Like “green” tax credits and appraisals, Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEM’s) can get complicated—there are myriad types, proffered by myriad lenders, and not everyone is eligible. And yet given the current surge in green building, it’s more important than ever to understand how EEM’s can impact a developer’s ability to sell and a homeowner’s ability to purchase and maintain an energy efficient home. So, here’s an attempt to explain it all.

What IS it??

In simplest terms, an Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM) is a type of mortgage offered to those who want to purchase an energy efficient residence. More specifically, it takes into account the lower energy expenditure in such a home—with lower utility costs, homeowners will be able to save a larger percentage of their income, and will thus qualify for a larger mortgage. 100% of the energy improvements to a new home, typically up to 15% of the value of the home, can be financed and paid for over the life of the mortgage, reserving the borrower’s cash for more immediate, move-in costs. Finally, the home appraisal (hopefully) includes the value of the energy efficient improvements.

EEM’s vs. EIM’s

Don’t be daunted—most use the two terms interchangeably. An Energy Improvement Mortgage (EIM) is actually just a type of EEM, and refers to mortgages provided for homeowners that wish to upgrade or retrofit existing residences rather than start from scratch. Like EEM’s, EIMs allow borrowers to include the cost of energy-efficiency improvements in the mortgage without increasing the down payment.

Keep in mind, both EEMs and EIMs typically require a home energy rating to provide a lender with the estimated monthly energy savings and the “Energy Savings Value”—aka, the measurable value of the energy efficient features.

How to Qualify

The EEM applies to single-unit, owner occupied principal residences, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and condominiums. As stated above, a borrower typically has to have a home energy rater (HERS rater) conduct a home energy rating before financing is approved. Normally, EEM qualifying homes are Energy Star Rated, so that’s always a good place to start.

Specific improvements accepted by an EEM must be deemed “cost-effective”. This means (1) that the monthly savings on your utility bills must be greater than the added monthly cost of the energy mortgage, and (2) that over the lifetime of the improvement, total savings must be greater than total costs—including all maintenance—by at least $1. This is all determined by the HERS rater. Sometimes, however, an improvement that does not fit into this category can also be financed if lumped together with the rest of the cost effective improvements.

More About HERS

HERS operates in most states throughout the country, being the most commonly utilized and recognized rating system in the nation. Assessments are performed by a certified rater, or energy auditor, who inputs data into a computer (filled with all kinds of incomprehensible equations) to produce a report. This report compares the energy efficient home against a similar residence in the area (a “reference home”) that meets the minimum energy requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). An overall rating based on this comparison is then allotted to the residence, scoring it from 1 to 100 points, and correspondingly, from 1 to 5 stars (with a 100 point/5 star house being the most energy efficient). Below is a pic of a Colorado HERS certificate:

In addition to rating the house’s current efficiency, the report also targets areas for future improvement, detailing the estimated cost, the estimated monthly savings, and the payback time for savings to equal costs. Therefore, a HERS rating can be used to both judge if a home qualifies for an EEM, and also to pinpoint what needs to be done in an existing home to qualify for an EIM.

When your EEM is provided by the government, $200 of the cost of a HERS rating may be financed within the mortgage (as long as overall loan limits are not exceeded). Ratings currently range in cost from around $100 to $350 and average about $200.

Exceptions

Some lenders allow alternative energy audits to be performed by appraisers or energy consultants. These audits give the same type of information to, but in all cases it’s best to check with the lender first to know exactly what they require. This is more typical through the private mortgage market (non-government loans), and also depends on the state you live in. Unfortunately, the appraisal process is slightly behind the green market, so it may be more difficult to find an appraiser who (1) understands the value of energy improvements and will adjust the appraised value of the house accordingly (2) is willing to do the extra paperwork required by the private lender.

Who Are the Lenders?

There are three types of EEM lenders:

   1. Federally insured mortgage programs (FHA and VA)

   2. The conventional secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)

   3. Private lenders (including banks)

(1) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) EEMs follow the standard EEM guidelines, allowing borrowers to add 100 percent of the additional cost of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to an already approved mortgage loan (so long as the additional costs do not exceed $4000 or 5 percent of the value of the home, up to a maximum of $8000, whichever is greater). Likewise, no additional down payment is required, and the FHA loan limits won’t interfere with the process of obtaining the EEM. FHA EEMs are available for site-built as well as for manufactured homes. Information about the FHA EEM can be found on FHA’s web site.

The Veteran’s Administration (VA) EEM is available to qualified military personnel, reservists and veterans for energy improvements when purchasing an existing home. The VA EEM caps energy improvements at $3,000–$6,000. More information about VA EEMs can be obtained from the Web site for the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs.

(2) Conventional EEMs can be offered by lenders who sell their loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These mortgages also follow the general rule of all EEM’s, increasing the purchasing power of a homeowner by allowing the lender to increase the borrower’s income (which increases the size of the mortgage they qualify for) by a dollar amount equal to the estimated energy savings. The Fannie Mae loan also adjusts the value of the home to reflect the value of the energy efficiency measures. For more information about Fannie Mae’s EEM visit Fannie Mae’s web site.

(3) Private lenders, which include small banks and lending firms, typically follow the above, though they may differ in what ratings they require. Homeowners looking to secure an EEM from a private lender must first do their research to determine what is needed—it will depend largely on the state you live in and the appraiser the lender assigns you.

For lenders: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA and VA have adopted special underwriting guidelines to make financing energy efficiency less burdensome. The energy mortgage guidelines for each secondary mortgage market can be accessed on the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) here.

The Energy Star Pilot Program

There is a tentative #4 to be added to the above—an ENERGY STAR mortgage allows borrowers to pay for energy efficient improvements over the life of their loan and deduct the interest from their federal and state income taxes. Participating lenders also offer borrowers an additional financial benefit above and beyond the value of the home energy savings, such as discounted mortgage rates, reduced loan fees, or assistance with closing costs.

While an Energy Star mortgage, an EEM and an EIM all take into account the savings associated with reduced energy use, the ENERGY STAR mortgage pilot program has requirements that are different than those offered by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and VA, related specifically to the current Energy Star for Homes Program. Borrowers can, however, apply for a mortgage that qualifies as an ENERGY STAR mortgage AND an EEM or EIM—for example, a borrower could receive the financial benefit provided by a participating lender for an ENERGY STAR mortgage and also qualify for an EEM, thus taking advantage of the EEM’s benefit of permitting the use of higher expense to income and debt to income ratios.

The Energy Star Mortgage Pilot Program is currently underway in Maine and Colorado, and is being initiated in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

What Happens After You Get an EEM?

After the loan goes through there is a limited amount of time for a borrower to complete their improvements, usually between 90 and 180 days depending on the lender. Money for the improvements is held by the bank in an escrow holdback account until the construction or retrofit is complete. Since the improvements are already chosen when the loan application is made, and a contractor can be found before the loan is granted, 90 days is usually more than enough time to complete a retrofit. Most contractors will finish the job before receiving payment, so the escrow holdback shouldn’t create any problems. In the case of do-it-yourself remodels, though, the underwriter may only grant an energy loan for the cost of materials.

Questions?

The Environmental Protection Agency has a page dedicated to EEM’s, and lists all Energy Star Homes lenders that will underwrite EEM’s– click here to take a look. If you are a lender and would like to become an Energy Star Lender Partner click here. To access RESNET’s database of Maryland certified home raters, click here. Or, if you need more advice on how to get an EEM or a HERS rater to assess your home, email anna@onegreenhomeatatime.com.

The housing crisis of recent years has caused builders and buyers alike to reevaluate homes and adapt to a new and flourishing “green” market. Appraisers, however, do not seem to being doing the same. As of right now, there is little evidence that green building practices have any real impact on the appraised value of the home—at most, it may raise the appeal of a house, but only within its price range. In the mean time, developers are subsidizing some of the added costs of installed green features and updates while mortgages aren’t supplying consumers with enough credit to buy.

The Problem

Here’s how it works: for a $300 to $400 fee, an appraiser chosen at random from an appraisal referral service finds other recent resales in a similar location with similar size and features, called “comps”. They then value the property in question within the “comp” market. If the bank’s underwriter finds any inconsistency in the report, they will “kick it back” and make the appraiser correct it at no charge. Given that a significant number of appraisers and lenders have little to no familiarity with “quantifying green”, you can imagine what “getting it right” the first time means.

Searching the web for more info, I came across this response from an appraiser of 12 years to an article on green retrofits:

“It has been my experience that just about every home is some shade of green; cheap homes tend to be light green if they have some features, and other homes are dark green. And that’s just about all you read in the advertising these days…”green this” and “green that”. Because being “green” means so many things, I pretty much ignore it. I don’t automatically give an extra 10% or $10,000 if somebody tells me their house is green; there’s just no way to quantify that. What is very important in the appraisal is not necessary what green things were used, but what the cost of construction is; this will be a starting point for determining the value. The next step is to determine if the green products were too expensive for the market area (this is called over-built). In Texas, you can spend $25,000 on a geo-thermal HVAC; however, a traditional system only costs $10,000. Most Texans are going to get a traditional system. And yes, granite counters usually increase the value of a property that previously had none.” (full response here)

You can see the problem here—we are using the wrong criteria to assign value to homes. Rather than focusing on long-term utility savings and improved quality of life, the current appraisal process instead views attributes like square footage or the number of bedrooms and bathrooms as more important. Where rating systems like Energy Star and LEED award smaller, more efficient homes, appraisers continue to penalize quality in favor of quantity.

EXAMPLE: A customer is pre-approved for a $400,000 new home. The developer has the land and a design that fits the customer’s budget. But the bank’s appraiser says that if it is built as designed (with “green” features like passive solar with solar hot water, radiant floor, spray foam in the roof, high-performance windows and insulation), they won’t appraise it for the cost of construction. So, with solar and spray foam both valued at 50 cents on the dollar, the $400,000 house (which includes $8,000 worth of solar and $4,000 worth of spray foam) will only be appraised at $394,000. Either the developer will have to eat the added cost of the green features, or the owners will have to come up with an additional $6,000 for their down payment. Or, the builder will have to get rid of the solar and spray foam and add a pool or home theater.

Potential Solutions

Clearly the answer lies in how to quantify “green”. Given all of the current rating systems available, it would seem all we need is to consolidate the standards and disseminate the information to builders, appraisers, and lenders through seminars, publications, etc. But how to pick and choose which standards to include?

Some green building experts have suggested that the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) be used to provide the basis for a new appraising process. The HERS Index uses a ratings scale of 0 to 100, with 0 referring to “net zero” homes (homes completely reliant on renewable sources of energy) and 100 referring to newly built homes that just satisfy whatever code their state follows. Older homes with that do not follow along with the most recent state codes (homes with very little insulation and no Energy Star appliances, for example) typically have HERS ratings well above 100. There are also those who wish to use a system based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star program, which requires homes to be 15% more efficient than current standards.

It gets confusing, however, when certain ratings mesh with others—an Energy Star Home label, for example, can be incorporated into a HERS rating system, and they all affect LEED. VP Biden’s “Recovery Through Retrofit” program calls for more clarity, proposing to “do for homes what Energy Star has done for appliances”. The plan is to:

1. Develop a standardized set of “green” criteria applicable to every home in America, to be incorporated in home appraisals at the point of sale and utilized in energy retrofit transactions. The Department of Energy (DOE), along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are working to design this standard energy performance measure. Additionally, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is working to link the new energy performance measure to its redesigned Energy Recovery Through Retrofit Efficient Mortgage products.

2. Develop a standardized home performance label for existing homes with a complementary marketing campaign geared toward educating and attracting consumers, developers, appraisers, and lenders to the new “green” market.

This, of course, plays into yet another solution proposed by green building experts—the “greening” of Multiple Listing Services (MLS’s). Real estate MLS’s are used by appraisers to generate “comp” values, and yet rarely include the green features of homes that have been sold. Furthermore, many of the homes that do have high-performance green features are excluded from the MLS entirely because they are custom-built for the owner on their own property.

A “green” MLS system, however, would include relevant certifications and ratings (for existing AND custom built homes), more accurately reflecting the market trend toward energy efficiency. Initially, this would entail the participation of local boards and governments—NPR recently reported green MLS systems being implemented in Portland, Seattle, California, and New Mexico—but eventually must evolve into a national standard. Organizations like the Green REsource Council, the Real Estate Buyer’s Agent Council (REBAC), and its parent org the National Association of Realtors, are working toward this goal. In addition, the DOE released a 2009 guide for greening MLS’s—take a look, it’s only four pages: http://www.greenresourcecouncil.org/pdfs/Dept%20of%20Energy%20Guide%20for%20MLS.pdf.

At the moment, complications with the appraisal process are severely impeding the spread of green building. It’s tedious, and it’s annoying. But to clarify—appraisers aren’t the “bad guys”, nor are they intentionally trying to prevent the green market from flourishing. They are just uninformed, as are many of us when it comes to the relatively recent surge in sustainable building practices, and subject largely to the banks that they report to and the numbers currently available to them. Here’s hoping at least one of the above yields results.

In the past couple of months, we’ve all been bombarded with the opinions of contrarians and environmentalists on global warming, what (or who) causes it, and how to effectively deal with it. The recent brouhaha over Climategate and the controversial “results” of the Copenhagen conference are prompting both the right and left to scurry for stats to support whatever politically biased agenda they’re currently pursuing. It’s really all enough to make one’s stomach turn.

Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has recently posted several articles on climate change and policy decisions made by the White House. Perhaps the least inflammatory is Karlyn Bowman’s post on the “cooling” of public opinion toward the concept of global warming. Two types of polls are addressed—those that measure public belief in global warming in general, and those that gauge public opinion on its significance as an issue. Though Ms. Bowman tends to blend the two together in her article, the percentages are at least listed accurately:

1. Pew Research Center (September/October)—Decline in the proportion of those who believe there is solid evidence that global temps are rising from 71% in 2008 to 57% in 2009. Decline in those that see global warming as a very serious problem from 44% in 2008 to 35% in 2009.

2. ABC News/Washington Post (November)—Decline in both to its lowest point since 1997.

3. Harris Interactive (November)—51% believe that increased CO2 released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming.

4. CBS News/NY Times—Decline in those that believe global warming is a serious problem and should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders from 52% in 2007 to 37% in 2009.

Ms. Bowman then elaborates on the politics behind the polls:

“All four pollsters point to our polarized politics as part of the explanation. Most of the movement in the polls has come from Republicans and conservatives who may have changed their minds about the issue or are simply using it to express dissatisfaction with President Obama. In the Pew poll, 75% of Democrats vs. only 35% of Republicans saw solid evidence of global warming. In the ABC/Post poll, the belief that warming is occurring fell by 20 points among Republicans between 2008 and 2009 while holding steady among Democrats. In the Harris poll, 73% of Democrats but only 28% of Republicans believed greenhouse emissions cause global warming. And, in the CBS/NYT poll, 22% of Republicans, compared with 52% of Democrats, called the issue a very serious problem requiring a high-priority response.”

All very telling, and unsurprising. But pushing aside the climate change skeptics for the moment, let’s focus on those who do believe in the harmful effects of global warming (regardless of what causes it) and yet view the problem as a low priority. Ms. Bowman goes on to cite the public’s greater concern about the economy, noting the “trade-off” between protecting the environment and the creation of jobs: “today, the economy is the No. 1 priority. In the new CBS/NYT poll, 61% (up from 36% in 2007) said stimulating the economy was more important now; 29% (down from 52%) said protecting the environment was.”

But dare I point out the obvious? Why must there be a tradeoff? Given that much of the recent legislation (including PACE, Cash for Caulkers, etc) links job growth and economic recovery directly to environmentally friendly initiatives (the title “Recovery Through Retrofit” says it all), you would think people would begin to understand that we may be able to kill two birds with one stone. Yes, spending will be an issue, and yes, we will be faced with programs that don’t work due to red tape and bureaucratic ineptitude, but I’m relatively certain that sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and lalala-ing away the obvious is not a viable alternative. Energy efficiency and sustainability are the future. There are jobs aplenty, new technologies to harness, and moneys to be made. True, there will be consequences to the transition—displaced employees will have to be retrained, organizations restructured, and lifestyles altered—but we have to suck it up and learn how to adapt accordingly.

Thoughts?

Read Karlyn Bowman’s article on the AEI website here.

Lately we’ve been getting a lot of questions from developers and potential homebuyers regarding available tax credits, rebates, grants etc for sustainable home upgrades. If you are still planning on trying for some “green” this year, you can claim 30%, or up to $1,500, for qualified improvements in these areas: biomass stoves, windows, doors, HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) insulation, metal or asphalt roofs and non-solar water heaters. Bigger tax breaks come with the installation of geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines or solar energy systems. 30% claims (which includes the cost of installation) can be made, without any cap, through 2016. This credit applies to existing homes, second homes and new construction.

Keep in mind, you can only include the installation costs for biomass stoves, HVAC and water heaters. Additionally, not all Energy Star appliances qualify, and the ones that do have to fit a certain set of criteria. While the IRS provides some useful details about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s credits and guidelines, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star website offers more detailed lists, as does EPA’s Green Building page.

The following includes federal and state incentives available to Maryland’s residential builders and homeowners—click the headings to be transferred to a site with a summary of each, and for details on commercial building incentives.

Federal Incentives

Federal Grant Program
• U.S. Department of Treasury – Renewable Energy Grants
• USDA – Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants

Federal Loan Program
• Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)
• Energy-Efficient Mortgages
• Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs)
• U.S. Department of Energy – Loan Guarantee Program
• USDA – Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Loan Guarantees

Industry Recruitment/Support
• Qualifying Advanced Energy Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit

Personal Exemption
• Residential Energy Conservation Subsidy Exclusion (Personal)

Personal Tax Credit
• Residential Energy Efficiency Tax Credit
• Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit

Production Incentive
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI)

Maryland Incentives

Industry Recruitment/Support
• Clean Energy Economic Development Initiative (CEEDI)

Local Rebate Program
• Montgomery County – Clean Energy Rewards Program

PACE Financing
• Local Option – Clean Energy Loan Program

Personal Tax Credit
• Bio-Heating Oil Tax Credit (Personal)
• Clean Energy Production Tax Credit (Personal)
• Income Tax Credit for Green Buildings (Personal)

Property Tax Exemption
• Anne Arundel County – Solar Energy Equipment Property Tax Credit
• Harford County – Property Tax Credit for Solar and Geothermal Devices
• Howard County – High Performance Building Property Tax Credit
• Howard County – Residential Solar and Geothermal Property Tax Credit
• Local Option – Property Tax Credit for High Performance Buildings
• Local Option – Property Tax Credit for Renewables and Energy Conservation Devices
• Montgomery County – High Performance Building Property Tax Credit
• Montgomery County – Residential Energy Conservation Property Tax Credits
• Prince George’s County – Solar and Geothermal Residential Property Tax Credit
• Property Tax Exemption for Solar and Wind Energy Systems
• Special Property Assessment for Renewable Heating & Cooling Systems

Sales Tax Exemption
• Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Equipment
• Wood Heating Fuel Exemption

State Grant Program
• MARBIDCO Rural Business Energy Efficiency Program
State Loan Program
• EmPOWER Maryland Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Loan Fund
• Jane E. Lawton Conservation Loan Program
• State Agency Loan Program

State Rebate Program
• Energy Conservation Rebates for Farms
• Geothermal Heat Pump Grants
• Mid-Size Solar Energy Grant Program
• Solar Energy Grant Program
• Windswept Grant Program

Utility Rebate Program
• Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) – Commercial Energy Efficiency Program
• Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) – Home Performance with Energy Star Incentive Program
• Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) – Smart Energy Savers Residential Rebate Program
• Delmarva Power – Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Incentives Program
• Delmarva Power – Residential Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program
• PEPCO – Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Incentives Program
• PEPCO – Residential Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program
• SMECO – PowerWise Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program

Again, each of these incentives require builders and homeowners to follow certain rules and regulations—complete lists of federal and state guidelines can be accessed on dsireusa.org. AND keep an eye on new credits as we enter the next decade—with the White House’s recent commitment of $5 billion more in tax credits to manufacturers of wind, solar, and other renewable energy projects, expect the number and variety of incentives for builders and homeowners to increase as well.

Last month, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu presented the “Recovery Through Retrofit” program—a cornerstone of this plan, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) bonds allow homeowners to borrow money from local governments to pay for energy efficient retrofits, boosting the economy through clean energy investments and an inevitable increase in the number of available green jobs. For those of you who don’t know, here’s how it works:

- The city partners with a company to administer the program (or decides to go solo).

- The program is then funded (usually) with municipal bonds.

- The homeowner gets a site evaluation for solar power or energy efficiency improvements with whatever company they choose.

- Once a quote is given, the property owner applies with the city program administrator. A small fee covers the cost of the municipal financing program administration (and discourages frivolous applications).

- Once the homeowner’s selected upgrades are approved by the city, the program administrator pays the installer for whatever improvements the homeowner purchased. The check is forwarded directly to the installer. There is no upfront payment for the homeowner, except possibly a deposit.

- The property owner pays it off on his or her property tax bill over 20 years, at a competitive rate of interest.

- If the home is ever sold, the borrowed amount is transferred to the next owner.

To facilitate the process, most participating cities have designated a special taxing district to finance energy efficient and renewable energy projects for homes and businesses within their jurisdiction. Though $454 billion dollars of DOE Recovery funds are allocated to PACE programs, some cities have brought in private lenders to help finance and consult, while still more cities pull in grant funding. 

Ultimately, the goal is to encourage homeowners to look beyond the initial cost of energy efficient improvements, and instead focus on the long-term benefit. While Obama’s proposed Cash-for-Caulkers program already promises eligible homeowners a cost reduction in energy efficient retrofits of up to 50%, PACE financing is meant to cover the remainder in a simple, cost-effective manner. And apparently it’s catching on—already, at least 16 states (including our own) have adopted legislation allowing local governments (cities or counties) to implement PACE programs. Participating states include California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The first cities to have implemented PACE pilot programs include Berkeley (CA), Sonoma County (CA), and Boulder County (CO). All three have utilized the financial support and expertise of Renewable Funding LLC, a private lending firm concentrated solely on the implementation of PACE programs throughout the US. Yet the most recent to garner significant media attention is San Francisco. This past week, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the city’s new “San Francisco Sustainable Financing Program”, or “SF2”. Easily the most aggressive PACE model to date, San Fran’s plan goes beyond the standard solar upgrade and incorporates comprehensive water and wind systems—not to mention the projected goal of a 50% reduction in the city’s energy usage by 2030. Residential and commercial buildings of all sizes and shapes are eligible, as long as they agree to establish themselves as members of the citywide “Mello-Roos” Special Tax District.

With three local governments in the bag, California has a strong lead on the rest of the country. Annapolis is currently the only city to have begun implementing a PACE program in the state of Maryland (where the above cities utilize funds from the giant Renewable Funding, Annapolis went local with Edison/Wright to create their “Energy Zone” Program). And yet, to be honest, it’s caught on surprisingly fast. Let’s hope, as we proceed into the next decade, that we get some good results.

To read more about the spread of PACE programs across the US, visit the Renewable Funding website here. To get a more comprehensive picture of San Francisco’s program, read Galley Eco’s post here. And, to find out more about Maryland’s take on PACE, check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency here.

This past week, a group of IT companies including Google, General Electric, The Climate Group and the Natural Resources Defense Council asked several government officials attending COP15 to provide consumers with access to real time home energy information through several online tools and gadgets. Of course, these are products consumers would have to pay for, but on the upside homeowners are made more aware of their energy expenditure. The idea is that knowledge will lead to simple behavioral changes, which will inevitably result in lower utility bills—the group is predicting a 15% reduction of home energy consumption.

Technologies being showcased include Google’s online PowerMeter and GE’s various smart meters and home energy software—Dan Reicher, Google’s Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives (what a title), along with GE’s Steve Fludder, VP of Ecomagination (ditto), have been demoing both products throughout the Copenhagen summit. Similar product placement is being employed by Microsoft, Cisco, and AT&T.

For more information on the latest Information Technologies touted to effectively reduce energy consumption, visit the Climate Group’s Smart2020 website here. Or read more about Copenhagen’s IT participants at earth2tech.com.

General Electric has secured a $1.4 billion contract to construct wind turbines for the largest wind farm in the world. Caithness Energy is developing the farm, to be named “Shepherds Flat”, in Oregon, and it may prove a significant step in our ability to compete with prominent wind-producing countries like Germany and China.

Each of GE’s giant turbines will produce enough power to support 250 homes—the farm will house 338 of them. Additionally, a grid of transmission lines will carry power to California, helping the state to reach its recently announced goal of generating 33% of its energy from renewable sources.

After construction (beginning 2011) is completed, the farm is expected to save 1.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions—going a long way (literally) toward achieving the nationwide target of a 17% reduction.

Get more details from the NY Times here, or visit the State of Oregon’s overview of the project here.

Last week Lowe’s announced the release of 13 home solar packages on its website, all to made available in California stores by the end of the month and across the nation by the end of the year. Where Home Depot’s similar option is catered more toward professional contractors who already own many of the necessary accessories and expertise, Lowe’s’ product requires only a ladder, a power drill, some sealing caulk, and a visit to an in-store information kiosk. For just $350, homeowners can install their own solar panel and enjoy an 50 extra watts of energy.

The Product

The choice of brand here is critical—Lowe’s has opted for Andalay AC and Brightwatts panels, which have been branded as “Safer, More Reliable and Simpler to Install”. Technicians have reduced the overall parts count by 80%, and have taken measures to protect against performance-threatening breakdowns that typically affect ordinary DC power systems. These panels have also eliminated the need for high-voltage DC wiring, producing household power instead through built-in inverters.

Apparently, these simplified features have been achieved without compromising performance—the panels produce 5 to 25% more energy output than ordinary DC solar panels. And, unlike DC systems, their modular design allows homeowners to avoid a complete redesign when adding on new panels. Not to mention the fact that participating Lowe’s stores will be stocking all necessary accessories, ridding do-it-yourselfers of the need to pre-order components.

The Impact?

True, 50 watts isn’t going to power much—most standard lightbulbs require 40 watts to stay on. But you can use the panels to charge batteries for cordless tools (construction companies may find this useful for larger contracts where consistent sources of electricity are unavailable), or to provide off-grid charging for music systems. And keep in mind, that’s just with one panel. Lowe’s is also offering an 80-watt panel from Sunforce ($500), a system with similarly simple installation requirements and more bang for your buck when it comes to dollars-per-watt.

And, in cutting installation costs out of the equation, Lowe’s could successfully make solar power seem like more of an everyday endeavor, rather than the expensive, complicated ordeal it is perceived to be now. As prices drop, it could very easily become popular among new, young homeowners taking advantage of “green” tax incentives and programs like Cash-for-Caulkers.

To view range of packages offered, visit Lowe’s here, or get an overview of the Andalay AC panel on CNN Money.

Last month I wrote a piece about national vs. state specific energy efficiency codes—with the recent prominence of green building in the media (Greenbuild, Copenhagen, Al Gore’s awkward yet hilarious cameos), I decided to tackle the issue again and examine in detail the international codes (or I-Codes) available, how they are being developed, and how they affect residential and commercial construction here in Maryland.

It all begins with the International Code Council (ICC), a “membership association” founded by three nonprofit organizations: the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI). These orgs had developed code in the US up until the establishment of the ICC in 1994. Now, fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted one or all of the ICC’s I-Codes.

Why So Many?

Below is a list of the ICC’s “impressive” inventory of I-Codes:

1. International Energy Conservation Code
2. International Building Code
3. International Existing Building Code
4. International Fire Code
5. International Fuel Gas Code
6. International Mechanical Code
7. ICC Performance Code
8. International Plumbing Code
9. International Private Sewage Disposal Code
10. International Property Maintenance Code
11. International Residential Code
12. International Wildland Urban Interface Code
13. International Zoning Code

If you stopped reading three codes down, I don’t blame you. In fact, it’s why I listed the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) first. A national model energy code, it contains provisions for all buildings, both commercial and residential, and is the most frequently state-adopted comprehensive energy efficiency building code. Updated every three years, it incorporates most of the other codes (Plumbing, Mechanical, etc), and (this is important) is the ONLY model energy code that serves as the basis for federal tax credits and government mortgages for energy efficiency standards.

So why have the others? It’s a question that many policymakers, industry experts, and private citizens (me included) are asking. The International Residential Code (IRC), for example, is just a more narrowly scoped and significantly weaker set of provisions—an alternative for states that don’t want to commit to a more ambitious energy efficiency plan, and one which occludes them as potential recipients of stimulus funding, tax credits, or grant money.

Some groups, like the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, have made headway with the ICC on a potential upgrade (or elimination altogether) of the IRC. Unfortunately, where progress has been made in one area, setbacks occur in others—according to the ICC news feed, a recent partnership with ASTM International and the American Institute of Architects is going to spawn the International Green Construction Code (IGCC). This new incarnation will cover all new and existing energy efficient construction for commercial buildings, and as the mirror reflection of the IRC promises to be as redundant and counterintuitive.

What Does It Mean For Maryland?

As discussed in my earlier post, once a new version of the IECC is published, a state (or county within a state) has the option of adopting it in full, adopting it with amendments, or taking no action at all. Maryland is currently one of many states to adopt both 2009 versions of the IECC and the IRC. Fortunately, its IECC participant status entitles us to some government green—in February 2009, Congress linked the receipt of $3.1 billion of “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)” stimulus funding for State Energy Program grants to a recipient state’s adoption and enforcement of the 2009 IECC.

It also means that though we have become part of the tangle of codes, codes, and more codes, our state officials at least have the guts to commit us to more stringent standards—provisions that have become even more exacting with the emergence of the new January edition (though the EEC’s goal of a 30% boost in energy efficiency did not quite make it through, it looks as though the IECC will be able to match the recently announced 17% national reduction in carbon emissions). Notable requirements in the 2009 version of the IECC (as listed in a DOE assessment of Maryland—a useful resource) reference duct sealing and insulation, insulation for heating systems, vapor retarder specifications, high-efficiency lighting and electrical systems, and window size/sealing.

You can purchase copies of the most recent version of the IECC online at the ICC website here. Alternatively, you can view the table of contents to get a general overview. If you’d like to learn more about and comment on the ICC’s recent doings, sign up for the ICC Bulletin Board .

The first of five major events in Copenhagen took place today– if you’d like to keep track of how the rest of the scheduled events unfold, check out the below live stream widget from OneClimate.net.