Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
As part of the federal Residential Conservation Service (RCS), I most electric and gas utilities offer their customers on-site home audits. During the 1981-1982 program year, about one million RCS audits were conducted; approximately the same number of audits were conducted the following year. 2 Unfortunately, little is known about the performance of the RCS program. Questions remain concerning savings that can be directly attributed to the program; cost-effectiveness of the program to participants, nonparticipating ratepayers, utility stockholders, and society as a whole; and alternatives to the RCS that might stimulate greater efficiency improvements at lower cost. This lack of information is important for at least three reasons. First, the RCS program is expensive. A typical audit costs the utility 100 or more (although the maximum allowable charge for the audit is 15) ; state and federal government expenses to manage the program add about 10/audit. The measures that households install because of audit recommendations cost several hundred dollars. Second, the RCS program is used by some utilities as an alternative to construction of new supply systems; that is, audits are expected to deliver conservation energy resources at prices below those of conventional supply resources. Third, the RCS is surrounded by controversy over its cost, need, and possible intrusion into the marketplace. 3 This paper summarizes information obtained from several recent evaluations of RCS and RCS-like programs. These evaluations were conducted by the Michigan Energy Administration, Pacific Gas & Electric, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Seattle City Light, and others. 4 In addition, evidence collected by SRC from several utilities throughout the country and information obtained from states and utilities by Centaur has been reviewed. 5 The following sections discuss RCS program performance in terms of participation
Eric Hirst (Sat,) studied this question.