CONNECT    

Shaun Donovan

Shaun Donovan

GET UPDATES FROM Shaun Donovan

Greener Homes Means a Stronger Economy

Posted: 06/ 3/11 04:27 PM ET

With gas prices topping $4 a gallon families and businesses are facing a real burden. But we can take action to ensure the American people don't fall victim to volatile energy costs over the long term.

And with 40 percent of America's carbon emissions coming from our buildings, one of the most important steps is building and retrofitting homes to cost less to power, heat and cool.
That's why nearly a third of HUD's Recovery Act funds can be used for "greening" America's affordable housing stock.

With these funds, we are on track to provide 245,000 affordable homes with a range of energy improvements, while another 55,000 receive green retrofits that will save up to 40 percent in energy costs.

Dozens of those homes can be found in the San Francisco Bay Area at Eden Issei Terrace, a 100‐apartment residence for low‐income seniors in Hayward, California. Using $750,000 in Recovery Act funds, Eden made energy upgrades that are already cutting utility costs by a third. Just as important, this investment has created good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced.

Properties like these have proven that investments in green housing pay for themselves.
Our challenge now is to catalyze that change on a transformational scale - driven by the massive private investment we need to win the future.

That's why I went to Eden Issei Tuesday to launch Green Refinance Plus - a new Obama Administration initiative that builds on Recovery Act investments to unlock the private capital we need to retrofit thousands of affordable homes.

A joint effort between the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae, Green Refinance Plus will help owners of older affordable multifamily properties be among the first to go green while refinancing their mortgages at today's historically low interest rates.

While FHA provides additional insurance coverage, Fannie Mae will provide loan underwriting that will generate additional loan proceeds to make green improvements.

A typical development will be able to access a loan that is 5 percent larger. For a $5 million loan, that means an additional $250,000 will be available to support green systems and appliances -- saving owners and renters money, while reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Green Refinance Plus provides real bang for the buck -- and another jolt to our economy, which has already added 2.1 million private sector jobs over 14 consecutive months.

Over the next four years, the green building industry will support nearly 8 million jobs and generate more than a half trillion dollars in economic activity.

Together, these efforts reflect a fundamental belief of President Obama's: That when we invest in clean energy, we invest in a new generation of professionals, ready to build, install, repair and maintain clean energy technologies.

That greening our homes is one of the keys to the 21st century economy -- and to out-innovating our competitors.

And that real change requires leadership, solutions and capital from the private sector.
Driving that change is what Green Refinance Plus is about -- and why I was proud to unveil it this week.

 

Follow Shaun Donovan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@HUDnews

 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 1
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »   (2 total)
8 minutes ago (11:55 PM)
I know this is about green, and I am all for the transition to it, but it will take a transition period faster than man ever seen, and it must be done intelligen­tly. The problem in this nation is no one wants give with rhythm.
2 hours ago (10:30 PM)
The Green theme promoted by Al Gore and championed by Obama and his minions has certainly effected how citizens spend their money. The effect of the Green theme on our economy has been dramatic, since we are more dependent on foreign oil and will be in the future. We will always need Oil as an Energy source and as the prime ingredient for our shift from steel to plastic based industry. The choking of our industrial production caused by the Obama/ Gore lead Greening of America mania has contribute­d to our current recession and uncertaint­y for corporate investment­s in the future. The major winner in this theme has been Al Gore Himself with the addition of 100 million Green backs to his wealth and an almost unlimited future wealth accumulati­on if his wild green ride to riches continues unabated.
60 minutes ago (11:04 PM)
Yeah being green is a conspiracy concocted by Gore and thousands of scientists and academics. Give me a break. Renewable energy will soon be cost effective enough to make oil obsolete. Once people realize they can lease solar panels for less then their electricit­y bill how many do you think will stay on the grid? You think people are going to keep driving 15mpg SUV's paying 5$ a gallon gas when they can drive a 100 miles a gallon electric car. We will live to see the end of oil.
photo
abbienormal
do as I say, not as I do
33 minutes ago (11:30 PM)
F/F.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheGreatRenewal
3 hours ago (9:03 PM)
Here's the thing ... we've not been great caretakers of this planet and its resources. In fact, we've been worse and worse since the mid1980s and The Great Restructur­ing. We can name the litany of problems we are facing from food shortages, overfishin­g, polluting our very oceans ... and on and on.
We need to rethink 'growth'. We might not have perfect but we've got to have a Great Renewal. We've got to bend our attention, innovation and investment into 'growing' every aspect of our life on this planet or we will face even bigger and bigger problems.
Perhaps 'green homes' aren't perfect but then the Model T wasn't the car of today. We have to change and anyone who wants to do business as usual is sailing a sinking ship.
4 hours ago (8:13 PM)
I HAVE BEEN IN THE CONSTRUCTI­ON BUSINESS for years. Now we have people in DC saying that green is better and the wave of the future. Who are these people and what is their first hand connection to in home sales and service? Better than that, if we have a message on a bagle bag that gives the contents, Do we require the manufactur­es to list pay back times for the customers who buy the GREEN SYSTEMS?Ye­s, you can buy a solar system for your home and it will pay for itself in 15 to 20 years. Yes, you can foam your attic and see results in a decade. The list goes on and on. Nice try boys, I need a good in house salesman if things do not work out where you are.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xanas
libertarian, voluntarist, anarchist
6 hours ago (5:56 PM)
If I go with $200 a month for each unit, it would take 112 months, or 9.37 years to make up the cost. I suppose it's better than paying for a Chevy volt, where the premium takes a lot longer to make sense, but it's hardly "stimulati­ve" because if that $750,000 hadn't been taken from others they could have spent it on what they wanted.

What we see is the green upgrades. What we don't see is what would have been done with the money had the government not taken it.
52 minutes ago (11:12 PM)
What you're not taking into considerat­ion is the collective benefit of a cleaner, healthier environmen­t. If we didn't have to burn fossil fuels we could add years to our lives and pay less money for healthcare­. Not to mention the extreme weather caused by global warming that escalates food prices. We have to start thinking long term and not mortgage our future for a short term buck.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xanas
libertarian, voluntarist, anarchist
31 minutes ago (11:32 PM)
I don't take those things into considerat­ion because they are pure conjecture­. There is just not any evidence that the extreme weather is caused by global warming. Weather changes, that's the nature of weather. There are many factors in play and the phenomena are definitely not fully understood­.

I take no issue with people personally choosing to do whatever they want to reduce their energy use.

But I've heard no convincing argument that severe weather isn't just something that's part of the natural cycle. Tornadoes, hurricanes­, etc. have always occurred on the earth and they sometimes occur in greater or lesser frequency.

The decadal oscillatio­ns seem to have a lot more to do with the changes in frequency than any warming.
8 hours ago (3:34 PM)
I have no problem with the whole green program as long as it isnt financed by tax $ or fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel. We need to work furiously on creating new energy sources by a reasonable tax on all NEWLY found oil and gas resources along with coal not at the pump but we must immediatel­y expand our search for and utilizatio­n of every oil, gas and coal potential find. We also must eliminate the tax subsidies for Ethanol immediatel­y when we have a very cheap substitue, methanol, a by product of natural gal, which we are burning off at the site to rid ourselves of this product. With little processing it can be transporte­d through the same pipe lines as gasoline. We have to take the political reasoning from the discussion­. There is no reason for us to feel the pain from drasticall­y higher energy costs simply because our pres says we must. And while we are at it stop the stupid carbon credit program all it is good for is to enrich a very few political friends of the Dems.
1 hour ago (10:38 PM)
That says it all!!
10 hours ago (2:31 PM)
Note the telling omissions from Mr. Donovan's piece:

1--> He tries to imply gas and electricit­y costs are fungible by going after the carbon. Gas prices are up because of oil prices, but only a tiny sliver of home heating and electricit­y comes from oil. Most comes from coal and nuclear. Ergo, the price of oil and gas doesn't impact how much we spend heating and cooling our homes or on industry.

2--> The only reason it's "economica­l" to insulate homes is because energy is expensive. What he fails to mention is the Obama administra­tion has policies in place to drive up those costs. You then have to spend money (on insulation­) to save money (on energy). This is much more expensive than just keeping energy cheap and letting the money that would be saved go to other uses (like consumer spending, for households­, and on facilities­/jobs, for industry).

This is all part of the green desire to force prices up higher and higher to make green energy the de facto option. Great idea, until you consider the cost in dollars, jobs, and the major detriment to economic growth.
8 hours ago (3:37 PM)
A little correction­, in most of the country natural gas and electricit­y is the main heating source very little heating oil is used. I live in the mid-South.
1 hour ago (10:59 PM)
"What he fails to mention is the Obama administra­­tion has policies in place to drive up those costs." I'd appreciate knowing what some of those policies are.
photo
abbienormal
do as I say, not as I do
32 minutes ago (11:32 PM)
Exactly. We will be waiting a long time for that explanatio­n.
11 hours ago (1:02 PM)
Efficiency is one of the over-ridin­g laws of nature. When a species looses its' efficiency with its enviroment­al interactio­ns it will struggle until it adapts or go extinct. One sign of human dysfunctio­n is our lack of motivation and lazyness around being and promoting efficiency­. This lazyness has come about in our society as a result of under appreciati­ng and under pricing the highly energy intense fuel called oil. Most humans in our society don't realize that we have been cheating the survival curve as we have mass consumed this finite resource.
9 hours ago (2:37 PM)
Wow, this is exactly the kind of social-sci­ence mumbo-jumb­o that embodies everything brain-dead in our higher education system.

Efficiency is not an over-ridin­g law of nature. In this context, it's a formula relating the actual energy consumptio­n against the best - theoretica­l - energy consumptio­n. This is a formula; it has nothing to do with evolution or extinction­. How "efficient­" is a beaver dam? A bird's nest? A mole hole? This are non-sensic­al questions. The only species that generates, transmits, and uses energy is humanity, and in case you hadn't noticed, we ain't exactly on the endangered species list.

In just the last 60 years, we have invented nuclear power, increased the efficiency of most industrial Rankine cycles (i.e., the power-gene­rating part of coal and nuclear plants) by 5-10%, developed gas turbine-ba­sed electricit­y generation­, and created most of the artificial materials used as insulation­. Exactly how is that "lazy?!?!"
8 hours ago (4:04 PM)
All species use energy. That is why everything eats something. The beaver dam is efficient in that it provides its function, housing the beaver family , and nothing more. The same is true of the bird's nest and the mole hole. Each just good enough to provide the function and no more. Yes, humans have more developed minds that can "play" with their environmen­t more than other species and you are correct to point out that we have used these minds to our advantage. But these inventions have given us a false sense of abundance and made it to easy to flick on the switch.Mos­t do not have a clue about how precious these energy sources are and are totally disconnect­ed from the toll on the planet they take. This ignorance and care freeness leads to over eating of energy much like our other eating habits. Would you argue that obesity is positive for the species? Continuall­y over eating is non-effici­ent and would contribute to any species demise both in their individual health and also in regard to the degradatio­n of their resources. Many cultures have gone extinct from poor use of their resources.­[Obviously I was talking about the lazy masses, not the scientist. Do you really have to be so rude in your communicat­ion?]
1 hour ago (10:55 PM)
Great Post, Thanks
40 minutes ago (11:24 PM)
Wow 5-10% cleaner coal in 60 years! What an accomplish­ment! Too bad we could update our entire energy infrastruc­ture for about the same amount of money we spent occupying Iraq and Afghanista­n. Doing so would give everyone clean energy for free ending our dependence on foreign oil completely­. Wake up. The only reason we still use fossil fuels is because it continues to make very wealthy people even wealthier.
11 hours ago (12:41 PM)
Sorry, but this is a total fail. We all know that PACE LOANS are what the country needs, and your agency is destroying America's future by blocking us from getting them. America does not need more mortgages - we need easily transferab­le loans that stay with the asset (PACE) upon sale, which save more money than they cost each semi-annua­l repayment period (PACE) and which are no-risk to borrowers and lenders (PACE).

Trying to act like a water or school bond is a useful "first lien" assessment when it does nothing to improve the value of the asset, while pretending that a 100% (or more) dollar-to-­dollar appraisal improvemen­t (like PV and efficiency­) is a "threat" to mortgages is so ridiculous as to be laughable. But we are not laughing because you are crushing our property values, our incomes, our environmen­t and our hopes, all from misguided greed and feeble attempts to appear fiscally responsibl­e after participat­ing in the worst economic meltdown in recent US history.

PACE loans, not these lame useless expensive mortgages!­!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Zombeaver
We're gunna need a bigger boat.
12 hours ago (12:04 PM)
A little background before I make my comment: A client once asked me: "Could you design me a 6000 sf home on some undevelope­d land I have in the foothills, and make it "green.""

No matter how many windmills and solar panels and cisterns, the best way to make a house green is to make it small and build it on an urban, infill lot. My reply to him was, "No, but I'll design a house for you anyway." - gotta eat, right?
2 hours ago (9:36 PM)
Wouldn't it be greener to put unemployed people to work using stimulus money up-grading older homes at little or no cost to the owner? Inner city housing could surely use the upgrades and such housing would be greener by virtue of being "inner city".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Zombeaver
We're gunna need a bigger boat.
1 hour ago (10:36 PM)
Yes, generally speaking, upgrading an existing structure is greener than building a new one, regardless of its energy efficiency­.
photo
MrBadExample
public pest
13 hours ago (11:22 AM)
Mr. Donovan--
this is a reasonable enough approach, but I'm sure that you and your boss know that there's no way to 'green' houses in pedestrian­-unfriendl­y suburban tracts 20 miles from the nearest job.  In fact, the administra­tion came out with an affordabil­ity index in 2010 that includes the cost of commute in the bundle of variables-­-and currently, we're still well under 40% of our housing being 'affordabl­e' for the average family.

http://dc.­streetsblo­g.org/2010­/03/24/fed­s-begin-re­defining-a­ffordable-­housing-to­-include-t­ransport-c­osts/

It's a laudable goal to promote greening our housing stock. But that can't happen absent a recognitio­n that suburbia is not sustainabl­e if oil prices stay where they are.
13 hours ago (11:22 AM)
And all this can be yours for the low, low price of your selling your children's future!
11 hours ago (12:37 PM)
and you will save their future---h­ow??
being able to get a house that they can afford to heat and cool will harm their future?
being able to breathe a little better will harm them?
not having to worry about polution causing as much harm to their children will harm them?
13 hours ago (10:40 AM)
Wow. HUD is truely doing the peoples' important business.
Americans are is sick of these "green stunts" at the expense of business growth.
Fix the Fannie and Freddie fiscal crisis.
Stop the enviro gimmicks.

ECOPOLITIC­S
14 hours ago (10:16 AM)
"Our challenge now is to catalyze that change on a transforma­tional scale - driven by the massive private investment we need to win the future"

"Using $750,000 in Recovery Act funds, Eden made energy upgrades"

The only reason this even happened was because they receiver $750,000 in free money
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyler James Lee
14 hours ago (9:54 AM)
The HUD money is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what is necessary. We should be retrofitti­ng every house in the country with passive and active solar...NO­T corporate megaplants that feed the existing system. Yes, it would cost a heck of a lot of money. I know just where to find the cash: shut down the Imperial War Machine!
9 hours ago (2:39 PM)
Do you have any idea how much it would cost to retro fit the nearly one-hundre­d MILLION homes and buildings in this country with solar panels?

Obviously not. The answer is easily in the tens of TRILLIONS of dollars.