Hot Climate Initiatives

National Low-Income Energy Consortium

Phoenix, Arizona

June 16, 2005

Hot Climate Initiative

• Hot Climate Initiative started back in 1995• Shortly after getting started, Weatherization

funding was cut almost in half and the Hot Climate Initiative was tabled

• With recent increase in funding:– Weatherization Plus strategies were

implemented– Hot Climate Initiative was revisited

Hot Climate Initiative

• State and agency representatives from hot climate regions of the country met in Phoenix in May 2001

• Generated and prioritized list of action items including:– Training – Evaluation– Audit development – Leveraging– Client education – Priority lists– Review Appendix A – Bulk purchasing– Multi-family – Sources of new

labor

Hot Climate Initiative

• Hot climate states have received less Weatherization funding than cold climate states over the years

• As a result, hot climate states have had less funds for technical training

• While funding has increased recently, there still is not sufficient funding in many hot climate states to comprehensively train all agencies and contractors

Hot Climate Training Pilot

• Visited Alabama and Mississippi in late 2001 to understand state of the program in Southeastern U.S.

• Proposed a training pilot project, which DOE approved and funded

• Enlisted NRCERT and J&J Weatherization to develop curriculum and provide both classroom and hands-on training

• Completed Hot Climate/whole-house weatherization training in Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia

• First pilot in Mississippi – Phase I: April-August 2002– Phase II: April-June 2003

• North Carolina and Tennessee requested training using the Mississippi model and funded with their T&TA allocation– North Carolina: July-November 2003– Tennessee: January-May 2004

• Pilot replicated in Alabama incorporating lessons learned– January-August 2004

• Georgia – November 2004 – April 2005

Training Efforts to Date

Training Content

• Hot Climate training emphasizes whole-house weatherization, not just cooling-only measures

• Even in hot climates, savings in heating energy drive cost-effectiveness of most measures

• Reducing heating load also reduces cooling load

Training Structure

• Orientation training for agency coordinators, followed by

• Multiple regional trainings for agency coordinators, crews, and contractors

Orientation Training

• Two days to introduce agency coordinators to whole-house weatherization approach

• Share Virginia’s experience in adopting whole-house approach in early 1990s

• Emphasize importance of combustion appliance safety

• Introduce pressure diagnostics, advanced air sealing, and dense-pack sidewall insulation

Regional Training

• Three one-week-long, on-the-job training sessions in different parts of the state

• For agency coordinators, crews, and contractors

• First day in classroom• Second & third day in field• Last half-day test out and wrap up

Regional Training

• Classroom training– Combustion appliance safety

• CO, venting, combustion air, worst-case draft

– Pressure diagnostics & advanced air sealing• Building tightness limits, zone pressures, common

bypasses, mechanical ventilation

– Truck/trailer rigging (short field trip to the parking lot)

Regional Training

• First day in the field– Assessment and estimation– Combustion appliance safety testing– Blower door testing and pressure diagnostics– Attic bypasses– Dense-pack sidewall demo before starting

actual wall blowing– Two-part foam insulation demo– Refrigerator metering

Regional Training

• Second day in the field– Switch into “production” mode– Continue blowing sidewalls– Seal bypasses– Blow attic– Install/repair/replace kitchen and bathroom

exhaust fans, if necessary– Install dryer vent, if necessary– Insulate water heater and water heater pipes– Clean window air conditioners, if applicable

Regional Training

• Final day– Finish installing any final measures– Test out– Clean up– Review equipment maintenance–Wrap up

Lessons Learned

• The right people must attend training– Crews and contractors should attend,

not just agency coordinators

• Biggest obstacle to adopting the whole-house approach is prevalence of unvented gas/propane space heaters

Lessons Learned

• While comprehensive, on-site, and hands-on, this training is just a start– Long-term commitment to consistent

training is crucial

• Monitors have to be on same page–Must go through same training– State organizational issues

Lessons Learned

• Several agencies need to embrace the whole-house approach and lead others

• Peer training is extremely effective– In-state agencies share experience– Agencies visit from another state

• Creating or reinvigorating an agency association increases communication

Implementation Barriers

• Requires strong state program management

• Investment in equipment and ongoing training is significant, but necessary

• Some agencies are hesitant to adopt whole-house-based priority list and de-emphasize windows and doors

• Potential loss of existing contractors

TrainingFollow-Up

• Develop technical program standards to reflect whole-house approach

• Revise agency contracts to reflect standards• Monitor, monitor, monitor• Standardize training and provide on an on-

going basis• Comprehensive monitor training• Give agencies the chance to succeed, but

firmly enforce technical program standards