Measured energy savings from residential retrofits: Updated results from the BECA-B project

Energy and Buildings, 8 (1985) 137 - 155

137

Measured Energy Savings from Residential Retrofits: Updated Resultsfrom the BECA-B Project* CHARLES A. GOLDMAN

Energy Efficient Buildings Program, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 (U.S.A.) (Received July 9, 1984; in revised form January 8, 1985)

SUMMARY

This study summarizes measured data on energy savings from conservation retrofits in existing residential buildings. We have compiled building performance data on approximately 115 retrofit projects (almost twice the size o f the initial study) that we p u t into four general categories: utility-sponsored conservation programs, low-income weatherization programs, research studies, and multifamily buildings. The sample size for each project varies widely, ranging from individual buildings to 33 000 homes. Retrofits to the building shell, principally insulation o f exterior surfaces, w i n d o w treatments, and infiltrationreduction measures, are the most popular, although data on various heating system retrofits are n o w available. The average retrofit investment per unit in multifamily buildings is approximately $695, far lower than the average o f $1350 spent in singlefamily residences. The median annual space heat savings in the four categories range from 15 to 38 GJ. Savings achieved are typically 20% - 30% o f pre-retrofit space heating energy use although large variations are observed both in energy savings and in costs per unit o f energy saved. Even given the wide range in savings, most retrofit projects are cost-effective. Approximately 75% - 80% o f the retrofit projects have costs o f conserved energy below their

*Initial results from the Buildings Energy Use Compilation and Analysis (BECA) project on existing retrofitted homes were published in Energy a n d Buildings, 5 (1983) 151 - 170. Other BECA studies published in Energy and Buildings include results from low-energy new homes (BECA-A), 3 (1981) 315 - 332, and retrofitted commercial buildings (BECA-CR), 5 (1983) 171 - 196. 0378-7788/85/$:3.30

respective space heating fuel or electricity prices.

INTRODUCTION A recent Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report has concluded that "despite considerable theoretical analysis and thousands of audits, there is still very little d o c u m e n t e d information on the results of actual retrofits on different types o f buildings" [1]. The OTA report stresses that improved data on the results of individual retrofits, retrofit packages, and actual savings com pared to predicted savings could help alleviate building owners' concerns regarding retrofit expense and o u t c o m e . The BECA project addresses the lack of m o n i t o r e d building perform ance data by collecting and analyzing measured data that d o c u m e n t the energy savings and costeffectiveness of conservation measures and practices. This study focuses on ret rofi t t ed residential buildings. Updated results from approximately 115 ret rofi t projects are presented, nearly twice as m a n y as in the previous compilation [2]. Analysis o f a large data base (totaling 60 000 households) provides a fairly broad picture of retrofit perform ance under varying conditions, although this compilation is n o t a representative survey of the fraction of the housing stock that has been ret rofi t t ed in recent years. In this study, we examine factors that account for variation in energy savings among households installing similar measures. We also report on those building types, specifically multi-unit buildings, for which there is now m ore detailed coverage. Finally, we identify major data gaps and suggest © Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

138 possible research that could provide an improved picture of the effects of conservation in occupied residential buildings.

DATA SOURCES We obtained information on retrofit projects from research organizations, utilities and government agencies that sponsor conservation programs, and firms that provide building energy services. The data collected in these studies typically included metered energy consumption, installed retrofit measures and their cost, and, in some cases, a brief description of the physical characteristics of the buildings along with demographic information on the occupants. Each project was placed in one of four broad categories (utility-sponsored conservation programs, low-income weatherization programs, research studies, retrofits of multifamily buildings) to permit a consistent and useful treatment of results (see Appendix A, Summary Data Table). Utility-sponsored conservation programs are mostly large-scale efforts that retrofit thousands of homes. They typically reach single-family, mostly middle-income homeowners whose homes are structurally sound. Utility programs usually offer low- or zerointerest loans to finance recommended conservation measures. Our sample has a distinct regional bias. Thirteen of the 19 conservation programs (approximately 68%) were sponsored by utilities located in the Pacific Northwest or California, and fourteen were directed at electrically-heated homes. The Department of Energy (DOE) LowIncome Weatherization Assistance Program, the CSA/NBS Weatherization Demonstration Research Project, and pilot retrofit projects for oil-fired heating systems funded by the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program are included in the low-income weatherization category. Data from a number of the DOE Weatherization Program evaluations are of questionable quality. Often, only annual utility bills or energy data for a fraction of the heating season are available, and cost data include only the cost of materials, not labor. Despite these limitations, we include the results because of the program's scope (nearly

one million homes have been weatherized) and because it targets a housing sector where potential increases in energy efficiency are great [3, 4]. The CSA/NBS project involved extensive retrofitting of 142 homes in 12 different locations with detailed monitoring of energy consumption and cost data [5]. Research studies often test innovative retrofit measures or strategies. For example, Claridge et al. examined results from 26 Colorado homes that participated in the 50/50 Program, a DOE-conceived effort to speed implementation of a large number of low-cost energy conservation measures by making them available as a package [6]. Sample size for research studies tends to be small (fewer than 25 homes) and a comparison or control group is usually employed as part of the experimental design. A few studies collected sub-metered end-use data in the postretrofit period but most research projects relied exclusively on utility billing data. Retrofit activity in multifamily buildings lags far behind retrofits of single-family homes for a variety of institutional and technical reasons. Almost 85% of multifamily housing units are renter-occupied, producing the problem of 'split incentives'. Landlords have little incentive to invest in energy-saving improvements in cases where tenants pay their own utility bills and tenants are seldom inclined to make investments in property they do not own. The U.S. multi-unit buildings included in the data base are all located in the Northeast or Midwest. The buildings range in size from 5 to 1790 units; 68% of the buildings are larger than 50 units. The inhabitants are mostly renters and are often low-income. Fifty percent of the buildings are part of public housing projects. Three buildings were retrofitted by energy service companies who contract with building owners to manage building energy systems [7 ].

METHODOLOGY The installation of conservation measures is just one of many factors that affect a building's energy consumption. Some factors will have a small effect while others such as seasonal weather variation and occupancy changes, must be accounted for explicitly. The building energy data that we encountered

139 typically consisted of utility bills that include heating energy usage along with other (baseline) uses of the same fuel. In research studies, the CSA/NBS weatherization project, and some utility program evaluations, the data were analyzed using a linear model [8 - 10] :

Ej = a + [3(DDR)i

(1)

where Ej is the average daily energy consumption over period j, and DDn is heating degreedays per day over period j (calculated using reference temperature R). The regression was done using heating degree
independent of a program varied widely. In almost all cases, control-group residents were not restricted to maintaining their homes at pre-retrofit status during the study. For these reasons, energy savings in a comparison group were not subtracted from savings achieved in the retrofit group in the energy and economic analysis. Retrofit cost data were standardized based on the direct costs to the homeowner of contractor-installed measures. An equivalent contractor cost was estimated in cases where only materials costs were known. Costs at the time of retrofit were converted to constant dollars {19835), using the GNP Implicit Price Deflators. Three economic indicators were calculated: simple payback time (SPT), cost of conserved energy (CCE), and internal rate of return (IRR) [11, 12]. A real (or constant dollar) discount rate of 7% is used in the economic analysis. For multifamily buildings, the present value of projected annual operations and maintenance costs is included in addition to the initial investment (except for the SPT calculation). In calculating IRR, we assume that residential energy prices escalate annually at a real rate of 4% [13]. The CCE formula assumes constant (19835) energy prices. Conservation investments are amortized over the measures' expected physical lifetimes.

RESULTS

Retrofit strategies At present, most residential retrofits are directed towards improving energy efficiency in the two largest end-use areas: space heating and domestic water heating. This overall pattern can be observed in three of our data subgroups (28 multi-unit buildings, 418 homes that participated in research studies, and 142 low-income homes from the CSA/ NBS weatherization project), although there are some striking differences in the relative frequency of 'shell' vs. 'system' retrofits between the groups (Fig. 1). For example, virtually all of the CSA/NBS low-income homes received shell retrofits, yet these measures were installed relatively infrequently in multifamily buildings. Only 15% of the multiunit buildings installed attic insulation. The low implementation rate is due, in some cases, to adequate pre-retrofit insulation levels {e.g.,

140 100

!:'

~ [ 3

90

Mulh-FamilyBuildings(N = 28) CSA/NBS Low-income homes (N=142) ResearchStudies IN = 418 homes)

80

o 7O

60

0

50

4, 4',

o

4o b £:36

E

3o

cu

2O

o

We believe that the savings from many shell measures are now well-documented for singlefamily homes, owing partly to the evaluation efforts and broad scope of these utility and low-income programs. Data are also increasingly available on heating system modifications for both single- and multifamily buildings although additional research is necessary on the optimal combination of shell and system measures for various structures and climates. We also need more empirical data on conservation measures at both extremes of the spectrum: performance data on 'super-retrofits' that approach the identified conservation potential as well as savings from low-cost measures.

Energy savings i c i"

O

Measurecode IA

IW

IX

CW

HS HC OM WM

WR

WH

T

'Shall' --

--

There is substantial variation in annual space heat energy savings among single-family

HVAC system Windows Hot water

RETROFITCATEGORY

Fig. 1. Relative f r e q u e n c y with w h i c h retrofit measures were installed in research studies, multi-family buildings, and C S A / N B S l o w - i n c o m e homes. The measure c o d e k e y is: IA, attic insulation; IW, wall insulation; IX, insulation o f m i s c e l l a n e o u s areas or unspecified; CW, caulking and weatherstripping; PI, infiltration r e d u c t i o n using blower door pressurization; HS, heating s y s t e m i m p r o v e m e n t s ; HC or T, H V A C controls or clock thermostats; OM, o p e r a t i o n s and m a i n t e n a n c e actions; WM, w i n d o w m a n a g e m e n t ; WR, w i n d o w repair or replacement; WH, water heating.

in New York City Housing Authority buildings) or to structural characteristics that make installation exorbitantly expensive (e.g., fiat roofs, either clad or masonry-bearing walls). In contrast, measures designed to improve the performance of existing heating systems (HS) either by modification/replacement of equipment (e.g., burners), altered operations and maintenance (OM) practices, or installation of control systems (HC) were popular retrofit strategies in multifamily buildings. Conventional retrofits, particularly shell measures, window, and hot water retrofits, dominate utility-sponsored and DOE LowIncome Weatherization Programs (see Appendix A, column E). For example, attic insulation was the only measure implemented in six of 19 utility-sponsored programs and was an option in every program. Approximately 50% of the utility conservation programs financed floor insulation, storm windows and doors, and caulking and weatherstripping.

SINGLE-FAMILY RETROFIT PROGRAMS 100 100

1157

90 ~

E61 9O

80 .c:

~

so

m a.

70

~

6o

N

5O

El1

X g 50

~ 40

Avg = 38 3

~ ao

.o

m o3

c~ <

20

l

to

"~

/

40 ~ ~

[]~1///,/

E:

/~

~J.,,"~OcJ

[]//,

~,

'

N = 47 30

ARCH

•

DOEWealheflzallon

......

°

Program

~ Utility

oo...............,,,

2000

3000

~o ~

,.~s

0

1000

~

4000

~o

~ <

0 5000

Contractor cost (1983 $)

Fig. 2. Annual space heat energy savings are p l o t t e d against the first cost o f the retrofit for utilitys p o n s o r e d and l o w - i n c o m e w e a t h e r i z a t i o n programs. The sloping reference lines s h o w the m i n i m u m energy savings that must be achieved for each level o f investm e n t if the retrofit is to be cost-effective c o m p a r e d to national average fuel and electricity prices. This m i n i m u m is calculated as the present value o f the energy purchases that w o u l d be necessary if the retrofit was n o t installed, assuming a 15-year lifetime, constant ( 1 9 8 3 5 ) energy prices, and a 7% real disc o u n t rate. N o t e , however, that there are regional variations in the prices o f gas and electricity, so that the c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f specific projects m a y be different from that indicated here. Electricity is measured in resource units o f 12.1 MJ per kWh.

141

retrofit projects at any given investment level (Fig. 2). For example, savings differ by a factor of four for an investment of $2400. Median space heat savings in 19 utilitysponsored conservation programs are 38.4 gigajoules (GJ) and 30.5 GJ in 27 low-income weatherization projects. The data points represent results from over 44 000 homes. Conservation programs initiated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Puget Sound Power and Light (data points El.1 and E6.1) achieved high energy savings (74 GJ and 96 GJ) relative to cost ($700 and $1450). The TVA pilot program specifically targeted low-income, high.energy consumers; hence significant improvements in building thermal performance were obtained at low cost. Average space heating consumption was reduced by more than 20% in 27 of 45 (60%) single-family retrofit projects and 22 ef 35 (63%) research studies (Figs. 3 and 4). Approximately 30% of the retrofit projects achieved average space heating reductions of 30% or more. Average savings were not strongly correlated with pre-retrofit consumption levels although this correlation was most

RETROFIT RESEARCH STUDIES

Heated by: G2

ol

•

/

•

250

~:~ c

Oil [~ Electricity

A

/

,,~ Avg = 183

• • o/

m

N=

..c

100

35

•

•/

N

• zx

A

•

A

•

== []

•

5O

0

300 ooo 900 T200 Pre-Retrofit space heat use (MJ/m 2)

1500

Fig. 4. A n n u a l space h e a t e n e r g y savings in 35 research studies are p l o t t e d against p r e - r e t r o f i t space h e a t c o n s u m p t i o n . Usage has b e e n n o r m a l i z e d b y househ o l d floor area. E l e c t r i c i t y use is expressed in t e r m s o f site e n e r g y (3.6 M J p e r kWh).

SINGLE-FAMILY RETROFIT PROJECTS

100

Type O~ ProJect90

279.1161

•

DOE Weatherization ):<, CSA/NBS 8O ® Utility Program : Oil Furnace Retrofit

g

70

~

60

~

5o

~

4o

m

30

g

N = 45

_Av0=388 /

/o

2o []

0 •

[]

10

0

,

r

i

i

i

r

,

r

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Pre-Retrofit space heat energy use (GJ)

Fig. 3. A n n u a l space h e a t e n e r g y savings as a f u n c t i o n o f p r e - r e t r o f i t space h e a t energy use in 45 singlefamily r e t r o f i t projects. E l e c t r i c i t y use is expressed in t e r m s o f site energy, 3.6 M J per kWh ( 3 4 1 3 Btu per kWh).

evident in results from the DOE Low-Income Weatherization Program. Choice of retrofit strategy clearly influenced savings obtained by residents who participated in the CSA/ NBS Project. Median space heat savings were 42% of pre-retrofit levels in the 73 homes (located in 7 cities) that received heating and hot water system retrofits in addition to shell measures (see points with X printed over circle in Fig. 3), compared to median savings of 13% in the 69 homes that installed only shell measures. Several retrofit strategies employed in multifamily buildings were very successful in reducing energy consumption (Fig. 5). For example, space heat and h o t water usage declined by 44% at Page Homes, a 159-unit public housing complex in Trenton, New Jersey, after the installation of a microcomputer-based boiler control system. High inside temperatures (average 28 °C) and the buildings' relative energy-inefficiency before retrofit (a heating factor of 482 kJ/m 2 per DDc compared to the U.S. average of 3 1 8 353 kJ/m 2 per DDc for multi-unit buildings

142 MULTI-FAMILY RETROFITS ,IL

f2~3

Heated b~

70 •

G31 5

Gas

~, Oil 6O E

70

6o ~_

021

I III

0 Mixed fuel [] Electricity

5o ~ 50

g

N = 26

E

E >

40 ~ 40

E

(1} 30

Avg

O

=

24 7

~ 20 08

<

@ E


O

i

10

example of a successful heating system retrofit. Lower energy savings per dollar invested were achieved in a NYCHA window retrofit project that installed double-glazed thermalbreak aluminum windows in nine apartment complexes. Average savings in the nine buildings were 12.7 GJ for an investment of $1070 per apartment unit (data point 09). Preretrofit space heat levels were already fairly low in these buildings (65 - 75 GJ) as a result of NYCHA's ongoing energy conservation efforts. Their relative energy efficiency, compared to other multi-unit buildings in the data base, partially accounts for the lower return on investment.

Range of savings among households o

400

800

1200

oo 160

Total cost/unit (1983 $)

Fig. 5. A n n u a l resource energy savings are c o m p a r e d t o the total cost o f t h e r e t r o f i t i n v e s t m e n t in 26 multiunit buildings. Savings and costs are divided b y t h e n u m b e r o f a p a r t m e n t units in t h a t building. In m o s t cases, t h e savings a p p l y t o space heat o n l y , e x c e p t for five buildings w h e r e t h e r e t r o f i t a d d r e s s e d b o t h space h e a t and d o m e s t i c h o t w a t e r usage. In t h o s e five cases, we p l o t t h e c o m b i n e d savings. E s t i m a t e d annual m a i n t e n a n c e costs are i n c l u d e d in t h e t o t a l cost. Price r e f e r e n c e lines are d e f i n e d as in Fig. 2. Electricity is m e a s u r e d in r e s o u r c e units o f 12.1 MJ per kWh (12.1 MJ = 11 500 Btu).

with similar characteristics) help account for the impressive energy savings [ 14]. Annual space heat savings were between 26 - 61 GJ in six of eight gas-heated multiunit buildings in Chicago that are cooperatively owned. Remarkable savings (126 GJ/unit) were obtained in another one of these buildings (data point G31.5), a 53% reduction from pre-retrofit levels, for an investment of $1200 per apartment. This building was extremely energy-inefficient before retrofit, with a heating factor of 586 kJ/m 2 per DDc. Approximately 60% of the savings in the eight buildings were attributed to various heating system retrofits (e.g., de-rating burners in oversized heating systems, installing temperature-sensing burner controls, and balancing radiators and steam lines) [15]. Average space heat energy consumption declined by 14.7 GJ in four New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings retrofitted with thermostatic radiator valves (data point 08), another

Large variations in fuel savings are observed among households in the same geographic location that installed similar conservation measures (Fig. 6). Weather-adjusted energy consumption declined in almost 95% of the sample, increasing in only 17 of 376 homes. For the middle 50% of the homes, the spread in savings is typically -+70% of the median. The large range in savings suggests that more detailed monitoring is required if we are to fully understand the relative impact of key determinants. Efforts to interpret these results are hampered by data limitations. Inside temperatures are n o t available for any home and in a few cases, basic information, such as conditioned floor area, was not collected (e.g., G12, G30). However, a few preliminary conclusions can be extracted from the data. Energy savings seem to be more variable with some measures than others. For example, the coefficient of variation (CV)* in energy savings is between 0.9 - 1.2 in four groups of homes in Long Island, New York, that retrofitted conventional burners with other options (Group 5 -vent damper, Group 6 -- stack heat exchanger, Group 7 -- double setback thermostat, Group 8 -- thermostat and boiler temperature programmer). In contrast, savings were generally greater and more uniform in two similar groups that received retention head burners. The CV in energy savings is only 0.4 in homes * T h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f variation is d e f i n e d as t h e ratio o f t h e s t a n d a r d deviation t o the sample m e a n ; a low CV m e a n s t h a t t h e r e is less variability in savings.

143 Range of Fuel SavingsAmong Households

170

170 MaXF~

150

150

25%

Media. i--~5 . . . . . . . . . . U~26"~

130

M,n~

130 l

110

110

m 90

90

"~

70

~

~o

Economic analysis T

~o ~

10

10

-tO

i

-30 -50

though the sample contained more varied building types (e.g., single-family, row houses, duplexes) than the California study. There is little information available on occupant behavior in either study but w e suspect that differences in indoor temperature preferences contribute to the greater variability in energy savings in the mild climate.

-10 -SO

$~¢

012.1 020

label030 012.2 I I I I Numberof homes 70 32 16 f2

630 0 I0.1 10.3 105 10.7 G21 033 10.2 10.4 10.6 IO.B I [ I

I f I I I I I I

13 58 40 19 27 14 9 17 21 14 14 AIt,c I 'Ho~-se [ Ret. Hd. Burner Cony.Burner Insul. Allic Docting,MRE Only & Wall " MSl01 HeatingSybtetflRetrofits Insul. Retr0

Fig. 6. Range in annual fuel savings among households installing similar measures. In most cases, the savings apply to space heat only, except for the heating system retrofits and the 'house-doctor' experiments where consumption includes all end-uses of the space heating fuel.

The prospects for significant retrofit investment in existing residential buildings hinge ultimately on the economic attractiveness of these investments to those responsible for building improvements. Homes in the nineteen conservation programs sponsored by utilities had a median simple payback time (SPT) of 5.7 years with a mean of 10.3 years (Fig. 7)*. The average payback period is greater than 15 years in four programs. Electricity prices at these utilities were extremely low ($0.01 0.02/kWh) at the time of retrofit. Price increases have far exceeded the general

MEDIAN ARCH + MECH - S 4 YEARS f

j/

MEDIAN ARCH ONLY - 130 YEARS

v

that received the energy-efficient burners with optimized installation techniques (Group 2) and 0.7 in homes where typical installation procedures were used (Group 1) [16]. Energy savings for an identical measure also appear to be more variable in mild than in harsh climates. For example, two utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Consolidated Gas of Michigan, evaluated conservation programs in which RSI 3.3 (R-19) attic insulation was installed in previously uninsulated homes [ 1 7 , 1 8 ] . The PG&E single-family residences were located in the San Joaquin valley in California, a region with a relatively mild winter climate compared to that in Detroit, Michigan (1215 vs. 3477 annual heating degree-days, base 18.3 °C). At one PG&E site (G12.1), median savings were 10.8 GJ, though 50% of the homes saved less than 4.2 GJ or more than 18.8 GJ. In addition, space heating usage increased in four households during the heating season following the retrofit. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 1.07 in this group of homes. In contrast, the CV is 0.64 in the Michigan buildings, suggesting less variability in energy savings, even

6 1 [] 5 i~

o = o

1

°

L o w - i n c o m e projects (N=27) i Utility-sponsored programs 1N=19) I

/ ~ / ~ z~

i I

(1)

1

0

0

i 1

2

3

4

5

S

r

r

r

7

8

9

10

15

20

50

Simple payback period (years)

Fig. 7. Histogram of the simple payback period of 27 low-income weatherization projects (represents approximately 850 h o m e s ) a n d 19 utility-sponsored conservation programs (data from 43 730 homes). *Every project is weighted equally in the calculation of mean and median values. Note that sample size varies within each project.

144

inflation rate in recent years, thus the payback period would be somewhat shorter at t o d ay ' s electricity prices. The mean and median payback periods are 9.2 and 11.4 years, respectively, for 27 low-income weatherization projects. The combination of heating system and shell retrofits was roughly two times more cost-effective than shell measures alone (6.4- versus 13-year payback period) for homes in th e CSA/NBS Demonstration Project. The cost o f conserved energy (CCE) is defined as the ratio of annualized investment divided by annual energy savings, where annualized investment equals total investm e nt multiplied by a capital recovery factor. The median and mean costs of conserved energy (CCE) in the 19 utility-sponsored programs ($2.71, 2.56/GJ) are significantly lower than those obtained in the 27 lowincome weatherization projects ($4.33, 6.33/ GJ). Key differences that may account for the varying levels of cost-effectiveness between these two groups include: • p o o r workmanship and lack of quality control in homes that were r e t r of i t t e d during the initial phases of the DOE Weatherization Program [19]. • systematic variations in the choice of retrofit options -- for example, caulking and weatherstripping were installed in almost all low-income homes; energy savings from these measures are likely to be small and are directly related to the quality of workmanship. • a fraction of the total investment in lowincome homes, ranging from 0 to 25%, was o ft en spent for energy-related structural repairs {e.g., broken window glass). These expenses raise the cost of conserved energy for these low-income homes relative to middleincome homes. • possible overestimation of equivalent contractor cost for homes that used 'free' CETA labor in the DOE Low-Income Weatherization Program. In most cases, retrofit measures t ha t were installed in homes that participated in research studies also turned o u t to be attractive investments. The median cost of conserved energy for 38 research studies is $3.62/GJ (Fig. 8). Nineteen of 25 gas-heat data points have a CCE lower than $5.69/GJ, the national average price for gas, while all eight o f the oil-heat data points have a CCE below the average

RETROFIT RESEARCH STUDIES I, 2510 $1e 400•

12

N = 38 ~-

10

69

9 .

o~

_~

e9 CO O0 (33

Oi~ @ $818/GJ = $120/Gal

8 8

~

7

Gas @ $5 69/GJ = $0 6 0 / T h e r m j~ . . . . . . 0 m

Avg 5

CCE

4

g 3

E8~ •

•

•

• 4

OO

A

•

Gas

> ©

g

Heated b y

•

"5 2 o ('9

~

g

s~o96~a 0G27

~

6

Electricity @ $0 0675/kWh

o 2

A Oil 1

Electrlcit y

MRE

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Contractor cost (1983 $)

Fig. 8. T h e cost of c o n s e r v e d e n e r g y as a f u n c t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t o r cost o f t h e r e t r o f i t is s h o w n for 38 research studies. T h e h o r i z o n t a l lines r e p r e s e n t n a t i o n a l average prices of p u r c h a s e d energy against w h i c h c o n s e r v a t i o n r e t r o f i t s can be c o m p a r e d . E l e c t r i c i t y use is e x p r e s s e d in r e s o u r c e t e r m s (12.1 M J per kWh).

price for oil. The cluster of gas-heat data points with a cost of conserved energy of only $2/GJ at a first-cost of $400 represent 'housed o c t o r ' t r e a t m e n t results from six groups of New Jersey homes t hat participated in Princet on University's Modular Ret rofi t E xperi m ent (MRE). This ret rofi t strategy was also evaluated in research projects c o n d u c t e d by the Bonneville Power Administration and Lawrence Berkeley L a b o r a t o r y (E8.1 and G27.1). In these studies, the costs of conserved energy were $4 - 5/GJ. Researchers concluded t hat cost-effectiveness could be improved at these mild climate sites by focusing 'house-doctoring' efforts on homes with either high infiltration rates or those that could be r e t r o f i t t e d with low-cost noninfiltration measures such as i n t e r m i t t e n t ignition devices and hot water wraps.

CONCLUSIONS

Key findings from this compilation of current retrofit experience in existing residential buildings are shown in Table 1. Energy

145 TABLE 1 Summary of key findings

1 Sample size

Utility programs

Low-income programs

Research Studies

Multi-family buildings

N = 19, comprising 43 730 homes

N = 30, comprising 938 homes

N = 38, comprising 352 homes

N = 28 bldgs.

2 Cost of retrofit (19835)

Median Average*

705 1044 + 702

1370 15'78 + 863

824 1685 + 2747

533 695 -+ 551

3 Space heat savings (GJ/yr)**

Median Average

38.4 40.3 + 21.0

30.5 37.8 + 26.2

27.8 34.3 -+ 24.4

15.1 27.0 + 27.4

4 Space heat savings (%)

Median Average

24% 26 + 11%

22% 24 + 12%

22% 25 + 14%

22% 26 + 14%

5 Simple payback time (yrs)

Median Average

5.7 10.3

9.2 11.4

6.4 9.5

4.7 7.9

6 Cost of cons. energy ($/GJ) D = 7% real

Median Average

2.71 2.56 -+ 1.29

4.33 6.33 + 4.63

3.62 4.34 + 4.05

5.03 5.26 + 3.31

7 Real rate of return (%)

Median Average

25% 23 + 15%

6% 13 -+ 14%

17% 31 +- 35%

11% 27 -+ 31%

*Mean + standard deviation. **Electric space heat savings are measured in resource energy units, 12.1 MJ/kWh. savings o c c u r r e d after r e t r o f i t in a l m o s t all r e t r o f i t projects, with average a n n u a l savings ranging f r o m 27 t o 40 GJ in the f o u r categories. Savings actually achieved were t y p i c a l l y 20 - 30% o f p r e - r e t r o f i t space heating e n e r g y use. These results suggest t h a t m o s t efforts to date have fallen far s h o r t o f estimates o f t h e identified technical p o t e n t i a l [ 2 0 ] . There seem t o be few successful, cost-effective retrofits involving e x p e n d i t u r e s o f m o r e t h a n $ 2 5 0 0 per h o u s e . The average i n v e s t m e n t in m u l t i f a m i l y buildings is a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 9 5 / u n i t with a m a x i m u m o f $ 1 6 5 0 / u n i t , far lower t h a n the average o f $ 1 3 5 0 spent in single-family residences. There is substantial variation in e n e r g y savings for investments o f the same m a g n i t u d e , even after c o n t r o l l i n g f o r pre-retrofit energy intensity, building t y p e (e.g., single- vs. multifamily), and climate. We suspect t h a t the variance in savings is due m a i n l y t o differences in o c c u p a n t behavior, physical differences a m o n g houses p r i o r t o retrofit, variations in p r o d u c t and installation quality, and to meas u r e m e n t error. It is difficult t o a c c u r a t e l y estimate space heat savings w h e n given o n l y t o t a l billed e n e r g y use b e f o r e and a f t e r a retrofit. P r o g r a m evaluations rarely relied o n s u b - m e t e r e d heating e n e r g y use or m o n i t o r ing o f inside t e m p e r a t u r e s . The absence o f such monitoring techniques means that

changes in the h o u s e h o l d appliance stock, use o f s e c o n d a r y h e a t i n g e q u i p m e n t , or a d j u s t m e n t s in o c c u p a n t b e h a v i o r m i g h t have gone u n d e t e c t e d , masking t h e actual e f f e c t o f t h e retrofit. A t a m i n i m u m , p r o g r a m evaluations s h o u l d include a t e l e p h o n e or on-site survey o f o c c u p a n t s in o r d e r to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on these issues, a t e c h n i q u e used in o n l y a f r a c t i o n o f the studies. Particularly cost-effective r e t r o f i t strategies can n o w be verified based on actual m e t e r e d c o n s u m p t i o n data*. The installation o f attic insulation, particularly in h o m e s with little or n o insulation, resulted in cost-effective energy savings, irrespective o f structural and demographic characteristics or climatic region. C o n s e r v a t i o n strategies designed t o r e d u c e d o m e s t i c h o t w a t e r usage, t y p i c a l l y t a n k and pipe insulation a n d / o r r e d u c e d - f l o w fittings, were also s o u n d e n e r g y - e f f i c i e n c y investments. Varying packages o f shell r e t r o f i t measures, t y p i c a l l y including attic insulation, s t o r m w i n d o w s and, o f t e n , wall or f l o o r insulation, were successful in m o s t singlefamily electric-space h e a t e d h o m e s . In lowi n c o m e , single-family h o m e s , r e t r o f i t t i n g *These conclusions are drawn primarily from projects where individual measures or sets of measures were installed in groups of homes with similar structural characteristics in the same geographic location.

146 existing gas or oil-fired heating equipment appeared to be a very cost-effective complem e nt to shell weatherization measures. Results from several pilot programs (e.g., Philadelphia Oil Furnace Retrofit Project) indicate that the cost-effectiveness of lowincome weatherization can be enhanced through the development of administratively simple programs t hat em pl oy well-trained private contractors to install various heating system retrofits. The conservation potential in multifamily buildings is large and barely tapped. Improvements in existing heating system performance using such techniques as improved controls, burner de-rating, duct insulation, and balancing distribution systems are attractive energysaving strategies in multi-unit buildings. However, additional r et r of i t data are needed from multifamily buildings located in different climatic regions, and with varying physical characteristics and ownership patterns, to determine whether these preliminary results can be widely duplicated. Many conservation measures are attractive economic investments from a h o m e o w n e r ' s perspective, compared to either ot her investm e nt possibilities or to maintaining present consumption levels at current residential fuel or electricity prices. The median real rate of return ranged from 6% in the 30 low-income weatherization projects to 25% in 19 utilitysponsored programs. These rates compare favorably with real rates of return from taxfree bonds (3 - 5%). A ppr oxi m at el y 75 - 80% of the retrofit projects have costs of conserved energy below their respective space heating fuel or electricity prices. Finally, this compilation highlights gaps or limitations in the data currently available on the measured p e r f or m a nc e of retrofits in existing residential buildings [ 21] : • Measured data on r et r of i t per f or m ance in existing multifamily buildings, though increasing in number, are still inadequate. Successful retrofit strategies n o t e d in this study must be tested in o th er climatic regions and in varying building types. • Insufficient data are available on energy savings trends over multi-year periods. This information is needed to validate engineering estimates of r etrof i t lifetime, a factor that can be as crucial to cost-effectiveness as firstyear savings. Long-term tracking of occupied

buildings, however, magnifies the problem of accounting for changes in operating conditions, occupancy, or the effect of additional retrofits. Successful projects will need stable research funding and will almost surely require direct monitoring of major household enduses and inside temperatures. • Few data are available on the effect of retrofits on peak power and cooling energy requirements. We have had limited success obtaining data from regions of the c o u n t r y (i.e., Southeastern and Southwestern U.S.) where cooling accounts for a substantial portion of total residential energy use. There are also less data on retrofits directed at enduses o t h e r than space heating. Studies of active and passive solar retrofits are not properly represented in the data base, often because of insufficient cost data. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The aut hor gratefully acknowledges assistance and advice from Jeff Harris, Arthur Rosenfeld, Leonard Wall, Barbara Wagner, T o n y Usibelli, and Alan Meier of the Buildings Energy Data Group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Nan Wishner helped edit the paper and Jeana T r a y n o r cont ri but ed her word processing skills. The work described in this report was funded by the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Energy Research and Development, Buildings Systems Division of the U.S. Departm e n t of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC0376SF00098.

REFERENCES

A complete listing of all sources in the BECA-B data base may be found in the following reference: C. A. Goldman, Technical Performance and CostEffectiveness of Conservation Retrofits in Existing U.S. Residential Buildings: Analysis of the BECA-B data base, LBL-17088, Lawrence Berkeley Labora-

tory, October 1983. 1 Office of Technology Assessment, Energy Efficiency

of

Buildings

in

Cities,

OTA-E-168,

Washington, DC, March 1982. 2 L. W. Wall, C. A. Goldman, A. H. Rosenfeid and G. S. Dutt, Building energy use compilation and analysis (BECA). Part B: Retrofit of existing North American residential buildings, Energy Build., 5 (1983) 151 - 170.

147 3 M. Cooper, A Comprehensive Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Low-income Weatherization and its Potential Relationship to Low-income Energy Assistance, Consumer Energy Council of America Research Foundation, Washington, DC, June 1981. 4 Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. (USRE), Analysis of Preliminary State Energy Savings Data, Final Report, Prepared for U.S. DOE, Office of State and Local Programs, April 1981. 5 R. Crenshaw and R. E. Clark, Optimal Weatherization of Low-Income Housing in the U.S.: A Research Demonstration Project, Building Science Series 144, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, September 1982. 6 D. E. Claridge, H. S. Jeon, M. Bida and W. Zwack, Performance Analysis of the Colorado 50/50 Retrofit Program: Volume I, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, April 1984. 7 J. Martin, Scallop Thermal Management, Inc., private communication, June 1980. 8 M. F. Fels, The Princeton Scoreheeping Method: An Introduction, PU/CEES #163, Princeton Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton, NJ, March 1984. 9 B. C. O'Regan, B. S. Wagner and J. B. Dickinson, Results of the Walnut Creek house doctor project, Energy, 9 (1) (Jan. 1984) 75 - 86. 10 R. Crenshaw, R. Clark, R. Chapman, R. Grot and M. Godette, CSA Weatherization Project Plan, NBSIR 79-1706, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, September 1982. 11 R. T. Ruegg, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program, NBS Handbook 135, Washington, DC, January 1980. 12 A. K. Meier, The Cost of Conserved Energy as an Investment Statistic, Heating~Piping~Air Conditioning, 55 (9) (Sept.) (1983) 75 - 85. 13 1982 Annual Energy Outlook: with Projections to 1990, DOE/EIA-0383(82), Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, April 1983. 14 Regression Analysis of Energy Consumption by End Use, DOE/EIA-0431, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, October 1983. 15 J. T. Katrakis, Documented energy savings in multi-unit housing with emphasis on efficiency improving measures for existent space heating systems, in J. Harris (ed.), What Works: Documenting Energy Conservation in Buildings, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1984. 16 R. J. Hoppe and W. L. Graves, Field Test of Refit Equipment for Residential Oil-fired Heating Equipment, BNL-51555, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, April 1982. 17 J. M. Williams, An analysis of heating savings for homes retrofitted with ceiling insulation in San Joaquin Division, Pacific Gas & Electric Internal Report, July 1980. 18 P. Proudfoot, Testimony before the Michigan Public Service Commission, on the application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., Case No. U-5451, 1979. 19 Uncertain Quality, Energy Savings, and Future

Production Hamper the Weatherization Program, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, October 1981. 20 Solar Energy Research Institute, A New Prosperity: Building a Sustainable Energy Future, Brick House Publishing, Andover, MA, 1981. 21 J. P. Harris and A. K. Meier, Measured Results of Energy Conservation in Buildings: Data Gaps and Recommendations, LBL-18347, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, December 1983.

APPENDIX A S u m m a r y Data Table E x p l a n a t o r y n o t e s o n Table headings: ( A ) L a b e l is a p r o j e c t ' s identification n u m b e r . An asterisk (*) indicates a n e w e n t r y t o t h e d a t a base and a plus (+) d e n o t e s substantial revision t o a previously e n t e r e d project. The first letter indicates t h e principal fuel used for space heating ( " G " = natural gas, " O " = fuel oil, " E " = electricity, " M " = m i x e d fuel -- heating fuel differed f r o m h o u s e to h o u s e within a s t u d y sample). The n u m b e r after t h e initial letter is a c o u n t i n g index t h a t identifies each r e t r o f i t project. The n u m b e r after t h e decimal p o i n t indicates t h a t g r o u p s o f h o m e s received d i f f e r e n t r e t r o f i t treatm e n t s at a particular site. The letter " A " or " B " at the end o f the label signifies an " a c t i v e " or a " b l i n d " c o n t r o l group. E x a m p l e : " G 7 . 3 A " signifies gas-heated h o m e s w h i c h are p a r t o f an active c o n t r o l g r o u p at the 7th site. (B) N u m b e r o f h o m e s in a r e t r o f i t p r o j e c t included in t h e database. The n u m b e r o f a p a r t m e n t units is indicated for each multifamily building. (E) R e t r o f i t measures -- a t w o - c h a r a c t e r c o d e used to i d e n t i f y measures installed. The measure m u s t have been i m p l e m e n t e d in at least 20% o f the h o m e s in a p r o j e c t to be listed. The r e t r o f i t measure c o d e k e y is: o p e r a t i o n s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e (OM), heating s y s t e m retrofits (HS), HVAC c o n t r o l s (HC), c l o c k t h e r m o s t a t s (T), heating s y s t e m replacem e n t (HR), insulation o f walls (IW), attic (IA), or f l o o r (IF), caulking and w e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g (CW), i n f i l t r a t i o n - r e d u c t i o n using diagnostic e q u i p m e n t (PI), w i n d o w m a n a g e m e n t (WM), w a t e r heating (WH), s t o r m d o o r s (DR), and lighting s y s t e m (LS).

148 (F) Heating degree-days -- the 30-year average of heating degree-days for the retrofit site(s). (G) Year o f retrofit -- the actual year of retrofit or the median year in cases where a large sample of homes was retrofitted over several years. (H) F l o o r area -- average floor area for homes in the sample. In multifamily buildings, floor area per apartment unit is indicated. A missing value indicates that floor area was not available. (I) Energy use code (EUC) indicates the end-uses included in adjusted total energy use (Col. J). The letter code is: "W ' ' = space heating and domestic hot water heating; " F " = all end-uses of the space heating fuel (generally includes water heating, cooking, clothes drying, etc.); "B ' ' = non-space heating consumption (baseload); " L " = lighting. The EUC also indicates the energy savings (Col. J2 or K2) used in the economic calculations; space heating ( " H " ) or total usage (either " F " or "W"). (J1, J2, J3) A d j u s t e d total energy use -- the weather-adjusted annual consumption of the heating fuel. Yearly savings in absolute terms and as a percentage of pre-retrofit consumption are shown. Generally, the heating energy data are combined with other (baseline) uses of the same fuel. Missing values usually indicate that only space heating consumption was available (e.g. EUC = " H " ) . The space heat portion of consumption is normalized to the long-term average weather at that site. Units are gigajoules (GJ) for fuel-heat homes and kilowatt-hours (kWh) for electric-heat homes (1 GJ = 0.948 MBtu). Percent savings are calculated by taking the mean consumption before and after retrofit for homes in a retrofit project and calculating percent savings for the group as a whole. (K1, K 2 and K 3 ) A d j u s t e d space heat use -the weather-adjusted space heating usage. Yearly savings in absolute terms and as a percentage of pre-retrofit space heating consumption are shown. Percent savings are calculated using the m e t h o d described in total energy use.

(L1 and L 2 ) Heating factor is derived by dividing average space heat usage by the mean floor area and number of normal year heating degree-days (base 18.3 °C) at that site. Electricity used for space heating is converted into site energy and that value is divided by 0.67, the average assumed efficiency of existing gas or oil systems (i.e., 3.6 MJ/0.67 or 5.4 MJ per kWh). This adjustment is made to account for the higher site efficiency of electric heating systems, thus allowing rough comparisons of building shell performance between homes heated with gas and electricity. [kJ/m 2 DDc X 0.049 = Btu/ft 2 DDF] (M) R e t r o f i t cost -- the average first cost of retrofit (19835). (N) S i m p l e p a y b a c k time (SPT) in years. ( 0 ) Cost o f conserved energy (CCE) -- in calculating the capital recovery rate, a real discount rate of 7% is used. Retrofit lifetime estimates (in parentheses) for various measures and programs are: attic insulation only (20), storm windows (15), caulking and weatherstripping (5), measures associated with 'housedoctor' treatment (10), storm doors (10), insulating blanket on hot water heater {10), thermostatic radiator valve (10), heating system improvements (15 20), energy management control system (10), lighting system changes (10), DOE and CSA/NBS lowincome weatherization programs (15), utilitysponsored conservation programs (20). Units for CCE are $/GJ for fuel-heated homes and cents/kWh for electric-heat homes. (Q) N e t present value (NPV) of energy savings. Assumptions used in the NPV calculation include: 7% real discount rate; 4% real energy price escalation rate; 15% federal tax credit; expected retrofit lifetime (see Column 0); salvage value and maintenance costs for single-family retrofit projects are assumed to be zero; estimated annual maintenance cost depends on measure in multi-unit buildings. (R ) Internal rate o f return (IRR) -- assumptions are the same as for NPV (except that the discount rate is not specified). (S) C o n f i d e n c e level -- assessment of overall reliability of results from a particular retrofit

149 project. Criteria used in ranking are explained below: "A" = high confidence in the data. Consumption data for each house analyzed using linear regression model with variable reference t e m p e r a t u r e or sub-metered data was collected. Retrofit costs are also well d o c u m e n t e d Often, total costs are itemized by measure or divided into material and labor costs. The experimental design includes a control group. " B " = medium high confidence. Consumption data analyzed using a regression model with reference te m pe r at ur e fixed at 65 °F. Baseload usage is determined from the fuel bills of the summer months. Space heating usage is scaled by the ratio o f normal-toactual heating degree-days (base 18.3 °C) at that site. Retrofit costs are fairly well documented. In some cases, a control group is employed. " C " = average confidence. Often, only

annual c o n s u m p t i o n data are available for each house and no weather or baseload corrections have been made by the original authors. A simplified baseload subtraction is made using either summer m o n t h s ' fuel bills or regional estimates. Ret rofi t cost data are barely adequate, in some cases consisting of only materials cost and labor hours. " D " = l o w confidence. Energy consumption data used in the project evaluation are of poor quality. Retrofit measures and costs are oft en n o t indicated. Evaluation methodology is not explained. " F " = no confidence. Very crude data with much missing information. Major flaws exist in the data, e.g., m et ered consum pt i on data were n o t collected. " I " = data are incomplete. (No " F " l e v e l data are included in this study. " D " l e v e l data are shown in the Summary Data Table but are n o t included in the Figures.)

(Appendix A, Summary Data Table, overleaf.)

150

APPENDIX A Summary Data Table (A)

(B)

(C)

LABEL

NUMBER OF HOMES

LOCATION

(D)

(E)

RETROFIT MEASURES

SPONSOR

(F)

HDD (°C)

(G)

(H)

(1)

YR

FLOOR AREA (M 2)

E U C

H W W W W W W W W W

156.5 161.1 175.1 168.4 184.9 179.6 177.0 179.6 185.6

18.5 22.7 34.0 38.3 46.0 29.0 25.0 16.1 40.9

12 14 19 23 25 16 14 9 22

150.3 166.4 159.4 173.9 163.6 149.9 182.8 68.1 83.0 80.9

19.5 17.1 18.1 25.5 12.1 14.9 22.3 9.5 7.0 6.2

13 10 I1 15 7 10 12 14 8 8

188.8 181.5 195.2

46.4 30.6 I 1.6

91.8 104.4 103.4

17.9 7.4 0.0

25 17 6 3 20 7 0

122.4 127.7 135.0

28.5 28.5 13.7

155.1 142.4 141.4

36.9 27.4 23.2

221.4

56.2

4 23 22 10 11 24 19 16 12 25

209.6 159.1

15.4 16.7

7 10

172.0 173.0 175.1

40.1 25.3 11.6

186.7 167.7 156.1

27.4 22.2 17.9

23 15 7 10 15 13 11

163.5 168.8 167.7 135.3 142.0 92.6 184.7 162.0 143.0

32.7 25.3 20.0 17.3 15.0 6.5 43.9 31.0 20.9

11 20 15 12 13 11 7 24 19 15

(Jl)

(J2)

03)

ADJ. TOTAL ENERGY USE PRERETR. SAVINGS (GJ/YR) (GJ/YR) (%)

RESEARCH STUDIES NEW JERSEY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY LONG ISLAND,NY

PU/CEES BNL BNL BNL BNL BNL BNL BNL BNL BNL

SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN

ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL ROYAL

1 1 1 6 12 6 140000 6 12 6

TWIN RIVERS,NJ NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY MRE/FREEHOLD,NJ MRE/FREEHOLD,NJ MRE/FREEHOLD,NJ MRE/NJNG M R E f r O M S RIVER,NJ MRE/TOMS RIVER, NJ MRE/TOMS RIVER,NJ

PU/CEES PU/CEES PU/CEES PU/NJNG PU/NJNG PU/NJNG PU/NJNG PU/NJNG PU/NJNG PU/NJNG

6.4B 7.1 7.2 7.3A 7.4B 8.1 8.2 8.3A 8.4B 9.1

140000 6 9 6 75000 5 9 4 75000 5

MRE/NJNG MRE/OAK VALLEY,NJ MRE/OAK VALLEY,NJ MRE/OAK VALLEY,NJ MRE/SJG MRE/WHITMAN SQ,NJ MRE/WHITMAN SQ,NJ MRE/WHITMAN SQ,NJ MRE/SJG SASKATCHEWAN,CAN.

PU/NJNG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG PU/SJG ECIC/NRC

G G G G G G G G G G

9.2 9.3 10 24.1 24.2 24.3A 24.4B 25.1 25.2 25.3A

5 10 I 6 5 6 75000 6 6 6

SASKATCHEWAN,CAN. SASKATCHEWAN,CAN. BU'I-rE,MT MRE/EDISON,NJ MRE/EDISON,NJ MRE/EDISON,NJ MRE/ELIZ. GAS MRE/WOOD RIDGE,NJ MRE/WOOD RIDGE,NJ MRE/WOOD RIDGE,NJ

ECIC/NRC ECIC/NRC NCAT PU/E.G. PU/E.G. PU/E.G. PU/E.G. PU/PSEG PU/PSEG PU/PSEG

G G G G G O G G G G

25.4B 26.1 26.2 26.3A 27.1 27.2A 27.3B 28 29.1 29.2A

550000 5 5 6 13 6 1800 12 25 25

MRE/PSEG,NJ MRE/NEW ROCH.,NY MRE/NEW ROCH.,NY MRE/NEW ROCH.,NY WALNUT CREEK,CA WALNUT CREEK, CA WALNUT CREEK, CA CHAMPAIGN, ILL. DENVER,COL. DENVER,COL

PU/PSEG PU/CONED PU/CONED PU/CONED PG&E/LBL PG&E/LBL PG&E/LBL U. OF ILL. SERI/DOE SERI/DOE

* * * * * * * * *

O O O O O O O O O O

1 10 B 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8

l 30 19 27 14 9 17 21 14 14

* * * * * * * * * *

M M M M M M M M M M

13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 14.1 14.2 14.7

130 106 105 140 I11 17 32 30 25 63

G G G G G G G G G G

2 3 4 5.1 5.2 5.3B 5.4B 6.1 6.2 6.3B

G G G G G G G G G G

* * * * * *

INST INST INST INST INST INST INST INST INST INST

IA,WM,OM,PI HS HS.OM HS,OM,T HS,OM HS HS HS,T HS,T

2728 3056 3056 3056 3056 3056 3056 3056 3056 3056

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

185 145 160 170 176 186 175 169 178 173

IW IA IW,IA IA,HS WM WM,IA HS IW IA I-IS

4011 4011 4011 4011 4011 4011 4011 4011 4011 4011

77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77

138 168 142 152 170 144 180 64 71 75

W W W W W W W W W W

IX,WM,CW,PI IA,WM,OM,PI IA,DR,OM,PI IX,IA, PI,WH,T PI,WH,T

2728 2728 2728 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707

77 79 79 80 80

139 112 145 232 232 232

80 80

81 80 84

H H H F F F F F F P

80 80

130 130 130

80 80

197 175 186

80

200

80 80 80 80 80

163

IX,IA,PI,WH,T PI,WH,T

IX,T,PI,WM PI,WH,T

IX,IA,PI,WH,T PI,WH,T

IA, IF,CW,FI CW,PI IA,IW,WM,DR IA,IW,CW,SH IX,T,FI PI,T

IX,PI FI,WH

IX,T,PI,OM PI.WH,OM,T PI,HS,WH.OM

IA, IW CW,OM,WH,IA,IX,ID,T

2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 6077 6077 6077 5372 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 2707 1611 1611 1611 3207 3342 3342

79

214 165 168 167

80 80

125 127 130

80 80

121 136 130 208 232

80

78 81

148

F E F F F F F F F H H H H F F F F F F F F F F F FF F F F F

151

(A)

(KI)

(K2)

(K3)

ADJ. SPACE HEAT USE PRELABEL

RETR. (GJ/YR)

SAVINGS (GJ/YR) (%)

(LI)

(L2)

(M)

HEATING FACTOR BEFORE AFTER

RETROFIT

M(IO/Dz'D )

COST (835)

(N)

(O)

SPT (YR)

d-7% (S/G J)

(Q)

(R)

NPV ($)

IRR (%)

CCE

(S)

CONFIDENCE LEVEL

COMMENTS

RESEARCH STUDIES (mat.) O O O O O O O O O O

1 10 B 10.1 10.2 10.3 10,4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8

M M M M M M M M M M

13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 14.1 14.2 14.7

G G G G G G G G G G

2 3 4 5.1 5.2 5.3B 5.4B 6.1 6.2 6.3B

G G G G G G G G G G

6.4B 7.1 7.2 7.3A 7.4B 8.1 8.2 8.3A 8.4B 9.1

G G G G G G G G G G

9.2 9.3 10 24.1 24.2 24.3A 24.4B 25.1 25.2 25.3A

G G G G G G G G G G

25.4B 26.1 26.2 26.3A 27.1 27.2A 27.3B 28 29.1 29.2A

139.3 129.9 133.7 145.4 139.8 153.5 149.0 146.9 149.0 154.0

73.3 15.3 18.8 28.2 31.8 38.2 24.1 20.8 13.4 34.0

53 12 14 19 23 25 16 14 9 22

276 293 274 281 260 270 278 285 275 292

131 259 235 226 201 203 233 245 250 228

1610

3.1

2.41

3432

38.2

383 483 799 828 348 613 94 465

1.9 1.6 2.4 2.0 1.4 2.8 0.7 1.3

1.85 1.56 2.29 1.98 1.32 2.69 0.64 1.25

1499 2322 2401 2996 2038 1490 1218 2897

61.5 73.1 49.7 57.6 86.7 42.2 178.0 91.4

85.5 62.9 120.7 118.2 119.5 140.1

65.2 25.2 32.0 37.2 15.4 1.3

76 40 26 32 13 1

225 207 305 188 190 223

53 124 224 129 166 221

4667 939 1342 3164 401

16.2 7.9 8.9 12.9 2.5

7.86 4.09 4.61 6.44 1.87

-1340 282 230 - 099 791

1.1 12.2 10.1 6.5 46.2

63.4 69.4 73.1

15.3 4.2 0.0

24 6 0

290 321 323

220 301 323

1571 401

16.6 10.3

8.27 7.74

- 334 - 068

3.6 2.5

72.0 69.8 76.3

22.3 17.3 13.7

31 25 18

204 198 217

141 149 178

1125 401

6.2 2.2

3.73 2.01

951 924

18.2 52.0

131.6 106.9 109.0

34.9 21.5 24.7

27 20 23

247 226 217

181 180 168

820 401

3.5 2.3

2.10 2.08

1776 877

33.4 49.9

186.8

56.2

30

153

107

2329

14.2

4.55

- 217

5.2

172.5 134.2 277.4 114.6 111.0 121.2

15.7 16.8 61.7 36.9 23.1 25.0

9 12 22 32 21 21

174

158

242 256 244 268

188 174 193 213

606 1699 16398 1692 401

13.2 34.7 70. I 7.2 2.7

5.49 9.56 25.08 3.98 2.26

- 135 - 833 -9998 1048 700

.0 .0 .0 15.4 42.2

136.0 120.9 115.8

37.5 27.3 24.5

28 23 21

402 351 329

291 272 259

1187 401

7.4 3.1

4.08 2.58

692 570

14.9 36.3

105.1 92.8 118.0

23.0 13.7 17.3

22 15 15

321 253 335

251 215 286

1245 401

6.5 2.7

3.59 2.26

970 700

17.4 42.2

525

6.3

4.32

136

13.2

1285 792

8.2 5.3

2.76 3.64

1282 373

20.0 17.9

141.1

42.4

30

297

207

A B B B B B B B B B

ELIM. BYPASS LOSSES CONTROL GROUP RET. HEAD BURNER (RHB) RHB W/OPT INSTALLATION RHB W/TEMP. PROGRAMMER RHB W/VENT DAMPER DAMPER WITH CONV. BURNER FLUE HT. EXCH, W/BURNER SETBACK W/CONV. BURNER SETBACK+TEMP. PROG.

C C C C C C C C C C

WALL INSUL.--SF AGG. RESULTS ATTIC INSUL- SF AGG. RESULTS WALL+ATrlC INS.-SF RESULTS WALL-,-ATTIC INS.+TRV- AGG. TRIPLE GLAZING--AGG. RESULTS TRIPLE GLAZING+WALL INS.- AGG. TRV VALVE WALL INSUL.- MF AGG. RESULTS ATTIC INSUL-MF AGO. R E S U L T S TRV VALVE + VARIATOR EQUIP.

A A A A A A A A A A

EXTENSIVE RETR. AT TWIN RIVERS RES. STUDY ON BYPASS LOSSES RES. STUDY ON BYPASS LOSSES HOUSE D O C T O R + C O N T R A C T O R RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR, ONLY BLIND CONTROL GROUP UTILITY AGGREGATE HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY BLIND CONTROL GROUP

A A A A A A A A A B

UTILITY AGGREGATE HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP UTILITY AGGREGATE HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP UTILITY AGGREGATE GROUP ~ I--INSUL.÷ INFIL REDN

B C B A A A A A A A

GROUP t2--1NF1L. REDN. ONLY GROUP ~3--INSUL. MAINLY PASSIVE SOLAR WALL IN 2ND YR HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP UTILITY AGGREGATE HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP

A A A A A A A B B B

UTILITY AGGREGATE HOUSE DOCTOR + CONTRACTOR RETR HOUSE DOCTOR RETR. ONLY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP HOUSE DOCTOR ONLY AUDIT ONLY-ACTIVE CONTROL BLIND CONTROL-UTIL. AGGREGATE INSUI. INSTALLED BY PRIV. FIRM 50/50 PROGRAM NON-PART. CONTROL GROUP

(con tinued overleaf)

152 S u m m a r y Data Table (A)

LABEL

+

E E E E E E E

3.1 3.2A 3.3B 8.1 8.2 8.3 10

(continued)

(B)

(C)

NUMBER OF HOMES

29 30 30 5 5 4 1

LOCATION

DENVER,COL DENVER,COL DENVER,COL MIDWAY,WA MIDWAY,WA MIDWAY,WA BOWMAN HOUSE,MD

(D)

(E)

RETROFIT MEASURES

SPONSOR

J-M CO. J-M CO. J-M CO. BPA/LBL BPA/LBL BPA/LBL NBS

PI

PI IA,IX,CW IA,IX,WM,DR,CW IA,IF, IW,WM,CW

(F)

HDD (°C)

3342 3342 3342 2644 2644 2644 2561

(G)

(H)

(I)

YR

FLOOR AREA (M 2)

E U C

78

149

80 79 79 75

117 116 115 191

H H H H H H H

76 76 78 79

94

(Ji)

(J2)

03)

ADJ. TOTAL ENERGY USE PRERETR. SAVINGS (GJ/YR) (GJ/YR) (%) (KWH)

(KWH)

H H H F F H H F F F

25421,0 24386,0 30110,0 29843.0 32800.0 23638,0 20177.0

4461.0 869.0 4180.0

18 4 14

8575.0 3937.0 8.0

26 17 0

H F F F F F F F F F B B F F F F F

30137,0 24794.0 27200,0 22500.0 23000.0 26320.0 25320.0 25690,0 21055.0 21840.0 11249.0 11894.0 24491.0 23464.0 21045.0 23080.0 20880.0

4349.0 1248.0 4400.0 2200.0 II00.0 2880.0 -80.0 -490.0 3039.0 -299.0 465.0 -83,0 4243.0 2899.0 1763.0 2180.0 550,0

14 5 16 I0 5 11 0 - 2 14 - I 4 - I 17 12 8 9 3

H H H H H

(GJ/YR) 206.6 123.0 100.4 165.8 269.1

(GJ/YR) 12.4 15.7 20.6 20.8 35,0

6 13 21 13 13

154.6

28.9

19

UTILITY SPONSORED PROGRAMS

+ + +

E E E E E E E E E E

1.1 1.2 2 4.1 4.4B 5.1 5.2B 6.1 7.1 7.2B

* * • * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

9.2 9.3B 11.1 11.2A I1.3B 13.1 13.2A 13.3B 14.1 14.2B 15.1 15.2A 16.1 16.2A 16.3B 17.1 17.2B

*

G G G G G

11 12.1 12.2 13 30

+ +

69 105 546 973 69337 133 551 6289 300 200 810 251 195 54 200 183 270 112 293 208 321 124 208 105 91 101 48

84 33 16 33000 71

TENNESSEE TENNESSEE TENNESSEE OREGON SIX N.W. STATES SEATTLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. WASHINGTON PORTLAND,ORE PORTLAND,ORE

TVA TVA TVA PP&L PP&L SCL SCL PUGET PWR. POE PGE

E. WASH./IDAHO E. WASH./IDAHO ORE,WASH,MONTANA ORE,WASH,MONTANA ORE,WASH,MONTANA SEA'I'TLE,WA. SEA'ITLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. SEATTLE,WA. PORTLAND,ORE PORTLAND,ORE PORTLAND,ORE BOISE,IDAHO BOISE,IDAHO,

WWp WWP BPA BPA BPA SCL SCL SCL SCL SCL SCL SCL POE PGE PGE IDAHO PWR IDAHO PWR

RAMSEY COUNTY,MINN BAKERSFIELD,CA FRESNO,CA COLORADO DETROIT,MICH.

NSP PG&E PG&E PSC CONS. GAS

IA,IF,CW IA IA IA,IF,WM,DR,CW,WH IA,IF IA,IW,IF,WM,DR,T,WH IA,IF,WM,DR,WH,CW

IA,IF, DR,WM IA,IF, IW,DR,WM,CW

IA,WM,IF,WH,IW,ID,CW

IA,IF,IW,WH,ID,CW

2464 2456 2228 2725 2725 2881 2881 3056 2662 2662 3797 3797 2958 2958 2958 2881 2881 2881 2881 2881

WH IA,1F,WM,DR,WH,CW

138

79 80 78

155

79

I16 129 164 123

81

81

81

153 142 155 118 122

79

147 145 134 123

2662 2662 2662 3241 3241

79

IA,CW IA IA IA IA

4533 1214 1472 3342 3477

79 79 79 77 74

4376 2703 2703 4991 4991 4991 4991 1192 1192 1719

80 80

79

98

2339 2881 2881 3237 3237 4166 4166 5151 5151 4660

79 79

85 91

79

124

79

94

79

73

76

120

IA,IF,IW,WM,ID,CW

81

177

LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROJECTS

* * * * * *

O O O O O O O M M M

6 7.1 7.2A 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4A 1.1 1.2A 2

13 47 45 42 29 15 32 13 5 8

VERMONT PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA,PA. MINNF.SOTA MINNESOTA MINNESuTA MINNESOTA CHARLESTON,SC CHARLESTON,SC ATLANTA,GA

DOE/LIW ASE ASE LIEAP LIEAP LIEAP LIEAP CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS

IA,WM,DR HS,OM,T

M M M M M M M M M M

3 4.1 4.2A 5.1 5.2A 6.1 6.2A 7.1 7.2A 9

4 9 5 13 3 14 4 12 5 65

WASH,DC TACOMA,WA TACOMA,WA EASTON,PA EASTON,PA PORTlAND, ME PORTLAND,ME FARGO,ND FARGO,ND NW WISCONSIN

CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA,/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA/NBS CSA

IA,IW,1X,CW,WM,HS,WH,T IA,IW,IX,WM,CW,WH

HS IA,IW,CW,WM HS,IA,IW,CW,WM

IA,IX,CW,WR,WH IA,WM,IX,CW,IW,WR

IA,IW,CW,WR,WH,T, HS IA,IW,IX,CW,WM,HS,T,WH IA,IW,IX,CW,WM,WH,HS,T IA,WM,DR,CW

83 83 83

79

103

H W H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H

153

(A)

(KI)

(K2)

(K3)

ADJ. SPACE HEAT USE PRELABEL

RETR. (GJ/YR) (KWH)

E E E E E E E

3.1 3.2A 3.3B 8.1 8.2 8.3 10

17615.0 20606.0 23886.0 19984.0 19803.0 19649.0 20330.0

(LI)

(L2)

(M)

HEATING FACTOR BEFORE AFTER

RETROFIT

M(_K J/D2__D )

COST (835)

SAVINGS (GJ/YR) (%)

(N)

(O)

SPT (YR)

d-7% (S/G J)

(R)

NPV ($)

IRR (%)

CCE

(S)

CONFIDENCE LEVEL

COMMENTS

(t/KWH)

(KWH) 2836.0 2891.0 2852.0 1846.0 3235.0 8204.0 11906.0

(Q)

16 14 12 9 16 42 59

8.9

7.22

333

12.6

192

161

1438

349 348 349 225

317 291 203 93

603 2356 5095 4709

11.4 23.0 19.6 8.0

4.65 6.87 5.86 4.34

- 140 - 917 .1578 1391

.0 .0 1.8 12.2

263

120

173

116

705 296 443 2007

3.5 2.2 5.1 10.5

1.26 0.68 1.89 4.25

1762 1729 906 2012

37.5 58.4 27.1 17.8

525

5.1

1.18

1124

28.0

2971 606

27.2 10.9

A A A A A A A

AIR INFIL. REDUCTION STUDY ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP BLIND CONTROL GROUP EXTENDED INFILTRATION REDN. ATTIC AND CRAWLSPACE INS. INSUL+ STORM WINDOW & DOOR FIRST EXTENSIVE RES. STUDY

C C A C C C C C B B

DEMO PGM. BY PRIVATE CONTRAC. DEMO PGM. BY TVA PERSONNEL EARLY STAGE OF HOME INSUL. PGM GROUP 1--WEATH. + HTR.WRAP CONTROL GR.-ALL SF NON-PARTS. INSUL PGM.-EARLY RESULTS BLIND CONTROL GROUP ZERO-INT. LOAN WEATH. PGM. EARLY PARTS. IN WEATH. PGM. BLIND CONTROL GR.- NON-PART.

B B A A A B B B C C

ZERO-INTEREST WEATH. PGM. CONTROL GROUP WEATH. PILOT PGM.- AUDIT+LOAN WEATH. PILOT PGM.- AUDIT ONLY WEATH. PILOT PGM.- NON-PART. HELP PGM.- AUDIT+LOAN HELP PGM.- AUDIT ONLY HELP PGM.- NON-PART. LOW-INC ELEC. PGM.-AUDIT+LOAN LOW-INCOME ELEC.PGM.- CONTROLS

C C A A A C C

AUDIT PGM.-HOT WATER RETR. AUDIT PGM.-NO HOT WATER ACFION ZIP WEATH. PGM.--AUDIT÷LOAN ZIP WEATH. PGM.- AUDIT ONLY ZIP WEATH. PGM.- NON-PARTS. ZERO-INTEREST LOAN PGM. BLIND CONTROL GROUP

UTILITY-SPONSORED PROGRAMS (ceaL) E E E E E E E E E E

1.1 1.2 2 4.1 4.4B 5.1 5.2B 6.1 7.1 7.2B

11270.0 12383.0 10148.0 12060.0

6122.0 4112.0 2211.0 3980.0

54 33 22 33

1711~0 16843.0 19336.0 11900.0

4180.0 2209.0 7903.0 3500.0

24 13 41 29

E E E E E E E E E E

9.2 9.3B 11.1 II.2A 11.3B 13.1 13.2A 13.3B 14.1 14.2B

18137.0

4349.0

15740.0 14400.0 12750.0 14320.0 13720.0 14090.0 10555.0

4130.0 141~0 850.0 2380.0 -80.0 -490.0 2555.0

E E E E E E E

15,1 15,2A 16.1 16.2A 16.3B 17.1 17.2B

G G G G G

I1 12.1 12.2 13 30

11880.0 11240.0 9340.0 12080.0 9880.0

3800.0 2500.0 1340.0 218~0 550.0

(GJfYR)

(GJ/YR)

165.3 87.6 64.9 125.8 204.4

12.4 15.7 20.6 20.7 34.5

220

130

1444 1863

5.1 12.8

1.59 4.47

24

222

169

1515

17.2

3.29

38

7.3

26 10 7 17 - 1 - 3 24

176 215

130 194

2312

25.9

4.96

- 653

2.9

176 181 171 167

147 182 177 127

1743

28.1

5.71

- 547

2.3

1569

23.4

4.87

- 327

4.1

39

3.8

1.18

55

33.6

32 22 14 18 6

165 157 141 164

112 122 121 134

1841

11.8

4.10

784

12.0

1096

14.3

4.75

211

9.4

8 18 32 16 17

207

191

374 573 560 416 521

8.4 5.7 4.3 5.1 4.2

2.83 3.44 2.56 1.90 1.43

355 1015 1500 1528 1477

17.3 24.8 32.5 40.7 33.8

C B B C C

UTILITY LOW-INCOME WEATH. PGM. ATTIC INSUL. PGM, ATTIC INSUL PGM ATTIC INSUL LOW-INT. LOAN PGM ATTIC INSULATION PROG.

1770 575

4.1 2.5

4.24 2.18

- 959 1573

.0 46.2

1285

6.6

6.34

682

15.9

D C C I ! I I A A A

LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION OIL FURNACE PILOT RETR. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL-OIL FURN.RETR. GR. I ~ I L FURNACE RETROFIT GR. ii--WEATHERIZATIONONLY GR. Ill-OIL FURN. RETR.+WEATH. GR. IV--ACTIVE CONTROL LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM.

A A A A A A A A A C

LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP lAW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LOW-INC. WEATH.. REGIONAL EVAL

(S/GJ)

LOW-INCOMEWEATHERIZATIONPROJEC'I~(mal.) 0 0 O 0 O O O M M M

6 7.1 7.2A 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4A 1.1 1.2A 2

151.4 123.6 157.6

45.9 23.1 4.1

65.9 38.3 114.0

22.3 5.9 14.8

30 19 3 22 12 29 0 34 15 13

M M M M M M M M M M

3 4.1 4.2A 5.1 5.2A 6.1 6.2A 7.1 7.2A 9

137.7 178.1 62.8 128.4 46.4 197.6 245.3 115.5 153.1 150.9

64.8 72.8 9.9 30.2 4.4 86.4 30.3 46.1 14.6 28.6

47 41 16 24 9 44 12 40 10 19

565 1350 1915 536

355

677

589

1592

18.9

11.84

- 586

.0

692 680

367 402

3845 2376

6.3 8.4

6.52 3.58

2291 559

16.9 11.1

320

245

1190

6.1

4.33

766

17.6

507

285

2913

3.8

3.70

4508

30.4

307

185

2138

5.7

5.09

1600

19.2

270

219

355

2.4

1.36

1047

48.9

(continued overleaf)

154 Summary (A)

Data Table (conlinued) (W

W

0)

(0

W-l

G)

W)

(1)

(Jl) ADI. TOTAL

NUMBER

FLOOR

OF LABEL

l

MEASURES

?CJ

YR

%

E :

146.2

14.9

10

169.5

4.2

-2

72

H

136.6

9.1

7

151.6

21.6

I4

M 10.3

19

MINNESOTA

DOE/LIW

hi

II

13

WISCONSIN

DOEILIW

M I2

86

ALLEGAN

3770

80

G1

II

WISCONSIN

DOE/LIW

IA,IF,CW,WM,WR,WH

4221

81

84

H

8

OAKIAND.CA

CSA/NBS

IA.CW.WR

1616

79

121

H

CTY.,MICH.

78

IA,CW.DR.WR.WM.IW

DOE/LIW

4617

78

4900

79

H H

4

OAKLANDCA

CSA/NBS

G I5

I8

ST LOUISMO

CSA/NBS

LA.CW.WM,IW.IX

2639

79

126

H

G I6

IO

CHICAGO.ILL

CSA/NBS

IA.IW,WM,CW.WR.HS.WH.ID

3404

79

I36

H

G 17.1

16

COLORADO

SPRJNGS

CSAJNBS

LA,IW,IX.CW,WM,WR,HS,WH

3596

79

93

G l7.2A

4

COLORADO

SPRINGS

CSA/NBS

G 18.1

I7

ST PAULMINN

CwNBs

5

ST PAULUINN

CsAmBS DOE/LIW

G La.2A G I9

30

LUZERNE

G 20

89

LOUISIANA

DOE/LIW

G 21.1

2I

KANSAS

CrrY.MO

DOE/LIW

G 21.2

45

KANSAS

CITY.MO

DOE/LIW

G 21.3

44

KANSAS

CITY,MO

DOE/LIW

G 22

138

G 23

30

MULTI-FAMILY 0

2.1

0

2.2B

CTY.PA

H

1616

3596 L%IW.CW,WR,WM.IX

4533

H J-l

79

I32

4533

Ii H

3487

79

H

218.4

30.5

I4

IWO

80

H

76.3

IS.0

20

IX,CW

2867

77

H

184.6

21.1

II

IX.CW

2867

77

H

249.0

46.4

I9

IX,CW

2W7

78

ii

243.1

54.9

23

IA,cw.WM

KENTUCKY

DOE/LIW

IX,WM,DR.CW

2621

79

INDIANA

DOE/LlW

IA,IF,CW,HS,WH

3o98

78

102

THA/HUD

HC,HS,WH

2727

81

77

H

1543.8

16.6

II

H

218.4

30.5

14

BUILDINGS IS9 1500

TRENTON,NJ TRENTON

,NJ

THAJHUD

2728

w

120.1

53.4

44

W

123.1

19.4

I6

03

521

WASHINGT0N.D.C.

SCALLOP

HS,HC.OM

2339

78

W

122.7

8.3

7

04

7S2

MARYLAND

SCALLOP

HS,HC.OM

2339

78

W

89.6

1.9

2

05

M)

NEW YORK

CITYNY

SCALLOP

HS.HC,OM

2693

78

W

176.5

16.0

9

08

277

NEW YORK

CITYNY

NYCHA

HS

2667

77

81

H

HS

2667

77

83

H

77

79

l

08A

277

NEW YORK

CIN.NY

NYCHA

l

08.1

42

NEW YORK

CIN,NY

NYCHA

l

0

a.lA

42

NEW YORK

CIN,NY

NYCHA

l

0

a.2

98

NEW YORK

CIN,NY

NYCHA

l

0

8.2A

98

NEW YORK

CITYNY

NYCHA

H

2667

H

2667 HS

2667

H H

2667 77

77

77

86

H

l

0

8.3

56

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

l

0

8.3A

56

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

*

0

8.4

81

NEW YORK

CITYNY

NYCHA

’

0

8.4A

81

NEW YORK

CIN,NY

NYCHA

l

09

10959

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

a0

76

H

l

09.1

1444

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

80

79

H

l

09.2

1338

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

80

72

H

l

0

9.3

1791

NEW YORK

CIN,NY

NYCHA

WM

2661

80

75

H

l

0

9.4

1310

NEW YORK

CIN.NY

NYCHA

WM

2667

80

75

H

’

09.5

1229

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

81

78

H

l

0

9.6

1084

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

80

11

H

l

0

9.7

1246

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

80

77

H

l

0 9.0

786

NEW YORK

CINNY

NYCHA

WM

2667

81

79

H

0 9.9

733

NEW YORK

CIN.NY

NYCHA

WM

2667

al

79

Ii

M I5

503

’ *

(GJ;:~‘(%,

Ii

DOE/LIW DOE/LlW

4617

(:;/ti)

H

MINNESOTA MINNESOTA

4617

PRE

15

59 37

IA,CW.DR,WR.WM,IW

(13) USE

123

M 10.1

G l4.2A

l

SPONSOR

HDD

M 10.2B

G 14.1

+

LOCATION

HOMES

RETROFJT

(12) ENERGY

HS

2667

H

2667 HS

2667

H H

2667

W

ST. PAULMINN.

SPHA/HUD

HC.LC

4533

81

12.2

I8

l

G 31.1

19

CHICAGO,ILL.

CNT

IA,HC,HS.OM

3611

81

88

H

IsO.

14.0

49

l

G 31.2

22

CHICAGz,!LL.

CNT

IA,HS,OM

3611

81

96

H

188.5

74.9

40

’

G 31.3

25

CHICAGO.ILL.

CNT

IA,HC,HS,WM,OM

3611

81

97

H

138.8

38.9

28

l

G 31.4

7

CHICAGQILL.

CNT

HC,HS,OM.ID

3611

al

a9

H

115.9

9.2

8

l

G 31.5

6

CHICAGO,ILL.

CNT

lA.WM,HS,OM

3611

81

II2

H

277.1

138.7

50

l

G 31.6

6

CHICAGQILL.

CNT

HS,OM

3611

81

lo8

H

121.0

36.1

28

’

G 31.7

4

CHICAGO,ILL.

CNT

HS,OM

3611

81

Ll9

H

l

G 31.8

I3

CHICAGQILL.

CNT

HS.HC.OM

3611

81

71

H

102.3

34.1

33

l

G32

NEWARKNJ

NHAlHUD

HC,OM,HS

2690

82

69

H

171.4

17.2

IO

L

(KWHJ 1285

l

El2

5M 159

NEW YORK

CITY. NY

NYCHA

ls

79

80

68.4

(KWHJ 193

62

155

(A)

(KI)

(K2)

(K3)

ADJ. SPACE HEAT USE PRE-

(L2)

(M)

HEATING FACTOR BEFORE AFTER

RETROFIT

M(KJ/D 2-D

COST (835)

LABEL

RETR. (GJ/YR)

M 10.1

117.0

11.9

10

338

304

M M M M G G

10.2B 10.3 I1 12 I 14.1

135.6 109.3 147.0 164.6 126.9 80.3

-3.4 7.3 24.3 46.4 21.9 2.3

- 2 7 17 28 17 3

239 329

244 307

360 411

G 14.2A G 15 G 16

123.3 184.3 279.4

-12.1 18.4 115.7

-I0 10 41

G 17.1

139.3

63.7

46

G G G G G G G G G G

173.9 190.8 301.8 157.3 51.0 142.4 206.8 201.5 125.0 192.1

0.2 41.5 24.7 30.5 15.0 21.1 46.4 54.9 16.6 49,0

0 22 8 19 29 15 22 27 13 25

17,2A 18.1 18.2A 19 20 21.1 21.2 21,3 22 23

SAVINGS (GJ/YR) (%)

(LI)

)

1295

(N)

(O)

SPT (YR)

d-'7% (S/GJ)

(Q)

(R)

(S)

NPV ($)

IRR (%)

CCE

13.4

11.93

CONFI-

- 218

3.7

DENCE LEVEL

COMMENTS

B

LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL.

B B D D C A A A A

BLIND CONTROL GROUP SUB-GROUP W / 2 FOST-RETR. YRS LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- COUNTY EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL. LIW RESEARCH DEMO. P G M ACTIVE CONTROL GRP. LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. LIW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LlW RESEARCH DEMO. PGM. ACTIVE CONTROL GROUP LOWolNC. WEATH.- COUNTY EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.-0CITY EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- CITY EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- CITY EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL. LOW-INC. WEATH.- STATE EVAL.

297 400

1214 1390 1266 1829 360

20.5 11.1 3.9 15.8 18.9

18.30 6.29 2.99 9.15 17.36

- 492 - 041 1881 - 503 - 129

.0 6.5 29.6 1.4 .0

555 603

500 353

2342 3086

43.6 7.3

14.01 2.93

-1501 1239

.0 13.9

418

227

2321

12.0

4.00

- 215

5.2

319

250

2316

15.7

6.13

- 627

1.5

143

9.6

451

7.5 17.9 13.0 7.6 15.5 4.7 14.1

3.74

606

1038 1230 623 780 2092 334 1965

A A A A C

9.02 3.24 1.85 4.19 2.21 4.41

- 421 - 092 271 - 550 370 - 398

.0 4.1 13.0 1.7 24.3 3.0

D C C C C C

416

164

459

1.0

1.69

2704

112.8

MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS (mat.) O 2.1 O 2.2B

87.6 123.1

53.2 19,4

61 16

309

241

24 14 56 187

525

389

219

2.0

1.37

485

50.4

195

147

185

4.9

3.60

3

6.6

249

232

145

11.2

8.76

- 142

.0

256

190

199

3,5

2.53

117

20.3

350 337 351 384 353

288 277 297 299 294

1385 1244 1523 1483 1640

15.5 13,8 21.4 11.9 19.1

8.02 6.91 11.12 6.44 10.56

144 191 - 177 441 - 099

8.5 9.3 5.2 11.2 6.1

14 21 17 18 9

379 385 310 316 313

324 306 2258 260 283

61.0 60.7 30.8 10.1

52 41 30 I1

370 427 294 281

179 251 205 250

1447 1308 1190 1146 1156 325 650 606 1232 268

19.9 12.3 15.5 14.6 29.1 4.5 2.1 2.0 7.8 5.2

9.35 6.24 7.65 6.61 12.72 3.78 1.74 1.67 5.53 6.36

- 124 392 174 209 - 227 226 2275 2295 204 - 056

126.3 25.8 41.9 27.4 17.2

53 27 36 31 14

596 242 267 349 666

282 176 170 242 573

878 301 1098 301 266

1.4 2.3 5.1 2.1 2.8

95

1.4

1.04 2.63 3.71 2.48 4.53 (c/KWH) 1.07

03 04 05 08 O8A O 8.1 O 8.1A O 8.2

66.6 65.1 I 15.8 116.4 41.0

14.7 10.4 30.0 18.0 10.1

22 16 26 15 25

O 8.2A O 8.3 O 8.3A O 8.4 O 8.4A O9 O 9.1 O 9.2 O 9.3 O 9.4

38.4 51.2 48.0 58.4 57.7 71.1 70.9 67.3 77.1 70.9

8.9 3.5 -2.3 15.1 16.9 12,6 12.7 10.2 17.1 11.8

23 7 - 5 26 29 18 18 15 22 17

O O O O O M G G G G

9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 15 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4

78.9 72.6 63.4 66.1 65.8

11.4 15.0 10.8 11.8 6.2

117.9 147.4 102.4 90.5

G G G G G

31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 32

239.9 94.6 114.8 89.6 123.2

E 12

0.7 1.9 0.9 3.4

2.81 7.90 6.73 2.50

13 - 087 - 588 114

19.5 .0 .0 20.8

C C C C C B B B B B

PAGE HOMES PUBLIC HOUSING RETR. BLIND CONTROL GROUP ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACT ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACT ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACT TRV DEMO -COMPOSITE TRV CONTROLS-COMPOSITE BREUKELEN--TRV DEMO PROJECT BREUKELEN CONTROL BLDG CYPRESS HILLS~TRV DEMO PROJ.

B B B B B C C C

CYPRESS HILLS CONTROL BLDG MARLBORO--TRV DEMO PROJECT MARLBORO CONTROL--TRV DEMO OCEAN HILI.,S--TRV DEMO PROJECT OCEAN HILLS CONTROL BLDG N Y C H A W I N D O W RETR.---COMPOSITE C Y P R E S S HILLS W I N D O W RETR. B R O W N S V I L L E W I N D O W RETR.

C C

P A T r E R S O N W I N D O W RETR. J O H N S O N H O U S E W I N D O W RETR.

5.7 11.3 9.1 9.7 3.9 22.5 56.1 59.9 10.0 2.9

C C C C C C C C C C

ALBANY [&ll WINDOW RETR. AMSTERDAM WINDOW RETR. CARVER WINDOW RETR. SEDGWICK WINDOW RETR. G U N HILL WINDOW RETR. MGMT CONTROL SYS FOR PHA COOP APT. RETR.--MONROE 19 COOP APT. RETR.--MADISON 22 COOP APT. RETR.--REBA 25 COOP APT. RETR.--ALBANY 7

5490 736 897 819 166

91.7 42.3 20.2 45.9 21.0

C C C C C

COOP APT. RETR.--REBA 6 COOP APT. RETR.--MONROE 6 COOp APT. RETR.--ELMWOOD 4 COOP APT. RETR.--MONROE 13 PUBLIC HOUSING--HT. CONTROLS

457

94.8

C

FLUOR. LlTE RETR-830 AMSTERDAM