The Potential for Energy Savings in Affordable Multifamily Housing

Transcription

1 MAY, 2015 The Potetial for Eergy Savigs i Affordable Multifamily Housig Key Fidigs 1 There is sigificat eergy savigs potetial i the affordable multifamily sector i each of the ie states studied. 2 The total beefits to society, as defied by the Total Resource Cost Test, 1 from pursuig eergy efficiecy i affordable multifamily housig substatially exceed the costs. 3 Icludig o-eergy beefits (NEBs) ca have a sigificat impact o maximum achievable potetial for the affordable multifamily sector. 2 4 Measures to reduce eergy usage for heatig ad coolig cotribute to early half of projected electric eergy savigs; measures to reduce eergy usage for space heatig accout for more tha three-fourths of savigs i atural gas use. 3 BACKGROUND The Natioal Housig Trust, Natural Resources Defese Coucil, Eergy Foudatio, ad Elevate Eergy have lauched the Eergy Efficiecy for All (EEFA) project with the goal of makig multifamily homes healthy ad affordable through eergy efficiecy. EEFA is workig with electric ad gas utilities, program admiistrators ad their regulators to advace iovative eergy efficiecy programs ad advisig housig fiace agecies o best practices i obtaiig buildig-ower participatio ad eergy efficiecy fiacig. EEFA is also collaboratig with buildig owers ad maagers, busiesses, ad advocates to achieve eergy savigs i multifamily properties. Electric ad gas utilities i the Uited States ivest billios of dollars aually to help their customers become more eergy efficiet, ofte by makig repairs ad improvemets to customers homes ad buildigs. These ivestmets are smart they improve lives by reducig eergy expeses, create healthier, more comfortable homes ad offices, ad improve commuity buildig stock. The resultig eergy efficiecy produces a better utility system with less pollutio, creates local jobs, ad delivers other public beefits. However, utilities rarely target affordable multifamily housig for their eergy efficiecy ivestmets. Perceived as hard to reach, this part of the atio s buildig stock is diverse ad faces multiple market barriers. It is, however, PREPARED FOR NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL BY OPTIMAL ENERGY

2 full of utapped eergy potetial with buildigs frequetly i eed of efficiecy improvemets ad teats who could substatially beefit. To better evaluate this utapped potetial, EEFA cotracted with Optimal Eergy, a eergy efficiecy cosultig firm, to coduct a detailed assessmet of the potetial i the sector. The resultig study aalyzed the savigs that could be realized from implemetig all cost-effective efficiecy measures for electricity, atural gas, ad fuel oil i the etire existig affordable multifamily housig stock i each of ie states for the 20-year period from A syopsis of the study, icludig key parameters, fidigs, ad the methodology employed, follows. STUDY PARAMETERS $ Geography Evaluated the potetial for ie states Georgia, Illiois, Marylad, Michiga, Missouri, New York, North Carolia, Pesylvaia, ad Virgiia Time frame Estimated potetial over a 20-year period from Targeted housig stock Cosidered all buildigs, both subsidized ad usubsidized affordable, with five or more uits occupied by people with household icomes at or below 80 percet of the area media icome Levels of potetial Estimated two types of potetial eergy savigs, ecoomic potetial ad maximum achievable potetial, with the focus o the latter ecoomic potetial savigs that ca be realized if all cost-effective efficiecy measures are implemeted maximum achievable potetial the portio of ecoomic potetial that ca be realized takig ito accout costraits such as program ramp-up times, the atural turover of the housig ad appliace stock, ad the difficulty of egagig buildig owers $ Eergy types Estimated potetial from electric, atural gas, ad fuel oil, with fuel oil oly applicable to oe state, New York 4 Savigs scearios Estimated the beefits associated with efficiecy improvemets for three scearios The Base Case sceario cosiders oly the beefits associated with eergy, water, ad operatios ad maiteace savigs. The Low ad High o-eergy beefits (NEBs) scearios take ito accout oeergy beefits, icludig those related to health, icreased property values, higher comfort levels, ad reduced arrearages, customer calls, safety-related emergecy calls, ad collectio activities. 5 Data Drew o secodary sources, i some cases referecig experiece i o-study states Measures Cosidered 182 eergy efficiecy techologies ad practices that were the screeed for costeffectiveess 2

3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Four critical fidigs emerged from the study. 1 There is sigificat eergy savigs potetial i the affordable multifamily sector i each of the ie states studied. Rather tha a margial strategy to reduce eergy usage, improvig the eergy efficiecy of the affordable multifamily housig stock represets a very sigificat opportuity for utilities ad other stakeholders. Statewide beefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) for the Base Case rage from 1.8 to 3.1 depedig o the state ad fuel. 3 Icludig o-eergy beefits ca have a sigificat impact o maximum achievable potetial for the affordable multifamily sector i every state studied. 7 The effect o et beefits of icludig NEBs is summarized i Table 1. The maximum achievable potetial varies sigificatly by state. The differeces i potetial savigs reflect variatios i avoided eergy supply costs, the mix of fuels used, equipmet saturatios, climate, measure costs, ad other factors. I absolute uits of eergy saved 6, the potetial is highest i New York, primarily due to the high cocetratio of affordable multifamily homes i New York City. TABLE 2. Cumulative Maximum Achievable Potetial by NEBs Sesitivity Sceario ad State State Electric (GWh) Base Case % of Sales Forecast Low NEBs Sesitivity Sceario % of Sales Forecast High NEB Sesitivity Sceario % of Sales Forecast Georgia 17% 20% 23% TABLE 1. Maximum Achievable Potetial Net Beefits by NEBs Sesitivity Sceario ad State, All Fuels State Base Case Net Beefits Low NEBs Sesitivity Sceario Net Beefits High NEB Sesitivity Sceario Net Beefits Georgia $467 $1,223 $2,048 Illiois $527 $1,344 $2,276 Marylad $550 $1,132 $1,755 Michiga $534 $1,111 $1,724 Missouri $190 $511 $894 New York $3,114 $6,291 $9,552 North Carolia $332 $893 $1,508 Pesylvaia $404 $938 $1,522 Virgiia $354 $941 $1,579 TOTAL $6,472 $14,384 $22,858 Illiois 22% 26% 26% Marylad 19% 22% 25% Michiga 26% 27% 32% Missouri 15% 19% 20% New York 24% 27% 31% North Carolia 19% 23% 26% Pesylvaia 20% 23% 25% Virgiia 21% 25% 28% Natural Gas (BBtu) Georgia 13% 17% 17% Illiois 16% 20% 21% Marylad 18% 20% 21% Michiga 11% 14% 15% Missouri 17% 23% 24% New York 13% 18% 18% North Carolia 22% 28% 28% Pesylvaia 11% 13% 13% 2 The total beefits to society, as defied by the Total Resource Cost Test, from pursuig eergy efficiecy i affordable multifamily housig substatially exceed the costs. This is true for all three scearios (Base Case, Low NEBs, ad High NEBs) as well as for all fuel types ad all states. Virgiia 13% 18% 19% Petroleum Fuel (BBtu) New York 15% 15% 15% 3

4 Table 2 summarizes the cumulative maximum achievable potetial savigs as a percetage of sales forecast by state ad by fuel. The maximum achievable potetial varies sigificatly by state, reflectig differeces i avoided eergy supply costs, the mix of fuels used (fuel shares), equipmet saturatios, climate, measure costs, ad other factors. The study fids sigificat potetial i the affordable multifamily sector i all states. I absolute uits of eergy saved, the potetial is highest i New York due primarily to the eormous umber of affordable multifamily uits i New York City. Tables 3 ad 4 provide additioal detail o the impact of NEBs o the state-level costs, savigs, ad beefit cost ratios (BCR). For the Low NEBs, total et beefits for all states ad fuels aalyzed icrease by 122 percet from $6.5 billio to $14.4 billio with a icrease i BCR from 2.2 to 3.0. For the High NEBs, total et beefits icrease by 253 percet from $6.5 billio to $22.9 billio with a overall BCR shift from 2.2 to 3.3. TABLE 3. Sesitivity for Low NEBs, Maximum Achievable Potetial Costs ad Beefits, All Fuels Low NEBs Sesitivity Sceario Base Case State Costs Beefits Net Beefits BCR Costs Beefits Net Beefits BCR Georgia $575 $1,799 $1, $405 $872 $ Illiois $866 $2,210 $1, $571 $1,098 $ Marylad $500 $1,632 $1, $391 $940 $ Michiga $531 $1,642 $1, $417 $951 $ Missouri $335 $845 $ $213 $402 $ New York $2,764 $9,055 $6, $2,178 $5,293 $3, North Carolia $430 $1,324 $ $293 $625 $ Pesylvaia $515 $1,453 $ $369 $773 $ Virgiia $520 $1,461 $ $342 $697 $ TOTAL $7,036 $21,421 $14, $5,179 $11,651 $6,

5 TABLE 4. Sesitivity for High NEBs, Maximum Achievable Potetial Costs ad Beefits, All Fuels High NEB Sesitivity Sceario Base Case State Costs Beefits Net Beefits BCR Costs Beefits Net Beefits BCR Georgia $926 $2,975 $2, $405 $872 $ Illiois $915 $3,190 $2, $571 $1,098 $ Marylad $775 $2,530 $1, $391 $940 $ Michiga $860 $2,584 $1, $417 $951 $ Missouri $412 $1,305 $ $213 $402 $ New York $3,883 $13,435 $9, $2,178 $5,293 $3, North Carolia $688 $2,197 $1, $293 $625 $ Pesylvaia $708 $2,230 $1, $369 $773 $ Virgiia $813 $2,392 $1, $342 $697 $ TOTAL $9,980 $32,838 $22, $5,179 $11,651 $6, Measures that reduce eergy usage for space heatig ad coolig cotribute the majority of potetial eergy savigs. Measures that reduce eergy usage for space heatig ad for combied heatig/coolig cotribute 49 percet of total electric eergy savigs (Figure 1) ad 77 percet of gas savigs (Figure 2). Electric savigs are achieved primarily through the itroductio of Wi-Fi thermostats, efficiet widows, ad air sealig. Gas savigs are largely from efficiet i-uit ad cetral furaces ad cetral boilers, ew efficiet widows, ad air sealig. FIGURE 1 I CUMULATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SAVINGS BY END USE, 2034 WHOLE BUILDING WATER 8% 4% SPACE 16% LIGHTING 18% 33% COOLING 21% PLUG LOADS/ CONSUMER ELECTRONICS/ OTHER WHOLE BUILDING WATER 5

6 FIGURE 2 I CUMULATIVE NATURAL GAS SAVINGS BY END USE, % 21% COOLING PLUG LOADS/ CONSUMER ELECTRONICS/ OTHER WHOLE BUILDING WATER 2% 21% 77% SPACE WI-FI THERMOSTAT 20% EFF. IN-UNIT FURNACE 19% EFF. CENTRAL BOILER 16% AIR SEALING 8% EFF. CENTRAL FURNACE 8% OTHER 6% Equipmet plugged directly ito outlets largely cosumer electroics cotributes a sigificat 21 percet of the total electric potetial savigs, with the bulk comig from advaced power strips. Efficiecy measures for lightig cotribute 18 percet to the potetial electric savigs. Improvemets i water heatig (8 percet of electric savigs ad 21 percet of gas savigs) ad whole buildig measures (4 percet of electric savigs ad 2 percet of gas savigs) such as behavioral chage ad retrocommissioig (improvig existig equipmet) costitute sigificat additioal ed-use savigs. Methodology The basic methodology etailed the followig six steps: Number of Affordable Uits (thousads) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY-OWNED SUBSIDIZED UNSUBSIDIZED 0 NY IL GA MI VA PA MD NC MO 1 Estimate the umber of affordable multifamily housig uits by state, utility service territory, buildig size (i.e., buildigs with 5 to 49 uits ad buildigs with 50 or more uits) ad subsidy types (usubsidized affordable, subsidized affordable, ad public housig authority-owed). 2 Estimate baselie eergy cosumptio for affordable multifamily housig uits i the ie states, for each eergy type (electricity, atural gas, ad fuel oil) for the period Characterize efficiecy measures by estimated costs, savigs, ad lifetimes. The scree the comprehesive list of 182 measures for cost-effectiveess usig the Total Resource Cost Test. The costs icluded all those icurred by participats ad program admiistrators, ad for all icetive ad o-icetive programs. 6

7 LIGHTING PLUG LOADS/ CONSUMER ELECTRONICS/ OTHER 4 Idetify locatio-depedet parameters that could affect measure characterizatios for each electric utility service territory. Parameters icluded climate, hours of lightig use, measure cost adjustmet factors, ad avoided eergy supply costs. 5 Develop, for each electric utility service area, measure peetratios (the extet to which each measure is implemeted). 6 Adjust for measure iteractios. 9 The total potetial was estimated by applyig the measure level costs ad savigs to the populatio of affordable multifamily housig uits both statewide ad by utility service territory, adjusted for locatiodepedet parameters, measure peetratios, measure iteractios, ad other factors. FIGURE 3 I AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING UNITS BY STATE AND SUBSIDY TYPE Number of Affordable Uits (thousads) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY-OWNED SUBSIDIZED UNSUBSIDIZED 0 NY IL GA MI VA PA MD NC MO A complete discussio of the methodology used for this study ca be foud i the full report, pp Edotes: 1 The TRC test cosiders the costs ad beefits of efficiecy measures from the perspective of society as a whole. The priciples of this cost test are described i: Goveror s Office of Plaig ad Research, Califoria Stadard Practice Maual: Ecoomic Aalysis of Demad-Side Programs ad Projects (State of Califoria, July 2002), 2 Potetial here refers to the savigs that would result from the adoptio of eergy-efficiet techologies that would ot occur without fuded programs to promote their adoptio. 3 Some measures such as evelope improvemets ad heat pump upgrades would affect both heatig ad coolig usage while measures such as boiler cotrols would oly affect heatig usage. 4 The assessmet of fuel oil potetial was limited to opportuities i New York State, which is the oly state that satisfied the study s criterio that a fuel represet more tha 5 percet of the total residetial heatig fuel market share i a give state. 5 The NEB scearios were based o a Massachusetts study of state-admiistered low-icome residetial programs. Our Low NEBs sceario assumed o-eergy beefits equivalet to 50 percet of the Massachusetts values; the high NEBs sceario assumes beefits equivalet to 100 percet of the Massachusetts values. 6 With all savigs coverted to site MMBtus. 7 Detailed data for maximum achievable potetial by utility service territory ca be foud i the full report, Tables These estimates, primarily based o data from the U.S. Eergy Iformatio Admiistratio s Residetial Eergy Cosumptio Survey (2013), were used both to iform measure characterizatios ad to report potetial estimates as a percetage of total load. 9 The reported electricity savigs reflect adjustmets to accout for iteractios betwee lightig ad electric heatig ad coolig usage. The reported gas ad oil savigs were ot similarly adjusted, however, gas ad oil beefits were adjusted for these iteractios. This reportig covetio is used to avoid uderstatig the atural gas ad fuel oil potetial due to the impact of aggressively pursuig efficiet lightig. I cases where efficiecy programs are ot itegrated across fuel types, this is especially importat. 7

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The primary author of this Study are Phil Mosethal ad Matt Socks of Optimal Eergy. Gle Reed of Eergy Futures Group provided critical support ad iput. The cotets of this Study iclude ad reflect the origial ideas ad cotributios of Michael Bodake ad Todd Nedwick of the Natioal Housig Trust, Abigail Corso ad her team at Elevate Eergy, ad the experiece ad iput of NRDC s team icludig Dyla Sulliva, Raya Salter, Rebecca Stafield, ad Cai Steger. This project was made possible with fudig support from The JPB Foudatio. May thaks to Taja Bos ad Debby Warre for skilled help producig this Study. 8