• • 00'0° 0 't 0 0 I 0 0 00 0 0 0 o. 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 000" . 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 • 0 0 0 . 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:J 00 0 00°0"0.00'.000,.°11' 0 '0 •• ° 0.°0.00,00' 00°°00"0.00':.' 00 o • "" '0 0 O· ~ 0,0' o· "0' '. O· 0 .0 ; • 0 • 0 0 0 00 QOOo 0.' -~- ' _" • 0 0 0"'0°,"0 0' 0°,.° 0 "00'( , . . " • 0 • 0 0 0 Q 0 O· 0 0 0'00'0 0 0 , oo'O j 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 O· 0 ',0 0 0 ( 0 00 0 o ," 0 ' 0 0, ,," 0 0 0 0, • 0 O· 0 • C O . 00 '0,,0 0,0, ""- 0 0 0 0'0'" ,,, 00 00 0 ' 0 '0,,00 ,° '0 o 0 0, ttl 0 0 0 0"-...... 0 0° " 0'0 (> 0 0 0 0 '0 '0°°00 0"00'0. 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 - 0 ., 0 0 '. 0· 0,00 '0" O. 0°0' tJ '0' '00 " CI, 0 . ,0 , 00 0,0 ( 0 o OU 0° 0'0 O. 0'00 ° 0°000 '.0 O,'O'Otl°OOODOO 0 000°0°'0.0 .'0,0,00 0 ° " 00 ' 0,' .'00"0°0° • 0, 00 0 00 '0 0 0 00" 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O· 0 0 OOl 0 • 0 0 00 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 0 00 ; ..". :nn;:;::: :: :: :: :: :f~ f;; o ° o 0 ~', 0 ~ DO. : 0 0 C 0 '" : 0 0 o 0 0 o ° O· . o • 0 o . 0 " o 0 0 C O· 0 0 () 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 ° C> o 0 0 ., o •• 0 • D 0 0 ~ 0 00 '0 0 ~ 0 0 0 00 '0 • • 0 " • 0 0 • o• D 0• ( o 0 0 C 00 o 00 D. 0 0 o 0 ) 0 00 '" 0 o 0 0 0 C) a , "Go o 0·0 • 0 • 0 ' o 0 00 0 o 0 • o O· , • 0 0 " 0 0 0 ° 0 o 0 O· o •• 0 o 0 0 0 D ~ : I : I : I : I '.~ 0 ;0 o 0, 0 ..o • 0 ~ '? o 0 II 0 0 0 o 0 • , .. °0 O. ° • 0 0 ,0 • o 0 0 ( <:> 0 o 0 • 0 _ 0 _ • 0 February-March 1980 RAIN Page 17 We need to become an effective conservation constituency-advocates ofsmallness, simplicity, and capital cheapness. How can the situation be changed? We need to become an effective conservation constituency-advocates of the approach that emphasizes E.F. Schumacher's smallness, simplicity and capital cheapness. And we need to be particularly active in helping tenants with energy efficiency, because tenants are the ones most likel y to be left out in the cold by current programs. Natiunally, about 55% of all tenants earn a low income. On the average, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income for the energy they use. Also, renters are less able to absurb rising energy costs, since they earn less than two-thirds the income of homeowners. But energy efficiency is more than an economic consideration. It is also an issue uf public health and welfare ; tenants have a fundamental right to huusing which they can offord to heat comfortably. Mandatory Conservation The fact that this discussion is limited tu rental housing does not diminish the importance of developing a comprehensive program. Mandatory rental weatherization should be part uf a comprehensive (residentiaL commercial. industrial) program to be equitable. Mandowry conservation is the only effective uption available ; it IS comprehensive, and it is fair. By mandating conservation, the important task of improving the energy efficiency of buildings is accomplished. And by requiring that all dwellings be energy efficient, the costs and benefits are more equally and justly distributed. When people conserve on their own initiative, they still must pay the rising costs created by the increased demandof others. But if everyone conserves, then everyone benefits from lower energy bills and a slower increase in mergy costs. There are precedents for mandating energy l'fficiency. Davis, alifornia, adopted a residential energy efficiency retrofit urdinance in November, 1979. Minnesota has a statewide mandatory residential retrofit law. Portland, Oregon, adopted an energy policy which includes mandatury measures for owner-uccupied and rental huusing, commercial buildings, and industrial structures. Seattle, Washington, is considering a mandatory residential program uf lesser scope, with the intention of developing a more inclusive program later. Many concerns must be balanced in designing a mandatory weatherization program uf any scale. It is necessary to consider standards, exemptions, implementation, impact on supply of affordable housing, inspection and compliance methods, administrative COsts, and public information. The balance is achieved through the local political process, so it is not possible to say that there is one "best" program which is generally a~plicable. Standards There are basically three ways to set standards. The program pruposed for Seattle relies on prescriptive standards specifying measures which must be taken for each residence. This technique was chosen because it is simple for people to understand what is required of them, and it is easiest to administer. The standards are based upon reasonable measures which will bring about significant energy savings. Exemptiuns are allowed where certain lesser levels of insulation an' already in place, or where the structure of the building would reasonably prevent installation tlf the required measures. Another approach to setting standards, used by Portland, Oregon, and the state of Minnesota, is to rely on cust-effective measures determined through an energy audit of each structure. Usually a payback time of 5 to 10 years is specified. While this is a more rdined approach than prescriptive standards, it is more costly to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz