Real estate is a key puzzle piece in achieving the U.S.’ climate goals, according to federal officials.

Residential and commercial buildings account for 31% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, after accounting for “indirect” emissions like electricity use, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s more than other economic sectors like transportation and agriculture.

The Biden administration has adopted various policies to cut residential emissions.

The Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, offers financial benefits including tax breaks and rebates to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient, for example. The White House also recently issued guidelines for buildings in order to be considered “zero emissions,” meaning they are “energy efficient, free of onsite emissions from energy use and powered solely from clean energy,” according to the Department of Energy.

More from Personal Finance:
How EVs and gasoline cars compare on total cost
Here’s how to buy renewable energy from your electric utility
8 easy — and cheap — ways to cut your carbon emissions

Morgan Wojciechowski, 33, is among the first homeowners to get that federal “zero emissions” label. (That assessment was bestowed by the third-party firm Pearl Certification.)

Wojciechowski, her husband Casey, and their three dogs — Dixie, Bo and Charlie — moved into the newly built residence in Williamsburg, Virginia, in August 2023.

Wojciechowski, who is also the president of Healthy Communities, a local real-estate developer focused on sustainable construction, spoke with CNBC about her new home, its financial benefits and how consumers can best upgrade their homes to be more efficient.

The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Greg Iacurci: What does it mean for your home to be considered ‘zero emissions’?

Morgan Wojciechowski: It’s a very, very, very highly efficient home that’s all-electric. Those are kind of the first two bullet points of the White House definition.

The third part is we are part of the green energy program with [our power provider] Dominion. Not only am I producing solar [energy] and any excess is going back onto the grid, but the power from the grid coming into my home is clean and sustainable. It’s about $10 extra a month for me to get that clean energy.

GI: How much did your house cost to build?

MW: Like $1.1 million.

GI: And how big is the house?

MW: 5,800 square feet.

It’s a large home. But mine is not what everybody’s doing. My home was my personal project because I believe in sustainability and wanted to do it in a home that would be my forever home. But one that’s more replicable would be like what [Healthy Communities] builds at Walnut Farm, which is like 1,500 square feet. We’re selling it for $433,000.

GI: Can you break down your home’s estimated savings?

MW: Our utility bills are projected to be about $917 a year with [solar] panels, or around $80 a month.

The annual savings are $7,226 [relative to an average U.S. home, according to rater TopBuild Home Services]. That’s just from the efficiency of the home with solar.

If you took the solar production away, I would be saving $5,431 annually. The solar offsets it.

GI: What do you mean solar offsets it?

MW: You create energy. Your home uses that energy and sends excess energy back to Dominion. Those credits are stored in an account, and then those credits offset your bill. It’s called net metering.

GI: So the power company is paying you that money?

MW: Those credits are applied to your next billing cycle. They offset your overall utility bill, and that’s where your savings come in.

Solar panels only make sense if you build an energy-efficient home that’s really all-electric.

GI: Why is that?

MW: You have to have a home that’s constructed energy-efficiently enough or retrofitted — by replacing your windows with higher-grade windows, adding insulation — so that you will need fewer panels on your rooftop, so you have a quicker return on your investment. Solar only makes sense if you’re going to have a return on your investment within a few years.

GI: That makes solar more attractive?

MW: If you don’t do energy-efficient upgrades to a pre-existing home or if you don’t build a home that’s energy-efficient enough, you have to add more panels to compensate for the lack of energy efficiency. And if that number gets too big it turns people upside down.

Solar has to make sense with the home that you’re putting it on, or else, don’t do it. Maybe just upgrade your windows, add insulation, condition your crawl space, upgrade your mechanical systems.

There are a lot of things consumers can do. You don’t have to do it all at one time. You don’t have to have a solar home to be zero emissions; you have to have an energy-efficient house that’s all-electric, and you have to buy renewable energy from your utility company.

That’s extremely approachable. Lots of people can do that. Everybody can join in at their level of sustainability.

GI: How do you recommend people get started?

MW: I would tell a consumer, why don’t you start with windows and doors. That’s a very easy one. Do that and see how you notice any [efficiency] changes.

In a lot of older homes windows are very old and they leak. Air is coming in and out. If you think about it, a house is like an envelope. You you want to seal the inside of your home the best that you can.  

I would hit insulation next.

A lot of older homes have HVAC systems, duct work inside of their attic. Insulate it so that it’s a conditioned space, so that those building systems don’t have to work in overdrive to keep up with really hot temperatures or really cold temperatures. That keeps it more energy efficient.

And there are tax incentives [available] for energy-efficient upgrades to your home. Consumers can get and write them off, so that’s attractive to people as well.

GI: If you’re a renter, there are certain things that are out of your control. I suppose you can ask your landlord.

MW: Depending upon what your rental situation is. I feel like that’s a little bit more daunting, to change someone else’s mind. Once you get to your own home, eventually, then you have more say of what you can do.

Until then, you could be mindful about the energy you use. Turn lights off. I mean, that’s a real thing. People don’t turn lights off. I mean, even though I have a really efficient home, I have timers on things because I don’t want to be wasting energy. That’s an easy one that anybody could do.

Caroline Ellison was the star witness in the criminal case against disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried. On Tuesday, she will face her own sentencing.

Ellison’s role in the implosion of the crypto empire run by her former boss and ex-boyfriend Sam Bankman-Fried was to lie to investors, help steal billions of dollars from FTX customers, and subsequently re-purpose those funds toward bets and debts accrued at Alameda Research, the digital asset hedge fund she helmed as CEO.

Bankman-Fried and Ellison are both, in the eyes of the U.S. judicial system, guilty of the same crimes.

Two counts of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Those charges carry a statutory maximum sentence of around 110 years, but there’s a sliding scale that takes into account the scope of the crimes and the criminal history of the defendant.

CNBC spoke to former federal prosecutors, trial attorneys and legal experts to get their take on what may be in store for Ellison at Tuesday’s hearing. They agree that Ellison is likely to walk away without any jail time at all.

After a jury of twelve unanimously found Bankman-Fried guilty of all seven criminal charges against him in November, he was sentenced in March to 25 years for his crypto fraud and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture.

Unlike Bankman-Fried, Ellison agreed to a plea deal in December 2022. She pled guilty to all charges against her and spent two years cooperating with the government, regulators and the FTX bankruptcy estate.

Meanwhile, Bankman-Fried continues to deny virtually all criminal wrongdoing and is attempting to get his case retried.

Lawyers for Ellison and Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Cooperation with the prosecution in white collar crimes, even in what has been billed as “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history,” goes a long way.

Ellison was the most important of the several insiders who testified for the government, said former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin J. O’Brien, who specializes in white-collar criminal defense in New York.

“Because of the closeness of her relationship to Sam, she was able to provide a personal portrait of Bankman-Fried, an elusive character to be sure, that was probably unique in the government’s case,” O’Brien said.

The federal Probation Department has recommended “time served with three years of supervised release” as a credit to Ellison’s “extraordinary cooperation with the government” and “her otherwise unblemished record.”

While District Judge Lewis Kaplan is under no obligation to accept the Probation Department’s recommendation, O’Brien said that, along with some sort of fine, that would be “a fair sentence” because it reflects the “enormous value” of Ellison’s cooperation.

The U.S. legal system tends to favor reduced sentences for those who assist in bringing down higher targets, said Braden Perry, a former senior trial lawyer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

At most, Perry estimates that Ellison, who is the third executive tied to Bankman-Fried’s enterprise to be sentenced, faces 18 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Though Ellison was deeply involved in the fraudulent activities, “she did not have the same control or directorial authority as SBF, which will likely influence the judge’s decision about imposing a light sentence,” Perry said.

SBF’s defense team asked for no more than 6.5 years of incarceration, but Kaplan said Ellison’s testimony ultimately proved pivotal to his decision to sentence Bankman-Fried to nearly four times that.

Kaplan also sided with federal prosecutors when he revoked Bankman-Fried’s bail and sent him back to jail for witness tampering after he leaked private diary entries written by Ellison. Kaplan described the leak by Bankman-Fried as one designed to “hurt” and “discredit” Ellison.

Ellison “suffered very public humiliation over the last two years, often with sexist overtones,” Yadav said.

Most judges don’t like sending people to jail who aren’t a threat to harm others in the future, said former federal prosecutor Paul Tuchmann.

“The chance of Ellison ever harming anyone through criminal conduct in the future again are very low,” Tuchmann said.

If Kaplan ends up foregoing jail time in Ellison’s sentence, that could bode well for former FTX engineering chief Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, the co-founder and chief technology officer of FTX. Singh and Wang will be sentenced Oct. 30 and Nov. 20, respectively.

“I do think that if he wants to, Judge Kaplan can ‘afford’ to give all of these people no prison time,” said Tuchmann, adding that “Most judges want to encourage people like that to cooperate, and a sentence of time served and probation is the best way to do that.”

WATCH: Sam Bankman-Fried’s family on sentencing: We are heartbroken and will continue to fight for our son