National WAP Evaluation: Single Family and Mobile Home Energy Impacts

1 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy

Michael BlasnikM Blasnik & Associates

Greg DalhoffDalhoff Associates, LLC

David CarrollAPPRISE

National WAP Evaluation: Single Family and Mobile Home Energy Impacts


Presentation Overview

Purpose

Measurement and Analysis Procedures

Findings for Homes with Natural Gas Main Heat

Findings for Homes with Electric Main Heat

Analysis – Next Steps

Findings for Homes with Fuel Oil Main Heat


Purpose

Energy Performance – Document energy savings and cost-effectiveness.

Program Performance – Foundation for documenting all program benefits and costs.

Diagnostic – Assessment of what works best under what conditions.


MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES


Primary Objective

What was the usage of the home prior to weatherization?

What services were delivered to the targeted housing unit and household?

What is the usage of the home after weatherization?


Study Scope

Primary Focus– Detailed analysis of Program Year 2008

WX Program Year – 4/2008 to 3/2009 State Program Year – 7/2008 to 6/2009

Supplemental Information– Usage analysis only for Program Year 2007

Preliminary Information– Usage analysis for clients served in the first half of Program

Year 2009


Logistical Challenges

What clients were served by the program?– Collection of client account information from 51 grantees

and 400 subgrantees for PY 2007, 2008, and 2009 clients

What services did those clients receive?– Collection of detailed information on service delivery for

program year 2008 for about 19,000 clients

What is the energy usage of the home before and after weatherization?– Collection of usage data for 57,000 clients from 4/1/2006

through 3/31/2011.


Usage Data Requirements

PY 2008 Clients– Weatherized between 4/2008 and 6/2009

– Pre-weatherization usage = 12 months prior to weatherization (as early as 4/2007 through 3/2008)

– Post-weatherization usage = 12 months after weatherization (as late as 7/2009 through 6/2010)

– Data required for analysis of PY 2008 from April 2007 through June 2010 = 39 Months of Usage Data

PY 2007 Clients – Need data from 4/06 through 6/09

PY 2009 Clients – Need data from 4/08 through 6/11


Usage Data Collection

Natural Gas Main Heat– Sample of 15,000 clients per program year

– Total sample of 45,000 clients for PY 07, PY 08, and PY 09

– Requested data from 368 gas utilities for 45,000 clients

– Received data from 71% of utilities for 30,000 clients (67%)

Natural Gas and Electric Main Heat– Sample of 19,000 clients per program year

– Total sample of 57,000 clients for PY 07, PY 08, and PY 09

– Requested data from 984 electric suppliers for 57,000 clients

– Received data from 74% of utilities for 37,000 clients (67%)


Analysis Challenges

Differences in Weather from Pre-Program Year to Post-Program Year– Use of PRISM to compare “Weather Normalized”

consumption for the two periods

Other factors affecting low income households– Use of a Comparison Group

PY 2008 clients serve as a comparison group for PY 2007 analysis PY 2009 clients serve as a comparison group for PY 2009 analysis

Attrition from incomplete data or inconsistent data– Use of ORNL model

– Use of Fixed Effects regression model


Analysis Completeness

How does Weatherization affect the quality of the housing unit?– Indoor Air Quality Field Study

How does Weatherization affect clients?– Indoor Air Quality Field Study Occupant Survey

– Program-Wide Occupant Survey

What is the overall benefit of the Program?– Estimation of NonEnergy Benefits


FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH NATURAL GAS MAIN

HEATING FUEL


National WAP Energy ImpactsGas Heated Single Family

Clients with Good Data

PreWX Usage

SavingsPercent savings

First Year $$

Natural Gas therms therms

Gross Impact 4,113 980 170 17.3% $206

Net Impact 155 15.8% $188

Electric kWh kWh

Gross Impact 3,321 9,513 748 7.9% $74

Net Impact 527 5.5% $52

Total First Year $$

Gross $280

Net $240


Climate Zones


Climate Zone Energy ImpactsGas Heated Single Family

PreWXUsage

GrossSavings

Percent Savings

Net Savings

Percent Savings


Very Cold 1,038 183 17.6% 163 15.7%

Cold 1,063 194 18.3% 177 16.7%

Moderate 815 122 15.0% 121 14.8%

Hot/Wet 627 89 14.2% 77 12.3%

Electric kWh kWh

Very Cold 9,347 898 9.6% 740 7.9%

Cold 9,125 654 7.2% 589 6.5%

Moderate 11,177 880 7.9% 490 4.4%

Hot/Wet 12,448 649 5.2% 592 4.8%


Comparing Energy ImpactsGas Heated Single Family

PreWXUsage

GrossSavings

Percent Savings

Net Savings

Percent Savings


2008 980 170 17.3% 155 15.8%

1989 1,340 135 10.1% 170 13.0%

1981 1,502 150 10.0% N/A N/A

Electric kWh kWh

2008 9,513 748 7.8% 527 5.5%

1989 N/A

1981 N/A


Impacts for Top 25% / Agency Gas Heated Single Family

PreWX Usage


First Year $$


Net Impact 1,164 277 23.8% $336

Electric kWh kWh

Net Impact 11,030 1,787 16.2% $176

Total First Year $$

Net $512


Policy Note

Homes with the highest preWX usage save the most

In 1981, the AVERAGE preWX gas usage was 1,500 therms

Statistics from the 2005 RECS– Low-income households in gas single family = 6.5 million

– Use 1200 or more therms = 820,000 (12%)

– Use 1600 or more therms = 240,000 (3%)

Projected savings for 2008 on preWX usage of 1,340 therms = 250 therms; on 1,500 therms = 300 therms


FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH ELECTRIC MAIN

HEATING FUEL


National WAP Energy ImpactsElectric Heat Single Family

Clients with Good Data

PreWX Usage


First Year $$

Electric kWh kWh

Gross Impact 702 19,551 1,987 10.2% $172

Net Impact 1,706 8.7% $148


Climate Zone Energy ImpactsElectric Heat Single Family

PreWXUsage

GrossSavings

Percent Savings

Net Savings

Percent Savings

Electric kWh kWh

Very Cold 20,769 1,992 9.6% 1,518 7.3%

Cold 22,680 2,771 12.2% 3,028 13.4%

Moderate 18,536 1,742 9.4% 908 4.9%

Hot/Wet 18,240 1,877 10.3% 2,579 14.1%


Comparing Energy ImpactsElectric Heat Single Family

PreWXUsage

GrossSavings

Percent Savings

Net Savings

Percent Savings

Electric kWh kWh

2008 19,551 1,987 10.1% 1,706 8.7%

1989 14,972 867 5.8% 1,830 12.2%

1981 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


WHAT’S NEXT?


Next Steps – Impact Estimates

Other Periods - PY 2007 and PY 2009

Other Models– ORNL – Reduces sample attrition

– Fixed Effects Regression – Different analytic framework

Longer Term Analysis– PY 2007 – 3 years post program analysis (2008, 2009, 2010)

– PY 2008 – 2 years post program analysis (2009, 2010)

PY 2009 – 2 years pre program analysis– 2008 to 2009 change (reported gross to net adjustment)

– 2007 to 2008 change (potential gross to net adjustment)


Next Steps – Diagnostics

Factors Associated with Higher Savings– Pre-Program usage

– Pre-Program housing unit conditions

– Installed measures

– Program factors Audit procedures Training investment Quality control procedures


Next Steps – Cost Effectiveness

Document first year savings

Project savings over time based on measure life and price projections

Estimate net present value of savings

Compare to installation costs

Compare to total program costs


FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH FUEL OIL MAIN

HEATING FUEL


Fuel Oil Homes – Data Collection and Analysis Strategy

Sample agencies serving clients with fuel oil main heat

Select a sample of 76 treatment and 52 control clients

October 2010 – PreWX tests, meter homes

January 2011 – Weatherize homes

April 2011 – PostWX tests, retrieve equipment

Analysis – Estimate savings based on metered data


National WAP Energy ImpactsFuel Oil Heat Single Family

Winter 2010/2011 Treatment

PreWX Usage


First Year $$

Fuel Oil

therm equivalent

therm equivalent

@$3.50 per gallon

Gross Impact 1,050 221 21.0% $560

Net Impact 266 23.1% $674

National WAP Evaluation: Single Family and Mobile Home Energy Impacts

Documents

Transcript of National WAP Evaluation: Single Family and Mobile Home Energy Impacts