We don’t know exactly how the survey was worded, but it looks like people would need to see their utility costs going up before spending money on improvements. From the latimes.com:
Homeowners need to complete an average of four energy efficiency upgrades, such as insulation or high-efficiency windows, to see their utility bills decrease, according to a new survey released Tuesday. Homeowners who completed only 2.3 improvements actually saw their bills increase 10% to 30%, according to the 2011 Energy Pulse Survey by the Shelton Group, a Tennessee-based marketing group focused on sustainability that polled 1,502 Americans.
“[M]ost homeowners are more likely to start with a low-risk, low-investment improvement such as CFLs (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) or programmable thermostats that create a ‘quick win’ — fast results with minimal effort. Since quick wins reduce resistance and increase motivation, this should put them on the path to additional behaviors,” the study says. “However … many homeowners start and end with CFLs. The motivation to move on to the next activity doesn’t seem to occur naturally.”
Just 42% of the survey’s respondents had installed high-efficiency windows, 39% had added extra insulation, 37% had installed a higher-efficiency heating or cooling system and 24% had upgraded to a higher-efficiency water heater.
The No. 1 reason homeowners make energy-efficient improvements is to reduce their utility bills, the survey found. Yet the high cost and slow return on investment of the most valuable improvements has been a stumbling block. Replacing old, inefficient windows can lower energy bills 7% to 15%, but the payback period is between 10 years and 30 years, according to the study, citing Department of Energy research. Improving insulation can save 10% on an annual energy bill, but the payback period is 12 years to 26 years.
“The top energy-saving driver for the vast majority of Americans continues to be about dollars and cents,” said Suzanne Shelton, president of the Shelton Group. “It’s a green decision to save energy — but for consumers, it’s the green in their wallets that matters most.”
The highest-income and best educated Americans were most sensitive to utility bill increases and likely to take action. Those earning $100,000 or more annually said their monthly bills would need to increase an average of $113 to prompt an energy-efficient home improvement such as window replacement, whereas those earning less than $25,000 said their monthly bills would need to increase $120. Those with graduate degrees said it would take a $98 increase to trigger an energy-efficient upgrade, whereas those with a high school degree or less said the bill would need to increase $122, the study found.
Well if the rate of utilities keeps going up these green improvements would be more attractive. Its the same with the Electric Car. Unless gas is expensive its not worth it.
If as I have seen the average time in a home is less than 10 years then its hard to justify an investment with a longer payback period, unless it seriously increases the value of the house. Now when some replacements are required the logic is different, in particular HVAC systems. (Perhaps less in San Diego than Texas). Jim a question, if you compare two identical houses one with the more efficient windows and one without how much difference will it make in the sale price?
Did you know the first United States cap-and-trade exchange is going to be established here in California. Even though the market in Europe is fraught with fraud.
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/
But it’s green and for the children!
This will be like the 80’s when the refineries could buy carbon credits by buying old cars and thus be relieved of doing anything about cleaning up their own pollution. The old cars are gone, but the refineries are still polluting
Theoretically the unclean energy will be more expensive to run and those that are cleaner gain an economic advantage.
The problem is the customer is left paying more no matter whom wins.
What should happen is green technology should gain an economic advantage where its energy output is more cost efficient. The market would then autocorrect itself and automagically use the cheaper form of energy production.
Example: If solar was say $0.02/watt, why would you use any other form of energy?
The only way I can see such energy saving measures becoming popular is if they’re included in the construction of the house. Once everything is closed up, major work of any kind can be very expensive, eliminating any potential cost savings.
Best to start by changing the lightbulbs to CFLs as they need replacing, and hope that the SO doesn’t switch them back to incandescents for a multitude of reasons.
For me, I am less interested in the cost savings and more interested in the immediate improvement in my comfort. Replacing windows and improving insulation would provide immediate relief by keeping the house warmer and/or cooler.
Energy efficiency has been mandated in house construction since the 70s. If they want to require more efficiency in newer houses that’s fine.
Forcing people to expensively refit their houses to stop artificial price increases created by the eco-lobby/corrupt pols/green fatcats is wrong. Unfortunately, the middle class homeowner has lost control of the California state government. Now it’s just a matter of shutting up, laying back and “Think of England” while the ongoing buggery continues.