Normal.dotm 0 0 1 447 2553 Home Energy Magazine 21 5 3135 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

“We face a series of energy challenges,” said the speaker, economist Severin Borenstein of the Haas School of Business at U.C. Berkeley. The occasion was the Monday night plenary talk at the biannual meeting of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) on energy use in building, held in late August at Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove. Borenstein is often called to speak to groups about the economics of energy when energy prices are high, and he is less popular as a speaker when prices go down. To individuals, high energy prices are a problem, but this doesn’t represent a market failure according to him. Market failures exist when the price of oil does not reflect the real macroeconomic, geopolitical, and environmental costs associated with its purchase and use.

 

In the United States, we import two-thirds of our oil from other countries, many that are not interested in our mutual wellbeing, and many whose leaders use oil revenue to enrich themselves and oppress their people. We sometimes go to war with these countries. And our dependence on fossil fuels such as oil is degrading our environment.

 

So what is a government to do? The best choice according to Borenstein, Bill Gates, and others, is to tax “brown” energy, energy that costs us too much environmentally and in the other ways mentioned above. But people want their oil and gas cheap, and there is no political will to initiate carbon taxes right now in the United States or elsewhere. So the second best choice, which is the best choice in these circumstances, is to use information, regulation, and subsidies for green energy and green jobs. The trick is to know in what circumstances to apply what solution, and how to apply that solution.

 

Information can empower consumers to make better choices, but in some situations limiting consumer choice through regulation and standards is the better choice. Borenstein used the example of baby food. No one wants to choose between baby food certified fit for human consumption and the other kind. And subsidies can be good, but not subsidies that artificially favor one technology over another. Subsidies that attempt to pick a winner would only work if at the stage of research and development some government official could reliably know which technologies will survive the “valley of death” and make it successfully to the market. But government support of certain research and development that could have broad application in the market is good. Borenstein used the example of PV. The technology has matured through its infancy as part of the NASA space program, and through advances in integrated circuit, or “chip” design that took place largely through private companies in Silicon Valley.

Borenstein calls himself cynical. Maybe it is better to call him a realist—a very knowledgeable and articulate realist who people in charge of government energy policy should listen to, even though the winds of popular opinion make it hard for them to do the right thing.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) is making efforts to enhance the testing and verification program for all ENERGY STAR product categories, including appliances. This effort is focused on maintaining the value of the ENERGY STAR brand by ensuring labeled products deliver on their promises to the consumer.
 
To transition the ENERGY STAR labeling program away from self-certification, EPA will now require third-party certification of all qualifying product information. This will include qualification testing prior to product labeling conducted in an EPA-recognized lab, as well as post-market verification testing to ensure the product continues to meet program requirements. Test data will be reviewed and certified by third-party certification bodies (CBs).
 
Manufacturer-owned, unaccredited laboratories can conduct testing in the new program if they participate in a witnessed or supervised manufacturer testing program run by a CB. In that case, personnel from the CB witness the test and certify to EPA that the laboratory meets our requirements and the data is reliable.
 
In June, EPA finalized requirements for accreditation bodies and laboratories that seek recognition by the ENERGY STAR program. In late July, EPA released final draft requirements for certification bodies; those requirements will be final in mid-August. These documents require that organizations operate according to the relevant International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards, with some additional requirements specific to the ENERGY STAR program.
 
Accreditation bodies, laboratories, and certification bodies will be required to apply for EPA recognition to participate in the program. EPA is currently reviewing and accepting applications from accreditation bodies, and will begin reviewing applications from laboratories soon. Certification bodies represent the final group of organizations EPA anticipates recognizing as participants in the testing and verification scheme.
 
EPA continues to coordinate with a range of organizations seeking to establish certification programs for different product categories. The Agency is also currently in the  process of refining the eligibility criteria and partner commitments across all 60 product categories to reflect the new certification requirements.
 
For additional information, please visit: www.energystar.gov/testingandverification.
 
Keri Shoemaker
For EPA’s ENERGY STAR program
Office: 202.298.2174
Cell: 703.627.3634
kshoemaker@prrbiz.com
 

The Montana Weatherization Training Center would like to inform you of this week's episodes of WxTV, online and ready for viewing.
We'll be continuing with our 'Boiler Basics' series.
 
This week's episodes:
 
1.  Boiler Basics: Part 2 - Clean, Test, & Tune
               In Part 2 of this series, Mike will test the boiler's fuel gas delivery, efficiency and carbon monoxide level as well as giving cleaning recommendations.
 
2.  Boiler Basics: Part 3 - External Components   
               In the final segment of our boiler series, Mike will break down the external components of this two zone baseboard system and the things you need to look out for.
 
Click here to see them at:  http://weatherization.org/wxtv
 

By Tom Rooney
For the Home Energy Blog

Conservatives,  let's talk about energy. And why so many conservatives are so
wrong -- so liberal, even -- on wind and solar energy.

Let's start with a recent editorial from the home of "free markets and free people,"
the Wall Street Journal. Photovoltaic solar energy, quoth the mavens, is a "speculative
and immature technology that costs far more than ordinary power."

So few words, so many misconceptions. It pains me to say that because, like many
business leaders, I grew up on the Wall Street Journal and still depend on it.

But I cannot figure out why people who call themselves "conservatives" would
say solar or wind power is "speculative." Conservatives know that word is usually
reserved to criticize free-market activity that is not approved by well, you
know who.

Today, around the world, more than a million people work in the wind and solar
business. Many more receive their power from solar.

Solar is not a cause, it is a business with real benefits for its customers.

Just ask anyone who installed their solar systems five years ago. Today, many
of their systems are paid off and they are getting free energy. Better still,
ask the owners of one of the oldest and most respected companies in America who
recently announced plans to build one of the largest solar facilities in the
country.

That would be Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal.

Now we come to "immature." Again, the meaning is fuzzy. But in Germany, a country
1/3 our size in area and population, they have more solar than the United States.
This year, Germans will build enough solar to equal the output of three nuclear
power plants.

What they call immaturity our clients call profit-making leadership.

But let's get to the real boogie man: The one that "costs far more than ordinary
power."

I've been working in energy infrastructure for 25 years and I have no idea what
the WSJ means by the words "ordinary power." But, after spending some time with
Milton Friedman whom I met on many occasions while studying for an MBA at the
University of Chicago, I did learn about costs.

And here is what every freshman at the University of Chicago knows: There is
a difference between cost and price.

Solar relies on price supports from the government. Fair enough -- though its
price is falling even faster than fossil fuels are rising.

But if Friedman were going to compare the costs of competing forms of energy,
he also would have wanted to know the cost of "ordinary" energy. Figured on the
same basis. This is something the self-proclaimed conservative opponents of solar
refuse to do.

But huge companies including Walmart, IBM, Target and Los Gatos Tomatoes figured
it out. And last year so did the National Academy of Sciences. It produced a
report on the Hidden Costs of Energy that documented how coal was making people
sick to the tune of $63 billion a year.

And that oil and natural gas had so many tax breaks and subsidies that were so
interwoven for so long, it was hard to say exactly how many tens of billions
these energy producers received courtesy of the United States. Taxpayer.

Just a few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency said worldwide, fossil
fuels receive $550 billion in subsidies a year -- 12 times what alternatives
such as wind and solar get.

Neither report factored in Global Warming or the cost of sending our best and
bravest into harm's way to protect our energy supply lines.

Whatever that costs, you know it starts with a T.

All this without hockey stick graphs, purloined emails or junk science.

When you compare the real costs of solar with the fully loaded real costs of
coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear power, apples to apples, solar is cheaper.


That's not conservative. Or liberal. That comes from an ideology older and more
reliable than both of those put together: Arithmetic.

WxTV is focusing once again on heating system servicing with our new 'Boiler Basics' series. This 3 part series will cover the information and techniques an HVAC technician should know for a routine home visit.
 
This week's episode is:
 
Boiler Basics: Part 1 - Combustion Air & Drafting
 
WxTV's master plumber Mike Campbell is back at it again, this time giving us the low-down on boiler systems. In Part 1 of this series, we'll see how he tests for, and proposes to resolve, a backdrafting problem.
 
Click here to see it:  http://weatherization.org/wxtv
 
If you would like to be removed from this list, please reply to this email with “REMOVE ME” typed in the subject line.
 
Lisa Daly
Montana Weatherization Training Center
Extension Housing and Environmental Health Program
Montana State University
406-586-0070 (office)
dalylisa@montana.edu

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 442 2520 Home Energy Magazine 21 5 3094 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Notes from Asilomar: Biannual Summer Study, Energy In Buildings, American Council for anEnergy Efficient Economy (August 15—20, 2010)

Tuesday Plenary: Is the Climate Right for Efficiency in China?

Summer Study participants were treated to two insiders’ take on energy efficiency in China.

Mark Levine was recently the director of the Environmental Energy Technologies Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and is now working full time with the China Energy Group at LBNL, a group Levine founded in 1988.

William Chandler is an expert in energy and climate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as well as the president of Transition Energy and the co-founder of DEED China—private companies with energy efficiency investments in China. Chandler was a 1992 ACEEE Champion of Energy Efficiency.

Both Levine and Chandler provided lots of information about energy efficiency policy and reality in China—past, present, and future. But more important, they each shared a wealth of insight that only comes with a long history of lived experience interacting with people developing energy efficiency in China. Imagine the amount of time they’ve spent in airplanes during the past 25 years!

One insight from Tuesday night’s plenary is the extraordinary progress China has made since 1980 to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, and lower energy intensity in an economy that has grown by leaps and bounds. Between 1980 and 2002, China’s GDP increased by a factor of 8, while its energy use increased by a factor of only 3. Between 1980 and 2002 energy intensity, or energy per unit of GDP decreased about 5% per year. From 2002 to 2005, energy intensity increased about 5% per year, mainly due to a huge increase in the production of steel and cement. But energy intensity then began to decrease again, dropping 16% between 2005 and 2009.

Looking to the future, Levine outlined a likely scenario where China’s total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow, but then level off in 20 years or so, and then begin a slow steady decrease. But at its peak Chinese energy use per capita will stay well below that of the United States and below that of Europe. China’s emissions will not overwhelm us, according to Levine, because of several reasons, but mainly due to saturation in the appliance and transportation markets in China.

Chandler urged cooperation with China in regards to energy efficiency policy, and warned that a lack of cooperation, “I won’t do anything if you don’t”, will be a suicide pact. We need to better explain to the west China’s successes and commitment to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, encourage China to be more accurate and transparent with its energy and emissions data, remove barriers to business between the United States and China, and resolve diplomatically the rift in relations between China and other nations that are part of the Copenhagen climate agreements.

Can China do its part to mitigate climate change and obtain energy security for itself and other nations? Levine and Chandler both say, “Yes.” But only if the United States and other developed and developing nations do their part as well.

Notes from Asilomar—the 15th Summer Study of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy:

Sunday Plenary

Efficiency is the Centerpiece: Where are We Going?

Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at DOE, added a 1960s vibe to the Summer Study by calling the gathering “Woodstock for efficiency mavens.” Some in the audience at her plenary may have been at the original Woodstock mud fest in New York, and many in the audience have been passionately working for an energy efficient economy since the early 1970s. (Rumor has it that Art Rosenfeld and Carl Blumstein were at the original Woodstock.)

Cathy is truly one of the rock stars of efficiency, having worked in the Clinton White House, for Al Gore, and now as energy efficiency’s woman in Washington. Cathy Zoi, Steven Chu, and Barack Obama—quite the lineup!

Zoi went from celebrating what the administration has done, for example, earmarking $12 billion for home retrofit work and accelerating appliance efficiency standards development—to imagining what we can do. We can retrofit 5 to 10 million homes a year and 4 to 8 billion square feet of commercial buildings. We can save more than 5 Quads of energy in industry each year. We spend $1.1 trillion on stationary energy each year and a 20% savings means a $200 billion savings. We can meet 25% of our energy needs through efficiency by saving 3.5% a year, according the McKinsey Report. Art Rosenfeld put it in perspective—if we had done business as usual in this country since the Arab oil embargo in 1973, instead of saving about 2.5% a year because of the efforts of many people at Summer Study and other efficiency mavens, we would be spending $2.1 trillion on stationary energy this year instead of $1.1 trillion. It’s not just imagination! But can we cut refrigerator energy use in half, again?

Zoi would say yes, but…financial constraints, a scarcity of data, unconvinced regulators, and a public that has not yet got it, are obstacles to overcome. We have to improve our technology and our processes. For example, why not retrofit whole neighborhoods instead of a house here and a house there and save mobilization costs? And she needs the data! Send her the data—engineering estimates and actual performance data of energy savings and implementation costs. That will convince the regulators. To convince the public, find the language that sticks, e.g. "Retrofit Ramp-Up" is now "Better Buildings", and get the message out through structures that already exist, such as through utilities. DOE doesn’t have that much money for marketing.

The government has made a $12 billion down payment on energy efficiency, there are 7,700 energy efficiency projects in the works, and 17,000 good paying jobs have been created—irrefutable evidence that energy efficiency is good for the economy, at least for Summer Study attendees. It’s our job to convince the rest of the country.

This week’s WxTV episode includes another On The Road segment. This time, WxTV heads to the Pacific Islands to check in with some of the WAP program's newest members. We'll see why saving energy is crucial even in a tropical paradise.
 
Click here to see it:  http://weatherization.org/wxtv
 
If you would like to be removed from this list, please reply to this email with “REMOVE ME” typed in the subject line.
 
Lisa Daly
Montana Weatherization Training Center
Extension Housing and Environmental Health Program
Montana State University
406-586-0070 (office)
dalylisa@montana.edu
 

It started in Santa Clara County, then spread to Marin, and now its everywhere in California; builders, developers, city governments, and environmentalists, all getting along and creating green building standards together. It’s the new PC—Policy Collaboration.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), a business development group, got things started in Santa Clara County by meeting with city mayors to discuss a coordinated building policy to replace the patchwork that existed in 2007. Once they got the mayors go ahead, SVLG got the endorsement of the Santa Clara Cities Association. Then representatives from the cities formed a group called the Green Building Collaborative (GBC), and the group began to meet with builders and to enlist the help of builders associations like the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). With all those acronyms coming at them, the city councils in Santa Clara County, one by one, succumbed to the contagious enthusiasm and passed the green building ordinances.

Marin County decided to go ahead and do its own collaborating. San Rafael Mayor Al Boro and Planning Director Bob Brown started talking with other city officials in Marin about a coordinated green building policy. They formed a task force with representatives of all the cities, recruited some building experts, and created a really cool sounding acronym, BERST, for the Building, Energy, Retrofit, and Solar Transformation task force. The group reached out to builders, designers, and business groups to try to form a consensus. It was tough work, which for Brown became a half-time job. Cats and dogs is easy—this was bob cats and wolves. But goodwill reigned and eventually everyone agreed on a green building policy that looked a lot like the one in Santa Clara (see Table).

One of the features of the code is that homes larger than 7,000 square feet of floor area have to compensate for size by being net-zero energy users. In other words, they have to produce as much energy—through solar electric PV and other renewable energies and by being extremely energy efficient—as they use over the course of a year.

San Rafael was the first city to adopt the green building ordinances. Three other cities have signed on, and more will be voting in the fall.

Leif Magnuson, Pollution Prevention Coordinator at the San Francisco office of EPA, was the prime mover in spreading the collaborative spirit to Sacramento. Magnuson gathered California stakeholders at an ACI conference. ACI is a national training organization that for 25 years has hosted regional and national training and networking conferences bringing together everyone interested in sustainable home building and renovation, from weatherization professionals, energy auditors, and small home performance contractors to policymakers, production builders, manufacturers of building materials, and representatives of big box home improvement stores. And after a while, they had to create an acronym to match their ambitions—HERCC, for the Home Energy Retrofit Coordinating Committee.

It was only a matter of time before the California Energy Commission (CEC) got involved—in fact representatives of the commission were a part of HERCC from the beginning. So it is no wonder that the HERCC recommendations greatly influenced the CEC green building regulations that became a part of the California Title 24 building codes. The investor owned utilities all throughout California support the green building policies championed by HERCC through its rebates offered to builders and homeowners.

From the beginning, HERCC wanted to put in place an infrastructure to support green building and retrofits beyond the years of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which flooded federal dollars to the states that will be running out in about a year. HERCC will outlast ARRA, thanks in part to BERST, which owes its inspiration to groups like SVLG, GBC, and BOMA. Go CA!

(Many thanks to Elise Hunter, who recently served as the government relations manager at Build It Green and who is now studying for advanced degrees in sustainable enterprises at the University of Michigan, for putting together the facts in an upcoming article about policy collaboratives for Home Energy Magazine.)

Higher Efficiency Requirements for Water Heaters
Bulletin on Developing and Amending Standards
June 2010 Revised and New Regulations

The Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is proposing to amend Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations (the Regulations) under which dealers in Canada would be required to comply with higher efficiency requirements for gas and oil water heaters and new reporting requirements for electric water heaters. For the first time in Canada, commercial water heaters and tankless water heaters will have minimum efficiency requirements. These proposed revisions would apply to water heaters that are imported or shipped across provincial boundaries for sale or lease in Canada.

The purpose of this document is to provide stakeholders with background information for meaningful consultation on the content of the new regulation before proceeding with pre-publication in the Canada Gazette. This bulletin attempts to address key issues that may be raised. It is not intended to provide a definitive representation of the proposed regulation.

Background

Water heating accounts for a large portion of residential and commercial energy use and has potential for significant energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.

NRCan last updated the EE Regulations for electric and gas storage water heaters in 2004. At present in Canada, there are no energy efficiency regulations for commercial water heaters or for tankless gas water heaters.

Storage water heaters continue to dominate the market. Sales of residential water heaters in Canada are about one million per year, with approximately 80% as replacement and 20% going into new houses. Sales of commercial water heaters are about 21,000 per year with about 13,000 gas storage water heaters and about 7000 electric storage water heaters. Commercial water heaters have larger storage capacity or greater energy inputs to meet greater hot water demands.

This bulletin outlines federal changes that are proposed for a variety of water heaters types. Some proposed changes coincide with future requirements in the United States.

This proposed amendment will have the greatest impact on the efficiency of gas water heaters, both residential and commercial. The efficiency of most residential fossil-fuel storage water heaters lies in the range of Energy Factor (EF) from 0.55 to 0.60. In 2008, the ENERGY STAR specification was introduced and this has led to increased number of higher efficiency storage models, up to EF 0.70 (non-condensing). Tankless gas water heaters with higher efficiency are making gains in the market, partly as a result of recent incentives and programs. Efficiency of most tankless models meets or exceeds EF 0.80 (non-condensing) and EF 0.90 (condensing). Most gas-fired commercial water heaters comply with the US minimum thermal efficiency of 80% and there are many condensing commercial storage models having TE of 92% and above.

NRCan’s analyses show the proposed changes are economic over the life of the equipment.

Product description

For the purposes of the Regulations, water heaters include gas, propane, and oil-fired water heaters and electric water heaters. Storage and tankless (instantaneous) water heaters are included in this proposed amendment.

Minimum performance levels WH type and size Schedule MEPS Test method Notes Gas-fired tankless
<250,000 btu/h January 1, 2012

January 1, 2016 None

EF = 0.80 CSA P.7 Reporting only from 2012 until 2016 Gas-fired tankless
>250,000 btu/h January 1, 2012

January 1, 2016 None

Thermal Efficiency = 80% CSA 4.3 /
ANSI Z21.10.3 Reporting only from 2012 until 2016 Gas-fired storage
≤75,000 btu/h input January 1, 2013

January 1, 2016 EF = 0.75-0.0005 Vr

EF = 0.80 CSA P.3   Gas-fired storage
>75,000 btu/h January 1, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
January 1, 2016 Thermal Efficiency = 80%
 
Max standby loss = Q/800 + 110(Vr)½
 
Thermal Efficiency = 92% CSA 4.3 /
ANSI Z21.10.3 commercial Oil – fired storage
<105,000 btu/h January 1, 2012
 
 
April 16, 2015 EF = 0.59-0.0005 Vr

EF = 0.68-0.0005 Vr B211-00 residential Oil-fired storage
>105,000 btu/h January 1, 2012 Thermal Efficiency = 78%

Max standby loss = Q/800 + 110(Vr)½ CSA 4.3 /
ANSI Z21.10.3   Electric storage
≤ 12 kw and
≤ 454 litres January 1, 2012 No change at this time. CSA C191, plus additional standby loss test on cooled concrete base at 14C Additional reporting:
- diffusion test volume
- measured volume
- standby loss tested on concrete base cooled to 14C Electric storage
with >12 kw
and ≥75 litres January 1, 2012 Max standby loss = 0.30+27/ Vr (%/hr) CSA 4.3 /
ANSI Z21.10.3 commercial

Note: V & Vr are in litres

For all water heaters, the proposed amendment requires that CSA Plus 1200 be used as the methodology for reporting ratings.

Energy performance test procedures

The test methods used to determine efficiency are:

CSA P.3-04: "Testing Method for Measuring Energy Consumption and Determining Efficiencies of Gas-Fired Storage Water Heaters"

CSA P.7-10: "Testing Method for Measuring Energy Loss of Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters"

CSA C191-04: "Performance of electric storage tank water heaters for domestic hot water service"

CSA B211-00: "Energy Efficiency of Oil-Fired Storage Tank Water Heaters"

CSA 4.3 / ANSI Z21.10.3-2004: "Gas Water Heaters Volume III, Storage Water Heaters, with Input Ratings above 75,000 Btu per hour, Circulating and Instantaneous"

The standards are available from:

Canadian Standards Association
5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100
Mississauga ON L4W 5N6
Tel.: 1-800-463-6727
In Toronto, call 416-747-4000
Web site: www.csa.ca

Some test methods are undergoing revisions. When changes to test methods are made, future amendments to the EE Regulations are expected to include reference to revised test methods.

Effective dates

These requirements will be brought in over a period of several years in order to provide time for the industry to increase availability of higher efficiency models. This amended regulation is expected to come into effect from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016 as indicated in the table.

Labelling requirements

As required now, all regulated water heaters must have efficiency verification labels that indicate a third party has verified the ratings.

Efficiency labelling of water heaters is being considered.

Verification requirements

Third party verification will be required on energy efficiency ratings (EF, standby loss, thermal efficiency), tank capacities (measured, diffusion test, and rated volume), standby power, and whether Plus 1200 has been used for ratings.

Importing reports

A dealer who imports these products into Canada must include the following information on the Customs release document:

• Type of product
• Model number
• Brand name
• Name and address of the dealer importing the product
• Purpose for which the product is being imported (i.e. for sale or lease in Canada without modification; for sale or lease in Canada after modification to comply with energy efficiency standards; or for use as a component in a product being exported from Canada)

Harmonization

The Province of British Columbia has recently introduced higher minimum efficiency levels for water heaters and expects to advance those requirements further. Other provinces may also be planning to introduce regulations for higher efficiency for water heaters. The US DOE has recently published a final rule for water heaters with somewhat higher efficiency requirements for 2015.

The proposed changes as outlined above have significant differences from requirements in the US. The intent is to develop consistent requirements for all of Canada.

Comments Sought

Initial discussions have taken place with water heating stakeholders. Those discussions will continue and this bulletin should generate greater interest with those stakeholders. A webinar will be held and notice will be sent to stakeholders.

Any comments and questions should be forwarded to:

Brian Killins
Senior Standards Engineer
Office of Energy Efficiency
Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street, 18th Floor
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1A 0E4
Tel.: (613) 947-8764 E-mail

Free webinar series Starts Monday!  

There are many financing options available for energy retrofits and solar installations today without PACE.  
The cash incentives from the utilities will encourage homeowners to seek out contractors.  But you’ll miss out on lots of sales if your clients don’t know how to find financing with affordable payments.  


Help your customer understand their choices and costs for the many types of loan programs available today by attending this free Webinar series.
This webinar series will be lead by Rick Williams, an energy efficiency financing specialist with EcoEnergyLoan.  He has provided many EE loans over the years and will share his experience and network of lenders with you in this interactive webinar.  Sign up via the GoToWebinar links below.  We look forward to your participation.

Webinar 1 – Financing Energy Retrofit Overview Monday, Aug. 2nd, 1- 2PM
Click here to Register for Webinar 1
• Importance of providing financing options to your client
• Overview of loan options
• Pre-meeting property investigation
• Initial qualifying questions to client
• Using a financing worksheet to estimate monthly payments

Webinar 2 – Loan Programs in Detail Thursday, Aug. 5th, 1 - 2PM
Click here to Register for Webinar 2
• Basic loan terms made easy
• Checklist of all loans available and requirements
• Costs and resulting monthly payments for each
• Anticipated time to funding
• Choosing your lender partners

Webinar 3 – Client Application Process, Tuesday, August 10th, 1 - 2PM
Click here to Register for Webinar 3
• Qualifying client questions
• Helping your client make the best lender choice
• Staying in control of financing process… It’s your job at stake
• In-home online application…

Webinar 4 – Bringing it all together… Tuesday August 17th,    1 - 2PM
Click here to Register for Webinar 4
• Pre-meeting preparation
• Initial qualification questions
• Worksheet and decision tree use to estimate monthly payments
• Working with your lending partners
• Managing the financing and rebate process
• Successful financing results

The Montana Weatherization Training Center would like to inform you of this week's new episodes of WxTV, online and ready for viewing.
 
This week's episodes are:
 
1.         Weatherization In a Hot & Arid Climate (We went on the road to Phoenix, Arizona to see some of the challenges these crews face trying to keep homes in this region cool.)
 
2.         Dense Packing Walls with Cellulose from the Interior  (A crew in Butte, Montana will demonstrate insulating the walls of a very old home that contains some balloon framing.)
 
Click here to see them at:  http://weatherization.org/wxtv
 
After viewing the shows, leave a comment or question on the blog below each episode.  We welcome getting your feedback.
 
WxTV is a new show highlighting the latest developments in the world of weatherization. Episodes take you step-by-step through new rules, techniques, and products or just about anything else that might be of interest to weatherization professionals. WxTV is one of nine projects funded through the National Community Action Foundation-ExxonMobil Weatherization Training Partnership, supporting advanced weatherization training models.

Malta, NY, July 13, 2010 - The Building Performance Institute, Inc. (BPI), a nationally recognized standards development and contractor credentialing organization is pleased to announce that it received approval today from the American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) as an accredited developer of American National Standards.

 

"This is a natural step in BPI's growth toward becoming the national source for technical standards underpinning the residential energy efficiency retrofit community," said Larry Zarker, CEO of BPI.  "ANSI accreditation is an important formal approval and third-party verification of the fairness, openness and balance BPI has offered all the stakeholders in residential energy efficiency retrofit work.  We look forward to meeting these ANSI obligations with our standards initiatives and to contributing to the overarching ANSI governance programs as a member of the standards community," he said.  

 

BPI's standards development accreditation by ANSI is an increasingly important qualification for its programs in the residential energy efficiency improvement industry.  The public sector encourages agencies to adopt existing specifications and standards where they exist that have followed ANSI accreditation requirements (OMB Circular A-119).  Moreover, ANSI accreditation shows BPI has a firm understanding of the need to conduct these programs fairly, openly and by established due process.  This will ensure its standards-setting work proceeds with a true consensus of views.

 

"The development and execution of ANSI procedures is a significant undertaking, and BPI has committed considerable resources to ensure its success," stated David Weitz, Director of Applied Building Science at the Conservation Services Group (CSG) and Chairman of the BPI Standards Management Board (SMB).  He added "This is matched by the personal commitment of the members of the Standards Technical Committee and its various working groups. These collaborative groups help draft standards for public review and reconcile public comments.  All of these elements working together - staff support, technical expertise, and public oversight - are at the core of an ANSI process meant to deliver standards that are technically robust and acceptable to the industry."

 

John Manz, who directs the Pennsylvania Housing Resource Center at the Pennsylvania College of Technology and chairs BPI's Standards Technical Committee (STC) said "BPI's accreditation by ANSI will strengthen the credentialing process that BPI currently administers.  In light of the proposed Home Star legislation and need for national standards, ANSI accreditation will help ensure that consistency is applied throughout the credentialing process and ensure conformance with requirements throughout the industry."  Said Manz, "BPI's intention is to not only meet, but exceed the expectations of the home performance industry by improving its standards and seeking the highest quality in home performance work."

ANSI facilitates the development of American National Standards (ANS) by accrediting the procedures of standards developing organizations (SDOs). These groups work cooperatively to develop voluntary national consensus standards. Accreditation by ANSI signifies that the procedures used by the standards body in connection with the development of American National Standards meet the Institute's essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process.

ANSI coordinates, facilitates, and promotes the development of voluntary consensus standards that are relied upon by industry, government agencies, and consumers across the United States and around the world. ANSI fosters the U.S. standardization system by accrediting the procedures of standard-setting organizations and subsequently approving individual documents as American National Standards (ANS). Nearly 220 ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers are now engaged in the creation and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that are being used in virtually every industry sector. These standards developers - and the experts that populate them - work cooperatively to enhance the U.S. quality of life and improve the competitiveness of businesses operating in the global marketplace.

 

About the Building Performance Institute
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 with BPI Standards and provide feedback for continuing improvement
• Affiliation of training 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.

 

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

Back

Energy Savvy Cash for Appliances
 

It’s a huge success. It hasn’t gone anywhere. Actually, it’s a little of both.

Fifty states and six territories have launched “Cash for Appliances” programs since late last year. Each one had the same amount of money – about a dollar per resident – but the results have been wildly different. Some states ran through their entire rebate budgets in hours; others can’t seem to give away their money. What’s been going on?

(click for full-sized chart)

Cash for Appliances, modeled on (or at least nicknamed after) last year’s “Cash for Clunkers” program, was funded as part of the $787 billion stimulus bill. Unlike “Cash for Clunkers”, the appliance rebate program wasn’t designed and administered by the federal government. Instead, the government directed $300 million to the 50 states (plus DC and several American territories), at a ratio of roughly $1 per person in each state. Each state then had the opportunity to design their own program within the general guidelines given by the government.

As you’d imagine with a lot of cooks in the kitchen, no two states designed their rebate program in the exact same way: rebate amounts, categories, eligibility, application processes and marketing plans have all differed. As have the results… Ten states had crushing consumer demand that caused them to run out of rebate funds within 4 days of the respective program start dates, with complaints of flooded call centers and crashing websites. Thirteen other states still have desperate operators standing by and literally can’t give away their money.

Comparing State by State Rebate Programs

It’s not just a matter of some states having better deals than others. Take, for example, refrigerator rebates in Massachusetts, Minnesota and California. The programs in all three states offered $200 rebates on efficient refrigerators. Massachusetts and Minnesota “sold out” in 1 day and 2 days respectively. California? Same rebate amount, but the program has been open since April and still has $19 million in rebates unredeemed.

Across the country, the rebate categories and amounts are all over the board:

Category Smallest State Rebate Largest State Rebate Refrigerators $50 $700 Clothes Washers $35 $800 Freezers $25 $600 Dishwashers $25 $400 Air Conditioners $20 $1,075 Furnaces $100 $2,000 Heat Pumps $75 $2,000 Water Heaters $100 $1,400 Solar Water Heaters $150 $1,200 Boilers $100 $1,200

So what attributes matter the most when it comes to determining whether a state program sells out quickly or not at all? The answers aren’t as straightforward as you’d think. We did some analysis to compare each of the programs to see what predicted their likelihood to sell out.

What Doesn’t Matter

Average Electricity Rates: One of the biggest surprises in analyzing the state by state rebate data is that the average price of electricity in a state has almost no impact on how popular its Cash for Appliances program is. Consumers don’t seem to be thinking about this program in terms of its ability to save them money over the long-term – otherwise, we’d expect to see that the states with much more expensive electricity selling out their rebate programs much more quickly than those that have relatively cheap power.

Non-Appliance Rebates: There are the “shiny” appliances (refrigerators, washers, freezers and dishwashers), and then there are the “boring” systems (air conditioners, furnaces, heat pumps, water heaters, boilers and solar water heaters). There’s almost no correlation between the number of “boring” categories that a state has rebates for, or the maximum amount of any of those rebates, and the speed at which the state has gone or is going through their Cash for Appliances budget. While we haven’t seen break-downs for many states in terms of the numbers of each type of rebate that have been redeemed, this result indicates that most people aren’t being motivated by the number or dollar figures of non-appliance rebates.

What Matters a Little Bit

Number of “Shiny” Appliance Rebate Categories: There are four basic appliance categories where states can offer rebates (refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers and clothes washers). Generally speaking, the states that offer rebates in 3 or 4 of those categories are more likely to have run through their rebate dollars quickly than those that have offered rebates in fewer appliance categories.

The fact that states that offer smaller rebates on a broader set of appliances have handed out their money faster than states that offer larger rebates on fewer types of appliances may mean that rebates aren’t successfully channeling consumers into buying specific appliances, but rather “catching” buyers who were already planning purchases.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, there are no rebates on “basic appliances”. All the rebates being offered in that state are for the behind-the-scenes systems for heating water and air (furnaces, boilers and water heaters) –systems in the home that utilize far more energy than kitchen and laundry appliances. And yet, Pennsylvania is one of the “slowest” states utilizing their Cash for Appliances money: of their $11.9 million, they’ve only given out $2 million as of early July. Does that mean that Pennsylvania is failing in their “Cash for Appliances” program? As an economic stimulus, it has clearly not injected as much activity as other “fast” states. But in the longer term, its rebate program should save Pennsylvanians more money than states using their money on appliance rebates only – saving more kWh per rebate dollar spent – if homeowners would just use the program!

Highest “Shiny” Appliance Rebate Dollar Amount: If you exclude several outlying state programs, where very large appliance rebates are provided but only to low-income (Kansas, Oregon) and disabled (Alaska) residents, there’s some correlation between the dollar amount of the largest appliance rebate and how quickly the program dollars ran out, though not nearly as much as whether a program required reservations.

What Really Matters

“Do you have reservations, sir?”: The number one predictor of whether a state rebate program sold out quickly didn’t have anything to do with how generous the rebates were. It actually turned out to hinge on the program’s design. Virtually all the “fast” states required consumers to pre-reserve a rebate application before making a purchase. These states set up websites and call centers that “opened” at a certain date and time, creating an “event” that turned into a feeding frenzy of activity, before closing down within days, or even hours.

Think of the lines around the block at your local Apple store each time a new version of the iPhone comes out. With the iPhone 4, everyone was just standing in line for a reservation! Do you really think Apple’s product marketers could have been taken by surprise by consumer five times in a row (4 iPhone versions and the iPad)?

Ten of the 17 “fastest” states required consumers to reserve a rebate before purchasing a qualifying appliance. Six others had hybrid programs where consumers could either reserve ahead of time or get the discount at the point of sale (if available). Of the 15 “slowest” states, 11 have no reservation system, and three others have optional reservation systems. Basically, all the “slow” states use mail-in rebates after purchase.

Conclusions

For consumers, there’s not much more to say than to give the advice to make calculated, rational decisions about the upfront cost of energy efficiency measures, the available rebates and the 3-5 year payoff. Of course, it’s been pretty well documented in recent behavioral economics research that most consumers don’t behave rationally. So, how about this? At least make sure that you’re aware of all the state, utility and federal energy rebates and tax credits that you can “stack” together and pay for your projects. And, if you’re not sure which projects are the best investment, EnergySavvy has an online energy analysis tool to help you figure it out.

For rebate program designers in government, utilities or manufacturers, there are a few lessons that can be taken away from the Cash for Appliances results:

1. Create demand through scarcity by requiring pre-reservation for new rebate programs. For rebate programs like Indiana and Pennsylvania (and like many utility rebate programs across the country), that only pay out non-appliance rebates, a potentially effective strategy to kick-start demand would be to re-launch the program with higher rebates for the same back-end measures, but require consumers to pre-reserve their rebate on a specific launch date.
2. Bundle “shiny stuff” (basic appliances) and “boring stuff” (HVAC systems) together to increase the uptake of less exciting, but greater energy saving, systems.
3. Catch the “already upgrading” crowd by offering rebates on a wide set of categories but only on the most efficient models in each category. The program may not be stimulating purchases that wouldn’t have happened already, but it can nudge consumers to the highest efficiency products in each category.

The data from the Cash for Appliances program results fit with academic research on consumer behavior.

“The variable rates of uptake based on seemingly trivial factors such as creating a sense of urgency are further evidence that, when the goal is to encourage consumers to act in their best interest, giving them some reason other than pure rationality can be surprisingly effective,” said Michael I. Norton, Associate Professor of Marketing at Harvard Business School, “Inserting some excitement into behaving well – in some sense, copying the way parents induce their children to eat their vegetables via airplane noises – should always be an important consideration for policymakers interested in encouraging behavior change.”

For more information on this report and analysis, contact Scott Case at EnergySavvy.com.

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 35 205 home energy magazine 1 1 251 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The DOE recently released a this 4-minute video about the training offerings of The Weatherization Training Program at Pennsylvania College in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 37 212 home energy magazine 1 1 260 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Weatherization professionals are saying there's plenty of work out there. There certainly is plenty of work to be done. Pennsylvania plans to weatherize 29,700 homes in the state over the next three years, which they say will create nearly 1,000 new jobs.

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 43 246 home energy magazine 2 1 302 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Are you a trainer who offers weatherization assistance program training? List your offerings at the Home Energy Guide to Training Programs online. If you have a video about your program, post a link to it in the Comments section below.

Normal.dotm 0 0 1 66 377 home energy magazine 3 1 462 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Are you interested in boosting your knowledge and experience about residential energy efficiency and getting certifications to increase your visibility in the job market and gain all those fancy acronyms after your name? You don't have to be in Pennsylvania. Join us at www.homeenergy.org/HETG and find training programs in your area to keep you up to snuff with your competition in the realms of Home Performance.

 

 

 

Henry Gifford is a man who designs mechanical systems for very energy efficient, comfortable, and affordable apartment buildings in New York City, along with his partner, architect Chris Benedict. In a recent article in Fine Homebuilding, Henry explained how geothermal heat pumps work in a way that I will always remember. I paraphrase:

Dig a hole in the ground. Put some buckets of water in the hole. If you are deep enough below ground, the temperature of the water in the buckets, after a while, will be about 550F. Take the bucket into your house and put it in your refrigerator. The fridge will cool the water down to say 500F, and the heat produced in the coils behind the refrigerator will add some heat to your house. Voila! You’ve created a geothermal heat pump.

Notice that the heat produced is not free. It takes electricity to run the refrigerator. And if you don’t want to spend your days hauling water in buckets from the hole in the ground to your refrigerator, you’ll want to install a water pump, which uses more electricity.

The very best residential geothermal heat pump system, according to Henry, has a coefficient of performance (COP) of about 3. This means that for every 2 watts of energy the system pulls from the ground, you have to provide only 1 watt of electricity. You get 3 watts out for 1 watt in. But a typical system has a COP of about 2.

Given that electricity is produced at power plants that use fossil fuels, and depending on the mix of fuels your utility uses to produce electricity, you will probably burn more fossil fuels using a geothermal heat pump with a COP of 2 than you would using an efficient gas- or oil-fired furnace. And geothermal heat pumps are much more expensive to install than traditional furnaces.

At Home Energy Magazine, where I work, we always tell people that if you have your house air sealed, insulated, and provided with the right amount of ventilation to keep you healthy, you can do better with a medium-efficiency furnace than you would with a high-end system—ike a high efficiency gas furnace—and a leaky house. For most of us, that’s the best choice of all, for heating and for cooling.

Berkeley pioneered a way to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy installations on buildings in 2008. Since then, 22 states have introduced similar programs. But the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) is being blocked for the time being by, of all things, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, holders of about half of the home mortgages in the country and a major player in the financial crisis that we are still recovering from. PACE adds jobs and helps revitalize the construction industry; the irony is gushing like an oil spill.

PACE allows a city to offer loans to homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and to add renewable energy such as photovoltaics (PV). The loan is paid back to the city over 20 years or so through increased property taxes. But the savings in energy costs each year outpaces the increase in property taxes. It’s a win for the homeowner and the environment. When the home is sold, the loan stays with the house, since the new homeowners will continue to enjoy the benefit of the energy retrofits.

But Fannie and Freddie sent a letter to lenders questioning the practice. They worry that a city will get its loan money back first if the homeowner defaults, and leave the lender on the hook for the costs. When the owner of half the mortgages question a practice, lenders put the breaks on.

There is a lot at stake. Recurve, a San Francisco-based home performance company, stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in home retrofit work that may no longer be financed through PACE. And California and other states stand to lose millions of seed money that would be provided by the federal government to cities to support PACE programs.

Neal DeSnoo, Energy Program Officer for the City of Berkeley calls the Fannie and Freddie letter “vague and irresponsible.” “There are plenty of good PACE models out there they could look at and provide guidance. Instead, they sent a letter out with no guidance.” He sees some solutions to the problem. “The FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Authority] can issue practical guidelines concerning the issuing of loans to homeowners, or they could look at each program individually.” One way to protect the lender is to look at the loan to value ratio to help ensure the homeowner has the wherewithal to pay off the loan. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should understand how to lend responsibly, shouldn’t they?

Remember the Hydrogen Highway that would run the length of California and provide the infrastructure for the Hydrogen Economy? California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger talked up the idea in his 2004 State of the State Address:

I am going to encourage the building of a hydrogen highway to take us to the environmental future...I intend to show the world that economic growth and the environment can coexist.

It might have been a good idea, but a bit premature in 2004. Now, after an exciting discovery at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), it’s a good idea whose time may have come around. Hemamala Karunadasa, Christopher Chang, and Jeffrey Long, who hold joint appointments at LBNL and UC Berkeley, discovered a cheap way to create hydrogen from water—even “dirty” water like seawater.

Hydrogen is normally created from natural gas, or some other fossil fuel; it can also be created using electricity, water, and a catalyst capable of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once created from an energy source, hydrogen is used in fuel cells to create electricity, or it can be burned directly, for example, in a combustion engine.

If you use renewable energy, such as electricity produced from the sun or wind, to create hydrogen, it’s a clean and carbon free process that doesn’t add any greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or use up any fossil fuels—like the kind floating towards the Louisiana wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico. But it requires a catalyst; unfortunately, the most common and effective catalyst is platinum, which is a precious and expensive metal.

Can growing marijuana change the way homes use electricity? In rural Humboldt County, in far-northern California, there’s no doubt that it can. Figure 1 tracks average monthly residential electricity use in Humboldt County and in California. Until the mid-1990s, these two values were almost identical. But after 1996, Humboldt County’s electricity use suddenly turned upward. What happened? In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized the medical use of marijuana. In practice, Proposition 215 enabled almost anyone to purchase marijuana. Humboldt County supplied much of the upsurge in demand. Marijuana is a hardy plant and grows just fine outdoors, but many farmers grow it indoors to protect themselves from nosy neighbors, police, and gangs. It’s a true cottage industry.
 

Enlarge Image
Figure 1. After 1996, Humboldt County’s per capita electricity use suddenly turned upward. What happened? (Image credit: California Energy Conservation, U.S. Census)
Two researchers at Humboldt State University, Peter Lehman and Peter Alstone, have documented the energy and environmental impacts of marijuana production in the region. Growing marijuana indoors is an electricity-intensive operation, relying on banks of grow lights and industrial-scale ventilation fans. Even a “modest” operation can rack up several thousand kWh per month. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Humboldt County residents supplement their incomes with “grows.” Similar enterprises exist throughout North America. In Colorado, for example, a single raid found grows in 25 Denver basements. The only difference is that in Humboldt County, the electricity impact is visible at a regional level.

Most energy auditors, utility repair staff, and weatherization crews can tell stories about visiting homes where the occupants are growing marijuana or running other drug operations. Sometimes the auditors never get beyond the front door, or perhaps they are told not to enter a certain room, or the “garage” out back. In any event, that’s usually a signal to abort the job and leave the premises.

It is also important to understand the consequences of growing marijuana inside the house. Simply put, cultivating marijuana indoors destroys homes. The plants create water vapor, which encourages highly toxic mold growth and destroys building materials. The larger operations abandon any pretense of living in the house, because they chop holes in walls and floors for ventilation and wiring. These are greenhouses masquerading as homes, and they are not habitable without tens of thousands of dollars of remediation. The police department of Ottawa, Canada, maintains a list of homes where marijuana is grown so that city authorities know which houses are likely to have mold and structural problems. Of course, the house might burn down before the mold does it in, if the huge electrical loads overwhelm the residential wiring, or stolen electricity is brought in the house through amateur wiring.

Without arguing the merits of legalizing marijuana, it is clear that our drug laws have created a new—and large—use of residential electricity. One likely side benefit of decriminalizing marijuana will be reduced home energy use in Humboldt County, in California, and in the rest of North America.

Photo by Jovan Peric - Fotolia.com Homes with high energy consumption are likely to provide us more opportunities to save energy. If that’s true, then why don’t we see more programs and businesses geared toward the high users?

Regulatory authorities discourage utilities from creating programs targeting the high users. It is politically unpopular for utility programs funded by ratepayers to support the wealthy. High users, the logic goes, are probably wealthy and therefore able to save energy without assistance. The same attitudes prevail at the federal level, as evidenced by the low-income weatherization programs; caps on tax credits; and less emphasis on the frequent causes of high use, such as swimming pools, hot tubs, heaters for water beds, and well pumps. That view is understandable, but if that’s where the cheapest energy savings lie, should this benign neglect be reconsidered?

It’s also important to realize that high users are not necessarily rich. The city of Tallahassee compiled an impressive list of 101 explanations for high summer utility bills. Only a few of them are associated with high-wealth possessions or activities; most are linked to defective equipment or mismanagement. A separate Florida study of 172 representative homes found that the highest user—clocking in at 40,000 kWh/year—was definitely not wealthy; he had a defective air conditioner and a broken timer on the pool pump.

A few communities have already recognized the problem of high energy and water use. For example, Marin County in California, and some mountain towns in Colorado, have enacted stricter energy efficiency codes for McMansions and other oversize homes. These large homes are almost certain to become high users, so the codes effectively target high users. Some utilities have operated under the radar, using bill stuffers as a means of targeting the high users. But these are the exceptions that call attention to the absence of other approaches.

Figure 1. Annual electricity use, in kWh/year, by number of years Seattle City Light customer lived at same address. Source: “Residential Customer Characteristics Survey.” Seattle City Light, February 2010. High users often pay more for electricity than average users, because a quarter of the nation’s utilities have increasing block tariffs. This gives high users a greater financial incentive to save.

At the same time, we know surprisingly little about the high users. Is their high energy use caused by more heating and cooling? More appliances? Unique appliances? Defective equipment? Less regard to energy costs? Is the low-hanging fruit just a mirage? It seems that some research could go a long way here. A recent survey conducted by Seattle City Light is full of intriguing results and hints at the strange habits of the high users. In Seattle, the longer people occupy a home, the more electricity they use (see Figure 1). Perhaps “appliance accretion” is one cause of higher energy use—that is, once a television gets plugged in, it never gets unplugged. Surely we need to learn more so that we can make energy conservation irresistible to this important group.