As a given metropolitan area enters the implementation schedule,
a two-person team would be dispatched. Its function would be
to enlist the endorsement and cooperation of the local govern-
ment, the news media, local business and industry leaders and
the gas and electric utility. Through the cooperative efforts
of these groups, each local area would be expected to provide
the printing of the questionnaires and a local liaison office
to answer questions and coordinate promotion.

The actual distribution of questionnaires to homeowners in a
given metropolitan area would be either by direct mail or as
an insert to the local newspaper. In the case of direct mail,
address label information would be solicited from the city real
estate tax assessment files. Postage would be paid on a non-
profit bulk rate. In the case of distribution via newspaper
insert, the questionnaire would be printed such that it would
be a self-mailer.

Present planning for the non-profit administration of Project
Conserve includes the provision for homeowners to be charged
for the service. The charge would be set at $5.00 which would
be adequate to cover the cost of processing. Further, given
that homeowners continue to participate at a rate of 10 to 20
percent, the excess monies collected would be used to reimburse
the organizations that contribute services as well as provide
the non-profit organization with working capital to expand
to other areas.

The delivery of Project Conserve by a non-profit organization, with the participating homeowners being charged for the service, would offer geographic coverage equal to the FEA delivery

alternative.

The charge for the service, although nominal, would likely reduce participation from the 20 percent pilot test level to 10 percent. To counteract this reduction, the proportion of participants that would take action based on the results would likely increase to well over the 48 percent found in the pilot test. This likelihood stems from the fact that the homeowners who receive a report will have already invested some nominal dollar amount and will be more likely to follow through with some retrofit action.

Applying these percentages to the three-year goal of 15 to 20 million homes yields 1.5 to 2.0 million participants. If subsequent homeowner action increases to 66 or 75 percent, this delivery option would have an impact on between 1.0 and 1.5 million homes.

From the funding standpoint, once in operation the non-profit organization would be self-supporting. It would be expected, however, that an initial investment on the order of $200,000 would be required to establish a sustained cash flow from participants. This initial capital would be repaid through the funds collected from participants.

The benefits afforded by the non-profit enterprise approach to delivering Project Conserve on a national scale include:

minimum, and potentially zero, cost to anyone but
participating homeowner.

minimum, and potentially zero, cost to
businesses and local governments that are
called upon to contribute services;

high degree of credibility of the non-profit
enterprise in the eyes of the homeowner;

controlled delivery of Project Conserve which
assures most desirable geographic coverage
to maximize impact;

centralized control which assures coordination with
manufacturers and suppliers of energy
conserving retrofit materials;

centralized operation which assures FEA access to
a data base describing the energy envelope
of the nation's residential structures as
well as the manner in which these structures
are operated;

charging a fee for the service having the potential
of increasing the proportion of participants

who take action to retrofit to some unknown higher
level.

The major problem associated with this delivery alternative is:

Summary

charging homeowners for the service which has the
potential for reducing participation to some
unknown lower percentage.

The three most viable alternatives for delivering Project Conserve on a national scale include:

1.

2.

Federal Energy Administration program offered
to homeowners at no charge and operated
centrally in a manner similar to the pilot
program.

Other governmental bodies voluntarily deliver
Project Conserve to their constituency on
either a free or paid-for basis.

3.

Non-profit enterprise administer the delivery
of Project Conserve on a national scale
charging participants for the service in
excess of operating costs to provide working
capital and to reimburse initial funding

and other organizations and governments for
contributed services.

From

All three alternatives offer both benefits and problems.
the pragmetic standpoint of cost, however, the non-profit
alternative is clearly the most reasonable. This is made
possible by financing the entire delivery thru charging the
participants for the service. The following table contains
a summary of the estimated costs and impact.

PROJECTED IMPACT

A projection of the potential impact of Project Conserve on the national residential energy consumption profile is presented below. The bases for the projection are the data from the pilot test conducted in the Danbury, Connecticut, and Topeka, Kansas.

Rather than employ either pilot test city as representative of the nation, averages of the two are used.

The retrofit actions of weather stripping/caulking and thermostat set back are not considered in the projection due to their interaction with ceiling insulation, storm windows and storm doors.

Consider a three-year goal of exposing 20 million homes to Project Conserve:

21 percent or 4.2 million would participate;

48 percent or 2 million would take energy
conserving action.

If it is assumed that they take action in direct proportion to the average need shown above, the following therms per year of reduced heat loss may be realized:

Ceiling Insulation

50 percent need yields = 300 million therms;

Storm Windows

38 percent need yields

=

95 million therms;

Storm Doors

38 percent need yields

= 95 million therms.

At the end of a three-year period, residential heat loss would be reduced 490 million therms per year.

These

reductions in heat loss become more meaningful when considered in the context of fuel savings. The conversion to fuel savings requires two assumptions:

• Heating plant efficiency

Assume oil fired heating systems convert the
fuel to space heat with an efficiency of 0.5,
gas heating systems at an efficiency of 0.6
and electric systems at an efficiency of 1.0.

Proportion of homes by type of fuel

Using data from the 1970 Census, assume 65
percent of the homes employ gas. heating

systems, 25 percent employ oil and 10 percent
employ electric.