Weatherization Assistance Program True Colors
I came across an article titled “Highest Recovery Act Job Creator” , which is really just reporting the article found on the recovery.gov site. The reporting initially is perceived to be a positive report card for the Department of Energy low-income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). The positive notes touted:
- 2nd out of 200 federal programs in job creation
- Top ten for Recovery Act in terms of creation and retention
- Saved $320 Million in energy cost in just the first year
- Reduces home energy use by 35%, saving $400 per household
- More than 600K homes
As reported the numbers seem fine, but let us do some math. In the same article, they note the following:
- WAP cost $5 billion
- Created OR retained more than 13000 jobs
Given my concerns about the cost, whether it was actually spent or even appropriated, I searched the database to evaluate the awards given for the program. From searching the recovery.gov database for CFDA code 81.042 Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons:
Total Awards
1,384
Total Award Amount
$4,885,043,224
The $5 billion figure would seem to be the appropriate cost the taxpayer has spent to achieve the above results. The government could have reported the following results in this manner:
- Program cost per employed $370K ($5 Billion/13,500 jobs)
- Almost 20 years on a non-discounted basis to break even on energy savings ($5 Billion/($400*600,000 homes)
The above stats when presented in that fashion does not look so appealing. I know many argue, and rightly so; job creation is greater than the one year. However, these types of jobs are not sustainable as one can only do so much weatherization. Parks and services would generate more sustainable jobs and at a much lower cost than weatherization. In terms of the energy savings, it is a small number because the fact is energy prices are not that high relative to the value it brings as compared to a cup of coffee. Who is saving the $400? Low income housing energy prices are subsidized to begin with. There are several nuances with low income particularly section 8 housing. I have seen where the land owner pays the utility and other cases where the tenant pays, but its average use is rolled into the calculation of the rent. Either way the “return” to the tenant is not clear. It is possible some of these projects are just funding the owner.
The scary thing for me is to see that this is the #2 out of 200 federal programs for job creation. I hope the others have better calculated stats.
At All Energy Consulting we pursue on looking at various issues in numerous lights. This is the only way to make sure bias viewpoints are removed.
We positively and evocatively challenge the current thinking involving any aspect of energy use. We look for projects that offer meaningful, transformative, with impactful outcome to the marketplace or society (see projects).
Please consider All Energy Consulting for your consulting needs.
Your Energy Consultant,
David K. Bellman
6143560484
