Code Changes And Incentives Are Critical For Energy Independence

Clovers at Blarney Castle

Patricia hit the nail on the head in her last post, No Blarney here! - Turning up the Heat:

Where are the codes and incentives?

Or rather, how do we get people to build and renovate houses to energy efficiency levels that are significantly above code?

The Architecture 2030 website has a great reference on how much beyond code you must build to achieve their interim and final energy efficiency goals. For example, in California's we have a new 2008 version of the energy efficiency code, usually called "Title 24." To meet the Architecture 2030 interim goal of buildings that use half as much energy as their conventional peers (the "initial 50% reduction target"), buildings in California need to be 10% more efficient than required by this new building code.

We all want this to happen, of course, and it's relatively inexpensive to do so. But without incentives, it's not going to happen. That's why I'm working on the Menlo Park Climate Action Plan for example - we need the incentives.

And incentives will help. Have you ever wondered why so many Californians have bought Toyota Priuses, despite the fact that they are pretty expensive compared to regular cars, and you don't save that money at the gas pump? It's not because Californians are so green - although we are. It's because there was an amazing incentive. If you bought a Prius or other hybrid, you could get a pass to drive in the carpool lane on California freeways - as a singleton! What does everyone in California really want? To get where they're going faster! It didn't cost the state much, and it got a lot of efficient cars on the road quickly. That's the best kind of incentive.

Our municipalities (and eventually the states) can do the same kind of thing. For example, they could reward people for deciding to build houses to meet the "initial 50% reduction target" of Architecture 2030 by:

• Expediting the building permit for free
• Waiving some fees
• Promising quick turnaround on inspections
• Providing an automatic bump of 2% in their FAR requirements as a variance (floor area ratio - or how much of the lot can be covered by a house)
• Bonding the builder's house guarantee
• Accepting Passive House PHPP modeling software results for certification
• Providing a tax break for houses that are Passive House certified

Those are just some of the options that municipalities have. Even just stating, in their climate action plans for example, that they have a goal of meeting the Architecture 2030 targets, or supporting the building of Passive Houses, would go a long way.

People want to do the right thing. They're even willing to pay extra to do the right thing. But they often don't know what the right thing is. And if they don't have an incentive, they might do the wrong thing, or just something else, with that extra money that they'd be willing to spend. Many people, if they had the right "nudge," would happily put more insulation in their new house or their remodel, and forgo the most expensive marble countertops. They'll get the same resale benefit, they'll save money over the life of the house, they'll feel better about themselves, and they'll actually make a significant individual difference in our planet's future.

Let me know your thoughts, and if you have examples of code changes or municipalities providing incentives for efficiency in buildings, especially significantly surpassing code requirements, I'd love to hear about them.

Related posts

• The First U.S. Passive House – Super-Efficient, Affordable (0)
• Slideshows About The Passive House Concept (0)
• Report and Insights From The Passive House Conference – Part 1 (6)
• Passive House Presentation In San Francisco Thursday 23 April (1)
• Nabih Tahan on Passive Houses and European Home Building (3)