Energy Star and Home Star programs for energy-efficient homes

EPA Kicks Off Nationwide “Green Capitals” Initiative

Summary of article by GreenerBuildings Staff, 6/22/2010
http://www.greenbiz.com/epa-kicks-off-nationwide-green-capitals-initiative?utm_source=GreenBuzz&utm_campaign=1f92881ad1-GreenBuzz-2010-06-14&utm_medium=email

The Greening America's Capitals initiative aims to help state capitals design and develop more sustainable neighborhoods -- ones that incorporate green building and infrastructure to foster social, economic and environmental benefits. It’s a collaborative project involving the EPA, HUD and the U.S. Department of Transportation and one that HOT can endorse.

Under the program, design teams provided and funded by the EPA are to work with selected cities to transform neighborhoods into models of sustainability. As many as four capital cities will be selected to participate each year, so it’s a competitive process. The capitals chosen for the inaugural year will be announced in the fall.

In their 78th annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, the mayors approved numerous resolutions on energy and the environment, including measures supporting policy and efforts to make communities -- and the buildings in them -- greener. For Austin, Texas to become a model of sustainability for the State and the Nation, rather than an environmental embarrassment, HOT believes the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must become more pro-consumer.

The Definitive Guide To The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010

By Software Advice (800-918-2764), 06/11/2010
http://www.softwareadvice.com/articles/construction/cash-for-caulkers-the-definitive-guide-to-the-home-star-bill-1061110/

In this well-written paper, Houston Neal does an excellent job of describing H.R. 5019 – also known as the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 or “Cash for Caulkers.” – While the bill, which is intended to kick-start construction, create jobs and cut back carbon emissions, passed the House of Representatives in May, and it still needs to clear the Senate, supporters predict it will pass this summer.

House votes for energy savings rebate program

Summary of article by Jim Abrams, Associated Press, 5/7/10
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/cash-for-caulkers-bill-passes-house-675451.html

The Home Star bill, a program designed to stimulate jobs and energy efficiency, passed 246-161. If enacted as law, it would authorize $6 billion over two years with two parts.

1. The Silver Star program provides upfront rebates up to $3,000 for specific energy-efficient improvements.
2. The Gold Star program would entitle people to up to $8,000 when they conduct comprehensive energy audits and implement measures that reduce energy use throughout their homes by more than 20%.

The “Cash for Caulkers” initiative is separate from an energy tax credit of up to $1,500 that was included in last year’s economic stimulus act.

When “green” means greed: consumers strike back against inflated claims

4/28/10, http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/when-green-means-greed-consumers-strike-back-against-inflated-claims.html

According to research by The Boston Consulting Group, one in six U.S. consumers say they would pay more for a product that is environmentally friendly. One might think that news would be an incentive for companies to actually produce more environmentally friendly products. But some companies seem to think consumers will pay more for products they think are environmentally friendly — whether they are or not. [HOT: Watch out for "green-washing," watch the video below, and read the full story above for details.]

U.S. Government promotes HOME STAR, a cash-for-CAULKERS program to retrofit 5.8 million homes by 2012

November 25, 2009 http://bpi.org/documents/Federal_Program_EE_Retrofits%20.htm

The Building Performance Institute, Inc. (BPI), a nationally recognized standards development and contractor credentialing organization for residential energy efficiency retrofit work, applauds a proposed nationwide residential energy efficiency retrofit program called HOME STAR. The proposed program would provide $23 billion in funding: $18 billion for homeowner incentives, $2 billion for quality assurance audits on efficiency projects and $3 billion for retailer incentives and awareness-building activities.

Texas home buyers are investing in energy-efficient homes

Austin Business Journal, 11/12/2009
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/11/09/daily23.html?ed=2009-11-12&ana=e_du_pub

Texas is a national leader in the number of Energy Star qualified homes in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex ranked second in the country with 103,000 Energy Star homes. San Antonio ranked eighth nationally with 19,000 homes and Austin ranked 14th with 13,000 homes built.

“By making smart energy choices, thousands of Texans are saving millions each year,” says EPA Acting Regional Administrator Lawrence E. Starfield in Dallas. “By taking a few common sense steps to conserve home energy use, we can get the most out of our energy dollars and save on utility bills.”

To earn the Energy Star label, a home must meet strict energy-efficiency standards, including insulation systems, high-performance windows, tight construction and ducts, efficient heating and cooling and energy-efficient lighting and appliances.

Federal Program Aims to Provide Energy Efficiency Retrofits to 5.9 Million Homes by 2012

Proposed HOME STAR program under consideration by the Obama Administration to offer $23 billion in incentives for home performance projects, create 500,000 jobs

November 25, 2009, http://bpi.org/documents/Federal_Program_EE_Retrofits%20.htm

• New York Times - A Stimulus That Could Save Money, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/economy/18leonhardt.html 
• Economix blog - Cash for Caulkers: The Details
  http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/cash-for-caulkers-the-details 

The Building Performance Institute, Inc., (BPI) is the nation's premier building performance credentialing, quality assurance, and national standards setting organization. BPI supports the development of a highly professional building performance industry through individual and organizational credentialing and a rigorous quality assurance program.

BPI offers the following:

• certification of individuals in building analyst, heating, AC/heat pump, shell/envelope, and multi-family designations 
• accreditation of contractors committed to delivering quality, home performance improvements 
• quality assurance to verify conformance to BPI Standards and provide feedback for continuing improvement 
• affiliation of organizations that deliver BPI services in their market 
• open, transparent, consensus developed national technical standards based on sound building science 

BPI, in cooperation with the building performance industry stakeholders, establishes a professional performance bar at a level appropriate to ensuring the consistent delivery of exceptional building performance services for those entrusting the BPI brand. The BPI national expansion is supported by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as, various regional, state, and local programs.

For more information about BPI, visit: www.bpi.org.

Building Performance Institute, Inc.

107 Hermes Road, Suite 110

Malta, NY 12020

Phone: (877) 274-1274

Fax: (866) 777-1274

info@bpi.org

www.bpi.org  

A Stimulus That Could Save Money

By DAVID LEONHARDT, New York Times, 11/17/2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/economy/18leonhardt.html?_r=1

The one highly visible success of the stimulus program has been the cash-for-clunkers program. It induced a boom in vehicle sales this summer that clearly would not have happened otherwise.

HOT: Cash-for-clunkers is a poor comparison since over 80% of the cars would have sold anyway, raising the incremental cost per car to $24,000, per Edmunds.com. 

And the economy still needs help. So White House officials are looking at creating a new version of cash for clunkers — this time for home weatherization.

John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and former President Bill Clinton have separately suggested versions of the idea to the White House. Mr. Doerr calls his proposal, which would give households money to pay for weatherization projects, “cash for caulkers.” Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, told me, “It’s one of the top things he’s looking at.”

The idea has a lot to recommend it. The housing bust has idled contractors and construction workers, who could be put to work insulating homes and caulking air leaks. Many households, meanwhile, would save substantial money — not to mention help the climate — by weatherizing their homes, research by McKinsey & Company has shown. All in all, a cash-for-caulkers program seems like a promising part of the jobs program for 2010 that Mr. Obama has suggested he is planning.

But I would also mention one point of caution: the details of any caulkers plan will matter enormously. Weatherizing a home, as I recently discovered, turns out to be a lot more complicated than buying a car.

This year, my wife and I had an energy audit done on our home. We were interested in finding out if we could save money and, given the attention that weatherizing was starting to get, I figured it could also make for good column fodder. For $400, an auditor spent hours scouring our house, with the help of a big fan he set up in our front door and an infrared camera. He produced a full-color, 13-page detailed report, informing us of the leaks in our house, and he was also willing to tell us which changes were usually a waste of money (new windows).

Even so, we are still trying to figure out which weatherization projects we should do. The whole package would probably cost $4,500 and save us something like $400 a year. We may not stay in the house nearly long enough to justify the investment.

Such concerns are typical. How do you find an auditor? How do you know whether you should seal a few ducts or pay $2,000 for new insulation? Which of the existing subsidies — state and federal — might you qualify for?

HOT: Might we expect special interest lobbyists to argue for subsidies on the easiest and least expensive (and least effective) options? How will the rules be set? Will consumer interests be represented?

Mr. Doerr and Mr. Clinton are well aware of these problems. Mr. Clinton has sent the White House a memorandum written by his foundation staff that lays out the reasons people don’t weatherize their homes. Mr. Doerr, who sits on a board of outside economic advisers to Mr. Obama that is working on a formal cash-for-caulkers proposal, told me that his goal was to “keep it really simple so we can do it really fast.”

The Doerr plan would cost $23 billion over two years. Most of the money would go for incentive payments, generally $2,000 to $4,000, for weatherization projects. The homeowner would always have to pay at least 50 percent of the project’s total cost. About $3 billion would be set aside for retailers and contractors in the hope that they would promote the program, much as car dealerships promoted cash for clunkers. (Mr. Doerr says he owns no stake in any weatherization companies.)

The Clinton plan depends on the reallocation of clean energy money from the stimulus bill that has not yet been spent. It covers not just houses and apartments but also commercial and industrial buildings.

Perhaps most intriguing is its proposal to help homeowners and building owners who are nervous they will end up selling their property before a weatherization project has paid for itself. Under the Clinton plan, they could add the project’s cost to their long-term property tax bill, effectively splitting the cost with the next owner. The New York State Legislature approved such a program on Monday.

HOT: Austin has discussed such a measure, including a loan that’s paid off with higher property taxes.

All these efforts would lead to more weatherization. But I would be surprised if they were enough to create a program as successful as cash for clunkers. Remember: Many homeowners could already save money by weatherizing their homes. And they are not doing so.

That’s in large part because the projects can seem so daunting. To date, energy experts, in the government and the private sector, have not done a good job of distributing useful information. What does exist tends to be either too complicated or too general. I recently asked various experts what percentage of homes should get new insulation, for example, and several replied that it varied by region — which is both true and unhelpful.

Imagine, though, if the Energy Department put together a weatherization-for-dummies fact sheet and Mr. Obama began promoting it.

It could start by noting that almost all homes should have a programmable thermostat (about $100) to turn down the heat or the air-conditioning when nobody is home. Other simple steps can include wrapping a water heater with an insulation blanket and replacing heating and cooling filters. Next on the list would be sealing easily accessible holes in air ducts, which can cost just a few hundred dollars and pay for itself in a few years. In California, the average duct system loses 30 percent of its heating or cooling to leaks.

Finally would come the more complicated categories, including insulation and heating equipment. Yet some basic information could still help enormously here. What share, say, of Midwestern homes built before 1950 could use more attic insulation? How quickly would the insulation pay for itself on average? Every home is different, obviously. But without any reference point, many people won’t be confident enough to plunge into a project.

The shining example that Mr. Clinton cites is a Houston program in which the local government pays about $1,000 to weatherize any home in a given neighborhood. It works in part because the houses need similar improvements, which makes the program easy for residents to understand.

“Unlike traditional programs that provide an audit and a customized package of solutions for each home,” the Clinton memorandum notes, Houston “offers a fixed set of interventions that include climate-appropriate ‘low hanging fruit.’ ”

The bottom line is that cash for caulkers would be trickier than cash for clunkers — yet would have the potential to do far more good. McKinsey, the consulting firm, estimates that households could reduce their energy use by 28 percent over the next decade. In terms of greenhouse gases, that would be the equivalent of taking half of all vehicles in this country off the road.

And unlike many other climate-friendly policies, it would not cost money over the long term. Done right, cash for caulkers would be precisely the kind of stimulus that makes the most sense: spending money now to save money later. 

‘Cash for Caulkers’: The Details

By DAVID LEONHARDT, 11/17/09, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/cash-for-caulkers-the-details/ 

At a meeting of President Obama’s board of outside economic advisers two weeks ago, the venture capitalist John Doerr said the following:

In the very near term, the way we can generate the most jobs, we believe, is through home retrofits…. The way I like to put it is, Cash for Clunkers mobilized all of America’s car dealerships and caused change very rapidly. Well, the equivalent of that for home retrofits would be “Cash for Caulkers,” and what we would do is engage private enterprise, the likes of a Lowe’s or a Home Depot, these organizations that have tens of millions of people a week coming into their storefronts, and use that private capital to incentivize consumers to then work with our out-of-work trades — remodelers, production builders — to do this kind of work.

I wrote about “cash for caulkers” in my column this week — including some of my reservations about it. But it clearly has a lot of potential, and I didn’t have room to get into all of the details of Mr. Doerr’s proposal (which, he emphasizes, is the product of work by a lot of people — including Steve Cowell and Matt Golden). Here are the basics:

·           The official name of the program would be HomeStar, playing off the name Energy Star, a government program that promotes energy-efficient appliances.

·           It would cost $23 billion over two years. Of that, $6 billion would go to incentives to people who did at least two significant weatherization projects — such as air sealing, insulation, new light bulbs and new appliances. HomeStar would have a list of 10 such projects. Households that did at least two would be eligible for up to $2,000. Households that did four would be eligible for up to $3,500. The government money could not pay for more than half of any project.

·         Another $12 billion would be set aside for households that undertook a weatherization project that reduced energy consumption by at least 20 percent. A 20 percent reduction would bring a $4,000 subsidy. Each additional 5 percent reduction would bring another $1,500. Again, government money could not pay for more than half of any project.

·           Some portion of weatherization projects would be audited to ensure they had done what they were supposed to. These audits would be paid for with $2 billion for program administration.

·         The remaining $3 billion for the program would pay for incentives to retailers, like Home Depot and Lowe’s, and contractors. “What you want to be able to do,” Mr. Doerr said, “is walk into Sears or Home Depot and see a great big HomeStar logo and a HomeStar sales representative.”

READER COMMENTS:

      What a great idea.
      — Dano50

      There’s a great idea. That might work. Back in the Reagan era there was a weatherization program. After the homes were solarized. maybe later they might want to look at that again and bring it back.
      — Edward Jankowski

      O.K., Let me get this straight. We are going to replace all of our lost manufacturing jobs by arming the unemployed with caulk guns and community college degrees? Umm, right.
      — RAB

      Why did your article say replacement windows are not worth the money when the Govt is giving us up to $1500 tax credit to replace windows. Does anyone have more information?
      — Mary, Connecticut

      Take it a step further, according to a PBS documentary on housing in Cincinnati, roughly the population of the metro area has stayed about the same for the past 20 years. But housing in their metro area has approximately 40,000 more homes (surplus) than households? But new construction continues in the outer burbs and near rural fringes of the City as it move further out.

      Why not have incentives for builders to re-hab older homes and older neighborhoods instead of building new homes on fertile farmland and reduce the surplus homes by fixing older homes instead of making new ones in some areas.
      — Joe Values

      First, I need to take issue with the opening paragraph of David Leonhardt’s related column:

      “The one highly visible success of the stimulus bill has been the cash-for-clunkers program. It induced a boom in vehicle sales this summer that clearly would not have happened otherwise”.

      The cash for clunkers program was initially conceived as an environmental program, but got detoured as a stimulus program. The program, like most hastily conceived stimulus programs, was subject to significant fraud. Even the environmental benefits were questionable. Leonhardt’s statement that it “induced a boom in vehicle sales this summer that clearly would not have happened otherwise”, is extremely misleading, if not downright wrong. According to Edmunds, it is estimated 82 percent of the cars sold under the program would have been sold this year anyway and therefore that the cost to the government for each incremental car sold in the current year was estimated to be $24,000.

      See http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/lots-of-cash-for-clunkers.

      While the number of incremental sales, like any statistic, is subject to debate, even the Times own Floyd Norris concluded that auto sales remained in 2009 well under the historical norm despite the clunkers program and the effect of the clunkers program was not even a boomlet; it was hardly a blip:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07charts.

      The other 18 percent of the clunker sales likely represented sales that were merely accelerated to the current year. Thus, Leonhardt’s assertion that the program created a “boom” in vehicle sales that “clearly” would not have occurred otherwise is a factual howler of Lou Dobbsian proportions.

      Fundamentally, the program was a form of borrowing against the future (the great American economic past time). While the program gave some immediate stimulus to General Motors and Chrysler, the main beneficiaries were the auto makers and workers in Japan, Korea and Germany (aside from those subsidized U.S. car owners).

      Would a “cash for caulkers” program be any different? Perhaps, but I’m skeptical. It would have the advantage that it is labor intensive and any work would be done by local labor. Most materials would probably be U.S. made as well. It also seems, from an environmental and energy saving perspective, that reducing home energy use is “low hanging fruit”. Arguably, a caulkers program would induce at least some repairs and improvements that would not otherwise (ever) take place.

      However, any caulkers program would first need to seal the serious leaks that allowed massive funds to flow through the clunkers program to fraudsters. Any program that proposes to suddenly flush $23 billion into a specific U.S. industry with very low cost of entry will almost certainly be the target of fly-by-night operators. Those providing services under this program should be subject to federal certification and audit and perhaps even an advance mandatory job training program. [HOT: And regulatory oversight through licensing/bonding.]

      And, how to pay for it? Of course, we could do what we always do and mortgage our and our children’s future to the Chinese by having them finance it. Or, we could impose an additional, say 5 cents per gallon, surtax on gasoline and earmark the funds for this type of program. That could take at least some non-productive activity out of the economy (needless driving) and replace it with productive activity.
      — Thomas

      Mr. Leonhardt, As you point out, there is a reluctance for consumers to participate in energy conservation projects.

      Good information about home weatherization and insulation has not been readily available until relatively recently. While there have been lots of generic books and articles about home energy conservation, there hasn’t been much in the way of detailed, research-based, information about prioritization or implementation of home energy saving projects.

HOT: A MUCH less expensive program would simply fund education (for consumers & contractors), without the artificial incentives. This could be done with printed materials, online simulations, traditional advertising, and some creative incentives to encourage local education programs. The cost? A major brand awareness campaign (like for IBM or Microsoft) can cost $100 million, so even a much larger government campaign for energy conservation should still cost less than $1 billion.

      And, much of the material that is available is not well presented.

      In order to sell energy conservation to the average homeowner, it appears that four things are missing.

1.)    A USER FRINDLY mechanism to help consumers visualize the possible benefits from Energy conservation choices.

2.)    A USER FRIENDLY mechanism for helping consumers to make choices about the most energy effective, the most cost effective or the easiest projects to implement. (The three goals aren’t the same, and the priorities would vary among homeowners.)

3.)    A USER FRIENDLY mechanism for demonstrating appropriate methods of accomplishing each type of home energy conservation project (whether done by the home owner or by a contractor).

4.)    A mechanism for training contractors and workers in the appropriate methods of implementing energy saving projects. (There is a lot of superstitious knowledge and misinformation out there, even among good conscientious craftsmen.)

      The Home Energy Saver website - - - http://hes.lbl.gov/ - - - might be a good place to start for items 1.) and 2.). Unfortunately, it is clunky to use, somewhat spotty in its coverage and not kept up to date. (As an example, it currently uses $1.59/gallon as the default cost of fuel oil in our area.)

      The Taunton Press book “Insulate and Weatherize”, by Bruce Harley, is a good example of how well energy conservation projects can be explained (Item 3).

      If the appropriate government agencies were to commission Madison Avenue, Pixar Studios, Tuanton Press or Google to re-do the Home Energy Savers website and prepare an assortment of instructional materials, we might see some significant changes.

      Until then, poor communication may be the limiting factor.

      Thank you for your efforts.
      — Val Kiefer

      “Why did your article say replacement windows are not worth the money when the Govt is giving us up to $1500 tax credit to replace windows. Does anyone have more information? — Mary, Connecticut”

      Because contrary to conventional wisdom (sold to you by window companies) new windows don’t always mean better energy savings. New windows aren’t that much better than old windows in good repair with storm windows. Instead, preserve the look of your old house and repair and insulate your old windows instead.
      — E. Nowak

      Why are we still acting like Cash4Clunkers was a good thing? The only thing the program stimulated was Japan’s economy. We took thousands of Americans without auto loans and put them in debt. It’s only a matter of time until the wave of repossessions hits. Watch http://www.repofinder.com in the next few months. The auto industry will ultimately be hurt by this, and now we want to duplicate it on another industry???
      — mike

      I think that the Cash for Caulkers idea should include rehabilitation for soundproofing and sound control in all multifamily and condo dwelling. Noise pollution is no less a problem than energy waste and stress and insomnia are greatly aggregated due to woefully inadequate noise control. New soundproofing materials can be installed over existing walls and ceilings see http://www.tmsoundproofing.com/store/pages.php?pageid=24. This would create new jobs for drywall and painting contractors while adding value to each existing apartment.
      — Jack

      Cash for Clunker Hot Water Heaters. Forget wrapping water heaters. New heat pump water heaters such as the ones from GE and Rheem can cut electricity use by over half. A switch over to heat pump water heaters would save about 60 billion kWh or about what is produced by 60 coal fired power plants. A similar switch from conventional to on demand gas fired water heaters would save between 30 and 40 billion cubic feet of natural gas. For the most part both the heat pump and on demand gas water heaters are manufactured in the United States (In 2001 there were 104 million home hot water heaters). The home owner would save about $200 per year switching from conventional electric hw to the heat pump, while the natural gas user would save about $100 per year switching to an on demand natural gas hw heater.
      — lawrence cerniglia

      Interesting idea. It has some real challanges at scale. There are some other great examples of large scale programs that lead to even more adoption, addressing the challenge of making it easier to achieve energy efficiency. You might want to take a look at the SCE program in Palm Desert. I think it was implemented by a company named http://www.enerpath.com. Palm Desert has an interesting YouTube video describing the program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uESw4dY1TI
      — Jim Ringer

      My problem with this program is that it is a jobs program and not an energy/climate program. While I am not a climate expert I would hazard a guess and say that the level of energy savings/GHG reductions that will come from this will be minimal. The only way to get significant energy savings and substantial GHG reductions is with deep energy retrofits and nobody in Washington is either aware of this/willing to talk about it or come to grips to finding a way to finance it. We have a long way to go.
      — Terry Hill

      I hear so very much about weatherization and caulking as the end-all of getting a home more energy efficient. Good thoughts, however attacking your home with insulation and caulking is simply a shot in the dark and very likely to do nothing towards creating a more energy efficient building envelope, unless the home-owner contracts with a certified Energy Auditor/Rater to conduct a Blower Door Test. Basically, this test creates a vacuum in the home and measures the amount of air-flow required to maintain that vacuum. By measuring this air-flow, the energy auditor can quantify a home’s leakage. During the test, the auditor should then use a thermal imaging camera to locate these leaks. Without these measures, the convection that is causing the problem will never be addressed.

      So far in these energy talks, the field of energy auditing has yet to be consulted in the proper way to address a home’s problems, and the weekend warrior with a Lowes card will just end up with dirty-hands and a warm fuzzy “green” feeling but no real results. A proper energy audit will cost about $200 dollars but, with good caulking at $5 bucks a tube, it’s going to be worth the expense.
      — Henry Challe

      “Why did your article say replacement windows are not worth the money when the Govt is giving us up to $1500 tax credit to replace windows. Does anyone have more information? — Mary, Connecticut”

      The problem is generally this: Windows can be easily seen and felt. It just “seems” like they must be a problem. And occasionally, but only occasionally, they are. But almost all houses have far, far bigger problems. Far bigger. And most often it’s where you can’t see them or feel them. I speak of two things: air leaks and insulation. In older houses (and many new ones too) the air leaks are huge. Actually they are often small ones BUT there are LOTS and LOTS of them, and when you add them all up it comes to the equivalent of a large hole — open to the outdoors (often the attic) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. It’s not uncommon to find the total leakage equal to the size of an open window. Given that you keep your windows closed when it’s cold outside (or, for air conditioning when it’s hot outdoors), those air leaks don’t get closed off. They go on pouring energy outside. Fix them first! Not widows that are already doing their job.

      Here’s an example for you. Look under any sink. Find where the pipes (waste and supply lines) go. The plumbers always cut a hole bigger than the pipe — so there’s an opening around the pipe. Guess what. Air flows thru that hole. Where do you suppose it goes?? Another example: go down in your basement and look up. Find some wiring. Electricians do the same as plumbers. That is, they cut the hole bigger than the wire. So there’s another opening (actually there are lots and lots of wires in your home, going thru holes everywhere). Air flows. Heat (or cooling) goes with it. You’re heating the outdoors everywhere you have a pipe and wire penetration thru your building. Now …. add ‘em all up. Whadya got? A big hole nicely heating the outdoors …. all winter long (cooling the outdoors all summer long). Every single minute of it. Ain’t that just peachy? Well, it is for your local fuel supplier and for all those foreign oil supplier. Many houses have been fixed and cut their heating bills by half. Yes! HALF! And, then, to boot, they had much more comfortable home (fewer drafts and cold spots). So pass on the window upgrades unless the windows are really, really, really in terrible condition. Go for the big wins instead. Find a energy auditor near you that can find the leaks and show them to you. Seeing is believing. You are in for some enlightenment.

      PS That $1500 credit you refer to Mary, can be used just as effectively for doing other weatherization work on your home — it’s not just for windows. And I didn’t even get to the insulation story.
      — River Rat

      Good Lord. We have got to get out of this mindset in this country that somewhere the government has a big hole full of money that the cost of this kind of crap is paid from. Look people, this is nothing more than borrowing money. You are literally borrowing money against your children’s futures. Not only are you borrowing money, but a huge chunk of that money being borrowed is lost and wasted by the federal government before they even hand it to you. If you realize that along with the fact that only the 55% of the American workers who PAY taxes will actually be paying all of this money back, how in the world can anyone think it’s even close to being a good idea? Good grief, can we get some semblance of common sense back in this country?
      — MinniePearlJam

      It would be great to see the effectiveness of the current Federal Tax credit of up to $1500 aimed at energy efficient upgrades (see EPA site for details http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index.

      One of the challenges in retrofitting a home to make it use less energy that doesn’t get a lot of attention is the fact that all homes are different. What may be needed in one home may not work for another if you are talking about truly trying to save energy.

      It is difficult to get a holistic approach to both assess and then treat the individual house as a whole.

      I think there does exist an abundance of people able to do weatherization from the handyman, out of work new construction contractor and subcontractors. If these individuals were trained properly to look at the house as a whole system everyone would benefit.

      Learn about starting a handyman business at http://www.buildhandymanbusiness.com
      — handyman_business

      Come on folks. Do you realize how costly it will be to administer this program? Do you really want gov’t auditing your spend on energy? Think about it… how do you “prove” that 20% of your energy consumption is reduced? And let me guess, people who make over XYZ amount will be ineligible, which goes contrary to all the supposed goodness towards incenting greenness. Try this - turn off your lights when you leave a room. Close/lock all your windows when not used. Insulate and caulk your home either DIY or via contractor. What is your incentive? Reduced costs on your energy bills. I agree with providing tax breaks for products. There is a much, much easier way to do this. Reduce (if not get rid of) federal income tax and implement federal sales tax instead. Then provide federal sales tax breaks on selected products. This will help all low income folks who will only pay tax on what they spend (which is less) and rich folks will pay more because they buy more. Gov’t will be incented to help keep our economy safe and opportunistic for all. It’s simple. The money saved on IRS and crazy complex out of control income tax rules, exceptions administration and incredible bureaucracy to manage all these programs could be saved and instead spent on core efforts to defend our freedom and basic rights.
      — Laid off in NJ

      I insulated 20 houses in 1977 as part of the CETA comprehensive employment training act during the Carter adminimstration. It was 100% public financed for low income renters and home owners. It had very little bureaucratic overhead, and has paid off many times in the last 3 decades in reduced energy costs.
      — Bob Maginnis

      As someone in this business, I think the logical way to approach this problem of home weatherization is upon sale. Requiring a homeowner to weatherize at time of sale would provide for an orderly long-term solution, not one rife with corruption and waste. Just as a homeowner must provide a buyer with termite reports, evidence of good title and surveys, they would also have to weatherize. It could be done after the contract is signed providing for an estimated amount for the value of the weatherization. Next the work would be done and inspected. The cost would be added to the contract price, and the contractor would be paid out of escrow (a relatively short period). The house is now, in theory, worth more and the buyer would benefit from lower energy bills. And pay for the improvements that the seller made over 30 years or whatever the life of the loan would be. Who gets hurt here? Less chance for fraud in this method and the gov”t. can save our 23 billion.
      — gerald j trepinski

HOT: Time-of-Sale regulations could require an energy audit (someone said about $200), with the results presented to the buyer, including local annual energy costs. This would let buyers decide and maybe give them an incentive to address issues either before the sale (adding to the sales price) or afterwards (giving them more flexibility and choice).

      Am I only one of the few that thinks this is absurd? What - are we going to have a “Caulk Czar” next? For the hundreds of thousands of people facing the loss of their homes, do you really think that offering energy tax credits will help them at all? Theory vs. Reality…… these “bailouts” simply are NOT working!
      — Adrianne

      Buying foreign energy and sending troops to protect our overseas energy interests represents the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the US, and it will only get worse as we are already past peak oil production. Cutting energy imports by weatherizing American homes with American workers and American products sounds like the patriotic thing to do. I’d be just fine paying a sin tax on untaxed energy sources like fuel oil.
      — Gogreenstar

HOT: There might be a way (eventually) to charge a sin tax onto monthly energy costs of homes with poor energy ratings, as measured by an energy audit. This, however, has its own set of problems, including putting government in the position of overseer.

      To the last comment… I’m sure that you do not work for a living as a residential construction tradesman. Wow. At 17% unemployment you would think that people might feel it a bit more if they were in our shoes. I am now a Home Performance Contractor working in the private and public sectors. Without this work I would be destitute. I am currently thriving. Get a clue before you speak about stimulus dollars not working… and start thinking long term about what Social, Economic, and especially Environmental Sustainability means to those of coming generations. I’m 35 years old and our crisis will be nothing like your 911. The revolution must be by design. Redesign of all industry.
      — Paul Bradley McConnell

      Retrofitting a home to reduce energy consumption is a guaranteed way for homeowners to save money in the long run. Many typical improvements (duct sealing, air leak sealing, etc.) have a 2-3 year payout for most homeowners.

      The problem with sealing a home, however, is that the tighter it gets the more important the air quality in the home is. Also, with increased tightness, if there are any combustible appliances in the home (like a fireplace - gas or wood burning) it can be disastrous (as in life-threatening disastrous) for the occupants.

      This is why I truly hope that this plan takes advantage of qualified professionals (BPI analysts and HERS raters, as well as trained weatherization workers) to accomplish these upgrades. Yes, anyone can wield a caulk-gun, but unless you have a full energy audit by an independent professional energy auditor (blower door, infrared, duct blasting, and combustion safety) to figure out exactly how the weatherization should occur, followed by a test-out of the home after the weatherization has taken place, then I’m afraid that this will be wasted money.[And even put lives at risk…]

      If the program does take advantage of the nationally recognized training programs for professionals (BPI and HERS-Resnet) then this is a fabulous idea. It *will* pay off for homeowners and for the environment sooner or later. It *will* create jobs. And it *will* lower homeowners’ energy bills. In our home we have reduced our bill by half, and our results aren’t at all uncommon.

      Adrienne Bashista, co-owner, Home Performance NC, http://www.homeperformancenc.com
      — Adrienne Bashista

      This is the first thing that I have agreed with Obama on during his first year. I am one of the those out of work construction workers who need to find some direction. Until we can put together a modular building; home program thus creating a new “manufacturing environment” - this new retrofit plan is a great one. We need to focus our attention on sealing off the unconditioned moist air that continues to make our homes unsafe, dirty, fragile and inefficient. We can do this by using 2-Part Polyurethane foam and sealing up a those leaks.

      Now it all boils down to how can the Federal government not mess this up. Usually every dollar allocate gets picked at like a turkey on Thanksgiving; leaving only pennies for the people who really need it.
My suggestion is to keep the Feds off the money and give it to the states and let them use it. (It’s not a perfect idea, but it’s better than what’s been done in the past)
      — Drew Franyo