Great post thanks. We plan to focus on energy efficiency in our build, AC ducts in conditioned space etc. There are a lot of things that can be done with proper planning for a relatively low cost. Hopefully our lender will understand the value of energy efficiency. If not, so be it and we will still get it done.

It makes sense. Most people go crazy going "green" and waste too much money. If a house can sell for $300k but you spent $400k doing lots of energy efficiency, the bank could lose $100k if you foreclose.

As a private mortgage manager/lender's agent I see lots of appraisals. The greatest weight is placed on comparable sales, which are then "adjusted", as no house is ever exactly the same as nearby comps. I don't ever recall seeing a mention of energy saving features.

When I was spec building higher-end homes, there never seemed to be much interest by buyers in energy savings. Not just in my few offerings. But generally. One home I sold, within a couple of years the buyers replaced the high-quality wooden E-glass windows with "maintenance free" vinyl units.

Ultimately, I don't think you value that of which you have an abundance. And in the US, we have an abundance of cheap energy. Therefore, the overall "operating costs" of a house are not valued.

There is a green features addendum to the standard appraisal form and there have been some studies that show "green" homes sell for more money in a shorter time, but the industry is still catching up.

mushcreek is right - there are other benefits that are personal, but might not be obvious. And, in my experience, if the difference is not PAINFULLY obvious, appraisers won't touch it.

Our current 'Retire/Expire' home was built in 1965 and we bought it as a foreclosure. The previous family had a toxic mortgage(the holder of the mortgage was Deutsch Bank of Germany) and pretty much ignored any upkeep for 5 years.

Luckily, have been able to talk to the actual builder/owner, second owners(who did the expensive upgrades), and third owners(we are the fifth).

What I found is the siding is insulated. Upper siding is plastic(cedar shingle design) and lower is steel lap siding. Original hi quality wood single pane windows with storm windows(screen and glass moveable section) minimize loss there.

I added about 4" of blown in cellulose insulation to the attic.

Our electric/gas bills for a 1,500 sq. ft(fully enclosed basement/main floor) are less than the 14' by 78' mobile home we lived in previously.

It's not just energy efficiency. Lenders don't assign value to any aspect of improved quality in construction that goes beyond the expected norm in a given area.

Bingo! And not only lenders. It's buyers, ultimately, who don't assign value to those improvements.

I remember when were getting appraisals for our current home. (This was 13 years ago.) It has a geo-thermal HVAC system which is super energy efficient. The appraisal form had no +/- consideration for any energy saving features. It simply checked a box that the house had central heat and air. If the other house had central HVAC then it was checked as being comparable for that feature.

The article said it was an average of $35K to make a house very energy efficient. Our house was built in 1938 with no insulation in the outside walls. We are contemplating a tear down, but leaving the brick walls. Would insulate properly and rebuild, including a second floor and a small addition out the back. This house is very cold in the winter because I refuse to bump up the thermostat when the heat goes right through the walls.

$35k - WHAT????!!!???

That is a bit ridiculous. I had a $10k budget last time but a lot of that went to comfort. I honestly think I could use $35k to get to net zero on a 3500 sqft house.

Climates vary and costs vary but $35k is a lot. That is like double walls and 12 inches of foam I guess. That is the kind of house that body heat alone keeps it warm enough 95% of the time in Maine.... I exaggerate a tiny bit.

I've been somewhat infatuated with tracking our utility bill since our reno/addition. I've asked several friends with similar sized homes how much their bills are for comparison, and almost no one knows - people (obviously exceptions) just don't care all that much. They just see it as it is what it is.

In the meantime, I also don't know that most people understand how much standards/regulations have improved energy efficiency. We did nothing exceptional in our reno. We more than doubled the size of the house, and gutted everything that was left, so we have current code for all wrap, insulation, HVAC and good windows,. Our bills are actually less than they were previous to the reno. IOW, I don't think the banks or people are wrong to give little to no value to extreme measures for efficiency.

We are building with ICF and we have the same problem - energy efficiency just isn't worth anything to appraisers or homeowners (we live in a city with clean hydro-electricity, and ultra low rates). But rates are changing - double digit rate increases for the next 10 years, so things may change in the near future!

The way it was explained to me was that the energy saving feature may help your home sell faster but it didn't help it appraise higher. That was the line they were using back then any way. You'll notice a difference in your utility rates every month and that's real money.

So I just read the attached article. It's quite deceptive in its logic. Firstly, he isn't really talking about 'high performance' build so much as the cost/benefit analysis of solar panels. Secondly, his numbers are quite flawed imo. He claims that an upfront investment of $35k will save $300/month on a 2000 sq foot house in Denver. First off, borrowing $35k on a 30yr is closer to $175/month than the $100 he states. Second, a 2000 sq foot new build in Denver is more likely to have monthly bills of $150-200 than $300. So instead of 'spend $100 to save $300', it's more like 'spend $175 to save maybe $200'. In theory that still makes sense, but it's hardly a slam dunk.