Albrecht Stoecklein1, Yuan Zhao1, Lauren Christie2 and Lisa Skumatz3

1
THE VALUE OF LOW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR
OCCUPANT AND LANDLORD

• Albrecht Stoecklein1, Yuan Zhao1, Lauren
  Christie2 and Lisa Skumatz3
• 1 BRANZ Limited, Wellington, New Zealand
• 2 Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington,
  New Zealand
• 3 SERA Inc. Colorado, U.S.A.

2
Background

• This topic is from the Zero and Low Energy House
  (ZALEH) study project

• ZALEH project This is the first time in New
  Zealand where research on a wide range of non
  energy benefits in a quantitative manner has been
  undertaken since 2002

3
Main Aim

• To quantify the value of non energy benefits from
  energy efficient technologies to the home
  occupants and other stakeholders

4
Non Energy Benefit Categories Definitions

• Appearance changes in appearance of the home.
• Bill Control measures (and bill impacts) led to
  a feeling of greater or lesser control over the
  energy bill
• Comfort house features led to greater or lesser
  comfort in this home than others
• Environmental features led to environmental
  benefits or problems.
• Features energy equipment or measures had better
  or worse features.
• Health features were perceived to make the home
  more or less safe or healthy to live in.
• Maintenance the features had lower or higher
  maintenance requirements.
• Moving the energy features led to the occupants
  being able to avoid a moving, either because of
  lower bills, greater benefits, value, and service
  from the home, or other reason.
• Noise the homes had lower or higher noise
  levels, either from outside the home, or from the
  energy using equipment inside the home, or both.
• Notices the energy usage changes due to the
  technologies led to lower bills, which changed
  the occupants ability to pay and therefore may
  have reduced late payment notices or similar
  calls from the utility on bill-related issues.
• Other unprompted benefits or problems categories
  included higher cost (the major one), and a
  variety of other benefits or negative impacts and
  changes.

5
Survey Types

• Phone interview and mail survey Low Energy
  Houses in New Zealand
• Online internet survey Randomly selected houses
  from around New Zealand
• Face to face interviewing survey Housing New
  Zealand Corporation houses (HNZC) in Dunedin

6
Low Energy Houses Participants

• These houses have had at least one of the
  following low energy technologies installed
• Insulation significantly better than New Zealand
  Building Code requirements
• Double glazing throughout
• Solar or heat pump water heating
• Energy bills of less than 15 per month per
  occupant
• Solar design features such as trombe walls or
  others
• Renewable energy technologies such as wind
  generator etc

7
The Low Energy Houses
8
Reported Technology Costs and Energy Savings
Median market value is NZ350,000 and median
floor area is 250m2
Technology Name Technology Cost Annual
Energy Savings (as reported by the
occupants) Insulation 5,500 450 Double
glazing 5,500 300 Water heating 4,000
400 Space heating and cooling 4,000 200 Sp
ecial house design feature 10,000 300
9
Marginal Cost for Low Energy Technologies
10
Value of Individual Benefits(Low Energy Houses)
11
Randomly Selected Houses

• Most of the houses did not have insulation,
  double glazing or solar water heaters, installed.
  Nor had they applied particular solar design
  techniques. The responses from this group are
  therefore a reflection of perceived rather than
  experienced benefits and problems with low energy
  technologies.

12
HNZC houses in Dunedin

• Low income houses with ceiling insulation
  upgrades only

13
Non-energy benefit comparison between the three
sample groups

• Look

14
Estimated Annual Energy Savings
15
The value of non-energy benefits compared to the
energy cost savings
16
The value of comfort benefits compared to the
energy cost savings
17
Future Research
18
Benefits to

• property managers
• landlords

19
A Parallel Study
conducted in 2005

• by real estate company
• The Professionals in Whakatane

shows

• The total saved cost to property managers and
  landlords from the energy-efficiency improvement
  is approximately 290 per property per year.
  This saving is comparable to the estimated annual
  energy savings from the insulation and hot water
  cylinder retrofits.

20
Summary of net benefits of insulation and water
cylinder wrap improvement
21
Acknowledgements

• ZALEH was funded by New Zealands
• Foundation for Research, Science and Technology
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

• We are also grateful for the support of Housing
  New Zealand Corporation and the team of Dr Bob
  Lloyd, Director Energy Management, Otago
  University, Dunedin, New Zealand for their
  support in recruiting the HNZC houses in Dunedin

22
? ?!
The chief value of money lies in the fact that
one lives in a world in which it is
overestimated. H. L. MenckenUS editor (1880 -
1956)
23
? ? ? ? ? ?