Weatherization and a State Bank, in a Mayoral Race

I see a weatherization core in the politics of a mayoral campaign in Portland, Oregon. Our sitting mayor, Sam Adams, escaped recall thanks to voter lethargy, after lying to avoid losing his election in 2008. Our city has suffered malaise through his term. Sam Adams has wisely decided to not seek reelection, creating an early vacuum for a good array of candidates to move in.


I attended two rallies in the Portland mayoral campaign, last evening, January 26th. The first was in promotion of candidate Eileen Brady. The best part of that event was a talk by Paul Hawken, surprising in the clarity of a call for an Oregon State Bank, as a channel for keeping finance through our savings, local. Off Wall Street. Not gone to who-knows-where and maybe doing ourselves harm. The State Bank is a central focus of the new Oregon Working Families Party, and did not fare well in the Oregon Legislature 2011 session. I bet it is not a matter of passion, to Eileen Brady. Paul Hawken will remain an honored adviser, and will not expect much environmental or finance innovation through Portland's Mayor, whoever is elected. 


I left the staid Brady event after an hour, for more-urgent attendance at a Jefferson Smith Party, a really joyous event. The Smith campaign makes no promise on the State Bank issue, yet it was Jefferson Smith who stood up for a State Bank, at a major Working Families Party event in Portland, February 1st, 2011. That attendance has earned my loyalty, to my State Representative. I was generously given opportunity to speak up in a Smith Town Hall Meeting in my neighborhood, on March 30th, 2011, before the dawn of the current mayoral opportunity. I will work very actively for the election of Jefferson Smith, to nurture whatever seed I have planted in a weatherization cause. 


At the Eileen Brady event, I also wanted to study a relationship between Ms. Brady, and endorsers present, Jules Bailey, and Derek Smith, the City of Portland employee who elevated himself to run a new private business spending public funds for weatherization, Clean Energy Works Portland (now Clean Energy Works Oregon). More on this below. 


I have my own view on utility of an Oregon State Bank, and see it has not before been posted here. It is as stated here in a May, 2011 email response to yet-another customer who declined my weatherization bid, for lack of up-front savings:


I imagine a radical escape from commercial banking, serving weatherization. A new Oregon State Bank could shuffle money for the work. The work with rapid payback gets done, and draw on the savings commences, in sustained higher utility bills or other repayment contract, with closeout at house sale. The contractor could draw from a liabilities account as needed, maybe leaving a lot in a retirement account. I  see the important things we must do to survive, getting harder with each new catastrophe. This could apply not only where large energy savings are possible, but  where hazards risk house destruction, as with faulty wiring or a failed roof.

By chance yesterday, I stopped in at the Portland Metropolitan Workforce Training Center,  a facility of Portland Community College. I remarked to an attendant, that  I work as a business owner in weatherization, with skills hard-won. Would someone talk with me? I had a wonderful half-hour meeting with the center's Director. We confirmed that no training is happening at the Center.

I reported that none is happening through money funnel Energy Trust of Oregon, per their online calendar. 

I find no credible training in weatherization, anywhere except ECONTC. A well-meaning person in Portland, seeking to participate in "green" activities for needful employment, is abused in this. The cost now is $2995 for forty hours of dreadful misguidance, paid always by our federal or state tax dollars in some foolish grant. Some of the "BPI Certified" wannajobs do find work, in the abuse of home owners.

BPI certification and resolve to do weatherization "performance-based" are prerequisite of contractors who align with Clean Energy Works Oregon, CEWO, the only hope in Oregon for home owners who NEED the up-front financing of work that was promised in Oregon's HB2626 of 2009, feather in the cap of Rep. Jules Bailey, and should-be pride to the State of Oregon, that surpasses our first-in-USA Bottle Bill. CEWO takes taxpayer money justified by HB2626, and hands it out in big piles, usually to those with no need, and always with spillage to the privileged play-along contractors. I do better work always, than any of those on the take. My customers are never punished where I am not in the program, but very often my bids fail because work is not affordable. People just stay cold in Winter, with loss of productivity and consequence to health.

I think such status-quo inaction with weatherization is common. Federal stimulus money never made it out, thanks to BPI greed in trying to rig programs.

Oregon might yet lead the nation in weatherization, not subvert it through energetically supporting Home Performance With Energy Star. Really finding the public financing, and sending it where it really is needed, is key. For this, we need our State Bank. Every state might need a similar bank. We need to see weatherization and home preservation in general, as suitable investments in a State Bank portfolio. Portland might move the ball some, in wise selection of its next mayor.

Dimmers Tested With CE T91/ LSGC Glimpse LED Plate Light

Please see a report of dimmers found in my tests, to be compatible with LED plate lights sold as Commercial Electric, Model T91, and as Lighting Science Group, Model Glimpse. All function as expected, with similar luminaire hum that is quite acceptable to my ears. Many require range adjustment by a dial, to suit user preference for degree of dimming. 



The report of my dimmer testing is visible by the following link, at Google Docs.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Byj-qncyomXmNzM4NjJhNDUtZTNiZi00NGQzLTk0MWQtMTQwMjU5MDc3ZDhj&hl=en_US

Compatibility is noted vs. lighting manufacturer claims:
http://www.lsgc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/GLM_9_20_11.pdf
Many dimmers listed here are not readily found on store shelves. Better availability will be found online at Lowe's or Home Depot. One interesting observation in the LSGC list is Lutron Model TG-603PG. That dimmer is stamped "For Permanent Incandescent Fixtures Only." This labeling contributes to my tested belief that most dimmers tried, will work. One may choose for style and function with confidence, certainly where packaging states LED compatibility.


I persist in this to avoid disparagement of LED lights in comments to prior blog posts. I have yet to find a dimmer that does not work as expected with Glimpse luminaires. Our attitudes will matter in a campaign to no longer use can lights in an attic floor. We must not think they will fail in dimming. I believe reports otherwise are from not finding and setting the dimming range adjustment, or from wiring error in a 3-way circuit.


Attic can lights should be avoided in all new construction. A leaky, perhaps non-IC can light, should be replaced with a junction box and an LED plate light. We must get rid of all weatherization instructions that allow leaky non-IC can lights to remain, where work is supported with rebates.

Read more - -   
Picking this button will allow you to see up-to-date posts of label "LED Plate Lights."

At 1/25/2014, ensure reader knows of better Cooper DAL06P dimmer mentioned as essential to dimmed start of the new Cooper SLD4 and SLD6 lights. 

http://energyconservationhowto.blogspot.com/2014/01/review-cooper-lighting-halo-led.html 

These Cooper lights of 100 lumens per watt technology are yet only 52 lumens per watt, because half of the input power is wasted. really interesting. They are as efficient as older-technology Glimpse lights, but the energy waste is troubling. The Cooper lights don't dim as well as Glimpse, 25% power minimum, and with quite-noisy buzzing. I sure hope LSGC will upgrade the Glimpse lights to newer diode capability/ efficiency. I think the 4" Glimpse is the best LED plate light for very many applications, still in 2014.

Q & A: Attic Walls

At the dawn of 2012, my web pages are drawing sometimes-daily email questions. I am resolved that these will be addressed publicly. This will be more-productive use of my time, and will justify more-thorough answers. Others may pitch in through comments, to contradict or add to the discussion. This exercise of the free resources of Google, will have interesting differences from a bulletin board, and from a web site forum such as the Q and A at greenbuildingadvisor.com. Let's see how Blogger serves us.


I am asked:

In my unheated attached garage there is old fiberglass insulation with kraft paper on both sides in a gable wall that joins the house and garage.   In the room in the house where this wall shares, the wall and the room feel cold during the winter. I would like to update and improve this wall's insulation and prevent wind washing.

How would you suggest I make this improvement?

This photo is included:

I respond:
To have any value, insulation must be packed against a convective surface. I'm guessing these are 2x4 frames, and insulation is R11. I have not seen this insulation marking before, and must accept your claim it has kraft facing on both sides. The hacked-off stapling tabs on the garage side might be an attempt to avoid working as a wrong-side vapor barrier. I wonder what now retains the batts. A kraft facing on the interior side would reduce wind resistance and further reduce insulation value.

I have considered the situation under a heading "knee walls", but from now on will use the label "attic wall", for both gable walls and closet knee walls dividing attic temperature from conditioned spaces. It will be an invention, like my naming of "attic floor pits", not yet in common use. Because of extreme summertime temperature differences, and because nothing prevents making attic walls thicker, they should have a better insulation requirement than walls exposed to outside temperature.

My advice is developed at my web site.

I have applied crossing R15 batts in 2x4 walls, with added horizontal 2x3 framing. After joist thermal shorting, each layer contributes about R11. I believe there is some added benefit in framing being full-depth only at crossings.


I show simple payback with the crossing batts, in three or four years. With space, have even more insulation. Construction in a gable or knee wall remodel could be difficult with added lumber heavier than 2x3.


Where there might be incentives for the better insulation, there should be no limit upon found conditions. In my area, a rebate is offered here in going to prescribed R15, only if found conditions are R4, or poorer. That is, R4.5 should be left as-is. And what would R4.5 be? It might be decent batts out of contact with the drywall, as in the photo with the question. In that case, improving the base layer would only cost less. Payback in  improvement to R22 would be faster. It's the end condition, and the savings, that matter.

Progress With LED Plate Lights

These "T91" lights are Home Depot store brand, Commercial Electric, only in packaging. The true origin is noted in labeling on the luminaire disk backside; Lighting Science Group Corp., LSG. Product Name: Glimpse.


I hope they will drive all can lights off store shelves, in all stores. The future of LED lighting of a ceiling is in flat objects. Or, perhaps still including linear objects such as LED versions of T8 tube lighting.

LED Plate Lights Replace Can Lights

Home Depot has taken the lead, in offering affordable LED lighting affecting my work in attics. I can now replace a crummy can light, where too-hot bulbs pump heat into the attic, for less than $40. Where the can was foolishly non-IC, I can finish the insulation. This will be a lot more satisfying, than just replacing the can. An IC can, with a new LED bulb, is not a better deal than the plate LED.




The 14.5 watt T91 is rated at a fairly low 750 lumens, but will need dimming in many situations. Dimmed to 10%, drawing 1.5 watts, it is a beautiful night light. Somehow, lumens ratings here are not to be trusted. A 23 watt CFL rated 1600 lumens and equal to 100 watt incandescent, gives less light than the full-on T91. Please tell me whether you agree. At December, 2012, amend this post, noting photo demonstration of the equivalence of plate LEDs to light bulbs. A plate, beaming all light from a flat plane, gives twice as much illumination as a bulb. The T91 is found to be equal to a 150 watt incandescent bulb. With this recognized doubling of efficiency, why will anyone still want to use bulbs? 

The Home Depot/ Commercial Electric T91 LED Plate Light will replace 5" and 6" cans. Even this 4" Halogen spot, not as bright, that is pouring heat into an attic. 










Here is Insulation Math, for involved energy costs, where such lights have been baffled, to surround them with insulation:

Example 7: One baffled can light in every 100 sf of an "R38" attic floor. Say, cellulose twelve to fifteen inches depth. Real R38 insulation except for holes. Baffle 12" dia., area 0.8 sf uninsulated or worse, with driven leakage.

100/Reff = 99.2/38 + 0.8/3. Reff = 34.8. As if insulation were less deep by an inch or two. Why would one "waste" all that insulation, to avoid replacing the ugly can light? The baffle, with a cover in a deep insulation bed, must cost as much as the light replacement, say $60 for a T91 LED plate light in a junction box? Correct actions are achieved by prohibiting rebates if wounds and dangers in a house are not fixed.

With math for my home, the uninsulated area at each can light loses $2.4*0.8/3 = $0.64 per year. Bulb local heat is all lost in winter. Countable pennies are lost in heat-driven excess of house fresh air exchange through any can gaps

Please read more, in a Picasa Web Albums Slideshow:
https://picasaweb.google.com/108533770292578040917/LEDDiskLightsReplaceCanLights 

The preferred installation has replacement of a can, with a 4" junction box.

With Blogger Labels feature, find all of my discussion of these wonderful LED plate lights: http://energyconservationhowto.blogspot.com/search/label/LED%20Plate%20Lights

The discussion will include all LED plate lights made by Lighting Sciences Group Company, LSGC, the 6" light sold as T91 at Home Depot, and an even more useful 4" light, not yet available at Home Depot. 

At December, 2012, watch a revolution in the offering of plate LED lighting, with new Home Depot products, and hopeful availability of all LSGC plate LEDs at Lowe's stores. In arguments for new marketing measures, I offer an expansion of associated Insulation Math, above. The difficult swap-out of a can light, in the Picasa Web Album was at cost of $60, installed. With marketing efficiency and training, I suggest a $60 installed cost can be profitable to the contractor.

Typical $1 per year heat loss per can, plus excess cost of electricity. For electricity cost assume a maritime climate with $0.15 per KWH electricity cost. Consider a light that is on 4 hr per day, 1460 hr per year, Cost is $14 per year at 65 watts and $3 per year at 14 watts. Each change-out saves about $12 per year per fixture. Simple payback is in five years if total replacement cost is held at $60 per fixture. This is irreversible repair of a heat bleed, far better than putting a 23 watt CFL in the leaky can, $5 per year electricity cost, only $9 per year  saving of energy. We are looking for fullest easy, painless energy savings, not fastest payback of any investment.



Read more, picking all posts of label LED Plate Lights, on into the future. improving upon the stack nature of a blog. . CLICK HERE,

Mouse Habitat

Kraft-faced insulation in an attic floor allows a constellation of mouse houses.

They love the alleys from on-flat header framing. Tighter quarters in lofts atop framing are not kept clean.


The best response to mice in-attic is habitat destruction, by removing the facing. Tightly fill all crevices with insulation fragments or batt trims. The facing here always did more harm than good. Smooth facing has less wind resistance, than tufty unfaced batts.


I advocate elimination of all kraft facing in new batt manufacture. Instead apply a vapor permeable air barrier facing like house wrap, as an attachment means and as  a stiller of air circulation within batts. Have as many faces as you wish in any stack. Place the face in any direction, downward in a crawl space or basement ceiling, outward on a knee wall, where the barrier serves to contain dust from human contact. I offered this idea to my favorite manufacturer, Johns Manville, in August, 2011. No response yet from JM, so let any manufacturer try it.


Wrap-faced batts should not be at the base in an attic floor.

Angie's List For All

With effort, I got the four reports needed for Super Service Awards in 2011, in Insulation and in Doors categories, maintaining a demonstration of validity to me as a commentor on weatherization policies. Where but at Angie's List, can I find that public comment on my exceptional work, the "carrots" I work for, and no one could buy.

It was hard because most customers would not join, even where I showed them backdoor "deals" permitting membership at $12 per year for ten years. For anyone, not just Groupon grabbers. And, why would one want only temporary membership? Perhaps the deals, and general power brokerage by phone staff, offend more even, than high prices. Knowing a business will take more from me than from another, by times-five or more, just for being naive, surely kills a deal.


It seems Angie's List could not go public, after all, to extract funds from unwary new investors, to repay it's then-majority owners, the existing investors:
March, 2011: $53.6 million, various investors including T. Rowe Price.
September, 2010: $22.5 million, investors including Milwaukee's Wasatch Funds.
December, 2008: $6 million, Prizm Mezzanine Fund, Chicago.
April, 2008: $35 million, Battery Ventures


The total from fund investors is nearing $200 million. Can't find that list seen recently. The nature of non-public ownership is evident in this comment on T. Rowe Price ownership. Say the borrowing is $200 million, and T. Rowe Price has 9.8% ownership at 601,174 shares (then of 6.13 million shares outstanding). That's an investor price of $33 per share. A share price has meaning only when the public is let in. And then, wouldn't the investors get protection in the IPO, with more share leverage. I don't know how it works, but know the public loses in an IPO.


Angie's List is in truth, the collective intelligence of it's reporting members, including me. We are being sold out for foolish, can't last, greedy investment in Wall Street, like everything else. We can resist, by asking that Angie's list never go public, but instead repay investors through income vitality. I think Angie's List could, should, must, have at least twenty million paying members. Then, even at just $12 per year per member, there would be hope the debt could be repaid. At average $30 per year, times twenty million, The List would prosper. This is my dream, and long-standing shunned-rudely proposal: Perhaps half, including new members would be Honored members, paying $20 per year. Those who don't care to actively participate, might not resist the ordinary $40 per year membership. Yes, declared same prices everywhere. No more offensive deal-making.