1 / 19

Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida

Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida. Grant D. Jacobsen UC Santa Barbara Matthew J. Kotchen Yale University and NBER. Energy Building Codes in the United States. The vast majority of states have energy building codes

mort
Download Presentation

Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy? Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Are Building Codes Effective at Saving Energy?Evidence from Residential Billing Data in Florida Grant D. JacobsenUC Santa BarbaraMatthew J. KotchenYale University and NBER

  2. Energy Building Codes in the United States • The vast majority of states have energy building codes • Response to the 1973 oil embargo • Resource scarcity and national security • Heightened concern about energy and climate change • All buildings account for • 72% of electricity consumption • 39% of all energy use • 38% of all CO2 emissions • Efforts underway to legislate federal building energy codes • Waxman-Markey in the House • Boxer-Kerry in the Senate

  3. Are Energy Codes Effective at Saving Energy? • Engineering simulations provide the foundation • Challenges in practice • Enforcement and compliance • Behavioral responses: rebound effects • Model calibration • Surprisingly little empirical evidence based on field data

  4. Primary Objectives and Conclusions • Use residential billing data for an ex post evaluation of an energy-code change in Florida • 4% decrease in electricity consumption • 6% decrease in natural-gas consumption • Estimate costs and benefits of energy-code change • Private payback period 7.5 – 35 years • Social payback period 4 – 27 years

  5. Florida’s 2001 Residential Energy Code • Performance-based code relative to a baseline home • Goal to bring state into alignment with the International Energy Conservation Code • Two major changes in state’s northern climate region • Baseline air-distribution system from “leak-free” to “leaky” • Solar Heat Gain Coefficient reduced from 0.61 to 0.4 • Simulations predict 4% savings in space heating/cooling and water heating

  6. Study Area in City of Gainesville • Single parcel, residential billing data for customers of Gainesville Regional Utilities with service in 2006 • Electricity (kWh) • Natural gas (therms) • Downloaded from Gainesville-Green.com • Data on observable characteristics of residences • Key variable is Effective Year Built (EYB) • Pre-code change (3 years before) • Post-code change (3 years after) • Use billing data for years after code-change (‘04 – ‘06) • Monthly weather data (NOAA station)

  7. Summary Statistics Based(64,471 Observations)

  8. Characteristics of Before- vs. After-residences

  9. Empirical Strategies • Comparisons of pre- and post-code-change residences • Overall annual average for electricity and natural gas • Differences by month of the year • Electricity: summer months • Natural gas: winter months • Different responses to weather • Focus on how pre- and post-code-change residences respond differently to weather variation • Expect most impact when demand for heating/cooling is greatest

  10. Pre- and Post-Code-Change Comparisons 48 kWh/mo  4% 1.5 therms/mo  6.4%

  11. Difference in Electricity Consumption by Month Between Pre- and Post-Code-Change Residences

  12. Difference in Natural Gas Consumption by Month Between Pre- and Post-Code-Change Residences

  13. Conditional Differences in Mean ElectricityConsumption by Year of Construction

  14. Conditional Differences in Mean Natural GasConsumption by Year of Construction

  15. Different Responses to Weather Variability

  16. Private Payback Period Costs • Low-emissivity (Low-E) windows cost 10% - 15% more • Additional cost to Florida residence $650 - $1,012 Private Benefits • Lower utility bills $29 - $89 per year Payback (zero discounting) • Best-case: 7.5 years • Worst-case: 35 years

  17. Benefits of Avoided Emissions Per Residence Social Payback Period (zero discounting) • 4 – 23 years, with all avoided emission benefits • 6 – 27 years, excluding CO2 benefits

  18. Conclusions • Empirical evidence on impact of Florida’s code change • 4% decrease in electricity consumption • 6% decrease in natural-gas consumption • Comparable engineering prediction of 2% • Possible explanations for difference • Regional spillovers (stronger code change in rest of FL) • Confusion about extent of requirement • New appliance efficiency standards (1% electricity) • Payback periods: • Private payback period of 7.5 – 35 years • Social payback period of 4 – 27 years

  19. Final Thoughts: Generalizability • FL opportune for evaluating potential of energy codes because of strict enforcement • 22% of all residences in US are in the same EIA climate region as Gainesville • More research needed to understand how energy codes impact other climate regions • This study provides a template

More Related