Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

BIAW Files Lawsuit to Block New Energy Standards

Politics, This Washington   June 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm Camden Swita

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), the conservative construction industry political force, has asked a federal court in Tacoma for an injunction to block the revised state energy code set to take effect July 1.

The Washington State Energy Code sets energy efficiency standards—from everything from ventilation to water heater efficiency—for homebuilders.

At the heart of the BIAW’s complaint with the revised code—adopted in 2009 by the Washington State Building Code Council (BCC), an organization created in 1974 to advise the Legislature in building code matters—is a “menu” of additional energy efficiency options and their corresponding credits, ranging from -1 to 2. (The negative credit is included on the list as a demerit; it corresponds to a dwelling unit with 5,000 sq. ft. or more of floor space). Builders must achieve one credit in order to meet the new energy code.

BIAW claims that, because of the way the list is set up, builders are forced to install expensive HVAC and water equipment in new houses which will drive construction costs up by $4,000 to $15,000. This cost increase, the BIAW says, will price many consumers out of the market for new homes and slow a residential construction industry recovery. Specifically, BIAW asserts that some options on the new efficiency menu are simply impossible in many cases, mainly with regard to increased building envelope tightness.

Additionally, BIAW claims that only the federal government has authority over determining efficiency requirements for HVAC/water/plumbing equipment, so the state is illegally overstepping its boundaries.

But the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) analyzed the code and concluded that it would only increase the cost of a new home by between about $.50 and $2 per sq. ft. Unless someone was building at least a 7,500 sq. ft. house, that’s nowhere near the BIAW’s alleged $15,000.

Additional cost of construction for a 2,200 sq. ft. gas heated home, according to the DOC.

The DOC goes on to state that a buyer of an average-sized house connected to gas should make back the extra cost under the new code within three years due to the energy cost savings, about 18 percent in Western Washington and 26 percent in Eastern Washington.

Consumer cash flow after the new code takes effect against year of home ownership, according to the DOC




  • JMH

    The BIAW is acting out of pure selfishness.

    The improved energy code will save consumers money and, as the story says, most homeowners will be cash positive inside three years. The problem for most struggling homeowners these days isn't the initial mortgage, it's keeping up with the monthly payments along with all the other bills. Lowering utility bills, which is what this code does, helps that problem.

    The code might cut short-term profits for BIAW members, but it won't dampen new home sales because the cost increase just isn't that great and consumers have said very clearly they value more energy efficient homes.

    But the BIAW was never about consumers. This is the same anti-regulation lobbying gang that thought it un-American to give Washington homeowners a right to hold its member-contractors accountable for shoddy work. Go figure.

    Here's hoping the court sees through this ruse and the governor refuses to cave in to the BIAW's calls to delay this positive change.

  • N8

    The conservation of energy also allows for local utilities to serve more customers with the current infrastructure and limits the need for more new energy resources, thus reducing the need to increase utility rates.

  • tom mccabe

    i think you mean political farce…

    let's play a little BIAW word association game…

    energy independence: SOCIALIST!!
    contractor accountability: SOCIALIST!!
    migrant workers: ILLEGAL ALIENS!! (oh wait, we like cheap labor)
    union dues: SOCIALIST!! (even though we do the same thing)
    prevailing wage: SOCIALIST!!
    environmental review: SOCIALIST!!
    growth management act: SOCIALIST!!

    this is rather unfortunate, but not a surprise given the hypocritical hacks that run the BIAW. if anything, the recent energy legislation doesn't go far enough. i realize following the european model (because ours sucks) is 'socialist' and not at all 'meriken', but even the conservatives in the UK realize that buildings need to be made to actually, you know, CONSERVE energy. Germany and the EU are moving all new construction AND renovations towards passive house standards which make built green and LEED platinum look like the typical BIAW abortion.

    alas, washington is doomed to have substandard housing stock and homeowners footing ever-increasing energy bills, thanks to this anti-business, anti-environmental 'trade' group.

  • Brian Martin

    I'm curious as to how the BIAW thinks the state can't establish codes. My understanding concerning any building code is that the feds set the minimum, but states are able expand from there.

  • bill b

    very odd – doesn't the BIAW include the Master Builders Assoc – the very MBA that is part of the Quality Growth Alliance (along with Futurewise and Urban Land Institute) pushing for our “green” density agenda?

    Playing both sides of the environmental fence it seems?

    Can someone clarify this?

  • deb eddy

    Bill, the relationship between the MBA (local group for builders) with their state association, BIAW, is strained, at best. The local MBA has worked successfully with lots of other groups on density, growth issues here in the Puget Sound area. They were very helpful in getting cities/county to agree to a WRIA agreement for habitat recovery. Different perspective than the state group.

  • Swita

    I checked in with the MBA about this. They did not file the request for an injunction and say they are not associated with it. When someone joins the MBA they automatically become a member of the BIAW, but they do not necessarily act together.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Am I the only sick of hearing about the BIAW? They're all like the Federal US Chamber of Commerce, a real-life version of one of these as far as common sense for consumers goes. The Anti-Naders.

  • Clyde

    Rep Eddy – Excuse me, but the fact is that the Master Builders Associations of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties are pressuring the Governor to delay implementation of the new energy code. Not only that, in their letter to the Governor, they cite the BIAW cost figures for complying with the code – which are phony and overblown and just plain factually wrong – as the reason why the building industry just can't afford a new energy code right now. (Nevermind the fact that it would add less than 1% to the cost of a home and nevermind that the code was adopted in November and it's only at the very last minute that the MBA letters were delivered to the Governor.)

    Nor do the MBA letters to the governor acknowledge that the energy code delivers any benefits to consumers or the region in the form of energy savings and cost savings and avoided GHG emissions . . . without the code it means that utilities will have to generate more energy than they otherwise would have, which then costs the rest of us . . . Nor does the MBA acknowledge that the Building Code Council already significantly modified the code in response to builders' concerns.

    So, make no mistake – the BIAW and the MBA are working hand in hand to undermine the new energy code and cost effective energy savings. Check with the Governor's office and ask for a copies of the BIAW letters. Do you really think it Is just a coincidence that the BIAW lawsuit and the MBA letters to the Gov were delivered the same day? And then go back to your MBA friends and ask them why they weren't a little more forthcoming with you. That's who the MBA really is.

  • wahomeowner

    The MBA and BIAW are part of the NAHB and push the same agenda. Divide and conquer not a new strategy but an effective one.

  • one who knows

    Non of you know anything of what you speak. The BIAW lawsuit was coincedental to a long running dialog between builders (mba), WSU energy extension office, the goveners staff and many others. She did not cave into the “far right” BIAW. These negotiations, which have been occuring for the last 6 months, were conducted to slow the implementation of the new energy code, which when combined with the new building code going into effect on July 1 will result in the average new home price rising over 30 thousand dollars. The construction industry is the bell weather to lead the economy out the recession. Any new price increases, in an already expensive housing market will not lead to a favorable housing recovery. The govenor and her staff looked at these facts and decided to DELAY, not throw out the new energy code. As is typical of these kinds of news stories. no one really looks into them, they just throw out a news story and wait for the knee jerk reactions. This decision was not taken lightly by her, it was in fact the correct decision at this point in time. Not to mention, that most parts of our state cannot begin to meet some of the requirements fro blower door testing etc. There are no blower door testing techs statewide yet. I could go on and on, but before all of you get angry at the gov., understand the background of her decision. How do I know all of this, I was one of the people working on this delay….
    and as far as the numbers that the DOC used, we proved time and time agian, that the numbers they used were not “real world numbers” You are all failing to realize that Wa St has one of the most restrictive energy codes in the nation right now. Far and away more stringent than the current federal “energy star program”. Energy Star in our state has to be a special program just to stay ahead of the what this state currently has. Unless anyone of you works in this industry, (home building), you ahev no idea of the current costs associated with this new code. The numbers above only represent a small portion of the costs involved with this new code. I love all the comments about cost are overblown. Have any of you shopped a new home lately? I doubt it, If you are all so concerned about energy savings, what have any of you done to your current homes in terms of making them more energy efficient? The number of new homes vs the existing housing stock, and the inefficiencies of those older homes is where we should be putting our focus, not on new construction. WSU energy ext office will admit that right now, there are no more ways to improve the thermal envelope of a house. This onus of placing the burden on new construction is misguided.

  • meta

    Why does this article leave out that the Washington State Legislature's Joint Administrative Rules Review Comittee, chaired by democrat Rep. Bob Hasegawa also took the very unusual step of reviewing the new energy code, specifically the failure of the SBCC to provide a valid cost benefit analysis of the new Energy code as required by law. The JARRC found the analysis provided by DOC as flawed and unconvincing, and instructed the legislature to suspend ruling the new code into law until the SBCC provided a REAL cost/benefit impact statement, which the SBCC never did.

    The code was ruled into law anyway, but the fact remains that the bipartisan and (sympathetic to the SBCC) JARRC excoriated the SBCC for their failure to provide a valid economic impact statement in thier ruling on December 2, 2009.

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/JARRC/Doc…

  • meta

    Repairing the link to the JARRC decision above:
    http://tinyurl.com/24nhejl
    Also, here is a link to the page holding all documents from the JARRC hearing on the energy code.
    http://tinyurl.com/2cb83dj