W. H. Hull Builders

Solaire Homebuilders

According to The ReBuilding Center in Portland, deconstruction can divert up to 85% of a building’s major components to reuse instead of a landfill. If you consider that over 245,000 homes are demolished every year in the U.S., we’re missing a significant opportunity to put building materials to better use both for homeowners and the environment! The ReBuilding Center estimates that the greenhouse gas reduction associated with deconstructing instead of demolishing one 2,000 sq ft house is the equivalent of taking three cars off the road for an entire year.

What exactly is deconstruction? Metro magazine describes deconstruction as “the systematic hand or mechanical disassembly of a building structure in reverse order of assembly in order to reharvest the building materials and minimize the environmental impacts of demolition.” While building preservation is usually the most sustainable method for maintaining existing homes, deconstruction offers a great way to create your dream home while minimizing impact on the environment. When properly done, deconstruction and reuse can save you money, help the environment, and support your local community—a triple win.  

This spring, Earth Advantage Institute (EAI) will join Oregon deconstruction advocates and community partners to educate those working in the design and construction industry about the “triple win” of sustainable principles of deconstruction and reuse through several opportunities. In Salem, EAI will deliver a course called Sustainable Building: Deconstruction and Material Reuse on March 19-20. This two-day training will help design and building industry professionals build the business case for deconstruction and reuse and will provide an overview of important elements to consider, including: hazard identification, safety, planning & logistics, and deconstruction and reuse best practices.  The Salem course is free to Oregon residents with the support of Job Growers, Inc.

On April 16-19, Earth Advantage is partnering with The Jardin Foundation, TriMet, Green Building Services, and Ramos Inc. to offer a deconstruction training program.  The four-day program features two seminars: “Sustainable Building: Deconstruction and Material Reuse,” delivered by EAI on April 16-18; and “Why Decon? A Future of Imperative with Opportunities” delivered by Green Building Services on April 19th. Participants will gain hands-on experience at TriMet’s own deconstruction project, tour off-site deconstruction projects and The ReBuilding Center, and be able to create the business case for deconstruction and reuse.  

 In addition, The City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability in partnership with the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), Metro, Washington County, and EAI will showcase the deconstruction of a city-owned building this spring. The deconstruction will serve as a demonstration project highlighting material salvage/reuse and will provide education for city and county project managers, the general public, and anyone interested in learning more about the benefits of deconstruction and reuse.  The active deconstruction site will be open for several tours/trainings including the EAI deconstruction course (April 16-18). The BES project will also serve as a case study that will highlight the advantages, opportunities, and outcomes of the deconstruction. 

Earth Advantage Professionals Alumni? EAI will host a special deconstruction site tour in the spring for Sustainable Homes Professionals (SHPs), Earth Advantage® Brokers, Certified Residential Green Appraisers, and alumni of the Sustainable Building: Deconstruction and Materials Reuse course. Keep updated here. For more information about any of these educational opportunities, contact contact Carina Gaz at cgaz@earthadvantage.org or 503.968.7160 x20.

David Heslam, the former director of business development, has now been officially appointed executive director as of January 28, 2013. David previously oversaw EAI’s Energy Performance Score (EPS) development and the development of what is now CakeSystems™ software. In November 2012, the board appointed him interim executive director in order to allow Sean Penrith, the former executive director to move to CakeSystems. In late November, Penrith changed his original trajectory and chose to pursue other opportunities outside of EAI. I spoke with David a few days after his official appointment as E.D. to discuss his background and what the future holds for EAI.

As an undergrad Economics major at Carleton College, David had considered leaving to become an architect. “I was really interested in energy efficient building design,” he said. Friends and family discouraged him, concerned that the job market was bleak for architects. So he completed his B.A. in economics and moved to Washington D.C to conduct economic research for public health policy. David has a minor in Technology and Policy Studies, how technology can influence the development of policy and vice versa. After a few years in D.C, David moved to the Pacific Northwest resolved to study energy efficienct architecture at either the University of Oregon or Washington. Working architects in Portland, encouraged him to gain some hands on building experience before further pursuing his formal education, knowing that architects without practical hands-on experience have trouble assimilating design ideas to the real world.

After working as a carpenter for a few years and engaging in many conversations with clients and architects who voiced their desire for contractors willing to build green, David took the leap, and started his own contracting company. He founded Coho Construction Services Inc. in 1999, using his experience in construction and his knowledge of green building and energy. He describes the company as, “more like an experimental building operation than a standard contracting company. I was working with homeowners who were really excited about what they could do. We worked to help them define what it meant to have a green or high performance building.” At the time there were no established green building standards, so he was pushing into uncharted territory. David referenced his first time working with certification guidelines and the pilot version of the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) commercial worksheet point system. “I remember using that worksheet to try to compare points they were deriving for walk off areas of a commercial building and thinking, how does that apply to a house? Well, it doesn’t apply to a house very well.”

Coho became a successful enterprise, building Portland’s first net zero building, and a home that won the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Green Custom Home of the Year in 2003. It was because of this award-winning home David was first introduced to the EAI program, then a part of PGE. After certifying the home, EAI nominated it for the NAHB award. David then began using EAI’s remodel standard as well as EAI certification on new home projects. “They [EAI] had developed their own scoring system for homes that I could utilize as a framework to say how green the house was, an important conversation with the homeowner. My interest in helping develop a performance metric for homes on energy really grew out of that experience because I would be talking with homeowners…and they would say, “I want to have the greenest house in the neighborhood, or the city.” I began thinking, what does that really mean? You could use EAI’s scoring system and try to get the most points, but did that really mean it was the greenest house?” This concern grew when he was introduced to the HERS (Home Energy Rating System) score. “I was asked why I didn’t do a HERS score on my houses. It (the score) would tell you how efficient your building was compared to national code, but that had no relevance to state code. It was confusing—if I can’t make sense of this, how are home buyers going to make any sense of it? My interest was piqued by how you talk about what makes a building efficient.”

In 2008 EAI was awarded a contract to do collaborative research on what an energy performance score (EPS) could be. The concept was that an EPS would be a miles-per-gallon type metric for the home. EAI hired David part time to manage research for the EPS effort and to teach their Sustainable Homes Professional (SHP) class. As part of the research project David oversaw staff analyzing more than 300 homes in three months, performing over 3,000 energy models using four different software programs on the homes in an effort to determine the most effective scoring system. The project solidified David’s interest in energy efficiency and contributing in a larger way to the conversation around green building. In late 2008 David joined EAI full time, heading up the effort to get the EPS established as a metric for homes.

The research began in Portland but later expanded when EAI was contracted in 2010 by Seattle City Light, a city owned utility company, and the city’s Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE), to supply a piece of software (what would later become CakeSystems) to deliver an EPS. The EPS was to be delivered in Seattle as part of a 5000 home pilot. EAI is now coming up on its third anniversary working with and delivering scores for SCL/OSE in Seattle. After the Seattle pilot, EAI secured more contracts in Washington state with other community energy efficiency programs to utilize the EPS scoring tool. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, opened up opportunities for EAI to work with community energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Alabama, as well as Washington. David describes this as, “a good experience in learning how to integrate this type of tool for contractors and the marketplace using different types of delivery systems; flexible contracting models, strict oversight for utility companies or anything in between.” EAI had continued to work with Oregon’s own Energy Trust of Oregon and in 2012 another study was conducted verifying a particular software’s ability to deliver the most accurate results in the shortest time. The software, EPS Auditor Pro, (what is now known as CakeSystems), is based on the algorithm first tested in 2008, SIMPLE. It was developed by the energy efficiency expert and consultant, Michael Blasnik and built and expanded on by Earth Advantage. The EPS had been used extensively for new homes in Oregon since 2009 and recently expanded into the existing homes Oregon market. “That was really rewarding to see that become something that is happening locally.”

The evolution of CakeSystems software was serendipitous, David explained, “In reality, we only built our own piece of software because there wasn’t anything else out there to fit that niche.” EAI tapped into David’s knowledge as a contractor to emphasize usability for contractors and auditors and built a team of dedicated professionals to conduct Q/A and handle customer support and project implementation. They also partnered with an IT company, Covelo due to their background building multiuser systems, that allow multiple people to interface across a platform. Auditors, contractors and homeowners all need a way to interact during the auditing process and CakeSystems allows for that, thanks to the work by Covelo. David elaborates, “All three parties have the ability to log into the system and have their own view and own functionality and real time access to the flow of activity and data. Typical energy efficiency software doesn’t have this.” The software was rebranded in 2012, to CakeSystems in part, as an effort to prevent market confusion between the software system and the EPS scoring metric. “Everything having to do with the software is now CakeSystems and EPS now only refers to the score, which is one part of the potential output provided to the homeowner,” David explained.

As to Earth Advantage Institute’s future plans, the key word is focus. Three key areas will be the focus of the next five years of EAI; certification (residential & commercial), education and policy research. David described EAI’s unique value proposition as offering a wide array to developers and builders. EAI provides a suite of certifications covering the vast majority of needs within the industry from their own green building certifications, as well as ENERGY STAR, LEED® for Homes, Passive House (PHIUS), and their own Net Zero certification standard. In addition, this year will see the launch of a new EA Remodel certification, the expansion of their EA Multifamily certification and increased growth of their EA Commercial offering for small (under 100,000 sq. ft.) new commercial buildings. As David explained, the mission has always been to provide education and guidance to builders and other professionals, as well as independent certification of new homes, communities and commercial structures. “We have built that up over time and that’s not going anywhere. If anything, [the goal is] to be seen as a leader nationally, and help other regional bodies understand how they could also offer this array of services. There is a new vision for how EAI will relate to other people in the industry; we are looking to be much more of a collaborator in all elements of our business. An example of how we’ve put that in practice is our commercial program’s advisory council. There are roughly only 50 LEED Fellows [a highly accomplished class of individuals nominated by their peers for advancing green building] in the world and we have three of them on our advisory council. Similarly we’ve created an advisory council for the development of our remodel program. We’re also looking to expand the membership of our board and we’ve co-launched a regional green building consortium. Everything that we’re doing now, we’re looking to do in a more collaborative way with other organizations and individuals outside of EAI.”

Despite positive experiences with nutritional and vehicle miles-per-gallon labels, the U.S. has been slow to create the necessary components for similar efforts in residential energy performance. Recently, Earth Advantage Institute (EAI) has taken on this challenge by working with localities across the country to develop and implement tools that support voluntary residential energy scoring and disclosure efforts.

Now EAI is embarking on what Executive Director David Heslam calls its “broadest and possibly most impactful project to date.” Working with industry stakeholders throughout the Pacific Northwest, EAI will lead the development of consistent standards, methodologies, and criteria around voluntary residential energy scoring and disclosure in the region.

Funded by the Bullitt Foundation, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and Washington State University Energy Program, the project will address the critical obstacles stymieing adoption of residential scoring and disclosure programs and policies. Through collaboration with the real estate, homebuilding, contracting, appraisal, and lending industries, the project will develop a policy “playbook” for the region. This “playbook” will highlight the necessary building blocks to successfully develop and implement voluntary energy scoring and disclosure, including detailing levels of professional standards, infrastructure needs, calculation methodologies, and outcome metrics for the region.

The “playbook” will serve as both the vision and the implementation guide to operationalize energy benchmarking and disclosure programs across the region. Anthony Roy, EAI’s director of policy and business development, says the goal of the project is to create as much simplicity as possible out of a complex issue. Roy expects that “if it’s easier for consumers and industry professionals alike to understand energy scoring, it will gain greater market relevance.” And this will lead directly to capturing greater energy savings and carbon reduction across the region.

EAI sees residential energy scoring and disclosure as having the potential to create a market that values energy efficiency, thus accelerating energy efficiency upgrades and reducing climate impacts from energy use. The project’s regionally collaborative approach solves numerous problems at once: it addresses a dearth of stakeholder-specific analyses, creates the conditions for greater agreement among key stakeholders, and provides an actionable playbook for driving voluntary programs towards innovative policy solutions in the Pacific Northwest.

The project will also provide local, state and regional policymakers with information about policy opportunities, energy efficiency outcomes, potential stakeholder benefits, and market impacts that will inform and support the creation of concrete future scoring and disclosure efforts.  While EAI’s approach will initially focus on the unique attributes of Washington and Oregon, Roy sees an opportunity for the outcomes of the project to be replicated in neighboring states, other geographic regions, and even nationally.

“We got spooked, and made a conscious decision to pull back,” he says. It turned out to be one of the best, if hardest decisions he’s ever made. The recession caught many local builders holding undervalued property and spec homes they couldn’t sell; meanwhile, Hamilton and business partner Michael Thirkill stood back and waited.

“We didn’t do much for about a year,” says Hamilton. Suncrest stayed in the game with their lot purchase plans; around that same time new customers approached him. They wanted to build a house, but with one caveat: it had to be Earth Advantage. Hamilton balked at first, overwhelmed by all the program required him to learn and do.

“Our attitude was we already knew how to build houses,” he says. But gradually, the program’s science-based approach won over the self-proclaimed “slow adopter.” It was hard to argue with thermal imaging that showed how much energy a house lost through leakage.

“I was blown away by how much better an Earth Advantage house is,” he says. “It’s so much tighter, with a better envelope.” 

Now Suncrest only builds Earth Advantage houses. To educate himself, Hamilton spent a lot of time studying the program and consulting with experts like independent rater Fred Gant.

“We thought it would be more clear-cut, but there’s a lot of gray.” Hamilton learned to identify features that offer the most “bang for the buck.” Windows, for example, start seeing diminishing returns once you reach a certain u-value. His subcontractors have also had to learn new techniques and communicate with each other more than before.

“Some of them weren’t happy at first, but once they realized we were selling over a dozen houses a year, they came around.” Participating in the Earth Advantage program has meant changing the way and the order of doing things; for instance, to prevent mold crews test studs for moisture and wait to insulate until after the roof is completed, and they don’t run heating units during construction to prevent dust and other materials entering the systems. This approach takes more time, but, Hamilton realized, they had more time on their hands, now that they weren’t trying to keep up with the frenzied pace of the early 2000s.

Hamilton admits that building an Earth Advantage house cost him and his customers a little more, but he likes Earth Advantage because the program demands more then Energy Star but is not as expensive or difficult as LEED®.

“Suncrest has created affordable packages that make Earth Advantage accessible,” says Gant. 

“We also had customers that were skeptical at first, but we weren’t pushing very hard,” says Hamilton.  “Now I can speak more passionately about the program.” Even if clients claim not to care about green features, he can usually sway them by appealing to their wallets. He likes to cite a Portland study from 2009 which found that Earth Advantage homes sold for 15% more than their conventional counterparts. 

“I think that’s way too high, but even if the homes sold for 5% or 3% more, it’s convincing.”

Suncrest offers a range of options, from starter homes to larger custom homes. Hamilton takes the process through blueprints; from there Thirkill works with customers as the house is built.

“I explain the process is like an onion,” says Hamilton. “And we deal with one layer at a time.” Everyone wants different things. Some people are concerned about air quality; others just want to see their utility bills lowered. Jennifer and Jason Clark were deeply involved in the process of choosing the features that helped earn a Platinum rating on their home.  

“They had a tall order,” says Hamilton. Like many couples with young children, the Clarks were concerned about toxins; they also wanted to include as many water-saving features as possible. Hamilton designed their two-story house to maximize the yard and southern exposure. Green features include a solar water heater, zero-VOC paint, blown-in insulation, low u-value windows, LED can lights, ENERGY STAR appliances, and low-flow fixtures. They nixed the lawn to save water and incorporated graywater: a “laundry to landscape” system will irrigate the front yard; bathtubs and showers will supply graywater to backyard landscaping.

Since Oregon’s graywater code is so new, there was no one to turn to for advice; in fact, theirs may be the first permitted graywater system in Southern Oregon. The Clarks’ Talent home was recently featured on a local green and solar tour.

“With every house we learn different things,” says Hamilton. “The technology is complicated, and it’s constantly changing.” The only way to keep up with the technology is to play with it. To that end, Hamilton has installed a Nest “learning thermostat” in the Suncrest office and fitted light fixtures with LED bulbs he can control from his phone.

Ten Suncrest homes are currently under construction. All ten will earn at least a Silver rating through Earth Advantage.

The research takes a step back from the clutter, assumptions, and prejudices inherent in the energy efficiency industry and objectively analyzes the impact of energy assessments, audit reports, energy labels, and new technologies that promote home energy upgrades. What is it that really motivates homeowners to make upgrades to their homes? One key finding — relationships matter.

Major Efficiency Program Improvements
Energy efficiency program providers are making great strides in how they deliver relevant information and analysis to homeowners about their home. Utilities and community-based energy efficiency programs across the country are working with a wide range of techniques and tools to encourage homeowners to pay attention to their energy use and make upgrades to their homes.

Web-based utility bill assessments like Opower have now firmly planted energy efficiency in the Facebook generation. Yet not all of these new technologies, approaches, and social media connections actually result in a significant uptick in energy efficiency improvements. For the energy efficiency industry, especially utility program managers and home performance contractors, understanding the variables that motivate a homeowner to undertake an upgrade is critical to achieving broad energy savings and carbon reduction goals.

Focusing on the Homeowner
One of the important conclusions in the DOE study relates to the importance of recognizing homeowner perspectives. It asserts that a simple repackaging of energy efficiency should be focused on appreciating the unique position of each homeowner and their particular perspective about their home. Of course, understanding a homeowner’s needs requires building a relationship with him or her, which can take an investment of time. This can be challenging for energy assessors and home performance contractors, for whom time equals money.

If a professional has three hours to spend in a home, how should they be using that time to best ensure the homeowner’s commitment to undertaking an upgrade? The DOE study suggests that while the technical components of an energy assessment are helpful in catalyzing a homeowner, the homeowner’s interaction with the person doing the assessment is of considerable influence. The study underscores the benefit of having an energy professional actually in the home who can engage the homeowner and verbally explain how the home is performing.

Balancing Act
So how does an energy professional balance these competing needs: the need to spend time doing a technically thorough assessment against the need to engage with the homeowner and build the relationship. Earth Advantage Institute (EAI) has carefully considered this conundrum. Its conclusion is that the key to freeing up critical time to build customer relationships is to provide those doing energy assessments with auditing tools that simplify their work while maintaining accuracy.

EAI, in collaboration with Michael Blasnik & Associates, has spent several years developing CakeSystems^SM (formerly EPS Auditor Pro) as one of these potential technology solutions. There are of course other tools on the market working to accelerate the home upgrade process, such as OptiMiser, EnergyMeasure Home, and the US DOE’s Home Energy Score tool. Time will tell what tools deliver the right set of features to both energy efficiency programs and home energy contractors.

Relationships Equal Results
Whatever specific tool is used, if energy contractors have the time to get to know what the homeowner wants for their home - their place of family and security - the DOE study suggests that there is a greater possibility for energy upgrades. All the fancy energy efficiency marketing promotions, advertising, and even rebates can’t replace the time spent building a customer relationship that is backed up with technical details packaged in a consumer-friendly manner.

The home is an emotional place and the decisions that surround it are couched firmly in that emotion. The more personal and longer lasting the contact, the easier it is to build trust. With the right tools that make the assessment easier and faster, the energy professional can truly function as an expert agent and advisor and have an important influence on what homeowners decide to do. But the energy professional must have the time to engage and advise.

In the thermal image in my head, I pictured energy leaking out around the old windows and doors; escaping up the attic and hissing through cracks in the front wall. Trying to contain it seemed like carrying water in a bucket pocked with holes.

Several months ago, I noticed a guy carrying some heavy-duty equipment out of my neighbor’s house. He introduced himself as Jonathan Ferree from ecobeco and gave me his card. Did I know that an energy audit would cost only $100, thanks to a rebate from my utility? You’d think I would have, working for an energy efficiency nonprofit--but it was news to me. A few months passed, and Jonathan’s card sat on my desk; I had put the task “Call for energy audit” on my to-do list, where it stayed.

Getting in My Own Way
I probably acted out every behavior that trips people up when they want to curtail their energy use: inertia, forgetfulness, procrastination (“I’ll do this next month”), excuse-making (“We can’t afford to replace the heat pump just now”) and even finger-pointing (“We live in a small house, not a big McMansion--they’re the energy-guzzlers”).

Finally, I stopped to reflect on this, and picked up the phone.

However, I had one more hurdle to get past: it turned out that the first part of the audit was my responsibility. I had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about our HVAC equipment, appliances, lighting, and my family’s energy use. I can think of better ways to spend an afternoon than writing down the wattage of every light bulb in the house. But I did it, and a week or so later, Jonathan showed up.

Problem Areas
We did a full walk-through of the house, and Jonathan--a Building Performance Institute (BPI)-certified auditor--pointed out problem areas like the uninsulated slope on one side of the attic. The single-pane windows I’d imagined to be such energy sinks were not, in his view, such a big problem. They’re reinforced by storm windows, which boost their efficiency. Jonathan did point out that, at three tons, our heat pump is probably too big for our 1,100-square-foot townhouse. This is common: contractors often install bigger pumps to be “on the safe side” functionally, but the systems end up using more energy than they ought to.

When he turned on the blower door, both of the cats made a run for it. “Come over here,” Jonathan said, and I joined him by the French doors leading to the patio. He had his hand over the seam where the top of the door frame joins the wall--a seam I’d never noticed before, since it’s above my eye level.

I raised my hand, and felt air streaming in from outside. Energy efficiency is invisible, but a blower-door test makes it tangible: I could feel the inefficiency with my own hands.

This piece was originally published at the Institute for Market Transformation and was reprinted with permission.

Importantly, Oregon’s 10-year Draft Energy Action Plan included a recommendation for supporting the creation of residential and commercial energy ‘scoring’ programs. The inclusion of the energy scores as a prioritized policy recommendation is a good sign of things to come for Oregon (and elsewhere). Nonetheless, it’s also clear from the experiences of many states and localities that moving from policy recommendation to effective and widespread implementation can be challenging. There are many examples of states and localities around the country losing traction on energy scoring policy opportunities, often because they haven’t laid a firm foundation for policy adoption.

To help ensure that policy momentum is maintained in Oregon and results in effective market implementation, Earth Advantage Institute has recommended that Oregon engage in a regional collaboration with neighboring states to ensure that uniform rules and a common infrastructure are created around energy scoring. A regional approach would ensure that when policy is ultimately enacted on a local or state level in the Northwest, market actors and consumers will encounter consistent and meaningful scoring methodologies, quality assurance requirements, program terminologies, and data sources.

Achieving state and local greenhouse gas reduction goals will require a robust system of measurement and management. At the same time, many are advocating for higher standards for buildings, including establishing net-zero thresholds. While this has merit, a performance metric that measures all buildings irrespective of their “certification” is critical in creating much more effective measurement capabilities. Like many states, a significant amount of Oregon’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from the residential and commercial building sector. A focused effort to measure and effectively manage this GHG profile is essential in assisting states in attaining reduction goals.

Meeting our future energy needs through significant increases in energy efficiency and the creation of energy scores for homes and buildings will provide benefit to consumers in lower energy costs, greater market transparency, and energy security. For policymakers and regulators, the issuance of energy scores for homes and buildings will allow for better measurement and management of the significant carbon emission profile associated with the built environment.

I attended a regional council meeting in Oregon recently, where the topic was energy efficiency and how to increase its collective impact in the buildings sector. Our guest speaker, Jules Bailey, Oregon state representative, is well regarded, plugged in, and progressive. While he set the stage of what we might expect legislatively for the state in 2013, he remarked on the fragmented and disparate nature of energy efficiency efforts he encountered around the state. This same challenge is undoubtedly observed in any number of cities, municipalities, and states across this nation. Ryan Colker of the National Institute of Building Sciences wrote in his article ("It Is Time for a National Buildings Policy") that the "U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 94 separate initiatives in 11 agencies with implications for private sector green buildings alone."

Last year I attended ECEEE (European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy) conference in Belambra Presqu'île de Giens in Southern France. The conference theme was "Energy efficiency first: The foundation of a low-carbon society." While there I learned that the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The European Union (EU) recognized the tremendous potential energy efficiency offered to reduce the current 40% level of building energy consumption. The EU Commission declared that cost effective energy savings "would mean that in 2020 the EU would consume 11% less final energy.” A key effort to realize these savings was the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (Directive 2002/91/EC, EPBD).

The EPBD, first published in 2002, required all EU countries to enhance their building regulations and to introduce energy disclosure and labeling schemes for all buildings. The EPBD was the first major attempt at requiring all Member States to introduce a general framework for setting building energy code requirements based on a “whole building” approach. The Directive was recast in 2010 in order to improve the energy performance requirements. Some of its key enhancements are requiring near-zero energy buildings by 2020 (new and retrofitted) and implementing of a cost-optimal methodology for setting minimum requirements for both the envelope and the technical systems. The Directive includes an explicit element on the disclosure of energy performance in buildings stating that, “Member states shall ensure that, when buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner or by the owner to the prospective buyer or tenant.”

The European Concerted Action (CA) EPBD group was established to support the Directive changes effort. The group consists of 29 EU countries with different languages, cultures, approaches, and building styles, yet unified under the framework of the Directive.

The positive effect of the EPBD framework is obvious in countries with no prior framework in place. In Portugal for example, a 50% reduction in insulation U-factor (overall heat transfer coefficient) has been documented over the past five years.

It became clear that such a holistic framework for the U.S. buildings sector is needed. This would harmonize those multiple and disparate conversations and efforts, and move us towards our goal of mainstreaming building energy efficiency. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has identified the building sector as one of the most cost-effective sectors for reducing energy consumption, with estimated potential energy savings of 1509 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) by 2050. By reducing overall energy demand, greater building energy efficiency can significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, translating to a realized mitigation of 12.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 emissions by 2050 (IEA, 2010).

I drafted a paper and optimistically titled it, "Developing a Blueprint for a U.S. Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (US EPBD)." I strenuously argue that we, the professionals in the energy efficiency space, should collaboratively build a framework now, ahead of any policy discussion. A U.S. Buildings Directive framework would provide information and support for the capture of significant energy savings, key requirements, standards, infrastructure, training, methodologies, and metrics needed for our building stock. Addressing these issues in a uniform manner will allow the market to promote and develop high performance buildings in a measurable way that can be tracked against public goals and support energy security and greenhouse gas reduction. There is much to be gleaned from the European Union effort that developed their Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

I propose a U.S. Concerted Action (CA) group be formed to develop a U.S. Energy Performance of Buildings Directive framework. This CA group would be made up of members representing the U.S. Department of Energy, the utility sector, green building, residential and commercial sectors (including multi-family), contracting sector, policy sector, finance sector, state or federal energy offices, standards sector, and energy modeling sector. This strategic framework would ultimately advise and inform the federal government on the recommended actions for the creation of a national Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, drawing from approaches taken in Europe.

Recommendations from the CA group should address specific issues including, key legal requirements of such a new Directive; minimum energy performance; new, existing and 'near-zero energy' buildings; energy performance benchmarking, tools, disclosure, and certificates/ratings; financial incentives and market and policy barriers; workforce certification harmonization; public awareness and communication; monitoring and verification and penalties for non-compliance. A key outcome of such a framework would be improving the energy performance disclosure of buildings by creating a consistent metric of defining energy performance, including how the information is gathered, assessed, stored, displayed, and compared to similar buildings.

I was invigorated by the achievements of our European colleagues, addressing energy efficiency improvements in their buildings sector through a collaborative, concerted effort. I have reached out to national energy efficiency leaders and shared our draft, soliciting engagement. A year later, I am still shopping the draft. As an optimist, I remain convinced it will eventually resonate with key constituents and hopefully not too late for us to make the critical changes to our homes and buildings.

The purpose of the workshop was to discuss and evaluate the environmental outcomes that Metro and the region should consider as part of their Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project. The Project’s aim is to help the region define its land use and transportation needs over the next 20 years. By mapping out the next 20 years, the ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remediate climate change.

The workshop held on July 17th was hosted by Metro in partnership with 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Oregon Environmental Council. The room was filled with 25 people who were, in Dylan's words, "mainly leaders of Portland area non-government environmental organizations and some environmental staff of area cities and counties."

Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder kicked the event off followed by Kim Ellis of Metro who provided an overview of the workshop. She explained Metro was tasked with adopting a region-wide scenario by 2014 that would reduce emissions 20 percent by 2035. Thus far, Metro had tested 144 scenarios, and more than 90 met or surpassed the state target. The effort would culminate in leaders adopting a region-wide strategy that included tempering local aspirations with the challenge of climate change impacts and adaptation. The six desired outcomes the policies and investments aim to achieve are: vibrant communities, economic prosperity, safe and reliable transportation, regional climate change leadership, clean air and water, and equity.

I was simply astounded at the level of depth, rigor, collaboration, foresight, and effort that was being leveled at creating a strategy that had such meaningful and far-ranging outcomes. 1000 Friends of Oregon, proponents of Senate Bill 1059 co-hosted the rich discussion, a testament to the power of consensus building and collaboration indigenous to the Pacific Northwest.

But this is where it got really interesting for me. An environmental outcomes draft list was circulated to the group. It listed seven natural capital outcomes created by Greater Portland Pulse. This list included access to parks and nature; healthy soils; clean water; environmental justice and equity; native species; resiliency (to climate change); and clean air.

For each outcome there was a proposed key indicator. The resiliency indicator, for example, was acres of protected or restored sensitive lands. Clean air focused on the percentage of days with a good air quality index, and the access to nature indicator was the percentage of population a quarter mile walk or less from dedicated green space. This was a thorough attempt to create a measurable scorecard for the desired outcomes!

We were split up into smaller working groups to address three areas: community design and roads, incentives and pricing, and fleet and technology. Each group was asked to assess the relationships and impacts (positive and/or negative) of each area and how the environmental scorecard would be affected by design choices made in each area. The groups reported out while the workshop moderators recorded the results.

After leaving the session, it struck me how starkly different this collaborative effort was from the world of building energy efficiency. In our external efforts at Earth Advantage Institute, we often find difficulty in building consensus, collaborating or sharing efforts to advance energy efficiency standards. Efforts to institute an energy labeling metric for homeowners is one such example. It is unfortunate collaboration has not come as quickly to the energy efficiency world as it appears to have for the Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project.

Governor John Kitzhaber has developed a draft 10-year energy action plan to set the groundwork for collaboration around energy efficiency in Oregon. It will be essential for all the parties, competing interests or otherwise, to collaborate around developing building energy efficiency standards if we are to achieve the necessary goals to reduce our carbon footprint.

I believe that ‘keeping score’ of your home’s energy use is an important ingredient to winning the uphill battle against climate change. Our energy efficiency sector might do well to observe how the folks over at Metro do things.

What are the ways we can create consensus around how to improve building energy efficiency, like Metro, that motivates action?