Citation
Housing Energy Efficiency and Affordability Issues Affecting Low-Income Residents in Gainesville, Florida

Material Information

Title:
Housing Energy Efficiency and Affordability Issues Affecting Low-Income Residents in Gainesville, Florida
Creator:
Taylor, Nicholas W
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (90 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.B.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Building Construction
Committee Chair:
Grosskopf, Kevin R.
Committee Co-Chair:
Stroh, Robert C.
Committee Members:
Jones, Pierce H.
Graduation Date:
12/14/2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Customers ( jstor )
Energy ( jstor )
Energy consumption ( jstor )
Energy efficiency ( jstor )
Heating ( jstor )
Heating ventilation and cooling ( jstor )
Homes ( jstor )
Insulation ( jstor )
Low income ( jstor )
Roofs ( jstor )
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
affordability, demand, energy, housing, low, residential
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.

Notes

Abstract:
In partnership with administrators from Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and the University of Florida?s Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) this project was designed to help identify and overcome the barriers to delivering energy efficiency services in the most cost effective manner to low-income residential customers. The purpose of this thesis was to identify the most significant energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues affecting the low-income population in Gainesville, Florida and to address the potential for demand-side management (DSM) programs that could reduce occupant operations and maintenance costs, conserve energy resources and protect the environment. A two-fold approach was taken in data collection including an in-depth, in-home customer questionnaire supplemented by GRU?s standard energy conservation audit. Data analysis compared average energy intensity, measured in mega-British Thermal Units per 1000 square foot per year, of low-income customers that exhibit certain efficiency related characteristics with those who do not. Results of this study show that, for the low-income population in Gainesville, Florida attic insulation is the largest energy efficiency problem. The information provided in this report will be useful for identifying housing energy-related deficiencies and identifying DSM products and services that most cost-effectively reduce energy expenses to low-income consumers. For utilities, results of this research will assist in energy demand avoidance and reduction of carbon emissions to the environment and will serve as a basis for future energy efficiency research. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local:
Adviser: Grosskopf, Kevin R.
Local:
Co-adviser: Stroh, Robert C.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nicholas W Taylor.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Taylor, Nicholas W. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Classification:
LD1780 2007 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





tank. It is recommended that water heaters be set no higher than 120oF in order to avoid excess

energy use. For almost 21% of the survey population a simple adjustment to lower their water

heater setting could result in a significant decrease in energy consumption. This behavioral based

energy efficiency issue could best be attended to by DSM programs that focus on increasing

home occupant knowledge of mechanical systems.

Shading

With windows, walls, and roof accounting for as much as 55% of a home's cooling load,

solar heat gain can be a large burden on Florida homes. [21] To maximize energy efficiency it is

essential to provide adequate shading. The primary way to decrease solar heat gain in residential

areas is to maximize shading by trees. Ideally, tree canopy is taken into account during the

planning stage of residential development. If not trees must be strategically planted in order to

increase shading. As can be imagined the timescale on which this type of measure works is based

on the amount of input that can be afforded. A small tree will cost less but will take longer to

grow. A large tree will cost more but will provide more immediate results. Although tree shading

may be the most effective means of reducing solar heat gain there are other alternatives. One

relatively inexpensive way is to cover windows with heat control film.

Solar control window film is applied to the inside of a window where it reflects radiation

and creates an additional insulating layer. According to product specifications a window film can

help to reflect up to 55% of radiational heat during the summer, retain up to 45% of indoor heat

during the winter, and reduce UV light penetration by up to 99%. Window films can be

purchased at local hardware stores and can be easily installed. Films are available for around $30

for a 3ft. by 15ft. roll which will cover three 3ft. by 4ft. windows. This comes to around $10 per

window treated. One distinct advantage of this approach to reducing solar heat gain through

windows is that, unlike the use of curtains or blinds, the daytime lighting that is provided by










particular needs. While it is true that a simple phone call to GRU would allow a customer to

receive the same information, being seen in an outreach setting may bolster end use of the

information.

In its most recent programs GRU has taken advantage of the resources and influence of

other community organization to enhance DSM programs. To continue this trend it may be

advantageous to partner with ReBuild Gainesville and local hardware retailers to teach customers

how to make some of the upgrades that lend themselves more to do-it-yourself proj ects such as

installing weather-stripping, caulking, and adjusting their water heater setting.

Problem Areas

Other than issues that were found and corrected during the survey process there were

factors that affected the outcome of the survey and the potential end use of the data. Research

subj ects may have been indirectly selected based on their daytime availability due to the methods

used to contact potential participants. These potential participants were contacted primarily

during business hours, between 8:00am and 5:00pm, and appointments for surveys were only set

during these hours. If calls and appointments were made at later times or during weekend hours

the survey population may have been more widely varied.

There were also problems with the data collection that hindered the scope of which the

data is applicable. In the questionnaire portion of the survey participants were asked about

features of their homes and its mechanical systems. Many times they were assisted with the

answers by GRU auditors and survey administrators. If the participants had not been helped with

responses their answers could be compared to the findings of the GRU auditor to determine

aspects of homeowner and occupant knowledge. This information could have been used to

promote and enhance knowledge based DSM programs.

































O 2007 Nicholas Wade Taylor









































CDBGMHOME Program
Target Areas


4 PearOsl C~ I f*gPoned Su~ts


Figure 1-2. This is the map of the Community Development Block Grant areas overlay to show
the energy intense areas as they correlate.









infiltration around edges. Over time degradation of the material or simple wear and tear causes

the original weather stripping to loose its integrity. Although replacing weather-stripping is

generally cheap and easy, choosing the correct product for each application can be tough. If the

weather-stripping is too large, doors and windows may not close properly. If the weather-

stripping is too small, it may be insufficient to close the gap. Also, if the improper material is

chosen degradation may occur more rapidly. For a demand side management program to

properly address the issue of weather-stripping and weatherization increasing homeowner

knowledge must be the focal point.

Windows

Building science data shows that a homes windows account for 30% of its cooling load.

[21] When windows have degraded to the point that they no longer close properly their cooling

load can be compounded by air infiltration. Over 3 5% of the sample population had problems

with windows that made them inadequate. It is understandable that among this population energy

intensity was significantly higher. The cost of replacing windows is highly variable and depends

on the size, quantity, and type of windows to be used. The RS Means Construction Cost Index

indicates a cost of $158 per window installed for double pane, double hung, vinyl windows. This

figure does not account for removal and disposal of old windows. At this price replacing

windows throughout a home will cost thousands of dollars. While the upfront costs are high,

return on investment in both energy and comfort likely appeal to the long tenured survey group.

HVAC Settings

Home comfort as described by a thermostat setting varies greatly from home to home

although most utilities recommend 78oF for summer cooling and 68oF for winter heating. In any

case it is recommended that you adjust your setting to lower energy use while away from the

home for more than two hours. In our study we found that almost 34% of participating











Table 4-7: Weather-stripping
Weather-stripping Doesn 't Ieed N~eeds
45.0%
Mean 4.14 Mean 4.52
Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.24
Standard Deviation 1.90 Standard Deviation 2.11
Sample Variance 3.61 Sample Variance 4.46
Count 93 Count 76
Sx20.02
t 2.46

Table 4-8: Windows
Wind ows N~o Problems Problems
35.5%
Mean 4.07 Mean 4.73
Standard Error 0.18 Standard Error 0.29
Standard Deviation 1.83 Standard Deviation 2.24
Sample Variance 3.35 Sample Variance 5.02
Count 106 Count 60
Sx2 0.03
t 4.05


Table 4-9: HVAC Settings
HVAC Settings Adjust While Away Don 't Adjust While Away
33.7%
Mean 4.23 Mean 4.46
Standard Error 0.19 Standard Error 0.26
Standard Deviation 2.03 Standard Deviation 1.94
Sample Variance 4.13 Sample Variance 3.78
Count 112 2q 57
Sx2 0.02
t 1.43

Table 4-10: HVAC Filter
HVAC Filter N~ot Dirty Dirty
32.0%
Mean 4.33 Mean 4.27
Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.22
Standard Deviation 2.17 Standard Deviation 1.59
Sample Variance 4.73 Sample Variance 2.51
Count 115 Count 54
Sx2 0.02
t 0.35









administrator and the GRU auditor had finished data collection the GRU auditor would explain

the findings of home inspection audit. Participants were given tips and suggestions on how to

improve the efficiency of their homes and how to lower their monthly bills. Data collection

ended in September, 2006 which resulted in 169 full, eligible surveys completed.

Problems and Solutions

During the course of this study from the planning stages to the analysis and reporting

several complications arose, none of which were insurmountable, but each of which altered the

original proj ect plan to some extent. Some of the problems are typical in survey research, while

others were a result of unexpected administrative or staffing constraints.

First, GRU faced delays when trying to implement the second portion of the recruiting

survey: while the ideal follow-up to a mail-administered recruiting survey occurs immediately

after receipt of respondents' information, there was a fair amount of lag time between these two

events due to unavoidable staffing complications. GRU considered hiring professional survey

research staff to conduct the scheduling phase of the survey, but these services were not available

within GRU' s budget and timeline constraints. As a result, GRU and PREC combined efforts

across staff assigned to the proj ect and although initiation of the in-home surveys was delayed,

over 200 surveys in total were successfully scheduled.

Second, because GRU staff could administer the in-home surveys only during weekday

business hours, customer participation rates were lower than expected and the in-home surveys

took longer to complete than had originally been anticipated. Because GRU was more concerned

with collecting a sufficient amount of valid data than about collecting a limited amount of data in

a short period of time, the sampling and data collection phases of the proj ect were extended until

a sufficient number of surveys were completed.



























LEAKS NEEDING REPAIR

Kitchen/Laundry Bathroomls) Outdoor Leaks Concealed Leaks
O Kitchen sink faucet 0 Toilet flapper O Front yard faucet 0 Behind wall(s)
O Kitchen sink shutoffs O Toilet Ffloat control O Back yard faucet 0 Beneath dwelling
O Dishwasher O Sink Faucet 0 Side yard faucet 0 Underground
O Laundry tub faucet 0 Sink Faucet Shutoffs O Irrigation system
O Laundry tub shutoff O Bathtub Faucet 0 Poollspa
0 Washing machine O Shower O Meter box
hose connections O Customer side
O GRU side


COMMENTS:


ADDITIONAL ENERGY SAVING TIPS:

O Run irrigation system for an appropriate time each season, now set to:
O Reduce pool pump run time to 4-8 hours/day in season, now running
O Service refrigerator to increase efficiency,
O Keep fireplace damper(s) closed when not in use.
O Consider a high efficiency outdoor lighting system.

Customer provided with: O The Energy Book O Rate calculation fact sheets: O Electric
O Water Conservation O Natural Gas
O Xeriscaping information O Water
O Vendors list 0 Wastewater
O Lighting Guide O Solar information
O Pool Operating Tips O Heat Pump Operation Guide


I checked:


Water Heating

Findings:

O Now set at oF

O Pipe feel test indicates leaks
O Pipes need insulation
O Pipes rusty, corroded, leaking
O Tank needs insulation

O Energy and water waster


Suggested Actions:

O Reset to oF

O Find and fix leaks
0 Insulate Pipes
O Repair Pipes
0 Insulate Tank

O Install showerhead that uses
less than 3 gallons/minute


O Hot Water Temperature

O Water Heater




O Showerhead


Results received by:_


Date:









1970's homes have mainly been constructed with slab-on-grade foundations and insulated wood-

framed walls in northern Florida. Homes are still built this way today and older homes are retro-

fitted with insulation and air-conditioning systems. The integrity of the building envelop is an

important determinant of the heating and cooling load for each type of household. [26] Shell

integrity is a function of the age and type of house, fuel and service types for heating and

cooling, and the environmental conditions to which it is exposed. The sizes of a structure and

wall and floor material are fundamental to energy use. Houses with slab-on-grade floors will be

more efficient than houses with raised wood floors as heat flow between the ground and the slab

moderates home temperature in both summer and winter. Efficiency of differences in wall types

vary based on construction and insulation values. Concrete block walls absorb and store more

heat and therefore, may prevent rapid temperature changes in the home. Wood-frame walls are

generally better insulated but tend to have greater air leakage than concrete block walls. [32] In

addition to the building materials used in the structural envelope, roof color and attic insulation

levels greatly influence the degree to which the interior of a home is protected against excessive

heat gain from solar radiation.

Protecting conditioned interior spaces from the effects of roof solar heat gain is essential to

reducing energy used for cooling. Exterior roof temperatures in Florida can soar to 160oF-170oF

in the mid-summer months. There are several options available for reducing roof solar heat gain

including replacing roofing material with a lighter colored material, painting roofing materials,

or application of light colored, reflective elastomeric roof coating. In a two-year study conducted

by the Florida Solar Energy Center, published in 1994, a Central Florida home with a black

asphalt shingled roof, with no attic insulation and attic ductwork was treated with a reflective









customers. In order to discuss future demand side management and research options it would be

most appropriate to outline the current course of action being taken.

Low Income Energy Efficiency Program

GRU is piloting its Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP) that will address

insulation, ductwork, HVAC equipment, and general weatherization problems. The program is

designed to incorporate capacity and knowledge building among its participants. To gauge the

outcome of this program energy use for each of the homes will be monitored by using standard

billing data. For the pilot, 40 homes are participating in the program with an additional 119

scheduled for next year.

Weatherization for Low-Income

There are many players in the fight to decrease energy use among the low-income

population in Gainesville. Affiliated Congregations To Improve Our Neighborhoods (ACTION),

Neighborhood Housing and Development Corporation (NHDC), ReBuild Gainesville, and GRU

are teaming up to help low-income households receive weatherization assistance. This program

is funded by community organizations and donations from the public with GRU acting as

information and training resource. Citizens are being trained to help their neighbors self audit

their homes to identify energy efficiency problems while ReBuild Gainesville is helping to

provide labor, expertise, and materials to fix these problems. Programs such as this one seem

most appropriate for helping to fix low-cost, knowledge-based changes.

Low Interest Loan Program

GRU is partnering with 1st Credit Union to offer up to $10,000 in low-interest loans for

energy efficiency upgrades. Customers would apply for the loan with 1st Credit Union based on

GRU' s approval of the upgrades and the cost estimates. This program has the most promise for









of decreasing roof solar heat gain a program that would help homeowners to purchase mastic

roof coating seems like the best option. Figure 5-1 shows a Central Florida home after the

application of mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles.

Refrigerator Coils

As the third largest user of energy within the home, attention to refrigerator maintenance,

including cleaning the condenser coils and checking door seals, should be a priority. It was found

that 61% of the survey population had excessive buildup of dust and dirt on their refrigerator' s

condenser coils. Among the survey participants those with dirty refrigerator coils had

significantly higher energy intensity. Since cleaning refrigerator coils can be done with no

expensive materials or equipment the only reason for this percentage to be so high is lack of

knowledge about refrigerator maintenance.

Hot Water Pipe Insulation

Water heaters are second on the list of residential energy users. Any inefficiency in the

system will have an effect on energy consumption. As part of the hot water supply system pipes

must be insulated to prevent heat loss. In our study we found that 53% of the survey population

had portions of hot water pipe that needed insulation. While there was increased energy intensity

among those who needed insulation it did not reach a 95% confidence level. The cost of adding

insulation to hot water pipes is minimal and supplies can be purchased at local hardware stores

and can be applied with no special training. In order to address this issue demand side

management programs must address homeowner knowledge of potential inefficiencies.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks

Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems account for the largest portion of

residential energy use in Florida. According to Florida Solar Energy Center inefficiencies in the

ductwork portion of the HVAC system account for 22% of the total annual cooling load. [21]











[31] US DOE. Trends in Residential Air-Conditioning Usage from 1978 to 1997.
3/23/2006).

[32] Vieira RK, Sheinkopf KG, Stone JK. Energy-Efficient Florida Home Building. Cape Canaveral,
FL: Florida Solar Energy Center, 1992.

[33] Wikler GA. Policy Options for Energy Efficiency Initiatives. The Electricity Journal 2000; 13(1):
61-68.

[34] XEnergy Inc. Phase 4 Market Effects Study of California Residential Lighting and Appliance
Program. San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Oakland, CA, 2002.












SJanuary April July October
SFebruary May August Novemnber
SMarch June September December
SNever Open Windows





Figure 4-1: Energy Survey Sampling and Scheduling Schematic


2075 n ,l-


__~
C
1619~
En;~j II

1LI II-i


2497 112131

..1, j=r II,.1 I.1 t=1rII,











Table 4-11:. Dark Roof Color
Dark Roof Color Dark N~ot Dark
62.1%
Mean 4.63 Mean 3.63
Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.22
Standard Deviation 2.10 Standard Deviation 1.68
Sample Variance 4.40 Sample Variance 2.83
Count 105 Count 58
Sx2 0.02
t 6.50


Table 4-4: Refrigerator Coils
Refrigerator Coils Clean Dirty
60.9%
Mean 3.70 Mean 4.70
Standard Error 0.21 Standard Error 0.20
Standard Deviation 1.71 Standard Deviation 2.08
Sample Variance 2.94 Sample Variance 4.33
Count 66 Count 103
Sx2 0.02
t 6.62


Table 4-5: Water Pipe Insulation
HW Pipe Insulation Doesn 't N~eed N~eeds
53.8%
Mean 4.20 Mean 4.40
Standard Error 0.23 Standard Error 0.21
Standard Deviation 2.05 Standard Deviation 1.97
Sample Variance 4.18 Sample Variance 3.88
Count 78 Count 91
Sx2 0.02
t 1.25

Table 4-6: HVAC Leaks
HVAC Leaks N~o Leaks Leaks
49.7%
Mean 4.11 Mean 4.51
Standard Error 0.23 Standard Error 0.20
Standard Deviation 2.17 Standard Deviation 1.81
Sample Variance 4.69 Sample Variance 3.28
Count 85 Count 84
Sx2 0.02
t 2.60










originally installed. Unless these upgrades have been made these homes will exhibit the same

insulative properties while air condition use has risen.

Analytical Results

Insulation Problems

It is no surprise that issues with attic insulation were found at the most prevalent energy

efficiency problem facing the low-income survey population. With most of the homes being

older, the level of insulation that was used during construction was most likely minimal. Many of

these homes may have been constructed before the Florida Energy Code became effective in

1979. The importance of proper attic insulation cannot be overstated. In our survey population

we found that nearly 92% of the households had inadequate attic insulation. This means that the

home either had less than R-30 insulation, as outlined in the Florida Building and Energy Codes,

or insulation was unevenly distributed creating "hot-spots" of thinner insulation. It is also not

surprising that the population with attic insulation problems had an average energy intensity of

more than 50% higher than those with proper attic insulation. It is worthy of mentioning that

nearly 20% of the survey population had no attic insulation. With the high cost associated with

adding attic insulation it is no wonder why low-income households have not been more active in

upgrading. Price estimates for upgrading vary from source to source. The RS Means

Construction Cost Index indicates a price of $2, 13 8 for the addition of R-30, blown- in, cellulose

insulation in the Gainesville area while a local contractor quoted a price of $1,400 for the same

upgrade. Understandably, the return on investment would be faster and greater for those with

lower insulation levels.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps

The use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) is one of the most inexpensive and effective

strategies for energy savings yet we found that only 21% of our sample population used them. To










helping to ease high initial cost of those improvements that have longer payback periods such as

adding attic insulation, making roof changes, fixing duct leaks, or replacing windows.

Compact Fluorescent Giveaway

Promotion of compact fluorescent lamps has been an ongoing proj ect for GRU. Several

delivery methods have been used to distribute CFLs. As incentive for participating in this survey

households were given three CFLs. The University of Florida' s Office of Sustainability has been

provided with CFLs to give away at community festivals and other civic events. Packets have

been given out at ACTION network meetings that contained energy efficiency tips and

information along with CFLs. They have also partnered with Home Depot for promotional sales

where GRU has bought down the price of CFLs. Data has not been collected on how effective

these initiatives are or how they might be augmented or enhanced.

Future

Potential Demand Side Management Program Areas

In order to broaden the effect of GRU' s residential energy conservation programs for low-

income customers more emphasis must be placed on homeowner and occupant knowledge and

behavior. In particular the approach to distributing information must be reexamined. GRU offers

a wealth of energy saving tips on their website and via mail and offers various rebates and

services yet their effect has not resounded as greatly in the low-income population. Perhaps this

will change with the latest programs targeting low-income households through community

organizations.

One method for increasing energy efficiency knowledge would be to become more active

in civic events and with civic organizations, possibly making GRU staff available to answer

energy questions, to display energy efficiency technologies, to give tips on solving particular

problems and to direct customers toward the programs that are available to assist with their











APPENDIX B
DEED IN-HOME QUESTIONNAIRE

DEED HOME ENERGY SURVEY




We would like to begin by asking some information about the home in which you now live.


Q1. When did you move into this home?

1 Less than 1 year ago Date given:
2 1 year to less than 2 years ago
3 2 years to less than 3 years ago
4 3 years to less than 5 years ago
5 5 years to less than 10 years ago
6 10 years ago or longer



Q2. How many months per year do you live in this home?

1 Less than 3 months
2 3 months to just under 6 months
3 6 months to just under 9 months
4 9 months to 12 months



Q3. Do you expect to move from this home in the next 12 months?

1 Yes 3 Explanation, if offered:
2 No
3 Uncertain



Q4. Do you own your home?

1 Yes, I own (or am buying) my home
2 No, I'm renting/leasing my home
3 Other:



Q5. When was your home built?

1 Less than 5 years ago Year if known:
2 5 years to just under 10 years ago
3 10 years to just under 20 years ago
4 20 years ago or more
5 Don't know









households did not adjust their HVAC settings while they were away from home. Though the

difference in energy intensity was only significant at a 90% level of confidence building science,

and common sense, shows that the longer the HVAC system runs the more energy it will use.

Many customers may be fooled by the myth that it takes less energy to maintain the homes

temperature than it does to re-cool or re-heat the home later. This is clearly untrue. Utility

companies could benefit greatly from creating education DSM programs to counteract this

problem as it would reduce peak electricity demand.

HVAC Filter

Proper maintenance of a home's HVAC system keeps it running as efficiently as possible.

There are many problems that can befall heating and cooling systems but the most common one

is reduced airflow across the evaporator coil. This happens when there are blockages in the

forced air system such as crushed or clogged ductwork, dust, dirt, or mildew build up on the

condenser coil, or when an air filter is clogged. Most often it is the latter. We found that 32% of

our sample population had excessively dirty air filters. While those household had, on average,

higher energy intensities the difference was not significant. The most likely explanation of this is

that those household do change their air filters, just not as often as they should. This would mean

that having just changed the filter the system would be on par with other study households. Once

the filter became clogged the energy use would increase until the next change. The cost of

replacement air filters is nominal; usually less than $15 for a three month filter. Effective

demand side management programs to counteract this issue would be centered on homeowner or

occupant knowledge and behavior.

Water Heater Setting

In North Florida residences, water heating accounts for 18% of the total energy use. [7] In

older, less efficient water heaters much of the energy is used to maintain water temperature in the











Q6. What direction does the longest side of your home face?


West (or East)
Southeast (or Northwest)
Southwest (or Northeast)
South (or North)


Q7. Which best describes the foundation of your home?


Slab on grade
Raised wood floors
Other:


3 Insulated?


No Uncertain


Q8. What is the major wall type of your home?


Concrete block
Brick
Wood frame
Other:


Q9. What is the shape of your home's roof?


Flat
Shed
Gabled
Hipped
Other:


Q10. Does your home have an attic?


3 Insulated?


No Uncertain


1 Yes
2 No


Yes


Q11. What is your home's roofing material?


Asphalt shingles
Wooden shakes
Tile (clay or concrete)
Metal
Other:


Q12. What is the color of your home's roofing material?

1 White or silver
2 Light grey or tan



68




















lct Leaks/Gains, 22%


Windows, 30%


Appliances, 16%


Roof, 20%


Figure 2-2. Annual Cooling Load Components taken from FSEC "Priorities for Energy
Efficiency for Home Construction in Florida." [21]












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............. ....._. __ ...............8....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


1 INTRODUCTION .............. ...............12....


Proj ect Purpose .........__. ............ ...............12.....
Back ground ........._._.... ...............12..._._.. ......
Research Objectives............... ...............1


2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............18....


Energy Use. .........__. ............ ...............18.....
Structural ................. ...............18......_._. .....
M echanical ................. ...............20......... ......
Behavioral ......_. ................. ......._._. .........22

D em ographi c ........_................ ............_........2
Current Programs ................. ...............24......... ......


3 METHODS .............. ...............27....


Proj ect Development ................. ...............27..............
Sample Selection .............. ...............27....
Recruitment Survey .............. ...............28....
DEED Survey .............. ...............30....
Data Collection ....._._ ................ ........___..........3
Problems and Solutions .............. ...............32....


4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................ ...............36


Typical Participant ................. ...............36........ ......
Initial Analysis............... ...............37
Exclusions ........._... ........... ...............37.....

Secondary Analysis .............. ...............37....

Energy Intensity Significance ................. ...............37..............
Insulation Problems .............. ...............38....

Compact Fluorescent Lighting .............. ...............38....
Dark Roof Color ................. ...............39..............

Refrigerator Coils .............. ...............39....
Hot Water Pipe Insulation .............. ...............39....









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The low-income energy efficiency survey conducted by Gainesville Regional Utilities

(GRU) and the University of Florida' s Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC)

with funding from the American Public Power Association' s (APPA) Demonstration of Energy

Efficient Developments (DEED) has resulted in an unprecedented collection of data concerning

the low-income population of Gainesville.

Typical Participants

To discuss the potential cause of energy efficiency issues that were found in the results and

potential solutions to these issues, it is necessary to first describe the typical survey participant.

Participants for the survey were selected based on several criteria. Selected households met the

Housing and Urban Development' s (HUD) low-income guidelines. (see Table 3-2) Additionally,

only those low-income customers living in single family, detached residences were selected in

order to limit confounding factors that would come from comparing apartments to houses.

People

It was found that 81% of the sample population own the homes in which they live and over

63% have been at there current residence for at least five years. Long tenure and ownership of

the residence would indicate that there is incentive for investment in energy efficiency upgrades.

The longer the tenure at the residence the greater chance of seeing a return on money used for

energy efficiency upgrades. For those who rent or those who are short term residents this type of

investment may not make financial sense as they may not see a return on their investment.

The occupancy of a home meaning those who reside in the home and the amount of time

spent in the home effect the amount of energy used in the home. For our survey 43% of the

homes were occupied by senior citizens and 66% of the survey population said that they spend












Section -5: LIGHTING IN Y~OUR HOlllE


Q46. During a typical day, how many hours do you use indoor lights in your home? (consider both morning
and night

hours)

1 less than two hours
2 2 to just under 4 hours
3 4 to just under 6 hours
4 6 to just under 8 hours
5 8 to just under 10 hours
6 10 to just under 12 hours
7 12 hours or more Specific #, if offered: hours



Q47. When using your indoor lights, how many rooms usually have lights on?

1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four
5 Five or More



Q48. What type of light bulbs do you use in your home? (include rough percentage)




Type Percent of Total

2 Fluodr Inescent 25% 50% 75% 100%

3 opc Fluorescent 25% 50% 75% 100%

4 Other: 25% 50% 75% 100%



Q49. Do you have exterior flood lights around your home?

1 Yes
2 No



Q50. How are your exterior lights controlled?

1 Indoorswitch
2 Timer
3 Motion Sensor









clarify, this means that they used at least one CFL in their home. Our statistical analysis showed

significantly lower energy intensity for those who use CFLs. So, why are the other 79% not

using CFLs? While CFLs have been on the market for some time, they are a new idea to many.

The different shape of the lamp as well as the relatively high purchase price may have kept them

out of homes. For those who have not seen or do not understand the lifecycle costs associated

with using CFLs versus standard incandescent lamps, CFLs probably seem expensive. The U.S.

Department of Energy' s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Consumer' s Guide quotes the

initial cost of one 27-watt CFL at $14 with a lifetime savings of $62.95 over 4.5 years. To low-

income households this may seem like a long term investment. How can utilities best bring CFLs

to the low-income community. [29] [34]

KEMA-XENERGY, a national energy consulting, information technology, and energy

services firm, evaluated the maj or CFL program delivery mechanisms by analyzing the results of

a survey conducted with 2001 CFL program participants. The results of this survey were

compared based on the utility's cost per lamp and the installation rate, or how many were

actually installed. There were four types of programs evaluated, all with their own strengths and

weaknesses. Table 5-1 is a table taken from the case study outlining the outcome of the research.

[34]

From this research we can determine that the best market strategy for Gainesville Regional

Utilities to target the general population may be a reduced-price program as it provides the best

market sustainability at the lowest cost. In order to target their low-income customers it may be

best to use a door-to-door giveaway method in order to maximize impacts while reaching their

target audience. Recently GRU has created several programs to promote the use of compact









Within our low-income survey population almost 50% of the homes had noticeable leakage in

the forced air system, which includes the ductwork, plenum, and trunk lines. It comes as no

surprise that these homes had significantly higher energy intensity. Problems of leakage can all

be attributed to improper installation, degradation, or disturbance. Installation issues will

generally occur where ductwork is improperly connected or where ductwork is hung in such a

manner that excessive stress in put on connections. Degradation of joint connection materials

may also occur resulting in leakage. Many times paper tape that was used years ago to connect

ductwork has degraded due to high attic temperatures and humidity. Perhaps the most likely

cause of duct leakage is disturbance by either people or animals. Often ductwork is disturbed by

those working in attic space. This is especially true in homes will smaller attic spaces. Attic

space used for storage also presents a case were ductwork can easily be disturbed. According to

information from a pilot duct repair program by GRU the average cost of duct repair is $422.20

and it results in a 5.2% overall reduction in energy use. This means that the average payback for

duct repair is 3.6 years. [12] The initial cost of duct repair may be outside of the reach of most

low-income families but with assistance could be an alternative for our survey sample as most

were long tenure residents who would receive a return on their investment. GRU currently offers

a duct repair rebate of up to $375 for work done by an approved contractor. Unfortunately the

upfront cost may be more than most low-income customers can afford.

Weather-stripping

According to FSEC, outside air infiltration accounts for 6% of the total annual cooling load

for Florida residences. [12] Addition of weather-stripping around doors, windows and other

openings can help to reduce infiltration and cooling load. Over 45% of our sample population

exhibited significant energy efficiency problems that could be repaired by using weather-

stripping. Most often doors and windows are installed with weather-stripping to prevent air









Table 5-1: Demand side management programs for compact fluorescent lamps [34]
Comparison of Delivery Mechanisms and Potential Program Obj ectives
Target Market Volume/Total Cost Per
Delvey pecans Market Sustainability Impacts CFL
Targeted event giveaway Very good Poor Low High
Door-to-door giveaway Good Poor High Moderate
Leveraging existing IPoor Poor ILow to medium ILow
programs
Reduced-price programs IPoor Good IHigh ILow


Figure 5-1: Central Florida home with mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles.









An unexpected complication that was perhaps the most onerous in its effect was that the

original energy intensity measures to which the survey was tailored were inherently incomplete

measures of household energy use. From the beginning of the proj ect well into the data analysis

phase, GRU considered differences across high and low energy intensity customers as defined by

kilowatt-hour demand per thousand square feet of conditioned space. While GRU was aware

through the course of survey development that this measure accounted for electrical demand

only, the practical ramifications of this were not realized until preliminary data analysis revealed

that the most important determinant of 'high' vs. 'low' energy users was the type of space

heating and water heating systems used in the homes. GRU attempted to correct this by

comparing energy intensities only across high and low electric-only users, but this strategy

effectively decreased the sample size by two-thirds. A better strategy, GRU decided, was to

extract, for all of the customers who participated in the DEED survey, data on their natural gas

usage over the same period of time for which kWh usage data had been extracted, merge these

two data sets, and convert both energy measures into the common denominator of British

Thermal Units, or BTUs. Once this was done, the energy intensity distribution of the DEED

sample changed from bimodal to normal, so the analysis itself had to be modified as well.









fluorescent lamps and is working to tailor these programs to meet the needs of the Gainesville

community.

Dark Roof Color

The color of a home' s roof has a direct effect on the roof temperature and the amount of

solar radiation absorbed by the home. Our survey results show that 62% of the population had

darker colored, mostly asphalt shingled, roofs ranging in color from dark red to black. This in

combination with the commonality of insulation problems among the sample population sets up

a situation where solar heat gain has a significant negative effect on air-conditioning efficiency.

The effective solution to this problem, to lighten the roof color, is simple while the means

to that end can become complicated and expensive. Residential roofs can be replaced with white

shingles, tiles, or metal roof decking. Asphalt shingles are a very economic roofing choice, and

have a large share of the market, including most houses with sloping roofs. According to the RS

Means 2006 Cost Index, replacing a 2000 square foot roof with white asphalt shingles would

cost about $2,075 including shingles and underlayment. [17] Another choice for increasing roof

solar reflectance is to coat the roof with a reflective material. White roof mastic can be applied

directly over shingles to decrease solar heat gain. A 1994 study by the Florida Solar Energy

Center (FSEC) reports a solar reflectance of 0.73 after the application of a roof mastic material

while white asphalt shingles have an reflectance of 0.21 [22] Tests showed that the addition of

white mastic coating to an asphalt singled roof where there was no attic insulation and the

HVAC ductwork was located in the attic resulted in a 19% energy savings and a 22% decrease in

peak electricity demand. The cost of white roof mastic is nearly 85 cents per square foot

resulting in a material cost of $1,700 for a 2000 square foot roof. Manufacturers of these roof

coatings tout this as a do-it-yourself proj ect. It can also be noted that mastic roof coatings

increase the longevity of asphalt shingles and increase hurricane resistance. Faced with the task









burdened, meaning that they spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs, so

addressing the needs of these low-income customers is a critical component of GRU' s

conservation programs [14].

Current Programs

There are currently several programs targeted at low-income energy assistance. The U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services' Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program

(LIHEAP) began in 1982 and was "designed to provide help to low-income households with a

minimum of government bureaucracy and a maximum of involvement by civic institutions [15]."

LIHEAP funds are distributed in Florida by the Division of Housing and Community

Development and in Alachua County by the Central Florida Community Action Agency. The

LIHEAP Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) provides funds for repair or replacement of

inefficient heating and cooling units, windows, doors, and water heaters. They also help to

address air-infiltration issues, install solar screens and install attic insulation and ventilation. To

qualify for assistance household income must not exceed 150% of the HUD low-income level.

The national budget for the LIHEAP program in 2006 was just over two billion dollars which

resulted in 15% of the eligible applicants receiving funds. Beyond LIHEAP the only source of

energy assistance in the Alachua County area is through GRU.

Gainesville Regional Utilities offers energy efficiency upgrade rebates for adding attic

insulation, HVAC maintenance, duct leak repair, and high efficiency air conditioners to name a

few. In addition to GRU' s rebates the federal government offers several efficiency upgrade

rebates. The problem with this type of rebate structure is that low-income customers cannot

afford the initial cost of upgrades. So far there have been few effective low-income energy

assistance programs that were not direct giveaway or weatherization makeover efforts.









costs and most in need of effective conservation programs. It was in response to this need that

GRU sought funding from the American Public Power Association (APPA) through the

Demonstration of Energy Efficient Developments (DEED) grant and implemented, in

collaboration with the University of Florida' s Program for Resource Efficient Communities

(PREC), a thorough energy survey of low-income customer households in Gainesville.

Research Objectives

To better understand why certain low-income customers perform significantly better than

others in their homes' energy efficiency, the immediate goals of this proj ect were to:

1. Determine maj or structural and soci oeconomi c-b ehavi oral factors that affect resident al
energy use in low-income homes in Gainesville, Florida.

2. Identify necessary cost inputs or behavioral changes to resolve the ten most prevalent
problems, in percentage of respondents, facing low-income Gainesville Regional
Utilities customers













Sectioni 2: liEEPING Y~OUR HOMIE C'OMFORTA~BLE


The next step is intended to gather some information about how you keep your home warm in the winter and
cool in the summer.


Q19. What are the main types of heating systems that you use?


Primary


Secondary


Electric resistance
Natural gas furnace
Liquid propane gas furnace
Heat pump 3 Central
central
Portable electric heater
Kerosene space heater
Wood stove / fireplace
Natural gas logs
None
Other:


1 Electric resistance
2 Natural gas furnace
3 Liquid propane gas furnace
4 Heat pump 3 Central

5 Portable electric heater
6 Kerosene space heater
7 Wood stove /fireplace
8 Natural gas logs
9 None
10 Other:


Non-central


Non-


Q20. What type of thermostat controls your main heating system?

1 Standard Thermostat
2 Programmable Electronic Thermostat
3 No Thermostat



Q21. At what temperature do you normally set your thermostat for winter heating?

oF




Q22. Do you change your thermostat setting or other heating control when you are away?

1 Yes 3 To what temperature is it changed?
2 No oF



Q23. Do you change your thermostat setting or other heating control when you are sleeping?

1 Yes 3 To what temperature is it changed?
2 No oF



Now we're going to ask about how you keep your home cool in the summer.










payback of just over 10 years. With an initial annual consumption of 20,733 kwh and an annual

savings of 7,265 kwh due to efficiency upgrades, the study home saw a 35% reduction in annual

energy consumption.

Behavioral

Significant differences in energy demand across residential homes are also likely to be tied

to occupants' behavior and energy awareness. How well do customers understand their home's

systems and how to use them effectively? How do customers tend to use energy within their

homes (i.e., what and how intense are the major plug load and HVAC demands)? How can

customers be motivated to pursue more efficient energy use habits or technologies? How

responsive will customers be to new energy efficiency programs? These types of questions along

with what is already know about maj or energy users in Florida homes serve as the foundations

from which the DEED energy survey was developed. Many energy efficiency factors that are

behavioral or knowledge based are associated with routine maintenance. These include things

like cleaning refrigerator coils, changing air filters, scheduling regular HVAC service. According

to GRU energy efficiency data, refrigerators and freezers are among the most significant energy

users in the home. Routine refrigerator maintenance includes cleaning dust and dirt from the

unit' s evaporator coils to insure proper air flow and to allow the unit to cool as efficiently as

possible. Timely replacement and proper installation of HVAC air filters can be an important

factor in the performance of the system. In the short term a clogged air filter will reduce air flow

across the evaporator coil, making the system work harder to cool the home. In the long term an

improperly installed air filter can result in dust and dirt building up on the evaporator coil itself,

again reducing air flow and creating an insulating film around the coil. Scheduling regular

HVAC maintenance service is essential to resolve minor problems before they affect the long-

term performance of the system.










most of an average day at home. This group would include those who are retired or disabled,

those who stay at home with children and those who work from home. On average our sample

population spent just over ten hours per day using entertainment devices such as televisions,

radios, or computers within the home. The high percentage of participants that do not work,

including retirees, the disabled, and stay-at-home parents, with energy efficiency problems

indicate that not only low-income but fixed low-income may hamper attempts at efficiency

investment.

As could be predicted 74% of the survey population said that they were "Very Concerned"

about their energy use. When asked 54% reported that they had made either structural,

mechanical or behavioral changes to reduce their energy use within the past year. These changes

ranged from adding attic insulation to replacing HVAC equipment to making more of an effort to

turn off lights when not being used. Concern over energy use has most likely been bolstered as

energy prices have risen. Over half of the survey population claimed to have made various

changes to reduce energy use which may be infer openness to efficiency suggestions. With this

in mind, 86% reported that they did not know of any programs to assist with making energy

efficiency changes. This statistic may seem astonishing at first but begins to make sense after

considering that internet, phone, and transportation access may be limited among a low-income

population such as our survey sample.

Homes

Structural properties of a home are considered a primary determinant of energy use.

Beyond the selection criteria of single family, detached homes we found that 63% of the homes

were of concrete block construction with 70% on slab-on-grade foundations. Considering

structural age as a factor, 76% of the homes were greater than twenty years old. The age of the

home can generally be linked with the insulation levels and types of windows that were









another 3000 mailings, including 2500 to LL customers and 2500 to HL customers. This resulted

in 2497 LL customers and 213 1 HL customers being contacted. A total of 2696 responses were

received including 2075 from the LL category and 1619 from the HL category. Figure 4-1 shows

a schematic of the progression from recruitment to final data collection.

The next step was to contact respondents in order to set appointments for GRU and PREC

staff to administer the surveys. Respondents were contacted between the hours of 8:00am and

7:00pm. After disqualifying customers whose income or contact information was incorrect as

well as those who declined or were unable to participate due to schedule conflicts, a total of 224

surveys were scheduled including 110 LL and 114 HL customers.

DEED Survey

In January 2006 development of the in-home survey instrument began. The in-home

energy surveys were to collect the bulk of data to identify key determinants of energy intensity

among low-income households. This was an extensive survey instrument made up of three core

components: a verbally administered questionnaire developed jointly by GRU and PREC for the

specific purpose of this proj ect (Attachment B), GRU' s standard energy conservation audit form

(Attachment C), and a supplemental GRU appliance checklist. The questionnaire investigated

information about the home as a structure, its occupants and their behavior, heating and cooling

systems, water heating and appliances, lighting, home entertainment systems, and demographics.

Questions were grouped according to subj ect areas which were titled: Information About Your

Home, Keeping Your Home Comfortable, Appliances in Your Home, Lighting in Your Home,

Home Entertainment, and Household Demographics.

Data collected by verbally administering this questionnaire to the respondent were also

supplemented with information recorded by GRU conservation analysts using a standard GRU

Energy Audit form. GRU uses this form as a tool to rapidly assess the integrity of a home's









elastomeric roof coating. The change from dark to reflective roof coating resulted in a 43%

decrease in energy required to cool the home. [22]

Attic insulation is one of the largest determinants of energy use. It acts as a barrier to

energy transfer from high temperature attic space to conditioned space. The 2006 supplements to

the Florida Energy Code and Florida Building Code require that R-30 attic insulation be installed

in all new residential construction. [6]

Mechanical

In North Florida's residential housing stock, heating, ventilation and air conditioning

systems typically consume the largest portion of total energy demanded by the home at

approximately 35%. Figure 2-1 shows energy end use by percentage as calculated by the

University of Central Florida' s Energy Gauge program. [7]

With this in mind, it is expected that problems related to mechanical heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems will increase energy intensity of a home. For

example, improperly sealed ductwork or air-handler closets will cause inefficiencies in HVAC

systems. Conditioned air will not be distributed properly, return air will not be preconditioned,

and the structure will be negatively pressured resulting in outside air infiltration. In a March

2007 report researchers from the Florida Solar Energy Center state that windows in an average

Florida residence account for 30% of the annual cooling load and solar heat gain from the roof

accounts for another 20%. This is illustrated in Figure 2-2. [21]

In the South U.S. Census Region the percentage of homes with central air conditioning

rose by 44 percent from 1978 to 1997. That increase is compounded by an addition of 11 million

homes in the same period. The share of southern homes with central air-conditioning that report

using it "all summer long" was 69 percent and for window/wall air-conditioners 40 percent

reported using it "all summer long". [31] Rented homes, older homes, smaller homes, homes









HOUSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AFFECTING
LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA




















By

NICHOLAS WADE TAYLOR


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007











Table 3-1: HUD 2005 Gainesville, FL MSA Low-Income Criteria


Household Size Low-Income
(number of residents) (80% MFI*)

1 $30,000
2 $34,300
3 $38,600
4 $42,900
5 $46,300
6 $49,750
7 $53,150
8 $56,600


*Fiscal Year 2005 Median Family Income (MFI) = $53,550









LIST OF REFERENCES


[1] Baxter LW. Federal Options for Low-Income Electricity Policy. The Electricity Journal 1998;11(5):
72-80.

[2] Berg SV. The Customer Bill as an Index of Utility Performance. The Electricity Joumnal
1995;8(1):54-59.

[3] City of Gainesville Official Website. Block Grant Community Development.
accesss sed 9/24/2006).

[4] Colton RD. Energy Consumption and Expenditures by Low-Income Customers. The Electricity
Journal 2002; 15(3):70-75.

[5] Flanigan T, Weintraub J. The Most Successful DSM Programs in North America. The Electricity
Journal 1993; 6(4): 53-65.

[6] Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2006 Supplement to the 2004 Florida Building
Code. International Code Council. Falls Church, VA.

[7] Florida Energy Gauge. Cales-Plus: Practical Solutions for Florida's Building Science Issues.
(accessed 9/24/2006).

[8] Gehring KL. Can Yesterday's Demand Side Management Lessons Become Tomorrow's Market
Solutions. The Electricity Joumnal 2002; 15(5): 63-69.

[9] Grosskopf KR, Kibert CJ. Economic Incentive Framework for Sustainable Energy Use in US
Residential Construction. Construction Management and Economics 2006;8(24):839-846.

[10] GRU. Be Energy Efficient Year 'Round.
(accessed 1/13/2006).

[1l] Halvorsem R. Demand for Electric Energy in the United States. Southern Economic Joumnal
1976;42(4): 610-625.

[12] Hardin D. Impact of Duct Leakage on 50 Houses in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville Regional
Utilities 2006.

[13] Hashem A, Kurn DM, Bretz SE, Hanford JW. Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of Shade
Trees. Energy and Buildings 1997;25(2):139-148.

[14] HUD. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. (accessed
3/12/2006)

[15] LIHEAP. Campaign for Home Energy Assistance. 2005. (accessed
11/12/2005).









consisted of 4 questions, chosen to qualify households based on the given criteria. The survey

was accompanied by a letter of support and encouragement by City of Gainesville Mayor Pegeen

Hanrahan (Appendix A). Mayor Hanrahan's letter prefaced the recruitment survey to introduce

the goals of the project and explain how interested households could participate. As an incentive

for participation, this letter also informed customers that they would receive three free compact

fluorescent lamps (CFLs). The purpose of the recruiting survey was to invite randomly selected

qualifying households to participate in the in-home energy survey. To verify that households

contacted and scheduled for in-home surveys met HUD's low-income criteria, the mail-

administered survey asked customers two necessary questions about 1) their 2005 gross

household income and 2) the number of people living in their household. Two supplemental

questions gauged respondents' concerns about home energy costs and asked for information

about their current residence tenure. Respondents were asked to share their contact information

(name and phone number, which could be cross-checked with customer records) and the best

time that they could be reached by phone. These components were included so that GRU could

easily follow up to schedule the in-home survey with income-eligible customers. Initially 1000

mailings were sent, including 500 to low energy intensity, low-income (LL) customers and 500

to high energy intensity, low-income (HL) customers. Return service was requested by March 3,

2006. Respondents who indicated a willingness to participate in the in-depth energy survey by

returning the energy survey form were screened for proj ect criteria and were contacted by GRU

staff to schedule survey appointments. Before recruiting surveys were to be sent to new batches

of customers pulled from the low and high energy intensity group database, follow up telephone

calls and replacement surveys (when necessary), were mailed to non-respondents from the

current batch of customers. After receiving and verifying the first round of responses GRU sent















Miscellaneous Plug
Load, 13%


Lights, 11%


Stove, 6%


Heating, 15%


Dryer,


Hot Water, 18%


Figure 2-1. Annual energy end use percentage for North Florida residences as given by the
University of Central Florida' s Florida Solar Energy Center. [21]





Circle applicable categones for mainframe Wate details or comments below


STRUC TYPE SING MULT MOBI BUSI
OCCUPANCY OWNE RENT
CEILINGS INSU UNIN BYPA ATTI ROOF
FLOORS INSU UNIN SLAB RAIS
WALLS INSU UNIN BYPA BLOC WOOD
WINDOWS GOOD POOR AWNI JALO
SHADE NEED EAST WEST SOUT NORT
COOL DISTR NONE ATTI INTE LEAK
HEAT DISTR NONE ATTI INTE LEAK
PRIME COOL NATG PROP ELEC PUMP WALL CENT
PRIME HEAT NATG PROP STRI PUMP FUEL WOOD
PORT HEAT KERO STRI OTHE
WATER HEAT NATG PROP STRI PUMP HRU SOLA


COOKING
POOL HEAT
SPA HEAT
REFRIG
OUTDR LT


NATG PROP STRI PUMP
NONE NATG PROP STRI PUMP SOLA
NONE NATG PROP STRI PUMP SOLA WOOD
REFR FREE HIGH
INCA FLUO HID LOW MEDI HIGH


A/C REBATE
MAINT
SYST
WIND
RRC
HP
HRU


SERVICES PROVIDED:

Action check
Computer Audit
A/C Sizing
Landscape Survey

HOUSE PLAN REVIEW:
Addition
New Home
EPI Calculation
Florida Fix Eval
Solar Eval

















CBIS
UEAS

INIT

REV











Q24. What are the main types of cooling systems that you use in your home?


Primary


Secondary


Electric central air conditioner
Natural gas air conditioner
Window / wall / room air conditioner
Whole house fan
Ceiling fans
Floor / box fans
None
Other:


1 Electric central air conditioner
2 Natural gas air conditioner
3 Window /wall /room air conditioner
4 Whole house fan
5 Ceiling fans
6 Floor / box fans
7 None
8 Other:


Q25. What type of thermostat is used to control your home's main air conditioning system?


Standard Thermostat
Programmable Thermostat
No Thermostat


Q26. At what temperature do you normally set your thermostat for summer cooling?


oF




Q27. Do you change your thermostat setting or other cooling control when you are away from home?


1 Yes
2 No


3 To what temperature is it changed?


Q28. Do you change your thermostat setting or other cooling control when you are sleeping?


1 Yes
2 No


3 To what temperature is it changed?


Q29. How often is the air conditioner filter changed?


Once a month
Once every 2-3 months
Once every 4-6 months
Once a year
Don't know


Q30. During what months of the year, if any, do you open windows on a regular basis for natural ventilation?












Energy Survey Form
Family Bill-Payer: Please take a minute to complete this survey form and mail it back to GRU in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by February 24, 2006.
If you qualify, we will contact you at the telephone number you provide to schedule an in-home energy assessment.
Name: Phone Number:( )

Best time to reach you by phone: 0 Morning 0 Afternoon 0 Evening

1. How concerned are you about energy costs in your home?
O Not Concerned at All 0 Somewhat Concerned 0 Very Concerned
2. Including yourself, how many people live in your home?
01 02 03 04 05+
3. How long have you and your family been living in this home?
O Less than 1 year 0 1-2 years 0 2-4 years 0 4-6 years 0 More than 6 years
4. What was your combined household's 2005 income before taxes? (See Box 1 on your W-2 forms)
0 Under $18,750 0 $18,751 to $30,000 0 $30,001 to $34,300 0 $34,301 to $38,600 0 $38,601 to$42,900
0 $42,901 to $46,300 0 $46,301 to $49,750 0 $49,751 to $53,150 0 $53,151 to $56,600 0 over $56,601
Thank you for your participation! Source Code: 1001













Section 6: HOUrSEHOLD DElllOGRA~PHIC'S


Finally, we would like to ask a few questions about you and your family. Please remember that your
information will be grouped together with other families' responses and will not be linked directly to your
household. We will use the results of this survey to help you and your neighbors lessen the burden of monthly
energy bills, so your continued input is important.


Q57. Including yourself, how many people live in your home (i.e., sleep here at least five nights a week)?








Q58. How many senior citizens (65 years or older) are in your household?

1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four
5 Five or more
6 None



Q59. How many children (17 years or younger) are in your household?

1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four
5 Five or more
6 None


Q60. Do any members of your household regularly work from home?

1 Yes 3 Occupation, if offered:
2 No


Q61. During a typical work week, is someone at home all day?

1 Yes
2 No

Q62. What was your household's total 2005 income before taxes? (See Box 1 on your W-2 forms)

1 $20,000 or less
2 $20,001 to $25,000
3 $25,001 to $30,000
4 $30,001 to $35,000
5 $35,001 to $40,000











4 Other:



Q51. How many hours per night are exterior lights typically on?

1 Less than 2 hours
2 2 to just under 4 hours
3 4 to just under 6 hours
4 6 to just under 8 hours
5 8 to just under 10 hours
6 10 to just under 12 hours
7 12 hours or more Specific #, if offered: _hours









HVAC Settings

From the DEED questionnaire it was found that 33.7% of the sample population does not

adjust their HVAC setting when leaving the home for more than 3 hours. This was asked of

participants for both heating and cooling season settings. The mean energy intensity for those

who did not adjust their HVAC settings while away from their homes was 4.46 MMBTU/1000sf

while those who did were at 4.23 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 1.43 which did not

meet a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are

significantly different.

HVAC Filter

Upon visual inspection by the GRU auditor and participant response to the DEED

questionnaire it was found that 32% of the survey population has not regularly replaced their

HVAC Eilter. The mean energy intensity for those who had dirty HVAC Eilters was 4.27

MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at 4.33 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value

was 0.3 5 which did not meet a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the

two groups are significantly different.

Attic Access

Upon visual inspection by the GRU auditor and participant response to the DEED

questionnaire it was found that 27.2% of the survey population does not have insulation on the

interior attic access panel of their home. The mean energy intensity for those who had insulation

on the attic access panel was 4. 15 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at 4.73

MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 3.56 which indicates a 95% level of confidence that

the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different.



























Meter Readings: Electric # Water # Gas #
Date Days Reading kWh kWhlDay Reading Gallons Gallons/Day Reading Therms Therms/Day
Today

Previous


I have checked the major areas that may cause high energy and water use. You can reasonably expect the following suggestions
to save you money. Savings will be affected by equipment type, efficiency and condition, operation patterns, and weather.


GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTILITIES
CONSERVATION SERVICES PHONE: 393-1460
ENER G YAND WATER AC TION SAV INGS PLAN


Mre than ]Energy"

Name:

Address:


GRU #

Survey #


Home Phone

Work Phone


GRU Representative _


Date/Time


O Since I did not find you at home, I looked around and made some general observations. Because the heating, cooling, water
heating, and refrigeration equipment can dramatically affect your utility bill, you may want to call us for another appointment. As
always. we are here to serve you.


HEATING, VENTILATION, AND COOLING


I checked:


Findings:

O Large line needs insulation

O Coils are damaged
O Coils are dirty
O Air flow restricted (See comments)

O Filter is dirty
O Filter is missing
0 Air by-passing filter


O Air handler coil is dirty
O Evidence suggests coil is dirty
O Temperature Drop= "F

O Ducts have leaks
O Ducts need insulation

O Air handler, support platform, air
handler closet leaks
0 Excessive rust found
O Yellow flame noted

O Attic insulation is inadequate
(Currently R-


Suggested Actions:

O Install pipe insulation

O Call HVAC contractor to repair
O Clean coils
O Remove air flow obstruction

O Clean and/or replace filter
O Install filter (Size:
O Install proper-sized filter or
secure filter across opening

O Call HVAC contractor to service units)

O Ideal range is between 8-12.F

O Call HVAC contractor to seal leaks
O Insulate ducts (R-6)

O Consult HVAC contractor to seal air
handler, support box or closet
O Have furnace serviced
O Replace with natural gas unit

O Upgrade to at least R-
O Insulate attic access coverts)


O Refrigerant Line

O Condenser Coil
(Outside a/c coll)


O Filters


O Evaporator Coil
(Alr handler coll)


O Ducts


O Air Handler/Furnace




O Attic Insulation


OTHER HEATING AND COOLING TIPS:

Current thermostat setting is:
O When cooling, set the thermostat no lower that 78.F when home, and turn up or off the system when gone.
O When heating set the thermostat no higher that 68.F when you are at home, and turn it off or back 10-15.F when gone
(except with a heat pump where you leave the temperature constant) and set to 55.F at night.
O Keep interior doors open, or at least cracked open one inch, for proper air circulation.
O Use fans, but only when someone is in the room.
O Shade windows that get direct sunshine in the summer on the ON OS OE OW.
O Snuggly cover windows in winter.
O Weatherstrip and caulk around doors and windows.


APPENDIX C

GRU ENERGY AUDIT FORM











2 Frequently
3 Occasionally
4 Never



Q43. What type of energy does your stoveloven use?


Gas
Electric
Other:


Q44. In a typical week, how many meals are prepared at home? (brealdast, lunch, and dinner each count as
one meal)


5 or less
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 or more


Q45. How frequently do you use a microwave, toaster oven, or toaster?

1 Never
2 Once a week or less
3 About every other day
4 Once or twice a day
5 Several times a day













Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks ................. .............................39
Weather-stripping ................. ...............40.____.......
W windows ............. ...... ._ ...............40....

HVAC Settings ............. ...... ._ ...............41....
HVAC Filter ............. ...... ._ ...............41....
Attic Access ............. ...... ._ ...............41....

Water Heater Setting .............. ...............42....
Shading ............. ...... ...............42....

Evaporator C oil .............. ...............42....
Conclusions............... ..............4


5 DI SCU SSION ............. ...... ._ ...............48....


Typical Participants .............. ...............48....
People .............. ...............48....
H om es ............. ...... ...............49....

Analytical Results ............. ...... ._ ...............50....
Insulation Problems .............. ...............50....

Compact Fluorescent Lamps .............. ...............50....
Dark Roof Color ............. ...... ._ ...............52....

Refrigerator Coil s .............. ...............53....
Hot Water Pipe Insulation ................ ......... ............5
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks ....._____ ...... ..___ ............__..53
W eather-stripping ............. ...... ._ ...............54....
W indow s ............. ...... ._ ...............55....

HVAC Settings ............. ...... ._ ...............55....
HVAC Filter ............. ...... ._ ...............56....

W ater Heater Setting .............. ...............56....
Shading ............. ...... ...............57....

Evaporator Coil .............. ...............58....
Combined Effect of Results ............. ...... ._ ...............59...

Recent Program s ................... ..__ ...............59....
Low Income Energy Efficiency Program ...._ ......_____ .......___ ...........6
Weatherization for Low-Income .............. ...............60....

Low Interest Loan Program ................. ...............60...___ .....

Compact Fluorescent Giveaway ........._._... .....__ ...............61...
Future .........._.... .. .... ._._. .... ...._. .. .............6

Potential Demand Side Management Program Areas .............. ..... ............... 6
Problem Areas .............. ...............62....
Future Research ........._..._.._ ...............63.._.._._ .....


A RECRUIT MENT MAILING ........._..._.._ ...._._. ...............65....


B DEED IN-HOME QUESTIONNAIRE............... .............6


C GRU ENERGY AUDIT FORM .............. ...............84....










LIST OF FIGURES


Fiare page

1-1: GIS map created by GRU to show areas of highest energy intensity. ................ ................16

1-2: Map of the Community Development Block Grant areas overlay to show the energy
intense areas as they correlate. ........... ..... .._ ...............17..

2-1: Annual energy end use percentage for North Florida residences as given by the
University of Central Florida' s Florida Solar Energy Center. [21] .............. ................25

2-2: Annual cooling load components .............. ...............26....

4-1: Energy survey sampling and scheduling schematic ................ ...............35........... .

5-1: Central Florida home with mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles. ............. ..................64









windows is preserved. Solar screens are also available but are more expensive and are generally

professionally installed.

In order to reduce solar heat gain on walls without increasing shading it is necessary to

increase solar reflectance. This can be done by using lighter colors on the exterior of the home.

The concepts are much the same as previously discussed regarding roof solar heat gain while the

process of painting exterior siding is easier and less expensive.

In addition to decreasing direct solar heat gain on the structure itself tree shade can reduce

ambient temperatures around the home lessening the effects of outside air infiltration and heat

exchange through the building envelope. A 1997 study published in the j journal Energy and

Buildings estimates the total energy saved over a cooling season by the addition of shade trees to

be 29%. The peak energy savings resulting in this study is said to be 47%. [20] While the

addition of trees for shade has proven to have a profound effect on energy consumption, the

payback period and lag time before seeing true results suggest that alternative measures be taken

as well. The most likely alternatives would be solar window fi1ms and light colored exterior

paints or coatings.

Evaporator Coil

Any inefficiency within the HVAC system will have a detrimental effect on energy use.

Excessive buildup of dust and dirt on the air handler evaporator coil leads to reduced air flow,

reduced heat transfer, and reduced moisture removal from the air. Among the sample population

13% were found to have dirty evaporator coils. This portion of the sample population had

significantly higher energy intensity than those without dirty evaporator coils. The solution to

this problem is to have regularly scheduled HVAC maintenance performed by a qualified HVAC

technician, to regularly check and change HVAC filters and to repair leaks in the HVAC duct

system. According to local contractors HVAC maintenance service costs between $65 and $100










within the ductwork while additional leaks were found in the air handler plenum and trunk line

sections. Overall 49.7% of the sample population was found to have leakage in the forced air

HVAC system. The mean energy intensity for those who had HVAC leaks was 4.51

MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not have leaks were at 4. 11 MMBTU/1000sf. The

Student' s t-value was 2.6 indicating that the mean energy intensity values differed significantly

at the 95% confidence level.

Weather-stripping

Over 45.0% of the sample population was found to be in need of additional weather-

stripping around doors, windows, and other openings in the building envelope. This conclusion

was based on visual inspection by the GRU auditor. The mean energy intensity for those who

needed additional weather-stripping was 4.52 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at

4. 14 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 2.46 indicating that the mean energy intensities

are significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Windows

It was found that 3 5.5% of the sample population had maj or problems with their windows

that affect the homes energy use. Problems affecting efficiency ranged from windows that did

not close properly to those with broken or missing panes. Windows that did not close properly

were those that could not be fixed simply using weather-stripping. This category included all

homes with jalousie windows, as they do not provide an adequate seal to prevent the movement

of air and moisture. GRU auditor both visually and physically inspected windows within the

survey homes. The mean energy intensity for those who window problems was 4.73

MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at 4.07 MMBTU/1000sf. The calculated

Student' s t-value, 4.05, indicates that these average energy intensity values are significantly

different at the 95% level of confidence.









CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Typical Participant

Participants were selected based on several criteria. All were HU7D defined low-income

households, living in single-family, detached residences. After the selection of participants,

several common characteristics were identified:

81% of the sample population own the homes in which they live. Over 63% have

been at their residence for at least 5 years.

76% of the homes were reported to be constructed over 20 years ago. The average

number of occupants in each of the surveyed homes was 2.5 persons.

43% of the homes were occupied by senior citizens and 32% had children living in

the home.

66% of the sample population said that they spent most of the day at home. This

group included both those who are retired and those who work from home. On

average the sample population spent just over 10 hours per day using entertainment

devices such as televisions, radios, computers, or video games within the home.

70% of the homes were built on slab-on-grade foundations and 63% had concrete

block walls.

74% said that they were "Very Concerned" about their energy use and 54% had

made changes to decrease their energy use within the last year.

86% reported that they did not know of any programs to assist with making

efficiency changes.









with no air conditioning, and homes with lower incomes all tend to have fewer ceiling fans

which may indicate that lower income families may resort to more costly and energy intensive

methods of home cooling. [28] It is also worth noting that any energy using devices within the

home, such as it lights, appliances, etc., will not only use energy to operate but will also give off

heat, adding to the load on the air conditioning system. Electricity use (or plug loads) of specific

appliances and devices is supported by hard data tested in a laboratory setting. For instance,

compact fluorescent lamps use considerably less energy than incandescent lamps with the same

light output. Newer, Energy Star rated appliances typically use less energy than older appliances.

Maj or differences in plug loads from household to household are often tied to frequency of use

of these appliances by occupants.

According to information from the Florida Solar Energy Center's 1997 study:

"Simulation analysis suggests that electricity consumption can be reduced up to 40% in
existing Florida homes with judicious use of methods to reduce loads, as well as more
efficient equipment." [20]

The home used in the study was a 1,243 square foot, three bedroom, single-story home that

was selected based on a history of high utility costs. The homes had an uninsulated slab-on-grade

foundation with 8" concrete block walls with R-5 interior insulation on the walls. The study

home' s attic had R-19 blown insulation, limited ventilation, and the roof was covered with black

asphalt shingles. For space conditioning the home contained a 3.5-ton split system air

conditioner with electric strip heat. The indoor air handler unit was located in the unconditioned

garage. The daytime setting for the air conditioning system was normally set to 85oF during

daytime hours using a programmable thermostat.

During the study an attic radiant barrier system, high efficiency HVAC system, high

efficiency refrigerator, high efficiency lighting and additional attic insulation were added. With

an input $6,480, the estimated annual savings from these upgrades was $616 which results in a









Future Research

As this research was funded by the American Public Power Association the full survey

instrument, analytical method and program design considerations can be used by other utilities

throughout the U.S. to help implement cost-effective energy conservation programs for their

low-income customer segments. To gain a broader perspective of the low-income Gainesville

population additional research of this type should be targeted toward apartment dwellers.

Additionally, to determine the effect of ongoing programs, participant energy use should be

monitored to determine if efforts have resulted in significant and lasting decreases in energy

consumption. This would help to judge effectiveness in order to tailor programs to meet the

needs of their target audiences which is a primary goal of demand side management programs.









households also perform relatively well compared to the rest of the low-income household

population (i.e., their energy intensity is relatively low among this population).

There was a profound shift in the results for average customers vs. low-income customers

when total electric energy use is converted to energy intensity. This led GRU to create a study

focused on the service territory areas with high densities of low-income customers and

significant deviations from 'average' energy intensity. The proj ect was designed to use firsthand

data to determine the primary factors contributing to increased energy use and to identify

potential mechanisms appropriate for delivering energy efficiency services to low and Eixed

income Gainesville residents.

Initially, GRU conservation analysts determined low-income areas by making field visits

to these neighborhoods where there were high intensity, red dot clusters and compared these

areas to maps indicating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) areas. Under the

CDBG housing activities are addressed city wide with income of beneficiaries as the main

determining factor. Infrastructure and public facility improvements are targeted toward Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) low and moderate income neighborhoods within the Gainesville

City limits and to those agencies serving low- and moderate-income clients. In Figure 1-2 the

GRU energy intensity map is overlaid with the Gainesville CDBG map to show the occurrence

of high energy intensity households within the CDBG zones. [29] This was done only as an

indicator of correlation between occurrence of high energy intensity and CDBG zones and was

not the limit of the sample population selection area.

Next, GRU staff interviewed GRU energy conservation representatives who had visited

many of the dwellings in the red-dot cluster areas and asked them to list the factors that they

thought contributed to high bills in these locations. Their responses included a range of potential









structure and systems, identify potential interventions to improve its energy efficiency, and give

residents tips for conserving energy and improving the efficiency of their homes. At the

conclusion of the survey an appliance checklist was completed to record accurate counts for the

number of different types of systems, appliances, and other significant energy users in the home.

Each in-home survey was administered by two field interviewers, one administering the

questionnaire and one to complete the inspection audit. Key components of the complete survey

instrument were based on building science and demographic data obtained from the U.S.

Department of Energy' s Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Florida Solar Energy

Center (FSEC) and GRU historical data. The effective term of survey development was four

months, with significant action occurring between December, 2005 and March, 2006. Survey

development was complete in March, 2006 and data collection via in-home surveys began on

April 14, 2006.

Data Collection

Collection of data via implementation of the in home survey began in March, 2006. A

survey session consisted of two surveyors, one GRU auditor and one person to administer the

questionnaire, who spent approximately 90 minutes in a participant' s home collecting data. The

survey administrator would sit to talk with the participant about the various items covered in the

questionnaire survey (see Appendix B) while the GRU auditor inspects physical features of the

home as outlined in the GRU Energy Audit Form (see Appendix C). During the questionnaire

portion of the survey any physical features of the home that were readily apparent were noted by

the administrator and verified with the home owner. These would have include items such as

wall, flooring, and foundation type, roof structure, material, and color, window and door types,

and lighting types. Any questionnaire items that were not readily discernable or that related to

behavior were noted per the participant's response. After both the questionnaire survey









maintenance all show a 95% level of confidence in the difference between the means in energy

intensity of those with and without the undesirable characteristic. HVAC settings, water pipe

insulation, and HVAC filter issues did not meet a 95% level of confidence. Factors that affect

these results and potential for demand side management programs will be discussed in Chapter 5.









Student' s t-value was 2. 14 indicating that these average energy intensity values are significantly

different at the 95% level of confidence.

Dark Roof Color

When examined by the survey administrator 62.1% of surveyed homes had dark, either

red, brown or black, roofs. The mean energy intensity for those who had a dark roof was 4.63

MMBTU/1000sf while those whose roof was either white or light gray were at 3.63

MMBTU/1000sf. The calculated Student' s t-value, 6.50, indicates that these average energy

intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of confidence.

Refrigerator Coils

Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 60.9% of the survey population had an

unacceptable amount of buildup of dust on the condenser coils of the refrigerator. The mean

energy intensity for those who had dirty refrigerator was 4.7 MMBTU/1000sf while those

without were at 3.7 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 6.62 indicating that the mean

energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Hot Water Pipe Insulation

Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 53.8% of the survey population needed

additional insulation on hot water pipes to reduce heat loss of water in transit and to maintain the

desired temperature of water as it leaves the water heater. The mean energy intensity for those

who needed additional water pipe insulation was 4.4 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not

were at 4.2 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 1.25 which did not meet a 95% level of

confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different.

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) leaks include any leaks within the force

air system and were physically tested by GRU energy auditor. Many of these leaks (34%) were











































IDescription Total # I#Weather-strippedl

1"""""" W ood""""""""
2 IMetal Insulated

3 Glasss~
4Other:


Q15. Describe your home's windows.




Desci Toal# # Weather- # Double- Frame Material Window Covering

~~Wood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
1 Smgl HungOther: Other:
Dobl~ugWood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
Other: Other:
Wood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
3 Casement
Other: Other:
~aolleWood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
Other: Other:

Avu~Wood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
Other: Other:


3 Red or orange
4 Dark brown or dark grey
5 Black
6 Other:



Q13. What is the total square footage of your home, including bathrooms and hallways? (Do not include
garages, outside

patios or porches)


1 Less than 500
Record #>
2 500-999
3 1000-1499
4 1500-1999
5 2000-2499
6 2500-2999
7 3000-3999
8 4000 or more
9 Don't Know


GRU Records / Appraiser Value:<

Specific #, if offered:


Q14. Describe your home's exterior doors.










Beyond maintenance issues basic control and use of household appliances and mechanical

equipment can contribute to increased energy use. Proper use of HVAC equipment can insure

economical space conditioning of the home. GRU recommends that HVAC thermostats be set at

78oF while in cooling mode and at 68 oF while in heating mode and cites an energy increase of

up to 4% for every degree set below the cooling recommendation or above the heating

recommendation. In addition, it is recommended that thermostats be adjusted, up during cooling

season or down during heating season, while the home is unoccupied for two or more hours. [26]

Using ceiling fans to increase air circulation can allow home occupants to feel comfortable while

decreasing HVAC use.

Turning off lights, fans, entertainment devices or other appliances while not in use or while

rooms are unoccupied is another method of using behavior to decrease energy use. A similar

approach can be taken to reduce hot water use. This can be done by avoiding washing clothes or

rinsing dishes with hot water, decreasing shower time, or turning off the hot water tap when not

in immediate use. It is estimated that 80% to 85% of energy used to wash clothes is used for

heating water. Adjusting the water heater temperature setting to 120oF will insure that excessive

energy in not being used for water heating. Many, if not all, of the behavioral energy efficiency

issues are based in knowledge of system use and maintenance.

Demographic

Low-income households typically spend a disproportionate amount of their income on

utility bills, and reaching these customers with energy-efficiency improvement programs has

proven more challenging than delivering similar services to higher-income customers. [24] High

energy use and rising utility rates combine to create significant financial burdens for households

constrained by low-incomes: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data

indicate that 35 percent of households in Gainesville's municipal service area are housing-cost-













Section 5: HOMIE ENTERTA-INMIENT


Now, think about some of the other energy users in your home, such as electronic equipment.


Q52. How many TVs are in your home?

1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four
5 5 or more 3 Of all TVs, how many are large screens?
6 None



Q53. About how many hours will at least one TV be on in a typical day?

1 None
2 Less than 2 hours
3 2 to just under 4 hours
4 4 to just under 6 hours
5 6 to just under 8 hours
6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: _hours



Q54. About how many hours per day is a video game system typically in use?

1 None
2 Less than 2 hours
3 2 to just under 4 hours
4 4 to just under 6 hours
5 6 to just under 8 hours
6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered:
hours



Q55. About how many hours per day is a computer typically in use?

1 None
2 Less than 2 hours
3 2 to just under 4 hours
4 4 to just under 6 hours
5 6 to just under 8 hours
6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: hours



Q56. How many hours per day is a CD player, radio, or other type of stereo system typically in use?

1 None
2 Less than 2 hours
3 2 to just under 4 hours









After consulting University of Florida' s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

(IFAS) statistical experts it was determined that for the amount of data to be correlated with the

independent variables, statistically significant results could be obtained with a total of 200

participants, including 100 'HL' and 100 'LL'. The households were coded as LL if their

average monthly electric energy intensity in 2005 was less than 454 kWh per 1000 square feet

and were coded as HL if their average monthly electric energy intensity in 2005 was greater than

1096 kWh per 1000 square feet. Information including energy use and conditioned floor area

was retrieved from the GRU customer database. Household income of those to which initial

questionnaires were sent was anticipated based on the home's location and was later verified

with the response given to the initial mailing. The designation of LL and HL groups was

originally intended to create a bimodal comparison between high and low electric energy users

within the low-income sector to identify differences in energy conservation strategies. This was

later changed when participant's natural gas usage was factored in creating a normalized

distribution of energy intensity among the survey sample. This change is discussed further in the

Problems & Solutions section. It was determined that the most appropriate sample population

would be those low-income customers who either own or rent single family, detached residences.

In defining the target population, we opted to recruit only single-family, detached homes as these

have distinct structural characteristics from multi-unit dwellings that affect their energy

performance. The purpose for this was to keep the DEED sample as consistent as possible across

features over which there was some degree of selection control. This also helped to reduce the

required survey sample size needed to provide meaningful results.

Recruitment Survey

On February 17, 2006, recruitment surveys (Appendix A) were distributed to 1000

potential participant households with an anticipated response rate of 20%. These questionnaires









and should be done every one to two years at the beginning of the cooling season. GRU currently

offers a rebate of up to $55 for central air condition maintenance. Issues concerning HVAC

Eilters and ductwork were discussed in detail earlier in this chapter.

Combined Effect of Results

Of the most frequent issues that were found to be present among our sample population it

is understood that several stand out due to the scope of their potential energy efficiency effects.

Information from leading energy efficiency resources, including the U. S. Department of Energy,

the Florida Department of Energy, and the Florida Solar Energy Center, suggest that reduced

solar heat gain, properly sealed building envelope, increased attic insulation, properly sealed

ductwork, efficient HVAC system, reduction of hot water use, and use of compact fluorescent

lighting are the main goals to reducing energy consumption in existing residential structures. In

addition it is recognized that increased energy intensity is most likely due to a combination of the

issues tested in this research.

The energy efficiency issues that most likely have the largest effect on the low income

population in Gainesville are lack of proper attic insulation, poor quality windows, lack of

shading to reduce solar heat gain, HVAC duct leaks, improper adjustment of HVAC settings,

poorly sealed building envelope, non-use of compact fluorescent lamps, inefficient HVAC

equipment, and inefficient use of hot water and water heating equipment. Possible solutions and

demand side management target for many of these issues have been discussed in the preceding

sections. In order to identify DSM approaches that may help to resolve these issues it is

necessary to identify current programs and their potential effects.

Recent Programs

Since the completion of this survey Gainesville Regional Utilities has used some of the

data to enhance and support its demand side management programs that address its low-income













LIST OF REFERENCES ........._.... ....._.. ...............87.....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............90....









CHAPTER 3
METHOD S

Project Development

In July 2005 Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) applied for the American Public Power

Association' s (APPA) Demonstration of Energy-Efficient Developments (DEED) grant to fund

additional research on the topic of energy use in low-income housing. The intent of the research

was to identify the energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues affecting the low-

income population in Gainesville, Florida. The University of Florida' s Program for Resource

Efficient Communities (PREC) started on the project in December 2005 to help develop and

administer the research survey as well as to analyze the forthcoming data. At this point

identification of potential survey participants and development of the initial recruitment

questionnaire began. Because it would not be possible to achieve the DEED research obj ectives

using a survey administered entirely by mail or telephone, the research design led to the

development of two distinct survey instruments: a very brief mail-administered recruiting survey

and an in-depth, in-home energy survey, which was supplemented with GRU's standard

conservation audit form and an appliance checklist.

Sample Selection

The sample population was chosen based on three criteria: income, energy use, and

housing type. The primary criteria used while selecting the research sample was household

income. Household income eligibility was based on 2005 Housing and Urban Development' s

(HIUD) Low-Income Criteria for Gainesville, Florida. "Low-Income" was defined as 80% of the

Median Family Income (MFI) which was $53,550 for the 2005 Fiscal Year. Income criteria are

also based on the number of residents in the household. Table 3-1 shows the upper limits of

household income in relation to household size based on HUD low-income criteria.













Insulation Problems 91.7%
Don't Use CFLs 78.7%
Dark Roof Color 62.1%
Dirty Refrigerator Coils 60.9%
Need Insulation on HW Pipes 53.8%
HVAC Leaks 49.7%
Need Weather-strippng 45.0%
Problems With Windows 35.5%
Don't Adjust While Away 33.7%
Dirty HVAC Filter 32.0%
Uninsulated Attic Access 27.2%
Water Heater Set Too Hig 20.7%
Need Additional Shading 19.5%
HVAC Evaporator Coil Dirty 13.0%


Table 4-2: Attic Insulation Problems
Insulation N~o Problems Problems
91.7%
Mean 3.57 Mean 5.60
Standard Error 0.68 Standard Error 0.21
Standard Deviation 2.54 Standard Deviation 2.64
Sample Variance 6.43 Sample Variance 6.99
Count 14 Count 155
Sx2 0.05
t 8.68

Table 4-3: Compact Fluorescent Lamps
CFLs Don't Use Use 75%-100% CFLs
78.7%
Mean 4.35 Mean 3.64
Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 1.24
Standard Deviation 1.96 Standard Deviation 2.14
Sample Variance 3.84 Sample Variance 4.58
Count 133 Count 3
Sx2 0.11
t 2.14


Table 4-1: Energy Efficiency Problems based on percentage of survey participants.


Energy Efficiency Problem


Percent of homes





































Figure 1-1: GIS map created by GRU to show areas of highest energy intensity.









factors, from the condition of the building envelope and appliances in the home to the behavior

of residents. At this point in survey development all types of housing, including apartments,

duplexes and detached homes were under consideration. The preliminary list of potential energy

intensity determinants to be investigated in the study included:

* Number of people in the household quite often in low-income areas many individuals
live under the same roof to help reduce costs

* Age and type of structural material used of the dwelling (i.e. wood frame vs. concrete
block)

* Occupancy status (i.e. tenant vs. owner-occupied) little incentive exists for a landlord to
care about energy usage by a tenant, so necessary upgrades to appliances and HVAC
equipment is too often delayed or ignored completely

* Age, condition, and number of appliances- again, potentially tied to the lack of incentive
for absentee landlords to upgrade appliances

* Type of air conditioning/heating and the age of these systems

* Availability of natural gas, which is often a more efficient energy source than electricity

* Lack of tree cover to reduce solar heat gain

* No price signal related to energy use increasing numbers of rental units include utilities
in rent so the occupant never sees the bill or gets the appropriate price signal to modify
behavior

* Lack of knowledge about conservation opportunities and savings

This list was later supplemented after an exhaustive literature review test outlined many other

potential energy determinants.

Given the wide range of factors that are likely to determine energy intensity in low-income

households, GRU decided that the best way to lay the foundation for development of new

conservation programs targeted at these customers was to first learn more about their homes and

households both the structures and the people in them. GRU needed to go beyond billing and

energy use records, into the homes of the customers who are most vulnerable to rising energy









Water Heater Setting

Over 20.0% of the sample population was found to have their water heater setting above

the recommended temperature of 120 oF. This conclusion was based on visual inspection by the

GRU auditor. The mean energy intensity for those whose setting was at or below 120 oF was

4.09 MMBTU/1000sf while those whose setting was above 120 oF had an average intensity of

5.14 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 6. 12 indicating that the mean energy intensities

are significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Shading

Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 19.5% of the survey population needed

additional shading to reduce solar heat gain on the south facing side of their homes. The mean

energy intensity for those who needed shading was 4.69 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did

not were at 4.22 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 2.71 which corresponds with 95%

level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different.

Evaporator Coil

Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 13% of the survey population had an

unacceptable amount of buildup of dust on the HVAC evaporator coil. The mean energy

intensity for those who had a dirty evaportator coil was 5.09 MMBTU/1000sf while those

without were at 4. 19 MMBTU/1000sf. The Student' s t-value was 5.49 indicating that the mean

energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Conclusions

The top energy efficiency issues that have been identified among the sample population

have shown varying degrees of statistical significance. Issues of insulation problems, CFL use,

roof color, dirty refrigerator coils, HVAC leaks, weather-stripping, problems with windows,

unisulated attic access, water heater settings, lack of shading, and HVAC evaporator coil











6 $40,001 to $45,000
7 $45,001 to $50,000
8 $50,001 to $55,000
9 Over $55,000 Specific #, if offered: $



Q63. What things do you feel have the largest impact on your household's energy use?











Q64. How concerned are you about energy costs in your home?

1 Very concerned
2 Somewhat concerned
3 Not concerned



Q65. In the past year, have you or anyone else in your household made any changes in either your home or
your lifestyle -

to make your home more energy efficient?

1 Yes 3 Explain:
2 No










Q66. Are you aware of any programs that are available to help you lower your home energy bills?

1 Yes 3 Explain:
2 No










Those are all of our questions, but before we wrap up, we would be happy to answer any questions you may









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Energy Use

According to the U. S. Department of Energy' s Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Florida' s per-household consumption of electricity is among the highest in the United States,

largely because the State's hot and humid weather drives up electricity demand for air-

conditioning. Overall Florida' s per household energy use, including all power sources, is 58.9

million BTU while the US average is 94.9 million BTU per household. In 2001 Floridians spent

an average of $1,458 per household on home energy and accounted for 6. 1% of U. S. residential

energy consumption. [30]

Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) is a multi-service utility owned by the City of

Gainesville and is the 5th largest municipal electric utility in Florida. GRU serves Gainesville and

portions of Alachua County, Florida, with electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and

telecommunications services and also provides wholesale power to the City of Alachua. The

utility employs over 800 people who help provide one or more of these services to approximately

78,000 residential customers with an annual electric load of 875.3 gigawatt-hours.

Structural

Over the past hundred years residential architecture in Florida has shifted. Earlier homes

were built to passively endure the elements. This meant homes that promoted air movement and

used shade from broad overhangs and trees to reduce ambient temperatures. Most often these

homes were raised floor, wood frame houses with no insulation. A typical example is the Florida

Cracker style architecture. Later homes were built to actively overcome the elements. These

homes were generally built of concrete block on a concrete slab foundation. Forced air air-

conditioning systems and insulation were used to control heat and humidity. Since around the











Q36. About how old is your main washer?

1 Less than 2 years old
2 2 to just under 5 years old
3 5 to just under 10 years old
4 10 to just under 20 years old
5 20 years or older
6 Don't know Specific age, if offered:
years



Q37. How many loads of clothes do you wash in a typical week (7 days)?








Q38. How often do you use hot water to wash your clothes?


Always
Frequently
Occasionally
Never


Q39. Do you have a clothes dryer (or dryers) in your home?

1Yes


2 No


3 SKIP to Q42


Q40. About how old is your main dryer?


Less than 2 years old
2 to just under 5 years old
5 to just under 10 years old
10 to just under 20 years old
20 years or older
Don't know


Q41. What type of energy does your dryer use?

1 Gas
2 Electric



Q42. How often do you hang your clothes to day?

1 Always









[16] McPherson EG. Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Shade Trees for Demand-Side Management.
The Electricity Journal 1993;6(9): 57-65.

[17] Means RS. Building Construction Cost Data 2006, 64th ed. Kingston, MA: Reed Construction
Data, 2005.

[18] NEADA. National Energy Assistance Survey Report.

[19] Olatubi WO, Zhang Y. A Dynamic Estimation of Total Energy Demand for the Southern States.
The Review of Regional Studies 2003;33(2): 206-228.

[20] Parker DS, Sherwin JR, Sonne JK, Barkaszi SF, Floyd DB, Withers CR. Measured Energy Savings
of a Comprehensive Retrofit in an Existing Florida Residence. Florida Solar Energy Center 1997.

[21] Parker DS, Vieira R. Priorities for Energy Efficiency for Home Construction in Florida. Florida
Solar Energy Center 2007.

[22] Parker DS, Barkaszi S. Saving Energy with Reflective Roof Coatings. Home Energy Magazine
1994;May/June: 35-41.

[23] Parker DS, Mazzara M, Sherwin J. Monitored Energy Use Patterns in Low-Income Housing in a
Hot and Humid Climate. Tenth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot Humid
Climates, Ft. Worth, TX, 1996; 316.

[24] Power M. Low-Income Consumers' Energy Bills and Their Impact in 2006. Economic
Opportunity Studies 2005.

[25] University of California Environmental Energies Technology Division. Building Energy
Efficiency. (accessed 9/20/2007).

[26] US DOE. Residential Demand Module.

[27] US DOE. Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
(accessed 9/12/2006).

[28] US DOE. Characteristics of Residential Housing Units by Ceiling Fans.


[29] US DOE. A Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
accesss sed 7/7/2007).

[30] US DOE. Energy Information Administration.
(accessed 4/1 9/2007.)










was found by converting each customer' s total 2005 natural gas therm and electric kilowatt

usage.

Insulation Problems

Homes exhibiting insulation problems accounted for 91.7% of the survey population.

Problems with insulation include homes with less than R-30 insulation or areas of reduced

insulation due to uneven distribution. Insulation levels were visually inspected by the GRU

energy auditor and were based on the insulation thickness as it relates to average R-value of the

particular insulation type. For example, loose fill cellulose has an insulation value of R-3.7 per

inch while fiberglass batt insulation has a value of R-3.3 per inch of thickness and rock wool has

an accepted value of R-3.7 per inch of thickness. [29] During the analysis R-30 was used as a

baseline as this is the minimum standard for attic insulation per the Florida Building Code. [6]

The mean energy intensity of the group with attic insulation problems was 5.6 IVINBTU/1000sf

while the mean for those with proper insulation was 3.6. The calculated Student' s t-value, 8.68,

indicates that these average energy intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of

confidence.

Compact Fluorescent Lighting

During administration of the DEED questionnaire participants were asked about the extent

to which they use CFLs in their homes. Of the survey population 78.7% don't use any compact

fluorescent lamps (CFL) for their home lighting. In order to determine the potential gain that

could be made by maximizing use of CFLs a comparison was made between those using no

CFLs and those using 75%-100% CFL lighting. The mean of the energy intensity of those who

do not use compact fluorescent lamps was 4.3 5 M1VBTU/1000sf while those who use greater

than 75% CFLs have an average energy intensity of 3.64 IVINBTU/1000sf. The resulting










.IC1]~ I Wood /Vinyl /Metal / INone /Drapes /Blinds /
6........1..."~...... Slidmg~~~~~~~~~~~~ Other: _IOther:
7 Other. Wood / Vinyl / Metal / None /Drapes /Blinds /
Other: Other:



Q16. What type of floor coverings does your home have? (Circle all that apply and indicate percentage
covering)


Description Percent Covering

1 Hardwood 25% 50% 75% 100%
2 Carpet or Area Rugs 25% 50% 75% 100%
3 Tile (Ceramic) 25% 50% 75% 100%

4 Viny-l or Linoleum 25% 50% 75% 100%
5 Other: 25% 50% 75% 100%


Q17. During a typical summer day, to what extent do trees help shade your house in the morning? (around
8 AM)

1 Almost totally shade the house
2 Partially shade the house
3 No shading of the house



Q18. During a typical summer day, to what extent do trees help shade your house in the late afternoon?
(around 4PM)

1 Almost totally shade the house
2 Partially shade the house
3 No shading of the house











have for us. [REMEMBER TO GIVE RESPONDENT 3 CFLs once they've completed the survey]

Thank you for your time and patience.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Pierce Jones for helping me to set my roots at the University of Florida and giving

me a chance to work with amazing people. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kevin

Grosskopf, Dr. Robert Stroh, and all of the faculty and staff at M.E. Rinker School of Building

Construction for their guidance and support. For all of their hard work and dedication to this

proj ect, I would like to thank Bill, Kathy, David, Tara, Amy, and Jim at Gainesville Regional

Utilities Conservation Services. I would like to express my gratitude to Jennison Kipp for

helping to straighten out all the kinks along the way. Lastly, I would like to thank all of the

people who opened their homes to us for the greater good of the Gainesville community.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nicholas Wade Taylor was born in Laurinburg, NC and grew up in Rockingham, NC.

During his youth he was a member of the Boy Scouts of America and attained the rank of Eagle

Scout. After graduating from Richmond Senior High School in 1997 he went on to complete his

bachelor' s degree at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina in

environmental technology. After graduation, Nick j oined the Peace Corps and moved to Vanuatu

where he worked and lived on Mota Lava Island. After returning from the Peace Corps, he began

working toward his master' s degree at the University of Florida. On October 12, 2007, he was

married to Anna Mary Prizzia. The two currently reside in Gainesville, Florida.









utilities, results of this research will assist in energy demand avoidance and reduction of carbon

emissions to the environment and will serve as a basis for future energy efficiency research.











Table 4-11: Attic Access
Attic Access Insulated N~ot Insulated
27.2%
Mean 4.15 Mean 4.73
Standard Error 0.18 Standard Error 0.28
Standard Deviation 2.02 Standard Deviation 1.90
Sample Variance 4.09 Sample Variance 3.62
Count 123 Count 46
Sx2 0.03
t 3.56

Table 4-12: Water Heater Setting
Water Heater Setting <120 OF >1200F
20.7%
Mean 4.09 Mean 5.14
Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.34
Standard Deviation 1.94 Standard Deviation 2.04
Sample Variance 3.76 Sample Variance 4.16
Count 134 Count 35
Sx2 0.03
t 6.12


Table 4-13: Shading
Shading Have Adequate Shading N~eed Additional Shading
19.5%
Mean 4.22 Mean 4.69
Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.35
Standard Deviation 1.99 Standard Deviation 2.01
Sample Variance 3.98 Sample Variance 4.05
Count 136 Count 33
Sx2 0.03
t 2.71


Table 4-14: Evaporator Coil
Evaporator Coil N~ot Dirty Dirty
13.0%
Mean 4.19 Mean 5.09
Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.30
Standard Deviation 2.05 Standard Deviation 1.42
Sample Variance 4.21 Sample Variance 2.03
Count 147 Count 22
Sx2 0.03
t 5.49













Sections 3: A\PPLIA-NC'ES IN 1'OUrR HOlllE


The next step is intended to gather some information about appliances and water use in your home. Use side
notes to indicate if an appliance is Energy Star rated, is particularly out of date, or there are other factors that
could be affecting its efficiency.


Q31. What type of hot water heater do you have?


Gas
Electric
LP Gas
Other:


Q32. About how old is your main water heater?


Less than 2 years old
2 to just under 5 years old
5 to just under 10 years old
10 to just under 20 years old
20 years or older
Don't know
years


Specific age, if offered:


Q33. In a typical week (7 days), about how many baths and showers are taken in your home?


7 or less
8 to 14
15 to 21
22 to 28
29 to 35
36 to 42
43 or more


# per day:


Q34. About how long is a typical shower?


minutes


Q35. Do you have a washing machine (or machines) in your home?


1 Yes
2 No


3 SKIP to Q39









Initial Analysis

Initially a basic statistical analysis was performed to identify repairable energy efficiency

issues in the home using simple percentages. These percentages were plotted to show frequency

within the survey population. Starting with the issues seen in the highest percentage of surveyed

homes, the pooled variance and the Student' s t-values were found in order to determine the

significance of differences in average energy intensity between groups exhibiting and free of

each efficiency issue. Table 4-1 shows the frequency of energy efficiency problems within the

sample population. The criteria for these will be discussed briefly below and will be further

reviewed in the Chapter 5.

Exclusions

Issues such as structural features and age of the home were not included as a repairable

item. While these issues certainly affect the energy intensity of a home they are not readily

repairable and are beyond the scope of demand-side management practices. Several of these

issues are addressed in Chapter 5 in order to give a general description of the sample population.

Secondary Analysis

Energy Intensity Significance

Descriptive statistical analysis was performed with respondents grouped based on the

presence or absence of energy efficiency issues. Mean, standard error, standard deviation,

sample variance, and sample size were calculated for each group. The pooled variance and

Student' s t-value were calculated to determine the significance of the difference between the

average energy intensities in homes with and homes without energy efficiency problems. Tables

4-2 to 4-16 show the values for each group.

Energy intensity as used in this analysis was measured in millions of British Thermal Units

per one thousand square feet of conditioned floor space (MMBTU/sf). The measure of BTUs









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Project Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to identify the energy efficiency and subsequent affordability

issues affecting the low-income population in Gainesville, Florida. Potential for demand side

management programs that could address these issues as well as the potential costs of retrofits

are secondary obj ectives and will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Background

To gain a better understanding of how diverse GRU' s residential customers are with

respect to their energy use, a 2005 study combined Geographic Information System (GIS) data

with customers' 2004 electric energy use data (measured in average monthly kilowatt-hours per

thousand square feet of conditioned living space) into a color-coded map that displayed where

high-intensity households tend to cluster. Figure 1-1 shows the areas of highest energy intensity

based on kilowatt hours per square foot. Household income eligibility was based on 2005

Housing and Urban Development' s (HUD) Low-Income Criteria for Gainesville, Florida. "Low-

Income" was defined as 80% of the Median Family Income (MFI) which was $53,550 for the

2005 Fiscal Year. Income criteria are also based on the number of residents in the household.

Income eligibility is discussed further in the Methods section.

In examining this map, two important attributes of the customer population were revealed,

both of which motivated GRU to implement an energy survey: First, there was consistency with

GRU billing records indicating that customers in traditionally lower-income neighborhoods

consume, on average, more energy per square foot of household living space (i.e. their "energy

intensity" is higher) than customers in other Gainesville neighborhoods. Second, although

average energy intensity among low-income households is relatively high, some low-income


































To my wife and my family.









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Science

HOUSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND AFFORDABILITY IS SUES AFFECTING
LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
By

Nicholas Wade Taylor

December 2007

Chair: Dr. Kevin Grosskopf
Major: Building Construction

In partnership with administrators from Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and the

University of Florida' s Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) this proj ect was

designed to help identify and overcome the barriers to delivering energy efficiency services in

the most cost effective manner to low-income residential customers. The purpose of this thesis

was to identify the most significant energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues

affecting the low-income population in Gainesville, Florida and to address the potential for

demand-side management (DSM) programs that could reduce occupant operations and

maintenance costs, conserve energy resources and protect the environment. A two-fold approach

was taken in data collection including an in-depth, in-home customer questionnaire

supplemented by GRU's standard energy conservation audit. Data analysis compared average

energy intensity, measured in mega-British Thermal Units per 1000 square foot per year, of low-

income customers that exhibit certain efficiency related characteristics with those who do not.

Results of this study show that, for the low-income population in Gainesville, Florida attic

insulation is the largest energy efficiency problem. The information provided in this report will

be useful for identifying housing energy-related deficiencies and identifying DSM products and

services that most cost-effectively reduce energy expenses to low-income consumers. For









APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT MARLING


February 6, 2006


Dear Family Bill-Payer:

As fuel prices continue to rise, families throughout Gainesville are looking for ways to reduce home
energy expenses. GRU and the City of Gainesville are developing ways to help you save energy,
but we need your help. We hope you will be part of a study that will help you and other customers
save energy and money. Your home has been selected to represent at least 50 others in your
neighborhood, so your participation is important.

Please fill out the short form included with this letter and mail it back to GRU in the enclosed postage-
paid envelope by February 24, 2006. Your responses will tell us if you and your home meet the
needs of the study. If you qualify, we will contact you at the telephone number you provide to
schedule an in-home energy assessment. During our visit, we will 1) perform a detailed energy
survey at no charge to you, and 2) with your help, complete an in-depth questionnaire about your
energy usage and pertinent features of your home such as appliances, number of rooms, windows,
and insulation levels.

If you are selected and agree to participate, we will thank you by installing three energy saving
compact fluorescent light bulbs in your home for free! These light bulbs will help reduce your home's
energy use and save you money.

We hope you will take this chance to conserve energy, save on your monthly energy bill, and
improve the environment. Fill out the short form and drop it in the mail today! If you have
questions about the enclosed form or the energy survey itself, please contact Amy Carpus in
GRU's Conservation Services Department at (352) 393-1450.

Thank you for your participation!

Sincerely,



Pegeen Hanrahan
Mayor, City of Gainesville


RJL:CEP
Enclosure











4 4 to just under 6 hours
5 6 to just under 8 hours
6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: _hours












LIST OF TABLES


Table page


3-1: Low-income criteria .............. ...............34....


4-1: Energy efficiency problems based on percentage of survey participants............... ..............4


4-2: Attic insulation problems .............. ...............44....


4-3: Compact fluorescent lamps .............. ...............44....

4-1 1: Dark roof color ................. ...............45.......... ...


4-4: Refrigerator coil s............... ...............45.


4-5: Water pipe insulation............... ...............4

4-6: HVAC leaks............... ...............45.


4-7: Weather-stripping ........._._ ...... .... ...............46...

4-8: Windows............... ...............46


4-9: HVAC settings............... ...............46

4-10: HVAC filter ........._..... ...._... ...............46...


4-11: Attic access ........._..... ...._... ...............47...


4-12: Water heater setting ........._..... ...._... ...............47...


4-13: Shading ........._..... ...._... ...............47...


4-14: Evaporator coil .............. ...............47....


5-1: Demand side management programs for compact fluorescent lamps ........._.._... ........._......64




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 HOUSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AFFECTING LOW INCOME RESIDENTS IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By NICHOLAS WADE TAYLOR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLME NT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Nicholas Wade Taylor

PAGE 3

3 To my wife and my family.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Pierce Jones for helping me to set my roots at the University of Florida and giving me a chance to work with amazing people. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kevin Grosskopf, Dr. Robert Stroh, and all of the faculty an d staff at M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction for their guidance and support. For all of their hard work and dedication to this project, I would like to thank Bill, Kathy, David, Tara, Amy, and Jim at Gainesville Regional Utilities Conservation Se rvices. I would like to express my gratitude to Jennison Kipp for helping to straighten out all the kinks along the way. Lastly, I would like to thank all of the people who opened their homes to us for the greater good of the Gainesville community.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Project Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 12 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 Energy Use ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 18 Structural ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Mechanical ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Behavioral ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Demographic ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 Current Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 24 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 Project Development ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 27 Sample Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Recru itment Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 28 DEED Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 30 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 Problems and Solutions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 32 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 Typical Participant ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 36 Initial Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 Exclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 37 Secondary Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 37 Energy Intensity Significance ................................ ................................ .......................... 37 Insulation Problems ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 Compact Fluorescent Lighting ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 Dark Roof Color ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 39 Refrigerator Coils ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 39 Hot Water Pipe Insulation ................................ ................................ ............................... 39

PAGE 6

6 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks ................................ ........................... 39 Weather stripping ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 Windows ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 HVAC Settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 41 HVAC Filter ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 41 Attic Access ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 41 Water Heater Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 42 Shading ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 Evaporator Coil ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 42 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 48 Typical Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 48 People ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 48 Homes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 49 Analytical Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 50 Insu lation Problems ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 50 Compact Fluorescent Lamps ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Dark Roof Color ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 52 Refrigerator Coils ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 53 Hot Water Pipe Insulation ................................ ................................ ............................... 53 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks ................................ ........................... 53 Weather stripping ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 54 Windows ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 HVAC Settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 55 HVAC Filter ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 Water Heater Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 Shading ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 Evaporator Coil ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Combined Effect of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 59 Recent Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 L ow Income Energy Efficiency Program ................................ ................................ ........ 60 Weatherization for Low Income ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Low Interest Loan Program ................................ ................................ ............................. 60 Compact Fluorescent Giveaway ................................ ................................ ...................... 61 Future ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61 Potential D emand Side Management Program Areas ................................ ..................... 61 Problem Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 62 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 63 A R ECRU ITMENT MAILING ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 65 B DEED IN HOME Q UESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................... 67 C GRU E NERGY AUDIT FORM ................................ ................................ ............................. 84

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 90

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1: Low income criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34 4 1: Energy e fficiency p roblems based on percentage of survey par ticipants. .............................. 44 4 2: Attic i nsulation p roblems ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44 4 3: Compact f luorescent l amps ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 4 11: Dark r oof c olor ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 4 4: Refrigerator c oils ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 45 4 5: Water p ipe i nsulation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 45 4 6: HVAC l eaks ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 4 7: Weather stripping ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 46 4 8: Windows ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 4 9: HVAC s ettings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 46 4 10: HVAC f ilter ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 4 11: Attic a ccess ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 4 12: Water h eater s etting ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 47 4 13: Shading ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 7 4 14: Evaporator c oil ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 5 1: Demand side management programs for compact fluorescent lamps ................................ .... 64

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 : GIS map created by GRU to show areas of highest energy intensity. ................................ ... 16 1 2 : M ap of the Community Development Block Grant areas overlay to show the energy intense areas as they correlate. ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 2 1: Annual energy end use percentage for North Florida residences as given by the Univer ................................ ... 25 2 2: Annual c ooling l oad c omponents ................................ ................................ ........................... 26 4 1: Energy s urvey s amplin g and s cheduling s chematic ................................ ............................... 35 5 1: Central Florida home with mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles. ................................ .. 64

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requir ements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Science HOUSING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AFFECTIN G LOW INCOME RESIDENTS IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By Nicholas Wade Taylor December 2007 Chair: Dr. Kevin Grosskopf Major: Building Construction In partnership with administrators from Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and the designed to help identify and overcome the barriers to delivering energy e fficiency services in the most cost effective manner to low income residential customers. The purpose of this thesis was to identify the most significant energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues affecting the low income population in Gainesvil le, Florida and to address the potential for demand side management (DSM) programs that could reduce occupant operations and maintenance costs, conserve energy resources and protect the environment. A two fold approach was taken in data collection includin g an in depth, in home customer questionnaire energy intensity, measured in mega British Thermal Units per 1000 square foot per year, of low income customers that exhi bit certain efficiency related characteristics with those who do not. Results of this study show that for the low income population in Gainesville, Florida attic insulation is the largest energy efficiency problem. The information provided in this report will be useful for identifying housing energy related deficiencies and identifying DSM products and services that most cost effectively reduce energy expenses to low income consumer s For

PAGE 11

11 utilities results of this research w ill assist in energy demand avo idance and reduction of carbon emissions to the environment and will serve as a basis for future energy efficiency research

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Project Purpose The purpose of this thesis is to identify the energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues affecting the low income population in Gainesville, Florida. Potential for demand side management programs that cou ld address these issues as well as the potential costs of retrofit s are secondary objectives and will be discussed in Chapter 5. Background respect to their energy use, a 2005 study combined Geographic Information System (GIS) data hours per thousand square feet of conditioned living space) into a color coded map that displayed where high i ntensity househo lds tend to cluster. Figure 1 1 shows the areas of highest energy intensity based on kilowatt hours per square foot. Household income eligibility was based on 2005 Income Criteria for Gainesville, F 2005 Fiscal Year. Income criteria are also based on the number of residents in the household. Income eligibility is di s cussed further in the Methods section In examining this map, two important attributes of the customer population were revealed, both of which motivated GRU to implement an energy survey: First, there was consistency with GRU billing records indicating that customers in traditionally lower i ncome neighborhoods average energy intensity among low income household s is relatively high, some low income

PAGE 13

13 households also perform relatively well compared to the rest of the low income household population (i.e., their energy intensity is relatively low among this population). There was a profound shift in the results for average customers vs. low income customers when total electric energy use is converted to energy intensity. This led GRU to create a study focused on the servic e territory areas with high densities of low income customers and data to determine the primary factors contributing to increased energy use and to identify potential mechanisms appropriate for delivering energy efficiency services to low and fixed inco me Gainesville residents. Initially, GRU conservation analysts determined low income areas by making field visits to these neighborhoods where there were high intensity, red dot clusters and compared these areas to maps indicating Community Development Blo ck Grant (CDBG) areas. Under the CDBG housing activities are addressed city wide with income of beneficiaries as the main determining factor. Infrastructure and public facility improvements are targeted toward Housing and Urban Development (HUD) low and mo derate income neighborhoods within the Gainesville City limits and to those agencies serving low and moderat e income clients. In Figure 1 2 the GRU energy intensity map is over laid with the Gainesville CDBG map to show the occurrence of high energy intens ity households within the CDBG zones. [29] This was done only as an indicator of correlation between occurrence of high energy intensity and CDBG zones and was not the limit of the sample population selection area. Next, GRU staff interviewed GRU energy co nservation representatives who ha d visited many of the dwellings in the red dot cluster areas and asked them to list the factors that they thought contributed to high bills in these locations. Their responses included a range of potential

PAGE 14

14 factors, from the condition of the building envelope and appliances in the home to the behavior of residents. At this point in survey development all types of housing, including apartments, duplexes and detached homes were under consideration. The preliminary list of poten tial energy intensity determinants to be investigated in the study included: Number of people in the household quite often in low income areas many individuals live under the same roof to help reduce costs Age and type of structural material used of the dwelling (i.e. wood frame vs. concrete block) Occupancy status (i.e. tenant vs. owner occupied) little incentive exists for a landlord to care about energy usage by a tenant, so necessary upgrades to appliances and HVAC equipment is too often delayed or ignored completely Age, condition, and number of appliances again, potentially tied to the lack of incentive for absentee landlords to upgrade appliances Type of air conditioning/heating and the age of these systems Availability of natural gas, which is o ften a more efficient energy source than electric ity Lack of tree cover to reduce solar heat gain No price signal related to energy use increasing numbers of rental units include utilities in rent so the occupant never sees the bill or gets the appropria te price signal to modify behavior Lack of knowledge about conservation opportunities and savings This list was later supplemented after an exhaustive literature review test outlined many other potential energy determinants. Given the wide range of factor s that are likely to determine energy intensity in low income households, GRU decided that the best way to lay the foundation for development of new conservation programs targeted at these customers was to first learn more about their homes and households both the structures and the people in them. GRU needed to go beyond billing and energy use records, into the homes of the customers who are most vulnerable to rising energy

PAGE 15

15 costs and most in need of effective conservation programs. It was in response to this need that GRU sought funding from the American Public Power Association (APPA) through the Demonstration of Energy Efficient Developments (DEED) grant and implemented, in mmunities (PREC), a thorough energy survey of low income customer households in Gainesville. Research Objectives To better understand why certain low income customers perform significantly better than e goals of this project were to: 1. Determine major structural and socioeconomic behavioral factors that affect residential energy use in low income homes in Gainesville Florida. 2. Identify necessary cost input s or behavioral changes to resolve the ten most pr evalent problems, in percentage of respondents, facing low income Gainesville Regional Utilities customers

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1 1: GIS map created by GRU to show areas of highest energy intensity.

PAGE 17

17 Figure 1 2. This is the map of the Community Development Block G rant areas overlay to show the energy intense areas as they correlate.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Energy Use household consumption of electricity is among the highest in the United States, umid weather drives up electricity demand for air million BTU while the US average is 94.9 million BTU per household. In 2001 Floridians spent an average of $1,45 8 per household on home energy and accounted for 6.1% of U.S. residential energy consumption. [30] Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) is a multi service utility owned by the City of Gainesville and is the 5 th largest municipal electric utility in Florid a. GRU serves Gainesville and portions of Alachua County, Florida, with electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and telecommunications services and also provides wholesale power to the City of Alachua. The utility employs over 800 people who help prov ide one or more of these services to approximately 78,000 residential customers with an annual electric load of 875.3 gigawatt hours. Structural Over the past hundred years residential architecture in Florida has shifted. Earlier homes were built to passiv ely endure the elements. This meant homes that promoted air movement and used shade from broad overhangs and trees to reduce ambient temperatures. Most often these homes were raised floor, wood frame houses with no insulation. A typical example is the Flor ida Cracker style architecture. Later homes were built to actively overcome the elements. These homes were generally built of concrete block on a concrete slab foundation. Forced air air conditioning systems and insulation were used to control heat and hum idity. Since around the

PAGE 19

19 on grade foundations and insulated wood framed walls in northern Florida. Homes are still built this way today and older homes are retro fitted with insulation and air conditioning systems. The integrity of the building envelop is an important determinant of the heating and cooling load for each type of household. [26] Shell integrity is a function of the age and type of house, fuel and service types for heating and cooling, and the environmental conditions to which it is exposed. The sizes of a structure and wall and floor material are fundamental to energy use. Houses with slab on grade floors will be more efficient than houses with raised wood floors as heat flow between the grou nd and the slab moderates home temperature in both summer and winter. Efficiency of differences in wall types vary based on construction and insulation values. Concrete block walls absorb and store more heat and therefore, may prevent rapid temperature cha nges in the home. Wood frame walls are generally better insulated but tend to have greater air leakage than concrete block walls. [32] In addition to the building materials used in the structural envelope, roof color and attic insulation levels greatly inf luence the degree to which the interior of a home is protected against excessive heat gain from solar radiation. Protecting conditioned interior spaces from the effects of roof solar heat gain is essential to reducing energy used for cooling. Exterior roo f temperatures in Florida can soar to 160F 170F in the mid summer months. There are several options available for reducing roof solar heat gain including replacing roofing material with a lighter colored material, painting roofing materials, or applicati on of light colored, reflective elastomeric roof coating. In a two year study conducted by the Florida Solar Energy Center, published in 1994, a Central Florida home with a black asphalt shingled roof, with no attic insulation and attic ductwork was treate d with a reflective

PAGE 20

20 elastomeric roof coating. The change from dark to reflective roof coating resulted in a 43% decrease in energy required to cool the home. [22] Attic insulation is one of the largest determinants of energy use. It acts as a barrier to e nergy transfer from high temperature attic space to conditioned space. The 2006 supplements to the Florida Energy Code and Florida Building Code require that R 30 attic insulation be installed in all new residential construction. [6] Mechanical In North Fl ventilation and air conditioning systems typically consume the largest portion of total energy demanded by the home at approximately 35%. Figure 2 1 shows energy end use by percentage as calculated by the Univers [7] With this in mind, it is expected that problems related to mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems will increase energy intensity of a home. For example, improperly sealed duc twork or air handler closets will cause inefficiencies in HVAC systems. Conditioned air will not be distributed properly, return air will not be preconditioned, and the structure will be negatively pressured resulting in outside air infiltration. In a Marc h 2007 report researchers from the Florida Solar Energy Center state that windows in an average Florida residence account for 30% of the annual cooling load and solar heat gain from the roof accounts for another 20%. This is illustrated in Figure 2 2. [21] In the South U.S. Census Region the percentage of homes with central air conditioning rose by 44 percent from 1978 to 1997. That increase is compounded by an addition of 11 million homes in the same period. The share of southern homes with central air con ditioning that report conditioners 40 percent [31] Rented homes, older homes, smaller homes, homes

PAGE 21

21 with no air conditioning, and homes with lower income s all tend to have fewer ceiling fans which may indicate that lower income families may resort to more costly and energy intensive methods of home cooling. [28] It is also worth noting that any energy using devices within the home, such as it lights, appli ances, etc., will not only use energy to operate but will also give off heat, adding to the load on the air conditioning system. Electricity use (or plug loads) of specific appliances and devices is supported by hard data tested in a laboratory setting. Fo r instance, compact fluorescent lamps use considerably less energy than incandescent lamps with the same light output. Newer, Energy Star rated appliances typically use less energy than older appliances. Major differences in plug loads from household to ho usehold are often tied to frequency of use of these appliances by occupants. Simulation analysis suggests that electricity consumption can be reduced up to 40% in existing Florid a homes with judicious use of methods to reduce loads, as well as more efficient equipment. [20] The home used in the study was a 1,243 square foot, three bedroom, single story home that was selected based on a history of high utility costs. The homes had an uninsulated slab on grade 5 interior insulation on the walls. The study home s attic had R 19 blown insulation, limited ventilation, and the roof was covered with black asphalt shingles. For space conditio ning the home contained a 3.5 ton split system air conditioner with electric strip heat. The indoor air handler unit was located in the unconditioned garage. The daytime setting for the air conditioning system was normally set to 85F during daytime hours using a programmable thermostat. During the study an attic radiant barrier system, high efficiency HVAC system, high efficiency refrigerator, high efficiency lighting and additional attic insulation were added. With an input $6,480, the estimated annual s avings from these upgrades was $616 which results in a

PAGE 22

22 payback of just over 10 years. With an initial annual consumption of 20,733 kwh and an annual savings of 7,265 kwh due to efficiency upgrades the study home saw a 35% reduction in annual energy consum ption. Behavioral Significant differences in energy demand across residential homes are also likely to be tied systems and how to use t hem effectively? How do custo mers tend to use energy within their homes (i.e., what and how intense are the major plug load and HVAC demands)? How can customers be motivated to pursue more efficient energy use habits or technologies? How responsive will customers be to new energy effi ciency programs? These types of questions along with what is already know about major energy users in Florida homes serve as the foundations from which the DEED energy survey was developed. Many energy efficiency factors that are behavioral or knowledge ba sed are associated with routine maintenance. These include things like cleaning refrigerator coils, changing air filters, scheduling regular HVAC service. According to GRU energy efficiency data refrigerators and freezers are among the most significant en ergy users in the home. Routine refrigerator maintenance includes cleaning dust and dirt from the possible. Timely replacement and proper installation of HVAC air filters can be an important factor in the performance of the system. In the short term a clogged air filter will reduce air flow across the evaporator coil, making the system work harder to cool the home. In the long term an improperly installed air f ilter can result in dust and dirt building up on the evaporator coil itself, again reducing air flow and creating an insulating film around the coil. Scheduling regular HVAC maintenance service is essential to resolve minor problems before they affect the long term performance of the system.

PAGE 23

23 Beyond maintenance issues basic control and use of household appliances and mechanical equipment can con tribute to increased energy use. Proper use of HVAC equipment can insure economical space conditioning of the hom e. GRU recommends that HVAC thermostats be set at 78F while in cooling mode and at 68 F while in heating mode and cites an energy increase of up to 4% for every degree set below the cooling recommendation or above the heating recommendation. In addition, it is recommended that thermostats be adjusted, up during cooling season or down during heating season, while the home is unoccupied for two or more hours. [26] Using ceiling fans to increase air circulation can allow home occupants to feel comfortable wh ile decreasing HVAC use. Turning off lights, fans, entertainment devices or other appliances while not in use or while rooms are unoccupied is another method of using behavior to decrease energy use. A similar approach can be taken to reduce hot water use This can be done by avoiding washing clothes or rinsing dishes with hot water, decreasing shower time, or turning off the hot water tap when not in immediate use. It is estimated that 80% to 85% of energy used to wash clothes is used for heating water. A djusting the water heater temperature setting to 120F will insure that excessive energy in not being used for water heating. Many, if not all, of the behavioral energy efficiency issues are based in knowledge of system use and maintenance. Demographic Lo w income households typically spend a disproportionate amount of their income on utility bills, and reaching these customers with energy efficiency improvement programs has proven more challenging than delivering similar services to higher income customers [24] High energy use and rising utility rates combine to create significant financial burdens for households constrained by low incomes: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data unicipal service area are housing cost

PAGE 24

24 burdened, meaning that they spend 30% or more of their gross income on housing costs, so addressing the needs of these low conservation programs [14]. Current Programs There are currently several programs targeted at low income energy assistance. The U.S. income Home Energy Assistance Program income households wi th a minimum of government bureaucracy and a maximum of involvement by civic institutions [15] LIHEAP funds are distributed in Florida by the Division of Housing and Community Development and in Alachua County by the Central Florida Community Action Age ncy. The LIHEAP Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) provides funds for repair or replacement of inefficient heating and cooling units, windows, doors, and water heaters. They also help to address air infiltration issues, install solar screens and insta ll attic insulation and ventilation. To qualify for assistance household income must not exceed 150% of the HUD low income level. The national budget for the LIHEAP program in 2006 was just over two billion dollars which resulted in 15% of the eligible app licants receiving funds. Beyond LIHEAP the only source of energy assistance in the Alachua County area is through GRU. Gainesville Regional Utilities offers energy efficiency upgrade rebates for adding attic insulation, HVAC maintenance, duct leak repair, and high efficiency air conditioners to name a rebates. The problem with this type of rebate structure is that low income customers cannot afford the initial cost of upgrades. So far there have been few effective low income energy assistance programs that were not direct giveaway or weatherization makeover efforts.

PAGE 25

25 Figure 2 1. Annual energy end use percentage for North Florida residences as given by the

PAGE 26

26 Figure 2 Priorities for Energy Efficiency for Home Construction in Florida

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Project Development In July 2005 Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) applied for the American Public Power Efficient Developments (DEED) grant to fund additional research on the topic of ener gy use in low income housing. The intent of the research was to identify the energy efficiency and subsequent affordability issues affecting the low Efficient Comm unities (PREC) started on the project in December 2005 to help develop and administer the research survey as well as to analyze the forthcoming data. At this point identification of potential survey participants and development of the initial recruitment q uestionnaire began. Because it would not be possible to achieve the DEED research objectives using a survey administered entirely by mail or telephone, the research design led to the development of two distinct survey instruments: a very brief mail admini stered recruiting survey and an in depth, in conservation audit form and an appliance checklist. Sample Selection The sample population was chosen based on three criteria: income, energy use, and housing type. The primary criteria used while selecting the research sample was household (HUD) Low d as 80% of the Median Family Income (MFI) which was $53,550 for the 2005 Fiscal Year. Income criteria are also based on the number of residents in the household. Table 3 1 shows the upper limits of household income in relation to household size based on H UD low income criteria.

PAGE 28

28 (IFAS) statistical experts it was determined that for the amount of data to be correlated with the independent variables statistically significa nt results could be obtained with a total of 200 average monthly electric energy intensity in 2005 was less than 454 kWh per 1000 square feet and were coded as HL if t heir average monthly electric energy intensity in 2005 was greater than 1096 kWh per 1000 square feet. Information including energy use and conditioned floor area was retrieved from the GRU customer database. Household income of those to which initial ques tionnaires were sent was anticipated based on the home s location and was later verified with the response given to the initial mailing. The designation of LL and HL groups was originally intended to create a bimodal comparison between high and low electri c energy users within the low income sector to identify differences in energy conservation strategies. This was distribution of energy intensity among the survey sampl e. This change is discussed further in the Problems & Solutions section. It was determined that the most appropriate sample population would be those low income customers who either own or rent single family, detached residences. In defining the target po pulation, we opted to recruit only single family, detached homes as these have distinct structural characteristics from multi unit dwellings that affect their energy performance. The purpose for this was to keep the DEED sample as consistent as possible ac ross features over which there was some degree of selection control. This also helped to reduce the required survey sample size needed to provide meaningful results. Recruitment Survey On February 17, 2006, recruitment surveys (Appendix A) were distributed to 1000 potential participant households with an anticipated response rate of 20%. These questionnaires

PAGE 29

29 consisted of 4 questions, chosen to qualify households based on the given criteria. The survey was accompanied by a letter of support and encouragement by City of Gainesville Mayor Pegeen the goals of the project and explain how interested households could participate. As an incentive for participation, this lette r also informed customers that they would receive three free compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). The purpose of the recruiting survey was to invite randomly selected qualifying households to participate in the in home energy survey. To verify that household s contacted and scheduled for in income criteria, the mail administered survey asked customers two necessary questions about 1) their 2005 gross household income and 2) the number of people living in their household. Two suppleme ntal about their current residence tenure. Respondents were asked to share their contact information (name and phone number, which could be cross checked with customer records) and the best time that they could be reached by phone. These components were included so that GRU could easily follow up to schedule the in home survey with income eligible customers. Initially 1000 mailings were sent, including 500 to low energy intensity, low income (LL) customers and 500 to high energy intensity, low income (HL) customers. Return service was requested by March 3, 2006. Respondents who indicated a willingness to participate in the in depth energy survey by returning the energy s urvey form were screened for project criteria and were contacted by GRU staff to schedule survey appointments. Before recruiting surveys were to be sent to new batches of customers pulled from the low and high energy intensity group database, follow up tel ephone calls and replacement surveys (when necessary), were mailed to non respondents from the current batch of customers. After receiving and verifying the first round of responses GRU sent

PAGE 30

30 another 3000 mailings, including 2 500 to LL customers and 2 500 to HL customers. This resulted in 2497 LL customers and 2131 HL customers being contacted. A total of 2696 responses were received including 2075 from the LL category and 1619 from the HL category. Figure 4 1 shows a schematic of the progression from recruit ment to final data collection. The next step was to contact respondents in order to set appointments for GRU and PREC staff to administer the surveys. Respondents were contacted between the hours of 8:00am and 7:00pm. After disqualifying customers whose in come or contact information was incorrect as well as those who declined or were unable to participate due to schedule conflicts, a total of 224 surveys were scheduled including 110 LL and 114 HL customers. DEED Survey In January 2006 development of the i n home survey instrument began. The in home energy surveys were to collect the bulk of data to identify key determinants of energy intensity among low income households. This was an extensive survey instrument made up of three core components: a verbally a dministered questionnaire developed jointly by GRU and PREC for the (Attachment C), and a supplemental GRU appliance checklist. The questionnaire investigated in formation about the home as a structure, its occupants and their behavior, heating and cooling systems, water heating and appliances, lighting, home entertainment systems, and demographics. Questions were grouped according to subject areas which were title d: Information About Your Home, Keeping Your Home Comfortable, Appliances in Your Home, Lighting in Your Home, Home Entertainment, and Household Demographics. Data collected by verbally administering this questionnaire to the respondent were also supplemen ted with information recorded by GRU conservation analysts using a standard GRU

PAGE 31

31 structure and systems, identify potential interventions to improve its energy effici ency, and give residents tips for conserving energy and improving the efficiency of their homes. At the conclusion of the survey an appliance checklist was completed to record accurate counts for the number of different types of systems, appliances, and ot her significant energy users in the home. Each in home survey was administered by two field interviewers, one administering the questionnaire and one to complete the inspection audit. Key components of the complete survey instrument were based on building science and demographic data obtained from the U.S. Center (FSEC) and GRU historical data. The effective term of survey development was four months, with significant a ction occurring between December, 2005 and March, 2006. Survey development was complete in March, 2006 and data collection via in home surveys began on April 14, 2006. Data Collection Collection of data via implementation of the in home survey began in March, 2006. A survey session consisted of two surveyors, one GRU auditor and one person to administer the survey administrator would sit to talk with the partic ipant about the various items covered in the questionnaire survey (see Appendix B) while the GRU auditor inspects physical features of the home as outlined in the GRU Energy Audit Form (see Appendix C). During the questionnaire portion of the survey any ph ysical features of the home that were readily apparent were noted by the administrator and verified with the home owner. These would have include items such as wall, flooring, and foundation type, roof structure, material, and color, window and door types, and lighting types. Any questionnaire items that were not readily discernable or that related to

PAGE 32

32 administrator and the GRU auditor had finished data collection the GRU auditor would explain the findings of home inspection audit. Participants were given tips and suggestions on how to improve the efficiency of their homes and how to lower their monthly bills. Data collection ended in September, 2006 which resulted in 169 full, eligible surveys completed. Problems and Solutions During the course of this study from the planning stages to the analysis and reporting several complications arose, none of which were insurmountable, but each of which altered the original project plan to some extent. Some of the problems are typical in survey research, while others were a result of unexpected administrative or staffing constraints. First, GRU faced delays when trying to implement the second portion of the recruiting survey: while the ideal follow up to a mail administered recruiting survey occurs immediately events due to unavoidable staffing complications. GRU considered hiring profess ional survey research staff to conduct the scheduling phase of the survey, but these services were not available across staff assigned to the project and although init iation of the in home surveys was delayed, over 200 surveys in total were successfully scheduled. Second, because GRU staff could administer the in home surveys only during weekday business hours, customer participation rates were lower than expected and the in home surveys took longer to complete than had originally been anticipated. Because GRU was more concerned with collecting a sufficient amount of valid data than about collecting a limited amount of data in a short period of time, the sampling and da ta collection phases of the project were extended until a sufficient number of surveys were completed.

PAGE 33

33 An unexpected complication that was perhaps the most onerous in its effect was that the original energy intensity measures to which the survey was tailor ed were inherently incomplete measures of household energy use. From the beginning of the project well into the data analysis phase, GRU considered differences across high and low energy intensity customers as defined by kilowatt hour demand per thousand s quare feet of conditioned space. While GRU was aware through the course of survey development that this measure accounted for electrical demand only, the practical ramifications of this were not realized until preliminary data analysis revealed that the mo heating and water heating systems used in the homes. GRU attempted to correct this by comparing energy intensities only across high and low electric only users, but this strate gy effectively decreased the sample size by two thirds. A better strategy, GRU decided, was to extract, for all of the customers who participated in the DEED survey, data on their natural gas usage over the same period of time for which kWh usage data had been extracted, merge these two data sets, and convert both energy measures into the common denominator of British Thermal Units, or BTUs. Once this was done, the energy intensity distribution of the DEED sample changed from bimodal to normal, so the analy sis itself had to be modified as well.

PAGE 34

34 Table 3 1: HUD 2005 Gainesville, FL MSA Low Income Criteria Household Size (number of residents) Low Income (80% MFI*) 1 $30,000 2 $34,300 3 $38,600 4 $42,900 5 $46,300 6 $49,750 7 $53,150 8 $56,600 *Fi scal Year 2005 Median Family Income (MFI) = $53,550

PAGE 35

35 Figure 4 1 : Energy Survey Sampling and Scheduling Schematic

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Typical Participant Participants were selected b a sed on several criteria. All were HUD defined low income households, living in single family, detached residences. After the selection of participants, several common characte ristics were identified: 81% of the sample population own the homes in which they live. Over 63% have been at their residence for at least 5 years. 76% of the homes were reported to be constructed over 20 years ago. The average number of occupants in each of the surveyed homes was 2.5 persons. 43% of the homes were occupied by senior citizens and 32% had children living in the home. 66% of the sample population said that they spent most of the day at home. This group included both those who are retired a nd those who work from home. On average the sample population spent just over 10 hours per day using entertainment devices such as televisions, radios, computers, or video games within the home. 70% of the homes were built on slab on grade foundations and 63% had concrete block walls. made changes to decrease their energy use within the last year. 86% reported that they did not know of any programs to assist with making efficiency changes.

PAGE 37

37 Initial Analysis Initially a basic statistical analysis was performed to identify repairable energy efficiency issues in the home using simple percentages. These percentages were plotted to show frequency within the survey population. Starting wi th the issues seen in the highest percentage of surveyed values were found in order to determine the significance of differences in average energy intensity between groups exhibiting and free of each efficienc y issue. Table 4 1 shows the frequency of energy efficiency problems within the sample population. The criteria for these will be discussed briefly below and will be further reviewed in the Chapter 5. Exclusions Issues such as structural features and age o f the home were not included as a repairable item. While these issues certainly affect the energy intensity of a home they are not readily repairable and are beyond the scope of demand side management practices. Several of these issues are addressed in Cha pter 5 in order to give a general description of the sample population. Secondary Analysis Energy Intensity Significance Descriptive statistical analysis was performed with respondents grouped based on the presence or absence of energy efficiency issues. Mean, standard error, standard deviation, sample variance, and sample size were calculated for each group. The pooled variance and value were calculated to determine the significance of the difference between the average energy intensities in homes with and homes without energy efficiency problems. Tables 4 2 to 4 16 show the values for each group. Energy intensity as used in this analysis was measured in millions of British Thermal Units per one thousand square feet of conditioned floor space (MMBTU/sf). The measure of BTUs

PAGE 38

3 8 usage. Insulation Problems Homes exhibiting insulation problems accounted for 91.7% of the survey population. Problems with insulati on include homes with less than R 30 insulation or areas of reduced insulation due to uneven distribution. Insulation levels were visually inspected by the GRU energy auditor and were based on the insulation thickness as it relates to average R value of th e particular insulation type. For example, loose fill cellulose has an insulation value of R 3.7 per inch while fiberglass batt insulation has a value of R 3.3 per inch of thickness and rock wool has an accepted value of R 3.7 per inch of thickness. [29] D uring the analysis R 30 was used as a baseline as this is the minimum standard for attic insulation per the Florida Building Code. [6] The mean energy intensity of the group with attic insulation problems was 5.6 MMBTU/1000sf while the mean for those with value, 8.68, indicates that these average energy intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of confidence. Compact Fluorescent Lighting During administration of the DEED questionnaire participants were asked about the extent fluorescent lamps (CFL) for their home lighting. In order to determine the potential gain that could be made by maximizing use of CFLs a comparison was made between those using no CFLs and those using 75% 100% CFL lighting. The mean of the energy intensity of those who do not use compact fluorescent lamps was 4.35 MMBTU/1000sf while those who use greater than 75% CFLs have an average energy intensity of 3.64 MMBTU/1000sf. The resulting

PAGE 39

39 value was 2.14 indicating that these average energy intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of confidence. Dark Roof Color When examined by the survey admin istrator 62.1% of surveyed homes had dark, either red, brown or black, roofs. The mean energy intensity for those who had a dark roof was 4.63 MMBTU/1000sf while those whose roof was either white or light gray were at 3.63 MMBTU/1000sf. The calculated Stud value, 6.50, indicates that these average energy intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of confidence. Refrigerator Coils Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 60.9% of the survey population had an unacceptable amo unt of buildup of dust on the condenser coils of the refrigerator. The mean energy intensity for those who had dirty refrigerator was 4.7 MMBTU/1000sf while those value was 6.62 indicating that the mean ene rgy intensities of the two groups are significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Hot Water Pipe Insulation Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 53.8% of the survey population needed additional insulation on hot water pipes to reduce h eat loss of water in transit and to maintain the desired temperature of water as it leaves the water heater. The mean energy intensity for those who needed additional water pipe insulation was 4.4 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at 4.2 MMBTU/1000 value was 1.25 which did not meet a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC ) leaks include any leaks within the force air system and were physically tested by GRU energy auditor. Many of these leaks (34%) were

PAGE 40

40 within the ductwork while additional leaks were found in the air handler plenum and trunk line sections. Overall 49.7% of the sample population was found to have leakage in the forced air HVAC system. The mean energy intensity for those who had HVAC leaks was 4.51 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not have leaks were at 4.11 MMBTU/1000sf. The value was 2.6 indicat ing that the mean energy intensity values differed significantly at the 95% confidence level. Weather stripping Over 45.0% of the sample population was found to be in need of additional weather stripping around doors, windows, and other openings in the bui lding envelope. This conclusion was based on visual inspection by the GRU auditor. The mean energy intensity for those who needed additional weather stripping was 4.52 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at value wa s 2.46 indicating that the mean energy intensities are significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Windows It was found that 35.5% of the sample population had major problems with their windows that affect the homes energy use. Problems affecting efficiency ranged from windows that did not close properly to those with broken or missing panes. Windows that did not close properly were those that could not be fixed simply using weather stripping. This category included all homes with jalousie windows, as they do not provide an adequate seal to prevent the movement of air and moisture. GRU auditor both visually and physically inspected windows within the survey homes. The mean energy intensity for those who window problems was 4.73 MMBTU/1000sf while th ose who did not were at 4.07 MMBTU/1000sf. The calculated value, 4.05, indicates that these average energy intensity values are significantly different at the 95% level of confidence.

PAGE 41

41 HVAC Settings From the DEED questionnaire it was found that 33.7% of the sample population does not adjust their HVAC setting when leaving the home for more than 3 hours. This was asked of participants for both heating and cooling season settings. The mean energy intensity for those who did not adjust their HVAC se ttings while away from their homes was 4.46 MMBTU/1000sf value was 1.43 which did not meet a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly differe nt. HVAC Filter Upon visual inspection by the GRU auditor and participant response to the DEED questionnaire it was found that 32% of the survey population has not regularly replaced their HVAC filter. The mean energy intensity for those who had dirty HVA C filters was 4.27 value was 0.35 which did not meet a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different. Attic Access Upon visual inspection by the GRU auditor and participant response to the DEED questionnaire it was found that 27.2% of the survey population does not have insulation on the interior attic access panel of their home. The mean energy intensity for those who ha d insulation on the attic access panel was 4.15 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did not were at 4.73 value was 3.56 which indicates a 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly di fferent.

PAGE 42

42 Water Heater Setting Over 20.0% of the sample population was found to have their water heater setting above the recommended temperature of 120 F. This conclusion was based on visual inspection by the GRU auditor. The mean energy intensity for tho se whose setting was at or below 120 F was 4.09 MMBTU/1000sf while those whose setting was above 120 F had an average intensity of value was 6.12 indicating that the mean energy intensities are significantly different a t the 95% confidence level. Shading Upon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 19.5% of the survey population needed additional shading to reduce solar heat gain on the south facing side of their homes. The mean energy intensity for those who needed shading was 4.69 MMBTU/1000sf while those who did value was 2.71 which corresponds with 95% level of confidence that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different. Evaporator Coil U pon visual inspection by the GRU energy auditor 13% of the survey population had an unacceptable amount of buildup of dust on the HVAC evaporator coil. The mean energy intensity for those who had a dirty evaportator coil was 5.09 MMBTU/1000sf while those w value was 5.49 indicating that the mean energy intensities of the two groups are significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Conclusions The top energy efficiency issues that have been identified a mong the sample population have shown varying degrees of statistical significance. Issues of i nsulation problems, CFL use, roof color, dirty refrigerator coils, HVAC leaks, weather stripping, problems with windows, unisulated attic access, water heater set tings, lack of shading, and HVAC evaporator coil

PAGE 43

43 maintenance all show a 95% level of confidence in the difference between the means in energy intensity of those with and without the undesirable characteristic. HVAC settings, water pipe insulation, and HVAC filter issues did not meet a 95% level of confidence. Factors that affect these results and potential for demand side management programs will be discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 44

44 Table 4 1 : Energy Efficiency Problems based on percentage of survey participants. E nergy Efficiency Problem Percent of homes Insulation Problems 91.7% Don't Use CFLs 78.7% Dark Roof Color 62.1% Dirty Refrigerator Coils 60.9% Need Insulation on HW Pipes 53.8% HVAC Leaks 49.7% Need Weather stripping 45.0% Problems With Windows 35.5 % Don't Adjust While Away 33.7% Dirty HVAC Filter 32.0% Uninsulated Attic Access 27.2% Water Heater Set Too High 20.7% Need Additional Shading 19.5% HVAC Evaporator Coil Dirty 13.0% Table 4 2 : Attic Insulation Problems Insulation No Problem s Problems 91.7% Mean 3.5 7 Mean 5.60 Standard Error 0.6 8 Standard Error 0.21 Standard Deviation 2.5 4 Standard Deviation 2.64 Sample Variance 6.4 3 Sample Variance 6.9 9 Count 14 Count 155 Sx 0.05 t 8.68 Table 4 3 : Compact F luorescent Lamps CFLs Don't Use Use 75% 100% CFLs 78.7% Mean 4.35 Mean 3.64 Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 1.24 Standard Deviation 1.96 Standard Deviation 2.14 Sample Variance 3.84 Sample Variance 4.58 Count 133 Count 3 Sx 0.11 t 2.14

PAGE 45

45 Table 4 1 1 : Dark Roof Color Dark Roof Color Dark Not Dark 62.1 % Mean 4.63 Mean 3.63 Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.22 Standard Deviation 2.10 Standard Deviation 1.68 Sample Variance 4.40 Sample Vari ance 2.83 Count 105 Count 58 Sx 0.02 t 6.50 Table 4 4 : Refrigerator Coils Refrigerator Coils Clean Dirty 60.9% Mean 3.70 Mean 4.70 Standard Error 0.21 Standard Error 0.20 Standard Deviation 1.71 Standard Deviation 2. 08 Sample Variance 2.94 Sample Variance 4.33 Count 66 Count 103 Sx 0.02 t 6.62 Table 4 5: Water Pipe Insulation HW Pipe Insulation Doesn't Need Needs 53.8% Mean 4.20 Mean 4.40 Standard Error 0.23 Standard Error 0.21 Standard Deviation 2.05 Standard Deviation 1.97 Sample Variance 4.18 Sample Variance 3.88 Count 78 Count 91 Sx 0.02 t 1.25 Table 4 6 : HVAC Leaks HVAC Leaks No Leaks Leaks 49.7% Mean 4.11 Mean 4.51 Standard Error 0.2 3 Standard Error 0.20 Standard Deviation 2.17 Standard Deviation 1.81 Sample Variance 4.69 Sample Variance 3.28 Count 85 Count 84 Sx 0.02 t 2.60

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 7: Weather stripping Weather stripping Doesn't Need Needs 45.0% Mean 4.14 Mean 4.52 Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.24 Standard Deviation 1.90 Standard Deviation 2.11 Sample Variance 3.61 Sample Variance 4.46 Count 93 Count 76 Sx 0.02 t 2.46 Table 4 8: Windows Windows No Problems Problems 35.5% Mean 4.07 Mean 4.73 Standard Error 0.18 Standard Error 0.29 Standard Deviation 1.83 Standard Deviation 2.24 Sample Variance 3.35 Sample Variance 5.02 Count 106 Count 60 Sx 0.03 t 4.05 Table 4 9: HVAC Settings HVAC Settings Adjust While Away Don't Adjust While Away 33.7% Mean 4.23 Mean 4.46 Standard Error 0.19 Standard Error 0.26 Standard Deviation 2.03 Standard Deviation 1.94 Sample Variance 4.13 Sample Variance 3.78 Count 1 12 2q 57 Sx 0.02 t 1.43 Table 4 10 : HVAC Filter HVAC Filter Not Dirty Dirty 32.0% Mean 4.33 Mean 4.27 Standard Error 0.20 Standard Error 0.22 Standard Deviation 2.17 Standard Deviation 1.59 Sample Variance 4.73 Sampl e Variance 2.51 Count 115 Count 54 Sx 0.02 t 0.35

PAGE 47

47 Table 4 11: Attic Access Attic Access Insulated Not Insulated 27.2% Mean 4.15 Mean 4.73 Standard Error 0.18 Standard Error 0.28 Standard Deviation 2.02 Standard Devi ation 1.90 Sample Variance 4.09 Sample Variance 3.62 Count 123 Count 46 Sx 0.03 t 3.56 Table 4 12: Water Heater Setting Water Heater Setting <120 F >120F 20.7% Mean 4.09 Mean 5.14 Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.34 Standard Deviation 1.94 Standard Deviation 2.04 Sample Variance 3.76 Sample Variance 4.16 Count 134 Count 35 Sx 0.03 t 6.12 Table 4 13: Shading Shading Have Adequate Shading Need Additional Shading 19.5% Mean 4. 22 Mean 4.69 Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.35 Standard Deviation 1.99 Standard Deviation 2.01 Sample Variance 3.98 Sample Variance 4.05 Count 136 Count 33 Sx 0.03 t 2.71 Table 4 14: Evaporator Coil Evaporator Coil No t Dirty Dirty 13.0% Mean 4.19 Mean 5.09 Standard Error 0.17 Standard Error 0.30 Standard Deviation 2.05 Standard Deviation 1.42 Sample Variance 4.21 Sample Variance 2.03 Count 147 Count 22 Sx 0.03 t 5.49

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The low income energy efficiency survey conducted by Gainesville Regional Utilities A) Demonstration of Energy Efficient Developments (DEED) has resulted in an unprecedented collection of data concerning the low income population of Gainesville. Typical Participants To discuss the potential cause of energy efficiency issues that were fou nd in the results and potential solutions to these issues, it is necessary to first describe the typical survey participant. Participants for the survey were selected based on several criteria. Selected households met the UD) low income guidelines. (see Table 3 2) Additionally, only those low income customers living in single family, detached residences were selected in order to limit confounding factors that would come from comparing apartments to houses. People It was fo und that 81% of the sample population own the homes in which they live and over 63% have been at there current residence for at least five years. Long tenure and ownership of the residence would indicate that there is incentive for investment in energy eff iciency upgrades. The longer the tenure at the residence the greater chance of seeing a return on money used for energy efficiency upgrades. For those who rent or those who are short term residents this type of investment may not make financial sense as th ey may not see a return on their investment. The occupancy of a home meaning those who reside in the home and the amount of time spent in the home effect the amount of energy used in the home. For our survey 43% of the homes were occupied by senior citize ns and 66% of the survey population said that they spend

PAGE 49

49 most of an average day at home. This group would include those who are retired or disabled, those who stay at home with children and those who work from home. On average our sample population spent j ust over ten hours per day using entertainment devices such as televisions, radios, or computers within the home. The high percentage of participants that do not work, including retirees, the disabled, and stay at home parents, with energy efficiency probl ems indicate that not only low income but fixed low income may hamper attempts at efficiency investment. As coul about their energy use. When asked 54% reported that they had made either structural, mechanical or behavioral changes to reduce their energy use within the past year. These changes ranged from adding attic insulation to replacing HVAC equipment to making more of an effort to turn off lights when not being used. Conc ern ov er energy use has most likely been bolstered as energy prices have risen. Over half of the survey population claimed to have made various changes to reduce energy use which may be infer openness to efficiency suggestions. With this in mind, 86% repor ted that they did not know of any programs to assist with making energy efficiency changes. This statistic may seem astonishing at first but begins to make sense after considering that internet, phone, and transportation access may be limited among a low i ncome population such as our survey sample. Homes Structural properties of a home are considered a primary determinant of energy use. Beyond the selection criteria of single family, detached homes we found that 63% of the homes were of concrete block cons truction with 70% on slab on grade foundations. Considering structural age as a factor, 76% of the homes were greater than twenty years old. The age of the home can generally be linked with the insulation levels and types of windows that were

PAGE 50

50 originally in stalled. Unless these upgrades have been made these homes will exhibit the same insulative properties while air condition use has risen. Analytical Results Insulation Problems It is no surprise that issues with attic insulation were found at the most prev alent energy efficiency problem facing the low income survey population. With most of the homes being older, the level of insulation that was used during construction was most likely minimal. Many of these homes may have been constructed before the Florida Energy Code became effective in 1979. The importance of proper attic insulation cannot be overstated. In our survey population we found that nearly 92% of the households had inadequate attic insulation. This means that the home either had less than R 30 i nsulation, as outlined in the Florida Building and Energy Codes, surprising that the population with attic insulation problems had an average energy intensity of more than 50% higher than those with proper attic insulation. It is worthy of mentioning that nearly 20% of the survey population had no attic insulation. With the high cost associated with adding attic insulation it is no wonder why low income househo lds have not been more active in upgrading. Price estimates for upgrading vary from source to source. The RS Means Construction Cost Index indicates a price of $2,138 for the addition of R 30, blown in, cellulose insulation in the Gainesville area while a local contractor quoted a price of $1,400 for the same upgrade. Understandably, the return on investment would be faster and greater for those with lower insulation levels. Compact Fluorescent Lamps The use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) is one of th e most inexpensive and effective strategies for energy savings yet we found that only 21% of our sample population used them. To

PAGE 51

51 clarify, this means that they used at least one CFL in their home. Our statistical analysis showed significantly lower energy i ntensity for those who use CFLs. So, why are the other 79% not using CFLs? While CFLs have been on the market for some time, they are a new idea to many. The different shape of the lamp as well as the relatively high purchase price may have kept them out of homes. For those who have not seen or do not understand the lifecycle costs associated with using CFLs versus standard incandescent lamps, CFLs probably seem expensive. The U.S. ide quotes the initial cost of one 27 watt CFL at $14 with a lifetime savings of $62.95 over 4.5 years. To low income households this may seem like a long term investment. How can utilities best bring CFLs to the low income community. [29] [34] KEMA XENERG Y, a national energy consulting, information technology, and energy services firm, evaluated the major CFL program delivery mechanisms by analyzing the results of a survey conducted with 2001 CFL program participants. The results of this survey were compar actually installed. There were four types of programs evaluated, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. Table 5 1 is a table taken from the case study outlining the o utcome of the research. [34] From this research we can determine that the best market strategy for Gainesville Regional Utilities to target the general population may be a reduced price program as it provides the best market sustainability at the lowest co st. In order to target their low income customers it may be best to use a door to door giveaway method in order to maximize impacts while reaching their target audience. Recently GRU has created several programs to promote the use of compact

PAGE 52

52 fluorescent la mps and is working to tailor these programs to meet the needs of the Gainesville community. Dark Roof Color solar radiation absorbed by the home. Our survey results sh ow that 62% of the population had darker colored, mostly asphalt shingled, roofs ranging in color from dark red to black. This in combination with the commonality of insulation problems among the sample population sets up a situation where solar heat gain has a significant negative effect on air conditioning efficiency. The effective solution to this problem, to lighten the roof color, is simple while the means to that end can become complicated and expensive. Residential roofs can be replaced with white sh ingles, tiles, or metal roof decking. Asphalt shingles are a very economic roofing choice, and have a large share of the market, including most houses with sloping roofs. According to the RS Means 2006 Cost Index, replacing a 2000 square foot roof with whi te asphalt shingles would cost about $2,075 including shingles and underlayment. [17] Another choice for increasing roof solar reflectance is to coat the roof with a reflective material. White roof mastic can be applied directly over shingles to decrease s olar heat gain. A 1994 study by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) reports a solar reflectance of 0.73 after the application of a roof mastic material while white asphalt shingles have an reflectance of 0.21 [22] Tests showed that the addition of white mastic coating to an asphalt singled roof where there was no attic insulation and the HVAC ductwork was located in the attic resulted in a 19% energy savings and a 22% decrease in peak electricity demand. The cost of white roof mastic is nearly 85 cents p er square foot resulting in a material cost of $1,700 for a 2000 square foot roof. Manufacturers of these roof coatings tout this as a do it yourself project. It can also be noted that mastic roof coatings increase the longevity of asphalt shingles and inc rease hurricane resistance. Faced with the task

PAGE 53

53 of decreasing roof solar heat gain a program that would help homeowners to purchase mastic roof coating seems like the best option. Figure 5 1 shows a Central Florida home after the application of mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles. Refrigerator Coils As the third largest user of energy within the home, attention to refrigerator maintenance, including cleaning the condenser coils and checking door seals, should be a priority. It was found that 61% of t condenser coils. Among the survey participants those with dirty refrigerator coils had significantly higher energy intensity. Since cleaning refrigerator coils can be done with no expensive materials or equipment the only reason for this percentage to be so high is lack of knowledge about refrigerator maintenance. Hot Water Pipe Insulation Water heaters are second on the list of residential energy users. Any inefficiency i n the system will have an effect on energy consumption. As part of the hot water supply system pipes must be insulated to prevent heat loss. In our study we found that 53% of the survey population had portions of hot water pipe that needed insulation. Whil e there was increased energy intensity among those who needed insulation it did not reach a 95% confidence level. The cost of adding insulation to hot water pipes is minimal and supplies can be purchased at local hardware stores and can be applied with no special training. In order to address this issue demand side management programs must address homeowner knowledge of potential inefficiencies. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Leaks Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems account for t he largest portion of residential energy use in Florida. According to Florida Solar Energy Center inefficiencies in the ductwork portion of the HVAC system account for 22% of the total annual cooling load. [21]

PAGE 54

54 Within our low income survey population almos t 50% of the homes had noticeable leakage in the forced air system, which includes the ductwork, plenum, and trunk lines. It comes as no surprise that these homes had significantly higher energy intensity. Problems of leakage can all be attributed to impro per installation, degradation, or disturbance. Installation issues will generally occur where ductwork is improperly connected or where ductwork is hung in such a manner that excessive stress in put on connections. Degradation of joint connection materials may also occur resulting in leakage. Many times paper tape that was used years ago to connect ductwork has degraded due to high attic temperatures and humidity. Perhaps the most likely cause of duct leakage is disturbance by either people or animals. Ofte n ductwork is disturbed by those working in attic space. This is especially true in homes will smaller attic spaces. Attic space used for storage also presents a case were ductwork can easily be disturbed. According to information from a pilot duct repair program by GRU the average cost of duct repair is $422.20 and it results in a 5.2% overall reduction in energy use. This means that the average payback for duct repair is 3.6 years. [12] The initial cost of duct repair may be outside of the reach of most l ow income families but with assistance could be an alternative for our survey sample as most were long tenure residents who would receive a return on their investment. GRU currently offers a duct repair rebate of up to $375 for work done by an approved con tractor. Unfortunately the upfront cost may be more than most low income customers can afford. Weather stripping According to FSEC, outside air infiltration accounts for 6% of the total annual cooling load for Florida residences. [12] Addition of weather stripping around doors, windows and other openings can help to reduce infiltration and cooling load. Over 45% of our sample population exhibited significant energy efficiency problems that could be repaired by using weather stripping. Most often doors and windows are installed with weather stripping to prevent air

PAGE 55

55 infiltration around edges. Over time degradation of the material or simple wear and tear causes the original weather stripping to loose its integrity. Although replacing weather stripping is gener ally cheap and easy, choosing the correct product for each application can be tough. If the weather stripping is too large, doors and windows may not close properly. If the weather stripping is too small, it may be insufficient to close the gap. Also, if t he improper material is chosen degradation may occur more rapidly. For a demand side management program to properly address the issue of weather stripping and weatherization increasing homeowner knowledge must be the focal point. Windows Building science data shows that a homes windows account for 30% of its cooling load. [21] When windows have degraded to the point that they no longer close properly their cooling load can be compounded by air infiltration. Over 35% of the sample population had problems wi th windows that made them inadequate. It is understandable that among this population energy intensity was significantly higher. The cost of replacing windows is highly variable and depends on the size, quantity, and type of windows to be used. The RS Mean s Construction Cost Index indicates a cost of $158 per window installed for double pane, double hung, vinyl windows. This figure does not account for removal and disposal of old windows. At this price replacing windows throughout a home will cost thousands of dollars. While the upfront costs are high, return on investment in both energy and comfort likely appeal to the long tenured survey group. HVAC Settings Home comfort as described by a thermostat setting varies greatly from home to home although most ut ilities recommend 78F for summer cooling and 68F for winter heating. In any case it is recommended that you adjust your setting to lower energy use while away from the home for more than two hours. In our study we found that almost 34% of participating

PAGE 56

56 h ouseholds did not adjust their HVAC settings while they were away from home. Though the difference in energy intensity was only significant at a 90% level of confidence building science, and common sense, shows that the longer the HVAC system runs the more energy it will use. Many customers may be fooled by the myth that it takes less energy to maintain the homes temperature than it does to re cool or re heat the home later. This is clearly untrue. Utility companies could benefit greatly from creating educa tion DSM programs to counteract this problem as it would reduce peak electricity demand. HVAC Filter There are many problems that can befall heating and cooling system s but the most common one is reduced airflow across the evaporator coil. This happens when there are blockages in the forced air system such as crushed or clogged ductwork, dust, dirt, or mildew build up on the condenser coil, or when an air filter is clog ged. Most often it is the latter. We found that 32% of our sample population had excessively dirty air filters. While those household had, on average, higher energy intensities the difference was not significant. The most likely explanation of this is that those household do change their air filters, just not as often as they should. This would mean that having just changed the filter the system would be on par with other study households. Once the filter became clogged the energy use would increase until t he next change. The cost of replacement air filters is nominal; usually less than $15 for a three month filter. Effective demand side management programs to counteract this issue would be centered on homeowner or occupant knowledge and behavior. Water Hea ter Setting In North Florida residences, water heating accounts for 18% of the total energy use. [7] In older, less efficient water heaters much of the energy is used to maintain water temperature in the

PAGE 57

57 tank. It is recommended that water heaters be set no higher than 120F in order to avoid excess energy use. For almost 21% of the survey population a simple adjustment to lower their water heater setting could result in a significant decrease in energy consumption. This behavioral based energy efficiency is sue could best be attended to by DSM programs that focus on increasing home occupant knowledge of mechanical systems. Shading solar heat gain can be a large burden on Fl orida homes. [21] To maximize energy efficiency it is essential to provide adequate shading. The primary way to decrease solar heat gain in residential areas is to maximize shading by trees. Ideally, tree canopy is taken into account during the planning st age of residential development. If not trees must be strategically planted in order to increase shading. As can be imagined the timescale on which this type of measure works is based on the amount of input that can be afforded. A small tree will cost less but will take longer to grow. A large tree will cost more but will provide more immediate results. Although tree shading may be the most effective means of reducing solar heat gain there are other alternatives. One relatively inexpensive way is to cover wi ndows with heat control film. Solar control window film is applied to the inside of a window where it reflects radiation and creates an additional insulating layer. According to product specifications a window film can help to reflect up to 55% of radiati onal heat during the summer, retain up to 45% of indoor heat during the winter, and reduce UV light penetration by up to 99%. Window films can be purchased at local hardware stores and can be easily installed. Films are available for around $30 for a 3ft. by 15ft. roll which will cover three 3ft. by 4ft. windows. This comes to around $10 per window treated. One distinct advantage of this approach to reducing solar heat gain through windows is that, unlike the use of curtains or blinds, the daytime lighting that is provided by

PAGE 58

58 windows is preserved. Solar screens are also available but are more expensive and are generally professionally installed. In order to reduce solar heat gain on walls without increasing shading it is necessary to increase solar reflecta nce. This can be done by using lighter colors on the exterior of the home. The concepts are much the same as previously discussed regarding roof solar heat gain while the process of painting exterior siding is easier and less expensive. In addition to decr easing direct solar heat gain on the structure itself tree shade can reduce ambient temperatures around the home lessening the effects of outside air infiltration and heat exchange through the building envelope. A 1997 study published in the journal Energy and Buildings estimates the total energy saved over a cooling season by the addition of shade trees to be 29%. The peak energy savings resulting in this study is said to be 47%. [20] While the addition of trees for shade has proven to have a profound effe ct on energy consumption, the payback period and lag time before seeing true results suggest that alternative measures be taken as well. The most likely alternatives would be solar window films and light colored exterior paints or coatings. Evaporator Co il Any inefficiency within the HVAC system will have a detrimental effect on energy use. Excessive buildup of dust and dirt on the air handler evaporator coil leads to reduced air flow, reduced heat transfer, and reduced moisture removal from the air. Amon g the sample population 13% were found to have dirty evaporator coils. This portion of the sample population had significantly higher energy intensity than those without dirty evaporator coils. The solution to this problem is to have regularly scheduled HV AC maintenance performed by a qualified HVAC technician, to regularly check and change HVAC filters and to repair leaks in the HVAC duct system. According to local contractors HVAC maintenance service costs between $65 and $100

PAGE 59

59 and should be done every on e to two years at the beginning of the cooling season. GRU currently offers a rebate of up to $55 for central air condition maintenance. Issues concerning HVAC filters and ductwork were discussed in detail earlier in this chapter. Combined Effect of Resul ts Of the most frequent issues that were found to be present among our sample population it is understood that several stand out due to the scope of their potential energy efficiency effects. Information from leading energy efficiency resources, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Florida Department of Energy, and the Florida Solar Energy Center, suggest that reduced solar heat gain, properly sealed building envelope, increased attic insulation, properly sealed ductwork, efficient HVAC system, redu ction of hot water use, and use of compact fluorescent lighting are the main goals to reducing energy consumption in existing residential structures. In addition it is recognized that increased energy intensity is most likely due to a combination of the is sues tested in this research. The energy efficiency issues that most likely have the largest effect on the low income population in Gainesville are lack of proper attic insulation, poor quality windows, lack of shading to reduce solar heat gain, HVAC duct leaks, improper adjustment of HVAC settings, poorly sealed building envelope, non use of compact fluorescent lamps, inefficient HVAC equipment, and inefficient use of hot water and water heating equipment. Possible solutions and demand side management tar get for many of these issues have been discussed in the preceding sections. In order to identify DSM approaches that may help to resolve these issues it is necessary to identify current programs and their potential effects. Recent Programs Since the compl etion of this survey Gainesville Regional Utilities has used some of the data to enhance and support its demand side management programs that address its low income

PAGE 60

60 customers. In order to discuss future demand side management and research options it would be most appropriate to outline the current course of action being taken. Low Income Energy Efficiency Program GRU is piloting its Low Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP) that will address insulation, ductwork, HVAC equipment, and general weatherizatio n problems. The program is designed to incorporate capacity and knowledge building among its participants. To gauge the outcome of this program energy use for each of the homes will be monitored by using standard billing data. For the pilot, 40 homes are p articipating in the program with an additional 119 scheduled for next year. Weatherization for Low Income There are many players in the fight to decrease energy use among the low income population in Gainesville. Affiliated Congregations To Improve Our Ne ighborhoods (ACTION), Neighborhood Housing and Development Corporation (NHDC), ReBuild Gainesville, and GRU are teaming up to help low income households receive weatherization assistance. This program is funded by community organizations and donations from the public with GRU acting as information and training resource. Citizens are being trained to help their neighbors self audit their homes to identify energy efficiency problems while ReBuild Gainesville is helping to provide labor, expertise, and materia ls to fix these problems. Programs such as this one seem most appropriate for helping to fix low cost, knowledge based changes. Low Interest Loan Program GRU is partnering with 1 st Credit Union to offer up to $10,000 in low interest loans for energy effic iency upgrades. Customers would apply for the loan with 1 st Credit Union based on

PAGE 61

61 helping to ease high initial cost of those improvements that have longer payback periods such as adding attic insulation, making roof changes, fixing duct leaks, or replacing windows. Compact Fluorescent Giveaway Promotion of compact fluorescent lamps has been an ongoing project for GRU. Several delivery methods have been used to dis tribute CFLs. As incentive for participating in this survey provided with CFLs to give away at community festivals and other civic events. Packets have been giv en out at ACTION network meetings that contained energy efficiency tips and information along with CFLs. They have also partnered with Home Depot for promotional sales where GRU has bought down the price of CFLs. Data has not been collected on how effectiv e these initiatives are or how they might be augmented or enhanced. Future Potential Demand Side Management Program Areas income customers more emphasis must be place d on homeowner and occupant knowledge and behavior. In particular the approach to distributing information must be reexamined. GRU offers a wealth of energy saving tips on their website and via mail and offers various rebates and services yet their effect has not resounded as greatly in the low income population. Perhaps this will change with the latest programs targeting low income households through community organizations. One method for increasing energy efficiency knowledge would be to become more act ive in civic events and with civic organizations, possibly making GRU staff available to answer energy questions, to display energy efficiency technologies, to give tips on solving particular problems and to direct customers toward the programs that are av ailable to assist with their

PAGE 62

62 particular needs. While it is true that a simple phone call to GRU would allow a customer to receive the same information, being seen in an outreach setting may bolster end use of the information. In its most recent programs G RU has taken advantage of the resources and influence of other community organization to enhance DSM programs. To continue this trend it may be advantageous to partner with ReBuild Gainesville and local hardware retailers to teach customers how to make som e of the upgrades that lend themselves more to do it yourself projects such as installing weather stripping, caulking, and adjusting their water heater setting. Problem Areas Other than issues that were found and corrected during the survey process there were factors that affected the outcome of the survey and the potential end use of the data. Research subjects may have been indirectly selected based on their daytime availability due to the methods used to contact potential participants. These potential p articipants were contacted primarily during business hours, between 8:00am and 5:00pm, and appointments for surveys were only set during these hours. If calls and appointments were made at later times or during weekend hours the survey population may have been more widely varied. There were also problems with the data collection that hindered the scope of which the data is applicable. In the questionnaire portion of the survey participants were asked about features of their homes and its mechanical systems. Many times they were assisted with the answers by GRU auditors and survey administrators. If the participants had not been helped with responses their answers could be compared to the findings of the GRU auditor to determine aspects of homeowner and occup ant knowledge. This information could have been used to promote and enhance knowledge based DSM programs.

PAGE 63

63 Future Research As this research was funded by the American Public Power Association the full survey instrument, analytical method and program design considerations can be used by other utilities throughout the U.S. to help implement cost effective energy conservation programs for their low income customer segments. To gain a broader perspective of the low income Gainesville population additional resear ch of this type should be targeted toward apartment dwellers. Additionally, to determine the effect of ongoing programs, participant energy use should be monitored to determine if efforts have resulted in significant and lasting decreases in energy consump tion. This would help to judge effectiveness in order to tailor programs to meet the needs of their target audiences which is a primary goal of demand side management programs.

PAGE 64

64 Table 5 1: Demand side management programs for compact fluorescent lamps [34] Comparison of Delivery Mechanisms and Potential Program Objectives Delivery Mechanism Target Market Market Sustainability Volume/Total Impacts Cost Per CFL Targeted event g iveaway V ery good Poor L ow H igh Door to d oor g iveaway Good Poor H igh M oderate Le veraging existing p rograms Poor Poor L ow to medium L ow Reduced price p rograms Poor G ood H igh L ow Figure 5 1: Central Florida home with mastic roof coating over asphalt shingles.

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT MAILING February 6, 2006 Dear Family Bill Payer: As fuel prices continue to rise, families throughout Gainesville are looking for ways to reduce home energy expenses. GRU and the City of Gainesville are developing way s to help you save energy, but we need your help. We hope you will be part of a study that will help you and other customers save energy and money. Your home has been selected to represent at least 50 others in your neighborhood, so your participation is important. Please fill out the short form included with this letter and mail it back to GRU in the enclosed postage paid envelope by February 24, 2006. Your responses will tell us if you and your home meet the needs of the study. If you qualify, we wil l contact you at the telephone number you provide to schedule an in home energy assessment. During our visit, we will 1) perform a detailed energy survey at no charge to you, and 2) with your help, complete an in depth questionnaire about your energy usag e and pertinent features of your home such as appliances, number of rooms, windows, and insulation levels. If you are selected and agree to participate, we will thank you by installing three energy saving compact fluorescent light bulbs in your home for free! energy use and save you money. We hope you will take this chance to conserve energy, save on your monthly energy bill, and improve the environment. Fill out the short form and drop it in the mail to day! If you have questions about the enclosed form or the energy survey itself, please contact Amy Carpus in 1450. Thank you for your participation! Sincerely, Pegeen Hanrahan Mayor, City of Gain esville RJL:CEP Enclosure

PAGE 66

66

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX B DEED IN HOME QUESTIONNAIRE DEED HOME ENERGY SURVEY Section 1: INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR HOME We would like to begin by asking some information about the home in which you now live. Q1. When did you move into this home? 1 Less than 1 year ago Date given: _____________________ 2 1 year to less than 2 years ago 3 2 years to less than 3 years ago 4 3 years to less than 5 years ago 5 5 years to less than 10 years ag o 6 10 years ago or longer Q2. How many months per year do you live in this home? 1 Less than 3 months 2 3 months to just under 6 months 3 6 months to just under 9 months 4 9 months to 12 months Q3. Do you expect to move from this home in the next 12 months? 1 Y es Explanation, if offered: 2 No 3 Uncertain Q4. Do you own your home? 1 Yes, I own (or am buying) my home 2 3 Other: Q5. When was your home built? 1 Less than 5 years ago Year if known: _____________________ 2 5 years to just under 10 years ago 3 10 years to just under 20 years ago 4 20 years ago or more 5

PAGE 68

68 Q6. What direction does the longest side of your home face? 1 West ( or East) 2 Southeast (or Northwest) 3 Southwest (or Northeast) 4 South (or North) Q7. Which best describes the foundation of your home? 1 Slab on grade 2 Raised wood floors Insulated? ___Yes ___No ___Uncertain 3 Other: Q8. What is the major wall type of your home? 1 Concrete block 2 Brick 3 Wood frame 4 Other: 1 Flat 2 Shed 3 Gabled 4 Hipped 5 Other: Q10. Does your home have an attic? 1 Yes Insulated? ___Yes ___No ___Uncertain 2 No 1 Asphalt shingles 2 Wooden shakes 3 Tile (clay or concrete) 4 Metal 5 Other: 1 White or silver 2 Light grey or tan

PAGE 69

69 3 Red or orange 4 Dark brown or dark grey 5 Black 6 Other: Q13. What is the total square footage of your home, including bathrooms and hallways? (Do not include garages, outside patios or porches) 1 Less than 500 GRU Records / Appraiser Value: Merge Record # 2 500 999 3 1000 1499 4 1500 1999 5 2000 2499 6 2500 2999 7 3000 3999 8 4000 or more Specific #, if offered: ___________ ft2 9 Description Total # # Weather stripped 1 Wood 2 Metal Insulated 3 Glass 4 Other: Q15. De Description Total # # Weather stripped # Double paned Frame Material (majority) Window Covering (majority) 1 Single Hung Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: 2 Double Hung Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: 3 Casement Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: 4 Jalousie Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: 5 Awning Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Bl inds / Other:

PAGE 70

70 6 Sliding Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: 7 Other: Wood / Vinyl / Metal / Other: None / Drapes / Blinds / Other: Q16. What type of floor coverings does your home have? (Circle all that apply and i ndicate percentage covering) Description Percent Covering 1 Hardwood 25% 50% 75% 100% 2 Carpet or Area Rugs 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 Tile (Ceramic) 25% 50% 75% 100% 4 Vinyl or Linoleum 25% 50% 75% 100% 5 Other: 25% 50% 75% 100% Q17. During a typical summer day, to what extent do trees help shade your house in the morning? (around 8AM) 1 Almost totally shade the house 2 P artially shade the house 3 No shading of the house Q18. During a typical summer day, to what extent do trees help shade your house in the late afternoon? (around 4PM) 1 Almost totally shade the house 2 Partially shade the house 3 No shading of the house

PAGE 71

71 Sec tion 2: KEEPING YOUR HOME COMFORTABLE The next step is intended to gather some information about how you keep your home warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Q19. What are the main types of heating systems that you use? Primary Secondary 1 Electric resistance 1 Electric resistance 2 Natural gas furnace 2 Natural gas furnace 3 Liquid propane gas furnace 3 Liquid propane gas furnace 4 Heat pump __ Central __ Non central 4 Heat pump __ Central __ Non central 5 Portable electric heater 5 Portable electric heater 6 Kerosene space heater 6 Kerosene space heater 7 Wood stove / fireplace 7 Wood stove / fireplace 8 Natural gas logs 8 Natural gas logs 9 None 9 None 10 Other: 10 Other: Q20. What type of thermostat controls your main heating system? 1 Standard Thermostat 2 Programmable Electronic Thermostat 3 No Thermostat Q2 1. At what temperature do you normally set your thermostat for winter heating? ________F Q22. Do you change your thermostat setting or other heating control when you are away? 1 Yes To what temperature is it changed? 2 No ________F Q23. Do you change your thermostat setting or other heating control when you are sleeping? 1 Yes To what temperature is it changed? 2 No ________F

PAGE 72

72 Q24. What are the main types of cooling systems that you use in your home? Primary Secondary 1 Electric central air conditioner 1 Electric central air conditioner 2 Na tural gas air conditioner 2 Natural gas air conditioner 3 Window / wall / room air conditioner 3 Window / wall / room air conditioner 4 Whole house fan 4 Whole house fan 5 Ceiling fans 5 Ceiling fans 6 Floor / box fans 6 Floor / box fans 7 None 7 None 8 Other: 8 Other: Q25. What type of thermostat is u 1 Standard Thermostat 2 Programmable Thermostat 3 No Thermostat Q26. At what temperature do you normally set your thermostat for summer cooling? ________F Q27. Do you change your thermostat setting or other cooling control when you are away from home? 1 Yes To what temperature is it changed? 2 No ________F Q28. Do you change your thermostat setting or other cooling control when you are sleeping? 1 Yes To what temperature is it changed? 2 No ________F Q29. How often is the air conditioner filter changed? 1 Once a month 2 Once every 2 3 months 3 Once every 4 6 months 4 Once a year 5 Q30. During what months of the year, if any, do you open windows on a regular basis for natural ventilation?

PAGE 73

73 __ January __ April __ July __ October __ February __ May __ August __ November __ M arch __ June __ September __ December __ Never Open Windows

PAGE 74

74 Section 3: APPLIANCES IN YOUR HOME The next s tep is intended to gather some information about appliances and water use in your home. Use side notes to indicate if an appliance is Energy Star rated, is particularly out of date, or there are other factors that could be affecting its efficiency. Q31. What type of hot water heater do you have? 1 Gas 2 Electric 3 LP Gas 4 Other: Q32. About how old is your main water heater? 1 Less than 2 years old 2 2 to just under 5 years old 3 5 to just under 10 years old 4 10 to just under 20 years old 5 20 years or older 6 now Specific age, if offered: ___ ________ years Q33. In a typical week (7 days), about how many baths and showers are taken in your home? 1 7 or less # per day: ___________ 2 8 to 14 3 15 to 21 4 22 to 28 5 29 to 35 6 36 to 42 7 43 or more Q34. About how long is a typical shower? ___________ minutes Q35. Do you have a washing machine (or machines) in your home? 1 Yes 2 No SKIP to Q39

PAGE 75

75 Q36. About how old is your main washer? 1 Less than 2 years old 2 2 to just under 5 years old 3 5 to just under 10 years old 4 10 to just under 20 years old 5 20 years or older 6 Specific age, if offered: ___________ years Q37. How many loads of clothes do you wash in a typical week (7 days)? ______________ Q38. How often do you use hot water to wash your clothes? 1 Always 2 Frequently 3 Occasionally 4 Never Q39. Do you have a clothes dryer (or dryers) in your ho me? 1 Yes 2 No SKIP to Q42 Q40. About how old is your main dryer? 1 Less than 2 years old 2 2 to just under 5 years old 3 5 to just under 10 years old 4 10 to just under 20 years old 5 20 years or older 6 Q41. What type of en ergy does your dryer use? 1 Gas 2 Electric Q42. How often do you hang your clothes to dry? 1 Always

PAGE 76

76 2 Frequently 3 Occasionally 4 Never Q43. What type of energy does your stove/oven use? 1 Gas 2 Electric 3 Other: Q44. In a typical week, how many meals are prepar ed at home? (breakfast, lunch, and dinner each count as one meal) 1 5 or less 2 6 to 10 3 11 to 15 4 16 or more Q45. How frequently do you use a microwave, toaster oven, or toaster? 1 Never 2 Once a week or less 3 About every other day 4 Once or twice a day 5 Several ti mes a day

PAGE 77

77 Section 4: LIGHTING IN YOUR HOME Q46. During a typical day, how many hours do you use indoor lights in your home? (consider both morning and night hours) 1 less than two hours 2 2 to just under 4 hours 3 4 to just under 6 hours 4 6 to ju st under 8 hours 5 8 to just under 10 hours 6 10 to just under 12 hours 7 12 hours or more Specific #, if offered: ______ _____ hours Q47. When using your indoor lights, how many roo ms usually have lights on? 1 One 2 Two 3 Three 4 Four 5 Five or More Q48. What type of light bulbs do you use in your home? (include rough percentage) Type Percent of Total 1 Standard Incandescent 25% 50% 75% 100% 2 Fluorescent 25% 50% 75% 100% 3 Compact Fluorescent 25% 50% 75% 100% 4 Other: 25% 50% 75% 100% Q49. Do you have exterior flood lights around your home? 1 Yes 2 No Q50. How are your ext erior lights controlled? 1 Indoor switch 2 Timer 3 Motion Sensor

PAGE 78

78 4 Other: Q51. How many hours per night are exterior lights typically on? 1 Less than 2 hours 2 2 to just under 4 hours 3 4 to just under 6 hours 4 6 to just under 8 hours 5 8 to just under 10 hours 6 10 to ju st under 12 hours 7 12 hours or more Specific #, if offered: ________ ___ hours

PAGE 79

79 Section 5: HOME ENTERTAINMENT Now, think about some of the other energy users in your home, such a s electronic equipment. Q52. How many TVs are in your home? 1 One 2 Two 3 Three 4 Four 5 5 or more Of all TVs, how many are large screens? ________ 6 None Q53. About how many hours will at least one TV be on in a typical day? 1 N one 2 Less than 2 hours 3 2 to just under 4 hours 4 4 to just under 6 hours 5 6 to just under 8 hours 6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: ________ ___ hours Q54. About how many hou rs per day is a video game system typically in use? 1 None 2 Less than 2 hours 3 2 to just under 4 hours 4 4 to just under 6 hours 5 6 to just under 8 hours 6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: ___________ hours Q55. About how many hours per day is a computer typically in use? 1 None 2 Less than 2 hours 3 2 to just under 4 hours 4 4 to just under 6 hours 5 6 to just under 8 hours 6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: ___________ hours Q56. How many hours per day is a CD player, radio, or other type of stereo system typically in use? 1 None 2 Less than 2 hours 3 2 to just under 4 hours

PAGE 80

80 4 4 to just under 6 hours 5 6 to just unde r 8 hours 6 8 hours or more Specific #, if offered: _______ ____ hours

PAGE 81

81 Section 6: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS Finally, we would like to ask a few questions about you and your family Please remember that your household. We will use the results of this survey to help you and your neighbors lessen the burden of monthly energy b ills, so your continued input is important. Q57. Including yourself, how many people live in your home (i.e., sleep here at least five nights a week)? ___________ Q58. How many senior citizens (65 years or older) are in your household? 1 One 2 Two 3 Three 4 Four 5 Five or more 6 None Q59. How many children (17 years or younger) are in your household? 1 One 2 Two 3 Three 4 Four 5 Five or more 6 None Q60. Do any members of your household regularly work from home? 1 Yes Occupation, if offered: 2 No 3 Q61. During a typical work week, is someone at home all day? 1 Yes 2 No 2 forms) 1 $20,000 or less 2 $20,001 to $25,000 3 $25,001 to $30,000 4 $30,001 to $35,000 5 $35,001 to $40,000

PAGE 82

82 6 $40,001 to $45,000 7 $45,001 to $50,000 8 $50,001 to $55,000 9 Over $55, 000 Specific #, if offered: $____ ________ Q64. How concerned are you ab out energy costs in your home? 1 Very concerned 2 Somewhat concerned 3 Not concerned Q65. In the past year, have you or anyone else in your household made any changes in either your home or your lifestyle to make your home more energy efficie nt? 1 Yes Explain: 2 No Q66. Are you aware of any programs that are available to help you lower your home energy bills? 1 Yes Explain: 2 No Those are all of our questions, but before we wrap up we would be happy to answer any questions you may

PAGE 83

83 Thank you for your time and patience.

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX C GRU ENERGY AUDIT FOR M

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87 LIST OF REFERENCES [1] Baxter LW. Federal Options for Low Income Electricity Policy. The Electricity Journal 1998; 11 (5) : 72 80. [2] Berg SV The Customer Bill as an Index of Utility Performance. The Electricity Journal 1995; 8 (1): 54 59. [3] City of Gai nesville Official Website. Block Grant Community Development. < http://www.cityofgainesville.org/comdev/bg/ > (accessed 9/24/2006). [4] Colton RD Energy Consumption and Expenditures by Low Income Customers. The Electricity Journal 2002 ;15(3) :70 75. [5] Flanigan T Weintraub J The Most Successful DSM Programs in North America. The Electricity Journal 1993; 6 (4) : 53 65. [6] Florida Department of Community Affairs 2006 Suppleme nt to the 2004 Florida Building Code. International Code Council. Falls Church VA [7] Florida Energy Gauge. Calcs Plus: Practical Solutions for Florida's Building Science Issues. < http://www.calcs plus.com > (accessed 9/ 24 / 2006 ). [8] Gehring KL. Can Yesterday's Demand Side Management Lessons Bec ome Tomorrow's Market Solutions. The Electricity Journal 2002; 15 (5) : 63 69. [9] Grosskopf K R Kibert CJ Economic Incentive Framework for Sustainable E nergy Use in US Residential Construction. Construction Management and Economics 2006 ;8(24):839 846. [10] GRU. Be Energy Efficient Year 'Round. < http://www.gru.com/YourHome/Conservation > (accessed 1 /13/2006) [11] Halvorsem R. D emand for E lectric E nergy in the U nited S tates Southern Economic Journal 1976;42(4): 610 625. [12] Hardin D. Impact of Duct Leakage on 50 Houses in Gainesville, Florida Gainesville Regional Utilities 2006 [13] Hashe m A Kurn DM Bretz SE Hanfor d JW. Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of Shade Trees. Energy and Buildings 1997 ;25(2): 139 148. [14] HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. < http://socds.huduser.org > (accessed 3/12/2006) [15] LIHEAP. Campaign for Home Energy Assistance 2005. < http://www.liheap.org > (accessed 11/12/2005).

PAGE 88

88 [16] McPherson EG. Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Shade Trees for Demand Side Manag ement. The Electrici t y Journal 1993; 6 (9) : 57 65. [17] Means RS. Building Construction Cost Data 2006 64th ed. Kingston, MA: Reed Construction Data, 2005. [18 ] NEADA. National Energy Assistance Survey Report. < http://www.neada.org/comm/surveys/NEADA_Survey_2004.pdf > (accessed 9/11/2006). [19] Olatubi WO Zhang Y A Dynamic Estimation of Total Energy Dema nd for the Southern States The Review of Regional Studies 2003; 33 (2) : 206 228. [20] Parker DS Sherwin JR Sonne JK Barkaszi SF Floyd DB Withers CR Measured Energy Savings of a Comprehensive Retrofit in an Existing Florida Residence Florida Solar Energy Center 1997. [21] Parker D S Vieira R Priorities for Energy Effi ciency for Home Construction in Florida Florida Solar Energy Center 2007. [22] Parker D S Barkaszi S Saving Energy with Reflective Roof Coatings. Home Energy Magazine 1994;May/June : 35 41. [23] Parker D S Mazzara M Sherwin J Monitored Energy Use Pa tterns in Low Income Housing in a Hot and Humid Climate. Tenth Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot Humid Climates Ft. Worth, TX, 1996 ; 316. [24] Power M Low Economic Opportunity Studi es 2005. [25] University of California Environmental Energies Technology Division Building Energy Efficiency. < http://eetd.lbl.gov/coolroof/asshingl.htm > (accessed 9/ 20 / 2007 ). [26] US DOE. Res idential Demand Module < www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/residential.pdf > (accessed 5/12/ 2007 ) [27] US DOE. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ > (accessed 9/12/2006). [28] US DOE. Characteristics of Residential Housing Units by Ceiling Fans < http://www .eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ceilingfans/ceiling_fan.html > (accessed 11/30/2005) [29] US DOE. A Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy < http://www.eere.energy.gov/ > (accessed 7/ 7 / 2007 ). [30] US DOE. Energy Information Administration < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/florida.html > (accessed 4/1 9 / 2007 .)

PAGE 89

89 [31] US DOE. Trends in Residential Air Conditioning Usage f rom 1978 to 1997 < www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/recs/actrends/recs_ac_trends.html > (accessed 3/23/2006). [32] Vieira RK, Sheink opf KG, Stone JK. Energy Efficient Florida Home Building. Cape Canaveral, FL: Florida Solar Energy Center, 1992. [33] Wikler G A. Policy Options for Energy Efficiency Initiative s. The Electricity Journal 2000; 13 (1): 61 68. [34 ] XEnergy Inc. Phase 4 Ma rket Effects Study of California Residential Lighting and Appliance Program. San Diego Gas an d Electric Company. Oakland, CA, 2002.

PAGE 90

90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicholas Wade Taylor was born in Laurinburg, NC and grew up in Rockingham, NC. During his youth he was a member of the Boy Scouts of America and attained the rank of Eagle Scout. After graduating from Richmond Senior High School in 1997 he went on to complete his environmental technology. After graduation, Nick joined the Peace Corps and moved to Vanuatu where he worked and lived on Mota Lava Island. After returning from the Peace Corps, he began married to Anna Mary Prizzia. The two currently reside in Gainesville, Florida.