State Energy and Climate Actions: Efficiency in the Built Environment

The Center for Climate Strategies is a nonprofit that supplies technical and analytic services to states. This briefing was the third in a series co-sponsored by EESI and CCS. The first briefing provided an overview of state energy and climate actions across all sectors. The second briefing provided a breakdown of policies in the agriculture, forestry, and waste management sectors. Details on future briefings will be posted at www.eesi.org/briefings as they become available.

On September 1, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) held a briefing about state actions to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, industry and community land use. Energy efficiency offers the most cost effective approach for reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. Many state governments are developing new energy efficient building codes and leading by example by improving the efficiency of their own buildings. Many utilities are providing incentives for the private sector to retrofit old buildings. Another key to reducing emissions is creating alternatives to passenger car travel by locating housing and commercial development near public transit and making communities safe and accessible for pedestrians. The following experts discussed the wide variety of policy measures states have implemented to improve energy efficiency in the built environment.

• Energy efficiency actions in the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial (RCI) and Transportation and Land Use (TLU) sectors in many cases can save states money and have a positive economic impact. Studies conducted by the Center for Climate Strategies in 31 states have shown that energy efficiency actions in the built environment have raised median income, provided new jobs, and increased economic growth. These actions reduce the cost of cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are popular with voters.
• For example, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group’s recommendation to improve the statewide building codes is estimated to provide a cost benefit of $576 per ton of GHG removed from the atmosphere. Demand management for peak use electricity in Arkansas is estimated to provide a benefit of $48 per ton.
• RCI energy efficiency actions such as stronger building codes and energy efficiency standards for appliances have the biggest bang for the buck. These actions are understandable to the general public, involve regulations in areas where people expect the government to operate, and are less likely to pick winners and losers. Consequently, legislation for these measures is the easiest to pass.
• “Location efficiency” actions in the TLU sector, such as smart growth plans and mass transit improvements, can also pay for themselves. However, it can be more difficult to build consensus on these issues because they affect people’s way of life.
• Energy efficiency actions in the built environment should be a mix of incentives, standards, and educational initiatives in order to take advantage of the strengths of each.
• Policies can be approved for other reasons beyond their cost saving ability. For example, Michigan has authorized funds to support the development of advanced batteries for electric cars. This comes at a high cost, but was approved because of its value to Michigan’s automobile industry.
• The Arkansas Governor’s Commission on Global Warming and the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group both have submitted GHG emission reduction plans to their respective governors. The inclusion of energy efficiency actions in the built environment have helped Arkansas and Minnesota to design plans that reduce GHG emissions by approximately 50 percent below the business as usual case in 2025. (See plan summaries above.)
• Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan is due by the end of 2009. The state has already adopted a uniform construction code, set aside $25 million for green buildings, and established a goal to cut energy use by 10 percent in state buildings by 2010.
• There are substantial barriers, including the need for upfront investment, lack of consumer awareness, diverse stakeholder agendas, and the need for cooperation between local communities to successfully implement smart growth plans.
• Local, state, and federal governments should work together to implement these energy efficiency actions. Also, not all actions require legislation so governments should move ahead as quickly as possible in these areas.
• The federal government should create expectations, permit local solutions, and provide financial support to state and local governments.