Really Selling Efficiency
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•246 views
Leveraging existing home inspections at time-of-sale to promote energy upgrades. Presentation given at ACEEE 2018 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Really Selling Efficiency
Similar to Really Selling Efficiency (20)
More from Center for Energy and Environment
More from Center for Energy and Environment (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Really Selling Efficiency
- 1. REALLY SELLING EFFICIENCY Leveraging existing home inspections at time-of- sale to promote energy upgrades Isaac Smith Residential Program Development Manager 8/8/18
- 2. Pg. 2 Outline • Context and background • Pilot design and process • Findings • Conclusions • Future work
- 3. Pg. 3 Partners • Center for Energy and Environment • Twin Cities non-profit for over 35 years • Program Implementer • 5,000 – 6,000 audits each year • Policy • Research • CenterPoint Energy • 800,000 customers • City of Minneapolis • Population – 400,000
- 4. Pg. 4 Background – Energy Disclosure • New homeowner spending • $4,100 - additional spending in 1st year • Asset rating • Recommend improvements NEEP - neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/BER%20Supplement_FINAL%20DRAFT_2-25-13.pdf
- 5. Pg. 5 Background – Truth in Sale of Housing • Current mechanism for disclosure • Focused on health and safety • Some required repairs • Required before listing home – seller paid • 13 cities in twin cities metro • Report displayed at open house and reviewed at closing • Additionally buyers complete inspections 90% of the time
- 6. Pg. 6 Background - Mpls Housing Stock Year Built Number of Homes % <1940 52,010 68% 1940-1959 17,106 22% 1960-1979 2,873 4% >1980 4,372 6% Total 76,361 • 94% built before energy code • 1979 • 70% of homes need either attic or wall insulation
- 7. Pg. 7 Pilot Design • Can the inspection process be utilized for energy disclosure? • Feasibility study • Small scale – 35-40 homes • Goals – • Gather detail on existing inspection processes • Assess inspector training needs • Gain homebuyer and inspector feedback • Assess how much time and cost this would add
- 8. Pg. 8 Pilot Process • Utilized Mpls TISH list Inspector Recruitment and Training • Homebuyer signed participation agreement Leveraged existing buyer inspections • Paper form sent to CEE Collect additional data at inspection • E-mail and mail to homebuyer CEE generates energy report
- 9. Pg. 9 Training – Two Inspection Types Data Collection Basic Inspection Enhanced Inspection Heating System Age, Venting, Efficiency Age, Venting, Efficiency Attic Insulation Insulation Type, Inches, Attic Area Insulation Type, Inches, Attic Area Windows Single pane present Single pane present Wall Insulation None – Based on home age Visual - if possible Blower Door Test None Completed Ventilation None HRV/ERV or continuous fan Inspector Payment $75 $125
- 10. Pg. 10 Energy Report • Asset rating • Clear recommendations – estimated cost and savings • Next steps
- 11. Pg. 11 Findings – Participation • 5 home inspection companies • 38 inspections • 33 basic inspections • 5 enhanced inspections • July – September 2017
- 12. Similar to TISH – Inspectors comfortable at this level Findings – Basic Inspection Category TISH data points Additional info needed for basic inspection Attic Insulation - Insulation type - Inches of insulation - Attic type: Unfloored, slant, peak, kneewall, etc. Heating System - Heating system type - Evaluate venting size - Venting type (natural draft, sealed, etc.) - Age: over/under 20 years old Windows - Evaluate for screen and/or operating storm - Determine if single-pane windows w/out storm are present (yes/no) Walls - Evaluate structural condition - None: rec based on year built
- 13. Pg. 13 Findings – Enhanced Inspection • Inspectors not interested in ‘going down the rabbit hole’ of an enhanced energy assessment • Realize the detail and complexity of energy recommendations • Buyer inspection already 4 hours long • Not interested in adding ‘extensive’ data collection • 1 company completed enhanced inspections • Saw this as a potential market differentiator
- 14. Pg. 14 Findings – Training and Time Inspection Type Basic Inspection Enhanced Inspection Training • Already familiar with data points • Need to cover data collection • Blower door demonstration and on-site training needed • On-call help Time and Effort • Fit into current process • Little to no extra time needed • Additional 30 – 60 minutes • $50 not enough compensation to motivate
- 15. Pg. 15 Energy Report - Key considerations • Cost-effective recommendations • 10 year payback or less • Prioritize recommendations • Access Issues – wall and attic spaces • Report expected levels based on home age • i.e. “Homes built prior to 1945 typically have little insulation…” • Advisor Service – need help with next steps • People have little experience with recommended projects
- 16. Third party consultant administered post pilot • Inspectors are a trusted expert – homebuyers look to them for advice. • Homebuyers are an engaged audience – Inspectors described them as ‘blank canvas’ ready to have details of their home fill that space • Inspectors are ok with touching on energy, but like to stay within their scope and refer homeowners from there. Inspector Focus Group
- 17. Limited participation – 8 phone interviews Question Scale 1 - 5 Importance of home’s energy efficiency during buying process? 3.4 Find an energy rating similar to MPG helpful? 4.1 Was the report provided helpful? 4 How likely are you to complete the recommended improvements? 3.3 Would EE have been a factor in your purchase decision if provided for every home? 3.8 How much would you pay your inspector for similar data collection and reporting? $25 - $100 Homeowner Phone Survey
- 18. Pg. 18 Conclusions • Basic inspection fits well within inspection process • Both TISH and voluntary buyers inspections • Minimal training • Similar data collection • Valuable report - intro to energy efficiency • Asset rating – informs market • Primer for energy projects and next steps
- 19. Pg. 19 Conclusions • Paperwork and process was cumbersome • Online data entry and reporting needed for scale • Enhanced inspection a bigger lift • More training, higher cost, lack of motivation • Ideal time to inform market • Motivated and engaged audience • Info from trusted source • Importance of utilizing existing city processes • Increase compliance • Saves resources
- 20. Incorporate energy disclosure into TISH • Policy change is needed – • Minneapolis is interested • Need to work with each city individually • Fits within many City’s climate goals • Add data points needed to generate an asset rating • Create an energy disclosure report – separate from TISH Future Work
- 21. Pg. 21 City of Minneapolis mock up
- 22. Pg. 22 City of Minneapolis mock up
- 23. Large Scale Pilot • Test effectiveness as utility program strategy • Customer engagement – motivated audience • Inspector recruitment • Leverage this resource/market • 51,622 inspections in twin cities metro • Test cost effectiveness • Cost of inspector data collection and recruitment • Track utility savings from inspection visits Future Work
- 24. Questions? Isaac Smith – ismith@mncee.org
Editor's Notes
- Add ACEEE anecdotes here – 1) A short anecdote about your experience(s) at ACEEE (i.e.; how many times; first time; first impression; a funny thing happened, etc.) or What is it about our energy efficiency industry or your current job that you most appreciate? 2) What lead you to the topic you are about to present; why do you think it would benefit the audience/industry?
- Start with diagram Time of sale Informing the market; eventually influence
- Mention Minneapolis and CPE interest
- 70% need either attic or wall insulation
- The pilot informed potential changes to the TISH process, including how to better collect and report on energy-related information, as well as how to provide energy data and reporting during voluntary buyer inspections.
- Used buyer so the buyer would get energy report… Still evaluated how this would work within TISH Small scale…a little slow and cumbersome? Or mention in conclusion?
- Tested two inspection types…focused on energy assets…use the most energy Basic – simple but able to generate needed report info…mention windows Enhanced – closer to an energy audit Note – inspections can’t be intrusive-no drilling holes
- 1 page report Mention no utility bill data – Wanted to focus on assets and next steps… bill data can be helpful aide, but doesn’t outline what needs to be done/improved. Often skewed by behavior and residents as well. Didn’t fit scope of pilot.
- Similar areas they are already inspecting
- No incentive budget Homeowner interest, willing to pay Found basic info helpful
- Easy implementation – informs market of largest EE assets