Every three years, the residential International Energy Conservation Code changes to varying degrees in an effort to reduce the energy consumption of the heating, cooling, lighting and hot water production of our homes. 2012 is another code change year – 2009 was the last, a code that Montana adopted in 2010. Back in 2007, the Energy Efficient Codes Council set a goal of improving on the 2006 energy code by 30 percent by 2012, a goal referred to as the “Thirty Percent Solution.” If the current 2012 proposal is adopted by states and local building jurisdictions, the goal of 30 percent improvement over 2006 will be realized. The 2009 code was a very substantial step forward toward their goal – the 2012 proposal is every bit as ambitious as the last one and will represent the second consecutive notable reduction in home energy consumption.
The State of Montana Building Codes Bureau will begin this year the process of evaluating these code changes and gauging the impact that they might have to the citizens of Montana – it is a lengthy process that might not result in adoption until early next year. Besides the energy savings consideration, they also consider the safety aspects for home occupants as well as the economic ramifications for the construction industry. There is plenty of opportunity for public input by the various stakeholders that might be affected by the proposed code changes.
The adopted 2009 code changes began to address some customary weaknesses in the way the industry had generally built homes in Montana – it called for insulating all basements (whether finished or not); required a substantial amount of lighting (50 percent) to be high efficiency, such as CFL’s; required any ducting outside of the heated envelope to be tested for air leakage; reduced air leakage at key locations in a typical home envelope (rim joists, electrical outlets, fireplaces); required more high performance glazing for windows; and called for programmable thermostats for furnaces.
The proposed new code would go further toward improving the thermal performance of homes by upgrading insulation levels; calling for even better window and skylight performance; requiring that all homes are tested for allowable air leakage with a blower door test; upgrading insulation once again in areas that are traditionally thermal weaknesses (framed headers, corners); increasing to 75 percent the number of energy efficient lights; insulating hot water piping is certain specific situations; tighter duct sealing requirement; and mandatory mechanical ventilation.
Note that we still are not seeing any mandates that call for energy collection/generation (solar hot water or photovoltaic panels) – the new code rightly focuses on conservation of energy first. Conserving energy is inexpensive as opposed to generating it and can help us make great strides towards more energy independence for our country.
Most of these changes don’t really add that much to the cost of a new home. The mechanical ventilation, if done most properly with a balanced heat-recovering system, can add some dollars but also ensures that the indoor air quality is healthy and fresh without wasting heat. A properly airtight house absolutely requires positive ventilation. The improved air sealing measures are actually very affordable but require attention to detail by tradesmen and careful planning during construction. However, there will be those in the industry who deride these changes as intrusive and overly expensive, thereby supposedly making home ownership (and sales) difficult. This is short-sighted thinking.
One of the primary intentions of the IECC and the 30 percent solution was to consider not just the initial cost of housing but the overall life cycle cost of our homes – the energy consumption of a building over its life span must factor into the overall cost to society (and the planet, for that matter). To continue to build and sell homes “the way that we always have” externalizes real life cycle costs and burdens homeowners with increasingly elevated energy expenses, waste, and potential health issues as soon as they move in. Our homes are long-term investments and represent either assets or liabilities for society well into the future. This code is a perfect example of how regulatory oversight trumps the “free market.” Markets typically only focus on short term gains and do not anticipate the distant future – if we want to actually have one, thank goodness for the wise heads among us that strive to help us get there.
Len Ford is president of Ford Construction Corp, a certified green builder, and chairman of the FBA Green Build committee. The opinions expressed here are his own.