|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online September/October 1999
Home
Ratings Sweep the Nation--Almost
by Greg Thomas
Gregory Thomas is executive director of the
Building Performance Contractors Association of New York based in Ithaca,
New York. He can be reached at gthomas@buildingperformance.com.
As the ratings industry in the United
States shifts from a subsidized market to an unsubsidized one, we look
at four areas of opportunity for home energy raters. Will these opportunities
be growing or collapsing in the 21st century?
|
 |
| Home energy rater Pat Haller, of Energy Rated Homes of Vermont -
a program of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, checks the efficiency
of this furnace and water heater. |
 |
| To estimate household energy use, Haller takes account of household
appliances, such as the stove and microwave in the kitchen. |
 |
| The types of light fixture found in a house have an effect on annual
energy use. Here, Haller checks a bathroom fixture. |
Home energy ratings have had a turbulent history
in the United States. The economic promise and business risks of a national
system to score the energy use of housing have attracted serious attention
and have sometimes turned into a battlefield. Many of the political issues
affecting ratings have been addressed, but some major issues remain. Still,
the work of a diverse group of energy efficiency proponents is producing
results. Consumers are increasingly investing their dollars in energy efficiency,
which is, after all, the desired result of the energy rating.
GMAC Mortgage reports that, in 1998, they processed
more than $700 million of energy-efficient mortgage products, or roughly
the value of 7,000 houses, each financed by a $100,000 mortgage. Assuming
an estimated average of $4,000 of efficiency improvements per house, that
adds up to $28 million of energy efficiency improvements facilitated by
the energy-efficient mortgage process. Still, $700 million is just 0.05%
of the total estimated 1999 U.S. mortgage market, which is expected to
reach $1.4 trillion. While the ratings industry has the potential to lead
to very large investments in energy efficiency, in some ways it has still
barely attained adolescence.
The opportunities and issues currently confronting
the energy ratings industry can perhaps best be understood by looking at
four industry value propositions--that is, opportunities to use ratings
to provide value to a customer. In an unsubsidized market, businesses base
their services on the opportunities they perceive to sell their services
cost-effectively, to make money, and to grow. And the ratings industry
is becoming an unsubsidized market: Utilities are cutting back on funding
demand-side management programs that have supported raters, and federal
support for state level HERS programs is coming to an end in seven states.
The ratings industry must understand these value propositions if it is
to make the transition successfully from dependence on subsidy to self-supporting
systems.
The four value propositions are:
-
adding value by scoring;
-
providing preferential access to financing;
-
helping builders to demonstrate compliance; and
-
performance testing.
What's the Score?
Back in the early 1980s, the now-defunct Western
Resources Institute in Seattle, Washington (founder of Energy Rated Homes
of America), established a scoring system for energy use in housing. This
scoring system was originally designed to help real estate appraisers value
homes based on their relative energy efficiency. It was also intended to
help consumers incorporate energy efficiency into their housing decisions.
All else being equal, if house A scores better than house B, the logical
consumer will tend to choose house A.
In the new construction market, the score has
largely evolved into a label, at least from the consumer's perspective.
The most prominent of these labels is provided by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star Homes program, which requires homes
to achieve a score of 86 out of 100 possible rating points, or 5 stars.
These ratings are based on the draft Home Energy Rating System Technical
Guide, and variations of that document, by the National Association
of State Energy Officials. The Energy Star Homes program gets increased
consumer label recognition by using the Energy Star label in a wide variety
of efficiency programs, through a national campaign of public service announcements
and other marketing partnerships. As of June 1999, there were 8,235 Energy
Star homes, and about 14% of these received the label not through getting
rated but rather through a builder option package (BOP).
Individual state energy offices are beginning
to adopt the Energy Star label to enhance public recognition of their own
energy programs. For example, New York State has signed an agreement with
EPA to allow New York to use the label in its own market transformation
initiatives. New York's programs are being designed around the Energy Star
efficiency levels, and marketing efforts will focus on reinforcing the
Energy Star message and label to consumers and the product sales and distribution
networks. More information on the Energy Star Homes program is available
at www.epa.gov/homes.
EPA has supported a study on the effects of energy
efficiency on the purchase price of a home. This study, "Evidence of Rational
Market Values for Home Energy Efficiency," shows that a home's value increases
$20 for every $1 reduction in the average annual utility bill, and that
on average, these annual savings will add $8,400 to the market value of
the home. The study, conducted for EPA by Rick Nevin and Gregory Watson
of ICF Incorporated, was published in the October 1998 issue of Appraisal
Journal. It is also available on-line at www.natresnet.org
or www.epa.gov/homes.
A variety of energy-rating organizations have
scored the more than 7,000 Energy Star homes that have been rated (see
Table
1). Many of these organizations are state-based systems. Typically,
they originated as not-for-profits funded by a state energy office. Some
of these states--Arkansas, Alaska, California, Colorado, Mississippi, Virginia,
and Vermont--received significant levels of federal funding spread out
over five years, but this type of funding is drying up.
Utilities are also using a variety of new-construction-labeling
programs to foster consumer loyalty and to meet other goals, such as competing
against other fuels, managing peak load, fulfilling regulatory requirements,
and maintaining a good public image. Most of these utility programs use
prescriptive standards for compliance, though utilities are increasingly
turning to the more flexible rating. Some programs mandate performance
testing. A fairly comprehensive list of the nation's utility programs can
be viewed on-line at www.natresnet.org/sites.
No comparable nationwide program currently exists
for labeling existing housing. Some of those who promote Energy Star labels
argue that applying the label to existing buildings, which may not meet
the same high efficiency standard as a new Energy Star home, will be too
confusing. Richard Faesy, development director of Energy Rated Homes of
Vermont, says "As soon as a new home is sold, it becomes an existing home.
It makes no sense to have two different existing homes similarly labeled
but with different levels of efficiency." Others argue that because there
is so much more existing housing, we need to use consumer recognition of
the Energy Star label to encourage consumers to invest in efficiency for
this housing. As Rick Gerardi, program director for the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority, points out, "the Energy Star
label started out as a tool to save energy. If you don't apply it to existing
housing, you are missing 95% of the problem." With luck, a compromise will
be reached.
The Road to Easy Financing
The second value proposition is providing preferential
access to financing. Almost a decade ago the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs adopted mortgage programs
that would allow borrowers to obtain long-term financing for energy improvements
that were shown to be cost effective. The long-term nature of mortgage
financing would turn the energy investment into a regular monthly source
of positive cash flow for the home buyer. This program was available first
as a pilot in five states; it became available nationally in October 1995.
The FHA program remains the best and most frequently
used way to get purchasers of existing housing to invest in efficiency
improvements. Virginia Holman, a senior housing specialist with the federal
Housing and Urban Development agency (HUD), notes that Energy-Efficient
Mortgages (EEMs) rose from roughly 4,700 in fiscal 1997 to more than 16,500
in fiscal 1998. That rate of growth seems to have leveled off, with 8,100
EEMs completed in the first two quarters of fiscal 1999. The rise is due
partly to an increase in the number of HUD 203K loans that incorporate
an EEM feature and partly to an increase in the number of mortgage refinancings
that include EEMs, according to Holman. She sees facilitators and 203K
consultants who are also raters as being the most effective in arranging
EEMs. Holman reports that the bulk of the FHA EEMs are being done in California
by facilitators such as Jim Curtis of EEMs Incorporated and Ray Hall of
H&L Energy Savers (see "Contractor's Marketing
Success," HE Jan/Feb '99, p. 43); in Virginia by the state-based
rating program, Virginia Home Energy Rating Organization (V-HERO); and
nationally by both the National Home Energy Rating Organization (N-HERO)
and members of Energy Rated Homes of America.
California has developed one of the most effective
models for getting to buyers early and not burdening them with more work
and decisions while they are purchasing their homes. Energy-efficient mortgage
facilitators work with bankers and real estate professionals to get access
to customers early in the process. The facilitator introduces the EEM to
potential customers, arranges for the ratings, and provides proposals for
work identified in the ratings. In central California, the number of EEMs
as percentage of FHA loans has increased from .03% in 1993 to 3% in early
1999.
Other programs from secondary lenders such as
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow home buyers to borrow more than they would
normally be qualified to borrow, based on their income and debt ratios,
if they can show that their home is energy efficient--the so-called stretch
mortgage. These programs, which have been expanded on a pilot basis, allow
appraisers to adjust appraised values upward based on the cost of the energy
improvements, qualifying home buyers to borrow more money. Other preferential
state-based mortgage loan programs also exist.
Individual banks are having considerable success
in creating loan programs that reward the home buyer for a good energy
rating through the use of reduced closing costs and points. These savings
typically more than offset the cost of the rating. Energy Rated Homes of
the Midwest (formerly ERH of Indiana) has been particularly successful
in working with banks; roughly 30% of ERH Midwest ratings come from referrals
from loan officials working with a customer seeking an Energy Star Mortgage,
which provides closing cost and sometimes rate reduction benefits.
The Builder as the Rating Customer
The third value proposition, helping builders to
demonstrate compliance, has developed in areas where the energy code includes
a performance pathway to compliance. In these areas, builders can work
with raters to find the most cost-effective way to meet code, by using
the software to compare the cost effectiveness of efficiency options. Rating
tools also help builders demonstrate savings to customers and can help
document energy code compliance.
States are exploring this option in different
ways. In Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Vermont,
the state building code allows the use of a home energy rating as a compliance
option. Some local code entities are providing incentives, such as a quicker
plan review or reduced inspection fees, if the home is rated.
Buying Peace of Mind
The last value proposition is performance testing.
This means identifying performance problems, or lack of problems, for both
builders and homeowners, although rating systems do not directly score
performance on health and safety or other nonenergy issues. Consumers and
builders are displaying an increasing interest in home labeling programs
that include, but go beyond, energy efficiency. Examples are the American
Lung Association's Health House and a variety of green building programs
that are being developed around the country. Some of these programs use
energy ratings to score the contribution of a building's energy performance
to its total "greenness." In Colorado, for example, the Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Denver's Built Green program has become a major source
of business for the state's rating industry. (A comprehensive guide to
setting up a builder-operated green building program is available at www.nahbrc.org.)
Performance warranties are another pathway to
achieving customer peace of mind. A variety of private-sector warranty
programs, such as those run by Greenstone, Certainteed, and Comfort Home,
are entering the marketplace. These programs may warranty energy bills
or even comfort. Some of them use the standard rating methodology to set
the expected energy usage. Others use proprietary software solutions. All
of them use performance testing. Energy Rated Homes of Vermont even offers
a warranty for existing buildings (see "Easy Mortgages
with Energy Rated Homes of Vermont," HE July/Aug '99, p. 12).
This is a very interesting and competitive arena. The accuracy of rating
software energy estimates will be put to the private sector test in these
programs.
Future Prospects
The market for rating services is still in a state
of flux. In the near future, new opportunities may arise for expanding
rater services, but possible threats to the existing value propositions
may shrink some of the established markets.
The biggest new opportunity on the horizon is
the development of bipartisan federal tax credit proposals to provide tax
relief for consumers who invest in energy efficiency. The basic proposal
is to allow a tax credit of up to $2000 for 20% of the cost of the energy
efficiency improvement (see "Energy Tax Credit May
Materialize," HE Mar/Apr '99, p. 7). If this legislation passes,
the tax credit will create a tremendous amount of consumer interest in
efficiency improvements. The question for the organizations that use ratings
to promote efficiency is "Will that interest be channeled through an energy
rating?"
The energy rating was developed as a validated
means of forecasting savings. It would be the ideal tool to make sure that
our tax money is being spent wisely on real, cost effective efficiency
and not on bigger, north-facing windows. However, other players in the
field--builders and insulation manufacturers particularly--would prefer
to have a less expensive and more readily available way to obtain the tax
credit. Bill Prindle of the Alliance to Save Energy says the alliance is
committed to having ratings as the basis for certification in the performance
path, but is also agreeable to a prescriptive alternative that would provide
incremental credits for meeting specified component efficiency levels.
With any luck, this compromise, which is largely acceptable to the 40-odd
member organizations of the relatively new Coalition for Energy-Efficient
Homes, will survive congressional maneuvers.
A possible obstacle to increasing the market
for raters has been the development by the EPA of BOPs to qualify for the
Energy Star label. These are customized prescriptive pathways used to achieve
an Energy Star Homes label. They are intended to represent the worst-case
set of parameters for meeting the threshold for obtaining the label. EPA
developed these packages largely in response to requests from high-volume
builders, utilities, and manufacturers who want to avoid the cost of rating
each building. The buildings still require performance testing of the ducts
and envelope, but a subcontractor can accomplish this testing. EPA is also
looking to BOPs as a solution to the problem of trying to offer a national
program despite the lack of rating organizations or adequate raters in
certain areas.
Rating organizations are concerned that the builder
customers whom they have cultivated will be attracted to this lower-cost,
nonrating way of getting the Energy Star label. They point out that the
builders may easily be spending more on the energy measures to meet the
Energy Star performance criteria because of the worst case assumptions
used in the development of the BOP prescriptive guidelines. But those costs
are hidden in the materials bills for the whole house, and the rater's
invoice stands alone.
Going National
A national infrastructure of ratings organizations--but
not necessarily a national single system--would create a larger consumer
presence for HERS services and would give the industry added weight in
working with lenders and others to create financing and tax credits tied
to ratings. However, a persistent problem is hindering efforts to take
ratings to a national level. This problem is the old site-energy-versus-source-energy
issue that pits electric utilities against gas utilities. Simply put, scoring
buildings based on their source energy use tends to better account for
the overall environmental impact of the energy use reduction. Scoring buildings
based on their site energy use tends to evaluate a Btu of electric energy
saved as equivalent to a Btu of gas energy saved. This issue was a cause
for much discussion during the development of the standardized rating methodology
by the HERS Council, and it still is not resolved. The effort to settle
this dispute was lead by the HERS Council, which prepared a comprehensive
consensus document under funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
several years ago, but DOE did not adopt the document. The possibility
of a tax credit has refueled this controversy, but a potential solution
may be at hand (see "Gas vs. Electric: An Equal Playing
Field at Hand?").
Meanwhile, in spite of this sizzling controversy,
several efforts are under way to develop a national infrastructure for
energy ratings. V-HERO was one of the first state-based rating programs
to embrace a private sector market for ratings. V-HERO recognized that
the rating activity in a single state was unlikely to be sufficient to
support a robust rating organization. To address this issue, V-HERO spun
off N-HERO, which works with individual raters across the country; these
raters provide N-HERO with building information for software analysis.
Other state-based rating organizations are expanding
their territories beyond their original borders in an effort to achieve
economic self-sufficiency. Energy Rated Homes of America (ERHA) is an affiliated
group of state-based rating organizations; see their Web site at www.erha.com.
ERHA-supported programs in Indiana, Vermont, Alaska, and Mississippi are
all actively expanding into adjacent states or providing rating services
to nearby states.
Many state-based programs are also active in
the related Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) project. RESNET
acts as a broad-based quasi-membership group that facilitates communications
among rating organizations, lenders, weatherization agencies, contractors,
manufacturers, and others interested in the residential energy efficiency
market. RESNET has put considerable effort into presenting the energy rating
case to the mortgage industry. RESNET and ERHA are closely connected to
the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), a group representing
the state energy offices.
Accreditation and Rater Certification
A prime motivator behind the move to nationalize
rating systems is the understanding that consistent and accurate estimates
of savings and energy use across the country are essential to the credibility
of the rating market and to its long-term health. Efforts to ensure quality
are being made at two levels: that of the rating program and that of the
rater.
Currently, rating organizations can get accredited
through one of two methods. The HERS Council developed standards and produced
a set of national accreditation guidelines. To date, two organizations--V-HERO
and N-HERO--have been accredited under those guidelines. Drawing on the
efforts of the HERS Council, NASEO and RESNET also produced an accreditation
guideline that named an accrediting body and gave the states more control
over the operation of rating organizations in their state. To date, HERS
providers in 27 states have been accredited under those guidelines.
Some states have gone the legislative route and
have established their own standard for accreditation. The most notable
example is California, which drew in part upon its Title 24 energy code
to produce a standard for rating organizations.
Efforts to certify raters are being driven by
the understanding that ratings are only as good as the rater. RESNET is
acting to bring together a national task force of rater-training organizations
and related parties to help develop a standard for the training and testing
of raters. (To learn more about RESNET's efforts, visit www.natresnet.org.)
A Rosier Future, or a Paler One?
With the support of the federal government, states,
and utilities, rating organizations have gotten a running start at using
energy ratings to stimulate cost-effective consumer investment in energy
efficiency. Now that the development of the ratings infrastructure is almost
complete, raters and rating organizations must turn their attention to
achieving self-sufficiency. The threat remains that, for some of these
value propositions, economic interests will seek to work around the rating
community, putting a rating organization's primary source of income at
risk. But the promise also exists that the value of ratings will increasingly
become recognized, and that raters will be looking at a brighter future.
| Table 1. Energy Star Homes |
| Organization Name |
State Code |
Total Energy Star Homes Rated |
Energy Star Homes Rated In Last 12 Months |
Primary Funding Source |
| Energy Rated Homes of Alaska |
AK |
939 |
281 |
Federal |
| Alaska Housing Finance Corporation |
AK |
1,164 |
1,164 |
State |
| Energy Rated Homes of Arkansas |
AR |
24 |
15 |
Federal, State |
| Tucson Electric Power Company |
AZ |
63 |
63 |
Utility |
| Arizona State University at Tempe |
AZ |
564 |
499 |
Federal |
| CHEERS Incorporated |
CA |
0 |
0 |
Utility |
| Chitwood Energy Management |
CA |
4 |
1Y |
Private |
| California--Energy Plus |
CA |
0 |
0 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Colorado |
CO |
16 |
14 |
State |
| Connecticut Light and Power |
CT |
76 |
76 |
Utility |
| Energy Services Group |
DE |
371 |
194 |
Utility |
| American Property Consultants Incorporated |
FL |
1 |
0 |
Private |
| Energy Technology Services |
FL |
1 |
1 |
Private |
| Florida HERO |
FL |
92 |
84 |
Private |
| Florida Solar Energy Center |
FL |
93 |
50 |
State |
| Energy Rated Homes of Iowa |
IA |
391 |
340 |
Private, State |
| Illinois |
IL |
0 |
0 |
State |
| Energy Rated Homes Midwest |
IN |
894 |
411 |
State |
| Kansas Building Science Institute |
KS |
1 |
1 |
Private |
| HOME-CHECKUP |
KS |
2 |
2 |
Private |
| BALANCE Home Energy |
KS |
11 |
10 |
Private |
| Energy Pro, LLC |
KS |
12 |
2 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Louisiana |
LA |
0 |
0 |
State |
| Western Massachusetts Electric Company |
MA |
8 |
6 |
Utility |
| Conservation Services Group |
MA |
233 |
199 |
Utility, Federal |
| Building Science Corporation |
MA |
250 |
242 |
Private, Federal |
| Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative |
MD |
962 |
962 |
Utility |
| Maryland |
MD |
0 |
0 |
State |
| Maine HERO |
ME |
0 |
0 |
Private |
| Michigan Home Energy Rating System |
MI |
32 |
22 |
Private |
| Sheltersource |
MN |
18 |
15 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Mississippi |
MS |
20 |
5 |
Federal |
| Montana Energy Raters |
MT |
7 |
7 |
Private |
| Air by Design |
NC |
1 |
1 |
Private |
| Essential Energy Services |
NE |
1 |
0 |
Private |
| MaGrann Associates |
NJ |
482 |
481 |
Utility |
| Energy Savers |
NM |
1 |
1 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Nevada |
NV |
1 |
0 |
State |
| Southwest Gas Corporation |
NV |
1 |
1 |
Utility |
| Woods & Associates |
NV |
48 |
48 |
Private |
| North Fork Retrofit |
NY |
2 |
2 |
Private |
| Ohio Office of Energy Efficiency |
OH |
10 |
10 |
State |
| Guaranteed Watt Savers Systems |
OK |
4 |
4 |
Private |
| Oklahoma Gas and Electric |
OK |
61 |
25 |
Utility |
| Energy Rated Homes of Oregon |
OR |
3 |
2 |
| Comfort Home Corporation |
PA |
8 |
8 |
Utility |
| Tennessee Valley Authority |
TN |
0 |
0 |
Utility |
| Superior Energy Wise Systems |
TX |
1 |
0 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Utah |
UT |
406 |
250 |
Private, State |
| V-HERO |
VA |
20 |
5 |
Federal |
| N-HERO |
VA |
140 |
104 |
Private |
| Energy Rated Homes of Vermont |
VT |
144 |
121 |
Federal |
| EMF Home Inspection |
WI |
1 |
1 |
Private |
| Energy Keep |
WI |
2 |
2 |
Private |
| Global Energy Options Incorporated |
WI |
2 |
2 |
Private |
| Windsor Homes Incorporated |
WI |
5 |
2 |
Private |
| Hofmann Energy Consultants |
WI |
12 |
12 |
Private |
| Wisconsin Home Performance Ratings |
WI |
29 |
2 |
State |
| Sources: Blaine Collison, Environmental Protection Agency;
Greg Thomas |
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About
Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|