Project Team

• Parth Vaishnav, SEAS (PI)
• Carina Gronlund, ISR
• Claire McKenna, SEAS
• Tony Reames, SEAS

This project provided data-driven insights on the barriers low-income households face in adopting energy efficiency measures, showing that reducing upfront costs alone is insufficient and helping shape more equitable, effective energy policies.

Each winter—to save money, energy, or both—a large proportion of families in the U.S. maintain their homes below the 64°F considered healthy. As home heating moves toward full electrification and utilities adopt pricing designed to curb peak demand, low-income customers will face increasingly difficult tradeoffs between cost and comfort. Without targeted support, the shift to cleaner heating technologies will place a disproportionate burden on those least able to bear it.

To better understand this issue and inform more equitable policy solutions, this project engaged 51 households in Wayne and Washtenaw counties. Half of the participating households had below-median incomes; 40% experienced energy insecurity, 43% required additional heating or cooling for medical reasons, and 53% had children. The findings challenge key assumptions in energy policy—particularly the idea that reducing the upfront costs of heat pumps alone will drive widespread adoption. Policies based solely on this premise may fall short of their goals.

The research team collected one year of utility data from smart thermostats and sensors installed during home visits, tracking hourly electricity and daily gas use. Accredited contractors also conducted energy audits in each home.

Researchers combined this energy and temperature data with a simplified heat pump model to assess the cost and burden of switching to heat pumps. Contractors provided detailed retrofit recommendations, including upfront costs, projected savings, and payback periods. A building energy model was then used to estimate the impact of fuel switching and retrofits on utility bills and to compare results with regional housing archetypes.

To understand household responses to audit recommendations, the team interviewed residents 12 to 18 months after their audits. These interviews provided insight into desired improvements, barriers encountered, and adoption drivers—including financial constraints and access to contractors.

The findings reveal a troubling “energy poverty trap”: inefficient homes drive high energy burdens, yet retrofits that would reduce those burdens remain unaffordable for many low-income households. Some households attempted DIY fixes but faced technical or time-related challenges. Policymakers can strengthen DIY efforts by offering targeted guidance—particularly on air sealing—to support cost-effective improvements and advance energy equity.

The project also explored whether inefficient homes face greater tradeoffs between energy costs and indoor temperature. Using the NREL ResStock database, the team attempted to match sample homes with national housing archetypes but found significant gaps in energy use and building characteristics. While useful for regional estimates or distributions, ResStock makes it hard to predict the effectiveness of retrofits on individual homes.

The research has helped shape critical policy conversations, including a presentation to Rep. Debbie Dingell’s (D-MI) team that sparked surprise and concern. It also revealed that cost overruns extended payback periods in some of the project’s most energy-efficient retrofitted homes, highlighting persistent affordability and long-term savings challenges. Finally, the project generated pilot data that supported multiple proposals, including a successfully funded $17M DOE grant, of which $472,000 came to the University of Michigan.