AEP-PSO PY 2010 Compliance Report FINAL |
Previous | 1 of 1 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | AEP-PSO PY 2010 Compliance Report FINAL |
OkDocs Class# | C5600.3 D371p 2010 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.occeweb.com/pu/DSM%20Reports/AEP-PSO%20PY%202010%20Compliance%20Report%20FINAL.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | 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 |
Date created | 2011-09-02 |
Date modified | 2011-09-02 |
Tags
Add tags for AEP-PSO PY 2010 Compliance Report FINAL