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.

The term “green” is being increasingly applied as an easy way to identify products, including building materials and new homes, as having a better or smaller impact on the environment.

That’s fine for marketing slogans and advertising headlines, but it’s also dangerous if the product (or house) isn’t truly sensitive to its environmental impact and is simply trying to ride the coattails of a sincere effort to lessen our carbon footprint.

In those instances, intended or not, the term “greenwashing” comes into play. Simply, it refers to incomplete, insincere, exaggerated, or downright untrue promises made about a product’s environmental performance, with no real evidence to back it up.

As a professional builder confronted with “green” claims from a variety of building product manufacturers and some competitors, we are keenly aware of the threat that greenwashing can have on our credibility as a quality contractor.

So, in our business, we make every effort to substantiate the claims made by our suppliers regarding reduced water use, recycled content, energy efficiency, and other performance characteristics that relate to creating a “green” building.

How? Thankfully, the “green” movement within and outside of the building industry has spawned a wealth of independent, third-party companies that scientifically verify those claims with a battery of standards and test methods. When considering a product or system, we look for certifications from those entities, as well as specific performance information (such as the precise amount of energy the furnace claims to save) to give us confidence.

In addition, several local, state, and national “green” building programs, such as Energy Star, have cropped up to help us and other builders identify materials and methods that result in better-built homes. These programs not only serve as frameworks for higher-quality housing, but also refer to the independent verification programs, such as the EPA’s WaterSense (for low-flow plumbing fixtures), to give us greater assurance that we are truly building green.

Even then, however, manufacturers and some builders may unintentionally misuse the certifications they earn from such testing or evaluation. For instance, there’s no such thing as an “eco-friendly’” or “environmentally-sensitive” product or house, two terms that have no scientific basis and smack of greenwashing.

Failing to go the extra mile to verify environmental performance claims can put us at risk of becoming greenwashers, too. It’s also our responsibility to surround so-called green products and systems with a quality-built house that effectively optimizes the energy use, water use, and durability of those products.

That way, we can all feel good, and be confident in, your investment and our combined efforts to make the Earth a healthier place to live for us and future generations.

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.

Sunday the Extreme Makeover‘s army of volunteers will begin construction on the 3,300 sq ft monster in Hattiesburg, MS. This will be the 167th home built by the ABC Makeover crews. My part? As the home’s green building verifier I’ll be traveling to the “Hub City” at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. (I should have my head examined) on Monday the 7^th for the faming inspection and thermal bypass checklist…(now that should be the news story…that someone was able to get my butt out-a-bed that early for work…)    ..    then midday Monday I’ll be back here in Jackson to work with the judges in the Growing a Greener Mississippi green building contest. They’ll look at 3 homes…Scott Shoemaker’s place and Randy Berg’s two houses.  Silver Level – all three of’um.

Remember the first place builder in the contest gets 50,000 green backs. Second and third ain’t chump-change…30,000 and 20,000 respectively.

Tuesday we’re off to Oxford and Starkville. One Silver and one Gold. Wednesday we cruse down south Mississippi to Biloxi and Gulfport, again one Silver and one Gold Level to judge. Before the day’s end I’ll visit Hattiesburg again for a final inspection at the Makeover home. I’m sure I’ll be “extremely” tired by then…

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.