Transcript Slide 1

National Weatherization
Assistance Program Evaluation
David Carroll
Jackie Berger
NEUAC Conference
June 10, 2013
Presentation Outline
• Evaluation Overview
– WAP 2008 / ARRA 2010
– Research Tasks and Reporting Status
• Field Studies
– Process
– Performance
• Energy Impacts
– Energy Savings / Cost Savings / Cost Effectiveness
• Non-Energy Impacts
– Client
– Societal
• Summary
2
Program and Evaluation
Overview
3
What is WAP?
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.”
4
WAP Logistics
• DOE: Grants to states and territories
• States: Grants to local weatherization
agencies – sometimes supplementing with
LIHEAP, State, and/or Utility funds
• Local Agencies: Deliver services –
sometimes coordinating with LIHEAP,
Local and/or Utility SBC programs
5
WAP Services
• Typical Weatherization Measures
– Air Sealing: Attics, ducts, windows
– Insulation: Attics, walls, rim joists
– Furnace: Tune-up, repairs, replacement
• Other Energy Efficiency Measures
– Water Heating: Pipe wrap, showerheads
– Electric Measures: Refrigerators, CFLs
– Air Conditioning: Tune-up, repairs, sealing
6
WAP Services
• Energy efficiency measures need a savings
to investment ratio (SIR) of 1.0 or greater
• Spending limits mean that sometimes
measures with a SIR > 1.0 are not installed
7
WAP Services
• Health and Safety Measures
– Combustion Appliances: Furnace, Water
Heater, Stove/Oven, Dryer
– Moisture Management: Kitchen and Bathroom
Ventilation, Dryer Vents
• Health and Safety measures are subject to
limits identified in each state WAP Plan
8
WAP Funding
• WAP pre-ARRA (PY2008)
–
–
–
–
WAP Budget = $250 million
Annual Goal = 100,000 homes
Limit on Average Investment = $3,000 per home
Income Limit = 150% of poverty (or 60% state median)
• ARRA Funded WAP
–
–
–
–
ARRA Budget = $5 billion
Accomplishments = Over 1 million homes weatherized
Limit on Average Investment = $6,500 per home
Income Limit = 200% of poverty
9
Evaluation Goals
• Impact
–
–
–
–
Energy Savings: Measure gas, electric, fuel oil, and LPG savings
Cost Savings: Measure first year and measure life savings
Nonenergy Benefits: Client and societal
Cost-Effectiveness: Energy and nonenergy benefits
• Process
– Administrative: Document program implementation
– Field Studies: Observe audits, installation, and inspections
– Case Studies: Identify innovative approaches to weatherization
10
Evaluation Activities
• States/Agencies
– Grantee Survey – 51 States and the District of Columbia
– Subgrantee Survey – 900 Agencies delivering services
– Client Data: Collected information for about 60,000 clients
• Energy Data
– Gas Data: 30,000 clients in 400 gas utilities
– Electric Data: 50,000 clients in 1,000 utilities
– Fuel Oil/LPG: Metering studies
11
Evaluation Activities
• Field Studies
–
–
–
–
–
–
Indoor Air Quality Study: On-site measurement in 500 homes
Field Process Study: Observations in 19 agencies nationwide
Case Studies: Observations of ten innovative programs
Performance Study: Assessment of under/over performance
SERC Studies: New technology assessments
WIPP Studies: Innovative approaches assessments
• Surveys
– Occupants: 1,125 treatment, 800 comparison
– Weatherization Staff : 350 auditors, 260 crew chiefs, and 260 crew
12
Evaluation Timing
• PY 2008 Evaluation
– Program Year: April 2008 – March 2009
– Data Collection and Analysis: May 2010 to January 2011
– Reporting: Summer 2013
• ARRA Evaluation
– Program Year: April 2010 – March 2011
– Data Collection and Analysis – July 2012 to June 2013
– Reporting: Fall 2013
13
Field Process Study
14
Field Process Study Tasks
• Social Scientists
– One week observation at agency
• Weatherization manager and staff interviews
• Observations –intake, audit, installation, final inspection
– Written agency summary report
• Weatherization Experts
– 3-Week Observations at Agency
• Observations – audit, installation, final inspection
– Post Observation Data Entry
• Training
• Monthly update calls
• Final debriefing
15
Field Process Study Focus
•
•
•
•
Audit approach and implementation
Energy education delivery
Measure installation/operation of crews
Post-weatherization quality assurance
inspection approach and implementation
• Client interaction
• Interactions among agency staff
• Implications for management, procedures, and
training
16
Field Process Study Approach
• Go beyond anecdotes
• Quantify findings across all visits
– Develop check lists and rating scales
– Train weatherization experts to implement
consistently
• Enrich data with descriptive information
– Examples used to illustrate and clarify
– Not used to draw conclusions
• Make recommendations for program
improvement based on prevalent issues
17
Field Process Study
Challenges
• Program differs in every state – how to assess
jobs?
• Consistent implementation of assessment tool
– Design, training, data review
• Remaining observers, rather than trainers,
coaches, mentors
18
Field Process Study
Observations
Audit
Measure
Installation
Final
Inspection
Total
Number of Observations
Social
Wx Expert
Total
Scientist
43
112
155
45
114
159
37
91
128
125
317
442
19
Audit Findings
•
•
•
•
•
•
Opportunities
Utilize energy bills
Increase client engagement
Identify client-specific
opportunities for reducing
energy use
Auditor understanding of
pressure boundaries
Auditor understanding of
testing purpose and
procedures
Conduct worst case draft
testing
•
•
•
•
Strengths
Respect and concern for
clients
Explanation of WAP
program and process
Use of data collection
forms
Auditors meet with
contractors to explain
audit findings and work
scope
20
Installation Findings
•
•
•
•
•
•
Opportunities
Increased use of blower
door when air sealing
Respect for clients’
homes (booties, covering
furniture)
Crew member safety
Increased assessment of
HVAC contractors
Explain CFLs when
installing
Client education
•
•
•
•
Strengths
Crew flexibility and
dedication
Crew problem
solving
Some very high
quality work
Experienced HVAC
contractors
21
Final Inspection Findings
Opportunities
• Increased client education
•
– Explain measures installed
– Reinforce client action plan
• Improved testing quality
• Increased assessment of
installation quality
• Reduced use of auditor to
conduct final inspection –
additional perspective
•
•
•
Strengths
Good job when
following work order
closely
Time saved when
contractor attends
Information to clients –
who to call if they have
problems
Referrals to additional
assistance programs
22
Recommendations
Training
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Energy bill utilization – to assess needs
and educate clients
Building science fundamentals
Critical thinking – assessing unique
situations
Combustion safety testing
Zonal pressure testing
IR camera use
Ventilation assessment
Safe work practices – worker safety and
lead safe work
Interviewing skills – how to understand
the client’s needs
Client education
Equipment Needs
•
•
•
•
GPS
IR camera
Boroscope and fiber optic scope
and video
Personal safety equipment
Management Opportunities
•
•
•
Standards and procedures
Policy manuals
Forms and checklists
23
Performance Study
Note: Slides Prepared by Scott Pigg, Energy Center of
Wisconsin
24
Study Overview
• Study Design / Implementation
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Focus on Single Family Homes
Identify Energy Savings Outliers
Develop Geographic Clusters
Sample 20 Clusters Nationwide
Recruit and Inspect 6 Homes Per Agency
Document Findings for Individual Homes
Summarize Findings for Population
25
Study Overview
• Question – What factors lead to under/
over-performance relative to the model?
–
–
–
–
–
–
Program Targeting?
Treatment Protocols?
Measure Selection?
Installation Quality/Completeness?
Measurement Error?
Client Take-Back/Give-Back?
• Answer – Yes … but how much of each?
26
20
15
10
Case 1: -28% savings
5
0
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0
Savings
n=4,680
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
2348-0038 (ID) 442
•
•
•
•
7012--0118 (MO) 636
Ceiling insulation
Floor insulation
Air leakage reduction from 2,000 to 1,500 CFM50
Heating system replacement
• Ceiling insulation (4 bags)
• Floor insulation (2 bags)
• Air leakage reduction from 2,000 to 1,500 CFM50
(measured 2,100 at time of visit)
• Heating system replacement
(gas heater broke year before Wx)
…and client reported keeping
thermostat set higher after
Wx (for health reasons)
12
Logged indoor temperatures
from the WAP IAQ study
10
8
6
4
2
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
Average pre-weatherization indoor temperature, F
Results from 478 homes, weighted to reflect all PY08 single-family homes.
Normalized to typical Dec-Feb outdoor temperature.
Treatment and control groups are pooled.
80
Control
Treatment
85
Net change in indoor temperature following
Weatherization: +0.27 ± 0.23F
80
75
70
65
60
55
(line of agreement)
(line of agreement)
50
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
50
55
60
Pre-weatherization indoor temperature, F
Normalized to typical Dec-Feb outdoor temperature.
65
70
75
80
85
20
15
Case 2: -15% savings
10
5
0
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0
Savings
n=4,680
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
7012-0118 (MO) 640
• Attic insulation (R-11 to R-38)
• Floor insulation (R-25 over garage)
• Air leakage reduction from 3,030 to 2,200 CFM50
• Ill-defined pressure thermal/pressure boundary
• Significant duct leakage
• Electric space heater use
40,000
Wx
30,000
20,000
10,000
Pre
0
01jul2006
01jul2007
Post
01jul2008
01jul2009
01jul2010
20
Case 6: 40% savings
15
10
5
0
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0
Savings
n=4,680
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
8377-0255(MN) 1170
• Attic insulation (R-5 to R-38)
• Garage ceiling (10” dense-pack)
• Air leakage reduction
from 2,040 to 1,300 CFM50
20
Case 7: 52% savings
15
10
5
0
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0
Savings
n=4,680
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
5666-0367(WI) 2426
• Uninsulated slopes and side attics
brought up to R-19 and R-38
• Wall insulation (interior blow)
• Condensing furnaces (2)
• Air leakage reduction
from 4,890 to 3,940 CFM50
6,000
Wx
4,000
2,000
• Client reduced temperature
from 77 to 70F
• Upstairs no longer occupied
or heated
• Some electric space heat use
(more prior to Wx)
0
01jan2005
Pre
01jul2006
Post
01jan2008
01jul2009
01jan2011
20
Pre-weatherization Gas Consumption
2,430 therms/yr
15
1,170 therms/yr
1,140 therms/yr
420 therms/yr
10
270 therms/yr
442 therms/yr
5
0
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0
Savings
n=4,680
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
Preliminary Observations
• We found that…
– Homes with low pre-usage have low savings / but you
need to serve some of these homes anyway.
– Good work in homes with savings potential leads to
high savings
– Doing only part of the job leads to missed savings / and
sometimes savings opportunities are missed.
– Behavior change goes both ways / cold homes get
heated / comfortable homes reduce settings
44
Energy Impacts
Note: Slides prepared by David Carroll, APPRISE; Michael
Blasnik, Blasnik & Associates; and, Greg Dalhoff, Dalhoff
Associates, LLC
45
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 (variable base degree day) approach 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 2008 analysis
• PY 2007/08 clients served as comparison group for PY 2009
• Attrition from incomplete data or inconsistent data
– Use of ORNL model
– Use of Fixed Effects regression model
Climate Zones
Gas / SF / Cold Climate vs.
Moderate Climate
PreWX Usage
(therms)
Net Savings
(therms)
Savings
Percent
Cold Climate
1125
209
19%
Moderate Climate
868
140
16%
Measure Package Findings –
Gas / SF / Cold Climate
Percent
of Clients
PreWX
Usage
(therms)
Net Savings
(therms)
Savings
Percent
No Major Measures
11%
1052
88
8%
Attic Insulation
24%
1036
133
13%
Attic + Air Sealing (>1000cfm50)
10%
1258
200
16%
Attic + Wall Insulation
10%
927
180
19%
Attic + Wall + Seal
12%
1216
287
24%
Attic/Wall/Seal/Furnace
4%
1180
442
37%
M
H
tr
aj
or
0
At
t
W
al
l
Se
a
H l
tr/
H Att
tr/
W
H all
tr/
Se
A t al
t/W
A t al l
t/S
W ea
a
l
H ll/S
tr/
e
A t al
H t/Se
tr/
a
H Att/ l
tr/
W
W
al
At all/S l
H t/W ea
tr/
At all/S l
t/W e
al al
l/S
ea
l
N
o
Gas Savings by Major Measures
1 Measure
2 Measures
3 Measures
4
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Pre-WAP Gas Use
25%
% of Homes
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
Pre-Program Gas Use (th/yr)
Avg 08 = 1020
Avg 1989 = 1334
3200
3600
PreWX Usage Level Findings
– Gas / SF / Cold Climate
Pre WX Usage Bin
Percent of
Clients
PreWX
Usage
(therms)
Net Savings
(therms)
Savings
Percent
Less than 750 therms
19%
614
81
13%
750-<1000
28%
879
141
16%
1000-<1250
21%
1124
214
19%
1250-<1500
15%
1366
278
20%
1500+
17%
1888
389
21%
Electric Baseload Savings Gas
Heat / SF / Cold Climate
Percent
of Clients
PreWX
Usage
(kWh)
Net Savings
(kWh)
Savings
Percent
100%
8,895
666
8%
- Refrigerator replaced
19%
9,287
1,169
13%
- No refrigerator replace
81%
8,884
549
6%
Cold Climate
Single Family Site-Built Findings by
Fuel Type –
Cold and Moderate Climates
Percent of
Clients in
Region
Htg Fuel
Savings ($)
Elec
Savings ($)
ECM Cost
($)
SIR
Natural Gas
65%
3,034
535
2,241
1.6
Fuel Oil
20%
7,453
515
2,632
3.0
Natural Gas
39%
2,107
675
2,521
1.1
Fuel Oil
8%
7,319
849
3,464
2.4
Region and
Heating Fuel
Cold
Moderate
SIR by Number of Major Measures
for Gas Heated Houses in the Cold
Region
Htg Fuel
Savings
($)
Elec
Savings
($)
Total
Savings
($)
ECM
Cost ($)
SIR
None
757
476
1,233
1,771
0.70
One
2,246
347
2,593
2,174
1.19
Two
3,376
436
3,812
2,623
1.45
Three
4,297
832
5,129
3,385
1.52
All Four
6,112
891
7,002
5,343
1.31
Number of
Major Measures
Major measures include wall attic insulation, air sealing, and heating system replacement
SIR by Expenditure Level for
Gas Heated Houses in the Cold
Region
Htg Fuel
Savings
($)
Elec
Savings
($)
Total
Savings
($)
ECM
Cost ($)
SIR
0/1000
1,623
273
1,896
640
2.96
1000/2000
2,449
469
2,918
1,509
1.93
2000/3000
2,697
601
3,299
2,494
1.32
3000/4000
3,323
215
3,539
3,497
1.01
>=4000
4,523
922
5,445
5,331
1.02
Expenditures
($)
Client Impacts
61
Impact Examples
• Dwelling Quality – Indicators of dwelling
quality issues that affect client health
• Affordability – Indicators related to the
client’s ability to pay home energy bills
• Behaviors – Indicators of client knowledge
or behaviors that affect energy use
• Health – Indicators of client health status
and their relationship to dwelling quality
62
Dwelling Quality Indicators
Pre-Audit
Incidence
Post-WX
Incidence
Percent Change
Home sometimes at unhealthy
temperature
20%
9%
-55%
Observed standing water in
home
33%
19%
-42%
Frequent mildew odor or musty
smell
29%
16%
-45%
Home somewhat or very
infested with insects
25%
17%
-32%
Home has CO monitor
41%
74%
+80%
Indicator
63
Affordability Indicators
Pre-Audit
Incidence
Post-WX
Incidence
Change
Got disconnect notice
45%
33%
-26%
Had natural gas, electricity, or
bulk fuel service terminated
18%
9%
-50%
Went without food to pay
energy bills
34%
23%
-33%
Went without food in the last
four weeks
9%
6%
-33%
Used high interest loan to pay
energy bills
20%
12%
-40%
Indicator
64
Behavior Indicators
Pre-Audit
Incidence
Post-WX
Incidence
Change
Use cooking stove exhaust fan
regularly
40%
49%
+22%
Oven sometimes used to heat
home
13%
8%
-38%
Air filter changed more than
once a year
71%
79%
+11%
Close drapes in summer to
block sun
68%
70%
+3%
Used cross-ventilation to cool
home in summer
38%
36%
-5%
Indicator
65
Health Indicators
Pre-Audit
Incidence
Post-WX
Incidence
Change
Needed medical attention /
home too hot or too cold
7%
3%
-57%
Child too hot or too cold to
study
9%
4%
-55%
Didn’t fill RX to pay energy bill
26%
18%
-31%
Missed more that one week of
work
25%
23%
-8%
Missed more than one week of
school
40%
36%
-10%
Indicator
66
Client Impact Summary
• Dwelling Quality – healthier temperature, fewer
moisture issues, more CO monitors
• Affordability – Fewer terminations, increased
ability to pay for food, reduced high-interest loans
• Behaviors – Safer cooking and heating practices
• Health – Reduced medical needs, increased ability
to study in home, increased ability to pay for
medication
67
Societal Impacts
68
Societal Benefits
• Environmental
– Energy Use Reduction = Avoided Emissions
– Benefits = Health / Climate Change / Eco-system
• Economic
– Weatherization = Economic Activity
– Benefits = Jobs / Taxes / Less Unemployment
• Social
– Weatherization = Improved Housing Quality
– Benefits = Neighborhood Effects
69
Environmental Benefits
• Climate Change
– Reduction in CO2 Emissions
– Benefit Estimation = Defined by OMB
• Health
– Reductions in SOx, NOx, PM2.5
– Benefit Estimation = APEEP Model
• Eco-System
– Reductions in Energy Production Impacts (Local)
70
Avoided Emissions
• Natural Gas, Propane, Fuel Oil
– EPA Emissions Factors & AP 42 Files
– (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors)
• Electric Power Plants
– SOx, NOx, and CO2 for Power Plants by Egrid Region
– PM2.5 Emissions from EPA National Emissions
Inventory
• Methodological Note: Electric power plant emissions have
declined over time.
71
Avoided Emissions Value
• Options (Schweitzer and Tonn – 2002)
– Emissions Markets
– Comprehensive Estimation of Benefits
• C02 Valuation
– OMB Specified Value
• SOx, NOx, PM2.5
– National Research Council Report (2010)
– APEEP Model (County Level Impacts
72
State Level Example
Natural Gas and
Propane
First Year
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
93,817
0.06862745
$21.40
$137,782.74
$34.27
NOX
93,817
0.00004608
$11,848.89
$51,222.23
$12.74
PM 2.5
93,817
0.00000093
$143,388.60
$12,529.14
$3.12
SO2
93,817
0.00000029
$51,468.68
$1,420.19
$0.35
VOC
93,817
0.00000270
$13,743.64
$3,476.30
$0.86
$206,430.60
$51.34
Total
Lifetime
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
1,864,679
0.06862745
$21.40
$2,738,518.77
$681.05
NOX
1,864,679
0.00004608
$11,848.89
$1,018,074.20
$253.19
PM 2.5
1,864,679
0.00000093
$143,388.60
$249,024.53
$61.93
SO2
1,864,679
0.00000029
$51,468.68
$28,227.23
$7.02
VOC
1,864,679
0.00000270
$13,743.64
$69,093.69
$17.18
$4,102,938.42
$1,020.38
Total
State Level Example
Electricity
First Year
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
12,740
0.27319754
$21.40
$74,485.94
$18.52
NOX
12,740
0.00029436
$5,521.18
$20,705.77
$5.15
PM 2.5
12,740
0.00002972
$53,960.76
$20,434.62
$5.08
SO2
12,740
0.00040409
$27,696.43
$142,588.35
$35.46
$258,214.68
$64.22
Total
Lifetime
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
210,172
0.27319754
$21.40
$1,228,752.40
$305.58
NOX
210,172
0.00029436
$5,521.18
$341,571.38
$84.95
PM 2.5
210,172
0.00002972
$53,960.76
$337,098.41
$83.83
SO2
210,172
0.00040409
$27,696.43
$2,352,199.32
$584.98
$4,259,621.51
$1,059.34
Total
State Level Example
Fuel Oil
First Year
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
4,864
0.07971906
$21.40
$8,298.52
$2.06
NOX
4,864
0.00006489
$11,848.89
$3,739.97
$0.93
PM 2.5
4,864
0.00000144
$143,388.60
$1,005.76
$0.25
SO2
4,864
0.00025955
$51,468.68
$64,982.09
$16.16
$78,026.34
$19.40
Total
Lifetime
Savings
(MMBtu)
Rate
(Ton/MMBtu)
Value
($/Ton)
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
95,412
0.07971906
$21.40
$162,771.97
$40.48
NOX
95,412
0.00006489
$11,848.89
$73,357.99
$18.24
PM 2.5
95,412
0.00000144
$143,388.60
$19,727.49
$4.91
SO2
95,412
0.00025955
$51,468.68
$1,274,596.59
$316.98
$1,530,454.04
$380.62
Total
State Level Example
Total Savings for All Fuels Combined
First Year
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
$220,567.19
$54.85
NOX
$75,667.98
$18.82
PM 2.5
$33,969.52
$8.45
SO2
$208,990.64
$51.97
VOC
$3,476.30
$0.86
Total
$542,671.63
$134.96
Lifetime
Total Benefits
Benefit/Home
CO2
$4,130,043.14
$1,027.12
NOX
$1,433,003.57
$356.38
PM 2.5
$605,850.43
$150.67
SO2
$3,655,023.13
$908.98
VOC
$69,093.69
$17.18
Total
$9,893,013.96
$2,460.34
Evaluation Outputs
• Evaluation
– Estimation by State and Building Type
– Reporting at the Climate Zone and National Level
• Analysis
– Comparison of State / Region /Nation
– Comparison by Type of Power Plant
• Output
– Guidance for States in terms of state-level emissions
levels and valuation
77
Summary
78
Key Findings
• Benefits – The WAP program …
–
–
–
–
Transforms poorly performing and unsafe homes
Results in cost-effective energy savings
Furnishes non-energy benefits to clients
Delivers non-energy benefits to the rest of society
• The WAP program could be improved by…
– Continuing to invest in management tools, quality
control, and training
– Findings ways to target homes and services that result
in the highest level of benefits to clients
79
Questions
80
Contact
Jackie Berger, 609-252-8009
[email protected]
David Carroll, 609-252-8010
[email protected]
APPRISE
32 Nassau Street, Suite 200
Princeton, NJ 08540
81