Most people haven’t given the issue any thought, but the inefficiency of manufactured housing is something that really sets me off.  Like pound my head into a desk, scream into a pillow frustrated.

Why?  Well, basically these homes can be terribly inefficient (and in some cases just terrible, remember the toxic FEMA trailers?).  They commit the owner (who generally is low or fixed income and can least afford it) to higher energy bills and – this is the really frustrating part for this engineer – they have the potential to be more energy efficient than traditional homes!  Manufactured homes could be (and should be) the frontier for efficient design! 

If that doesn’t quite get you going then consider this – a manufactured home can come off the assembly line today and immediately be eligible for weatherization through the Weatherization Assistance Program.  That means that the government would be paying to retrofit this home to become more efficient when just months before it could have been done at the factory for pennies on the dollar.  I can’t think of a single reason why it is acceptable for new manufactured homes to be weatherization candidates because the code is not up to par.

And it’s not even close.  Manufactured homes use almost twice as much energy per square foot as single family homes according to DOE.  The average bill is around $1,600 per year, which over 30 years could equal the entire purchase price of the home!  But it certainly doesn’t have to be this way.

Manufacturing a home has all kinds of advantages over building it on site.  All work is done by the same folks in a controlled area where the quality can be inspected at any point.  All the insulation can get to where it needs to go and all the walls can be sealed tight.  No cutting holes to make pipes or ducts fit around unplanned obstacles.  And no question about code compliance.  Plus manufacturers can use volume purchasing and procurement to get materials, appliances, and equipment at lower prices than site builders. 

So a manufactured home could be more efficient than site-built homes, but how much?  Tough question but DOE is going to work on answering it by developing a new code that is much more efficient and makes money over the lifetime of the home. 

It shouldn’t end there, however.  We all want to get to zero energy homes and at a large scale, but what makes us think that super efficient zero energy homes will be built on site with hammers and nails?  Shouldn’t we explore the potential of manufactured homes to get us towards zero energy?  Shouldn’t we at least stop saddling those who can least afford with ridiculous energy bills that keep them in dire financial straights?  Clearly I rant, but hopefully DOE is thinking the same way and moves forward aggressively on manufactured home efficiency.

Home Star: Creates jobs! Slashes energy use! Saves money!

All of that was said yesterday and more, during a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Congressional Research Service, the Department of Energy, and a collection of business, utility, and state advocates all testified yesterday along those lines. 

Home Star is a $6 billion proposal that would create incentives for homeowners who choose to make their homes more efficient. Silver Star would offer rebates for individual measures like insulating your attic or installing an efficient new furnace (capped at $3,000 but always requiring at least a 50 percent match from homeowners), while Gold Star creates a performance path where the homeowner and their contractor figure out what measures to undertake, and the size of the incentive is determined by the percent improvement of the home’s efficiency. Gold Star incentives start at $3,000 for a 20 percent improvement and go up $1,000 for each additional 5 percent from there

From the hearing, it sounds like we all emphatically agree – it’s a great idea. We are big supporters of the program and a member of the Home Star Coalition. But the details matter.

And there are details upon details. Arguments about AFUEs, SHGCs, SEERs, and EERs and other esoteric concepts that most people don’t want to know about. But these nasty acronyms are crucial to making sure this program actually saves energy and creates jobs and doesn’t just sell a bunch of stuff with no long term benefit. In other words, we shouldn’t just spin our wheels.

Some of the issues came up during the hearing yesterday are crucially important.  

Do we need an incentive for do-it-yourself insulation?

A tough call, since this wouldn’t create jobs in installation and the insulation, if not installed properly, may not save energy.  But, as someone who likes to DIY whenever possible, I understand the appeal. I think we should be able to figure out some way to make sure the DIYers get the installation right and get the energy savings.

Should we lower all the efficiency requirements that equipment must meet to receive incentives in Silver Star to Energy Star?

NO – and I can’t say that emphatically enough. Just based on last years sales of Energy Star products, free ridership (folks who would have bought these units anyway) would suck $3 billion from the program budget and no additional energy would be saved. That’s almost 90 percent of the proposed Silver Star budget! These products will be purchased, incentive or no incentive.  Bad idea. 

The levels currently in the bill were negotiated with industry and advocacy groups at the table, and they thread the needle on maximum job creation and energy savings. We should leave them where they are. Cathy Zoi, DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said as much in the hearing.

Should we relax the certification requirements for contractors?

I don’t think so. We need good contractors doing the work right to actually save on energy bills. And beyond that, there are safety implications of improper installations. Contractors who aren’t certified but really understand how to improve a home will have no problem getting certified. The extra business they will get as a result of this program will more than outweigh certification costs. 

Should states with existing programs play by the same rules?

Everyone wants to see Home Star build on the great work that is happening in the states, largely as a result of the Recovery Act, but we also need to make sure we have consistent standards and quality assurance everywhere. Basically, you should be able to do the work, play by the rules, and get the money whether you are in Ketchikan, Alaska, or Miami, Florida. 

These are all tricky issues, and we will see how the political process plays out. Home Star is tantalizingly close to being the performance-based program that will create jobs in the ailing construction industry and make American homes much more energy efficient that everyone wants to see. Home Star, in its current form, hits the bulls-eye on job creation and energy savings. It would successfully jumpstart the home retrofit industry and be the bridge to the efficiency programs that accompany comprehensive climate and energy legislation.

Of course, whole lot more work has to be done by Congress to make sure that the program mechanics are right and the work can start as soon as possible, and that is significant. Congress, President Obama, and the broad based Home Star Coalition have worked incredibly hard to get it this far and we will all keep pushing it forward towards the finish line.

Take Action

Tell DOE to set the water heater standard that will save consumers $22 billion dollars over 30 years.  Who doesn’t like a hot shower that’s cheaper and uses less energy? 

Once you follow the link above you can send the suggested letter direct to DOE, or create your own. 

Background

The Department of Energy is about to make a final decision on the minimum standard for water heaters, meaning the benefits of a more efficient product are so overwhelming for consumers that all water heaters must be at least as efficient as the standard selected for that particular size and type.  DOE takes into account the benefits and costs of the more efficient technologies and sets the standard at the maximum level that is “technically feasible and economically justified”, so consumers are big winners. 

This program is responsible for our modern refrigerators that use a fraction of the energy they did 20 years ago, while keeping our food just as cold and with more storage capacity to boot.  Similar story on air conditioners, furnaces, and other household appliances.  Now it’s time for water heaters to go around again.

I explained a bit more about the technical issues in this blog entry last year.

The Draft Letter

The Department of Energy’s proposed water heater standard is a step in the right direction for saving energy. As you prepare the final standard due in March, I urge you to take the additional step of strengthening the requirements for the largest water heaters. Stronger standards for the biggest units would boost total national energy savings, economic benefits for consumers, and global warming emissions reductions by more than 40 percent compared to the proposed rule. Just as importantly, the DOE would be helping advanced technologies become mainstream products and speeding the transition to next-generation water heaters.

By switching to a higher efficiency level for water heaters with more than 55 gallons of storage capacity, the DOE would essentially require new technologies to be used. Condensing gas and heat pump water heaters would meet these higher levels, delivering roughly 30 percent and 50 percent energy savings, respectively, compared to conventional gas and electric products. These advanced technologies are commercially available today. Units larger than 55 gallons make up a small portion of the overall market, but add considerably to national savings because they typically are used to deliver more heated water than the more common, smaller sizes.

By strengthening the standard for the large-volume products, the following additional savings could be achieved over 30 years:

• 1.1 quads of energy or enough to power more than five million typical U.S. homes for a year;
• $6.4 billion dollars in net savings to consumers and businesses; and
• 63 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 25 coal-fired power plants.

With water heating representing the third largest energy use in the home, it is essential that the DOE seek substantial changes in water heater efficiency to meet national energy savings and global warming emission reduction goals as well as to provide savings for consumers and businesses. I strongly urge you to adopt stronger standards for the larger volume water heaters and capture these significant savings.

Don’t wait, hit send and make your voice heard.

There is one word that comes to mind when I think of the state of our union: inefficient. We waste energy and money in our homes and workplaces as if we had an infinite supply of both.

Just consider the situation in the average home:

• The air that we have paid to heat and cool us leaks out of the ducts before it ever gets to us.
• Some of the air that does make it to us gets sucked outside, so we keep reaching for the thermostat in frustration.
• The windows are single-paned and leaky, only slightly better than a hole in the wall.
• The lighting is provided by little space heaters designed over 100 years ago.
• The hot water takes minutes to arrive at the faucet, wasting water and energy in addition to time.
• The air conditioner is old and on its last legs and can’t keep drafts and cold spots from popping up.

Not a pretty picture, but it doesn’t have to be that way. As the president has pointed out repeatedly, this is actually an incredible opportunity to improve our economic and environmental health. Why not fix all those leaky ducts and windows while replacing those old water heaters and furnaces? We can put Americans to work saving Americans money while slashing carbon emissions. We need significant performance-based incentives for homeowners to retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient, a la HomeStar. Folks who get hung up over the cost of a program like this are missing the point — we could be stimulating the economy with the money we waste on energy. And generally speaking, the unemployed don’t pay income taxes, so let’s get them back to work. The status quo of high unemployment and wasteful energy use will cost us all much more than any efficiency program.

This is only one component of the push for clean energy and lower carbon emissions, but it is a crucial one. We need to put a price on carbon to support the fledgling home efficiency industry as it grows to be millions of jobs strong, while we simultaneously shift away from wasteful old technologies.

There is actually one answer to our climate and energy and jobs questions and hopefully the president will continue to hit the nail on the head tonight.

On Tuesday morning, President Obama is expected to add details to a new program that will create jobs and cut needless energy consumption through home retrofits. This follows Obama’s request to Congress last week to create a new program to provide incentives to home owners who retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient. I am lucky enough to be able to attend the announcement, which is expected to take place at 11 a.m. at the Home Depot in Alexandria, VA.

The President has rightly identified retrofits as a way to put Americans to work saving Americans money. Not only are our homes so wildly inefficient that billions and billions of dollars in wasted energy are holding back our economic recovery, but fixing our leaky homes also has the potential to create countless high quality jobs that cannot be sent overseas. There are well over 100 million homes in this country and nearly all of them can slash their energy use with off the shelf technology. We will not be limited by the amount of work that needs to be done, but rather the amount of people out there to do the work.

There is no question that we should pursue home retrofits in a big way, but how we do it and how soon we can get started remain to be answered. The President will explain his thinking on the issue tomorrow and also solicit ideas from stakeholders.

Many of these stakeholders, including those from the environmental and efficiency community, labor, and industry, have coalesced around one structure. This has been commonly referred to Home Star, but also gets tagged as Cash for Caulkers. The idea is simple and an extension of the work done on the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program (REEP) that was in the House passed climate bill earlier in the year. The basic idea is to take this great structure and get it started early.

In a nutshell, Home Star would have two options: Silver and Gold. Both would be designed so that the more energy saved, the larger the incentive received by the homeowner. Silver would be simpler to implement and more prescriptive – do this (seal up your ducts, insulate your attic, etc) and get some cash. This would jumpstart the job creation and energy saving in a big way as soon as possible.

The Gold path would be a whole home performance model. Sophisticated contractors and raters would perform audits and determine what measures would save the most energy in the home. This is where the best jobs will be created and the most energy will be saved, because much larger savings are possible by considering the whole home as a system (e.g. being able to use a smaller AC or furnace because your home no longer leaks out conditioned air). All technologies that save energy can benefit from this program rather than just incentivizing one improvement. The Gold path would also be incredibly flexible from the consumer’s perspective. Basically, as long as the work gets done and the contractor plays by the rules, then you get the incentive.

Playing by the rules is a key point, because if the work is done badly, then no one wins. This is also incredibly important for creating good jobs, because it takes a real building science professional to know all about mechanical equipment, insulation, windows, and everything else in a home and to make sure the measures are installed correctly. This is why quality assurance is a cornerstone of the Home Star proposal that is crucial to making sure money stops leaking out of our homes every day.

Presidential attention to home retrofits and a program like Home Star is an incredibly positive sign that Congress will move to take advantage of our efficiency opportunity. It will be interesting to see when and how they act, but we will continue to try to push a performance based home retrofit program across the finish line.

Standards on outdoor lights are such a no-brainer because these lights stay on through the entire night. Daylight Saving Time brings an early end to the day and an early start to burning electricity for streetlights. More efficient technologies pay off quickly in this high use application and the savings rack up.

Thanks to this standard, you will save money everywhere you drive or park your car. The lights along streets, highways, and in parking lots will be covered. Basically all the bright lights on poles (or walls) are going to stop wasting so much energy. These lights are currently not subject to any efficiency requirements and therefore the performance is all over the map. With new super efficient technologies, like light emitting diodes (LEDs) and ceramic metal halide (CMH) lamps, the potential savings are gigantic.

You may recall that I blogged early this year about a last second amendment to the House Climate bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) that severely and arbitrarily limited the excellent standard on street lights, and this agreement is the next step in the fight for more efficient outdoor lighting. The agreement isn’t as good as the original language, but it does have a lot going for it and will still save a tremendous amount of energy and money

ACEEE crunched the numbers, and the standard will save 25 to 42 Terawatt hours (billion kWh) per year by 2030. This is the same amount produced by 6 to 10 dirty coal-fired power plants. This shakes out to carbon savings of up to nearly 8 million metric tons a year (the same as about 5 and a half million cars off the road), and is worth $2.8 billion to $5.1 billion annually saved on energy costs in 2030.

The standard is structured so that,

• The least efficient products will be removed from the market beginning around the end of 2012, so fully mature technologies that are more efficient will be the norm, like advanced halogens, high pressure sodium, and on up to LED and CMH. The standard levels vary depending on the type of fixture and how they are designed, so lights that direct light only where it is supposed to go aren’t penalized.
• The standard will also require controls and sensors so you won’t see anymore of those street lights on in the middle of the day. That is always a very depressing sight, because we all pay for that energy eventually.
• A few months after this becomes law, the new Department of Energy will begin a rulemaking for outdoor light standards and they will issue a new, better standard by the beginning of 2013. This standard will be set to maximize energy efficiency at the level that is “technically feasible and economically justified” as defined by statute. This rule should continue to push the more efficient technologies and save consumers billions more.

We need to stop wasting money and pumping carbon into the atmosphere with inefficient lights. And don’t forget, we all pay to run these lights eventually, whether through the utility, city, or county. It’s time stop throwing that money away.

There isn’t any real reason to lecture the agencies at this point, since they are addressing the major issues and are moving forward. When you have a program like Energy Star that has been saving energy and putting money in consumers’ pockets for decades, it is better late than never. And the bottom line is still the same — you are much better off buying an Energy Star product than anything else. The agencies are now going to make sure you will save even more.

As part of the agreement, EPA will be taking the lead on all Energy Star specifications, which is a significant change. There are over 60 products that can earn Energy Star, meaning over 60 different decisions have to be made about what level of energy performance to require. Now with the new agreement, it also means that there are at least 60 different markets to monitor so that the requirements can be changed if the market share of Energy Star grows to over 35 percent. That is a lot of work.

EPA also recently released their market share report for 2008, and it shows that some products are already well over the 35 percent threshold and perhaps in need of a revision. This data is great for an advocate, as it tells you how the market is transitioning to more efficient products. Market share over 35 percent does likely mean Energy Star has become too easy, but it also might mean that energy could be saved with a new federal minimum standard. If Energy Star has 90 percent market share, then the maximum level of efficiency that is “technically feasible and economically justified” (where federal standards must be set by DOE) is at least this high. If the market share is low, then incentives or education might be needed to encourage folks to invest in more efficient equipment. Lots of food for thought here.

A few numbers that jumped out at me,

• The Audio/DVD category sits right at 35 percent market share and thus is ripe for revision. DVD players dominate this category and 44 percent meet Energy Star. Time to reassess.
• Energy Star residential boilers have market shares well over 50 percent. These boilers must be at least 85 percent efficient which implies that the new standard level for boilers, which will be 82 percent and won’t even take effect until 2015, is too low.
• 49 percent of laptops earn Energy Star. This is not surprising, since more efficient laptops run longer on battery power and consumers value this feature. The good news is that laptop sales dwarf desktop, which are generally less efficient.
• Copiers and scanners have Energy Star market shares of around 90 percent, meaning it’s time for a new Energy Star and probably a federal standard. The remaining 10 percent of machines are wasting energy and actually hurting manufacturers’ profits because of the capacity they have to devote to inefficient equipment just to satisfy a tiny niche.
• Residential gas furnaces are at 43 percent, meaning almost half that are sold are 90 percent efficient and use condensing technology. This is very good, since our agreement with the furnace manufacturers will make this the minimum standard in the chilly northern US and a new Energy Star will help push even more efficient units.
• Almost 80 percent of televisions are Energy Star. TVs are the elephant in the room when it comes to potential energy savings (easily billions of dollars wasted every year). The Energy Star requirements have been increased and we expect most manufacturers will meet them without upping prices, so market share will probably stay high. There is just so much energy to be saved here so cheaply that we must stop ignoring TVs. California is taking the lead with the first minimum standards, but a federal standard to lock in these savings for the rest of the country is likely to follow.

Joint administration of the program will continue, however the new MOU may signal an end to some issues that have bubbled up repeatedly. Recent examples include,

• The media attention given to the poor performance of some Energy Star labeled refrigerators. You have to go way back to my not-so-nice blog from last year, but basically a test procedure problem at the DOE allowed refrigerators to use twice as much energy as they should and be sold as Energy Star.
• “Off the shelf” units testing much worse than advertised as a result of a lack of enforcement.
• The lack of updates to the efficiency levels required to attain the levels in many product classes, such as windows, where at one point 90% of all replacement widows sold met the weak requirements.
• Disagreement over which agency should handle the Solid State Lighting specification.

Now that both agencies have staffed up after the administration change, they clearly would like to put the past behind them and move forward. The MOU is designed to clarify roles and responsibilities as much as possible and put forward a framework for expanding and enhancing the program. There may be some skepticism that after decades of uneasy relations that these issues will finally be resolved, but after taking a look at the MOU and talking to staff, it seems to me that they should be given the opportunity make this agreement work.

In a nutshell, the MOU clarifies which agency is the lead in which area. In the past DOE and EPA split up the specifications for various appliances. DOE covered the more traditional products, such as refrigerators, water heaters, and windows, while EPA covered all consumer electronics. EPA also managed Energy Star for buildings while DOE conducted its own building efficiency work that was only loosely related.

EPA will now be taking the lead on all appliances and equipment specs while DOE will take more of a leadership role in buildings. DOE will also expand the National Building Rating Program (which would determine how efficient a building is and distill it into a rating) and manage all test procedures and metrics, all of which feed into Energy Star.

The MOU also clarifies how Energy Star specifications will be set, and does so in a way that NRDC has advocated for in the past. The baseline to participate in the program will be set where approximately the most efficient 25% of the market (flexibly defined, depending on the product) will qualify. Once the market share of Energy Star products reaches 35%, the specification will be revisited. Specifications for products with long useful lives will be revisited automatically every 4 years, while products where technology is evolving rapidly (TVs and other consumer electronics) will be revisited every 2 years. We agree with this proposal and think this will help keep the label fresh and usable for consumers.

There will also be testing of products “off the shelf” for enforcement, meaning someone will go out and buy one at the store and see if it works as advertised. Products will also be tested in accredited laboratories to determine if the product qualifies in the first place, rather than just letting manufacturers self certify. With these changes, consumers should feel very confident that they will save money and energy if they purchase an Energy Star appliance.

Lastly, the agencies are proposing an “Energy Super Star” for the most efficient 5% of products. This is very new, and everyone has some questions about how it would work but the idea certainly has merit. Legislation currently under consideration in Congress would create something similar by designating “Best-in-class” appliances at about the same efficiency level. Regardless of how it is done, it seems that the very best appliances will be identified in some way.

The agencies have put forward a framework for improving and enhancing Energy Star and this is a very positive development. It may take some reworking of legislative language in Congress to make it a reality, but the new EPA and new DOE should be given a chance to make it work. Government agencies working issues out on their own is preferable to Congressional intervention every time, as changing laws is difficult and time consuming. If the agencies follow through, the Energy Star program will become even more successful and help make efficient appliances and buildings the rule, rather than the exception.

The agreement covers residential central air conditioners, heat pumps, and gas and oil furnaces and would set the new minimum federal efficiency standards, once adopted by Congress or the DOE.  The standard does not cover portable air conditioners or window units.  The standards would become effective on May 1, 2013 for most furnaces and Jan. 1, 2015 for air conditioners and heat pumps.

 This agreement is a big deal for several reasons.

1. Continues the long history of support for the federal appliance standards program from both advocates and manufacturers.
2. Furthers the precedent of successful negotiations between advocates and industry on standards.  This is important because creative solutions that benefit both parties are possible in negotiations that are not possible in a standards rulemaking. 
3. Rewrites the terrible furnace standard set by the Bush Administration that NRDC and several states challenged in court.  The Obama administration settled and DOE committed to revisit the standard.
4. Sets the first regional standards so consumers know the furnace or AC they buy isn’t costing them money because it was designed for another climate.
5. Allows states flexibility in setting building energy codes that are performance codes (where the total energy use of the building is specified rather than the all systems that the building must use).
6. Saves a HUGE amount of money and energy.

The last three of these points warrant more discussion.

The first regional appliance standards ever

It is odd to think that the same appliance standard must apply to cold Massachusetts and to sunny Florida, but that is indeed the case.  The reason is fairly simple.  When the federal appliance standards program was created, manufacturers wanted to be able to have a consistent standard level unit that they could mass produce and sell all over the country.  This makes sense for most appliances, but for products where climate plays a huge role, like heating and cooling equipment, folks end up with equipment that was designed for someone else.  Inefficient equipment costs them money every day. 

With this agreement, consumers will no longer waste money on heating or cooling equipment that was designed for another climate.  Condensing furnaces (90 AFUE) will be required in the cold northern states, but not in the south where heating is rare.  In the hot southern states, 14 SEER air conditioners will be required, up from 13 SEER.  In the hot and dry southwest (which is very different from the hot and humid southeast), the units will also be required to operate efficiently at very high temperatures (well over 90 F) that are common in that climate.  Traditional equipment uses much more energy as the temperature rises simply because it is not designed for those conditions. 

This is a big win for consumers, but it is also good for manufacturers.  These companies have invested in the technologies to make their equipment run efficiently in different conditions, and now they will be assured of a market for these designs.  It benefits everyone to make sure that the best equipment goes where it will operate most effectively. 

Allows states more flexibility with their building codes

Federal appliance standards are preemptive, meaning no state can require anything above federal standard (below the standard is illegal).  This makes sense for appliance standards, but what if a state wants to set a building energy code for new construction that would require equipment above the federal standard?  Tricky legal question.

This agreement settles the issue by amending the law to set a clear path for states to adopt building codes based on equipment that is more efficient than the federal standard.  If a state has a performance code (generally a smart thing to do, where instead of telling a builder or architect how to build the building, the state tells them how much energy it can use and lets them figure out the best way to do it), then the maximum amount of energy that can be used can be calculated using equipment that is more efficient that the federal standard.  In this case, 15 SEER air conditioners and 92 AFUE furnaces would be included as the baseline that the new house would have to meet or exceed.

This provision will help remove the weight around the necks of states that want to have better building energy codes.  It does this while recognizing a fundamental difference between new construction and existing buildings — it’s cheaper and easier to make a new building more efficient than an existing building (which is why we need good energy codes).  Advanced technologies often have different needs than previous designs that older buildings were designed around.  For example, condensing furnaces require a drain to remove condensed water while some efficient gas heating equipment needs an electrical outlet.  New technologies may also be physically larger than the previous design.  Requiring them first in new construction where these costs are not a problem makes sense for consumers.

This agreement will save $13 billion dollars and enough energy to power 18 million homes by 2030

There really isn’t much to add to that.  Providing the gateway for new, super efficient technologies to gain a foothold in the market with advanced building codes could potentially save even more. 

This agreement is a big deal and we are pleased with the outcome.  We hope it lays the groundwork for even greater gains in the future while setting a positive precedent for standards covering other appliances.

The EO should have an effect immediately. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in this country and does not exactly set a good example for private industry. A consistent lack of attention to building management led to Executive Order 13423 (issued by the previous administration) that requires an annual 3 percent reduction and a 30 percent reduction by 2015 of energy use per square foot in federal facilities compared to a 2003 baseline. Water consumption must drop 2 percent annually. These targets were expanded by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA added a requirement for all new and renovated federal facilities to reduce energy consumption from fossil fuel sources 55 percent by 2010 and 100 percent by 2030.

Progress in meeting the existing requirements is mixed. One success story is the General Services Administration (GSA, basically the federal government’s landlord), which beat the goal of reducing energy consumption 9% in 2008 with a reduction of 10.3%. GSA also got $4.5 billion in the Recovery Act to further the success.

Now the Obama administration has stepped in and built on these requirements by directing every agency to set GHG reduction targets (this was left out of the previous EO). Clearly, these targets are going to be related to the energy reduction targets the agencies are already required to meet.

One other important addition for buildings is a timeline for achieving zero net energy designs (meaning they produce as much energy as they use).

“beginning in 2020 and thereafter, ensuring that all new Federal buildings that enter the planning process are designed to achieve zero-net-energy by 2030;”

This is a very aggressive goal, but consistent with what California and the organizations that signed on to the 2030 Challenge are working to do. We’ll need to see much more innovative and creative federal building designs in the future to get there.

So what does it all mean? A quick look at commercial building data from the Energy Information Agency indicates that with just a 30 percent reduction in the energy consumption of federal facilities, annual savings of at least $1.3 billion dollars are possible at today’s energy prices. Global warming pollution could be reduced by over 7 million metric tons per year, equivalent to removing almost one and a half million cars from the road. This estimate only accounts for certain building types and no vehicle reductions, meaning the savings would be much larger if all the agencies met the goals across their portfolios. Nothing to sneeze at.