|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page | Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online May/June 1994
SOFTWARE
Computerized Energy Audits
Weatherization agencies have complained for years about a U.S. Department of
Energy requirement that 40% of Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP) funds be spent on "materials" rather than labor. Because
energy-efficiency technology has vastly improved over the years, and
state-of-the-art weatherization requires labor-intensive measures like blower
door diagnostics, DOE is now offering states a waiver of the 40% requirement,
if they can prove that what they are doing is cost-effective.
Computerized energy audits can help eliminate guesswork, determine what a home
needs to be more efficient, and set the best ratios of materials to labor. In
theory, software contains the distilled wisdom of many experts (see "Computer
Energy Savings: A Software Overview," HE Sept/Oct '91, p.13).
Recognizing this, new DOE regulations strongly encourage computerized audits.
The waiver is aimed at encouraging states to adopt the most cost-effective and
technically sophisticated audit and weatherization practices. DOE will grant
waivers to states that use "approved" computer audits, but an audit must meet
specific criteria (see "Recipe for a `DOE-Approved' Computer Energy Audit,"
p.28).
Alternatively, and if they can justify it, states may receive a waiver for a
"priority list" of measures for generic house types, if the list is based on an
approved computer audit and the state meets other requirements. For example, an
audit procedure might combine a priority list or decision tree (developed using
a DOE-approved computerized audit), with presumptively cost-effective measures,
diagnostic procedures, and tables or nomographs for assessing unique situations
on a site-specific basis. This type of approach does not require auditors to
conduct computerized audits on every home, and may be a good option for those
programs that have not invested in automation.
DOE contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to develop a tool for states
to use to receive the waiver, the National Energy Audit (NEAT) for site-built
residential and small multifamily (one- to four-unit) building (see "The
National Energy Audit," p.28). The waiver will be extended to cover both mobile
homes and multifamily buildings (defined as more than four units) until
approved audits are available for these types of housing--provided either
housing type does not represent more than one-third of the total units
weatherized in the state. DOE also contracted with the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) to create a mobile home audit which is now under
development.
States where multifamily dwellings account for more than one-third of total
units weatherized will have to comply with the 40% requirement or adopt an
audit that meets DOE's approval. DOE decided not to develop a multifamily audit
because the "one size fits all" approach was not appropriate for multifamily
dwellings.
As of March 1994, a number of states--including Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina,
Missouri, Arkansas, and Nebraska--opted to use NEAT and received waivers. Ohio
received the waiver for a NEAT-based priority list, or decision tree.
Wisconsin, Idaho, Montana, and Colorado have their own audits and have received
waivers (see "The Wisconsin Audit System," p.32). New York has DOE-approved
audits for single and multi-family dwellings (see "Confessions of an `Addicted'
Auditor," p.29 and "New York's `Targeted Investment Protocol System'," p.30).
Some states have used their own computerized audits for years, and are updating
them to meet DOE's new requirements. Others have waiver requests pending. Some
are trying alternative approaches. For example, Alaska is developing a program
called "Akwarm" for use in WAP. Akwarm will also be used for performance
contracting in public housing, to perform home energy ratings to be used with
energy-efficient mortgages, and for rating homes based on the amount of CO2
they produce.
The trend toward automation may offer the added benefit of linking
weatherization agencies with utility demand-side management programs and home
energy rating systems, and is generally considered a positive direction for the
industry. One downside is that where financial resources are limited, auditors
may do better by learning more about how buildings work, rather than
spending time acquiring a new skill--how to use a computer.
-- Cyril Penn
Related Articles
"Advancing the Art of PRISM Analysis" (Fels, Kissock, Marean, Reynolds) "¿Como Se Dice 'Retrofitter'?" (Griffin) "Confessions of an 'Addicted' Auditor" (Padian) "Measuring the Performance of the National Energy Audit" (Sharp) "The National Energy Audit" (Harner) "New York's 'Targeted Investment Protocol System' " (Gerardi and Sweeney) "Selecting an Infrared Imaging System" (Snell) "Training Guide for 'Total Comfort' Professionals" "Using Fuel Bills for a Targeted Investment" (Padian) "The Wisconsin Audit System" (O'Leary)
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page | Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|