One cannot fault Congressman Henry Waxman for his visions--perhaps they are hallucinations--of humanistic utopian rapture. He does represent one of the more "out-in-left-field" districts in the country, the areas around Los Angeles including West Hollywood, Brentwood and Malibu that have given the city its dubious designation of "la-la land." There, where churchgoing is relatively rare, the environment is god.

But one can fault Waxman for his intransigence related to subjects in which, being a lawyer and a lifetime politico, he unreservedly lacks expertise. One such issue is construction, specifically home building, and his ignorance is distressingly evident in the energy regulation bill may come up for a vote in the House tomorrow. Known officially as H.R. 2454, it was first known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" but also known as the "cap-and-trade" bill. It has been redubbed "A bill to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy" in a cynical attempt by Democrats to recast it as a jobs bill to get enough votes among their own caucus to pass it.

It does a job, alright. This bill would affect almost every business, every structure and every (productive) person in the country.

It would really affect home builders. The bill would, among many other controversial provisions, mandate increases in the energy efficiency of homes of 30% upon enactment and 50% above standards set under the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by 2014, increasing by 5% in 2017 and increasing another 5% each three years thereafter until 2030. It would supercede state and local building codes regarding energy efficiency, withhold federal money from states deemed out of compliance and provide civil penalties for builders and/or homeowners. It would give significant new oversight and enforcement powers to the Department of Energy and the Cabinet-level post of Secretary of Energy, an unelected post that goes to a political ally of the President. And each day of occupancy of a structure deemed out of compliance would be treated as a separate violation. Ca-ching indeed. Not to mention dealing with officious federal bureaucrats on the jobsite.

The big problem with these targets--among a multitude of other problems with this bill--is that while they may be feasible, they are impossible as a matter of practicality. Unless builders build, and people buy, today's equivalent of Buckminster Fuller geodesic-domes, attaining this level of energy efficiency would prove prohibitively expensive. Low-income housing?

The National Association of Home Builders, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers, NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, the National Apartment Association, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, the National Association of Realtors, the National Multi Housing Council and The Real Estate Roundtable, have banded together to fight these standards. So far, unsuccessfully.

Amber Wood, program manager of energy efficiency for NAHB-RC, the organization's building-science arm, thinks getting up to and beyond that 50% level would require technologies such as insulating concrete forms, structural integrated panels, exotic HVAC systems and an attention to detail in the building envelope that does not exist except among the most specialized of home builders. "A lot of Energy-Star builders can get to 20% to 25% above the 2006 IECC with more efficient HVAC systems, air sealing, duct sealing, insulation and testing. It takes a lot of effort," she says.

Getting to 50% and beyond is another matter. "I would say it is at least doable," she adds. "You really have to start looking at the home as a system." The problem is, to do that, she figures construction costs would have to double. And then, she asks, "How do you address affordable housing?"

In numerous interviews in recent years for my tech column in the print edition of Big Builder, I have interviewed builders, scientists, manufacturers and architects about just the sort of technology a 50% efficiency increase would require (see one here). Geothermal HVAC is fantastic, but you have to drill a 700 foot well or install a huge underground heat-exchange grid. SIPs and ICFs? Also fantastic, and they work really really well. But they are at least double the cost of stick-building with bat insulation. Plus, per Wood's comment above, these technologies and sealing the house require precise detail. Are your subs and their workers given to precise detail? Really? Are they capable of learning?

Some builders will no doubt latch onto this technology and sell it well, but it is questionable if they will be able to do it at prices that would be affordable for entry level buyers (unless, of course, they were building the same thing over and over again). In other words, a gulag.

At deadline, there was little support in the Senate for this bill. Builders, all builders, should fight this bill any way they can.