ClimateWire had a fascinating story on Monday about federal
efforts to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, which are
estimated to consume about 40% of our nation's energy. The
story concerns the less than inspiringly-named Greater Philadelphia
Innovation Cluster for Energy-Efficient Buildings, which is seeking
to substantially alter how building owners think about energy
efficiency and the use of technology.
The problem facing GPIC, as it is known, is one with which I
confess I was not familiar. According to the statistics from
the Energy Information Administration:
"Over the past 20 to 30 years, every important building
component has improved in energy performance. From air conditioners
to lighting to windows, construction crews today have an array of
green technologies at their disposal.
Once they're put together, though, the finished
building performs no better than its predecessors of two or three
decades ago. The parts have gotten better, but not the
It's not clear why this happens, but the theory is a
combination of lack of coordination among different members of
design teams, and a set of incentives that almost inevitably lead
each individual component to be substantially overdesigned and thus
incapable of taking advantage of the efficiencies provided by new
I have to say that this conclusion is sufficiently startling
that I am skeptical. The EIA reports that, from 1986 to 1999,
energy use per square foot of building did not
change. Apparently, 1999 is the last year for which EIA has
data. (Which of course is also troubling, in its own
way.) It would be interesting to know if energy efficiency has
increased at all since 1999.
Even if the situation is better than the EIA data suggest,
it would not be surprising if the problem does exist, at
least to some extent. If so, it raises some very interesting
issues regarding government regulation of building
efficiency. States such as California and Massachusetts are
likely to start regulating building efficiency at some point as
part of their broader plans to attain GHG emissions
targets. Will they be able to do so in a way that actually
leads to decreased energy use per square foot? Based on this
article, simply requiring use of more efficient components may not
lead to the outcomes the states want. On the other hand,
regulations that actually affect the design process will be
considered by building owners to be unreasonably
This is definitely one to continue to watch.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recent and much anticipated decision by both natural gas producers and landowners, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally cleared up confusion about who owns the mineral rights to shale gas in Butler v. Powers Estate.
Natural gas producers and landowners alike breathed a sigh of relief on April 24, 2013 as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court" or "Court") overturned a lower court decision that questioned whether subsurface ownership rights of natural gas in shale formations should be treated differently than ownership rights of natural gas in conventional formations.
The city of Lancaster, California recently adopted an ordinance requiring builders of most new homes to install functional solar power generation systems on these homes prior to their sale to the public.
As discussed previously on the blog, the IRS released Notice 2013-29 on April 15 which provided guidance on determining when construction has begun on a qualified renewable energy facility for purposes of the production tax credit.