Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 58 of 84
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Table 5.3. Comparison of retrofit program costs and retrofit energy savings.
Average Annual energy
cost per Energy savings savings per hundred
housea per houseb,c program dollars
Major Retrofit ($) (therms/year) (therms/year/$100)
All retrofits 1603 202 + 47 12.6 + 2.9
Condensing furnace 2408 345 + 87 14.3 + 3.6
Wall insulation 1764 257 + 56 14.6 + 3.2
No major retrofits 660 12 + 38 1.8 + 5.8
aIncludes $300/house for audit and administrative costs.
bEnergy savings include expected pilot gas savings. They do not include adjust-
ment for control group.
cNumbers following + are standard errors.
A 12-year simple payback period should be acceptable for a program of this
type. Twelve years is short enough that the retrofits are likely to save money
at least equal to the cost of the program. Besides, there are other benefits to
the WAP that need to be considered in evaluating the cost effectiveness of the
1. Many low-income families receive assistance with their energy bills, either
from government programs or from utilities companies. Reducing their fuel
bills with this program will reduce the subsidy they require from other
2. The values of low-income families' homes are increased by the retrofits.
3. The audits uncover safety problems that can be corrected.
4. Energy saved in low-income households reduce the nation's dependence on
foreign energy sources and helps to hold down energy prices by keeping
5. The home owners may experience increased comfort.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
McCold, L.N. Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results, report, January 1, 1988; United States. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc740901/m1/58/: accessed December 13, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.