“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?

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.

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

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

INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SUPPORT

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

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

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

Join the HOME STAR Coalition

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

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

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.

On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed the new ”American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” or referring to new energy tax credits. Many have jumped at this to entice people to upgrade to new energy efficient products and earn tax credits back. This plan does provide home owners with some good incentives to upgrade.

President Bush had this energy tax credit in place, which was to end in 2007, but was extended through 2008. The new 2009 plan has many great improvements. Going from a 15% of material rebate in 2007 to a 30% rebate on material in 2009. The new plan increases the rebate from a $500 cap to a %1500 cap. But this is where the home owner needs to read the fine print.

Some of these desperate businesses are advertising that you may be able to get new energy efficient products installed and not have to pay a dime. Now is some cases this may be true but not with all. Installation is not covered with many of the products.

Installation costs ARE COVERED for:

• HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) systems
• Biomass Stoves
• Water Heaters (including solar)
• Solar Panels
• Geothermal Heat Pumps
• Wind Energy Systems
• Fuel Cells

Installation costs are NOT covered by the tax credit for:

• Windows
• Doors
• Insulation
• Roofs

Now this is just for existing homes upgrading to energy efficient products that pass the Energy Star rating. This is not for new home construction. If you are building a new home, you can qualify for the tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, photovoltaics, solar water heaters, small wind systems and fuel cells, but not the tax credits for windows, doors, insulation, roofs, HVAC, or non-solar water heaters. Builders are eligible for a rebate on new homes that are 50% more energy efficient than the 2004 IECC.

This tax credit is for all products placed in service in 2009 & 2010 for most home improvements, EXCEPT for geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, fuel cells, and windmills which are not subject to this cap, and are in effect through 2016,

So as you hear these promotions to upgrade your home or build a new home, check on Energy Star’s website to make sure you will get the credit that is being explained to you. Also remember that this is a rebate on your tax return, so you will be waiting until the following year to get it back. Yes these rebates are real and are good to look into, just don’t get sucked into the desperation sales that are happen right now.

By Steve Feller

From Green Building Ideas and Ezine

$8,000 Home Buyer Tax Credit at a Glance

• The tax credit is for first-time home buyers only.
• The tax credit does not have to be repaid.
• The tax credit is equal to 10 percent of the home’s purchase price up to a maximum of $8,000.
• The credit is available for homes purchased on or after January 1, 2009 and before December 1, 2009.
• Single taxpayers with incomes up to $75,000 and married couples with incomes up to $150,000 qualify for the full tax credit.

There are other provisions that will help the housing market and home buyers:

• Will help home buyers in high-cost markets by extending the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan limit of $729,750 through the end of 2009.
• Allows state housing finance agencies to help buyers at closing by advancing the credit as a loan using proceeds from tax-exempt bonds.
• Extends the tax code section 25C credit for energy-efficient home improvements through the end of 2010; increases the credit rate from 10 percent to 30 percent; raises the lifetime cap from $500 to $1,500; expands the list of eligible improvements.
• For 2008 operations, expands the net operating loss carryback period from two years to five years for small businesses (businesses with average gross receipts of no more than $15 million over the previous three years).
• Temporarily allows exchange of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit allocating authority for tax-exempt grants and appropriates $2 billion in HOME funding for affordable housing projects.
• Provides a “patch” for the Alternative Minimum Tax for tax year 2009.
• Increases bonus depreciation and section 179 small business expensing for business investment in 2009.
• Increases New Markets Tax Credit allocating authority for 2008 and 2009.
• Delays for one year—from 2011 to 2012—the start of the three percent government contractor withholding requirement.

Get more details here: www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com. For more information about green building and energy efficient construction in central MS contact www.GaryNSmith or call him at 601-454-5559.