thermostat settings by time of day shown as Figure 1-12 indicates nearly 75 percent of the homes have responded to the 68 degree daytime thermostat setting. This drops to 59 percent in the evening hours but climbs back to 86 percent at night. The final frequency distribution shown in Figure 1-13 relates presence of storm windows to age of home. As was found in Topeka, approximately 90 percent of the homes has storm sash on at least half of the windows. Summary The relative presence of physical, residential energy conservation features is similar in both Danbury and Topeka: between 45 and 65 percent of all homes with about 10 percent of all homes have less between 15 and 20 percent of all homes have less than half of their exterior doors Attention is directed The noticeable difference between the two populations sampled is the manner in which the homes are operated. specifically to thermostat control: Daytime thermostat settings of 68 degrees or less Evening thermostat settings of 68 degrees or less Night thermostat settings of 68 degrees or less Another indication of this lower degree of concern for the efficient energy management habits of the homeowners in Topeka was evidenced by the significantly lower participation rate in Project Conserve. An examination of the causal factors for this attitudinal difference intuitively focuses on the financial benefits of energy conservation as perceived by the two populations. In Danbury, the primary heating fuel is No. 2 Heating Oil. During the winter and spring of 1974, the price of this oil fluctuated between 27 and 38 cents per gallon with publicized concern over availability at any price. In Topeka where the primary heating fuel is natural gas, supplies were adequate and prices were approximately 75 cents per 1000 cubic feet (in excess of 3000 cubic feet). Converting these prices to a common base, Danbury homeowners were paying approximately 40 cents per therm while in Topeka the price was about 8 cents per therm. This relationship plus the more severe winters in Danbury make pay-back periods for investment in retrofit in Topeka four to five times as long as in Danbury. If financial benefits have been the prime motivating force for homeowners to invest in energy conserving actions, it becomes clear that other incentives must be added in areas of plentiful, inexpensive heating fuel. This is true, at least, until either supply difficulties or increased prices close the gap in fuel costs per therm. Although this gap is already beginning to close, there is a need to increase the perceived value of such direct benefits from energy conserving retrofit as: personal health and comfort; and • personal pride in energy conservation. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The pilot test of Project Conserve was enlightening from the standpoint of improving the system and its components. Rather than elaborate on the cost or merits of the improvements, they are enumerated below for subsequent considerations: (1) Project Recognition The envelope in which the questionnaire (2) Questionnaire (3) (4) Type face should be enlarged. Optional Results Change "DOLLAR SAVINGS" to "AVOIDED COST". Calculations When calculating the benefits and costs of Since Project Conserve was to have been implemented on a citywide basis subsequent to the pilot test described herein, the improvements to the questionnaire were accomplished. Presented on the following three pages is the revised version. |