The proposed changes to Maryland's building code for new large commercial sites have sparked concern among environmental groups and legislators alike. The issue at hand is the potential weakening of the state's adherence to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which could have far-reaching consequences for energy efficiency and climate goals.
One of the main criticisms is the proposal's allowance for builders to have excessive flexibility in selecting and potentially double-counting energy-saving measures. This flexibility, according to Delegate Lorig Charkoudian, could lead to a lower baseline standard and reduced overall efficiency. The concern is that this approach might violate state law, which mandates that Maryland adopt a code that is at least as stringent as the IECC.
The 2024 IECC version requires new large buildings to generate a specific amount of renewable energy on-site, such as through solar panels. However, Maryland's proposal eliminates this requirement, which could result in a significant reduction in renewable energy production. Erin Sherman, a senior associate at the Rocky Mountain Institute, highlights the modest nature of the requirement and the potential for cost-effectiveness. She argues that the deleted provision would have ensured a modest, likely cost-effective solar array, which would have paid for itself over time.
The issue of double-counting energy efficiency measures is also a point of contention. Sarah Newman from the Responsible Energy Codes Alliance emphasizes the importance of preventing double-counting, as it undermines the integrity of the code. If builders can take double credit for a single efficiency measure, it could lead to a reduction in the overall energy efficiency work required, potentially resulting in higher energy bills and increased strain on the electricity grid.
The implications of these changes extend beyond individual buildings. Climate advocates are particularly concerned about the recent cuts to the EmPOWER Maryland energy efficiency program, which provides free and reduced-price upgrades to homeowners and building owners. The program's reduction in size, estimated to be around a third, could lead to fewer investments in energy efficiency, potentially causing higher energy use and costly infrastructure upgrades in the future.
Critics argue that these decisions are short-sighted, prioritizing short-term affordability over long-term sustainability. Anne Havemann, deputy director and general counsel for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, highlights the concern among Marylanders over energy affordability, suggesting that elected officials are making decisions that may not be in the best interest of the state's climate goals.
In conclusion, the proposed changes to Maryland's building code have raised significant concerns about the state's commitment to energy efficiency and climate action. The potential weakening of the IECC and the allowance for double-counting could have detrimental effects on the environment and the state's long-term sustainability. As the public comment period continues, it is crucial for stakeholders to voice their opinions and ensure that Maryland's building code aligns with its environmental responsibilities.
