We systematically review studies evaluating the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of residential energy efficiency retrofit programs. We review 39 evaluations of 23 residential retrofit programs that were evaluated between 1984 and 2021. Our sample is restricted to program evaluations that used postretrofit household energy billing or consumption data from 140,977 retrofitted households. We report four primary findings. First, none of the studies in our sample reported deep energy savings (e.g., 50% or greater) from retrofit programs. The mean reduction in measured electricity and/or fuel consumption due to energy efficiency retrofits for all programs included in our sample was roughly 7.2%. However, because many households use both fuel and electricity, total household energy savings from the retrofit programs evaluated in our sample are probably smaller. Second, reported program savings decreased as the internal validity of study design increased. Third, as measured by realized savings and cost-effectiveness, the most promising retrofits were insulation and programmable thermostats, whereas the least promising retrofits were storm windows and doors. Fourth, programs with high reported savings and low costs of conserved energy served low-income, fuel-heated households exclusively.

中文翻译：

---

家庭能源效率改造评估研究的系统回顾


我们系统地回顾了评估住宅能源效率改造计划的节能和成本效益的研究。我们回顾了 1984 年至 2021 年间评估的 23 个住宅改造项目的 39 项评估。我们的样本仅限于使用来自 140,977 个改造家庭的改造后家庭能源账单或消耗数据的项目评估。我们报告了四项主要发现。首先，我们的样本中没有一项研究报告了改造计划带来的深度节能（例如 50% 或更多）。由于我们样本中所有项目的能效改造，测得的电力和/或燃料消耗的平均减少量约为 7.2%。然而，由于许多家庭同时使用燃料和电力，因此我们样本中评估的改造计划所节省的家庭总能源可能较小。其次，报告的项目节省随着研究设计的内部有效性的增加而减少。第三，根据已实现的节约和成本效益来衡量，最有希望的改造是隔热和可编程恒温器，而最没有希望的改造是防风门窗。第四，据报道，节约能源成本高、节约能源成本低的计划专门服务于低收入、使用燃料取暖的家庭。