7 Comments

1. 
   Mitch_Costa | May 25, 2018 05:28pm | #1

   Good intent, but CA is a failed model for housing
   Judging as an end user, some of the results in energy efficiency are great, but the overall permitting, taxes and fees involved when building a house in CA create such a burden, that many, including myself, are unable to build an affordable house at all. The lack of affordable housing is a problem in many states, but CA leads the way amongst that particular problem.
   It's not that better energy efficiency reqts are too much of a burden, but more that so many other CA reqts add heavy burdens to the building process. At the now standard $275-300 per sq ft to build a new house in my area, I haven't yet been able to find a way to get construction financed - and the end pricetag for a moderate home is certainly more than I can readily afford. I have enough construction experience, engineering knowledge, and determination that I'll eventually find a way to build, and more affordably, but it will require more time and effort than the average person can dedicate.
   Bottom line is be very careful in modeling CA building requirements and enforcement - there is a lot that doesn't work about the CA system which needs to be separated from that which does work.

2. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | May 25, 2018 05:39pm | #2

   Response to Mitchell Costa
   Mitchell,
   My endorsement of California's measures to reduce CO2 emissions is not an endorsement of all California regulations. I agree that California needs to take steps to make housing more affordable. Some of the necessary changes -- particularly the need to allow greater density in neighborhoods with single-family homes -- may be unpopular, but that doesn't make the steps less necessary.

3. 
   jimfergie | May 30, 2018 03:47pm | #3

   California
   I've lived in California my whole life, 63 years in the Landscape Construction industry. I built my home here in Northern California 35 years ago and am currently building a small home in Western North Carolina. Typical building permits for a single family home in our town are between $70,000 - $90,000. That's just for the permit and fees. My building permit in North Carolina was $587.00 total, with no plans required. It took three days to get the permit. My son still lives here but is trying to get out, he'll never afford a house here. My two other daughters left as well. Nice dry climate (or drought ?), super overcrowded, expensive and over regulated.

4. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | May 30, 2018 03:53pm | #4

   Response to Jim Clabaugh
   Jim,
   Like Mitchell Costa, you're justifiably worried about over-regulation and housing affordability. I agree with both of you that these issues need to be addressed in California.

   I doubt whether permit fees of $70,000 to $90,000 are entirely due to energy efficiency rules. It wouldn't be hard to find communities in New England that have above-average energy efficiency standards, yet still maintain reasonable permit fees. We need to peel the California onion to discover the reason for the high fees you mention.

5. 
   gustave_stroes | May 31, 2018 06:11pm | #5

   "California has an aggressive
   "California has an aggressive Renewables Portfolio Standard that will require utilities to use renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal to generate 50% of the state’s electricity by 2030."

   I have read that utilities can get around this rule by purchasing non-renewable electricity from OR, NV, AZ etc, which is not counted towards the 50% renewables total.

6. 
   pfwarner1 | Nov 28, 2018 03:44pm | #6

   As a residential architect and GC in California, I do applaud how far we've come and how much we've moved the industry toward energy efficiency. Necessity is the mother of invention, and many things that were exotic or "deep green" twenty years ago are standard practice now. However, in order to broadly implement these strategies we need to make the process simpler and more cost effective during design, engineering and permitting. Getting homes to pass Title 24 energy code often requires us to make counterintuitive choices (or worse - less efficient) because the energy modeling is so poor. We've spent 100+ years iterating our model building codes and they are now some of the best and most flexible, but we have a long way to go to bring our energy codes up to that standard. I hope our next effort is to streamline and reform our energy codes, while still upping our performance standard. Only then will it see broader adoption.

7. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Nov 28, 2018 04:10pm | #7

   Paul,
   I certainly agree with your goals -- making sure that energy codes are logical rather than counterproductive. The ideal energy code allows flexibility without undermining energy targets. I'm sure that there is room for improvement in our building codes.