Public Service of Oklahoma report on the performance of energy efficiency and demand response programs program year

              Public Service of Oklahoma
Report on the Performance of Energy
Efficiency and Demand Response
Programs
Program Year 2010
Prepared for:
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
June 1, 2011
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Summary of Portfolio ................................................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Other Portfolio Information ....................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 Annual Utility Growth in Metered Energy and Peak Demand ............................................. 11
1.2.2 Comparison of Baseline and Milestones to be Achieved in Market Transformation
Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2.1 AC Tune‐up Program .............................................................................................................. 11
1.2.2.2 Energy Star New Homes ......................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2.3 Model Cities and Smart Schools ............................................................................................ 11
1.2.3 Instances of New Construction Where Natural Gas Main Was Available But Customer
Installed Electric Device and Electric Utility Inducement Was Provided ............................................ 12
1.2.4 Research and development activities included in demand portfolio ................................... 12
1.3 Timeline for Verification ............................................................................................................................. 12
2 Energy Efficiency Programs ........................................................................................... 13
2.1 Residential Programs ................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1 Low Income Weatherization ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 13
2.1.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 13
2.1.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 13
2.1.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 14
2.1.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 15
2.1.2 Energy Star New Homes ............................................................................................................. 15
2.1.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 16
2.1.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 16
2.1.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 17
2.1.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 17
2.1.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 17
2.1.3 Energy Star Multi‐Family ............................................................................................................ 18
2.1.3.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 19
2.1.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 19
2.1.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 19
2.1.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 19
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 2
2.1.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 20
2.1.4 Residential Solutions .................................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 21
2.1.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 22
2.1.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 22
2.1.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 22
2.1.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 23
2.1.5 Energy Star Appliances ............................................................................................................... 23
2.1.5.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 23
2.1.5.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.1.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 24
2.1.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 24
2.1.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Saving, ................................... 24
2.1.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 24
2.1.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 25
2.1.6 Residential AC Tune‐Up ............................................................................................................. 25
2.1.6.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 25
2.1.6.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 26
2.1.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 26
2.1.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 26
2.1.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 26
2.1.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 27
2.1.7 Energy Audits ............................................................................................................................... 27
2.1.7.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 27
2.1.7.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 28
2.1.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 28
2.1.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 28
2.1.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 28
2.1.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 28
2.1.7.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 28
2.2 Commercial and Industrial Programs....................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1 Commercial Lighting and Controls ........................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 29
2.2.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 29
2.2.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings, .................................. 29
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 3
2.2.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 30
2.2.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 31
2.2.2 Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program................................................................ 31
2.2.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 32
2.2.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 32
2.2.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 32
2.2.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 32
2.2.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 32
2.2.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers’ Names ................................................................ 34
2.2.3 Small C&I Solutions ..................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 35
2.2.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 35
2.2.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 35
2.2.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 35
2.2.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 37
2.2.4 Commercial AC Tune‐Up ........................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 38
2.2.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 38
2.2.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 38
2.2.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 38
2.2.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 39
2.2.5 Model Cities ................................................................................................................................. 39
2.2.5.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 39
2.2.5.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 40
2.2.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 40
2.2.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 40
2.2.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 40
2.2.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 40
2.2.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 41
2.2.6 Smart Schools ............................................................................................................................... 41
2.2.6.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 41
2.2.6.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 42
2.2.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 42
2.2.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 42
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 4
2.2.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 42
2.2.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 42
2.2.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 43
2.2.7 Industrial Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 44
2.2.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 44
2.2.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings, .................................. 44
2.2.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 44
2.2.7.7 Identification of Program Implementers’ Names ................................................................ 45
3 Demand Response Programs ......................................................................................... 46
3.1 Residential Programs ................................................................................................................................. 46
3.1.1 Residential DLC ............................................................................................................................ 46
3.1.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 46
3.1.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 46
3.1.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 46
3.1.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 47
3.1.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 47
3.1.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 48
3.2 Commercial and Industrial Programs....................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1 C&I Demand Response................................................................................................................ 48
3.2.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 49
3.2.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 49
3.2.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 49
3.2.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 49
3.2.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 51
3.2.2 Load Management ....................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 51
3.2.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 51
3.2.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 52
3.2.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Method ................................................................................... 52
3.2.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 53
Appendix A EPRI LED Study ................................................................................................. 54
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 5
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Summary of Portfolio ................................................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Other Portfolio Information ....................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 Annual Utility Growth in Metered Energy and Peak Demand ............................................. 11
1.2.2 Comparison of Baseline and Milestones to be Achieved in Market Transformation
Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2.1 AC Tune‐up Program .............................................................................................................. 11
1.2.2.2 Energy Star New Homes ......................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2.3 Model Cities and Smart Schools ............................................................................................ 11
1.2.3 Instances of New Construction Where Natural Gas Main Was Available But Customer
Installed Electric Device and Electric Utility Inducement Was Provided ............................................ 12
1.2.4 Research and development activities included in demand portfolio ................................... 12
1.3 Timeline for Verification ............................................................................................................................. 12
2 Energy Efficiency Programs ........................................................................................... 13
2.1 Residential Programs ................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1 Low Income Weatherization ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 13
2.1.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 13
2.1.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 13
2.1.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 14
2.1.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 15
2.1.2 Energy Star New Homes ............................................................................................................. 15
2.1.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 16
2.1.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 16
2.1.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 17
2.1.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 17
2.1.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 17
2.1.3 Energy Star Multi‐Family ............................................................................................................ 18
2.1.3.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 19
2.1.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 19
2.1.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 19
2.1.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 19
2.1.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 20
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 6
2.1.4 Residential Solutions .................................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 21
2.1.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 22
2.1.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 22
2.1.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 22
2.1.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 23
2.1.5 Energy Star Appliances ............................................................................................................... 23
2.1.5.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 23
2.1.5.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.1.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 24
2.1.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 24
2.1.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Saving, ................................... 24
2.1.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 24
2.1.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 25
2.1.6 Residential AC Tune‐Up ............................................................................................................. 25
2.1.6.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 25
2.1.6.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 26
2.1.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 26
2.1.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 26
2.1.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 26
2.1.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 27
2.1.7 Energy Audits ............................................................................................................................... 27
2.1.7.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 27
2.1.7.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 28
2.1.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 28
2.1.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 28
2.1.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 28
2.1.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 28
2.1.7.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 28
2.2 Commercial and Industrial Programs....................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1 Commercial Lighting and Controls ........................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 29
2.2.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 29
2.2.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings, .................................. 29
2.2.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 30
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 7
2.2.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 31
2.2.2 Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program................................................................ 31
2.2.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 32
2.2.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 32
2.2.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 32
2.2.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 32
2.2.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 32
2.2.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers’ Names ................................................................ 34
2.2.3 Small C&I Solutions ..................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 35
2.2.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 35
2.2.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 35
2.2.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 35
2.2.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 37
2.2.4 Commercial AC Tune‐Up ........................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 38
2.2.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 38
2.2.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 38
2.2.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 38
2.2.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 39
2.2.5 Model Cities ................................................................................................................................. 39
2.2.5.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 39
2.2.5.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 40
2.2.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 40
2.2.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 40
2.2.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 40
2.2.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 40
2.2.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 41
2.2.6 Smart Schools ............................................................................................................................... 41
2.2.6.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 41
2.2.6.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 42
2.2.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 42
2.2.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 42
2.2.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 42
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 8
2.2.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 42
2.2.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 43
2.2.7 Industrial Solutions ...................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 44
2.2.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 44
2.2.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings, .................................. 44
2.2.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 44
2.2.7.7 Identification of Program Implementers’ Names ................................................................ 45
3 Demand Response Programs ......................................................................................... 46
3.1 Residential Programs ................................................................................................................................. 46
3.1.1 Residential DLC ............................................................................................................................ 46
3.1.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 46
3.1.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 46
3.1.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 46
3.1.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 47
3.1.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 47
3.1.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 48
3.2 Commercial and Industrial Programs....................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1 C&I Demand Response................................................................................................................ 48
3.2.1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 49
3.2.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 49
3.2.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 49
3.2.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods ................................................................................. 49
3.2.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 51
3.2.2 Load Management ....................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.2 Summary Data .......................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans.................................................. 51
3.2.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs ............................................... 51
3.2.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings ................................... 52
3.2.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Method ................................................................................... 52
3.2.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers .............................................................................. 53
Appendix A EPRI LED Study ................................................................................................. 54
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 9
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 10
1 Introduction
This report presents the performance of energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs for
the preceding program year and cumulative performance, as required by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission.1 The program year 2010 (PY2010) covered in this report reflects participation from January
1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
1.1 Summary of Portfolio
Total reported (unverified) savings for PSO’s programs in PY2010 are 47.0 GWh and 42.5 MW, as shown
in Table 1. Total expenditures were $13,373,787, as shown in Table 1. Since all programs began within
PY2010, cumulative costs and savings are identical to those presented in the table below. Cost per kW
and cost per kWh have not been calculated. Given the different lifetimes of measures, this is not a
meaningful metric of program performance.
Table 1: PY2010 Savings and Costs
*Note: Expenditure values in this report do not reflect shared savings incentives.
Source: PSO Documents: Consumer Programs 2010_2012.xls (Projected data), Confidential_2010_programs.xls, PSO_1Q
2011_kc.xls (Actual data)
1 Title 165. Corporation Commission Chapter 35.Electric Utility Rules Subchapter 1.
Program Name Start Date
Proj.
MW
Re‐ported
MW
Proj.
GWh
Re‐ported
GWh
Proj. Spend*
Actual
Spend
Energy Efficiency Programs
Low Income Weatherization 3/1/2010 0.64 0.90 2.30 3.62 $ 2,222,222 $ 2,788,908
Energy Star New Homes 3/1/2010 0.53 0.80 0.87 1.87 $ 555,556 $ 919,601
Energy Star Multi‐Family 3/1/2010 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 $ 83,333 $ 2,057
Residential Solutions 9/1/2010 0.62 0.02 2.50 0.05 $ 1,611,111 $ 606,279
Energy Star Appliances 3/1/2010 1.10 2.35 4.28 15.38 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,890,956
Residential AC Tune‐Up 5/1/2010 0.45 0.04 1.24 0.07 $ 441,719 $ 214,262
Energy Audits 10/1/2010 ‐ 0.00 0.01 0.02 $ 66,667 $ 58,860
Large C&I Solutions 3/1/2010 1.80 2.02 9.01 9.15 $ 860,183 $ 709,760
Comm. Lighting & Controls 3/1/2010 0.87 1.05 7.86 5.92 $ 935,103 $ 264,493
Small C&I Solutions 5/1/2010 0.33 0.30 1.43 1.58 $ 197,778 $ 119,118
Commercial AC Tune‐Up 5/1/2010 0.93 0.09 1.45 0.13 $ 499,569 $ 212,098
Model Cities 3/1/2010 0.67 0.14 1.52 0.52 $ 685,185 $ 603,272
Smart Schools 3/1/2010 1.34 1.45 5.55 5.54 $ 1,252,852 $ 1,288,964
Industrial Solutions 3/1/2010 1.25 0.39 5.97 2.53 $ 604,904 $ 182,808
Energy Efficiency Totals 7.19 9.55 44.08 46.38 $11,016,182 $9,861,436
Demand Response Programs
Residential DLC 1/1/2011 2.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 $ 425,478 $ 157,197
C&I Demand Response 7/1/2010 21.14 12.61 1.29 0.01 $ 1,471,456 $ 1,403,677
Load Management 3/1/2010 15.22 20.32 0.59 0.61 $ 624,727 $ 698,388
Demand Response Totals 38.39 32.93 2.01 0.62 $2,521,661 $2,259,262
Other Costs
Education 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,283,636 $1,252,860
EM&V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 641,818 $ 0
LED R&D Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 25,000 $ 229
Other Cost Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,950,454 $1,253,089
Portfolio Totals 48.98 42.48 46.09 47.00 $15,488,297 $13,373,787
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 11
1.2 Other Portfolio Information
1.2.1 Annual Utility Growth in Metered Energy and Peak Demand
Table 2 presents weather normalized energy sales, peak demand, and growth rates for PSO over the last
three years, as well as the three‐year compound growth rate. Recessionary impacts during this period
were significant. In addition to reducing growth rates, the recession has reduced housing and building
construction, which has limited participation in the Energy Star New Home and Multi‐Family program,
and the C&I programs.
Table 2: Utility Growth
Metered Energy,
GWh
Energy
Growth
Peak Demand,
MW
Demand
Growth
2007 17,893 0.7% 4,198 1.5%
2008 17,876 ‐0.1% 4,178 ‐0.5%
2009 17,233 ‐3.6% 4,115 ‐1.5%
2010 17,435 1.2% 4,197 2.0%
Compound Growth ‐ ‐0.5% ‐ 0.0%
1.2.2 Comparison of Baseline and Milestones to be Achieved in Market Transformation Programs
Programs that have market transformation goals include the AC Tune‐up, EnergyStar New Homes,
Model Cities and Smart Schools programs.
1.2.2.1 AC Tune­up
Program
The CoolSaver AC Tune‐Up program is transforming the market through contractor education;
participating HVAC contractor have to undergo a technical training course on advanced diagnostics and
HVAC efficiency repairs. The program has trained 89 HVAC technicians to date, representing 27
companies.
1.2.2.2 Energy Star New Homes
A summary of the three market transformation goals for the Energy Star New Homes Program and
PSO’s progress towards them thus far is presented below:
1. Increase market share of builders participating in the program, with focus on Tulsa and
Lawton. Achieved 28% share by end of program year.
2. Encourage builders to go beyond Energy Star performance levels by establishing a high‐end
incentive tier for builders. Tier established and now promoting it to builders.
3. Improve realtors’ awareness and knowledge of high‐efficiency homes including various
Energy Star and other efficiency improvement features through training offered to realtors in the
PSO area. Per “secret shopping” tests, realtors have begun talking to their customers about
improved energy efficiency possible with the program.
1.2.2.3 Model Cities and Smart Schools
Although market transformation was not an initial goal of these programs, both have implemented a
benchmarking tool which has begun to raise energy efficiency awareness in participants.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 12
1.2.3 Instances of New Construction Where Natural Gas Main Was Available But Customer Installed Electric Device
and Electric Utility Inducement Was Provided
PSO did not provide any inducement for installation of electric heating where a natural gas main was
available.
1.2.4 Research and development activities included in demand portfolio
PSO participated in a study on LED Street Lighting and conducted by EPRI. The findings from this
report may be included in future offering of the Model Cities and Smart Schools program. This report is
attached in Appendix A.
1.3 Timeline for Verification
This report includes planned and reported, not verified savings. Verification of savings typically takes
several months, due to the time required to conduct surveys and do a rigorous review of the programs.
PSO anticipates that evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) results will be ready in
September. The schedule is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schedule for EM&V
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 13
2 Energy Efficiency Programs
2.1 Residential Programs
2.1.1 Low Income Weatherization
2.1.1.1 Program Description
The Weatherization program targets moderate and high use customers with total annual household
income at or below 200% of federal poverty guidelines who receive electric service from PSO (eligible
customers). Services include installation of CFLs, attic, wall, or ceiling insulation, HVAC tune‐ups, and
infiltration controls. PSO is working with Community Action Agencies through the Oklahoma
Department of Commerce, Titan ES, tribal nations, and other non‐profit organizations to implement this
program.
2.1.1.2 Summary Data
Table 3 presents summary information on the program.
Table 3: Key Performance Indicators for the Low Income Weatherization Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 915 915
Budgeted Expenditures $2,222,222 $2,222,222
Actual Expenditures $2,788,908 $2,788,908
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 2,299 2,299
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 3,619 3,619
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 640 640
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 895 895
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.1.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
There are no proposed changes to PSO’s Low Income Weatherization Program.
2.1.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Actual costs are 26 percent higher than budgeted, while reported energy and demand savings are 57
percent and 40 percent higher than projected.
2.1.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Verified savings have not yet been calculated.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 14
2.1.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The impact evaluation will assess the energy and demand benefits from the low income program by
reviewing/revising engineering estimates of savings as needed by 2010 participants and conducting
billing analysis on Weatherization results to provide statistically adjusted engineering estimates of these
savings. The billing analysis will be used to provide an estimate of savings from the program year 2011.
Program administrators will provide program tracking data. The Weatherization program tracking data
identifies the participants in the program, the measures that were installed in each home, and the timing
of the measure installations. Additional information on the characteristics of the home that impact
energy use, such as square feet or number of people living there, is also important in the analysis of
savings. The evaluation team will work with PSO staff and the implementation contractor to ensure that
as much of the relevant data is included in the tracking and reporting system as feasible. Questions also
may be included in the participant survey to ensure there are no data gaps. The evaluation team will
recommend improvements that could be made to the tracking process to increase the value of the
information for evaluation in future years.
Billing data will be needed from PSO’s billing system for the Weatherization program. Monthly billing
data should be provided for one year before the installation of measures and one year after. Customers
who participated in the program in the year after will be assumed to be non‐participants for the previous
year and will be used to assess baseline energy change.
Demand savings for each measure will be derived from engineering estimates for each of the measures
implemented.
The Weatherization program is designed to coordinate with other existing low income programs. The
process evaluation will include depth interviews with the PSO program staff and other relevant
stakeholders such as the implementation contractors and other weatherization agencies. These
interviews will help to develop an understanding of the final program design and implementation
strategies and complete documentation of program processes and tracking efforts.
A telephone survey will be conducted with a representative sample of participants to assess satisfaction
with the program, measures and savings, ease of participation and suggestions for improvements. The
results of the interviews, surveys, and reviews of the data tracking and marketing will be consolidated
into a discussion of the effectiveness of the program processes and recommendations for improvements
to increase participation.
Low income programs typically have few free riders and little spillover, as these customers are unlikely
to implement program measures on their own. Because of this, net savings will be estimated under the
assumption that there are no free riders or spillover. Telephone surveys may help confirm this
assumption.
Navigant will collect actual costs for PSO staff, implementation contractor and incentives; participants
do not have an incremental cost. Navigant will determine measure lives and input costs, savings, and
measure lives into a cost‐effectiveness model, to assess the results of the application on the standard cost
effectiveness tests. The Navigant team will develop inputs needed for the Total Resource Cost, Program
Administrator Cost, Participant Cost, and Rate Impact Measure tests.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 15
2.1.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Bradley Cockings
Titan ES, LLC
9700 S. Pole Rd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73160
bcockings@titanes.us
405‐632‐1700
2.1.2 Energy Star New Homes
2.1.2.1 Program Description
The Energy Star New Homes program provides incentives to builders for building single‐family homes
to ENERGY STAR® qualifications of a HERS2 rating of 85 or better (100 being minimum code for homes
built to the 2004 International Residential Code, and 0 being a “zero energy” home). The program is
promoted to builders of single‐family dwellings and to customers buying new homes.
In 2010, PSO marketed the program through various advertising and promotional events, including both
consumer and trade ally promotions. Supporting this effort, PSO’s web site
(http://www.psoenergystar.com/) provides a comprehensive set of information to builders and
customers showing the benefits of building to or beyond the ENERGY STAR® standard.
Key program activities include:
• Identifying potential ENERGY STAR homebuilder partners and educating them on the benefits
and methods of designing, constructing, and selling ENERGY STAR qualified homes
• Training homebuilders, trade contractors and other market allies
• Increasing consumer awareness of and demand for ENERGY STAR qualifed homes through
various consumer marketing channels
• Increasing homebuilder promotion of ENERGY STAR qualified homes through program‐provided
collateral items; encouraging the use of the ENERGY STAR brand
The program recruited 50 builders to participate in the program, 24 of whom were recruited in 2010.
PSO implemented a tier system to provide higher incentives for those builders who were already
building ENERGY STAR® homes by encouraging them to build a higher efficiency rating than they were
previously building at. Following are the tiers now in place:
Tier 1 – Homes built 15‐19% more efficient for home builders who have not built ENERGY
STAR® homes previously ‐ $300
Tier 2 – Homes built 20‐24% more efficient for new ENERGY STAR® homebuilders and existing
ENERGY STAR® homebuilders ‐ $400
Tier 3 – Homes built 25% more efficient for new ENERGY STAR® homebuilders and existing
ENERGY STAR® homebuilders ‐ $500
Homes that qualify for the HBA Green Building Standard or Homes with the above
accreditation and have a ground source heat pump installed will receive ‐ $750
2 Home Energy Rating System; see http://www.resnet.us/home‐energy‐ratings.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 16
2.1.2.2 Summary Data
Table 4 summarizes data for the program.
Table 4: Key Performance Indicators for the Energy Star New Homes Program, Program Year 2010
PY 2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 635 635
Budgeted Expenditures $555,556 $555,556
Actual Expenditures $919,601 $919,601
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 874 874
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 1,865 1,865
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Energy Savings (kW) 530 530
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 797 797
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.1.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
Two major developments outside PSO’s control may significantly affect 2011 program participation: 1)
the two‐year moratorium on the state tax credit3, and 2) ENERGY STAR performance standards are
ramping up from version 2 that was in place in 2010, to an interim version 2.5 currently in effect, and
moving up to version 3 at the end of 2011. These factors further constrain a home‐building market
already strained by a slow economy and continuing increases in construction costs generally.
The tax credit moratorium and increasing ENERGY STAR performance standards reduce the financial
attractiveness of program‐eligible homes because of the likely greater cost to build to the higher
standard combined with the loss of tax credit funds to help cover incremental construction costs. In
addition, the changes to the ENERGY STAR performance standard require builders to learn and apply
the higher standard, which may delay or prevent builder involvement in 2011. Exacerbating the situation
is that home appraisers generally do not assign added value to program‐eligible homes, which also
affects lending institutions’ willingness to increase loan coverage for the incremental costs for the homes’
higher efficiency.
Thus, the program will be challenged to retain builders who participated in the past. PSO is considering
changes to incentive levels, is intensifying its builder recruitment effort including training for builders’
staffs and also expanding to inform realtors and get them involved with promoting program‐eligible
homes. PSO plans to enhance various collateral and sponsor promotional events, such as home shows,
newspaper articles, updated web sites, etc., and also institute a recognition program for high performers.
2.1.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported savings for both energy and demand reductions greatly exceeded those that were projected for
the program year. Anecdotal feedback from builders indicates the tax credit positively affected
participation, as did their ability to build to the version 2 level ENERGY STAR performance standard.
PSO’s various marketing and trade relations efforts likely contributed to the program’s success as well,
as the forthcoming evaluation of the program will research.
3 Senate Bill 1267 established the moratorium as of July 1, 2010. The tax credit allowed up to $4,000 per home built to
40% or above the International Energy Conservation Code 2003; homes eligible for PSO’s program are so qualified.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 17
Costs were greater than the projected budget due to the program’s early success and resulting impacts
being substantially greater than projected.
2.1.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
This program’s savings have not yet been verified, so no comparison is available at this time. The
program evaluation currently underway will undertake a verification effort.
2.1.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Ex ante savings estimates for the group of measures will come from the Energy Star savings calculator,
engineering estimates, and selected building simulation studies. Since these are reputable sources for
energy savings estimates, there is no need to spend evaluation dollars verifying these individual
estimates.
The analysis method will include review of the program’s engineering estimates, and also building
simulation modeling to compare the energy use resulting from as‐built conditions with baseline
conditions. Gross energy savings will be calculated based on differences between these model runs.
Oklahoma currently has no building or energy code, so typical practice levels among participating
builders will be used as the specification for baseline conditions.
Because of the custom nature of this program, the approach will primarily rely on calibrated building
simulation modeling for the impact evaluation. A small sample of projects will be modeled to compare
and analyze as‐built conditions with baseline conditions, based on a combination of code‐compliance
and self‐reported information.
Since interviews with associated builders and trade allies are already part of the gross savings impact
evaluation, NTG values will be based on an enhanced self‐report method which relies on data and
information from multiple sources and uses “triangulation” of results to establish each sampled project’s
net‐to‐gross ratio. The primary data sources are builder and trade ally surveys. The survey will contain a
battery of questions to establish free rider levels to support the calculation of net savings, and a separate
question sequence to support an estimate of participant spillover. Survey results will be compared and
synthesized into a “story” about the evolution of each new construction project and the underlying role
of’ the program versus other factors in the decision to install energy efficient measures.
Impact analysis will be supported by data collected directly from participating builders during the
process evaluation phone interviews. The process interviews will include a brief set of impact questions
to verify installed measure characteristics.
Energy and demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with information on avoided
costs and program costs to assess the cost effectiveness of this program. The Navigant team will develop
the inputs needed to complete four primary benefit/cost tests: Rate Impact, Program Administrator Cost,
Participant Cost and Total Resource Cost test.
2.1.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Jason Fisher
Program Manager
ICF International
jfisher@icfi.com
918‐519��0214
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 18
Steve Ellison
Senior Manager
ICF International
7160 N. Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 340, Plano, TX 75024
sellison@icfi.com
817‐313‐4094
2.1.3 Energy Star Multi-Family
2.1.3.1 Program Description
The Energy Star Multi‐Family program provides incentives to builders for building multi‐family
complexes to Energy Star qualifications of a HERS4 rating of 85 or better (100 being minimum code for
homes built to the 2004 International Residential Code, and 0 being a “zero energy” home). The program
is promoted mainly to builders of multi‐family dwellings, and customers indirectly through PSO’s
various energy efficiency advertising efforts.
In 2010, PSO marketed the program through various advertising and promotional events, including both
consumer and trade ally promotions. Supporting this effort, PSO’s web site
(http://www.psoenergystar.com/) provides a comprehensive set of information to builders showing the
benefits of building to or beyond the ENERGY STAR® standard.
In 2010, PSO began contacting multi‐family home builders and initiated 3 projects. None of the projects
were qualified in time to obtain their savings for 2010, due to various factors including plan rework
problems, inspection constraints and key measures not being included in the building.
PSO put a tier system in place to provide higher incentives for those builders who were already building
ENERGY STAR® homes by encouraging them to build a higher efficiency rating than they were
previously building at. The Multi Family tier provides a $175 per unit incentive to the builder.
2.1.3.2 Summary Data
Table 5 summarizes key data for the program.
Table 5: Key Performance Indicators for the Energy Star Multi‐Family Program, Program Year 2010
PY 2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 0 0
Budgeted Expenditures $83,333 $83,333
Actual Expenditures $2,057 $2,057
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 94 94
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 0 0
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Energy Savings (kW) 60 60
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 0 0
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
4 Home Energy Rating System; see http://www.resnet.us/home‐energy‐ratings.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 19
2.1.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
As with the Energy Star New Homes program, two major developments outside PSO’s control may
significantly affect 2011 program participation: 1) the two‐year moratorium on the state tax credit5, and
2) ENERGY STAR performance standards are ramping up from version 2 that was in place in 2010, to an
interim version 2.5 currently in effect, and moving up to version 3 at the end of 2011. These factors, as
with single‐family construction, further constrain the multifamily construction market already strained
by a slow economy and continuing increases in construction costs generally.
The tax credit moratorium and increasing ENERGY STAR performance standards reduce the financial
attractiveness of program‐eligible multi‐family buildings because of the likely greater cost to build to the
higher standard, combined with the loss of tax credit funds to help cover incremental construction costs.
In addition, the changes to the ENERGY STAR performance standard require builders to learn and apply
the higher standard, which may delay or prevent builder involvement in 2011. Exacerbating the situation
is that building appraisers generally do not assign added value to program‐eligible homes, which also
affects lending institutions’ willingness to increase loan coverage for the incremental costs for the
buildings’ higher efficiency.
Thus, the program will be challenged to retain builders (and associated architects who design multi‐family
buildings) who participated in the past. PSO is considering changes to incentive levels and is
intensifying its builder recruitment effort including training for architect/builders’ staffs. PSO plans
various collateral and promotional events, such as home shows, newspaper articles, updated web sites,
etc., and also development of a recognition program for high performers.
2.1.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported savings for both energy and demand reductions did not reach expected levels due to the
program being new and the economy continuing to be weak. Efforts to promote the program and gain
architect/builder participation proved extremely difficult as developing trusted relationships with
architects and builders is a long‐term effort, and there is high reluctance among these market actors to
change traditional practices.
Actual costs were less than budgeted due to limitations encountered in developing early projects,
including inspections constraints, plan review difficulties and key measures not being included in the
building.
2.1.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
This program’s savings have not yet been verified, so no comparison is available at this time.
2.1.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Ex ante savings estimates for the group of measures will come from the Energy Star savings calculator,
engineering estimates, and selected building simulation studies. Since these are reputable sources for
energy savings estimates, there is no need to spend evaluation dollars verifying these individual
estimates.
The analysis method will include review of the program’s engineering estimates, and also building
simulation modeling to compare the energy use resulting from as‐built conditions with baseline
conditions. Gross energy savings will be calculated based on differences between these model runs.
5 Senate Bill 1267 established the moratorium as of July 1, 2010. The tax credit allowed up to $4,000 per home built to
40% or above the International Energy Conservation Code 2003; homes eligible for PSO’s program are so qualified.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 20
Oklahoma currently has no building or energy code, so typical practice levels among participating
builders will be used as the specification for baseline conditions.
Because of the custom nature of this program, the approach will primarily rely on calibrated building
simulation modeling for the impact evaluation. A small sample of projects will be modeled to compare
and analyze as‐built conditions with baseline conditions, based on a combination of code‐compliance
and self‐reported information.
Since interviews with associated builders and trade allies are already part of the gross savings impact
evaluation, NTG values will be based on an enhanced self‐report method which relies on data and
information from multiple sources and uses “triangulation” of results to establish each sampled project’s
net‐to‐gross ratio. The primary data sources are builder and trade ally surveys. The survey will contain a
battery of questions to establish free rider levels to support the calculation of net savings, and a separate
question sequence to support an estimate of participant spillover. Survey results will be compared and
synthesized into a “story” about the evolution of each new construction project and the underlying role
of’ the program versus other factors in the decision to install energy efficient measures.
Impact analysis will be supported by data collected directly from participating builders during the
process evaluation phone interviews. The process interviews will include a brief set of impact questions
to verify installed measure characteristics.
Energy and demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with information on avoided
costs and program costs to assess the cost effectiveness of this program. The Navigant team will develop
the inputs needed to complete four primary benefit/cost tests: Rate Impact, Program Administrator Cost,
Participant Cost and Total Resource Cost test.
2.1.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Jason Fisher
Program Manager
ICF International
jfisher@icfi.com
918‐519‐0214
Steve Ellison
Senior Manager
ICF International
7160 N. Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 340, Plano, TX 75024
sellison@icfi.com
817‐313‐4094
2.1.4 Residential Solutions
2.1.4.1 Program Description
Residential Solutions has two components to help residential customers improve the energy efficiency of
their homes – Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® and the Quick Energy Savings Test (QuEST).
QuEST provides low‐cost energy audits for residential customers, using a checklist and a visual
inspection of the home. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR provides, for a nominal charge, a
comprehensive analysis of energy usage in the home through diagnostic equipment6 and must be
completed by a BPI certified contractor. Both audits identify measures that customers need to complete
6 The diagnostics include whole‐house infiltration and duct leakage measurements.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 21
and all qualifying installations will receive incentives. ICF International is PSO’s implementation partner
on this program.
Incentives of up to $1,500 per home for recommended energy efficiency improvements are available
through both components of the program.
PSO promotes the program to customers and realtors via promotional events, a comprehensive web site,
co‐marketing with participating service contractors, a newsletter and other print and broadcast media,
and cross‐marketing through other PSO energy efficiency programs.
PSO actively recruits energy service contractors to provide both program service components. Currently,
24 contractors are listed on PSO’s web site to provide the basic QuEST analysis service, nine of whom
also are certified by the Building Performance Institute7 to provide the more in‐depth Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR® service. In 2010, six contractor meetings were held once the program
launched in early September. The first months of the program focused on developing the program as a
whole, including:
• Developing the web‐based software used by the contractors to perform the written assessment
for the home,
• Online payment functionality,
• Contractor Recruitment, and
• Contractor Training and Development. ICF staff members personally attend the first five
assessments each contractor has scheduled, to help train them in completing the assessment to a
high‐quality standard.
2.1.4.2 Summary Data
Table 6 summarizes data for the program.
Table 6: Key Performance Indicators for the Residential Solutions Program, Program Year 2010
PY 2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 0 0
Budgeted Expenditures $1,611,111 $1,611,111
Actual Expenditures $606,279 $606,279
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 2,497 2,497
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 49 49
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Energy Savings (kW) 620 620
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 18 18
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.1.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
PSO plans to continue its program development efforts to recruit contractors, to provide program
services to customers and help co‐market the program. The realtor marketing effort began in 2010
continues. PSO will review program incentives for possible new measures to be included.
7 http://www.bpi.org/
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 22
Additional opportunities for direct customer marketing include:
• Home shows,
• Print and broadcast media promotions,
• Event coverage such as Earth Day, a recognition contest and participating with Habitat for
Humanity,
• Cyber marketing including comprehensive program support information from ENERGY STAR,
and
• Cross‐marketing with other PSO programs, including coordination with PSO phone center
customer service and external affairs staff.
2.1.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
The program’s projected savings were based on a full year of program activities; however, the program
did not actually begin operations until early September. Early program activities required substantial
fieldwork to recruit and qualify contractors to provide program services. As a result, four projects were
completed by year‐end 2010, though no impacts recorded for the calendar year.8 By the end of March,
2011 (the end of the Program Year), 13 projects had been completed and initial savings impacts recorded.
Program costs followed suit and were below budget due to the September start date of the program.
Program activities, being expedited to try and gain traction for the program, still resulted in significant
funds being invested to recruit service contractors, build program awareness, etc.
2.1.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
This program’s savings have not yet been verified, so no comparison is available at this time. The
program evaluation currently underway will undertake a verification effort.
2.1.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The impact evaluation approach will include a combination of participant survey data collection,
engineering analysis, and review of the program energy audit database to evaluate the impacts of the
audit portion of the program. The participant survey instrument will be used to document the energy
efficient measures installed post‐audit. A combination of tracking data, survey data, and engineering
estimation will culminate in an expected energy savings for each measure installed post‐audit.
The participant survey will be used to document customer response to audit recommendations as far as
initially identifying measure installations. A combination of deemed savings and engineering formulas
will be used to establish expected energy savings values for each energy‐saving measure adopted by
participants. Copies of audit recommendations and site‐specific data will be used in this impact analysis.
Recommendation data will then be used to distinguish between measures that are part of “gross impact”
(those recommended by the Audit) and those that could potentially be part of a spillover effect (those
not recommended in the Audit). Copies of the recommendations will also allow for specific follow‐up
questioning regarding recommendations, and provide valuable data in support of the quantification of
the expected impact from those installations.
Navigant will pay careful attention to whether the participant received a rebate through another PSO
program for all installed measures. Not only will self‐reported data regarding rebate status be collected
during the survey, but these data will be verified through cross‐program participant tracking database
merging to identify rebated installations. Impacts associated with a PSO rebate will be carefully
distinguished from the impact of un‐rebated measures, measures installed through this program, and
those installed outside any rebate program.
8 As noted above, the delay in program software development prevented recording impacts for the first projects
until 2011.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 23
Each measure installed by participants will be assigned a net‐to‐gross ratio. The net‐to‐gross ratio
estimation will be based on multiple lines of questioning, discerning the influence of the program on the
installation of program measures. The final net‐to‐gross ratios will be based on a self‐report method
using participant surveys. The participant survey will contain a battery of questions to establish free
rider levels to support the calculation of net savings, and a separate question sequence to support an
estimate of participant spillover.
Energy and demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with information on avoided
costs and program costs to assess the cost effectiveness of this program. The Navigant team will develop
the inputs needed to complete four primary benefit/cost tests: Rate Impact, Program Administrator Cost,
Participant Cost and Total Resource Cost test.
2.1.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Jason Fisher
Program Manager
ICF International
jfisher@icfi.com
918‐519‐0214
Steve Ellison
Senior Manager
ICF International
7160 N. Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 340, Plano, TX 75024.
sellison@icfi.com
817‐313‐4094.
2.1.5 Energy Star Appliances
2.1.5.1 Program Description
This program provides energy efficiency and demand reduction solutions for residential and small
commercial customers. It is designed to educate and assist customers in lowering their energy use by
providing incentives for purchasing appliances and cooling equipment that meets the most current
ENERGY STAR® standard including refrigerators, room air conditioners, HVAC and CFLs.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 24
2.1.5.2 Summary Data
Table 7 presents key data on the program.
Table 7: Key Performance Indicators for the Energy Star Appliances Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 25,543* 25,543*
Budgeted Expenditures $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Actual Expenditures $1,890,956 $1,890,956
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 4, 276 4, 276
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 15,380 15,380
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 1,100 1,100
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 2,348 2,348
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
*As of December 2010
2.1.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
In 2010, the EnergyStar Appliances Program offered rebates on EnergyStar qualified products to
consumers who purchased new energy efficient equipment. In 2011, PSO is adding a refrigerator
recycling component to the program.
2.1.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Actual expenditures are 89 percent above planned, while reported energy and demand savings are 260
and 113 percent above planned savings.
2.1.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Saving,
This program’s savings have not yet been verified, so no comparison is available at this time. The
program evaluation currently underway will undertake a verification effort.
2.1.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The Navigant evaluation team will determine total energy and demand savings for each measure by
multiplying the number of measures implemented by the estimated energy and summer peak demand
savings and summing across measures. The impact evaluation will assess the energy and demand
benefits from the EnergyStar Appliance program by reviewing/revising engineering estimates of savings
as needed.
The EnergyStar Appliances program tracking data identifies the participants in the program, the
measures that were installed in each home, and the timing of the measure installations. As much of the
relevant data is included in the tracking and reporting system as is feasible. Questions also may be
included in the participant survey to ensure there are no data gaps. The evaluation team will
recommend improvements that could be made to the tracking process to increase the value of the
information for evaluation in future years.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 25
Telephone surveys will provide insights as to amount of free ridership and spillover. Navigant will use
a battery of questions designed to develop estimates of free‐ridership and participant spillover.
The upcoming evaluation will also review the measurement and verification, quality assurance and
quality control procedures of the implementation contractors for the program. Based on this review and
comparison to other benchmark procedures, the team will assess whether the current protocols require
changes.
Navigant will collect actual costs for PSO staff, implementation contractor and incentives. Navigant will
review participant cost data. Navigant will determine measure lives and input costs, savings, and
measure lives into a cost‐effectiveness model, to assess the results of the application on the standard cost
effectiveness tests. The Navigant team will develop inputs needed for the Total Resource Cost, Program
Administrator Cost, Participant Cost, and Rate Impact Measure tests.
2.1.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Jerrel Gustafson
Director
CLEAResult
4301 Westbank Drive
Building A ‐ Suite 250
Austin, TX 78746
512‐416‐5921
2.1.6 Residential AC Tune-Up
2.1.6.1 Program Description
The CoolSaver program promotes energy efficiency by identifying and correcting AC system
inefficiencies. Participating HVAC technicians use advanced diagnostics to identify possible tune‐ups to
increase AC system efficiency and reliability. Customers can receive up to $75 in rebates toward the cost
of the AC tune‐up. The program has two target markets: residential/small commercial and large
commercial; this section of the report covers the residential and small commercial portion of the
program.
The program is implemented by CLEAResult, a third party implementer that works with local HVAC
distributor and service networks to offer AC tune‐ups to PSO customers. The participating HVAC
contractors must undergo training to conduct advanced diagnostics and implement energy efficiency
measures including:
‐ Cleaning condenser (required for all AC tune‐ups performed)
‐ Cleaning evaporator (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
‐ Cleaning blower (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
‐ Adjusting refrigerant charge (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
‐ Other measures as applicable
The contractors offer eligible customers a discount of up to $75 depending on the measures taken; the
contractors then apply for reimbursement from the CoolSaver program. The contractors also receive a
$75 incentive for each AC tune‐up completed.
Program marketing efforts include radio ads, print magazine ads, messages on PSO bills, phone hold
time messages, emails, presence at home shows, and flyers to major employers in the Tulsa area. In
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 26
addition, the program provides contractors with marketing toolkits that include customizable
advertisements, brochures, door hangers, and flyers.
2.1.6.2 Summary Data
Table 8 presents key data on the program.
Table 8: Key Performance Indicators for the Residential AC Tune‐Up Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 81 81
Budgeted Expenditures $441,719 $441,719
Actual Expenditures $ 214,262 $214,262
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 1,235 1,235
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 71 71
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 450 450
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 44.3 44.3
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.1.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
No significant changes are planned.
2.1.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
The program has reported only 6% of projected energy savings and 10% of projected demand savings,
but has spent 49% of budgeted program costs. The discrepancies in energy and demand savings have
been attributed to the delayed roll‐out of the program and the difficulty in getting HVAC contractors
into the technical training required to participate in the program.
2.1.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will conduct the evaluation. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
2.1.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The estimation of gross impacts will rely on engineering reviews of program tracking databases and a
literature review to compare ex ante savings calculations and deemed savings values to those used in
other evaluations of similar programs. The Navigant team has recently completed or will be
concurrently conducting evaluations of similar programs for several utilities across the U.S. and will
draw on those efforts to determine the best deemed savings values to use for the CoolSaver program.
Navigant will also review the base cooling assumptions to which deemed savings estimates are applied
to ensure that they are reasonable for PSO’s service territory in terms of climate and typical AC usage.
Navigant will review any load research data to support the base cooling assumptions (e.g., typical AC
run times); if such data is not available, Navigant may do some metering of participants in the PY2011
evaluation to estimate typical run times.
Navigant engineering staff will also conduct interviews with participating HVAC contractors to
understand how often specific types of efficiency repairs are undertaken as part of the AC tune‐ups and
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 27
any other insights that participating contractors may have related to refining the assumptions used in
the gross savings calculations.
Navigant will develop a net‐to‐gross (NTG) ratio for each repair undertaken by CoolSaver program
participants as a result of their AC tune‐ups. NTG ratios will be estimated using data from telephone
interviews/surveys with participating HVAC contractors and customers. The perspectives of both the
participating trade allies and the customers are valuable in estimating NTG ratios since the trade allies
are in control of the decision to change their marketing and tune‐up practices, but it is the customer who
makes the final decision to proceed with the tune‐up and repairs (if necessary).
Navigant will collect actual costs for staff, implementation contractor and incentives; participants do not
have an incremental cost. Navigant will determine measure lives and input costs, savings, and measure
lives into a cost‐effectiveness model, to assess the results of the application on the standard cost
effectiveness tests. The Navigant team will develop inputs needed for the Total Resource Cost, Program
Administrator Cost, Participant Cost, and Rate Impact Measure tests.
2.1.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Sean Nunes
CLEAResult Consulting
4301 Westbank Drive
Building A Suite 250
Austin, TX 78746
snunes@CLEAResult.com
512‐416‐5921
2.1.7 Energy Audits
2.1.7.1 Program Description
The Energy Audit program is designed to help residential customers find ways to reduce energy
consumption through an on‐site energy audit. The McLain area has been identified as the pilot for this
program. A check‐up professional will perform a walk‐through of selected customersʹ homes, sit down
with the customer and review the checklist, recommending ways to save. A kit including CFLs,
adhesive foam tape, rope caulk, switch and outlet sealers, adhesive door sweep and a window insulating
kit is provided to the customer, along with assistance agency program information and other energy
saving resources.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 28
2.1.7.2 Summary Data
Table 9 presents key data on the program.
Table 9: Key Performance Indicators for the Energy Audits Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 300 (goal) 300 (goal)
Budgeted Expenditures $75,667 $75,667
Actual Expenditures $58,860 $58,860
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 8 8
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 16 16
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) ‐ ‐
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 1.8 1.8
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.1.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
PSO plans no significant changes.
2.1.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Energy and demand savings both exceeded projections, while only 78% of the budget was used.
2.1.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
No savings have been verified.
2.1.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Due to the relatively small savings and costs of this program, no evaluation is planned.
2.1.7.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Jerrel Gustafson
Director
CLEAResult
4301 Westbank Drive
Building A ‐ Suite 250
Austin, TX 78746
512‐416‐5935
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 29
2.2 Commercial and Industrial Programs
2.2.1 Commercial Lighting and Controls
2.2.1.1 Program Description
The Commercial Lighting and Controls Program is a component of the Commercial and Industrial
Standard Offer Program (C&I SOP) focusing on energy efficient lighting and lighting controls. All
Oklahoma Commercial and Industrial customers served by PSO with a maximum peak electric demand
of 100 kW or greater are eligible to participate in the program. Monetary incentives of $113.75 per kW of
peak demand reduction and $0.039 per kWh of energy savings will be paid to Project Sponsors
(customers or energy service companies) for the retrofit installation of a wide range of lighting measures
that reduce demand and save energy in nonresidential facilities. In order to encourage customers to
adopt a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, these incentive levels are 65 percent of those
available for the installation of non‐lighting efficiency measures.
Participants in the C&I SOP must meet minimum eligibility criteria, comply with all program rules and
procedures, submit documentation describing their projects, and enter into a Standard Offer Program
Agreement with PSO. This document summarizes eligibility requirements, incentives, the participation
process, and other information needed to successfully take part in this program.
2.2.1.2 Summary Data
Summary data is shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Key Performance Indicators for the Commercial Lighting and Controls Program, Program
Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 18 18
Budgeted Expenditures $935,103 $935,103
Actual Expenditures $264,493 $264,493
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 7,856 7,856
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 5,919 5,919
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 870 870
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 1,053 1,053
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.1.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
PSO has not proposed any significant changes to the program.
2.2.1.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported energy savings have lagged projected savings to date by about 25%, although reported
demand savings are 21% higher than projected. Expenditures are 72% below budget.
2.2.1.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings,
Navigant will conduct the evaluation. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 30
2.2.1.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The impact evaluation will include:
• A review of engineering estimates for each project
• Telephone surveys to assess key savings assumptions, such as hours of use and presence of air
conditioning for most programs, as well as net program impacts
• On‐site data collection at select customer sites
The engineering review of the algorithms used by the program to calculate energy and summer peak
demand savings and the assumptions that feed into the algorithms will seek to place the assumptions in
one of two categories, 1) reasonable and acceptable, or 2) needs revision based on program experience
and evaluation. The review also will make a preliminary judgment to identify those assumptions with
higher uncertainty or potential to influence the program savings estimate. Telephone and on‐site surveys
will be designed to collect information on those assumptions deemed to have high uncertainty.
Telephone surveys will be used for two purposes: 1) to verify and/or update the assumptions that feed
into engineering algorithms of measure level savings, and 2) to obtain information on the program’s
effectiveness of altering the market for energy efficient or demand response products and services. These
surveys can reveal information such as:
• Operating hours
• Use/presence of air conditioners (necessary to estimate interactive effects)
• Customer attitudes towards energy efficiency prior to participating in the program
• Customer’s willingness to participate in future programs
Navigant will perform site‐specific analysis to collect additional information from a sample of
participants.
1. Site level measurement and verification plans will be developed for each sampled project which
details the data collection and analysis methods to be undertaken, consistent with the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols.
2. Data collection will focus on verifying and/or updating the assumptions that feed into
engineering algorithms of measure level savings. These data may include: program tracking
data and supporting documentation (project specifications, invoices, etc.), utility billing and
interval data, building automation system trend logs, and on‐site observations. The 2011
evaluation of these programs may add spot measurements and short‐term data logging at select
sites.
Navigant will attempt on‐site verification audits for all sites in the impact sample.
The evaluation will estimate a net‐to‐gross ratio using survey data collected through questions added to
the instruments used for process evaluation. For the net‐to‐gross analysis, the Navigant team will follow
standardized methods for determining free ridership and spillover rates. Phone surveys will provide all
inputs needed for the calculation of the program’s net‐to‐gross ratio, using an algorithm‐based approach
that relies on survey self‐report data.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 31
Energy and summer peak demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with
information on avoided costs, program costs, and participants’ costs to assess the cost effectiveness of
the program. The analysis will cover the expected life of the installed measure(s). The Navigant team
will develop the inputs needed to conduct the utility cost test, the total resource cost test, the participant
cost test, and the ratepayer impact test.
2.2.1.7 Identification of Program Implementers
The four energy service companies listed in Table 11 sponsored a total of nine projects completed in the
Lighting and Controls Program during PY2010. Eight PSO customers also implemented their own
projects.
Table 11. Energy Service Companies Participating in the PY2010 Lighting and Controls Program
Company Contact Title Address E‐Mail Phone
Lighting,
Inc. Todd Daer General
Manager
7450 E. 46th
St., Tulsa, OK
74145
tdaer@lightinginc.us 918‐622‐1988
Lime
Energy
Lauren
Usher
Accounting
Specialist
2247 Lindsay
Way,
Glendora,
CA 91740
lusher@lime‐energy.com 909‐394‐0230
NES, a
Johnson
Controls
Company
Jan Linville Rebate
Coordinator
250 Hembree
Park Drive,
Suite 114,
Roswell, GA
30076
Jan.T.Linville@jci.com 678‐832‐1728
Sylvania
Lighting
Services
Matt Zrelak Rebate
Specialist
4422 C. St.
NE, Suite
101, Auburn,
WA 98002
Matt.Zrelak@Sylvania.com 253‐269‐6247
2.2.2 Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program
2.2.2.1 Program Description
The Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program is a component of the C&I SOP focusing on
commercial and industrial customers with a peak electric demand of 100 kW or greater. Incentives are
paid to project sponsors for the retrofit installation of energy‐efficient measures that reduce demand and
save energy in nonresidential facilities. In addition to directly marketing the program to PSO customers,
the program engages equipment suppliers and contractors to promote the incentive‐eligible equipment.
Participants in the Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program must meet minimum eligibility
criteria, comply with all program rules and procedures, submit documentation describing their projects,
and enter into a Standard Offer Program Agreement with PSO.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 32
2.2.2.2 Summary Data
Summary data are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Key Performance Indicators for the Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program,
Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 18 18
Budgeted Expenditures $860,183 $860,183
Actual Expenditures $709,760 $709,760
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 9,005 9,005
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 9,148 9,148
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 1,800 1,800
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 2,016 2,016
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.2.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
There are no significant proposed changes to PSO’s Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions Program.
2.2.2.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported energy savings have exceeded projected savings by 1.5%. Reported demand savings have
exceeded projected demand savings by 12%. Actual expenditures were 18% lower than budgeted.
2.2.2.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will conduct the evaluation. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
2.2.2.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The impact evaluation will include:
• A review of engineering estimates for each project
• Telephone surveys to assess key savings assumptions, such as hours of use and presence of air
conditioning for most programs, as well as net program impacts
• On‐site data collection at select customer sites
The engineering review of the algorithms used by the program to calculate energy and summer peak
demand savings and the assumptions that feed into the algorithms will seek to place the assumptions in
one of two categories: 1) reasonable and acceptable, or 2) needs revision based on program experience
and evaluation. The review also will make a preliminary judgment to identify those assumptions with
higher uncertainty or potential to influence the program savings estimate. Telephone and on‐site surveys
will be designed to collect information on those assumptions deemed to have high uncertainty.
Telephone surveys will be used for two purposes: 1) to verify and/or update the assumptions that feed
into engineering algorithms of measure level savings, and 2) to obtain information on the program’s
effectiveness of altering the market for energy efficient or demand response products and services. These
surveys can reveal information such as:
• Operating hours
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 33
• Use/presence of air conditioners (necessary to estimate interactive effects)
• Customer attitudes towards energy efficiency prior to participating in the program
• Customer’s willingness to participate in future programs
Navigant will conduct site‐specific analysis to collect additional information from a sample of
participants.
• Site level measurement and verification plans will be developed for each sampled project, which
detail the data collection and analysis methods to be undertaken, consistent with the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols.
• Data collection will focus on verifying and/or updating the assumptions that feed into
engineering algorithms of measure level savings. These data may include: program tracking
data and supporting documentation (project specifications, invoices, etc.), utility billing and
interval data, and on‐site observations.
The evaluation will estimate a net‐to‐gross ratio using survey data collected through questions added to
the instruments used for process evaluation. For the net‐to‐gross analysis, the Navigant team will follow
standardized methods for determining free ridership and spillover rates. Phone surveys will provide all
inputs needed for the calculation of the program’s net‐to‐gross ratio, using an algorithm‐based approach
that relies on survey self‐report data.
Energy and summer peak demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with
information on avoided costs, program costs, and participants’ costs to assess the cost effectiveness of
the program. The analysis will cover the expected life of the installed measure(s). The Navigant team
will develop the inputs needed to conduct the utility cost test, the total resource cost test, the participant
cost test, and the ratepayer impact test.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 34
2.2.2.7 Identification of Program Implementers’ Names
The eight energy service companies listed in Table 13 sponsored a total of nine projects completed in the
Commercial & Industrial Smart Solutions PY2010. Nine PSO customers also implemented their own
projects.
Table 13. Energy Service Companies Participating in the 2010 Commercial & Industrial Smart
Solutions Program
Company Contact Title Address E‐Mail Phone
American
Energy
Solutions,
Inc.
Brian
Walterbach
Account
Manager
10601
Mission
Road, Suite
210,
Leawood, KS
66206
bwalterbach@americanene
rgy.com
913‐433‐7800
Lighting,
Inc. Todd Daer General
Manager
7450 E. 46th
St., Tulsa, OK
74145
tdaer@lightinginc.us 918‐622‐1988
Sylvania
Lighting
Services
Matt Zrelak Rebate
Specialist
4422 C. St.
NE, Suite
101, Auburn,
WA 98002
Matt.Zrelak@Sylvania.com 253‐269‐6247
Real
WinWin Jeff Haelle Utility
Manager
PO Box
15787
Philadelphia,
PA 19103
jhaelle@realwinwin.com 215‐732‐4480
Coleman
Hines,
Inc.
Jeanette
Strickstein
Rebate
Services
Supervisor
20830 N.
Tatum Blvd.,
Suite 330,
Phoenix, AZ
85050
twyss@colemanhines.com 480‐346‐5803
Green
Analytics
Inc
Travis Clark COO
113 Main St.
Bentonville,
AR 72712
travis@greenanalyticsinc.c
om
479‐841‐3425
Energy
Saving
Strategies
Farz Jokar Director of
Operations
102 Rustic
Cedar Tr.
Georgetown,
TX 78633
fjokar@energyss.com 512‐577‐1686
Facility
Solutions
Group
Mark Condry Division
Manager
2525 Walnut
Hill Lane,
Suite 300
Dallas, TX
75229
markc@fsgi.com 214‐217‐0190
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 35
2.2.3 Small C&I Solutions
2.2.3.1 Program Description
The Small C&I Solutions program targets customers with less than 100 kW of demand. It mostly focuses
on small business and provides financial incentives for the installation of a wide range of energy
efficiency measures, including lighting, refrigeration, HVAC and controls. The incentives are based on
the incremental savings above a baseline installation, including consideration of the Oklahoma energy
code and federal appliance and equipment standards. Incentives are available to both new and retrofit
applications. The program provides a custom incentive, based on a formula, for all energy‐saving
measures calculated using $175 per kW of peak demand reduction and $0.06 per kWh of first year
energy reduction.
Participants in the program must meet minimum eligibility criteria, comply with all program rules and
procedures, submit documentation describing their projects, and enter into a Standard Offer Program
Agreement with PSO.
2.2.3.2 Summary Data
Table 14 summarized key data for the program.
Table 14: Key Performance Indicators for the Small C&I Solutions Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 30 30
Budgeted Expenditures $197,778 $197,778
Actual Expenditures $119,118 $119,118
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 1,428 1,428
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 1,583 1,583
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 330 330
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 299 299
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.3.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
There are no significant proposed changes to PSO’s Small C&I Solutions Program.
2.2.3.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported energy savings have exceeded projected savings by 11%. Reported demand savings are below
projected demand savings by 9%. Actual expenditures were 40% below budget.
2.2.3.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will conduct the evaluation. Navigant has not yet verified savings
2.2.3.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The impact evaluation will include:
• A review of engineering estimates for each project
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 36
• Telephone surveys to assess key savings assumptions, such as hours of use and presence of air
conditioning for most programs, as well as net program impacts
The engineering review of the algorithms used by the program to calculate energy and summer peak
demand savings and the assumptions that feed into the algorithms will seek to place the assumptions in
one of two categories, 1) reasonable and acceptable, or 2) needs revision based on program experience
and evaluation. The review also will make a preliminary judgment to identify those assumptions with
higher uncertainty or potential to influence the program savings estimate. Telephone and on‐site surveys
will be designed to collect information on those assumptions deemed to have high uncertainty.
Telephone surveys will be used for two purposes: 1) to verify and/or update the assumptions that feed
into engineering algorithms of measure level savings, and 2) to obtain information on the program’s
effectiveness of altering the market for energy efficient or demand response products and services. These
surveys can reveal information such as:
• Operating hours
• Use/presence of air conditioners (necessary to estimate interactive effects)
• Customer attitudes towards energy efficiency prior to participating in the program
• Customer’s willingness to participate in future programs
The evaluation will estimate a net‐to‐gross ratio using survey data collected through questions added to
the instruments used for process evaluation. For the net‐to‐gross analysis, the Navigant team will follow
standardized methods for determining free ridership and spillover rates. Phone surveys will provide all
inputs needed for the calculation of the program’s net‐to‐gross ratio, using an algorithm‐based approach
that relies on survey self‐report data.
Energy and summer peak demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with
information on avoided costs, program costs, and participants’ costs to assess the cost effectiveness of
the program. The analysis will cover the expected life of the installed measure(s). The Navigant team
will develop the inputs needed to conduct the utility cost test, the total resource cost test, the participant
cost test, and the ratepayer impact test.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 37
2.2.3.7 Identification of Program Implementers
The seven energy service companies listed in Table 15 sponsored a total of 22 projects completed in the
Small C&I Solutions PY2010. Eight PSO customers also implemented their own projects.
Table 15. Energy Service Companies Participating in the 2010 Small C&I Solutions Program
Company Contact Title Address E‐Mail Phone
Air
Assurance
Co.
Mike
Rampey President
1301 Southwest
Expressway Dr,
Broken Arrow,
OK 74012
mike@airassurance.com 918‐258‐2665
Lighting,
Inc. Todd Daer General
Manager
7450 E. 46th St.,
Tulsa, OK 74145 tdaer@lightinginc.us 918‐622‐1988
Colburn
Electric
Lorrie
Hoefling
Vice
President
829 W. Elgin,
Broken Arrow,
OK 74012
lorrie@colburnelect.com 918‐313‐5235
J&K
Lighting
LCC
Jeff
Hooser Manager
RR 3, Box 342,
Walters, OK
73572
jhooser@martineer.net 800‐460‐2852
Pulsar
Services
LCC
Don
Casey Owner
8952 S Hudson
Ave, Tulsa OK,
74137
don@pulsarservices.net 918‐230‐5755
Tradesmen
Electric
LCC
Justin
Thomas Owner
P.O. Box 140216.
Broken Arrow,
OK 74012
jt@tradesmenelectricok.com 918‐261‐0925
Wiley
Davis
Electrical
Inc.
Wiley
Davis President
4236 S. 76th E.
Ave Tulsa OK,
74145
wdavis@wileydavis.com 918‐627‐5406
2.2.4 Commercial AC Tune-Up
2.2.4.1 Program Description
The Commercial AC Tune‐Up program, also known as the CoolSaver program, promotes energy
efficiency by identifying and correcting AC system inefficiencies. Participating HVAC technicians use
advanced diagnostics to identify possible tune‐ups to increase AC system efficiency and reliability. The
program has two target markets: residential/small commercial and large commercial; this section of the
report covers the large commercial portion of the program.
The program is implemented by CLEAResult, a third party implementer that works with local HVAC
distributor and service networks to offer AC tune‐ups to PSO customers. The participating HVAC
contractors must undergo training to conduct advanced diagnostics and implement energy efficiency
measures including:
‐ Cleaning condenser (required for all AC tune‐ups performed)
‐ Cleaning evaporator coils (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
‐ Cleaning blower (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
‐ Adjusting refrigerant charge (as needed, eligible for a $25 customer incentive)
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 38
‐ Other measures as applicable
The contractors offer eligible customers a discount of up to $75 depending on the measures taken; the
contractors then apply for reimbursement from the CoolSaver program. The contractors also receive a
$75 incentive for each AC tune‐up completed.
Program marketing efforts include radio ads, print magazine ads, messages on PSO bills, phone hold
time messages, emails, presence at home shows, and flyers to major employers in the Tulsa area. In
addition, the program provides contractors with marketing toolkits that include customizable
advertisements, brochures, door hangers, and flyers.
2.2.4.2 Summary Data
Table 16 presents summary data on the program.
Table 16: Key Performance Indicators for the Commercial AC Tune‐Up Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 163 163
Budgeted Expenditures $499,569 $499,569
Actual Expenditures $212,098 $212,098
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 1,446 1,446
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 134 134
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 930 930
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 94 94
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.4.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
There are no significant proposed changes to the program plans, other than a delayed roll‐out of the
program.
2.2.4.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
The program has reported only 9% of projected energy savings and 10% of projected demand savings,
but has spent 42% of budgeted program costs. The discrepancies in energy and demand savings have
been attributed to the delayed roll‐out of the program and the difficulty in getting HVAC contractors
into the technical training required to participate in the program.
2.2.4.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will conduct the evaluation. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
2.2.4.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
The estimation of gross impacts will rely on engineering reviews of program tracking databases and a
literature review to compare ex ante savings calculations and deemed savings values to those used in
other evaluations of similar programs. The Navigant team has recently completed or will be
concurrently conducting evaluations of similar programs for several utilities across the U.S. and will
draw on those efforts to determine the best deemed savings values to use for the CoolSaver program.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 39
Navigant will also review the base cooling assumptions to which deemed savings estimates are applied
to ensure that they are reasonable for PSO’s service territory in terms of climate and typical AC usage.
Navigant will review any load research data to support the base cooling assumptions (e.g., typical AC
run times); if such data is not available, Navigant may do some metering of participants in the PY2011
evaluation to estimate typical run times.
Navigant engineering staff will also conduct interviews with participating HVAC contractors to
understand how often specific types of efficiency repairs are undertaken as part of the AC tune‐ups and
any other insights that participating contractors may have related to refining the assumptions used in
the gross savings calculations.
Navigant will develop a net‐to‐gross (NTG) ratio for each repair undertaken by CoolSaver program
participants as a result of their AC tune‐ups. NTG ratios will be estimated using data from telephone
interviews/surveys with participating HVAC contractors and customers. The perspectives of both the
participating trade allies and the customers are valuable in estimating NTG ratios since the trade allies
are in control of the decision to change their marketing and tune‐up practices, but it is the customer who
makes the final decision to proceed with the tune‐up and repairs (if necessary).
Navigant will collect actual costs for staff, implementation contractor and incentives. Navigant will
review participant costs. Navigant will determine measure lives and input costs, savings, and measure
lives into a cost‐effectiveness model, to assess the results of the application on the standard cost
effectiveness tests. The Navigant team will develop inputs needed for the Total Resource Cost, Program
Administrator Cost, Participant Cost, and Rate Impact Measure tests.
2.2.4.7 Identification of Program Implementers
Sean Nunes
CLEAResult Consulting
4301 Westbank Drive
Building A Suite 250
Austin, TX 78746
snunes@CLEAResult.com
512‐416‐5921
2.2.5 Model Cities
2.2.5.1 Program Description
The Model Cities Program is designed and structured to target local, state and federal government
organizations served by PSO. Program benefits include access to technical assistance, benchmarking
analysis, communications support, and financial incentives relating to the installation of the measures
eligible in the program. Eligible customers submit a Letter of Intent to the program administrator
indicating their intention to pursue energy efficiency installations. The program works with individual
partners to identify projects within their facilities. After submitting an application, projects go through a
pre‐ and post installation inspection process that approves the installations and allows for incentive pay‐ments.
The program also assists the partner in promoting the energy efficiency work they performed.
The Model Cities incentives for eligible energy efficiency measures are $175/kW of demand reduction,
and $0.06/kWh of annual energy reduction. Incentives are available for the installation of:
• LED Traffic Signals
• High Efficiency Indoor Lighting
• High Efficiency HVAC units
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 40
• High Efficiency Chillers
• Other measures as indicated in program materials.
Incentives are available for measures in either a new or replacement application.
2.2.5.2 Summary Data
Table 17 presents summary data.
Table 17: Key Performance Indicators for the Model Cities Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 41 41
Budgeted Expenditures $685,185 $685,185
Actual Expenditures $603,272 $603,272
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 1,522 1,522
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 524 524
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 670 670
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 144 144
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.5.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
The Model Cities program will expand to include some county and federal projects in PY2011.
2.2.5.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported savings fell significantly short of projections in this program year. Many projects were
cancelled by cities facing budget reductions due to the economic downturn. Spending for the program
was also lower than projected due to this decrease in project volume. Although disappointed by these
results, PSO is encouraged by the positive feedback the program has received from participating cities in
PY2010.
2.2.5.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will evaluation the program. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
2.2.5.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Navigant will evaluate the gross savings algorithms using engineering review, phone surveys, and
billing data analysis.
Navigant will conduct phone surveys for a sample of participants program targeting a confidence
interval of 15 percent at 85 percent confidence or better. Participants from the program will be randomly
selected for the phone survey until the targeted numbers are achieved.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 41
The evaluation team will also conduct on‐site surveys for a sample of participants targeting the largest of
the projects in each program. Two Model Cities projects account for about 65% of program kWh savings
and 29% of rebates paid. Data collected at these on‐sites will also be used to verify assumptions made in
other projects of similar types, effectively broadening the impacts of these selected on‐sites.
For the net‐to‐gross analysis, the evaluation team will use standard methods for determining free
ridership and spillover rates. Phone surveys will provide all inputs needed for the calculation of the
program’s net‐to‐gross ratio, using an algorithm‐based approach that relies on survey self‐report data.
2.2.5.7 Identification of Program Implementers
CLEAResult Consulting is the implementation contractor for the Model Cities project. Jeremy
Townsend is the main contact for the program.
Jeremy Townsend, CEM
Senior Program Manager
CLEAResult Consulting
8500 W. Markham Street, Suite 303
Little Rock, AR 72205
jtownsend@clearesult.com
501.221.4003 direct
501.515.2830 mobile
2.2.6 Smart Schools
2.2.6.1 Program Description
The Smart Schools Program is an energy efficiency program designed to provide assistance and financial
incentives to K‐12 and accredited higher education institutions served by PSO for the installation of new
energy efficiency measures that reduce peak demand loads and energy usage, resulting in reduced
operating and maintenance costs.
Incentives for eligible energy efficiency measures are $235/kW of demand reduction, and $0.046/kWh of
annual energy reduction. Incentives are available for the installation of the following:
• High Efficiency Indoor Lighting
• High Efficiency HVAC units
• High Efficiency Chillers
• Other Measures per PSO’s website
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 42
2.2.6.2 Summary Data
Table 18 presents summary data on the program.
Table 18: Key Performance Indicators for the Smart Schools Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 74 74
Budgeted Expenditures $1,252,852 $1,252,852
Actual Expenditures $1,288,964 $1,288,964
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 5,552 5,552
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 5,442 5,442
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 1,340 1,340
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 1,426 1,426
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
2.2.6.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
The Smart Schools Program will expand to include higher education institutions in PY2011.
2.2.6.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
This program essentially met its goals for PY2010. Energy savings were only 2% short of the goal, and
demand savings exceeded the program goal by 6.4%. The budget was exceeded by 3%.
2.2.6.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings
Navigant will evaluation the program. Navigant has not yet verified savings.
2.2.6.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Navigant will evaluate the gross savings algorithms using engineering review, phone surveys, and
billing data analysis.
For the net‐to‐gross analysis, the evaluation team will use standardized methods for determining free
ridership and spillover rates. Phone surveys will provide all inputs needed for the calculation of the
program’s net‐to‐gross ratio, using an algorithm‐based approach that relies on survey self‐report data.
Phone surveys will be conducted for a sample of participants targeting a confidence interval of 15
percent at 85 percent confidence or better. Participants from each program will be randomly selected for
the phone survey until the targeted numbers are achieved.
Navigant will also conduct on‐site surveys for a sample of participants targeting the largest projects in
the program. Seven Smart Schools projects account for 73% of program kWh savings and 63% of rebates
paid. Data collected at these on‐sites will also be used to verify assumptions made in other projects of
similar types, effectively broadening the impacts of these selected on‐sites.
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 43
Energy and summer peak demand savings from the impact evaluation will be combined with
information on avoided costs, program costs, and participants’ costs to assess the cost effectiveness of
the program. The analysis will cover the expected life of the installed measure(s). The Navigant team
will develop the inputs needed to conduct the utility cost test, the total resource cost test, the participant
cost test, and the ratepayer impact test.
2.2.6.7 Identification of Program Implementers
CLEAResult Consulting is the implementation contractor for this program. Jeremy Townsend is the
main contact person for the program.
Jeremy Townsend, CEM
Senior Program Manager
CLEAResult Consulting
8500 W. Markham Street, Suite 303
Little Rock, AR 72205
jtownsend@clearesult.com
501.221.4003 direct
501.515.2830 mobile
2.2.7 Industrial Solutions
2.2.7.1 Program Description
The Industrial Smart Solutions Program is a component of the Commercial and Industrial Standard
Offer Program focusing on industrial customers with a peak electric demand of 100 kW or greater. It is
meant to rebate high efficiency technologies not addressed through other C&I programs when
considering equipment retrofits or energy savings process improvements. Large efficiency retrofit
projects frequently involve multiple technologies resulting in interactive effects for which savings need
to be calculated on a project‐by‐project basis.
Participants in the Industrial Solutions Program must meet minimum eligibility criteria, comply with all
program rules and procedures, submit documentation describing their projects, and enter into a
Standard Offer Program Agreement with PSO.
2.2.7.2 Summary Data
Table 19 presents summary data for the program.
Table 19: Key Performance Indicators for the Industrial Solutions Program, Program Year 2010
PY2010 Cumulative
Number of customers 3 3
Budgeted Expenditures $604,904 $604,904
Actual Expenditures $182,808 $182,808
Projected Energy Savings (MWh) 5,971 5,971
Reported Energy Savings (MWh) 2,534 2,534
Verified Energy Savings (MWh) n/a n/a
Projected Demand Savings (kW) 1,250 1,250
Reported Demand Savings (kW) 389 389
Verified Demand Savings (kW) n/a n/a
Public Service of Oklahoma Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs
Page 44
2.2.7.3 Description of Any Proposed Changes in Program Plans
There are no significant proposed changes to PSO’s plans.
2.2.7.4 Comparison of Projected and Reported Savings and Costs
Reported energy savings are below projected savings by 58%. Reported demand savings are below
projected demand savings by 69%. Similarly, actual expenditures are 70% less than budgeted. Several
factors contribute to the gap between budgeted and actual savings and costs:
• The program started later than the actual start of PY2010, reducing the amount of time this
program was marketed
• Economic conditions decreased capital available for industrial customers to invest in energy
efficiency technologies
• Some PSO industrial customers have exercised their option to not participate in PSO programs
reducing the pool of eligible customer for this program
2.2.7.5 Comparison of Reported Savings and Verified Achieved Savings,
Verified savings have not yet been calculated.
2.2.7.6 Explanation of Measurement Methods
Navigant’s evaluation will include:
• A review of engineering estimates for each project
• Telephone surveys to assess key savings assumptions, such as hours of use and presence of air
conditioning for most programs, as well as net program impacts
• On‐site data collection at select customer sites
The engineering review of the algorithms used by the program to calculate energy and summer peak
demand savings and the assumptions that feed into the algorithms will seek to place the assumptions in
one of two categories, 1) reasonable and acceptable, or 2) needs revision based on program experience
and evaluation. The review also will make a preliminary judgment to identify those assumptions with
higher uncertainty or potential to influence the program savings estimate. Telephone and on‐site surveys
will be designed to collect information on those ass