Outcomes of an energy efficiency project for low-income householders in Tasmania

1

-ting

Presenter:

Dr Phillipa Watson

Phillipa.watson@utas.edu.au

Research Fellow

Housing and Community

Research Unit

Social Sciences

Collaborating

researchers:

Dr Michelle Gabriel (UTAS)

Dr Millie Rooney (UTAS)

Dr Steve Watson (RED

Sustainability Consultants)

Anton Vikstrom (Sust. Living Tas)

FACULTY OF ARTS - HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH UNIT 2

Tassie housing stock lets householders down

Ref: Google street view images from Greater Hobart houses

(downloaded 21/6/16)

‘Its like living in a field’

4

LIEEP

Australian government grasped the difficulty

But how best to approach it?

Low Income Energy Efficiency Program

(2013-2016)

Supported 20 projects around Australia

Each was novel and testing a new approach

5

20 projects

around

Australia

The GBS Consortia

FACULTY OF ARTS - HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH UNIT 6

GBS aims

To reduce home energy use

To increase comfort

To understand the real effects

of different support approaches

7

Direct approach

In-home education

Home energy assessment

Home upgrades

Tried and true

8

Ref: Sustainable Living Tasmania Stay Warm Booklet

Community capacity building

Community engagement officer

Energy champions

Community events and activities

9

Community capacity building

Sharing knowledge

Strengthening the capacity

of a community

Drawing on local expertise

in Champions

Bulk (n=500)

Billing data

Resident survey

11

Detail (n=51)

Billing data

Resident survey

House condition observations

Temperature, humidity and

energy use sensors

Resident interviews

12

Timeline

Key Findings

Energy and comfort changes households achieved

How our understanding of householders improved

Critical influences and trade-offs defining change

How findings inform future programs

13

Changes households achieved

The direct home visit approach (upgrades and education) worked.

Capacity building alone did not work.

Home visit plus capacity building as a mix worked the best.

Around 65% of households decreased energy use between 2013 and 2015.

Home upgrade visits group had a 1.4 kWh/day average energy saving with payback of

10.3 years.

Home upgrade visits and community capacity building combined made 2.8 kWh/day

average energy savings with payback of 9.7 years.

All approaches saw an increase in time spent in ‘comfort zone’ – but this was

complicated by many factors.

14

Saw changes in:

Energy use

Comfort

Thermal resistance of house

Everyday life influences

Heater use and change

Heater efficiency

Confidence in energy and comfort knowledge

Community connections

Health and wellbeing

Detail cases showed us there were many different influences affecting energy use.

This in-depth study provided us with nuanced understanding and explained why bulk

outcomes were what they were.

15

How our understanding of householders improved

16

Critical influences and trade-offs

17

Energy versus cost, comfort and health

Mould/damp versus draughts (drying out)

Micro-politics in the home

Lifestyles

Radiant heat versus hot air

Moving versus staying-put

Hard wired versus plug-in heating

Ownership vs rent

Community networks and connections

Personal skills and priorities

If households saved energy

they often then used that

saved energy for some other

need.

If a household had a

comparatively higher energy

use before, even if they had

some reduction, they would

still have a comparatively

higher energy use after (and

vice versa).

Energy versus comfort

With houses not holding heat well…

So in many houses we saw heater energy use

having to increase to increase comfort.

Or, we saw people who saved heating energy

also reduced comfort at same time.

Heater types – heat pumps vs resistant vs

wood fire.

Heating thresholds affected by health and

mobility levels.

Affordability and uncomfortable housing.

19

Other trade offs

(detail study data)

Overall

Future programs can mix in-home energy upgrade visits with modified

community capacity building activities.

Champions gave the project connection in the community and brought

important understanding of the community to the project design.

Housing is poor quality which makes change difficult.

We consistently measured low indoor temperatures.

20

Goverment currently reviewing findings of

all 20 projects.

All 20 projects underlined that

organisational support is needed to

encourage energy related change in low

income communities (this will not happen

spontaneously or with unsupported

volunteers in the community).

Group of Energy Efficient Researchers

(GEER) has emerged from projects and

the group supports collaborative work.

GEER conference in February at

University of Woolongong.

21

How findings inform future programs

Will advocate further for:

Improvement of thermal performance of existing houses.

Development of a long term energy efficiency program based on

findings.

Refinement of the community engagement within a long term energy

efficiency program.

Integration of health priorities with energy efficiency aims through all

policy initiatives.

Thank you!

23