Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

What’s Our Excuse?

Last week, PubliCola reported that the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) succeeded—with the helping hand of Governor Chris Gregoire—in delaying the implementation of an updated energy code that would require new buildings to be more energy efficient.

Note that this is the same energy code industry lobbyists succeeded in watering down last November, though oddly enough, Gregoire was on the other side of the argument that time around. Gregoire initially asked for a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency over the current code, but the final adopted code only requires 15 to 18 percent.


Passive house multifamily in Bregenz, Austria; Photo: Andreas Praefcke

In marked contrast to the foot-dragging we witness around here, two years ago the European Parliament proposed a binding requirement that all new buildings meet the highly energy-efficient “passive house” standard starting in 2011.  Passive house is a European building standard that relies on high insulation, an airtight building envelope, and heat-recovery ventilation to reduce energy use for heating by 80 to 90 percent. The philosophy is grounded in the idea that you tackle conservation and efficiency first, before considering more complex strategies such as photovoltaics.


Passive house office building in Dornbirn, Austria

The term “passive house” is an unfortunate translation of the German “passivhaus,” because the standard can be applied to any building type, not just houses. Worldwide, about 17,500 buildings covering a wide variety of types and uses have been built to passive house standards. Most of these are in Europe and Scandinavia, with about 13,000 in Germany alone (see this presentation for examples). Passivhaus Österreich projects that by 2015, 95 percent of the 50,000 new housing units built annually in Austria will meet the passive house standard.


Passive house fire station in Heidelberg, Germany

Back here in our part of the world, we’ve been a bit slower on the uptake: As PubliCola reported last March, so far the entire state of Washington can boast of only a single passive house project, a single-family house currently under construction in Seattle’s Rainier Valley.

So how are passive house buildings performing in the real world? The short answer is, as advertised. The two charts below—courtesy the Passive House Institute US—tell the story:

Clearly the passive house standard works. But wait, does it cost too much?

A key goal in passive house design is to create a building that is so efficient at holding in heat that it doesn’t require an expensive furnace, thereby offsetting some of the extra cost of construction. In places like Germany where contractors have experience with the standard, the typical cost premium runs between 5 and 8 percent.

That extra expense is relatively small, though not negligible. However, when you consider that buildings last for 50 to 100 years, and that over such time periods energy prices are guaranteed to rise significantly due to both scarcity and greenhouse gas regulation, and that energy use has multiple externalized costs that we all end up paying in the end, then that up front cost is worth paying many times over.

So what, exactly, is our excuse for lagging so far behind the Europeans on energy-efficient buildings?

Because how much more obvious can history make it that the big losers will the ones who cling to outmoded ideas and resist change in the face of a rapidly evolving world? The parallel to the battle over fuel efficiency standards for the auto industry is excruciatingly plain to see. And we all know how that story has turned out for the American car manufacturers.

Here’s an idea: What if instead of pouring money into lobbying for the weakening of energy codes, groups like BIAW spent their members’ dues on providing leadership that would elevate the building industry to the international cutting edge in energy efficiency?

And government needs to step up too. In Austria, the federal government writes a check for 35,000 euros to any individual who builds a home designed to meet the passive house standard. Since 2007 the State of Vorarlberg, Austria has required that all publicly financed housing meet the standard. In Frankfurt, Germany, all buildings owned or used by the city must target passive house.

Hey there city of Seattle, might I suggest sponsoring a passive house pilot project?


  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    In theory, passive houses sound good.

    In practice, with Government regulation, I imagine being taxed to fund someone's “Green Mansion” or worse, more shabby cubbyhole condoes with a lot of solar panels stapled on top.

    New technology is being developed each and every day that will guide us towards pollution free living…but it will take 30 years to work its way through the system.

    I would advise against hastily codifying anything right now.

  • Gomez

    European countries are mostly socialist, modest economies, making these sorts of sweeping movements easier to push through?

  • http://bruteforcecollaborative.wordpress.com/ mike

    you can actually achieve passivhaus in some locations without superinsulating, seattle is one of those locations.

    the thing that we like about passivhaus is that it makes achieving net zero without a huge array of PVs viable. it is applicable to more than just residential projects (btw, thanks for highlighting that, dan) and it just makes sense.

    there are a lot of deficiencies with LEED – it doesn't mandate the significant energy reductions the name implies – and this is the beauty of passivhaus, that it does require significant efforts to reduce energy usage. that's not to say there aren't issues or drawbacks – larger buildings are more likely to achieve than small cottages or DADUs, and retrofits to PH standards are not cheap. also, a significant number of people designing PH projects are already designing to LEED-H or LBC, which is kind of the next logical progression beyond passivhaus.

    but to not do anything for 30 years, or keep watering down codes in hopes of some technological answer is asinine. yeah, that's worked wonders for the auto industry, right? sitting back and waiting for an energy X-prize to solve all our problems will backfire in the long run.

  • Anti "ists"

    hows aabout we ban all acronyms toute suite so that environmentalists have some, albeit limited, ability to communicate with real people
    ?

    And again, what about al gore?!?

  • Gomez

    He's too busy getting frisky with 54 year old women to pay attention.

  • N8

    It is easier to require new buildings to built to this higher code than to try to provide incentives to owners latter to update their homes. In the end, energy efficiency not only helps the environment, but it also helps keep energy costs low because there is less need to build new infrastructure and secure new sources of electricity and gas.

    The simplest way is for Seattle City Light and PSE to stop subsidizing the upfront costs when new homes are built. They could easily charge $10k for a new hookup but reduce that cost to $500 if your building meets these new passive house standards because it will be less of a drain on existing resources. Then the next time City Light is going to raise rates have them create two tiers, non-passive building rate and passive building rate, and only raise the rates for the non-passive buidlings. Or have a tiered rate system for the total amount of electricity, cause who cares if your home is passive or not as long as you don't use too much electricity. The rates could be the first x number of kWhs is $0.03, after that it costs $0.07/kWh, and finally for an extreme amount of use it would cost $0.15/kWh.

  • http://bruteforcecollaborative.wordpress.com/ mike

    LEED – leadership in energy and environmental design
    LEED-H = LEED for homes
    PH = passivhaus
    DADU = detached accessory dwelling unit aka backyard cottage
    LBC = living building challenge

    btw, these are construction acronyms/abrevs, not environmentalist/tree hugger ones.

    but i don't see what al gore has to do with any of this… these systems should be goals for built work regardless of al gore's topic du jour, reduction of a building's embodied and primary energy usage make sense no matter what side of the political divide you fall on.

  • Johns

    They already have a tiered rate for total electricity use, but I can't imagine it's serving as much of an incentive (at our fairly low rates) to encourage conservation.

  • MudBaby

    So what, exactly, is our excuse for lagging so far behind the Europeans on energy-efficient buildings? Our excuse is that we are quite willing to be bullied by the Master Builders/BIAW types. With respect to CAFE standards, the film “Who Killed The Electric Car” pretty much explains how we roll.

  • MudBaby

    CAFE = Corporate Average Fuel Economy

  • Barleywine

    Mud, I think it has more to do with our citizens refusal to be bullied that it does with the Master Builders (Disclaimer: I was once a gopher).

    Same with CAFE.
    Imagine the car builders frustration that the buyers want guzzlers, and are willing to pay for them, but the numbers have to balance out.
    For every SUV, you have to build a paper airplane.

  • David Schraer

    Government should evaluate buildings first and primarily on their performance in passive heating, natural ventilation and natural lighting. Our codes should mandate buildings that can be reasonably inhabited with no energy inputs and that last for a hundred years or longer without major renovations. The money spent improving passive performance would result in higher quality construction and reduce spending on expensive mechanical systems that have short useful lives.

  • Len M

    Until US modular builders start building to the Passive House standards, there's little hope for building them economically.

    We want to build one in New Jersey, but the nearest modular builder (there's only one in the US) is in Illinois. The shipping premium is too costly!

  • Doug

    I have designed and am in the process of building a home to passivehaus standards. The construction techniques are not unique (ICF) and 14″ of recycled EPS foam in the ceiling and under the slab floor. My current budget is at $75 per square foot, well within current building prices. Windows are expensive but readily available.

    It's really just a matter of wanting to do it. Since home heating a and cooling accounts for something like 40% of our energy consumption, it's long past time to get it done.

  • Barleywine

    I aquired some rigid foam insulation from workplace waste.

    Can I use this in my home?
    I mean, I'm going to. But is there some kind of regulation?

    It has foil and plastic wrap on the outside.
    Should I remove the plastic? Or does that serve some purpose?

  • Greg Howes

    Dan,
    You make obvious your frustration at the lack of leadership by the BIAW and Seattle political leaders. I agree. However, rather than wait for legislation to require better building peformance, why not join the building industry innovators who are pushing forward to make high-performance building more affordable? This is simply following the lead shown by the Germans, Swiss, and Austrians. Even in those countries the vast majority of the innovation is being led by the building industry itself and not by government mandate – as the Swiss and German engineers I work with frequently remind me. The pipeline of innovative products and systems is exploding and the “greenest” approach is often to integrate these best practices into local building practices. With the exponential growth in high-performance building in European countries, a great opportunity is already there for those willing to reach across borders and collaborate directly with like-minded innovators also interested in working together.

    Doesn't everyone benefit if we focus less on waiting for others to require better building practices and instead focus on how to best be more efficient builders? There is already a growing local network of professionals in Cascadia doing innovative work using the best systems from Germany and Switzerland. Take a look at our website for some examples. http://www.cutmytimber.com

  • http://bruteforcecollaborative.wordpress.com/ mike

    greg,
    this innovation comes years after EU gov'ts (especially CH/AT/DE) mandating significant energy improvements (EnEv, niedrigenergie, etc)

    the only reason so many companies are moving towards PH certified components is because these goverments have been mulling PH-esque standards for over a decade now. industry doesn't drive innovation.

  • http://www.modularhomesnetwork.com/ modular homes

    It should make us really think that such an easy task given to us (Prayer) can't be performed by us due to our priorities been given to ….

  • http://www.modularhomesnetwork.com/ modular homes

    What are the features of a credible excuse for a sophisticated decision maker? What if our excuse is less than perfect?

  • http://bruteforcecollaborative.wordpress.com/ bruteforcecollaborative