Summary of Final Evaluation Report

1
2003 Express Efficiency Program Evaluation

• Summary of Final Evaluation Report
• Prepared by
• John Cavalli, Itron
• Beatrice Mayo, PGE
• July 27, 2006

2
Evaluation Objectives

• Participation Assessment
• Assess participation trends over time (2000-03),
  in particular HTR participation
•  
• Program Verification and Savings Assessment
• Assess IOU inspection process and analyze
  inspection databases
• Verify that measures were installed and
  program-qualifying
• Estimate CFL annual operating hours and effective
  useful life
• Provide an evaluation estimate of program savings
• Process Assessment
• Examine program awareness, customer satisfaction,
  and program influence.
• Assess lighting vendor CFL installation
  practices, opinions on rebate levels, and ideas
  for program improvements.

3
Program Targets and Accomplishments

• Overall, the program exceeded goals, as measured
  by the ex ante savings estimates.
• Energy and demand savings

• HTR accomplishments

4
Program Accomplishments
PY2000-03 kWh Savings By Customer Size
5
Program Accomplishments
PY2000-03 kWh Savings By Technology
6
Program Verification Results

• Applications were entered correctly.
• Measure Accomplishments and Ex Ante Values were
  verified comparing tracking data, CPUC Final
  workbooks and PIPs.
• HTR Accomplishments were verified comparing
  tracking data and CPUC Final workbooks.
• Review of inspection databases confirmed IOU
  inspection procedures and illustrated
  representative sample of measures.

7
Program Verification Results

• Measure Installations were verified through 662
  telephone surveys, and 100 on-sites.
• 3 of CLFs and Other Lighting were not verified.

8
CFL Operating Hour Assessment

• Overall, the annual hours of operation were
  estimated to be 2,709, or one third less than the
  ex ante estimate.
• Based on 60 monitored sites across 5 business
  types and 2 size segments.

9
Effective Useful Life Assessment

• The EUL for CFLs was estimated to be 3 years.
• Only 38 of the 8 year ex ante estimate.
• Estimated using an average manufacturer rated
  life of 7,962 hours, and annual operating hours
  of 2,709.
• Based on data collected at 60 sites, representing
  8,538 integral CFLs.

10
Evaluation Savings Assessment

• Overall, annual savings were reduced by 24 due
  to the verification findings and CFL operating
  hour adjustment.
• Lifecycle savings were reduced by 41, by the
  additional CFL EUL adjustment.
• CFL savings were reduced by 34 for first year
  savings, and 75 for lifecycle savings.
• Therm savings were unchanged.

11
Process Assessment

• Interviews with 542 Participants
• Interviews with 30 lighting vendors

12
Sources of Program Awareness

• Contractors remain the most effective delivery
  mechanism

13
Influential Factors on Decision to Purchase

• Rising Energy Bills where the most influential
  factor on customers decision to purchase energy
  efficient equipment.

14
Satisfaction

• Participants are Satisfied with all aspects of
  the Program, especially with Contractor
  performance.

15
Program Influence Equipment Condition

• Most Lighting participants replaced old equipment
  that was in operating condition.
• Most HVAC and Agriculture participants replaced
  failed equipment, or equipment that had problems.
• Most Food Service Participants installed new
  equipment.

16
Program Influence Actions In Absence of Program

• Most Lighting participants would not have
  purchased energy efficient equipment.
• Most HVAC and Food Service participants would
  have purchased the same equipment at the same
  time.
• Most Agriculture Participants would have
  purchased energy efficient equipment, but at a
  later time.

17
Vendor Assessment CFL Installation Practices

• The program shifted away from modular to integral
  CFLs 95 of the CFLs installed were integral.
  
• The majority (59) of CFL installers report that
  they leave extra lamps behind.
• These vendors tend to leave roughly 2.4 extra
  lamps to replace burn outs.
• On average, 11 of the CFLs installed by vendors
  replaced existing CFLs (not just rebated jobs).

18
Vendor Opinions on Lighting Rebate Levels

• Two-thirds of the vendors desired an increase
  rebates for linear fluorescent fixtures.
• Mentioned more than any other measure.
• No vendor suggested decreasing rebates for linear
  fixtures.
• Vendors suggested that CFL rebates be decreased
  more than any other measure,
• However, less than 20 made this suggestion.
• A few vendors also recommend smaller rebates for
  controls and sensors.

19
Lighting Vendor Recommendations

• Speed up application process
• Electronic application submission.
• Build payment release form into application.
• Allow large customers into Express Efficiency.
• Educate vendors on delamping strategies
• Such as different light levels for various
  applications so they are confident that their
  light levels are appropriate for their
  application.

20
Recommendations for Future Research

• Lighting Impact Load Shape Measurement for T-8s
• Measure Life Study for CFLs
• Net-to-Gross Study for Express
• Statewide Retrofit Express Billing Analysis
• Assess Rebate Levels
• All the above are being addressed in the 2004-05
  Express Efficiency Evaluation.