[MarkR]

It seems the new version of the UK Building regulations has been brought forward from 2007, to sometime in 2005.

It greatly increases the requirements for energy efficiency.

It mandates a minimum efficiency of 86% for a newly installed gas or oil fired boiler. This will require the installation of a high efficiency 'condensing' boiler - installation of an older non-condensing model will be prohibited.

There are recommendations about exterior lighting:
- Absolute maximum of 150W per lamp fitting
- Automatic shut off (e.g. infra-red motion detectors) must be fitted to any light which could be fitted with an incandescent bulb

Anybody performing work on their property (e.g. renovation, extension, adding a conservatory, etc.) where the work is worth £8000 or more, would be required to upgrade the rest of their property to the best practive standard as part of building approval, even if the extension itself meets energy efficiency standards.

Such mandatory improvements would include:
- minimum loft insulation of approx 10 inches
- replacement of non-condensing boilers of 15 years or older
- Cavity wall insulation to all suitable walls

Other requirements include:
- Where air conditioning is installed, annual inspection by a certified installer is required (similar to the annual inspection of gas appliances)
- Draft reduction and air-tightening of the building to specified levels
- Interal lights in 'high-use' areas must be designed so that they can only be fitted with fluorescent bulbs
- Suitable precautions against solar overheating must be taken e.g. fitting blinds to South facing windows, etc.
- Careful consideration must be given to installation of a water softener to prevent limescale formation on water heaters

You may also be expected to bring your property up to compliance with these standards if you plan to sell, otherwise you may be forced to significantly reduce your selling price.

[MarkR]

Sorry, forgot to give a link to the consultation document.

Here you go.

[Backpacker]

Mandatory energy conservation laws are a subject that goes over like a lead balloon in modern day America. The thought of a WW2 style gas rationing plan, peak electrical demand rate hikes, tamper-proof thermostats, etc. is repulsive to Americans and seen as an infringement on their civil liberties. Any attempt to enact mandatory conservation laws would almost certainly incite riots and protest and would mean the politicians enacting the laws would most certainly lose the next election.
Yet, what other choice do we have? Letting Americans continue in their present energy gluttony is a recipe for disaster as it will only hasten peak oil. The only viable option for at least a softer landing in peak oil is to enact mandatory conservation laws and start forcing the public to conserve...seeing as voluntary conservation isn't exactly cutting the cake.
Gas rationing would force people to carpool and cut down on unnecessary trips. Bicycle use for short trips would be more common as would the use of public transport. Outlawing incandescant light bulbs and making CFL's mandatory would reduce electrical demand. Tamper proof thermostats that cannot be turned above a pre-set temperature, say 66 or 67 would save lots of natural gas.
Mandatory conservation would most likely spark widespread protest and possible riots but it is certainly less of an evil than a hard landing with peak oil and finding ourselves in a depression. You can politely "encourage" people to conserve all you want and the overwhelming majority are not going to do it. It is time to enact laws and start forcing people to conserve whether they like it or not. What would the public rather have? Mandatory conservation or sending their children off to fight in Iraq and the future energy wars that will come along?

[Jack]

Umm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?

[Backpacker]

Umm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?

Because the higher prices rise the greater the risk of recession. As prices rise businesses will only increase the price for their goods and services to the consumer to cover the higher cost of gas. In addition, a price increase will not really spur most middle or upper middle class or wealthy to conserve. We need to have rationing across the board so that all will have to conserve, including the upper crust.

[Jack]

Umm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?

Because the higher prices rise the greater the risk of recession. As prices rise businesses will only increase the price for their goods and services to the consumer to cover the higher cost of gas. In addition, a price increase will not really spur most middle or upper middle class or wealthy to conserve. We need to have rationing across the board so that all will have to conserve, including the upper crust.

Rationing is more likely to create a recession. It assures that everyone will stay home.

No thanks. I'll go with price.

[jato]

+1 for free market.

[Aaron]

Umm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?

As if there will be a choice.

[Xelat]

+1 for free market.

How so? I don't agree at all. Backpacker makes a sound point when he says that price signals will not force significant conservation on anyone other than the lower class. I don't think that in our current society that you can expect a culture of conservation to move swiftly from the lower class to the upper class if the lower class is forced by price signals to conserve. So we end up in a situation where the lower class is screwed (as they are already) and that further exacerbates class tension.

Now maybe inequity is a problem that needs to be addressed in the united states. But I don't see how price signals can both force conservation and fight a culture war simultaneously. At least forced rationing institutes culture change systemwide.

And what free market are you talking about? Define free.

[Xelat]

Although I don't think either method is all that sound

+2 for rationing.

[OldSprocket]

So we end up in a situation where the lower class is screwed (as they are already) and that further exacerbates class tension.

. . .

At least forced rationing institutes culture change systemwide.

Sounds like two reasons the legislative branch won't make any changes. Executive branch not likely to cry for change either.

Did I get up on the cynical side of the bed this morning?

Can anyone suggest a way to motivate the FOX-fed voters to press for change?

[smallpoxgirl]

So we end up in a situation where the lower class is screwed (as they are already) and that further exacerbates class tension.

I think you hit the nail on the head. American society is held together with sticky tape and bailing wire. The "free market" equates to Bill Gates continuing to jet set around the world, while thousands of people starve to death in the streets of Seattle. At some point there will be enough hungry people that they will be unwilling to passively starve, and will lynch Bill Gates, eat his food, and squat his mansion. Admittedly it probably won't be a good long term solution to their problem, but starving people can't worry too much about the long term. The government is unlikely to ever let things get to that extreme and will take steps to control prices before that ever happens.

[Ludi]

Subtantial changes will only happen as a result of a change of attitude. I'm a big believer in peer pressure and cultural influence. Sadly, our entire culture is geared toward consumption and it will be hard to change that. Even here on this forum we still see the "more is better" folks sometimes....

[lowem]

Umm? Why not let price work as the rationing mechanism?

As if there will be a choice.

If we were to know for sure that the alternatives are either : total economic collapse (total anarchy! no more prices!), or a return to slavery (you're a slave, but The Boss pays for everything! Food & lodging ...), it's probably a good bet that people would pay $6, $8, or whatever a gallon (or local equivalent).

Perhaps with a lot of grumbling, but the alternatives are ... hmm ...

[BabyPeanut]

The thought of ... peak electrical demand rate hikes

we have those already

[Jack]

So we end up in a situation where the lower class is screwed (as they are already) and that further exacerbates class tension.

I think you hit the nail on the head. American society is held together with sticky tape and bailing wire. The "free market" equates to Bill Gates continuing to jet set around the world, while thousands of people starve to death in the streets of Seattle. At some point there will be enough hungry people that they will be unwilling to passively starve, and will lynch Bill Gates, eat his food, and squat his mansion. Admittedly it probably won't be a good long term solution to their problem, but starving people can't worry too much about the long term. The government is unlikely to ever let things get to that extreme and will take steps to control prices before that ever happens.

You might wish to take a look at Brazil, Mexico, and other such interesting economic experiments. You have some very wealthy people, and lots of starving people digging in trash dumps for scraps. Order is preserved - not gently, by the way.

Will starving people go up against heavily armed police forces? Maybe...that's called "revolution". But I doubt it. Generally, people go to their deaths quietly.

[Jack]

Although I don't think either method is all that sound

+2 for rationing.

Really? Let's take a look at rationing. First of all, there are functionally three classes of people. The poor, the middle-class, and the rich.

Notice that rationing will tend to keep prices low while attempting to restrict demand. So you have several ways you can proceed. If you distribute some sort of ration ticket or coupon, then the document will acquire a value of its own and will trade in the open market. You can restrict or prohibit such trade; however, this merely changes the price dynamics. Under such scenario the rich would purchase coupons sufficient to their needs from the poor. This means that the entire rationing scheme becomes a form of taxation and income transfer. The middle-class will participate in the market is both buyers and sellers. Don't expect broad political support for such transfer payments!

You can implement variety of enforcement mechanisms to preclude such action, but notice that the administrative costs increase substantially.

You also face the question of allocation. Is the ration based on number cars? On number of drivers? On type of employment or business? Whatever mechanism you choose is sure to create economic distortions and nonsensical situations. Furthermore, the more complex and pervasive the regulations become the more they cost to enforce. If however you choose not to enforce them the black market will expand.

The original post also spoke of regulating thermostats and home heating. Are the thermostat police to also control the use of stoves, ovens, and dryers? How does one prevent homeowners from hot wiring the thermostat? Or packing it in ice and styrofoam? Are we to have no knock warrants for our thermostat police?

Let us face a simple reality. The rich get what they want. If they cannot get it in the US, and they will move where they can get it. The poor will be tossed off the sled to be consumed by the wolves. And the middle-class will scratch and claw to avoid fate of the poor.

Kind of cool!

[Backpacker]

Although I don't think either method is all that sound

+2 for rationing.

Really? Let's take a look at rationing. First of all, there are functionally three classes of people. The poor, the middle-class, and the rich.

Notice that rationing will tend to keep prices low while attempting to restrict demand. So you have several ways you can proceed. If you distribute some sort of ration ticket or coupon, then the document will acquire a value of its own and will trade in the open market. You can restrict or prohibit such trade; however, this merely changes the price dynamics. Under such scenario the rich would purchase coupons sufficient to their needs from the poor. This means that the entire rationing scheme becomes a form of taxation and income transfer. The middle-class will participate in the market is both buyers and sellers. Don't expect broad political support for such transfer payments!

You can implement variety of enforcement mechanisms to preclude such action, but notice that the administrative costs increase substantially.

You also face the question of allocation. Is the ration based on number cars? On number of drivers? On type of employment or business? Whatever mechanism you choose is sure to create economic distortions and nonsensical situations. Furthermore, the more complex and pervasive the regulations become the more they cost to enforce. If however you choose not to enforce them the black market will expand.

The original post also spoke of regulating thermostats and home heating. Are the thermostat police to also control the use of stoves, ovens, and dryers? How does one prevent homeowners from hot wiring the thermostat? Or packing it in ice and styrofoam? Are we to have no knock warrants for our thermostat police?

Let us face a simple reality. The rich get what they want. If they cannot get it in the US, and they will move where they can get it. The poor will be tossed off the sled to be consumed by the wolves. And the middle-class will scratch and claw to avoid fate of the poor.

Kind of cool!

The gas rationing can be regulated with devices similar to the "speedpass" used at gas stations. The transponder would record amount of gallons consumed that week and the pump would stop at the gallonage limit.
The situation regarding the "thermostat police" is very simple. I am a licensed HVAC technician and there are several options available. You are correct in saying that even if tamper-proof thermostats were installed in homes that some people would know how to by pass the thermostat. There are other options for dealing with that also. One is to install a duct limiter (very inexpensive) that will shut the heating system off at a preset temperature even if the thermostat is bypassed. The other is for funace manufacturers to design into the furnace circuit boards a return air temperature sensor and a heating control ciruit break designed into the internal circuitry of the board to shut the furnace off at a preset temperature.
Also, natural gas and heating oil consumptioncan be monitored by the degree day system. Heating oil delivery companies use degree day to accurately gauge out the next delivery before the tank runs dry. If the homeowners natural gas or heating oil consumption significantly exceeds the degree day data for that month in that area of their state fines could be imposed.

[Jack]

All very nice technical solutions - between them, they should increase the cost of getting things on the black market so the merely middle class won't be able to play.

Which leaves more for the rich and upper-middle class.

We (as a society) cannot get cocaine and methamphetimines under control. Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

[Xelat]

To Jack - If you must insist on viewing thing as "market this market that" then I suggest the following interpretation of a rationing scheme. Consider the market price without rationing. Let us assume you will have roughly the same qunatity of oil available in either scheme. You will need to increse taxation for the gov't to pay for the oil. Then you give out tickets corresponding to a certain perentage of the oil (say 60%) and leave the rest to be sold under traditional market conditions - the gov't keeps the revenue from all oil sold to pay back that which they spent on oil (still need to tax). The tickets then correspond to a subsidy to the poor at a rate roughly equivalent to the price of oil in market conditions - although because only 40% is available without tickets I suspect the open market price will rise. As such they will be better off and to some the subsidy will be valuable enough that they will not sell it in a black market.

Hell - why even bother making it illegal to trade the tickets? I'd trade mine = I don't drive anymore.

Foodstamps are an example of such a subsidy (where trade is illegal)