4 ms·

Some of the building codes are probably overkill, but part of the difference in California building costs compared to other states are energy efficiency require

Some of the building codes are probably overkill, but part of the difference in California building costs compared to other states are energy efficiency requirements (like more expensive windows) that quickly pay for themselves in reduced costs to live in the unit and also reduce per capita energy usage. Unfortunately, neither the developer or landlord (if the unit is built for a rental) has incentive to build an energy efficient building as the tenant is going to eventually pay the energy costs. These requirements absolutely need government regulation because the "free market" leads to a non optimal outcome.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 4y ago
How long do you think it takes to recoup an extra half million dollars in energy savings?
- epistasis 4y ago
  Less than the term of the typical mortgage, i.e. these codes are only adopted when it lowers the cost of housing. With your $500k up front costs, how many units are you spreading that over?
- renewiltord 4y ago
  -
  - peter422 4y ago
    This is a straw man to begin with because the building codes are not the issue… the permitting apparatus is. However, your analysis is simplistic and assumes: 1. The house uses no natural gas (most do) 2. The cost of electricity never goes up (it will in the short term at least) 3. CO2 emissions from wasted energy have no cost (they do) 4. Building energy efficient buildings is way more expensive than the alternatives for new construction (it isn’t)
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      -
      - _benedict 4y ago
        If the average electricity bill includes houses that use gas for heating, then the electricity bill is grossly inaccurate for houses without gas heating (unless we are discussing an area that requires minimal heating demand)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - devonbleak 4y ago
    Just ordered new replacement windows from my house. Granted we picked out the most expensive line of windows for aesthetic reasons but the marginal increase for the CA mandated coating was ~5% of the overall cost of the windows. Do I expect to save the entire $22k cost of the windows on my energy bills any time soon? No I do not. Do I expect to save the ~$1500 that I spent on the coating? Sure I'll probably get ROI in 5-10 years with energy bills averaging ~$300/mo (no solar and it's 100 degrees outside today).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      It sounds like the $22k energy saving cost would not have been a meaningful contribution to a $1mm/unit cost of construction then.
      - SnowHill9902 4y ago
        Everything counts.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Weird to look up one number, then fabricate $100k out of nowhere to compare it too. Plus, you are looking only at the energy bill, not the cost of energy saved... The top comment in this thread states that 1.7% of the upfront cost of the apartment, $17,000, is for energy efficiency improvements. In fact, the codes that mandate energy efficiency improvements take a detailed cost analysis into account, and only mandate cost-saving energy efficiency improvements.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- babypuncher 4y ago
  Where are you getting the idea that half the cost of constructing an apartment is a result of energy efficiency requirements?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    He's implying that if the energy efficiency is a primary cost driver -- e.g. worth even discussing in the context of affordable housing -- then it would take a long time to break even fiscally. Assuming it's 50% is just a little bit of hyperbole.
    - asimpletune 4y ago
      I think they were just saying some of these regulations are not just good but necessary
Gigachad 4y ago
Free markets work best when information is available. One option would be to have all rentals require energy efficiency testing with a score being published on all rental listings. That way renters are able to compare properties and factor in this in to their choice.
- roguecoder 4y ago
  Free markets can't "work" to solve these kinds of coordination problems unless NP=P, because taking information into account is an NP-hard problem.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    This kind of approach has already worked for almost every product category. Your fridge has an energy rating sticker on it because it help you select the least energy using models and in turn incentivizes manufacturers to care about efficiency since consumers care and can now see. Currently as a renter, if you see a few properties online, you have no feasible way to factor energy usage in to your decision making so landlords have no reason to factor it in since it won't prioritize their property to renters.
    - hattmall 4y ago
      The power company could publish this data. I was able to get a flat rate quote on a property that I didn't live in yet using an online tool from Georgia power. It's basically the previous year energy cost divided by 12 and a 5-20% markup depending on past annual variations. It doesn't exactly equal efficiency but I knew what I could pay for an entire year of power.
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    You do not have to find optimal solutions to find good ones.
- soramimo 4y ago
  This actually exists in Germany (Energieausweis or energy certificate), see e.g. https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/energycertificate.html https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/energycertificate.html
SamReidHughes 4y ago
My relatives built a house by the ocean in San Diego. They had huge cost increases and aesthetic limitations caused by these regulations which treat inland housing the same as those right on the water. They also had to give up roof deck for solar panels, which is just stupid because there are better places to host solar panels. I’m further inland, and I pay basically no money for energy. A box fan and occasionally, a one-room AC unit (because I work from home) or a space heater is all that’s needed. There is absolutely no justification for such energy efficiency regulations in San Diego or the Bay Area, where I used to live. Your argument about reduced cost is purely hypothetical, and not reality. > These requirements absolutely need government regulation because the "free market" leads to a non optimal outcome. That would not mean we “need” government regulation. Leave people alone.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bpodgursky 4y ago

How long do you think it takes to recoup an extra half million dollars in energy savings?

epistasis 4y ago
Less than the term of the typical mortgage, i.e. these codes are only adopted when it lowers the cost of housing. With your $500k up front costs, how many units are you spreading that over?
renewiltord 4y ago
-
- peter422 4y ago
  This is a straw man to begin with because the building codes are not the issue… the permitting apparatus is. However, your analysis is simplistic and assumes: 1. The house uses no natural gas (most do) 2. The cost of electricity never goes up (it will in the short term at least) 3. CO2 emissions from wasted energy have no cost (they do) 4. Building energy efficient buildings is way more expensive than the alternatives for new construction (it isn’t)
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    -
    - _benedict 4y ago
      If the average electricity bill includes houses that use gas for heating, then the electricity bill is grossly inaccurate for houses without gas heating (unless we are discussing an area that requires minimal heating demand)
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- devonbleak 4y ago
  Just ordered new replacement windows from my house. Granted we picked out the most expensive line of windows for aesthetic reasons but the marginal increase for the CA mandated coating was ~5% of the overall cost of the windows. Do I expect to save the entire $22k cost of the windows on my energy bills any time soon? No I do not. Do I expect to save the ~$1500 that I spent on the coating? Sure I'll probably get ROI in 5-10 years with energy bills averaging ~$300/mo (no solar and it's 100 degrees outside today).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    It sounds like the $22k energy saving cost would not have been a meaningful contribution to a $1mm/unit cost of construction then.
    - SnowHill9902 4y ago
      Everything counts.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Weird to look up one number, then fabricate $100k out of nowhere to compare it too. Plus, you are looking only at the energy bill, not the cost of energy saved... The top comment in this thread states that 1.7% of the upfront cost of the apartment, $17,000, is for energy efficiency improvements. In fact, the codes that mandate energy efficiency improvements take a detailed cost analysis into account, and only mandate cost-saving energy efficiency improvements.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
babypuncher 4y ago
Where are you getting the idea that half the cost of constructing an apartment is a result of energy efficiency requirements?
- mlyle 4y ago
  He's implying that if the energy efficiency is a primary cost driver -- e.g. worth even discussing in the context of affordable housing -- then it would take a long time to break even fiscally. Assuming it's 50% is just a little bit of hyperbole.
  - asimpletune 4y ago
    I think they were just saying some of these regulations are not just good but necessary

Gigachad 4y ago

Free markets work best when information is available. One option would be to have all rentals require energy efficiency testing with a score being published on all rental listings. That way renters are able to compare properties and factor in this in to their choice.

roguecoder 4y ago
Free markets can't "work" to solve these kinds of coordination problems unless NP=P, because taking information into account is an NP-hard problem.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  This kind of approach has already worked for almost every product category. Your fridge has an energy rating sticker on it because it help you select the least energy using models and in turn incentivizes manufacturers to care about efficiency since consumers care and can now see. Currently as a renter, if you see a few properties online, you have no feasible way to factor energy usage in to your decision making so landlords have no reason to factor it in since it won't prioritize their property to renters.
  - hattmall 4y ago
    The power company could publish this data. I was able to get a flat rate quote on a property that I didn't live in yet using an online tool from Georgia power. It's basically the previous year energy cost divided by 12 and a 5-20% markup depending on past annual variations. It doesn't exactly equal efficiency but I knew what I could pay for an entire year of power.
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  You do not have to find optimal solutions to find good ones.
soramimo 4y ago
This actually exists in Germany (Energieausweis or energy certificate), see e.g. https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/energycertificate.html https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/energycertificate.html

SamReidHughes 4y ago

My relatives built a house by the ocean in San Diego. They had huge cost increases and aesthetic limitations caused by these regulations which treat inland housing the same as those right on the water. They also had to give up roof deck for solar panels, which is just stupid because there are better places to host solar panels. I’m further inland, and I pay basically no money for energy. A box fan and occasionally, a one-room AC unit (because I work from home) or a space heater is all that’s needed. There is absolutely no justification for such energy efficiency regulations in San Diego or the Bay Area, where I used to live. Your argument about reduced cost is purely hypothetical, and not reality. > These requirements absolutely need government regulation because the "free market" leads to a non optimal outcome. That would not mean we “need” government regulation. Leave people alone.