1

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENT RETROFITTING
OF EXISTING HOMES IN
NORMAL, ILLINOIS

Keith Rohman, Drew Simon, Lacey Daebel, Eric Enguita

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY TEC 360 Capstone, Dr. Jin Jo, Ph.D

Table of Contents
Abstract. 3
Objective and Scope..4
Introduction: Background and Literature Review.4
The Electric Market.6
Data Acquisition and Methodology.6
Results.9
Conclusion.13
References.15


Abstract
With increased political pressure and International Energy Conservation Codes being implemented
nationwide, along with a Town of Normal Sustainability Plan, the community finds itself in need of
enforced energy conservation practices. The research presented in this report assesses electric
consumption rates in the residential sector throughout Illinois, with a retrofit model to gauge these
rates in Normal. Through multiple case studies we analyze current consumption rates among different
residential sites in Normal. With energy audits provided by the Ecology Action Center, located just off
Illinois State Universitys campus in Normal, IL, we show the discrepancies between current Energy
Conservation Codes and consumption and spending data in our sites. This report contains financial
analyses that will encompass energy escalation rates, economic inflation rates, and a rate of price
elasticity of demand for Normal. While it is understood that enforcement of energy efficient codes in
the residential sector is at the helm of the homeowner, we find clear energy cost savings with our
provided retrofit plan of the proposed sites, as well as clear energy consumption reduction associated
with implementation of said codes on the municipality. Additionally, we will suggest a tier system for
residential buildings in Normal, with a focus on different ratings of energy efficiency.

Objective and Scope

Our objective was to assess current electric consumption of residential buildings and offer suggestions
on how overall electricity consumption could be reduced with retrofit actions. The residential buildings
in the town of normal are aged from 1900 to newly constructed homes and contain 48 neighborhoods.
By offering suggestions on how to retrofit the residential sector, we are hoping for the town of Normal
to be an example for neighborhoods nationwide. Our scope of research focuses on 3 residential sites in
the locale in which we obtained electric consumption data for and analyzed areas for improvement in
terms of energy consumption.
Introduction: Background and Literature Review
Figure 1











According to the Energy Information Agency Energy consumption in the residential sector totals
just under a quarter of our entire countrys consumption. In terms of electricity consumed from retail
sales, the residential sector consumed 1,399,884,000 Megawatt hours (EIA, 2015), which is the most of
any sector.
As the country works towards reducing carbon emissions, consumers in the residential sector
can implement strategies to consume less electricity. This will not only save them money, but will
reduce their carbon footprint. The Town of Normal has proposed a sustainability plan and energy
efficiency is keynote part of the strategy to strive towards the goal of a more sustainable Normal.
There is a substantial amount of previously literature on energy efficiency codes, energy
efficiency implementation, and residential retrofitting to improve energy efficiency. Most of this
research discusses the environmental and economic impacts as well as consumption trends associated
with adoption of energy efficiency codes. Research is lacking for adoption of codes in specific
municipalities and it there is often new energy efficiency codes adopted even if the research is using
slightly out of date data and information. Demand is often evaluated after implementation of codes and

we also will discuss detailed literature and case studies going into depth about the specifics behind
codes and appliance applications for households. We will review this literature here. Case studies often
examine one aspect of energy efficient applications (such as air conditioning only), but fail to examine
extended data with synergistic effects associated with implementing larger scale energy efficient
practices in residential buildings.
As we look to offer a model for the Town of Normal, Illinois to adopt a building energy efficient
code, we have to examine current codes already accepted on a nationwide level. Almost all states have
adopted energy efficient programs in hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Murray, 2014) and
Illinois is no exception. Murray finds that there is a decrease in electrical consumption associated with
the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) and also with an adoption of
any up-to-date energy code, however this is found both in states with relatively low rates of new
residential construction (Murray, 2014). Normal saw a decrease in residential building permits from
2013 to 2014, decreasing from 103 to 80 (Economic Development Council of McLean County, 2015).
This makes sense assuming that the electrical consumption will almost always go up when there
is a large amount of new construction. Local officials, such as county board members and elected
officials will often enforce codes at the local level (Murray, 2014). The level of trained officials aware of
proper coding can vary by state (Murray, 2014), so we hope to provide detailed analysis and options
available for energy an energy efficiency code in Normal, Illinois. Because retrofitting residential homes
is an energy efficiency program, trends in these types of programs will likely be positively correlated
with the adoption of IECC (Murray, 2014).
Offering energy efficient codes and suggestions for improvements on existing residential
buildings that we will offer in this report are about reducing consumption, in other words managing
demand. Suzanne Isabel Helmholz Tegen (2006) examines supply and demand side management
programs and analyzes potential options for economic impact calculations. Energy efficiency, when
looking at electricity in residential buildings, is often configured based on lighting and appliances. She
analyzes state-specific data and states that demand side management programs will (such as adoption
of energy efficient codes and installation of more efficient lighting and appliances) will not only reduce
the amount of electricity consumed by a population, but it will also lower the costs (Tegen, 2006). On
the local level, it is important for decision makers to take into accounts the potential economic impacts
associated with demand side management (Tegen, 2006). There are often benefits to the utility
companies and the ratepayers. Utility companies may not have to build new power plants (or at least
can postpone construction) and to avoid overloaded electric grids and blackouts (Tegen, 2006). If they
save money, it will be reflected to the ratepayers, meaning cheaper costs in the long run.
Energy efficient codes will not only take into account electrical consumption, but also the
buildings overall envelope performance. A report provided by the Ecology Action Center after an energy
audit at the locale of 1200 Maplewood provided framework for IECC standards and efficiency
improvements. Based on your location in the United States, you will be in a certain climatic zone.
According to a report provided for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, the thermal building envelope standards are tailored with R-values most suited for the
corresponding climate. Our region of central Illinois is in the 5th climatic zone, while the rest of Illinois
(southern third) is in the 4th climatic zone (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009). Because the
climate is different, different consumption and adoption of building codes are often associated with
heating and cooling degree days (Murray, 2014).

The Electric Market

Electricity prices vary greatly dependent upon which region you are located. In order to adapt a
methodology in which we can show financial savings from consumption reduction, we needed to gain
knowledge and understanding of the rate structure in our area.
Across the state of Illinois, it is fair to assume the average cost of electricity to be around
$0.11/kWh. Since Illinois is a deregulated market, the ratepayer has the ability to choose the specific
electric supplier (i.e. Homefield Energy), however across the board you will find a steady rate. Ameren is
a distributor and controller of flow of electricity to the suppliers for any customers in Illinois south of
Interstate 80. This knowledge became available to us from an interview with Paulina Heinkel, a Public
Relations Specialist for Ameren in the residential side of the corporation. While there may be different
electric charges and distribution charges as well as specific municipal taxes, we take $0.11/kWh as our
cost of electricity. Corn Belt Energy is another utility frequenting only in the middle portion of the state.
Through our data acquisition, we were able to calculate real rates of electricity for a specific
point of analysis and the methodology can be applied to any specific residential building. In Normal, the
two utilities for electricity are Ameren and CornBelt, with Ameren being more predominant. Our case
study sites included two homes with Ameren as the servicing utility and one with Corn Belt. After taking
total cost over total consumption for the same period, one would still find the average cost to be
roughly $.11/kWh.
Data Acquisition and Methodology
In order to suggest retrofit options we needed to organize the 48 neighborhoods in the town of
Normal into a tier system based on age of construction. The clustering of neighborhoods allows for the
assumption of similar construction materials, electricity consumption rates, and adoption of energy
efficient codes at the time of construction.
To build a foundation upon which we could develop our tier system upon, we decided to
develop a visual framework of all of the residential neighborhoods throughout the town of Normal. In
order to do this, we used several techniques to make a map highlighting all of the neighborhoods in
Normal. We began by finding out what exactly the zoning laws and restrictions are in the town. We
found on the town website, http://il-normal.civicplus.com/ under the departments tab, they had
provided several links discussing and explaining the zoning laws and restrictions within Normal. This
benefitted us greatly as one of the links was a description of every zoning code used in the town of
Normal. Upon looking through the document, we discovered that Normal splits their residential zoning
into multiple categories but we are only interested in two of those categories; R-1A and R-1B. R-1A is
defined as 4 detached single family residence dwellings per acre and R-1B is defined as 6 detached single
family residence dwellings per acre. We are only interested in these zones because they only include
single residence homes and exclude multiple residence homes such as apartments, for example.
Another link provided a zoning map which highlighted and color coded each zone. This map provided us
with a good basis for a preliminary visual framework for which we would develop our tier system upon,
however the map itself was quite cluttered with many different colors for each zone and thus it was
hard to truly establish a solid foundation to work with. Having taken the information we just learned, I
then went to the McLean County Regional Planning Commissions website, which provided GIS imaging
overlaid with the different zones in Normal, much the same as the zoning map we looked at earlier.
However, the major benefit from this map was that it can be edited to display whatever one wishes. Due

to this, we were able edit the map to display only the R-1A and R-1B zones without the addition of any
of the other numerous zones.
This gave us a solid visual framework to analyze where exactly the particular neighborhoods we
would include within our tier system were at throughout the area. Not only that but it gave us a clear
idea of the scope of what we were planning, including how many neighborhoods were in the area. With
this information in hand, we were able to further develop and elaborate our tier system, which we came
upon the conclusion that a three tier system would work best. The following image we created using GIS
mapping is shown below:
Figure 1

After developing a proposed 3-tier system, we acquired electric consumption data from 3 case
study sites utility bills, one each corresponding to a specific tier. For Tier 1 (1900-1950), we acquired
annual consumption data from a house built in 1915. For Tier 2 (1951-2000), we did the same for a
house built in 1953. Lastly for Tier 3 (2000-and new construction), the home was built in 2007. The
reasoning behind this was that we assumed electric consumption data would correspond with the year
that each home was built. For the first two tiers, the electric utility was Ameren and for the third Corn
Belt. Variables we failed to control were the size of the home and the individual practices exhibited by
the inhabitants of each home. On average, we concluded roughly 3 inhabitants and consumers of
electricity in each home which eliminates number of consumers as a variable. Figure 2 shows the annual
electric consumption over the same period for each tier.

Figure 2

Annual Electric Consumption by Tier

10,000
8,000

7,595

1953
Year of ConstrucLon

2007

6,297

kWh

6,000

8,107

4,000
2,000
0

1915

Our data stretched monthly electric consumption data from March 2015 through February
2016. To omit variable heating and cooling degree-days, we acquired this data for each home over the
same annual period. In a climate like central Illinois, the hottest months will exhibit higher electric
consumption due to the cooling degree-days in which the air conditioning units would be running.
Figure 3 below shows how changes in temperature from month to month affect the consumption data
across all 3 of our tiers. Similar trends can be observed during the cooling months with higher
consumption.
Figure 3

Electric Consumphon

Electric Consumphon Trends by Tier

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
March April May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Month
Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

We researched types of lighting and different appliances in which we found suitable to install or
replace for each tier. We offered energy efficient improvements based off annual electric consumption
as opposed to the age of the house. For Tier 1, using the least amount of electricity, we offered just a

lighting retrofit. Lighting is a simple and feasible energy efficient retrofit measure that most
homeowners can take. Our methods include totaling the number of bulbs in the house and assessing
what type they are, whether this be incandescent or fluorescent. If the home already has LED bulbs, our
methods could not be applied. LEDs are the most efficient bulbs so if they are already implemented,
there is no need to examine further. After finding the number and types of bulbs, you need to estimate
on average about how many hours per day each bulb is on. After doing this, you can apply the daily
consumption to figure out what carve out of the annual consumption is going to come from just lighting.
After doing so, compare the consumption reduction that will be assumed with installing all LED lights
and you have the reduction potential. According to the Ecology Action Center, LED bulbs run about $35
per bulb. This seems high, although coupled with their long lasting technology and low electric
consumption; the payback period can be derived fairly quickly.
For Tier 2, consuming the most electricity of the 3 sites annually, we offered lighting, air
conditioning, and refrigeration improvements to show reduction potential. We totaled the number of
bulbs in the home and figured, on average, about how many hours they are on per day and continued
the methods emphasized in Tier 1 for lighting. They can be applied to any home with lighting other than
LED. In terms of refrigeration, Tier 2 had two fridges with top freezers. They were the same size,
however the older fridge was a 1991 model and the newer a 2015 model. We found a large disparity in
annual consumption between the two appliances. The newer fridge was much more efficient, averaging
out at about 375 kwh/year whereas the 1991 fridge used about 861 kwh/yr. Utility companies often
encourage disposal of old fridges for this reason, so for our suggestions we removed this fridge.
However, due to the high startup cost of installing a new A/C unit, we omitted A/C from our financial
calculations to show a quicker, more reasonable payback period. As seen in Figure 3 above, there are a
limited number of cooling degree days in our climatic zone that cause the spikes in consumption. If we
were analyzing cases in the humid and hot southeastern part of the country, we might find a more
viable payback period for installing a new air conditioner.
For Tier 3, being newer and in a less tree-shaded neighborhood, we suggested a distributed
generation solar PV rooftop system that would cut costs of electricity, but did not play into energy
consumption reduction. We assumed that since the house was built in 2007, adoption of energy
efficient codes were part of the construction process.
The methods behind our suggestions and improvements were based on current consumption
and appliances. For example, with lighting we were able to take the total of number lights and type of
bulb and calculate what portion of total consumption came from lighting for Tier 1 and 2. After receiving
information on LED bulbs from the Ecology Action Center, we were able to propose a full lighting retrofit
replacing all incandescent and fluorescent bulbs with the high efficiency LED bulbs.
Results
Tier 1:
We ran a quick lighting improvement analysis with 12 LED ($35/bulb) replacing 12 Incandescent bulbs
and resulted in a payback period of just over 3 years. 1314 kWh/year could be saved.
Tier 2:

10

For our second tier, we showed current consumption data, specifically focusing on lighting, air
conditioning, and refrigeration as these are primary consumers in the average household. We show
significant energy consumption reduction over an annual period. With our suggested retrofits we found
the following reductions:
* Lighting = 1314 kWh/yr.
* Refrigeration = 861 kWh/yr.
* A/C = 682 kWh/yr.
* Total = 2857 kWh/yr.
Figure 4 below visualizes current consumption, our proposed consumption after suggestions, and the
actual reduction amount.
Figure 4

1200 Maplewood Eciency Measures and

Savings
2000

1782

1576.8
1314

1500

1236
861

1000
500

262.8

1100
682

375

0
Lighhng
Current Annual Consumphon (kWh)

Fridge

A/C

Proposed Annual Consumphon (kWh)

Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

In terms of dollar flow and cost savings, we omitted A/C conditioning out of the analysis due to
extremely high initial investment resulting in a payback period we could not deem viable. A higher
number of cooling degree-days in Illinois would also affect payback period. Since our site for this tier had
two refrigerators, one being a model from 2015 and the other from 1991, our initial investment for
refrigeration was $0. In fact, Ameren will even give you a $50 rebate for donating old fridges and
freezers to them for proper disposal, though we emitted the cash value from the potential rebate for
our calculations. The payback period with lighting and refrigeration is quicker than solely the lighting, as
evident in Tier 1 results.
The financial results are as follows, with $0.11/kWh:
* Current Annual Total Annual Electric Cost (lighting and fridges) = $309.41

11

* Cost to Retrofit Lighting (12 LED bulbs at $35/bulb) = $420.00

* Proposed Annual Total Electric Cost (after recommendations for lighting/fridge) = $70.16
* Annual Cost Reduction: $239.25
* 2-year savings = $438.50 (profit
* 10-year savings = $2,392.50
* Payback Period = 2 years ($478.50 total, $58.50 profit)
Tier 3:
Part of our data collection involved doing a solar analysis of the capability of residential homes
in Normal. In order for this model to be effective we decided to limit the age of houses from the year
they were built starting from 2000 to present day. This data collection isnt necessarily involved with
our retrofit case studies but it does help give a future plan to homeowners and residents of Normal
Illinois for newly built homes. This analysis shows the cost of installation, the type of Photovoltaic
Module and the type of Inverter we decided to use as our base model. Also there is the levelized COE
rate for nominal and real rates in the Normal area. To take note we decided not to put any incentives in
the calculation cost due to lack of programs being funded in the state. Also to be noted is this model is
applied to south facing homes in Normal and the Tier A section of our plan which also limits shading and
snow loss effects in the calculation. With this SAM model it gives a good standard basic option for
homeowners and it can help improve energy efficiency tremendously.
System Model:
Module: Suniva X Model: OPT270-60-4-1B0
Inverter: Solar Edge Model:SE 1000A-US(240V)
We decided to use these specific module and inverters based off of a case study done by
Straight Up Solar, conducted by Shannon Fulton and David Brown.
Fulton, Shannon, and David Brown. Performance and Financial Analysis. Rep. St. Louis: Straight Up Solar,
2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
After researching some solar modules and inverters we concurred that this would be an
effective and affordable PV system for residential homes. 240 volts seems a decent enough voltage for
the inverter and the Suniva X Model has been proven to be useful and efficient PV panels. The following
data below will show the calculated inputs and outputs.
The actual system itself is six total PV panels with 3 modules per string and 2 strings in parallel
with 1 inverter. The panels are to be at a 30 degree angle tilt and the azimuth angle is a standard 180
degrees. The calculated total system size comes out to 102.257 square feet so this system can be
mounted on standard single family homes in Normal Illinois. The next set of calculations shows the
financial parameters of the study.

12

System Cost:
Direct Cost= $4,933.61 Indirect Cost= $302.22 Total Installed Cost= $5,235.84 Total Installed
Cost per Capacity= $3.29/Wdc Total Debt/Capital Cost $5,235.84
As we can see looking at the cost of installation and the operations and maintenance we can
expect the total debt for the homeowner to be $5,235.84. Table 1 displayed below lists important
electricity rates, the total amount of electricity produced, and payback period which are all essential
pieces of information for the homeowner.





Table 1

Some important things to note; the annual energy comes out to be 2.710 kWh a year. This
analysis is conducted over a 25-year period. The levelized COE for nominal is 8.55 cents/kWh and the
levelized COE real rate is 6.77 cents/kWh. The real rate is more important for the homeowner since that
is what the electricity rate will come out to be with the system installed. The net savings in electricity
costs is $385 dollars, which is a substantial amount of money to save even with the total debt being
$5,236. With that being said the pay pack period comes out to be 9.4 years so the homeowner sees their
total debt erased in a short period and also starts to see some profit being generated pretty quickly. The

13

graph posted below give the homeowner a visual representation of the monthly electricity being
produced by the PV system.
Fig. 5

Conclusion
Our hypothesis was that electric consumption would correspond to age, and we started by
developing a tier system for Normal based on age of the home and neighborhood. Our predictions that
electric consumption would be decreasing in newer built homes were disproved in our data acquisition.
In order to more accurately propose a tier system for a residential energy efficient system in Normal,
Illinois, we should have assessed the tier system based on actual consumption and not the age of the
home because age is not always indicative of electric efficiency and consumption, as evident in our data.
Obtaining data for every home in a municipality would be time and labor intensive.
Tier 2 did exhibit a quicker payback period for the lighting than Tier 1 because we included
removing an old fridge in the garage. Had we not suggested this easy energy efficiency strategy, they
would have the same payback period as they have the same number of light bulbs in operation.
Averages for bulb operation are just that, and to provide more accurate analysis future studies could
conduct detailed observations on every specific lightbulb to get precise times of operation.
Further studies should examine why different homes consume energy different ways. Our scope
focused on electricity and had we taken a broader scope of approach, taking into account building
envelope and performance with heat transfer, we would expect to understand this more. We found that
Tier 2, roughly a 2400 square foot ranch home with 3 inhabitants, consumed the most electricity over
the same annual period at 8,107 kWh. The other two sites were roughly 4000 square feet each. This is
notable because with less an area to cool, and a smaller home in general, you expect to consume less
not more. We failed to control for square footage.
Also important to note, our oldest house built in 1915 actually consumed the least amount of
electricity and it even edged the home built in 2007 in terms of square footage. Tier 3, our 2007 home,
consumed 7,596 kWh annually. It is remarkable because Energy Star appliances and better materials are
generally assumed with newer construction. So to see a Tier 3 built almost 100 years later than Tier 1

14

consume more electricity was pivotal. This showed that individual practices across the board affect
consumption.
Further studies should examine the actual building materials that are involved in home
construction for specific locales. So now our biggest and oldest home used the least amount of
electricity at 6,297 kWh. We realize this comes down to how aware and vigilant the individual
inhabitants and ratepayers are with their electric consumption. Additionally, further analyses could be
conducted for inhabitant behavior, demographic, and frequency of time spent at home. Taking Tier 2 for
example, we know that 3 people roughly the same age (millennial generation) each with individual
entertainment electronic devices could cause a higher annual consumption than a house with a married
couple and a child. This is because the married couple would be more likely to share entertainment
sources. This makes it very hard to adopt a municipal-wide energy efficiency program, and we instead
would recommend increasing awareness of energy efficient practices and showing payback periods to
homeowners. Asking an entire municipality to abide by specific regulations would be almost impossible
from a decision maker stakeholder point of view.
Areas for further research analysis also include the implementation of smart power strips and
motion sensor lighting in all rooms. Because both of these technologies are able to cut off any power
consumption when there is not a presence in the room or area, we would expect annual energy
consumption to be much less for any home who implements these smaller energy efficient practices.
Specifically, with lighting, if one is able to install motion sensors to control when they turn on and off,
the average amount of time for each bulb to be on each day will decrease significantly. An even quicker
payback period may be possible if sensors are installed. Due to the scope of our analysis, we were
unable to develop methods to show potential consumption reduction with adopting smarter practices
like these.

15

References
1. Tegen, S. I. H. (2006). Electricity decision-making: New techniques for calculating statewide
economic impacts from new power supply and demand-side management programs (Order No.
3239449). Available from ABI/INFORM Global. (305339942). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.ilstu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305339942?account
id=11578
2. Murray, S. (2014). Building up energy efficiency: An analysis of the relationship between energy
efficiency building codes and electricity consumption in the U.S. residential sector Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.ilstu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1627976492?accou
ntid=11578
3. Webber, P., Gouldson, A., & Kerr, N. (2015). The impacts of household retrofit and domestic
energy efficiency schemes: A large scale, ex post evaluation. Energy Policy, 8435-43.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.04.020
4. Development Council, B/N Economic. "2015 Demographic Profile."Bnbiz.org. B-N Economic
Development Council, 15 Jan. 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.bnbiz.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=9da65aba-e66f-45d4-b0b7-
aa6e3906de0d>.
5. Kamplain, Gary, and Marcus Ricci. Home Energy Audit and Energy Cost Reduction Measure
Recommendations Keith Rohman, 1200 Maplewood Dr., Normal, IL, 61761, February 10, 2016.
Rep. Normal, IL: Ecology Action Center, 2016. Pri
6. Copes, K. L. (2015). Ameren Illinois Electricity Bill
7. Rohman, E. (2015). Ameren Illinois Electricity Bill
8. Jo, J. (2015). Corn Belt Energy Electricity Bill
9. A Sustainable Normal. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2016.
10. "Planning & Zoning." Normal, IL. Town of Normal, n.d. Web.
<https://www.normal.org/index.aspx?NID=161>.
11. "Municipal Code: Chapter 15 - Zoning." Normal, IL. Town of Normal, n.d. Web. <http://il-
normal.civicplus.com/index.aspx?nid=106>.
12. "Zoning Map-2015." Normal, IL. N.p., n.d. Web.
https://www.normal.org/DocumentCenter/View/3233
13. "Zoning Information." McLean County Regional Planning Commission. McLean County Regional
GIS Consortium, n.d. Web.
<http://www.mcgisweb.org/SilverlightViewer/Viewer.html?Viewer=zoning>.