More US Homes Should Be Passive

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Greg Clark

 

 

Should Responsible (American) Developers build more "Passive" homes?

German developers answer, Jawohl, bauen der Passiv Haus!   

On June 9th the Passivhaus Institut issued a press release recapping the 15th International Passive House Conference that was held in Innsbruck, Austria.  Highlights included 1200 attendees from 50 countries and 100 exhibitors presenting Passive House components.

A "Passive House" (see above) is essentially a super insulated virtually air-tight building that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains from people, electrical equipment, etc.  Energy losses are minimized and any remaining heat demand is provided by an extremely small source.  The intended result is an impressive system that saves up to 90% of space heating costs.  Think of it as a 1,650-square-foot version of that super-insulated bottle that keeps your coffee hot or your iced tea cold, except in reverse.  Its ultra-tight shell keeps extreme temperatures out, most of the time with little to no mechanical intervention.  And its main power sources are things nature provides for free: sunlight, shade, earth, and breezes.

As with other technology, Germany and other European nations are far ahead of the US.  According to Builder more than 20,000 single and multifamily homes have been built in Europe but only a dozen have been built in the US.  Builder [online] (and other sources) stated that the additional cost for a Passive House was only 10-20 percent more that a standard home.  Hmm, spend 10-20 percent more and save up to 90 percent of future space heating costs?  Do the math in your area and given how long the home should perform, decide if it is worth it for you.

If you want to see one of the few Passive home projects in the US you do not need to go far.  There is a completed project called Courtland Place in Seattle's Rainier Valley and a nine unit  project in development called Urban Olympic multifamily Passive House. 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Wind Wars Episode I-PNW Energy Companies v. BPA

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Greg Clark

Does the Responsible Developer avoid conflicts in Renewable Energy Production that could lead to litigation?  Apparently not all of the time.

At the end of last month we reported the Bonneville Power Administration's ("BPA") decisions to allow more water to be spilled over dams and to shut down many wind turbines.  We speculated that the decision would create conflicts that could lead to litigation.  And so it has, the Wind Wars have begun.

A coalition of five PNW energy companies (Iberdrola Renewables, PacifiCorp, NextEra Energy Resources, Horizon Wind Energy and Invenergy have filed a one hundred and thirteen page complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").  The coalition claims to have invested $6 billion in renewable energy generation in the region.  The coalition is howling mad and alleges that BPA violated the Federal Power Act by using its control of the region's power grid to breach its contracts and seize transmission rights. 

The American Wind Energy Association ("AWEA") also filed a motion to intervene with comments in support of the coalition, decrying BPA's alleged acts as discriminatory in favor of its own interests, and further voicing its support for the energy companies' allegations.  

"BPA is using its control of the region's transmission system and exploiting unusually high water levels to break contracts," said Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the AWEA and former FERC policy advisor. "Contracts cannot be broken for wind or anything else.  BPA, a government-owned monopoly, cannot play by different rules and shred contracts with private companies. FERC can rise above the politics and adjudicate based on facts and the law".

According to BPA's newsroom it was aghast that the complaint had been filed.  BPA spokesman Mike Hansen stated "We are disappointed that this filing has proceeded as we are participating in mediation sponsored by FERC that we believe is worthy of effort". 

BPA also argues the complaint is overblown because the BPA already has authority to limit wind generation, particularly during periods of overgeneration. “We have the legal authority to implement the Environmental Redispatch policy and, in addition to that, we believe our transmission contracts also give us the legal authority to limit generation,” stated Hansen.

BPA's position is unlikely to keep it out of the courts or away from an expensive and protracted  battle at FERC.  Other Northwest energy companies are expected to blast these and other BPA policies in the Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals by alleging BPA actions are in violation of the Northwest Power Act.  Individual companies and utilities may also file actions to recover losses from BPA for its actions this spring in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

 

Stay tuned, this is a major, reoccurring conflict with very high stakes.  Anticipate it may take a long time for the wind wars to blow over. 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eye for an eye, really? Irresponsible developers pay heed to the Code of Hammurabi!

Posted on June 9, 2011 by Colm Nelson

Since the dawn of civilization, irresponsible builders did not survive in the marketplace. They did not survive, period. Under the ancient Code of Hammurabi of Babylon (circa 1800 BC) any builder who negligently built a home that later collapsed and killed the home owner “shall be put death.” Recently, citing to the Code, the Supreme Court of Washington recently, sternly reminded owners, engineers and contractors of their responsibility for worker safety. Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2011 WL 2077653 (Wash).

In 2004, a digester dome at Spokane’s sewage treatment plant collapsed, killing one City of Spokane employee and injuring two others. The massive digester had a capacity of 2.25 million gallons. Its purpose was to take raw solids, circulate them for several weeks at a high temperature in an anaerobic process, and turn the solids into fertilizer. The injured parties, who were standing on and adjacent to the digester when it collapsed, sued CH2M Hill Inc., the project engineer that had contracted with the City as a consultant for the 10-year capital improvement project to upgrade the plant.

The Plaintiffs alleged, in part, that CH2M had failed to properly advise them and the City, in writing, of the downstream effects of altering the direction of sewage flow at a valve-like transfer station leading to the digester. Prior to the accident, the workers noticed pressure rising in the digester and, in an attempt to relieve that pressure, began conducting a transfer to move sludge from that digester to another. However, CH2M had recently suggested a design change for that valve and related system, which had been implemented, and the effect of that change was significant. Instead of transferring sewage out of the digester, the new system simply transferred the sludge to a “deadhead”, causing no relief in pressure whatsoever. Unfortunately, the City workers did not know this and believed the transfer would relieve pressure. Ultimately, the digester’s dome collapsed, causing one of the workers who was working on top of the dome to fall into the digester and die, while the other two were blown clear by a wave of sludge and suffered serious injury.

CH2M raised numerous defenses to the claims, namely it was immune from suit under the design professional immunity statute. The trial court rejected CH2M’s argument and, after direct review, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The majority opinion concluded the negligence at issue did not occur on a “construction project,” making the immunity site inapplicable. The court also held that there is no immunity from “the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications.” According to the trial judge, CH2M did not perform any engineering analysis of the effects the design changes had on the system and failed to prepare and distribute a written analysis of the changes, subjecting it to liability. The concurring opinion, by Justice Madsen, agreed with the ultimate decision, but held there was no need to analyze whether the negligence occurred on a construction project. If a designer’s plans or specifications are deemed to be negligently deficient, the designer is liable, end of analysis, according to Justice Madsen.

The lesson from this case is to clearly allocate the responsibility for implementing a written protocol to advise parties, including workers, of the effects of design and/or construction changes.
 

Tags: , , , , ,