Standing in a Home Depot in Alexandria, Va. on December 15th, President Obama announced that weatherization is “sexy.” Despite efforts to erase unsavory mental images, American curiosity was piqued about energy efficiency.  People are seeking info on rebates and tax credits for improvements to save money and cut greenhouse gas emissions, while exploring additional support on the state level.    

A big green bubble of money is headed right for us.  Care should be taken to ensure it doesn’t pop and leave us with an expensive mess.

Massachusetts has been a national leader in energy efficiency policy since 1997 when state law required electric companies to offer efficiency programs to ratepayers.  On July 2, 2008, Governor Patrick signed the Green Communities Act, which required electric and natural gas companies to file energy efficiency plans every three years.  The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) ensures that energy efficiency programs “are delivered in a cost-effective manner capturing all available efficiency opportunities, minimizing administrative costs to the fullest extent practicable, and utilizing competitive procurement processes to the fullest extent practicable.”

In March of 2009 The Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force, also established under the Green Communities Act, outlined a strategy for growing the energy efficiency sector in “Getting to Zero.”  This report guides universal adoption of zero net energy buildings for new residential and commercial construction by 2030.  It also outlines goals and hurdles for retrofitting existing buildings for increased energy efficiency.

“Getting to Zero” identifies 5 barriers to growing the retrofit industry, which are echoed in the more recent federal report from the Vice President’s Middle Class Task Force October 2009 “Recovery through Retrofit;” a simpler, less ambitious, version of our state-level publication.

#1 The high upfront cost of effective energy efficiency improvements to the homeowner.

#2 The lack of a consistently and well-trained energy efficiency workforce.

#3 A lack of building performance information to provide reliable projections for financing and marketing energy efficiency improvements.

#4 Building operator and occupant behavior can undermine building improvements.

#5 Regulatory and permitting barriers can stall and prevent retrofitting projects.

In his Memo on the Clean Energy Economy, published the same day as Obama’s Home Depot address, Joe Biden announced that the Administration would “weatherize” the homes of more than a half a million low income Americans by the end of 2010.  This commitment will offer 30% tax credits to cover up to $1,500 of the total cost.  

The major problem with tax credits is that they don’t help lessen the blow of upfront cost for a person of modest income- a rift that alienates those most in need of a break over the cold winter months.

Capping the tax credit at $1,500 freezes the homeowner at $5,000 for the amount their creditworthy improvement expense. They can try to search out additional rebates, incentives and financing to cover additional cost.  By now your average homeowner is wondering how worth it this improvement really is.  And there is no building performance information to reassure them.

Technical barriers further complicate the picture. Energy efficiency improvements deal with the moisture and thermal envelopes of structures. Seemingly minor mistakes can result in problems with mold, mildew, structural damage and thermal bridging. An amateur weatherizer or a do-it-yourselfer may end up with costly problems on their hands.

What is the best-case scenario for a low-income homeowner who is dedicated to energy efficiency?  She can hire a contractor through a qualified vendor of the MassSAVE program-the utility companies answer to mandated energy efficiency programs.  

This public private partnership regulates energy efficiency improvements according to the non-profit’s standards and then hires individuals and independent contractors to perform the work.  The weatherization programs offered in this circumstance will bring a maximum 30% reduction in  annual heating costs.  More likely they will achieve 10-15% reductions.  

The federal “Recovery through Retrofit” report considers an Energy Star label to for new buildings that can meet a benchmark for a specific efficiency level.  There is currently no such benchmark and no rating system as a mandatory measure for quality assurance in the state or federal level.  The HER’s (Home Energy Rating system) is used in Europe to rate the performance of existing buildings.  HER’s is discussed in “Getting to Zero,” and could be the system Mass uses to measure and track results.  What chance does a newly trained workforce stand in making consistent and reliable improvements for customers without defined targets and standardized measures?  

If homeowners are told five different things from five different contractors they will not know who to trust and will most likely avoid the decision to do the work unless it is free, and free will not pay for a new workforce or the re-employ of out of work professionals.

If a homeowner pulls off an “improvement” without compromising the health of the building, she may see a small drop in her annual heating costs.  In the long run this move may cost her much more than the amount she saves on her monthly utility bill because of the likelihood that her amateur work will compromise the health of the building. Making prescriptions for the health of a house without consulting a professional is like going into surgery with an undergrad at the scalpel.  Major irreparable damages may result.  

In 2009 Massachusetts managed to secure more than $3.8 billion of Recovery Act grant funding.  The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center reports doling out more than $ 4 million “to set up or expand training of low-skill employees in jobs like weatherization and energy audits to developing associates degree programs in energy efficiency and renewable energy through community colleges.” Millions of dollars in other allocations were awarded by the Department of Labor and other agencies for “Pathways out of Poverty” grants and other similar programs to train unemployed and underemployed folks in this new field.

Why is Massachusetts allocating more money to unskilled workforce development on the bottom rung of an industry that has thousands of skilled laborers out of work?

The construction industry in Massachusetts experienced a 14% job loss rate this year, with union jobs taking an even harder hit.  Why not revitalize a struggling industry-not by building wasteful casinos-but by retrofitting the very houses we live in to be more inhabitant and environment friendly?

The question on the tip of the construction industry’s tongue during this ramp-up in training was very straightforward: “How are you going to create demand?”

Here’s a seemingly simple solution to all of these barriers:  provide homeowners access to low interest subsidized loans that are saleable with the property and increase the challenge level of the retrofit game.  By requiring energy efficiency technicians to achieve higher standards of efficiency we would call to the table the construction industry to perform wall build-outs, larson trusses and remodels that would improve the house as a system.  Suddenly HVAC technicians will be employed to build appropriate sized air conditioning technologies to meet the needs of the new high performing buildings.  

A raise in standards for energy efficiency improvement would dramatically reduce the annual cost of utilities for the homeowner and re-employ an anemic industry.  Simple financing instruments are being developed and piloted in California that explore ways to help a homeowner obtain a loan that will offset utility bills with an otherwise expensive improvement.  This approach will revitalize a languishing housing market and provide more work across many sectors-lawyers, realtors, brokers, financial advisors, economists!!  Even surplus spending cash for the homeowner- resulting in spending that can stimulate yet more growth.  

Many non-profits and inter-agency groups have identified much of what is discussed in this article.  Architecture 2030 offers a comprehensive and promising proposal for retrofitting American homes that would multiply every stimulus dollar invested in a municipality 14 times.

In the end the danger lies in putting the caulking gun before the energy modeling software.  If enough mistakes are made this green bubble will pop-we will be left with less than impressive home improvements, a bunch of newly unemployed weatherization technicians, and the ever-rising cost of fuel.  

For a Massachusetts homeowner’s personal account of undergoing a major state-of-the art retrofit please visit Big Green Loudmouth at

greenmouth.org