As energy costs rise and climate change brings extreme weather, low-income families bear a heavy burden. Enhancing energy efficiency in buildings is becoming a crucial strategy to mitigate climate impact and reduce utility expenses. Passive House standards, which create highly efficient buildings with minimal heating and cooling requirements, have gained traction in states like Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington, and New York.
Passive House principles are not new; similar standards have been implemented in parts of Europe for years, contributing significantly to energy savings and reduced carbon footprints. However, in the U.S., the adoption was initially slow due to perceived higher upfront costs and a lack of awareness. Recent projects like Sendero Verde in New York and the Academy for Global Citizenship in Chicago demonstrate that these standards are both practical and beneficial, offering compelling examples of energy savings without sacrificing comfort.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The upfront costs of constructing Passive House buildings may deter some developers. However, industry experts argue that these costs are marginally higher than conventional buildings. According to Phius, the additional expenses range from 3%-5% for single-family homes and 0%-3% for multifamily buildings. Katrin Klingenberg, co-founder of Phius, stated,
“We’re trying to make zero energy, high performing buildings that are healthy and low energy mainstream everywhere.”
Klingenberg explained that the process involves using building science principles to enhance the building envelope, thereby reducing the size of heating and cooling systems required. This approach leads to long-term savings. Doug Farr of Farr Associates highlighted the resilience of Passive House buildings during power outages, citing an example where a Phius-certified building in Chicago maintained an internal temperature despite a power loss during a cold snap.
Implementation and Challenges
Despite the apparent advantages, some developers remain skeptical. AJ Patton of 548 Enterprise noted that convincing developers often requires focusing on the economic benefits rather than climate change. Patton remarked,
“I can’t sell people on climate change anymore. If you don’t believe by now, the good Lord will catch you when He catch you.”
Patton emphasized lower operating costs and enhanced marketability as key selling points.
Specialized materials and building practices required for Passive House standards can be sourced domestically, reducing dependency on imports. Klingenberg mentioned that architects and developers are finding ways to replace specialized components with generic materials, achieving the same results more cost-effectively. Patton is currently leading a significant Passive House project at 3831 W Chicago Avenue, set to be the largest of its kind in Chicago.
Even with reduced upfront costs, many developers still feel the pressure to minimize expenses. Farr noted that some developers remain constrained by market dynamics, leading to cost-cutting measures. However, federal tax credits and Department of Energy resources can help make these projects viable, particularly for low-income housing. Brian Nowak from Sweetgrass Design Studio emphasized the long-term benefits of investing in energy-efficient housing, noting its positive impact on wider community aspects like employment and education.
Developers like Patton are committed to incorporating sustainability metrics in their projects, driven by both economic and ethical motivations. Patton concluded,
“I had a lived experience of having my heat cut off in the middle of winter. I don’t want that to ever happen to anybody I know ever again.”
By focusing on reducing living costs and enhancing quality of life, these initiatives aim to bring lasting benefits to communities.
