National WAP Evaluation: Methods and Findings for Single Family Homes

1. National WAP Evaluation: Methods and Findings for Single Family Homes David Carroll International Energy Program Evaluation Conference August 8, 2017

2. What is WAP? DOE’s Characterization of WAP in 2012 The Weatherization Assistance Program has been in operation for over thirty years and is the nation’s largest single residential energy efficiency program. It’s primary purpose, established by law, is … “…to increase the energy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons, reduce their total residential energy expenditures, and improve their health and safety, especially low-income persons who are particularly vulnerable such as the elderly, the persons with disabilities, families with children, high residential energy users, and households with high energy burden.” 2

3. WAP Basics • Comprehensive Treatment • Protocol: Assessment, Delivery, Inspection • Installation of ALL Cost-Effective Measures • Health and Safety Assessment and Delivery • Program Design • Grantee Designs within DOE Guidelines • LIHEAP Funds: DOE Rules vs. LIHEAP Rules • SBC Funds: Leveraging Rules / Buy Downs 3

4. WAP Network Funds • TOTAL in 2008 = $850m • DOE = $236m (28%) • LIHEAP = $322m (38%) • Other/SBC = $292m (34%) 4

5. WAP Network Jobs • TOTAL in 2008 = 181,301 • DOE Jobs = 97,965 (54%) • Non DOE = 83,336 (46%) 5

6. WAP Evaluation • DOE Jobs = 97,965 • Funding = $460 million • DOE = $225 million • NonDOE = $235 million • Average Spending = $4,695 • Single Family Homes = 57,518 6

7. Energy Savings • “Weather Normalize” 12 months of Pre-WX usage and 12 months of Post-WX usage • Gross Energy Savings = Normalized pre-WX usage – Normalized post-WX usage • Net Energy Savings – Gross Energy Savings for treatment group - “Gross Energy Savings” for group scheduled for weatherization 7

8. Energy Savings 8

9. Energy Savings 9

10. Natural Gas Savings 10

11. Electric Savings 11

12. Number of Measures 12

13. Pre-Treatment Usage 13

14. Climate Zone 14

15. ARRA – Gas and Electric MBtus 15

16. Other Studies • Process Field Study- Agency Performance • Professionalism – High • Technical – Moderate / Room for Improvement • Client Education – Poor / Additional Research • High/Low Savers Study • Quality Issues – 20% of Savings Potential • Supplemental Heat – 33% of Savings Potential • Missed Opportunities –Low AND High Savers 16

17. Occupant Survey • Methods • Sampled from 200 Agencies Nationwide • Baseline - Pre-Audit vs. One-Year Post • Satisfaction @ 6 months / Followup @ 2 Years • Study Findings • Satisfaction: Professional/Technical/Education • Follow-Up: Housing Unit Quality Indicators vs. Health and Behavioral Quality Indicators 17

18. Dwelling Quality Indicators 18

19. Health Indicators 19

20. Study Implications • WAP Accomplishments • Energy Savings • Health and Safety • Emissions / Housing / Affordability Benefits • WAP Potential • Savings: Targeting / Quality Improvement • Health and Safety: Identification vs. Resolution • Client NEBs: Targeted Measurement Required 20

21. Study Implications • Ratepayer Low-Income Programs • Evaluation Results re: Maximizing Savings • Collaboration Opportunities • WAP Objectives vs. SBC Objectives • Ratepayer Residential Programs • Energy Savings Potential • Health and Safety Protocols (BPI) • Quality Control Protocols 21

22. Contact David Carroll, 609-252-8010 david-carroll@appriseinc.org APPRISE 32 Nassau Street, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 22