California Builders Embracing Zero Energy

Notes from the Solar Power 2007 Conference

At the recent SolarPower 2007 Conference in Long Beach California, the buzz on the show floor was all about more efficient Photovoltaic panels and about BIPV, Building Integrated Photovoltaics, those panels that don’t even look like panels. But perhaps the most interesting panel of all from the Zero Energy perspective was a panel of California homebuilders who are putting their money where their mouths are in terms of building hundreds of Zero Energy and solar powered homes.

The bottom line message to builders was this: in areas where zero energy homes and stick built are constructed side by side, the zero energy homes are being absorbed into the marketplace at a substantially increased rate, as much as 100% faster! Second lesson: energy efficiency, whether it be zero energy or simply solar, cannot succeed if offered only as an upgrade. Consumers only understand it after they’ve gotten it. You’ve got to bring them in the door for a great product, and by the way give them the energy advantage. This may change with more effective marketing and education, but its not there yet.

Price wise, there are huge differences between what it takes to make a zero energy home in much of California, where cooling is the main concern, and what it takes in the Northeast, where heating is the primary energy cost. The downside is that getting to zero energy in the northeast costs almost three times as much. The upside is that the utility bill savings and increase in retail value may more than offset that initial cost.

Representatives of four Northern California homebuilders spoke before an enthusiastic audience in the main ballroom of the Long Beach Convention Center. Dale Green, VP of Pimm Brothers says that his company has roughly four thousand entitled lots in northern California. In the city of Brentwood, which he says normally is difficult to work with, the City Planning department gave rapid approval to plans for a 455 home development which will all have PV from BP Solar. The systems will generally run between 2KW and 3.5KW. Green says one of the biggest problems he’s run into have been in disputes among trade unions over the questions of overlaps between roofers and electricians in PV installations.

John Suppes, founder of Clarum Homes (www.clarum.com) a pioneer in the zero energy production home business, says that his firm first began building their “enviro-homes” back in 1998 in Santa Cruz. Since then, they’ve build more than 500 of them. Their largest single home development is in Watsonville, California, where they are building 331 Zero Energy Homes. In Fresno, they are looking to build 485 subsidized apartments that will also be Zero Energy. All will have BIPV.. Suppes says his Zero Energy homes deliver energy savings of 35% to 50% beyond California’s stringent Title 24 requirements (http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/). He says that the additional costs for solar come to between $8.000 and $10,000 (gross) and adds another $6K for other passive energy features, for a total additional cost per home of $16,000. He says that even with that premium, homes in his Watsonville development have an absorption rate that is 10% to 20% better than non-solar homes in the same market. Suppes includes solar as a standard feature in his homes, saying consumers will not pay for it as an upgrade, but once they’re in the sales office they respond well to the energy savings pitch. His experience has also been that building these homes leads to substantial free local publicity and perhaps more importantly, improved speed for entitlements.

Finally, Suppes says that he believes the addition of solar has been an effective tool in beating the competition, as many production builders try to cut costs in a down market.

Mark Fischer of Grupe Homes was even more positive. He cited a development in Carston Corners, California, where Grupe is building 144 Zero Energy Homes (he uses the DOE measure of 50% less energy than a “standard” code built house).

Among Grupe’s features:

• SunPower PV panels


• Night ventilation (to vent the day’s built up heat and reduce temperature in the thermal mass)


• Foam wrap


• R-49 insulation in the attic


• A radiant barrier under the roof

• Tax credits


• Lower utility bills (primarily electric)


• He says for every $1000 in reduced yearly utility costs, you are adding $20,000 to the resale price of the home. (if you do the math in New England that means a reduction of $3K could mean an increased sales price of $60K)

• Homebuyers generally did NOT research either solar or energy efficiency before entering the market.


• Buyers were concerned about the potential unattractiveness of solar, but were usually relieved to see what it really looks like.


• Buyers were concerned that solar would be difficult to operate/upkeep


• Solar was almost never a primary factor in the decision making, but was often a secondary driver, and could be a tipping point.


• Buyers valued the savings on their utility bills more than “being green”