U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–974 PDF 2011

CLIMATE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED BUILDING 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2008 

Serial No. 110–136 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Chief Counsel 

JOHN W. JIMISON, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Legislative Clerk 

DAVID MCCARTHY, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Doris Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 137 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 137 

WITNESSES

David Rodgers, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement ..........................................................................................

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 143 

Brian J. McLean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 156 

Marshall E. Purnell, FAIA, President, American Institute of Architects ........... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 162 

Matt Belcher, Owner, Belcher Homes LLC, on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders .......................................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 167 

Thomas A. Gentry, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, University 

of North Carolina at Charlotte ........................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 176 

Richard P. Weiland, Chief Executive Officer, International Code Council ......... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

William D. Fay, Director, Energy Efficient Codes Coalition ................................ 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 179 

Brad Heavner, State Director, Environment Maryland ....................................... 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 183 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

U.S. Green Building Council, letter of July 17, 2008 to Chairman Boucher, 

submitted by Mr. Inslee ....................................................................................... 138 

Insert for the record, submitted by David Rodgers .............................................. 140 

AGC Flat Glass North America and Pilkington North America, letter of 

July 16, 2008 to Hon. Mike Rogers, submitted by Mr. Boucher ...................... 141 

(1) 

CLIMATE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED BUILDING 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boucher, Barrow, Inslee, 

Matheson, Matsui, Upton, Shadegg, Walden, and Burgess. 

Staff present: John Jimison, Laura Vaught, Chris Treanor, Rachel Bleshman, Erin Bzymek, and Mills Forni. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. In the next 

Congress, this subcommittee will initiate legislation to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions between 60 and 80 percent by the year 

2050. A portion of that goal we intend to meet through a cap-andtrade regulation on large-scale stationary sources and on transportation. But to achieve the goal fully, other steps will also be required. 

Last year’s energy law began that process with a landmark 

measure to enhance the efficiency of a broad range of household appliances. It also encourages a smart electricity grid and a capture 

of waste heat from industry. By 2030, last year’s law will reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions by that year through a cumulative total 

of 10.6 billion tons. And in that year alone, the annual reduction 

will be 700 billion tons, equal to about one-half of the emissions of 

all of the vehicles on America’s roads today. So it truly was a landmark efficiency measure. 

Another key step will be making America’s buildings more efficient. The energy they consume accounts for approximately 40 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Some experts believe 

that it would be possible to apply affordable solutions to reduce 

CO2 emissions attributable to our Nation’s buildings by more than 

60 to 80 percent by the year 2050, suggesting that achieving those 

efficiencies will have to be a key ingredient in our overall greenhouse gas reduction strategy. 

These may be among the least expensive reductions that we 

achieve. It is estimated that new building efficiencies cost approxiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
2 

mately 3 cents per kilowatt hour to install, while the consumption 

of energy is at best 5 cents per kilowatt and typically somewhat 

higher. These savings are effective immediately with no lead time. 

They are permanent. They are free of environmental negatives, and 

they are not attended by the large infrastructure cost that new 

electricity generation requires. They deliver their full benefit, unlike new electricity generation which, on average, delivers about 30 

percent of the fuel input as usable energy. 

These realities suggest that making buildings more efficient is 

truly the low-hanging fruit in the CO2 reduction effort. Last year 

this committee passed and this committee proposed and the House 

passed section 431 to present to the States a new recommended 

building code to advance the efficiency of energy use in buildings. 

That section was deleted because of Senate action and was therefore not a part of the bill that was signed into law by the President 

in December. The provision would have left to the States the ultimate decision regarding whether to adopt the recommended building code, but financial assistance was offered through that provision to the States that decided to do so. The debate on that provision will emerge again next year, and it will be a topic of our discussion this morning. 

Also emerging next year will be proposals to enhance weatherization assistance and making more stringent the standards for the 

Energy Star Program for buildings. 

Today’s witnesses will comment on these and other approaches 

that we should consider taking to advance building efficiency, and 

by doing so also advance our overall goal of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for 

taking time with us this morning. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And I am now pleased to recognize the ranking 

member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our hearing today 

on energy efficient building standards is yet another on our long 

list of climate change hearings. And before I begin, I would like to 

submit a letter from the Advanced Building Coalition for the 

record. I agree with the Advanced Building Coalition that energy 

conservation measures are important, but they must take into account safety, must be cost effective, and should not promote an 

anti-competitive marketplace. 

Pilkington North America, a member of the coalition, has a facility in my district where they recently added 100 new jobs. As I 

have said many times during these hearings, I support reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, but it must be in a way that protects 

our economy, jobs, and energy security. And if done correctly, increasing the energy efficiency of buildings will in fact reduce energy costs for consumers, help the environment, and have a positive economic impact. And these benefits can be gained without 

necessarily a cap-and-trade program. 

According to recent estimates, buildings consume 40 percent of 

the energy used in the United States. And I don’t think it will be 

3 

any dispute today that by improving the energy efficiency of buildings, we can, in fact, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The question is what should the Federal Government’s role be to 

create the incentives for more efficient buildings? In my district, 

public and private sector entities alike are turning towards architectural designs and technologies that are both environmentally 

sensitive and economically sensible. 

Earlier this month, the new radiology center opened in downtown 

Kalamazoo, emerging as the first health care facility in southwest 

Michigan to seek LEED certification. 

The benefits of green construction have also been recognized by 

educational institutions at the primary, secondary, and university 

levels. For example, public schools in the village of Madawan in my 

district have earned the EPA’s prestigious Energy Star rating, the 

national symbol for protecting the environment through superior 

energy efficiency. And this designation reflects the fact that 

Madawan schools are now using 20 to 30 percent less energy than 

the average public building, all the while continuing to provide a 

very good quality education in a comfortable living environment. 

Additionally the schools have lowered the energy cost by nearly 25 

percent, allowing funding to be reallocated to other valuable school 

resources. 

In addition, Western Michigan University has seen substantial reductions in energy use, saving annually about $250,000 because 

of what they have done on light bulbs as well as different electrical 

designs where they can actually monitor heat and cooling in all of 

the university’s some 54 buildings. 

These energy efficiency buildings in my district would not 

achieve the same energy savings if they were built to the same 

specs as in Texas, Florida, or even in Virginia. Building codes are 

best determined at the local level and should not be determined, 

I don’t think, by the Federal Government. Buildings are designed 

to a specific location, thus this is not an area where uniform national standards will necessarily pay off. Each State and region has 

different needs. Our national policies need to reflect that. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Upton. The gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be 

here today, and thank you for calling this hearing. I would also like 

to thank today’s panelists. The expertise you share will us will be 

useful throughout the Committee’s process in crafting thoughtful 

legislation. 

Improved energy efficiency will be an essential element of any 

climate change solution. Buildings in our country are responsible 

for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector. Heating, 

cooling, and lighting our buildings as well as powering our appliances requires vast amounts of energy. 

But thankfully, we currently possess the technology and knowledge needed to address nearly a quarter of our Nation’s carbon 

4 

emissions. My district of Sacramento, California has been a leader 

in adopting green building practices. 

We have the first ‘‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’’ platinum certified office building in the country and the second most LEED certified square footage of any city. We have a 

growing number of solar and energy efficient homes and a wide variety of efficiency initiatives which are making Sacramento a clean 

and efficient energy laboratory. 

Furthermore, federal programs such as Energy Star and Building 

America are expanding technologies and giving us concrete ways to 

confront climate change. Non-governmental organizations like the 

U.S. Green Building Council are also providing necessary savings 

to consumer choice and market leadership. 

I recently introduced a measure to assist homeowners across the 

country with energy efficient landscaping practices. Even changing 

something as simple as how our buildings get sunlight can make 

a big difference in how much energy they consume. 

I am eager to hear what our panelists can tell us about approaches they are taking and approaches this committee can take 

to improve building efficiency and address climate change beyond 

simply cutting carbon, building green cuts consumer costs, increasing a building’s value and improve the health and well-being of the 

occupants. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this subcommittee to examine and promote energy efficiency or helping our 

constituents to do the same. By saving people money and reducing 

our carbon emissions, energy efficiency is truly a win-win proposition. 

Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for highlighting this important issue, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Burgess, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every year I try to do 

an energy efficiency and conservation summit in my district, and 

earlier this month we did it in Denton, Texas. I try to hold it to 

highlight some of the proactive steps that citizens can take to conserve energy and ultimately save money. It is very difficult for the 

average citizen to have much of an impact on what to do about 

speculation, or what to do about drilling in the Outer Continental 

Shelf. But, they certainly can affect the energy that they use and 

thus affect that end of the supply/demand equation. 

At this year’s event, we were very grateful to have a representative from the Department of Energy, the Renewable Energy Undersecretary at the event. At this year’s event, we had a panel of commercial residential building experts and they discussed a lot of the 

topics that we are going to hear about today. And several expressed 

the importance, or stressed the importance, of having the air conditioning designed for the house. That is, the right size air conditioner for the home. And inspecting ducts and intakes for leaks 

came up several times as being one of the most, probably one of 

the most important things a homeowner can do. And, quite honVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
5 

estly, you get 200 people to show up at 9:00 on a Saturday morning 

early in July in Denton, Texas, that shows the thirst and the hunger for this type of information that exists in the minds of American families. 

Saving energy is not equal to adding additional energy, and until 

we can produce more energy or find adequate alternatives, it is to 

our advantage to make sometimes very simple personal choices to 

conserve energy and save hard-earned dollars. Certainly I try to do 

that in my own life. 

I have a hybrid car. My wife, who is an architect, when we built 

a house a couple of years ago, I said, ‘‘well, I want solar panels and 

windmills and want to live off the grid.’’ And she said, ‘‘well, why 

don’t we do things that are basically a little more mainstream so 

the house will actually have some resale value?’’ 

So doing things like Energy Star appliances, the low E glass, 

foam insulation in the walls, high efficiency air conditioning units, 

the efficient attic system, which in Texas is so important because 

that attic air can get up to about 190 degrees by 9:00 in the morning. A tankless hot water heater, which I would have never considered as being as big an energy saver as it was. 

Our energy bills the year that we moved into that house, which 

was 2 years ago in a very hot summer in Texas, our energy bills 

were about half of what they were the summer before. So it was 

very dramatic to me that with relatively modest changes in building techniques, big benefits can occur. So personal choices are an 

important part of energy efficiency because mandates are restrictive. Mandates are expensive, and mandates, because they limit 

our freedom, are not things that we should encourage in a free society. 

The people in my district are still talking about eventually losing 

the right to purchase inexpensive, mercury-free incandescent light 

bulbs. And, yes, I do have two light bulbs with Chinese mercury 

in my home, and I use them very sparingly. 

I support energy conservation and the technology that regulates 

energy when it is not needed, but I am hesitant to support—what 

works in Texas may not work in Massachusetts and vice versa. So 

federally mandated building standards I am going to approach 

very, very carefully. 

When this subcommittee discussed regional appliance standards, 

we discussed the wide range of consumer preferences and the needs 

around the country. Because we do have a diverse climate full of 

building preferences and choices, a federal building standard would 

be difficult and intrusive to implement, costly to inspect, and would 

add an extra burden to residential and commercial construction in 

an industry that, quite honestly, right now is facing significant 

hardship. 

So I believe the local government in cities in my district are more 

than capable of establishing their own building standards. And 

really that is where I think the true value in establishing standards but making them available at the local level and then letting 

the local standards be enforced and propagated are really likely to 

lead to much more value. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield 

back the balance of my time. 

6 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Burgess. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing. You know probably the hardest thing in the world 

is to try and persuade folks to spend a little bit more money on the 

front end in the expectation you will save a whole lot more money 

at the back end. Hardest thing in the world to do to adopt that 

long-range point of view especially when your short-range practice 

is going up in your cheap energy. 

But the irony is that the folks that are most victimized by this 

short-sighted approach, or doing things the way we have always 

done it, are those who can least afford it. They are the ones who 

have the highest bills over the lifetime use of the buildings they 

occupy. So it is really imperative we think and try and find ways 

of building smart. 

Back home in Georgia, I had a colleague I served with on county 

commission, a guy named Carl Jordan, who was just passionate 

about this sort of stuff, and he would talk about it to the point 

where our eyes would glaze over. But he was trying to change the 

way we were doing things at the local level over a dozen years ago, 

long before it was on the congressional agenda. 

And I just want to thank you all, the insight you all are going 

to contribute to help us figure out how we can do this in a constructive way, one that isn’t overbearing in its approach toward 

this but does help us figure out that oftentimes the smart way of 

doing things is the cheap way of doing things in the long run. So 

thank you all for your participation and, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for your leadership in calling this hearing. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Barrow. We welcome now our panel of witnesses, and we will turn to them for 

their testimony. Mr. David Rodgers is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency with the Department of Energy. Mr. 

Brian McLean is the Director of the Office of Atmospheric Programs for the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Marshall 

Purnell is the President of the American Institute of Architects. 

Mr. Matt Belcher is a representative of the National Association of 

Home Builders and the owner of Belcher Homes in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Thomas Gentry is an Assistant Professor at the School 

of Architecture at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. 

Mr. Richard Weiland is the Chief Executive Officer of the International Code Counsel. Mr. William Fay, Director of the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, and Mr. Brad Heavner is State Director for 

Environment Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland. 

We welcome each of our witnesses and without objection, your 

prepared written statement will be made a part of our record. We 

would welcome your oral presentation and since there are fully 

eight of you, we would ask that your oral presentation be kept to 

approximately 5 minutes. Mr. Rodgers, we will be pleased to begin 

with you. 

7 

STATEMENT OF DAVID RODGERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on how building efficiency programs and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy are addressing a triple threat: energy security, climate 

change, and economic competitiveness. 

Despite today’s logical concerns about the cost of fuel in our vehicles, Americans will be spending virtually their entire week working, eating, study, recreating, or sleeping in a residential or commercial building, which, as you have noted, represents 40 percent 

of our Nation’s primary energy consumption, 72 percent of our electricity, 55 percent of our natural gas, exceeding greenhouse gas 

emissions of any other sector of the U.S. economy. 

We must address building efficiency now and with a sense of urgency because the median lifetime for our buildings is very long. 

A commercial building will last 65 to 80 years. If we do not address 

cost effectiveness and enhance building energy performance now, 

these inefficient buildings will be with us for many years. 

The good news is energy efficiency is the quickest, least costly, 

lowest-risk path to achieving sustained reductions in greenhouse 

gas emissions. And a 2007 report by the McKinsey Global Institute 

identified that energy savings from currently available, existing 

technologies with an internal rate of return of more than 10 percent are sufficient to cut the growth of global energy consumption 

by more than half over the next 15 years. 

The Department is very pleased to put forward a broad portfolio 

of programs, research, development, and demonstrations. Our fiscal 

year 2009 budget request will deliver programs that can reduce 

carbon dioxide emissions by 500 million metric tons cumulatively 

by the year 2020 or two billion or two gigatons carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2030. 

Our investments are designed to deliver and promote reliable, 

market-available policies, practices, and life cycle cost effective 

technologies that will permanently reduce a trajectory of U.S. energy demand growth and carbon footprint of the built environment 

while maintaining strong economic growth. 

Our efforts are focused in several key areas. First, a solid basis 

for energy efficiency improvements in the building sectors, while 

working to develop model building codes that are cost effective, regionally specific, and will be adopted at the State and local level. 

We are working closely with industry representatives on codes 

that are 30 percent more efficient than today’s codes for both residential and commercial applications. 

We also recognize and support builders who are ready to move 

beyond codes. In February of this year, Secretary Bodman launched 

the Builder’s Challenge, a voluntary national energy savings program, partnering with U.S. homebuilders to identify homes that 

can achieve 30 percent more efficiency on a whole house basis. 

Each home that is in the program will proudly display the Energy 

Smart home scale, which I have here on a poster, which is like a 

fuel economy label for your home, that we are encouraging to be 

used and adopted across the country by local governments. 

8 

Our second area is to ensure that consumers and businesses 

have energy efficient choices for appliances and lighting. I am 

proud to say that under the leadership of Secretary Bodman, we 

have met 100 percent of our appliance standards rulemaking targets since we published our schedule more than 2 years ago. Appliance standards already on the books will avoid more than 140 million metric tons of CO2 annually by the year 2030. The bipartisan 

act, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA, passed 

in December, will avoid an additional 70 million metric tons of CO2

annually from appliance standards and lighting alone. 

Furthermore, in addition to codes and standards, we work with 

our partners at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to promote voluntary adoption of the Energy Star Program of superior 

energy efficient products. Just this year, we rolled out Energy Star 

criteria for water heaters, which consume more than 17 percent of 

a home’s energy. In the last 2 years, DOE has updated or promulgated new Energy Star criteria for clothes washers, dishwashers, 

refrigerators, and CFLs. We have published and finalized the first 

ever criteria for solid state lighting based on industry-developed 

test procedures at luminare efficacy performance metric. We believe solid state lighting has the potential to reduce lighting energy 

consumption by 50 percent when fully penetrated into the marketplace. 

Solid state lighting is only a sample of the research and development efforts that we are pursuing across the board leading to net 

zero energy buildings. 

In addition, we have established numerous partnerships with industry under the new EISA requirement for zero net energy commercial buildings initiative located in sections 421 and 422. We are 

pleased to be partnering with Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, McDonald’s, 

Home Depot, and many others to support the rapid deployment of 

energy efficiency in commercial buildings. 

Additionally, we are focused on broad public education and outreach efforts through our innovative partnerships such as those 

with Walt Disney, the Ad Council, and others to promote the adoption of energy efficiency products. Last year, through the efforts of 

many, more than 300 million compact fluorescent lights were sold 

in the United States, breaking a record. 

In addition, we work with local communities and school systems 

to introduce sufficient technologies through our Energy Smart 

Schools Program. And, of course, we work to adopt best practices 

and policies with our utility partners to help utilities profit from 

energy efficiency, demand-side management at least as much as 

they profit from adding new generation capacity. 

In conclusion, we have developed a comprehensive program within the department which we believe can lead to dramatically improved energy efficiency in buildings through low-cost solutions 

while greatly reducing CO2 emissions. This concludes my remarks. 

I will be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodgers follows:] 

INSERT 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodgers. Mr. McLean. 

9 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. MCLEAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. MCLEAN. Good morning, Chairman Boucher and members of 

the subcommittee here today. I am Brian McLean, the director of 

EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs, where EPA’s energy efficiency and climate programs reside. I am pleased to testify today 

on the climate benefits of improved building energy efficiency. 

Energy and air pollution are inextricably linked. The energy we 

use causes the majority of our Nation’s air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Commercial and residential buildings in particular are responsible, as has been said, for about 40 percent of 

the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels used in this country, 

more than the emissions from either the industrial sector or the 

transportation sector. And these emissions are growing. 

Addressing the energy use in these buildings is important to a 

least cost approach to limiting greenhouse gases. Studies show that 

targeted energy efficiency policies and programs could cut in half 

the expected growth in electricity demand over the next 20 years 

at costs that are about half those of building the new energy supply 

we would otherwise need. 

Targeted policies are necessary for new construction of commercial and residential buildings and for the existing building stocks. 

Each of these markets is subject to market and policy barriers such 

as split incentives between builders and buyers, and landlords and 

tenants, lack of information, high transaction costs, and utility regulations that sometimes financially penalize utilities for helping 

their consumers save energy. 

These barriers stop many of the available low-cost improvements 

from occurring. EPA now has more than 15 years of experience addressing the market and policy barriers to energy efficiency in our 

buildings as part of this country’s efforts to limit greenhouse gas 

emissions. Our primary focus is market-based solutions. A leading 

example is the Energy Star Program, which is delivering significant results. As of 2007, EPA’s efforts with Energy Star are helping 

Americans avoid the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those 

of 27 million vehicles while saving $16 billion on energy bills. 

EPA’s efforts complement many other Federal and State policies 

and programs such as building codes, applying standards, research 

and development, energy efficiency in public housing and DOE’s efforts in the Energy Star Program. 

Based on our experience, I would like to outline six priority areas 

where the Federal Government could capture low-cost greenhouse 

gas reductions through increased investment in energy efficiency. 

First, engage the consumer in reducing their own energy use and 

carbon footprint through the Energy Star Program. Education 

linked to reliable energy efficiency solutions for the consumer is 

powerful. The consumer makes the decisions about the household, 

and currently they can save about 30 percent of their energy bills 

or $600 annually on average if they choose Energy Star products 

from the more than 50 product categories where Energy Star options are now available. 

Second, provide Energy Star New Homes as a beyond-code opportunity for builders and update these requirements as feasible. Over 

10 

the past 12 years, the EPA Energy Star New Homes Program has 

grown to encompass more than 5,000 builders. They qualified about 

12 percent of new homes nationally last year. That is Energy Star 

and market penetrations of 20 percent or more, and many areas indicated likely further growth. 

These Energy Star homes are 20 to 30 percent more efficient 

than the standard home built today. This beyond code program is 

an important part of mainstreaming new building practices. 

Third point is to expand partnerships with utilities and other 

State and local energy efficiency program sponsors to increase consumer access to best practice energy efficiency improvement programs for existing homes and commercial buildings as well as new 

construction. These organizations have established track records in 

delivering efficiency programs, and some of them are using new 

whole building approaches to deliver deeper energy savings per 

building. 

The whole building retrofit programs are particularly important 

for existing buildings because they can address the critical barrier 

of lack of qualified contractors who are essential to improving our 

Nation’s homes, particularly those constructed before codes were 

even in place. 

Fourth, we should expand the ability to rate the energy use of 

Nation’s buildings using standardized measurement systems and 

promoting the value of this information. As David mentioned also, 

knowing the equivalent of a mile per gallon rating of a building is 

powerful information. EPA’s building rating system has been used 

to rate the energy use of about 15 percent of commercial square 

footage as of 2007, and this is growing dramatically each year. This 

system is now being integrated into a variety of building services 

and policies, and its expansion will be important to building efficiency efforts. 

Fifth point I wanted to make is to work with State policymakers 

on effective State policies with delivering energy efficiency across 

the building sector as we have tried to do through the National Action Plan on Energy Efficiency and our State partnerships and engage local governments in the role they can play with their facilities and with their communities. State and local policies are some 

of the most pivotal ones in the country in determining the level of 

investment in energy efficiency and the effectiveness of that investment. Effective approaches need to then be documented and 

shared. 

And the sixth and final point is to focus on improving practices 

for evaluation, measurement, and verification of energy efficiency 

programs to improve the ability of energy efficiency to compete 

with energy supply options and deliver greenhouse gas reductions. 

In conclusion, there is an important federal role in developing 

standard approaches but also in assisting key players and capturing the energy efficiency potential in our Nation’s buildings and 

helping meet greenhouse gas emission reduction roles. Many of 

these efforts will likely become more important should energy 

prices rise in response to climate legislation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57974.014
12 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57974.015
13 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57974.016
14 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57974.017
15 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57974.018
16 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57974.019
17 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57974.020
18 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57974.021
19 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57974.022
20 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57974.023
21 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57974.024
22 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57974.025
23 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57974.026
24 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57974.027
25 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57974.028
26 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57974.029
27 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57974.030
28 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57974.031
29 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57974.032
30 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57974.033
31 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. McLean. Mr. Purnell. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL E. PURNELL, FAIA, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS 

Mr. PURNELL. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Upton, and 

members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am Marshall E. 

Purnell, FAIA, president of the American Institute of Architects, 

and I am the design principal with Devrouax and Purnell Architects and Planners PC here in Washington and originally from 

western Michigan. 

On behalf of AIA’s 84,000 members, I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to appear today to share our thoughts on the 

potential for energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions that can be achieved through greater efficiency in our 

Nation’s buildings. 

According to the Department of Energy, as has been stated, 

buildings and their construction are responsible for nearly half of 

all the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the U.S. every year. 

DOE’s 2007 Building Energy Data Book reveals that the building 

sector accounts for 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 

more than both the transportation and industry sectors, and that 

buildings are responsible for 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. 

More importantly, building in the United States alone account 

for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. In fact, U.S. 

buildings account for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions 

as from all sectors of the economies of Japan, France, and the 

United Kingdom combined. So when Congress talks about greenhouse gas reduction, buildings must be a part of the discussion. 

As this committee has explored this issue through white papers 

and hearings, one theme has remained constant: any legislation addressing climate change must result in significant greenhouse gas 

reductions with minimum economic disruption. Improving the energy efficiency in our Nation’s buildings offers the greatest potential for reducing carbon emissions at the lowest cost. 

A December 2007 report by McKinsey and Company found that 

energy efficiency improvements in residential and commercial 

buildings, including the appliances inside, make up the largest 

cluster of negative cost debatement opportunities, meaning building efficiency improvements generate positive economic returns 

through reduced energy costs. The McKinsey report notes that if 

most cost-effective building energy efficiency investment were encouraged through policy changes, it is realistic to predict a 710- 

megaton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. 

As an architect, I work every day to design spaces that maximize 

energy efficiency, and I can personally report that architects across 

the country are creating buildings that achieve energy savings that 

in many cases are far beyond what current building codes require. 

Architects and engineers achieve energy efficiency through lighting retrofits, improve heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, building envelopes, and building control systems. Architects 

utilize design practices that integrate built and natural systems 

that enhance both the design quality and environmental performance of buildings. 

32 

We are making great strides in reducing the carbon footprint of 

the built environment, but there is much more we can do. This is 

a national priority, and it demands a national response. Climate 

change legislation affords a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make 

major gains in building efficiency. 

What can Congress do? First, it can encourage the development 

of stronger energy building codes. We support a proposal that was 

in the House version of last year’s energy bill that would have set 

efficiency targets for residential and commercial codes and would 

have directed DOE to propose amendments to those codes to reach 

such targets if they fail to do so. 

Some have claimed that this would, in essence, establish a national building code. What it would do is empower States and local 

governments to implement the codes that achieve greater energy 

efficiency. 

Second, Congress can provide incentives and technical support to 

States, localities, utilities, building owners, and design community 

to help foster the design, construction, and renovation of energy efficient buildings. Such support would go a long way in helping 

those who deal with buildings every day and make a measurable 

difference in energy consumption. 

Climate change legislation presents an unprecedented opportunity to make significant and lasting reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions from the built environment. This is no easy task, and 

some will worry about the cost of these actions. But the cost of inaction is even greater. The world we design today is the one our 

children and grandchildren will inhabit tomorrow. 

If we want that world to be a healthy, sustainable, and prosperous place, then we owe it to the future generations to take these 

steps today. We look forward to working with you to ensure that 

any climate change legislation to emerge from this subcommittee 

encourages greater energy efficiency in our Nation’s buildings. 

I thank you and welcome any questions from the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Purnell follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57974.034
34 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57974.035
35 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57974.036
36 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57974.037
37 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57974.038
38 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57974.039
39 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57974.040
40 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57974.041
41 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57974.042
42 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57974.043
43 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57974.044
44 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57974.045
45 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57974.046
46 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57974.047
47 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Purnell. Mr. Boucher. 

STATEMENT OF MATT BELCHER, OWNER, BELCHER HOMES 

LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME 

BUILDERS 

Mr. BELCHER. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Boucher, 

Ranking Member Upton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Matt Belcher, and I am a homebuilder from 

St. Louis. I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the 230,000 

members of the National Association of Home Builders. 

Today’s energy and climate crisis truly affects everyone including 

builders like me. The housing industry continues to work on solutions to address energy conservation and improve sustainability in 

our Nation’s residential dwellings. As a builder of green homes, I 

have firsthand knowledge of what it takes to make a home energy 

and resource efficient. I also understand the dynamic interaction of 

the many important aspects of housing as it relates to green building: construction, technology, efficiency, and affordability. 

Finally, I once served as a local building code official and can appreciate the unique nuances of both using and enforcing building 

codes. Unfortunately much of today’s rhetoric about what can be 

accomplished with stricter building codes is terribly distorted. The 

assertion is often made that requiring all new homes, which are already dramatically more efficient than older housing, to comply 

with significant above code benchmarks saves massive amounts of 

energy and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Regrettably, this is not the case as newer homes use only a small 

fraction, approximately two and a half percent, of total energy anyway, meaning the bulk of energy loss and thus the major opportunity for energy savings lies in the 95 million existing homes built 

before 1991 that use 17 percent of the Nation’s energy. 

Because our Nation is inherently variable in climate, State, and 

local governments need to be able to adopt wide ranging building 

code standards to address their specific geographic needs. 

It is impossible and frankly inadvisable to develop one single 

building code or benchmark to apply to all areas of the country. 

Building codes and energy efficiency are naturally local. One way 

to support adoption and effective implementation of stronger local 

energy building codes is through more resources to help localities 

adopt and enforce meaningful and regionally specific codes and 

practices. 

For builders like me that have been leading the way in progressive sustainability, now known as green building, energy efficient 

construction is the norm. In fact, with skyrocketing energy prices 

and despite the worst housing downturn since World War II, the 

demand is growing for more efficient homes. The exponential 

growth in green building is dramatically and rapidly changing residential construction as we know it. Consumers and builders are 

collectively changing the residential marketplace. However, if Congress desires a faster pace for such change, then it must make 

more meaningful commitments to incentives for new energy efficient homes and homeowner efficiency upgrades. 

Congress has yet to pass extensions of important efficiency incentives such as the section 45L and section 25C tax credits to encourVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
48 

age efficiency in new and existing homes. Real energy savings can 

be achieved through meaningful incentives for energy efficiency, 

particularly for existing homes, education on proper home and 

maintenance, and the value of conservation, and even incentives to 

reward conservation. 

Stricter building codes for new homes is a drop in the bucket 

compared to the energy that can be saved by teaching homeowners 

not to waste the over 48 percent of their energy on laundry, cooking, and electronics used in the home. Preserving housing affordability for the next generation of green and energy efficient homes 

is crucial, especially for the individuals with the most price sensitivity, that is moderate income, first-time homebuyers. 

These homebuyers, who are among some of my customers, continue to benefit the most from the savings and healthier living environment that can be achieved through increased energy efficiency 

found in new homes and through improvements to existing homes. 

Mandating market outcomes through stricter building codes 

alone will not achieve meaningful energy savings and preserve 

housing affordability. Homebuilders have the responsibility to drive 

technology and innovation into the market in a manner that is affordable for consumers so that demands for greater efficiency can 

continue to increase. 

Congress can help by crafting meaningful incentives for existing 

homeowners, offering incentives for builders that truly push the envelope for energy efficiency and providing resources to local building code officials to enforce existing codes. 

I thank you all for the opportunity to testify today and, of course, 

would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Belcher follows:] 

49 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57974.048
50 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57974.049
51 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57974.050
52 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57974.051
53 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57974.052
54 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57974.053
55 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57974.054
56 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57974.055
57 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57974.056
58 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57974.057
59 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57974.058
60 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57974.059
61 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57974.060
62 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57974.061
63 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57974.062
64 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57974.063
65 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57974.064
66 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57974.065
67 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57974.066
68 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57974.067
69 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57974.068
70 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57974.069
71 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Belcher. Mr. Gentry. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. GENTRY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE 

Mr. GENTRY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for inviting me to speak. Today I will focus on the potential of 

reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for residential 

buildings by providing brief answers to six of the questions that 

were in your invitation. 

My background in this area is I am a recent professor in architecture, a licensed architect, did that for a while. Still continue to 

do that, and for 20 or more years I was a general contractor of light 

commercial and residential construction. I built my first solar 

home, energy efficient home, in the 1970s and have been doing so 

ever since. It is something I am very passionate about and have 

spent a lot of time investigating. 

Starting with your first question, what reductions in energy use 

and greenhouse gas emissions are possible from state-of-the-art 

building designs that are cost-effective and do not diminish other 

attributes and uses? This is actually a pretty straightforward question in that there are actually quite a few state-of-the-art and also 

tried-and-true methods that currently exist that we can be using 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

One example is advanced wall framing, which is a method of 

framing that reduces the amount of wood in the wall, exterior wall, 

and thereby reduces the amount of thermal bridging, which results 

in unwanted heat losses and heat gains. 

Second question was what are the factors that have led to new 

residential construction falling far short of the potential to reduce 

energy use and greenhouse gas emissions? In a nutshell, most of 

the housing in this country is built as a product for market. That 

means short-term economic concerns tend to override long-term 

benefits. Developers and builders produce what the market demands. Potential owners focus more on size and finishes than they 

do on heating and cooling costs and environmental impact. And 

mortgage lenders only consider the initial price in qualifying buyers. The way out of this energy inefficiency and environmentally 

non-sustainable trap is for the mortgage lenders to take the lead 

in looking at the triple bottom line when qualifying buyers. 

TBL, as it is called, looks at the financial, environmental, and social cost of values for each transaction. The approach has been 

adopted by several major corporations and a few financial institutions. 

I did a project in Chicago with a university I used to be affiliated 

with there. It was a student-designed and -built project, and the 

bank we worked with was very proactive in TBL financing. It was 

the reason why that project was successful. 

What can the Federal Government do to address those factors? 

The Federal Government has tried to address these factors in 1979 

when HUD implemented the Energy Efficient Mortgage Program, 

which increases the amount buyers can borrow. Unfortunately, the 

perception is the loans are more complex to obtain than convenVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
72 

tional loans. Therefore less than 2 percent of the loans currently 

being made by a major federal lender are EEM loans. 

Based on the limited success of this program and the regional 

issues which I will discuss shortly, the Federal Government should 

take a supportive role in helping States and municipal governments implement regional codes and guidelines for energy efficiency. To date, one of the most valuable things the Federal Government has done has been to empower States’ municipal governments with information from research. This information is invaluable in formulating codes and standards. 

Question four: what are my views on efforts to upgrade and provide enhanced implementation of energy efficient building codes? 

Success in the implementation of energy building codes has been 

limited to a few States and municipalities. In 1978, California 

adopted title 24, part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards, for residential and noncommercial buildings. Minnesota has had an energy code since 1976. More recently, 

the city of Chicago adopted the Chicago Energy Conservation Code. 

These three codes are good examples of how regional codes can 

yield housing that is more energy efficient than what is being built 

throughout most of the country. 

Question five: what are market and non-market barriers that 

have resulted in much new home construction falling well below 

cost-effective levels of energy efficiency? 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development lists fragmentation, risk, education, cultural values as the four barriers to 

innovation in housing. Looking closer at fragmentation barriers, research shows fragmentation occurs vertically, horizontally, and geographically with geographical fragmentations being due to municipal regulations, industry competition, and the predominance of 

small builders. What is missing from this list is regional practices. 

As a laborer, carpenter, and general contractor, I have built housing throughout much of the United States, and experience has 

shown me how regional practices vary due to differences in climate, 

available materials, and local skills. 

Risk and education are two more barriers I have watched builders struggle with. The National Research Council summed it up 

nicely: ‘‘Although many effective energy efficient materials and 

products do not have higher first costs, builders resist implementing them because additional time is needed to train workers 

to install them, and until the builder gains experience with these 

energy efficient materials and products, they are perceived as 

risky.’’ 

A factor that is amplifying the severity of these barriers is the 

increasing practice of piecework. Builders routinely pay short-term 

labor by the piece, rather than by the hour, to perform specific 

tasks. The practice has yielded a labor force of workers that floats 

from builder to builder, and within the labor force, each worker 

typically possesses a very limited set of skills. With workers no 

longer employed by one builder for a significant period of time to 

do a wide range of tasks, there is little incentive for the builder to 

educate the labor force. 

73 

Question six: how should the market and non-market barriers to 

inclusiveness of cost effective energy efficiency in new buildings be 

overcome? 

Organizing the barriers into two groups, those that are unique 

to each region, such as regional building practices, and those that 

are universal throughout the United States, such as risk associated 

with the adoption of new technology, provides some insight into 

how the energy code should be used to overcome these barriers. 

With the housing industry resistant to change, it stands to reason 

the less change an energy code requires, the more likely it is to be 

implemented. It also stands to reason more changes will be required when two or more regions with dissimilar forms of fragmentation are combined into one region as a common energy code 

would do. 

This argues for implementation of energy codes on a regional 

basis, be it State-by-State or municipality-by-municipality. Thank 

you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gentry follows:] 

74 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57974.070
75 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57974.071
76 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57974.072
77 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57974.073
78 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57974.074
79 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57974.075
80 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57974.076
81 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57974.077
82 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Gentry. Mr. Weiland. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. WEILAND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 

Mr. WEILAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Matsui. My name is 

Rick Weiland. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the International 

Code Council. I am delighted to be here to discuss the benefits of 

increasing energy efficiency in the built environment. 

I address you on behalf of tens of thousands of building safety 

professionals. We call them first preventers, as they are increasingly being known these days. Our members have the crucial role 

of developing and enforcing the codes that protect people, property, 

and health and limit risks to first responders when accidents do 

occur. 

We are in the unique position of being the organization that provides the forum for the development of building codes in the United 

States, codes that are used by nearly every State and local jurisdiction that has adopted a mandatory building code. While we cannot 

control the outcome of the open and democratic process for code development that we refer to as the governmental consensus process, 

we do try to lead by example. 

We also educate our membership of building industry professionals on the latest technology, materials, and processes available 

to make buildings better, safer, and more energy efficient. We offer 

a residential energy inspector certification, and we are developing 

currently a certification for inspector of green building technologies. 

The Code Council is also the forum for the development of the 

International Energy Conservation Code, or Energy Code, and has 

been ever since the Council and its legacy organizations worked 

with the Department of Energy on the first energy efficiency construction code some 30 years ago. 

We understand, as you certainly do, that in a democratic process 

like our consensus process for developing codes, not everyone will 

be completely satisfied with the result. Some will say the code is 

moving too fast. Others will say not fast enough. 

The dedicated code professionals who devote their time to participating in the code development process take seriously their commitment to building and fire safety. In that context, however, they 

want to make sure that energy efficiency amendments don’t conflict 

with those goals and are cost-effective to both users and those in 

the construction industry. When the codes meet those criteria, they 

are more likely to get adopted and enforced locally all across the 

Nation. 

Our process requires that each of our codes is revised and updated regularly and reissued every 3 years. Each of our 13 model 

codes including the Energy Code, is developed through our open 

process, and each is offered equally for adoption to any jurisdiction 

that wishes to adopt it with or without modifications. 

As the Committee suggests in its questions, residential energy efficiency could be higher, and the Code Council is committed to help 

lead the way in making that happen. Two examples I would like 

to highlight. First, the Code Council’s development of the National 

Green Building Standard in partnership with the National AssociaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
83 

tion of Home Builders expected to be first true green standard developed for residential construction through the ANSI process. 

And the second, the Code Council’s promotion of H.R. 4461, 

which I spoke to the chairman about before the hearing, which will 

provide grants to building and fire code administration and for 

compliance capabilities. This legislation will provide matching challenge grants to help local governments develop stronger code compliance for the long term. And without strong compliance, even the 

most positive code provisions have limited value. 

We are pleased that the full House approved H.R. 4461 just last 

week. This bill was introduced by Congressman Dennis Moore of 

Kansas and had several cosponsors, including Congresswoman 

Matsui. But it is one area really where we feel the federal role is 

absolutely appropriate and critical to overall effectiveness. You can 

mandate whatever you want in terms of building energy efficiency 

or green buildings, but if you don’t have people on the local—in 

government at the ground level making sure that those codes are 

being complied with, you are creating a false sense that you are 

doing something positive and moving forward. 

The International Code Council has always welcomed federal 

agency involvement and participation in the development and use 

of our codes, including the Energy Code. In that process, several 

code changes to increase building energy efficiency are now pending and will be voted on later this year. 

The respected research and statistical information provided by 

DOE and other agencies in support of such proposals is very helpful. And the Department of Energy and other federal agencies 

should be encouraged to continue their involvement and frankly expand their participation. 

Beyond code development, we are always ready to work with 

other federal agencies. For example, right now we are coordinating 

our Smart Codes effort to automate code checking including energy 

code through the Building Information Modeling system. This new 

technology will help agencies to better and more efficiently meet 

their own energy and environmental mandates from Congress and 

the President. As with other technologies where the government 

leads by example, this technology will be very useful in the private 

sector as well. 

Beyond changes to the codes and these partnering activities, we 

would also respectfully suggest the need, as was mentioned earlier, 

for incentives for existing home and building owners such as the 

tax incentives contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Such 

policies encourage increased energy efficiency in existing buildings, 

which are generally not affected by changes in the building code 

unless extensive remodeling or renovation takes place. 

We look forward to working with Congress, with all of you, with 

our colleagues in the construction and energy conservation communities and other interested parties to increase the energy efficiency 

of the built environment, just as we have worked over the years to 

increase building safety and fire prevention over the years. 

With that summary, I would like to thank the committee and the 

chairman for this opportunity to contribute to this ongoing national 

dialogue on energy efficiency in the built environment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiland follows:] 

84 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. WEILAND

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Richard Weiland, Chief Executive Officer of the International Code 

Council. I am delighted to be here to discuss the benefits of increasing energy efficiency in the built environment, speaking on behalf of the tens of thousands of code 

safety officials, ‘‘First preventers,’’ as they are increasingly known, who have the 

crucial role of implementing the codes that protect people, property and health and 

reduce risks to First Responders when accidents occur. 

The Code Council was formed in 1994 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model construction 

codes. The founders of the ICC were the Building Officials and Code Administrators 

International, Inc. (BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 

and Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI). Since the early 

1900s, these nonprofit organizations developed three separate sets of model codes 

used throughout the United States. Although such regional code development was 

effective at the time, a global marketplace and technological advances in construction made a single set of codes a practical necessity. The Nation’s three model code 

groups responded to this need by creating the International Code Council and by 

developing codes without regional limitations—the International Codes. 

Today our International Codes have been adopted at the state or local level in all 

50 states and the District of Columbia. Numerous federal agencies, including the 

General Services Administration, the Department of Defense and the Architect of 

the Capitol have implemented the I-Codes, as have Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. The Code Council’s 46,000 members and 300 chapters include state, county 

and municipal code enforcement and fire officials, architects, engineers, builders, 

contractors, elected officials, manufacturers and others in the construction industry. 

Recognizing that buildings are responsible for 40 percent of annual energy consumption and 25 percent of landfill deposits in the United States and that energy 

efficiency is central to environmental security and health safety, the Code Council 

embraces its national and international leadership responsibility in helping communities everywhere become better stewards of the safety of our people and the health 

of our planet. The stronger and more sustainable homes and buildings are, the safer 

and more affordable to maintain they become and the less impact they have on the 

world’s limited resources. Energy efficient buildings save money by greatly reducing 

operating and maintenance costs. Helping communities build safe, sustainable and 

green is a core element of ICC’s mission for the 21st century. 

The Code Council is the proper forum for the development of an energy efficiency 

code for buildings. Long before the use of the term ‘‘green’’ came into vogue, in the 

mid 70s, ICC’s legacy organizations developed with the Department of Energy the 

first energy efficiency construction code—a model code still used today as the basis 

for state and local energy codes. Our widely adopted family of codes set the minimum performance standards for energy efficiency, demonstrating the significant 

benefits that can accrue through compliance with codes and standards that are consistent and coordinated to achieve the maximum benefit for the lowest cost.. The 

model codes also provide the platform from which state and local governments can 

move to even higher standards. 

Each of the 13 model codes developed by the Code Council is written for direct 

adoption by government authorities as legally enforceable requirements. As important as our codes are, it is the professional commitment and capabilities of design 

and build professionals and compliance officials that ensures that code requirements 

are actually met. The professional certification and training programs we provide 

prepare and qualify building and fire safety professionals across the country. These 

certification and training programs are based on a thorough understanding of these 

codes as mandatory engineering and architectural requirements for design professionals, and as readily measurable requirements for inspectors. 

The Subcommittee is specifically interested in the question of improved energy efficiency for buildings as it relates to our model codes. Before I address that issue, 

I would like to take a moment and explain how the code development process works. 

Our model codes are regularly updated and amended through an open and thorough 

democratic process in which any individual or group can propose a change. ICC committees, comprised of a balance of interests, hear all code change proposals. These 

members are the same people who work every day as design, construction and compliance professionals, saving lives, protecting property and reducing recovery costs. 

Final decisions are made by our voting members, who have no vested interests beyond public safety. 

Through this Governmental Consensus Process we reach a grassroots national position on how responsibly to address Americas needs, priorities and expectations for 

85 

the built environment. It is undoubtedly true that in a democratic process like ours 

not every jurisdiction or industry sector will be completely satisfied with the outcome. Inevitably some will say we are moving too fast, and others that we are not 

moving fast enough. Because the decisions are consensus driven and arrived at 

democratically, the result does not represent an extreme, but rather a prudent and 

practical result based on technological feasibility, economic purpose, and public benefit. 

The Subcommittee asked whether model building codes give the same priority to 

energy efficiency as to fire protection and other safety elements. The fundamental 

mandate of model codes is to protect the health, safety and general welfare of building occupants, both in regular building usage and in emergency situations. The 

Code Council publishes 13 codes, relating to different aspects of construction and 

building use- each is developed in the same fashion and offered for adoption, but 

individual jurisdictions are free to choose which of these codes to adopt and enforce. 

In that respect, the Energy Efficiency Code is treated just like every other code we 

publish. Within the building codes, increasing energy efficiency must remain consistent with our responsibility to provide for structural safety, fire prevention, water 

use, sanitation, disaster resilience, indoor air quality, emergency egress, and the 

like. The minimum requirements of the codes are based on the voting action of our 

membership and reflect broad, expert consensus regarding the very least that can 

and should be done in achieving energy efficiency in tandem with other building requirements. 

Yet in the development of our Nation’s model building codes, there is a long and 

proud history of public safety professionals using the code development process as 

a forum for addressing broad and growing social expectations in building requirements. In this way advances in energy efficiency can most directly and effectively 

be translated into widely understood, adopted, and enforced policies and practices. 

Clearly, expectations for more stringent requirements in the ICC energy code for 

new buildings are increasing. Interest in the ICC Energy Conservation Code has 

grown in each code development cycle since it was first produced. During the 2007 

092008 cycle, a record 150 code change proposals were submitted related to the energy code. One hundred of those proposals will be considered for inclusion in the 

2009 I-Codes during the Final Action Hearings in Minneapolis this September. Of 

those 100 proposed changes, I will highlight two that would affect energy efficiency 

in buildings. 

Both proposals are essentially the same, but one (EC-14) would mandate the reduction of energy use in buildings by 30 percent, while the other (EC-154) would 

make the reduction optional. This so-called ‘‘30 percent solution’’ has been proposed 

by the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition and would add new efficiency measures for 

lighting, insulation, ventilation and other building components that contribute to energy use. The proposals are in direct response to DOE’s Energy Efficiency Campaign, which calls for the evaluation and strengthening of residential and commercial building codes. 

As the Subcommittee suggests in its questions, residential energy efficiency could 

be higher, and the Code Council is committed to providing a forum for that outcome. 

It is our view that the most significant barrier to achieving compliance with a significant number of state and local energy efficiency requirements based on the ICC 

Energy Efficiency Code is a lack of financial support for code offices and code officials. The quality and effectiveness of codes are ultimately dependent on having professionals in the field in every local community who have the tools and training to 

ensure compliance. 

For more than 2 years now the Code Council has been working with Congress to 

establish a competitively available grant program dedicated exclusively to the purpose of funding improvements in local and state code enforcement capacity. We are 

of course incredibly pleased with the House passage last week of H.R. 4461, the 

Community Building Code Administration Grant Act of 2007, sponsored by your colleague from Kansas, Representative Dennis Moore. With the support of over 100 nationally endorsing organizations, including some of my fellow panelists, we are actively working to encourage Senate action on S. 2458, the companion to the House 

bill. 

The Code Council, in partnership with the National Association of Home Builders, 

has also just completed initial development of the National Green Building Standard, which is expected to be the first ANSI-accredited standard for green residential 

construction. This new standard will make it easier for builders to adapt to green 

building methods, techniques and materials, and it will give jurisdictions a means 

to scale up and provide requirements for even higher energy efficiency. 

The green building standard is just one way in which we are seeking to lessen 

the environmental impact of the built environment. The Code Council already offers 

86 

a Residential Energy Inspector Certification, and is developing a new certification 

for code officials to demonstrate an inspector’s ability to assess compliance with 

green building programs. The Inspector of Green Building Technologies will help 

‘‘First Preventers’’ provide assurances that green building projects are both safe and 

meet current energy codes and standards. ICC also supports sustainable building 

through a working agreement with the U.S. Green Building Council to develop 

green educational materials. 

The Committee also asked whether code requirements are readily enforceable by 

local code inspectors. This was one of the issues raised years ago when the first energy codes were developed. Since then and through our process many enhancements 

have been made to the code that include clear labeling of products, simplicity of requirement presentation, availability of software, and minimization of calculation. 

Code enforcers can also request an interpretation, or review support materials available, through the Code Council. 

The Committee asked why the energy requirements in the codes are not higher. 

The short answer is that the process determines the requirements. Considering 

where the requirements started in 1977 they have become significantly higher and 

should continue to do so commensurate with available research and analytical documentation. 

While the focus on global warming is important, the consensus process allows for 

other issues to be taken into account. When dealing with buildings that are expected 

to last for 50 or 100 years, factors such as safety, longevity, life-cycle cost and potential unintended problems must also be considered. Our process ensures that those 

who must implement design and product changes at the level of building construction and renovation are actually aware of those new technologies, and that building 

officials can assure installation in compliance with the code. 

We welcome and encourage heightened Federal involvement and participation in 

the development and dissemination of our codes, including revisions to the International Energy Conservation Code, where support for higher efficiency standards 

would be helpful, and the National Green Building Standard. We also welcome the 

participation of our colleagues and friends at the witness table, some of whom are 

already extensively involved. 

Federal agencies and officials have long played an important role in the code development process. Like Code Council members and the public at large, federal 

agencies can offer code changes, present evidence, and act in advocacy for the adoption, amendment or rejection of proposals. 

The Department of Energy, represented here on the panel, is among the most active. The history of DOE’s involvement with model codes goes back more than 30 

years, to the development, adoption and implementation of the first nationally recognized stand-alone model energy code. Other agencies adopting and utilizing model 

codes include the Department of Housing and Urban Development, especially for 

elements addressing accessibility and the Fair Housing Act; the General Services 

Administration; the Department of Defense; and the Architect of the Capitol. 

Because we are addressing national imperatives to increase energy efficiency and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency 

must be supported and funded to actively participate in the ICC model code development process at a level on par with our national priority to achieve these results. 

True to the nature of our democratic process, acceptance of code change proposals 

is based on the development and presentation of supporting research and actively 

providing background and education to other participants. It is through grassroots 

efforts that code advancements are accepted, then made local policy by jurisdictional 

adoption, and then put into force by design, building and compliance professionals 

across the country. 

For maximum effectiveness, building energy code development and advocacy must 

remain principally focused on the ICC model code process. The Federal/State/local 

partnership in development and enforcement of policies to achieve building energy 

code requirements must continue to respect the jurisdictional independence of local 

and state authorities. 

We also need to address the fact that the majority of our present and near-future 

energy consumption is by buildings that exist already. Unless a building is remodeled or renovated, it will not be affected by building code requirements for new construction. Steadily and responsibly advancing requirements for new building is part 

of the equation, but we also need to continue to increase our investment, as a nation, in incentive policies that will successfully encourage existing property owners, 

both commercial and residential, to voluntarily retrofit older buildings with cost-effective improvements that will get their properties to perform as close as possible 

to—or even outperform—new building requirements. 

87 

Market barriers to greater energy efficiency are being identified through the work 

of organizations that prepare product evaluation reports to facilitate the acceptance 

of new technology. These reports are used by code compliance officials to recognize 

and accept the installation of new technologies that can support energy and environmental goals. Our affiliate, ICC Evaluation Service, is one such national organization. 

ICC’s efforts to facilitate the application and use of Building Information Model 

(BIM) technology will help address the productivity issues facing the building industry, and cost savings can be applied toward making buildings more energy efficient. 

A BIM prepared from a building design can be quickly analyzed for energy code 

compliance. This is particularly useful since a building designed to be compliant in 

one geographic region may need different features for compliance in another. BIM 

technology can also reduce the energy consumed in constructing a building through 

more efficient management and use of time and materials. 

In closing, the Code Council and its members are proud of their support of the 

environment through the development of responsible and innovative codes and 

standards for the regulation of building construction. I applaud the work of your 

Subcommittee and encourage continued collaboration between the public and private sectors to achieve the important goal of increased energy efficiency in our nation’s buildings. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I will gladly answer any questions. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weiland. Mr. Fay. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. FAY, DIRECTOR, ENERGY 

EFFICIENT CODES COALITION 

Mr. FAY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Upton, members of the committee, 

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to tell you about 

a very exciting effort to boost energy efficient codes for new home 

construction by 30 percent. 

Polls show that Americans want and are willing to pay more for 

energy efficient homes, just as they want fire and safety protection. 

But because they aren’t experts in those vital areas and because 

the new homes that they buy are often already completed, we have 

to have model codes to guide our energy, fire, and safety requirements. Unfortunately, our energy model code, the IECC, is lagging 

behind our Nation’s desperate need for energy efficiency. In fact, 

one of the last great frontiers of wasted energy in the United 

States is in our homes. 

That is why our organization united—to try to take a new approach to energy codes. It is rare to see a marriage as vast as our 

Energy Efficient Codes Coalition. All forms of utilities. We have investor-owned. We have co-ops and municipalities as members. We 

have environmental groups. We have all five regional energy alliances from the Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest. We have businesses. We have government. NASEO, which 

represents state energy officials, is a member of our effort. Low-income homeowner and consumer advocates, and I am just naming 

a few of them. I have attached the list to the end of my testimony. 

Our goal is very simple. We want to boost the 2009 IECC by 30 

percent over the current model code, and we have authored the 

only proposal before the IECC that will actually accomplish that 

goal. ‘‘The 30% Solution’’ is what we call it, which will come up for 

vote by the ICC on or soon after the 20th of September in Minneapolis, is filled with low-hanging fruit for energy efficiency. Its 

elements—and they are extensive. They cover nearly every part of 

home construction. They cover space heating and cooling. They 

88 

cover duct testing. They cover the thermal envelope, air sealing, 

hot water heating, and lighting. 

All of its elements are being built in energy efficient homes 

around the country as we speak. This is not complicated. We are 

not driving technology. Everything we are putting in this proposal 

is on-the-shelf, existing technology that is being done around the 

United States. 

Homeowners are going to reap the rewards of our 30% Solution 

in terms of positive cash flow from the stabilized utility bills on the 

day that they move in. The 30% Solution was supported in testimony by the U.S. Department of Energy at the hearings in February. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has not only passed a resolution unanimously in support of The 30% Solution, but it has also 

urged its members, mayors around the United States to send delegates to the International Code Council to make sure that they are 

voting for The 30% Solution. 

Our proposal does not tell people to use less energy. It simply reduces the wasted energy of their homes, their new homes. Now, 

you would think that this affordable, achievable proposal shouldn’t 

be a very heavy lift, but the NAHB opposed each—well, all but one 

of its elements. And they opposed the comprehensive package. In 

fact, the only element they did support was one, which you have 

mandated, which has to do with CFLs. 

We need national leadership, and we hope that that leadership 

comes from the ICC. We strongly support the ICC process and are 

working within that process, but our national energy crisis is a 

matter of national energy policy. And it is also a matter of national 

environmental and climate policy. And that means that the ICC’s 

action must be a subject for Congress, for the administration, for 

governors, for mayors, and policymakers. 

We are thrilled to see the DOE actively take a role in this process. We are thrilled to see the mayors and governors and others do 

the same. Many of you are looking at legislation that shares the 

goal of ICC leadership. It says we are looking to the ICC to lead, 

but at the same time sets efficiency targets for model codes to 

achieve. 

In addition, Congress has already made ASHRAE a mandatory 

requirement. You probably should think about doing the same 

thing with our national model energy code, the IECC. So we applaud your efforts, and we support Congress’s active involvement 

in boosting the IECC’s energy efficiency. 

I look forward to answering questions. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Upton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fay follows:] 

89 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57974.078
90 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57974.079
91 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57974.080
92 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57974.081
93 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57974.082
94 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57974.083
95 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57974.084
96 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57974.085
97 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57974.086
98 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57974.087
99 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57974.088
100 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57974.089
101 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57974.090
102 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57974.091
103 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57974.092
104 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Fay. Mr. Heavner. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD HEAVNER, STATE DIRECTOR, 

ENVIRONMENT MARYLAND 

Mr. HEAVNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your 

attention on this very important matter. My name is Brad 

Heavner. I am the State Director of Environment Maryland, a 

State partner of Environment America. Environment America is 

the new home of U.S. PIRG’s environmental work. We are a federation of State-based citizen-funded environmental advocacy organizations. 

We are way past due in dealing with global warming, and we 

need to get to work immediately. My father was born in 1936. The 

family lived in a small brick house in Detroit with an oil furnace. 

The carbon dioxide emissions from that furnace in that year are 

still in the atmosphere today. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for at 

least 100 years. The emissions associated with cooling this building 

today will be a factor in the stability of the climate when my 

grandchildren are older than I am today. We need to get to work. 

We have come a long way in building efficiency since my father 

was born, but our buildings still pollute far too much. Despite advances in technology, the total amount of energy used by American 

buildings has increased 25 percent since 1990. But our greatest crisis is also our greatest opportunity. As peak oil forces changes in 

our economy, an economy that is very heavily dependent on cheap 

fuel, what will be the next growth industry? I believe it is this: energy efficiency and clean energy. And preventing wasted energy in 

buildings is probably the greatest opportunity of all clean energy 

opportunities. 

A report issued this past February by the McKinsey Global Institute found that by 2020, we could reduce annual energy consumption nationwide by 10 percent through cost effective building efficiency measures. These changes would reduce our annual global 

warming emissions by 962 million metric tons. That is about 14 

percent of current total U.S. emissions. 

These reductions would also eliminate the need to build dozens 

of new power plants and thereby save us money. Building coal 

plants to produce the same amount of energy would cost us three 

times as much. Building nuclear plants would cost five times as 

much. So the big question is if there is all this potential for energy 

savings and it is cost effective, why isn’t it more standard already? 

I don’t think the answer to that is really all that complicated. 

The biggest hurdle is that the decisionmakers for how buildings get 

built are usually not the same people who benefit from reduced fuel 

consumption. Builders are primarily focused on the initial sale 

price of the house, and the ongoing operating costs of that house 

are not a big business factor for them. Homebuyers are rarely experts on energy-saving building techniques, so they take their advice from the builders. 

It is therefore essential that we set strong standards to protect 

consumers and the environment. Building codes should be based on 

up-to-date potential for energy savings. For existing buildings 

where you are usually unable to roll the costs into a long-term 

105 

mortgage, financial incentives are key in addition to the creative financing mechanisms that allow homeowners to spread out the 

costs over time. 

Overall, zero-energy buildings should be the standard for all new 

buildings by 2030. Last year’s energy bill made progress towards 

this goal, but there is much more to do. The first thing that Congress can do is to require building codes to be strengthened and enforced. National legislation should require the codes to be 30 percent more efficient by 2010 and 50 percent more efficient by 2020. 

And it should ensure that all States require and enforce this level 

of energy efficiency in new buildings. 

We will have a chance to get a head start on this in September 

when officials from towns and cities across the country come together to adopt the Model Residential Energy Code. They will be 

voting on this 30% Solution, which would require new homes to be 

30 percent more energy efficient. Officials need to hear from their 

elected leaders that they are depending on them to deliver a strong 

code that includes The 30% Solution and that will give the support 

they need to enforce the codes once they are adopted. 

There are also a number of existing and newly created programs 

that are essential for high efficiency buildings. The energy tax credits set to expire the end of this year include tax deductions and 

bonds to help Americans construct buildings and retrofit buildings 

to waste less energy and to take advantage of solar power. These 

tax credits must be renewed. 

Congress has created the Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Program to assist local governments to promote high 

performance buildings, but Congress has yet to appropriate the $2 

billion needed per year to fund that program. 

And finally for three decades, the Federal Government has been 

providing grants to State agencies for the Weatherization Assistance Program. Recently funding for this program has come into 

question, and it should be expanded not cut back and reach more 

homes to provide even greater energy efficiency improvements. 

My final thought is this: we need to adopt many policies to address global warming. Some will be easy, and some will be difficult. 

Some will save us money. Some will cost us money. Some will have 

a lot of secondary benefits. Some will be more limited. Policies to 

promote green buildings are among the most positive win-win policies available to us. We should be as aggressive as possible in the 

area of high efficiency buildings. We would be cheating ourselves 

if we didn’t maximize the potential from energy efficiency buildings. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heavner follows:] 

106 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57974.093
107 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57974.094
108 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57974.095
109 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57974.096
110 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57974.097
111 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57974.098
112 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57974.099
113 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57974.100
114 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57974.101
115 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57974.102
116 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57974.103
117 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57974.104
118 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57974.105
119 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57974.106
120 


Insert offset folio 107 here 57974.107
121 


Insert offset folio 108 here 57974.108
122 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Heavner, and thanks to each of 

the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony here this morning. I 

will begin my questions with Mr. McLean. For some time you have 

administered a very popular and highly successful Energy Star program for appliances. So successful, in fact, that I think the manufacturers of these appliances perceive a marketing advantage to 

having the Energy Star label affixed to their appliance. 

But we are not there yet when it comes to the Energy Star program for buildings. What are you doing to try to promote that program and achieve the level of acceptability for that and the level 

of recognition for it and the marketing advantage for that that exists for the appliances program today? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, first of all, I would like to give credit to the 

Department of Energy for the appliance part of the program, but 

we work with DOE on the Energy Star program and divide up the 

products. And many of the home appliances are covered by the Department of Energy. 

What we have tried to do with the new homes program for Energy Star—and if you go back to when we started this program, we 

were trying to identify why what many people have talked about 

here today are clear economic advantages to promoting energy efficiency and why they were not being adopted and why they were 

not finding their way into homes and buildings. 

And we have sort of focused our program around those barriers 

or obstacles and designed our efforts to overcome those. Some of 

those are consumer information. Some of those are barriers between builders and homeowners, the different incentives that are 

in the system, and try to identify where the problems are. And 

sometimes they are at the federal level. A lot of times they are at 

the State and local level. A lot of times they are informational levels, and so we have designed and focused our programs around 

achieving those 

And what we have done, and it is sort of a beyond code area, the 

code is sort of the minimum, and then we have looked at what can 

we do beyond that, and how do we get people to participate and 

play. And I think you have seen here today some differences between maybe the homebuilders and the constraints they see and 

the advocates who want to go beyond it. 

And we have tried to move the ball along by encouraging people 

to go beyond code. And then over time, you can update that code 

because it has become a normal practice, but there is always a beyond code element that you can identify. And then you recognize 

the builders, and you recognize the operators of commercial buildings with the recognition for going beyond that. So that is the niche 

and the area that we have focused on and what we have tried to 

develop. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. All right, thank you. It has been asserted 

that one of the barriers to constructing energy efficiencies into new 

buildings is the fact that there is a long payback period before 

those initial investments are recovered in the energy savings year 

by year. And that payback period can be 5 years or longer, meaning that people who oftentimes sell their homes within just a few 

years would not actually recover those up-front investments. 

123 

Is there any evidence that you have seen that affixing the Energy Star for buildings to these new homes might enhance the resale value of the home so that even someone who sells the home 

before that break-even point is achieved could recover in the resale 

value of the home some of those upfront energy investments? 

Mr. MCLEAN. I don’t know if we have enough data because of the 

turnover of homes. There are a lot of cases where people only own 

their home for 3 to 5 years and where that could work. I would 

have to look into that and get back to you as to whether we have 

any data that would indicate that has been helpful. I mean we 

have looked at like the mortgage area of trying to fold that in to 

pay for these upfront costs, and we have also tried to make sure 

that the upfront costs aren’t too large in the first place so that we 

can get as much advantage out of minimal cost increases. But we 

would need to get back and see whether we have data on that. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, if you have some information and can share 

it with us, that would be helpful. Mr. Fay, do you have a response 

to that? I also have some questions for you, but if you want to comment on that, that is fine. 

Mr. FAY. In my testimony, I referred to a NREL study, the National Renewable Engineering Lab study that took a look at what 

happened to—with homeowners that had 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 

percent, and 100 percent more energy efficient homes beyond the 

2003 IECC. The interesting part about it was 30 percent actually 

produced a positive cash flow to the homeowner beginning on the 

day that they move in of $512 a year. And that was calculated because they are presuming that the homebuyer is able to put the 

cost of that energy efficiency into their mortgage. 

And when you take a look at that additional mortgage cost, each 

$1,000 at 7 percent fixed 30-year mortgages, it adds $6.85 a month. 

And when you take that across the year and then you take the interest deduction from it, the cost of that investment is $211 a year, 

but the benefit, the energy efficiency benefit that they get from 

utility bills is $723 a year. So you end up right off the bat with 

a homeowner that is recovering money from that investment. And 

even if they sell the house in 5 or 10 years, they have still had that 

positive cash flow. They haven’t paid anything for the—they paid 

more at the beginning of the purchase price of the house, but that 

is—they have recovered it over the years. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you. Let me ask you about a different area. 

You mentioned in your testimony your efforts in support of our section 431 last year, which would have presented to the States model 

building codes for their consideration. And some of the commentary 

we have heard today, both from members on this panel and also 

from some of the witnesses, suggests that we should not adopt a 

national one-size-fits-all approach, but that to the extent we do 

anything, we take into account regional climate variation and make 

sure that there is adaptability of some national standards to take 

those variations around the country into account. 

Could you describe how our section 431, as written last year, and 

as passed by the House but not in the final legislation, responded 

to that need? 

Mr. FAY. Well, not really. I am not as familiar with that provision of your legislation. 

124 

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me ask if there are other members on the 

panel who would like to undertake that challenge. Mr. Rodgers, 

would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is critical to 

know that our research and development program, which was already documented that 30 percent improved energy efficiency 

homes are cost effective on day one for the homeowner and lower 

utilities bills are already designed to take into account regional and 

climactic differences across the United States. 

The code programs that we work on, the model building 

codes—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, my question was more directed to the provision that we adopted last year. 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And—— 

Mr. RODGERS. And so that provision, my understanding is that 

provision replicates this emphasis on regional climatic differences 

that are already reflected in the way that model building codes are 

developed and how our analytical tools are providing that information already, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And so I gather from that answer that had our 

provision been passed into law, regional variations in climate could 

have been taken into account as a national recommendation was 

considered and ultimately adopted State by State? 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir. I think that was one of the beauties of 

the approach that reflects technology differences need to be finetuned to climatic differences within our country. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Right. Mr. Weiland, you represent the building 

code officials at the local level. Do you agree that our legislation 

was structured so as to take into account these regional climatic 

variations? 

Mr. WEILAND. Let me just point out a little bit of a clarification. 

Currently right now the International Energy Conservation Code, 

which several people have referenced, is already adopted in 31 

States nationwide. And I want to go back to a comment I made earlier in that I think maybe more—there is more of an enforcement 

concern, a compliance concern or issue that we need to address. 

And that was one of the things that we were trying to address 

through our legislation that the House did pass last week, that 

building departments are strapped. 

They don’t have either enough people or enough well trained people to go out and enforce the existing energy conservation mechanisms that are there. And I can’t comment in detail on the specific 

piece of legislation that you—— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, my time has expired. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate everyone’s 

testimony this morning. That is for sure. And I would like to just 

underscore a couple things, and I have some questions at the end. 

As many of you know, our electric needs are expected to grow 30 

to 40 percent by the year 2030. And already this year, we have 

seen natural gas prices go up by more than 50 percent, which will 

be reflected in consumers’ bills at some point as they need cooling 

or heating. And we have seen coal prices increase by 100 percent. 

125 

In fact, Mr. Shimkus the other day talked about a closed coal 

mining operation in southern Illinois, which is now opened, reopened because of these costs. USA Today highlighted that on the 

front page—and I wish I had brought it down—this morning in 

terms of alerting the Nation’s public about this. 

But today’s Wall Street Journal I don’t know if you saw this 

today, but on the front page, it talks about on a hot day in May 

back in Texas—I can hardly wait to bring this up with my good 

friend Mr. Barton and others—wholesale prices rose briefly to more 

than $4 a kilowatt hour in Texas. It obviously is reflected in people’s view. And I was one, along with the chairman, that voted for 

both the ’05 and the ’07 bill, thinking that they—knowing that they 

were taking a step in the right direction. And I think many of you 

know that Jane Harman and I authored the legislation which was 

part of the ’07 bill which sought significant savings because of light 

bulbs. 

And I would note that Phillips came in to see me. I wish Mr. 

Burgess was here. He is now coming in the door. But they have 

now developed the lights that will meet that standard already, the 

2012 standard, and they are doing it without lead, without mercury, significant energy savings. And in fact, production is being 

done in this country versus overseas. I thought that was terrific 

news. 

Mr. Belcher, you talk about a number of incentives that we need 

to renew. Solar and wind are part of that, which, of course, expired 

the end of last year, but there is a whole other series that you 

talked about. And you are right on the mark with that regard. 

Mr. Rodgers, I can remember when Secretary Bodman made his 

first appearance before this subcommittee. Maybe it was the full 

committee hearing, and I believe it was Mr. Markey that really lamented him because of the energy appliance standards that were 

still on the shelf that had not been done for, I want to say more 

than 10 years. So I am a big supporter of those Energy Star. I am 

glad that they are done, and great credit to the administration for 

getting that done. 

Mr. McLean, you talked about six priorities for EPA, and like I 

saw low-hanging fruit on light bulbs, one of the things that I really 

see that we have not done is to help the utilities by increasing the 

depreciation so that there are incentives for using electricity in the 

off hours. So that you can run your washing machine or your dishwasher at night after most folks return home from work. And yet, 

I think that was proposed though in the ’07 bill that was dropped 

somewhere along the line. But I just can’t see that. Those lights 

are right in my eye. 

I would be interested to know if there is any objection from any 

of you here at the table to try and give the incentives to the utility 

industry to, in fact, install those new meters, relatively new—I 

think they are used in Europe—to encourage folks to use electricity 

in off—and that ought to be highlighted in terms of what we can 

do, not only for residential but for commercial. Does anyone have 

any objection to that? Mr. McLean, no objection? I just want to 

make sure I get my last question. 

Mr. MCLEAN. I wouldn’t object, but I would say one of the things 

we are concerned about as those things are done is that consumers 

126 

also see that information so that they can react. So it helps utilities 

manage their supply, and it helps consumers—— 

Mr. UPTON. And if they get $4 per kilowatt. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Right. 

Mr. UPTON. Now, is there some way that consumers are going to know that, right now at 11:30 it is $4 per kilowatt and they better 

turn everything off? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, those things are becoming more possible. The 

information technology is moving so fast that I think we can supply 

consumers with more information as we implement the things you 

are suggesting. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Weiland, my last question, as my time is coming 

down, is you represent the International Code Council. Knowing 

that we have done a lot in the country—thank goodness but maybe 

not enough, but whether it be light bulbs or obviously efficiency 

standards on appliances, all those different things, where do we 

stack up internationally to what other countries have done or not 

done particularly as I think about the EU and what they have done 

with their—where are we stacking up in terms of actual regulations on the books, seeing positive changes in the right direction to 

reduce electricity needs for the different devices that we all use? 

Mr. WEILAND. Well, if it is any indication in terms of the—I 

guess the growth within our industry internationally, and the demands now upon our organization to work with other countries, 

primarily the focus has been on—more on the safe—building safety 

and fire safety side, not on the energy side. But this organization, 

the International Code Council really has, in my opinion, developed 

probably the safest building safety system in the world. I think it 

is second to none. 

Where we stack up in the energy side, I think that is something 

we need to drill down and take a look at. I don’t really have a great 

answer for you, but I can get you one. 

Mr. UPTON. Does anyone here have a comment as it relates to 

that? Mr. Fay? 

Mr. FAY. I do. The IECC, for the last 20 years, has stayed rather—it has had, at best, modest gains. That seems rather astonishing, particularly with the energy situation we are facing here. 

And I think one of the questions is, where fire and safety fit in 

with the ICC process and where energy fits in. Our contention is 

that, first of all, fire and safety is always going to be the most important thing that the IECC does. We know that, but we also think 

that energy is elevated as a national priority, maybe not to the 

level of fire and safety, but very close to that. 

I think there was a tremendous step forward made by the IECC 

Development Committee meeting in Palm Springs in February. 

They took the first stab at what will be culminated in the hearings 

in, final hearings in Minneapolis in September. And that Development Committee got, we think, about halfway to the 30 percent 

boost in energy efficiency that we are seeking. DOE, I think, estimates that it is somewhere between 17 and 22%. That is rather 

historic for energy and the IECC. 

So I am going to give them some kudos here because the Development Committee did take a large step toward energy efficiency. 

I think the recognition was there. Now, keep in mind that in FebVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:20 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-136 CHRIS
127 

ruary, look at what our prices were for energy compared to today. 

There is a compelling need for the ICC in September to really go 

the next step and adopt the 30 percent that DOE and governors 

and mayors and others have set for us. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I know my time has expired. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Upton. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I find it really very interesting to listen to all of you here because I think we 

all are agreed on the fact that we need to be more energy efficient, 

and we can do it. It is how we do it, and we have various standards 

and codes in order to try to get us there. 

I feel much of this is within the education process too in that, 

for instance, the people who buy homes may not understand that 

maybe it is more expensive if you get—when you first buy it, it will 

be more expensive to have an energy efficient home. But over the 

course of the loan, it manages to work itself out. 

I am also looking at aspects of where we are as far as energy 

costs as Mr. Upton was talking about—my municipal utility came 

in to see me regarding off time usage and how important that 

would be, particularly as we are moving forward and they are moving forward with some other plug-in type vehicles and all that. 

I am wondering whether it is possible to have some sort of hourly 

focus, whether part of it is in the utilities area, about the cost savings as far as off use. And I think you were talking about the meters and things of that nature, what the cost effectiveness of that 

would be. And also in the financial aspects of it, the mortgages, 

and obviously we are talking about mortgages today. And it is 

probably not the best thing to talk about in this climate; however, 

looking at how we structure some of these mortgages and to really 

build in some of that cost effectiveness into that also. 

I am also interested in, Mr. Heavner, about what you see moving 

forward as you listen to all of this, where you would like to see us 

focus more, realizing you brought up the history of your father and 

what we would like to do. Realizing realistically that what we can 

do in the short term—I am saying short ter—the next 3 to 5 years. 

What are the best things we can do because I always feel the public is very impatient, and they want to see progress? And whether 

we see it in our bills that we get from utilities or cost of our homes 

or whatever, what do you see that we can do that is going to be 

environmentally sensitive in looking at climate change that we can 

be doing in the next 3 to 5 years? Looking at all these aspects that 

we have before us here. 

Mr. HEAVNER. I think by far the most important thing is that 

model codes be adopted and enforced by all states. Thirty-one 

states is good. It is not 50 states. It is not good enough. And those 

codes are not enforced well enough, and I think that any assurance 

that a State is doing its job needs to include assurance that there 

is at least 90 percent compliance in actual homes built to the 

standards. They will need assistance for that, and I think it is a 

very good use of federal funding that may become available to deal 

with energy security and to deal with global warming to assist local 

officials in the enforcement. People will see this in reduced energy 

bills. 

128 

With regard to retrofits, direct assistance to homeowners is essential. And I think the single most important thing for Congress 

to do this year is to extend those tax credits. And it would be a 

shame, and a lot of jobs are dependent on this and a lot of people’s 

financial stability dependent on this. It would be a shame not to 

have that happen by the end of this year. 

In addition, there are things that we can do to spread out the 

financing of home retrofits and efficient appliances, allowing the 

homeowners to roll that into their utility bills. If they are able to 

purchase an efficient appliance or do an upgrade and pay that back 

over time with the utility bill, they are saving money from day one, 

and they will—they can build in a margin for utilities to make a 

profit. 

Ms. MATSUI. Much like you do as far as when we get a new furnace or something like that. You are thinking about the home itself 

that you are fitting and putting that in. 

Mr. HEAVNER. Yes, and consumers would see that immediately. 

You know it would be an opportunity for them to make an upgrade 

and lower their utility bills. A requirement that utilities make this 

available to consumers across the country would have an enormous 

impact on the amount of retrofits that happen. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, and I just want to ask a question of Mr. 

Belcher from the homebuilders. I understand that you probably 

would not like to have a uniform code across the Nation. I can understand that too because I think there should be some flexibility 

built into this. How would you feel about having a driver though 

as far as the building codes if, in fact, there can be some flexibility 

built into it? And also whether we can—we need to have compliance. We need to have some sort of enforcement moving forward, 

and most of the people, looking at the homebuilders in order to— 

that is the first thing that most homeowners think about too. 

Mr. BELCHER. Right. Well, first of all, start with the basics. As 

far as building codes in general go, we as builders need building 

codes. If nothing else, they level the playing field for all of us, and 

they set the bar. It is a minimum standard of course, and we have 

a great relationship working with IECC. I have been certified in 

the past, of course, as a building official. And to address some of 

the drivers, as you have suggested, there are some very good programs that are out there right now, programs that we are using, 

the National Green Building Standard that is about to be launched. 

We are using a voluntary standard that that is based off of Energy Star programs out there. And those programs will accomplish 

what we are trying to do. They just need the incentives to get them 

out there. Consumers don’t understand them. 

And a personal experience if you will. The customers that come 

to me, either if I have a home that has been built or to build for 

them, a custom home if you will, price is their most sensitive point. 

And all of you that have bought a home probably had the same experience. The bottom line is still the bottom line. 

What we try to do in managing not only energy efficiency but as 

a green builder, we are looking at all the resources, water efficiency, resource efficiency because as a second generation builder, 

I want generations beyond me to be able to keep on providing housing for our growing population. So we have to consider all those, 

129 

and most consumers have items that they wish to have in their 

homes, particular countertops or whatever types of finishes. 

What we do is work with them, get the desires they want in that 

house, get their budget, and then make that house as energy efficient and resource efficient as possible to stay in their price point. 

And if I may, from a resale standpoint, it is true the majority, 

I think, of homes are transferred 5 or 10 years to another consumer. And just now are the markets starting to realize the additional value these homes have. The problem is the appraisers, if 

they don’t understand the value these homes have, you are not 

going to be able to have that home appraised higher. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, could I just say this? I think that as we purchase our cars, we are looking at how much savings can we get, 

what is the mileage. It might be possible to look at homes itself to 

see where the cost savings would be too. I think we do that with 

some of the furnaces and things like that. But we might want to 

look at the totality of the home—— 

Mr. BELCHER. That is correct. 

Ms. MATSUI [continuing]. To see where the savings would be 

so—— 

Mr. BELCHER. And that is where the—like the National Green 

Building Standard, it gives you some quantifiable information as to 

how that home is built. It is flexible standards, so it does take into 

account the different climates of the country. And it will allow you 

the flexibility to work into your homeowner’s budget. But then to 

have that quantifiable information—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. 

Mr. BELCHER [continuing]. For appraisers to use to put value on 

that home, and then consumers and mortgage lenders will have 

something quantifiable to make that deal work. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

all of our panelists. I appreciate the information, and I always 

learn when I come to these hearings. 

Mr. Heavner, I fervently agree with you about the importance of 

renewing the solar energy tax credits. I voted for those in the past 

and voted to extend them. Regrettably, this year each time they 

have come up to be voted upon, they have been added to dramatic 

tax increases, making it very difficult for some of us and giving us 

no clean shot. That is, we can’t vote to just renew the solar tax 

credit. I hope that will change in the near future. We will get a 

straight up or down vote or an up or down vote tied to some other 

policy rather than a tax increase, which some of us find objectionable. 

I want to make a comment. I guess a lot of this discussion is carrot-and-stick. Stick is a building code to a certain degree. Carrot 

is an incentive. I am interested in using both strategies. 

I am a little worried about, or a little concerned that with regard 

to some of the building codes at least some organizations out there 

have an agenda other than energy efficiency. That is to say they 

130 

want to impose a green building code that works on not cutting 

down trees or that works on some other issue. 

That isn’t what I hope the American people will become agitated 

about because some people may say look, I want energy efficiency. 

That makes sense to me, but I don’t want to buy into somebody 

else’s agenda that is secondary. Some other people might say look, 

I like the secondary agenda. I don’t want to cut down trees so that 

is OK with me. 

But I hope people don’t get fooled because I think it is important 

when we do building codes that are about energy efficiency that 

they get information about energy efficiency. Then they can make 

an informed decision. If they want to also achieve some other goal, 

that is good. 

Then that takes me to kind of my passion, which is carrots, not 

sticks. I was fascinated, Mr. Belcher, by your comments and a little 

bit, Mr. Gentry, by yours about the degree to which new homes are 

a part of the problem versus the degree to which old homes are a 

part of the problem. 

My wife and I bought a subdivision home 15, 20 years ago. Lived 

in it for a long time. Fortunately, we were able to buy a lot and 

build a home of our own about 4 years ago. It is a bigger home, 

and yet when our energy bills started to come in, they are lower 

than our old home. 

Now, in part that is because when I built this home—I live in 

Phoenix, Arizona. I don’t worry about the winter, but I worry a lot 

about the summer. You know I put in a lot of insulation that I was 

not required to put in and did a number of things that I was not 

required to do, various techniques which I would be happy to describe to you because I wanted to bring down the operating cost of 

my home. 

The question that occurs to me is talking about national policies. 

I think a lot of policies should be dictated at the local level, and 

maybe the idea I am about to give you could be done at the local 

level. But it could also be done at the national level, and I want 

to ask anyone on the panel, but particularly Mr. Belcher and Mr. 

Gentry, has anybody talked about either extending a tax credit or 

a deduction for an energy audit? 

And I think my new home is much more efficient than my old 

home because it is slightly larger in square footage, but the cost 

of running it is less. But I will bet you there are inefficiencies still 

in it, and I would like to go out and have it audited, have somebody 

come in and say, well, look, you got a leak here under this door 

or you got this or that. And it seems to me that you could do that 

for old homes. 

And it seems to me you could also perhaps do that for new 

homes. You could say to a homeowner that was going to buy a new 

home that was already built, somebody gets a tax credit, the builder or you get a tax credit or the builder or you get a tax deduction 

if that home is reviewed and you get a report showing how efficient 

it is or how inefficient it is. Those are both federal tax code issues. 

Obviously we as a Nation have a stake in not wasting energy, 

and I guess I would be interested in your comments on those ideas. 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, I can give a great example of Kansas City, 

Missouri just last week relaunched their green building program. 

131 

As part of the incentive, and utilities were mentioned before, their 

local electrical utility is helping to subsidize the cost of energy audits, both old and in new construction. So that helps that process 

get off the ground. 

Our local utility in St. Louis, our gas utility, their alternative engineering group are the ones that are our third-party verifiers because they understand how the building functions. And it is important to remember when we are—as the technology of these building 

increase, there are systems that are made up of a lot of smaller 

systems. And you need to understand how they function, and just 

going in and building a tighter envelope—this happened when I 

was a code official back in the early ’90s is the energy code started 

requiring tighter construction. 

It overlooked the fact that people lived in those homes and had 

an effect that way. So, one of the three criteria of the building code, 

health, safety, and welfare. Well, welfare is a very important part 

of that triumvirate too so attention needs to be paid to the effect. 

We can’t be hasty and confuse that with necessity. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Anybody talking about a deduction or tax credit 

for energy audit, Mr. Gentry? 

Mr. GENTRY. I am fairly new to the State of North Carolina, but 

we are getting started on a couple of projects down there. And the 

client we are working with is an organization that does affordable 

housing, and it is my understanding from my client that the State 

of North Carolina actually has programs in place to pay for energy 

audits and actually guarantee maximum—if you get a successful 

energy audit, then the State will—this program provides a guarantee to the homebuyer that utilities will not exceed a certain 

amount for—I can’t remember whether it is a 3- or 5-year period. 

So one of my thoughts is that you really don’t need the tax credits because the project we did in Chicago was an excellent example 

of how you can make it work in the marketplace. What we did is 

again we were doing affordable housing, and the city of Chicago offers lots for a dollar if you can build a house, an affordable home, 

for $195,000. That is what it is capped at. And as you might guess, 

when you build a house for $195,000 in Chicago, you are doing bare 

bones minimum in terms of insulation and mechanical systems and 

everything else. 

And we went to the city and demonstrated some simulations that 

we could shift monthly expenditures for utility bills towards the 

mortgage enough so that it was zero change in the monthly expenditures for the homebuyer so he could qualify that we could 

raise the cost of the house and sale price the house up to $295,000. 

We increased it by $100,000, and the city agreed with that and allowed us to do it. 

And the advantage of that is that it gives the future homebuyer, 

it makes the house more affordable on multiple levels, three levels. 

As utility rates go up, the house remains more affordable than a 

conventionally built affordable home. They get to put more money 

into the mortgage rather than the utility bills so when they sell the 

house, they have greater economic mobility. And income tax credits, of course, work to their advantage. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Anybody else want to comment quickly on either 

energy audits or incentives? Mr. Rodgers. 

132 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir, I think you have clearly identified a critical issue. If we give consumers the proper information about the 

energy performance of their home as represented by scale display, 

they can make an informed decision. And then they can share it 

with a builder, the remodeler, the utility, a way of translating 

those cost savings into a better building. I think you are on to 

something. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. McLean. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Just one thing to add. We found that there are several pieces of information a consumer needs, and having been one 

trying to do my own home, it is very hard to find someone who can 

talk this language and fix your house. So the audit is the first step, 

but then they have to be able to know where to go for a credible 

contractor who understands and can implement those recommendations. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK, thank you. 

Mr. MCLEAN. So we are starting to see this as a package of 

issues that the consumer needs in order to go all the way to realize 

the energy efficiency. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, I would be anxious to work with anybody on 

that issue, and if there is a role for federal legislation, be willing 

to get involved and help. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shadegg. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. As usual, he is right on the money, and I would 

like to insert in the record a letter dated July 17, 2008 from the 

U.S. Green Building Council that also thanks the chairman. I can 

submit that for the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

This letter reminded me of the McKinsey report that looked at 

the cost of all the things we can do to solve our multiple energy 

challenges. And way over on the left is this huge bar going down 

showing the negative costs, the cost savings of energy efficiency. 

And it is just astounding because it is as tall going down saving 

Americans money as any of the bars going up to deal with anything 

else we have to do. It really is an eye-catcher. 

And moving on these building codes is absolutely a necessity. We 

will be introducing a bill here shortly with sort of what we call our 

no-brainer actions, this being one of them to again pass in the 

House, we hope, this improvement in our national energy codes. 

And we hope to move that through the House. 

I just want to ask a question about again the necessity. The bill 

we will be introducing does not have any particular sanction from 

local States or communities that would not follow the federal requirement, no identified sanction in any event. 

I would just like to ask the panel, assuming we do pass this, and 

it does create a federal statute, a federal legal requirement that, 

in fact, the building codes be updated with 30 percent by 2010 and 

50 percent by 2020. What would be the reaction of States and ultimately other jurisdictions without some particular sanction of loss 

of federal funding? Will these States go to their attorney generals 

and their, you know, mayors and ask do we have to do this? And 

133 

will they be told it is federal law? And will they then act, or will 

they say well, there is no particular identified sanction, therefore 

let us just ignore those funny people in Washington D.C. and continue on our merry way? 

I would ask for anyone’s sort of description of a prediction in that 

regard if any would like to venture an idea. I certainly believe this 

is worth doing even without a sanction as a statement at a very, 

very minimum to move and give a reason for those who advocate 

for action on a local level to say the Federal Government—this is 

a legal binding requirement. And giving them that armor or weapon, if you will, to get their State to move makes sense. Mr. Belcher, 

you wanted to say something? 

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, I just actually had a thought as you were 

talking about that. The State of Missouri, the populated area, St. 

Louis metropolitan area, Kansas City, Springfield, parts of the 

State or classes of county that have building code enforcement, 

they have enough population to justify, have the enforcement staff 

to do so. 

But in outstate Missouri, which is a huge population, the State 

has not done anything to this point. It is almost impractical economically to try to enforce in the outstate, and frankly they have 

had a lot of pushback when building codes and things like that are 

trying to be imposed in outstate Missouri. 

And as an aggregate, the population is probably about equal to 

the populated areas of this State. They are just scattered out obviously. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, would passage of this bill again by the House, 

if it became law, that did create a federal requirement for updating 

these codes, would that make it at least somewhat more likely that 

folks in Missouri would move towards a more robust energy code 

in your view? 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, it is possible, but again it gets back to the 

State and some of these municipalities saying we just don’t have 

the money to comply with this, and they will bog it down in the 

process. And again, you know, we do have processes out there that 

are being adopted around the State such as the Green Building 

Standard and Energy Star. They are accomplishing these goals. 

They just need to be promoted. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Rodgers? 

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. I think it is important to 

understand, as Mr. Belcher is saying, that our State and local officials have a lot of work to do, and one of the things that they probably don’t have time to do is write building codes from scratch. So 

the advantage of the proposed legislation is that it creates an incentive for the model building code to be updated regularly with 

sound, cost-effective technology. I mean it is my personal opinion 

that if we deliver a more efficient building code, provided through 

our proven consensus development process, that it will make it 

easier for our State and local officials to adopt a more efficient 

code. 

Mr. INSLEE. Does anyone see any reason to wait to do this next 

year? You know we are going to have some more action next year 

on cap-and-trade and other things. But is there any reason not to 

do this this year? 

134 

Mr. HEAVNER. I think it is essential to do this as soon as possible, and I agree there really needs to be sanctions in addition to 

incentive. There needs to be incentives and sanctions, incentives to 

help with the implementation. 

I think part of the reason why a lot of local jurisdictions in 

States don’t do this is because it is a lot of work, and they feel like 

they can’t get to it. So giving the carrot to say we will help you 

do that if you adopt this, but also with sanctions it is a question 

of national interest that we have to use less energy across this 

country. It makes perfect sense for Congress to have sanctions if 

States don’t follow the national model code. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes, I may note, we have a lot of argument about 

offshore drilling, but I will bet you there is five times more energy 

in this subject we are talking about today that we can get for 

Americans at zero cost, at net zero cost. I wish we had more attention to this issue. Mr. Fay, you want to make a comment, and then 

I will yield. 

Mr. FAY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Inslee, I just wanted to point 

out that, as courts have held, it is the duty of the builders to meet 

these building codes. These are minimum building codes, and because the codes have a minimum standard of care in State laws, 

the noncompliance of those codes is a bigger issue, I think, for 

builders than it is even for code officials. 

I think it is very important that we understand that the model 

code we are pushing does not automatically mandate anything. It 

has to be adopted then by the States, but once adopted, it is up to 

the builders to comply with that. And I think that is a very important distinction. 

In addition to that though, nearly all of the members of the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition are dedicated to working beyond just 

the model codes to ensure that—to work with State and local levels 

to make sure that the funding is there and with Congress, funding 

is there to provide the training that is necessary for inspectors and 

for enforcement. And I think that is really important. 

But I do think it is very important that we come back to the fact 

that this is an important issue for the builders to meet. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes, I just want to insert the discussion of what we 

are talking about today, which is the beauty and cost effectiveness 

of megawatts. So I would yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate 

this hearing. I was also down in the one on Telecommunications 

and the Internet, on privacy on the Internet. So I apologize for not 

being here for your testimony, but I am aware of it. 

Mr. Rodgers, I want to ask you a question that perplexed me for 

a while. I rushed out and bought these fluorescent light bulbs and 

put them in. And they all say they are going to last eight or nine 

years. Is anybody looking at the fact they don’t? I have had to deal 

with so many replacements, and I wonder is anybody at the Department of Energy actually looking at those claims? I am serious. 

My incandescent bulbs last much longer, and I don’t understand 

why. Maybe it is just me, but I don’t think it is. 

135 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir. I appreciate that question, and that is one 

of the critical components of the Energy Star certification program. 

Any manufacturer that applies for and receives the Energy Star 

certification for compact fluorescent light bulbs has to submit the 

product for certification testing including durability testing. And so 

I very much hope and I would like to know if you have an Energy 

Star certified product that did not last—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. RODGERS [continuing]. The stated time, we need to know 

about that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, I just told you, and I bet I am not alone. Anybody here had this same problem? I am serious, and I love the idea 

I am cutting my energy costs by a quarter. But I am paying 

through the nose, and if you think I am keeping those receipts 

from wherever I am buying this and that I am going to monkey 

around to go back and take that light bulb back and then argue 

with somebody about it. So I raise that because I have had it happen here in Washington D.C. in my house. I have had it happen 

in Oregon in my house, indoor and outdoor fluorescents. I have had 

them both. Some of them seem to work forever, but some of them 

just go out in a matter of a few weeks. 

So I would encourage the Department of Energy, since we are all 

out there telling people to do this and you have wonderful signs up 

and we are all saying this is a great thing to do, I got to tell you 

I have invested enough in those puppies that I could have bought 

incandescent lights forever I think. But clearly I am a fan, but I 

just want to make sure that consumers aren’t getting ripped off on 

that. 

Mr. Belcher, on this building code issue, do you think what you 

are hearing here today and what you are looking at as a homebuilder is going to give the regional flexibility that is necessary? 

Mr. BELCHER. I think that is still in question. I think the issue 

is being regional. Again I refer back to the National Green Building 

guidelines and upcoming standard which specifically addresses region. The residential code addresses some building issues on a regional basis, but there is a lot of technology involved in putting 

these homes together, especially as they are growing more and 

more energy efficient all the time. 

Mr. WALDEN. We had a situation in my home community of Hood 

River, Oregon that I am going to say 30 years ago now, that they 

came in and tried to do this retrofitting of existing homes to 

achieve as much energy conservation as possible through the Bonneville Power Administration. And if you look around my hometown, all these homes built in the ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, whatever, have 

the dual panel windows. They have 12 feet of insulation in the 

attic. And the one thing they ran into in the end was they sealed 

them so tight that airflow problems, humidity problems, I mean 

water problems inside and radon problems. And I assume we have 

learned from that that you can go too far too and that you are dealing with that in the code. 

Mr. BELCHER. Well, that is precisely the point I was speaking to 

earlier. Even in this generation of homes, 20 or so years ago, as we 

required homes to be tighter, we weren’t thinking of some of those 

issues—— 

136 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. BELCHER [continuing]. Until in the ’90s we had mold and 

respiratory issues and so on. Now the trend with more building 

science involved is taking all those issues into account. And again 

just like in your existing program, if you want to take the biggest 

swing and hit the biggest ball out of the yard with energy conservation, it is all the existing homes and addressing how we retrofit. And don’t just say go make your house tighter, but educate 

consumers on how to do that. 

Mr. WALDEN. And let me go to Mr. Rodgers perhaps for the Department of Energy. Is there a one-stop shop on your Web site or 

somewhere that people can go? And I know Mr. Shadegg raised the 

issues about incentives for energy audits, which I think makes 

sense. And it seems to me there are consumers who frankly right 

now with the price of gasoline, diesel, natural gas going up 35, 40 

percent they think in Oregon for residential heating next year, are 

going to be strapped to go invest. And yet that is a great investment long term, but short-term cash flow is probably an issue. So 

incentives and access to—— 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir, I appreciate that very much. I would offer 

two one-stop shops. Energysavers.gov has the best collection of energy saving tips that consumers can apply and save energy right 

now in the homes and vehicles. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. RODGERS. And then our joint website, energystar.gov, has access to all the Energy Star products and including home performance with Energy Star contractors who have the tools to come into 

an existing home and help you remodel that home for more energy 

efficiency. 

Mr. WALDEN. And are there incentives in—I am sorry. Sir, if I 

can ask just one more—incentives in place for residential consumers to install solar, federal incentives? 

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir, and there are many utility incentives and 

State incentives, and I will submit for the record a Web site that 

we have that documents all of those incentives. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WALDEN. Great, because Oregon has had a very aggressive 

business incentive program for solar and renewable energy that 

has worked quite well. And I know everybody is kind of looking 

OK, what do we do in the residential site. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence on the time. And I want to thank the 

panel for their testimony. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. Without objection, a letter that is addressed to our colleague Mr. Rogers from the 

Flat Glass Association of North America will be admitted into the 

record. And the record will remain open for a reasonable period of 

time so that additional questions can be propounded in writing by 

members of the panel to our witnesses today. And when you receive those inquiries, your expeditious response to them would be 

appreciated. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses for the time you have 

spent with us this morning, for your well-prepared testimony. I 

think each of us has learned extensively from the comments that 

137 

you have provided, and we are most appreciative to you for the 

time that you have spent with us. 

Having heard from all of the members on the panel and our witnesses, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing on the important issue of 

how we can improve the energy efficiency of our buildings, to limit greenhouse gas 

emissions that are causing climate change. 

Few subjects related to energy efficiency have consumed more time and political 

energy than the subject of vehicle fuel economy. Yet our national fleet of buildings 

consumes 38 percent more energy on an annual basis than does our national fleet 

of cars, trucks, and airplanes. 

In the first session of this Congress, the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 included a provision that mandated a 40 percent improvement in the fuel 

economy of automobiles and light trucks, a provision that had my full attention and 

that of many other Members. At the same time, a provision to provide for a 30 percent improvement in the minimum energy efficiency of new homes was 

unceremoniously dropped in the Senate after passing twice in this body. 

Unlike motor vehicles, new technology is not an issue in the building sector; the 

experts tell us—and will tell us again today—that technologies are available today 

that could double the energy efficiency of our buildings without shrinking them, 

making them less safe, or making them less able functional. 

A car put into service this year might remain in the automobile fleet for an average of about 12 years, on until 2020. But a new home or commercial building put 

into service this year will remain in use for more than a century. 

Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings may prove to be a larger, more 

urgent, and much better opportunity to reduce energy consumption and related 

greenhouse gas emissions. It is an opportunity that deserves greater and more urgent attention from this Congress and from all Americans. I look forward to this 

hearing, and to learning from this fine group of witnesses what we can and should 

do to address this important issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN 

Mr. Chairman: 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses 

for taking their time to come and testify before this committee. 

Energy efficiency measures are often a low-cost method to stabilize energy demands while providing a cost benefit to homeowners and commercial building operators. 

But energy efficiency measures should not be mandated. 

They should be decided by the free market. 

Last year’s energy bill was an example of how not to approach this issue. 

It imposed numerous energy efficiency mandates. 

It required more use of ethanol, driving food prices up. 

It prevents the Air Force from using alternative fuels, making our military more 

dependent upon foreign sources of oil. 

And it banned the incandescent light bulb and requires everyone to replace it with 

a dangerous mercury-filled compact fluorescent lamp. 

All done in the name of the global warming religion. 

Mr. Chairman, 

Energy efficiency is a laudable goal, but it can only go so far. 

Mandates are not the answer. New supply is the answer. 

And I have yet to hear from the other side regarding a rational energy policy that 

encourages new energy supply for the United States. 

Americans all across the country are demanding Congress to allow more exploration and production of American sources of energy. 

They want to drill here, drill now, and pay less. 

I hope my colleagues are listening to their constituents on this critical issue. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

138 


Insert offset folio 111 here 57974.111
139 


Insert offset folio 112 here 57974.112
140 


Insert offset folio 142 here 57974.142
141 


Insert offset folio 109 here 57974.109
142 


Insert offset folio 110 here 57974.110
143 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57974.001
144 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57974.002
145 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57974.003
146 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57974.004
147 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57974.005
148 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57974.006
149 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57974.007
150 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57974.008
151 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57974.009
152 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57974.010
153 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57974.011
154 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57974.012
155 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57974.013
156 


Insert offset folio 113 here 57974.113
157 


Insert offset folio 114 here 57974.114
158 


Insert offset folio 115 here 57974.115
159 


Insert offset folio 116 here 57974.116
160 


Insert offset folio 117 here 57974.117
161 


Insert offset folio 118 here 57974.118
162 


Insert offset folio 119 here 57974.119
163 


Insert offset folio 120 here 57974.120
164 


Insert offset folio 121 here 57974.121
165 


Insert offset folio 122 here 57974.122
166 


Insert offset folio 123 here 57974.123
167 


Insert offset folio 124 here 57974.124
168 


Insert offset folio 125 here 57974.125
169 


Insert offset folio 126 here 57974.126
170 


Insert offset folio 127 here 57974.127
171 


Insert offset folio 128 here 57974.128
172 


Insert offset folio 129 here 57974.129
173 


Insert offset folio 130 here 57974.130
174 


Insert offset folio 131 here 57974.131
175 


Insert offset folio 132 here 57974.132
176 


Insert offset folio 133 here 57974.133
177 


Insert offset folio 134 here 57974.134
178 


Insert offset folio 135 here 57974.135
179 


Insert offset folio 136 here 57974.136
180 


Insert offset folio 137 here 57974.137
181 


Insert offset folio 138 here 57974.138
182 


Insert offset folio 139 here 57974.139
183 


Insert offset folio 140 here 57974.140
184 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 141 here 57974.141