One year ago today, an earthquake struck the Sichuan Province in China. The earthquake was the 19th deadliest of all time. Early surveys indicate that over 170,000 square miles were affected at a level of “slightly damaging”, and over 1200 square miles on the level of “devastating”. As of May 7^th,, 2009, there are 68,712 dead and more than 17,923 missing. With such excessive damage, rebuilding has been required on a massive scale.

In late April of 2009, media outlets reported that families displaced by the Sichuan Earthquake housed in Temporary Housing Units (THUs) were experiencing health related problems due to the buildings. There is speculation that formaldehyde is the culprit. While FAS has no direct evidence to support or discredit this claim, the work we did on air quality in emergency housing built after Hurricane Katrina makes it possible to make some informed guesses about what is happening in China.

To this end, we’ve put together an article looking at the potential indoor air quality problems in China, with proposed solutions moving forward. The paper can be found here.

Print PDF

Unfortunately, utility bill information is stored in a huge number of idiosyncratic formats and is not accessible to individuals and organizations that could use it.  This complex, un-standardized landscape means that anyone interested in comparing their energy use with national averages, or understanding how their building is performing in terms of energy consumption, has to do an enormous amount of work sorting through confusing bill information.  The small investment it would take to get these billing records into standardized formats, and making them easily available to anyone with permission to use them, would pay large dividends, for example by helping individual consumers make better decisions when they are purchasing and operating buildings, and by helping officials managing public programs designed to encourage building energy efficiency make better management decisions.

In the future, detailed information about patterns of consumption may make sense when there’s widespread use of “smart meters” that keep track of energy use minute by minute, and possibly appliance by appliance.  But major gains are possible simply by reporting energy use for each month.  Here are some examples:

• Legislation could require that billing records and benchmarking data be disclosed to potential buyers at time of sale.  Labels providing data on a building’s energy use have been developed in Europe and are being considered in California and other parts of the US.  Most labels being considered include both calculated energy demand (called “asset rating”) and measured energy consumption (called an “operational rating”).   The US Environmental Protection Agency has developed a tool called a portfolio manager that lets building owners compare the energy performance of their buildings with the performance of similar buildings in similar climates.  At present nothing similar is available for residential buildings. The burden on the user would be greatly reduced if billing data can be uploaded automatically, using standardized formats.
• If billing records for a building are available online with suitable permissions, a utility, or a third party like Google could provide a service where a consumer could go on line, identify themselves with an appropriate password, and get access to the building’s history of energy use by month – preferably several years of data.  This could then be automatically compared with energy use from similar structures in similar climates, and estimates of the reductions likely to result from cost-effective retrofits.  Consumers might well be motivated to take action.  Benchmarking tools for this purpose have already been developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Good building energy audits involve entering data about a structure into a computer model that estimates a building’s energy use and also computes the savings that would result from different retrofit measures that could be taken (adding insulation, replacing windows, etc.)   Unfortunately these models are often wrong since the outcome depends on the skill and experience of the person using them.  Accuracy can be improved if the models include an analysis of the actual energy consumption of the structure.  Monthly consumption data, made available to building auditors by permission of the building owner, can be used to track the sources of inaccuracy in the data input and, and algorithms could be developed over time that would suggest corrections to the user.   Improved models will lead directly to retrofits that show better performance and are more cost-effective.   The cost of doing this would be greatly reduced if auditors could access consumption data directly over the internet using appropriate network security tools.  In the future most auditors are likely to be using wireless, handheld units at the building site to collect data and perform the energy use estimates.  These could also have direct access to the data.  The software for these tools would need to be adjusted for each utility if each company keeps data in a different format – at a significant increase in cost.
• Utility data available online could also be used to strengthen project management for retrofit programs.  The performance of individual auditing and contractor teams could be continuously measured and compared based on the actual impact their work had on energy use in the buildings they serviced.   The persistence of savings could be measured over a period of years and the actual performance of different approaches to retrofits compared in ways that could lead to continuous improvement of the programs.  This, of course, would require collecting and maintaining data on the kinds of measures undertaken and  the cost of the installations in a standardized format.
• Energy use data collected in a consistent form would also permit continuous analysis of progress, or lack of progress, of city, state, and national programs to improve energy efficiency.  It could be used, for example, to compare programs in different cities, and track the impact of different policy interventions in considerable detail.  While care would need to be taken to ensure that identifiable personal information is not released, statistical agencies have considerable experience in analyzing data scheduled for publication to ensure that this doesn’t happen – and they have a good track record of success.  The novelty in this new system, of course, would be that the data would be gathered online.  Careful design of network security would needed.
• The introduction of “smart grid” technology will open more opportunities for collecting detailed information about building performance.  The new systems will let building owners and utilities adjust consumption to avoid system peaks and provide information useful for understanding the consumption of specific equipment in the buildings that can, among other things, be used to understand the impact of any retrofit measures undertaken in the building — with statistically significant samples.   The smart grid will require standardized approaches to measuring and reporting consumption data.

Taken together, the benefits of a consistent national format for the energy consumption of individual utility customers would be considerable.  The benefits would include much improved management and accountability for retrofit program funds, and more energy savings per dollar invested.  While some utilities may complain about the cost of converting existing data formats to a new format, the overall costs would be small compared with the savings that could be achieved.

Print PDF

John is currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program. He is currently evaluating and commenting on U.S. energy policies and focusing on clean energy and economic stimulus initiatives. He is also providing analysis to the U.S.–China provincial and municipal energy efficiency management program for the Carnegie Endowment.

John’s paper for the Carnegie Endowment examines if the massive increase in funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program can be spent well, or if it is simply money thrown at a “feel-good program”.  According to the paper, the answer to this question will “depend on the ability to successfully complete three tasks:

1. Accelerate the administration of the program, including bringing together a federal, state, local, and private sector implementation structurewith transparent monitoring and verification of the results.
2. Secure the support and participation of stakeholders with an interest in the success of the program, not only because their support is essential,particularly in the southern states, but also to build confidence in the directionof the stimulus package.
3. Translate the federal stimulus investment into a self-sustaining,ongoing activity that relies on other funding sources and is recognized as vital in meeting long-term national goals.”

John analyzes each of these three tasks, discussing the potential problems and opportunities associated with each, and he provides recommendations for successfully accomplishing each. The full paper, which I highly suggest reading, can be found here.

Print PDF

Construction has begun!

FAS is partnering with the Citizen League for Environmental Action NOW (CLEAN), an environmentally conscious community organization in Houston, Texas, to build a home to demonstrate the use of structural insulated panel construction. The home uses fiber cement board faced SIP panels with expanded polystyrene cores. These panels passed rigorous test requirements established by the International Code Council (ICC), which dictates standards for building in the United States, as well as additional tests conducted by FAS that looked at structural and fire safety under extreme conditions.

And now, after extensive designing and planning, construction has started!

I’ll be posting pictures here periodically and providing a running commentary on the construction process as the house takes shape. Photos of foundation prep and the first walls going up can be found after the jump…

Click on thumbnails for the full size image.

Panels on the site prior to construction. Photo by Rocky Bambino Perez (CLEAN).

Panels on the site prior to construction. Photo by Rocky Bambino Perez (CLEAN).

The first panels are set in the corner. Typically SIP construction begins at one
corner and works out in both directions. Photo by Rocky Bambino Perez (CLEAN).

Installing splines to connect the panels. Photo by DT Construction.

Moving the steel trusses onto the site. Photo by DT Construction.

Steel trusses set on the site. Photo by DT Construction.

View from the South. Photo by DT Construction.

Print PDF

While there is still a lot of planning to be done, this page is a great insight into a lot of the discussions that have already been happening.

Read more here.

Print PDF

On Tuesday, President Obama signed the $787 Billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. The act is estimated to save three and a half million jobs over the next two years.

We’ve kept an eye on it through its development, and I want to give an update as to what made it out the other side and into law. My comments on building related portions are below. A more inclusive evaluation of the stimulus’s green measures by the Alliance to Save Energy can be found here and here.

• DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program: $5 Billion
  • The House version of the bill allocated $6.2 Billion and the Senate version set aside $2.9 Billion. The final version ended somewhere in the middle. With the amount of money allowed per home increased to $5,000, the program aims to retrofit roughly 1 million homes in the next two years. As we’ve said before, this has the potential to be a really great thing for the economy, energy independence, and national carbon footprint. That said, scaling the program up from $227.2 Million to $5 Billion (22 times larger) will require a monumental effort in management, training, and data analysis. I will post more about our thoughts on this in a separate post.

• Retrofitting Federal Buildings – $3.6 Billion for Department of Defense (DOD) energy efficiency projects and modernization of facilities, $4.5 billion to GSA for measures to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green Builings, $400 million to establish the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings, $75 million for Defense-wide funding of research, development, text and evaluation projects, including pilot projects, demonstrations, and energy efficiency manufacturing enhancements
  • This is a bit different from what was proposed in the senate and house bills. The House version gave $6 Billion to GSA for improving GSA buildings and $1.7 to DOD for energy efficiency projects and building improvements. The Senate version had the same two measures, but funded at $2.5 Billion and $3.2 Billion, respectively. The senate version also contained $200 million for research ($75 million in the final law), $250 Million for improving the Department of Health and Human Services facilities and $323 million for energy-related construction at the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities (both cut from the final).

The final version of this should drastically improve the state of federal buildings, making them more energy efficient and safer, saving tax-payers billions in spending on federal energy bills. The creation of the Office of Federal High Performance Green Buildings will be another great step towards the legislation of “high performance” buildings. Kelly Shultz, our Building Technologies intern, is currently writing a paper on the history of high performance legislation, as well as recommendations for future coordination and implementation. I’ll post this paper in the coming weeks, which will elaborate on the importance of this office.

• Retrofitting HUD Buildings: $2.25 billion for energy retrofit investment grants and loans for Section 8 Project-Based program; $1 billion from the Public Housing Capitol Fund funding to fund improvements in energy efficiency; $2.25 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to help build and rehabilitate low-income housing; $510 million for Native American housing block grants, to include improvements in energy efficiency
  • This didn’t change much from the senate and house versions of the bill. This section is interesting, because it puts a lot of money into retrofitting buildings at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Currently there isn’t any sort of coordinated retrofit program at HUD, making this an equal large managerial challenge as the weatherization program increases. However, there is a 1 percent set aside for program management, research, etc., which will aide in running the program. We think this program should be coordinated with the weatherization program, federal building retrofits, and all other retrofit efforts to take best advantage of both the money invested and the opportunity to improve our energy use and climate impact.

• Decoupling and Higher Energy Codes: $3.1 billion for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) State Energy Program (SEP), which provides grants and funding to state energy offices for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs conditioned on state Governors’ assurances regarding regulatory policies, building code requirements and the prioritization of existing state programs.
  • I’ve mentioned this section before, and I’m curious how far it pushes the bar on decoupling. Basically, Section 410 of the bill stipulates that a first round of grants will be given based on current allocations, and sets conditions on the states for them to obtain the second round of energy conservation block grants. The conditions are that the governor has to notify DOE that s/he has “obtained necessary assurances” that: (a) the state’s regulatory body will “seek to implement” a policy to make sure utility financial incentives are “aligned” with energy efficiency — which is a weak way of pushing states towards decoupling (but not mandating it); and (b) the state will adopt the latest IECC code for residential energy efficiency and the ANSI 90.1-2007 code for commercial building energy efficiency. At the end of the day, the Act doesn’t require either decoupling or code improvements, but it incentivizes them, with a rather weak incentive for decoupling (but an incentive, nonetheless), and a relatively strong incentive for adopting higher energy codes.

• Green Schools: $9.75 billion for public safety and other government services, which may include assistance for elementary and secondary education and public institutions of higher education, and for modernization, renovation or repair of public school facilities and public institutions of higher education facilities, including modernization, renovation, and repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building rating system
  • The original House version of the Act had $14 Billion for school modernization. Which has been trimmed and watered down, offering less money and less emphasis on energy efficiency measures.

• Green Jobs: $500 million for research, labor exchange and job training projects to prepare workers for careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, and up to $37.5 million provided for Job Corps Centers, which may include training for careers in energy efficiencyo
  • This is an interesting provision that I haven’t read into in enough depth. One of the largest obstacles in the implementation of the Act and its long term impacts on the shape of the economy/job force will be the training of a new “green” work force, and it is important that money be placed aside to the development of curriculum and training of workers. I will read more into this and post what I find.

Overall, I think that while some of the money in the House and Senate versions of the bill have been trimmed down or eliminated, there is still a very significant amount of money being placed into improving our nations building stock, with a keen eye on improving energy efficiency. This will create a large number of jobs, and will take advantage of buildings as the low hanging fruit in our national energy consumption reductions. The Act carries with it many massive managerial challenges for different government agencies, and it remains to be seen how these will be handled. That said, I remain hopeful that this Act will bring our nation’s economy and energy consumption back in a positive direction.

Print PDF

Stay tuned…

Print PDF

“This is another concern that I’ve had in some of the arguments that I’m hearing. When people suggest that what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient — why would that be a waste of money? We’re creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans’ homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus, and we are saving taxpayers, when it comes to federal buildings, potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we’re reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn’t we want to make that kind of investment?”

I couldn’t agree more.

The full text of President Obama’s press conference is available here.

Print PDF

Read more about the announcement here.

Print PDF