National WAP Evaluation Methods and Findings for Single

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

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 lowincome 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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Savings 8

Energy Savings 9

Natural Gas Savings Gross Net Use Pre Sample Saving -WAP – Percent Size s s Therms 17. 8% 195 181 Treatment (+/1. 2 3, 498 1020 (+/-12) (+/-13) %) 14 Comparison 3, 118 974 (+/-3) Natural Gas Main Heat Single Family Population Housing Units Treated in PY 2008 10

Electric Savings Use Pre Gross Net Sample -WAP – Saving Percent Size k. Wh s – k. Wh s - k. Wh 735 680 7. 1% Treatment (+/(+/(+/1. 5 2, 991 9, 528 102) 140) %) 56 Comparison 2, 204 9, 401 (+/-67) Natural Gas Main Heat Single Family Population Housing Units Treated in PY 2008 11

Number of Measures Major Measures One Sample Size 983 (32%) Use Pre. Net WAP – Savings Percent Therms 989 Two 973 (31%) 1, 035 Three 619 (20%) 1, 146 Four 192 (6%) 1, 220 118 (+/-9) 181 (+/14) 286 (+/19) 414 (+/28) 12. 0% 17. 5% 25. 0% 33. 9% 12

Pre-Treatment Usage Pre-Usage (therms) < 750 Use Pre. Net Sample WAP – Savings Percent Size Therms 858 571 1000 -<1250 726 1, 120 >1500 th/yr 479 1, 879 67 (+/-9) 206 (+/12) 414 (+/49) 11. 8% 18. 4% 22. 1% 13

Climate Zone Sample Size Use Pre. WAP – Therms Net Savings Therms Percent Very Cold 1, 139 1, 068 190(+/-27) 17. 8% Cold 1, 909 1, 125 209 (+/-13) 18. 5% Moderate 311 868 140 (+/-47) 16. 1% Hot-Humid 83 684 134 (+/-49) 19. 6% Hot-Dry 56 490 26 (+/-42) 5. 3% Zone 14

ARRA – Gas and Electric MBtus Sample Size Pre-WAP Source MBtus Net Savings Source MBtus Percent Very Cold 2, 149 201. 3 22. 5 11. 2% Cold 2, 990 207. 5 26. 5 12. 8% Moderate 792 208. 2 23. 2 11. 1% Hot-Humid 368 182. 2 22. 5 12. 3% Hot-Dry 293 147. 6 7. 3 4. 9% Zone 15

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

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

Dwelling Quality Indicators Net Percentage Point Change Pre-Audit Incidence Post-WX Incidence Percentage Point Change Home never at unsafe temperature 81% 93% +12%*** Mildew Odor/Musty Smell 29% 21% -8% -9%*** Mold Observed 24% 19% -5% -4%** Home somewhat or very infested with insects 24% 14% -10% -13%*** 99% **95% *90% Indicator / Treatment N = 454, Comparison N = 430 Statistically significant at… 18

Health Indicators Net Percentage Point Change Pre-Audit Incidence Post-WX Incidence Percentage Point Change No Days Poor Physical Health 45% 50% +5% +10%** Still Has Asthma 15% 17% +2% +1% Overnight Stay / Asthma 2. 6% 2. 0% -0. 6% -0. 4% Emergency Room / Asthma 1. 8% 2. 0% +0. 2% +0. 5% Statistically significant at… *** 99% level Indicator / Treatment N = 454, Comparison N = 430 **95% level *90% level 19

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

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

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