The US government has a new plan for slashing greenhouse emissions from buildings

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Forward-looking: The US Department of Energy has published its first comprehensive plan to fight climate change by cutting building emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal agencies must cooperate to reach four strategic objectives and achieve "near-zero" emissions in the not-so-distant future.

The Department of Energy released a new National Blueprint for the Building Sector, aiming to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from buildings by 65 percent by 2035 and 90 percent by 2050. Developed in collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, the plan is presented as the first sector-wide initiative designed to provide a significant, even unprecedented, impact on GHG emissions.

"America's building sector accounts for more than a third of the harmful emissions jeopardizing our air and health, but the Biden-Harris Administration has developed a forward-looking strategy to slash these pollutants from buildings across the nation," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.

The DOE and the Biden-Harris Administration have devised a "comprehensive" plan to transform energy consumption in homes, schools, and workplaces. They believe the Blueprint will reduce utility bills and improve the community's health.

The Blueprint has four main goals:

• Increase building energy efficiency,
• Accelerate onsite GHG reductions,
• Transform the "grid edge" (interactions between buildings and the electricity grid),
• Minimize emissions coming from building materials.

The plan claims that reducing 90 percent of GHG emissions will save consumers more than $100 billion in yearly energy costs while avoiding $17 billion in air pollution-related health care costs.

The DOE's national plan aims to meet specific performance and technology milestones by 2035 and 2050. Meeting all these targets requires an accelerated deployment of energy efficiency and decarbonization technologies. The US government will take federal-level actions to increase such a deployment, while technology developments will be essential for the plan to succeed.

Washington plans to provide direct investment funds and financial support to develop low-cost, low-carbon technologies, working with state, local, and tribal authorities to meet its lofty decarbonization goals. The plan requires innovations in three pivotal areas: building upgrades, efficient electrification, and "smart controls."

The new decarbonization plan includes specific measures for disadvantaged communities, which are more likely to face "energy insecurity" because of high energy costs. One in five American households is "at least" one month behind with energy bills, the US Census Bureau confirms. These are the Americans most likely to suffer from the effects of pollution and poor energy efficiency. The National Blueprint will address this issue by emphasizing affordability and by slashing energy costs, making communities more resilient to power outages and extreme weather conditions caused by climate change.

Permalink to story:

The US government has a new plan for slashing greenhouse emissions from buildings

 

[NumberNine]

Performative and ultimately nothing.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Which will make buildings more expensive to build, which will raise commercial real estate costs and rents, which will then be passed onto the consumer. There are no free lunches.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

Ah government innovation; finding new ways to waste your money.

 

[Thanthan]

I hear nothing about concrete. I’m assuming concrete is under ‘reducing emissions from materials’, but as it is the single biggest factor in construction, it’d be nice to tackle it head on, instead of obfuscating it by mixing it with other materials.

Also to all the eejits talking about increased costs in chat. Costs in construction have very little to do with quality. It has everything to do with forcing architects and builders who suck to use standardised solutions that don’t. To be perfectly frank, many people charge large sums of money for heavily thermally bridged, poorly designed pieces of crap, and that is the crux of it all. Good construction isn’t prohibitively expensive in any way shape or form, but it requires an apparatus that efficiently hinders crap in being built.

 

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Ah government innovation; finding new ways to waste your money.

Internet was a government-funded innovation. The Web was a government-funded innovation.

 

[Roach182]

Internet was a government-funded innovation. The Web was a government-funded innovation.

Yes, even a blind squirrel can find the odd acorn.

 

[yRaz]

I hear nothing about concrete. I’m assuming concrete is under ‘reducing emissions from materials’, but as it is the single biggest factor in construction, it’d be nice to tackle it head on, instead of obfuscating it by mixing it with other materials.

Also to all the eejits talking about increased costs in chat. Costs in construction have very little to do with quality. It has everything to do with forcing architects and builders who suck to use standardised solutions that don’t. To be perfectly frank, many people charge large sums of money for heavily thermally bridged, poorly designed pieces of crap, and that is the crux of it all. Good construction isn’t prohibitively expensive in any way shape or form, but it requires an apparatus that efficiently hinders crap in being built.

As someone who works in commercial construction I can tell you that the number 1 biggest cost in construction is labor. We have a large or shortage and during the work season, I usually work 30-40 hours of overtime a week to meet deadlines. The trade off is I get 3 paid months off

 

[Dimitrios]

Maybe they should focus on the wars going on.

What's funny is that they admitted flying migrants from other countries to America 332K total that's a lot of pollution shipping them here. Waiting for a hero comment.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Also to all the eejits talking about increased costs in chat. Costs in construction have very little to do with quality. It has everything to do with forcing architects and builders who suck to use standardised solutions that don’t.

I'm unclear what point you were trying to make, other than perhaps trying to expouse the general benefits of having building codes? I don't disagree that there is value in safety standards. However, adding new building codes and regulations does come with a cost. Whether those costs add value is another debate altogether.

For example, I used to live in MN and built a home there in 2016. That year, two new building regulations went into effect.

The first required a fire barrier for unfinished basement ceilings. The fire barrier requirement could either be met by spraying fire retardant foam on the floor joists and basement ceiling or hanging drywall. Most builders opted for the latter as the cost was similar. The second regulation required that indoor air be routinely cycled with outdoor air. Builders generally met this requirement by installing an air exchanger.

When quoting my floorplan, every builder I spoke with (and I quoted with five or six) consistently stated that costs were $10,000 higher than they would have been one year earlier strictly due to the change in building codes. These are changes I didn't ask for and frankly didn't need. I certainly would not feel less safe living in a home built one year prior and I doubt most homebuyers would care either. Also, someone who built the same home one year earlier could have saved $10K on their mortgage or put it into something that made their home more marketable / valuable from a resale perspective (e.g., hardwood floors, nicer countertops, partially finished lower level, etc.).

The point here is that there is a cost to these mandates. Whether you think it's worthwhile or not is another matter, but there's no question who's going to be the one paying for it in the end.

 

[Endymio]

Internet was a government-funded innovation. The Web was a government-funded innovation.

Oops! While the first WAN was indeed ARPANET, all the components enabling the Internet -- Ethernet, TCP/IP, and a fully-decentralized architecture -- came from the privately-funded Xerox PARC. The idea that government intervention was required to enable these is a myth.

As for the "invention" of the World-wide-web, the first HTML and HTTP implementations were a few months-long side project by one man: Tim Berners-Lee. A great idea, but again, not a case requiring government subsidies.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Maybe they should focus on the wars going on.

What's funny is that they admitted flying migrants from other countries to America 332K total that's a lot of pollution shipping them here. Waiting for a hero comment.

I mentioned in my first comment how if the government cared about CO2, that advancing things like nuclear power would do WAY more then BS like this, especially since there will likely just be some credits that the consumer has to pay for to "offset" things. Of course, the mods disliked this comment and shadow-banned it.

Oops! While the first WAN was indeed ARPANET, all the components enabling the Internet -- Ethernet, TCP/IP, and a fully-decentralized architecture -- came from the privately-funded Xerox PARC. The idea that government intervention was required to enable these is a myth.

As for the "invention" of the World-wide-web, the first HTML and HTTP implementations were a few months-long side project by one man: Tim Berners-Lee. A great idea, but again, not a case requiring government subsidies.

Shhhhh. Dont notice! You have to ACCEPT the narrative! The jannies might get upset otherwise.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

Internet was a government-funded innovation. The Web was a government-funded innovation.

Governments like businesses are made up of people, people invented those things.

 

[toooooot]

Which will make buildings more expensive to build, which will raise commercial real estate costs and rents, which will then be passed onto the consumer. There are no free lunches.

That is one thing every ordinary person needs to tell everyone around them, every one of these green measures puts their hand deep inside everyone's pocket and keeps taking more and more.

Then these politicions act concerned for life getting too expensive for ordinary people.
Damn it, you do it, again and again.
But people are also responsible. Liek I said, a lot of people like to talk about climate change and doing something, but not often enough about how expensive pretty much everything gets with each "improvement."

 

[Kam7r]

I still wonder why your houses cost this much while being built in "paper" compared to this side of the pond

 

[Endymio]

I still wonder why your houses cost this much while being built in "paper" compared to this side of the pond

Probably because the average US home is 2.5x the size of a UK home ... and situated more than 9 inches away from your nearest neighbor.

 

[wiyosaya]

The second regulation required that indoor air be routinely cycled with outdoor air. Builders generally met this requirement by installing an air exchanger.

Indoor air pollution is a big problem, but I understand how people might not notice it since marketers continually strive to sell everyone indoor air fresheners, scents of all kinds in soap, shampoo, etc. While you might not notice it, I bet your health is better because the indoor air is replaced by outdoor air.

I doubt that is the reason for the code, however. It is far more likely that the recirculation with outdoor air is required by code because most modern homes are built to be as air-tight as possible to save energy. If your house has a vapor barrier in it, it is built to be as air-tight as possible.

Without the recirculator, humidity builds up in the home, and can lead to one of the worst possible modern home problems - black mold - which would cost you perhaps 10s of thousands of dollars to properly mitigate. Believe me, you don't want that **** in your home. Black mold grows on pretty much anything with cellulose in it, like the paper backing on drywall, fiberglass insulation, etc.

 

[ferrellsl]

Why does this not surprise me? This is the same government that wanted to control cow farts because they claimed that CO2 emissions from cows were destroying the planet. Humans exhale CO2 on a scale that's probably 100x greater than any cow farts because we outnumber the cows, so I suspect this govt. will next try to force us to hold our breath for several minutes per day as another "green" regulation. It's already strangling us with taxes and inflation and an influx of illegal immigrants, might as well get us to self-asphyxiate while they're at it.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Indoor air pollution is a big problem, but I understand how people might not notice it since marketers continually strive to sell everyone indoor air fresheners, scents of all kinds in soap, shampoo, etc. While you might not notice it, I bet your health is better because the indoor air is replaced by outdoor air.

I doubt that is the reason for the code, however. It is far more likely that the recirculation with outdoor air is required by code because most modern homes are built to be as air-tight as possible to save energy. If your house has a vapor barrier in it, it is built to be as air-tight as possible.

Without the recirculator, humidity builds up in the home, and can lead to one of the worst possible modern home problems - black mold - which would cost you perhaps 10s of thousands of dollars to properly mitigate. Believe me, you don't want that **** in your home. Black mold grows on pretty much anything with cellulose in it, like the paper backing on drywall, fiberglass insulation, etc.

What you say about humidity is true, but the most effective mitigation to humidity is spot ventilation to the outside, which I already had in the bathrooms and in the kitchen. I run those fans religiously after showers and while cooking in part for the reasons you cited. Plus, I still needed to run the AC in the summertime along with a dehumidifier in the basement anyway, both of which do more to lower humidity than the air exchanger would.

It’s not to say an air exchanger is useless, but in my case the risk of mold was mitigated already given my habits and resulted in unnecessary added expense due to building codes. Better to have that as an option for the homeowner if they want it rather than a mandate for all, IMO.

 

[wiyosaya]

What you say about humidity is true, but the most effective mitigation to humidity is spot ventilation to the outside, which I already had in the bathrooms and in the kitchen. I run those fans religiously after showers and while cooking in part for the reasons you cited.

If your house is tight, ask yourself where the replacement air is coming from for your exhaust fan. In order for the "exhaust" fans to be effective, replacement air has to enter your house from somewhere, otherwise, you end up with a negative air pressure situation where the ventilation is not as good as you might believe. Prior to tight houses, there was plenty of air coming in from leaks that allowed exhaust fans to be effective, now that houses are tight, exhaust fans are likely not great unless you have a window open, or a vent that allows outside air to come in. An exchanger is just what it says, it exchanges outside air for inside air.

Plus, I still needed to run the AC in the summertime along with a dehumidifier in the basement anyway, both of which do more to lower humidity than the air exchanger would.

It’s not to say an air exchanger is useless, but in my case the risk of mold was mitigated already given my habits and resulted in unnecessary added expense due to building codes. Better to have that as an option for the homeowner if they want it rather than a mandate for all, IMO.

There are cases where dehumidification is necessary and an exchanger simply won't do the job.

Codes, like other government mandated items, are not always the best choices or allow for freedoms due to lack of knowledge on the part of those who make the laws. There is the possibility of challenging them in court, but this is not always within the means of some people.

I'd venture to guess that most people also are not knowledgeable enough to build a healthy home. Codes give those people a modicum of protection.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

If your house is tight, ask yourself where the replacement air is coming from for your exhaust fan. In order for the "exhaust" fans to be effective, replacement air has to enter your house from somewhere, otherwise, you end up with a negative air pressure situation where the ventilation is not as good as you might believe. Prior to tight houses, there was plenty of air coming in from leaks that allowed exhaust fans to be effective, now that houses are tight, exhaust fans are likely not great unless you have a window open, or a vent that allows outside air to come in. An exchanger is just what it says, it exchanges outside air for inside air.

There are cases where dehumidification is necessary and an exchanger simply won't do the job.

Codes, like other government mandated items, are not always the best choices or allow for freedoms due to lack of knowledge on the part of those who make the laws. There is the possibility of challenging them in court, but this is not always within the means of some people.

I'd venture to guess that most people also are not knowledgeable enough to build a healthy home. Codes give those people a modicum of protection.

You’re absolutely correct that without properly balanced intake and exhaust you’d get an air pressure imbalance. But if you have forced air heating and cooling you’re getting outside air through that system already. As long as your contractor balances intake vs exhaust air volume this shouldn’t be a show-stopping issue. It’s not like a home built 1-2 years prior under the older code would never cycle air into the house, and those still were built with vapor barriers.

As I stated earlier, building codes do serve a useful purpose including the reasons you mentioned. I think the bigger question is whether the changes add commensurate value relative to the cost to the consumer. Again, we are the ones who will ultimately pay for it.

 

[Endymio]

But if you have forced air heating and cooling you’re getting outside air through that system already.

Eh? Not without an air exchanger.

building codes do serve a useful purpose...

Local building codes passed by local governments tend to be responsive to the needs of the community. The federal government lacks constitutional authority to pass such codes -- not that this stops them -- and its focus tends to be upon 'social engineering', rather than providing tangible benefits to the purchasers of such homes.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Eh? Not without an air exchanger.


Local building codes passed by local governments tend to be responsive to the needs of the community. The federal government lacks constitutional authority to pass such codes -- not that this stops them -- and its focus tends to be upon 'social engineering', rather than providing tangible benefits to the purchasers of such homes.

I think I’m confusing everyone with my terminology. When I talk about an air exchanger, I really should have said heat recovery ventilator. I toured a lot of new homes in the two years prior to building and many of them had some form of air intake (some had a dryer vent sized pipe going directly to the outside in the mechanical room to pull in air). There wasn’t a true HRV involved, but there was a way for outdoor air to replace exhaust air. After the code change, new builds had to have an HRV which, while nice, was expensive and didn’t result in higher resale value.

 

[wiyosaya]

Local building codes passed by local governments tend to be responsive to the needs of the community. The federal government lacks constitutional authority to pass such codes -- not that this stops them -- and its focus tends to be upon 'social engineering', rather than providing tangible benefits to the purchasers of such homes.

States are free to adopt, or not, whatever recommended federal codes they wish. At the national level, it is more of a guideline than an absolute, which could be said is more social engineering.

For instance, having just bought a PHEV, I looked into installing a Level 2 charger in my garage. I found out that my state is a couple of years behind the current NEC, and the social engineering part of it is requiring a GFI on any outlet or circuit where any outlet is possibly near exposed water; however, that also provides tangible benefits to the homeowner in that reduces the chances of accidental electrocution.

Interesting thought I just had, we could say that Time is just such a national standard that has both social, community, and practical benefits and I cannot imagine each state having different definitions of the length of a second.

Like them or not, such standards are here to stay.

I think I’m confusing everyone with my terminology. When I talk about an air exchanger, I really should have said heat recovery ventilator. I toured a lot of new homes in the two years prior to building and many of them had some form of air intake (some had a dryer vent sized pipe going directly to the outside in the mechanical room to pull in air). There wasn’t a true HRV involved, but there was a way for outdoor air to replace exhaust air. After the code change, new builds had to have an HRV which, while nice, was expensive and didn’t result in higher resale value.

An HRV is a specialized air exchanger, as I am sure you know, that recovers heat from interior warmed air that is to be exhausted outdoors and uses it to warm incoming air. While you may not see it reflected in property value, it will serve to reduce waste heat especially in the colder months or in geographic areas where heating is the primary HVAC cost; depending on heating costs, it may save the homeowner money on heating costs. So, IMO, it is not really different from an air exchanger, and in areas where heating is the primary HVAC cost, it stands a chance to save a homeowner money on their utility bills, or retain heat in the home that would otherwise be wasted - if the home is "off grid." Thus, it is likely beneficial depending on where the home is located, and has value even though it may not be reflected in the value of the property.

IMO, whether anything is reflected in property value is a function of the current market. For instance, at the present time, having FTTH in our area is said to increase home value by about $5K; however, the future may not bring such benefits of FTTH, or any home improvement, that reflects positively in property value at the time it is installed especially if the home improvement becomes ubiquitous.

Then again, over time, most real properties go up in value which, I suppose, is a simple result of our monetary system and the fact that literally everything costs more today than it did 10, or more, years ago.

 

[TempleOrion]

Why does this not surprise me? This is the same government that wanted to control cow farts because they claimed that CO2 emissions from cows were destroying the planet. Humans exhale CO2 on a scale that's probably 100x greater than any cow farts because we outnumber the cows, so I suspect this govt. will next try to force us to hold our breath for several minutes per day as another "green" regulation. It's already strangling us with taxes and inflation and an influx of illegal immigrants, might as well get us to self-asphyxiate while they're at it.

Why does the usual right-trash textual diarrhoea not surprise me? Strawmen and never-ending fallacies, never anything resembling reason or logic; just kneejerk emotional responses, feelings of being "oppressed" by their own government, the poor little snowflakes