Pennsylvania Updates Building Codes to Comply with Green Standards

Since 2009, only a handful of the thousands of changes published by the International Code Council have been approved by the board that decides which of those standards are appropriate for the state.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • linkText
  • Email
(TNS) — Pennsylvania’s new update to its plan for addressing climate change endorses the seemingly inoffensive idea that the state should adopt current building energy codes — those guides that establish the minimum energy conservation standards that new and renovated homes, and commercial buildings have to meet.

Consistently adopting up-to-date building codes, the plan says, “ultimately provides the single most cost-effective and expeditious means of achieving reductions in energy-related [greenhouse gas] emissions in the building sector,” which accounts for a large block of the nation’s total energy consumption.

The climate change advisory committee voted unanimously to endorse that section of the plan, and the state Department of Environmental Protection urged the legislature to pass it.

But updating building codes is not a straightforward matter in Pennsylvania.

Since 2009, only a handful of the thousands of changes published by the International Code Council have been approved by the board that decides which of those standards are appropriate for the state.

The council sets international model standards every three years, covering features meant to ensure new buildings are safe and sound, like plumbing and wiring, as well as energy efficiency.

The bar for adopting changes to the state’s building codes is very high — purposely so. State law used to default to adopting the suite of international codes except for specific features that the Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council excluded.

But the law was changed with Act 1 of 2011 to require advisors to opt-in to each individual code change with a two-thirds vote of the 19-member committee within a year of the model code’s publication.

In 2012, the Review and Advisory Council accepted no changes to the state’s Uniform Construction Code. In 2015, it adopted just 16 of 1,902 proposed changes.

“Act 1 is a system that just perpetually blocks any code adoption in Pennsylvania,” said Logan Welde, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council, which is challenging the constitutionality of the law in court.

A House bill that was amended and passed by the Pennsylvania Senate in July aims to ease the tangle somewhat without sacrificing the advisory council’s heightened oversight.

It would define code provisions as opposed or unopposed, and would require only those items that have been flagged by public commenters, subcommittees or council members to have a two-thirds majority vote to be adopted. It would also give the advisory council more time to review the proposed changes and clarify which past provisions are available for review.

The bill is waiting for a concurrence vote by the House as legislators return to the Capitol this week.

Rep. Eli Evankovich, R-Murrysville, the original sponsor of House Bill 568, said he agrees with some of the amendments made in the Senate, but the bill will need to be changed to get his chamber’s support.

What exactly the House intends to change is “still in flux,” he said.

The goal is to create a fair system, he said. His concern is that revised building codes can increase the cost of construction, pricing potential homeowners out of new buildings by mandating features that aren’t technically necessary.

“Angels did not come down from heaven to write these building codes,” he said. “Some of them are very legitimate safety issues; some of them are product-driven and agenda-driven.”

Furthermore, he said, constant change makes things confusing for contractors, inspectors and consumers.

The Pennsylvania Builders Association has voiced a similar concern.

Frank C. Thompson, an association member who has previously served as the chair of the review and advisory council, said updating building codes every three years can seem like churning just as builders and inspectors are getting accustomed to the last round of updates.

“Could it really be that wrong that it needs a thousand changes every three years?” Mr. Thompson, a Cranberry-based homebuilder and land developer, said.

He said House Bill 568 is a compromise, but it still needs some adjustments to make it workable. He supports a two-thirds vote of the review and advisory council for adopting any new code provisions.

Green building advocates say the current version of House Bill 568 might have been intended as a compromise but it does not alleviate their concerns.

They dislike the bill because it establishes delays — four and a half years — between when the ICC publishes new building codes and when the changes can take effect in Pennsylvania. They also say it makes it too easy to mark an individual code provision as opposed, triggering the heightened standard for adoption.

Lindsay Baxter, the energy and climate program manager for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, said energy efficiency standards and some safety standards “are the measures that are most likely to end up in that opposed category,” because they increase the upfront cost of construction even if they reduce energy bills over the long term.

A study by the Building Codes Assistance Project found the average new home in Pennsylvania built to meet the 2012 model energy conservation codes — instead of the current 2009 codes — would cost an additional $1,400 to $3,400 to build, but would save the homeowner between $7,600 and $19,000 in energy costs over the life of a 30-year mortgage.

The state’s updated climate change action plan found that keeping up with the model energy codes would cut Pennsylvania’s carbon dioxide emissions by 32 million metric tons between 2026 and 2030, and save over $2.7 million over those years.

Ms. Baxter said consumers generally do not know what to look for in terms of energy-efficient features. “Most people might know if they want granite countertops, they know how many bedrooms they want, but they’re not going to know what level of insulation to ask for,” she said.

Mr. Thompson said the market can drive demand for energy-efficient features if mortgage and appraisal systems recognize the value of energy improvements and help homebuyers finance them.

“If you show people that it makes economic sense to include those provisions, then it is easy to have them say yes,” he said.

©2016 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • linkText
  • Email