Report Shows Success Of PA Low-Income Energy Use Program

A recent Penn State report finds that a statewide energy-conservation and energy-efficiency program offers a cost-effective method of reducing both energy consumption and past-due energy bills among low-income Pennsylvanians.

 

The report, "Long Term Study of Pennsylvania's Low Income Usage Reduction Program: Results of Analyses and Discussion," was generated by the Consumer Services Information Project, a collaborative policy research, technology transfer, public service and education project of Penn State's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

 

The study evaluated the effectiveness of Pennsylvania's Low Income Usage Reduction Program, a statewide initiative that helps low-income homeowners reduce their energy bills through energy efficiency and conservation. The program is overseen by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and implemented by individual electric and gas distribution companies.

 

Households with large past-due energy bills and high energy consumption are identified for assistance. Since the program's inception in 1988, more than $330 million has been spent on usage-reduction treatments for more than 292,000 households in Pennsylvania.

 

Usage reduction strategies vary according to need and may include a pretreatment energy audit; air infiltration assessment; attic, floor and sidewall insulation; heating system treatments and replacements; water-heater tank and pipe wraps; water heater replacement; compact fluorescent lighting; refrigerator and freezer replacement; and energy-conservation education.

 

"LIURP is successful in reducing both heating- and non-heating-related energy consumption and customer arrearages in treated homes," said report author John Shingler, research associate in agricultural economics and rural sociology. He noted that electric heating clients realized energy reductions of 8.8 percent, electric water-heating clients saw reductions of 4.3 percent, electric baseboard clients achieved reductions of 7.1 percent, and gas heating clients had reductions of 17 percent.

 

"The program is particularly well suited to Pennsylvania," Shingler said. "Because the state's housing stock is old and new housing construction is relatively scarce -- especially for low-income families -- the focus on upgrading existing housing stock through the provision of usage-reduction measures is very important in meeting Pennsylvania's overall needs for energy conservation.

 

"Further, the focus on usage reduction is the most effective means of reducing energy consumption for low-income households. The number of low-income homes treated by LIURP each year is also important due to the backlog of federal weatherization programs. Our analyses conclude that LIURP is an effective program that has been successful in meeting its goals. However, there are still many eligible households to be served."

 

Ongoing evaluation has been built into the LIURP process since its initial implementation. Accordingly, companies collect data on each LIURP household for the 13-month period prior to and following the installation of weatherization treatments. These data are reported to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on a yearly basis. This report analyzes data for all households receiving LIURP from 1989 through 2006.

 

The report also revealed that:

 

-- Sixty-nine percent of LIURP households reduce their energy consumption following usage-reduction treatments, with an average usage reduction of 16.5 percent for this group of energy savers;

 

-- Thirty-one percent of LIURP households experience no change in energy consumption or increase their energy consumption following weatherization, with an average increase of 19.9 percent. This is referred to as the "rebound" or "take-back effect" and has been attributed to correcting heating levels in households that did not heat properly prior to weatherization services;

 

-- The greater the energy consumption in the pretreatment period, the greater the potential for energy reduction following the provision of usage-reduction treatments;

 

-- Small multi-unit households are most likely to increase their energy consumption following the provision of usage-reduction treatments;

 

-- The greater the energy bill arrearage in the period prior to treatment, the greater the reductions in energy consumption following the provision of the usage-reduction treatments;

 

-- The more residents in the household, the less the reduction in energy consumption.

Shingler said there are several options for more detailed research into LIURP, which would uncover further changes that could enhance its effectiveness.

 

"Specifically, there are benefits to be gained from more detailed analysis into cost-effectiveness, energy-conservation behavioral changes, the impact of education services, long-term energy savings, and the relationship between payment assistance programs and energy conservation programs," he said. "Some modifications to LIURP potentially could result in more effective targeting of needy households, further reductions in energy consumption, a decrease of the take-back effect and a more comprehensive view of energy conservation."

 

The report is available online.