LEEDing to Efficiency (Featuring Title 24!)

by Tony Chavira

After posting last week’s article, entitled “LEEDing to Disaster,” I got an e-mail from a reader with a simple, three-word question: “A bit harsh?” My kneejerk reaction was naturally defensive: “Of course not!” But after reflecting for a moment and getting a similar reaction from one of my RACAIA co-workers, I started wondering why I had decided to pick on LEED specifically. Sure, they were the cool and heavily-hyped green building incentive flavor-of-the-day, but there’s no doubt that LEED and the U.S. Green Building Council were trying to move us in the right direction. There are several other green incentive programs; LEED’s just the one I chose to make my point.

Really, though, my point that “LEED standards should be stricter and universalized” was more rooted in semantics than anything. I don’t really care if builders and designers actually use LEED or not: LEED is really just another arrow in your quiver in a battle against global warming, deforestation, brownfields and pollution. As a leadership program, it requires that there be leaders and it incentivizes progress and innovation. Being a hardcore futurist, I can wholly and fervently get behind that. But in respect to last week’s article, I chose to replace the idea of “more stringent environmental policies in our building codes” with “LEED,” since LEED was moving in that direction. In this respect, I wouldn’t have advocated for LEED’s universal implementation if the U.S. Green Building Council weren’t doing its job; and in that respect, I can absolutely support what they’re trying to achieve.

In actuality, California has a standardized green building policy, one which becomes slowly more and more strict: Title 24 requirements. In fact, adoption of the most recent amendments happens this August. For those who’ve never had to build anything ever, and only read FourStory for the snarky quips, Title 24 is a policy that was first adopted by California back in 1978 to reduce our energy consumption, way ahead of the environmental curve. But the history of Title 24 isn’t so green-glamorous: a Marin County court case forced the California Energy Commission’s hand, and the process of creating Title 24 standards began. Although it stemmed from a court ruling and the question of existing projects loomed over the court decision, government officials were already lobbying for efficiency standards anyway, companies were forming to make money off of these standards, and green advocates couldn’t get enough of the idea of conservation. When can they ever?

In actuality, Title 24 is a supermassive list of details meant to serve as a reference guide for developments trying to get through the building department. Every detail of a building is outlined in that book: lights, walls, ceilings, stairways, pavement ... if I can be more efficient, it’s in there. In fact, this sea of codes and details has actually helped to save Californians more than $56 billion since it was adopted way back in the 70s. It didn’t become insurmountable all at once, though; there’ve been revisions constantly since its adoption and the most recent one was adopted earlier this year, officially taking effect August 1st. Just to give you an idea of how Title 24 tries to stay on the environmental ball, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has energy performance standards as well (with the most recent revision accepted in 2004), but 2008’s Title 24 revisions were found to be 21% more efficient than ASHRAEs. That’s right, they measured the efficiency of efficiency. The 2009 amendments, once they take effect, are estimated to create an additional $23 billion in energy savings by 2013. Think of it: $56 billion in 40 years, then $23 billion in only four years. That’s what I call efficiency, my friends.

Any apocalyptic environmental prophesy aside, the upcoming Title 24 changes are actually in response to key issues that Californians of all shapes, sizes, and political affiliations can get behind:

1. Lawmakers need to make sure that Californian residents can get enough environmentally-sound energy without a massive price hike, as energy companies are surely looking for any excuse they can at this point.
2. The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32) basically mandated that California had to reduce global warming gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, or there’d be hell to pay. Although I wish this deadline was sooner, increasing Title 24’s demands definitely helps.
3. Actual Energy Commission policy dictates that “efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California’s energy needs.” In fact, by this mandate, Title 24 policies can’t help being amended for maximum strictness.
4. The California State Senate receives a report from the California Energy Commission every two years that they and the Governator’ll be forced to read. Over the past few years, the Commission had found that actual standards are the most cost-effective way to achieve increased energy efficiency. What’s good about this report is that that the Energy Commission evaluates Title 24 and is allowed to revise it every other year to make its own policy potentially more efficient. Just consider them a government-funded efficiency agency that’s job is to make itself more efficient.
5. The governors of California, Washington and Oregon approved a series of very specific recommendations to reduce the impact of global warming back in November of 2004, and the only way that building codes can keep up with the requirements of the initiative (named the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative) is to spend some serious time making development more efficient.

6. In response to an executive order by the Green Building Initiative, a non-profit that’s basically funded by a bunch of forward-thinking industry leaders, the state of California needed to reevaluate the efficiency of nonresidential buildings with harsher and harsher standards.

I doubt you’re interested in actually reading the nitty gritty of Title 24, unless you really really are. It’s only a few hundred pages outlining a ton of requirements to achieve efficiency on a really detailed level.

Title 24 requirements may seem somewhat overwhelming at first glance, but in some ways that’s the point. We don’t want room for developers to ignore issues or seek out loopholes. We want to be specific and anal. We want to be so specific, in fact, that it’s harder to sue the government and win than to just shut up and follow the codes. Title 24 requirements may be a pain in the ass for architects and developers, and the specific requirements may seem limiting in terms of design, but too bad. Good design adapts to use, and if Title 24-compliant lights are also beautifully designed, they’ll come out ahead of the game. It’s meant to be comprehensive: every element can increase efficiency, so every element of a structure’s involved.

There are definitely enough policies and agencies pushing for change, though, and it’s nice to know that they will keep pushing for increased sustainable and efficiency measures. Just keep your eye on development projects and make sure that your building department is doing their job diligently. Between the requirements of Title 24 and the incentives of programs like LEED, I like to think that we’re well on our way to wholly sustainable homes.

Here’s hoping, anyway.

Comments

No comments.

Comments closed.