1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Michael Blasnik M Blasnik & Associates Greg Dalhoff Dalhoff Associates, LLC David Carroll APPRISE National WAP Evaluation: Single Family and Mobile Home Energy Impacts

2Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

3Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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.

4Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

5Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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?

6Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

7Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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.

8Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

9Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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%)

10Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

11Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

12Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH NATURAL GAS MAIN HEATING FUEL

13Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy National WAP Energy Impacts Gas Heated Single Family Clients with Good Data PreWX Usage Savings Percent savings First Year $$ Natural Gas therms Gross Impact 4, %$206 Net Impact %$188 Electric kWh Gross Impact 3,3219, %$74 Net Impact %$52 Total First Year $$ Gross $280 Net $240

14Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Climate Zones

15Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Climate Zone Energy Impacts Gas Heated Single Family PreWX Usage Gross Savings Percent Savings Net Savings Percent Savings Natural Gas therms Very Cold 1, % % Cold 1, % % Moderate % % Hot/Wet %7712.3% Electric kWh Very Cold 9, %7407.9% Cold 9, %5896.5% Moderate 11, %4904.4% Hot/Wet 12, %5924.8%

16Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Comparing Energy Impacts Gas Heated Single Family PreWX Usage Gross Savings Percent Savings Net Savings Percent Savings Natural Gas therms % % , % % , %N/A Electric kWh , %5275.5% 1989 N/A 1981 N/A

17Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Impacts for Top 25% / Agency Gas Heated Single Family PreWX Usage Savings Percent savings First Year $$ Natural Gas therms Net Impact 1, %$336 Electric kWh Net Impact 11,0301, %$176 Total First Year $$ Net $512

18Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

19Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH ELECTRIC MAIN HEATING FUEL

20Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy National WAP Energy Impacts Electric Heat Single Family Clients with Good Data PreWX Usage Savings Percent savings First Year $$ Electric kWh Gross Impact 70219,5511, %$172 Net Impact 1,7068.7%$148

21Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Climate Zone Energy Impacts Electric Heat Single Family PreWX Usage Gross Savings Percent Savings Net Savings Percent Savings Electric kWh Very Cold 20,7691,9929.6%1,5187.3% Cold 22,6802, %3, % Moderate 18,5361, %9084.9% Hot/Wet 18,2401, %2, %

22Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Comparing Energy Impacts Electric Heat Single Family PreWX Usage Gross Savings Percent Savings Net Savings Percent Savings Electric kWh ,5511, %1,7068.7% , %1, % 1981 N/A

23Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy WHAT’S NEXT?

24Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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)

25Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

26Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

27Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH FUEL OIL MAIN HEATING FUEL

28Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy 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

29Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy National WAP Energy Impacts Fuel Oil Heat Single Family Winter 2010/2011 Treatment PreWX Usage Savings Percent savings First Year $$ Fuel Oil therm per gallon Gross Impact 1, %$560 Net Impact %$674