ClimateAndInsurance.org

- Advertisement -

William Fay

William D. Fay
Executive Director
Energy Efficient Codes Coalition
Website: http://thirtypercentsolution.com/

William D. Fay (09.05.08)

William D. Fay is executive director of the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, a broad-based based organization comprised of government, regional energy efficiency networks, environmental groups, utilities and businesses. The Coalition has submitted its “30% Solution” proposal to the International Code Council (ICC) for its consideration and possible adoption. The proposal calls on the ICC to boost 2009 energy efficiency codes for homes by more than 30 percent over the 2006 International Energy Conservation Codes.

Mr. Fay has a strong background in transportation, energy, environmental, tax and natural resource policy and regulation. During his 28 years in D.C., Mr. Fay has worked in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, with Members of Congress who served on the Senate Appropriations, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment & Public Works, and Finance Committees and the House Transportation & Infrastructure, Resources and Agriculture Committees.

A native of Idaho, Mr. Fay has bachelor’s degrees in accounting and political science from the University of Idaho.


The Interview

Takefive:
Mr. Fay, let’s begin, by having you tell us how the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EECC) came about, and what is “The 30% Solution?”

William Fay:
The EECC was formed to join a growing chorus supporting an ambitious step forward in the energy efficiency of America’s homes. Calls for strengthening model energy codes – by 30 percent or beyond – are coming from highly respected governmental and other bodies like the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA/DOE National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, ASHRAE, Western Governors Association, National Petroleum Council, American Institute of Architects, and Mayors for Climate Protection. They cite the significant role homes and other buildings play in America’s energy and electricity use and have concluded that substantial and immediate energy efficiency improvements in building construction are imperative.

We assembled this unique, broad-based coalition of longstanding energy efficiency advocates – from government, regional energy efficiency alliances, academia, think tanks, environmental groups, utilities, energy consumers and businesses – to answer those calls by developing and promoting the adoption of a comprehensive proposal – which we called “The 30% Solution” – which used fully achievable and affordable “state-of-the-shelf” technologies to boost the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code by 30 percent over the current IECC.

EECC’s guiding principles in approaching the 2009 IECC deliberations are:

“The 30% Solution” is the only proposal before the ICC that has been independently estimated to achieve a 30 percent improvement over the current 2006 IECC. It will boost energy efficiency in virtually every part of the house subject to code requirements – space heating and cooling, thermal envelope, duct sealing, air sealing, hot water heating and lighting.

After the IECC Development Committee completed its February 2008 hearings in Palm Springs, CA, the EECC reformulated “The 30% Solution” to reflect and incorporate comments and recommendations from the Development Committee, floor debate and discussions with key stakeholders, such as the U.S. Department of Energy. Our goal was to compile all pro-energy efficiency proposals supported by the committee – regardless of the proposal’s author – into a single proposal and to revise and add meritorious EECC proposals.

The result is a new and improved version of “The 30% Solution,” comprised of 21 individual proposals – 14 of which were approved by the Development Committee in Palm Springs and seven other proposals which were modified in public comments to respond to IECC development committee suggestions made at the Palm Springs hearings.

Like the original, the new and improved version of “The 30% Solution” is designed to be:

Takefive:
The EECC has identified 15 major misconceptions, misstatements and flat out myths that surround energy efficiency. Can you briefly describe some of the more outrageous myths you have encountered and how has the EECC tried to debunk them?

William Fay:
Myths generally fall into one of five categories: timing, impact, technology, cost and process. Within each category, the most outrageous myths are:

Timing Myth.
Improving the code by 30 percent may be a laudable goal - but not right now.

It’s hard to imagine this statement in the midst of today’s energy crisis. If there’s one policy goal that unites all Americans, elected officials and policymakers, it’s the urgent need to act . . . and few would argue that energy efficiency must be a key element of any solution.

Homes and other buildings are the largest single energy-using sector (40 percent), the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (37 percent), and the last major frontier of wasted energy. And, because they are built to last for decades, they cumulative energy they waste will burden energy policy for future generations.

Impact Myth.
As the real “low hanging fruit,” existing homes should be the target of energy efficiency efforts.

Improving energy efficiency for all homes – new and existing – is not a mutually exclusive proposition. As a nation, it is very important that we do all in our power to educate existing homeowners of the benefits of retrofitting their homes to make them more energy efficient. The NAHB has stated that by 2030, half of the homes that America will need have not been built yet. Because those “new” homes will quickly become America’s “existing” homes, building them 30 percent more energy efficient will obviate the need to retrofit them in the future.

Technology Myth.
A 30 percent improvement is often technologically impossible to meet.

Builders of all sizes and operating in all locations around the United States are taking and achieving DOE’s “Builders Challenge,” which commits builders to build all of their new homes to achieve an E-score of 70 (like “The 30% Solution,” 30 percent more energy efficient than the 2006 IECC) or lower. The program’s website contains well-documented case studies for homes of all types and in all areas of the nation. One member of the “Builders Challenge” is Lennar Homes, the #1 production builder in the country in terms of volume (nearly 50,000 homes sold per Reed Business Publication’s 2007 Giants 400 list). A builder of this magnitude would not commit to this program if it was technically impossible or economically infeasible.

Cost Myth.
Building a new home to meet the requirements of “The 30% Solution” would add “exorbitant” costs for home buyers.

“The 30% Solution” employs “state-of-the-shelf” technologies that have been demonstrated to save energy and, far from imposing substantial and exorbitant costs to homebuyers, will code generates positive financial returns that exceed the cost of the energy improvements. In fact, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study in Greensburg, Kansas found that the “break even point” between cash flow of energy efficiency investments is actually reached when new homes are built to roughly 60 percent more efficient than today’s model energy code! The NREL analysis found that new homes that are 30 percent beyond the 2006 code model produce net annual savings of $512 to the homeowner, calculated as follows:

Process Myth.
The role of the model energy code isn’t to constantly increase energy efficiency.

It’s troubling, but when it comes to energy efficiency, improvements in the IECC have been far outpaced by energy cost increases in recent years. In fact, new home energy efficiency required by the code has remained relatively constant over the past decade. During that time, a number of economic, environmental and societal developments compel the nation to boost the energy efficiency of its homes and buildings:

Takefive:
In June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution supporting “The 30% Solution.” Can you tell us how that resolution came about and what your organization has done since then to mobilize additional support for your plan?

William Fay:
After nearly two decades of relative stagnancy in the IECC, one of our first steps in the formative stage of our coalition was to thoroughly analyze why energy efficiency wasn’t receiving the priority we felt it deserved. Our conclusion was that the ICC’s insulated code development process was so steeped in detail that few elected officials and policymakers even knew the process existed, let alone the impact it had on their public policy initiatives.

Our “new approach” followed two tracks. First, for code officials (who probably support energy efficiency, but who were never presented with a energy efficiency package like “The 30% Solution”), we stressed the cumulative benefits of the proposals to individual homeowners, as well as their communities, states and the nation as a whole.

The second track was directed to those who employ or influence code officials. Our goal was to shine a spotlight on a heretofore unknown process – to bring the ICC’s highly technical deliberations “out of the weeds” and to show elected officials and thought leaders that this is probably America’s most important energy, environmental and climate policy vote of the year – and they’d never heard of it.

Our outreach efforts with mayors resulted in: 1) A strong letter supporting our original version of “The 30% Solution;” 2) A subsequent resolution (adopted over the objections of the NAHB) in support of the new and improved version of “The 30% Solution” and encouraging mayors to send their employees (code officials) to Minneapolis to support it; and 3) A follow up letter from six key mayors (from Austin, Miami, Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco and Seattle) to all mayors urging them to join the ICC and send their full allowable delegations to Minneapolis.

Additional outreach efforts to governors, state legislators, county officials and others have been conducted by the broad-based membership of the coalition.

Takefive:
Your mobilization efforts are focused on having “The 30% Solution” adopted at the International Code Council meeting in Minneapolis on September 21-22. Can you give us a status report on your organization’s efforts to date and what, in your opinion, still needs to be done to gain a positive outcome?

William Fay:
The estimates of the historic gains from the IECC Development Committee’s pro-energy efficiency recommendations range from around half of our 30 percent goal (ICF, International) to DOE’s 17-22 percent. But even holding on to these gains will be a daunting task.

The outcome of the vote in Minneapolis is anyone’s guess. First of all, the new and improved version of “The 30% Solution” – because it was narrowly defeated (6-8) by the IECC Development Committee – will require two-thirds of those present in the room to vote to reject their negative recommendation before proceeding to a vote on the package itself.

Second, the NAHB will be in Minneapolis in force. We know that defeating our proposals is a high priority for them. They’ve filed comments opposing each of the 14 pro-energy efficiency recommendations of the Development Committee, so we will also face their opposition in trying to hold on to the gains we made in Palm Springs.

Third, there’s no way to tell how many of the tens of thousands of eligible voting representatives will be coming to Minneapolis or which of those who are will take the time to be in the room when the vote on “The 30% Solution” comes up. Three years ago in Detroit, the 2006 IECC was determined by 250-350 voting representatives. The ICC doesn’t release a list of its attendees and doesn’t even know who actually casts votes.

Fourth, many cities who say they support “The 30% Solution” have also told us that budget constraints have curtailed travel expenses. While Denver plans to send all 12 of its eligible delegation, Seattle will only send six. Sarasota, Florida is a strong supporter but is currently operating under a travel ban.

Simply stated, we’re facing a numbers game not unlike the Iowa Caucus’ “How many people can we get under the tent?” Our campaign to “fill the tent” is broad, including such elements as:

Takefive:
Finally, why should the insurance industry take an interest in “The 30% Solution?”

William Fay:
We believe there are four principal reasons the insurance industry should become more interested in “The 30% Solution” and have prepared a Powerpoint to present reference data to support our contention: