Retrofit Audits and Cost 

Estimates: A Look at 

Quality and Consistency

L. Eisenberg, C. Shapiro, and W. Fleischer 

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings

October 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

Retrofit Audits and Cost Estimates: A Look at Quality and 

Consistency 

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:

Steven Winter Associates, Inc.

& 

Pratt Center for Community Development 

of the 

Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings (CARB) 

61 Washington Street 

Norwalk, CT 06854 

Technical Monitor: Cheryn Metzger

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40342-00 

October 2012 
iv

[This page left blank]
v 

Contents

Contents....................................................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. viii

1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 1

2 Technical Approach and Findings...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Data Collection and Tracking System Development ....................................................................... 3

2.2 Utility Bill Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Audit Report Findings...................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Energy Modeling ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.5 Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Multifamily Buildings (Projects 1–4) .............................................................................................. 8

2.7 Project 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.8 Project 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.9 Audit Analysis Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 13

3 Technical Challenges and Recommendations ............................................................................... 15

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix A: Pratt Retrofit NYC Block by Block Report........................................................................ 17

Appendix B: Example Block by Block Audit Report ............................................................................. 44
vi 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cumulative annual source energy consumption savings by measure............................... 10

Figure 2. Annual modeled and actual site electrical consumption. The modeled consumption is 

shown for existing and proposed cases of the typical building. Actual consumption is 

compiled from the utility bills of the existing buildings................................................................. 11

Unless otherwise noted, all figures were created by CARB. 

List of Tables

Table 1. Utility Service in New York City by Borough ............................................................................. 4

Table 2. Example Audit Recommendations ............................................................................................. 5

Table 3. Cost-Effectiveness Measures for Example Audit Report......................................................... 6

Table 4. Cost Analysis Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 8

Table 5. Fuel Costs and Site-to-Source Ratios ........................................................................................ 8

Table 6. Typical Specifications of Multifamily Buildings ........................................................................ 9

Table 7. Incremental Cost Analysis of Recommended Measures ......................................................... 9

Table 8. Cost Analysis of Multifamily Projects ...................................................................................... 10

Table 9. Existing and Proposed Specifications and Incremental Costs for Project 5 ....................... 12

Table 10. Cost Analysis for Project 5...................................................................................................... 12

Table 11. Existing and Proposed Specifications and Costs for Project 6 .......................................... 13

Table 12. Cost Analysis for Project 6...................................................................................................... 13

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by CARB. 
vii 

Definitions

AC Air conditioning 

AFUE Annual fuel utilization efficiency

BEopt Building Energy Optimization (tool) 

Btu British thermal unit

CARB Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings 

DHW Domestic hot water

EF Energy factor

EGUSA EnergyGauge USA

gal Gallon

h Hour 

in. Inch

kBtu Thousand Btu 

MMBtu Million Btu

MURS Minimum upgrade reference scenario

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NYC New York City

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

o.c. On center

SEER Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

TREAT Targeted Retrofit Energy Analysis Tool

W Watt
viii

Executive Summary Retrofit NYC Block by Block is an outreach program targeting owners of one- to four-family 

homes. With more than 600,000 citywide, these homes are most common building type in New 

York City (NYC). The program is administered by the Pratt Center for Community Development 

and implemented by four nonprofit, community-based organizations. Block by Block connects 

residents, businesses, and religious and civic organizations in predominantly low- and moderateincome neighborhoods with one or more of a half-dozen public and private financial incentive 

programs that facilitate energy efficiency retrofits. 

In this research project, investigators initially sought to evaluate the approach, effectiveness, and 

energy use reductions accomplished by the Retrofit NYC Block by Block Program. An early 

objective of this research was to determine if the measures, their costs, and the achieved savings 

were predictable enough to significantly reduce the use and cost of individualized energy audits 

and expedite the recommendations process. Unfortunately, the program began operating later 

than anticipated and the activity has ramped up more slowly than expected. These factors, along 

with the limited period of performance for this research project, did not allow adequate 

information to be collected on a significant number of retrofit projects. As a result, the initial 

research objective could not be accomplished. 

Instead, with the Block by Block program in the early stage of operation, research efforts 

focused on examining the audit reports for quality, comprehensiveness, and consistency. 

Based on a closer look at six buildings for which utility data were available, two primary areas of 

concern emerged: the energy savings estimates and the costs of the recommended measures. 

Audit results were found to be highly variable even across very similar buildings. 

A review of audit reports found that model predictions and energy savings estimates were high 

and not consistent with actual energy usage data. At a recent Building America team meeting, 

several researchers raised concerns about the accuracy of building simulation programs when 

modeling older, poorly insulated buildings. Most of the modeling tools were developed for new 

construction that performs better. Research into this potential modeling problem is warranted. 

Using utility data to calibrate the existing building model is an often cited approach to improving 

accuracy, but obtaining utility data is difficult and time consuming. In addition, these data are 

often incomplete. It is not apparent that the utility data were entered into the Targeted Retrofit 

Energy Analysis Tool (TREAT) software (a building modeling tool) in the projects reviewed for 

this project. Research toward a process that will make household energy use data readily 

available will enhance future program efforts. 

Across the audit reports reviewed, cost information by energy efficiency measure was highly 

variable. Plausible explanations for the lack of detailed information follow: 

• Auditors are often not qualified to provide contractor pricing for the broad spectrum of 

measures being recommended (i.e., this project revealed that insulation contractors might 

provide a qualified and competitive price for the insulation measures but might only 

furnish ballpark estimates for heating system measures). 
ix

• Significant remediation costs associated with health and safety are included in the energy 

efficiency measure costs.

• Total replacement costs are provided instead of the incremental cost of a more energy 

efficient replacement system.

 

A reliable third-party resource for efficiency measure cost information such as that under 

development by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory could help alleviate the inconsistent 

and unreliable cost information problems. 
1 

1 Project Objectives

Important aspects to achieving Building America goals are understanding retrofit delivery 

practices and the technical challenges involved in implementing packages of efficiency measures 

at the community scale. In this research project, Consortium for Advanced Residential Buildings 

(CARB) investigators initially sought to evaluate the approach, the effectiveness, and the energy 

use reductions accomplished by the Retrofit NYC Block by Block Program. 

 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block is an outreach program administered by the Pratt Center for 

Community Development. It targets owners of one- to four-family homes. With more than 

600,000 structures citywide, these homes are the most common building type in New York City 

(NYC). Four community-based organizations are participating in Block by Block and each 

employs one full-time outreach coordinator. The outreach coordinator connects residents, 

businesses, and religious and civic organizations to incentive programs that facilitate energy 

efficiency retrofits. They work in predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. 

About a half-dozen public and private financial incentive programs are potentially available. The 

organizations that conducted the outreach in this program, funded by the NYC Council, were (1) 

Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn; (2) Chaaya, CDC, 

Jamaica and Jackson Heights, Queens; (3) Neighborhood Housing Services of Staten Island, 

Northern Staten Island; and (4) Sustainable South Bronx, Soundview Section, the Bronx. 

Project personnel hypothesized that one- to four-family homes being targeted within each of the 

four neighborhoods would likely need similar retrofit measures (e.g., roof and cellar insulation, 

pipe insulation, air sealing, weather stripping, lighting and appliances, and low-flow fixtures, 

among others). Even though, over time, variation in the row houses has increased because of 

individual homeowner maintenance and investment, the homes are built at the same time, of the 

same materials, often with the same floor plan. Therefore, an initial objective of this research 

was to determine if the measures, their costs, and the achieved savings were being replicated 

consistently. If so, it might be appropriate to significantly reduce the use and cost of 

individualized energy audits and expedite the recommendations process.

The initial objectives of this research project were designed to answer the following questions: 

• Can row houses of similar types (e.g., steam-heated brownstones) readily achieve similar 

and significant energy use reductions with common retrofit measures?

• Is there a package, or packages, of measures that could be offered on a large scale and 

under what conditions? 

• What are the energy savings of these measures/packages?

• Can the energy savings be reliably predicted?

• Can the measures be reliably implemented with assured energy savings? 

• What barriers are there to mass adoption of this strategy in other neighborhoods? 

• How much would lowering contractor prices and transaction costs reduce the cost to

implement similar measures at a neighborhood scale? 
2 

• Are buildings similar enough (i.e., construction type, heating fuel and equipment, and 

distribution system) and energy performance predictable enough to consider 

circumventing the significant hurdle of utility data collection? 

The NYC Block by Block program began full operation in spring 2011, later than planned, and 

operations have ramped up slowly. No comprehensive retrofits were completed within the period 

of performance of this research project, so none were analyzed in this research. With this change 

in schedule, the scope of the research needed to be adjusted significantly. The final objectives for 

this research were designed to answer the following questions: 

• Are the program audits high in quality, comprehensive, and consistent across different 

providers? 

• Were auditor energy use and savings projections consistent with modeling projections? 

Appendix A contains a report describing the Block by Block Program’s outreach approach and 

accomplishments to date. 
3 

2 Technical Approach and Findings

2.1 Data Collection and Tracking System Development 

To assist the Block by Block community partners in managing participants and monitoring data, 

the Pratt Center for Community Development customized a Web-based tracking system on the 

Salesforce platform. CARB personnel helped create the tracking system by offering 

recommendations for data items to be collected. Because data were being extracted from a 

variety of different sources, across several programs, it was important to define what information 

was necessary to record for analysis purposes. Building on knowledge from previous research 

and a review of the various audit reports and energy models, CARB advised on critical building 

characteristics, utility-related inputs, and energy conservation measures for which data fields 

were developed. 

Pratt’s database system became available online to its partners in July 2011 after an extensive 

development period. The system is a unique database of building characteristics, energy use data, 

audit information, and retrofit implementation activity for NYC’s small homes. The database 

captures energy assessment and retrofit information across all incentive programs (New York 

State Energy Research and Development Authority [NYSERDA], utility, city, and state and 

federal programs). Pratt representatives are currently investigating how to make this database 

tool available to other neighborhood retrofit campaigns. 

Pratt staffers are interested in continuing to analyze project data for lessons learned on outreach, 

program design, and retrofit measures for urban properties. This project meant to test the

hypothesis that similar building types require similar types of retrofits. It was also intended to 

generate ideas about program design that would maximize impact for public dollars invested in 

housing retrofits. Data collection and entry into the tracking system is a step toward this end, as 

monitoring and evaluation of building features and energy conservation measures continue to 

take place at a neighborhood scale. 

2.2 Utility Bill Collection and Analysis

Originally, when this research project was devised, CARB intended to evaluate the utility bills 

collected for each project in the Salesforce tracking system. Looking at energy usage data, 

namely fuel and electric bills, can yield a quantifiable understanding of each building in terms of 

utility consumption and offer a way to compare a building against industry benchmarks. 

Although it would be difficult to tease out savings from individual retrofit measures, a utility bill 

analysis can identify how each building is performing, assess pre- and post-retrofit usage, and 

normalize for weather patterns. 

The Block by Block program requests homeowner permission to view electricity (Con Edison) 

and gas (National Grid or Con Edison) utility accounts as part of the intake process. Con 

Edison’s website allows customers to access bills for the past two years by logging in with an 

account number, which is displayed on a hard copy bill. National Grid data are more difficult to 

obtain because the website requires a username and password, which have to be set up by the 

primary account holder. Even though most homeowners gave their permission to view their 

accounts, a number of hurdles made the information difficult to gather and analyze. 
4 

The utility companies did not respond favorably to requests to obtain energy use data for the 

accounts of homeowners who had given their permission. Therefore, to access the data, Pratt 

staff and interns had to go online to individually download information month by month for each 

account. For electric accounts, this was further complicated by the estimated use numbers versus

actual and variable billing periods. For the National Grid accounts, that company’s requirement 

for an online password to access the account presented an additional hurdle. Because the 

majority of homeowners either did not set up a National Grid online account or because they 

were not comfortable sharing their password, retrieving National Grid data resulted in 

information from few accounts. Analyzing and comparing utility use information would have 

been useful, but insufficient data were available to do so. 

Con Edison and National Grid are the two main utility companies that serve the five 

boroughs where the Block by Block program is active. Con Ed provides both electricity 

and natural gas service to Manhattan and Bronx residents, but delivers only electricity to 

Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island; natural gas in these areas is supplied by National 

Grid (see Table 1). 

Table 1. Utility Service in New York City by Borough

Borough Electricity Natural Gas

Manhattan Con Edison Con Edison

Bronx Con Edison Con Edison

Brooklyn Con Edison National Grid

Queens Con Edison National Grid

Staten Island Con Edison National Grid

The Block by Block program did not attempt to capture use for oil customers. Because there are 

several oil providers in NYC, tracking down individual oil records for each building would have 

been labor intensive and tedious. In addition, there is often variability with oil deliveries and 

dates, making records challenging to piece together. 

CARB found that these issues prohibited performing a utility bill analysis, but those with 

complete utility records (which were located in Con Ed territory in Manhattan and the Bronx), 

were prioritized for energy modeling analysis. 

2.3 Audit Report Findings

To better understand the audit findings beyond what was documented in the database, CARB 

looked at a sample of six audit reports to evaluate the effectiveness of the audit recommendations 

for the Block by Block program. Four projects are very similar multifamily buildings, which 

were constructed in the late 1980s and located within one superblock. Two of the projects are 

single-family homes constructed in 1920 that are located near the other four buildings. 

The audit reports were prepared by one contractor working under the Green Jobs-Green New 

York Program administered by NYSERDA. The contractor is accredited by the Building 

Performance Institute as required by the program and there is no reason to believe that the firm is 

not representative of standard industry practices. 
5 

Unfortunately, CARB was unable to physically inspect the buildings to verify the specifications 

reported in the energy audits. 

The audit reports typically recommend several measures and list the costs associated with 

installing these measures. The measures are then commonly grouped into two or three packages 

with one package including all suggested measures. Table 2 shows an example of audit 

recommendation packages from one of the four multifamily building audits, and Table 3 gives

the associated cost-effectiveness measures. This audit report is fairly typical of the retrofit 

recommendations in the six audits. The auditor used the Targeted Retrofit Energy Analysis Tool 

(TREAT), a building modeling tool, to calculate retrofit savings. Appendix B contains a sample 

report for a multifamily building. 

Table 2. Example Audit Recommendations

Measure Nonenergy Benefits Package 1

($)

Package 2

($)

Package 3

($) 

Install 7.25 in. of Fiberglass 

Floor Insulation (R-24)

Improve comfort, increase 

value of building 1,950 1,950 

Reduce Infiltration from 

4,845 CFM50 to 3,500 

CFM50

Reduce drafts 3,000 3,000 3,000 

Install 2-Ton 18 SEER 

Cooling System Increase value of building 3,500 

Install Programmable 

Thermostats

Improve comfort, improve 

convenience 240 240 240 

Install 55 kBtu/h, 95% 

AFUE Heating System Increased equity 4,000 4,000 

Install 55 kBtu/h, 95% 

AFUE Heating System Increased equity 4,000 4,000 

Install New Double Pane 

Sliding Door 

Improve comfort (reduce 

drafts), increase value of 

building

2,000 

Install 47 New 15-W 

Fluorescent Light Fixtures Reduce maintenance costs 470 470 470 

Install 1 Low-Flow Reduce water use 100 100 100

Lengthen DHW Discharge 

Pipe

Improve air quality and 

comfort 200 200 200 

Notes: CFM50 is the air flow in cubic feet per minute induced by a 50 Pascal pressure from blower door operation.

SEER, seasonal energy efficiency ratio; AFUE, annual fuel utilization efficiency; DHW, domestic hot water
6 

Table 3. Cost-Effectiveness Measures for Example Audit Report

Measure Package 1 Package 2 Package 3

Total Installed Cost ($) 19,460 8,010 9,960

Annual Energy Cost Savings ($) 915 707 760

Annual Kilowatt-Hour Savings ($) 3,454 2,799 2,699

Total Energy Savings (MMBtu) 37.0 27.6 32.1

Simple Payback (Years) 21.3 11.3 13.1

Savings to Investment Ratio 0.7 1.1 1.1

By looking at the audit reports for these Block by Block projects, CARB discovered several

issues with the audit reports, including lack of transparency in cost effectiveness per measure, 

inclusion of non-energy-related measures in cost-effectiveness savings, and a number of overly 

expensive measures. Although these issues can vary in degree and manifestation, they are 

common throughout all of the audits. 

The primary issue with these audit reports is that the cost effectiveness of each measure is not 

clearly reported, which makes it difficult for homeowners to select which measures are the best 

options out of the entire suggested package. The three packages listed in the six reports reviewed 

appeared to be an arbitrary collection of upgrades. Packages are not presented systematically 

from most to least cost effective. 

The cost-effectiveness calculations for each measure are also clouded by non-energy-related 

measures, which reduce the cost effectiveness of the entire package. In many cases, these 

measures can be justified for health, safety, or cosmetic reasons, but will not reduce energy use. 

For all audit reports reviewed, some safety-related measures that may not be high-impact energy 

efficiency measures included: 

• DHW pipe replacement ($200) 

• Repair of hole in boiler room ceiling ($200) 

• Door replacement ($1,000–$1,500) 

• Sliding door replacement ($2,000) 

• Aluminum flashing to fix roof leak ($2,000) 

• Safety valve ($100)

• Safety pipe ($100) 

• Missing radiator ($250) 

• Carbon monoxide detectors ($360 each) 

• Installation of windows with similar specs to existing windows ($500–$4,800). 

Some of these measures have limited energy savings potential and questionable cost 

effectiveness. For example, installing a new double pane sliding door or replacing windows with 

new windows of similar performance are not cost effective based on energy savings alone. These 
7 

measures may have been suggested for cosmetic or repair reasons, but should be excluded from 

cost-effectiveness calculations. 

Finally, several audits included expensive upgrades that are not justified by energy savings. 

These costs seem expensive in comparison to typical costs and the reasons for these high costs 

are unknown. Examples of expensive upgrades include the following: 

 Exterior wall insulation improvement from R-7 to R-15 ($8,360) 

 Floor insulation from R-10 to R-33 ($8,960) 

 Door replacement ($1,000–$1,500). 

2.4 Energy Modeling 

To further analyze the appropriateness of the predicted energy savings and the cost effectiveness 

of the suggested retrofit packages, CARB performed energy modeling of the six selected Retrofit 

NYC projects discussed previously (four two-unit [multifamily] and two single-family homes in 

the Bronx). CARB used information from the audit reports, city assessor’s records, and Google 

Earth to develop energy models. Audit reports were used to establish the pre- and post-retrofit 

specifications. Google Earth and the assessor’s records were used to establish building 

geometries. The two single-family buildings were modeled using the Building Energy 

Optimization (BEopt) tool.1

 The four multifamily buildings were modeled in EnergyGauge USA 

(EGUSA) because BEopt cannot model multifamily dwellings.2

 

2.5 Analysis Methodology 

All cost analyses were performed using the method outlined by Polly et al. (2011) and all nonenergy-related measures were excluded. In their analysis a minimum upgrade reference scenario 

(MURS) is used as the baseline. 

The MURS begins with the existing building at the start of the analysis period and 

assumes all equipment that wears out over the analysis period is replaced with the 

same level of efficiency or the current minimum standard, whichever is more 

efficient. Minimum upgrades are assumed for the reference building so as not to 

take credit for energy efficiency improvements that would have otherwise 

occurred through natural wear-out and replacement. In this sense, the MURS is 

the minimum that a homeowner could do to their house over the analysis period 

assuming that standards in the future will require at least the current level of 

efficiency. (Polly et al. 2011, p.10) 

Because the equipment in these buildings was older than the predicted lifetime of typical 

systems, all analyses were performed assuming that the existing equipment was at the end of its 

lifetime. Cost analyses were performed with an assumed real discount rate of 3%, an inflation 

rate of 3%, and an assumption that all measures are installed using a 5-year loan with a 7% 

interest rate, as shown in Table 4. 

 

1

 See http://beopt.nrel.gov/ for more information. 2

 See http://www.energygauge.com/ for more information on EGUSA. 
8 

Table 4. Cost Analysis Assumptions

Analysis Period (years) 30

Inflation Rate (%) 3

Loan Rate (%) 7

Loan Period (years) 5 

All energy savings analyses are performed using source energy. Energy usage is usually 

measured in site energy, which is the energy used at the home, typically measured at a utility 

meter in units of kilowatt-hours (electricity), therms (natural gas), or gallons (fuel oil or 

propane). Source energy, though, which is the sum of energy used at the home and the energy 

lost to extraction, conversion, or transmission, is a better metric for measuring energy usage. Site 

energy can be easily converted to source energy using a site-to-source ratio (Deru and Torcellini 

2007) for the given fuel. Table 5 shows assumed fuel costs and site-to-source ratios. 

Table 5. Fuel Costs and Site-to-Source Ratios 

Fuel Cost Site-to-Source Ratio

Electricity $0.161/kWh 3.365

Natural Gas $1.42/therm 1.092

Fuel Oil $3.44/gal 1.158

2.6 Multifamily Buildings (Projects 1–4)

The four multifamily buildings are each composed of two apartments in three-story buildings 

with a total square footage of 2,325 per building. These buildings are located within one 

superblock that occupies approximately 12.7 acres and contains approximately 200 buildings. 

Most of these buildings, which were built in the late 1980s, have the same appearance, 

configuration, and size. These buildings represent an excellent opportunity to investigate the 

possibility of implementing identical measures on a large number of buildings with nearly 

identical specifications.

 

Because these buildings have similar specifications and the audit reports suggested similar 

measures for each building, the effectiveness of each measure was compared using a model that 

represents the “typical” building. Table 6 gives the specifications for this typical building. The 

suggested audit reports typically include floor insulation, 32% infiltration reduction, highefficacy lighting, and high-efficiency space-conditioning equipment. 
9 

Table 6. Typical Specifications of Multifamily Buildings

Specifications Existing Proposed

Exterior Walls R-13, 2 × 4, 16-in. on center (o.c.) —

Exterior Finish Vinyl siding —

Roofing Material Built-up roofing —

Ceiling/Attic R-24 —

Foundation Crawlspace, 2 × 8 with no insulation R-24 floor insulation

Window Area 20% —

Window Type Double clear aluminum -

Infiltration (CFM50) 4,945 3,375

Ventilation None —

Appliances All standard —

Lighting 37% fluorescent 100% fluorescent 

Cooling Room AC, SEER 10 Central AC, SEER 18

Heating 80% AFUE 95% AFUE

Ducts Distribution efficiency = 100% —

Water Heater Natural gas, EF = 0.57 —

To analyze the cost effectiveness of the auditor-recommended measures, each measure was 

isolated in the model to determine the annual utility bill savings. The costs of the measures based 

on the audit reports were compared to the cost of the MURS based on the costs and lifetimes 

published in the National Residential Energy Efficiency Measures Database (NREL 2011). All 

existing equipment was assumed to be at the end of its life. Table 7 shows the utility bill savings, 

annualized savings, and cost and lifetime assumptions. The analysis revealed that lighting, 

infiltration reduction, and floor insulation are cost-effective measures. Space-conditioning 

upgrades alone are not cost effective, costing an annualized $301 per year. The total annualized 

savings for the package of measures, however, is $600 per year. 

Table 7. Incremental Cost Analysis of Recommended Measures

Cost of 

Measure

(Proposed, 

$)

Measure 

Lifetime

(Proposed, 

years)

Cost of 

Measure 

(MURS, $) 

Lifetime of 

Measure 

(MURS, 

years)

Utility 

Bill 

Savings 

($)

Annualized 

Savings 

($)

Lighting 380 9 168 1 201 516

Infiltration 1,850 999 0 999 134 194

Floor 

Insulation 1,950 999 0 999 133 191 

Heating 8,000 20 3,413 20 65 (272)

Cooling 3,050 14 806 10.5 555 (29)

Figure 1 shows cumulative source energy consumption by measure. Each bar represents the

sequential addition of a measure. The cooling system bar farthest to the right includes all 

measures. Total source energy savings for the entire package is 31%. 
10 

Figure 1. Cumulative annual source energy consumption savings by measure

This analysis is representative of the typical multifamily building and applies to projects 1

through 4. 

Table 8 gives the cost analysis for the total packages in all four projects. The total cost is the sum 

reported by the auditor, including nonenergy-related measures. The modeled cost is the sum of 

the reported costs for the specific energy measures modeled. The differences among the project 

results are largely attributable to differences in the costs of the recommended measures and some 

slight variation in the recommended measures. It is unclear why there was such a large difference 

in the measure costs given that the same contractor performed all of the audits. 

Table 8. Cost Analysis of Multifamily Projects

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4

Auditor-Reported Total Cost ($) 12,040 19,460 17,760 15,440

Modeled Cost (Energy Measures Only, $) 8,145 11,615 12,855 7,295

Annual Modeled Utility Bill Savings ($) 781 728 867 569

Source Energy Savings (% Over Existing) 26 31 32 24

Annualized Savings ($) 662 468 534 178

Annualized Rate of Return (Real, %) 11 6 7 5

Simple Payback (Years) 10.43 15.95 14.83 12.82

A comparison of the modeled and actual site energy consumption raises concerns about the 

predicted cooling savings generated by EGUSA. Figure 2 shows a comparison between the 

modeled energy consumption of the typical building against the actual utility bills for the 

94

92

83

74

69

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Existing + Lighting + Infiltration + Floor Insulation + Heating + Cooling

Annual Source Energy (mmBTU)

Misc. Appliances (G) Appliances(E) Lighting DHW HVAC Fan Cooling Heating
11 

projects. No effort was made to adjust the utility bills for weather. The discrepancy between the 

modeled and actual energy savings during the winter months is understandable because of

expected differences in the usage patterns of lighting, appliances, and miscellaneous loads. 

Figure 2. Annual modeled and actual site electrical consumption. The modeled consumption is 

shown for existing and proposed cases of the typical building. Actual consumption is compiled 

from the utility bills of the existing buildings. 

The very large difference between the modeled and actual electricity consumption during the 

summer months, however, is most likely caused by the typical usage patterns for window AC 

units. Kempton et al. (1987) showed that most owners of room AC run their units in an on/off 

pattern, turning on the unit only when the residents are home and cooling is needed. Residents 

who run their units thermostatically (using the thermostat), used nearly three times the electricity 

of the other residents. As a result, installing thermostatically controlled central AC in these units 

could actually increase the electricity usage of the building. Although the cooling system 

upgrade may increase comfort, it appears to increase rather than decrease energy use. 

2.7 Project 5

Project 5 is a 1,552-ft2, two-story, single-family home constructed in 1920. The building, which 

is heated with a natural gas furnace, was modeled in BEopt. Table 9 gives the existing 

specifications, proposed specifications, and costs. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Electricity (kWh)

Modeled Existing Modeled Proposed Project 1

Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
12 

Table 9. Existing and Proposed Specifications and Incremental Costs for Project 5

Specifications Existing Proposed Cost ($)

Exterior Walls R-13, 2 × 4, 16-in.o.c. 

(derated to R-7)

R-17, 5.5-in.fiberglass 

(derated to R-15) 8,360 

Exterior Finish Stone – –

Roofing Material Light asphalt – –

Ceiling/Attic R-10, 2 × 4, 16-in.o.c. R-33, 2 × 4, 10-in.

cellulose 8,960 

Foundation Uninsulated basement – –

Window Area 15% – –

Window Type Double clear – –

Infiltration 

(CFM50) 5700 4700 2,000 

Ventilation Spot vent – –

Appliances All standard – –

Lighting 0% fluorescent 100% fluorescent 560

Cooling 9 SEER 

(modeled as SEER 10) – – 

Heating Natural gas, AFUE = 84% – –

Ducts 100% distribution 

efficiency – – 

Water Heater Natural gas, 59% Low-flow shower head 100

Despite the large costs of some of the measures, as discussed in Section 2.3, the recommended 

measures produced an annualized savings of $899 and an annualized rate of return of 7%. 

Table 10. Cost Analysis for Project 5

Auditor Reported Total Cost ($) 22,580

Modeled Cost (Energy Measures Only, $) 19,980

Annual Modeled Utility Bill Savings ($) 463

Source Energy Savings (% Over Existing) 16

Annualized Savings ($) 899

Annualized Rate of Return (Real, %) 7

Simple Payback (Years) 43.2

2.8 Project 6

Project 6 is a 1,312-ft2, two-story, single-family home constructed in 1920. The building, which 

is heated with a fuel oil boiler, was modeled in BEopt. Table 11 shows the existing 

specifications, proposed specifications, and costs. 
13 

Table 11. Existing and Proposed Specifications and Costs for Project 6

Specifications Existing Post-Retrofit Cost ($)

Exterior Walls Uninsulated, 2 × 6, 

24-in. o.c.

R-19, 2 × 6, 

5.5-in. cellulose 6,876 

Exterior Finish Siding – –

Roofing Material Dark asphalt – –

Ceiling/Attic Uninsulated, 2 × 6, 

24-in. o.c. R-30, 2 × 6, 24-in. o.c. 2,000 

Foundation Uninsulated basement – –

Window Area 15% – –

Window Type Double clear – –

Infiltration (CFM50) 4,400 3,000 2,800

Ventilation Spot vent – -

Appliances All standard – -

Lighting 40% fluorescent 100% fluorescent 270

Cooling SEER 10 – –

Heating Fuel oil boiler 73% – –

Ducts None – –

Water Heater Fuel oil,indirect off boiler 

62% – – 

The audit recommendations produced an annualized savings of $2,593 and a rate of return of 

30%, as shown in Table 12. These robust savings are likely the result of the high cost of fuel oil 

and the low insulation levels of the existing house. 

Table 12. Cost Analysis for Project 6

Auditor Reported Total Cost ($) 21,926

Modeled Cost (Energy Measures Only, $) 12,946

Annual Modeled Utility Bill Savings ($) 1,643

Source Energy Savings (% Over Existing) 36

Annualized Savings ($) 2,593

Annualized Rate of Return (Real, %) 30

Simple Payback (Years) 7.88

2.9 Audit Analysis Conclusions

The modeled results show energy savings of 16%—32% over the existing buildings, along with 

real annualized rates of return greater than 5%. For most projects, however, the simple payback 

periods are extremely long. In most cases, the annualized savings from lighting are dominating 

the analysis because of savings from replacement costs over the life of the fixtures. The spaceconditioning system upgrades are not cost effective on their own. 

Although these projects are cost effective according to modeled energy savings, audit reports 

should be improved to address several issues. CARB’s observations and recommendations to 

auditors are as follows: 
14 

• Most audits included measures that will not save energy. These measures need to be 

separated to make clear that they are for cosmetic or health and safety reasons only. 

• Window upgrades in general could not be justified because there was no improvement in 

the specifications of the windows. Quoted prices in some cases were far too high for the 

listed upgrade, and it is unclear how much of the cost is apportioned to maintenance, 

health, or safety. 

• Auditors included the total price of the measure in their cost analyses. Generally, because 

these buildings have very old systems, the pricing should be compared to the replacement 

cost. 
15 

3 Technical Challenges and Recommendations 

With the Block by Block program in the early stage of operation, research efforts focused on 

examining the limited number of audit reports available for quality, comprehensiveness, and 

consistency. Based on a closer look at six buildings for which utility data were available, two 

primary areas of concern emerged: the energy savings estimates and the costs of the 

recommended measures. Audit results were found to be highly variable even across very similar 

buildings. 

A review of audit reports found that model predictions and energy savings estimates were high 

and not consistent with actual energy usage data. At a recent Building America team meeting,

several researchers raised concerns about the accuracy of building simulation programs when 

modeling older, poorly insulated buildings. Most of the modeling tools were developed for new 

construction that performs better. Research into this potential modeling problem is warranted.

Using utility data to calibrate the existing building model is an often cited approach to improving

accuracy, but it is not apparent that the utility data was entered into the TREAT software in the 

projects reviewed. Obtaining utility data is difficult, time consuming, and often incomplete even 

when obtained. Research towards a process that will make household energy use data readily 

available will enhance future program efforts. 

Measure cost information is highly variable and there are many plausible explanations including: 

• Auditors are often not qualified to provide contractor pricing for the broad spectrum of 

measures being recommended (i.e., this project revealed that insulation contractors might

provide a qualified and competitive price for the insulation measures but might only 

furnish ballpark estimates for heating system measures).

• Significant remediation costs associated with health and safety are included in the energy 

efficiency measure costs.

• Total replacement costs are provided instead of the incremental cost of a more energy 

efficient replacement system. 

A reliable third-party resource for efficiency measure cost information such as that under 

development by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory could help alleviate the inconsistent 

and unreliable cost information problems. 
16 

Bibliography

Deru, M.; Torcellini, P. (2007). Source Energy and Emission Factors for Energy Use in 

Buildings. NREL/TP-550-38617. Golden, CO: NREL.

Kempton, W.; Feuermann, D.; McGarity, A. (1987). “Air Conditioner User Behavior in a 

Master-Metered Apartment Building.” Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Improving 

Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates. College Station, TX: Energy Systems Laboratory.

NREL (2011). “National Residential Efficiency Measures Database: Retrofit Measures for Duct 

Sealing.” http://www.nrel.gov/ap/retrofits/measures.cfm?gId=2&ctId=17. Accessed October 4, 

2011. 

Polly, B.; Gestwick, M.; Bianchi, M.; Anderson, R.; Horowitz, S.; Christensen, C.; Judkoff, R. 

(2011). A Method for Determining Optimal Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Packages. 

DOE/GO-102011-3261. Golden, CO: NREL. 
17 

Appendix A: Pratt Retrofit NYC Block by Block Report
A Laboratory for Retrofitting 

New York City Neighborhoods

Pratt Center for Community Development

4/24/2012

18
1 

The Pratt Center for Community Development works for a more just, equitable, and sustainable 

city for all New Yorkers by empowering communities to plan for and realize their futures. 

As part of Pratt Institute, we leverage professional skills - especially planning, architecture and public 

policy - to support community-based organizations in their efforts to improve neighborhood quality of 

life, attack the causes of poverty and inequality, and advance sustainable development. 

The Center was founded at the birth of the community development movement, as the first universitybased advocacy planning and design center in the U.S. For almost 50 years, we have helped community 

groups revitalize their neighborhoods, create and preserve affordable housing, build childcare and 

community centers, and improve their environment. We have trained hundreds of community leaders 

and organizations to implement effective community development strategies, and supported a wide 

array of successful public policy and community planning efforts. 

Growing awareness of the threat of climate change and its urgency is evident at not only the policy level 

but at the street level. We have seen again and again that the residents of New York City want to be part 

of the solution and make their contribution to addressing the challenges of climate change. Pratt is 

responding to both the policy and the demands of our constituents by weaving sustainable development 

objectives throughout our work, from community based planning to industrial development. 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block uses and the community outreach and organizing strategies of the 

community development field to address global warming and to promote energy savings and 

environmental conservation in New York City’s neighborhoods. The initiative is coordinated with Pratt’s 

Energy $mart Communities contract with the New York State Energy and Research Development 

Authority (NYSERDA), and the Brooklyn Greens initiative launched in collaboration with the Brooklyn 

Community Foundation. In addition, Pratt Center also provides technical assistance to community 

based organizations that conduct outreach under NYSERDA’s Green Jobs Green New York initiative. 

These programs employ research and demonstration, education and information dissemination, policy 

advocacy, and technical assistance to help maintain affordable housing, improve public health and 

stimulate economic development in low-income neighborhoods. 

Pratt Center appreciates the amazing commitment and skills of the people and community-based 

organizations that make this work possible. Retrofit NYC Block by Block is implemented by: 

 Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation 

 Chhaya CDC 

 Sustainable South Bronx 

 Neighborhood Housing Services of Staten Island1

 

1

 This report covers the work done by organizations funded by New York City Council Speaker Christine 

Quinn. Other retrofit campaigns undertaken by Cypress Hills LDC and El Puente CDC and funded 

separately are not covered in this report.

19
2 

Pratt’s sustainability services work is supported by: 

 New York City Council 

 The Brooklyn Community Foundation 

 Con Edison 

 Deutsche Bank of Americas Foundation 

 The Gimbel Foundation 

 Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

 New York State Energy and Research Development Authority 

 The Scherman Foundation 

 State Farm 

 Steven Winter Associates 

 Con Edison 

 National Grid 

 

20
3 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block: A Laboratory for Retrofitting Urban Neighborhoods

I. Executive Summary 

Through Retrofit NYC Block by Block, Pratt Center for Community Development partnered with four 

community development corporations to increase home energy upgrades in New York City through 

community-based outreach and engagement. The project enabled our partners, Bedford Stuyvesant 

Restoration Corporation (Restoration), Chhaya CDC, NHS of Staten Island and Sustainable South Bronx, 

to hire a staff person to educate and recruit residents to retrofit their properties and to partner with 

contractors to facilitate the hiring of local residents in jobs created by increased demand for retrofits.2

 

Pratt Center developed a web-based tracking system to capture program data, convened the groups in 

person to best practices and problem-solve challenges, and provided extensive technical support for 

their efforts. 

Eleven months into full implementation, the project, particularly the strategy of cultivating early 

adopters as ambassadors, increased uptake of incentive programs in the targeted neighborhoods. 

Nearly 600 homeowners signed up to participate, 207 homeowners received completed energy 

assessments of their homes and 105 have implemented energy upgrades. Ten job trainees have been 

hired by the two contractors working as partners in the campaigns and more recently, Bedford 

Stuyvesant Restoration hired their first eight employees in their new retrofit and home improvement 

company, HouseLift by Restoration. 

While these numbers represent an uptick in participation in retrofit programs, these outcomes do not 

reflect the project’s much higher goals. Although momentum continues to build, our results to date 

suggest that in New York City, where home retrofits have historically lagged behind the rest of the state, 

community outreach strategies alone are not sufficient to catalyze a level of activity commensurate with 

the need. 

High on the list of obstacles was the barrier of up-front costs for the improvements by low- and 

moderate-income homeowners. Beginning in spring 2012, our partners will promote the new, 

innovative financing tool, on-bill recovery, which will enable homeowners to pay for energy 

improvements on their utility bills. This dual intervention will be rolled out during the last months of 

Retrofit Block by Block and as part of an expanded community outreach effort funded by the New York 

State Energy Research and Development Authority’s Green Jobs Green New York Program. It will be 

critically important to realize the potential of on-bill recovery to overcome the hurdle of up-front costs 

by making it widely and easily available. We are hopeful that this combination of outreach and lowcost/low-risk financing will create a significant uptick in home retrofits. In addition, we are pleased to 

 

2

 A fifth organization, Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation also implemented the Block by Block strategy 

under the Brooklyn Community Foundation funded Brooklyn Greens Initiative. Their data was not yet available at 

the time of this report. 

21
4 

have been constructive in building capacity among New York City’s nonprofits to engage their 

communities in retrofitting their housing. 

At the same time, other obstacles related to the nature of New York City’s housing stock and contracting 

industry suggest that exploration of alternative strategies for dramatically increasing the level of 

retrofits and related jobs is also warranted. More than half the small homes have two to four units, 

complicating program intake and implementation. Further, the home improvement contracting industry 

in New York City is more fragmented and organized by trade more than it may be in other parts of the 

state, making the comprehensive audit approach more difficult to implement here. 

Pratt Center plans to research alternative approaches to increasing retrofits. This report describes our 

initiative including the obstacles and opportunities we encountered and offers some lessons and 

recommendations for increasing retrofits among New York City’s small homes. Promising ideas for 

further development include: 

 Standardize retrofit packages and aggregate installment for similar housing types; 

 Improve methods to easily track and report on energy savings 

 Increase regulation at key points, e.g., sale, home improvement, replacement of major systems; 

 Integrate energy efficiency upgrades into the home improvement industry 

 Intervene at the time of heating and hot water system replacements 

 Make the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) more widely available and determine 

eligibility by census tract in low-income, urban neighborhoods 

 Integrate weatherization funds with other financing for affordable, healthy homes to address 

needed capital repairs and health issues 

II. Introduction 

Over 600,000 of New York City’s million buildings are one- to four-family homes. These buildings knit 

together block after block of New York City’s residential neighborhoods, house approximately 38% of 

the city’s residents and generate about 17% 3

 of the city’s carbon emissions. Virtually all of these homes 

would benefit from upgrades to reduce the use of heating fuel, electricity and water. Wide-scale 

retrofits would also reduce owner and tenant costs for heating, electricity and water, improve housing 

durability, safety and comfort, and reduce other emissions and excess sewage while adding muchneeded jobs for neighborhood residents. 

The Pratt Center for Community Development created Retrofit NYC Block by Block as a research and 

demonstration program to learn about the obstacles and opportunities to generating retrofits at 

neighborhood scale and to test strategies to increasing retrofits to further both our community 

development and sustainability mission. Through this initiative, funded by the New York City Council, 

Pratt subcontracts with four neighborhood-based organizations to run campaigns to educate and 

 

3

 PlaNYC 2011 Carbon Emissions Inventory (based on 2009 data). 

22
5 

engage homeowners about how even small improvements can benefit health, housing affordability and 

the environment and to enlist homeowners and tenants in the available retrofit incentive programs. 

Retrofit NYC is supported by funding from the New York City Council and 

administered through a contract with the New York City Department of 

Housing Preservation and Development. The project works in tandem with 

the Brooklyn Greens initiative, supported by the Brooklyn Community 

Foundation, which also employs a block by block strategy to retrofit 

neighborhood homes. The initiative was seeded by and benefits from the 

New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) 

Energy $mart Communities program, which Pratt coordinates in Brooklyn 

and Queens. Retrofit NYC Block by Block relies on existing retrofit incentive 

programs to underwrite the cost of implementing retrofit measures. These 

include the NYSERDA Green Jobs Green New York Program, the National 

Grid Enhanced Home Air Sealing and Insulation Program (discontinued in 

September 2011), the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 

and other programs such as NYSERDA EmPower NY and the Con Edison 

Direct Install programs (see incentive program descriptions in the 

appendix). Steven Winter Associates provided some assistance analyzing 

our data through a US Department of Energy Building America contract that ended October 31, 2011. 

II. Retrofit NYC Block by Block 

Rationale 

The financial, environmental, health and even personal comfort benefits of retrofitting have been 

known for years, if not decades. However, Pratt Center saw relatively low uptake of the retrofit 

incentives from our efforts to enlist building owners through presentations at public meetings and 

website resources. Pratt staff observed the following barriers: 

1) General lack of awareness about the benefits of energy retrofits: Although the federally funded 

Weatherization Assistance program has been retrofitting buildings for thirty years, it is not 

common practice to undertake energy assessments or improvements to reduce energy use 

among New York City’s homeowners. 

2) Multiple financing options are difficult to navigate: A variety of city, state, federal and utility 

programs and tax incentives are available but there is no one place where homeowners can 

receive information or get guidance on all the options to figure out which is best for them. Most 

homeowners do not know their options. 

3) High up-front costs: The energy assessments generated through Retrofit NYC typically 

recommend improvements ranging from $1,000 to as much as $52,000. For most residents, 

even if the energy savings are projected to pay off those costs in a reasonable amount of time, 

the required upfront investment is prohibitive. In the current economy, many homeowners are 

Figure 1A Bronx resident telling 

her neighbor about her energy 

assessment and Home Tune-up 

Retrofit.

23
6 

reluctant to take loans, even low interest loans, particularly in neighborhoods that have seen 

large numbers of foreclosures.4

 

In 2009, Pratt collaborated with the Bedford Restoration Corporation to create a pilot project to offer all 

the residents on two contiguous city blocks free, comprehensive energy assessments to provide 

homeowners with an individualized set of recommendations to make their homes more energy efficient, 

healthy, safe and comfortable. Our premise was that neighborhood-based education and outreach 

could stimulate uptake, while lowering costs and generating jobs. We followed-up each energy audit 

with individualized assistance to access financial incentives. Seventeen homes on those blocks were 

audited and 13 implemented some of the measures via comprehensive retrofits, free installation by 

Restorations Justice Corps workforce program or homeowner implemented work. The contractor in the 

pilot lowered their standard audit fees to participate. In addition 48 free street trees were planted on 

the blocks through NYC’s MillionTrees program and the community garden and church on the block 

were upgraded by Restoration Corporation’s Justice Corps program. 

On July 1, 2010, the New York City Council awarded Pratt funds to expand our initial pilot project to 

include retrofit outreach campaigns in four 

neighborhoods, Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn; 

Jamaica, Queens; NHS Staten Island; 

Soundview, Bronx. The Retrofit NYC Block by 

Block project: 

 Relies on community development 

corporations to tap their 

neighborhood’s networks -- block 

associations, religious institutions, civic 

associations, and community boards to 

increase awareness and educate 

residents. The community organizations identify and cultivate early adopters to be local 

champions for home upgrades for energy savings to increase awareness through trusted 

neighborhood agents. 

 Provides individualized assistance to residents to find the best package of incentives to meet 

their needs, follows through with residents to explain their energy assessment and encourage 

them to implement high impact retrofits, facilitating their use of an optimum package of 

incentives. 

 Partners with contractors who demonstrate a high level of competency and customer service as 

a means to lower upfront costs and negotiate job opportunities for neighborhood residents. 

 Refers neighborhood residents to jobs with participating contractors. 

 

4

On-bill recovery, a mechanism that enables homeowners to pay for their retrofits on their utility bills was not 

available during the period covered by this report. 

24
7 

 Collects and analyzes outreach building, audit and retrofit data through a shared, web-based 

tracking system to learn about best practices in outreach, audits and retrofits for the one- to 

four-family housing stock.

Implementation 

In November 2010, Pratt Center and our four community partners announced the Retrofit NYC Block by 

Block initiative with City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Because of delays in the contracting process, 

the community partners were not able to hire their outreach workers until early 2011, with the 

exception of Restoration, which had already hired an outreach worker in fall 2010 using funding from 

the Brooklyn Community Foundation. To prepare the new hires, Pratt Center provided a three-day 

training session which included an overview of building science and retrofit measures, existing retrofit 

incentives and programs, the process of conducting an energy audit and coordinating with contractors 

to implement audit recommendations, best practices for conducting homeowner outreach and lessons 

learned from our pilot, and our Block by Block tracking system. We additionally developed a step-bystep guide that suggests strategies to generate local retrofit demand on topics such as the recruitment 

of block leaders, conducting post-retrofit meetings, follow-up calls, and other crucial steps to rampingup demand. The groups continue to meet monthly to share information and best practices. 

Pratt Center mapped each neighborhood for eligibility criteria for the various incentive programs 

including income, heating fuel use and number of units. Based on this data and their social networks, 

we worked with each partner to designate a target area for their outreach effort. Each partner chose 

between two and fifteen blocks. 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block was launched in each 

neighborhood with a kick-off event announcing the 

initiative, inviting the local councilmember and 

requesting target block residents to sign up. 

Outreach workers also organized and attended 

other block, homeowner and civic association 

meetings to recruit early adopters and local 

champions. The events were held at accessible, 

local venues including schools, churches, and 

restaurants. Attendance at community events 

varied from 20 to 60 individuals. Most events 

generated twelve to twenty completed intake 

forms. The events attracted local press and 

generated local interest in the program. The community partners then followed-up with individuals 

asking for additional referrals to their neighbors. 

Each community organization employed multiple strategies to engage residents including door 

knocking, mailings, community events, and home visits as part of their strategy with some groups 

emphasizing one outreach tactic over another. Attending and presenting at existing events organized in 

the community as an invited speaker and then providing individualized, in-person follow-up was most 

Figure 2 SSBX's Home Tune-Up Team with Contractor Mario

Viscovich, Apex Engineering. Apex has hired nine SSBX graduates.

25
8 

effective in generating audits and retrofits. Mass mailing and flyers were least effective. Door knocking 

was effective only when conducted together with recognized neighbors/block leaders. Referrals from 

customers already engaged in the retrofit process also proved to be a successful means of finding more 

interested residents. 

Pratt subcontracted with Sustainable South Bronx to offer 50 homeowners high-impact, low cost energy 

efficiency measures including caulking, weather-stripping, compact fluorescent light bulbs, (CFLS), low 

flow shower heads and aerators for free while providing work experience for graduates of the 

Sustainable South Bronx BEST for Buildings Program. The Home Tune-up Program was intended to be 

used as an incentive to homeowners to undertake an audit while providing paid, part-time work 

experience for trainees. Home Tune-up also aimed to encourage homeowners to undertake more costly 

measures by reducing overall retrofit costs and to ensure that homeowners move forward with 

recommendations in their energy assessment. Home Tune-up increased the number of homes receiving 

low-cost retrofit measures and 14 job trainees received some paid work experience, in some cases 

leading to jobs. The project only led to homeowners moving forward to a comprehensive retrofit in a 

few cases. Recipients, though eager to make the improvements, were reluctant to borrow the money to 

make them. 

In order to maximize the local economic impact of Block by Block retrofits and ensure green job 

creation, Pratt vetted and engaged accredited retrofit contractors. We worked with Laborers’ Local 10, 

one of the unions representing retrofit workers, to 

identify criteria for vetting contractors according to job 

quality and employment practices. We then developed 

a contractor vetting questionnaire, and disseminated it 

to all of the city’s eligible retrofit contractors in 

December 2010 and again in November 2011 (See 

Initial Results below for more information). Where 

possible, we checked contractor references and made 

on-site quality assurance visits. We shared the results 

with our community partners who, in turn, formed 

strategic alliances with contractors who committed to 

hiring local job trainees and maximizing their work’s 

impact on Block by Block neighborhoods. 

Retrofit NY was integrated with our Sustainable Houses 

of Worship initiative to retrofit religious buildings and engage congregations in energy efficiency. 

Through this program, Pratt Center assisted houses of worship in our target communities to conduct 

energy audits of their properties and to take advantage of resources and incentives provided by Con 

Edison and NYSERDA to implement energy efficient improvements. We have found that religious 

buildings can generally save thousands of dollars every year for even modest up-front investment. Pratt 

also organized a workshop for the managers of religious institutions to learn how to reduce energy costs 

through management techniques. In Bedford Stuyvesant in particular, the churches have proven to be 

critical allies, often providing meeting space, participating in energy assessments and improvements 

themselves and helping to enlist congregants to the cause.

Figure 3Mt Pisgah Church received an audit and implemented 

measures projected to save $13,000 per year. Reverend Johnny 

Ray Youngblood is accepting a Beacon of Sustainability plaque; 13 

residents signed up for audits that Sunday.

26
9 

Pratt Center continues to provide technical support, convenes the community 

partners, shares best practices and develops and distributes planning and 

implementation tools. For example, Pratt provided decals for the doors of 

homeowners who undertook a retrofit to help raise visibility of the initiatives 

and created a Guide to Detox homes that offers provocative information 

about actions consumers can take to improve the health of their home by 

reducing pesticides, harmful cleaning products and the like. 

Most importantly, Pratt developed a unique, web-based tracking system to: 

1) assist our partners in managing and reaching out to contacts via email and mail merges, 

2) track contacts, audits, retrofits and energy saving outcomes for individual homeowners, 

neighborhoods and across the project 

3) generate reports highlighting trends and key outcomes across New York City 

The tracking system came on line and was made available to our partners in July 2011 after an extensive 

period of development. It is a unique database of building characteristics, energy usage data, audits, 

and retrofits of NYC’s small homes and is able to capture energy assessment and retrofit information 

across all incentive programs (NYSERDA, utilities, city, state and federal programs). Pratt is interested in 

making it available to other neighborhood retrofit campaigns. 

In the last quarter of Retrofit NYC ending June 30, 2012, Pratt will assist our partners to promote on-bill 

recovery, the breakthrough financing mechanism by which homeowners can pay for retrofits on their 

utility bills. The financing mechanism is being rolled out in spring 2012 after being passed into New York 

State law in June 2011. 

Pratt Center is providing technical assistance to the 11 community-based organizations/partnerships 

working as outreach contractors for the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority 

(NYSERDA) under the Green Jobs Green New York project to couple this innovative financing product 

with grassroots outreach (the three Retrofit NYC groups that applied to NYSERDA – Chhaya, NHS of 

Staten Island and Sustainable South Bronx - are part of partnerships that were awarded outreach 

contracts). Even as we aggressively support our CBO partners and NYSERDA, Pratt is mining its data and 

the lessons learned from Block by Block to develop alternative ways to reach scale in retrofitting New 

York City homes. Meanwhile, we count it as a part of Retrofit NYC Bloc by Block’s successes that 

participation in the program has built the capacity of our community based partners to integrate 

environmental initiatives into their organizations and helped them qualify for the Green Jobs outreach 

contracts. 

27
10

III. Results 

The following program data represents approximately eleven months of full implementation, from 

March 1, 2011 when all the participating community based organizations had their outreach workers in 

place to January 31, 2012; Restoration began their outreach July 1, 2010 and this also includes their data 

from that time. 

At the outset of the project, Pratt and our four community partners set a goal to make 2,000 contacts 

with homeowners in each neighborhood in one year. Based on the pilot project, we initially estimated 

that approximately 20 percent of all homeowners contacted would apply for an audit and that half of 

those would complete an audit (200 homes per neighborhood). We additionally assumed that 80% of all 

homeowners who completed the audit would implement at least one retrofit measure (160 per 

neighborhood). We also pledged to, collectively, train 30 individuals for retrofit jobs, and to work with 

contractors to secure local green employment for trainees. 

In eleven months of outreach, each neighborhood met or exceeded annual goals to aggressively reach 

out to residents. Over 16,000 homeowners were contacted through four neighborhood retrofit 

campaigns through neighborhood meetings, mailings, door-knocking, phone calls and individual 

meetings. However, the rates of sign-up were below what we expected based on our pilot project. 

B January 31, 2012, 590 homeowners signed up for the program by submitting all necessary 

information to be determine eligibility for incentive programs. The highest sign-up rates were in the 

neighborhoods that provided the most individualized support to homeowners. About 9% of those 

contacted in Bedford Stuyvesant completed intakes, 5% in the Bronx and only 2% in Staten Island and 

Queens neighborhoods. Restoration has been conducting outreach the longest and the high number of 

block associations in that neighborhoods provide a beneficial social infrastructure that does not exist in 

the other neighborhoods, partially explaining their higher rates of enrollment in retrofit programs. NHS 

of Staten Island conducted several large mailings which are included in their contacts; if only personal 

contacts are considered, the rate of sign-up would likely be higher. Sustainable South Bronx began 

relying almost entirely on personal referrals after the initial kick-off event and Restoration continued to 

work its network of block associations while NHS of Staten Island working in North Brighton, where 

there are fewer block associations, relied on large mailings and flyer distribution. 

Of the homeowners that signed up, 207, have completed comprehensive energy assessments. The 

energy assessments were primarily completed through the NYSERDA Green Jobs Green NY Program 

(GJGNY) Program (50%) and the National Grid Enhanced Air Sealing and Insulation Program (EHSIP) 

which was offered in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island to National Grid heating gas customers until it 

was discontinued in September 2011 (39%). Our data shows that 22 homeowners received audits 

through the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) for people earning below 60% of Area 

28
11

Results by Incentive program and outreach teams as of January 31, 2012 

Incentive 

Program BSRC SSBx NHS SI Chhaya Total all Neighborhoods

Contacts 

Made* 2686 1955 9120 3150 16,911

All Intakes Homeowners signed 

up for block by block 240 109 173 68 590

Nat Grid Audits completed 52 0 29 0 81

Retrofits completed 40 0 10 0 50

GJGNY Audits completed 19 54 25 6 104

Retrofits completed 1 2 2 0 5

WAP Audits completed 15 2 1 4 22

Retrofits completed 15 1 1 4 21

EmPower Energy Survey and 

Retrofits 14 1 12 2 29

All Audits 86 56 55 10 207

All Retrofits 70 4 25 6 105

*contacts represent 7 months of data; we stopped collecting contact data after 9/30. 

Median Income. It is likely that we are undercounting participation of homeowners in the WAP program 

because the teams had difficulty getting the WAP audit reports from the WAP providers and only audit 

reports received were counted as completed audits. In addition, many homeowners referred to the 

WAP did not receive audits in the time frame of our data collection; they were often put on waiting lists 

of a year or longer 

When the National Grid program was available, Restoration and NHS of Staten Island encouraged 

homeowners to use the National Grid program because, even though the homeowner had to pay a small 

fee for the energy assessment ($50)5

 the assessment came with up to two hours of air sealing work, 

ensuring that at least some energy upgrades would take place. The Green Jobs Green NY assessments 

are free to most of our target population based on their income and were used exclusively in the Bronx, 

where homeowners were not eligible for the National Grid program. Use of Green Jobs Green NY audits 

increased in Brooklyn and Staten Island after the EHSIP program was discontinued. NYSERDA’s 

EmPower program, which offers energy walk-through surveys in individual apartments, rather than 

comprehensive, full house audits, was used in 29 apartments; therefore, we did not count the EmPower 

surveys as audits in our data. 

The top five retrofit measures recommended by the energy assessments were: 

 

5

 Restoration came to an agreement with a contractor that the audit fee would be reimbursed to the homeowner 

making the EHSIP audit and air sealing free to those homeowners. 

29
12

1) Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) 

2) Attic /roof insulation 

3) Infiltration reduction/air sealing 

4) Door replacement 

5) Low flow showerheads 

The audits were completed primarily by three contractors. 

Virtually all the assessments recommended CFL bulbs, attic roof insulation and air sealing. Assessments 

conducted under the National Grid EHSIP program, which did not provide incentives for heating system 

improvements, recommended heating system upgrades in only two cases whereas heating system 

improvements were a common recommendation in the GJGNY assessments. As a result, the total 

package of GJGNY recommendations tends to be much more expensive, averaging $19,211 per home vs. 

National Grid averaging $1,071 per home for Retrofit NYC participants. The highest audit package came 

in at over $50,000. 

To date, 105 homes were upgraded for energy efficiency; 76 (37%) of the 207 homeowners receiving 

comprehensive energy assessments implemented energy upgrades on their homes. The energy 

upgrades were completed through: the National Grid EHSIP program (50); WAP (21); EmPower, (29); 

and Green Jobs Green NY (5). As above, WAP retrofits are likely undercounted because the WAP groups 

often do not provide the outreach groups with audit or retrofit information. The retrofits conducted 

under the National Grid EHSIP program consist mostly of air sealing work that accompanied the audits. 

Most of the measures that were implemented tended to be the relatively low cost, top recommended 

measures (see above). We are hoping, with the availability of on-bill recovery, to increase retrofit 

uptake in the last quarter. 

Workforce Results 

Our community partners trained 108 individuals with barriers to employment for green jobs, and had 

secured employment for 32 trainees. Nine residents were hired by one contractor; another contractor 

hired one. Fourteen Sustainable South Bronx Best for Buildings graduates were given paid, temporary, 

part-time placements through the Home Tune-Up program. Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration 

Corporation’s new company, HouseLift by Restoration, recently hired their first eight employees. 

Discussion of Results

Retrofit NYC Block by Block has increased the uptake of energy assessments and retrofits in the targeted 

neighborhoods. However, even in the difficult economic times in which Retrofit NYC Block by Block is 

operating and in the relatively low-income communities targeted, we had expected higher rates of audit 

completions and energy upgrades. 

We anticipate that the availability of on-bill recovery will significantly improve our outcomes; our shared 

tracking database will enable our outreach groups to easily circle back to homeowners that have 

dropped out at some phase of the process. 

30
13

However, we are also aware that New York City has historically had a low rate of retrofits in the 

NYSERDA Home Performance Program; we believe NYC represents fewer than 5% of the retrofits 

completed statewide. We have seen that, even with increased awareness, many more people signed up 

for the programs than undertook retrofits; the rate of follow-through is very low. We suspect that some 

of the lackluster performance is related to the relative difficulty of implementing the program in homes 

with multiple apartments and tenants, which represents more than half of New York City’s one- to fourfamily housing stock. Nearly all the homes that have gone through Home Performance are single-family 

homes. Standard audit practices that require participation of all tenants and audit reports geared to 

one-family homes is likely to continue to be a hurdle in New 

York City. We have found that both landlords and tenants 

have some aversion to sharing the income and utility 

information needed to qualify for incentives. Pratt Center is 

interested in working with NYSERDA and other key 

stakeholders to continue to develop solutions to achieve 

dramatic increases in energy retrofits among New York City 

homeowners. 

IV. Interim Observations and Lessons Learned 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block was considered by the GJGNY 

working groups as a model when the GJGNY outreach was 

being designed and many of the lessons we have learned, 

obstacles we have encountered and opportunities we are 

meeting will apply to these new, expanded efforts. These 

lessons and observations follow below. 

Community-based outreach 

Retrofit NYC Block by Block provides evidence that neighborhood based outreach campaigns can increase 

demand for energy assessments and retrofits. Of the 590 homeowners who joined the program, we are 

confident that few, if any, would have signed up for energy assessments but for the Retrofit NYC 

program. By way of illustration, the two zip codes with the most Green Jobs Green NY audits are the 

Bronx and Staten Island neighborhood and half or more of the referrals were from Retrofit NYC partners 

NHS of Staten Island and Sustainable South Bronx. In some neighborhoods, all of the audits came from 

Block By Block outreach efforts. Community groups found that enrollments were highest in summer 

when community outreach is most active and effective, contrary to normal seasonal variations in the 

Borough Zip 

Code

GJGNY 

Total 

Referrals

Retrofit 

NYC 

Referrals

Percent

Staten Island 10310 21 12 57%

Bronx 10473 30 23 77%

Figure 4 Yury Polonsky, Contractor, Jedidah 

Baptiste, Restoration Outreach Worker and Irene 

Evans, former Block Association President working 

on beautification efforts at the Hancock Street Block 

Association where 17 homes are being retrofitted.

31
14

Brooklyn 11216 7 5 71%

Brooklyn 11233 17 17 100%

Brooklyn 11221 6 6 100%

industry which see upticks during the 

colder months. In seven years of the 

availability of Home Performance, 412 New York City homeowners enrolled. 

Virtually none of the homeowners we reached out to have heard of an energy retrofit or knew of 

anyone who had ever had an energy assessment the first time they were introduced to the initiative. 

The initial kick-off meetings provided not just encouragement, but education about the need to save 

energy, what energy assessments and retrofits are, how that would help them and the environment, 

and explanations of the steps to get an energy assessment for their home. We found that the most 

effective outreach workers were persistent and driven about following up with individual homeowners. 

By targeting low income people, we have also taken on the toughest neighborhoods. Statewide, Home 

Performance has served homeowners with higher incomes who are more likely to qualify for financing 

or to be able to pay for home improvements themselves. 

Momentum builds over time; local champions can help move toward the “tipping point.” Given the 

complexity of this program with its multiple players – Pratt, community partners, contractors, incentive 

programs, funders, council members --program ramp-up took time. Furthermore, the campaigns only 

begin to build steam when the early adopters become champions, that is, when resident leaders take 

responsibility to enlist their neighbors in energy assessments and retrofits. In Bedford Stuyvesant, 

where outreach has been in place the longest, the first six months of the campaign saw ten audits 

completed and no retrofits (July 1 –December 31, 2010) Restoration is now logging about 15 audits per 

month and learning from contractor partners about homeowners who sign up for energy assessments 

directly with the contractor, indicating that the initiative is gaining traction. In one case, one 

homeowner who became a true believer has recruited 16 homeowners into the program. Similarly, in 

the Bronx, once she developed a critical mass of customers who trusted her, the outreach worker began 

to rely solely on referrals to enlist homeowners to undertake retrofits. It should be expected in the 

GJGNY program, that outreach will gain momentum after about a half-year of program implementation. 

According to studies on the widespread adoption of new technologies, there is a “tipping point” when 

“early adopters" or “innovators” who adopt the change reach approximately 15% of the target market, 

such that it begins to become self-propelling or becomes the norm.6 By way of illustration, Bedford 

Stuyvesant has 17,000 buildings; at the point at which we reach 2550 successful retrofits, the market 

should take over and an outreach program such as ours will no longer be needed. Retrofit NYC 

delivered 70 retrofits in less than a year; we would want to see a much accelerated pace to achieve the 

tipping point. 

 

6

 Driving Demand for Home Energy Improvements, http://drivingdemand.lbl.gov/Fuller, M., C. Kunkel, M. Zimring, 

I. Hoffman, K.L. Soroye, and C. Goldman. LBNL-3960E. September 2010 

Figure 5 Retrofit NYC audits completed by the GJGNY program as compared 

to all GJGNY audits.

32
15

Neighborhoods with well-developed social networks are easier to penetrate. Bedford Stuyvesant, where 

the Retrofit NYC Block by Block project was piloted, has a long history of community organization. The 

neighborhood has some 200 churches and numerous block associations and civic groups. These 

networks, even dormant ones that became reinvigorated through the Retrofit NYC campaign, make 

outreach easier and more effective. In North Brighton, Staten Island, where there is less social 

infrastructure, or in Jamaica, where networks are organized by language and ethnic group, our outreach 

workers have had a slower time finding local champions and building momentum. In these 

neighborhoods, individual referrals may be most effective. CBO partners are also working to better 

integrate the retrofit outreach with homeownership and financial counseling. 

Contractors are critical partners. Nonprofit partners addressed a barrier to homeowner participation by 

referring trusted contractors. By engaging with selected contractors, Sustainable South Bronx and 

Restoration have found it is easier to coordinate and schedule audit and retrofit appointments with 

homeowners as well as to get copies of reports and updates on progress. They find that the 

homeowners, with little knowledge about how to screen retrofit contracts, often ask for a referral and 

feel most comfortable if the referral comes from a trusted source. Furthermore, contractor 

relationships enabled the outreach workers to attend audits, sit in on audit report meetings with the 

homeowner and, therefore learn about how the assessments and retrofit programs work in practice. 

Contractor partnerships will be essential for implementing aggregation models and getting to scale. 

33
16

At the same time, our community partners are not, themselves contractors and, without bidding out the 

recommended improvements, they cannot accurately judge whether the prices are competitive. They 

are putting their trust with homeowners on the line for a business partner whose main interest is, 

explicitly, gaining profitable work. When a partner contractor includes recommendations that seem too 

expensive, submit inadequate or late audit reports , or puts costs in the scope that do not appear in the 

audit report, it can jeopardize the credibility of the outreach worker and the program. Partnerships with 

multiple contractors are most beneficial to foster competition. Sustainable Works in Washington State 

offers an alternative approach that separates the audit from the retrofit work and where work is bid out 

to qualified contractors by trade, e.g., request bids for insulation of 15 roofs or 10 gas hot water heaters 

in one neighborhood.7

Closing the deal requires ongoing assistance. Given that retrofits are relatively unknown, programs are 

complicated, and the retrofits require outlay of significant resources, frequent assistance and contacts 

with the owner are required. They must follow-up with every individual to complete applications, 

ensure they get their assessments and reports and then move forward on at least some upgrades. 

Tracking and reporting results are also time consuming. When financial systems to pay for energy 

retrofits are better established and the practice is more streamlined, this labor intensive process may no 

longer be needed. However, given the current funding and policy environment (e.g., there are no 

requirements for homeowners to get energy assessments or improve energy efficiency of their homes) 

and the lack of widespread consumer awareness, this individualized approach is warranted. 

Messaging for comfort, health and specific homeowner needs is more effective than energy savings. 

Homeowners are frequently most satisfied with the improvements to their homes’ comfort and the 

benefits to their health. Use of the phrase “energy upgrade” is preferable to “retrofit;” likewise “energy 

assessment” is better received than “energy audit.” Until evidence that specific retrofit measures 

actually reduce energy consumption becomes more widespread, increased comfort will remain the 

strongest, most credible selling point. 

Pairing retrofits with behavior change education for homeowners is likely to improve program impacts. 

Evidence is increasing that behavioral modifications can make as much difference as physical 

improvements in reducing energy use. Education on behavior change should be incorporated into 

outreach programs. 

Tracking energy use is proving difficult. The Retrofit NYC intake process includes a request for residents’ 

permission to view and track their utility information and audit reports for research purposes. In most 

cases the residents will sign this without hesitation. We wish to track energy use, the most important 

benchmark of program success and to provide feedback to homeowners so they can be more 

knowledgeable about their use and how they compare to their neighbors. However, securing that 

information has proven extremely difficult. We are only able to download Con Edison electrical 

information one account at a time and by billing period. Because billing periods vary substantially, e.g., 

they may include one month or several months, it is difficult to compare homeowners’ use over time. 

 

7

 Sustainable Works:: http://sustainableworks.com 

34
17

National Grid requires a password to view on-line information gas account information. Most often, 

homeowners do not have or do not know their password adding a barrier that has made it nearly 

impossible to track gas usage. 

Retrofit Incentive Program Considerations 

New York State has one of the most ambitious energy reduction goals in 

the nation, to reduce electricity use by 15 percent from forecasted levels 

by 2015. To reach that goal, the Public Services Commission oversees the 

Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) and funds a plethora of 

incentive programs supported by surcharges to utility customers. 

Engaging homeowners in these programs, administered by NYSERDA and 

the utility companies, has been the focus of Retrofit NYC Block by Block. 

In the absence of regulation, the incentive programs help stimulate 

interest; work should be done at the time of audit We find that free or 

very low cost measures are needed to motivate homeowners. At the same time, the programs are 

complicated to explain and there are multiple programs available, depending on income, heating fuel 

and building size. The number of choices and many doors, through which a building owner might enter, 

can be confusing to the consumer. In Retrofit NYC, National Grid’s EHSIP Program, which offered air 

sealing at the time of the audit and a meaningful incentive for roof insulation, was the most frequently 

used program when it was available. While many factors may have influenced that result, we would 

conjecture that simple, streamlined programs are easier to understand and use for the outreach worker, 

the contractor and the homeowner. Implementing energy upgrades at the time of the energy 

assessment generates more energy upgrades than relying on the owners to follow-up the 

recommendations in the assessment. 

Regulation, in tandem with incentives, has been demonstrated to increase retrofit uptake. Regulations, 

such as Boulder Smart Regs, a law requiring the owners of all of Boulder, Colorado’s rental housing to 

meet an energy efficiency standard, would likely be more effective in generating scale. In addition, 

stricter regulations about upgrading heating systems, hot water heaters, appliances and other 

equipment at the time of replacement, would gradually improve the efficiency of systems in use. 

Regulations that require energy assessments to be provided to purchasers by homeowners selling their 

homes could introduce energy use into the home buying decision, educate purchasers and influence the 

market to value energy efficiency. 

Low-cost financing is needed to eliminate the obstacle of up-front costs. The average cost of the 

recommended measures by Green Job Green NY energy assessments for which we have data (43 

reports) is over $19,000. Even if homeowners elect to implement a small portion of the measures, the 

retrofits require an outlay of upfront cash that is a well-known obstacle in the retrofit industry. 

Furthermore, particularly in the low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in which our partners are 

working, many owners are averse to taking loans. They often know of people who have lost their homes 

Figure 6 Pratt Center created 

decals for the doors of 

homeowners who participated 

in energy retrofits as one way 

to raise the visibility of the 

retrofit work.

35
18

to foreclosure but rarely know of anyone who has benefitted from a retrofit. Finally, of those 

homeowners who have applied for low-cost Green Jobs Green NY financing, about half have been 

declined for the loans. We are eager to test out the efficacy of on-bill recovery, which allows 

homeowners to finance the costs of retrofits on their utility bills, as a market stimulator. 

A single point of entry would help increase uptake of retrofits. National Grid, Con Edison and NYSERDA 

each provide information about the incentive programs offered by their organizations. Retrofit NYC 

plays a role in assisting individuals take advantage of the opportunity that best suits their needs, 

interests and budget. Pratt has conceived and conducted initial development of the NYC Energy Funds 

Finder which would be a web-based eligibility tool that directs any New York City building owner to the 

incentive programs for which they would be eligible. We are seeking resources and partners to 

implement the Funds Finder. 

Frequently changing incentives are a barrier to scaling up retrofits. During the short course of Retrofit 

NYC program implementation, the retrofit incentives and programs available have changed. For 

example, the National Grid Enhanced Air Sealing and Insulation Program was shut down with virtually no 

notice after being available for less than one year; both homeowners and contractors who were relying 

on the program were caught short. While Pratt updates its web resources and let partners know of new 

programmatic guidelines and parameters, frequent program design changes add a degree of difficulty 

for outreach workers, contractors and homeowners. 

Tailor retrofit programs for urban settings. More than half the small homes in NYC are two- to fourunits. Yet the incentive programs are easiest to use for single-family homes. For example, one barrier to 

program entry to GJGNY has been the requirement that owners provide a utility use history for all 

tenants. The homeowners often do not have access to that information for their tenants and it is not 

clear if or how that information is used. In the National Grid program, the program was limited to 

homeowners who had direct access to the roof cavity even though the configuration of many New York 

City homes is that the owner lives on the ground floor and rents out upper floors. A stumbling block to 

participation in the Weatherization Assistance Program is the presence of illegal units, most often in the 

basements. Further, audit report templates appear to be designed for the single-family home. 

Contractors are not required to list which units/portions of the house have been audited. Finally, the 

contractor industry is commonly organized by trade here which may be different than upstate 

communities where the retrofit contractors may be general contractors. Designing the programs to 

reflect NYC multifamily housing stock and trades-oriented contracting industry would improve uptake. 

Comprehensive Energy Assessments 

It was a goal of the Retrofit NYC Block by Block initiative to analyze audit data to learn whether and 

which recommendations achieved the highest energy savings relative to expenditure and whether 

similar buildings consistently need common measures that could be broadly implemented. Indeed, the 

audits did result in common recommendations, suggesting that it might be possible and desirable to 

36
19

create standard audit packages. Inconsistent audit quality caused us to question whether the individual, 

BPI audit is a necessary prerequisite to the retrofit incentive programs. 

Audit reports were not persuasive to homeowners: The BPI Energy Assessments required by the 

National Grid and Home Performance Programs are expected to be an educational tool as well as a 

compelling sales tool. In order for homeowners to easily judge the benefits of the recommended 

measures, audit reports should provide a clear, simple list of each recommended measures with its 

itemized cost, projected energy savings and payback period. The reports should always include the 

homeowner’s current energy use and cost. A common standard, across all programs, requiring this 

simple information in a clear format would enable homeowners to make informed, reasoned decisions 

to pursue appropriate retrofit measures. The reports received by the homeowners are long and full of 

jargon; they are neither clear nor compelling and they require explanation by the contractors and 

interpretation by the outreach workers, adding extra labor and cost to the process. 

The “comprehensive” energy assessment appears to get skewed to the incentives and /or the expertise 

and interests of the contractor: We found a discrepancy in the audits under different programs that we 

suspect might relate more to the program than to the differences in the housing stock. The National 

Grid program, which paid for 

air sealing and insulation, 

generated only two heating 

system upgrade 

recommendations for 82 

completed audit reports while 

the GJGNY audits included 39 

different heating system 

recommendations in 57 

completed audit reports. 

Similarly, there are no 

recommended water heater 

repairs or replacements in the 

82 National Grid reports while 

there are eight water heater 

related recommendations in the 57 GJGNY reports. We do not conclude that the National Grid 

program’s emphasis on insulation is unwarranted, but question whether the energy audits are truly 

comprehensive. Furthermore, contractors may be under-recommending items that are not typically 

included in their contracts with the homeowner. For example, new appliances would not be in the 

scope of work of the contractor but would be a separate purchase by the homeowner. Only four GJGNY 

audits recommend a new refrigerator. These issues could be expected to arise in any program designs 

where the auditor and the contractor are one and the same. 

Some audit reports did not reflect competitive pricing: We have also seen a lot of variance on projected 

costs ($15 light bulbs), certain costs omitted (e.g., one audit includes the cost of a new gas boiler but not 

the cost of decommissioning the old oil tank). These kinds of discrepancies lead to mistrust by the 

84%

82%

64%

91%

66%

52%

82%

4%

92%

84%

Air Sealing

Apartment Lighting Upgrade

Heating System Upgrades

Insulation

Window Door Replacement

Frequency of Recommended Measures

By Program

National Grid Green Jobs Green New York

37
20

outreach workers and homeowners. An independent review of six audits by Steven Winter Associates, a 

national expert in energy efficiency, found a lot of variability in measure pricing. In one case, an 

insulation contractor is listing a $0 cost for items beyond his expertise (heating recommendations). This 

is problematic when the audit report is required for financing applications; it adds another step for the 

homeowner, a possible deterrent to continuing the retrofit process. 

Some audit reports did not appear to be tailored to the individual home: In some cases, auditors seem 

to be performing boilerplate audits that repeatedly include the same minor measures. A common 

package from one contractor is: replace ten bulbs, replace front door, and add attic insulation. Given the 

program emphasis on individualized home assessments, we would expect the assessments to be more 

reflective of the particularities of each building and occupant. Some audits are incomplete: they do not 

contain adequate basic details about the building such as heating system distribution type and 

equipment or a date when the audit took place. 

The similar measures across energy audit reports combined with some inconsistencies in audit 

completeness and quality and the lack of persuasiveness of the reports to motivate homeowners to 

implement measures raises questions about whether they are a necessary prerequisite for energy 

efficiency upgrade programs designed to scale up home energy upgrades. 

VI. Recommendations for further research and program development 

Many, but not all, of the pieces of the retrofit puzzle have been put into place. The community-based 

outreach and marketing model represented by Block By Block and now embodied in the Green Jobs 

Green NY program will continue to engage more small homeowners than would otherwise join the 

existing incentive programs. This outreach is useful to develop early adopters and build momentum. 

On-bill financing should remove the financing obstacle and provide a relatively easy and safe way to pay 

for retrofit measures. However the slow rate of retrofit uptake in New York City, even with the benefits 

of aggressive community outreach, suggest that exploration of alternative strategies for dramatically 

increasing the level of retrofits and related jobs is needed. Some of the pieces are still missing. 

In the final months of Retrofit NYC Block By Block, Pratt Center and our partners will: 

Promote On-Bill Recovery: Pratt Center will work with our community and other industry partners to 

realize the potential of on-bill recovery to solve the hurdle of up-front costs. Even though low-cost loans 

are available to residents in New York, alternative financial instruments that do not ‘feel’ like a loan 

would increase retrofit uptake. We need to make sure to differentiate on-bill recovery from more 

traditional loans and to make it widely available for qualified homeowners. 

Research and test the hypotheses that similar homes require similar measures that can become a 

standard package of measures and that can be aggregated to reduce costs. If a standard package of 

cost-effective measures can be identified for New York City’s housing types, and these packages could 

38
21

be bid out to achieve cost efficiencies, then we believe costs would come down, the contracting process 

would be simplified and it would be possible to ramp up retrofits more quickly and at less cost. Pratt 

Center is exploring the feasibility of testing standard packages for similar types of homes. 

Pratt will also work with industry partners to: 

Develop means for homeowners to easily track and report on energy savings. The difficulty accessing, 

tracking and reporting on energy use data is an obstacle to reducing energy use. Customers are willing 

to share their energy use information, but records need to be more easily accessible in order to 

accurately predict the energy saving potential and ongoing savings of a given dwelling. The entire 

retrofit industry would benefit from greater certainty of which measures do or do not save energy for 

particular housing types, and the circumstances that influence savings. This analysis will only be 

possible when energy use data is available for all retrofitted homes over a period of a few years. 

In addition, Pratt will convene industry partners to consider additional ways to scale up home retrofits. 

Promising ideas include: 

 Develop ways to better integrate energy upgrades with existing home improvement 

practices. Americans are spending in the range of $300 billion each year improving their 

homes.8

 It is logical to think that, at the time that the owners are making these 

improvements is also when they might consider incorporating energy efficiency 

improvements such as insulation, new appliances and light fixtures. Selling retrofits as a 

stand-alone upgrade appears more difficult than selling home improvements; we propose 

educating contractors and homeowners so that home remodeling integrates best practices 

in energy efficiency in order to multiply energy efficiency outcomes. While this is a highly 

fragmented industry – small, self-employed contractors make up more than two thirds of 

the industry - we believe that directing incentives to home improvement contractors to 

include energy efficiency and water saving measures would likely multiply into greater 

energy savings than we are seeing by trying to create a stand-alone business model for 

energy efficiency. 

 Increase regulation and incentives at home sales, major home improvements and system 

replacement. Increase regulation and incentives related to heating and hot water system 

replacements: Regulation, in conjunction with technical assistance and financial incentives 

has proven more effective than incentives alone. Sales, major home improvement projects 

and systems replacement offer opportunities to regulate improvements in efficiency. 

Boilers and hot water heaters are frequently replaced at the point when they break down. 

That on-the-spot investment can lead to inefficient fuel use for some thirty years. Energy 

efficiency requirements of new systems should be upgraded so that it is not possible to 

 

8

 According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies: 

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/remodeling/remodeling2011/r11-1_1_intro_and_summary.pdf 

39
22

purchase new, inefficient systems. Furthermore, any time major work is being conducted 

on a home (e.g., a permit is required), homeowners and contractors should be encouraged 

via to install insulation, upgrade appliances and systems, etc. for energy efficiency. 

 Integrate education on behavior change: Research suggests that there are significant energy 

savings to be gained through behavioral change. Tracking results through energy saving 

projections has a tendency to inflate audit results and could ultimately decrease confidence 

in the energy assessments. Outreach programs such as Retrofit NYC should combine 

behavioral change with energy upgrades and maintain energy savings as the bottom line 

outcome. 

Other policy recommendations include: 

 Make the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) more widely available and develop 

eligibility by census tract in low-income neighborhoods. Given long waiting lists, Retrofit NYC 

outreach has had limited success accessing the WAP program for eligible homeowners. In 

addition, the eligibility process is extremely time consuming for providers and recipients alike. 

We would recommend creating an alternative eligibility for neighborhoods that have a high 

percentage of income eligible residents so that the program could be implemented at scale, 

improving homes faster and spending fewer resources on bureaucracy. 

 Integrate weatherization funds with other financing for affordable housing to address needed 

capital repairs. Many homes occupied by low-income residents suffer from deferred 

maintenance. In particular, we found that roof replacement and mold were frequent problems 

that could disqualify homeowners from participation in the Weatherization Assistance Program. 

Given these issues, our partner in Cypress Hills found the WAP process so laborious and 

ineffective for homeowners in their neighborhood that they are using alternate housing capital 

funds to implement a capital repair program that integrates roof and boiler repair and 

replacement with weatherization measures. 

VII. Conclusions 

The Retrofit NYC Block by Block initiative has generated an increase in home retrofits and jobs in the 

industry in New York City but not at the scale or pace needed to address the urgency of climate change 

or in line with the benefits that would accrue to the homeowners themselves. It has also increased 

capacity at the community level and provided experience to suggest new ways of scaling up home 

retrofits in New York City. The next year will be crucial as community-based organizations combine 

outreach efforts with on-bill recovery to make financing for the up-front costs of energy upgrades widely 

and easily available. 

40
23

Pratt is planning a study to document the potential, feasibility and reduced costs of adopting 

standardized measures for similar housing types to promote the possibility of cost-saving retrofit 

aggregation. We are eager to work with stakeholders to dramatically increase the scale of NYC home 

retrofits. Promising ideas include: 

 Standardize retrofit packages and aggregating installment for similar homes 

 Develop means for homeowners to easily track and report on energy savings 

 Integrate energy efficiency upgrades into the home improvement industry 

 Regulate to achieve energy upgrades at sales, home improvements and heating and hot water 

system replacements 

 Make the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) more widely available and develop 

eligibility by census tract in low-income, urban neighborhoods 

 Integrate weatherization funds with other financing for affordable, healthy homes to address 

needed capital repairs and health issues 

In the current context and at month eleven of full implementation, Retrofit NYC Block BY Block is 

stimulating demand for energy assessments and retrofits. With on-bill recovery, we see continued 

promise in this neighborhood-based approach to cultivate the early adopters as the market develops 

and programs and policies are refined. 

It is hard to imagine a more important priority than stopping and reversing global warming. It will 

require the mobilization of every segment of our population and every sector of our economy. Retrofit 

NYC Block By Block offers insights into the challenges and opportunities to achieve the highest level of 

participation 

41
24

Appendix: 

http://prattcenter.net/sites/default/files/users/pdf/homeowners_cutsheet.pdf

42
25

43
44 

Appendix B: Example Block by Block Audit Report
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
DOE/GO-102012-3631 ▪ October 2012

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.