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.

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.

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.

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.

The most obvious difference between loose fills and other types of insulation is their form. They are either produced as or broken down into shreds, granules, or nodules. These small particles form fluffy materials that conform to the spaces in which they are installed. Loose fills are most commonly sold in bags and are blown into building cavities using special equipment. All three primary types of loose-fill insulation are considered “environmentally positive” because recycled waste materials are used in their production.

Cellulose loose-fill insulation is made from wastepaper, such as used newsprint and boxes, that is shredded and pulverized into small, fibrous particles. Chemicals are added to provide resistance to fire and insects. Also, less energy is required to produce loose-fill cellulose than to produce other insulations.

Fiberglass loose-fill insulation is spun from molten glass into fibers. The glass is typically melted in high-temperature gas furnaces. Most major manufacturers use 20 to 30 percent recycled glass content.

Rock wool (or slag wool) loose-fill insulation is similar to fiberglass except that it is spun from blast furnace slag (the scum that forms on the surface of molten metal) and other rock-like materials instead of molten glass. The production of rock wool uses by-products that would otherwise be wasted.

Primary Applications of Loose-Fill Insulations

Loose-fill insulations are well suited for places where it is difficult to install other types of insulation, such as irregularly shaped areas, around obstructions (such as plumbing stacks), and in hard-to-reach places. They can be installed in either enclosed cavities such as walls or unenclosed spaces such as attics. Blown-in loose fills are particularly useful for retrofit situations because, except for the holes that are sometimes drilled for installations, they are one of the few materials that can be installed without greatly disturbing existing finishes. Rock wool or slag wool loose-fill insulation is often used for insulating existing walls and ceilings in mobile homes.

In most new construction, however, the more common choices in insulation are batts or rolls because they can be installed without the use of special equipment before walls are finished. Batts are available in standard widths designed to match the cavities created by wall studs.

Loose fills are sometimes used in new construction, though. A mixture of loose-fill insulation and an adhesive can be sprayed into wall cavities before the walls are closed. Such methods may result in fewer gaps in the building’s thermal envelope than can occur with batts.

Comparative Performance of Loose-Fill Insulations

Insulation materials are compared on the basis of their R-values per unit of thickness, density per unit of volume, and weight per unit of area.

There are several performance characteristics to consider when selecting an insulation material. Among the most important to compare are insulating capacity, weight, convective heat loss, settling and loss of insulating capacity, fire resistance, and moisture resistance.

Insulating Capacity:

A material’s resistance to heat flow is expressed as its R-value. The higher the R-value, the better the material insulates, and the lesser the thickness you will need. (However, in an open, unrestricted attic application, the height limit of insulation thickness is of no great concern. But if you use your attic for storage, heavy objects will compress insulation and decrease its benefits.) Different insulations also have different densities, or weights. There are weight limits for certain ceiling types (see the chart and the section on Weight that follows).

Weight limits and other factors at R-38 insulation levels are shown in the chart on this page for the three primary types of loose fills. (R-38 is a commonly recommended ceiling insulation level in many parts of the United States. To determine the recommended insulation levels for your area, call the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC) listed in the Source List to request the U.S. Department of Energy’s Insulation Fact Sheet.)

Weight:

Ceiling drywall can sag under heavy loads, such as those sometimes created by insulation. One drywall manufacturer recommends loads of no more than 1.3 pounds per square foot (6 kilograms per square meter) for 1/2-inch (1.3-centimeter) ceiling drywall with framing spaced 24 inches (61 centimeters) on center. The limit increases to 2.2 pounds per square foot (11 kilograms per square meter) for framing spaced 16 inches (41 centimeters) on center and for 5/8-inch (1.6-centimeter) drywall.

Loose-fill cellulose and rock wool, being heavier materials, could cause the ceiling to sag if installed at R-38 on 1/2-inch (1.3-centimeter) ceiling drywall with framing spaced 24 inches (61 centimeters) on center (see chart). Therefore, when deciding whether to use these materials for new construction, consider switching to 5/8-inch ceiling drywall or, if possible, changing your ceiling framing widths to 16 inches on center.

Some cellulose and rock wool insulation manufacturers include weight limit information on the bag. Because fiberglass is much less dense, its weight on ceiling dry-wall is not a concern.

Convective Heat Loss:

Convection is heat flow caused by air cur-rents. Convective heat loss in insulation is rare, but it can occur when large temperature differences above and below insulation create tiny air currents (called “convection loops”) within the insulation. Studies have shown that convective heat loss can occur with lighter density loose-fill fiberglass at the very low attic temperatures possible in extremely cold climates. Depending on the attic temperature, the insulation’s measured R-value could decrease by as much as 50 percent.

To minimize these convection loops and their associated effects, some researchers suggest installing blown-in cellulose or a fiberglass blanket on top of the loose-fill fiberglass. Another solution is to purchase one of the currently available “convection blanket” products that can inhibit this convective heat loss.

Cellulose and rock wool are more resistant to airflow than fiberglass because they are denser. They may also be more effective at reducing air leakage and associated heat loss, because their higher densities cause them to settle and seal more around rafters and in corners.

Sprayed-in-place foam insulations are an alternative to loose fills in some applications. They offer higher R-values at lower thicknesses than loose fills and, when properly installed, can help stop air leakage.

But no insulation, by itself, provides an effective air retarder because it cannot completely block airflow. Installing an air retarder along with your insulation and using caulking and weatherstripping seals all gaps and greatly reduces air infiltration into your home (see the section on Air Retarders that follows).

Settling and Loss of Insulating Capacity

Many loose-fill insulations installed in attic cavities will lose some of their installed R-value over time because of settling. Cellulose loose fill settles more than rock wool or fiberglass loose fill-about 20 percent compared to roughly 2 to 4 percent. Therefore, install about 20 percent more blown-in cellulose insulation to offset this settling. Cellulose manufacturers are required by federal law to state “settled thickness” on their bags. Because this can be confusing to consumers, many cellulose producers also specify “installed thickness” on their bags. Regardless, installed thickness can be estimated by adding 20 percent to the stated settled thickness, but be sure not to exceed previously mentioned weight limits.

Researchers say that it is possible to install loose-fill insulations in wall cavities without settling. If the cavity is completely filled with insulation at the proper density, no significant settling should occur. A general density guideline for walls is roughly 3.5 pounds per cubic foot (17 kilograms per cubic meter) of wall cavity for cellulose and 1.5 pounds per cubic foot (7 kilograms per cubic meter) for fiber-glass or rock wool. These specifications are roughly twice the density of horizontal applications.

One expert suggests this easy-to-follow guideline to ensure that wall cavities are being filled at a density sufficient to prevent settling. Use roughly one 30-pound (13-kilogram) bag of cellulose or about 15 pounds (8 kilograms) of fiberglass or rock wool for every three wall cavities you fill. (Assumptions: 8-foot [2.4-meter] walls, with 16-inch [41-centimeter] on center wall cavities, and 2×4-inch framing studs.)

Fire Resistance:

Loose-fill insulations offer very good resistance to fire. Although fiberglass and rock wool are naturally fire resistant, cellulose’s fire resistance is achieved by adding chemicals. To ensure that it does not present a fire hazard, cellulose must pass tests established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Moisture Resistance:

The average household generates a considerable amount of water vapor each day through activities such as cooking, laundry, and bathing. This vapor migrates into insulated cavities and, if it reaches the dew point (the air temperature at which water vapor cools enough to condense), it converts to liquid within the insulation. This reduces the insulation’s effective R-value.

All loose-fill insulations are permeable to water vapor. Permeability is the extent to which water vapor can pass through a given material. Fiberglass and rock wool absorb about 1 percent of their weight, and cellulose absorbs 5 to 20 percent of its weight. However, any insulation can absorb large amounts of water if exposed to extremely high humidity.

Higher levels of outdoor moisture can also penetrate into insulated cavities. If your roof leaks, for example, moisture can accumulate in the attic cavity and wet the insulation to the point that it mats and compacts. Enough moisture penetration could even cause the ceiling to sag.

If insulation is saturated only one time, it will eventually dry and regain most of its original R-value. However, loose-fill insulations that are repeatedly saturated will lose much of their R-value. Moisture also causes additional problems, such as mold and mildew growth.

See theVapor Retarders section that follows for steps you can take to ensure that moisture does not create a problem in your insulation.

Before You Install Insulation

Upgrading or Repairing Other Building Components: There are other home weatherizing and sealing measures to complete before you undertake any insulation project. A tight, well-sealed home is more energy efficient and needs less insulation to keep you and your family comfortable. Tests have shown that far more cold air infiltration and heat loss result from improperly sealed windows, doors, ducts, light switches, and outlets than from insufficient insulation coverage or performance.

Vapor Retarders: If you are adding insulation to an existing ceiling structure and a vapor retarder is not already installed, consider adding one. Generally, the vapor retarder should be placed on the warm-in-winter side of the insulation-usually the side facing the interior living space. However, in hot, humid climates (primarily the southeastern states), there is controversy over where a vapor retarder should be placed. No matter where you live, consult an insulation manufacturer and your building code official for recommendations on where to place a vapor retarder.

• When installing loose-fill insulations, a material such as 6-mil (0.006-inch, or 0.015-centimeter) polyethylene plastic sheeting can be used as a vapor retarder. Paints that act as vapor retarders are also available. These paints may be more practical for retrofitting homes where no vapor retarder exists because they can be installed without removing finished surfaces.
• Federal Housing Administration Minimum Property Standards require that any product, including paint, must have a permeability (perm) rating of 1.0 or lower to qualify as a vapor retarder. The lower the perm rating, the greater the material’s resistance to vapor penetration. For example, 15-pound (6.8-kilogram) asphalt felt paper has a perm rating of 1.0, while 6-mil polyethylene sheeting is rated at 0.06, and common household aluminum foil is rated at 0.0001.
• If the drywall on your ceiling or wall is removed and the insulated area is completely exposed, you can install 6-mil polyethylene sheeting. Be sure that it runs continuously along the surface area of the ceiling and walls, and that no tears occur during installation. Additionally, all penetrations, such as electrical outlets and light switches, should be carefully sealed. There are preformed foam gaskets for use behind outlets and switchplates.

Air Retarders: An air retarder reduces energy loss because it prevents heated or air-conditioned indoor air from escaping through the building shell. It also blocks drafts of hot or cold outside air-caused by winds and pressure differences between the inside and outside of the house-that reduce your home’s comfort and heating or cooling efficiency.

An air retarder is different from a vapor retarder in that it blocks only air, not moisture. The American Society for Testing and Materials specifies that a material must have a perm rating of 5.0 or higher to qualify as an air retarder. Remember, the higher the perm rating of a material, the more moisture can pass through it. An air retarder should have a high perm rating because this allows the escape of moisture that may have migrated into insulated cavities. In new construction, an air retarder (such as “housewrap” products that are now available) is often wrapped around the outside walls before installing the exterior finish, and a vapor retarder is installed around the inside walls before the interior finish is completed.

Installation:

Loose-fill insulations are typically installed with special equipment that blows the insulation through a hose and into the cavity. Although loose fills can be installed in both new and retrofit situations, they are especially popular for retrofit projects because they can be installed with minimal disturbances to existing finishes.

Installation often calls for the “two-hole method,” which entails drilling two holes spaced vertically between the exterior walls’ framing studs. The holes should be 2 inches (5 centimeters) in diameter. Working between each stud, drill one hole 16 inches (41 centimeters) from the top of the wall. Drill the other hole 24 inches (61 centimeters) from the bottom of the wall. The insulation is blown into the holes, then the installation holes are sealed. Installation is most commonly done by professionals who are experienced at operating the equipment to ensure proper density and complete coverage. In conventional and cathedral ceilings, insulation is easier to blow in if an access opening through the ceiling already exists. Otherwise, it may be necessary to drill holes in the ceiling or between the roof rafters.

Cost:

At the time this publication was written, the average loose-fill insulation cost per R-value per square foot was about 0.8 cents for cellulose and rock wool and 1.1 cents for fiberglass. These prices were for materials only. The average installed price per R-value per square foot was about 1.2 cents for blown-in cellulose and rock wool and 1.3 cents for fiberglass. Because prices vary in different regions, obtain bids from several insulation contractors or suppliers to determine the specific cost in your area.

Installation Quality Control

Voids and Gaps: To ensure a quality installation, there are several things to watch out for when installing loose-fill insulation-whether you do the job yourself or hire a professional.

• You may create undesirable voids or gaps if you install the insulation at too low a density or if you do not completely fill the cavity. Voids are most likely to occur at the top of wall cavities, above windows, around doorways, and in the corners of ceiling cavities. Voids also occur if the installation holes are improperly located between the vertical framing studs or if there are too few fill holes. Keep in mind, though, that installers’ practices may vary regarding the number, location, and size of installation holes.
• It may be difficult to achieve recommended R-values with loose-fill insulation in the eave area of the attic. There are insulation techniques that can be used to insulate this area adequately. Contact the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC-see Source List) for advice on this topic.

Fluffing: “Fluffing” occurs when insulation is installed to minimum thickness but not to minimum weight requirements. The result is a less dense application of insulation that requires fewer bags. When insulation is “fluffed,” air passes more easily through it. This means increased heat loss. Additionally, the fluffed loose-fill insulation will eventually settle and result in a thinner layer with a lower overall R-value. Fiberglass is more “fluffable” than cellulose or rock wool.

Intentional fluffing by unscrupulous contractors has been a problem in some parts of the country. To avoid these problems, compare bids from several contractors to see how many bags they specify. Count the number of bags used during installation, either by you or a contractor, and compare it to the instructions on the bag. The manufacturer should specify the amount of insulation required to obtain a particular R-value per square foot (or square meter) of space.

Safety and Health Concerns

Safety Guidelines:

• Insulation blown into your ceiling cavities should cover the top plate of the wall, but be sure the eave vents are not covered. These vents provide necessary ventilation to your attic, and covering them could result in severe moisture problems.
• Electrical devices and recessed lights (except “IC-rated” fixtures) require 3 inches (8 centimeters) of clearance from insulation.
• Pipes for kitchen stoves, wood stoves, and furnaces should only be insulated with fiberglass or rock wool because cellulose may smolder if flue temperatures become hot enough.

Health Considerations:

Some observers contend that fiberglass particles can cause cancer if inhaled, and others state that the fire retardants and insecticides added to cellulose may be harmful to breathe. While the debate continues as to the health effects of loose-fill insulations, it is important to protect yourself when installing any type of insulation. Wear a quality respirator, and wear protective eyewear and clothing such as goggles, gloves, long-sleeved shirts, and pants to minimize contact with the insulation.

Insulation fibers can also be drawn into air distribution systems if the ducts are not properly sealed, allowing the fibers to circulate within the living space. Be sure to seal all of your home’s ductwork, as well as any other openings where insulation could leak out of the wall or ceiling cavities and into your living space.

Conclusion:

Cellulose, fiberglass, and rock wool loose-fill insulations are good choices for many insulation projects. However, they are not suitable for all situations. Conduct careful research and consider factors such as your climate, building design, and budget when selecting the best insulation for your specific circumstances. If you control air leakage and ensure that the insulation you select is installed properly, you can reduce your energy bills and enjoy a more comfortable home. For information on insulation installation techniques and on other ways to weatherize, to select materials, and to make your home more energy efficient, contact EREC (see Source List).

Source: DOE

A recent souring of public opinion about global warming science has some industry insiders bracing for impact. Will American enthusiasm for clean energy come to a halt? Only if it was global warming that spurred the enthusiasm in the first place – and I suspect it was not.

Americans tend to make energy decisions first based on economics, second on environment. While climate change has been the mantra within the energy and the environmental community, it is dollars – coupled with energy independence concerns – that have largely driven public support.

Consider the trajectory of today’s clean energy boom. It took off in a big way following the rapid price spikes in natural gas and oil after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

True, the boom sustained itself even when prices dropped again. Why? While some industry analysts credit climate change concerns, others point to turmoil in the Middle East and our desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I tend to favor the theory that we continued to see the post–hurricane price spikes in the rear-view mirror. For once our memories served us when it comes to energy policy.

But it’s not just hindsight that will prod us to incorporate more efficiency and free-fuel renewables into the power portfolio. The road ahead indicates price increases to come for electric power, and consumers are not likely to take kindly to them. So says the 2010 annual utility industry outlook by Moody’s Investor Services:

“The desire to refurbish, enhance and rebuild a relatively antiquated electric infrastructure is driving the need for steadily increasing rates…In our July 2009 Industry Outlook Update report, we estimated that consumers might stop tolerating rate increases at a 50%-or-so rise above the current average U.S. rate of $0.10 per kwh. At the time we wrote that, this “inflection point” would not be reached until about 2018 or 2019. Whether or not this inflection point remains the base case is unclear, but recessionary pressures on residential household budgets, and a lack of clear evidence of wage inflation, lead us to wonder whether the inflection point might arrive sooner.”

Two new reports by Colorado-based Pike Research shed some light.

After years of focusing on bringing efficiency to manufacturing, policymakers are turning attention to deep retrofits for the home. Tax credits, low-cost financing, and other incentives make it easier for homeowners to install efficient heating systems, replace windows and insulate attics.

Thus, if you are a home energy auditor – or thinking of becoming one – you are in luck. The report forecasts that the energy auditing market will triple from $8.1 billion in 2009 to $23.4 billion by 2014. And from those audits will come recommendations that spur home improvements. Pike Research predicts a $50.2 billion market in the installation of new electrical systems, appliances and major equipment, HVAC systems, roofing, windows and doors and other efficiency improvements by 2014, up from $39.3 billion.

The more efficient homes need more efficient appliances, so the Energy Star appliance market also may see revenue growth. Under a business-as-usual scenario the industry is expected to generate $21.9 billion by 2014. But the market could see the addition of another $11.3 billion under a high-penetration efficiency scenario, says the study.

“Energy efficiency is stepping into the light after a long period of obscurity,” says Clint Wheelock, Pike Research managing director.  “A number of factors are converging to make energy efficient residential products and services a hot sector over the next several years.  These drivers include increased environmental awareness among consumers, government incentives, utility energy efficiency programs, and new offerings and rebates from product manufacturers.”

Meanwhile, the US also is realizing that a smart grid must be a safe grid. Increased attention is being placed on cyber security, measures to protect the electrical grid from attacks by terrorists and hackers, natural disasters, equipment failures and human error.

Companies that offer services and equipment to secure the grid are seeing a rapid increase in demand for their wares. Pike Research forecasts that from 2010 to 2015 about $21 billion will be invested globally in cyber security for the smart grid.

“No utility wants to be the weak link in the chain,” Wheelock says “The concern over grid vulnerability is driving utility technologists to work closely with systems integrators, infrastructure suppliers, and standards bodies to develop a robust framework for smart grid cyber security across multiple domains.”

The report finds that equipment protection and configuration management will experience greatest demand. Among smart grid applications, the firm expects that the greatest investments will go into cyber security for distribution automation (DA) and transmission upgrades, followed by security measures for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) smart meters.

See www.pikeresearch.com for more details.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

A recent White House task force on the middle class finds that our homes generate more than 20% of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. If we make our houses more efficient, we can significantly cut emissions and reduce energy use by 40%, a move that could lower our bills by $21 billion annually.

But who has the extra cash in this economy for better windows and an updated heating system?

The report recommends leveraging some of the $80 billion in energy and environment stimulus funds to set up financing mechanisms that let homeowners pay over time and avoid the upfront hit.

Already, to that end, several states have created low-interest revolving loan funds. Nebraska has set aside $11 million. Florida is offering $10 million, particularly for solar hot water installations. And yes, Dorothy, you can go home again. Kansas has gotten into the act with $34 million in efficiency loans.

In addition, the task force encourages federally funded pilot programs using ‘Property Assessed Clean Energy’ financing. Now available in a handful of cities, these programs finance clean energy efforts on property tax bills. Ideally, the efficiency retrofits will reduce energy bills at least as much as property payments rise, so that the homeowner faces no net increase in expenses. Particularly interesting, the loan stays with the property – not the owner. So if the homeowner decides to sell, the new owner, who reaps the benefits of the efficient home, also pays any remaining costs of the retrofit.

Similarly, the report calls for making energy efficiency mortgages more available. The US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development needs to work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to establish uniform procedures for such mortgage products, the report says.  In addition, the home appraisal industry must develop methods to evaluate a home’s energy efficiency.

In the next few months, you will see two new labels to help you choose windows, doors, or skylights for your home:

Starting October 1, 2009, you might see the label shown on the right, in red or in black, in combination with ENERGY STAR product labels. This label identifies high-efficiency products that currently qualify for the ENERGY STAR but will not meet the more stringent requirements that go into full effect April 1, 2010.

The other new label helps you find products that are eligible for the federal tax credit of up to $1,500. The label to the left, already visible in stores today, tells you the product qualifies for ENERGY STAR and is also eligible for the tax credit.

Get information on the 2009-2010 tax credit for windows, doors, and skylights.

Solar energy is an “it” technology, as evidenced once again by the tremendous participation in the annual Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, California this week (Oct. 27-29). Twice as many companies (945) are displaying their wares in the Expo Hall this year, despite the still lagging economy. And overall attendance is expected to break last year’s record, itself a record breaker.

Even on Main Street, ask pretty much anyone and they know solar, probably like it, and see it as an economy builder.

Ask the same people about geothermal heat pumps and there is a good chance they won’t know what you’re talking about. Or they may give an answer that confuses the appliances with geothermal geyser power plants.  For whatever reason, the concept of extracting heat from the ground has yet to capture the public or political imagination as much as extracting it from the sun.

Yet, geothermal heat pumps could have a significant impact on our energy supply. They can be installed pretty much anywhere there is a building. And if we used them to maximum potential in the United States, we could avoid building 91-105 gigawatts of generation, nearly half of the new power we will need in 2030, according to the US Department of Energy.

Homeowners who consider then discard the idea often cite the high upfront installation costs. Yet the same argument could easily be made about solar photovoltaic panels. So why is geothermal an also ran technology?

One problem, according to the DOE, is that the heat pump industry needs to collect and disseminate more solid data on heat pumps. Work underway by the Chewonki Foundation, an educational institute in Maine, moves in this direction. With a grant from the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Chewonki is monitoring and measuring the performance of a newly installed heat pump system at its 11,000 square-foot meeting hall. The state is looking for an alternative to heating buildings with oil, a relatively common fuel in Maine. Geothermal heat pumps may prove to be that alternative.

If Harry Truman were running for president today, he’d probably ‘Give ‘em Green,’ rather than ‘Give ‘em Hell.’ Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan would be, ‘It’s the environment, stupid.’ And Herbert Hoover might be promising a solar panel on every roof, rather than a chicken in every pot – and the pot would sit on a smart-metered stove, powered by a plug-in hybrid, eligible for renewable energy certificates.

Today, green credentials count. Hardly a day goes by without a mayor, governor or legislator claiming some sort of first, best or highest green energy goal.

That’s why the state energy efficiency scorecard, released this week by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, is significant. It carries political currency.

Bragging rights go to California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon and New York,* the top five states (in that order) doing good by energy efficiency.  Some red faces, however, might be found in Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Wyoming, the group that ACEEE says “most needs to improve.”

States are expected to continue their pursuit of energy efficiency into the next decade. The ACEEE reports that utility ratepayer-funds for efficiency will likely grow from $3.1 billion in 2008 to $5.4-$12 billion in 2020.

What’s most interesting is that so much money and effort is being put into energy efficiency now – during the Great Recession – when states face deficits. This defies conventional behavior: Historically, Americans worry about the environment only when the economy is sound.  It appears that green energy advocates have successfully imprinted in the American psyche a link between renewable energy and efficiency and economic prosperity.

In Part 2 of this interview, Lisa Cohn of Energy Efficiency Markets continues her interview with Josh Schellenberg, senior analyst at Freeman, Sullivan & Co. about California’s statewide base interruptible program, one of the largest DR programs in the country, with nearly 1,000 MW of load reduction capacity. Josh has a blog at www.energydsm.com.

If you browse into your local auto dealer and peer into any model on the lot you’ll find a MPG (Miles Per Gallon) rating stuck on the rear window. The numbers should help you understand how much fuel (energy) the car will use under normal operating conditions. This info is a great way to determine how depleted  your wallet will be “before” you decide to drive that baby off the car lot. It might even help you budget for the purchase!

What about the home you’re looking to buy? How can you tell, in terms of today’s dollars, what the home will cost you to maintain? Wouldn’t it be good information? The info is available to you today. Right now. This instant…

Want to know more? I have the answer, and if you’re buying the right house the cost to know…is FREE!

Contact me for a detailed explanation of how a home energy audit can help you decide if the home you’re thinking of buying is a lemon. If it is and you just can’t live without it…I’ll show you how to make “lemon-aide”!

601-454-5559 in central Mississippi.

For example, would it have been wiser if Congress pursued cap and trade one year and a renewable energy standard another? I’ve asked this question a lot during interviews the past few weeks, and received a range of responses. But what I found most enlightening, at least from an energy efficiency perspective, was a webinar offered by Bill Prindle, vice president at ICF International.

Here’s what I took away: Energy efficiency helps the carbon reduction cause. But the carbon reduction cause doesn’t do much for efficiency.

Most versions of cap and trade programs now on the table do not recognize the value of demand-side resources in reducing emissions.  Credit goes to emissions reductions at the power plant level, not at the retail customer level. So while my new, efficient heat pump will cut my energy use and therefore carbon emissions, this action is not acknowledged anywhere in a cap and trade system. Cap and trade offers no financial reward to the consumer or business that invests in energy efficiency measures.

In a perfect world, lawmakers would rethink cap and trade to encompass demand-side efficiency. But it appears that political and technical obstructions make that difficult. This is bad news – and downright odd – given that energy efficiency is widely acknowledged to be the cheapest way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

So what’s to be done?

In Part One of this interview, Lisa Cohn of Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Josh Schellenberg, senior analyst, Freeman, Sullivan and Co.–who specializes in demand-side program evaluation–about the role of DSM in integrating wind into the grid.

Is small business being left out?

The US has about 29.6 million small businesses and they employ over half of the nation’s private sector. They hire 40% of our high tech workers, make up 97.3% of our exporters, and generate most of our innovations, according to SCORE.

Still, we hear small business often say it gets the shaft when it comes to public policy; it just doesn’t have the political clout of big business.

What’s this got to do with energy efficiency? I’ve been wondering – suspecting actually – that small business is getting left out of the energy efficiency boom sweeping the United States.

I admit that my evidence is purely empirical and cursory. I have been trying to collect case studies from the Eastern states for an energy efficiency guide that I am collaborating on with my colleagues at RealEnergyWriters.com. I’ve put out a request for the case studies from small businesses to my many good sources, as well as through the social media.

I’ve received profiles of schools, colleges, hospitals, and manufacturing facilities – all non-profits or large energy users. Where I wonder is the dry cleaner, the Mom & Pop shop, the car wash?

I don’t mean to imply there are no small business efficiency programs. Several people have directed me to Efficiency Maine’s program, which does not target small businesses per se, but does serve many. I’ve also received some great examples from United Illuminating in Connecticut.

Manufacturers and data centers are low-hanging fruit that energy service companies like to pursue. Homeowners have consumer groups pressing state regulators on their behalf. But who is pushing before state utility commission’s to be sure small business gets its fair share of the vast amount of efficiency funding now being distributed?

Perhaps the fault lies with small business, itself. Overwhelmed by trying to operate in this economy, do small business owners have the time to think about energy efficiency?  It’s likely few even realize funds and financing mechanisms exist in several states to help them with upfront capital costs.

Energy Efficiency Markets Podcast

Levelizing the Playing Field for Demand Response Providers

Lisa Cohn from EE Markets interviews Audrey Zibelman, Viridity Energy’s president and CEO and a former CEO of the regional transmission organization PJM. She describes efforts to establish market rules that will allow demand response providers to receive the same compensation as generators.

Expect to see this number a lot in energy discussions over the next few years: 2.5 cents/kWh. It is the average cost of energy efficiency, a figure pegged this week in a new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

This number is big news because it is so small.  As a resource, energy efficiency beats out all conventional power sources on price.  (See chart below.) Moreover, it’s a price that has been dropping. Five years ago energy efficiency cost 3 cents/kWh.

But just because something is cheap, doesn’t mean people will buy it. How much energy efficiency will make it into the nation’s energy shopping cart?

Efficiency boomed in the early 1990s, but then busted later in the decade when deregulation allowed many utilities to shed their efficiency programs. It is resurging now, part of push by state and federal policy makers to green and ‘smarten’ energy supply.

Most utilities do not make money on efficiency, and this is part of the reason it busted in the late 1990s. Perhaps as important, efficiency’s branding was off. It was seen as an extra, a nicety to pursue out of goodwill when a utility or state had some extra money.

ACEEE and other efficiency advocates are trying to reshape the image. They refer to efficiency as a fuel – just like wind, sun, coal, natural gas, oil. And they want efficiency to be the ‘first fuel.’ This means that when a utility is planning its energy supply, it first applies as much efficiency as is cost effective and plausible, before it builds more expensive new power. Some eastern states are already using this planning concept. In addition, many states have set specific energy efficiency goals, some very aggressive.

That is why ACEEE’s 2.5 cents/kWh becomes so important. It is a kind of marker against which other resources will find themselves competing more and more in policy planning.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of states are decoupling utility profits from kilowatthour sales or instituting other financial incentives that inspire utility support for efficiency.

Of course, our economy cannot prosper on efficiency alone, but many studies indicate we still have a lot of waste in the system.  So as an energy planner, if you were confronted with increased demand – and are not dealing with policy or system issues that require generation or transmission as a solution – which of these would you pursue first?

Credit: Cost figures from ACEEE, “Saving Energy Cost Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved through  Utility Sector Energy Efficiency Programs,”  September 2009, http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

Visit Elisa Wood at http://www.realenergywriters.com/ and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Lisa Cohn of Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Ujjwal Bhattacharjee, a principal consultant with PA Consulting Group who specializes in renewable energy and energy efficiency. He evaluates energy efficiency in Massachusetts green buildings from 2004 – 2007.

RESNET is also working very closely with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on a new software verification test suite called BESTEST-EX, which can be used in the accreditation of software tools capable of creating calibrated engineering models for occupied homes.

Read more here… (PDF download – 110 kb)

Its Web site lists energy-saving tips, while Secretary Steven Chu calls conservation one of the department’s most important goals. But at many of the agency’s buildings, even at national laboratories where talented scientists seek technological breakthroughs to save energy, the department has failed to use one of the most effective tools available to any ordinary household: thermostats that automatically dial back the temperature when nobody is around.

As an energy auditor and green building consultant I understand building science, heat transfer and how pressure change and air flow can, at times, require specialized training to determine the most cost effective measures to reduce waste. But last week I taught my 75 year old dad how to operate a programmable thermostat in about 3 minutes. It’s not rocket science…  or is it? A energy department internal report found…

that at two buildings at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a National Nuclear Security Administration facility in New Mexico, facility operators were not trained to operate setback controls. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, part of the Office of Science, setback equipment was not replaced in two buildings after a 2008 electronic control system failure because officials there “planned to implement campus-wide energy conservation measures in the future.”

Read more…

Under the energy efficiency catagory, points may be claimed by the builder and awarded by an acredited 3rd party verifier by incorporating designed elements called for in the standard.

Foil backed decking is installed to lower attic temps.

David chose to include a special roof decking that reflects the suns heat,  pushing it back into the atmosphere. The decking helps lower the attic temperature. A lower attic temperature means less heat  transfer into the home and therefore, less work on the air conditioning system. The result? Lower utility costs for the owner. And in this case…the lucky owner!

The focus on energy efficiency and design is also evident in David’s use of the ceiling framing. An extra strip of lumber is placed around the outside edges of the raised ceilings of the family room and dining rooms. This extra lumber acts as a border for the blown-in loose fill insulation. The insulation is added after the drywall has been installed. It’s important to keep a uniform thickness of insulation over the entire ceiling to help maintain a consistent R-Value of the insulation.

Orange colored foam insulation seals the fire draft ceiling.

Without the border nailed in place the insulation has a tendency to fall off the edges of the room’s ceiling line. The result? Heat gain in that particular area of the ceiling and a rise in the buildings temperature and higher heating and cooling costs.