An analysis of energy use and behavior changes made by lowincome households after their homes were weatherized

Transcription

1 An analysis of energy use and behavior changes made by lowincome households after their homes were weatherized Selected Paper to be presented at the 2013 European Network for Housing Research International Conference Tarragona, Spain June 19-22, 2013 Pamela R. Turner Associate Professor and Housing & Environment Extension Specialist, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Georgia, 224 Hoke Smith Annex, Athens, GA 30602, United States. Vahé Heboyan Post-doctoral Research Associate, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 800 Sumter Street, Suite 323, Columbia, SC, United States. Abstract By 2012, the Georgia weatherization program weatherized over 10,000 homes- for cumulative savings of $305,000 million BTUs of energy. The objective of this study is to examine the behavior change, energy use, and cost-savings associated with the program. Results suggest that 65% of households showed decline in electricity use by 25% on average and 35% of households showed increase in the electricity use by 34% on average. Results also suggest that 36% of the households no longer use kerosene or electric heaters; 25% have developed a habit of closing vents in rooms not in use; and 31% now clean the refrigerator coils. Still, a large portion of households adjusted their thermostats during heating and cooling months; 36 and 40%, respectively. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they felt more comfortable (80%) in their homes, and virtually everyone (99%) would recommend the weatherization program to others. Keywords: energy efficiency, weatherization, behavior change, energy conservation Introduction Overview of the weatherization assistance program The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is a national program established in 1976 as a reaction to the 1973 oil crisis. For the purposes of this paper it will be referred to as the weatherization program. The primary objectives of the program are to reduce the use of imported oil and lower heating bills for vulnerable populations i.e. the elderly, low-income families with children and people with disabilities). Income-eligible households receive simple low-cost energy efficiency measures designed to reduce home energy costs (U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2009b). Funding

2 for the program comes from the U. S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). Since 1977, DOE has provided home energy assistance to over 6.4 million families, reducing their annual energy bills by an average of $437 (U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2012). The DOE estimates that every $1 invested in a home returns $1.80 in savings on energy bills. In the early years of the program, energy efficiency measures included covering windows with plastic, caulking, and adding weatherstripping around windows and doors. In 1980 more permanent measures were added, including attic insulation, storm windows and doors, and replacing the heating system. By 1990 there was widespread adoption of advanced home energy audits. This was a major improvement, since providers were now required to analyze homes and select the most cost-effective measures for that home. In the U.S. these energy efficiency measures are referred to as weatherization measures. In 2009, in an effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs, additional federal dollars were made available to all states through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). The weatherization program received $5 billion dollars (U.S. DOE, 2009a). One of the reasons behind funding the weatherization program was that low-income households have a greater energy cost burden about 10% of income as compared to 3.3% for non-low-income households (Eisenberg, 2010). A recent analysis indicates that the percent of income allocated for household energy bills has declined to an average of $1,945 or 2.7% of expenditures. Households in the lowest 20% of income, spend 6% on energy while households in the top 20% spend 3% on energy (U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 2013). A contributing factor to lower household energy consumption may be attributed to warmer than normal weather conditions. Additional federal dollars, along with a change in qualification guidelines expanded the weatherization program to include households earning an annual income of 200% of the federal poverty level or less. Previously the eligibility ceiling was 150% of the federal poverty level. The federal dollars flowed from the DOE to the state energy agencies and then generally on to sub-grantees who implement the weatherization program at the local level. In Georgia, the state energy agency Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) received $124,756,312 in Recovery Act funds. Additional funds for weatherization-related activities came from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Georgia Power Company and Atlanta Gas Light Company. The 2009 Recovery Act funds were distributed in the state of Georgia in the following manner. The state energy agency (GEFA) awarded contracts to 22 agencies to offer weatherization measures locally. The agencies could use their own agency workers, or private contractors, to complete the work. In either case, the local agency was responsible for the quality of workmanship and the effectiveness of the weatherization services provided. Southface Energy Institute, a non-profit green building organization, was contracted to provide training for the weatherization workers. The University of Georgia College of Family and Consumer Sciences Cooperative Extension (UGA) received a contract to provide weatherization education, and monitor the weatherization services provided by the local agencies to help ensure a high quality of workmanship and recordkeeping.

3 Weatherization evaluation study The Weatherization Evaluation Study was developed in an effort to better understand the long-term impacts of weatherization. The study examined the increase in knowledge about weatherization; how that knowledge impacts an individual s daily routines and habits; and changes in energy use before and after a house was weatherized. Study participants were from households that either participated in an educational workshop or were referred by a weatherization agency. The houses of the study participants were all weatherized, although participation in the study was not a requirement for their house to be weatherized. The data were collected in Participants were initially contacted face-to-face at weatherization workshops or by phone. All potential participants were given the opportunity to read and sign consent forms before they agreed to participate in the evaluation. UGA Extension Educators collected billing data for electricity, gas, propane, and water from participating households. Efforts were made to collect data at least six months prior to the house being weatherized and six months after the house was weatherized. A supplemental survey was administered to a subset of households participating in the study. This was designed to provide additional insights into behavior changes in energy use and conservation practices. The households differed in size, and the housing units varied in style, size and age. Findings from the study provide insights into the impact of weatherization on individual household utility usage and cost savings. Literature review Residential properties account for over 22% of energy consumption in the U.S. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012). The majority of energy use goes for space heating and cooling (48%); however, this has declined from 58% in 1993 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 2013). Factors influencing this decline include more energy efficient in windows, increased insulation requirements, more energy efficient equipment, and population shifts to more temperate climates. While heating and cooling has been declining, the percentage of energy consumption for household appliances and electronics has been steadily increasing. Despite increased energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers, the increased number of energy consuming devices has offset these efficiency gains. In 2009, almost 45% of households had three or more televisions and over 76% had at least one computer (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011). The use of Appliances, electronics and lighting accounted for 34.6% of energy consumption in 2009 as compared to 24% in 1993 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 2013). Despite its significance and importance in both reducing energy costs for low-income families and providing a safer and healthier living environment, few studies to date focus on evaluating the overall effectiveness and impact of the weatherization program on the affected households. This section of the report summarizes major studies that address impacts of the WAP at national and/or state level. Khawaja et al. (2006) examined the impact of the Ohio Home weatherization program, which was designed to (a) increase the energy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons; (b) reduce participants total residential energy expenditures; and (c) improve participants health and safety. Findings indicate that the benefit-cost ratio calculated from program s perspective was 1.10 and from societal perspective was 1.87, generating a total of over $3 and $26 million dollars in net benefits, respectively. Results also showed that participants reduced natural gas consumption by an average of 25%. Net annual savings for electricity heated homes were estimated to be 1,473 kilowatt hours (kwh) and 572 kwh for single-family and multi-family homes, respectively. Net savings for gas-heated homes

4 were estimated to be 303 kwh and 201 kwh for single-family and multi-family homes, respectively. Examination of the household payment behavior as a result of participation in the weatherization program indicates that there was a 47%, 42%, and 28% reduction in the net customer shortfall for regular, intermittent, and no Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) participation. Hence, participation resulted in a 19% net reduction in the households with bills over 10% of their income. The Ohio program also resulted in creation of about 403 net-jobs and $17.7 million added to the Ohio economy. From a national perspective, Berry and Schweitzer (2003) estimated the average national energy savings for the weatherization program based on relevant state-level studies from 1993 to Results indicate that natural gas consumption savings were 21.9% of the average pre-weatherization consumption of natural gas for all end uses and 30.8% of pre-weatherization space heating consumption. Savings associated with electrically-heated houses averaged 10.5% of pre-weatherization whole-house electric use and 26.7% of pre-weatherization space heating electricity consumption. The benefit-cost ratio from the program perspective was 1.30 and 2.70 from the societal perspective. Levins et al. (1994) studied energy savings and cost-effectiveness of the weatherization program for single-family houses heated primarily by fuel-oil. The study used a representative sample of 222 weatherized houses and 115 control houses from nine northeastern states during the 1991 and 1992 program years. A total of 23,400 homes were weatherized in all nine northeastern states during this period. The estimated annual average net fuel-oil savings were 160 gallons per house or 17.7% of preweatherization consumption. Cost effectiveness analysis showed that the benefit-cost ratio was Brown et al. (1993) studied nationwide energy savings and cost-effectiveness of the weatherization program during the first year after participation in PY 1989 in single-family and small multi-family dwellings. Results indicated 10% to 23% energy savings. The program benefit-cost ratio was 1.06, while the societal benefit-cost ratio was Methodology Data collection The design of the evaluation is a longitudinal quantitative design. Data were collected from participants who agreed to participate and who (a) participated in a weatherization workshop; and/or (b) were referred from a weatherization agency. For individuals who agree to participate and only attend the workshop, a retrospective pre/post assessment was used at the end of the training session to determine what information was learned during the workshop. This information is collected without identifying information for individuals who only attend the training. Those individuals who received weatherization and agreed to participate in the study, worked with a UGA Educator to document household use and cost of utilities for three to six months prior to weatherization (as available) and for six months after weatherization. Data were collected quarterly by a UGA Educator either over the phone or in person as appropriate for the individual participant. The instruments used to collect data are described in Table 1.

5 Table 1. List and description of the instruments Instrument Description Group(s) that will complete Weatherization survey Housing/demographic form Supplemental survey Consent form Collect information on project start and end dates and weatherization measures completed for each study participant. Basic information about each study participant and their house, including square footage and number of adults in house, etc. Additional survey of a subset of study participants to help explain collected data. (Sample size = 110) Consent from program participants for data collection purposes. Completed by UGA Extension Educators for each participant in the study, using the Survey Monkey online portal. UGA Extension Educators with study participants UGA Extension Educator with study participants Study participants A total of 395 households were surveyed for data collection purposes. Of which, 30 (7.6%) were dropped from the study. Among the remaining households, only 235 (59%) contained adequate data to calculate pre- and post-changes in consumer behavior and utility use as a result of weatherization. To avoid the impact of seasonality on utility usage rate, utility records for the same month during pre- and postweatherization were used for estimating the usage change. Due to availability of utility usage records (utility bills) the sample size was further reduced. The final sample with records suitable for calculating impact of the weatherization over time became as follows: a) Electricity 80 households b) Natural gas 19 households c) Water 12 households A supplementary survey of 110 of the 235 households participating in the study was conducted to collect additional information on household behavioral changes as a result of weatherization efforts. Analytical framework Data analysis involved quantitative analysis of the longitudinal data to determine if the average utility usage and costs declined after weatherization. Basic statistics are used to examine the average costs and usage rates per square foot as well as the average rates per region of the state. In addition, the retrospective pre/post assessment is used to examine changes in individual knowledge about why weatherization is important, what it entails, and the potential benefits. Actual energy and water usage rather than bill amounts were used in analysis to ensure that price volatility for utilities did not impact overall findings and conclusions along with using same month data to minimize discrepancy due to level of energy and water use in different months of the year. Data analysis and discussion Each state has a Priority List of weatherization measures to address for each dwelling. In the state of Georgia, the weatherization agency must follow the general guidelines below for each dwelling that is weatherized.

6 - Health and safety measures that help protect the safety of the occupants and weatherization workers. - General heat waste reduction measures that increase energy efficiency of the dwelling and reduce the household energy burden. - Education of housing occupants, providing them with the information and tools they need to understand the weatherization measures, and how they can actively participate in saving energy in their houses. A Priority List is used to determine the order of the weatherization measures to address on each dwelling. The Priority List is made up of measures that have been determined to be the most cost- effective weatherization measures based on projected energy savings, energy costs, and climatic conditions. Measures are listed in order of cost-effectiveness with the number one measure being the most cost effective. The top four priorities are: 1. Air Sealing (A blower door test is conducted to identify air sealing needs.) 2. Insulating the attic to an R-38 value. (This is performed in conjunction with air sealing.) 3. Dense-packing the sidewalls (Adding insulation to the walls if it isn t already present.) 4. Sealing ducts to help ensure energy efficiency Other weatherization measures, in order of priority are: replacing the refrigerator; repairing or replacing the heating and cooling system; replacing the water heater; and installing a programmable thermostat. In addition, in the state of Georgia, every home being weatherized receives some general energy saving measures if they are not already in the house. Compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) replace incandescent light bulbs that are used more than one or two hours per day Water heater tank is insulated Water heater pipes are insulated Water saving devices are installed, including faucet aerators for the kitchen sink and one bathroom sink, and a low-flow showerhead is installed Furnace filters are replaced Participants in the study reported receiving the weatherization measures listed in Table 2. The majority of the houses had more than one weatherization activity completed, with the average number of weatherization measures being four and the range between two and eight. The most common measures were air sealing (99%) and attic insulation (81%). Table 2. Weatherization measures completed 1 Weatherization measures Number of households Percent of households Air sealing Attic insulation Dense pack sidewalls 15 6 Seal and insulate ducts Refrigerator replaced Repair heating & cooling system Replace heating & cooling system 93 39

7 Water heater replaced Programmable thermostat Results are calculated from data collected from 235 households of the original 395 participants. Of the households surveyed in this study, 63% were African American and 30% White. The majority (80%) were female. When asked about house characteristics, such as square footage and types of electric, gas or propane features in the house, the majority of the households were unable to provide responses. This indicates a low level of knowledge about the environment in which they live. Data collected indicated that more than one-fourth (26%) of the households surveyed, about half of those responding, lived in an average size house ( square feet). Houses were older 35% were years of age, 15% were of years of age, and 33% were less than 30 years of age. The majority of households responding had three or more electric features; whereas, the use of propane and natural gas were relatively low. The majority of the households (67%) consisted of one or two persons. Half of the surveyed households had one adult living in the house, and 32% had two adults. The results showed an interesting pattern of employment. In 55% of the households there were no working adults and in 23% of the households only one adult worked. Over 50 percent (55%) of the households had no children, 23% did not provide a response, and only 18% of households had one or two children. The high rate of unemployed adults in the households surveyed may be explained by the high number (about 40%) of households with either an elderly or disabled person living in them. Households were asked about the capacity and use of technology. The response rate was high, with less than 7% of households not responding. Computers were available in 42% of households, 36% had internet connectivity, and 31% had an address indicating use of electronic means of communication. Supplemental weatherization survey A supplemental survey was administered in-person or by phone by the UGA Extension Educators between December 2011 and February The survey was designed to examine potential behavioral changes in household energy consumption routines and habits as a result of weatherization measures. A total of 110 households were sampled for the survey. These households were randomly selected from a preliminary analysis of changes in energy use. Approximately half of the households showed increases in energy usage and half showed decreases in energy usage. Figure 1 below summarizes major findings from changes in daily routines or habits in energy use. Results indicate that over one-third (36.4%) of respondents no longer revert to alternative means of heating, which may indicate that weatherization measures helped residents rely solely on the primary means of heating by improving its effectiveness.

8 Figure 1. Changes in household behavior and routines Have you noticed any changes in your daily routines or habits after the weatherization process at your home was complete? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% I no longer use a kerosene or electric heater to warm the room I turn my thermostat up so my home is warmer during the hot months of summer I turn my thermostat down so my home is colder during the cold months of fall and winter 36.4% 35.5% 40.0% I close the vents in the rooms I don t use in my home I have cleaned the refrigerator coils 24.5% 30.9% I have changed the air conditioning filter 71.8% I have gone to the doctor or medical clinic less I have missed fewer days of work for health reasons 2.7% 6.4% Other 20.9% no answer 1.8% Over one-third (35.5%) of the households surveyed adjust the thermostat down during the heating months and even more (40%) turn the thermostat up in the cooling months. This is a positive outcome, since keeping the house colder during the heating months and warmer during the cooling months can reduce energy costs for these households. By changing the thermostat for a period of at least eight hours, households can save up to 1% for each degree change in the thermostat (US DOE, 2011a). About 25% of households reported closing the vents in unused rooms to increase energy efficiency; 31% routinely clean refrigerator coils; and 72% regularly change the air conditioning filter to ensure optimal efficiency of the heating and cooling system. In an effort to examine if weatherization efforts may have contributed to improved health outcomes, participating households were asked about doctor visits and missed work days. Results show only a few decreased visits to doctors offices (6.4%) or missed workdays due to medical reasons (2.7%). This may suggest either low public health impact due to weatherization efforts, or most likely, too short of time between completing weatherization and reporting to indicate any health changes due to weatherization. Findings from the supplemental survey indicate that majority of households (53%) do not adjust their programmable thermostats and only 27% adjust the thermostat once or twice a week. This indicates a positive behavior change, one that helps reduce costs and improve the efficiency of the heating and cooling system. The majority (80%) report that they feel more comfortable in their homes. Households that responded to the survey overwhelmingly (99%) expressed willingness to recommend the weatherization program to the others. The majority of households (86%) reported no change in the number of persons living in their house, which is helpful in controlling for the potential impact of energy and water use due to change in the household size.

9 Estimation of utility savings A major objective of the weatherization program is to provide energy savings in the form of more efficient energy use. In an attempt to quantify potential energy savings for Georgia households receiving weatherization assistance, data before and after weatherization were collected from households participating in the study. Due to limited availability of billing records, a limited number of data points were available for use to estimate energy savings. As explained earlier, to avoid estimation errors due to seasonality and utility price volatility, billing data for the same month before and after weatherization were used in the analysis and actual utility use rather than the billing amount was used to calculate changes. Of the total of 395 households surveyed, 235 (59%) contained records on the starting and ending dates for weatherization. The latter is importance since it serves as the baseline point for calculation of the pre- and post-changes in consumer behavior and utility use due to weatherization. A summary of utility use changes due to weatherization is provided in Table 3 and a more detailed breakdown of changes is discussed below. Table 3. Summary of average utility usage before and after weatherization Number of Post- Pre-weatherization observations weatherization Percent change Electricity 80 1,389 1, Natural gas Water Electricity billing data for the same month prior and after weatherization was available for 80 households. Of these, 52 showed a decline in electricity usage and 28 registered increased electricity usage. The average decline was 25% (max=70, min=0, sd=0.18) and the average increase was 34% (max=205, min=0, sd=0.43). Since seasonality, price movements, and changes in household composition did not affect the results due to construction of analysis, it is hypothesized that increased electricity use may be due to added electric appliances that either substitute for other energy sources or introduce new amenities not available previously such as a new heating and cooling system. Further study into the causes of increased electricity usage is warranted. Natural gas billing data was available for 19 households. Of these, 11 suggested decreased use of natural gas and 5 suggested increased use. The average decrease was 41% (max=85, min=5, sd=0.31) and the average increase was 21% (max=54, min=9, sd=0.19). The decline in natural gas use may be explained by the replacement of an inefficient system with a more efficient system, such as eliminating the use of an oven to provide heat for the house. Further study is needed to inquire into the causes of higher natural gas use in select households, with a hypothesis that added appliances using natural gas may have caused the increase, such as the replacement of a non-working oven with a working one. Water usage billing data was available for 12 households that met requirements of the study. Data indicate decreased water use in 2 households, increased water use in 8 households, and no change in 2 households. The average decrease was 28% (max=49, min=7, sd=0.29) and the average increase was 63% (max=155, min=7, sd=0.58). Due to limited data availability, it is challenging to attribute any of these changes to weatherization and a further study is recommended as needed to look into the impact of weatherization efforts on changes in water use by households.

10 The supplemental survey also asked the respondents to comment about their overall experience. Listed below are select comments drawn from the survey verbatim. It has made us less sick and so much more comfortable. I am very thankful that my house has been weatherized. It has made a huge difference in my bill and it has made me a lot more comfortable. I would highly recommend this program. I am more conscious of the things that I do around the house: Close drapes during the summer months, wear clothing (long-sleeve) inside the house during the winter months. I burn a lot of wood in my fireplace instead of the heater being on all day during the winter months. Thanks a lot for the classes and the tips on saving money on our bills. Overall my home is much more comfortable, but my den could be warmer. I say that because I do not have the insulation in my walls that I wish to have. Is there going to be more weatherization in the future? The vent that was placed on the ceiling in the bathroom, to prevent mold and moisture, the noise is a nuisance (there is only one switch to control the lights and the vent. When you are not bathing the vent noise is on. This is a waste of electrical power. It should be two switches, one for the lights and one for the vent. Home is staying warmer in the winter/cooler in summer. Natural gas & Electric bill dropped immediately and significantly. Cleaned and tuned HVAC system - working much better and does not work as hard to condition the house. I was very pleased with the work, with everyone's personality, and attention to detail. My gas bill has decreased a lot. I am shocked but in a good way! Additional comments: Program gave me a lot of tips. I have used spray foam personality to fill new holes that formed, it really helped. I have learned a lot! Process was well planned; executed effortlessly-great program, very beneficial, proud to have been a participant. Conclusions and limitations The primary objective of the weatherization program is to provide low-income households a healthy and safe living environment and monetary benefits in form of energy cost savings. This study was done to estimate the potential impact of the program on households in Georgia. From a behavioral perspective, results indicated that over one third (36.4%) of households were no longer using alternative means of heating, such as an oven or portable heater. This may be an indication that as a result of weatherization, these households now use a primary heating source, thus improving the overall efficiency of energy consumption. Data also indicate that households adopted energy saving habits, such as closing vents in rooms not in use, regularly cleaning refrigerator coils, changing the air conditioning filter AC filter, and not adjusting the thermostat continuously; hence, using these appliances at their optimal efficiency. Overall, the vast majority indicated that due to weatherization they feel more comfortable in their homes and they overwhelmingly expressed willingness to recommend weatherization to the others. Examination of utility billing data shows that there is an overall savings from the weatherization efforts. More specifically, billing data for electricity use indicate that out of 80 households, 52 reported declines in electricity usage and 28 showed increased electricity usage. The average decline was 25% and the average increase was 34%. Billing data for natural gas from 19 households show that usage declined in 11 households and increased in 5 households. The average decline was 41% and the average increase was 21%. Data for water usage was from 12 households and indicated that water use decreased in 2 households, increased in 8 households, and did not change in 2 households. Given the limited data for natural gas and water, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

11 Data analysis and conclusions drawn are subject to some limitations. First, collected data contained a large number of incomplete observations, especially the utility billing data. A large number of households did not keep their utility bills so they had to obtain historical billing data from their utility provider, which was time consuming and required additional effort on the part of the households. As a result, a complete set of utility bills was not available for all participants. More complete data could be obtained by offering financial incentives for households to participate in a study, and building a data-sharing partnership between the state energy agency and the utility providers. To obtain greater insights into behavior changes over time, households receiving weatherization should be followed for a period of at least 12 months after their house is weatherized. Acknowledgements This report presents the output of the University of Georgia (UGA) College of Family and Consumer Sciences Cooperative Extension Weatherization Program that began October 2009 and ended September 30, The program was funded by flow-through money from the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of The data analyzed were collected from Georgia residents who tracked their energy and water use as part of their involvement in the weatherization program. Special thanks go to the UGA Weatherization Program employees, the weatherization clients who provided their billing data for the study, and the researchers. References Berry, L and Schweitzer, M (2003, February) Metaevaluation of the Weatherization Assistance Program Based on State Studies, ORNL/CON-488, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Brown, MA, Berry, LG, Balzer, RA and Faby, E (1993, May). National Impacts of the Weatherization Assistance Program in Single-Family and Small Multifamily Dwellings. ORNL/CON-326, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Eisenberg, JF (2010, March). Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Memorandum ORNL/TM , Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (2011). GEFA 2011 Annual Report: Preserving Georgia s Water Resources, Protecting Georgia s Future. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Environmental Finance Authority. Accessed on May 16, 2012 at Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (2010, October). Weatherization Procedures Manual for Managing the Low Income Weatherization Program. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, Energy Division. Khawaja, M.S, Lee, A. Perussi, M., Morris, E., & West, A. (2006, July). Ohio Home Weatherization Assistance Program Impact Evaluation. Portland, OR: Quantec LLC. Levins, W.P., Ternes, M.P. & Energy Division. (1994, October). Impacts of the Weatherization Assistance Program in Fuel-Oil Heated Houses. ORNL/CON-327, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

12 Southface Energy Institute (2010, June 17). Weatherization Funding. Accessed online April 1, 2010 at U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2009a). Weatherization Assistance Program The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Accessed online May 20, 2013 at U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2009b). What is the Weatherization Assistance Program? Accessed online on May 21, 2013 at U.S. Department of Energy (2011a). Thermostat and Control Systems. Accessed online August 1, 2012 at U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2011, September). Weatherization and intergovernmental. DOE/GO Accessed online June 15, 2012 at U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2012). Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program. Accessed online May 21, 2013 at U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011, May 6). U.S. Households Increase Use of Consumer Electronics. Accessed online May 20, 2013 at U.S. Energy Information Administration (2012, September). Annual Energy Review Accessed online May 21, 2013 at U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013, March 7). Heating and Cooling no Longer Majority of U.S. Home Energy Use. Accessed online May 21, 2013 at U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013, April 18). Lower Residential Energy Use Reduces Home Energy Expenditures as a Share of Household Income. Accessed online May 21, 2013 at Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center (2012). Weatherization Assistance Program PY 2011 Funding Survey. Accessed online August 1, 2012 at