After our recent interview with a GreenPoint Rater, several people wrote to us and we realized that since our last coverage in the Chronicle, many of our site visitors aren’t architects or building officials. They’re interested homeowners, or just plain interested.

Some confusion is perhaps justified. Even a cursory web search for “green building rating systems” turned up a pile of competing standards and organizations, some of which merely promote green building without issuing standards. (Mark, Alan, and myself have all contributed to the answers below.)

What is GreenPoint rating?

Green Point Rating is a system developed specifically for green building in California, with a checklist to guide a project while it is still in the planning stages, followed by several visits from a Certified GreenPoint Rater to verify that all measures are actually implemented during construction. Many jurisdictions, cities and counties are now both requiring the checklist at permit submittal, and a full GreenPoint Rating after construction.

GreenPoints includes various types of credits for water conservation and reuse.

The GreenPoint Rating system includes a wide series of recommended measures, and the home gets additional points for each measure that is followed. The final rating is a cumulative score of some possible 290-300 points. Of course, no home is ever going to get a “perfect” score by doing every possible thing. The intent is to provide enough options so that everyone can find at least a few improvements that they can do. And, according to my sources, it’s not that hard to even score the minimum of 50 points.

However, GreenPoint Rating is really about going beyond the minimum. All new construction must meet Title 24 requirements, but GPR is about exceeding the Title 24 requirements. When a green measure listed in the GreenPoint Rating system becomes part of the California Code, it drops out of GPR, because it is no longer beyond the requirements.

What’s the difference between a GreenPoint Checklist and a GreenPoint Rating?

The GreenPoint checklist is an Excel spreadsheet file that anyone can download straight off the BuildItGreen site. The checklist can serve as a guide to choosing among the many options and possibilities for green homes. On this same download page, you can find PDF manuals that explain each GreenPoint measure in greater detail.

If you refer to the checklist during the design stages, as Klopf Architecture did in this case study, your home can be more efficient both energy-wise and water-wise, with better indoor air quality. The checklist is what gets included with the permit submittal, if your jurisdiction requires or encourages the use of the GreenPoint Rating system.

The GreenPoint Rated Checklist includes yes/no items for things like topsoil protection, recycled or local materials, renewable energy, "extraordinary passive solar design", water conservation, and building energy performance.

Who’s behind the GreenPoint rating system?

The GreenPoint rating system was created by a non-profit organization called BuildItGreen, which is located in Berkeley, CA. BuildItGreen was founded by a wide consortium that includes public agencies, building professionals, construction manufacturers and suppliers, and architects. Its aims include raising consumer and industry awareness of the benefits of green building, and serving as a trusted source of information for designers, builders, manufacturers, municipal agencies, and the general public.

GreenPoints strategies for conservation of natural resources include material reuse, sustainably harvested lumber, and engineered wood.

How’s GreenPoint Rating different from LEED?

For one thing, it costs a lot less! Green Point Rating costs between $800 and $2000 to complete, and occurs fairly fast. LEED certification is far more elaborate, and can easily cost $10,000 to $15,000. It takes a long time, too.

Many of our design and engineering colleagues at the AIA have expressed the general opinion that LEED for Homes isn’t worth it, although they’re always quick to add that they support green building. And, one of our Title 24 clients is going for LEED Platinum on a remodel – so, in special cases, it might be worth it for the recognition.

GreenPoints gives community planning credits for walkable communities with access to public transportation.

What’s purpose of having GreenPoints? Why create a new system if we already have LEED?

Our guess is that LEED proved too cumbersome and expensive for anything other than large commercial or public projects. Despite its good intentions, LEED essentially put green building out of reach of the “average” homeowner.

By contrast, it’s not that difficult to achieve a baseline GreenPoint score of 50-75 points, even for the most basic of homes, lowering the barrier to entry. The GreenPoint system is a simpler collection of options and ideas, which are specific enough to be a real yardstick, yet straightforward enough that you don’t need advanced training to understand it – although to be a fully certified GreenPoint Rater, you do need a fairly strong background in architecture, construction and/or engineering.

What happens during a rating?

You’d most likely use the Checklist in conjunction with actual energy-efficiency improvements, or because it’s required for a permit submittal, and then get the improved home rated after the fact. However, if achieving a higher GreenPoint score is important for you, then it’s a good idea to involve a Certified GreenPoint Rater early in the design process.

GreenPoints encourages clean air through both better indoor air quality, and reduced air pollution.

Some jurisdictions are now require a GreenPoint Checklist to be submitted along with permit materials. The checklist usually doesn’t have to be filled out by a certified GreenPoint Rater, although there has been some reported initial confusion among Planning officials on this point.

Then, at specific points during construction, a Certified GreenPoint Rater comes out to your house and looks underneath everything to certify that the correct building products and techniques are being employed. After completion, the GreenPoint rater takes all the information and completes the scoring.

Why should I get my home GreenPoint Rated?

Increased home value, smoother permitting process – and, for professionals, green design credentials.

For homeowners, just having your home rated may boost the value or potential value of your home. Adding GreenPoint Rating to a home provides other professionals such as realtors, lenders, and appraisers with a reliable litmus test that this home not only exceeds California’s building and energy codes, but also is healthier and more environmentally friendly than a non-rated home.

GreenPoints encourages energy savings through more efficient homes and systems.

Architects who have GreenPoint-Rated homes in their portfolio will enhance their credibility with new clients who care about green homes. Statistics unearthed by our own Alan Hugenot indicate that 28% of homeowners doing remodels want more environmental features in their existing homes. In addition, 43.5% of new home buyers would be more likely to purchase a new home if it offered an energy-saving guarantee.

How does GreenPoint Rating help with a smoother permitting process?

Submitting a permit set with the GreenPoint Rated logo in it sets the tone in advance with building department officials and local governments. The GPR logo tells them that this residence is being built responsibly, and creates a favorable response with the building inspectors.

California’s first restored historic Green Point Rated Home. Claremont Courier photo: Gabriel Fenoy

Local governments are encouraged by state agencies to go above and beyond the minimum requirements in Title 24 in order to meet additional goals set forth in California Law AB32. California’s Climate Change Initiatives Law AB32 requires state agencies to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, by 2020. Coincidentally, 2020 is the same year that all new homes in California are intended to be Net Zero Energy homes. Constructing GreenPoint-Rated homes that reduce a city’s carbon footprint makes good business sense, and thus building officials are predisposed to support plans with the GPR logo.

How widespread is GreenPoint Rating among building officials?

Building officials in both the Central Valley and the Bay Area have endorsed GreenPoint Rating. As of October 2008, 70 local governments had actively begun using GreenPoint Rating in their jurisdictions, and some 200 additional local governments were in discussion with BuildItGreen to begin implementation of GreenPoint Rating. Jurisdictions such as Stockton, St. Helena, Los Altos, all now require some level of GreenPoint rating, or at least a checklist, in order to apply for a building permit. According to John Klopf (case study), the City of Cupertino is actually willing to pay for the GreenPoint Rater for any home that scores 75 or above.

The "Greenbelt" passive solar design by architect Ralph Rapson isn't GreenPoint rated, but it could be.

When should I get my home GreenPoint Rated?

You have to get it rated if you’re getting a construction permit in certain jurisdictions. In other cases, a good time might be when you’re already planning some renovations, or you’re planning to put the home on the market.

How can the GreenPoint Rating system help me to turn my home an energy-conserving dynamo?

To really “green” your home, you will need to make informed decisions that match your personal priorities. Depending on which choices you make, you will need to involve various types of building professionals. For example:

• To improve heating and cooling efficiency, you might start by consulting with an engineer who’s accredited through CalCERTS, CABEC, or ASHRAE to offer home energy audits, find out where your home falls as of today, and then move forward from there.

• In some cases, a good contractor can help. In the Klopf case study mentioned previously, the architect did more than go through the checklist; he worked closely with Starburst Construction, a Certified Green Builder, to evaluate materials and and mechanical systems. Many of the GreenPoint credits come from use of proper construction techniques during building, so having an experienced green builder is essential.

• If you’re tired of high energy bills, it might even be time to go all out and convert your home to a Net Zero Energy home. The Monterey Energy Group, a residential mechanical engineering firm featured earlier on this blog, has completed 60 NZE homes to date.

• And of course – last but not least – if you’re considering a major renovation or even just a small addition, consider working with an architect to coordinate your remodeling efforts and maximize space-planning potential. After all, if you’re already making all this effort, why not improve your home’s beauty and comfort while you’re at it?

This LEED Gold home, located in South Carolina, is a giveaway home from HGTV.com

The good news is many of these professionals are also now becoming Certified GreenPoint raters, and if your GreenPoint Rater can’t provide one particular service that you need, they’ll most likely be able to recommend someone who can.

Does GreenPoint Rating satisfy San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance?

SF’s Green Building Ordinance is mostly voluntary at this point, and only really applies to commercial buildings. We don’t know exactly when they will implement the standards with enforcement. It’s possible that they don’t yet have the personnel to carry out the task.

The Truro Residence, designed by Zero Energy Design, is a Net Zero Energy home in Cape Cod. Not all NZE or GPR homes look like this - in fact, any conventional home could be NZE and you'd never know it just from looking.

How can I find out the GreenPoint “score” for a particular home?

BuildItGreen doesn’t appear to have a registry of the ratings themselves, so you’d have to ask the owner or see if it was filed at your local Planning or Building Department. If it’s a sale property, ask the realtor. Just saying that a home is GreenPoint Rated doesn’t tell you enough specifics about how well it scored and why.

A few months ago, we had the pleasure of working with a GreenPoint rater on one of our recent Title 24 consulting projects. John Eckstein is a building professional with expertise in both home energy performance, and indoor air quality, particularly mold investigation. Since GreenPoint rating is still relatively new, we asked him what is involved in working with, or becoming, a GreenPoint rater.

At what points during the project does the GreenPoint rater get involved?

The earlier the better.  By getting a GreenPoint Rater involved in the early planning stages, simple changes can be made to the design that will have a more cost-effective impact on the overall performance of the home.  Two things that come to mind in this regard are duct layouts and Title 24.

The architect should consider the duct layout for the HVAC system while designing the home. We all know that the less bends there are in a duct, the better the duct will perform. Yet I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a beautifully designed home, but because the layout of the ducts was never considered, the HVAC contractor ended up having to route the ductwork in a way that was far from optimal.

This is an easy thing to address at the design stage, but the architect and the HVAC contractor need to talk. This doesn’t happen because of the way we design buildings in the USA. There is typically no HVAC contractor on board during the early design stages. A good GreenPoint Rater can help to address this.

Also, having a good Title 24 consultant is imperative. Many architects don’t realize that there is a huge difference in quality between different T-24 consultants, so they typically go for the cheapest person they can find, and then they get “boilerplate” calculations that don’t optimize the final T-24 in terms of detailed window schedules or other construction details.

Remember – each percentage point over standard on the T-24 calculations equates to 2 points on the GreenPoint Checkist. [Ed: so for example if your home exceeds Title 24 by 15%, you would achieve 30 points on your GreenPoint score] Optimizing T-24 is a great way to get a jump start on building a quality, energy-efficient home.

[Ed: Building to the GreenPoint checklist, even if you don't actually get the project rated or certified, will improve the efficiency of the design.]

What does it cost to get certified (for those considering adding this to their creds)?

The requirements and coursework has changed since I became certified, so I don’t know what it would cost nowadays. The best thing is to check directly with BuildItGreen.

What background and skills does someone need to be a GreenPoint Rater?

The obvious background in construction is important, but I also draw on my background as a consultant and my training in Psychology.

There is no such thing as the color “green”, there are only shades and each client will define green their own way. The GreenPoint checklist available from BuildItGreen has over 270 points available, so there is lots of flexibility to mix and match measure that meet the budget, energy efficiency, and environmental concerns of each client. A good GreenPoint Rater can help the client understand and translate their “green” priorities into the checklist.

The two faces of GreenPoint rater John Eckstein show that there is more than one way to be "green".

My background in sales and psychology are also helpful. In my own mind, I see my role as a rater as part inspector and part home “therapist”.  Just as a psychotherapist will work with a person to bring out the best, a GreenPoint Rater will work with a team of designers, contractors, and homeowners to bring out the best in the home. Being able to work with and understand different personalities and egos, and then communicate and motivate is probably the major role of a good GreenPoint Rater.

What seem to be the hardest issues for architects to understand, from your experience as a GreenPoint Rater?

There are all kinds of architects, so I don’t have a great answer. From my experience working with residential architects, many have a blind spot in relation to ventilation design and HVAC sizing and layout.

How can architects be better prepared to work with a GreenPoint Rater?

BuildItGreen offers a terrific training program called the “Certified Green Building Professional” (CGBP) program where architects can become certified.  This is a great way to get up to speed on the “why” behind all the measures.  Also, as a rater, I  can add a point on the checklist when both the architect and the contractor are CGBP certified.

Which jurisdictions really have it together?

San Mateo County is pretty good. They are working hard to understand the program and their outreach has been excellent about educating the community and contractors about the program. I always see people from San Mateo County at the training programs.

Los Altos Hills seems to have a well-thought-out green program.  I also see many of their staff getting trained.

Palo Alto has made green a priority.  They have a dedicated green program manager in the building department.

On the other hand, there are a few jurisdictions that have made getting a GreenPoint Rating mandatory for new construction, but they have done little to educate their desk staff or inspectors about the program.  As a result, I get calls from many exasperated homeowners and contractors who have been given lots of misinformation, which gives the program a bad name.

What is your own background, and how did it lead you to become GreenPoint Rater?

My father and grandfather were in the plumbing and heating industry.  I never valued it then, but being exposed to the HVAC industry at a young age has really helped me as a GreenPoint Rater. I also ran an indoor air quality and mold testing firm for a number of years.  I investigated hundreds of homes with air quality and mold issues that were caused by errors in the way the home was designed, constructed, or operated.  It sounds strange, but I think I know more about how a home should be designed because I have seen so many that have failed.

I lived in Japan for 13 years and lived in a variety of homes that were designed for a very different climate and culture. This had a major impact on the way I view homes and in the way I work with clients. Japanese trades tend to cooperate more effectively than I see here in the USA. It is huge generalization, but in my experience there there is less “pointing fingers” and less territoriality between the trades.

There are huge opportunities to improve the quality of construction if we could get the trades to think of the “big picture”. For example, an electrician who drills a 1/2 inch hole for a 1/4 inch wire should be thinking of air infiltration and then take the time to seal around penetrations.  Some plumbers install pipes right flush with the wall or stud, so it is then impossible to wrap the pipe in insulation.  Insulation and HVAC contractors should be involved in the job early, so they can plan ahead.

Many clients (and architects as well) have the impression that implementing green features is expensive.  How much does it cost to encourage the trades to talk to each other and to think of the big picture?

I am a HERS rater and do residential energy audits using HERS testing protocols. I also have trained with the California Building Performance Contractors Association (CPBCA). The CPBCA opened my eyes to building science and to treating the home as a holistic system of integrated parts.

I have worked on about 350 GreenPoint Ratings to date. It is funny, because I only took the orignial GreenPoint training because I interested in learning more. I never intended to become a rater.  It just sort of grew.

Do you have any nifty stories or cool projects to tell us about? What’s the coolest project you’ve seen thus far?

For me, the “coolest” green homes are the ones that are thoughtfully and tastefully designed. In my opinion, many of the things that make a home truly “green” are not so sexy, nor expensive.  Some very “green”, but not so sexy measures:

• Designing the home to consider passive cooling and heating.
• Considering the solar orientation of the home and then designing exterior shading, overhangs, tree planting to take advantage of that orientation.
• A well-designed, right-sized, and properly installed zoned heating system.

Do you have any pet peeves?

I really wish that the cities would take the time to really understand the program and to educate their staff and citizens before making these green programs mandatory.

Just when we thought there couldn’t be any more how-to manuals for green building – LEED, GreenPoint checklists, the Title 24 Residential Compliance Manual – along comes another one that might be the best one yet. The 2008 Residential Remodeling Guidelines from Regreen.org (a partnership between the ASID and the USGBC) is clearly written, persuasive, well-organized, and sensible.

(Above image used by permission of Dormer’s only Construction Corporation, based in Wyandanch, NY.)

It’s both holistic and practical, simple and direct. Here’s a slightly paraphrased version of their intro statement:

“It is easy and tempting to boil down green building to simply product selections [while] ignoring the challenges of green building as a process…Green building is almost always about how systems work together to reduce environmental impacts.”

This guide even addresses the “design” part of green design by asserting that beauty is part of sustainability, because if people like a building, they’ll be less likely to knock it down later on. Using less energy by itself is not enough, either. Good design means that it meets the user’s needs:

“…you cannot have a green project that is not also a quality project… For example, you can’t have just efficient lighting; it must also be effective lighting.”

Described as a “best practices” manual, it’s a method that includes structured questions and decision checklists to be addressed early on. It’s organized by remodeling project type (kitchen, bath, bedroom, living/working room, finished basement, building performance improvements, new additions, gut rehabs, energy retrofits, and outdoor living).

For each of these project type, there’s a predesign checklist, a scope section with a list of strategies to choose from, a slew of case studies to serve as templates for each type of project – and then you can refer to a complete “strategy library” with synopses of practices such as insulating your water heater or zoned heating controls. Each option is described along with potential issues – which might be the single most valuable thing in the entire guide.

There’s one other noteworthy aspect of a high-quality green building approach, and that is people skills. In a holistic design approach, you can’t just treat each system or assembly as a separate engineering task; you have to ask the clients what’s comfortable FOR THEM. Since many clients may not know exactly, the builder or designer must be skilled at eliciting this information, empathic enough to comprehend the client’s unique perspectives, and patient enough to allow sufficient time for this part of the process.

Nearly every week, we are asked why Title 24 does not give credits for electric water heating if that electricity comes from solar or other self-generated power. In fact, it seems that many of the renewable energy developments occurring now are not fully recognized in Title 24, not even in the 2008 code. We’re in the position of telling people that their homes, which are designed to consume very little conventional power, may have trouble passing the Title 24 code if those homes rely solely on solar electric for all their home power, heating, cooling, and water heating needs.

So why does T24 continue to penalize electric resistance heat and water heating in solar homes? Why does T24 not give credits for self-generated power (geotherm, solar, wind, other)? And why can’t our utilities buy back excess power from customers who generate more than they use? Wouldn’t this help to reduce California’s grid load, save California homeowners money, provide entrepeneurial opportunities, and reduce American dependence on foreign oil?

Title 24 History

California’s energy standards were originally mandated in 1974 by the California legislature, through a piece of legislation commonly known as the Warren Alquist Act. This act created the California Energy Commission and authorized it to develop and maintain energy efficiency standards for new buildings, and it specifically requires that these standards be cost-effective “when taken in their entirety and amortized over the economic life of the structure.” (Title 24 2005 Residential Compliance Manual)

According to the Title 24 2005 Residential Compliance Manual, Title 24’s stated intentions are the following:

• Save homeowners money
• Keep homes affordable
• Reduce strain on the power grid during peak times by reducing demand
• Stabilize California’s economy by buffering against sudden price increases
• Comfort (poorly insulated and drafty homes with oversized systems that cycle on and off are less comfortable)
• Reduce environmental pollution
• Reduce carbon emissions

California Energy Commission’s Response

I started with the California Energy Commission, which is responsible for creating and updating the Title 24 energy code. Why would the code ignore the potential of self-generated power to reduce demand for conventional power when our grid is already fragile? I spoke with Mazi Shirakh, P.E., M.B.A., a Senior Mechanical Engineer who serves as the Project Manager for Building Energy Efficiency Standards at the CEC, and who is also the Program Lead for the 2008 Standards update. Mr. Shirakh outlined the reasoning behind Title 24’s approach to alternative energies. (It is normally the Commission’s policy that individual staff members should not be named in articles and blogs, but in this case they’ve agreed to allow us to attribute directly.)

“The reason is that up until now, alternative energy technologies were too expensive when compared with more traditional energy-efficiency measures such as high-performance windows or air conditioners. While their costs remain high, PVs cannot demonstrate cost effectiveness as required by the law. We recognize that this is changing,” explained Shirakh.  “PVs are still expensive, costing around $8/watt. To install a 2Kw solar system costs around $16-$20K, whereas you can get a high-efficiency furnace or air conditioner for a lot less than that. However, the price of PVs has been steadily decreasing since the beginning of 2009. Assuming that this trend continues, there will be more possibilities for PVs in the future rounds of Standards. At around $2 or $3 a watt (including incentives) PVs would be much more competitive with traditional efficiency measures.”

Shirakh mentioned incentives such as the New Solar Homes Partnership, and I pointed out that such programs have nothing to do with Title 24’s internal scoring. If the intent is to reduce the load on the grid through less use of conventional power, why should an electric water heater that runs from PVs be scored the same as an electric water heater that runs on conventional power?

“The building must meet a certain efficiency levels first before PV or other on-site systems are considered. If we didn’t do this, there would be nothing to stop someone from building an inefficient structure and just slapping an array of PVs on the roof instead of other efficiency measures such as building insulation. And there’d be nothing to stop the owner from ripping out those PVs later on and running the building solely off the grid.” he replied.

OK, I’ll buy that for a dollar.

Alternative energy contractors are less inclined to accept this argument without comment, however. “That’s a spurious argument, in my opinion. Who’s going to take a building with a functioning solar system and rip it out?” said Gary Gerber of Sun Light and Power, a solar systems designer and installer. Another alternative-energy contractor, Greg Kennedy of Occidental Power, speculated that it was about centralized versus decentralized power networks. “Utilities are building big centralized power plants, with solar installations far out in the desert and then transporting the power over long distances. If that power were generated more locally, less of it would be lost during transmission. It’s really about who’s controlling the cash register.”

In a subsequent exchange, Shirakh clarified CEC’s position regarding Title 24’s approach to self-generated power: “Allowing proper credit for solar assisted electric water heating is one of the goals of the next round of Standards (currently known as the 2011 Standards). However, we need to be careful about how much credit is given to onsite generation measures; we still want to encourage buildings with efficient envelopes, mechanical, water heating, and lighting systems, even in the presence of PVs and other onsite generation systems. In addition, an energy efficient building will require a smaller solar system (less costs) and provides more comfort to the occupants. It should be also be noted that the Standards do allow a substantial credit for solar thermal water heating which can be combined with either natural gas or electricity. This is a mature technology and is widely available within the State.”

Shirakh was not familiar with fuel-cell technologies such as ClearEdge Power’s product offerings. However, he assured me that if we did any Title 24 documentation for a project that used them, we could contact the CEC for assistance.

Does Renewable Energy Comply with Title 24?

So, how hard is it to get a net-zero home to comply with Title 24? “Most are quite easy, because they are relatively efficient buildings already,” responded Dave Knight of the Monterey Energy Group. “The coastal areas and the hills are OK, but it is significantly harder to get a net-zero home to pass in Central California. California’s central climate zones are very hot, and the A/C load kicks in.”

Knight added, “From the very beginning, Title 24 mandated that solutions be cost-effective. In the past, some systems such as solar thermal could supply 80-90% of a home’s space heating load, but were seldom cost-effective, and it was complicated to predict how they would work. But they’re not looking at the current prices or the latest incentives. In the last few years, the prices of solar PV have dropped by 20-25%. So there’s three things coming together now: more efficient buildings, lower PV prices, and new tax incentives.”

So What Can We Do About It?

“The Grid-Tied Solar Electric home that we discussed at the AIA in San Francisco a few weeks ago is unbelievably simple, reliable, and predictable. And it’s cost-effective today. No matter what our clients’ motivation is, whether it’s reducing carbon emissions, saving on energy bills, or reducing dependence on foreign oil, there’s an incentive for them to convert their home to GTSE,” Knight responded, and went on to urge the design community itself to take on the task of change.

“I think the AIA should take the lead in building and promoting Net-Zero Energy homes. I mean, a LEED certification can cost six figures and require what seems like thousands of meetings. By promoting Net-Zero Energy homes, the AIA could push their own agenda without waiting for the CEC to catch up.”

Why Can’t We Sell Back to the Grid?

What about people selling their excess power back to the utilities like they can in Germany? “There’s a difference between a feed-in tariff and selling back the excess through net metering. A feed-in tariff guarantees or fixes the rate at which power is sold back. Net metering simply measures how much energy is used versus replaced. But, any excess you produce is a gift to the utility,” said Gary Gerber.

“There are actually several bills that have come up for this in the past few years, including one that’s on the table right now. Allowing PV owners to sell excess would offer several benefits. For one thing, it promotes a cleaner environment because it uses no fossil fuels. But just as important is PV’s potential to reduce peak loads at the hottest times of the year, since peak cooling times are also when the sun is strongest.”

The Politics of Renewable Energy: Left and Right

Politically, there’s an unspoken divide between liberal and conservative approaches to power generation. Conservatives tend to push for nuclear power and offshore drilling, whereas liberals are more likely to promote clean solar energy and lifestyle changes. “We don’t care, it’s about what really works,” observes Green Compliance Plus founder Mark English. “Knee-jerk ideologies are not useful. There’s nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power. Look at the French and Japanese nuclear power models.”

There have been a few reported accidents, and safety is a major concern for both operation and waste disposal, but overall France seems to have a good nuclear energy model. A formerly oil-dependent nation, France invested heavily in nuclear power as a response to the 1973 oil crisis – now they actually EXPORT power. (Perhaps rather than dismissing it out of hand, we could seek to enforce accountability by requiring all nuclear executives and managers and their families to reside within a mile of their own power plants?)

Having said that, the ideological debate does tend to polarize along party lines. Solar power is viewed as an expensive boutique technology espoused by rich liberals like Al Gore who don’t always practice what they preach (remember when his Tennessee mansion turned out to have a huge carbon footprint, even after he wrote such reams on global warming? What were you thinking, Al?) It’s also possible that conservatives haven’t invested as much in renewables and thus don’t stand to profit from increased sales of renewable energy products and systems.

Who knows? When it comes to solar energy, I’d like to think that a chance to save money on energy bills and perhaps even make money as an entrepeneur, would be appealing to advocates of free enterprise. And, the opportunity for America to reduce dependence on foreign oil should appeal to political economists and xenophobes alike. What are we waiting for?

When I first ran the numbers on the new Title 24 project from Klopf Architecture, the numbers were so high – 50% over compliance – that I immediately assumed that I had made a mistake somewhere in the calculations. After an internal review, however, we realized that it really was one of the most efficient projects we had ever taken through the energy compliance process. How did they do it?
Turns out that John Klopf, whom I’ve known through the AIA-SF Small Business Committee, is a huge fan of Eichler homes, and so were the clients who commissioned this new home in Cupertino, CA. They found Klopf through the Eichler Network, which is an online community “dedicated to supporting the lifestyle of the nearly 11,000 homeowners in Northern and Southern California who own an ‘Eichler’ home.”

Eichler homes, which were mass-produced tract homes designed by top-flight Modern architects, are highly prized today among fans of Midcentury Modern and California Modern architecture for their distinctively contemporary features – spartan simplicity, clean lines, open floor plans, post-and-beam construction, concrete slab floors with integral radiant heating, and integrated outdoor and indoor spaces.

Architect John Klopf, AIA

“Eichler homes are fun to renovate,” says Klopf. Eichler was unusually egalitarian for his time – non-discriminatory housing policies weren’t the norm at that time – and he made quality California Mid-Century Modern designs accessible to people of relatively modest means. “The homes employ limited technology, but are still relatively comfortable. Today, Eichler homes offer tons of potential as green projects, because their energy performance can be easily improved by affordable measures such as improved insulation and replacing the original clear glass with high-performing windows in the floor-to-ceiling glass walls.”

The owners are a high-energy couple with two young children who needed more space, more flexibility, and to remain in the highly-ranked Cupertino school district. Their desire to continue the Eichler aesthetic in their new home led them to John Klopf, who is widely known for his respectful work with Eichler homes.

However, the new home would be situated in an area of midsized 1960s ranch homes, on a small cul-de-sac where at least half the residents are retirees. They didn’t want it to stick out. So, the front aims for a “typical” suburban ranch feel with only a bit of modernizing. The client selected a cement fiberboard siding in horizontal planks, Artisan from Hardie, that is energy efficient and termite-resistant but which nonetheless blends well into the neighborhood. Then, as the view moves towards the rear, the Modern portions shine forth with a wall of glass at the rear. All that glass makes the home’s efficiency all the more amazing.

How did you design this home to be so efficient?

John Klopf responded, “We started off with a proper solar orientation. The home is designed to stay as cool as possible without A/C, because the client did not want A/C. Then we made the west wall mostly solid, without windows, with the exception of one portion of the western wall that featured spectrally selective, ultra high performing glass.”

“On the north wall, we used floor to ceiling windows to let in lots of light. This helped with stack-effect cooling as well. We kept the south facade relatively closed, with punched windows. This was not only for energy performance, but also to keep the front of the house in keeping with the ranch-style homes that surrounded it.”

Other basic energy design measures included 2×6 studs instead of the standard 2×4, in order to fit more insulation into the walls. “A lot of it is just using good quality construction, which should be what we’re doing anyway,” said Klopf.

Solar features include a giant sloping roof to the south, always intended for a big solar array, using solar hot water for radiant heating, and solar thermal. “We haven’t gotten to the interiors yet, so interior air quality is still ‘up in the air’. There’s no carpeting, which will do a lot to improve indoor air quality, and heat recovery ventilation systems will also help with air quality.”

Geoff Campen, another designer at Klopf Architecture, added, “Our contractor Phil is very into sustainability. He really helped us out a lot.” This was Phil Carey at Starburst Construction, a Certified Green Builder who’s well-known in the Cupertino area.

“Also, the client is VERY interested in sustainability, very adventurous. He likes to try out things that could work, even if they don’t have much precedent. He’s willing to take risks and make sacrifices. He’s open to the possibility of it not working quite as expected,” observed Geoff. “He asked us to look into SIPs and ICFs, was interested in solar PVs and water heating. We even considered gray water at one point. What we did was we walked through the GreenPoint Rating system with him, with the idea of doing everything possible.”

How does the client feel about the design?

“The house will be more than triple the size of the previous structure,” the client says, “yet it will use far less energy and it will not be a looming monster home out of character with the area. The beautiful modern design and advanced technology are well integrated into the neighborhood. We’re very happy with the plans.”

The client confirms that “the neighbors are very pleased with the look”.  “In fact,” he says, “it seems the only comment the planning department received was an email that said “I approve!”.  That was sent by a neighbor who is a big supporter of PV, hybrid cars and social change.  But the more conservative neighbors seem impressed as well, and may for the first time believe a greener lifestyle could be a reasonable and practical choice.”

How did the contractor influence the design?

Did he advise you on things like window placement? “It wasn’t so much about design as working out the mechanical equipment. Phil is actually a Certified Green Builder, with a lot of experience. He advised us on what was possible or not possible. Some of the GreenPoints are for use of certain materials, some of which are harder to obtain in California,” said Geoff.

“We started working with the subs like Solar City early on, and they provided the schematics for their systems.” These consultants included the solar, mechanical, and the landscape architect – and you guys [Green Compliance Plus] for the Title 24. There was no need for a lighting consultant, because the Eichler style calls for simpler lighting.”

Our discussion veered into what green building meant. I mentioned Green Compliance Plus’ recent Jeff King interview, and Geoff agreed. “Green Building is about living simpler, really, and less being more. But the flashier side can serve more as a mechanism for social change.“

John Klopf was more emphatic. “Sustainability is not a part of architecture. Architecture is a part of sustainability.” So what does this mean?

Even the experts don’t always agree on what “sustainability” itself really means. Klopf actually has several definitions of sustainability on pages 9 and 10 (PDF 17 and 18) of his report on sustainability for the University of California Merced Campus, available on his web site under “Research”.

Most “green” practices today are focused on mitigating degradation by incremental measures: slowing pollution, reducing toxins, increasing reuse. More ambitious approaches to sustainability actually seek to enhance the Earth’s carrying capacity by eliminating the concept of “waste” altogether.

But then there’s the practical side of what actually gets built, how it gets built, and with which materials.

When researching new materials like Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) or Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFs), Geoff stressed the importance of selecting vendors with some financial stability. And, the best people to provide practical, useful information about these things are not the vendors – it’s the contractors.

“For one thing, not all SIPs are seismically approved for California. For another, it changes some of your construction methods for the trades. How the subs cut into the material to lay their systems is different with SIPs. When you install them, you have to cut every piece by hand.”

ICFs – Insulated concrete forms – are cast in place concrete, but the forms are left on. They have rigid insulation inside and out. The builder can attach sheetrock to the inside insulation, and apply a special waterproofing treatment to the outside. Do ICFs cost more than conventional building materials? “Well sometimes. But you might save on labor because these products are modular, pre-manufactured, and quicker to install.”

When’s the project going to be completed?

“Assuming the permitting goes smoothly, it should be done by the end of 2010″.

How are Planning and Building officials responding to the project?

“They’ve been very helpful, because they see that we’re serious,” said Geoff. “They’ve supported the project by making it easier to get variances on roof heights (for the solar), and they’ve moved everything very quickly.”

How does Cupertino feel about GreenPoints?

“In Cupertino, a GreenPoint checklist may be required, but you can hit the 60-point minimum without even trying. We’re at about 270 points right now,” Geoff responded. Klopf mentioned that Cupertino will pay for a GreenPoint rater to come out, as long as the home scores at least 75 GreenPoints. Since all submittals now need to include a GreenPoint checklist (not the same as an actual GreenPoint rating, which takes place after the house is built), theoretically the owner would know in advance how their GreenPoint rating was likely to pan out.

Are the clients doing home automation?

The clients didn’t want a fully integrated home automation system, but they are doing interesting things such integrating spectrally selective “smart glass” into the extensive glass walls along the rear of the home. Geoff adds, “They focused more on the relationships between spaces. One of them is an artist with a home studio, and she wanted to be able to watch the kids as they played or did homework in other parts of the home.” The other client requested more isolated spaces for a media room and a quiet but sunny home office. Klopf’s design team was able to meet all of their goals.

Interior of home

“This process has been as good for us as for the client,” Geoff continued. “At my last firm, we designed $10-$15M homes, but those clients were just not as committed. They’d say, ‘Oh, can it be green? We want solar’ without really understanding what that means. And, when they realize that sustainability means they can’t have those exotic finishes that have to be shipped from across the world, they abandon the green. It’s just not that important to them.”

By contrast, in this project, the clients’ commitment to green was the vital enabling factor in this project. “He’s a marketing consultant for high-tech companies. He’s also very into ham radio, has huge antennas at his home. He has a good grasp of engineering, knows a lot about building… this client was willing make sacrifices that in turn helped us get more into the project. We’ve never been able to engross ourselves in a project to this extent. With this experience, and the added credibility, we’ll be better prepared to push it in other projects.”

The client agreed, adding, “I think with this design we’ve managed to prove that a highly efficient, very green home can fit into an average suburban neighborhood quite well, requiring no uncomfortable sacrifices or anything that might seem like an eccentric lifestyle to the average neighbor.

“As the authors of Break Through argue, long-term environmental goals are more easily achieved when you can appeal to practical and immediate concerns like people’s wallets and their country’s energy independence, not by asking them to give up their lifestyle and get all crunchy just for the sake of the polar bears.”

“We’re very lucky that the client shared our passion for green design,” Geoff said emphatically. “The client’s commitment was the key. And, he’s savvy. We don’t have to teach him, we just have to meet and work things out.”

A principal in a local architectural firm approached us for T24 on a new house in Sonoma County that he was designing for himself and his partner. They needed Title 24 documents for their permit submittal, but beyond that, he wanted to qualify for solar rebate credits through California’s New Solar Homes Partnership Program (NSHP). He also wanted the house to be as “green” as possible, just because.

What do we need to do to get a rebate through California’s New Solar Homes Program?

Part of qualifying for California New Solar Homes Partnership Program (NSHP) is that the home’s Title 24 must exceed the baseline by 15%. As it turns out, the New Solar Homes Program has two tiers. Tier 1 is 15%, and requires Energy Star appliances. Tier 2 is 35%, requires Energy Star appliances, and you must demonstrate a 40% reduction in cooling load, presumably recovered from solar energy.

Well, the two buildings together were 15%, not 35. The main house was passing with flying colors, but the guest house was just squeaking by. So the question was, whether and how to modify the design aggressively enough to qualify for the higher Solar Homes tier. Since NSHP is tied to Title 24, there was some confusion over which features counted in which program.

Lessons Learned

Photovoltaics don’t count towards Title 24, but solar hot water does. However, using Solar Water Heating yields only small gains in the Title 24 results, not enough to make a difference in the Solar Homes incentive. Even without regulatory gains, though, adding solar hot water is relatively inexpensive, while PVs for electricity are not.

We also noted that the Solar Homes incentive has diminishing returns in the upper tier, because photovoltaics are expensive to buy and install, and can take many years to yield meaningful savings. Photovoltaics do count towards the solar credit, at $2.50 per watt, or 1500 watts for $3750. An additional incentive of $3.50 per watt or another $5,250 is available if you go for Tier 2. So, a Tier 2 home with 1500 watts of PV paneling would get a $9,000 rebate. But… it would cost $18K for the panels, plus installation.

Do we need a HERS rater?

When specific items are installed (Ducting, Solar P-V, certain EER-rated equipment etc.), these must be verified by a HERS rater who is a certified inspector with CalCerts, CHEERS, etc. When you have solar water heating or photovoltaics, it must be verified by an inspector who is specifically approved for the California New Solar Homes Program (aka “Title 24 HERS rated”).

What appliances count towards this credit under Energy Star?
Windows, heaters, lighting, fridge, freezer, dishwashers, washers, and dryers can earn Energy Star. Water heaters can be rated as High Efficiency under the Energy Star system, but they don’t “count” here towards the NSHP credit.

Where do Energy Star appliances get factored in for Title 24 compliance?

Umm, nowhere. Don’t confuse Title 24 calculations with the NSHP incentive. However, EnergyStar appliances count for plenty of other things – LEED for Homes, GreenPoints (which is strongly encouraged in some jurisdictions). And, of course, they contribute towards lower energy bills.

How much do you want to spend to improve the design?

Generally, adding more thermal mass, using fewer square feet of glass, using ultra low E glass, and adding a thermal envelope will all contribute towards improved energy performance, and all of these items are factored into the Title 24 calculations. But get it in before August 1, when the 2008 Title 24 requirements go into effect that are 15% more efficient than the old Title 24. With this added restriction, the main house would still comply, but not a 15% anymore, and the guest would not pass.