In this paper a novel shared-savings approach to residential energy conservation is evaluated. By the use of data on preretrofit and postretrofit energy consumption, a normalization procedure to control for weather, and control groups, it is concluded that the shared-savings program (RECAP) has reduced annual electricity consumption by 1556 kWh per household, or 6.6% of preretrofit consumption. Energy savings differ markedly across the four communities served by RECAP, and are only weakly associated with installation costs. Savings are greater where audits are used to select participants with significant potential for conservation; households with large preretrofit electricity consumption generate particularly large savings. Regression analysis of survey data suggests that the net impact of behavioral and household changes upon electricity savings is minimal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryL G, 1983, “Methods of reducing self-selection bias in the interpretation of residential conservation program impacts”Evaluation Review7753–775
2.
BrownM A, 1985, “The urban geography of residential energy consumption”, in Geographical Dimensions of Energy Eds CalzonettiF JSolomonB D (D Reidel, Dordrecht), pp 279–298
3.
BrownM AMaceyS M, 1985, “Evaluating the impact of two energy conservation programs in a Midwestern city”Applied Geography539–53
4.
BrownM AReevesG, 1985, “The implementation phase of a residential energy conservation shared savings program: the General Public Utilities experience”, ORNL/CON-187, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
5.
CalzonettiF JSolomonB D (Eds), 1985Geographical Dimensions of Energy (D Reidel, Dordrecht)
6.
Conservation Service Reform Act, 1986, Title I, Pub. L. No. 99-412, 10 C.F.R §456
7.
FelsM F, 1986, “PRISM: an introduction”Energy and Buildings95–20
8.
GoeltzRWhiteDTrumbleD, 1986, “Electricity savings one to three years after participation in the BPA Residential Weatherization Program”, ORNL/CON-194, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
9.
GoldbergM L, 1986, “A Midwest low-income weatherization program seen through PRISM”Energy and Buildings937–44
10.
GoldfarbL K, 1986, “Developing test marketing/pilot programs”, in Productivity Through Energy Innovation Eds SmithBDavisTKeneippM (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY), pp 383–394
11.
GrierE S, 1977, Colder … Darker: the Energy Crisis and Low Income Americans (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
12.
HirstE, 1984, “Household energy conservation: a review of the Federal Residential Conservation Service”Public Administration Review44 September/October issue, pages 421–430
13.
HirstE, 1985, “Improving energy efficiency of existing homes: the Residential Conservation Service”, in State Energy Survey: Current Issues, Future Directions Eds SawyerS WArmstrongJ R (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 85–106
14.
HirstEGoeltzRThornsjoMSundinD, 1983, “Evaluation of the home energy audit and retrofit loan programs in Minnesota: the Northern States power experience”, ORNL/CON-136, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
15.
HirstEGoeltzRTrumbleD, 1987, “Electricity use and savings in the Hood River Conservation Project”, ORNL/CON-231, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
16.
HirstEWhiteDGoeltzR, 1985, “Three years after participation: electricity savings due to the BPA Residential Weatherization Program”, ORNL/CON-166, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
17.
KreitlerV, 1986Alternative Utility Conservation Program Designs: An Evaluation Based on Case Study Program ExperienceSynergic Resources Corporation, 111 Presidential Boulevard, Suite 127, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
18.
MillerR DFordJ M, 1985, “Shared savings in the residential market: a public/private partnership for energy conservation”, unpublished report to the Energy Task Force of the Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives, April; copy from R D Miller, Urban Consortium for Community Action, 33 Riggs Road, Northeast, Washington, DC 20011
19.
National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 1978, Title II, Part I, Publ. L. No. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3209–3224
20.
NijkampPTiemersmaD, 1985, “Spatially-oriented energy consumption scenarios: method and application to Holland”, in Geographical Dimensions of Energy Eds CalzonettiF JSolomonB D (D Reidel, Dordrecht) pp 299–323
21.
PeabodyG E, 1984, “Weatherization program evaluation”, service report to the Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545, USA
22.
SmithD JWirtschafterR M, 1985, “Analysis of General Public Utilities' Residential Energy Conservation Action Program (RECAP)”, report to the Pennsylvania Governor's Energy Council; copy from R M Wirtschafter, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
23.
Van LiereK DDavisT D, 1986, “Customer acceptance of residential demand-side programs”, in Productivity Through Energy Innovation Eds SmithC BDavisTKeneippM (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY) pp 421–437
24.
VineyardT A, 1985, “Review of the 50/50 Programs to improve energy efficiency of existing homes”, ORNL/CON-184, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
