Weatherization Assistance Program Research Articles

Fixing the Housing Stock—One House at a Time

The American housing stock is in bad condition. According to the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), more than 30 percent, or 38.6 million households, qualify for weatherization assistance provided through the Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). However, WAP only served 35,000 low‐income homeowners in 2018, and despite the infusion of funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the funding will not be enough to serve these Americans.

Decomposing the Wedge between Projected and Realized Returns in Energy Efficiency Programs

Abstract Evaluations of energy efficiency programs reveal that realized savings consistently fall short of projections. We decompose this “performance wedge” using data from the Illinois Home Weatherization Assistance Program (IHWAP) and a machine learning-based event study research design. We find that bias in engineering models can account for up to 41% of the wedge, primarily from overestimated savings in wall insulation. Heterogeneity in workmanship can also account for a large fraction (43%) of the wedge, while the rebound effect can explain only 6%. We find substantial heterogeneity in energy-related benefits from IHWAP projects, suggesting opportunities for better targeting of investments.

Incentive Pay and Social Returns to Worker Effort in Public Programs: Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program

Incentive Pay and Social Returns to Worker Effort in Public Programs: Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program

Behavioral and financial coping strategies among energy-insecure households

When households struggle to pay their energy bills and avoid being disconnected from the grid, they may accrue debt, forgo expenses on food, and use space heaters or ovens to warm their homes. These coping strategies can introduce significant physical and financial risks. In this study, we analyze an original survey with a representative sample of low-income households during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, from June 2020 to May 2021. We evaluate the prevalence of a wide range of coping strategies and empirically estimate the determinants of these strategies. We find that more than half of all low-income households engage in at least one coping strategy, and many use multiple strategies. Households with vulnerable members, including young children or those who rely on electronic medical devices, and households that live in deficient housing conditions, are more likely to use a range of coping strategies, and many at once. Our findings have direct implications for public policy improvements, including modifications to the US Weatherization Assistance Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and state utility disconnection protections.

“If we had a little more flexibility.” perceptions of programmatic challenges and opportunities implementing government-funded low-income energy efficiency programs

Since 1976, the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) has provided state block grants for no-to low-cost energy efficiency retrofits for more than 7 million low-income households. Yet, more than 35 million households meet income-qualifications for the program. While numerous program evaluations demonstrate the energy- and non-energy-related benefits of WAP, some argue low uptake, and a low rate of return on retrofit costs to energy savings. To further our understanding of government-funded low-income energy efficiency program implementation, we examined local agency-level perceptions of challenges and opportunities. Findings from semi-structured interviews with program managers, representing one-third of Michigan's WAP funding and retrofit production, suggest three funding-related challenges: funding instability; funding allocation formula; and limited advertising and marketing funding, and two regulatory-related challenges: cumbersome paperwork and restrictive guidelines. Program managers also identified three workaround opportunities: collaboration with utilities and other organizations; intra-agency innovation and integration; and strategic productivity and per unit spending. Lastly, one recommendation for further exploration would be testing the efficacy of granting local agencies greater flexibility to work around funding and regulatory challenges to increase the number of households weatherized, reduce long waitlists and deferral rates, and use staff time more efficiently.

Getting beyond Economic Stimulation: The Effects of Gubernatorial Partisan Commitment, Federal Resources and Regulatory Requirements on Final Performance Goal Achievement in Stimulus Grants

Like many other national governments, the United States federal government has a history of using local level implementation structures to stimulate the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is one case in point. The federal government funneled upwards of $800 billion dollars to states and local governments through what were mostly preexisting programs and institutions in the hopes that shovel-ready projects would be promptly funded and successfully implemented. A key feature of this strategic spending and the research conducted around it is that recipient governments spend down this money as soon as possible. This delay made many question the efficacy of the ARRA. Yet, there is more to program performance than the lack of economic stimulation caused by implementation delay. This study asks the following question: When the media attention and politicization of the spending has died down, what factors influence whether the program meets its performance goals (even though it might have experienced considerable implementation delay)? This question is investigated using the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) – as funded by the ARRA.

Opportunities and Benefits of a University-Based Weatherization Assistance Program: The Case of Furman University's Community Conservation Corps

Weatherization assistance programs have been in existence in the United States for decades, but they are commonly managed and implemented by local government organizations. Furman University, a sma...

Impact of Low-Income Home Energy-Efficiency Retrofits on Building Air Tightness and Healthy Home Indicators

We studied 226 low-income households as a part of the Colorado Home Energy Efficiency and Respiratory Health (CHEER) study to investigate the relationship between energy-efficiency retrofits (EERs) specific to air sealing of residential building envelopes, annual average infiltration rates (AAIR), and qualitative indicators of “healthy” homes. Blower door tests quantified the leakage area in each home, which was used to estimate the AAIR. Walk-through inspections were used to record observations of air-sealing retrofits conducted as part of Colorado’s Weatherization Assistance Program and indirect indicators of poor indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in the homes, such as visible mold or stains, visible dust on hard surfaces, vapor condensation on windows, dampness, and perceived air quality. Results showed that building characteristics like age and volume affected AAIR more significantly than air-sealing EERs. Among the air-sealing EERs, homes with the air-handler ductwork sealed and windows weather-stripped were found to have significantly lower AAIR compared to the homes without these features. Mold growth, wall stains, notably higher levels of dust, and unacceptable odor levels were more frequently reported in homes with higher AAIR, showing that leakier homes do not necessarily have better IEQ.

Federal Weatherization and Health Education Team up: Process Evaluation of a New Strategy to Improve Health Equity for People With Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Unhealthy housing is a major cause of respiratory health inequity. In-home health education improves health equity for low-income and minority populations with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Yet, outcomes of educational interventions are limited by poor housing conditions. Federal weatherization programs represent a promising source of funding for home repairs. Innovative legislation in Washington State integrates the 2 interventions as "Weatherization Plus Health," offering environmental health education in partnership with the Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income families with respiratory disease. This practice brief describes process evaluation results of a Weatherization Plus Health program in Pierce County, Washington. Evaluation data were gathered via interviews with service providers and ethnographic observation. Workers report that the combined intervention expanded their understanding of their practice, skills, and feelings of efficacy in meeting client needs. Integrating federally funded home weatherization with health education shows promise for building public health system capacity and increasing health equity.

The Challenge of Greening the Existing Residential Buildings in the Egyptian Market Base Case

Existing buildings are the massive percentage of the building stock, and therefore, are the key to improving efficiency; buildings account for an enormous share of the climate change crisis, and approximately 40% of the world total energy consumption (McArthur & Jofeh, 2015). The Egyptian stock of buildings includes about 12 million buildings. 60% of these buildings are residential. The final electricity consumption of the residential buildings in 2010 was 51370 GWh and increased in 2014 to reach 62441 GWh. Thus the share of total energy consumption was 18.8% in 2010 and increased to reach 21.55% in 2014 ("Technology Roadmap - Energy efficient building envelopes.", 2013). Therefore, the residential sector plays an important role in the mitigation of energy consumption crisis, which is expected to increase. The research field and initiatives in Egypt on the green buildings and green buildings retrofits are rare and, if existing, are weakly applied. Unlike in developed countries, there is a large research on building retrofits, e.g., the Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (R-PACE) program and the weatherization assistance program (WAP) of the department of energy (DOE). Both are examples of the incentives to green building initiatives globally. This paper discusses the challenge of greening the existing residential buildings in Egypt by demonstrating an analysis of the motives and the barriers to applying green measures in the Egyptian market. The research methodology comprises the analytical-comparative method. In the analytical part; the paper identifies the current situation of the residential sector energy consumption in Egypt, and the benefits of greening existing buildings for tenants, investors, and owners. In the comparative part, the current situation of Egypt's Green Market Business Case is compared with the international one, discussing the challenge of greening the residential buildings. The paper summarizes the opportunities to improve the building energy efficiency, incentives, and policies that are developed to address significant financial and technical awareness to building efficiency. These policies will help enable critical market actors to make decisions to promote energy efficiency in existing buildings.

Helping Third-Party Implementers Meet Performance Obligations: A Multi-Level Examination of the Weatherization Assistance Program

Research suggests that competitive markets and contract design and management influence contractor performance. However, there is less systematic knowledge about how a government's policy-specific capacity and programmatic support to contractors influences performance. This study asks the question of what states can do to maximize the performance of contractors in the context of fiscal federalism. This question is tested in the context of the Weatherization Assistance Program, a federal program where states are specifically instructed to use third-party implementers (i.e. contractors). Specifically, I examine (1) whether state policy-specific capacity enhances program implementation support to help contractors meet their performance goals and (2) how state-provided technical assistance to government contractors can help these contractors achieve performance goals.

Do Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver? Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program*

A growing number of policies and programs aim to increase investment in energy efficiency, because conventional wisdom suggests that people fail to take up these investments even though they have positive private returns and generate environmental benefits. Many explanations for this energy efficiency gap have been put forward, but there has been surprisingly little field testing of whether the conventional wisdom is correct. This article reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential energy efficiency program—the Weatherization Assistance Program—conducted on a sample of approximately 30,000 households in Michigan. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Furthermore, the model-projected savings are more than three times the actual savings. Although this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect—when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency—the article fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits derived from emissions reductions, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately −7.8% annually.

Promising Performance: The Overestimation and Underestimation of Performance Targets

ABSTRACTThis study examines goal setting in the federally funded, state-implemented Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Specifically, using federally determined criteria that states are supposed to use to set expected performance targets, I model the predicted performance targets and compare them against the observed performance targets. The purpose is to examine the determinants of performance target overestimation and underestimation in the WAP. The findings suggest that, where credible commitment to achieving performance targets is important (i.e., when grantees want to show top performance to attract grant money and federal partners), grantee governments are more likely to underestimate goals. However, where the aspirational nature of performance targets is more important than the credible commitment of achieving them (i.e., in an election year or partisan congruence with federal government), grantee governments are more likely to overestimate goals.

Impacts of weatherization on indoor air quality: A field study of 514 homes.

Residential energy efficiency retrofits continue to be common in the United States, especially through governmental and utility programs. Because of the potential for reduced air exchange, there have been concerns raised regarding the potential for negative impacts on health and safety of residents when air sealing occurs. To address this concern, a study was undertaken in 2009-2010 to evaluate the indoor air quality impacts of weatherization performed through the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Testing was conducted on 514 homes throughout the United States. The results show that weatherization, as performed at the time of the study, could result in small but statistically significant increases in some indoor contaminants such as radon and humidity, while also reducing exposures to elevated carbon monoxide in some homes.

Carbon monoxide measurements in homes

Carbon monoxide is one of the indoor air contaminants in homes that causes the most concern among energy efficiency programs. Programs that perform energy upgrades to homes spend substantial effort evaluating carbon monoxide hazards. Furnaces, boilers, water heaters, and ovens/ranges are common sources of carbon monoxide in the indoor environment. The current article presents results of carbon monoxide measurements from two studies that looked at homes that underwent energy efficiency upgrades as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's low-income Weatherization Assistance Program. In the first study, carbon monoxide was measured in the flues of furnaces, boilers, and water heaters, in the exhaust of ovens/ranges, and in the indoor ambient air. Measurements of the appliance combustion gases were done once while at the site, and indoor air measurements were done using dataloggers recording for about a month before and after weatherization. In the second study the focus was only on measured indoor ambient air, also with measurements using dataloggers for about 1 week. The results show that most appliances have carbon monoxide levels within allowable standards, though some are elevated. Regarding indoor ambient air, less than 5% of homes have persistent levels (i.e., for more than 10% of the time) of carbon monoxide of 5 ppm or higher. However, elevated peak levels above 9 ppm are much more common, with about 20%–30% of units in both studies reached 9–10 ppm at least once within a week-long test period. These results show that elevated indoor ambient carbon monoxide is a highly episodic phenomenon, and, therefore, not well addressed by whole-home ventilation. Further, the data suggest that it is the cooking appliances that are most subject to producing short-term elevations of carbon monoxide. The current article also includes a comparison of carbon monoxide before and after retrofits.

Assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Upon the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program

AbstractThe Department of Energy (DOE) administers the national low‐income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Under this program, DOE provides grants to states (grantees), which then provide grants to local weatherization agencies (subgrantees), to weatherize income‐eligible homes for free. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allocated $5 billion in funding to WAP, a very significant increase from an annual appropriation that ranged in the $200–250 million range for many years. As part of a major evaluation of WAP, states and local weatherization agencies were surveyed, in part, to assess their experiences during the ARRA period. The substantial funding increase created a number of issues for the national weatherization network: the political visibility of their programs increased significantly, organizational responsibilities were shifted, new laws and regulations were passed that impacted their programs, media attention of their programs increased, federal oversight of their programs increased; and programmatic costs increased because of the increased oversight and because ARRA required WAP to operate under the provisions of the Davis‐Bacon Act of 1931. There was some concern within the national weatherization network that the influx of ARRA funds would permanently damage nonfederal funding leveraging relationships. However, two‐thirds of grantees and over 40% of subgrantees stated that they believe that the long‐term impacts of ARRA on leveraging relationships will be positive.

Do Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver? Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program

Conventional wisdom suggests that energy efficiency (EE) policies are beneficial because they induce investments that pay for themselves and lead to emissions reductions. However, this belief is primarily based on projections from engineering models. This paper reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential EE program conducted on a sample of more than 30,000 households. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Further, the model-projected savings are roughly 2.5 times the actual savings. While this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect – when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency – the paper fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately -9.5% annually.

Are the Non-Monetary Costs of Energy Efficiency Investments Large? Understanding Low Take-Up of a Free Energy Efficiency Program

This paper finds striking evidence that individuals and households bypass opportunities to improve energy efficiency that require zero out-of-pocket expenditures and are widely believed to be privately beneficial. We report results from a large-scale randomized controlled trial that significantly reduced barriers to participation in the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). This program, the largest residential energy efficiency program in the country, aims to reduce the energy burden of low-income Americans by installing energy efficiency measures in their homes. Since the program’s inception in 1976, more than 7 million households have received weatherization assistance. Related work (Fowlie, Greenstone, and Wolfram 2015) finds that participation in this program significantly reduces energy consumption—and associated energy expenditures— among participating households. 1 These sizeable

Process evaluation of the home performance with ENERGY STAR Program

The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program (HPwES) was established to promote a comprehensive, whole-house approach to retrofits. It is currently administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) after being jointly administered by DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since the Program's inception in 1999. This paper presents the results of a process evaluation of the HPwES Program. Interviews were conducted with key federal Program administrators and a sample of sponsors and contractors responsible for implementing the Program in the field. The respondents describe a program whose success is largely dependent on the use of the ENERGY STAR brand and the flexibility given sponsors to tailor their programs to their specific contexts. It is recommended that the HPwES Program: evolve to better meet the needs of specific types of sponsors (e.g., utilities, public benefit funds); implement a national marketing campaign; create closer ties to other DOE programs (e.g., the Weatherization Assistance Program); and conduct research to better establish program energy savings impacts and awareness.

Avoiding Health Pitfalls of Home Energy-Efficiency Retrofits

Housing consumes 40% of our nation’s energy use,1 making it a prime target for energy-efficiency measures. Steps such as adding insulation, installing high-efficiency HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) systems, and tuning furnaces rank high as simple ways to lower utility bills and improve comfort and indoor air quality. But an energy-efficiency label attached to a product is meaningless if that product is installed incorrectly, and when it comes to green building techniques, the devil is in the details. The complexities of high-tech equipment and the subtle and usually invisible movement of air and moisture in homes mean even experienced and well-intentioned contractors do not get things right in every instance. This can result in health problems for occupants and installers alike. Such concerns have arisen in relation to recent activities conducted by local community action agencies through state programs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program. This program, created under the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976, provides the means for basic weatherization of the homes of low-income families. Since 2000, federal funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program has averaged around $225 million per year,2 sufficient to weatherize approximately 95,000 homes annually.3 In 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the federal government awarded the states $5 billion with the goal of weatherizing 600,000 homes by 2012.4 But the sudden influx of cash and the short period of time in which to spend it has spelled trouble for many state weatherization programs.