Replication Data for: Do Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver? Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program

A growing number of policies and programs aim to increase investment in energy efficiency, because conventional wisdom suggests that people fail to take up these investments even though they have positive private returns and generate environmental benefits. Many explanations for this energy efficiency gap have been put forward, but there has been surprisingly little field testing of whether the conventional wisdom is correct. This article reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential energy efficiency program—the Weatherization Assistance Program—conducted on a sample of approximately 30,000 households in Michigan. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Furthermore, the model-projected savings are more than three times the actual savings. Although this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect—when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency—the article fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits derived from emissions reductions, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately −7.8% annually.越来越多的政策与项目旨在提升能源效率领域的投资，因为主流认知认为，即便此类投资具备正向私人收益且能产生环境效益，民众仍不愿参与其中。针对这一能源效率缺口（energy efficiency gap），学界已提出诸多解释，但令人意外的是，针对主流认知正确性的实地检验却寥寥无几。本文针对全美规模最大的居民能源效率项目——气候化援助项目（Weatherization Assistance Program）开展了实验评估，实验样本涵盖密歇根州约3万户家庭，并汇报了相关研究结果。研究结果显示，前期投入成本约为实际节能收益的两倍。此外，模型预测节能量更是实际节能量的三倍以上。尽管这一现象或许可归因于‘反弹效应（rebound effect）’——即因能效提升导致能源终端使用需求增加——但本文并未发现经气候化改造的住宅室内温度显著升高的证据。即便将减排带来的更广泛社会收益纳入考量，成本仍远高于收益；年均平均回报率约为-7.8%。