Prepare for 2017’s new Title 24 regulations
Approximately, every three years, the California Energy Commission (CEC) revisits its energy efficiency standards, augmenting the building code to align with recent technological advancements and the state's new efficiency goals. The commission underwent this process again this year, identifying areas for improvement in both new construction and retrofits for residential and nonresidential properties.
With this most recent set of revisions, the commission is striving toward a pair of new state efficiency targets: achieving net zero energy for new residential construction by 2020 and for new commercial construction by 2030. Referred to as the 2016 version, these standards will go into effect January 1, 2017, which gives contractors just a few months with which to become familiar with the new building requirements.
Before we dive into what's new for the 2016 Standards, let's take a step back and review the overall goal of these standards.
What is Title 24, Part 6?
Title 24, Part 6, is the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards which exists to conserve electricity and natural gas consumption throughout the state. Among the many benefits of reduced consumption, Title 24, Part 6 specifically seeks to prevent the state from having to build additional power plants to supply unchecked demand, according to the CEC. To manage consumption, Title 24, Part . . .
New climate legislation could add fuel to California’s economy
When most people think about the economic effects of green building, they think about the cash that homeowners, property managers and businesses save by reducing their use of natural resources and energy. After all, California's energy-saving programs saved its residents nearly $90 billion on their energy bills between 1973 and 2013, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. However, sustainability's impact goes far beyond patching the hole in end users' pockets. The Golden State's commitment to energy efficiency over the last decade has spurred as much as $48 billion in economic growth, according to new analysis by nonpartisan business group Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). The group attributes much of this stimulus, as well as the creation of about 500,000 jobs, to the goals set forth by a piece of legislation known as AB 32. Signed into law in 2006 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AB 32 stipulated that the state would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, achieving 1990 levels by 2020. Since then, California has played host to dozens of new climate policies and seen countless energy-saving innovations arise out of the desert, events to which E2 attributes much of the state's economic growth.
According to E2, California's aggressive energy goals have helped . . .
Water efficiency linked to ‘surprisingly large’ energy savings in new study
In every green building project, designers put countless hours into developing a plan that not only limits the structure's demand on the grid but also reduces its reliance on natural resources. New research from the UC Davis Center for Water-Energy Efficiency now shows just how linked those two goals may be, finding reduced water usage can lead to substantial cuts in both energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. To make this connection, researchers analyzed the effect of urban water usage limits mandated to counter California's ongoing drought. By reducing urban water usage by 25 percent between June 2015 and February of this year, the state saved about 922 gigawatt-hours of energy - enough to power 135,000 homes for an entire year, the LA Times reported. Plus, it saved an additional 220,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to taking about 50,000 cars off the road, according to GreenBiz. "Reduced water usage can lead to substantial cuts in both energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions."In fact, during peak summer months reducing water consumption alone saved as much energy as most other major energy efficiency programs in California combined, the LA Times reported. Further, water-related savings came with just one-third of the price tag compared . . .