BUILDING CODES
& ENERGY EFFICIENCY:
ALASKA
B
uildings account for roughly 40 percent of the
total energy use in the United States and 70
percent of our electricity use, representing a
significant opportunity for energy savings. Energy effi-
ciency—through the adoption and enforcement of
strong building energy codes—is the quickest, cheap-
est, and cleanest way to reduce energy consumption
and achieve a sustainable and prosperous future. For
the state of Alaska, the next step should be the adop-
tion of the U.S. model energy codes—the 2009 Inter-
national Energy Conservation Code (2009 IECC)
and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007.
In February 2009, the American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act (Recovery Act) – the federal stimulus
legislation appropriating funds for a variety of state
initiatives – allocated $3.1 billion for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy’s State Energy Program (SEP) to assist
states with building energy efficiency efforts. As one
of the requirements to receive this funding, the Alaska
Legislature voted to accept this funding1 on the condi-
tion that Alaska would implement energy standards of
equal or greater stringency than the latest national
model codes—the 2009 edition of the IECC and Stan-
dard 90.1-2007.
Having already received $14.1 million2 in SEP fund-
ing, Alaska is eligible to receive an additional $14.1
million upon demonstration of the successful imple-
mentation of its energy plans submitted to DOE. It is in
Alaska’s best economic interest to adopt the 2009
IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 statewide and begin
enjoying the benefits of an efficient building sector.
Updated November 10, 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
constructed 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.
Monetary savings derived from codes increase a
consumer's purchasing power, and help expand the
state’s economy by keeping local dollars in Alaska.
BUILDING INDUSTRY BENEFITS
The national model code, the 2009 IECC, offers
flexibility to Alaska builders and design profession-
als, allowing them to optimize the cost-
effectiveness of energy efficient features in their
building products, and to satisfy a variety of con-
sumer preferences.
The 2009 IECC also simplifies guidelines for build-
ers, providing a uniform code across the state with
multiple options for compliance.
Uniformity throughout Alaska will enable local ju-
risdictions to pool limited resources and combine
personnel to form county-wide, regional, and state-
wide enforcement and educational programs.
UTILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Energy codes improve the energy efficiency per-
formance of new buildings and reduce demand on
power generators, therefore improving the air qual-
ity of local communities and throughout Alaska.
Electricity use is a leading generator of air pollution.
Rising power demand increases emissions of sul-
fur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide. En-
ergy codes are a proven, cost-effective means for
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 ALASKA

A
laska’s current energy code3 for residential
construction—the Alaska Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (BEES)—is based on the
2006 IECC. It became effective April 1, 2007. This
code, however, does not achieve the energy savings
of the 2009 IECC,4 which improves upon the 2006
IECC and will provide Alaska households and busi-
nesses lower utility costs, increased comfort, and bet-
ter economic opportunity.
Alaska also has no mandatory statewide energy code
for commercial construction. A limited DOE analysis
of the changes from the state's current commercial
building practice to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1- Mt. McKinley in Alaska (Credit—US National Park Service)
2007 resulted in estimated cost and energy savings
of 8 to 10 percent per year for an average new com-
future fluctuations in energy costs and peak demand
mercial building at recent fuel prices.5
with state electricity prices well above the U.S. aver-
When states regularly update and enforce their energy age in 2009. By adopting national baseline standards
codes, in coordination with the three-year model code for building energy performance, Alaska can mitigate
update cycles, they ensure the consistency and contin- the impacts of price uncertainty and become a
ued enhancement of the benefits of model building more efficient state.
practice. By maintaining this commitment, Alaska can
demonstrate leadership in energy efficiency by AN UNTAPPED RESOURCE
meeting national standards.
Energy prices are projected to rise sharply over the
ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND SUPPLIES next decade. By using energy codes to increase the
significant potential energy supply improved build-
Alaska possesses vast energy resources, including the ing energy efficiency produces, Alaska can enhance
nation’s second highest crude oil production. Natural its energy security by reducing in-state energy de-
gas is a significant fuel source for electricity genera- mand. Wise management of state energy policy
tion in Alaska, typically supplying more than 60 per- should include seizing the low-hanging fruit that is the
cent of the power generated in-state.6 Reducing local energy savings improved building energy codes offer.
demand for electricity and natural gas would free up Among the opportunities:
even more of the state’s energy resources for export
to other states, decreasing costs for consumers and If Alaska updated its energy code to the 2009 IECC
increasing profits for businesses. and required adoption and enforcement by all local
EFFICIENCY AND PERFORMANCE jurisdictions, businesses and homeowners would
save an estimated $12 million annually by 2020
Although its population (ranked 47th in 2007) and ab- and $23 million annually by 2030 in energy costs
solute energy consumption (37th) are small among the (assuming 2006 energy prices).
50 states and D.C., Alaska’s economy is very energy
intensive, ranking first in the nation in energy con- Additionally, adopting and implementing the 2009
sumption per real dollar of GDP.7 Alaskans also en- IECC statewide would help avoid roughly 4 trillion
dured per person energy expenditures of over $9,000 Btu of primary annual energy use by 2030 and
in 2007—the highest in the U.S. and more than twice annual emissions of roughly 260,000 metric tons of
the national average.8 The state is also vulnerable to CO2 by 2030.
** NOTES ** For more information, please visit www.bcap-ocean.org.
1
BCAP (http://bcap-energy.org/node/470) 2007_Commercial_Nationwide_Analysis.pdf)
2 6
US DOE (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=230) US EIA (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AK)
3 7
BCAP (http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/Alaska) US EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_gdp.pdf)
4 8
BCAP (http://bcap-energy.org/node/330) US EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_pr.pdf)
5
US DOE (http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/state_codes/reports/90-1-
1850 M St. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
www.bcap-ocean.org