Weatherization Assistance Program Federal … Weatherization Assistance Program: Federal Perspectives Since We Last Met… • 2016 –$212 Million for formula grant distribution

1 | Weatherization Assistance Program eere.energy.gov

Weatherization Assistance Program

Federal Perspectives

February 2016

2 | Weatherization Assistance Program: Federal Perspectives

Topics

• Since Last We Met…• Funding Outlook• Policy Update

– Multifamily Guidance– Health & Safety Guidance– Others anticipated in PY2016

• State of the Program– National Evaluation Results vs. PY2013/14 Reporting– NASCSP Regional Call Issues

• Audit Tools• SERC/WIPP Results


Since We Last Met…

• 2016– $212 Million for formula grant distribution– $3 million for HQ T&TA – Used 17.5% for Grantee T&TA

• 2017 Request– $225 million for formula grant distribution– $5 million for HQ T&TA

• SWS maintenance• HEP certifications• Curriculum/tools development (ASHRAE, multis)• Auditing tool updates including move to online• Pilots• National Training Conference


Since Last We Met…

• National Evaluation Released• Development of EERE website to house DOE‐generated

documents/materials• Staffing Changes (Headquarters/Field)• Procurement Toolkit Release

– 2 CFR 200

• Quality Control Inspectors– Nationally, 1571 as of January 31, 2016. – To get perspective, only 600 in place a year earlier.


Policy Updates

• 2016 Grant Closeouts• At end of PY 16, money is not available for carryover.• Funds will be captured and redistributed across all Grantees.

– PY 15, if Grantees had $500,000 left, they asked to put that into their PY16 Grant.

– At the end of PY16, if they have $500,000 left, that will be pooled with all other monies and the Grantee will get their “share” of the pool.

– Want to know how much? See formula discussion percentages.


Carryover Map – PY14


Guidance Input

• DOE wants to create guidance that is relevant and reflects the needs and realities of the network

• Federal rules dictate how input can be obtained• DOE will be piloting methods that are both convenient and

adhere to the rules


Health and Safety Guidance

This guidance is currently under development.• Consolidation of multiple notices – not only the WPN 11‐6

but the incorporation of other notices that currently stand alone but are related:

• Lead• Woodstoves

• Incorporates information/experiences from field• Will be distributed via memo for comment prior to going into

effect• Continual Concern – Not enough $$ for all the Health and

Safety Issues


2014 H/S – Approvals and Expenditures


Multifamily Guidance

• Fall 2015, DOE issued memo transmitting draft guidance• Comments received have been reviewed by Federal Staff.• Many comments are being incorporated.• Those that provided comments will be contacted by their PO or

another federal staff person.

• Primary Changes• Reporting of multis will remain at 5+

• DOE will request OMB allow reporting of 2‐4 units (fall 2016)• PAGE will be adjusted accordingly• Implementation PY17/PY18?

• Language Revisions• Terms were meant to be “generic,” not prescriptive

• Minor Clarifications


Related – Landlord Contributions

“Can a Single‐Family Homeowner (landlord) be REQUIRED to contribute for WAP work?”• Addressed briefly in Multifamily guidance• Point that has been addressed during Federal monitoring

this year.• Prior to 1993, Grantees were NOT allowed to REQUIRE

contributions as a condition of service.• March 1993 rule change allowed Grantees to require

contributions but limited the ability to REQUIRE contributions to multifamily landlords.

• DOE maintains that single family landlords may/should be encouraged but will not allow Grantees to REQUIRE contributions as a condition of service.


Appendix A ‐ WPN

In development:• Grantees may only use materials in WAP that are not listed

on Appendix A IF they have requested permission to use.• Because one Grantee uses a specific material does not mean

it is approve for another Grantee.• Revising Appendix A requires going through a rulemaking.• Simple approach is to include the materials as part of the

measure installed during the Audit tool approvals.


NEPA

• Coming soon… more details and a webinar on when NEPA review is initiated.

• Not a new requirement.• NEPA requires the federal government to evaluate and

understand the potential impacts to the environment BEFORE committing resources to a proposed action.

• The NEPA process considers and documents potential impacts that the agency’s proposed action will have on the social, economic, and physical environment.

• “Typical” WAP activities are already reviewed. No further action.

• Activities outside the “typical” require review. • Installing PV, for example

• More coming…


Audit Tool Approval

• Following Slides demonstrate the concentration of Grantees that are due for renewal in the near/medium term.

• Some Grantees that show as “due” may be in process.• Audit tool approvals are not overnight.

– Good, thorough packages that do not require back and forth can be turned around in a few weeks.

– Good, thorough packages that do not require back and forth are RARE!

• Maps show who you will be “competing with” to get your packages through… don’t delay in planning/orchestrating your approval.


Audit Tools – Single Family


Audit Tool – Mobile Homes


Audit Tool – Multifamily


State of the Program

• National Evaluation– What we know about 2008 and the ARRA Period– How the Program has shifted/evolved in 2013/2014 reporting– Opportunities going forward

• Next Few Slides– These are NOT policy decisions– These are NOT indicators of where DOE is headed– These are NOT intended to alarm– These ARE information that is currently on DOE’s desk (so to speak) and

are conversations that may take place over the coming months and years.• We don’t want Grantees surprised• We value your input


Setting the Stage


National Evaluation – Building Types

Weatherization Completions | Program Years 2008, 2010, and 2013

Site Built Mobile Homes Multifamily (5+)

2008 64% 18% 18%

2010 65% 14.5% 20.5%

2013 61% 16% 23%


Building Types ‐ Are we Sufficiently Serving Housing Types?

• DOE suggests adjusting the reporting requirements within the Multifamily Guidance. Capturing the 2‐4 unit completions as “multis”

• Since ARRA, we serve more multifamily (5+) buildings as a percentage of completions than ever before.

• Does the current percentage of WAP multifamily completions correspond to the number of WAP‐eligible families that live in “multifamily” housing?– Is this still a concern/criticism of the Program– Once we include 2‐4 unit buildings in our count of “multifamily”, does

that concern go away?


Building Types ‐ Are we Sufficiently Serving Rentals?

• Historical Concern of the Program – Changes in the 70s attempted to make it easier for Grantees and

Subgrantees to serve this underserved population.

• National estimates suggest around 50% of WAP‐eligible households are renting.

• PY2013 ‐‐ Combined rental ‐ single family, mobile home, and multifamily ‐ completions reported in PY2013 was about 45%.– This is within 5% of the national average.

Question:Should DOE consider a policy to require Grantees and Subgrantees to complete rental units at a rate of within plus or minus 10% of the rate of qualified household rentals in their service area (perhaps frequency on waiting list)


National Evaluation ‐ Energy and Cost Savings

• Single Family Site‐Built Homes‐Energy Costs and Cost Savings by Main Heating Fuel (2013 Dollars)

• Mobile Homes‐Energy Costs and Cost Savings by Main Heating Fuel (2013 Dollars)

Heating FuelAnnual Energy Costs Annual Savings (first year)

Fuel Electric Total $ Fuel Electric Total$ % SavingsNatural Gas $799 $1,102 $1,811 $142 $65 $208 11.5%Electricity ‐ $1,852 $1,852 ‐ $192 $192 10.3%Fuel Oil $2,606 $1,156 $3,762 $430 $68 $497 13.2%Propane $1,968 $1,062 $3,030 $326 $74 $399 13.2%

Other $925 $967 $1,892 $153 $64 $217 11.5%

All Clients $1,027 $1,182 $2,209 $175 $88 $264 11.9%

Heating FuelAnnual Energy Costs Annual Savings (first year)

Fuel Electric Total $ Fuel Electric Total$ % Savings

Natural Gas $632 $952 $1,584 $77 $37 $115 7.2%

Electricity ‐ $2,159 $2,159 ‐ $145 $145 6.7%

Fuel Oil $2,066 $1,321 $3,387 $261 $40 $301 8.9%

Propane $1,728 $1,010 $2,738 $216 $39 $255 9.3%

Other $930 $1,095 $2,025 $115 $30 $145 7.2%

All Clients $844 $1,177 $2,021 $105 $53 $157 7.8%

Source: Weatherization Works Study, page 17


National Evaluation – Mobile Homes??

Mobile Home Weatherization:• Of all housing stock, Mobile Homes had the lowest SIR , average

1.15 gas heat• On average Mobile Homes were left very leaky, average 2,613

CFM50• Very low percentage of air conditioner testing in MH• Low percentage of gas heated MH received most cost effective

measures – attic insulation (15%); floor insulation (38%); wall insulation (virtually too few to count)


Mobile Home Weatherization – Questions Raised

Do we need to “rethink” the parameters of when weatherizing Mobile Home/Manufactured Housing makes sense? • Restrict weatherization of mobile homes by age? By fuel

source?• Require “pooling” of MH weatherization, only allowing agencies

with proper training and experience for this work• Require special training for air sealing of MH and ASHRAE 62.2

compliance• Require air conditioning units to be tested for refrigerant charge

and air handler flow


Related – Quality Issues

• Many questions in NASCSP regional calls related to QCI• We anticipate to see some of the quality issues found in the

national evaluation to subside:– Anecdotal comments from field –

• On one hand, Grantees report higher per unit requests on work orders due to QCI and auditors looking more closely at homes.– And some Grantees think this is a BAD thing… this is PRECISELY the

goal! Let’s get it done right!• On other hand, in other states, monitors have reported that findings have

fallen nearly to 0 due to improved agency oversight since QCI adoption.


QCI – Ratio of Credentials to Subgrantees by Grantee


Training Questions

• NASCSP regional calls – “Clarity of Tier 1 and Tier 2”• How to Plan?• Are there best practices?• How to use T&TA to obtain Tier 1?• Can Training Centers just help with the “plan” and meet the

intention?• Can trainer become “tier 1 approved” without being affiliated

with an accredited training center?


2014 T&TA Map


Innovation in Weatherization

• WAP has been receiving indications from multiple stakeholders that expectations are going up regarding the program’s ability to coordinate with other national efforts– Renewable Energy– Community‐based programs– Multifamily– Healthy Homes

• Two outcomes of this interest– WAP regulators impose a direction on the program through legislation or

other means– WAP looks to its existing regulations to demonstrate flexibility and

forward momentum on innovative program delivery models


WAP Innovation Accelerator

• Technical Assistance to Grantees to assist with non‐traditional program delivery models

• Will fit within existing regulations• Voluntary


Formula Allocation

• History of the Allocation– Up until 1995, allocations provided significant favor to cold climate

states.

• 1995 Preamble Language– 1995 rulemaking provides insight into the thinking behind our current

formula distribution.– Pending budget cuts prompted a 2 tiered approach using the dollar

amount from P.L. • If funding is above the threshold• If funding is below the threshold


Formula Allocation

• Definitions are Important!• How the Formula is Calculated

– 440.10(c) – “Should total program allocations (the appropriation minus funds reserved for T&TA) fall below $209,724,761…• 2016 – this number is $176,396,550 • 213,814,000 – 34,417,450 (Grantee T&TA) – 3,000,000 (HQ T&TA) = $176.4

– “…then each State’s program allocation (base allocation plus the formula allocation) shall be reduced from its allocated amount under $209,724,761 by the same percentage…• 2016 ‐‐ $176.4/209.7 = .841 • Formula is run at full value of 209,724,761• Each base is decreased by 15.9%; each formula is reduced by 15.9%

– “as the total program allocations (annual appropriation minus T&TA) for the fiscal year fall below the total program allocations under $209,724,761.”


Formula Allocation

• Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 107 / Monday, June 5, 1995 – Provides last full explanation of the components included in formula

portion of the allocation.• Residential Energy Expenditure• Weather Data• Low‐Income Households, by State

– The “share” of Grantees for each of these components are slightly different now from the 1995 publication.• Introduction of the territories adjusted the “pie” from 51 to 56 pieces.• As data sources included in the formula are updated (Census, EIA, and

NOAA), updates have occurred that may also create slight shifts in the percentages.


Audit Tools – Mark Ternes

• MulTEA• H/S audit• Next Phase and What Grantees can expect

Documents

Weatherization Assistance Program Federal … Weatherization Assistance Program: Federal Perspectives Since We Last Met… • 2016 –$212 Million for formula grant distribution