BUILDING CODES

& ENERGY EFFICIENCY:

MICHIGAN
Updated December 9, 2009

ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Consumers save money by reducing utility bills,
minimizing the negative impacts of fluctuations in
energy supply and cost, and by conserving available
energy resources. Retail and office buildings con-
structed to meet the requirements of the IECC can
be over 30 percent more energy efficient than
typical buildings not constructed to meet national
model energy standards.

B
Monetary savings derived from codes increase a
uildings account for roughly 40 percent of the
consumer's purchasing power, and help expand the
total energy use in the United States and 70
state’s economy by keeping local dollars in Michi-
percent of our electricity use, representing a
gan.
significant opportunity for energy savings. Energy effi-
ciency—through the adoption and enforcement of BUILDING INDUSTRY BENEFITS
strong building energy codes—is the quickest, cheap-
est and cleanest way to reduce energy consumption and The national model code, the 2009 IECC, offers
achieve a sustainable and prosperous future. For the flexibility to Michigan builders and design profes-
state of Michigan, the next step should be the adoption sionals, allowing them to optimize the cost-
of the U.S. model energy codes—the 2009 Interna- effectiveness of energy efficient features in their
tional Energy Conservation Code (2009 IECC) and building products, and to satisfy a variety of con-
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. sumer preferences.

In February 2009, the American Recovery and Rein- The 2009 IECC also simplifies guidelines for build-
vestment Act (Recovery Act) – the federal stimulus ers, providing a uniform code across the state with
legislation appropriating funds for a variety of state multiple options for compliance.
initiatives – allocated $3.1 billion for the U.S. Depart-
Uniformity throughout Michigan will enable local
ment of Energy’s State Energy Program (SEP) to assist
jurisdictions to pool limited resources and combine
states with building energy efficiency efforts. As one
personnel to form county-wide, regional, and state-
of the requirements to receive this funding, Gov. Jenni-
wide enforcement and educational programs.
fer Granholm certified to DOE1 that Michigan would
implement energy standards of equal or greater strin- UTILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
gency than the latest national model codes—the 2009
edition of the IECC and Standard 90.1-2007. Energy codes improve the energy efficiency per-
formance of new buildings and reduce demand on
Having already received $41 million2 in federal SEP power generators, therefore improving the air qual-
funding, Michigan is eligible to receive an additional ity of local communities throughout Michigan.
$41 million in grants upon demonstration of the suc-
cessful implementation of its energy plans submitted to Electricity use is a leading generator of air pollution.
DOE. It is in Michigan’s best economic interest to Rising power demand increases emissions of sul-
adopt the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 state- fur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide. En-
wide and begin enjoying the benefits of an efficient ergy codes are a proven, cost-effective means for
building sector. addressing these and other environmental impacts.
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-ocean.org
 A MODEL STATE ENERGY CODE FOR MICHIGAN

M
ichigan’s current energy code3 for residential
and commercial construction—the 2003
Michigan Uniform Energy Code (MUEC)—is
based on the 2003 International Residential Code
(referencing the 2004 IECC supplemental edition) and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, respectively. The residen-
tial code did not become effective until October 2008
after a nearly four-year legal challenge. These codes,
however, do not achieve all of the energy savings po-
tential of the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007.

The 2009 IECC4 improves substantially upon the state’s

codes and makes it simpler to provide Michigan house-
holds and businesses lower utility costs, increased com-
fort, and better economic opportunity. A limited DOE
analysis5 of the changes from the state's current residen-
tial code to the 2009 IECC resulted in estimated en-
ergy savings of 12-13 percent, or $256 to $292 a year
Miners’ Castle on Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, MI
for an average new house at recent fuel prices. Another
(Credit--Charles Dawley)
DOE analysis6 of the changes from the state's current
commercial code estimates energy savings of 12-13 per- ing local demand for electricity and natural gas will de-
cent from Standard 90.1-2007. crease costs for consumers and increase profits for busi-
nesses.
When states regularly update and enforce their energy
codes (in coordination with the three-year model code AN UNTAPPED RESOURCE
update cycles), they ensure the consistency and contin-
ued enhancement of the benefits of model building prac- Energy prices are projected to rise sharply over the next
tice. By maintaining this commitment, Michigan can decade. By using energy codes to increase the signifi-
demonstrate leadership on energy efficiency issues by cant potential energy supply improved building energy
meeting national standards. efficiency produces, Michigan can enhance its energy
security by reducing energy demand within its borders.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND SUPPLIES Wise management of statewide energy policy should
include seizing the low-hanging fruit that is the energy
Michigan has substantial natural gas reserves — more savings improved building energy codes offer. Among
than any other state in the Great Lakes region — but is the opportunities:
relatively limited in other energy resources. Driven
largely by the residential sector, Michigan’s natural gas If Michigan began implementing the 2009 IECC and
consumption is high. Nearly four-fifths of Michigan Standard 90.1-2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and
households use natural gas as their primary energy homeowners would save an estimated $199 million
source for home heating. The state also relies on coal annually by 2020 and an estimated $212 million an-
shipped primarily from Wyoming and Montana to pro- nually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 energy
duce over 60 percent of its electricity generation.7 prices).

While per capita electricity use and residential energy Additionally, implementing the latest model codes
prices in Michigan are only about 5 percent above the would help avoid roughly 27 trillion Btu of primary
national average,8 the state is still vulnerable to future annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of
fluctuations in energy costs and peak demand. Reduc- roughly 1.8 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030.
** NOTES ** For more information, please visit www.bcap-ocean.org
1 6
US DOE (http://www.energy.gov/media/3930GranholmMichigan.pdf) US DOE (http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/reports/commercial/
2
US DOE (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=187) Commercial_Michigan.pdf)
3 7
BCAP (http://bcap-energy.org/node/75) US EIA (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=MI)
4 8
BCAP (http://bcap-energy.org/node/330) US EIA (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_rankings.cfm?
5
US DOE (http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/reports/residential/ keyid=18&orderid=1)
Residential_Michigan.pdf)

1850 M St. NW Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-ocean.org