Take the ENERGY STAR new homes program, for example, the one I’m most familiar with. Version 1 required only one inspection, a home energy rating (for the performance path), and no checklists. Version 3, which becomes mandatory for builders wanting the ENERGY STAR label on their homes starting next January, requires 2 inspections, a home energy rating, and 4 checklists.

I understand the need for it from the perspective of the program administrators. Building and energy codes are catching up with voluntary program requirements, so they have to keep moving forward. Program leaders also have attempted to clarify the ambiguity of early versions of program requirements. And they have to make sure that the program is meaningful and that when the program label appears on a home, that home is significantly better than homes without the label. I get all that.

It just seems like we’ve lost our way, that we’ve all gotten blinded by a confusion of checklists, worksheets, prescriptive measures, and certification levels. Not to mention the confusion that comes from having so many different programs out there. If you’re a builder, you have to decide if you’re going for ENERGY STAR, LEED for Homes, EarthCraft House, NAHB Green Building Standard, Environments for Living… It’s not an easy task.

One of the first points of confusion that participants in the ENERGY STAR program face is whether to certify via the prescriptive or the performance path. That sounds pretty clear-cut, right? When you take a closer look, however, you find that the prescriptive path has performance requirements (e.g., testing for duct leakage and infiltration rates), and the performance path is chock full of prescriptive requirements. Just look at the 4 checklists required in ENERGY STAR Version 3.

As constructed, the performance path is differentiated from the prescriptive path by its requirement for a HERS rating. It’s based on how the home is constructed, how it tests out, and how the software does the energy modeling. It doesn’t depend on how the house actually performs, though, and that could differ significantly from the modeled performance. One reason we do it this way is so that the homes certified will carry the program label while they’re for sale, thus helping the builder to market their homes.

But what if we included the performance of a home over its first year of occupancy? Then we could include the actual energy use and calculate the energy intensity, even separating out baseload from the energy used for heating and cooling. It seems to me that this would be one of the best ways to handle quality assurance, too. If HERS raters, builders, and trade contractors know that their work has to pass not only the initial inspections but also a full year’s worth of performance assessments, don’t you think they’ll pay a bit more attention to getting the details right?

We could simplify the requirements for the initial certification and make sure everyone knows that the initial label means only that the home has gone through a process. Even though the energy modeling may say the home will use only $900 of energy per year, for example, everyone will know that that will be compared to the actual energy consumption for the ‘real’ label.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this Monday morning. I’m interested to hear what you think.

Top photo by acearchie from flickr.com, used under a Creative Commons license. Lower photo by Ian Sane from flickr.com, used under a Creative Commons license.

Yesterday, though, I received a Manual J to go along with a file for an ENERGY STAR home that was beyond the pale. It was egregiously horrific. It was spectacularly sordid. It did come close to meeting the ENERGY STAR Version 2 requirements for Manual J (tight or semi-tight infiltration and correct design temperatures), but whoever put this one together was singularly devious in his efforts to justify the oversized air conditioning systems he wanted to install.

Yeah, he did the usual things to fabricate extra cooling load, but when that wasn’t enough, he resorted to one trick that’s not used nearly as often as it might be. Keep reading, my friend, and I’ll let you in on his secret.

One of the first things I do when checking to see if a cooling system might be oversized is to look at the ratio of conditioned floor area (in square feet) to the cooling capacity (in tons). ENERGY STAR and other high performance homes usually come in at about 1000 square feet per ton or more. The house I builtwas about 2000 square feet per ton.

A lot of HVAC contractors, though, don’t do Manual J sizing calculations but instead rely on rules of thumb. Mostly they use 500 to 600 square feet per ton. This house came in at 368 square feet per ton! That’s ridiculous, especially for a house in Charlotte, NC.

When I went into the reports, here are the problems I found that are typical of bad Manual J’s:

• They put 6 people in the calculation when this house should have had 4. (It should be the number of bedrooms plus one.)
• The HERS rater calculated that the house had 184 square feet of window area; the Manual J had 383 sf.
• The HERS rater used a window U-value of 0.32; the Manual J had 0.53. (Lower is better.)

Those three items alone inflated the cooling load sigificantly. Not enough for this contractor, though. Evidently he really wanted to install a 2.5 ton air conditioner for the upstairs zone, yet after all those shenanigans, the Manual J result was only 1.5 tons. So, what did he do to get that extra ton to show up in the Manual J? He could have gone in changed wall insulation or duct leakage or any number of other parameters, but there was an easier way.

Manual J calculates the sensible and latent loads separately and adds them together for the total load in Btu/hour. The sensible load is how much cooling you need to do to bring the temperature down, and the latent load is how much cooling you have to do to bring the humidity down. If you take the sensible load and divide it by the total load (stick with me here – we’re almost there), you get what’s called the Sensible Heat Ratio, or SHR.

The Manual J report often submitted shows the total load (sensible plus latent), but it also shows what they call the required total capacity of the equipment at a particular SHR. Whoever does the Manual J can override the default SHR of 0.75, and that changes the required capacity. Most air conditioning equipment comes with an SHR in the 0.7 to 0.75 range.

The crafty calculator who completed this Manual J figured out that by adusting the SHR, he could get the required capacity to equal what he wanted to install. In this case, he needed 0.53 SHR to get his 2.5 tons. Can you even get an air conditioner with 0.53 SHR?

Come on, HVAC guys! Do it right! If you can’t do this for ENERGY STAR Version 2, you don’t have a chance with ENERGY STAR Version 3, which is much harder.

Two leading conservation organizations have set out to bring the efforts together. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Alliance for Water Efficiency this week published a white paper that describes the co-dependence of water and energy resources, and outlines strategies to use both more efficiently.

The paper brings to light some interesting – and rarely discussed – ways each resource heightens use of the other.

• Sourcing, moving, treating, heating, collecting, re-treating, and dispos­ing of water consumes19 percent of California’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually, according to a 2005 California Energy Commission report.
• The River Network in 2009 found that energy use for water services accounts for 13 percent of US electricity consumption, at least 520 million megawatt-hours annually.
• Thermoelectric power accounted for an estimated 49 percent of US water withdrawals and 53 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005.

ACEEE and AWE hope to work together on local, state and federal policy to bring more energy efficiency to water use and water efficiency to energy use. They have some hurdles to overcome. For example, “the water and energy efficiency communities do not share a common language or appreciation of existing efficiency efforts,” the white paper said. “In addition, the two communities frequently operate under different regulatory business models and existing structures that do not recognize the benefits of both energy and water savings.”

The organizations intend to develop approaches that encourage com­munication and guide the industries and their regulators. They hope to share best practices and integrate water efficiency into existing energy efficiency programs and vice versa.

Well, I’m not a mold expert and haven’t identified the growth here as mold, but if it is mold, here’s what’s necessary for it to grow:

• Spores – They’re everywhere and will grow if the other conditions are met.
• Appropriate temperatures – They like pretty much the same temperatures we do, and even colder. Ever seen mold in your fridge?
• Food – Organic matter is what they like, and it’s everywhere. Mold likes cellulose (wood) and the more processed, the better. Paper is called mold candy by people who work in this field.
• Moisture – To sustain growth, a mold colony must have water. When the relative humidity of the air is 70% or higher, mold has enough water to grow.

So, of the four requirements for mold growth, the one we have most control over is moisture. Keep the materials and the air dry enough, and we won’t have a mold problem.

Have you measured the relative humidity in your crawl space? When I was doing improvements on homes, I’d install a digital thermo-hygrometer with a remote sensor in the crawl space so the homeowners could track the relative humidity. If you’re not doing this yet, and you have a crawl space, get yourself one of these devices now.

OK, so you’ve measured and determined that you do have high relative humidity in your crawl space. That’s not unusual at all, especially in a humid climate like we have here in the Southeast. Where’s the moisture coming from? And why is the humidity in a vented crawl space higher than the outdoor relative humidity? Here are three reasons.

1. Bulk Water

The first problem to look for is bulk water. If there’s standing water in your crawl space, you have either a drainage problem or a plumbing leak. You need to fix this immediately. Having a pond under your home is a bad, bad idea.

In the photo above, the problem was that the back yard sloped down to the house, bringing water up to the foundation wall. Since it was just a crawl space, the builder didn’t put any kind of water proofing on the concrete block or grade the yard properly to keep the hydrostatic pressure from building up against the block wall. You can see the result here. This was a new house with a serious bulk water problem. The joists were already growing stuff, and the fiberglass batt insulation was getting heavy and falling down.

2. Moisture Evaporating from the Ground

In the photo above, the ground was partially covered with a polyethylene vapor barrier. The dirt that wasn’t covered looked dry, but when I pulled the plastic back, I found that there was a lot of moisture in that soil. The soil that looked dry only looked that way because it was constantly evaporating moisture into the air of the crawl space. The foundation walls can also evaporate moisture into the air.

What do you do to solve the problem? Cover it all up with a vapor barrier!

3. Outdoor Air Coming in through the Crawl Space Vents

Some people find this hard to believe, but when you bring outdoor air into the crawl space, the relative humidity actually increases. Think about it this way: When air enters the crawl space, it cools down. Cool air cannot hold as much moisture as warm air, so the air that enters is now closer to its saturation point (which we call the dew point). It might’ve been 60% relative humidity outside (relative to a temperature of 90° F, say), but when that air came into the crawl space and cooled down to 75° F, the relative humidity jumped up to 95%. Not good!

The numbers here come from the psychrometric chart (invented by Willis Carrier, the inventor of the modern air conditioning system), which relates temperature and humidity of air.

What Can You Do?

If you’ve got a vented crawl space with high relative humidity caused by one or more of the above, to solve the problem, you’ve got to remove the causes. Bulk water is solved by fixing the drainage or plumbing problems. Water evaporating from the ground or coming through the vents can be fixed by encapsulating your crawl space.

One thing that doe NOT work is to try to treat the symptom by installing a dehumidifier. Don’t do that!

If the problems get really bad, though, you can always keep some kayaks down there so you can get around easier.

GIMBBYs aren’t worried about seeing wind turbines or transmission lines from their backyards as are the NIMBYs. It’s the guy next store that they don’t want to see. And GIMBBYs number many among us. A recent study conducted for the National Association of Realtors found privacy to be very important in selecting a home for nearly half of the Americans surveyed.

What’s this got to with energy efficiency? To gain privacy we move to homes that are further from work, schools and stores, suburban and rural outposts that offer us bigger backyards. By way of disclosure, before I go any further let me confess that I am a GIMBBY. I’d probably give up my lights, heat and air conditioning before my five acres of trees shielding me from others.

The Environmental Protection Agency calls big-backyard neighborhoods like mine “automobile dependent locations” and contrasts them with “transit-oriented” neighborhoods, places where you can hop a bus or easily walk to regular destinations. The agency recently looked at which kind of neighborhood uses the most British Thermal Units (BTUs), taking into account size and type of house, its energy efficiency, and vehicle use of its occupants. This is known asLocation Efficiency.

The EPA’s findings indicate that location really is everything. Transit-oriented neighborhoods offered up more energy savings whether the houses were single family detached, single family attached or multi-family. This is significant because homes that share walls typically require less energy for heating and cooling. But that advantage was not significant enough to overcome driving distance for the big-backyard neighborhoods. Travel requirements pretty much trumped all, indicating that a home’s location is “a major variable for household energy consumption,” the EPA said.

Even though she’s a very technically-minded person (she works on nuclear non-proliferation and carbon sequestration issues), but, like most people, she doesn’t know what she should expect when it comes to an assessment of her home’s energy efficiency. A good home energy audit these days will cost from a few hundred dollars to over $1000, depending on the size and complexity of the house, so homeowners of course want to know what they’re going to get for that investment.

Well, let’s dive in and take a look.

Who’s Qualified?

Although it may be hard to find someone with one of these certifications in every part of the country, you should look for a home energy auditor who’s certified as either a BPI (the Building Performance Institute) Building Analyst or a RESNET certified HERS Rater. Last year I wrote an article about these being the main certifications to look for, and it’s still the case.

What Should They Do?

1. Combustion Safety
2. Building Envelope
3. HVAC
4. Moisture Problems
5. Detailed Report
6. Extras

The first thing to know is that there are different levels of assessment. For simplicity, I’ll focus mainly on the comprehensive energy audit, but a seasoned home energy auditor can tell a lot just by walking through the house. The key is that it’s got to be someone who’s already done plenty of comprehensive audits and knows what to look for.

1. Combustion Safety

The motto of BPI is, “First, do no harm…to life, limb or property.” If your house has any combustion appliances in it, assessing their safety and suitability should be the first thing the energy auditor does. Often, a home energy auditor is the only person who looks at your house as a system and can tell you if there might be problems such as backdrafting that could put carbon monoxide in your home. A good combustion safety test will include checking for spillage of natural draft combustion appliances, the content of the exhaust gases in furnaces and water heaters, and worst case depressurization of the combustion appliance zone (CAZ).

2. Building Envelope

The building envelope is the boundary between conditioned and unconditioned spaces. It has two key components: the air barrier and the insulation, which need to go completely around the house and be touching each other. The home energy auditor you choose check all three parts of the building envelope:

• Integrity of the air barrier
• Adequacy of insulation levels
• Alignment of insulation with air barrier

When insulation is installed without an air barrier, it won’t do its job. Most types of insulation do not stop air leakage, so one thing the energy auditor will do is look for proper alignment of insulation and air barrier throughout the house.

The energy auditor will also look for proper levels of insulation (wherever visible) and check for the existence of insulation behind walls. They’ll check the integrity of the air barrier in two ways: a visual inspection and a Blower Door test. The former tells where the big air leaks are, and the latter quantifies the total amount of air leakage in the house. The auditor can use the Blower Door as a diagnostic tool to locate air leaks, too.

3. HVAC

Most homes use more energy for heating and cooling than for anything else, so assessing how well the heating and cooling systems are doing is vital. One thing that a home energy auditor will do that your HVAC contractor may not, though, is look at the quality of the distribution system. It’s one thing to heat or cool the air with high efficiency equipment, but if you put that high SEER air conditioner or high efficiency furnace on a crappy duct system, the money spent on the equipment is wasted.

The energy auditor should look at both the equipment and the distribution system. If it’s a forced air distribution system, they probably will also measure the amount of duct leakage in each system, especially is the ducts are outside the building envelope. Unless the auditor is also an HVAC technician, they probably won’t give you a full assessment of the equipment, but they can tell you, based on the age of the equipment, how soon you might need to replace it.

4. Moisture Problems

There are three things that cause buildings to fail more often than anything else:

• rain
• moisture
• condensation

In other words, water causes a lot of problems. Energy auditors often look for moisture problems in your home and will help find the source so you can eliminate the problem. Most of the moisture problems originate from drainage issues on the outside of the house and should be solved on the outside (e.g.,by fixing gutters that dump water at the foundation). Vented crawl spaces are a category unto themselves, and the good news is that we know how to fix themnow.

5. Detailed Report

Once the home energy auditor has finished with the onsite assessment of the house, which generally takes three to six hours, they’ll write up a report for the homeowners. Some companies have their templates set up and portable printers in their trucks and can deliver the report before they ever leave your house. Most, I believe, will do the report back at their office and then schedule an appointment to deliver it.

The report should cover all the items above (if applicable). It should give the results of the inspections and testing and put them in perspective by comparing what the auditor found in your house to what’s required by code (in the case of insulation mainly). In the case of infiltration and duct leakage, the comparison is usually to a scale showing what’s good and what’s bad. With the former, they may also tell you what size hole you have in your house.

Finally, with a good home energy audit report, you should get a scope of work that prioritizes the improvements you could make based on their cost effectiveness. Air sealing and duct sealing are usually at the top of the list of energy improvements, though combustion safety issues trump energy efficiency.

The report may also list any rebates and tax incentives that you can qualify for by improving the energy efficiency of your home. These vary by location, and not every home energy auditor can qualify you for every rebate. For example, Georgia Power has a generous rebate program, but you have to use one of the approved assessment contractors to qualify for them. To find out what’s available in your area, you can check the DSIRE or Tax Incentive Assistance Project websites.

6. Extras

Some other items that your home energy audit may include are a look at your home’s:

• Water efficiency
• Lights and appliances
• Dryer vent
• Energy bills
• Financing options

Some energy audit companies will check the flow rates of your faucets, toilets, and shower heads and make recommendations for improvement. Some check your lights and appliances and can even measure energy use of items like refrigerators with devices like the Kill-A-Watt or the WattsUp. I wrote about the dangers of underperforming dryer vents a while back and gave somerecommendations for improvement there. Some energy auditors will check that as well.

When I was doing energy audits (or home performance assessments, as I called them), I included an analysis of the homeowners’ energy bills. If they could give me 12 months of their bills, I could plug it into a spreadsheet I’d put together and calculate their energy intensity, the energy use per square foot of conditioned floor area per year.

If your intention is to use a home energy audit as a guide to improving your home, then hiring an auditor who can help you with financing options could be a big plus, too. Perhaps the best one available, in my opinion, is the Energy Efficient Mortgage, which you can use either for a purchase or a refinance.

Choosing a Home Energy Auditor

So there you have it. You can use the above information as a guide to choosing a home energy auditor and making sure you get the most bang for your buck. As with any other contractors you bring into your home, you should also ask for references and check them. I’m sure the comments below will have even more good advice.

Two things to be wary of are the ‘free energy audit’ (usually offered by companies who just want to get into your house to sell you their product or service) and the yahoo who bought an infrared camera and thinks it can find everything. Use the guidelines above to choose a home energy auditor, and you’ll get a much better audit.

If you’re in the Southeast, check our list of certified home energy raters to see if there’s one in your area. Many of them have both the HERS Rater and BPI Building Analyst certifications.

So I did what I always do when faced with a question like this. I went to the best source for energy data about the US: the US Energy Information Administration. Here’s what I found (pdf):

Indeed, we do seem to be using less energy per person than we did in 1970. Wow! The shape of this graph tells a lot of American history, too. There’s the sharp increase of the ’50s and ’60s as we suburbanized and accessorized our lives. Then the two bumps in the ’70s showing the downturns after the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian revolution of 1979. Then followed the slow rise in energy consumption of the ’80s and ’90s as our economy recovered and took off.

Then, at the turn of the new millenium, energy consumption flattened out and turned down. We started using less energy per person. The decrease is mainly coincident with the economic downturn of the past few years.

Another graph from this same EIA document showed our expenditures per person over roughly the same time period:

Well, there’s the answer. Energy costs have been rising sharply since the year 2000. The only dip in that part of the graph followed the attack of 11 September 2001, when the economy tanked for a bit.

The moral of the story: High prices influence behavior. The back story is that the days of cheap energy are over. Peak oil is a big part of the reason for that.

But lately, partly because I’m dieting, I’ve been thinking what energy efficiency really needs is something akin to a Weight Watchers dessert.

Let me explain myself.

Saving energy and saving calories share three precepts. They are most palatable to the consumer if they are devoid of self-sacrifice, appear invisible, and offer some element of delight. Weight Watchers has got these down cold. The energy efficiency industry is doing well with the first and second, but not the third.

No self-sacrifice

Weight Watchers is ingenious because it does not describe itself as a diet; it’s a lifestyle, a way of eating. It’s not about self-sacrifice. Sound familiar? The energy efficiency industry over the last decade shook off the ‘conservation’ moniker, much the way Weight Watcher abandoned the term ‘diet.’

The Alliance to Save Energy describes the difference between energy efficiency and conservation beautifully on its website:

But energy efficiency is a far cry from the energy conservation images and practices of old – of doing with less or doing without, of being uncomfortable or less comfortable. Not unlike the tremendous technological strides on the computer, electronics, and other fronts, energy efficiency takes advantage of advances in technology to provide significantly better, smarter services.

Invisible

On Weight Watchers you still can eat the macaroni and cheese. But it’s made with low fat milk. The calorie savings become invisible to me. Likewise, consumers can be energy efficient and still use their air conditioners and televisions as much as before. Appliance standards are the low fat milk of the energy industry. If you wonder about the significance of these standards read the efficiency section of the US Energy Information Administration’s recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2011. The report forecasts a 17% drop in residential per capita energy use through 2035 and says appliance standards often are “the primary reason for efficiency gains.” The currently controversial lighting standards create the biggest energy savings (See EIA chart below.)

Delight

This one is easy for Weight Watchers. It offers wonderful little chocolate cakes that bring delight to the sweet tooth. But what is energy efficiency’s chocolate cake? Herein rests the problem for the industry.  The cell phone, the IPod, the home computer – these technologies were readily adapted because of the delight and convenience they add to our lives. As far as I can tell, neither the smart meter nor any of the other energy savings technologies being offered for the home offer any of this kind of allure. Some folks in the energy industry say they never will because information technology and energy technology part ways here. They may be right. But I remain hopeful. Those who had the first home computers (mine was a DEC Rainbow 100) may remember that they offered far more in the way of frustration than fun or inconvenience. These early computers left critics of the industry doubtful that widespread penetration of home computers would ever occur….and we all know how that all ended.

Elisa Wood is the co-author of the recent white paper, “Exporting US Energy Efficiency.”

See that little offset there right above the turn? If it looks like it’s not making a good connection, that’s because it’s not making a good connection. In fact, when the new EVER rater went up there first, it looked worse than what you see here because he’d already put the two sections near each other when I got a chance to take the photo. You can see a little better in the photo below right that even though those two sections are near each other, they’re not connected.

Yeah, this is happening in a vented attic, not inside the building envelope, so why worry about it, right? Wrong. You want those exhaust gases to get all the way outside the house. You don’t want them in a buffer space like the attic because it’s still likely they could find their way into the house. Exhaust fans and clothes dryers can cause the house pressure to go negative relative to the attic and suck those flue gases into the house, for example.

 
It’s amazing how blatantly obvious so many building science and combustion safety problems are once you know a little bit about how things work. Actually, you don’t even have to have any training to know that when a pipe is supposed to be carrying something from point A to point B, it has to be continuous for the something to reach point B. I wrote an article about duct leakage last year that shows some obvious problems that take only a pair of eyes to find.

The field test went well, though, and Luke Bertram of Green Summit Consulting is our newest EVER rater. He took our HERS rater class in February and was one of the lucky ones to have his training and certification costs covered by ARRA (Stimulus) money. The City of Doraville, Georgia is really on the ball and is getting people trained to provide subsidized energy audits to city residents. Here’s Luke in his Tyvek suit, about to enter the cave of mystery (aka crawl space) under the test house.

_

In 1997, I was helping my parents design and build their home. Early on in the process, I had suggested that the house be built 25 feet back from where we originally had it planned,and that the fireplace be moved to the back side of the living room. We had already put the stakes in the ground and were ready to start digging for the foundation, butnow we had to take the time to move them. Sarcastically, my mother said, “damn architects!”

The house was at one end of a mountain valley in the foothills of Northern Colroado, and at the other end of the valley was Horsetooth Mountain. During the Summer, they could watch the afternoon storms roll across the valley, and would often see heards of elk and deer roaming. The wildlife would practically dine with us, they were so close.

My Mother knew that I had heard that exclamation a lot. Unfortunately, it was (and still is) common to want to point a finger at another trade because a decision they made caused a major change in the overall design and construction. Typically, the root cause of this is a break in communication or lack of an integrated design approach. In the case of my parents, we had been working together on design from when the thought of building a new home entered their minds. In fact, we worked together all through construction (my step-father was the builder), and the suggestion to move the house and fireplace came out of a group discussion about how to best take advantage of the view toward Horsetooth Mountain.

Starting the design process with the entire project team working together to make all the decisions can save a project, as well as the sanity and

reputation of all those involved. The unfortunate thing is, many buildings are not created this way, and fingerpointing is the least of the problems. It’s the homeowner or building owner that pays the price by not getting a building that performs the way they expected.

Our blog is full of posts about how project teams miss opportunities to make a building perform well. Some great examples of this explain where it’s not a good idea to put certain light fixtures andduct work. These could have (and should have) been avoided if the project team had integrated their individual roles on the project to come up with a way to prevent failures or holes in the design. Serious home performance issues (e.g. like infiltration and heat loss/gain), offensive aesthetic and functional problems (e.g. ductwork through an otherwise perfectly good closet), and major conflicts during the process are usually the result of a project that doesn’t use an integrated approach.

Having every member of the project team on the same page and contributing to the design and construction process results in well thought out, comprehensive solutions that avoid compromising the design or performance integrity of the building. Not only that, we can avoid having to work with all these “damn tradespeople!”

“Just like you to know I’m glad you aren’t in charge. If you stood between me and my freedoms of choice or others you wouldn’t be standing there long.”

Turns out he’d read two of the articles I wrote last week - The McMansion Penalty in ENERGY STAR Version 3 and Kick the Can! – No Recessed Lights in the Building Envelope. Looking at this fellow’s website, I found that he does nice remodeling work, focusing on kitchens and baths.

But why did he feel the need to send me that message? I reread the articles and nowhere did I call for any kind of government intervention to ban can lights or large houses. The McMansion article was about a voluntary program that aims to foster increasing home energy efficiency. The latter was about the problems with can lights from a building science perspective.

Freedom isn’t a black-or-white issue, though, and it doesn’t mean that we’re all free to do whatever we want. We’re not free to walk into someone’s house and help ourselves to their belongings, for example. We’re not free to yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded auditorium. We’re increasingly less free to smoke in buildings. Heck, in many neighborhoods, we’re not even free to use the color of paint we want on our house.

So what exactly is the issue with this reader? Does he send such emails to homeowners’ associations and governing bodies, too? Or are building science, green building programs, and building codes especially incompatible with freedom? Let’s explore that last question further, splitting it into three separate questions.

Is building science incompatible with freedom?

Science is science. Anyone who works on buildings is free to ignore the principles of building science to the extent that they can get away with it, but someone’s going to pay the price. Maybe it’ll be the occupants, who suffer with comfort problems, poor indoor air quality, frequent maintenance, or high energy bills. Maybe it’ll be the remodeler or builder who has to face constant callbacks.

That’s the point I was trying to make with my article on can lights. To the extent that program guidelines or building codes allow can lights, a remodeler or builder can use them. If they’re part of the building envelope, however, and create a problem with the air barrier or insulation, the contractor is giving their client an inferior product. That’s just building science.

Are green building programs incompatible with freedom?

This one’s also a no-brainer. If it’s a voluntary program, how can it interfere with anyone’s freedom? (Well, OK, there’s Henry Gifford and his lawsuit against the USGBC and its LEED program, but I doubt the courts will let it go far.) If anyone has a problem with the new large home penalty in Version 3 of the ENERGY STAR new homes program, they’re perfectly free not to participate. (Although ENERGY STAR is an energy efficiency, not green building, program, I’m lumping them all together here.)

Are building codes incompatible with freedom?

OK, the first two questions were easy, but this is the one, I believe, where the real friction is happening. Building codes contain a lot of prescriptive requirements, mostly to ensure safety and structural stability. Although some contractors may complain about  the details or enforcement of some requirements, I think most people understand the need for these measures.

In recent years, though, energycodes have been gaining a toehold and are even starting to be enforced. For example, we now have a new energy code in Georgiathat requires all homes to meet thresholds for infiltration rates and duct leakage. This requires someone to test the house with a Blower Door and duct tester. Is that an example of the state standing between builders and their freedom of choice? Some argue that it is and that builders should be allowed to build leaky, inefficient, energy hog houses if they want to.

In my opinion, though, we have a serious energy problem, globally and in the US, and energy codes are one way to help us meet the challenges. With thepeak of global oil production (peak oil) being upon us, the price of oil is rising. This is leading to the electrification of transportation, which puts pressure on the electric grid and causes prices to rise there, too. Efficient houses are going to be a necessity, whether we like it or not.

If we’re going to live in a civilized society, we always have to consider not only the needs and rights of others around us, but also the bigger picture of what’s happening globally. Am I saying we all need to live in yurts and ride bicycles? No. But we are facing some serious problems that demand a new way of doing things. Freedom demands a certain amount of responsibility, too.

What do you think? Do the demands of building science, green building programs, or building codes infringe on our freedom of choice?

“China is projected to build the equivalent of 10 New York Cities over the next decade.”

For some, such rapid economic expansion by China is cause for fear. Others see opportunity. The US green energy markets were nudged toward the opportunity-seeker category this week with word from the Department of Energy of the nation’s first export strategy for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

It’s a funny place for us to be.  We tend to be known on the international stage for our energy consumption. We are the world’s largest oil importer, and its third largest producer. And when it comes to green energy, the last few years have been marked by more imports than exports. A flock of international companies have established themselves in the US to build wind and solar energy, sometimes by buying out US companies.

Many US’ green energy companies simply do not export, according to the report “Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Export Initiative,” issued December 7 by the DOE and several other government agencies.  The report pegs US export of renewable energy goods at about $2 billion last year. This isn’t a very big number when you consider that worldwide $162 billion in private capital went toward renewables and energy efficiency technologies and $183 billion in government stimulus funds.

While the report quantifies current US renewable energy exports, it has a tougher time defining the energy efficiency market, not an unusual problem for an industry that encompasses everything from home improvements to combined heat and power plants. However, the export market potential for energy efficiency technologies is “likely substantial,” the report said.

So if you want to export energy efficiency, what countries should you look to?

For a long time the energy efficiency industry operated largely under the two-guys-and-a-truck-model: local businesses made up of small contractors.

Then the ‘super’ energy efficiency service companies (ESCOs) emerged, big operations taking on big contracts often for government, schools or hospitals, like the $35 million deal that Pepco Energy Services signed with the Prince George’s County Maryland Public Schools this week.

The US energy efficiency industry has continued to expand. Is it ready, now, to make serious headway exporting goods and services into international markets?

The International Trade Administration seems to think so. Anna Chittum, research associate for the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy, says in her blog that the ITA has been seeking comment on a national export strategy for both renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Part of a federal goal to double exports by 2015, the strategy is due to the Obama administration in September.

What might US energy efficiency companies export?

Possibilities are discussed in the 2010 Energy Industry Assessment, posted on the ITA Energy Team Home page.

The report points out that little export of energy services has occurred so far, although some US companies have established a foothold in international markets, such as Rockwell Automation, Honeywell, and Johnson Controls. But the potential is large for US ESCOs, especially in parts of the world where demand for energy is rising and reliability questionable. China and India are obvious candidates.

Export opportunity also may exist for companies that develop district energy and combined heat and power, according to industry assessment report. China, the Middle East, and India are prime markets.  For example, China plans to invest $360 billion over the next decade in district energy and US companies could capture at least $8.2 billion in sales, the report says. The Middle East is expected to invest $7 billion in district energy over the next decade and $15 billion over 20 years.

The White House issued a report July 14 that credits federal stimulus money for the rapid drop in costs for electric cars. Once written off as a technological mishap, the electric car now appears nearly road ready for American consumers. The price tag is dropping rapidly, in part because of the $12 billion the federal government has pumped into alternative vehicles, according to the report. Of that $5 billion went to electrifying the US transportation fleet.

Electric cars will cost between $25,000 and $35,000, after tax credits, by the end of this year, says the White House. That’s down from $100,000 before passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Electric cars are dropping in price because stimulus-funded manufacturers are producing batteries more cheaply.

Not long ago, it cost $33,000 for the battery of an electric vehicle with a 100-mile range. The Department of Energy expects the cost to drop by half between 2009 and 2013. By the end of 2015 some batteries should cost $10,000. The price of batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles, or PHEVs, is falling quickly too. PHEVs can travel 40 miles on electricity and then automatically shift to gasoline. Priced at about $13,000 in 2009, the PHEV batteries are expected to cost only $6,700 in 2013 and $4,000 in 2015, according to the DOE.

The new electric car is seen as a way to reduce reliance on oil, which now supplies 95% of our transportation fuel. But the electric car has several interesting side stories as well.

Electricity is cheaper than gasoline. So, consumers should find themselves paying the equivalent of only $1/gallon to fuel electric cars, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In coming up with that figure, NREL assumed it will take 9-10 kWh per gallon to operate a typical mid-size car, with vehicle efficiency of 2.9 mile/kWh. Researchers also assumed an electricity cost of 9.4 cents/kWh as the cost of electricity. While that is a fair average, the truth is that the price of electricity varies significantly nationally, and the cost of driving an electric car will vary accordingly. For example, in North Dakota electric rates run about 7 cents/kWh, while in Connecticut they are 19 cents/kWh.

1. How Blue Are You? PRICE: Free

This app from American Standard was released in April and is part of their larger campaign to raise awareness of water usage. It helps you calculate your water usage, the cost, and compares it to national averages. It also recommends more efficient products and offers quizzes, prizes and rebates.

2. Waterprint PRICE: Free

Waterprint helps you calculate an estimate of your personal “water footprint.” The idea is to break down your water use by food, beverages, products, and overall household, then calculate your usage. The app will also compare the water footprints of different items.

3. Water Buddy 1.0 PRICE: $1.99

This app was released in late March and is focused on making it easy for you to become aware of how much water you use.  You set a usage target for a period of time and then you keep track of your water meter readings. Don’t have a clue what kind of target you would set? They’ll help. And that’s a pretty good reason to try it out in the first place. Save water and money.

4. myUse PRICE: $1.99

This app, just released in April, tracks water, electricity and gas usage. It estimates your upcoming usage, so that you can walk by the meters and make simple adjustments, rather than taking more time to transcribe the data and transfer it to a spreadsheet. It also creates charts and graphs for a variety of measurements, allowing you to compare your usage to averages and keep track over time. Readings, charts and graphs are all exportable to email.

5. Toobz PRICE: Free

This one is for fun, but carries a lesson. The challenge is to arrange a system of “toobz,” or pipes, to allow the water to flow safely through the network you’ve built. As the levels advance, you have less time to build. Spill any water and you lose. Hmmm… increasing pressure to build efficient piping networks to fulfill water needs? This may be a game, but it sounds awfully familiar.

source: www.greenlivingideas.com

No doubt smart meters are a good thing, but even their most ardent fans must admit that a degree of hoopla surrounds these little digital boxes. We hear that if consumers can just see how much power they use in real time, and what it costs, our energy woes will be no more.

Smart meters will even cure the blind. The energy blind that is.

“It can be difficult to separate the hype from legitimate claims,” said the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in a new report that evaluates what works – and what doesn’t – when it comes to smart meters.

ACEEE points out that we no longer load the stove with coal and wood for our primary energy. Instead, gas and electricity flow unseen to take care of our needs. Since we see only a monthly bill, we have no idea what energy costs in real time, how much we use, or even the acceptable social norm for energy consumption.

Thus, most people in the US are “among the energy blind,” says the report. Asking us to save energy based on our monthly bills alone is like asking a dieter to lose weight without a scale. “Perhaps it can be done, but the task is a lot more difficult,” the report says.

But seeing how much energy we use is one thing; acting on it another. Smart meters will not do their job if we rely on the technology alone. The consumer needs good reason to act, according to ACEEE.

These findings are important because the US and other nations are making a huge investment in smart grid technology. Smart meters represented only about 4.7% of US household meters in 2008. But their market share is expected to grow to 40% over the next five to seven years, according to the report.

The report looked at 57 studies, three decades of research in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan, and found that smart meters can be effective. In fact, households using them have reduced electricity use 4% to 12%.

But much depends on how the meters present information and feedback and how we respond. Ultimately, the smartness of smart meters relies on utilities understanding human psychology.

Home Star is a legislative proposal designed to create jobs by providing incentives for residential energy efficiency improvements. The program will drive new private investment into the hard hit construction and manufacturing sectors, while saving consumers money on their energy bills. By building on state programs and existing industry capacity for the retrofits themselves as well as quality assurance, the program will be fast‐acting, in addition to increasing consumer awareness of residential energy efficiency.

The bill provides approximately $6 billion dollars of incentives to the American people, coupled with private investment, to generate an estimated three million home retrofits and tens of thousands of jobs, and to strengthen American industry.

INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

$250‐1500 Silver Star rebates. For the first year of the program, consumers can receive between $250 and $1500 in “point‐of‐sale” rebates for each retrofit involving individual measures, with a benefit not exceeding $3,000 or at least 50% of total project costs (whichever is less). Eligible measures include insulation, duct sealing, water heaters, HVAC systems, windows, doors, and cool roofs. Rebates will be targeted to the most energy efficient categories of upgrades, focusing on products primarily made in the United States. All retrofits must be installed by a certified contractor.

$3000 Gold Star rebates. For the first two years of the program, consumers interested in whole home retrofits would be eligible for up to $3000 “point‐of‐sale” rebate for a comprehensive energy audit and retrofits tailored to achieve a 20% energy savings in the home. Consumers can receive additional incentives for energy savings higher than 20%. The Gold Star rebate program would build on existing whole home retrofit programs, such as EPA’s Home Performance with Energy Star program and DOE’s building programs.

Rebate process. Consumers are eligible for discounted prices of the installation of Silver Star measures at the point of sale. Upon job completion, contractors submit rebate requests to rebate aggregators, such as small independent building material dealers, large national home improvement chains, merchants across the country, energy efficiency installation professionals and utility energy efficiency programs (including rural utilities) and then are reimbursed by the federal government.

$3000 performance tax credit. After the first year, consumers can receive tax credits for whole home retrofits that meet 100 HERS for buildings constructed prior to 2000, and 85 HERS for building constructed after 2000. Homeowners can receive up to $8000 in rebates or 50% of the total retrofit cost. These tax credits will be available until the end of 2013.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SUPPORT

Contractor qualifications. Contractors need to be licensed and insured to install the retrofits.

Independent quality assurance providers are responsible for field audits after job completion in order to ensure proper installation and measurable energy savings for consumers. States oversee the quality assurance implementation.

Financing support. Funding is included in the proposal to support State and local financing programs.
The Home Star proposal has garnered widespread support from over 500 supporters in all 50 states from the construction, manufacturing, retail sales, environmental, labor, and energy efficiency communities, and is expected to save program participants $200‐500 per year in energy costs. For more information, please see our website http://energy.senate.gov.

Join the HOME STAR Coalition

The high fuel economy helped the MSU team garner 844 out of a possible 1,000 points, earning its first-place finish. Coming in second place was the Virginia Tech University team, which built an EREV with a 40-mile electric range, also driven by a 21.3-kilowatt-hour battery pack, but with a 90-kilowatt motor. Their extended range was achieved with a flex-fueled, 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine. Landing in third place was Pennsylvania State University, again with an EREV, which used a 12.8-kilowatt-hour battery pack to power an 80-kilowatt motor. Like the MSU team, their backup power source was a 1.3-liter, biodiesel-fueled, turbocharged diesel engine, which powered a 75-kilowatt UQM generator.

The May competition included a series of safety and technical tests at GM’s Desert Proving Grounds in Yuma, Arizona, marking the end of two years of hard work by the university teams. In the first year of the EcoCAR challenge, the teams determined the design for their vehicles, and in the second year, they had to turn those designs into reality. For the next and final year, the teams will have to refine their vehicles to near-showroom quality. In the meantime, you can participate in a Web chat with the top three teams on Friday, June 4, at 3 p.m. EDT on the EcoCAR blog site, “Inside the Green Garage.” See the press releases from GM and MSU, as well as the EcoCAR Challenge Web site.

A high performance home, like the beautiful home in Hattiesburg i recently verified to the NAHB green building standard is one that takes advantage of energy efficient sustainable construction. The definition of a green built sustainable home varies widely.

The fifth edition of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal defines sustainability as the practice of developing new structures and renovating existing structures using equipment, materials, and techniques that help achieve long-term balance between extraction and renewal and between environmental inputs and outputs, causing no overall net environmental burden or deficit.

In 2007 the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International Code Council (ICC) partnered to form and establish a much-needed and nationally-recognizable standard definition of what is meant by “Green Building.”

A consensus committee was formed to develop this standard in compliance with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The resulting ANSI approved ICC-700-2008 National Green Building Standard defines green building for single and multifamily homes, residential remodeling projects and site development projects while still allowing for the flexibility required for regionally-appropriate best green practices.

NAHB Green Building Standard is made up of 6 chapters:

1. Land Use
2. Resource Efficiency
3. Energy efficiency
4. Water efficiency
5. Indoor Air Quality
6. Home Owner Education

The USGBC’s LEED program, the EPA ENERGY STAR, and over 100 other green programs exist in the US today. There is no  doubt that learning all the nuances of these programs is a challenge to the appraiser.  So let’s look at a couple of steps that an appraiser can take to gather data in an effort to not only define green but to properly give it value.

If the green home you’re asked to value is part of a third-party rating, like the NAHB program, there will be a paper trail to document the analysis needed to produce the appraisal data. So ask for the following:

1. Any scoring sheet of the green building program
2. A home energy rating or HERS report
3. Fannie Mae Energy Report
4. Documentation of any incentives
   1. An IRS tax credit
   2. Utility rebate
   3. Real estate tax discount
   4. Lower interest rate mortgage
      1. i.      EEM – Sponsored by FHA, VA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as some conventional lenders, it credits a home energy efficiency in the mortgage itself and stretches the debt to income qualifying ratio allowing the home owner to qualify for a larger mortgage amount.

Another challenge to the appraiser might be describing improvements. Begin with the site and pay attention to shading, landscaping materials and water use techniques. Include language that describes the use of solar panels, low VOC paints, recycled glass counters, structural insulated panel (SIP) outside walls and energy efficient heating and cooling systems.

When comes to comparables don’t be fooled by the home with an energy efficient kitchen. That’s a far cry from a home with a green certification. Green built homes are also built “above code”, meaning that you’ll need to pay closer attention to the quality of construction line in the URAR. Actually there are three lines that need special care. Those lines are:

1. Quality of construction
2. Heating and cooling
3. Energy efficient items

If you’ve not made an adjustment in those area a comment should be made as to why they’ve been left off. Items that are not covered in quantity may be addressed in quality. Again, look for incentives, monthly energy savings, and lower maintenance items as good talking points in your analysis.

Appraiser should also remember that some loan underwriters may indicate that Fannie Mae does not allow adjustments for energy efficient features, but that is not the case. You may be called upon to support the energy adjustment, which can be done by multiplying the energy savings by the gross rent multiplier.This is a common capitalization technique and a way to place emphasis on energy efficiency contribution.

Fannie Mae’s Selling Guide includes the following:

“Special energy-savings items must be recognized in the appraisal process. Appraisers must compare energy-efficient features of the subject property to those of comparable properties in the “sales comparison analysis” grid to ensure that the overall contribution of these items is reflected in the market value of the subject property.”

Finding value in a new market can be a challenge but should not be considered impossible. Soon everyone will realize the importance of and recognize the value in building energy efficient.

But is that the right way to think about power?

Truth be told, new energy sources are likely to play a smaller role in economic recovery than advances in energy efficiency, according to speakers at a recent symposium held by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, as part of its 30^th anniversary celebration.

“Cost-effective investment that can reduce the amount of energy necessary to support a dollar of economic activity is the single most important driver of economic productivity within the United States and around the world,” said John A. “Skip” Laitner, director of economic and social analysis, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

But too often policymakers view energy efficiency not as an economic driver, but as a means to control demand until we can deploy conventional resources, such as nuclear and oil, he said.

Consider the following data that emerged from the symposium:

• America’s economy has tripled in size since 1970 and three-quarters of the energy needed to fuel that growth came from efficiency advances, not by adding more energy.
• Still, the U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient, meaning 87% of the energy we use is wasted. We are behind Japan and several European countries, which have a 20% efficiency level.
• Energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and 2050 – while lowering energy bills.