we can't predict specific
weather events next month, much less over the next several decades,
IBHS knows that putting proven building science solutions in place now
will reduce disaster losses in the future. Given its important societal
and economic benefits, adaptation is a sound fiscal strategy, public
health objective, and humanitarian obligation. It touches both fiscal
economics and economic justice.
Moreover, the same actions that protect buildings also protect the
environment, by reducing the massive amounts of post-disaster debris
that can overwhelm landfills and lessening the release of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated when buildings burn.
Adaptation: From Research to Action
In order to prioritize our efforts on the initiatives that best
advance our mission, IBHS thinks about adaptation through three lenses:
Lead with the Roof; Solve with Research on Vulnerability and Loss; and
Prevent Avoidable Damage.
1. Lead with the Roof
When you think about a home, ``having a roof over your head'' is
the most basic level of need. Yet this protection can be threatened by
severe weather. When roofs fail, they can kick-start a cascade of
failures such as water infiltration, projectile damage, and destruction
of rooftop equipment, resulting in as much as 70-90 percent of insured
residential losses from some disasters. As startling as these insurance
statistics may be, they fail to capture the broader human consequences
resulting from roof failures--damaged homes and businesses that disrupt
daily life, break up families, derail careers, and destroy financial
security.
To end this path of destruction and dislocation, IBHS's highest
priority is to understand what makes roof systems vulnerable and how
roofing materials, their supply chain, and installation methods can be
improved to reduce roof-related damage. Our studies show one easy way
to achieve this is by applying tape over the roof deck's joints before
the underlayment is applied (this is called a ``sealed roof deck'').
The process costs only several hundred dollars for a typical roofing
installation but can save tens of thousands of dollars in the event the
roof cover is blown off during a high or prolonged wind event. The
sealed roof deck is the most cost-effective and accessible component of
the FORTIFIED Home building standard developed by IBHS to provide
design and construction specifications for home- and business owners
who wish to improve their resilience beyond the mandatory levels
outlined in state and local building codes. IBHS also believes that
standard model building codes would be improved by incorporating a
cost-effective sealed roof deck requirement. Similarly, wildfire codes
should reflect best practices to resist ignition through the roof
system.
From a communications perspective, it is important to educate home
and business owners to pay more attention to their roof and to
understand how to extend its life and reduce the likelihood of storm-
related damage. IBHS knows that small investments today can prevent
large losses in the future--but we have to find ways to get people to
pay attention and take action.
2. Solve with Research
The core perils studied at the IBHS Research Center are wind, wind-
driven rain, hail, and wildfire, all relevant to today's hearing
because they could become more frequent and destructive with a changing
climate. The design of our Research Center--with 105 fans capable of
generating wind speeds approximating the gusts of a Category 3
Hurricane--provides unique capabilities to replicate real world weather
conditions. We also have made significant, long-term investments in
equipment that allows us to create the ember showers that are the
leading cause of home ignitions from destructive wildfires. And, we
have developed a unique capability to replicate the density, hardness,
and kinetic energy of natural hailstones in order to assess the
durability and damageability of asphalt shingles and other products.
IBHS' best-in-class science fills knowledge gaps to achieve significant
social and economic benefits across all regions and demographics of
America.
IBHS brings the ability--through experimental testing, field
research, and analytics--to understand the pathology behind the damage
caused by our core perils and identify where building protection
strategies can have a real-world impact. To reduce damage, we need to
understand it. In this regard, observing damaged homes and businesses--
whether during post-event field investigations or through other
external data sources such as aerial imagery--helps IBHS to identify
vulnerabilities and design experimental testing to more fully
understand the sequence of events that leads to damage. Results
captured in the lab are coupled with data gathered in the field to
understand and demonstrate what makes buildings vulnerable, cost-
effective ways to prevent damage, and how to reduce loss when damage
cannot be fully avoided.
In choosing specific research projects, we are driven by our
mission of translating our research into action. That means that we
choose science that can shape building codes and standards, evolve our
FORTIFIED program, influence building professionals and products,
improve consumer choices, and advance sound public policy solutions. At
a fundamental level, consumers deserve to have confidence that the time
and financial investments they make in resilience will live up to their
reasonable expectations. Our research demonstrates that home and
business resilience is available at a range of price points, and that
poor choices or inaction can result in damage or destruction when
severe weather strikes. Over the longer term, understanding the
importance of resilience as part of climate change adaptation will
amplify our research for future generations.
3. Prevent Avoidable Damage: Public Policy Levers
At IBHS, we call this ``narrowing the path of damage.'' For
example, in a Cat 4 hurricane, the zone of the strongest winds will
cause destruction, yet the damage caused by bands of 100, 110, or even
120 mph winds can be significantly reduced. Similarly, the strongest
areas of EF3, EF4, and EF5 tornadoes will see destruction, yet damage
in the outer bands with winds equal to EF0, EF1, and EF2 can be reduced
by building better.
Building codes are an important part of this focus. Historically,
codes focus on life safety, but through proper application, they also
can reduce the disruption natural hazards have on our lives. Yet,
adoption and enforcement are not uniform across the country, or even in
some of our most hazard-prone states.
Last year, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to advance
that recognize the need for long-term investments to reduce the
severity of disasters and the amount of taxpayer funds directed toward
recovery:
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included new cost-share
incentives for states to invest in resilience. Prior to the new law
being passed, the Stafford Act generally provided a 75% federal share
for state assistance and reimbursement. The new mitigation provision
amends the Stafford Act to provide an increased federal share (up to 10
percent more) to states and territories that undertake eligible
mitigation actions, such as: adopting current building codes,
developing an approved mitigation plan, investing in insurance,
participating in the Community Rating System, and/or providing
financial incentives for mitigation projects like tax breaks or
credits. The increased federal cost-share incentive will be implemented
using a sliding scale.
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018 creates
several new mitigation policies, such as:
Allowing states and local governments to use FEMA
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants to facilitate the adoption
and enforcement of building codes.
Incentivizing states and local governments to adopt
the latest model code.
Authorizing the President to set aside six percent
of the total amount of disaster recovery grants awarded from
the Disaster Relief Fund, for deposit into FEMA's PDM fund. The
new funds represent a fundamental shift in the way the federal
government prepares communities for future storm events.
As important as these federal measures are, they will not advance
adaptation unless states understand how these funds can be applied to
make homes, businesses, and communities less vulnerable to the severe
weather scenarios that play out at the IBHS Research Center. It is
critical to connect the dots between these new federal grant
opportunities and bricks and mortar state programs that can strengthen
the built environment for the future. We have partnered with the
BuildStrong Coalition to provide technical assistance in making these
connections.
The DRRA, once fully implemented, will deliver the largest
investment by the Federal government to buy down the risk of natural
disasters now and in the future. While the advancement, enactment,
implementation, and oversight of the DRRA are ably handled by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this Select Committee
can highlight the importance of projects to strengthen home and
businesses and protect communities from climate change.
While DRRA represents a new era in disaster mitigation policy at
the federal level, there are additional steps Congress can take to
assist homeowners and small businessowners with disaster preparedness.
One idea is to remove the tax penalty for individuals and businesses
that benefit from state-based catastrophe-loss mitigation programs.
H.R. 2053 the ``Catastrophe-Loss-Mitigation Incentive and Tax Parity
Act of 2019'' would eliminate tax lability for amounts received as part
of certain state-funded grant programs. Several states sponsor these
types of successful mitigation programs, including the California Bolt
+ Brace program for strengthening buildings located in earthquake prone
areas, and the Strengthen Alabama Homes program, which provides grants
funds to upgrade to a FORTIFIED Roof. On the individual side,
bipartisan legislation pending in both the House and Senate, known as
the SHELTER Act, would provide up to a 25% tax credit for eligible
expenses paid by individuals and businesses for purchases that help
reduce potential damage from hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of
natural disaster. These types of proposals empower and reward states
and individuals who take action into their own hands--ultimately
contributing to overall community resilience.
4. Vulnerable Populations
In making these investments, it is critical to protect our nation's
most vulnerable populations. According to sociological research,
disabled, elderly, low income, and other disadvantaged people are less
likely to prepare for disasters, evacuate safely, avoid physical or
psychological trauma, or recover quickly and fully. This reality places
an even higher priority on adaptation measures that prevent avoidable
damage to the places they live and work.
Despite media images of lavish beachfront mansions, low income
residents account for a meaningful percentage of the population in many
coastal communities and other areas thatface climate risk, often in the
most vulnerable housing. Those who live in rental units are dependent
on landlords or public housing agencies for structural loss prevention
measures. And, low-income homeowners are more likely to take a ``do-it-
yourself'' approach to maintenance or rely on neighborhood handymen to
keep costs down. These local contractors may be unlicensed, undertake
work without obtaining building permits, and be unaware of science-
based loss prevention measures.
This is one of the reasons IBHS supports strong and up-to-date
building codes. These codes are regulatory requirements that establish
the minimum acceptable construction standards necessary to protect
people and property from natural hazards, interior fires, and other
causes of loss. They are particularly important for low-income
homeowners and tenants, who may lack the clout to require a builder or
landlord to take loss prevention into account. Building codes also
provide consistency in building standards and trigger processes, such
as public inspections, that help ensure that the structural elements of
a building are up to current standards. It is critical to make sure
that strong building codes not only are enacted but also enforced.
One place where the congruence of policy initiatives, strengthened
building codes, and grassroots education has led to large-scale
homeowner action is in south Alabama, where more than 12,000 homes have
received a FORTIFIED designation. The progress in mitigation began in
the wake Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina (which hit the Gulf Coast in 2004
and 2005 respectively) and has surged with several key innovations. The
State of Alabama enacted legislation which provided benefits to
homeowners who built or retrofitted their homes to the FORTIFIED
standard and later expanded the applicability of those benefits. The
state's coastal communities understand their particular risk and
regularly update their building codes--many have even adopted an
additional ``coastal supplement'' which brings their code up to the
FORTIFIED level. Public/private partnerships paired with a grassroots
educational campaign helped to educate homeowners, legislators, and
builders on the importance of resilient construction.
In 2016, the State launched Strengthen Alabama Homes, a State-
funded program that provides grants to help homeowners retrofit their
roofs to the FORTIFIED standard. So far, over 1,600 homeowners have
received the grant, and over 3,000 more are on the waiting list. The
attention generated by the grant program, coupled with grassroots
education and stronger codes created an environment in which mitigating
your home against hurricanes is becoming common practice, and the real
estate market has taken note. A collaborative study led by the
University of Alabama shows homes with a FORTIFIED designation are, on
average, valued 7% higher than homes without the FORTIFIED proof of
resilience. This shows innovative building science standards and
techniques can not only provide protection but can also add value.
Interestingly, the first significant step in Alabama's path to
resilience was taken by a local Habitat for Humanity affiliate. The
organization built one of the state's first FORTIFIED homes and worked
closely with another nonprofit, Smart Home America, to promote the idea
that that resilience wasn't only smart; it was affordable too. This
helped to dispel the common misconception that mitigation and resilient
construction are cost prohibitive to working families.
As we consider mitigating buildings against severe weather caused
by shifting climate risks, it is important to note that we are also
protecting homeowners from a costly disruption of their daily lives.
Understanding this, Habitat for Humanity, at the national level,
created the Habitat Strong program, which mirrors the FORTIFIED Home
standards. They have partnered with several IBHS member companies and
universities to help homeowners achieve these stronger protections and
have seen some of their homes tested by severe weather. We are
particularly proud of the performance of the five Habitat Strong homes
in Panama City, Florida, which stood strong against the fierce winds of
Hurricane Michael in 2018--the only reported damage to any of the homes
being a single piece of loose siding.
Other national nonprofits such, as Team Rubicon and SBP, see the
importance of protecting the homes and financial stability of low to
moderate income homeowners and are also incorporating FORTIFIED's
protections into their building designs. Another group, My Strong Home,
is an innovative benefit corporation which provides lending solutions
to help coastal residents become more resilient. They require homes to
meet the FORTIFIED standard to ensure the company's investment is
protected, and in turn provide homeowners with construction, financing,
and insurance options that are designed with affordability and long-
term protection in mind.
While a FORTIFIED home offers great protection, we, at IBHS
recognize not all coastal residents can upgrade their homes to this
level, in the near term. So, we designed a user-friendly ``hurricane
ready'' guide, which details different actions homeowners can take, at
a variety of price points. On the high end, impact resistant doors and
windows add a level of protection and eliminate the need for a
homeowner to install hurricane shutters before each storm. More
modestly, as I said earlier, a few hundred dollars can provide a sealed
roof deck, which can prevent very costly damage caused by water-
intrusion. The guide also includes tasks as simple as cleaning gutters
or securing outdoor furniture, which both can help residents reduce the
risk of damage in an easy and accessible manner. One of the most
successful hurricane-preparedness campaigns IBHS ever launched showed
people how to potentially save their home without spending a penny. It
simply encouraged people to shut their interior doors during a
hurricane. This one simple task could save a home by isolating pressure
if the building envelope were breached (the message went virial before
Hurricane Irma in 2017). So, as you can see there are a variety of
stages of resilience that together can help homeowners be better
protected today and adapt to climate change. IBHS is committed to
studying and promoting each of these, in an effort to help homeowners
and communities across the country to better weather the storm.
In closing, I would like to thank you for the recognizing the
importance of climate adaptation and the critical role IBHS research
plays to help strengthen the built environment. Americans are not
powerless against severe weather--it is possible to reduce the damage
inflicted today and in the future. We know it is practical, affordable,
and just plain good sense to construct and retrofit buildings to be
strong enough to defend against these threats. I appreciate the
opportunity to share some of our ideas with you today.
Ms. Castor. Terrific.
Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses for your
compelling testimony. The entire committee has been looking
forward to getting into this subject, and I appreciate your
direct and concrete policy recommendations.
Let me start with Ms. Landreneau.
You mentioned that in the 2009 Recovery Act it provided
strong incentives for local jurisdictions and States to adopt
the most recent model energy codes for buildings. Could you
expand on the type and value of incentives given? Did they
work? I think everyone would rather create incentives than
adopt mandates.
You also mentioned that Congress could use tax incentives
to encourage States and cities to adopt building codes focused
on performance. Can you explain how you would structure these
type of incentives?
Ms. Landreneau. Thank you.
So, yes, on the 2009 Recovery Act, the incentives required
the States to develop a plan to implement the 2009 energy code.
They had to have it in place by 2017, so there was not an
expectation that it would be adopted overnight.
They basically provided training, workbooks, code books, a
lot of resources, but the States had to show up and meet them
halfway. They had to put a lot of their own effort and
investment into the program as well.
There was an application process, and about 24 States were
selected in that process. And $3.1 billion, I believe, was used
to fund that effort. And I do believe it is the reason that 88
percent of the country is now at least on the 2009 energy code.
So it was highly successful.
The Federal Government can certainly lead by example in
terms of outcome-based requirements and performance
requirements by sending a market signal with its own funding--
that is, whether it is procuring its own buildings or offering
tax incentives to have either high-performance metrics, energy
use intensities, or even zero-carbon/zero-energy expectations
for things like the low-income tax credit, low-income housing
tax credit, or historic preservation tax credit, or other
incentives that already exist.
Ms. Castor. And you mentioned that States and cities are
using transparency and benchmarking. I actually saw the
sustainability officer for the city of Orlando pulled up his
laptop and showed me how they are benchmarking buildings across
their community and helping, partnering with them to lower
their AC bills and become more energy-efficient.
So these policies often rely on national tools maintained
by the feds, though. I know we passed some laws--I authored
one--about benchmarking in Federal buildings. We have a lot of
real estate under control of the Federal Government.
Could you describe the Federal resources that are being
used in partnership with cities and States and how these tools
are helping them to enact building performance standards?
Ms. Landreneau. Absolutely.
Energy Star Portfolio Manager is being used by dozens of
cities around the country for the benchmarking and transparency
legislation. That is backed by data collected in the Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey.
There are tools such as EnergyPlus, a modeling tool created
by the Department of Energy, that help owners make decisions
about investment in energy performance improvements.
The Building Technologies Office helps identify new
technologies and programs that would help improve building
performance. There is also a building code assistance program
that helps States with implementing new building codes.
So there are countless programs across the Department of
Energy and other agencies that help cities with benchmarking
and transparency as well as the private sector with
implementation.
Ms. Castor. Well, it is not business as usual anymore; it
is about carbon reduction. And in order to the avoid the worst
impacts of the climate crisis, we have to act with urgency.
So, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, what tools do you recommend to us
that would have the biggest bang for the buck and help us
reduce carbon pollution?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. One of the key things we need to see is
really strong investment. The upfront costs for energy
efficiency are very staggering for some households. So the
HOMES Act, which Mr. Welch has been working on with Mr.
McKinley, has at different times had $6 billion focused on
supporting homeowners updating their homes. This would provide
rebates to homeowners.
We are talking really--it does need a lot of resources so
that we can advance a lot of energy savings. I mean, the fact
of the matter is that energy prices are often so low in some
parts of the country that the technology cost really creates a
bigger upgrade than really will pay for itself. It will pay for
itself if you include all of the carbon savings and the
environmental impact, but a homeowner--asking them to do all of
this for all of us is a bit much.
So that is why we say, you know, look at the HOMES Act to
provide rebates. Look to 25C tax credit, which--increase that
so that homeowners--it is the only tax credit on the books that
is for actual homeowners that they can take to upgrade their
homes. Also 179D, that tax deduction for commercial buildings
and commercial building owners to update their buildings. I
mean, these are some of the key issues that we need.
Another thing is building codes. Strong building codes
address some of the landlord-tenant issues because the
buildings are built correctly in the first place. That, of
course, is a State issue, so just supporting that at the
Federal level, usually through appropriations to the Building
Technologies Office to support the technology that is needed.
Ms. Castor. Terrific.
Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
And I appreciate all of you being here.
Just a quick question. Anybody know what the number-one
forestry State in the Nation is?
Mr. Rutland. Georgia.
Mr. Carter. That would be Georgia. That is correct. Good
answer.
And in the First Congressional District that I have the
honor and privilege of representing, we have a very competitive
timber market. And it is something that we are very proud of
and something that we certainly work hard toward making sure
that we have sustainable forests and making sure that it is a
robust and vibrant system.
And, of course, we know how advantageous it is in the fight
against climate change. I mean, timber draws carbon out of the
atmosphere. It is very important. Not only that, but it helps
with clean water. A vibrant forest helps with clean water. It
helps with wildlife habitat and all these different things.
In fact, in the State of Georgia, the annual value of the
ecosystem services provided by private forests alone is valued
to be over $37 billion. So obviously it is a big part of our
economy.
And we know that throughout the United States that the
annual amount of carbon that is stored by forest products is
over 70 million tons. So this is extremely important.
And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Rutland--you are from our
neighboring State of Alabama, and I am sure you would live in
Georgia if you could, but you are in our neighboring State of
Alabama, and you are in this business. And I have worked very
closely with the home builders and have for quite a while. Wood
products, you use them extensively of in your business, I am
sure, in your industry. How closely is your industry tied to a
robust, working forest?
Mr. Rutland. Well, first, while I got your question right
about Georgia, I do want to say ``War Eagle'' in your
neighboring State, so----
Mr. Carter. We are off to an inauspicious start here.
Mr. Rutland. I apologize for that, sir.
As far as our--the timber industry is very tied, obviously,
to the home-building industry. We rely on good-quality timber.
And we thank you for the timber that you grow in Georgia and
the timber that is grown in Alabama as well. And it is a big
part of the workforce in both of our States. It is a very
important product.
Mr. Carter. Are there advantages to building with wood
products?
Mr. Rutland. Absolutely. It is certainly very flexible,
very easy to use. There are a lot of things that you can do
with lumber, I would agree.
Mr. Carter. Any other type of building materials that
impact climate change as much as wood does, as much as lumber
does?
Mr. Rutland. I am not sure I can answer that question.
Mr. Carter. The answer is, no, there is not.
Mr. Rutland. Sure.
Mr. Carter. You talked about energy efficiency quite
extensively in your testimony. And energy-efficiency
advantages, are they tied directly to wood products?
Mr. Rutland. I would believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. You are aware that the natural
thermal resistance and the embodied energy that makes this
easier to insulate these homes to higher standards--which, of
course, is important as well.
There is also--and, Mr. Wright, I will go to you for this.
There is also--in commercial buildings, we have been using a
new green building trend that is called mass timber. I don't
know if you are familiar with that or not.
Mr. Wright. I am.
Mr. Carter. Good. We have two buildings in the State of
Georgia that are commercial buildings that have been built that
are very notable, one at Georgia Tech, and then there is
another one in Atlanta that is the largest-square-foot wood-
built building in the United States.
What are some of the advantages that commercial buildings
could have in using wood as a building material?
Mr. Wright. So, while we don't make specific calls on which
products go down that, I do think that, as you look at the tall
wood approach, you look collectively, by which you have the
engineers and architects going, what are the best products for
that structure? And when you do that, how does that service the
functional needs of that building, as well as the kind of work
you would do to make sure that it is energy-efficient? Which,
in so many ways, yes, affects carbon and also affects the cost
of operation.
Mr. Carter. And I get that, and I understand that. And,
certainly, in the private sector it is a business decision, but
we have to all agree that it has an impact on climate change,
as well, and on our environment.
Mr. Wright. Most assuredly, the products and materials that
are used on each one of those structures has an impact, and
when you are collectively looking at it, you have to make the
best choice.
Mr. Carter. Should the impact on the environment enter into
a business decision like that?
Mr. Wright. I think, for many companies, they look
collectively in terms of their own cost and how it serves into
the broader needs of the communities they live in.
Mr. Carter. And that is very important, and I appreciate
that approach, because we are never going to solve this problem
without the buy-in from the private sector. So that is why this
is so important.
And thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses. This has been a great
discussion today.
I am from Oregon. The Oregon Department of Energy has
identified 43 percent of the total energy used in my home State
is from buildings, about 23 percent residential, 19 percent
commercial.
We know that both residential and commercial buildings are
notoriously challenging to decarbonize. I think we have heard a
lot of great ideas today about doing that, and we have a
responsibility to help with that.
In 2017, Oregon's Governor Brown signed an executive order
that developed clear requirements for newly constructed
buildings to become more energy-efficient by 2023. It created a
pathway for building codes to reach Zero Energy Ready standards
by 2032.
And I wanted to follow up on my colleague from Georgia, who
is just walking out the door. I wanted to follow up and invite
him out to see--in the district I am honored to represent, the
First Tech Federal Credit Union has the country's largest
cross-laminated timber structure. About 650 people work in that
building.
A lot of our companies are turning to mass timber as an
alternative to steel and concrete. And we know that cross-
laminated timber, especially when harvested using sustainable
forest practices, can sequester and store massive amounts of
carbon dioxide.
So we are going to get in touch. We are going to work on
this.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. And we know these State and regional
commitments are important, but Federal efforts are critical, as
well, to be complementary.
Dr. Shahyd, thank you so much for identifying and
especially focusing on the impact on low-income families.
Hillsboro, Oregon, is also home to the largest certified
multifamily Passive House building in North America, with 57
units of affordable housing built to Passive House standards,
where they saved about 90 percent on their heating and up to 70
percent on their overall energy use. And it was built into how
they planned the building. And, of course, it cost a bit more
at the outset, but the savings are recouped pretty rapidly.
So, Dr. Shahyd, in your testimony, you noted that for every
dollar invested in energy efficiency for low-income families,
$2 are put back into the economy through energy savings and
increased income from job creation. And you also acknowledge
that the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance
Program can't meet current demand.
How can Congress better incentivize and support those
innovative residential weatherization and energy-efficiency
practices, especially for low-income families?
Dr. Shahyd. Yes. Thank you for your question.
There are a number of bills on the table now. One is the
reauthorization of the Weatherization Assistance Program, which
is sitting there, which also includes a new innovation fund,
which, actually, for the first time, allows local contractors,
working with DOE program offices, to actually create new
incentive programs, to create new approaches to actually
dealing with some of those hard-to-reach sectors in the market.
And we didn't have that before.
I think one of my colleagues actually mentioned the Blue
Collar to Green Collar Jobs Act, which is from Congressman Rush
of Illinois, which is really the first time--because, usually,
when we think about green jobs, I think the image that comes to
most people's minds is someone on a rooftop installing a solar
panel. But energy efficiency, real construction jobs are really
the overwhelming majority of what green jobs are----
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Dr. Shahyd [continuing]. Actually going to look like.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I want to get another question in.
To Ms. Rinaldi, in the Pacific Northwest, Bonneville Power
Administration and Portland General Electric conducted a 3-year
smart water heater pilot program to find ways to better manage
clean energy production and grid loads. So there are 277 water
heaters that were equipped with a communication port. So it
allowed the utilities to use the water heater as a battery, and
by sending load-shifting requests directly to the water heater,
they can heat the water at a time of day or night when the
energy costs are lower instead of on demand when the costs are
higher.
So, in your testimony, you discuss these kinds of
technologies and the value of smart-grid-interactive efficient
homes. So what are the current barriers to the demonstration
and deployment of these grid-interactive efficient buildings,
and what investments can help support them?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Thank you, and thank you for the
question. And since I only have 35 seconds, I do talk about
this in the report, so I do have some of those answers.
But the electrification, which is something that is being
discussed quite frequently now, it is really an interesting
policy mix with the idea of grid-interactive buildings, because
then our buildings can become like power plants. Like, that is
exactly what was happening in Oregon in that system. We also
are looking to do other opportunities for heat pumps.
But I would say that one thing the Federal Government can
do is provide access to utility data. One thing which is very
difficult is for contractors and providers to actually get
access to the utility data from the homeowner in a secure and
private way--and that is possible--so that they can, kind of,
create those better systems and those better connections
between the grid and the homes and be able to model the home
and its energy use better.
So that would be my quick answer.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time has expired.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a great
panel, so let me see what I can get done in my 5 minutes.
Mr. Wright, I do appreciate what you said about making sure
we build things with the right materials and try to get it
right. I had the opportunity, as a part of my committee work
with Energy and Commerce, to go to the Virgin Islands and to
Puerto Rico after the hurricanes, and it was fascinating.
In the Virgin Islands, only 10 of their telephone poles
survived the storm and didn't need to be replaced. Those were
the only 10 on the island that were composite material
telephone poles, as opposed to your standard wood, which Mr.
Carter might not like to hear, but there are great advantages
to different things in different places. So I thought that was
important.
Dr. Shahyd, you talked about one of our challenges--and it
is a challenge--affordable housing and energy bills and how do
we balance the two out.
And that brings me to you, Mr. Rutland. So, in your
testimony, you said that the median new home price increases by
$1,000--if it increases by $1,000, it displaces about 127,000
households from the market.
Now, this is particularly troubling in a region like mine,
in an area like mine. I represent central Appalachia and those
portions of Virginia where our household income is less than
the national average and even less than the Virginia average as
a whole.
So what do we do to try to make sure that we have some
homeowner-friendly approaches that will ensure families aren't
getting priced out of the market?
And I would say to Ms. Rinaldi, one of the problems I have
in my district, although it may work for the vast majority of
the middle class, is that rebates and tax credits don't work if
you don't have the money in the first place to get the rebate
back from or you don't have enough income that the tax credit
does you a whole lot of good.
But, Mr. Rutland, what do you think we can do in that
regard?
Mr. Rutland. Sure. Well, thank you.
We are in a housing affordability crisis. I see it every
day. We build entry-level homes, and we build luxury homes.
We find that the majority of the public are very interested
in energy-efficient homes and resilient homes. The problem
comes when they start pricing it, when we start showing them
what it costs to do some of the things that they have seen on
TV, they have heard friends talk about, they have seen in
forums like this.
And so we price it and we offer them those options and show
them. And many, many times, that is the first thing that they
cut. They would rather see the granite countertops or the
hardwood flooring.
Mr. Griffith. Do you have any data that tells us where that
breakpoint is on the price and how long they are willing to
look at a repayment? So, if they spend $1,000 now, how long are
they willing to get the payback on that? Is there a number out
there that tells us when we reach that tipping point?
Mr. Rutland. We have found as a company that typically our
homeowners live in their homes no more than 7 years. So if they
can get that paid back in 5, then they are willing to pay for
it, but if it is 10 or longer, they are not.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Let me switch gears. Earlier this year, we had a report
that we have 3 billion fewer birds than we had in 1970. The
Guardian reported in a report also--the report on the birds was
a couple of weeks ago; the Guardian report was from April of
this year--that buildings are killing up to a billion birds a
year in the U.S. Some numbers are less than that, but that is
what we are looking at.
So when we go in to retrofit these buildings for energy
costs--and I guess I will go to you, Ms. Landreneau--did I get
it correct?--and just say--and I noticed in some of your
pictures in your report, a lot of those buildings had glass.
Glass increases the energy costs if it doesn't have protective
film or if it doesn't have a solar energy use to it. And we can
add, for little or no cost--if you are putting the film on for
energy reasons, you can put in bird-safe building technology.
Is that a part of you all's plans as well?
Ms. Landreneau. There is bird-safe technology, some of
which is not even visible to humans----
Mr. Griffith. That is right.
Ms. Landreneau [continuing]. But birds can see it. And,
absolutely, that can be integrated with film that is being
applied to existing buildings.
Mr. Griffith. And so we can not only work on the energy
efficiency in a building but we can also keep them from being
deathtraps for the birds that migrate through the United
States. Isn't that true?
Ms. Landreneau. Absolutely. And it is a fantastic proposal.
Mr. Griffith. And do you know what some of those features
that LEED encourages to meet these ends? Do you know some of
those?
Ms. Landreneau. There is a pilot credit for bird-safe
design. And the District of Columbia's Green Construction Code,
which just went out for its second round of public comment and
should be adopted by the end of the year, has this also as an
elective.
Mr. Griffith. And so, as we are looking at energy-efficient
legislation, we should also protect the birds, wouldn't you
agree?
Ms. Landreneau. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. Anybody disagree?
Thank you very much. No disagreement.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you.
In fact, the Audubon Society has a new tool on their
website I recommend to everyone. Of course, they issued a
recent report that said the climate crisis is causing an
unfortunate and stunning impact to the loss of bird species.
And I recommend the tool on their website that demonstrates
the loss of bird species across the globe. You can localize it
for your own community and analyze the difference between
inaction here in the United States on climate or actual, bold
climate action. And there is a significant, significant
difference.
At this time, I will recognize Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was a really interesting line of questioning. I didn't
realize we were going to be trying to solve multiple problems
together, but I thought that was a really thoughtful point from
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate it.
Ms. Landreneau, I would like to ask you about something
many of the communities in my district are considering, and
that is, as they look at their own local ordinances and
policies, they are thinking about the fact that we have this
climate problem, and most people would agree that the first
thing you do when you are in a hole is stop digging, so they
are considering local ordinances to prohibit new fossil-
dependent construction.
Would you agree that that is a pretty good idea? And how
feasible is it at this point? Do we have to have fossil-
dependent buildings, going forward? Is it possible to be cost-
effective and also have no new fossil construction?
Ms. Landreneau. There are just a couple of jurisdictions
that have banned fossil fuels in new construction, so gas or
coal or heating oil-powered equipment.
There are some effective programs at the, sort of, State
level in certain regions that are helping with replacement of
equipment in buildings, going to electrification in existing
buildings or with new construction.
But it is absolutely possible to ban natural gas in new
construction. And it is essential, if we want to get to carbon-
neutral buildings, that we do go to electrification that also
makes buildings more resilient and more flexible with the grid.
Mr. Huffman. So there is no reason why we need to continue
building fossil-dependent structures at this point.
Ms. Landreneau. That is correct. There is no reason.
Mr. Huffman. So let's talk about something in your
testimony that really jumped out at me. Half the country is
operating on antiquated building codes, where certainly we are
building a lot of new fossil-dependent structures but probably
also a lot of really inefficient structures as well.
What can we do about that? What are your thoughts about a
Federal policy that might address that?
And I guess the related question I had is: If we can't
incentivize States to modernize and evolve on this, is this
something that perhaps the insurance industry could step in
and, you know, sort of, go around them in a way that forces
those changes?
Ms. Landreneau. I mean, I certainly think replicating the
2009 program that incentivizes States to adopt the latest
energy code would be a great model to follow. The 2021 code
will be published next year, and just jumping on that and
saying, you know, adopt the latest code.
To the Congressman and Congresswoman who have departed, the
2021 code in its entirety, including the IBC, has removed
barriers to tall timber construction. So it allows for low-
embodied-carbon buildings, which is also very critical to
meeting our low-carbon goals.
So I would say, any kind of incentives that help
jurisdictions adopt the absolute newest code as quickly as
possible would be fantastic.
I can't speak for the insurance industry, but, yes, I think
they could certainly go around legislation and say, we will
only ensure high-performance buildings.
Mr. Huffman. Maybe I will ask Mr. Wright that same
question.
Mr. Wright. The insurance industry is a vast industry, so I
think it is hard to pigeonhole one piece on it.
What I will tell you is, companies evaluate risk. And one
of the factors--I have more than 100 insurers that are members
of IBHS. Building codes are essential. And they are essential
because they help them understand what is the baseline of risk,
and to the degree that the elements of the building code reduce
the risk going forward, you would see that translate back
through the balance of their product.
Mr. Huffman. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, I want to ask you about building
retrofits. And others are welcome to chime in on this, because
I know we have a lot of expertise on this panel.
So the benefits of a retrofit program have been discussed.
I think we all pretty much get that. But actually making it
happen in any kind of a timely way is an almost overwhelming
proposition when you think about it.
So I want to ask you to describe for us what a deep
decarbonization building retrofit program, not a goal--goals
are easy--but a program, would actually look like. And if there
are some examples out there, I would love to hear about it.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Sure. Well, there are some deep
decarbonization, meaning moving to net-zero and
electrification.
Well, one thing that you need to do is have cold weather
heat pumps or, if you are in a certain climate zones--because
one of the issues is a climate zone when we are looking at
electrification and being off of carbon and not using those
hydrocarbons to heat the home. So if you are in the Northeast
or in New England, we need to look at the cold weather heat
pumps and making sure that those are there.
The homes have to be really well-insulated, so there need
to be policies to either ensure they are there for the new home
or that they are in a retrofit situation. You have tax
incentives or rebate programs to help deal with those up-front
costs to get some deep energy-efficiency insulation and also to
support the contractors who are putting those in.
Again, it is those training programs, making sure that they
know how to install the solar panels, how to do air sealing and
insulation, how to do duct sealing, how to do that in the
correct way. Because sometimes it is the manner in which the
building is retrofit that really gets you the most energy
efficiency out of that.
And also let's not forget smart technologies. You need
smart meters and smart technologies, smart thermostats to
really help control the house and be able to interact with the
grid so that you are able to provide that generation when it is
needed and pull back when it is not.
And I also want to note the labeling programs to make sure
that that homeowner is going to get the return on their
investment. There are some private labeling programs, like
Pearl Certification. There are public ones, like the Home
Energy Score. And there is the SAVE Act, which helps people get
that money back when they are doing their retrofit, of their
refinancing and making sure that the energy bills are included
in that, so the value of the home, so it is not just the
granite countertops but it is also all the energy measures that
actually add value in the resale.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the extra time.
Ms. Castor. You bet.
And since everyone lives now with their phone attached to
their bodies, it would make sense if that technology to the
smart grid to control your home thermostat or your business was
available to everyone.
Ranking Member Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was just looking down at my phone. I heard Congressman
Carter say that Georgia was the top forestry State, and I
wanted to ask him about the metric, because I was very curious
about that. And I am convinced it has to do with the ratio of
trees per people with funny accents, but maybe I am wrong. And
I hope he hears that.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi, I want to thank you for bringing your
children here today. Growing up, my parents, we would have
hurricanes, I would have, like, a 140 fever, the school would
be closed, and my mom would still make me go. So I appreciate
you bringing your kids today.
And what your mom is doing is very important. And I am glad
you all are able to be here to see her.
Mr. Wright and Mr. Rutland, you both make mention of
legislation that we enacted last year in October. And I want to
be clear, this was bipartisan legislation, the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act.
It has important provisions in it, like, for example,
trying to shift this paradigm or narrative from, let's come in
after disasters and pick up all the pieces and spend an absurd
amount of money--we have spent $1.7 trillion since 1980
responding to disasters. And it tries to flip that narrative,
that whole paradigm over. Let's lean forward, let's be
proactive, whether it is the mandatory funding on the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program that ultimately was enacted in an
appropriations bill but it was part of----
Mr. Wright. Right.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. Disaster Recovery Reform Act;
whether it was the incentive in lowering the cost share for
disasters from 75/25 to 80/20 or perhaps even 85/15 under
certain scenarios if the States or localities carried out
resiliency measures ahead of time; for the first time ever,
defined the term ``resiliency,'' ``resilience,'' and looking at
how we rebuild, making sure that in the aftermath of a disaster
we don't rebuild the same thing the same way, which was just
stupid. And you know this better than anybody. We would come
and pay for the same structure over and over again.
Mr. Wright. Uh-huh.
Mr. Graves. Can you both comment, Mr. Wright perhaps
starting, on your thoughts on what that ultimately is going to
do? Could you expand on your testimony?
And, Mr. Wright, you say in here, ``The DRRA, once fully
implemented, will deliver the largest investment by the Federal
Government to buy down the risk of natural disasters now and in
the future.''
Could you talk a little bit more about that and, sort of,
the repercussions and how it perhaps shifts the paradigm on
proactive versus reactive?
Mr. Wright. Yeah. The DRRA--and, as you appropriately said,
there are a couple provisions that ended up on different
vehicles going forward in appropriations acts and the like. But
it dedicates money on the front side. Because in my prior job
and so many times in your district, including that no-name
storm in 2016, people would give lip service to reducing risk.
They would look at the impact of the disaster, they would see
how it ravaged a community, and says, ``We could have done
something to make this better ahead of time,'' and there were
endless speeches about how----
Mr. Graves. Hindsight is 20/20.
Mr. Wright. Right?
Mr. Graves. Yeah.
Mr. Wright. And says, so put the money there on the front
side.
Congress did its lifting. I think FEMA has been too slow to
get it to the point of implementation. But there is a really
important next step on this----
Mr. Graves. You always defended FEMA's time periods when
you worked there, I just want to make note. But please
continue.
Mr. Wright. I may have a bit more liberty to share my
personal opinion today than I may have in the past, for sure.
Mr. Graves. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Wright. But I look at that and says, those grant
programs are 75 percent Federal, 25 percent State or local. And
one of my concerns with the implementation of that, going
forward, is, are States and localities ready to start putting
investments that are there? Because maybe we did all the right
things and Congress put the vehicles in place and put a pot of
money there, but if we haven't looked at finding what needs to
take place--and so we watched this in Alabama, where the State
has a grant program that is in place. California has done this.
North Carolina.
Here is the irony of it. If the State has a grant program
for mitigation, it is taxable income and they get a 1099. If it
is a FEMA grant program for the exact same activity----
Mr. Graves. Wow.
Mr. Wright [continuing]. It is not taxable. You know, you
are like, wait a second here. If we are trying to make this
more than just the Feds have to pay all the bills, we have to
take some of these other barriers out and let States innovate,
let local communities drive down this point.
And at the end of it, after they got the grant, whether it
was--that could accomplish energy efficiency as well as
resilience, they shouldn't be rewarded with a 1099 at the end
of the year.
Mr. Graves. That is a good point.
Mr. Rutland, do you care to add?
Mr. Rutland. Sure. First, just let me say I am very
sympathetic to disasters in your State. My sister-in-law's home
was destroyed twice in your State and was displaced. So I am
very sympathetic to that.
I am also very sympathetic to something that I saw in May
of last year. I went and toured Jacksonville, Alabama, when an
F3 tornado went through it and destroyed a lot of Jacksonville
State and a lot of homes around the area. It was amazing to me
to see the homes that were constructed in the 1990s and 1980s
and the 1970s that were gone. There was nothing but slab
standing. The homes that had been built since 2006, when some
major code revisions were done to address resiliency, those
homes fared very well. The homes that were built to the 2012
code fared very, very well.
So I think our focus may ought to be on existing homes,
structures that were built in the late 2000s, 1990s, and
beyond--or going back.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for
holding this hearing.
Thanks for all of you who are here today. We appreciate it
very, very much. I think this is a really important topic when
we are talking about the climate crisis and where we need to
get to.
The building codes just astonish me, learning about how
we--the process, just in and of itself, happening every 3
years. And cities and States and counties don't have an
obligation, really, to do anything once you have gone through
this huge process.
And I feel like the home, for most families, is their
largest asset. And you can choose to build a home or have a
home that is going to cost you more and more and more over a
30-year period, or you can have a home that is going to save
you money over and over and over again over 30 years. Some have
equated it to it is like having an interest-only mortgage, if
you are not doing anything to your home, because of the
increasing costs of owning the home.
And so I guess, you know, Ms. Landreneau, you talked about
the building codes in your testimony and what could be done in
terms of improving those processes, and I appreciate that. So I
guess, just in terms of the process, not requiring commitments
necessarily--well, I guess requiring commitments is definitely
part of it. But just in terms of a process and who is involved
in terms of creating those codes, do you see any changes that
can be made there to improve the outcome of compliance with
building codes? If that makes any sense whatsoever.
Ms. Landreneau. In the code development process or----
Ms. Brownley. Yeah.
Ms. Landreneau [continuing]. The local process?
Ms. Brownley. I mean, it seems as though, in the code
development process--and correct me if I'm wrong--it is more,
the folks that are involved in that, the stakeholders that are
involved in that, I think many of them, perhaps, don't have an
interest in getting a really performance-based building code.
Ms. Landreneau. I am on the International Energy
Conservation Code for commercial buildings, so I can't speak
for all of the committees. I think the residential energy
conservation code is made up a little bit differently.
Our code committee this year, I think, was comprised of
many people who were interested in seeing a more progressive
energy conservation code. We had folks from D.C., Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, from the city of Seattle, New
York. But we do have to look at cost impact and the reason for
the code changes. We can't just adopt whatever we want. We have
to be very pragmatic.
You know, I do think there are architects, there are
engineers, there are manufacturing associations, there are
people, members of the building industry that are involved. I
do think it should be a balanced committee that is looking at
these issues.
However, anyone can propose an amendment. The committee
votes on those. They are out for public comment. But the final
vote is made by IECC members, which are primarily code
officials. And should that vote be made up of a larger body so
that stakeholders such as homeowners or building owners are
also voting on those code outcomes? Perhaps. It is a limited
voting population.
Ms. Brownley. And how do we better educate the consumer
just so that they understand the economic impacts, you know, of
perhaps even, in terms of building a new home, building a
smaller home so you can afford some of the other elements that
you can put in to provide those cost savings over the period of
time of ownership?
You know, I feel like we talk a lot about the environmental
impacts, which are really important, but I think, at the end of
the day, the consumer really understands the economic impacts
better.
Ms. Landreneau. Absolutely. I think more disclosure, more
transparency. Buildings should be labeled with what code they
are built under. Just the benchmarking policies alone have been
really helpful for people to be able to look up buildings and
see how they are performing. But the more transparency we can
get in our built environment, I think the more the consumer
will know.
Ms. Brownley. And, Ms. Saul Rinaldi, if we met, across the
country, the highest standards in building codes and energy
efficiencies and, you know, with regards to retrofits and all
the smart technology out there, if we were doing all of that,
how would you quantify that contribution to the overall goal of
reducing temperature by 2 degrees Celsius by 2050?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, I----
Ms. Brownley. You have 10 seconds.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yeah. I don't know that I can do that
back-of-the-envelope calculation, but----
Ms. Brownley. It would be a significant--I mean, it would--
--
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. It would be significant. Well, the
ACEEE----
Ms. Brownley. There are so many--yeah.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. The ACEEE report said that buildings can
contribute to a third of the 50 percent reduction just from
energy efficiency alone. That is not including all the
renewables you were talking about.
Ms. Brownley. Yeah. That is pretty significant.
So thank you, Madam Chair. I yield.
Ms. Castor. Sure thing.
Mrs. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor.
And thank you all for being here today.
In 2016, West Virginia suffered devastating floods which
destroyed homes, schools, roads, and whole communities, and it
resulted in the death of 23 people.
As our communities have started to recover, we have
recognized the need for rebuilding with resilience. This helps
ensure, should catastrophic--and they will--weather events
happen again, our infrastructure is prepared so that the
storms' impacts are not quite so disastrous.
That being said, we need to focus on the solutions that
prioritize choice for consumers and ensure low costs. My State,
geographically, is quite different from Alabama and Louisiana.
One-size-fits-all Federal regulations are not the way to
accomplish our goal of not only energy efficiency but
resilience. We need to engage with our States, localities, and
private sector to ensure that any solutions that are
implemented are tailored to our individual communities.
Mr. Rutland and Mr. Wright, how have your respective
industries taken proactive steps to ensure structural
adaptation and resilience for natural disaster events?
Mr. Rutland. Well, I couldn't agree with you more on
several of your points, as far as the need to improve on the
resiliency and that our States are very, very different and so
one size does not fit all. So any type of Federal mandate that
affects all States would just not be appropriate.
In Alabama, we have tried to adopt the code as we saw fit
for the things that would help improve our homes, and, as a
company, we have tried to go a step ahead. But we understand
the importance of it, at the same time while balancing that
housing affordability crisis that we are in and trying to make
sure that we can provide housing that people can afford.
Mrs. Miller. Okay.
Mr. Wright. And I think that we look at these elements,
because of the way that different kinds of weather events play
out across the country, what are those, kind of, universal
pieces and then how does it apply?
So, in the case of West Virginia, clearly, there is a
flooding element there, and that has to do with where the water
goes. And sometimes elevating work, sometimes it doesn't, given
the way that the topography of the State works.
But we look at the kind of impact that roofs have. So the
convective storms--we watched this with tornadoes, probably at
the lower end but still high wind, and derechos. And so, yeah,
so much of it is about what was already built. That was one of
the numbers earlier, in terms of the homes that were already
built back in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. How do we help
those folks?
Well, one of the elements is, when we are recovering from
these disasters, let's make sure we are putting it back in a
way that we don't expect to have to pay for it again.
And, secondly--and I think this is the real opportunity in
front of us--the next innovation in resilience has to be
affordability. We have to find ways to address these things,
whether it is around the roof, it is how the external pieces of
the building come together, the envelope--how do we do that in
ways that address both? Because the way that you protect your
roof and you seal your roof deck and the way you deal with your
openings and windows are the exact same things that drive down
your energy bills and your utilization of those pieces.
Those pieces, frankly, are universal, but then they then
need to be applied to the context in West Virginia, in Alabama,
in California, which will all have very different experiences
with it.
Mrs. Miller. Well, I know many of our homes were built--I
have a farmhouse that was built in the 1880s. A lot of the
houses were built in the 1940s.
How have home builders worked to make energy efficiency and
resiliency affordable for home buyers?
Mr. Rutland.
Mr. Rutland. Well, again, what we have tried to do is give
them choices and give them a menu, if you will, of options to
choose from so that they could upgrade, again, trying to stay
in that affordable price range.
You know, it was mentioned earlier that you pay for it over
30 years. Most people don't stay in their home 30 years. Most
people stay in their home 5 to 6 or 7 years. And so you have to
make that payback attainable sooner. So you have to have
solutions that make that attainable sooner.
Mrs. Miller. In your testimony, you stated, ``NAHB
estimates that nearly 25 percent of the final cost of a single-
family home and more than 30 percent of the cost of a
multifamily home is due to government regulation at all levels
of government.''
Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Rutland. Well, it starts with the land development. It
starts with, in our State, ADEM. It starts with the regulations
that we have that add cost to putting that lot, putting those
streets and gutters in.
And then it starts with the unnecessary codes in so many
points and regulation that restricts us from coming up with new
and inventive ways--smart technology, smart thermostats, things
like that--that would help us be able to offset other
regulation and code.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chair Castor.
Thank you all for coming here today.
I am always struck that we have either a great opportunity
or a great embarrassment and, if we are honest, probably both,
that comes from the fact that so many of our trading partners
use so much less energy per dollar of GDP than we do, with
existing technology, with standards of living that are
comparable to our own. And that means we have an enormous
opportunity and, if we are honest, an enormous amount of shame
that we haven't gotten there already.
As my colleagues know, I spent 20 years in the clean-energy
and energy-efficiency world before I got here. And the non-
nerdy way to describe that is this great joke that all my
colleagues used to like to tell about an economist who walks
down the street with his grandmother, and he sees a 20-dollar
bill on the ground, and he keeps on walking. And his grandma
says, ``Aren't you going to go pick up the 20-dollar bill?''
And the economist says, ``No. We live in a perfect economy. If
the 20-dollar bill existed, somebody would have picked it up
already.''
I tell you that story to start with a question for you, Ms.
Rinaldi. When homeowners are making a decision about investing
in thicker insulation or a more efficient light bulb or a
better water heater, all the things they could do, what kind of
payback do they typically require? Do they get their money back
in 4 years, 3 years, 2 years? How much do they need to really
see an uptick of those investments?
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Well, I think that there is--I have
generally been told by contractors that 3 years is a good--you
know, for a large investment. But, obviously, the faster the
payback, the better. That is the reason why I noted earlier the
need for incentives, just to help reduce that payback. Because
the faster the payback, the more likely they are going to take
that option.
I do think there are other opportunities, which is to give
them an additional value, whether it is making sure these are
in the MLS systems or that they have a certification or other
things that can provide visibility and transparency to the
upgrades so they can brag about it. I think that is another
piece.
Mr. Casten. So 3 years is awesome. My experience was that
we used to tell our salespeople, if you can't see a way through
to a 2-year payback, don't waste your time, because we don't
have enough time to send salespeople out.
But let's just stay with 3 years.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Okay.
Mr. Casten. On a compounded basis, that is like a 25-
percent return on your investment. We have retirees and savers
and people putting aside for a rainy day who fantasize about
getting 7-, 8-, 9-percent compound returns. And what you are
saying is that homeowners walk away from 20-, 25-percent
returns every day.
Ms. Saul Rinaldi. Yes.
Mr. Casten. Dr. Shahyd, talk a little bit about the split-
incentive problem, if you would, between when the building
owner and the person who pays the utilities are two separate
people.
Mr. Shahyd. Yep. Thank you. Yes, because I feel like much
of the conversation so far has been focused on homeowners, but
renters also face these burdens and are particularly
vulnerable.
And so the split incentive, as you mentioned, when the
building owner doesn't pay the utilities, so has no incentive
to invest in the continued maintenance or, really, the upgrade
of that building, and so just allows it to deteriorate. And if
you are a renter, you obviously don't want to, you know, put
your own money into a place that you don't own.
And so a couple of things, you know, that we have done is,
one, just working with utilities to improve the incentive to
the building owners, basically making it more cost-effective
for them to want to invest into their home; but then also
working with them to quantify what is the benefit to the
building owner of actually investing in your home.
Well, one of them is that people will actually want to stay
there and not just use the apartment as a way station to
something better. And so, if you are an owner of the property,
you want to have full occupancy, you want to have, you know,
continuous occupancy of the unit, which is where you get your
investment and your return back.
And so being able to quantify, you know, what that is. And
we have worked with building owners across the country who have
seen improvements where, you know, they have trouble renting
units, to units that are now on a waiting list because so many
people wanted to get in.
Another thing that you can do is, as some cities and States
have, have renter ordinances where renters can actually see the
energy score of the apartments that they are actually looking
to rent. So they can use that as part of their decisionmaking
in where they want to rent, which also makes an incentive for a
building owner to say, okay, I want to have a much more energy-
efficient----
Mr. Casten. So if I could just wrap up, with the little bit
of time I have left, I am delighted with both of your answers,
and I want to come back to that this is both an opportunity and
some shame. Because I don't want any of us to fall for being
that dumb economist anymore. And we know we have this
opportunity.
We know, you know, Mr. Rutland, as you eloquently pointed
out, people look at the first cost of the house. They don't
look at what it is going to save them down the road.
And we have legislation that educates consumers. We have
building codes. We have tax incentives. And if we are really
honest, they ain't enough. Because we are not capturing that
win-win that will lower CO2 and put more money in
our pockets. And until we maximally capture that win-win, none
of us should sit here saying that we economically can't go
after CO2 reduction.
And so, if you all have thoughts--and I am out of time. But
if you have your one--if you get to be king and you have one
policy that would really make a difference and bring us up to
the level that our trading partners are already at, please
submit them for the record and keep us educated. Thank you.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. And I am Mr. Palmer, not Mr. Graves. So I don't
want any confusion there.
A couple of things that I want to talk about.
One, Mr. Wright, you said that the grants from the States
for mitigation are taxable. Are those Federal grants that are
administered by the States, or are those State-originated
grants?
Mr. Wright. If you are using State money appropriated by
the State legislature. If it is appropriated by the Feds, it is
not taxable. So you take something--like, the State of Alabama
has their product----
Mr. Palmer. Okay. That is what I am looking for, because I
think that is something we need to look at. I am sure it is
going to be on an individual State basis how to do this.
But on another area, there is the Low Income Household
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. That money is administered
to the States as a grant. I think in Alabama it is through
ADECA, the Alabama Department of Economic and Community
Affairs. And I think we need to look into that and see whether
or not that money is used for mitigation. It is supposed to be
assisting low-income households to pay their energy bills.
Mr. Wright. Sir, very simply on this, to the degree that
there is Federal money that is flowing, my understanding is
none of that is taxable. It is when it is only a State----
Mr. Palmer. In the last fiscal year, we sent $3.65 billion.
$54.2 million of that went to Alabama. Florida got $96.8
million. Now, that is up over--right at 21 percent from 2016.
So we are putting quite a bit a money out there.
Also, I want to respond to something that was in your
testimony about rural households and manufactured housing. I
think your number is a little bit high on the percentage of
rural people who live in manufactured housing. I grew up in
rural Alabama, pretty much dirt-poor. I lived in a house that
my dad built. It had cardboard between the two floors. We
heated it with a coal heater and cooled it with a box fan in
the kitchen window. So I know a little bit about living in a
low-income household.
But I also, when I was in college, worked in manufactured
housing as a summer job and as a night job. And the energy
efficiency from manufactured housing has tremendously improved.
Now, I know Mr. Rutland might not appreciate me speaking up for
manufactured housing. And manufactured housing is no longer--I
think you said it is delivered on a flatbed truck. That is not
exactly accurate either. It is delivered by a truck, but there
are manufactured houses that are delivered on a flatbed truck
that look like any other house. And you see them not only in
rural areas but you will see them in suburban areas and urban
areas.
So I just wanted to make that point, that the technology
that is going into building these homes is substantially
different from what it was years ago when you just saw one
being pulled down the highway. And there is a major emphasis on
energy efficiency.
And there was also a point made that rural customers pay
more for electricity than suburban or urban customers. And I
checked with Alabama Power, and all customers, all residential
customers, pay the same rate. What you run into is a percentage
of disposable income.
And I looked up a Tax Foundation report on the cap-and-
trade bill that was before Congress in 2009. Had that passed,
the people who are in the bottom 20 percentile of income would
have paid five times as much for their energy as people in the
top 20 percent.
So I just want to make some clarifications here, that the
policies that we are discussing here have ramifications and a
cost, and you have to take that into account.
And I know that is important to you, Mr. Rutland, when you
are building a home, the affordability of the home and the
ability of the purchaser of that home to maintain the
household, including the energy costs.
In your testimony, you say that the NAHB estimates that
nearly 25 percent of the final cost of single-family homes and
more than 30 percent of the cost of multifamily homes is due to
government regulations at all levels of government.
If we want people to buy newer homes and more energy-
efficient homes and safer homes, you know, to be able to
withstand a storm, wouldn't it make sense if there were fewer
mandates and that the regulations were clearer and more concise
in your ability to build an affordable home?
Mr. Rutland. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr. Palmer. That is one of the things that we are trying to
work on. It is not that we want to get rid of regulations. We
want to get the regulations down so that we get rid of the
obsolete and the duplications and the contradictions and work
this out so that we can build safe products at an affordable
cost.
The other issue is--and, Mr. Wright, listening to your
testimony too--is mitigation. I ran a think tank for 25 years.
Prior to that, I worked for two international engineering
companies. And the codes are different in different States.
When we would build a project in California, we had to take
into account earthquakes. So when you are putting together your
engineering plan for structures, you had to take that into
account.
Mr. Rutland, if you are building a home on the coast, you
are building under different regulations there. So we are not
going to be talking about one size fits all.
And we also have to take into account where you build the
home. If you are building on the Gulf Coast, then you are
basically accepting the risk that your home might be damaged or
destroyed.
So when you are building a home, you take all that into
account. Is that correct?
Mr. Rutland. Absolutely. In my local area, there are two
different soil types, so we have to build differently in just
10 miles from each other.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I think I am out of--no, I have a minute
and 30 left.
Ms. Castor. No, you are over.
Mr. Palmer. Oh, I am? Well, I didn't see the clock.
Ms. Castor. Do you have one quick comment or question?
Mr. Palmer. No, I appreciate the panel. And I think we are
moving in the right direction in terms of our engineering
expertise to build houses that can survive storms, that are
also energy-efficient.
And, with that, I will yield back.
Ms. Castor. Perfect.
Well, thanks to all the witnesses.
And, Mr. Palmer, you had me hearkening back to 10 years ago
during the debate of the Waxman-Markey bill, which was a
substantial carbon-reduction bill. When the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost to low-income
families, they actually found that Waxman-Markey and tackling
the climate crisis at that time would reduce the burden on
hardworking families across America.
So that is our challenge moving forward, to craft policies
that reduce carbon pollution, build resiliency, reduce risk,
create jobs, and make sure that the burden is properly placed.
And, at this time, I would like to submit a few reports,
without objection.
The first report is the ``Energy Efficiency Jobs in
America'' report. 2.3 million Americans work in energy
efficiency. This was released by E2 in September.
Next, the National Institute of Building Sciences, the NBI,
New Buildings Institute report, ``Implementing an Outcome-Based
Compliance Path in Energy Codes: Guidance for Cities.''
Next, the American Institute of Architects, ``Understanding
Codes Change Proposal.''
And, finally, a letter, October 16, 2019, from PG&E.
Without objection, these are entered into the record.
[The reports follow:]
Submissions for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 17, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Energy Efficiency Jobs in America. E2, 2019.
This report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Energy-Efficiency-Jobs-
in-America-2019-Full-Report.pdf.
ATTACHMENT: Implementing an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy
Codes: Guidance for Cities. National Institute of Building Sciences,
2017.
This report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/docs/OBP-
CityLevelGuide.pdf.
ATTACHMENT: Understanding Code Change Proposal CE264-19: Zero Code
Renewable Energy Appendix. The American Institute of Architects, 2019.
This report is retained in the committee files and available at:
http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/
Guidance_Document_for_Building_Code_Officials_CE264-19.pdf.
[The letter follows:]
----------
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 17, 2019
October 16, 2019.
The Honorable Kathy Castor
Chair, House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
U.S. House of Representatives
H2-359 Ford House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Garret Graves
Ranking Member, House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
U.S. House of Representatives
H2-361 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC. 20515
Dear Chairman Castor and Ranking Member Graves:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) writes to thank you for
scheduling an upcoming hearing entitled, ``Solving the Climate Crisis:
Cleaner, Stronger Buildings.'' In advance of this hearing, PG&E
respectfully requests the opportunity to submit this letter for the
hearing record.
PG&E is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric
utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, with more than
24,000 employees, the company delivers some of the nation's cleanest
energy to nearly 16 million people--or one in 20 Americans--throughout
a 70,000-square-mile service area in Northern and Central California.
PG&E appreciates the time and consideration the House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis is devoting to the important matter of
how to reduce the carbon footprint of our nation's buildings while
improving resilience to the increasing threats of climate change.
Meeting the challenge of climate change is central to PG&E's vision
of a sustainable energy future. Consistent with our vision, PG&E is
significantly reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
environmental impacts from our operations, in partnership with
California and beyond. In 2018, over 80 percent of electricity
delivered to PG&E customers was GHG-free.
According to the California Air Resources Board's 2019 GHG
Inventory, the electric sector accounts for 15 percent of statewide GHG
emissions, whereas the transportation sector accounts for 41 percent of
GHG emissions and the commercial and residential building sector
accounts for 12 percent of GHG emissions.
This success serves as a foundation to help decarbonize other
sectors. Notably, PG&E is helping to reduce emissions in the
transportation sector by investing in alternative refueling
infrastructure and customer incentives to adopt electric vehicles,
while PG&E's energy efficiency, demand response and distributed
generation programs are helping to reduce emissions from buildings in
our service area.
Energy efficiency is a core part of California's efforts to reduce
greenhouse emissions and promote customer affordability, and PG&E has
been a key partner in implementing many of these programs. In 1976,
PG&E became the first utility in the nation to offer energy efficiency
programs to our customers. Since California's institution of energy-
efficiency policies and utility-directed programs began in the 1970s,
the state's per capita electricity consumption has remained nearly
flat, while the rest of the United States has increased by about one-
third.
Today, PG&E is continuing this leadership in offering our customers
various assessment tools and programs to determine how best customers
can maximize energy savings, and multiple rebate and assistance
programs to incentivize adoption of more efficient homes, products and
behaviors. A few examples of these programs include:
In order to reduce the financial barriers to energy
efficiency, PG&E provides mostly small- and medium-sized
businesses and local governments with zero-interest loans to
support energy efficiency updates. In 2018, PG&E provided
nearly 800 loans cumulatively worth $37.6 million.
PG&E operates two Energy Centers and supports a Food
Service Training Center, offering energy efficiency education
and training programs for building professionals, including
architects, designers, engineers, contractors and technicians.
In 2018, PG&E held more than 485 classes, 100 technical
consultations and 170 outreach events focused on educating and
training these professionals on energy-efficient design and
practices.
In 2018, PG&E provided nearly 147,000 customers a
Home Energy Checkup, which provides customers personalized
information on how they use energy and how they could be saving
more.
More than 200,000 residential customers and 150,000
larger commercial and industrial customers participate in
various PG&E demand response programs. For example, PG&E's
SmartAC program allows PG&E to send a signal to a PG&E-provided
device on a customer's air conditioner, cycling the AC to use
less energy. Over 112,000 customers participate in the program,
which last year provided 61 MW in potential load reduction.
PG&E is also very active at the federal and state
levels to advocate for stronger building codes and appliance
and product standards. Notably, PG&E supported California's
goal for all newly constructed residential buildings to be zero
net energy (ZNE) by 2020.
Thanks to these energy efficiency programs, in 2018 PG&E helped
customers save approximately $300 million on their energy bills and
avoid the emission of more than 284,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
In addition to PG&E's energy efficiency and demand response
programs, PG&E is also helping to reduce the carbon footprint of our
buildings by providing our customers a variety of tools and resources
for those who want to use solar energy and other distributed energy
resources. In 2018, PG&E reached nearly 400,000 interconnected solar
systems, representing about 20 percent of all private rooftop solar in
the United States. During the year, PG&E connected 77 percent of
customers' private solar systems to the electric grid within three
days. PG&E also offers incentive programs for low-income solar, solar
thermal water heating, fuel cells, wind, battery storage and other
advanced technologies.
Long-term decarbonization goals will also need to address the use
of natural gas in buildings. In California, this transition has been
focused on the promotion of appliance electrification (e.g., upgrading
to an electric heat pump) and changes to local building codes requiring
new construction to be all-electric. PG&E has recently supported
efforts in Berkeley, San Luis Obispo and other California
municipalities to transition away from natural gas infrastructure in
new buildings. PG&E supports these local governments taking such action
in cases where it is cost effective, and welcomes the opportunity to
avoid investments in new gas assets that might later prove
underutilized as local governments and the State of California work
together to realize long-term decarbonization objectives. Beyond new
construction, PG&E believes a multi-faceted approach is needed to cost-
effectively achieve California's broader economy-wide long-term GHG
reduction objectives, including both electrification and decarbonizing
the gas system with renewable natural gas and hydrogen.
The transition of California's gas system will create various
affordability, reliability and workforce challenges that will need to
be addressed. In September, Gridworks issued a report entitled
``California's Gas System in Transition: Equitable, Affordable,
Decarbonized, and Smaller,'' which identifies challenges in managing a
transition away from natural gas and provides a series of
recommendations that policymakers should consider proactively to
minimize the impacts this transition will have for customers, workers
and communities. PG&E provided input to Gridworks for this report,
along with IBEW Local 1245, state regulators, environmental
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations and others. A copy of
the report is attached to be included in the hearing record.
As we work to decarbonize the building sector, we must also invest
in the resilience of our communities. Many of the communities and
customers PG&E serves in California are already experiencing the
consequences of climate change, including more frequent extreme
weather, rising sea levels, increased drought, extreme heat and longer,
more severe wildfire seasons. In response, PG&E is working to design,
influence and implement policies that measurably and demonstrably
increase the resilience of the company's assets and operations, and
support climate resilience in the communities we serve.
At the community level, PG&E is investing $2 million over five
years through the Better Together Resilient Communities grant program
to support local climate resilience initiatives. This grant program
provides eligible local governments, educational institutions and non-
profits $100,000 for projects that increase community resilience to
various climate risks, including heat waves and wildfires. The
competitive process evaluates applications by criteria including how
the project assists disadvantaged communities and provides measurable
benefits.
Furthermore, PG&E is working to integrate long-term climate
resilience into the company's core processes by incorporating long-term
climate projections into infrastructure planning. By planning today for
the projected changes in heat, precipitation, sea level rise and other
conditions that will occur in California in the coming decades, PG&E
can avoid increased maintenance or replacement costs and be better
prepared to continue providing safe, reliable, affordable, clean energy
into the future.
While PG&E is taking steps today to plan for the future, bolstering
our nation's resilience in the face of increased extreme weather and a
changing climate will require multiple sectors, communities and
governments at all levels working together. To this end, PG&E believes
there are many supportive actions the Federal Government can take to
promote resilience in local communities and buildings, including:
Encouraging public-private partnerships to design,
develop, and fund resilience projects;
Establishing voluntary resilient zoning and building
codes and standards, using the LEED certification program as a
model, and providing incentives for customers and communities
in disaster-prone areas to adopt the standards;
Incorporating climate resilience in future federal
spending and planning decisions to maximize infrastructure
lifespans;
Funding for local climate resilience planning and
implementation.
Thank you for convening the hearing and for the opportunity to
submit this letter for your consideration. PG&E welcomes the
opportunity to serve as a resource to you and the Select Committee as
you evaluate opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of the
building sector and increase the resilience of our communities.
Sincerely,
Jessica Hogle,
Vice President, Federal Affairs and Chief
Sustainability Officer PG&E Corporation.
Attachment: Gridworks, ``California's Gas System in Transition''
(Available at: https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
CA_Gas_System_in_Transition.pdf).
Ms. Castor. I would like to remind everyone that the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis currently has a request for
proposals, a request for information out. We want your ideas on
how we reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and build more
resilient communities across America.
You can find that on our website at climatecrisis.house.gov
or follow us on Twitter, @climatecrisis.
Without objection, all members will have 10 business days
within which to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as
you are able.
[The information follows:]
----------
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Hearing on October 17, 2019
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings''
Questions for the Record
Anica Landreneau
Senior Principal
Director of Sustainable Design
HOK
the honorable kathy castor
1. Why are some of your clients, like hospitals, airports, and
universities, opting for electric space and water heating? What
are some of the benefits they have experienced? What policies
do we need to support building electrification?
Energy efficiency and renewable energy are critical first steps to
achieving a low carbon built environment. Another critical element is
the electrification of buildings. While Renewable Portfolio Standards
(RPS) are addressing the combustion of fossil fuels at the utility
level, it is important to also address the consumption of fossil fuels
on site at the building and central plant. This means replacing fossil
fuel-based cooking, water heating, space heating and cooling equipment
and co-generation equipment with electric equipment.
In many cases natural gas or coal is used in large central plant
facilities serving multiple buildings, particularly at hospitals,
airports, universities and other campuses or networks that serve our
communities. Eliminating onsite combustion of fossil fuels can have co-
benefits such as improved safety, indoor air quality and grid
flexibility. When these facilities and campuses convert to all-electric
systems, they are more grid flexible (energy can run both ways,
depending on time of day pricing), renewable-ready and zero energy-
ready. This flexibility and adaptability to alternative energy sources
helps them to be more resilient, capable of safely storing energy for
emergency scenarios, and better prepared for the future.
Congress can offer incentives, such as tax deductions where
applicable, for the replacement of fossil fuel-based equipment in
existing facilities, particularly water heaters, furnaces, boilers and
space heating/cooling equipment (i.e. heat pumps), or rebates (for non-
profit institutions) to buy down the cost premium for first-time
installation of electric equipment. Studies indicate regional state-led
incentive programs \1\ have been successful to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/
researchreports/a1803.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can also revisit a Federal law \2\ which often precludes
state action on efficiency and emissions. In 1975 Congress enacted the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) to set national
standards for equipment like heaters, boilers and rooftop air
conditioners, but this legislation also disallows states and other
jurisdictions from setting more stringent local standards on these
products. The International Code Council (ICC), the states, and or
cities that adopt stretch energy codes, are still strictly limited in
how much efficiency they can achieve in the products covered by NAECA.
Innovative U.S.-based manufacturing companies could be created by
demand for high performance heating and cooling equipment should more
stringent state and local requirements be permitted. The performance
cap or ceiling created by NAECA suppresses such innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Preemption as a Barrier to Cost Savings and High-
Performance in Local Codes (NBI, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How could all-electric buildings save consumers money upfront and
over the lifetime of the buildings? What barriers prevent
developers and owners from building electric-only buildings?
When the local energy grid can support the entirety of building
loads (i.e. both heat and power demands), an all-electric building can
save the consumer money upfront, offsetting the cost of an electric
heat pump by eliminating the costs of gas boilers and natural gas
connections. In some cases, the length of connection to a natural gas
line is quite long and therefore the savings by eliminating the gas
connection are substantial.
In other cases, if there is insufficient capacity in the local grid
to handle both power and heating needs, and if the utility forces the
developer or consumer to bear the cost of adding an additional
transformer, substation or other electric infrastructure, then that
cost could pose a barrier to all-electric construction. Other barriers
may include cultural or social preferences for cooking with natural
gas. If any natural gas infrastructure is provided, even for nominal
uses, then the savings for eliminating natural gas aren't realized.
Over the lifespan of the building, an all-electric system has
greater capacity for grid flexibility (energy can run both ways,
depending on time of day pricing), is renewable-ready and zero energy-
ready, is capable of safely storing energy for grid harmonization or
emergency scenarios. This can substantially lower a home or building
owner's costs to operate over the lifespan of the building.
Natural gas is a finite resource that already utilizes
environmentally harmful extraction methods such as fracking. As
resources become scarcer the cost for this resource will rise. An all-
electric building can be completely powered with renewable energy,
which already outpaces coal in states like Texas \3\ and the ``cost of
renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a
consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional
fossil fuels'' as early as 2020 according to International Renewable
Energy Agency's (IRENA) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017
report. Renewable energy at utility scale already costs less to build
and these savings can be passed on to consumers: ``Costs for most coal
plants ranged between $33-111/MWh. Costs in 2018 for solar were between
$28-52/MWh. Wind power costs varied more widely, based on location,
coming in at $13-88/MWh, said the coal-cost report.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/texas-wind-energy-trnd/
index.htmlhttp://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/172485/
DemandandEnergy2019.xlsx.
\4\ https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Coal-
Cost-Crossover_Energy-Innovation_VCE_FINAL2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In your testimony, you mentioned that several cities and states are
adopting net zero energy and net zero carbon building codes and
goals. You also referenced the Zero Code appendix to the 2021
model energy code currently being developed. What can the
Federal government do to incentivize the adoption of net zero
building codes and goals?
Congress can incentivize states and cities to be early adopters of
Zero Energy and Zero Carbon codes by supporting the staff and
permitting infrastructure, public education and engagement programs,
annual benchmarking and reporting infrastructure and the development of
shared tools and lessons learned.
There are existing models and vehicles for this kind of support.
For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)
of 2009 provided the State Energy Program (SEP) with $3.1 billion of
resources, requiring required states to develop a plan for achieving
compliance with codes equal to or greater than the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007 in at least 90% of new and renovated residential and
commercial buildings within eight years (by 2017). The U.S. Department
of Energy provided workforce training, code manuals and other tools.
While the Recovery Act SEP funding represents an unprecedented level of
federal support for energy code implementation, the requirements also
called for an extraordinary level of commitment and planning from
participating state and local entities. This incentive program is
likely a major factor leading 88% of the U.S. to at least be on the
2009 energy code or a later edition now. This is a model for a program
that could be developed around zero energy or zero carbon codes,
providing workforce training, code manuals and other tools to states
and local jurisdictions willing to accelerate the adoption of these
advanced building standards.
Congress can also direct federal spending through existing programs
to focus on zero energy and zero carbon goals, such as the Building
Technologies Office (BTO), the development and maintenance of free/open
source energy modeling tools such as EnergyPlus and renewable energy
sizing tools such as PVWatts, and most importantly, the Building Energy
Codes Program, which can provide training and technical assistance,
assess savings impacts, and administer a help desk specific to model
zero energy codes.
Congress can maintain and increase Federal tax incentives for
Renewable Energy technologies, including energy storage. As more
production comes online, the ability to store energy and control how
and when it flows onto the grid will be critical to maintaining our
infrastructure and energy autonomy.
Congress can also link existing Federal tax incentives (or restore
lapsed tax incentives) to Zero Energy and Zero Carbon goals. By
leveraging existing financial incentives but tying them to Zero Energy
or Zero Carbon, Congress not only uses its buying power to reduce
carbon emissions in the built environment but also creates a replicable
framework that smaller jurisdictions can emulate and normalizes the
expectation of performance outcomes.
Examples of existing or recently lapsed tax incentives include:
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) gives incentives
for the utilization of private equity in the development of
affordable housing aimed at low-income Americans. LIHTC
accounts for 90% of all affordable rental housing created in
the United States today. Congress can incentive zero energy or
zero carbon low income housing.
The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program
(HTC) provides a 20% Federal tax credit to property owners who
undertake a substantial rehabilitation of a historic building
in a business or income-producing use while maintaining its
historic character. HTC is designed to not only preserve and
rehabilitate historic buildings, but to also promote the
economic revitalization of older communities in the nation's
cities and towns, along Main Streets, and in rural areas. HTC
has leveraged over $162 billion in private investment in
historic rehabilitation and generating almost 2.7 million jobs.
Congress can incentivize zero energy or zero carbon historic
restoration and preservation projects. In addition to the 20%
Historic Preservation credit, Congress can resurrect a lapsed
10% tax credit for the restoration of non-historic buildings.
This tax credit should be linked to zero energy and zero carbon
renovation projects.
The tax deductions for commercial buildings have expired, effective
December 31, 2017. The tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot was
previously available to owners or designers of commercial buildings or
systems that saved at least 50% of the heating and cooling energy as
compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 (or 90.1-2001 for buildings or
systems placed in service before January 1, 2018). Partial deductions
of up to $.60 per square foot could be taken for measures affecting any
one of three building systems: the building envelope, lighting, or
heating and cooling systems. Congress could reinstate a commercial
building tax deduction for zero-ready, zero energy or zero carbon
buildings.
The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 established tax credits of up
to $2,000 for builders of new energy-efficient homes. This tax credit
has also expired,\5\ effective December 31, 2017. Congress could
reinstate the tax credit for zero-ready, zero energy or zero carbon
homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.energystar.gov/about/federal_tax_credits/
federal_tax_credit_archives/tax_credits_home_builders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Can you discuss the potential scale of embodied carbon emissions in
new construction? What are the emissions and climate benefits
of low embodied carbon building materials, such as cross-
laminated timber? How can the Federal government help
incentivize the use of low carbon materials and encourage other
ways to reduce embodied emissions?
Globally we must phase out fossil fuel CO2 emissions in
the built environment by 2050 in order to stay ``well below 2 +C--
preferably 1.5 +C--warming above pre-industrial levels'', but new
research from the IPCC, the UN, and the scientific community stresses
the critical importance of a 2030 milestone: if we do not achieve a 45-
55% reduction in total global emissions by 2030 we will have lost the
opportunity to meet the 1.5/2 +C warming threshold and climate change
will become irreversible. The immediate focus for embodied carbon
reductions must therefore be on the next decade.
Annually, the embodied carbon of building structure, substructure,
and enclosures are responsible for 11% of global GHG emissions and 28%
of global building sector emissions. Eliminating these emissions is key
to addressing climate change and meeting Paris Climate Agreement
targets.
Under a business as usual scenario, embodied carbon in buildings
constructed globally between 2020 and 2050 could exceed 250 gigatons
(GtCO2). This is half of the 500 GtCO2 global
carbon budget we must stay within to stay within a 20 +C temperature
rise and nearly three quarters of the 340 GtCO2 global
carbon budget we must stay within to stay within a 1.50 +C temperature
rise.
Of the 173 billion square meters (1.86 trillion square feet) of new
buildings we will construct between 2020 and 2050, approximately 52% of
associated carbon emissions (130 GtCO2) in that time frame
will be derived from embodied carbon, and 48% of associated carbon
emissions (120 GtCO2) will be derived from operating carbon.
Looking more narrowly at the critical window between 2020 and 2030,
under a business as usual scenario, approximately 72% of associated
carbon emissions in that time frame will be derived from embodied
carbon, and 28% of associated carbon emissions will be derived from
operating carbon. This is because embodied carbon emissions are `front
loaded' and although they average out over the life span of a building,
we are concerned with the `time value of carbon' when it is
particularly critical that we stay under a total 500 GtCO2
carbon limit
Buildings are complex systems. There is no such thing as a wholly
concrete building; it requires steel reinforcement. There is no such
thing as a wholly steel building; it requires concrete footings and
foundations. And there is no such thing as a wholly mass timber
building; it requires steel fasteners and concrete footings and
foundations. We need all materials in our palette, and we need to
decarbonize them all. There are ways to decarbonize concrete, by
replacing cement with fly ash or blast furnace slag, or using a carbon
sequestration technology such as Carbon Cure,\6\ or using a cement
manufactured with a coal replacement product \7\ that is processed in
an aerobic digestor and that reduces landfill waste. There are ways to
select steel products with lower embodied carbon, based on
manufacturing location, methods and fuel sources. And there are an
increasingly wide variety of mass timber products, such as cross
laminated timber that are inherently a lower embodied carbon material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.carboncure.com/.
\7\ https://biohitech.com/renewables/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps even more importantly, over one third of the solutions
described in the Paris Accord are described as `natural climate
solutions'. If the construction industry specifies significantly more
timber products, it could lead to increased land use for forestry. Much
of the cement and steel used in the U.S. is manufactured and milled
overseas. But wood products actually are a robust domestic industry and
have the potential to grow should the market signal increasing demand.
Historically code barriers, cost premiums and a lack of workforce
familiarity or experience with mass timber construction have been
barriers to increase specification. Fortunately the 2021 International
Building Code (IBC) has removed barriers to 12- and 18- story tall wood
buildings (exposed structure, and concealed behind fire proofing,
respectively).
Congress can incentivize states and cities to adopt IBC 2021 by
supporting the staff and permitting infrastructure, public education
and engagement programs, and the development of shared tools and
lessons learned.
There are existing models and vehicles for this kind of support.
For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)
of 2009 provided the State Energy Program (SEP) with $3.1 billion of
resources for workforce training, code manuals and other tools. This
could be replicated around IBC 2021 with particular emphasis on Mass
Timber construction.
Congress can also direct federal spending through existing programs
to focus on low embodied carbon goals, such as the Building
Technologies Office (BTO), the development or expansion of free/open
source embodied carbon modeling tools, and the Building Energy Codes
Program, which could partner with industry leaders to develop a
framework for an embodied carbon model code, or an integrated operating
and embodied carbon code.
Congress can also link existing Federal tax incentives (or restore
lapsed tax incentives) to low embodied carbon goals. By leveraging
existing financial incentives but tying them low embodied carbon,
Congress not only uses its buying power to reduce carbon emissions in
the built environment but also creates a replicable framework that
smaller jurisdictions can emulate and normalizes the expectation of
performance outcomes.
Examples of existing or recently lapsed tax incentives include:
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) gives incentives
for the utilization of private equity in the development of
affordable housing aimed at low-income Americans. LIHTC
accounts for 90% of all affordable rental housing created in
the United States today. Congress can incentive the use of Mass
Timber or other low embodied carbon materials for low income
housing.
The tax deductions for commercial buildings have expired,
effective December 31, 2017. The tax deduction of up to $1.80
per square foot was previously available to owners or designers
of commercial buildings or systems that saved at least 50% of
the heating and cooling energy as compared to ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2007 (or 90.1-2001 for buildings or systems placed in
service before January 1, 2018). Partial deductions of up to
$.60 per square foot could be taken for measures affecting any
one of three building systems: the building envelope, lighting,
or heating and cooling systems. Congress could reinstate a
commercial building tax deduction for Mass Timber or other low
embodied carbon building materials for commercial buildings.
5. In your testimony, you outlined several policies that could reduce
emissions in the building sector. In your opinion, which
policies would be most impactful and should be prioritized?
Policy Priority 1: address existing buildings through transparency and
benchmarking
The model energy code addresses new construction and planned
alterations projects that require a permit. Planned construction
activity triggers the code. Buildings with no planned construction
activity are not typically addressed by energy codes.
In most established U.S. cities, 80-90% of the buildings that will
be consuming energy in 2050 already exist. U.S. cities only see 1-2%
turnover (renovation or replacement) of building stock every year on
average. And yet, in cities, buildings represent on average 50-75% of
GHG emissions inventory. Buildings are the single largest opportunity
to meet climate goals. Therefore, building codes alone won't address
the issue of emissions in the built environment. Other complementary
policy solutions, such as energy transparency and benchmarking, as well
as building performance standards are required.
Energy benchmarking and transparency ordinances have been adopted
by over two dozen jurisdictions across the country, making publicly and
privately-owned building annual performance data available to
jurisdictions and the public. These policies currently encompass nearly
92,000 properties \8\ at 11 billion square feet of floor area \9\
reported every year. Through transparency alone these cities are seeing
an average of 4-13% energy improvement in their existing building
stock. Just starting to use the benchmarking and reporting tools, such
as EnergyStar Portfolio Manager, shining a light on building
performance, and introducing a comparative metric has already inspired
improved operations and maintenance as well as investment in energy
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.buildingrating.org/graphic/us-number-properties-
covered-annually.
\9\ https://www.buildingrating.org/graphic/us-building-area-
covered-annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can incentivize states and cities to adopt transparency
and benchmarking policies, by co-funding staff or providing resources
and tools, particularly when policies are linked to a national
benchmarking platform such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) EnergyStar Portfolio Manager tool. Congress can also incentivize
building owners by providing financial incentives (tax incentives or
rebates) for energy audits, retro-commissioning, deep green retrofits,
systems or component replacement, and building operator training
programs.
Investment in Energy Efficiency is investment in local jobs and the
local economy. Building improvements focused on improved energy
efficiency in existing building stock cannot be shipped overseas. They
are labor intensive and site-specific projects, driving the creation of
local jobs in construction, renovation, installation, operations and
maintenance.\10\ According to the 2019 U.S. Energy and Employment
Report, Energy Efficiency produced more new jobs in the United States
in 2018 than any other energy sector, and accounted for more than 2.3
million jobs overall, as compared with about 534,000 in renewable
energy and about 200,000 in coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Energy Efficiency in Buildings: the key to Effective and
Equitable Clean Energy Action for Cities (IMT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy 2: address existing buildings through building performance
standards
Once jurisdictions have established transparency and benchmarking
infrastructure with its annual communication channels between building
owners and a building performance oversight agency, it is easier to put
a building performance standard into place. Cities may want to require
building owners to take additional steps beyond just reporting
performance such as improving buildings that exceed carbon intensity,
energy- or water-consumption thresholds or fall below peer building
EnergyStar scores.
There are a small number of jurisdictions that have already passed
building performance standards, but many more are looking at similar
policies to address their existing building stock. The next most likely
jurisdictions to pass similar policies will be those with existing
transparency and benchmarking policies already in effect.
Congress can incentivize states and cities to adopt Building
Performance Standards, particularly when policies are linked to a
national benchmarking platform such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) EnergyStar Portfolio Manager tool. Support may
include co-funding staff or providing resources, tools and training for
jurisdictions.
Congress can continue to support the development and improvement of
energy simulation tools that aid building owners in making financial
investment decisions, as well as EPA EnergyStar Portfolio Manager
platform, and ensure it remains relevant by maintaining funding for the
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey which populates the
database on the backend.
Congress can leverage the National Laboratories and the U.S.
Department of Energy Building Technologies Office (BTO) to provide
demonstration and field validation of advanced technologies so that
American businesses may foster innovative solutions to our building
energy challenges, these technologies may become shelf-ready and cost-
competitive, and building owners may confidently employ these
technologies in existing buildings to improve their performance.
Congress can also incentivize building owners by providing
financial incentives (tax incentives or rebates) for energy audits,
retro-commissioning, deep green retrofits, systems or component
replacement, and building operator training programs.
Policy Priority 3: modernize code enforcement
The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is in use or
adopted in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. The model code is updated in three-year cycles,
supported by research and analysis conducted by industry stakeholders
and U.S. Department of Energy (PNNL). The model building code is a
powerful and far reaching tool, however many jurisdictions do not have
the personnel or fiscal resources to adequately ensure compliance with
energy requirements. Codes are only as good as they can be and are
enforced, which is why the next policy priority focuses on enforcement.
Congress can provide resources to state and local governments in
many ways. Congress can provide assistance to jurisdictions who wish to
convert to an e-plan review process or to leverage integrated
technology solutions that work with Building Information Modeling (BIM)
design tools to facilitate virtual inspections through Augmented
Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR) or drone site visits, all of which
can streamline the permitting and inspection process and creates more
efficient use of staff resources, enabling better code enforcement
procedures and more consistent code updates.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Disruption, Evolution, and Change: AIA's vision for the future
of design and construction (AIA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can also incentivize jurisdictions to adopt the latest
codes by offering to co-fund staff or provide training for code
officials using the existing U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy
code training modules. There was a highly successful Federal program in
the wake of the last recession with the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act that provided free training and 2009 IECC code books
and workbooks along with strong incentives for all jurisdictions to
adopt the 2009 IECC.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://bcapcodes.org/topics/federal-funding/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Priority 4: incentivize outcome-based codes
Congress can incentivize states and cities to be early adopters of
outcome-based codes by supporting the transition of staff and
permitting infrastructure, public education and engagement programs,
annual benchmarking and reporting infrastructure and the development of
shared tools and lessons learned. Outcome-based codes establish a
target energy use level or energy allowance, then require measured and
reported actual energy use in relation to that target once the building
is completed and occupied. At a minimum, an outcome-based energy code
requires 12 consecutive months of post-occupancy performance within the
allowed energy or carbon budget, typically within the first 18-36
months of use to normalize for weather and allow for commissioning. If
the building doesn't meet performance requirements, the builder or
owner forfeits a financial penalty.
By focusing on the outcome, code officials and communities can be
assured that requirements are being met while not incurring additional
enforcement burdens. Outcome-based codes mean that there would be less
reliance on design documentation to obtain a permit, alleviating the
pressure on a diminishing code enforcement workforce and freeing that
workforce up to focus on building lifecycle performance policies such
as transparency (annual benchmarking) and building performance
standards. Typically, communities that are prepared for an outcome-
based code already have adopted public and commercial building
benchmarking policies, thus establishing an annual communication
channel between building owner and building performance oversight
agency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Implementing an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy Codes
(NIBS, NBI; 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This simplification of the energy code would allow for more rapid
escalation of performance expectations without the burden of retraining
the entire code enforcement workforce every code cycle. It will also
link escalation design expectations to more rigorous oversight of
construction quality and ongoing performance optimization as an
integral part of operations and maintenance activities. The National
Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and New Building Institute (NBI)
have provided energy code appendix language in the guide Implementing
an Outcome-Based Compliance Path in Energy Codes to help jurisdictions
interested in moving towards an outcome-based code.
Policy Priority 5: incentivize zero carbon buildings
The 2021 model energy code includes a Zero Code appendix, a
platform that jurisdictions can opt into to incentivize or make
mandatory for certain building types or sizes to help them meet their
climate goals. As an appendix it is built into the code enforcement
framework of the IECC but is voluntarily adopted by jurisdictions and
could be adjusted locally to align with a step code or other local
programs. The provisions contained in this appendix will become
mandatory when specified as such in the jurisdiction's adopting
ordinance.
The Zero Code appendix to the 2021 IECC is constructed to require
that new commercial, institutional, and mid- to high-rise residential
buildings install or procure enough renewable energy to achieve zero
net carbon annually.\14\ The appendix encourages on-site renewable
energy systems when feasible but also supports off-site procurement of
renewable energy through a variety of methods. This appendix does not
allow renewable energy to be traded off against the energy efficiency
required by the 2021 IECC. Buildings are required to comply with the
2021 IECC using either the prescriptive or performance approach. When
the prescriptive approach is used, the renewable energy that must be
installed or procured is specified based on building type and climate
zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Understanding Code Change Proposal CE264-19 Zero Code
Renewable Energy Appendix (AIA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the IECC 2021 model code is published Congress can offer
incentives to state and local governments to increase speed of adoption
and encourage use of the Zero Code appendix.\15\ Congress can
incentivize states and cities to be early adopters of Zero Energy and
Zero Carbon codes by supporting the staff and permitting
infrastructure, public education and engagement programs, annual
benchmarking and reporting infrastructure and the development of shared
tools and lessons learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://architecture2030.org/wp-content/uploads/ZERO-Code-RE-
Appendix-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can also link existing Federal tax incentives to Zero
Energy and Zero Carbon goals. By leveraging existing financial
incentives but tying them to Zero Energy or Zero Carbon, Congress not
only uses its buying power to reduce carbon emissions in the built
environment but also creates a replicable framework that smaller
jurisdictions can emulate and normalizes the expectation of performance
outcomes.
Congress can maintain and increase Federal tax incentives for
Renewable Energy technologies, including storage. As more production
comes online, the ability to store energy and control how and when it
flows onto the grid will be critical to maintaining our infrastructure
and energy autonomy.
6. Recent reporting has revealed that the National Association of Home
Builders has the ability to select 4 out of the 11 members of
the residential code committee, based on a formal quid pro quo
agreement with the International Code Council. How has this 4-
vote block affected the code development process and the energy
efficiency and resilience outcomes of the codes adopted? What
reforms to the code development process would you recommend, if
any?
The code update process typically involves a Code Development
Committee (CDC) that is formed by qualified applicants representing a
broad range of stakeholders. These stakeholders may include code
officials, members of the building product or material manufacturing
community (or representative associations), members of the architecture
or engineering community, code consultants, and in the case of the
residential code, home builders. The residential code is unique in
this, as commercial developers and contractors are not typically
engaged in the code development process. Anyone can propose code
amendments, however the bulk are proposed by Code Action Committees
(CACs) who have a vested interest in improving the code. Individual
stakeholders who have identified unclear language, unintended barriers
to good design or construction, inherent conflicts or other challenges
within the code also propose amendments. There are some proposed
amendments in every code cycle that attempt to `roll back' the
requirements or stringency of the code. It is the Code Development
Committee's role to protect the intent and integrity of the code.
While it has been evident that the residential energy code
committee has had disproportionate representation by the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB), it was not evident until recently
that this was a formal agreement. The agreement with the International
Codes Council (ICC) was that having this significant representation or
voting block on the committee would be in exchange for promoting the
adoption of the i-codes, including the energy conservation code, with
states and local jurisdictions.
The NAHB has leveraged this voting block to attempt to roll back
much of the progress made in the residential energy code over the last
couple of cycles, and other stakeholders have had to work in earnest
merely to try to keep the code holding steady. For example, the update
from the 2015 to 2018 residential energy conservation code only saw a
nominal improvement:
1.97 percent energy cost savings
1.91 percent source energy savings
1.68 percent site energy savings
At the same time the commercial energy conservation code was
advancing at four times the pace of the residential energy code. This
is similar to the trajectory of the 2012 to 2015 energy code update and
the 2018 to 2021 energy code update (in the 2021 code cycle the
residential energy code improved by about 3% while the commercial
energy code improved by about 12%). For three cycles in a row the
commercial energy code has progressed at four times the rate of
residential code because of the stranglehold NAHB has on the code
development committee.
Ultimately it is the consumers who pay the price for inefficient
homes, not only in energy bills but in thermal discomfort and poor
indoor air quality and health impacts as well.
A better thermal envelope allows for passive survivability, or
habitable human conditions with the loss of power. Increased r-values,
lower u-values, and improved air tightness retain heat in the winter
(when winter storms may knock out power) or prevent heat gain in the
summer (when tropical storms, hurricanes or drought-driven fires may
knock out power). Residents can stay in their homes without power for
many more when their homes are built to more efficient standards.
Despite this quid pro quo, allowing the NAHB to maintain a
significant voting block on the residential energy code development
committee, thereby holding back code progress, in exchange for its
support, the NAHB and its membership have not worked with jurisdictions
advocating for the adoption of the latest energy codes. NAHB and its
membership have actively lobbied against adoption of the latest codes,
decrying them as too stringent, too difficult, too much of a cost
burden, despite the fact that NAHB has barely allowed the residential
energy code to make any changes at all in nearly a decade.
No single organization or entity should be able to have such a
large influence on the code development process. Nor should there be
any quid pro quo arrangements that trade votes for influence or
support. This has clearly been an ineffective arrangement with the
energy code AND consumers losing on both sides of the deal.
Although the code hearings and public comment process are public,
the final votes are only open to ICC members, primarily comprised of
code officials. Even code development committee members cannot vote if
they are not code officials. It seems that both the development
committee and the final vote are lacking in representation from the
most important constituencies: the people who actually must live in
these homes. If not actual home buyers or home owners, then
associations that represent them (REALTORs, etc.) who can advocate for
that stakeholder population. Other advocates from the community may
also be able to represent these concerns and issues on the committee as
well as in the final vote.
the honorable garret graves
1. Your testimony highlighted the role that buildings play in global
emissions--40 percent. Could you elaborate on the role that the
Department of Energy's Building Technology Office plays in
finding new construction techniques that may make a difference
not just for Californians, but also residents of developing
nations?
The Building Technologies Office (BTO) supports the development and
implementation of residential and commercial building energy codes by
engaging with government and industry stakeholders, and by providing
technical assistance for code development, adoption, and compliance.
Through advancing building codes, we aim to improve building energy
efficiency, and to help states achieve maximum savings. Through the
Building Energy Codes Program, BTO:
Assesses the savings impacts of model energy codes,
calculating energy, cost and carbon savings to inform
jurisdictions and the public
Coordinates with key stakeholders to improve model
energy codes, including architects, engineers, builders, code
officials, and a variety of other energy professionals
Reviews published codes to ensure increased energy
savings, such as the International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1
Tracks the status of energy code adoption across the
U.S. and provides technical assistance to states implementing
updated codes
Provides a variety of educational and training
resources and assists states working to measure and improve
code compliance
Administers a Help Desk to assist individual code
users with questions about energy codes
BTO also sponsors an Emerging Technologies (ET) Program that
fosters the development of cost-effective, energy-efficient
technologies and helps introduce those technologies into the
marketplace. ET funds and directs applied research and development
(R&D) for technologies and tools that support building energy
efficiency. The BTO provides demonstration and field validation of
advanced technologies so that American businesses may foster innovative
solutions to our building energy challenges, these technologies may
become shelf-ready and cost-competitive, and building owners may
confidently employ these technologies in new and existing buildings to
improve their performance.
BTO develops and maintains open source Whole-Building Energy
Modeling (BEM) tools such as EnergyPlus and Open Studio. These are
versatile, multipurpose tools that are used in new building and
retrofit designs, code compliance, green certification, qualification
for tax credits and utility incentives, and real-time building control.
BEM is also used in large-scale analyses to develop building energy-
efficiency codes and inform policy decisions. These energy simulation
tools are vital support to aid building owners in making financial
investment decisions. They provide timely feedback on first cost,
energy cost savings and simple payback analysis, as well as load
reduction and first cost tradeoffs for cost neutral high-performance
construction.
By providing model code assistance, tools and resources are made
available including cost effectiveness studies, technical training and
implementation guides that many developing nations would not be able to
produce on their own. These tools and resources enable developing
nations, many of whom are constructing billions of square feet of new
buildings over the next few decades, to adopt and enforce a higher
caliber of building and energy code. This results in safer, more
resilient buildings, as well as lower global carbon emissions, which
makes us all safer.
By fostering emerging technologies and proving their effectiveness,
BTO is able to introduce technologies that ultimately become shelf-
ready and cost-competitive, not just in the U.S. but in developing
nations. By providing access to open source Whole-Building Energy
Modeling (BEM) tools such as EnergyPlus and Open Studio, BTO enables
designers and building owners to make construction decisions informed
by first cost, energy cost savings and simple payback analysis, as well
as load reduction and first cost tradeoffs for cost neutral high-
performance construction. Simulation in concert with lower energy,
lower carbon technologies contribute to lower carbon construction in
developing nations. They result in safer, more resilient buildings, as
well as lower global carbon emissions, which makes us all safer.
References Page
Graphs, charts, diagrams courtesy of Architecture 2030, except where
noted.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record
Kara Saul Rinaldi
Vice President, Government Affairs, Policy, and Programs, Building
Performance Association
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony, you outlined several policies that could expand
the use of energy efficiency in the building sector. In your
opinion, which policies would be most impactful and should be
prioritized?
There are five barriers to advancing energy efficiency that need to
be addressed in unison for maximum impact, and the associated benefits
of reduced emissions, cost savings, and improved health and safety: (1)
valuing energy efficiency, (2) upfront costs, (3) accurate measuring
and modeling, (4) a shortage of trained workers, and (5) equity.
Congress should prioritize policies that together can address all of
those challenges and make the greatest impact to increase energy
efficiency in the building sector.
1. Valuing energy efficiency. Often the energy efficiency
upgrades that result in the greatest energy savings cost the
most--costs that most homeowners simply cannot afford without
some level of certainty that they will be able to get a return
on their investment. Without appropriate consideration in the
appraisal, real estate, and mortgage lending processes for
energy efficiency upgrades and the value and cost savings that
they provide, homeowners cannot recoup the value of their
energy efficiency investments at the time of sale or
refinancing. Improving valuation of energy efficiency will help
homeowners get a fair payback for investments that save energy
and reduce emissions, and it will drive future demand for these
improvements.
Sensible Accounting to Value Energy (SAVE) Act (114th_HR 614,
Rep. Murphy, Rep. Jolly/113th_S 1106, Sen. Bennet, Sen.
Isakson). The SAVE Act would require HUD to develop and issue
guidelines to all federal mortgage agencies to implement
enhanced loan eligibility based on energy cost savings due to
efficiency upgrades. This would help to address this issue of
valuing energy efficiency by ensuring consideration and proper
valuation of energy efficiency measures in the mortgage lending
process. In the 116th Congress the SAVE Act is included in the
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (HR 3962, S
2137).
2. Upfront costs. Energy efficiency helps homeowners and
building owners save money on their monthly utility bills and
improve the comfort, health, safety, and resiliency of their
homes--providing a significant payback on investment. However,
upfront costs remain a significant barrier preventing low and
moderate-income households from completing energy efficiency
upgrades. Furthermore, the energy efficiency measures that can
achieve the most energy savings, such as whole-home insulation
and air sealing and upgrading to an efficient HVAC system,
often have the highest upfront costs. Congress should support
residential incentives that reduce the upfront cost of energy
efficiency improvements to allow more Americans to access the
efficiency market.
Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Act of 2019
(116th_HR 2043, Rep. Welch).\1\ The HOMES Act would create a
Grant Program for rebates to residential efficiency customers
with a network of rebate aggregators, as well as grants for
quality assurance and a pilot on pay for performance. This
legislation would lower the barrier of high upfront costs for
energy efficiency measures that can achieve substantial energy
savings and help more middle-income Americans make efficiency
upgrades to their homes. This bill is going through additional
changes to include lessons from state programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Updated version pending introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25C tax credit. Residential tax incentives are critical to
reducing the upfront cost of energy efficiency improvements.
The 25C tax credit is the only residential energy efficiency
tax credit provided to consumers. Congress should support a
forward-looking extension of a tax credit for residential
energy efficiency upgrades and improve the 25C credit by
updating goals and transitioning the credit into a permanent
performance-based instead of prescriptive incentive.
179D tax credit. Key to advancing commercial energy
efficiency is an extension of the 179D Energy Efficient
Buildings tax deduction that will help support owners and
investors in retrofitting existing buildings, as well as in
constructing new above-code buildings. Congress should pass a
forward-looking extension of 179D that would provide the
certainty needed for consumers, manufacturers, contractors and
others to fully capitalize on the incentive. Congress should
also modernize the tax credit with updates that reflect the
current market of high-efficiency equipment and building
technologies.
3. Accurate measuring and modeling. Energy usage
information--especially granular interval data provided by
smart meters--is a key tool for advancing energy savings in
buildings. Smart meter data can be used to identify cost-
effective energy-saving opportunities, measure the performance
of specific energy efficiency measures, and drive behavior
changes and efficiency investments that achieve measurable and
verifiable energy savings. However, utilities control that data
and, in many cases, do not readily provide access to customers
or allow them to grant access to third party providers who
could provide data analysis, actionable insights, and
recommendations. Congress should act to encourage and support
the adoption of best practices and policies to allow consumers
to access and share their own electricity and natural gas data.
Access to Consumer Energy Information Act or the E-Access Act
(116th_discussion draft, Rep. Welch). Would allow DOE to
facilitate customers' access to their own electricity and
natural gas data, adds consumer access to energy use and price
data to State energy conservation plans, and provides for
establishment of voluntary guidelines with access to third
parties according to a protocol established by the Secretary.
4. Trained worker shortage. Across the country, jobs in
energy-efficient lighting, HVAC, insulation and air sealing,
and energy management technology are available, but in many
markets trained professionals are in short supply. Employers in
energy efficiency, especially in the construction trades, are
experiencing difficulty hiring new employees due to a shortfall
of workers with the necessary experience, training, and
technical skills to fill these jobs, according to the 2019 U.S.
Energy and Employment Report. The energy efficiency industry is
comprised mainly of small businesses--a large majority have
fewer than 20 employees.\2\ Small energy efficiency businesses
need resources to help train new hires and provide ongoing
education to existing employees, keeping them up to date on
certifications and trained in the latest technologies and
health and safety practices. To prepare more American workers
for quality jobs in energy efficiency and drive further growth
in this industry, Congress should act to support workforce
development and jobs training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs-in-America-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Collar and Green Collar Jobs Development Act of 2019
(116th_HR 4061, Reps. Rush and Hudson). Directs DOE to
prioritize education and training for energy and manufacturing
jobs and would establish an energy workforce grant program.
Grant program would provide assistance to businesses in the
energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that are
seeking to educate and train new hires and existing employees,
with priority to small businesses. Similar to S 2393, Clean
Energy Jobs Act (Sen. Heinrich).
5. Equity. There are a number of unique barriers preventing
low-income and other vulnerable households from accessing
energy efficiency improvements, when these households could
stand to benefit most from the cost savings and health and
safety benefits provided by energy efficiency. High upfront
costs, creditworthiness requirements, and split incentives
between renters and landlords to invest in energy efficiency
upgrades can prevent lower-income customers from accessing
energy efficiency services. Many low-income homes also face
issues such as mold, leaky roofs, asbestos, and other
deteriorated conditions that can prevent installation of
important efficiency measures. Congress should improve low-
income access to energy efficiency by supporting and expanding
the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) which helps low-
income and rural families, seniors, and individuals with
disabilities make lasting energy efficiency improvements to
their homes.
Weatherization Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency
Investment and Accountability Act (116th_HR 2041, Rep. Tonko,
Rep. Rush, Rep. Kaptur). This legislation would reauthorize the
Weatherization Assistance Program, helping low-income citizens
make important improvements to increase the energy efficiency,
health, and safety of their home, save money, and improve their
quality of life. It would also update and strengthen the
program: supporting innovation in weatherization practices
through a new competitive grant and modernizing the program to
incorporate the latest cost-effective technology and services--
including renewables and smart energy management technologies.
Congress should prioritize these five pillars to create a holistic
approach that addresses key barriers to advancing energy efficiency.
Each of the above policies is needed to ensure that the others can have
the greatest impact and, enacted together, they would create a robust
and mutually reinforcing strategy to significantly expand the use of
energy efficiency in the building sector.
2. Why is it important to focus on retrofitting existing buildings as
opposed to just focusing on increased efficiency of new
construction?
Simply put, we cannot reach the emissions reductions needed from
the building sector to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 without
addressing existing buildings. Estimates suggest that roughly half of
the buildings that will be in use in 2050 have already been built \3\
and, already, much of America's building stock is aging and
inefficient. Therefore, retrofitting the existing building stock is key
to decarbonizing the building sector. Approximately half of all
commercial buildings in the U.S. were constructed before 1980. In the
residential sector, over 70% of our nation's housing stock was built
before 1990, with almost 40% older than 1970.\4\ These older buildings
waste energy, costing more to heat and cool and making them an outsize
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce the carbon footprint
of our buildings--which are currently responsible for 31% of all U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions \5\--we must focus on the sizable
opportunities to increase efficiency in existing buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://aceee.org/blog/2019/05/deep-retrofits-financing-needs-
play.
\4\ https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/hc/php/
hc2.3.php.
\5\ Total combined emissions from the residential and commercial
sectors with electricity-related emissions distributed. https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-
2019-main-text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focusing on retrofitting existing homes is also key to ensuring
that American families across the country are part of and benefit from
the transition to a decarbonized economy. The occupants of the vast
majority of homes in the U.S. experience comfort problems, health
issues, and/or high utility bills.\6\ Energy efficiency retrofits can
address these problems, and improve the health, wellbeing, and
financial security of Americans, while simultaneously reducing carbon
emissions and increasing the resiliency of homes in the face of climate
change. Numerous studies have illustrated the health and safety
benefits of energy efficiency retrofits, including significant
improvements in asthma symptoms, reduced thermal stress, and improved
overall physical and mental health.\7\ \8\ Energy efficiency also
improves a home's resilience, which is increasingly important in the
face of climate change, and the increasingly frequent and devastating
storms, extreme weather, and wildfires that will accompany it.
Efficiency measures that improve the durability of homes and minimize
residents' exposure to wind, moisture and temperature extremes are
critical to keeping people safe through a storm or power outage.
Focusing on existing buildings is also an equity issue, as many
families cannot afford to buy new homes being built to the latest
energy codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.building-performance.org/sites/default/files/0819-
EE-high-performing-homes-blueprint-v8.pdf.
\7\ https://weatherization.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/
WAPRetroEvalFinalReports/ORNL_TM-2014_345.pdf.
\8\ https://e4thefuture.org/occupant-health-benefits-of-
residential-energy-efficiency/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the cost savings, non-energy benefits to households, and
societal benefits including reduced emissions and economic growth,
energy efficiency retrofits are a win-win and an essential strategy for
addressing the climate crisis. According to the U.S. Department of
Energy, every $1 invested in weatherization generates $4.50 in energy
and non-energy benefits to the home and community and supports local
employment.\9\ Furthermore, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) estimates that cost-effective measures could reduce total
residential electric energy use in single-family homes by 21.9%; use of
gas, propane and other bulk fuels by 24%, and total carbon emissions in
the single family housing stock by 24%.\10\ Focusing on retrofitting
existing buildings will improve the lives of Americans, while creating
jobs and helping us reach our climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/03/f49/WAP-fact-
sheet_final.pdf.
\10\ Wilson, Eric, Craig Christensen, Scott Horowitz, Joseph
Robertson, and Jeff Maguire. 2017. Electric End-Use Energy Efficiency
Potential in the U.S. Single-Family Housing Stock. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How can the Federal government encourage public-private partnerships
to reduce emissions from Federal buildings?
There is significant opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and
simultaneously save American taxpayer money by improving the energy
performance of federal buildings. Energy Savings Performance Contracts
(ESPCs) are an innovative and successful model for public-private
partnerships to improve energy efficiency of federal buildings. ESPCs
allow federal agencies to procure energy savings and facility
improvements with no up-front capital costs or special appropriations
from Congress and provide savings guarantees, reducing government risk.
Studies by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory show that actual cost
savings exceed guaranteed savings for many ESPC projects allowing
significant cost savings to accrue to the government, while also
reducing emissions.\11\ Congress should promote and support the
expanded use of ESPCs to reduce emissions from federal buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub41816.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is an important
program that oversees and facilitates the implementation of ESPC
activities, providing crucial assistance, guidance, and training to
federal agencies to implement successful projects. FEMP staff help
agencies use ESPCs in several ways: advising agencies on scoping,
procurement, and performance requirements for energy conservation
measures (ECMs); helping agencies select third-party ESCOs; finalizing
contracting terms and project approval; and monitoring project
implementation and performance.
FEMP is the program manager for the critical ESPC contracting tool
used by federal agencies for the implementation of ESPCs--the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
(IDIQ), Multiple Award, Energy Savings Performance Contract. This
contract has historically been instrumental in achieving the
aforementioned energy and cost savings as well as job creation outcomes
for the nation. Since the inception of the DOE IDIQ ESPCs in 1998, 411
projects have been awarded and approximately $6.6 billion has been
invested in federal energy efficiency and renewable energy
improvements. These improvements have resulted in approximately 573
trillion Btu in life cycle energy savings and over $15 billion in
cumulative energy cost savings for the federal government.\12\
Congress should enable more of these successful public-private
partnerships through the following pieces of legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/awarded-doe-idiq-energy-
savings-performance-contract-projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation
Federal Energy and Water Management Performance Act
of 2019 (S. 1857, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Manchin): Would
reauthorize the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) at $36
million and improve federal energy and water requirements.
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of
2019 (S. 2137, Sen. Portman, Sen. Shaheen; H.R. 3962, Rep.
Welch, Rep. McKinley): Would reauthorize the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) at $36 million and improve federal
energy and water requirements. It extends energy use reduction
goals and would expand the scope of existing energy standards
for new federal buildings to include major renovations.
Energy Savings through Public-Private Partnerships
Act of 2019, (S. 1706, Sen. Gardner, Sen. Coons; H.R. 3079,
Rep. Welch): Would encourage the increased use of ESPCs in
federal facilities by addressing barriers and increasing the
use of energy efficiency and distributed generation.
Federal Appropriations
Congress should also ensure adequate funding for the following
programs to continue to improve the performance and cost savings for
federal buildings:
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). In
addition to reauthorizing this important program (S. 1857),
Congress should ensure continued adequate funding for FEMP
including carveouts for the Assisting Federal Facilities with
Energy Conservation Technologies (AFFECT) program which
provides grants to federal agencies to support the use of
ESPCs, to achieve energy savings and implement other important
climate-related measures like resiliency that might not
generate utility bill savings.
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Office of
Federal High-Performance Buildings. Through ESPCs, construction
and leasing policies, and other public private partnership
models GSA has saved millions of dollars. GSA has reported, for
example, that sustainable building standards helped GSA avoid
more than $250 million in energy and water costs from 2008 to
2014.\13\ These programs save taxpayers money while reducing
energy-related carbon emissions and should continue to be
funded by Congress to ensure continued progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://app_gsagov_prod_rdcgwaajp7wr.s3.amazonaws.com/
GSA_FY_2015_SSPP_Final.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. How can we ensure that the advancement of residential energy
efficiency helps all Americans, especially low-income
households?
Access to Efficiency Improvements for All Income Levels
Policies aimed at retrofitting the over 115 million homes across
the country will not only help reduce carbon emissions from the
nation's residential building stock, but will also help homeowners save
money on their monthly utility bills and improve the comfort, health,
safety, and resiliency of their homes. Reducing monthly energy costs of
homes is something that will benefit every American, as energy costs
often represent the second or third largest recurring cost of
homeownership, depending on location (behind mortgage and in some
markets property tax). However, upfront costs remain a significant
barrier preventing low and moderate-income households from completing
energy efficiency upgrades. Meanwhile, nearly one-third of U.S.
households reported facing a challenge in paying energy bills or
sustaining adequate heating and cooling in their homes in 2015, with
even higher rates among low-income and racial minority households.\14\
Low-income households also face the highest energy burdens, paying 7.2%
of their household income on energy, more than three times the
percentage that higher income households pay.\15\ Energy efficiency is
an underutilized strategy that can help reduce these high energy
burdens. Congress should advance policies to ensure Americans of all
income levels, especially low-income households, have access to
residential energy efficiency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37072.
\15\ https://aceee.org/research-report/u1602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure equity, we need to provide robust funding for low-income
energy efficiency programs. It is critical that Congress continue to
support and expand the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).\16\ I
was the lead author of a 2017 report,\17\ published by the Home
Performance Coalition (now the Building Performance Association), that
offered recommendations for improvements to WAP, opportunities for
streamlining, and ways to encourage the use of private sector
contractors. Some of these ideas are included in the Weatherization
Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency Investment and Accountability
Act (HR 2041) which would reauthorize and make updates to the program.
This bill has passed out of Committee this year and awaits a floor
vote. The Building Performance Association urges Congress to act on
this important legislation. We also encourage consideration of the full
list of recommendations from the 2017 report (Appendix A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Since 1976, WAP has helped make more than 7 million homes more
efficient, saving the average recipient about $4,200 over the lifetime
of their home.
\17\ https://www.building-performance.org/sites/default/files/
Weatherization%20%26%20HP%20Recommendations%20Report2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should also create incentives to support low- to moderate-
income families who don't qualify for low-income weatherization
programs. The HOMES Act (HR 2043) \18\ would help middle-income
Americans make efficiency upgrades to their homes and incentivize
investments that can achieve substantial energy savings. Furthermore,
incentives are often targeted to ``owner-occupied'' buildings. To
encourage landlords to upgrade their properties, I recommended removing
this requirement from incentive programs as the tenants will benefit
from the energy savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Updated version pending introduction from Rep. Welch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job Opportunities for Communities Across America
Advancing residential energy efficiency will also create quality
local jobs in communities across the country. According to this year's
``Energy Efficiency Jobs in America'' \19\ report from E4TheFuture, the
energy efficiency sector employs 2.3 million Americans, twice as many
workers as the entire U.S. fossil fuel industry, and energy efficiency
is leading the nation's energy economy in new job creation. A
significant portion of energy efficiency jobs in the U.S. are in the
residential sector, and approximately 56 percent of energy efficiency
jobs involve construction and repairs. These are the contractors--the
``boots on the ground''--installing energy efficiency products and
technologies and working to reduce energy waste in homes and buildings
across the country. These jobs are, by their very nature, inherently
local and cannot be exported. Energy efficiency workers work in their
own communities and earn a livable wage while helping homes and
businesses reduce energy waste and save money. Policies that encourage
investment in energy efficiency can further advance growth in this
industry, creating even more well-paying jobs all across the country
and generating economic opportunity for Americans through the
decarbonization transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://e4thefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Energy-
Efficiency-Jobs-in-America-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should promote greater access to job opportunities in the
growing energy efficiency industry and provide resources to communities
for workforce development. A comprehensive, nationwide program is
needed to improve education and training for workers in the energy
efficiency industry, including manufacturing, engineering,
construction, and building retrofitting jobs. This is exactly what the
Blue Collar and Green Collar Jobs Development Act of 2019 (HR 4061)
would create. One of the main pillars of HR 1315 is an energy workforce
grant program, which would provide assistance to businesses in the
energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that are seeking to
educate and train new hires and existing employees. Importantly, the
legislation would give priority to eligible businesses that recruit
employees from local communities, minorities, women, foster children,
persons who are transitioning from fossil energy sector jobs, and
veterans; and would support critical on-the-job training and reskilling
for workers. Congress should pass HR 1315 to prepare more American
workers--especially transitioning workers, minorities, and members of
low-income communities--for quality jobs in energy efficiency.
5. How can energy-efficiency in buildings make a transition to building
electrification more successful?
Energy efficiency is critical to achieving electrification goals,
particularly in cold weather climates where a poorly insulated,
inefficient building would not be able to maintain its temperature with
a traditional electric heat pump. Importantly, building electrification
only leads to decarbonization if the electricity used is carbon-free,
renewable energy. Coordinated delivery of energy efficiency and
electrification improves outcomes in many ways:
1. Technology advancement. Energy efficiency programs have
been instrumental in advancing high-efficiency technologies,
including air and ground-source heat pumps and heat pump water
heaters. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, with support
from many efficiency program administrators, maintains a cold-
climate specification and list of air-source heat pumps that
perform well in cold climates, even in the coldest states.\20\
These high-efficiency heat pumps, coupled with energy
efficiency improvements in the building envelope, make it
possible for buildings to switch to electric heat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ There is widespread availability of cold-climate heat pumps,
which ensure that the equipment performs well in cold climates and
doesn't, for example, kick into electric resistance mode. NEEP
maintains a cold-climate spec and associated product list: https://
neep.org/ASHP-Specification. There are 4,775 products listed from more
than 24 manufacturers in all configurations: single-zone, multi-zone,
ducted, ductless. Cold states like Vermont and Maine have high rates of
adoption of ductless mini-split heat pumps because the customer
economics are really compelling for customers using expensive
unregulated fuels (oil, propane). In Vermont, there are examples of
high-performing efficient homes built to Passive House standards that
are 100% heat pump heated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Workforce development. The contractors who install energy-
efficient equipment are now adding heat pumps to their
businesses, and the trade ally networks currently supported by
efficiency programs are expanding to support building
electrification. Efficiency programs are key partners for
recruitment, training, and quality assurance of building
electrification contractors, making whole-building energy
efficient a part of the business model.
3. Customer experience. Efficiency programs have strong
skills in customer engagement, and know-how to design programs
that overcome barriers to customer adoption of new
technologies. They are well-positioned to help customers
navigate an increasingly complicated set of energy options,
including electrification of buildings and transportation.
4. Reduced electric system costs as the building and
transportation sectors electrify. To effectively reduce
emissions, building electrification will need to be coupled
with a transition to clean, decarbonized electricity
generation. By lowering demand, energy efficiency will ease the
speed and scale of investment in renewable and low-carbon
energy resources needed to support this transition. Efficiency
lowers overall energy demand and demand flexibility (dynamic
efficiency, demand response, and smart technology) allows for
the shifting of load. Together, these strategies both curb the
increase in electricity demand as more end uses are powered
with electricity and shift load to allow for grid stability.
This will lower requirements for new electricity generation and
transmission through the transition, saving money on power
plant construction and grid buildout.
5. Grid stability and reliability. Building electrification
will affect the timing and seasonality of peak demand. For
example, in cold climates, as heating load is electrified,
power systems may to become winter peaking with significantly
higher demand during the coldest times of the year). Energy
efficiency is needed to help effectively manage the peak load
impacts of new electricity demand; lowering baseload demand and
supporting load shifting through energy efficiency ensures that
peaks are not as high, improving reliability. Mitigating grid
stress and supporting stability through energy efficiency can
reduce the risk of brownouts and rolling blackouts. That grid
reliability is increasingly important as more buildings
electrify (and depend on electric power for heating and
cooling).
6. Better performance of electrified buildings. Creating a
tight building envelope lowers heating and cooling loads and
allows highly efficient electric heat pumps to meet the full
heating and cooling needs for more homes and businesses. Super-
insulated homes can be heated entirely with heat pumps, and it
is becoming increasingly possible for heat pumps to fully
replace fossil fuels, even in cold climates, through emerging
whole-house heat pump systems and air-to-water systems.\21\ In
the case of a power outage that would cut off electrified
heating and cooling systems, building envelope improvements
like high-performance insulation, air sealing, and strong leak-
resistant windows also help to ensure that homes remain safe
and comfortable, allowing people to shelter in place. Finally,
an efficient, well-sealed home also enables demand flexibility
allowing timing of space heating or cooling to be shifted in
order to maximize the use of renewable energy while still
maintaining comfortable conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This is possible even in the coldest states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A
Weatherization and Home Performance: Recommendations for Mutual Success
and Collaboration
1. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Residential Building
Integration Program, working together with the Office of Weatherization
and Intergovernmental Programs, should support the adoption and use of
the Building Performance Institute's (BPI)--2101 Standard Requirements
for a Certificate of Completion for Residential Energy Efficiency
Upgrades (``Home Performance Certificate'') as a strategy for
documenting upgrades (and resulting energy savings) funded by WAP. A
BPI-2101-compliant certificate that is issued to homeowners that
receive weatherization assistance can be used as reference document by
real estate agents, appraisers, and other professionals during the home
sale process.
2. The DOE Residential Building Integration Program, working
together with the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Programs should promote the use of smart home technologies in
weatherization as a way of reducing program costs, streamlining EM&V,
and providing real-time feedback on performance to weatherization
contractors and program participants. Data from smart home devices can
be used to support traditional EM&V, reducing the costs of evaluation
and providing real-time or near real-time feedback to contractors,
programs, and program participants on performance. Programs can then
use this information to target resources to high energy users.
Contractors can use this information to better understand the results
of their work and communicate to customers the value of weatherization.
The DOE Residential Building Integration Program, working together
with the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs and
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, should
consider establishing a pilot program in FY 2018 and FY2019 in multiple
states to test new models for streamlining and maximizing resources.
The pilot would aim to test auto-M&V41 and utilize home energy
management devices, such as smart thermostats and smart meters that are
enabled to provide near real-time data to programs to demonstrate if a
project was successfully completed. By utilizing an auto-M&V system,
the pilot would test the current 100% quality control currently used by
WAP in an effort to reduce both costs to the program and burden on the
contractors and homeowners.
3. The DOE Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs
should work to ensure that training and technical assistance is offered
to all contractors that make a commitment to work in the WAP program.
The training should be consistent with industry best practices. In
addition, the WAP provider should consider a stipend for private sector
contractors to equalize the time-cost of participation in training.
4. The DOE Residential Building Integration Program, working with
Department of Commerce's Small Business Administration, should work to
advance small business loans to states that are focused on energy
efficiency contracting and training to complement the WAP programs.
5. In FY2017 and FY2018, there should be a series of national
dialogues among private contractors and members of the Weatherization
network for the purpose of developing a better understanding of WAP
programs by contractors, and identifying best practices and shared
interests between the two groups that can become the foundation to
improve the alignment of residential energy efficiency programs. This
dialogue should take place in connection with existing national or
regional conferences where contractors and members of the WAP network
will be in attendance (to avoid unnecessary costs).
6. The DOE Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental programs
should be authorized to streamline the process for approving energy
efficiency measures for inclusion in the Weatherization Assistance
Program to advance innovative pilot programs and quickly approve
adoption of new technologies for the benefit of low-income clients.
Questions for the Record
James Rutland
President
Lowder New Homes
On behalf of National Association of Home Builders
the honorable garret graves
1. Considering capital stock rollover rate, if the U.S. adopted net-
zero building codes today, how long would it take for all homes
in the U.S. to be built to today's standards?
There are roughly 137 million homes in the United States. While
some are built to achieve net zero, the overwhelming majority currently
are not. To get all the homes in the U.S. to net zero would be a
daunting task given the need to not only accommodate and rehouse
existing families, but to also provide new housing to newly-formed
households. This challenge would be further exacerbated by the current
low rate of production and slow replacement rate. Finally, the funding
needed to finance the increased up-front costs associated with zero net
energy would make such an undertaking effectively prohibitive.
While there are no statistics that indicate how long it would take
to replace the existing housing stock, inferences can be made.
According to NAHB's forecast, 250,000 single-family starts per year are
currently built to replace older homes. According to the latest
American Community Survey tables from the Census Bureau (for calendar
year 2017), there are slightly under 93 million single-family homes in
the U.S. If all single-family homes were built to a net-zero standard
going forward, and if the rate of 250,000 per year remains constant
(which is unlikely; for one thing, building to a net-zero standard
would likely increase costs and slow down housing production &
replacement), it would take just over 370 years to achieve a 100
percent net-zero stock of single-family homes in the U.S. The attached
article provides additional detail about actual replacement statistics.
2. How does residents' behavior act as a barrier to the builder's
taking the opportunity to make improvements in the structural
envelope of a building to enhance its energy efficiency?
Builders can implement a host of techniques and install numerous
products to improve the energy efficiency of the homes they build. Just
because a home is built well, does not mean it will perform well.
Predicted energy savings are based on idealized occupant behavior. The
habits of real people and families can vary dramatically from these
hypothetical conditions. The best of intentions to save energy can
quickly be negated when occupants are not conforming to the anticipated
behavior. For example, seemingly trivial things such as opening
windows, setting thermostats significantly above/below set points,
operating humidifiers, using a large number of electric devices (plug
loads), etc. can significantly impact overall energy savings. In
addition, not only can energy efficient designs be more sensitive to
occupant behavior, but the impacts of that behavior can also impact
other performance attributes of the home.
Regarding building envelopes, the focus should be on much needed
innovation in cost-effective window technologies. Further, increases in
requirements for opaque assemblies (i.e., structural envelope) will
come at substantial costs with little benefit in energy savings. The
levels of insulation and air sealing for opaque assemblies required in
the latest model energy codes have already past the inflection point
where the upfront cost outweighs the long-term benefit.
3. Mr. Rutland, in your testimony you noted that new building codes
often reflect national averages that aren't always true for
local conditions. Can you give some examples of how attempts to
use building standards that are good for California or
Massachusetts can do more harm than good for a home built in,
say, Alabama?
The model building codes are meant to be a starting point for the
state and local governments to use when developing their building codes
and are intended to be amended to fit state and local conditions. But
because they are created to be generally applicable, they can over or
understate risks and, hence, include provisions that may be
inapplicable, unrealistic or unnecessary for certain areas. For
example, the hazard maps for wind, snow, and earthquakes in model
building codes and national standards incorporate a variety of modeling
assumptions and simplifications that enable the maps to be generated on
a national scale. As such, they can overstate hazards in certain areas
of the country.
A good example is the risk of earthquakes in the Central and
Eastern US, where the defining events in Memphis (1811-1812) and
Charleston (1886) happened before seismographs and other accurate
methods of measuring earthquake magnitudes existed. Absent real data,
the magnitude of these events that is assumed in the modeling that
generates the modern seismic hazard maps is conservatively estimated.
Because the modeling process itself adds more conservatism since the
mapped ground motions are intended to represent an event with a low
probability of being exceeded, more structures are drawn into the risk
area and, hence, must comply with additional code requirements. This
raises the cost of construction and harms housing affordability by
forcing homes to be over-designed for events that are extremely
unlikely to occur over the life of a home in those areas. Similar
challenges can be faced when addressing risks for flooding and other
hazards, as well as for certain water and energy efficiency features,
among others.
4. What are some of the biggest hurdles states face in adopting and
implementing newer building codes?
There are four major hurdles that states may encounter when
adopting new building codes, and especially when attempting to update
to every new edition of the model codes:
Lengthy and Varied Code Adoption Processes. For
states and local jurisdictions, adopting building codes and
standards typically requires following a legislative or
rulemaking process, including posting of notices, holding a
legislative hearing, or hosting building code council meetings.
In some states, the codes process is legislatively scheduled to
only happen every other year and in many instances, the code
adoption and amendment process can take 12 to 18 months or
more. Not only are these processes time-consuming, they also
come with a cost. Further, personnel are needed to examine and
suggest revisions, data is needed to support proposals, and the
public must be invited to participate.
Code Official and Builder Training and Education.
Every time a code is adopted, building officials and inspectors
need training and education on the changes from the previous
edition(s) so they can understand those changes and
consistently enforce them. Builders and designers need training
too. There can be significant costs for building departments to
set up this training or for their staff to attend such
training, let alone the cost for the design and construction
community.
Impact of New Codes on New Home Construction.
Adopting updated codes can significantly increase cost of
construction due to more stringent requirements. Especially in
the realm of energy efficiency and mechanical/plumbing/
electrical, changes, recent editions of the code have had the
effect of requiring the use of specific insulation products,
window types, ventilation systems or electrical systems in such
a way that both raises the cost of construction and provides a
financial boon to the manufacturers who angled to get their
products into the code. Amidst the current housing
affordability crisis, most State and local governments are
seeking ways to reduce, not increase, the cost of housing for
their constituents.
Consistency within the Codes and with Other State/
Local Requirements. Code provisions have a way of changing back
and forth from cycle to cycle as new data on hazards, new
research, or field experience is brought to the process. Also,
because codes are developed in silos (i.e. structural design,
energy efficiency, and fire prevention are all covered in
different codes and debated by different committees), there are
often conflicts between and even within the codes and standards
when significant new requirements are introduced. Sometimes it
takes a cycle or two to resolve the conflicts such that one
aspect of building performance is not negatively impacted by
changes in another aspect of construction. For example, the
upcoming 2021 International Residential Code has finally
incorporated changes to address moisture and durability issues
created by significant increases in insulation levels and
building air tightness required by the 2012 energy codes.
Similarly, given the number of statutes, standards, codes,
ordinances and other requirements imposed at the state and
local levels, there is a need to ensure that any new code or
code provision is consistent or at least compatible with the
regulations that are already on the books. Because many of the
codes overlap with zoning, stormwater, and other mandates,
completing such a review can be significant.
5. Could you explain the change in cost to construct a fossil-free
building? In your opinion, would most homeowners be able to
afford those upgrades?
A building that uses near-zero or zero fossil fuel resources to
operate would involve a combination of multiple modifications requiring
detailed coordination at the design and construction phases. Many of
these technologies have not been adopted by the market and require
further development and evaluation before mainstream implementation is
possible. Unless the market is given time to absorb these innovations
at a reasonable pace, the outcomes could be counter-productive, leading
to substandard performance and potentially public's rejection of these
technologies. Moreover, the industry and the market have not yet
determined the optimum balance of technologies that would achieve
fossil-free or near-free solutions. Although various combinations of
future technologies can be envisioned, they would vary greatly by
climate and market.
Unlike LED lights that have become ubiquitous, most building
innovations that would enable fossil-free living are not one-for-one
substitutes where the older version gets simply replaced with a next-
generation gadget. Instead, this type of change would impact the entire
building system, which would require a ``ground-up'' re-envisioning of
the design and building process and the operation/occupancy. Any such
modification would come at a significant premium that would include
both the price of the products/systems/material and the added costs of
installation. The increased costs will lead to significant impact on
the price of the home that many home buyers will not be able to afford.
This price increase will particularly impact the home buyers in the
affordable and move-up segments of the market.
The other side of the fossil-free living equation is where the
building's power comes from. Even for buildings with some on-site
generation, the grid-supplied power will remain an integral element of
the building's function. Fossil fuels remain a large source of
electricity generation in the country. As long as the electricity mix
produced at the utility level includes a portion of fossil fuel
generation, the building will not be a fossil-fuel-free building.
Electricity generation by source is shown below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
For more information on NAHB's economic report on older homes:
http://eyeonhousing.org/2019/01/more-homes-needed-to-replace-older-
stock/.
Questions for the Record
Khalil Shahyd
Senior Policy Advocate
Healthy People/Thriving Communities Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony, you mentioned that low-income households and
communities of color often have higher energy burdens than
average families, frequently caused by poor maintenance of
older, less efficient buildings. What are the main challenges
preventing energy efficiency investments in these communities?
How can the Federal government help address these challenges?
Of the more than 25 million households that earn $25,000 or less,
roughly two-thirds are renters (including 1.2 million families in
public housing) and one-third are owners. Over 30% of the U.S.
population and over 25% of U.S. households live in multifamily
buildings. Yet when we talk about possible energy efficiency
improvements in the residential sector, these households are rarely
considered with resources and program capacity devoted to middle- and
upper-income single-family homes.
However, there is an enormous opportunity in making energy
efficiency accessible to low income families. A Federal investment of
$5 billion a year over 10 years could achieve 25 percent to 40 percent
energy savings in up to 25 million residential units, cut up to 50
million tons of CO2 emissions and create hundreds of
thousands of green jobs annually when fully implemented.
These households still face multiple barriers to accessing
efficiency services, which can be grouped into four (4) primary
categories; Economic, Social, Health and Safety, and Policy barriers.
I. Economic barriers include:
High upfront costs, creditworthiness requirements.
the largest barrier to retrofitting multifamily arises from the
absence of capital for the upfront cost of an energy retrofit.
Federal policy arbitrarily separates energy improvements from
capital improvements in both public and assisted housing,
missing an opportunity to integrate energy use into capital
reinvestment planning and analysis HUD buildings undergo for
refinancing.
Split incentives: Renters face a unique barrier by
fact that they don't own the dwelling or unit they reside in.
In typical, unsubsidized multifamily housing with individual
meters, resident interest in lower utility costs is often
thwarted by owner disinterest in making energy efficiency
investments that can't be directly recouped through savings.
Split incentives exacerbate the upfront capital problem by
placing the burden on the tenant, or relying on the owner who
receives little of the savings benefit for making the energy
investments.
Small and medium sized owners need special
assistance: Many retrofit programs that target rental housing
aren't suitable to small and medium sized owners who don't own
a great deal or large scale of properties. These owners tend to
be individual or private owners with very limited capital to
meet upfront cost.
II. Social barriers:
Communication and trust: Implementing a successful
energy efficiency program in rental housing requires a great
deal of information sharing between tenants, building owners
and program administrators. Lack of trust between tenants and
building owners or managers can reduce the likelihood of
participation.
Scheduling difficulties: completing an energy
efficiency retrofit can cause a disruption to the lives of the
tenants even a disruption of their occupancy in the unit until
repairs are completed. Trust is required so they know they will
be allowed to stay and return, to their home without a
subsequent increase in cost to them, straining already
stretched household budgets.
Language and literacy barriers: Increasingly
language and literacy issues are becoming factors making the
deployment of services difficult, in addition to immigration
status which may keep some households from applying for any
formal services or supports.
III. Health and safety barriers:
Age of housing and deferred maintenance: 64% of all
U.S. housing was built before 1980, and many of the homes
relied upon by low income households for housing have not
received regular maintenance or repair. The combination of age
and deferred maintenance of the housing stock increases the
cost of providing basic energy efficiency retrofits when those
cost are expected to be recouped through savings. This is
especially true if a home or building is in need of roof
repair. A compromised roof would nullify many of the benefits
of the energy retrofit, and when the cost are measured against
the potential savings of a project, a leaky roof makes the home
or apartment ineligible for energy efficiency financing.
Local climate and building materials: Deferred
maintenance combined with local climatic and building material
quality can add additional burdens to affordable housing. Many
low-income homes in humid climates face issues such as mold
that create health hazards that would be exacerbated by energy
retrofits that ``lock-in'' mold causing material in a highly
sealed building envelope. Similarly, older homes built with
asbestos, lead paint and pipes can also create health hazards
that would increase unless addressed in conjunction with an
energy retrofit. However, most efficiency programs offer very
little support if any for incorporating these areas into the
retrofit portfolio. Nationwide, up to 15 percent of homes may
be unable to access weatherization services due to these and
other health and safety issues.
IV. Policy barriers:
HUD Capital restrictions: Federal policy arbitrarily
separates energy improvements from capital improvements in both
public and assisted housing, missing an opportunity to
integrate energy use into capital reinvestment planning and
analysis HUD buildings undergo for refinancing.
Energy benchmarking: is a critical requirement for
understanding energy usage and knowing where potential savings
can be gained. However, without a national benchmarking
strategy, service providers are reliant on local governments to
implement benchmarking ordinances that vary in quality and
scope of data collected.
Cost/Benefit testing: Utilities are increasingly
relied upon to provide financing for energy efficiency services
as a customer benefit to rate payers for utility services. Low
income families pay into the utility rate system often at a
higher rate per square foot than their higher income
counterparts. However, they rarely receive an adequate share of
utility rate-payer financed efficiency investments in return.
This is often due to cost/benefit testing requirements,
regulated at the state level, requiring utility programs to
meet a cost/benefit threshold set by the regulator. Due to the
deferred maintenance of many affordable housing units and other
cost issues, low income housing often has difficulty meeting
that threshold making those properties effectively ineligible
for services.
Fragmentation: At the federal level, energy
efficiency dollars and programs are administered by HUD, DOE,
HHS, Treasury who must then coordinate with a myriad of state
and local housing and energy financing agencies. These
disparate public agencies are charged with governing affordable
housing operations and capital improvements on the one hand,
and energy efficiency, tax, and utility policy on the other.
Fragmentation, influences program delivery for example by
requiring ``door-to-door'' income verification of DOE
weatherization assistance program eligibility. This cumbersome
step, can often discourage program services to be applied to
multifamily properties were many low-income families live.
Fragmentation also exacerbates shortages and bottlenecks in
workforce training and employment.
The primary federal programs to increase energy efficiency in homes
for very low-income people are a patchwork of small, poorly funded and
in some cases, poorly designed initiatives. Within each, however, are
elements that could be improved and expanded with potential for greater
impact.
The primary programs that fund or administer energy efficiency at
the federal level are the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program; EPA
Energy Star Programs, HUD Energy Performance Contracting, and LIHEAP
Emergency Energy Assistance program which states can apply a portion of
its allotted annual LIHEAP budget (up to 15%) to address high energy
burdens through increased efficiency.
The Federal government can improve energy efficiency services by:
Increasing funding levels of Federal energy
efficiency programs to meet certain efficiency benchmarks and
goals over time.
Create more coordination among various Federal
programs, in particular in the areas of program eligibility,
benchmarking and savings verification.
Create a national standard for utility cost/benefit
testing that properly values societal and non-energy benefits
of energy retrofits for low income households.
Mandate the inclusion of energy improvements as an
aspect of capital refinancing plans under HUD
Create national benchmarking database and require
rental units to make available energy usage data that can be
utilized by potential tenants to determine housing options.
This would create an incentive for building owners to
investment in improving energy efficiency.
2. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, what are some of the
public health benefits of energy-efficiency upgrades of
multifamily housing?
Achieving the health benefits of energy efficiency updates requires
attention to the various social determinants of health and how housing
quality drives many of those outcomes. There is an overall decline in
life expectancies in the 21st century despite the increased spending on
medical care and it is likely that the inability of the nation to
address physical and social determinants of health have contributed to
this problem. Efficiency provides a unique opportunity to improve those
outcomes for individual families and for the population at large.
Social determinants of health (SDOH) are defined by World Health
Organization (WHO) and by Healthy People 2020 as the conditions in the
environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play,
worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and
quality-of-life outcomes and risks.
Social and economic factors, such as affordability, restrict
housing and neighborhood options for low-income households often giving
them few options but to reside near or in proximity to hazardous sites
as these locations are often the housing of last resort. In addition,
energy insecurity that leads to utility shutoffs leaving families
(particularly the elderly and young) vulnerable to weather conditions
while forces tradeoffs in meeting basic needs such as housing, food and
health care.
Energy efficiency can also reduce exposure to indoor and outdoor
pollutants and particulate matter that lead to respiratory illnesses,
absences from school or work and longer term health conditions that
accumulate over time.
Better Indoor Air Quality: leads to reduced concentration of poly-
cyclical aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), hydrocarbons, aldehydes, carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
particulate matter (PM) in the home
Weatherization and Efficiency Can: Lower Incidence of CVD related
Emergency Room visits, Reverse adverse respiratory symptoms such as
COPD, Eliminate CO poisoning hospitalization and death, Reduce coronary
heart disease deaths
3. In your testimony, you describe some of the unique challenges faced
by residents of rural areas. Many of these communities depend
on non-profit electric cooperatives for their power. How can
Congress make sure that rural communities are able to access
energy-efficiency upgrades?
Rural communities face unique challenges for maintaining and
upgrading homes and residential buildings. Particularly those areas
serviced by smaller utility coops who may not be able to finance
efficiency programs internally.
Federal policies that can help rural communities include expanding
the USDA Rural Energy Savings Program. This program ``provides rural
electric cooperatives and other rural utilities with zero-percent loans
to launch or expand energy efficiency financing programs for their
members. Beneficial electrification and renewable energy projects are
also eligible.''
In addition to ensuring financing for existing federal programs,
the Federal government can support efforts that increase partnerships
with local community based and regional organizations that support
enhanced efficiency programs. These organizations can reduced cost of
program implementation through outreach, program marketing, workforce
training and needs assessments at the community level.
Couple financial resources with technical assistance to make
efficiency improvements. Help customers conduct energy audits, identify
energy efficiency measures, and work with qualified contractors to
conduct selected improvements.
Particular emphasis in rural communities needs to be to scale up
resources devoted to retrofitting or replacing manufactured homes, as
these housing types are overly represented in rural communities.
Require and support better program evaluation of small electric
coop programs and services to optimize resources and results. Many
rural co-ops have worked with partners to evaluate their programs. For
example, EEtility's EM&V of the PAYS on-bill tariff programs offered by
Ouachita Electric and Roanoke Electric provides data on the
effectiveness of these programs. Similarly, Delta Montrose Electric
Association (DMEA), Midwest Energy, and the city of Springfield,
Missouri, all hired evaluators to review their programs. Additionally,
in 2016, Cooperative Energy, a G&T co-op in Mississippi, collaborated
with Advanced Energy (AE) to develop a two-year Residential Retrofit
Pilot Study examining the impact of three types of retrofit measures.
4. In your testimony, you outlined several policies that could reduce
emissions in the building sector. In your opinion, which
policies would be most impactful and should be prioritized?
To avert the worst impacts of climate change, our policy must
ensure both the reduction of emissions that cause climate change and
also support people's capacity to adapt and thrive in a post carbon
world. In order to act on climate change while also addressing the
threat of rising inequality, we must accelerate action on all fronts
and in particular create a more supportive policy environment for
affordable housing and accelerate residential energy efficiency. We
need Congressional action to lead our nation in its response to climate
change and to realize the enormous benefits of these investments.
Through decisive action, Congressional leaders can address the dual
crisis of affordable housing and climate change, while producing
hundreds of thousands of clean jobs and alleviating the negative health
impacts of indoor and outdoor air pollution.
Addressing these core policy areas will enable affordable housing
and low-income families to be engaged as partners in actions that
contribute to meaningful emissions reductions by reducing household
energy use and demand.
The Federal government should endorse and establish a national
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard that would create a wider incentive
for reducing energy use in buildings and homes.
Key policies congress should support toward these outcomes that
will influence the affordable housing sector most are;
Preserving Affordable Housing
Expand the National Housing Trust Fund from $367m
now to $3.5 billion/year. Affordable housing is in short supply
across the country, and this is one of the newer sources of
funding to improve it. Ensure that energy use assessments and
benchmarking are incorporated into refinance requirements. The
support can be used to reduce energy use and increase
resiliency of housing, depending on state allocation plan
requirements. But the need vastly outstrips the funding
currently available.
Support and utilize S. 1703 the Affordable Housing
Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) and S. 1288 the Clean Energy for
America Act to enable Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
properties to take advantage of tax incentives available for
energy efficiency investments. The LIHTC is the largest and
most successful tool for creating and preserving affordable
housing. The Clean Energy for America Act amends the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for increased
efficiency investments in retrofitting existing and new
residential and commercial buildings.
Support H.R. 4307, the Build More Housing Near
Transit Act. The legislation would require major transit
projects using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts
capital investment grant funding to incorporate an evaluation
of housing development near transit station areas as a part of
the application process.
Lowering Household Energy Cost
Support reauthorization of S. 983, the
Weatherization Enhancement and Local Energy Efficiency
Investment and Accountability Act. This bill reauthorizes the
DOE WAP, creates a new innovation fund for special projects.
Support S. 185 the Investing in State Energy Act.
This bill would require that the Department of Energy (DOE)
distribute funding appropriated for WAP and SEP by Congress to
implementing agencies within 60 days.
Support the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act.
The bill would create seven new grant programs that public
housing agencies (PHAs), tribes or tribally designated housing
entities, and Native Hawaiian housing entities can apply for
under a single application. Some grants focus on workforce
development while others address building and unit upgrades
such has energy-efficient windows, improved insulation, pipe
replacement to improve water quality, and new appliances. Grant
programs would also facilitate community energy generation in
public housing to make public housing energy self-sufficient
and empower residents to vote to determine how to utilize any
profits.
Improving Indoor Air Quality and Health
Support H.R. 3590, the Environmental Justice and
Civil Rights Restoration and Enforcement Act. This bill
reinforces that Federal agencies are to comply and be held
accountable to the Title VI Civil Rights Act and that
disparities and outcomes shown to have disparate impact must be
address through Environmental Justice actions. This bill gives
communities the legal tools to hold Federal agencies including
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable to
unequal burdens.
Support H.R. 3923, the Environmental Justice Act.
Requires Federal agencies to address environmental justice, to
require consideration of cumulative impacts in certain
permitting decisions, and for other purposes.
Creation Jobs with Career Opportunities for Workers
Support H.R. 4061, the Blue Collar and Green Collar
Jobs Development Act. Directs the Secretary of Energy to
establish and carry out a comprehensive, nationwide, energy-
related industries jobs program.
Support H.R. 4148, the Green Jobs and Opportunity
Act. Requires the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Education, to submit a
report on current and future trends and shortages in the clean
energy technology industry to achieve a clean energy economy,
and to provide grants to establish and enhance training
programs for any occupation or field of work for which a
shortage is identified.
Questions for the Record
Roy Wright
President
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety
the honorable kathy castor
1. IBHS researches and tests building standards, installation
practices, and the quality of material found across the country
and determines how variations affect the ability of a structure
to withstand a variety of hazards. Building codes play an
important role in how this type of research is translated in
meaningful ways across our communities. Can you help the
Committee better understand the role of building codes related
to resilient construction practices and how your research can
lead to stronger, sustainable, and resilient homes and
businesses?
IBHS strongly supports the statewide adoption of building codes and
standards, strong local enforcement of the codes, and training and
licensing of building officials, builders and contractors. It is
important to understand that building codes were developed first and
foremost for the purpose of life safety--that is, to ensure safe
electrical wiring and gas lines, basic structural integrity, and to
reduce internal fire hazards. However, damage reduction that results
from the adoption and enforcement of building codes helps to keep
people in their homes and businesses following a natural or man-made
disaster, reduces the need for public and private disaster aid, and
preserves natural resources and the built environment.
The importance of strong, well-enforced building codes was clearly
demonstrated in 2017. Over a two-month period from August through late
September, three devastating hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) each
caused more than $1 billion in damages, and collectively affected 25
million Americans, or almost 8 percent of the U.S. population,
according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hurricane
Irma, in particular, provided a real-world test of the strong statewide
building code now in Florida, with homes built to modern Florida
building codes faring much better than those built before major code
changes were implemented. In other areas of the country, like
California, building codes focus on the threat of earthquakes and
wildfires. Unfortunately, many states have not prioritized adopting
modern codes or allow local jurisdictions to ``opt-out'' of certain
sections of the code. This piecemeal approach among states and
jurisdictions can lead to compromised building safety standards,
varying enforcement regimes, and unpredictable permitting processes.
When entire communities utilize a common set of base rules for
construction, it leads to safer buildings and more predicable
construction practices. Critical to ensuring building codes function
properly is proper enforcement as a building code is only effective if
there is enforcement and inspection to verify that construction is
completed according to the code requirements.
Building codes provide benefits beyond keeping people and property
safe. Studies have found that investing in stronger building can save
the homeowner and taxpayer significantly during a hazard. Recent
research shows that improvements to the Florida building code have
reduced windstorm losses by up to 72% and that for every $1 of
additional construction costs $6 in losses were saved.
While much of IBHS' work focuses on preventing avoidable damage
before it occurs, it is equally important to build back better.
Congress should demand that communities receiving grant or programmatic
assistance for pre-disaster mitigation or those in the recovery process
rebuild in smarter, stronger, and sustainable ways. At a minimum, this
means states should have a up to date, statewide, and strongly enforced
building codes. In areas of the state where known vulnerabilities
exist, congressional funds should demand even more advanced building
standards.
2. Can you comment on how energy-efficient and resilient building
practices work hand-in-hand?
Energy efficiency and resilient construction practices can work
together to build clean, efficient, and strong homes. One of the most
visible examples of the nexus between energy efficiency and resilience
is use of an impact resistant window, which can provide protection from
flying debris in areas that are vulnerable to winds while
simultaneously providing excellent thermal insulation, reducing energy
costs and consumption. Similar insulation benefits can be realized with
a spray foam sealed roof deck, which have high R-values and can provide
an extra water barrier when the roof cover fails.
Perhaps the greatest return on energy efficiency value realized
when building strong homes is their long-lasting durability. The vast
energy consumed by the manufacturing and transportation of building new
homes--and disposal of debris following a storm--can be greatly reduced
by taking small steps to prevent avoidable damage.
3. In your testimony, you discuss two pieces of tax legislation: one
for state-run grant programs and the other for home and
business owners that undertake mitigation activities. Could you
tell us more about these bills and how they would help
adaptation?
First of all, I would like to congratulate Congress for taking bold
action last year by advancing two of the most significant pieces of
disaster mitigation legislation in decades: The Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2018 and the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. While these laws
represent a new era in disaster mitigation policy at the federal level,
there are additional steps Congress can take to assist homeowners and
small businessowners with disaster preparedness. One idea is to remove
the tax penalty for individuals and businesses that benefit from state-
based catastrophe-loss mitigation programs.
H.R. 2053 the ``Catastrophe-Loss-Mitigation Incentive and Tax
Parity Act of 2019'' would eliminate tax lability for amounts received
as part of certain state-funded grant programs. Several states sponsor
these types of successful mitigation programs, including the California
Bolt + Brace program for strengthening buildings located in earthquake
prone areas, and the Strengthen Alabama Homes program, which provides
grants funds to upgrade to a FORTIFIED Roof. We know it is
unsustainable for the federal government to be the sole leaders on
mitigation.
Where states are contributing their own funds, it is important for
the federal government to recognize and reward those actions, not
penalize them. Similarly, on the on the individual side, bipartisan
legislation pending in both the House and Senate, known as the SHELTER
Act, would provide up to a 25% tax credit for eligible expenses paid by
individuals and businesses for purchases that help reduce potential
damage from hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of natural disaster.
These types of proposals empower and reward states and individuals who
take action into their own hands--ultimately contributing to overall
community resilience.
4. Congress has allocated a lot of money to disaster recovery through
HUD CDBG-DR. Recently another $6.8 billion was made available
for mitigation in several states, including Florida, Texas,
California, Georgia, and Louisiana. How can the Federal
government ensure that states are using disaster recovery funds
to rebuild in ways that reduce risks from future disasters?
Congress should require communities receiving grant or programmatic
assistance for pre-disaster mitigation to rebuild in smarter, stronger,
and sustainable ways. At a minimum, this means states should have up-
to-date, statewide, and strongly enforced building codes. In areas of
the state where known vulnerabilities exist, congressional funds should
demand even more advanced building standards. Specifically, Congress
should urge the use of the FORTIFIED Home standard when appropriating
CDBG-DR or MIT funds for new homes.
Habitat for Humanity created the Habitat Strong program, which
mirrors the FORTIFIED Home standards and provides low-to-moderate
income families with resilient and affordable housing. Recently, five
Habitat Strong homes in Panama City, Florida stood strong against the
fierce winds of Hurricane Michael in 2018--the only reported damage to
any of the homes being a single piece of loose siding.
As mentioned above, the IBHS FORTIFIED program has shown its
effectiveness with the five Habitat Strong homes in Panama City,
Florida. We also saw success of the FORTIFIED building standard in
North Carolina following Hurricane Dorian. Hurricane Dorian threatened
close to 1,000 FORTIFIED homes in coastal North Carolina in August
2019. Many of these homes were FORTIFIED by grants made available from
the North Carolina Insurance Underwriters Association (NCIUA). Dorian
had sustained winds that were as high as 90 mph along the barrier
islands, including the Outer Banks, where most of North Carolina
FORTIFIED designations are located. NCIUA has received just five roof-
related claims from their 400+ insureds with FORTIFIED roofs, only two
of which reported water intrusion. FORTIFIED Roof kept the water out
for 99.5% of homeowners who have invested in a stronger, sealed roof.
Federal programs that fund housing should take a cue from this example
and ensure taxpayer investments are protected.
We urge Congress to incentivize the adoption and use of higher
building standards, such as FORTIFIED Home, when federal funds are at
stake.
Wildfire
Recently, IBHS joined ICC to urge FEMA to require the use of the
International Wildland Urban Interface Code as a Minimum Standard for
disaster loans and grants. Wildfires have destroyed more than 35,000
structures within the past decade. Our comments state, in part, ``The
wildland urban interface (WUI) is an area of particular wildfire risk,
and one-third of all U.S. homes are now located there. One study found
that the WUI has increased from 1990 to 2010, now affecting 43.4
million homes (a 41% increase), and covering 770,000 km (a 33%
increase), making it the fastest growing land use type in the
conterminous U.S. Yet despite the seriousness of this hazard, FEMA's
Policy does not address wildfire resilience.'' Congress should continue
its oversight role of FEMA to ensure these types of policy changes are
made at FEMA.
5. In your testimony, you mentioned Habitat for Humanity and said
several of their strong homes did a great job holding up during
Hurricane Michael. It's great to hear that programs like this
are protecting vulnerable populations--the ones who can least
afford to be displaced from their home or job after a disaster.
Could you tell us more about the Habitat Strong program? How
can the Federal government incentivize more innovative
solutions to help vulnerable populations become more resilient?
The Habitat Strong program was developed by Habitat for Humanity
International (HFHI) to provide resources and recommendations for
weather-resilient construction to Habitat affiliates across the
country, with the goal of reducing damage to homes owned by the
families served by Habitat being able to return to their normal lives
as quickly as possible after a disaster. One of the primary
recommendations to affiliates nationally has been the IBHS FORTIFIED
standards. Working with funding partners, including many IBHS member
companies, HFHI has been able to provide a number of grants to
affiliates for resilience improvements, specifically for FORTIFIED
Roof, Silver or Gold designations. There are some affiliates that have
not pursued a designation, but have begun implementing the standards,
as was the case in the homes that faired so well in Hurricane Michael.
IBHS would recommend that all homes built and all roofs replaced
with federal dollars meet the standards set forth in FEMA's Wind
Retrofit Guide. At a minimum, we would suggest that HUD encourage its
grantees to do this, in the same manner it encourages grantees to build
and retrofit to Energy Star standards.
the honorable garret graves
1. You mention in your testimony the successes seen from programs
instituted in Alabama. Was this program directed by any mandate
at the federal level?
There was no federal mandate or federal dollars for the programs
instituted in Alabama. The successes here were realized from a
multifaceted approach, including a suite of state legislation providing
incentives and setting FORTIFIED as the resilience standards for the
state, the establishment of a grant program to retrofit existing homes,
robust coastal codes and a grassroots education effort that helped to
create a culture of resilience and facilitated the widespread adoption
of the FORTIFIED program for both new construction and reroofing.
References Page
I. What are the main challenges preventing energy efficiency
investments in these communities? How can the Federal
government help address these challenges?
``Energy Efficiency as a Tool for Preservation of Affordable Rental
Housing''
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/
RR2293/RAND_RR2293.pdf
``Strengthening Energy Efficiency Programs for Low-Income
Communities''
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2017/07/strengthening-
energy-efficiency-programs-low-income-communities.pdf
``Bringing Home the Benefits of Energy Efficiency to Low-Income
Households''
https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/
files/downloads/paper-s-williams08.pdf
``Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing: A Guide to Developing
and Implementing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs''
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/
affordable_housing.pdf
``Less Is More: Transforming Low-Income Communities Through Energy
Efficiency''
https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/2015-habitat-for-
humanity-shelter-report.pdf
``U.S. Multifamily Energy Efficiency Potential by 2020''
https://sahlln.energyefficiencyforall.org/sites/default/files/
Final_MF_EE_Potential_Report_Oct_2009_v2.pdf
``Apartment Hunters: Programs Searching for Energy Savings in
Multifamily Buildings''
https://assets.ctfassets.net/ntcn17ss1ow9/2SDF7iesWCJ3WaqziVqI0j/
b419917f34a58d83ae78dbbb7c88e0be/e13n.pdf
``Scaling the Nationwide Energy Retrofit of Affordable Multifamily
Housing: Innovations and Policy Recommendations''
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26846/
1001482-Scaling-the-Nationwide-Energy-Retrofit-of-Affordable-
Multifamily-Housing-Innovations-and-Policy-Recommendations.PDF
II. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, what are some of the
public health benefits of energy-efficiency upgrades of
multifamily housing?
``A New Prescription for Healthy Building Retrofits''
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/michele-knab-hasson/new-prescription-
healthy-building-retrofits
``Achieving Health and Social Equity through Housing: Understanding
the Impact of Non-Energy Benefits in the United States''
https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/achieving-health-
and-social-equity-through-housing-understanding-the-impact/
``Energy Savings Plus Health: Indoor Air Quality Guidelines for
Multifamily Building Upgrades''
https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/energy-savings-
plus-health-indoor-air-quality-guidelines-for-multifamily/
III. In your testimony, you describe some of the unique challenges
faced by residents of rural areas. Many of these communities
depend on non-profit electric cooperatives for their power. How
can Congress make sure that rural communities are able to
access energy-efficiency upgrades?
``Reducing Up-front Costs for Rural Energy Efficiency Projects''
https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/rural-upfront-costs.pdf
``The USDA Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP) Overview and
Update''
https://www.naseo.org/Data/Sites/1/resp-basic-presentation-10-31-
2018-coates.pdf
``Bridging the rural efficiency gap: expanding access to energy
efficiency upgrades in remote and high energy cost communities''
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12053-019-09798-
8.pdf
``The High Cost of Energy in Rural America: Household Energy
Burdens and Opportunities for Energy Efficiency''
https://www.energyefficiencyforall.org/resources/the-high-cost-of-
energy-in-rural-america-household-energy-burdens-and/
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
And the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]