Project Report

Sun Power House Nurse Program

Prepared for: Colorado Office of Energy Conservation
Report Revised: September 26, 1988
By: John Proctor and Robert deKeifer

Abstract

This paper is the result of our experience applying the set of procedures and criteria we have called "House Nursing" to over 1500 houses. The project was originally proposed late in 1982. In 1985, it was funded as a pilot project of 100 homes by the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation (O.E.C.).

Subsequent to the pilot project, O.E.C. continued to fund the House Nurse program. It was delivered to low income households using Low Income Energy Assistance (L.I.E.A.P.) funding. One weatherization agency in Colorado now uses the Sun Power House Nurse program as the "General Heat Waste" portion of their D.O.E. weatherization program.

The House Nurse program is part of a comprehensive set of weatherization procedures (see Proctor, 1984, 1986 and 1987). These procedures have in common the goal of maximizing the long term energy savings while minimizing the program cost.

When the savings associated with individual conservation retrofits and programs are studied one thing becomes clear. The savings (and therefore the cost effectiveness) for the same procedures varies dramatically from unit to unit. We therefore take a twofold approach to the situation. First, continually refine and monitor the program to improve the "hit ratio" (percentage of units that have savings exceeding 5%). Second, keep the investment in each house low to minimize the program's financial risk on each unit.

The published weatherization research over the last fifteen years has shown that savings in the order of 20% could be commonplace. Nevertheless, evaluations continue to show that even with expenditures in the $1000 to $1600 range that savings are often below 10%. The difference between a trained individual systematically addressing the heat loss problems of a house and the conventional caulk, weatherstrip and storm window approach can be very impressive.

In 1982-83 a comparison study was done in New York City. The results were that conventional weatherization saved 2.5% at a cost of $1116. However by using House Doctor procedures and personnel, a savings of 20.2% was achieved for $1393 (Rodberg, 1984).

Also see Pilot Programs and Energy Efficiency Research

Bound copies of this entire report are available for $20 each.
For details about obtaining a copy see How To Order Project Reports