Determinants of program effectiveness: Results of the national weatherization evaluation

Brown, Marilyn A.; Berry, Linda

doi:10.1016/0360-5442(95)00027-e

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Average spending on retrofits was higher in B1 ($12,700 per apartment) than in B2 ($7700 per apartment) or B3 ($9000) per apartment. An analysis of the national weatherization program found that attic insulation, insulating water heaters, installing low flow showerheads, and replacing inefficient heating systems were among the most effective energy savings measures [7]. Installation of storm windows and doors was less effective [7].…”

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An analysis of the national weatherization program found that attic insulation, insulating water heaters, installing low flow showerheads, and replacing inefficient heating systems were among the most effective energy savings measures [7]. Installation of storm windows and doors was less effective [7]. Overall; however, sufficient prior data are available from much larger studies to reject the hypothesis that these energy efficiency measures are ineffective.…”

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the milder California climate, smaller absolute but similar magnitude percentage savings would be anticipated. An analysis, published in 1995, of measured data from the National Weatherization Assistance Program (NWAP), which targets single family and multi-family homes of low income persons, indicated a 13.5% reduction in total energy use [7]. A subsequent meta-analysis of 17 state-level evaluations of the NWAP indicates a 23% reduction in natural gas use in gas-heated homes [10].…”

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Energy Impacts of Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Retrofits of Apartments in California

Fisk

Norris

Singer

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monthly gas and electricity use data from a set of 13 study apartments and 20 control apartments from three apartment buildings (B1 -B3) in California were analyzed. The study apartments were retrofit with simultaneous energy savings and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) improvements as the goal. The control apartments were not retrofit. Pre-retrofit modeling indicated annual energy savings of 21%, 17%, and 27% for the study apartments in B1-B3, respectively. Based on a comparison of changes in energy use of study apartments to energy use changes of control apartments, total measured savings of gas energy plus site electrical energy were 28% in B1, 5% in B2, and 3% in B3. Given the small number of study apartments and the substantial changes in energy use within control apartments, the project yielded no conclusive evidence of energy savings. Apartment energy use increased with number of occupants and with floor area; however, the association with occupancy was most evident. Climate differences did not appear to be the major driver for the variability in energy use among apartments. Changes in occupant behaviors affecting energy use may have overwhelmed and obscured the energy savings in this small number of buildings. Much larger prior studies employing similar retrofits indicate that the retrofits usually do save energy. BACKGROUNDThe U.S. is implementing many energy retrofits in homes with the goal of reducing building energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, as well as improving national energy security. Several protocols and tools exist to help with the selection and implementation of housing energy retrofit measures [1]. These protocols are typically based on energy models, engineering judgment and costbenefit analysis, rarely considering potential effects on indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Features of IEQ that may be affected by retrofits include thermal comfort conditions, indoor air pollutant concentrations, and acoustic and lighting conditions [2][3][4]. Although retrofit efforts provide an opportunity to simultaneously save energy and improve occupant's health and comfort, potential IEQ improvement opportunities are often not considered during selection of retrofits measures.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Energy Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Energy Impacts of Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Retrofits of Apartments in California

Fisk

Norris

Singer

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is great diversity in the methods and energy conservation measures used by organizations implementing weatherization across the US, influenced in part by the housing stock and climate (Brown and Berry, 1995). Thus, it is difficult to definitively describe the average weatherization measures.…”

Section: Weatherization Review (Government Program)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most low-income people live in older, drafty homes with little insulation that were built during the 'cheap energy era' (Brown and Berry, 1995). This is evidenced by the fact that (Brown and Berry 1995;Census, 2008, p. 1;EDAW, 2008) 3 .…”

Section: General Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Greening an Older Modest-Sized Home

Leval¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF GREENING AN OLDER MODEST-SIZED HOME IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Delilah Zoe LevalThis professional project estimates the upfront costs and utility savings expected from greening an approximately 1,100 square foot home built in the 1950s in the San Francisco Bay Area. Two sets of upgrades (alternative and original) were compared for costs and benefits. The alternative set (which included ceiling insulation and omitted upgrading to dual-pane windows) clearly out performed the original set. The alternative set would be expected to reduce resident utility bills by 28% annually, and to prevent approximately 2,700 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The water efficiency upgrades were the best performing group of upgrades, as they had the lowest upfront cost and shortest payback period. (These water efficiency upgrades consisted of modifying toilets, faucets, and showerhead, as well as upgrading the dishwasher and clothes washer to efficient models.) Future very low-budget greening programs, in nearly all cases, should include a full-set of water fixture modifications, weatherstripping, and clotheslines. As budgets allow, other upgrades from alternative upgrades list are recommended, such as ceiling fans, programmable thermostats, and ceiling insulation.Whenever possible, workforce development labor should be used to simultaneously reduce labor costs and multiply the social benefit of each project dollar by providing entry-level green collar jobs.

show abstract

Preliminary assessment of the Louisiana Home Energy Rebate Offer program using IPMVP guidelines

Kaiser

Pulsipher

2010

Applied Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determinants of program effectiveness: Results of the national weatherization evaluation

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Energy Impacts of Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Retrofits of Apartments in California

Energy Impacts of Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Retrofits of Apartments in California

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Greening an Older Modest-Sized Home

Preliminary assessment of the Louisiana Home Energy Rebate Offer program using IPMVP guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About