You are on page 1of 192

FILED

June 9, 2015
INDIANA UTILITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATE OF INDIANA
INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSIONS
INVESTIGATION, PURSUANT TO IC 8-1-2-58,
INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DEMAND SIDE
MANAGEMENT
(DSM)
PROGRAMS
CURRENTLY UTILIZED IN THE STATE OF
INDIANA, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF
ISSUES
THAT
COULD
IMPROVE
THE
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
DEMAND
SIDE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE STATE,
INCLUDING
CONSIDERATION
OF
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT DSM
ADMINISTRATOR MODEL ON A STATE-WIDE
BASIS

)
)
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 42693-S1
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
RESPONDENTS:
ALL
JURISDICTIONAL )
ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITIES IN THE STATE )
OF INDIANA
)

DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT COORDINATION COMMITTEES RESPONSE


TO JUNE 4, 2015 DOCKET ENTRY

On June 4, 2015 the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission issued a Docket


Entry in this Cause requiring the Demand Side Management Coordination Committee
(DSMCC) to file (1) TecMarket Works final report concerning the evaluation,
measurement, and verification (EM&V) for Program Year 3 and the entire program
cycle (2012-2014), including cost effectiveness of the programs over the three-year

period (the "Final Report"), and (2) TecMarket Works' summary or public version of
the Final Report.

In compliance with the June 4, 2015 Docket Entry issued in this Cause, the

DSMCC hereby submits the attached Final Report, as well as the public report.

Attorney for NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE


COMPANY

-2-

Certificate of Service
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was served this 9th day of
June, 2015, via email transmission addressed to:
Jeffrey M. Reed
Randall C. Helmen
Karol Krohn
Office of Utility Consumer Counselor
115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1500 South
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
jreed@oucc.in.gov
rhelmen@oucc.in.gov
kkrohn@oucc.in.gov
infomgt@oucc.in.gov

Charles W. Ritz III


Don F. Morton
Angela L. Gidley
PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN &
PATTERSON LLP
225 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 668
Lebanon, Indiana 46052
Critz@parrlaw.com
dmorton@parrlaw.com
agidley@parrlaw.com

Kay Pashos
Kelly Earls
Ice Miller LLP
One American Square, Suite 2900
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0200
Kay.pashos@icemiller.com
Kelly.earls@icemiller.com

Teresa Morton Nyhart


BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
tnyhart@btlaw.com

Robert E. Heidorn
P. Jason Stephenson
Michelle Quinn
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company
One Vectren Square
211 N.W. Riverside Drive
Evansville, Indiana 47708
rheidorn@vectren.com
jstephenson@vectren.com
mquinn@vectren.com

Jennifer W. Terry
Timothy L. Stewart
Joseph P. Rompala
LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C.
1700 One American Square
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282
jterry@lewis-kappes.com
tstewart@lewis-kappes.com
jrompala@lewis-kappes.com

-3-

Randolph G. Holt
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
722 North High School Road
P. O. Box 24700
Indianapolis, Indiana 46224
R_holt@wvpa.com

Kelly Karn
Melanie D. Price
DUKE ENERGY BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
1000 East Main Street
Plainfield, Indiana 46168
Kelley.karn@duke-energy.com
melanie.price@duke-energy.com

Ann M. OHara
John M. Davis
Church Church Hittle & Antrim
938 Conner Street
P.O. Box 10
Noblesville, Indiana 46061
davis@cchalaw.com
aohara@cchalaw.com
davis@cchalaw.com

Michael B. Cracraft
Steven W. Krohne
Hackman, Hulett & Cracraft, LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 3500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
mcracraft@hhclaw.com
skrohne@hhclaw.com

Mike Mooney
Peter J. Mattheis
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Shaun C. Mohler
Inc.
Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C.
7398 State Road 37
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Bloomington, Indiana 47402
Eighth Floor West Tower
mmooney@hepn.com
Washington, DC 20007
pmattheis@bbrslaw.com
smohler@bbrslaw.com
Deanna Dean-Webster
Beau Badeaux
DEAN-WEBSTER WRIGHT, LLP
50 S. Meridian Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
dean@dwwlegal.com
badeaux@dwwlegal.com

Christopher M. Goffinet
Jeffrey W. Hagedorn
HUBER & GOFFINET
727 Main Street
Tell City, Indiana 47586
cgoffinetlaw@psci.net
jhagedorn@hepn.com

-4-

Jerome E. Polk
POLK & ASSOCIATES, LLC
101 West Ohio Street, Suite 2000
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
jpolk@polk-law.com

Shaw R. Friedman
FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
705 Lincolnway
LaPorte, Indiana 46350
sfriedman.associa tes@frontier.com

Michael E. Allen
LaTona S. Prentice
CITIZENS GAS & COKE UTILITY
2020 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202
mallen@citizensenergygroup.com
lprentice@citizensenergygroup.com

Kerwin Olson
Citizens Action Coalition
603 E. Washington Street, Suite 502
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
kolson@citact.org

Anne E. Becker
Lewis & Kappes, P.C.
One American Square, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282
abecker@lewis-kappes.com

Douglas Ahl
Energy Center of Wisconsin
455 Science Drive, Suite 200
Madison, Wisconsin 53711
dahl@ecw.org

David L. Haselman, Jr.


Gregory K. Lawrence
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
227 West Main Street
Chicago, IL 60606-5096
dhanselman@mwe.com
glawrence@mwe.com

Greg Wagoner
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
722 N . High School Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46214
gregw@wvpa.com

Jennifer A. Washburn
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc.
603 East Washington Street, Suite 502
Indianapolis, IN 46204
jwashbum@citact.org

Ken Baker
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2001 SE 1Qth Street
Bentonville, AR 72716-0550
Ken.baker@wal-mart.com

-5-

2014 Energizing Indiana Evaluation Report


May 1, 2015
An Evaluation of the Core Final Year Energy
Efficiency Programs

Prepared for
The Indiana Demand Side Management
Coordination Committee
address

Submitted by
The Indiana
Statewide Core Program Evaluation Team:
address
TecMarket Works, Cadmus, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, Integral Analytics, and
Building Metrics

Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4
Program Descriptions ............................................................................................................................. 6
Budget and Expenditures ....................................................................................................................... 6
Goals and Ex-Ante Savings Summary ..................................................................................................... 7
Audited Savings Summary ...................................................................................................................... 8
Verified Savings Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9
Ex-Post and Net Savings Summary ....................................................................................................... 11
Lifetime Savings Summary.................................................................................................................... 15
Energizing Indiana Programs High-Level Insight and Findings ............................................................. 15
EM&V Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................... 21
Impact Analysis Approach .................................................................................................................... 21
Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Process Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................... 26
Home Energy Assessment........................................................................................................................... 28
Program Design and Implementation .................................................................................................. 28
EM&V Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 29
Program Performance .......................................................................................................................... 30
Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Summary of Impact Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 40
Process Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 42
Insights and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 46
Low Income Weatherization ....................................................................................................................... 48
Program Design and Implementation .................................................................................................. 48
EM&V Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 49
Program Performance .......................................................................................................................... 50
Impact Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 50
Summary of Impact Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 59
Process Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 61
Insights and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 65
Residential Lighting ..................................................................................................................................... 66
Program Design and Implementation .................................................................................................. 66
Core Programs PY3 Report
Page i

EM&V Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 66


Program Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 66
Ex-Ante Energy Savings ........................................................................................................................ 67
Impact Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 67
Summary of Impact Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 77
Process Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 78
Insights and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 81
Energy Efficient Schools .............................................................................................................................. 82
Program Design and Implementation .................................................................................................. 82
Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) Methodology .................................................... 84
Program Performance .......................................................................................................................... 85
Ex-Ante Energy Savings ........................................................................................................................ 88
Impact Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 89
Summary of Impact Adjustments ....................................................................................................... 103
Process Evaluation.............................................................................................................................. 105
Insights and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 119
Commercial and Industrial ........................................................................................................................ 121
Program Design and Implementation ................................................................................................ 121
EM&V Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 121
Program Performance ........................................................................................................................ 122
Ex-Ante Savings .................................................................................................................................. 122
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 123
Summary of Impact Adjustments ....................................................................................................... 131
Process Evaluation.............................................................................................................................. 132
Insights and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 145
Cost-Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 147
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 147
Overview of DSMore .......................................................................................................................... 150
Effective Useful Life ............................................................................................................................ 155
Spillover and Freeriders...................................................................................................................... 155
Utility Inputs ....................................................................................................................................... 156
Results ................................................................................................................................................ 157
Core Programs PY3 Report

Page ii

Job Creation .............................................................................................................................................. 161


Appendix A. Lighting Savings Assumptions............................................................................................... 166
Residential Lighting Program Ex-Post Savings Engineering Assumptions .......................................... 166
Appendix B. Cost-Effectiveness by Utility ................................................................................................. 170

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page iii

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
This report covers the Core programs contained within the Energizing Indiana statewide portfolio
implemented for Duke Energy, Indianapolis Power & Light (IPL), Indiana Michigan Power Company
(I&M), Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), and Vectren.
The TecMarket Works Energizing Indiana Program Evaluation Team (Evaluation Team) completed this
report. The Evaluation Team includes TecMarket Works (the Evaluation Administrator), Cadmus,
Opinion Dynamics, Integral Analytics, and Building Metrics.
This report assesses the third program year (PY3) ex-ante, audited, verified, ex-post gross, and net
energy savings achieved by the Energizing Indiana statewide Core programs. Table 1 defines the types of
energy savings presented in this report.
Table 1. Savings Type Definitions
Savings Type

Definitions

Ex-Ante

Energy savings from the program tracking system, as reported by the third-party administrator (TPA).

Audited

Ex-ante values after deemed calculations and measure counts have been confirmed by the evaluation
administrator.

Verified

Savings estimated following confirmation of the installation and use of a sample of projects.

Ex-Post Gross

Evaluated savings resulting from the installation and use of all program-incented or provided technologies.

Net Savings

Evaluated savings directly attributable to the program.

Energy savings presented in this report derive from three types of savings conditions:

Savings from measures installed and used during the third program year.

Savings from measures distributed during the first or second year, but not installed until the
third year.

Continued use and savings from measures installed during the first and second program years.

In addition, the report includes process evaluation findings.


Energizing Indiana consisted of the following five energy-efficiency programs:

Residential Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program.

Residential Low-Income Weatherization (LIW) program (also known as the Income-Qualified


Weatherization program).

Energy Efficient Schools Program (EES): Education; and Schools Audit and Direct Install
(SADI) programs.

Residential Lighting (Lighting) program.

Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Prescriptive Rebates program.

Core Programs PY3 Report


Page 4

Executive Summary
The programs were delivered by a third-party administrator (TPA), GoodCents, which was hired through
a competitive bid process in 2011. The programs implemented were found to be cost-effective with an
acquisition cost of $0.038 per kWh across the three year program cycle.
This evaluation effort seeks to achieve the industrys highest reliability standards, conforming to
definitions and requirements established by the Indiana Evaluation Framework (the Framework). The
Framework requires reliable studies, with a 90% confidence level and a precision level within 10% over
the standard three-year program cycle, at both the utility and program levels. As this includes five
programs, sponsored by five utility companies, the evaluation presents 25 individual, program-impact
assessments. The report then rolls up utility-specific, energy-impact assessment results to provide
program-level energy impacts, achieving greater than 90% confidence levels and 10% precision levels
for each program and for the portfolio-level results.
This reports language and terminology conforms to the Demand Side Management (DSM) Impact Steps
outlined in the Framework.
While some programs reached goals, across the portfolio the programs achieved savings levels lower
than set goals. Figure 1 shows the progress for portfolio-level savings. These estimates include carryover
savings from bulbs distributed in PY1 and PY2 that were not installed until PY3 for all programs. The
carryover savings account for the increased savings level from Audited to Verified.
Figure 1. PY3 Portfolio-Level Savings

In general, the energy-efficiency program portfolios for each of the utilities as well as the aggregation to
the State of Indiana continue to be cost-effective for the combined PY1 through PY3 under the
Participant Cost, the Utility Cost, and the Total Resource Cost tests. Most of the programs individually
were also found to be cost-effective. In last years report, it was noted that there had been a decline in

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 5

Executive Summary
the level of cost-effectiveness for the School Building Assessments program; this program is now costeffective for all utilities. The Low Income Weatherization Program continues to not be cost effective.

Program Descriptions
The portfolio consisted of five offerings, delivered by GoodCents. PY3 represented the final year of a
three-year program cycle for Energizing Indiana. The programs addressed homes, schools, and
commercial facilities (see Table 2).
Table 2. Energizing Indiana Programs
Programs

Brief Program Description

Home Energy
Assessment
(HEA)

Walk-through energy audit that: analyzed participant energy use; recommended efficiency measures or
upgrades; and facilitated direct installation of energy-saving measures, including energy efficient
showerheads, CFL bulbs, hot water pipe wrap, and sink aerators.

Low Income
Weatherization
(LIW)

Walk-through home energy assessment that included all HEA elements, plus full diagnostic testing
(blower-door) for the home. Auditors recommended weatherization measures or upgrades that
facilitated direct installation of low-cost, energy-saving measures, including energy-efficient
showerheads, CFL bulbs, sink aerators, pipe wrap, water heater tank wrap and air sealing. In addition,
eligible homes received attic insulation.

Residential
Lighting

Upstream discounts on a variety of lighting products (CFLs, LEDs, and lighting fixtures). The program
worked with retailers and manufacturers across the state to offer reduced prices at the point-of-sale.

Energy Efficient
Schools (EES)

Two components:

Education Program, worked with fifth-grade students, teaching them about energy efficiency and
how they could make an impact at school and home. Participating schools received classroom
curriculum and Energizing Indiana take-home efficiency kits.

SADI, worked with schools to assess all energy systems to determine if they operated efficiently.
Assessment results guided schools to install appropriate upgrades and rebates available through the
C&I program. The schools also received a bundle of direct-install measures at no cost.

Commercial and
Industrial (C&I)

Prescriptive rebates to facilities, based on the installation of energy efficiency equipment and system
improvements. Additional tracks targeted to small businesses included the Opt-in Direct Install program
and targeted relationships with trade allies. Rebates addressed lighting, variable frequency drives (VFDs),
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), and efficient ENERGY STAR commercial kitchen
appliances. In addition, the program began offering direct-mail CFLs kits, starting in Fall 2012.

Budget and Expenditures


Overall, the TPA spent 84% of the total PY3 (2014) implementation budget for all programs evaluated in
this report (see Table 3 and
Table 4).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 6

Executive Summary
Table 3. PY3 Budget and Expenditures by Program and Statewide
Program

PY3 Budget

PY3 Expenditures

% of Budget Goals

HEA

16,122,422

15,410,785

96%

LIW

6,810,490

6,709,524

99%

Lighting

5,109,080

4,982,396

98%

EES

5,005,270

4,859,674

97%

C&I

11,049,876

5,128,301

46%

Portfolio Total

44,097,138

37,090,680

84%

Table 4. PY3 Budget and Expenditures by Utility and Statewide


Utility

PY3 Budget Goals

Duke

PY3 Expenditures

% of Budget Goals

18,645,593

14,055,315

75%

IM

3,613,424

3,367,744

93%

IPL

10,147,175

9,087,366

90%

NIPSCO

7,763,976

6,701,934

86%

Vectren

3,926,970

3,878,321

99%

44,097,138

37,090,680

84%

Portfolio Total

Goals and Ex-Ante Savings Summary


Figure 2 demonstrates the distribution of electric savings among programs planned to be achieved by
the portfolio in PY3.
Figure 2. PY3 Percentage, by Program, Toward kWh Goal
9%

2%

Home Energy Assessment

15%

Low Income Weatherization


Lighting

71%

4%

Energy Efficent Schools


Commercial and Industrial

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the TPAs ex-ante savings, compared to savings goals
for 2014. As delivered, the Lighting and Schools programs exceeded their goals, while HEA and LIW
marginally fell short of the program goals. The C&I program achieved 46% of the goal; the TPA reports
this was because the programs terminated at different dates throughout the year, causing uncertainty
about available rebates and participation opportunities.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 7

Executive Summary
Table 5. 2014 Statewide kWh Ex-Ante Savings by Program for PY3*
Program

kWh Goal

kWh Ex-Ante

% of Goals

kW Goal

kW Ex-Ante

% of Goal

HEA

56,019,020

50,232,989

90%

6,932

6,664

96%

LIW

11,966,981

11,011,111

92%

1,085

1,138

105%

Lighting

98,707,000

98,722,324

100%

15,697

11,763

75%

EES: Education

21,774,000

21,775,231

100%

n/a

n/a

n/a

EES: SADI

2,001,216

3,374,488

169%

n/a

230.7

n/a

C&I

463,244,374

211,401,651

46%

68,693

36,034

52%

Portfolio Total**

653,712,591

396,517,794

61%

92,407

55,830

60%

*Source: From GoodCents Portal, year-end savings statement, pulled January 26, 2015
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. demonstrates the distribution of savings among programs
reported (ex-ante) in 2014.
Figure 3. PY3 Percent (by Program) Toward Ex-ante kWh Savings
13%
3%
53%
25%

Home Energy Assessment


Low Income Weatherization
Lighting

6%

Energy Efficent Schools


Commercial and Industrial

Audited Savings Summary


Table 6 presents the audited energy and demand savings for each program in PY3.
Table 6. PY3 Statewide Audited Savings by Program
Program

kWh Ex-Ante

kWh Audited

kW Ex-Ante

kW Audited

HEA

50,232,989

50,098,068

6,664

6,614

LIW

11,011,111

10,953,115

1,138

1,124

Lighting

98,722,324

102,247,800

11,763

12,148

EES

25,149,719

25,149,719

230.70

230.53

C&I

211,401,651

189,709,000

36,034

39,186

Portfolio Total*

396,517,794

378,157,702

55,830

59,303

* Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 8

Executive Summary
Figure 4 demonstrates the distribution of audited savings among the programs. The Commercial and
Industrial and Lighting programs accounted for more than three-quarters of the savings.
Figure 4. PY3 Percentage (by Program) Toward kWh Audited Savings
13%
3%

Home Energy Assessment


Low Income Weatherization

50%

27%

Lighting

7%

Energy Efficient Schools


Commercial and Industrial

Verified Savings Summary


The savings estimates excludes savings from measures not yet installed. Figure 5, below, shows the
verified savings per program (for PY3 distributed measures only).
Figure 5. PY3 Percent (by Program) Toward kWh Verified Savings
14%
3%

Home Energy Assessment


Low Income Weatherization

52%

25%

Lighting

7%

Energy Efficient Schools


Commercial and Industrial

Table 7 compares ex-ante savings to verified savings by program, and Table 10 compares ex-ante savings
to verified savings by utility per program. The reports program-specific sections include further details.
Table 7. PY3 Statewide Ex-Ante and Verified Savings by Program for PY3
Program

kWh Ex-Ante

kWh Verified

Realization
Rate

% of
Goal

kW ExAnte

2014 kW
Verified

Realization
Rate

% of
Goal

HEA

50,232,989

48,500,431

97%

86%

6,664

6,229

93%

90%

LIW

11,011,111

10,660,250

97%

89%

1,138

1,087

95%

100%

Lighting

98,722,324

88,824,765

90%

90%

11,763

10,553

90%

67%

EES

25,149,719

25,211,586

100%

106%

230.70

226.31

98%

n/a

C&I

211,401,651

185,326,275

88%

40%

36,034

38,156

106%

56%

Portfolio Total*

396,517,794

358,523,307

90%

55%

55,830

56,251

101%

61%

* Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 9

Executive Summary
Some measures, such as CFLs, contain carryover savings. Carryover savings refers to the installation of a
measure after the year it was distributed. For example, if a CFL was purchased or given to a participant
in 2013, but not installed until 2014, the savings from that measure would not be applied until the actual
installation date. This is based on in-service rate (ISR) research, also discussed in subsequent chapters,
that indicates CFLs in storage will go into use within three years from the date of receiving or purchasing
them. Verified carryover savings occur for all programs except for C&I, for which the extra lighting saving
are introduced in the ex-post stage for reasons explained below. Table 8 presents the carryover savings
from PY1 and PY2 occurring in PY3 for HEA, LIW, Lighting and EES.
Table 8. PY1 and PY2 Verified Carryover Savings by Program (kWh)
Program

PY1 Carryover

PY2 Carryover

Total Carryover in PY3

HEA

832,334

2,696,924

3,529,258

LIW

114,843

248,664

363,507

11,419,159

17,822,962

29,242,120

EES

4,060,354

3,713,825

7,774,179

C&I

n/a

n/a

n/a

16,426,690

24,482,374

40,909,064

Lighting

Portfolio Total

Table 9 and Table 10 provide the program-level and utility level ex-ante and verified savings. These
tables include savings achieved from measures distributed during PY1 and PY2, but not installed until
PY3 (for all programs but C&I). Within program chapters and provided in Table 10, utilities can see
additional verified savings applied based on the savings accrued from measures that continue to be
installed, even if they were not distributed and directly counted in the current years ex-ante savings.
Table 9. Portfolio Ex-Ante and Verified Savings by Program from PY1-PY3 Achieved in PY3*
Program

Realization
Rate

% of
Goal

kW ExAnte

kW
Verified

Realization
Rate

kWh Ex-Ante

kWh Verified

% of Goal

HEA

50,232,989

52,029,689

104%

93%

6,664

6,844

103%

99%

LIW

11,011,111

11,023,757

100%

92%

1,138

1,130

99%

104%

Lighting

98,722,324

118,066,886

120%

120%

11,763

14,483

123%

92%

EES

25,149,719

32,985,765

131%

139%

231

227

98%

n/a

C&I

211,401,651

185,326,275

88%

40%

36,034

38,156

106%

56%

Portfolio
Total**

396,517,794

399,432,371

101%

61%

55,830

60,840

109%

66%

* Values include CFL kWh savings carryover from PY1 and PY2 distribution, installed in PY3 for HEA, LIW, Lighting and Schools.
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 10

Executive Summary
Table 10. Portfolio Ex-Ante and Verified Savings by Program by Utility from PY1-PY3 Achieved in PY3*
Program

kWh
Ex-Ante

kWh Verified

Realization
Rate

% of
Goal

kW
Ex-Ante

kW
Verified

Realization
Rate

% of
Goal

Duke
HEA

17,714,195

18,019,534

102%

95%

2,272

2,298

101%

99%

LIW

3,451,650

3,566,090

103%

97%

324.98

335

103%

102%

Lighting

42,744,285

48,455,761

113%

113%

5,086

5,935

117%

88%

EES

13,593,070

17,993,841

132%

137%

50.3

49

98%

n/a

C&I

87,659,164

76,846,828

88%

31%

12,406

13,136

106%

35%

165,162,364

164,882,055

100%

50%

20,138

21,754

108%

47%

HEA

2,181,517

2,401,606

110%

107%

239

266

111%

113%

LIW

1,529,696

1,517,142

99%

99%

139.27

137

98%

100%

15,747,122

19,702,788

125%

126%

1,874

2,423

129%

97%

Total Duke**
I&M

Lighting
EES

2,376,678

3,027,880

127%

141%

33.5

33

98%

n/a

C&I

23,783,183

20,849,641

88%

60%

3,684

3,901

106%

76%

Total I&M**

45,618,196

47,499,057

104%

84%

5,970

6,759

113%

84%

15,377,976

16,056,511

104%

96%

2,083

2,141

103%

100%

IPL
HEA
LIW
Lighting

2,315,573

2,293,183

99%

96%

254.12

249

98%

114%

15,928,050

19,836,782

125%

124%

1,895

2,443

129%

96%

EES

4,886,278

6,004,672

123%

129%

55.9

55

98%

n/a

C&I

46,771,718

41,002,652

88%

52%

6,905

7,312

106%

60%

Total IPL**

85,279,595

85,193,800

100%

72%

11,194

12,200

109%

74%

9,472,965

9,801,056

103%

84%

1,254

1,320

105%

97%

NIPSCO
HEA
LIW
Lighting

2,084,444

2,042,904

98%

81%

213.69

207

97%

90%

14,799,870

18,550,566

125%

125%

1,773

2,276

128%

96%

EES

2,783,872

4,060,188

146%

181%

68.3

67

98%

n/a

C&I

41,269,639

36,179,227

88%

43%

10,954

11,599

106%

94%

Total NIPSCO**

70,410,790

70,633,941

100%

61%

14,263

15,469

108%

95%

HEA

5,486,336

5,750,982

105%

89%

815

819

100%

94%

LIW

1,629,748

1,604,438

98%

86%

205.94

202

98%

120%

Lighting

9,502,997

11,520,988

121%

121%

1,136

1,407

124%

93%

EES

1,509,821

1,899,184

126%

120%

22.7

23

99%

n/a

Vectren

C&I

11,917,947

10,447,926

88%

72%

2,084

2,207

106%

88%

Total Vectren**

30,046,849

31,223,518

104%

92%

4,264

4,658

109%

110%

* Values include CFL kWh savings carryover from PY1 and PY2 distribution, installed in PY3 for HEA, LIW, Lighting and School.
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Ex-Post and Net Savings Summary


The Evaluation Team determined ex-post gross evaluated savings through: engineering analysis; building
simulation modeling; billing analysis; or metering analysis.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 11

Executive Summary
Ex-post savings adjustments could include changes to the following:

Baseline assumptions.

Weather.

Occupancy levels.

Hours-of-use (HOU).

Decreased or increased production levels.

1. Other assumptions resulting from the impact analysis research.


Net savings reflect ex-post savings, with the net-to-gross (NTG) ratio applied. These NTG ratios account
for freeridership and short-term spillover effects, which ultimately contribute to the programs costeffectiveness calculations. Table 11 shows the statewide ex-post and net savings by program
attributable to PY3 program actions only (no carryover included). Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the
distribution of ex-post and net savings by program.
Figure 6. Percent (by Program) Toward kWh Ex-Post Savings
13%
3%

Home Energy Assessment


Low Income Weatherization

24%

55%

Lighting
6%

Energy Efficient Schools


Commercial and Industrial

Table 11. Statewide Ex-Post and Net Savings by Program


Program

kWh Ex-Post

kWh NTG
Ratio

kWh Net

kW Ex-Post

kW NTG Ratio

kW Net

HEA

43,390,531

83%

35,865,838

5,408

83%

4,493

LIW

9,015,003

100%

9,015,003

1,146

100%

1,146

Lighting

82,994,936

49%

40,667,519

11,385

49%

5,578

EES: Education*

18,842,953

100%

18,932,112

2,714

106%

2,864

1,155,874

247%

2,857,865

102

100%

102

C&I

190,457,751

81%

154,989,113

33,424

77%

25,663

Portfolio Total**

345,857,050

n/a

262,327,450

54,179

n/a

39,846

EES: SADI*

*EES program broken out by subprogram to show program-specific level NTG ratios
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 12

Executive Summary
Figure 7. PY3 Percent toward kWh Net Savings
14%
3%

Home Energy Assessment


Low Income Weatherization

16%
59%

Lighting

8%

Energy Efficient Schools


Commercial and Industrial

The Evaluation Team includes the carryover savings through for all impact metrics from the time that
they are introduced into the impact savings stream.
Ex-post carryover savings for all programs, shown in Table 12, maintain the NTG values from the year
they were acquired by the participant.
Table 12. PY1 and PY2 Carryover Savings by Program
Program

PY1 Carryover
Ex-Post kWh

PY2 Carryover
NTG

Ex-Post kWh

Total Carryover in PY3


NTG

Ex-Post kWh

NTG

HEA

696,807

77%

2,175,368

84%

2,872,174

82%

LIW

95,603

100%

205,006

100%

300,609

100%

Lighting

8,831,204

57%

14,692,400

49%

23,523,604

52%

EES

2,878,465

94%

3,599,961

78%

6,478,425

85%

C&I

23,810,919

107%

n/a

n/a

23,810,919

107 %

Portfolio Total

36,312,998

n/a

20,672,735

n/a

56,985,731

n/a

Table 13. Statewide Ex-Post and Net Savings by Program from PY1-PY3 Achieved in PY3*
Program

kWh Ex-Post

kWh NTG
Ratio

kWh Net

kW Ex-Post

kW NTG Ratio

kW Net

HEA

46,262,705

83%

38,217,984

5,771

83%

4,791

LIW

9,315,612

100%

9,315,612

1,186

100%

1,186

106,518,541

50%

52,900,581

14,450

50%

7,164

EES

26,477,252

103%

27,308,135

3,630

101%

3,660

C&I

214,268,670

84%

180,466,797

39,705

82%

32,385

Portfolio Total**

402,842,780

n/a

308,209,109

64,742

n/a

49,186

Lighting

* Values include CFL kWh savings carryover from PY1 and PY2 distribution, installed in PY3 for all programs.
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Table 14. Statewide Ex-Post and Net Savings by Program by Utility from PY1-PY3 Achieved in PY3*
Program

kWh Ex-Post

kWh NTG

kWh Net

kW Ex-Post

kW NTG

kW Net

Duke
HEA

15,913,643

Core Programs PY3 Report

83%

13,263,973

1,991

84%

1,663

Page 13

Executive Summary
Program
LIW

kWh Ex-Post

kWh NTG

kWh Net

kW Ex-Post

kW NTG

kW Net

2,858,557

100%

2,858,557

348

100%

348

Lighting

43,734,871

50%

21,705,924

5,933

50%

2,940

EES

15,063,666

99%

14,970,101

2,078

101%

2,101

88,829,977

84%

82%

11,617

C&I
Total Duke**

166,400,714

74,812,534

14,107

127,611,088

24,456
266

83%

18,669

I&M
HEA
LIW

1,985,025

83%

1,653,851

221

1,243,398

100%

1,243,398

138

100%

138

17,524,744

50%

8,720,465

2,386

50%

1,185

2,304,795

106%

2,452,504

311

101%

312

C&I

25,749,233

86%

84%

3,844

Total I&M**

48,807,195

Lighting
EES

22,061,488

4,558

36,131,706

7,658

5,700

IPL
HEA

14,060,746

83%

11,691,647

1,749

83%

1,459

LIW

2,078,128

100%

2,078,128

242

100%

242

17,831,760

50%

8,867,738

2,415

50%

1,199

4,818,732

107%

5,160,184

663

102%

673

C&I

45,519,135

83%

80%

5,872

Total IPL**

84,308,502

Lighting
EES

37,908,532

7,297

65,706,228

12,366

9,445

NIPSCO
HEA

8,806,890

80%

7,050,199

1,073

81%

871

LIW

1,705,645

100%

1,705,645

194

100%

194

Lighting

16,727,994

50%

8,305,648

2,254

50%

1,118

EES

2,844,280

107%

3,041,716

365

98%

356

C&I

41,841,659

84%

35,243,751

11,390

80%

9,117

Total NIPSCO**

71,926,469

55,346,958

15,277

11,656

Vectren
HEA

5,496,401

83%

4,558,314

692

83%

577

LIW

1,429,885

100%

1,429,885

265

100%

265

10,699,172

50%

5,300,807

1,462

49%

723

EES

1,445,778

116%

1,683,630

214

101%

217

C&I

12,328,665

85%

10,440,492

2,353

82%

1,934

Total Vectren**

31,399,901

23,413,128

4,986

Lighting

3,716

* Values include bulb drop and CFL kWh savings carryover from PY1 and PY2 distribution, installed in PY3.
** Values may not add perfectly to total values due to rounding of decimals.

Figure 8 presents savings achieved by each program for each category of savings assessed in this study.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 14

Executive Summary

kWh Savings

Figure 8. Savings by Program in Each Savings Category


700,000,000
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
Goal

Ex-Ante

Audited

Verified

Home Energy Assessment

Low Income Weatherization

Energy Efficient Schools

Commercial and Industrial

Ex-Post

Net

Lighting

Lifetime Savings Summary


Once a measure is installed the savings continue to accrue throughout the lifetime of that measure.
Degradation, code changes, and dual baselines are considered to ensure the lifetime savings calculations
are correct. Across the three year program cycle, the Core programs saved approximately 11 million
megawatt hours.
Table 15. PY1-PY3 Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings
Program

PY1 Lifetime
Savings (MWh)

PY2 Lifetime
Savings (MWh)

PY3 Lifetime
Savings (MWh)

Total Lifetime
Savings (MWh)

HEA

94,901

602,845

272,309

970,054

LIW

56,952

114,283

71,666

242,901

Lighting

248,615

592,619

479,167

1,320,401

EES

457,056

283,820

162,231

903,106

C&I

1,263,147

3,648,755

2,649,463

7,561,365

Portfolio Total

2,120,671

5,242,322

3,634,835

10,997,828

Energizing Indiana Programs High-Level Insight and Findings


The Evaluation Team considers these finding significant, but they do not represent all insights and
findings. Each program evaluation section of this report expands on these findings and includes minor
additional insights from the analysis efforts.
Besides presenting the enclosed results, the Evaluation Team created separate, program-specific binders
for each utility that contain detailed information on variable assumptions and sources.

Home Energy Assessment


The HEA Program offered walk-through audits and direct-installations of energy-efficiency measures.
The HEA program delivery model instructed auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 15

Executive Summary
(without leaving measures behind) and recording all installed measures in the program tracking
database. Figure 9 presents an overview of its savings achievements.
Figure 9. HEA Overview of Savings

Key evaluation findings include the following:

In 2014, the program met 80% its participation goals, and 90% and 96% of the kWh and kW
savings goals (ex-ante compared to goals), while using 98% of its budget.

In PY3, the TPA made a number of enhancements to the database, allowing it to more
accurately capture the auditors activities.

Customers remained satisfied with the program, rating it an 8.9 mean satisfaction score on a
10-point scale.

Low Income Weatherization


The LIW program offers walk-through audits and direct installations of energy-efficiency measures. The
program includes air sealing and, in some cases, attic insulation. This program only targets low-income
populations. To qualify, the participant must have a reported income of up to 200% of the Federal
Poverty Level. Figure 10 presents an overview of the savings achievements.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 16

Executive Summary
Figure 10. LIW Overview of Savings

Key evaluation findings include the following:

In 2014, the program met 85% its participation goals, and 92% and 105% of the kWh and kW
savings (ex-ante compared to goals), while using 96% of its budget.

In PY3, the TPA made a number of enhancements to the database, allowing it to more
accurately capture the auditors activities.

Customers remained satisfied with the program, rating it an 8.6 mean satisfaction score on a
10-point scale.

Residential Lighting
The Residential Lighting program met its ex-ante savings in PY3. Agreed-upon gross savings calculations
generally were applied accurately and consistently. The program continued to offer discounts on a
variety of lighting products. Due to a 30% goal reduction and, ultimately, a program ramp-down, the
retailer footprint decreased from 16 in PY2 to 14 in PY3, and the total number of participating
storefronts dropped from 865 in PY2 to 310 in PY3. Standard CFLs continued to represent the bulk of
bulb sales through the program. Figure 11 presents an overview of program savings achievements.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 17

Executive Summary
Figure 11. Lighting Overview of Savings

Key evaluation findings include the following:

In PY3, 92% of all bulbs sold through the program were standard CFLs. Specialty CFLs
represented 7% of total bulb sales, while program LED sales were less than 1%. Three- and fourbulb packs were most commonly sold for standard CFLs, with two-bulb packs most common for
specialty CFLs, LEDs were sold exclusively in single packs.

Participating retailers consisted of a range of store types, with Walmart leading the number of
participating store fronts (as well as sales).

Program tracking data were clean, and, in most cases, savings were calculated using proper,
agreed-upon assumptions.

The lighting markets future remains uncertain. Utilities that continue to run programs will want
to monitor and assess the market periodically for the most appropriate product mix and savings
assumptions (such as baseline wattages and installation rates).

Energy Efficient Schools


The EES program offers energy-efficiency kits for students and energy assessments for school buildings,
coupled with installation of low-cost, energy-saving measures. In 2014, the program achieved 106% of
its energy-savings goals and 100% of its participation goals, while using 98% of its budget. Figure 12
presents an overview of the savings achievements.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 18

Executive Summary
Figure 12. Schools Overview of Savings

Key evaluation findings include the following:

As in PY2, several School Audit and Direct Install program measures experienced significantly
negative ex-post adjustments. These occurred for the following reasons:

The reported location of measure installations, such as occupancy sensors, did not maximize
potential savings; and

A lack of data existed regarding the circumstances in which measures were installed.

The Education Program continued to meet distributed kit goals and produce high verified
savings for the third year in a row. Savings from CFLs distributed in PY1 and PY2 but not installed
until PY3 also helped bolster verified savings.

Commercial and Industrial


The C&I program fell short of meeting its savings goal for PY3. In 2014, the program achieved 46% of its
energy-savings goals and 52% of its demand savings goals, while using 46% of its budget. Figure 13
presents an overview of the programs savings achievements.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 19

Executive Summary
Figure 13. C&I Overview of Savings

Key evaluation findings include the following:

The TPA reported program end dates across the five utilities affected program participation.

Ex-post savings were higher than audited, based on the Evaluation Teams use of full-load hours
in the Indiana technical reference manual (TRM).

Ninety-five percent of lighting and non-lighting participants reported satisfaction with the
program overall.

Confidence and Precision


The evaluation plans were structured to attempt to achieve the 90/10 levels by program. As the
programs were delivered by the same implementer in a similar fashion across utilities, the approach
made sense.
Table 16 shows the confidence and precision achieved for each program. Overall, the portfolio verified
savings achieved 9.9% precision at 90% confidence and each program achieved precision well below
10%.
Table 16. Confidence and Precision
Program

Precision

HEA

3.6%

LIW

2.8%

Lighting

5.5%

EES

3.7%

C&I

5.7%

Portfolio

9.9%

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 20

EM&V Methodology Overview

EM&V Methodology Overview


Overall, this evaluation sought to quantify each programs energy and demand savings (via the impact
evaluation) and to understand and help improve the Energizing Indiana Programs performance (via the
process evaluation).
Process Evaluation: The process evaluation included documenting program efforts and improving design
and delivery, involving the following key efforts: a review of program materials; in-depth interviews with
third-party administrator program and implementer staff; participant surveys; and
participant/nonparticipant contractor in-depth interviews. The process evaluations sought to answer the
following overall questions:

Does the program, as designed and implemented, meet its goals?

Can improvements be made in the program design and implementation processes, including
marketing and database tracking efforts?

What specific customer/contractor insights could improve the program and increase
satisfaction levels?

Impact Evaluation: The impact evaluation sought to accurately quantify energy savings and to provide
information leading to more accurate energy savings, including demand reduction and estimates in
future program years. Data were gathered from various sources, including the following: the tracking
database, management interviews, independent operational observation, and participant surveys. Data
analysis included conducting an audit of the tracking system, analysis of participant survey data,
conducting statistical and engineering analysis of ex-ante savings, and other efforts. The section below
describes the evaluation approach and its application.

Impact Analysis Approach


This section describes the typical steps taken in conducting impact evaluations of Indiana-based
demand-side management (DSM), using steps consistent with the approaches described in the Indiana
Evaluation Framework (the Framework).1 These steps guided the Evaluation Teams evaluation
approaches.
In addition to outlining the evaluation approaches, this section provides summary descriptions of
actions taken to determine savings estimates for the overall Energizing Indiana portfolio and for
program- and utility-specific energy and demand savings. Where therm savings could be accounted for,
each program detailed those savings in the program specific section. Since therm savings are not a part
of the contracted savings goals, they were not rolled up to the portfolio level. Figure 14 illustrates steps
used in the impact evaluation approach, and Table 17 elaborates on the actions taken within each of

Indiana Evaluation Framework. TecMarket Works. September 25, 2013.

Core Programs PY3 Report


Page 21

EM&V Methodology Overview


these steps. The methods employed varied by program to accurately represent the program designs and
target populations.
Figure 14. DSM Impact Evaluation Steps

Table 17. EM&V Impact Analysis Steps


Savings Categories

Definition, Sources, and Activities

Goals

Savings targets set by the DSMCC for each program year, per program.

Ex-Ante Savings

Reported savings values provided by the third-party administrator (TPA), as shown in its portal.
Savings resulted from the TPAs Energizing Indiana activities, using savings values and assumptions
provided in its scope of work.

Audited Savings

Once the following activities had been conducted through , audited savings were produced:

Reviewing the program tracking databases.

Reviewing hardcopy program applications from a sample to verify consistency with data
recorded in the program tracking databases.

Checking ex-ante savings estimates and calculations to ensure the implementer/utility


applied the agreed-upon values appropriately/correctly.

Adjusting program tracking data as necessary to correct errors or identified omissions.

Recalculating program savings, based on the adjusted, audited number of measures and
on any errors found in the program tracking data.

Verified Savings

Verified savings could be computed after confirming measures had been installed and remain
operational. This step typically employed a stratified random sample of installations, selected for

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 22

EM&V Methodology Overview


Savings Categories

Definition, Sources, and Activities


detailed analysis. Typical methods for collecting necessary data included telephone surveys and/or
site visits. This step could result in adjustments in total savings to address issues such as the
following:

Measures rebated but never installed, or not installed in the correct program year;

Measures not meeting program qualifications;

Measures installed but later removed; or

Measures improperly installed.


This step did not alter the per-unit, energy-saving values.

Ex-post gross evaluated savings could be determined using the following: engineering analysis,
building simulation modeling, billing analysis, metering analysis, or other accepted impact
Ex-post Gross Evaluated evaluation methods. Adjustments to the verified savings could include: changes to the baseline
Savings
assumption; adjustments for weather; adjustments for occupancy levels; adjustments for
decreased or increased production levels; and other adjustments following from the impact
analysis approach.

Net Savings

Determined by adjusting the ex-post evaluated gross savings estimates to account for a variety of
circumstances related to program attribution, including savings-weighted freerider and spillover
effects. Total Net Savings involved extrapolation of sample-based ex-post net savings to the
population of Energizing Indiana participants. This incorporated adjustments for freeridership,
participant spillover, and market effects (applied at the end of the current program cycle):
Net-to-Gross Ratio = (1- freerider adjustment + participant spillover adjustment + market effects
adjustment)

Freerider Assessment
Free riders are participants who would have undertaken the installation of some or all of the measures
incented through the programs. For the percentage of participants saying they would have made a more
energy-efficient choice without the program, savings would be adjusted by the difference in energy use
of the program-provided technology and the efficiency of the technology they would have installed
without the program.
The evaluation effort selected the baseline approach at the same time it defined the freeridership
approach due to linkages between these two conditions. The individual program chapters report each
approach used in the Energizing Indiana program evaluations.

Spillover Assessment
Spillover savings must be added to program-induced net savings when a participant replicates actions
that save energy in their facilities, and they attribute their non-program-incented or provided actions to
the program. Spillover savings in the Energizing Indiana PY1 evaluation report only included short-term
participant spillover savings, representing but a portion of spillover savings typically achieved
by programs.
That is, more spillover savings typically occur than those identified in the evaluation efforts. Spillover
savings include actions taken between program participation and identified by the evaluations survey
with participants.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 23

EM&V Methodology Overview


Longer-term spillover savings, after completion of an evaluation effort, as a portion of the participant
population repeat actions caused by the program. These savings may be captured in the Market Effects
Study report which will be published July 1, 2015. Nonparticipants also take spillover actions if directly
or indirectly influenced by a program, but, typically, remain unaware of that influence. Savings from
groups of unaware nonparticipants, taking actions due to a programs influence but not perceiving that
influence, more traditionally are termed market effects savings. This report only includes participant
spillover.
To assess spillover, surveys asked participants if they had taken additional actions to save energy in their
facilities or homes.2 If they reported taking additional actions, follow-ups asked them to describe that
action in sufficient detail to allow estimation of savings achieved. An attribution question then indicated
whether the program influenced or caused the action.
If respondents reported actions influenced by the program, surveys asked them to rate that influence
level on a 1 to 10 scale, allowing the percent of the influence to be attributed, based on the score
provided. Using a 1 to 10 scale, cause could be attributed using a direct linear conversion of their score
to a percentage (2=20% / 5=50% / 8=80%).

EISA Baseline Adjustment Approach


In 2007 the United States passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which restricts sales
of standard incandescent light bulbs (standard bulbs), but allows bulbs in the supply chain to be sold via
retail sales. Upon exhausting the supply of standard bulbs, new incandescent bulbs cannot be
manufactured, distributed, or sold in the United States.
If standard bulbs no longer prove available, savings from standard bulbs cannot be used to estimate
program savings. Rather, the energy-saving baseline must reflect the market and products available for
sale. As such, the Evaluation Team developed and implemented a baseline adjustment approach that
accounted for retailer-reported product availability and adjusted baseline wattages accordingly.
This baseline adjustment approach built upon a longitudinal mystery shopper study in Indiana. As part of
the study, the Evaluation Team called a representative sample of retail stores to inquire if a store
offered 100- and 75-watt bulbs for sale, how many they carried, and other questions regarding future
availability.
The first wave, conducted in January 2013, was used for the PY2 CFL impact calculations. At the time of
the survey, EISA only affected 100-watt incandescents, therefore, research focused solely on assessing
the availability of these bulbs. The research indicated that availability of 100-watt incandescent light
bulbs eroded, yet a considerable number of stores stocked and offered those light bulbs.

For the HEA program, responses to audit recommendations were not included in spillover; rather, they were
included as direct program impacts. For the LIW program, captured spillover was identified as Audit
Recommendations.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 24

EM&V Methodology Overview


The second wave was completed in January 2014 and informed baseline adjustments for PY3 impact
calculations. At the time of the study, EISA impacted 75-watt incandescents, and, as such, the study
explored availability of both 100- and 75-watt incandescents. This study indicated that, while the
availability of 100- and 75-watt incandescent bulbs further eroded due to EISAs effects, a sizable
number of Indiana stores continued to carry those bulbs.
Table 18 presents the best baseline adjustments made in PY2 (2013) and PY3 (2014) as well as projected
adjustments for future years. Stand-alone memos, submitted to the DSMCC upon the studies
completion, summarize detailed survey results and baseline adjustment recommendations.
Table 18. Lighting Baseline Wattage with EISA
100-watt

75-watt

Year

Phase

Baseline
(Watts)

2012

0%

100

2013

55%

2014

60-watt

Phase

Baseline
(Watts)

2012

0%

75

84.6

2013

0%

60%

83.2

2014

2015

70%

80.4

2016

80%

2017

40-watt

Phase

Baseline
(Watts)

Phase

Baseline
(Watts)

2012

0%

60

2012

0%

40

75

2013

0%

60

2013

0%

40

60%

61.8

2014

0%

60

2014

0%

40

2015

80%

57.4

2015

55%

50.65

2015

60%

33.4

77.6

2016

100%

53

2016

60%

49.8

2016

80%

31.2

90%

74.8

2017

100%

53

2017

70%

48.1

2017

100%

29

2018

100%

72

2018

100%

53

2018

80%

46.4

2018

100%

29

2019

100%

72

2019

100%

53

2019

90%

44.7

2019

100%

29

2020

100%

72

2020

100%

53

2020

100%

43.0

2020

100%

29

Year

Year

Year

Uncertainty
Program evaluations seek to reliably determine energy and demand savings, along with some
reasonable accuracy level. Whenever selecting a population sample to represent a populationwhether
of appliances, individuals, households, premises, or organizationssome amount of sampling error
occurs. Sampling error arises as only a portion of actual values can be measured (e.g., metering energy
consumption over one week, metering 5% of the affected equipment). Different samples lead to
different estimates of energy and demand savings.
If randomly drawing a sample from the population, the sampling error should be random and provide an
unbiased estimate of true savings. The Evaluation Team used precision to characterize sampling error,
defined as the degree that additional measures would produce the same or similar results. Convenient
measures, such as confidence intervals and statistical significance tests, provided quantitative estimates
of the uncertainty introduced through sampling.
As each program, across each utility, will achieve a level of 90% confidence with a 10% precision rate
across the three-year program cycle, each sample was designed to limit uncertainty and to maintain a
high level of accuracy within the evaluation. Survey findings in their program-specific sections include
the number (n=) of participants sampled throughout PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 25

EM&V Methodology Overview

Process Evaluation Approach


Although the process evaluation efforts differed somewhat for each program, to an extent, these
studies followed a similar theme and approach. The process evaluation consisted of program-specific
efforts, designed to address each programs researchable issues.

Sampling Design
The evaluation included on-site surveys and field EM&V work for a sample of participating sites. The
Evaluation Team developed a sampling plan for each project, outlining: the sampling design; the
population; and the sample sizes needed to meet the evaluations overall precision requirements. This
reports program sections provide the sampling detail for each program. Samples generally derived from
the participant tracking data, per the sampling plan.
The sampling design depended on: the analysis data quality objectives; development of the sample
frame; and potential uses of the data. These designs included the following:

Simple random sampling;

Stratified random sampling;

Two-stage or cluster sampling;

Nested sampling (time-of-use meters used within a smaller sample of interval meters); and

Systematic sampling.

Table 19 presents the program-specific evaluation efforts conducted.


Table 19. EM&V Activities by Program
Process Evaluation
Approach

Programs

Impact Evaluation Approach

Market Effects Evaluation Approach

Residential Programs
Residential
Lighting
Lead: Opinion
Dynamics
HEA
Lead: Opinion
Dynamics
LIW
Lead: Opinion
Dynamics
EES
Lead: Cadmus

TPA interview
Materials review
Database analysis

Database audit
Engineering analysis and
verification
Ex-post gross savings analysis

TPA interview
Materials review
Database analysis
Participant survey

Database audit
Engineering analysis and
verification
Ex-post gross savings analysis
Estimate NTG

TPA interview
Materials review
Database analysis
Participant survey

Database audit
Engineering analysis and
verification
Ex-post gross savings analysis

TPA interviews
Student surveys
Parent surveys
Teacher surveys

Core Programs PY3 Report

TPA interview
Materials and database review
Secondary research
General population telephone
survey
General population on-site visits
Engineering analysis

TPA interviews
Student surveys
Parent surveys
Facility staff interview

Page 26

EM&V Methodology Overview


Process Evaluation
Approach

Programs

Facility staff interview

Impact Evaluation Approach

Market Effects Evaluation Approach

Deemed savings review

Nonresidential Program

Commercial and
Industrial
Lead: Cadmus

TPA interviews
Participating customer
(lighting and non-lighting)
surveys
Participating trade ally
surveys

Core Programs PY3 Report

TPA interviews
Participating customer (lighting and
non-lighting) surveys
Engineering file review

TPA interview
Review of C&I Core program
performance and database for PY1
through PY3
Secondary research of market
trends for Lighting and HVAC
General population survey with C&I
customers via phone
Survey with participating trade
allies via internet
Engineering analysis

Page 27

Home Energy Assessment

Home Energy Assessment


Program Design and Implementation
The HEA program offered a walk-through audit and direct installation of energy-efficiency measures for
single-family homes. Energy auditors conducted a walk-through assessment of participating customers
homes to evaluate the homes energy performance. While on-site, auditors installed energy-efficiency
measures, such as CFLs and energy-efficient faucet aerators. In addition, customers received a report
about their homes energy use, suggesting further actions to reduce customers energy consumption.
The program ended on or before December 31, 2014.
The HEA program delivery model instructed auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes
(without leaving measures behind) and recording all installed measures in the program tracking
database. Auditors could install up to 20 CFLs in a participants home. While available in previous years,
the program discontinued offering water heater tank wrap and Smart Strip measures due to the
measures minor contribution to program savings.
In PY3, the program reached 39,992 households. With the expectation that the program would end in
December 2014, the overall level of audits by month decreased, compared to previous program years;
visits averaged about 3,335 per month. Figure 15 shows the number of audits completed in each month
throughout the program lifecycle.
Figure 15. HEA Audits Completed by Month in PY1, PY2, and PY3
9,000
PY1 n=30,274
PY2 n=70,056
7,000 PY3 n=39,992

Count of HEA Audit Visits

8,000

PY1

6,885

6,000

5,153

5,000

6,716
6,216
6,311
6,127
5,889
5,644
5,393

6,492
6,347

5,153
4,883

4,725

2,000
1,000

4,070 4,259
3,246
3,910 4,016
3,364 3,129
3,003
3,002 2,765 2,989

4,000
3,000

PY3

PY2

7,795

1,564
1,546
2,123
1,351
1,955
1,328
1,345
987
402

2,239

Source: Energizing Indiana PY3 program tracking database.

The TPA employed a number of tactics to draw customers into the program, including Internet based
outreach, mailings, community partners, and neighborhood canvassing. The TPA canvassed
neighborhoods and encouraged residents to participate in the HEA program. In PY3 (unlike in previous
Core Programs PY3 Report
Page 28

Home Energy Assessment


program years, when canvassing efforts followed a shotgun approach), the TPA focused on geographic
areas where field advisors were active. This reduced travel time and allowed canvassers to focus more
deeply on strategic areas. The TPA also integrated mailing efforts with canvassing efforts, rather than
focusing on areas with low saturation, as in previous years. The intent was to provide two to three
touches before canvassers arrived. This strategy was employed in all participating IOU territories,
except for I&M, where canvassing did not take place during PY3.
In the past, the TPA enlisted marketing assistance from a number of community partners, and nonprofit
organizations, with community partners awarded $25 dollars for each recruited participant. The TPA
ended this incentive on September 30, 2014, to ensure any pending audits would be completed before
the end of the program.
To help assure the success in the canvassing measures, the TPA launched two monthly ally-training
efforts in PY3, offered every two weeks on a rotating basis: Employee Technical and Vehicle (ETC), and
QC Metric Training. The TPA ETC courses focused on topics related to basic program implementation
and customer service: professionalism, attire, analyzing the customer report, general field topics,
company policies, and vehicle use policies. QC Metric Training covered 89 different aspects of a
successful home energy audit. In each class, field supervisors reviewed 10 of these aspects and answerrelated questions.

EM&V Methodology
The evaluation of the HEA program incorporated impact and process elements. Table 20 provides an
overview of tasks used for evaluating this program.
Table 20. Program Evaluation Overall Tasks
Action
Implementer Interviews
Program Database Review/
Verification
Participant Interviews

Impact Analysis

Details

Interviewed three implementation staff.

Reviewed the participant data tracking database.

Conducted telephone survey with 202 program participants to establish


installation rates, ascertain NTG, and collect process information.

Audited the measure installations reported in the program database.


Verified the reported measure installations using participant interviews.
Performed engineering calculations of installed measures.
Estimated NTG (freeridership and spillover), based on self-reported data from
participant interviews.

Changes were minimal in PY3, and the program implemented the design changes that occurred in PY2,
including ex-ante values established by measure (rather than by home) and direct installations of all
measures (rather than CFL distribution).

Sampling Design
The Evaluation Team developed a sampling plan to produce telephone survey findings within the
established bounds of 90% confidence level and 10% precision at the program level. The Team

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 29

Home Energy Assessment


conducted 202 interviews with program participants in September 2014. Table 21 provides the sample
frame, response and cooperation rates.
Table 21. Participant Survey Sample Design*
Action
Population
Completions
Cooperation Rate
Response Rate**
Telephone Participant Interviews
40,022
202
40%
17%
* Response rate gives the percentage of participants who completed an interview out of all of the participants who were called,
even if we did not actually speak with them (for example, getting an answering machine).
Cooperation rate gives the percentage of participants who completed an interview out of all of the participants with whom we
actually spoke.
** In general, a rate response above 10% is considered acceptable.

Program Performance
Table 22 shows how ex-ante savings compared to goals established in program planning. Ex-ante savings
reported by the program did not reflect adjustments resulting from the evaluation. The TPA reported
the program met 90% of the kWh, 96% kW, and 85% of therm goals.
Table 22. Ex-Ante Statewide Results
kWh
Utility

kW
% of
Goal

Goal

Therms

Ex-Ante

% of
Goal

Goal

Ex-Ante

% of
Goal

Goal

Ex-Ante

Duke

18,967,000

17,714,195

93%

2,323

2,272

98%

767,255

528,697

69%

I&M

2,182,000

2,181,517

100%

236

239

102%

92,327

60,154

65%

IPL

16,670,039

15,377,976

92%

2,136

2,083

98%

669,823

528,237

79%

NIPSCO

11,726,990

9,472,965

81%

1,365

1,254

92%

477,921

612,978

128%

Vectren

6,472,991

5,486,336

85%

873

815

93%

257,704

189,022

73%

Statewide

56,019020

50,232,989

90%

6,932

6,664

96%

2,265,030

1,919,088

85%

In terms of homes served, the program achieved 80% of its participation goals, as shown in Table 23.
Table 23. Number of Homes Served by the HEA Program
Utility

Number of Homes
Goal

Ex-Ante

% Achieved

Duke

17,563

13,539

77%

I&M

2,106

1,632

77%

IPL

15,117

11,809

78%

NIPSCO

9,568

8,417

88%

Vectren

5,321

4,588

86%

49,675

39,985

80%

Statewide

Impact Analysis
This impact evaluation included a database review of volume of measures installed in each participating
home. The review sought to capture volume and ex-ante savings, and to estimate audited savings. The

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 30

Home Energy Assessment


Evaluation Team also conducted an engineering analysis of measures installed to establish ex-post
savings.

Audited Savings
The impact evaluation process began with the review of the program database and summed the
measure volume installed in homes. In addition, the Evaluation Team captured volumes of canvassing
measures distributed through customer recruitment. Table 24 shows measures installed in participant
homes (before canvassing). CFLs were the prevalent measures installed through the program.
Table 24. Audited Measure Quantities
Measures in Database
Bulb

CFLs

Duke
210,194

I&M
26,169

IPL
185,891

NIPSCO
139,192

Vectren
69,489

Statewide
630,935

Pipe Wrap

Home

3,230

566

2,934

327

598

7,655

Energy Efficient Showerhead

Showerhead

5,445

696

4,250

409

1,010

11,810

Faucet Aerators

Aerator

10,946

1,534

8,436

941

2,149

24,006

Audit Recommendations

Home

13,541

1,634

11,809

8,418

4,590

39,992

Table 25 shows the count of CFLs distributed through canvassing, as they appeared in the program
database.
Table 25. Audited Canvassing Measure Quantities
Measures
CFLs

Duke
9,108

I&M
0

IPL
10,661

NIPSCO
3,626

Vectren
5,385

Statewide
28,780

To arrive at audited savings, the Evaluation Team multiplied the agreed-upon ex-ante deemed savings
by the volume of measures installedboth the canvassing efforts and the measures installed in
participating homes (i.e., the number of CFLs * ex-ante deemed savings per CFL)to arrive at the
programs total audited energy, demand, and gas savings, as shown in Table 26.
Table 26. Audited Energy Savings from Direct Install and Canvassing Measures Combined
Utility
Duke

Audited kWh
17,654,071

Audited kW Savings
2,249

Audited Therms
735,102

I&M

2,173,091

237

96,527

IPL

15,328,224

2,066

618,825

9,466,026

1,251

313,423

NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

5,476,656

811

212,225

50,098,068

6,614

1,976,102

Page 31

Home Energy Assessment


The per unit ex-ante kWh savings (by measure) is shown in Table 27.
Table 27. Ex-Ante Per Unit kWh Savings, by Measure and by Utility
Measure
CFL

Duke

Utility
IPL

I&M

NIPSCO

50

50

50

Pipe Wrap

83.2

87.1

Showerhead

441

441

Aerator
Recommendations
Canvassing CFLs
Smart Strips
Carryover Canvassing CFLs

Vectren
50

50

74.7

89

83.9

441

441

441

68.1

68.1

68.1

68.1

68.1

247.2

247.2

247.2

247.2

247.2

41.9

41.9

41.9

41.9

102.8

102.8

102.8

102.8

102.8

41.9

41.9

41.9

41.9

41.9

Verified Savings
To establish verified savings, the Evaluation Team established an installation rate by comparing the exante measure volume against the volume customers reported as installed in the participant surveys (the
installation rate). The survey data also enabled calculation of a persistence rate by establishing
measures that remained installed after the audits. The Evaluation Team multiplied this installation rate
and the persistence rate by the audited savings to establish verified savings. The installation rate
reflected statewide values (rather utility-specific) due to survey sample sizes established to reach the
agreed-upon confidence and precision at the statewide level over the three-year program cycle.
For CFLs distributed through the canvassing activities, the Evaluation Team did not perform primary
research with program participants and, as such, applied the installation and persistence rate as
calculated through the residential lighting program. Table 28 shows installation rates and persistence
rates.
Table 28. Statewide Verification Adjustments
Measure
CFLs

Statewide Installation Rate

Statewide Persistence
99.93%

97.32%

Pipe Wrap

100%

100%

Energy Efficient Showerhead

94.7%

100%

Faucet Aerators

88.4%

100%

Audit Recommendations

100%

100%

79%

99%

Canvassing CFLs

For the most part, installation rates reflected customers confirmation that the majority of measures
reported were installed during the audit. Statewide persistence rates indicated most measures
remained in place, except for a small volume of CFLs. For example, 88.4% of Faucet Aerators were
confirmed as having been installed by customers. Among the faucet aerators that were confirmed,
customer report that 100% were still installed.
Table 29 shows the resulting verified energy, demand, and gas savings after applying installation and
persistence rates to audited savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 32

Home Energy Assessment


Table 29. Audited and Verified Savings from Audits and Canvassing Activities, without Carryover
Utility
Duke

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

17,654,071

Audited kW

17,067,361

Verified kW

2,249

Audited
Therms

2,121

Verified
Therms

735,102

731,068

I&M

2,173,091

2,108,623

237

230

96,527

95,945

IPL

15,328,224

14,808,692

2,066

1,932

618,825

616,297

NIPSCO

9,466,026

9,224,529

1,251

1,195

313,423

316,368

Vectren

5,476,656

5,291,226

811

750

212,225

212,248

50,098,068

48,500,431

6,614

6,229

1,976,102

1,971,926

Statewide

As per the DSMCC request, the Evaluation Team established realization rates based on verified savings.
Table 30 shows verified savings and utility-specific realization rates. The precision around the HEA
realization rates for the PY1-PY3 period is 3.6% at 90% confidence.
Table 30. Verified Realization Rates from Audit and Canvassing Activities, without Carryover
Realization
Rate

Ex-Ante
kW

17,067,361

96%

2,272

2,121

93%

528,697

731,068

138%

2,108,623

97%

239

230

96%

60,154

95,945

159%

15,377,976

14,808,692

96%

2,083

1,932

93%

528,237

616,297

117%

NIPSCO

9,472,965

9,224,529

97%

1,254

1,195

95%

612,978

316,368

52%

Vectren

5,486,336

5,291,226

96%

815

750

92%

189,022

212,248

112%

50,232,989

48,500,431

97%

6,664

6,229

93%

1,919,088

1,971,926

103%

Ex-Ante
kWh

Verified
kWh

Duke

17,714,195

I&M

2,181,517

IPL

Utility

Statewide

Verified
kW

Realization
Rate

Ex-Ante
Therms

Verified
Therms

Realization
Rate

For PY3, the program claimed additional savings from CFLs dropped off at customers homes during PY1
and PY2 (the program design changed to only allow direct installation of program measures). A
percentage of these CFLs were placed in storage during the year distributed, with up to 99% of stored
bulbs expected to be installed within a few years. This caused savings to occur several years after initial
purchases. Hence, the program should receive additional credit for bulbs left behind with customers for
future installation. The Evaluation Team defined these as Carryover Savings.
To establish PY1 and PY2 Carryover savings, the Evaluation Team followed the Uniform Methods
Project (UMP)3 recommended method.

The UMP is a framework and set of protocols established by the U.S. Department of Energy for determining
energy savings from energy-efficiency measures and programs. More details are available online:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/de_ump_protocols.html.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 33

Home Energy Assessment


The UMP explains most bulbs placed into storage (99%) become installed within two years and
recommends calculating the installation rate for two years after the bulb purchase, as follows:
2 = 3 =

99% 1
2

Where:
ISR

In-service rate

Y1

Year 1, the year the bulb was purchased

Y2, Y3 =

Years 2 and 3, the two years following the bulbs purchase date

99%

Percentage of program bulbs installed within three years, including the program year

Per the UMP method, the Evaluation Team applied a 55% installation rate for PY2 left-behind CFLs
installed in PY3, and applied a 45% installation rate for PY1 left-behind CFLs in PY3.
Table 31 summarizes additional carryover savings from bulbs distributed in PY1 and PY2, but installed in
PY3.
In addition, the table includes canvassing measures excluded from the PY2 analysis. In PY2, the
Evaluation Team had not received completed measure counts for canvassing measures, thus the PY2
analysis excluded some Smart Strip measures from the PY2 analysis (representing less than one-tenth of
1% of the HEA programs savings). As such, savings associated with this portion of the Smart Strips
installations were included in the PY3 analysis. While this increased demand and energy savings, it
resulted in negative gas savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 34

Home Energy Assessment


Table 31. Verified PY1 and PY2 Carryover Savings from CFLs Left Behind in Homes (Added to PY3)
Program
Year

Utility

Measure

Quantity Left in
Homes

Installation
Rate

Persistence
Rate

Verified
Quantity

Verified Carryover
kWh

Verified
Carryover kW

Verified Carryover
Therms

Duke

PY1

PY1 CFLs

9,212

45%

97.3%

4,034

201,717

24

-3,913

Duke

PY2

PY2 CFLs

25,190

55%

97.3%

13,483

674,166

81

-13,079

Duke

PY2

PY2 Smart Strips

15

100%

100%

15

1,542

Duke

PY2

PY2 Canvassing CFLs

3,604

50%

99%

1,784

74,749

71

I&M

PY1

PY1 CFLs

3,718

45%

97.3%

1,628

81,414

10

-1,579

I&M

PY2

PY2 CFLs

7,029

55%

97.3%

3,762

188,119

23

-3,650

I&M

PY2

PY2 Smart Strips

228

100%

100%

228

23,438

I&M

PY2

PY2 Canvassing CFLs

50%

99%

12

0.01

IPL

PY1

PY1 CFLs

16,391

45%

97.3%

7,178

358,917

43

-6,963

IPL

PY2

PY2 CFLs

28,135

55%

97.3%

15,060

752,984

90

-14,608

IPL

PY2

PY2 Smart Strips

633

100%

100%

633

65,072

IPL

PY2

PY2 Canvassing CFLs

3,416

50%

99%

1,691

70,845

68

NIPSCO

PY1

PY1 CFLs

5,731

45%

97.3%

2,510

125,493

15

-2,435

NIPSCO

PY2

PY2 CFLs

14,306

55%

97.3%

7,657

382,875

46

-7,428

NIPSCO

PY2

PY2 Smart Strips

12

100%

100%

12

1,234

NIPSCO

PY2

PY2 Canvassing CFLs

3,227

50%

99%

1,597

66,925

64

Vectren

PY1

PY1 CFLs

2,959

45%

97.3%

1,296

64,794

-1,257

Vectren

PY2

PY2 CFLs

11,435

55%

97.3%

6,121

306,038

37

-5,937

Vectren

PY2

PY2 Smart Strips

697

100%

100%

697

71,652

Vectren

PY2

PY2 Canvassing CFLs

833

50%

99%

412

17,273

16

Statewide

69,800

3,529,258

615

-60,848

136,771

Note: the canvassing CFLs carryover savings include canvassing CFLs from the LIW program.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 35

Home Energy Assessment


Table 32, Table 33, and Table 34 show total verified energy, demand, and gas savings, respectively,
including savings from PY3 program activities as well as carryover savings from PY1 and PY2.
Table 32: PY3 Verified kWh Savings, with Carryover
Utility

Verified kWh from


Audits

PY1 Carryover kWh

PY2 Carryover kWh

PY3 Total Verified


kWh

Duke

17,067,361

201,717

750,457

I&M

2,108,623

81,414

211,570

2,401,606

IPL

14,808,692

358,917

888,902

16,056,511

NIPSCO

9,224,529

125,493

451,034

9,801,056

Vectren

5,291,226

64,794

394,962

5,750,982

48,500,431

832,334

2,696,924

52,029,689

Statewide

18,019,534

Table 33. PY3 Verified kW Savings, with Carryover


Utility

Verified kW from
Audits

PY1 Carryover kW

PY2 Carryover kW

PY3 Total Verified kW

Duke

2,121

24

152

I&M

230

10

25

266

IPL

1,932

43

166

2,141

NIPSCO

1,195

15

110

1,320

Vectren

750

7.8

62

819

6,229

100

515

6,844

Statewide

2,298

Table 34. Verified PY3 Therm Savings, with Carryover


Utility

Verified Therms from


Audits

Duke

PY1 Carryover
Therms

PY2 Carryover
Therms

731,068

-3,913

I&M

95,945

-1,579

-3,650

90,716

IPL

616,297

-6,963

-14,608

594,726

NIPSCO

316,368

-2,435

-7,428

306,506

Vectren

212,248

-1,257

-5,937

205,054

1,971,926

-16,147

-44,701

1,911,077

Statewide

-13,079

PY3 Total Verified


Therms
714,076

Ex-Post Savings
Ex-post savings reflected the engineering review of savings from the program measures. This section
presents the engineering approach used for each program measure. Detailed information on variable
assumptions and sources can be found in the binders assembled for each utility.

CFLs
The Evaluation Team estimated ex-post savings based on detailed information contained in the program
tracking database. Specifically, the analysis included the wattage of actual bulbs removed and bulbs
installed, along with the bulb location. The program tracking database also included information on the
presence of central air conditioners and fuel types for space heating. This information proved critical to
the correct application of the waste heat factors (WHFs). Where the Evaluation Team could not
determine the space heat type and central air conditioning present, weighted average values applied.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 36

Home Energy Assessment


The resulting ex-post savings for CFLs were 82% of PY3 ex-ante energy values and 86% of demand
values.

Showerheads
Energy-efficient showerhead savings depended on the number of people in a household and the length
of their showers. Similar to PY2, while the tracking database captured number of residents in a home,
the Team used an external study to gather shower lengths; Michigan funded a large research effort that
gathered information on how people used their showers and faucets.4 Combining these two sources, the
Team established number of showers taken per day in a household and the shower average length. The
resulting ex-post values in PY3 ranged from 384 kWh to 567 kWh.

Faucet Aerators
As with showerheads, the Evaluation Team used information from the Michigan water study, data from
the Indiana TRM, the Indiana Residential Market Baseline 2012, and the Domestic Hot Water Event
Scheduler Generator (developed by the National Renewable Efficiency Laboratory [NREL]) for estimating
savings for faucet aerators. The Evaluation Team used variables from these studies to establish minutes
per day per person for kitchen faucets, mixed water temperature, and the number of occupants per
home. The resulting ex-post values for faucet aerators in PY3 ranged from 162 kWh to 274 kWh

Home Audit Recommendations


Auditors provided home energy reports identifying additional energy-efficient measures to further
reduce energy consumption to HEA participants. Ex-post audit savings were participant-specific, based
on survey response data with 202 HEA participants. One-third (34%, n=68) of participants indicated
implementing one or more recommendations from the home energy report. The Evaluation Team
divided savings from these recommended measures for these 68 participants by the total surveyed
participants (n=202) to establish an average, statewide, per-home savings value. Statewide averages
were used in place of utility-specific averages due to small sample sizes per utility, and approach
consistent with the application of per-home recommended savings for PY1 and PY2.
Home energy reports included two types of recommended measures:

Behavioral measures, which required homeowners to modify how they used energy in their
homes; and

Measures that required purchases and installations of equipment.

The average statewide ex-post per-home values were smaller than previous years. Though variations
were expected year-to-year, the smaller numbers for PY3 resulted from two behavioral measures
(programming existing thermostats and turning off lights) making up 71% of the total recommended
energy savings in PY2. These same two measures only made up 27% of the total recommended energy

Findings from this research, while publicly available, are not available online. If stakeholders wish to obtain
this research, the Evaluation Team can provide the materials on request.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 37

Home Energy Assessment


savings in PY3. Fewer participants implemented these two measures in PY3 than in PY2, thus decreasing
overall, per-unit savings per household by 29%.
Table 35 shows household and energy-savings percentages for each recommended measure that HEA
participants reportedly engaged in after receiving a program audit. Notably, certain measures have
lower participation rates but have a larger impact on the total savings. For example, only 11% of
participants weather-stripped/air sealed their homes, however, this makes up 33% of the total kWh
savings.
Table 35. PY3 HEA Household and Energy Saving Percentages per Recommended Measure
% kWh Savings (of total
savings)

% Households
Behavioral Measures
Turn off lights when not in use

29%

24%

Unplug unused appliances

26%

3%

Wash clothes in cold water

21%

16%

Program existing thermostat

15%

3%

Weather strip / Air seal

11%

33%

Energy Star Refrigerator

6%

4%

New Doors

4%

2%

Energy Star Clothes Washer

3%

1%

New Cooling Equipment

3%

5%

Attic / Ceiling Insulation

2%

4%

Energy Star Dishwasher

2%

1%

Other Energy Star Appliances

2%

1%

New Windows

2%

3%

New Heating Equipment

2%

0%

New Water Heater

1%

0%

Water Heater Tank Wrap (Electric WH)

1%

1%

Installation Measures

Ex-Post Savings
Putting it all together, Table 36 shows total ex-post savings by utility and statewide, including audit
savings, ex-post per measure savings, canvassing savings, and carryover savings for PY3.
Table 36. HEA Ex-Post Savings by Utility and Statewide, with Carryover
Utility

1,991
266

Ex-Post Therms
2,150
-1,127

14,060,746

1,749

-8,096

NIPSCO

8,806,890

1,073

-66,734

Vectren

5,496,401

692

-7,600

46,262,705

5,771

-81,405

Duke
I&M
IPL

Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

Ex-Post kWh
15,913,643
1,985,025

Ex-Post kW

Page 38

Home Energy Assessment


The per unit ex-post kWh savings (by measure) is shown in Table 37.
Table 37. Ex-Post Per Unit kWh Savings, by Measure and by Utility
Measure
CFL
Pipe Wrap
Showerhead
Aerator
Recommendations
Canvassing CFLs
Smart Strips
Carryover Canvassing CFLs

Duke
41.2
63.5
392.2
174.1
187.5
35.6
22.6
35.6

I&M
37.7
66.5
384
162.5
187.5
0
22.6
34.8

Utility
IPL
41.1
56.9
403.7
180.2
187.5
35.6
22.6
35.6

NIPSCO
46.4
67.2
410.5
169.6
187.5
35.2
22.6
35.2

Vectren
44.7
64
567.4
273.9
187.5
36.6
22.6
36.6

Notably, ex-post therm savings were negative, as a majority of program participants that installed pipe
wraps, showerheads, or faucet aerators had electric water heating and did not receive therm savings.
Additionally, negative therm savings occurred due to the high CFL therm penalties. Given that CFLs emit
less heat than standard bulbs, by replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, the amount of heat emitted by
bulbs decreases. This difference must be compensated for by increased heating loads. Efficient bulbs
also decrease the cooling load as less energy is needed to compensate for heat given off by the bulbs. To
account for these changes, the Evaluation Team applied the WHF prescribed in the Indiana TRM (WHF
values vary by utility).

Net Savings
Net savings reflect the application of the program NTG ratio to ex-post energy savings. As identified in
the Energizing Indiana Evaluation Plan,5 NTG analysis refers to: the analytical process associated with
isolating the savings that are caused by a programs efforts from the savings that are caused by other
market forces.
In PY3, the freeridership approach drew upon participant responses to survey questions regarding the
timing, quantity, and prior usage of the measure in question.6 Table 38 shows the measure-level net of
freeriders.

The Energizing Indiana Evaluation Plan was prepared by the TecMarket Team and submitted to the DSMCC on
November 14, 2012.

After a review of the survey responses, the Evaluation Team did not find potential spillover savings, and, as
such, the NTG ratio only included freeridership.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 39

Home Energy Assessment


Table 38. Measure-Level NTG Ratios
Measure

NTG

CFLs

74%

Pipe Wrap

91%

Energy Efficient Showerhead

91%

Faucet Aerators

93%

Audit Recommendations

100%

PY1 Carryover CFLs

77%

PY2 Carryover CFLs

81.5%

Applying the NTG ratios to ex-post savings from measures installed through the program resulted in the
net savings shown in Table 39.
Table 39. Net Savings, with Carryover
Utility

Net kWh

Net kW

Net Therms

Duke

13,263,973

1,663

39,099

I&M

1,653,851

221

3,761

IPL

11,691,647

1,459

26,102

7,050,199

871

-26,097

NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

4,558,314

577

6,729

38,217,984

4,791

49,594

Summary of Impact Adjustments


The following tables show all adjustments made to energy savings claimed by the program (which do
not include CFL carryover savings from PY1 or PY2).
Table 40. HEA Energy Savings (kWh), without Carryover
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post Gross
kWh

Ex-Post Net
kWh

Duke

18,967,000

17,714,195

17,654,071

17,067,361

15,127,930

12,619,301

I&M

2,236,649

2,181,517

2,173,091

2,108,623

1,776,674

1,485,851

IPL

16,670,039

15,377,976

15,328,224

14,808,692

13,072,794

10,885,967

NIPSCO

11,726,990

9,472,965

9,466,026

9,224,529

8,278,809

6,614,595

Vectren

6,472,991

5,486,336

5,476,656

5,291,226

5,134,325

4,260,123

56,073,669

50,232,989

50,098,068

48,500,431

43,390,531

35,865,838

Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 40

Home Energy Assessment


Table 41. HEA Demand Savings (kW), without Carryover
Utility
Duke

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

2,323

I&M

Audited kW

2,272

Ex-Post Gross
kW

Verified kW

2,249

2,121

Ex-Post Net kW

1,889

1,580

236

239

237

230

237

197

IPL

2,136

2,083

2,066

1,932

1,624

1,357

NIPSCO

1,365

1,254

1,251

1,195

1,011

820

Vectren

873

815

811

750

647

540

6,932

6,664

6,614

6,229

5,408

4,493

Statewide

Table 42. HEA Therm Savings (therms), without Carryover


Utility
Duke

Therms Goal

Ex-Ante Therms

Audited Therms

Verified Therms

Ex-Post Gross Therms

Ex-Post Net
Therms

767,255

528,697

735,102

731,068

14,767

49,488

I&M

92,327

60,154

96,527

95,945

2,289

6,498

IPL

669,823

528,237

618,825

616,297

7,795

39,052

NIPSCO

477,921

612,978

313,423

316,368

-54,515

-16,050

Vectren

257,704

189,022

212,225

212,248

-1,761

11,493

2,265,030

1,919,088

1,976,102

1,971,926

-31,426

90,482

Statewide

The following tables show savings achieved in PY3, plus additional carryover savings from delayed
installations from PY1 and PY2 (i.e., savings generated from some CFLs distributed in kits but not
installed in those years).7
Table 43. HEA Energy Savings (kWh), with Carryover
Utility

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post Gross
kWh

Ex-Post Net
kWh

Duke

18,967,000

17,714,195

17,654,071

18,019,534

15,913,643

13,263,973

I&M

2,236,649

2,181,517

2,173,091

2,401,606

1,985,025

1,653,851

IPL

16,670,039

15,377,976

15,328,224

16,056,511

14,060,746

11,691,647

NIPSCO

11,726,990

9,472,965

9,466,026

9,801,056

8,806,890

7,050,199

Vectren

6,472,991

5,486,336

5,476,656

5,750,982

5,496,401

4,558,314

56,073,669

50,232,989

50,098,068

52,029,689

46,262,705

38,217,984

Statewide

kWh Goal

Notably, projected bulb installs beyond the 3-year cycle are not included in the PY3 annual savings or the costeffectiveness lifecycle savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 41

Home Energy Assessment


Table 44. HEA Demand Savings (kW), with Carryover
Utility
Duke

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

2,323

I&M

Audited kW

2,272

Ex-Post Gross
kW

Verified kW

2,249

2,298

1,991

Ex-Post Net kW
1,663

236

239

237

266

266

221

IPL

2,136

2,083

2,066

2,141

1,749

1,459

NIPSCO

1,365

1,254

1,251

1,320

1,073

871

Vectren

873

815

811

819

692

577

6,932

6,664

6,614

6,844

5,771

4,791

Statewide

Table 45. HEA Therm Savings (therms), with Carryover


Utility
Duke

Therms Goal

Ex-Ante Therms

Audited Therms

Verified Therms

Ex-Post Gross Therms

Ex-Post Net
Therms

767,255

528,697

735,102

714,076

2,150

39,099

I&M

92,327

60,154

96,527

90,716

-1,127

3,761

IPL

669,823

528,237

618,825

594,726

-8,096

26,102

NIPSCO

477,921

612,978

313,423

306,506

-66,734

-26,097

Vectren

257,704

189,022

212,225

205,054

-7,600

6,729

2,265,030

1,919,088

1,976,102

1,911,077

-81,405

49,594

Statewide

Table 46 presents ex-post gross lifetime savings by utility.


Table 46. Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings Achieved by HEA
Utility

Lifetime kWh

Duke

97,947,555

I&M

12,456,437

IPL

83,645,583

NIPSCO

46,129,326

Vectren

32,129,690

Statewide

272,308,591

Process Evaluation
This process evaluation included program staff interviews and a survey of participating customers to
determine behavioral elements related to the energy savings (such as removal of measures or
installation of measures outside of the program).

Information from Staff Interviews


Program administration staff maintained the same program design through PY3, reporting only limited
changes to program design and implementation. The most notable changes related to gas savings. The
program tracked the fuel type of each audited home and then assigned specific ex-ante savings to gassaving measures (e.g., water pipe wrap in homes with a gas water heater) based on the home fuel type.
Utilities that provided gas services in areas with a different electricity service provider paid the latter for
the gas savings. This generated additional funds, which the electric utilities used to increase the number
of program audits.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 42

Home Energy Assessment


As described above in the HEA Program Design and Implementation section, the TPA launched two
monthly ally-training efforts in PY3: ETC and QC Metric Training. Auditors completed a two-week
training and then spent five to 10 days in the field with more experienced auditors. In PY3, auditor
training emphasized the importance of installing as many measures as possible in the home at the time
of the audit (not leaving measures behind uninstalled) and accurately capturing all installed measures in
the tracking database.
The QC Metric Training covered various aspects of a successful home energy audit, including the
following: on-site verifications of measure installations; regular field observations, where supervisors
shadowed auditors during visits; review of Optimizer files; and compliance reporting requirements for
field staff. Key indices reviewed in the quality processes included: field staff production (the number of
homes served); and installation rates (the number of measures installed).

Participant Survey
Participant surveys included questions related to the following:

Satisfaction with the program

Verification of measure installations

Audit recommendations taken or planned

Additional measures/actions/behaviors taken that could save energy

Likelihood of measure/behavior persistence

Household/demographic characteristics

Customer Participation Process


As in the previous year, once a participant enrolled in the program, the auditor scheduled an
appointment to visit the home. While at the home, the auditor conducted a one- to two-hour audit and
installed needed program measures. At the conclusion of the audit, the auditor issued a report with
recommendations for additional steps participants could take to improve their homes efficiency. The
vast majority (97%) of participants reported the program participation had been clearly explained to
them.
Among this group, both renters (93%) and homeowners (90%) found information provided during the
audit to be somewhat to very useful. Figure 16 shows how useful participants found the information
provided during the audit.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 43

Home Energy Assessment


Figure 16. Usefulness of the Information Provided During Audit

HEA (n=184)

53%

0%

20%

Very useful

40%

40%

60%

Somewhat useful

80%

7%

100%

Not at all useful

The Evaluation Team established whether a customer fell within a gas or electric category, based on
their primary heating fuel type (as self-reported in the participant survey). Differences emerged
between electric and gas customers regarding how they learned about the program. Electric customers
primarily learned of the program through letters/direct mail and bill inserts, while gas participants
primarily learned about the program through word-of-mouth and canvassing. Figure 17 shows how
participants learned of the program.
Although the survey did not record the number of people in the household, Figure 19 shows many
participants in the HEA program could have qualified for the LIW program (for an individual, 200% of the
2014 federal poverty level equaled $23,340; for a family of four, it equaled $47,700).8
Figure 17. How Participants Learned of the HEA Program (Multiple Responses)
28%

30%
25%
20%
15%

20%

18%
15%

11%

112%

9%

10%

6%

5% 5% 5%

5%

19%
17%

7%

5%
2%

5% 5%

7%

2%

0%
Total HEA (n=202)*

Electric HEA Customers (n=69)

Letter/Mail
Canvassing/Door-to-door representative
At a community event
Flyer

Gas HEA Customers (n=119)

Word-of-mouth
Bill Insert
Phone call/Someone contacted me

Note: Analysis excluded responses that sum to less than 4% within the Total category.
*The "Other" fuel type (e.g., tanked gas or geothermal, n=14) is not included in the graph.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 44

Home Energy Assessment


Respondents cited reducing energy bills and saving energy as their primary reasons for program
participation. The availability of free measures also motivated some customers. Though this reports
presents overall findings as well as findings by electric and gas homes to reveal trends, samples sizes
proved insufficient to detect significant differences between the many response categories.
Figure 18. Reasons for Participating in the HEA Program (Multiple Responses)*
43%

45%

40%
35%

36%
33%

33%
33%

31%

30%
25%
20%

15%
13%

15%

10%

10%

7%

5%

8%

5%

4% 4%

6% 6%

3% 2%

0%
Total HEA (n=202)*

Electric HEA Customers (n=69)

Wanted to reduce the utility bill


The items were free of charge
Good program/idea

Gas HEA Customers (n=118)

Wanted to save energy


Wanted to save money
It was offered/something to do

Note: Analysis excluded responses that sum to less than 4% within the Total category.
* Fifteen customers reported a different primary fuel type, such as tanked gas or geothermal.

Figure 19. HEA Participant Reported Income Levels


30%
23%

25%
20%

24%
21%

17%

15%
10%

8%

6%

5%
0%
PY3 HEA (n=158)

Less than $15,000

$15,000-$29,999

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000 and over

Participant customers were highly satisfied with the program, awarding a mean 8.9 score on a 10-point
scale. Figure 20 shows participants expressed the greatest satisfaction with the auditors
professionalism, the quality of work, and the time required to complete the audit.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 45

Home Energy Assessment


Figure 20. Satisfaction with HEA Program Elements
Mean

1%

HEA program overall

14%

84%

Professionalism of
4%
Auditor

95%

1%

9.6

2%

9.5

Quality of work

7%

91%

Length of Audit

4%

94%

Time between sign up


3%9%
and visit
Upgrades Installed 3%10%
0%
(n=202)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

20%

Neutral (5-7)

40%

8.9

9.3

86%

2%

9.0

83%

3%

8.9

60%

Satisfied (8-10)

80%

100%

Don't know

The potential program improvement most cited (by about 10% of respondents) was to increase the
variety of services or measures available through the program.

Insights and Recommendations


This section presents conclusions and recommendations from the research evaluation efforts. While the
HEA program ended by December 31, 2014, we provide recommendations for use by utilities in future
program offerings.
Continue to instruct auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes. The high installation
and persistence rates in PY3 compared to previous years (for example, 99.95% installation rate for CFLs
in PY3 compared with 70% in PY2 and 67% in PY1), reflect that the majority of measures directly
installed in customer homes during the audit remain in place and accumulate savings over the lifetime
of the measure (compared to having measures dropped off at customers homes for later installation).
In addition, to maximize program savings, auditors should continue to prioritize high-usage sockets
when installing bulbs in customer homes.
Focus marketing messaging and channels. Customers reported reducing energy bills and saving energy
as their primary reasons for program participation. Thus, the program should prioritize customers where
savings are likely to be visible (for example, in homes with electric water heating as these customers
achieve savings from aerators and showerheads) and use messages to all customer groups that focus on
energy savings.
Explore opportunities for diversifying program measure mix. Participant survey respondents most
commonly cited increasing variety of services or measures available through the program as an
improvement opportunity. While the program extensively focused on standard CFLs, there may be
additional savings achieved by expanding the measure mix provided through these types of program.
The Evaluation Team is currently in the process of conducting a Market Effects study in Indiana that will
capture the current state of energy efficiency in customers homes in Indiana. Utilities could use the

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 46

Home Energy Assessment


results of this study to better understand the Indiana market and thus strategically tailor program
offerings to the market needs.
Continue to strategically focus the canvassing efforts. In PY3, the TPA focused on geographic areas
where field advisors were active, which reduced travel time and allowed canvassers to focus more
deeply on strategic areas. The TPA also integrated mailing efforts with canvassing efforts, instead of
focusing on areas with low saturation as in previous years. Thus if the program wants to continue using
canvassing as a channel to reach customers, these strategies should be used. These insights can be
applicable to not only to HEA-type programs, but to other programs that rely on canvassing as well.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 47

Low Income Weatherization

Low Income Weatherization


Program Design and Implementation
The LIW program provided walk-through audits and direct installations of energy-efficiency measures to
single-family homeowners or renters (with landlord approval) with a total household income of up to
200% of the Federal Poverty Level. The program identified specific target neighborhoods using 2010 U.S.
Census block data. While the program targets households with income of up to 200% of the Federal
Poverty Level, all residents, regardless of income, within a qualified census block were eligible for the
program. Income-qualified homeowners or renters outside of the targeted census blocks could
participate by referral through community action agencies (CAAs). The LIW program was discontinued
by December 31, 2014.
Though all income qualified customers living in single-family homes could take advantage of the offer,
the program primarily targeted high-usage electric power customers (not necessarily gas consumption).
The program recruited customers through door-to-door canvassing, mail, outreach through CAAs,
housing authorities, and various marketing strategies that rely on word-of-mouth connections.
The LIW energy auditors conducted a walk-through audit of participating customer homes to assess the
energy performance. While on-site, auditors installed energy-efficiency measures, conducted carbon
monoxide and gas leak tests, and performed blower-door guided air sealing. Attic insulation could also
be upgraded to R-48 after the initial walk-through audit, if the homes existing attic insulation level fell
below R-19. In addition, the customer received a report about the homes energy use, suggesting further
actions to reduce the customers energy consumption.
In PY3, the program reached 8,633 households. Since the initial ramp up in late PY1, the TPA has
maintained the number of monthly LIW participants through the program cycle. Figure 21 shows the
number of LIW audits completed per month.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 48

Low Income Weatherization


Figure 21. LIW Audits Completed by Month
2,500

Count of LIW Audit Visits

2,000

PY1 n=7,589
PY2 n=9,322
PY3 n=8,633

PY1

PY2

2,079

PY3

1,703

1,500

1,220
1,200

1,281
1,043

1,000

822
640
409 565
332
267
228
201

500

869
833

1,054
799
710 538 607
499
441

728
718 720

825
775 757
732
670
683
323

162

26 85

Source: Energizing Indiana PY3 program tracking database.

EM&V Methodology
Evaluation of the LIW program included impact and process elements. Table 47 provides an overview of
tasks used for evaluating the program.
Table 47. Program Evaluation Overall Tasks
Action

Details

Implementer Interviews

Interviewed three Implementation staff.

Program Database Review/


Verification

Reviewed the participant data tracking database.

Program Materials Review

Reviewed materials to assess marketing and outreach efforts.

Participant Interviews

Conducted telephone surveys with 200 program participants.

Impact Analysis

Audited the measure installations reported in the program database.


Verified the reported measure installations using participant interviews.
Performed engineering calculations of installed measures.

Sampling Design
The Evaluation Team developed a sampling plan to produce telephone survey findings within the agreed
bounds of 90% confidence level and 10% precision at the program level. The Evaluation Team conducted
200 interviews with program participants in September/October 2014. Table 48 shows the sample
frame, response, and cooperation rates for each survey effort.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 49

Low Income Weatherization


Table 48. Auditor and Participant Survey Sample Design*
Action

Population

Telephone Participant Interviews

8,633

Completions
200

Cooperation Rate
39%

Response Rate**
16%

* Response rate gives the percentage of participants who completed an interview out of all of the participants who were
called, even if we did not actually speak with them (for example, getting an answering machine).
Cooperation rate gives the percentage of participants who completed an interview out of all of the participants with whom we
actually spoke.
** In general, a rate response above 10% is considered good.

Program Performance
Table 49 shows how ex-ante savings compared to goals established in program planning. Ex-ante savings
reported by the program did not reflect adjustments resulting from the evaluation. The TPA reported
the program met 92% of energy savings, 105% of demand savings and 91% of therm savings goals.
Table 49. Ex-Ante Results by Utility and Statewide
kWh
Utility

Goal

Ex-Ante

Duke

3,676,315

I&M

1,524,000

IPL

kW

Therms

% of Goal

Goal

3,451,650

94%

330

325

99%

149,951

63,934

1,529,696

100%

137

139

102%

62,428

43,510

70%

2,379,728

2,315,573

97%

218

254

116%

96,784

100,162

103%

NIPSCO

2,515,899

2,084,444

83%

231

214

92%

102,349

135,384

132%

Vectren

1,871,039

1,629,748

87%

168

206

122%

76,224

101,974

134%

11,966,981

11,011,111

92%

1,085

1,138

105%

487,736

444,964

91%

Statewide

Ex-Ante

% of Goal

Goal

Ex-Ante

% of Goal
43%

The program met 85% of its participation goals in terms of numbers of homes served, as shown in
Table 50.
Table 50. Number of Homes Served by the LIW Program
Utility

Number of Homes
Goal

Ex-Ante

% Achieved

Duke

3,688

2,647

72%

I&M

1,283

1,104

86%

IPL

2,016

1,715

85%

NIPSCO

1,844

1,809

98%

1,264

1,355

107%

10,095

8,630

85%

Vectren
Statewide

Impact Evaluation
This impact evaluation included a database review of the volume of measures installed in each home
and an engineering review to establish ex-post savings.

Audited Savings
The impact evaluation process began with the review of the program database, summing the measure
volume installed during audits and through canvassing activities. Table 51 shows measures installed by

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 50

Low Income Weatherization


the program in participant homes, as they appeared in the program database. CFLs were the prevalent
installed measure.
Table 51. Audited Measure Quantities
Measure
CFLs
Pipe Wrap
Energy Efficient Showerhead
Faucet Aerators

Measures in Database

Unit

Duke

I&M

IPL

NIPSCO

Vectren

Statewide

Bulb

36,043

15,841

28,817

26,653

20,046

127,400

Home

1,084

474

376

258

296

2,488

Showerhead

1,153

587

474

359

280

2,853

Aerator

3,292

1,281

1,082

717

701

7,073

Air Sealing

Home

107

31

179

59

188

564

Attic Insulation

Home

115

27

232

240

398

1,012

Audit Recommendations

Home

2,647

1,105

1,715

1,809

1,357

8,633

To arrive at audited savings, the Evaluation Team multiplied the agreed-upon ex-ante deemed savings
by the volume of measures installedboth for the canvassing efforts and for measures installed in
participating homes (e.g., number of CFLs * ex-ante deemed savings per CFL)to arrive at the programs
total audited energy, demand and gas savings, as shown in Table 52.
Table 52. PY3 Audited Energy Savings
Utility
Duke

Audited kWh
3,428,093

I&M
IPL

318

Audited Therms
147,070

1,518,080

137

64,474

2,306,263

252

81,225

NIPSCO

2,076,959

212

74,966

Vectren

1,623,720

205

73,791

10,953,115

1,124

441,525

Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

Audited kW

Page 51

Low Income Weatherization


The per unit ex-ante kWh savings (by measure) is shown in Table 53Table 37.
Table 53. Ex-Ante Per Unit kWh Savings, by Measure and by Utility
Utility

Measure

Duke

CFL

I&M

IPL

NIPSCO

Vectren

50

50

50

50

50

Pipe Wrap

96.7

111.5

109.6

128.3

119.7

Showerhead

441

441

441

441

441

Aerator

68.1

68.1

68.1

68.1

68.1

Air Sealing

542.1

608.5

270.4

106.9

169.5

Attic Insulation

278.3

618.9

149

58.9

60.1

Recommendations

263.8

263.8

263.8

263.8

263.8

41.9

41.9

41.9

41.9

Canvassing CFLs

Verified Savings
To establish verified savings, the Evaluation Team established an installation rate by comparing the exante measure volumes against volumes customers reported as installed in the participant surveys (the
installation rate). The survey data also enabled calculation of a persistence rate by establishing
measures that remained installed after the audits. The Evaluation Team then multiplied this installation
rate and the persistence rate by the audited savings to establish verified savings. The installation rate
reflected statewide values (rather utility-specific) due to survey sample sizes established to reach the
agreed confidence and precision at the statewide level over the three-year program cycle.
Table 54 shows adjustments for installation rates and measure removals.
Table 54. Statewide Installation and Persistence Rate Adjustments
Measure

Statewide Installation Rate

Statewide Persistence

CFLs

98.6%

97%

Pipe Wrap

100%

100%

Energy Efficient Showerhead

100%

100%

97%

100%

100%

100%

79%

99%

Faucet Aerators
Audit Recommendations
Canvassing CFLs

For the most part, installation rates reflected customers confirmation that the majority of measures
reported were installed during the audit. The statewide persistence rates indicated most measures
remained in place, with the exception of a small volume of CFLs.
Table 55 shows the resulting verified energy, demand, and gas savings after applying installation and
persistence rates to audited savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 52

Low Income Weatherization


Table 55. Audited and Verified Savings, Including Canvassing Activities
Utility

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Audited kW

Verified kW

Audited Therms

Verified Therms

Duke

3,428,093

3,343,735

318

308

147,070

148,325

I&M

1,518,080

1,481,320

137

132

64,474

65,039

IPL

2,306,263

2,240,294

252

243

81,225

82,355

NIPSCO

2,076,959

2,016,277

212

204

74,966

76,033

Vectren
Statewide

1,623,720

1,578,624

205

199

73,791

74,581

10,953,115

10,660,250

1,124

1,087

441,525

446,332

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 53

Low Income Weatherization


The Evaluation Team established realization rates based on verified savings. Table 56 shows verified savings and utility-specific realization rates.
The precision around the LIW realization rates for the PY1-PY3 period is 2.8% at 90% confidence.
Table 56. Verified Realization Rates
Utility

Verified kWh

Ex-Ante kWh

Realization Rate

Verified kW

Ex-Ante
kW

Verified
Therms

Realization Rate

Ex-Ante
Therms

Realization Rate

Duke

3,343,735

3,451,650

97%

308

325

95%

148,325

63,934

232%

I&M

1,481,320

1,529,696

97%

132

139

95%

65,039

43,510

149%

IPL

2,240,294

2,315,573

97%

243

254

96%

82,355

100,162

82%

NIPSCO

2,016,277

2,084,444

97%

204

214

95%

76,033

135,384

56%

Vectren

1,578,624

1,629,748

97%

199

206

97%

74,581

101,974

73%

10,660,250

11,011,111

97%

1,087

1,138

95%

446,332

444,964

100%

Statewide

Similarly to the HEA program, to establish PY1 and PY2 Carryover savings, the Evaluation Team followed the UMP-recommended method.
Table 57 summarizes carryover savings from bulbs left behind in PY1 and PY2, but installed in PY3. While this increased demand and energy
savings, it resulted in negative gas savings.
Table 57. Verified PY1 and PY2 Carryover Savings from CFLs Left Behind in Homes
Program
Year

Measure

Quantity Left in
Homes

Installation
Rate

Persistence
Rate

Duke

PY1

PY1 CFLs

2,900

45%

97%

1,266

63,292

-1,228

Duke

PY2

PY2 CFLs

5,963

55%

97%

3,181

159,063

19

-3,086

I&M

PY1

PY1 CFLs

512

45%

97%

223

11,174

-217

I&M

PY2

PY2 CFLs

924

55%

97%

493

24,648

-478

IPL

PY1

PY1 CFLs

1,052

45%

97%

459

22,960

-445

IPL

PY2

PY2 CFLs

1,122

55%

97%

599

29,929

-581

NIPSCO

PY1

PY1 CFLs

329

45%

97%

144

7,180

-139

NIPSCO

PY2

PY2 CFLs

729

55%

97%

389

19,446

-377

Vectren

PY1

PY1 CFLs

469

45%

97%

205

10,236

-199

Vectren

PY2

PY2 CFLs

584

55%

97%

312

15,578

-302

7,270

363,507

44

-7,052

Utility

Statewide

14,584

Core Programs PY3 Report

Verified
Quantity

Verified Carryover
kWh

Verified Carryover
kW

Page 54

Verified Carryover
Therms

Low Income Weatherization


Table 58, Table 59, and Table 60 show total verified energy, demand and gas savings, respectively,
including savings from PY3 program activities as well as carryover savings from PY1 and PY2.
Table 58. Verified PY3 kWh Savings
Utility

PY3 Verified kWh from


Audits

PY1 Carryover kWh

PY2 Carryover kWh

PY3 Total Verified


kWh

Duke

3,343,735

63,292

159,063

3,566,090

I&M

1,481,320

11,174

24,648

1,517,142

IPL

2,240,294

22,960

29,929

2,293,183

NIPSCO

2,016,277

7,180

19,446

2,042,904

Vectren

1,578,624

10,236

15,578

1,604,438

10,660,250

114,843

248,664

11,023,757

Statewide

Table 59. Verified PY3 kW Savings


Utility

PY3 Verified kW from Audits

PY1 Carryover kW

PY2 Carryover kW

PY3 Total Verified


kW

Duke

308

7.6

19

335

I&M

132

1.3

3.0

137

IPL

243

2.8

3.6

249

NIPSCO

204

0.9

2.3

207

Vectren

199

1.2

1.9

202

1,087

14

30

1,130

Statewide

Table 60. Verified PY3 Therm Savings


Utility

PY3 Verified Therms


from Audits

PY1 Carryover
Therms

PY2 Carryover
Therms

PY3 Total Verified


Therms

Duke

148,325

-1,228

-3,086

144,011

I&M

65,039

-217

-478

64,344

IPL

82,355

-445

-581

81,329

NIPSCO

76,033

-139

-377

75,516

Vectren
Statewide

74,581

-199

-302

74,080

446,332

-2,228

-4,824

439,280

Ex-Post Savings
Ex-post savings reflected the engineering review of savings. This section presents the engineering
approach used for each program measure. Detailed information on variable assumptions and sources
can be found in the program-specific binders assembled for each utility.

CFLs
The Evaluation Team estimated ex-post savings based on detailed information contained in the program
tracking database. Specifically, the analysis included the wattage of actual bulbs removed and bulbs
installed, along with the bulb locations. The program tracking database also included information on the
presence of central air conditioners and fuel types for space heating. This information proved critical to
the correct application of the WHFs. Where the Evaluation Team could not determine the space heat

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 55

Low Income Weatherization


type and central air conditioning was present, weighted average values applied. The resulting ex-post
savings for CFLs were 86% of PY3 ex-ante energy values and 87% of demand values.

Showerheads
Energy-efficient showerhead savings depended on the number of people in a household and the length
of the showers they take. While the tracking database captured number of residents in a home, the
Evaluation Team used an external study to gather shower lengths; Michigan funded a large research
effort that gathered information on how people used their showers and faucets.9 Combining these
sources, the Team established the number of showers taken per day in a household and the shower
average length. The resulting ex-post values in PY3 ranged from 287 kWh to 464 kWh.

Faucet Aerators
As with showerheads, the Evaluation Team used information from the Michigan water study, data from
the Indiana TRM, the Indiana Residential Market Baseline 2012, and the Domestic Hot Water Event
Scheduler Generator (developed by NREL) for estimating savings for faucet aerators. The Evaluation
Team used variables from these studies to establish minutes per day per person for kitchen faucets,
mixed water temperature, and the number of occupants per home. The resulting ex-post values for
faucet aerators in PY3 ranged from 140 kWh to 200 kWh.

Infiltration Reduction
The Evaluation Team used calculated ex-post infiltration reduction savings, employing data from the
program tracking database, variable assumptions from the Indiana TRM, and information based on the
space heat fuel type and whether central air conditioning was present. While the implementer indicated
they established the ex-ante values in a similar manner, ex-ante estimates were lower than ex-post
values for unknown reasons10. Additionally, the PY3 ex-post values were much greater than the PY2 exante deemed savings.
To help explain the differences in savings by program year, the Evaluation Team examined the per-home
changes in infiltration rates (i.e., delta cubic feet per minute (CFM)). Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the
PY2 and PY3 delta CFM, respectively, and illustrate 25% of PY2 participants and 60% of PY3 participants
had delta CFM infiltration rates greater than 1,000 cfm. As the delta CFM directly corresponded to
energy savings, this indicated why PY3 ex-post per-home savings were larger than the PY2 savings.

10

Findings from this research, while publicly available, are not available online. If stakeholders wish to obtain
this research, the Evaluation Team can provide materials upon request.
The Evaluation Team did not have the exact assumptions used to drive the ex-ante measure savings. Thus, we
could not conduct a sensitivity analysis to help understand the reasons for differences between the ex-ante
and ex-post estimates.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 56

Low Income Weatherization


Figure 22. Change in Infiltration Rates (cfm) for PY2 Participants

Figure 23. Change in Infiltration Rates (cfm) for PY3 Participants

Attic Insulation
For consistency with the PY3 Indiana Core Plus program evaluations, the Evaluation Team used
algorithms from the Indiana TRM and data inputs from the program tracking database to calculate
ex-post estimates. As with ex-ante savings, the Evaluation Team established ex-post savings based on
the home-specific space heat fuel type and the presence of central air conditioning. Ex-post PY3 savings
were comparable to PY2 ex-post estimates, but were greater than ex-ante values. Ex-ante savings
assumed existing attic insulation conditions with R-values of R-19 and post attic insulation conditions of
R-49 for all participants. Ex-post savings were calculated using the actual pre and post R-values provided
in the program tracking database. Per-unit savings (kWh/kSF) from the Indiana TRM were significantly
greater for those with existing R-values less than R-19. Approximately 92% of the population had pre
R-values below R-19 and, as a result, garnered higher ex-post savings.

Home Audit Recommendations


Auditors provided home energy reports to help consumers recognize additional energy-efficient
measures to further reduce energy consumption to LIW participants. Ex-post audit savings from
Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 57

Low Income Weatherization


recommended measures were participant-specific, based on survey response data with 200 LIW
participants and one-third (31%, n=62) of participants indicating they implemented one or more of the
recommendations from the home energy report. The Evaluation Team divided the ex-post savings from
these recommended measures, stated to be implemented by the 62 participants, by the ex-post savings
for all measures for the total surveyed participants (n=200), thus establishing an average statewide perhome savings value. Statewide averages were used in place of utility-specific averages due to small
sample sizes by utility, an action consistent with the application of per-home recommended savings for
PY1 and PY2.
Home energy reports included two types of recommended measures:

Behavioral measures, which required homeowners to modify how they used energy in their
homes; and

Measures that required purchasing and installing equipment.

Variations across years were expected, and average statewide ex-post per-home values were somewhat
smaller than previous years. Programming existing thermostats, which can provide significant savings,
made up 54% of the total recommended energy savings in PY2, but accounted for only 6% in PY3. Fewer
participants implemented this measure in PY3 than in PY2, thus decreasing the overall per-unit savings
per household.
Table 61 shows household and energy savings percentages for each recommended measure LIW
participants reportedly engaged in after receiving a program audit.
Table 61. PY3 LIW Household and Energy Saving Percentages
per Recommended Measure (Multiple Response)
Households

kWh Savings

Behavioral Measures
Turn off lights when not in use

31%

64%

Wash clothes in cold water

27%

21%

Unplug unused appliances

22%

6%

Program existing thermostat

19%

6%

Water Heater Tank Wrap (Electric WH)

2%

2%

Install programmable thermostat

1%

2%

Installation Measures

Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Ex-Post Savings
Table 62 shows total ex-post savings by utility and statewide, including verified quantities, ex post per
measure savings, canvassing savings, and carryover savings for PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 58

Low Income Weatherization


Table 62. LIW Ex-Post Savings by Utility and Statewide
Duke

Utility

Ex-Post kWh
2,858,557

I&M

Ex-Post kW
348

Ex-Post Therms
14,627

1,243,398

138

1,217

IPL

2,078,128

242

28,766

NIPSCO

1,705,645

194

16,016

Vectren

1,429,885

265

50,691

Statewide

9,315,612

1,186

111,318

The per unit ex-post kWh savings (by measure) is shown in Table 63Table 53Table 37.
Table 63. Ex-Post Per Unit kWh Savings, by Measure and by Utility
Measure

Duke

Utility
IPL

I&M

NIPSCO

Vectren

CFL

40.4

36.3

44.2

45.4

46.7

Pipe Wrap

73.8

85.1

83.7

97.9

91.3

Showerhead

287

375.5

411.9

464.5

378.3

139.6

166.3

180.9

200.5

184.4

1,553.20

2,775.40

842.6

299.5

407.1

541.6

1,085.50

478.1

139

178.9

Recommendations

75.7

75.7

75.7

75.7

75.7

Canvassing CFLs

35.6

35.6

35.2

36.6

Aerator
Air Sealing
Attic Insulation

Net Savings
Evaluations of low-income programs typically assume very few, if any, energy-efficiency improvements
would be made in the programs absence. This assumes low-income customers generally would not
have the discretionary income (and thus have difficulty in securing a loan if choosing to finance their
energy-efficiency improvements) to install these measures on their own. Per the evaluation plan
developed in December 2011, the Evaluation Team assigned a NTG ratio of 1.0 to all program measures
and did not ask freeridership or spillover questions in the participant survey. As such, net savings were
the same as the ex-post savings shown above.

Summary of Impact Adjustments


The following tables show all adjustments made to energy savings claimed by the program (which do
not include CFL carryover savings from PY1 or PY2). Table 64 shows energy (kWh) savings, and
Table 65 shows demand (kW) savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 59

Low Income Weatherization


Table 64. Energy Savings (kWh), without Carryover
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Ex-Post Net kWh

Duke

3,676,315

3,451,650

3,428,093

3,343,735

2,679,026

2,679,026

I&M

1,530,725

1,529,696

1,518,080

1,481,320

1,217,379

1,217,379

IPL

2,379,728

2,315,573

2,306,263

2,240,294

2,031,367

2,031,367

NIPSCO

2,515,899

2,084,444

2,076,959

2,016,277

1,681,469

1,681,469

Vectren
Statewide

1,871,039

1,629,748

1,623,720

1,578,624

1,405,763

1,405,763

11,973,706

11,011,111

10,953,115

10,660,250

9,015,003

9,015,003

Table 65. Demand Savings (kW), without Carryover


Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Ex-Post Net kW

Duke

330

325

318

308

322

322

I&M

137

139

137

132

134

134

IPL

218

254

252

243

236

236

NIPSCO

231

214

212

204

191

191

Vectren
Statewide

168

206

205

199

262

262

1,085

1,138

1,124

1,087

1,146

1,146

Table 66. Therm Savings, without Carryover


Utility

Therms
Goal

Ex-Ante
Therms

Audited
Therms

Verified
Therms

Ex-Post
Therms

Ex-Post Net
Therms

Duke

149,951

63,934

147,070

148,325

17,301

17,301

I&M

62,428

43,510

64,474

65,039

1,675

1,675

IPL
NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

96,784

100,162

81,225

82,355

29,688

29,688

102,349

135,384

74,966

76,033

16,576

16,576

76,224

101,974

73,791

74,581

51,147

51,147

487,736

444,964

441,525

446,332

116,388

116,388

The following tables show savings achieved in PY3, plus additional carryover savings from delayed
installations from PY1 and PY2 (i.e., savings generated from some CFLs distributed in kits but not
installed in those years).11
Table 67. Energy Savings (kWh), with Carryover
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Ex-Post Net
kWh

Duke

3,676,315

3,451,650

3,428,093

3,566,090

2,858,557

2,858,557

I&M

1,530,725

1,529,696

1,518,080

1,517,142

1,243,398

1,243,398

IPL

2,379,728

2,315,573

2,306,263

2,293,183

2,078,128

2,078,128

NIPSCO

2,515,899

2,084,444

2,076,959

2,042,904

1,705,645

1,705,645

Vectren
Statewide

11

1,871,039

1,629,748

1,623,720

1,604,438

1,429,885

1,429,885

11,973,706

11,011,111

10,953,115

11,023,757

9,315,612

9,315,612

Notably, projected bulb installs beyond the 3-year cycle are not included in the PY3 annual savings or the costeffectiveness lifecycle savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 60

Low Income Weatherization


Table 68. Demand Savings (kW), with Carryover
Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Ex-Post Net
kW

Duke

330

325

318

335

348

348

I&M

137

139

137

137

138

138

IPL

218

254

252

249

242

242

NIPSCO

231

214

212

207

194

194

Vectren

168

206

205

202

265

265

1,085

1,138

1,124

1,130

1,186

1,186

Statewide

Table 69. Therm Savings, with Carryover


Utility

Ex-Ante
Therms

Therms Goal

Duke

149,951

I&M
IPL

Audited
Therms

Verified
Therms

Ex-Post Therms

63,934

147,070

144,011

62,428

43,510

64,474

64,344

1,217

1,217

96,784

100,162

81,225

81,329

28,766

28,766

NIPSCO

102,349

135,384

74,966

75,516

16,016

16,016

Vectren

76,224

101,974

73,791

74,080

50,691

50,691

487,736

444,964

441,525

439,280

111,318

111,318

Statewide

14,627

Ex-Post Net
Therms
14,627

Table 70 presents ex-post gross lifetime savings by utility.


Table 70. Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings Achieved by LIW
Utility

Lifetime kWh

Duke

19,394,299

I&M

19,523,594

IPL

14,359,521

NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

9,003,524
9,385,042
71,665,981

Process Evaluation
This process evaluation included program staff interviews and a survey of participating customers to
determine behavioral elements related to energy savings (such as removal of measures or installation of
measures outside of the program).

Information from Staff Interviews


As with the HEA program, actual program operations changed little over the course of PY3. Program
administration staff reported making marginal changes to program design and implementation. The
most notable changes included:

Similar to the HEA program, the LIW program started tracking gas savings and applied a more
geographically focused approach to canvassing and integration with mailing efforts, and
implemented several QA/QC mechanisms.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 61

Low Income Weatherization

Early phase-out of CAP agency outreach incentives.

Training changes, which included two monthly ally-training efforts in PY3: ETC and QC
Metric Training.

Made use of street marketing during audit visits (i.e., auditors drove program-branded vehicles
and placed program-branded sandwich boards in front of homes receiving a program audit).

Participant Survey
Participant surveys included questions related to the following:

Satisfaction with the program

Verification of measure installation

Audit recommendations taken or planned

Additional measures/actions/behaviors taken that could save energy

Likelihood of measure/behavior persistence

Household/demographic characteristics

The majority of participants (89%) reported the process to participate in the program was clearly
explained. Approximately 84% reported discussing audit findings with the auditor. Figure 24 shows the
majority of respondents generally found information provided to them during the audit somewhat to
very useful.
Figure 24. Usefulness of Information Provided During Audit

LIW (n=165)

62%

0%
Very useful

Core Programs PY3 Report

20%

40%

Somewhat useful

60%

32%

5%

80%

100%

Not at all useful

Page 62

Low Income Weatherization


Word-of-mouth was the most effective method for learning about the LIW program, followed by
canvassing/door-to-door representatives and letters/direct mail, as shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25. How Customers Learned about the LIW Program (Multiple Responses)
Word-of-mouth

25%

Canvassing/Door-to-door
representative

9%

Letter/Mail

7%

Bill Insert

5%

Landlord

4%

Phone call/Someone contacted me

4%

Local Housing Authority

4%
0%

5%

(n=200)
10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Participants primarily participated to reduce utility bills, followed by wanting to save energy and to
receive free items as their top reasons for participating (as shown in Figure 26). Customers with electricheated homes appeared more motivated to participate by reducing their energy bills than those with
gas-heated homes, though the sample size was not large enough to detect a statistically significant
difference.
Figure 26 . Reasons for Participating in the LIW Program (Multiple Responses)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

47%

43%

42%
33%

31%

28%

12%

9%
5%
1%

Total LIW (n=200)*

5%

3%

Electric LIW Customers (n=46)

Gas LIW Customers (n=141)

Wanted to reduce the utility bill

Wanted to save energy

The items were free of charge

Good program/idea

Note: Analysis excluded responses that sum to less than 4% within the Total category.
*The Other fuel type (e.g., tanked gas or geothermal, n=4) and "Dont know" responses (n=9)
are excluded.

Although the survey did not record the number of people in the household, Figure 27 shows some
participants receiving LIW audits likely fell outside of the income groups intended for the program, a

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 63

Low Income Weatherization


finding consistent with the planned delivery approach of targeting by Census block. Overall, these
percentages were fairly low, indicating the program reached its target audience.
Figure 27. LIW Participant Reported Income Levels
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

38%
33%

19%

8%
0.4%

2%

PY3 LIW (n=166)


Less than $15,000

$15,000-$29,999

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000 and over

Note: n and percentages displayed represent valid responses.

LIW program participants reported high satisfaction levels, giving the program a mean satisfaction score
of 8.6 on a 10-point scale. Figure 28 shows participant satisfaction with various program elements.
Participants expressed the greatest satisfaction with the auditors professionalism and quality of work.
Figure 28. Satisfaction with LIW Program Elements
Mean
LIW program overall 5%

16%

78%

1%
6%

Professionalism of Auditor

2%
Quality of work
7%
2%
4%

Length of Audit
Time between sign up and
visit

(n=200)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

1%

9.5

90%

1%

9.4
9.3

5% 8.8

79%

5% 15%
0%

92%

93%

5% 11%

Upgrades Installed

8.6

77%
20%

Neutral (5-7)

40%

60%

Satisfied (8-10)

3%
80%

8.7

100%

Don't know

Note: Some categories do not total to 100% due to rounding.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 64

Low Income Weatherization

Insights and Recommendations


This section presents conclusions and recommendations from the research evaluation efforts. While the
LIW program ended by December 31, 2014, we provide recommendations for use by utilities in similar
potential future program offerings.
Continue to instruct auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes. The high installation
and persistence rates in PY3 compared to previous years (for example, 99% installation rate for CFLs in
PY3 compared with 79% in PY2 and 78.6% in PY1), reflect that the majority of measures directly installed
in customer homes during the audit remain in place and accumulate savings over the lifetime of the
measure (compared to having measures dropped off at the customers homes for later installation). In
addition, to maximize program savings, auditors should continue to prioritize high-usage sockets when
installing bulbs in customer homes.
Continue using Census-based marketing. The program used the 2010 U.S. Census block data to identify
specific target neighborhoods. This approach appears effective and may be less costly than other
marketing efforts.
Focus marketing messaging and channels. Customers reported reducing energy bills, saving energy and
receiving free measures as their primary reasons for program participation. Thus, the program should
prioritize customers where savings are likely to be visible (for example, in homes with electric water
heating as these customers achieve savings from aerators and showerheads) and use messages to all
customer groups that focus on energy and money savings. Additionally, customers reported learning of
the program through word-of-mouth and canvassing/door-to-door representatives. Given that the
direct contact channels help in overall participation, these approaches should be continued in LIW-type
programs to increase overall participation.
Explore opportunities for diversifying program measure mix. Participant surveys most frequently
suggested increasing the variety of services or measures available as an improvement to the program.
While the programs focus continued to be on standard CFLs, there may be additional savings achieved
by expanding the measure mix provided through the program. The Evaluation Team is currently in the
process of conducting a Market Effects study in Indiana that will capture the current state of energy
efficiency in Indian. Utilities can use the results of the study to strategically tailor program offerings to
the market needs.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 65

Residential Lighting

Residential Lighting
Program Design and Implementation
The Residential Lighting targeted residential customers in Indiana and worked with retailers and
manufacturers to offer CFL and LED bulbs at reduced prices. Discounted pricing included standard and
specialty bulbs across a range of wattages.
GoodCents administered the program and Ecova served as the program implementer under GoodCents.
In PY3, the program implementer worked with 14 retailers across 310 storefronts throughout the state
in marketing and delivering the program. Participating retailers included: do-it-yourself (DIY) stores,
hardware stores, club stores, and general retailers. The programs marketing and promotional activities
continued to build upon efforts that proved effective in previous years, including in-store signage,
point-of-purchase materials, store events, buy-one-get-one (BOGO) lighting promotions, customer bill
inserts, and online advertising.

EM&V Methodology
The PY3 evaluation of the Residential Lighting program included impact and limited process elements.
Table 71 provides an overview of tasks completed as part of the evaluation.
Table 71. Program Evaluation Tasks
Action

Details

Administrator
Interview/Materials Review

Interviewed TPA Program Manager.


Reviewed program materials and documentation.

Program Database Review/


Verification

Verified the reported measure installations in the program database.

Completed engineering analysis and verification of deemed savings assumptions in


the program database.
Developed measure-specific, ex-post, gross savings values.
Applied freeridership, based on self-reported data from PY2 in-store customer
intercept interviews, combined with PY1 sales data modeling.

Impact Analysis

Program Sales
Table 72 compares reported program performance, with goals established through program planning in
terms of light bulbs sold. As shown in Table 72, the program achieved 114% of its ex-ante goals for bulb
sales at the statewide level. All utilities achieved at least 112% of their planning goals for bulbs sold,
totaling over 2.5 million light bulbs across the state of Indiana in PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 66

Residential Lighting
Table 72. Ex-Ante Bulb Sales by Utility and Statewide
Number of Bulbs

Utility

2014 Goal

2014 Ex-Ante

% Achieved

Duke

964,315

1,105,353

115%

I&M

358,105

407,950

114%

IPL

365,135

409,402

112%

NIPSCO

338,197

385,761

114%

Vectren

216,894

246,227

114%

2,242,646

2,554,693

114%

Statewide

Ex-Ante Energy Savings


Table 73 shows the programs statewide and utility-specific ex-ante savings. The ex-ante values
represent savings reported by the program and are compared to goals set forth in program planning. As
shown in Table 73, the program achieved 100% of the ex-ante energy savings and 75% of the ex-ante
demand goals at the statewide level in PY3. The differences in ex-ante demand savings and goals stem
from the different coincidence factor applied to calculate the savings estimates. The evaluation team
has no insight into the coincidence factor assumptions that were used to calculate kW goals.
Table 73. Ex-Ante Savings by Utility and Statewide
Utility

kWh Goal

kWh Ex-Ante

% of Goal

2014 kW Goal

kW Ex-Ante

% of Goal

Duke

42,717,000

42,744,285

100%

6,750

5,086

75%

I&M

15,685,000

15,747,122

100%

2,507

1,874

75%

IPL

15,993,000

15,928,050

100%

2,556

1,895

74%

NIPSCO

14,812,000

14,799,870

100%

2,367

1,773

75%

Vectren
Statewide

9,500,000

9,502,997

100%

1,517

1,136

75%

98,707,000

98,722,324

100%

15,697

11,763

75%

Table 74 shows per-unit ex-ante kWh savings for the program in PY3.
Table 74. Ex-Ante Per-Unit Energy (kWh) Savings
Ex-Ante kWh Savings
Lighting

Total Number of Bulbs

98,722,324

Per-Unit kWh Savings

2,554,693

38.64

Impact Evaluation
The impact analysis consisted of several activities:

A quantitative analysis of the program tracking databases;

Engineering analysis of the tracked savings;

Application of an in-service rate (ISR), established through the 2012 Residential Baseline
study; and

Application of a freeridership rate, established through sales data modeling performed in PY1
and through an in-store survey with customers performed in PY2.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 67

Residential Lighting

Audited Savings
In auditing the savings, the Evaluation Team reviewed the program tracking databases and checked
savings estimates and calculations against agreed-upon ex-ante values (i.e., those from the most recent
version of the Indiana TRM) to confirm accurate application of the savings assumptions.12 Following the
review, the Evaluation Team recalculated the savings estimates to account for errors, omissions, and
inconsistencies identified in the program tracking data.
At the beginning of the review, the Evaluation Team compared total bulb counts and savingsenergy
and demandfrom the program tracking data files13 to ex-ante values tracked and reported by the TPA.
The tracking data contained more bulbs than reported (89,992 bulbs), greater kWh savings (3,752,121
kWh), and greater kW savings (440 kW).
After investigating the source of these discrepancies, the Evaluation Team concluded the 2014 tracking
data contained bulb sales that occurred at the end of 2013, but were invoiced by retailers in 2014. As
the 2013 evaluation of bulb counts and savings did not account for these sales, the Evaluation Team
included them as part of the 2014 (PY3) program impacts.
The Evaluation Team audited bulb quantities by comparing the bulb description data field to data
fields with the number of packs and number of units to confirm consistency. The evaluation also
validated bulb quantities through an analysis of rebate and buydown dollar amounts. As quantity data
were reported consistently, data adjustments were unnecessary. Table 75 summarizes audited bulb
counts by bulb type by utility and at the statewide level. Based on the program tracking data, over
2.6 million light bulbs were sold through the program in PY3.
The Evaluation Team then thoroughly investigated energy and demand savings assumptions and
corrected errors or omissions. The energy and demand savings audit identified three mismatch areas of
varying magnitudes. The Team found, that for light bulbs discounted in the early months of 2014,
savings estimates were calculated using the Ohio TRM assumptions. The Team replaced those
assumptions with those from the Indiana TRM and recalculated the savings. The Team also identified
wattage mismatches across data fields for the same product type for slightly over 10% of light bulbs. In
most cases, the mismatch occurred due to the use of decimal values in one data field and not the other,
and none of mismatches impacted the savings calculations. Table 76 provides an overview of issues the
Evaluation Team encountered and steps taken to address these.

12

Ex-ante savings for 2014 were estimated using the most recent version of the Indiana TRM. In previous years,
ex-ante savings were estimated using the Ohio TRM.

13

Program tracking data, obtained from the Administrator, represented detailed sales data by retailer, bulb
type, and date.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 68

Residential Lighting
Table 75. Audited Bulb Counts by Product Type and Utility
Measures

Total Statewide
Number of Bulbs

Total Number of Bulbs by Utility


Duke

I&M

IPL

NIPSCO

Vectren

Standard CFLs

2,439,751

1,008,958

416,191

387,069

389,985

237,548

Specialty CFLs

194,438

91,749

23,764

29,636

26,043

23,246

LEDs

10,496

3,992

1,846

2,016

1,702

940

Total

2,644,685

1,104,699

441,801

418,721

417,730

261,734

Table 76. Issues Identified During the Savings Auditing Process


Issue Type

Total % of Light
Bulbs Affected

Issue Description

Steps Taken

Actual Wattage
Mismatch

Reported wattages did not match across


data fields for the same product type,
specifically due to the bulb wattage field
sometimes including decimals.

Delta Watts
Multiplier

In calculating energy and demand savings,


incorrect delta watts multipliers were
applied in CFL energy savings calculations.

<1%

OH TRM savings assumptions were applied


to estimate kWh savings.

4%

Replaced the assumptions with


those from the Indiana TRM.

OH TRM savings assumptions were applied


to estimate kW savings.

5%

Replaced the assumptions with


those from the Indiana TRM.

Ohio TRM
Assumptions

10.4%

Corrected wattage information


obtained by matching accurate
wattage values to bulb
descriptions.
Corrected delta watts multipliers
to align with
TRM-prescribed values.

Finally, the Evaluation Team identified a very small percentage of bulbs with incorrectly applied delta
watt multipliers. When calculating energy and demand savings, the TPA used 2013 delta watt multipliers
instead of the 2014 multipliers prescribed for use by the Indiana TRM. The DSMCC approved of this
deviation from the Indiana TRM, therefore no corrections were made. Table 77 shows the difference
between the 2013 and 2014 multipliers. Only bulbs of 15 watts or less had different multipliers for the
two years.
Table 77. Indiana TRM Prescribed Delta Watts Multipliers by Year
CFL Wattage

Delta Watts Multiplier


2012

2013

2014

15 watts or less

3.25

3.25

2.05

16-20 watts

3.25

2.00

2.00

21 watts+

2.06

2.06

2.06

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 69

Residential Lighting
Table 78 shows audited energy and demand savings. Comparing Table 72 (ex-ante savings) to Table 78,
the audited bulb count and energy savings increased by 4% and demand savings increased by 3%.
Table 78. Audited Energy (kWh) and Demand (kW) Savings by Utility and Statewide
Utility

Number of Bulbs in Database

Total Audited kWh Savings

Total Audited kW Savings

Duke

1,104,699

42,753,967

5,080

I&M

441,801

17,077,889

2,029

IPL

418,721

16,299,951

1,937

NIPSCO

417,730

16,048,770

1,907

Vectren

261,734

10,067,223

1,196

2,644,685

102,247,800

12,148

Statewide

Verified Savings
Verified savings for the Residential Lighting program were calculated by applying an installation rate to
the audited savings. Many programs determine installation rates through primary research with
program participants. As retailers delivered the Residential Lighting program and did not track
customers purchasing bulbs through the program, the Evaluation Team could not easily contact
participants one year after bulb purchases to determine how many bulbs they installed during that time.
As such, much like in PY1 and PY2, the evaluation relied on the ISR found through the 2012 Residential
Baseline study to determine first-year installation rates for CFLs and the 2013 Indiana TRM to determine
installation rates for LEDs. The following installation rates were applied:

CFLs: 79% (per CFL installation rates derived through the Residential Baseline Study)14, 15

LEDs: 100% (per the ISR for LEDs in the Indiana TRM)

The Evaluation Team applied these rates to audited bulb counts and savings to determine verified bulb
counts and savings. As the audited savings already factored in a 91% installation rate (per the 2013
Indiana TRM), the 79% rate required appropriate adjustment to not double-discount program savings.

14

Opinion Dynamics. Residential Baseline Report. November 2, 2012.

15

During in-store intercept surveys performed in 2013, the Evaluation Team sought to validate the 79%
installation rate, asking customers purchasing program-rebated CFLs how many of those CFLs they planned to
install within the next week (and not asking customers to predict beyond a week, as most people do not know
when they will next replace a light bulb). Customers planned to install 61% of purchased bulbs within the next
week. The 79% first-year ISR for CFLs appeared reasonable, given in-store intercept survey question only asked
about installation during the narrow time period.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 70

Residential Lighting
Table 79. Statewide Verified Savings (kW and kWh) by Product Type
Statewide Verified Number
of Bulbs

Measure

Statewide Verified kWh


Savings

Statewide Verified kW
Savings

Standard CFLs

1,927,403

81,850,572

9,724

Specialty CFLs

153,606

6,517,741

774

LEDs
Statewide

10,496

456,452

54

2,091,505

88,824,765

10,553

Table 80 shows utility and statewide verified energy and demand savings. After completing an audit of
ex-ante savings values and applying the installation rate to establish verified savings, the programs
realization rate was 90% for both energy and demand savings at the statewide level. Utility-specific
realization rates ranged between 87% and 94%. The precision around the realization rates for the PY1PY3 period is 5.5% at 90% confidence.
Table 80. Verified Energy Savings (kWh) by Utility and Statewide
Utility

Ex-Ante kWh

Verified kWh Savings

Realization Rate

Duke

42,744,285

37,137,679

87%

I&M

15,747,122

14,836,964

94%

IPL

15,928,050

14,161,899

89%

NIPSCO

14,799,870

13,942,839

94%

Vectren
Statewide

9,502,997

8,745,385

92%

98,722,324

88,824,765

90%

Table 81. Verified Demand Savings (kW) by Utility and Statewide


Utility

Ex-Ante kW

Verified kW Savings

Realization Rate

Duke

5,086

4,412

87%

I&M

1,874

1,763

94%

IPL

1,895

1,683

89%

NIPSCO

1,773

1,657

93%

Vectren
Statewide

1,136

1,039

91%

11,763

10,553

90%

In PY1 and PY2 (for CFLs specifically), the Evaluation Team applied a first-year installation rate of 79%.
However, several studies indicate up to 99% of stored bulbs are installed within three years of purchase,
causing savings to occur for some time after an initial purchase. The research suggests the program
should receive additional credit for bulbs purchased in PY1 or PY2 but installed in PY3. To determine this
portion of savings, the Evaluation Team used the UMP-recommended method.
The evaluation determined that, in PY3, the program should receive credit for savings of an additional
10% from bulbs sold in PY1 and PY2 but not installed until PY3 ((99%-79%)/2). Table 82 summarizes
additional carryover savings from bulbs purchased in PY1 and PY2, but installed in PY3. As shown in
Table 82, the program received over 29 GWH in energy savings and nearly 4 MW in demand savings for
PY1 and PY2 combined. The Evaluation Team used first-year installation savings assumptions to calculate
carryover savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 71

Residential Lighting
Table 82. Carryover Verified Energy (kWh) and Demand (kW) Savings from PY1 and PY2
Utility

Carryover Verified kWh Savings

Carryover Verified kW Savings

PY1

PY2

Duke

4,407,937

6,910,146

11,318,083

696

827

1,523

I&M

2,152,183

2,713,641

4,865,824

335

325

660

IPL

2,107,743

3,567,140

5,674,883

334

427

761

NIPSCO

1,786,141

2,821,586

4,607,727

282

337

619

Vectren

965,155

1,810,448

2,775,603

151

217

368

11,419,159

17,822,962

29,242,120

1,799

2,132

3,930

Statewide

Total

PY1

PY2

Total

Ex-Post Savings
Similarly to PY1 and PY2, the Evaluation Team determined the Residential Lighting programs ex-post
gross savings in PY3 through an engineering analysis. Adjustments reflected engineering adjustments
made to ex-ante measure savings claimed by the program.
The Team derived CFL and LED savings by calculating delta watts for each bulb (i.e., the difference
between the wattage used by the baseline light bulb [incandescent light bulbs] and the wattage used by
the efficient replacement bulb). The Evaluation Team then applied HOU estimates, WHFs, a coincidence
factor (for demand savings), and an installation rate to these delta watts, as required.
The Evaluation Team determined equivalent baseline light bulb wattages using the lumen output values,
further adjusted for baseline conditions due to EISA legislation, which effectively phases out the
manufacturing and import of traditional incandescent light bulbs over a three-year period, beginning in
January 2012. The legislation first affected 100-watt incandescent technology (in January 2012),
followed by 75-watt (January 2013), and 60- and 40-watt (January 2014). Please refer to this reports
EISA Baseline Adjustment Approach section for detail behind the baseline adjustments.
The Evaluation Team used a dynamic approach to the baseline adjustment, supported by market data
collected through the 2014 mystery shopper survey of retailers in Indiana. The mystery shopper study
found that, while EISA legislation considerably affected the availability of 100-watt and 75-watt
incandescent light bulbs, a sizeable number of stores in Indiana (39%) still carried those bulbs. Given
this, discounting the baseline wattage for all 100-watt CFL and LED equivalents from 100 watts to
72 watts and of all 75-watt CFL and LED equivalents from 75 watts to 53 watts (the halogen equivalents
of the 100-watt and 75-watt incandescent light bulbs) did not prove warranted.
As such, the Evaluation Team developed baseline wattages using market data obtained through the
survey, and adjusting the baseline wattage for 100- and 75-watt CFL and LED equivalents to 83 and 62
watts, respectively. This represented a 60% reduction in baseline wattages between the incandescent
baseline and the equivalent halogen. As EISA only affected 60- and 40-watt incandescents as of early
2014, the Team expected they would be widely available throughout most of the year and did not adjust
baselines for equivalent wattage CFLs and LEDs.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 72

Residential Lighting
The Evaluation Team used CFL-specific HOU estimates, derived through the 20122013 lighting logger
study, which measured the lighting usage of over 400 sockets containing CFLs in a representative sample
of 68 homes across Indiana. The study resulted in a CFL HOU estimate of 2.47 hours a daya number
lower than prescribed in the Indiana TRM (2.85). The number, however, was similar to that used in other
jurisdictions. The Hours of Use report16 presented a detailed methodology and study results, along with
HOU estimates used in other areas of the United States. This evaluation applied the HOU estimate
across all lighting products.
CFLs and LEDs also emit less heat than incandescents, resulting in increased heating loads as more
energy is needed to supplement heat emitted by incandescent light bulbs. Efficient bulbs also decrease
cooling loads as less energy is needed to compensate for heat given off by incandescents. To account for
these changes, the Evaluation Team applied the WHF prescribed in the Indiana TRM (WHF values vary by
utility).
To calculate demand savings, the Evaluation Team applied a summer peak coincidence factor of 0.11 (as
prescribed by the 2013 Indiana TRM).
Finally, the evaluation applied a 79% first-year installation rate to CFL-generated energy savings. As
discussed in this reports Verified Savings section, this installation rate derived from the 2012 Indiana
Baseline Study. LEDs received a 100% installation rate.
Table 83 and Table 84 summarize ex-post energy and demand savings by utility and statewide. The
engineering analysis resulted in 7% lower ex-post kWh savings, compared to verified savings, and 8%
higher ex-post kW savings, compared to verified savings. Lower ex-post savings values largely resulted
from lower HOU assumptions (2.47 vs. 2.85) and different electric waste heat factor (WHFe)
assumptions than those used to calculate ex-ante or verified savings.
Table 83. Ex-Post Energy (kWh) Savings per Utility and Statewide
Verified kWh Savings

Ex-Post kWh Savings

Ex-Post Therm Savings

Duke

37,137,679

34,588,797

-663,044

I&M

14,836,964

13,657,480

-282,671

IPL

14,161,899

13,259,419

-254,174

NIPSCO

13,942,839

13,053,666

-266,688

Vectren

8,745,385

8,435,575

-148,452

88,824,765

82,994,936

-1,615,029

Statewide

16

Opinion Dynamics. Indiana Hours of Use Study. The Indiana Statewide Core Program Evaluation Team.
July 2013.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 73

Residential Lighting
Table 84. Ex-Post Demand (kW) Savings per Utility and Statewide
Utility

Verified kW Savings

Ex-Post kW Savings

Duke

4,412

4,742

I&M

1,763

1,884

IPL

1,683

1,818

NIPSCO

1,657

1,778

Vectren

1,039

1,163

10,553

11,385

Statewide

Consistent with the verified savings approach, the Evaluation Team calculated carryover energy and
demand savings from PY1 and PY2 that the program could claim in PY3. As shown in Table 85, the
program received over 23 GWH in energy savings and over 3 MW in demand savings from CFLs
purchased in the first two program years. The Evaluation Team used the savings assumptions for the
installation year to calculate carryover savings: in this case, the Team used the PY3 savings assumptions
to calculate carryover savings from PY1 and PY2 purchases.
Table 85. Carryover Ex-Post Energy (kWh) and Demand (kW) Savings from PY1 and PY2
Utility

Carryover Ex-Post kWh Savings


PY1

PY2

Carryover Ex-Post kW Savings


Total

PY1

PY2

Total

Duke

3,447,962

5,698,112

9,146,074

410

781

1,191

I&M

1,666,756

2,200,508

3,867,264

198

304

502

IPL

1,627,194

2,945,147

4,572,341

193

404

597

NIPSCO

1,361,634

2,312,695

3,674,329

162

315

477

Vectren

727,658

1,535,939

2,263,597

86

212

298

8,831,204

14,692,400

23,523,604

1,050

2,015

3,065

Statewide

Table 86. Carryover Ex-Post Gas (Therms) Savings from PY1 and PY2
Utility

Carryover Ex-Post Therm Savings


PY1

PY2

Total

Duke

-65,910

-109,229

-175,139

I&M

-31,861

-45,544

-77,405

IPL

-31,105

-56,456

-87,561

NIPSCO

-26,028

-47,249

-73,277

Vectren
Statewide

-13,910

-27,030

-40,940

-168,813

-285,508

-454,321

Net Savings
Net savings reflect the application of the program NTG ratio to ex-post energy savings. Generally, NTG is
comprised of freeridership, spillover, and market effects. Freeridership represents the portion of savings
that would have occurred in the programs absence. Spillover and market effects represent savings from
purchases of additional non-discounted lighting products induced by program activity in the market.
Upstream Lighting programs such as Energizing Indianas are designed to transform markets, changing
manufacturer and retailer stocking and sales practices of lighting products. As such, the Evaluation Team

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 74

Residential Lighting
expects these programs to considerably affect the market, which in turn will translate into considerable
energy savings. Consequently, net impacts presented in this report are likely biased downward. A
Statewide Market Effects study currently is underway and will estimate the programs impact on
transforming the market.
Estimating lighting program freeridership proves more challenging due to the upstream program
delivery method, which does not collect information about the customers who purchase programdiscounted bulbs. The Evaluation Team relied on the average of the NTG ratios from two sources:

Sales data modeling results from PY1; and

In-store customer intercepts performed in PY2.

In PY1, the Evaluation Team used program and non-program pricing as well as program sales data to
estimate what program sales would have been at regular retail pricing, absent the program (in essence,
determining what preprogram baseline sales would have been). The model operates on the premise
that retailers only would participate in a utility-sponsored lighting program if their gross revenues did
not fall (i.e., remained at least neutral or increased) due to participation. The PY1 evaluation report
provided detailed descriptions of the method and results, resulting in a 43% freeridership estimate.
In PY3, the Evaluation Team planned to repeat the sales modeling efforts using the same method as in
PY1. This method depended on the availability of allocation data by product stock keeping unit (SKU).
The PY3 program design did not track allocation data at the product level, and, therefore, was
unavailable. In the datas absence, the Evaluation Team used the freeridership estimate from PY1.
In PY2, the Evaluation Team developed an alternative estimate of freeridership through an in-store
intercept survey with customers purchasing program-discounted light bulbs. The study resulted in a
freeridership estimate of 60%.
In PY3, the Evaluation Team used a blended NTG ratio from the PY1 sales data modeling analysis and the
PY2 in-store intercept study, weighted equally (as in PY2) to determine ex-post net savings. We
calculated NTG as 1 Freeridership.
Table 87. NTG Ratio
NTG
Sales data modeling (PY1)

57%

In-store customer intercept survey (PY2)

40%

Final NTG

49%

Note: the Residential Lighting Program Freeridership Algorithm section of Appendix A contains greater detail on estimating
the NTG ratios using both methods.

The 0.49 NTG ratio resembles that of programs in other regions of the country. Table 88 compares NTG
ratios for residential lighting programs in other jurisdictions. Note, however, that none of these
estimates include spillover or market effects. As such, they are likely conservative estimates of the
programs net impacts.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 75

Residential Lighting
Table 88. NTG Ratios in Other Jurisdictions
NTG
Delaware (2010-2011)

49%

Midwestern Utility (2013)

48%

Massachusetts ENERGY STAR (2009-2010)

45%

Commonwealth Edison (2014)

54%

The Evaluation Team applied a 49% NTG across all products.17 Applying the NTG ratios to installed
measures produced program net savings shown in Table 89.
Table 89. Lighting Program Net Energy (kWh) Savings by Utility and Statewide
Utility

Ex-Post kWh

Ex-Post Therm
Savings

NTG

Net kWh Savings

Net Therm Savings

Duke

34,588,797

-663,044

49%

16,948,510

-324,892

I&M

13,657,480

-282,671

49%

6,692,165

-138,509

IPL

13,259,419

-254,174

49%

6,497,115

-124,545

NIPSCO

13,053,666

-266,688

49%

6,396,296

-130,677

Vectren
Statewide

8,435,575

-148,452

49%

4,133,432

-72,742

82,994,936

-1,615,029

49%

40,667,519

-791,364

Table 90. Net Demand (kW) Savings by Utility and Statewide


Utility

Ex-Post kW

NTG

Net kW Savings

Duke

4,742

49%

2,323

I&M

1,884

49%

923

IPL

1,818

49%

891

NIPSCO

1,778

49%

871

Vectren
Statewide

1,163

49%

570

11,385

49%

5,578

When developing net PY1 and PY2 carryover savings, the Evaluation Team applied the NTG ratio for the
program year in which the bulb was sold. Table 91 provides net energy and demand carryover savings by
utility and statewide.
Table 91. Carryover Net Energy (kWh) and Demand (kW) Savings by Utility and Statewide
Utility
Duke
I&M

17

Carryover Ex-Post Net kWh Savings


PY1
PY2
Total
1,965,338
2,792,075
4,757,413
950,051
1,078,249
2,028,300

Carryover Ex-Post Net kW Savings


PY1
PY2
Total
234
383
617
113
149
262

NTG may differ for standard versus specialty CFLs and LEDs. The sales modeling method developed a NTG ratio
at the program level. The necessary sample sizes to estimate separate NTG ratios for specialty CFLs and LEDs
using in-store intercepts would have been very costly, given the infrequent incidence of these purchases.
Consequently, the Evaluation Team applied overall estimates from the PY2 customer intercepts and PY1 sales
modeling to all bulb types.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 76

Residential Lighting

Utility
IPL
NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

Carryover Ex-Post Net kWh Savings


PY1
PY2
Total
927,501
1,443,122
2,370,623
776,132
1,133,220
1,909,352
414,765
752,610
1,167,375
5,033,786
7,199,276
12,233,062

Carryover Ex-Post Net kW Savings


PY1
PY2
Total
110
198
308
92
154
246
49
104
153
598
987
1,585

Table 92. Carryover Ex-Post Net Gas (Therms) Savings from PY1 and PY2
Carryover Ex-Post Net Therm Savings

Utility

PY1

PY2

Total

Duke

-37,569

-53,522

-91,091

I&M

-18,161

-22,317

-40,478

IPL

-17,730

-27,664

-45,394

NIPSCO

-14,836

-23,152

-37,988

Vectren

-7,928

-13,245

-21,173

-96,223

-139,899

-236,122

Statewide

Summary of Impact Adjustments


The following tables show adjustments made to energy and demand savings.
Table 93. PY3 Achieved Energy (kWh) Savings Summary
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

42,717,000

42,744,285

42,753,967

37,137,679

34,588,797

16,948,510

I&M

15,685,000

15,747,122

17,077,889

14,836,964

13,657,480

6,692,165

IPL

15,993,000

15,928,050

16,299,951

14,161,899

13,259,419

6,497,115

NIPSCO

14,812,000

14,799,870

16,048,770

13,942,839

13,053,666

6,396,296

Vectren
Statewide

9,500,000

9,502,997

10,067,223

8,745,385

8,435,575

4,133,432

98,707,000

98,722,324

102,247,800

88,824,765

82,994,936

40,667,519

Table 94. PY3 Achieved Energy (kWh) Savings Summary with Carryover Installations from PY1 and PY2
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

42,717,000

42,744,285

42,753,967

48,455,760

43,734,872

21,705,924

I&M

15,685,000

15,747,122

17,077,889

19,702,788

17,524,744

8,720,465

IPL

15,993,000

15,928,050

16,299,951

19,836,782

17,831,760

8,867,738

NIPSCO

14,812,000

14,799,870

16,048,770

18,550,566

16,727,994

8,305,648

Vectren
Statewide

9,500,000

9,502,997

10,067,223

11,520,988

10,699,172

5,300,807

98,707,000

98,722,324

102,247,800

118,066,886

106,518,541

52,900,581

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 77

Residential Lighting
Table 95. PY3 Achieved Demand (kW) Savings Summary
Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Net kW

Duke

6,750

5,086

5,080

4,412

4,742

2,323

I&M

2,507

1,874

2,029

1,763

1,884

923

IPL

2,556

1,895

1,937

1,683

1,818

891

NIPSCO

2,367

1,773

1,907

1,657

1,778

871

Vectren
Statewide

1,517

1,136

1,196

1,039

1,163

570

15,697

11,763

12,148

10,553

11,385

5,578

Table 96. PY3 Achieved Demand (kW) Savings Summary with Carryover Installations from PY1 and PY2
Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Net kW

Duke

6,750

5,086

5,080

5,935

5,933

2,940

I&M

2,507

1,874

2,029

2,423

2,386

1,185

IPL

2,556

1,895

1,937

2,443

2,415

1,199

NIPSCO

2,367

1,773

1,907

2,276

2,254

1,118

Vectren
Statewide

1,517

1,136

1,196

1,407

1,462

723

15,697

11,763

12,148

14,483

14,450

7,164

Table 97 presents ex post gross lifetime savings by utility.


Table 97. Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings Achieved by Residential Lighting
Utility

Lifetime kWh

Duke

199,097,243

I&M

79,979,834

IPL

79,935,022

NIPSCO

72,627,891

Vectren

47,527,046

Statewide

479,167,036

Process Evaluation
Program Operations
The Residential Lighting program design changed little between PY2 and PY3. The program continued to
provide discounts on energy-efficient lighting sold at participating retailers across Indiana. The program
ran smoothly in PY3.
Product mix in PY3 shifted toward an even greater share of standard CFLs, rather than specialty CFLs. In
PY3, standard CFLs represented the largest share of products sold (92%), followed by specialty CFLs
(7%). LEDs represented less than 1% of program bulb sales. In comparison, PY2 program sales were 88%
standard CFLs, 12% specialty CFLs, and less than 1% LEDs. Figure 29 shows the breakdown of audited
bulb sales by bulb type in PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 78

Residential Lighting
Figure 29. Breakdown of Light Bulbs Sold through the Program in PY3

Base size represents the audited total number of light bulbs.

Different types of bulbs tend to be sold in different pack sizes. Three- and four-pack CFLs were the most
common of these, cumulatively accounting for seven in 10 (71%) of all packs sold. Specialty CFLs were
most frequently purchased in packs of two (57% of all packs). LEDs were sold exclusively in single packs.
Figure 30. Distribution of Bulb Sales per Pack

In PY3, the programs overall footprint in the state fell as the program began to ramp down. The total
number of participating retailers decreased from 16 in PY2 to 14 in PY3, and the total number of
participating storefronts dropped from 865 in PY2 to 310 in PY3. Walmart remained the largest program
participating retailer, accounting for 25% of total participating storefronts and 46% of bulb sales.
Table 98 lists participating retailers in PY3 and provides the share of sales each accounted for in PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 79

Residential Lighting
Table 98. Retailer Footprint within the Program
Retailer

% of All Program Participating Storefronts

% of Total Program Sales

Walmart

25%

46%

Menards

10%

15%

The Home Depot

6%

14%

Sam's Club

5%

12%

Meijer

8%

5%

Costco

1%

3%

Lowe's

12%

3%

Habitat ReStore

0%

1%

Goodwill

9%

1%

Walgreens

11%

1%

Dollar Tree

5%

0%

Dollar General

6%

0%

Big Lots

1%

0%

TechniArt.com

0%

0%

Similarly to previous program years, program staff serviced participating retailers through periodic visits,
staff training, and in-store lighting demonstrations. Field teams visited each participating store at least
once a month. As part of the visit, the team would verify products and signage, educate store staff on
the program, coordinate any in-store events, and assist customers in purchasing lighting. Based on the
TPA 2014 Annual Report, field teams completed 3,190 store visits and 1,516 aisle visits over the course
of the year, an average of 10 visits per retailer per year. In addition, the program participated in 331
community events. These events sought to educate customers about the program and drive them to
participating stores. Program staff did not identify challenges or issues in servicing participating retail
locations.

Program Incentives
In PY3, product discounts varied from $0.25 to $3.25 per bulb for standard CFLs, $0.50 to $3.50 per bulb
for specialty CFLs, and $3.00 per bulb for LEDs. The vast majority of bulbs sold (88%) were discounted at
$1.00 per bulb, and only 3% of bulbs were discounted at $1.50 or more. Incentive amounts changed
little between PY2 and PY3, aside from reduced incentives for LEDs, from $5.00 and $10.00 per bulb in
PY2 to $3.00 per bulb in PY3. Average share of LED retail cost that program incented decreased from
33% in PY2 to 27% in PY3. Average cost of LEDs decreased nearly three-fold from an average of $34 in
PY2 to an average of $12 in PY3, which can explain the steady sales of LEDs over program years given
decreasing incentives.

Program Marketing and Outreach


In PY3, Residential Lighting program promotion continued to use point-of-purchase materials and events
at participating stores, including impromptu BOGO events, which generally targeted high-performing
locations on high-traffic days (e.g., Saturdays) to increase lighting sales. Materials included bill inserts,
in-store signage, event fliers, retailer pocket cards, and handouts to promote BOGO events and to

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 80

Residential Lighting
provide information about light bulb colors, lumen-to-wattage conversions, and CFL recycling. In PY3,
the TPA continued the Retailer of the Month program. This program aimed at enticing friendly
competition among participating stores, and the program rewarded stores particularly involved with the
program, providing them with a certificate and a pizza party.
Based on the PY3 Marketing Plan, the program specifically focused on reaching low-performing
territories, such as Vectren and I&M. Overall, program staff considered the marketing level adequate.

Insights and Recommendations


This section presents conclusions and recommendations from the research evaluation efforts. While the
implementation of the statewide Residential Lighting ended by December 31, 2014, we provide
recommendations for use by utilities in future program offerings.
Explore opportunities for diversifying program measure mix. The program continued to focus on
standard CFLs. In PY3, over nine in 10 bulbs sold and incented through the program were standard CFLs.
Prior evaluations identified even greater opportunities for efficient lighting in sockets requiring a
specialty bulb that could, moving forward, be filled by specialty CFLs and LEDs. In addition, LED lighting is
becoming more widely available and affordable. The Evaluation Team currently conducts a Market
Characterization and Market Effects study in Indiana to capture the current state of residential lighting.
Utilities can use the study results to strategically tailor program offerings to market needs.
Monitor the market for incandescent lighting availability and adjust baselines accordingly. With the
funding for the enforcement and implementation of EISA-mandated lighting standards being a frequent
target for Congressional action, the future availability of incandescent lighting products, especially 60and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs, remains unclear. Future program research should assess and
monitor the state of the market and adjust lighting baselines as needed.
Apply state-specific, energy-savings assumptions and update those assumptions regularly. As part of
program evaluation, the Evaluation Team established Indiana-specific CFL HOUs and installation rates.
The ongoing Market Characterization and Market Effects study will develop an updated estimate of
installation rates for energy-efficient lighting products. The Evaluation Teams recommends using these
Indiana-specific assumptions to estimate ex-ante savings. This will ensure minimal discrepancies
between ex-ante and ex-post gross savings estimates. The Team also recommends regular updates to all
savings assumptions to provide the most accurate savings estimates.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 81

Energy Efficient Schools

Energy Efficient Schools


Program Design and Implementation
The EES program launched in January 2012, seeking to produce cost-effective electricity savings by
influencing school staff, students, and their families to focus on conservation and the efficient use of
electricity and gas. The program design helps schools and students identify opportunities to manage
their energy consumption by providing zero- or low-cost improvements and tips, while offering
knowledge and support for conducting larger efficiency projects.
The EES program consists of two subprograms: the Education program, which targets students and their
families through the distribution of energy-savings kits; and the School Audit and Direct Install (SADI)
program, which targets school district facility staff by conducting audits, installing direct-install
measures for instant savings, and providing recommendations and rebate options for energy-efficient
building improvements to schools.
In 2012 and 2013, PY1 and PY2, respectively, the TPA managed implementation of both subprograms by
tracking overall performance and working with the two subprogram implementers: CLEAResult and
Resource Action Programs. In PY3, the TPA contracted with two new subprogram implementers: AM
Conservation Group (the Education program implementer) and Ecova (the SADI program implementer).

Education Program
Eligibility requirements for the Education program changed slightly in PY2, primarily targeting teachers
with fifth-grade classes in a school located within an Energizing Indiana participating utility territory. (In
PY1, the program targeted fifth- and sixth-grade teachers for participation.) In PY3, the revised eligibility
requirements from PY2 remained. In addition, the Education program implementer contracted with
National Energy Foundation (NEF, the implementing subcontractor) to assist in development of the PY3
curriculum and teacher materials.
Once teachers signed up for the program, the Education program implementer distributed all kits and
curriculum materials to the teachers, who provided each student with a kit containing the following
items:

Three 13-watt CFLs

Three 23-watt CFLs

Kitchen faucet aerator

Energy-efficient showerhead

LED night light

FilterTone alarm

Flow rate test bag

Digital thermometer

Reminder sticker and magnet pack

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 82

Energy Efficient Schools

Parent/guardian comment card

Student materials included:

Student workbook

Student guide

Scantron form

The Teachers Materials Folder contained:

Additional activities

Scantron/letter-sized postage-paid return envelope

Wristband flyer

Teacher incentive flyer

State education standards program correlation

Teacher program evaluation survey

Water poster

Energy poster

Natural gas poster

Teacher book

SADI Program
The SADI program made up the second component of EES. The program educated school officials and
facility staff about energy-efficiency benefits and the savings associated with installation of
recommended energy-saving measures, and operational improvements to their schools, while providing
instant savings through direct installations of free energy-saving equipment.
The SADI program provided free walk-through energy audits for K-12 schools more than 10 years old.
After the SADI program implementer performed the walk-through, an energy specialist (employed by
the SADI program implementer) presented schools with a detailed assessment report, outlining a variety
of options to increase the schools energy efficiency, and with information about rebates available for
financial support. The energy specialist encouraged school officials to take advantage of the C&I
Prescriptive program or other Core Plus programs as appropriate.
In PY2, the SADI program implementer added a direct-install component to the program, requiring
participating schools to install a set of direct-install measures within 30 days of the walk-through audit.
This program component continued in PY3. The set bundle of direct-install measures included the
following:

Two vending machine timers

10 commercial Smart Strips with occupancy sensors

10 18-watt CFLs

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 83

Energy Efficient Schools

15 room occupancy sensors

LED exit signs (optional)

After receiving the set bundle of measures, schools could opt to choose additional measures to install
(up to a value of $4,700). The SADI program reports all savings resulting from direct-install measures; no
savings are reported as a direct result of the assessment.

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) Methodology


Table 99 provides an overview of tasks conducted in evaluating this program.
Table 99. Program Evaluation Overall Tasks, PY3
Action

Details

Education
Program

Assessment
Program
X

Implementer
interviews

Interviewed representatives from GoodCents for program


progress, successes, and barriers for PY3.

Student
participant surveys

Questionnaire distributed in the kits helped determine measures


installed and home characteristics.

Parent/guardian
survey

Surveyed a sample of parents of students receiving kits; this


sought to determine installation rates, freeridership, and spillover
from the kit measures. Due to the small sample size, these data
were not used in the 2014 analysis.

School facility staff


participant surveys

Surveyed a sample of participating school facility staff to verify


installation of direct-install measures and to assess the audits
effectiveness and the status of energy-efficiency improvements.

Program database
review

Ensured collection of appropriate data to inform the evaluation.

Ex-ante savings
review

Reviewed assumptions and calculations used in the programs exante savings assumptions for student kits and school direct-install
measures.

Sample Design and Data-Collection Methods


The Evaluation Team developed samples, seeking to achieve precision of 10% at the 90% confidence
level per utility by the end of the three-year evaluation period. Table 100 shows the final sample
disposition for various data-collection activities in PY3.
Table 100. Sample Disposition for Various Data-Collection Activities, PY3
Action
Implementer interviews

Population*

Targeted

Achieved

n/a

44,732

16,775

22,736

Parent/guardian survey

42

26

14

School facility staff participant surveys

84

55

53

Student participant surveys**

* All populations listed were available at the time of the survey.


** Surveys were included in the kits and conducted by GoodCents, with a survey response goal of 37.5%.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 84

Energy Efficient Schools


The Evaluation Team drew data-collection samples using simple or stratified random sampling. Over the
three program years, the Team conducted surveys and interviews with program stakeholders and
hundreds of participants for each program component. Table 101 shows the total data-collection
activities conducted over three years.
Table 101. Sample Achieved for Various Data-Collection Activities, PY1PY3
Action

Achieved

Implementer interviews

Auditor interviews

Student participant surveys

93,441

Teacher surveys

640

Parent/guardian survey

235

Parent comment cards

1,479

School facility staff participant surveys

117

School facility staff nonparticipant surveys

Program Performance
The SADI and Education programs continued to exceed Energizing Indiana goals in PY3, as the programs
combined achieved 106% of the yearly target of electricity savings.
Table 102 and Table 103 show reported program performance, compared to statewide and utility-level
goals for PY3. Reported program savings do not reflect adjustments based on the evaluation.
Table 102. EES Ex-Ante Savings (kWh and kW) By Utility, PY3
Utility

kWh
Goal

kW

Ex-Ante

% Goals

Goal

Ex-Ante

% Goals

Duke

13,153,360

13,593,070

103%

n/a

50

n/a

I&M

2,143,888

2,376,678

111%

n/a

34

n/a

IPL

4,651,128

4,886,278

105%

n/a

56

n/a

NIPSCO

2,242,304

2,783,872

124%

n/a

68

n/a

Vectren

1,584,536

1,509,821

95%

n/a

23

n/a

23,775,216

25,149,719

106%

n/a

231

n/a

Statewide

Table 103. EES Ex-Ante Savings (Therms) By Utility, PY3


Utility

Therms
Goal

Ex-Ante

% Goals

Duke

n/a

n/a

n/a

I&M

n/a

n/a

n/a

IPL

n/a

92,271

n/a

NIPSCO

n/a

38,954

n/a

Vectren

n/a

28,438

n/a

Statewide

n/a

159,663

n/a

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 85

Energy Efficient Schools


The EES program met or exceeded statewide electricity savings goals in every program year. Figure 31
shows reported electric program performance, compared to statewide goals for the three-year program
period. Overall, the EES program achieved 107% of the total three-year statewide goals.
Figure 31. EES Ex Ante Savings (kWh) as a Percentage of the Annual Statewide Goals, PY1PY3
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
PY1

PY2
Education

PY3

Total

Building Assessment

Figure 32 shows reported electric ex-ante savings for the Education and SADI programs over the three
program years. Combined, the programs saved over 98,000,000 kWh over three years.
Figure 32. EES Ex-Ante Savings (kWh) By Program and Program Year, PY1PY3

Ex-Ante kWh Savings

100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
PY1
Education

PY2

PY3

Total

Building Assessment

Education Program
Tracking the Education programs performance included counting the number of kits distributed to
students and teachers as well as savings achieved through the installation of the kit measures. The
Education program achieved 100% of its kit distribution goal in PY3, and each utility achieved the
individual utility goals. Table 104 shows the number of reported kits distributed in PY3 compared with
program goals per each utility for the Education program.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 86

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 104. Education Program Participation by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Kits

Utility

Goal

Reported

% Achieved

Duke

26,275

26,281

100%

I&M

3,815

3,820

100%

IPL

8,473

8,473

100%

NIPSCO

3,577

3,577

100%

Vectren

2,569

2,562

100%

44,709

44,713

100%

Statewide

Over the three-year program period, the EES program distributed a total 200,630 kits to fifth- and sixthgrade students and teachers.
Table 105 shows, at the utility level, how reported program performance compared to goals established
in program planning. The Education program achieved 100% of its ex-ante energy savings goals for
electricity. Savings reported by the program did not reflect adjustments made on the evaluations basis.
Table 105. Education Program Ex-Ante Savings by Utility and Statewide*
kWh

Utility

Goal**

Therms

Ex-Ante

% Goals

Goal

Ex-Ante

% Goals

Duke

12,796,000

12,798,847

100%

n/a

n/a

n/a

I&M

1,858,000

1,860,340

100%

n/a

n/a

n/a

IPL

4,127,000

4,126,351

100%

n/a

92,271

n/a

NIPSCO

1,742,000

1,741,999

100%

n/a

38,954

n/a

Vectren

1,251,000

1,247,694

100%

n/a

28,438

n/a

21,774,000

21,775,231

100%

n/a

159,663

n/a

Statewide

*The Education program did not report demand savings.


* The electric savings goals were provided by the TPA and may differ from the portal

SADI Program
Tracking SADI program performance included the number of completed audits and closeout meetings
performed in each utilitys territory as well as savings achieved through the installation of direct-install
measures. Table 106 shows how the number of PY3 reported assessments compared with program
goals for each utility; Table 107 shows savings goals for direct-install measures and ex-ante values
achieved.
Table 106. SADI Program Participation by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Audits
Goal

Reported

% Achieved

Duke

15

15

100%

I&M

12

12

100%

IPL

22

22

100%

NIPSCO

21

21

100%

Vectren

14

14

100%

Statewide

84

84

100%

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 87

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 107. SADI Program Ex-Ante Results by Utility and Statewide, PY3*
kWh
Goal
Ex-Ante
Duke
357,360
794,223
I&M
285,888
516,338
IPL
524,128
759,927
NIPSCO
500,304
1,041,873
Vectren
333,536
262,127
Statewide
2,001,216
3,374,488
*The SADI program did not report gas savings.
** The SADI program did not establish demand saving goals
Utility

% Goals
222%
181%
145%
208%
79%
169%

Goal**
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

kW
Ex-Ante
50
34
56
68
23
231

% Goals
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Over the three-year program period, the EES program conducted thorough audits in over 300 Indiana
school buildings and installed over 12,000 direct-install measures.

Ex-Ante Energy Savings


This section presents ex-ante savings (savings reported by the Education and SADI programs in the
portal) compared to goals set forth in program planning.

Education Program
The Evaluation Team determined Education program savings by applying a per kit energy savings value
to the number of kits distributed through the program. The TPA initially reported ex-ante kit savings of
417 kWh and 11.1 therms annually for PY1 and half of PY2; however, the TPA adopted the statewide
evaluated savings from the 2012 Evaluation Report findings of 487 kWh per kit for the remaining half of
PY2 and for all of PY3. Gas savings per kit remained at the originally designated 11.1 therms per kit for
Vectren, but this was updated to the 2012 ex-post value of 10.89 therms per kit for NIPSCO and IPL. No
demand savings were reported for the energy-savings kits.
Table 108 outlines the assumptions underlying electricity savings for each measure provided in the PY3
energy-savings kit. Electricity savings per kit depended on statewide assumptions about installation
rates for each kit measure and on saturations of electric-sourced versus gas-sourced water heaters. The
ex-ante assumptions for installation rate and water heater fuel type saturation derived from the 2012
evaluation student and parent surveys.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 88

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 108. Ex-Ante Energy (kWh) Savings per Kit, PY3
Kit Measure

Base Ex-Ante kWh


Savings (a)

Installation
Rate (b)

Electric Saturation
Rate (c)

Measures Per
Kit (d)

Total Ex-Ante kWh


per Kit
(a*b*c*d)

CFLs (13W)

57

71%

100%

121

CFLs (23W)

58

65%

100%

113

Energy efficient
showerhead

603

50%

52%

157

Faucet aerator

243

48%

52%

60

LED night light

17

88%

100%

15

Filter tone alarm

46

43%

n/a

20

10

487

Total

SADI Program
Table 109 outlines the electricity and demand savings for each direct-install measure. Determined prior
to the launch of the SADI programs direct-install component, these ex-ante savings and have not been
updated to reflect savings recommendations from the 2013 Evaluation Report.
Table 109. Ex-Ante SADI Program Measure-Level Savings, PY3
Kit Measure

Ex-Ante kWh

Ex-Ante kW

18W CFL

76

0.0252

LED Exit Sign

83

0.0100

1,210

0.0788

169

0.0000

1,612

0.0000

0.0000

Occupancy Sensor
Smart Strips
Vending Machine Sensor
Audit

Impact Evaluation
The evaluation included multiple data-collection efforts and analysis tasks for each subprogram and,
given the differing nature of the programs delivery and performance tracking, the Evaluation Team
used tailored evaluation methods to conduct the impact analysis for each program.
The Education programs impact analysis included the following:

A database review of the number of kits distributed;

An engineering analysis of ex-ante energy savings per kit;

An installation rate analysis (using the student Scantron survey and the parent/guardian
survey); and

NTG analysis (using the parent/guardian survey).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 89

Energy Efficient Schools


The SADI program impact analysis included the following:

A database review of the number of assessments and closeout meetings completed as well as
the number of direct-install measures distributed;

An engineering analysis of ex-ante energy savings for the direct-install equipment; and

Savings attribution analysis (from participant facility staff survey and assessment reports).

Audited Savings
The impact evaluation process first reviewed the program database to accomplish the following: confirm
the number of kits distributed and the assessments conducted through the program; and verify tracking
and accurate reporting of program savings. The TPA accurately tracked all quantities and savings for the
SADI and Education programs for all three program years, and the Evaluation Team did not make
adjustments to the audited quantity or savings.

Education Program
The TPA verified and recorded the kit quantity in the following steps:
1. The enrollment quantities were first validated by the TPA confirming student count with
teachers. For example, if a teacher signed up in the spring or summer for the fall semester, we
would call and confirm that the number of kits matches the actual number of students in the
classroom.
2. Once the kits were shipped out the door, the TPAs vendor generated the shipment report by
teacher and shipment date. The TPA then internally verified the invoice quantities match the
data, and uploaded the quantities to the monthly portal reporting.
Table 110 presents audited kit quantities and energy and gas savings.
Table 110. Audited Education Program Demand Savings (kW) by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Number of
Reported Kits

Number of
Kits in
Database

Total Ex-Ante
kWh Savings

Total Audited
kWh Savings

Total Ex-Ante
Therm Savings

Total Ex-Ante
Audited Savings

Duke

26,281

26,281

12,798,847

12,798,847

n/a

n/a

I&M

3,820

3,820

1,860,340

1,860,340

n/a

n/a

IPL

8,473

8,473

4,126,351

4,126,351

92,271

92,271

NIPSCO

3,577

3,577

1,741,999

1,741,999

38,954

38,954

Vectren

2,562

2,562

1,247,694

1,247,694

28,438

28,438

44,713

44,713

21,775,231

21,775,231

159,663

159,663

Statewide

As shown, adjustments were not made to the audited number of kits distributed as the database exactly
matched reported kits per utility. The database contained 10 more kits than reported on the portal, but
the Program Administrator reported these kits as replacements for damaged or broken kits, and the
evaluation removed these from the data.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 90

Energy Efficient Schools


The Evaluation Team also found correct tracking of the application of electric savings per kit and did not
make savings adjustments.

SADI Program
Table 111 and Table 112 show audited measure and audit quantities as well as energy and demand
savings. The Evaluation Team reviewed the tracking database for the SADI programs participating
schools and did not adjust reported savings per measure or total savings and quantities reported on the
TPAs portal. The TPA did not report quantities of direct install measures on the portal.
Table 111. Audited SADI Program Measure-Level Savings and Quantity, PY3
Ex-Ante
kWh

Kit Measure

Audited
kWh

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Ex Ante Quantity of
Measures

Audited Quantity of
Measures

18W CFL

76

76

0.0252

0.0252

n/a

1,867

LED Exit Sign

83

83

0.0100

0.0100

n/a

270

1,210

1,210

0.0788

0.0788

n/a

2,293

169

169

0.0000

0.0000

n/a

756

1,612

1,612

0.0000

0.0000

n/a

191

0.0000

0.0000

84

84

Occupancy Sensor
Smart Strips
Vending Machine Sensor
Audit

Table 112. Audited SADI Program Savings (kWh and kW) by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Total Ex-Ante kWh Savings

Total Audited kWh


Savings

Total Ex-Ante kW
Savings

Total Audited kW
Savings

Duke

794,223

794,223

50

50

I&M

516,338

516,338

34

34

IPL

759,927

759,927

56

56

NIPSCO

1,041,873

1,041,873

68

68

Vectren

262,127

262,127

23

23

3,374,488

3,374,488

231

231

Statewide

Verified Savings
In addition to auditing the database, the Evaluation Team used survey data to calculate installation and
participation rates to verify audited savings for both subprograms. The precision around the EES
realization rates for the PY1-PY3 period is 3.7% at 90% confidence.

Education Program
The Evaluation Team used survey data from the student Scantrons and the parent/guardian survey to
calculate measure-level installation rates for the Education programs kits. Calculating the averages of
the student and parent installation rates produced the statewide installation rates shown in Table 113.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 91

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 113. Education Program Statewide Verification Adjustments, PY3
Measures

Student Data
Installation Rate

Parent Data
Installation Rate

Statewide
Installation Rate

CFLs (13W)

54%

86%

70%

CFLs (23W)

44%

83%

63%

Energy Efficient Showerhead

45%

59%

52%

Faucet Aerators

46%

49%

47%

LED Night Light

80%

92%

86%

Filter Tone Alarm

33%

53%

43%

In prior evaluations, the Evaluation Team generated the student installation rate based on student
responses. In PY3, the kit manufacturer changed, requiring a rewrite of the student survey to avoid
copyright infringement. The rewrite caused structure and response options to change in PY3, making the
data historically used to generate the kit installation rate inconsistent with previous years and, hence,
unusable. The Evaluation Team generated average measure-level installation rates using the average of
the prior two years of student survey data.
The Evaluation Team also received too few valid parent contacts to achieve a valid sample of 2014
parent participants. Rather the evaluation applied average installation rates from PY1 and PY2 survey
data.
Table 114 shows adjustments for installation rates and the effect on audited per-measure savings.
Table 114. Education Program Statewide Verification Adjustments per Kit, PY3
Kit Measure

Base Ex-Ante
kWh Savings
(a)

Evaluated Statewide
Installation Rate
(b)

Ex-Ante Electric
Saturation Rate
(c)

Measures
Per Kit
(d)

Total Ex-Ante
kWh per Kit
(a*b*c*d)

CFLs (13W)

57

70%

100%

119

CFLs (23W)

58

63%

100%

110

Energy Efficient
Showerhead

603

52%

52%

166

Faucet Aerator

243

47%

52%

60

LED Night Light

17

86%

100%

15

Filter Tone Alarm

46

43%

n/a

20

10

490

Total

The Evaluation Team verified NIPSCOs and IPLs gas savings as 11.43 therms per kit and Vectrens as
11.17 therms per kit, using the evaluated statewide installation rates. Table 115 summarizes ex-ante and
verified energy savings per kit for PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 92

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 115. Education Program Statewide Verified Energy Savings per Kit by Semester, PY3
Ex-Ante kW
Savings

Verified kW
Savings

Ex-Ante
Therm
Savings

Verified
Therm
Savings

Ex-Ante kWh
Savings

Verified kWh
Savings

Duke, I&M and IPL

487

490

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

NIPSCO

487

490

n/a

n/a

10.89

11.43

Vectren

487

490

n/a

n/a

11.10

11.17

Utility

Table 116 and Table 117 show utility and statewide verified energy savings for the Education program,
without the addition of CFL carryover savings from previous years (explained in the section below).
Without carryover savings, the program achieved 101% of the ex-ante electric savings.
Table 116. Education Program Verified Energy Savings (kWh) by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Ex-Ante kWh Savings

Verified kWh Savings

Realization Rate (kWh)

Duke

12,798,847

12,883,436

101%

I&M

1,860,340

1,872,635

101%

IPL

4,126,351

4,153,623

101%

NIPSCO

1,741,999

1,753,512

101%

Vectren

1,247,694

1,255,940

101%

21,775,231

21,919,146

101%

Statewide

Table 117. Education Program Verified Gas Savings (Therms) by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Ex-Ante Therm Savings

Verified Therm Savings

Realization Rate (Therms)

Duke

n/a

n/a

n/a

I&M

n/a

n/a

n/a

IPL

92,271

96,828

105%

NIPSCO

38,954

40,877

105%

Vectren

28,438

28,626

101%

159,663

166,332

104%

Statewide

CFL Storage to Installation


In addition to adjusting the kit installation rates, the Evaluation Team examined verified savings
generated from bulbs not installed in PY1 or PY2, but likely installed in PY3. The Team conducted a
similar calculation in the 2013 Evaluation Report for bulbs not installed in 2012 and conducted
calculations for other Energizing Indiana programs that deliver CFLs.
For the 2012 and 2013 evaluations, the Evaluation Team calculated first-year savings from installed
13-watt and 23-watt bulbs and did not credit verified savings for bulbs discarded or stored. As previously
discussed, several studies have shown up to 99% of stored bulbs move into sockets within a three years,
causing savings to begin years after the initial purchase. The Evaluation Team calculated the verified
savings impacts for the 2012 and 2013 bulbs installed in 2014, as shown in Table 118.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 93

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 118. Electric (kWh) Savings from PY1 and PY2 13W and 23W Bulbs Installed in PY3
Quantity of PY1 Bulbs
Installed in PY3

Utility

Quantity of PY2 Bulbs


Installed in PY3

Third-Year Verified Savings


(kWh)

Duke

36,472

44,702

4,334,952

I&M

4,563

7,988

652,219

IPL

9,151

11,683

1,109,071

10,661

13,548

1,289,218

NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

3,956

3,058

388,082

64,803

80,980

7,773,542

The Evaluation Team used the UMP-recommended18 method to calculate savings from bulbs initially
stored and later installed.
To generate the additional savings, the Evaluation Team applied the 2012 base ex-ante per-bulb savings
to the quantity of bulbs from PY1 and the 2013 base ex-ante per-bulb savings to the quantity from PY2.19
The Evaluation Team could not account for these additional bulbs in terms of gas savings, given the
bundled way in which gas savings apply to kits and demand savings (the TPA did not report demand
savings for CFLs).
Table 119 shows utility and statewide verified energy savings for the Education program, including
additional electric savings from the PY1 and PY2 CFLs installed in PY3. Overall, the Education program
realized 136% of ex-ante electricity and 104% of demand savings.
Table 119. Education Program Verified Energy Savings (kWh)
by Utility and Statewide, Including CFL Carryover, PY3
Utility

Ex-Ante kWh Savings

Verified kWh Savings

Realization Rate (kWh)

Duke

12,798,847

17,218,388

135%

I&M

1,860,340

2,524,854

136%

IPL

4,126,351

5,262,694

128%

NIPSCO

1,741,999

3,042,730

175%

Vectren
Statewide

1,247,694

1,644,023

132%

21,775,231

29,692,688

136%

This reports Summary of Impact Adjustments section presents education program carryover savings for
verified ex-post gross and net savings, with the following subsections solely focusing on impacts from
kits distributed in PY3.

18

Uniform Methods Project. Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures.
Department of Energy.

19

Base ex ante savings in 2012 were 44 kWh for 13W CFLs and 78 kWh for 23W CFLs; in 2013, 47 kWh for 13W
CFLs and 45 kWh for 23W CFLs.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 94

Energy Efficient Schools

SADI Program
The Evaluation Team used data from the facility staff surveys to verify the installation and persistence
rates of the direct-install measures. For each direct-install measure, surveys asked facility members
whether all recorded measures were installed and whether they remained installed at the time of the
survey (i.e., if measures had been removed). Responses produced individual installation and persistence
rates for the five direct-install measures. Table 120 shows these rates, as applied to ex-ante savings to
generate verified savings.
Table 120. PY3 SADI Program Statewide Verification Adjustments
Measure

Verified Installation Rate

Verified Persistence Rate

18W CFL

100.0%

99.7%

LED Exit Sign

100.0%

100.0%

Occupancy Sensor

99.6%

98.1%

Smart Strips

97.0%

96.2%

100.0%

96.5%

Vending Machine Sensor

For the following reasons, several measures produced installation and persistence rates below 100%:

One facility staff member reported that two of their CFLs burned out.

One facility staff member reported they had not yet been able to install six occupancy sensors.

Four facility staff members reported removing occupancy sensors as they stopped working.

One facility staff member reported they had not yet been able to install 20 Smart Strips.

Two facility staff members reported removing Smart Strips as the sensors stopped working.
Another three reported removing them because they were connected to computers and caused
computers to shut down at inopportune times.

Two facility staff member reported that three vending machine sensors stopped working.

Table 121 shows utility and statewide verified energy savings for the SADI program without the addition
of CFL carryover savings from previous years (as explained below). Without carryover savings, the SADI
program realized 98% of electricity and 98% of demand savings.
Table 121. Verified Energy Savings (kWh and kW) by Utility and Statewide

Duke

Ex-Ante kWh
Savings
794,223

Verified kWh
Savings
775,262

Realization
Rate (kWh)
98%

Ex-Ante kW
Savings
50

Verified kW
Savings
49

Realization
Rate (kW)
98%

I&M

516,338

502,983

97%

34

33

98%

Utility

IPL

759,927

741,793

98%

56

55

98%

NIPSCO

1,041,873

1,017,376

98%

68

67

98%

Vectren

262,127

255,027

97%

23

23

99%

3,374,488

3,292,440

98%

231

226

98%

Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 95

Energy Efficient Schools


CFL Storage to Installation
In addition to adjusting the installation and persistence rates for the direct-install measures, the
Evaluation Team examined verified savings generated from bulbs not installed in PY2 but likely installed
in PY3 for the SADI program. As direct-install measures entered the program design during the PY2, only
one year of carryover occurred in PY3.
For the 2013 evaluations, the Evaluation Team calculated first-year savings from installed 18-watt bulbs
and did not credit verified savings for bulbs discarded or stored. The Team did, however, calculate the
verified savings impacts for 2013 bulbs installed in 2014, as shown in Table 122.
Table 122. Electric (kWh) and Demand (kW) Savings from PY2 18W Bulbs Installed in PY3
Quantity of PY2 Bulbs
Installed in PY3

Utility

PY3 Verified Savings (kWh)

Duke

I&M
IPL
NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

PY3 Verified Savings (kW)

191

0.06

43

0.01

186

0.06

82

0.03

135

0.04

637

0.21

The Evaluation Team used the UMP-recommended method to calculate savings from bulbs initially
stored and later installed. To generate these additional savings, the Team applied the PY3 base ex-ante
per-bulb savings to the quantity from PY2.20
Table 123 shows utility and statewide verified energy savings for the SADI program, including additional
electric savings from the PY2 CFLs installed in PY3. As most bulbs were installed through the directinstall component, with very few left behind, carryover savings for the SADI program were small and had
almost no effect on the 98% overall realization rate.
Table 123. Verified Energy Savings (kWh and kW) by Utility and Statewide, Including CFL Carryover

Duke

Ex-Ante kWh
Savings
794,223

Verified kWh
Savings
775,453

Realization
Rate (kWh)
98%

Ex-Ante kW
Savings
50

Verified kW
Savings
49

Realization
Rate (kW)
98%

I&M

516,338

503,025

97%

34

33

98%

IPL

759,927

741,978

98%

56

55

98%

NIPSCO

1,041,873

1,017,458

98%

68

67

98%

Vectren

262,127

255,162

97%

23

23

99%

3,374,488

3,293,077

98%

231

227

98%

Utility

Statewide

20

Base ex ante savings in 2013 were 76 kWh and 0.03 kW for the 18W bulb.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 96

Energy Efficient Schools

Ex-Post Savings
Ex-post savings reflected engineering adjustments made to ex-ante measure savings claimed by the
program. Due to variations in delivery between the subprograms, the Evaluation Team conducted expost reviews separately, using methodologies tailored to each subprogram.

Education Program
The Evaluation Team calculated ex-post electric energy, demand, and gas savings for each kit measure
using engineering reviews and survey results, and determined a statewide per-kit savings value of
421.4 kWh, 0.0607 kW, and 11.96 therms.
The evaluated ex-post savings shown in Table 124 represent statewide average savings for each
measure, across all utilities. This statewide average was determined by weighting the calculated, utilityspecific savings of each measure by the total number of school kits distributed. Utility-specific savings
for each kit item can be found in the utility-specific binders delivered to each utility.
Table 124. Statewide Education Program Ex-Post Savings (kWh, kW and Therms) by Measure, PY3

3 CFLs (13W)

Ex-Post Savings Per


Measure (kWh)
97.1

Ex-Post Savings Per


Measure (kW)
0.0124

Ex-Post Savings Per


Measure (Therms)
-1.41

3CFLs (23W)

79.6

0.0102

-1.15

Energy Efficient Showerhead

80.7

0.0040

3.27

Faucet Aerator

137.1

0.0027

5.51

LED Night Light

7.0

0.0000

0.00

Kit Measure

Filter Tone Alarm


Kit Total

20.0

0.0314

5.37

421.4

0.0607

11.59

The Evaluation Team applied the same methodologies to determine school kit savings as those used in
the previous years evaluation. For PY3, student and parent surveys were used to calculate utilityspecific inputs, such as the number of people per home, shower flow rates, and hot water heater fuel
saturations. The Evaluation Team applied these inputs, along with other inputs from the Indiana TRM, to
determine savings for each utility per measure.
Overall, inputs did not change significantly year over year, resulting in findings similar to those in the
previous evaluation. The updated student survey, however, did affect savings. For PY3, the survey
excluded at least one question asked in PY2: the quantity of full bathrooms in each home. This question,
correlating to the number of showerheads, was used to determine energy efficient showerhead savings.
Without this information, the Evaluation Team used quantities from the previous years survey (as this
value probably would not change significantly over time).
The PY3 student survey also included updates to response options for several questions: the 13-watt
and 23-watt CFL questions asking about the replaced wattage excluded the 40W option, which the
PY2 survey included, representing the lowest wattage option. Without this option, it appears most 40W
responses defaulted to the next highest wattage (60W), driving up the average replaced wattage for the
23-watt CFL between PY2 and PY3.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 97

Energy Efficient Schools


This increase reversed the downward trend the analysis showed from the previous four rounds of
surveys (with two rounds per project year)a downward trend otherwise expected due to the EISA
legislation. To determine the correct replaced wattage for the 23-watt CFL measure, the Evaluation
Team extrapolated the replaced wattage using the previous four rounds of surveys rather than the PY3
survey results. For the 13-watt replacement wattage, the Team averaged the replaced wattage from the
previous four rounds of surveys. This replacement wattage did not experience the same downward
trend as the 23-watt replaced wattage as EISA requirements only began affecting 13-watt equivalent
incandescent bulbs in 2014.
The PY3 student survey also included updates to the responses for two additional questions: the
flowrate of the efficient energy efficient showerhead and the water heater fuel type.
The PY3 energy efficient showerhead flowrate responses included an additional response option
compared to the PY2 survey: 1.6-2.0 GPM. As this response option presents a higher flow-rate bin
than responses in the PY2 survey, the average efficient flowrate for PY3 increased slightly, causing
savings to drop slightly for this measure.
The response options for the water heater fuel type also changed year over year: the PY2 survey only
included options for electric and natural gas, while the PY3 survey included propane or other as a
third option. Approximately 10% of respondents selected the propane or other option, slightly
reducing the gas and electric savings of water-heating measures. These survey updates increased
accuracy over the previous years surveys; so the ex-post savings incorporated these results.
Table 125 and Table 126 provide summary findings for the ex-post kit savings review, per utility. Ex-post
savings in the tables below do not include carryover CFL savings from PY1 and PY2.
Table 125. Education Program Ex-Post Energy (kWh) Savings per Utility and Statewide
Utility

Verified kWh Savings

Ex-Post kWh Savings

Verified kW Savings

Ex-Post kW Savings

Duke

12,883,436

11,356,924

n/a

1,608

I&M

1,872,635

1,563,901

n/a

228

IPL

4,153,623

3,665,282

n/a

518

NIPSCO

1,753,512

1,265,223

n/a

205

Vectren

1,255,940

991,623

n/a

155

21,919,146

18,842,953

n/a

2,714

Statewide

Table 126. Education Program Ex-Post Gas (Therms) Savings per Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility
Duke
I&M

Verified Therm Savings

Ex-Post Therm Savings


n/a

276,818

n/a

48,992

IPL

96,828

113,051

NIPSCO

40,877

54,306

Vectren
Statewide

Core Programs PY3 Report

28,626

24,953

166,332

518,119

Page 98

Energy Efficient Schools

SADI Program
The Evaluation Team calculated ex-post electric energy, demand, and gas savings for each direct-install
measure using engineering reviews and survey results.
The evaluated ex-post savings shown in Table 127 and Table 128 represent the statewide average
savings for each measure across all utilities. The Evaluation Team determined this statewide average by
weighting the calculated, utility-specific savings of each measure by the total number of measures
distributed. The tables below apply installation rates to ex-post values for comparison purposes.
Table 127. Statewide SADI Program Ex-Post Savings (kWh and kW) by Measure, PY3
Direct-Install Measure

Verified Savings Per


Measure (kWh)

Ex-Post Savings Per


Measure (kWh)

Verified Savings Per


Measure (kW)

Ex-Post Savings Per


Measure (kW)

18W CFL

76

103

0.025

0.032

LED Exit Sign

83

91

0.010

0.011

1,183

242

0.077

0.017

158

116

0.000

0.000

1,556

1,556

0.000

0.000

Occupancy Sensor
Smart Strips
Vending Machine Sensor

Table 128. Statewide SADI Program Ex-Post Savings (Therms) by Measure, PY3
Verified Savings Per Measure (Therms)

Ex-Post Savings Per Measure (Therms)

18W CFL

Direct-Install Measure

n/a

-0.34

LED Exit Sign

n/a

-0.30

Occupancy Sensor

n/a

-0.83

Smart Strips

n/a

0.00

Vending Machine Sensor

n/a

0.00

The Evaluation Team applied algorithms and inputs from the Indiana TRM to determine evaluated
savings. When possible (and appropriate) inputs were refined using primary data sources, such as the
facility staff survey and the assessment reports.
The Evaluation Team used the same approach for calculating savings as that used in the previous year,
producing results similar to SADI PY2. Evaluated savings for the following three measures produced
results very similar to ex-ante savings: 18-watt CFLs, LED exit signs, and vending machine sensors.
Evaluated savings for the remaining two measureslighting occupancy sensors and Smart Strips
resulted in reduced savings in comparison to ex-ante savings.
Evaluated savings for the lighting occupancy sensor measure fell when the Evaluation Team updated the
watts controlled input. In PY3, this input received an evaluated wattage of 326W, compared to the exante value of 1,600W. Survey data indicated participants overwhelmingly installed lighting occupancy
sensors in small rooms, such as closets, offices, and bathroomslocations that drove down the wattage
amount the sensors controlled, thus reducing overall savings. This produced an evaluated wattage lower
than in PY2 as the survey data showed more of the PY3 installations in small rooms compared to PY2.
The Evaluation Team revised the occupancy Smart Strip savings in PY3, largely due to two findings:
facility staff survey data indicated installations of Smart Strips almost entirely in classrooms and school

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 99

Energy Efficient Schools


computer labs; and Smart Strip specifications suggested using devices with computer monitors. Given
this, the SADI PY3 ex-post savings value reflects a weighting of two different savings values: one value
from the Indiana TRM and one from the PY2 ex-post savings (representing a Smart Strip installed in a
classroom and a computer lab, respectively). The survey found approximately 64% of the Smart Strips
were installed in offices and classrooms and 36% were installed in computer labs. The Team used these
survey results to weight the TRM savings value of 169 kWh and PY2 ex-post savings value of 45 kWh to
produce a final base unit ex-post savings value of 124 kWh (not adjusted for installation or persistence).
Table 129 and Table 130 provide summary findings for an ex-post savings review per utility and do not
include CFL carryover savings. Savings per measure varied by utility as savings calculations used inputs
specific to each utilitys territory and the participating schools. Utility-specific savings for each directinstall item can be found in the utility-specific binders.
Table 129. SADI Program Ex-Post Gross Energy (kWh and kW) Savings per Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Total Ex-Post kWh


Savings

Verified kWh Savings

Total Ex-Post kW
Savings

Verified kW Savings

Duke

775,262

243,298

49

17

I&M

502,983

172,401

33

14

IPL

741,793

256,990

55

27

NIPSCO

1,017,376

341,654

67

26

Vectren

255,027

141,531

23

18

3,292,440

1,155,874

226

102

Statewide

Table 130. SADI Program Ex-Post Gross Energy (Therms) Savings per Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Verified Therm Savings

Total Ex-Post Therm Savings

Duke

n/a

-546

I&M

n/a

-400

IPL

n/a

-613

NIPSCO

n/a

-812

Vectren

n/a

-247

Statewide

n/a

-2,618

Net Savings
Net savings reflected the application of the program NTG ratio to ex-post energy savings. Freeridership
and spillover comprise the two NTG ratio components. Freeridership occurs when participants would
have undertaken the same energy-efficient actions in the programs absence. Spillover occurs when
participants attributed further energy-efficient purchases or behaviors to their participation in the
EES Program. The following equation determined NTG:
NTG = 1 Freeridership + Spillover

Education Program
Table 131 summarizes freeridership, spillover, and NTG estimates for each measure included in the
energy-efficiency kit. The Evaluation Team derived the overall statewide program NTG estimate from

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 100

Energy Efficient Schools


weighting each individual measure-level NTG estimate by total energy savings for each respective
measure. A 100% weighted, statewide, electric NTG estimate resulted for each kit.
Table 131. Education Program Freeridership, Spillover, and NTG Summary, PY3*
Measure

Freeridership

Spillover

NTG

3 CFLs (13W)

34%

20%

3CFLs (23W)

34%

20%

86%

Energy Efficient Showerhead

12%

20%

107%

Faucet Aerator

8%

20%

112%

LED Night Light

14%

20%

105%

1%

20%

119%

Filter Tone Alarm

86%

*NTG values were applied by measure, and net savings were rolled up into a kit-level estimate. Differences in weighting
between ex-post measure-level values for electricity, demand, and gas savings caused variations in NTG values across
savings types.

Due to a low sample of viable parent contacts in PY3, the Evaluation Team could not collect sufficient
PY3-specific net information to inform the evaluation. Rather, the team calculated average freeridership
and spillover metrics using PY1 and PY2 data.
Applying measure-level NTG ratios to the utility-level savings per measure resulted in the net savings for
the Education program shown in Table 132. NTG ratios varied by utility and by savings type due to
different ex-post savings values per utility and measure.
Table 132. Education Program Net Savings by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

NTG
(kWh)

Net kWh
Savings

NTG
(kW)

Net kW
Savings

NTG (Therms)

Net Therm
Savings

Duke

101%

11,470,081

106%

1,699

120%

I&M

100%

1,559,910

106%

241

122%

59,904

IPL

101%

3,694,523

105%

546

118%

133,076

NIPSCO

97%

1,221,330

105%

216

121%

65,487

Vectren

99%

986,269

105%

163

119%

29,770

100%

18,932,112

106%

2,864

120%

619,798

Statewide

331,560

SADI Program
Using the facility staff surveys, the Evaluation Team collected information from schools to inform the
NTG ratio, particularly regarding spillover from the audit recommendations.

Freeridership
As in 2012 and 2013, the Evaluation Team assumed freeridership did not occur for the energy savings
attributed to the SADI program. As commercial building energy audits preformed on school facilities
prove highly expensive and schools tend to have limited budgets, the Evaluation Team assumed schools
would not have received an energy audit using their own funds outside of the program. The Evaluation
Team also assumed schools would not have installed the direct-install measures without program
assistance in 2014.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 101

Energy Efficient Schools

Spillover
The SADI program designs audit component seeks to funnel schools through other prescriptive
programs, which capture savings for all implemented measures that qualify for rebates. However, many
recommendations offered in the assessment reports either did not qualify for a rebate or depended on
behavioral changes (e.g., thermostat set points) that could be tracked without verification or follow-up.
Considering the potential savings accruing through these scenarios, the Evaluation Team conducted
surveys with participating facility staff to identify recommendations adopted in 2014 that did not qualify
for a rebate.
The Evaluation Team interviewed 53 representatives from participating schools and found, of the total
number of recommendations implemented in the first year of participation, 96% did not qualify for a
rebate and were not attributed to or tracked by any efficiency program. Therefore, savings from these
implemented recommendations could be directly attributable to the SADI program in the form of
spillover.
The Evaluation Team used calculated savings values from each schools assessment report to assign
spillover savings to any recommendation implemented and not receiving a rebate. This produced a
savings-per-school value (discounting for partial implementation). Table 133 summarizes average
spillover savings per recommendation type, by school.
Table 133. Spillover Energy (kWh and Therms) Savings by Measure per School
Recommendation Type
Lighting
Occupancy sensors
Air temperature controls
HVAC
Building re-commissioning
Information technology
Total Per School

kWh Per School

Therms Per School*

13,279

-40

2,446

-25

656

116

432

1,401

20,262

52

*Negative gas savings occurred due to interactive effects.

The Evaluation Team multiplied per-school values by the number of assessments conducted in each
utility territory to arrive at the total spillover savings for the SADI program. Table 134 and Table 135
present net savings for the SADI program, including adjustments for freeridership and positive
adjustments for spillover.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 102

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 134. SADI Program Net Energy and Demand (kWh and kW) Savings by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Ex-Post kWh
Savings
(a)

Utility

Spillover Savings
(kWh) (b)

Net kWh Savings


(a+b)

Ex-Post
kW Savings

Net
kW Savings

Duke

243,298

303,927

547,225

17

17

I&M

172,401

243,142

415,543

14

14

IPL

256,990

445,760

702,749

27

27

NIPSCO

341,654

425,498

767,152

26

26

Vectren

141,531

283,665

425,196

18

18

1,155,874

1,701,991

2,857,865

102

102

Statewide

Table 135. SADI Program Net Gas (Therms) Savings by Utility and Statewide, PY3
Utility

Ex-Post Therm Savings


(a)

Net Therm Savings


(a+b)

Spillover Savings (Therms) (b)

Duke

-546

779

233

I&M
IPL

-400

623

223

-613

1,142

530

NIPSCO

-812

1,090

278

Vectren

-247

727

480

-2,618

4,362

1,744

Statewide

Summary of Impact Adjustments


The following tables show all adjustments made to energy savings claimed by the programs in PY3
(which do not include CFL carryover savings from PY1 or PY2).
Table 136. Achieved Savings Summary (kWh), PY3
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

13,153,360

13,593,070

13,593,070

13,658,698

11,600,222

12,017,306

I&M

2,143,888

2,376,678

2,376,678

2,375,618

1,736,302

1,975,453

IPL

4,651,128

4,886,278

4,886,278

4,895,415

3,922,272

4,397,272

NIPSCO

2,242,304

2,783,872

2,783,872

2,770,888

1,606,877

1,988,482

Vectren
Statewide

1,584,536

1,509,821

1,509,821

1,510,967

1,133,154

1,411,465

23,775,216

25,149,719

25,149,719

25,211,586

19,998,827

21,789,977

Table 137. Achieved Savings Summary (kW), PY3


Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Net kW

Duke

n/a

50

50

49

1,625

1,715

I&M

n/a

34

34

33

241

254

IPL

n/a

56

56

55

545

573

NIPSCO

n/a

68

68

67

231

243

Vectren

n/a

23

23

23

173

181

Statewide

n/a

231

231

226

2,815

2,966

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 103

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 138. Achieved Savings Summary (Therms), PY3
Utility

Ex-Ante
Therms

Therms Goal

Audited
Therms
n/a

Verified
Therms
n/a

Ex-Post Therms
n/a

276,273

Net Therms

Duke

n/a

331,793

I&M

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

48,591

60,127

IPL

n/a

92,271

92,271

96,828

112,438

133,606

NIPSCO

n/a

38,954

38,954

40,877

53,493

65,765

Vectren

n/a

28,438

28,438

28,626

24,706

30,250

Statewide

n/a

159,663

159,663

166,332

515,501

621,541

The following tables show savings achieved in PY3, plus additional carryover savings from delayed
installations from PY1 and PY2 (i.e., savings generated from some CFLs distributed in kits but not
installed in those years).
Table 139. Achieved Savings Summary (kWh), PY3
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

13,153,360

13,593,070

13,593,070

17,993,841

15,063,666

14,970,101

I&M

2,143,888

2,376,678

2,376,678

3,027,880

2,304,795

2,452,504

IPL

4,651,128

4,886,278

4,886,278

6,004,672

4,818,732

5,160,184

NIPSCO

2,242,304

2,783,872

2,783,872

4,060,188

2,844,280

3,041,716

Vectren

1,584,536

1,509,821

1,509,821

1,899,184

1,445,778

1,683,630

23,775,216

25,149,719

25,149,719

32,985,765

26,477,252

27,308,135

Statewide

Table 140. Achieved Savings Summary (kW), PY3


Utility

kW Goal

Ex-Ante kW

Audited kW

Verified kW

Ex-Post kW

Net kW

Duke

n/a

50.30

50.44

49

2,078

2,101

I&M

n/a

33.50

33.52

33

311

312

IPL

n/a

55.90

55.73

55

663

673

NIPSCO

n/a

68.30

68.05

67

365

356

Vectren

n/a

22.70

22.79

23

214

217

Statewide

n/a

231

231

227

3,630

3,660

Table 141. Achieved Savings Summary (Therms), PY3


Utility

Therms Goal

Ex-Ante
Therms

Audited
Therms

Verified
Therms

Ex-Post
Therms

Net Therms

Duke

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

232,245

I&M

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

34,907

48,644

IPL

n/a

92,271

92,271

96,828

101,066

123,929

NIPSCO

n/a

38,954

38,954

40,877

27,099

43,299

Vectren

n/a

28,438

28,438

28,626

20,908

26,944

Statewide

n/a

159,663

159,663

166,332

416,225

537,073

Core Programs PY3 Report

294,257

Page 104

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 142 presents ex-post gross lifetime savings by utility.
Table 142. Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings Achieved by Schools
Utility

Lifetime kWh

Duke

93,478,558

I&M

14,289,225

IPL

29,556,467

NIPSCO

16,360,682

Vectren

8,545,816

Statewide

162,230,748

Process Evaluation
The Education program and the SADI program process analyses detailed in this chapter derived from the
following evaluation activities, conducted during the three-year evaluation period (PY1 through PY3):

Program implementer interviews

GoodCents staff

Parent comment cards

Student survey results

Online teacher surveys

Facility staff participant surveys

Program Marketing
Education Program
In PY3, the Education program implementer, AM Conservation Group, subcontracted with NEF to
manage day-to-day operations for the program. The implementer specialized in compilation and
distribution of student kits, while the implementing subcontractor managed all program outreach,
teacher enrollment, and development of program curriculum and materials.
The recruitment process remained consistent during the evaluation period (PY1 through PY3). Using a
list of ZIP codes within each participating utilitys service territory, the implementing subcontractor
generated a potential list of participating teachers for the utilities approval. Once approved, the
implementing subcontractor conducted targeted outreach through a combination of e-mails, faxes, and
telephone calls.
As shown in Figure 33, word-of-mouth from industry peers and from Energizing Indiana program staff
generated the greatest program awareness for the Education program from PY1 through PY3, with each
cited by 34% of surveyed teachers. Participants also cited Energizing Indianas website as a common
source of program awareness, cited by 15% of teachers.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 105

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 33. How Did You First Learn about the Energizing Indiana
Schools Education Program? (n=640), PY1PY3

SADI Program
In PY1, the participating utilities primarily conducted their own outreach to schools for the SADI
program, with only Duke Energy utilizing the program implementer for school recruitment. In PY2 and
PY3, the SADI program implementer assumed responsibility for all direct outreach to schools. The
program implementer reported recruiting from a list of qualified schools provided by each utility. The
program implementer noted this change improved overall program delivery.
In PY2, the TPA added a sign-up form to the Energizing Indiana website that allowed interested schools
to enroll in the SADI program. Due to the program participation limits set by the utilities, the TPA
reported that schools signing up for the program through the website might not always be chosen to
participate during a particular program year. All schools signing up through the website were added to a
wait list, which, if necessary, generated leads from which the SADI program implementer could recruit.
Figure 34 shows sources of SADI program awareness among participating facility staff during the
evaluation period (PY1 through PY3). Since PY1, participating facility staff most commonly reported
learning of the SADI program through their electric utility (cited by 52% of facility staff over the threeyear period). Direct outreach from Energizing Indiana program staff provided the second most common
source of program awareness (cited by 16% of facility staff since PY1).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 106

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 34. How Did You First Learn about the SADI Program? (n=115), PY1PY3

Participant Satisfaction
Education Program
The TPA reported that satisfaction with the Education program remained consistently high from PY1 to
PY3, and participants consistently received the program well, specifically noting that students and their
families appreciated that the kits provided an activity they undertake as a family. Participantsincluding
students, parents, and teachersexpressed high satisfaction levels with their overall program
experience.
Students rated the Education program as part of the student surveys returned by participating teachers.
As shown in Figure 35, student satisfaction with the program remained consistently high. Since PY1, the
majority of participating students rated the Education program as great (45%) or pretty good (34%).
In addition, nearly three-quarters (72%) of students said their family changed the way they used energy
due to program participation.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 107

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 35. How Would you Rate the Energizing Indiana School
Education Program?* (n=88,248), PY1PY3

*Surveys without a response were removed from the population.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of parents filling out and returning the parent comment card (included in
participating students kits) provided comments about the Education programwith nearly all of it
positive. Parents comments regarding satisfaction with their program experiences included the
following:

It was a great way for kids to learn hands-on and make a difference in their own homes.

Wonderful tool and easy instructions. We will definitely save energy and money.

Now my fifth-grader understands more about saving water when showering and doing dishes.
Plus, I couldn't have went out and bought all [the kit equipment] at one time. Thanks again.

My child was very excited to be able to teach us about saving energy. I believe it is a good
program. Thank you!

Great hands-on opportunity for parent and child to see how energy and water can easily be
conserved in a home.

Participating teacher satisfaction also remained consistently high since PY1. As shown in Figure 36, 88%
of surveyed teachers reported high satisfaction levels with the Education program overall.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 108

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 36. Overall, How Satisfied Are You with the Energizing
Indiana Schools Education Program?* (n=640), PY1PY3

Other indicators of teachers high satisfaction included the following:

More than three-quarters (79%) of participants rated the teaching materials they received
through the program as highly effective, with numerical ratings of 8 to 10 on a scale of 1 to 10
(where 1 was not at all effective and 10 was very effective).

Nearly two-thirds (61%) of teachers reported the conservation tool kit as the most beneficial
aspect of the program overall.

Almost all (90%) surveyed teachers reported they would likely recommend the program to other
teachers, with ratings of 8 to 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 was not at all likely and 10 was
very likely).

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of teachers agreed (with ratings of 8 to 10) with the statement: my
students understood the lessons/curriculum on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 was strongly
disagree and 10 was strongly agree).

The majority (71%) of teachers agreed (with ratings of 8 to 10) with the statement: my students
were engaged in the lessons on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 was strongly disagree and 10 was
strongly agree).

SADI Program
Figure 37 illustrates participating facility staffs satisfaction with the following: the knowledge and
professionalism of the energy specialist who conducted their energy assessment; the energy assessment
report: the amount of new information they learned through participation; and their program
experience overall. The vast majority of participants have reported high satisfaction levels in all four
categories since PY1.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 109

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 37. How Would You Rate Your Satisfaction with the, PY1PY3

As shown in Figure 38, surveyed participants also remained highly satisfied with the SADI programs
direct-install measures. More than 75% of participants reported high satisfaction (with ratings of 8 to
10) with each of the four measures.21
Figure 38. How Satisfied are You with the, PY1PY3

Although direct-install measure satisfaction remained consistently high during the evaluation period
(PY2 through PY3), Figure 39 shows facility staff satisfaction, specifically with the CFLs and Smart Strips,
decreased slightly from PY2 to PY3. The percentage of facility staff saying they were highly satisfied

21

Since the TPA added the direct-install component to the SADI program in PY2, satisfaction is not applicable for
PY1.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 110

Energy Efficient Schools


(rated 8 to 10) with CFLs decreased from 100% in PY2 to 86% in PY3.22 Similarly, high satisfaction levels
for the Smart Strips decreased from 92% in PY2 to 71% in PY3.23
Interviewed facility staff did not provide reasons for the change in satisfaction regarding CFLs; however,
three of facility staff reporting low satisfaction with the Smart Strips indicated the motion activation
sensor controlling the device can fail when the teachers present to a class, causing computers to shut
down. Figure 39 compares interviewed facility staff measure satisfaction in PY2 and PY3.
Figure 39. Comparison of PY2 and PY3 Measure Satisfaction

The majority (60%) of participant facility staff reported no SADI program aspects that proved
challenging. Of the remaining 40%, the program aspect most commonly cited as challenging (noted by
11 participants) was finding a time to schedule the assessment, direct-install, and close-out meeting that
proved convenient for the program implementer and the schools staff.

Program Operations
Education Program
Once a teacher signed up for the Education program, the implementing subcontractor sent the teacher
the curriculum materials and take-home kits for each student. The programs curriculum included
several lesson topics (e.g., electricity and water conservation), which could be taught at once or
throughout the semester. Although the TPA contracted with a new Education program implementer in
PY3, the program curriculum has remained consistent since PY1. According to the TPA, the program
curriculum continued to align with Indiana state education requirements.
Teachers distributed take-home kits to their students, and students were encouraged to install the
measures at home with their families. Once kit measures had been installed, students and their families

22

P-value = 0.01; this difference is statistically significant (=0.1).

23

P-value = 0.01; this difference is statistically significant (=0.1).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 111

Energy Efficient Schools


completed an at-home student survey. Students completed a Scantron form with their survey answers
and returned the form to their teacher. Participating teachers sending in at least 80% of their
classrooms student survey data received a $50 stipend.

Delivery Challenges
In PY2, the Education program overcame many reported delivery challenges from PY1 (e.g., issues with
communication, budget design, and the participation pool). A few delivery challenges arose in PY2,
however, including student survey data collection and grade-specific curriculum content, which
remained concerns in PY3.
Student Survey Data Collection
An important program component involved motivating participating teachers to collect student surveys
and send them to the implementing subcontractor. Student survey data proved critical to the impact
evaluation, as variables such as installation rate, water heater fuel type, and other household
characteristics directly informed the electric and gas savings for each kit.
The TPA sought to receive 37.5% of overall student surveys from teachers, a goal achieved annually
since PY1. Data provided by the TPA indicated a 50% response rate in PY1, 41% in PY2, and 51% in PY3.
The TPA attributed the increase in the PY3 response rate to focused, ongoing communications with
teachers via e-mail, reminding them of impending deadlines and the availability of mini-grant funds.
The Evaluation Team compared the Energizing Indiana student survey results to response rates reported
by similar energy-education kit programs across the Midwest. As shown in Figure 40, although the
Education program exceeded its response goals in all three program years (PY1 to PY3), it produced the
lowest response rates among the school programs compared. Student survey response rates among
similar school programs ranged from 74% to 80%.
Figure 40. Comparison of Student Survey Response Rate, PY1PY3

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 112

Energy Efficient Schools


According to teacher survey results, the vast majority (80%) of teachers reported they received 80% or
more of the student surveys from their class. Of these teachers, nearly all (95%) mailed all student
surveys received. The remaining 5% of teachers reported they did not receive all surveys from their
students prior to the submission deadline; so they did not submit the completed surveys to the TPA.
Of teachers receiving less than 80% of the surveys from their students, fewer than one-half (48%)
returned all surveys they received. Figure 41 illustrates the reasons teachers provided for not returning
surveys they received. Nearly one-half (41%) reported not mailing back surveys as they received them
after the submission deadline. More than one-third (37%) of these teachers reported they did not return
surveys because as did not receive 80% of the class surveys and could not qualify for the $50 stipend.
Figure 41. Why Did You Not Mail Back all of the Surveys You Received? (n=63), PY1PY3

Grade-Specific Curriculum
The TPA reported slight updates to the Education program lesson plans in PY3 due to changes in the
program implementer and implementing subcontractor. According to the TPA, however, the lessons
remained very similar to those presented in PY1 and PY2. Overall, as shown in Figure 42, the majority of
surveyed teachers (67%) felt the programs lesson plans fit well with Indianas curriculum standards
throughout the program cycle.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 113

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 42. How Well Do the Program's Lesson Plans Fit with
Indianas Curriculum Standards? (n=640), PY1PY3

Fifteen percent of surveyed teachers who provided suggestions for improving the Education program
reported the lesson plans could align better to fifth-grade students. In PY3, the new implementing
subcontractor created a chart, called the Standards Correlation Chart, to map out the Education
program lessons to Indianas curriculum standards. Table 143 shows a high-level summary of the chart.
Table 143. Standard Correlation Chart Summary, PY3
Science &
Technology

Mathematics

Section 1: Natural Resources

Section 2: Energy Transformations

Section 3: Electricity & Circuits

Section 4: Natural Gas

Section 5: Water

Section 6: Energy Efficiency

Education Program Activity Sections

Social Studies &


Economics

Language Arts &


Writing
X

X
X

Just over one-third (38%) of participating teachers reported including energy conservation content in
their lesson plans before participating in the Education program.

SADI Program
As discussed, the SADI program achieved 100% of its participation goal of 84 school audits statewide.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 114

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 43 illustrates program operations for the SADI program.
Figure 43. SADI Program Operations Process Flow, PY1PY3
Participant
Recruitment

Scheduling

Energy
Assessment

Direct Install

Close-Out
Meeting

90-Day
Follow-Up Call

Recommendation
Implementation
(Optional)

Sponsoring
utilities conduct
direct outreach to
schools

Implementer sets
up MOU with
participating
school

Implementer
conducts on-site
energy
assessment with
participating
school

Participating
school decides to
self-install or have
implementers
subcontractor
install measures

Implementers
energy specialist
presents energy
assessment report
to participating
school

Implementer
follows up with
participating
school regarding
recommendation
implementation

Participating
school decides
which
recommended
improvements to
implement

Sponsoring
utilities provide
implementer with
a list of qualified
schools

Participating
school sends 1-2
years of energy
bills to
implementer

Implementers
auditor prepares
energy
assessment report
with data
collected at school

Decided party
installs measures
within 30 days of
energy
assessment

Implementer
records data from
follow-up call

Participating
school applies for
applicable rebates

Implementer
conducts outreach
from qualified list
of schools

Implementer
schedules
assessment, direct
install, and closeout meeting with
participating
school

Implementer
conducts QC on all
self-installed
measures

Legend:
PY1-PY3 process component
Process component changed in PY2
Process component changed in PY3

Participant Recruitment
Beginning in PY2, participant recruitment responsibility shifted from the utilities to the program
implementer. According to the TPA, each utility took the first two months of the program year to
compile a list of qualified schools from which the program implementer could recruit. After the twomonth period, the program implementer assumed responsibility for participant recruitment and
conducted outreach from the list of qualified schools provided.
Thought the TPA found this change an improvement over the PY1 recruitment process, the TPA noted
the preferred process would involve utility account managers and SADI program implementer staff
recruiting collaboratively. According to the TPA, scheduling schools via a cold call could be difficult,
though schools approached by a utility account manager prior to contact by the SADI program
implementer typically were ready for immediate scheduling. Having the utility account managers explain
the program to potential participants added a level of legitimacy to the program, aiding recruitment.
The TPA noted a 50% to 60% the success rate for signing up schools via cold calls, but the success rate
rose to 80% to 90% using a collaborative approach.
In PY2, the TPA added a sign-up form to the Energizing Indiana website that allowed interested schools
to enroll in the SADI program. The TPA reported schools signing up for the program through the website

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 115

Energy Efficient Schools


were contacted during the same program year or were placed on a wait list, which generated leads for
the program implementer to recruit from in future program years. The online sign-up form remained
active in PY3.

Scheduling, Assessment, Direct-Install, and Closeout Meeting


Upon school recruitment, participants were asked to submit a completed application and memorandum
of understanding to the SADI program implementer, which reviewed this paperwork and confirmed the
schools eligibility for participation within two weeks from receipt of the application. Once a school
received confirmation for participation, the SADI program implementer scheduled the assessment,
direct-install, and close-out meeting with the participant. The SADI program implementer was expected
to schedule the direct-install and close-out meeting within 30 days of the assessment.
The SADI program implementer was expected to conduct the on-site energy assessment within 10 days
of receiving the participants application. During the assessment, energy auditors conducted walkthrough audits with a facility staff member from the participating school. Energy auditors identified
areas for direct-install measures and, in consultation with facility staff members, discussed those most
beneficial to the school. After the assessment, the energy auditor used all data collected from the audit
as well as the schools utility data to prepare the energy assessment report.
The program implemented the provided direct-install measures at no cost to the participating school,
and the measures had to be installed by program implementer staff (one of two electrical
subcontractors hired by the SADI program implementer), the participating schools facility staff, or a
third-party vendor. If a school elected to self-install the measures, the SADI program implementer
reimbursed facility staff for their labor. The SADI program implementer conducted quality control
inspections on all measures self-installed by the participating schools staff. Quality control inspections
had to be conducted within 30 days of the assessment.
During the close-out meeting, the SADI program implementers energy specialist presented an energy
assessment report to participating facility staff. This report contained information about the schools
equipment and energy use, the assessment results, and an extensive list of recommended energy-saving
building upgrades and behavioral changes. The energy specialist also explained the report in detail to
the facility staff and discussed options for school improvements as well as various rebates available to
offset improvement costs.

90-Day Follow-Up Call


In PY1 and PY2, the program implementer was expected to follow-up with participants by phone 90 days
after the closeout meeting. The follow-up call sought to determine whether the energy assessment
report influenced the schools decision to implement building upgrades and to provide support
regarding the assessment recommendations. The program implementer tracked the data collected
during the follow-up call internally. These data were not reported to other program stakeholders.
In PY3, however, the TPA removed this aspect of the SADI program. The TPA reported the revised
delivery strategy sought to motivate the SADI program implementers energy specialists to develop

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 116

Energy Efficient Schools


relationships with participating facility staff during the close-out meetings and to encourage follow-up
communication as needed.

Recommendation Implementation
Upon receipt of the energy assessment report at the close-out meeting, participating schools chose
which recommendations to implement.

Recommended Improvements
One-third (33%) of surveyed PY3 facility staff reported their school installed at least one recommended
measure due to participation in the SADI program, a decrease from 43% in PY2 and 69% in PY1.24
Lighting (41%), air temperature controls (22%), and information technology (19%) were the
recommendations most commonly reported installed in the first year. This mix of measures changed
slightly from PY2, when HVAC upgrades ranked as one of the top three most commonly adopted
recommendations.
Cumulatively, one-half (50%) of surveyed facility staff (participating in PY1 through PY3) reported the
energy assessment report proved the most influential SADI program component in their schools
decision to install recommended equipment. The walk-through energy assessment was noted as the
most influential program component by 22% of surveyed facility staff.
Figure 44 shows expected implementation timelines by recommendation type, as reported by
participant facility staff from all evaluation years. Adjusting air temperature controls was one of the first
recommendations adopted by schools, generally occurring in the first year. Lighting and lighting controls
followed, with the height of upgrades occurring in the second year after the audit. Schools planned to
implement more invasive and expensive recommendationssuch as HVAC, motors and drives,
ventilation, and building re-commissioningin the three- to five-year range, allowing for appropriate
planning and budgeting to occur.

24

P-value = 0.02; this difference is statistically significant (=0.1).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 117

Energy Efficient Schools


Figure 44. SADI Timeline of Recommendation Implementation, PY1PY3

The vast majority (83%) of participating schools not implementing recommendations reported lack of
funding as their greatest implementation barrier.

Program Improvements
Education Program
Nearly one-third (31%) of surveyed teachers provided suggestions for improving the Education program.
Respondents most commonly (24%) suggested improving the programs timing, with some teachers
preferring to teach the program during one semester over another.
Teachers also offered the following suggested improvements:

Provide videos, experiments, online workbooks, and more hands-on materials for teachers to
use in their classrooms.

Better align the program curriculum to serve fifth-grade students.

Revamp the student workbooks to make them more kid-friendly (e.g., more color, pictures).

SADI program
More than one-half (55%) of surveyed facility staff provided suggestions for improving the SADI
program. Respondents most commonly suggested (37% of facility staff) providing more support to
schools throughout the duration of the participation process. Such support included the following:

Allowing more time for schools to prepare for the participation process to gather historical
utility data.

Providing more information regarding participation expectations, which would better indicate
facility staff to best attend the various meetings.

Increasing follow-up with schools to check on implementation progress.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 118

Energy Efficient Schools

Adding support to assist with filling out required paperwork and rebate forms when moving
forward with recommended improvements.

Surveyed facility staff also commonly suggested (26% of facility staff) offering financing to schools for
implementing capital projects. Some of these respondents added that promoting existing financing
opportunities, such as available grant money, would be beneficial.

Insights and Recommendations


The Education and SADI programs concluded services following PY3. The following sections provide
recommendations for use by utilities in future program offerings.

Education Program
Conclusion 1: The student survey response rate remained consistently low since PY1, well below rates
for similar programs. As data from these surveys directly informed program impacts, increasing the
response rate may lead to more accurate savings calculations.
Recommendation 1: Consider adopting innovative tactics to help improve student survey response
rates. Similar school kit programs have seen success in implementing online student surveys or offering
a tiered incentive approach that encourages teachers to return as many surveys as they receive from
students (e.g., a $20 stipend for returning any surveys).
Conclusion 2: The Evaluation Team could not calculate certain variables, such as installation and
baseline wattage of CFLs and the number of showerheads in the home, due to changes in the structure
and content of the student survey.
Recommendation 2: If launching the program again, reevaluate student survey questions and structure.
Installation questions should be asked directly and response options should reflect all possible
responses within reason, for example: Did you install the kitchen faucet aerator?

SADI Program
Conclusion 1: Since PY1, upfront capital costs have proved prohibitive to participants, even with rebates
and expectations of energy cost savings over time.
Recommendation 1: Consider providing financing mechanisms to implement capital projects. Such a
mechanism or a list of available financing options could help schools procure funds for implementing
recommendations.
Conclusion 2: As in PY2, the Evaluation Team had to use survey data and information from the TPA to
make certain assumptions regarding the location and use of measures installed in schools.
Recommendation 2: If launching the SADI program again, collect and report specific information about
each direct-install measure. Access to specific data collected about each measure installed would greatly
increase the precision surrounding ex-post savings values. Table 144 lists data that the Evaluation Team
recommends collecting for each direct-install measure.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 119

Energy Efficient Schools


Table 144. SADI Direct-Install Recommended Variables to Collect
Measure

Recommended Variables to Collect

18W CFL

Location (room type), wattage replaced.

LED Exit Sign

Type of replaced light (e.g., incandescent, fluorescent), wattage replaced, whether the replaced exit sign
was one- or two-sided.

Occupancy
Sensor

Location (room type), number of light fixtures connected to each occupancy sensor, type of lighting
connected (e.g., lamp type, lamp quantity per fixture, lamp wattage).

Smart Strips

Location (room type), description and quantity of appliances plugged into the controlled outlets.

Conclusion 3: During participant surveys, school facility staff reported removing Smart Strips as they
caused computers to shut down mid-class. Smart Strip manufacturers recommend against using Smart
Strips with computers.
Recommendation 3: If launching the program again, train implementation staff to use Smart Strips for
non-critical technologies such as fax machines, printers, and computer monitors.
Conclusion 4: During participant surveys, several school facility staff reported removing occupancy
sensors due to failure.
Recommendation 4: If launching the program again, reevaluate the technology adopted by
implementation staff to ensure the program provides high-quality direct-install measures.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 120

Commercial and Industrial

Commercial and Industrial


Program Design and Implementation
Energizing Indiana designed the C&I Prescriptive Rebate Program (C&I Program) to help facility
managers and building owners achieve long-term, cost-effective savings in the commercial and
industrial market sectors. The program offered prescriptive rebates to reward participants with
monetary incentives for installing energy-efficiency equipment upgrades. Eligible upgrades included
lighting, VFDs, HVAC, and ENERGY STAR products.

EM&V Methodology
Table 145 summarizes the tasks conducted by the Evaluation Team during the evaluation.
Table 145. Program Evaluation Overall Tasks
Action
Implementer Interviews

Interviewed GoodCents managers

Details

Trade Ally Surveys

Surveyed participating trade allies

Customer Surveys

Surveyed lighting (n = 114) and non-lighting program participants (n=63)

Impact Analysis

Reviewed program database and engineering files (n = 114 measures)

Data Collection Activities


The Evaluation Team conducted a range of activities (detailed below) to gather information on how the
program performed in its final year. The Team used the online tool, Qualtrics, to conduct surveys with
participating customers and trade allies. Qualitrics uses e-mail addresses to generate a web-based
survey that users can complete on their own, rather than over the phone with an interviewer.

Implementer Interviews
In August 2014, the Evaluation Team interviewed two representatives from GoodCents about the
program. The interviews focused on program performance and GoodCents actions to bring the program
to a successful completion.

Customer Surveys
To evaluate the programs final year, the Evaluation Team focused customer surveys on the following:
awareness of the program and of the programs ending; overall satisfaction; and specific decisionmaking processes related to internal purchasing decisions. At the end of 2014, the Team surveyed 114
lighting participants and 63 non-lighting participants.

Trade Ally Surveys


Trade ally surveys focused on several topics, such as how trade allies learned about the program ending,
overall satisfaction, and how the program influenced sales of energy-efficient equipment in the state.
The Evaluation Team surveyed 53 participating trade allies located throughout Indiana.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 121

Commercial and Industrial

Program Database Review and Verification


The Evaluation Team performed engineering file reviews on a sample of 114 measures in the program
tracking database to determine the PY3 audited, verified, and ex-post savings per utility and at the
statewide level. For the random sample of measures in the analysis, the Team targeted an 80%
confidence interval at 10% precision (80/10) per measure type in PY3 to achieve a 90/10 target at the
utility and program level across the three-year cycle.

Program Performance
Table 146 lists reported program savings compared to goals established in program planning. Reported
savings do not reflect adjustments the Team made as a result of the evaluation. The reported savings
also do not include savings attributed to the opt-in and PY1 and PY2 bulb drop measures, both of which
the evaluated savings include. The tracking database supplied by the implementer contained
information on ENERGY STAR products, VFD/HVAC measures, and lighting measures.
Table 146. Ex-Ante Results by Utility and Statewide
Unit
Utility

Goal

kWh
% of
Goal

Ex-Ante

Goal

kW
% of
Goal

Ex-Ante

Goal

% of
Goal

Ex-Ante

Duke

561,458

142,808

25%

251,356,000

87,659,164

35%

37,073

12,406

33%

I&M

78,178

36,691

47%

35,000,000

23,783,183

68%

5,163

3,684

71%

IPL

175,661

87,472

50%

78,642,000

46,771,718

59%

11,601

6,905

60%

NIPSCO

187,129

77,186

41%

83,776,235

41,269,639

49%

12,354

10,954

89%

Vectren

37,902

26,941

71%

14,470,139

11,917,947

82%

2,502

2,084

83%

1,040,328

371,098

36%

463,244,374

211,401,651

46%

68,693

36,033

52%

Statewide

Ex-Ante Savings
Ex-ante savings are savings the program reported, compared to goals set forth in program planning.
Table 147 presents C&I utility- and statewide-level ex-ante savings. The TPAs web portal tracking
provided goal kWh and kW savings. Ex-ante savings represent year-to-date values, as of December 31,
and result from querying the TPAs tracking database for total kWh and kW.
Table 147. Ex-Ante Savings By Utility
kWh Goal

kWh Ex-Ante

% of kWh
Goals

kW Goal

kW Ex-Ante

% of kW Goals

Duke

251,356,000

87,659,164

35%

37,073

12,406

33%

I&M

35,000,000

23,783,183

68%

5,163

3,684

71%

IPL

78,642,000

46,771,718

59%

11,601

6,905

60%

NIPSCO

83,776,235

41,269,639

49%

12,354

10,954

89%

Vectren

14,470,139

11,917,947

82%

2,502

2,084

83%

463,244,374

211,401,651

46%

68,693

36,034

52%

Statewide

The impact savings for the utilities presented in the implementer web portal and the tracking database
aligned, but the tracking database did not contain the programs opt-in and bulb drop projects.
Consequently, ex-ante savings for the C&I Program in this report do not reflect savings attributed to

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 122

Commercial and Industrial


these measures. The Evaluation Team rolled up savings accrued from these alternative measures at the
end of the program cycle in the ex-post analysis.

Impact Analysis
To determine gross program savings, the Evaluation Team reviewed the TPA tracking database and the
web portal tracking totals (summarized in Table 147 above).
Figure 45 illustrates the distribution of ex-ante energy (kWh) savings contained in the database.
Figure 45. Ex-Ante Annual kWh Savings by Measure Type

This distribution occurred statewide and included all participating utilities. Lighting measures
represented 84% of all electric energy savings claimed by the program, while HVAC/VFD upgrades and
ENERGY STAR products represented 15% and 1%, respectively.
The Evaluation Team performed engineering file reviews on a sample of measures to determine the
programs audited, verified, and ex-post savings per measure type and at the statewide level. The
random sample of measures in the analysis targeted an 80% confidence interval at 10% precision
(80/10) per measure type to achieve a 90/10 target at the program level across the three-year cycle.
The Evaluation Team selected the sample of measures from the two measure types (lighting and nonlighting) using a systematic approach to probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. This method
proves particularly useful when estimating population totals based on sampled projects. Ultimately, the
Team sought to calculate audited, verified, and ex-post gross savings from the sampled projects, and use
this to estimate the same gross savings in the population of measures. The total gross energy and
demand savings were correlated with total reported savings, available in the program database.
Therefore, the Team sampled the measures using a systematic Probability proportional to Size (PPS)
sampling approach to include measures with greater savings and higher probabilities.
Table 148 compares the distribution, by measure type, of the total measure count compared to the
evaluation sample. The Evaluation Team oversampled measures for each utility to account for measure
diversity and documentation constraints.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 123

Commercial and Industrial


Table 148. Distribution of Total Measures vs. Sampled Measures
Type

Database Measure Count

80/10 Measure Target

Sampled Measure Count

Lighting

5,819

41

58

Non-Lighting

3,207

41

56

Total

9,026

82

114

Audited Savings
The impact evaluation process first required a review of the program database. The Evaluation Team
examined the number of applications processed and the number of measures installed. Adjustments
made in this evaluation step resulted from comparing data within the program applications with claimed
ex-ante savings at the measure level. The database review indicated all ENERGY STAR products and
HVAC/VFD measures consisted of one installed unit, even though participants could have installed
multiple measures at a site. The Team tracked each of these measures as a separate line item. Lighting
measures, on average, consisted of 63 installed fixtures. Table 149 shows the distribution of measure
quantities by measure type and by the number of installed units for the population and the sample.
Table 149. Number of Installed Measures by Measure Category
Measure Category

Database
Measure
Quantity

Sampled Program
Measure Quantity

Database Unit
Quantity

Sampled Unit
Quantity

ENERGY STAR Products

1,615

12

1,615

HVAC & VFD Upgrade

1,592

44

1,592

12
44

Lighting

5,819

58

367,891

14,359

The Evaluation Team calculated audited savings for each of the measures in the sample and developed
estimates using the following four-step process:
1. Assessed the applied TPA methodology used for energy (kWh)/demand (kW) savings
calculations.
The Evaluation Team examined the savings algorithms from the TPAs work papers and, using
the applicable algorithm wherever possible, recreated a measures ex-ante savings, as presented
in the program tracking database. This step determined assumptions, constants, or lookup
values the TPA used in its applied methodology.
2. Reviewed the claimed TPA methodology for kWh/kW savings calculations.
The Evaluation Team noted differences between values used by the TPA in its applied
methodology and the parameters and algorithms documented in the savings estimate work
papers.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 124

Commercial and Industrial


3. Compared tracking data with the project application file.
Data present in both the database and the project application file often included the installed
quantity and the pre- and post-equipment specifications. The Evaluation Team noted any
discrepancies in values between these sources.
4. Independently calculated annual energy and peak-coincident demand savings using the TPAs
claimed methodology and with revised data found in the project application file.
Information gathered from steps 2 and 3 contributed to audited savings calculations for the
measure. Using the assumptions, constants, or lookup values outlined in the implementers
work papers, the Evaluation Team calculated kWh and kW measure savings with data presented
in the application file.
The WHF and peak coincidence demand factor (CF) assumptions for lighting measures accounted for the
predominant inconsistencies between the applied and claimed methodologies (database values and
work paper values, respectively).
Regardless of the space type, the work paper algorithms maintained an energy waste heat factor
(WHFe) of 1.095 and a demand waste heat factor (WHFd) of 1.2 for all lighting measures. The Evaluation
Team determined that the applied methodology assumed a WHFe and WHFd of 1.0 (i.e., the applied
methodology did not account for space cooling savings associated with a lighting upgrade). Similarly, the
work paper algorithm referred to a lookup table to determine the CF based on space type, whereas the
applied methodology assumed a CF of 0.68 for all lighting measures.
The Evaluation Team also found inconsistencies in the methodology for VFD measures. The TPAs
original source for VFD savings derived from the 2008 Connecticut Program Savings Document, which
required the VFD motors brake horsepower (bhp) rating to calculate savings. The database only tracked
the nameplate horsepower (hp) and did not include a motor-loading assumption. The application also
did not specify bhp. The Evaluation Team determined the applied methodology for savings used the
nameplate hp rather than the bhp, which would consistently overstate savings. The applied
methodology also assumed 3,985 runtime hours for process pumps, even though the claimed
methodology specified use of hours as listed in the program application.
Inconsistencies did not arise with ENERGY STAR product savings, as the claimed and applied
methodologies used the same deemed savings values. Unitary HVAC measures also used identical
claimed and applied methodologies.
The Evaluation Team then calculated adjustment factors, dividing the audited savings by the ex-ante
savings. The Team determined the adjustment factors, based on the sample of 114 measures at the
utility and statewide levels, and applied these to the total program population. Table 150 lists the
adjustment factors and resulting total audited savings.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 125

Commercial and Industrial


Table 150. Audited Energy Savings (kWh) and Demand (kW) by Utility and Statewide
Total Audited
kWh Savings

Utility

kWh Adjustment Factor


(Calculated from Sample)

Total Audited kW
Savings

kW Adjustment Factor
(Calculated from Sample)

Duke

78,664,156

90%

13,491

109%

I&M

21,342,708

90%

4,006

109%

IPL

41,972,311

90%

7,510

109%

NIPSCO

37,034,819

90%

11,913

109%

Vectren

10,695,006

90%

2,267

109%

189,709,000

90%

39,186

109%

Statewide

The analysis results for the chiller measures served as the primary driver for the low kWh realization
rate. The Evaluation Team used the implementers methodology and application data to calculate the
audited savings, even though the analysis discrepancies remained unclear. A difference in baselines is
one possible explanation. The Team referenced the Indiana TRM assumptions for the baseline
integrated part load value (IPLV) values since neither the implementer work papers nor the application
files outlined these assumptions. Though these assumptions provided reasonable values, they did not
solely account for such low adjustment factors. Ultimately, the Team could not recreate the claimed
savings values for these chiller measures using any combination of methods and factors from the
implementer work papers or the Indiana TRM.
The Evaluation Team attributed the high adjustment factors for audited kW in all territories to the
lighting measures. The Team applied a higher demand waste heat factor (WHFd) and coincidence factor
(CF) to kW savings for all of the utilities during the audit analysis than that applied by the implementer.
This more-detailed approach aligned with the Indiana TRM. As such, this approach increased audited
demand savings across all utilities.

Verified Savings
The Evaluation Team utilized participant surveys for a sample of customers to assess the number of
units actually installed, uninstalled, and placed in storage (and therefore not currently achieving
savings), along with usage patterns for installed measures. Table 152 shows the utility and statewide
verified energy savings, and Table 153 shows the same for verified peak-coincident demand savings.
Utility-specific data are provided in spreadsheet binder workbooks for each participating utility, and
are transmitted separately following draft reporting. The calculation of verified savings resulted from
multiplying the audited savings by the ISR. The participant survey data returned a 98.2% ISR, indicating
only minor quantifiable measure withholding by program participants.
Table 151. Key Metrics from Participant Surveys
Metric

Description

Installation Rate

(Units installed)/(Total program-tracked units)

ISR

(Units remaining installed at time of evaluation)/(Total units installed)

HOU

Average number of hours per day a measure remains in use

Table 152. Verified Energy Savings (kWh) by Utility and Statewide


Utility
Duke

Core Programs PY3 Report

Ex-Ante kWh
87,659,164

Verified kWh savings


76,846,828

Realization Rate
88%

Page 126

Commercial and Industrial


Utility

Ex-Ante kWh

Verified kWh savings

Realization Rate

I&M

23,783,183

20,849,641

88%

IPL

46,771,718

41,002,652

88%

NIPSCO

41,269,639

36,179,227

88%

Vectren
Statewide

11,917,947

10,447,926

88%

211,401,651

185,326,275

88%

Table 153. Verified Peak-Coincident Demand Savings (kW) by Utility and Statewide
Utility

Ex-Ante kW

Verified kW Savings

Realization Rate

Duke

12,406

13,136

106%

I&M

3,684

3,901

106%

IPL

6,905

7,312

106%

NIPSCO

10,954

11,599

106%

Vectren

2,084

2,207

106%

36,034

38,156

106%

Statewide

The precision around the C&I realization rates for the PY1-PY3 period is 5.7% at 90% confidence.

Ex-Post Savings
Ex-post savings reflect all adjustments the Evaluation Team made to claimed ex-ante measure savings.
To determine additional adjustments beyond those previously discussed, the Evaluation Team
performed an engineering analyses using measurement data and applicable secondary sources. The
Team used the Indiana TRM for the majority of savings algorithms in the analysis and relied on the most
recent customer-specific data provided by the TPA for variable inputs. Much like the audited savings
calculations, the Team determined ex-post savings for each of the 114 sampled measures, calculated an
adjustment factor compared to the measures ex-ante savings, and applied the rate to total ex-ante
savings per utility. Table 154 and
Table 155 summarize these values.
Table 154. Ex Post Energy (kWh) Savings per Utility and Statewide
Utility

Ex-Ante kWh Savings

Ex-Post kWh Savings

Duke

87,659,164

88,829,977

I&M

23,783,183

25,749,233

IPL

46,771,718

45,519,135

NIPSCO

41,269,639

41,841,659

Vectren

11,917,947

12,328,665

211,401,651

214,268,669

Statewide

Table 155. Ex-Post Demand (kW) Savings per Utility and Statewide
Utility

Ex-Ante kW Savings

Ex-Post kW Savings

Duke

12,406

14,107

I&M

3,684

4,558

IPL

6,905

7,297

NIPSCO

10,954

11,390

Vectren

2,084

2,353

Statewide

36,034

39,706

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 127

Commercial and Industrial

The Evaluation Team referenced the following hierarchy of resources before making adjustments to the
TPAs methodologies when calculating ex-post savings:

Application file

Tracking data

Program-specific data (work papers from the TPA)

Indiana TRM

Secondary sources:

Industry standards, codes, and references (e.g., ASHRAE 90.1)

State- or region-specific studies and evaluations

Studies and evaluations from outside the area

The Evaluation Team determined that lighting measures required a more detailed WHF estimation than
that described in the work papers. The work papers claimed methodology applied a WHFe (energy) of
1.095 and a WHFd (demand) of 1.2 to the savings, regardless of space type, for all measures. The Team
concluded that WHF values specific to each measures space type would provide more accurate
estimates of program savings.
As the application file or tracking data did not provide WHF values, the Evaluation Team referred to the
Indiana TRM for a better source of WHF. The Indiana TRM presented a lookup table of variable WHFe
estimates, dependent on space types, geographical regions, and heating/cooling system types. The table
matched the work paper estimate of 1.2 for WHFd, regardless of space type or region. The Team used
the table to determine the WHFe for each sampled lighting measure, assuming the space type listed in
the program application and a gas heat/electric cooling HVAC system. Using the Indiana TRMs WHF
estimates in the ex-post calculations resulted in an across-the-board increase of energy and peak
coincidence demand realization rates.
The Evaluation Team made one other primary adjustment when calculating ex-post savings: a case-bycase correction of baseline and/or efficient fixture wattages. During the review of each measure file, the
Team flagged instances where the nominal bulb wattage was recorded as a fixture wattage for an
externally ballasted fixture. For example, if the fixture wattage of a four-lamp, 25W T8 (4LT8-25W)
fixture was listed as 100W, it did not account for the ballast factor adjustment.
In such cases, the Team referred to the application file for a specification sheet on the fixtures adjusted
bulb and ballast configured wattage. If the application file did not include this information, the Team
examined the tracking database. In most cases, database values for fixture wattages came from the
application and proved identical. If so, the Team referred to the Indiana TRM, which included tables for
estimated fixture wattages for common baseline and efficient fixtures. This case-by-case adjustment did
not produce an across-the-board effect, as the efficient and/or baseline wattage could be adjusted
down or up, depending on the ballast factor for the fixture.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 128

Commercial and Industrial


The Evaluation Team drew on its collective knowledge and experience to adjust the methodology for
VFD ex-post savings. This included adjusting the Energy Savings Factor for three of the eight rebated VFD
applications to include updates to the 2013 Connecticut Program Savings Document (PSD) (the 2008
Connecticut PSD provided the original source of the implementers methodology) and to include process
pump savings estimations from prior evaluation work.
The Evaluation Team also determined the assumed motor efficiency of 80% in the applied and claimed
implementer methodology was incorrect and overstated the savings. The Team applied the correction to
the motor efficiency on a case-by-case basis, using the nameplate horsepower rating to determine the
Energy Policy Act 2001 minimum efficiency level for the motor. Due to these adjustments, realization
rates for VFD measures generally were lower than for lighting measures.
For the chiller measures, the Evaluation Team generally determined low realization rates for kWh and
kW savings, which corresponded more closely with audited savings. The Team verified that the
implementer methodology aligned well with the Indiana TRM; however, as noted, the Team could not
recreate the ex-ante savings using their algorithms and assumptions. The Team made one primary
adjustment to the audited savings for the ex-post analysis: using the TRMs full-load hours for kWh
calculations. On average, this adjustment increased the ex-post energy savings since, on average, the
implementer assumed lower full-load hours. The Evaluation Team also referred to the TRM for baseline
chiller efficiencies, which varied slightly from the implementers assumptions.

Net Savings
Given the continuation of the marketing and fielding approaches and of the technologies associated
with the C&I program in PY3, the Evaluation Team did not conduct new primary research with PY3
participants to inform PY3 NTG estimates. Rather, the team relied on an ex-post, gross savings-weighted
average of the PY1 and PY2 NTG estimates. The NTG methodology used to analyze PY1 and PY2
participant self-report responses consisted of two componentsfreeridership and spillover, defined
as follows:

Freeriders are participating customers who would have purchased a measure without the
programs influence, thereby reducing the savings attributable to the program.

Spillover includes savings achieved through the participating customers decision to invest in
additional efficiency measures or activities due to the influences of participation, resulting in
increased savings attributable to the program and improved cost-effectiveness.

The following formula provided final NTG ratios for each program component:
Net-to-gross ratio = (1 Freeridership) + Spillover
To determine freeridership in PY1 and PY2, the Evaluation Team drew upon a previously developed
approach, which identified freeridership using patterns or responses for a series of questions. The
questionswhich allowed yes, no, or dont know responsesasked whether participants would
have installed the same equipment in the programs absence, at the same time, in the same amount,

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 129

Commercial and Industrial


and at the same efficiency. By assigning freerider scores to certain question response patterns, the
Team could estimate confidence and precision estimates on score distributions.25
The Evaluation Team estimated participant spillover from surveys conducted in PY1 and PY2 by
calculating the following:

Savings attributable to additional measures installed; and

Whether respondents credited the program with influencing their decisions.

Measures counted if customers did not request incentives, even though measures qualified for one.
Appendix A in the PY2 report provides a detailed explanation of the Evaluation Teams NTG
methodology, including descriptions of freeridership and spillover evaluation methodologies, and some
NTG survey questions that interviewers asked participants.
Table 156 summarizes the weighted average NTG kWh impacts for the PY3 C&I Prescriptive Rebates
program. Population ex-post, net energy, kWh savings were calculated by multiplying the populations
ex-post gross energy kWh savings for each program option by their NTG ratios. The sum of the PY1 and
PY2 population ex-post net energy kWh savings, divided by the sum of the PY1 and PY2 population expost gross energy kWh savings, equaled the program populations 81% weighted NTG ratio for PY3.
Table 156. PY3 kWh Net ImpactsBased On PY1 and PY2 Weighted Average
Program
Year

Responses
(n)

NTG
Ratio

Population Ex-Post Gross


Energy kWh Savings

Population Ex-Post Net


Energy kWh Savings

PY1

110

83%

182,642,707

151,928,857

PY2

282

80%

239,579,951

191,663,961

Population
Weighted NTG
Ratio for PY3
81%

Table 157 summarizes the weighted average NTG kW impacts for the PY3 C&I Prescriptive Rebates
program. Population ex-post net energy kW savings were calculated by multiplying the populations
ex-post gross energy kW savings for each program option by their NTG ratios. The sum of the PY1 and
PY2 population ex-post net energy kW savings, divided by the sum of the PY1 and PY2 population expost gross energy kW savings, equaled the program populations 77% weighted NTG ratio for PY3.
Table 157. PY3 kW Net ImpactsBased On PY1 and PY2 Weighted Average
Program
Year

Responses
(n)

NTG Ratio

Population
Ex-Post Gross Energy kW
Savings

Population
Ex-Post Net Energy kW
Savings

PY1

110

74%

74,342

55,237

PY2

282

80%

57,296

45,837

25

Population
Weighted NTG
Ratio for PY3
77%

This approach follows methods outlined in: Schiller, Steven. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.
Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide. 2007. Available online at:
www.epa.gov/eeactionplan.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 130

Commercial and Industrial

Summary of Impact Adjustments


The following tables show all adjustments made to energy savings claimed by the programs in PY3 per
utility (which do not include CFL carryover savings from PY1 bulb drop).
Table 158. Summary of Energy Savings Adjustments (kWh)
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

251,356,000

87,659,164

78,664,156

76,846,828

78,974,631

64,267,314

I&M

35,000,000

23,783,183

21,342,708

20,849,641

21,426,945

17,436,639

IPL

78,642,000

46,771,718

41,972,311

41,002,652

42,137,969

34,290,683

NIPSCO

83,776,235

41,269,639

37,034,819

36,179,227

37,180,990

30,256,834

Vectren

14,470,139

11,917,947

10,695,006

10,447,926

10,737,217

8,737,643

463,244,374

211,401,651

189,709,000

185,326,275

190,457,751

154,989,113

Statewide

Table 159. Summary of Demand Savings Adjustments (kW)


Utility
Duke
I&M
IPL
NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

kW Goal
37,073
5,163
11,601
12,354
2,502
68,693

Ex-Ante kW
12,406
3,684
6,905
10,954
2,084
36,034

Audited kW
13,491
4,006
7,510
11,913
2,267
39,186

Verified kW
13,136
3,901
7,312
11,599
2,207
38,156

Ex-Post kW
11,507
3,417
6,405
10,161
1,933
33,424

Net kW
8,835
2,624
4,918
7,802
1,484
25,663

The following tables show savings achieved in PY3, plus additional carryover savings from delayed
installations from PY1 bulb drop.
Table 160. Summary of Energy Savings Adjustments (kWh)
Utility

kWh Goal

Ex-Ante kWh

Audited kWh

Verified kWh

Ex-Post kWh

Net kWh

Duke

251,356,000

87,659,164

78,664,156

76,846,828

88,829,977

74,812,534

I&M

35,000,000

23,783,183

21,342,708

20,849,641

25,749,233

22,061,488

IPL

78,642,000

46,771,718

41,972,311

41,002,652

45,519,135

37,908,532

NIPSCO

83,776,235

41,269,639

37,034,819

36,179,227

41,841,659

35,243,751

Vectren

14,470,139

11,917,947

10,695,006

10,447,926

12,328,665

10,440,492

Statewide

463,244,374

211,401,651

189,709,000

185,326,275

214,268,670

180,466,797

Utility
Duke
I&M
IPL
NIPSCO
Vectren
Statewide

kW Goal
37,073
5,163
11,601
12,354
2,502
68,693

Table 161. Summary of Demand Savings Adjustments (kW)


Ex-Ante kW
12,406
3,684
6,905
10,954
2,084
36,034

Audited kW
13,491
4,006
7,510
11,913
2,267
39,186

Verified kW
13,136
3,901
7,312
11,599
2,207
38,156

Ex-Post kW
14,107
4,558
7,297
11,390
2,353
39,706

Net kW
11,617
3,844
5,872
9,117
1,934
32,384

Table 162 presents ex-post gross lifetime savings by utility.


Table 162. Ex-Post Gross Lifetime Savings Achieved by C&I
Utility

Core Programs PY3 Report

Lifetime kWh

Page 131

Commercial and Industrial


Duke

1,142,634,943

I&M

313,540,241

IPL

552,223,302

NIPSCO

502,458,351

Vectren

138,606,165

Statewide

2,649,463,002

Process Evaluation
The PY3 Commercial and Industrial Process Evaluation focused on the programs ending and on its
impact on trade ally business and customer decision making. The Evaluation Team provides these
recommendations to be applied by individual utilities to better their specific DSM program operations
going forward.

Program Design
Though the C&I Program officially ended at the end of 2014, each utility set its own specific end date,
after which they no longer accepted applications. Table 163 shows these end dates.
Table 163. Program End Dates
Utility

Date

Duke

Install before 12/31/14; application submitted within 90 days or by 3/31/15 at the latest;
60 additional days to process/inspect project.

I&M

Submit application by 9/30/14; all processing and inspection completed by 12/4/14.

IPL

Install before 12/31/14; application submitted within 90 days or by 3/31/15 at the latest;
60 additional days to process and inspect.

NIPSCO

Submit application by 10/24/14; all processing and inspection completed by 12/4/14.

Vectren

Submit application by 12/31/14; 60 additional days to process and inspect.

GoodCents staff expressed concerns with these varying dates, noting that it caused confusion among
customers and contractors.

Program Awareness
Lighting Customers
When the Evaluation Team asked survey respondents how they learned about the Energizing Indiana
C&I Rebate Program, respondents most commonly cited contractor marketing (42%), followed by a
contractor approaching their firm (19%) and word of mouth from business colleagues (19%). Other
responses offered (but not shown in Figure 46 due to a low response rate) include the following: my
utilitys website; a program-sponsored event; and past program participation. As shown, a strong,
professional network appears to contribute greatly to awareness of this program.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 132

Commercial and Industrial


Figure 46. How Did You Learn about the Energizing Indiana
Commercial and Industrial Rebate Program? (n=113)

*Multiple responses allowed; responses with 10% or less omitted from the chart.

Figure 47 shows survey participants most commonly cited saving money (87%) as their reason for
participating in the C&I Program. Additional influences included the ability to obtain a rebate (57%) and
the opportunity to reduce upfront costs (54%). Less common responses (not shown in the chart due to
few citations) included the following: recommended by an industry colleague or by Energizing Indiana;
the programs sponsorship by the respondents utility; management of the application process managed
by the contractor; and program participation as a part of a broader remodeling project.
Figure 47. What Factors Were Important to You in Your Decision to Participate
in the Commercial and Industrial Rebate Program? (n=114)

*Multiple responses allowed; responses with 10% or less omitted from the chart.

Non-lighting Participants
Figure 48 shows responses to how non-lighting participants learned of the C&I Program. Respondents
most commonly cited vendors or contractors (22%). Participants also learned of the program from:
printed material sent by the participants utility (13%); approach by a vendor or contractor (13%); and

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 133

Commercial and Industrial


Internet research (13%). Other responses cited included the following: past program participation;
Energizing Indiana material; the respondents utility website; and participating in another program or a
program-sponsored event.
Figure 48. How Did You Learn About the Energizing Indiana
Commercial and Industrial Rebate Program? (n=63)

*Multiple responses allowed, responses with 10% or less omitted from the chart.

The Evaluation Team asked survey respondents to report the major reason(s) their organization
purchased a measure. As shown in Figure 49, respondents most commonly sought to reduce energy
costs (83%), followed by seeking improved performance (48%), and obtaining a program rebate (38%).
Other responses (not included in the chart due to their few mentions) included the following:
recommendation from a contractor; the desire to acquire the latest technology; replacing broken
equipment; and recommendation from a business colleague.
Figure 49. What Factors Were Important to You in Your Decision to Participate in
the Commercial and Industrial Rebate Program? (n=63)

*Multiple responses allowed; responses with 10% or less omitted from chart.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 134

Commercial and Industrial

Trade Allies
Trade allies most commonly learned of the program through a colleague, as shown in Figure 50 (36%).
Respondents also learned of the program through the Energizing Indiana website (32%); Energizing
Indiana staff (22%); or a program-sponsored event (16%).
Figure 50. How Did You Hear About Energizing Indianas Commercial
and Industrial Prescriptive Rebate Program? (n=50)

*Multiple responses allowed.

Seventy-four percent of trade allies said they had participated in the program in previous years (n=50),
with 41 trade allies (77%) completed just one project for the program in 2014 (although 12 said they
completed three projects in one year). Further, nearly one-half of the trade allies (49%) stated, in
addition to the program, they participated in the utilities Core Plus energy-efficiency rebate programs.
Trade allies said almost one-half (49%) of their customers knew of Energizing Indianas C&I Program
(n=51), and more than two-thirds of trade allies (79%) said they saw customer awareness increase in
2014 (n=47); 83% reported increases in 2013. As shown in Figure 51, trade allies that stated they saw
customer awareness increase attributed this increase to: word of mouth (38%); increased advertising
(22%); the rebates (22%); or cost savings associated with the program (22%) (similar to 2013).
Figure 51. To What do You Attribute the Increase in Customer Awareness? (n=32)

*Multiple responses allowed.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 135

Commercial and Industrial

Program Implementers
During interviews, implementers said the program functioned in a manner that allowed managers to
work only with the trade allies, not with customers directly. This inhibited the implementers ability to
reach out to customers who would have participated without the aid of a trade ally. This could have led
to a loss in potential energy savings.

Program Termination
Lighting Participants
While the majority (59%) of respondents knew the C&I Program would end at the close of 2014, many
respondents did not (41%). Figure 52 shows those who knew found out most commonly from a
contractor (40%) or the Energizing Indiana website (32%).
Figure 52. Lighting Participants: How Did You Learn the Program was Ending? (n=65)

Among those who knew the program would end, 44% said the programs impending termination
impacted their decisions to participate. The majority of these respondents said the programs impending
termination moved up the timing of their project, though they did not specify whether the shorter
timeline altered the efficiency level or quantity of efficient items they purchased.

Non-lighting Participants
While the majority of respondents knew the C&I Program would end at the close of 2014 (70%), some
respondents did not (30%). Figure 53 shows those who knew most commonly learned of this through a
contractor (36%) or from Energizing Indianas website (31%).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 136

Commercial and Industrial


Figure 53. Non-lighting Participants: How Did You Learn the Program was Ending? (n=42)

Thirteen respondents said the program end date affected their decision to participate. Among those
explaining these impacts, two said they moved up their project timeline before the program cutoff, and
one did not have the installation done in time to receive a rebate. Another respondent stated that they
would have made more energy-efficient upgrades in 2015 had the program remained available.

Trade Allies
Program managers stated that the programs termination affected trade allies. In particular, trade allies
were confused about the multiple program end dates, which made it more challenging for them to
convey precise program information to a potential customer. One Program Manager stated that trade
allies dont want to take the risk of quoting a project if the application may be rejected.
Most of the surveyed trade allies (81%) knew the Energizing Indiana program ended at the close of
2014. Of those who knew this (n=41), over one-half (61%) learned of the program closure via Energizing
Indiana staff, while others learned of it through Energizing Indianas website (15%) or a utility
representative (12%). Trade allies that knew of the programs imminent end indicated nearly threequarters (74%) of their customers also knew about it (n=42).
Almost one-half of the trade allies (48%) stated that the program ending generated confusion (n=27).
Figure 54 shows customer reactions to the programs end. Six trade allies said much of this confusion
arose from customers wondering why the program ended. One trade ally said a customer became
confused because they dont know why the program is ending when all the other states are ramping up
programs. Three trade allies said customers were confused about whether there would be similar
programs in the future, with one saying customers asked, What is going to replace it in 2015?

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 137

Commercial and Industrial


Figure 54. What were Your Customers Confused About When the Program Ended? (n=11)

*Multiple responses allowed

Two-thirds of the trade allies (66%) said the programs ending affected their business (n=35). Figure 55
shows, of trade allies stating the programs ending affected their business, a majority said it resulted in
fewer projects.
Figure 55. What has been Impacted (by the Program Ending)? (n=23)

Program Implementers
Utilities ended the program at different times. Program implementers said they thought some trade
allies stopped recommending the program to their customers before the termination date due to
concerns about mixing up these dates and giving the customers false information.

Program Satisfaction
Lighting Participants
The majority of respondents said no aspects of the C&I Program proved challenging for their businesses
(87%). Among the 14 respondents who cited a challenge, seven reported difficulties getting their
rebates, whether due to a delay in paperwork processing or the volume of rebates processed at that

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 138

Commercial and Industrial


time. Two participants expressed disappointment that the program did not cover all measures, and two
found the paperwork difficult to understand.
The Evaluation Team asked survey respondents to rate their satisfaction levels26 with several program
components. As shown in Table 164, 83% were very satisfied with materials describing the program and
its eligibility requirements. For those using a contractor, 90% were very satisfied with the contractors
knowledge of the program. A majority (72%) were very satisfied with the application process, 73% were
very satisfied with the choices of eligible measures, 72% were very satisfied with how quickly they
received the rebate, and 83% were satisfied with the program overall.
Table 164. Satisfaction Level With Program Components
Program Component

Program Materials (n=110)

Contractors Program Knowledge (n=94)

Application Process (n=109)

26

Satisfaction Rating

Percentage
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10

1%
4%
13%
83%
1%
2%
6%
90%
4%
6%
18%
72%

Satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 10 being completely satisfied.
Satisfaction ratings have been grouped into the following categories: 1-3=not at all satisfied; 4-5=not satisfied;
6-7=somewhat satisfied; and 8-10=very satisfied.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 139

Commercial and Industrial


Program Component

Satisfaction Rating

Choice of Eligible Measures (n=108)

Speed of Receiving the Rebate (n=106)

Program Overall (n=112)

Percentage
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10

1%
6%
19%
73%
11%
7%
10%
72%
2%
3%
13%
83%

Among those not at all satisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with the program, respondents wanted the
program to continue (n=5), offer more rebate options (n=4); provide easier forms to fill out online (n=3);
become a more user-friendly program overall (n=3), and send rebates sooner (n=3).
Finally, the Evaluation Team asked all respondents if they had any additional comments about the C&I
program. Seventeen respondents wanted the program to continue. Comments included the following:

Thought it was a great program.

Hate to see it go.

I think a lot of companies did not know about it.

It needs to be extended.

We werent able to complete everything we wanted to get done.

Ten respondents said it was a great program, with comments such as: Thank you! With VERY limited
funds, this helped our small library tremendously. Three said that more program options were needed,
specifically around LED technology; two said they had not received their rebate; and two said they
thought the program needed more promotion.

Non-Lighting Participants
Nine respondents found aspects of the C&I Program challenging for their businesses. The remaining
respondents (n=59) did not report challenges. Of those citing a challenge, three respondents found the
paperwork difficult to understand, two said LEDs should be a program offering to help people make the
shift from fluorescents to more energy-efficient alternatives, two were confused by the program
offerings (as this was not their area of expertise), one had trouble making the installation deadline on
time, and one had a contractor who mixed up the expected rebate amounts.
Table 165 shows survey respondents answers when the Evaluation Team asked them to rate their
satisfaction levels with several program components. Regarding materials describing the program and
eligibility requirements, 76% of respondents said they were very satisfied. For those using a contractor,
85% were very satisfied with the contractors knowledge of the program. A majority (74%) were very
satisfied with the application process; 58% were very satisfied with the choices of eligible measures;

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 140

Commercial and Industrial


76% were very satisfied with how quickly they received their rebates; and 86% were satisfied with the
program overall.
Table 165. Satisfaction Level* With Program Components
Program Component

Program Materials (n=63)

Contractors Program Knowledge (n=52)

Application Process (n=62)

Choice of Eligible Measures (n=62)

Speed of Receiving the Rebate (n=62)

Program Overall (n=63)

Satisfaction Rating

Percentage
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10
1-3
4-5
6-7
8-10

2%
6%
16%
76%
6%
2%
8%
85%
5%
5%
16%
74%
5%
11%
26%
58%
3%
8%
13%
76%
3%
2%
10%
86%

Those not at all satisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with the program cited the following reasons: the
program was difficult to understand or used overly complex application material (n=12); a lack of
distinction existed between the C&I Program and their utility-specific rebate programs (n=10); limited
program offerings (n=8); lower-than-expected incentive amounts (n=6); too many delays between steps
in the application process (n=4); and a contractor who did not seem to understand the program (n=3).
The Evaluation Team asked respondents if Energizing Indiana could have improved the participants
experiences. Six said they wanted LEDs rebated; five wanted a simpler invoicing process; three wanted
the program continued; three suggested more responsive customer service; and two wanted more
rebate options in general. The three respondents saying they wanted to see the program continued
offered the following comments:

Energizing Indiana has been a wonderful program and I am so sad to see it dissolve. It has been
a huge help to our organization and has brought about more awareness about the need for
energy-efficient equipment. I appreciate all you have done for us. Thank you!!

I would like to see the program continue. The additional rebate money has help us to promote
additional energy-savings projects.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 141

Commercial and Industrial

This program is an important program. The initial cost to become energy effective can be
costly. The rebate program offers great incentives to help reduce the cost. Because of the
program, we have been able to install more energy-efficient products that will reduce energy
use and cost while being conservative to the environment.

Finally, the Evaluation Team asked all respondents if they had additional comments about the C&I
program. Ten respondents said they really liked the program, and seven respondents said they wanted
the program to continue.

Trade Allies
Trade allies rated their satisfaction with the program using a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very
satisfied). As shown in Figure 56, a majority of trade allies (90%) had high satisfaction satisfied with the
program overall (n=51), rating it a 7 or higher compared to 78% of respondents doing so in 2013 (n=18).
The five trade allies rating their overall satisfaction level with the program at 6 or lower provided the
following comments:

Having a third rebate program just complicated the project.

There were just never many incentives for the kind of work we do we would have large
projects that would only have one or two line items that qualified in these instances it was not
worth the time to file all of the paperwork required for $7.00 in rebates.
Figure 56. How Satisfied Were You with the Program Overall? (n=51)

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 142

Commercial and Industrial

Decision Making and Purchase Patterns


Lighting Participants
The majority of respondents (71%) said their organization did not hire a contractor specifically to
determine which energy-efficient equipment to install. Among those who did, 71% said their contractor
proved important to their plans or their decision to install lighting equipment, as shown in Figure 57.
Figure 57. Level of Importance* for Hiring a Contractor (n=32)

As shown in Figure 58, the Evaluation Team asked survey participants about how their organization
allocated funds for efficiency projects. Participants organizations most commonly allocated funds
through the companys maintenance budget (46%) or capital budget (37%).
Figure 58. Lighting Participants: How does Your Organization
Allocate Funds for Efficiency Projects? (n=100)

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 143

Commercial and Industrial

Non-lighting Participants
When asked how their organization allocated funds for efficiency projects, 49% of surveyed respondents
said the funds came from their organizations capital budget and 26% said it came from their
maintenance budget, as shown in Figure 59.
Figure 59. Non-lighting Participants: How does Your Organization
Allocate Funds for Efficiency Projects? (n=61)

Participation Barriers
Trade Ally Barriers
Trade allies indicated that customers attitudes toward energy efficiency and their poor understanding
of the program created participation challenges. Figure 60 shows customers top challenges included:
their lack of understanding about program participation; and a belief that energy efficiency is not worth
the upfront costs (both responses at 38%). Trade allies also said customers generally did not purchase
the products or found the program process frustrating (both responses at 19%).
Figure 60. What Were the Biggest Challenges Your Customers Faced
to Qualify or Participate in the Program? (n=47)

*Multiple responses allowed.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 144

Commercial and Industrial


However, trade allies found the program rebates effective. Figure 61 shows nearly all (96%) trade allies
considered the programs rebates effective when a customer needed to replace existing equipment, and
also considered the rebates effective in encouraging customers to replace fully functional
equipment (92%).
Figure 61. Trade Allies: Effectiveness of Rebates (n=51)

Program Implementers
Program implementers found the list of available program measures datedan issue that also arose
during the customer surveys. The implementers said they were aware of customers demand for LEDs,
but could not update the program offerings.

Insights and Recommendations


The following sections include the Evaluation Teams recommendations for program improvements for
use by utilities in future program offerings. i
Conclusion 1: A strong, professional Trade Ally network contributed to the majority of participants
awareness about the program.
Recommendation 1: In the future, utilities and program managers should strongly utilize the
professional network associated with the program; such a network can greatly influence members
awareness and support for using a particular program.
Conclusion 2: Saving money served as the strongest motivation for program participation.
Recommendation 2: Ensure all marketing materials clearly explain how program participation can save
customers money.
Conclusion 3: Many customers felt confused upon learning the program ended and did not know if they
would receive their rebate. Utilities did not provide information about programs to take Energizing
Indianas place or why the program was terminated. Trade allies also reported the programs ending
negatively affected their businesses (largely through fewer projects).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 145

Commercial and Industrial


Recommendation 3: Due to confusion around the programs termination, new utility programs will need
to focus on rebuilding trade ally and customer trust. Moving forward, the utilities need to ensure a
hands-on implementation staff member remains available and sufficiently knowledgeable to provide
clear information on the reasons for the programs termination and how new programs will work.
Providing knowledgeable staff to reach out to trade allies and customers will help rebuild trust through
accessibility, reliability, and the new programs active promotion.
Conclusion 4: Chiller measures prove highly complex and varied. Existing implementer and Indiana TRM
savings estimate methodologies do not accurately reflect achievable savings values.
Recommendation 4: In future prescriptive programs, utility mangers should consider shifting the chiller
measure to a custom or hybrid-custom model. Utilities should offer relatively low prescriptive savings
values and incentives under a prescriptive offering and should enable added savings and incentives for
conducting a custom energy-savings analysis.
Conclusion 5: Allowing program implementers to reach out to customers directly may have increased
program participation instead of operating through the trade ally base.
Recommendation 5: Future programs should consider the full extent that program implementers might
be able to positively influence program participation and should enable them to do so.
Conclusion 6: The utilities differing program end dates may have decreased potential program
participation.
Recommendation 6: When making major program changes, reach out to trade allies to determine if
they any concerns and how those concerns could be met to ensure consistent program participation.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 146

Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-Effectiveness
Introduction
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency programs for the set of Energizing Indiana energyefficiency programs involved following the procedures specified in the Indiana Evaluation Framework.
The Framework bases its cost-effectiveness approaches, to a large degree, on the California Standard
Practice Manual (SPM). The Indiana Evaluation Framework, however, takes precedence over the SPM
when applicable.
Adherence to procedures in the Framework and the SPM may follow a number of paths, but two
approaches prove the most prevalent:

One involves evaluating ex ante cost-effectiveness (i.e., the cost-effectiveness of proposed


programs).

The second involves evaluating energy-efficiency programs on an ex post basis.

The ex-ante approach uses projected measure impacts, while the ex post approach uses actual load
impact results from EM&V and actual program costs. This report uses the latter (or ex post) for the costeffectiveness analysis, consistent with the analysis requirements of the Indiana Evaluation Framework.
This report details the cost-effectiveness analysis results for the Statewide Core programs for each utility
and the portfolio of programs for the measures implemented in the 2012, 2013, and 2014 program
years. While this benefit-cost analysis now adds the third year of the TPA operations, the avoided costs
and program costs for both program year one (2012) and program year two (2013) are aggregated with
those for program year three (2014) for analyzing cost-effectiveness.
This aggregation proves appropriate for two reasons:

It provides results for the full program since inception; and

It avoids timing issues that occur due to carry-over load impacts or avoided costs counted in
program year three but associated with expenditures in program years one and two.

Given the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commissions prior request for standalone cost-effectiveness scores
for just the second program year, standalone cost-effectiveness results for the third program year have
been prepared. Appendix B provides the third program year cost-effectiveness scores, though these
scores should be consider in light of the caveats cited in the appendix.
This report includes costs associated with development, start-up, rollout, and operational adjustments
associated with all three years. Typically, as programs mature, they become more cost-effective as startup costs and operational inefficiencies combine with typically more-effective efforts in the years
following start-up. The benefit cost assessment presented in this report includes the TPAs costs to
implement the program, including administrative, marketing, and overhead costs. It does not include
administrative, monitoring, and tracking costs of the utilities overseeing the TPAs efforts. As a result,
the reports benefit-cost assessment provides a perspective on the cost-effectiveness of the TPAs

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 147

Cost-Effectiveness
performance rather than the cost-effectiveness of the TPAs activities, plus the cost of the utilitys
oversight or management functions.
The benefit-cost analysis reported here represents the final year of the three-year program cycle and
reflects accumulated program costs and benefits as implemented. That is, the analysis includes: the
costs and benefits from program years one, two, and three. The Indiana Evaluation Framework of
September 2012 (as updated in February 2013) guides the benefit-cost assessments.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and benefits
from an investment perspective. In the energy efficiency industry, it serves as an indicator of the energy
supplys relative performance or the economic attractiveness of any energy-efficiency investment or
practice, when compared to the costs of energy produced and delivered in the absence of such
investments (but without consideration of the value or costs of non-energy benefits or non-included
externalities). The typical cost-effectiveness formula provides an economic comparison of costs and
benefits.
The benefit-cost test results are provided for each utility program, for each utility portfolio, and for the
State of Indiana. These tests are not necessarily used to recover costs; rather they are used to provide
information to improve decisions on programs to adjust or continue offering within an energy-efficiency
portfolio. The required inputs and assumptions follow.
Analysis results include the Indiana Frameworks primary tests at the program and portfolio levels. All
tests are reported based on the net-present value (NPV) of benefits versus costs. These tests employ the
full effective useful life of the measures installed and the utilitys cost of capital, as if program funds
were acquired via a utility loan from capital supply markets at a rate similar to that borrowed to
construct a new generation plant.

Cost-Effectiveness Model Description


EM&V and cost-effectiveness modeling prove critical to the long-term success of energy-efficiency
programs. To understand cost-effectiveness, the utility/program administrator should use a model that
can evaluate changes to individual programs and to the portfolio. This includes (but is not limited to) the
ability to evaluate impacts on cost-effectiveness of changes in numerous factors (such as: incentive
levels, participant levels, measure savings, measure costs, avoided costs, end-use load shapes,
coincident peak factors, net-to-gross factors, administrative costs, and the addition or deletion of
measures or programs).
To provide the best and most accurate demand-side management (DSM)/DR/energy-efficiency portfolio
cost-effectiveness modeling, the evaluation team used the DSMore modelconsidered the leading
DSM/energy-efficiency benefit-cost modeling tool in the country. The DSMore tool, developed by
Integral Analytics, (IA), is currently being used by utilities in approximately 35 states and by numerous
state regulatory commissions. In the United States, leading tool users in the country include Duke
Energy, Xcel, and American Electric Power. DSMore is the only tool in the country that captures hourly
price and load volatility across multiple years of weather, as needed to assess the true cost-effectiveness
of programs under expected supply and load conditions (even in extreme weather situations).

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 148

Cost-Effectiveness
In its simplest form, energy-efficiency cost-effectiveness is measured by comparing the benefits of an
investment with the costs. Five primary cost-effectiveness tests may be employed in energy-efficiency
program evaluation: the participant cost test (PCT); the utility cost test (UCT)sometimes called the
program administrator cost test; the ratepayer impact measure test (RIM); the total resource cost test
(TRC); and the societal cost test (SCT). For this EM&V analysis, the societal cost test will not be
conducted as estimates of environmental and other non-energy costs and benefits will not be available.
The four remaining tests consider the impacts of energy-efficiency programs from different points of
view in the energy system. Though each test provides a single stakeholders perspective, taken together,
the tests can provide a comprehensive view of program viability. The tests also can be used to help
program planners improve program designs by answering questions such as:

Is the program cost-effective overall?

Are some costs or incentives too high or too low?

What will the impact be on customer rates?

Each cost-effectiveness test shares a common structure, comparing total benefits and total costs in
dollars from a certain point of view to determine whether or not overall benefits exceed the costs. A
test passes a cost-effectiveness test if it produces a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than one; it fails if
produces a benefit-to-cost ration less than one, as shown in the following equation:
/ =

($)
($)

Table 166 and 169 provide an overview of information on the four tests utilized in this report.
Table 166. Cost-Effectiveness Test Overview
Cost-Effectiveness
Test
PCT

Are there positive benefits to the customer?

UCT

Impact on utility revenue requirement?

RIM

Will utility rates increase?

TRC

Will the total cost of energy in the utility service


territory decrease?

Objective

Core Programs PY3 Report

Comparison
Costs and Benefits of customer installing measure
Program administration cost to achieve supply-side
resource cost savings
Program administration cost and utility bill
reductions to achieve supply-side resource cost
savings
Program administrator and customer costs to
achieve utility resource savings

Page 149

Cost-Effectiveness
Table 169. Cost-Effectiveness Test Overview
UCT

RIM

TRC

Avoided energy costs (fuel, O&M of power plants and Transmission and
Distribution [T&D] lines)

Costs and Benefits

PCT

Benefit

Benefit

Benefit

Avoided capacity costs (constructing power plants, T&D lines, pipelines)

Benefit

Benefit

Benefit

Other benefits (fossil fuel savings, water savings, equipment O&M)

Benefit

Externalities (environmental benefits, such as emissions reductions)


Participants incremental cost (above baseline) of efficient equipment
Program administration costs (staff, marketing)
Incentives (rebates)
Lost utility revenue/lower energy bills (due to lower sales)

Cost

Benefit
Benefit

Cost
Cost
Cost

Cost
Cost
Cost

Cost

The cost-effectiveness tests also examine measures from different perspectives. The following formulas
describe the tests using the terminology from DSMore:
Cost =
=

+
+

=
( ) =
=


+

+

+ +

Overview of DSMore
DSMore is a financial analysis tool designed to evaluate the costs, benefits, and risks of energy-efficiency
programs and measures. The tool estimates the value of an energy-efficiency measure at an hourly
level, across distributions of weather and/or energy costs or prices. By examining energy-efficiency
performance and cost-effectiveness over a wide variety of weather and cost conditions, the evaluator
takes a better position to measure risks and benefits of energy-efficiency measures.
The test results address a range of weather conditions, including normal weather, and under various
cost and market price conditions. As DSMore is designed to analyze extreme conditions, users can
obtain a distribution of cost-effectiveness outcomes or expectations. Avoided costs for energy efficiency
tend to increase with increasing market prices and/or more extreme weather conditions due to the
covariance between load and costs/prices. Understanding the manner in which energy-efficiency cost-

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 150

Cost-Effectiveness
effectiveness varies under these conditions allows a more precise valuation of energy-efficiency
programs and DR programs.
Using valuation or modeling methods that employ averages (e.g., annual use, monthly use, weather
normal load profiles) instead of actual and forecasted hourly usage and avoided costs, by definition,
undervalue energy-efficiency and DSM programs, which tend to exhibit higher savings during times of
higher avoided costs (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), weatherization, DR). For
programs that exhibit around-the-clock energy savings, averaging type methods yield valuation results
equivalent to DSMore results. However, such programs are not prevalent (exceptions include lighting on
at all hours and refrigeration).
In all other cases, averaging-based methods yield cost-effectiveness test results that are lower than their
actual values. DSMore methods and algorithms avoid this potential error by very granular use of hourly
energy savings and hourly avoided costs, linked via the same set of actual, local, hourly weather
histories.
Generally, the DSMore model requires the user to input specific information regarding the energyefficiency measure or program to be analyzed as well as the cost and rate information of the utility.
These inputs enable one to then analyze the cost-effectiveness of the measure or program.
DSMore uses a set of program inputs, entered through the first two tabs (worksheets) of an Excel
interface, and combined with preconfigured load-shape and price data to calculate the costeffectiveness tests. IA creates a custom set of hourly loads and prices, based on analysis over a 30+ year
period for each customer. Load files are specific to the customer class served by the energy-efficiency
program. The user enters the measure information data into Excel, selects the appropriate load file,
selects the appropriate price file, and executes DSMore. DSMore uses measure information data, the
load file, and the price file to calculate the cost-effectiveness tests, and then exports the results into the
same Excel workbook (i.e., worksheet tabs 3 through 8), but within the same Excel file as the measure
inputs. Figure 62 provides an overview of the DSMore application and shows how the key inputs relate
to the application engine.
Figure 62. DSMore Overview

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 151

Cost-Effectiveness

Analytical Approach
Table addresses two scenarios: one using average load and average prices and one using hourly loads
and prices. Both scenarios use the same average load (2 MW) and the same average price ($50/MWh)
over the time period. However, the total value of the hourly analysis differs ($500 versus $620). The
programs actual value in this example is almost 25% higher when using hourly costs to estimate
benefits compared to using average pricing.
Table 170. Average vs. Hourly Valuation
Hour

Average Loads and Prices


MW

$/MWH

Hourly Loads and Prices


Total $

MW

$/MWH

Total $

$50

$100

$20

$50

$100

$20

$20

$50

$100

$50

$100

$50

$100

$80

$240

$50

$100

$80

$240

Average

$50

$50

Total

$500

$20

$620

To perform this hourly analysis, DSMore correlates historic loads and prices to actual historic weather.
DSMore uses these relationships (along with the covariance) between loads, weather, price, and the
probability distributions of these relationships to calculate approximately 700 different market/load/
price scenarios, each with a unique test result. DSMore reports the endpoints or extremes of this
distribution, conveniently reducing the number of test results reported in the Excel output (from five to
nine test results, rather than 700). The user can, however, simply adhere to one test result, which
reflects their preferred set of avoided costs, across weather normal conditions.
One of DSMores more versatile functions lies in its ability to simultaneously assess multiple costeffectiveness assessments over many different avoided-cost scenarios. For each of the 30 years of
weather scenarios, DSMore assesses 21 different electric market/cost/price scenarios. Typically, DSMore
uses 33 years of weather as a default number of weather year scenarios, yielding 693 (33 weather
scenarios x 21 market scenarios) cost-effectiveness test results to reflect a full spectrum of possible
valuations for a particular program (about 700 in total).
Figure 63, below, shows how the approximately 700 weather/price scenarios capture the extremes,
which an averaging-type of avoided-cost method will ignore.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 152

Cost-Effectiveness
Figure 63. Weather and Market Scenarios

The average value of these approximately 700 tests represents an average, weather-normal expectation
across all possible market prices and forward-cost scenarios. Selecting one market price scenario
(todays value) provides test results for the current market (this year), but across 30+ weather scenarios.
Using fewer than 30 years of weather jeopardizes the accuracy of the estimated weather-normal and
extreme weather effects. DSMore strives to reflect an appropriate range or distribution of highs to lows,
and seeks to ensure the appropriately extreme hourly weather patterns are reflected and valued, given
historically observed extreme hourly weather.
Regarding forward market prices, DSMore uses 21 different forward curves. The first set (or column) of
avoided costs or prices reflects traditional cost-based avoided costs (e.g., system lambda, avoided
production costs), leaving 20 columns for 20 different, forward-market price curves, ranging from low to
high (e.g., $30/MWh to $70/MWh, on average over 8,760 hours). The use of 20 insures approximately
every 5th percentile of increase in the forward curves can be observed. Using 5th percentiles means it is
generally safe to interpolate test results between, for instance, the 45th percentile and the 50th
percentile, linearly. It is not, however, appropriate to linearly interpolate test results between, for
example, the 25th percentile and the 80th percentile. Energy prices prove notoriously non-linear (i.e.,
peak prices are much more volatile than off-peak prices).
The key benefit to valuing energy efficiency across such a wide range of future cost and weather
conditions lies in the ability to not only quantify short-run cost-effectiveness, but in long-term
predictions as well.
The Option Test result, reported by DSMore, provides a long-run cost-effectiveness perspective.
Essentially, the Option Test result values programs across 21 future possible sets of avoided costs and
across 30 to 40 years of actual hourly weather patterns. Traditionally, utilities only calculated one test
result for current year avoided costs, but energy prices tend to boom and bust over time, reaching
high price conditions during times of short supply (e.g., 1999, 2000) and low avoided cost conditions
during times of excess supply (e.g., 2003, 2009). By valuing energy-efficiency programs across all

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 153

Cost-Effectiveness
possible future avoided cost possibilities, we can better determine if programs prove cost-effective in
the face of all these future possibilities, instead of just for the current year. Both the short-term test
results and the long-run test results are meaningful.
If, however, a utility observes the short-run current year test result is, say, 0.9, and the long-run Option
Test result is 1.3, one might consider retaining the program for another couple years, rather than
stopping the program. The long-term test result is called the Option Test in that energy savings can be
viewed as an option (albeit not executable, sincefor examplethe lighting equipment is already
installed and cannot be removed) against having to pay for possible, future, higher avoided-cost
conditions.

Inputs to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis


Best practice cost-effectiveness modeling begins with hourly prices and hourly energy savings from the
specific measures/technologies considered, and correlates both to weather. In turn, this allows the
model to capture low-probability, high-consequence weather events and to apply appropriate values to
these. Thus, a more accurate view of the efficiency measures value can be captured in comparison to
other alternative supply options. Additionally, completing the analysis requires several inputs, as
summarized below.
The foundation of the hourly price analysis used for the study derives from two years of historic hourly
price data, matched with hourly weather to measure the price to weather covariance. The analysis can
measure the overall variation and the portion attributable to weather, arriving at a weather-normal
price distribution. Price variation results from several uncertain variables, including weather. Using over
30 years of weather data, regressed from two years of actual price data, allows the analysis to measure
the full range of possible outcomes, reported in the DSMore results as Minimum, Todays (expected),
and Maximum test ratios.

Program Related Inputs


Model program inputs include: participation rates, incentives paid, the measures load savings, the
measures life, implementation costs, administrative costs, and incremental costs to the participant of a
high-efficiency measure. These inputs derived from EM&V activities that the EM&V project team
supplied team to IA for cost-effectiveness analysis. Measured kWh savings are applied to the
appropriate hours for the customer, based on the load curves of the customer group most likely to
install the measure. For example, the commercial load curve may be used for commercial measures, and
various commercial load curves may be used depending on the type of measure installed and its size.
Values of these savings by hour are calculated based on that hours market value for the life of the
measure, given the escalation rates assumed. This avoided cost is then the present valued to understand
the dollar value in todays dollars for those savings. The model then uses these present values to
determine the cost-effectiveness test results.
The EM&V project team also provided program costs incurred by the third-party administrator for each
utility, by program. Though the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in this report only includes costs

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 154

Cost-Effectiveness
incurred by the third-party administrator,27 cost-effectiveness assessments, including additional costs
incurred by utilities, have been provided separately for utilities requesting that analysis.

Effective Useful Life


Measures installed via energy-efficiency programs have energy savings counted and valued over the full
effective useful life (EUL) of the installed measures. In addition, energy savings are incorporated into the
cost-effectiveness analysis for technologies with a remaining useful life (RUL). In such situations, the
energy savings will reflect a higher impact for the RUL, and then they step down to a level consistent
with that associated with the current baseline for the rest of the EUL.

Spillover and Freeriders


Spillover is a term this report uses to describe short-term energy savings of participants resulting from
program activities, but not captured in tracking of the programs direct energy savings. An example
might be a customer who, influenced by a program, buys two units of a qualifying piece of efficient
equipment, but obtains a rebate for only one of those units. Another example might be a participant
who participates in a program and obtains a rebate in one location, and then replicates the programinduced purchasing decision in their building next door, while note applying for a rebate for that
purchase (caused by the program).
In such cases the programs influence the customer to the extent that their short-term actions induced
by a program can spillover into other purchases or behaviors not rebated or tracked by a program (yet
were caused by the program and resulted in improved efficiency [energy savings]). Spillover savings
identified in this evaluation and included in the benefit-cost assessment are short-term actions that
were taken between the participation period and the time of the evaluation effort that were
documented in the evaluation. As a result, included spillover only represents a fraction of the total
spillover that may be achieved. The longer-term spillover results from actions taken due to the program
over a span of many years; such spillover is associated with how programs change the way markets
operate is not included in this assessment. The longer-term market effects will be assessed in 2015 and
these savings will be added to the assessment at the end of the three-year program cycle.
Free riders participate in the program, but would have installed the energy-efficient equipment
without the program. All programs have free riders as these are often the early adopters of a
technology and have many different motivations beyond the program. Program designs, however, strive
to increase the number of non-free riders using several methods. First, incentives may be set at levels
high enough to entice those who would not have participated due to financial concerns. Second, some

27

The cost information employed for each program by utility may be found in the 2012 Energizing Indiana
Programs EM&V Report May 3, 2012 Final Report the 2013 Energizing Indiana Evaluation Report May 1,
2014, and the 2014 Energizing Indiana Evaluation Report April 2015. See the specific tables for the Home
Energy Audit program, the Low Income Weatherization program, the School Building Assessments and School
Energy Efficiency Kit programs, the Residential Lighting program, and for the Commercial and Industrial
Incentives program.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 155

Cost-Effectiveness
measures may be eliminated if they are known to experience high free ridership. For example,
residential ENERGY STAR refrigerators often are eliminated, even though they pass the cost-benefit
analysis as the market already experiences a high adoption rate of these units and other studies have
indicated high free rider rates. Regarding the cost-effectiveness ratios, this report nets the impacts of
free drivers and free riders.

Utility Inputs
For utility information, DSMore requires utility rates, escalation rates, discount rates for the utility,
society and the participant, and avoided costs. For this report, utilities in the DSMCC supplied the values
used for avoided costs, escalation rates, discount rates, loss ratios, and electric rates. The projection of
these values remained the same for the three-year cycle of programs.

Avoided Costs
The recommended avoided cost framework develops each hours electricity valuation using a bottom-up
approach to quantify an hourly avoided cost as the sum of elements of forward-looking incremental
costs for that hour. The resulting hourly electricity avoided costs are location-specific and vary by hour
of day, day of week, and time of year. The weather dependent results require a weather-normal
outcome and a distribution of outcomes corresponding to the weather-related variation in outcomes.
Locations and time variations, by cost component, are as follows:
1. Generation Costs: Variable by hour and location. The annual forecast of generation costs
avoided is allocated according to an hourly price shape, obtained from historic participantspecific data that reflect a workably competitive market environment and expected weather
variation. These hourly costs further vary by location, depending on locational capacity
constraints and fuel costs. Average annual prices are provided by each utility with Core
programs.
2. Capacity Costs: Associated with generation or capacity markets reflect the cost of acquiring that
additional capacity. These cost estimates are provided by each utility.
3. T&D Costs: Variable by hour and location. Non-peak hours have zero avoided T&D capacity costs,
reflecting that T&D capacity investments are made to serve peak hours. These cost estimates are
also provided by each utility.

Net Present Value


Cost-effectiveness of an energy-efficiency measure is calculated based on the net present value of the
costs and benefits valued in each test, discounted over the EUL of the measures installed.

Programs
Each Core program is evaluated for cost-effectiveness, as implemented within each utilitys service area.
The programs that follow are evaluated for cost-effectiveness.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 156

Cost-Effectiveness
Residential Programs:

Home Energy Audit (HEA)

Low Income Weatherization (LIW)

Residential Lighting (Lighting)

Energy Efficient Schools: Energy Education (EES: Education)

Nonresidential Programs:

Energy Efficient Schools: School Audit and Direct Installs (EES: SADI)

Commercial & Industrial (C&I)

Information was collected through the EM&V process, per utility, on the costs and impacts associated
with each program.

Results
As part of the EM&V process, use of DSMore provides energy-efficiency planners with insights regarding
the actual cost-effectiveness of the energy-efficiency programs. The following tables provide the results
of the cost-effectiveness analyses for each program, per the PCT, UCT, RIM, and TRC tests. Results are
reported by utility at the program level as well as at the utility portfolio level and as an aggregation of all
programs for the State of Indiana. Tables include results reported for all three program years as well as
the combined results for years one and two.
In general, the portfolios of programs for the individual utilities and the state are cost-effective. Under
the TRC test, the cost-effectiveness for most program portfolios for the three year period were
comparable to the portfolio cost-effectiveness results for the two year period.

Duke Energy
For Duke Energy, the portfolio of programs for the three-year cycle continues to be cost-effective based
upon the TRC and UCT tests. In addition, all of the individual programs are cost-effective except for Low
Income Weatherization as occurred for the two-year cycle. Most of the programs continue to fail the
RIM test and the portfolio as a whole just fails the RIM test. The Residential Lighting and Commercial
and Industrial Incentives programs are narrowly cost-effective under the RIM test.
Note that the PCT test results are not available (NA) for the HEA, LIW, and EES programs, since there are
no participant costs involved. This occurs for the results for each utility below as well.
Table 167. PY1-PY3 Duke Energy Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3

RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

1.26

0.70

1.26

NA

1.27

0.70

1.27

LIW

NA

0.81

0.53

0.81

NA

0.78

0.52

0.78

4.31

3.57

1.03

3.41

4.15

3.68

1.07

3.04

Lighting

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 157

Cost-Effectiveness

EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI

NA

2.65

0.92

2.65

NA

2.73

0.95

2.73

NA

1.36

0.59

1.36

NA

1.48

0.62

1.48

C&I

7.34

6.21

1.09

5.39

6.75

5.74

1.06

5.48

Total Portfolio

7.68

3.34

0.97

3.17

7.14

3.44

0.97

3.30

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle increased slightly from the twoyear cycle results.

Indiana and Michigan Power


For Indiana & Michigan, the portfolio of programs for the three-year cycle continues to be cost-effective
based upon the TRC and UCT tests. With regard to the individual programs, the Low Income
Weatherization and Home Energy Audit are not cost-effective, though the cost-effectiveness results
have increased slightly. All of the other individual programs are cost-effective. However, none of the
programs pass the RIM test.
Table 168. PY1-PY3 I&M Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3
RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.93

0.42

0.93

NA

0.94

0.42

0.94

LIW

NA

0.68

0.35

0.68

NA

0.84

0.39

0.84

6.03

3.10

0.62

2.84

6.00

3.14

0.62

2.51

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

1.99

0.55

1.99

NA

2.08

0.56

2.08

EES: SADI

NA

1.03

0.47

1.03

NA

1.30

0.52

1.30

C&I

12.89

3.99

0.85

7.59

11.32

4.27

0.85

7.14

Total Portfolio

11.88

3.16

0.77

4.58

10.79

3.27

0.77

4.28

Lighting

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle decreased slightly from the
two-year cycle results.

Indianapolis Power & Light


For Indianapolis Power & Light, the portfolio of programs for the three-year cycle continues to be costeffective based upon the TRC and UCT tests. Four of the individual programs are cost-effective. The Low
Income Weatherization and Home Energy Audit programs were not found to be cost-effective. The
Residential Lighting and Commercial & Industrial Incentives programs are the only ones that pass the
RIM test.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 158

Cost-Effectiveness
Table 169. PY1-PY3 IPL Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3

RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.84

0.58

0.84

NA

0.84

0.58

0.84

LIW

NA

0.79

0.56

0.79

NA

0.67

0.49

0.67

2.56

2.62

1.15

2.44

2.45

2.71

1.17

2.25

NA

1.81

0.90

1.81

NA

1.97

0.95

1.97

NA

0.96

0.62

0.96

NA

1.18

0.71

1.18

3.13

3.72

1.39

3.38

3.05

3.52

1.35

3.48

3.89

1.94

1.00

1.87

3.65

2.01

1.02

1.97

Lighting
EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI
C&I
Total Portfolio

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle increased slightly from the twoyear cycle results.

NIPSCO
For NIPSCO, the portfolio of programs for the three-year cycle continues to be cost-effective based upon
the TRC and UCT tests. Most of the individual programs are cost-effective. None of the programs pass
the RIM test. The Low Income program cost-effectiveness declined such that the program is not costeffective for the three-year cycle.
Table 170. PY1-PY3 NIPSCO Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3

RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

1.50

0.64

1.50

NA

1.39

0.61

1.39

LIW

NA

1.01

0.54

1.01

NA

0.89

0.50

0.89

6.31

4.02

0.79

3.72

6.20

3.99

0.77

3.25

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

2.37

0.74

2.37

NA

2.53

0.75

2.53

EES: SADI

NA

1.76

0.57

1.76

NA

2.51

0.70

2.51

C&I

7.13

5.93

0.76

5.24

6.73

5.24

0.77

5.36

Total Portfolio

8.75

3.09

0.72

2.95

8.03

3.14

0.72

3.10

Lighting

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle increased slightly from the twoyear cycle results.

Vectren
For Vectren, the portfolio of programs for the three-year cycle continues to be cost-effective based
upon the TRC and UCT tests. In addition, all of the individual programs are cost-effective except for

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 159

Cost-Effectiveness
Home Energy Audit and Low Income programs. The Low Income program declined in cost-effectiveness
such that the program was not cost-effective for the three-year cycle. None of the programs pass the
RIM test.
Table 171. PY1-PY3 Vectren Cost-Effectiveness Results
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3
RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.96

0.37

0.96

NA

0.95

0.37

0.95

LIW

NA

1.14

0.48

1.14

NA

0.98

0.44

0.98

8.65

2.52

0.41

2.33

8.45

2.95

0.48

2.38

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

2.10

0.47

2.10

NA

2.11

0.47

2.11

EES: SADI

NA

0.88

0.44

0.88

NA

1.11

0.51

1.11

7.57

5.91

0.87

4.77

6.35

4.81

0.87

4.47

11.43

2.34

0.59

2.20

10.00

2.28

0.60

2.17

Lighting

C&I
Total Portfolio

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle decreased slightly from the
two-year cycle results.

Results for the State of Indiana


Looking at the Energizing Indiana programs, the aggregation of the individual utility portfolios of
programs for the three-year cycle continues to be cost-effective under the PCT, UCT, and TRC Tests. In
addition, all of the individual programs are cost-effective except for Low Income Weatherization.
Table 172. Results for the State of Indiana
PY1 + PY2

Programs
PCT

UCT

PY1 - PY3

RIM

TRC

PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

1.09

0.57

1.09

NA

1.08

0.57

1.08

LIW

NA

0.88

0.49

0.88

NA

0.83

0.47

0.83

Lighting

3.28

0.83

3.07

4.85

3.39

0.85

2.77

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

4.96

2.40

0.82

2.40

NA

2.50

0.84

2.50

EES: SADI

NA

1.20

0.56

1.20

NA

1.46

0.62

1.46

C&I

7.72

4.86

0.95

5.42

6.68

4.78

0.96

5.26

Total Portfolio

8.23

2.87

0.84

2.97

7.38

2.94

0.85

2.99

The portfolio cost-effectiveness of the programs for the three-year cycle is essentially the same as for
the two-year cycle results.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 160

Job Creation

Job Creation
This section of the report presents the estimate of the number of jobs created by implemented activities
as part of the Energizing Indiana Core energy efficiency portfolio of programs. The estimate of job
creation is developed using three independent, primary research studies. These studies document the
number of jobs associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs and the amount
spent for implementation.
The estimate covers the portfolio as implemented by GoodCents over the three-year program cycle,
consisting of program years 20122014. For the purposes of this report, a job (or job-year) is defined as
a typical job in any of the economic sectors impacted by Energizing Indiana over the period of one year.
A typical job consists of a proportional mix of full-time and part-time employment that is associated with
each of the economic sectors impacted by Energizing Indiana, as estimated within the secondary
research used to for job impacts.28
The results of this analysis indicates that Energizing Indiana initiatives produced approximately 18,679
jobs as a result of implementing the three-year program cycle. This estimate removes 438 jobs that are
associated with the direct hires as reported by GoodCents to avoid double counting. The remaining jobs
are created as a result of subcontracted program activities; impact of the initiative on the industries that
are directly affected by changes in product manufacturing, supply, and installations; and the jobs
created by spending utility bill savings realized from the reduction in energy use by participants. These
jobs are net jobs, net of job losses associated with the impacts of the Energizing Indiana initiative on the
economy.

Job Estimation Approach


One of the objectives of the program-cycle evaluation effort is to estimate the impact of the Energizing
Indianas portfolio on job creation. The impacts on jobs is a secondary objective within the evaluation
effort, with the quantification of energy impacts and the assessment of program operations (process
evaluations) identified as the primary objectives. As a result of this prioritization, the Evaluation Team
did not directly assess the impacts of jobs from the Energizing Indiana effort, but rather identified
primary research that has assessed job impacts of energy efficiency efforts similar to those of the Core
portfolio.
In addition to the jobs created by the implementation efforts, energy efficiency programs typically have
an impact in the market by changing the way customers make product decisions or implement
behaviors that save energy in their homes or businesses. These impacts can be both negative
(contributing to job loss) and/or positive (contributing to job gain). The implementation of a portfolio of
energy efficiency programs can affect the number of jobs in an area by causing a change in a customers

28

For example, if an industry is made up of 75% full-time 40-hour per week jobs and 25% part-time 20-hour a
week jobs, a single job impact from that sector would be a job of 35 hours a week. In this example a typical job
is equal to: (40 hours x 0.75) + (20 hours x 0.25) = 35-hour typical job.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 161

Job Creation
purchase decisions, the technology mix of products manufactured, shipped, and placed in the market in
addition to changing the way program participants spend their income.
The primary ways an energy efficiency portfolio affects the number and type of jobs in the market are
listed below.

First, the planning, management, and implementation of Energizing Indiana creates direct jobs.
These are the jobs associated with program operations and implementation.

Second, the program dollars allocated to Energizing Indiana create orders for energy-efficient
products, which must be produced and distributed into the market streams. To the extent that
the Energizing Indiana portfolio increased the production, distribution, installation, and use of
program-offered products above and beyond what would have occurred without the Core
program, this difference results in an economic impact within those industries.

Third, as energy-efficient products are used, energy is saved, causing the customers facilities to
be more efficient, reducing energy bills. This allows those cost savings to be spent in ways that
produce jobs.

Energizing Indiana, as implemented via the private contractor or the subcontractors hired to support
those efforts, requires workers to design, manage, and implement the programs. Electric and natural gas
supply sectors of the economy are typically more capital-intensive sectors compared with sectors
associated with the energy efficiency industry. That is, the electric utility industry is typically classified
as a capital-intensive labor industry, where the jobs are full time professional jobs that typically pay well.
In this industry it takes more dollars to support the typical utility job. The energy efficiency industry is
classified as a labor-intensive industry, meaning it takes fewer dollars to create and keep a job
associated with the implementation of an energy efficiency service portfolio.
Likewise, the dollars saved by participants who use less energy do not enter the utility industry via the
payment of a utility bill but instead are spent in the more labor-intensive industries associated with
discretionary spending (clothing, food, education, home repair, retail sales, etc.). As a result, energy
savings dollars can be spent in ways that provide higher numbers of jobs per unit of program
expenditure when compared to the utility sectors.
The estimate of the impact on jobs is informed by the use of three independent primary research
studies (i.e. direct assessments of job impacts) documenting the number of jobs associated with the
implementation of the types of energy efficiency programs offered in Indiana. These approaches include
the following:29

29

In the earlier evaluation planning discussions with the DMSCC we had planned to also use the USDOE ARRA
period job creation calculator as an input data point for our estimation. However, the USDOE discontinued
that calculator during the ARRA funding period because it was considered unreliable.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 162

Job Creation

The application of the results from two different Wisconsin Focus on Energy jobs impact
assessments conducted for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Both of these studies
used the Regional Economic Models, Inc., (REMI) economic impact assessment model to
estimate net jobs from the implementation of the Focus on Energy portfolio. The first study
was conducted in 2010, with the second study conducted in 2012. Each study was conducted
by different and independent economic impact assessment research organizations.

The application of the results of a jobs creation estimate prepared by ACEEE and published in
their fact sheet.

The application of the results from these three documents provides a range of job creation estimates for
programs and energy savings activities similar to those of Energizing Indiana. In applying the results of
these three findings, we have weighted these approaches according to the degree of analytical rigor
associated. The weights are applied to give more credit to the estimates formed from the more rigorous
analysis; presented in Table 173.
Table 173. Approaches and Weights for Calculating Job Creation
Approach

Description

Weight

Reason for Weight

Wisconsins 2010
Focus on Energy
Evaluation

3.0
A mid-western statespecific portfolio of services
similar to Energizing
Indiana

Employs a calibrated application of weights within a REMI


model reflecting the capital intensity of the market sectors
impacted, that is, the different levels of dollars needed per
job in each major impacted sector. REMI analysis conducted
by Economic Development Research Group, Inc., for PA
Consulting.

Wisconsins 2012
Focus on Energy
Evaluation

3.0
A mid-western statespecific portfolio of services
similar to Energizing
Indiana

Employs a calibrated application of weights within a REMI


model reflecting the capital intensity of the market sectors
impacted, that is, the different levels of dollars needed per
job in each major impacted sector. Analysis conducted by
Economic Development Research Group, Inc., for The
Cadmus Group.

ACEEE

1.0
An estimate based on a
group of U.S. offered
programs of unknown
location and type assessed
by ACEEE

Conducted an analysis of the number of jobs created for


each $15,000,000 expenditure associated with the
implementation of a range of typical energy efficiency
programs.

This weighting approach provides a more rigorous approach to the use of secondary data and to the
more similar the programs offered. All estimates are based on the dollars spent implementing Energizing
Indiana and on the value of the energy savings provided to participating customers. The jobs estimates
associated with these three studies are described below.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 163

Job Creation

Wisconsin Focus on Energy 2010 Program Year Economic Impact Evaluation 30


Focus on Energy conducted an assessment of the 2010 portfolios influence on job creation. This study
indicated that for each million dollars spent in the residential sector 75 jobs were created, or one jobyear for each $13,333 of program funding. However, that same report concluded that the business
sector, typically referred to in evaluation reports as the commercial sector, created 257 jobs for each
million dollars of business program funding, or about $3,891 dollars per job-year. Interviews with
members of the PA Consulting Group job impacts analysis team indicated that the business programs
funded much larger projects than typical programs, which provided significantly higher savings for
longer periods of time compared to the residential sector, and therefore the saving streams from those
projects impacted future job creation at a higher rate. For purposes of estimating jobs for Energizing
Indiana we are using the residential estimate only because of the potential for estimation errors
associated with the non-typical business-sector projects funded by Focus on Energy in 2010.

Wisconsin Focus on Energy 2012 Program Year Economic Impact Evaluation 31


Wisconsin Focus on Energy spent $81 million on energy-efficient programs during 2012, producing
5,061,282,417 kilowatt hours of electric savings and 228,419,473 therms of natural gas savings.
According to The Cadmus Groups report, these efforts resulted in the addition of 6,596 net new jobs to
the economy between 2012 and 2036, or one job for every $12,383 of program funds spent.

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Jobs Fact Sheet32


An analysis conducted by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) indicates that
each $15,000,000 invested in energy efficiency results in the creation of 1,020 job-years, or about
$14,705 per job year. This analysis did not use the REMI model but did consider the jobs associated with
program operations and implementation and spending of the energy savings over the life of the
technologies. This same report indicates that the net-to-gross ratio for jobs created in the energy
efficiency sector, compared to the business as usual utility economic streams is 1.7:1. That is, for each
job created in the business as usual utility economic stream, 1.7 jobs are created in the more laborintensive energy efficiency economic stream.
The job impacts associated with Energizing Indiana, applying the analytical approach and the results
described above, are estimated in the table below.33

30

State of Wisconsin, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Focus on Energy Calendar Year 20022010
Economic Impacts Report, March 2, 2010, PA Consulting Group, Inc.

31

State of Wisconsin, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Focus on Energy Calendar Year 2012 Economic
Impacts Report, November 2013, The Cadmus Group, Inc.

32

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Fact Sheet, http://aceee.org/files/pdf/fact-sheet/ee-jobcreation.pdf

33

Jobs = ((13,333 x 3) + (12,383 x 3) + (14,705 x 1)) / 7 = 19,117

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 164

Job Creation
Table 174. Approaches and Weights for Calculating Job Creation for Energizing Indiana
Source of
Estimate

Wisconsin Focus
on Energy 2010

Wisconsin Focus
on Energy 2012

ACEEE Labor Study

Dollars of EE
Portfolio
Funding per Job
Created

$13,333

$12,383

$14,705

Energizing
Indiana EE
Portfolio
Funding

$250,000,000

$250,000,000

$250,000,000

Unweighted
Jobs Created via
Energizing
Indiana

Estimation Weight and


Reason for Weight

18,750

3.0 State study of portfolio


similar to Energizing
Indiana but earlier time
period highest weight

20,189

3.0 State study of portfolio


similar to Energizing
Indiana in similar period
highest weight

17,001

1.0 National evaluation


may be different than
Indiana lowest weight

Weighted
Estimated Jobs
from Energizing
Indiana

19,117

Table 174 suggests that the Energizing Indiana initiative produced 19,117 indirect jobs. According to
GoodCents, Energizing Indiana efforts required the utilization of 438 direct job-years to implement the
portfolio. In order to avoid double counting, subtracting these direct GoodCents jobs from the 19,117
estimated total jobs leaves approximately 18,679 indirect jobs formed from the subcontracting tasks.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 165

Appendix A. Savings Assumptions

Appendix A. Lighting Savings Assumptions


Residential Lighting Program Ex-Post Savings Engineering Assumptions
Engineering analysis determined ex-post gross savings for the PY Residential Lighting program.
Adjustments reflected engineering adjustments made to ex-ante measure savings claimed by
the program.

CFLs
CFL savings derived from calculating differences between baseline light bulbs and replacement CFLs.
Equivalent baseline incandescent bulbs were chosen depending on how their lumen output compared to
a replacement, further adjusted for baseline conditions due to EISA legislation.
EISA legislation effectively phases out the manufacturing and import of traditional incandescent light
bulbs over a three-year period, beginning in January 2012. The legislation first addressed 100-watt
incandescent bulbs in January 2012, followed by 75-watt incandescents in January 2013, and 60- and 40watt incandescents in January 2014.
To account for EISA, the baseline wattage had to be adjusted downward, but in a manner phased
similarly to the legislations implementation. Adjustments for PY3 only affected baseline wattages for
75-watt and 100-watt incandescent equivalent standard CFLs and LEDs. The Evaluation Team used a
dynamic approach to making the baseline adjustment, supported by market data collected through the
mystery shopper survey of retailers in Indiana.
The following equations determined CFL energy and demand savings:
=

( ) ( 365) (1 + )
1000

=
= (

( ) (1 + )
1000

( ) ( 365)
) 10
1000

Where:
Baseline Wattage (Wbaseline) = Assigned incandescent equivalent wattage of the lamp or bulb replaced
with a CFL (see Table 175).
CFL Wattage (WCFL) = The actual wattage of the installed CFL (ranging from 7W to 68W).
ISR = A number less than one, indicating how many lamps actually are in use, and including variables
such as: the installation rate (bulbs installed versus placed into storage); bulbs taken outside the
program service territory; and persistence (bulbs installed and then removed before end-of-life).
Daily HOU = Average number of hours a day the light remains in use.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 166

Appendix A: Lighting Savings Assumptions


WHFe = WHF for energy use, accounting for the effects of more efficient lighting on cooling energy use.
WHFd = WHF for demand, accounting for the effects of more-efficient lighting on cooling
energy demand.
WHFg = WHF for gas use, accounting for the effect of more-efficient lighting on heating
energy use.
CF = A number between 0 and 1, indicating how many CFLs are expected to remain in use and saving
energy during the peak summer demand period.
Table 175 lists the final assumptions used to evaluate and calculate CFL savings and identifies the source
of each assumption.
Table 175. CFL Ex-Post Energy and Demand Savings Assumptions
Variable

Ex-Post Savings
Assumption

Ex-Post Savings Assumption Source

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For under


13W CFLs

40 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 13W18W CFLs

60 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 19W22W Standard CFLs

ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator values


62 adjusted for Indiana-specific post-EISA
market conditions

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 19W22W Specialty CFLs

75 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 23W36W Standard CFLs

ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator values


83 adjusted for Indiana-specific post-EISA
market conditions

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 23W36W Specialty CFLs

100 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 37W54W CFLs

150 Illinois TRM (Version 3)

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 55W67W CFLs

200 Illinois TRM (Version 3)

Baseline Wattage (Wbase) For 68W+


CFLs

300 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

CFL Wattage (WCFL)


Daily HOU
Energy WHF (WHFe)

Core Programs PY3 Report

Actual Actual
2.47 2012-2013 Indiana Lighting Logger Study
Duke, IPL = -0.061
I&M = -0.082 Indiana TRM
NIPSCO = -0.070

Page 167

Appendix A: Lighting Savings Assumptions


Ex-Post Savings
Assumption

Variable

Ex-Post Savings Assumption Source

Vectren = -0.034
Duke, IPL = 0.055
I&M, NIPSCO = 0.038 Indiana TRM
Vectren = 0.092

Demand WHF (WHFd)

Duke, IPL = -0.0018


I&M, NIPSCO = -0.0019 Indiana TRM
Vectren = -0.0017

Gas WHF (WHFg)


CF

0.11 Indiana TRM

ISR

0.79 2012 Indiana Residential Baseline Study

LEDs
Similar to CFLs, LED savings were derived from calculating differences between baseline light bulbs and
replacement LEDs. Equivalent baseline incandescent bulbs were chosen based on how their lumen
output compared to the replacement LEDs, and then further adjusted for baseline conditions resulting
from EISA legislation.
The following equations were used to estimate energy and demand savings for LED light bulbs:
=

( ) ( 365) (1 + )
1000

=
= (

( ) (1 + )
1000

( ) ( 365)
) 10
1000

Where:
Wbaseline = The wattage of the lamp or bulb replaced with an LED.
WLED = The wattage of the replacement LED.
ISR = A number less than one indicating how many lamps actually remain in use, and including variables
such as: the installation rate (bulbs installed versus placed into storage); bulbs taken outside the program
service territory; and persistence (bulbs installed and then removed before end-of-life).
Daily HOU = Average number of hours a day the light remains in use.
WHFe = WHF for energy use, accounting for the effects of more-efficient lighting on cooling energy use.
WHFd = WHF for demand, accounting for the effects of more-efficient lighting on cooling
energy demand.

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 168

Appendix A: Lighting Savings Assumptions


WHFg = WHF for gas use, accounting for the effect of more-efficient lighting on heating
energy use.
Coincidence Factor = A number less than one, indicating how many LEDs are expected to remain in use
and saving energy during the peak summer demand period.
Table 176. LED Ex-Post Energy and Demand Savings Assumptions
Variable

Ex-Post Savings Assumption

Ex-Post Savings Assumption Source

Baseline LED Wattage (Wbase)


For LEDs up to 6W

25 Indiana TRM

Baseline LED Wattage (Wbase)


For LEDs from>6 to 9W

40 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline LED Wattage (Wbase)


For LEDs from > 9 to 13W

60 ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator

Baseline LED Wattage (Wbase)


For LEDs from >13 to 22W

ENERGY STAR Lighting Calculator values


62 adjusted for Indiana-specific post-EISA
market conditions

Baseline LED Wattage (Wbase)


For LEDs from >22+W

83 Indiana TRM

LED Wattage (Wfixture)


Daily HOU

Energy WHF (WHFe)

Demand WHF (WHFd)

Gas WHF (WHFg)

Actual Actual
2.47 2012-2013 Indiana Lighting Logger Study
Duke & IPL = -0.061
I&M = -0.082
Indiana TRM
NIPSCO = -0.070
Vectren = -0.034
Duke & IPL = 0.055
I&M, NIPSCO = 0.038 Indiana TRM
Vectren = 0.092
Duke & IPL = -0.0018
I&M, NIPSCO = -0.0019 Indiana TRM
Vectren = -0.0017

CF

0.11 Indiana TRM

ISR

1 Indiana TRM

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 169

Appendix B: Cost-Effectiveness by Utility

Appendix B. Cost-Effectiveness by Utility


This section provides the standalone cost-effectiveness results for PY3. Cost-effectiveness results are
included for each program and utility and for the State-level assessment.
Evaluation Team cautions the reader from over-interpreting or drawing specific conclusions using the
PY3 benefit-cost assessment for comparative purposes. There are carryover load impacts or avoided
costs counted in PY3, but associated with expenditures in PY1 and PY2. As a result, the benefit-cost
analysis of PY3 should not be directly compared to results for PY1 or PY2. The cost-effectiveness of the
Core portfolio is most appropriately be viewed in its entirety for the three-year goal and contract period,
not the PY3 results.
Table 177 to Table 182 provide individual PY3 cost-effectiveness results.
Table 177. PY3 Duke Energy Cost-Effectiveness
PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

1.30

0.72

1.30

LIW

NA

0.71

0.49

0.71

3.76

3.99

1.15

2.41

NA

2.97

1.03

2.97

NA

2.37

0.79

2.37

6.26

5.23

1.03

5.60

6.52

3.60

0.98

3.52

Lighting
EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI
C&I
Total Portfolio

Table 178. PY3 I&M Cost-Effectiveness


PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.99

0.43

0.99

LIW

NA

1.28

0.47

1.28

5.93

3.26

0.62

1.90

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

2.35

0.58

2.35

EES: SADI

NA

1.90

0.61

1.90

C&I

7.36

6.70

0.87

5.44

Total Portfolio

7.96

3.96

0.75

3.28

Lighting

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 170

Appendix B. Cost-Effectiveness by Utility


Table 179. PY3 IPL Cost-Effectiveness
PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.83

0.58

0.83

LIW

NA

0.53

0.41

0.53

2.13

3.02

1.25

1.81

NA

2.51

1.07

2.51

NA

1.81

0.94

1.81

2.97

3.28

1.31

3.63

3.35

2.15

1.06

2.16

Lighting
EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI
C&I
Total Portfolio

Table 180. PY3 NIPSCO Cost-Effectiveness


PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA
LIW

NA

1.14

0.54

1.14

NA

0.58

0.37

0.58

5.86

3.87

0.72

2.30

EES: Education
Non-Residential

NA

3.56

0.81

3.56

EES: SADI

NA

3.34

0.81

3.34

C&I

6.36

4.63

0.77

5.50

Total Portfolio

7.14

3.22

0.73

3.38

Lighting

Table 181. PY3 Vectren Cost-Effectiveness


PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

0.95

0.36

0.95

LIW

NA

0.66

0.35

0.66

7.97

4.11

0.66

2.47

NA

2.14

0.47

2.14

Lighting
EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI
C&I
Total Portfolio

Core Programs PY3 Report

NA

2.00

0.69

2.00

5.03

3.52

0.87

3.97

7.93

2.16

0.64

2.13

Page 171

Appendix B. Cost-Effectiveness by Utility


Table 182. PY3 Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness
PY3

Programs
PCT

UCT

RIM

TRC

Residential
HEA

NA

1.07

0.57

1.07

LIW

NA

0.72

0.43

0.72

4.56

3.71

0.90

2.22

NA

2.85

0.91

2.85

NA

2.36

0.78

2.36

5.55

4.64

0.96

5.01

6.20

3.08

0.87

3.03

Lighting
EES: Education
Non-Residential
EES: SADI
C&I
Total Portfolio

Core Programs PY3 Report

Page 172

This Public Summary provides an assessment of the 2014 Energizing Indiana statewide Core programs during the third
Program Year (PY3). This summary includes evaluation findings designed to document the savings, operations, and
delivery of the five programs for each of the five utilities (Duke, Indiana Michigan Power, Indianapolis Power and Light,
Northern Indiana Power Service Company, and Vectren). Overall, the portfolio was cost-effective over the three year
period with energy efficiency resources being acquired at $0.04 per kWh per year.

CORE OFFERINGS
Statewide Core consists of five Energizing Indiana programs, delivered by an independent Third Party Administrator
(TPA). The programs address homes, schools, and commercial facilities.
H O M E E N E R G Y A S S E S SMEN T
This program provides a walk-through energy audit that: analyzes participant energy use; recommends
efficiency measures or upgrades; and facilitates direct installation of low-cost, energy efficient
showerheads, Compact fluorescent lamp [CFL] bulbs, hot water pipe wrap, and sink aerators.
R E S I DE N T I A L L I G H T I N G
This program provides in-store discounts on a variety of lighting products CFLs, light-emitting diodes
[LEDs], and lighting fixtures). The program works with retailers and manufacturers across the state to
offer reduced prices at the point-of-sale.
L O W - I N C O M E W E AT H E RIZATIO N
This program provides a walk-through home energy assessment that includes full diagnostic testing
(blower-door) for the home. Auditors recommend weatherization measures or upgrades that facilitate
direct installation of low-cost, energy-saving measures, including energy-efficient showerheads, CFL
bulbs, sink aerators, pipe wrap, water heater tank wrap and air sealing. In addition, eligible homes may
receive attic insulation through the program.
E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N T S C H O O LS
This program has two components:
The first works with fifth-grade students, teaching them about energy efficiency and how they
can make an impact at school and home. Participating schools receive classroom curriculum and
Energizing Indiana take-home efficiency kits.
The second, the School Audit and Direct Install Program, works with schools to assess all energy
systems to determine if they operate efficiently. Assessment results guide schools to install appropriate
upgrades and rebates available through the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) program. The schools also
receive a bundle of direct-install measures at no additional cost.
C O M M E R C I A L A N D I N DUS TRIA L
Addressing the use of C&I customers, this program provides prescriptive rebates, based on the
installation of energy-efficiency equipment and system improvements. Additional program components
target small businesses such as: the Opt-in CFL program and targeted relationships with Trade Allies.
Rebates address: lighting, variable frequency drives (VFDs), Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC),
and efficient ENERGY STAR commercial kitchen appliances.
page 1 of 14

HIGHLIGHTS

$
in 2014, Energizing Indiana accomplished

399,432 MWh
of verified savings. Enough electricity to
power 37,886 homes for an entire year.

Continued savings from


the measures installed
during PY3 will achieve over

3,634,835 MWh

$36,961,363 worth
of rebates were distributed to the
community to assist with energy
efficient upgrades.

over their lifetime.

LIFETIME SAVINGS BY PROGRAM

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

Utility

Lifetime Ex-Post kWh

Duke

97,947,555

I&M

12,456,437

IPL

83,645,583

NIPSCO

46,129,326

Vectren

32,129,690

Duke

19,394,299

I&M

19,523,594

IPL

14,359,521

NIPSCO

9,003,524

Vectren

9,385,042

Duke

199,097,243

I&M

79,979,834

IPL

79,935,022

NIPSCO

72,627,891

Vectren

47,527,046

Duke

93,478,558

I&M

14,289,225

IPL

29,556,467

NIPSCO

16,360,682

Vectren

8,545,816

Duke

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

STATEWIDE
272,309 MWh

STATEWIDE
71,666 MWh

STATEWIDE
479,167 MWh

STATEWIDE
162,230 MWh

1,142,634,943

I&M

313,540,241

IPL

552,223,302

NIPSCO

502,458,351

Vectren

138,606,165

STATEWIDE
2,649,463 MWh
page 2 of 14

STATEWIDE ANNUAL SAVINGS


The PY3 year has concluded the program cycle for Energizing Indiana Core programs.
This evaluation effort sought to achieve the industrys highest reliability standards, conforming to definitions and
requirements established by the Indiana Evaluation Framework (the Framework). The report rolls up utility-specific,
energy-impact assessment results to provide program-level energy impacts, achieving greater than 90% confidence
levels and 10% precision levels for each program and for the portfolio-level results. This section provides savings with
carryover from measures distributed in PY1 and PY2, but not installed until PY3.

T HE S AV ING S A R E R E P O RT E D A S
The impacts achieved from the programs for a single year are as follows:
Ex-Ante: Claimed energy savings from program tracking
system as reported by the TPA.
Audited: Ex-ante savings after deemed calculations and
project/measure counts have been confirmed by the
evaluation administrator.
Verified: Savings estimated following confirmation of the
installation and use of a sample of project/measure installations.

kWh Annual
kWh
Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

kW Annual
kW
Savings
Savings

Ex-Post Gross: Evaluated savings


resulting from the installation and use
of all program-incented or provided
technologies.
Net Energy Savings: Evaluated savings
directly attributable to the program
resulting from the installation and use of
incented or provided technologies.

Therms Annual
Therms
Savings
Savings

50,232,989

6,664

1,919,088

50,098,068

6,614

1,976,102

52,029,689

6,844

1,911,077

46,262,705

5,771

(81,405)

38,217,984

4,791

49,594

11,011,111

1,138

444,964

10,953,115

1,124

441,525

11,023,757

1,130

439,280

9,315,612

1,186

111,318

9,315,612

1,186

111,318

98,722,324

11,763

11,763

102,247,800

12,148

12,148

118,066,886

10,553

14,483

106,518,541

11,385

14,450

page 3 of 14

10,953,115
11,023,757
STATEWIDE ANNUAL
SAVINGS
9,315,612
9,315,612

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

1,124

441,525

1,130

439,280

1,186

111,318

1,186

111,318

kWh Annual
Savings

kW Annual
Savings

Therms Annual
Savings

98,722,324

11,763

11,763

102,247,800

12,148

12,148

118,066,886

10,553

14,483

106,518,541

11,385

14,450

52,900,581

5,578

7,164

25,149,719

231

159,663

25,149,719

231

159,663

32,985,765

227

166,332

26,477,252

3,630

416,225

27,308,135

3,660

537,073

211,401,651

36,034

189,709,000

39,186

185,326,275

38,156

214,268,670

39,706

180,466,797

32,384

page 4 of 14

PROGRAM LEVEL INSIGHT AND FINDINGS


HOME ENERGY ASSESSMENT
The HEA program delivery model instructed auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes
(without leaving measures behind) and record all installed measures in the program tracking database. In

80% its participation goals, and 90% and 96% of the kWh and kW
savings goals (ex-ante compared to goals), while using 98% of its budget.

2014, the program met

In PY3, the TPA made a number of enhancements to the database, allowing it to more accurately capture the
auditors activities.

Customers remained satisfied with the program, rating it an 8.9 mean satisfaction score on a 10-point scale.

LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION
The LIW program offers walk-through audits and direct installations of energy-efficiency measures. The
program includes air sealing and, in some cases, attic insulation. This program only targets low-income
populations. To qualify, the participant must have a reported income of up to 200% of the Federal
Poverty Level.

85% its participation goals, and 92% and 105% of the kWh
and kW savings (ex-ante compared to goals), while using 96% of its budget.

In 2014, the program met

In PY3, the TPA made a number of enhancements to the database, allowing it to more accurately capture the
auditors activities.

Customers remained satisfied with the program, rating it an 8.6 mean satisfaction score on a 10-point scale.

RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
The Residential Lighting program met

100% of its kWh savings goals while using 98% of its

budget. Due to a 30% goal reduction and, ultimately, a program slow-down, and the total number of
participating storefronts dropped from 865 in PY2 to 310 in PY3. Standard CFLs continued to represent
the bulk of bulb sales through the program.

In PY3, 92% of all bulbs sold through the program were standard CFLs. Specialty CFLs represented 7% of total
bulb sales, while program LED sales were less than 1%.

Three- and four-bulb packs were most commonly sold for standard CFLs, with two-bulb packs most common for
specialty CFLs. LEDs were sold exclusively in single packs.

page 5 of 14

PROGRAM LEVEL INSIGHT AND FINDINGS


RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING (CONT)

Participating retailers consisted of a range of store types, with Walmart leading the number of participating store
fronts (as well as sales).

The lighting markets future remains uncertain. Utilities that continue to run programs will want to monitor and
assess the market periodically for the most appropriate product mix and savings assumptions (such as baseline
wattages and installation rates).

ENERGY EFFICIENT SCHOOLS


The EES program offers energy-efficiency kits for students and energy assessments for school
buildings, coupled with installation of low-cost, energy-saving measures. In 2014, the program
achieved

106% of its energy-savings goals and 100% of its participation goals, while using

97% of its budget.


As in PY2, several School Audit and Direct Install program measures experienced significant savings
adjustments. These occurred for the following reasons:

The reported location of measure installations, such as occupancy sensors, did not maximize
potential savings.

The Education Program continued to meet distributed kit goals and produce high verified savings for the third
year in a row.

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL


The C&I program fell short of meeting its savings goal due to a staggered closing of the program.

46% of its energy-savings goals and 52% of its demand


savings goals, while using 46% of its budget.

In 2014, the program achieved

Evaluated savings were higher than audited, based on the Evaluation Teams use of full-load hours in the
Indiana technical reference manual.

Ninety-five percent of lighting and non-lighting participants reported satisfaction with the program overall.

page 6 of 14

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Continue to instruct auditors to install as many measures as possible in homes. The high installation
and persistence rates in PY3 compared to previous years reflect that the majority of measures directly installed in
customer homes remain in place and accumulate savings over the lifetime of the measure

Focus marketing messaging and channels. Customers reported reducing energy bills and saving energy as
their primary reasons for program participation.

Explore opportunities for diversifying program measure mix. Participant survey respondents most
commonly cited increasing variety of services or measures available through the program as an improvement
opportunity.

Apply state-specific, energy-savings assumptions and update those assumptions regularly. As part
of program evaluation, the Evaluation Team established Indiana-specific CFL hours of use and installation rates.
The ongoing Market Characterization and Market Effects study will develop an updated estimate of installation
rates for energy-efficient lighting products. The Evaluation Teams recommends using these Indiana-specific
assumptions to estimate ex-ante savings.

Consider providing financing mechanisms to implement capital projects. Such a mechanism or a list of
available financing options could help schools procure funds for implementing recommendations.

Utilities and program managers should strongly utilize the professional network associated with the
program; such a network can greatly influence members awareness and support for using a particular program.

Ensure all marketing materials clearly explain how program participation can save customers money.

STATEWIDE PROGRAMMATIC SAVINGS for PY3


Goal

Ex Ante

Audited

653,712,591 kWh

396,517,794 kWh

378,157,702 kWh

Verified

Ex Post

Net

399,432,371 kWh

402,842,780 kWh

308,209,109 kWh

page 7 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


The bar charts that follow present an assessment of the PY3 Indiana Core Programs ex-ante, audited, verified, expost gross, and net energy savings, achievements by utility.

T HE S AV ING S A R E R E P O RT E D A S
Ex-Ante: Energy savings from program tracking system as
reported by the TPA.
Audited: Ex-ante savings after deemed calculations and
project/measure counts have been confirmed by the
evaluation administrator.
Verified: Savings estimated following confirmation of the
installation and use of a sample of project/measure installations.

Ex-Post Gross: Evaluated savings


resulting from the installation and use
of all program-incented or provided
technologies.
Net Energy Savings: Evaluated savings
resulting from the installation and use
of incented or provided technologies
directly attributable to the program.

page 8 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


kWh Annual
kWh Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

kW Annual
kW Savings
Savings

Therms Annual
Therms Savings
Savings

17,714,195

2,272

528,697

17,654,071

2,249

735,102

18,019,534

2,298

714,076

15,913,643

1,991

2,150

13,263,973

1,663

39,099

3,451,650

325

63,934

3,428,093

318

147,070

3,566,090

335

144,011

2,858,557

348

14,627

2,858,557

348

14,627

42,744,285

5,086

42,753,967

5,080

48,455,761

5,935

43,734,871

5,933

(838,183)

21,705,924

2,940

(415,982)

13,593,070

50

13,593,070

50

17,993,841

49

15,063,666

2,078

232,245

14,970,101

2,101

294,257

87,659,164

12,406

78,664,156

13,491

76,846,828

13,136

88,829,977

14,107.14

74,812,534

11,617.39
page 9 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


kWh Annual
kWh Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

kW Annual
kW Savings
Savings

Therms Annual
Therms Savings
Savings

2,181,517

239

60,154

2,173,091

237

96,527

2,401,606

266

90,716

1,985,025

266

(1,127)

1,653,851

221

3,761

1,529,696

139

43,510

1,518,080

137

64,474

1,517,142

137

64,344

1,243,398

138

1,217

1,243,398

138

1,217

15,747,122

1,874

17,077,889

2,029

19,702,788

2,423

17,524,744

2,386

(360,077)

8,720,465

1,185

(178,986)

2,376,678

34

2,376,678

34

3,027,880

33

2,304,795

311

34,907

2,452,504

312

48,644

23,783,183

3,684

21,342,708

4,006

20,849,641

3,901

25,749,233

4,557.53

22,061,488

3,843.93
page 10 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


kWh Annual
kWh Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

kW Annual
kW Savings
Savings

Therms Annual
Therms Savings
Savings

15,377,976

2,083

528,237

15,328,224

2,066

618,825

16,056,511

2,141

594,726

14,060,746

1,749

(8,096)

11,691,647

1,459

26,102

2,315,573

254

100,162

2,306,263

252

81,225

2,293,183

249

81,329

2,078,128

242

28,766

2,078,128

242

28,766

15,928,050

1,895

16,299,951

1,937

19,836,782

2,443

17,831,760

2,415

(341,736)

8,867,738

1,199

(169,939)

4,886,278

56

92,271

4,886,278

56

92,271

6,004,672

55

96,828

4,818,732

663

101,066

5,160,184

673

123,929

46,771,718

6,905

41,972,311

7,510

41,002,652

7,312

45,519,135

7,297.21

37,908,532

5,872.47
page 11 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


kWh Annual
kWh Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

kW Annual
kW Savings
Savings

Therms Annual
Therms Savings
Savings

9,472,965

1,254

612,978

9,466,026

1,251

313,423

9,801,056

1,320

306,506

8,806,890

1,073

(66,734)

7,050,199

871

(26,097)

2,084,444

214

135,384

2,076,959

212

74,966

2,042,904

207

75,516

1,705,645

194

16,016

1,705,645

194

16,016

14,799,870

1,773

16,048,770

1,907

18,550,566

2,276

16,727,994

2,254

(339,964)

8,305,648

1,118

(168,665)

2,783,872

68

38,954

2,783,872

68

38,954

4,060,188

67

40,877

2,844,280

365

27,099

3,041,716

356

43,299

41,269,639

10,954

37,034,819

11,913

36,179,227

11,599

41,841,659

11,390.35

35,243,751

9,117.27
page 12 of 14

UTILITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS


kWh Annual
kWh
Savings
Savings

HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

kW Annual
kW
Savings
Savings

Therms Annual
Therms
Savings
Savings

5,486,336

815

189,022

5,476,656

811

212,225

5,750,982

819

205,054

5,496,401

692

(7,600)

4,558,314

577

6,729

1,629,748

206

101,974

1,623,720

205

73,791

1,604,438

202

74,080

1,429,885

265

50,691

1,429,885

265

50,691

9,502,997

1,136

10,067,223

1,196

11,520,988

1,407

10,699,172

1,462

(189,392)

5,300,807

723

(93,915)

1,509,821

23

28,438

1,509,821

23

28,438

1,899,184

23

28,626

1,445,778

214

20,908

1,683,630

217

26,944

11,917,947

2,084

10,695,006

2,267

10,447,926

2,207

12,328,665

2,353.24

10,440,492

1,933.73
page 13 of 14

BUDGET
PY3 Budget Goals
HOME ENERGY
ASSESSMENT

PY3 Expenditures

% of Budget Goals

$ 16,122,422

$ 15,410,785

96%

LOW-INCOME
WEATHERIZATION

$ 6,810,490

$ 6,709,524

99%

RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING

$ 5,109,080

$ 4,982,396

98%

ENERGY EFFICIENT
SCHOOLS

$ 5,005,270

$ 4,859,674

97%

$ 11,049,876

$ 5,128,301

46%

$ 44,097,138

$ 37,090,680

84%

COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL

TOTAL

PY3 Budget Goals

TOTAL

PY3 Expenditures

% of Budget Goals

$ 18,645,593

$ 14,055,315

75%

$ 3,613,424

$ 3,367,744

93%

$ 10,147,175

$ 9,087,366

90%

$ 7,763,976

$ 6,701,934

86%

$ 3,926,970

$ 3,878,321

99%

$ 44,097,138

$ 37,090,680

84%

page 14 of 14