comprehensive usage reduction program evaluation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Comprehensive Usage Reduction Program Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Comprehensive Usage Reduction Program Evaluation

play fullscreen
1 / 81

Comprehensive Usage Reduction Program Evaluation

146 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Comprehensive Usage Reduction Program Evaluation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive Usage Reduction Program Evaluation Affordable Comfort 2007 Jacqueline Berger

  2. Evaluation Objectives • Determine the cost-effectiveness of WRAP • Develop standard questions so PPL can measure the same criteria in future evaluations • Comply with the PUC Order 2

  3. Evaluation Questions • What are the goals and how are they met? • What are the admin costs? How can they be lowered? • How effective is program recruitment? • Is the audit mechanism effective? • Is the list of program measures comprehensive? 3

  4. Evaluation Questions • Is the education process cost-efficient and effective? • What is the level of post-inspection and is it appropriate? • Does PPL coordinate WRAP with other weatherization programs? • What are the energy savings? 4

  5. Evaluation Questions • What is the cost-effectiveness of the various agencies? • Does PPL provide adequate support and training for contractors? 5

  6. Evaluation Design • Background Research • Review of Specifications and Procedures • Contractor Survey • Baseload Observations • Full Cost Observations and Inspections 6

  7. Evaluation Design • Customer Survey • Usage Impacts • Payment Impacts 7

  8. Background Research • Goal – develop a complete understanding of the WRAP procedures and implementation. • Activities • Interview WRAP managers and staff • Review program documentation • Review program statistics • Outputs • Understanding for research foundation • Documentation 8

  9. Background Research • Key Findings • PPL has five managers who oversee WRAP and other low-income programs in their geographical area. • Advantage: ability to focus on needs in a particular geographic area • Disadvantage: many responsibilities – difficult to oversee work of contractors • PPL spends much effort to come within 4% of expenditure goal (based on PUC requirement). 9

  10. Background Research • Key Findings • Affordability customers are prioritized. • Otherwise, jobs sent to contractors on a first come first served basis. • Program coordination barriers • Long waiting lists for WAP • Long waiting lists & requirements for gas programs • Customers who use gas and electric may not have high enough usage to qualify for either program 10

  11. Background Research • Recommendations • Prioritize customers based on usage. • Track program coordination and provide incentives for contractors to coordinate services with other programs. • Continue to introduce technological improvements, such as the web-based measure reporting form. 11

  12. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Goal – Determine potential effectiveness of measure selection, measure installation, and energy education • Activities – Assess procedures and forms: • Education specifications • Education forms • Written technical procedures and manuals • Measure installation rates 12

  13. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Outputs • Recommendations for modifications to: • Education procedures • Education forms • Measure selection guidelines • Procedures manual 13

  14. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Education Findings • All participants receive at least one on-site education visit • Follow-up education is provided at the time of the inspection or by phone • Remedial education provided to customers whose usage increases by at least 10% six months after service delivery 14

  15. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Education Recommendations • Education should be provided at the time of the audit. The homeowner should be present. • Customer profile should collect information on potentially large opportunities for saving – use of dehumidifiers, use of second refrigerators, lights/appliances left on at all times. • Action form should prioritize actions by the potential for energy saving in the individual home. Should list top 3-5 actions with estimated $ savings. 15

  16. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Technical Findings and Recommendations* • Review cost-effectiveness calculations in audit decision trees to reflect current estimates of costs and savings. • Refrigerators • CFLs • Water heater wraps and pipe insulation may be more cost effective than water heater replacement. *Blasnik & Associates. 16

  17. Review of Specifications and Procedures • Technical Findings and Recommendations • Duct sealing in basements should be focused on safety and comfort. • Blower door guided air sealing: investigate why only done in 60% of full cost jobs. • WRAP standards and field guide: more concise program field guide with separate specifications for specific areas may be useful. 17

  18. Contractor Survey • Goal - Assess contractor compliance with program procedures, and assess problems in program administration. • Activities • Develop contractor survey instrument • Determine survey sample • Send survey to contractors • Review completed surveys and contact respondents for additional information/clarifications 18

  19. Contractor Survey • Outputs - Understanding of: • Contractor background and experience • Support and training provided to contractors • Usefulness of program forms • Program implementation procedures • Joint service delivery with WAP • Health and safety problems found in homes • Contractors’ quality control • Inspection issues 19

  20. Contractor Survey • Outputs - Recommendations related to: • Program procedures • Contractor training and support • Inspection procedures 20

  21. Contractor Survey 21

  22. Contractor Survey 22

  23. Contractor Survey 23

  24. Contractor Survey 24

  25. Contractor Survey 25

  26. Contractor Survey 26

  27. Contractor Survey 27

  28. Contractor Survey 28

  29. Contractor Survey 29

  30. Contractor Survey 30

  31. Contractor Survey • Recommendations • Revisit audit forms and determine whether they can be consolidated. • Require home walkthrough on all jobs. • Formalize a process to respond to action sheets. 31

  32. Baseload Observations • Goals - Understand how well contractors address opportunities for baseload usage reduction and whether education is effectively provided. • Activities • Sample design and selection • Observation protocols • Conduct observations • Review findings and synthesis 32

  33. Baseload Observations • Outputs - Recommendations for: • Additional contractor training • Additional quality control 33

  34. Baseload Observations 34

  35. Baseload Observations 35

  36. Baseload Observations 36

  37. Baseload Observations 37

  38. Baseload Observations 38

  39. Baseload Observations 39

  40. Baseload Observations 40

  41. Baseload Observations 41

  42. Baseload Observations • Recommendations • Review WRAP requirements and expectations with contractors. • Provide education to contractors on the importance of 2-for-1 swaps in refrigerator replacement. • Conduct observation of baseload service delivery. 42

  43. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections • Goals - To understand: • How well contractors address opportunities for electric usage reduction • Whether correct measures were selected • Extent to which energy education is provided. • Activities • Sample design and selection • Observation protocols • Review WRAP technical protocols • Conduction observations • Review findings and synthesis 43

  44. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections • Outputs – Recommendations for: • Procedures • Training 44

  45. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections 45

  46. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections 46

  47. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections 47

  48. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections 48

  49. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections 49

  50. Full Cost Observationsand Inspections • Comments • They were on the right track. They were not afraid of working hard. • What he did was correct, but he should have done more air sealing. • He looked at all the right things and asked the homeowner to clarify things that were not obvious. 50