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.

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

Well, let’s dive in and take a look.

Who’s Qualified?

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

What Should They Do?

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

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

1. Combustion Safety

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

2. Building Envelope

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

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

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

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

3. HVAC

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

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

4. Moisture Problems

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

• rain
• moisture
• condensation

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

5. Detailed Report

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

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

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

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

6. Extras

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing a Home Energy Auditor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain myself.

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

No self-sacrifice

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

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

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

Invisible

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

Delight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is building science incompatible with freedom?

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

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

Are green building programs incompatible with freedom?

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

Are building codes incompatible with freedom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What might US energy efficiency companies export?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

1. How Blue Are You? PRICE: Free

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

2. Waterprint PRICE: Free

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

3. Water Buddy 1.0 PRICE: $1.99

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

4. myUse PRICE: $1.99

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

5. Toobz PRICE: Free

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

source: www.greenlivingideas.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SUPPORT

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

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

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

Join the HOME STAR Coalition

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

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

Susan Kramer-Pope Communication Practices that Make a Difference

We each have a reaction to uncertainty. Some find it exhilarating. Some find it terrifying. In all cases there is an element of stress. If you are a custom builder, you are intimately involved with managing stress-your own as well as the effects of your customer’s stress upon you.

As the builder you come to the table with years of experience in a field your client usually knows little or nothing about. Without addressing this disparity in the way you communicate, you are setting yourself up for almost certain misunderstandings throughout the life of the project.

Consider wearing the hat of an “educator” when interacting with your customer. Educate them about how you do business. When it comes to the contract, create a summary sheet with bullet-points of the most critical pieces that you need to stress, and make sure to use stories from your experience as examples.

Educate them about why you prefer the subcontractors that you use. Educate them on the implications of delayed decision making on the project time-line, their budget and your business, especially if you have other jobs in the pipeline ready to start.

Continue to be an educator to minimize misunderstanding all the way through the project. The worst thing you can do is assume the customer knows your business! If you are stumped as to what topics to cover in this education effort, look no further than the communication breakdowns in your past and ask yourself, ‘What did I learn from that situation that will make a difference for me and this new client?”

This stance may seem elementary to some or bothersome to others. But the question remains the same. What are you doing to create mutual understanding and reduce uncertainty throughout your projects? Your reputation depends on it.

A recent American Institute of Architects (”AIA”) study highlights the national trend toward green building programs since 2007.  According to an AIA survery, more than one in five U.S. cities (with populations of more than 50,000) report having programs in place that promote green building.  This number represents a 50% increase in municipal green building programs over the last two years.  The Western and Mountain regions lead the nation in the number of green building programs per state.  Given the size of the cities with green building programs, the impact of these sustainability programs reach about 53 million people.

To find out more about these sustainability and green building initiatives throughout the nation, see the AIA’s new report,Green Building Policy in a Changing Economic Environment, which also contains policies and recommendations to assist policymakers in advancing sustainability and green building.  You’ll also find case studies that highlight the green building programs in several cities, including Boston, Philadelphia, LA and Grand Rapids.

In light of the economic downturn during the last two years, AIA Executive Vice President / CEO, Christine McEntee, finds the results of the AIA’s survey encouraging and a sign “that cities are recognizing the economic benefits of energy-efficient buildings.”  The AIA is a prominent adopter of the 2030 Challenge and has committed to a goal of carbon neutral (zero energy) buildings by 2030, in addition to its goal that “all design projects will be sustainable as a matter of course.”

Populus is a full service sustainable design consulting firm that focuses on high performance, net-zero and near-net-zero custom residential and multi-family projects.  Populus guides architects and builders through the requirements of mandatory green building codes and optional green home certification programs, providing HERS rating, LEED for Homes Green Rater services and municipal energy code consulting.  In addition, Populus offers an Energy Code Workshop for architects and municipalities, as well as LEED for Homes training.  Visit Populus at www.popboulder.com.

Tom Gotschall - Instructor and Educator

The Home Builders Association of Jackson will be offering courses for industry professionals to earn their NAHB Certified Green Professional Designation on December 7-9, 2009. The CGP designation consists of two courses, Green Building for Building Professionals and Business Management for Building Professionals. In order to receive the designation both courses must be completed. The courses will be taught at the HBAJ building in Ridgeland, MS by NAHB approved speaker Thomas Gotschall.

Green Building for Building Professionals (2 day course)

December 7 & 8, 2009

8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Fee: NAHB Members $275 • Non-Members $350

More info:  LINK

Learn how green homes provide buyers with lower energy costs and higher value. This 2-day course for building professionals discusses strategies for incorporating green-building principles into homes. You will learn how green homes provide buyers lower maintenance, better indoor air quality, and better long-term value. Techniques are also discussed for competitively differentiating your home products with increased indoor environmental quality as well as energy and resource efficiency.

Business Management for Building Professionals (1 day course)

December 9, 2009

8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Fee: NAHB Members $175 • Non-Members $225

More info: LINK

Learn the management skills that give industry leaders the edge. This course will give you a solid foundation in those best business practices so valuable to smaller businesses: planning, organizing, staffing/directing and controlling. By using case studies and sample forms, your instructors give you practical and applicable tools for management success.

Need Help? Contact:

Spence Tribble
Education and Facilities Coordinator
Home Builders Association of Jackson
195 Charmant Drive, Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 362-6501
Fax: (601) 982-7684
spence@hbajackson.com
www.hbajackson.com

Do Business with a Member.

When America was its infancy the growth of this city was largely fueled by the need to build a better hub and city of “greatness” for the future, one with a mix of financial services and small industry. The city grew and is truly symbiotic as a one of the greatest cities in the world.

But its time for a new act for this great city. While the banking crisis has taken its toll its still a vibrant but very expensive city. It has little room to build upon a working class and what does it mean to live and work in city in our new economy.

I agree with the premise that its time to look to the infrastructure. The need for better public transport, better services in outer areas and the need for affordable housing in and outside of the city. This is a prescription that is for any city.

Having lived in San Francisco that saw great growth but very strident and cautious growth that led to outrageous prices in real estate while income fell flat and now in Seattle with the ubiquitous townhouses lining every street, absurd housing prices and the still ever growing sprawl in response I have to agree that without real improvements to the infrastructure a city cannot function well.

San Francisco tried to be responsive with making grand laws to get health care, free wi-fi, higher minimum wages and varying other “green” bills to make living in the City possible for a diverse group it did nothing to stop the ever growing white wealthy class taking over the city. Seattle is struggling with its light rail and trolleys to nowhere while realizing the best they can do to draw industry is poaching an investment bank from Tacoma to move north to the empty Washington Mutual building. Irony not lost.

And this brings New York.. bridges, roads and subways built in the times of grandeur dilapidated and pushed to extremes. Borough’s (the burbs) of NY still seen as being undesirable as more and more families, the backbones of cities, moving there and still seen as almost pioneers to a city that is largely populated by the rich and the white and very poor that serve them.

There is a real need to build our infrastructure to serve ALL the population and what a great way to build those green jobs that the maligned Van Jones wished for all. There is nothing more needed than building better public transport, better improved outlying areas to reduce the need to commute and maintain a better diverse city that has housing that is both rich and green for all. Schools that serve all the populations and not just the poor while the rich attend private academies.

The idea that the infrastructure is something that the Government is solely responsible is not true. There is nothing stopping private industry in taking on these projects and building new business models to find new business. We argue incessantly about the Government running everything and yet we turn to them to repair the largest and most significant part of our communities. While private developers are left to build nothing but commercial and residential properties that right now are at their highest glut.

Is it not time to see and demonstrate how we can prove the role of the private sector in making our cities and communities great again? And then in turn free up that financial obligation which will allow the Government to give us health care in return?

Source: GreenGoddess

Making a Difference with Green Community Strategies – Environmental sustainability and climate change issues are consuming the nation’s attention. As of February 2008, nearly 800 mayors have pledged to “meet or beat” the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas emission reduction target for the United States. Local leaders of cities and regions are adopting a wide array of green community strategies: “green” municipal operations and construction standards, alternative forms of transportation, and “energy smart” growth. Hear about these and other innovative implementation strategies.

I ended up meeting a Landscape Architect and given my propensity to distrust or easily be annoyed by anyone possessing the “title” Architect in their profession I know its likely going to be a “rocky” event at best. Although sadly I was disappointed or happy to meet two completely NORMAL and professional men on Friday who dispelled my total frustration with the profession. Sometimes getting disappointed is a good thing. But I also liked their work and that is really what matters. Connection on professional level and liking them personally has always been very important to me but the trade off is I do lose work if I don’t think we “click”

So when I spoke to the Landscape “person” it was regards to his interest and concept of developing work in regards to Green Roofs and Living Walls. Now I like them in their idea and think green roofs just are simply great on big commercial urban structures. For no other reason than aesthetics and opportunity to have some living green spaces wherever we can find them. As for a “living” wall I think that is again one of those niche things that will be largely for a custom request and not the mainstream.

Of course telling him that and the fact that I think LEED and the USGBC should simply be an educational and research organization founded to build concepts and science around the study of green build, etc and not one “awarding” points and stars as a way of validating a buildings “greeness.” He naturally did not agree and our conversation already challenged began to go further downhill from there.

He of course being just shy of Napoleon in both size and attitude may have contributed to his demeanor. He kept interrogating me why I felt this way and I cited of course my mentors everyone from the Building Science people to the simple and affordable contractor, Fernando Ruiz. I like keeping things simple and affordable and that is my place in the world. I also want to avoid litigation thanks.

I should of known that when you personally vest in something you really don’t want to be criticized for that and especially from a woman who towers over you (and for the record I am 5’5″ and I had on three inch heels) Call it short man complex. And the fact that he was just a weirdo. Anyone who hides behind a wall when you are going to meet them at a coffee shop and describes themselves as tall and dark haired (I actually went up to the wrong person not thinking to check behind a wall) when they are short, fat and gray usually means they are there for different reasons and/or delusional. As asked before did I have a problem with men in the trades and the answer is almost always unequivocally “NO” its the related industries where I take offense. And when you are often with anyone of a type of specific group, in this case “green” there are no more nor less people with intense passions and interests.

I knew right away that perhaps this was not going to be a meet, greet and chat. And I have no problem meeting in coffee shops, etc and frankly I like to get out. We all don’t have offices. And I respect that many are like me working out of home space and well its just not suitable. Although I have had meetings in my garage to look at samples and see some of my experiments with products I don’t do it often. But when I meet anyone at a Starbucks or wherever I approach it as a genuine meeting with the intention of purpose and exchange of information. I rarely make personal connections with professional contacts but I prefer that but certainly not adverse to it, I just like to keep things in one category over another.

After the required hour or so chat I realized that this was not “business as usual.” Again, when calling someone try to remind yourself why you are there and proving your smarts is not necessary as they will reveal themselves over the course of a conversation. Also having an agenda to shove down someone’s throat or an ulterior motive perhaps also not a plan.

So compared to the following day meeting professionals in a professional setting it was a relief. I know the economy makes for strange bedfellows but I also don’t need a bedfellow. Its difficult to fully recognize who is genuinely interested in you and your business or just you or are well just nuts. I also received an email from a vendor this week saying “how are you Tamara.” Well I don’t know how Tamara is but thanks for asking. Again this is NOT a time to waste your time or others, to use it wisely and find those of like mind. And yes I do think you have to like them or it will not work. That is a luxury that I still believe for me is something I do hold onto when all else seems to be sinking.

Green Goddess