Our hearing today on energy efficient building standards is yet another on our long list of climate change hearings. Before I begin, I would like to submit a letter, from the Advanced Building Coalition, for the record. I agree with the Advanced Building Coalition that energy conservation measures are important, but they must take into account safety, must be cost effective, and shouldn’t promote an anti-competitive marketplace. Pilkington North America, a member of the Coalition, has a facility in my district, where they recently added 100 new jobs.
As I’ve said many times during these hearings, I support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it must be in a way that protects our economy, jobs, and energy security. If done correctly, increasing the energy efficiency of buildings will, in fact, reduce energy costs for consumers, help the environment, and have a positive economic impact. These benefits can be gained without a cap-and-trade program.
According to recent estimates, buildings consume 40 percent of the energy used in the United States. I don’t think there will be any dispute today that by improving the energy efficiency of buildings we can save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The question is -- what should be the federal government’s role to create incentives for more efficient buildings.
Back in my district, public and private sector entities alike are turning toward architectural designs and technologies that are both environmentally sensitive and economically sensible. Earlier this month, a new radiology center opened in downtown Kalamazoo, emerging as the first health care facility in southwest Michigan to seek LEED certification.
The benefits of green construction have also been recognized by educational institutions at the primary, secondary, and university levels. For example, public schools in the rural Village of Mattawan have earned the EPA’s prestigious ENERGY STAR rating, the national symbol for protecting the environment through superior energy efficiency. This designation reflects the fact that Mattawan schools are now using 20 to 30 percent less energy than the average public building, all the while continuing to provide a quality education in a comfortable living environment. Additionally, the schools have lowered their energy costs by nearly 25 percent, allowing funding to be reallocated to other valuable school resources.
Western Michigan University took steps to cut their energy costs by several hundred thousand dollars by fitting their 54 buildings with more efficient light-bulbs. They also are implementing smart technologies that can detect whether or not a room is occupied. For example, if a classroom is empty during the winter, the system will shut the heat off, keeping the room cooler to conserve energy. The instant someone enters the room, the system turns the heat back on.
These energy efficient buildings, in my district, wouldn’t achieve the same energy savings, if they were built to the same specifications in Texas, or Florida, or Virginia. Building codes are best determined at the local level and should not be set by the federal government. Buildings are designed to a specific location, thus this is not an area where uniform national standards will pay off. Each state and region has different needs. Or national policies need to reflect this.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I yield back.
