Study of energy use by low-income residents demonstrates benefits of green building
High Point residents spend at least $200 less per year on water and energy
SEATTLE—April 7, 2009—A recent study by an independent research firm shows that the resource-conserving features incorporated into the new High Point have paid off in substantially lower utility bills for residents and in significant energy savings overall.
The study was based on actual utility bills from 2007 for 1,525 housing units. This data was then supplemented by telephone surveys of 234 residents across the three sites. Prepared by the Cedar River Group, the study compared energy and water use and costs at Yesler Terrace, NewHolly and High Point.
Yesler Terrace was chosen as a "base case" with construction and energy use patterns similar to much of America's existing public housing. NewHolly was studied because it is Seattle Housing Authority's first redevelopment project and it reflects the state of standard building codes in Seattle in the 1990s. High Point represents the "state of the art" for green building at the beginning of the new century.
According to High Point redevelopment manager Tom Phillips, "This study was especially significant because it compares utility consumption between similar populations at the same point in time, under the same weather conditions. The only significant difference between the study sites is the housing itself."
One of the most significant findings of the study was that, "High Point residents are saving substantial amounts of water, electricity and natural gas beyond the levels of conservation being achieved at NewHolly and Yesler Terrace." Comparisons of resource use between the three communities show significant differences:
- NewHolly residents use about six percent more water than High Point residents and 15 percent more electricity in all-electric houses or apartments.
- Yesler Terrace residents use 54 percent more water than those at High Point, and 40 percent more electricity in all-electric units.
The study also showed that people living in public housing—like most Seattle residents—are motivated to conserve energy for two big reasons: it saves money and it's the right thing to do. In fact, of the 234 households surveyed, a large majority reported that they were already taking steps to conserve energy.
It also became clear through the survey that financial incentives to conserve can make a significant difference. At NewHolly and High Point, where housing units are individually metered for water use, about 70 percent of the residents reported taking extra steps to save on water. In contrast, at Yesler Terrace, where units are not individually metered, only 16 percent reported taking extra steps to conserve. In fact, actual costs per person for water were $89.40 per year more at Yesler Terrace than at High Point.
The study also evaluated whether the extra costs of including green features in construction was a good investment, and concluded that it was. The most expensive "green" feature installed at High Point was the hydronic heating system in each unit. The study showed that this feature saved enough in energy cost to more than pay for itself over time.
Tom Byers, a partner with the Cedar River Group, was in charge of the study, which was sponsored by Enterprise. He pointed out that HUD policies around utility allowances were not very effective in the long run in encouraging energy conservation. A full discussion of this issue is included in the report.
In summarizing the study, Byers said, "The thing that struck me most was the realization that three elements will be needed to achieve the nation's goals for conservation and greenhouse gas reduction: 1) capital investment by property owners and developers; 2) day to day actions on the part of those who live and work in the buildings; and 3) wise public policies that bring these forces into alignment."
Download the complete study report (PDF, 1.23 MB, download Adobe Reader).