Year: 1986
Type: article
Abstract: In recent years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has strongly urged local public housing authorities (PHAs) to improve the energy efficiency of their building stock in an effort to reduce upward-spiraling energy costs. Local public housing authorities can fund conservation measures with: (1) :HUD Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (ClAP) funds, (2) general operating subsidies, (3) utility-sponsored conservation financing programs, and (4) third-party investments. In this study, we examine the relative financial impact on HUD and PHAs of these four funding strategies, based on case studies of actual retrofit efforts by two local housing authorities: San Francisco, California and Trenton, New Jersey. The selected retrofits 1 show significant energy savings. This is not, however, reflected in the financial benefits to each because current provisions of the Performance Funding System (PFS) for public housing energy subsidies that costs and savings associa.ted with energy conservation. retrofits be shared between and the local housing authorities, regardless of the financing mechanism used. Under the PFS HUD benefits substantially from all fOUf retrofit projects. The local PHA also receives positive economic benefits in two cases, a. solar domestic hot water system financed by third party investors and a high-efficiency boiler replacement financed with ClAP funds.. In· another case, the San Francisco weatherized 1827 apartments with a zero-interest loan from the local and to pay the loan over eight years out of general operating subsidies. The present value of loan ($124/apartment exceed the value of lifetime energy savings ($78/unit); thus the retrofit has an overall nega.tive financial on the In our last example, the Trenton ~Ulinc.rlt,y is affected because of ongoing maintenance costs associated with ne;atlne: control retrofit which are not reimbursed HUD. Our results indicate that the of the PFS often result in a net loss to the local housing while HUD substantial benefits. This occurs even for conservation measures with payDel~l()(ls less than three years; hence the present policy reduces the incentive for PHAs to invest in nrC)lP'lct,§ that are very cost effective from the societal perspective. * The work described in this report was funded by the Assista.nt Secretary for Conservation and Renewa.ble Energy, Office of Building and Community Systems, Buildings Systems Division of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DEeAC0376SFOOOOS. FINANCIAL Th1PACTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC HOUSrnG Evan :Mills, Ronald L. Ritschard, and Charles A. Goldman Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California INTRODUCTION Since th.e U.S. Housing Act of the federal government has constructed some 1.2 minion housing apartments, which provide shelter for 3.4 minion low-income and elderly persons (Perkins and Will, lQ8O). Public housing management is under the auspices of the U.S. of Housing and Urban Development (:HUD), which provides 2,100 local public housing authorities (PHAs) with technical and assistance in planning, developing, and managing low-income housing. The annual operating for each PHA (including energy costs) is established by HOD a subsidy framebased on projected needs and availa.ble funds. Local PHAs began budgetary the late 1970's because of the rapid escalation of energy after the oil embargo of 1913. 'Other factors also contributed to woes: most were built between the la.te 19408 and the 19605 when energy and was not a consideration in As a these older struc~e]r1e!·au.Y use more energy than structures built the Brooke Amendment IIl-lIIn.ll'llc.'!ll'lnfi' and Urban Act of 1969 established that limited rental incom.e to De]rCent~~jle of the tenant's not to exceed the was raised to a new 'li)~.a..!l.U.VAV.u.O, which were to relieve the financial ha.rdres.ldE~nts! n1rO(jue~~(1 blUd~ret~~rv difficulties for local authorities as In HUD a Performance Funding 'In.1l''If''I.'''''lIrll£lo each PHA with subsidies needed for efficient management. In S1)()DSore:Q a of conservation and Will, 1980). that problem for local the study noted that nominal energy costs in had increased 400% since 1970, continue to inflation over the next few decadese The current administration, has taken that local en.ergy will not be reflected in future federal bud t allocations. As a bills will out of local maintenance and administrative adds to in turn may lead to increased energy ael[JlaJDQ. last several years, U:Ut18.tlD.g retrofit projects measures, housing authorities have a.ttempted to control rising energy et 1986). They have used various sources to pay for these :HUD Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (ClAP) conservation programs and (4) third-party from energy service companies). In this study, we examine the impact of these various nnan lelD,g Sl~r8:tee~les on the distribution of retrofit savings and costs between HUD and local PHAse We discuss deterrents to energy conservation that result from the current regulatory framework, and report results from four retrofit projects undertaken by two local housing authorities, San Francisco and Trenton. DEseR OF RETROFIT PROJECTS I provides background information on the four projects. In San Francisco, the Housing took advanta.ge of a utility-sponsored, zero-interest loan program to install attic insulation,
Authors: Evan Mills, R.L. Ritschard, Charles Goldman
Language: English
Subfield: Building and Construction
Field: Engineering
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: green
Funder: U.S. Department of Energy
Awards: G1398330795, G1643223109, G193590374
OpenAlex ID: W6701548