The question of the public’s green commitment has never been more challenged than in the home building arena today.  With falling home prices and related declines in real personal wealth it has become more difficult for home owners to allocate investment dollars into green-related construction upgrades and retrofits.   In addition, the public’s willingness to invest in green, energy-saving initiatives is heavily influenced by the level of fluctuating energy prices and the availability of enabling state and federal subsidies.  As a case on point, it is well documented that the historical demand for photovoltaic panels has been whipsawed by changes in these underlying demand drivers.  With recent large discoveries of natural gas and usable shale oil and ever-tightening state and federal budgets, it is easy to imagine that the historical cycles will repeat themselves.

The importance of residential building decisions to the national green agenda is evident when viewed in the context of residential resource consumption and environmental impact. There are over 120 million homes in the United States and according to the DOE the residential sector accounts for 22% of total energy consumed in the nation and 74% of the water.  Levels of indoor air pollutants can often be four to five times higher than outdoor levels and the residential sector contributes 21% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

The essence of green building is to construct a home with low environmental impact.  Virtually all elements of home construction have environmental consequences, some lasting for decades or longer.  In some cases construction decisions impact the macro environment such as decisions about using sustainable materials and energy efficient building components.  In other cases the decisions are more micro- environment oriented such as low impact site development, the selection of durable construction components and the choice to build a healthy living environment. In all cases, it requires the home owner to make conscious decisions and budget trade-offs concerning the shade of green to be incorporated into the house design and construction.

Green budget decision making in home building is not always concerned with hard dollar trade-offs.  At times the cost is the time required of the homeowner to become informed about the options.  As pointed out in my previous blog post on quality trade-off levers, some green decisions, such as lighter framing, can actually be lower cost than the alternative conventional construction method, but they require the builder and homeowner to be sufficiently informed to identify and implement the alternative.

The most difficult green decisions are the initiatives that involve lifestyle and hard dollar tradeoffs.  With respect to lifestyle, excessively large homes are generally viewed as contrary to green ideals.  Obviously, very large homes consume significantly more resources and energy than a smaller home with the same number of bedrooms.  For example, the LEED for Homes Reference Guide points out that a 100% increase in home size yields an increase in annual energy usage of 15% to 50%, and an increase in materials usage of 40% to 90% depending on the design, location and occupants of the home. The LEED guidelines target the square footage for a three bedroom home at 1,900 square feet.  This is below the national average for new home construction of approximately 2,350 square feet in 2010 and significantly smaller than the typical three bedroom house being built in affluent Fairfield County, Connecticut today.  The good news is that the trend in new home size has been declining in recent years — largely due to the economy. According to the NAHB this trend is expected to continue with a decline of an additional 10 percent by 2015, to 2,150 square feet.

More complex green building budget tradeoffs occur around building assemblies that impact energy consumption and costs.  These assemblies are usually large-ticket budget items with very different efficiency, investment and payback profiles.  The green-budget equation asks you to spend more today on a high quality, better performing alternative energy system allowing you to save money over time in reduced fossil fuel consumption while making a significant contribution to a greener environment.  The budget dilemma arises over the trade-off between spending more today to do the right thing versus spending less and condemning the home to future inefficiency until the next replacement cycle (usually 20-to-30 years out.)

 At the margin, when confronted with the relatively high initial cost of an alternative energy system, homeowners regularly opt out of the green alternative and select a less efficient, polluting conventional system with its much lower initial investment cost.  This decision is understandable given the complexity of the problem, where most homeowners must act with insufficient information on the costs, benefits and economics of the alternatives.  Also, most residential designers and builders do not take a comprehensive approach to designing home energy systems, resulting in over sized, inefficient and more costly systems.  Timberdale Homes’ affiliate company, Green Energy Systems, is focused in part on helping homeowners and small businesses deal with the complexities of alternative energy system tradeoff decisions and investment.

Incorporating green building into new home construction and major renovation project budgets involves a systematic assessment of the numerous green-related inputs, methods and guidelines that can impact building assembly choices.  These factors impact all three of the major elements of the Trade-off Triangle (Budget, Size & Shape and Quality.)  Effective homeowner decision making is dependent on access to a design/build team that is knowledgeable and experienced in green construction and capable of sorting out the costs/benefits of the various alternatives.