House Committee Hearing Discusses Climate Benefits of Improved Building Energy Efficiency
Earlier today, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality convened a hearing to discuss the importance of, and ways to encourage, building energy efficiency as a part of a “least cost, comprehensive strategy” to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S.
Witnesses representing a broad range of interests widely recognized the need to make improved building energy efficiency a key part of any effective climate change strategy. As several witnesses cited, recent studies have shown that the building sector accounts for about 40% of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. By implementing simple, currently existing, building technologies and practices – such as more efficient lighting, water heating, and appliances, and more energy efficient design – annual U.S. energy consumption can be reduced by 11 percent by 2020. Thus, residential and commercial buildings offer the greatest opportunities for low-cost GHG reductions.
As Brian McLean, Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. EPA testified, however, certain market and policy barriers have so far limited the realization of these opportunities. Although the current rise in energy prices will naturally spur greater investment in energy efficiency, federal energy efficiency programs – such as the EPA’s ENERGY STAR, State Clean Energy-Environmental State Partnership, and National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency – will continue to be critical.
Marshall Purnell, President of the American Institute of Architects, offered additional ways for Congress to encourage energy efficiency, including: (1) legislation, such as the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods (GREEN) Act, to provide incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy or remodel their homes to improve their energy efficiency; (2) extension of energy efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives; (3) policies to incentivize the design and construction of new energy efficient buildings and the retrofitting of existing buildings; and (4) development of stronger and consensus-based energy efficiency building codes.
On the of issue of model building codes, William Fay, Executive Director of the Energy Efficient Code Coalition, advocated “The 30% Solution,” which is a comprehensive proposal designed to boost the residential energy efficiency of America’s model energy code, the International Energy Conservation Code by 30%. The proposal covers “virtually every part of the house subject to code requirements.” If adopted by the International Code Council and then fully implemented by state and local governments, The 30% Solution is expected to boost the energy efficiency of more than a million new and renovated new homes each year by about 30% and generate positive cash flow to homeowners that begins the day that they move in.
Matt Belcher, who testified on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders, however, questioned the effectiveness of aggressive building codes. He also expectedly opposed the establishment of national benchmarks, which tend to become “untenable” given wide-ranging geographic differences and state and local climates creating specific building needs. Instead, Mr. Belcher seconded the call for Congress to extend energy efficiency tax incentives to homeowners, buildings, and developers. Moreover, he urged Congress to continue to fund local initiatives, provide resources to state and local building code enforcement efforts, and appropriate funds for the Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program to further efficiency goals and create true savings in the residential sector.
In short, today’s hearing testimony suggests that a good combination of both carrots and sticks would need to be implemented in order for the U.S. to realize the full potential of building energy efficiency. Although there is much debate about whether there should be more carrots or sticks, the urgency for action is undebatable.
For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.


Recent Comments