Creating Demand for Green Buildings

After BBCAT’s presentation of the TIME Plan to the City Manager and her staff, the City Manager asked what towns/cities have done major green building programs, and Mike Wright and Ric Fernandez asked how these cities created the demand for green buildings. This paper focuses on creating demand. See the “Green Building Programs” for some exemplary programs. BBCAT urges that the City mount an energetic green building program, review the websites referenced here, and consult with experts on exemplary programs who can provide much more information.

Source: The National Energy Efficiency Best Practices Study

http://www.eebestpractices.com/pdf/BPExecSummary_R8.PDF

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/

To capture unique opportunities for efficiency gains in new construction, programs must address what is described as the “split incentive barrier.” This means that home builders, who do not pay the energy bills, have no long-term interest in energy efficiency and home buyers, who readily appreciate the advantages of low monthly energy bills, generally lack the technical skills to evaluate home energy savings claims.

To address this barrier to adoption of green building programs, successful programs all have adopted a strong “market transformation” emphasis, according to the National Energy Efficiency Best Practices Study. This means adopting a combined supply-side/demand-side strategy. A key component of the demand-side strategy is a high-profile market brand (usually Energy Star) that allows home buyers to identify energy-efficient homes without first developing the technical expertise to evaluate builder claims. These programs offer extensive consumer education resources to stimulate market demand. They seek to transform the new construction market by increasing consumer awareness of and demand for energy-efficient homes such as ENERGY STAR homes while at the same time increasing the building industry’s willingness and ability to construct ENERGY STAR labeled homes.

Program staff members also work closely with builders and contractors to improve the quality and availability of energy-efficient homes. They develop active support from private sector stakeholders and trade allies. Program managers emphasize the role of builders, contractors, and trade associations in designing programs, crafting market messages, and selling energy efficiency to home builders.

For example, the Texas ENERGY STAR homes program reach consumers through advertising and consumer seminars designed to educate them abut the benefits and quality differences of an ENERGY STAR home. Builders supplied over 50% of the total costs of an advertising campaign. Austin Energy offers no incentives, publishes a guide for consumers entitled “Seven Steps to Green Building” and offers numerous workshops, talks, courses, and conferences.

Some of the key elements relating to marketing of effective programs are:

     Involvement of multiple stakeholders – building designers, developers, contractors, builders, realtors, trade associations, suppliers, retailers, and customers

     Understanding of local market conditions

    Selling customer benefits first, then energy efficiency; knowing the customers and their needs

     Utilization of trade ally opportunities, such as annual meetings, trade association trainings etc.

     Avoidance of mass mailing techniques such as direct mailings, newspaper, TV, and radio ads and telemarketing

Other elements relating to project acceptance and success are:

     Financial incentives for both the project owner and the design team

     The most technically proficient implementation team possible

     Good training for staff

     Development of accurate algorithms and assumptions on which to base estimates of savings

     Identification of key information to track and report early in the program development process; provide guidelines for determining the appropriate benchmark for energy impact and incremental cost calculations.

Creating the demand involves members of the community who have not been typically involved in “utility” matters. It will take time to work with developers, realtors, buyers, and certainly remodelers to create the demand for green buildings. Fortunately the City is already working on LEED certification for a building being renovated. This experience will be one opportunity to spread the word on the benefits to the entire community of these practices. There are also suggestions regarding green building in the BBCAT paper on “Easing Energy Costs for Low-Income Citizens.”

WEB REFERENCES

These websites are especially useful because they identify best practices for designing programs. They are the only sources we know of that have looked at programs in this way and are very valuable to those who want to design successful programs.

Note: These address ‘new construction’ programs. Green building also includes ‘retrofit’ programs.

1. Best Practices websites. (These studies are managed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company under the auspices of the California Public Utility Commission in association with the California Energy Commission, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company.)

On residential new construction:

http://www.eebestpractices.com/ProgramArea.asp?BPProgID=R8

On commercial new construction:

http://www.eebestpractices.com/ProgramArea.asp?BPProgID=NR8

These websites studied a range of programs to identify best practices. Any individual program studied may not represent the full range.

2. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

The council gives details of exemplary identified in a comprehensive study at:

www.aceee.org/utility/bestpractoc.pdf

Search for ‘residential new construction’ and ‘commercial/industrial new construction.’

A press release describing the council’s effort to identify exemplary programs is available:

www.aceee.org/press/u032pr.htm

The full study is also available:

www.aceee.org/pubs/u032.htm

3. The Results Center

The Results Center is a division of IRT Environment, Inc. that was created to document and promote successful energy efficiency efforts by researching the best programs worldwide between 1992 and 1996. The Results Center’s "Profiles" enable utilities, regulators, government agencies, energy service companies, consultants, research institutes, municipalities, and others to quickly incorporate the experiences of leading programs into their design, implementation, and evaluation activities.

The Results Center has had major support from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as well as its charter sponsors, and member organizations. The Center’s director, Ted Flanigan, and Crest ’s director, Michael Totten, have arranged to provide access to this information through this Internet site. The resources are posted with support funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation

The profiles can be viewed at the website:

www. solstice.crest.org/efficiency/irt/bytype.htm

Look under ‘New Construction.’

Facilitating Acceptance of Distributed Generation

Distributed generation (DG) is the provision of power from appropriately sized power plants located near places where demand is concentrated. They can be any kind of power plants—natural gas generators, solar installations, biomass facilities, or other. The Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) recommends that the City look into natural gas DG plants, among others. (Solar and biomass facilities can also be distributed.) For a review of how and why DG saves energy and money, see the Endnote.

Michele Bono indicated that getting community buy-in for distributed generation is hard. Can we provide examples of how others have dealt with this issue? We were able to find numerous examples of highly successful DG installations all over the country, but less seems to be available on how the participants came to agree to engage in them. If the City of Tallahassee is interested in installing distributed generation in our community, we recommend inviting some of the major players to talk to you about how to do it. The website www.distributed-generation.com lists many references under the headings of : Technologies, Applications, Markets, Regulations, and others, and the DG Monitor indicates that there are more than 12 million DG units in place in the United States with an aggregate capacity of more than 200 gigawatts.

Our impression is that these are highly successful installations and that Tallahassee could well benefit from learning how to do them. The Resource Dynamics Corporation, which has been operating successfully for 26 years, provides consultant services to utilities interested in investigating the potential for DG for their communities (reference: www.rdcnet.com).

We have identified several ways to overcome some of the obstacles.

OBSTACLE 1. LACK OF MOTIVATION

This springs from failure to appreciate the cost savings that DG can deliver. DG can save half or more of the energy otherwise used to power a facility. Examples are easy to come by. Here are several:

Example A. U.S. Postal Service Facility in San Diego, January 2005

This is a 650,000-square foot facility. A company known as Northern Power Systems, which specializes in DG, has contracted to provide an advanced combined heat and power (CHP) system that will generate most of the needed power and air conditioning on-site.

In total, the system is expected to deliver $4.1 million in energy savings per year. It also will allow the Postal Service to reduce annual energy consumption by almost 30 million kilowatt hours (kWh)—enough energy to power almost 4,000 homes for a year. The company claims that “the CHP system will allow the M.L. Sellers facility to reduce its annual energy consumption by an estimated 1.7 million kWh per year” and “is also expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40%.”

Higher fuel efficiencies also qualify the new system for a $1 million incentive rebate from the Self-Generation Incentive Program of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). This program was established in 2001 to encourage on-site generation in order to reduce peak demand and avoid rolling blackouts such as those experienced by the state in recent years.

Reliability is a major feature of this system. In the event of a loss of power from the energy grid, Northern’s control system will continue to provide power to designated critical facility loads like the sorting machines, while automatically shedding non-critical load centers within the building in order to keep the total building load below the peak capacity of the engine generator.

Reference: www.nema.org/media/ind/20050111b.cfm

Example B. T-Mobile in Germany, June 2005

T-Mobile boasts of making a significant contribution towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions and thus promoting climate protection. It plans to equip base stations in the T-Mobile mobile network with state-of-the-art network technology, so that electric power consumption at these base stations will fall by about 30 percent. This amounts to a saving of about 71 gigawatt hours per year.

New buildings at the company’s Bonn head office are being equipped with a gas-operated combined heat and power station to cover basic energy requirements. The heat generated when electricity is generated and the waste heat that arises in the computing center serve to provide heating for 120,000 m² of office space in winter. In summer, an absorption cooler converts the heat into cold and thus supplies numerous cooling units in technical systems.

Example C. The University of Florida District System

The University of Florida already has a 42-megawatt district system in operation:

Heating: Most of the main campus buildings are heated via the central steam loop. Steam is drawn from this loop into the buildings, where it is siphoned off into the building’s air handlers. This in turn allows the heating coils within the air handlers to provide ample heating for the buildings during winter. The cogeneration plant located on the campus provides all of the steam for heating needs, around 200,000 lbs/hr. Florida Power Corp. operates this facility. Should the cogeneration plant be out of service for repair or maintenance, steam can be supplied by two boilers owned by the University.

Electricity: Sixty-nine thousand volts of electrical energy are delivered by Florida Power through grids to three substations on or near the University of Florida campus. Also, 42 megawatts of electricity generated by the cogeneration plant are distributed to the grids. From these substations, the power is reduced through transformers to 23,000 or 12,000 volts. University of Florida PPD senior electricians distribute this by way of 12 high-voltage breakers through 13 substations located throughout the campus.

Reference: www.progress-energy.com

Natural Gas: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) supplies the University of Florida with the natural gas that is used for operation of the cogeneration plant on campus. Co-The cogeneration plant uses 36.5 billion BTUs per year of natural gas.

Reference: www.gru.com

Cooling: The University of Florida has eight chilled-water producing facilities scattered about campus. All plants are on a central-chiller-plant-management system (a Tracer Summit system by Trane). These facilities can provide over 37,000 tons of chilled water at maximum output. Most of these facilities provide chilled water to a central looping system that distributes the water throughout campus. This water finds its way to the cooling coils of the campus air handlers, which then provide sufficient cooling for campus buildings during the hotter months.

Example D. Biogen Idec Corp, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.

Biogen Idec Inc. is opening a sixth building at Boston University’s Kendall Square campus this winter, and will install in its basement a power plant big enough to light up 4,000 homes. The unit will convert gas into steam for all six buildings and generate up to 5,500 kilowatts of electricity, while also powering air conditioning systems in the summer. Because the system operates at 80 percent efficiency, compared to 40 to 50 percent for conventional generating stations, Biogen Idec expects to save up to $4 million annually on utility bills. Also, the more efficient generators will keep 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere every year.

OBSTACLE 2. LEGISLATIVE BARRIERS

Utilities often oppose DG systems. The case of Biogen (Example D, above) illustrates how state rules had to be changed to overcome the obstacles that a utility put in the way.

Cambridge’s electric utility, NSTAR, fought the Biogen plan for Boston University at first, saying that it wanted the university to use NSTAR’s power around the clock. NSTAR feared that ratepayers would be stuck with too much of the cost of maintaining the local power grid if BU switched to taking NStar power only during emergencies. NSTAR demanded enormous fees for BU to keep a standby NStar connection. “The new standby rate addressed those concerns for us,” an NStar spokesperson said.

But citizen activists pressed for new rules at the state level to promote DG projects. Under the new state rules, Biogen will have to pay NStar $400,000 to $500,000 for a backup connection to the utility grid when its plant shuts down or requires maintenance, plus the cost of electricity it then uses.

Paul W. Gromer, executive director of the Solar Energy Business Association of New England, said that ‘’NStar and other utilities have become increasingly comfortable with DG since a separate negotiation last year established firm standards for how small off-grid power projects can safely connect to the utility and sell back surplus power.”

OBSTACLE 3. NEIGHBORHOOD RESISTANCE (NIMBY CONCERNS)

The public doesn’t understand how very beneficial DG can be in saving energy, saving utility costs, and reducing pollution associated with power plants. When the public is fully educated about these benefits, it is likely not only to accept, but to advocate, the use of DG and to take pride in its use in a community.

A case in point is that of Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, for which a DG plant was contemplated just last year. According to reports, TMH was all set to spring for this plant, but there were objections that a plume of steam rising from the plant would be perceived as pollution by neighbors and would make the plant unacceptable. Public education as to the harmlessness of the steam and the benefits of the DG strategy for providing power to TMH could have enabled citizens to fully understand and endorse its use.

OBSTACLE 4. FAILURE TO PLAN FAR ENOUGH IN ADVANCE

According to Resource Dynamics Corporation, “Installing DG is highly complex and uncertain and can be impeded by regulations, policies, and practices.DG installations must satisfy federal, state, and utility requirements that can vary dramatically depending on size, location, and use. The process of siting DG adds costs that can double the investment required and can result in project cancellation.” The DG Monitor advocates concurrent scheduling of key tracks and walks the reader through the steps involved in siting (reference: DG Monitor July-Sept 2005 and Oct-Nov 2005, www.distributed-generation.com/Library/Monitor_3rd_05.pdf).

In conclusion, it seems that DG is difficult to implement but worth the trouble. Although there are several types of problems, all can be solved. The proof is that there are 12 million DG units in the nation, although none in Tallahassee.

ENDNOTE: WHY DISTRIBUTED GENERATION IS COST-EFFECTIVE

Because of emission losses of energy resources, normal power plants are generally less than 40% efficient. DG plants avoid energy resource losses and can be as much as 80% efficient, which means the power costs about half as much to produce—and half as much fuel has to be burned.

Dr. Markvart, a researcher at Southampton University in England, says, “In a traditional system, you have the power station and electricity flows from power station to users—it is unidirectional. The whole network is constructed around that unidirectional power flow. There is also a tremendous amount of heat generated during the process. The heat is just waste and it is disposed of,” explained Dr Markvart.

The huge “chimneys” that have become a familiar part of many areas of the UK are the towers that cool down and then expel the heat waste. “Only about 30 to 40% of the primary energy ends up as electricity; 60 to 70% goes up the chimney. You don’t have any use for it because there is no one located around the station that needs heat,” he explained.

A number of DG plants, each located close to places of high demand, can provide power more efficiently than single power plant located some distance away. This is true especially in cases where the demand includes a need for heating, because a nearby power plant can make its own waste heat available for this purpose. This is known as cogeneration (generating both heat and power), or CHP (combined heat and power).

Where cooling is needed at a facility that has a low night-time demand, a DG plant can be used to make ice at night and then the ice can be stored in a chiller and used to cool the facility the next day.

For maximum efficiency, DG plants should be connected to the City system. Then, when less power is being used at the target facility, the excess can be delivered to the City. Integration is key. Each system has to be designed to accommodate the needs of both the facility and the City. My impression is that, often, a utility does not contract to build and operate a power plant itself, but contracts the work out to engineering firms that specialize in this form of power generation.

Easing Energy Costs for Low-Income Citizens

Extent of the Problem

The City of Tallahassee’s Consolidated Plan presented to HUD indicates that 2000 data showed 33,265 households with income less than 80% of the local Median Family Income, and identified a construction need of 6,307 units by 2010 and 10,626 total units by 2015. Almost twice as many low-income families live in rental units as own their homes. Easing the negative impact of high energy costs on these citizens is a complex task and will involve collaboration with a variety of existing programs.

BBCAT (the Big Bend Climate Action Team) has tried to learn from the experiences of other communities and has just begun to understand current practices within Tallahassee. The suggestions that follow are preliminary and are not intended to represent all best practices which might be appropriate for Tallahassee. Furthermore, there are probably many excellent practices within our own community which could be expanded to reach more families. The problem is serious and should be addressed in a comprehensive way. Here is some useful information about existing programs and recommendations from within our community.

1. Energy Star Homes.

In conversation with Michael Hervey, Administrator, City of Tallahassee, Department of Neighborhood and Community Services, we learned that HUD encourages Energy Star homes as a best practice. We have reviewed the Energy Star builders packages for the Leon County Zone and BBCAT recommends that Tallahassee adopt a requirement that all buildings designed and built for low-income households meet, at least, the Energy Star standards. In addition, these homes should have Energy Star appliances and fluorescent lights. (For information on HUD housing, contact Michael Hervey, 891-6500).

Energy efficiency is an intrinsic part of making housing affordable. For several years, the Florida Housing Coalition has encouraged local governments and nonprofit agencies to focus on improving home energy efficiency in order to reduce residents’ monthly expenses (Florida Housing Coalition, 878-4219). Housing developers in Florida and around the nation have identified ways to build energy-efficient housing that remains affordable. The Providence Neighborhood Association recommends that new affordable housing being built in the community comply with Energy Star standards (Rosa Morgan, community development consultant, personal communication). BBCAT recommends that all new affordable housing units built with public funds be required to meet Energy Star standards.

2. Rehabilitation of Units for Energy Efficiency

From Claudette Cromartie, Executive Director of Tallahassee Housing Authority (THA), we learned that rehabilitation for utility efficiency has been cost effective. THA is now in the middle of a ten-year performance contract with Siemens and savings in water/sewer and gas savings have exceeded expectations. Cost savings are defined by the difference between HUD funding and actual costs. Savings in 2004/2005 amounted to $370,114 versus a guaranteed savings of $103,866--a triple success. Electric consumption was not part of the guarantee, and we are working now to compare kilowatts used in the three years before the rehabilitation efforts compared to post-rehab years.

THA is still making major changes that will result in energy savings. For example, old refrigerators are being replaced with new energy- efficient models. BBCAT recommends that City Energy Services identify specific rehabilitation efforts to be subsidized for low-income households. (For details on THA rehabilitation contact Claudette Cromartie, 385-6126, ex 304.)

3. Energy Audits with Education and Follow-Up

Tallahassee’s Energy Services Department provides free energy audits in response to citizens’ requests for audits or complaints about high utility bills. Materials from Energy Services are comprehensive and contain very appropriate information; however, currently there is no follow-up to determine how effective the audits or energy savings advice have been.

The Tallahassee Housing Authority took a somewhat different approach. In partnership with Rebuild America, two residents in public housing were selected and trained to be Energy Education Trainees. When a resident’s energy consumption exceeds the expected amount, the Energy Education Trainee conducts an energy audit and then helps the resident to develop an action plan to reduce the household’s utility bills.

BBCAT likes the Housing Authority system. For one thing, the auditor is also a resident of the public housing and can probably relate better to the other residents than outsiders can. For another, it treats low-income-residents with respect and relies on them to commit to reducing energy usage and improving their community through reduced pollution.

BBCAT recommends that additional clients of public housing assistance be identified, trained as energy auditors, and hired specifically to work in low-income neighborhoods and with section 8 subsidized housing recipients. (For details on THA’s Energy Education Trainee program, contact Claudette Cromartie, 385-6126, ex 304.)

4. Refrigerator Replacement

Indiana’s Low-Income Weatherization and Refrigerator Replacement Program services households whose annual income is at or below 125% of the federal poverty guideline by providing weatherization, energy assistance, energy education, and refrigerator replacement if the units tested use more than a certain amount of energy. Replacement refrigerators are Energy-Star rated and old refrigerators are dismantled in an environmentally friendly manner and completely eliminating the excess energy demand they formerly inflicted on the utility. Cinergy/PSI developed a partnership with Whirlpool Corporation to supply the Energy Star units at a good negotiated price. The Total Resource Cost score (TRC, using DSManager) for this measure was 1.87, exceeding Tallahassee’s 0.75 cutoff line.

BBCAT would like to see similar refrigerator replacement program in Tallahassee. We also recommend that the City ensure that there is funding available for repairs in all low-income homes needing weatherization and critical home repair. This latter recommendation would require collaboration between Neighborhood and Community Services and Tallahassee Urban League to determine the most expeditious delivery of these services.

5. Air Conditioner Replacement

Under the Keep Cool Air Conditioner Replacement and Bounty Program, New York residents who purchase a new Energy Star room air conditioner and turn in their old, inefficient, working room air conditioner receive a $75 bounty. This program could be adjusted with additional support for low-income participants. (Contact is Bill Parlapiano, Market Support Team Leader, NYSERDA, 518-862-1090 ext.3355.)

6. Multifamily Low-Income Housing

Efficiency Vermont has a comprehensive energy efficiency program which, combined with the federal weatherization program, is working in virtually all new multifamily construction in the state. Efficiency Vermont provides training for developers and owners, and has a “Design Guide for Energy Efficient Multifamily Housing” and a related “Compreheinsive” track for new construction and major rehabilitation projects. Training is provided to architects and engineers. The program is for private non-subsidized housing as well as subsidized and public housing. (Contact Jennifer Chiodo, Director of Business Energy Services, 802-860-4095 ext 1019.) Attachment B provides details of several Vermont building efficiency programs. Easing the energy costs for low-income households in rental units is very important. BBCAT recommends this approach in new construction of multifamily low-income housing. See Attachment B.

7. Intensive Energy-Efficiency Improvement in Economically Depressed Neighborhoods:

BBCAT is impressed with the thoroughness, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of this Connecticut program, called United Illuminating Homeworks. The program includes hiring and training neighborhood youth to work within their neighborhoods, providing employment and a means for the utility to get into areas that are hard to reach. See Attachment C which contains a set of six residential low-income programs with this Connecticut program as the first of the set.

Summary

BBCAT recommends that the City Commission take seriously the need for easing the high energy costs for our low-income citizens. All of these programs do not have to be adopted, but we have presented a variety of examples. Other cities are addressing this issue directly and we think Tallahassee can also.

[Note: In the original document presented to the city manager, three attachments were included. They are not included here:

Attachment A—Indiana Low-Income Weatherization and Refrigerator Replacement Program

Attachment B—Series of information from Efficiency Vermont

Attachment C—Executive Summaries of various programs, starting with United Illuminating Homeworks]

Exemplary Green Building Programs

Example 1. Vermont ENERGY STAR Homes Program

Approaches:

1. Marketing support, including cooperative newspaper and real estate guide ads, signage, and marketing materials

2. Plan review and recommendations to achieve high-performance homes

3. Ongoing technical assistance and one-on-one builder and subcontractor training

4. Energy Star homes labeling

5. Blower door testing and house inspection to ensure energy efficiency performance

6. Financial incentives for qualifying homes, ranging from $160 to over $1,500. A lighting and appliance bonus of $700 for the installation of 10 qualifying energy-efficient lighting fixtures and three appliances was effective beyond expectations.

7. All participants in the program required to obtain a minimum 5 star energy rating and install at least four energy-efficient lighting fixtures.

8. Sponsorship of “Better Buildings by Design” annual conference and trade show.

Example 2. Austin Energy Green Building Program

Approaches:

1. The Green Building Program offers membership to builders and architects who have made a commitment to build “green.” The program also provides associate memberships for manufacturers, suppliers, and real estate agents who are associated with green building techniques and materials. A home built in the Austin Energy service area may be rated if the builder or architect is a member of the Green Building Program.

2. The residential program rates new homes and remodeling projects using “green” guidelines on a scale of one to five stars: the more stars the more green features in the home. Homes are rated in five areas: energy efficiency, water efficiency, materials efficiency, health and safety, and community. Energy efficiency includes the building envelop, HVAC, water heating, lighting, and appliances.

3. The program also offers an array of associated information and education services, including a guide for consumers “Seven Steps to Green Building” and numerous workshops, conferences, talks, and courses.

4. A number of city policies, programs, resolutions and ordinances support the program. Items in blue can be viewed on the Austin website:

• Adoption of energy codes 1983, 1985, 1989, 1992, 1995, 2000
• Ozone reduction initiatives
• Bicycle/pedestrian program
• Watershed Protection Development Review Water Quality Ordinance
• Tree Planting/Protection Ordinance
• Grey water/reclaimed water
• GreenChoice program
• Water conservation
• Xeriscape resolution
• Waterwise landscaping program
• Smart Growth initiative
• Urban Heat Island Mitigation initiative
• Smoking ordinance
• Light trespass ordinance

The following areas or overlays require a Green Building Program rating:

SMART Housing projects (single and multifamily)

Central Business District (CBD) or Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoned projects

All projects (commercial, multifamily and single family) in three Public Utility Districts (PUDs):

Projects in Robert Mueller Municipal Airport redevelopment

5. The program does not offer financial incentives.

Participants:

Single family, multi-family, and mobile homes are eligible for the residential program. There is also a commercial and industrial non-residential program. Participants include realtors, developers, builders, contractors, trade associations, retailers, government and not-for-profit groups.

Market penetration:

As of November, 25% of new homes built in Austin in 2005, or 1,087 homes, were green-rated. The lifetime total for the program is 5,536 homes, 77% of them between 2003 and 2005. The commercial program staff were (Nov. 2005) consulting on more than 20 projects totaling more than 3 million square feet of space. Over the past six years, 36 multi-family construction projects—almost 5,000 units—have been rated by the Green Building Program. In 2005, the multi-family program logged over 1,000 kW in energy savings and rated seven projects totaling over a 1,000 units.

More information is available at http://www.eebestpractices.com/Summary.asp?BPProgID=R85

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/

Example 3. Santa Monica (California) Green Building Program

The Santa Monica Green Building Program offers financial incentives for buildings and innovative building technologies certified to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, awarding two types of grants to promote green building throughout the city. With respect to renewable energy technologies, LEED awards 1 to 3 points based on the percentage of the total energy load met using renewable energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydro, and bio-gas strategies. Renewable energy points are awarded for electric power generation only. However, additional points are available for reducing the overall energy consumption of buildings, which may be accomplished through other renewable energy strategies.

Grants for new private sector buildings are based on the level of certification attained under the LEED standards and range from $20,000 to $35,000. All new construction and major renovation in commercial, affordable housing, mixed use, and multi-family residential that register for LEED (LEED-NC) certification are eligible to apply.

In the interest of promoting the adoption of new technologies designed to reduce the environmental impact of buildings, the City also offers Innovative Technology Grants for energy efficient systems and urban runoff mitigation technologies. These grants do not apply to self-generation technologies, only energy efficiency measures. However, hybrid systems, such as solar absorption chillers or solar-assisted heating systems, may be considered. Grants cover 50% of the cost of eligible systems up to a maximum of $5000.

Innovative Technology grants are available for all building types including commercial, affordable housing, mixed use, and single- and multi-family residential in both new and retrofit applications.

Santa Monica’s green building program is described on its website:

http://greenbuildings.santa-monica.org/

Information about the U.S. Green Building council and LEED is available at:

www.usgbc.org.

Example 4. Sacramento Zero Energy Homes Program.

a. Treasure Homes. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has partnered with Treasure Homes to build 32 super-efficient homes with solar power roofs. SMUD and local builders have worked together to develop the Zero Energy Home (ZEH), which features the latest in energy efficiency equipment, tighter building standards and solar roof tiles to generate electricity.

The homes at Treasure’s new Fallen Leaf @ Riverbend community in North Natomas, Calif., will include a 2-kilowatt solar system as a standard feature. The 32-home community is designed for first-time, entry-level and first move-up homebuyers.

The solar system includes solar panels with a low profile design that can be attached, without traditional racks, directly to the house framing to minimize roof penetrations. Each home also features the latest energy efficiency features including appliances, windows, lighting, HVAC (including low air infiltration), a 90 percent efficient furnace, ducts buried in attic insulation, a tankless water heater, fluorescent lighting in all permanent fixtures, and third party inspections to ensure the homes have minimum air leakage and duct leakage.

Altogether, the solar system and advanced energy efficiency measures are designed to reduce the homes’ energy use by as much as 66 percent and a homeowner’s combined monthly electric and gas bill by as much as 60 percent. All homes will meet SMUD Advantage Home as well as the ENERGY STAR Home program requirements and exceed California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 24 percent.

SMUD is working with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America program, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and ConSol, a leading building energy consultant, in designing the Fallen Leaf ZEHs. SMUD has also partnered with another builder, Morrison Homes, to offer these homes at prices close to those of homes without built-in solar power.

SMUD is a national leader in the development and implementation of solar or PV (photovoltaic) technology. SMUD leads all publicly owned utilities in the United States with more than 9.3 megawatts of installed solar panels on area buildings, homes and on parking structures and in numerous arrays. SMUD is now emphasizing customer-owned solar energy systems installed atop homes and businesses. SMUD has set goals of 10 percent renewable energy in its mix by 2006 and 20 percent by 2011.

b. Premier Homes. Premier Homes contracted with GE Energy (www.gepower.com) to provide roof-integrated solar systems as standard equipment on all 95 Zero Energy Homes in Premier Gardens. This is the third Premier Homes community to which GE Energy has supplied solar systems. SMUD provided substantial incentives to Premier Homes to utilize building-integrated solar technology. Home areas range in size from 1,285 to 2,248 square feet.

Other partners in this enterprise were ConSol and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Premier Gardens’ total solar power output was expected to be about 300 MW/hours annually.

The contract was valued at $1.5 million for the equipment. Installation began in the third quarter of 2004 and was completed in the second quarter of 2005. Homes began selling in the mid-$200,000 range in the summer of 2005.

According to advertising copy, “The Zero Energy Homes in Premier Gardens offer residents a remarkable savings. Initial bills show charges ranging from $30 a month to zero to credits when excess electricity was sold back to SMUD. On Autumn days, power continues to be generated by the solar roof tiles meeting a large portion of their needs.”

SMUD certified all Premier Gardens homes as SMUD Solar Advantage homes, which certifies the homes will exceed the current California Title 24 energy cooling requirements by 50 percent. In addition, the homes meet the requirements to be rated as ENERGY STAR® Homes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. One reference for this project is: http://builtbypremier.com/P_Gardens/news_zeroenergy.html

Example 5. Super Good Cents Manufactured Homes

A company that calls itself Good Cents seems to be a nationally recognized new home construction program (although we learned of it only recently). The program can be tailored to achieve the energy efficiency and marketing goals of [a] utility. One of its products is the “4GoodCents Manufactured Home,” which features improved levels of insulation and high-efficiency heating and cooling systems. These upgrades improve overall performance just as they do for site-built homes, resulting in similar energy savings for the utility and the customer. This particular brand of manufactured home is heated with electricity and is certified by the State Energy Offices where it is manufactured: Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California:

http://www.goodcents.com/Programs/energy.htm

We wonder if, in the interest of affordable housing and energy efficiency, the City should offer rebates for the construction and purchase of such homes.

Examples of the use (in the Pacific Northwest) of Super Good Cents homes follow. The first four are projects with the Eugene, Oregon Water and Electric Board (EWEB).

     a. Eugene, Oregon’s Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation. Several Lane County organizations work with Eugene Water & Electric Board’s (EWEB) Super Good Cents (SGC) program providing residents with affordable, energy-efficient housing. The nonprofit Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) has been addressing the needs of Eugene/Springfield’s low income residents since incorporating in 1979. Their new “lease-to-own” housing subdivision, The Field of Dreams, is proving how home ownership and low utility bills go together. “It only made sense to include energy efficient features in the homes to keep the utility bills as low as possible,” reports John Hubbird NEDCO Executive Director. NEDCO also operates the Threshold Program that trains individuals about budgeting, credit, home loan process and responsibilities of home ownership. Recently, NEDCO, EWEB and the future home owners met on the construction site, in a not-yet completed house. The participants sat on the floor and learned about SGC houses, EWEB services, and how to manage their electrical usage. Reference http://eweb.org/home/energy/ideas/new_construction/9612_affordable.htm

     b. Eugene’s St. Vincent de Paul Society (SVdP) is building another example of energy efficiency and affordable housing working together. They are now working on a 18 duplex SGC subdivision at Walnut Grove Phase 2, on Bennett Lane in north Eugene. This project is being constructed by Meili Construction and Youth Build of America. Youth Build is a program of the Northwest Youth Corps. It helps disadvantaged and disconnected youth between the ages of 16 and 22 earn a GED while gaining skill and confidence with on the job training.

     Commonly, houses qualify for SGC by installing R30 floor insulation, R21 wall insulation, R49 ceiling insulation, insulated doors, and vinyl-framed windows with argon gas and low-e coating. Houses or apartments built to these standards save between 20 percent and 30 percent in heating costs over state energy code standards. These homes often use energy-efficient water heaters and appliances. They also take advantage of water-conserving fixtures, high-efficiency heating systems and energy-efficient lighting. SGC homes also include automatically controlled ventilation systems that provide good indoor air quality. When occupants have more control of their environment, they are better able to manage their utility bills and their comfort. The reference is the same as for (a).

     c. Lane County (Oregon)’s Housing Authority and Community Services Agency (HACSA) is a 47-year-old nonprofit governmental corporation established by Lane County to provide affordable housing and related services to low-income residents. In just the last three years, HACSA has built more than 120 energy-efficient, affordable housing units. The reference is the same as for (a).

     d. Springfield/Eugene (Oregon)’s local Habitat for Humanity affiliate purchases property and then uses community volunteers’ labor and donated materials to build low income housing. The buyers of the homes must meet an income range and provide 500 hours of sweat equity. Over time, the resident repays Habitat the assigned value of the resources that went into the construction of the house. The Women’s Project house is an example of an SGC home built with all-volunteer, woman labor. A quotable quote associated with this project is, “Why would anyone build a house with an affordable mortgage and unaffordable utility bills?” Lowering monthly operating costs reduces the chances that the buyer will default on mortgages. The reference is the same as for (a).

     e. Kootenai, Idaho Super Good Cents Manufactured Homes. The Kootenai Electric Cooperative offers an incentive of $1,000 for these homes. Reference http://www.kec.com/energy_info/efficiency_rebates/SGC_homes/SGC_homes.htm

     f. Montana Super Good Cents Manufactured Homes. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality assists with the promotion of these manufactured homes.