As I was saying …

You've got to hand it to the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives: A mammoth climate change bill recently was introduced late on a Thursday night—for a vote Friday—and included some 300 pages of brand-new amendments. Knowing Congress members' proclivity to read legislative language, it's a safe bet the House passed a bill no one really understands.

The bill contains a lawyer's dream of new regulations and oversight boards. It aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mandate greater reliance on renewable energy and, importantly, impose a huge "cap and trade" program whereby companies emitting more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually could purchase or trade credits if they fail to meet new emission standards.

One of the bill's most dangerous provisions would empower the federal government to dictate requirements to codes and standards bodies. Correctly, those bodies are objecting to the provision; after all, voluntary standards are more effective when they truly are voluntary.

The bill's authors were clever enough to include many provisions that appeal to the bill's would-be opponents, such as money for training and incentives for building retrofits. The legislation narrowly passed in the House, and the real battle will be in the Senate where there likely will be much debate and considerable change.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing new rules so it can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This action is especially alarming because the EPA likely would develop standards for all new and modified buildings—meaning an elongated permitting process and, ultimately, increased costs for constructing and owning buildings.

The EPA also has published a rule for public comment that would require a broad range of facilities to monitor and report their annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Add all these things together and we have—to phrase it politely—more than a few unintended consequences of trying to curb climate change. If we really want to become more energy-efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are less cumbersome ways to make real progress; enforcing existing building codes is one example.

Instead, we appear to be heading toward increased regulation, higher costs and, ultimately, less construction activity. Is that truly a "trade" program that's worthwhile?

Bill Good is NRCA's executive vice president.