Analyses to Verify and Improve the Accuracy of the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA)

Ternes, M.P.; Gettings, M.

doi:10.2172/946490

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study, a tool used for weatherization home audits overpredicted savings by 186 percent, despite accurate engineering calculations (Ternes and Gettings 2008). Likewise, weatherization projects in New York State achieved only 57 to 69 percent of the savings predicted by the National Energy Audit Tool, and studies from other states have reached qualitatively similar conclusions (Berry and Gettings 1998).…”

Section: Do Analysts Systematically Overestimate Energy Savings From mentioning

confidence: 97%

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Gerarden

Newell

Stavins

2017

Journal of Economic Literature

304

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Do Analysts Systematically Overestimate Energy Savings From mentioning

confidence: 97%

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Gerarden

Newell

Stavins

2017

Journal of Economic Literature

304

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognizing those discrepancies, improvements to the projections have been proposed and implemented in some cases (e.g. Ternes and Gettings, 2008;Ternes, 2007). 2 Additional benefits from the program may include improved health, through better indoor air quality and comfort (Tonn, Rose, and Hawkins, 2018;Pigg, Cautley, and Francisco, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decomposing the Wedge between Projected and Realized Returns in Energy Efficiency Programs

Christensen

Francisco

Myers

et al. 2023

Review of Economics and Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluations of energy effciency programs reveal that realized savings consistently fall short of projections. We decompose this ‘performance wedge’ using data from the Illinois Home Weatherization Assistance Program (IHWAP) and a machine learning-based event study research design. We find that bias in engineering models can account for up to 41% of the wedge, primarily from overestimated savings in wall insulation. Heterogeneity in workmanship can also account for a large fraction (43%) of the wedge, while the rebound effect can explain only 6%. We find substantial heterogeneity in energy-related benefits from IHWAP projects, suggesting opportunities for better targeting of investments.

show abstract

“…In empirical research, two groups of participants in a utility-weatherization program in the 1980s achieved 47 and 78 percent of predicted savings on average (Hirst 1986, 300), 26 while realized savings from another utility program ranged from 50 to 81 percent of predicted electricity savings, and 14 to 42 percent of predicted natural gas savings (Sebold and Fox 1985, 83). In another study, a tool used for weatherization home audits over-predicted savings by 186 percent, despite accurate engineering calculations (Ternes and Gettings 2008). Likewise, weatherization projects in New York State only achieved 57 to 69 percent of the savings predicted by the National Energy Audit Tool, and studies from other states reach qualitatively similar conclusions (L. G. Berry and Gettings 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Harvard Environmental Economics Program (HEEP) develops innovative answers to today's complex environmental issues, by providing a venue to bring together faculty and graduate students from across Harvard University engaged in research, teaching, and outreach in environmental, energy, and natural resource economics and related public policy. The program sponsors research projects, convenes workshops, and supports graduate education to further understanding of critical issues in environmental, natural resource, and energy economics and policy around the world. acknowledgementsThe Alfred P. Sloan Foundation provided generous support for the research project on which this paper is based. ABSTRACTEnergy-efficient technologies offer considerable promise for reducing the financial costs and environmental damages associated with energy use, but these technologies appear not to be adopted by consumers and businesses to the degree that would apparently be justified, even on a purely financial basis. We present two complementary frameworks for understanding this socalled "energy paradox" or "energy-efficiency gap." First, we build on the previous literature by dividing potential explanations for the energy-efficiency gap into three categories: market failures, behavioral anomalies, and model and measurement errors. Second, we posit that it is useful to think in terms of the fundamental elements of cost-minimizing energy-efficiency decisions. This provides a decomposition that organizes thinking around four questions. First, are product offerings and pricing economically efficient? Second, are energy operating costs inefficiently priced and/or understood? Third, are product choices cost-minimizing in present value terms? Fourth, do other costs inhibit more energy-efficient decisions? We review empirical evidence on these questions, with an emphasis on recent advances, and offer suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Analyses to Verify and Improve the Accuracy of the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA)

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Decomposing the Wedge between Projected and Realized Returns in Energy Efficiency Programs

Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About