Palin right to reject energy stimulus funds

The federal stimulus act mandates state adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or related ASHRAE standards and that the state verify 90% compliance statewide. This would expand the state fire marshal's plan review department to include residential construction.

It would require the fire marshal's office to expand its duties beyond issuing building permits to include inspections to verify compliance. Alaskans would pay for these added duties and authority. Over the next 10 years this would cost us much more than the $29 million available in stimulus money. MOA's plan review and inspection department budget alone is over $9 million. Expand this type of enforcement statewide, add travel cost for inspections, and imagine the total cost.

Adoption of this code for commercial construction would have very little effect toward reducing fuel consumption statewide. Anchorage and Fairbanks already have adopted this code. In commercial construction statewide, most buildings comply with this code and ASHRAE standards already. In residential construction, even in the bush, many of the requirements are exceeded simply because we live in a cold place. We've been building energy efficient buildings here for longer than rest of the country by necessity.

So what this amounts to is solely a new regulatory requirement to verify compliance. It does little beyond what we are already doing to save fuel, but does a lot to grow government. We each have an inherent benefit in reducing our utility bills. I doubt that a government mandate to do so is better motivation than our own pocketbooks.

The most significant impact of adoption of this code is with residential construction and specifically areas outside Anchorage, Fairbanks, and a handful of others. Currently, the state of Alaska has no building code at all for residential construction in most rural areas. Some of our larger communities have adopted the International Residential Code (IRC) and the IECC for residential construction. But outside of these areas, the state fire marshal has no enforcement authority for residential construction at all.

If we wish to expand the application of residential building codes to rural areas, we ought to start with life-safety codes. The state has an interest in protecting human life that is far more compelling. In this time of shrinking revenue from oil and gas exploration, we need to seriously think about our priorities regarding how our state spends its operating budget. Our state dollars are better spent implementing residential fire and building codes in rural areas than implementing a code that mandates what most people are already doing on their own.

It has been argued that the legislature's proposal for accepting the stimulus money exempted communities with populations less than 2,500. However, when you do the math, you realize this will not get us to 90% compliance. At the most it would get us to 85% compliance statewide assuming we get 100% compliance in areas where the IECC is adopted. Do we have to pay back the money then? Probably, and it's almost certain we won't get there without eliminating this exemption.

Alaskans benefit greatly from energy efficient buildings. They may even benefit from an energy conservation code. But it ought to be of our own design and tailored to our unique environment, not mandated by Washington politicians who don't understand the complexities of construction in Alaska. Alaskans should decide where this fits in our priorities for funding building code enforcement in general. Let's not be lured into code adoption without careful consideration of the impact just because there are temporary funds available now. If you think the federal government will not interfere after they've given us money, you must be from a different planet.

David Moore, AIA, is an architect in Anchorage.