Home builder tests water efficient housing

A Los Angeles home builder has embraced water conservation, at least on a trial basis.

KB Homes has partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, building the first homes in the nation to be certified by the agency's WaterSense program, agency officials reported. The four homes are in Roseville, Calif. and are expected to help families save 20 percent over the run of the mill home, or an average of 10,000 gallons of water and at least $100 on utility costs each year.

“The construction of the first WaterSense labeled homes, and the plans to build more, mark the beginning of an innovative approach that gives homeowners the chance to cut their water and energy bills and protect a vital environmental resource.” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in a statement.

The program, which seeks to help home buyers cut their water and energy use, serves as another indication of where the industry appears to be headed. Energy efficiency and water conservation are big in California and gaining prominence throughout the West and South where water allocation issues appear to be cultivating nothing less than high anxiety.

I'm reminded of Jack Nicholson in the movie "China Town," in which John Huston, as villain Noah Cross, says, "Either you bring the water to L.A. or you bring L.A. to the water."

It's all about water. Was then and it is now.

Frank Ferral, who heads the Recycling Energy Air Conservation program for the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce, has been spreading the conservation message to business -- and anybody else who will listen -- for the better part of the past decade. His point is relatively simple: Saving energy and water and keeping waste out of the trash makes economic sense.

Hundreds of businesses have signed up for his program in which a team of experts goes through a building and identifies areas that can benefit from installation of energy efficient lighting, water saving devices and waste diverting practices. The REACON program in Stockton has helped develop an industry manufacturing products out of former debris.

With a recent grant, Ferral has been expanding his program and message throughout California's Central San Joaquin Valley. His concept has been to team up with chambers of commerce and offer them up the team energy audit concept so the chambers can provide it as a value-added product to members.

I tagged along on a couple of audits in Fresno, one at a bank and another at a business in an old downtown building. The lighting expert said he could get immediate savings of about 20 percent on the bank and more than 30 percent on the older building. The water savings were more basic, adding a 1.2-gallon flush toilet among other measures.

The EPA has entered into a consumer friendly realm with its WaterSense site, which offers tips and quantifies retrofit measures. Each of its WaterSense houses includes aptly labeled plumbing fixtures, an efficient hot water delivery system, water-efficient landscape design and other water and energy-efficient features.

EPA officials estimate that if the approximately 500,000 new homes built last year had met WaterSense criteria, the homes would save Americans 5 billion gallons of water and more than $50 million in utility bills annually.

Yeah, it's in the water.

US, EU push toward energy efficiency

Energy efficiency is going global.

It's not just a bunch of true believers pounding fists on tables.

Last week in Lisbon, Portugal, the year-old U.S.-EU Energy Council brought up energy efficiency and clean energy technologies in a joint statement from the council and U.S. State Department, saying the concept has "effects across our foreign, economic and development policies."

The council ordered its Energy Security Working Group to pursue an aggressive list of clean energy issues. Officials said they "highlighted the importance of enhancing cooperation on energy efficiency in the buildings sector and products," recognizing "the mutual benefit of working towards common standards, convergent regulatory frameworks and effective incentives for the deployment of emerging clean energy technologies."

Also targeted were electric vehicles, energy storage, cellulosic and algal ethanol, and carbon capture and storage. The council praised the working group for its research into hydrogen and fuel cells, solar power and even nuclear fusion.

The emerging international consensus embracing the value of energy efficiency follows that of California. The state has successfully championed energy efficiency as a way to diminish the need for new energy generation since the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s. Consumers, the federal government and a bunch of movers and shakers in corporate America have jumped aboard relatively recently.

By working together on energy, officials involved with the council say the U.S. and Europe can increase "mutual security and prosperity; underpinning stable, reliable and transparent global energy markets; and coordinating our regulatory regimes and research programs to speed the deployment of tomorrow’s clean and efficient energy technologies."

The bottom line? Economic growth and job creation. At least that's the line from the U.S. State Department. Climate change goals also factor in.

The U.S.-EU Energy Council brought together Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; EU High Representative Catherine Ashton; EU Energy Minister Freya Van den Bossche; and EU Commissioner for Energy Günther Oettinger.

Heavy hitters. But this is politics, and the actual effect of the effort may be minimal at first. This is especially true in this case. While energy efficiency received top billing, there was also quite a bit of time given to Ukraine's natural gas transmission and Nigeria's oil fields.

Still, my impression is that the more that energy efficiency is publicized, embraced and instituted, the more the common Joe and Josephine will give it a try. It's like my recent post about LED bulbs being hawked at hardware stores across the nation. They're a little expensive to install but worth it in the long run.

Times are changing.

Photo: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton & EU Foreign Affairs & Security Policy High Rep./European Commission VP Catherine Ashton

Energy efficiency movement gains steam

Energy efficiency doesn't boast the sex appeal of solar or wind power, but it gets results.

And influencing more people to champion the cause could siphon off a large resource of untapped energy savings. At least that's the conclusion of a study released this week by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE.

After all, the nation’s largest single user of energy -- accounting for about half -- is homes and commercial buildings, said William Fay, executive director of the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, this week. Fay made his remarks at the Final Action Hearings for the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code in Charlotte, N.C. on Monday where building officials from across the country voted for a series of new building energy codes expected to improve energy efficiency in new buildings by 30 percent, according to BrighterEnergy.org.

The ACEEE study's authors said programs that motivate green behavior could lead to significant savings and should be implemented with greater zeal. "We need to design and build programs that change habits as well as light bulbs," they said.

The sentiment reflects that of Art Rosenfeld, the nuclear physicist and California energy commissioner, a pioneer and tireless advocate of energy efficiency. He was dubbed the Godfather of Green by KQED and told CBS news in a past interview that the United States' descent into an unrepentant energy guzzler can be explained simply: "Energy in the U.S. is dirt cheap. And what's dirt cheap is treated like dirt."

Rosenfeld adopted the position advocated by ACEEE early on, successfully working to change consumers' wasteful habits in California.

The state got the message -- with Rosenfeld's help -- back in the 1970s at the height of the anti-nuclear movement. To avoid building another reactor, the state went with energy efficiency, improving building and appliance standards. The result: the Rosenfeld Effect, which resulted in the flattening of the state's per capita energy use.

ACEEE's researchers made a number of recommendations for enhancing the acceptance of energy efficiency. One was increasing the visibility of energy using behaviors. One particular program, already offered by PG&E's smart meters, allows consumers to see more clearly how much power they consume.

The smart meter on my house enabled me to monitor power consumption of my new SEER 13 air conditioning unit. I had switched from an evaporative, or swamp cooler, and was worried about ballooning electric bills. Fortunately, those didn't come to pass, and my family was able to keep summer cooling bills relatively low, keeping the thermostat on 78 degrees.

We're still not great about dealing with vampire power -- the electronic devices all over the home constantly sucking energy and consuming as much or more than 10 percent of a home's power demand.

Changing habits can make a big difference to the environment, not just the bottom line. As Rosenfeld said, "To delay global warming, you get halfway there with efficiency."

Energy efficiency is what many refer to as the "low-lying fruit" in the move to clean energy. For instance, a recent report by Boulder, Colo.-based Pike Research estimates potential annual energy savings of more than $41.1 billion if all U.S. commercial space built as of 2010 were included in a 10-year retrofit program.

The next step in the clean energy movement is more costly.

Rosenfeld said renewables like solar and wind should be pursued once energy efficiency is addressed. "But renewables cost you money, while efficiency saves money," he said.

Calif. & Mass. top energy efficient states

When it comes to energy efficiency, California ranks No. 1.

At least that was the finding of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in its recently released 2010 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard report.

Massachusetts placed second and Oregon, New York and Vermont round out the top five.

"Governors, state legislators and officials, and citizens increasingly recognize energy efficiency — the kilowatt-hours and gallons of gasoline that we don’t use thanks to improved technologies and practices — as the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest energy resource to deploy," the report's drafters said.

The findings reflect those of a recent report by San Francisco-based Clean Edge Inc., which listed California just ahead of Massachusetts in a study listing the top clean energy states. That study listed innovation in multiple sectors as a key to developing a green economy.

In addition to states taking a leadership role in the energy efficiency movement by undertaking new policies and programs, the ACEEE report found:

• Alaska, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico showed the most improvement from last year's report by increasing investment in utility energy-savings programs, expanding state government initiatives and adopting better building codes. 
• State spending of $4.3 billion on energy efficiency in 2009 was about double that of two years earlier. 
• Twenty-seven states have adopted or are in the process of adopting energy efficiency resource standards that establish fixed, long-term energy efficiency savings targets. That's double the number four years ago. 
• Twenty states have adopted or are in the process of adopting improved building codes that stress energy efficiency. 
• California, Massachusetts and Washington have enacted greenhouse gas reduction targets related to transportation. 
• The injection of more than $11 billion in federal stimulus funding for state energy efficiency projects has helped create new programs that are saving money and putting people to work.

Would You Invest $30,000 To Reap A Return Of $250,000?

We here in Fresno, which is one of the hottest regions of California and has some of the highest power bills in the state, should have energy efficiency at the top of our green list.

Frankly, it boggles my mind that more property owners, legislators and policy makers still don't understand that energy retrofits are a great investment. Wouldn't you, as the headline to this article says, commit $30,000 to save $250,000 in expenses later?

Is there any investor who would not think that was a good return? Certainly, Chris Martin, director of energy management at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, thinks so. He led one of 14 teams across the country that participated in an EPA-sponsored Biggest Loser-style contest to shed the most energy weight, according to this New York Times story.

The Chapel Hill team spent $30,000 upgrading a residence hall on campus, and wound up slashing energy expenses $250,000, much of it by adjusting the heating and cooling system to run slower during moderate weather. All combined, the school cut energy use 36% .

The university engaged residents of the hall in the process. CityBiz Magazine said a touch-screen computer was installed in the dorm's lobby so students could track energy consumption. Each floor held energy-saving competitions, and reminders were posted in elevators, bathrooms, and common areas.

That means more money in university coffers. I don't know if Chapel Hill is strapped for cash, but I know a few campuses in California that would love the extra money.

Chapel Hill has seen the light, so to speak. Upgrades to 100 buildings on campus saved nearly $4 million last year, according to the New York Times. The average savings per building was $33,000. The average per-building investment: only $7,000.

"The payback is on the order of months, not years," Martin told the newspaper.

Other teams also got good returns for their investments. A Sears store in Maryland cut energy consumption 31.7%. A JC Penney outlet in Orange, Calif., reduced energy use 28.4%. Together, the 14 teams saved $950,000 on power bills.

Businesses and others in the San Joaquin Valley could probably reap good returns too. After all, temperatures reach triple digits in the summer. Businesses and families pay the price with heart-stopping power bills.

Retrofits and modifications such as these are the low-hanging fruit of the whole greening movement. Consider the iconic Empire State Building. A $20 million energy-efficiency upgrade, which includes more than 6,000 new windows, will shave $4.4 million annually off the power bill.
That's a payback of 4.5 years. Simply amazing.

Commercial building space in the United States covers a total of 79 billion square feet, and buildings, 80 percent of which are more than a decade old, are one of the leading sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions, said a recent report on commercial building energy efficiency by Boulder, Colo.-based Pike Research.

The report, "Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Buildings," estimates potential annual energy savings of more than $41.1 billion if all commercial space built as of 2010 were included in a 10-year retrofit program.

Unfortunately, shredded budgets, the freezing of Property Assessed Clean Energy programs and an economic recession make it harder for businesses, homeowners and landlords to finance the upgrades.

But those who can manage it might enjoy a nice financial return.

(Photo of Morrison Hall by online wsj.com)

Green jobs? Heck yes, workers say

Those on the unemployment line aren't the only ones hoping for a break.

Many who are out of work or have had to take anything the job market has had to offer these past two years are hunting and/or daydreaming about a better position and future. And all this tepid economic news about a slow recovery -- coupled with almost daily reports of growing fallout by shadow foreclosure inventory and about 25 percent of U.S. homeowners under water on their mortgages -- doesn't help.

The recession-plagued economy has elevated interest in so-called green jobs, especially when a number of reports tout the up-and-coming sector's influence. Yet when these forecast jobs materialize and what they will look like remain as hazy as the view from Fresno to the Sierra Mountains. (For those who haven't gotten the opportunity to see what I'm referring to, let's just say it's very hazy and sometimes muddy.)

San Francisco-based research and advisory firm Clean Edge Inc. offers some clarity and digestible information with its report "Clean Tech Job Trends 2010." Company co-founder Ron Pernick, senior editor Clint Wilder and research associate Trevor Winnie summarize and gather data from other reports and bring their own findings to plot out a fairly optimistic view of the future of clean tech in the realms of wind, solar, water, materials and transportation.

"There are many challenges facing the sector, but clean energy and more broadly, clean tech, offer some of the largest growth opportunities on the global economic horizon," they write.

Clean Edge carves the market into four parts: energy, transportation, water and materials. Energy includes everything from wind, biomass and the smart grid. Transporation includes battery technology, trains, hybrids and hydrogen. Water includes recovery and capture, drip irrigation and energy efficient desalination. Materials includes bio-based materials, green chemistry and building materials and reuse and recycling.

The list is diverse and the job requirements even more so. But promise radiates from every sector.

Clean Edge says its research shows that "the solar photovoltaic industry alone now represents approximately 300,000 direct and indirect jobs globally, while the wind-power sector includes more than 500,000 direct and indirect jobs worldwide."

Not bad. It also cites reports that say Ireland, Denmark and Great Britain are on track to receive about 40 percent their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, following the lead of Portugal which reportedly is to reach 45 percent this year.

Of course, all this comes with a downside. Renewables -- at least on their face and not including all the damage done by greenhouse gas emissions -- cost more than fossil fuels. Without government assistance, they can fall flat. For instance, Spain -- a leader in solar -- is reportedly pulling subsidies, or feed-in tariffs, for renewables, threatening the future of many new projects and others countries are doing the same to a lesser degree.

And in the blogosphere, the issue has generated controversy. A comment on a greentechmedia.com story about incandescent bulb plants disappearing got this from a responder calling him or herself John Galt: "A set of technologies and products created at great cost to solve a problem that had already been solved (generating electricity), at costs considerably higher than the costs of the technologies they seek to supplant? My 12 year old daughter knows that’s a losing business proposition."

Environmental strategist and author Andrew Wilson says the debate over green jobs is far more nuanced than simply focusing on solar panel installers. He writes in HuffingtonPost.com that the international job market is facing a choice of decline or prosperity, with fossil fuels comprising the former.

"Oil is basically at peak production globally, and coal plants are nearly impossible to build in the U.S. anymore," Wilson writes. "Even as the world demands more energy, and even as fossil fuel production continues, these companies will continue to get more efficient with labor. So don't count on the fossil guys to create new wealth and jobs."

Wilson and Clean Tech point to a future of green-related jobs over a wide array of industries, linked only by concept. The mainstays, solar and wind, will provide positions but the multiplier effect comes from the spin-offs, the related support and supply jobs.

"There are more subtle shifts in labor going on as companies that did one thing in the old economy are finding their skills useful in the new one," Winston writes. He cites the case of an oil-patch cable company laying undersea electrical transmission lines for offshore wind turbines.

Pernick and Wilder at Clean Edge acknowledge clean tech needs assistance from government. They called for five national policies and initiatives they believe could play a critical role in ensuring clean-tech growth and job creation.

The first is requiring that a certain percentage of power generation come from renewables. The others were supporting green infrastructure development, enforcing emissions rules, establishing green banks, bonds and funds and implementing carbon taxes.

So what's it mean? Clean Tech's report listed the top metro areas with clean tech job activity. At Nos. 1 and 2 were San Francisco and Los Angeles. Boston came in at No. 3, with New York, Denver and Washington, D.C. filling out the top six. And the salaries aren't bad.

"A new green economy is just that -- a whole new economy, with job openings at all skill levels, from truck drivers to inventors of new battery chemistry," Winston says.

And someday soon something might just pop up on Monster.com for you.

Judge Lifts TRO; Energy Commission Moves Ahead With Power Plan

The California Energy Commission plans to implement a proposed energy upgrade program after an appellate court lifted a restraining order that prevented the agency from distributing $33 million in federal funds.

Commissioners scheduled a hearing today to approve contracts that would implement the Energy Upgrade California Program. That $33 million plan contains, among other provisions, a PACE-like program that falls outside the scope of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to federal rules, the money had to be encumbered by the end of today, although the Department of Energy had made it clear it would not immediately rescind the money.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency had recommended against PACE programs, which use property tax assessments to finance energy upgrades on homes and commercial property. The agency believed PACE obligations would be placed ahead of mortgage loans if the owner defaults.

Fresno and Kern counties were part of a PACE pilot program that was put on hold after the Housing Finance Agency issued its "guidance" and after Western Riverside Council of Governments filed a lawsuit claiming its energy-efficiency program was ignored when $33 million in federal funding was distributed.

The California Energy Commission said the council's $20 million bid was disqualified because it ignored energy-efficiency provisions.

Today, an appellate judge lifted a temporary restraining order imposed by a Riverside County judge in connection with the lawsuit. The restraining order had prevented the CEC from spending the remaining $33 million in federal stimulus funds. No comment yet from representatives of Western Riverside.

The appellate court also canceled a Nov. 4 hearing on a possible contempt charge the Riverside County judge imposed against the Energy Commission. Western Riverside County Council of Governments continued to oppose the Energy Commission programs even though the Federal Housing Finance Agency action had effectively suspended its own PACE program.