ENERGIZE AMERICA: Home Efficiency Deadline Edition

A member of Congress asked the Energize America team to transform its concepts into material ready for Congressional action. The newly minted "Efficient American Homes of 2007 Act" (EAHA) seeks the right policy to help households make the "easy" choice.

Last week I started discussion about the economics of fossil fuel efficiency in American households. Turns out, since the oil shock of the '70s, the market and our government have relied more on "energy saving" than "energy efficient" measures to meet GHG policy goals.

Now we're under the gun --in more ways than one-- and need your help selecting key messages from the diary and your experiences. We need to Re-Energize Energize America!

Following is a more formal version of EAHA. Give it a good read, please. Let us know what you believe are the Top 5 points that can move our recommenations out of committee and onto the floor.

Objectives
(i) To deliver financial incentives to householders and property owners that reward residential energy efficiency and (ii) to acelerate the rate of investment in capital improvement to public and private property.    

Market and Legislative Landscape

Energy efficiency is one of two fundamental strategies to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and fossil fuel dependencies. The other is fuel type replacement. But their costs and perceived value to householders pose challenges to achieving and sustaining complementary ends.

Energy saving trends reveal lagging consumer confidence in high-value, efficiency projects. In 2001, electricity accounted for 65% of energy consumption, of which 51% was attributed to non-durable appliances such as home entertainment equipment, swimming pool pumps, and  lighting.[1] Since, EnergyStar labelling has helped consumers select energy saving appliances, reducing their share of utility expenses to 34%.[2] In 2005, estimated share of heating (space and water), ventillation, and cooling (HVAC) remained unchanged at 58% of the bill.

Financial intelligence and resources skew household energy consumption. The largest share of household income spent on all energy falls disproportionaly on poor and lower-income families. And the largest share of investment in energy efficient home improvement --systemic investment-- falls primarily on the top two income deciles. These investors, like non-governmental and HUD researchers, are aware that retrofit or replacement immediately adds 20% of market value to their equity positions.[3]

Indeed, according to the 2005 American Housing Survey, there are 108M occupied homes. Some 20% of renters, 6.8M households, live in subsidized housing. And 79% of all the nation's housing stock is aged 20 years and older.[4]  Because durables' lifetimes can exceed 20 years, this share implies equally significant, residual energy inefficiencies in owner-occupied as well as rental properties.

Guides to energy saving are widely available yet poorly supported in practice. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) enabled criteria and financial incentives for energy saving projects. The scope and benefit of these measures, however, are limiting. DOE has missed 34 deadlines for setting energy efficiency standards for 20 product categories.[5] Applicable tax credits fall far short of the 30% cost cap specified [6] and may be subject to AMT red-lining.

Completed DOE rules, appliances:
Refrigerators, Small furnaces, Washing machines
Pending (2011 deadline, agreed in 15-state 2005 law suit)
Warm air furnaces, boilers, Water heaters (storage), Water heaters (demand), Water tanks (unfired)

State agencies and local utility companies have instituted grant ("rebate") programs to promote energy efficiency appliances and fuel type replacement. Popular programming is concentrated in competitive electricity markets ("deregulated states"). These programs are unable to match demand due to underfunding. Only a massive increase in the amount of funds available to householders and state-regulated energy assistance programs will soften the blow of rising fuel and GHG emissions costs.

Description

EAHA provisions will emend US tax code (Title II), mandate energy efficiency standards, and provide budget for regulatory enforcement.

1. Enforcing Energy Saving Standards.

a. Consumable and durable appliance standards.
b. Public-private Partnership in Energy Saving Education.

2. Enforcing Energy Efficiency in Home Improvement

a. Residential HVAC and Envelope standards
b. State- and federal-owned Housing Investment

3. Extending Affordable Financial Terms.

a. Energy Efficiency Mortgages and Lines of Credit
b. EA Neighborhood Act Maintenance of Effort

4. Expanding Tax Credit Allowances by Type and Value The current max. total is $500, for all projects combined. Allowances during 2007 through 2008 period are given below.

Federal rated energy saving products (max credit):
gas, oil, propane furnaces, boilers ($150); CAC, including air- and ground-source heat pump ($300); HVAC fana ($50); Water heaters, heat pump water heaters ($300)
Manufacturer-rated efficiency systems.
Insulation; Replacement windows ($200); External doors; Shell and duct repair; Pigmented metal roofs; solar or fuel cell ($2000)

Benefits
EAHA measures will directly invest tax revenue in residential capital improvement

• Enable households to afford a greater variety of energy efficiency projects
• Stimulate demand for efficient and renewable technologies in more regions
• Drive industry development in system manufacture, construction, and installation
• Increase awareness of and application for energy efficiency benefits

Estimated Costs Over The Enactment Period
Over 10 years, EAHA programs will cost $00B.  

• Foregone tax revenue, $00B
• Program expenses, $000M
• Program revenue, $000M

EAHA programs will generate federal revenue from fees and benefits associated with standards certification.

• Net EAHA Expense, $00B
• GHG savings, 00T kWh, 00T tonnes CO2

Key Messages
HELP! I can't choose. We need a critter reality check!

: : Notes
1 RECS 2001; 2 consumer pie; 3 The Appraisal Journal (pdf, 1999)link, related news, HUD Valuation Analysis (Directive No. 4150); 4 AHS 2005 pdf; 5 GAO pdfe; dkos diary Inefficient Governance; 6 period extended  through 2008 by H.R. 6111; proposed through 2012 by H.R. 5206, S.2677 and 2016 by H.R. 550, S.590, eere.gov news, seia.org news, TIAP guide, Cost vs Value Report 2004 , 2005 HTML | pdf

•  I'm planning a green remodel

  so this diary is very timely.  Thanks.

  Anyone have suggestions about doing a green remodeling?

  by jct on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:46:49 AM PDT

  •  Put in a sun room...

    On the south side of your house, if possible...

    by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

    •  Try "No Regrets Remodeling"

      We used No Regrets Remodeling in the extensive remodeling of our second house and carried it along to the third house:

      "This book does something no other remodeling book does: It considers remodeling strictly from the perspective of energy efficiency and indoor air quality... It's a great book, and very thorough. Ventilation, and the energy use of heating and cooling equipment, are also covered. If you've got a big remodeling job ahead, put this 222-page book on your reading list before you begin."
      —Popular Mechanics

      One review in Whole Earth had a good point regarding uncritical recommendation of solar roof shingles (which create dozens of holes in the roof and are prone to broken wires, which are expensive and difficult to fix).  

      But overall the book is excellent, and makes you think not only of the space you're remodeling, but the effects that the remodel can have on other spaces in your house in terms of moisture, heat flow, etc.

      by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:40:47 PM PDT

  •  There are lots of useful books / otherwise ...

    and web sites and ...

    A -- Make sure (ABSOLUTELY) that the builder/contractor/architect (whatever you are using) actually knows something about green/energy efficiency.

    B -- A good starting point, a book that I think 100% of home owners should have, Home Energy Diet.

    Everything else starts to get into what do you mean by "green" (energy, construction, totality) ... what your resources are ... what you mean by "remodel" ... etc ...

    by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:11:59 AM PDT

•  Top item:

  2.  Enforcing Energy Efficiency in Home Improvement

  a. Residential HVAC and Envelope standards
  b. State- and federal-owned Housing Investment

  The "easy stuff" -- plugging holes, weatherstripping doors, etc., usually has tremendously more bang for the buck than, say, replacing windows.  But, it also requires an individual assessment of each housing unit (blower door test).  That means the finding of these opportunities is some work, even though the remediation is frequently very simple.

  The rebates on windows, etc. would probably be popular with manufacturers, and also reflects a common mindset of figuring that buying some thing is the way to fix.

  Only recommendation I'd really make is that the five top items ought to be the biggest bang for the buck items.  In all likelihood, those that save the most money (net) also prevent the most GHG emission.

  (the same should be done within categories, e.g. use recommendations from blower door test to determine which items to address first for weatherization/hole-plugging)

  by by foot on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:14:32 AM PDT

•  Energy efficiency has to be the law

  Equipment and buildings etc. have to have increased energy efficiency via regulation. We don't have time to wait for "tax credits" to work.

  1. Equipment and building efficiency to increase by 50% in 10 years (matches current Euro stds.)

  Plus most current tax credits are not adequate. If we consider that Iraq oil wars alone have cost US $1T, plug that into energy saving tax credits over next 10 years.

  2. Tax credits increased for retrofitting should guarantee payback in 10 years if 50% reduction in energy.

  When you say you don't know how much to plug in, you might want to go work with some of the groups who have long years of experience and can provide the figures and long history.

  You might even consider supporting them since they have the expertise you lack.

  by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:18:56 AM PDT

  •  home energy audit

    that's a good recommendation (above). thanks for the price point. an audit can start a householder on the path to "financial intelligence" about energy efficiency investment decisions. i mention HUD/HERS "reference home" and EnergyStar certified audit and in connection to energy efficiency mortgage products (EEMs).

    these types of federal certification services are understated in measure 1(b). the questions remain, how does that knowledge become actionable? and who can afford it? opportunity cost, not so much, although this would be a desirable paradigm shift to legislative action.

    you've got as much "financial intelligence" as any kossack, i'll warrant. but check out DrStevenB's surveys of regional and income (+64% above median). yikes.

    the reality is the majority of americans' purchase decisions are based on short-term finacial hurdles -- "payback" at best, next paycheck at worse. 30% of them, renters, aren't in any position to affect a conventional energy audit.

    i'm soliciting key messages. is yours "we don't have time to wait?

    it goes without saying that EPAct 30% allowances have not been enforced (previous diary). i left budget amounts blank on purpose because i'm most concerned with community response to the assumptions on which calculation of budget and benefit depend. these assumptions are informed by data as in recent AHS, JCHS demo forecast to 2030 (posted last diary), GAO/DOE calc of foregone DI (dated but noted here), even, ironically, a coal lobby study (2006) on "affordable electricity" -- as well as, ya know, 110th congressional budget priorities.

    unfortunately, i've been unable to locate data assuming more generous tax forebearance tied to new DOE standards. the ugly truth is that i need to estimate GHG and kWh savings and cost for each type of high-eff project by housing type (home owner and rental) for one year and cumulative -- before i even attempt a DCF for each, if i wanted to be thorough.

    the assignment is a 2 pg doc in 3 days. i would love a key reference. please share.

     

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:00:39 AM PDT

    •  Message is...

      "i'm soliciting key messages. is yours "we don't have time to wait?"

      It's change tax credits and government regulations.

      1. Tax credits so a reduction of 50% energy use in home or business will have a 10 year payback.

      2. Gov' regulations require all new structures to be 50% more energy efficient and mandate retro fit over next 10 years for older buildings.

      Time to wait?  We used that up...911 was the snooze alarm going off for the fifth time...not to mention global warming, oceans dying, etc.  Bush Jr spent $1T on war for oil in Iraq.  Applied to US energy efficiency it would likely have eliminated energy imports.

      by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:24:05 PM PDT

      •  Large percentage move within 5 years

        I wonder if a better payback period would be 7.5 years, since about 22% of Americans move in any 5 year span. If people are planning to move in less than 10 years, then a 10-year investment is not attractive. By shortening the payback, there will be a larger pool of people willing to make the investment.

        Unfortunately, research finds that people are often only willing to invest if the payback period is MUCH shorter [emphasis mine]:

        Although "[t]he efficiency of practically every end use of energy can be improved relatively inexpensively," "customers are generally not motivated to undertake investments in end-use efficiency unless the payback time is very short, six months to three years . . . The phenomenon is not only independent of the customer sector, but also is found irrespective of the particular end uses and technologies involved."

        So perhaps structuring the program to make some big-bang for the buck improvements (such as CFL and LED lighting) have very short payback periods would achieve faster reduction than having a single payback period for everything

        One interesting note from Massachusetts' efficiency program [emphasis mine]:

        Consumer awareness is not a metric of success. In fact, the Collaborative has discouraged the use of resources for broad media buys and consumer awareness. They see more payback from training utility energy efficiency staff and account representatives, and vendors/contractors to sell the technologies/programs.

        by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:06:22 PM PDT

        •  Excellent point.

          When my wife and I had to replace our central heat & air a few years back, we chose conventional over geothermal because we didn't think we'd live in the house long enough to see the geothermal payback. And we didn't think the average homebuyer would understand the greater efficiency of geothermal well enough to pay us a premium when we sold the house.

          Just outlaw the inefficient stuff.

          by HeyMikey on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:11:32 PM PDT

        •  hahahaha

          These customers are demanding annual rates of return of 40-100+%, and of course such expectations differ sharply from those of investors in electric generation (and much else).

          oh my, my. there are a lot of gems in that article ...

          by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:32:34 PM PDT

•  Efficient Washing Machines are now Available

  Promoting the new front-loading and advanced top-loader appliances would be big.  Save a lot of water too. It's time for the 50 year old technology in clothes washing to go.

  IMHO, there is a lot of room for increased efficiency in gas water heating.  62% efficiency -- give me a break.  I'm not sure that the instantaneous heaters are a practical answer in most cases, as they are not a drop-in change.  

  New houses are our chance to make changes that will last for decades--high standards are critical.  

  Affordabiity of these systems for people most hurt by high energy prices is critical.  

  by Bronx59 on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:26:10 AM PDT

  •  Much as it breaks my cheapskate heart...

    I'm considering replacement of our working (late 1980s) washer and dryer.  

    by Bronx59 on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:28:11 AM PDT

    •  But for your cheapskate heart ...

      You are burning money like crazy due to the 64 gallons of water (coming out of your hot water heater) as opposed to perhaps 14 ... etc ...

      And, hopefully you are not waiting for your incandescents to burn out before replacing with CFLs ... the financial savings are so high that they easily pay for preemptive change.

      by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:13:56 AM PDT

      •  85% of washer energy use is for heating water

        If you switch to a new low-water washer, and use cold water washes when possible, you'll drastically reduce your water heating costs.

        by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:08:49 PM PDT

  •  Old fashioned can be the MOST efficient

    Those local compact and ordinances and compacts which forbid clotheslines have got to go.  No energy consumed in drying clothes that way.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

    •  Huge.

      Down your way, and up here on the Front Range of Colorado, the sun shines so much that outdoor drying is practical the whole year 'round.

      Dryers are major energy hogs.  I do laundry at a local coin-op, run the washed clothes through an extractor (high-RPM centrifuge, basically), and bring them home and hang them up.  If the weather's bad, I use 25 cents worth of dryer time and then bring them home and drape them all over inside the apartment.

      Do you know of any examples of successfully changing ordinances and HOA rules?

      by by foot on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:03:28 PM PDT

      •  It seems to me that if...

        ...the feds are willing to tackle habeas corpus and warrantless surveillance and other fundamental elements of the constitution (and before), surely they can find a way to allow citizens to have a clothesline for "national security reasons".

        I find that most items actually dry quicker on the clothesline than in the dryer.  But in the coldest winter, I use the dryer.  I have the vent directed inside, so it adds heat the humidity to the inside air, in addition to drying the clothes.  But most of the year, they go on the clothesline.  A few items like towels get a quick air fluff, minus the heat.

        by Land of Enchantment on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:45:36 AM PDT

•  Energy audit first

  Just had one completed by our leading LEED home builder.  About $300. Identifies where you can get most energy/cost savings.

  You can decide how much money you have and where to apply it.

  Payback...pretty much forget about it.

  Try this link and plug in your utility bill and various PV systems and you'll see mostly net losses but minimal (couple hundred a year) but you are cutting off Bin Laden, Cheney et al, cutting pollution.

  Grid Tie Estimator - Only works with IE/Active X browser.

  My biggest savings is a geothermal heat pump but it costs $12K ($10K after credits) and cuts my utility bill by 50%, $800 per year savings.

  Reason it is negative payback is the $800 per year savings is less than I'd make investing the money plus the money doesn't wear out like the equipment so financial deck is stacked against energy savings...but it's the right thing to do.

  by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:30:14 AM PDT

  •  RE GEOTHERMAL ... On the other hand ...

    • The geothermal annual maintenance costs should be lower.
    • The geothermal equipment should last longer. (My understanding is twice as long.)
    • Geothermal, unlike air heat pump, does not require outside equipment ... e.g., there is a small physical footprint of a yard that is not being used.
    • Geothermal systems are significantly quieter than most systems out there.
    • You are treating the Geothermal 8% as equivalent to before tax earnings, perhaps. Dependent on your tax situation, the 8% could be the equivalent of about 13% (with a 40% combined Fed/local marginal tax rate). And, that return goes up as utility prices go up.

    If focused SOLELY on financial ROI of the direct energy savings witout considering tax rates, geothermal becomes harder to financially justify. In a more holistic understanding, they are far more viable.

    And, well, good for you as to the $12k.  When replacing my old system, I would have been lucky to do for less than $20k due to the difficult layout of my property and the need for the drilling equipment & operators to travel something like 80 miles to do the job.

    by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:07:48 AM PDT

    •  Geothermal facts.

      "The geothermal annual maintenance costs should be lower."

      My maintenance costs on gas system have been about $200 over last five years so maintenance costs are not a factor.

      "The geothermal equipment should last longer. "

      You are confused on payback calcs. They are based on investing money and return rates vs. cost savings of equipment purchased with that money.

      No equipment lasts longer than "money", it will wear out at some point.

      "Geothermal, unlike air heat pump, does not require outside equipment ..."

      Makes no sense...my current gas system doesn't need any "outside equipment". If you meant fuel, new system runs on electric so I'm trading gas power for electric power.

      "You are treating the Geothermal 8% as equivalent to before tax earnings."

      Return on investment is pre-tax earnings. Not sure what you are talking about. I'd make $1200 a year on $10K. I'll save $800 a year on geo-thermal system.

      "If focused SOLELY on financial ROI of the direct energy savings witout considering tax rates, geothermal becomes harder to financially justify"

      That's what I said...there is no ROI...and that includes tax rates...it's a negative investment in financial terms and anyone doing a house refit (as the original questioner asked) needs to be aware of that fact.

      It is minimal, my net negative for cutting energy use 50% and then using solar grid tie for 50% of remaining power (a 75% net energy reduction) will cost me about $300 per year over the next 20 years.

      Which rolls back to the topic of what to recommend to Congress and it would be tax credits to make it a  positive ROI in 10 years if 50% energy reduction.

      A good place to spend the $1T spent on securing Iraqi oil.

      by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:50:11 AM PDT

      •  RE responses ...

        • Outside equipment -- used to geothermal that is used also for air conditioning, which does normally use an outdoor exchanger ... right?
        • Payback calculations should include expected future expenses. For example, when considering the ROI for equipment you should consider reliability and durability.  There is a "value" for something that has higher reliability and higher durability.  For example, ROI -- equipment ... if one takes a 25-year look, for example, you need to have more than one non-geothermal system as part of the financial prospective ROI -- geothermal investment reduces likelihood of another capital expense within that time period. It improves the NPV of the geothermal investment.
        • Your maintenance costs are low, IMHO ... we had our gas heat / electric HVAC serviced twice/year at a cost of about $150/year for cleaning/servicing/etc ...
        • The energy savings are after tax money. Investment money is before tax.  

        by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

        •  aside: stop servicing your equipment so much

          You should not be having a gas furnace serviced every year or every other year or even every three years.  No energy savings have been shown to result from standard "clean & tune" operations.  

          For air conditioning, studies have actually shown that units receiving regular service are generally LESS efficient than ones that don't.  Most service techs no nothing about how to make units efficient and will add or subtract refrigerant charge without understanding what's going on.  Their job is to make it produce cold air, not to make it efficient.

          Back on the geothermal topic -- the systems are too expensive and have had major reliability and maintenance problems.  If a geothermal system gives a decent ROI on any home, it means that home is using too much heating or cooling.   You should be able to make a home efficient enough that it will not be worth  spending so much to provide heat/cool.  To me, an efficient new home is one that is so efficient you can heat with electric if you want -- maybe a toaster ;)...

          by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:47:37 AM PDT

          •  Wow ...

            Things you learn ... that you don't want to ... totally snookered re 'clean & tune'??? When you have time, some links/such since that is the standard set of recommendations.  

            Scary re air conditioning ...

            Re my home system ... just replaced late 1980s equipment with late 2006 with a fossil-fuel system. I had estimated several years of minimal maintenance.

            I agree with you that geothermal are expensive and that we can make homes/facilities much (MUCH) more energy efficient.  But not sure that I am in agreement with a wholesale dismissal.

            And, in terms of my home, we are talking about a 1958 home that is being made more energy efficient, but has some of the handicaps of a 50-year old structure ...

            by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:17:32 PM PDT

          •  Geothermal facts III

            "Back on the geothermal topic -- the systems are too expensive and have had major reliability and maintenance problems."

            And you base this on what set of actual facts?  The systems do cost more money ($8K to upgrade my gas system, $12K for new geothermal system) but reliability and maintenance figures are identical (excellent) for both.  New gas system would cut my energy usage by about 15%.  New electric geothermal cuts my energy usage by about 50%.

            "To me, an efficient new home is one that is so efficient you can heat with electric if you want -- maybe a toaster ;)"

            It's efficient but massively expensive to build zero net energy home that requires no heating or cooling system if it can even been done.  Don't know of one in US.

            There's no free lunch.

            Which gets back to government policy.  We need to change government policy so there is a 10 year payback for homeowners to do energy retrofits that cut energy use by 50%.

            Reasons range from economic (energy trade deficit, alternative energy US jobs and industry, budget deficit) to national security ($1T in Middle East oil wars, terrorism) to environmental (global warming, air and water pollution)

            by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:02:29 PM PDT

            •  yes, based on facts

              I used to work for an engineering consulting firm that had a contract to investigate why there were so many operational problems with geothermal heat pumps -- that was a while back (10+ years) and I haven't kept up with the technology much, but I think it's pretty well known among HVAC engineers that residential geothermal systems generally have had more problems than standard equipment.  

              Anything that involves more pieces to design and put together correctly tends to have more problems.  As the industry matures, I would assume it has improved, but it would be hard to claim that they involve less maintenance or problems than conventional systems.

              by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:41:52 PM PDT

            •  about low energy homes

              It is not massively expensive to build a home with heating loads so low that expensive HVAC systems aren't worthwhile.  Lets say a geothermal system could save you half your heating and cooling cost.  It isn't that far out to design a new home to use $400/yr in heating and cooling combined.  There are plenty of homes that use less than half that amount.  So the 50% savings is worth $200/yr.  If you wanted to have a 10 year payback, the geothermal system would need to only add $2000 to the cost of the home.  I'd say it's a lot easier to build a house with a $400 heating/cooling usage than to put in a geothermal system that only costs $2000 more than conventional.  

              by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:46:32 PM PDT

          •  No energy savings ... clean & tune

            This is true, but the risks of a clogged gas jet can be pretty significant (and, speaking from experience, the headaches and nausea are seriously unpleasant - not the quite same as a migraine, but very intense).

            For safety reasons, any carbon-monoxide-producing appliance should be inspected and cleaned annually. Also, every home with carbon-monoxide-producing appliances should have properly installed carbon monoxide detectors.

            by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:17:35 PM PDT

            •  agree with CO detectors, not with annual clean an

              CO detectors are a great idea (and mandated in Massachusetts).  The annual clean and tune is overkill and a waste of resources.  BTW, a "clogged gas jet" isn't really what produces CO, although incomplete combustion and flame impingement are factors.  It's just that those things  are rare, especially for modern high efficiency equipment.  Sealed combustion furnaces can't really create a CO problem in your home, and it's pretty rare with all direct vent equipment, which is starting to represent a larger fraction of the installed base.  Even with older equipment, gas burns pretty cleanly and things on the combustion side don't really get dirty within a year or two

              by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:35:53 PM PDT

              •  Alas

                Our modern, high end, Vikingstove tried to kill us via a clogged port in the oven, while we were preheating the oven for baking. Not enough gas was getting out to ignite, but enough got out to fill the room with headache and nausea-inducing levels of gas.

                We did not have CO detectors, and were just lucky that we were aware of the symptoms of CO poisoning. We were all hit with headaches within minutes of one another. It was only a few minutes later that the nausea hit, at which alarm bells went off. We switched off the oven and opened all the windows and doors, and about 20 minutes later everyone felt much better. We had the oven cleaned the next AM, and annually thereafter.

                I am now a serious advocate for regular annual cleaning. Sure it costs money, but it can literally save lives.

                by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

                •  ovens much more likely problem than furnaces

                  Kitchen oven/ranges are much more likely to induce high levels of CO than furnaces -- they are often unvented, they are designed for impingement and often have incomplete combustion, and they get dirtier much faster.  If you start cooking food in your furnace, then I'd clean it every year, otherwise I wouldn't.

                  by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:18:48 PM PDT

                •  Saw something similar recently

                  During an energy audit I helped out on, we measured CO in combustion products of a gas range at seven thousand ppm.

                  Maybe it was psychosomatic, but we started feeling kind of headachey while measuring the burners.  I'm willing to believe there was a real effect.

                  Recommendations to fix stuff like that, of course, come first in priority when the audit recommendations are made, with best bang-for-buck efficiency improvements following.

                  by by foot on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:09:24 PM PDT

        •  Geothermal facts II

          "Outside equipment -- used to geothermal that is used also for air conditioning, which does normally use an outdoor exchanger ... right"

          I'm replacing one HVAC setup with another. Neither system needs "outside equipment".

          "There is a "value" for something that has higher reliability and higher durability."

          Current gas system is very reliable.  Cost of maintenance is about the same for both systems. Geothermal is actually a bit more complex but maintenance costs between them are negligible so no added savings for ROI calcs.

          "Your maintenance costs are low, IMHO"

          They are real world which is usually the best place to obtain costs. I can't pretend the current system costs more or the new system less if I am going to get accurate numbers.

          "The energy savings are after tax money. Investment money is before tax."

          Nope...because the geothermal system costs include tax credits which I don't get unless I pay taxes.  Taxes on income on the other hand are in the future and may or may not  occur.

          Only by looking at actually costs and real ROI can one address current government policy (tax and regulatory) regarding the person's question about doing an energy retrofit on a home.

          Current costs and tax policy help but generally a home retrofit to cut energy by 50% will have a slight negative ROI.

          We need to change that policy, not pretend it doesn't exist.

          by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:52:24 PM PDT

  •  RE Home Enegy Audit ...

    France, as of 1 Oct 2006, requires all home sales to have a current (? definition of current) home energy audit.

    by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:08:31 AM PDT

•  I sure would like

  A tax credit or some sort of subsidy for a windmill (wind generator) for my home. Right now we use passive solar and wood for heat, but have electric baseboard heaters for backup. We are looking into getting a windmill and feeding into our electric lines to offset our total electricity use, but it really is expensive.

  Solar energy seems to warrant tax relief in New York State, but wind is not yet eligible. We've put off getting a windmill for years now, hoping for the technology to get better and less expensive (which it has, since we bought our windy little place in 1979), and hoping that the government would be happy to get us into green energy enough to give us some tax relief. No such luck as of yet...How can I help to make that happen?

  by DianeNYS on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

  •  Vote OUT the damned repugs! n/t

    by danz on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:51:49 PM PDT

  •  yes it would be nice if homeowners

    were offered the same tax advantages as commercial energy sellers and users. see how MACRS  accelerated depreciation works for business.

    the wiki also has a lengthy article on MACRS and depreciation, generally.

    question: doesn't NY provide property tax relief for renewable system installation? can't locate the link just yet ... probably a LIPA reference ... great info at that site ... i think the glitch is that a muncipality is also allowed to exempt itself on a vote.

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:25:14 PM PDT

•  How can you figure the upfront cost

  of solar panels?  I've been all over the websites, but can't find a means to calculate what the installation would be?

  by marykk on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:44:22 AM PDT

  •  Installation costs ...

    are an iffy proposition ... roughly ... VERY ROUGHLY ... count on anything between $2500 and $10k for something like a 3 kw, net connected system.  The $2500 is a pretty good deal and, well, anything above $10k for a system in 'normal' circumstances outrages me.

    Very roughly, a 3kilowatt system can be bought for $20k (range) ... If you buy at that range, an installed system would be $22.5k to $30k.  

    But, then, there are tax benefits.

    And, well, solar PV can be a DIY ...

    But, these are 'off the top of the head' figures/concepts. Others can chime in.

    by A Siegel on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:55:48 AM PDT

  •  Homepower.com

    Has a pdf document that has some calculations and a worksheet.

    http://www.homepower.com/

    by mem from somerville on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:49:01 AM PDT

  •  How to calculate solar electric cost/payback.

    Start here.

    Grid Tie Calculator - Requires IE/Active X browser.

    by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:17:01 PM PDT

  •  Solar system costs

    Unfortunately, it's not easy to do.

    Panels run from about $3 - $6 per watt. Most common wattage for a panel runs between 150 and 190 watts. The $3/watt amount is only if you find a REALLY REALLY good sale.  Expect closer to $5/watt.

    In general, if you're in an existing on-the grid house, and NOT plan to do a grid intertie, and decide to keep using all your existing appliances and electronics (see list below), then you can expect to need a system 2 - 4 times the size of a system needed by a new off-grid house designed specifically for energy savings. Think about that as you go through the planning process. Before investing in alternative energy, focus on reducing power consumption as much as possible first. You can drastically reduce the cost of the system you need.

    The process:
    Calculate your current electricity use in Kilowatt hours per year.

    The equipment you need will depend on whether you're doing a grid intertie, and whether you want to store excess energy generated on bright days for your own use.

    If you're doing a grid intertie, but do not want to store excess energy, you'll need to decide how much of your consumption you want to offset. Get one (typically 170 - 190 watt) panel for each 100 kwh per year you want to replace. How many watts you need depends on how much sun you get on average and at what angle the sun gets to your panels. Further from the equator means the sunlight has to pass through more atmosphere to reach your panels, and thus reduces the absolute amount of light, so you'll need higher wattage.

    If you're not doing a grid intertie, get one (typically 170 - 190 watt) panel and 2 batteries for each 100 kwh you want to replace.

    You will also need an inverter (converts from DC to AC to run your existing appliances from the batteries) and a battery charger.  Sizing these is difficult - what you need depends entirely on the maximum simultaneous power draw you can expect. Do you have a 5-person house in which people will be running an electric oven, the vacuum cleaner, the washer, the dryer, the TV, 5 lights, a desktop computer with a big monitor, and a hair dryer all at once? If so, you'll need a much larger inverter and more batteries than a 2-person household in which only 2 lights, a laptop, and the coffee maker might be running at once.

    In a grid intertie system, you can use a smaller inverter and battery charger, because the stuff that won't run off of the inverter will draw from the grid instead.

    Here are some common electrical draws:

    • TV
    • Computer(s)
    • The little light bulb on the switch for the power strip your electronics are plugged into
    • Game consoles, mp3 players, electronic organizers, cell phones
    • Video cameras
    • Ceiling lights
    • Table lights
    • Task lights
    • Under- and in-cabinet lights
    • Refrigerator
    • Freezer (standalone)
    • Oven
    • Stove
    • Toaster
    • Toaster oven
    • Microwave
    • Coffee maker
    • Coffee grinder
    • Dishwasher
    • Electric can opener
    • Electric carving knife
    • Alarm system
    • Water pump
    • Clothes Washer
    • Dryer
    • Clocks
    • Radios
    • Electric Razors
    • Hair dryers
    • Curling irons
    • Hair straighteners
    • Clothes steamers
    • Vacuum cleaners
    • Clothes irons
    • Heated towel racks
    • Answering machines
    • ... (anything else that plugs in)

    Go through every single room in your house and find every item that needs electricity to function, remeber to dig through every storage space - desks, closets, etc. for things you don't think about (like the cordless drill).

    Look at the label that tells you the wattage. Multiply that by an estimate of the number of hours that item is actively running per day (this is called watt hours per day).  Something that isn't used daily, like the cordless drill, take the number of hours it's used in a typical year and divide by 365.

    Add all of the items up. Multiply that by 365 days. This will probably give you a number larger than 1000. Each 1000 watt hours is a kilowatt hour.

    Now divide your result by 1000, that's the number of kilowatt hours you use as a household in a year.

    Hint: This should be pretty close to what it says on your electric bill. ;-)  If not, you'll either need to look for more users of electricity in your house or revise your hourly estimate up or down (depending on whether your number was high or low).

    When estimating, it's helpful to think about how some things work. Your refrigerator probably only runs 8 - 12 hours a day (when you hear the motor kick in, then it's running, otherwise it's just hanging out, being cold inside). Older refrigerators tend to run more hours. Air conditioners tend not to run at full power the whole time they're on - part of the time it's just the fan that's running. Light bulbs generally use 100% of their wattage while on (sometimes they can use a little extra, sometimes a little less, but on average, they use 100%).

    Some ways to save energy:

    • Anything that can be turned on with a remote is actually partially on even when it's off - it needs to be able to detect the command from the remote. Usually these things live together: the TV, DVD player, cable box, VCR, etc.; the computer, its monitor, and the modem. Plug the whole group into a power strip that can be turned off. Better yet, plug the power strip into an outlet that is controlled by a wall switch, so you won't be tempted to leave it on because it's inconvenient to reach the switch on the power strip. Turn the switch off whenever you're not using those items.
    • Use compact fluorescents or LED lights everywhere.
    • Examine your lighting and try to identify places where a single light could light more than one work/living space, then put a light there and use it instead of the multiple lights you were using.
    • Give up toast and throw out your toaster.
    • Use cold water for your laundry whenever possible (diapers would be an obvious exception).
    • Install indoor and outdoor clothes lines, if possible, and use them instead of the dryer as much as possible.
    • Replace inefficient appliances and electronics with efficient ones.

    Next, determine what you can do without and whether there are ways to approximate the function of wasteful items with non-wasteful items.

    Go over the entire list of electrical objects, item by item, and brainstorm ways to replace or eliminate them.

    Be creative!

    Some examples: our "stereo" is now an iPod with some high-end computer speakers, instead of a big receiver, cd player, tape deck, and 100 watt speakers. We watch DVDs on our laptops, with the same speakers computer speakers, and got rid of the TV altogether. We switched from desktop computers to laptops (really old crappy ones, but they do what we need). News comes from the internet. Our coffee maker is now a coffee press in combination with either the stove, the microwave, or the woodstove, depending on what's running at coffee-making time.

    Go on an all-out reduction binge for 6 months, then recalculate. This is probably closer to what you really need for electricity.

    That's when you should size your system. You can save 10% to 50% of the system cost by being aggressive about eliminating electrical use first.

    The installation cost will depend entirely on the going rate in your area. Places with lots of demand and few installers have dramatically higher installation costs than places with low demand and more installers.

    Systems for people who insist on keeping everything and not doing an intertie - are looking at $20,000 and up(sometimes way up). In contrast, people who choose to work really hard on reducing energy demand are seeing $10,000 systems.

    by mataliandy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

    •  Really excellent comment. n/t

      by by foot on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:13:40 PM PDT

  •  try this for size, too

    MrSolar.com, excludes installation but has some helpful info geared to kWh and geography.

    Home Efficiency Tester Dave sketched one half of the value proposition for his home here. the other half is calculating payback period: min investment less (i) fed rebate (ii) state rebate (iii) your monthly retail $/kWh (iv) monthly loan payment, if any (v) "green tag" net meter revenue, if any (check your utility for info)

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:57:17 PM PDT

  •  another calc reference and note

    i've noticed that in my last post, xaxnar provided this NY energy agency site powernaturally.org. the simple calculator is here. the "hidden" numerical assumptions are average $/kWh capacity and NY utility rates. (these amounts cannot be changed.) however, they validate mr.solar retail $/kWh minimum investment very nicely.

    state but not fed credits, generally, include certified installation costs. imo, certification implies a market guarantee for labor and competitve pricing ($/hr) of labor for the guarantee.

    if a state does not certify the total cost, solar installation quality and costs are likely to vary widely. buyer ignorance, a/k/a arbitrage, is expensive. this rule of thumb would apply in any system replacement market.

    by MarketTrustee on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:35:52 AM PDT

    •  Thanks n/t

      by marykk on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

•  A quick Target

  Energizers,

  Efficiency is often a tough sell, because the beneficiaries of effciency (for example, consumers) come at the expense of those selling the electricity. There is no incentive for energy producers (especially those who manufacture electricity, and who are often at odds with those who distribute electricity) to support this activity. And for those selling obsolete, energy inefficient products like the incandescent bulb..well they know their factories are toast, and they are just in a "milk it" mode. As for the workers in them...nit looking good, either.

  And yes, there are lots of jobs to be made in retrofitting homes (just the insulation and upgrading of windows..), but this is largely a function of the price of energy (especially oil and natural gas for heat, and electricity for the Air Conditioners). And it only seems to apply to home owners, as reneters...they are one the bottom of the food chain in this situtation, and at the mercy of the kindness or lack of kindness of their landlords.

  Anyway, how to kickstart things, and get the most bang for the buck, or for the legislation. Some suggestions:

  1. Lighting - tax the incandescent bulb out of existance, and fast. Provide ~ $1 billion in loan guarantees to manufacturers who will replace their obsolete product manufacturing IN THIS COUNTRY with new ones that make CFL's and related LED's.

  2. Put a tax on air conditioners proportional to both their energy efficiency and their capacity. Put those energy star ratings to work

  3. Do the same for refrigerators.

  4. For landlords, there is always a possibility of using MACRS (Modified Accelerated Credit Recovery System) tax depreciations for investments in housing insulation over the next 5 years. Use a 2 year 50% depreciation allowance for these improvments.

  5. In conjunction with (4), put a transfer tax on all rental house that are NOT insulated  with respect to walls and attics. This could be approximately 5% of the value of the house/home/small apartment, payable on the sale/deducted from the sale. Insulate and get tax depreciation, or don't insulate and have the net value of the unit sale price deducted/paid to the Federal government. A handy carrot and stick.

  6. Lastly, something needs to be done and solar hot water heaters, which are really appropriate in the southern latitudes, and the "Rodney Dangerfield" of renewable home energy devices (they never get the respect they deserve). Perhaps no new home could be allowed to be constructed without one, else $5,000 would be due the government. That should get the hint across.

  deb9

  by deb9 on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

  •  more sticks, good

    generally, excise tax on sub-par consumer products sold --billed back to manufacturer. i like the revenue, and they are all well subsidized.

    here's the skinny on MACRS. residential is missing, a recurring problem with energy "trickle-down" policy.

    Incentive Type: Corporate Depreciation
    Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric, Solar Thermal Process Heat, Photovoltaics, Wind, Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells, Solar Hybrid Lighting, Direct Use Geothermal, Microturbines
    Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:01:01 PM PDT

  •  What deb9 said. n/t

    by HeyMikey on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:32:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm recalling ...

    ... that Aspen, CO, is starting to require that new homes mansions offset energy use above some threshold with a one-time fee that addresses some of the impacts of the home's GHG emissions.  

    by by foot on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:17:27 PM PDT

•  Solar Hot Water Bill

  • Mandate solar hot water in all new construction by 2010.

  Solar hot water is ready now.  There's a bigger upfront cost, but you save in the long run.  In China the cheapest models are UNDER $200.  

  Read more here:

  http://www.planetark.org/...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by markymarx on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

  •  Not that big up front.

    I have a solar water heater.  Figure it adds $9 per month to the mortgage, but saves at least that much on the utility bills, too.  Saves more as costs of electricity & other energy increase, but the cost of the sun does not.  

    Mine's a pre-heat, and I've got a regular hot water heater, too.  The solar feeds it warm/hot water, which saves on the energy it uses.  Except when it's been overcast for awhile, or early on very cold mornings.

    Different math if the solar's not in the mortgage.  Building codes could require it, then it would go into mortgages henceforth.  Building codes are definitely part of this issue.  A big part.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

    •  nice point

      We have the luxury here on DKOS of supporting simple effective, solutions.  Let's at least make them part of the debate.  But I won't be holding my breath.

      States like California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Hawaii could have done this yesterday if developers and the construction industry didn't run the show.  

      by markymarx on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:46:15 PM PDT

  •  And small solar electric also

    but you are totally right on each home having a solar hot water booster as required equipment.

    Very efficient and current tax credits pay for 50% of installation with good return on investment.

    Construction regulations should mandate 50% more energy efficiency with progressive increase as homes get bigger. Trophy homes would have to spend progressively more to be even more energy efficient.

    It's why Edwards massive new 39,000 sq. foot energy sucking monstrosity was such a PR (and energy disaster).  As is Gore's $30,000 per year utility bill for his old mansion. These guys both demonstrated total ignorance of the energy issue...well...ignorance would be letting them off the hook too easy...they are both rich enough to ignore it.  Both claim they want US energy independence yet if everyone acted as they did, US energy dependence increases.

    by PharLap on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 02:15:14 PM PDT

    •  Gore's elec. use per square foot it reasonable,

      Gore's elec. use per square foot it reasonable, given their likely greater security needs and likely continuous need for heating/cooling, higher energy use in their region (45% higher) from cold winters and hot/humid summers, and an old house. It's no more than 2.3 times the per-square-foot average home in their region.

      Further, Gore purchases green switch blocks, which are actually helpful in building green energy infrastructure in TN, which would pay off many times over in return, over the life cycle of the infrascture such as wind turbines and solar energy systems.

      In addition, his energy consumption is offset by his company. And no, his company Generations Investments doesn't  invest in any activity of carbon offset. They merely pay to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore. So, the rightwing charges of profiteering are bogus and specious.

      Finally, Gore's home is only 10K sq. feet, and as you've noted, Edwards' home some 3 times larger, all told. I's be surprised if Obama's home is too small.

      As we know, you're an Obama supporter. The way you're carry the water for wingnuts against Gore, it makes you no less of a troll than this character that was trolling rightwing lines against obama: Obama: Hypocrite?. I defended Obama there, but looking at your railing against Gore ala wingnuts, I may have to rethink if my spending time defending Obama there and elsewhere is worth the effort.

      Ah yes, youre time would be better spent in defending Obama here (he needs it), than attacking Gore with rightwing talking points.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:31:43 PM PDT

  •  yes, we're short on provisions

    for new construction.

    perhaps this specific makes the most sense to the design of Neighborhood Act financing -- homeowner "energy efficiency" lending and developer easements governed by a bond?

    This program will build on successful precedents around the country, where communities have used bonds to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.  Structured so that the combination of energy savings and renewable energy production exceeds the value of the bond, these programs have enabled communities to invest in a more affordable and more sustainable energy future.

    current EPAct credit is pretty lame for home heating, which probably explains why (according to EIA) most US solar thermal is pool heating.

    The tax credits are for 30% of the cost of the system. For individuals the maximum credit is $2000 for photovoltaic systems and $2000 for solar water heating systems in any tax year. To qualify, residential systems must meet certain criteria as follows:

    • Solar water heating:

    o System must be certified for performance by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or a comparable entity endorsed by the state government in which the system is located. SRCC is an organization set up by the solar industry to test and certify equipment so purchasers have an independent assessment of system performance www.solar-rating.org
    o At least half of the energy used by the system to heat the water must be solar energy. The credit is not available for expenses for swimming pools or hot tubs. TIAP

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:40:32 PM PDT

•  Looking at EA2020 wiki

  and the Act as proposed there has fewer provisions but more specifics within them.  I think the description as diaried is too spare, needs fleshing out.

  The wiki on tax credits, for instance:

  The Home Efficiency Act will also provide a tax credit up to 50% of the cost of energy-related upgrades, based on geographically-specific standards. Examples of qualified repairs and upgrades include: a) Insulation (50% tax credit), b) weather-stripping (50% tax credit) and c) energy-efficient windows (25% tax credit).

  Suggest adding:
  Energy audit - 50% tax credit
  A new max total value, up from $500.  $2,000?

  Wiki also has this idea:

  the distribution of two compact fluorescent lamps via coupons from local utilities to each American household. Homeowners and renters will be encouraged to replace their two most frequently used bulbs and compare the difference in electricity usage the following month.

  Up here in Canada there's an exchange program, also -- turn in an old set of incandescent Christmas lights and you get a gift certificate for LED lights at participating retailers.  Along with a number of other provisions for residences -- I thought I got someone to study it, maybe Adam.  Ontario Conservation Bureau

  Back to the wiki:

  ...Homes purchased with FHA or FmHA loans will be required to meet increasing energy efficiency standards.

  The "energy efficient mortgage/LOC" -- okay -- so these mortgages are held by the gov't itself?

  Low cost loans will be provided through these agencies to help finance necessary upgrades, ensuring that the lower economic end of the home-buying spectrum will not be disadvantaged through homes that are cheaper to buy but costly to heat and cool.

  I think this should be means tested, so that only the lower end can get both a loan like this and the tax credit.

  How would "Public-private Partnership in Energy Saving Education" work?

  "State- and federal-owned Housing Investment" -- means what -- upgrading old?  Energy efficiency requirements for new?  Both?

  "EA Neighborhood Act Maintenance of Effort" -- what is this?

  by Karen Wehrstein on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:52:47 AM PDT

  •  BTW MarketTrustee

    Where's your tip jar?  We want to throw a little something clanky in it.

    by Karen Wehrstein on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:54:44 AM PDT

  •  good reinforcement

    my last post review the , and provide state and fed illustrations. most of answers are in that post.

    to recap: incentives are lax, and the feds must get serious about standard setting:

    1. FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, EPA/DOE, USDA, and the VA already insure energy efficiency loans. state agencies and commercial lenders market them. loans are means tested. the thing is rates plus points vary by state, and means testing cuts a big chunk OUT of the feasible market for home improvement.

    2. public-private Partnership in ...Education. old: CFL promotion. new: fed funds to match state and utilities' promotional budgets (CFLs, appliances, reclamation, etc). they're grossly underfunded but popular ... in "energy competitive" regions.

    3. state- and federal-owned Housing, 27M households: yes. both. what "new"? heh, this is the age of "privitization." seriously though, EAHA focuses on retrofit because of housing age.

    4. Neighborhood Act: refers to bond provision, as requested, tied to EEM product. see answer 1.

    finaly, tax credit allowance: EPAct 30%/project is not enforced now; some states supplement with "rebates" (grants). pushing fed to 50% kinda benchmarks tipping point of greater participation.

    (copyedit point: excluding blockquotes, this diary is about 200 words shy of 2 pg limit.)

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:44:51 AM PDT

    •  Hope you're still here...

      Here is my challenge: to transform this into a striking, compelling two-pager that any schmuck, even a politician, can understand.  That means a minimum of technical jargon, or at least it should be explained.  (We can't make them google everything.)  It also needs to be firm and definite enough that you can use it as the starting point to write actual legislation.

      I don't think just clarifying is needed here, else I could just do it myself.  It needs decisions.  That's either you MT or Adam, correct?  So make them -- asap.

      by Karen Wehrstein on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:42:11 PM PDT

      •  ha! i didn't send you the draft?!

        i will ASAP :)

        we could trash the whole "market legislative landscape section". inserting the "50% tax credit" goes without saying. list of appliances (collected from GAO 20 Dead Categories and recommendations) perhaps -- dingell and boucher commish'd the GAO study.

        but i sincerely hope you won't recommend payback calculations for each to justify savings. bwah. haven't seen any feedback here yet on regional variation to $/kWh. lordamercy. even the Cost vs Value data need editing!

        say, are appendices allowed ...?

        by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:19:53 PM PDT

  •  tax credits for what?

    Thanks for citing the Wiki so we can see something specific.  

    The Home Efficiency Act will also provide a tax credit up to 50% of the cost of energy-related upgrades, based on geographically-specific standards. Examples of qualified repairs and upgrades include: a) Insulation (50% tax credit), b) weather-stripping (50% tax credit) and c) energy-efficient windows (25% tax credit).

    I like the idea of upping the tax credits, but have a couple of comments.  1) there should not be tax credits for weatherstripping (if that is really a category..) since it's air sealing that really saves energy while weatherstripping has a fairly minor effect and is an easy and cheap DIY measure.  2) Tax credits for windows should be capped at maybe $10/window, certainly not increased to 25% of window cost.  the savings from window replacements are generally quite small -- less than those from air sealing -- and yet the cost is often huge.  It doesn't make sense to me to give someone a $2000 tax credit on an $8000 home improvement that most likely will result in energy savings of less than $100/year.  

    by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:56:14 AM PDT

•  Resources

   I ran across this several days ago.

  NYSERDA PowerNaturally website

  Even if you don't live in New York State, there's lots of useful info here.
  For example: State and Federal Tax Credits for Renewable Energy
  Or calculating Cost of and Savings From a photovoltaic system

  Dig around on the site - there's lots of goodies in there and links to many more.

  by xaxnar on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:17:21 AM PDT

•  One concept to mention

  There's lot of interest in alternative energy - but more efficient energy use has a multiplier effect on saving whatever energy is consumed.

  by xaxnar on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

•  specific feedback (kinda long)

  Turns out, since the oil shock of the '70s, the market and our government have relied more on "energy saving" than "energy efficient" measures to meet GHG policy goals

  Can you explain the difference between "energy savings" and "energy efficient" and why energy savings are to be ridiculed?

  Energy saving trends reveal lagging consumer confidence in high-value, efficiency projects. In 2001, electricity accounted for 65% of energy consumption, of which 42% was attributed to non-durable appliances such as home entertainment equipment, swimming pool pumps, and  lighting.[1] Since, EnergyStar labelling has helped consumers select energy saving appliances, reducing their share of utility expenses to 34%.[2] In 2005, estimated share of heating (space and water), ventillation, and cooling (HVAC) remained unchanged at 58% of the bill.

  I don't think anything in the paragraph supports the 1st sentence and it should be deleted anyway because the stats cited are either wrong or misinterpreted.  The 42% of res. electric in 2001 for appliances and lighting was actually 51% according to your own link (42% appliance, 9% lighting).  The 34% figure you cite in the next sentence is 34% of total energy usage, not electric usage, so it's apples and oranges -- not comparable to the 42% (really 51%).  The 58% share for HVAC over time doesn't tell us anything.  The changes in the proportion of energy use going to different end uses over time tells us  little since they won't change if there were equal efficiency improvements and they are also affected strongly by other changes (e.g., more new construction in the sun belt in recent years means bigger AC loads and smaller heating loads).

  These investors, like non-governmental and HUD researchers, are aware that retrofit or replacement immediately adds 20% of market value to their equity positions.[3]

   
  I think the 1st citation estimates a value increase equal to 20 years of energy savings (debatable), not 20% of market value.  

  Indeed, according to the 2005 American Housing Survey, there are 108M occupied homes. Some 80% of renters, 27M households, live in subsidized housing.

  Actually, it is 80% that do NOT live in subsidized housing (typo?)

  State agencies and local utility companies have instituted grant ("rebate") programs to promote energy efficiency appliances and fuel type replacement. Popular programming is concentrated in competitive electricity markets ("deregulated states"). These programs are unable to match demand due to underfunding

  Can you cite some examples of state home energy efficiency rebate programs that ran out of money.  Most programs I know of have been trying to build market share and have advertised extensively, I'd be curious about the details of the ones that are oversubscribed.  

  I'm also wondering what the specific proposed legislation is...

  Enforcing Energy Saving Standards:  does this include creating new standards for many products not yet covered (e.g., those listed in reports at ASAP)

  Expanding tax credits -- how much?  what limits?  what qualifies?

  by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:37:23 AM PDT

  •  um

    my grammar must be as bad as my typing, but it would be helpful if you read some of the notes in entirety.

    both figures reported electricity consumption. and the RECS2001 note explains how DOE, not i, denotes various appliances in its pie charts of "average" end-use.

    i don't disagree with much of what you say, but i don't have room for chart detail. also i'm not "ridiculing" energy savings. i make a distinction to point out what is and what is not enforceable.

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:13:44 PM PDT

    •  sorry, but it's you that needs to read

      Your first citation is to the RECS 2001 table.  The final column of that table shows 8.8% for lighting and 42.2% for "Other Appliances", that's 51% combined.  The title of those columns is "Electricity Consumption for 2001".  

      Now let's look at link 2, EERE shows a pie chart with 34% for "appliances and lighting", the chart is labeled "How we use energy in our homes".  So it may not be entirely clear to you that it means all energy, not just electric (although it would be clear if you look how big heating is).  But if you click on the source link for the pie chart to the Building Energy Databook , you see that the percentages in the pie are for total energy usage, not just electric.

      BTW, I still don't understand difference between energy savings and energy efficiency...

      by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:23:34 PM PDT

    •  almost forgot to mention

      Also, perhaps an even bigger problem with your electric vs. all energy comparison is that the electric percentages are of electric usage (kWh) while the all energy pie chart (link 2) is energy expenditures, not usage (and not just electric).  

      by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:29:53 PM PDT

      •  RECS 2001 energy detail

        at the link is a note Figure 1. i did compare "appliances and lighting" in both ratios. (eia source link under chart is dead)

        doesn't matter, 'cause i looked up the table 2.4.1 here (which is dated 2004) and compared that to AHS 2005 pdf data and a bunch of other one-off eia tables to find same year data.

        but the point is this: energy saving is not found only electric appliances. (NG tied electricity) contribution to HH utility costs are effectively constant (and rising, regionally) on account of main heating fuel type (NG and electricity) and equipment inefficiency.

        i illustrated the net effect of HVAC high-eff in a comment last week re: ASAP/ACEE

        by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:04:55 PM PDT

        •  again, read closer

          Your figure 1 link just confirms what I've been saying all along.  The appliances are 42% and the lighting is 9%, so combined they are 51% of electric use in 2001.    Also, the table is 4.2.1 (which is the link from the pie), not 2.4.1, and that table clearly states that it is total energy expenditures -- it is not electric usage.  Please read it.

          Your "point" is not demonstrated by any of these statistics, even if they were correct.  The aggregate percentage of electric usage devoted to appliances or to cooling or heating or how those percentages have changed over time doesn't tell us anything about how efficient those end use appliances are.

          by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:57:12 PM PDT

          •  thank you, 51% in 2001

            instead of 42%. table 4.2.1 (xcel) details appliance use by fuel type (SEDS unadjusted) and adds  to 34%. forgive my typo on the label and desire, simply, to cut to the chase, given EIAs inability to reconcile its methodologies.

            to what do you attribute change in EIA's electricity consumption metric, if not appliance efficiency?

            by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:20:40 PM PDT

            •  well-we don't really know

              First, I still can't get 34% from table 4.2.1 no matter how I slice it up.  

              Second, the table is EXPENDITURES, not usage.  Therefore it will slant things in odd ways.  Electric rates vary around the country in non-random ways correlated with end uses.  Places with cheap electricity have much more electric heat, etc..  You can't take two numbers that measures different things ( dollars and kwh) in different ways at different times and expect to draw a clear conclusion.  

              Even if the numbers were comparable, they would not address the efficiency issue.  The number of miscellaneous end uses is increasing -- more cell phones, computers, HD cable boxes, massive TVs, video games, chargers of every type,etc..  At the same time, turnover of air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers has been increasing the efficiencies of those end uses, but air conditioning is becoming more common in colder climates.  The market share of electric vs. gas heat is shifting in response to marketing, relative prices, etc..  There are too many things going on to attribute such gross figures to one thing.

              by NRG Guy on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:40:14 PM PDT

              •  you may be pleased to know that

                there's a query in the title at Table. 1, which puportedly informs Table.1 .I didn't see that this weekend. last night, i was going through to fact check Fig. 1.

                instead I downloaded-- again, iirc -- series CE1 2001 to double-check US average expenditure 2001 against US average consumption 2001 against T.4.2.1. there is unaccounted kWh in the estimations -- 4,200 kWh as far as I can tell, given national 10,656 kWh per household.

                i think faster than i post sometimes. i'm sure i distributed the remainder to HVAC, given AHS fuel data 2001, 2004. it would be good to have team effort on quant.

                this cascading error exercise would be funny, if every *.org in the world were not using the data to promote energy efficiency.

                by MarketTrustee on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:14:42 PM PDT

  •  yes, typo. thanks.

    20% of renters, 6.8M, live in subsidized housing, specifically state- or fed-owned or managed properties and excluding institutional and dormitory housing.

    incidentally, table 1A-4 of AHS 2005 details main heating equipment of all owner and renter occupied housing. CAC and warm-air furnace dominate both household segments. i'll add a note to the final doc.

    enforcement: DOE's 20 categories, ASAP's 15 reco's. a 2pp EA slick does not allow for explanation of reform of DOE phased rule processing (see GAO on 36 mo. lag) or minimum EF for each application. and it would be redundant, given the amount of literature to this effect in the public domain.

    but we certainly can put the word "reform" to better effect.

    by MarketTrustee on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:56:58 PM PDT

•  Always more to check out ...

  For example, see all the programs linked here ...

  HGTV has a discussion of how "Energy Efficiency Saves Money"

  A new certification program aims to promote energy-efficient homes by encouraging lenders to shave a half-point off the mortgage rate.

  The Freedom Seal program, announced in early May, is the latest effort to persuade homeowners to put energy savings near the top of their wish list when they buy or renovate their houses. So far, the program has signed up one participating lender, Advantage Capital Funding in Houston, which says it will cut half a percentage point off mortgages for borrowers