Legislators should reject building code loopholes
Every three years, local and state building officials from Florida and across the nation update America’s model building energy code (the IECC). It’s a tedious year-long process, and these officials take their job very seriously, pouring through thousands of proposals, adding those home improvements that are proven and “shelf ready” to each new IECC. But while the state reviews the adoption of the latest codes, powerful builder interests have convinced legislators to consider giving them a path to build less efficient homes.
The code has always had both a prescriptive path— which tells a builder exactly howand what to install— and a performance path that gives builders the latitude to design their homes as theywant, but only as long as it saves as much or more energy than a prescriptive path home. It’s a sound principle that gives the builder more construction flexibility without sacrificing the energy bill savings, improved comfort and higher resale value that families reap when they purchase an energy efficient home.
The most recent update boosted new home efficiency by 38 percent over the 2006 version. That means a Florida family buying a home meeting the 2012 or 2015 standard will pocket $4,147 in utility bill savings over their 30 year mortgage— according to theU.S. Department of Energy. But it also included a third path that lets builders comply with the code if their new home can get an Energy Rating Index score of 52. For Florida, this results in a modest bump in efficiency over today’s average new home score of 58.
Legislators should be thrilled by this opportunity to put more money— especially money thatwould otherwise be paid to utilities— into thewallets of their constituents. Instead, they’re eyeing a costly loophole that trades away a new home’s efficiency by letting builders build a home with a much higher score of 65.
Builders will naturally flock to thisweaker, less efficient path, which will result in significantly higher energy costs for homes constructed to theweaker levels of efficiency. And they will meet that path byweakening efficiency improvements— like insulation and windows— which generate thousands of dollars in energy savings and which result in homes that perform best during extreme heat and coldwaves, when utility costs skyrocket and rate-payers fall behind on their bills. Low-income housing groups support strong building envelopes because they knowthat energy bills are the highest cost of home maintenance— higher than property taxes and insurance— and that inability to pay those bills is the leading cause of foreclosures other than loss of income.
Builderswanted the ERI path to give them “more flexibility.” Should legislators also give them less to do by enacting a construction “path of least efficiency” that will increase costs to Florida homeowners?
Homeowners whowould rather keep more than $4,000 in their bank accounts than send it off to a utility should tell their legislators to reject putting them on a path to higher energy bills.