Do energy efficiency measures really reduce household energy consumption? A difference-in-difference analysis

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of energy efficiency measures installed through the Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT) and the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) on domestic gas and total energy consumptions. The recently released National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework (NEED) database is used to examine the changes in domestic gas and total energy consumptions for the dwellings in the sample relative to the changes in gas and total energy consumptions for a comparable control group in the year after installation. The results obtained from this difference-in-difference analysis confirm that observed energy consumption decreases significantly in dwellings following upgrades such as cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and a new efficient boiler. The single most effective energy efficiency measure when installed alone is found to be cavity wall insulation, reducing annual gas consumption by 10.5 % and annual total energy consumption by 8.0 % in the year following installation. Comparing bundles of different energy efficiency measures, we find that dwellings retrofitted with both cavity wall insulation and a new efficient boiler experience the largest reductions in annual gas and total energy consumptions of 13.3 and 13.5 %, respectively. This is followed by a mean annual reduction of 11.9 and 10.5 % in gas and total energy consumptions for dwellings with all three energy efficiency measures installed in the same year. Contrary to expectations, installing cavity wall insulation on its own is found to be more effective in reducing measured energy consumption than combining loft insulation and a new efficient boiler.

Quantitative evaluation of deep retrofitted social housing using metered gas data

“…This study finds a 13.8% mean reduction in gas consumption by the difference in difference technique. By this metric, the study concurs with 13.3% reduction in Britain [1] and 13% in New Zealand [30]. As expected, this study finding of 13.8% gas reduction is below the 21% average reduction by 444 self-selected households analysed by Scheer et al [45].…”

The effects of home energy efficiency upgrades on social housing tenants: evidence from Ireland

“…Unfortunately, we could not measure the health effect of upgrades in this study, nor could we monitor internal temperatures. Given our limited sample size, we could not calculate the energy savings associated with certain measures, as others such as Adan and Fuerst (2015) for example have done. These are limitations of this work.…”

Does an Emissions Trading Policy Improve Environmental Efficiency? Evidence from China

“…The control group is the object that has not been affected by the policy, the treatment group is the object affected by the policy, and then the policy is implemented by changing the two groups of experiments accordingly. In recent years, many studies have used this method to evaluate the emission reduction effect of the emissions trading policy [45][46][47]. In this study, we use 11 provinces and municipalities (Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Tianjin, Chongqing, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, and Shaanxi) that piloted emissions trading in 2007 as treatment groups, and then employe propensity score matching (PSM) to match the remaining 18 provinces as control groups.…”