Wednesday, April 13th was the annual Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) Stakeholders Meeting in Washington, DC. Attendees included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), utility companies, program implementers, and program sponsors. I was attending on behalf of GoodCents. GoodCents develops and manages utility-sponsored mass-market demand response and energy efficiency programs for residential and small business customers. I assist them with ENERGY STAR new homes, HPwES, and home energy retrofit (both mass-market and low income weatherization) programs.

The goal of the meeting was to discuss the transition of the program from the EPA to DOE and what the future holds for the program. Or at least that was the goal. Many questions remain unanswered, but the various stakeholders provided valuable feedback.

Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or “stimulus”) the DOE saw a dramatic increase in their budget. Under ARRA the DOE was responsible for improving the energy efficiency of thousands of homes. They utilized existing programs, such as low-income weatherization, and development of new programs like Better Buildings.  Today HPwES stands out as a bit of an anomaly within the EPA’s current suite of ENERGY STAR programs and it was decided to move the program over to the DOE.

The transition officially starts on October 1st, 2011 with the DOE slowly taking over day-to-day operations.  Between now and then the EPA/DOE are hosting numerous stakeholder meetings and trying to take advantage of this opportunity to update the program.

David Lee at the DOE now oversees HPwES. In 2010, he moved from the EPA to manage Building Technologies Program’s (BTP) residential buildings research and deployment strategy. HERS Raters may recall his name as the signature next to Sam Rashkin on the old ENERGY STAR certificates. David has the ambitious goal of improving 1 million homes by the end of 2013. Thankfully he is using some very generous accounting and will include HPwES, weatherization, Better Buildings, and just about any other program he can lay claim to.

The EPA/DOE presented four main options for the future direction of the program:

1. Align with Better Buildings to target total energy savings of at least 15%
2. Develop prescriptive packages (the “BOP” approach)
3. Encourage comprehensive improvements that address all aspects of a house performed by a certified workforce
4. Leave-as-is

The most heated discussion came with the issue of whether or not we should keep the name HPwES. The EPA signed a one-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the DOE granting them the right to use the name.  After the one-year is up the DOE must reach an agreement with the EPA to either extend their right to the name or create a new one. This, combined with a general consensus that the name is problematic in the marketplace, is the impetus for exploring a new name. David Lee is clearly a fan of co-opting Better Buildings, though the stakeholders weren’t particularly sold on that idea. Organizations currently sponsoring programs were, for obvious reasons, the main promoters of keeping the name unchanged.

Currently the majority of HPwES programs are fueled by financial incentives from state or local utilities. I’m curious to know exactly how many homes the current incentive budgets can support. With so much talk of 1 million homes there was little data to support what is feasible in the marketplace today. When I raised this question to the EPA/DOE no one had an answer and few were ready to tackle the real problem of whether or not HPwES can survive in the marketplace absent rebates.

With all options on the table I’m curious to know what readers want to see happen to HPwES. How would you change it? Keep the name? Add prescriptive packages? Please leave comments to keep the discussion going!