Local Government's Role in Home Energy Retrofit Programs: Logic Model
As part of MIT's Urban Sustainability Assessment Project (USAP), led by Judy Layzer, I am
documenting a variety of local government's home energy retrofit programs. I am working in
conjunction with Stephanie Stern (MCP Candidate) on this question. The USAP research structure is
predominantly based on telephone interviews with local government staff, though I am eager to
plumb other stakeholders and data sources for perspectives on these programs. By April, I aim to
document 12-15 case studies on local government initiatives, and develop a broader model of
successful local government engagement in these programs, adding to the literature of best practices
in program design.
The goal of this research is to identify factors influencing three basic themes of home energy retrofit
programs:
1.
2.
3.
Inputs, required develop and sustain programs
Barriers to Energy Efficiency, which energy retrofit programs must overcome
Program Elements, which are the functional components of energy efficiency programs
Below, I have posited some initial hypotheses about what factors are most important to these themes 1.
Over the course of my research, I will test these hypotheses and augment them; get some idea of
ordinal ranking; and discern which roles local government are best positioned to play, being mindful
that the role for local governments will vary according to existing State and utility programs, staff
capacity, customers' needs and demographics, and a range of other factors. Ultimately, I am trying to
arrive at useful guidelines for new programs.
Inputs
Initiating and sustaining a energy retrofit program requires:
 Political will – Political leadership is required to initiate and sustain local government
participation in retrofit programs.
 Internal staff champion – Staff play a key role in framing the opportunity to adopt energy
efficiency programs, and in their design.
 Regular funding source – Programs that are wholly self-financed will cover a limited market
and range of eligible retrofits.
 External capacity – Programs benefiting from past utility/state, consultant, or previous local
government experience can achieve greater scale and efficacy.
Barriers
The barriers to building owners implementing all economic energy efficiency measures include:
 Lack of owner understanding of efficiency potential & cost-effectiveness.
 Insufficiently well developed energy efficiency auditing and contracting workforce.
 Split incentives (owner/tenant; developer/occupant; contractor/occupant).
 Risk of major building improvements – Residents are hesitant to undergo major renovations.
1
Many of these hypotheses are derived from other summaries of energy efficiency programs. Important works include:
Fuller 2009; Fuller et al 2009; Fuller et al 2010; Home Performance Resource Center 2010; Climate Leadership Academy
Network 2010.


Transaction costs (organizing, paperwork for efficiency programs).
Aesthetic & health concerns – Concerns over reduced air quality or heritage preservation can
limit the uptake of retrofits.
Program Elements
I hypothesize that elements of successful programs will include:
 Market segmentation in program design (targeted to SFH, MURB, housing age, demographics,
etc)

Public outreach and mobilization strategies - Successful programs:
o Focus on peer-to-peer marketing and connecting with neighborhood institutions
(religious centers, community groups, etc) to build understanding of the program and
impetus to participate.
o Include health measures testing beyond energy efficiency (lead paint, asbestos, mould),
increasing the public will to participate in program.
o Empower auditors and contractors as sales-people. They are given incentives and
training in helping homeowners interpret energy efficiency.
o Conduct ongoing engagement to support energy efficient behaviour and community
marketing

Ease of engagement. Successful programs feature:
o Few independent decisions for customers. Staff are available to assist with steps and
decisions.
o Certified contractor net-works.
o Pre-bid pricing, so that customers do not have to source their own bids for retrofit work.
o Customer assistance provisions (online, hotline, etc)
o Simple, standardized contracts for contracting and financing
o Charging for audits to prevent ‘window shopping’ home energy assessments; but
providing a post-retrofit rebate, to further incent participation

Monetary incentives & financing – successful programs
o Include long-term financing, attached to property/meter, and targeting hard-to-finance
demographics
o Government and/or utility incentives
o Base incentives on energy efficiency performance, not specific measures (Home
Performance Resource Center 2010)
o Have rebates/incentives deducted from customers billing and paid directly to
contractors, as opposed to requiring customers to pay all contractor costs up front and
reimbursing rebates to customers later. (This may provide opportunities for contractors
to overcharge customers).

Supporting regulations
o Mandating retrofits in some circumstances (rental housing; time of sale; etc)

Quality Control
o Require contractors be certified, through Building Performance Institute or RESNET

Evaluation, Measurement and Verification
o Include protocols to track performance
 Consider having customers sign a utility release, allowing for collection and
processing of their energy use data

Support the supply side of the retrofit market
o Capacity development programs
o Finance retrofit contractor’s purchase of home energy improvement materials, until
incentives are distributed to contractors
o Use mass bidding to set standard prices for common energy efficiency measures, such
as insulation. While this may limit competition, it can also protect customers from
excessively high prices.
Performance Metrics
I am attempting to compile data on program performance. Measures include:
 Total estimated energy savings stemming from program activities per Cities' population.
 The participation rate – the number of households/buildings undergoing retrofits.
 The comprehensiveness of retrofits – Do retrofits follow a 'whole building' approach and
incorporate longer-payback components such as increased insulation?
 Job creation – Number of energy efficiency contractors trained, employed etc. Qualitative
aspects such as the demographic focus of job creation initiatives will be considered.
 Participation rates amongst low income households
 Cities' program investment levels in terms of staff time and budget.
Providing basic metrics of success in these programs would significantly help in comparisons between
cities by policies makers, facilitating program evaluation and best practices.
It would be useful to see what metrics DoE has set for ARRA Block Grants.