1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Michael Blasnik M Blasnik & Associates Greg...
-
Upload
wesley-franklin -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 1Managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy Michael Blasnik M Blasnik & Associates Greg...
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
2 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
3 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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.
4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
5 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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?
6 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
7 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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.
8 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
9 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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%)
10 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
11 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH NATURAL GAS MAIN
HEATING FUEL
13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
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
14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
Climate Zones
15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
Climate Zone Energy ImpactsGas Heated Single Family
PreWXUsage
GrossSavings
Percent Savings
Net Savings
Percent Savings
Natural Gas therms therms
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%
16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
Comparing Energy ImpactsGas Heated Single Family
PreWXUsage
GrossSavings
Percent Savings
Net Savings
Percent Savings
Natural Gas therms therms
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
17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
Impacts for Top 25% / Agency Gas Heated Single Family
PreWX Usage
SavingsPercent savings
First Year $$
Natural Gas therms therms
Net Impact 1,164 277 23.8% $336
Electric kWh kWh
Net Impact 11,030 1,787 16.2% $176
Total First Year $$
Net $512
18 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH ELECTRIC MAIN
HEATING FUEL
20 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
National WAP Energy ImpactsElectric Heat Single Family
Clients with Good Data
PreWX Usage
SavingsPercent savings
First Year $$
Electric kWh kWh
Gross Impact 702 19,551 1,987 10.2% $172
Net Impact 1,706 8.7% $148
21 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
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%
22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
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
23 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
WHAT’S NEXT?
24 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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)
25 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
26 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
27 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
FINDINGS FOR HOMES WITH FUEL OIL MAIN
HEATING FUEL
28 Managed by UT-Battellefor 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
29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the Department of Energy
National WAP Energy ImpactsFuel Oil Heat Single Family
Winter 2010/2011 Treatment
PreWX Usage
SavingsPercent savings
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