energy efficiency in multi-family housing · 2020-02-05 · energy programs consortium / 1 energy...

Energy Programs Consortium / i

Energy Efficiency in Multi-Family Housing: A Profile and Analysis

Energy Efficiency inMulti-Family HousingA Profile and Analysis

ByMatthew Brown and Mark Wolfe

Energy Programs Consortium

June 2007

Energy Programs Consortium / ii


CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... iii

About the Energy Programs Consortium ...................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

A Profile of Multi-Family Housing ................................................................................................................................. 1

Multi-Family Housing Policies and Programs .................................................................................................................. 4

Energy Use in Multi-Family Housing ............................................................................................................................ 7

State Policy Issues in Multi-Family Housing ..................................................................................................................11

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................17

AppendicesA-1. Percent of Multi-Family Housing by State ......................................................................................................19B-1. Multi-Family Housing by State—Total ..........................................................................................................20B-2. Multi-Family Housing by State—Renters ......................................................................................................21B-3. Multi-Family Housing by State—Owners ......................................................................................................22C-1. Multi-Family Total Housing Stock by State—by Age of Construction .............................................................23C-2. Multi-Family Renter Stock by State—by Age of Construction ........................................................................24C-3. Multi-Family Owner Housing Stock by State—by Age of Construction ..........................................................25D-1. HUD-Assisted Multi-Family Housing Units by State as Percent of All Multi-Family Housing Units .................26E-1. Multi-Family Housing Units Financed by LIHTC .........................................................................................27F-1. Energy Efficiency Program Results: Southface EarthCraft Homes ...................................................................28G-1. Estimated Funding for State Residential Energy Efficiency Programs ($ in thousands) ....................................30

Tables and Figures

Table1. Energy Price Increases Compared to Prices of Other Household Goods ................................................................. 12. Size of Multi-Family Buildings by Region ........................................................................................................... 23. Number of Rental Units in Multi-Family Buildings, by Region ............................................................................ 34. Rental Income of Tenants in Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing .................................................................... 35. Illinois Energy Efficient Building Practices .......................................................................................................... 96. Average “Greening” Cost Premium ...................................................................................................................107. Selected State Subsidies for Financing Energy Efficiency Measures .....................................................................158. Loan Caps in Selected States for Single- and Multi-Family Housing ....................................................................17

Figure1. Multi-Family Housing by Region: Total Multi-Family Units ................................................................................ 22. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Compared to Other HUD Housing Programs ................................................... 43. States that Reference Energy Efficiency in Their Qualified Allocation Plans (QAP) ................................................ 64. Home Energy Use as a Percent of Total Energy Use .............................................................................................. 75. Comparison of Energy Use Between Single-Family and Multi-Family Residences .................................................. 8

Energy Programs Consortium / iii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Energy Programs Consortium (EPC) prepared this document for a meeting addressing linkages be-tween energy efficiency, affordability and housing that was sponsored by the Surdna Foundation. EPCgratefully acknowledges the support of the Surdna Foundation.

ABOUT THE ENERGY PROGRAMS CONSORTIUM

EPC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that conducts policy research and demonstration programssponsored by the four main organization representing state energy and regulatory agencies: the NationalAssociation of State Energy Officials; National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association; National Associationof Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and National Association of State and Community Services Programs.

EPC is supported by grants from the Ford, Heron and Surdna foundations; state energy and housingfinance agencies; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the U.S. Department of Energy.

For additional information about EPC, please contact:

Mark Wolfe or Matthew BrownEnergy Programs Consortium

Suite 900, 1615 M Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) [email protected],

[email protected]

Energy Programs Consortium / iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Multi-family housing accounts for about 18 percent of the nation’s housing stock. While the energyefficiency of multi-family housing stock is improving, the rate of improvement could be substantially in-creased by adopting systematic policies and financing models that use market data and target governmentpolicies and programs by housing type, age of housing stock, income and energy use. Increasing energyefficiency in the nation’s multi-family housing will require development and refinement of current policies,incentives and financing structures.

Increasing the energy efficiency of the nation’s low-income multi-family housing will also make it moreaffordable. Affordability is especially important since energy prices are rising faster than the overall rate ofhousing costs in the United States. Between 2003 and 2006, for example, overall housing costs increasedby 110 percent, while energy costs increased by 126 percent.

Federal and state funding for state-administered residential energy efficiency programs totaled almost $1.4billion in 2006 of which $825 million was for low-income residential energy efficiency and $534 million wasfor non-income targeted residential energy efficiency programs. Of the $824 million provided in low-incomeresidential efficiency, $551 million was from the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and trans-fer funds from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). WAP does not allow a match forefficiency services provided to single family homes but does allow states to require a match for multi-familyhousing. In practice, states require a match of between 0 and 50 percent. In 2006, states used Weatherizationfunds to provide energy efficiency improvements to approximately 16,000 multi-family units.

The following major points are discussed in this paper:

• Multi-family housing is concentrated by size and by region. The Northeast has only 19.8 percent ofthe nation’s housing stock, but 28.1 percent of the multi-family housing stock and 33.8 percent ofbuildings with 50-plus units. The Midwest and the Southeast have the lowest ratio of multi-family tototal housing stock. Despite this regional variation, multi-family housing is significant in all regions.

• Renters have considerably lower incomes than owners. About 15 percent of renters have incomes of lessthan $20,000 as compared to owners and 78 percent of renters have incomes of less than $50,000 ascompared to 37 percent of owners. In addition, renters occupying subsidized housing units have evenlower incomes. The average income for a renter in a subsidized unit was $17,961, compared to $38,463for a non-subsidized unit (2001 American Housing Survey).

• Many assume that the low-income sector is relatively small and that the best approach for aiding thissector is to provide 100 percent grant assistance for energy efficiency improvements. This approach hasmany limitations. At the current rate of grant assistance funding, for example, it will take more than100 years to make all low-income housing energy efficient.

• The energy efficiency of both single- and multi-family housing is increasing. Housing built in the1990s is 8.5 percent more efficient than housing built in the 1980s, approximately 17 percent more

Energy Programs Consortium / v


efficient than housing built in the 1970s and 1960s, and fully 23 percent more efficient than housingbuilt before 1960. This is due in part to more efficient building technologies and appliances and inpart to stronger building codes.

• Energy efficiency measures to retrofit multi-family housing can yield substantial reductions in energyuse; retrofits often show energy efficiency improvements of 30 percent to as high as 75 percent, depend-ing on the initial state of the building.

• Energy efficiency measures in new buildings can yield reductions in energy use of up to 20 percent.Depending on the energy efficiency measures, these buildings may be less expensive to design andbuild than a conventional building, or may require a small additional charge.

Increasing the energy efficiency of multi-family buildings is a complex issue. The following are recommen-dations for steps that can be taken to increase the energy efficiency of the nation’s multi-family housingstock.

Energy Efficiency Measures for All Multi-Family Housing

• Consider education programs for developers, builders and architects. Such programs would focus onenergy-efficient building practices as well as on financing models available to reduce the cost of energyefficiency measures.

• Compile a database of information on energy use and savings potential in multi-family housing basedon age and number of units. Identify lessons learned from state energy efficiency programs in multi-family sector evaluations and energy efficiency studies.

• Develop finance models for state public benefit fund programs to support energy efficiency improve-ments for new and existing construction. As part of this effort, focus on performance-based programsthat provide incentives targeted to developers.

• States can examine ways to require that energy efficiency measures be installed in multi-family build-ings constructed with government funds.

Energy Efficiency Measures Specific to Affordable Housing

• State finance programs can examine means to combine and leverage energy efficiency or weatherizationpublic benefit program funds with additional funding from housing finance agencies.

• States can examine methods to encourage energy efficiency through policies that allocate Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credits (LIHTC) among housing developers.

• Work with HUD to modify the calculation of utility allowances in the LIHTC program and with theIRS to ensure those modifications are recognized for tax purposes.

Energy Programs Consortium / 1


INTRODUCTION

The relationship between energy efficiency and affordability of multi-family housing in the United States hasbecome increasingly important as energy prices continue to rise much faster than other goods and services.Table 1 shows how much fuel and utility costs have increased in relation to other household expenses. Thispaper describes the number and types of multi-family housing units in the country as a percent-age of the total U.S. housing stock, the incomelevel of those who inhabit multi-family buildingsand whether they rent or own their units. It thendescribes energy use and the potential for energyefficiency in multi-family buildings. It ends witha summary of major policy issues.

The data in this paper leads us to conclude thata substantial amount of energy can be saved inthe multi-family housing sector. The energy savings potential is important not only because it impliespotential to reduce carbon and other emissions, but also because energy savings produce better quality, moreaffordable homes, which is particularly important for low- to moderate-income Americans who reside inthese buildings.

The paper is organized in five primary sections:

1. A Profile of Multi-Family Housing2. Multi-Family Housing Policies and Programs3. Energy Use in Multi-Family Housing4. State Policy Issues in Multi-Family Housing5. Conclusions

A PROFILE OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

Of the 106 million housing units in the nation, 19 million, or 18 percent, are multi-family. As shown inAppendix A-1 (page 19), multi-family housing accounts for at least 20 percent of the housing stock of thefollowing states: Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, NewYork and the District of Columbia.

Multi-family housing is highly concentrated. As shown in Appendix B-1 (page 20), 10 states account foralmost 64 percent of all multi-family housing, and the top five states (California, Florida, Illinois, New Yorkand Texas) accounted for 49 percent. Rental housing, as shown in Appendix B-2 (page 21), accounted for83 percent of all multi-family housing. Owner-occupied multi-family housing is shown in Appendix B-3(page 22). Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of the nation’s multi-family housing stock.

Definition of Multi-Family HousingIn general, this paper focuses on multi-fam-ily housing buildings with five or more unitsas defined by HUD and most state pro-grams.

Table 1. Energy Price Increases Compared toPrices of Other Household Goods

Source: Consumer Price Index, U.S. Department of Labor.

Increase in Consumer Price Index, 2003-2006All Housing 110%Shelter 109%Fuels and Utilities 126%All Items 110%



1. Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing, “Housing Markets” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2006), 9.

Finally, census data reveal that multi-family buildings in the Northeast tend to be larger buildings, while inthe rest of the country they tend to be smaller buildings. As Table 2 illustrates, wide variations exist in themulti-family sector from one region to another.

The Age of Multi-Family Housing

The age of multi-family housing reflects the robust population growth in parts of the Southeast and theSouthwest. Appendix C-1 (page 23) shows that parts of the Northeast have a relatively old building stockcompared to the rest of the country. The age of building stock is an important factor in understanding itsenergy efficiency. A study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University revealed that, onaverage, all housing built in the 1990s was more efficient than housing built in previous decades. Specifi-cally, housing built in the 1990s is 8.5 percent more efficient than housing built in the 1980s, approxi-mately 17 percent more efficient than housing built in the 1970s and 1960s, and fully 23 percent moreefficient than housing built before 1960.1 This is true despite the increasing size of single-family housing.It is due in part to the more efficient building technologies and appliances and in part to stronger buildingcodes in both the single-family and multi-family sectors.

Figure 1. Multi-Family Housing by Region: Total Multi-Family Units

Northeast28.1 percent

West20.4 percentSouthwest

19.6 percent

Southeast19.3 percent

Midwest12.6 percent

Table 2. Size of Multi-Family Buildings by Region

Region

MidwestNortheastSoutheastSouthwestWestTotal

50 + Units

11.6%33.8%15.4%20.2%19.0%

100.0%

20-49 Units

7.7%29.9%20.3%25.7%16.5%

100.0%

5-19 Units

9.7%23.1%21.9%22.3%23.0%

100.0%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census.


12.6%28.1%19.3%19.6%20.4%

100.0%

13.8%19.8%26.3%15.6%24.4%

100.0%

Percent of Multi-familyHousing Located

in this Region

Percent of AllHousing Located

in this Region



As shown in appendices C-1, C-2 and C-3 (pages 23-25), 85 percent of rental housing stock and 92percent of owner housing stock were built prior to 1990, and 41 percent of rental and 60 percent of owner-occupied housing stock were built prior to 1970. As suggested by the Harvard study, these buildings haveconsiderable potential to reduce energy consumption.

Multi-family buildings are, for the most part, occupied by renters. In fact, 83 percent of all multi-familybuildings are rental buildings, while only 17 percent are owner-occupied. The preponderance of rentalmulti-family buildings is evident in each major region of the country, although the percentage is lowest inthe Southeast (Table 3).

Renters have considerably lower incomes than owners. About 15 percent of renters have incomes of lessthan $20,000 as compared to owners and 78 percent of renters have incomes of less than $50,000 ascompared to 37 percent of owners. In addition, renters occupying subsidized housing units have evenlower incomes. The average income for a renter in a subsidized unit was $17,961, compared to $38,463 fora non-subsidized unit. (2001 American Housing Survey.)

Table 4 compares tenant incomes in subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Because renters make up themajority of multi-family tenants and tend to have lower incomes, affordable housing programs are particu-larly important in any discussion of rental housing in the United States.

Table 3. Number of Rental Units in Multi-Family Buildings, by Region

RegionMidwestNortheastSoutheastSouthwestWestTotal

Rental3,203,9414,276,8102,966,7321,802,9843,678,211

15,928,678

Owner-Occupied495,322

1,105,758934,978110,020568,821

3,214,899

Percent of Units that Are Rentals87%79%76%94%86%83%


Table 4. Rental Income of Tenants in Subsidized and Unsubsidized Housing

Household IncomeUnder $20,000$20,000 to $39,999$40,000 to $59,999$60,000 to $79,999$80,000 to $99,999$100,000 or higherAverage Household Income

Unsubsidized32.8%34.0%17.1%8.3%3.2%4.6%

$38,463

Subsidized61.1%30.7%5.5%1.3%0.6%0.8%

$17,961

Source: National Association of Home Builders, based on 2001 American Housing Survey, U.S. Census and HUD.



MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Various government support programs influence the multi-family housing sector. Housing support pro-grams operated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized 5.7million—or approximately one-third—of all rental multi-family units in 2000, the most recent year forwhich this data is available. These programs include direct ownership of public housing units, tax creditsand interest subsidies to public and private owners, and vouchers that provide subsidized rent for low-income families. Additional assistance to develop afford-able housing is also provided through state grant andfinance programs; however, there is no complete countof those units available on a national basis.

Appendix D-1 (page 26) shows, by state, the importance of government programs in all multi-family housing.In many states, HUD programs support more than 50 percent of rental multi-family housing.

Two strategies for financing affordable housing are particularly important: the use of tax-exempt financingand Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Section 8 voucher subsidies have been declining, and nonew government-owned public housing has been built in recent years.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

The LIHTC is available to housing developers who agree that low- or moderate-income families will occupya certain proportion of the units in their buildings. Each state can spend up to $1.90 times its populationand has a minimum allocation of $2.19 million. The annual amount is indexed for inflation. Credit-financed apartments cannot be rented to anyone whose income exceeds 60 percent of the areawide medianincome (AMI) adjusted for family size. Each year, the LIHTC leverages about $6 billion of private invest-ment and produces between 75,000 and 100,000 units of affordable housing. Figure 2 illustrates thecomparative size of these and other HUD housing programs, again using 2000 data.

Figure 2. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Compared to Other HUD Housing Programs

Public Housing1,277,068 units

Section 8 Certificates/Vouchers1,814,440 units

Section 236 Projects439,499 units

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit873,954 unitsAll Other Multi-Family Assisted Projects

351,012 units

Section 8 New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation

876,846 units

Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation111,392 units

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000.

HUD programs subsidize approximately one-third of all rental multi-family units.



Of these major categories, one of the most important for energy efficiency from a state perspective is theLIHTC. Through the LIHTC program, developers earn federal tax credits for building affordable housing.State governments—almost always the state housing finance agency—allocate the housing credits to devel-opers, who then usually sell the tax credits to raise capital for construction.

The LIHTC, which has been growing steadily since 2000, now accounts for approximately 1.5 millionunits, more than public housing and gaining rapidly on Section 8 voucher subsidies. Appendix E-1 (page27) shows, by state, the population and current distribution of LIHTC-financed multi-family housingunits.

The federal government allocates the LIHTC to states, which, in turn, allocate the tax credit to housingdevelopers. In most states, considerable competition exists for the tax credit funds. Thus, the factors states useto determine which developers will receive these credits are important. One report suggests that it may becommon to receive four applications for every available tax credit allocation.2 States typically use a QualifiedAllocation Plan (QAP) system to decide which developers receive the credit. States use the QAP to favorcertain characteristics of the buildings that receive the tax credits. These characteristics include, for example,projects that are in rural areas, contribute to community revitalization plans, leverage funding from othergovernment programs, serve special needs residents, or extend affordability periods beyond federal minimumrequirements. Energy efficiency and green building features also receive credit in some states.

These incentives in the QAP vary a great deal. Some states, such as Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Vermont,Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia mention energy efficiency in general terms but donot offer incentives or specific encouragement for energy efficiency in affordable multi-family housing.Some states—Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah andWest Virginia—mandate that affordable housing developments receiving the tax credit meet certain energyefficiency standards. Others, such as Michigan and Oregon, offer financial incentives to encourage develop-ers to make affordable tax credit housing more energy efficient.

Thirty-nine states favor developments that invest in energy efficiency with extra points when they choose whoreceives the tax credit. For example, the proposed 2007 QAP in New Jersey requires most applicants’ partici-pation in their Energy Star Homes Program; exceptions are master-metered rehabilitation projects, minimumrehabilitation projects and historic preservation developments. Up to three QAP points are awarded forproviding certain unit amenities, including Energy Star appliances within the units or Energy Star dishwash-ers. In addition, up to two points may be earned for property amenities, including Energy Star-labeled equip-ment in a communal laundry room. Also, one point is available to proposals that participate in the New JerseyHousing and Mortgage Finance Agency’s Affordable Green Building Program or that incorporate a solarenergy system of at least 20 kilowatts and is capable of covering 75 percent of the project’s common areaelectricity needs. Developers participating in this program may be eligible for subsidies to cover the incremen-tal costs of green building features.3 Figure 3 shows the states that use such point systems.

2. Peregrine Energy Group and Clean Energy Group, Clean Energy State Program Guide (Montpelier, Vt.: Peregrine EnergyGroup and Clean Energy Group, February 2006), 13.

3. National Housing Trust, Greenscan (Washington, D.C.: National Housing Trust, 2007).



Of those states offering points to developments incorporating energy efficiency measures illustrated inFigure 3, 17 (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minne-sota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vir-ginia) specifically reference EPA’s Energy Star program and at least five (Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico,North Dakota, Ohio) reference Enterprise Community Partners’ Green Communities program.

There has been no systematic evaluation of whether the point system has had any real effect on increasingthe relative investment in LIHTC-financed multi-family housing. Complicating the analysis is the ques-tion of how many potential points there are under a QAP and the extent to which winning projects arebunched at very high scores, making small point differentials between projects very significant.

State Tax-Exempt Bonds

Many states also issue tax-exempt housing bonds to finance low-interest mortgages for first-time homebuyers and the acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of multi-family housing for low-income renters.Generally referred to as private activity bonds, they are tax-exempt for the purchaser and are issued by stateand local governments. Multi-family housing bond-financed developments must set aside at least 40percent of their apartments for families with incomes of less than 60 percent of AMI, or 20 percent forfamilies with incomes of less than 50 percent of AMI.

In addition to providing tax credits to support low-income multi-family housing construction and rehabili-tation, states can issue tax-exempt bonds to support affordable housing. Federal law allows states to issuebonds for a variety of “private purposes,” including mortgages for first-time home buyers and low-incomemulti-family housing construction and rehabilitation. States can issue these bonds for up to $80 per capita(adjusted annually for inflation) with a minimum of $246.6 million per state. In 2005, states issuedapproximately $5.8 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance an estimated 58,000 units for low-incomemulti-family housing construction and rehabilitation. Units financed with tax-exempt bonds may receive a4 percent tax credit but are ineligible for the 9 percent LIHTC.

Figure 3. States that Reference Energy Efficiency in Their Qualified Allocation Plans (QAP)

Source: Energy Programs Consortium and National Housing Trust, 2007.

Reference EnergyEfficiency in QAPs

Reference EPA’s EnergyStar program

ReferenceEnterprise Community Partners’

Green Communities program

Reference bothEnergy Star and

Green Communities programs



ENERGY USE IN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

The amount of energy used in multi-family buildings varies, depending on their condition, age, originaldesign, or controls and policies—such as whether tenants in rental buildings pay their utility bill as part oftheir rent or pay it separately based on their energyuse. The Energy Information Administration, whichtracks energy use in U.S. homes, provides figures thatallow a general understanding of the energy use insingle and multi-family buildings.

Overall, as shown in Figure 4, residential housing accounts for 22 percent of energy use in the UnitedStates. Of that amount, 72 percent is accounted for by single-family housing and 28 percent by multi-family (more than two units).

Another way to consider such data is from the perspective of how much energy each household uses. Figure5 illustrates that multi-family buildings tend to be less energy intensive than single-family homes. This isnot surprising, given the comparatively smaller wall and roof space and the smaller size of units withinmulti-family buildings. These nationwide average figures give only a general idea of how much energy themulti-family sector uses. Further calculations suggest that an achievable 20 percent improvement in theenergy efficiency of multi-family buildings could reduce energy consumption by 0.618 quadrillion Btu, or6 percent of total U.S. residential energy consumption and 1.3 percent of total U.S. energy consumption.4

4. Total U.S. residential energy consumption is 9.86 quadrillion Btu/year. Multi-family energy (2+ units) energy consumptionis 3.09 quadrillion Btu/year, and multi-family buildings with five or more units use 1.72 quadrillion Btu/year, according to EIAResidential Energy Consumption Survey statistics (www.eia.doe.gov).

Figure 4. Home Energy Use as a Percent of Total Energy Use

Source: DOE Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Table CEI-4C, 2001.

U.S. Energy Consumption by Sector (2006)

Breakdown of Residential Energy Use

Single Family72 percent

Multi > 228 percent

Residential22 percent

Industrial32 percent

Commercial18 percent

Transportation28 percent

A 20 percent improvement in multi-family build-ing energy efficiency could reduce U.S. residen-tial energy use by 6 percent and total U.S. en-ergy use by 1.3 percent.



Relatively little data has been published to describe energy use in multi-family buildings. A number ofmulti-family energy efficiency programs across the country have conducted audits of energy use in multi-family buildings, however; the following includes data on multi-family use from the Illinois Department ofCommerce, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and Southface, a nonprofit orga-nization that conducts programs to support energy efficiency in the southeastern United States.

The Southface data indicates a wide variation in energy consumption among different types of multi-familybuildings. Data from its energy audits show that baseline energy use in multi-family buildings in the South-east ranges from a high of 0.1235 million Btu per square foot to a low of 0.0360 million Btu per square foot,a 400 percent variation. Because energy use in multi-family households varies so significantly, it is difficult todetermine just how much energy these households use. The following factors, among others, are significant:climate region, age of the building, condition of the building, exposure of the unit (north/south/east/west),and location of the unit within the building (top corner units tend to use more energy than mid-floor units,for example). Appendix F-1 (page 28) provides a summary of data provided by Southface that describesbaseline and improved energy consumption in multi-family buildings in the southeastern United States.

Energy Efficiency Potential in Multi-Family Buildings

Data exists to describe the cost and potential for energy efficiency in multi-family buildings, although, onceagain, it may not always be useful to generalize the data from individual experiences to all situations. Discus-sion centers on two options: rehabilitation of existing buildings and new construction.

Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings

Buildings that are in poor condition typically have the greatest energy efficiency potential, partly becausethey were so inefficient to begin with, and partly because they often require a “gut rehab”—tearing out and

Figure 5. Comparison of Energy Use Between Single-Family and Multi-Family Residences

Single-Family 2-4 families

Per

Hou

seho

ld E

nerg

y U

se(in

mill

ion

Btu

/hou

seho

ld)

5 or more families

163

82

98

71.7

85

28.4

0

50

100

150Electricity

Natural Gas

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2001.



replacing much of the existing drywall and replacing heating and air conditioning systems. The energyefficiency potential of these gut rehabs can be impressive. As shown in Table 5, the Illinois Energy EfficientHousing Construction Program, managed by the Illinois Department of Commerce, documents energyefficiency improvements of approximately 50 percent to 75 percent in the buildings with which it works.

Southface has documented efficiency improvements averaging 30 percent during the last several years. Thedifference between Southface results and those from Illinois are related to initial condition of the building.The Illinois buildings frequently were abandoned before the energy efficiency improvements were imple-mented, while Southface buildings were in better condition.

In general, the best and most cost-effective results can be seen in the most energy-efficient rehabs that alreadyare under way for other reasons, such as an older apartment building that is being completely reconstructed.

New Construction

Energy efficiency in new construction differs significantly from efficiency for existing buildings. Newconstruction involves energy-efficient design from the start, with proper sizing of heating and air condition-ing systems, proper insulation, vent and other sealing, and installation of efficient lighting and appliances.Energy efficiency in new buildings can be much more cost effective per square foot than retrofitting existinginefficient buildings. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), thestate energy office, expects savings of approximately 20 percent—as compared with traditional construc-tion—for a multi-family building participating in its Multifamily Building Performance program.

It is difficult to exactly measure the potential or cost of energy efficiency in new multi-family housing.Energy efficiency that involves simple installation of energy-efficient lighting and heating and air condi-tioning systems differs greatly from a complex project involving heat pumps and solar panels. One recentstudy5 of “greening” affordable housing found an average cost premium of 2.4 percent (in this case, green-ing refers not only to energy efficiency, but also includes items such as water conservation). The studyincluded 16 buildings with from three to 90 units and documented the energy savings and additional costs.

Table 5. Illinois Energy Efficient Building Practices

R21 (about 5-1/2") blown insulation in sidewalls

R43 (about 12") attic insulation

R10 (about 2") foundation insulation

High efficiency, sealed combustion furnace or boiler

Sealed combustion water heater

Exhaust ventilation in bathrooms and kitchens

Source: Illinois Department of Commerce, 2006.

5. New Ecology and the Green CDCs Initiative, The Costs and Benefits of Green Affordable Housing (Cambridge, Mass.: NewEcology and the Green CDCs Initiative, 2005).



The cost of building to a green, energy-efficientstandard varied considerably from 18 percentbelow to 9 percent above the costs for compa-rable conventional affordable housing (Table 6).

Typical energy-efficient measures include:6

Energy efficiency measures can offer significant cost-effective energy savings in both rehabilitated and newconstruction multi-family housing. These savings reduce the operating cost for families to maintain theirhome and make housing more affordable.

The Role of Energy Service Companies in Multi-Family Affordable Housing

Energy service companies, commonly called ESCOs, play an important role in the energy efficiency indus-try in the United States. ESCOs finance and install energy efficiency improvements based on a performanceguarantee of energy savings. A 2006 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) foundthat ESCOs invested some $2.5 billion, approximately 20 percent more than in 2005.

The largest ESCO markets are governmental and commercial buildings. Residential and public housingmarkets together account for only 5 percent of industry revenues and are targeted by only a handful ofESCOs. ESCOs have difficulty engaging in contracts with many individual homeowners or with renterswho pay their own utility bills. The transaction costs and the difficulty of guaranteeing savings are high inthese cases. Public housing authorities account for about 2 percent of total revenues. Affordable housingmulti-family buildings do not account for a significant proportion of ESCO activity.

ESCOs are most interested in deals in which they can sign a single, large contract; a university or a hospitalis an ideal client for an ESCO. A small number ESCOs work with public housing authorities; this is still aniche market. According to the LBNL report, significant project delays have arisen from inconsistenciesbetween the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its field offices in inter-preting statutes and regulations that affect housing authority project implementation details. HUD isworking to reduce these barriers through training and rule changes, however. The 2005 Energy Policy Actand subsequent HUD regulation extended allowable contract terms from 12 years to 20 years, for example.A 2007 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) found that ESCOs invested some $2.5billion in 2006, which was approximately 20 percent more than in 2005.7

Table 6. Average “Greening” Cost Premium

• R-30 Attic insulation• R-11 Wall insulation• Dual-glazed windows• Refurbish solar-assist hot water heater• Programmable thermostats

• Fluorescent lighting• Efficient kitchen ranges• Energy Star refrigerators• Air sealing• Low-flow water fixtures

Cost PremiumDesignConstruction

Average Cost Premium2.40 percent1.13 percent5.29 percent

6. Ibid., 47.7. See http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/phecc/.

Source: The Costs and Benefits of Green Affordable Housing (New Ecology, 2005)



STATE POLICY ISSUES IN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

Barriers to Energy Efficiency

The data in this paper establish that significant potential exists for energy efficiency in multi-family build-ings. It also demonstrates that energy efficiency in the multi-family building sector can contribute measur-ably and significantly to national energy efficiency. Energy efficiency improves the quality of multi-familybuildings and makes them more affordable and comfortable for residents, who frequently are low- to mod-erate-income renters.

If energy efficiency in multi-family buildings is superior, why isn’t it common practice in all buildings?Several barriers impede energy efficiency.

Perception of Higher First Cost

Although not always borne out in fact, energy efficiency construction has a reputation of being moreexpensive than traditional construction. A consistent program of outreach to developers and architects isrequired to educate them about energy-efficient construction techniques and about the true additional costinvolved with these measures. Where cost is an issue, these educational efforts should be coordinated withwell-designed financial incentives to help pay for energy efficiency measures.

Some energy efficiency advocates suggest that developers should consider the life cycle cost of energy effi-ciency investments rather than only the initial cost. Life cycle costing across a 30-year period almost alwaysmakes a convincing argument for investing in energy efficiency. Unfortunately, however, most developersand tenants do not consider 30-year financing. New program initiatives, such as Pay As You Save and EPC’sEnergy Efficient Mortgage, provide ways to amortize energy efficiency investments over a longer period.Adaptations of these policies may be appropriate to consider for the multi-family housing market.

The Split Incentive

Particularly in building retrofits, developers/owners of multi-family buildings do not always benefit finan-cially from investing in energy efficiency; they pay for added insulation, duct sealing, efficient lights andappliances, but benefit only from lower heating and lighting bills in common areas. Tenants who pay theirown utility bill, on the other hand, typically benefit financially but do not pay the added cost of thesemeasures. Thus, financial incentives for developers become important, particularly for rehabilitation projects.

In Some Cases, the Utility Bill Is Included in the Rent Payment

Utilities are included in tenants’ rent in approximately one-fourth of multi-family buildings. These utili-ties-included buildings tend to be older, since the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act required that



new apartment buildings be individually metered. One study8 found that tenants in these utilities-in-cluded buildings tend to set their thermostat one to three degrees higher—even when they are not athome—than tenants who pay their own utility bill. Further, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates thatheating costs fall by 1 percent for every one degree that a thermostat is lowered for eight hours.9 Tenants inutilities-included apartments do not have the financial incentive to practice energy efficiency.

Lack of Education and Understanding of Design Process, Technologies

The design process for building a new or rehabilitating an older building to be energy-efficient is not necessar-ily complex, but it differs from traditional practice. Many developers do not understand energy-efficientbuilding practices, nor do they have access to information about energy-efficient design and construction.

LIHTC and Utility Allowances

The LIHTC program sets a maximum total rent that can be charged based on the sum of rent and a utilityallowance. Most utility allowances are set in so that they can in fact punish the developer for investing inenergy efficiency. More flexible HUD requirements on the utility allowance would remove this disincentive.

The Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) Is Not Always Strongly Tied to Energy Efficiency

QAPs that reference energy efficiency provide a powerful incentive for developers, particularly where com-petition is fierce for LIHTC funds. Strong and specific energy efficiency requirements in the QAP can makea significant difference for new affordable housing construction. These requirements may be set as specificthreshold requirements for any developer to receive the tax credit, or they may be set as an incentivewhereby energy efficiency measures earn a significant number of points in comparison to other measuresconsidered in the QAP tax credit allocation process.

State Funding Often May Have no Accompanying Energy Efficiency Requirement

Although some states require that any new construction involving state funds must meet certain energyefficiency standards, most have no such requirement. Combined with the QAP, this requirement couldoffer powerful motivation to make new affordable housing construction more energy efficient.

Lack of Communication Between Public Benefit Funds and Multi-Family Housing Sector

Public benefit funds can work with housing finance agencies to leverage their combined financial resourcesto promote more affordable and energy efficient homes. Public benefit fund programs may also be able towork more effectively with the affordable multi-family housing sector, yet, aside from discussions andlimited programs in two or three states, this communication and joint action have not occurred.

8. Arik Levinson and Scott Niemann, Energy Use by Apartment Tenants When Landlords Pay for Utilities (Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University and Charles River Associates, February 2003).

9. See www.eren.doe.gov/erec/factsheets/thermo.html.



State Resources Supporting Residential Energy Efficiency

State governments devote significant money and resources to increasing single and multi-family residentialenergy efficiency. The sidebar at right describes certain federal multi-family energy efficiency policies asoutlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.While there is no specific data on the share ofresidential resources that were allocated formulti-family housing, there is some evidencethat suggests that states have recently beenfocusing more heavily on multi-family hous-ing. Oregon’s multi-family program just re-ceived a 50 percent budget increase, and Wis-consin and New York are making majorchanges to their multi-family programs.

Sources of Funds Vary

In addition to federal funding, primarily forthe low-income Weatherization Assistance Pro-gram (WAP), states use a number of differentsources to fund their residential energy effi-ciency programs, including Petroleum Viola-tion Escrow (PVE) funds, general obligationbonds, appropriations and public benefitfunds. Montana, for example, uses environ-mental fines collected from companies with airquality violations to fund its program.

Public benefit funds often yield consistentfunding for energy efficiency financing. Pub-lic benefit funds (sometimes called system benefit funds or other similar names) are accumulations offunding that result from a small surcharge placed on consumers’ energy bills. Currently, 23 states10 and theDistrict of Columbia have some type of public benefit fund that supports energy efficiency.

PVE funds are available to states as a result of alleged oil company violations of federal oil pricing controls inplace from 1973 to 1981. These funds are almost totally expended; however, a few states still have fundsremaining and are using them to support various energy efficiency initiatives, such as the loan and grantprograms discussed in this section.

10. The states are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan,Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermontand Wisconsin.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains several provisionsthat aim to reduce many of the barriers to energy efficiencyin public and affordable housing. Among them:

• Section 151 extends the allowable term for energyperformance contracts in public housing from 12 to 20years. This allows for longer payback periods forbuilding retrofits, including windows, heating systemreplacements and wall insulation. HUD has alreadyissued a regulation extending the term to 20 years.

• Section 152 requires that public housing agencies buyappliances that meet Energy Star requirements, unlessthe purchase is not cost-effective.

• Section 153 requires HUD to establish the 2003International Energy Conservation Code as the standardfor new HOPE VI projects.

• Section 154 requires HUD to develop a strategy andplan for energy efficiency in federally subsidizedhousing.

• Section 124 sets out energy efficiency appliance rebatesand;

• Section 1331 sets out tax deductions that can apply torental multi-family buildings of up to $1.80 per squarefoot when the buildings save 50 percent of their heating,cooling, ventilation, water heating and interior lightingenergy use compared to an identically modeled building.



In most cases (California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, for instance) state agenciesadminister the public benefit funds. In some cases (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, forexample) the utility administers the program, and in two other cases (Oregon and Vermont) a third partydoes so under a performance-based contract with the state.

As shown in Appendix G-1 (page 30), federal and state funding for state-administered residential energyefficiency programs totaled almost $1.4 billion in 2006 of which $825 million was for low-income residen-tial energy efficiency and $534 million was for non-income targeted residential energy efficiency programs.Of the $824 million provided in low-income residential efficiency, $551 million was from the federalWeatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and transfer funds from the Low Income Home Energy Assis-tance Program (LIHEAP). WAP does not allow a match for efficiency services provided to single familyhomes but does allow states to require a match for multi-family housing. In practice, states require a matchof between 0 and 50 percent. In 2006, states used Weatherization funds to provide energy efficiencyimprovements to approximately 16,000 multi-family units.

The State Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Program Model

Building Retrofits

A typical state multi-family energy efficiency program for building retrofits might follow the following sixsteps.

1. Education about energy efficiency: Most programs run some kind of outreach and education program,typically through websites and printed materials, but very often by working with trade partners toleverage the industry or nonprofits’ networks in the communities.

2. Commitment fee: Some programs require that the building owner pay a commitment fee beforebeginning to receive services from the program. New York requires a $3,000 fee. If the owner leaves theprogram without completing the measures identified in the energy audit and agreed to after the audit,the owner sacrifices the $3,000. If the owner completes the process, the $3,000 is refunded.

3. Energy audits: For existing buildings, an energy audit of a building determines how much energy thebuilding currently uses, which measures would reduce energy use in the building, their costs and theenergy saved from those measures. State programs often pay 100 percent of the cost of the audit for alow-income building. A typical audit would cost $5,500 per building, and $2,500 for a small buildingwith less than 30 units. In some cases, especially for non-low-income buildings, the state does not payfor the audit.

4. Technical assistance to building owners: Technical assistance often is a crucial part of state energyefficiency programs in multi-family buildings. New York has engineering firms pre-selected and oncontract that are qualified in the areas of efficiency, HVAC system design, lighting and other relevantareas. The level of technical assistance that is required depends on the measures that the energy auditidentifies. A lighting installation requires very little in the way of design; a new HVAC system or



roofing system requires far more intensive design work. This technical assistance provider can also helpthe developer to evaluate bids from lighting, HVAC or other companies that bid to install the energyefficiency measures.

The typical measures that programs focus on are:

• Lighting retrofit or, in new buildings, energy-efficient lighting system design;• Insulation and duct sealing;• HVAC retrofit and design;• Hot water efficiency; and• Refrigeration.

5. Financing and installation of measures: State programs take two different approaches to financingenergy efficiency measures. Some pay for measures from a specifically prescribed list. Others pay basedon the recommendations of an energy audit. NYSERDA’s energy efficiency programs for multi-familyhousing, for example, have provided a typical investment of approximately $875 per housing unit, orapproximately 25 percent of the energy-related improvements. The goal of these programs is to avoidoverpaying (paying for measures that developers would otherwise install on their own, without thesubsidy), while also paying enough to allow the developer to install the measures. Nonprofit developersoften operate on tight margins, so at least some subsidy is usually necessary for this sector. Table 7 showssubsidies paid by certain states.

6. Post-installation audit: After installation of the measures in retrofitted buildings, some programs sendan energy auditor to verify that the measures have been installed, are working properly and are produc-ing the projected savings.

State

Connecticut

Minnesota

New York

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Subsidy

Up to $60,000 per multi-family building.

$500-$10,000 per unit.

Lighting measures: 7 cents/kWh maximum A/C and Refrigeration: 20 cents/kWh maximum.Other electric: 10 cents/kWh.

Sample incentives: Windows: $1.50-$3.00 per s.f., depending on efficiency and existingwindows. High Efficiency Heat Pump: $150-$400, depending on efficiency and on what itreplaces. Duct Insulation: 50 percent of cost up to $100.

Up to $10,000 per building.

Source: Energy Programs Consortium, 2007.

Table 7. Selected State Subsidies for Financing Energy Efficiency Measures



New Buildings

New buildings require a different kind of program, with different steps. Vermont’s multi-family programoffers the following steps for new buildings:

• Construction/renovation plan review;• Development of bid package and bidder list;• Energy-efficient product sourcing;• Review of construction documents;• Interim and post-construction inspections—air sealing and insulation; and• System commissioning.

Some states are also using new and innovative approaches that leverage public benefit fund money with thelow-income housing tax credits or tax-exempt bonds that support energy affordable housing. Ohio’s energyoffice developed a joint product with the Ohio Housing Finance Agency, for example. The QAP in Ohio gaveextra credit for energy-efficient affordable housing, and the Ohio energy office agreed to contribute funds—upto $500,000 per project—to write down the cost of loans taken out for efficiency upgrades.11

New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU), which runs the state’s public benefit fund, has combinedfunding with the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA) to support photovoltaicsin affordable housing. The BPU funds 60 percent of the cost of the photovoltaics installation, and theNJHMFA will finance the remaining amount, as necessary. Although this is a renewable energy applica-tion, the same combined funding approach would work for energy efficiency.

The state programs show a diversity of approaches to supporting energy efficiency in the multi-familyhousing sector. These state programs can be significant. It is also apparent that many of the state publicbenefit funds for energy efficiency have not yet taken full advantage of the opportunities to leverage the vastamounts of funding now going into affordable housing through tax credits or through tax-exempt bonds.This appears to be a large, but thus far untapped, potential that is well worth developing.

Residential Energy Efficiency Loans

Sixteen states offer loan programs that support energy efficiency. While energy efficiency loans do vary inmany respects, it is possible to lay out their basic characteristics by discussing seven categories: loanstructure and loan caps, interest rates, term of loans, eligibility requirements, pre-approved uses of funds,requirements (or lack of requirement) for an energy audit, and sources of funds.

States typically offer loans either to builders or directly to residential homeowners. States generally cap the sizeof each loan, or the size of the state’s contribution to the loan. The size of each loan varies a great deal, from assmall as $400 to as large as $60,000 in the case of Connecticut’s MultiEnergy Conservation Loan program.

11. Clean Energy Group, Clean Energy State Program Guide (Montpelier, Vt.: Clean Energy Group, 2006) 28.



Table 8 compares loan caps in selected states for single- and multi-family housing.

NYSERDA, for example, provided $10 million in direct funding for multi-family housing and leveraged anadditional $33.6 million in private participation last year. State energy efficiency programs for the multi-family sector vary. Some, like Illinois’, focus on rehabilitating old and sometimes abandoned buildings.Others focus on new construction; still others, like New York, work with both new and old construction.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the energy efficiency of multi-family buildings is a complex issue. The following are recommen-dations for steps that can be taken to increase the energy efficiency of the nation’s multi-family housingstock.

Energy Efficiency Measures for All Multi-Family Housing

• Consider education programs for developers, builders and architects. Such programs would focus onenergy-efficient building practices as well as on financing models available to reduce the cost of energyefficiency measures.

Table 8. Loan Caps in Selected States for Single- and Multi-Family Housing

Source: Energy Programs Consortium, 2007.

State

Connecticut

Idaho

Massachusetts

Minnesota RentalEnergy Loan Fund

Montana

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Single-Family

$400-$15,000

$1,000-$15,000

Commonly $15,000 ($10,000 with somelenders); at least one unit must be owner-occupied

$500-$10,000

$40,000

$20,000

$500-$10,000 for one- to three-unitbuildings

$15,000 minimum

$10,000 maximum, with larger loansavailable in some cases

Multi-Family (if applicable)

$60,000 (for building with more thanfive units)

Same loan for single-family and multi-family

Multi-family buildings eligible for sameprogram

Multi-family buildings eligible for sameprogram

Lesser of $5,000/unit or $2,500,000;additional $2,500,000 available if theproject incorporates advanced electricmeters.

Eligible for same program as long asowner-occupied



• Compile a database of information on energy use and savings potential in multi-family housing basedon age and number of units. Identify lessons learned from state energy efficiency programs in multi-family sector evaluations and energy efficiency studies.

• Develop finance models for state public benefit fund programs to support energy efficiency improve-ments for new and existing construction. As part of this effort, focus on performance-based programsthat provide incentives targeted to developers.

• States can examine ways to require that energy efficiency measures be installed in multi-family build-ings constructed with government funds.

Energy Efficiency Measures Specific to Affordable Housing

• State finance programs can examine means to combine and leverage energy efficiency or weatherizationpublic benefit program funds with additional funding from housing finance agencies.

• States can examine methods to encourage energy efficiency through policies that allocate Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credits (LIHTC) among housing developers.

• Work with HUD to modify the calculation of utility allowances in the LIHTC program and with theIRS to ensure those modifications are recognized for tax purposes.



StateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingTotal

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. Data accessed using DataPlace™, 2005.

1,737,080221,600

1,901,3271,042,696

11,502,8701,658,2381,301,670

298,736248,338

6,337,9293,006,369

403,240469,645

4,591,7792,336,3061,149,2761,037,8911,590,6471,656,053

518,2001,980,8592,443,5803,785,6611,895,1271,046,4342,194,594

358,667666,184751,165474,606

3,064,645677,971

7,056,8603,132,013

257,1524,445,7731,342,2931,333,7234,777,003

408,4241,533,854

290,2452,232,9057,393,354

701,281240,634

2,699,1732,271,398

736,4812,084,544

193,608106,471,863

160,40532,862

335,31179,476

2,745,544330,597230,76442,461

138,3391,617,334

417,079151,76333,984

1,028,850267,089128,696110,320162,415165,81849,540

417,884514,774484,578354,95276,486

233,93428,15995,239

168,21869,616

626,82864,551

2,641,963316,09447,248

609,329136,779209,477561,50766,581

133,84236,746

258,7811,376,363

92,58722,311

466,752438,91947,228

302,28214,922

19,143,577

9%15%18%

8%24%20%18%14%56%26%14%38%

7%22%11%11%11%10%10%10%21%21%13%19%

7%11%

8%14%22%15%20%10%37%10%18%14%10%16%12%16%

9%13%12%19%13%

9%17%19%

6%15%

8%18%

TotalHousing Units

Multi-FamilyUnits

PercentMulti-Family

APPENDIX A-1. PERCENT OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BY STATE



Source: 2000 U.S. Census data.

APPENDIX B-1. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BY STATE—TOTAL

StateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingTotalPercent of Total

50 or more36,526

5,115149,76916,799

902,93288,83671,455

9,63176,422

733,39895,47489,031

6,800382,06952,97020,83223,78826,84856,682

7,602120,518165,275120,284139,15517,31453,517

6,07818,88554,580

8,341220,44322,566

1,380,96348,875

6,364153,91838,39363,443

196,03322,17926,059

5,50864,650

569,46622,225

3,311146,809124,49611,36663,005

2,0936,749,091

35.3%

20 to 4922,246

7,62247,59312,919

582,74779,83741,640

5,77818,535

286,10950,77919,682

7,567177,294

42,95832,29321,25620,88926,725

8,74936,30097,05881,45794,61610,63036,743

5,50622,75720,06321,588

111,91311,601

587,60940,56516,42690,64019,58741,99389,73110,00714,68711,15832,594

188,69519,234

3,20544,68599,270

6,58872,813

4,0823,457,019

18.1%

5 to 19101,633

20,125137,949

49,7581,259,865

161,924117,669

27,05243,382

597,827270,826

43,05019,617

469,487171,161

75,57165,276

114,67882,41133,189

261,066252,441282,837121,181

48,542143,674

16,57553,59793,57539,687

294,47230,384

673,391226,654

24,458364,771

78,799104,041275,743

34,39593,09620,080

161,537618,202

51,12815,795

275,258215,153

29,274166,464

8,7478,937,467

46.7%

Total160,40532,862

335,31179,476

2,745,544330,597230,76442,461

138,3391,617,334

417,079151,76333,984

1,028,850267,089128,696110,320162,415165,81849,540

417,884514,774484,578354,95276,486

233,93428,15995,239

168,21869,616

626,82864,551

2,641,963316,09447,248

609,329136,779209,477561,50766,581

133,84236,746

258,7811,376,363

92,58722,311

466,752438,91947,228

302,28214,922

19,143,577100.0%

0.8%0.2%1.8%0.4%

14.3%1.7%1.2%0.2%0.7%8.4%2.2%0.8%0.2%5.4%1.4%0.7%0.6%0.8%0.9%0.3%2.2%2.7%2.5%1.9%0.4%1.2%0.1%0.5%0.9%0.4%3.3%0.3%

13.8%1.7%0.2%3.2%0.7%1.1%2.9%0.3%0.7%0.2%1.4%7.2%0.5%0.1%2.4%2.3%0.2%1.6%0.1%

100.0%

Percent ofTotal




APPENDIX B-2. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BY STATE—RENTERS


50 or more32,971

3,966134,21215,457

729,08967,04251,721

7,08548,882

264,19282,00532,861

6,383205,89149,61517,71722,13923,39350,854

6,54083,486

116,964109,960101,03816,37248,342

5,62715,35949,865

7,564157,38021,467

864,42543,066

5,682134,40335,68258,467

152,55120,48021,101

5,03257,671

526,78017,773

3,03996,360

102,20210,73155,093

2,0544,798,031

30.1%

20 to 4921,3726,485

44,63512,618

533,06770,11536,1474,813

14,967163,828

48,17013,9567,385

137,20541,61630,23420,83219,23725,6928,305

29,70981,00978,04287,97310,31434,0545,173

22,19219,17519,587

100,19511,275

530,57338,33415,79886,64519,08340,29083,6799,007

13,37110,95030,830

182,20417,6042,945

40,43388,4936,435

69,4483,959

3,049,45819.1%

5 to 1997,45117,704

126,43748,352

1,145,517136,96293,05125,27839,677

459,282257,51431,12618,730

398,122166,04871,47063,214

107,50378,60531,450

227,281216,485262,741110,77147,232

133,25515,55752,80485,10935,459

249,17928,895

614,728211,50522,522

342,75776,481

100,389257,99731,27384,35219,239

154,739595,83344,77313,899

247,232193,01028,158

155,7388,303

8,081,18950.7%

Total151,79428,155

305,28476,427

2,407,673274,119180,91937,176

103,526887,302387,68977,94332,498

741,218257,279119,421106,185150,133155,15146,295

340,476414,458450,743299,78273,918

215,65126,35790,355

154,14962,610

506,75461,637

2,009,726292,90544,002

563,805131,246199,146494,22760,760

118,82435,221

243,2401,304,817

80,15019,883

384,025383,70545,324

280,27914,316

15,928,678100.0%

Percent of Total1.0%0.2%1.9%0.5%

15.1%1.7%1.1%0.2%0.6%5.6%2.4%0.5%0.2%4.7%1.6%0.7%0.7%0.9%1.0%0.3%2.1%2.6%2.8%1.9%0.5%1.4%0.2%0.6%1.0%0.4%3.2%0.4%

12.6%1.8%0.3%3.5%0.8%1.3%3.1%0.4%0.7%0.2%1.5%8.2%0.5%0.1%2.4%2.4%0.3%1.8%0.1%

100.0%




APPENDIX B-3. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BY STATE—OWNERS


3,5551149

15,5571342

173,84321,79419,7342,546

27,540469,206

13,46956,170

417176,178

3,3553,1151649

3,4555,8281062

37,03248,31110,32438,117

9425,175

4513,5264,715

77763,063

1099516,538

5,809682

19,5152,7114,976

43,4821,6994,958

4766979

42,6864,452

2725044922,294

6357912

391,951,060

60.7%

8741,1372,958

30149,680

9,7225,493

9653,568

122,2812,6095,726

18240,089

1,3422,059

4241,6521,033

4446,591

16,0493,4156,643

3162,689

333565888

2,00111,718

32657,036

2,231628

3,995504

1,7036,0521,0001,316

2081,7646,4911,630

2604,252

10,777153

3,365123

407,56112.7%

4,1822,421

11,5121,406

114,34824,96224,618

1,7743,705

138,54513,31211,924

88771,365

5,1134,1012,0627,1753,8061,739

33,78535,95620,09610,410

1,31010,419

1,018793

8,4664,228

45,2931,489

58,66315,149

1,93622,014

2,3183,652

17,7463,1228,744

8416,798

22,3696,3551,896

28,02622,143

1,11610,726

444856,278

26.6%

8,6114,707

30,0273,049

337,87156,47849,845

5,28534,813

730,03229,39073,820

1,486287,632

9,8109,2754,135

12,28210,667

3,24577,408

100,31633,83555,170

2,56818,283

1,8024,884

14,0697,006

120,0742,914

632,23723,189

3,24645,524

5,53310,33167,280

5,82115,018

1,52515,54171,54612,437

2,42882,72755,214

1,90422,003

6063,214,899

100.0%


10.5%1.8%1.6%0.2%1.1%

22.7%0.9%2.3%0.0%8.9%0.3%0.3%0.1%0.4%0.3%0.1%2.4%3.1%1.1%1.7%0.1%0.6%0.1%0.2%0.4%0.2%3.7%0.1%

19.7%0.7%0.1%1.4%0.2%0.3%2.1%0.2%0.5%0.0%0.5%2.2%0.4%0.1%2.6%1.7%0.1%0.7%0.0%

100.0%

50 or more 20 to 49 5 to 19 Total




Source: 2000 U.S. Census Data.

APPENDIX C-1. MULTI-FAMILY TOTAL HOUSING STOCK BY STATE—BY AGE OF CONSTRUCTION

1990-200033,891

3,02177,26021,591

303,24356,48520,461

5,7943,300

263,255113,88118,97710,09187,43550,59124,72420,49729,95519,676

4,21061,13729,08573,69139,80017,96930,998

4,70222,07264,030

6,65759,55613,434

109,97699,62610,70686,20318,04861,12647,168

5,42933,369

8,89351,839

271,47323,700

2,75785,917

103,8277,014

69,0612,043

2,689,64414.0%

1980-198942,270

9,427117,083

19,148557,436

72,43145,784

8,6928,804

377,667113,634

18,6475,770

123,29854,56322,17626,38534,32942,602

9,45771,46075,21495,51869,52019,41351,025

4,41915,27442,92518,77890,67316,735

152,96485,550

9,73494,56939,43231,75676,76112,69239,639

7,29664,678

424,44721,041

4,18397,40498,37911,83454,637

3,8283,611,381

18.9%

1970-197943,43510,45976,38720,374

658,64095,83151,82311,55415,316

390,27888,48941,977

9,050224,333

74,24937,42131,60444,08349,483

9,020103,800111,717144,724

96,52921,93558,989

7,58325,17932,91016,965

119,62517,702

288,78264,70015,096

162,61742,07048,883

136,44816,55234,04510,84068,681

371,27022,870

4,069110,795

94,59811,54077,055

4,9254,327,300

22.6%

1960-196918,939

3,99433,131

9,174495,891

45,25335,250

7,64126,758

165,34247,80723,306

3,064158,148

41,94316,48316,19723,38024,429

3,85486,49168,73081,20756,922

9,87836,077

2,83212,93415,250

5,868110,794

9,062395,276

30,8384,749

113,39020,74526,25295,253

9,28711,458

3,57136,454

175,01810,102

1,65970,69855,104

4,86340,250

1,4232,802,419

14.6%

Pre-196021,870

5,96131,450

9,189730,33460,59777,446

8,78084,161

420,79253,26848,856

6,009435,63645,74327,89215,63730,66829,62822,99994,996

230,02889,43892,181

7,29156,845

8,62319,78013,10321,348

246,1807,618

1,694,96535,380

6,963152,55016,48441,460

205,87722,62115,331

6,14637,129

134,15514,874

9,643101,93887,01111,97761,279

2,7035,712,833

29.8%

Total160,405

32,862335,311

79,4762,745,544

330,597230,764

42,461138,339

1,617,334417,079151,763

33,9841,028,850

267,089128,696110,320162,415165,818

49,540417,884514,774484,578354,952

76,486233,934

28,15995,239

168,21869,616

626,82864,551

2,641,963316,094

47,248609,329136,779209,477561,507

66,581133,842

36,746258,781

1,376,36392,58722,311

466,752438,919

47,228302,282

14,92219,143,577

100.0%

0.8%0.2%1.8%0.4%

14.3%1.7%1.2%0.2%0.7%8.4%2.2%0.8%0.2%5.4%1.4%0.7%0.6%0.8%0.9%0.3%2.2%2.7%2.5%1.9%0.4%1.2%0.1%0.5%0.9%0.4%3.3%0.3%

13.8%1.7%0.2%3.2%0.7%1.1%2.9%0.3%0.7%0.2%1.4%7.2%0.5%0.1%2.4%2.3%0.2%1.6%0.1%

100.0%

Percent ofTotal




1990-200032,843

2,81374,37721,430

273,20750,39316,904

5,2362,772

213,251110,56510,546

9,93665,25148,89722,61420,19526,56219,145

3,96943,73623,52769,31736,30017,59828,659

4,42421,55457,906

5,99643,81713,12098,84393,52510,33279,23017,75459,69041,701

4,81330,130

8,38650,096

268,52021,474

2,40373,45093,335

6,80764,423

1,9672,423,739

15.2%

1980-198940,030

7,380108,807

18,391486,552

58,53932,045

7,5827,526

238,639105,516

12,5995,467

100,44652,80120,41125,45532,28440,256

8,55559,49155,54690,23958,11218,89246,139

3,86814,76340,79015,16664,80016,190

128,47077,930

8,98787,66337,98330,22068,28110,80635,038

7,07161,841

407,15818,608

3,23083,74086,67011,60650,642

3,7013,112,922

19.5%

1970-197942,143

9,18971,54019,843

589,96582,38542,54310,64113,783

221,84384,59826,578

8,593170,191

72,37535,44230,95741,75647,977

8,62591,61698,325

136,17987,55821,40156,168

7,20324,66531,03615,565

104,26317,002

255,97461,48213,830

154,20741,08446,626

126,55015,81531,52710,58465,480

359,35919,634

3,64698,56983,20111,28072,072

4,7403,797,608

23.8%

1960-196918,142

3,80330,239

8,851461,394

39,95030,275

7,06122,163

115,47945,02517,298

2,933125,958

40,88915,77715,62422,42623,240

3,70978,64060,39475,82653,531

9,62633,831

2,78612,38714,566

5,664100,809

8,637319,551

29,5974,536

107,39120,17225,40087,862

9,00110,713

3,49634,363

167,4238,9831,542

64,20951,099

4,65638,719

1,3302,496,976

15.7%

Pre-196018,636

4,97020,321

7,912596,555

42,85259,152

6,65657,28298,09041,98510,922

5,569279,372

42,31725,17713,95427,10524,53321,43766,993

176,66679,18264,281

6,40150,854

8,07616,986

9,85120,219

193,0656,688

1,206,88830,371

6,317135,314

14,25337,210

169,83320,32511,416

5,68431,460

102,35711,451

9,06264,05769,40010,97554,423

2,5784,097,433

25.7%

Total151,794

28,155305,284

76,4272,407,673

274,119180,919

37,176103,526887,302387,689

77,94332,498

741,218257,279119,421106,185150,133155,151

46,295340,476414,458450,743299,782

73,918215,651

26,35790,355

154,14962,610

506,75461,637

2,009,726292,905

44,002563,805131,246199,146494,227

60,760118,824

35,221243,240

1,304,81780,15019,883

384,025383,705

45,324280,279

14,31615,928,678

100.0%


15.1%1.7%1.1%0.2%0.6%5.6%2.4%0.5%0.2%4.7%1.6%0.7%0.7%0.9%1.0%0.3%2.1%2.6%2.8%1.9%0.5%1.4%0.2%0.6%1.0%0.4%3.2%0.4%

12.6%1.8%0.3%3.5%0.8%1.3%3.1%0.4%0.7%0.2%1.5%8.2%0.5%0.1%2.4%2.4%0.3%1.8%0.1%

100.0%


APPENDIX C-2. MULTI-FAMILY RENTER STOCK BY STATE—BY AGE OF CONSTRUCTION




1990-20001,048

2082,883

16130,036

6,0923,557

558528

50,0043,3168,431

15522,184

1,6942,110

3023,393

531241

17,4015,5584,3743,500

3712,339

278518

6,124661

15,739314

11,1336,101

3746,973

2941,4365,467

6163,239

5071,7432,9532,226

35412,46710,492

2074,638

76265,905

8.3%

1980-19892,2402,0478,276

75770,88413,89213,739

1,1101,278

139,0288,1186,048

30322,852

1,7621,765

9302,0452,346

90211,96919,668

5,27911,408

5214,886

551511

2,1353,612

25,873545

24,4947,620

7476,9061,4491,5368,4801,8864,601

2252,837

17,2892,433

95313,66411,709

2283,995

127498,459

15.5%

1970-19791,2921,2704,847

53168,67513,446

9,280913

1,533168,435

3,89115,399

45754,142

1,8741,979

6472,3271,506

39512,18413,392

8,5458,971

5342,821

380514

1,8741,400

15,362700

32,8083,2181,2668,410

9862,2579,898

7372,518

2563,201

11,9113,236

42312,22611,397

2604,983

185529,692

16.5%

1960-1969797191

2,892323

34,4975,3034,975

5804,595

49,8632,7826,008

13132,190

1,054706573954

1,189145

7,8518,3365,3813,391

2522,246

46547684204

9,985425

75,7251,241

2135,999

573852

7,39128674575

2,0917,5951,119

1176,4894,005

2071,531

93305,443

9.5%

Pre-19603,234

99111,129

1,277133,779

17,74518,294

2,12426,879

322,70211,28337,934

440156,264

3,4262,7151,6833,5635,0951,562

28,00353,36210,25627,900

8905,991

5472,7943,2521,129

53,115930

488,0775,009

64617,236

2,2314,250

36,0442,2963,915

4625,669

31,7983,423

58137,88117,611

1,0026,856

1251,615,400

50.2%

Total8,6114,707

30,0273,049

337,87156,47849,845

5,28534,813

730,03229,39073,820

1,486287,632

9,8109,2754,135

12,28210,667

3,24577,408

100,31633,83555,170

2,56818,283

1,8024,884

14,0697,006

120,0742,914

632,23723,189

3,24645,524

5,53310,33167,280

5,82115,018

1,52515,54171,54612,437

2,42882,72755,214

1,90422,003

6063,214,899

100.0%

0.3%0.1%0.9%0.1%10.5%1.8%1.6%0.2%1.1%22.7%0.9%2.3%0.0%8.9%0.3%0.3%0.1%0.4%0.3%0.1%2.4%3.1%1.1%1.7%0.1%0.6%0.1%0.2%0.4%0.2%3.7%0.1%19.7%0.7%0.1%1.4%0.2%0.3%2.1%0.2%0.5%0.0%0.5%2.2%0.4%0.1%2.6%1.7%0.1%0.7%0.0%

100.0%


APPENDIX C-3. MULTI-FAMILY OWNER HOUSING STOCK BY STATE—BY AGE OF CONSTRUCTION

Percent ofTotal



StateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingTOTAL

102,9437,442

48,65659,646

545,39669,03795,37215,21536,598

251,058158,41225,11715,073

252,580117,99553,89648,18689,565

108,35330,079

127,942209,260183,909104,00063,328

122,52416,48531,86026,38123,001

170,51431,618

582,740144,11916,026

267,09464,46660,869

252,046 41,28973,39517,632

126,018329,36122,34114,823

142,24992,53436,90997,308

7,5355,630,195

Total HUD-AssistedMulti-Family

160,40532,862

335,31179,476

2,745,544330,597230,764

42,461138,339

1,617,334417,079151,763

33,9841,028,850

267,089128,696110,320162,415165,818

49,540417,884514,774484,578354,952

76,486233,934

28,15995,239

168,21869,616

626,82864,551

2,641,963316,094

47,248609,329136,779209,477561,507 66,581

133,84236,746

258,7811,376,363

92,58722,311

466,752438,919

47,228302,282

14,92219,143,577

Total Multi-FamilyHouseholds

64%23%15%75%20%21%41%36%26%16%38%17%44%25%44%42%44%55%65%61%31%41%38%29%83%52%59%33%16%33%27%49%22%46%34%44%47%29%45%

62%55%48%49%24%

24%66%30%21%78%32%50%41%

Percent of All Multi-FamilyThat Is HUD-Supported

APPENDIX D-1. HUD-ASSISTED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS BY STATE AS

PERCENT OF ALL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2005.



Population2005

Total LIHTC Allocations,1987-2005 (in dollars)

Total LIHTC Units1987-2005State

CaliforniaTexasNew YorkFloridaIllinoisPennsylvaniaOhioMichiganGeorgiaNew JerseyNorth CarolinaVirginiaMassachusettsWashingtonIndianaTennesseeArizonaMissouriMarylandWisconsinMinnesotaColoradoAlabamaLouisianaSouth CarolinaKentuckyOregonOklahomaConnecticutIowaMississippiArkansasKansasUtahNevadaNew MexicoWest VirginiaNebraskaIdahoMaineNew HampshireHawaiiRhode IslandMontanaDelawareSouth DakotaAlaskaNorth DakotaVermontDistrict of ColumbiaWyomingTOTAL

36,132,14722,859,96819,254,63017,789,86412,763,37112,429,61611,464,04210,120,8609,072,5768,717,9258,683,2427,567,4656,398,7436,287,7596,271,9735,962,9595,939,2925,800,3105,600,3885,536,2015,132,7994,665,1774,557,8084,523,6284,255,0834,173,4053,641,0563,547,8843,510,2972,966,3342,921,0882,779,1542,744,6872,469,5852,414,8071,928,3841,816,8561,758,7871,429,0961,321,5051,309,9401,275,1941,076,189

935,670843,524775,933663,661636,677623,050550,521509,294

296,410,404

$932,447,467500,710,062554,276,534424,916,761321,028,502313,325,531306,524,684276,558,314196,056,434229,532,248176,455,103198,669,724181,955,993154,555,074158,616,976128,130,720125,848,916138,784,665143,407,560144,984,708125,082,935105,459,497107,780,897122,715,167102,585,344112,126,76887,381,81278,325,51392,711,85874,638,56569,587,20960,333,57877,782,51160,112,80645,707,57548,098,53338,897,39546,743,18831,656,94531,720,27225,504,59130,266,47034,281,12021,986,70225,711,16822,690,03418,824,97924,115,04322,151,10312,755,46518,553,890

$7,383,074,909

115,478159,296

73,39785,02457,18052,85072,03957,49753,06527,27540,03448,77529,93627,12733,36233,29021,51432,31831,63133,22027,08117,77728,18740,20425,06525,99217,59426,62711,41217,79223,64317,54520,54512,807

9,14910,454

9,87610,151

7,0565,7083,8333,7096,2774,0996,0806,3662,2995,1324,4986,1503,349

1,500,765

APPENDIX E-1. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS FINANCED BY LIHTC

Source: See www.danter.com/taxcredit, Danter Company, 2007



APPENDIX F-1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM RESULTS: SOUTHFACE EARTHCRAFT HOMES

Building Type—Retrofit

Location

City Line, Va.

City Line, Va.

Hibbens Ferry; Mt. Pleasant, S.C.

Hibbens Ferry; Mt. Pleasant, S.C.

Hillmeade, Tenn.

Hillmeade, Tenn.

Maple Bay; Virginia Beach, Va.

Mariner’s Cove; Virginia Beach, Va.

Mariner’s Cove; Virginia Beach, Va.

Post Ridge, Tenn.

Rivercrest; Dunwoody, Ga.

Rivercrest; Dunwoody, Ga.

Saddlebrook; Norcross, Ga.

Saddlebrook; Norcross, Ga.

Falls of Bells Ferry; Norcross, Ga.

Falls of Bells Ferry; Norcross, Ga.

The Woods at Overlook; Ga.

The Woods at Overlook; Ga.

Webb Bridge; Alpharetta, Ga.

Woodshire; Atlanta, Ga.

Woodshire; Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Yorktown, Va.

Yorktown, Va.

Gainseville, Ga.

Gainseville, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Status

BaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEER AC, 6.8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEER AC, 6.8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 12 SEER ACBaselineImproved Envelope, 12 SEER ACBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER AC, 7.7 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER AC, 7.7 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEER AC, 6.8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER AC, 92 AFUEBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER AC, 92 AFUEBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER, 7.7 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEER, 6.8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEER, 6.8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 80 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 80 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 10 SEERBaseline-with heat pumpImproved Envelope, 13 SEER, 92 AFUEBaseline-with heat pumpImproved Envelope, 13 SEER, 92 AFUEBaselineImproved Envelope, 13 SEER, 8 HSPFBaselineImproved Envelope, 92 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 92 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImp. Envelope, 12 SEER, 7.5 HSPF, inst. elec. hot waterbaselineImp. Envelope, 12 SEER, 7.5 HSPF, inst. elec. hot waterBaselineImproved Envelope, 7.5 HSPF, 12 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 7.5 HSPF, 12 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 92 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 92 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 7.8 HSPF, 14.6 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 7.8 HSPF, 14.6 SEER

Energy ConsumptionPer Square Foot

0.06910.04920.07650.05000.07870.04840.08870.05500.05700.03290.04700.03200.04420.03660.09800.07120.10060.07350.05260.03300.05380.04320.05290.03930.11380.05310.12350.06040.06590.04910.04860.04260.05000.04960.03960.03900.04980.04000.09140.06850.08710.06530.13520.04920.13220.05000.06680.04840.05630.04230.07900.05610.07520.05100.06450.04360.06040.0418

Percentage Efficiency Gain

28.80%

34.62%

38.47%

38.06%

42.24%

31.91%

17.19%

27.28%

26.95%

37.25%

19.74%

25.67%

53.35%

51.11%

25.47%

12.32%

0.82%

1.46%

19.61%

25.08%

25.00%

63.63%

62.18%

27.50%

24.82%

29.02%

32.17%

32.51%

30.79%



Building Type—Retrofit

Location

Decatur, Ga.

Decatur, Ga.

Location

Wytheville, Va.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Milledgeville, Ga.

Milledgeville, Ga.

Athens, Ga.

Athens, Ga.

Chattanooga, Tenn.

Chattanooga, Tenn.

Chattanooga, Tenn.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Atlanta, Ga.

Marietta, Ga.

Marietta, Ga.

Status

BaselineImproved Envelope, 80 AFUE, 13 SEERBaselineImproved Envelope, 80 AFUE, 13 SEER

Status

Energy Star Qualified


















0.10470.06430.09060.0617


0.0438

0.0389

0.0330

0.0401

0.0396

0.0314

0.0324

0.0336

0.0309

0.0288

0.0321

0.0306

0.0317

0.0315

0.0384

0.0371

0.0360

0.0313

Percentage Efficiency Gain

38.61%

31.86%

Building Type—New Construction

APPENDIX F-1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM RESULTS: SOUTHFACE EARTHCRAFT HOMES (CONTINUED)

Source: Southface, 2007.



Federal StateFunds

TotalFederal + State

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingTotals

OtherResidential

APPENDIX G-1. ESTIMATED FUNDING FOR STATE RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

($ IN THOUSANDS)Commercial/Industrial/

OtherState

Source: National Association of State Community Services Programs and Consortium for Energy Efficiency Survey* Includes direct federal appropriations for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and state transfers of funds from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

WAP*$3,555

2,3342,5383,518

45,36711,684

2,7591,2441,5075,6108,199

2354,312

36,95811,14410,690

6,8468,6964,2208,9145,781

15,38618,44721,332

1,6568,3684,2297,1491,0642,343

10,8742,708

59,41813,608

4,58936,744

4,0926,451

43,0933,7563,9803,5807,237

18,6404,4111,354

14,92511,245

6,89423,907

2,951$550,543

PBF$0

00000

5,1000

3,5000000

4,84500000

1,7001,600

21,2155,000

000

1,2740

2,621953

13,6710

3,66000

6,9770

8,90020,646

1,10000000

2,100000

41,4850

$146,347

Utility$00

8700

99,0572,700

0000

1,4300

2,2250

5674,815

0361883

0717

00

3,9560

50000

1,454000000

7800000000

2,0990

490

5,452000

$127,915

$00

14,2000

168,8005,100

13,40000

47,4004,4006,6001,6001,7001,800

13,6000

4000

1,6000

33,9000

6,9000

9001,850

019,300

5,81442,900

039,700

0000

11,1000

4,44300

7,10029,500

8,0005,200

021,600

015,100

0$533,907

$00

11,7000

398,20010,10036,800

00

41,700800

8,0007,400

15,600500

23,9000

3000

8,0000

72,1000

25,8300

1,7007,800

05,3009,900

34,400500

187,60000

2,9000

27,1000

14,80000

4,50037,60010,500

8,8000

32,0000

22,5000

$1,068,830

$3,5552,334

29,3083,518

711,42429,58458,059

1,2445,007

94,71014,82914,83515,53759,10214,01153,005

6,8469,7575,102

20,2148,097

142,60123,44758,018

1,65611,46815,154

7,14929,73919,011

101,8453,208

290,37813,608

4,58947,401

4,09253,55163,73924,099

3,9803,580

18,83787,83822,91117,50314,92570,298

6,894102,992

2,951$2,427,542

energy efficiency in multi-family housing · 2020-02-05 · energy programs consortium / 1 energy...

Documents