Housing is a very important industry in Washington State, with new housing construction creating a big impact on the state's economy. There is the job creation directly from building new homes, plus all the linked suppliers of goods and services. There is also the real estate brokerage involved, plus jobs in maintenance, repairs, additions, alterations, homeowner expenditures.
In my county of Jefferson building permits in 2008 were 1/2 the number in 2007. Statewide the 2008 total building permits were down approximately 34% over 2007. I agree with the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington) that we cannot afford the new regulations being considered by the state legislature.
According to the BIAW our builder's are highly over-regulated, which is accounting for a cost per home of up to 45%. New bills being considered by the state to aid in green house emission would add an additional $5000 to $8000 per home.
Retrofit Vs. New Regulations:
California has an almost identical energy code to Washington and they discovered that retrofitting existing homes would be better for climate change than new regulations on new construction. Retrofitting a 1960's home would prevent 8.5 tons of carbon emission per year at a cost of $10,000. Building a new home with a 35% stricter energy code would reduce by 1.1 tons per year at a cost of $5000. It seems the real energy savings are in retrofitting, not new regulations.
Interesting post Many buildings can be retro fitted and California really has led the way in saving energy I learned recently
Thank you...I went to you website and loved the terrain in the photo. Looks like beautiful country.
Sandra, while we need to continually look for ways to "encourage" builders to construct more energy efficient homes, I agree that the timing doesn't seem logical for the introduction of new and more costly requirements. And the benefits don't justify the changes either. The number of existing homes that could be improved far exceeds the number of new homes that would be constructed. First things first.
Thanks for reading...I like your title.
Sandra - mixed feelings on this. I agree, regulation needs to be thoroughly vetted for it's impact in all aspects, in this case economic cost vs potential benefits. Do these new regs make sense and are they cost effective.
And what regulations would you put in place for existing homes. Will they need to be updated before they can be sold? Will homeowners have x time to make the retrofits? Will the new buyer have to retrofit? There has to be some sense involved in these decisions. Too much regulation is done in a knee jerk manner.
I guess that I would really have to understand the new regs before making any less ambivalent of a statement.
I do know that when I lived in Washington, builders/contractors were underregulated and it was one of the easiest states in the country to get a license with little to no accountability to the licensee. But I left there in 1994 so things might have improved/changed since then.
I think the BIAW is trying to clean things up. My brother in law was a contractor in CA and he was in charge of a cottage I built. He seems to think codes are good, and inspections were tough enough. I was shocked when I sold my first new construction in PT that there was no warrantee required so asked the builder for one in the contract. Really ticked him off, but he gave it to us and he is a good builder with a solid reputation. It is really a mixed bag, as our town is really trying to fine affordable housing. They encourage ADU's and all types of rentals.