Performance Metrics for Weatherization

UGI LIURP EvaluationYvette BelfortJackie Berger

ACI Home Performance ConferenceApril 30, 2014

Presentation Outline

• UGI LIURP (Yvette)

• Evaluation (Jackie)– Research Design– Findings and Recommendations

• Program Changes (Yvette)

2

UGI LOW-INCOME USAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

3

• UGI Utilities– Gas and Electric Company– Over 660,000 customers – 45 counties in PA and 1 county in MD

• LIURP– 2014 budget 2.3 Million– Projected job completion 330– Maximum job cost $7,000 heating – Average job cost $5,000

4

UGI LIURP

• Evaluation Process– APPRISE

• Evaluation of Customer Data

• Discussion with UGI staff

• Discussion with Agency Staff

• Discussion with Customers

– National Stainable Structures Center (NSSC)• Shadow contracted LIURP agencies

• Creation of an evaluation summary for each agency

5

UGU LIURP EVALUATION

6

Evaluation Goals

• Analyze services provided

• Estimate usage impacts

• Develop recommendations for continued improvement

7

Evaluation Design

8

How can they work together to achieve the best outcome?

Evaluation Design

1. Background Research

2. UGI Manager and Staff Interviews

3. Agency Interviews

4. Participant Interviews

5. UGI LIURP Database Analysis

6. Usage Impact Analysis

9

RecommendationsUGI Administration1. Agency Outreach

– Challenge: recruiting targeted customers– Agencies have varying recruitment strategies,

intensities– UGI LIURP staff should observe agency process

• Assess information provided

• Can it be enhanced to increase participation?

10

RecommendationsUGI Administration2. No Measure Cases

– 30% of jobs closed with no measures– UGI should collect more data

• Track reasons for incomplete jobs

• Follow-up with customers who had services deferred

• Determine whether customers solved issue and can be treated

11

RecommendationsUGI Program Database1. Additional Fields

– Blower door not conducted-code reasons– Testing results-blower door, refrigerator metering– Health and safety work-add indicator– Repair expense-add indicator– Third party inspection-work correction reason

12

RecommendationsUGI Program Database2. Measure Data Entry

– Improve accuracy– Do not group measures together– Include insulation location

3. Reporting– Increase reporting functions– Allow UGI to compare contractors

13

RecommendationsService Delivery Agencies1. Joint Service Delivery

– Encourage with WAP or other utility programs– Add metric to agency evaluation

2. Track Joint Delivery– Implement planned mechanism for tracking– Implemented-agencies can now update field and have

been educated

3. Solicitations Serviced– Set goal for % able to serve– Track agency accomplishments 14

RecommendationsThird Party Inspections1. Customer Education

– Assess customer knowledge– Provide remedial education if necessary

2. Missed Opportunities– 3 missed opportunities required on each inspection– Do not require this-there may not be opportunities– May result in non-cost-effective measures installed– Equal emphasis on work quality– Examine measures that should not have been installed

15

RecommendationsThird Party Inspections3. Earlier Feedback

– UGI system will allow comparison of usage to same months one year earlier (full year not required)

– Provide information to inspector to investigate while in home

– May help determine whether additional measures should be recommended

4. Blower Door – review reasons why it was not done and confirm home condition exists

16

RecommendationsUsage Impacts1. Savings Estimates

17

Obs.Usage Savings Net Savings

Pre PostkWh/

ccf%

kWh/ ccf

%

Electric Baseload

62 14,108 13,475 633 4.5% 915 6.5%

Electric Heating 43 27,808 26,343 1,465* 5.3% 1,295 4.7%

Gas Heating 471 1,588 1,411 177** 11.2% 156** 9.8%

RecommendationsUsage Impacts2. Priority Lists

– Agencies follow strict priority list until all measures installed or budget is depleted

– No assessment of each measure in specific home being treated

– UGI should provide additional training on measure selection procedures

18

RecommendationsUsage Impacts3. Major Measures

– Air leakage reduction and/or air sealing– Attic insulation– Wall insulation– Header insulation– Insulation

• Jobs with more major measures had higher savings, even though no higher usage

• Work with agencies to investigate barriers to installation 19

RecommendationsUsage Impacts3. Major Measures

20

# Major Measures

Obs.Usage (ccf) Savings

Pre Post ccf %

0 58 1,575 1,408 167** 10.6%

1 198 1,555 1,475 80** 5.1%

2 254 1,543 1,380 162** 10.5%

3 167 1,594 1,368 226** 14.2%

4 or more 53 1,610 1,340 271** 16.8%

All 730 1,565 1,402 163** 10.4%

RecommendationsUsage Impacts4. Agency Savings

21

ObsUsage (ccf)

Savings

Pre ccf %

1 77 1,657 281** 16.9%2 34 1,834 308** 16.8%3 43 1,534 226** 14.8%4 48 1,622 228** 14.1%5 40 1,381 186** 13.5%6 60 1,436 159** 11.1%7 77 1,486 162** 10.9%8 202 1,598 165** 10.4%

ObsUsage (ccf)

Savings

Pre ccf %

9 149 1,545 21 1.4%

All 730 1,565 163** 10.4%

• Continue to work on remediation plan for low-performing agency

RecommendationsCost Effectiveness

22

ccf Saved

Mean Cost

Payback Years

$/ccf Saved Lifetime

Air Sealing/ Leakage Reduction

7.68 $509 13 $1.25

Attic Insulation 4.68 $915 21 $2.06Wall Insulation 8.27 $1,520 12 $1.16Misc. Insulation 6.81 $1,190 15 $1.41Window Work 51 $834 16 $1.58Thermostat 57 $142 2 $0.24

Air sealing and insulation savings per $100 spent.Gas price for payback analysis is $1.00/ccf.

RecommendationsCost Effectiveness

1. Measures Installed– Air leakage reduction: 69%– Wall insulation: 20%– Thermostats: 18%– Blower door: 74%

• Work with agencies to determine if there are additional opportunities for these measures

23

Summary

• UGI proactively manages LIURP

• Challenge – small staff available to manage program and implement improvements

• Evaluation – recommended most important actions to improve efficiency and increase savings

24

UGU LIURPPLANNED PROGRAM CHANGES

25

Evaluation Completed

• Next Steps…– Review evaluation results with UGI’s

Management and LIURP teams– Submit the evaluation with PA Public Utility

Commission– Implement recommendations

Program Changes

• Process changes – Post inspection process– Agency visits and process reviews– Training opportunities

• System changes– Many new system upgrades

• Additional reports and information for analysis

Results!

• We already see improvement