Comments on: Is It Time To Give Up On High-Performance Homes?

By: DIXIE WONG

DIXIE WONG — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:26:01 +0000

I would appreciate your
I would appreciate your posting the article that you referred to...."Imagine a house......"

By: John C.

John C. — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:51:18 +0000

How about letter grades,
How about letter grades, which everyone understands....

Translate HERS scores into letter grades such that a Passive House or net-zero house gets an A+, a PGH gets an A or A-, well-built or retrofit places get in the B's, current code houses get a 'C' (which is 'average' after all), and older leaky barns gets D's.

Easy.

By: Bill Webb, MIRM

Bill Webb, MIRM — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:20:56 +0000

I am a career-long new home
I am a career-long new home marketer who lives professionally to connect my builder and Realtor clients to their customers in ways that build market share and profit margins. With that as a launching point, may I suggest first that everyone read the Suzanne Shelton article. It contains many truths.

In my opinion, Green is a philosophy. It has adherents who derive emotional satisfaction from their connection to it and thereby become willing to pay more to receive that extra reward. Energy Efficiency, on the other hand, is a strategy that in its very title conveys value. As Jimmy Fallon proved shortly before he burst on the scene full force, almost everybody loves cash back.

My clients never mention Green. Our thinking is that home buyers believe Green costs more and never pays for itself. Only resale buyers of Green homes have a realistic chance of receiving a positive financial return.

On the other hand, cost neutral energy efficiency is the best new home marketing strategy I have encountered in my career - all the more wonderful because it came from the federal government as part of the fabulous Builders Challenge program. Striving since to improve political correctness by diluting the clear value proposition of energy efficiency with Green add-ons, the current Challenge Home program seems to be flopping about like a dying fish.

All of this is to suggest it does not matter how much building scientists are proud of building science or Green-believers are proud of Green. It only matters how much consumers find a personal benefit to them in whatever we choose to offer.

This, then, is a clearly defined marketing challenge. Our building science is excellent. Our connection with consumers; not so much.

I'm OK with "High Performance" as another adjective phrase that can be used in describing the value proposition of Energy Efficiency. My only reservation is that it carries with it a male-oriented connotation which is not an entirely happy circumstance.

Even so, I tend to believe the solution lies not in withdrawing our use of "High Performance" as a descriptive term, but in branding the benefit package more powerfully. A topic for another day, perhaps?

By: C Magli

C Magli — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:27:17 +0000

Harris,

Harris,

You just about described my house. Except I got quoted $33k for a 10kw solar array before tax credit. The solar company saw my plans and orientation and expect it to produce $1850 worth a year at current price. (cheaper) Solar is a game changer in my opinion. As you suggest, it makes net zero for the general public within striking distance.

It took me a quite a bit of research to come to your conclusion. There is just so much variability and opinion. What kind of insulation and where? Sips, stick or icfs?, heat pump, gshp, or mini split? double pane or triple? On and on. Every situation is unique and all these seem to have there place in the "quiver" so to speak. Throw in the geographical differences and not just in terms of climate, but in building practices and it just gets more confusing. It doesn't help that I over analyze stuff to death, but that's just who I am.

I would not recommend someone else to do what I did. I'd suggest they hire an expert, which is what I did anyway (to answer Danny's question), and I'm happy to have hired E3 Innovate as a consultant for the design and construction process.

By: Danny Gough

Danny Gough — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:40:09 +0000
C Magli,

C Magli,
Your comments were exceptionally insightful. We need more of that type wisdom from the folks we imply we work for.

I'm curious if you have given comparable research time to determine what, if anything, you have to do to assure your new home will be healthy, safe and comfortable. If so, what have you found that is essential?

By: Harris Woodward

Harris Woodward — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:55:27 +0000
Good post @C Magli. Since
Good post @C Magli. Since most of us mortgage our homes, let's look at cost of performance in terms of the monthly nut.

I can super-insulate a 3,000SF home for about $5K extra. Then spend $7K more for a high-efficiency heat pump. Spend $3K more for a heatpump-type water heater, Energy Star appliances, and light bulbs. Then I'll spend $30K for a 6kW solar PV array.

TOTAL: $45K
Monthly payment = $242 (on a 30yr note at 5%)

> WHAT DO I GET FOR $242/mo you ask? Answer:

1. Probably that much less on your monthly electric bill, so we're at break-even (save $242/mo in energy costs because your electric consumption is much lower, and you're producing solar power to offset most of that consumption). Think: Net Zero Energy home.
2. Much greater durability, comfort, indoor air quality.
3. A Federal Income Tax credit of $9,000 on the solar PV array. In most "blue" states you can expect even more incentives - visit www.dsireusa.org for more info.
4. A home that will appraise for more than comparable homes. Maybe not so much now... but in the future when we're having global thermonuclear war over energy, it will.

How does it feel to mortgage your energy efficiency investment, get a mortgage tax deduction, and get paid $9,000 for doing so?

I'd say the juice is worth the squeeze.

By: Thomas Dugan

Thomas Dugan — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:40:56 +0000
To Magli: Please read my
To Magli: Please read my previous entry regarding the math on energy consumption. Unless you have a totally vacant building with no people, it is virtually impossible to reduce energy consumption as you have depicted. A single family home with two people living in it will consume $50-$75 per month in electricity independent of HVAC usage. Then you have to remove the swing months from the envelope math. Out of the $2400 per year energy cost, you will be lucky to have $1500-$1800 to work with. So optimistically cutting that in half by using the best BS available only nets you about $750-$900 per year. That is a horrible payback in most cases.
However, if you change you goal to building a disaster resistant home that also is energy efficient, you can achieve both while spending similar dollars. I highly recommend you look into precast insulated concrete wall panels from Superior Walls of America. It is all that I build with. The single weakest link in building today is the stick framed exterior wall. It is both structurally flawed and horribly inefficient from an energy viewpoint.

By: C Magli

C Magli — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:29:06 +0000
I come at it from the
I come at it from the homeowner perspective. My wife and I are in the process of designing our new home. Since this home will be built on family property and wanting it to last generations, I've spent months researching "high performance" homes. My payback period is longer and my threshold to abandon a malfunctinoing home on family land is really high, so I have huge incentive to get this right. That's not always the case with the general public.

I've read that the average homeowner stays in their home seven years. According to the DOE, the average newly built home consumes somewhere around $2,400 a year in utilities. So speaking strictly to energy efficiency (and not including subjective measures of comfort), the most the public has to gain is saving $2,400 a year. That's nothing to sneeze at, I understand, but to achieve that savings would require a home on the cutting edge of building science.

So let's say an achievable target in most situations is 50% of that number or $1,200 a year. That's still a lot of money. So why don't people seek out energy efficient homes?

I don't think there is a single, complete answer to that question. Contrary to what I've read, it is going to cost me a premium over a code built house to achieve my energy efficiency goals. I don't think people want to pay a 5% to 15% premium for house with a chance to save $1,200 a year. Especially when they only plan to stay there 5 to 10 years. It seems a very rational decision to me. Further, If I'm a builder, why would I tell my subs to change what they've been doing for years so I can sell a house for the same money?

Lastly, at least in terms of existing homes, we've had a HERS score for years. It's called the utility bill. I'm a commercial real estate broker and although I don't sell many homes, I've sold a a dozen or more over the years. I'd say in most of those instances, the Buyer asked for the previous 12 months utility bills.

That'a a long-winded way to say, I don't have a good answer. I'm sure some of my analysis is based on faulty data, but if my experience is representative of the general public, then that's what is important anyway.

By: Harris Woodward

Harris Woodward — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:15:56 +0000
You guys are making things,
You guys are making things, as is typical for BS nerds, too complicated. The definition is "per·for·mance: the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc."

It's simple really: when compared to a code-built home (ok, IECC 2012 raises the bar) a "high performance" home accomplishes "work", "acts" and "feats" that include resisting thermal bridging and air infiltration, HVAC systems that act in harmony with the enclosure, managing indoor air quality and water/vapor, and generally performing in a manner that is better than minimum code.

Measurably better.

If past is prologue then the HERS Index of a built home is an efficacious indicator of a given builder's ability to deliver on performance. MPG, HERS Index, grams of Sugar, cholesterol level... all of these are accepted metrics and predictors of performance.

High performance is not complicated. Communication is. This is apparent because we are having this damned conversation!

Detroit took a cue after the bailouts of 2009 (GM, Chrysler). They are now making fantastic cars and trucks that don't even resemble the crap pushed on us in 2008. They perform and the sales numbers prove that Americans approve.

But from the view of the typical home buyer/owner, they cannot test drive a high performance home. They cannot feel it perform during a rudimentary walk-through that is most often focused on granite countertops. Communication, therefore, is paramount. Without a car window sticker or an FDA approved label, we must educate buyers on what high performance means.

Period. Full stop.

By: Thomas Dugan

Thomas Dugan — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:39:35 +0000
As everyone is about to see,
As everyone is about to see, this is a very complex topic and we could write volumes about it.
Let us take energy costs first: The shell of the building can only be modified so much to lower energy costs. That is because there is what I call a "habitation cost" that applies to energy used simply because we live there. The easiest way to get a simple base number is to take your energy costs for the swing months of April and September where inside and outside temps are very similar and the envelope makes the least amount of difference. Energy used is for lighting, cooking, entertainment, etc. So when you look at the dollars that can be saved in order to justify spending money to save it, the number can be considerably lower than many folks try to sell you. Plus you only have eight or nine months that are not swing months that you can influence with your savings.
Next, I would like to comment further on the "breathing house" myth. When a house breathes on its own, you have no control over when and how it does so. That means nasty things like vermin feces dust, radon, vehicle fumes, pollen/dust and simple humidity come in as well. The whole point of sealing the structure is to allow building science to engineer in the proper air changes through venting that gives of control over what comes in and the means to treat it as necessary through filtering, dehumidifying or humidifying, etc.
Sealing in bad chemicals is a simplistic response to not understanding the whole picture. Leaving a house drafty is just lazy building.