Along with your Home Energy Score you also get a list of cost-effective energy upgrades for your home. Click here for a larger version of the image.

For most men of my generation a first car was like a right of passage. The car could be an old beater, or a muscle car; it didn’t matter so much as long as we felt unique driving it. And we all knew the basic nomenclature—horsepower and miles per gallon.

I have a dream that someday homeowners across the land will feel about their houses and apartments the same way people of my generation felt about their first car. They will all know the basic nomenclature—kilowatt-hours and/or Btu per square foot per year. Or something like that.

This Tuesday I found out my dream is becoming a reality. The Department of Energy announced a project, the Home Energy Score, to:

• increase the energy literacy of homeowners;

• support a growing segment of the economy—people who do energy audits and retrofits on houses (think jobs, jobs, jobs);

• put our nation on a path of energy independence through conservation;

• make our planet a healthier place to live in; and

• do all of the above without creating any new legislation or spending taxpayer dollars.

The project is being piloted in nine cities throughout the United States and the plan is for it to go national by later 2011. The key components of the program include:

• a set of Workforce Guidelines for people entering the home energy field—what they need to do the job and do it well, and gain the trust of their customers;

• a software program that will allow home energy professionals to do a one- or two-hour audit of a home, give it a Home Energy Score from one to ten, compare it’s energy use to its neighbors, and immediately provide the homeowner with a list of cost-effective energy retrofit options; and

• low interest loans from qualifying lenders to finance the retrofits.

Soon every homeowner and me will be able to brag about our houses to friends, relatives, coworkers, and neighbors—as we used to brag about our cars. “I have a 1951 California Bungalow with three bedrooms, two baths, and it only uses 500 kilowatt-hours a year for heating and cooling. It’s got a Home Energy Score of 9. So, what are you living in?”

37.8686 -122.267

One of 20 solar-powered homes on display at the Mall in Washington D.C. This one is from the University of Kentucky. Credit: Mike Miskelly

The Solar Decathlon judges these houses in, of course, ten categories.

• Architecture — 100 points
• Market Viability — 100 points
• Engineering — 100 points
• Lighting Design — 75 points
• Communications — 75 points
• Comfort Zone — 100 points
• Hot Water — 100 points
• Appliances — 100 points
• Home Entertainment — 100 points
• Net Metering — 150 points

There are some interesting differences this year, compared to the last contest in 2007. Instead of charging a plug-in hybrid vehicle, as they did in 2007, teams now have to power a home entertainment system. The sponsors of the contest realized that electronic devices, like TVs, make up an ever-bigger share of a typical home’s electricity draw. That’s happening right now, while a plug hybrid car in most every driveway or garage is a thing of the future. A second new feature is that today’s solar houses are connected to the grid. The category “net metering” was not in the last contest. Teams earn points by sending more energy, created by sunlight, to the grid than they use from the grid. The ultimate goal for those of us the home performance field is that all homes become “net-zero” energy homes, or “net-positive,” meaning that the produce as much or more than the grid supplies them over the course of a year. A big problem with solar energy, as well as another renewable source, wind, is that power is created intermittently. Energy storage is necessary, and it is often expensive and not very efficient. With net-zero energy homes, the grid itself provides the storage capacity. When I lived in a Catholic religious community (Holy Cross Priests), the economics of community life were simple—take what you need and give what you can. Same for a net-zero energy house.

I wanted to take a look at the Team Germany (Technische Universität Darmstadt) home, the winners in 2007, but the house was in the process of being judged. Judges don’t announce when they will be visiting a house and which category they will be judging. Teams must keep, for example, the shower water in their solar homes at a precise temperature and flow rate all during the contest. No one knows when a judge will come to the door with a thermometer and flow gauge.

We walked by every house, and stopped at two—with the smallest lines snaking there way out front. (The Solar Decathlon expected as many as 250,000 visitors this year—looks like they made it.) We took a tour of the Iowa State and the University of Kentucky homes. I was partial to the simplicity and the day-lighting scheme of the Iowa house, which made use of simple pine siding and clerestory windows. Mike was more impressed with the Kentucky house, which had some pretty nifty fold up furniture and other creative uses of space. A member of the Kentucky team told us they were inspired by Shaker furniture. The house had wooden chairs, designed in Kentucky and made in Italy, that folded up to be hung on the walls, with decorative features that makes them pleasing to the eye. The Iowa house was made specifically with an older couple in mind. It has a simple layout and it is easy to move around in. Both the Iowa and Kentucky houses had big open showers in the bathrooms, with tiled floors and drainage. Energy efficiency and luxurious (though low-flow) showers can go hand in hand!

As of this writing (Wednesday), Team California, (Santa Clara University and California College of the Arts) is in the lead, with Illinois (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) in second, Team Germany in third, and Team Ontario/BC (University of Waterloo, Ryerson University, and Simon Fraser University) in fourth. The categories of Net Metering, Engineering, and Lighting Design have yet to be judged.

Updates soon!

37.8686 -122.267

Before You Invest in Photovoltaics, make sure your house isn't haunted by phantom loads.

When writing about energy efficiency in California, I know that emphasizing heating systems doesn’t carry much punch. I might as well try to get Californians interested in who makes the best deep- dish pizza. (That’s Chicago, of course. Zachary’s isn’t bad though.) Cooling systems are accounting for more and more of a share of residential energy use as we continue to build out from the cities near the Bay in hot dry climates. But overall, when it comes to climate, the inside and the outside of Bay Area homes are pretty much the same for most of the year. But let’s not get soft on energy efficiency! There are other energy users in California homes that threaten to lift us in the future to the level of, say, what a Wisconsin home uses in the winter today.

Miscellaneous electric loads are electric loads other than heating and cooling, water heating, refrigerators, and lighting, and include consumer electronics, outdoor lights, and portable inside lighting fixtures. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency estimates that these “other” electric loads, along with televisions and office equipment, made up close to 30% of U.S. residential electricity consumption in 2006; this will rise to about 35% by 2020. Part of the reason for the growth in energy use of these devices as a percentage of total home energy use is that homes are heating and cooling more efficiently, with better HVAC equipment, tighter building envelopes, and more insulation.

Rich Brown and Greg Homan of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, measured electricity use in 13 new California homes in 2007 and came up with some interesting results. They metered plug-in devices in standby, off, or low-power mode. Since the homes were not yet occupied, they estimated the annual energy use by using typical use patterns and the energy use of the plug-in devices in active mode, or “on,” measured in other studies. Some of the homes were model homes and packed with appliances and electronics like TVs, and others had only the plug-in devices installed by the builders. Builder installed devices include things like garage door openers, structured wiring, and gas fireplaces. The homes were in four different subdivisions and span the range of typical new construction to super efficient homes with PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems installed.

The builder-installed devices use on average 800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or about $80 worth with electricity at a low $0.10 per kWh. That does not include lighting energy. That’s interesting. About half of the energy used by the builder-installed devices is used by devices that are supposed to be turned off, or are in standby mode! That’s very interesting. This is like having a 50-Watt light bulb on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, lighting nothing.

One of the model homes, the biggest energy user of the 13, used close to 2,500 kWh per year ($250) for two large televisions, a structured wiring panel that uses 20 Watts continuously to power three security cameras and an Internet router, smoke alarms, garage door openers, a washer/dryer, a very big refrigerator, and a few more devices. Add in lighting and that house is a major energy hog, even with super efficient heating and cooling systems and PV panels on the roof.

So what to do? Don’t even think of getting that PV system until you spend some time reducing your electricity load. The PV system you need to meet that load then won’t be so expensive. When it’s time to buy a new appliance, always look for the Energy Star label. Energy Star appliances use about 20% less energy than typical new appliances. Anything that uses a remote control, such as televisions and set-top boxes, or that displays the time of day all day, such as some stoves and microwave ovens, uses energy when officially off. Look for electronic devices that are really off when they say off, or that use 2 Watts or less in standby mode. For your other sleep slurping electronics, plug them into a power strip, and turn the power strip off when you aren’t using the devices. Then look into that sexy new PV system for your roof. More on that in my next blog.

37.8768 -122.251

How much air is your house leaking? Are you unknowingly slurping in dirty air from your garage and attic? Perhaps a blower door test can help you find out.

"I went to the ServiceMagic Web site that I learned about editing a Home Energy article," says Tom. "Within less than a minute after I entered some basic information about my house and what I was looking for in the way of an energy audit, the phone rang." It was Sustainable Spaces, a home performance contractor located in San Francisco. Tom made an appointment for his audit for the next week. "They were offering a 'Stimulus Special' for $395."

The house Tom shares with his partner Dmitri was built in 1907. "The home has never been remodeled," says Tom. "We recently had the furnace replaced with a hot water radiant system. We have been careful to keep to the original features of the home, so we got our radiators from buildings built around the same time that used to be part of the heating systems in buildings at Fort Baker." They also installed a renewable energy source. "We installed photovoltaic (PV) panels on our roof, but we should have had the audit first to show us how to use less energy and save on the PV.  Our annual true-up statement says we owe $75 for electricity, but I want to get that down to $0!"

Rob Mitchell, an experienced contractor who knows a lot about Bay Area houses, came with two younger men for an audit of Tom and Dmitri's 102-year-old home. The crew closed all the exterior doors and windows, installed a "blower door" in the main doorframe, and depressurized the house. Immediately, dust and insulation particles began to pour through the "pocket doors" from the attic. After taking some measurements to get a general sense of how leaky the house is, and blocking some of the major air leaks, the crew from Sustainable Spaces then pressurized the house. "We walked around the house with a liquid pencil, which showed there is airflow around switch plates, gaps in the baseboard where the home is connected to the outside, and the cabinet in our kitchen where there used to be 'torpedo tubes,' which used to hold hot water heated by the wood stove, and other places" says Tom.

So the old house has some problems with air leakage, which means heating energy being lost to the outside. The crew also found out that the humidity in the kitchen was 20% higher than that on the outside of the house. "We both took showers that morning, and I had a cup of hot tea," says Tom. That was enough to keep the humidity high a few hours later.

Since the home has no mechanical ventilation, moisture build up could lead to mold growth on surfaces in the living spaces, or-even worse because it is hidden-within the walls. Mold can degrade building materials and create poor indoor air quality. Tom has allergies and a moldy house could make it difficult for him to breathe. Since Tom is living in the mild climate of the Bay Area, where we can open windows and get fresh air other ways in our leaky houses, the moisture may not hang around long enough to be a problem. If he lived in a cold climate such as Minnesota's, or a hot-humid climate such as Atlanta's, fixing the air leaks in his house without adding mechanical ventilation could create a "sick house", meaning one with poor indoor air quality due to mold.

"We won't get the report until next week," says Tom. The report will include specific numbers for air leakage from the house to the outside-or in this case between the living spaces and the attic and basement. Too much air flow means lost energy and too little means a sick house. The report will also give a range of measures that will make Tom and Dmitri's house healthier and more energy efficient. "We'll decide what measures we want done when we get the report. We made our heating system more efficient with the radiant system that heats the living spaces and provides us with hot water. We use half the gas now to heat water than we did before. So spending a lot more on fixing the building envelope doesn't make so much sense to us right now. We'll probably fix the big leaks by air sealing around the attic. And we may insulate under the floor between the living spaces and the basement."

"I wanted to have our house audited mostly because I'm curious," says Tom. "And we want to save energy." But from now on when Tom talks about home performance, and the importance of healthy and efficient homes, it will take on a whole new dimension-the homeowner's perspective.

37.8686 -122.267

Cooper and me saving energy on the couch

Professor Temple Grandin says that dogs are genetic wolves that have co-evolved with humans for 100,000 years, maybe more. Hence dogs and humans have complementary advantages and deficits. Humans used to have a better sense of hearing and smell, now dogs are better than us at those. Humans walk upright and have better vision and organizational skills, so dogs depend on us to see things and try to find them. Both are social creatures. So the lesson is that Nature has bundled the hardware and software for these skills and abilities between the two species. Unbundling them carries certain risks, so you should try to live with a dog if you can.

I agree that dogs and humans are a pretty good combination. Michele and I have had a dog for about a year now. Cooper is a medium-sized Labradoodle, which is a Lab and Poodle mix. He's a great dog and we love him a lot. He's heartbreakingly cute and cuddly. He has a Lab's great disposition and a Poodle's smarts. We think he's the best dog ever.

But, along with being a good partner, is Cooper an energy efficient addition to our household? Are pets, and dogs in particular, a step in the right direction in the battle against global warming and the fight for energy security? Is Underdog more than a cartoon?

I think "bundling" ourselves with animals is a good idea for lots of reasons, but here is why I think dogs are energy efficient:

1.)   Dogs add warmth in the winter and stay outside most of the time in the summer, so they don't add much to a house's cooling load.

2.)   Dogs add fur in the winter and cool themselves using their tongues. Try that, humans!

3.)  When he has nothing to do, Cooper lays down flat as a pancake and barely moves, thereby conserving energy.

4.)  Dogs are great alarm systems and don't even need batteries.

5.)  Dogs eat stuff that humans throw away. They will clean your plates if you let them, saving water and energy.

6.)  Because dogs need to be walked, they cause their owners to exercise, reducing their owners' appetite and therefore their food intake (that's how it's supposed to work).

7.)  Dogs give you unconditional love and so you don't have to drive your car to visit family and friends.

Anybody want to weigh in on cats?

37.8686 -122.267

Dave Robinson is the "anti-flipper." Credit: Tom White

The cab driver is a renter, and when I told him that the conference he was driving me to was about residential energy efficiency, health, sustainability, and affordability, he complained that his landlord is not interested in making his rental home energy efficient, since the landlord doesn't pay the energy bills. We call this a split incentive. The split incentive facing the imaginary bankers in the back seat of my driver's cab-he wants to keep the bailout money for himself but he's supposed to use it to help people struggling in a down economy-may not end up putting a fat wallet in the cabbies back seat.

I met a man here who can handle a split incentive pretty well. David Robinson is a retired contractor who recently started doing what he calls Energy-Wise Renovations of foreclosed homes. He is buying clusters of homes in rundown neighborhoods in the South Bay, and retrofitting them with measures such as R-50 insulation in the attics, air sealing, and Energy Star appliances. But he is also creating some pretty stylish kitchens, redoing hardwood floors, and installing granite countertops, crown molding, and wainscoting in these homes. "You can't sell a home on energy efficiency alone," says Robinson.

Robinson is having no problem selling these houses for 20% above market prices, and he's still giving the homebuyers, and the neighborhood, a very good deal. "I believe that there is a wonderful and huge opportunity in bank-owned foreclosures-millions of them-and we must rescue all those wonderful opportunities from the normal house flippers who would turn them into a rental and lower the values and miss the opportunity for deep energy reduction. I buy all foreclosed homes and don't feel bad about beating up the bank to get the really good deals."

Robinson is looking for former or current realtors, and financial backers. He wants to teach them his method and therefore accelerate the process of converting our housing stock to affordable, efficient, and sustainable housing, and to make a good living doing so. If you want to know more, call him at (605) 475-4800.

37.8686 -122.267

I have nothing against solar panels, but they do seem to illustrate our collective love of gadgetry. Why else would we leap (or at least dream of leaping) to spend $5,000-$10,000 on solar panels when many of us could make a significant dent in our utility bills with a trip to Home Depot? Small things, like weather-stripping your doors, or making sure you have a well-insulated attic, can make a big difference in how much heat or AC your house consumes.

If you qualify as low-income (in this case, that's less than $44,000 for a family of four) you can get help with this project. If you live in California, you'll find your local participating agency here (or by calling 1-866-675-6623). Elsewhere, begin by contacting your state agency, found here. The Weatherization Assistance Program has received a 10-fold budget increase under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, so now's a great time to apply.

WAP won't replace your TV, but you might consider doing so yourself. Televisions tend to be the third biggest electricity user in the house (after heating/AC and refrigerators). But they don't have to be. All the new features — plasma screens, HD, widescreen — can be (and are, in some models) achieved using less electricity. The California Energy Commission is proposing new TV standards that would cut electricity use by a third.

James Sweeney, who heads the Stanford University Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, calculates that collectively – with current, affordable technologies, and without sacrificing our quality of life – Americans could cut our energy use by 30 percent.

Here's the kicker: To produce that same amount of electricity, we'd have to increase solar and wind by 60-fold. That means, for every solar panel and wind turbine in the country, we'd have to build 59 new ones, plus all the power lines and roads they'd entail. Or, to consider another non-fossil fuels alternative, that's four new nuclear power plants for every existing one.

Listen to the Let's Weatherize! radio report online, and watch our Weatherization Slideshow.

38.63861 -121.46020

Stanley Jevons first described the take back effect in 1865, so this is nothing new. Jevons observed that new efficient steam engines decreased coal consumption, which led to a drop in coal prices. But the lower prices meant that more people could afford to use coal, and so coal consumption increased.

The "Snackwell Effect" takes it's meaning from the habit of people on diets who eat lots of low-cal snacks that add up to many times the calories of a regular snack. The example given in both articles mentioned above is a West Virginia couple that bought an energy efficient washing machine to replace their old inefficient one. Their energy bills were no different after the conversion. Turns out they were doing more loads of laundry, even washing one piece of clothing in one load, because they were lulled into complacency by their energy efficient purchase.

I asked Jim McMahon, the head of the Energy Analysis Program at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), about the Snackwell Effect and appliance energy use. I recently heard him speak about the great efficiency gains made between the first energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil embargo in 1973, and today. Those gains are significant; refrigerators today use about half the energy on average than they did in the 1970s. "This effect [Snackwell Effect] has been studied for a long time, [it was] formerly called the rebound or take back effect," he says. One 2001 study concluded that for every gain in energy efficiency, about 10% is taken back by an increase in energy use. Greater air conditioner efficiency, for example, may mean that people lower their thermostats, since they expect their energy bills to be lower, and this eats into the efficiency savings. "I think that there are a number of energy-using devices where consumers do not exhibit the Snackwell effect, such as refrigerators or televisions. In those cases, in my view, the usage behaviors are unrelated to the cost of energy, at least for most households in the United States," says McMahon. He does admit that more study is needed in this area. A 10% take back effect is significant, but certainly not a barrier to serious energy efficiency improvements.

Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, a sociologist, studies human behavior and energy use for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "The relationship between energy efficiency and energy consumption is not as straightforward as it may initially appear and as some people like to portray it."

The trends show that: 1) residential energy consumption increased by roughly 57% between 1970 and 2005; and 2) residential energy consumption per capita increased by only 7%".

According to Ehrhardt-Martinez, a bigger problem than the 10% of energy lost due to the take-back effect-or the Snackwell Effect-is the proliferation of energy using, albeit more efficient, devices in American homes; lifestyle choices, such as the dramatic increase in the size of homes while families got smaller; population increase; and the "invisible" energy, such as standby power or phantom loads, that is hidden from consumers. "However," says Erhardt-Martinez "if we were able to combine efficiency improvements with better lifestyle choices (i.e. smaller, more energy efficient houses), smart purchasing behaviors, and improved information mechanisms that allowed consumer to actively manage their energy consumption, then we could have a much more dramatic impact on both household level consumption as well as state and national level consumption."

37.8686 -122.267

This 1928 home in Albemarle County, Virginia recently
underwent a renovation through the EarthCraft Virginia
existing homes renovation program. After the renovation,
electricity use dropped by 24% and energy costs dropped
by 42%.

Home Energy Magazine is celebrating its 25th anniversary with a special May/June issue. We're taking the opportunity to look back at the past several decades of energy policy in America, and look ahead to what may come. Here's a sneak preview of some of what we're thinking.

Alan Meier, Senior Executive Editor, and Steve Greenberg, Technical Editor, among others, lived through the first energy crisis precipitated by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and its aftermath. They remember the sudden interest in energy efficiency and renewable energy; the proliferation of solar water heaters on the roofs of homes that broke down quickly, had no one trained to fix them, and have become rusted monuments to the best of intentions gone wrong; the sudden and short lived gain in the average car’s fuel efficiency. They also recall some major successes: the huge and lasting increase in appliance efficiency, especially refrigerators; the success of the Energy Star program; and California’s progressive Title 24 building standards.

Alan, in a yet-to-be-published editorial, has been musing on what will happen after the billions of dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have been spent on building and retrofitting more efficient and sustainable buildings. Will it be the same three steps forward, two steps back pattern that we’ve seen before? Not so, according to Alan, if we:

Steve came up with some powerful images to stimulate our thinking about the future of energy efficiency:

We've been on a ramp with a rather gradual (and usually upward, with notable exceptions) slope. Suddenly the ramp gets so steep it looks like a wall. If we make it to the new, much higher level, what does the terrain look like? Do we go off a cliff, completing a boom and bust cycle the likes of which we've never seen? Or is there a reasonable ramp down to a sustainable level?

I lived through the lines for gasoline, though I couldn’t yet drive. I've observed the resulting interest in miles per gallon instead of horsepower; the return to a horsepower-mentality; and the recent switch back to a concern about miles per gallon. My family had a great experience with our new-fangled heat pump in the early 70s. My Dad, an engineer and all-around handy man, first got me interested in how houses and cars work during that time. I guess I vote for a steep, but not impossible ramp up in efficiency, followed by a less intense, slow and gradual climb that continues for a long time, with sudden jumps due to new, undreamed of (or only just dreamed of) technology. The pressure will come from high energy prices and people starting to feel the real effects of global warming and unhealthy air. I don't think these things will change anytime soon.

37.8686 -122.267

NASCSP is an organization of state-level leaders of weatherization programs and community action agencies. The Department of Energy (DOE) provides funds to the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Its mission is to make the homes of low-income people more energy efficient, safe, healthy, and affordable. It has a pretty good track record in that for every dollar they spend weatherizing a house, someone saves two dollars, and the planet avoids a few tons of greenhouse gas emissions. And the weatherization community is a pretty diverse group. In the green building world, I have never seen so many women and people of color involved in every facet of the work.

Some of the funds for weatherization work also come through the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); some through Energy Conservation Block Grants (ECBG); some through Community Service Block Grants (CSBG); the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (ReGGIe) in the Northeast; and other acronyms… I mean organizations. Thank goodness, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) keeps track of all those funds and how they are spent, and these folks are sticklers for details. They know what all the acronyms mean. Under the Obama administration they are gearing up to be even more demanding of transparency and performance.

It's a very exciting time to be in Washington and at the NASCSP conference. The House "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" allocates more than $6 billion for weatherizing homes in the United States. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill, but right now they are allocating $2.9 billion for weatherization. President Obama has made a firm commitment to weatherizing 1 million homes a year for the next ten years, and even mentioned "weatherization" several times on television. He calls it a "three for." The program helps people afford to stay in their homes by lowering their energy bills, it creates good jobs with a future, and it moves the nation closer to energy independence. To put things into context, the budget for weatherization in 2008 was about $250 million.

In his 2009 budget sent to congress last February, President Bush allotted $0 to weatherization. That's what people in weatherization work are used to for the past several years – figuring out how to do more for less. Now they are getting ready for a flood of money, and that is not an easy challenge. For the weatherization community, the state agencies, the nonprofit service providers, and the contractors who are fueled by the desire to have everyone live in a safe and affordable home, it means doing the same excellent work they have been doing for decades – just much much more of it. These people are big on quality and will not sacrifice it for numbers. They know they will be judged on measurable results – energy saved per dollars spent.

"It's like we have been swimming upstream for a decade," said a conference participant. "Now we're going white water rafting."

37.8686 -122.267