Service 

Report

Energy Information Administration

Office of Energy Markets and End Use

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D C 20585

SR/EEUD/86/01

Residential Conservation Measures

Energy End Use Division 

Office of Energy Markets and End Use 

Energy Information Administration

July 1986

This report has not received a complete technical review by the Energy In 

formation Administration (EIA) and, therefore, should not be represented 

as an official EIA product.

PREFACE

This study was undertaken at the request of Senator James A. McClure, Chairman, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate. The purpose of 

the study is to examine the potential for achieving energy savings in the 

residential sector through conservation measures. The report is to be submitted 

to the General Accounting Office (GAO) to support a major study of the 

Residential Conservation Service. This study is mandated in S.410, which has 

been passed by the Senate. Senator McClure requested the GAO to conduct the 

study though the bill has not yet been enacted.

The first chapter of the report provides an overview of the the study, including 

the approach taken and a summary of the findings. The second chapter discusses 

the prevalence and trends in conservation measures in the residential housing 

stock. The third chapter discusses the potential for upgrading the thermal 

characteristics of the housing stock in an examination of the distribution of 

the stock by combinations of conservation measures. This chapter also discusses 

the problems associated with attempting to estimate possible energy savings that 

might result from further conservation retrofits to the housing stock.

This report was prepared in the Office of Energy Markets and End Use under the 

Direction of W. David Montgomery, Director, and the Energy End Use Division, 

Lynda T. Carlson, Director. The authors of the report are Gerald E. Peabody and 

Martha M. Johnson.
Table of Contents

Page 

Preface ..................................................................... i

Chapter 1. Overview of Study ............................................... 1

Chapter 2. Prevalence of Residential Conservation Measures ................. 5

Chapter 3. Potential for Residential Conservation Upgrades ................. 31

Appendix A. Prevalence of Conservation Measures in Mobile Homes

Housing Characteristics and Socioeconomic Characteristics

of Energy Audit Households 1982 ............................... 74

Appendix B. How the Residential Energy Consumption Survey Was Conducted .... 81

Appendix C. Sampling Error Methodology ..................................... 90

Appendix D. Map. Census Region ............................................. 93

Appendix E. Map. AIA Weather Zone .......................................... 94

Tables

Table 1. Distribution of Single Family Housing Units by Year House Was

Built and by Census Region 1978-1984 (Millions of Households) ...... 7

Table 2. Attic Insulation by Year Survey and by Census RegionSingle-Family Housing Units, 1978-1984 (Millions of Households) ... 8

Table 3. Attic insulation by Census Region Single-Family Housing Units,

1984 (Millions of Households) ..................................... 15

Table 4. Wall and Floor Insulation by Census Region Single-Family Housing

Units, 1984 (Millions of Household) .............................. 19

Table 5. Storm Windows, Storm Doors, Caulking and Weatherstripping

by Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions

of Households) .................................................... 20

Table 6. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection by Characteristics

of the Housing Unit Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions

of Households)........................................... ......... 23

Table 7. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection by Socioeconomic

Characteristics Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households) ....................................................... 29

ii
Table of Contents (CONTINUED;

Page

Table 8. Recommended Insulation Thickness and Nominal R-Value By

Weather Zone and Type of Insulation .............................. 34

Table 9. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection By Census Region 

Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) ....... 37

Table 10. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection By Weather Zone 

Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) ....... 39

Table 11. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection By Family Income and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households) ...................................................... 43

Table 12. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection By Year House Was 

Built and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 

(Millions of Households) ......................................... 50

Table 13. Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection By Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households) ...................................................... 58

Table 14. Distribution of Insulation and Air Infiltration Protection 

Mobile Homes, 1984 (Millions of Households) ..................... 75

Table 15. Distribution of Energy Audited Households By Selected Housing 

Characteristics and Socioeconomic Characteristics SingleFamily Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) .............. 79

Table 16. Response Rate for Residential Energy Consumption Survey .......... 82

Table 17. Clustering Factors for Calculations of Standard Errors, 1984 ..... 92

ill

Chapter 1 

OVERVIEW OF STUDY

This study was conducted for the General Accounting Office (GAO) at the request 

of Senator James A. McClure, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources. The study is to provide information for the GAO as part of 

a large-scale study they are conducting on the Residential Conservation Service 

(RCS) program. This particular study provides information on the potential for 

achieving energy savings in the residential sector through conservation 

measures.

This study, at the outset, had three goals: (1) to examine the trends and 

current prevalence of conservation measures in the residential housing stock; 

(2) to examine the potential for conservation upgrades to the stock by 

categorizing the housing stock by the combinations of housing conservation 

measures present; and (3) to estimate the potential energy savings from 

conservation measures that might be instituted. This report presents the 

findings in these three areas based on analyses of data from the Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) conducted annually from 1978 through 1982 and 

in 1984 by the Energy Information Administration <EIA).

The next chapter presents data on the individual conservation items, and how 

their prevalence depends upon the characteristics of the house, its geographical 

location, and the characteristics of the household residing in the house. The 

RECS data provide information on conservation items related to the thermal 

integrity of the housing unit's shell: attic, wall and floor insulation; storm
windows and storm doors; and caulking and weatherstripping. The number of 

households with each of these items and further information about them is 

provided by the characteristics mentioned. These data are from the 1984 RECS 

and provide the most recently available data on energy conservation practices in 

the residential sector.

The thermal integrity of the housing stock has been increasing over time, both 

through conservation retrofits in existing houses and from more efficient design 

and construction of new homes. However, the increase from 1978 to 1984 has been 

sufficiently small that it could not be detected with any statistical confidence 

in the RECS data because of limitations due to the sample size of the surveys. 

At the 95 percent confidence interval, no statistically significant trends in 

the percentage of homes with individual conservation items, or in the quantity 

of an item such as inches of attic insulations, was observed in the RECS data. 

Consequently, no data on trends are presented in Chapter 2.

Since RECS is a sample survey of households, there is a limit to the precision 

with which a trend could be measured because of the size of the sample. For 

example, with attic insulation, an increase in the proportion of homes with 

attic insulation would have to be greater than 5 percent for it to be observed 

with statistical significance at the 95 percent level in the RECS data. Any 

increase that did occur in the housing stock as a whole that was smaller than 

this figure would not be evident with the RECS data base because of the sample 

size limitations. This study does not conclude that there has been no increase 

in the percentage of houses with conservation measures, but it does find that 

any increase that did occur was smaller than can be measured with the RECS data.
The third chapter considers the potential for energy savings through 

conservation measures by looking at the collection of thermal protection 

measures available in a given housing unit. Homes are categorized by whether 

they are essentially fully filled with conservation measures, are lacking in 

certain important measures, or have a minimum, if any, number of conservation 

measures. These data provide a good indication of the overall potential for 

upgrading the thermal integrity of the shells of the housing stock.

It has not been possible at the time of this writing to expand upon these data 

to provide estimates of the potential energy savings that would result if houses 

were retrofitted with additional conservation measures. Efforts are underway to 

determine the potential energy savings that might result from the addition of 

selected conservation measures. However, to date, no satisfactory data for 

making the estimates of energy savings have been located. A review of the 

literature produced such a wide range of estimates of savings that no 

reliability could be placed on estimates of energy savings based upon these 

studies. Efforts at the EIA to analytically determine the energy savings have 

not been completed and will be reported on in a future report should the effort 

prove fruitful.

Summary of Findings

The most common conservation feature found in single-family homes is attic 

insulation, and the second most common is caulking or weatherstripping. Floor 

insulation is next, followed by homes with wall insulation, then houses with 90 

percent storm windows and those with 90 percent storm doors.
A number of factors are associated with the presence of each of these items. 

Homes with more conservation items tend to be larger, recently constructed, and 

located in colder weather areas. Homeowners are more likely to have various 

conservation items than are renters. Socioeconomic characteristics of the 

households associated with the presence of more conservation measures include 

higher income, middle age, and a higher level of formal education.

The same factors associated with individual conservation measures are also 

associated with combinations of conservation items. This study found that a 

minority of housing units, approximately 14 percent [2] in the Nation, and about 

20 percent [4] in the Northeast and North Central Census regions the colder of 

the four regions could be considered fully insulated. While a minority of 

housing units in the colder climate areas have very little insulation, it is not 

uncommon in the warmer parts of the country for homes to have fewer conservation 

items.

Participants in the RCS program tend, relative to the general population, to be 

more affluent, have larger homes which they own, and live in colder climate 

areas, among other traits. These households also tend to have more conservation 

items in their homes. For example, around 30 percent [7] of households with 

incomes over $35,000 in the Northeast and North Central regions had full attic 

insulation, 90 percent storm window coverage and wall insulation. This figure 

compares with 20 percent [4] for all households. For individual conservation 

items, and for combinations of them, households with socioeconomic 

characteristics that match those of participants in the RCS program are more 

likely to have conservation features in their homes than are the general 

population.

All figures quoted in the text are accompanied by a measure of their 

statistical significance 1.96*standard error in brackets.
Chapter 2 

PREVALENCE OF RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES

This Chapter contains a discussion of the prevalence of various conservation 

measures in single-family housing units for the period 1978 through 1984. The

discussion is based on data from the 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1984 Residential

2 Energy Consumption Surveys. Data from the 1979 RECS have been omitted from

this report because this survey did not ask about insulation. These surveys, 

conducted by the ELA, collect detailed data on energy consumption and 

expenditures from a national sample of households. These surveys also collect 

data on the types of heating and other energy-using equipment in the housing 

unit, the characteristics of the housing unit, the types of conservation 

activities undertaken by the household, the demographic characteristics of the 

household and other information related to the consumption and expenditures for 

energy by the household. A single-family housing unit refers to a structure 

that 1) is either: a) detached, b) attached on one side, or c) attached on two 

sides; and 2) that provides living space between the basement and attic for only 

one family or household.

2 RECS includes single-family housing units, mobile homes, 2 to 4 unit

dwellings and dwelling units in buildings with 5 or more units. RECS doesn't 

collect conservation measures on multiple-dwelling units. The RCS program 

includes buildings with 2 to 4 units and these housing unit types are not 

included in the Tables in this report. The number and percentage of buildings 

with 2-4 units follows: 1978, 10.7 million (14 percent); 1980, 9.9 million 

(12 percent); 1981, 8.3 million (11 percent); 1982, 10.1 million (12 percent); 

1984, 10.0 million (12 percent). Appendix A contains tables on conservation 

items found in mobile homes.
The questions asked in the REGS regarding conservation focus on the structural 

characteristics of the housing shell such as attic, wall and floor insulation; 

storm windows and doors; and caulking and stripping. Other items that are 

included in the RCS audit, such as insulation around water heaters and hot water 

pipe insulation, are not included in the survey and so are not discussed in this 

report. The following sections discuss these major conservation features 

associated with the housing shell.

The South had the largest number of single-family residences in 1978, followed 

closely by the North Central Region. The Northeast and the West had smaller 

numbers of these residences. The same pattern was observed in 1984, although 

the North Central region had a decline in its number of homes over the 1978 

through 1984 period, while the other three regions experienced net increases in 

their numbers. The largest growth in new homes occurred in the South and the 

West, Table 1.

Conservation Measures 1978-1984

The number of single-family housing units with attic insulation increased from 

39.1 million [1.5] in 1978 to 45.2 million [1.1] in 1984, Table 2. As a 

percentage of the total number of single-family units the change was from 75.6 

percent [2.8] to 78.5 percent [3.3]. However, because these estimates are based 

on a national sample of housing units, there is an uncertainty associated with 

them. The actual percentages can only be specified within a range for a given 

level of uncertainty.
Table 1. Distribution of Single-Family Housing Units by Year House Was Built 

and by Census Region, 1978-1984 (Millions of Households)

Year of Survey; 

Year House Was Built

1978 ..................

Built Before 1975 ...

Built 1975 & After ..

1980 ...................

Built Before 1975 ...

Built 1975 & After ..

1981 ..................

Built Before 1975 ...

Built 1975 & After . .

1982 ..................

Built Before 1975 ...

Built 1975 & After ..

1984 ..................

Built Before 1975 ...

Built 1975 & After ..

United 

States

51.7

[3.1]

48.9

[2.0]

2.8

[1.0]

56.3

[1.8]

49.4

[2.0]

6.9

[1.0]

57.6

[1.6]

50.6

[1.6]

6.9

[1.0]

57.7

[2.2]

50.2

[2.2]

7.4

[1.6]

57.6

[1.8]

49.2

[2.4]

8.3

[1.2]

Northeast

9.5

[2.0]

9.2

[2.2]

0.3

[0.2]

10.3

[0.6]

9.5

[0.6]

0.8

[0.2]

10.1

[0.6]

9.1

[0.7]

1.1

[0.4]

10.6

[0.2]

9.7

[0.6]

0.9

[0.4]

10.9

[1.1]

9.7

[1.2]

1.1

[0.4]

Region

North 

Central

16.1

[1.2]

15.1

[1.2]

0.9

[0.6]

15.4

[1.0]

14.1

[1.0]

1.3

[0.6]

15.5

[1.0]

14.3

[0.8]

1.2

[0.2]

15.0

[1.2]

13.2

[1.4]

1.8

[0.8]

14.6

[1.3]

12.8

[1.4]

1.8

[0.6]

South

17.4

[1.8]

16.4

[1.6]

1.1

[0.6]

19.7

[1.2]

16.8

[1.2]

2.9

[0.6]

20.5

[1.0]

17.8

[1.0]

2.8

[0.6]

20.9

[1.4]

18.1

[1.4]

2.8

[1.0]

21.8

[1.6]

18.3

[1.6]

3.5

[0.8]

West

8.6

[l.OJ

8.1

[0.8J

0.5

[0.4]

10.8

[0.6]

9.0

[0.8]

1.8

[0.6]

11.5

[0.4]

9.5

[0.7]

1.9

[0.5]

11.2

[1.2]

9.3

[1.0]

1.9

[0.8]

A. 10 \J 4*T

[1.2]

8.5

[1.1]

1.9

[0.6]

Note: Because of round ing, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. Standard errors for the 

1984 figures are preliminary estimates calculated by using the general variance 

equation for the 1982 data. See Appendix C for further discussion of standard 

errors for the data of the Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Surveys 1978, 1980, 

1981, 1982, 1984.
Table 2. Attic Insulation by Year of Survey and by Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 

1978-1984 (Millions of Households)

00

United States

Year of 

Survey

1978

1980

1981

1982

1984

No.

39.1 

[2.9]

43.2 

U.8]

44.7 

[2.0]

45.5 

[1.9]

45.2 

[2.1]

Percent

75.6 

[2.8]

76.8 

[1.8]

77.6 

[1.9]

79.0 

[2.1]

78.5 

[3.3]

Northeast

No.

7.3 

[1.6]

8.1 

[0.6]

7.8 

[0.5]

8.5 

[0.7]

8.4 

[1.0]

Percent

76.6 

[7.0]

78.5 

[3.8]

77.0 

[4.2]

80.1 

[4.3]

77.6 

[4.3]

North

No.

13.3 

[3.6]

12.7 

[0.9]

13.3 

[1.1]

12.8 

[1.1]

12.4 

[1.2]

Census

Central

Percent

82.8 

[3.6]

82.1 

[2.2]

85.7 

[3.6]

85.4 

[3.0]

84.8 

[3.3]

Region

South

No.

12.4 

[1.6]

14.6 

[1.3]

15.3 

[1.0]

15.9 

[1.2]

16.4 

[1.4]

Percent

70.9 

[5.2]

74.1 

[4.0]

74.7 

[3.2]

76.4 

[3.7]

75.2 

[3.2]

West

No.

6.1 

[1.1]

7.8 

[0.6]

8.3 

[0.5]

8.3 

[0.8]

8.1 

[1.0]

Percent

70.3 

[7.9]

72.3 

[3.2]

72.2 

[3.8]

74.1 

[5.4]

77.8 

[4.3]

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are calculated on unrounded 

numbers. The value in brackets below the statistics represents 1.96 of the standard error of the 

statistic. See Appendix C for further discussion on standard errors.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Energy End Use 

Division, Residential Energy Consumption Surveys 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1984.
The data in Table. 2 provide the size of the confidence intervals for the 95 

percent level. The difference between the percentages of households with attic

insulation between 1978 and 1984 is not statistically significant at this 95

3 percent confidence level. As a consequence, it is not possible to say, based

on a comparison of the RECS data from 1978 through 1984, whether or not there 

has been a statistically significant increase in the percentage of homes with 

attic insulation. An increase of approximately 4.5 percentage points would have 

to have been observed in the RECS data from 1978 through 1984 before the 

increase in the proportion of houses with attic insulation would be considered 

statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

The same finding was observed for the other conservation measures for which 

data were collected in RECS. While many showed a nominal increase in the 

percentage of homes that had a particular item, none of the increases were

3 To determine whether or not there was a significant change over time the

following computation was used.

_ __

'.. + St.dev._

A D

ySt.dev. 4 + St.dev.,

Where A is the standard deviation of the ratio for year 1 and B is the 

standard deviation of the ratio for year 2. If 1.96 times the result is 

greater than the difference between year 1 and year 2 the change is not 

significant. Consider the following computation. The standard deviation of 

the proportion of houses with attic insulation in year 1978 is 1.41: for 1984 

it is 1.71.

Using the above formula Njl.41* + 1.71*" 2.22

2.22 x 1.96 - 4.34

The difference between the proportion of homes with attic insulation in 1978 

and 1980 is 2.9. Therefore there is not a significant difference between 

years 1978 and 1984 in the presence of attic insulation.
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence interval. Also where 

measures of the quantity of the particular conservation item are available, 

such as the number of inches of attic insulation or the percent of area 

insulated, no statistically significant increase was observed. Consequently, 

from the RECS data it is not possible to determine definitively the amount of 

increase in conservation measures in single-family housing units.

It is not appropriate to conclude from these findings that there has been no 

increase in the percentage of homes with conservation measures in the 

residential sector over the period 1978 through 1984. Indeed, there is 

substantial evidence that there has been an increase. Each RECS survey has 

shown that some households (although frequently a relatively small number) 

have added conservation items to their homes. In addition, a higher 

percentage of homes constructed since 1978 have conservation features than 

homes constructed earlier. Thus, there has been some increase overall in the 

prevalence of conservation features in the residential housing stock.

For survey years 1980, 1981 and 1982, see the Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey; Housing Characteristics that corresponds to the specific 

year; for the survey year 1978, see the Residential Energy Consumption Survey! 

Conservation; for survey year 1984, see the Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey; Housing Characteristics (in preparation).

10
However, the effect of these Increases has not been large enough that it can 

be detected with statistical certainty by comparing the housing stock features 

In REGS for different years. The sample size of the REGS limits the precision 

with which the Increase can be measured. For the conservation items 

considered in this report, the increase that has occurred in the number of 

houses with a given item is smaller than the increase that could be reliably 

measured by comparing REGS for different years.

The data in Table 2 refer to the number of housing units with attic 

insulation. This number alone does not fully determine the extent of attic 

insulation in the housing stock. The percent of the attic area that is 

Insulated and the average number of inches of insulation are also important 

measures of the amount of insulation. Households that have added attic 

insulation to existing insulation would not show up in Table 2, where only the 

presence of attic Insulation is considered.

The REGS data for 1980 through 1984 provide information on the average number 

of inches of insulation and the proportion of the attic area that is 

insulated. These data also do not indicate any substantial trend towards more 

insulation. There has been little change in the average number of inches of 

different types of insulation and in the percent of attic insulated for the 

1980 through 1984 period.

11
Trends in Residential Energy Consumption

Over the period 1978 through 1982 the average amount of energy consumed per 

household in the residential sector declined from 137.9 MBtu [5.8] to 102.9 MBtu 

[3.5]. A statistical analysis of this consumption for the years 1978 through 

1981 found that among the various end uses for which energy was consumed, the 

principal decline was in consumption for space heating. Consumption for the 

other major end uses considered in the analysis water heating, air 

conditioning, and applicances (all other) was relatively unchanged over the 

period.

This decline in energy consumed for space heating coupled with the small 

increase in structural conservation measures noted in the preceding section is 

an intriguing combination. The decline in space heating consumption is being 

studied as part of the analysis for this project. However, at the present time, 

the EIA is not in a position to specify what the major factors were that 

contributed to the decline in space heating consumption. One important factor 

that is being explored is that many households have reduced consumption by 

lowering their thermostat settings.

Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditures, April 

1978 through March 1979~DOE/EIA-0207/5 (Washington,D.C., July 1980) and 

Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditures, April 1982 through March 1983, 

DO|/EIA-0321/1(82) (Washington, D.C., November 1984).

Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditures by End VUse for 1978, 1980 and 1981. DOE/EIA-0458 (Washington, D.C., December 1984).

12
Prevalence of Individual Conservation Items

The remainder of this Chapter presents data on the number and percentages of 

households that have individual conservation items. All conservation items 

covered in the REGS survey are considered. Since there is no statistically 

significant difference in the numbers of households having each item over the 

1978 through 1984 period, only data for 1984 are presented. The relationship 

between the housing unit's characteristics and the socioeconomic characteristics 

of the household on the one hand, with the presence of conservation measures on 

the other, are also discussed.

Because of the preliminary nature of the 1984 data, standard errors have not yet 

been calculated directly using the half-sample procedure that was used for 

previous RECS reports. (They will be reported in the 1984 REGS publication.) 

The standard errors for the 1984 data in this report are calculated using the 

generalized variance equation for the 1982 data, and are adjusted for the effect 

of clustering. See Appendix C for discussion on the calculation of standard 

errors and the clustering effect. Because the 1982 and 1984 sample sizes are 

similar, it is believed that there will not be a significant difference between 

the preliminary standard errors reported here and the final 1984 standard 

errors.

The 1984 RECS data presented here are preliminary. These data have not 

completed the complete internal review process that provides their official 

release. However, the review process is sufficiently close to completion that 

it is unlikely that any of the figures cited in this report will be revised 

significantly.

13
In this analysis .three types of insulation 1) roof or attic insulation, 2) wall 

insulation, and 3) floor insulation are considered along with three types of 

air infiltration protection 1) the presence of caulking or weatherstripping, 2) 

the presence of storm windows on 90 percent of the windows, and 3) the presence 

of storm doors on 90 percent of the doors.

The discussion of attic insulation includes the prevalence of attic insulation, 

the type of insulation and the amount of insulation. The amount of insulation 

refers to the proportion of the attic that is insulated and to the average 

number of inches of attic insulation. In this chapter, the prevalence, the type 

and the amount of insulation are covered separately. Chapter 3, which includes 

a discussion of the clustering of conservation measures, combines the prevalence 

of attic insulation with the amount of insulation in an effort to categorize 

homes by whether or not they have full attic insulation.

Census Region. For the Nation in 1984, the most common conservation item in 

single family housing units was roof or attic insulation. Approximately 

45.2 million [2.1] single family housing units had this item, Table 3. The next 

most common conservation items were caulking or weatherstripping, about 39.9 

million [2.1], followed by floor and wall insulation (33.5 million [1.9] and 

30.8 million [1.9] respectively). The least used conservation items were storm 

windows or doors. Approximately 28.1 million [1.8] households had 90 percent of 

their windows covered with storm windows, 22.3 million [1.6] used storm doors on 

90 percent of their doors. The proportion of homes with these conservation 

items did not differ significantly over the preceding 6 years. In 1984, more 

than one-half of the households had insulated their entire attic. This 

proportion had not significantly changed from 1978.

14
Table 3. Attic Insulation by Census Region- 

(Millions of Households)

-Single-Family Housing Units, 1984

Census Region

Type of Thermal 

Protection

United 

States

North 

east

North 

Central South West

Total Households

(millions) ............ 57.6

[1.8]

Presence of Attic 

or Roof Insulation

Yes ................... 45.2

[2.2] 

No .................... 8.2

[1.0]

Don't know/ 

not reported .......... 4.1

[0.7]

Area of Attic or 

Roof Insulated

All insulated ......... 36.5

[2.0] 

Part insulated ....."... 4.8

[0.7]

None; very 

little insulated ...... 0.9

[0.3]

Do not know 

amount/ 

not reported .......... 3.1

[0.6]

Type of Attic

or Roof Insulation

Batt only ............. 21.4

[1.5] 

Loose fill only ....... 13.2

[1.2]

Batt and loose 

fill only ............. 5.1

[0.8] 

Other 

combinations ........... 2.7

[0.6]

Don't know/ 

not reported .......... 2.6

[0.5]

No insulation/ 

don't know/ 

not reported .......... 12.4

[1.2]

10.9 

[1.1]

8.4 

[1.0]

1.9 

[0.5]

0.5 

[0.2]

6.7 

[0.9]

1.0 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.6 

[0.2]

5.6

[0.8]

1.3

[0.4]

0.7 

[0.3]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.3 

[0.2]

2.4 

[0.5]

14.6 

[1.3]

12.4 

[1.2]

1.1 

[0.3]

1.1 

[0.3]

10.2

[1.1]

1.0

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.9 

[0.3]

4.9

[0.8]

3.8

[0.7]

2.1 

[0.5]

0.8 

[0.3]

0.6 

[0.2]

2.2 

[0.5]

21.8 

11.6]

16.4 

[1.4] 

3.7 

[0.7]

1.7 

[0.4]

13.2 

[1.2] 

1.8 

[0.4]

0.3 

[0.2]

1.1 

[0.3]

7.8 

[1.0]

5.0 

[0.7]

1.7 

[0.4]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.9 

[0.3]

5.4 

[0.8]

10.4 

[1.1]

8.1 

[1.0]

1.5 

[0.4]

0.8 

[0.3]

6.4 

[0.9]

1.0 

[0.3]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.6 

[0.2]

3.0 

[0.6]

3.1 

[0.6]

0.6 

[0.2]

0.5. 

[0.2]

0.8 

[0.3]

2.3 

[0.5]

Q*Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

15
Although there .were statistically significant differences among the types of 

Insulation used, these differences did not vary from year to year. The most 

popular type of Insulation was batt insulation followed by loosefill. A 

combination of batt and loosefill was the least popular with fewer than 

one-tenth of the households using this combination.

From 1980 through 1984 the average number of inches of loosefill insulation was 

somewhat greater than the average number of inches of batt insulation. However, 

the effectiveness of these two types of insulation as reflected by the R-value 

is approximately the same. The R-value, a measure of the insulation's 

resistance to heat flow, is determined by the type, the thickness, and the

density of the insulation. Thus, 5 inches of rockwool batt insulation is

g comparable in effectiveness to 6.5 inches of rockwool loosefill insulation.

The recommended R-value for effective conservation differs by region and by type 

of main heating fuel. Generally, the minimum recommended R-value for attic 

insulation ranged from 19 in the warmest regions to 38 in the coldest areas. 

For the warmest areas these R-values can be translated into approximately 5 to 

6.5 inches of batt insulation and 5.5 to 8.5 inches of loosefill. For the 

coldest regions an R-value of 38 translates to 10.5 to 13 inches of batt and 

10.5 to 17 inches of loosefill. In the two coldest weather zones, with 5,500 or 

more heating degree-days (HDD), 16.9 million [1.4] households in 1984, had attic

8U.S. Department of Energy. "Insulation," Fact Sheet DOE/CS-0912, November 

1980.

16
g insulation. These households averaged 5.4 to 6.2 inches of batt insulation and 

6.8 to 8.2 inches in loosefill. In the two warmest zones, the households 

averaged 4.7 inches to 5.3 inches of batt insulation and 5.6 to 6.6 Inches of 

loosefill insulation.

There were significant regional differences in the proportion of homes with 

conservation items. However, for most items the regional differences were 

between the northern two regions and the South and West regions. A 

significantly greater proportion of homes in the North Central region had attic 

insulation than in the other 3 regions. No differences were found in the 

prevalence of attic insulation between the Northeast, the South or the West 

regions.

Batt insulation was the most common type of insulation used in the 

Northeast region in 1984 with slightly more than one-half of the homes 

insulating with it, Table 3. It was least used in the West with less 

than one-third of the homes using it. Although the number of homes using 

batt insulation was larger in the South, a greater proportion of homes in 

the North Central region had batt insulation. Loosefill Insulation was 

more common in the North Central region, the South and the West. 

Approximately one-fourth of the homes in the North Central and the South

9 Heating Degree Days are the number of degrees per day the daily

average temperature is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Heating Degree Days 

are determined by subtracting the average daily temperature below 65 

degrees from the base 65. For example, a day with an average temperature 

of 50 degrees has 15 heating degree days (65 -50 =15). While one with an 

average temperature of 65 or higher has none. The average daily 

temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperature for a 

24-hour period.

17
used only loosefill Insulation. In the West, an equal number of households used 

batt insulation or loosefill insulation.

The pattern of wall insulation usage and floor insulation usage varied by 

whether or not the homes were located in the North or South, Table 4. More 

homes in the Northeast and North Central regions had wall and floor insulation 

than did homes in the South or West regions. Generally, the households that 

reported the presence of wall insulation reported it for all walls.

Slightly more than one-half of the 57.6 million single family households in 1984 

reported using storm windows on three fourths or more of their windows. This 

did not significantly differ from the preceding RECS surveys. Nationally, the 

use of storm windows and storm doors followed a U-shaped pattern: the largest 

number of households had 100 percent coverage of storm windows or doors and a 

slightly smaller number had no storm windows or doors. A substantially smaller 

number had partial coverage by storm windows or doors.

This U-shaped pattern was a result of regional variations in the use of these 

two conservation items. Seventeen million [1.4] households in the combined 

regions of the Northeast and North Central had all windows covered with storms. 

1.5 million [0.4] households in these two regions did not use storm windows. 

The reverse pattern was evident in the South and the West where the absence of 

storm windows was more prevalent. A similar regional distribution was also 

found in the use of storm doors, Table 5.

The use of caulking and weatherstripping was not looked at over time because 

the survey questions on caulking and stripping were asked differently in 1984 

then in 1978 through 1982. In the years 1978 through 1982 the respondents were 

asked if they had added caulking or weatherstripping in the two years prior to 

the survey. In 1984, the respondents were asked if they had caulking or

18
Table 4. Wall and Floor Insulation by Census Region Single-Family Housing 

Units, 1984 (Millions of Households)

Type of Thermal 

Protection .

Total Households 

(millions ) ..............

Presence of Wall 

Insulation

Vac

m wal 1 <?

No .....................

Don't know/

Presence of 

Floor Insulation 

Has floor insulation 

or does not need it ....

Heated basement ......

Has floor insulation . . 

All parts insulated . . . 

Some parts insulated . .

Has no floor insulation 

and needs it

TT-nVioa foH ha com 01*1 1~

No floor insulation . . . 

Do not know/not

United 

States

57.6

[1.8] 

30.8

[1.9] 

25.1

[1.7] 

5.7

[0.8] 

15.7

[1.4] 

11.1

[1.1]

33.5 

[1.9] 

12.3

[1.2] 

15.7

[1.4] 

5.5 

[0.8] 

3.8 

[0.7] 

1.7 

[0.4]

29.6

[1.8] 

16.0 

[1.4]

8.1

[1.0]

North 

east

10.9

[1.1] 

6.4

[0.9] 

5.1

[0.8] 

1.3

[0.4] 

2.8

[0.6] 

1.7

[0.4]

7.0 

[0.9] 

0.8

[0.3] 

4.9

[0.8] 

1.2 

[0.4] 

0.7 

[0.3] 

0.5 

[0.2]

5.1

[0.8] 

2.4 

[0.5]

1.5

[0.4]

Census

North 

Central

14.6

[1.3] 

9.4

[1.1] 

7.8

tl.O] 

1.6

[0.4] 

2.7

[0.6] 

2.5

[0.5]

9.3 

[1.0] 

1.4

[0.4] 

6.9

[0.9] 

1.1 

[0.3] 

0.6 

[0.2] 

0.4 

[0.2]

6.3

[0.9] 

3.4 

[0.6]

1.8

[0.4]

Region

South

21.8

[1.6] 

10.6

[1.1] 

8.7

[1.0] 

1.9

[0.5] 

6.4

[0.9] 

4.7

[0.7]

11.8 

[1.2] 

6.7

[0.9] 

2.6

[0.5] 

2.5 

[0.5] 

1.9 

[0.5] 

0.6 

[0.2]

1 7 S

[1.2] 

6.9 

[0.9]

3 1

[0.6]

West

10.4

[l.U 

4.4

[0.7] 

3.5

[0.6] 

0.9

[0.3] 

3.7

[0.7] 

2.3

[0.5]

5.4 

[0.8] 

3.5

[0.6] 

1 9

[0.3] 

0.7 

[0.3] 

0.5 

[0.2] 

0.2 

[0.1]

5.7

[0.8] 

3.3 

[0.6]

1.7

[0.4]

Q*Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

19
Table 5. Storm Windows, Storm Doors. Caulking, and Weatherstripping by Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households)

Type of Thermal 

Protection

Census Region

United 

States

North 

east

North 

Central South West

Total Households

(millions) ............... 57.6

[1.8]

Presence of Storm Windows; 

Percentage of Windows Covered

Yes ...................... 37.9

[2.1] 

100 percent ............ 26.0

[1.7] 

76 to 99 percent ....... 5.5

[0.8] 

51 to 75 percent ....... 3.1

[0.6] 

1 to 50 percent ........ 3.3

[0.6] 

No/no windows ............ 19.7

[1.5]

Presence of Storm Doors-;

Percentage of Doors Covered

Yes ...................... 40.2

[2.1] 

100 percent ............ 22.3

[1.6] 

51 to 99 percent ........ 7.9

1.0] 

1 to 50 percent ........ 0.0

1.1] 

No/no doors .............. 7.4

1.4]

Has Caulking .

Yes ...................... 33.8

[1.9] 

No ....................... 21.2

[1.6] 

Has Weatherstripping

Yes ...................... 32.6

[1.9] 

No ....................... 23.2

[1.6] 

Has Caulking or

Weatherstripping ......... 39.9

[2.1]

10.9 

[1.1]

10.2

0.5

[0.2]

0.6

[0.3]

10.1

2*.2 

[0.5]

[0^4] 

[Oi3]

7.2

[0!6] 

6.9 [ 5:? !

[0.6]

7.1 

[0.9]

14.6 

[1.3]

13.7 'i:! 1

'§:!'

[0. 3)

13.3

[1.2]

8.5

[0.5]

1.3

[0.4]

9.6 U-i]

4.4 

[0.7]

8.7 

[1.0]

5.6 

[0.8]

9.7 

[1.13

21.8 

[1.6]

10.7

'5:2' 

'8:4'

IS:* 1

[1.1]

3.7

[1.0]

11. 'J

[1.

10.

[1 

10 

[1.

7? 1

0]

9

1]

0

1]

10.4 

[1.1]

3.1

11.9 

[1.2]

[0.9]

3.2 

[061

'8:? 1

[ ?:l ]

[0.9]

5.2

[0.7]

6.1 

10.8]

[0.7]

6.1 

[0.8]

Q"Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in orackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and 

End Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

20
weatherstripping. Therefore a comparisons of these two items over time would be 

subject to this change in the questionnaire. Data on the use of caulking or 

weatherstripping are presented for 1984. The presence of caulking or 

weatherstripping was the second most common conservation item. Both of these 

items are relatively inexpensive items, thus not surprising, they are one of the 

most popular conservation items. Approximately 39.9 million [2.2] single family 

households had one or both of these items. In all four geographic regions over 

one-half of the homes had caulking or stripping, Table 5.

The previous section discussed the regional variations in selected 

conservation items. This section examines the variations in these measures by 

other characteristics of the housing unit and by selected socioeconomic 

characteristics of the household.

Conservation Measures and Housing Structure Characteristics

Age of House. The presence of conservation measures varied significantly with 

the age of the house. There was a steady increase in the proportion of homes 

with attic, wall and floor insulation as homes decreased in age. The presence 

of storm windows and storm doors and the age of house showed a different pattern 

than other conservation measures. Houses with storm windows on 90 percent of 

the windows showed a U-shaped pattern, with houses constructed before 1939 and 

after 1980 having significantly more windows covered by storms than houses 

constructed in the intervening years. In contrast to other conservation 

measures, slightly more older homes than newer ones had 90 percent of the doors 

covered with storm doors, Table 6.

21
Type of House. .The presence of conservation measures also varied by the type 

of housing unit. A greater proportion of split level homes had all types of 

conservation measures except storm doors than did other types of single-family 

homes. More older, two story homes had 90 percent storm doors. There was 

less variation in the prevalence of conservation measures among homes built 

after 1975, Table 6.

Own/Rent Status. Homeownership was also an important factor affecting the 

presence of individual conservation measures. In all categories, housing units 

that were owned by the household occupying it were much more likely to have each 

type of conservation measures than were renters. In most cases, home owners 

were more than twice as likely to have a particular conservation measure than 

were renters, Table 6.

Size of House. The size of the housing unit was again an important influence 

on the presence of conservation measures. Larger homes for the most part 

tended to have a higher incidence of each type of conservation measure than 

did smaller homes. The breaking point in size between homes with lower and 

homes with higher percentages of conservation measures was in the neighborhood 

of 1,600 to 2,000 heated square footage. For large homes there was not much 

variation in the incidence of each measure. However, below the 1,600 - 2,000 

cut-off, the incidence of conservation measures generally declined as the size 

of house declined, Table 6.

22
Table 6. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Characteristics of Housing 

Units Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households)

Characteristics 

of Housing Unit

Total

Households

(Millions)

Insulation___ Air-Infiltration Protection Caulking/——————————— 

. Weather- 2 Storm , Storm, 

stripping Windows Doors

Roof/

Attic Wall Floor

Total Households

(millions) ......... 57.6

[1.8]

AIA Weather Zone

Zone 1 ............. 6.2

[1.6]

Zone 2 ............. 13.6

[2.3]

Zone 3 ............. 15.2

[2.5]

Zone A .............. 12.9

[2.3]

Zone 5 ............. 9.6

[2.0]

Year House Was Built

1939 or Earlier .... 17.7

[1.5]

1940 to 1949 ....... 5.4

[0.9]

1950 to 1959 ....... 10.4

[1.2]

1960 to 1964 ....... 5.1

[0.8]

1965 to 1969 ....... 5.1

[0.8]

1970 to 1974 ....... 5.4

[0.9]

1975 to 1979 ....... 5.6

[0.9]

1980 or Later ...... 2.8

[0.6]

45.2 30.8 33.5 

[2.1] [1.9] [1.9]

5.5 4.6 3.8

[1.5] [1.4] [1.2]

11.4 8.4 9.0

[2.1] [1.8] [1.9]

11.8 8.5 8.9

[2.2] [1.9] [1.9]

9.9 5.3 5.7

[2.0] [1.5] [1.5]

6.6 4.0 6.1

[1.6] [1.3] [1.6]

11.2 

[1.2]

4.0 

[0.7]

8.5

[1.1]

4.4 

[0.8]

4.7 

[0.8]

4.8 

[0.8]

5.1 

[0.8]

2.6 

[0.6]

7.6 

[1.0]

2.2 

[0.5]

4.6 

[0.8]

2.9 

[0.6]

3.0 

[0.6]

3.8

[0.7]

4.4 

[0.8]

2.3 

[0.6]

7.9 

[1.0]

2.4 

[0.6]

5.8 

[0.9]

3.3

[0.7]

3.6

[0.7]

3.9 

[0.7]

4.5 

[0.8]

2.0 

[0.5]

39.9 

[2.1]

4.9 

[1.4]

10.4 

[2.0]

11.1 

[2.1]

8.2 

[1.8]

5.4 

[1.5]

11.4 

[1.2]

3.6

[0.7]

7.1 

[1.0]

3.6

[0.7]

3.8

[0.7]

3.9

[0.7]

4.3 

[0.8]

2.1 

[0.5]

28.1 22.3 

[1.8] . [1.6]

4.7 

[1.4]

9.5 

[2.0]

8.8

[1.9]

3.8

[1.2]

1.4 

[0.7]

8.6

[1.1]

2.5 

[0.6]

4.3 

[0.8]

2.1 

[0.5]

2.1 

[0.5]

2.9 

[0.6]

3.4 

[0.7]

2.1 

[0.5]

3.3 

[1.1]

7.3 

[1.7]

7.6 

[1.8]

2.9 

[1.1]

1.2 

[0.7]

7.4 

[1.0]

2.1 

[0.5]

4.6 

[0.8]

1.8 

[0.5]

1.8 

[0.5]

1.9 

[0.5]

1.9 

[0.5]

1.0 

[0.3]

See footnotes at end of table.

23
Table 6. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Characteristics of Housing 

Unlts Slngle-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) 

(Continued)

Insulation

Characteristics 

of Housing Unit

Total

Households

(Millions)

Roof/

Attic Wall Floor

Air-Infiltration Protection 

Caulking/

1

Weather- , 

stripping^

Storm Storm,

Windows Doors

Vintage and Type 

Built Before 1975 

One Story .....

Two Stories

Three Stories 

or More

Split Level 

Other .....

Built 1975 or After 

One Story .......

Two Stories

Three Stories 

or More

Split Level 

Other .....

30.4 23.2 14.0 15.2 19.9 11.7 10.6

[2.0] [1.8] [1.4] [1.4] [1.6] [1.3] [1.2]

13.9 10.5 7.4 8.7 10.0 8.3 7.1

[1.4] [1.2] [1.0] [1.1] [1.2] [1.1] [1.0]

1.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4

[0.4] [0.3] [0.2] [0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [0.2]

1.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 0..9 0.5

[0.4] [0.4] [0.4] [0.4] [0.4] [0.3] [0.2]

2.5 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.0

[0.6] [0.5] [0.4] [0.4] [0.5] [0.4] [0.4]

4.7 4.2 3.6 3.7 3.4 2.6 1.6

[0.8] [0.8] [0.7] [0.7] [0.7] [0.6] [0.4]

2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 0.6

[0.5] [0.5] [0.5] [0.5] [0.6] [0.5] [0.3]

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Q

[0.1] [0.1] [0.1] [0.1] [0.1] [0.1]

0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3

[0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [0.3] [0.2]

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2

[0.3] [0.3] [0.2] [0.2] [0.2] [0.2] [0.1]

See footnotes at end of table.

24
Table 6. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Characteristics of Housing 

Units Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) 

(Continued)

Insulation

Characteristics 

of Housing Unit

Main Heating Fuel

Electricity ........

Fuel Oil/Kerosene . . 

LPG ................

Wood ...............

Other ..............

No Fuel Used .......

Relationship of Housing 

to Householder

Owned ..............

Rented .............

Total 

Households Roof/ 

(Millions) Attic

32.3 

[1.9]

7.9 

[1.01

7.6 

[0.9]

2.6 

[0.5]

5.9 

[0.8]

0.8 

[0.3]

0.4 

[0.2]

Unit

47.9 

[2.0]

8.6 

[1.0]

25.3 

[1.7]

6.9 

[0.9]

5.7 

[0.8]

1.8 

[0.4]

5.0 

[0.8]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

40.7 

[2.1]

3.9 

[0.7]

Wall

15.8 

[1.4]

5.3 

[0.8]

3.9 

[0.7]

1.4 

[0.4]

4.0 

[0.7]

0.4 

[0.2]

Q

28.5 

[1.8]

1.8 

[0.4]

Air-Infiltration Protection

Caulking/ 

. Weather- 2 

Floor stripping

18.9 

[1.5]

5.6 

[0.8]

4.2 

[0.7]

1.3 

[0.4]

2.7 

[0.6]

0.4 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

29.0 

[1.8]

4.0 

[0.7]

22.6 

[1.6]

5.5 

[0.8]

5.6

[0.8],

1.7 

[0.4]

4.2 

[0.7]

0.4 

[0.2]

Q

35.5 

[2.0]

3.9 

[0.7]

Storm ,, 

Windows

14.5 

[1.3]

4.0 

[0.7]

4.9 

[0.8]

1.3 

[0.4]

3.0 

[0.6]

0.4 

[0.2]

Q

25.5 

[1.7]

2.2 

[0.5]

Storm, 

Doors

12.3 

[1.2]

2.2 

[0.5]

3.9

[0.7]

1.2 

[0.4]

2.3 

[0.5]

0.4 

[0.2]

Q

20.1 

[1.5]

1.8 

[0.4]

See footnotes on following page.

25
Table 6. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Characteristics of Housing 

Units Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) 

(Continued)

Insulation

Characteristics 

of Housing Unit

Total

Households Roof/

Caulking/~~~ Air-Infiltration Protection 

. Weather- _ Storm ., Storm, 

(Millions) Attic Wall Floor stripping Windows Doors

Measured Heated Square 

Footage of Residence

600 to

1,000 

1,600

2,000

2,400

3,000

900 .........

to 1,599 ..... 

tn 1 999

to 2,399 .....

to 2,999 .....

or More ......

£• • X

[0.4] 

9.1

[0.9]

19.0 

[1.3]

10.5

[1.0] 

6.9

[0.8] 

5.4

[0.7] 

U 7

[0.7]

[0.3] 

5.9

[0.7]

14.7 

[1.2]

8.9

[0.9] 

6.1

[0.7] 

4.8

[0.6] 

4 0

[0.6]

\J • ^

[0.2] 

3 2

[0.5]

9.7 

[1.0]

6.2

[0.8] 

4 7

[0.7] 

3 7

[0.6] 

^ 0

[0.5]

\j • i

[0.2] 

3 4

[0.6]

9.1 

[0.9]

6.8

[0.8] 

5 3

[0.7] 

4 2

[0.6]

& n

[0.6]

V • \J

[0.2] 

5.1

[0.7]

12.6 

[1.1]

7.6

[0.9] 

5.7

[0.7] 

4 4

[0.6] 

3 9

[0.6]

\J m ^

[0.2] 

3.5

[0.6]

8.6 

[0.9]

5.5

[0.7] 

4 2

[0.6] 

1 1

[0.5]

1 "T

[0.5]

V • TM*

[0.1] 

3 3

[0.6]

7.3 

[0.8]

4 2

[0.6] 

3.1

[0.5]

7 L

[0.5] 

1.7

[0.4]

^Households with floor insulation or that do not need it.

.Households with caulking or weatherstripping.

.Households with storm windows on at least 90 percent of the windows.

.Households with storm doors on at least 90 percent of the doors. 

Weather zones, as established by the AIA, are delimited by heating degree-days 

(HDD) and cooling degree-days (CDD). Zone 1 more than 7,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 

CDD; Zone 2 5,500 to 7,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 3 4,000 to 5,499 HDD 

and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 4 fewer than 4,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 

5 fewer than 4,000 HDD and more than 2,000 CDD. In this table, the CDD and HDD are 

based on long-term averages.

Q*Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are calculated 

on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic represents 1.96 of 

the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for further discussion of 

standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

26
Conservation Measures and Household Socioeconomic Characteristics

This section discusses the associations between the proportions of homes with 

various conservation measures and the socioeconomic characteristics of the 

household residing in the unit. It should be noted that there is some 

relationship between the associations discussed here and those discussed in 

the previous sections. For example, higher-income families are more 

likely to live in larger homes. So any association between family income 

and the incidence of conservation measures may not be solely due to 

income but also reflect the effects of the larger house. No effort is 

made here to attempt to determine the relative importances of these 

co-related factors.

Age of Householder. Age of the householder was an important factor in 

the presence of wall insulation, caulking or weatherstripping and the use 

of storm doors. There was not a significant difference between the age 

of the householder and proportion of homes with attic or floor insulation 

or the presence of storm windows. More homes with householders under age 

45 years had either caulking or weatherstripping or wall insulation. The 

converse was true for the use of storm doors, Table 7.

Orgln of Householder. White householders were more likely to have most 

of the conservation measures than were black householders or householders 

of other races. The differences were quite substantial, ranging from 

twice as many white householders than black having floor insulation, to

27
one half as many more white householders than black having ceiling 

insulation or caulking and weatherstripping, Table 7.

Education of Householder. There was a significant difference in the 

presence or absence of a conservation measure between the householders 

that had not completed high school and those with higher formal levels of 

education. In all of the conservation items, except the presence of 

storm doors, the proportion of households with a particular item was 

higher for households where the householder was at least a high school 

graduate, Table 7.

Family Income. Family income was also an important factor associated 

with the presence or absence of specific conservation items. For each 

conservation item (again except for storm doors) there was a direct 

relationship between income and the presence of the item. There was a 

steady increase in the percentage of homes with that measure as the 

family's income increased. Slightly less than one half of households 

with an income less than $5,000 had roof or attic insulation; over 

three-fourths of the households with incomes over $35,000 had this item. 

The differences between low- and high-income families for wall 

insulation, floor insulation and caulking and stripping was even 

greater more than twice the percent of high-income households had these 

items compared with low-income families, Table 7.

28
Table 7. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Socioeconomic Characteristics of HouseholdSingle-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households)

Insulation

Socioeconomic 

Characteristics

Total

Households

(Millions)

Roof/ 

Attic Wall Floor

Air-Infiltration Protection 

Caulking/

Weather- Storm Storm

stripping 2 Windows 34

Doors

Total Households

(millions) ............... 57.6

[1.8]

Age of Householder

Under 25 Years ........... 2.3

fO.4]

25 to 34 Years ........... 11.7

[1.0]

35 to 44 Years ........... 12.6

[1.1]

45 to 59 Years ........... 13.4

[1.1]

60 Years and Over ........ 17.7

H.2]

Origin of Householder

White .................... 50.5

[2.1]

Black .................... 5.8

[0.9]

Other .................... 1.3

[0.4]

Family Income

Less than $5,000 ......... 4.2

[0.6]

55,000 to $9,999 ......... 4.8

[0.7]

$10,000 to $14,999 ....... 8.6

[0.9]

$15,000 to $19,999 ....... 5.7

[0.7]

45.2 

[2.1]

1.6 

[0.4]

9.0 

[0.9]

10.5 

[1.0]

10.7 

[1.0]

13.5 

[1.1]

41.3 

[2.3]

3.1

[0.6]

0.8 

[0.3]

2.2 

[0.3]

3.3

[0.5]

6.4 

[0.8]

4.5 

[0.6]

30.8 

[1.9]

0.9 

[0.3]

6.4 

[0.8]

7.8 

[0.8]

7.5 

[0.8]

8.2 

[0.9]

28.5 

[1.9]

1.9 

[0.5]

0.4 

[0.2]

1.2 

[0.3]

1.9 

[0.4]

4.0 

[0.6]

2.7 

[0.5]

33.5

[1.9]

1.3

[0.3]

6.7 

[0.8]

8.2 

[0.9]

8.3 

[0.9]

9.0 

[0.9]

30.2 

[2.0]

2.7 

[0.6]

0.6 

[0.3]

1.4 

[0.3]

2.4 

[0.5]

4.4 

[0.6]

2.7 

[0.5]

39.9

[2.1]

1.2 

[0.3]

8.1 

[0.8]

9.8 

[0.9]

9.5

[0.9]

11.3

[1.0]

36.5 

[2.2]

2.8 

[0.6]

0.7 

[0.3]

1.7 

[0.4]

2.5 

[0.5]

5.2

[0.7]

4.1 

[0.6]

28.1 

[1.8]

0.8 

[0.3]

5.6 

[0.7]

6.1 

[0.7]

6.7 

[0.8]

[0.9]

26.1 

[1.8]

1.7 

[0.5]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.3 

[0.3]

1.9 

[0.4]

3.8 

[0.61

2.5 

[0.5]

22.3 

[1.6]

0.7 

[0.2]

4.1 

[0.6]

4.4 

[0.6]

5.4 

[0.7]

7.8 

[0.8]

20.5 

[1.6]

1.7 

[0.5]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.3 

[0.3]

2.0 

[0.4]

3.6

[0.6]

2.1 

[0.4]

See footnotes on following page.

29
Table 7. Insulation-and Air-Infiltration Protection by Socloeconomlc Characteristics of HouseholdSingle-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of Households) (Continued)

Socioeconomic 

Characteristics

Total 

Households 

(Millions)

Insulation

Roof/ 

Attic Wall Floor

Air-Infiltration Protection

Caulking/ 

Weather - 

stripping

Storm 

Windows

Storm 4 

Doors

Family Income (Continued) 

$20,000 to $24,999 5.3 4.4 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.0 2.2 

[0.7] [0.6] [0.5] [0.5] [0.6] [0.5] [0.4]

$25,000 to $34,999 ....... 11.5 9.6 7.0 7.2 8.9 6.2 5.0

[1.0] [0.9] [0.8] [0.8] [0.9] [0.7] [0.7]

$35,000 or More .......... 15.8 13.9 10.5 11.4 12.9 8.7 5.6

[1.2] [1.2] [1.0] [1.0] [1.1] [0.9] [0.7]

Education of Householder

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College ........

College Graduate ,..,

.... 14.7

[0.7]

, , ., , 20.9

[0.8]

, ., , 10.9

[0.6]

6.4

[0.4]

9.7

[0.5]

16.7

[0.7]

9.4

[0.5]

5.2

[0.4]

6.3

[0.4]

11.9

[0.6]

5.9

[0.4]

3.8

[0.3]

6.9

[0.5]

12.3

[0.6]

7.0

[0.5]

4.0

[0.3]

7.9

[0.5]

15.1

[0.7]

8.3

[0.5]

4.5

[0.4]

6.2

[0.4]

11.9

[0.6]

5.2

[0.4]

3.2

[0.3]

6.0

[0.4]

9.0

[0.5]

4.2

[0.4]

1.8

[0.2]

Households with floor insulation or that do not need it. 

Households with caulking or weatherstripping.

Households with storm windows on at least 90 percent of the windows. 

4 Households with storm doors on at least 90 percent of the doors.

Q=Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are calculated on unrounded

numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic represents 1.96 of the standard error of the

statistic. See Appendix C for further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Energy End Use

Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

30
Chapter 3

THE POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION UPGRADES

This Chapter examines the potential for upgrading the thermal integrity of the 

residential stock of single family dwelling units. It focuses on delineating 

the number of housing units that could have additional conservation improvements 

made to them. As part of this study, work was also pursued to obtain estimates 

of the energy that could be saved if various conservation measures were 

undertaken. This part of the study proved, as expected, to be quite difficult 

and has not been completed as this report is being written. Consequently, no 

energy savings estimates are provided here. A discussion of the effort 

undertaken to provide estimates of energy savings is given and the current 

status of the effort is reviewed.

The first step in this analysis is to enumerate and categorize the homes that 

could benefit from conservation improvements. Since the focus is only on the 

thermal characteristics of the housing unit shell, the only form of energy 

consumption significant for this analysis is for space heating. Other forms of 

residential conservation are not considered. The amount of energy consumed for 

space heating depends, of course, upon the severity of the winter temperatures. 

Consequently, the conservation improvements are considered in relation to the 

climate zone in which the house is located, among other characteristics.

Work is continuing in an effort to produce estimates of the energy savings 

from conservation measures. A report will be issued with the results if the 

work is completed successfully.

31
Finally, this analysis does not attempt to determine whether or not the 

conservation improvements considered would be cost effective. The principal 

goal of this analysis to estimate how many housing units could potentially make 

conservation retrofit upgrades.

Stock of Housing Units with Conservation Retrofit Potential

The REGS data base provides information on the following types of conservation 

measures: attic or ceiling insulation, wall insulation, floor insulation, storm 

windows, storm doors, caulking, and stripping. The sample size of RECS is not 

large enough to look in detail at the combination of all these conservation 

measures cross-classified by geographical region, weather zone, and other 

variables. A subset of these conservation measures has been chosen in an 

attempt to represent a range of conservation measures from a house that can be 

considered to be filled fully with conservation measures to one with essentially 

no conservation features.

Three conservation items were selected to be considered in combination: attic 

insulation including area of coverage and number of inches wall insulation, 

and storm windows. A house that has a full complement of each of these three 

can in most cases be considered to have a full complement of conservation 

measures. (The house may still lack some energy efficiency because of air 

infiltration or other reasons not easily ascertainable from the RECS file.) On 

the other hand, houses with few of these items, particularly in colder climates, 

have substantial room for conservation improvement.

This selection was made in consultation with the staff of the GAO.

32
The three items not selected were excluded for reasons beyond the fact that a 

choice had to be made. Storm doors are relatively expensive, and the evidence 

that they provide effective thermal protection is less compelling than for the 

other items. Caulking and stripping can be quite important, but are usually 

present in those houses that had the full complement of the three items 

selected. Consequently, their presence does not provide substantial additional 

information about the degree to which the house had a high degree of thermal 

integrity. Basement insulation is useful for a minority of houses, and it is

difficult from the REGS data to determine whether or not a particular house

12 would benefit from the addition of this form of insulation. As a result, it

was not included in the combination selected. A futher discussion of the three 

conservation measures selected for this study follows.

Attic or ceiling insulation is an important form of insulation and is present in 

an overwhelming majority of homes, as was seen in the previous chapter. In 

this Chapter, attention is paid jointly to the percentage of ceiling area 

covered by the insulation and the number of inches of insulation. Households 

that had at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered by insulation and had 

at least the minimum recommended number of inches of insulation comprise one 

category considered in the study. The second category consists of housing units 

that had at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but had less than the 

minimum number of inches. The third category consists of houses that had less 

than 96 percent area of coverage, did not know the area of coverage, or lacked 

attics or attic insulation.

12Many styles of houses, for example, houses built on a concrete slab, do not

have basements or crawl spaces where insulation could be placed. For these 

homes, basement insulation is not relevant.

33
The minimum number of inches of ceiling insulation that are recommended depends 

upon the winter temperature. The number of inches also depends upon the type of 

insulation, whether it is batt or fill and the type of material. The REGS data 

specify whether the insulation is batt or fill or both, but not the type of 

material. Consequently, an average value for the number of inches of minimum 

insulation recommended for each weather zone was selected, Table 8. The minimum 

number of inches recommended for attic insulation ranges from 5 inches in warmer 

climates with fewer than 4,000 HDD to 10.5 inches houses in areas with 7,000 or 

more HDD. Since the type of material is not listed on the RECS file, the 

smallest number of inches from all materials has been selected. This analysis 

will therefore underestimate to some degree the number of houses that have low 

levels of insulation.

Table 8. Recommended Insulation Thickness and Nominal R-Value by Weather Zone 

and Type of Insulation

Weather Zone

More than.. 

7,000 HDD ....

5,500 to 

7,000 HDD ....

4,000 to 

5.499 HDD ' ....

Fewer than 

4,000 HDD ....

Nominal 

R-Value

38

30

30

22

Glass

12 -

7i -

7 -

6 -

Type

Batt

Wool

13 10* - 12

9 6-7

7i 6-7

6J 5-6

of Insulation

Glass

17

10

10

8*

Fill

Wool

13

7*

7*

6,

Fiber

10*

6

6

5*

Minimum No. 

of Inches 

Chosen for 

This Study

10.5

6

6

5

Heating degree-days.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, "Insulation," Fact Sheet DOE/CS-D192, 

November 1980.
Storm windows ar_e the next major conservation item considered in this study. 

Three categories of storm window coverage were considered. The first group 

consists of those housing units that have 90 percent or more of the windows 

covered with storm windows. The second group has some windows covered but less 

than 90 percent coverage. The third group has no storm windows.

The third conservation item included in this analysis is wall insulation. 

Although this form of insulation is expensive to add for housing units without 

it (and so households without it may be reluctant to retrofit it), it is a very 

important conservation item when it is present. Households that stated they had 

some or total wall insulation are included in the category of "having wall 

insulation" for this study. Households that stated they had no wall insulation, 

did not know, or did not respond to the question are placed in the category "no 

wall insulation."

The remainder of this section discusses the number and percent distribution of 

housing units by the presence of these three conservation items in combination. 

In the discussion, households are characterized by their geographic 

location Census region and weather zone and within Census regions, by family 

income, age of house and whether or not they rent.

Census Region. For the Nation about 14 percent [2] of the 57.6 million [1.8] 

single family housing units in 1984 had full attic insulation, had more than 90 

percent of windows covered by storm windows and had wall insulation, Table 9. 

Another 13 percent [2] had full area coverage of attic insulation but fewer than 

the recommended minimum number of inches of insulation and also had wall

35
insulation and full storm windows. Clearly, a minority of housing units in the 

United States can be considered to be fully weather!zed.

There are distinct regional variations in the percentages of housing units that 

were fully insulated or were only missing some inches of attic Insulation. In 

the Northeast and North Central regions, the percentage of homes in each of 

these two categories was in the neighborhood of 20 percent [4], Table 9. While 

in the South and West, the percentages were in the range 6 to 13 percent [ 2 ]. 

Clearly, the colder climate in the two northern regions induced more 

householders to provide more complete thermal protection for their homes.

A further regional difference is that it is rare to find homes in the Northeast 

and North Central regions that did not have at least some storm windows and wall 

insulation. Among households that had the full area of attic insulation, an 

insignificant number did not have at least some wall insulation or storm 

windows. Among households that had partial or no attic insulation, only several 

percent had no storm windows or wall insulation. In the South and West, on the 

other hand, while it was uncommon for housing units with full attic insulation 

not to have storm windows and wall insulation, many more households with reduced 

inches of attic insulation or partial attic insulation had no wall insulation 

and storm windows.

Weather Zone. Another way to view the regional variations in the incidence of 

conservation measures is by weather zone geographical areas with similar 

patterns of average numbers of Heating and Cooling Degree-Days over a long time 

period. In the coldest region, Zone 1, with more than 7,000 HDD, almost all the

36
Table 9. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Census Region 

Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of HouseholdsPercentages )

Type of Thermal

Protection

Total Households 

(millions) .....

United 

States

No . Per .

57.6 100

[1.8]

North 

east

No . Per .

10.9 100

[1.1]

Censuf

North 

Central

No . Per .

14.6 100

[1.3]

i Region

South

No. Per.

21.8 100

[1.6]

W

No.

10.4

[1.1

est

Per.

100

Insulation: 

Attic Full1

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Wall, and Some 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

Attic Full Area, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Wall, and Some 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

Attic Partial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Wall, and Some 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

16.3 28.2 3.1 28.4 4.5 30.8 6.2 28.4 2.5 24.0

[1.4] [2.2] [0.6][4.6] [0.7] [4.1] [0.9] [3.3] [0.5] [4.5]

8.3 .. ... 14.4 _.. 19 17.4 2.9 _. 20.1. _... .2.8. 12.9. 0.7. 6.4

[1.0] [1.7] [0.3] [3.8] [0.6] [3.6] [0.6] [2.4] [0.3] [2.3]

10.3 1.6 10.9 2.9 13.4 1.4

[3.0] [0.4] [2.7' -- - - - -

Q Q Q Q

7.0 12.1 

[0.9] [1.5

i.: [0.: 13.4 1.4 13.1 

[2.5] [0.4] [3.4]

1.0 1.7 

[0.3] [0.6]

0.5 2.2 0.4 4.2 

[0.2] [1.0] [0.2] [2.0]

20.2 35.1 3.6 33.0 5.7 39.0 7.0 32.1 4.0 38.5 

[1.5] [2.5] [0.6] [4.8] [0.8] [4.3] [0.9] [3.4] [0.7] [5.1]

7.5 13.0 2.0 

[0.9] [1. - --

_.. 18.1 3.5 24.3 1.4 6.3 0.6 6.0 

6] [0.5] [3.8] [0.6] [3.9] [0.4] [1.7] [0.2] [2.4]

10.7 18.7 1.6 15.0 2.1

[1.1] [1.4] [0.4] [3.6] [0.5!

2.0 3.5 Q Q Q

[0.5] [1.0]

14.6 4.6 21.1 2.3 22.6

[3.0] [0.7] [3.0] [0.4] [4.4]

Q 1.0 4.4 1.0 10.0

[0.3] [1.4] [0.3] [3.1]

21.1 36.6 4.2 38.6 4.4 30.1 1.6 39.4 3.9 37.5

[1.6] [2.5] [0.7] [5.0] [0.7] [4.1] [1.0] [3.6] [0.7] [5.1]

3.0 5.3 1.0 9.3 1.2 8.0 0.7 3.0 0.2 2.1

[0.6] [1.0] [0.3] [2.9] [0.4] [2.4] [0.3] [1.1] [0.1] [1.3]

12.7 22.0 2.9 

[1.2] [2.1] [0.6]

26.6 2.9 19.9 5.0 22.8 1.9 18.5 

[4.5] [0.6] [3.5] [0.7] [3.1] [0.5] [4.0]

5.4 9.3 0.3 2.9 0.3 2.0 3.0 13.7 1.8 17.1 

[0.8] [1.3] [0.2] [1.6] [0.1] [1.1] [0.6] [2.5] [0.4] [3.8]

Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered and at least 

the-minimum recommended number or inches of insulation.

Households with some or total wall insulation and storm windows on at least 

90 percent of the windows.

Households with some wall insulation or storm windows but lacking both wall 

insulation and storm windows on at least 90 percent of the windows.

cHouseholds with no wall insulation or storm windows.

^Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but with 

fewer than the minimum recommended number of inches.

Households with less than 96 percent of the ceiling area covered, lacking 

attics or attic insulation, or not knowing how much ceiling area was covered.

Q-Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

37
houses with full attic Insulation also had vail insulation and 90 percent 

coverage of storm windows, Table 10. Seventy-five percent of the households 

with full attic Insulation also had the other two items.

An interesting feature of Weather Zone 1 is that a low proportion, 15 percent, 

[9] had at least the recommended minimum number of inches of attic insulation. 

About 63 percent [12] of the households had the full attic covered with 

insulation but had fewer than the recommended number of inches. Of these 

households, slightly more had full storm windows and wall insulation than had 

some wall insulation or storm windows. Only a small number had no storm windows 

or wall insulation. An insignificant percent of the households in this weather 

zone had partial or no attic insulation and also had no storm windows or wall 

insulation.

In Weather Zone 2, the second coldest zone with 5,500 to 7,000 HDD, about 38 

percent [8] of the households had full attic insulation, and about 24 percent 

[7] also had wall insulation and full storm window coverage. An insignificant 

fraction had partial or no attic insulation, and no wall insulation or storm 

windows.

The distribution of households by conservation measures shifted considerably in 

the warmer climate zones. In Zones 4 and 5, the warmest zones with less than 

2,000 HDD and less than 2,000 CDD and more than 2,000 CDD, respectively, very 

few homes had the full complement of conservation measures. In these two zones, 

the largest group of households, about 38 percent [9] for Zone 4 and 46 percent

38
Table 10. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Weather Zone Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 

(Millions of Households Percentages)

OJ 

VD

Type of Thermal 

Protection

Total Households 

(millions ) ............

Attic Full2 ............

Wall, aad Storm 

Windows ..............

Wall , and Some 

Storm Windows ........

None in Wall , cNo 

Storm Windows^ ........

Attic Full 1 Area, 

Fewer Inches .........

Wall, aad Storm 

Windows ..............

Wall , and Some 

Storm Windows ........

None in Wall.cNo 

Storm Windows ........

Attic: Partial or None 7 ..

Wall, aad Storm 

Windows ..............

Wall, and Some 

Storm Windows ........

None in Wall , cNo 

Storm Windows ........

United 

States

No.

57.6 

[1.8]

16.3 

[1.4]

8.3 

[1.0]

7.0 

[0.9]

1.0 

[0.3]

20.2 

[1.5]

7.5 

[0.9]

10.7 

[1.1]

2.0 

[0.5]

21.1 

[1.6]

3.0 

[0.6]

12.7 

[1.2]

5.4 

[0.8]

Per.

100

28.2 

[2.2]

14.4 

[1.7]

12.1 

[1.5]

1.7 

[0.6]

35.1 

[2.5]

13.0 

[1.6]

18.7 

[1.4]

3.5 

[1.0]

36.6 

[2.5]

5.3 

[1.0]

22.0 

[2.1]

9.3 

[1.3]

Weather Zone

Zone 1

No . Per .

6.2 100 

[1.6]

0.9 14.7 

[0.6] [8.5]

0.7 11.0 

[0.5] [7.3]

Q Q 

Q Q

3.9 62.7 

[1.3H12.3]

2.5 40.3 

[1.0H12.1]

1.4 21.8 

[0.7] [9.8]

Q Q

1.4 22.6 

[0.7H10.2]

0.5 7.3 

[0.4] [6.3]

0.8 13.5 

[0.3] [8.3]

Q Q

Zone 2

No.

13.6

[2.3]

5.2 

[1.4]

3.2 

[1.1]

2.0 

[0.9]

Q

4.0 

[1.3]

2.2 

[0.9]

1.8 

[0.8]

Q

4.1 

[1.3]

1.1 

[0.6]

3.0 

[1.1]

Q

Per.

100

38.3 

[8.4]

23.5 

[7.2]

14.3 

[5.9]

Q

29.6 

[7.9]

15.8 

[6.2]

13.5 

[5.8]

Q

30.1 

[8.0]

7.9 

[4.4]

22.1 

[14.2]

Q

Zone 3

No.

15.2 

[2.5

4.2 

[1.3]

2.4 

[1.0]

1.8 

[0.8]

Q

4.7 

[1.4]

1.9 

[0.9]

2.8 

[1.1]

Q

6.0 

[1.6]

1.1 

[0.6]

4.2 

[1.1]

0.7 

[0.5]

Per.

100

29.7 

[7.1]

15.5 

[5.9]

11.6 

[5.0]

Q

31.0 

[7.5]

12.7 

[5.3]

18.3 

[6.2]

Q

39.5 

[8.0]

7.5 

[4.2]

27.5 

[7.3]

4.6 

[3.2]

Zone 4

No. Per.

12.9 

[2.3]

3.7

[1.2]

1.3 

[0.7]

1.9 

[0.9]

0.4 

[0.4]

4.3 

[1.3]

0.7 

[0.5]

2.6 

[1.0]

1.0 

[0.6]

4.6 

[1.4]

Q

2.5 

[1.0]

2.1 

[1.0]

100

28.5 

[7.9]

10.5 

[5.3]

14.9 

[6.2]

3.2 

[2.8]

33.6 

[8.4]

5.5 

[3.8]

20.3 

[7.0]

7.9 

[4.6]

35.9 

[8.5]

Q

19.7 

[7.0]

16.2 

[6.5]

Zone 5

No . Per .

9.6

[2.0]

2.2 

[0.9]

0.7 

[0.5]

1.1 

[0.6]

0.4 

[0.4]

2.8 

[1.1]

Q

2.1 

[0.9]

0.7 

[0.5]

4.3 

[1.3JI

Q

2.1 

[0.9]

2,2 

[0.9]

100

23.0 

[8.5]

7.1 

[4.8]

11.9 

[6.4]

3.9 

[3.4]

29.3 

[9.2]

Q

22.3 

[8.4]

7.0 

[4.7]

44.5 

[10.1]

Q

21.9 

[8.3]

22.6 

[8.3]

See footnotes on following page.
Delimited by heating degree-days (HDD) and cooling degree-days (CDD). Zone 1 more than 7,000 HDD and fewer 

than 2,000 CDD; Zone 2 5,500 to 7,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 3 4,000 to 5,499 HDD and fewer than 

2,000 CDD; Zone 4 fewer than 4,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 5 fewer than 4,000 HDD and more than 

2,00,0 CDD.

Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered and at least the minimum recommended number 

of inches of insulation.

.Households with some or total wall insulation and storm windows on at least 90 percent of the windows.

Households with some wall insulation or storm windows but lacking both wall insulation and storm windpws on 

at least 90 percent of the windows.

fi Households with no wall insulation or storm windows.

Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but with fewer than the minimum recommended 

number of inches.

Households with less than 96 percent of the ceiling area covered, lacking attics or attic insulation, or not 

knowing how much ceiling area was covered.

Q=Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are calculated on unrounded numbers. The 

value in brackets below each statistic represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C 

for further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Energy End Use Division, 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.
[10] for Zone 5,-had only partial or no attic insulation. Sixteen percent [7] 

and 23 percent [8], respectively, also had no storm windows or wall insulation.

In considering these variations in the incidence of conservation items by 

climate zone, it is important to bear in mind that what are prudent conservation 

practices in one climate may be inappropriate for another. In the colder 

weather regions, the emphasis is on keeping the housing unit heated during the 

winters as efficiently as possible. This is accomplished by minimizing air 

infiltration and reducing the rate of thermal conductivity from the interior to 

the exterior.

However, in very warm climates, these practices may not be the most efficient 

when overall space conditioning energy requirements are considered. In areas 

with very hot summers, space cooling requirements in the summer may approach or 

even exceed space heating requirements in the winter. In this situation, the 

best measures for keeping the heat out in the summer maintaining a cooler 

temperature inside than the ambient temperature outside may clash with the 

requirements for keeping in the heat during the winter months.

Currently, there is a good deal of investigation going on about the most 

effective conservation practices for warmer climates. Consequently, the reader 

should put more weight on the data provided here for the colder regions than the 

warmer regions. A home in the South that has no insulation or storm windows may 

have very little need for them. Until more is known about the appropriate 

conservation measures for the warmest climates, the RECS data can not be used to 

make a full assessment of the conservation situation in the warm climate zones.

41
Family Income. . .As with the individual conservation items discussed in the 

previous chapters, there was a strong association between family income and the 

presence of combinations of conservation measures in the home. For the Nation, 

6 percent [2] of households with incomes less than $15,000 had full attic 

insulation, wall insulation and 90 percent storm windows, while 23 percent [3] 

of households with incomes over $35,000 had all three conservation measures, 

Table 11. For households with full attic insulation, there was a larger 

percentage of households that had some wall insulation or storm windows at 

higher income levels.

Among households that had full area attic insulation but less than the minimum 

recommended number of inches, there was little variation by income group in the 

various combinations of wall insulation and storm windows. However, for 

households with partial or no attic insulation, there was again a strong 

association between income and the presence of other conservation measures. A 

much higher percentage of low-income households, 17 percent [2] had no wall 

insulation and storm windows than did higher-income households, 4 percent [1]. 

More households with low income also had only some storm windows or wall 

insulation.

For the most part, the patterns of conservation measures associated with income 

groups observed for the Nation were also observed, with minor changes in the 

percentages, for the four Census regions. One major difference between the 

regions noted above was in the incidence of households with full attic 

insulation, wall insulation and storm windows. These differences were more 

pronounced within income groups across regions. In the Northeast and North

42
Table 11. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Family Income and Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages)

United States

Family Income

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) ........

Insulation: 

Attic Full 1 ........

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ..........

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall.^No

Attic Full Area,

Wall, and Storm

U4 n d five

Some Wall or ,

None in Wall.^No

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ..........

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No

Total 

Households 

(millions)

No

.. 57

[1 

...16

[1 

... 8

[1 

... 7

[0 

... 1

[0 

...20

tl 

... 7

[0 

...10

[1 

... 2

[0 

...21

[1 

,.. 3

[0 

... 12

[1 

... 5

[0

t

.6

.8]

.3

.4]

.3

.0]

.0 

.9]

.0 

.3]

.2 

.5]

.5 

.9]

.7 

.1]

.0 

.5]

.1 

.6]

.0 

.6]

.7 

.2]

.4 

.8]

Per.

100

28.2 

[2.2]

14.4 

[1.7]

12.1 

[1.5]

1.7 

[0.6]

35.1 

[2.5]

13.0 

[1.6]

18.7 

[1.4]

3.5 

[1.0]

36.6

[2.5]

5.3

[1.0]

22.0 

[2.1]

9.3 

[1.3]

Income 

Less Than 

$15,000

No.

19 

[1

3

[0

1 

[0

1

to

0 

[0

6

[0

2 

[0

3 

[0

0 

[0

9

[0

0 

[0

5 

[0

3 

[0

.3 

.3]

.4 

.5]

.2 

.3]

.8 

.4]

.4 

.2]

.1 

.7]

.0 

.4]

.4 

.5]

.7 

.2]

.8

.9]

.9 

.3]

.6

.7]

.3 

.5]

Per.

100

17.6 

[2.6]

6.0 

[1.6]

9.1 

[1.9]

2.1 

[0.9]

31.6 

[3.2]

10.6 

[2.0]

17.4 

[2.6]

3.9 

[1.3]

50.8 

[3.5]

4.9 

[1.4]

28.8 

[3.0]

17.3 

[2.5]

Income 

$15,000 to 

$J4,999

No. Per.

22.4 

[1.4]

6.5 

[0.8]

3.4

[0.5]

2.7 

[0.5]

0.4 

[0.2]

8.7 

[0.9]

3.3 

[0.5]

4.7 

[0.6]

0.7 

[0.2]

7.1 

[0.8]

1.2 

[0.3]

4.5 

[0.6]

1.4 

[0.3]

100

29.0 

[2.9]

15.4 

[2.3]

12.1 

[2.0]

1.7 

[0.7]

38.8

[3.1]

14.6 

[2.2]

21.0 

[2.6]

3.3

[1.1]

31.7 

[2.9]

5.6 

[1.4]

20.1 

[2.5]

6.3

[1.5]

Income 

$35,000 

or More

No.

15.8 

[1.2]

6.4

[0.8]

3.7 

[0.6]

2.5 

[0.5]

0.2 

[0.1]

5.4 

[0.7]

2.2 

[0.4]

2.7 

[0.5]

0.5 

[0.2]

4.1 

[0.6]

0.9 

[0.3]

2.6 

[0.5]

0.6 

[0.2]

Per.

100

40.5 

[3.7]

23.2 

[3.1]

15.8 

[2.7]

1.3 

[0.7]

34.2 

[3.5]

13.8 

[2.6]

16.9 

[2.7]

3.3

[1.2]

25.9 

[3.3]

5.4 

[1.6]

16.5 

[1.4]

3.9 

[2.7]

See footnotes at end of table.

43
Table 11. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Family Income and Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

Northeast

Family Income

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) .......

Insulation: 

Attic Full 1 ........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or _ 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall.^No

Attic Full Area,

Wall, and Storm

IJ4 irt /^ rtWC

Some Wall or .

None in Wall.^No

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No

Total 

Households 

(millions) 

No . Per .

.. 10

[1 

... 3

[0 

... 1

[0

... 1

[0

... 3

[0 

... 2

[0 

... 1

[0

4

to

... 1

[0 

... 2

to

... 0

to

.9

.1]

.1 

.6}

.9 

.3]

.1 

.3]

Q

.6 

.6]

.0 

.5]

.6 

.4]

Q

.2 

.7]

.0 

.3]

.9 

.6]

.3

.2]

100

28.4 

[4. 6J

17.4 

t3.8]

10.3 

[3.0]

Q

33.0 

[4.8]

18.1 

[3.8]

15.0 

[3.1]

Q

38.6

[5.0]

9.3

[2.9]

26.6 

[4.5]

2.9 

[1.6]

Income 

Less Than 

$15,000

No.

2.8 

[0.6]

0.3 

[0.1]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.2 

[0.1]

Q

1.0 

[0.3]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.4 

[0.3]

0.3 

[0.1]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

Per.

100

10.7 

[4.6]

4.7 

[3.4]

5.5 

[4.0]

Q

35.7 

[7.9]

18.2 

[6.2]

19.4 

[6.6]

Q

50.0 

[8.4]

11.5 

[5.1]

31.1 

[8.0]

8.8 

[4.7]

Income 

$15,000 

$34,999

No.

4.3

[o!e] 

1.1

[0.3]

0.6 

[0.2]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.5 

[0.4]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.6 

[0.2]

Q

1.5 

[0.4]

0.4 

[0.2]

1.1 

[0.3]

Q

to

Per.

100

25.6 

[5.9]

15.2 

[4.9]

11.5 

[4.6]

Q

34.9 

[6.5]

20.9 

[5.4]

14.9 

[4.8]

Q

34.9 

[6.5]

9.4 

[3.7]

25.9 

[5.9]

Q

Income 

$35,000 

or More

No.

3.8 

[0.7]

1.6 

[0.4]

1.1 

[0.3]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.1 

[0.3]

0.6 

[0.2]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.2 

[0.3]

0.3 

[0.1]

0.9 

[0.3]

Q

Per.

100

42.1 

[7.2]

29.2 

[6.5]

12.5 

[4.4]

Q

28.9 

[6.5]

14.9 

[4.8]

11.9 

[4.7]

Q

31.6 

[6.7]

7.5 

[3.4]

24.1 

[6.1]

Q

See footnotes at end of table.

44
Table 11. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Family Income and Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

North Central

Family Income

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) ........

Insulation: 

Attic Full1 ........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, 4No

Attic Full Area,

f?0uck T* Tn f* Tl ^ R

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or _

None in Wall,, No 

Storm Windows ....

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, 4No

Total 

Households 

(millions)

No.

.. 14.

[1. 

4

[0. 

2.

[0. 

... 1.

to.

... 5.

[0. 

... 3.

[0. 

... 2.

[0.

A

[0.

... 1.

[0. 

... 2.

[0. 

... 0.

[0.

6

3]

5 

7]

9

6]

6

4]

Q

7 

8]

5 

6]

1 

5]

Q

4 

7]

2

4]

9 

6]

3

1]

Per.

100

30. 

[4.

20. 

[3.

10. 

[2.

39. 

[4.

24. 

[3.

14. 

[3.

30. 

[4.

8.

[2.

19. 

[3.

2. 

[1.

8

1]

1 

6]

9 

7]

Q

0 

3]

3

9]

6

0]

Q

1 

1]

0 

4)

9

5]

0 

1]

Income 

Less Than 

$15,000

No.

4.9 

[0.7]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.4 

[0.2]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.7 

[0.4]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.8 

[0.2]

Q

2.2 

[0.4]

0.3 

[0.1]

1.6 

[0.4]

0.3 

[0.1]

Per.

100

18.4 

[4.9]

8.2 

[3.3]

9.7 

[3.5]

Q

34.7 

[6.1]

19.2 

[5.1]

16.8 

[4.7]

Q

44.9 

[6.5]

6.9

[3.1]

33.3 

[6.1]

5.6 

[2.6]

Income 

$15,000 to 

$34,999

No.

6.1 

[0.7]

2.0 

[0.4]

1.4 

[0.3]

0.6 

[0.2]

Q

2.5 

[0.5]

1.6 

[0.4]

0.9 

[0.3]

Q

1.5 

[0.4]

0.5 

[0.2]

1.0 

[0.3]

Q

Per

100

32. 

[5.

23.

[4.

10. 

[3.

41. 

[5.

26. 

[5.

14. 

[4.

24. 

[5.

8. 

[3.

15. 

[4.

8

5]

0 

8]

6

5]

Q

0 

9]

7 

0]

7 

0]

Q

6

0]

8

2]

9

3]

Q

Income 

$35,000 

or More

No.

3.6

[0.6]

1.6

[0.4]

1.1 

[0.3]

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

1.4 

[0.3]

1.0 

[0.3]

0.4 

[0.2]

Q

0.6 

[0.2]

0.3 

[0.1]

0.3 

[0.1]

Q

Per.

100

44.4 

[7.4]

31.7 

[7.0]

13.1 

[4.6]

Q

38.9 

[7.3]

27.4 

[6.5]

11.4 

[4.5]

Q

16.7 

[5.3]

8.2 

[3.7]

8.1 

[3.7]

Q

See footnotes at end of table.

45
Table 11. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Family Income and Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

South

Family Income

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) .........

Insulation: 

Attic Full 1 .........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or « 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows ....

Attic Full Area,

V ou A T* T T\ f* Tl O C

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or - 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, ANo 

Storm Windows ....

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

W^ TI A nt>7C

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows ....

Total 

Households 

(millions)

No.

21.8 

[1.6]

. 6.2 

[0.9]

2.8 

[0.6]

2.9 

[0.6]

0.5 

[0.2]

7.0 

[0.9]

1.4 

[0.4]

4.7 

[0.7]

1.0 

[0.3]

8.6 

[1.0]

0.7 

[0.3]

5.0 

[0.7]

3.0 

[0.6]

Per.

100

28. 

[3.

12. 

[2.

13. 

[2.

2. 

[1.

32. 

[3.

6.

[1.

21. 

[3.

4. 

[1.

39. 

[3.

3.

[1.

22. 

[3.

13. 

[2.

4 

3]

9 

4]

4 

5]

2

0]

1 

4]

3

7]

3 

0]

4 

2]

4 

6]

0 

1]

8 

1]

7 

5]

Income 

Less Than 

$15,000

No.

8.5 

[0.9]

1.5 

[0.4]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.8 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

2.3 

[0.4]

0.5 

[0.2]

1.4 

[0.3]

0.4 

[0.2]

4.7 

[0.6]

0.2 

[0.1]

2.4 

[0.5]

2.1 

[0.4]

Per.

100

17.6 

[3.7]

5.4 

[2.0]

9.7 

[2.9]

2.8 

[1.6]

27.1 

[4.4]

5.7 

[2.1]

16.5 

[3.6]

4.2 

[1.2]

55.3

[5.1]

2.7 

[1.5]

28.5 

[4.5]

24.5 

[4.4]

Income 

$15,000 to 

$34,999

No.

8.0 

[0.8]

2.4 

[0.5]

1.2 

[0.3]

1.0 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

3.2 

[0.5]

0.6 

[0.2]

2.2 

[0.4]

0.4 

[0.2]

2.6 

[0.5]

0.3 

[0.1]

1.6 

[0.4]

0.7 

[0.2]

Per

100

30.

[4.

14. 

[3.

12. 

[3.

2. 

[1.

40. 

[5.

6.

[2.

27. 

[4.

5. 

[2.

32. 

[4.

3.

[1.

20. 

[4.

8.

[2.

0 

7]

4 

4]

1 

2]

2 

6]

0 

0]

9 

3]

3 

5]

4 

2]

5 

8]

1 

7]

3 

0]

4 

6]

No

5. 

[0.

2. 

[0.

1. 

[0.

1. 

[0.

0. 

[0.

1.

[0. 

0.

to. 

1.

[0.

0. 

[0.

1. 

to.

0. 

[0.

0. 

[0.

0. 

[0.

Income 

$35,000 

or More

3

7]

4 

5]

2 

3]

1 

3]

1 

1]

6

4]

3

1]

1 

3]

2 

1]

3 

3]

2 

1]

9 

3]

2 

1]

Per.

100

45.3 

[6.2]

22.3 

[5.0]

21.2 

[5.0]

1.4 

[1.0]

30.2 

[5.6]

6.1 

[2.8]

19.9 

[5.0]

3.3

[1.8]

24.5 

[5.3]

3.4 

[1.9]

17.7 

[4.4]

4.6 

[2.5]

See footnotes at end of table.

46
Table 11. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Family Income and Census 

Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of HouseholdsPercentages) (Continued)

West

Family Income

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) ........

Insulation: 

Attic Full1 ........

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ..........

Some Wall or - 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall.^No

Attic Full Ar^a,

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No

Attic Pagtial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or .

None in Wall.^No

Total 

Households 

(millions ) 

No. Per.

,. 10.

[1. 

2.

[0. 

0.

[0. 

1.

[0. 

,. 0.

[0. 

,. 4.

[0. 

,. 0.

[0. 

,. 2.

[0. 

1.

[0. 

,. 3.

[0. 

0.

[0. 

1.

[0.

1.

[0.

4 100 

1]

5 24.0 

5] [4.5]

7 6.4 

3] [2.3]

4 13.1 

4] [3.4]

4 4.2 

2] [2.0]

0 38.5 

7] [5.1]

6 6.0 

2] [2.4]

3 22.6 

4] [4.4]

0 10.0 

3] [3.1]

9 37.5 

7] [5.1]

2 2.1 

1] [1.3]

9 18.5 

5H4.0]

8 17.1 

4] [3.8]

Income 

Less Than 

$15,000

No.

3

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

1

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

0

to

1

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

0 

[0

.1

.5]

.6

.2]

.2 

.1]

.3

.1]

.1 

.1]

.0 

.3]

.1

.1]

.6

.2]

.4 

.2]

.5 

.4]

.1 

.1]

.6

.2]

.8

.2]

Per.

100

19.4 

[6.1]

5.4 

[2.9]

9.8 

[4.4]

4.1 

[3.0]

32.3 

[7.4]

3.2 

[2.3]

19.1 

[6.0]

12.3 

[4.8]

48.4 

[8.0]

1.8 

[1.3]

20.5 

[6.4]

23.9 

[6.8]

Income 

$15,000 to 

$34,999

No.

4.1 

[0.6]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.4 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.3 

[0.1]

1.6 

[0.4]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.8 

[0.2]

0.7 

[0.2]

Per

100

22. 

[5.

6. 

[3.

15. 

[4.

4. 

[2.

34. 

[6.

5. 

[2.

24. 

[5.

7. 

[3.

39. 

[6.

1. 

[1.

19. 

[5.

16.

[5.

0 

7]

1 

3]

2 

9]

3 

3]

1 

6]

0 

7]

2 

8]

6

4]

0 

8]

4 

0]

6

5]

1 

2]

Income 

$35,000 

or More

No.

3.2 

[0.5]

0.7 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.4 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

1.4 

[0.3]

0.3 

[0.1]

0.8 

[0.2]

0.3 

[0.1]

1.0 

[0.3]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.4 

[0.2]

Per.

100

21.9 

[6.3]

7.8 

[4.2]

13.8 

[5.3]

4.0 

[2.9]

43.8 

[7.8]

9.9

[4.4]

23.9 

[6.3]

10.9 

[4.9]

31.3 

[7.2]

3.2 

[2.3]

14.8 

[5.1]

11.7 

[4.5]

See footnotes on following page.

47
Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered and at least 

the^minimum recommended number of inches of insulation.

Households with some or total wall insulation and storm windows oh at least 

90 oercent of the windows.

Households with some wall insulation or storm windows. This group does not 

include households that have both wall insulation and 90 percent storm windows 

coverage.

cHouseholds with no wall insulation or storm windows.

^Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but with 

fewer than the minimum recommended number of Inches.

Households with less than 96 percent of the ceiling area covered, lacking 

attics or attic insulation, or not knowing how much ceiling area was covered.

Q~Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

48
Central, around 30 percent [7] of households with incomes over $35,000 had all 

three conservation measures. For households with incomes under $15,000, the 

percentages with all three measures were much lower, 5 [3] and 8 percent [3], 

respectively. A similar relationship with income held in the South, although 

the percentage having all three in the highest income group is lower (22 percent 

[5]) than in the colder regions. However, in the West, which had a lower 

percentage of households overall that had all three measures, there was very 

little variation by income group in the percentages.

There was also a substantial difference between the two colder regions and the 

two warmer regions in the percentage of low-income households that had partial 

or no attic insulation as well as no wall insulation and no storm windows. The 

percentage was 9 percent [5] in the Northeast, 6 percent [3] in the North 

Central, and around 24 percent in the South [4] and West [7].

Age of House. In the three groups considered for age of house, for the Nation 

as a whole newer homes were much more likely to have conservation improvements 

than were older homes. Nineteen percent [3] of homes built before 1950 had full 

attic insulation, while the corresponding figures for homes built 1950 through 

1974 was 31 percent [3] and 44 percent [8] for homes built 1975 or later, 

Table 12. About three-fourths of the homes built after 1975 that had full attic 

insulation also had 90 percent storm window coverage and wall insulation. 

Fourteen percent [2] of the homes built from 1950 to 1975 had the full 

complement of conservation measures, as did 8 percent [2] of older homes.

49
Table 12. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Year House Was Built 

and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages)

Thermal 

Characteristics

United States

Year House Was Built

Total 

Households 

(millions) 

No. Per.

1949 or

Before

No. Per.

1950 to

1974 

No. Per.

1975 or 

After

No. Per.

Total Households 

(millions) ... 57.6 

[1.8]

100 23.2 

[1.8]

100 26.1 

[1.9]

100 8.4 

[1.1]

100

Insulation:

Attic Full

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or . 

Storm Windows

None in Wall,,No 

Storm Windows

Attic Full Area, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows

16.3 

[1.41

8.3

[1.0]

7.0 

[0.9]

1.0 

[0.3]

20.2 

[1.5]

7.5 

[0.9]

10.7 

[1.1]

2.0 

[0.5]

28.2 

[2.2]

14.4 

[1.7]

12.1 

[1.5]

1.7 

[0.6]

35.1 

[2.5]

13.0 

[1.6]

18.7 

[1.4]

3.5 

[1.0]

4.4 

[0.8]

1.7 

[0.5]

2.3 

[0.6]

0.4 

[0.2]

6.5

[0.9]

2.4 

[0.6]

3.5 

[0.7]

0.6 

[0.3]

19.0 

[3.0]

7.5 

[2.0]

9.8 

[2.2]

1.7 

[0.9]

27.9 

[3.4]

10.3 

[2.3]

15.2 

[2.7]

2.4 

[1.1]

8.1 

[1.1]

3.7 

[0.7]

3.8 

[0.7]

0.6 

[0.3]

10.6 

[1.2]

3.5 

[0.7]

5.7 

[0.9]

1.4 

[0.4]

31.3 

[3.4]

14.4 

[2.5]

14.7 

[2.6]

2.2 

[0.9]

40.5 

[3.6]

13.3 

[2.4]

21.8 

[3.0]

5.4 

[1.6]

3.7 44.4

[0.7] [7.8]

2.8 33.5

[0.6] [5.9]

0.9 10.6

[0.3] [3.7]

3.1 38.4

[0.6] [7.5]

1.6 19.7

[0.5] [5.0]

1.5 18.2

[0.4] [4.8]

Attic Pagtial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or » 

Storm Windows

None in Wall,,No 

Storm Windows

21.1 36.6

[1.6] [2.5]

3.0 5.3

[0.6] [1.0]

12.7 22.0

[1.2] [2.1]

5.4 9.3

[0.8] [1.3]

12.3 52.9 

[1.3] [3.9]

1.8 

[0.5]

7.2 

[1.0]

3.3 

[0.7]

7.9 

[2.0]

31.0 

[3.6]

14.0 

[2.7]

7.4 28.3

[1.0] [3.3]

0.8 3.1

[0.3] [1.2]

4.8 18.3

[0.8] [2.8]

1.8 6.9

[0.5] [1.8]

1.4 17.1

[0.4] [5.0]

0.4 4.8

[0.2] [2.4]

0.7 8.7

[0.3] [2.8]

0.3 3.6

[0.2] [2.1]

See footnotes at end of table.

50
Table 12. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Year House Was Built 

and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

Thermal 

Characteristics

Northeast

Year House Was Built

Total

Households 

(millions) 

No. Per.

1949 or 

Before

1950 to 

1974

No. Per. No. Per.

1975 or

After

No. Per.

Total Households 

(millions) 10.9 100 

[1.1]

5.5 100 

[0.9]

4.2 100 

[0.8]

1.1 100 

[0.4]

Insulation:

Attic Full 1

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows

None in Wall^No 

Storm Windows

3.1 28.4

[0.6] [4.6]

1.9 17.4

[0.3] [3.8]

1.1 10.3

[0.3] [3.0]

0.8 15.0

[0.3] [5.3]

0.4 7.0

[0.2] [3.5]

0.4 7.5

[0.2] [3.7]

1.6 38.3

[0.5] [8.3]

1.0 22.8

[0.4] [7.3]

0.6 14.9

[0.3] [6.0]

0.6 54.2

[0.3] [15.5]

0.5 47.3

[0.2] [16.0]

0.1 6.9

[0.1] [6.0]

Attic Full Area, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows"

None in Wall^No 

Storm Windows

3.6 33.0

[0.6] [4.8]

2.0 18.1

[0.5] [3.8]

1.6 15.0

[0.4] [3.6]

1.7 29.9

[0.5] [6.8]

0.7 12.2

[0.3] [6.1]

1.0 17.7

[0.4] [5.5]

1.7 39.1

[0.5] [8.2]

1.1 25.9

[0.4] [7.4]

0.6 13.2

[0.3] [5.3]

0.3 26.4

[0.2] [12.9]

0.2 17.7

[0.1] [10.9]

0.1 8.7

[0.1] [7.4]

Attic: Partial 

or None ....

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

4.2 38.6

[0.7] [5.0]

1.0 9.3

[0.3] [2.9]

2.9 26.6

[0.6] [4.5]

0.3 2.9

[0.2] [1.6]

3.0 55.2

[0.6] [7.8]

0.6 11.2

[0.3] [4.6]

2.2 40.9

[0.5] [7.4]

0.2 3.1

[0.1] [2.1]

1.0 22.6

[0.4] [6.8]

0.3 6.6

[0.2] [3.7]

0.6 14.4

[0.3] [5.6]

0.1 1.6

[0.1] [1.5]

0.2 19.4

[0.1] [12.0]

0.1 10.0

[0.1] [8.7]

0.1 6.6

[0.1] [5.7]

See footnotes at end of table.

51
Table 12. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Year House Was Built 

and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

Thermal 

Characteristics

North Central

Year House Was Built

Total

Households 

(millions)

1949 or 

Before

No. Per. No. Per.

1950 to

1974 

No. Per.

1975 or 

After

No. Per.

Total Households 

(millions) ... 14.6 100 

[1.3]

7.6 100 

[1.0]

5.2 100 1.8 

[0.5]

100

Insulation:

Attic Full 1

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows

4.5 30.8

[0.7] [4.1]

2.9 20.1

[0.6] [3.6]

1.6 10.9

[0.4] [2.7]

1.9 24.5

[0.5] [5.5]

1.0 12.8

[0.4] [4.1]

0.9 11.6

[0.3] [4.0]

1.9 36.7

[0.5] [7.5]

1.3 25.1

[0.4] [3.5]

0.6 11.4

[0.3] [4.7]

0.7 42.8

[0.3] [13.4]

0.6 36.5

[0.3] [12.7]

0.1 6.3

[0.1] [5.6]

Attic Full Area, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows

None in Wall,,No 

Storm Windows

5.7 39.0

[0.8] [4.3]

3.5 24.3

[0.6] [3.9]

2.1 14.6

[0.5] [3.0]

2.5 33.2

[0.6] [6.2]

1.4 18.9

[0.4] [5.1]

1.1 14.3

[0.4] [4.4]

2.3 43.7

[0.6] [7.7]

1.4 26.7

[0.4] [6.8]

0.9 17.0

[0.3] [5.6]

0.9 48.9

[0.3] [12.3]

0.7 40.3

[0.3] [12.6]

0.2 8.6

[0.1] [7.6]

Attic Partial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ........

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows

4.4 30.1

[0.7] [4.1]

1.2 8.0

[0.4] [2.4]

2.9 19.9

[0.6] [3.5]

0.3 2.0

[0.1] [1.1]

3.2 42.2

[0.7] [6.5]

0.8 10.5

[0.3] [3.8]

2.1 27.9

[0.5] [5.9]

0.3 3.8

[0.2] [2.2]

1.0 19.4

[0.4] [6.0]

0.3 6.4

[0.2] [3.6]

0.7 13.0

[0.3] [4.9]

0.1 5.6 

[0.1] [5.0]

0.1 6.0 

[0.1] [5.3]

See footnotes at end of table.

52
Table 12. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Year House Was Built 

and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

South

Year House Was Built

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total

Households 

(millions) 

No. Per.

1949 or 

Before

No. Per.

1950 to

1974 

No. Per.

1975 or

After

No. Per.

Total Households

(millions) ......... 21.8

[1.6]

100 6.9 100 

[1.0]

1.3 100 

1.2]

3.6 100 

[0.7]

Insulation:

Attic Full

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or « 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

Attic Full Ar^a, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows

6.2

[0.9]

2.8 

[0.6]

2.9 

[0.6]

0.5 

[0.2]

7.0 

[0.9]

1.4 

[0.4]

4.7 

[0.7]

1.0 

[0.3]

28.4 

[3.3]

12.9 

[2.4]

13.4 

[2.5]

2.2 

[1.0]

32.1 

[3.4]

6.3

[1.7]

21.3 

[3.0]

4.4 

[1.4]

1.3 

[0.4]

0.3 

[0.2]

0.8 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.3 

[0.4]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.0

[0.1]

0.1 

[0.1]

18.8 

[5.2]

4.0 

[2.3]

11.6 

[4.2]

3.2 

[2.2]

18.6 

[5.2]

2.6 

[1.8]

13.9 

[4.5]

2.1 

[1.9]

3.3

[0.7]

1.3 

[0.4]

[0.5]

0.3 

[0.2]

4.3

0.7 

[0.3]

2.8 

[0.6]

0.8 

[0.3]

28.3 

[4.8]

11.2 

[3.2]

14.7 

[3.7]

2.4 

[1.4]

38.4 

[5.4]

6.6

[2.6]

24.8 

[4.6]

7.0 

[2.6]

1.8 48.0

[0.5] [8.9]

1.3 35.2

[0.4] [2.8]

0.5 12.8

[0.2] [6.2]

1.3 37.8

[0.4] [9.2]

0.4 12.4

[0.2] [6.0]

0.9 24.7

[0.3] [7.7]

Attic Partial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or « 

Storm Windows

None in Wall,,No 

Storm Windows

8.6

[1.0]

0.7 

[0.3]

5.0 

[0.7]

3.0 

[0.6]

39.4 

[3.6]

3.0 

[1.1]

22.8 

[3.1]

13.7 

[2.5]

4.4 62.6

[0.8] [6.6]

0.4 5.1

[0.2] [2.9]

2.1 29.9

[0.5] [6.2]

1.9 27.6

[0.5] [5.9]

3.8 33.4

[0.7] [5.1]

0.2 1.4

[0.1] [1.0]

2.6 23.2

[0.6] [4.6]

1.0 8.8

[0.4] [2.8]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.3 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

14.3 

[6.2]

4.0 

[3.6]

8.0 

[4.5]

2.3 

[2.1]

See footnotes at end of table.

53
Table 12. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Year House Was Built 

and Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

Thermal 

Characteristics

West

Year House Was Built

Total

Households 

(millions) 

No. Per.

1949 or

Before

No. Per.

1950 to

1974 

No. Per.

1975 or 

After

No. Per.

Total Households 

(millions) ... L0.4 

[1.1]

100 3.2 100 

tO.7]

5.3 100 

[0.8]

100

Insulation:

Attic Full

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or - 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

Attic Full Ar^a, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or - 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

2.5 

[0.5]

0.7 

[0.3]

1.4 

[0.4]

0.4 

[0.2]

4.0 

[0.7]

0.6 

[0.2]

2.3 

[0.4]

1.0 

[0.3]

24.0 

[4.5]

6.4

[2.3]

13.1 

[3.4]

4.2 

[2.0]

38.5 

[5.1]

6.0 

[2.4]

22.6 

[4.4]

10.0 

[3.1]

0.4 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.1 

[0.1]

1.0 

[0.4]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.4 

[0.2]

13.3 

[6.4]

3.4 

[3.1]

5.5 

[3.7]

4.4 

[4.0]

32.2 

[9.2]

3.2 

[2.9]

16.2 

[7.0]

12.8 

[6.2]

1.4 

[0.4]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.9 

[0.3]

0.3 

[0.2]

2.2 

[0.5]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.4 

[0.4]

0.6 

[0.3]

26.4 

[6.7]

3.6

[2.4]

17.8 

[5.7]

'5.0 

[2.8]

43.0 

[8.0]

4.3 

[2.9]

27.1 

[6.6]

11.6 

[4.7]

0.6 33.6

[0.3] [12.0]

0.4 19.3

[0.2] [8.8]

0.2 12.9

[0.1] [8.4]

0.7 36.8

[0.3] [11.7]

0.3 15.3

[0.2] [8.3]

0.4 20.6

[0.2] [9.4]

Attic Partial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

3.9 37.5

[0.7] [5.1]

0.2 2.1

[0.1] [1.3]

1.9 18.5

[0.5] [4.0]

1.8 17.1

[0.4] [3.8]

1.7 54.6 

[0.51110.2]

0.8 24.1

[0.3] [7.9]

0.9 27.9

[0.3] [8.5]

1.5 30.5 

[0.4] [7.4]

0.8 16.0

[0.3] [5.5]

0.7 14.1

[0.3] [5.2]

0.5 29.7 

[0.2] [11.8]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.3 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

5.8 

[5.1]

16.3 

[8.7]

7.6 

[6.8]

See footnotes on following page.

54
Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered and at least 

the-minimum recommended number of inches of insulation.

Households with some or total wall insulation and storm windows on at least 

90 oercent of the windows.

Households with some wall insulation or storm windows. This group does not 

include households that have both wall insulation and 90 percent storm window 

coverage.

.-Households with no wall insulation or storm windows.

Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but with 

fewer than the minimum recommended number of inches.

Households with less than 96 percent of the ceiling area; covered, lacking 

attics or attic insulation, or not knowing how much ceiling area was covered.

Q"Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

55
Homes in the newest age group also had the lowest proportion of homes with 

partial or no attic insulation as well as no storm windows and no wall 

insulation around four percent [2]. The corresponding figure for the homes 

built from 1950 to 1974 was closer to 7 percent [2], while for the oldest age 

group it was 14 percent [3]. Among homes with full area of attic insulation but 

less than the minimum recommended number of inches, new homes also had a higher 

percentage with 90 percent storm windows and wall insulation.

The regional differences discussed above are also observed when housing units 

are distinguished by the year they were built. Within specific age groups, 

houses in the two colder regions, the Northeast and North Central, were more 

likely to have more conservation items, particularly storm windows and wall 

insulation. However, the differences between the regions within specific age 

groups, were not as large as the overall regional differences. Indeed, for the 

homes built in the South in 1975 or later, the distribution of homes by attic 

insulation and the other two items were not dramatically different than for the 

northern regions. Homes built in the West after 1975 were still less likely 

than the homes in other regions to have sizeable amounts of conservation 

measures, but again the difference was not as large as between the regions as a 

whole.

One factor that influences the comparison of regions in conjunction with the 

year the house was built is the substantial regional variation in the 

distribution of the housing stock by age. In the Northeast and North Central 

regions, slightly more than one-half of the houses were built before 1950 and 

only about 11 percent [3] to 12 percent [3] were built in 1975 or later. By way

56
of contrast, slightly over one-half the houses in the South and West were built 

in the period 1950 to 1974 and 16 percent [3] to 18 percent [4] were built in 

1975 or after.

Own/Rent Status. In the discussion in the previous chapter of individual 

conservation items, it was found that homeowners were much more likely to have a 

item than were renters. The same situation holds for the combination of 

conservation items considered in this Chapter. Across the Nation, 32 percent 

[2] of the homeowners had full attic insulation and about one-half of these also 

had wall insulation and full storm window coverage. Among renters or households 

that had free rent, only 8 percent [3] had full attic insulation. The majority 

of these households had only some wall insulation and storm window coverage. A 

higher percentage of owners than renters lived in housing units with full area 

coverage of attic insulation but low inches. A higher percentage of owners 

among this group also had full storm window coverage and wall insulation.

The same pattern holds in all the regions. Homeowners were more likely to have 

fully insulated homes or higher levels of conservation measures than were 

renters or householders with free rent, Table 13.

Energy Savings from Conservation Retrofits

One goal of this study was to provide estimates of the energy that might be 

saved under different assumptions about the kinds of conservation upgrades that 

households might make to their houses. It was recognized at the start of the

57
Table 13. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages)

United States

Home Ownership

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households

Insulation: 

Attic Full 1 ........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall,, No

Attic Full Ar^a,

POM AT* Trif^ll A Q

Wall, and Storm

UT nH oi»f c

Some Wall or , 

Storm Windows ....

None in Wall, , No 

Storm Windows

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or ,

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows ....

Total 

Households 

(Millions)

No

. . 57

[1 

. . 16

[1 

8

[1 

7

[0 

1

[0 

. . 20

[1

7

[0 

.. 10

[1 

2

[0

[1 

3

[0 

.. 12

[1 

5

[0

Per.

.6

.8]

.3 

.4]

.3

.0]

.0 

.9]

.0 

.3]

.2 

.5]

.5 

.9]

.7 

.1]

..0 

.5]

.1 

.6]

.0 

.6]

.7

.2]

.4 

.8]

100

28.2 

[2.2]

14.4 

[1.7]

12.1 

[1.5]

1.7 

[0.6]

35.1 

[2.5]

13.0 

[1.6]

18.7 . 

[1.4]

3.5 

[1.0]

36.6

[2.5]

5.3 

[1.0]

22.0 

[2.1]

9.3 

[1.3]

No

47 

[2

15 

[1

8

[1

6

[0

0 

[0

17 

[1

7 

[0

9

[1

1 

[0

14 

[1

2 

[0

8 

[0

3

to

Owned

.

.9

.0]

.5 

.3]

.1 

.0]

.5 

.9]

.8 

.3]

.9 

.4]

.1 

.9]

.1 

.0]

.7 

.4]

.5 

.3]

.7 

.5]

.6 

.9]

.2 

.6]

Per.

100

32.3 

[2.4]

16.9 

[1.6]

13.7 

[1.7]

1.8 

[0.6]

37.4 

[2.5]

14.8 

[1.8]

19.1 

[5.1]

3.5 

[1.3]

30.2 

[2.4]

5.7 

[3.6]

17.9 

[3.0]

6.6

[1.5]

Rented

No.

8.6 

[1.0]

0.7 

[0.3]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.4 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

2.1 

[0.5]

0.4 

[0.2]

1.4 

[0.4]

0.3 

[0.2]

5.9 

[0.8]

0.2 

[0.1]

3.7 

[0.6]

2.0 

[0.5]

Per.

100

8.1 

[2.9]

1.9 

[1.6]

4.6 

[2.1]

1.6 

[1.3]

23.9 

[4.7]

4.2 

[1.9]

15.8 

[4.0]

3.9

[2.0]

68.1 

[5.2]

2.7 

[1.7]

42.6 

[5.5]

22.7 

[4.5]

RentFree

No.

1.1 

[0.3]

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

0.3 

[0.2]

Q 

Q

0.3 

[0.2]

0.7 

[0.3]

Q

0.4 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

Per.

100

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

25.4 

[11.3]

Q 

Q

23.5 

[10.4]

67.5 

[14.4]

Q

40.1 

[14.7]

20.2 

[11.3]

See footnotes at end of table.

58
Table 13. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

Northeast

Home Ownership

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households

Insulation:

Attic Full1 .........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, ANo

Storm Windows .....

Attic Full Area,

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or .

None in Wall.^No

S torm Windows .....

Attic Pagtial

Wall, and Storm

Windows .............

Some Wall or -

Storm Windows .....

None in Wall, 4No

Total 

Households 

(Millions) 

No. Per.

10.9

[1.1]

3.1

[0.6]

1.9

[0.3]

1.1

[0.3]

Q

3.6

[0.6]

2.0

[0.5]

1.6

[0.4]

Q

4.2

[0.7]

1.0

[0.3]

2.9

[0.6]

0.3

[0.2]

100

28.

[4.

17.

[3.

10.

[3.

33.

[4.

18.

[3.

15.

[3.

38.

[5.

9.

[2.

26.

[4.

2.

[1.

4

6]

4

8]

3

0]

Q

0

8]

1

8]

0

6]

Q

6

0]

3

9]

6

5]

9

6]

Owned

No

9

[1

3

[0

1

[0

1

[0

3

[0

1

[0

1

[0

3

[0

1

[0

2

[0

0

[0

.9

.0]

.0

.6]

.9

.5]

.1

.3]

Q

.3

.6]

.9

.5]

.4

.4]

Q

.6

.6]

.0

.3]

.5

.5]

.1

.1]

Per

100

30.

[4.

19.

[4.

11.

[3.

33.

[4.

19.

[4.

14.

[3.

36.

[5.

9.

[2.

25.

[4.

1.

[0.

4

9]

0

1]

2

2]

Q

6

5]

2

0]

4

6]

Q

0

1]

8

9]

2

5]

1

9]

Rented

No.

0.9

[0.3]

Q

Q

Q

Q

0.2

[0.1]

^

V

0.2

[0.1]

Q

0.6

[0.2]

Q

0.4

[0.2]

0.2

[0.1]

Per.

100

Q

Q

Q

Q

24.5

[13.3]

Q

17.6

[13.5]

Q

69.6

[15.4]

Q

44.3

[14.2]

23.4

[12.4]

RentFree

No.

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q .

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Per.

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

See footnotes at end of table.

59
Table 13. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

North Central

Home Ownership

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) ..........

Insulation: 

Attic Full 1 .........

Wall, and Storm

TJ4 v\A /">Ufi

Some Wall or ,

None in Wall,, No 

Storm Windows .....

Attic Full Area,

1?OUA T" T T"l f* h 4* Q

Wall, and Storm

TJ^ T} A /-ktjc

Some Wall or ,

None in Wall, ANo 

S torm Windows .....

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No

Total 

Households 

(millions)

No.

14. 

[1.

4. 

[0.

2. 

[0.

1. 

[0.

5. 

[0.

3.

[0.

2. 

[0.

4. 

[0.

1. 

[0.

2. 

[0.

0. 

[0.

6 

3]

5 

7]

9 

6]

6

4]

Q

7 

8]

5 

6]

1 

5]

Q

4 

7]

2 

4]

9 

6]

3

1]

Per

100

30.8 

[4.1]

20.1 

[3.6]

10.9 

[2.7]

Q

39.0 

[4.3]

24.3 

[3.9]

14.6 

[3.0]

Q

30.1 

[4.1]

8.0 

[2.4]

19.9 

[3.5]

2.0 

[1.1]

Owned

No

12 

[1

4 

[0

2 

[0

1 

[0

5 

[0

3

[0

1 

[0

3

[0

1 

[0

1

[0

0 

[0

.6

.2]

.3 

.7]

.9

.6]

.4 

.4]

Q

.2 

.8]

.4 

.6]

.8

.4]

Q

.1 

.6]

.1 

.3]

.8 

.4]

.2 

.1]

Per.

100

34.0 

[4.4]

22.7 

[3.9]

11.2 

[4.0]

Q

41.0 

[4.6]

26.9 

[4.1]

14.1 

[3.2]

Q

25.0 

[4.1]

8.4 

[2.4]

14.6 

[3.5]

1.9 

[1.2]

Rented

No.

1.7 

[0.4]

0.2 

[0.1]

Q

0.2 

[0.1]

Q

0.5 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

0.3 

[0.2]

Q

1.0 

[0.3]

Q

0.9 

[0.3]

Q

Per.

100

12.9 

[7.6]

Q

9.9 

[5.8]

Q

28.6 

[10.1]

8.8

[7.1]

19.8 

[9.4]

Q

58.4 

[11.4]

Q

51.5 

[11.3]

Q

RentFree

No.

0.2 

[0.1]

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

Per.

100

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

QQ 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

See footnotes at end of table.

60
Table 13. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

South

Home Ownership

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total Households 

(millions) .........

Insulation: 

Attic Full1 ........

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or ,

None in Wall, 4No

Attic Full Ar^a,

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ..........

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows ....

Attic Partial

Wall, and Storm

Some Wall or -

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows ....

Total 

Households 

(millions )

No

. ?.l

[1 

6

[0 

2

[0 

2

[0 

0

[0 

7

[0 

1

[0 

4

[0 

1

[0 

8

[1 

. 0

[0 

5

[0 

3

[0

.

.8

.6]

.2 

.9]

.8 

.6]

.9 

.6]

.5 

.2]

.0 

.9]

.4 

.4]

.7 

.7]

.0 

.3]

.6

.0]

.7 

.3]

.0 

.7]

.0 

.6]

Per.

100

28.4 

[3.3]

12.9 

[2.4]

13.4 

[2.5]

2.2 

[1.0]

32.1 

[3.4]

6.3

[1.7]

21.3 

[3.0]

4.4 

[1.4]

39.4 

[3.6]

3.0

[1.1]

22.8 

[3.1]

13.7 

[2.5]

Owned

No

\l

5 

[0

2 

[0

2 

[0

0 

[0

5 

[0

1 

.[0

3

[0

0 

[0

5

[0

0 

[0

3 

[0

1 

[0

.

.0 

.4]

.9 

.8]

.7 

.5]

.8 

.6]

.4 

.2]

.9

.7]

.2 

.4]

.9

.7]

.8

.3]

.2 

.8]

.5 

.2]

.0 

.6]

.7 

.4]

Per

100

34.6 

[3.8]

16.0 

[3.8]

16.3 

[2.9]

2.3 

[1.1]

34.6 

[3.8]

7.2 

[2.0]

23.1 

[3.4]

4.6 

[1.6]

30.5 

[3.8]

2.9 

[1.2]

17.5 

[3.0]

10.2 

[2.4]

Rented

No.

4.1 

[0.7]

0.3 

[0.2]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.8 

[0.3]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.5 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.1]

3.0 

[0.6]

0.1 

[0.1]

1.8 

[0.4]

1.0 

[0.3]

Per.

100

6.9 

[3.5]

1.8 

[1.5]

2.7 

[2.2]

2.7 

[2.2]

20.4 

[6.3]

3.1 

[2.6]

13.0 

[5.2]

4.4 

[3.6]

72.7 

[7.2]

3.6

[3.0]

43.7 

[7.7]

25.5 

[21.1]

RentFree

No.

0.7 

[0.3]

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

0.2 

[0.1]

Q

0.2 

[0.1]

Q

0.5 

[0.2]

Q

0.2 

[0.2]

0.2 

[0.2]

Per.

100

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

29.0 

[15.0]

Q

26.0 

[13.4]

Q

64.4 

[14.2]

Q

30.2 

[15.6]

30.5 

[15.7]

See footnotes at end of table.

61
Table 13. Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection by Home Ownership and 

Census Region Single-Family Housing Units, 1984 (Millions of 

Households Percentages) (Continued)

West

Home Ownership

Thermal 

Characteristics

Total 

Households 

(millions) 

No. Per.

Owned

No. Per.

Rented 

No. Per.

RentFree

No. Per.

Total Households 

(millions) ....

Insulation: 

Attic Full1

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or . 

Storm Windows

None in Wall.^No 

Storm Windows

Attic Full Area, 

Fewer Inches

Wall, and Storm 

Windows ......

Some Wall or - 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

Attic Partial 

or None

Wall, and Storm 

Windows .......

Some Wall or ~ 

Storm Windows

None in Wall, 4No 

Storm Windows

10.4 

[1.1]

2.5 

[0.5]

0.7 

[0.3]

1.4 

[0.4]

0.4 

[0.2]

4.0 

[0.7]

0.6 

[0.2]

2.3 

[0.4]

1.0 

[0.3]

3.9 

[0.7]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.9 

[0.5]

1.8 

[0.4]

100

24.0 

[4.5]

6.4 

[2,3]

13.1 

[3.4]

4.2 

[2.0]

38.5 

[5.1]

6.0 

[2.4]

22.6 

[4.4]

10.0 

[3.1]

37.5 

[5.1]

2.1 

[1.3]

18.5 

[4.0]

17.1 

[3.8]

8.3 

[1.0]

2.3 

[0.5]

0.6 

[0.2]

1.3 

[0.4]

0.4 

[0.2]

3.5 

[0.6]

0.6 

[0.2]

2.0 

[0.5]

0.9 

[0.3]

2.6 

[0.5]

0.2 

[0.1]

1.2 

[0.4]

1.1 

[0.3]

100

27.7 

[5.1]

7.7 

[2.9]

15.1 

[4.1]

4.9 

[2.3]

41.5 

[5.6]

7.0 

[2.7]

23.9 

[4.8]

10.6 

[3.3]

30.8 

[5.2]

2.6 

[1.6]

15.0 

[4.0]

13.2 

[3.7]

2.0 100 

[0.5]

0.1 7.3 

[0.1] [5.9]

0.1 5.0 

[0.1] [4.0]

0.5 26.6 

[0.2] [9.7]

0.3 17.2

[0.2] [8.3]

0.2 7.9

[0.1] [6.4]

1.3 66.1

[0.4] [10.7]

0.6 32.1

[0.2] [10.4]

0.7 34.0

[0.3] [10.0]

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q

See footnotes on following page.

62
*Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered and at least 

the ?minlmum recommended number or inches of insulation.

Households with some or total wall insulation and storm windows on at least 

90 percent of the windows.

Households with some wall Insulation or storm windows. This group does not 

Include households that have both wall Insulation and 90 percent storm window 

coverage.

.-Households with no wall insulation or storm windows.

 'Households with at least 96 percent of the ceiling area covered but with 

fewer than the minimum recommended number of inches.

Households with less than 96 percent of the ceiling area covered, lacking 

attics or attic insulation, or not knowing how much celling area was covered.

Q*Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End 

Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

63
project that such estimates would be difficult to obtain, particularly under the 

tight time frame under which this work was to be conducted. At the time this 

report is being written, the EIA has not been able to obtain or produce 

estimates of energy savings that are of high enough quality to be included in 

this report. Work is continuing on this subject and will be presented in a 

future report if data of sufficient quality are obtained.

Two approaches were followed to explore the energy savings obtainable from 

conservation measures. The first was a review of the literature on studies of 

energy savings from various types of conservation programs such as the 

Weatherization Program and the Residential Conservation Service. The highlights 

of this review are discussed in the next section. The basic conclusion of the 

review is that the findings from the different studies are so varied that the 

studies do not provide a sufficiently reliable source for estimating the 

effectiveness of conservation measures.

The second approach was an attempt to estimate the effectiveness of conservation 

measures directly using multiple regression techniques directly on the RECS 

data. It was anticipated that this approach would be difficult and time 

consuming and such turned out to be the case. The methods followed in this 

statistical analysis are described below. But at the time of this writing, the 

research has not provided results that were considered reliable enough to 

incorporate into this study.

It might also be the case that the problem posed is simply intractable. There 

may be so much variation in the quality, materials, behavior patterns of the
householders and other features of houses that affect their energy use that the 

effectiveness of a particular conservation measure, or a group of them, may be 

unique to each house. There may be a very wide variation in the effectiveness 

of a particular measure or group of measures, because of the wide variations in 

the characteristics of the housing stock.

In such a case, the best that could be done to estimate the energy savings 

obtainable from a wide scale thermal upgrading of the housing stock would be to 

take a "best guess" of the average energy savings to be obtained, and apply this 

savings to the average energy consumption for the entire group of households for 

which the conservation measures are assumed to be made. The savings could be 

dependent upon region to reflect variations in energy consumption for space 

heating.

No estimates of this type are provided in this report because the EIA is not 

able to provide any estimate of the standard error that night be associated with 

such a "best guess" estimate of energy savings. There is such a wide variation 

in the energy savings observed in the various studies that is not possible to 

estimate the reliablity of the estimates of the energy savings.

Review of Literature. This section provides a brief review of the findings of 

studies investigating the energy savings obtained from various conservation 

measures. This review will give an idea of the range of estimates of possible 

savings from conducting selected conservation measures. However, it should be 

emphasized that these estimates are quite rough. The various studies do not 

provide a consistent pattern of findings, and even within a particular study, 

there is a wide range of variation in energy savings from one house to another.

65
There are three basic types of studies that have been conducted to evaluate the 

conservation savings from conservation improvements: evaluations of the 

Weatherization Program for low-income households, evaluations of the 

effectiveness of the RCS program; and other studies of the effects of 

conservation measures. There are also many engineering studies on individual 

and collections of homes, but these findings have not been drawn upon for this 

study. Generally, when field measures of the energy savings from a conservation 

retrofit measure are compared with engineering estimates, the results are not in 

agreement.

A major overview of the effectiveness of a variety of conservation programs has

13 been given by Goldman and Wagner. This report draws upon the data base

accumulated through the Building Energy Use Compilation and Analysis (BECA) 

project at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California. This data 

base includes data from several hundred studies of residential (and other types 

of) buildings, both new homes and older homes with conservation retrofits. The 

data on retrofitted homes, BECA-B, comes from a wide range of evaluation studies 

of conservation programs and demonstration projects. The estimates of energy 

savings from the conservation improvements have attempted to correct for changes 

in weather, but other factors that may affect consumption, such as changes in 

life style or in the number of household members, were not accounted for. Data 

were derived from evaluations of Weatherization Programs directed at low-income 

single family houses, of utility sponsored conservation programs and of research 

studies and demonstration programs. Some of the studies covered retrofit

13Goldman, C. A. and B.S. Wagner "Saving Energy in Occupied Buildings: Results

from the Berkeley Laboratory Residential Data Bases," Presented at the Working 

Conference on Families and Energy - Coping with Uncertainty, Michigan State 

University, 1983.

66
measures that have not been included in this study, such as automatic timers or 

set-back thermostats and modification or replacement of heating system 

equipment.

The studies surveyed in the report by Goldman and Wagner had a wide range of 

estimated energy savings resulting from the conservation retrofit measures. For 

electrically heated homes, the percentage savings in electricity consumption for 

space heating ranged from a high of 54 percent to a low of 17 percent, with an 

average savings of 29 percent for the 13 studies listed. For homes heated with 

natural gas the savings ranged from 47 percent to 3 percent with an average of 

24 percent for the 33 studies. Each of the studies incorporated different sets 

of conservation measures and there was no clear-cut relationship between the 

number and types of conservation measures and the resulting energy savings.

The study found that participants in utility-sponsored conservation programs 

saved 38.5 million Btu of their annual space heating consumption, while savings 

for low-income households were 35.9 MBtu respectively.

From the data presented in the report it is not possible to assess how much 

energy savings are attributable to specific conservation measures. Nor is it 

known whether attic insulation or any other measure is being added to some 

already there or is being installed for the first time. Further the studies 

cover a wide range of climate conditions in a number of parts of the country, so 

the effects of these variables will affect the results.

67
One particularly interesting set of studies included in the BECA-B data base is 

the CSA/NBS Optimal Weatherization Demonstration Program. Data are presented 

for studies in 12 different cities where space heating energy savings of 31 

percent were achieved. Homes that received retrofit measures designed to reduce 

building shell condition and infiltration heat loss saved 23.1 MBtu per year, 

while homes that had heating system retrofits installed reduced annual 

consumption by 63 MBtu. Twenty-one percent of space heating consumption was 

saved in homes that had only retrofits for the shell.

An evaluation of several RCS programs has been conducted by Eric Hirst and his 

colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In an article summarizing the 

findings from several of these studies, Hirst found that the typical savings

from the 6 RCS programs evaluated ranged from 3 to 9 MBtu, with typical savings

14 in the range 4 to 5 MBtu. These findings are from studies that relied on

actual fuel consumption data.

These savings, needless to say, are substanially lower than those cited above 

from the BECA-B data base. One reason for the difference is that the RCS data 

reviewed by Hirst are for households that participated in the RCS program, but 

they may not have taken advantage of the energy audit by installing any of the 

recommended conservation measures.

In some RCS programs the audit was accompanied by a low- or zero-interest rate 

loans. Hirst cites two programs where it was possible to compare the savings 

for those households that received both the audit and the loan with those that

14Hirst, Eric "Improving Energy Efficiency of Existing Homes: The Residential

Uestview Conservation Service," State Energy Policy: Current Issues, Future Directions, Press, 1985. ——————— ————— ————————————— ——————————————

68
Just received the audit. In Minnesota, natural gas bills showed a net savings 

of 4 MBtu per year for RCS participants, 4 percent of the pre-program use. 

However, for households that received both the audit and the loan, and, 

therefore, presumably installed many of the recommended conservation features, 

the savings were 23 MBtu per year (14 percent of consumption before the audit). 

Similar findings were obtained in other states where loans were available in 

addition to the energy audits.

Hirst and others have conducted an extensive evaluation of the Bonneville Power 

Administration's Residential Weatherization Pilot Program. Households that 

received both an energy audit and zero-interest loan saved an average of 15 MBtu 

per year, a 15 percent net savings, while the net savings for audit only house 

holds was 6 MBtu per year. In the BPA program, about 80 percent of the homes 

had ceiling insulation and storm windows installed. Over 60 percent installed 

storm doors, basement/crawl space insulation, and caulking/weatherstripping.

A large scale evaluation of the Weatherization Program for low-income households 

was carried out as an adjunct to the Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 

The evaluation used a questionnaire very similar to the REGS questionnaire on a 

specially drawn sample of households that had participated in the Weatherization 

Program. The sample drawn was designed to be representative of all households 

participating in the Program.

Hirst, Eric, Dennis White, and Richard Goeltz, "Comparison of Actual 

Electricity Savings with Audit Predictions in the BPA Residential Weatherization 

Pilgt Program," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-142, November, 1983.

Energy Information Administration, "Weatherization Program Evaluation," 

SR-EEUD-84-1, August 20, 1984.

69
Data on fuel consumption was obtained from the relevant utility companies for 

annual periods before and after the conservation measures were installed through 

the program. The savings resulting from the program were determined by 

comparing consumption before and after the installation, after adjusting the 

consumption to account for changes in HDD and in the number household members 

living in the housing unit.

The evaluation found that the average savings per household were 13.9 MBtu per 

year. This amount was about 13 percent of energy consumed for space heating, 10 

percent of the consumption of the main heating fuel, and about 9 percent of 

total energy consumption. For households that had attic insulation installed, 

along with storm windows and/or doors and usually caulking and weatherstripping, 

the savings averaged 17.8 MBtu. This savings was about 18 percent of space 

heating consumption and 12 percent of total energy consumption. For households 

that had attic installed insulation but not storm windows or doors, savings 

averaged 12.8 MBtu, about 13 percent of space heating consumption. Households 

that did not have any insulation installed, but had some other measure taken, 

saved about 7.2 MBtu, about 7 percent of space heating consumption.

Statistical Analysis of Energy Savings. The second approach taken in this study 

to determine the energy saved by conservation measures involved a detailed 

analysis of the RECS data. Multiple regression analytical techniques were used 

to explore correlations between energy consumption and housing characteristics, 

conservation features in particular.

70
There were two steps in this analysis. First, an analytical procedure was used 

to estimate how much of the energy consumed by the households was used for space 

heating, the principal end-use affected by the conservation measures considered 

in this study. The second stage was a statistical analysis of the relation 

ship between energy consumption for space heating and the characteristics of the 

house, weather conditions, and any conservation measures incorporated in the 

house.

Two approaches were used to determine the amount of energy used for space 

heating. One was developed at the EIA using multivariate statistical regression 

techniques to estimate how much of a fuel is used for each end use that the fuel

I o

is used for. Each household in the RECS file may use one or several fuels, 

and each fuel may be used for a number of end used.

The amount of energy used for space heating was estimated by specifying an 

equation for the fuel used for space heating that included terms related to all 

the purposes for which the fuel is used. The space heating component, for 

example, contains variables such as heating degree days, size of house, age of 

house, conservation measures, number of household members, that are related to 

space heating. If a household used natural gas for space heating, water heating 

and cooking, the regression equation would consist of a series of terms, one for

The RECS data base contains data obtained from the utility or other fuel 

supplier on the amount of energy consumed. The household supplies information 

on how these fuels are used. When a fuel is used for several purposes, the RECS 

data only gives the total consumpton for all uses of the fuel.

Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Regression 

Analysis of Energy Consumption by End Use7 DOE/EIA-0431 (Washington! D.C., 

October 1983) and Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditures by End Use for 

1978. 1980, and 1981, DOE/EIA-0458 (Washington. D.C., December 1984).

71
each of these end uses. By estimating these equations over the entire set of 

households that use natural gas—not each of which uses gas for the same end 

uses—it is possible to estimate the amount of fuel used for each end use.

The second procedure used in this study for estimating the energy used for space

heating was developed at Princeton University and is called the Princeton

19 Score-Keeping Model (PRISM). This approach depends upon the fact that for

those households that maintain a consistent use pattern for energy for space 

heating over the winter, the amount of energy consumed for space heating will be 

proportional to the difference between the average outdoor temperature and a 

reference temperature which depends upon the thermostat setting and the thermal 

tightness of the housing structure. For households that don't change their 

habits for heating their house over the winter (by going on vacation for a month 

and turning down the thermostat, for example) monthly data on temperature and 

fuel consumption can be used to obtain a fairly good estimate of the amount of 

energy consumed for space heating.

In the work for this project, the PRISM model was applied to the 1982 RECS 

households that heated with natural gas. No efforts were made to apply the 

approach to households that heated with other fuels because the analysis of 

households heating with natural gas was not completed successfully.

The second stage of the analysis of the effectiveness of conservation measures 

was to determine how the energy consumed for space heating depended upon the 

characteristics of the housing unit, including conservation measures. For this

19 Fels, Margaret, et al., Monitoring Consumption and Electricity Heated House

(Methodology Development; Phase I), Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, 

PU/CEES Report No. 160, April 1984.

72
analysis, multiple regression methods were used in an effort to determine 

statistically the influence of various characteristics of the housing structure 

on energy consumed for space heating. In this approach, space heating 

consumption is the dependent variable, and it is assumed to be a function of the 

physical characteristics of the house (including the conservation measures), 

factors associated with the use patterns of the way the household uses energy 

for space heating, and weather conditions (HDD).

The successful application of this method requires a stable, definable 

relationship between the variables in question that is reasonably consistent 

from house to house. If there are important factors, such as air infiltration, 

construction methods, wind exposure, and the like, that have a large influence 

on space heating consumption and are not included in the REGS data set, it might 

not be possible to use statistical methods to measure the influence on space 

heating of the features of the house that are known.

As this report is being written, attempts to specify and estimate a fully 

satisfactory regression equation have not been successful. Work is 

continuing on this issue, but the relationship between housing 

characteristics and space heating consumption may be so complex and 

variable among housing units that statistical methods may not be a viable 

means for estimating the effectiveness of conservation measures.

73
APPENDIX A 

Prevelance of Conservation Measures in Mobile Homes - 1984

In 1984 there were 5.1 million [1.0] mobile homes in the United States as 

measured by the RECS survey. The pattern of conservation measures in mobile 

homes followed the pattern in single family homes. The proportion of mobile 

homes that had either 100 percent storm window and door coverage, or no storm 

window and door coverage was greater than the proportion of homes with limited 

coverage. Over half of the mobile homes had attic insulation and/or wall 

insulation. The majority of the homes with attic and wall insulation had 

insulated all walls and the entire attic, Table 14.

74
Table 14. Distribution of Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection—Mobile 

Homes, 1984 (Millions of Households)

Type of Thermal Total Households 

_____Protection___________________________(Millions)

Total Households (millions) ....................................... 5.1 [1.0]

Presence of Roof/Attic Insulation, Area Covered

Yes ........................................... 3.6 10.8] All insulated ............................... 3.2 [0.7] Part insulated, none, very little .................................... Q

None, very little insulated ................. Q

Don't know amount/not reported .............. 0.3 18-?] No ............................................ 0.4 [0.2] Don't know/not reported ....................... 1.2

Type of Roof or Attic Insulation

Batt only ..................................... 2.2 [0.6] Loose fill only ............................... Q

Batt and loose fill only ...................... Q

Other/Combination ............................. 0.4 [0.2] Don't know/not reported ....................... 0.9 [0.4] No insulation, don't know/ not reported ................................. 1.6 [0.5]

Presence of Wall Insulation, Area 

Covered

Yes ........................................... 3.6 [0.8] All insulated ............................... 3.3 [0.7] Part insulated .............................. 0.3 [0.2] No ............................................ 0.5 [0.3] Don't know/not reported ....................... 1.0 [0.4]

See footnotes on following page.

75
Table 14. Distribution of Insulation and Air-Infiltration Protection—Mobile 

Homes,' 1984 (Millions of Households) (Continued)

Type of Thermal Total Households 

_____Protection___________________________(Millions)

Presence of Storm Windows,

Percentage of Windows Covered

Yes ........................................... 2.9

[0.7] 

100 percent ................................. 2.3

[0.6] 

/6-99 percent ............................... 0.4

[0.2] 

51-75 percent ............................... Q

1-50 percent ................................ 0.2

10.2] 

No/no windows ................................. 2.2

[0.6]

Presence of Storm Doors,

Percentage of Doors Covered

Yes ........................................... 2.6

[0.7]

100 percent ................................. 0.9

[0.4]

51-99 percent ............................... Q

1-50 percent ................................ 1.7

[0.5] 

No ............................................ 2.5

[0.6]

Q*Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were unavailable. 

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages are 

calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each statistic 

represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See Appendix C for 

further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and 

End Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1984.

76
Housing Characteristics and Socioeconomic Characteristics of 

Energy-Audited Households - 1982

The 1982 RECS survey included several questions on energy audits which were 

not included in on the 1984 survey. Householders in 1982 were asked if a 

representative from their electric or gas company had performed a detailed 

energy audit of their home within 12 months prior to the survey. 

Approximately 2.1 million households [0.5] of the 57.7 million single-family 

housing units had received an energy audit within the 12 months prior to the 

RECS interview. More households in the Northeast and the West had had an 

audit than did households in the North Central and South regions.

The households that had an energy audit were looked at by selected housing 

characteristics and socioeconomic characteristics. Although these figures 

should be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample size, they can 

provide a broad description of the types of households that are likely to have 

energy audits. Generally, the households that participated in an energy audit 

were young, white homeowners. Audited householders tended to have more years of 

schooling. They lived in larger homes for longer periods of time. The largest 

group of audited householders were in the middle income category of $15,000 to 

$35,000. The majority of the households were in one of three temperature zones: 

1) areas with less than 2,000 cooling degree-days and betweeen 5,500 and 7,000 

heating degree-days; 2) areas with less than 2,000 cooling degree-days and 

between 4,000 and 5,499 heating degree-days and 3) less than 2,000 cooling 

degree-days and less than 4,000 heating degree-days. Table 15. The socioeconomic characteristics of the RECS householders that had an energy audit 

were similar to other evaluations of households that had an energy audit.

77
Table 15. Distribution of Energy-Audited Households by Selected Housing 

Characteristics and Socioeconomic Characteristics—SingleFamily Housing Units, 1982 (Millions of Households)

Socioeconomic Characteristics Total Households 

of Household________________________________(Millions)

Total Households

(millions) ........................................ 2.1

[0.5]

Age of House

Built Before 1975 ................................. 1.8

[0.4]

Built 1975 and After .............................. 0.3

[0.2]

Heated Square Footage

Less than 1,600 ................................... 0.9

[0.3]

1,600 or More ..................................... 1.2

[0.3]

2,000 or More ..................................... 1.0

[0.3]

AIA Weather Zone

Zone 1 ............................................ 0.3

[0.2] 

Zone 2 ............................................ 0.5

[0.2] 

Zone 3 ............................................ 0.5

[0.2] 

Zone 4 ............................................ 0.6

[0.2] 

Zone 5 ............................................ 0.2

[0.1]

Relationship of Housing Unit 

to Householder

Owned ............................................. 1.9

[0.4] 

Rented ............................................ 0.2

[0.1]

Age of Householder

45 Years or Less .................................. 1.2

[0.3] 

Over 45 Years ..................................... 1.0

[0.4]

See footnotes on following page.

78
Table 15. Distribution of Energy-Audited Households by Selected Housing 

Characteristics and Socioeconomic Characteristics—SingleFamily Housing Units, 1982 (Millions of Households)

Socioeconomic Characteristics Total Households

of Household______________________________(Millions)________

Origin of Householder

White .............................................. 1.9

[50.4] 

Black .............................................. 0.1

[0.1] 

Other .............................................. 0.1

[0.1]

Education of Householder

12 Years or Less ................................... 0.9

[0.3]

Some College ....................................... 0.6

[0.2]

College Graduate ................................... 0.7

[0.2]

Number of Years'

Residence of Household in House

3 Years or Less .................................... 0.5

[0.2]

More than 3 Years .................................. 1.6

[0.4]

Family Income

Less than 15,000 ................................... 0.5

10.2]

15,000 to 35,000 ................................... 0.9

[0.3]

35,000 or More ..................................... 0.7

[0.2]

Delimited by heating degree-days (HDD) and cooling degree-days (CDD). 

Zone 1—more than 7,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 2—5,500 to 

7,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; Zone 3—4,000 to 5,499 HDD and fewer 

than 2,000 CDD; Zone 4—fewer than 4,000 HDD and fewer than 2,000 CDD; 

Zone 5—fewer than 4,000 HDD and more than 2,000 CDD.

Q"Data withheld because of a large variance or because data were 

unavailable.

Note: Because of rounding, data may not add up to totals. Percentages 

are calculated on unrounded numbers. The value in brackets below each 

statistic represents 1.96 of the standard error of the statistic. See 

Appendix C for further discussion of standard error.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and 

End Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

1984.

79
APPENDIX B 

How The Residential Energy Consumption Survey Was Conducted

The Residential Energy Consumption Surveys have been designed by the Energy 

Information Administration to provide information concerning energy 

consumption within the residential sector. Information concerning the housing 

unit is collected through personal interviews with a representative national 

sample of households. Data concerning actual energy consumption data are 

obtained from fuel records maintained by the household's fuel suppliers. An 

inventory of motor vehicles used by the household residents is also obtained 

at the time of the personal interview.

Data Collection. The fieldwork for these surveys was conducted by a 

contractor, Response Analysis Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey. Personal 

interviews were conducted with adult residents at the eligible units. 

Subsequently, mail questionnaires were sent to households that had not 

participated in personal interviews.

Interviewer contacts at sample households were begun in late September of the 

specific year of the survey and continued through January of the following 

year. More than 90 percent of the personal interviews were completed in 

October and November. Most of the completed mail questionnaires were received 

in January and February, with a few additional questionnaires received in March. 

November was regarded as the rough midpoint for data collection activity. Thus, 

November was the date for determining the independent estimates of the size of 

the universe of households used in the ratio estimation of survey results, 

Table 16.

80
Table 16. Response Rate for Residential Energy Consumption Surveys, 

1978-1984

Survey 

Date

November 1978

November 1979

November 1980

November 1981

November 1982

November 1984

Sample 

Size

4,081

4,033

6,051

6,269

4,724

5,683

Period for Consumption 

and Expenditures

April 1978 through March 1979

April 1979 through March 1980

April 1980 through March 1981

April 1982 through March 1982

April 1982 through March 1983

April 1982 through March 1983

Response 

Rate

90.5

90.6

91.2

91.6

89.6

84.2

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and 

End Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption Surveys 

1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1984.

81
The average personal interview which included measurements of the housing unit 

lasted 52 minutes. The interview with the householder (or his or her spouse) 

generally covered structural features of the house related to energy, such as 

insulation, doors, and windows; the heating and cooling systems, with the fuels 

used in these systems; use of wood, energy conservation improvements and the 

reasons for making the improvements; household appliances; household vehicles; 

receipt of government assistance for the cost of heating; and demographic data 

on household members.

At the end of the interview, respondents, were asked to sign a waiver 

authorizing the contractor to obtain records of energy consumption from the 

housing unit's energy supplier(s). Beginning in 1980, the interviewer also 

measured the dimensions of certain housing units, using a retractable 50-foot 

metal tape measure, and recorded the dimensions on a rough-drawn diagram of the 

floor plan.

Data are not collected for the following two types of housing units:

o Vacant housing units. These units may have minimal heating for

protection from the weather and lighting for security. They also may 

not be vacant all year long.

o Second homes for the owner's use.

These two types of units are not included primarily because of the difficulty in 

acquiring data and limitations in the availability of funds. The RECS data are

82
collected by interviewing someone who knows the housing unit and who may sign an 

authorization form for the release of fuel records from the fuel supplier. That 

type of person does not usually live at the units excluded from the survey.

Sample Design and Survey Estimates. The sample households were selected using a 

multiple-stage area-probability sampling design. The universe for this sample 

design includes all housing units occupied as the primary residence in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. The 1978 and 1979 RECS did not include 

households in Alaska or Hawaii. The survey estimates were developed to 

project sample results to the universe. Weights were calculated for each sample 

household. The household weight reflected the probability of selection for that 

household and additional adjustments to correct for potential biases arising 

from the failure to contact all sampling housing units and the failure to list 

all housing units in the area.

The adjustment for these noninterviews was designed to spread the effects of 

noninterviews over the interviewed sample of households in the final cluster. 

The noninterview weight is equal to the number of households in the ultimate 

cluster (interviews plus noninterviews) divided by the number of interviews. 

When the weight computed in this way was greater than 2.0, however, that part of 

the noninterview adjustment that exceed 2.0 was spread over the remaining 

ultimate clusters in the Primary Sampling Unit.

The failure to list all housing units in the field-listing task is a common 

problem in surveys of this type. The result is an undercount of housing units 

in the sample area and, hence, an underestimating of the number of households in

83
the universe. The undercount in RECS surveys is in the range of 7 to 9 percent. 

This problem is treated in two ways in the RECS. One treatment occurs during 

the interviewing process and the second in the estimation process. During the 

interviewing stage, unlisted housing units or households are discovered by 

querying the household where interviews are conducted to determine if other 

households are present in the unit. In addition, the interviewer is instructed 

to conduct an interview at all housing units contained in the geographical area 

between the interviewed household and the next listed address. This tactic 

reduces the number of missed households but does not completely eliminate the 

noncoverage problem. The noncoverage problem is also treated by using ratio 

estimation to adjust selected estimates of households to official population 

values.

Minimizing Nonresponse. In an effort to maximize the validity of the survey 

data, a multiwave, multicontact approach was employed. Before the initial 

contacts, a letter was sent to each household from the Administrator of the EIA, 

briefly describing the purposes and stressing the importance of the survey. 

Beginning in September of the year of the specific survey, interviewers made up 

to seven or more callbacks at different times of the day throughout the week in 

an effort to minimize the number of uncontacted households. The interviewers 

also queried neighbors regarding the most opportune tines to contact the 

prospective respondent.

A second wave was initiated in an effort to contact households that were not 

available during the first wave and to attempt to convince selected first-wave 

refusals to reconsider. A new set of letters preceded the renewed effort and,

84
in most cases, the sampled housing units were assigned to a different 

interviewer. Again, up to seven or more attempts were made to contact the 

prospective respondents. A third wave was initiated in an effort to reach 

nonrespondents in a number of locations that had low completion rates. In a 

final attempt to reduce nonresponse, an abbreviated version of the questionnaire 

(adapted for self-administration) was mailed to most, of the remaining 

nonrespondents.

Item nonresponse occurs when respondents do not know the answer or refuse to 

answer a question or when an interviewer does not ask a question or does not 

record an answer. Imputations were made for nonresponse to most items that were 

to be used for making national estimates and items that had less than 10-percent 

nonresponse. Items for which national estimates are made but for which 

imputations were not made include questions on the presence, type, and amount of 

attic and floor insulation; the presence of wall insulation. For these items, 

the number of missing cases was considered large enough that the imputations 

would have introduced too much additional error.

The most frequently used imputation procedure was hot-deck. This procedure 

requires sorting the file of households by variables related to the missing 

item. A household is then selected that has the same value of the related 

variables, and this "donor" household supplies the value for the variable that 

is missing in the "donee" household.

Less frequently used imputation methods included random selection from the 

distribution of the know values of a variable, regression estimates, and user 

of modal values. Regression procedures were used to impute the total square

85
footage of the housing unit when actual measurements were missing. The random 

selection procedure was used only to assign dates (month and/or year) when those 

response were missing. A few variable were imputed by assigning modal values; 

this was done when the distribution of available data showed a highly skewed 

distribution.

The mailed questionnaires had considerable missing data since the mailed 

questionnaire was a small subset of questions from the household interview. For 

the mailed questionnaire, a modified hot-deck imputation method was used. A 

hot-deck matrix was created for both mailed-questionnaire and personal-interview 

households using Census region, type of housing unit structure, space heating 

fuel, hot water fuel, and presence and fuel of air conditioning. For each 

mailed questionnaire household, a donor personal interview household was chosen 

from the same cell of the hot-deck matrix whenever possible, for approximately 

95 percent of the mailed questionnaires, donors matched on all hot-deck 

variables.

Since each cell of the matrix usually contained several possible donors, a donor 

was chosen from the cell based on how closely it matched the mailed 

questionnaire household on a number of additional variables. These variables 

were: income, number of household members, number of household vehicles, age of 

householder, tenure, number of rooms, model year of newest vehicle, and 

household structure (married couple, other). Except for information on 

household vehicles, which was taken directly from the mailed questionnaire, the 

entire set of responses from the donor houseold was imputed to the mailed 

questionnaire households. This means that all responses for mailed 

questionnaire households are imputed except weather data, fuel consumption data

86
acquired from the household's fuel suppliers, the geographic location of the 

mailed questionnaire household, information on household vehicles, arid those 

items in the hot-deck imputation process for which an exact match was obtained.

Interviewers mailed completed questionnaires to the contractor, where they were 

carefully reviewed. The first step in the review process was to verify the 

accuracy of the basic identifying information. Next, the questionnaires were 

manually reviewed by two editors to ensure completeness and the logical 

consistency of selected patterns of responses and to prepare the questionnaires 

for translation into machine-readable form. Keypunching of important items was 

fully verified. Overall, approximately 25 percent of the keypunching work was 

fully verified. Finally, the data were machine edited to further ensure 

completeness, logical consistency, and the legitimacy of coded values. The 

computer editing utilized a proprietary software package called EDITOR II.

The contractor attempted to resolve inconsistencies or ambiguities in the data 

internally, by reference to other parts of the questionnaire. When these 

efforts failed to resolve an important problem, particularly those involving 

heating fuels or heating equipment and/or relationships between questionnaire 

responses and data on fuel consumption, the contractor made telephone contact 

with a member of the household in question. Telephone contacts of this type 

were completed with approximately 10 percent of households during the course of 

data editing for this survey.

Comparisons were made between rental agent and household respondent reports on 

main heating fuel, main heating equipment, supplemental heating fuel, 

water-heating fuel, and air-conditioning fuel. Each discrepancy was

87
individually examined. Changes were made in the household record whenever it 

was judged that the rental agent was more knowledgeable than the household 

respondent on specific fuels and/or equipment.

Editors followed the guideline that the rental agent was the more knowledeable 

person when the landlord paid for the fuel and the fuel was used as the main 

home heating, water-heating, or air-conditioning fuel. The rental agent's view 

generally prevailed also in the case in which the rental agent paid for the main 

heating fuel and the rental agent's description of the main heating equipment 

differed from that of the household respondent.

Since a supplement heating fuel was more likely to be under the household's 

control, even in a multiunit dwelling, the respondent's definition of 

supplemental heating fuel was generally accepted. For a more detailed 

discussion on how the surveys were conducted for each specific survey, see 

Appendix A in the 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982 RECS: Housing Characteristics, or RECS: 

Consumption and Expenditure Reports, and the 1984 RECS: Housing Characteristics, 

(in preparation).

88
APPENDIX C

Sampling Error Methodology

Data from the REGS are subject to many sources of sampling errors, nonsampling 

error, and bias. Sampling error is a measure of the variability in the data 

because a sample of households was surveyed rather than the entire population. 

Because the survey used probability sampling techniques, sampling errors of the 

survey estimates can be estimated and used as a guide in making inferences from 

the sample estimates to the total population.

Nonsampling error and bias are measures of variability due to the conduct of the 

survey. They can include population undercoverage during sampling, response 

bias and variance, interviewer error, coding and/or keypunching error, and 

nonresponse bias. The wording and format of survey questionnaires, the 

procedures used to select and train interviewers, and the quality control built 

into the data collection, receipt, and processing operations were all designed 

to minimize these sources of error. In addition, response adjustments and ratio 

estimations were incorporated into the survey estimator to help reduce both 

sampling and nonsampling error.

The form of the sampling error that is presented in this report is 1.96 the 

standard error.

The estimates of sampling error were obtained by using a balanced half-sample 

replication technique. Estimates of sampling error for 1978 were calculated 

directly from the variations of those statistics over the half-samples. 

Estimates of sampling error for the 1980 through 1982 surveys were produced from

89
generalized equations that relate the standard errors of a statistic to the 

number of households over which the statistics applies. The standard errors for 

the 1984 have not at the time of this report been calculated directly using the 

half-sample procedure. The 1984 standard error presented in this report are 

calculated using the following generalized variance equation for the 1982 RECS 

household counts:

Log(RSE) • 1.244 - 0.450 x Log(NHSLD) 

- 0.027 x [(Log(NHSLD)) 2 ]

This generalized variance equation was obtained using a least square regression. 

The RSE's used as input data in the regression procedure were obtained using a 

half-sample variance estimating procedure.

The household count statistic is an estimate of a number of households that 

belong to a certain subset of all households in the country. The subset is 

defined by restrictions on certain characteristics. Therefore a value in a 

particular cell depends partly on the amount of homogeneity, the characteristics 

used in defining the cell. In calculating the standard error of a household 

count the degree of homogeniety, or the clustering factor, of that particular 

count must be considered. Standard errors for the 1984 statistics are 

multiplied by the clustering factors presented in Table 17. The value of the 

clustering factor is greater than one when a particular characteristic is highly 

clustered. If the characteristic is widely spread out the value of the 

clustering factor is less than one. For example, one possible characteristic is 

heating and cooling degree days. People who live close to each other experience 

the same weather conditions; consequently, the value of the clustering factor

90
for heating and cooling degree-days is greater than one. Conversely, although 

there is some clustering of households headed by people of the same age group, 

this tendency is less pronounced than for other characteristics. As a result, 

the value for the clustering factor for age of householder is less than one.

Table 17. Clustering Factors for Calculation of Standard Errors for 

' 1984 Data

Cell Definition Value

Heating and Cooling Degree-Days 

Housing Structure .............

Year House Was Built ..........

Origin (Race) .................

Owned/Rented ..................

Conservation Item .............

Number of Heated Square Feet 

Age of Householder ............

Family Income .................

.86

.20

.08

.07

0.98

0.945

0.90

0.87

0.87

Clustering factors are based on 1982 data.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets 

and End Use, Energy End Use Division, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey 1982.

Further details on how the sampling error estimates were determined can 

be found in the following REGS publications.

1980 RECS

Consumption and Expenditures—April 1980 through March 1981 

(DOE/EIA-0321/2), Part 2 Regional Data, June 1983, p.253.

1981 RECS

Consumption and Expenditures—April 1981 through March 1982 

(DOE/EIA-0321/1 (81)), Part 1 National Data, September 1983, p. 125. 

(DOE/EIA-0321/2 (81)), Part 2 Regional Data, November 1983, p.260.

1982 RECS

Consumption and Expenditures—April 1982 through March 1983 

(DOE/EIA-0321/1 (82)), Part 1, National Data, November 1984, p.126. 

(DOE/EIA-0321/2 (82)), Part 2, Regional Data, December 1984, p.276.

91
Appendix D

U.S. Census Regions and 

Divisions

92
OMKKS

Appendix E

U.S. Weather Zone 

Map of Heating Degree-Days

•HDD] and Cooflng DegreeDays fCDDJ

WetthcrZoAM

Zode \ ii ICM than 2,000 CDD u>d greater th*n 7,000 HDD. 

BB Zone 2 ii IMS than 2,000 CDD and 5,500-7.000 HDD. 

[ ] Zoo* 3 i* I«M than 2,000 CDD and 4,000-5,498 HDD. 

I | Zone 4 u IM th*n 2,000 CDD and \em th*D 4,000 HDD. 

m Zone 5 i* frcatcr thu 2,000 CDD tod !« thu 4,000 HDD.

•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 986 -491 -163/40035

93