Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 22 of 84
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2.2 RETROFIT SELECTION PROCESS
It is widely recognized that some homes treated under the WAP need retro-
fits more than others do. The revised DOE regulations that allow weatherization
expenses to be averaged across a number of homes give weatherization providers
the flexibility to spend retrofit dollars where they are most needed. After the
regulations went into effect, the principal remaining impediment to more
effective allocation of retrofit dollars was the need for a method of allocating
resources among houses. The recommended retrofit selection procedure for a
group of houses is: to (1) put all retrofits on a single list ordered by B/C,
and (2) select retrofits with the highest B/C until the allocated money is
The WAP rules allow spending up to an average of $1600/house. Although
Wisconsin generally spends more than $1600 with funds from varied sources, the
$1600 value was chosen for the field test to conform with DOE regulations. Of
the $1600, $200 was set aside to cover the cost of publicizing the program,
verifying that applicants were qualified for the program and auditing the house.
Another $200 was set aside for essential repairs such as replacing broken glass,
ventilating attics, and sealing and insulating attic access doors;
weatherization providers were specifically instructed not to spend any of this
amount on caulking and weatherstripping or on insulating water heaters. An
average of $1200 per house remained for actual retrofits selected by the audit.
The $1200 average retrofit expenditure per house allowed $42,000 to be
spent on retrofits for the 35 houses,* as directed by the audit. The one
planned exception to this procedure was that each furnace or boiler that had no
retrofit or was not replaced received a $70 cleaning and tune-up to ensure its
*Attrition subsequently reduced audit group house numbers to 20. The causes of
this attrition are discussed in Sect. 3.2.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
McCold, L.N. Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results, report, January 1, 1988; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc740901/m1/22/: accessed March 21, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.