Federal program tries to lure green building initiatives
(The Center Square) – North Carolina could benefit from a new federal grant program to update building codes to more energy efficient standards, according to a recent report.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy analyzed building codes, the pace of new construction, greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and other factors to identify states best positioned to take advantage of the $225 million program announced by the Department of Energy last month.
Grant winners will be able to sustain “cost-effective implementation of updated building energy codes” through fiscal year 2026.
The Resilient and Efficient Codes Implementation program will offer $45 million in the first round of funding, with 10 to 30 awards anticipated in the range of $500,000 to $10 million, according to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Another $1 billion will be available for implementing stronger codes through the Inflation Reduction Act.
The ACEEE report ranked North Carolina second among states overall for potential energy savings from more stringent building energy codes, behind only Louisiana.
The data shows North Carolina ranked 18th for residential energy code cost savings of 16.2%, with the same rank for commercial energy code cost savings of 13.4%. The state ranked 30th for current energy building emissions, and eighth for construction activity at 9.07 permits per 1,000 people.
ACEEE ranked the state’s 39.5% emissions reduction target 13th.
“States with out-of-date building energy codes miss out on a cost-effective pathway to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, leaving residents with higher utility bills,” said Michael Waite, senior manager in ACEEE’S buildings program and author of the study.
Free market groups have long opposed government-forced energy standards, arguing the top-down effort to impose “clean energy” erodes local control and wastes tax dollars.
Brian Balfour, senior vice president of research at the John Locke Foundation, contends the lure of federal cash to impose more stringent building energy codes is the latest example.
“Once again, the federal government is using financial incentives to tempt state and local governments to give up more of their autonomy,” he said. “Local building codes are none of the federal government’s business, but here they are hoping to override local decision-makers with the lure of ‘free’ money.
“Moreover, if these building upgrades did indeed produce significant energy savings, government grants wouldn’t be needed to encourage property owners to invest in said upgrades.”
