Keller Williams This Month in Real Estate – December 2010
The number of For Sale By Owner listings has dropped from 11 percent to 9 percent. Responses from a recent National Association of Realtors survey may help explain why: Click on the video to learn more.
Better Building Energy Codes Now: the Reasonable and Crucial Next Step

By Dave Hewitt, NBI & Jessyca Henderson, AIA
With today’s conspicuous promotion of green building and sustainability, it is easy to forget that the bulk of commercial building design does exactly what it has always done: meet the local building energy code. While the resulting buildings are more energy efficient than if there were no code at all, they’re far from the best we can do.
The potential collapse of any Congressional action to reduce energy consumption as part of climate change or energy legislation means the immediate opportunity for improving building efficiency standards falls into different hands: state and local building code officials. These are the people who work every day to establish and enforce the rules on how we design and build buildings and their influence is far greater than most people know.
At the end of October, these local government representatives will gather in Charlotte, N.C., to vote on changes to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), a national model for energy codes that is available for adoption by local jurisdictions across the country. New Buildings Institute (NBI), The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the U.S. Department of Energy have partnered on a comprehensive proposal for the commercial chapter of the IECC (EC 147) that will be considered at the Charlotte conference.
The measures outlined in these code changes are not pie-in-the-sky, untested or new-to-market ideas. The upgrades to equipment specifications and design strategies that relate to building envelope, heating and cooling, lighting, quality assurance and renewable energy are in the marketplace, readily available, affordable and practical. In fact, similar code requirements have already been adopted by the states of Massachusetts and New Mexico and are being considered by Oregon and Vermont.
Indeed, we know that constructing buildings to meet the proposed code is achievable because for years NBI has been working with utility efficiency programs that promote the construction of buildings designed on these same principles. The IECC commercial proposal is based largely on NBI’s Advanced Buildings® Core Performance® program, offered by utility and statewide energy efficiency organizations across New England, eastern Canada and in Oregon.
If code officials vote to accept EC 147, buildings that meet the code would be at least 20 percent more energy efficient than those complying with the current version. Additional proposals, if adopted, could increase efficiencies up 30 percent—the largest single-step increase in IECC history. And while some might argue that in today’s economy improving codes simply passes extra costs on to the commercial building industry, energy efficiency is a prime example of what our economy needs to resume growing. Higher performing buildings can be built for little or no premium, and changing codes to use readily-available technology and building techniques keeps additional costs nominal and quickly recoverable through year-after-year energy savings.
A 2009 study by McKinsey & Company proved just how much money our economy could save by investing in energy efficiency: their findings show that a holistic, national energy efficiency strategy could save the country more than $1.2 trillion dollars for a $520 million investment—a very good return on investment indeed.1
Why are we focusing on commercial building energy codes? Frankly, because improvements to these buildings will provide so much bang for our energy buck. Buildings consume about two-thirds of the U.S. power supply and account for 40 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. Our carbon reduction and energy independence goals cannot be met without significant gains in energy efficiency, and codes for commercial buildings are the most powerful tool around to drive these kind of increases.
What happens if these code changes fail in October? We would lose three years—until 2015—before the next cycle of revisions to the IECC. That’s three years of building construction and opportunities for improved energy efficiency gone—forever.
There are many efforts underway in the commercial building industry to help the U.S. achieve extremely low energy use. AIA has committed to reaching carbon neutrality for all buildings by 2030. The U.S. Department of Energy is focused on increasing the energy efficiency of buildings on behalf of the public and our national interests through the Building Energy Codes Program and other programs like Building America. NBI works to promote advanced design practices, improved technologies and programs that result in high-performance buildings.
Jessyca Henderson, AIA, is Director of Sustainability Advocacy for The American Institute of Architects, the leading professional membership association for licensed architects, emerging professionals and allied partners. Dave Hewitt is the Executive Director of New Buildings Institute, a nonprofit organization working to improve the energy performance of commercial buildings.
Q and A with: NH PUC energy director Jack Ruderman
This is a newsworthy article that I read in NH Business Review today! Thought you’d also enjoy seeing it.
Q and A with: NH PUC energy director Jack Ruderman
Friday, October 8, 2010
By Bob Sanders
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
Jack Ruderman heads the Public Utilities Commission’s Sustainable Energy Division, which gives out millions of dollars each year for energy programs.
Q. Outline the type of funds you oversee.
A. The renewable energy fund is an offshoot of the state’s renewable portfolio standard law, which requires our electricity providers to purchase certain percentages of renewable energy. Last July, we received $4.8 million, and this past July, we received $1.3 million. People were guesstimating $10 million to $12 million each year – it’s a little more modest than we had hoped.
The first program is for homeowners who want to use solar electrical panels or wind turbines. We have received over 400 applications for rebates requesting a total of $2.3 million.
The second program, also residential, is for solar water heating – $500,000 in federal stimulus funds, which are matching with $500,000.
A third program is for home wood pellet furnaces – whole house systems, not the wood pellet stove that many of us have in our family rooms. They have to be capable of bulk fuel delivery. We are hoping to spark a market for trucks outfitted for bulk.
We are now creating our first commercial and industrial rebate program for solar electric or for solar water heating, hot water and potentially for space heating.
Q. The bulk of the money is being spent on residential rebates, yet businesses pay more than half of the amount received. Shouldn’t more of this money go back to businesses?
A. We agree. The funds should be spent in proportion to the retail sales, and residential is about 41 percent and commercial and industrial 59 percent.
However, we were required to create the residential program first. We started off very lopsided, but we are very much committed to the commercial and industrial sector.
Q. How much is available for businesses right now?
A. The commission set aside $1 million for the commercial and industrial rebate program. The staff is now proposing $1.5 or $1.75 million, and that would take us to June 2011, when we get our next deposit of funds, which, we hope, will be more substantial.
Q. Why are there less funds than you expected?
A. The law is working as intended. It is creating a healthy market for renewable energy facilities, and therefore there are plenty of renewable energy credits available to the electricity providers. They don’t pay much in. That’s a good thing, unless you happen to be the fund manager.
Q. It’s similar with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The auction rate for carbon allowances started out at $3.07, and in June 2010, it was down to $1.88. Explain what those figures mean.
A. RGGI is a regional cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by requiring power plants to obtain carbon allowances. It is a market-based system, and auctions are quarterly. New Hampshire’s share so far is $24.3 million. The amount of money in auctions varied from $4.2 million to $2.77 million. Prices have dropped, and fewer allowances are selling. But it is a dynamic market that could change any time. nhbr
Q. What’s available for business under that program?
A. The Business Finance Authority last year loaned out $1.96 million. One $750,000 loan was for Foss Manufacturing in Hampton. They’ve been able to eliminate diesel generators and replacing over 1,700 lighting fixtures. The second loan of $500,000 went out to Vitex Corp., an aluminum extrusion company in Franklin.
They were able to replace a furnace that was only 28 percent efficient with one that’s 65 percent efficient. The third loan was $710,000 to Androscoggin Valley Regional Refuse Disposal District working with Fraser Paper Company to bring gas from the Mt. Carberry landfill in place of No. 6 heating oil to run their machinery.
In our first round, we gave a direct grant to Fraser paper of $470,000 to invest that money in recovering lost heat. They were able to save $800,000 each year on energy costs. Dramatic, immediate results.
Q. Do you feel sometimes that this is just a drop in the bucket?
A. We also provided $7.5 million to the state’s electric utilities to expand energy-efficiency programs to ratepayers, including businesses. But yes. You are looking at billions that need to be made available.
Bob Sanders can be reached at bsanders@nhbr.com.
Green Buildings May Make Employees Feel Better, a Study Finds
Is where you work making you sick? A new study finds that employees who move from buildings with poor indoor environmental quality to more healthful “green” buildings may reap some benefits, including less absenteeism and higher productivity.
The green building movement isn’t just concerned with constructing buildings that are more energy efficient and environmentally responsible — they’re supposed to improve indoor surroundings as well, making it more healthful and pleasant for those who work there, via lighting, ventilation, acoustics and ergonomic design.
Researchers from Michigan State University did two case studies evaluating the physical and mental health status of people who moved from traditional to green office buildings. One scenario involved 56 people and the other 207, and employees were asked through surveys about absenteeism from work in both types of buildings for asthma, allergies, depression and stress-related conditions. They were also asked about productivity in the two settings.
Both green buildings received high ratings from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green building certification organization.
Being absent from work for asthma, allergies, depression and stress decreased following the move into the green buildings; for example, hours absent from work due to asthma and allergies was on average 1.12 per month in conventional buildings and 0.49 in green buildings. The average number of work hours affected by illness per month also declined after the move. Productivity improved.
Using the numbers, researchers estimated that better health and higher productivity could translate into more work hours per year.
Researchers plan to do additional research at other sites as well as follow these employees to assess changes in health and productivity and to make sure that the results aren’t due to the Hawthorne effect, a phenomenon in which people change the behavior that’s being evaluated because they know they’re being studied.
The study appears in the September issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
RISMEDIA, October 9, 2010–(MCT)–
(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.
By Jeannine Stein
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Weeding with Water

This is a great tip for you to use in your garden!
Whenever possible, I try to use the most natural solution possible for keeping my yard in control. Get rid of weeds like dandelions using our hands and sharp gardening tools. (My back doesn’t appreciate this, but the environment does!). And one other trick I’ve learned is using water to kill weeds.
Yes, you heard me right. Water to kill weeds. The trick is designed for those little weeds and grass that sprout up between bricks and stones, and the water needs to be boiling. Certainly we don’t specifically boil water for this reason, but between all the corn on the cob that we eat and pasta we make, we are often boiling water for other reasons and rather than pour the leftover water down the drain, we put it to good use.
After removing the corn, pasta, green beans, etc., carefully carry your pot of hot water to the brick or stone area in need of weeding. Pour the water on top and your done. Mother Earth (and not to mention your lower back and fingernails) will thank you!
