Download Free Do Building Energy Codes Have A Lasting Effect On Energy Consumption Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Do Building Energy Codes Have A Lasting Effect On Energy Consumption and write the review.

This paper provides an ex post evaluation of how changes to a building energy code affect energy consumption. Using residential billing data for electricity and natural gas over 11 years, the analysis is based on comparisons between residences constructed just before and just after a building code change in Florida. While an earlier study using 3 years of data for the same residences showed savings for both electricity an natural gas, new results show an enduring savings for natural gas only. These findings underscore the importance of accounting for age versus vintage effects and all sources of energy consumption when conducting evaluations of building codes. More broadly, the results provide a counterpoint to the growing literature casting doubt on whether ex ante forecasts of energy efficiency policies and investments can provide useful information about actual energy savings. Indeed, more than a decade after Florida's energy code change, the measured energy savings still meets or exceeds the forecasted amount.
Construction codes that regulate the energy efficiency of new buildings have been a centerpiece of US environmental policy for 40 years. California enacted the nation's first energy building codes in 1978, and they were projected to reduce residential energy use -- and associated pollution -- by 80 percent. How effective have the building codes been? I take three approaches to answering that question. First, I compare current electricity use by California homes of different vintages constructed under different standards, controlling for home size, local weather, and tenant characteristics. Second, I examine how electricity in California homes varies with outdoor temperatures for buildings of different vintages. And third, I compare electricity use for buildings of different vintages in California, which has stringent building energy codes, to electricity use for buildings of different vintages in other states. All three approaches yield the same answer: there is no evidence that homes constructed since California instituted its building energy codes use less electricity today than homes built before the codes came into effect.
In light of the pressing impacts of climate change and rising demand for electricity, many state governments have adopted International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) and the Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (ASHRAE 90.1) for new commercial buildings. This paper investigates the relationship between commercial building energy codes and electricity consumption on the state level. Using state-level data on commercial building code adoption and electricity use from 2004 to 2015 in OLS and fixed-effects models, I found a negative relationship between building energy code adoption and electricity consumption. States adopting the building energy codes between 2004 and 2015 are associated with a 1,968.974 million kilowatthours less electricity consumption in the commercial sector, enough to power about 18,300 households per year. However, using a fixed-effects model with a one-year lagged effect, I found a positive relationship between building code adoption and electricity consumption. In this model specification, states adopting building energy codes in the previous year are associated with a 606.918 million kilowatthours increase in annual average electricity consumption in the commercial sector, which indicates the importance of compliance with codes. The inconsistent results indicate a need for future study, which could include additional data, such as compliance with codes, number of new commercial buildings, and building activities.
In response to the 1973 oil embargo, many states began passing building energy codes in order to promote energy efficiency. While the vast majority of states have energy codes in place, policymakers are now attempting to legislate energy codes at the federal level to help address more recent concerns about energy efficiency and climate change. Nevertheless, surprisingly little is known about whether energy codes are an effective way to reduce energy consumption in practice. This paper provides the first evaluation of an energy-code change that uses residential billing data on both electricity and natural gas, combined with data on observable characteristics of each residence. The study takes place in Gainesville, Florida, and the empirical strategy is based on comparisons between residences constructed just before and just after Florida increased the stringency of its energy code in 2002. We find that the increased stringency of the energy code is associated with a 4-percent decrease in electricity consumption and a 6-percent decrease in natural-gas consumption. The pattern of savings is consistent with reduced consumption of electricity for air-conditioning and reduced consumption of natural gas for heating. We also estimate economic costs and benefits and find that the private payback period for the average residence is 6.4 years. The social payback period, which accounts for the avoided costs of air-pollution emissions, ranges between 3.5 and 5.3 years.
In response to the 1973 oil embargo, many states began passing building energy codes in order to promote energy efficiency. While the vast majority of states have energy codes in place, policymakers are now attempting to legislate energy codes at the federal level to help address more recent concerns about energy efficiency and climate change. Nevertheless, surprisingly little is known about whether energy codes are an effective way to reduce energy consumption in practice. This paper provides the first evaluation of an energy-code change that uses residential billing data on both electricity and natural gas, combined with data on observable characteristics of each residence. The study takes place in Gainesville, Florida, and the empirical strategy is based on comparisons between residences constructed just before and just after Florida increased the stringency of its energy code in 2002. We find that the increased stringency of the energy code is associated with a 4-percent decrease in electricity consumption and a 6-percent decrease in natural-gas consumption. The pattern of savings is consistent with reduced consumption of electricity for air-conditioning and reduced consumption of natural gas for heating. We also estimate economic costs and benefits and find that the private payback period for the average residence is 6.4 years. The social payback period, which accounts for the avoided costs of air-pollution emissions, ranges between 3.5 and 5.3 years.
State-level building energy codes have been around for over 40 years, but recent empirical research has cast doubt on their effectiveness. A potential virtue of standards-based policies is that they may be less regressive than explicit taxes on energy consumption. However, this conjecture has not been tested empirically in the case of building energy codes. Using spatial variation in California's code strictness created by building climate zones, combined with information on over 350,000 homes located within 3 kilometers of climate zone borders, we evaluate the effect of building energy codes on home characteristics, energy use, and home value. We also study building energy codes' distributional burdens. Our key findings are that stricter codes create a non-trivial reduction in homes' square footage and the number of bedrooms at the lower end of the income distribution. On a per-dwelling basis, we observe energy use reductions only in the second lowest income quintile, and energy use per square foot actually increases in the bottom quintile. Home values of lower-income households fall, while those of high-income households rise. We interpret these results as evidence that building energy codes result in more distortions for lower-income households and that decreases in square footage are responsible for much of the code-induced energy savings.
State-level building energy codes have been around for over 40 years, but recent empirical research has cast doubt on their effectiveness. A potential virtue of standards-based policies is that they may be less regressive than explicit taxes on energy consumption. However, this conjecture has not been tested empirically in the case of building energy codes. Using spatial variation in California's code strictness created by building climate zones, combined with information on over 350,000 homes located within 3 kilometers of climate zone borders, we evaluate the effect of building energy codes on home characteristics, energy use, and home value. We also study building energy codes' distributional burdens. Our key findings are that stricter codes create a non-trivial reduction in homes' square footage and the number of bedrooms at the lower end of the income distribution. On a per-dwelling basis, we observe energy use reductions only in the second lowest income quintile, and energy use per square foot actually increases in the bottom quintile. Home values of lower-income households fall, while those of high-income households rise. We interpret these results as evidence that building energy codes result in more distortions for lower-income households and that decreases in square footage are responsible for much of the code-induced energy savings.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) periodically evaluates national and state-level impacts associated with energy codes in residential and commercial buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), funded by DOE, conducted an assessment of the prospective impacts of national model building energy codes from 2010 through 2040. A previous PNNL study evaluated the impact of the Building Energy Codes Program; this study looked more broadly at overall code impacts. This report describes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the impacts in terms of energy savings, consumer cost savings, and reduced CO2 emissions at the state level and at aggregated levels. This analysis does not represent all potential savings from energy codes in the U.S. because it excludes several states which have codes which are fundamentally different from the national model energy codes or which do not have state-wide codes. Energy codes follow a three-phase cycle that starts with the development of a new model code, proceeds with the adoption of the new code by states and local jurisdictions, and finishes when buildings comply with the code. The development of new model code editions creates the potential for increased energy savings. After a new model code is adopted, potential savings are realized in the field when new buildings (or additions and alterations) are constructed to comply with the new code. Delayed adoption of a model code and incomplete compliance with the code's requirements erode potential savings. The contributions of all three phases are crucial to the overall impact of codes, and are considered in this assessment.
Globally, 32% of total final energy consumption is attributed to the building sector. To reduce energy consumption, energy codes set minimum energy efficiency standards for the building sector. With effective implementation, building energy codes can support energy cost savings and complementary benefits associated with electricity reliability, air quality improvement, greenhouse gas emission reduction, increased comfort, and economic and social development. This policy brief seeks to support building code policymakers and implementers in designing effective building code programs.