SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Retrofitting”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2014

National Grid Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot, Massachusetts and Rhode Island (Fact Sheet)

Between December, 2009 and December, 2012 42 deep energy retrofit (DER) projects were completed through a DER pilot program sponsored by National Grid and conducted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 37 of these projects were comprehensive retrofits while 5 were partial DERs, meaning that high performance retrofit was implemented for a single major enclosure component or a limited number of major enclosure components. The 42 DER projects represent 60 units of housing. The comprehensive projects all implemented a consistent "package" of measures in terms of the performance targeted for major building components. Projects exhibited some variations in the approach to implementing the retrofit package. Pre- and post-retrofit air leakage measurements were performed for each of the projects. Each project also reported information about project costs including identification of energy-related costs. Post-retrofit energy-use data was obtained for 29 of the DER projects. Post-retrofit energy use was analyzed based on the net energy used by the DER project regardless of whether the energy was generated on site or delivered to the site. Homeowner surveys were returned by 12 of the pilot participants. Based on the community experience, this DER package is expected to result in yearly source energy use near 110 MMBtu/year or approximately 40% below the Northeast regional average. Larger to medium sized homes that successful implement these retrofits can be expected to achieve source EUI that is comparable to Passive House targets for new construction. The community of DER projects show post-retrofit airtightness below 1.5 ACH50 to be eminently achievable.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

Performance Results for Massachusetts and Rhode Island Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot Community

Between December, 2009 and December, 2012 42 deep energy retrofit (DER) projects were completed through a DER pilot program sponsored by National Grid and conducted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 37 of these projects were comprehensive retrofits while 5 were partial DERs, meaning that high performance retrofit was implemented for a single major enclosure component or a limited number of major enclosure components. The 42 DER projects represent 60 units of housing. The comprehensive projects all implemented a consistent 'package' of measures in terms of the performance targeted for major building components. Projects exhibited some variations in the approach to implementing the retrofit package. Pre- and post-retrofit air leakage measurements were performed for each of the projects. Each project also reported information about project costs including identification of energy-related costs. Post-retrofit energy-use data was obtained for 29 of the DER projects. Post-retrofit energy use was analyzed based on the net energy used by the DER project regardless of whether the energy was generated on site or delivered to the site. Homeowner surveys were returned by 12 of the pilot participants. Based on the community experience, this DER package is expected to result in yearly source energy use near 110 MMBtu/year or approximately 40% below the Northeast regional average. Larger to medium sized homes that successful implement these retrofits can be expected to achieve source EUI that is comparable to Passive House targets for new construction. The community of DER projects show post-retrofit airtightness below 1.5 ACH50 to be eminently achievable.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

IoT-based retrofit information diffusion in future smart communities

Community-scale building retrofits are not merely scaled-up versions of single-building retrofits. They involve complex challenges, such as reconciling individual interests with collective goals and managing the dynamic interplay between buildings through mechanisms like power grids and social connections. Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity holds the potential to leverage these interplays to balance individual and collective interests effectively in smart communities. One critical aspect of this interplay is information diffusion, which shapes how retrofit decisions spread among neighbors, influencing individual choices and ultimately impacting community-level retrofit outcomes. In other words, IoT-based smart devices automatically push tailored retrofit notifications to homeowners, which completely changes the format of information diffusion in the future. To investigate this influence by such information diffusion, the study used CityBES to simulate energy performance for different retrofits and applied an information diffusion model to analyze how decisions spread in a networked community of 192 buildings. The diffusion process was modeled on a weighted, directed network, capturing the dynamics of information flow and decision-making across 16 scenarios. Individual retrofit benefits were evaluated through payback years, while community-level retrofit outcomes were assessed using greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The results demonstrate that easier information diffusion among neighbors encourages households to prioritize retrofit measures that align with the majority’s optimal choices, even at the expense of individual financial benefits. In this case, such collective prioritization enhanced community-level retrofit performance, increasing GHG emission reductions by up to 29.4 %. However, this improvement came with trade-offs, as the average payback period for households extended by approximately 1.74 years. These findings highlight the potential of IoT-based information diffusion in future smart communities to coordinate individual interests with collective goals, ultimately accelerating community-level building retrofits.

Shu, Lei↗

DOE OSTI2013

Low-E Retrofit Demonstration and Educational Program

The objective of this project was to demonstrate the capability of low-emissivity (low-E) storm windows / panels and low-E retrofit glazing systems to significantly and cost effectively improve the energy efficiency of both existing residential and commercial buildings. The key outcomes are listed below: RESIDENTIAL CASE STUDIES: (a) A residential case study in two large multifamily apartment buildings in Philadelphia showed a substantial 18-22% reduction in heating energy use and a 9% reduction in cooling energy use by replacing old clear glass storm windows with modern low-E storm windows. Furthermore, the new low-E storm windows reduced the overall apartment air leakage by an average of 10%. (b) Air leakage testing on interior low-E panels installed in a New York City multifamily building over windows with and without AC units showed that the effective leakage area of the windows was reduced by 77-95%. (c) To study the use of low-E storm windows in a warmer mixed climate with a balance of both heating and cooling, 10 older homes near Atlanta with single pane windows were tested with three types of exterior storm windows: clear glass, low-E glass with high solar heat gain, and low-E glass with lower solar heat gain. The storm windows significantly reduced the overall home air leakage by an average of 17%, or 3.7 ACH50. Considerably high variability in the data made it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the overall energy usage, but for heating periods, the low-E storm windows showed approximately 15% heating energy savings, whereas clear storm windows were neutral in performance. For cooling periods, the low-E storm windows showed a wide range of performance from 2% to over 30% cooling energy savings. Overall, the study showed the potential for significantly more energy savings from using low-E glass versus no storm window or clear glass storm windows in warmer mixed climates, but it is difficult to conclusively say whether one type of low-E performed better than the other. COMMERCIAL CASE STUDIES: (a) A 12-story office building in Philadelphia was retrofitted by adding a double-pane low-E insulating glass unit to the existing single pane windows, to create a triple glazed low-E system. A detailed side-by-side comparison in two pairs of perimeter offices facing north and east showed a 39-60% reduction in heating energy use, a 9-36% reduction in cooling energy use, and a 10% reduction in peak electrical cooling demand. An analysis of utility bills estimated the whole building heating and cooling energy use was reduced by over 25%. Additionally, the retrofit window temperatures were commonly 20 degrees warmer on winter days, and 10-20 degrees cooler on summer days, leading to increased occupant comfort. (b) Two large 4-story office buildings in New Jersey were retrofitted with a similar system, but using two low-E coatings in the retrofit system. The energy savings are being monitored by a separate GPIC project; this work quantified the changes in glass surface temperatures, thermal comfort, and potential glass thermal stress. The low-E retrofit panels greatly reduced daily variations in the interior window surface temperatures, lowering the maximum temperature and raising the minimum temperature by over 20F compared to the original single pane windows with window film. The number of hours of potential thermal discomfort, as measured by deviation between mean radiant temperature and ambient air temperature by more than 3F, were reduced by 93 percent on the south orientation and over two-thirds on the west orientation. Overall, the low-E retrofit led to substantially improved occupant comfort with less periods of both overheating and feeling cold. (c) No significant thermal stress was observed in the New Jersey office building test window when using the low-E retrofit system over a variety of weather conditions. The surface temperature difference only exceeded 10F (500 psi thermal stress) for less than 1.5% of the monitored time, and in all cases, the maximum surface temperature difference never exceeded 35F (1,750 psi thermal stress). LOW-E STORM WINDOW OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM: (a) The project team assisted the State of Pennsylvania in adding low-E storm windows as a cost effective weatherization measure on its priority list for the state weatherization assistance program. (b) No technical barriers that could hinder widespread application were identified in the case studies. However, educational barriers have been identified, in that weatherization personnel commonly misunderstand how the application of low-E storm windows is very different than much more expensive full window replacement. (c) A package of educational materials was developed to help communicate the benefits of low-E storm windows and retrofits as a cost effective tool for weatherization personnel. (d) Using detailed thermal simulations, more accurate U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values were determined for low-E storm windows installed over different primary windows. IN SUMMARY, this work confirmed the potential for low-E storm windows, panels, and retrofit systems to provide significant energy savings, reductions in air leakage, and improvements in thermal comfort in both residential and commercial existing buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Framework to select robust energy retrofit measures for residential communities

Residential building energy retrofits are essential for enhancing environmental sustainability and reducing energy costs. The selection of retrofit measures is influenced by factors such as building systems, occupant behavior, government policy, weather variability, and climate change, all of which can significantly impact energy performance. Compared to retrofitting individual homes, evaluating and selecting optimal retrofit solutions for an entire community is challenging due to diverse residential compositions and variability present. Therefore, engineering robustness is crucial for ensuring consistent energy performance and resilience across different conditions. In this context, robustness refers to the ability of a retrofit measure to maintain its functionality and remain an optimal choice despite external disturbances or changes in inputs and conditions. This study presents a framework for evaluating the robustness of multiple retrofit measures across various building systems, occupant behaviors, and environmental scenarios at the community level. The framework comprises five key steps: scenario model development, integration of the National Residential Efficiency Measures database, energy performance simulation, cost-benefit aggregation, and retrofit solution selection. Each step enhances the framework’s robustness by incorporating the diversity of building characteristics, occupant behaviors, environmental conditions, retrofit options, and evaluation criteria. The framework’s effectiveness is demonstrated through a case study in southern Michigan in the United States, which includes 63 one-story single-family houses, 121 two-story single-family houses, and 8 townhouses. The study identifies furnace retrofits as the most robust solution for the entire community, consistently achieving source energy reductions of 4.7 %–8.0 % and payback period of 10–20 years across various scenarios. These findings are consistent with previous research, indicating the framework’s potential for broader applications in optimizing community-scale residential energy retrofits.

Shu, Lei↗

DOE OSTI2014

Performance of a Hot-Dry Climate Whole-House Retrofit

The Stockton house retrofit is a two-story tudor style single family deep retrofit in the hot-dry climate of Stockton, CA. The home is representative of a deep retrofit option of the scaled home energy upgrade packages offered to targeted neighborhoods under the pilot Large-Scale Retrofit Program (LSRP) administered by the Alliance for Residential Building Innovation (ARBI). Deep retrofit packages expand on the standard package by adding HVAC, water heater and window upgrades to the ducting, attic and floor insulation, domestic hot water insulation, envelope sealing, lighting and ventilation upgrades. Site energy savings with the deep retrofit were 23% compared to the pre-retrofit case, and 15% higher than the savings estimated for the standard retrofit package. Energy savings were largely a result of the water heater upgrade, and a combination of the envelope sealing, insulation and HVAC upgrade. The HVAC system was of higher efficiency than the building code standard. Overall the financed retrofit would have been more cost effective had a less expensive HVAC system been selected and barriers to wall insulation remedied. The homeowner experienced improved comfort throughout the monitored period and was satisfied with the resulting utility bill savings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

Performance of a Hot-Dry Climate Whole-House Retrofit

The Stockton house retrofit is a two-story Tudor style single family deep retrofit in the hot-dry climate of Stockton, CA. The home is representative of a deep retrofit option of the scaled home energy upgrade packages offered to targeted neighborhoods under the pilot Large-Scale Retrofit Program (LSRP) administered by the Alliance for Residential Building Innovation (ARBI). Deep retrofit packages expand on the standard package by adding HVAC, water heater and window upgrades to the ducting, attic and floor insulation, domestic hot water insulation, envelope sealing, lighting and ventilation upgrades. Site energy savings with the deep retrofit were 23% compared to the pre-retrofit case, and 15% higher than the savings estimated for the standard retrofit package. Energy savings were largely a result of the water heater upgrade, and a combination of the envelope sealing, insulation and HVAC upgrade. The HVAC system was of higher efficiency than the building code standard. Overall the financed retrofit would have been more cost effective had a less expensive HVAC system been selected and barriers to wall insulation remedied. The homeowner experienced improved comfort throughout the monitored period and was satisfied with the resulting utility bill savings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

Building America Case Study: Performance of a Hot-Dry Climate Whole House Retrofit, Stockton, California (Fact Sheet)

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

Evaluating an Exterior Insulation and Finish System for Deep Energy Retrofits

This report provides a case study of a deep energy retrofit using a site-applied exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS). Prefabricated EIFS panels are also discussed as a potential wall insulation retrofit solution. EIFSs are common in new and retrofit commercial construction. Such products typically consist of five layers installed over the top of a water resistive barrier as follows: (1) Adhesive (2) Foam insulation (3) Base coat (4) Reinforcing mesh embedded in the base coat (5) Top or finish coat. They can be applied to new or existing buildings that employ wood or masonry construction, and can utilize an insulation thickness of up to 16 in. However, such systems are rarely used in lowrise residential retrofits. Reasons for this might include a lack of demand for or knowledge of the systems in residential retrofit industry, high cost, and/or lack of suitable distribution channels serving the residential market. While the final appearance of an EIFS installation resembles stucco, it is a distinctly different system. Stucco is a generic cementitious-based material, whereas EIFSs are proprietary synthetic formulations distributed by manufacturers to a network of authorized applicators. An EIFS is composed of polymeric (organic) bonded aggregate and cement reinforced with a glass mesh. Stucco is made of inorganic cement, sand, and lime. In this project, a home was retrofitted using a site-applied 4-in.-thick EIFS. Site-specific details were developed as required for the residential retrofit application. Site work and the costs of the EIFS were documented. The case study home was modeled using version 2 of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory-developed Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) energy and cost analysis software. While a package utilizing the 4-in. EIFS is the optimal retrofit of the options analyzed in terms of annualized energy-related costs, it is higher cost than replacing the siding with midrange vinyl alone. However, compared to high-end vinyl, the EIFS package has a lower annualized energy cost. This held true for both the Islip, New York (climate zone 4) and Boston (climate zone 5) case studies. The report discusses the risks, selection criteria, interactions with other building systems, cost, performance, and other aspects of using an EIFS in a deep energy retrofit. EIFSs do not require special site safety precautions beyond general construction site precautions. Moisture design is important. Trapping moisture between two vapor/air barriers is a risk of all wall systems, including EIFS cladding applications if an interior vapor barrier exists and if there is not adequate ventilation through the drainage plane behind the insulation layer. Face-sealed approaches that rely on exposed sealants do not provide acceptable rain control or durability and are very risky. Generally, fire codes permit EIFSs for most building types and conditions.

airtightness↗

DOE OSTI2015

Building America Case Study: Retrofitting a 1960s Split-Level, Cold-Climate Home, Westport, Connecticut; Whole-House Solutions for Existing Homes, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

??National programs such as Home Performance with ENERGY STAR(R) and numerous other utility air sealing programs have brought awareness to homeowners of the benefits of energy efficiency retrofits. Yet, these programs tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit: air-sealing the thermal envelope and ductwork where accessible, switch to efficient lighting, and low-flow fixtures. At the other end of the spectrum, deep-energy retrofit programs are also being encouraged by various utilities across the country. While deep energy retrofits typically seek 50% energy savings, they are often quite costly and most applicable to gut-rehab projects. A significant potential for lowering energy usage in existing homes lies between the low hanging fruit and deep energy retrofit approaches - retrofits that save approximately 30% in energy over the existing conditions. A key is to be non-intrusive with the efficiency measures so the retrofit projects can be accomplished in occupied homes. This cold climate retrofit project involved the design and optimization of a home in Connecticut that sought to improve energy savings by at least 30% (excluding solar PV) over the existing home's performance. This report documents the successful implementation of a cost-effective solution package that achieved performance greater than 30% over the pre-retrofit - what worked, what did not, and what improvements could be made. Confirmation of successfully achieving 30% source energy savings over the pre-existing conditions was confirmed through energy modeling and comparison of the utility bills pre- and post- retrofit.

1960 split level↗

DOE OSTI2016

A regression-based approach to estimating retrofit savings using the Building Performance Database

Retrofitting building systems is known to provide cost-effective energy savings. This article addresses how the Building Performance Database is used to help identify potential savings. Currently, prioritizing retrofits and computing their expected energy savings and cost/benefits can be a complicated, costly, and an uncertain effort. Prioritizing retrofits for a portfolio of buildings can be even more difficult if the owner must determine different investment strategies for each of the buildings. Meanwhile, we are seeing greater availability of data on building energy use, characteristics, and equipment. These data provide opportunities for the development of algorithms that link building characteristics and retrofits empirically. In this paper we explore the potential of using such data for predicting the expected energy savings from equipment retrofits for a large number of buildings. We show that building data with statistical algorithms can provide savings estimates when detailed energy audits and physics-based simulations are not cost- or time-feasible. We develop a multivariate linear regression model with numerical predictors (e.g., operating hours, occupant density) and categorical indicator variables (e.g., climate zone, heating system type) to predict energy use intensity. The model quantifies the contribution of building characteristics and systems to energy use, and we use it to infer the expected savings when modifying particular equipment. We verify the model using residual analysis and cross-validation. We demonstrate the retrofit analysis by providing a probabilistic estimate of energy savings for several hypothetical building retrofits. We discuss the ways understanding the risk associated with retrofit investments can inform decision making. The contributions of this work are the development of a statistical model for estimating energy savings, its application to a large empirical building dataset, and a discussion of its use in informing building retrofit decisions.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

Existing Whole-House Solutions Case Study: National Grid Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Between December, 2009 and December, 2012 42 deep energy retrofit (DER) projects were completed through a pilot program sponsored by National Grid and conducted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Thirty-seven of these projects were comprehensive retrofits while five were partial DERs, meaning that high performance retrofit was implemented for a single major enclosure component or a limited number of major enclosure components. Building Science Corporation developed a consistent "package" of measures in terms of the performance targeted for major building components. Pre- and post-retrofit air leakage measurements were performed for each of the projects. Each project also reported information about project costs including identification of energy-related costs. Post-retrofit energy-use data was obtained for 29 of the DER projects, and was analyzed based on the net energy used by the DER project regardless of whether the energy was generated on site or delivered to the site. Based on the community experience, this DER package is expected to result in yearly source energy use near 110 MMBtu/year or approximately 40% below the Northeast regional average. Larger to medium sized homes that successful implement these retrofits can be expected to achieve source EUI that is comparable to Passive House targets for new construction. The community of DER projects show post-retrofit airtightness below 1.5 ACH50 to be eminently achievable.

airtightness↗

DOE OSTI2014

Data and Analytics to Inform Energy Retrofit of High Performance Buildings

Buildings consume more than one-third of the world?s primary energy. Reducing energy use in buildings with energy efficient technologies is feasible and also driven by energy policies such as energy benchmarking, disclosure, rating, and labeling in both the developed and developing countries. Current energy retrofits focus on the existing building stocks, especially older buildings, but the growing number of new high performance buildings built around the world raises a question that how these buildings perform and whether there are retrofit opportunities to further reduce their energy use. This is a new and unique problem for the building industry. Traditional energy audit or analysis methods are inadequate to look deep into the energy use of the high performance buildings. This study aims to tackle this problem with a new holistic approach powered by building performance data and analytics. First, three types of measured data are introduced, including the time series energy use, building systems operating conditions, and indoor and outdoor environmental parameters. An energy data model based on the ISO Standard 12655 is used to represent the energy use in buildings in a three-level hierarchy. Secondly, a suite of analytics were proposed to analyze energy use and to identify retrofit measures for high performance buildings. The data-driven analytics are based on monitored data at short time intervals, and cover three levels of analysis ? energy profiling, benchmarking and diagnostics. Thirdly, the analytics were applied to a high performance building in California to analyze its energy use and identify retrofit opportunities, including: (1) analyzing patterns of major energy end-use categories at various time scales, (2) benchmarking the whole building total energy use as well as major end-uses against its peers, (3) benchmarking the power usage effectiveness for the data center, which is the largest electricity consumer in this building, and (4) diagnosing HVAC equipment using detailed time-series operating data. Finally, a few energy efficiency measures were identified for retrofit, and their energy savings were estimated to be 20percent of the whole-building electricity consumption. Based on the analyses, the building manager took a few steps to improve the operation of fans, chillers, and data centers, which will lead to actual energy savings. This study demonstrated that there are energy retrofit opportunities for high performance buildings and detailed measured building performance data and analytics can help identify and estimate energy savings and to inform the decision making during the retrofit process. Challenges of data collection and analytics were also discussed to shape best practice of retrofitting high performance buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Association of residential energy efficiency retrofits with indoor environmental quality, comfort, and health: A review of empirical data

This paper reviews empirical data from evaluations of the influence of residential energy efficiency retrofits on indoor environmental quality conditions and self-reported thermal comfort and health. The data were extracted from 36 studies described in 44 papers plus two reports. Nearly all reviewed studies were performed in Europe or United States. Most studies evaluated retrofits of homes with low-income occupants. Indoor radon and formaldehyde concentrations tended to increase after retrofits that did not add whole-house mechanical ventilation. Study-average indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds other than formaldehyde increased and decreased with approximately equal frequency. Average indoor temperatures during winter typically increased after retrofits, usually by less than 1.5 °C. Dampness and mold, usually based on occupant's reports, almost always decreased after retrofits. Subjectively reported thermal comfort, thermal discomfort, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, general health, and mental health nearly always improved after retrofits. For asthma symptoms, the evidence of improvement slightly outweighed the evidence of worsening. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether changes in thermal comfort and health outcomes varied depending on the type of energy efficiency retrofit. The published research has numerous limitations including a lack of data from retrofits in warm-humid climates and minimal data on changes in objective health outcomes. Suggestions for future research are provided.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2015

Retrofitting a 1960s Split-Level, Cold-Climate Home

National programs such as Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® and numerous other utility air sealing programs have brought awareness to homeowners of the benefits of energy efficiency retrofits. Yet, these programs tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit: air-sealing the thermal envelope and ductwork where accessible, switch to efficient lighting, and low-flow fixtures. At the other end of the spectrum, deep-energy retrofit programs are also being encouraged by various utilities across the country. While deep energy retrofits typically seek 50% energy savings, they are often quite costly and most applicable to gut-rehab projects. A significant potential for lowering energy usage in existing homes lies between the low hanging fruit and deep energy retrofit approaches - retrofits that save approximately 30% in energy over the existing conditions. A key is to be non-intrusive with the efficiency measures so the retrofit projects can be accomplished in occupied homes. This cold climate retrofit project involved the design and optimization of a home in Connecticut that sought to improve energy savings by at least 30% (excluding solar PV) over the existing home's performance. This report documents the successful implementation of a cost-effective solution package that achieved performance greater than 30% over the pre-retrofit - what worked, what did not, and what improvements could be made.

1960 split level↗

DOE OSTI2021

Energy Savings Results from Small Commercial Building Retrofits in the US

Small commercial buildings, or those comprising less than 50,000 square feet of floor area, represent 94% of U.S commercial buildings by count and consume approximately 8% of the nation’s primary energy; as such, they represent a largely unexploited opportunity for energy savings. Small commercial buildings also represent a large economic market—the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) estimated the small commercial retrofit market at USD 35.6 billion. Despite the prominence of small commercial buildings and the economic opportunity for energy retrofits, many energy efficiency programs focus on large commercial buildings, and create efficiency solutions that do not meet the needs of the small commercial market. This paper presents an analysis of 34 small commercial case study projects that implemented energy efficiency retrofits. This paper contributes to the existing building retrofit body of knowledge in the following ways: (1) it identifies the decision criteria used by small commercial building stakeholders that decided to complete an energy retrofit; (2) it identifies the most commonly implemented efficiency measures in small commercial buildings, and discusses why this is the case; and (3) it provides empirical evidence about the efficacy of installing single energy efficiency measures (EEMs) compared to packages of EEMs in small commercial buildings by reporting verified energy savings. To the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to catalog decision criteria and energy savings for the existing small commercial buildings market, and this research illustrates that small commercial building decision-makers seem most motivated to retrofit their spaces by energy cost savings and operational concerns. Furthermore, small commercial building decision-makers opted to implement single-system retrofits in fifteen (15) of the thirty-four cases studied. Finally, this research documents the improved savings, in the small commercial buildings market, associated with a more integrated package of EEMs compared to a single-system approach, achieving approximately 10% energy savings for a single-system approach and more than 20% energy savings for integrated approaches. These savings translate to CO2 savings of 1,324,000 kgCO2/year to 2,647,000 kgCO2/year, respectively, assuming small commercial buildings are retrofit at a rate of 0.95% of the stock annually.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2014

Retrofit California: Better Buildings Program Overview

Energy efficiency retrofits (also called upgrades) are widely recognized as a critical component to achieving energy savings in the building sector to help lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To date, however, upgrades have accounted for only a small percentage of aggregate energy savings in building stock, both in California and nationally. Although the measures and technologies to retrofit a building to become energy efficient are readily deployed, establishing this model as a standard practice remains elusive. Retrofit California sought to develop and test new program models to increase participation in the energy upgrade market in California. The Program encompassed 24 pilot projects, conducted between 2010 and mid-2013 and funded through a $30 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Buildings Neighborhood Program (BBNP). The broad scope of the Program can be seen in the involvement of the following regionally based Grant Partners: Los Angeles County (as prime grantee); Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), consisting of: StopWaste.org for Alameda County, Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) for Sonoma County, SF Environment for the City and County of San Francisco, and City of San Jose; California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) for the San Diego region; Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). Within these jurisdictions, nine different types of pilots were tested with the common goal of identifying, informing, and educating the people most likely to undertake energy upgrades (both homeowners and contractors), and to provide them with incentives and resources to facilitate the process. Despite its limited duration, Retrofit California undoubtedly succeeded in increasing awareness and education among home and property owners, as well as contractors, realtors, and community leaders. However, program results indicate that a longer timeframe will be needed to transform the market and establish energy retrofits as the new paradigm. Innovations such as Flex Path, which came about because of barriers encountered during the Program, have already shown promise and are enabling increased participation. Together, the pilots represent an unprecedented effort to identify and address market barriers to energy efficiency upgrades and to provide lessons learned to shape future program planning and implementation. The statistics reflects the scope of the marketing and outreach campaigns, which tested a variety of approaches to increase understanding of the benefits of energy upgrades to drive participation in the Program. More traditional methods such as TV and radio advertisements were complimented by innovative community based social marketing campaigns that sought to leverage the trusted status of neighborhood organizations and leaders in order to motivate their constituents to undertake retrofits. The remainder of this report provides an overview of Retrofit California including brief summaries of the pilots’ main components and highlights, followed by the major findings or takeaway lessons from the approaches that were tested. Eleven of the pilots will be continued, with modifications, under the ratepayer-funded Regional Energy Networks. Involvement in the RENS by many of the Retrofit California partners will ensure that early lessons learned are carried forward to guide future programs for energy upgrades in California.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

A Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market (Final Technical Report)

In the fall of 2010, the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) launched the Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market Project (Multi-State Project). This residential energy efficiency pilot program was a collaborative effort among the states of Alabama, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, and was funded by competitive State Energy Program (SEP) awards through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The objective of this project was to catalyze the home energy efficiency retrofit market in select areas within the state of Alabama. To achieve this goal, the project addressed a variety of marketplace elements that did not exist, or were underdeveloped, at the outset of the effort. These included establishing minimum standards and credentials for marketplace suppliers, educating and engaging homeowners on the benefits of energy efficiency and addressing real or perceived financial barriers to investments in whole-home energy efficiency, among others. The anticipated effect of the activities would be increased market demand for retrofits, improved audit to retrofit conversion rates and growth in overall community understanding of energy efficiency. The four-state collaborative was created with the intent of accelerating market transformation by allowing each state to learn from their peers, each of whom possessed different starting points, resources, and strategies for achieving the overall objective. The four partner states engaged the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) to oversee a project steering committee and to manage the project evaluation for all four states. The steering committee, comprised of key program partners, met on a regular basis to provide overall project coordination, guidance, and progress assessment. While there were variances in program design among the states, there were several common elements: use of the Energy Performance Score (EPS) platform; an audit and home energy rating tool; emphasis on community based coordination and partnerships; marketing and outreach to increase homeowner participation; training for market actors; access to financing options including rebates, incentives, and loan products; and an in depth process evaluation to support continual program improvement and analysis. In Alabama, Nexus Energy Center operated energy efficiency retrofit programs in Huntsville and Birmingham. In the Huntsville community the AlabamaWISE program was available in five Alabama counties: Cullman, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan. In Birmingham, the program was available to residents in Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In both communities, the program was similar in terms of program design but tailored marketing and partnerships to address the unique local conditions and population of each community. ADECA and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) provided overall project management services and common resources to the local program administrator Nexus Energy Center, including contracted services for contractor training, quality assurance testing, data collection and reporting, and compliance. The fundamental components of the AlabamaWISE program included a vertical contractor-based business model; comprehensive energy assessments; third-party quality assurance; rebates for installation of energy saving measures; accessible, low-interest financing; targeted and inbound marketing; Energy Performance Score (EPS) tool to engage and educate homeowners; training for auditors, contractors, and real estate professionals; and online resources for education and program enrollment. Program participants were eligible to receive rebates or financing toward the assessments and upgrades to their home provided they reached at least 20 percent deemed or modeled energy savings. The design of each program focused on addressing several known barriers including: limited homeowner knowledge on the benefits of energy efficiency, lack of financing options, lack of community support for energy efficiency programs, and lack of trained market actors including contractors and real estate professionals. The programs were able to make progress on addressing all of these barriers and were most successful in offering financing options and training market actors. The most challenging barriers proved to be the act of building a market for energy efficiency where none previously existed, convincing homeowners of the value in investing in energy efficiency (and therefore completing retrofits), engaging electric and natural gas utilities to partner on delivery, and achieving the overall project target of 1,365 completed retrofits. The components that proved to be the most valuable to program success were engaged contractor networks that could promote and endorse the program, partnerships with local business and organizations, and the access to rebates, incentives and financing mechanisms. The programs were successful in building relationships with a variety of community participants including: local contractors, Associations of REALTORS, home builders associations, universities, utilities, local and state governments, and other non-profit organizations. Throughout this program, 933 building audits and 795 building retrofits were completed making homes in Alabama more comfortable, less expensive to operate, more valuable to the marketplace, and safer and healthier for families. Continuing on this momentum, Nexus Energy Center plans to continue operating and expanding operations in Alabama as a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR sponsor and will continue to provide energy services and education to communities in Alabama.

Grimes, Elizabeth M.↗