Convincing clients to care about building science & efficiency?
user-7622802
| Posted in General Questions on
Does anyone have recommendations for how builders can educate & convince clients to care more about building science and energy efficiency? Our clients want nice houses, but it’s been difficult to get buy in from them on things like good exterior insulation or willingness to adjust the shape of the house.
I think part of our challenge is that we’re located in Indiana where energy codes are pretty lax so there are very few houses being constructed with good building science & efficiency details.
It would be great if there was a compelling brochure or video that would help clients get invested in these details.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
I know when working on projects with some clients I'll create an energy model with multiple scenarios using different building materials, orientations, windows, insulation, etc and compare each one and provide a payback period or cost savings for certain upgrades or design changes. For example, "if we upgrade from the code minimum r-38 in the attic to r-60 it will cost an extra $10,000 but the energy savings will be $2,000 per year so after 5 years it will have paid for itself and it will likely last for another 30-50 years so the savings will be quite $50,000-$100,000 over the lifetime of the structure". This helps the client and myself see in a dollars and cents easy to understand metric how different designs can have a real impact on the world (and their wallet). The only real issue is that some changes can be difficult to model and estimate but most are doable.
Thank you for the reply. What software do you use for your energy modeling?
I think we'd get some traction with that approach, but I'm wondering if we could get even more by trying to sell them on improvements in comfort, occupant health, enjoyment of the space, and control of their indoor environment.
I've used Trane Trace, Carrier HAP, and eQuest energy modeling software. I'm sure there is other software available that will do the same thing.
Yeah, every client will likely be different. Some may look at the dollars and cents and others may look at the IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality) of the facility while others may focus on CO2 production. You might look into LEED since a portion of their scoring is focused on IEQ. LEED provides metrics by which to measure the IEQ and might provide some good talking points and it also provides other areas that may be of concern with environmentally conscientious clients.
Better insulation helps to cut down on energy costs, and those costs will probably be higher in the future. You also get a more comfy house when it's built tight and well insulated: no drafts, more consistent temperature throughout, etc.
I do mostly commercial work, so ROI is a very big deal on most of my projects. Our highest costs are energy (I work with datacenters mostly), so it doesn't take much to save enough to be worthwhile. We have gone so far as to paint the roofs white to reduce solar gain throughout the year (we run cooling all year long). Some energy modeling will make it easy(ish) to come up with an example house to show your clients, then you can work out the savings over time for various energy upgrades. I would make sure to have gas and electric rates for your area handy to show your clients.
Note that one thing I find very helpful when doing energy use cost estimates is an Excel sheet I write every year that calculates electric bills. I get the "rate book" from the utility (usually available from the utility's web site or from the state regulator's website), then I put ALL the billing info into the Excel sheet so that even the screwy costs like "nuclear decomissioning" and "power supply cost recovery" type fees are all calculated. That lets me show a client EXACTLY what their electric bill will be for any given amount of electric use. My client's costs are almost entirely for electricity, but for an all-electric home, you'd be in the same boat. Even using gas to heat, electric costs are usually still pretty significant over the year, and it helps to be able to show the client real numbers.
Bill
I co-wrote a book with the aim to do just what you propose, called Pretty Good House--easy to find online. You can also search this site for that term--the idea was introduced and grew here over the course of many articles and comments.
the problem is finding professionals who know how to design and install the improvements. I have hired many professionals (many of whom post in this forum frequently) and have had dismal results. Talking and thinking is easy. Boots on the ground - not so much.
Getting people to spend money on things they do not care about and that are hidden in the walls and attics will be a tuff sell. Understand this stuff does not adds nothing to the resale price of the home when they sell it general in less than 6 years.
Most people with enough money to have a house built like money and can understand return on investment.
You could use the BEopt software it can show how financing upgrades like higher COP HVAC systems, extra insulation and better windows will lower the monthly cost of ownership. The BEopt software is free to use but takes time to learn.
https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt
The 16 training videos are a requirement
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHC0xDtkdjgec8QhVt7exJY3tpSLEFk-d
Walta
I find that people will often care about efficiency in the abstract, but when it comes to giving up something they want in the name of efficiency it's a hard sell.
An example is skylights. Pretty much indefensible from a building science perspective. But hard to talk someone out of them if their heart is set on them.
DC,
And maybe that's as it should be. What would a house look like if we designed it entirely from the perspective of energy efficiency? Not somewhere I'd want to live. That's like eating nothing but smoothies designed by a nutritionist for every meal.
I think it was Joe L who said no one wants to live in windowless houses. I personally have a number of skylights in my own home to make a sort of "sun room", and it's because it's a north-facing room that would otherwise be quite dark (and was before we added the skylights!). The decrease in overall energy efficiency is acceptable for the big increase in the space being nicer. Note that as part of the same project, we also reinsulated the roof with spray foam (it's a low pitch unvented roof that really had no other options), and the overall result was a significant increase in energy efficiency. The original roof was "vented" (a DIY strip vent by the previous owners), T+G on the interior, and 2" XPS panels loosly slid down on top of the T+G ceiling boards. I joked that it had a ridge vent and an "area vent", since the entire area of the indoor ceiling was a "vent" :-D Bringing it up to code levels of R value with closed cell spray foam was a huge improvement, despite us adding 8 skylights.
It's important to consider liveability and making the house "nice" for the occupants and not be overly focused on energy efficiency.
Bill
Hi Malcolm --
I agree that houses should be built that people want to live in. But I don't see it as an either/or.
Here's the problem: houses are durable. They last a long time. In many cases the person who builds a house never lives in it, but even if it's owner-built that owner will only live in it for a fraction of its life. This means that the people who experience the consequences of decisions made during construction are for the most part not the person making those decisions.
Over five years ago, on these pages, I proposed a solution, in this post:
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/question/principal-interest-taxes-and-insurance-but-not-utilities
In short, the idea is to require banks to include projected utility cost when assessing a borrower's ability to afford a house. This would affect the affordability of houses, which would affect their sales prices, which would be something that builders of houses would care a great deal about.
I'll be the first to admit that my idea has not set the world on fire. Although close to me, in Montgomery County, MD, sellers are now required to disclose utility costs, which is at least a step along the way.
DC,
In many ways I agree, although the things I won't design into a house are mostly associated with risk, not efficiency - which goes to your point about longevity and changing occupants.
I think most codes have evolved to the point where (as long as they are enforced) you should end up with a durable, efficient structure - and within those parameters there is plenty of room to design a house that also delights its occupants and those who visit it.
In general I'm pleased and surprised every day at the direction that the codes have taken in the past few years. The one objection I have is that they are process-oriented and not outcome-oriented. So, for example, you can have as many skylights as you want so long as the glazing meets the U-factor requirements of the codes. Water consumption isn't something we care about where I am, but I've heard the complaint that in places like Phoenix you have to have a low-water-use dishwasher but you're allowed to have a swimming pool.
I'd prefer a code where if you want to have a skylight or similar, you have to bring up the rest of the envelope somewhere to make up for it.
DC,
I'm torn on that. Our code now requires energy modelling by an accredited expert of any house before approval. That sounds good, but it means yet another consultant. If I built my house today I would need:
- A designer
- A geotechnical engineer
- A structural engineer
- An ecologist for a riparian zone study
- An energy modeller, and blower door test
That's about the same number of consultants I used when I was working on high-rise buildings in the '80s. All add value, but also complexity, cost, and time. Both the approval process and the builds now take substantially longer than they did. The process has become so lengthy that owners mortgage approvals time out before they can start construction - and these requirements are the same if you are building a large house or one of 900 sf - penalizing the efficiency gains small buildings yield.
What I can't help wondering is whether simpler solutions might in aggregate have had the same effect? At least 90% of houses here use vented trussed roofs. Could boosting the R-value of the insulation there have resulted in the same improvement as requiring energy modelling, with all it's complexity?
All those consultants end up making housing unaffordable, so people stay living in older places with none of the upgrades. Going overboard on "improvements" to the extent that no one can afford to upgrade ends up going against what we're trying to achieve. There needs to be a balance so that costs stay under control.
I'm generally opposed to excessively detailed codes, and especially code details that are a big deal in one area but not in others. Out west, for example, water conservation is a big deal. Here in Michigan, water conservation doesn't really matter much. It makes no sense to enforce strict water use codes in my area where water is plentiful and cheap, and trying to do so doesn't help the areas where water is scarce and expensive, either.
I think about the best code improvements we've seen in the last 10-20 years have been related to continuous insulation and air sealing. Air sealing especially makes a pretty big difference and isn't terribly expensive to do when done during the initial build. Codes changes that I think accomplish little aside from increasing costs are upping the minimum R value for foundation walls from R10 to R15 in my CZ, and the requirement for arc fault circuit breakers.
It would probably make sense to do some cost/benefit studies prior to putting new codes in place. If the code required "upgrades" cost more than they save, then they really aren't worth doing.
Bill
Bill,
A real disconnect has developed here between process and goals. The result is a two tiered community where many just give up on getting permits and do what they want.
Malcolm,
What, you don't need a certified arborist? Or a mechanical engineer? Or a civil engineer?
Malcolm, that's what happens when regulations get excessive: people spend more time finding ways to get around the regulations and game the system, then you get nothing at all from the regulatory efforts. Excessive regulation usually ends up doing little but driving up costs, since people will just cheat and defeat the goal of the regulation.
Bill
DC,
The contractor that just finished a reno of our community hall for me said he is never doing another house build. I'm seriously considering retiring from house design.
Funny enough, I'm self GC-ing my build in Indiana because I couldn't find any reasonably priced options that cared about building science & efficiency details - maybe we should connect.
A creative idea would be to gift prospective clients a subscription to Green Building Advisor.
A Futile endeavor if you ask me. I hypothesize that there are two major reasons:
1. As far as I can tell, the real estate industry is more or less blind to things relating to energy efficiency. (Forget about sustainability, carbon footprint, made in USA, GWP, aging-in-place etc.) The most energy efficient homes, built above and beyond the code going up around me are being done by Habitat For Humanity.
2. With the disappearance of anything resembling a middle class in this country, the people who have the money to afford a new house are the kind of people who look to their broker for ways to save and make money (not an architect or engineer).
I feel like this is evidenced by the fact that most questions on this community board are from DIYers (same reason I visit this site). I've worked for architecture firms for about a decade and have just kind of given up.
Anyway, I really hope someone chimes in and proves me wrong because the whole thing bums me out.
Pretty much everyone is blind to all the "hidden" thinks. If you want an example of this, watch any of those home renovation or "flipping" shows: they are almost entirely changing things you SEE. Most of what they do is repaint things, then maybe add some tile, "open up" a space removing a wall, sometimes some new fixtures. You never see energy upgrades, or structural work outside of "opening up" floorplans. People pay primarily for what they can SEE. They find out later they should have thought about other things when they have drafts, or when that freshly painted brick weathers and starts to look bad.
One of the reasons I like commercial work better than residential is that the commerical people tend to care more about Return On Investment (ROI) and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), both of which include Mainteance, Repair, and Operations (MRO) costs. That means it's pretty easy to show how insulation can cut down on the "operations" costs, higher quality equipment can cut down on the "mainteance" costs, and intelligent design and accessibility can help to reduce future "repair" costs. I doubt many homeowners think of any of that stuff -- they just see eye candy, neighborhood, maybe school district information. I think it's an uphill battle to get people to think about the other stuff, but it's worth at least trying.
Bill