The task of reducing the collective energy use of ~120 million US residences faces many well-documented hurdles: lack of financing, the complexity of buildings and homeowner education to name just a few. Yet addressing this is an imperative--few know that buildings, both residential and commercial, use more energy and contribute more to greenhouse gases than either the industrial or transportation sectors. Now, it appears another obstacle to this challenge is emerging--an extraordinarily wide-reaching mandate that weatherization projects undergo historic preservation review.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has a new report out on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. It was commissioned by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose witch-hunt against the stimulus program we don't endorse, but nonetheless, it exposed the breadth of the potential conflict between historic preservation regulation and energy retrofits.
The contentious issue here isn't necessarily an inherent incompatibility between energy retrofits and historic integrity, but with the capacity of historic preservation offices -- underfunded, understaffed -- to evaluate the number of houses that current regulations would have reviewed.
According to a press release from the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), "any dwelling older than 50 years must be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) before weatherization." Does this really mean that any home built before 1960 must be reviewed by a state historic preservation office before weatherization can be undertaken? According to the American Housing Survey (pdf), in 2001 there were 44.1 million homes built pre-1960. That's 37% of our country's total housing stock. And energy efficiency experts generally recognize that swath of pre-1960 homes as the ones most in need of weatherization, and with the highest potential for deep reductions.
In some parts of the country, the numbers get even worse: the GAO report says that "officials from the Michigan Department of Human Services stated that an estimated 90% of the homes slated for weatherization in their state would need a historic preservation review..." and "as of late fall 2009, the state historic preservation office had only two employees."
We support historic preservation. The proposed Mallett Deep Energy Retrofit project we're championing in Freeport, ME is an effort to demonstrate that super-insulated deep energy reductions and sensitive historic preservation are compatible. (The Mallett House we're hoping to retrofit to a 60%+ energy reduction was built in 1875 and has been declared eligible for the historic register.) We appreciate the preservation community's worry about projects that impact the building envelope. But we also think the historic preservation movement is at risk of dangerously overreaching, and becoming yet another obstacle to getting energy efficiency done. A hard line position that the exterior building envelope of historic structures can't be touched means they can never achieve deep energy reductions. That would effectively condemn our aging buildings to hospice, further delay our country's progress toward fixing the building sector's energy and greenhouse gas problem, and deeply harm the long-term cause of historic preservation.
Comments
Aren't we over-reacting a bit?
The GAO report stated that only 7 states thought that the National Historic Preservation Act "did or could" slow their weatherization down. And the weatherization they are talking about is limited to low-income Weatherization Assistance Programs. Furthermore, the biggest complainer, the Michigan Department of Human Services, has signed an agreement with the state's historic preservation office "which they believe will expedite the review process."
And what evidence is there that the historic preservation movement is "at risk of dangerously overreaching"? We're talking here about states interpreting how existing law (the National Historic Preservation Act) applies to their programs. Was the historic preservation movement even involved in the interpretation?
David
Posted by David Fay on Mar 6, 2010 10:21pmhttp://energymetricsne.com
David--
I truly hope that it's me that is overreaching. But within the preservation community, there is clearly significant angst about the concept of deep energy retrofits. In this Fine Homebuilding article, Sally Zimmerman of Historic New England calls energy upgrades "an even greater threat" than teardowns. I don't want to fan the flames of hyperbole, but really?
http://www.finehomebuilding.com//item/6812/taking-issue-energy-upgrades-threaten-older-homes
As I wrote, I'm sympathetic to the concern about exterior superinsulation projects. It's why we're trying to make the Mallett Deep Retrofit a model for doing it right.
With respect to the role of SHPO's in routine weatherization and retrofits, please prove me wrong. The stimulus aside, we're not achieving anywhere near the scale of energy efficiency retrofits that we need to. Adding more hurdles to getting this work done worries me, particularly when the review layer is by small, underfunded agencies. And with the sector so dependent on federal funds via ARRA now, and potentially Cash for Caulkers in the future, the potential triggers for historical review are many.
Time will tell how this plays out. But I maintain that the preservation community is on dangerous ground if they become known for slowing the pace of lowering the energy use of our housing stock.
Posted by Peter Troast on Mar 7, 2010 12:39pmPerhaps we should take a deep breath. 63% of the housing stock is constructed after 1960, correct? So why such concern for a potential slowing of the pace due to the historic preservation process (which as David notes is an existing law)? There is plenty to do! No need to point fingers before we even get started.
Perhaps we form a phased approach, propose immediate work on upgrading the post-1960s construction, meanwhile we further educate the general public on historic preservation practices? Propose funding for educational community workshops, training for contractors through NCPTT. At the least, give preservationists and government agencies a chance to develop clear guidelines/recommendations for owners of historic homes. Perhaps a potential rewrite to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (aka the Standards) to include more guidelines on sustainability?
Also, please do not discount the great efforts that are already being made by organizations like the National Trust, the Association for Preservation Technology and the general preservation community. A lot of time, money and effort is being spent RIGHT NOW studying preservation approaches to existing building performance, building envelope testing, low tech/high performance solutions. Studying and implementing creative technical solutions that conserve energy while conserving historic fabric takes time and thought. Members of the preservation community are active participants in conversations with federal agencies working to come up with solutions. You make it sound as if they are sitting on their duff just looking for ways to put out road blocks!
Angst is understandable. Remember Urban Renewal and the 1960s? I'm not saying we wait 10 years... I'm just saying we need a well thought out plan of action that starts with education and reduces widespread panic. Perhaps if you educate yourself on what the review committee (SHPO) is looking for in a weatherization project for a historic home, you, yourself, can help expedite the process.
For example: If you are an owner of a home that is listed on or eligible for the National Register (or a local/state register), you need to know some basics. If you go to SHPO saying I propose to replace all my historic windows with new vinyl windows (that are not of a style that is appropriate to the historic character of the home), then they are going to say "no".
And you are FALSE in stating the the building envelope is not allowed to be touched. If you open and read the Standards you will find various approaches to historic buildings all of which have to do with the level of significance the building holds.
I hope everyone can take some time to educate themselves before creating a panic. It will not help the cause. And in the end it will be you slowing it down, simply because the focus will be turned to putting out fires and debunking rumors instead of focusing on the task at hand.
Posted by Janeen on Mar 17, 2010 8:53pm