California To Require Net Zero Energy Buildings
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 02. 8.08
net zero energy house by Zoka Zola
Ed Mazria challenged the architecture and building community to go fossil-fuel free by 2030; the community yawned, knowing that until the clients paid for it and the building codes required it, not much was going to happen too quickly. Now the State of California is doing just that. The California Energy Commission has recommended that all residential buildings be "net zero energy" by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030.
zero energy house by Clarum Homes
While inspired by the 2030 Challenge, the California rules go for net zero energy rather than no fossil fuel, so a building might use fossil fuels but would have to offset it with renewables. Allyson Wendt at Building Green writes:
CEC based its definition of net-zero-energy performance, and many of its recommendations, on a report by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), which states that a goal of “no net purchases from the electricity or gas grid” may be met with energy-efficient design and “onsite clean distributed generation.”
As usual, California leads the way with the most progressive and forward-looking regulations; this should be the law everywhere.
Lloyd, I'm sure you were just being a little dramatic, but I think a lot of architects and designers would take offense to the following statement:
the community yawned, knowing that until the clients paid for it and the building codes required it, not much was going to happen too quickly.
There is a long list of firms that have signed on to the 2030 Challenge, and many of them are forcing their clients to get on board as well. This includes some of the largest architecture firms in the nation, and they are very serious about it.
This kind of thing shows the short sightedness of legislators.
Let's wait until AFTER a huge building boom to enact a law that will get watered down to affects new construction, and make it so overbearing that nobody will want to take part due to the financial.
There are a lot of small things that could make a big impact if they were implemented wide scale.
What's the payback period on solar hot water heating?
Tank less water heaters?
Thermostats that cut back the temperature slightly when you're away for work? (sure, maybe 100% on this site have them, but many people do not!)
Florescent/LED lighting?
Passive solar construction?
sorry, in the end big mansions will have solar panels stuck on them to meet the code, and won't be energy efficient, and the masses will buy existing houses with outdated insulation and design (not that there is a glut of homes in California or anything...)
Who pays to maintain the electricity and gas grids into new developments if all the new houses make no "net purchases" from the suppliers? Would there be a flat monthly "connection" fee?
I'm all for maximum efficiency, I'm just wondering if the economic implications of this have been thought through.
Same sort of question with mandated feed-in tariffs. As long as it's low penetration it doesn't disturb things, but if a feed-in tariff such as Germany's becomes widespread with some people making money selling very high priced electricity to the grid, that means others such as those with shaded property or living in apartments will be the one's to pay not only for the higher cost per KWh given to those with solar panels but also the embedded costs of maintaining all the electrical infrastructure to connect those people no longer paying into the system.
"...and many of them are forcing their clients to get on board as well."
Implies to me that the client is paying for it, and as such Mr. Alter's statement still holds. That is, change wont happen until the client pays for it and codes change. Perhaps it should have been 'until the client pays for it or the codes change.
Health and Happiness,
Oscar
Yes, it has to be required by law before anything happens.