A Systematic Review of Energy Efficiency Home Retrofit Evaluation Studies

Abstract

We systematically review studies evaluating the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of residential energy efficiency retrofit programs. We review 39 evaluations of 23 residential retrofit programs that were evaluated between 1984 and 2021. Our sample is restricted to program evaluations that used postretrofit household energy billing or consumption data from 140,977 retrofitted households. We report four primary findings. First, none of the studies in our sample reported deep energy savings (e.g., 50% or greater) from retrofit programs. The mean reduction in measured electricity and/or fuel consumption due to energy efficiency retrofits for all programs included in our sample was roughly 7.2%. However, because many households use both fuel and electricity, total household energy savings from the retrofit programs evaluated in our sample are probably smaller. Second, reported program savings decreased as the internal validity of study design increased. Third, as measured by realized savings and cost-effectiveness, the most promising retrofits were insulation and programmable thermostats, whereas the least promising retrofits were storm windows and doors. Fourth, programs with high reported savings and low costs of conserved energy served low-income, fuel-heated households exclusively. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 14 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

New Insights on the Energy Impacts of Telework in Canada

“…One area on which there is particularly little research is home thermostat use ( Newsham and Donnelly 2013 ; Papineau et al 2020 ). There is uncertainty about schedules, set points, and whether teleworkers control their home as a single zone or focus on improving comfort in their workspace ( O’Brien and Yazdani Aliabadi 2020 ).…”

“…Work patterns are complex and variable, and the energy impacts of behaviours and decisions vary in saliency. For example, people may be particularly cognizant of the act of refueling their car but not of energy use in their homes or central office ( Giandomenico et al 2020 ; Gillingham et al 2018 ; O’Brien and Yazdani Aliabadi 2020 ).…”

“…Considering the total of these effects, estimates of the change in an individual’s total energy use (from the status quo of commuting to a central workplace) range from a savings of 77 percent ( Koenig, Henderson, and Mokhtarian 1996 ) to an energy increase of 3 percent ( Alonso, Monzón, and Wang 2017 ). Although the studies’ results vary widely because each study had different contexts (e.g., methods, assumptions, proportions of teleworking, scope), most studies indicate moderate energy savings, with more empirically rigorous methodologies typically finding more modest savings ( Giandomenico, Papineau, and Rivers 2020 ; Hook et al 2020 ; O’Brien and Yazdani Aliabadi 2020 ).…”

Self-reported energy use behaviour changed significantly during the cost-of-living crisis in winter 2022/23: insights from cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys in Great Britain

“…Given these findings, we decided to not measure any of those psychological variables given their likely small effect, especially during a time when the impact of energy price is presumably dominating strongly. Home retrofitting has been associated with significant energy reductions though often below expectations 45 but retrofitting measures are not the focus of this study given that they often take substantial time to be implemented and are hence less likely to have been done quickly in response to rapid fuel price increases such as those experienced in 2022. Low-income households are more likely than medium and high-income households to save energy through daily energy savings actions but less likely to invest in retrofit measures, pointing to income as an important variable to consider 46 .…”