By Phillip Arnett, Lafayette College

           In 2009, The House of Representatives passed a bill entitled the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” also known as the “Waxman-Markey Bill” for its two authors, Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey, both of whom are Democrats. The bill passed in The House of Representatives, but was never brought to the Senate. The bill’s main goals were to “create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy” (American Clean Energy and Security Act, 2009). In order to accomplish these goals, the bill proposed a number of policies, chief among which was the introduction of a cap and trade system, under which corporations would need to buy allowances for their pollution, and could not exceed greenhouse gas emissions above the level of the allowance that they paid for. By design, the overall amount of carbon emissions allowed would wane over time, thus making the amount of permits issued for purchase smaller, causing their prices to rise, and hopefully forcing businesses to adopt more efficient practices to reduce their overall carbon footprint.

        Although this was the highlight of the bill, there were a number of additional initiatives that were proposed to also limit further energy use. The one of most import to us is “Title II: Energy Efficiency – Subtitle A: Building Energy Efficiency Programs,” which first mandates that all residential buildings must be retro-fitted to meet existing energy codes prior to their sale (Sewalk, Throupe). The baseline code that the bill refers to comes from the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, which sets building codes for residential and commercial spaces. This building code stipulates a number of energy usage reducing measures including standards for insulation, air leakage from windows and doors, efficiency of heating and cooling systems, and efficiency of recessed lighting. The main objective of this portion of the bill is to have a “30% reduction in energy use relative to comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code, effective upon enactment of the Act,” which was proposed in 2009. From there, the next goal was for a 50% reduction in energy use by 2014 (5 years later) for residential buildings, and a 50% reduction in energy use by 2015 (6 years later) for commercial buildings. After that, the bill sets a goal of 5% energy reduction for every year following 2015, until 2029.

       In order to aid in this, the bill proposed that each state be mandated to establish a SEED Account (State Energy and Environmental Development), with which they could subsidize either new construction or renovation of buildings to meet the existing energy codes. This SEED account would also be used to subsidize any costs that may stem from the enforcement of these energy codes, in order to make sure that building owners are compliant in implementing energy reduction measures, and are on track to meeting the energy reduction goals stipulated above (American Clean Energy and Security Act, 2009).    In addition, Section 209 of the bill grants the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue regulations that prohibit “any private contract, lease, or other agreement from impairing of a residential property owner or lessee to install, construct, maintain, or use a solar energy system on that property.” This section directly promotes the use of solar energy in electricity production by going further and mandating that any application for the building and installation of a residential solar panel be treated the same as an application for any architectural modification.

       Beyond this, the bill requires that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)  Administrator and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to allocate funds that would subsidize the installation of energy efficient residential water systems, as well as other items such as lighting and wood stoves. Furthermore, this fund would also allow the EPA to continue to run their education system rooted in identifying appliances as “Energy Star” appliances, so that consumers may make well informed decisions when purchasing new appliances, and choose those which consume less energy (American Clean Energy and Security Act, 2009). Originally, the program which identified energy efficient appliances with an “Energy Star” approval came from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Policy Act of 2005 Pub.L.109-58), and its funding would continue through the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

       Although the bill stipulates that subsidies would be offered to building owners who are forced to make renovations to meet existing energy codes, it has been found that unless there were even greater subsidies or tax cuts for individual homeowners, the cost of renovations would far outweigh the savings in energy costs following the completion of the renovation (Sewalk, Throupe). However, the same report finds that the measures stipulated in the proposed bill for efficiency of newly constructed buildings are feasible, and do make economic sense. These measures include meeting the standards of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, as well as installing energy efficient lighting, efficient HVAC systems, efficient appliances, and increased insulation. Therefore, if we were to adopt this policy as our own, it would behoove us to amend the policy to allow for greater government subsidies for building renovations, to help owners cover the costs even more.

By Skye Liu, Lafayette College

Seeing that there is not enough incentive and experience for construction companies to carry out more green building projects, government regulation is necessary to the success of regulating GHG emission from buildings. However, there has been little or no federal government regulation on nationwide building energy efficiency code in the history of United States. So far, only federal facilities and buildings have been required to meet the minimum LEED standard. (EPA, 2003).  At state level, California took the lead in green building construction by implementing the first statewide mandatory green building Code named California Green Building Standard Code since August 2009. Understanding this code can be instrumental to the formulation of mandatory national green building standard.

CalGreen Code is drafted by California Building Standards Commission, and it is reevaluated and updated every three years. Before updating each version, there would be a public hearing and comment process (CAGOV, 2018). The latest version of this code is the 2016 code, developed through collaborative effort of several state departments and agencies. The code is developed with the purpose of reducing the environmental impact of building design and construction and to promote sustainable construction. It mainly focuses on five categories, “planning and design, efficiency of energy, water, material and resource, and environmental quality”. It is effective for every newly constructed building or structure, including the addition to existing buildings which is larger than 1000 sq ft or costs more than $200,000. The code sets different standards for residential and non-residential buildings. And it creates voluntary measures in addition to mandatory checklist. For residential buildings, there are two tiers of voluntary measure revised from third-party building standards that builders can choose from. (CBSC, 2016)

The enforcement of this buildings code is not undertaken by any single agency, but by different ones according to the building type. California Energy Commission will regulate the general energy efficiency standard; the local building department or Department of Housing and Community Development is responsible for verification of all residential buildings; Division of State Architect supervises construction of public elementary schools to state college; Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development monitors hospitals, clinics and nursing facilities in collaboration with Division of State Architect. Department of Water Resources, along with Department of Housing and Community Development, will regulate the greywater system(CBSC, 2016).  As for national standard enforcement, we should also have multiple agencies enforcing building code according to the specific building type.

Before the new construction of any projects, the client or company needs to get the permit from respective agencies. First of all, the applicants of permit should identify which type of occupancy this new building fits into. Secondly, they shall confirm which state agency is assigned to this type of occupancy written on the code document. Thirdly, they would go to the Matrix Adoption Tables on Section 201 to find out the minimum mandatory requirement and look up Appendix A4 to A6 for voluntary measures. In the end, they are supposed to check off the measures they could meet for the project on the checklist. If there are demands for alternate construction material or methods, they need to provide additional application to be reviewed by respective enforcing agency. (CBSC, 2016)

This statewide code has some measures better than the concurrent voluntary building codes by third-party verifiers. First and foremost, it has put local site variances into consideration by allowing local amendments on building code. The city and county governments have authority to make necessary changes based on “climate, topographical or logical conditions” (CBSC, 2016) under the premise that all changes at least comply to the Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code. Local amendments should apply when differences occur, but “the most restrictive requirement shall prevail” in regard to any conflicts (CBSC, 2016). The local amendment needs to be updated with the latest version of the code. The code also accommodates specific project needs. It allows alternate materials, design and methods of construction to be approved “on a case-by-case basis”(CBSC, 2016). These are all effective and practical ordinances that could be incorporated to national building code.

Compared to the previous versions of CalGreen Code, the 2016 Code sets a higher standard for construction and demolition waste. It puts more focus on water efficiency in residential buildings by set more specific measures, such as maximum flush volume for all water closets, and other measures for urinals, showerhead, etc. Additionally, it sets requirement for EV spaces in accordance with the newly emerged electrical vehicles in the state. (CBSC, 2016)

The national green building code can be formulated with reference to CalGreen Code because of its successful implementation in the past ten years. The permit application process can be used without alteration at the national level, but all other aspects need modification. In replacement of California Building Standards Commission, at the national level, the Environmental Protection Agency is the best agency to lead the work. The EPA’s past work on green building promotion focuses solely on education and advising. They have organized voluntary energy-saving building competition and developed several energy performance design guidance for local government i.e. ENERGY STAR Integrated Energy Design Guidance (EPA, 2011), which demonstrates its knowledge and expertise in green building construction and ability to develop building codes at the national level.

The frequently updated CALGreen demonstrates the importance of incorporating consideration of the impact of the ever-changing technology into green building codes. In order to comprehend the most present contributor to building’s GHG emission, an interagency panel should be established with reference to the IPCC. This panel will include personnel from the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the General Services Administration and several green building non-profit organizations like USGBC and PHIUS. This panel would write scientific reports on the most current and prevalent sources of energy consumption in green building construction and operation. Also, it should assess the effectiveness of several commonly used building codes i.e. IgCC, LEED Silver, ICC 700 and recommend the most effective building code to implement at the national level to the EPA. In addition, it must cooperate with local agencies to investigate the impact of diversified local site conditions on the effectiveness of code, therefore providing supporting evaluations for local building code amendments.

by Stephanie Vierra, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Vierra Design & Education Services, LLC

Buildings have extensive direct and indirect impacts on the environment. During their construction, occupancy, renovation, repurposing, and demolition, buildings use energy, water, and raw materials, generate waste, and emit potentially harmful atmospheric emissions. These facts have prompted the creation of green building standards, certifications, and rating systems aimed at mitigating the impact of buildings on the natural environment through sustainable design.

The push toward sustainable design increased in the 1990s with the creation of Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), the first green building rating system in the U.K. In 2000, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) followed suit and developed and released criteria also aimed at improving the environmental performance of buildings through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for new construction. Since that first release, LEED has continued to grow in prominence and to include rating systems for existing buildings and entire neighborhoods. Others also responded to the growing interest and demand for sustainable design including the Green Building Initiative (GBI), which was created to assist the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) in promoting its Green Building Guidelines for Residential Structures. Although originally developed for Canada, GBI helped to make Green Globes available for use in the U.S. in 2005. Additional rating systems have been developed that were influenced by these early programs but are tailored to their own national priorities and requirements or seek to go beyond the limits of current policy and building practices to address broader issues of sustainability or evolving concepts such as net zero energy, and living and restorative building concepts that improve the natural environment, or those that model nature’s processes.

There is now a proliferation of standards, rating, and certification programs in the marketplace to help guide, demonstrate, and document efforts to deliver sustainable, high-performance buildings. It is estimated that there are nearly 600 green product certifications in the world with nearly 100 in use in the U.S., and the numbers continue to grow (Source: BuildingGreen). There are also green building rating programs in use around the world and they vary in their approach with some outlining prerequisites and optional credits, while others take a prescriptive approach, and still others suggest performance-based requirements that can be met in different ways for different products and project types. As a result, it can be challenging and time consuming determining which standards, certifications, and rating programs are most credible and applicable to a particular project. This page will provide an introduction to some commonly used terms and an overview of the most widely recognized green building product standards, and building rating and certification programs currently in use with an emphasis on how they vary and some of the issues to consider when selecting them.

The book GAAG recommend to you this week is named The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design (Island Press, 2012), the first book to study the relationships between sustainability and beauty,outlines a clear set of principles to bridge the gap between standards of “good design” and “green design.” Written by Lance Hosey, one of our advising board members, this book is commented as “A refreshing take on an old debate that fans of Malcolm Gladwell and other big thinkers will find informative and illuminating.”  Now Available on GAAG Store.