Comments on: Why Can’t Every New Home Be a High Performance Home?

By: Dave Eakin

Dave Eakin — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:23:47 +0000

I have 2 suggestions:&
I have 2 suggestions:
1. A mandatory nation-wide standard building code for energy (a la Energy Star for New Homes). Too much is left to go wrong with each small municipality deciding what the current building standards should be. Uniform in design, uniform in inspection, uniform in performance.
2. Enforce the "design lifetime" of residences. If a 50-year old design is now 51-years old, demolish it. If it is 48-years old, the new buyers will know up front that they can only live in it for another 2 years. If it did not have a design lifetime - demolish it now and get a cash settlement from the government (same as if they took a property by right of eminent domain for a new public works project). China got a lot of adverse press when they demolished/rebuilt whole communities in preparation for the upcoming Olympics but I wonder if that may not have been the best move after all.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:16:46 +0000

Harris, you make a valid
Harris, you make a valid point about utility companies not wanting to build additional power plants. In our area they have installed "smart meters" to reward customers for moving their power consumption to off peak times. Currently it's optional, but I see it becoming the standard way to bill as smart meters become more common. Reducing PEAK usage is key to profitability for utility companies.

By: Harris - Finish Werks

Harris - Finish Werks — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:11:27 +0000

LET UTILITY COMPANIES
LET UTILITY COMPANIES UNDERWRITE MORTGAGES. You asked for a paradigm shift, you got it.

Instead of dancing around the edges (which is getting us nowhere fast), let's look at the prevailing political winds - Greed Is Good - and go All In.

I'm no fan of capitalistic BS running our political discourse right now, but to be green sometimes you have to play the hand you're dealt. We are where we are right now.

If energy efficiency costs money, and banks lend that money, and the system in place now (mortgage lending) won't recognize it, then let the sons of bitches that take our money to power our homes also lend money to build them. Let them be the gatekeepers of the supposed risk of financing said energy efficiency.

Why?

Because publicly traded utility companies make money when they don't have to build more power plants. The best way to eliminate the specter of building another BILLION$ powerplant is to reduce demand on the production you've got. It's no different from a restaurant that needs to fill its tables before opening another restaurant... maximize the revenue from the investment you already carry.

THE CONFLICT

Utility companies don't know how to react because banks won't lend money for energy efficiency in the construction industry, builders won't ask for it because they believe their customers won't pay for it, and government is inept at enacting change.

I’m preaching to choir here.

Given the prevailing political/economic winds, and the fact that the system is driven by pure self-serving, why not drive the system to account for its own greed? Let the utility companies underwrite energy efficiency mortgages!

The energy efficient mortgages out of Freddie and Fannie are a joke. Nobody gives a damn.

Furthermore, ask any appraiser or loan officer if they even exist. We've already allowed banks to become investment houses, and insurances companies to become banks, and (fill in the blanks of Wall Street de-reg here). The power industry is not much different from Enron of old - it's about the Dollar.

So, if energy efficiency costs too much, but utility companies are willing to pay for efficiency to protect their share holders from a huge capital expenditure (new plant), why not let them control the purse strings of financing green construction AND realize a potential new revenue stream?

Or am I being completely naïve about the way Banking in America works? Should I even bother dreaming of the day that somebody besides Wall Street controls lending?

Unfortunately, capitalism only works when accountability works. We don’t have a lot of accountability, er…, ethics/integrity/morals in the marketplace right now, for certain. However, utility companies have a natural horse in this race. It’s like giving your teenage son the keys to the sports car – tell him he has to pay for gas and tires and he may be dissuaded from emulating John Force-style burnouts before a top fuel drag race. Energy providers stand to eliminate risk and therefore make money.

Give them a potential revenue stream – let them underwrite the financing of energy efficiency costs – and they will find a way to make the building fit the energy that powers it.

By: Dale Sherman

Dale Sherman — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:09:55 +0000

Great thread, Allison. I
Great thread, Allison. I didn't see any mention of Home Star or HES. Considering a home is the biggest appliance anyone will ever buy, why shouldn't we have volunteer participation in rating homes that come on the market? A lot of folks pay attention to the yellow label on appliances before they buy, but never house-hunt by the energy signature of a home.

The Realtor lobby has played a role in the past in blocking house ratings under the guise it'll hurt sales. But I won't buy another house unless it is labeled with an energy rating.

Educating clients and realtors is part of the solution. Nurturing an environment for promoting home ratings without mandating such is equally important. If homeowners and realtors demand ratings and efficiency, builders will be all over it, educate themselves, rise to the occasion, or be out of business.

Utility companies and tax roles only need to combine with other fuel data to create an Energy Factor database. This could provide homeowners with an energy signature comparison to other homes in the area without revealing an individual's energy consumption. It could also play a role in the standardized rating of a home going on the market.

Banks used to give lower interest rates for high efficiency homes. There isn't much incentive for that now, but builders whose homes can capture lower mortgage rates would be a sales promoter.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:01:15 +0000

HVAC size "budgets"
HVAC size "budgets" should be based on age/size of home and location. Older homes would be allowed more tons per sq ft. New construction should be held to much higher standards since they have the opportunity to get it right during construction.

This also will eliminate "wasteful floor plans" in new construction. No more 100sq ft untinted west windows, solar orientation would have to be considered.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:44:43 +0000

Geoff H.:
Geoff H.: HVAC contractors can be difficult to work with in high performance homes. There are some great ones out there, but unfortunately not enough. How are you planning to save them $5-10k?

By: geoff hartman

geoff hartman — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:32:12 +0000

A couple of comments are
A couple of comments are right on, especially the one about a disconnect between building science application, and consumer's perception of value. We brag about saving a dollar by shoping at Walmart, then don't see the irony in a $500 electric bill.

Instead of "cost" these are investments in our health, safety, comfort and financial well being.

I just started working with a client today that is doing a great job in planning for completion of a very efficient home. However, his mechanical proposals - all 6 - fail to even consider the efficency of the building, or the fact that you can't put natural draft furnace or waterheaters in a sealed spray foam house. Why, the quotes make no allowabce for location of equipment, or construction style that may significantly limit installation accessability. And, the prices they are quoting for twice the required capacities, is extremely high. To make things worse, they refuse to even look at the home or construction details until they are ready to install.

This is going to be a fun adventure!! I expect that we can save this family at least $5-$10K, improve the home performance significantly, and reduce utility bills for the life of the home.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:21:43 +0000

David B.:
David B.: Brilliant, as usual. Your statement about design, process, & QA is spot on: "The fact is, achieving high performance is more about design, process and QA than necessarily about the type of insulation or HVAC SEER rating." Carl Seville (aka the Green Curmudgeon) said the same thing in a different way in his article, I’m Beginning to Really Hate Eco-Bling.

Mike E.: If the government implements incentive programs well, they're great. They can help transform and create markets. If not, they can screw things up. Case in point: HVAC incentives mostly focus on the efficiency of the equipment and not on the distribution system. Also, a business or industry should be able to stand on its own without a lot of government aid.

By: mike eliason

mike eliason — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:15:15 +0000

what in the world is wrong
what in the world is wrong with utilizing government and utility incentives?!?

this is done very successfully in europe. it also helps to have banks which offer better mortgages ultra-efficiency programs like Minergie and Passivhaus AND a culture where people are likely to own/reside in their house for over 40 years.

By: David Butler

David Butler — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:53:52 +0000

There's a different dimension
There's a different dimension to this problem, alluded to by Chris when he reports how he can show builders how to build better without increasing the cost. Amen, brother.

In my experience, most builders are already on board with building more efficiently -- at least in concept, although not often in practice. They're responding to a growing market segment, as has been demonstrated over and over by higher closing rates for Energy Star communities.

The problem is there's soo much information out there on how to achieve high performance, perhaps too much. And much of it is marketing driven, or simply misinformed. The sad fact is, builders tend to self-educate about new trends through trade rags, distributors and subcontractors. However, these are the worst sources, since building green has become more about the color of money.

I've had good success showing builders how to pull money out of projects that were ostensibly designed to be high performance. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The fact is, achieving high performance is more about design, process and QA than necessarily about the type of insulation or HVAC SEER rating. And then there's homeowner education. That's an oft-overlooked aspect to achieving high performance.

Changing construction processes and adding QA does involve some cost (and some pain), but it's mostly about the learning curve with small incremental costs in the long run. If you get the basics right, all those expensive upgrades the marketplace tells us we need to be green begin to show their true color.