Survey of Whole House 

Programs in Midwestern 

Climates

U. McGeough, W. Baker, J. Peters, and 

A. Beitel 

Partnership for Advanced Residential Retrofit

November 2012
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency 

thereof, nor any of their employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the 

accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade 

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply 

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or 

any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency 

thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Survey of Whole House Programs in Midwestern Climates

Prepared for:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

NREL Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Prepared by: 

U. McGeough, W. Baker, J. Peters, and A. Beitel

Partnership for Advanced Residential Retrofit

Des Plaines, IL 60018

NREL Technical Monitor: Stacey Rothgeb

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40346-00

November 2012
iv

Acknowledgments

The research team is grateful for the assistance of the following individuals and organizations in 

conducting this research and developing this report:

Andrew Isaacs, Kentucky Home Performance

Bill Von der Linde, A-Tec, Black Hills Energy, Black Hills’ Home Performance with ENERGY 

STAR

Carter Dedolph, WECC Wisconsin- Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Chris Duffrin, Neighborhood Energy Connection, Xcel Energy’s Home Performance with 

ENERGY STAR

Dave Canny and Jeff Gleeson, Pacific Gas and Electric

Glenda Abney, Missouri Botanical Garden’s Earthways Center, St. Louis Regional Home 

Performance with ENERGY STAR

James Miller, AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Programs

Jensen Adams, Kansas City Area Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Jim Jerozal, Nicor’s Gas Energy Efficiency Program

Joe Marco, GoodCents, Dominion East Ohio’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Marjorie Isaacson, Center for Neighborhood Technology

Nick Lovier, Ameren Illinois’ Act on Energy

Paul Racher and Jack Laverty, Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home Performance Solutions

Peter Ludwig, Center for Neighborhood Technology

Rudy Chahine, Consumers Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
v

Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii

Definitions................................................................................................................................................. viii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... ix

1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Motivation for Research ......................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope of Programs Researched............................................................................................1

2 Experimental Methods ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Web Research ......................................................................................................................2

2.2 Survey Monkey....................................................................................................................3

2.3 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Reports...........................................................3

2.4 Preliminary Regulatory Research ........................................................................................4

2.5 “Deep Dive” Interviews.......................................................................................................4

2.6 Literature Review.................................................................................................................4

2.6.1 Summary of Key Literature Findings......................................................................4

2.6.2 Comparing National Reports to Current Research ..................................................6

3 Results................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Qualitative Program Descriptions........................................................................................8

3.1.1 Energy Upgrade California ......................................................................................9

3.1.2 Ameren’s Act on Energy Home Energy Performance (Illinois)..............................9

3.1.3 Nicor Gas Energy Efficiency Program (Illinois) .....................................................9

3.1.4 Chicagoland Natural Gas Savings Program (Illinois)............................................10

3.1.5 Black Hills Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Iowa) ................10

3.1.6 Kentucky Home Performance................................................................................11

3.1.7 Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance (Ohio and Kentucky)....................................11

3.1.8 Consumers Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Michigan) .........11

3.1.9 Kansas City Area Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Missouri).............12

3.1.10 St. Louis Regional Home Performance with ENERGY STAR 

(Missouri/Illinois) ..................................................................................................12

3.1.11 Xcel Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Minnesota) ...............12

3.1.12 Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home Performance Solutions........................................13

3.1.13 Dominion East Ohio’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR.......................13

3.1.14 AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Program ....................................................................13

3.1.15 Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Wisconsin)...........14

3.2 Quantitative Program Data ................................................................................................14

3.2.1 Longevity ...............................................................................................................14

3.2.2 Program Budgets....................................................................................................15
vi

3.2.3 Program Participation and Conversion Rates........................................................16

3.2.4 Program-Level Energy Savings.............................................................................17

3.3 General Trends from Research ..........................................................................................19

4 Discussion and Recommendations.................................................................................................. 20

4.1 General Observations about Whole-Home Programs........................................................20

4.2 Specific Observations and Recommendations...................................................................20

4.2.1 Sponsoring Organization .......................................................................................20

4.2.2 Customer Targeting and Marketing.......................................................................21

4.2.3 Measure Packages and Incentive Structure............................................................23

4.2.4 Audit Approach and Safety Testing.......................................................................28

4.2.5 Program Diagnostics To Identify Energy Savings Opportunities..........................29

4.2.6 Contractor Role......................................................................................................30

4.2.7 Program Budget, Energy Savings, Participation, and Conversion ........................32

4.2.8 Customer Satisfaction ............................................................................................35

4.2.9 Program Evaluation ...............................................................................................35

4.2.10 Common Metrics ...................................................................................................35

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 37

5.1 Program Design Lessons Learned .....................................................................................37

5.2 Areas for Further Study .....................................................................................................39

References................................................................................................................................................. 41

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix A. Web Research Questions................................................................................................... 43

Appendix B. Survey Monkey Questions ................................................................................................. 44

Appendix C. Deep Dive Questions .......................................................................................................... 45

Appendix D. Summary and Compilation of Deep Dive Interview Questions and Answers .............. 48

Appendix E. Summary of Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Reports................................. 59
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Year of inception for whole-home programs ......................................................................... 15

This figure was created by PARR.

List of Tables

Table 1. Current Program Budgets, $ (approximate, 2010–2011) ........................................................ 16

Table 2. Current Program Participation (Retrofits) and Conversion Rates (%) (2010–2011) ............ 17

Table 3. Program-Level Energy Savings (2010–2011)........................................................................... 18

Table 4. Summary of Program Incentives .............................................................................................. 24

Table 5. Contractor Training, Certification, and Other Requirements................................................. 31

Table 6. Program Budgets and Participation ......................................................................................... 33

Table 7. Program Budgets and Energy Savings.................................................................................... 34

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by PARR.
viii

Definitions

AFUE Annual fuel utilization rate

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

BPI Building Performance Institute

BHE Black Hills Energy

CAZ Combustion appliance zone

CFL Compact fluorescent light

cfm Cubic feet per minute

CHA Comprehensive home assessment

ComEd Commonwealth Edison Company

ECM Electronically commutated motor

EF Energy factor

EM&V Evaluation, measurement, and verification

HPwES Home Performance with Energy Star

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IPL Interstate Power and Light

PARR Partnership for Advanced Residential Retrofit

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PY

QA

Program Year

Quality assurance

QC Quality control

REM/Rate Licensed residential energy analysis software
ix

Executive Summary

Researchers investigated existing single family whole-home energy efficiency programs in cold 

climates to better understand program design and the outcomes of energy savings and customer 

participation. Focusing on programs in the Midwest, researchers obtained data from the Internet;

surveys; regulatory filings; evaluation, measurement and verification reports; in-depth phone 

interviews with whole-home program administrators (typically utilities); and literature. Programs 

ranged in maturity from well-established to recently launched; most have operated for fewer than 

three years. Researchers sought information about program design elements such as requirements

for customer and contractor participation, processes for inclusion in the program, testing and 

inspections, completing and tracking retrofits, and calculating incentives. The report presents 

information about various program design and structure and aggregated program trends and 

observations and provides recommendations for future cold weather climate whole-home 

program design and implementation. Information is limited to that which is publicly available.

Confidential information is summarized only in aggregate form, with the identity of individual 

programs masked. The report also identifies areas where further research is needed to understand

and maximize the effectiveness of cold climate whole-home programs, particularly regarding

actual program savings and cost effectiveness, information that is important to understand before 

scaling up whole-home programs in cold climates.

This study makes several recommendations to whole-home program designers and implementers 

for improving the cost effectiveness and reach of whole-home programs. Recommendations 

cover customer targeting, audits, customer incentive design, metrics design and tracking, health 

and safety, contractor selection, implementation, and savings validation. Recommendations were 

developed by reviewing general program trends and through observations made by whole-home 

program administrators.

This study extends knowledge about whole-home programs in several ways: 

• It includes information on outcomes, whereas prior recent studies characterize program 

designs without presenting data on program savings impacts.

1

• It focuses on cold climate whole-home programs, whereas prior studies have not focused 

on specific climates.

• It presents recommendations for further analysis that should be completed before cold 

climate whole-home programs are expanded.

A key objective of many whole-home programs is to achieve cost-effective, moderate (15–30% 

per home bill savings) or deep (more than 30% per home) savings, yet the data needed to assess 

 

1 Driving Demand for Home Energy Improvements: Motivating Residential Customers to Invest in Comprehensive 

Upgrades That Eliminate Energy Waste, Avoid High Bills, and Spur the Economy, Fuller et al. (2010); Residential 

Energy Efficiency Retrofit Programs in the U.S. (LeBaron and Rinaldi 2010).
x

whether the objective is met are lacking. Additional research is needed to validate savings 

claimed from whole-home programs, to determine which program designs are cost effective, and 

to assess which program design elements are necessary to achieve moderate or deep savings 

from whole-home retrofit programs.
1

1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Motivation for Research

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America program conducts research to improve the 

efficiency of new and existing homes with the overall goal of developing integrated systems 

solutions that take advantage of economies of scale. The Building America team, Partnership for 

Advanced Residential Retrofit (PARR), focuses on improving the performance of existing homes 

in the cold climate of the Midwest. As a part of both Building America and PARR’s mandate, 

this project surveys whole-home energy efficiency programs in cold Midwestern climates to 

understand their structure, processes, costs, and energy savings. Comparing existing programs

can help researchers and program designers and administrators understand what constitutes an 

effective whole-home program for the Midwest. For this study, researchers defined a wholehome program to be one that fosters, through a mix of financial incentives and program 

strategies, the installation of multiple energy savings measures in homes to improve overall 

energy efficiency of the entire home. This information, including analysis of audit systems, 

contractor requirements, measure packages, and financial incentives, can inform the ongoing 

growth and development of whole-home programs.

PARR views this report as important for understanding whole-home programs in cold weather 

climates and for identifying additional research that should be conducted before programs are 

scaled up. From this foundation, PARR can design and conduct research targeted at the most 

pressing gaps, while sharing best practices among practitioners. PARR will continue to work 

with several programs to improve whole-home programs in the Midwest using lessons learned

and best practices identified in the study. Moreover, PARR will use the data to develop 

regionally appropriate whole-home energy efficiency packages that represent both climatic and 

programmatic realities. 

1.2 Scope of Programs Researched

Research was focused on home performance programs in the Midwest. States initially reviewed 

included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The list was narrowed to eight Midwestern 

states and expanded to include California. The team added California because it felt that the 

state’s mature programs may offer useful lessons to apply to Midwestern programs. California 

has rapidly and effectively launched its programs, includes cold climate zones typical of the 

Midwest, and has experienced program administrators. Any state from the initial list was 

eliminated if it had no whole-home performance program or if its programs were in such an early 

stage of development that little to no information was available for analysis.

To select programs for inclusion, the research team focused on programs that were designed for 

single family home retrofit and which did not impose income qualifications on its participants. 

Although the criteria further narrowed the list of available programs for analysis, it was 

important for effectively analyzing programs that are sufficiently similar to provide meaningful 

comparisons and draw effective conclusions.
2

2 Experimental Methods

2.1 Web Research

The project team developed a list of questions and data queries to be answered through utility 

websites (see Appendix A). These initial questions were used to guide the review of utilities in 

California, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio. 

Data from initial Web research were collected and summarized in a spreadsheet and also in 

narrative form. The project team identified whole-home programs offered in these states and 

gathered data from a total of 26 programs listed below. The programs were distributed across 

states as follows, with number of programs in parenthesis following the state name: California

(1), Illinois (4), Indiana (2), Iowa (3), Kansas (2), Kentucky (2), Michigan (4), Minnesota (2), 

Missouri (2), Ohio (3),Wisconsin (1). Programs were either statewide or regional. Some 

programs were operated by utilities while others were operated by other entities, such as not-forprofit organizations spanning multiple agencies.

Of the 26 programs initially identified, 15 were selected for further study. Programs were 

eliminated from the initial list for the following reasons: program focused on low income, 

commercial, or multifamily customers; stage of program development was too early for 

garnering adequate information; or program did not apply to comprehensive residential retrofits. 

While improving energy efficiency for commercial, multifamily, and low-income customers is 

important, the structures of such programs differ in significant ways from those in the current 

study, and, for low-income programs, the program may not be required to be cost effective, 

which is critical for the sustainability of other residential programs. The 15 programs highlighted 

in bold italics below were studied further:

• California: Energy Upgrade California

• Illinois: Ameren Illinois’ Act on Energy

• Illinois: Nicor’s Gas Energy Efficiency Program

• Illinois: Chicagoland’s Natural Gas Savings Program

• Illinois: City of Chicago Green Permit and Green Homes Program

• Indiana: Indianapolis Green Building Incentive Program

• Indiana: Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA) Home 

Energy Conservation Program

• Iowa: Black Hills Energy, Black Hills’ Home Performance with ENERGY STAR®

• Iowa: Mid American Energy’s Energy Advantage Program

• Iowa: Alliant Energy’s energy efficiency programs

• Kansas: Efficiency Kansas

• Kansas: How $Smart? program
3

• Kentucky: Kentucky Home Performance

• Kentucky/Ohio: Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance

• Michigan: Consumers Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Michigan: DTE Energy's Your Energy Savings

• Michigan: Michigan Saves 

• Michigan: Efficiency United

• Missouri: Kansas City Area Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Missouri: Missouri/Illinois St. Louis Regional Home Performance with ENERGY 

STAR

• Minnesota: Xcel Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Minnesota: Alliant Energy Home Energy Audit

• Ohio: Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home Performance Solutions

• Ohio: Dominion East Ohio’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Ohio: AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Programs

• Wisconsin: Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

2.2 Survey Monkey

To gather information that was not available online, the project team developed a survey using 

surveymonkey.com, and delivered this to key utility program contacts identified in the Webbased research (see Appendix B). The goal of this short survey (14 questions) was to fill in gaps 

left by the online research and to maximize the response rate by making the questions reasonable 

to answer in a short period of time. The survey was sent to 17 available contacts at utilities and 

other entities. Topics addressed by the survey included budget, participation targets/actual, 

savings goals, audit requirements, and quality assurance (QA) efforts, among others. Thirteen 

responses were received.

2.3 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Reports

The research team reviewed and analyzed evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) 

reports for utility programs, where available. In general, EM&V reports provide an objective, 

third-party review of the programs and give unbiased information about program participation, 

cost effectiveness, energy savings, and other program attributes. EM&V reports were available 

from Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES)

program and Ameren Illinois’ Act on Energy program. Annual reports for Iowa’s Black Hills 

Energy HPwES program are available for review from the Iowa Utilities Board; however, these 

are not third-party evaluations. Other programs have not yet developed evaluation results, 

primarily because they are too new or evaluation reports are not publicly available. Available 

EM&V reports are summarized in Appendix E.
4

2.4 Preliminary Regulatory Research

The team searched filings on state public utility commission databases in Iowa, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio for information about utility energy efficiency plans

and whole-home performance programs. These states all had programs that had been running 

sufficiently long that related program filings were possible. As noted above, annual reports for 

energy efficiency plans were found on Iowa Utilities Board site. However, there were no useful 

reports available from the Ohio, Minnesota or Missouri databases. Michigan had potentially 

useful information, but it was not accessible due to broken links and lack of response to 

inquiries. Thus, very limited information was available through this search of program filings.

2.5 “Deep Dive” Interviews

The project team also conducted phone interviews with all 15 utility program representatives. 

Questions for these interviews were developed collectively by members of the research team (see 

Appendix C). The questions addressed program structures and processes, customer targeting, 

cost effectiveness, program challenges and successes, as well as confirmation of information 

received through earlier research. After initial introductory contact, interview times were set and 

questions were sent to participants in advance of the meeting. Ten out of the 15 program contacts 

agreed to participate in these interviews, which were conducted in early October.

2.6 Literature Review

The project team also conducted a background literature review. Material for this review came 

from a variety of state and national sources but was limited in scope. Most reports focused on 

features that do not pertain directly to the issues addressed by this study, particularly green jobs

creation. Two recent reports take a comprehensive approach to examining whole-home energy 

improvement programs and are particularly relevant to the current research. These studies, their 

key points, and the bearing they have on the current study are discussed below.

2.6.1 Summary of Key Literature Findings

In their report, Driving Demand for Home Energy Improvements: Motivating Residential 

Customers to Invest in Comprehensive Upgrades That Eliminate Energy Waste, Avoid High 

Bills, and Spur the Economy, Fuller et al. (2010), address the challenge of motivating customers 

to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes. The study identifies several key 

strategies for developing participation in comprehensive home energy improvement programs:

• Engage trusted messengers in the outreach effort. For example, forming local 

leadership committees and engaging leaders from different social networks within the 

community can be an effective way to reach out. The researchers suggest recruiting local 

opinion leaders and trusted local organizations to work with the program. Maximizing 

local control over the project, using personal contact, and communicating success stories 

through these trusted messengers are effective for encouraging participation. 

• Partner with contractors. Most high volume programs work closely with contractors, 

and have developed a program that the contractors want to sell. It is also very effective to 

employ training and incentives for the contractors. 
5

• Carefully identify your target audience by focusing efforts on early adopters—

demographic groups that demonstrate interest in home energy improvements. 

• Target customers by appealing to shared values. For example, programs can target 

those who have expressed interest in community economic development, environmental 

stewardship, or who understand the importance of home energy improvements for 

creating jobs, reducing pollution, or increasing national security—the message can vary 

depending on who the program is trying to reach.

• Sell something that customers want, which can translate into using different 

messages for each market. Creative use of incentives can also be effective, and 

increasing comfort, health, and self-reliance can all be motivators. 

• Use the right words and framework for selling an idea. For example, the terms audit

and retrofit have been found to be less effective that terminology such as home 

improvement or remodeling, which have more positive connotations. 

• Use pilot programs before full-scale launch. Pilot programs permit experimentation

with different strategies. Ideally, this experimentation is measured and evaluated—

including all aspects of the cost to implement—to determine which strategies are

successful.

Overall, the themes in this report emphasize the communication and marketing of whole-home 

programs. Our research focused on many other elements of program design, with marketing 

analysis focused on customer targeting. However, many of the recommendations in Fuller et al. 

(2010) are consistent with observations made in the process of researching Midwestern programs 

for this report, as discussed in detail later.

A second report, Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Programs in the U.S. (LeBaron and 

Rinaldi 2010), provides an overview of programs that support whole-home energy efficiency 

retrofits by examining basic data about a number of characteristics, including geographic 

distribution, program sponsors, information about audits and auditors, financing and incentives,

and other key program design elements. Only programs that included an audit and active support 

for whole-house retrofits through financial incentives and/or education were included for the 

purpose of the study. Reviewing programs across the country, the study found a broad 

geographic distribution of programs, with the largest number and variety found in the South. 

Most programs (90%) were utility sponsored, with others offered by municipalities or nonprofit 

organizations. However, researchers found extensive collaboration among these entities in many 

programs. The study also examined required auditor qualifications, types of audits offered, and 

whether the audit is conducted by the contractor or a third party. Many programs offer 

consumers a range of audit options, and most have third-party auditors.

Financial incentives were examined, including rebates and cash incentives, loans, and billing

options. Except for financing on the customer’s utility bill, which was rare, the researchers found 

many different financial incentives structured in various ways. This report acknowledges that 

participation data is not readily available in public documents, so limited results are included for 

audits and/or retrofits completed by these programs. Data on retrofits for HPwES programs were 
6

available through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and some information was 

gathered in interviews. Participation numbers vary widely in the national study, ranging from 

about 50 to over 6,000 retrofits in 2009. The study concluded by noting the breadth and diversity 

of whole-home retrofit programs. The report sets out to provide a benchmark for future research 

and analysis of national home energy performance programs, and recognizes the need for 

development of a clear best practices framework. 

Both studies were valuable in cataloguing and qualitatively describing whole home program 

design throughout the country, but both lacked data about actual savings from the whole home 

programs studied as determined through end use billing analysis. Given that the primary purpose 

of whole home programs is to save energy, the lack of data on actual energy savings from whole 

home programs is troubling.

2.6.2 Comparing National Reports to Current Research

The recent national reports (Fuller et al. 2010; LeBaron and Rinaldi 2010) share similar research 

questions, findings, and recommendations to the current study, and allow some comparison 

between whole-home programs in the Midwest and national trends in whole-home program 

design and implementation. However, while both of these reports include similar analysis and 

information that is similar to the current study, the scope and approach are somewhat different.

These differences are significant and point to the important role of this study in better 

understanding the current state of whole-home programs not just in the Midwest, but nationally.

The key difference between previous recent whole home program survey studies and this study is 

the lack of study and reporting on energy savings from whole home programs. This study sought 

to assess savings from whole home programs.

Trends in national whole-home programs are, in many respects, consistent with trends seen in the 

Midwest. As was the case in the Midwest, most national programs were also utility-sponsored. 

Nationally, the portion of utility-based programs was about 90%, while about 67% of Midwest 

programs are utility-administered. All programs included in this study offer some financial 

incentive or rebate, whereas 86% of programs surveyed nationally included this component. Of 

national programs, 30% were HPwES, while about half of the Midwest programs studied were 

approved HPwES programs. The commonality between national and Midwest programs

indicates the significant role of utility sponsorship and financial incentives in achieving wholehome savings.

The two national studies focus on characterizing whole-home program design elements rather 

than savings. Fuller et al. (2010) do not address program savings; rather, they present a 

descriptive—and useful—discussion of effective ways to design whole-home programs in order 

to generate customer participation. Although Fuller et al. (2010) report findings on customer 

participation, the report does not address energy savings as a result of these programs. Thus, in 

the two recent, national studies about whole-home programs, there are no data on energy savings 

achieved by the programs. Without energy savings data, the claim that whole-home programs 

can achieve cost-effective moderate or deep savings, particularly with increased codes and 

efficiency standards for key measures such as lighting and furnaces, is not supported and needs 

to be validated. To address this issue, the current study collected data on program savings. This 
7

studies’ conclusions about savings from whole home programs, however, has limitations because 

the savings reported in this study are based on audit results and engineering estimates rather than 

actual savings determined by end use billing analysis. A further study characterizing actual 

savings from whole home programs is important before whole home programs are scaled up to 

ensure that the predicted savings are actually realized.
8

3 Results

As described in the Experimental Methods section, the project team conducted in-depth research 

with whole- home program managers through surveys and, most importantly, in extensive 

personal interviews. However, information from program managers was provided to the research

team on condition that it remains confidential. Thus, although substantial program-specific data 

were collected, they are not attributed directly to specific programs in this report. Instead, PARR 

summarized the data in order to reflect the range of program design elements and program 

results accurately without violating requests for confidentiality. Although PARR acknowledges

that including the detailed, program-specific data would be useful, it believes that the approach 

taken in the report comprehensively reflects the key findings of the research.

3.1 Qualitative Program Descriptions2

Nine states are represented in the 15 programs that were researched in depth; eight from the 

Midwest. One utility from California was also included because it includes cold climate zones, 

and it has been effective in quickly recruiting participants and carrying out retrofits. Thus, the 

team anticipated that understanding Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) program would provide 

lessons that could help similar programs in the Midwest grow and improve. The programs listed 

below are briefly summarized in this section (and in Table 2) with an overview of qualitative 

details, such as eligibility, measures, incentives, mechanisms, and longevity of program. 

Appendix D aggregates the data by topic area and constitutes an exhaustive compilation of the 

information gathered.

• California: Energy Upgrade California

• Illinois: Ameren Illinois’ Act on Energy

• Illinois: Nicor’s Gas Energy Efficiency Program

• Illinois: Chicagoland’s Natural Gas Savings Program

• Iowa: Black Hills Energy, Black Hills’ Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Kentucky: Kentucky Home Performance

• Kentucky/Ohio: Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance

• Michigan: Consumers Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Missouri: Kansas City Area Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Missouri: Missouri/Illinois St. Louis Regional Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Minnesota: Xcel Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

 

2 Program data were current when collected in June through October 2011; however, programs change frequently, so 

current measures and/or incentives may vary.
9

• Ohio: Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home Performance Solutions

• Ohio: Dominion East Ohio’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

• Ohio: AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Programs

• Wisconsin: Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

3.1.1 Energy Upgrade California

Energy Upgrade California is sponsored by investor owned utilities across the state, including: 

Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric, and 

Southern California Gas Company. Our research focused on PG&E because its northern 

California service territory includes the state’s coldest climate zone that most closely resembles 

the cold climate of the Midwest.

Energy Upgrade California offers a Basic Upgrade (prescriptive) and an Advanced Upgrade 

(performance) option. Rebates of $1,000 are available for the Basic Upgrade, while up to $4,000

is available for the Advanced Upgrade. The Basic Upgrade consists of mostly prescriptive 

measures, which must include: air sealing, attic insulation, duct test and seal, pipe wrap of 

domestic water heater, low-flow showerhead with, or in addition to, thermostatic valve control, 

and a combustion safety test. The Advanced Upgrade is the Basic Upgrade with the additions of 

wall insulation, proper sizing of hot water system and heating and cooling system, energy 

efficient windows, cool roofs, and other permanently affixed measures. The program is currently 

targeting a 40% reduction in home energy consumption for maximum incentives, and it includes 

partial incentives for achieving further energy reduction.

3.1.2 Ameren’s Act on Energy Home Energy Performance (Illinois)

Ameren’s Home Energy Performance program is available to all Ameren customers in Illinois, 

regardless of income. The program started in January 2009. The cost of the audit is subsidized; a 

$25 co-pay is required. Incentives for air/duct sealing, attic insulation, and wall insulation can 

reach up to $1,200, $1,400, and $2,400, respectively, based on air leakage, measured in cubic 

feet per minute (cfm), or square footage. To be approved, these incentives must be installed in 

accordance with strict guidelines. In homes in which air sealing or duct sealing is performed or 

exterior wall insulation is installed as part of the retrofit, the program requires a combustion 

safety test and before and after retrofit. Self-installed measures do not qualify for incentives.

3.1.3 Nicor Gas Energy Efficiency Program (Illinois)

Nicor Gas offered a pilot home retrofit program that operated from May 2010 to May 2011. 

Nicor Gas now offers a joint home retrofit program with Commonwealth Edison Company that 

launched in August 2011. The data in this report are based on the Nicor Gas pilot home retrofit 

program. The home energy audit comes with free direct install measures (low-flow water saving 

devices and up to 10 compact fluorescent llights [CFLs]). The program pays 50% of costs to 

weatherize, up to a cap of $1,250/retrofit. The program is available to single family homeowners 

who are jointly served by both Nicor Gas and ComEd. Assessment focuses on changes and 

upgrades that can improve the energy efficiency and comfort of the home and weatherization 

improvements that qualify for incentives.
10

3.1.4 Chicagoland Natural Gas Savings Program (Illinois)

The Chicagoland Natural Gas Savings Program had two pilot programs: a whole-home program 

and an air sealing program. The Whole Home Scale-Up Project was designed to assess the 

feasibility and scalability of whole-home retrofits in the North Shore Gas (NSG) and Peoples 

Gas and Light service territories. The program was a collaborative effort between ComEd, the 

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Center for Neighborhood Technology, the 

Chicago Historic Bungalow Association, Delta Institute, Community and Economic 

Development Association, and others. The goals were to: identify the right energy savings target 

for the local housing stock; develop a model for co-funding and collaborating on efficiency using 

separate gas and electric funding sources; and identify barriers to large-scale residential retrofits 

of territory housing stock and propose solutions. The program provided retrofits to 81 homes (78 

in Peoples Gas and Light’s territory) to test program concepts and to develop actionable 

recommendations and tools to facilitate whole-home retrofits, including a list of costs and 

benefits of individual measures based on common housing types and vintages. Expected per 

home savings, based on site-specific audits, is 30%.

The Air Sealing Pilot Program seeks to increase the practice of home air-sealing as a strategy to 

improve the overall energy efficiency of single family homes and multifamily up to two units 

built prior to 1980. In addition to properly sealing these units against infiltration losses, the 

program also tried to increase awareness of the impact of air sealing on comfort, and to crosspromote other energy efficiency measures. To participate, customers were required to use a 

program-approved contractor to perform air sealing measures. The program also conducted pre 

and post testing for radon levels and required customers to have a carbon monoxide detector.

End-use billing analysis results for 181 homes will be available in late spring 2012.

Both programs are no longer active. They closed when funding ended on June 30, 2011.

3.1.5 Black Hills Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Iowa)

This program is a pilot program located in the community of Council Bluffs, Iowa, and consists 

of a test-in evaluation/audit and a test-out evaluation/audit. The audit fee is $100, though many 

audit components are free including: building envelope and exposed duct system inspections; 

appliance inspections including the refrigerator and freezer; combustion appliance inspection and 

diagnostic testing; gas leakage testing; and moisture inspection. Customers are given a

prioritized, comprehensive list of recommendations.

Rebates are available for: insulating the ceiling to R-38 or greater (70% of the cost up to $750); 

Insulating the foundation to R-13 or greater (70% of the cost up to $750); insulating the wall to

R-11 or greater (70% of the cost up to $750); controlling infiltration with weather stripping, 

caulking, etc. (70% of the cost up to $200); replacing doors ($25/door for R-5 to R-10; $50/door 

for R-11). If the homeowner completes three of the top five recommendations within six months 

of the test-in evaluation/audit, they may qualify for the $200 HPwES bonus incentive on top of 

Black Hills Energy's rebates.
11

3.1.6 Kentucky Home Performance

The Kentucky Home Performance (KYHP) program is run by a special purpose nonprofit 

organization funded by a one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant.

KYHP is a statewide program with over 23 participating utility providers. The program operates 

various pilot projects with several organizations, including an on-bill pilot with Mountain 

Association for Community Economic Development and initiatives with Greater Cincinnati 

Energy Alliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. KYHP started in 

January 2010 and officially launched in November 2011. The program is available throughout 

the state of Kentucky and in four counties in southern Ohio. 

The program has certain requirements, including a diagnostic test-in audit, air sealing, and 

insulating to certain R values, test out and QA. If insulation is added, air sealing must be done. If 

current ceiling insulation does not meet R-19, it must be added to R-38. If current floor 

insulation is not R-11, it must be made to R-19. A carbon monoxide detector must be installed. 

Other improvements eligible for rebates or financing include ENERGY STAR windows, doors, 

air source heat pumps, ACs, boilers, furnaces, water heaters, programmable thermostats, and 

closed-loop geothermal heat pumps, and lighting. 

KYHP provides $150 toward the whole house energy evaluation and either a 20% rebate up to 

$2,000 or below market rate loan of 3.99% up to $20k with maximum term of 10 years. 

3.1.7 Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance (Ohio and Kentucky)

The Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance is a special purpose nonprofit organization and Better 

Buildings grantee. The territory covers Southern Ohio and part of Kentucky. 

Comprehensive energy assessments cost $50, though this is reimbursable after completing some 

energy improvement measures. After all recommended insulation and air sealing measures are 

complete, rebates of up to 35% are available toward any audit-recommended energy saving 

measures, including high-efficiency heating and AC upgrades. The program also offers 

unsecured home energy loans at 6.99% interest rate, for a term of up to 10 years based on 

equipment installed. Loan customers are not eligible for the 35% incentive, but they receive an 

additional 15% incentive. For a limited time, Northern Kentucky customers can take advantage 

of a 3.99% interest rate, in partnership with Kentucky Home Performance (ending 

August 31, 2012). 

3.1.8 Consumers Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Michigan)

Consumers Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program started in January 2011. 

The program offers two options: a $50 home energy survey or a comprehensive home 

assessment (CHA) that offers rebates up to $3,500. The survey investigates air sealing, duct 

leakage, insulation, lighting and appliances, health, safety and durability, furnace or boiler, AC 

and water heating, and it includes direct installs of CFLs and faucet aerators. The CHA includes 

an actionable profile of the customer’s home, which the homeowner can use to determine scope. 

The CHA includes diagnostic test-in, work scope, work, test-out, combustion air zone testing, 

health and safety, and QA.
12 

The program provides rebates for meeting performance metrics (e.g., air leakage and duct 

leakage reductions) at various levels.. Incentives are also available for installing attic, wall, 

basement, crawlspace, floor insulation, high efficiency mechanical systems and water heaters, 

and certain windows. Electric or electric and gas customers are eligible for the program. In total, 

incentives are capped at $3,535 for Consumers Energy gas and electric customers and $790 for 

electric-only customers. 

3.1.9 Kansas City Area Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Missouri)

This program is implemented by the Metropolitan Energy Center, and was previously overseen 

by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources at the statewide level. The program is open to 

single family homeowners in Kansas City Power and Light (electric) or Missouri Gas Energy 

(gas) territories. 

To participate in the program, homeowners must receive a home energy assessment and 

complete one of the following: bring attic insulation to R-38, install wall/floor insulation, 

conduct air sealing and/or duct sealing, or install ENERGY STAR windows having a U factor of 

0.30 and solar heat gain coefficient of 0.30. The rebate may be awarded in the form of a bill 

credit. The total rebate amount is divided and paid evenly between the two utilities, with each 

contributing a maximum of $600, for a capped rebate level of $1,200. Customers of only one of 

the utilities receive that utility’s portion of the rebate.

3.1.10 St. Louis Regional Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

(Missouri/Illinois)

The St. Louis Regional HPwES program is run by the Missouri Botanical Garden’s EarthWays 

Center. This program does not provide any incentives, but makes recommendations based on a 

whole-home approach. A diagnostic energy audit, work scope, implementation, test-out, and QA

are required parts of the program. Quality control (QC) is coordinated through the EarthWays 

Center. There are no set prices, but audits tend to be in the $300 to $800 range. This is one of the 

longest running programs in the Midwest, having begun in 2003. These programs have provided 

some rebates: for Energize Missouri Homes, $1.6M was available for rebates; St. Louis County 

SAVES has $10.4M in low-interest loans is available. 

3.1.11 Xcel Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Minnesota)

Xcel Energy’s HPwES program began in 2007. To be eligible, customers must receive natural 

gas and electricity from Xcel and must complete either a standard audit or standard audit with 

infrared thermography, and customers implement, at a minimum, three required measures (air 

sealing, R-44 attic insulation, and CFLs) and two optional energy efficiency improvements.

Optional items include upgrading to air conditioning with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio 

of14.5, 15, or 16–16; ENERGY STAR washer/dryer/refrigerator; electronically commutated 

motor (ECM) fan; a furnace with an annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) of 90%, 92%, 

94%, or 96% or a 84% AFUE Boiler; occupancy sensors; programmable thermostat; wall 

insulation; tankless water heater 0.82 energy factor (EF); tankless water heater 0.67–0.80 EF; 

and refrigerator recycling. 
13

The program pays 20% of installed costs (labor and materials) for air sealing up to $60, and 20% 

of installed costs up to $350 for R-44 insulation, and provides $40 for CFL rebates. Total rebates 

are capped at $1,200. The program charges $60 for a standard audit and $100 for a standard audit 

with infrared camera.

3.1.12 Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home Performance Solutions

The Home Performance Solutions program started in September 2009 and is available in all of

the 61 Ohio counties served by Columbia Gas. Demand for the program has been high, with 

available spots for 2011 filled, and a waiting list in place for 2012. There is no income 

qualification, but there is a discounted audit rate for income qualified customers. A home energy 

audit is required to participate in the program. Audits cost $50 ($20 for income-eligible 

customers). Columbia Gas of Ohio reimburses the audit fee and provides rebates for any 

qualified efficiency improvement. Rebates of up to 70% of installed costs are available; the 

program reimburses customers at the rate of $0.40/ft2 for wall insulation, $0.30–$.50/ft2 for attic 

insulation, $40/h for air sealing, and $200 for replacement a natural gas furnace or boiler with a 

high efficiency unit. 

3.1.13 Dominion East Ohio’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Dominion’s HPwES program started in October 2010 and is available to residential customers of 

Dominion East Ohio. To qualify for the rebates, customers must use a GoodCents Building 

Performance Institute (BPI)-certified auditor and a participating contractor must install the 

improvements. Home performance assessments cost $50. If combustion appliance zone (CAZ)

tests identify potential threats in the home, recommended repairs must be completed. 

Financial incentives are available through the program for attic insulation ($0.30/ft2), wall 

insulation ($0.30/ft2), floor insulation ($0.30/ft2), duct insulation ($0.30/ft2), attic access 

insulation ($30), air or duct sealing ($40/h). Other rebates are available for ENERGY STAR

replacement windows and doors, fans, thermostats, high efficiency mechanical systems and 

water heaters, and water heater insulation.

3.1.14 AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Program

The AEP Ohio In-Home Energy Program, which started in December 2010, is available to all 

AEP customers. There are two different audit levels, energy assessment and energy audit. The 

assessment, which costs $25, includes direct install of CFLs, programmable thermostats, lowflow showerheads, pipe wrap, and includes a report with a prioritized list of methods for further 

reducing energy bills. Rebates are available for installing energy efficiency measures. The 

comprehensive, four-hour audit also includes a direct install component. Auditors analyze all 

major systems, conduct blower door, combustion, and equipment efficiency tests, and create a 

detailed report with a prioritized list of efficiency improvements. Rebates or financial incentives 

are available for the following approved energy-saving measures: comprehensive audit, pinbased CFL fixtures, CFL torchieres, wall insulation, air sealing, window film, ENERGY STAR

windows, attic insulation, shower flow control device, ENERGY STAR ceiling fan, heat pump 

programmable thermostat, duct sealing, refrigerant charge and airflow tune up, replacement of 

old heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) blower motor with ECM, ENERGY 
14

STAR central air conditioning replacement, ENERGY STAR heat pump replacement, and a 

complete system bonus. 

3.1.15 Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (Wisconsin)

The Focus on Energy Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program began in October 2001

as a public-private partnership of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, utilities, and other 

organizations. Natural gas or electricity customers of participating utilities are eligible for this 

program. In order to qualify for incentives, customers must have a third-party HPwES evaluation

that evaluates air tightness/leakage, moisture and ventilation, combustion safety and carbon 

monoxide, insulation and building shell testing and focuses on how to solve problems such as 

drafts. Recommendations are provided to the homeowner, who must implement at least one 

recommendation to be eligible for rebates. The program also requires a post-retrofit inspection. 

There are no mandatory measures; instead, the customer decides which recommendations to 

implement.

Customers in a participating utility territory can receive individual measure incentives by 

providing applicable documentation on completed installations (a bonus incentive may be added 

if certain measures are completed). Providers (e.g., air sealing contractors) can also receive 

incentives. Homeowners who reside in the Wisconsin Public Service utility territory receive 

additional incentives if projects are completed within 6 months of the preliminary evaluation. 

3.2 Quantitative Program Data

The following sections detail whole-home programs to illustrate the wide variation on many key 

program metrics. Program managers provided information through surveys or in interviews with 

the understanding that the information would be confidential, unless it was already publicly 

available. This necessarily restricted the researchers ability to link program information to 

specific data. As the figures and tables demonstrate, data were not always reported in uniform 

units, time periods, or formats. However, the data illustrate program trends and indicate areas of 

additional research that could lead to improved whole-home program design and 

implementation. The following sections focus on reporting research results. Interpretation of 

these results and resulting recommendations are detailed in Section 4.2.

3.2.1 Longevity

At the time of the survey, programs were operational from a few months to about ten years. As 

Figure 1. Year of inception illustrates, most whole-home programs in the Midwest are relatively 

new. Eleven of the 14 programs with a known start date are less than five years old. The oldest 

program began in 2001, two others were launched in 2003, and the rest started in 2007 or more 

recently. Ten of the 14 programs started less than three years ago, and seven began in 2010 or 

2011, so have been in operation for less than two years. The recent spike in programs may be 

related to the release of ARRA funds in 2009 that supported energy efficiency programs, among 

many other initiatives.
15

Figure 1. Year of inception for whole-home programs

The short life of most of these programs is significant. Program managers consistently report that 

whole-home programs cannot be launched and reach maturity in one year’s time. Effective 

programs must develop trade allies who can audit, perform diagnostics, and recommend retrofit 

packages tailored to specific homes. Inspectors must be trained to recognize if recommended 

measures are installed and operating properly and to provide feedback to auditors and installation 

contractors. Programs must build customer demand by educating customers and communities 

about unfamiliar measures such as air sealing. These tasks associated with developing market 

capacity and creating market demand are a multiyear process. Once a program is ready for 

impact evaluation (determining energy savings attributed to the program), evaluation studies 

typically take a year for design, data collection, and reporting. Given that initial launch through 

evaluation of early impact is at least a three-year cycle, and that 10 of the 14 existing wholehome programs studied are less than three years old, the absence of impact assessment data is not 

surprising. Indeed, given the large number of programs that are at a similar stage of early 

program maturity, it would be productive to work with current program administrators to 

develop common assessments and data collection procedures. This would permit meaningful 

program cross-comparisons to determine which program design and implementation features 

lead to cost-effective whole-home programs with robust customer participation. Useful data to 

collect across programs is discussed in Section 4.2.10.

3.2.2 Program Budgets

Annual budgets for the surveyed whole-home programs differ by two orders of magnitude. Table 

1 documents the widely varying program budgets. The lowest budget identified was about 

$100,000, while the largest annual allocation was $10M. Nine of the 11 programs have annual 

budgets over $1M/yr; the remaining are funded at less than $1M/yr. In most cases, larger budgets 

were found in utility-sponsored programs than in those managed by a not-for-profit organization.

This is not surprising, given the greater resources at utilities’ disposal. However, there are a few 

programs with large budgets that were supported by ARRA funds. ARRA funding allocations 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

# of Programs

Years Programs Started 

2001

2003

2007

2009

2010

2011
16

will expire early in 2012, and the question of how to provide ongoing support was of great 

concern to program managers running nonprofit-based programs. The average annual funding 

commitment is $3.5M, while the median is $2.5M.

The data in Table 1, in combination with the fact that multiyear initiatives are required to 

develop market capacity and build customer demand, indicate that whole-home programs require 

substantial (multimillion dollar) and sustained funding commitments.

Table 1. Current Program Budgets, $ (approximate, 2010–2011)

100,000 Average: $3,504,545

Median: $2,500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

2,200,000

2,500,000

2,600,000

2,900,000

5,700 ,000

9,800,000

10,000,000

3.2.3 Program Participation and Conversion Rates

The number of participants in whole-home programs varies widely across the programs 

surveyed. Further, the programs define participation differently. Current annual program 

participation in each program, defined as completed retrofits, ranges from 68 to 2,224. Not 

surprisingly, the programs with the greatest longevity reported the highest participation rate, 

which supports the observation that whole-home programs require ongoing, multiyear funding 

commitments. Conversion rates, defined as the number of customers participating in audits or 

assessments who subsequently proceed with a retrofit, also vary widely. Five programs did not 

track this metric explicitly; the method for calculating conversion rate was not consistent 

between all programs. In interviews, program managers often approximated conversion rates. 

Again, this was especially true in young programs where data were not yet available or being 

monitored closely. Conversion rates in programs tracking the data ranged from less than 10% to 

65%. Most reported conversion rates of 30% or more. Table 2 shows the number of retrofits,

along with the associated program conversion rate. 
17 

Table 2. Current Program Participation (Retrofits) and Conversion Rates (%) (2010–2011)

Retrofits Conversion Rate

81 NA

83 (2010); 200 (2011) NA

68 (2010); 336 (2011) 1.7%; 9.3%

413 30%

640 61%

969 >50%

1300 NA

1500 NA

2224 65%

3.2.4 Program-Level Energy Savings

Not all programs surveyed reported energy savings, and energy savings were not reported in 

common units. Also, with one exception, reported savings were not based on actual savings as 

determined by end-use billing analysis. Instead, for all but one program, described below, 

reported savings were based on forecasted savings, either “deemed” savings or savings 

determined by audit software. Some programs tracked only gas savings; other only electric, and 

some reported percent savings reduction at the whole-home level. Table 3, which presents

program-level energy savings in standard electricity and natural gas usage units, demonstrates 

the wide range of savings achieved by programs to date. Where participation numbers were 

available, per home savings are included in Table 3, but this was not possible for all programs. 

One program performed end use billing analysis on 141 homes one year after retrofits were 

completed. The program’s measure package focused on gas measures, including direct install 

measures (low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators), air sealing for all homes, and attic 

insulation for most homes unless the pre-existing attic insulation was greater than R-11. The 

forecasted savings for this program, based on TREAT modeling of typical housing building 

stock in the program area, was per home savings of 367 therms/home for attic insulation, 243 

therms/home for air sealing and 51 therms/home for the direct install package. The end use 

billing analysis of the 141 homes reported an actual average per home savings of 97 

therms/home, far lower than what was expected based on the modeling.
18

Table 3. Program-Level Energy Savings (2010–2011)

Program-Wide 

Energy Savings

(kWh)

Savings per 

Home 

(kWh)

Program-Wide 

Energy Savings 

(Therms)

Savings per 

Home 

(Therms)

987,400 

(7/1/10–11/1/11) NA 67,371 NA

159,334 386

1,021,239 459 620,555 279

1,094,747 16,099

3,371 42

308,100 481

2,208,050 NA

4,429,000 NA

NA NA 13,677 97
19

3.3 General Trends from Research 

Information from Web research and follow up surveys and interviews with whole-home program 

administrators revealed common trends for whole-home programs in the Midwest, as follows:

• Midwestern whole-home programs are emerging, not well established. Ten of the 14 

programs started in the past three years. Programs range in age from a few months to ten 

years, and seven have been operating for less than two years. The authors believe that the 

program newness presents a valuable opportunity to work with whole-home programs to 

establish common tracking metrics and data collection to allow for more meaningful 

program comparisons.

• Whole-home programs require substantial and sustained funding commitments.

Whole-home programs are being funded at substantial levels averaging $2.5M per year.

Program budgets range from approximately $100,000 to $10M. The authors of this study 

believe that smaller funding levels are unlikely to be sufficient to develop a trained, 

sophisticated contractor network and to generate the customer demand needed to achieve 

energy savings. 

• Utility support is key to whole-home program success. The most stable and reliable 

funding source for whole-home programs are utility ratepayers. Absent utility support, 

whole-home programs are unlikely to be successful given the substantial and sustained 

funding needed over time for success.

• Whole-home program participation is low; building participation requires a 

multiyear commitment. The greatest annual participation currently is less than 3,000 

participants, and the average participation is closer to 1,000. Participation is greater in 

programs that have been established for several years. However, even in the longestrunning program (10 years), participation is only around 2,000 customers. Thus, at their 

current level of maturity and impact, whole-home programs in the Midwest are still niche 

programs that do not impact large numbers of customers. It is an open question whether 

this is an optimal level from a utility perspective, or whether participation would increase 

with greater funding.

• Program and per dwelling savings from whole-home programs are uncertain and 

must be further studied. With one exception, none of the whole-home programs report 

actual energy savings. All are based on either “deemed” savings, engineering estimates,

or savings estimated from energy audit tools. While program level savings estimates are 

generally available, per home savings numbers are not as widely available. To obtain 

actual savings, post-retrofit end-use billing analysis must be performed. Several wholehome retrofit administrators expressed interest in having the PARR team perform end-use 

billing analysis on completed retrofits to determine actual savings.
20

4 Discussion and Recommendations

4.1 General Observations about Whole-Home Programs 

Early program results from Midwestern whole-home programs demonstrate the key program 

design elements and features that are necessary for long-term program success and cost 

effectiveness. Key program attributes for emerging whole-home program success include: 

• Multiyear and substantive (multimillion dollar) utility funding and support

• Customer targeting of high energy users in defined geographic locations

• Marketing approaches that inform customers about whole-home programs and educate 

them about the value of whole-home improvements for saving money and improving 

comfort.

• End-use billing analysis is needed to determine actual, rather than just forecast, savings 

from whole-home programs.

In undertaking this research, the authors hoped to find program evaluation data, either third-party 

or program-based, describing program outcomes, and serving as a basis for measuring program 

efficacy. Instead, the study revealed that such evaluation data do not exist for these programs. 

Thus, the recommendations developed in this report were not informed by actual savings. 

Instead, these recommendations are based on:

• High level program trends and observations

• Program manager insights and observations elicited in interviews

• The authors’ experience and perspective.

Before significantly expanding whole-home programs in the Midwest, it is important to assess 

the value of whole-home programs meaningfully. Before expanding whole home programs, the 

following questions should be answered;

• What are the actual, rather than forecasted, savings from whole home programs?

• Are whole home programs cost-effective?

• How do whole home programs compare, based on customer satisfaction, costeffectiveness, to other residential efficiency programs?

4.2 Specific Observations and Recommendations

4.2.1 Sponsoring Organization

Most whole-home performance programs surveyed were sponsored by investor-owned utilities, 

which developed these programs as a component of broad energy efficiency plans. Out of the 15 

programs surveyed, 10 were developed as an element of the utility’s portfolio of residential 

energy efficiency measures; the remaining five were operated under the auspices of a nonprofit 

organization—some of which were funded through time-limited ARRA funds. Most utility 

programs were governed by regulatory directives mandating that reductions in energy use be 
21

achieved through improvements in energy efficiency. However, these regulatory directives did 

not, except in one case, require implementing a comprehensive home performance approach to 

achieve these energy savings. Rather, adopting the whole-home performance approach was a 

decision made at the utility’s discretion.

4.2.1.1 Recommendations

Because whole-home programs require multiyear, multimillion dollar funding commitments to 

build program participation and generate energy savings, utility support and funding is necessary 

for whole-home program success. Time- and budget-limited funding sources will not produce the 

market capacity and customer demand needed to sustain and grow a whole-home program. 

4.2.2 Customer Targeting and Marketing 

4.2.2.1 Customer Targeting

Several programs target customers to achieve higher savings or to reduce program costs.

Program targeting strategies include:

• High energy use customers. Whole-home programs have high fixed costs compared to a 

traditional rebate program because they typically require an energy audit. Thus, some 

programs target high energy users to reduce overall cost per unit energy saved and to 

achieve more overall energy savings. These targeted programs can help high energy 

consumers achieve gas and electric savings.

• Older homes. If program implementers do not have access to utility bill information to 

identify high energy use, the age of homes can be used as a proxy for targeting program 

participation.

• Customers limited to a specific geographic area. Whole-home programs require 

considerable new market capacity, including trained auditors and contractors who can 

install or work together to install multiple measures (as opposed to the single measures 

that have been the focus of most utility rebate programs). Emerging programs have 

restricted participation to specific geographic areas to reduce travel time and to rely on a 

pool of trained auditors and contractors who can work together to achieve comprehensive 

retrofits.

4.2.2.2 Recommendations

Targeting participation to high energy use homes, older homes, and limited geographic areas will 

lead to increased program cost effectiveness and product quality. We recommend the following 

customer and geographic targeting methods for new or emerging whole-home programs:

• Homeowners with excessive energy usage

• Older homes, which may have been constructed before updates in energy codes and may 

also be due for aesthetic updates, maintenance, or other improvements

• Homeowners and census tracts with enough disposable income to afford the several 

hundred to several thousand dollar cost of a whole-home retrofit unless program or other 

funds are available to provide greater subsidies or incentives to homeowners to pay for 

the comprehensive retrofits
22

• Suburban or urban populated areas with sufficient population density to minimize auditor 

and contractor travel time and to allow effective coordination.

4.2.2.3 Customer Marketing:

Program administrators are using several different approaches to generate customer demand, as 

follows:

• Community-based outreach. Community-based organizations are trusted sources of 

information for residential customers. Furthermore, many have low-cost marketing 

channels, such as emails and newsletters, to promote whole-home programs. Respondents 

described other community events, including home shows, farmers’ markets, state and 

county fairs, that relied on community leaders to promote whole-home programs. One 

particularly successful community-based approach was described by a utility which 

performed an audit for a local reporter, who documented the experience in the local daily 

newspaper. Phone and Web inquiries to the program skyrocketed after the story was 

published. One program implementer compared the cost per participant of promoting its 

whole-home program using community-based organizations with direct mail and found 

the community-based outreach to be one tenth the cost of the traditional direct mail 

approach. Given that whole-home programs are new and can be difficult to describe and 

sell, local community-based organizations that are trusted and have existing, low-cost 

marketing channels can be effective at promoting whole-home approaches.

• Traditional outreach campaigns. Whole-home program administrators also described

traditional energy efficiency outreach strategies to promote whole-home approaches, 

including bill inserts, direct mail, and radio and television spots. Traditional outreach 

campaigns, particularly direct mail and radio and television advertising, can be expensive 

and may not trigger action given that customers don’t simply need to know that the 

whole-home program is available, but they also need to understand the process and the 

benefits. Although traditional outreach is excellent for raising awareness, it is limited for 

providing the education that whole-home programs require. 

4.2.2.4 Recommendations

Consider the following channels and messages for new whole-home programs:

• Community-based organizations and leaders. Customers need to learn and be 

persuaded about the value and benefits of whole-home retrofits, so community-based 

organizations and leaders— trusted sources of information that often have existing lowcost marketing channels—may be better positioned and more effective at marketing 

whole-home programs than the more expensive traditional marketing and outreach 

channels, which are more useful for advertising than educating. This recommendation is 

consistent with those found in the report titled Driving Demand for Home Energy 

Improvements: Motivating Residential Customers to Invest in Comprehensive Upgrades 

That Eliminate Energy Waste, Avoid High Bills, and Spur the Economy, Fuller et al. 

(2010),
23 

• Messaging. To generate demand, customers need to learn what whole-home retrofits are

and the benefits they provide, including saving money and increasing comfort. Fuller et 

al. (2010) discusses effective language for communicating this message.

4.2.3 Measure Packages and Incentive Structure

Financial incentives for participating in whole-home performance programs are available to 

some extent in all the programs examined. These incentives take different formats. Some 

programs offer free or subsidized audits and free direct install measures such as CFLs, low-flow 

showerheads and faucet aerators. Others offer rebates for installed measures, and some provide 

access to low-interest loans to finance retrofits. However, most incentives are structured as a 

portion of the project cost. The way these financial incentives are structured in relation to retrofit 

measures varies considerably among programs. Thus, it is difficult to generalize broadly about 

this program design element. 

In Table 4, shown below, program incentives for common categories are summarized. As this 

table illustrates, there is no single approach to designing measure packages and associated 

financial rewards for whole-home performance programs. Some programs take a simple 

approach, with an overall cap in percentage and dollars on the incentive, which may be applied 

to any of a number of measures. Other programs prescribe exactly which measures must be 

installed in order to receive any incentive. Between these prescriptive and flexible approaches lie 

several hybrid approaches. In these cases, a balance between customer choice and programestablished measures is achieved. For example in one program, customers must install attic 

insulation and conduct air sealing but can elect other measures. Some programs allow customers 

to choose any measures from those recommended in an audit report. Some programs have a 

detailed menu of eligible measures, each with an accompanying financial incentive.
24 

Table 4. Summary of Program Incentives 

Program Audit

Rebate

Air/Duct 

Sealing

Attic 

Insulation

Wall 

Insulation Required/Notes

Energy Upgrade 

California- PG&E

Incorporated 

under basic 

upgrade

Incorporated 

under basic 

upgrade

Incorporated 

under basic 

upgrade

Incorporated 

under 

advanced 

upgrade

Basic ($1,000) Requires: Air sealing, attic 

insulation, duct test and seal, pipe wrap of domestic 

hot water heater, low-flow showerhead with, or in 

addition to, thermostatic valve control or 

thermostatic flow restriction device, combustion 

safety test. Advanced (up to $4,000): Requires 

Basic level measures, plus: Wall insulation, proper 

sizing of hot water system and heating and cooling 

system, energy efficient windows, cool roofs, and 

other permanently affixed measures.

Nicor’s Gas 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Program

Measures must be identified on audit report/50% of 

costs of weatherization improvements up to $1,250

Ameren Illinois’ 

Act on Energy Up to $1,200 Up to $1,400 Up to $2,400 Efficiency guidelines must be met to qualify for 

incentives

Kentucky Home 

Performance

$150

(wholehouse 

energy 

evaluation)

Up to 20% (air 

sealing is 

mandatory)

Up to 20% 

(must be done 

up to R-38 if 

does not meet 

R-19)

Air sealing, attic and floor insulation up to certain 

level required. 20% rebates on approved measures 

up to $2,000. Utilities may add other rebates. 

3.99% loan up to $20,000. If current floor 

insulation is not R-11, it must be made to R-19. CO 

detector must be installed. Other improvements 

include ENERGY STAR windows, doors, air

source heat pumps, air conditioners, boilers, 

furnaces, water heaters, programmable thermostats, 

and closed-loop geothermal, and lighting.
25

Program Audit

Rebate

Air/Duct 

Sealing

Attic 

Insulation

Wall 

Insulation Required/Notes

Consumers 

Energy HPwES3

$400/$100 

(with three

measures

installed)

$225/350/400 or 

$45/70/1154 (air)

$50/125/125 or 

$15/35/15 (duct)5

$400/400/706 $275/275/507

; 

$400/400/708

Customer choice/detailed list of incentives, 

including crawl space, floor, rim joist insulation, 

mechanical systems and water heating. Incentives 

are capped at $3,525 for Consumers Energy gas 

and combination customers and $790 for 

Consumers Energy electric only customers.

Kansas City 

Area HPwES

$400/unit;$2

00/unit9

$10/% cfm 

reduction up to 

40% (air); $5/% 

cfm reduction up 

to 40% (duct)10

Up to $500 Up to $600

Customer choice/rebates also available for floor 

insulation, ENERGY STAR windows and doors. 

Maximum rebate $1,200. Customers can qualify for 

a $600 rebate from Kansas City Power and Light

and a separate $600 rebate from Missouri Gas 

Energy, may be given as bill credit.

Xcel Energy’s 

HPwES 20% up to $60 20%, up to 

$350 (R-44)

20% up to 

$400

Air sealing/weather stripping, attic insulation, and 

CFL’s required; must pick two additional measures 

from list, ranging in scope from programmable 

thermostats to new furnace or air conditioning. 

Total rebate up to $1200

Dominion East 

Ohio’s HPwES

Home 

Performance 

Assessment 

costs $50

$40/h

$0.30/ft2 (attic 

access 

insulation. 

$30)

$0.30/ft2

To qualify for incentives, customer must use Good 

Cents and make repairs recommended for safety 

issues/also: floor insulation $0.30/ft2

, duct 

insulation $0.30/ft2

, $5 per ENERGY STAR 

window, $30 per R-4 or greater door, $15 for 

 

3 Higher rebates (first group of numbers) for gas and electric or gas only customer; lower rebate (second set of numbers) for electric only customer. 4 For 20%, 30%, and 40% reduction respectively. 

5 For 15% reduction, 30% reduction, or duct insulation and/or replacement (insulate minimum of 25 ft.)

6 R-30 or less existing; install to R-49, minimum of 500 ft 7 Above grade wall insulation, minimum of 500 ft

8 Basement wall insulation

9 Single family/multifamily 10 Minimum starting reduction is 10%
26

Program Audit

Rebate

Air/Duct 

Sealing

Attic 

Insulation

Wall 

Insulation Required/Notes

ENERGY STAR fans. $300 for gas furnace AFUE 

90%, $350 for gas furnace AFUE 92%, $400 for 

AFUE 94%, $250 for gas boiler AFUE 85%, $300 

for gas boiler AFUE 90%, $30 per thermostat (2 

max). $100 for gas water heater 0.67 EF, $150 for 

tankless 0.82 EF, $125 for condensing gas water 

heater 0.80 EF or greater, $10 water tank 

insulation.

Columbia Gas of 

Ohio’s Home 

Performance 

Solutions

$40/h

$0.30 to 

$0.50/ ft2

insulated

$0.40/ft2

insulated

Customer choice/rebates of up to 70% are 

available, rebates increase as more measures 

installed. Also, high-efficiency heating system 

$200 for replacement with natural gas furnace 92% 

AFUE, or natural gas boiler 90% AFUE.

AEP Ohio InHome Energy 

Programs11

$100/$75 $200/$50 (air)

$150/$50 (duct) $200/$90 $200/$90

Customer choice/detailed list of incentives, 

including CFLs, windows, mechanical systems, 

water heating. A complete system bonus of $150 is 

paid for installation of a high efficiency furnace 

with ECM blower and either of the following: a) 

ENERGY STAR central air-conditioning unit or b) 

ENERGY STAR heat pump unit. Also paid for 

installation a heat pump with electric backup heat 

and an air handler with ECM blower.

Focus on 

Energy’s $75/$125/$17512 $100 $100/$200/$1

00/$5013

Customer choice/detailed list of incentives, 

including foundation insulation, mechanical 

 

11 Higher amount is for all electric or electric heat, and lower amount is for central AC with non-electric heat.

12 For 400, 1000, 1600 cfm reduction, respectively.
27

Program Audit

Rebate

Air/Duct 

Sealing

Attic 

Insulation

Wall 

Insulation Required/Notes

HPwES 

(Wisconsin)

systems, water heating. Performance bonus of $300 

for completing three recommended shell insulation 

measures or two recommended shell insulation 

measures and a major mechanical measure in 

addition to air sealing if applicable

Black Hills 

Energy HPwES

(Iowa)

70% up to 

$750 (for R38 or higher)

70% up to 

$750 (for R11 or higher)

Customer choice/also: insulation (foundation) R-13 

or greater—70% of the cost up to $750; Infiltration 

Control: Weather-stripping, caulking, etc. —70% 

of the cost up to $200; Doors, R-5 to R-10:

$25/door; Doors, R-11 or greater: $50/door.

Complete three of the top five recommendations 

within 6 mo. of the test-in evaluation/audit, 

schedule your test-out evaluation/audit, and qualify 

for the $200 HPwES bonus

Chicagoland’s 

Natural Gas 

Savings 

Program

$125 co-pay 85% up to $750 85% up to 

$850 Audit includes direct install measures

 

13 For knee-wall, sidewall cavity, sidewall rigid foam R3 or R4, and sidewall rigid foam R5 or greater, respectively.
28

Certain program-specific observations were made about the structuring of measure packages and 

financial incentives. One manager of a program that has two levels of participation noted that a 

prescriptive approach can unnecessarily restrict participation, particularly when the minimum 

standards for retrofits are set very high. In such a case, participation is limited to a small set of 

highly motivated customers. In that program, the utility found that, in many cases, customers had 

already implemented many measures equivalent to the first tier prescriptive program, and were 

only interested in participating in the higher level performance tier. Another program manager 

noted that the level of attic insulation required by the program ruled out many homes (e.g., due to 

space limitations), even though a lower level of insulation would be cost and energy efficient. (A 

program modification that alters this requirement has been filed and will go into effect during the 

next program year.) Several programs experimented with structures that provide increasing 

rebate levels for increasing performance. One manager commented that the program’s “laundry 

list” of measures was too extensive and felt that eliminating some items, thereby simplifying the 

list, would help simplify program participation and redirect funds to commonly implemented 

measures. 

In summary, program incentive structures can be categorized in three main groups:

• Prescriptive. Fixed incentives are provided for specific measures installed 

• Percentage of project cost. Incentives are offered based on the cost of the project 

• Incentives based on forecasted savings. Incentives are calculated based on predicted 

energy savings.

4.2.3.1 Recommendations

To drive deep energy savings:

• Tie incentives to realized energy savings, with higher financial incentives for greater 

savings. 

• Follow a systemic, whole-home approach. Simply tying incentives to certain measures 

does not necessarily drive customers to choose greater savings. 

4.2.4 Audit Approach and Safety Testing

Most Midwestern whole-home programs require audits. Sometimes called evaluations or 

assessments, audits generally are the first step in a whole-home program, and are generally a 

required entry point for installing measures and collecting financial rewards and incentives. A 

well-designed audit process, conducted by a skilled auditor, can serve a valuable consumer 

education role, but it can also cost several hundred dollars and, in lieu of heavy subsidies, can be 

a barrier to customer participation. Furthermore, current program experience indicates that only 

about a third or less of audits lead to the installation of retrofits. Some program managers cite the

audit process as the customer’s key motivator for carrying out retrofits. On the other hand, given 

the cost and time of comprehensive audits, a few managers are de-emphasizing assessments in 

favor of identifying prescriptive packages that achieve whole-home savings. Some programs 

offer different audit levels, from a quick and simple low-cost assessment to a comprehensive 

audit that usually runs three to four hours.
29

Program managers highly value safety training and certification of auditors. All programs 

conduct some level of safety training, and most require auditors to be certified by the BPI. In 

addition, audit procedures with rigorous evaluation and testing procedures are the norm in the 

programs reviewed. However, safety focuses on combustion appliance safety (carbon monoxide 

safety) and not safety associated with radon, and the possibility of increasing radon levels 

through reducing air infiltration. Managers recognize that BPI credentials and diagnostic testing 

is important to ensure safety and to avoid exacerbating existing conditions such as elevated 

carbon monoxide and creating unsafe post-retrofit conditions. Of all the programs examined, 

only one required radon testing, and in that case, three out of 81 homes investigated showed 

elevated radon levels after air sealing measures were implemented.

Finally, it is important to note that the audit tools generally overpredict savings. One program 

used the REM/Rate audit tool, and, based on preliminary end-use billing analysis, overpredicted

savings by about double. Similarly, an evaluation of Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy HPwES 

program demonstrated that audits overpredicted savings significantly. There, years of 

overpredicted modeled savings led to a dramatic reduction in deemed savings for specific 

insulation measures (Schauer, 2010). The most significant reduction in savings was for sidewall 

insulation, where the revised natural gas savings were about half of the predicted value, and the 

revised electricity savings were 29% of the predicted amount. 

4.2.4.1 Recommendations and Observations

Audit Tools: Most audits cost several hundred dollars and overpredict savings. We recommend 

that program administrators validate savings with end-use billing analysis, and reduce savings 

estimates presented to customers and claimed program savings, if necessary. To reduce the cost 

and time of comprehensive audits, programs should consider developing a “prescriptive” set of 

measures for customers to select. 

Safety Testing: Current Midwestern programs recognize the importance of BPI certification and 

practices to ensure that whole-home retrofits are not performed if there are preexisting, unsafe 

conditions, such as gas leaks or elevated carbon monoxide levels. Requiring BPI certification 

and diagnostic testing is sound, safe practice and should continue. Furthermore, program 

managers should carefully consider whether to require, or at least inform residents about, radon 

testing before incentivizing building envelope measure retrofits that reduce air infiltration, which 

may contribute to radon accumulation in the living space.

4.2.5 Program Diagnostics To Identify Energy Savings Opportunities

Program diagnostics to identify energy savings opportunities, such as blower door tests, and 

infrared camera imaging, are common whole-home program features. The use of infrared camera 

imaging is increasing, and is likely to be an effective tool in educating customers simply and 

graphically about home air leakage. Some programs conduct one or more of these tests as part of 

the audit process, and some test after retrofit. Some programs require blower doors and/or 

infrared imaging for every house; others do it less frequently. Diagnostic tests are used for two 

main reasons: to educate customers about the leakiness which leads to energy (and money) loss

and to evaluate whether air sealing contractors effectively reduced infiltration.
30 

Because of a potential conflict of interest when the retrofit contractor also conducts blower door 

testing, one pilot program compared contractor-performed blower doors with test results from an 

independent contractor. In this pilot program, the Program Administrator reported to PARR in an 

interview that blower door tests were performed on all homes before and after retrofit by an 

independent contractor and by the retrofit contractor. In all cases, the retrofit contractor blower 

door results showed a significantly greater reduction in leakiness than did the independent 

contractor.

4.2.5.1 Recommendations

Evaluate the use of preretrofit and postretrofit blower door testing to determine if it is essential 

for achieving effective air sealing. Testing is costly, and contractor-performed blower door 

results may not always be reliable. Programs should consider spot checking contractor results, 

and establishing consequences if contractors fail to accurately report blower door results on an 

ongoing basis.

4.2.6 Contractor Role

There are two basic models for contractor participation in whole-home performance programs. In 

the general contractor model, contractors are chosen through a request for proposal process in 

which only select contractors can participate. Alternately, an open market approach can be used 

whereby any contractor can participate as long as they meet general program requirements. 

Regardless of the approach, contractor development is consistently identified as a challenging, as 

well as an integral, component of whole-home program development. In the words of one 

manager, these programs are “building an industry from the ground up.” Contractor involvement 

in whole-home programs is absolutely essential to efficacy and success, but for many program

managers, working directly with contractors is a new experience that has required tremendous 

learning. Some programs form close, collaborative relationships with contractors, and these 

programs require extensive training, approval and oversight in exchange for participation in the 

program. Some programs have a small number of contractors and large number of jobs, and 

some programs have an opposite setup, although in such cases typically not all enrolled 

contractors are actively involved in the program. Program managers encourage contractors to 

bring customers to the program, and the most successful contractors have taken an active role in 

developing business with customers and recruiting participants. 

Only one of the programs negotiated costs directly with contractors in order to provide a set price 

to consumers; in all other cases, the market set the price for services, although the rebate levels 

and caps set by the utilities or other sponsoring organizations for the programs influence those 

prices.

There is no universal standard to which contractors or auditors are held in terms of certifications 

and qualifications, although contractor training is taken seriously by all program sponsors. 

Varying levels of training are required for participating contractors and, in all cases, 

requirements for basic good business practices, licenses, and other legal obligations must be 

followed. Table 5 summarizes the certification requirements for contractors. Without evaluation 

data, it is unclear whether these different requirements result in different program performance.
31 

Quality assurance is being conducted in some programs but not all, and the form this takes 

varies, too. Some managers claim that every job is evaluated for quality; in some cases this 

happens through an inspection before homeowners are given rebates. Others check a certain 

portion of jobs performed by every contractor, conduct random inspections of some jobs, or 

initially evaluate a specified number of jobs and a random percentage after. The HPwES protocol 

requires an inspection process that includes a sampling rate set at a minimum of 5% (1 in every 

20 jobs) for all participating contractors. Regardless of the approach, QA is a key measure that 

will ultimately drive customer satisfaction and, consequently, program growth and success.

Table 5. Contractor Training, Certification, and Other Requirements 

Program Contractor Requirements

Energy Upgrade California PG&E

Basic upgrade package: contractors must attend a two-hour 

orientation about the program and a free, three-day building science 

basic training about the building envelope elements. Advanced 

upgrade package: may have BPI accreditation, or at a minimum 

employ staff that holds a BPI Building Analyst certification. Must 

attend a two-hour orientation on the program. Must have: a valid 

California contractor’s license appropriate to the scope of work, 

appropriate bonding, completion of mandatory orientation session 

workshops, obtain insurance to utility minimums, a signed contractor 

participation agreement, and building permits on all work as required 

by local jurisdiction requirements.

Nicor’s Gas Energy Efficiency 

Program

Work must be supervised by staff members who are BPI certified in 

Building Envelope or otherwise approved by the program manager.

Ameren Illinois’ Act on Energy Work must be supervised by staff members who are BPI certified in 

Building Envelope or otherwise approved by the program manager.

Kentucky Home Performance BPI Building Analyst certification

Consumers Energy HPwES BPI

Kansas City Area HPwES Supports BPI Building Analyst, Residential Energy Services 

Network rater, and MEC's own energy auditor standard

St. Louis HPwES BPI Combustion Standards, Building Analyst and Envelope

Xcel Energy’s HPwES None

Columbia Gas of Ohio’s Home 

Performance Solutions BPI

AEP Ohio In-Home Energy 

Programs BPI

Dominion East Ohio’s HPwES BPI

Focus on Energy HPwES 

(Wisconsin) None

Chicagoland’s Natural Gas 

Savings Program BPI

4.2.6.1 Recommendations

Compare the two contractor models to determine which approach produces higher quality, lower 

cost jobs for customers.
32

With respect to QA/QC of contractor performance, evaluate the HPwES protocol to determine 

whether it is sufficient to accurately assess contractor compliance with program standards. 

In designing programs, program managers need to consider the following issues when 

establishing contractor requirements:

• Insurance

• Business license(s)

• Years in business

• Requisite certification (BPI minimum)

• Criteria for remaining in program (e.g., job quality, customer satisfaction, number of jobs 

performed each year).

4.2.7 Program Budget, Energy Savings, Participation, and Conversion

Program budget, energy savings, participation levels, and conversion rates are the core metrics of 

whole-home programs. These metrics indicate, on the most basic level, the level of resources 

devoted to the whole-home energy performance program and the program results. Although 

these metrics are critical for meaningfully evaluating whole-home programs, comprehensive data 

are not available. Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 outline data that is available for these metrics. 

Below, the data are interpreted

Looking at program budget per participant, a wide range is found. Because budgets were not 

analyzed in sufficient detail to compare costs for marketing, education, audits, and retrofits, it is 

not possible to accurately determine a cost-per-job metric. However, general conclusions about 

the relationship between budget and customer involvement can be drawn. Some of the variance 

in participation and conversion rates could reasonably be attributed to budget variation, although 

it is not universally true that higher budgets result in higher numbers of customers getting audits 

and retrofits. Similarly, higher budgets are not universally correlated with higher conversion 

rates. Program longevity (documented in Section 3.2.1) appears to be influential, as longerrunning programs report high participation numbers and conversion rates. Many program 

managers reported that external influences other than budgets have influenced program 

outcomes. For example, in the newest programs, customer education and awareness has 

consumed a lot of resources and time, and participation growth is slow. Conversely, longrunning programs benefit from customer familiarity, referrals by word of mouth, and less need 

for marketing and education. The launch of recent programs coincided with a sharp economic 

downturn; some managers cited the economy as a possible cause of low participation or 

conversion rates. Although improving efficiency can save customers money, the initial outlay 

can be a barrier. Overall, devoting significant resources to programs appears to be important, but 

it cannot replace time in developing the market for whole-home retrofits.
33 

Table 6. Program Budgets and Participation 

Budget Participation $/Participant

~$100,000 ~1,500 jobs (which includes both audits and 

retrofits) (2010, predict same for 2011) NA

$398K (2010); 

$750K for 2011 83 jobs (2010); estimate 200 jobs in 2011 $4,795/job (2010)

$3,750/job (2011)

~$1M (1st yr) 1,373 audits; 413 retrofits $728/audit or 

$2,421/retrofit

$2M (2010); 

$2.5M (2011); 

$7M (2012)

Audit/projects:

2,987/68 (2010)

2,210/336 (2011)

$1,131/audit or 

$7,440/job (2011)

$2.2M (2010) 3,396 assessments; 2,224 post-tests (2010)

$648/assessment or 

$989/post-test 

conducted

$2.9M (2011) 3,500 assessments; 340 audits; 2,991 rebates $828/assessment

~$17M (2009-

2011); 

~$5.7M/yr

~11,700 audits (2009-2011) $487/audit

$6.2M (3 yr); 

$2.06M/yr

969 (1 yr) $2,125/participant

$9.8M (a)3,600 surveys; (b)1,100 CHAs; (c) 640 jobs

a) $2,722/survey or

b) $8,909/CHA or

c) $15,312/job 

~$10M (2011) 1,300 retrofits $7,690/retrofit

When comparing program budgets to realized energy savings, there are again significant

limitations to the analysis, as budgets were not parsed by line item. Furthermore, not all 

programs report energy savings yet, and those that do rely on modeled estimates. Within those 

analytical constraints, however, several observations can be made. The cost per kWh saved 

ranges from $0.27 to $1.83, which is a much narrower range than the cost per therm of natural 

gas saved, which ranges from $0.50 to $31.81. Again, the lowest costs seen per unit of energy 

saved are found in longer running programs. This could be due to the large costs involved in 

starting a program and developing the market and the contractor network to support it. One pilot 

program with a prescriptive approach showed low costs for gas savings, which could be 

attributed to the prescriptive nature of the program. By eliminating customer choice, a program 

can, ideally, identify and implement only the highest savings measures.
34 

Table 7. Program Budgets and Energy Savings 

Budget Program Savings in First Year $/kWh 

saved

$/therm 

saved

~$1M (1st yr) 159,334 therms Not 

Available $6.28 

$2M (2010); 

$2.5M (2011); 

$7M (2012)

1,094.8 MWh 

(electric only - 2010) $1.83 NA

$6.2M (3 yr)

$2.06M/yr

From 7/1/10-11/1/11: 29% (987.4

MWh; 

6.56 × 106 ft3/67,371 therms

$1.51 $22.26 

$2.2M (2010) 1,021 MWh; 

620,555 therms (2010) $1.07 $1.77 

$2.9M (2011) 4,429 MWh $0.65 NA

~$17M (2009-2011) 215 × 106 ft3 (since start)/ 2.21 × 

106 therms NA $7.70 

$9.8M Estimating ~30,000 × 103 ft3

, not 

final/308,100 therms NA $31.81 

~$10M (2011) 30% (kWh/therm #s coming later in 

year) NA NA

Conversion rates are closely tracked in some programs and not followed in others. Definitions 

are not entirely consistent even across programs that monitor this measure, as it depends on how 

customers move from one stage of a program to the next, and how many stages are involved. For 

example, one program has two different audit/assessment levels and an implementation 

component. Another challenge to monitoring conversion rates is how implementation is tracked. 

Some programs count the number of rebates issued, which may be on a per-measure basis. 

Others with more prescriptive structures, in which a defined array of measures are specified, 

count completion of these measures, or a set package of measures. Thus, a program that tracks 

individual retrofit measures separately (measures which correspond to a single audit) may yield 

an artificially high conversion rate.

Energy savings estimates at tend to be derived from broad-based goals from state programs, or 

from measure-specific databases. These modeled savings provide a starting point but can, in 

some cases, deviate considerably from actual savings. An accurate assessment of energy savings 

is essential to a substantive evaluation of a whole-home performance program, but many 

programs do not have the data to make this assessment. Several utilities discussed their intent to 

conduct end-use billing analysis at some point, but only two (Chicagoland and Columbia Gas)

had initiated this process. As discussed earlier, modeled energy savings sometimes had to be 

modified extensively, as original estimates were significantly higher than demonstrated savings 
35

(see Review of Historic Energy Savings from the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR

Program, September 23, 2010).

4.2.7.1 Recommendations

Deemed savings and savings from on-site audits need to be validated using end-use billing 

analysis. While only two programs currently employ this method for verifying savings, the 

following utilities or programs have expressed interest: PG&E, Consumers Energy, Xcel, Nicor, 

Kentucky Home Performance, and Kansas City HPwES.

Program costs per participant of energy savings vary widely. Furthermore, budget information 

applies to different program activities (e.g., audit, survey, retrofit, etc.), and sometimes applies to 

both gas and electric energy savings, so it is difficult with the current level of data to draw 

meaningful conclusions. There remains a need to evaluate what budget amounts lead to 

maximum participation and maximum energy savings.

4.2.8 Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is highly valued but not consistently or systematically measured. The 

majority of programs have carried out some type of customer satisfaction surveys using phone 

surveys, survey cards, and direct inspections. These surveys have reached varying percentages of 

the customer population. From a participation and customer relations perspective, customer 

satisfaction is a key component of a successful program, just as it is to any successful business.

Anecdotally, customer satisfaction with existing whole-home programs is high. Several 

managers claimed that complaints or dissatisfaction had been minimal. Others noted that those 

who had been served by the program were happy, but those who were still on a waiting list were 

less satisfied. Some program managers have begun conducting customer surveys to assess 

satisfaction and, in some cases, to better understand customer motivation for involvement. A few 

programs required a customer sign off on work completed, and this is cited as a surrogate for 

customer satisfaction. Recommendations

Systematic customer surveys should be conducted and results analyzed for improving program 

design.

4.2.9 Program Evaluation

To date, there has been little systematic quantitative program evaluation. Yet, evaluation is 

important for assessing program effectiveness, both in terms of cost effectiveness and energy 

savings. A few programs have been established sufficiently long to have EM&V reports (see 

Appendix E for a summary), but many have not. Where such evaluation has occurred, the 

programs have been found to be cost effective.

4.2.9.1 Recommendations

Comprehensive, third-party evaluation reports should be developed and made publicly available 

for all programs

4.2.10 Common Metrics

As noted earlier, Midwest whole-home programs are emerging and not yet well established. This 

constitutes an opportunity as well as a challenge. Researchers can work with these programs to 
36

establish common tracking metrics and data collection requirements in order to better understand 

and compare programs. 

4.2.10.1 Recommendations

Program managers should consider establishing metrics for the following program elements and 

cooperate to track these data and program metrics:

• Program savings (kW, kWh, therms); per home savings (kW, kWh, therms); and per 

home savings reduction (percent of home energy use reduction)

• Program cost effectiveness from a societal (total resource cost test) and utility (utility cost 

test or program administrator cost test) cost-effectiveness perspective

• Program conversion rates (number of audits that lead to retrofits)

• Customer satisfaction

• Program participation (audits, retrofits)

• Program budget (overall program cost; cost per participant).
37

5 Conclusions

In general, this study has revealed great variation in the design elements and protocols followed 

by whole-home programs in the Midwest, making comparisons difficult. Furthermore, 10 of the 

14 programs reviewed have been in existence for three years or less, and arguably have not 

matured into fully functional, smoothly running programs. This further makes it difficult to 

assess performance and to draw conclusions about best practices for the Midwest’s whole-home 

programs. However, this research is unique in its effort to extract key baseline data for 

Midwestern whole-home programs, to identify guidelines for effective program development, 

and to determine critical research needs before expansion of programs is undertaken. Results are 

summarized in the following sections.

5.1 Program Design Lessons Learned

The recommendations developed throughout this report illustrate the primary lessons learned 

about whole-home energy performance programs during this research project. These are 

summarized as follows:

Initially, programs should target the following customers: 

• Homeowners with high energy usage

• Older homes, which may have been constructed before updates in energy codes and may 

also be due for updates and improvements

• Homeowners with high disposable income

• High income areas and neighborhoods

• Densely populated areas with some of the above characteristics

• Areas where skilled contractors are available.

In the area of incentives:

• Incentives should be tied to energy savings, with higher financial incentives for greater 

savings, in order to reinforce, for customers, the systemic, whole-home approach.

• In the area of metrics:

Programs should consider establishing metrics for the following program elements: a) Program 

savings (kW, kWh, therms), per home savings (kW, kWh, therms), per home savings reduction 

(percent of home energy use reduction); b) Program cost-effectiveness from a societal (total 

resource cost test) and utility cost effectiveness (utility cost test or program administrator cost 

test); c) Program conversion rates (number of audits that lead to retrofits); d) Customer 

satisfaction; e) Program participation (audits, retrofits); and f) Program budget (overall program 

cost; cost per participant).
38

In the area of audits:

• Better validation of audit tools is essential, so that predicted savings correlate to real 

savings.

• Better understanding of the true value and purpose of audits is needed. Need to evaluate 

whether experienced contractors and effective program literature can identify the best 

energy savings opportunities for the contractor and educate the homeowner about energy 

savings approaches as effectively, and at a lower cost, than audits.

In the area of safety:

• Radon is an issue of concern in many areas of the Midwest; thus, radon must be 

appropriately addressed. Program administrators may wish to consider requiring 

preretrofit and postretrofit radon testing in conjunction with air sealing to confirm that 

radon levels are not elevated before or after air sealing. Air sealing should not be 

performed in homes with elevated radon until the high radon is mitigated. Once a home is 

air sealed, radon testing should be conducted to confirm that air sealing has not raised 

radon to unacceptable levels.

• Combustion safety testing must happen before and after retrofit to ensure customer 

safety.

In the area of implementation:

• The role of before- and after-retrofit blower door testing should be evaluated to determine 

whether it is essential in order to achieve effective air sealing. It is costly, and the 

significance of its role has not been established.

• The two contractor models need to be tested to determine which approach produces 

higher quality, lower cost jobs for customers. In the general contractor model, contractors 

are chosen through a request for proposal process in which only select contractors can 

participate. Alternately, an open market approach means any contractor can participate as 

long as they meet general program requirements.

In the area of contractor selection:

• Program managers need to evaluate whether the HPwES QA/QC protocol that requires 

inspecting a minimum of 5% of jobs for all participating contractors is sufficient to 

ensure savings

• Program managers need to consider the following issues when establishing contractor 

requirements: insurance; business license(s); years in business; requisite certification 

(BPI certified); requirements to remain in program (e.g., job quality, customer 

satisfaction, number of jobs performed/year)
39

In the area of validation:

• Deemed savings need to be validated using end-use billing analysis 

• Need to evaluate what budget amounts lead to maximum energy savings and participation

• Systematic surveys of customers should be conducted and results analyzed for purposes 

of improving program design

• Comprehensive, third-party evaluation reports should be developed for all programs and 

made publicly available.

5.2 Areas for Further Study

Further research is needed in order to understand actual, rather than just forecast, savings from 

whole-home programs, and whether moderate (15–30% savings per home) or deep (more than 

30% savings) are cost-effective from a societal (total resource cost test) and utility (utility cost 

test or program administrator cost test) perspective. A key objective of whole-home programs is 

to drive deeper cost-effective energy savings. However, current research does not answer the 

question of whether whole-home programs are achieving moderate or deep savings, nor whether 

current savings are cost-effective. Before whole-home programs are scaled up in the cold 

climates, actual savings should be validated, and program cost-effectiveness using actual 

program costs and savings data determined.

The research team recommends further study of the following questions:

• What level of energy savings (program and per home) do programs achieve? Current 

energy savings claims in cold weather climates are based on audits, which significantly 

overpredict savings, or on engineering estimates. End-use billing analysis of actual 

savings should be conducted. Such analysis should become a required element of 

program evaluations.

• Which budget and program design elements are critical to energy savings, or

provide other measureable program value? To increase program cost-effectiveness, a

more detailed understanding of how much different program elements (such as audits and 

diagnostics tests such as blower door tests) cost and how much they contribute to energy 

savings is needed. Through this research effort, participants have expressed their interest 

in meeting and sharing information about their program design elements and costs.

• Are whole-home programs cost effective? The long term viability of whole-home 

programs depends on their cost effectiveness. Most whole-home programs are 

administered by utilities, and most utilities need to demonstrate cost-effectiveness at the 

program level to receive regulatory approval to offer programs. Program cost 

effectiveness using actual, rather than forecasted, program costs and savings needs to be 

completed. 

Many program administrators who provided information for this study expressed interest in

working further with PARR to help answer the research questions described above and to 

collaboratively develop best practices for cold weather climate whole-home programs. In 
40

addition, several program administrators are willing to share customer data to allow PARR to 

conduct end-use billing analysis. Further study, as described above, will help determine whether 

and how cold weather climate whole-home programs can cost effectively achieve moderate and 

deep savings.
41

References

Fuller, M.C., Kunkel, C., Zimring, M., Hoffman, I., Soroye, K.L., and Goldman, C. (2010). 

Driving Demand for Home Energy Improvements: Motivating residential customers to invest in 

comprehensive upgrades that eliminate energy waste, avoid high bills, and spur the economy.

LBNL 3960E. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-3960e-web.pdf.

LeBaron, R. and Rinaldi, K.S. (2010). Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Programs in the 

U.S. Washington, D.C.: The National Home Performance Council.

http://www.nhpci.org/images/NHPC_WHRetrofitReport_201012.pdf.

Schauer, L. (September 23, 2010) Review of Historic Energy Savings from the Home 

Performance with ENERGY STAR Program . Work performed by Tetra Tech for the Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin.

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/reviewofhistor

icenergysavingsfromhpwes_evaluationreport.pdf
42

Bibliography

Chen, H. (2010). Green and Healthy Jobs, Silver Spring, Maryland: The Center for Construction 

Research and Training, http://www.cpwr.com/pdfs/GreenHealthy%20Jobs%20fnl%20for%20posting.pdf.

Conservation Services Group (December 15, 2010). Contractors as Allies in Home Performance 

Programs, Webinar delivered by Regulatory Assistance Project online on December 15, 2010..

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raponline.org%2Fdocs%2FRAP_Dyen_WholeHouseRetrofitWebinar_C

ontractorsAsAllies_2010_12_15.pdf&ei=LO0WUKy8G5GZqQHP34HABg&usg=AFQjCNE7Y

t9HXWajPUyDSkao8VLT8Pc9Hw

Goldstein, B. (2010). Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/building_america/ns/eemtg032011_plen

ary5_workforce_guidelines.pdf (draft).

Lee, D.(September 2010) Delivering Whole House Solutions—Federal Efforts, Presented at the 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Industry Partners Meeting, September 15-17, 

2010.http://www.cee1.org/cee/mtg/09-10mtg/Presentations/ThuGen_Delivering_Lee.pdf

Redman, E. (2010). The Home Performance Industry Perspective on Training and Workforce 

Development, Washington, D.C.: Home Performance Resource Center.

http://www.sbnphiladelphia.org/images/uploads/green_jobs_in_the_residential_energy_efficienc

y_industry.pdf

White, S., Dresser, L. and Rogers, J. (2010). Greener Skills: How Credentials Create Value in 

the Clean Energy Economy, Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Wisconsin Strategy.

http://www.cows.org/pdf/rp-greenerskills.pdf.
43

Appendix A. Web Research Questions

Internet research on whole-home energy efficiency programs was conducted to gather 

information on the following topics:

• What type of organization is the main sponsor?

• Program name

• Program sponsor – name and principal contact information (address, phone, email, 

website)

• Program implementer – name and principal contact information (address, phone, email, 

website)

• Program territory

• Customer eligibility requirements

• Target audience

• Income qualifier?

• Eligible measures: prescriptive? performance?

• Incentive levels

• Program labeling

• Program standards

• What components are required? (walk through audit/ diagnostic/ combustion safety/ 

radon testing)

• Contractor eligibility requirements. How are contractors selected to participate in the 

program?

• Energy auditor requirements

• Standard retrofit pricing

• Quality assurance

• Complaint resolution

• Financing

• Contractor participation agreement

• Is there a publicly available EM&V report?
44

Appendix B. Survey Monkey Questions

The research team conducted a survey of program contacts using surveymonkey.com. The 

survey included the following questions:

Your name

Your program name

When did your program begin?

What are your participation goals?

What is your program's overall annual budget (in each of the past three years)?

What kind of participation rate are you realizing in your territory, by year for the past three 

years?

How is participation incentivized?

Does the program have specific energy savings goals? If so, what are they? Please list for the 

last three years.

How many contractors are enrolled in your program? Of these, how many actively participate?

Again, if possible, please list for the last three years.

What type of audit is required or provided through your program? Who performs this audit?

How does your program conduct quality assurance?

What is the conversion rate between audit and retrofit work, for each of the past three years?

How do you define conversion rate?

Does your program have publicly available evaluation reports? If so, please provide a link to 

evaluations. 

How satisfied are customers with your program? How do you measure this?

What are your two most significant program challenges?

Do you coordinate or co-deliver the program with any other utilities or other organizations?

Please provide a brief description.
45

Appendix C. Deep Dive Questions

For individual phone interviews, program contacts were asked the questions listed below 

regarding their whole-home program. They were sent the questions before the actual interview 

time. In some cases, additional team members participated in the phone interviews.

1. Confirm information gathered to date, including:

• Start date of program

• Annual budget, savings, participation for past three years, if exists

• Program metrics, particularly customer satisfaction

2. Policy Framework

• Is there a regulatory directive that encourages comprehensive upgrades?

• Was the program design filed?

• Please provide copy of regulatory filing

3. Program Process

• What audit tool is used?

• Pre and post diagnostics performed? (CAZ, infrared, blower door – percentage of 

homes tested)

• Does program test for radon?

• Required trade ally training, qualifications

• Work Orders

• Who develops? Auditor, contractor?

• How detailed?

• A few samples

• Do you have written program policy and procedures manuals?

4. Customer Targeting

• Is the program targeted to certain customers or geographic areas?
46

• How were these targeting approaches determined?

• How were they marketed to?

5. Conversion rate

• How do define conversion rate?

• What is your program conversion rate?

• What do think causes customers to install measures after audits?

• What would you change about the program to get more participation?

6. Program Pricing

• Audit cost

• To customer

• To Program Administrator

• Installation cost

• To customer

• To Program Administrator

• How are prices set/established? (by market or by the program?)

7. Expected savings by measure and home

• Forecasted measure level savings

• Per home savings

• How were the savings derived?

• Are expected savings documented in a Technical Reference Manual?

8. Measure Packages

• Who selects which measures get installed? Customer or program?

• What are most common measures installed?
47

• Do you have a recommended measure package? What is it?

9. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Brand

• Is program branded with HPwES brand? If so, has this been useful?

• If not, why not?

10. Cost-Effectiveness

• Do you measure the program cost-effectiveness?

• Do you have a goal you need to meet?

• Is the program cost-effective?

11. EM&V Reports: 

• Confirm EM&V done to date

• Target Date of next EM&V

• Do you have any plans to do end-use billing analysis?

• Would you be interested in PARR performing end-use billing analysis 

(confidential and at no cost to program, PARR would want to share aggregated 

results)

12. Open-Ended Questions

• Program successes

• Program challenge

13. Program Future

• Do you plan to continue/grow the program?

• What changes do you plan to make to the program?
48

Appendix D. Summary and Compilation of Deep Dive 

Interview Questions and Answers

Summary and Compilation of 

Deep Dive Interview Questions and Answers

1. Confirm information gathered to date, including:

• Start date of program - Programs surveyed started at the times shown below:

Year No. of 

Programs

2001 1

2003 2

2007 1

2009 3

2010 6

2011 1

OR:

10/2001

2003

2003

2007

1/2009

9/2009

2009

1/2010
49

5/2010

Mid 2010

8/2010

10/2010

12/2010

1/2011

• Annual budget – Budgets varied considerably, as shown in this list:

~$100,000 (variable)

$398,000(2010); $750,000 (2011)

Variable, now close to $1M

~$1M

$2M (2010); $2.5M (2011); $7M (2012)

$2.2M

$6.2M over 3 years

$2.9M 

~$17M (from 2009-2011)

$9.8M

~$10M 

• Participation – This can be defined as taking part in an audit or assessment, or 

having retrofits done. 
50

Audits Retrofits

NA 81

NA 83 (2010)

200 (2011)

2987 (2010)

2210 (2011)

68 (2010)

336 (2011)

1373 413

1100 640

NA 969

NA 1,300

NA 1,500

3396 2,224

3500 assessments/ 340 audits 2,991 (rebates)

~11,700 (2009-2011)

• Energy Savings – Where available, energy savings from different whole-home 

programs are as shown. 

Savings

kWh Therms

30% 30%

159,334 

1,094,747

3,371 
51

987,400 (7/1/10-11/1/11) 67,371

308,100

1,800,000 1,000,000

2,208,050

4,429,000 

1,021,239 620,555

• Customer Satisfaction – In general, customer satisfaction measurements have 

been variable. Because many programs are new, they do not yet have a formal 

assessment of customer satisfaction, but it is under development.

Approach No. of Programs

No customer satisfaction measures 4

Informal/anecdotal assessment 2

Survey under development 2

Formal survey (by phone, written, other) 5

2. Policy Framework

• Is there a regulatory directive that encourages comprehensive upgrades? In the 

Midwest programs, there are no regulatory directives that encourage 

comprehensive whole-home upgrades. PG&E is subject to a regulatory directive 

encouraging comprehensive upgrades.

• Was the program design filed? – Of nine program managers interviewed, five had 

filed program designs. Programs managed by nonprofits were not required to file 

program designs with public utility commissions, and some programs that had 

conducted only preliminary pilots also did not file program designs.

3. Program Process
52

• What audit tool is used? In the Midwest, the following audit tools were identified 

as being used:

• TREAT, REM/Rate, Beacon, Green Energy Compass, contractors’ 

proprietary audit tool, in one case, in-house basic software tool is used.

• Pre and post diagnostics performed? (CAZ, infrared, blower door – percentage of 

homes tested) – All program managers interviewed said they perform pre and post 

diagnostics on every home retrofitted. All of these programs conducted blower 

door testing. Four conduct infrared testing and combustion safety testing also; one 

program said they sometimes use infrared testing.

• Does program test for radon? – Only one program out of the 15 researched tested 

for radon.

• Required trade ally training, qualifications – Required training and certification 

varies for different programs and are presented in detail in Table 2 of this report. 

In addition to particular certification programs, contractors are required to meet

state professional licensing, insurance and bonding requirements, and several 

programs have specific additional training for their contractors. Certification 

requirements are summarized as follows:

Required Certification # of Programs

BPI (Building Envelope, Building Analyst; at minimum, 

must be supervised by staff with this certification)

10

Residential Energy Services Network 2

• Work Orders

Several different approaches are taken for developing. Four programs 

stated that auditors develop work orders that customers can take to a 

contractor; three programs described a program where either an auditor or 

a contractor is responsible for developing work orders, and one program 

specified that this is contractor developed. In some cases, the audit process 

provides a general idea of work that can be done, in other cases, the audit 

provides very detailed and specific recommendations to be followed up by 

a contractor agreement.

• Do you have written program policy and procedures manuals? - Seven of the 

managers interviewed stated that their programs had specific policy and 

procedures manuals or other written agreements that contractors must adhere to. 
53

Sometimes these are part of the contractor RFP process, and sometimes they are 

separate manuals.

4. Customer Targeting. 

• Is the program targeted to certain customers or geographic areas? – Other than 

addressing single family homeowners, most programs are not currently targeting 

specific customers or geographic areas, other than restricting availability to 

particular service territories or pilot programs in limited geographic areas. Three 

programs specified that they targeted high energy use customers (>1,000 or 1,200

× 103 ft3/year). Program managers generally acknowledged it would be 

appropriate to target customers on the basis of high energy use, age of home, or 

likelihood of ‘early adoption.’

• How were they marketed to? – Various approaches were used, depending on 

marketing budgets, including attendance at community events, state and county 

fairs, home shows, direct marketing, newspaper ads, radio and TV promotions, 

circulars, and coupons.

5. Conversion rate

• How do you define conversion rate? Conversion rates are not always tracked or 

defined clearly. Some programs track audits and jobs, others track different levels 

of audits or assessments, some programs track rebates issued. Some programs 

express concerns about how contractors report jobs.

• Where tracked, program conversion rates are listed in the table below. 

Conversion Rate

1.7% (2010); 9.3% (2011);

10%

30%

~33%

>50% 

61%

~63%

65%
54

• What do think causes customers to install measures after audits? – Program 

managers cited a variety of factors that persuaded customers to install measures. 

These are rebates, energy savings, environmental benefit, home comfort. Many 

believe that financial incentives are the most powerful motivator.

• What would you change about the program to get more participation? – Several 

answers were provided to this question, including lowering the complexity of the 

rebate system and adding more financial incentives. Several did not see any need 

for change, and thought the program only needed more time to be effective.

6. Program Pricing

• Audit cost – Audit fees for customers vary by program, ranging from $25–$99 

when fees are paid directly to the program. When comprehensive audits are set at 

market rates, they range more broadly from $100–$500. Several managers 

commented that the rates charged are influenced by the rebate amounts available 

for audits in a given program. Costs to program administrators depend on the 

rebate offered, if any, and were not always shared with the research team. Audit 

rebates available are listed in Table 1.

• Installation cost – Except in one case where prices are negotiated with contractors 

in advance, the installation cost is contractor dependent. The cost to customers 

and Program Administrators of installing measures is rebate and measure 

dependent. A detailed list of financial incentives provided by programs is in Table

1. These financial incentives offset costs for customers and increase costs for the 

program.

• How are prices set/established? (By market or by the program?) – Prices are 

almost exclusively set by the market. Only one manager surveyed oversaw a 

program where prices had been negotiated in advance with contractors. While 

installation costs are set by the market, several program managers pointed out that 

available rebates help drive those prices.

7. Expected savings by measure and home

• Forecasted measure level savings – Various software programs were cited as the

source for forecasted measure level savings, such as REM/Rate, proprietary 

models from vendors (e.g. Conservation Services Group, ClearResults), 

EnergyPro, Compass.

• Per home savings –In one case, the program aims for 300 therms/home energy 

savings, and in another, the goal was 28 × 103 ft3

/home, but they’ve seen actual 
55

values range from 19 to 31 × 103 ft3/home, averaging ~25 × 103 ft3. Otherwise, 

savings are estimated on a per measure basis.

• How were the savings derived? – Savings are derived from modeling software 

used in audit process as noted above.

• Are expected savings documented in a Technical Reference Manual (TRM)? –

Some program managers noted that expected savings are derived or checked 

against different state databases where available, such as the Ohio TRM or the 

Michigan MEMV, a Michigan database that estimates savings measure by 

measure. Programs not in Ohio or Michigan did not reference a TRM.

8. Measure Packages

• Who selects which measures get installed? Customer or program? Where 

programs have a prescriptive element, this constitutes the recommended 

measures. Otherwise, it is at the customer’s discretion. Of the programs 

researched in this study, six had certain required measures, or required customers 

to choose several from a restricted list. The remaining programs allowed 

customers complete free choice of measures to install.

• What are most common measures installed? Program managers cited the 

following measures as most frequently installed under their programs.

• Direct install measures, where part of audit (e.g. CFLs, programmable 

thermostats, water heater insulation0

• Attic and wall insulation

• Air and duct sealing

• Windows

• HVAC systems

• Do you have a recommended measure package? What is it?- This is program 

dependent and described at length in program summaries in section 3.1 of this 

report. Where programs have a prescriptive element, this constitutes the 

recommended measures. Otherwise, it is at the customer’s discretion.

9. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Brand

• Is program branded with HPwES brand?
56

HPwES Program NOT HPwES

7 8

• Of the HPwES programs, only one program manager did not believe that the 

branding was useful, as financial incentives were the primary motivator to 

customers. Others felt the branding was useful once customers understood what it 

meant, because of the national recognition and credibility it provided. One 

manager stated that it would be more useful if it specified clearer metrics for 

participation.

• Two of the program managers associated with non-HPwES programs specified 

that they were working toward the goal of becoming affiliated with the program.

10. Cost Effectiveness

• Do you measure the program cost-effectiveness?- Most programs had not yet 

analyzed cost-effectiveness, and some are not required to measure. Responses are 

shown below:

Cost Effectiveness Measure # of Programs

0.2 – Portfolio required to meet, not program 1

Benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.4 1

Not measured yet; Total resource cost (TRC) must = 1.0 1

Not available 4

6:1 leverage 1

Not measured 1

Not cost effective yet, no exact numbers 2

Currently evaluating. 1

Measured for whole portfolio only, but cost-effective 1

11. EM&V Reports: 
57

• Confirm EM&V done to date – Only three of the programs researched had 

completed any form of EM&V report to date. Firm dates for reports from other 

programs are not available.

• Do you have any plans to do end-use billing analysis? – One utility is currently 

conducting such billing analysis. Four others said they would be likely to at some 

point. 

• Would you be interested in PARR performing end-use billing analysis 

(confidential and at no cost to program, PARR would want to share aggregated 

results). Six program managers indicated interest in discussing this further.

12. Open-Ended Questions

• Program successes – A variety of successes and challenges were cited by program 

managers, as follows;

• Developing good relationships with contractors

• Job creation

• High customer satisfaction

• High energy savings

• Direct install measures very effective

• Collaboration with utilities, contractors, other entities

• Program challenges –

• Building contractor capacity, support and willingness to participate in the 

program

• Launching a ‘new industry’

• Developing customer demand

• Maintaining quality of contractor work

• Developing contractor network

• Educating customers

• Data tracking
58

• Maintaining sufficient funding to keep providing rebates

• Effective goal-setting

• Data tracking has been hard, behind on projected goals; competing with 

low cost audits from other utilities difficult

13. Program Future

• Do you plan to continue/grow the program? - All program managers interviewed 

intended to continue their programs, although some were concerned about how to 

sustain funding for the program.

• What changes do you plan to make to the program? – In general, program 

managers indicated satisfaction with their programs. All managers acknowledged 

that there is a learning process involved, and they expected their programs would 

continue to evolve to reflect this. One program manager cited specific requests for 

changes to the program that had been filed with the utility commission in order to 

improve the reach of the program. Others expressed the view that time was the 

primary component needed in order for their programs to become more effective

and that comprehensive home retrofit programs take a sustained multiyear 

funding commitment to mature and become successful.
59

Appendix E. Summary of Evaluation, Measurement, and 

Verification Reports

Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Reports for Midwestern Utilities’ 

Whole-Home Performance Programs

Summary of Reports by State

Updated September 19, 2011

Wisconsin – Focus on Energy

Report(s) Referenced and/or Reviewed

• Goldberg, M. et al. (November 24, 2009) Focus on Energy Evaluation – Benefit-Cost 

Analysis – CY09 Evaluation Report. Work performed by PA Consulting Group for the 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/bcanal

ysiscy09_evaluationreport.pdf

• Schauer, L. (February 4, 2010) Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Participant 

Survey Analysis and Recommended Supply-side Research Approach. Work performed by 

PA Consulting Group for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. 

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/hpwes

partsurveyanalysisandrecommendedsupplysideresearchapproach_evaluationreport.pdf

• Schauer, L. (April 16, 2010) Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Insulation Supplyside Study Results and Integration with Participant Findings. Work performed by PA 

Consulting Group for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/hpwes

supplysideandcustomerintegrationreport_evaluationreport.pdf

• Schauer, L. (September 23, 2010) Review of Historic Energy Savings from the Home 

Performance with ENERGY STAR Program . Work performed by Tetra Tech for the 

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/review

ofhistoricenergysavingsfromhpwes_evaluationreport.pdf

• Schauer, L. et al. (April 10, 2011) Focus on Energy Evaluation – Annual Report 2010. 

Work performed by Tetra Tech for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
60

http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/annual

report2010_evaluationreport.pdf

• Talerico, T. and Winch, R (October 8, 2007). Home Performance with Energy Star 

Program Net Analysis. Work performed by Glacier Consulting Group for the Public 

Service Commission of Wisconsin.

Program Description

Wisconsin’s Focus on Energy has included the centerpiece Home Performance with Energy Star 

program since Focus on Energy’s beginning in 2001. This program originally included building 

shell (‘envelope’) measures, as well as HVAC and water heating measures. However, in 2007, 

heating and cooling measures were pulled off into a separate Efficient Heating and Cooling 

Initiative (EHCI), and the focus of HPwES turned to insulation, air sealing, and other building 

shell approaches. For purposes of analyzing performance, Focus on Energy specified a calendar 

year rather than a program period as the valid period, and also specified that whole home would 

be defined to exclude participants who only implemented HVAC measures, and would also 

exclude measures that did not include a pre- or post-assessment or rating. Many of the evaluation 

reports available focus on the entire portfolio of residential and business programs offered by

Focus on Energy. Thus, extracting the specific information about HPwES in order to evaluate 

that program from these reports is sometimes difficult. However, certain data and conclusions 

are available, as described below.

Program Impact

Cost effectiveness – Both simple and expanded tests of cost-effectiveness were used. 

Simple test is comparable to total resource cost or societal cost tests used in other states. 

Benefits are avoided costs of documented direct energy savings and market effects 

savings. Costs are program spending (excluding incentive payments), and customer 

incremental costs. Expanded test includes non-energy societal benefits.

Overall b/c ratio for simple test for the HPwES program is 1.4 with net benefits of 

$37.5M. For the expanded test, the projected net present value of 10 yr of residential 

program operations over a 25-yr horizon is a net benefit of $795M, with a benefit to cost

ratio of 2.4. (Goldberg et al 2009)

As with other residential programs in Focus, documented energy savings (on the benefit 

side), and participant incremental costs (on the cost side) dominate the b/c ratio for 

HPwES. The evaluation report evaluates the program annually and compares costs and 

benefits in FY2002 compared to FY 2011. Total program costs (includes program costs 

and incremental costs are $6.8M in FY02 compared to total benefits (documented energy 

savings in the comparison periods) of $0.6M, and in FY11, total costs are $4.1M, with 

total benefits rising to $7.9M. (Goldberg et al 2009)
61

Energy Impacts – A review report (Schauer September 2010) evaluates energy savings 

trends for the HPwES program from 2001–2009. As shown in the chart below, average 

therms savings values per participant increased from 2001 through 2005, then decreased 

through 2009. The average kWh savings per participant peaked in 2002 and decreased 

thereafter. This results from a recommended reduction in the deemed savings for 

insulation measures that was applied in FY2005 and forward. A sampling of these 

changes is shown in the second table below. (Schauer September 2010) In some cases 

these reductions were quite significant and resulted in substantial changes in savings for 

individual measures. (Schauer September 2010)

HPwES Participant Count and Energy Savings

Year Participants kWh 

Saved 

(Total)

kWh 

Saved (per 

participant)

Therms 

Saved 

(Total)

Therms 

Saved (per 

participant)

2001 39 36,112 926 13,386 343

2002 188 215,579 1147 81,105 431

2003 633 678,376 1072 305,157 482

2004 955 934,577 979 444,292 465

2005 769 776,221 1009 389,109 506

2006 1017 750,197 738 462,319 455

2007 861 354,890 412 265,839 309

2008 981 441,635 450 308,797 315

2009 1,843 809,112 439 588,188 319

Changes in Deemed Energy Savings for Insulation Measures (4)

Measure Previous 

Therms

Revised 

Therms

Previous 

kWh

Revised 

kWh

Attic Insulation 121 100 328 160

Sidewall insulation 411 225 1,113 326
62

Floor Insulation 96 79 259 126

Sill Box Insulation 48 39 110 53

Interior Foundation Insulation 257 140 590 172

Exterior Foundation Insulation 89 49 204 59

In this review memo, measures are tracked individually and reported in a chart that 

documents “Verified Gross” energy savings in kWh, kW, and therms. Building shell 

measures comprise the majority of energy savings, ranging from 63.8% of kWh savings, 

to 75% of therms savings, to 88% of kW savings. Specifically, nearly all kWh savings 

result from insulation up through 2007, when water heating measures begin to increase. 

Nearly one quarter of therms savings claimed by the program result from air sealing 

measures.

More recently, the Focus on Energy 2010 Annual Report reviews overall savings in its 

various residential and business programs. For calendar year 2010, HPwES exceeded its 

overall program net savings targets in kWh, kW, and therms saved. However, a detailed, 

program-specific analysis was not conducted, and the report (Schauer et al 2011) does not 

specify per home savings or number of participants. Specifically, these savings were as 

follows:

kWh kW Therms

Net 

Savings 

Target

Net 

Savings 

Achieved

% of 

2010 

Targe

t

Net 

Saving

s 

Target

Net 

Savings 

Achieve

d

% of 

2010 

Targe

t

Net 

Savings 

Target

Net 

Savings 

Achieve

d

% of 

2010 

Targe

t

654,00

0

1,021,23

9

156 240 410 171 396,00

0

620,555 157

Participation – Participation in the HPwES program has increased steadily since the 

program’s inception in 2001. In that first year, 39 participants were counted, rising to 

1,017 in 2006 and 1843 in 2009 after a slight drop off in 2007 and 2008. 

Net-to-gross – A significant amount of research has been conducted on the net-to-gross 

ratios for the Focus on Energy programs, especially programs like HPwES which rely on 

consultants and contractors to promote energy efficiency to households. An analysis 

prepared in 2007 (Talerico and Winch 2007) suggested a net-to-gross ratio of 62% for 

attic insulation and 50% for sidewall insulation. However, program implementers believe 

that in fact Focus on Energy had considerable influence, and further study was 
63

conducted. A later report (Schauer April 2010) recommended that the net-to-gross ratios 

be adjusted to 65% and 73%, respectively, reflecting closer analysis of customer, 

consultant, and contractor behavior.
64

Process Observations/Findings

This is a long-running, successful program with high participation rates and good energy 

savings. However, the 2010 Evaluation report did not include process evaluation 

activities for the HPwES program in 2010. Program metrics were similarly not assessed 

in 2010.

Illinois - Ameren

Report(s) Referenced and/or Reviewed

• Cadmus Group, Inc (October 23, 2009) Residential Program Portfolio Program Year 

(PY) 1. Work performed by the Cadmus Group, Inc., for Ameren Utilities Illinois. 

http://ilsag.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/APPX_2_Cadmus_Residential_Portfolio_E

MV_Final.6173513.pdf

• Huang, R. et al (November 2010). Home Energy Performance Electric Program 

Evaluation—PY2. Work performed by the Cadmus Group, Inc., for Ameren Utilities 

Illinois. http://ilsag.org/evaluation_documents

Program Description

The Home Energy Performance (HEP) program is a home diagnostic and improvement program 

offered to Ameren Illinois’ residential customers for a $25 fee. Conservation Services 

GroupEnergy Advisors conduct an HEP audit of participant homes, which includes installing 

instant savings measures such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and domestic hot water 

measures (faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, and water heater pipe insulation). Throughout 

the HEP audit, energy advisors educate the homeowner on savings possible through shell 

measures such as: air sealing and wall, attic, and duct sealing. Energy advisors also recommend 

HEP program allies (Ameren Illinois-approved insulation contractors) that offer incentives and 

can install shell measures.

Program Impact

Cost effectiveness – No cost effectiveness or benefit –cost analysis information was 

provided in the publicly available evaluation reports.

Energy Impacts – As described in the paragraph above, participation varies for different 

measures. Many participants install lighting measures, domestic hot water systems are 

moderately popular, and very few participants choose to install shell measures. For this 

reason, calculating per participant energy savings across all measures is not necessarily 

representative of the program’s results. The program evaluations instead look at total 

energy savings, and energy savings across particular measures.
65

Program Year 2 Gross Savings for HEP Electric Program

Measure

Annual Gross Savings

# Installed Realized per 

Unit (kWh)

Realized 

Total (kWh)

Realized 

Total (kW)

Faucet Aerators 180 30 5,400 0.67 

Low-Flow Showerheads 460 240 110,400 13.75 

Hot Water Pipe Insulation 226 51 11,526 1.44 

Domestic Hot Water Subtotal 

at 356 Home with Electric 

Water Heat

866 127,326 15.86 

Air Sealing 5 2246 11,229 4.53 

Ceiling Insulation (R-7 to R-38) 0 1640 - -

Ceiling Insulation (R-11 to R-38) 4 1021 4,084 1.65 

R-11 Wall Insulation 2 6088 12,177 4.91 

Shell Measure Subtotal at 6 

Homes with Electric Heat 11 27,490 11.09 

CFL 60w to 15w 14,591 38 554,458 31.05 

CFL 75w to 20w 3,861 47 181,467 10.16 

CFL 100w to 23w 3,091 66 204,006 11.42 

Lighting Subtotal Installed at 

2,782 Homes 21,543 939,931 52.64 

Electric Program Total 22,420 1,094,747 79.59 

Participation – Participation has increased substantially in the second year of the 

program, across all measures. In PY1, no shell measures were installed, despite a target 

of 135 insulation measures. This may have been due to the recession, insufficient 

incentives, and/or too few contractors certified by BPI. (1) In PY2, lighting measures 

were installed at 2,782 homes; domestic hot water systems were installed at 356 homes, 

and shell measures were installed in 6 homes. (A total of 68 homes had shell measures 
66

installed, but the other homes heated with gas. Gas is covered in a separate report, which

is not yet publicly available.)

PY1 

Participants

PY2 

Participants

Home Energy Audits in Total 769 2,987

Domestic Hot Water Measures Installed in Homes with Electric Water 

Heaters 283 866

Shell Measures Installed in Homes with Electric Heat 0 11

CFLs in Total 4,100 21,543

Net-to-gross – In PY 1, a net-to-gross ratio of 76% was assumed as the default; however, 

in PY2 a net-to-gross ratio of 69% (on average across measures) was calculated, based on 

a participant survey. 

Process Observations/Findings

Most participants are satisfied with the program. However, the shell measure installation rate 

was only 1.2 percent in PY2 and, despite a target of 135 insulation measures, none were installed 

in PY1. Participants indicated the main reason they did not pursue recommended shell measures 

was the cost of the installation. Participants also mentioned that energy advisors often did not 

recommend any shell measures, as their homes already had good insulation. Over 30% of 

participants who installed insulation did so without an audit. One contributing factor may have 

been the presence of a federal tax credit. Program evaluators also observed that incentives need 

more explanation, as these were not well understood by participants, and invoices do not always 

clearly identify the measures installed. (Huang 2011)

Iowa – Black Hills

Report(s) Referenced and/or Reviewed

• Black Hills Energy. (May 2011) Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Programs Annual Report 

2010. Prepared for the Iowa Utilities Board.

Program Description

Black Hills Energy (BHE) has a two-tiered residential audit program, with HPWES component 

being piloted in the community of Council Bluffs in 2010. Both audits provide customers with 
67

recommendations about methods for reducing energy consumption in their homes. Audit 

recommendations may include: 

• Suggested behavioral changes; 

• Suggestions about implementing low-cost, easy-to-install energy-saving equipment; and 

• Suggestions about repairing, upgrading, or replacing larger, relatively expensive 

equipment or systems.

The HPwES audit is a more comprehensive audit than the traditional residential audit, with a 

test-in and test-out component. Each customer within the Council Bluffs area receives this more 

comprehensive audit, although to be considered a HPwES test-in participant, the customer must 

receive a blower door test in addition to the audit.

Free audit participants were offered outlet gaskets, faucet aerators, pipe insulation, low-flow 

showerheads, low-cost infiltration measures, and water heater blankets at no cost. On average, a 

participating customer receives about $30 worth of measures during the audit. In addition, BHE 

distributes a leave-behind packet, which includes information on available programs and 

incentives. BHE also conducts hundreds of follow-up phone calls to customers who have not 

completed recommendations following the audit. 

Program Impact

Cost Effectiveness and Energy Impacts - The table below summarizes overall budget and 

energy impacts for the entire residential audit program. BHE covered the free audit’s entire cost 

as well as costs of low-cost measures distributed during the free audit (a total value equivalent to 

approximately $180 per home). For those opting for an HPwES audit, BHE provided a $200 

reimbursement per participant upon successful completion of the test-out audit. This amount 

offset the participants’ required $100 during the test-in audit to cover blower-door test costs. The 

average cost for HPwES participants was estimated at $500.
68

Budget or Goal Actual Percent Budget or 

Goal Achieved

Participation 2,674 2,049 77% 

Expenditures $416,345 $355,329 85% 

Energy Target (103ft3) 11,984 4,200 35% 

Demand Impacts 

(103ft3/day) 

132 13 10% 

Savings per 

participant were lower 

than the target, and 

this was believed to 

be due to the 

difference between 

assumed versus actual 

measures installed. 

Fewer participants 

received infiltration 

control measures than 

expected, and this 

lowered overall 

savings. Benefit/Cost 

ratios for the entire 

residential audit 

program were 

calculated to be:

Societal Cost Test

0.95

Utility Cost Test 0.79

Ratepayer 0.42

Participant 702.58

Participation 

In 2010, free audit participation was projected at 2,674 participants; actual participation was 

2,049, including test-in audits conducted through the HPwES pilot. Only three customers 

received the test-out audit in 2010. Observations
69

BHE worked with Alliant Energy and MidAmerican Energy with the aim of ensuring uniform 

audit protocols. This small HPwES program only included three participants who fully 

participated, including the test-out audit; thus it is difficult to draw many conclusions from this 

limited information.

Iowa - Interstate Power and Light (Alliant Energy)

Report(s) Referenced and/or Reviewed

• Interstate Power and Light (Alliant) (May 2011) 2010 Annual Report of the Energy 

Efficiency Plan of Interstate Power and Light (Alliant). Prepared for the Iowa Utilities 

Board. http://alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/documents/ 

document/029077.pdf

Program Description

Interstate Power and Light (IPL) began to offer the HPwES for existing homes in three pilot 

communities in 2010. This program’s principal objective is to encourage a more comprehensive, 

whole-house approach to improving energy efficiency and comfort in existing homes. The 

program’s design was guided by the principal objective of maximizing savings achievable from 

each participating home (on average, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, should 

be about 20%) instead of merely promoting individual energy efficiency measures and 

equipment. The following is an overview of the program design:

1. Customers enroll in the program and pay a $99 fee in order to cover a portion of the 

initial audit.

2. A third-party auditor performs a whole-house energy audit that includes a blower door 

test, thermography scan, and air flow and temperature evaluation along with free installed 

measures. The audit establishes current baseline of energy usage and identifies areas for 

improvement. 

3. The customer selects at least three improvement measures from the list of 

recommendations to complete. The measures qualify for any existing rebates that would 

apply.

4. Once improvement measures are complete, the third-party auditor comes back to perform 

a post-completion audit. This audit will verify energy savings. 

5. Following the post-completion audit, customers may receive an additional incentive if 

they achieve as least a 50% overall kWh and therm savings compared to the baseline 

audit.
70

In the spring of 2010, IPL launched its HPwES pilots in the communities of Lisbon, Mount 

Vernon, and Grinnell. All three of these communities are served by IPL for natural gas and 

electricity. This makes for a more comprehensive program for customers, since IPL can address 

both the heating and cooling side of customers’ energy needs.

Program Impact

The reports available did not separately document all the energy impacts and cost effectiveness 

information for the small pilot programs that constituted HPwES in its inaugural year, but it 

counts the launching of this program as a success, and overall, energy efficiency programs were 

deemed cost effective and exceeded program goals. The electric program benefit-cost ratio is 

2.53 and the natural gas program ratio is 2.47, as measured by the societal test. The total plan 

(electric and natural gas) benefit-cost ratio is 2.53 and societal net benefits are $633M. However, 

the HPwES program is not cost effective in the pilot year. 

Participation

Following the program rollout, 20 customers completed the test-in phase of the program; one 

customer followed the program through to the test out phase in 2010. Customers are actively 

engaged in the test-in process, at times even assisting with the data gathering and testing 

procedures. IPL offered multiple audit options for customers to choose from (online audits, 

HPwES, home energy audits, and the Home Energy Savers program), and implemented 

screening protocol to help ensure customers participate in the audit program best equipped to 

meet their needs. 

Observations

The biggest challenge with IPL’s HPwES program is encouraging homeowners to follow 

through on recommended measures. Proactive phone calls reminding customers of findings and 

recommendations has resulted in limited success in the short term. 
DOE/GO-102012-3522 ▪ November 2012

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.