Page 9 - CodeWatcher Winter 2017 Issue

St. Louis Backslides On Energy Efficiency

Is the HBA of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri rolling back energy efficiency for homeowners?

FBY MIKE COLLIGNON see an increase of $152 annually, compared to the current
OR THE PAST TWO YEARS, the St. Louis County St. Louis County Code.
Building Code Review Committee (BCRC) has
been reviewing the 2015 IRC and IBC for potential When considering the 10-year annual average for new
adoption. Unfortunately, their contemplation of homes built in St. Louis County (830), the added energy cost
the 2015 IECC became a contentious issue. The could collectively amount to over $125,000 per year.

BCRC received numerous amendments from the Home The BCRC must not have taken into consideration a cost-

Builders of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri to weaken the effectiveness analysis conducted by DOE. They found that

level of efficiency in the code. The proposed amendments moving to the 2015 IECC in the State of Missouri would

included the continued removal of blower door and duct provide homeowners with a positive cash flow in less than

blaster testing from the code, and reducing the high-efficacy a year, when accounting for total energy savings minus total

lighting requirement from 50% to 0%. costs over a 30-year mortgage.

After the amendments were proposed, the BCRC held pub- The St. Louis County Building Commission was scheduled

lic meetings to discuss their merits. At each public meeting, to hear input from the public on the recommended rules

a group called the St. Louis Energy Coalition expressed oppo- for the 2015 IRC and IBC at their December 14 meeting.

sition to the proposed amendments, citing their negative im- However, the Commission could not reach a quorum and

pact on homeowners, the community and the environment. canceled the meeting. The topic may be discussed at their

The Home Builders of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri January meeting, though at press time that was undecided..

argued that the improvements in the 2015 IECC were not According to an HBA member we spoke with who is

cost effective. According to a document obtained by KWMU, familiar with the situation, the local HBA wields incredible

a St. Louis public radio station, the HBA argued the efficiency political power amongst both its own members and County

upgrades would cost a homeowner between $32,000 and politicians. This person told us that members rarely if

$42,000. Those figures vary greatly from cost estimates ever speak out against the HBA, for fear of professional

produced by both the DOE) and the NAHB for the St. Louis retribution by other members. While it is hard to verify those

climate. The DOE and NAHB estimate the total cost increase claims, anyone can research the political contributions to

to be around $2,000 and $7,000, respectively. members of the St. Louis County Council.

Once the BCRC decided to recommend the proposed In reviewing the donations to the seven-member, 2017 St.

weakening amendments, the St. Louis Energy Coalition Louis County Council from November 2012 to October 2016,

and nineteen residents delivered a petition in support of we found that the HBA and construction-related entities gave

adopting an unamended 2015 IECC at the August 12, 2015 at least $69,655. This certainly speaks to the political influence

Building Commission Hearing. mentioned by our source. If you include contributions from

After a year reviewing the other portions of the 2015 suite real estate companies, which commonly align (politically) with

of codes, the BCRC recommended a severely misnamed 2015 the homebuilding industry, the total goes up to $105,780.

IECC to the St. Louis County Building Commission at their We should also add County Executive Steve Stenger,

public meeting on October 6, 2016. The proposed energy who has veto power (not to mention influence) over the

code rules (found on pages 72-80) include amendments and/ Council. Money given to his campaign by the construction

or deletions that create a less efficient building envelope, industry (including, but not limited to the HBA and real

including the removal of home testing (blower door and estate interests) exceeded an eye-opening $750,000. For

duct blaster) and efficient lighting requirements, and the comparison’s sake, the Sierra Club did not contribute to any

allowance of equipment, lighting and glazing area trade-offs St. Louis County Council political campaigns, nor Stenger’s.

in the performance compliance path. They did, however, endorse Stenger in 2014 and spent $1,056

An energy analysis conducted by MEEA determined the to notify their members of that endorsement.

proposed 2015 IECC is incredibly less energy efficient than Finally, we called a St. Louis County employee to inquire

the current St. Louis County energy code (a weakened 2009 about the BCRC roster and their meeting minutes, but she

IECC). According to MEEA’s analysis, if the County was to said the committee had been disbanded (since their work was

adopt the unamended 2015 IECC instead of the proposed complete) and she did not know who served on it. She also said

code, homeowners could expect to save approximately $436 they didn’t appear to post any minutes of their meetings. CW

annually.However, if the County adopts the diminished

energy code, instead of saving money, homeowners could Mike Collignon is executive director of the Green Builder Coalition.

www.codewatcher.us January 2017 / CodeWatcher 9