3 ms·

This is a deeply flawed idea. As bad as LEED. Specifying HOW to go about being energy efficient is the entirely wrong approach. Instead specify a minimum energ

This is a deeply flawed idea. As bad as LEED. Specifying HOW to go about being energy efficient is the entirely wrong approach. Instead specify a minimum energy efficiency per square meter and let home builders sort it out. By specifying minimum efficiencies builders are free to adopt new technologies, new methods as they come along or use alternate means which are more suitable for a specific project. For example I live near a river and intend to use micro-hydro for my electricity. Do I still need to have solar panels? Or will the legislators need to add in a thousand exceptions to the rules?

jerkstate 8y ago
I agree, this is ridiculous California virtue-signaling at its finest and will result in a heck of a lot of unintended consequences (just like prop 13 has) - meanwhile many of the houses in my city were built in the 30s and 40s and have plaster walls, no insulation, no heat return, single pane glass etc which results in easily 10x more energy use for heating than modern construction would, but can't be rebuilt with modern materials because of the expense and difficulty of building new homes thanks to wrongheaded legislation like this.
- pkaye 8y ago
  Not really. You can blow in insulation into walls and attic. Air seal the house. Replace the windows with better ones. These regulations do not drive up the cost to upgrade existing houses.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    When the regulation requires that modifications bring things up to the new code and you've got decades of regulations like that piled up the most reasonable options are touch nothing or rebuild the entire house
    - pkaye 8y ago
      In most places you are not forced to upgrade everything to code just because you added insulation or new windows.
    - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
      Most places are rather prudent about that stuff. In Indiana, for example, you don't have to upgrade the electrical system if you are adding insulation, replacing windows, or replacing the roof. You may or may not need to upgrade your electric to replace a plug, mostly because some older systems aren't grounded. It is possible to rewire a single room without upgrading the entire house. You don't need to upgrade the plumbing while you upgrade the electrical, just like you don't need to upgrade the electrical if you are treating the asbestos (a problem my parents had with an old house built in 1918). Most times, whatever you are fixing needs to be up to code but not everything. If it weren't reasonable, it wouldn't be prudent to buy an old house without detailed upkeep and upgrade records.
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    The current "best wall we know how to make" is sufficiently different from the existing walls that it basically becomes new construction. Siding or brick, four to six inches of rigid foam overlapping insulation, a fully sealed waterproof, windproof membrane, structural sheathing, 2x4 or 2x6 framing, internal wallboard, latex paint. Consider the existing state of most of those houses: Painted sheathing or siding, 2x4 framing, fiberglass batt insulation with kraft paper vapor barrier inside the framing, wall board, latex paint. Essentially the only piece you get to keep is the 2x4s, assuming you come at it from the inside. If you come at it from the outside, you can do marginally better by keeping the interior walls, but you also have to brace the structure while you replace the exterior sheathing since it's almost always structurally loaded.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    Wont that insulation rot eventually since there is no water sealing?
    - pkaye 8y ago
      Blow in insulation is fairly common. A small hole is drilled into the walls and cellulose fibers are pumped in. If you have water leaking through walls you have bigger problems that need to be fixed anyway.
Cacti 8y ago
Specifying how to go about it ensures that the lobyists, former termed-out reps on the Energy Commission, and state political parties all get their appropriate kickback.
otterley 8y ago
Energy efficiency per square meter doesn't discourage people from economizing space. In other words, people will still be able to consume more energy by building larger living spaces. Ideally the target metric would be expressed as energy efficiency per resident occupant, but that would be significantly more challenging to enforce.
Invictus0 8y ago
What's the problem with LEED?
- spitfire 8y ago
  It defines specifically HOW a bunch of aspects of the build are to be achieved. Even when there are vastly better options already available, or the LEED approach is inappropriate for a particular build site. It requires a bunch of gimmicks that aren't necessary or even a net negative in many cases. Part of the LEED "energy" criterion is labeling the building as LEED. Which is absurd on its face.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
I partly agree in principle, your idea is much better generally. But it's also tricky for government to evaluate every energy efficiency invention. When you know certain solutions work and work at scale, it makes sense to mandate them. It's like saying let's not require every home to be connected to sewage because that reduces incentives to invent new waste management systems. Some things 'just work' and make sense as a minimum building standard. Whether solar is part of that, I don't know for sure, but the notion it's useful to agree on a few basic ideas strikes true. It's also important not to forget the economies of scale here. It can be a blessing to know you and all your competitors will need to create solar roofs, the one who builds the best standardised product at scale wins. I'd prefer to see builders be able to choose from a set of proven standardised technologies (e.g. not just panels but also say solar water heaters) and allow an exception procedure for people like you, which allows you to showcase efficiency-equivalence... rather than for all builders to do their own thing and government having to evaluate each system individually.
- spitfire 8y ago
  My home isn't connected to sewage (or water). The municipality doesn't provide that in my low-density area. Instead I have well water and a septic field. Require that a home has a source of electricity, water, sewage and meeds some efficiency standards but do NOT specify how those are to be met. You can issue guidelines separately, but they shouldn't be legislated.
rbritton 8y ago
If it’s anything like here you probably would. In Washington state, most power is generated by dams [0]. For whatever reason, most (all?) renewable energy laws in this state do not consider hydro to be renewable. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA

jerkstate 8y ago

I agree, this is ridiculous California virtue-signaling at its finest and will result in a heck of a lot of unintended consequences (just like prop 13 has) - meanwhile many of the houses in my city were built in the 30s and 40s and have plaster walls, no insulation, no heat return, single pane glass etc which results in easily 10x more energy use for heating than modern construction would, but can't be rebuilt with modern materials because of the expense and difficulty of building new homes thanks to wrongheaded legislation like this.

pkaye 8y ago
Not really. You can blow in insulation into walls and attic. Air seal the house. Replace the windows with better ones. These regulations do not drive up the cost to upgrade existing houses.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  When the regulation requires that modifications bring things up to the new code and you've got decades of regulations like that piled up the most reasonable options are touch nothing or rebuild the entire house
  - pkaye 8y ago
    In most places you are not forced to upgrade everything to code just because you added insulation or new windows.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    Most places are rather prudent about that stuff. In Indiana, for example, you don't have to upgrade the electrical system if you are adding insulation, replacing windows, or replacing the roof. You may or may not need to upgrade your electric to replace a plug, mostly because some older systems aren't grounded. It is possible to rewire a single room without upgrading the entire house. You don't need to upgrade the plumbing while you upgrade the electrical, just like you don't need to upgrade the electrical if you are treating the asbestos (a problem my parents had with an old house built in 1918). Most times, whatever you are fixing needs to be up to code but not everything. If it weren't reasonable, it wouldn't be prudent to buy an old house without detailed upkeep and upgrade records.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  The current "best wall we know how to make" is sufficiently different from the existing walls that it basically becomes new construction. Siding or brick, four to six inches of rigid foam overlapping insulation, a fully sealed waterproof, windproof membrane, structural sheathing, 2x4 or 2x6 framing, internal wallboard, latex paint. Consider the existing state of most of those houses: Painted sheathing or siding, 2x4 framing, fiberglass batt insulation with kraft paper vapor barrier inside the framing, wall board, latex paint. Essentially the only piece you get to keep is the 2x4s, assuming you come at it from the inside. If you come at it from the outside, you can do marginally better by keeping the interior walls, but you also have to brace the structure while you replace the exterior sheathing since it's almost always structurally loaded.
- woolvalley 8y ago
  Wont that insulation rot eventually since there is no water sealing?
  - pkaye 8y ago
    Blow in insulation is fairly common. A small hole is drilled into the walls and cellulose fibers are pumped in. If you have water leaking through walls you have bigger problems that need to be fixed anyway.

Cacti 8y ago

Specifying how to go about it ensures that the lobyists, former termed-out reps on the Energy Commission, and state political parties all get their appropriate kickback.

otterley 8y ago

Energy efficiency per square meter doesn't discourage people from economizing space. In other words, people will still be able to consume more energy by building larger living spaces. Ideally the target metric would be expressed as energy efficiency per resident occupant, but that would be significantly more challenging to enforce.

Invictus0 8y ago

What's the problem with LEED?

spitfire 8y ago
It defines specifically HOW a bunch of aspects of the build are to be achieved. Even when there are vastly better options already available, or the LEED approach is inappropriate for a particular build site. It requires a bunch of gimmicks that aren't necessary or even a net negative in many cases. Part of the LEED "energy" criterion is labeling the building as LEED. Which is absurd on its face.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago

I partly agree in principle, your idea is much better generally. But it's also tricky for government to evaluate every energy efficiency invention. When you know certain solutions work and work at scale, it makes sense to mandate them. It's like saying let's not require every home to be connected to sewage because that reduces incentives to invent new waste management systems. Some things 'just work' and make sense as a minimum building standard. Whether solar is part of that, I don't know for sure, but the notion it's useful to agree on a few basic ideas strikes true. It's also important not to forget the economies of scale here. It can be a blessing to know you and all your competitors will need to create solar roofs, the one who builds the best standardised product at scale wins. I'd prefer to see builders be able to choose from a set of proven standardised technologies (e.g. not just panels but also say solar water heaters) and allow an exception procedure for people like you, which allows you to showcase efficiency-equivalence... rather than for all builders to do their own thing and government having to evaluate each system individually.

spitfire 8y ago
My home isn't connected to sewage (or water). The municipality doesn't provide that in my low-density area. Instead I have well water and a septic field. Require that a home has a source of electricity, water, sewage and meeds some efficiency standards but do NOT specify how those are to be met. You can issue guidelines separately, but they shouldn't be legislated.

rbritton 8y ago

If it’s anything like here you probably would. In Washington state, most power is generated by dams [0]. For whatever reason, most (all?) renewable energy laws in this state do not consider hydro to be renewable. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA