Warning to high-performing home builders and subs
I just read a blog by Stuart Kaplow’s “Green Building Law Update” about a lawsuit filed against a builder of Zero Energy Ready Home program houses.
I imagine we’ll have to wait for further details down the road, but till then, everyone that designs, builds or works on high-performing houses should be aware of claims and quality of construction. Never mind that occupant behavior and lifestyle is as important and the actual construction of a house.
Read for yourselves: https://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2019/06/articles/green-building/net-zero-house-lawsuit-filed-against-home-builder/?utm_source=Stuart+Kaplow+-+Green+Building+Law+Update&utm_campaign=0ca95e420d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8d988983f7-0ca95e420d-73249497
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything - so it may mean nothing. But agreed - "net zero" could easily mislead someone into thinking that they won't end up with something like "net 3000 kwh/yr". But the truth, "net zero maybe", doesn't sell well.
Net Zero Maybe. I may add that to my resume.
You have to install the right amount of PV to get there, and working with a knowledgeable and experienced solar contractor is crucial. We are usually right on the money when owners install PV. One thing to remember is that sometimes the owner adds a 70' swimming pool + jacuzzi + theater + EVs + a barn, + parties every weekend + etc., which may not have been included in the initial calculations. The reality for most PV owners I've designed their homes is that they try really hard to conserve more and more energy the longer they live there, like a challenge.
ZERH is different than ZEH. In most cases where you can't get true net metering or no net metering at all, the idea is to get between 75%-95% of the annual energy needs, so you don't give away electricity to the grid without being compensated or no credit at all.
You can go in The Tour of Zero at the ZERH Program website and see homes already built and certified to the program. Many of those homes do energy tracking.
If I recall correctly, the Builder in question has won an award(s) at the ZERH Conference in the past.
This might also be tied into the "don't worry about it, it's free!" thinking. Basically if they think they have a "net zero" house, they don't worry what temperature they set the air conditioning for, they leave lights on forever, etc. Basically they think they have free energy. They then push their energy demands way outside of the expected parameters for normal occupants of the house, and they come up short with their solar (or other energy saving device) capacity. They get upset when they see a bill, and now they point fingers.
It's the old "subsidize something and you get more of it" problem. If someone thinks something is free, they see no need to be conservative in their use patterns.
Bill
Occupant behaviour is a huge factor in any of these calculations. That's why I don't favour the initiatives that would penalize builders of new houses for high energy bills, or that these bills should be disclosed as part of real estate deals.
Jon often highlights an important distinction between the energy efficiency of a building, and the lack of correlation between that and the occupant's carbon footprint. Unfortunately perhaps, from the perspective of a designer or builder, only the first can be controlled. The second is almost entirely up to the individual occupant to moderate.
I totally agree. Homeowners don't generally understand the realities of engineering, so they'll blame the builders/designers instead of their own behavior.
I've never liked the idea of a "carbon footprint" either since it implies all energy involves carbon and that's not true. There is much variation region by region depending on the primary sources for electrical generation. This is especially true in Canada due to the very large percentage of electricity sourced from hydroelectric sources there. To imply that x kw/h = y carbon emissions in very misleading.
Bill
If one lives in an area with excess and non-exportable hydro power, I think it would be quite appropriate to build a house with less insulation. Spend the saved money on a plug-in hybrid.
Doesn't that conflate the role of designers and builders in improving the efficiency of the housing stock, with the behaviour of individual occupants? Suppose the house gets sold to someone with a big diesel pickup? Suppose the original owner uses the insulation savings himself to buy one instead of a hybrid?
Builders need to deal with the things that are in their control. Unless we are going to get into some pretty serious social engineering, I don't see how you make the trade-offs you are suggesting.
Agreed, it does. But forcing people to do things that are clearly wasteful and inefficient because of political failures elsewhere isn't the right thing either.
No, you are right. I take your point.
"I totally agree. Homeowners don't generally understand the realities of engineering, so they'll blame the builders/designers instead of their own behavior."
- I also think engineering in some cases doesn't understand occupant behavior. For example my office is a LEED (Silver) certified 20 story building. The set point for the HVAC system is 78 degrees during non-business hours and it doesn't start cooling until 0700. Well there are a ton of people who arrive in the office between 0700-730 and it's doesn't become comfortable until around 800-830. We've complained but were told that the building is operating within the design parameters and it would cost more $$ to start cooling sooner. My suspicion is they don't want to lose their LEED certification.
Oh and thank god I'm not light sensitive epileptic because the motion-sensored LED's go on the fritz fairly regularly
I prefer to consider a building's "environmental impact". I'm not convinced that it's any more or less controllable than a building's energy use. And it's more relevant to the things I care about.
As long as our energy grid has a relatively high environmental impact, energy use seems like a decent stand-in for environmental impact that's significantly easier to quantify.
Reducing environmental impact is definitely the goal though, I agree with you there! What metrics do you use to evaluate the environmental impact of your design decisions?
Agreed, generally much harder to quantify. But I expect that there are some low hanging fruit adjustments that aren't so hard.
If they put me in charge, I'd charge everyone for any environmental damage they cause. Eg, the cost of electricity would reflect it's true cost, not some subsidized version that doesn't account for environmental impact. This simplifies building design towards "make it cost effective", which is in line with human nature.
We don't have this, so yes, there are all kinds of adjustments to make. I don't have the answers, but I'd like to think that I have a clearer idea of where we are trying to get to. The "net zero energy" people are chasing the wrong goal - and while it usually has a reasonable correlation to the right goal, the error is increasing.
You can't quantify "environmental damage" though, aside from easy things (company A cheated, dumped a bunch of gunk in the river, we know because we saw x, y and z things happen downstream, those types of things). All that "reflect it's true cost" stuff is usually people making up ideas to get money for their pet projects. Cost of production includes costs for fuel, capital for construction, and OAM. Emissions control costs are already in there. Coal plants have had precipitators for practically forever, for example. It is no longer the 1800s with black smoke belching out of every factory. You often can't even tell if a power plant is operating these days by looking at what is coming out of the stack.
It's similar to people that move in next to a refinery or a farm and then complain the refinery or farm should leave or pay them to move because they don't like it. The refinery or farm was there first! Nothing was "done to" the person that moved in next to something that was already there.
I'm all for trying to maximize efficiency as much as possible without going overboard with costs. To use your earlier example, I'd argue that even with 100% hydro or nuclear or other zero-emission energy source, it's still worth being efficient and not wasting energy. That would mean good amounts of insulation, using LED lighting, etc. Things like insulation also have additional benefits like enhanced comfort too.
Bill
Almost sounds like you are pro-coal. And for allowing anyone with a history of polluting to continue to do so.
No, I'm pro rationality. Technology has improved over time, and it wouldn't make sense to take aggressive action against any industry just because at some point in the past that industry had an issue -- especially an issue that wasn't even thought to be an issue at the time. People didn't know as much 200 years ago, and the technology didn't exist back then to keep emissions in check.
I'd prefer to see more hydroelectric and nuclear facilities and less coal, but being aggressively anti-coal accomplishes nothing besides making for more expensive electricity for everyone. It will take years, probably decades, to transition a significant portion of electric production to other sources.
Bill
Bill- The grid is rapidly transitioning from coal. I suspect that ten years from now, at least 95% of existing coal plants will have closed. They just make no economic sense. Just today I read an article about an Indiana utility that is accelerating its plan to close coal fired plants because renewables are cheaper. They expect to save $4 billion over thirty years.
And in CA, a utility just signed a long term deal to buy solar power at less than 2 cents per kwh. No fossil fuel plant can touch that.
Finally, we need to remember that air pollution isn't the only problem with coal. Burning every ton of coal generates a few hundred pounds of crud that is typically dumped into a pile. It will be contaminating ground and surface water forever. Eventually, someone will have to pay to clean it up.
Bill – I agree with you to a point. Is not economically reasonable to change an industry overnight, but at the same time, we’ve known that coal industry is a dying industry for awhile. We now use 27% of our coal generated electricity down from 50% just in 2005. From the peak of employment in the early 1900s of 900,000 jobs, now is less than 50,000. In 2006, coal produced 1.2 MM tons, and now is down by 35%. This is a dead industry, and the continuing support with federal incentives is misguided.
In contrast, during the last decade alone, the average annual solar industry growth has been 50%, to add more than 260,000 jobs and generated $20 billion to the American economy by 2019Q1. New solar capacity generation has grown first or second (natural gas) for the last six years, and in 2019Q1 alone grew 51%! Solar PV generation has the highest growth potential than any other energy generating industry.