Sustainability in Manufactured Home Communities

2012
Sustainability in
Manufactured Home Communities
Cost-Effective Energy, Water and Community Infrastructure
Strategies to Maximize Long-Term Value
Primary Authors: CTG Energetics, Inc. Malcolm
Lewis, Jon Roberts, Adam Rohloff, Joyce
Lin, Heather Rosenberg, Craig Wheeler,
AIA
Hewlett-Packard Company
Disclaimer:
The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under
an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and
publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and
interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily
reflect the views of HUD.
Sustainability in Manufactured Home Communities
Click on the bullet point to read the full text.
Key Findings of the Report

Manufactured homes (“MH”) possess certain natural sustainability advantages over site-built homes:
They are smaller in size, generally one-story, the factory-built process substantially reduces construction
waste and manufactured home communities (“MHC”) are often the most dense affordable housing
communities in their local markets; and,

MH have significantly lower environmental impacts than site-built single-family homes and
condominium townhomes.
The Report’s Recommendations

Weatherizing/retrofitting MH is cost effective with
payback periods ranging from a few months to
seven years, with investments in energy and waterefficiency measures totaling $2,500 or less;
Replacing pre- and early
HUD Code homes in
poor condition with new
EnergyStar rated
manufactured homes has
a payback period of less
than 20 years.

Replacing pre-HUD Code (mobile homes built
before June 15, 1976) and early HUD Code homes in
poor condition in all climate zones with new
EnergyStar rated MH is cost effective, with energy
savings paying back the initial investment in less
than 20 years. It is also cost effective to replace
older MH in northern climates heated with propane or
fuel oil which are in good condition but which have
not been weatherized since originally placed;

The replacement of refrigerators that are more than 10 years-old with EnergyStar rated new models is a
major energy saver for homeowners;

Sub-metering MHC with public water service can reduce water consumption and costs as much as
18% to 39%;

MHC also have great potential for reducing storm water run-off through recapture and re-use of rain water
for landscaping, narrower roadways, low impact swales to manage storm water, rain gardens and other
measures; and,

Replacing older site lighting with LED lighting fixtures and photo sensors, timers and/or motion detectors
substantially reduces electrical costs in MHC.
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................i
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................i
Report Organization...............................................................................................................................................i
Key ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Manufactured Home Characteristics, Demographics and Context Data .............................................................. ii
Sustainability Benefits of Manufactured Homes ..................................................................................................... iii
Housing Level Sustainability Opportunities .............................................................................................................iv
Mitigating Mold and Moisture Problems ..............................................................................................................v
Energy and Water Conservation Opportunities ...................................................................................................vi
Replacement of Existing Manufactured Homes with EnergyStar® Homes ...................................................... vii
Community Level Sustainability Opportunities .......................................................................................................ix
Homeowner Sustainability Education ...................................................................................................................x
Water ....................................................................................................................................................................x
Energy ................................................................................................................................................................ xii
Solid Waste ....................................................................................................................................................... xiii
Policy Opportunities .............................................................................................................................................. xiii
1.
Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
History of Standards and Regulations ..........................................................................................................2
1.2
EnergyStar Manufactured Homes ................................................................................................................4
1.3
Fire Risk ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4
Titling ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5
History of Weatherization Efforts ................................................................................................................5
1.5.1 Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) ............................................................................................ 6
1.5.2 Weatherization Research ......................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.3 Weatherization Assistant and the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA) .....................................7
1.6
Financing and Funding .................................................................................................................................8
1.6.1 Weatherization Funding ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.6.2 Fannie Mae ..............................................................................................................................................9
1.6.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development Program .............................................. 10
1.6.4 Other Loan, Financing and Funding Programs ...................................................................................... 11
1.6.5 Utility Rebate and Incentive Programs .................................................................................................. 12
2.
Manufactured Home Characteristics, Demographics and Context ..................................................................... 13
2.1
Manufactured Homes are a Significant Portion of the Housing Stock ....................................................... 13
2.2
Manufactured Homes are a Primary Source of Affordable Housing ......................................................... 15
2.3
High Housing and Energy Costs are Significant Challenges for Low-Income Households ...................... 17
2.4
There are a Significant Number of Older, Inefficient Manufactured Homes ............................................. 18
2.5
Regional Trends in Expensive Primary Heating Fuel Use ......................................................................... 21
2.6
Utility Prices Vary Significantly by Region and are Rising Rapidly ......................................................... 22
3.
Sustainability Benefits of Manufactured Homes ................................................................................................ 23
3.1
Summary of Key Sustainability Benefits ................................................................................................... 23
3.2
Case Study: Comparison of Key Sustainability Performance Indicators between Housing Types ............ 25
3.2.1 Analysis Background ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.2 Analysis Details ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.
Opportunities for Improved Sustainability and Affordability in Manufactured Homes ..................................... 29
4.1
Housing Level Sustainability Opportunities .............................................................................................. 29
4.1.1 Analysis Overview................................................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2 Overall Variability in Energy Use and Savings Potential ...................................................................... 31
4.1.3 Variability in Energy Use and Savings Potential for Specific End-Uses by Heating Fuel .................... 32
4.1.4 Mitigating Mold and Moisture-Related Problems ................................................................................. 34
4.1.5 Energy and Water Conservation Opportunities ..................................................................................... 37
4.1.6 Case Studies and Examples ................................................................................................................... 46
4.1.7 Replacement of Existing Manufactured Homes with EnergyStar Homes ............................................. 48
4.2
Community Level Sustainability Opportunities ......................................................................................... 53
4.2.1 Homeowner Sustainability Education .................................................................................................... 53
4.2.2 Wastewater ............................................................................................................................................ 58
4.2.3 Road Infrastructure and Stormwater Infrastructure ............................................................................... 59
4.2.4 Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 61
4.2.5 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................................ 63
5.
Policy Needs and Opportunities.......................................................................................................................... 64
6.
References & Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix A: Analysis Details ..................................................................................................................................... 70
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 70
HUD Climate Zones and Representative Locations ................................................................................................ 70
Prototype Models .................................................................................................................................................... 72
Analysis Notes......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Duct Sealing ....................................................................................................................................................... 75
Air-Conditioning................................................................................................................................................. 75
Lighting .............................................................................................................................................................. 75
Plug and Miscellaneous Loads ........................................................................................................................... 75
Water and Water Heating ................................................................................................................................... 76
Refrigerators ....................................................................................................................................................... 76
Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Prototypical Manufactured Home Energy Consumption Summary.................................................................... 78
Energy and Water Conservation Measure Analysis............................................................................................ 81
EnergyStar Replacement Home Analysis Details ............................................................................................... 90
Appendix B: Survey of Manufactured Home Characteristics and Demographics ....................................................... 92
DOE’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) Statistics ....................................................................... 92
California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) ................................................................................. 101
Market Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 105
American Communities Survey and U.S. Census Data ......................................................................................... 106
Appendix C: Utility and Municipal Loan and Financing Programs .......................................................................... 109
Appendix D: Utility Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 111
Figures
Figure 1: Manufactured home stock age ....................................................................................................................... ii
Figure 2: Summary of key sustainability benefits ....................................................................................................... iii
Figure 3: Comparison of sustainability impacts between housing types ......................................................................iv
Figure 4: Range of manufactured home annual energy use by HUD Zone ...................................................................v
Figure 5: Current HUD zone map for manufactured homes .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 6. Energy cost savings for ENERGYSTAR qualified manufactured homes ...................................................... 5
Figure 7: Percentage of weatherized households by building type ................................................................................6
Figure 8: Mobile homes as a percent of total housing stock, by county ...................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Mobile homes as a percent of total housing units, by state .......................................................................... 15
Figure 10: Manufactured hone household income and percent of food stamp recipients ............................................ 16
Figure 11: Income status of ROC USA Communities ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 12: Percent of low income households experiencing housing problems (2009)............................................... 18
Figure 13: Manufactured home stock age .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 14: Number of manufactured homes by state and by vintage .......................................................................... 19
Figure 15: States with the largest percentage of pre-1976 HUD Code manufactured homes ...................................... 20
Figure 16: Manufactured home stock as a percent of total housing stock built to HUD Code .................................... 21
Figure 17: Manufactured home heating fuel type by state ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Summary of key sustainability benefits ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 19: Case-study communities ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 20: Summary of case-study community sustainability impacts ....................................................................... 27
Figure 21: Range of manufactured home annual energy use by HUD Zone ............................................................... 31
Figure 22: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = natural gas ............................................ 32
Figure 23: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = fuel oil .................................................. 33
Figure 24: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = propane ................................................ 33
Figure 25: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = electricity ............................................. 34
Figure 26: Moisture problem risk map ........................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 26: EnergyStar Replacement Analysis Summary ............................................................................................. 52
Figure 41: Example 24-hour property pressure readings shows significant water pressure variation ......................... 55
Figure 42: Typical water submeter .............................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 43: Apparently “small” leaks such as this can waste thousands of gallons per year ........................................ 57
Figure 44: Daily measured water consumption for two properties (gallons per hour) ................................................ 57
Figure 32: Permeable concrete paving......................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 33: Permeable inter-locking pavers .................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 34: grassed swale .............................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 35: A bioretention area133 ................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 36: 1976 – 1994 HUD climate zone map ......................................................................................................... 70
Figure 37: Current (1994+) HUD climate zone map ................................................................................................... 71
Figure 38: EnergyStar climate zone map ..................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 52: Refrigerator energy use vs. vintage and type (typical 18 ft 3 refrigerator) ................................................. 78
Figure 40: Analysis results for design, best, and worst-case scenarios ....................................................................... 78
Figure 41: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 1, by heating fuel type .................... 87
Figure 42: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 2, by heating fuel type .................... 88
Figure 43: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 3, by heating fuel type .................... 89
Figure 44: California manufactured home vintage (RASS) ....................................................................................... 102
Figure 45: California manufactured home square footage of mobile homes (RASS) ............................................... 103
Figure 46: California manufactured home square footage vs. vintage (RASS) ......................................................... 103
Figure 47: California unit energy consumption (UEC) for electric end uses in manufactured homes (RASS) ......... 104
Figure 48: California unit energy consumption (UEC) for gas end uses in manufactured homes (RASS) ............... 104
Figure 49: Square footage vs. vintage (MHVillag.com) ............................................................................................ 105
Figure 50: Price vs. vintage (MHVillag.com) ........................................................................................................... 105
Figure 51: Price vs square footage (1,000s) (MHVillag.com) ................................................................................... 106
Figure 52: Percentage of single and double wide homes vs. vintage (MHVillag.com) ............................................. 106
Figure 53: Residential natural gas prices by state (2009, $/thousand cubic feet) ...................................................... 111
Figure 54: Residential natural gas prices by state, sorted by price ............................................................................ 111
Figure 55: Residential propane prices (2010) ............................................................................................................ 112
Figure 56: Residential propane prices historical increase (1993-2010) ..................................................................... 112
Figure 57: Residential Fuel Oil Prices (2001 – 2011) ............................................................................................... 113
Figure 58: Residential electricity prices by state (2011)............................................................................................ 113
Figure 59: Typical water prices for various cities (2010) .......................................................................................... 114
Tables
Table 1: Typical energy savings versus investment......................................................................................................vi
Table 2: Low and no-cost conservation measures ........................................................................................................vi
Table 3: Typical cost-effective energy and water conservation measures .................................................................. vii
Table 4: Typical utility costs for 2011 ......................................................................................................................... 23
Table 5: Case study analysis details ............................................................................................................................ 28
Table 6: Summary of prototypical models analyzed ................................................................................................... 30
Table 7: Summary of energy and water conservation measures analyzed ................................................................... 38
Table 8: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 1 .................................................................... 41
Table 9: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 2 .................................................................... 43
Table 10: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 3 .................................................................. 44
Table 11: Low and no-cost conservation measures ..................................................................................................... 45
Table 12: Typical Washington State weatherization measures and costs103 ................................................................ 46
Table 13: Conditions where EnergyStar manufactured home replacements are cost effective ................................... 51
Table 14: Prototype model assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 73
Table 16: Typical A.C. Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratios (SEER) vs. vintage......................................................... 75
Table 16: Primary electric plug and miscellaneous loads for manufactured homes .................................................... 75
Table 17: Primary fuel plug and miscellaneous loads for manufactured homes ......................................................... 76
Table 18: Shipment Weighted Energy Factors (EF) for Refrigerators ........................................................................ 77
Table 19: Summary table for Figure 31 ....................................................................................................................... 81
Table 20: Detailed analysis results for individual energy and water conservation measures. ..................................... 82
Table 21: EnergyStar Home Replacement Results ...................................................................................................... 91
Table 22: RECS Housing Characteristics for Manufactured Homes (Table HC2.1) ................................................... 92
Table 23: RECS space heating characteristics for manufactured homes (Table HC2.4) ............................................. 93
Table 24: RECS A/C details for manufactured homes ................................................................................................ 94
Table 25: RECS window/wall unit A/C details ........................................................................................................... 94
Table 26: RECS central A/C details ............................................................................................................................ 94
Table 27: RECS at-home behavior impacting central A/C use.................................................................................... 95
Table 28: RECS Manufactured Home Characteristics Affecting Central A/C Usage ................................................. 95
Table 29: Thermostat details for manufactured homes with central A/C .................................................................... 96
Table 30: RECS manufactured home appliance data................................................................................................... 97
Table 31: RECS electronic characteristics for manufactured homes ........................................................................... 99
Table 32: RECS average household energy end use consumption ............................................................................ 100
Table 33: 2009 RASS electric UECs (kWh/home/year) by residence type ............................................................... 101
Table 34: 2009 RASS Gas UECs (Therms/home/year) by Residence Type, for all Households and for Homes w/Gas
Account Data ............................................................................................................................................................. 102
Table 35: Manufactured home counts by state and vintage (2009 American Communities Survey) ........................ 106
Table 36: Manufactured Home Heating Fuel Use by State (2009 American Communities Survey) ........................ 107
Table 37: Utility and municipal loan and financing programs .................................................................................. 109
Executive Summary
Introduction
Manufactured homes provide an important housing option for nearly 7 million American families. This represents
approximately 6% of the total U.S. housing stock. While it is often overlooked, it comprises the largest source of
unsubsidized affordable housing in the U.S. It is inexpensive to build and easy to deploy. It provides an important
route to home ownership and equity building.
Manufactured homes have a number of sustainability advantages. They are manufactured in tightly controlled
factory environments, enabling efficient use of building materials, reduced construction waste and high quality
construction. EnergyStar® qualified homes in particular must meet high standards for manufacturing plant quality
control, home design, and HVAC performance. House size is generally smaller, which has numerous ripple effects
including reduced building material use, reduced energy use and denser land use. “Resident owned communities”
(manufactured home parks which have been purchased by and managed by the residents) can provide additional
benefits and opportunities for increased efficiency and sustainability at the community level, as well as opportunities
for residents to build equity and wealth in their home.
There are, of course, challenges facing manufactured homes and communities. A high percentage of existing mobile
homes are not EnergyStar homes. In fact, there are approximately 2.2 million homes that were built before federal
regulation of energy performance or efficiency. Many of these homes are in poor condition, and have inefficient
HVAC equipment, moisture intrusion, minimal insulation, and other thermal and environmental quality issues. High
utility costs are often the result, particularly in more extreme climates. Financing for upgrades is scarce. Many older
manufactured communities have aging infrastructure. Manufactured homes and communities have often not
garnered the same resources from public agencies as other affordable housing types, suffer from inaccurate negative
stereotypes, and can face more stringent local regulation.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the sustainability benefits of manufactured homes and manufactured home
communities, identify opportunities to improve sustainability and reduce utility costs, and to provide clear and
targeted recommendations that appropriately address on-the-ground conditions to guide residents, policy makers,
funders and non-profits in making smart decisions for their communities. This paper identifies when it is appropriate
to retrofit or replace a manufactured home, and describes how take advantage of community resources when
approaching the challenges and opportunities surrounding affordable sustainability.
Report Organization
This paper is organized as follows: The Executive Summary provides a summary of major findings, with a focus on
what can be done at both the manufactured home level and community level to improve sustainability. Section 1
provides general background and contextual information on current activities and initiatives addressing energy
efficiency and sustainability in manufactured homes. Section 2 provides detailed characteristics and demographics
of manufactured homes and manufactured home communities. This data provides a critical set of contextual data for
understanding the energy and sustainability issues facing manufactured homes, and was used to guide and inform
this paper. This contextual data may be valuable to the larger affordable housing community as its members shape
policy that affects sustainability in manufactured homes. Section 3 summarizes the key sustainability benefits of
manufactured homes and communities. Section 4 describes opportunities for improving sustainability and
affordability in manufactured homes at the household level and the community level. Section 5 provides an outline
of significant needs and opportunities for policy that affects manufactured homes. Section 6 provides a list of
references and bibliography. Appendix A provides details regarding the analyses conducted for this paper. Appendix
B provides additional details regarding manufactured home characteristics. Appendix C includes information about
loan and financing programs, and Appendix D provides more details regarding utility costs.
i
Key Manufactured Home Characteristics, Demographics and Context Data
There is significant variation in manufactured homes characteristics, demographics, and related contextual data
throughout the U.S. It is important to recognize the implications of this variation. Relying on national average data
(e.g., average energy costs, typical heating fuel, etc.) can significantly underestimate savings for atypical areas and
mask or distort measure savings and effectiveness. Recommendations applicable in one context are not necessarily
the best set of measures for another. This study conducted a detailed review of the existing statistical data on
manufactured home characteristics and demographics, and related contextual data such as variation in utility costs,
escalation, etc. This data was used to inform and guide the analysis and recommendations, and answer questions
such as what is the distribution of manufactured home vintages, which regions rely on expensive heating fuels, etc.
Manufactured homes represent ~6% of the total U.S. housing stock (6.99 million manufactured homes out of 115
million total occupied housing units), up to 18% of the total housing stock in some states, and nearly 60% in some
counties. Manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the U.S., and provide an
important route for home ownership and wealth creation for low income households. These households face a
variety of housing challenges, including high cost burdens (households where more than 30% of gross income goes
toward housing costs, including utilities). Improving home energy efficiency and community infrastructure can help
reduce this cost burden. Home ownership is higher in manufactured homes (83%) compared to the total U.S.
housing stock (70%)1.
The 1976 and 1994 HUD codes for manufactured homes were designed to improve the quality and efficiency of
manufactured homes. Figure 1 shows the nationwide manufactured home stock age distribution. 26% of
manufactured homes predate the 1976 HUD code and are inefficient; 43% date to the original 1976-1994 HUD
code; 31% are built to the newer 1994 HUD code update, and less than 1% are built to the EnergyStar standard2.
While improvements to the code and standards such as EnergyStar help improve the performance of new mobile
homes, they do not impact the majority of homes, which were built prior to 1994. Therefore, additional strategies are
needed to address these older mobile homes. Strategies to improve this older housing stock at the housing level and
at the community level are discussed in detail in this report (See Sections 1.5, 1.6, 5.1, and 5.2).
Pre 1976,
2,221,692 ,
26%
Energy Star,
42,425 , 0%
1994+,
2,603,444 ,
31%
1976-1994,
3,667,769 ,
43%
Figure 1: Manufactured home stock age3
1
U.S. Department of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), survey data tables,
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/
2
42,425 homes were reported to meet ENERGYSTAR standards as of the second quarter of 2011.
www.energystar.gov
3
Figures based on data from the American Communities Survey, 2009. Note that there is some variation between
numbers estimated by the 2009 American Communities Survey and the 2010 Census.
www.census.gov/acs/www.data_documentation/2009_release
ii
In many regions, manufactured homes use expensive heating fuels (fuel oil, propane and electricity). Manufactured
homes in New England and northern Atlantic states rely heavily on fuel oil, with nearly 75% of homes in Maine
served by fuel oil. Over 50% of manufactured homes in 12 states have electric heating, primarily in the South and
Northwest. Expensive fuels combined with poor efficiency exacerbate high energy costs and high home cost
burdens. Utility prices are highly variable across the U.S., with prices varying by up to a factor of four.
It is important to recognize these regional variations in assessing energy and sustainability improvement
opportunities. Savings based on nationwide average costs will significantly underestimate savings potential and
mask the fact that many measures are highly cost effective in locations with high utility prices. Programmatic and
policy efforts to reduce utility costs should focus on areas with high utility costs or homes with expensive fuels.
Utility cost escalation is a related concern. Water prices increased by nearly 10% last year and are projected to
continue rising faster than general inflation. Natural gas prices doubled in 10 years between 1999 and 2008, propane
prices have doubled between 2000 and 2010, and fuel oil prices increased by a factor of four during a six year
period between 2002 and 2008. Current fuel oil prices are still more than three times higher than they were in 2002.
Rapidly rising utility costs disproportionately impact low income and manufactured home residents, who are already
facing significant housing cost burdens. Aging infrastructure, increasing stress on water supplies, and related factors
will continue to drive water prices up and are an important sustainability issue for manufactured homes and
communities.
Sustainability Benefits of Manufactured Homes
Manufactured homes can be a surprisingly sustainable housing option, and provides a number of sustainability
benefits compared to site-built housing. Figure 2 illustrates these benefits from a triple bottom line perspective.





Affordable housing
Home ownership
Equity & wealth development
Housing security
Community
Environmental
Social







Energy use
Water use
Construction waste
Efficient resource utilization
Stormwater management
Land use and density
Greenhouse gas emissions
Economic
 Affordable housing
 Equity & wealth building
 Potential for low utility bills
Figure 2: Summary of key sustainability benefits
A case study was developed to understand and quantify the sustainability performance of manufactured homes
versus site-built housing. A search was conducted to identify a representative manufactured home community in
close proximity to other types of site-built housing. A location was identified in Pomona, California (Los Angeles
area) which had four back-to-back communities, each containing different housing types: a manufactured home
community, single family neighborhood, a condominium/townhome complex, and an apartment complex. Each of
the communities was analyzed and a set of key sustainability indicators were developed, including energy use, water
use, stormwater generation, housing density, greenhouse gas generation, affordability (monthly mortgage/rent plus
and utility costs). A summary of results is shown below, with more detailed analysis outlined in Section 4.2 of this
report.
iii
100%
Overall Impacts
90%
Normalized Impact
80%
Energy Use
Water Use
Stormwater
Construction Waste
GHG's
Affordability
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Single Family
Condos
Manuf. Home
Apartments
Figure 3: Comparison of sustainability impacts between housing types
The analysis shows that on a per dwelling unit (DU) basis, manufactured homes have significantly lower
environmental impacts and are more sustainable across a range of key sustainability indicators than either single
family homes or the condominium/town home units. Apartments have lower impacts in many areas due to their
small size and density; however, they are not as affordable and do not provide home ownership benefits. While these
benefits will vary by location, community age, density and other factors, this case study is representative of the types
of benefits manufactured homes provide.
Housing Level Sustainability Opportunities
Manufactured home energy savings opportunities depend upon many factors, including climate, vintage of home,
home condition, heating fuel used, local fuel costs, and other factors discussed in Section 2. There is dramatic
variability in manufactured home energy and water use, as detailed in Section 4.1.2. One of the purposes of this
study is to understand how energy use varies with these parameters and analyze savings opportunities. The study
examined twelve different prototype manufactured home models. Each prototype was evaluated in each of three
locations with different climates and different heating fuel types. In addition, each prototype home was evaluated
assuming, best, average and worst case physical conditions. Details on how the analysis was performed are available
in section 5 of this report.
One of the most dramatic, although not unexpected, results of the analysis is the extremely wide variation in energy
use for homes in the same location. Energy use can vary by a factor of five in Zone 1 to nearly ten in Zone 3. Figure
4 shows the range of energy use for each HUD zone. For each zone, the highest, lowest, and average manufactured
home energy use is shown. The home worst-performing home is a pre-HUD home in very bad condition, with poor
insulation, large air leakage, single pane aluminum framed windows, old inefficient HVAC equipment that has not
been tuned or properly maintained, inefficient plumbing heaters, etc. and using the most expensive heating fuel.
The best-performing home is an EnergyStar home that has efficient equipment, efficient plumbing fixtures, is
sheltered from the wind, and has applied all potential conservation measures and using the least expensive fuel. The
“average” represents the average of all the scenarios run, and does not necessarily represent the actual average
manufactured home energy costs for a particular region (this would be impacted by the vintage distribution (Figure
14), heating fuel prevalence (Figure 17), and other factors).
It should be noted that the modeling assumes that typical temperature setpoint conditions are maintained and that the
homes have air-conditioning. Low-income homes that are in very poor condition and have extremely high utility
bills would likely change the setpoints to be much colder in winter, find alternate heating means, not use A/C, and
make other behavior modifications to compensate. While these are the extremes, it does dramatize the large
potential variation and highlights the need to find and address very inefficient homes.
iv
$9,000
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 2
$8,000
$7,000
Water
Plug & Misc. Electric
Refrigerator
$6,000
Cooling
Plug & Misc. Fuel
$5,000
DHW
Heating
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
Zone3-Min
Zone3-Avg
Zone3-max
Zone2-Min
Zone2-Avg
Zone2-max
Zone1-Min
Zone1-Avg
Zone1-max
$0
Figure 4: Range of manufactured home annual energy use by HUD Zone
Other findings resulting from the analysis of energy use in manufactured homes indicate that code updates have
significantly reduced heating and cooling energy demand. Additionally, as expected, cooling is the largest energy
cost in Zone 1 and should be focused on, whereas heating is the largest energy user in Zone 3 and merits attention.
For areas with expensive heating fuels, heating costs dwarf other energy costs and must be addressed. It is important
note, however, that heating is a significant energy consumer in all climate zones, and there are significant
opportunities to improve energy efficiency related to heating in nearly all climates.
Two other results are significant. First, refrigerator energy use is substantial and, the amount of energy used by the
refrigerator varies widely based on the age of the refrigerator; therefore, targeting refrigerator replacements can have
significant savings. Second, there are substantial savings opportunities related to water heating, particularly for
homes with inefficient plumbing fixtures, which can usually be replaced inexpensively.
Mitigating Mold and Moisture Problems
Manufactured homes are built to effectively deal with moisture—roofs and walls keep rain out of the home and
prevent water from penetrating into the walls, insulation and construction materials; moisture generating appliances
such as dryers are vented outdoors; exhaust fans get rid of moisture from the kitchen and bathroom; furnaces and
other combustion equipment are vented to the outside, and the site is graded to slope away from the home and
prevent water from collecting. However, plumbing leaks, roof leaks, failure of gutter and flashing details,
deteriorating caulk and sealants, air infiltration, improper site grading, landscaping changes, equipment failure,
occupant activities and many other factors can lead to moisture problems. Older homes (especially those predating
the HUD code) are particularly susceptible to moisture problems. Poor maintenance can also exacerbate the
potential for moisture related problems.
Moisture can create significant problems and damage once it gets into a home. Repeated or constant wetting of
wood and other building materials can lead to decay and structural damage. Rotted floorboards and walls can
jeopardize the structural integrity of a home. Furthermore, prolonged moisture leads to the development of mold.
Mold can cause bad odors, lead to allergic reactions, trigger asthma, and irritate the eyes, skin, nose and throat.
Furthermore, mold exposure can sometimes cause serious infections, such as Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (similar
v
to bacterial pneumonia) and various infections in those with weakened immune systems 4.
Certain regions of the country are more likely to experience moisture related problems due to hot, moist summers
(i.e., the South), abundant rain and moisture (e.g., the Pacific Northwest), and areas with cold winters which can
condense humidity from inside the home onto window frames and surfaces, as well as inside walls and other
building assemblies.
A systematic approach to identifying moisture problems and providing assistance to correct these problems would
be highly effective. For example, ROC USA and other manufactured home associations may want to consider
developing a checklist to identify and mitigate moisture/mold problems that could be provided to their communities.
Many of the common moisture related problems found in manufactured homes can be easily corrected by
homeowners with a little education and guidance. The key to preventing mold in manufactured homes is to (1)
prevent moisture intrusion into the home from the outside, (2) reduce air leakage which can cause water vapor to
condense inside walls and insulation, (3) use storm windows to prevent warm moist air inside the home from
condensing on cold window frames and other cold surfaces, and (4) control sources of internal humidity.
Energy and Water Conservation Opportunities
Analysis was performed to identify the cost effectiveness of typical energy and water conservation measures. A
complete list of analyzed measures and their costs is provided in Section 4. The analysis of cost effective energy and
water conservation measures shows that there is significant variation in the total savings potential and the costs
required to achieve these savings, depending on the specific home needs and condition. Table 1 summarizes typical
savings for various investment levels. These savings are based on the most cost effective measures identified
through the analysis in Section 5 for older homes in moderate to poor condition. The actual dollar savings varies
significantly depending on the heating fuel used in the home.
Category
No and Low-Cost
Measures
Table 1: Typical energy savings versus investment
Measure/ Package Cost
Typical Annual Utility Savings
$0 - $150 / measure
~ 5-7% total savings potential
(refer to Table 8 through Table 10 for specific
savings details in each climate zone)
Small Investment
Moderate investment
Larger investment
~$1,000/home
~$2,500/home
~ $5,000 -$6,000 /home
~ 12%
~ 20%
~ 30%
Table 2 summarizes the low and no-cost measures that can improve energy and water efficiency.
Table 2: Low and no-cost conservation measures
Measure
Clean the condenser coils.
Check air-conditioning coil in furnace/fan unit for dirt and dust and clean as needed.
Use interior blinds or shades to reduce unwanted solar gains and insulate windows.
Inspect and clean ductwork through registers, and seal junctions where the register boots
screw into the trunk with silver backed tape.
Check to make sure that the dryer flexible vent line is not crushed, which will reduce
airflow and increase drying time.
Ensure ventilation registers can open fully and are not obstructed or damaged.
Check & replace furnace filters annually.
Clean or replace the air filter
Install aerators on bathroom sinks.
Install dual flow aerators on kitchen sinks.
Install low-flow showerheads.
Insulate hot water pipe.
4
Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
$1
$4
$12
$17
$20
EPA. “Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, Appendix B-Introduction to Molds”. Webpage.
Accessed 11/2011. http://www.epa.gov/mold/append_b.html
vi
Install a water heater insulation wrap.
Upgrade incandescent bulbs to CFL.
Shade the AC condenser.
Perform seasonal maintenance on the AC unit to keep it tuned and correctly charged.
Effective landscape shading to reduce solar heat gains in summer but not winter
Shade exterior windows.
Roof shading from landscape
Furnace tune-up & safety inspection
Shield the home from wind
$23
$29
$40
$100
$100
$100
$100
$135
$150
Table 3 shows the typical cost effective conservation measures. These vary depending on climate zone, house
vintage and other factors; refer to Section 4.1.4 for detailed lists of cost effective measures for each climate zone.
Table 3: Typical cost-effective energy and water conservation measures
Utility
Simple
Monthly Home Cost
Savings
Payback
Savings $/mo
Name
$/yr
Costs
years
(Svgs - Financed Cost)
A/C Tune
EnergyStar Refrigerator (40 yrs old)
Seal Duct Leaks
Summer Landscape Shading
Blinds/Shades
CFLs
Wind Shielding
Exterior Window Shading
Low-Flow Showerhead
Dual Flow Kitchen Sink
EnergyStar Refrigerator (30 yrs old)
A/C Filter
Dryer Vent
DHW Pipe Insulation
Roof Shading
Shade A/C Condenser
Water Heater Wrap
High Efficiency Toilet
Furnace Filter
Open Registers
$179
$209
$134
$99
$62
$62
$66
$59
$45
$25
$101
$20
$17
$16
$25
$12
$9
$30
$1.7
$0
$100
$630
$245
$100
$0
$29
$150
$100
$17
$12
$630
$1
$0
$20
$100
$40
$23
$222
$1
$0
0.6
3.0
1.8
1.0
0.0
0.5
2.3
1.7
0.4
0.5
6.2
0.1
0.0
1.3
3.9
3.4
2.5
7.3
0.5
0.0
$14
$11
$9
$7
$5
$5
$4
$4
$4
$2
$2
$2
$1
$1
$1
$1
$1
$0
$0
$0
Replacement of Existing Manufactured Homes with EnergyStar Homes
There is significant discussion in the manufactured home community regarding when it no longer makes sense to
undertake efforts to reduce the energy and water use and/or weatherize a house (also known as “walking away” from
weatherization because a house is in such poor condition that it does not merit further costs to attempt to improve it),
and when it is more cost effective to replace a home with a new EnergyStar home. These are two important and
related questions this white paper addresses.
The first question is, when does it make sense to “walk away” from weatherization and other energy and water
conservation measures? There are generally no strict “Walk Away” criteria required by the DOE or state
weatherization assistance programs, aside from income and ownership issues not related to the technical condition
of homes. There are exclusions that limit weatherization activities where there are significant safety concerns (e.g.,
presence of asbestos), or require necessary structural repairs be made, but these do not preclude weatherization as
long as the weatherization activities are cost effective (e.g., 5, 6, 7, and 8). Manufactured home stock data (e.g., Figure 12
5
Washington State Department of Commerce. “Weatherization Manual for Managing Low-Income Weatherization
Program.” 2010 Revision.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTEDPublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemI
D=6512&MId=870&wversion=Staging
vii
through Figure 17) shows that there are many more manufactured homes, including many older ones that are likely
very inefficient, than there are funds to replace these with new units. Therefore, it generally does not make sense to
simply walk away from cost effective weatherization efforts and do nothing simply because these are “too
inefficient to start with,” as these homes will likely continue to be used.
Since it generally does not make sense to simply walk away from cost effective weatherization, the next question is,
when is it cost effective to replace an older manufactured home with a newer EnergyStar rated unit? A review of
available literature did not find significant data on this topic, although some analysis has been done for the
EnergyStar Manufactured Home program9, which found that replacing an older home with a newer EnergyStar
manufacture home does not pay back from energy savings alone. While this is generally true, there is significant
variation in manufactured home energy costs depending on age, condition, climate zone and heating fuel type (refer
to Figure 22 through Figure 27). This paper conducted a detailed analysis to determine the specific set of conditions
where it is most cost effective upgrade to an EnergyStar home. Note that this analysis is intended to identify,
holding all things equal, where the most cost effective opportunities for EnergyStar home replacements lie. There
are many factors that can influence these results: occupants responding to high energy bills by reducing heating
or using alternative heating sources; access to affordable financing, etc. These results should not be used as the
final basis for justifying an EnergyStar Home replacement, but as a starting point for focusing programmatic
efforts.
The costs and savings for replacing each of the manufactured home prototypical models described in Table 6
(models for each climate zone, heating fuel, vintage and condition) with a new EnergyStar manufactured home was
analyzed. The analysis assumes that each home is replaced by an equivalent sized EnergyStar rated manufactured
home of ~900 ft2 using the same heating fuel (i.e., assuming no heating fuel switch). Typical replacement costs of
$33,732 are assumed (based on a review of the literature with $35.73/ ft2 costs for a typical new manufactured home
plus a $1.75/ ft2 adder for the EnergyStar features totaling $37.48/ft2). A 30 year analysis period with a 4% mortgage
rate is assumed10, resulting in a monthly mortgage payment of $160.51. Utility cost savings, the net change in
monthly housing costs (mortgage costs minus utility savings), and simple payback period were calculated for each
scenario. Detailed analysis assumptions and results are shown in Table 21 in the Appendix.
The results show that while EnergyStar home upgrades do not make financial sense based on energy savings
alone for most situations, there are a number of key scenarios where EnergyStar replacement homes are
potentially cost effective from energy savings. For the following three situations, the payback from energy savings
is under 20 years and the utility savings are greater than the new mortgage payment. In other words, total monthly
housing costs go down.
1. Older pre-HUD Code or early HUD code homes in the “poor” condition (e.g., leaky, poorly insulated, older
low-efficiency HVAC equipment, etc.) in Zones 2 and 3 using expensive heating fuels (electricity, propane
or fuel oil),
6
Maine State Housing Authority, “Maine Weatherization Standards.” 2005.
http://www.waptac.org/data/files/technical_tools/mainefieldstandards.pdf
7
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, “Program Operations Manual”.
http://dhcd.maryland.gov/website/programs/wap/ops_manual.aspx
8
Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center. “Field Standards and Guides.” Webpage,
accessed 11/20100. http://www.waptac.org/Technical-Tools/Field-Standards-and-Guides.aspx
9
These studies were not published or released publically, and could not be obtained for this project.
10
It should be noted that there is wide variability in financing rates. Some states treat manufactured homes as real
property, while others treat them as chattel. Fannie Mae only finances manufactured homes that are titled as real
property on permanent foundations. Mortgage rates for real property do not apply to chattel; chattel financing runs
about 250 basis points above conventional mortgage rates. Mortgage rates vary considerably depending on the
borrower’s credit rating, and whether the borrow qualifies for any of the lower interest financing programs
discussed in Section 1. Affordable housing programs also have access to lower than market interest rates and other
funding which can effectively buy down the rate. We believe the mortgage rate used here is representative of what
can be expected for a programmatic approach to ENERGYSTAR manufactured home replacements in the
affordable housing context, but this is clearly variable and dependent upon many factors. The reader should
exercise care when using these numbers. A more detailed financial analysis would be required for any specific
program.
viii
2.
3.
Older electrically heated homes in zone 1 in “poor” condition, and
Older pre-HUD Code homes in zone 3 heated with propane or fuel oil in “design” condition (e.g. homes
that are in good, original condition but have not been weatherized).
Furthermore, there are additional conditions where upgrading to a new EnergyStar manufactured home pays
back over a 30 year house lifetime, but where monthly housing costs go up (i.e., utility savings do not outweigh
mortgage costs, and monthly homeowner costs will increase). These also are generally homes in poor condition
with expensive heating fuels. Refer to Table 13 for details.
These results are significant because they show a large, well-defined class of homes where it is cost effective to
replace older homes with newer EnergyStar homes. There are opportunities for manufactured homes and
affordable housing stakeholders to explore programmatic approaches to making these change-outs happen, such
as the development of special financing mechanisms, revolving loan funds, approaches similar to Next Step (see
case study below), and so on. Further investigation of the savings potential is also required in order to identify how
significant occupant behavior will affect these results (e.g., how likely low income residents are likely to turn down
or off heating and air-conditioning rather than pay large utility bills).
It should be noted that one of the barriers to EnergyStar manufactured home replacements is the fact that
many, and possibly most owners of older manufactured homes do not have mortgages. The decision to buy a
new EnergyStar manufactured home engenders taking on debt, which can be a tough sell for many low
income homeowners who see their home as a significant source of security. Taking on debt would affect this
security, which creates a resistance to upgrade in spite of overall reduced monthly costs and other quality of
live improvements associated with home replacement.
CASE-STUDY:
Next Step EnergyStar Replacement Manufactured Home Program
Next Step is a nonprofit organization with a mission to build a national distribution system to deliver high
quality, energy efficient factory homes at scale. It is working to replace ~2 million inefficient pre-1976,
pre-HUD Code mobile homes in the US with energy-efficient manufactured homes by 2030, and to find
homeowners responsible financing on fair terms.
Next Step is developing the “Next Step Network” of certified and trained nonprofits to market affordable
green manufactured homes, find and prepare homebuyers, sell the homes, and then order these homes from
approved manufacturing facilities. Next Step has a strategic alliance with Clayton Homes to design and
produce high quality EnergyStar factory built homes that meet specific requirements, and has plans to
aggregate home orders to generate volume discounts and provide homes at wholesale prices to its
members. It also monitors ordering, assists members in preparing for delivery, and coordinates home
warranty issues. Next Step provides an important model for implementing manufactured housing retrofits
and upgrades.
Community Level Sustainability Opportunities
The single largest contribution a community organization can make to its constituents is to provide information
about sustainability efforts that help residents save utility costs and lead healthier lives. Searching for and taking
advantage of incentives and financing programs can be complex, and although energy and water savings can begin
with straightforward strategies, it can be difficult to determine which strategies are the most useful under a specific
ix
set of circumstances. By encouraging and informing residents about these issues, community organizations play a
critical role in helping residents maintain an efficient, affordable, and healthy home.
Second to education is the scale on which community actions take place; individual actions multiplied dozens or
hundreds of times can have enormous impact, and community groups themselves also have an interest in
maintaining their own infrastructure in the most efficient, affordable, and healthy ways possible. Conversely,
community inaction can lead to years of lost utility savings, environmental and infrastructure degradation, or
unrealized/unmitigated health risks. There are many opportunities to improve sustainability at the community-level
that are not available or not as effective at the individual household level. This section summarizes key sustainability
opportunities at the community level. These opportunities are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.
Homeowner Sustainability Education
Many of the sustainability and efficiency measures outlined throughout this report are well suited to direct
homeowner action, and require little or no costs to implement. There are a number of significant opportunities for
homeowner education that can provide them with the necessary guidance to make these changes on their own. These
include opportunities for education in moisture and mold prevention and mitigation, indoor environmental quality,
energy and water conservation, landscaping, as well as financing and funding opportunities. Homeowner education
is discussed in more detail in Section 5.
Water
Significant opportunities to reduce water use and stormwater runoff can be approached at the community level, and
can substantially reduce the overall environmental footprint of any manufactured home community. Additionally,
sustainability issues related to water take on special significance for rural manufactured home communities that are
not served by a public water supply, but provide and treat their own water. These communities have a particular
need to ensure that they are using water efficiently, minimizing infrastructure costs and maintenance, and
maintaining a safe, cost-effective water supply.
Most communities and facilities never examine their historical water consumption. “Creeping” water consumption
trends often go unnoticed, and even large increases or spikes in water use often go unnoticed or only noticed after
long periods of time. The community’s water consumption should be analyzed to identify changes in consumption
patterns, anomalies that may be indicative of problems, and to benchmark performance. At a minimum,
communities should calculate their total water use per home and compare this to consumption in previous months
and years. Significant changes can be identified and addressed. This data can also be shared through monthly
newsletters or similar methods to educate residents and track water efficiency efforts.
Similarly, communities should ensure that proper water pressure is being maintained throughout the site and in
homes. A simple $15 pressure gauge from a building supply store can be used to measure water pressure on hose
bibs, faucets, and irrigation lines. Water pressure should be approximately 50 PSI. Higher pressures can significantly
increase water use, increase water lost through leaks, and lead to excessive wear on pipes, burst pipes, and damaged
irrigation equipment. Significant daily pressure variations are quite typical and municipal water supply pressures can
vary dramatically. One property measured water pressure variation from roughly 60 PSI during the day to over 120
PSI at night. This high pressure led to burst pipes (particularly PVC irrigation pipes, damaged irrigation equipment,
and other problems. Therefore, it is important to measure the pressure throughout the day and night (most pressure
gauges can simply be left on overnight and have an indicator that reads maximum pressure recorded). Reducing
water pressure from 60 to 50 psi, for example, could lower the total water consumption of a property by 5 to 10%.
Properties typically have pressure regulating valves that can be adjusted to the desired pressure. If they have stopped
working and are no longer able to regulate pressure, or there are no pressure regulating valves, new valves should be
installed. Costs are around $500 to $700 for a 3-inch pressure reducing valve.
Water utilities often have a variety of incentives related to improving water efficiency. These include toilet swaps,
efficient showerhead giveaways, water audits, leak detector kits, incentives for smart irrigation controllers, and other
measures. The community should work with their local water utility to identify all relevant incentives and
opportunities, and promote these within the community. It may even be possible to arrange special events, such as a
community-wide toilet replacement, or community-wide showerhead exchange program. Utilities are often very
supportive of community efforts to conserve water and will often work together to leverage existing programs or
develop custom programs at the community level.
x
Irrigation Water Use
The first and most important opportunity related to water is to ensure water is being used efficiently. Site irrigation
(i.e., watering of medians, open-space, parks and other community landscaping) is typically the largest source of
water consumption controlled at the community level. Potential water savings can be quite large, depending on the
amount of irrigated area and current practices. There is large variation in the square footage of irrigated land in
manufactured home communities, so it is difficult to generalize regarding total irrigation water use. Some
communities have minimal or no irrigated yards or common areas (e.g., the community used in the case study in
Figure 19) and will have nearly zero irrigation water use. However, some communities may have landscaping and
yards similar in area to typical single-family site-built neighborhoods, where landscape irrigation can account for
50% to 70% of total community water use. Refer to Section 5 for recommended strategies to reduce irrigation water
use, including installation of irrigation submeters and routine inspections for leaks.
Resident Water Use
Resident water consumption is typically the largest single source of water consumption in a manufactured home
community, but is not directly controlled at the community level. However, there are a number of actions that can be
taken at the community level to help reduce resident water consumption and promote water efficiency. Communities
can educate residents about water efficiency and promote efficiency through newsletters, community meetings and
special events. They can also purchase water conservation equipment (e.g., faucet aerators) to give away or water
auditing tools to loan to residents. A water auditing program could also be developed at the community level to
determine the most effective water conservation measures specific to a given manufactured home community.
Submetering of resident water use can also result in savings of 18 – 39%11. More information regarding reductions
in resident water use can be found in Section 5.
Aside from the quantity of water used by manufactured home communities, the quality of the water is also an
important factor in overall environmental quality. For communities that have their own wells, it is important to
protect the water source from contamination and other water quality problems. Water quality is also largely
dependent on regional water quality issues that are often outside of the community’s control. It is easy for a well
field to be contaminated through septic system malfunctions, illegal dumping, and poor land use. This can be very
costly for a community, and could require additional water treatment, well relocation, or in some cases loss of water
supply. A few key issues that should be considered include:
 Test water to ensure that contaminants are below EPA limits.
 Evaluate whether water treatment is required.
 Ensure septic systems are not leaking or misplaced.
 Manage Stormwater to prevent well contamination.
 Watch for illegal dumping of oil and other wastes.
 Monitor off-property sources of damage/contamination
Wastewater Management
Managing wastewater is particularly important for communities which have their own wastewater systems (e.g.,
septic systems). Increasing water efficiency (e.g., efficient toilets and plumbing fixtures) will significantly reduce
wastewater generation. This can reduce wastewater treatment costs and prolong system operation. Specific measures
related to reducing wastewater generation are outlined in Section 5 and include ensuring proper operation of
wastewater systems, reusing “gray water” for irrigation or other purposes, and alternative wastewater treatment
systems.
Stormwater Management
Management of stormwater requires that best practices be undertaken for both stormwater infrastructure and road
infrastructure. Stormwater infrastructure and road infrastructure are closely related at the community level: streets
and other paving are significant sources of runoff generation, and curbs and gutters are central to stormwater
management infrastructure. This report groups stormwater and road infrastructure practices together. A set of best
management practices for roads/stormwater is referred to as “low impact development”, which uses alternate
construction methods to manage stormwater and promote on-site infiltration rather than runoff. This reduces the size
and cost of the required stormwater infrastructure, reduces stormwater generation and flows, and improves pollution
11
Base on a study conducted by the National Multi-Housing Council and the National Apartment Association,
http://www.guardianwp.com/pages/benefits/benefits.aspx
xi
removal.
Reducing street widths can significantly reduce the amount of material required, reduce runoff, and lower long term
maintenance costs. Likewise, minimizing other impervious areas such as parking lots and hardscape (or replacing
impervious materials with permeable pavers, permeable concrete, or permeable asphalt) can reduce runoff. These
measures need to be coordinated with local fire marshals to ensure appropriate fire truck access, as well as
consideration of other local code requirements. In many cases, local jurisdictions are amenable to working with
communities on these issues and issuing variances where needed. Other measures to infiltrate water into the ground,
such as swales, rain gardens and other bioretention systems, and dry wells, may also be appropriate.
Energy
Similar to water, community electricity consumption should be tracked and monitored to identify changing
consumption patterns and spot increases and problems in a timely manner. Many utilities are now providing online
utility bill tracking and analysis that can be utilized. Otherwise, a simple spreadsheet can be used to track electricity
use. Data should be graphed and compared to the previous month’s consumption, and comparisons of year-over-year
energy use should also be determined. Electricity use can be calculated on a per home basis to aid in interpretation.
For communities where residences do not have individually metered or submetered electricity, electricity submeters
should be installed. This will benefit both the community and residents. It provides a means for residents to lower
total household costs by making them aware of their electricity use and enabling them to save money by being more
efficient, rather than penalizing them for inefficient use by others. There are a number of companies that provide
submetering for manufactured home communities 12 that can assist with meter infrastructure and installation, billing
setup, and legal issues. Make sure to consult local and state regulations governing utility submetering.
Energy utilities often have a variety of incentives to encourage energy efficiency. These include lamp giveaways,
programmable thermostats, incentives for upgrading to more efficient furnaces, swamp coolers, increasing
insulation, energy audits, and many other measures. Incentives change regularly and vary from utility to utility.
Available incentives can be identified and communicated to the community through monthly newsletters, fliers,
bulletin boards, etc. Utilities are often very supportive of community efforts to conserve energy and will often work
together to leverage existing programs or develop custom programs at the community level.
Community-Scale Weatherization Efforts
Weatherization is typically done on a home-by-home basis. However, there are opportunities to increase costeffectiveness by targeting weatherization activities on a community level. A community could explore opportunities
to reduce the costs of energy audits, weatherization, and related activities by pursuing these efforts at the community
level rather than at the household level. Scaling these activities up to the community level may allow service
providers to reduce the cost of these activities for each household.
Landscaping Strategies to Reduce Heating and Cooling Costs
Site landscaping can be used to block or reduce prevailing winds that increase energy use. This reduces the air
infiltration in the homes throughout the community. Typically, it is desirable to block cold winter winds, while not
blocking summer winds that can reduce air conditioning use or facilitate natural ventilation. Careful site and wind
analysis should guide community tree planting and landscaping.
Landscaping can also provide effective shading to reduce solar heat gain in summer and reduce local air
temperatures (typically by 3-5 degrees F) as a result of cooling due to evapotranspiration. Well-designed
landscaping can achieve these goals while at the same time allowing for solar heat gain during the winter. Selecting
deciduous trees and providing thoughtful tree/landscape placement can minimize winter shading. Studies have
shown that effective use of community tree plantings can reduce summer air-conditioning energy use by up to 25%.
Furthermore, property with many mature trees typically increases desirability and aesthetic value.
Efficient Site Lighting
Communities should ensure that energy use related to site lighting is minimized without sacrificing security
concerns of residents. Specifically, the following actions should be taken:
12
One example is the National Exemption Service, https://www.submeter.com/main/home.sfx
xii





Replace older mercury vapor lamps
Replace Incandescent lamps
Install LED street lighting
Reduce Light Levels and Light Pollution
Install Photo-sensors, Astronomical Timers, and Motions Sensors on Site Lighting
Homeowner Education and Energy Auditing Support
The community can support homeowner education initiatives in a variety of ways. This can include reminders in
monthly newsletters to set back thermostats, install storm windows, and take other energy saving actions, providing
homeowners with detailed energy auditing and conservation guides 13, and supporting residents who conduct inhome energy audits. Community organizations may wish to encourage in-home energy audits by purchasing a set of
tools that can be loaned to homeowners, such as a “Kill-a-Watt” meter to measure electricity plug loads 14, mirrors to
inspect ducts for damage, and so on. Community organizations might also consider providing common low-cost
materials or coordinating the availability of such materials for common energy-related repairs and upgrades, such as
water heater wraps, foil-backed tape for taping leaky ducts, etc.
Solid Waste
The most significant step a community can take to improve solid waste management is to provide appropriate
recycling and waste collection services. Specifically, a community should ensure that appropriate recycling services
are available, educate residents about proper hazardous waste disposal, and coordinate opportunities to collect
hazardous waste. This can include working with local waste agencies to host hazardous waste collection roundups
for the community, providing hazardous waste collection bins for batteries, light bulbs, electronics, used motor oil,
and other hazardous waste.
Policy Opportunities
The primary intention of this paper is to lay the groundwork for the manufactured home community to develop
effective policy and programs targeting improved sustainability in manufactured homes and communities. This
paper does not attempt to define specific policies and programs. However, a few specific policy opportunities that
were identified through the development of this paper are outlined below.







Communicate the sustainability benefits of manufactured homes and communities,
Define “Walk-Away” conditions,
Target EnergyStar replacement home replacement programs,
Develop community-level sustainability programs,
Aggregate disparate rebates, incentives and related initiatives into cohesive programs that communities and
homeowners can participate in,
Lobbying support for manufactured homeowners and communities, and
Maximize use of existing financial resources.
Refer to section 5 for additional information on these policy opportunities.
13
e.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by
Saving Energy,Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile)
homes”. August 2005. http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_CON-501.pdf
14
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS322&q=kill-awatt&gs_upl=142l550l0l1051l4l3l0l0l0l0l337l500l0.1.0.1l2l0&um=1&ie=UTF8&tbm=shop&cid=5525303247386121198&sa=X&ei=8qPrToWaEsaviQKkibXXBA&ved=0CGQQ8wIwAQ
xiii
1. Introduction and Background
Manufactured homes provide an important housing option for nearly 7 million American families. This represents
approximately 6% of the total U.S. housing stock. While it is often overlooked, it comprises largest source of
unsubsidized affordable housing in the U.S. because it is inexpensive to build and easy to deploy. Thus it provides a
route to home ownership and equity building for people who might not otherwise have access.
From a sustainability perspective, manufactured homes can have a number of advantages. They are manufactured in
tightly controlled factory environments, enabling more efficient use of building materials and the generation of less
construction waste. EnergyStar qualified homes, in particular, must meet high standards for manufacturing plant
quality control, home design, and HVAC performance. House size is generally smaller too, which has numerous
ripple effects including reduced building material use, reduced energy use and denser land use. “Resident owned
communities” (manufactured home parks which have been purchased by and managed by the residents) can provide
additional benefits and opportunities for increased efficiency and sustainability at the community level.
Click here to return to Key Points.
There are, of course, challenges facing manufactured homes and communities. A high percentage of existing mobile
homes are not EnergyStar homes. In fact, there are approximately 2.2 million homes that were built before any
federal regulation, and were therefore not built to any standard regarding energy performance or efficiency. Many of
these homes are in poor condition, with inefficient HVAC systems, moisture intrusion, minimal insulation, and other
thermal and air quality issues. High utility costs are often the result, particularly in more extreme climates.
Financing to fund upgrades is scarce. Many older manufactured communities have aging infrastructure.
Manufactured homes and communities are often viewed negatively by both the surrounding community and by
public agencies, which may make retrofit funding more difficult to obtain.
The performance of individual mobile home units varies greatly depending on several factors, including:
 The type of manufactured home
 Size
 Age
 Climate where the unit is located
 Heating fuel type
Each of these attributes plays a role in how much energy is needed for heating and cooling, how much that energy
will cost, and which types of retrofits will be most cost-effective. While much information exists on the “average”
performance of manufactured homes and potential improvement measures, it is the housing that performs below this
average that provides the greatest opportunity for improvement and deserves the greatest attention, especially given
limited funding sources for retrofit or replacement. Determining the housing that requires the most attention helps
identify specific programs and strategies appropriate to particular housing types, locations and fuel sources.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the sustainability benefits of manufactured homes and manufactured home
communities, identify opportunities to improve sustainability and reduce utility costs, and to provide clear and
targeted recommendations that appropriately address on-the-ground conditions to guide residents, policy makers,
funders and non-profits in making smart decisions for their communities. This paper identifies when it is appropriate
to retrofit or replace a manufactured home, and describes how take advantage of community resources when
approaching the challenges and opportunities surrounding affordable sustainability.
This paper has been prepared for ROC USA and funded by Enterprise Green Communities. It is hoped that the
analysis will also benefit the wider manufactured home community. ROC USA (www.rocusa.org) is a non-profit
organization with a mission to make quality, resident-ownership of manufactured home communities viable
nationwide. ROC USA helps residents buy their manufactured home communities or “mobile home parks” from
private community owners. Enterprise Green Communities (www.greencommunitiesonline.org) provides funds and
expertise to enable developers to build and rehabilitate homes that are healthier, more energy efficient and better for
the environment -- without compromising affordability. Green Communities also assists state and local governments
to ensure their housing and economic development policies are smart and sustainable.
1
1.1 History of Standards and Regulations
Mobile homes became popular in the 1930’s and 1940’s as a form of recreational housing, housing for families with
mobile lifestyles or work, and for temporary housing. Housing shortages after World War II increased the use of
mobile homes for permanent housing. Although there were some voluntary standards, mobile homes were weakly
regulated until the 1976 adoption of the “HUD Code.”
Early mobile home standards date to the 1940 adoption of the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)’s “Standards
for Fire Prevention and Fire Protection in Trailer Coaches and Trailer Courts.” This standard was modified in 1952
and split into two parts in 1960 (one part for trailer coaches and one for trailer courts). Subsequent revisions
occurred in 1961, 1963, and 1964. In the early 1960’s, the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association and the Trailer
Coach Association prepared the “American Standard Installations of Plumbing, Heating and Electrical System in
Mobile Homes (A119.3-1963). Efforts to consolidate these two standards started in the early 1960’s, and resulted in
the creation of the combined “Standard for Mobile Homes,” which was approved by the United States of America
Standards Institute in 1969. Several updates occurred in 1971 and 1972, and in 1973, the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted the Standard for Mobile Homes as ANSI Standard A119.1. This includes
requirements for body and frame design and construction, and installation of plumbing, heating and electrical
systems.
Federal regulation of manufactured home construction began in 1974 with passage of the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. This led to the development and implementation of the Federal
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards in 1976, commonly known as the “HUD Code 15”, regulated
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is a federal building code for manufactured homes and
preempts state law and building standards. These standards were amended in 1994 to include more stringent thermal
performance requirements, an updated climate zone map, and other factors. The current code is not as stringent as
some state’s site-built energy codes, including California’s Title 24 Building Energy Code, Washington State’s
Energy Code, the Oregon Energy Code, and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In 2008, Congress
requested the DOE to update the standards, with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) due in 2011. There are
proposals to improve energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and durability 16.
The HUD Code regulates design, construction, strength, durability, transportability, fire resistance, energy
efficiency, and quality control of manufactured homes. It also sets performance standards for heating, plumbing, airconditioning, thermal, and electrical systems. No manufactured home section can be shipped from the factory unless
it complies with the HUD Code and receives a certification label (HUD Tag)17 from an independent 3rd party
inspector. HUD also has regulations on the minimum installation standards and dispute resolution process that states
can expand upon18.
The HUD Code has specific requirements pertaining to energy in Subpart F (Thermal Protection),
Sections 3280.501 –3280.51119. This subpart sets requirements for condensation control 20, air infiltration21, thermal
insulation22 and certification for heating and comfort cooling. Maximum heat loss/gain is regulated by an overall
coefficient of heat transmission Uo between the home interior and ambient, which varies by climate zone as shown
in Figure 5. Note that the climate zone map was updated during the 1994 code revisions. Heating equipment must be
15
Title 24--Housing And Urban Development, Chapter XX--Office Of Assistant Secretary For Housing--Federal
Housing Commissioner, Department Of Housing And Urban Development, Part 3280--Manufactured Home
Construction And Safety Standards. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/24cfr3280_10.html
16
Lubliner, M., and Kunkle, R. “Mobile Home Retrofit Lost Opportunity.” Presentation to the 2011 ACI Annual
Conference. http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
17
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/mhs/mhslabels
18
Next Step, “Preparing To Do Business with Manufactured Housing: Overview of the Regulatory Environment”,
September 30, 2011, http://www.nextstepus.org/docs/Federal%20Overview.pdf.
19
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/24cfr3280_10.html
20
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/24cfr3280.504.pdf
21
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/24cfr3280.505.pdf
22
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/24cfr3280.506.pdf
2
able to maintain an interior temperature of 70 degrees F at a specified outdoor air temperature. Section 3285.503 23
requires site installed air-conditioners to be sized according to the 1997 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamental or
ACCA Manual J.
Figure 5: Current HUD zone map for manufactured homes 24
The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 200025 requires each state to have an installation program and
dispute resolution program. States can either use programs established by HUD or develop their own programs
which exceed HUD standards26. The installation program regulations require all state programs to train and license
installers working in each state, and to administer an installation inspection program meeting the federal
requirements. In states not choosing to administer their own manufactured home installation program, HUD will
ensure that manufactured home installers are trained and licensed, and will administer an inspection program. In
these states HUD has the authority to enforce all of the regulations outlined in 24 CFR Part 3286.
Federal law allows states to regulate sales, zoning, installation and dispute resolution. As discussed above, The
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 200027 requires each state to either regulate manufacture home
installation or follow HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 3286. States also regulate transportation of manufactured
homes, which impacts maximum lengths and widths.
Local regulations govern land use, zoning, and related issues. In many cases, local regulations are prejudicial against
manufactured homes and may be written to limit the placement of manufactured homes. These limitations may
include minimum house square-footage (which may preclude single-wide homes), minimum lot size (in many cases
lots in manufactured home parks do not meet current minimum lot size requirements, making replacement of a
mobile home difficult or impossible), more inspections and permitting fees than required for site-built homes, and so
on. Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies notes that concerns regarding adverse impacts of
manufactured homes and other affordable housing on neighboring properties may be over-stated28, and points to
23
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/24cfr3285.503.htm
This zone map is for the current HUD code effective in 1994, and is different from the original 1976 HUD Code
zone map. Maximum heat loss factures, U-values, are shown in BTU/hr-sqft-F)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/pdf/24cfr3280.506.pdf
25
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_19559.pdf
26
Manufactured Home Installation Program Regulations, 24 CFR, part 3286,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/24cfr3286_10.html
27
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_19559.pdf
28
Vermeer, K., and Louie, J. “The Future of Manufactured Housing.” January 1997: Joint Center for Housing
Studies, Harvard University. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/R971_vermeer_louie_Futmanhousing.pdf, page 7.
24
3
studies which have shown no impact on sales prices of neighboring properties 29, 30. Prejudicial and unbalanced local
regulations have significant impacts on manufactured home owners and communities. There is a need to further
document and publicize the fact that many of the adverse impacts that are often associated with manufactured homes
are not true, and to promote the benefits of manufactured homes, including its sustainability benefits.
1.2 EnergyStar Manufactured Homes
In December 1997, the EnergyStar program, jointly managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), expanded its EnergyStar Qualified Homes program to include manufactured
homes, and registration of EnergyStar qualified manufactured homes began in 2000. Since then, 42,425 homes are
reported to meet ENERGYSTAR standards (as of the second quarter of 2011). Over 4,200 homes were reported in
2010, and over 4,600 homes were reported in 2009.31 Some requirements include: maximum duct loss, minimum
heating/cooling/hot water equipment efficiency, maximum U0-value, maximum solar heat gain coefficient, and
limits on whole house leakage.32 The energy cost savings for EnergyStar rated homes are shown in Figure 6. Key
EnergyStar Program links are summarized below.





“Getting Started with ENERGYSTAR Qualified Manufactured Homes”,
o http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bldrs_lenders_raters.pt_builder_manufactured
"ENERGYSTAR Qualified Manufactured Homes: Design, Manufacturing, Installation, and
Certification Procedures",
o http://www.research-alliance.org/media/energystar/plant%20guide%20edition%204.pdf
Guide for retailers
o http://www.research-alliance.org/pages/ENERGY_STAR_Guide_for_Retailers.pdf
Cooling equipment sizing guidelines
o http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloads/SizingGuidelines.
pdf
List of ENERGYSTAR qualified plants
o http://www.research-alliance.org/pages/es_plant_list.htm
29
Nutt-Powell, T., Hoaglin, H., and Layzer, J. “Residential Property Value and Mobile/Manufactured Homes: A
Case Study of Belmont, New Hampshire,” Working Paper 86-1. 1986: Joint Center for Housing Studies of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University
30
Warner. K., and Scheuer, J. “Manufactured Housing Impacts on Adjacent Property Values,” Manufactured
Housing Research Project, Report 4. 1993: University of Michigan.
31
Correspondence between Brian Ng, EnergyStar Residential Branch, and Joyce Lin, CTG Energetics 1 August
2011.
32
"ENERGYSTAR Qualified Manufactured Homes: Design, Manufacturing, Installation, and Certification
Procedures", http://www.research-alliance.org/media/energystar/plant%20guide%20edition%204.pdf
4
ENERGY STAR Home
$4,000
Annaul Energy Cost ($)
$3,500
Non-ENERGY STAR Home
Annual Savings: $471
Monthly Savings: $39
Annual Savings: $729
Monthly Savings: $61
Annual Savings: $799
Monthly Savings: $67
Kansas City, MO
Lubbock, TX
Binghamton, NY
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Figure 6: Energy cost savings for ENERGYSTAR qualified manufactured home33
1.3 Fire Risk
There is a popular misconception that manufactured homes present a greater fire hazard than site-built homes. A
recent report34 and testimony by the National Fire Protection Agency shows that manufactured homes present no
greater fire hazard than site-built homes, and that manufactured homes are built to more stringent fire safety
standards than site-built homes. Life safety is a fundamental element of sustainability, and this report addresses
important safety/sustainability concerns of manufactured homes.
1.4 Titling
Manufactured homes have traditionally been titled as personal property (i.e., chattels), rather than real property. This
impacts access to financing (e.g., Fannie Mae only underwrites manufactured home loans that are titled as real
property and installed on a permanent foundation). It can also make selling or moving a manufactured home
challenging. There is some movement in states to allow titling of manufactured homes as real property. Titling
requirements vary from state to state, and can be complex for lenders, home sellers and home buyers alike. Sallie
Mae works with lenders to help understand the unique manufactured home titling requirements and issues, and
maintains a list of statewide titling issues35. There are opportunities to work with states that title manufactured
homes as personal property to move towards titling these homes as real property.
1.5 History of Weatherization Efforts
Weatherization is commonly considered to include low-cost energy efficiency improvements such as adding weather
stripping to doors and windows to save energy. However, as defined by the Weatherization Assistance Program,
weatherization encompasses a more comprehensive series of energy efficiency measures that are based on
sophisticated analyses of individual homes. These analyses take a whole-house approach, which maximizes energy
and dollar savings. In recent years, weatherization providers in many states have begun to combine resources from
other programs to address other needs of low income homeowners.
33
Systems Building Research Alliance. ENERGYSTAR for Retailers and Installers. 1 August 2011
<http://www.research-alliance.org/pages/es_retail.htm>.
34
National Fire Protection Association “Manufacture Home Fires.” July 2011.
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/webdocs/NFPA%20Report%20on%20Fires%20In%20Manufactured%20H
omes,-Hall%202011.pdf
35
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/relatedsellinginfo/manufachousing/titlingmanufhsing.jsp
5
1.5.1 Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was created under Title IV of the Energy Conservation and
Production Act of 1976. The program was intended to save imported oil and cut heating bills for low-income
households in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis36. The WAP provides technical assistance and formula grants to state
and local weatherization agencies throughout the country. A network of approximately 970 local agencies provide
trained crews to perform weatherization services for eligible low-income households in single-family homes,
multifamily dwellings, and mobile homes. Weatherized homes receive a comprehensive energy audit and
computerized analysis of a home’s energy use and relevant energy conservation measures. Once the most effective
energy efficiency measures are determined, these measures are then implemented.37 Approximately 100,000 homes
are weatherized each year. The focus of these programs has been on weatherizing single family homes, and nearly
65% of eligible single family homes have been weatherized. In contrast, only 20% of eligible manufactured homes
have been weatherized (see Figure 7).
Key links to weatherization-related programs are provided below:
 WAP homepage, with links to program details
o www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap.html
 Strategy report by Millennium Weatherization Committee (1999)
o http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/weatherization_plus.pdf
 Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center (WAPTAC)
o http://www.waptac.org/Technical-Tools/Energy-Audits.aspx
 Weatherization Plus
o http://www.waptac.org/WAP-Basics/Weatherization-Plus.aspx
 Weatherization Assistance Grants
o http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/gpra_fy06_appendix_k.pdf
% of Weatherized Households
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Single Family
Mobile Home
Multi Family
Figure 7: Percentage of weatherized households by building type
36
37
“History of the Weatherization Assistance Program”, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap_history.html.
Weatherization Assistance Grants, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/gpra_fy06_appendix_k.pdf
6
1.5.2 Weatherization Research
Extensive research in the late 1980s and early 1990s38, 39 led the way to more effective weatherization approaches
specific to manufactured homes. Blower-door-directed air sealing and duct repair, furnace tune-ups, interior storm
windows, belly insulation and roof insulation were identified as the most cost effective retrofit measures for preHUD code homes (pre-1976), with cost effective energy savings of up to 33% possible.
Much research has been conducted since then, and the Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance
Center (WAPTAC) has links40 to many of the best practices41, weatherization field guides42, tools, training, and
related weatherization data targeting weatherization practitioners. Research into further improvements in new and
existing manufactured homes continues to undertaken by the U.S. DOE Building America Industrialized Housing
Partnership (BAIHP)43, the Systems Building Research Alliance44, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing (PATH)45, the Bonneville Power Authority46,
Washington State University Cooperative Extension Program47, 48, the Florida Solar Energy Center 49, and others.
One resource that is particularly helpful is the document “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy,
Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes.”50 This
document provides an excellent resource for homeowners and manufactured home communities and contains
detailed descriptions and information on a comprehensive range of energy efficiency upgrades.
It should also be noted that the quality of home installation, including proper grading, foundation, and home
placement, is the root cause of many future home energy and quality problems. There is a general programmatic
focus on manufactured home installation. For example, Fannie Mae only underwrites manufactured home loans that
are titled as real property and installed on a permanent foundation, EnergyStar manufactured homes include quality
installation requirements, and the NextStep program requires permanent foundations as part of its program.
1.5.3 Weatherization Assistant and the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA)
The “Weatherization Assistant51” is an energy audit software tool developed for the DOE Weatherization Assistance
38
Judkoff, R., Hanckock, Franconi, E., Hanger, R., and Weiger, J. “Mobile Home Weatherization Measures: A
Study of Their Effectiveness.” December, 1988. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3440.pdf
39
Judkoff, R., Hancock, E., and Franconi, E. “Testing the Effectiveness of Mobile Home Weatherization Measures
in a Controlled Environment: The SERI CMFERT Project.” March 1990: Solar Energy Research Institute.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3629.pdf
40
Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center (WAPTAC). “Best Practices” webpage with
links to various state and regional weatherization resources and best practices. http://www.waptac.org/BestPractices.aspx
41
e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, “Midwest Weatherization Best Practices Field Guide.” May 2007.
http://www.waptac.org/data/files/technical_tools/midwestwxbestpracticesmay2007part1.pdf
42
e.g., Maine State Housing Authority. Maine Weatherization Standards. January 2005.
http://waptac.org/data/files/technical_tools/mainefieldstandards.pdf
43
http://www.ba-pirc.org/
44
http://www.research-alliance.org/pages/home.htm, formerly the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance.
45
http://www.pathnet.org/
46
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). “Zero Energy Manufactured Home Demonstration Project.”
http://www.ba-pirc.org/casestud/zeroenergy/pdf/zeroenergy.pdf
47
Lubliner, M., and Kunckle, R. “Mobile Home Retrofit: Lost Opportunity.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San
Francisco. http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
48
Lucas, R., Fairey, P., Garcia, R. and Lubliner, M. “Energy Modeling Research: National Energy Savings
Potential in HUD-Code.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San Francisco.
http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
49
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/research/buildings/ba-pirc.htm
50
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing. “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving
Energy,Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”.
August 2005. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/destech/saveEnrgy.html
51
“Weatherization Assistant,” http://www.waptac.org/Energy-Audits/Weatherization-Assistant.aspx.
7
Program by the National Renewable Energy Lab and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This tool contains the
National Energy Audit Tool (NEAT) for site-built single-family houses and the Manufactured Home Energy Audit
(MHEA) for mobile homes. The MHEA predicts manufactured home energy consumption and recommends
weatherization retrofit measures based on detailed inputs on manufactured home construction, heating equipment,
cooling equipment appliances, water heating, lighting, miscellaneous loads and climatic data. 52, 53 The MHEA tool
has been validated and reviewed for accuracy54, is used by many weatherization providers, and was used for analysis
in this white paper.
1.6 Financing and Funding
Manufactured home financing is more limited and restrictive than financing for site-built homes. Eligibility and
underwriting requirements are stricter, there are fewer lenders, and interest rates are often higher. There is less
ability to take out second mortgages to finance home improvements and related repairs.
Upgrading to new EnergyStar qualified homes, weatherizing existing homes and performing other sustainability
improvements can be expensive. The low penetration of EnergyStar rated manufactured homes into the new
manufactured home market outside of the Pacific Northwest is due to incremental cost increases beyond what most
purchasers are willing to pay55. The costs to weatherize a manufactured home vary, but average around $8,00056.
Upgrading to high efficiency condensing furnaces, heat pumps and other more expensive efficiency upgrades is also
costly. Identifying and/or developing appropriate financing to enable more manufactured home owners to implement
efficiency and sustainability upgrades is important.
One unexpected constraint on financing is that many older manufactured homes do not have a mortgage, and some
people are unwilling to take on debt and a mortgage payment. Manufactured homeowners may also be reticent to
borrow or take out additional loans on their homes for similar reasons. One reason for this reticence to borrow is the
fact that home ownership represents an important source of security for many home owners, particularly for lowincome homeowners. This leads some to an unwillingness to borrow against or increase the amount owed on their
home or otherwise “encumber” the security of their homes. Finding alternative financing methods, such as on-bill
financing, may be more effective than more traditional financing mechanisms.
The following sections provide a brief overview of some of the loan and grant assistance programs currently
available to homeowners and potentially to manufactured home communities (i.e., resident owned communities).
1.6.1
Weatherization Funding
1.6.1.1 Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers (SERC) Grants
The Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers (SERC) Grants 57, 58 provide funding for local weatherization
agencies to install weatherization materials and technologies that cannot currently be installed under the traditional
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Grants are intended to install and test the effectiveness of a variety of
technologies including solar electricity, wind energy generation, various hot water heating technologies, in-home
energy monitors, heat pumps, cool roofs, etc.59 Grants were first issued in August 2010 through funding from the
52
For additional information refer to the Weatherization Assistant program overview
http://www.waptac.org/Energy-Audits/Weatherization-Assistant.aspx
53
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA) Users Manual.” Version 7. August,
2003. http://eber.ed.ornl.gov/pub/weatherization/Manuals/MHEA%20Users.pdf
54
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Validation of the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA).” November
2007. http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_CON-501.pdf
55
Hales, D. “HUD Code Manufactured Homes.” Presentation to the April 2009 ACI Conference.
http://www.affordablecomfort.org/images/Events/32/Courses/1338/HOUS8_Hales.pdf
56
Lucas, R., Fairey, P., Garcia, R. and Lubiner, M. “Energy Modeling Research: National Energy Savings Potential
in HUD-Code.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San Francisco.
http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
57
“Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers (SERC) Grants”, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/serc.html.
58
SERC program overview http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/serc.html
59
A complete list of SERC projects is online at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/serc_projects.html
8
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
1.6.1.2 Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI’s)
CDFI’s are organizations that provide financial services to populations lacking access to traditional financing and
capital. CDFI’s can include banks, credit unions, companies and loan funds. Congress created a CDFI Fund60 in
1994 to fund and support local CDFI’s. The Treasury’s CDFI Fund enables locally based organizations to further
economic development, affordable housing, and community development financial services through a variety of
programs, including funding and tax credits to help promote access to capital and local economic growth in lowincome communities. There are approximately 850 certified CDFI’s throughout the nation.
CASE-STUDY:
New Hampshire Community Loan Fund
An excellent example of a CFDI is the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund
(www.communityloanfund.org). It collaborates with a wide range of stakeholders to provide financing and
support for affordable housing. It is one of the earliest CDFI’s in operation, and has strong support for
manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities.
One of the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund’s oldest and most well known programs is ROC-NH™,
which helps manufactured housing park residents buy the buy the parks and turn them into cooperatives
owned and governed by their residents. They have helped over a hundred resident-owned communities and
5,600 families in New Hampshire. ROC-NH helps homeowners assess park purchases, organize co-ops,
provides lending and/or helping arrange loans and grants for the co-op’s predevelopment work, and
provides ongoing technical support and training.
1.6.1.3 Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program (WIPP)
The Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program (WIPP) 61 is a new grant program started in 2010 designed to increase
innovation in whole-house weatherization for low-income families. WIPP projects include new and nontraditional
partners and weatherization service providers, leverage significant non-federal financial resources in addition to
federal funds, and aim to improve the effectiveness of low-income weatherization through the use of new materials,
technologies, behavior-change models, and processes. There are 16 initial grantees with projects exploring ways to
improve weatherization for financial tools, green and healthy homes, new technologies and techniques, and
workforce development and volunteers. 62
1.6.2
Fannie Mae
1.6.2.1 Fannie Mae Manufactured Home Underwriting
Part of Fannie Mae’s mission is to expand affordable housing. One of the ways it accomplishes this mission is to
purchase manufactured home mortgages that are titled as real property (versus those titled as personal property) and
that are installed on permanent foundations through a network of approved lenders. Fannie Mae works with lenders
to understand the unique titling process of manufactured homes. While this is not a direct consumer lending
program, it is nonetheless very important in making home loans available and affordable for manufactured homes.
1.6.2.2 Fannie Mae MH Select Initiative
Fannie Mae’s MH Select initiative63 recognizes that new, quality built manufactured homes are built to high design
60
http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/overview.asp
“Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program”, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/weatherization_innovation.html.
62
A list of current WIPP projects is available online http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wipp_projects.html
63
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/relatedsellinginfo/manufachousing/;
61
9
standards and that appreciation is projected to be on par with site-built homes. It offers manufactured home
financing on more favorable terms than standard manufactured home financing for homes built by manufacturers
and dealers/retailers committed to specific design and service standards. Participation in this program requires that
manufactured homes be installed on FHA Title II permanent foundations. Financing is available for up to 30 years
on an adjustable or fixed rate basis.
1.6.2.3 Fair Mortgage Collaborative
The Fair Mortgage Collaborative64 is a non-profit educational, research and consumer information organization
focused on helping consumers obtain fair and safe mortgages. They have been involved in helping energy
performance be considered in the manufactured home appraisal process.
1.6.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development Program
The USDA offers a wide variety of different funding programs that can assist manufactured homeowners and
communities.
1.6.3.1 USDA Rural Housing Direct Loan Program
The USDA Rural Development Program’s Rural Housing Direct Loans65 (commonly referred to as Section 502
Direct Loans) are directly funded by the Government to the home buyer and are provide an opportunity for low- and
very low-income households to pursue home ownership. Applicants may obtain 100% financing to purchase an
existing dwelling, purchase a site and construct a dwelling, or purchase newly constructed dwellings located in rural
areas, including manufactured homes. Loans are for up to 30 years for manufactured homes. The promissory note
interest rate is set by HCFP based on the Government’s cost of money. However, that interest rate is modified by
payment assistance subsidy66. Under the Section 502 program, housing must be modest in size, design, and cost.
Manufactured homes must be permanently installed and meet the HUD Code requirements and HCFP thermal and
site standards.
1.6.3.2 USDA Rural Housing Guaranteed Housing Loans
The Guaranteed Housing Loans67 provide loan guarantees for other lenders to provide home loans for up to 30 years
at lender-set interest rates and require no down payment. Applicants can have an income of up to 115% of the area
median income, be without adequate housing but be able to afford the mortgage payments, and have reasonable
credit histories. New manufactured home qualifies for loans but must be permanently installed and meet the HUD
Code and HCFP thermal and site standards. Existing manufactured homes will not be guaranteed unless it is already
financed with an HCFP direct or guaranteed loan.
1.6.3.3 USDA Housing and Community Facilities Programs
The USDA Rural Development’s Housing and Community Facilities Program (HCFP) provides loans and grants for
housing and community facilities to communities and individuals. Funding is provided for single family homes,
apartments for low-income persons or the elderly, housing for farm laborers, childcare centers, fire and police
stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, and other projects. The HCFP works with local, state and
federal agencies, non-profits, Indian tribes and others to create a technical assistance program and provide loan and
grant funds.68
1.6.3.4 USDA Rural Repair and Rehabilitation Loans and Grants
The Very Low-Income Housing Repair program provides loans up to $20,000 for up to 20 years at 1% interest, and
grants up to $7,500 to very low-income (below 50% AMI) homeowners over 62 years old to repair, improve, or
modernize their dwellings or to remove health and safety hazards 69. Many manufactured home community residents
fit the eligibility requirements and this may be a useful source of funding.
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/relatedsellinginfo/manufachousing/pdf/mhselectinfokit.pdf
www.fairmortgage.org
65
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RD_Loans.html
64
66
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail.asp?id=828&cat=Financing%20and%20Consumer%2
0Lending%20Resources
67
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-Guaranteed_Housing_Loans.html
68
More details can be found at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/LP_Subject_HousingAndCommunityAssistance.html
69
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-RR_Loans_Grants.html
10
1.6.3.5 USDA Rural Rental Housing Loans
Rural Rental Housing Loans program70 makes loans to operators of affordable housing (e.g., individuals,
associations, partnerships, public agencies, consumer cooperatives, nonprofit corporations, etc.) who are unable to
obtain credit elsewhere. The loans must go towards very low-, low-, and moderate-income families; the elderly; and
persons with disabilities. This is primarily a direct mortgage program, but funds can also be used to buy and improve
land and to provide necessary facilities such as water and waste disposal systems. These loans may be beneficial to
manufactured home communities, including resident owned communities, to provide funding for infrastructure and
other programs.
1.6.3.6 USDA Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants
This program71 provides loans and grants to public bodies, non-profit corporations and Indian tribes to develop
water and waste disposal systems in rural areas and towns with a population not in excess of 10,000. Funds can be
used for construction, land acquisition, legal fees, engineering fees, capitalized interest, equipment, initial operation
and maintenance costs, project contingencies, and other costs deemed necessary. This program could potentially
benefit manufactured home communities and resident owned communities needing to upgrade water or waste water
infrastructure.
1.6.3.7 Other USDA Rural Development Programs
In addition to the USDA financing programs described above, the USDA Rural Development program provides a
variety of other financing, grant and assistance programs72 which may be relevant, particularly for community-level
projects.
1.6.4
Other Loan, Financing and Funding Programs
1.6.4.1 On-Bill Financing
There is a growing movement among states and utilities to develop on-bill financing programs which allow energy
efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainability-related home retrofits to be financed and paid for on monthly
utility bills. New York State, for example, recently passed an on-bill finance program to fund energy and green
building retrofits for moderate income homeowners. This provides homeowners an easy way to access financing,
which is paid back as a line item on their utility bills. The financing is arranged so that the monthly finance charge is
less than or equal to the energy savings so that the total utility bill (including the on-bill financing) stays the same or
goes down73. On-bill financing programs may be a good financing mechanism for many manufactured home
owners. ROC USA and other organizations may wish to explore ways to leverage and promote applicable programs
within their communities. This may also be a useful financing tool to incorporate during a community purchase, to
promote community-wide investment in efficiency that has little or no impact on monthly operating costs, and could
be used to reduce infrastructure improvement costs.
1.6.4.2 Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs
PACE programs are innovative financing mechanisms that allow property owners to finance energy efficiency and
other sustainability measures through an additional assessment on their property tax bills. The loan is attached to the
property, rather than the homeowner. Homeowners avoid upfront installation cost and eliminate concerns that they
will sell the property before recovering the investment from utility bill savings. The assessment would continue on
the next purchaser’s tax bill until the investment is paid off. PACE programs originated in California with
Assembly Bill 811 which enables local jurisdictions to create PACE programs. There are now PACE programs in 28
states74. Unfortunately, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to back mortgages on properties with PACE liens in
70
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-Direct_Rental_Loans.html
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-dispdirectloansgrants.htm
72
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RD_Loans.html
73
Livingston, D. “New York Passes Historic Green Jobs Financing Law,” LongIslandPress.com. 6/23/2011.
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/23/new-york-passes-historic-green-jobs-financing-law/
74
Details on all programs can be found here:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&searchtype=PTFAuth&sh=1
and here:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&sector=Residential&searchtype=Lo
an&sh=1
71
11
2010, which has complicated PACE programs. While these issues will take some time to work out, PACE and
related programs provide an innovative way to finance efficiency and sustainability projects. Manufactured
homeowners and communities may be able to participate in existing programs. Furthermore, there is interesting
potential to create special assessment districts at the manufactured home community level where state law permits.
There may also be opportunities to create PACE-style assessments at the manufactured home community level that
are not direct property tax assessments, but rather are part of the lot rent.
1.6.4.3 Revolving Loan Funds
Revolving loan funds can provide opportunities for manufactured home residents and communities to fund
efficiency and sustainability projects. There is a number of existing revolving loan funds which communities may be
able to access, shown below:











Alabama: AlabamaSAVES Revolving Loan Program
Colorado: Direct Lending Revolving Loan Program
Georgia: Athens-Clarke County - Green Business Revolving Loan Fund
Iowa: Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program
Kansas: Efficiency Kansas Revolving Loan Program
Michigan: Energy Revolving Loan Fund - Passive Solar
Missouri : Energy Revolving Fund Loans
Montana: Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
South Dakota: Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Program
Texas: LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Program
Virgin Islands: U.S. Virgin Islands - Solar Thermal Revolving Loan
There is also potential to develop new revolving loan funds specifically targeting manufactured home efficiency and
sustainability projects.
1.6.4.4 Microcredit and Microfinance
There may be interesting opportunities to explore the development of small scale microcredit/microfinance within
resident owned communities, or at a higher organization level that would support energy efficiency and
sustainability initiatives.
1.6.4.5 Utility and Municipal Loan and Financing Programs
Utilities and municipalities offer a wide variety of loan program targeting energy efficiency, renewable energy and
related programs. There are a wide range of programs, summarized in Appendix C (Table 37). ROC USA and its
partners may wish to explore the details of relevant programs in each area and leverage these programs in their
communities to the greatest extent possible. Many of the loans are targeted towards specific markets or end uses.
Some of the programs can fund larger infrastructure projects (e.g., onsite renewable energy), while others target
smaller projects for homeowners.
1.6.4.6 Tribal Energy Program Grants
The U.S. Department of Energy Tribal Energy Program75 provides a variety of grants and technical assistance for
energy efficiency, renewable energy, training and technical assistance. This includes funding for furnaces, air
conditioners, programmable thermostats, caulking, weather-stripping, duct air sealing, insulation, windows, doors,
siding, roofs, and other energy efficiency improvements.
1.6.5 Utility Rebate and Incentive Programs
There are a large number of utility incentives and rebate programs that can help reduce the cost of many different
types of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The Database for State Incentives for Renewables &
Efficiency (DSIRE)76 provides a comprehensive list of these programs. The Systems Building Research Alliance
75
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/ , and
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US07F&re=0&ee=1
76
http://www.dsireusa.org
12
also maintains a list of rebates and incentives for factory built EnergyStar homes77. There may be opportunities for
ROC USA and its local partners to incorporate some of these rebates into existing programs, or build new programs
around them.
2. Manufactured Home Characteristics, Demographics and Context
There is significant variation in manufactured home characteristics, demographics, and related contextual data
throughout the U.S., and it is important to recognize the implications of this variation. Relying on national average
data (e.g., average energy costs, typical heating fuel, etc.) can significantly underestimate savings for atypical areas
and mask or distort measure savings and effectiveness. Recommendations applicable in one context do not
necessarily apply to another. This study conducted a detailed review of the existing statistical data on manufactured
home haracteristics and demographics, as well as related contextual data such as variation in utility costs, escalation,
etc. This data was used to inform and guide the analysis and recommendations, and answer questions such as what
is the distribution of manufactured home vintages, which regions rely on expensive heating fuels, etc. Existing data
sources reviewed include the 2010 U.S. Census Data, the American Communities Survey Data 78, the U.S. DOE’s
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), California’s Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, and other
energy end use studies. Furthermore, statistics were assembled for manufactured homes and communities on typical
used home sale prices, etc. to help inform the economics and answer questions such as when it is better to “walk
away” from trying to retrofit an old home and simply replace it. While much of this data is publicly available,
significant effort was required to extract and process this information. Therefore, the critical components of the data
are presented in this section to help program developers and policy makers understand their local context and make
appropriate decisions. Additional data is provided in Appendix B.
2.1 Manufactured Homes are a Significant Portion of the Housing Stock
Manufactured homes represent roughly 6% of the total U.S. housing stock (6.99 million manufactured homes out of
115 million total occupied housing units), up to 18% of the total housing stock in some states, and nearly 60% in
some counties, as illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
77
78
http://www.research-alliance.org/pages/es_rebates.htm
This is a statistical sample (versus a census) of U.S households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau between
censuses that obtains more detailed information on household characteristics and demographics than obtained
during the Census and is extrapolated via statistical means to the country.
13
Figure 8: Mobile homes as a percent of total housing stock, by county79
79
2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, CT2501: Percent of total housing units that are
mobile
homes
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_M00213&ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=5309|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=3.6088338929917247|dh=2.0189589501028733|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=72.757843|cy=41.517948000000004|zl=7|pz=7|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=04000US09|ds=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_|
sb=49|tud=false|db=050|mn=0.4|mx=4.8|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_M00213|sf=N|sg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=5309&redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
14
Figure 9: Mobile homes as a percent of total housing units, by state80
2.2 Manufactured Homes are a Primary Source of Affordable Housing
Manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the U.S. Figure 10 shows the
average household income for manufactured home residents and the portion of these residents who receive food
stamps. The average household income for manufactured home residents is significantly below the federal poverty
line for a family of four81 in most states. Due to its lower costs, manufactured homes provide an important entry
point to home ownership for people with low incomes that might otherwise be unable to own a home. Home
ownership is higher in manufactured homes (83%) compared to the total U.S. housing stock (70%) 82.
80
2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, CT2501: Percent of total housing units that are
mobile homes
81
Federal poverty level for a family of 4 in the contiguous U.S. is an income of $22,350/year
(http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf)
82
U.S. Department of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), survey data tables,
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/
15
$40,000
35%
Household Income
30%
% Food Stamp Recipients
25%
$25,000
20%
$20,000
15%
$15,000
10%
$10,000
5%
$5,000
$-
0%
Figure 10: Manufactured home household income and percent of food stamp recipients
ROC USA community members fit into this demographic of low-income and very low-income households. Figure
11 shows the income status of ROC USA communities, compared to the area median income (AMI). The center
yellow point indicates the average for all of ROC USA communities for which data is available, and error bars show
the range between communities. For example, across all of ROC USA’s communities, 82% of residents are low
income (below 80% AMI). However, there is variation between communities. The community with the highest
penetration has 97% of its residents classified as low-income, while the community with the lowest penetration has
only 70% of its residents classified as low-income. ROC USA seeks to address many of the housing related
problems faced by low income households by supporting home ownership in manufactured home communities and
identifying opportunities to reduce utility costs.
16
% Food Stamp Recipients
$30,000
Federal Poverty Level
Alaska
Wyoming
Washington
Oregon
California
Connecticut
Kansas
Nevada
New Jersey
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maryland
Texas
Louisiana
North Dakota
Rhode Island
New York
New Mexico
Massachusetts
Colorado
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Maine
Montana
Utah
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Ohio
Iowa
Virginia
Idaho
Indiana
Minnesota
North Carolina
West Virginia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Michigan
South Dakota
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Florida
Arizona
Wisconsin
Delaware
Household Income ($/year)
$35,000
100%
97%
88%
82%
Percent of Community
75%
74%
70%
50%
46%
25%
38%
39%
Community with highest
penetration
35%
Avg for all communities
Community with lowest
penetration
0%
Low-Income (Below 80% AMI)
Below 60% AMI
Very Low-Income (Below 50%
AMI)
Figure 11: Income status of ROC USA Communities
2.3 High Housing and Energy Costs are Significant Challenges for Low-Income
Households
Low income households are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as
households making less than 50% of the median income. These households face a variety of housing challenges,
including lack of available housing, substandard housing, overcrowding, and cost burdens (households where more
than 30% of gross income goes toward housing costs, including utilities). 90% of these problems are high cost
burdens. Figure 12 shows the percent of low-income homes experiencing housing problems (primarily high housing
costs) at the county level.83 There is significant regional variation. Improving home energy efficiency can help
reduce this cost burden.
83
Complete low income housing problem data on a county level can be found at http://www.huduser.org/tmaps/LIhousehold/LI_CHAS_DATA.xls
17
Housing Problems Map Legend
Data N/A
30 – 44%
45 – 59%
60 – 74%
75 – 90%
Figure 12: Percent of low income households experiencing housing problems (2009) 84
2.4 There are a Significant Number of Older, Inefficient Manufactured Homes
The 1976 and 1994 HUD codes for manufactured homes were designed to improve the quality and efficiency of
manufactured homes. Figure 13 shows the distribution of manufactured home stock age nationwide. 26%, of
manufactured homes predate the 1976 HUD code and are inefficient; 43% date to the original 1976-1994 HUD
code; 31%, are built to the newer 1994 HUD code update, and less than 1% (42,425 homes) are built to the
EnergyStar standard85. While improvements to the code and standards such as EnergyStar help improve the
performance of new mobile homes, they do not impact the majority of homes, which were built prior to 1994.
Therefore, additional strategies are needed to address older mobile homes. Strategies to improve this older housing
stock at the housing level and at the community level are discussed in detail in this report (See Sections 5.1, and
5.2).
84
85
Data and map from http://www.huduser.org/tmaps/LI-household/chas.html
42,425 homes were reported to meet ENERGYSTAR standards as of the second quarter of 2011.
www.energystar.gov
18
Pre 1976,
2,221,692 ,
26%
Energy Star,
42,425 , 0%
1994+,
2,603,444 ,
31%
1976-1994,
3,667,769 ,
43%
Figure 13: Manufactured home stock age86
Figure 14 shows the total count of manufactured homes by state and by vintage. Figure 15 shows the states with the
largest percentage of pre-1976 (i.e., pre-HUD Code) manufactured homes. Figure 16 shows the percent of housing
stock by state that is manufactured homes, as well as which states have large fractions of pre-HUD Code homes. All
three of these graphs provide context for where these older, inefficient homes are located and may be useful in
targeting areas most in need of programs and policies to update these homes. Note that north-eastern Atlantic states
in particular have large percentages of older homes, and are served by expensive heating fuels.
1976-1994
1994+
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Florida
Texas
North Carolina
California
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Arizona
Tennessee
Louisiana
Michigan
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Washington
Virginia
Mississippi
New York
Missouri
Arkansas
Indiana
Oklahoma
Illinois
Oregon
New Mexico
West Virginia
Colorado
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nevada
Maine
Idaho
Kansas
Iowa
Montana
Maryland
Utah
Delaware
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Wyoming
South Dakota
Nebraska
North Dakota
Massachusetts
Vermont
Alaska
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Hawaii
% of Manufactured Homes
Pre 1976
900,000
Figure 14: Number of manufactured homes by state and by vintage
86
Figures based on data from the American Communities Survey, 2009. Note that there is some variation between
numbers estimated by the 2009 American Communities Survey and the 2010 Census.
www.census.gov/acs/www.data_documentation/2009_release
19
Alaska
Hawaii
Connecticut
Massachusetts
California
Montana
Rhode Island
New Jersey
North Dakota
Nebraska
Colorado
Idaho
Wyoming
Vermont
Oregon
Nevada
Utah
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Washington
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Illinois
Iowa
South Dakota
Maine
New York
Arizona
Michigan
Florida
Kansas
Indiana
New Mexico
Virginia
Missouri
Delaware
Arkansas
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Texas
Georgia
Tennessee
North Carolina
Mississippi
Louisiana
South Carolina
Alabama
% of Manufactured Homes
100%
Pre 1976
Circle Size
Percent of manufactured homes to total
housing stock
1976-1994
20
1994+
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 15: States with the largest percentage of pre-1976 HUD Code manufactured homes
Key
Circle Color
Percent of homes built after 1976 to HUD Code (red
indicates a high percent of pre-HUD code homes)
% Homes built after 1976
Figure 16: Manufactured home stock as a percent of total housing stock built to HUD Code
2.5 Regional Trends in Expensive Primary Heating Fuel Use
In many regions, manufactured homes use expensive heating fuels (fuel oil, propane and electricity). Manufactured
homes in New England and northern Atlantic states rely heavily on fuel oil. For example, nearly 75% of homes in
Maine are served by fuel oil. Over 50% of manufactured homes in 12 states have electric heating, primarily in the
South and Northwest. Expensive fuels combined with poor efficiency exacerbate high energy costs and high home
cost burdens. Figure 17 shows the States that are most reliant on each fuel type.
21
South Carolina
Tennessee
Louisiana
Washington
Oregon
Florida
North Carolina
Kentucky
Virginia
Texas
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
Idaho
West Virginia
Arkansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Arizona
Indiana
Ohio
Maryland
Hawaii
Nevada
Illinois
California
Montana
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Iowa
New Mexico
Utah
Delaware
Nebraska
Colorado
Wyoming
Massachusetts
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Michigan
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Minnesota
New York
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
South Dakota
Delaware
North Dakota
Minnesota
Connecticut
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Mississippi
New York
Oklahoma
Maryland
Wyoming
Missouri
Vermont
Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Montana
Ohio
Arkansas
Massachusetts
Kansas
Alabama
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Georgia
New Hampshire
Illinois
Nevada
New Jersey
Texas
Utah
California
Arizona
Rhode Island
Kentucky
North Carolina
Virginia
Idaho
South Carolina
Louisiana
West Virginia
Washington
Tennessee
Florida
Maine
Oregon
Alaska
Hawaii
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Maine
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
New York
Alaska
New Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
North Carolina
West Virginia
Ohio
Minnesota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Oregon
Michigan
Kentucky
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
California
Indiana
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Georgia
Illinois
Washington
Utah
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Texas
Florida
Oklahoma
Louisiana
South Dakota
Kansas
New Mexico
Wyoming
Iowa
Arizona
Hawaii
Fuel Oil & Kerosene
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Electricity
Propane
Kansas
Wyoming
Utah
California
Colorado
Michigan
Iowa
Illinois
Nebraska
Alaska
Nevada
North Dakota
New Mexico
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Montana
New Jersey
South Dakota
Indiana
Ohio
Arizona
Massachusetts
New York
Oklahoma
Idaho
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
West Virginia
Arkansas
Missouri
Texas
Delaware
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Mississippi
Maryland
Georgia
Kentucky
Alabama
Oregon
Tennessee
Washington
South Carolina
Florida
Virginia
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Vermont
Hawaii
Maine
Natural Gas
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Figure 17: Manufactured home heating fuel type by state
2.6 Utility Prices Vary Significantly by Region and are Rising Rapidly
Utility prices are highly variable across the U.S., with prices varying by up to a factor of four. It is important to
recognize these regional variations in assessing energy and sustainability improvement opportunities. Savings based
22
on nationwide average costs will significantly underestimate savings potential and mask the fact that many measures
are highly cost effective in locations with high utility prices. Programmatic and policy efforts to reduce utility costs
should focus on areas with high utility costs or homes with expensive fuels. Figure 53through Figure 59 illustrate
this regional variation and provide context and guidance for assessing savings opportunities.
Utility prices are also rising rapidly. Water prices increased by nearly 10% last year and are projected to continue
rising faster than general inflation. Natural gas prices doubled in 10 years between 1999 and 2008, propane prices
have doubled between 2000 and 2010, and fuel oil prices increased by a factor of 4 during a six year period between
2002 and 2008. Current fuel oil prices are still more than three times higher than they were in 2002. Rapidly rising
utility costs disproportionately impact low income and manufactured home residents, who are already facing
significant housing cost burdens.
For general analysis purposes in this report, we used the utility costs shown in Table 4. This table shows the costs in
typical fuel units as well as on a per million BTU (MMBTU) basis to compare the relative costs between fuels for
the same amount of delivered energy. The regional variation discussed above should be considered when
interpreting this data. Regional and historical utility price variation are presented in the following series of figures to
provide context and understanding of which areas manufactured homes face the largest utility price pressures, and to
potentially direct efforts towards areas and fuels with the highest costs. For detailed information regarding Energy
and Water costs, refer to Appendix D.
Utility
Natural Gas
$1.05
Table 4: Typical utility costs for 2011
Fuel Cost Compared to
Cost
Natural Gas
/Therm
$10.50 /MMBTU
100%
Heating Oil
$3.71
/Gallon
26.75
/MMBTU
255%
Propane
$2.500
/Gallon
27.37
/MMBTU
261%
Electricity
$0.115
/kWh
33.7
/MMBTU
321%
Water
$ 3.77
/1000 Gallons
n/a
Source
EIA Winter
2011-2012
87
forecast
Circle of Blue
88
3. Sustainability Benefits of Manufactured Homes
This section provides a summary of sustainability benefits of manufactured homes and presents a case study
comparing key sustainability performance indicators for a location with four different housing types back to back.
3.1 Summary of Key Sustainability Benefits
Manufactured homes should not be underestimated as a sustainable housing option, and provides a number of
sustainability benefits relative to site-built housing. Figure 18 illustrates these benefits from a triple bottom line
perspective, and the key sustainability benefits of manufactured homes are discussed below.
87
U.S. Energy Information Agency, "U.S. Average Residential Heating Fuel Prices".
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=5&t=3
88
Refer to Figure 59
23





Affordable housing
Home ownership
Equity & wealth development
Housing security
Community
Enviromental
Social







Energy use
Water use
Construction waste
Efficient resource utilization
Stormwater management
Land use and density
Greenhouse gas emissions
Economic
 Affordable housing
 Equity & wealth building
 Potential for low utility bills
Figure 18: Summary of key sustainability benefits

Affordability: Manufactured homes are an important source of affordable housing. As discussed in Section
2.2, manufactured homes provide housing for significant numbers of low-income families.

Home Ownership: Manufactured homes provide opportunities for home ownership to many low income
families that would otherwise be unable to own a home.

Equity and Wealth Development: Home ownership enables families to build equity in their home over
time.

Housing Security: Home ownership provides significant housing security and reduces stress related to rent
increases, moving, relocating children to new schools, and many other factors. The importance of this
security was strongly expressed at a stakeholder charrette, to the extent that many homeowners are
reluctant to upgrade to a new EnergyStar home or take on additional debt secured by the home for energy
upgrades, even if it is shown that total monthly housing costs (mortgage + utilities) are lower.

Land Use and Density: Compared to typical low-density residential development, manufactured homes,
and specifically manufactured home communities, take up less land for the same number of units.

Efficient Resource Use and Reduced Construction Waste: The factory construction process allows for
significantly improved resource utilization with less waste—30% less waste compared to site-built singlefamily homes.89 Construction waste is approximately 4.38 lb/sqft for a single-family home and 3.89 lb/sqft
for a multi-family home.90 A typical single family home generates 8,000 pounds of construction waste,
while a manufactured home generates under 3,000 pounds.

Energy: Smaller house sizes use less energy. Well-engineered, EnergyStar qualified manufactured homes,
coupled with rigorous quality control and testing during construction, result in high performing, energy
efficient homes.

Water: Manufactured homes typically have less yard area requiring irrigation and generally have reduced
irrigation costs. However, many of the homes in manufactured home communities are not individually
metered, so there is no pricing signal, feedback or other incentive to conserve the water that is used for
irrigation.

Stormwater: Many manufactured home communities provide great opportunities to implement a variety of
89
Manufactured Housing Institute. “Energy Efficiency / Green Building”,
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail01.asp?id=1381&cat=whats_hot
90
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition
Debris in the United States”, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/c%26d-rpt.pdf (Page 2-3)
24
“low impact development” practices to manage stormwater, such as swales, rain gardens, and other
strategies that can help reduce stormwater infrastructure, increase stormwater infiltration, and improve
management of stormwater runoff.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Reduced energy use, water use, building material use, construction waste
generation and other factors all contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
3.2 Case Study: Comparison of Key Sustainability Performance Indicators
between Housing Types
Click here to return to Key Points.
A case study was developed to evaluate and quantify the sustainability performance of manufactured homes in
comparison to various site-built housing types. A search was conducted to identify a representative manufactured
home community in close proximity to other types of site-built housing.
3.2.1 Analysis Background
A location was identified in Pomona, California (Los Angeles area) which had four back-to-back communities, each
containing different housing types: a manufactured home community, single family neighborhood, a
condominium/townhome complex, and an apartment complex. Each of the communities was analyzed and a set of
key sustainability indicators were developed, including energy use, water use, stormwater generation, housing
density, greenhouse gas generation, affordability (monthly mortgage/rent plus and utility costs). Figure 19 shows the
four communities, and Figure 20 compares key sustainability performance indicators on a per dwelling unit (DU)
basis. While the results of this case study cannot be directly extrapolated to housing type sustainability across the
country, it nevertheless provides insight into the sustainability performance of these four housing types.
25
Condominium
 1,497 SF
 2,640 SF lot
 12 homes/acre
 890 SF road/home
Condo
 Mort. $1,812/mo
Single Family
 1,818 SF
 10,000 SF lot
 4 homes/acre
 1,215 SF road/home
Single Family
 Mort. $2,181/mo
Apartments
 627 SF
 1,063 SF lot
 28 homes/acre
 475 SF road/home
Apartments
 Rent $750/mo
Manufactured Home
 940 SF
 2,337 SF lot
 15 homes/acre
Manufactured Housing
 665 SF road/home
 Mort + lot rent $1,008/mo
Figure 19: Case-study communities91
91
Images from maps.google.com
26
9,000
Affordability
Construction Waste
8,000
$2,500
7,000
Waste (lbs)
Water
$2,000
Energy
$1,500
Rent/Mortg.
$1,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
$500
1,000
0
$0
Single
Family
70
Condos
Manuf.
Home
Single
Family
Apartments
6,000
Energy
Gas
50
Electricity
40
Condos
Mobile Apartments
Homes
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
5,000
lbs/year
MMBTU/year
60
4,000
3,000
30
2,000
20
1,000
10
0
0
Single
Family
Condos
400
Manuf.
Home
Single
Family
Apartments
Gallons/year
Indoor
Outdoor
200
150
100
Manuf. Apartments
Home
Stormwater
6,000
300
250
Condos
7,000
Water
350
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
50
0
0
Single
Family
Condos
Mobile Apartments
Homes
100%
Single
Family
Condos
Manuf. Apartments
Home
Overall Impacts
90%
80%
Normalized Impact
1000 Gallons/year
Monthly Housing & Utility Costs
$3,000
Energy Use
Water Use
Stormwater
Construction Waste
GHG's
Affordability
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Single Family
Condos
Manuf. Home
Apartments
Figure 20: Summary of case-study community sustainability impacts per dwelling unit
27
The analysis shows that on a per dwelling unit (DU) basis, manufactured homes have significantly lower
environmental impact and are more sustainable across a range of key sustainability indicators than either single
family homes or the condominium/town home units. These benefits will vary depending on community location, age
of community, climate, community density, yard size and size of irrigated common areas, and other factors.
However, this case study is illustrative of the typical sustainability benefits of manufactured homes and
communities. Apartments have lower impacts in many areas due to their small size and density; however, they are
not as affordable and do not provide home ownership benefits (assuming the apartments are rented; occupant-owned
apartments would obviously provide significant ownership and sustainability benefit).
Not included in this case study are issues relating to indoor environment, and particularly air quality. These impacts
are highly variable depending on the age and condition of homes, condition of the HVAC system, moisture or mold
problems, occupant activities (e.g., smoking, use of exhaust fans) and other factors. Refer to sections 4.1.4, 4.2.1.1
and 4.2.1.2 for additional discussion on indoor environmental quality.
3.2.2 Analysis Details
Table 5 summarizes the case-study analysis details, and a more detailed discussion of the assumptions and analysis
methodology follows below.
Table 5: Case study analysis details
Lot Size (sqft)
House Size (sqft
Vintage
Prorated Road Area (sqft/home)
Driveway/Hardscape Area (sqft)
Landscape Area (sqft)
Density (Units/acre)
House Value
Monthly Mortgage
Monthly Rent or Lot Rent
Yearly Housing Cost ($)
Energy Cost ($/year)
Water Cost ($/year)
Total Cost ($/year)
Total Cost ($/month)
Electricity Intensity (MBTU/SF/year)
Electricity Use (MMBTU/year)
Gas Intensity (MBTU/SF/year)
Gas Use (MMBTU/year)
Total Energy (MMBtu/year)
Indoor Water Use (Gal/year)
Outdoor Water Use (Gal/year)
Total Water Use (Gal/year)
Construction Waste Generation Rate (lb/sf)
Construction Waste (lb)
Electric GHG Emissions
Gas GHG Emissions
Total Emission (lb)
Site Imperviousness
Runoff
Single Family
Condos
Housing Characteristics
10,044
2,640
1,818
1,497
1962
1983
1215
890
834
318
7,392
825
4
12
Affordability
$372,600
$243,000
$2,181
$1,812
n/a
n/a
$26,172
$21,744
$1,382
$1,228
$944
$210
$28,498
$23,181
$2,375
$1,932
Resource Use
13.8
12.3
25.1
18.4
22.4
19.3
40.7
28.9
65.8
47.3
41,525
41,525
299,241
34,126
340,766
75,651
4.4
3.9
7,963
5,823
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
11,176
8,188
5,291
3,761
16,467
11,948
Stormwater Generation
0.3
0.7
5,748
1,511
28
Manufactured
Homes
Apartments
2,337
940
varied
665
554
843
15
1,063
627
1986
475
0
436
28
$89,900
$483
$525 (lot rent)
$12,091
$1,335
$208
$13,634
$1,136
n/a
n/a
$750
$9,000
$777
$164
$9,941
$828
14.5
13.6
25.8
24.2
37.8
41,525
33,397
74,923
3.1
2,886
13.8
8.7
16.3
10.2
18.9
41,525
17,650
59,175
3.9
2,439
6,065
3,151
9,216
3,860
1,326
5,186
0.6
1,337
0.6
608
Normalized Impacts (Compared to Single Family)
Energy Use
100%
72%
Water Use
100%
22%
GHGs
100%
73%
Stormwater
100%
26%
Solid Waste
100%
73%
Affordability
100%
83%
58%
22%
56%
23%
36%
26%
29%
17%
31%
11%
31%
35%
Housing characteristics, including typical house sizes, value and apartment rental rates were obtained from online
parcel data on Zillow.com. Lot size was obtained from online parcel data for single family homes, and through
measurements from aerial imagery for the other home types. Driveway area (to estimate impervious surface area)
was taken from aerial imagery. The amount of street and public parking lot area for each neighborhood was prorated on a per home basis. The amount of public and semi-public street and paved area varies per neighborhood type
and impacts stormwater generation, material use, urban heat island impacts, etc. This analysis only quantified the
stormwater runoff impacts.
The density was calculated by dividing the total neighborhood area by the total number of dwelling units. Energy
consumption data by building type are available in the California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study
(RASS) by the California Energy Commission, as well as the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) by
the US Energy Information Administration. Electricity and natural gas consumption data from these two surveys
were normalized by square footage and used to determine the energy use for a typical unit in each of the four
communities. The energy costs are based on the unit costs, $0.15/kWh for electricity and $0.92/therm for natural
gas.92 Internal water use was estimated on a per-fixture basis using the same methodology and usage assumptions as
required by the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Rating Systems. Water use is based on 2.2 people per
dwelling unit. External water use was estimated using standard landscape water use calculations93 and is a function
of landscape area, planting density, and equipment type. Assuming the same planting density and equipment type
between the four communities, external use is primarily influenced by the landscape area. The water unit cost is
$3.77 per 1,000 gallons. Storm-water runoff is the amount of rainwater that is not retained by the site. It is a function
of rainfall, lot area, and imperviousness of the site. The factory construction process for manufactured homes allow
for 30% less waste compared to those generated by single-family homes.94 Construction waste for a multi-family
home (3.89 lb/sqft) is 11% lower than the waste generated for a single-family home (4.38 lb/sqft).95 In order to
compare all metrics, the data is normalized by the values for the single-family home.
4. Opportunities for Improved Sustainability and Affordability in
Manufactured Homes
4.1 Housing Level Sustainability Opportunities
Manufactured home energy and water savings opportunities depend on many factors, including climate, vintage of
home, home condition, heating fuel used, local fuel costs, and other factors discussed in Section 2. There is dramatic
variability in manufactured home energy and water use, as detailed in Section 4.1.2. One of the purposes of this
study is to understand how energy use varies with these parameters and analyze energy savings opportunities.
92
US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html,
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_epg0_prs_dmcf_a.htm
93
University of California Cooperative Extension, and the California Department of Water Resources. “A Guide to
Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California.” August 2000.
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/docs/wucols00.pdf
94
Manufactured Housing Institute. “Energy Efficiency / Green Building”,
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/lib/showtemp_detail01.asp?id=1381&cat=whats_hot
95
US Environmental Protection Agency. “Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris
in the United States”, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/c%26d-rpt.pdf (Page 2-3)
29
There is a significant amount of research and data on various energy conservation and weatherization opportunities
in manufactured homes (see Section 1.5.2). In particular, the document “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by
Saving Energy, Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile)
homes”96 provides a comprehensive list of energy efficiency and weatherization measures targeted to homeowners.
This study seeks to supplement and build upon these studies.
4.1.1 Analysis Overview
A detailed analysis of manufactured home energy and water use was conducted to determine the range of energy use
for different locations, heating fuels, home vintages, building code, and house conditions, and to identify savings
opportunities.
The Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA) tool (see section 1.5.3) was used as the primary tool for analyzing
energy use and assessing energy conservation opportunities. The MHEA was developed by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Lab to analyze manufactured home energy use and weatherization
retrofits. This was supplemented with engineering and spreadsheet calculations for water use, lighting, refrigeration,
and other end uses, which incorporated statistical consumption data for manufactured homes from the American
Communities Survey, the DOE’s Residential Energy Consumption Study (RECS) and other sources.
Twelve different prototype manufactured home models were developed, representing the requirements of the HUD
Code, EnergyStar for Manufactured Home, and pre-HUD code construction practice. The HUD code and
EnergyStar have different thermal performance requirements for different climate zones, as shown in Figure 36
through Figure 38. Prototypes were developed representing the construction requirements for each Code/Standard
(Pre-HUD/ANSI119.1, original 1976 HUD code, 1994 HUD Code, and EnergyStar). Representative cities for each
of the three current HUD zones were selected: Macon, GA for zone 1; Louisville, KT for Zone 2; and Bangor, ME
for Zone 3. These cities were selected to be representative of locations with large percentages of manufactured
homes (Figure 8), areas with significant use of expensive heating fuels (Figure 17), and to align with each of the
different climate zone maps.
Code/Standard
Pre-HUD
(ANSI
Standard A119.1)
1976 HUD Code
1994
HUD
Update
EnergyStar
Code
Table 6: Summary of prototypical models analyzed
Representative City
Zone
Macon, GA
Corresponds to 1976 HUD zone
1
Louisville, KY
Corresponds to 1976 HUD zone
2
Bangor, ME
Corresponds to 1976 HUD zone
3
Macon, GA
Zone 1
Louisville, KY
Zone 2
Bangor, ME
Zone 3
Macon, GA
Zone 1
Louisville, KY
Zone 2
Bangor, ME
Zone 3
Macon, GA
Region 4
Louisville, KY
Region 2
Bangor, ME
Region 1
Model ID
PreHUD_Z1
PreHUD_Z2
PreHUD_Z3
76HUD_Z1
76HUD_Z2
76HUD_Z3
94HUD_Z1
94HUD_Z2
94HUD_Z3
EnergyStar_Z1
EnergyStar_Z2
EnergyStar_Z3
Each of the above prototype models were run using the MHEA for three different conditions:
 The home as designed, assuming all code/standards were in place and assuming leakage parameters typical
for new construction at its time.
96
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing. “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy,Energysaving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”. August 2005.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/destech/saveEnrgy.html
30


The “worst-case” condition, assuming significant deterioration, high air-leakage, poorly insulated walls,
belly and roof, missing storm windows, etc.
The “best-case” condition, assuming that all potential retrofit measures were implemented (e.g.,
weatherization to reduce air leakage, repaired underbelly, enhanced insulation for older homes, etc.).
Running these three conditions effectively “brackets” the range of likely energy use, and the potential savings
opportunity for each model. This informs how much energy improvement is possible for a range of home conditions
in each of the HUD Zones, for each of the different code requirements. This data also informs the decision about
whether it is more cost effective to “walk away” from older manufactured homes and simply purchase a new
EnergyStar home. The cost implications for each of these homes using different heating fuels (natural gas, propane,
fuel oil and electricity) was also examined.
4.1.2 Overall Variability in Energy Use and Savings Potential
One of the most dramatic, although not unexpected, results of the analysis is the extremely wide variation in energy
use for homes in the same location. Energy use can vary by a factor of five in Zone 1 to nearly ten in Zone 3. Figure
21 shows the range of energy use for each HUD zone. For each zone, the highest, lowest, and average manufactured
home energy use is shown. The home worst-performing home is a pre-HUD home in very bad condition, with poor
insulation, large air leakage, single pane aluminum framed windows, old inefficient HVAC equipment that has not
been tuned or properly maintained, inefficient plumbing heaters, etc. and using the most expensive heating fuel.
The best-performing home is an EnergyStar home that has efficient equipment, efficient plumbing fixtures, is
sheltered from the wind, and has applied all potential conservation measures and using the least expensive fuel. The
“average” represents the average of all the scenarios run, and does not necessarily represent the actual average
manufactured home energy costs for a particular region (this would be impacted by the vintage distribution (Figure
14), heating fuel prevalence (Figure 17), and other factors).
It should be noted that the modeling assumes that typical temperature setpoint conditions are maintained and that the
homes have air-conditioning. Low-income homes that are in very poor condition and have extremely high utility
bills would likely change the setpoints to be much colder in winter, find alternate heating means, not use A/C, and
make other behavior modifications to compensate. While these are the extremes, it does dramatize the large
potential variation and highlights the need to find and address very inefficient homes.
$9,000
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 2
$8,000
$7,000
Water
Plug & Misc. Electric
Refrigerator
$6,000
Cooling
Plug & Misc. Fuel
$5,000
DHW
Heating
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
Figure 21: Range of manufactured home annual energy use by HUD Zone
31
Zone3-Min
Zone3-Avg
Zone3-max
Zone2-Min
Zone2-Avg
Zone2-max
Zone1-Min
Zone1-Avg
Zone1-max
$0
4.1.3 Variability in Energy Use and Savings Potential for Specific End-Uses by Heating Fuel
The following four graphs depict the details of the energy use analysis and refine the understanding of how energy
use varies in each of the twelve prototypes. The graphs show how energy and water costs for different end uses (e.g.,
heating, cooling, DHW, etc.) vary by home vintage, condition, location and fuel type. For each of these graphs, the
central point (yellow diamond with red outline) shows the “design” energy use, assuming that the home meets the
relevant code/standard design requirements and infiltration rates, etc. The error bars show the “worst-case”
conditions and “best-case” conditions. This brackets the range of potential energy use for each end-use, and provides
insight into where savings lie, their potential magnitude and how energy use is affected by factors such as home
vintage, location and so on. One graph is provided for each heating fuel type (note the change in y-axis values).
Findings from the analysis of energy use in manufactured homes indicate that code updates have significantly
reduced heating and cooling energy demand. Additionally, as expected, cooling is the largest energy cost in Zone 1
and should be focused on, whereas heating is the largest energy user in Zone 3 and merits attention. For areas with
expensive heating fuels, heating costs dwarf other energy costs and must be addressed. It is important note, however,
that heating is a significant energy consumer in all climate zones, and there are significant opportunities to improve
energy efficiency related to heating in nearly all climates.
Two other results are significant. First, refrigerator energy use is substantial and the amount of energy used by the
refrigerator varies widely based on the age of the refrigerator; therefore, targeting refrigerator replacements can have
significant savings. Second, there are substantial savings opportunities related to water heating, particularly for
homes with inefficient plumbing fixtures, which can usually be replaced inexpensively.
$1,800
Other
Cooling
HEATING
(Natural Gas)
$1,600
Annual Energy Costs
$1,400
$1,200
Worst Case
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
$1,000
Best Case
Zone 1
(Macon)
Design
$800
$600
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
Zone 1
(Macon)
Zone 3
(Maine)
$400
$200
Zone 3
(Maine)
$0
Water
Plug & Misc. Gas
Plug & Misc. Electric
Refrigerator
32
DHW
Clg-Energy Star-Bangor
Clg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Clg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Clg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Clg-Energy Star-Louisville
Clg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Clg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Clg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Clg-Energy Star-Macon
Clg-1994 HUD-Macon
Clg-1976 HUD-Macon
Clg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Htg-Energy Star-Bangor
Htg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Htg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Htg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Htg-Energy Star-Louisville
Htg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Htg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Htg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Htg-Energy Star-Macon
Htg-1994 HUD-Macon
Htg-1976 HUD-Macon
Htg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Figure 22: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = natural gas
Design
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
Zone 1
(Macon)
Annual Energy Costs
$2,000
$1,000
Water
Plug & Misc. Gas
Plug & Misc. Electric
Design
$2,500
Refrigerator
DHW
Water
Plug & Misc. Gas
Plug & Misc. Electric
Refrigerator
DHW
Clg-Energy Star-Bangor
Clg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Clg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Clg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Clg-Energy Star-Louisville
Clg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Clg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Clg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Clg-Energy Star-Macon
Figure 24: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = propane
Clg-Energy Star-Bangor
Zone 3
(Maine)
Clg-1994 HUD-Bangor
$1,000
Clg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Clg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Clg-Energy Star-Louisville
Clg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Clg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Clg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Clg-Energy Star-Macon
Clg-1994 HUD-Macon
Clg-1976 HUD-Macon
Clg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Htg-Energy Star-Bangor
Htg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Htg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Htg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Htg-Energy Star-Louisville
Htg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Htg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Htg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Htg-Energy Star-Macon
Htg-1994 HUD-Macon
Htg-1976 HUD-Macon
Htg-Pre-HUD-Macon
33
Clg-1994 HUD-Macon
$2,000
Clg-1976 HUD-Macon
Clg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Htg-Energy Star-Bangor
Htg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Zone 3
(Maine)
$500
Htg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Htg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Htg-Energy Star-Louisville
Htg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Htg-1976 HUD-Louisville
$4,500
Zone 3
(Maine)
Zone 3
(Maine)
$500
Other
Cooling
HEATING
(Propane)
$5,000
Best Case
$2,500
Htg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Htg-Energy Star-Macon
Htg-1994 HUD-Macon
Htg-1976 HUD-Macon
Htg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Zone 1
(Macon)
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
Zone 1
(Macon)
$1,500
Zone 1
(Macon)
$1,500
Worst Case
Best Case
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
$3,000
Annual Energy Costs
$4,000
Worst Case
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
$3,000
Other
Cooling
HEATING
(Fuel Oil)
$4,500
$3,500
$0
Figure 23: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = fuel oil
$4,000
$3,500
$0
$6,000
Other
Cooling
HEATING
(Electricity)
Annual Energy Costs
$5,000
$4,000
Worst Case
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
Best Case
Design
$3,000
Zone 1
(Macon)
Zone 1
(Macon)
$2,000
Zone 2
(Kentucky)
Zone 3
(Maine)
$1,000
Zone 3
(Maine)
$0
Certain regions of the country are more likely to experience moisture related problems due to hot, moist summers
(i.e., the South), abundant rain and moisture (e.g., the Pacific Northwest), and areas with cold winters which can
condense humidity from inside the home onto window frames and surfaces, as well as inside walls and other
building assemblies. Figure 26 shows how moisture risk varies across the country. There is a significant overlap
between areas of the country with a high risk for moisture related problems and significant penetrations of older
manufactured homes (see Figure 8 and Figure 14).
97
EPA. “Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, Appendix B-Introduction to Molds”. Webpage.
Accessed 11/2011. http://www.epa.gov/mold/append_b.html
34
Water
Moisture can create significant problems and damage once it gets into a home. Repeated or constant wetting of
wood and other building materials can lead to decay and structural damage. Rotted floorboards and walls can
jeopardize the structural integrity of a home. Furthermore, prolonged moisture leads to the development of mold.
Mold can cause bad odors, lead to allergic reactions, trigger asthma, and irritate the eyes, skin, nose and throat.
Furthermore, mold exposure can sometimes cause serious infections, such as Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (similar
to bacterial pneumonia) and various infections in those with weakened immune systems 97.
Plug & Misc. Gas
4.1.4 Mitigating Mold and Moisture-Related Problems
Manufactured homes are built to effectively deal with moisture—roofs and walls keep rain out of the home and
prevent water from penetrating into the walls, insulation and construction materials; moisture generating appliances
such as dryers are vented outdoors; exhaust fans get rid of moisture from the kitchen and bathroom; furnaces and
other combustion equipment are vented to the outside, and the site is graded to slope away from the home and
prevent water from collecting. However, plumbing leaks, roof leaks, failure of gutter and flashing details,
deteriorating caulk and sealants, air infiltration, improper site grading, landscaping changes, equipment failure,
occupant activities and many other factors can lead to moisture problems. Older homes (especially those predating
the HUD code) are particularly susceptible to moisture problems. Poor maintenance can also exacerbate the
potential for moisture related problems.
Plug & Misc. Electric
Refrigerator
DHW
Clg-Energy Star-Bangor
Clg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Clg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Clg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Clg-Energy Star-Louisville
Clg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Clg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Clg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Clg-Energy Star-Macon
Clg-1994 HUD-Macon
Clg-1976 HUD-Macon
Clg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Htg-Energy Star-Bangor
Htg-1994 HUD-Bangor
Htg-1976 HUD-Bangor
Htg-Pre-HUD-Bangor
Htg-Energy Star-Louisville
Htg-1994 HUD-Louisville
Htg-1976 HUD-Louisville
Htg-Pre-HUD-Louisville
Htg-Energy Star-Macon
Htg-1994 HUD-Macon
Htg-1976 HUD-Macon
Htg-Pre-HUD-Macon
Figure 25: Range of MH energy and water costs by end-use, heating fuel = electricity
Figure 26: Moisture problem risk map98
While a precise number of manufactured homes experiencing moisture related problems was not identified,
anecdotal feedback from weatherization providers and others in the industry indicate that moisture problems are a
problem affecting a significant portion of the manufactured home stock, particularly for older homes serving low
income residents. A systematic approach to identifying moisture problems and providing assistance to correct these
problems would be highly effective. For example, ROC USA and other manufactured home associations may want
to consider developing a checklist to identify and mitigate moisture/mold problems that could be provided to their
communities. Many of the common moisture related problems found in manufactured homes can be easily corrected
by homeowners with a little education and guidance. The key to preventing mold in manufactured homes is to (1)
prevent moisture intrusion into the home from the outside, (2) reduce air leakage which can cause water vapor to
condense inside walls and insulation, (3) use storm windows to prevent warm moist air inside the home from
condensing on cold window frames and other cold surfaces, and (4) control sources of internal humidity.
There are several excellent resources that provide a detailed description of moisture problems and mitigation
strategies. The most relevant is the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance’s “Moisture Problems in
Manufactured Homes: Understanding Their Causes and Finding Solutions 99”. This provides detailed guidance and
descriptions specific to manufactured homes targeting moisture prevention tactics for manufacturers, builders, and
residents. The following list summarizes key moisture control and mold mitigation strategies that manufactured
home residents and communities can address.

Inspect the site for drainage and moisture problems.
o Ensure that there is proper drainage away from the home. The site should be graded so that the
ground slopes away from the home. If it is not sloped, the homeowner should explore ways to
create the necessary drainage to prevent water from flowing or collecting under the home. The
homeowner may be able to provide the necessary slope, dig a drainage ditch to channel water
away from the home, or otherwise address site drainage issues.
98
Map from: Manufactured Housing Research Alliance. “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Homes:
Understanding Their Causes and Finding Solutions.” 2000.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/moisture.pdf
99
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/moisture.pdf
35
o



Check to make sure that water is not pooling under the home. Identify why the water is pooling
(e.g., water draining in from rain, plumbing leaks, condensation, etc.). Correct the problem. Fill
any low spots or depressions to prevent standing water.
o Check to make sure that homeowner landscaping and gardening activities have not altered the
slope or adversely changed drainage patterns. If so, correct these so that water drains away from
the home.
o Make sure the overall site is well drained. Install drainage lines, ditches, etc. to keep moisture
from the home
o Install properly vented skirt to keep rain and snow from blowing and accumulating under the
trailer.
o Do not allow snow to accumulate and stand against the trailer.
o Ensure that landscape irrigation activities are not creating moisture problems
 Make sure that sprinklers are not spraying the home or under the trailer.
 Make sure that watering and irrigation water does not run off under the trailer.
Inspect under the home for leaks, moisture and damage
o Look for signs of moisture on the bottom board. Likely places for water damage to occur is under
the bathroom and kitchen areas, under the water heater, and under the air handling equipment in
the summer when the air conditioning has been running. Look for low spots or bulges in the
bottom board which might indicate pooling of water above. Drain any pooled water that is inside
the bottom board, identify the source of water, and repair the leak or water source.
o Look for tears or gaps in the bottom board and seal them tightly to help prevent humid air from
flowing into the floor cavity.
o In multiple section homes in the summer, look for kinks or sags in the crossover flexible ducts
which might indicate pooling of condensate.
o Look for signs of water under the locations where the crossover ducts connect to the main floor
ducts. Any exposed metal here may cause condensation to occur.
o In areas of the country where mold and moisture are serious problems, a ground cover should be
installed under the home to block soil moisture from entering the home. Vapor coming from moist
soil can often be one of the most significant sources of moisture in a manufactured home.
Inspect the home exterior for leaks, moisture and damage
o Inspect the roof for leaks and damage that may cause leaks. Repair.
o Make sure all roof penetrations (e.g., plumbing vents) are sealed. Roof caulking is available at
most building supply stores.
o Make sure that water is not blowing or leaking into bathroom and kitchen exhausts. Exhausts
should have some type of rain cap that prevents excessive amounts of rain and snow from
entering. Also make sure the vent penetration through the roof is sealed.
o Make sure that there are no pipes, boards, and other materials laying on the roof in such a way that
allows rain to pool
o Make sure that gutters are cleaned and drain well. Ensure that gutters drain away from the home,
and do not drain under the home.
o Thoroughly patch and seal any access openings or tears in the bottom board under the home
o Make sure that multiple section manufactured homes are sealed at the marriage line with a gasket
and air infiltration barrier.
Inspect inside the home for potential leaks, moisture and damage
o Floor bumps may be caused by moist air that is leaking into the floor cavity and condensing on
cold ducts in the summer. The floor sheathing near duct may be absorbing moisture which causes
the floor to swell.
o Dark stains in the floor covering under windows can indicate that cold air from the face of the
windows is falling to the floor to become trapped behind draperies and causing high levels of
humidity and thus mold. If drapes are not allowed to hang all the way to the floor, better air
circulation will occur which will help to reduce this problem.
o A moldy smell when the air conditioner is running may be an indication of water intrusion into the
ductwork. This is especially common when an outside package air conditioning unit is used with
ducts lying on the ground which connect the unit to the home’s main duct system. After heavy
rains, water may puddle around the air handler and work its way into the duct.
o Look for signs of roof leakage such as discolored spots on the ceiling. Seal and repair any leaks.
36
o




Ensure that there is adequate tub and shower drainage, and that there is not excessive water
pooling or leaking during bathing. Promptly clean up splashed water from floors to ensure it
doesn’t leak down into the floor cavity.
Make sure there are no plumbing or sewer leaks
o Inspect all faucets, toilets, sinks and showers to make sure there are no leaks. Promptly repair
leaks.
o Check to make sure there are no leaks in the toilet ring seal where the toilet mounts to the floor.
These leaks can sometimes be hard to detect, as leaks may go unnoticed and go directly into the
floor.
o Make sure shower heads do not leak or spray water onto the walls or ceiling.
o Make sure showers and tubs are properly caulked or grouted.
Ensure proper dryer venting
o Make certain that the dryer vent is vented to the exterior of the home, and not vented inside or
under the home.
o Make sure the dryer vent tube is supported correctly at a slope and without sags.
o Make sure the dryer vent is connected at the dryer.
o Make sure the dryer vent is not compressed or kinked. It is common for the dryer to pushed up
against the flexible vent line, compressing or kinking it. This reduces flow, increases the potential
for leaks and increases drying time.
o Clean the dryer vent if needed.
Air Conditioning Condensate
o Check to ensure that air conditioning condensate is properly drained, and not collecting in the airconditioner, ducts, under the home, or other locations.
o Make sure that condensate lines are installed on a slight slope and without sags to prevent water
buildup.
o Check that condensate lines are not plugged, blocked, crimped or disconnected.
Incorporate the following into routine practice or checks
o Check cooling equipment filters monthly. Clogged filters reduce the unit’s ability to remove
moisture from the air.
o Keep the thermostat set at above 75 degrees (F) in the summer in hot and humid climates. This
will help to eliminate condensation forming in the exterior walls.
o If rooms of the home are closed off in the winter with their heating registers closed, condensation
followed by mold may collect in those rooms due to the cooler interior temperature. This is a
difficult trade-off between saving energy and preventing mold.
o Closets that back up to an exterior wall should be kept ventilated in the winter. By leaving the
closet door open it will keep the closet warmer and reduce the chance of condensation. Also
ensure that clothes or other materials are not stacked up next to the exterior wall to promote better
air circulation to keep the wall warm.
o Don’t leave standing water in bath tubs.
o Cover cooking pots when possible and use the kitchen hood ventilator.
o Use bathroom ventilators when bathing or showering and let them run for several minutes after
showering.
o Do not maintain large numbers of indoor plants that require watering.
o Avoid the use of unvented space heaters. These emit as much as one gallon of water for each
gallon of fuel they burn.
o Try to maintain the interior humidity below 50%. Use a humidity gauge and remove excess
moisture with a dehumidifier or ventilation.
o If moisture is seen on windows, walls or pipes dry the surface and find the source of the problem.
4.1.5 Energy and Water Conservation Opportunities
Click here to return to Key Points.
Analysis was performed to identify the cost effectiveness of typical energy and water conservation measures. A total
of 58 conservation measures were analyzed, as shown in Table 4. These measures align with the energy
conservation measures detailed in “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy, Energy-saving tips,
techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes” 100, which provides detailed measure
100
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
37
descriptions and guidance for implementing the measures described here. These measures have been supplemented
with a number of additions for water conservation, water heating, appliances, and landscaping.
There is generally a wide range in implementation cost for each measure, depending on who is doing the installation
(e.g., homeowner vs. a weatherization professional implementing many measures vs. a contractor hired to
implement an individual measure), the extent of work required for each measure (e.g., the time to locate and fix air
leaks is highly variable), the specific details of a given home, and many other factors. This analysis interpolated
between numerous data sources (e.g. reported manufactured home weatherization costs 101, 102, 103, calls to
manufactured home weatherization agencies, vendors serving the manufactured home market 104, general vendor
data105, cost estimating databases106, and other sources) to estimate typical implementation costs.
Click here to return to Key Points.
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing. “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy,Energysaving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”. August 2005.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/destech/saveEnrgy.html
101
Lucas, R., Fairey, P., Garcia, R. and Lubiner, M. “Energy Modeling Research: National Energy Savings Potential
in HUD-Code.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San Francisco.
http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
102
Hannigan, E., “Focus on Energy Mobile Home Duct Sealing Pilot: Results from 2008-2009.” January 31, 2011.
Focus on Energy/Wisconsin Utilities.
http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/mobilehomesductsealingpilot_s
ummaryreport.pdf
103
Robinson, D., and West, A. “Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Pilot ProgramDraft Impact Evaluation. March
2004. Energy Trust of Oregon. http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/418.pdf
104
http://mobilehomepartsstore.com
105
e.g., plumbing fixture data from www.itseasybeinggreen.com , Lowes, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.
106
R.S. Means
38
#
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 7: Summary of energy and water conservation measures analyzed
Measure
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Furnace Tune-up
E-Star Furnace vs.
Standard (Std)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Std Furnace vs. Old
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A/C Filter
Clean Cond. Coils
Clean A/C Coil
Shade A/C Cond.
A/C Tune
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
14
Seal Duct Leaks
15
Clean Registers
16
17
Air Seal (Severe)
Air Seal (Typ)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Ins. Ducts
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Ins. Door
Storm Door
Cool Roof
Storm Windows
Dbl Pane Windows
Blinds/Shades
Ext Window Shading
32
CFLs
33
34
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Hi-E Toilet
LowFlow Shwrhd
(Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr
(Typ)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
LowFlow Shwrhd
(Poor)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Improve Heating System Performance
Ensure ventilation registers can open fully and are not obstructed or damaged.
Check & replace furnace filters annually.
Furnace tune-up & safety inspection
Replace Existing Std. Efficiency Furnace with Efficient EnergyStar Furnace
Replace Old, Deteriorated Furnace with Efficient EnergyStar Furnace
Replace Old, Deteriorated Furnace with Standard Furnace
Improve Cooling System Performance
Clean or replace the air filter
Clean the condenser coils
Check air-conditioning coil in furnace/fan unit for dirt and dust. Clean as needed.
Shade AC Condenser
Tune, seasonal maintenance, correct charge a/c unit
Replace Old Poorly Tuned A/C with New EnergyStar A/C
Replace Old A/C with New EnergyStar A/C
Eliminate Leaks in Ducts
Seal Duct Leaks
Inspect ductwork through registers. Vacuum & clean. Take silver backed tape and tape
off junctions where the register boots screw into the trunk.
Reduce Air Infiltration
Reduce Air Leakage (Severe Leakage)
Reduce Air Leakage (Typical Leakage)
Insulation
Insulate Poorly Insulated Wall
Add Additional Insulation to Typical Older Walls
Insulate Poorly Insulated Ceiling
Add Additional Insulation to Ceilings
Insulate Floors with No or Minimal Insulation
Add Additional Insulation to Floors
Insulate Uninsulated Ducts
Doors, Windows & Roof
Upgrade to Insulated Steel Doors
Use a Storm Door
Reflective Roof Coating
Install Storm Windows on the Inside of Single Pane
Double Pane Windows
Effective Use of Interior Blinds or Shades
Exterior Window Shading
Lighting
Upgrade Incandescent Bulbs to CFL
Water (Interior)
Aerators on Bathroom sink (Typical)
Replace very old toilet with high efficiency toilet (Typical)
Low-flow showerhead (Typical)
Dual flow kitchen sink (Typical)
EnergyStar Dish Washer (Typical)
EnergyStar Clothes Washer (Typical)
Aerators on Bathroom sink (Inefficient Fixtures)
Replace very old toilet with high efficiency toilet (Inefficient Fixtures)
Low-flow showerhead (Inefficient Fixtures)
39
Cost
$0
$1
$135
$1,969
$1,969
$1,669
$1
TBD
$0
$40
$100
$4,950
$4,950
$245
$0
$949
$658
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$1,700
$300
$350
$350
$456
$1,078
$5,715
$0
$100
$29
$4
$222
$17
$12
$315
$735
$4
$222
$17
#
Name
Measure
Dual flow kitchen sink (Inefficient Fixtures)
43
44
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr
(Poor)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
45
46
Water Htr Wrap
DHW Pipe Ins
47
New DHW Tank
48
Tankless DHW
49
Heat Pump DHW
50
51
52
53
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
54
Dryer Vent
55
Wind Block (Poor)
56
Wind Block (Typ)
57
Smart Landscape
Shading
42
58
59*
Roof Shading
Adapted and Native
Landscaping
60*
Use a weatherbased Sprinkler
Controller
61*
Regularly adjust
sprinkler timers
62*
Use drip and other
efficient irrigation
equipment
Cost
EnergyStar Dish Washer (Inefficient Fixtures)
EnergyStar Clothes Washer (Inefficient Fixtures)
DHW
Water Heater Wrap
Water Heater Pipe Insulation
Upgrade from a standard efficiency gas storage tank (with an energy factor (EF) of 0.59)
to a high efficiency gas Storage (EF 0.62)
Upgrade from a standard efficiency gas storage tank (EF 0.59) to an instantaneous gas
water heater heater (EF 0.83)
Upgrade from standard tank-type electric resistance water heater (EF 0.90) to a heat
pump water heater (EF 3.1)
Appliances
Click here to return to Key Points.
Upgrade to a new EnergyStar refrigerator (Replacing 10 year old refrigerator).
Refrigerator energy efficiency has dramatically improved over time (see the Appendix,
Section 0 for details). Replacing old refrigerators can save significant energy.
Upgrade to a New EnergyStar Refrigerator (Replacing 20 year old Refrigerator)
Upgrade to a New EnergyStar Refrigerator (Replacing 30 year old Refrigerator)
Upgrade to a New EnergyStar Refrigerator (Replacing 40 year old Refrigerator)
Check to make sure that the dryer flexible vent line is not crushed between the dryer
and wall. A crushed line will reduce airflow and increase dryer operation time, and can
be a fire hazard.
Landscape
Improve Wind Shielding from exposed to well shielded. Landscaping and exterior can be
used to block, or reduce winds. This reduces the air infiltration in a manufactured home.
This measure assumes that the home was originally unshielded from wind and in a very
exposed location.
Improve Wind Shielding from “typical” conditions to well shielded. This measure
assumes that the home is moderately shielded from wind, as would be typical in many
manufactured home communities where neighboring houses and existing landscaping
provide some protection from the wind.
Utilize the landscaping to provide effective shading to reduce solar heat gains in summer
o
and slightly reduced local air temperatures (typically a 3 – 5 F) from evapotranspiration
cooling, while at the same time minimizing shading during the winter. Selecting
deciduous trees and thoughtful tree/landscape placement can minimize winter shading.
Costs are based on several trees/plants and ancillary supplies purchased from a local
home supply store and resident labor.
This measure analyzes the specific energy impacts of shading the roof from trees and
other landscaping elements. Costs are based on several trees/plants and ancillary
supplies purchased from a local home supply store and resident labor.
Use native and adapted landscape plantings that require minimal irrigation. Irrigation
water requirements can be reduced by 50% or more through proper plant selection.
Typical timer based sprinkler controllers provide significantly more water than plants
need for a large percentage of the time. New “smart controllers” or “weather-based”
sprinkler controls sense key weather variables (wind, solar radiation, etc.) and
automatically adjust the sprinkler timing to provide just the amount of water the plants
need. These can typically cut water use by 20% to 30%.
If a weather-based sprinkler controller is not used, then regularly adjust the sprinkler
timing. At a minimum, the sprinkler timers should be adjusted on a seasonal basis.
Studies show that sprinkler timers are rarely adjusted to meet changing seasonal water
needs.
Use drip irrigation and other efficient irrigation equipment. Drip irrigation can be 80%90% efficient, versus only 50% efficient for typical spray heads which waste water
through evaporation, wind-drift, uneven watering and over-spray. New rotor and rotator
sprinkler heads are more efficient (~70%) than older spray heads. When using drip
40
$12
$315
$735
$23
$20
$823
$1,400
$1,158
$630
$630
$630
$630
$0
$150
$150
$100
$100
Minimal
$100+
$0
Variable
#
63*
Name
Measure
Minimize irrigation
runoff
irrigation, care must be taken to ensure that proper pressure regulators are used, that
the drip lines are not placed in areas prone to damage from walking, and that they are
regularly maintained
Make sure that sprinklers and irrigation does not create runoff, spray on or under the
home, or saturate the water under the home. Make sure that water drains away from
the home and that plant beds and landscaping activities have not inadvertently changes
the slope and allow water to drain under the home.
Cost
* Savings for these landscaping measures have not been calculated because savings are highly variable
depending on location and yard size, and landscaped area and irrigation use for individual manufactured
homes in typical communities is generally small.
The energy and water savings were analyzed for each measure, based on a prototypical pre-HUD code manufactured
home for each of the three climate zones, and for each of the four primary heating fuels (natural gas, propane, fuel
oil and electricity). Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning savings were analyzed using the Manufactured Home
Energy Audit Tool (see Section 4.1.1). Supplemental engineering analysis was performed to analyze the savings for
water and DHW measures and appliances (see the appendix, Section 0, for supporting details).
41
$0
Table 8 through Table 10 provide utility savings, cost and financial performance details for each of the cost effective
measures in each of the three climate zones. Data is provided based on ‘expensive’ heating fuels typical of each
climate zone (electricity for climate zones 1 and 2, and fuel oil for climate zone 3). Savings are less for natural gas
heated homes, but the same set of measures is generally still cost effective. The ranking of measures varies by
climate zone. Detailed measure results for all fuel types and all measures are provide in the Appendix,
42
Table 20. For separate analysis of each heating fuel in each zone, see the Appendix, Section 8.4.
43
Table 8: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 1
Monthly Cost Savings
(Svgs - Financed Cost)
Ai r Sea l (Severe)
Payback (years)
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Poor)
Costs
Sea l Duct Lea ks
Utility Savings $/yr
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (40 yea r ol d Ref.)
Sea l Duct Lea ks
Water (gal)
E-Sta r Refri g (40 yrs )
Other (MMBTU)
Tune, s ea s ona l ma i ntena nce, correct cha rge a /c uni t
Other (kWh)
A/C Tune
DHW (MMBTU)
Measure
Upgra de from s ta nda rd El ectri c wa ter hea ter (EF 0.90) to Hea t
New DHW Hea t Pump
Pump Wa ter Hea ter (EF 3.1)
Cooling (kWh)
Name
Financial Performance
Heating (MMBTU)
Utility Savings
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
0
$345
$1,158
3.4
$16
0.0 1,555.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$179
$100
0.6
$14
0.0
0.0 1,818.5
0.0
0
$209
$630
3.0
$11
0.7 1,098.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$146
$245
1.7
$10
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
4,015
$111
$17
0.2
$9
7.8
-6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$208
$949
4.6
$7
Smr La nds ca pe Sha di ng
Reduce Ai r Lea ka ge (Severe Lea ka ge)
Effecti ve La nds ca pe Sha di ng to Reduce Sol a r Hea t Ga i ns i n
Summer but not Wi nter
0.0
858.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$99
$100
1.0
$7
Ext Wi ndow Sha di ng
Exteri or Wi ndow Sha di ng
1.6
366.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$85
$100
1.2
$6
Bl i nds /Sha des
Effecti ve Us e of Interi or Bl i nds or Sha des
0.4
500.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$68
$0
0.0
$6
Ki tchen Si nk (Typ)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$62
$12
0.2
$5
Ki tchen Si nk (Poor)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$62
$12
0.2
$5
CFLs
Upgra de Inca ndes cent Bul bs to CFL
0.0
0.0
0.0
540.0
0.0
0
$62
$29
0.5
$5
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Typ)
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
2,008
$55
$17
0.3
$4
E-Sta r Wa s her (Typ)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$144
$735
5.1
$4
E-Sta r Wa s her (Poor)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$144
$735
5.1
$4
DHW Pi pe Ins
Wa ter Hea ter Pi pe Ins ul a ti on
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0
$50
$20
0.4
$4
Si nk Aera tor (Poor)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
1,205
$33
$4
0.1
$3
Wa ter Htr Wra p
Wa ter Hea ter Wra p
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0
$30
$23
0.8
$2
Ins . Cei l i ng (Poor)
Ins ul a te Poorl y Ins ul a ted Cei l i ng
5.3
858.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$241
$1,700
7.1
$2
E-Sta r Refri g (30 yrs )
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (30 yea r ol d Ref.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
881.2
0.0
0
$101
$630
6.2
$2
A/C Fi l ter
Cl ea n or repl a ce the a i r fi l ter
0.0
171.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$20
$1
0.1
$2
Dryer Vent Check to ma ke s ure tha t the dryer fl exi bl e vent l i ne i s not crus hed. A0.0
crus hed0.0
l i ne wi0.0
l l reduce
148.3a i rfl ow
0.0a nd i ncrea
0 s e$17
dryer opera
$0ti on ti me.
0.0
$1
0.0
Si nk Aera tor (Typ)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
402
$11
$4
0.4
$1
Roof Sha di ng
Roof Sha di ng from La nds ca pe
-0.3
248.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$21
$100
4.9
$1
Sha de A/C Cond.
Sha de AC Condens er
0.0
103.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$12
$40
3.4
$1
Wi nd Bl ock (Poor)
Improve Wi nd Shi el di ng from Expos ed to Wel l Shi el ded
-2.7
823.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$22
$150
6.7
$0
Hi -E Toi l et Repl
(Poor)
a ce very ol d toi l et wi th hi gh effi ci ency toi l et (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,030
$30
$222
7.3
$0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.9
0.0
0
$1.7
$1
0.5
$0
Open Regi s ters
Check & repl a ce furna ce fi l ters a nnua l l y.
Ens ure venti l a ti on regi s ters ca n open ful l y a nd a re not
obs tructed or da ma ged.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$0
$0
0.0
$0
E-Sta r Di s hws hr (Typ)
Energy Sta r Di s h Wa s her (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
860
$32
$315
9.9
($1)
E-Sta r Di s hws hr (Poor)
Energy Sta r Di s h Wa s her (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
860
$32
$315
9.9
($1)
Furna ce Fi l ter
44
Table 9: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 2
DHW (MMBTU)
Other (kWh)
Other (MMBTU)
Water (gal)
Utility Savings $/yr
Costs
Payback (years)
Monthly Cost Savings
(Svgs - Financed Cost)
Measure
Reduce Ai r Lea ka ge (Severe Lea ka ge)
Upgra de from s ta nda rd El ectri c wa ter hea ter (EF 0.90) to Hea t
New DHW Hea t Pump
Pump Wa ter Hea ter (EF 3.1)
Cooling (kWh)
Name
Ai r Sea l (Severe)
Financial Performance
Heating (MMBTU)
Utility Savings
19.2
-9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$514
$949
1.8
$33
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
0
$345
$1,158
3.4
$16
Ins . Cei l i ng (Poor)
Ins ul a te Poorl y Ins ul a ted Cei l i ng
10.8
587.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$357
$1,700
4.8
$12
E-Sta r Refri g (40 yrs )
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (40 yea r ol d Ref.)
0.0
0.0
0.0 1,818.5
0.0
0
$209
$630
3.0
$11
Ext Wi ndow Sha di ng
Exteri or Wi ndow Sha di ng
3.5
310.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$130
$100
0.8
$10
A/C Tune
Tune, s ea s ona l ma i ntena nce, correct cha rge a /c uni t
0.0 1,063.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$122
$100
0.8
$9
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Poor)
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
4,015
$111
$17
0.2
$9
Sea l Duct Lea ks
Sea l Duct Lea ks
1.7
749.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$132
$245
1.9
$8
Storm Wi ndows
Ins ta l l Storm Wi ndows on the Ins i de of Si ngl e Pa ne
9.3 -193.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$227
$1,078
4.7
$8
Roof Sha di ng
Roof Sha di ng from La nds ca pe
173.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$87
$100
1.2
$6
Bl i nds /Sha des
0.8
407.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$68
$0
0.0
$6
E-Sta r Furna ce (Typ)
Effecti ve Us e of Interi or Bl i nds or Sha des
Repl a ce Ol d, Deteri ora ted Furna ce wi th Effi ci enct Energy Sta r
Furna ce
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$311
$1,969
6.3
$5
Ki tchen Si nk (Typ)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$62
$12
0.2
$5
Ki tchen Si nk (Poor)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$62
$12
0.2
$5
CFLs
Upgra de Inca ndes cent Bul bs to CFL
0.0
0.0
0.0
540.0
0.0
0
$62
$29
0.5
$5
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Typ)
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
2,008
$55
$17
0.3
$4
E-Sta r Wa s her (Typ)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$144
$735
5.1
$4
E-Sta r Wa s her (Poor)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$144
$735
5.1
$4
DHW Pi pe Ins
Wa ter Hea ter Pi pe Ins ul a ti on
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0
$50
$20
0.4
$4
Ai r Sea l (Typ)
Reduce Ai r Lea ka ge (Typi ca l Lea ka ge)
4.4
-3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$118
$658
5.6
$3
Si nk Aera tor (Poor)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
1,205
$33
$4
0.1
$3
Wa ter Htr Wra p
Wa ter Hea ter Wra p
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0
$30
$23
0.8
$2
Ins . Wa l l (Poor)
Ins ul a te Poorl y Ins ul a ted Wa l l
8.7
82.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$243
$1,700
7.0
$2
E-Sta r Refri g (30 yrs )
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (30 yea r ol d Ref.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
881.2
0.0
0
$101
$630
6.2
$2
Dryer Vent Check to ma ke s ure tha t the dryer fl exi bl e vent l i ne i s not crus hed. A0.0
crus hed0.0
l i ne wi0.0
l l reduce
148.3a i rfl ow
0.0a nd i ncrea
0 s e$17
dryer opera
$0ti on ti me.
0.0
$1
Ins . Fl oor (None)
Ins ul a te Fl oors wi th No or Mi ni ma l Ins ul a ti on
8.7
-5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$233
$1,700
7.3
$1
A/C Fi l ter
Cl ea n or repl a ce the a i r fi l ter
0.0
117.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$13
$1
0.1
$1
Si nk Aera tor (Typ)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
402
$11
$4
0.4
$1
Furna ce Tune-up
Furna ce tune-up & s a ftey i ns pecti on
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$23
$135
5.8
$1
Sha de A/C Cond.
Sha de AC Condens er
0.0
70.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$8
$40
4.9
$0
Hi -E Toi l et Repl
(Poor)
a ce very ol d toi l et wi th hi gh effi ci ency toi l et (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,030
$30
$222
7.3
$0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.9
0.0
0
$2
$1
0.5
$0
Open Regi s ters
Check & repl a ce furna ce fi l ters a nnua l l y.
Ens ure venti l a ti on regi s ters ca n open ful l y a nd a re not
obs tructed or da ma ged.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$0
$0
0.0
$0
E-Sta r Di s hws hr (Typ)
Energy Sta r Di s h Wa s her (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
860
$32
$315
9.9
($1)
E-Sta r Di s hws hr (Poor)
Energy Sta r Di s h Wa s her (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
860
$32
$315
9.9
($1)
s td Furna ce vs . ol d
Repl a ce Ol d, Deteri ora ted Furna ce wi th Sta nda rd Furnce
$177
$1,669
9.4
($3)
Furna ce Fi l ter
45
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
Table 10: Cost effective conservation measure details for climate zone 3
Other (kWh)
Other (MMBTU)
Water (gal)
Utility Savings $/yr
Costs
Payback (years)
Monthly Cost Savings
(Svgs - Financed Cost)
33.2 -228.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$862
$949
1.1
$62
25.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$693
$1,969
2.8
$37
19.3
-2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$515
$1,700
3.3
$25
Ins ul a te Poorl y Ins ul a ted Cei l i ng
16.9
253.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$481
$1,700
3.5
$22
Ins . Wa l l (Poor)
Ins ul a te Poorl y Ins ul a ted Wa l l
17.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$460
$1,700
3.7
$20
Storm Wi ndows
Ins ta l l Storm Wi ndows on the Ins i de of Si ngl e Pa ne
13.2
-52.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$347
$1,078
3.1
$17
Ext Wi ndow Sha di ng
Exteri or Wi ndow Sha di ng
8.5 -211.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$203
$100
0.5
$16
s td Furna ce vs . ol d
Repl a ce Ol d, Deteri ora ted Furna ce wi th Sta nda rd Furnce
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$391
$1,669
4.3
$15
Ai r Sea l (Typ)
Reduce Ai r Lea ka ge (Typi ca l Lea ka ge)
9.1 -171.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$224
$658
2.9
$12
E-Sta r Refri g (40 yrs )
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (40 yea r ol d Ref.)
0.0
0.0
0.0 1,818.5
0.0
0
$209
$630
3.0
$11
Sea l Duct Lea ks
Sea l Duct Lea ks
3.8
321.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$138
$245
1.8
$9
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Poor)
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
4,015
$91
$17
0.2
$7
CFLs
0.0
0.0
0.0
540.0
0.0
0
$62
$29
0.5
$5
E-Sta r Furna ce vs . Std
Upgra de Inca ndes cent Bul bs to CFL
Repl a ce Exi s ti ng Std. Effi cei ncy Furna ce wi th Effi ci enct Energy
Sta r Furna ce
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$302
$1,969
6.5
$4
Ki tchen Si nk (Poor)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$51
$12
0.2
$4
Ki tchen Si nk (Typ)
Dua l fl ow ki tchen s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
2,248
$51
$12
0.2
$4
LowFl ow Shwrhd (Typ)
Low-fl ow s howerha d (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
2,008
$45
$17
0.4
$4
A/C Tune
Tune, s ea s ona l ma i ntena nce, correct cha rge a /c uni t
0.0
457.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$53
$100
1.9
$3
DHW Pi pe Ins
Wa ter Hea ter Pi pe Ins ul a ti on
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0
$40
$20
0.5
$3
Furna ce Tune-up
Furna ce tune-up & s a ftey i ns pecti on
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$52
$135
2.6
$3
Ins . Wa l l (Typ)
Add Addi ti ona l Ins ul a ti on to Typi ca l Ol der Wa l l s
9.2
-1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$246
$1,700
6.9
$2
Si nk Aera tor (Poor)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
1,205
$27
$4
0.2
$2
E-Sta r Wa s her (Poor)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$120
$735
6.1
$2
E-Sta r Wa s her (Typ)
Energy Sta r Cl othes Wa s her (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
7,056
$120
$735
6.1
$2
E-Sta r Refri g (30 yrs )
Upgra de to a New Energy Sta r Refri gera tor (30 yea r ol d Ref.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
881.2
0.0
0
$101
$630
6.2
$2
Wa ter Htr Wra p
Wa ter Hea ter Wra p
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0
$24
$23
1.0
$2
Dryer Vent Check to ma ke s ure tha t the dryer fl exi bl e vent l i ne i s not crus hed. A0.0
crus hed0.0
l i ne wi0.0
l l reduce
148.3a i rfl ow
0.0a nd i ncrea
0 s e$17
dryer opera
$0ti on ti me.
0.0
Effecti ve La nds ca pe Sha di ng to Reduce Sol a r Hea t Ga i ns i n
Smr La nds ca pe Sha di ng
Summer but not Wi nter
$100
0.0 251.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$29
3.5
$1
Name
Measure
Ai r Sea l (Severe)
E-Sta r Furna ce (Typ)
Reduce Ai r Lea ka ge (Severe Lea ka ge)
Repl a ce Ol d, Deteri ora ted Furna ce wi th Effi ci enct Energy Sta r
Furna ce
Ins . Fl oor (None)
Ins ul a te Fl oors wi th No or Mi ni ma l Ins ul a ti on
Ins . Cei l i ng (Poor)
Heating (MMBTU)
DHW (MMBTU)
Financial Performance
Cooling (kWh)
Utility Savings
14.6
$1
Si nk Aera tor (Typ)
Aera tors on Ba throom s i nk (Typi ca l )
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
402
$9
$4
0.5
$1
A/C Fi l ter
Cl ea n or repl a ce the a i r fi l ter
0.0
50.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$6
$1
0.2
$0
Hi -E Toi l et Repl
(Poor)
a ce very ol d toi l et wi th hi gh effi ci ency toi l et (Ineffi ci ent Fi xtures )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8,030
$30
$222
7.3
$0
Ins . Ducts
Ins ul a te Uni ns ul a ted Ducts
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$40
$300
7.5
$0
Furna ce Fi l ter
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.9
0.0
0
$1.7
$1
0.5
$0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$0
$0
0.0
$0
Ta nkl es s DHW
Check & repl a ce furna ce fi l ters a nnua l l y.
Ens ure venti l a ti on regi s ters ca n open ful l y a nd a re not
obs tructed or da ma ged.
Upgra de from s ta nda rd effi ci ncy ga s s tora g ta nk (EF 0.59) to
i ns ta nta neous ga s hea ter (EF 0.83)
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
0
$172
$1,400
8.1
($0)
Bl i nds /Sha des
Effecti ve Us e of Interi or Bl i nds or Sha des
-1.3
45.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
-$30
$0
0.0
($2)
Ins . Fl oors (Typ)
Add Addi ti ona l Ins ul a ti on to Fl oors
6.6
-0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
$178
$1,700
9.6
($3)
Open Regi s ters
46
The following table summarizes the low and no-cost measures from above.
Table 11: Low and no-cost conservation measures
Name
Clean Cond. Coils
Clean A/C Coil
Blinds/Shades
Clean Registers
Dryer Vent
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
A/C Filter
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
DHW Pipe Ins
Water Htr Wrap
CFLs
Shade A/C Cond.
A/C Tune
Smr Landscape Shading
Ext Window Shading
Roof Shading
Furnace Tune-up
Wind Block (Poor)
Wind Block (Typ)
Measure
Clean the condenser coils
Check air-conditioning coil in furnace/fan unit for dirt and dust. Clean as needed.
Effective Use of Interior Blinds or Shades
Inspect ductwork through registers. Vacuum & clean. Take silver backed tape and tape off
junctions where the register boots screw into the trunk.
Check to make sure that the dryer flexible vent line is not crushed. A crushed line will
reduce airflow and increase dryer operation time.
Ensure ventilation registers can open fully and are not obstructed or damaged.
Check & replace furnace filters annually.
Clean or replace the air filter
Aerators on Bathroom sink (Inefficient Fixtures)
Aerators on Bathroom sink (Typical)
Dual flow kitchen sink (Typical)
Dual flow kitchen sink (Inefficient Fixtures)
Low-flow showerhead (Inefficient Fixtures)
Low-flow showerhead (Typical)
Water Heater Pipe Insulation
Water Heater Wrap
Upgrade Incandescent Bulbs to CFL
Shade AC Condenser
Tune, seasonal maintenance, correct charge a/c unit
Effective Landscape Shading to Reduce Solar Heat Gains in Summer but not Winter
Exterior Window Shading
Roof Shading from Landscape
Furnace tune-up & safety inspection
Improve Wind Shielding from Exposed to Well Shielded
Improve Wind Shielding from Typical to Well Shielded
47
Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
$1
$4
$4
$12
$12
$17
$17
$20
$23
$29
$40
$100
$100
$100
$100
$135
$150
$150
4.1.6 Case Studies and Examples
Several case studies and examples of actual energy savings realized from manufactured home energy conservation
and weatherization retrofits are presented below. These provide examples of actual savings being achieved in the
field and implementation costs. Each of the case-studies illustrates different per-home spending and savings ranges.
4.1.6.1 Washington State
The State of Washington has an ambitious weatherization program. Their average per-home costs for low-income
manufactured home weatherization are $7,600, but weatherization costs range significantly depending on home size
and the measures implemented. The most common weatherization measures and their associated costs are shown in
48
Table 12 below. If all measures were implemented, total weatherization costs would be $7,019 for a single wide and
$13,005 for a double wide. However, not all homes require all measures. The average cost, weighted by the
percentage of homes that need each measure, is $3,083 and $5,213 for a single and double wide, respectively.
Typical savings for electrically heated homes are 427 kWh for non-heating related savings and 2,714 kWh for
heating savings, for a total cost savings of $241/year. For gas heated homes, the typical savings are 306 kWh for
non-heating related savings and 149 Therms for heating, for a total cost savings of $232/year. 107
107
Lubliner, M., and Kunckle, R. “Mobile Home Retrofit “Lost Opportunity.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San
Francisco. http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
49
Table 12: Typical Washington State weatherization measures and costs107
4.1.6.2 Wisconsin
The state of Wisconsin has a very active weatherization assistance program with more than twenty agencies
working throughout the state. In 2007 Wisconsin had $48,000,000 in public benefit funds to be used for
weatherization, making it the largest weatherization program in the country. The 2011 report of the Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Division of Energy Services shows 703 manufactured homes using gas space heating
were weatherized with an average annual savings of 139 therms/year. 733 electrically heated manufactured homes
were also improved with an average savings of 1,054 kWh/year. West CAP, one of Wisconsin’s weatherization
agencies cited an average weatherization cost of $5,600 per home in 2007.
The most effective measures for the gas space heating homes in Wisconsin include:
Measure
Belly Insulation
Furnace Replacement
Air Leakage Reduction
Door Repair
Water Heater Replacement
Average
Savings
(therms/yr)
69
99
22
34
44
Other measures that were taken in Wisconsin with manufactured homes to reduce electricity consumption included:
Average
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Measure
50
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
Refrigerator Replacement
634
789
4.1.6.3 Case Study: Nebraska
In Nebraska, a 1996 report from the Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program of the Nebraska Energy Office
shows that a total of 595 manufactured homes were weatherized in the years 1993 through 1995. 13 of those homes
were carefully analyzed to determine the benefits gained and showed an 11.1% energy savings at an average
weatherization cost of $1,754.
4.1.7 EnergyStar Manufacture Home Replacements
Click here to return to Key Points.
There is significant discussion in the manufactured home community regarding when it no longer makes sense to
undertake efforts to reduce the energy and water use and/or weatherize a house (also known as “walking away” from
weatherization because a house is in such poor condition that it does not merit further costs to attempt to improve it),
and when it is more cost effective to replace a home with a new EnergyStar home. These are two important and
related questions this white paper addresses.
The first question is, when does it make sense to “walk away” from weatherization and other energy and water
conservation measures? There are generally no strict “Walk Away” criteria required by the DOE or state
weatherization assistance programs, aside from income and ownership issues not related to the technical condition
of homes. There are exclusions that limit weatherization activities where there are significant safety concerns (e.g.,
presence of asbestos), or require necessary structural repairs be made, but these do not preclude weatherization as
long as the weatherization activities are cost effective (e.g., 108, 109, 110, and 111). Manufactured home stock data (e.g.,
Figure 12 through Figure 16) shows that there are many more manufactured homes, including many older ones that
are likely very inefficient, than there are funds to replace these with new units. Therefore, it generally does not
make sense to simply walk away from cost effective weatherization efforts and do nothing simply because these
are “too inefficient to start with,” as these homes will likely continue to be used.
Since it generally does not make sense to simply walk away from cost effective weatherization, the next question is,
when is it cost effective to replace an older manufactured home with a newer EnergyStar rated unit? A review of
available literature did not find significant data on this topic. The System Building Research Alliance notes that this
analysis has been done for the EnergyStar Manufactured Home program112 and that replacing an older home with a
newer EnergyStar manufacture home does not pay back from energy savings alone. While this is generally true,
there is significant variation in manufactured home energy costs depending on age, condition, climate zone and
heating fuel type (refer to Figure 22 through Figure 27). This paper conducted a detailed analysis to determine the
specific set of conditions where it is most cost effective upgrade to an EnergyStar home.
The costs and savings for replacing each of the manufactured home prototypical models described in Table 6
(models for each climate zone, heating fuel, vintage and condition) with a new EnergyStar manufactured home was
analyzed. The analysis assumes that each home is replaced by an equivalent sized EnergyStar rated manufactured
home of ~900 ft2 using the same heating fuel (i.e., assuming no heating fuel switch). Typical replacement costs of
$33,732 are assumed (based on a review of the literature with $35.73/ ft2 costs for a typical new manufactured home
plus a $1.75/ ft2 adder for the EnergyStar features totaling $37.48/ft2). A 30 year analysis period with a 4% mortgage
108
Washington State Department of Commerce. “Weatherization Manual for Managing Low-Income
Weatherization Program.” 2010 Revision.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTEDPublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0&ItemI
D=6512&MId=870&wversion=Staging
109
Maine State Housing Authority, “Maine Weatherization Standards.” 2005.
http://www.waptac.org/data/files/technical_tools/mainefieldstandards.pdf
110
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, “Program Operations Manual”.
http://dhcd.maryland.gov/website/programs/wap/ops_manual.aspx
111
Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center. “Field Standards and Guides.” Webpage,
accessed 11/20100. http://www.waptac.org/Technical-Tools/Field-Standards-and-Guides.aspx
112
These studies were not published or released publically, and could not be obtained for this project.
51
rate is assumed113, resulting in a monthly mortgage payment of $160.51. Utility cost savings, the net change in
monthly housing costs (mortgage costs minus utility savings), and simple payback period were calculated for each
scenario. Detailed analysis assumptions and results are shown in Table 21 in the Appendix.
Note that there may be a variety of other costs associated with replacing older, dilapidated homes with a new
EnergyStar homes that may exceed the estimated EnergyStar home costs used in this analysis. This includes site
improvements, additional disposal and recycling costs, temporary housing during the demolition and installation
process (potentially several months), etc. Furthermore, care should be noted that the analysis is based on modeled
energy costs assuming that spaces are maintained at normal temperatures. It is likely that low-income residents
living in old, inefficient homes will take other actions to mitigate high energy bills—e.g., reduce heating in winter;
not use the air-conditioner, use alternate (and sometimes dangerous) heating equipment, etc.
Table 13 and Figure 27 summarize the analysis results. Figure 27 plots the payback for replacing existing homes
with EnergyStar homes for all scenarios analyzed (a wide range of house location, vintage, condition and heating
fuel). Table 13 provides more detailed data on the scenarios where EnergyStar replacement homes are cost effective.
Note that this analysis is intended to identify, holding all things equal, where the most cost effective opportunities
for EnergyStar home replacements lie. There are many factors that can influence these results: occupants
responding to high energy bills by reducing heating or using alternative heating sources; access to affordable
financing, etc. These results should not be used as the final basis for justifying an EnergyStar Home
replacement, but a starting point for focusing programmatic efforts. The data is sorted by payback, with the green
shaded lines representing conditions where the payback from energy savings is under 30 years and the utility
savings are greater than the new mortgage payment. In other words, homes where the total monthly housing costs go
down. These are conditions where an EnergyStar replacement home makes the most financial sense.
The results show that while EnergyStar home upgrades do not make financial sense based on energy savings
alone for most situations, there are a number of key scenarios where EnergyStar replacement homes are
potentially cost effective from energy savings. For the following three situations, the payback from energy savings
is under 20 years and the utility savings are greater than the new mortgage payment. In other words, total monthly
housing costs go down.
1. Older pre-HUD Code or early HUD code homes in the “poor” condition (e.g., leaky, poorly insulated, older
low-efficiency HVAC equipment, etc.) in Zones 2 and 3 using expensive heating fuels (electricity, propane
or fuel oil),
2. Older electrically heated homes in zone 1 in “poor” condition, and
3. Older pre-HUD Code homes in zone 3 heated with propane or fuel oil in “design” condition (e.g. homes
that are in good, original condition but have not been weatherized).
Furthermore, there are additional conditions where upgrading to a new EnergyStar manufactured home pays
back over a 30 year house lifetime, but where monthly housing costs go up (i.e., utility savings do not outweigh
mortgage costs, and monthly homeowner costs will increase). These conditions are represented by the blue shaded
scenarios. These also are generally homes in poor condition with expensive heating fuels. Refer to Table 13 for
details. The red shaded scenarios represent conditions where EnergyStar home upgrades do not make financial sense
based on energy cost savings alone.
Click here to return to Key Points.
These results are significant because they show a large, well-defined class of homes where it is potentially cost
113
It should be noted that there is wide variability in financing rates. Some states treat manufactured homes as real
property, while others treat them as chattel. Fannie Mae only finances manufactured homes that are titled as real
property on permanent foundations. Mortgage rates for real property do not apply to chattel; chattel financing runs
about 250 basis points above conventional mortgage rates. Mortgage rates vary considerably depending on the
borrower’s credit rating, and whether the borrow qualifies for any of the lower interest financing programs
discussed in Section 1. Affordable housing programs also have access to lower than market interest rates and other
funding which can effectively buy down the rate. We believe the mortgage rate used here is representative of what
can be expected for a programmatic approach to ENERGYSTAR manufactured home replacements in the
affordable housing context, but this is clearly variable and dependent upon many factors. The reader should
exercise care when using these numbers. A more detailed financial analysis would be required for any specific
program.
52
effective to replace older homes with newer EnergyStar homes. There are opportunities for manufactured home
and affordable housing stakeholders to explore programmatic approaches to making these change-outs happen,
such as the development of special financing mechanisms, revolving loan funds, approaches similar to Next Step
(see case study in Section 1), and so on. Further investigation of the savings potential is also required in order to
identify how significant occupant behavior will affect these results (e.g., how likely low income residents are likely
to turn down or off heating and air-conditioning rather than pay large utility bills).
Click here to return to Key Points.
53
New EnergyStar Manufactured Home
Utility Costs ($/Year)
Mortgage Cost ($/month)
$7,214
$7,068
$6,022
$5,905
$5,901
$5,787
$5,264
$5,170
$4,419
$4,414
$4,345
$4,331
$4,269
$3,713
$3,707
$3,688
$3,631
$3,635
$3,629
$3,485
$2,844
$2,791
$3,314
$3,271
$3,480
$3,265
$3,221
$3,208
$3,190
$3,130
$3,126
$3,077
$2,417
$3,030
$2,805
$2,766
$2,147
$2,138
$2,151
$1,718
$1,718
$1,687
$1,660
$1,687
$1,660
$1,718
$1,665
$1,669
$1,687
$1,645
$1,660
$1,665
$1,530
$1,687
$1,669
$1,645
$1,660
$1,665
$1,530
$944
$944
$1,505
$1,487
$1,718
$1,505
$1,487
$1,530
$1,687
$1,660
$1,669
$1,645
$998
$1,718
$1,505
$1,487
$944
$998
$1,016
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
54
Net Cost (Mortgage - Utility
Savings) ($/year)
($3,570)
($3,424)
($2,409)
($2,319)
($2,288)
($2,201)
($1,620)
($1,579)
($824)
($801)
($775)
($745)
($679)
($257)
($94)
($93)
($60)
($50)
($38)
($29)
$26
$80
$117
$142
$164
$166
$192
$248
$423
$456
$469
$494
$507
$614
$626
$648
$723
$786
$792
Payback (yr)
$458
$446
$361
$354
$351
$344
$296
$292
$229
$227
$225
$223
$217
$182
$168
$168
$166
$165
$164
$163
$158
$154
$151
$149
$147
$147
$144
$140
$125
$123
$121
$119
$118
$109
$108
$107
$100
$95
$95
Net Cost = Mortgage - Utility
Savings(Neg. = savings, $/month)
$5,496
$5,350
$4,335
$4,245
$4,214
$4,127
$3,547
$3,505
$2,750
$2,727
$2,701
$2,671
$2,605
$2,184
$2,020
$2,019
$1,986
$1,976
$1,964
$1,956
$1,900
$1,846
$1,809
$1,784
$1,762
$1,760
$1,734
$1,678
$1,503
$1,470
$1,457
$1,432
$1,419
$1,312
$1,300
$1,279
$1,203
$1,140
$1,134
Utility Cost Savings ($/month)
EnergyStar Upgrade Savings
Utility Cost Savings ($/year)
Scenario (Climate Zone/Heating
Fuel/House Condition/Vintage)
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Existing Manufactured Home Utility
Costs ($/Year)
Table 13: Conditions where EnergyStar manufactured home replacements are cost effective
($298)
($285)
($201)
($193)
($191)
($183)
($135)
($132)
($69)
($67)
($65)
($62)
($57)
($21)
($8)
($8)
($5)
($4)
($3)
($2)
$2
$7
$10
$12
$14
$14
$16
$21
$35
$38
$39
$41
$42
$51
$52
$54
$60
$65
$66
6
6
8
8
8
8
10
10
12
12
12
13
13
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
22
23
23
24
24
26
26
26
28
30
30
383
Zn1-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn1-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn3-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD
284
283
211
208
188
169
162
162
158
140
138
123
123
94
94
94
93
92
92
90
84
82
74
72
56
55
47
46
45
43
42
32
30
30
28
26
26
26
24
24
23
23
22
20
19
19
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
15
13
13
12
12
12
Payback > 30 Years
10
10
8
8
8
8
Payback < 30 Years, AND Monthly House Cost INCREASE
Payback < 30 Years, AND Monthly House Cost SAVINGS
6
6
1
10
Payback (years)
100
Figure 27: EnergyStar Replacement Analysis Summary
55
1,000
4.2 Community Level Sustainability Opportunities
The single largest contribution a community organization can make to its constituents is to provide information
about sustainability efforts that help residents save utility costs and lead healthier lives. Searching for and taking
advantage of incentives and financing programs can be complex, and although energy and water savings can begin
with straightforward strategies, it can be difficult to determine which strategies are the most useful under a specific
set of circumstances. By encouraging and informing residents about these issues, community organizations play a
critical role in helping residents maintain an efficient, affordable, and healthy home.
Second to education is the scale on which community actions take place; individual actions multiplied dozens or
hundreds of times can have enormous impact, and community groups themselves also have an interest in
maintaining their own infrastructure in the most efficient, affordable, and healthy ways possible. Conversely,
community inaction can lead to years of lost utility savings, environmental degradation, or
unrealized/unmitigated health risks. There are many opportunities to improve sustainability at the communitylevel, as well as improve the effectiveness of individual household level sustainability measures. This section
reviews key sustainability opportunities at the community level.
4.2.1 Homeowner Sustainability Education
Many sustainability and efficiency measures are well suited to direct homeowner action, and require little or no
costs to implement. There are a number of significant opportunities for homeowner education that would provide
them with information to make these changes on their own and provide the necessary guidance.
4.2.1.1 Moisture and Mold
Moisture problems described in Section 4.1.4 are a significant cause of physical damage, energy loss and health
problems. Identifying and correcting moisture problems is often best done by homeowners. The Manufactured
Housing Research Alliance’s “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Homes: Understanding Their Causes and
Finding Solutions114” provides an excellent resource that could be provided directly to homeowners or communities
to provides detailed guidance on preventing and mitigating moisture problems. This information could also be
condensed and summarized in brochures and related materials more appropriate to widespread distribution.
4.2.1.2 Indoor Environmental Quality
Many indoor environmental quality factors are addressed under moisture and mold, but it may be useful to expand
this to include other factors, such as indoor tobacco smoke, urea-formaldehyde in particle board, volatile organic
compounds in adhesives, sealants, and paints, outside air delivery rate, and daylighting.
4.2.1.3 Energy and Water Conservation
There are many low cost energy and water conservation measures that homeowners can implement. Section 4.1.4
summarizes the low and no-cost measures, along with the most cost effective measures by climate zone. An
education and outreach program can be built around these findings and the detailed descriptions and guidance
outlined “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy, Energy-saving tips, techniques and
recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes” 115.
4.2.1.4 Landscaping
Homeowner and community landscaping and related activities have significant impacts on water use, drainage and
moisture problems, as well as home heating and cooling. Education can be provided to help homeowners select
plants that use less water, learn how to effectively shade their homes using landscaping to reduce summer heat
gains, provide evaporative cooling, and minimize unwanted winter shading, and how to make sure landscaping
promotes drainage and reduces water and moisture problems.
4.2.1.5 Financing and Funding Opportunities
There are a vast number of financing and incentive programs for energy efficiency, renewable energy, water
114
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/moisture.pdf
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing. “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving Energy,Energysaving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”. August 2005.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/destech/saveEnrgy.html
115
56
efficiency and other sustainability measures. These include direct grants, low-interest loans and other innovative
funding, rebates, and other incentives. It is likely that many residents are unaware of all the different incentives.
There are opportunities to develop summary sheets on a community-by-community basis that summarize key
incentives available to residents. Due to the highly local nature of many of the incentives (utilities and local
municipalities often have their own programs), ROC USA could develop a template for how to research and present
local funding opportunities to guide communities or partners in developing a comprehensive list of opportunities and
facilitating community-wide participation.
4.2.1.6 Water Supply
Significant opportunities to reduce water use and stormwater runoff can be approached at the community level, and
can substantially reduce the overall environmental footprint of any manufactured home community. Additionally,
sustainability issues related to water take on special significance for rural manufactured home communities that are
not served by a public water supply, but provide and treat their own water. These communities have a particular
need to ensure that they are using water efficiently, minimizing infrastructure costs and maintenance, and
maintaining a safe, cost-effective water supply. Specific measures that properties should consider are described
below.
4.2.1.7 Reduce Site Irrigation Water Use
The first and most important opportunity related to water is to ensure water is being used efficiently. Site irrigation
(i.e., watering of medians, open-space, parks and other community landscaping) is typically the largest source of
water consumption controlled at the community level. Potential water savings can be quite large, depending on the
amount of irrigated area and current practices. There is large variation in the square footage of irrigated land in
manufactured home communities, so it is difficult to generalize regarding total irrigation water use. Some
communities have minimal or no irrigated yards or common areas (e.g., the community used in the case study in
Figure 19) and will have nearly zero irrigation water use. However, some communities may have landscaping and
yards similar in area to typical single-family site-built neighborhoods, where landscape irrigation can account for
50% to 70% of total community water use. The following measures provide specific guidance to reduce irrigation
water use.

Conduct an Irrigation Audit
A key starting point to reducing irrigation water use is to conduct an irrigation audit. All irrigation systems
break down over time: heads get misaligned, broken, or damaged; valves stick; leaks develop; the schedule
gets changed; etc. An irrigation audit will identify and correct these problems, and can potentially save
large amounts of water. While an irrigation audit can vary in complexity and detail, it consists of the
following key elements: a detailed inspection of the irrigation equipment, testing the system, and
scheduling. There are certified irrigation auditors that can conduct an audit 116. However, an irrigation audit
could also be conducted using community personnel with a little training. There are a number of online
irrigation auditing guidelines and forms117.

Develop a Landscape Irrigation Maintenance Program
It is important to develop a regular irrigation maintenance program that ensures the irrigation system
functions properly, that problems are identified in a timely manner, and that issues are corrected promptly.
In the absence of a regular maintenance program, minor operation and performance problems can continue
for months resulting in excessive water use and poor efficiency.

Plant Native, Drought Tolerant and Low Water Consuming Plants
Use native and adapted landscape plantings that require minimal irrigation. Irrigation water requirements
can be reduced by 50% or more through proper plant selection.
116
The Irrigation Association has a Landscape Irrigation Auditor certification program
(http://www.irrigation.org/clia/), with a searchable database of irrigation auditors
(http://www.irrigation.org/hirecertified/)
117
e.g., http://www.irrigation.org/Resources/Irrigation_Auditing.aspx, and http://aggiehorticulture.tamu.edu/greenhouse/hortgardens/conservation/agentdemo1.pdf
57

Use a Weather-Based Sprinkler Controller
Typical, timer-based sprinkler controllers provide significantly more water than plants need for a large
percentage of the time. New “smart” or “weather-based” sprinkler controls sense key weather variables
(wind, solar radiation, rain, etc.) and automatically adjust the sprinkler timing to provide just the amount of
water the plants need. These can typically cut water use by 20% to 30%.

Regularly adjust sprinkler timers
If a weather-based sprinkler controller is not used, then regularly adjust the sprinkler timing. At a
minimum, the sprinkler timers should be adjusted on a seasonal basis. Studies show that sprinkler timers
are rarely adjusted to meet changing seasonal water needs.

Use drip and other efficient irrigation equipment
Use drip irrigation and other efficient irrigation equipment. Drip irrigation can be 80%-90% efficient,
versus only 50% efficient for typical spray heads, which waste water through evaporation, wind-drift,
uneven watering and over-spray. New rotor and rotator sprinkler heads are more efficient (~70%) than
older spray heads. When using drip irrigation, care must be taken to ensure that proper pressure regulators
are used, that the drip lines are not placed in areas prone to damage from walking, and that they are
regularly maintained.

Minimize irrigation runoff
Make sure that sprinklers and irrigation do not create runoff, spray on or under the home, or saturate the
water under the home. Make sure that water drains away from the home and that plant beds and
landscaping activities have not inadvertently changed the slope to allow water to drain under the home.
4.2.1.8
Measure Water Pressure throughout the Community and Ensure Appropriate Pressure
Regulation
Measure the water pressure throughout a site. A simple $15 pressure gauge from a building supply store can be used
to measure water pressure on hose bibs, faucets, and irrigation lines. Water pressure should be approximately 50
PSI. Higher pressures can significantly increase water use, increase water lost through leaks, and lead to excessive
wear on pipes, burst pipes, and damaged irrigation equipment. Significant daily pressure variations are quite typical
and municipal water supply pressures can vary dramatically. One property measured water pressure variation from
roughly 60 PSI during the day to over 120 PSI at night. This high pressure led to burst pipes (particularly PVC
irrigation pipes, damaged irrigation equipment, and other problems. Therefore, it is important to measure the
pressure throughout the day and night (most pressure gauges can simply be left on overnight and have an indicator
that reads maximum pressure recorded).
140
Water Pressure, PSI
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
Figure 28: Example 24-hour property pressure readings shows significant water pressure variation
Reducing water pressure from 60 to 50 psi, for example, could lower the total water consumption of a property by 5
58
to 10%. Properties typically have pressure regulating valves that can be adjusted to the desired pressure. If they have
stopped working and are no longer able to regulate pressure, or there are no pressure regulating valves, new valves
should be installed. Costs are around $500 to $700 for a 3-inch pressure reducing valve.
4.2.1.9 Install Water Submeters
Click here to return to Key Points.
Many communities have a single water meter for the entire community, and residents pay for their water as part of
their monthly rent (either as a flat rate independent of actual use, or based on total community water use prorated on
a per house basis). There is no feedback to residents regarding how much water they are using, and no incentive to
conserve. Installing water submeters for each home benefits both the community and residents. It provides a means
for residents to lower total household costs by making them aware of their water use and enabling them to save
money by being more efficient and repairing leaks, rather than penalizing them for inefficient use by others. It can
also lower total community water consumption. Studies have shown that submetering results in savings of 18 –
39%118. Typical residential submeters cost around $100, excluding installation. There are a number of companies
that specialize in submetering. Local and state regulations regarding utility submetering and tenant billing should be
consulted prior to implementing submetering. Metering accuracy and other requirements exist but vary by
jurisdiction.
Figure 29: Typical water submeter
4.2.1.10 Submeter Irrigation Water
Communities that have large landscapes with significant irrigation should consider submetering the irrigation lines.
This will aid in identifying leaks and tracking consumption. Furthermore, many water/wastewater utilities charge for
wastewater based on water purchases. In some cases, wastewater charges can be reduced by installing submeters (or
installing separate utility meters) on irrigation water supply lines.
4.2.1.11 Charge for Water on a “Conservation Pricing” Basis
Once submeters are installed, the water should be charged on a “conservation pricing” basis, if permitted by local
and state regulation. Water utilities throughout the nation are moving towards this practice, which typically involves
charging for water on a tiered basis. The lower tier represents the typical amount of water consumed by a home to
meet basic needs. Additional water use falls into tiers with higher prices; excessive or wasteful water use is
penalized. This sends a price signal to residents to conserve water.
4.2.1.12 Promote Resident Water Efficiency
Resident water consumption is typically the largest single source of water consumption in a manufactured home
community, but is not directly controlled at the community level. However, there are a number of things that can be
done at the community level to help reduce resident water consumption and promote water efficiency. Communities
can educate residents about water efficiency and promote efficiency through newsletters, community meetings and
special events. They can also purchase water conservation equipment (e.g., faucet aerators) to give away or water
auditing tools to loan to residents. A water auditing program could be developed at the community level.
4.2.1.13 Leverage Utility Water Conservation Incentives
Water utilities often have a variety of incentives for water efficiency. These include toilet swaps, efficient
showerhead giveaways, water audits, leak detector kits, incentives for smart irrigation controllers, and other
measures. The community should work with their local water utility to identify all relevant incentives and
118
Base on a study conducted by the National Multi-Housing Council and the National Apartment Association,
http://www.guardianwp.com/pages/benefits/benefits.aspx
59
opportunities, and promote these within the community. It may even be possible to arrange special events, such as a
community-wide toilet replacement, or a community-wide showerhead exchange program. Utilities are often very
supportive of community efforts to conserve water and will often work together to leverage existing programs or
develop custom programs at the community level.
4.2.1.14 Routinely Check for Leaks
It is important to routinely check for leaks, ideally on a monthly basis, but at least annually. Leak detection includes
a physical inspection of irrigation equipment, pipes, fittings and other equipment. Even apparently “small” leaks can
waste significant water on an annual basis. Another important indicator of a significant leak is a persistent patch of
wet or soggy ground, which indicates that an underground pipe may be leaking and saturating the ground around it.
Note however, that a leaking underground pipe may not be apparent in sandy or well drained soils.
Figure 30: Apparently “small” leaks such as this can waste thousands of gallons per year
Another important method for determining leaks is to measure hourly water consumption for a 24 hour period (i.e.,
read the main water meter on each hour for a day). Make sure the sprinklers are not running throughout the night
when this is done. Typical water consumption should be very low, close to zero during the late night and early
morning hours. Significant early-morning water consumption is most likely due to leaks. Figure 31 illustrates
hourly water consumption readings for two different properties. The graph on the left shows water consumption for
a property which does not drop significantly at night; this property had significant underground water leaks that
were not identified until an hourly reading was taken. This property was wasting approximately 2 million gallons
and nearly $15,000 of water per year. The graph on the right is for a different property, where early morning
consumption drops significantly to around 100 gallons per hour. While this is significantly better than the graph on
the left, one would expect actual property water use to be closer to zero in these periods (assuming irrigation is off).
It is likely that this 100 – 200 gallons per hour is due to leaks, which could be wasting up to 73,000 gallons/year.
Additional investigation can confirm this. If the property is submetered, the submeters could also be measured to
24-hour water consumption curve - Sandals Inn
identify24-hour
households
large leaks.
waterwith
consumption
- 350-room hotel
100
10:00 PM
8:00 PM
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
2:00
0
0:00
200
6:00 PM
1,000
300
4:00 PM
2,000
400
2:00 PM
3,000
500
12:00 PM
4,000
600
10:00 AM
5,000
700
8:00 AM
6,000
800
6:00 AM
7,000
900
4:00 AM
8,000
1,000
2:00 AM
Hourly water use (IG / hour)
9,000
Midnight
Hourly water consumption (IG / hour) .
10,000
Figure 31: DailyTime
measured water consumption for two properties (gallons per hour)
4.2.1.15 Trend and Benchmark Community Water Consumption
Most communities and facilities never examine their historical water consumption. “Creeping” water consumption
60
trends often go unnoticed, and even large increases or spikes in water use often go unnoticed or only noticed after
long periods of time. Community water consumption should be analyzed to identify changes in consumption
patterns, anomalies that may be indicative of problems, and to benchmark performance. At a minimum,
communities should calculate their total water use per home and compare this to consumption in previous months
and years. Significant changes can be identified and addressed. This data can be shared through monthly newsletters
or similar methods to educate residents and track water efficiency efforts.
4.2.1.16 Protect Well Fields
For communities that have their own wells, it is important to protect the water source from contamination and other
water quality problems. Water quality is also largely dependent on regional water quality issues that are often
outside of the community’s control. It is easy for a well field to be contaminated through septic system
malfunctions, illegal dumping, and poor land use. This can be very costly for a community, and could require
additional water treatment, well relocation, or in some cases loss of water supply. A few key issues that should be
considered include:

Ensure septic systems are not leaking or misplaced. Improperly functioning septic systems can leak and
contaminate groundwater supplies and contaminate streams and other surface water. Septic systems should
be regularly maintained and inspected; leaking or damaged septic systems should also be repaired. Leach
fields can become clogged over time and may need to be repaired or relocated. Also, the community should
ensure that septic system leach fields are not in close proximity to the pump. Consult local health
department requirements to determine the necessary setbacks.

Manage Stormwater to prevent well contamination. Make sure that stormwater does not drain in such a
way that may cause polluted stormwater from contaminating the well or groundwater. It is possible for
improperly controlled stormwater to wash contaminants from leaking septic fields into the well area.

Watch for illegal dumping of oil and other wastes. Make sure that motor oil and other pollutants are not
being dumped on the ground or washing in from offsite. Promotion of proper oil and waste disposal
practices can help reduce the potential of improper disposal. Promptly clean up oil spills and other
contamination sources.

Monitor off-property sources of contamination. A community’s groundwater can be easily contaminated
from off-site sources. This can range from improperly functioning septic systems from nearby properties,
illegal dumping that gets into the groundwater, and other issues. A community should be vigilant in
protecting its water supply.

Test drinking water. Test water to ensure that contaminants are below EPA limits. Evaluate whether water
treatment is required.
4.2.2 Wastewater
Managing wastewater is particularly important for communities that have their own wastewater systems (e.g., septic
systems). Increasing water efficiency (e.g., efficient toilets and plumbing fixtures) will significantly reduce
wastewater generation. This can reduce wastewater treatment costs and prolong system operation. Water efficiency
can also reduce the size of a wastewater system replacement or upgrade. The following measures provide additional
measures to improve a community’s wastewater system.
4.2.2.1 Ensure wastewater supply systems are properly operating and not leaking
It is not uncommon for wastewater systems to leak, break down or otherwise function improperly. Septic systems
can often be damaged by someone driving heavy equipment or trucks over the leach field, can become clogged or
leaky, and experience other problems. Problems often go unnoticed or have a low priority for repair. It is important
that these systems be properly monitored and maintained.
4.2.2.2 Utilize Gray Water
Wastewater from showers, bathroom sinks and clothes washers is referred to as gray water and can be legally used
61
in many states119 for a variety of applications, most prominently “gray water” irrigation. Gray water irrigation uses
subsurface irrigation methods. Microbes in the soil provide effective treatment. Depending on the site layout and
slope, there are a number of different gray water systems that may be appropriate. Gray water reuse for landscaping
can significantly reduce freshwater consumption, reduce loads on onsite wastewater treatment systems, lower
overall wastewater treatment costs, and provide a cost effective irrigation source for arid areas 120. For example, gray
water could irrigate a row of trees that provides community shading.
4.2.2.3 Alternate Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
If a new onsite wastewater treatment system is required or an existing system is not operating effectively, there are a
number of alternate technologies that can be used, which can potentially reduce operating costs and/or reduce
potential for ground and surface water contamination. These range from mechanical systems such as “living
machines” and other “packaged systems” to a range of more natural treatment options. A complete discussion is
beyond the scope of this paper, but a number of resources are available online121, 122. Consider water conservation,
gray water reuse, and other measures to reduce the required system size.
4.2.3 Road Infrastructure and Stormwater Infrastructure
Click here to return to Key Points.
Management of stormwater requires that best practices be undertaken for both stormwater infrastructure and road
infrastructure. Stormwater infrastructure and road infrastructure are closely related at the community level: streets
and other paving are significant sources of runoff generation, and curbs and gutters are central to stormwater
management infrastructure. This report groups stormwater and road infrastructure practices together. A set of best
management practices for roads/stormwater is referred to as “low impact development”, which uses alternate
construction methods to manage stormwater and promote on-site infiltration rather than runoff. This reduces the size
and cost of the required stormwater infrastructure, reduces stormwater generation and flows, and improves pollution
removal.
4.2.3.1 Reduce Street Widths and other Impervious Area
Reducing street widths can significantly reduce the amount of material required, reduce runoff, and lower long term
maintenance costs. Likewise, minimizing other impervious areas such as parking lots and hardscape (or replacing
impervious materials with permeable pavers, permeable concrete, or permeable asphalt) can reduce runoff. These
measures need to be coordinated with local fire marshals to ensure appropriate fire truck access, as well as
consideration of other local code requirements. In many cases, local jurisdictions are amenable to working with
communities on these issues and issuing variances where needed. Other measures to infiltrate water into the ground,
such as swales, rain gardens and other bioretention systems, and dry wells, may also be appropriate.
4.2.3.2 Permeable Paving and Interlocking Concrete Paving
Traditional paving materials seal out rainwater and generate stormwater runoff. A wide class of permeable paving
materials exists that allow water to infiltrate into the soil. This includes permeable pavers, permeable concrete,
permeable asphalt, and “grass-pave123” materials that allow grass to grow but provide a structural base that can
support fire trucks and other vehicle traffic. Permeable concrete and asphalt are standard concrete/asphalt except
they have no fine grain sand, which allows water to percolate through voids. Permeable pavers have coarse sand
between pavers which also allows water to infiltrate rather than running off. Permeable paving should be considered
when paving and resurfacing streets or installing new streets or parking. In many situations, interlocking concrete
pavers are less costly than standard paving.
119
Refer to Oasis Design’s Gray Water Policy Center, http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/index.htm
A good source for additional gray water design, costs, treatment effectiveness and related data is found at Oasis
Design’s website (http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/index.htm) and http://www.graywater.net/
121
EPA, :Wastewater Treatment: Alternatives to Septic Systems.” June 1996
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20013JJ8.txt
122
University of Rhode Island. “Choosing a Wastewater Treatment System”.
http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/NEMO/Publications/PDFs/WW.ChoosingSystem.pdf
123
www.invisblestructures.com
120
62
Figure 32: Permeable concrete paving
Figure 33: Permeable inter-locking pavers
4.2.3.3
Swales
A swale is a simple vegetated channel used for stormwater drainage in place of traditional curbs, gutters
and pipes. Swales are specifically designed to remove pollutants in stormwater through natural treatment
in the soil/vegetation and infiltration of stormwater. Swales can be a particularly effective stormwater
management technique for communities without any stormwater management infrastructure that has
drainage problems, and should be considered when roads are being repaved or replaced.
63
Figure 34: grassed swale124
4.2.3.4
Rain Gardens and Bioretention
Bioretention is the intentional use of landscaping to hold and infiltrate stormwater. A bioretention zone
looks like a nicely landscaped area, but has been specifically designed to capture rainwater coming from a
bioswale, street, or other source and to remove pollutants while infiltrating the water. Plants are selected
for their ability to trap and treat pollutants in stormwater, including petroleum, metals, etc. This is an
effective, simple way to manage stormwater and improve site aesthetics.
Figure 35: A bioretention area124
4.2.3.5 Dry Wells
Dry wells are small pits filled with gravel or stone. They allow runoff from rooftops to drain and infiltrate into the
ground, rather than runoff. These may be useful for reducing roof runoff.
4.2.4 Energy
Community energy use is typically related primarily to street-lighting, but may also be used by other community
124
EPA. “Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach.” June 1999.
http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/pubs/LID_National_Manual.pdf
64
resources. Community infrastructure such as onsite water or wastewater treatment and community clubhouses and
other buildings can be significant energy consumers. Below are key community-level energy conservation
opportunities.
4.2.4.1 Maximize Community Building Efficiency
Communities with club houses and other community buildings should make sure energy is being used efficiently.
This includes using programmable thermostats to minimize heating and air-conditioning when the building is not in
use, keeping equipment in good working order, and making appropriate energy efficient upgrades where necessary.
4.2.4.2 Install Electricity Submeters
For communities where residences do not have individually metered or submetered electricity, electricity submeters
should be installed. This will benefit both the community and residents. It provides a means for residents to lower
total household costs by making them aware of their electricity use and enabling them to save money by being more
efficient, rather than penalizing them for inefficient use by others. There are a number of companies that provide
submetering for manufactured home communities 125 that can assist with meter infrastructure and installation, billing
setup, and legal issues. Make sure to consult local and state regulations governing utility submetering.
4.2.4.3 Efficient Site Lighting
Click here to return to Key Points.
Communities should replace older, inefficient site lighting with more efficient lights. Specifically, the following
actions should be taken:

Replace older mercury vapor lamps. Mercury vapor lamps are less efficient than newer lamps such as
metal halide, high pressure sodium, and LEDs. Furthermore, they do not burn out as typical lamps do, but
their light output slowly decreases over time, emitting approximately 50% less light every five years while
using the same amount of energy. These should be replaced with newer metal halide, high pressure sodium,
or LED lamps. Check to make sure that the new lamps are compatible with the fixture and ballast.

Replace incandescent lamps. Incandescent lamps are inefficient and have short lives. They have high
energy and maintenance costs. Incandescent bulbs should be replaced with CFLs, LED lamps, metal halide
lamps, or high pressure sodium lamps. In some cases, a new fixture may be required to accommodate the
lamp ballast.

Install LED streetlighing. LED streetlights are now available and are significantly more efficient than
current lighting, with 40% energy savings possible. LED replacement modules are available for some types
of streetlights, and there are a variety of new fixtures. Newer fixtures often include additional energy
conservation features, such as integrated daylight sensors, hi/low dimming based on motion detectors, and
so on.

Reduce light levels and light pollution. Where light levels are excessive or greater than required, lower
wattage lamps should be installed. Also, make sure that fixtures are not shining light up into the air to
create light pollution and waste energy. Where necessary, new fixtures can better direct light to where it is
needed and provide the same amount of usable light where needed for less energy.
4.2.4.4 Install Photo-Sensors, Astronomical Timers, and Motion Sensors on Site Lighting
Controls should be installed and calibrated to keep lights off during the day and when not needed. Make sure that
existing timers and controls are properly calibrated and adjusted. Astronomical timers automatically adjust light
on/off times based on actual sunrise and sunset times, and can be programmed to turn lights on at sunset, off at
sunrise, or on/off at a different specified time. Standard timers, particularly mechanical timers, do not save as much
energy because they are seldom adjusted for changing daylight hours and their time setting often creeps. Motion
sensors should be used for locations where lighting is needed for security but isn’t needed constantly. Also consider
dual light-level fixtures, which provide a minimum amount of light all the time for security, but extra light when
motion is detected.
125
One example is the National Exemption Service, https://www.submeter.com/main/home.sfx
65
4.2.4.5 Track and review energy use on a regular basis
Similar to water, community electricity consumption should be tracked and monitored to identify changing
consumption patterns and spot increases and problems in a timely manner. Many utilities are now providing online
utility bill tracking and analysis that can be utilized. Otherwise, a simple spreadsheet can be used to track electricity
use. Data should be graphed and compared to the previous month’s consumption, and comparisons of year-over-year
energy use should also be determined. Electricity use can be calculated on a per home basis to aid in interpretation.
4.2.4.6 Promote Community-Scale Weatherization Efforts
Weatherization is typically done on a home-by-home basis. However, there are opportunities to increase costeffectiveness by targeting weatherization activities on a community level. Explore opportunities to target
weatherization activities, energy audits, and related activities for the community.
4.2.4.7 Leverage Utility Energy Conservation Incentives
Energy utilities often have a variety of incentives to encourage energy efficiency. These include lamp giveaways,
programmable thermostats, incentives for upgrading to more efficient furnaces, swamp coolers, increasing
insulation, energy audits, and many other measures. Incentives change regularly and vary from utility to utility.
Available incentives can be identified and communicated to the community through monthly newsletters, fliers,
bulletin boards, etc. Utilities are often very supportive of community efforts to conserve energy and will often work
together to leverage existing programs or develop custom programs at the community level.
4.2.4.8 Homeowner Education and Energy Auditing Support
The community can support homeowner education initiatives in a variety of ways. This can include reminders in
monthly newsletters or bills to setback thermostats, install storm windows, and take other energy saving actions,
providing homeowners with detailed energy auditing and conservation guides 126, and encouraging residents to
conduct in-home energy audits. This can include purchasing a set of tools that can be loaned to homeowners, such as
a “Kill-a-Watt” meter to measure electricity plug loads 127, mirrors to inspect ducts for damage, etc. It could also
include providing common low-cost materials, or coordinating the availability of such materials for common
energy-related repairs and upgrades, such as water heater wraps, foil-backed tape for taping leaky ducts, etc.
4.2.4.9 Use landscaping to Reduce Community Wind Exposure
Site landscaping can be used to block or reduce prevailing winds that increase energy use. This reduces the air
infiltration in the homes throughout the community. Typically, it is desirable to block cold winter winds, while not
blocking summer winds that can reduce air conditioning use or facilitate natural ventilation. Careful site and wind
analysis should guide community tree planting and landscaping.
4.2.4.10 Use Landscaping to Reduce Community Air-Conditioning Costs
Trees and landscaping can have significant impacts on summer temperatures and air-conditioning energy use.
Landscaping can also provide effective shading to reduce solar heat gain in summer and reduce local air
temperatures (typically by 3-5 degrees F) as a result of cooling due to evapotranspiration. Well-designed
landscaping can achieve these goals while at the same time allowing for solar heat gain during the winter. Selecting
deciduous trees and providing thoughtful tree/landscape placement can minimize winter shading. Studies have
shown that effective use of community tree plantings can reduce summer air-conditioning energy use by up to 25%.
Furthermore, property with many mature trees typically increases desirability and aesthetic value.
4.2.5 Solid Waste
The most significant step a community can take to improve solid waste management is to provide appropriate
recycling and waste collection services. Specifically, a community should ensure that appropriate recycling services
are available, educate residents about proper hazardous waste disposal, and coordinate opportunities to collect
126
E.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by
Saving Energy,Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile)
homes”. August 2005. http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_CON-501.pdf
127
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS322&q=kill-awatt&gs_upl=142l550l0l1051l4l3l0l0l0l0l337l500l0.1.0.1l2l0&um=1&ie=UTF8&tbm=shop&cid=5525303247386121198&sa=X&ei=8qPrToWaEsaviQKkibXXBA&ved=0CGQQ8wIwAQ
66
hazardous waste. This can include working with local waste agencies to host hazardous waste collection roundups
for the community, providing hazardous waste collection bins for batteries, lightbulbs, electronics, used motor oil,
and other hazardous waste. A community can also compost greenwaste from landscape maintenance onsite.
5. Policy Needs and Opportunities
Changes in federal, state, and local policies could help make manufactured home and manufactured home
communities more environmentally sustainable and economically stable. This section outlines existing policies that
are counterproductive and need to be changed. This section also shows how advocates of manufactured homes have
succeeded in a variety of policy arenas.
Success is possible because policy makers with an interest in sustainability can easily see that manufactured homes
and manufactured home communities offer advantages over conventional housing:
 Density: one of the goals of “smart growth” is to increase the density of housing units, reducing sprawl and
the loss of open space while enabling opportunities for mass transit, more efficient school bus routes, etc.
 Efficient production: building homes in a factory is inherently more energy-efficient than stick-built, and
the potential for building energy efficiency into new homes is easily assured.
 Innovative energy solutions: the density of MH communities should make it possible to develop distributed
heating systems and possibly electricity generating systems.
 Community: where residents own their community or have long-term leases, strong communities can
develop and be particularly helpful to seniors who can “age in place.”
While specific policy opportunities are outlined below, promoting the sustainability features intrinsic to
manufactured homes detailed in this report would benefit any specific policy effort. Explaining the factory-built
process, high density nature of manufactured home communities and the small footprint of homes helps make the
case for policy reform. The cooperative management structure of resident owned communities also provides a great
opportunity for innovation with sustainability measures. In these communities, the opportunity exists to structure
new financial investments in community infrastructure with volunteer initiatives. Listed below are policy needs and
opportunities to support more sustainable manufactured homes for manufactured homeowners, communities and
new homes.
5.1 For Manufactured Homeowners
USDA Section 504 Direct Loans: Rural Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Loans are funded directly by the
Federal Government. These funds are available to very low income residents living in non-metropolitan areas. The
objective of the program is to help very low income owners of modest single family homes repair those homes.
Loan and grant funds are available to improve or modernize a home, make it safer or more sanitary or remove health
and safety hazards.
Action: Work with USDA to highlight its use in resident-owned communities and educate all users of the program
on those energy-efficiency and water-saving improvements detailed in this report.
Weatherization Assistance Program: This program was created in 1976 to assist low income families reduce
energy consumption and costs.
Action: Many local and regional practitioners have used this grant program to retrofit manufactured homes. The
most cost-effective strategies detailed in this report for retrofitting manufactured homes in different climate zones
and with different heating fuel sources might be incorporated in the Program’s guidance to encourage the most
effective use of scarce grant resources. An effort is underway in New Hampshire to demonstrate that change some of
the assumptions about weatherization of manufactured homes. That effort is described in the “community” section
that follows.
67
Utility and Municipality Financing Programs: There are a wide variety of funding programs targeted at energy
efficiency, renewable energy and related programs sponsored by local utility companies, including rural electric
cooperatives, in areas where manufactured homes are prevalent.
Action: Promote manufactured homes as an essential affordable housing resource that should be included in such
programs, and conduct outreach to major program sponsors to share the findings of this report.
Renewal of Tax Credit for EnergyStar Appliance purchase: The federal government offered federal tax credits
for the purchase of EnergyStar appliances which have expired.
Action: Conduct public education around the value of such federal tax credits for the purchase of EnergyStar
appliances.
5.2 For Manufactured Home Communities
FHA Section 213 Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative Housing: This program insures mortgage loans to
facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, and purchase of cooperative housing projects.
Action: Streamline the process for using Section 213 and conduct public education to ensure that cooperatively
owned manufactured home communities are eligible. Conduct public education around the construction and
rehabilitation features of the program, including the following recommendations in this report: sub-metering of
water, energy-efficient site lighting, pervious paving, capture and re-use of rain water and use of drought-resistant
landscaping.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): This program provides communities with resources to address
a wide range of unique community development needs, including affordable housing development. The CDBG
program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1,209 general units of local government and states.
Action: Conduct public education around the CDBG regulations to highlight the use of CDBG funding to purchase
and preserve manufactured home communities by enabling residents, nonprofits, and government agencies to
acquire the land. Conduct public education around the use of CDBG funds for community infrastructure
improvement in cooperative owned manufactured home communities which incorporate sub-metering of water,
energy-efficient site lighting, pervious paving, capture and re-use of rain water and use of drought-resistant
landscaping.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program: HOME provides grants to states and localities that communities use—
often in partnership with local nonprofit groups—to fund a wide range of activities that build, buy, and /or
rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.
Action: Conduct public education on the HOME Program regulations to how program definitions identify residentowned manufactured home communities as homeownership projects and provide information on the use of HOME
funds to support infrastructure improvements in such communities which incorporate sub-metering of water, energyefficient site lighting, pervious paving, capture and re-use of rain water and use of drought–resistant landscaping.
USDA Water and Environmental Program (WEP): These programs provide loans, grants, and loan guarantees
for drinking water, water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns
of 10,000 or less. Public bodies, nonprofit organizations and recognized Indian tribes may qualify for assistance.
WEP also makes grants to nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance and training to assist rural
communities with their water, wastewater, and solid waste problems.
Action: Conduct public education around the value of sub-metering of water and the capture and re-use of rain
water as potential features of this program to support manufactured home communities.
68
Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program: The U.S. Department of Energy has made grants available to
organizations attempting to improve the cost-effectiveness and impact of the federal Weatherization Assistance
Program. The New Hampshire Community Loan Fund received a grant to test the assumption that weatherizing
numerous homes in dense manufactured home communities would be more cost-effective than the traditional
scattered approach to weatherization. The effort is being evaluated by DOE to see if it should be applied more
broadly.
Action: If, as expected, the results of the pilot show that investing weatherization money in manufactured home
communities is a particularly good investment, educate local weatherization providers on the value of investing such
funds in manufactured housing communities. Also, conduct public education to demonstrate how federal and state
agencies might deliver weatherization resources more effectively in manufactured home communities. The most
cost-effective strategies detailed in this report for retrofitting manufactured homes in different climate zones and
with different heating fuel sources might be incorporated in the Program’s guidance and shared with current
grantees to encourage ongoing innovation and the most cost-effective application of grant resources.
State and Local Storm water Management Requirements: State and local governments will require the
management of storm water displaced as a result of new development. Many of these requirements rely on
traditional storm water management techniques such as storm water management ponds fed by a system of collector
pipes and do not permit innovative new ideas like Rain Gardens.
Action: Work with state and local regulators to encourage inclusion of innovative storm water management
techniques into state and local regulations, including capture and re-use of rainwater on site for irrigation of
landscapes and other purposes.
State and Local Street and Roadway Requirements: State and local departments of transportation set standards
for road construction that specify required road widths and materials. There has been growing concern that many
residential roadways are constructed too wide, increasing impervious surface area and encouraging speeding. In
addition, pervious paving materials that decrease runoff are often not permitted.
Action: Work with state and local regulators to encourage inclusion of innovative street and roadway requirements
to allow narrower roadways and paving materials that create less impervious areas.
State and Local Housing Finance Agencies: Many state HFAs are active in financing manufactured homes and
manufactured home communities. To the extent HFA financing is used for community improvements, prioritize
sub-metering of water, capture and re-use of rainwater, energy-efficient site lighting, pervious paving and droughtresistant landscaping.
5.3 For New Manufactured Homes
Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): This program assists low-income households,
particularly those with the low income households, particularly those with the lowest income that pay a high
proportion of household income for home energy, primarily in meeting their immediate home energy needs.
Action: Conduct public education around how LIHEAP funds might be used for replacement of Pre-1976
manufactured homes.
State Level Tax Credit for the Purchase of EnergyStar Manufactured Homes. Some states have enacted tax
credits for the purchase of EnergyStar manufactured homes.
Reauthorization of Federal Tax Credit for Builders of Energy Efficient New Homes: This tax incentive expired
at the end of 2011.
Action: Conduct public education around the potential value of this tax credit.
Federal Legislation to Replace Manufactured Homes built before the 1976 HUD Code with EnergyStar rated
69
New Homes:
This initiative was supported in federal Energy and Jobs legislation in 2010, which would have
provided between $10,000 and $17,000 to eligible homeowners to replace inefficient older homes, which cost
lower-income homeowners excessive amounts in monthly utility bills, with EnergyStar rated new manufactured
homes. Despite significant Congressional support, this initiative was not adopted in final legislation.
Action: Conduct public education around the value of this potential legislation.
Energy-Efficiency Updates to HUD Manufactured Home Code: In 2010, Congress provided authority to the
U.S. Department of Energy to update and strengthen the energy-efficiency elements of the HUD Code for
manufactured homes. The Energy Department has developed a draft of this updated energy-efficiency component
of the HUD Code.
Action: Conduct public education around the value of these energy-efficiency updates to the HUD Code, including
but not limited to conducting information sessions with the U.S. Energy Department, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and other key industry stakeholders.
6. References & Bibliography
Circle of Blue. “The Price of Water: A comparison of Water Rates, Usage in 30 US Cities.” April 26, 2010.
Accessed online 10/24, http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/the-price-of-water-acomparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities/
Circle of Blue. “The Price of Water 2011: Prices Rise an Average of 9% in Major U.S. Cities.” May 5, 2010.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/the-price-of-water-2011-prices-rise-an-average-of-9percent-in-major-u-s-cities/
Downing, C. “Air Change Rate Tests of Aura Vent.” November 1996: Georgia Institute of Technology, Economic
Development Institute. http://roofvents.com/report2.html
Fairey, P., Parker, D., Wilcox, B. and Lombardi, M. "Climate Impacts on Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
(HSPF) and Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) for Air Source Heat Pumps." ASHRAE
Transactions, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta,
GA, June 2004. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-413-04/
Hales, D. “HUD Code Manufactured Homes.” Presentation to the April 2009 ACI Conference.
http://www.affordablecomfort.org/images/Events/32/Courses/1338/HOUS8_Hales.pdf
Hannigan, E., “Focus on Energy Mobile Home Duct Sealing Pilot: Results from 2008-2009.” January 31, 2011.
Focus on Energy/Wisconsin Utilities.
http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/mobilehomesductsealing
pilot_summaryreport.pdf0
Judkoff, R., Hanckock, . Franconi, E., Hanger, R., and Weiger, J. “Mobile Home Weatherization Measures: A Study
of Their Effectiveness.” December, 1988. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI).
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3440.pdf
Lublinr, M., and Kunckle, R. “Mobile Home Retrofit “Lost Opportunity.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San
Francisco. http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
Lucas, R., Fairey, P., Garcia, R. and Lubiner, M. “Energy Modeling Research: National Energy Savings Potential in
HUD-Code.” 2011 ACI Annual Conference, San Francisco.
http://2011.acinational.org/sites/default/files/session/81130/aci11pro3lublinermichael.pdf
Maine State Housing Authority, “Maine Weatherization Standards.” 2005.
http://www.waptac.org/data/files/technical_tools/mainefieldstandards.pdf
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA), “Moisture Problems In Manufactured Homes Understanding
Their Causes And Finding Solutions.” 2000. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/moisture.pdf
70
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). “Whole House Ventilation Stratgies.” January 2003.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/house_ventilation.pdf
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing. “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving
Energy,Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”.
August 2005. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/destech/saveEnrgy.html
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, “Program Operations Manual”.
http://dhcd.maryland.gov/website/programs/wap/ops_manual.aspx
Meier, A. “Infiltration: Just ACH50 Divided by 20?”. Home Energy Magazine, January/February 1994.
http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/id/1015
Moyer, N. “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Housing.” Home Energy, December 2005.
http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/nav/moistureproblems/id/3.
National Fire Protection Association “Manufacture Home Fires.” July 2011.
http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/webdocs/NFPA%20Report%20on%20Fires%20In%20Manufactured
%20Homes,-Hall%202011.pdf
National Rural Electric ooperative Association, Manufactured Housing Resarch Alliance, U.S. EPA., and Tennessee
Valley Authority. “Manufactured Home Cooling Equipment Sizing Guidelines.”
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloads/SizingGuidelines.pdf
Nutt-Powell, T., Hoaglin, H., and Layzer, J. “Residential Property Value and Mobile/Manufactured Homes: A Case
Study of Belmont, New Hampshire,” Working Paper 86-1. 1986: Joint Center for Housing Studies of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA) Users Manual.” Version 7. August,
2003. http://eber.ed.ornl.gov/pub/weatherization/Manuals/MHEA%20Users.pdf
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Validation of the Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA).” November 2007.
http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_CON-501.pdf
Robinson, D., and West, A. “Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Pilot ProgramDraft Impact Evaluation. March 2004.
Energy Trust of Oregon. http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/418.pdf
Scott, B. and Bartges, L. “Weatherizing Mobile Homes Case Study.” December 2005. Home Energy.
http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/page/2/nav/casestudies/id/47
Steiner, C. and Van der Veer, B. “Mobil Homes: Mechanical Ventilation, Pressures and Moisture.” Presented at the
DOE Midwest Regional Conference, August 2006.
http://www.affordablecomfort.org/images/Events/20/Courses/521/VanderMeer_MOB2.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Communities Survey. Online data accessed 10/2011:
www.census.gov/acs/www.data_documentation/2009_release, http://factfinder.census.gov/
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.”
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Housing Problems of Low Income Households”.
Online Interactive Thematic Maps. Accessed 10/1/2011. http://www.huduser.org/tmaps/LIhousehold/chas.html . Underlying data available online http://www.huduser.org/tmaps/LIhousehold/LI_CHAS_DATA.xls
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Manufactured Home Consumer’s Guide”.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/ramh/mhs/prod01 Accessed
10/1/2011.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Manufactured Homes: Saving Money by Saving
Energy,Energy-saving tips, techniques and recommendations for owners of manufactured (mobile) homes”.
August 2005. http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_CON-501.pdf
71
U.S. Energy Information Agency. “Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector,
by State, Year-to-Date through May 2011 and 2010”. Accessed online 10/2011:
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=507&t=3 .
U.S. Energy Information Agency. “U.S. Average Residential Heating Fuel Prices for Winters 2010-2011 and 20112012”. Accessed online 10/2011: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=5&t=3.
U.S. Energy Information Agency. “U.S. Propane Residential Price by All Sellers”. Accessed online 10/2011:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPLLPA_PRT_NUS_DPG&f=M.
Vermeer, K., and Louie, J. “The Future of Manufactured Housing.” January 1997: Joint Center for Housing Studies,
Harvard University. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/R971_vermeer_louie_Futmanhousing.pdf
Warner. K., and Scheuer, J. “Manufactured Housing Impacts on Adjacent Property Values,” Manufactured Housing
Research Project, Report 4. 1993: University of Michigan.
Washington State Department of Commerce. “Weatherization Manual for Managing Low-Income Weatherization
Program.” 2010 Revision.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/CTEDPublicationsView.aspx?tabID=0
&ItemID=6512&MId=870&wversion=Staging
Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center. “Field Standards and Guides.” Webpage, accessed
11/20100. http://www.waptac.org/Technical-Tools/Field-Standards-and-Guides.aspx
72
Appendix A: Analysis Details
Overview
The Manufactured Home Energy Audit (MHEA) tool was used as the primary analysis tool for analyzing energy use
and assessing energy conservation opportunities in manufactured homes. The MHEA was developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. It predicts manufactured home energy consumption and recommends weatherization
retrofit measures and is designed to address issues specific to manufactured homes. This was supplemented with
engineering and spreadsheet calculations for water use, lighting, refrigeration, and other end uses, which
incorporated statistical consumption data for manufactured homes. Details are described below. A series of
prototype manufactured home models were developed that met the HUD Code requirements for each of the current
HUD Code zones in Figure 37. Corresponding models were developed to meet the original HUD Code
requirements, pre-HUD code requirements (designed to A119.1), and the current EnergyStar requirements. The
models were analyzed using the MHEA, supplemental load data for water, DHW, lighting, plug loads, etc. Utility
costs for a variety of different heating fuels (natural gas propane, fuel oil and electricity) were analyzed.
HUD Climate Zones and Representative Locations
The HUD code has different thermal performance requirements for different climate zones. The original 1976 HUD
Code contained three climate zones, as shown in Figure 36. The updated 1994 HUD code changed the climate
zones, as shown in Figure 37. The EnergyStar program has a different set of climate zones, as shown in Figure 38.
Prototypes were developed and analyzed representative cities in each of the three current HUD climate zones:
Macon, GA for zone 1; Louisville, KT for Zone 2; and Bangor, ME for Zone 3. These cities were selected to be
representative of locations with large percentages of manufactured homes (Figure 8), areas with significant use of
expensive heating fuels, and to align with each of the different climate zone maps.
Figure 36: 1976 – 1994 HUD climate zone map
73
Figure 37: Current (1994+) HUD climate zone map
Figure 38: EnergyStar climate zone map
74
Prototype Models
Each of the prototype models were developed to meet the applicable requirements or each code and zone, following
typical industry design practice128. It is assumed that pre-HUD code homes are built to ANSI Standard A119.1
requirements. All prototypes are the same size (14 ft x64 ft, ~ 900 ft 2) to facilitate comparisons between codes. The
specific design criteria for each prototype are shown in the following table. Standard assumptions for all models are
that the floor wing insulation is attached under the joists, the floor belly cavity configuration is “rounded” with the
insulation draped below the joists.
128
Note that there is significant variation in industry design practices, particularly for pre-HUD code homes. Typical
design practice is based on the author’s manufactured home design experience.
75
Table 14: Prototype model assumptions
Code
Climate Zone
Representative City Macon, GA
Heating Design Temp.
Cooling Design Temp
Floor Length (ft)
Floor Width (ft)
Ceiling Height (ft)
Roof:
U-Value
Walls: Description
U-Value
Floor:
U-Value
Doors:
U-Value
Glazing:
Front Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Left Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Back Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Right Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Front Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Left Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Back Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Right Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Floor Area (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Gross Exterior Wall Area (sf)
Net Front Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Left Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Rear Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Right Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Roof Area (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Envelope Totals (sq, ft)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Home Perimeter (ft)
Infiltration (BTU/hr)
Furnace Capacity (Input) (BTU/hr)
Furnace Efficiency
Furnace Output (BTU/hr)
A119.1
1
A119.1
2
Louisville, KY
21
96
64
14
8
A119.1
3
Bangor, ME
5
95
64
14
8
HUD76
1
Macon, GA
-11
86
64
14
8
HUD76
2
Louisville, KY
21
96
64
14
8
HUD76
3
Bangor, ME
5
95
64
14
8
-11
86
64
14
8
Wood Truss w/
Wood Truss w/
Wood Truss w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Metal Roofing, R19 Metal Roofing, R19 Metal Roofing, R19 Metal Roofing, R19 Metal Roofing, R19 Metal Roofing, R19
Insul. And .5" fiber Insul. And .5" fiber Insul. And .5" fiber Insul. And 1/2"
Insul. And 1/2"
Insul. And 1/2"
ceiling board Ceiling ceiling board Ceiling ceiling board Ceiling Fiberboard Ceiling Fiberboard Ceiling Fiberboard Ceiling
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
2x4 Wall w/
2x4 Wall w/
2x4 Wall w/
Aluminum Siding, R- Aluminum Siding, R- Aluminum Siding, R- 2x4 Wall w/
2x4 Wall w/
2x4 Wall w/
7 Insulation and 1/4" 7 Insulation and 1/4" 7 Insulation and 1/4" Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, RLauan Plywood
Lauan Plywood
Lauan Plywood
11 Insulation and
11 Insulation and
11 Insulation and
Interior
Interior
Interior
1/4" Lauan Interior 1/4" Lauan Interior 1/4" Lauan Interior
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.089
0.089
0.089
2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/
R-11 Insulation
R-11 Insulation
R-11 Insulation
R-4 Insulation
R-7 Insulation
R-7 Insulation
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.121
0.091
0.091
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
Single Glazing +
Single Glazing
Single Glazing
Storms
Single Glazing
Dual Glazing
Dual Glazing
60
60
60
40
40
40
48
48
20.58
44
23.2
23.2
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
16
6.86
22
11.6
11.6
58
58
58
78
78
78
46.4
46.4
19.894
85.8
45.24
45.24
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
16
6.86
22
11.6
11.6
20
20
20
20
20
20
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
896
896
896
896
896
896
58.561
58.561
58.561
108.773
81.400
81.400
1248
1248
1248
1248
1248
1248
432
432
432
452
452
452
56.305
56.305
56.305
40.271
40.271
40.271
92
92
92
92
92
92
11.991
11.991
11.991
8.197
8.197
8.197
437
437
437
417
417
417
56.957
56.957
56.957
37.152
37.152
37.152
92
92
92
92
92
92
11.991
11.991
11.991
8.197
8.197
8.197
896
896
896
896
896
896
53.131
53.131
53.131
53.131
53.131
53.131
3,040
3,040
3,040
3,214
3,214
3,214
396.870
396.870
324.664
494.554
385.021
385.021
156
156
156
156
156
156
5,351
7,098
8,845
5,351
7,098
7,098
36,000
44,000
48,000
40,000
44,000
44,000
76%
0.76
76%
0.76
0.76
0.76
27,360
33,440
36,480
30,400
33,440
33,440
76
Energy Star Package Energy Star Package Energy Star Package
Code
HUD94
HUD94
HUD94
1-5
2-3
3-3
Climate Zone
1
2
3
1
2
3
Representative City Macon, GA
Louisville, KY
Bangor, ME
Bangor, ME
Louisville, KY
Macon, GA
Heating Design Temp.
21
5
-11
-11
5
21
Cooling Design Temp
96
95
86
86
95
96
Floor Length (ft)
64
64
64
64
64
64
Floor Width (ft)
14
14
14
14
14
14
Ceiling Height (ft)
8
8
8
8
8
8
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Wood Trusses w/
Composition Shingle Composition Shingle Composition Shingle Composition Shingle Composition Shingle Composition Shingle
Roofing, R30 Insul. Roofing, R30 Insul. Roofing, R30 Insul. Roofing, R38 Insul. Roofing, R38 Insul. Roofing, R19 Insul.
And 1/2" Drywall
And 1/2" Drywall
And 1/2" Drywall
And 1/2" Drywall
And 1/2" Drywall
And 1/2" Drywall
Roof: Ceiling
Ceiling
Ceiling
Ceiling
Ceiling
Ceiling
U-Value
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.042
0.042
0.061
Walls: Description
U-Value
Floor:
U-Value
Doors:
U-Value
Glazing:
Front Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Left Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Back Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Right Glazing (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Front Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Left Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Back Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Right Doors (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Floor Area (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Gross Exterior Wall Area (sf)
Net Front Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Left Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Rear Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Net Right Wall (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Roof Area (sf)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Envelope Totals (sq, ft)
U-Value (BTU/hr-F)
Home Perimeter (ft)
Infiltration (BTU/hr)
Furnace Capacity (Input) (BTU/hr)
Furnace Efficiency
Furnace Output (BTU/hr)
2x4 Wall w/
2x6 Wall w/
2x6 Wall w/
2x6 Wall w/
2x6 Wall w/
2x4 Wall w/
Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R- Hardboard Siding, R11 Insulation and
19 Insulation and
19 Insulation and
21 Insulation and
21 Insulation and
13 Insulation and
1/2" Drywall Interior 1/2" Drywall Interior 1/2" Drywall Interior 1/2" Drywall Interior 1/2" Drywall Interior 1/2" Drywall Interior
0.088
0.057
0.060
0.053
0.053
0.079
2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/ 2x6 Floor Framing w/
R-11 Insulation
R-11 Insulation
R-19 Insulation
R-30 Insulation
R-19 Insulation
R-21 Insulation
0.069
0.069
0.048
0.036
0.048
0.045
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
1-3/4" Wood
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
0.582
Dual Glazing +
Dual Glazing +
Dual Glazing +
Dual Glazing +
Dual Glazing
Dual Glazing
Storms
Storms
Storms
Storms
40
40
29
29
29
29
23.2
23.2
7.772
7.772
7.772
7.772
20
0
0
0
0
0
11.6
0
0
0
0
0
78
58
49
49
49
89
45.24
33.64
13.132
13.132
13.132
23.852
20
20
20
20
20
20
11.6
11.6
5.36
5.36
5.36
5.36
20
20
20
20
20
20
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
11.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
9.894
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
896
896
896
896
896
896
61.912
61.912
43.254
31.928
43.254
40.454
1248
1248
1248
1248
1248
1248
452
452
463
463
463
463
39.724
25.712
27.793
24.727
24.731
36.688
92
112
112
112
112
112
8.085
6.371
6.723
5.981
5.983
8.875
417
437
446
446
446
406
36.648
24.859
26.773
23.819
23.823
32.171
92
92
92
92
92
92
8.085
5.233
5.523
4.913
4.914
7.290
896
896
896
896
896
896
42.759
42.759
42.759
37.991
37.991
54.978
3,214
3,214
3,214
3,214
3,214
3,214
353.889
300.321
244.124
198.908
210.245
268.031
156
156
156
0.61
0.61
0.61
5,351
7,098
8,845
6,375
5,116
3,857
36,000
36,000
40,000
28,000
24,000
24,000
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.9
0.8
0.8
27,360
27,360
30,400
25,200
19,200
19,200
Analysis Notes
The Manufactured Home Energy Audit Tool was used as the primary analysis tool. Analysis was supplemented with
various engineering calculations and other study data were needed, as described below.
77
Duct Sealing
Duct sealing can be evaluated in the MHEA, but it requires actual duct leakage test data, since duct sealing savings
are highly variable. Two different duct sealing studies in manufactured homes both show similar savings of 3.9% of
natural gas heating energy129, 130. Air-conditioning energy is reported to be 220 kWh, or approximately 3.2%.
Testing and repair costs for the Oregon program were $125/home for testing only (e.g., no sealing needed), $250 for
testing and standard repairs, and $450 for homes requiring extensive or difficult repairs, such as homes with belly
returns or exterior closets. This is in line with duct sealing costs reported from the Washington State weatherization
efforts of $254 for single wide and\ $382 for double wide homes.
Air-Conditioning
Air-conditioning efficiency has improved significantly over the years. Replacing older air-conditioners with new
EnergyStar rated units can save significant energy. The following table summarizes typical Seasonal Energy
Efficiency (SEER) ratings compared to the vintage of the air conditioners used in this analysis. The SEER is
calculated by dividing the typical cooling-season cooling output in BTUs by the total electric energy input in Watthours. Higher SEER ratings are more efficient.
Table 15: Typical A.C. Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratios (SEER) vs. vintage
Vintage
SEER
Pre 1980
<= 6
1980-1985
<=7
1986 – 1991
<=8
1991-2005
10-12
2006-2008
13
EnergyStar
14.5
Lighting
The U.S. DOE’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) provides the best data on manufactured home
lighting patterns. Manufactured home residents average 13.7 hours of lighting per night (total for all light bulbs,
average of summer and winter usage), and on average 33% of total lighting is with energy efficient CFL lighting.
This analysis assumes that 100 W incandescent lamps are replaced with 26-Watt CFLs. This results in ~378
kWh/year for current average lighting, 130 kWh/year for homes that upgrade all lamps to CFL, and 500 kWh/year
for homes with no CFLs.
Plug and Miscellaneous Loads
Both the DOE’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and California’s Residential Appliance Saturation
Survey (RASS) provide details on plug loads and other miscellaneous energy use in manufactured homes. Upon
review of the data, RASS’s unit energy consumption data, in kWh/year and Therms/year, was selected for use. This
data was processed in readily useable form and is representative of typical nationwide patterns. Plug load energy use
is shown below.
Table 16: Primary electric plug and miscellaneous loads for manufactured homes131
Load
kWh/year
Saturation Rate
Television
697
100%
Microwave
109
88%
7
81%
Clothes Washer
129
Hannigan, E., “Focus on Energy Mobile Home Duct Sealing Pilot: Results from 2008-2009.” January 31, 2011.
Focus on Energy/Wisconsin Utilities.
http://www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/mobilehomesductsealingpilot_s
ummaryreport.pdf
130
Robinson, D., and West, A. “Manufactured Home Duct Sealing Pilot ProgramDraft Impact Evaluation. March
2004. Energy Trust of Oregon. http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/418.pdf
131
Data from 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS),
http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASS2009/
78
Personal Computer
437
72%
Furnace Fan
157
66%
Outdoor Lighting
204
65%
Dish Washer
52
56%
Table 17: Primary fuel plug and miscellaneous loads for manufactured homes 132
Homes w/Gas Data
Load
Therms/year
Saturation Rate
Dryer
20
48%
Range/Oven
23
87%
Water and Water Heating
DHW heating was calculated on a fixture-by-fixture basis using the same typical flow rate and residential usage
assumptions as used by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
guidelines. Engineering analysis was used to determine water heating energy and typical water heating losses for
various systems.
Refrigerators
Refrigerator energy consumption is based on methodology develop by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab for the
Home Energy Saver program133. The primary factors impacting refrigeration energy use are vintage, size, type, and
whether it is EnergyStar rated. The unit energy consumption is calculated as follows:
Where:
UECrefrigerator = unit energy consumption (kWh/year)
AV = adjusted volume (ft3)
EF = Energy Factor (ft3∙day/kWh), per Table 18, which is a lookup table factoring in refrigerator type and
year of manufacture
EnergyStar = 0.8 if the refrigerator is EnergyStar rated or 1 of not or unknown134
And the adjusted volume is defined as:
Where:
size = "Nominal" refrigerator/freezer volume (ft3), and for the survey is grouped into the following
categories and average size bins:
 Compact (Less than 10 ft3), average = 5 ft3
 Small (10 - 19 ft3), average = 17 ft3
 Standard/Regular (20 - 28 ft3), average = 24 ft3
 Large (29 + ft3), typical = 30 ft3
132
Data from 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS),
http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASS2009/
133
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Home Energy Saver: Engineering Documentation. Refrigerator Energy
Consumption”, https://sites.google.com/a/lbl.gov/hes-public/calculation-methodology/calculation-of-energyconsumption/major-appliances/refrigerator-energy-consumption (accessed 8/19/11)
134
EnergyStar refrigerators use 20% less energy than a new non-EnergyStar qualified model. See the EnergyStar
website for more information,
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=RF
79
frac = Fraction of refrigerator volume devoted to fresh-food storage (0 ≤ frac ≤ 1). For side-by-side
refrigerators, a fresh-food fraction of 0.6 is used, while all other configurations use a fraction of
0.66.
Table 18: Shipment Weighted Energy Factors (EF) for Refrigerators135
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
General
3.84
4.03
4.22
4.41
4.60
4.79
4.96
5.27
5.59
6.09
6.12
6.39
6.57
6.72
6.83
7.45
7.60
7.78
8.15
8.44
8.80
11.13
11.19
11.22
11.22
10.63
10.5
10.4
11.11
13.58
15.17
15.30
15.70
16.09
16.49
16.89
17.28
17.68
18.07
18.47
Automatic defrost
Side-by-Side
Top Freezer
3.57
3.56
3.81
3.81
4.05
4.06
4.29
4.31
4.53
4.56
4.77
4.81
5.02
4.75
5.32
5.21
5.62
5.67
5.93
6.12
6.02
6.30
6.10
6.47
6.12
6.75
6.36
6.89
6.49
6.95
7.28
7.66
7.45
7.83
7.68
8.06
7.78
8.51
8.26
8.91
8.69
9.36
12.18
11.39
12.45
11.37
12.41
11.47
12.08
11.48
11.44
10.88
11.30
10.74
11.20
10.64
11.96
11.37
14.62
13.89
16.33
15.52
16.47
15.65
16.89
16.06
17.32
16.46
17.74
16.87
18.17
17.27
18.59
17.68
19.02
18.08
19.45
18.49
19.87
18.89
135
Manual
Defrost
6.69
6.77
6.85
6.93
7.01
7.09
7.18
7.25
7.32
7.39
7.69
7.98
8.19
5.85
6.14
5.45
5.09
4.55
4.84
4.32
3.50
3.89
4.13
3.75
4.21
3.99
3.94
3.90
4.17
5.10
5.69
5.74
5.88
6.03
6.18
6.32
6.47
6.62
6.77
6.92
Table data for years through 2003 is from Table 14 in “The Home Energy Saver: Documentation of Calculation
Methodology, Input Data, and Infrastructure”. 2011 data was taken from the ENERGYSTAR energy savings
calculator
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/Consumer_Residential_Refrig_Sav_Calc.
xls (accessed 6/27/11), and linearly interpolated between 2003. The Home Energy Saver weighting factor
methodology was used to develop EF data for different door styles..
80
The following figure provides a graphic summary of the EF variation with time and equipment type:
2,500
kWh/year
2,000
1,500
General
Side-by-Side
1,000
Top Freezer
500
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
-
Figure 39: Refrigerator energy use vs. vintage and type (typical 18 ft3 refrigerator)
Note that refrigerator energy use is based on typical indoor temperature conditions. Refrigerators that are operated
outside or in semi-conditioned space (e.g., an unheated garage) may use significantly more energy, even in cold
weather (not intuitive but refrigerator designs results in poor operation in very cold temperatures).
Results
Key analysis details are provided below.
Prototypical Manufactured Home Energy Consumption Summary
The following table summarizes the results of the energy modeling analysis
81
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$800
$174
$395
$800
$174
$395
$800
$174
$395
$800
$174
$395
$545
$111
$270
$545
$111
Total
$405
$104
$202
$1,033
$265
$514
$1,056
$271
$526
$1,035
$105
$338
$927
$236
$458
$2,362
$602
Water
Zn1-NG-Worst -preHUD
Zn1-NG-Best -preHUD
Zn1-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst -preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Best -preHUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst -preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Best -preHUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst -preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Best -preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn2-NG-Worst -preHUD
Zn2-NG-Best -preHUD
Zn2-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst -preHUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Best -preHUD
Plug & Misc. Electric
Name
Refrigerator
Code
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
Cooling
Scenario
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Fuel
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
DHW
Zone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Heating
Figure 40: Analysis results for design, best, and worst-case scenarios
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$2,151
$733
$1,225
$3,271
$1,122
$1,847
$3,314
$1,136
$1,871
$3,485
$1,060
$1,804
$2,417
$802
$1,355
$4,345
$1,395
82
$270
$545
$111
$270
$545
$111
$270
$240
$65
$116
$240
$65
$116
$240
$65
$116
$240
$65
$116
$702
$174
$395
$702
$174
$395
$702
$174
$395
$702
$174
$395
$547
$109
$208
$547
$109
$208
$547
$109
$208
$547
$109
$208
$228
$41
$113
$228
$41
$113
$228
$41
$113
$228
$41
Total
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
Water
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
Plug & Misc. Electric
$1,166
$2,417
$616
$1,193
$2,976
$302
$929
$1,659
$405
$1,013
$4,227
$1,033
$2,581
$4,324
$1,056
$2,641
$5,325
$591
$2,293
$424
$104
$202
$1,081
$265
$514
$1,106
$271
$526
$1,361
$105
$338
$646
$255
$375
$1,645
$650
$955
$1,683
$665
$977
$2,073
$326
$761
$1,617
$410
$816
$4,120
$1,043
$2,078
$4,215
$1,067
$2,127
$5,190
$597
Refrigerator
Name
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst -preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Best -preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst -preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Best -preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn3-NG-Worst -preHUD
Zn3-NG-Best -preHUD
Zn3-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst -preHUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Best -preHUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst -preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Best -preHUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst -preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Best -preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn1-NG-Worst -76HUD
Zn1-NG-Best -76HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst -76HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Best -76HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst -76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Best -76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst -76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Best -76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst -76HUD
Zn2-NG-Best -76HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst -76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Best -76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst -76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Best -76HUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst -76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Best -76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst -76HUD
Zn3-NG-Best -76HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst -76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Best -76HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst -76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Best -76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst -76HUD
Zn3-Elec-Best -76HUD
Cooling
Code
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
preHUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
76HUD
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Scenario
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
DHW
Fuel
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Heating
Zone
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$2,374
$4,419
$1,418
$2,413
$5,170
$1,193
$2,270
$2,844
$925
$1,757
$5,905
$1,780
$3,635
$6,022
$1,812
$3,707
$7,214
$1,436
$3,480
$2,071
$733
$1,225
$3,221
$1,122
$1,847
$3,265
$1,136
$1,871
$3,713
$1,060
$1,804
$2,138
$819
$1,211
$3,631
$1,442
$2,101
$3,688
$1,465
$2,135
$4,269
$1,215
$2,040
$2,791
$904
$1,557
$5,787
$1,766
$3,130
$5,901
$1,799
$3,190
$7,068
$1,418
1
1
Propane
Propane
Worst
Best
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
83
Total
EnrgyStar
Water
Design
Plug & Misc. Electric
Fuel Oil
Refrigerator
1
Name
Zn3-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst -94HUD
Zn1-NG-Best -94HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst -94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Best -94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Worst -94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Best -94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Worst -94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Best -94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst -94HUD
Zn2-NG-Best -94HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst -94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Best -94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Worst -94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Best -94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Worst -94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Best -94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst -94HUD
Zn3-NG-Best -94HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst -94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Best -94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn3-Propane-Worst -94HUD
Zn3-Propane-Best -94HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn3-Elec-Worst -94HUD
Zn3-Elec-Best -94HUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn1-NG-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn1-NG-Design-EnrgyStar
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn1-Fuel Oil-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn1-Propane-Worst EnrgyStar
Zn1-Propane-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn1-Propane-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn1-Elec-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn1-Elec-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn1-Elec-Design-EnrgyStar
Zn2-NG-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn2-NG-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn2-NG-Design-EnrgyStar
$1,846
$349
$102
$150
$888
$259
$383
$909
$265
$391
$1,119
$103
$252
$516
$219
$296
$1,313
$559
$754
$1,344
$572
$772
$1,655
$281
$601
$1,092
$321
$405
$2,782
$819
$1,033
$2,846
$838
$1,056
$3,505
$468
$917
$104
$104
$104
$265
$265
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$396
$713
$266
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$115
$118
$118
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$113
$439
$203
$326
$439
$203
$326
$439
$203
$326
$439
$203
$326
$325
$110
$192
$325
$110
$192
$325
$110
$192
$325
$110
$192
$110
$29
$91
$110
$29
$91
$110
$29
$91
$110
$29
$91
$284
$284
$284
$284
$284
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$3,030
$1,733
$759
$1,104
$2,766
$1,145
$1,647
$2,805
$1,159
$1,668
$3,208
$1,086
$1,649
$1,786
$783
$1,117
$3,077
$1,351
$1,885
$3,126
$1,373
$1,915
$3,629
$1,170
$1,865
$2,147
$805
$1,124
$4,331
$1,530
$2,062
$4,414
$1,558
$2,097
$5,264
$1,277
$2,079
$1,333
$842
$1,016
$1,988
$1,231
$265
$396
$115
$284
$103
$168
$157
$1,487
$271
$271
$713
$266
$118
$118
$284
$284
$258
$39
$168
$168
$201
$100
$2,013
$1,246
$271
$334
$105
$174
$217
$217
$217
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$284
$284
$284
$284
$152
$152
$152
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$1,505
$2,267
$1,169
$1,530
$1,315
$824
$998
Cooling
Code
76HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
94HUD
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Scenario
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
DHW
Fuel
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Propane
Propane
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Heating
Zone
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Propane
Propane
Worst
Best
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
NG
NG
NG
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
Design
Worst
Best
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
3
Fuel Oil
Design
EnrgyStar
3
3
Propane
Propane
Worst
Best
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
3
3
3
3
Propane
Elec
Elec
Elec
Design
Worst
Best
Design
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
Total
EnrgyStar
Water
Design
Plug & Misc. Electric
Fuel Oil
Refrigerator
2
Name
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn2-Fuel Oil-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn2-Propane-Worst EnrgyStar
Zn2-Propane-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn2-Propane-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn2-Elec-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn2-Elec-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn2-Elec-Design-EnrgyStar
Zn3-NG-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn3-NG-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn3-NG-Design-EnrgyStar
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn3-Fuel Oil-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn3-Propane-Worst EnrgyStar
Zn3-Propane-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn3-Propane-DesignEnrgyStar
Zn3-Elec-Worst -EnrgyStar
Zn3-Elec-Best -EnrgyStar
Zn3-Elec-Design-EnrgyStar
$554
$554
$697
$260
$115
$115
$152
$152
$258
$39
$168
$168
$201
$100
$2,145
$1,388
$554
$396
$115
$152
$103
$168
$157
$1,645
$567
$567
$713
$266
$118
$118
$152
$152
$258
$39
$168
$168
$201
$100
$2,176
$1,410
$567
$698
$278
$441
$261
$261
$261
$666
$666
$405
$878
$328
$499
$274
$102
$155
$697
$260
$118
$145
$145
$145
$45
$45
$45
$115
$115
$152
$152
$152
$152
$55
$55
$55
$55
$55
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$103
$258
$39
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$157
$201
$100
$1,669
$2,500
$1,210
$1,665
$1,262
$771
$944
$2,160
$1,403
$666
$396
$115
$55
$103
$168
$157
$1,660
$682
$682
$713
$266
$118
$118
$55
$55
$258
$39
$168
$168
$201
$100
$2,194
$1,427
$682
$839
$381
$592
$405
$878
$328
$499
$118
$145
$145
$145
$55
$55
$55
$55
$103
$258
$39
$103
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$201
$100
$157
$1,687
$2,544
$1,216
$1,718
Cooling
Code
EnrgyStar
EnrgyStar
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Scenario
Worst
Best
DHW
Fuel
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Heating
Zone
2
2
Table 19: Summary table for Figure 21
scenario
max
Avg
Min
max
Avg
Min
max
Avg
Min
Zone
Zone1-max
Zone1-Avg
Zone1-Min
Zone2-max
Zone2-Avg
Zone2-Min
Zone3-max
Zone3-Avg
Zone3-Min
Heating
$1,361
$414
$102
$2,976
$823
$217
$5,325
$933
$102
DHW
$878
$415
$102
$878
$415
$102
$878
$415
$102
Plug &
Misc.
Fuel
$145
$106
$45
$145
$106
$45
$145
$106
$45
Cooling
$800
$372
$174
$547
$240
$109
$800
$237
$29
Refrigerator
$258
$133
$39
$258
$133
$39
$258
$133
$39
Plug &
Misc.
Electric
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
Water
$201
$152
$100
$201
$152
$100
$201
$152
$100
Total
$3,713
$1,759
$733
$5,170
$2,036
$783
$7,214
$2,144
$733
Energy and Water Conservation Measure Analysis
The details of the individual conservation measure analysis are shown in the following table. Results are provided
for each climate zone and heating fuel type.
84
Table 20: Detailed analysis results for individual energy and water conservation measures.
85
86
87
88
The results are also summarized graphically in the following three figures (Figure 41 provides data for climate zone
1, Figure 42 for climate zone 2, and Figure 43 for climate zone 3). Each figure provides separate data for each of the
four primary heating fuels. Each graph provides two different metrics for assessing each measure: the payback
period in years, and the homeowner’s monthly cost increase or savings for each measure (assuming that the measure
costs are financed or amortized over a 10 year period at a 5% interest/discount rate). It is calculated by subtracting
the monthly energy savings from the monthly amortized measure costs. This represents the typical monthly cost
increase or savings a homeowner would experience assuming that some type of on-bill financing, revolving loan
fund, or similar financing mechanism is used to implement the measure. These costs are represented by the green
and red columns, with green representing measures where the savings are greater than the costs and therefore
reduced net monthly homeowner costs, and the red bars measures where the monthly homeowner costs are higher
during the amortization period. The payback period for each measure is represented by the black diamond and read
from the right axis. Note that the payback scale is logarithmic. Measures that are the most effective are measures
that have positive homeowner cash flow impacts and low payback periods (i.e., the left side of the graphs).
89
CFLs
E-Star Washer (Typ)
90
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Storm Windows
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
Cool Roof
Air Seal (Typ)
Ins. Ducts
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Wind Block (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Wind Block (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Roof Shading
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Storm Windows
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
Cool Roof
Air Seal (Typ)
Ins. Ducts
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Wind Block (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
Tankless DHW
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Wind Block (Poor)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Storm Windows
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
Cool Roof
Air Seal (Typ)
Ins. Ducts
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Wind Block (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
Tankless DHW
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
10.0
$30
$20
1.0
$10
$0
CZ1, Fuel Oil
$40
$30
10.0
$20
1.0
$10
$0
CZ1, Propane
$40
$30
10.0
$20
1.0
$10
$0
CZ1, Electricity
$40
$30
10.0
$20
1.0
$10
0.1
$0
0.0
Figure 41: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 1, by heating fuel type
Payback (years)
$40
Payback (years)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Floors (Typ)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
std Furnace vs. old
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Tankless DHW
Storm Windows
New DHW Tank
Air Seal (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
Air Seal (Severe)
Ins. Ducts
Cool Roof
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Furnace Tune-up
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
$50
Payback (years)
Roof Shading
Shade A/C Cond.
Wind Block (Poor)
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Water Htr Wrap
Shade A/C Cond.
Wind Block (Typ)
Roof Shading
Sink Aerator (Poor)
DHW Pipe Ins
Dryer Vent
A/C Filter
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Ext Window Shading
Wind Block (Poor)
CFLs
Blinds/Shades
CZ1, Natural Gas
Payback (years)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Shade A/C Cond.
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Dryer Vent
A/C Filter
Water Htr Wrap
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
Sink Aerator (Poor)
DHW Pipe Ins
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Roof Shading
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Dryer Vent
A/C Filter
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
DHW Pipe Ins
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
CFLs
Blinds/Shades
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Seal Duct Leaks
Smr Landscape Shading
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Dryer Vent
A/C Filter
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
DHW Pipe Ins
E-Star Washer (Poor)



LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
$50
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
$60
Kitchen Sink (Poor)



CFLs
$50
Blinds/Shades
$60
Ext Window Shading



Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Air Seal (Severe)
Smr Landscape Shading
$50
Ext Window Shading
Smr Landscape Shading
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Seal Duct Leaks
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
A/C Tune
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Monthly Housing Cost Change



Blinds/Shades
Seal Duct Leaks
Air Seal (Severe)
A/C Tune
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$60
Ext Window Shading
A/C Tune
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$60
Smr Landscape Shading
Air Seal (Severe)
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Seal Duct Leaks
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
A/C Tune
New DHW Heat Pump
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$70
1,000.0
100.0
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
Air Seal (Severe)
91
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Wall (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Cool Roof
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
Ins. Ducts
Hi-E Toilet
Smr Landscape Shading
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Furnace Tune-up
Sink Aerator (Typ)
A/C Filter
Ins. Floor (None)
Dryer Vent
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Wall (Typ)
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Cool Roof
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Ins. Ducts
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Roof Shading
Tankless DHW
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Furnace Tune-up
Sink Aerator (Typ)
A/C Filter
Dryer Vent
Ins. Floor (None)
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Wall (Typ)
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Cool Roof
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Ins. Ducts
Hi-E Toilet
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
Roof Shading
Tankless DHW
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Furnace Tune-up
Sink Aerator (Typ)
A/C Filter
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
std Furnace vs. old
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Tankless DHW
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Storm Windows
Cool Roof
Storm Door
Ins.d Door
Air Seal (Typ)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Ins. Ducts
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Wind Block (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
Wind Block (Poor)
Roof Shading
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
DHW Pipe Ins
A/C Filter
Dryer Vent
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
10.0
$20
1.0
$10
$0
CZ2, Fuel Oil
$35
$30
$25
10.0
$20
$15
1.0
$10
$0
CZ2, Propane
$35
$30
$25
10.0
$20
$15
1.0
$10
$0
CZ2, Electricity
$35
$30
$25
10.0
$20
$15
1.0
$10
$5
0.1
$0
0.0
Figure 42: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 2, by heating fuel type
Payback (years)
$30
Payback (years)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
$40
Payback (years)
Dryer Vent
Ins. Floor (None)
Smr Landscape Shading
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
CZ2, Natural Gas
Payback (years)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Water Htr Wrap
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Air Seal (Typ)
DHW Pipe Ins
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Smr Landscape Shading
CFLs
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Air Seal (Typ)
DHW Pipe Ins
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Smr Landscape Shading
CFLs
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Blinds/Shades
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Blinds/Shades
CFLs
Ext Window Shading
Seal Duct Leaks
Air Seal (Severe)
A/C Tune
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Air Seal (Typ)
DHW Pipe Ins
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
CFLs
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
$40



Kitchen Sink (Typ)
$45
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
$50
Roof Shading
$40



Blinds/Shades
$45
Blinds/Shades



E-Star Furnace (Typ)
$50
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
$40
Seal Duct Leaks
$45
Storm Windows
Seal Duct Leaks
A/C Tune
Ext Window Shading
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
$50
Storm Windows
Seal Duct Leaks
A/C Tune
Ext Window Shading
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Air Seal (Severe)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Monthly Housing Cost Change



Storm Windows
Air Seal (Severe)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$50
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
A/C Tune
Ext Window Shading
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
New DHW Heat Pump
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$60
1,000.0
100.0
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
$5
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
$5
0.1
0.0
1,000.0
100.0
Air Seal (Severe)
Seal Duct Leaks
Ins. Wall (Typ)
92
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
Dbl Pane Windows
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
Cool Roof
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Roof Shading
Blinds/Shades
Storm Door
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Ins.d Door
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
Shade A/C Cond.
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Ins. Ducts
A/C Filter
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Smr Landscape Shading
Dryer Vent
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
Dbl Pane Windows
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
Cool Roof
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Roof Shading
Blinds/Shades
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Storm Door
Hi-E Toilet
Ins.d Door
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
Tankless DHW
Shade A/C Cond.
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Ins. Ducts
A/C Filter
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Smr Landscape Shading
Dryer Vent
$30
100.0
$20
10.0
$10
1.0
$0
0.1
CZ3, Fuel Oil
$50
100.0
$40
$30
10.0
$20
1.0
$0
CZ3, Propane
$50
100.0
$40
$30
10.0
$20
1.0
$0
CZ3, Propane
$50
100.0
$40
$30
10.0
$20
$10
1.0
$0
0.1
Figure 43: Energy and water conservation measure performance, climate zone 3, by heating fuel type
Payback (years)
1,000.0
Payback (years)
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
Dbl Pane Windows
E-Star A/C (poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
Ins. Wall (Typ)
Tankless DHW
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
std Furnace vs. old
Cool Roof
Storm Door
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Ins.d Door
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
Wind Block (Poor)
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Ins. Ducts
Hi-E Toilet
Wind Block (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Roof Shading
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Blinds/Shades
Air Seal (Typ)
Storm Windows
Shade A/C Cond.
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
Furnace Tune-up
Sink Aerator (Typ)
A/C Filter
Water Htr Wrap
Sink Aerator (Poor)
DHW Pipe Ins
Smr Landscape Shading
Dryer Vent
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
A/C Tune
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
$40
Payback (years)
E-Star A/C (vs. old)
E-Star A/C (poor)
Dbl Pane Windows
Ins. Ceiling (Typ)
Wind Block (Poor)
Cool Roof
New DHW Tank
E-Star Refrig (10 yrs)
Wind Block (Typ)
Ins. Floors (Typ)
Roof Shading
Blinds/Shades
Storm Door
E-Star Refrig (20 yrs)
Hi-E Toilet
Ins.d Door
E-Star Dishwshr (Typ)
E-Star Dishwshr (Poor)
Tankless DHW
Shade A/C Cond.
Open Registers
Furnace Filter
Ins. Ducts
Hi-E Toilet (Poor)
A/C Filter
Sink Aerator (Typ)
Smr Landscape Shading
Dryer Vent
Water Htr Wrap
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
DHW Pipe Ins
A/C Tune
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
CFLs
CFLs
Seal Duct Leaks
Ext Window Shading
CZ3, Natural Gas
Payback (years)
Water Htr Wrap
E-Star Refrig (30 yrs)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Sink Aerator (Poor)
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
Ins. Wall (Typ)
Furnace Tune-up
DHW Pipe Ins
A/C Tune
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)
CFLs
Seal Duct Leaks
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Water Htr Wrap
Seal Duct Leaks
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
Air Seal (Typ)
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Air Seal (Severe)
E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Sink Aerator (Poor)
Monthly Cost Svgs
Monthly Cost Increase
Payback
Furnace Tune-up
A/C Tune
DHW Pipe Ins
E-Star Washer (Typ)
E-Star Washer (Poor)
E-Star Furnace vs. Std
LowFlow Shwrhd (Typ)
CFLs
Kitchen Sink (Typ)
Kitchen Sink (Poor)



E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)



Air Seal (Typ)
$60
std Furnace vs. old
Ext Window Shading
Storm Windows
Ins. Wall (Poor)



E-Star Refrig (40 yrs)
$70
std Furnace vs. old
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
$60
LowFlow Shwrhd (Poor)
$60
Ext Window Shading
Storm Windows
Ins. Wall (Poor)
$70
Air Seal (Typ)
Ins. Floor (None)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Air Seal (Severe)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Monthly Housing Cost Change



std Furnace vs. old
Air Seal (Severe)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$50
Ext Window Shading
$70
New DHW Heat Pump
Storm Windows
Ins. Wall (Poor)
Ins. Ceiling (Poor)
Ins. Floor (None)
E-Star Furnace (Typ)
Monthly Housing Cost Change
$60
100,000.0
10,000.0
1,000.0
$10
0.1
1,000.0
$10
0.1
1,000.0
EnergyStar Replacement Home Analysis Details
The details of the EnergyStar replacement home analysis are provided in the following table.
93
Table 21: EnergyStar Home Replacement Results
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD $2,078
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD $1,344
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD $1,313
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
$927
Zn3-Elec-Design-76HUD $1,846
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-preHUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-76HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn2-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn1-NG-Worst Case-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn3-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-preHUD
Zn3-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD
Zn2-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-76HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-76HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-preHUD
Zn2-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn3-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Propane-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Design-94HUD
Zn1-Elec-Design-94HUD
Zn2-NG-Design-94HUD
Zn1-NG-Design-94HUD
$909
$888
$1,092
$646
$405
$424
$1,013
$516
$1,193
$1,166
$349
$816
$929
$977
$955
$1,056
$1,033
$761
$526
$526
$917
$514
$514
$458
$338
$338
$772
$754
$375
$202
$202
$601
$405
$391
$383
$252
$296
$150
Payback (yr)
Zn3-Propane-Design-76HUD $2,127
Net Cost (Mortgage - Utility
Savings) ($/month)
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD $1,119
Net Cost (Mortgage - Utility
Savings) ($/year)
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD $1,081
Utility Cost Savings ($/month)
Zn3-Elec-Design-preHUD $2,293
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD $1,106
Utility Cost Savings ($/yearly)
Zn1-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD $1,033
Mortgage Cost ($/month)
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-76HUD $1,617
Zn1-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD $1,056
Total-Energy Only
Zn3-NG-Worst Case-preHUD $1,659
Total
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD $1,035
Water
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Design-preHUD $2,581
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD $1,655
Plug & Misc. Electric
Zn3-Propane-Design-preHUD $2,641
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD $1,645
Refrigerator
Zn1-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD $1,361
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD $1,683
Cooling
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD $2,073
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-94HUD $2,782
DHW
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-94HUD $2,846
Zn2-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD $2,362
Heating
Zn2-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD $2,417
Total-Energy Only
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-94HUD $3,505
Zn2-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD $2,976
Total
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-76HUD $4,120
Water
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-76HUD $4,215
Plug & Misc. Electric
Zn3-Fuel Oil-Worst Case-preHUD $4,227
Refrigerator
Zn3-Propane-Worst Case-preHUD $4,324
Cooling
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-76HUD $5,190
Energy Star Upgrade Savings
Plug & Misc. Fuel
Zn3-Elec-Worst Case-preHUD $5,325
New Energy Star Manufactured Home Utility Costs ($/Year)
DHW
Heating
Scenario Name (Zone/Heating
Fuel/Scenario/Code)
Existing Manufactured Home Utility Costs ($/Year
$878
$878
$713
$697
$713
$697
$878
$878
$713
$713
$697
$697
$878
$878
$405
$713
$697
$396
$878
$878
$274
$274
$713
$697
$499
$713
$697
$878
$405
$396
$713
$697
$274
$499
$713
$697
$274
$274
$274
$274
$155
$274
$405
$396
$274
$155
$499
$405
$396
$405
$396
$499
$405
$405
$499
$396
$396
$155
$499
$499
$405
$396
$155
$155
$155
$499
$155
$405
$396
$499
$155
$155
$145
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$145
$145
$118
$118
$115
$115
$145
$145
$118
$118
$115
$115
$145
$145
$45
$45
$118
$115
$145
$118
$115
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$45
$145
$118
$115
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$118
$115
$45
$45
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$145
$118
$118
$145
$115
$115
$45
$145
$145
$118
$115
$45
$45
$45
$145
$45
$118
$115
$145
$45
$45
$240
$228
$240
$240
$228
$228
$110
$545
$545
$110
$545
$110
$547
$702
$116
$547
$547
$116
$325
$800
$240
$228
$800
$800
$116
$702
$702
$439
$113
$113
$325
$325
$545
$113
$439
$439
$110
$547
$800
$702
$116
$325
$270
$270
$439
$113
$270
$208
$208
$91
$91
$208
$395
$395
$91
$395
$395
$270
$395
$395
$192
$192
$208
$395
$395
$192
$91
$326
$326
$326
$192
$326
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$103
$258
$258
$103
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$103
$258
$258
$258
$103
$103
$258
$258
$258
$103
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$258
$103
$258
$103
$103
$258
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$157
$201
$201
$157
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$157
$201
$201
$201
$157
$157
$201
$201
$201
$157
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$201
$157
$201
$157
$157
$201
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$7,214
$7,068
$6,022
$5,905
$5,901
$5,787
$5,264
$5,170
$4,419
$4,414
$4,345
$4,331
$4,269
$3,713
$3,707
$3,688
$3,631
$3,635
$3,629
$3,485
$2,844
$2,791
$3,314
$3,271
$3,480
$3,265
$3,221
$3,208
$3,190
$3,130
$3,126
$3,077
$2,417
$3,030
$2,805
$2,766
$2,147
$2,138
$2,151
$2,071
$1,757
$1,786
$2,413
$2,374
$1,733
$1,557
$2,270
$2,135
$2,101
$2,097
$2,062
$2,040
$1,871
$1,871
$2,079
$1,847
$1,847
$1,355
$1,804
$1,804
$1,915
$1,885
$1,211
$1,225
$1,225
$1,865
$1,124
$1,668
$1,647
$1,649
$1,117
$1,104
$7,013
$6,867
$5,821
$5,704
$5,700
$5,586
$5,064
$4,969
$4,218
$4,213
$4,145
$4,130
$4,069
$3,512
$3,551
$3,487
$3,430
$3,479
$3,429
$3,284
$2,643
$2,590
$3,113
$3,071
$3,323
$3,065
$3,021
$3,007
$3,033
$2,973
$2,926
$2,876
$2,216
$2,874
$2,605
$2,565
$1,946
$1,938
$1,950
$1,871
$1,600
$1,585
$2,257
$2,218
$1,532
$1,400
$2,113
$1,979
$1,945
$1,941
$1,905
$1,883
$1,714
$1,714
$1,922
$1,691
$1,691
$1,199
$1,648
$1,648
$1,758
$1,729
$1,054
$1,068
$1,068
$1,708
$967
$1,511
$1,490
$1,492
$960
$948
$592
$592
$682
$666
$682
$666
$592
$441
$567
$682
$554
$666
$441
$174
$682
$567
$554
$666
$441
$174
$261
$261
$271
$265
$592
$271
$265
$174
$682
$666
$567
$554
$217
$592
$271
$265
$261
$217
$104
$104
$261
$217
$567
$554
$104
$261
$441
$567
$554
$682
$666
$441
$271
$271
$592
$265
$265
$217
$174
$174
$567
$554
$217
$104
$104
$441
$261
$271
$265
$174
$217
$104
$499
$499
$405
$396
$405
$396
$499
$499
$405
$405
$396
$396
$499
$499
$405
$405
$396
$396
$499
$499
$155
$155
$405
$396
$499
$405
$396
$499
$405
$396
$405
$396
$155
$499
$405
$396
$155
$155
$155
$155
$155
$155
$405
$396
$155
$155
$499
$405
$396
$405
$396
$499
$405
$405
$499
$396
$396
$155
$499
$499
$405
$396
$155
$155
$155
$499
$155
$405
$396
$499
$155
$155
$145
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$145
$145
$118
$118
$115
$115
$145
$145
$118
$118
$115
$115
$145
$145
$45
$45
$118
$115
$145
$118
$115
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$45
$145
$118
$115
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$118
$115
$45
$45
$145
$118
$115
$118
$115
$145
$118
$118
$145
$115
$115
$45
$145
$145
$118
$115
$45
$45
$45
$145
$45
$118
$115
$145
$45
$45
$55
$55
$55
$55
$55
$55
$55
$152
$152
$55
$152
$55
$152
$284
$55
$152
$152
$55
$152
$284
$55
$55
$284
$284
$55
$284
$284
$284
$55
$55
$152
$152
$152
$55
$284
$284
$55
$152
$284
$284
$55
$152
$152
$152
$284
$55
$152
$152
$152
$55
$55
$152
$284
$284
$55
$284
$284
$152
$284
$284
$152
$152
$152
$284
$284
$152
$55
$284
$284
$284
$152
$284
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$103
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$168
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$157
$1,718
$1,718
$1,687
$1,660
$1,687
$1,660
$1,718
$1,665
$1,669
$1,687
$1,645
$1,660
$1,665
$1,530
$1,687
$1,669
$1,645
$1,660
$1,665
$1,530
$944
$944
$1,505
$1,487
$1,718
$1,505
$1,487
$1,530
$1,687
$1,660
$1,669
$1,645
$998
$1,718
$1,505
$1,487
$944
$998
$1,016
$1,016
$944
$998
$1,669
$1,645
$1,016
$944
$1,665
$1,669
$1,645
$1,687
$1,660
$1,665
$1,505
$1,505
$1,718
$1,487
$1,487
$998
$1,530
$1,530
$1,669
$1,645
$998
$1,016
$1,016
$1,665
$944
$1,505
$1,487
$1,530
$998
$1,016
$1,561
$1,561
$1,530
$1,503
$1,530
$1,503
$1,561
$1,508
$1,513
$1,530
$1,488
$1,503
$1,508
$1,373
$1,530
$1,513
$1,488
$1,503
$1,508
$1,373
$788
$788
$1,349
$1,331
$1,561
$1,349
$1,331
$1,373
$1,530
$1,503
$1,513
$1,488
$841
$1,561
$1,349
$1,331
$788
$841
$860
$860
$788
$841
$1,513
$1,488
$860
$788
$1,508
$1,513
$1,488
$1,530
$1,503
$1,508
$1,349
$1,349
$1,561
$1,331
$1,331
$841
$1,373
$1,373
$1,513
$1,488
$841
$860
$860
$1,508
$788
$1,349
$1,331
$1,373
$841
$860
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$161
$5,496
$5,350
$4,335
$4,245
$4,214
$4,127
$3,547
$3,505
$2,750
$2,727
$2,701
$2,671
$2,605
$2,184
$2,020
$2,019
$1,986
$1,976
$1,964
$1,956
$1,900
$1,846
$1,809
$1,784
$1,762
$1,760
$1,734
$1,678
$1,503
$1,470
$1,457
$1,432
$1,419
$1,312
$1,300
$1,279
$1,203
$1,140
$1,134
$1,055
$812
$788
$744
$730
$717
$612
$605
$466
$457
$411
$402
$375
$365
$365
$361
$360
$360
$358
$275
$275
$245
$241
$213
$209
$209
$200
$179
$162
$160
$119
$119
$88
$458
$446
$361
$354
$351
$344
$296
$292
$229
$227
$225
$223
$217
$182
$168
$168
$166
$165
$164
$163
$158
$154
$151
$149
$147
$147
$144
$140
$125
$123
$121
$119
$118
$109
$108
$107
$100
$95
$95
$88
$68
$66
$62
$61
$60
$51
$50
$39
$38
$34
$34
$31
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$23
$23
$20
$20
$18
$17
$17
$17
$15
$14
$13
$10
$10
$7
($3,570)
($3,424)
($2,409)
($2,319)
($2,288)
($2,201)
($1,620)
($1,579)
($824)
($801)
($775)
($745)
($679)
($257)
($94)
($93)
($60)
($50)
($38)
($29)
$26
$80
$117
$142
$164
$166
$192
$248
$423
$456
$469
$494
$507
$614
$626
$648
$723
$786
$792
$871
$1,114
$1,138
$1,182
$1,196
$1,209
$1,314
$1,321
$1,460
$1,469
$1,516
$1,524
$1,551
$1,561
$1,561
$1,565
$1,566
$1,566
$1,568
$1,652
$1,652
$1,681
$1,685
$1,713
$1,718
$1,718
$1,726
$1,747
$1,764
$1,767
$1,807
$1,807
$1,838
($298)
($285)
($201)
($193)
($191)
($183)
($135)
($132)
($69)
($67)
($65)
($62)
($57)
($21)
($8)
($8)
($5)
($4)
($3)
($2)
$2
$7
$10
$12
$14
$14
$16
$21
$35
$38
$39
$41
$42
$51
$52
$54
$60
$65
$66
$73
$93
$95
$99
$100
$101
$109
$110
$122
$122
$126
$127
$129
$130
$130
$130
$131
$131
$131
$138
$138
$140
$140
$143
$143
$143
$144
$146
$147
$147
$151
$151
$153
6
6
8
8
8
8
10
10
12
12
12
13
13
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
22
23
23
24
24
26
26
26
28
30
30
32
42
43
45
46
47
55
56
72
74
82
84
90
92
92
93
94
94
94
123
123
138
140
158
162
162
169
188
208
211
283
284
383
94
Appendix B: Survey of Manufactured Home Characteristics and
Demographics
A detailed review of existing housing stock data and related demographics was performed to guide and inform the
study. Key data is summarized in this appendix.
DOE’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) Statistics
The DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) conducts a residential building energy end use survey to
determine housing energy use characteristics for homes throughout the U.S. This survey includes data on
manufactured homes, and provides data useful for understanding manufactured home physical characteristics,
demographics and energy consumption data. The first RECS survey was conducted in 1978, and the latest (13 th)
survey was conducted in 2009. The data for 2009 survey is currently being processed, and the EIA anticipates a first
release of these data in early 2012. The 2005 survey data is the latest survey data available 136 and is summarized
below.
RECS uses a multi-stage area probability design to survey homes throughout the U.S.:
1.
2.
3.
4.
430 Counties were randomly selected;
3000 segments/5420 Census Blocs were randomly selected;
~19,000 homes selected for interviews, of these only ~15,300 were occupied primary residences and
eligible;
Of these 12,100 responded to the survey, with a response rate of ~ 79%.
The survey is conducted by specially trained interviewers who collect energy characteristics on the housing unit,
usage patterns, and household demographics. This information is combined with data from energy suppliers to these
homes to estimate energy costs and usage for heating, cooling, appliances and other end uses. Non-linear statistical
models are applied to data from the Household and Energy Supplier Surveys, which disaggregates total energy
consumption into end-use components. Results are extrapolated back to the entire U.S. housing stock. Additional
details are available from the RECS website, http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
Key survey results for manufactured homes are summarized below.
Table 22: RECS Housing Characteristics for Manufactured Homes (Table HC2.1)
Housing Unit Characteristics
Housing Units
(millions)
111.1
Manufactured
Homes (millions)
6.9
20.6
5.5
15.1
25.6
17.7
7.9
40.7
21.7
6.9
12.1
24.2
7.6
16.6
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
3.8
2.0
0.7
1.1
2.0
0.9
1.0
6%
3%
4%
11%
6%
4%
54%
29%
10%
16%
29%
13%
14%
2%
4%
2%
3%
2%
4%
9%
9%
10%
9%
8%
12%
6%
47.1
19.0
22.7
22.3
1.9
0.8
0.6
3.7
27%
11%
9%
53%
4%
4%
3%
17%
10.9
0.7
10%
6%
Total
Census Region and Division
Northeast
New England
Middle Atlantic
Midwest
East North Central
West North Central
South
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West
Mountain
Pacific
Urban/Rural Location (as Self-Reported)
City
Town
Suburbs
Rural
Climate Zone
Less than 2,000 CDD and-Greater than 7,000 HDD
136
% of Manufactured
Homes
RECS survey data tables, http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/
95
% of All Homes
6%
Housing Unit Characteristics
Housing Units
(millions)
26.1
27.3
24.0
5,500 to 7,000 HDD
4,000 to 5,499 HDD
Less than 4,000 HDD
2000 CDD or More and-Less than 4,000 HDD
22.8
Ownership of Housing Unit
Owned
78.1
Rented
33.0
Year of Construction
1960 to 1969
12.5
1970 to 1979
18.9
1980 to 1989
18.6
1990 to 1999
17.3
2000 to 2005
9.2
Major Outside Wall Construction
Siding (Aluminum, Vinyl, Steel)
35.3
Wood
20.0
Fuels Used for Any Use (more than one may apply)
(more than one may apply)
Electricity
111.1
Natural Gas
69.5
Wood
14.4
Fuel Oil
8.4
LPG
12.6
Kerosene
1.7
Solar
0.2
Main Heating Fuel
Natural Gas
58.2
Electricity
33.7
Fuel Oil
7.7
LPG
6.0
Wood
2.9
Kerosene
0.7
Solar
Q
Other
Q
None
1.3
Natural Gas Available in Neighborhood
Yes
80.5
Actually Use Natural Gas
69.5
Do Not Use Natural Gas
11.1
No
30.6
Manufactured
Homes (millions)
1.2
1.3
1.8
% of Manufactured
Homes
17%
19%
26%
2.0
29%
9%
5.7
1.2
83%
17%
7%
4%
0.4
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.5
6%
30%
28%
28%
7%
3%
11%
10%
11%
5%
6.0
0.8
88%
12%
17%
4%
6.9
2.1
0.7
0.2
1.9
0.4
N
100%
30%
10%
3%
28%
6%
6%
3%
5%
2%
15%
24%
N
1.9
2.9
0.2
1.3
0.3
0.3
N
N
Q
28%
42%
3%
19%
4%
4%
3%
9%
3%
22%
10%
43%
N
N
Q
2.6
2.1
0.4
4.4
27%
22%
4%
46%
3%
3%
4%
14%
% of All Homes
5%
5%
8%
Table 23: RECS space heating characteristics for manufactured homes (Table HC2.4)
Space Heating Characteristics
Total
Have Main Space Heating Equipment
Use Main Space Heating Equipment
Main Heating Fuel and Equipment
Natural Gas
Central Warm-Air Furnace
Electricity
Central Warm-Air Furnace
Heat Pump
Portable Electric Heater
Fuel Oil
Central Warm-Air Furnace
Wood
Propane/LPG
Central Warm-Air Furnace
Other Equipment
Kerosene
96
Housing
Units
(millions)
111.1
109.8
109.1
Manufactured
Homes
(millions)
6.9
6.8
6.7
%
of
Manufactured
Homes
6%
99%
97%
58.2
44.7
33.7
16.0
9.2
1.6
7.7
2.8
2.9
6.0
4.1
1.0
0.7
1.9
1.6
2.9
1.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
28%
84%
42%
66%
17%
10%
3%
100%
4%
19%
69%
15%
4%
Age of Main Heating Equipment
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Proportion of Heat Provided by Main Heating
Equipment
All or Almost All
About Three-Fourths
Closer to One-Half
Do Not Use Main Heating Equipment
11.7
13.8
20.6
24.8
21.5
8.6
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.7
0.9
0.6
12%
17%
25%
25%
13%
9%
98.9
5.8
4.3
2.0
6.2
0.4
Q
0.3
90%
6%
Q
4%
Table 24: RECS A/C details for manufactured homes
Housing
Units
(Million)
6.9
1.2
5.8
5.5
Q
Air Conditioning Characteristics
% of
Manufactured
Homes
100%
17%
84%
80%
Total Manufactured Homes
Do Not Have Cooling Equipment
Have Cooling Equipment
Use Cooling Equipment
Have Equipment But Do Not Use it
Air-Conditioning Equipment
Central System
3.7
54%
Without a Heat Pump
3.1
45%
With a Heat Pump
0.6
9%
Window/Wall Units
2.1
30%
1 Unit
1.2
17%
2 Units
0.6
9%
3 or More Units
0.3
4%
Use a Swam Cooler (only asked in Arid Areas)
Yes
0.9
13%
No
3.2
46%
Not Asked
2.9
42%
Dehumidification
Do not use a dehumidifier
6.9
100%
Table 25: RECS window/wall unit A/C details
Housing
Units
(Million)
2.1
Air Conditioning Characteristics
Window/Wall Unit Air-Conditioning
Frequency Most-Used Unit Used
Never
Only a Few Times When Needed
Quite a Bit
All Summer
Age of Most-Used Unit
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
other/unknown
EnergyStar Wall/Window (Most-Used) Unit
Yes
No
Don't Know
Unit is More than 4 Years Old
Household Pays for Electricity for Window/Wall
Yes
No
% of Manufactured Homes
with Window A/C
Q
0.6
0.6
0.9
0%
29%
29%
43%
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.3
Q
14%
43%
19%
14%
10%
0.5
0.4
0.2
1.0
Air-Conditioners
1.9
Q
Table 26: RECS central A/C details
97
100%
24%
19%
10%
48%
90%
10%
Housing
Units
(Million)
3.7
Central Air-Conditioning Details
% of Manufactured
Homes with Central A/C
Central Air-Conditioning Usage
Air-Conditioned Floorspace (Square Feet)
1 to 499
0.5
500 to 999
1.5
1,000 to 1,499
1.3
Number of Rooms Centrally Air-Conditioned in Summer 2005
None
Q
1
Q
2.
0.2
3.
0.4
4
1.0
5 or More
1.9
Other/Unknown
0.2
Proportion of Rooms Air-Conditioned
None
0.2
Some, But Not all of the Rooms
0.4
All of the Rooms
3.1
Frequency of Central Air-Conditioner Use
Never
Q
Only a Few Times When Needed
0.5
Quite a Bit
0.7
All Summer
2.3
Age of Central Air-Conditioner
Less than 2 Years
0.3
2 to 4 Years
0.7
5 to 9 Years
1.1
10 to 19 Years
1.0
20 Years or More
0.2
Don't Know
0.4
Household Pays for Electricity for Central A/C
Yes
3.6
No
Q
100%
14%
41%
35%
?
?
5%
11%
27%
51%
5%
5%
11%
84%
5%
14%
19%
62%
8%
19%
30%
27%
5%
11%
97%
3%
Table 27: RECS at-home behavior impacting central A/C use
Housing
Units
(Million)
3.7
Central Air-Conditioning Details
Central Air-Conditioning Usage
Home Used for Business
Yes
No
Someone Home All Day
Yes
No
% of Manufactured
Homes with Central A/C
100%
0.2
3.5
5%
95%
1.7
2.0
46%
54%
Table 28: RECS Manufactured Home Characteristics Affecting Central A/C Usage
Housing
Units
(Million)
3.7
Central Air-Conditioning Details
Central Air-Conditioning Usage
Large Tree(s) that Shade the Home
Yes
No
Adequacy of Insulation
Well Insulated
Adequately Insulated
Poorly Insulated
98
% of Manufactured Homes
with Central A/C
100%
1.4
2.3
38%
62%
1.2
1.6
0.8
32%
43%
22%
No Insulation/ Don't Know
Home Is Too Drafty During the Winter
Never
Some of the Time
Other
Type of Glass in Windows
Single-pane Glass
Double-pane Glass
Without Low-e Coating
With Low-e Coating
Triple-pane Glass
Proportion of Windows Replaced
All
Some
None
Unknown
0.1
3%
2.2
1.0
0.5
59%
27%
14%
2.5
1.2
1.2
Q
0.0
68%
32%
32%
0%
0%
Q
0.4
3.0
0.3
?
11%
81%
8%
Table 29: Thermostat details for manufactured homes with central A/C
Central Air-Conditioning Details
Central Air-Conditioning Usage
Thermostat Available During Summer
Yes
No
Use a Programmable Thermostat
Yes
No
Use of Programmable Thermostats
Reduces Temperature During Day
Yes
No
Reduces Temperature at Night
Yes
No
Summer 2005 Temperature Settings
Higher Temperature Settings
Daytime When No One is Home
Yes
No
Unknown
At Night During Sleeping Hours
Yes
No
Unknown
Daytime Setting When Someone is Home
Air Conditioner Turned On
69 Degrees or Less
70 Degrees
71 to 73 Degrees
74 to 76 Degrees
77 to 79 Degrees
80 Degrees or More
Daytime Setting When No One is at Home
Air Conditioner Turned On
69 Degrees or Less
70 Degrees
71 to 73 Degrees
74 to 76 Degrees
77 to 79 Degrees
80 Degrees or More
Setting During Sleeping Hours
Air Conditioner Turned On
69 Degrees or Less
70 Degrees
71 to 73 Degrees
99
Housing
Units
(Million)
3.7
% of Manufactured
Homes with Central A/C
100%
3.6
Q
97%
3%
0.6
3.0
16%
81%
0.4
0.3
67%
50%
0.4
0.2
67%
33%
Q
2.9
0.8
78%
22%
0.5
2.5
0.8
14%
68%
22%
2.9
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.6
Q
78%
8%
11%
14%
24%
16%
0%
2.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
78%
5%
8%
8%
24%
16%
16%
2.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
78%
11%
14%
14%
74 to 76 Degrees
77 to 79 Degrees
80 Degrees or More
0.8
0.4
0.3
22%
11%
8%
Table 30: RECS manufactured home appliance data
Home Appliances Characteristics
Total
Cooking Appliances
Conventional Ovens
Use an Oven
1.
2 or More
Do Not Use an Oven
Most-Used Oven Fuel
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane/LPG
Self-Cleaning Oven
Use a Self-Cleaning Oven
Continuous
Manual Start
Do Not Use a Self-Cleaning Oven
Cooking Ranges
Use a Cooking Range
1.
2 or More
Do Not Use a Cooking Range
Most-Used Cooking Range Fuel
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane/LPG
Built-in/Stove-top Grills
Use a Built-in/Stove-top Grill
Do Not Use a Built-in/Stove-top Grill
Refrigerators
Use a Refrigerator
1
2 or More
Most-Used Refrigerator
Defrost Method
Frost-Free
Manual
Type of Most-Used Refrigerator
2-Doors (top and bottom)
2-Doors (side-by-side)
Full-Size (single door)
Half-Size/Other
Age of Most-Used Refrigerator
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Size of Most-Used Refrigerator
Very Small (Less than 11 cf)
Small (11-14 cf)
Medium (15-18 cf)
Large (19-22 cf)
Very Large (More than 22 cf)
Through-the-Door Ice and Water
Service
Yes
No
100
Housing
Units
(Million)
6.9
% of
Manufactured
Homes
100%
6.8
6.7
Q
Q
99%
97%
3.7
1.8
1.3
54%
26%
19%
2.1
Q
1.9
4.7
30%
6.7
6.7
Q
Q
97%
97%
3.6
1.8
1.3
52%
26%
19%
Q
6.8
99%
6.9
6.4
0.5
100%
93%
7%
6.1
0.7
88%
10%
5.0
1.1
0.8
Q
72%
16%
12%
0.9
1.2
2.1
1.8
0.3
0.6
13%
17%
30%
26%
4%
9%
Q
0.3
4.1
2.4
Q
4%
59%
35%
1.0
5.9
14%
86%
28%
68%
Second Refrigerator
Use a Second Refrigerator
Do Not Use a Second Refrigerator
Size of Second Refrigerator
Medium (15-18 cf)
Not Reported
Separate Freezers
Do Not Use a Separate Freezer
Use a Separate Freezer
1.
2 or More
Most-Used Freezer Defrost Method
Frost-Free
Manual
Type of Most-Used Freezer
Upright
Chest
Age of Most-Used Freezer
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Size of Most-Used Freezer
Very Small (Less than 11 cf)
Small (11-14 cf)
Medium (15-18 cf)
Large (19-22 cf)
Very Large (More than 22 cf)
Other Kitchen Appliances
Dishwasher
Yes
No
Age of Dishwasher
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Electric Coffee Maker
Yes
No
Electric Toaster Oven
Yes
No
Microwave Oven
Yes
No
Other Appliances
Clothes Washer
Do Not Use a Clothes Washer
Use a Clothes Washer
Top Loading
Front Loading
Age of Clothes Washer
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Clothes Dryer
Do Not Use a Clothes Dryer
Use a Clothes Dryer
101
0.5
6.4
7%
93%
0.3
0.2
60%
40%
4.7
2.3
2.2
0.1
68%
33%
32%
1%
1.2
1.1
52%
48%
0.9
1.4
39%
61%
Q
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.3
Q
26%
17%
30%
13%
13%
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.3
Q
13%
35%
30%
13%
2.7
4.3
39%
62%
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
Q
Q
15%
22%
33%
22%
4.0
2.9
58%
42%
2.0
5.0
29%
72%
6.2
0.7
90%
10%
1.0
6.0
5.8
Q
14%
87%
97%
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.2
0.2
0.4
17%
23%
30%
20%
3%
7%
1.4
5.5
20%
80%
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane/LPG
Age of Clothes Dryer
Less than 2 Years
2 to 4 Years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 19 Years
20 Years or More
Don't Know
Other Appliances
Use Ceiling Fans
1.
2.
3
4 or More
Auto Block/Engine/Battery Heater
Electric Dehumidifier
Electric Humidifier
Evaporative/Swamp Cooler
Filter Systems in Swimming Pools
Heated Aquarium
Outdoor Gas Light
Rechargeable Tools/Appliances
Well Water Pumps
4.9
0.5
Q
89%
9%
0.9
1.2
1.8
1.0
0.2
0.4
16%
22%
33%
18%
4%
7%
4.8
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.6
Q
Q
0.5
0.9
N
Q
N
3.3
1.6
70%
29%
20%
12%
9%
7%
13%
48%
23%
Table 31: RECS electronic characteristics for manufactured homes
Electronics Characteristics
Total
Computers
Do Not Use a Personal Computer
Use a Personal Computer
Number of Desktop PCs
1.
2.
3 or More
Number of Laptop PCs
1.
2.
3 or More
Type of Monitor Used on Most-Used PC
Desk-top
CRT (Standard Monitor)
Flat-panel LCD
Laptop (Flat-panel LCD)
Have Access to Internet
Yes
Dial-up (phone)
DSL
Cable
No
PC Printer
With Built-in Fax/Copier
Without Built-in Fax/Copier
Televisions
Color Television Sets
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 or More
Large Screen Television Sets
1.
2.
102
Housing
Units
(Million)
6.9
% of
Manufactured
Homes
100%
3.6
3.4
52%
49%
2.7
0.5
Q
39%
7%
0.6
Q
Q
9%
2.4
0.5
0.5
35%
7%
7%
2.6
1.8
0.4
0.4
0.7
2.6
0.9
1.7
38%
26%
6%
6%
10%
38%
13%
25%
6.8
1.5
2.9
1.7
0.5
Q
1.3
1.2
Q
99%
22%
42%
25%
7%
19%
17%
3 or More
Plasma Television Sets
1.
2 or More
Television Accessories
Cable/Satellite Dish Antennas
Cable Network
Satellite Dish Antenna
Both
Video Cassette Recorders (VCR)
1.
2.
3 or More
Digital Video Disc Players (DVD)
1.
2.
3 or More
Combination VCR/DVD
1.
2.
3 or More
TV-Based Game Systems
Yes
No
Stereo Equipment
(More than One May Apply)
Portable/Boom Box
Compact Stereo System
Component Stereo System
Other Type of System
Telephone and Office Equipment
Cell/Mobile Telephone
Cordless Telephone
Separate Facsimile Machine
Separate Photocopier
Telephone Answering Machine
N
Q
Q
Q
4.9
2.5
2.4
N
6.0
3.5
1.6
0.8
5.3
3.7
1.1
0.5
2.1
2.0
Q
Q
71%
36%
35%
2.4
4.4
5.3
35%
64%
77%
1.7
2.3
2.1
Q
25%
33%
30%
4.5
4.8
0.4
0.4
3.2
65%
70%
6%
6%
46%
87%
51%
23%
12%
77%
54%
16%
7%
30%
29%
Table 32: RECS average household energy end use consumption
103
Water Heating
Refrigerators
Other Appliances and Lighting
43%
37%
36%
42%
20%
19%
18%
23%
5%
6%
6%
6%
26%
30%
31%
28%
10%
13%
13%
12%
6
5
24.7
21.4
21.8
19.6
Air-Conditioning
5
4
4
4
4
Other Appliances and Lighting
10
9
9
8
6
40.5
26.1
25.5
29.2
5
94.9
70.4
70.5
70
Air-Conditioning
Space Heating (Major Fuels)
Households
(millions)
111.1
6.9
5.7
1.2
All End Uses
Home Type
All Homes
Manufactured Homes
Manufactured Homes, Owned
Manufactured Homes, Rented
Energy End Uses (%
consumption per household)
Space Heating (Major Fuels)
Refrigerators
19
13
13
16
4
Water Heating
Energy End Uses (million BTU of
consumption per household)
California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS)
The California Energy Commission funded and administered a Residential Appliance Saturation Study for the state
of California in 2009 that collected information on appliances, equipment, and general consumption patterns. The
study developed end‐use saturations for 24,464 individually metered and 1,257 master‐metered households,
including 1,703 manufactured homes. Summary results for mobile homes are shown in the graphs below. 137
Table 33: 2009 RASS electric UECs (kWh/home/year) by residence type138
Single Family
UEC
Sat.
All Households
Primary
Conventional
Space Heating
Primary
Heat
Pump
Space
Heating
Auxiliary Space
Heating
Furnace Fan
Attic Fan
Central AC
Room AC
Evaporative
Cooling
Water Heating
Solar
Water
Heating
Dryer
Clothes Washer
Dish Washer
First Refrigerator
Additional
Refrigerator
Freezer
Pool Pump
Spa
Outdoor Lighting
Range/Oven
Television
Spa Electric Heat
Microwave
Home
Office
Equipment
Personal
Computer
Well Pump
Miscellaneous
Town Home
UEC
Sat.
2-4 Unit Apt
UEC
Sat.
5+ Unit Apt
UEC
Sat.
Mobile Home
UEC
Sat.
7,605
15,354
homes
4,561
1,990
homes
3,821
2,018
homes
3,709
4,236
homes
5,580
858
homes
1,171
0.01
501
0.04
552
0.06
570
0.11
739
0.07
994
0.01
320
0.01
324
0.01
522
0.03
504
0.02
382
0.01
86
0.00
62
0.02
99
0.02
342
0.01
216
96
894
293
0.73
0.19
0.56
0.13
91
217
483
126
0.61
0.08
0.41
0.11
80
286
494
104
0.42
0.08
0.33
0.19
64
304
324
81
0.40
0.06
0.36
0.24
157
280
876
423
0.66
0.11
0.48
0.16
650
0.06
359
0.02
383
0.04
266
0.02
552
0.28
3,169
0.05
2,190
0.06
1,301
0.09
1,543
0.11
2,575
0.16
1,877
0.00
2,075
0.00
.
0.00
.
0.00
.
0.00
719
121
83
827
0.33
0.96
0.74
1.00
508
66
62
731
0.36
0.79
0.68
1.00
540
60
60
643
0.21
0.46
0.49
1.00
480
26
50
660
0.21
0.36
0.58
1.00
489
7
52
740
0.37
0.81
0.56
1.00
1,286
0.33
665
0.14
695
0.10
635
0.05
1,123
0.18
968
3,502
293
388
310
738
1,013
133
0.23
0.16
0.14
0.78
0.42
1.00
0.07
0.94
877
.
134
210
234
646
764
111
0.14
0.00
0.02
0.65
0.43
1.00
0.02
0.93
846
.
.
168
218
574
.
109
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.43
1.00
0.00
0.88
742
.
.
196
165
611
.
99
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.55
1.00
0.00
0.89
802
.
264
204
224
697
981
109
0.27
0.00
0.03
0.65
0.30
1.00
0.03
0.88
89
0.23
71
0.20
51
0.17
62
0.16
132
0.08
673
0.88
495
0.84
479
0.77
498
0.80
437
0.72
562
2,177
0.06
511
1,441
0.02
614
1,233
0.01
561
1,141
0.01
447
1,510
0.20
137
Details can be found on the RASS homepage, http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/. A searchable online
database providing customized data queries is also available at
http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx.
138
RASS database query, http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASS2009/
104
Table 34: 2009 RASS Gas UECs (Therms/home/year) by Residence Type, for all Households and for Homes
w/Gas Account Data
Mobile Home
Homes
w/Gas Data
All Homes
UEC
All
UEC
Household
Primary Heat
Auxiliary Heat
Conv. Gas Water
Heat
Solar Water Heat
w/Gas Backup
Dryer
Range/Oven
Pool Heat
Spa Heat
Miscellaneous
UEC
Sat.
352
457
homes
143
90
Sat.
858
home
s
0.56
0.00
146
70
0.97
0.01
193
0.54
193
0.91
153
0.00
147
0.00
21
24
44
34
41
0.29
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.06
20
23
5
29
66
0.48
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.05
339
180,000
160,000
140,000
# of Homes
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Figure 44: California manufactured home vintage (RASS)
105
90,000
80,000
# of Homes
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Figure 45: California manufactured home square footage of mobile homes (RASS)
Average square Footage (sqf)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Before 1975
1975-1977
1978-1982
1983-1992
1993-1997
1998-2000
2001-2008
Figure 46: California manufactured home square footage vs. vintage (RASS)
106
UEC (therms/year)
107
Miscellaneous
Well Pump
Personal Computer
Home Office Equipment
Microwave
Spa Electric Heat
Television
Range/Oven
Outdoor Lighting
Spa
Pool Pump
Freezer
Additional Refrigerator
First Refrigerator
Dish Washer
Clothes Washer
Dryer
Solar Water Heating
Water Heating
Evaporative Cooling
Room AC
Central AC
Attic Fan
Furnace Fan
Auxiliary Space Heating
Primary Heat Pump Space Heating
Primary Conventional Space Heating
UEC (kWh/year)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Figure 47: California unit energy consumption (UEC) for electric end uses in manufactured homes (RASS)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 48: California unit energy consumption (UEC) for gas end uses in manufactured homes (RASS)
Market Data
A broader review of the manufactured home market was made to identify relevant statistics and data to inform the
study. One significant source of current market data on the community is MHVillage. MHVillage.com is an active
website for buying and selling manufactured homes. The site provides a database of manufactured homes for sale,
along with details of vintage, square footage, and other home features. An internal search engine allows users to
locate homes based on factors such as city, price, community type, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. The
data shown in the figures below are taken from 174 mobile home listings on MHVillage.com. These homes were
chosen from 10 cities in different states that host communities in the ROC network.
Square Footage (1,000 sqf)
2500
2000
Sqft (1,000's)
1500
Linear (Sqft
(1,000's))
1000
500
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 49: Square footage vs. vintage (MHVillag.com)
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
Price ($)
$140,000
Price
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Figure 50: Price vs. vintage (MHVillag.com)
108
2000
2010
$200,000
$180,000
Price
$160,000
Linear (Price)
Price ($)
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Figure 51: Price vs. square footage (1,000s) (MHVillag.com)
Figure 52: Percentage of single and double wide homes vs. vintage (MHVillag.com)
American Communities Survey and U.S. Census Data
Table 35: Manufactured home counts by state and vintage (2009 American Communities Survey)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Pre 1976
48,154
10,603
86,895
36,764
240,478
38,111
5,928
19761994
143,773
6,991
131,954
71,008
184,614
37,679
3,652
1994+
124,170
856
80,229
63,291
90,024
22,356
2,236
Total
Manufactured
Homes
316,097
18,450
299,078
171,063
515,116
98,146
11,815
109
% of Total
Housing
Stock
14%
6%
11%
13%
4%
5%
1%
Pre
1976
15%
57%
29%
21%
47%
39%
50%
19761994
45%
38%
44%
42%
36%
38%
31%
1994+
39%
5%
27%
37%
17%
23%
19%
State
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
U.S.
Pre 1976
8,198
238,202
69,508
282
24,030
46,229
40,478
17,011
16,682
51,258
42,991
19,012
14,135
10,593
70,285
30,179
32,299
42,221
22,651
12,795
22,327
12,006
15,017
33,824
55,348
100,624
9,550
62,328
31,003
48,176
75,497
2,174
60,215
10,061
50,038
138,843
13,061
7,771
46,388
63,614
43,573
32,087
12,197
2,221,692
19761994
18,174
388,027
181,218
99
25,212
59,272
65,656
20,314
25,898
104,676
106,445
26,524
17,520
8,403
102,070
36,348
81,172
77,207
19,310
13,176
28,561
15,189
12,012
63,045
86,934
273,264
8,954
82,534
68,037
54,915
101,115
1,832
171,416
12,709
121,669
307,102
16,159
9,919
84,248
86,656
53,724
38,160
13,226
3,667,769
1994+
10,627
210,018
126,797
149
13,342
41,142
45,341
17,856
17,683
85,610
113,927
17,390
12,028
3,419
73,386
23,798
79,328
60,128
9,896
5,916
15,256
8,990
8,338
41,762
47,244
213,112
5,260
51,711
50,218
36,662
57,555
1,023
138,450
10,142
107,781
264,851
9,483
4,395
62,704
46,238
35,610
26,737
8,980
2,603,444
Total
Manufactured
Homes
36,999
836,247
377,523
530
62,584
146,642
151,475
55,181
60,263
241,544
263,364
62,926
43,683
22,414
245,741
90,324
192,799
179,556
51,857
31,886
66,144
36,185
35,366
138,632
189,526
587,000
23,764
196,573
149,258
139,752
234,167
5,029
370,081
32,912
279,488
710,796
38,702
22,085
193,340
196,508
132,907
96,984
34,403
8,492,905
% of Total
Housing
Stock
9%
9%
9%
0%
10%
3%
5%
4%
5%
12%
13%
9%
2%
1%
5%
4%
15%
7%
12%
4%
6%
6%
1%
16%
2%
14%
8%
4%
9%
9%
4%
1%
18%
9%
10%
7%
4%
7%
6%
7%
15%
4%
14%
Pre
1976
22%
28%
18%
53%
38%
32%
27%
31%
28%
21%
16%
30%
32%
47%
29%
33%
17%
24%
44%
40%
34%
33%
42%
24%
29%
17%
40%
32%
21%
34%
32%
43%
16%
31%
18%
20%
34%
35%
24%
32%
33%
33%
35%
26%
19761994
49%
46%
48%
19%
40%
40%
43%
37%
43%
43%
40%
42%
40%
37%
42%
40%
42%
43%
37%
41%
43%
42%
34%
45%
46%
47%
38%
42%
46%
39%
43%
36%
46%
39%
44%
43%
42%
45%
44%
44%
40%
39%
38%
43%
1994+
29%
25%
34%
28%
21%
28%
30%
32%
29%
35%
43%
28%
28%
15%
30%
26%
41%
33%
19%
19%
23%
25%
24%
30%
25%
36%
22%
26%
34%
26%
25%
20%
37%
31%
39%
37%
25%
20%
32%
24%
27%
28%
26%
31%
Table 36: Manufactured home Heating Fuel Use by State (2009 American Communities Survey)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Natural
Gas
5.6%
45.4%
27.4%
Propane
14.5%
1.3%
9.0%
Electricity
57.2%
6.0%
31.0%
Fuel Oil
0.5%
27.0%
0.0%
110
Wood
1.0%
6.3%
2.6%
Solar
Energy
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
Fuel
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
No Fuel
Used
0.5%
0.0%
1.8%
State
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
-Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Natural
Gas
14.2%
54.0%
53.0%
15.0%
10.4%
1.4%
6.9%
0.0%
16.9%
48.9%
35.6%
51.5%
55.9%
6.5%
8.7%
0.0%
7.1%
18.4%
52.1%
42.1%
7.7%
11.8%
40.4%
46.6%
45.2%
1.1%
39.3%
42.2%
18.1%
1.0%
43.2%
31.8%
17.4%
5.5%
16.5%
7.7%
2.8%
38.6%
5.0%
10.6%
55.2%
0.7%
1.3%
5.0%
14.4%
42.0%
55.6%
Propane
15.2%
9.9%
14.2%
23.5%
28.8%
3.6%
13.7%
0.0%
5.4%
13.3%
13.9%
16.1%
14.9%
8.2%
4.6%
3.6%
20.6%
15.1%
16.5%
26.1%
22.0%
18.3%
15.7%
16.3%
13.3%
13.6%
12.5%
22.8%
20.9%
6.3%
26.5%
15.7%
20.7%
2.0%
13.9%
8.7%
4.6%
31.3%
4.1%
10.7%
10.7%
17.4%
5.6%
4.4%
4.4%
23.4%
18.3%
Electricity
45.6%
14.5%
7.3%
3.0%
8.6%
66.5%
55.6%
22.3%
49.1%
19.3%
29.4%
11.1%
12.6%
61.4%
67.2%
1.4%
23.0%
6.0%
3.9%
3.0%
50.8%
42.7%
13.0%
7.9%
19.5%
0.9%
4.2%
9.6%
2.7%
65.6%
5.8%
28.1%
33.2%
67.0%
11.2%
4.4%
68.8%
4.5%
68.0%
57.7%
9.6%
0.1%
59.4%
67.1%
48.8%
3.0%
7.1%
Fuel Oil
0.4%
0.9%
0.3%
45.3%
19.1%
0.2%
0.7%
0.0%
1.2%
0.7%
0.9%
0.0%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
73.5%
22.5%
43.4%
1.6%
3.0%
0.4%
0.3%
1.2%
0.3%
1.0%
60.1%
25.4%
0.0%
31.6%
5.8%
0.8%
5.1%
0.1%
1.8%
35.1%
62.3%
2.5%
0.1%
2.0%
0.2%
0.6%
58.4%
10.1%
0.6%
5.1%
0.8%
0.0%
111
Wood
3.9%
3.9%
4.7%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
2.1%
0.0%
9.8%
1.2%
1.8%
1.5%
1.8%
2.1%
0.5%
4.0%
2.7%
1.0%
4.4%
2.1%
1.7%
5.0%
10.8%
2.5%
4.6%
3.9%
0.2%
6.4%
5.1%
1.8%
0.5%
3.1%
3.9%
12.4%
3.2%
0.0%
0.6%
1.1%
2.8%
0.6%
2.8%
9.0%
3.7%
9.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.0%
Solar
Energy
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
Fuel
0.4%
1.0%
1.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
0.5%
2.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.2%
0.9%
2.2%
1.0%
0.7%
3.3%
0.9%
1.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
2.9%
0.9%
1.5%
1.5%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.8%
0.7%
0.3%
1.2%
No Fuel
Used
0.2%
2.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.3%
27.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.6%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
Appendix C: Utility and Municipal Loan and Financing Programs
Table 37: Utility and municipal loan and financing programs 139
Alabama
Alabama Power - Residential Heat Pump and Weatherization Loan
Programs
Cherokee Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan
Programs
Louisiana
Oregon
City of Shreveport – Shreveport Energy Efficiency Program (SEED)
Ashland Electric Utility - Bright Way to Heat Water Loan
Home Energy Loan Program
Ashland Electric Utility - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Cullman Electric Cooperative - Energy Conservation Loan Program
Maine
Clean Energy Works Oregon
Dixie Electric Cooperative - Residential Heat Pump Loan Program
Seacoast Energy Initiative - Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Douglas Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficiency Loans
South Alabama Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficiency
Loan Program
Maryland
EPUD - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Programs
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
DHCD - Be SMART Home Efficiency Loan Program
EPUD - Solar Water Heater Loan
Alaska
DHCD - Be SMART Multi-Family Efficiency Loan Program
EWEB (Gas & Electric) - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Programs
Association Loan Program
Maryland Clean Energy Center - Home Energy Loan Program
EWEB - Residential Solar Water Heating Loan Program
Energy Efficiency Interest Rate Reduction Program
Massachusetts
Second Mortgage Program for Energy Conservation
GreenStreet Lending Program
Lane Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan
Holyoke Gas & Electric - Commercial Energy Efficiency Loan Program Programs
Small Building Material Loan
Holyoke Gas & Electric - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
McMinnville Water & Light - Conservation Service Loan Program
Arizona
MassSAVE - Financing for Business Program
Salem Electric - Low-Interest Loan Program
Sulphur Springs Valley EC - Member Loan Program
MassSAVE - HEAT Loan Program
Small-Scale Energy Loan Program
Sulphur Springs Valley EC - SunWatts Loan Program
Michigan
Springfield Utility Board - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Arkansas
City of Detroit - SmartBuildings Detroit Green Fund Loan
Tillamook County PUD - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
First Electric Cooperative - Home Improvement Loans
Michigan Saves - Home Energy Loan Program
Pennsylvania
North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Inc - Residential Energy
Efficiency Loan Program
Minnesota
Adams Electric Cooperative - Energy Efficiency Loan Program
OGE - Geothermal Heat Pump Program
Ozarks Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
City of Duluth - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
DCED - Alternative and Clean Energy Program
Home Energy Loan Program
DCED - High Performance Buildings Incentive Program
California
Anaheim Public Utilities - Low-Interest Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Modesto Irrigation District - Residential High Efficiency Air
Conditioning Loan Program
MHFA Fix-Up Fund
DCED - Wind and Geothermal Incentives Program
SCE - Non-Residential On-Bill Financing Program
NEC Minnesota Energy Loan Program
Pennsylvania Green Energy Loan Fund
SDG&E - Non-Residential On-Bill Financing Program
Otter Tail Power Company - DollarSmart Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Rhode Island
SMUD - Commercial Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Rental Energy Loan Fund
RIEDC - Renewable Energy Fund Loans
SMUD - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Stearns Electric Association - Energy Efficiency Loan Program
South Carolina
SMUD - Residential Solar Loan Program
Mississippi
Berkeley Electric Cooperative - HomeAdvantage Efficiency Loan
Program
SoCalGas - Non-Residential On-Bill Financing Program
Mississippi Power (Electric) - EarthCents Financing Program
SoCalGas - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative - Heat Pump Loan Program
Pee Dee Electric Cooperative - Energy Efficient Home Improvement
Loan Program
Colorado
Boulder County - EnergySmart Residential Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Missouri
Santee Cooper - Renewable Energy Resource Loans
Columbia Water & Light - Commercial Super Saver Loans
Santee Cooper - Smart Energy Loan Program
Fort Collins Utilities - ZILCH (Zero Interest Loans for Conservation
Help) Program
Columbia Water & Light - Residential Super Saver Loans
South Dakota
Connecticut
Laclede Gas Company - Loan Programs for Energy Efficiency
Otter Tail Power Company - Dollar Smart Financing Program
CHIF - Energy Conservation Loan
St. Louis County - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Southeastern Electric - Electric Equipment Loan Program
MHFA Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program
Keystone HELP - Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative -Residential Energy Resource
Conservation Loan Program
Keystone HELP - EnergyWorks Efficiency Loan Program
DPUC - Low-Interest Loans for Customer-Side Distributed Resources Montana
Energy Efficiency Fund (Electric and Gas) - Residential Energy
Efficiency Financing
Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
Delaware
Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) - Home Performance with Energy
Star Loans
Tennessee
Bristol Tennessee Electric Service - Energy Savings Loan Program
Nebraska
Gibson Electric Membership Corporation - Residential Energy
Efficient Water Heater Loan Program
Dollar and Energy Savings Loans
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
139
Details on all programs can be found here:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&searchtype=PTFAuth&sh=1
and here:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&sector=Residential&searchtype=Lo
an&sh=1
112
Florida
Nevada
Texas
City of Tallahassee Utilities - Efficiency Loans
Valley Electric Association - Solar Water Heating Program
Austin Energy - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
City of Tallahassee Utilities - Solar Loans
Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc - Energy Conservation Loans
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Electric Co-Op - SmartSTART Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Bryan Texas Utilities - Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative - Conservation Plan 7 Loan
Program
Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc - Solar Thermal Loans
Unitil (Electric) - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Vermont
Gainesville Regional Utilities- Low-Interest Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
New Jersey
JEA - ShopSmart Financial Assistance
Home Performance with Energy Star Program
Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF) Loan Program
Vermont Gas - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan and Rebate
Program
Orlando Utilities Commission - Residential Solar Loan Program
New Jersey Natural Gas - SAVEGREEN On-Bill Financing Program
Virginia
Sarasota County - Get Energy Smart Retrofit Loan Program
New York
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
St. Lucie County - Solar and Energy Loan Fund (SELF)
NYSERDA - Green Jobs-Green New York Financing Program
Washington
Georgia
NYSERDA - Residential Loan Fund
Clallam County PUD - Residential and Small Business Efficiency Loan
Program
Amicalola EMC - Energy Resource Conservation (ERC) Loan
North Carolina
Clallam County PUD - Residential and Small Business Solar Loan
Program
Coweta-Fayette EMC - Energy Advantage Loan Program
Clark Public Utilities - Residential Heat Pump Loan Program
Habersham EMC - Energy Efficient Loan Program
Four-County EMC - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Haywood EMC - Residential Heat Pump and Weatherization Loan
Program
Local Option - Financing Program for Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
Lumbee River EMC - Residential Weatherization Loan Program
Ferry County PUD #1 - Off-Grid Solar PV Financial Assistance
Walton EMC - Prime PowerLoan Program
Lumbee River EMC - Solar Water Heating Loan Program
Grant County PUD - Residential Loan Program
Hawaii
Piedmont EMC - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Grays Harbor PUD - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Honolulu - Solar Roofs Initiative Loan Program
Piedmont EMC - Residential Solar Loan Program
Grays Harbor PUD - Solar Water Heater Loan
KIUC - Solar Water Heating Loan Program
Tideland EMC - Weatherization Loan Program
Klickitat PUD - Solar PV Loan Program
Maui County - Solar Roofs Initiative Loan Program
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
Okanogan PUD - Conservation Loan Program
Idaho
Union Power Cooperative - Residential Energy Efficient Heat Pump
Loan Program
Port Angeles Public Works & Utilities - Solar Energy Loan Program
Flint Energies - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Idaho Falls Power - Energy Efficient Heat Pump Loan Program
Idaho Falls Power - Residential Weatherization Loan Program
North Dakota
Cass County Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy-Efficiency
Loan Program
Northern Plains EC - Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency
Loan Program
Low-Interest Energy Loan Programs
Otter Tail Power Company - Dollar Smart Financing Program
Indiana
Ohio
Butler Rural Electric Cooperative - Energy Efficiency Improvement
Loan Program
Idaho Falls Power - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
City of Indianapolis - EcoHouse Project
South Central Indiana REMC - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Clark Public Utilities - Residential Weatherization Loan Program
Clark Public Utilities - Solar Energy Equipment Loan
Richland Energy Services - Residential Energy Conservation & Solar
Loan Program
Snohomish County PUD No 1 - Residential Weatherization & Heating
Program
Snohomish County PUD No 1 - Solar Express Loan Program
Wisconsin
Barron Electric Cooperative - Residential Energy Resource
Conservation Loan Program
City of Madison - Green Madison Revolving Loan Program
Columbia Gas of Ohio - Home Performance Solutions Loan Program
City of Milwaukee - Energy Efficiency (Me2) Revolving Loan Program
Iowa
Alliant Energy Interstate Power and Light - Low Interest Energy
Efficiency Loan Program
Energy Conservation for Ohioans (ECO-Link) Program
Hamilton County - Home Improvement Program
City of Milwaukee - Milwaukee Shines Solar Financing
Focus on Energy - Home Performance & Efficient Heating and Cooling
Loan Program
Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program
Oklahoma
Focus on Energy - Home Performance with Energy Star Loan Program
(WPS Customers Only)
MidAmerican Energy - Residential EnergyAdvantage Loan Program
OG&E - Geothermal Heat Pump Program
Wyoming
Kansas
Powder River Energy Corporation - Conservation Loan Program
Efficiency Kansas Revolving Loan Program
Oklahoma City - Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Program
Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority - WISE Energy Efficiency Loan
Program
Midwest Energy - How$mart Energy Efficiency Finance Program
Red River Valley REA - Heat Pump Loan Program
Wyoming Energy Savers Loan
Kentucky
Kentucky - Energy Efficient Home Improvements Program
Mountain Association for Community Economic Development How$martKY On Bill Financing Energy Efficiency Program
Mountain Association for Community Economic Development - Solar
Water Heater Loan Program
TVA Partner Utilities - energy right Heat Pump Program
113
Powder River Energy Corporation - Renewable Energy Loan Program
Appendix D: Utility Costs
The following figures provide more detail regarding regional energy and water costs.
Figure 53 and Figure 54 presents residential natural gas prices by state. Key mountain producer states and
California have the most inexpensive gas, paying under $10 per thousand cubic feet (MCF). Eastern states and
Arizona pay up to 2.4 times more, between $15-$20/MCF. Many of the ROC-USA communities are in states with
high natural gas costs. Average natural gas prices have doubled between 1999 and 2008 140.
40
36.37
Figure 53: Residential natural gas prices by state (2009, $/thousand cubic feet)141
30
25
20
15
10
20.18
18.12
17.79
17.65
17.29
17.06
16.43
16.3
15.33
15.05
14.91
14.85
14.81
14.75
14.74
14.54
14.52
14.25
13.95
13.92
13.83
13.73
13.39
13.18
13.15
12.68
12.61
12.16
12.14
11.96
11.39
11.27
11.22
11.19
11.1
10.81
10.76
10.54
10.23
9.83
9.53
9.5
9.43
9.39
9.34
9.14
8.99
8.98
8.95
8.8
8.46
$/thousand cubic feet
35
5
HI
FL
AL
DE
AZ
VT
RI
ME
GA
NH
NY
SC
MA
CT
WV
PA
NJ
OR
NC
WA
DC
VA
MD
AR
NV
LA
OH
MO
TN
US
KY
OK
MI
MS
TX
KS
IN
WI
ID
AK
IA
NM
MT
CA
WY
NE
SD
MN
IL
UT
CO
ND
0
Figure 54: Residential natural gas prices by state, sorted by price
140
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Prices.”
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_prices
141
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Monthly, Table 18, September 2010. Map from
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_prices
114
Propane costs vary by a factor of 1.5 across the country, as shown in Figure 55. The East Coast has the highest
propane prices, and the Midwest with the lowest prices. Propane costs have more than doubled between 2000 and
2010, as shown in Figure 56.
$3.00
U.S. Average $2.22/gallon
$2.00
$1.85
$1.99
$2.34
$2.50
$2.58
$1.00
$2.64
$1.50
$2.67
$2.72
$/gallon
$2.50
$0.50
$-
Figure 55: Residential propane prices (2010)
$3.00
$/gallon
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
Apr-2010
May-2009
Jul-2007
Jun-2008
Aug-2006
Sep-2005
Oct-2004
Dec-2002
Nov-2003
Jan-2002
Feb-2001
Mar-2000
Apr-1999
May-1998
Jun-1997
Jul-1996
Aug-1995
Sep-1994
Oct-1993
$-
Figure 56: Residential propane prices historical increase (1993-2010)142
Fuel oil is subject to significant cost increases, as shown in Figure 57. Prices increased by a factor of 4 during a six
year period between 2002 and 2008. Current prices are still more than three times higher than they were in 2002.
Fuel oil is a predominant heating source for many manufactured homes in the northeast, and is highly vulnerable to
increasing fuel oil costs. Energy conservation efforts will be particularly important in this region.
142
Based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency,
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPLLPA_PRT_NUS_DPG&f=M
115
$5.00
$4.50
$4.00
$/gallon
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
1/2001
5/2001
9/2001
1/2002
5/2002
9/2002
1/2003
5/2003
9/2003
1/2004
5/2004
9/2004
1/2005
5/2005
9/2005
1/2006
5/2006
9/2006
1/2007
5/2007
9/2007
1/2008
5/2008
9/2008
1/2009
5/2009
9/2009
1/2010
5/2010
9/2010
1/2011
5/2011
9/2011
$0.00
Figure 57: Residential Fuel Oil Prices (2001 – 2011)143
$0.35
$0.30
$0.20
$0.15
Average = $0.115/kWH
$0.10
$0.05
Idaho
Figure 58: Residential electricity prices by state (2011)144
The following figure shows water prices (dollars per thousand gallons) for 30 U.S. Cities. Water prices vary by a
factor of 4. This will significantly impact the economic benefit of water conservation. However, water prices are
rising faster than the general rate of inflation, and will likely continue rising fast. 2010 rates increased by 9%145.
Aging infrastructure, increasing stress on water supplies, and related factors will continue to drive water prices up
and are an important sustainability issue for manufactured homes and communities.
143
Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Average price data for #2 Fuel Oil, U.S. City Average.” Accessed
online, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
144
Based on data from U.S. Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=507&t=3
145
Circle of Blue. “The Price of Water 2011: Prices Rise an Average of 9% in Major U.S. Cities.” May 5, 2010.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/the-price-of-water-2011-prices-rise-an-average-of-9-percentin-major-u-s-cities/
116
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Utah
Arkansas
Louisiana
South Dakota
Missouri
Wyoming
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Oregon
West Virginia
Montana
Tennessee
Iowa
Indiana
Kansas
North Carolina
Virginia
Mississippi
New Mexico
Arizona
Georgia
Minnesota
Ohio
Colorado
Alabama
Texas
South Carolina
Illinois
Florida
Nevada
Michigan
Wisconsin
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Massachusetts
District of Columbia
Maine
California
Vermont
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Alaska
New Hampshire
New York
Connecticut
$Hawaii
$/kWh
$0.25
$2.04
$2.36
$2.67
$2.41
$2.68
$1.84
$2.00
$2.67
$2.69
$2.69
$2.86
$3.04
$2.91
$3.20
$3.26
$2.70
$3.00
Average = $3.77
$3.21
$3.66
$3.48
$3.99
$4.21
$4.09
$4.56
$5.10
$7.21
$7.02
$3.70
$4.00
$4.53
$5.00
$5.64
$6.00
$5.31
$7.00
$7.34
Average Water Cost ($/1000 gallons)
$8.00
$1.00
San Diego
Santa Fe
Seattle
Atlanta
Boston
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Indianapolis
San Jose
Columbus
Fort Worth
Houston
New York
Jacksonville
Baltimore
Austin
Denver
Tucson
Las Vegas
Detroit
Dallas
Milwaukie
Chicago
Memphis
Fresno
Salt Lake City
Charlotte
San Antonio
Phoenix
$-
Figure 59: Typical water prices for various cities (2010)146
146
Data derived from: Circle of Blue. “The Price of Water: A comparison of Water Rates, Usage in 30 US Cities.”
April 26, 2010. Accessed online 10/24, http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/the-price-of-water-acomparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities/. Data presented above is based on typical costs for low tier
water usage of 50 gallons/person/day, typical of manufactured home owners without large irrigation use. Higher
tiered water usage costs vary depending on tariff structure.
117