Superefficient Affordable Housing

The report identifies a significant gap in energy efficiency within US affordable housing, noting that public housing is 38% more inefficient than private residential buildings. It categorizes barriers into programmatic (regulatory and information gaps), financial (funding backlogs and complex mixed-financing), technical (lack of integrative design and energy modeling), and operational (tenant incentives and lack of retro-commissioning). To address these, the report recommends streamlining HUD's Energy Performance Contract (EPC) processes, adopting life-cycle cost analysis, utilizing a 'whole-building' design approach, and implementing retro-commissioning, which can reduce energy consumption by a median of 16% with a fast payback period.

• Public housing in the United States is significantly less energy-efficient than private housing, using 38% more energy for the same amount of floor space.
• There is a severe lack of investment in energy efficiency relative to the cost of utility allowances; the government spends 10 times more on affordable housing utility allowances than on energy efficiency programs.
• Financial barriers include a $26 billion backlog of existing capital needs and a 45% cut in capital funds for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) between 2001 and 2011.
• Programmatic hurdles include high transaction costs and information gaps regarding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Energy Performance Contract (EPC) program, particularly for small PHAs with fewer than 500 units.
• Technical hurdles are driven by a lack of energy modeling as a design tool and an underestimation of technical potential; architects often view energy models as verification tools rather than design tools.
• Operational efficiency is hindered by a lack of tenant incentives in master-metered facilities and a failure to perform retro-commissioning on existing building systems.
• Retro-commissioning offers a highly cost-effective solution, with a median energy consumption reduction of 16% and an average payback period of 1.1 years at a cost of approximately $0.30 per square foot.
• Integrating energy efficiency and sustainability measures at the start of a project is estimated to add only 2% to typical development costs.
• The report advocates for a 'whole-building' or 'deep retrofit' approach to capture systemic synergies, as opposed to 'piecemeal retrofits' which are common due to funding constraints.

APA

RMI (n.d.). Superefficient Affordable Housing. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2013-03_SHISolutionsToHurdles.pdf

Chicago

RMI. Superefficient Affordable Housing. n.d. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2013-03_SHISolutionsToHurdles.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=RMI |title=Superefficient Affordable Housing |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2013-03_SHISolutionsToHurdles.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rmindsuperefficient, author = {{RMI}}, title = {{Superefficient Affordable Housing}}, institution = {RMI}, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2013-03_SHISolutionsToHurdles.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }