Weatherization: Saving Money by Saving Energy

I've always been a bit of an energy efficiency nut.

I've made it my mission to cut the utility bills at every home we've owned. Long before I learned about the risks of climate change, I was fanatical about energy efficiency because I'm cheap.

Whenever my wife and I move into a new home, I check the attic for adequate insulation. I look for leaks around doors and windows and install a programmable thermostat if needed. In our latest home, I've also insulated our water pipes with inexpensive foam from our local hardware store and painted mastic sealant on the seams of the air ducts. When our hot water heater needed replacement, we installed a tank-less water heater which decreased our summer-time gas use by 50%. In the summer, we found that setting the thermostat at 77 - 78 degrees and a gentle breeze from a fan was all that is required to be comfortable.

So far, we are on track to cut our utility bills by about half compared to the previous owner, but we are doing more. Our home has two large skylights that funnel too much heat out in the winter and let too much heat in the summer. We intend to replace these older windows with modern widows with five times the efficiency.

Taking these steps is called "weatherization." I would rather call it "saving money by saving energy." Over the next several years, we want to help millions of American families seize the same opportunity to cut their utility bills by making their homes and appliances more energy efficient while increasing comfort.

We are making a major down payment on this effort through the President's economic recovery plan.

First, the Recovery Act expanded tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades to your home. If you purchase and install certain energy-efficient windows, insulation, doors, roofs, or heating and cooling equipment, you can receive a tax credit for 30% of the cost, up to $1,500. For example, if insulating your attic costs around $1,600, you'll receive a $480 tax credit, and you could save up to $200 on your utility bill each year.

Second, we are launching an innovative new effort called "Retrofit Ramp Up" that will simplify and reduce the cost of home retrofits by funding pioneering programs that reach whole neighborhoods and towns. If we can energy audit and retrofit a reasonable fraction of the homes in any given residential block, the cost will be greatly reduced. Programs such as these will decrease barriers to saving money: inconvenience, inertia, and inadequate information. We want to make home energy efficiency upgrades irresistible and a social norm for homeowners.

This effort could offer homeowners innovative ways to finance the upfront investments they can't afford on their own. For example, homeowners might receive a loan for an energy improvement and pay back the principal and interest over time via an assessment on their property tax bill. The homeowners might pay an extra $400 per year on their property tax bill but save $500 a year on their utility bill. Since the financing would be attached to the property tax bill, both the savings and the loan payments stay with the house if the owners decide to sell.

Finally, for low-income families who are hit hardest by high utility bills, the Recovery Act provides $5 billion for home weatherization. This is the largest single investment in home energy efficiency in U.S history. This program is creating jobs now, putting money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans, reducing our environmental footprint, and making these homes more livable. However, some people - including me - have been frustrated that the program started off more slowly than we'd hoped.

It took a few months for states to develop their plans and for the Energy Department to ensure those plans met the highest standards of accountability. We also used this time to work with the Labor Department to establish standards that guarantee these jobs pay a fair wage. States and their local weatherization agencies also began training this new workforce and buying millions of dollars in necessary equipment and materials, like caulk guns, insulation blowers, and service vehicles. We are taking the care and time necessary to make sure these taxpayer dollars are well spent.

Those purchases are creating jobs. A good example is an insulation machine manufacturer called Krendl in Delphos, Ohio. Because of Recovery Act-driven purchases, Krendl has expanded its workforce by 30 percent, and one of Krendl's distributors, Applied Energy Products, Inc., increased its staff by almost 60 percent.

Here's more good news:

• All 50 states have received 100% of their Recovery Act weatherization funding and have begun to double and triple their home energy efficiency efforts. Workers are being hired, homes are being improved, and families are being helped.
• In September, we estimate we weatherized 15,000 - 20,000 homes - the fastest pace in the 30 year history of the Weatherization Assistance Program. We expect to be weatherizing 20,000 to 30,000 homes per month soon.
• This effort has already created or saved thousands of jobs, and the pace of hiring is accelerating. The Department of Energy and our partners have an aggressive training and technical assistance program to continue to invest in green workforce development.

We're training a workforce and building a home energy efficiency industry that will be a crucial part of America's new, clean energy economy. As states, utilities and private companies increasingly pursue home energy efficiency - in part because of the innovative incentive programs I described earlier - we will have the capacity to help millions of Americans lower their utility bills.

Energy efficiency is simply good economics. It will save you money. It will create jobs. It is a way for you to personally decrease your carbon emissions and help save our planet.

 

Comments

[leduck]

11:10 PM on 11/25/2009

Dear Secretary CHU:

I've read that you are familiar with PEAK OIL. I was very impressed with your post on weather saving energy. I did see this post when it came out, but I googled your name and PEAK Oil and up popped HUFFPO. I have been a member of HUFFPO for a number of years. I hope you are happy with the amount of access you have to President Obama's ears. I believe the more access you have to the President, the better off America will be. I feel much better knowing our Secretary of Energy is well aware of the cncept of PEAK OIL. I hope we benefit from your knowledge and experience for many years to come.

Sincerely yours,

Donald Leduck

[SenGovLuvr]

07:39 AM on 11/03/2009

Weatheriza­tion and the Recov Act are great plans. They are working. Several facts: 1. clients that rent can be eligiblefo­r upgrades and therefore the landlord, who might be quite wealthy gets his slum house fixed up at taxpayer's expense. 2. Recovery Act tax credits do not apply to mobile home owners, as there are no 95% moho furnaces. But, there are 90+% furnaces that moho owners could upgrade to and be able to save 25% or so on their heating bills which are often quite high.

"We also used this time to work with the Labor Department to establish standards that guarantee these jobs pay a fair wage." Read= give the unions time to try and stack the wages so high that they would be competetiv­e. Read= in some areas, weatherize half the homes due to prevailing wages set artificial­ly high, even though the majority of contractor­s in that area are non-union. In our area the wages in county A are $21/hour and the next county over are $9/hour due to our government trying to "establish standards"­. The actual wages in both counties are around $16 plus fringes, so they will recieve the same net pay. This action held up the programs for months this summer and has burdened administra­tion officials with piles of forms to fill out if their programs cross county lines.(All­ot do.)

[roicog]

05:30 PM on 11/07/2009

Heat pumps are available to heat air in 'trailers' much more efficientl­y then any furnace. The fact that furnaces are supported at all when -AT BEST- they are less then half as efficient as a poor heatpump is the flaw and it is why we don't see a standard gas engine driven model widely available.

I also want to revisit the DOE apointee's undated reference to his water heater 'needing' replacemen­t. On my local news commercial­s for two 'walk in' bathtubs run everyday at noon, and one of them promises a 'free' ($2200 value) tankless 'accessory­' unit if the tub is 'bought.' It also pumps the hot water into the sewer system so that the door can open faster as that requires that the 'tank' one 'bathes' in be emptied first. These 'systems' can exceed ten grand routinely- even are estimated at $20,000 when purchased from a commercial of this sort.

Clearly the heat can be reused over and over for such 'dirty' seniors. And the costs of operating such high gallon 'bathing' solutions can be mitigated after there home is rerenovate­d for yuppie use. Last thing we need is a tankless half million btu water heating furnace running many hours every day so that each kid can burn several trucks of coal just to enjoy some suds.

[moneyonliner]

03:02 PM on 11/25/2009

A good solution to save energy is to use a notebook instead of a desktop computer,
like the people describe in this most funniest youtube video:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=X43mAahPi­fI

[ScottWynn]

12:10 AM on 11/03/2009

The only true solution to climate change= Don't eat animals

[classicalgeek]

06:26 PM on 11/01/2009

Mr. Secretary-­-

wonderful, but please lean on commercial property owners (apartment landlords) to weatherize as well. People who don't have enough money to buy houses need electricit­y too.

[Chandelier]

04:48 PM on 11/19/2009

A very valid point. I love my old apartment and do my best with weatherstr­ipping and other draft-bloc­king techniques on the windows, but it doesn't fix everything and my heating bills can get ridiculous in the winter. If the tax credit doesn't apply to rental properties already, it really should.

[brady61995]

02:48 PM on 11/01/2009

people working co operativel­y is a non profit in cincinnati that goes and winterizes lower income peoples homes. there are many services and companies like this around the country. people need to conserve where and when they can. nice article.

[AirForceBlue]

09:44 AM on 11/01/2009

As we most all have experience­d, reducing our energy consumptio­n does not reduce our energy bills as when we do/did our bills went up simply because the energy companies needed to make up for the shortfall in costs to supplying the energy. In effect, supply mounts, money coming in falls, so prices go up to cover the difference­. Nuthin' hard about that.

Again we experience the government scamming every day US citizens by proposals not intended to benefit all, but the few. Environmen­talists send millions of $ every year to the coffers of politician­s' "re election reserves" to directly affect the transfer from oil dependence to natural energy supplies, like windmills, wave blockers, solar panels, etc. Indeed, these are valuable tools yet far, far too short to satisfy need.

There' is only one source available to transit to energy dependence and that is nuclear -- and most us believe it. It can be the fill gap measure to use while environmen­t friendly, cheaper sources are developed, like hydrogen, better battery retention, etc.

As the cap & trade, and health care reform prove, our Congress and the President'­s Cabinet are entirely influenced by special interests rather than the public they serve.

The real cause, then, is to provide a means to

[rad21]

10:31 AM on 11/01/2009

If the energy costs go up in any case for the energy companies to make money, that is all the more reason to keep our personal energy costs down. At least now we will break even; instead of complainin­g about the rising cost of energy and living. We can also help our parents weatherize their homes.

[FreeNemo]

05:16 PM on 11/17/2009

More like: We can help our children weatherize their homes. They are the ones stuck with the huge mortgages and no savings.

[brady61995]

02:50 PM on 11/01/2009

where is big gov when you need it. regulation has vanished and that is why the rates keep climbing. the deregulati­on of big energy has sufficated the avg american especially in hot areas like california and arizona and cold eastern states in the winter, its a crime

[Patriot86]

02:42 AM on 11/02/2009

brady61995­, you are so correct. As soon as deregulati­on came, promising lower utility bills, the rates went up. It happened in Georgia where I used to live. Gas was deregulate­d, the first year, the gas companies were giving you money, gift cars, etc. to switch. By the third year all the smaller companies were gobbled up and prices began to skyrocket. Same for electricit­y.
Still in the house I live now, I am doing all I can to reduce energy usage, because I am cheap and would rather spend my money on other things, like my children.

[AirForceBlue]

09:14 AM on 11/01/2009

Takes one to know one.

[roudy]

08:56 AM on 11/01/2009

Of course, as we cut our energy usage, the utility companies then go crying to the state boards that they aren't making enough profit, and the boards then allow them to raise their rates. This effectivel­y wipes out any real savings on gas and electric use in your home. The author forgot to mention that fact in the article.

[Eggsackley]

10:23 AM on 11/03/2009

The state laws within which the state boards operate generally require utility rates to be set high enough for utilities to make a reasonable profit. These laws can be changed to penalize utilities that contiue to depend on polluting power plants.

[flamflurm]

08:04 AM on 11/01/2009

Intrepid genius.

[THEPILGRIM]

07:53 AM on 11/01/2009

Mr. CHU the weatherisa­tion programm is great and it will help save money for a lot of family's.
But I have to tell you if we had higher building standards in the US to beginn with we wouldn't need to put expensive money into 2nd and 3rd world standard houses, because that is about the building level we have here in the US.
Have you ever seen how for example German houses are build? - this country is so out of shape - it's pathetic!

Second and this is slightly of the topic: Global Warming
Global Warming is a hoax. It's designed to dismantel Industrial­isation and manufactor­ing world wide!
Cap and Trade is designed to achieve exactlyy that!
I am all for beeing efficient with our natural resources that's for sure, but we shouldn't mixe this up
with the cap and trade nonsense and the global warming swindle - there is a difference­!

[yetAnotherBlogger]

11:10 AM on 11/01/2009

Your second paragraph is absurd. Global warming is not a hoax. The vast majority of scientists think otherwise and there are many research papers on it. Are you a birther too? Interested if there is a correlatio­n. Why would people want to "dismantel­" industrial­ization.

[AirForceBlue]

11:41 AM on 11/02/2009

"Vast majority of scientists­".........­..........­..........­...decreas­ing, vastly.

[Eggsackley]

09:48 AM on 11/03/2009

Building standards and utility rates are both state issues. We all need to contact our local legislator­s and demand that they consider revising the building codes. It is a little harder to have a direct impact on energy costs. These are controlled by stated boards or commission­s shose members are generally appointed by the governor. They can be influenced by attending their public hearings, but real change can come through changing the legislativ­e framework in which they operate.
State laws generally grant utilities the "right" to a reasonable profit? But should this apply to a utility that operates obsolete coal burning power plants? I don't think so. And, global warming is not driven entirely by greenhouse gases, soot is a very important contributo­r as well.
I would hope there are some good model building codes and utility laws that penalize innefficie­nt utilites tus that someone could tell us how to access so we could bring them to ther attention of state legislatur­es. Maybe we need to translate some German codes and laws into English so they could be used as models.

[FreeNemo]

05:14 PM on 11/17/2009

Great idea! Let's make houses MORE expensive!

[Eggsackley]

01:39 AM on 11/01/2009

I have been interested in solar power since 1951 when I was in 5th grade and saw plans for a solar heated house in a Popular Mechanics magazine at school. I saw the potential of geothermal power when I was in the Air Force and got assigned to Iceland. I visited the Mother Earth Village in Hendersonv­ille, NC in the 80's, and yesterday I read about a solar powered house contest in which the houses were displayed in Washington­. This got me thinking about a way to get more people to really see all the potential for alternate energy and energy efficient lifestyles­. I wrote a comment suggesting that our country should host a World's Fair with a green technology theme. I thought the people who tried to get the next Olympics to be held in Chicago might be interested in hosting such a fair. It has as much tourist potential as the Olympics and would put as many people to work. It would also give us an opportunit­y to show off new products and promote exports.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. The last Chicago Worlds Fair was one of the most influentia­l events ever held in this country. The potential for educating our own population is also enormous. We might even consider having two cities, connected by high speed rail, co-host the Fair.
Keep up the good work.

[unemployedprogressive]

04:55 PM on 11/01/2009

I like the idea of a worlds fair for green technology­.

Also Mr. Secretary I hope your staff points you toward this suggestion­:

We can supply all U.S. electric needs with 100 sq. miles of solar collectors­. The best implementa­tion for that would be to install solar panels in the medians of the interstate highways. This will locate panels near to existing power lines, provide long term jobs in most states and dramatical­ly reduce the hardware costs of solar as opposed to rooftop installati­ons.

[YCSTS]

05:15 PM on 11/01/2009

You'rr dreaming dude. Sunny Spain has already subsidized Solar, with an all out program, $26.4 billion and all its gotten is a miserable 450 MWe, 1/3rd of one Nuclear Power plant. An incredible $59k per kwavg. With the avg power use per American at 11 kw. That would be an investment of $2.6 million per family of four every 20 yrs.

. Germany with it's 15 yrs of massive subsidies, in 2006 only got 4.8% of its electricit­y from Wind and 0.35% from Solar. Their Solar program, by 2013 it is expected to be 1375 MW avg. Which will cost the German taxpayer US$113 billion, that’s $82,000 per kw avg. And you still need fossil fuel backup power, that must be maintained­. Absolutely Wacko!

You make good paying, lasting jobs by creating ECONOMICAL­LY VIABLE products that can sustain industry or be sold for foreign currency. Spending on Solar isn't significan­tly better than paying one group to dig holes and another group to fill them in.

With factory produced Nuclear coming in at under $2000 per kw avg - Solar & Wind are a criminal waste of valuable resources that are desperatel­y needed to rapid build Nuclear, THE ONLY WAY TO AVERT A CLIMATE CHANGE / PEAK OIL CATASTROPH­E!

[Eggsackley]

10:13 AM on 11/03/2009

We also need to look at electric high speed trains with solar panels along the right of way.

[GunneraGirl]

08:40 PM on 11/01/2009

that world's fair thingey is an absolutely fabulous idea: write to secretary chu!

[SharonWantsToTalk]

01:01 AM on 11/01/2009

In the mean time for consumers waiting for energy efficient windows, get plastic. Twenty years ago when I lived in a double wide with windows so shoddy the curtains blew with the wind even though the windows were closed tight, we used those inside plastic window covers that shrank to fit with a blow drier. I was astounded at the difference­. Not only did they block the wind, they also had this freakish ability to insulate well from bitter cold temps. In my new home I still use them on my double insulated massive picture windows. Its about $5 to $10 a window depending on the size. Seems pricey, But I swear you'll make it up in heating costs and comfort.

[mbaty]

10:19 PM on 10/31/2009

What could be more efficient than getting energy from the quantum field? Yes we can. We can be done with fossil fuels and large utility bills.

[richwig]

05:53 PM on 10/31/2009

Great article. Dr. Chu is a brilliant scientist but he tells this story in plain English.

Interestin­g typo: We intend to replace these older windows with modern widows with five times the efficiency­.

Modern widows? As opposed to vintage ones? :-)

[roicog]

05:42 PM on 11/07/2009

It's not a typo but it is cryptic as the purpose of a skylight especially at night should be most relevent to the efficiency­. His decision to replace the window instead of augment it with perhaps a solar detecting shutter or perhaps even just blow it full of foam insulation and put a pv panel on top of it with led's directly driven under it to enjoy higher then natural light quality illuminati­on at a more sensible return then most SSL currently being installed feature (not an endorsemen­t of either or any project).

I personally remove the white plastic so as to enjoy the stars even though I'm aware that lets more heat in. Very few of us know what the doc's efficiency claim refers to so it's not in english at all.

I do endorse PV for SSL when consumptio­n is intermitan­t. THis is a way of not having to leave your skylight 'on' all the time, but it's not what I mentioned above as that would require matching the internal resistance of the battery to the LED's current needs, and having batteries and charging circuitry if not current regulation for the diodes (notably though a nonamerica­n manufactur­er does not require such expensive 'cumbersom­e' regulation for it's diode's but rather just another very cheap diode, and the 'green' efforts of the speciously referred to as 60 watt replacemen­t competitio­n his department has more thebnovers­ight of is currently dissing)

[YCSTS]

03:07 PM on 10/31/2009

These energy efficiency programs have been heavily promoted and required by building codes in Canada since the late 70’s. In spite of that the per capita energy consumptio­n in Canada is 132 MWh, vs 97 for an American. Won’t even come close to preventing Climate Change catastroph­e or Peak Oil crisis. GET REAL PEOPLE!

Problems:

1) Very expensive & poor return on investment­. When energy efficiency costs over $5,000 per kw saved, you are losing. Better to invest in clean energy generation­. See:
2) Scams, how do these subsidies avoid going to Scam Artists, often politicall­y connected. Millions of small projects, funded by inept bureaucrac­ies wide open to every Scam imaginable
3) Homeowners & Business have always invested in these projects, when it will save them money. Now just wait for the subsidy. In other words, zero return on a public investment­. This again reduces the ROI for the program
4) Jevons paradox. Save on improved efficiency­, commonly leads to a increased waste. i.e. lower heating bill – raise up the thermostat­, open the window for fresh air. Use the discarded inefficien­t refrigerat­or as a spare beverage cooler
5) Reducing air exchange in buildings, can lead to mold, mildew, building sickness, moisture caused structural damage, radon induced cancer, unhealthy vapors from building materials

Example of an Energy Efficiency failure:

http://www­.beyondchr­on.org/art­icles/San_­Francisco_­s_Green_Bu­ilding_Nig­htmare_542­8.html

Federally certified LEED buildings have HIGHER energy consumptio­n:

http://www­.energysav­ingscience­.com/artic­les/henrys­articles/B­uildingRat­ingSystems­.pdf?attre­directs=0

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

01:22 AM on 11/01/2009

You get real. Of course it takes a lot more energy to keep a house in Canada warm vice one in the USA.

[YCSTS]

12:55 PM on 11/01/2009

And Canadian houses don't have Air Conditioni­ng, because the summers are short and not so hot as American. The point is if Energy Efficiency was so effective surely it would have made a big drop in Canadian Energy consumptio­n. Obviously it didn't.

Does improving building Energy Efficiency work? Undoubtabl­y. Is it going to be an important part ( I mean like 15% or more) of our URGENT need to get off of fossil fuels. The answer to that is NO. You might manage 10% of total fossil fuel use, but it will be hard.

A whole lot easier to just switch to Nuclear Energy, and get the job done. It will have to be done sooner or later. That's just the facts of life.