Laserfiche WebLink
9/2012 9�I <br />FW: Reach code <br />an eventual "all electric" building code. The main selling point of thse <br />extra code additions is the reduction in carbon released into the <br />atmosphere. The studies vary, but generally assume this carbon <br />reduction based upon use of, "non carbon electricty" which means solar, <br />wind, neucular or hydro. The proponents of this change are very well <br />organized and it is almost certain that it will be adopted to some extent <br />by most local governments. <br />= We see a problem here. Besides some skepticism with their models, <br />there is the issue of uniformity. Local piecemeal adoption will make a <br />checkerboard of varying laws. This makes it much more difficult for contractors (that's us) to functon in <br />the various juisdictions in which we build. Berkeley has already adopted the most restrictive changes <br />to construction. Other cities will adopt less of the proposal. All will eventually add more stringent <br />adoptions, such as single family residences, as future codes are adopted many property owners will <br />be caught with having to fully upgrade their buildings because their remodel goes over the 50% "full <br />code compliance" threshold in the ICC. A change of this magnitude should be done on a statewide or <br />even federal level. Piecemealing thse changes to local governments with largely inexperienced local <br />politicains making highly technical decisions is not in the best intersest of our state. This is one time <br />our effectively "one party" state governemt could be helpful, but it has remained silent. <br />The Reach Code does have some advantages. It eliminates the need to replace our aging natural gas <br />distribution system. It also does produce less pollution. I can remember when LA had even worse <br />smog than it does now. A lot of the difference between 1970 and today is the new standards for <br />automobiles. It worked, and going completely to electricity can work also. <br />Now for some negatives; Most of pur power here in CA is currently carbon fuel generated. The <br />electrictiy for these new buildings is still coming mostly from bunker diesel generation and the loss in <br />distribution to the ultimate user, (in our case the heat pump) is roughly one third. This makes it more <br />expensive, and more carbon intense, than these studies show. Adoption of all electrictic buildings <br />functionally mandates that we must abandon our natural gas distribution system as the number of <br />users falls and the increasing maintenance costs are distributed between fewer and fewer users. Look <br />for natural gas to increase in price because of this until it is no longer price viable, no matter how <br />functional it is enegry wise. <br />We are not saying that Reach Code adoption is inherently bad, it is only bad because it is being done <br />piecemeal and too early. The electricty for it is still oil fired, the infrastructure is not in place to <br />distribute it, and a change of this magnitude shoud be done on a more global scale such as state <br />government. I suspect that most people backing the code on a local basis don't think about this. They <br />want to be pioneers and they want to "feel good" about helping the environment. They really have little <br />interest in the economics or problems behind piecemeal adoptions. I suspect that many of these <br />people sort of subconsciously believe that driving a Prius, eating less beef and supporting this code <br />will somehow change the weather. That's not really going to happen.. <br />Please feel free to call me. <br />Tom McGinley <br />Executive Director <br />Peninsula Builders Exchange <br />650-591-4486 <br />h ttps://webmail.woodsidetown. org/owa/?ae=1 tem&t=1 PM. Note&id=RgAAAAB 9 RLeZ6H R8TLMAyedc75EtBwl3xsADMOOKhQKOCMhCrtxgvAAAAAQTI ... 2/2 <br />