The highlights:

-The bill will stimulate construction, create jobs, and reduce carbon emissions.
-Home Star is expected to fund home comfort and energy upgrades for 3 million families, create 168,000 new jobs, and save consumers $9.2 billion on energy bills over the next 10 years!
-$6 billion will be provided for energy-efficient or “green” retrofits.
-Houston Neal cut through all the legalese and put all the requirements and rebate amounts for the 13 different kinds of retrofit measures in an easy to understand table.
-Eligible retrofit measures include:

• Air sealing
• Attic insulation
• Duct replacement and sealing
• Wall insulation
• Crawl space or basement insulation
• Window replacement
• Door or skylight replacement
• Heating system replacement
• Air-source air conditioner or heat pump insulation
• Geothermal heath pump installation
• Water heater replacement
• Storm windows or doors installation
• Window film installation
• Home energy management system (Gold Star)
• High-efficiency appliances (Gold Star)
• Highly reflective roofing, awnings, canopies, and similar external fenestration (window) attachments (Gold Star)
• Automatic boiler water temperature controllers (Gold Star)
• Energy-efficient wood products (Gold Star)
• Insulated vinyl siding (Gold Star)
• Mechanical air circulation and heat exchangers in a passive-solar home (Gold Star)

-There will be 2 package rebate programs:

• Silver Star: $3,000 in maximum rebates, or 50% of the total cost–whichever is lower
• Gold Star: To qualify, homeowners must reduce their total home energy consumption by 20%; a $3,000 rebate will be awarded for this reduction.  Additional $1,000 rebate for each additional 5% reduction, up to a total rebate of $8,000 or 50% of the total retrofit cost.

How can Ecofutures help?  We can help you navigate the Home Star option as soon as it’s available in addition to many other financial options that are currently available (including existing state and utility rebates, tax incentives, and the Energy Star Mortgage).  We can also handle all of the upgrade work to your home.  Our new subsidiary, EcoSmart Homes specializes in home comfort & energy upgrades, so give us a call to take the first step–scheduling an energy audit!

Modular/Pre-Fabricated/Off-Site Built Homes | $150-$200 per square foot

Modular homes today are a far cry from the trailer homes of old. While the process is the same – they are factory-built so costs are cut by streamlining the process down to an assembly line – they can be designed to be indistinguishable from a stick-built home.  In addition to highly-advanced techniques to maximize energy efficiency in the finished product, these homes often have a much lighter environmental impact because waste is reduced in the building process. And, because they are literally delivered to the job site in some finished state, there is very little construction waste, or the need to disturb soils extensively. One of the best features of an off-site built home is the time needed to “build” the home on-site – it’s cut nearly in half!

if you’re considering such a home, we recommend Boulder-based Solar Village Homes. Their off-site built homes start at about $150 PSF and are beautifully-designed and well-priced. Plus, your home would be manufactured locally, keeping materials, labor, and transportation all in Colorado! Check out the pre-designed models here, but keep in mind that they can take any design and have it produced in the factory to your exact specifications.

The popular magazine, Modular Today, is a great resource for this kind of building and can also give you a list of other manufacturers, pricing, and design ideas, too.

NREL’s Habitat for Humanity Home Model | $95 per square foot

In 2005 the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) successfully completed its first zero net energy Habitat for Humanity home in Wheat Ridge, Colorado.  The home continues to perform competitively to our high-end custom zero net energy homes! At $95 per square foot (PSF) for 1,200 SF (including a solar electric system!), it is a great example of what can be accomplished when budget is the primary driver.

NREL published a technical case study on the home that includes a detailed cost analysis. The case study contains many of the keys to low cost/high-efficiency building (how to weigh out the trade-offs for the best thermal, comfort and energy systems benefit).  More information can be found on the NREL website.

Low-Income Housing Models | $100 per square foot

There are architects out there that specialize in low-income housing building design that, by law, has to hover around the $100 per square foot range.  Try looking at some low-income housing developments to get ideas on how to cut costs without cutting luxury, and check out the architects who designed them.  They may be willing to sell you a set of prints to build your own home.  One example of a neighborhood like this is the Holiday Neighborhood in Boulder, Colorado.

Finally, if you’re serious about trying to build your home for around $100 per square foot, we highly recommend that you read the book entitled “The perfect $100,000 house” by Karrie Jacobs. The book is a chronicle of Jacobs’ 14,000 mile mile cross-country trip in search for the perfect $100,000 house.  It’s an adventure trying to find creative ways to cut costs to build your very own dream zero energy home, but the book proves that it can be done.  Have fun, and get in touch with us if you need help!

We recently got an inquiry from an Ecofutures fan in Maine about the topic of solar heat sinks. We’ve received many similar inquiries through the years, so I thought I’d write a post about it. As anyone knows, Colorado’s climate is different than most other areas of the U.S. We enjoy 300 days of sun per year on average. In places like Maine, that average is only about 200. That means roughly half the year the sun is hidden behind clouds. Therefore, relying on the sun to heat water in a storage tank for Colorado’s occasional cloudy cold snaps like we do in our homes doesn’t make as much sense.

Rather, what I’d recommend is looking into geo solar options like large sand beds under the house.  An article we found written by Don Stephens, InA (www.greenershelter.org) explains annualized geo solar heating for temperate climates very well.

View full article

Photo courtesy of: http://greengaragedetroit.com

By Eric Doub, Ecofutures Founder & CEO

Facts should matter, but even the headline was wrong: With all but a few exceptions, these zero net energy homes are ON the grid. The utility grid provides the storage.

This savings on electricity storage is partly how we have created net zero energy homes and proven their performance for 7% more than a comparable custom home would have cost. For clients we are about to build a home costing 5% — yes, five percent — more for the net zero energy equipment and features that future-proof the property, with energy bills now and forever next to nothing. It will also be the most comfortable home they have ever lived in, with a hot tub and all the amenities.

No matter what decade of this century, and no matter what fossil fuels cost, these homes will be humming along. Comfort, health, durability, value. These benefits are what people want in their homes anyway. Why build or remodel to provide 8 mpg homes? Affordability is P.I.T.I. plus Energy & Water. Ask what is cost-neutral: How much more will I pay per month for my high-performing home’s mortgage, and how much less will I pay in energy?

The equation is often cash flow positive from day one. Take this example:

The 2005 Habitat/NREL house in Denver has at least 4,500 kWh EXTRA on its meter by now. The single mother of two living in that house has powered her house almost for free for 3.5 years, and if she had had an electric vehicle, she could have driven that car about 15,000 miles for free. THAT is affordable housing. How much more did that home cost than a comparable Habitat house? 8% — eight percent. Facts should matter.

Retrofitting buildings for carbon neutrality? We have done it.

Creating homes that produce more energy than they use, so your electric vehicle is also powered by the sun? We have done it.

I like to think back to 2004 and imagine I said,

“Look, we know it’s never been done. But we are going to design and build a home in a cold climate, all-electric with no wood burning, that produces more energy than it uses for the year. Energy bills will be next to nothing. It will use commonly available materials and standard building practices. It will cost about 7% more than a conventionally built custom home and have a hot tub and steam shower and flat screen TV and be 4,500 sf.”

But that is what we accomplished. Performance has been publicly proven. Learn about it here. Much of the information not in the Post article today can be found there. For those interested in facts, this website can very likely answer the questions and correct the falsehoods in these postings.

“Can BIG be green?” is a question that we are continually asking ourselves.  Here are some of our thoughts, prompted by an emailed concern by a web visitor:

If you claim to be a zero net energy, environmentally conscious builder, how can you promote a home that is over 9,000 square feet?  Such a home is neither ‘responsible’ nor ‘environmentally friendly’ – to be such, it should have both a small carbon footprint and physical footprint.

I have given much thought to this topic, and share the same concerns, but when asking about environmental impacts, is size of home the only factor to consider?

In the case of this 9,000 sf home, we did not determine the size.  We were the consultants on energy and comfort systems.  Through our efforts, it became possible for the home to be a net energy producer by about 150% — enough to power the entire house and also drive an all-electric vehicle some 24,000 miles per year.  We achieved this using standard materials, off-the-shelf technologies, and commonly understood methods easily repeatable by construction trades.

How many years will it take for the carbon emissions from the construction of a larger home compared to a smaller home to be made up for by the larger home being a net energy producer, being net carbon negative?  This kind of thing has been calculated.  Of course, if people can be influenced to build a smaller home by the principles in the Not So Big House series, that’s a better place to start.

My own background in renewables and efficiency dates to the early 1980s, and when I see people building homes that could comfortably house dozens of people, many questions arise.  One is:  If a home of any size is to be built, how do we measure its impacts?

RMI’s Green Footstep is a good place to start, to assess ecological footprint.  Running that 9,000 sf home through such an assessment, or those of Scientific Certification System’s life cycle impact systems would likely result in some discouraging figures.

Yet I look at the 1,200 sf Habitat/NREL 2005 net zero energy home in Denver, a home that is a net energy producer to the extent that the single mother of two who lives there could have driven 15,000 miles for free if she had had an electric vehicle these last three years, and I have to ask how many planets would be required if half the people in China had a stand-alone, suburban home like that.  Size alone does not determine ecosystems and climate impacts.  Carrying capacity and LCIA analyses do.

If one building is constructed using building science best practices, and by proper energy and water and air and moisture management is made to last hundreds of years, whereas one smaller building is built to last 50 years, then there is an interesting comparison to consider.  Durability is a crucial component of sustainability.  So is universal design, so that layout works for people in all stages of life and for future generations’ tastes and needs.  Smaller homes that people don’t want to keep as they are can generate more severe environmental impacts than larger homes that remain unchanged over long periods of time (because they are built to last, be operated with energy bills next to nothing, and because they serve the residents’ needs and meet their desires).

(When people build these large homes, I like to joke that it is all in order:  When the coasts flood some decades from now and refugees stream inland to Colorado, these prairie mansions will be ready to accommodate 20 to 30 people — and be operated as net carbon neutral!  For such net-zero energy residences the challenge will not be energy, but fresh water.)

The principles and practices in this Showcase for Carbon Neutrality are applicable to homes of any size in any climate.  With this HERS 0 home being publicly verified by real-time, online energy and home performance monitoring systems, the bar will be set quite high for the building industry.  We already did this with our flagship project, Solar Harvest.  This next project is to go one significant step further:  Not only be net zero energy on a site basis, but also be a net producer, AND have all materials and methods pushed through the stringent filters of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (we were on track to hire SCS to lead this analysis).  Eco-effectiveness, not eco-efficiency.

Many people have criticized this new regulation stating that it imposes unfair financial burdens as a result of the extra expenditures required for renewable energy systems.  Eric Doub presented his perspective that BuildSmart does not cost more during this debate.  You can request to view Eric’s presentation and useful handouts on the topic by contacting us.

I was recently asked by a writer for GreenBuild Magazine whether green-built, high performance homes have encountered any difficulty when being appraised under conventional appraisal standards.  Here is an excerpt from my email response:

Our high-performing homes have not had any appraisal issues.  Solar Harvest was appraised for $1.45 million in June 2006.  Standard comps were used, and the appraised value was not increased or decreased based on the home being the highest Energy Star rated home in Colorado (of 30,000 homes tested).  Of course I am biased in thinking that this home, Solar Harvest, where I live with my family, should be appraised higher because it is nationally known and one of the only homes in North America be have publicly verified performance as being zero net energy (that it produces as much energy as it uses in a year — and in fact, Sept. 07 – Sept. 08, we had 1,100 kWh EXTRA on the net meter…meaning the home was a net producer).

Also, the home is all-electric and there is no natural gas meter.  This might be considered by some buyers to be a safer home, but this benefit is not reflected in the appraisal (but could be in the insurance; I need to check that).

I believe that as energy prices rise and carbon management becomes a fact of life (federal cap and trade, state goals for emissions, local building codes), then homes with energy bills near zero will sell better and for more than homes with energy bills in the hundreds or thousands of dollars per month.  Why wouldn’t a future-proofed home be more valuable to buyers?  I think that day is not far off.

Also, these homes are simply built better — with healthier materials, leading to better air quality — in the “Build Tight, Ventilate Right” whole systems approach.  People appreciate the comfort and safety of our super-efficient homes.  I think that such benefits will show up in appraisals as more such homes get built, lived in, bought and sold.  My professional goal is to become average — for our work to become mainstream, unremarkable.  When that happens, appraisals will haven caught up too.

Be sure to also check out our Solar Harvest verification page and live data monitoring page to learn more about our net-energy producing home.

View full article

The home’s contribution of 197 kWh of renewable energy to the grid prevented 1289 lbs of carbon from being produced at Xcel’s power plant. Taking into account the carbon emissions from the 36 therms used for cooking and clothes drying, Solar Harvest missed designation as a net-zero emissions home by a mere 124 lbs of carbon. This difference in can easily be offset by the purchase of RECs; a single purchase of $5.50 through CarbonFund.org will offset 8 times the amount due.

Through the purchase of a very small amount of RECs, Solar Harvest also successfully met the definition of a net-zero-annual source energy home. Alone, the building missed the source-energy mark by 1%. The deficit of kWh causing the home to miss the definition can be attributed to the normal process of learning about how to best manage the home’s energy consumption and production – specifically, in this case, of the 360-gallon outdoor spa heating with electricity, an unintended event at the start of the year, when the solar loop was first being hooked up and started.

Based on the knowledge gained in the home’s first year and the future implementation of accurate monitoring systems, Solar Harvest is expected to meet and exceed the NZEH benchmark by a wide margin in the years to come.