What are the advantages of certification?
Reid Baldwin
| Posted in General Questions on
What would be the advantages to a homeowner of having a new house rated to one of the energy efficiency standards such as HERS, Energy Star, or LEED? I am not asking about the advantages of doing the steps that make the rating good, I know what those advantages are. I am specifically asking whether it is worthwhile to do the administrative steps of getting a rating. For example, would it increase the appraised value?
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
We went through the Energy Star program and yes, it was worthwhile.
Our electric utility sponsors it by paying for the HERS rater, so there was no cost to us. There was some paperwork and admin time, but not much. The Energy Star related inspections were helpful, especially the provided blower door tests. And last, but not least, we received an almost $4k rebate.
I do think a good Energy Star rating and the certification would be a good selling point to buyers.
Reid,
Yes, it would increase the appraised value. The Appraisal Institute now has special forms that an appraiser must complete if appraising an energy efficient home. Finding 3 comparable properties in the market area that are also energy efficient is not always possible. This evaluation allows the appraiser to evaluate the appraised home at a higher value even when compared to identical sized homes that are not as efficient.
In addition to being appraised at higher values. DOE has teamed up with agencies like PHIUS and they now offer special loans for people looking to build a Passive House or Zero Energy home. DOE has a list of companies that offer loans for energy efficient homes. One must seek certification (Passive House, Zero Energy) in order to qualify for these loans. One cannot just say they are building an energy efficient home and claim some type of pretty good house classification that doesn't even exist. It must be a true certification though a legitimate agency.
Reid,
While Peter is describing the ideal situation, the facts on the ground don't always match the ideal.
In some areas of the country, appraisers and home buyers are sophisticated enough to properly value energy conservation features. In much of the country, however, the market does not adequately value these features -- even if the home in question is certified as complying with a recognized program or standard.
Hi Reid,
I think it is to go for any certification that will bring down your energy levels (such as energystar, enerphit and much more so - passive house). These goals shows your builder and his subs your commitment to building a sustainable home. As a Passive House builder I have heard many of my colleagues say that the way I build is nuts and that we should just keep building the way we always have - with out clear targets it would be easy for you traditional builder to slip back into his/her comfort zone and deliver a leaky energy hog home.
Martin,
The same can be said about building codes and inspectors. There are plenty of houses that should have failed inspection because they don't meet code minimum but the inspectors still pass them and give certificates of occupancy. So should we stop having code inspections?
Certifications like EnergyStar, Passive House, DOE Zero Energy, etc, were developed to make people aware that such programs exist and make it a goal for those who wish to make their homes more energy efficient and certify their homes under those programs.
The cookie-cutter spec housing market will continually only build to the minimal R-Value as allowed by law. It's about building cheap and fast and making the most amount of money for the builder. If they can cut corners on insulation, they will, since you can't see what's between the walls or above your head. It's all about the granite tops and eye candy.
Without detailed and scientific parameters like those set by the DOE one is left to make up whatever they "feel" is adequate. For some R-10 walls is pretty good and to others R-20 ceilings is pretty good. Codes and certifications set scientific standards that must be met to pass code and/or certification.
A lot of advancement has been done in that realm and with the Appraisal Institute coming on board and with the DOE teaming up with agencies like PHIUS, that is progress.
Peter,
I wasn't trying to make the case that appraisers (like code inspectors) are human and sometimes make mistakes -- although that is, of course, true.
I was making a different point: I was saying that in some regions of the country, neither appraisers nor home buyers are willing to assign value to energy conservation measures. In these areas, any homeowner who thinks that an investment in green building certification will yield added value when the home is later sold is likely to be disappointed.
Are there significant distinctions among certification/ratings programs in terms of administrative effort and benefits? I have heard from one person that went through LEED certification locally and said it was a lot of work that didn't get them anything tangible. Getting a HERS rating seems simpler. We are not designing to passivehaus standards, so that is out. Depending on how one defines net zero, we would be close to net-zero-electric (we will have natural gas heat and DHW). The utility company requires some evaluation of electric demand as a condition of participating in the net metering program to ensure that customers will not be installing more PV capacity than their demand.
We are still at the design stage. If we did decide that some type of certification is worthwhile, do we need to be doing something now (beyond deciding what energy efficiency measures to include) or does that happen after the house is built?
A HERS rating is very easy to get, and if you're doing any kind of energy modeling (or getting Energy Star) you'll have one.
Zero Energy Rated Homes is another US govt program (like Energy Star) and I think it's a valuable rating program, and one that has the potential to gain traction in the marketplace.
But in the meantime, Martin is right - there is depressingly little evidence that any of the measures we constantly talk about here are rewarded by the real estate market.
For the most part the general public is clueless about energy-efficient house designs and certification programs. That is true. The only way to educate them and to get the word out is to talk, discuss and promote these certification programs. Sadly, some in the green energy circle do just the opposite and attack these programs. By doing so, the seeds of discord are sown and people continue to be unaware of these programs and shy away from energy efficient homes. I call it the "self cannibalization" of the green movement.
People need set parameters just like they have in building codes. If not for these clearly written parameters people will do as they choose and what they feel is pretty good R-values becomes the final authority. As mentioned, some will think R-10 walls are pretty good and if not for code they would build R-10 walls. Feelings replace science and cynical attacks against certifications allow for the movement to stagnate. A house divided against itself cannot stand. So it is true with the green energy home building movement.
Pick a certification, there are plenty: Energy Star, Passive House, LEED, DOE Net Zero Energy, HERS, etc. and do the certification. If one cannot afford the $700 to even do Energy Star Certification then they probably shouldn't be building a home in the first place.
Peter,
Reid is clearly interested in building an energy efficient house. The only question Reid raised is whether it is worth pursuing the certification.
You advise that he "Pick a certification, there are plenty: Energy Star, Passive House, LEED, DOE Net Zero Energy, HERS, etc. and do the certification." But you don't really explain why he should do it -- except to build the movement and provide increased public awareness of these programs.
Martin,
You stated, " But you don't really explain why he should do it -- except to build the movement and provide increased public awareness of these programs."
Is that not reason enough? As you know, it's deeper than just having the public aware of these programs. It makes the public aware that building energy efficient homes has benefits to both the homeowner and the environment for our lifetime and for the future generation.
When you tell someone or someone reads about an "Energy Star Certified" or "Certified Passive House", they can research it and read what that entails and what the advantages are in such a certified home. Instead of just saying "I have an energy efficient home with some pretty good insulation in the walls and ceiling". How does one even validate that or quantify that?
Every other facet in life has certifications. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, police officers, firemen, automobiles, electrical appliances, TVs, cell phones, mechanics, automobile engines, airplane pilots, truck drivers, scientists, etc.
Why then with a home is it all of a sudden a "it feels pretty good" approach?
As you sit on the operating table the doctor above you tells you he is not a certified physician but he read some information from a forum blog website about doctors and he feels he is a pretty good doctor and he's confident that he can operate on you.
Certified energy classifications for homes is building science and not random armchair feel good methodologies. House certifications is progress and the more one degrades it the more it hurts the entire green building movement. It's not about only the homeowner but collectively as human beings living on a planet that we need to protect for future generations.
"is it worth pursing the certification"? YES it is.
Peter,
When you compare the credentials of doctors and mechanics to houses you are taking apples and oranges. If it's important that the people involved in building have formal certification you should be promoting the involvement of architects and engineers, as they are governed by professional bodies and have met certain educational requirements.
The only generally accepted standard we all use are our building codes. Imperfect as they may be, they are comprehensive, are (generally) universally applied and at some level represent society's priorities. Green certification programmes have very diverse aims. You end up with an entirely different house using Leed that you would Passive House. Why not lobby for improvements to the codes, rather than programmes that often represent special interest groups?
Count me among the cannibals.
Peter,
Malcolm admitted that codes are imperfect. Contrary to your assertion, today's codes are far more stringent than the codes of the 1970s.
But code stringency is a red herring. The question at hand is whether a GBA reader who is building an above-code house should bother to pay to have the house certified by a green building program.
Peter,
There is no right answer in this discussion. If for whatever reason you find certification useful, then by all means pursue it. I don't see the point and object to a) the programme advocate's attempts to make their certification mandatory and b) the notion that everyone interesting in energy efficient housing should tow some party line and support them.
As far as building codes go.
I will let Joe Lstiburek answer that: (quotes taken from "If Walls Could Talk, The Science Of Building) http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2012/08/02/4th-annual-uncensored-twitterview-joe-lstiburek-building-science-summer-camp-2012
Joseph Lstiburek: Codes have long ceased to be a means of preventing disasters. They’ve become instruments of social change and government policy. I don’t have a problem with social change and government policy; I have a real issue with building codes as the vehicle for achieving that.
Jason Forney: Can you give a specific example?
Joseph Lstiburek: The thermal-resistance requirements for the building enclosure — we’re now being told what glazing ratios to use. So homeowners who want lots of windows for views and daylight and transparency are forced to build a very different sort of structure, because someone has decided that limiting windows is the prescribed route to lower energy consumption. The codes are consensus documents, but consensus from whom? They are subject to unbelievable lobbying — the process is subject to tremendous political interference. I think people would be appalled at what codes have turned into if they knew how bad the process is. Having said that, I don’t have an alternative.
Jason Forney: What would your code look like if you were in charge?
Joseph Lstiburek: My code would be one sentence: Don’t do stupid things. But the entrenched reality is that codes are political documents. It took me 15 years to get the vapor-barrier provisions changed because of all the politics. Politics in a vapor-barrier discussion? Well, sure: If the code requires a vapor barrier, then you have created a market for a certain set of products that must be used. If the code doesn’t require it, then the market expands to a different set of products. Somebody makes money, somebody loses money.
Malcolm,
If you believe that that IBC/IRC is not influenced by special interest groups then we are not even on the same page. Building codes are heavily political and influenced by special interest groups including the lumber industry, contractors and plenty of other large interest groups. Malcolm, you are 100% wrong about your understanding of building codes and the politics involved.
Back in the 1970's they were putting R-13 fiberglass batts in 2x4 walls and fast forward 40+ years later to 2015 and they are still putting R-13 fiberglass batts in 2x4 walls. Welcome to the building code and so-called "progress".
You are barking up the wrong tree trying to enlist Uncle Joe in support of green programmes.
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-007-prioritizing-green-it-s-the-energy-stupid
and
https://www.architects.org/architectureboston/articles/if-walls-could-talk-science-building
" Why do you need a special label certifying that you did what you were supposed to do? Why do architects need to join a special club with an arbitrary and capricious checklist and a secret handshake? I’d be insulted if somebody told me that I had to follow this checklist. That’s why I became a professional. Are we not professionals anymore?"
Peter,
I'm sorry I'm wrong. I'll try not to do it again.
I can think of some situations which could make certification worthwhile:
- If you would like third-party verification of the performance standard your builder has promised
- If there are incentives available such as Brian P received
- If it will get you a higher appraisal to improve the terms of your loan
- If it's a spec home for sale. Certification is a promise of future performance to create consumer confidence, like an automobile's EPA rating
If none of these conditions are met then a higher value at future resale is probably not by itself a good reason for certification. A prospective purchaser is likely to attach more value to your actual, historical energy bills. Proof, not promise.
Apparently we will have to agree to disagree.
There needs to be set metrics in place which are scientific, tested and verified by 3rd party that they are in place and work. Without certification the house simply means it passed code minimum. That's it. Anything the homeowner did above and beyond that is speculation and unverified. They can claim they have R-40 in the walls but it is completely unverified and the subsequent future homeowner has no clue what's in the wall beyond it passed code when it was built (circa...).
I will end with this from the 4th Annual Twitterview in 2012 with Joe Lstiburek:
Q: What is this year's biggest green building annoyance? Joe: That everything is green. Which means that nothing is green. There are no metrics that measure green appropriately.
Q: Are we winning? Joe: We've become tribal. We're not united on anything. The game is win or lose. If we keep behaving this way, we all lose.
Malcolm Taylor quote from post #12, "Count me among the cannibals." So basically you admit you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Malcolm,
You totally missed the boat on that one. The Building Science document you linked was from 2008. In addition, See my post #16 which is from 2012:
Q: What is this year's biggest green building annoyance? Joe: That everything is green. Which means that nothing is green. There are no metrics that measure green appropriately.
Joe then goes on to say:
Q: Is passive house an assinine standard? Joe: No, you just need to keep the good parts of PH and change the bad parts. And it needs to evolve. A boutique that impacts a few hundred homes doesn't solve anything.
In the 2013 TwitterView interview Joe Lstiburek stated:
""Passive House is the only place where real innovation is happening."
In the 2014 TwitterView interview Joe Lstiburek stated:
Q: Where are you seeing innovation?
Joe: I continue to be amazed at passive house, and the fringe sustainability movement. I’m impressed at the technology. You can’t always model and calculate. You need to build, push, break and fix. I’m amazed at how much good stuff is coming from people who use this approach.
Q: While we’re on the topic of passive house, passiv or passive?
Joe: Passive! The germans need to stay in Germany.
Q: Meaning that you support a climate zone specific approach to passive house?
Joe: Yes.
So it's pretty apparent that he believes in the PHIUS movement and the climate specific standards they have initiated.
Malcolm, you are wrong again. Just like you were wrong in post #12 when you stated:
" Why not lobby for improvements to the codes, rather than programmes that often represent special interest groups?"
Joe Lstiburek stated it best:
"The codes are consensus documents, but consensus from whom? They are subject to unbelievable lobbying — the process is subject to tremendous political interference. I think people would be appalled at what codes have turned into if they knew how bad the process is."