A group of Massachusetts solar installers are working with the state to modify fire codes that they say are too restrictive and are limiting the scale of residential solar arrays. 

“We are not at the finish line, but both sides have been extremely cooperative and collaborative,” said Nick D’Arbeloff, vice president of commercial for SunBug Solar and the vice president of the Solar Energy Business Association of New England. “The dialogue is producing good results.”

At the heart of the debate are provisions of the most recent state fire code, which went into effect in December 2022. 

For the first time, the code includes restrictions on the positioning of rooftop solar arrays intended to make it easier and safer for firefighters to move around on top of burning houses. The code calls for a setback from the ridgeline of a roof, leaving enough space for firefighters to cut into the roof to ventilate the home and allow smoke to escape. It also requires pathways through and around panels so firefighters can get where they need to go.

“It sets requirements on how much space is necessary or required to be there so firefighters can travel unimpeded by solar panels,” said Jake Wark, spokesman for the state Department of Fire Services.

Impacts on solar installations

The solar industry objected to the changes for a few reasons. The setbacks and pathways required mean reducing the total area of just about every rooftop array from 10% to 20%, and smaller arrays mean less revenue for installers. Some potential customers even pulled out entirely because the economics of the system didn’t work for them with fewer panels. 

Some installers also objected that clearing so much room for firefighters isn’t necessary. All modern solar installations, they said, include a switch that can instantly stop the flow of any electricity through the panels, which would allow firefighters to easily and safely break through with a swing of an axe. The state, however, was not convinced these switches could be thrown quickly enough or provide enough safety.

“Panels always provide an electrocution hazard,” Wark said.

The suddenness of the new code also made for a rough transition, installers said. For years, similar rules have been part of the national model code many states use as a template for their own codes. In Massachusetts, however, the solar provisions had always been removed, with the understanding that the state building code would eventually address the issue, Wark said. So the solar rules in the new fire code were unexpected by many in the industry.

“The transition was absolutely awful, and we ended up having to redesign a lot of arrays,” said Mark Durrenberger, president of solar installation company New England Clean Energy. “The code we’re answering to is not entirely clear, so it leaves lots of room for interpretation”.

The municipal code officials in charge of inspecting solar installations were also caught somewhat unprepared. From town to town, building and fire inspectors interpreted the rules with different degrees of stringency. Sometimes, Durrenberger said, they just got it plain wrong – in one case applying the rules for residential installations to an array atop a barn – for example. For installers working on projects in multiple towns, the whole situation was rife with uncertainty. 

“Fire chiefs weren’t necessarily as prepared as they perhaps should have been with regards to how best to review designs and enforce this new code,” D’Arbeloff said. 

Making compromises

In the face of this upheaval, the Solar Energy Business Association of New England, MassSolar, and the Northeast Clean Energy Council reached out to the state to see if they could find a compromise. The Department of Fire Services agreed to create a working group, including representatives of the solar industry, to look for solutions. Several months in, the participants have made significant headway, and the solar industry has accepted the need to make some concessions.

“The solar industry’s concern was that we would be unable to put in place a system capable of offsetting the full load of the household as a result of these setbacks,” D’Arbeloff said. “While that still may be the case, we fully understand why compromise is called for here.”

Whatever adjustments to the rules come out of the process, both sides will have to take responsibility for making implementation go as smoothly as possible, D’Arbeloff said. The Department of Fire Services will need to offer additional training in the new code, but installers will also have to make sure their designs and drawings clearly communicate the ways in which their plans adhere to the rules. 

There is still plenty of work to do, but Durrenberger is hopeful that a modified code will be in place some time next year. 

“I suspect that there will be a lot of back-and-forth to try to refine the language,” he said “With luck, maybe at the beginning of next year, we’ll have a revised fire code that can take back some of the roof we lost.”

Solar installers and fire officials look for compromise on Massachusetts fire code  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Reality is setting in for clean energy advocates and building professionals who’d long sought to bring North Carolina’s outdated home energy code up to modern standards: the revamp isn’t happening. 

Under a law passed earlier this year by the Republican-led legislature, requirements for windows, insulation thickness, and other building features can’t be overhauled until 2031 — even if a recent lawsuit by the Democratic governor, contesting a separate provision in the statute, gains traction. 

But while experts widely condemned the new law, they say there are still chances — albeit less far-reaching ones — to advance building efficiency in the state in the years to come. 

“It’s unfortunate when you waste an opportunity to save money, to create jobs for energy efficiency, and reduce emissions,” said Luis Martinez, Asheville-based director of southeast energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That triple win is the reason we seek energy efficiency.” But, he added, “the story doesn’t end there.” 

‘Energy codes are the key component’ 

Reducing energy waste in buildings, especially homes, is a critical component of the clean energy transition.

Dwellings are the largest source of electricity demand, according to the state’s Clean Energy Plan, and their 44% share is growing with the state’s population. The less electricity these buildings require, the fewer carbon-free energy sources are needed to replace shuttering fossil fuel plants.

The potential to ramp up energy efficiency in North Carolina homes is vast. A 2017 study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, for instance, found that more efficient heating and cooling equipment, added insulation, and other measures could cut energy use in single-family homes by 31%.

Without question, the easiest and most cost-effective way to begin fulfilling that potential is through more stringent standards at the point of construction for insulation and other features for the 90,000 new homes built in the state each year, most of them single-family units. 

“In terms of new build, new construction, energy codes are the key component,” said Cherylyn Kelley, manager of building energy codes and policy at the Institute for Market Transformation.

To make energy efficiency improvements later, she said, “you end up spending more money; it’s more invasive. … It’s just more annoying. Contrast that with energy codes: you have all those improvements built into the home from the outset.” 

Yet the powerful home construction lobby has resisted stronger requirements for years, influencing the state legislature, where it is a major campaign donor, and the state’s Building Code Council, a citizen commission historically populated mostly with builders and their allies. 

While international model guidelines are updated every three years, North Carolina’s rules still resemble those from 2009. So, even when the council looked poised earlier this year to bring the code in line with 2021 guidelines, some observers were skeptical. 

“I’d given up all hope that they would change it,” said Amy Musser, a green building consultant in Asheville.

In fact, before the council finished its work, lawmakers backed by developers intervened to circumvent the update. Though Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed House Bill 488, the Republican supermajority, joined by a half dozen Democrats, overrode him easily.

‘Significant opportunities…to save’

The law allows discrete amendments to the building code in 2026. Still, most advocates are turning their attention elsewhere to advance building efficiency in the coming years. 

While targeting new home construction is the most cost-effective way to improve efficiency, it’s not the only route. Existing housing stock approaches 5 million units in the state, according to Census data. And since minimum energy conservation standards have lagged, there’s plenty of room for improvement. 

“For people that live in a newer home that’s only 10 or 15 years old, there may still be really significant opportunities for them to save,” said Jennifer Amann, a senior fellow at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “That’s especially true in North Carolina, where the code hasn’t kept pace with other states.” 

The 2017 study on energy efficiency potential found that replacing electric furnaces with heat pumps would produce the most savings statewide, at $800 million a year. A technique for increasing wall insulation called “drill and fill” was a distant second, offering almost $300 million a year. 

Replacing worn-out equipment can pay for itself within five years, in some cases, according to the analysis. The math looks even better when coupled with enticements for energy efficiency improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act, which authorizes tax credits and $208 million worth of direct rebates to North Carolina.

“It’s a very lucrative time for folks to be thinking about what they can do in their homes,” Amann said. “This might be a great time to go out and get an audit.”

‘The way we market our services’ 

Last year’s federal climate law also increased incentives for builders to go above and beyond the minimum code: a $5,000 tax credit for ultra-efficient homes built to “Zero Energy Ready” standards and a $2,500 credit for those meeting Energy Star guidelines. The requirements for the latter vary by state. 

A less robust version of these tax credits have been around since 2006, and Energy Information Administration data from 2011 showed the height of their popularity in North Carolina, when more than a quarter of new single-family homes met Energy Star criteria. 

The initial tax credit has faced uncertainty, and in 2019, the state’s share of Energy Star-certified single-family homes dropped to one in 10. But green building consultants are bullish on the future, with the tax credit expanded and now extended to 2032. 

“[It’s] a really important incentive that’s helped drive building efficiency forward,” said Brandon Pendry, a spokesperson for Southern Energy Management, an energy rater and solar installer.

In Duke Energy territory, builders can also get rebates of up to $9,000 for homes meeting a standard called the High-Efficiency Residential Option, or HERO. “We’re big advocates of HERO,” Pendry said via email. “It’s been a great tool for helping homes become more energy efficient.”

Clients can and often do combine federal incentives with Duke’s program, said Musser. “It’s the way we market our services,” she said.

To be sure, the code proffered by the Building Code Council early this year would have been even more efficient than HERO, rendering it moot or in need of updating. But with that code proposal now rejected by lawmakers, Duke says the program will endure. 

“We plan to continue offering this cost-effective program that promotes the construction of new high-efficiency housing stock,” company spokesperson Keith Richardson wrote in an email. 

Richardson didn’t provide numbers of houses that had taken advantage of the program, but said it resulted in over 7,000 “energy saving measures” being implemented in 2022, earning builder rebates of over $17.4 million. 

Carrots vs. sticks

To be sure, all these incentives — whether to homeowners who perform energy efficiency upgrades or builders who exceed the minimum code — are carrots that rely on hungry, educated consumers. 

But there is one potential stick on the horizon, said Martinez of the Natural Resources Defense Council: Duke Energy’s Carbon Plan. The company must win approval from regulators every two years for its blueprint for zeroing out its carbon emissions by 2050, and energy efficiency is one small part of that strategy. 

“The last time around, they encouraged Duke to increase the amount of energy efficiency from 1% of sales to 1.5% of sales,” Martinez said.

A stronger mandate from regulators to ramp up efficiency would prompt Duke to beef up HERO and other energy efficiency programs, including those targeted at low-income customers, to achieve carbon reductions required by law. 

“We should be doing at least 1.5% of sales,” Martinez said, “if not more.”

With N.C. home efficiency codes frozen, advocates eye other opportunities is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The North Carolina legislature advanced legislation Wednesday to block new rules for energy-efficient building construction, brushing aside critics who say the bill would penalize homeowners and hurt communities trying to prepare for extreme weather. 

Passed by the House last month and backed by the state’s powerful developer lobby, House Bill 488 would undo two years of effort by the state’s Building Code Council, which had sought to overhaul the state’s 2009-era standards for insulation thickness, window quality, and other energy-saving features in new homes. 

Instead, the measure scheduled today for a vote in the Senate would create a new, developer-friendly panel to oversee residential codes, stripping that authority from the existing council. The new body wouldn’t be allowed to revamp the entire residential energy code until 2031 but could offer discrete amendments beginning in 2026.

Critics say the bill would deprive new homeowners of the chance to save on utility bills, which will sting even more if hefty Duke Energy rate increases are approved. The Building Code Council’s proposal had been predicted to increase construction costs by about $5,000 but pay for itself in the form of lower energy bills, producing a positive cash flow from the get-go.

For months, the North Carolina Home Builders Association claimed the study’s own authors had said their analysis was flawed. But the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has repeatedly refuted that notion, most recently in a memo dated last week.

“PNNL stands by the technical analysis and impact estimates previously provided to the Council,” the memo states, “which indicate that the proposed code will result in significant savings for homeowners and renters in North Carolina.”

The state’s Department of Public Safety also says the state’s outdated building code hurts local governments seeking help from FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) Program, which funds projects to reduce risks from disasters and natural hazards.

“One of [FEMA]’s priorities is to incentivize adoption and enforcement of modern building codes,” said public information officer Brian Haines via email. “In each funding year since 2020, FEMA has increased the weight of the scoring for codes adoption-related criteria.” 

Pending applications for that federal program from the state total $141 million this year, when 40 out of 115 total scoring points will relate to building codes. The state forfeited 10 of these points this year, officials say, and could lose 20 more in the future.

“Losing points that we cannot overcome in other scored areas would mean a reduction in projects awarded to the state,” Haines said over email, “impacting residents and businesses alike.” 

Still, Rep. Mark Brody, a builder and Union County Republican, insists his bill wouldn’t hurt North Carolina’s grant competitiveness. FEMA only cares if the state adopts most of the up-to-date model code, he asserts, and skipping the energy chapter is okay. “We will get 100% of the grant points” if the overall model code is adopted, he told senators this week.

The Energy News Network asked Brody if he had evidence for his view. He pointed to the same BRIC guidelines highlighted by bill critics, which don’t specify whether all chapters contained in the model code are required.

Raleigh mechanical engineer Natalie MacDonald, a member of the Building Code Council and supporter of the updated energy conservation code, urged senators this week to consider the budgetary impacts of creating a second code council. 

“This is going to have an additional burden on the Department of Insurance,” she said, pointing out that three new staff to assist the new panel would cost the state another half a million dollars each year, according to a fiscal note from nonpartisan legislative staff. 

Finance Committee co-chair Sen. Jim Perry, a Wayne County Republican, dismissed those concerns, too.

“The chair will point out that [the bill] will only cost money if it’s appropriated,” he said, “and I don’t think that’s going to be an issue.”

If the GOP-led Senate approves House Bill 488, it would face at least one more vote in the House, also controlled by Republicans, before reaching the desk of Gov. Roy Cooper.

Cooper, a Democrat in his second term, has publicly criticized the measure.

“It’s so important that we don’t just stop this and say we’re going to freeze everything as it is,” he told the Energy News Network earlier this spring. “That’s a bad idea because we know that technology is moving so fast, and we can save money in the long run by being more energy efficient.”

But it’s not clear a veto, if it came, would stick. The bill passed the House easily with bipartisan support, and Republicans retain super majorities in both chambers.

North Carolina legislature moves to block new rules for building efficiency is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Amid sustained opposition from the developer lobby, North Carolina’s Building Code Council on Tuesday hit pause on its proposal to overhaul building efficiency rules, sending it back to the public for comment in September and delaying its final adoption until at least December. 

In the works for two years, the proposed energy conservation rules would replace the state’s 2009-era standards for insulation thickness, window quality, and other features in new home construction — a move experts say will save homeowners in the form of lower utility bills. 

But the powerful North Carolina Home Builders Association has objected strenuously to the code update, arguing the upfront costs of added insulation and the like are too expensive and that homes are efficient enough already. 

The dispute set up competing measures at this week’s meeting of the code council: one freezing the current rules in place until the end of the decade, and another moving forward with the revamp meant to align the state standards with the latest international guidelines. 

Though a majority of the council appeared to support the proposed new code, all but one member voted in favor of sending the builders’ proposal for the status quo to a public hearing.

“When we have issues that are this important,” said Bridget Herring, Asheville sustainability director and chair of the council, “it’s important that we hear from the public.”

The code overhaul also hit a technical snag Tuesday: though a cost-benefit analysis by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory commissioned by the council was completed in March, the study didn’t undergo the bureaucratic paces required by law. 

At the same time, the builder lobby has repeatedly insisted the cost-benefit analysis is outdated, since an initial draft was based on 2020 dollars and didn’t reflect pandemic-era inflation and supply chain issues. Gary Embler, a Concord builder and member of the council, brought up those concerns again Tuesday, suggesting that the study contained “errors.”

However, a March 2023 version provided updated costs and still demonstrates savings for homeowners. Despite claims from builders otherwise, the lab has confirmed its numbers as recently as May. 

It’s not clear if that will quell complaints about the validity of the study. But Herring made clear it would be the basis for a proper fiscal note that the public can comment on in September.

By then, the state’s part-time legislature could render all this procedure moot with the passage of House Bill 488, which outlaws a new conservation code until 2031. But Herring and other council members continue to hold out a sliver of hope for compromise between conservation advocates and developers.

“I believe in the process. I believe we need more public comments on this,” said council member Rob Zapple, a Wilmington builder and advocate for the updated code. “There may be shifting opinions. Let’s keep talking.”

North Carolina panel hits pause on new building energy efficiency rules is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

With the American dream of homeownership increasingly out of reach and many struggling to pay rent, North Carolina developers opposed to new energy-efficient construction rules are hinging their cause to the need for affordable housing.

“Look at your family. Look at your community,” said Dan Tingen, a builder and former board member of the powerful North Carolina Home Builders Association, at a public hearing held by the statewide panel in charge of building codes. “There’s no way you can justify this cost increase.”

But energy is also increasingly expensive, and proponents of the new standards argue that thicker insulation, better quality windows and other building features more than pay for themselves in the form of lower utility bills and improved indoor air quality.

“This is a bread-and-butter issue,” said Kim Wooten, a Durham engineer and member of the state’s Building Code Council. “It affects affordability and cash flow.” A better code, she said, “is doing something to help people have more money in their pockets.” 

The two camps will face off this week at a meeting of the 17-member panel, where competing measures are on the agenda: one freezing the state’s 2009-era energy conservation code in place, and another bringing it in line with the latest international guidelines. 

But advocates caution against false equivalence of the opposing views.  

“The best building technology scientists in the world show that, over the long term, the modern building energy codes save the homeowner money,” said Ben Evans, federal legislative director at the U.S. Green Building Council. “It’s pretty clear that this a case where there’s a special interest.” 

‘A bit of misinformation’

Even as rising interest rates bring home sale prices closer to earth, North Carolina faces an undeniable crisis of housing affordability. The median cost of a home stood at $361,000 in April, according to Redfin, slightly more than a year ago and up 20% compared to 2019. The price tag is between two and three times what a family earning the state’s median income can afford. 

In this context, developers contend that virtually any increase in the cost of a new home is catastrophic, especially for first-time home buyers. 

“This is really going to not just affect the builders,” said one employee of D.R. Horton at the public hearing earlier this year. “It’s going to affect the homeowners.” 

But there’s little evidence that tighter efficiency rules are impacting sale prices. Of the dozen states with lower median home prices than North Carolina, per the National Home Builders Association, nine have tougher energy conservation code requirements. The list includes other fast-growing states like Georgia and Delaware.

Indeed, most analysts say home prices have risen because of the basic laws of supply and demand: available housing units have not kept pace with population growth. In a December report, the conservative Cato Institute, for instance, concluded that local zoning regulations were mostly to blame for this mismatch. Building codes weren’t mentioned.  

And while the state’s developer lobby often points to findings showing that even a $1,000 cost increase could price thousands out of buying a home, that analysis doesn’t account for the long-term savings in utility bills that could offset that premium.

Multiple observers have also questioned the figures distributed by the North Carolina Home Builders Association, which claim the new rules would add nearly $17,000 to the price of a new house before markup.

For one thing, advocates say, the figures fit a pattern of business lobbies crying wolf in the face of proposed new rules.  

“We’ve had decades of industries warning about the expensive cost of complying with new regulation,” said David Neal, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, at the March public hearing. “What we’ve seen is that those costs to comply with new regulations are orders of magnitude less than what was predicted.” 

Reflecting anecdotal wisdom from many builders already adhering to tighter energy conservation standards, Granite Falls, North Carolina builder Rob Howard critiqued the Home Builders estimate line-by-line and arrived at a price differential closer to $6,000 before markup. 

“It does feel like there’s a bit of misinformation,” he told the Energy News Network before conducting his analysis.

An independent government lab, meanwhile, concluded in March that the new code would add about $5,000 to the cost of a home but save nearly $400 annually in energy bills, creating a positive cash flow from the get-go.

With Duke Energy – the utility monopoly that serves most of the state — proposing to raise electric rates by upwards of 30%, observers say those savings for new homeowners could be even greater. 

“Spikes in natural gas prices have already come onto consumer bills,” Neal said at the hearing. “That’s going to make these stronger conservation codes even more effective for consumers.”

The Department of Insurance has also suggested that the state’s outdated building codes could put upward pressure on property insurance premiums, though it doesn’t have an exact figure of how much. 

“It can’t be a positive aspect,” department spokesperson Barry Smith said. “It can only be a negative.”

‘These costs are not inflated’ 

But the developer lobby has remained unfazed by these arguments. A proposed compromise between opposing factions on the Building Code Council fell flat at the end of April — in part because advocates tried to address builder concerns without sacrificing energy savings.   

Developers’ most outspoken advocate on the council, Concord builder Gary Embler, also rejected criticism of the North Carolina Home Builders Association’s numbers. 

“These costs are not inflated,” he said. “This is going to be the cost for North Carolina citizens, and we’re going to be knocking a whole slew of first-time homebuyers out of the market.”

The impasse means Embler will move at Tuesday’s meeting to keep the energy conservation code as is; if it passes, the issue will be subject to a public hearing in September. Later in the agenda, the council will vote on whether to adopt the new standards. 

And even if the panel votes to overhaul energy conservation rules, the dispute is likely to rage on in the North Carolina General Assembly, where the House last month passed a bill cementing the existing code until 2031.

But advocates for advancing tougher conservation rules — including Gov. Roy Cooper, a second-term Democrat who has championed clean energy — hope the legislature might ultimately be a forum where minds can meet.

“We know that technology is moving so fast, and that we can save money in the long run by being energy efficient. It’s really smart for us to take those steps now,” Cooper told the Energy News Network.

“If the legislature is going to stop [the new code] in its tracks, you’re not going to have time for all of that conversation and negotiation to make sure we have the right result at the end of the day,” the governor said. “I do encourage that. I discourage just cutting it off at the pass.”

In North Carolina, housing affordability at center of debate over building codes  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.