The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0766.005 2008-2010Murashige, Laura From: Sent: To: Subject: 4/6/2010 ComM. Rod Hinman [rod @auroraresearch.com] Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11.46 AM counciltestimony @co.hawaii hi.us testimony in opposition to Bill 234 Attachments: Hinman_TestimonylECC20100407 pdf Attached as a PDF. testimony in opposition to Bill 234. Respectfully submitted. Rod I -lnman Page 1 of 1 P / REC E.i`:IED 2010 fiPR 6 PPl 2 97 couNic r CLERK COUNTY OF HAWAII Comm, No. r/ 7404C Ref. To: EI(�QtA.vt(,i Ref, Date APR 0 7 2010 April 7, 2010 Aurora Research, LLC 73 -4372 Hulilau St. Kailua -Kona, HI 96740 +1 808- 325 -1631 Testimony in opposition to Bill 234, which seeks a delay in implementation of IECC Dear Chair and Members of the Council: My name is Rod Hinman, and I live here in Kailua -Kona. My background is in electrical engineering, and I have been working in energy - related fields for much of my career. I am also a member of the Mayor's Energy Advisory Commission, and am on its Buildings Committee. However, like the County Council, our commission is governed by the Sunshine Law, and the expedited nature of Bill 234 has prevented us from calling a meeting, publishing an agenda, discussing and voting on an official statement. Therefore, the testimony I provide today is solely on my own behalf. In short, I believe it is a mistake to pass Bill 234 and delay the adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (which I will refer to as the IECC) for our county. The Code was passed by this council as ordinance 0948 last year after - considerable work by officials from the state as well as those in the architecture and building community. An entire year was given for county departments, architects, builders, and others to prepare for the change and to decide on implementation details. The intent of the IECC as created by the International Code Council is to ensure a minimum standard of energy efficiency for new and substantially renovated buildings. The intent of adopting it for our county was at least twofold: 1) Firstly, to ensure that buildings will be comfortable to live in and affordable for normal people to operate, because the real cost of housing isn't only the mortgage. It doesn't do much good if you can barely afford the mortgage, but then have to pay $400 a month to air condition the house. When building a new structure, energy efficiency investments are rolled into the mortgage and spread out over 30 years. In most cases, particularly with our high cost of electricity, those investments reduce the monthly electric bill more than they add to the mortgage. In testimony I provided to this Council last year, I discussed a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study that estimated the costs of new homes built to the old code and to the IECC. The IECC home cost $140 per month less than the old code home in combined mortgage and energy costs. A savings of $140 or more per month can make a home much more affordable. We can benefit all residents of our county by adopting this code and requiring that all new buildings be more energy efficient. In particular, we will help those families buying homes for the first time, families that do not have the purchasing power to demand energy efficiency from the builder. 2) The second intent of adopting the IECC was to move our island a little closer to energy independence, so that we won't have to send as many of our hard -earned dollars offshore to import oil. The IECC is not a "one- size -fits -all" document, as some have alleged. It designates at least 19 different climate zones around the country, from Hawaii to Alaska and from Florida to Maine, and there are different requirements for each zone. Moreover, as adopted by this Council, the code contains local amendments developed in conjunction with state officials and building professionals. I would like to address an inaccuracy that was reported in the local press as an example of these local amendments. An architect was quoted as saying that the IECC requires R- 19 insulation in walls, thus requiring larger, more expensive studs to contain it. A modification that you as a Council passed in Ordinance 0948, on the second page, bullet point (5), amends a table to read that wood -frame walls should be insulated to R -13, NOT R -19. One area where the building division can show some flexibility and where the design community can show some leadership is in choosing which climate zone applies. For example, Volcano should probably not be considered climate zone 1 like Waikoloa Village. There is also provision in the IECC to allow the building professional to model the home using energy modeling software and certify that the building meets the energy intent of the code, even if it does not use certain prescriptive elements. In closing, we should not delay implementation of the IECC. As the economy recovers and people want to build houses again, if we delay implementation, houses will be built in developments like Aina Lea that will be uncomfortable to live in or expensive to air condition. The people of our island cannot afford to be stuck buying homes that will saddle them with high and rising energy costs for the duration of their residence in the building. Let us build our county's reputation as a leader in energy independence. We already have a large percentage of renewable energy on our island, and we need more. But first, we need to be as efficient as possible in all sectors of the economy. The International Energy Conservation Code is a positive step in that direction. By delaying, we delay those benefits. Sincerely, Roderick T. Hinman, Ph.D. Kailua -Kona, HI