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.

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.”

“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.

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

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.

Economic activity and energy use are directly linked. But lately, several reports have noted that the economic slowdown is not the only reason energy consumption is falling. Aggressive energy efficiency efforts also have impact.

That impact will be “major” in the years to come, according to the Energy Information Administration, the chief energy data collector for the US government. The agency this week released its “Annual Energy Outlook 2010” with projections to 2035.

The federal report shows us decreasing energy use significantly if we employ best available efficiency technologies over the next 25 years – that is if we buy the most energy efficient appliances and build homes to the highest efficiency standards. Under this scenario, energy consumption could drop by as much as 27%. But if we stick to the status quo, homeowners will increase energy use by about 0.2%.

This drop in energy use will not happen immediately. In fact, EIA sees energy consumption rising slightly as the economy rebounds. It then begins fall in 2013 as higher efficiency standards take effect for vehicles and lighting.

Lighting standards will have the most profound impact on electric consumption. Federal requirements will reduce electricity used for lights by 30% in 2014. When the standards tighten further in 2020, power use for lighting drops 60%.  Overall, by 2035 our lights should eat up 44% less electricity than in 2008.

This drop in energy consumption does not signal austerity. On the contrary, our use of electric devices is growing. The EIA sees us increasing our use of computers, household appliances, water heaters, stoves, heat, air conditioning and microwaves. And for the first time this year we’ll direct more of our electricity into television watching than food refrigeration.

So it appears the predictions of today’s energy efficiency advocates may be correct: the economy can reduce energy consumption without sacrificing creature comforts.

Not once, but twice President Obama mentioned the importance of energy efficiency in his state of the union address January 27. His support for the resource is no surprise; his administration has channeled $20 billion toward energy savings programs. Obama made clear that going into his second year his support will not waver.

“I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation,” he said.

For many years, efficiency was the poor sister of the energy world. So continued support from the highest office comes as extraordinarily good news to the range of businesses that provide energy savings services and products – from appliance manufacturers to energy efficiency service companies to the new entrants — smart grid and information technology companies.

But when an industry receives this much incentive money, it inevitably comes under increased scrutiny. Is the taxpayer and the ratepayer getting bang for the buck?

Fortunately, a lot of work is underway to bring to buildings the kind of miles per gallon measure we now have in the auto industry. How many people know how well or poorly their homes and businesses use energy?

To find out, innovations are being developed in use of data loggers and other devices that measure actual energy output of equipment and other parameters. Another interesting approach is use of benchmarking and disclosure mandates to determine building performance.

The goal of such programs is give consumers and businesses information about building performance to trigger “market-based competition to own, operate, lease, finance, design and build the most energy-efficient buildings,” says the Institute for Market Transformation.

The Washington, D.C.-based efficiency group describes on its website several cities and states already using benchmarking and disclosure:

• The New York City Council requires building energy rating and disclosure, periodic energy audits and retro-commissioning. It also mandates building-wide lighting upgrades and the installation of submeters and compliance with a new city energy code.
• Washington, D.C. mandates annual energy performance rating and disclosure for commercial buildings. The district publishes building energy performance data on a public online database.
• Utilities in California must provide data for use in ENERGY STAR benchmarking. Commercial building owners must disclose ENERGY STAR benchmark data to prospective tenants, buyers and lenders.
• Austin, Texas requires commercial building energy rating and disclosure, mandatory energy audits for homes and mandatory audits plus retrofits (in some cases) for apartment buildings.
• Washington state has a building energy rating and disclosure mandate similar to California’s. The city of Seattle has its own benchmarking requirement.
• On the federal level, the House and Senate climate bills would create a national building label.  In addition, the Department of Energy has a new National Building Rating Program to create a label for homes.

Stay tuned for increased city, state and federal activity in measuring and monitoring energy efficiency as activity expands. More details are available at: http://www.imt.org/

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

Jon Stewart said it best: Obama is a lousy poker payer. Lucky thing, too, for the energy efficiency industry as it heads into 2010.

Stewart’s December 8 “The Daily Show” aired a clip of Obama recently telling business leaders:  “I don’t want to tip our hand too much, but one of the things I would be surprised if we don’t end up moving forward on is an aggressive agenda for energy efficiency and weatherization.”

Tip his hand? In fact, as Stewart pointed out, Obama has shown that hand broadly to the world for the last year. Starting with his January 2009 inaugural speech, Obama buoyed the clean energy industry by advancing renewable energy, a first for a US president in that forum.  But that turned out to be just the start. In talk after talk this year, he pushed efficiency. If US voters didn’t know the term ‘weatherization’ before, they know it now. What could be better publicity for a product than having it endorsed by the leader of the free world?

To say 2009 was a banner year for the energy efficiency industry is an understatement. Under Obama’s watch, the federal government has channeled $20 billion in stimulus dollars to energy efficiency and now promises more from bailout funds returned by banks.

While the money – and Obama’s support – was the big story for 2009 and continues to be going into 2010, it is important to remember that electric energy is ultimately a local industry in the United States. What happens before state public utility commissions and regional regulatory bodies often has greatest influence.

To that end here a few local trends of 2009 that may grow in 2010.

*Efficiency as a first fuel. Environment Northeast has been successful in convincing several New England states to consider efficiency to be the first fuel in portfolio planning. That means when utilities plan resources, they must secure all cost effective energy efficiency before pursuing power plant development or power purchases. http://www.env-ne.org/

*Decoupling. Utilities have little incentive to encourage energy savings if they earn their profits from selling power. Decoupling changes utility accounting and cost recovery by delinking profits from sales. California and Massachusetts are examples of states with full decoupling and their utilities have among the most aggressive efficiency programs in the country.  Several other states partially use the approach; others are considering adopting it.

*Energy efficiency portfolio standards. Similar to renewable portfolio standards, EEPS require that utilities, and in some cases competitive retail suppliers, achieve certain energy savings goals. Federal proposals are under consideration for a national EEPS. That may or may not happen. But 19 states now have the standards; look for more to pursue the approach.

What else does the EE industry have to look forward to in 2010?  Please post what you see in your crystal ball.

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.

Listen to Mississippi Public Radio interview of Bo Smith, Cornerstone Lending and Dr. Ben Mokry, Senior Vice President at MHC explain the program

“This program will have an enormous impact on the 48 communities statewide that have been identified as having high foreclosure rates,” said Dianne Bolen, Executive Director of MHC. “Over the next twelve months, the Home Buyer Advantage program will help homebuyers get good value for their money while simultaneously helping their neighbors protect the value of their homes. It’s a real win-win situation for everyone involved,” she continued.

MHC estimates the Home Buyer Advantage program will help home buyers purchase 600 to 700 foreclosed properties in Mississippi. Qualified home buyers purchasing a foreclosed property are immediately eligible for a $14,999 grant. The second component of the Home Buyer Advantage Program provides an additional grant of up to $25,000 based on the buyer’s credit score. The grants are forgiven over a period of five years for the initial grant and an additional five years for the credit score-based component.

“The Home Buyer Advantage program will provide much-needed stability to communities across Mississippi that have been impacted by foreclosures,” explained Dr. Ben Mokry, Senior Vice President at MHC. “By this time next year, we will have helped these communities avoid the blight of foreclosure to remain healthy and vibrant. That is our ultimate goal with the program,” he added.

The Home Buyer Advantage program is funded by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was created in 2008 by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. MHC has until September 2010 to utilize its $20.7 million grant before the unused funds must be returned to the federal government. The following communities are eligible for the Home Buyer Advantage program: Batesville, Booneville, Brandon, Byhalia, Canton, Carthage, Clarksdale, Cleveland, Clinton, Coldwater, Columbia, Columbus, Corinth, Greenville, Greenwood, Grenada, Hattiesburg, Hernando, Holly Springs, Horn Lake, Itta Bena, Jackson, Kosciusko, Laurel, Lumberton, Madison, Magnolia, McComb, Meridian, Natchez, Nesbit, New Albany, Olive Branch, Oxford, Pearl, Petal, Pontotoc, Raymond, Ridgeland, Senatobia, Southaven, Starkville, Sumrall, Terry, Tupelo, Vicksburg, Walls, and Yazoo City.

For more information about the Home Buyer Advantage program, including detailed program guidelines and a list of approved lenders, visit www.mshomecorp.com/hba. Parties who wish to learn more about the Mississippi Home Corporation should contact MHC directly at 601.718.INFO (4636) or at www.mshomecorp.com.