While energy-efficient mortgages are a good idea, there's a more obvious solution, according to Cliff Majersik, executive director of the Institute for Market Transformation, which advocates for energy efficiency:
Make all mortgages - not just specialized ones - account for energy use.
"The fact is that energy-efficient homes have much lower foreclosure and delinquency rates. So that's a market failure, that we're not giving homeowners credit for buying good, efficient homes," Majersik said. "The challenge is that there are processes that have been in place for a long time, and there's pretty clear evidence that they've let us down."
The House climate bill includes a handful of provisions that would reward buyers of efficient homes. For example, the Federal Housing Administration would be required to insure at least 50,000 energy-efficient mortgages over three years, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make the kind of wholesale changes to underwriting guidelines sought by Rashkin, Majersik and others.
Advocates also say national efficiency efforts have been let down by the codes that set minimum requirements for efficiency.
"Energy codes have existed for a long time, but they haven't really done anything," said Aleisha Khan, executive director of the Building Codes Assistance Project, a coalition that helps state and local governments implement efficiency requirements.
Certification programs like Energy Star "pull the market" by spearheading efficiency efforts, "and then you've got codes, dragging up the bottom," she said. "Code is not Energy Star. Code is common sense."
Yet there is no nationwide building code. Instead, states base their own requirements on the International Energy Conservation Code, which is usually updated every three years.
Some states consistently follow the latest iteration of the IECC, but others adhere to years-old versions, and a few "have done virtually nothing at all," said Jean Boulin, program manager in the U.S. Energy Department's building energy codes program.
States are legally bound to review and consider adopting the IECC, but can opt out if they deem the standards inappropriate - in fact, several have no mandatory code. Officials in Alabama, for instance, have declined to follow the code, citing their status as a home rule state.
"There is no ability for any agency to penalize states if they don't follow the law," Khan said. And with so many homes being built to such various requirements, enforcement is tricky. "It's a mess," she said.
A measure in the climate bill would change that by establishing a nationwide code. The bill calls for a 30 percent increase in efficiency over the 2006 IECC upon enactment, a 50 percent jump by 2014 and a 75 percent increase by 2029.
Khan and Boulin said there are other signs that more effective codes and more efficient homes are on the way. For example, Khan said the 2009 IECC is 15 to 20 percent stricter than the previous version -the biggest change so far.
"I'm confident that we're moving forward quite well," Boulin said. "We're finding these are terribly cost-effective things to do, and people shouldn't avoid them."
But further progress depends on knowledgeable consumers, Boulin and a number of other experts said.
Homebuilders say they'll build more efficient homes when buyers ask for them, but demand won't grow until more people understand the benefits of efficiency.
"Consumers really, really need more information about efficient homes," Khan said. "They just aren't getting it."
Edward Vine, an energy efficiency expert at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the California Institute for Energy and the Environment, agrees.
"That's where I'd focus most of my energy," he said. "We have to change the mentality of some people who say, 'We have energy-efficient homes, so why aren't people knocking down the doors?'"
The Fuersts may not have given efficiency much thought before they bought their house, but the couple - along with their friends and family - has a newfound interest, and say they'll try to find another Energy Star home if they ever move.
"The house is heated very evenly," Krista Fuerst explained. "There are no cold spots and no drafts." They set the thermostat at 67 degrees - much lower than would have been comfortable in their rental - and turn it down to 57 when they leave in the morning, but the temperature never drops that low, even after 12-hour days. So far their heating bills have been just over half what they paid last winter.
"Now that we have lived in an energy-efficient house," she said, "it would be very difficult to go back."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentSounds like more urban sprawl
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is implimented the actual effect will be that fewer people will be able to buy a home because the cheaper less efficient homes will cost more to mortgage. by the way the energy efficient homes already cost 10% to 30% more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah but the whole point of the article is that if you pay $100 instead of of $200 p/m to heat/cool your home then you can afford to pay $50 p/m extra on your mortgage! I don't know if the numbers do actually work out that way but that was the message I got...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe built an energy efficient house 30 years ago and spent a lot, between 5 - 10% extra, because we were experimenting with passive solar and earth sheltering. It worked and has used between 1/3rd and 1/4th the heating and cooling of a standard house the same size, also built with standard materials.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith consistent and rational building codes there would be incentive to absorb the extra costs by better architectural integration of form and function and better building materials and practices. Imagine if the 40 million houses built since 1980 had cut 1/3 of their heating and cooling fuel use for 5% extra initial costs. Wow.
I live in a farm house in southern Manitoba, whose first part was built in 1898, it was added onto in the20's and again by me in 1985. The oldest part was gutted , insulated ans sealed in 1985 as well. We have renovated gradually over the years, to the attic, basement and walls. We had an energy evaluation done on our house and it has an energuide rating of 77 . This puts it into the same category as a new highly energy efficient house. When winter temperatures can go down to -40 degrees C, you quickly learn all you can about insulation and triple pane windows etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh efficiency homes are better for the poor because they cause less to live in. Even the middle class are being hurt by high energy costs, specifically related to heating and cooling their homes. If all homes were required to be more efficient, it would free up money for consumers and overall improve the economy. The benefits are many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the problem is, EnergyStar is celebrating their millionth home in fifteen years. With over 100 million households in the U.S., we cannot depend upon the slow
replacement to increase our overall efficiency.
The real solution is to make it easier for owners of existing homes to make their homes much more energy efficient. I've been involved in a non-profit program promoting scale retrofits. We are creating standardized energy efficiency retrofit plans for large developments of similar homes. In pilot homes, we've seen 50% reductions in energy use in these 1950's vintage homes. This is a great way to effect large scale change.
If they are living further from work and amenities, how does this affect their overall energy consumption. A few miles a day of extra driving will balance out any energy saving on the heating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe total sunk costs of the new house plus commuting have to be accounted for. If it is a new subdivision the sunk energy costs of all the new infrastructure (roads/sewer/power lines) has to be compared to the amortized equivalent in an existing neighborhood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRetrofits to an older house nearer to work may turn out to have a lower total energy costs due to reduced commuting and reduced materials consumed/discarded.
Many older houses are also smaller which reduces the cost of the retrofits and heating. Smaller houses mean less furniture etc as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people who buy homes are fools. They pay $200k for a $50k home that is a piece of junk. I know as I've built many.
If one was to study some, buy your own lot, contract your home and make it not only energy eff but make it's own power from the sun, wind by building on a good RE site, they would get a far better value for 50% of the price.
I bought my humble home for $25k and refitted it for under $2k and now costs just $45 in winter and summer to heat, cool and $25 in spring, fall. I paid it off in 5 yrs and been living almost free for 12 yrs now. Biggest problem is many buy far too much home, saddling themselves with debt. Get smart people!
What is much more important is to find great retrofitting ideas for existing homes. Affordability and quick payback are vital to motivate homeowners. Do it yourself techniques would be best.Coating dark roofs, in warm climates, with white insulative paint, window coatings, heat trapping siding, heat sinks etc. Public education campaigns would help greatly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this