Archive for April, 2010
HomeStar Primer – Good for the economy, good for homeowners?
Monday, April 26th, 2010I had a post on the Cash for Caulkers program in the mill, but Sean beat me to it. Since he has said everything I could have said about the legislation now pending, with his permission, I’ll just let him say it again in this repost of his article: — Michael
HomeStar (aka Cash for Caulkers) is a proposed measure introduced in the Senate to “create good living-wage jobs in construction and related industries by providing strong short-term incentives for home energy efficiency improvements.” It was also designed to “reward homeowners for investing in insulation and weatherization, high-efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment, replacement windows and other cost-effective home improvements that can permanently reduce household energy bills.“ (EF.org’s Talking Points)
The HomeStar Plan
Senate Bill 3177 aka the ‘Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010’
This bill as proposed above gives homeowners a choice of two types of incentives. The Silver Star Home Energy Retrofit Program and the Gold Star Home Energy Retrofit Program. One nice item in the bill is the Contractor requirements for both sections which include: (1) that they are licensed as required by the State (2) insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for general liability (3) warranties to homeowners that completed work will be free of significant defects; be installed in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer; and perform properly for a period of at least 1 year after the date of completion of the work.
The Silver Star program provides rebates for air sealing; attic, wall or crawl space insulation; duct sealing or replacement; and replacement of existing windows, doors, water heaters, household appliances or heating and air conditioning equipment. Rebate amounts are up to $1,500 per qualified installed measure, capped at 50 percent of project costs or $3,000 (whichever is less).
The Gold Star program is a performance-based incentive program. It is based on predicted energy savings as determined by a thorough energy audit performed before the work begins. Based on this Energy Audit, homeowners can receive $3,000 for modeled savings of 20%, plus $1,000 for each additional 5% of modeled energy savings, with incentives not to exceed 50% of total project costs.
Senator Markey & his 4 Star rating
Senator Markey is one of the Senators that introduced Senate Bill 3177. After he introduced it, he sent out a press release where he stated that he feels that HomeStar Will Be Summer Blockbuster for Consumers, Jobs & gave it a rating of Four Stars.
- Creating New Jobs – Over 168,000 jobs will be saved or created in the construction, manufacturing, and retail sectors.
- Saving Consumers Money -Energy efficient homes will save hardworking families more than a billion dollars in 2011 alone – and $9.5 billion over the next decade.
- Saving Energy – Efficiency upgrades cut energy waste and foreign oil imports. Home Star will save the same amount of energy as 615,000 cars, and means we’ll need 4 less power plants.
- Products Made in the U.S.A. – 90% of the retrofit products for Home Star – windows, doors, and insulation – are manufactured in the USA.
The Verdict
Based just on the items listed above, it should come as no surprise that there are over 1200 organizations and manufacturers actively supporting this legislation. One of the biggest organizations “getting out the vote” is the HomeStar Coalition. Many of these organizations are also hoping that this just might help get some consumers over the hump. Many consumers are gun shy, due to the past history of the Energy Efficiency market. They are hoping to get consumers to realize that retrofitting is the most cost-effective proven ways to reduce household energy costs. Not only can a retrofit help you with your long-term energy bill savings, but the comfort that one can derive from it.
Speaking not only as the owner of SLS Construction, but as a regular citizen, I really do think that we are getting into some serious trouble with all our spending and borrowing that has been occurring lately. We have now survived the Tech, Oil, and the Housing bubbles in the last 15 years to find ourselves in a Government Spending Bubble. If we are not careful when this one pops, we could face some very serious issues that cannot be overcome as easily as the market based ones.
With that being said, I really do think that this can be a very good piece of legislation, which would probably meet the goals of reducing energy usage and probably create some much-needed jobs. The cost vs. value argument I think would come down on the side of the bill passing (even without the typical inflation of benefits that people love to use). So why then isn’t SLS Construction listed as a supporter? I happen to see a few problems with the way the bill is written, that I feel need to be addressed before I can really say that “yes, this is a great bill.”
In a future article – some of the issues we will cover:
- Duplication of rebates with other programs
- The big issue with the Gold Star contractor requirement
- Certain items listed in Silver Star program, should be handled under the Gold Star program, due to health, safety, and other concerns
- The rebate program which will probably artificially increase the costs to the Homeowners, resulting in less savings than they might have had with an appropriate Tax Credit
You can read the sequel here. —Michael
What The Lead Law Means To You
Monday, April 19th, 2010On Thursday, April 22, 2010 the new Federal Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) law became the law of the land. Much has been written about it, and most of what has been written is pointed at industry professionals. So, what does the RRP law mean to you, our customers and property owners.
It means a lot!
Are you affected?
If you own a building that was constructed prior to 1978, the law applies to you and will touch on almost everything you have done, from flooring to repainting to plumbing. Only jobs covering less than 6 SF (six square feet) on the interior and 20 SF (20 square feet) on the exterior are exempt.
Jobs that fall under RRP jurisdiction must be performed by a “registered company” and a “Certified Lead Renovator” (CLR), and you must be provided a copy of Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers, and Schools (PDF), and sign for receipt of the pamphlet. (The duties of the CLR are identified in 40 CFR 745.90(b). You can read the regulation here.)
What does this mean? Well, that’s a bit gray. It seems to mean that, unless your job site has been certified to be lead free, not only must the general contractor you hire be “registered” (with the EPA) and use a “Certified Lead Renovator”, it also seems that the firms s/he subcontracts with must be registered etc.—unless they’re not disturbing lead paint or dust. So for instance, if the general contractor clears away all contaminated dry wall, s/he could then hire a non-CLR plumber to come in and re-plumb that area. But if the plumber has to remove contaminated dry wall, then the plumber too must be a CLR. The difficulty is in the wording of the language. The square foot rule seems to be a trigger for the lead safe work practices, not the requirement that the firm be registered and the workers trained.
Owners of rentals should take special notice: Not only does the CLR have to keep certain records to prove they have complied with the law, you do too. You must provide your tenants with copies of the Renovate Right (PDF) pamphlet, and have them sign for it. I personally think you should also request copies of all lead practices compliance check lists and tests performed by your contractor for your own legal protection. Reputable firms should be more than willing cooperate as it’s in their best interests too!
Also, you cannot opt out! As originally written, Congress allowed property owners to opt out of complying with the RRP by signing a sworn statement that there were no children or pregnant women living in, or visiting, the building. But last year the EPA, the Sierra Club, the New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, and others sued for stricter enforcement—and won. The EPA website says it has:
propose[ed] to expand lead-safe work practices and other protective requirements for renovation and painting work involving lead paint to cover most pre-1978 housing, and after certain renovation, repair, and painting preparation activities are performed to require renovation firms to perform quantitative dust testing to achieve dust-lead levels that comply with EPA’s regulatory standards. Renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings will also be proposed to be covered and EPA will evaluate whether renovations in the interior of these buildings create lead-based paint hazards.
Whether the opt out rule is really gone or not seems to be something of a debate. However, you can get around the law by doing it yourself. Obviously the EPA highly recommends you follow the guidelines set forth in their Renovate Right (PDF) pamphlet. It is also recommended that you call the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323) and ask for more information on how to work safely in a home with lead-based paint. (See 40 CFR 745.82. You can read it here.)
How will RRP compliance effect my job?
Obviously, it depends. If the site of a proposed job can be certified to be lead free, then there will be no impact at all. On some jobs the impact to those using the building will be minimal. This is especially true if there is easy direct access to the job site. On other jobs, however, the impact can be pretty dramatic. The EPA recommends, and your contractor may insist that:
- Alternative bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen arrangements be made if work is occurring in those areas of a home.
- Occupants use a different entrance to the building than that of the contractor. In fact, the entire work area and its communication with the outside should be kept separate from rest of the building as much as possible.
- You remove all furniture from the job site. Covering it up is likely not going to be acceptable—save perhaps for tables and other hard finished furniture with no drawers.
- Air ducts from HVAC equipment be disconnected from the system.
- For really invasive jobs where containment can’t be guaranteed: That you move out! (If you run a child care facility, it is highly recommended that you not only close the facility during construction, but that you implement all of the above in addition to closing.)
What’s this going to cost me?
The EPA claims all of this is only going to cost you between $8 and $167 per job. As usual, things out here in the real world look a lot different than they do inside those government cubicles. Little by little state General Contracting Associations are coming up with numbers and they’re not good. Estimates start at around $500 for a small kitchen remodel and go up to as high as 30% of the cost of a job. Which means RRP could add as much as $6,000 to a $20,000 job.
But that’s just the direct cost the contractor must add to the job. Then there are the indirect costs to you, such as: temporary lodgings, meals out, storage fees for furniture, down time to your business, and so on.
So, what do you think?
Thanks for asking. For those who don’t know: I’m a green design/builder. I’ve been around for thirty years, and I’ve spent more than my share of time in D.C. I could give tours through the underground tunnels beneath the capital.
I’ve been pretty vocal about my belief that this law is bad, bad, bad, and should be repealed. Not because it’s intent is wrong. Not because we should ignore lead paint and its related health issues, but because:
A) It probably won’t be enforced. The EPA has no funding for enforcement. It is my understanding that they are currently lobbying Congress for the necessary funding to open enforcement offices around the country. Given that the deficit is rapidly becoming the crisis de jour, I doubt they’ll get it. So in the end, responsible builders will follow the rules; the hacks will continue to be hacks and get away with it. Therefore, nothing will change; we’re no safer than we were. We’ve just spent more money and forced responsible contractors to take on more liability.
B) If the EPA does manage to get funding for enforcement it will probably make things worse rather than better. Like all Federal agencies, it’s a huge, top (management) heavy agency with no experience in construction, and no stake in local communities and their businesses. Its relationship with contractors will be adversarial, rather than solution oriented like that of the local building inspectors. (If you’ve ever had to deal with the IRS or the SSA then you know what I’m talking about.) Over time, EPA harassment can only drive up the cost of doing business and guess what: You, the customer, will be picking up the tab.
C) The States already have hazardous material mitigation and containment programs in place. Rolling a lead program into those systems would cost us (as taxpayers) almost nothing. And for that “nothing” we would have gotten a real mitigation and containment program with meaningful involvement and real enforcement through the contractors and agencies already doing that very work.
Now it’s time for you to tell me what you think. Have I forgotten something? Leave a comment and let me know. Agree? Disagree? Let me hear!
