centerpoint energy arkansas energy efficiency program ... · overall energy savings of its...
TRANSCRIPT
CenterPoint Energy Arkansas Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio Annual Report 2016 Program Year
Filed: May 1, 2017
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 ANNUAL REPORT
CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO. 07-081-TF
12
Portfolio. The HEAL program is no longer implemented in CenterPoint Arkansas’s
2017-2019 CIP Portfolio.
Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget.
Funds are no longer budgeted for the HEAL program in the 2017-2019 CIP Portfolio and
weatherization projects will be implemented through the Company’s Saving Homes
Weatherization Program.
2.1.4 Residential Home Energy Reports Program
Program Description.
The Residential Home Energy Reports (HER) program provides customers with energy
usage information, including energy savings tips and personalized energy usage
comparisons, to encourage and motivate recipients to lower their energy usage.
CenterPoint Energy’s HER program is administered by Oracle, and combines technology,
direct marketing and behavioral science to deliver its Home Energy Reporting System.
The Home Energy Reporting System is a unique software platform that combines energy
usage data with customer demographics, housing and GIS data to develop specific,
targeted recommendations that educate and motivate consumers to reduce their energy
consumption.
Energy savings for the HER program are quantified by taking the difference in energy
usage between a control group that receives no program information and a statistically
identical group of customers that receive the home energy reports.
Program Highlights.
The HER program was approved by the APSC on June 30, 2011, and implementation of
the program began immediately. The Program continues to be a key driver of the overall
energy savings delivered through the CIP Portfolio.
Oracle analyzed customer data and established a control group and participant
group, and program participants received four home energy reports throughout the
heating season.
In 2016, approximately 96,900 customers were actively enrolled in the program.
In 2016, the program provided annual savings of 828,576 therms.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 ANNUAL REPORT
CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO. 07-081-TF
13
Program Budget, Savings and Participation.
Program Events and Training.
In order to preserve the scientific integrity of calculating energy savings on the
differences in usage between a control group and participant group, customers cannot opt
into the program if they are not randomly selected into the participant group. For this
reason, the program is not widely promoted to non-participants, and no mass marketing
of the program is conducted.
Internal training regarding responses and support for customer requests is provided to
CenterPoint Energy representatives. A select group of highly trained customer service
representatives and energy efficiency program staff were trained on customer service
tools provided by Oracle.
Savings.
Oracle calculates the energy savings from the program by comparing the program
participants against a similar size control group. The difference in energy usage will
show the effect the program had on participating Arkansas customers.
The savings reported by the program are net savings, and there are no free riders because
the program does not have an open enrollment process. In 2012, Protocol J of the TRM
2.0 was proposed by the IEM and Parties Working Collaboratively and was adopted by
the Commission. Protocol J sets guidelines and standards for behavior based programs.
Savings for the program conform to this guideline. The HER program yielded the
following residential energy savings:
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual %
Program Year 2014 879,688$ 871,505$ 99% 1,020,310 1,102,598 108% 0 16,648 - 100,000 82,086 82%
Program Year 2015 879,688$ 848,589$ 96% 1,000,000 917,376 92% 0 13,852 - 100,000 103,695 104%
Program Year 2016 861,766$ 861,766$ 100% 1,000,000 828,576 83% 0 12,346 - 100,000 96,967 97%
Home Energy ReportsCost Energy Savings (Therms) ParticipantsDemand Savings (Therms)
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 ANNUAL REPORT
CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO. 07-081-TF
14
Description of Participants.
Participants in the HER program are CenterPoint Arkansas customers who receive
personalized energy reports.
Challenges & Opportunities.
The initial HER program delivered to new participants often results in some customer
calls (substantially less than 1% of participants). Customer inquiries provide an
opportunity to discuss energy saving strategies and confirm or correct any incorrect data
that may have been associated with their report (e.g., square footage of the residence). In
2017-2019, customer communication via email and enhanced online resources provide a
major opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the program at driving behavioral
change.
Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination.
Per Order No. 85 in Docket No. 07-081-TF, the APSC has approved delivery of the HER
program in the Company’s 2017-2019 CIP Portfolio, and the Company expects that this
program will continue to deliver significant energy savings. CenterPoint Arkansas has
also put emphasis on increasing the cost-effectiveness of this program.
Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget.
In 2017-2019, CenterPoint Arkansas will continue to provide customer reports via direct
mail, but the Company also plans to deliver electronic reports to customers through
email. While CenterPoint Arkansas projects the HER to be a major contributor to the
overall energy savings of its 2017-2019 CIP Porfolio, the company has significantly
reduced the program delivery budget to increase cost-effectiveness. The table below
compares the program’s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years 2017-2019:
Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 828,576
Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 828,576
Demand Savings (Therms) 12,346
Home Energy Reports
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
Evaluation of 2016 DSM Portfolio
Submitted to:
CenterPoint Energy Arkansas
April 2017
Final
ADM Associates, Inc. VuPoint Research
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
Corporate Headquarters: 3239 Ramos Circle Sacramento, CA 95827 Tel: (916) 363-8383
ADM Associates Inc. Energy Research & Evaluation
39650 Liberty St. Suite 425 Fremont, CA 94539 Tel: (510) 371-0763
Prepared by:
Adam Thomas Daniel Chapman, P.E.
Jeremey Offenstein, Ph.D. Jennifer Shen
Lily Forest Don Dohrmann, Ph.D.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
Executive Summary 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This report is to provide a summary of the evaluation effort of the 2016 Demand Side
Management (DSM) portfolio by the CenterPoint Energy Arkansas (CenterPoint). This
evaluation was conducted by ADM Associates and VuPoint Research (the Evaluators).
This report provides verified gross and net savings estimates for evaluated programs.
1.1 Summary of CenterPoint Demand Side Management Programs
In 2016, the CenterPoint DSM portfolio contained the following programs:
Heating Equipment CIP;
Water Heating CIP;
Commercial Boiler CIP;
C&I Solutions;
Commercial Food Service CIP;
Home Energy Reports;
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP; and
HEAL Partnership.
1.2 Evaluation Objectives
The goals of the 2016 EM&V effort are as follows:
For prescriptive measures, verify that savings are being calculated according to
appropriate TRM guidelines. For most measures, this constitutes applying TRM
V6.0 methodologies.
For custom measures, this effort comprises the calculation of savings according
to accepted protocols (such as IPMVP). This is to ensure that custom measures
are cost-effective and providing reliable savings.
Conduct process evaluation of all CenterPoint programs and of the portfolio
overall. This is to provide a comprehensive review of program operations,
marketing and outreach, quality control procedures, and program successes
relative to goals. From this, the Evaluators are to provide program and portfolio-
level recommendations for CenterPoint. Process evaluation activities include
interviews of key program actors, surveys of participants and non-participants,
literature reviews and best-practices assessments, and documentation of
program activities, successes, and shortcomings.
Conduct net-to-gross assessments. The Evaluators developed net-to-gross ratios
specific to each program.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-2
1.3 Summary of Findings
1.3.1 Impact Findings
Table 1-1 and 1-2 present the gross and net impact by program.
Table 1-1 Gross Impact Summary
Program
Annual Energy
Savings (Therms)
Lifetime Energy Savings
(Therms) Peak Therms
Gross
Realization
Rate Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
Space Heating CIP 401,978 398,373 6,488,655 6,416,625 100,201.56 103,064.96 99.10%
Water Heating CIP 91,054 87,377 1,817,909 1,743,332 242.66 232.24 95.96%
Commercial Boiler CIP 84,070 84,070 1,681,400 1,681,400 1,339.29 1,339.29 100.00%
C&I Solutions 1,202,048 1,239,463 19,369,318 19,972,208 3,704.89 3,170.60 103.11%
Commercial Food Service CIP 62,047 86,184 744,564 1,034,209 169.99 236.12 138.90%
Home Energy Reports 857,467 828,576 857,467 828,576 12,862.34 12,346.00 96.63%
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP
148,643 148,643 1,486,430 1,486,430 445.93 445.93 100.00%
HEAL Partnership 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Saving Homes Program 149,597 150,253 2,497,202 2,485,909 409.85 411.65 100.44%
Total 2,996,904 3,022,939 34,942,945 35,648,689 119,376.51 121,246.79 100.87%
Table 1-2 Net Impact Summary
Program
Annual Energy Savings
(Therms)
Lifetime Energy Savings
(Therms) Peak Therms
NTGR
Net
Realization
Rate Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post
Space Heating CIP 350,360 347,001 5,646,527 5,580,713 87,317.67 89,771.04 87.10% 99.04%
Water Heating CIP 75,774 72,391 1,512,812 1,444,208 204.16 194.47 82.85% 95.54%
Commercial Boiler CIP 67,491 67,491 1,349,828 1,349,828 1,075.18 1,075.18 80.28% 100.00%
C&I Solutions 1,200,000 1,273,739 18,976,010 20,142,070 3,083.22 3,272.68 102.77% 106.14%
Commercial Food Service CIP 47,900 66,534 574,803 798,409 131.23 182.29 77.20% 138.90%
Home Energy Reports 857,467 828,576 857,467 828,576 12,862.34 12,346.00 100.00% 96.63%
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP
147,948 147,948 1,479,479 1,479,479 429.43 429.43 99.53% 100.00%
HEAL Partnership 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA
Saving Homes Program 145,408 142,741 2,405,738 2,361,613 398.38 391.07 95.00% 98.17%
Total 2,892,348 2,946,421 32,802,664 33,984,896 105,501.61 107,662.16 97.47% 101.87%
The contribution to portfolio savings by program is summarized in Figure 1-1.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-3
Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Net Savings by Program
Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 summarize the share of savings by measure category for
residential and non-residential segments, respectively.
Figure 1-2 Residential Portfolio Savings Share by Measure
2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 4.9% 5.1%
11.4%
28.3%
43.5%
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-4
Figure 1-3 C&I Portfolio Savings Share by Measure
Further, the Evaluators put the net savings into the context of CenterPoint’s 2016 goal.
Table 1-3 summarizes the performance against goals of programs evaluated in this
report.
Table 1-3 CenterPoint 2016 DSM Portfolio Performance against Goals
Program 2016 Verified Net
Therms 2016 Net Therms
Goal % of Goal Attained
Space Heating CIP 347,001 340,660 101.86%
Water Heating CIP 72,391 86,040 84.14%
Commercial Boiler CIP 67,491 92,160 73.23%
C&I Solutions 1,273,739 1,320,150 96.47%
Commercial Food service CIP 66,534 60,210 110.50%
Home Energy Reports 828,576 1,000,000 82.86%
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 147,948 147,440 100.34%
HEAL Partnership 0 26,860 0.00%
Saving Homes Program 142,741 87,820 162.54%
Total 2,946,421 3,161,340 93.20%
The CenterPoint portfolio reached 92.2% of the filed savings goal. Percent of goal
attainted and budget spent by program is summarized in Figure 1-4.
20.5%
12.2% 11.2% 10.4%
7.7% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0%
3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 2.5% 2.4%
1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-5
Figure 1-4 Summary of Goal Attainment & Budget Expenditure by Program
1.3.2 Process Findings
Following a review of present program offerings and interviews with utility and third
party implementation staff, the Evaluators found that:
1.3.2.1 Portfolio Findings
The programs are adequately staffed. CenterPoint has allocated sufficient
resources to successfully promote and implement their program offerings. The
staff is knowledgeable regarding energy efficiency technologies and the market
opportunities in their service territory. For some programs, they have brought in
personnel with past industry ties, allowing for improved marketing and outreach.
Many recommendations from prior program years were addressed in
CenterPoint’s 2017-2019 triennial filing that had not been addressed during the
bridge years in between program cycles.
CenterPoint QA/QC procedures were adequate for residential programs, in
accordance with industry best practices.
The portfolio formerly a gap in residential building envelope offerings, in that they
were available only through the AWP and the HEAL Partnership. The Saving
Homes Weatherization Program has improved CenterPoint’s building envelope
offerings markedly, and successfully applies this Consistent Weatherization
Approach.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-6
CenterPoint reallocated budget from the C&I Solutions Program to allow for
increased participation in the Saving Homes Weatherization Program. This was
due to high customer demand in its first year of operation. The reallocation was
within CenterPoint’s allowed 10% cap. .
1.3.2.2 Space Heating CIP
Much of the success of the Space Heating CIP was driven by customers needing
to replace their air conditioner. HVAC contractors hired for this purpose
successfully sold high efficiency furnaces using the program incentive, but in
many instances the customer installed a standard efficiency air conditioner.
There was significant early replacement in 2016. This is an extension of the
activities of HVAC contractors in tacking on the sale of a high efficiency furnace
during the replacement of a failed central air conditioner.
CenterPoint has added an incentive for smart thermostats beginning in 2017, and
a package incentive for installing a furnace and a tankless water heater.
1.3.2.3 Water Heating CIP
The program has had a lack of commercial storage tank participation, and this is
being addressed in 2017 with the addition of a scaled incentive based on input
BTU for large storage tank water heaters. This will address a participation gap for
facilities that often do not install tankless systems (such as hospitals).
The Evaluators found significant differences in the customer decision-making
process and customer experience for residential storage tank and tankless
participants. Tankless participants are more affluent, more likely to have planned
their replacement, make greater use of the CenterPoint website, and are more
likely to have learned of the program from a contractor. Storage tank participants
typically complete emergency replacements, and learn of the program from
retailers or from bill inserts.
Tankless participants indicated some dissatisfaction when they needed to speak
with program staff about their application.
1.3.2.4 Commercial Boiler CIP
CenterPoint has removed boiler controls from the program beginning in 2017 due
to their being no participation in this channel since program inception.
1.3.2.5 Commercial Food Service CIP
CenterPoint has incorporated Evaluator recommendations from past years in its
2017 program plan. This includes the development of scaling incentives (with
examples including paying per-rack in a rack oven and having three size
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-7
categories for combi ovens based on number of pans) and increasing the
incentive for fryers.
The FSTC has produced savings values for broilers which should be considered
for the TRM in the next update.
1.3.2.6 C&I Solutions
The program fell slightly short of goal in 2016, but this is due in large part to a
significant funds reallocation to expand the Saving Homes Weatherization
Program. When adjusting for its reduced budget, the program successfully met
goal.
The program continues to leverage long term relationships with large industrial
customers. In the custom channel, 32.6% of net savings were from customers
that have participated in the program in prior years. The program has had
significant success in developing multiple projects and long-term energy planning
at the large industrial customers that have not opted out of the rider.
1.3.2.7 Home Energy Reports
The Home Energy Reports Program is still provides a significant (but declining)
portion of residential savings for CenterPoint. It’s share of the residential portfolio
declines from 64% to 58% from 2015-2016.
The program has had over 35% attrition in Wave 1, which is constituted of high-
using customers and produces the most savings per customer. This decline may
warrant new strategies on how CenterPoint approaches behavioral programs
going forward.
1.3.2.8 Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP
The program has continued the success seen in all prior program years and is
providing consistent and reliable savings for CenterPoint.
CenterPoint has added effective screening for electric water heating, reducing
the rate of electric water heating found among program participants.
1.3.2.9 HEAL Partnership
Similar to 2015, the program was defunded for 2016 and is no longer part of
CenterPoint’s portfolio in 2017.
1.3.2.10 Saving Homes Weatherization Program
The program successfully applied the Consistent Weatherization Approach and
produced significant savings in its first year of operation for CenterPoint. This
program will be expanded in the 2017-2019 cycle.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-8
The program got off to a quick start by using contractors already engaged in
Entergy Arkansas’ Home Performance with Energy Star Program.
1.3.3 Recommendation Summary
In 2015, 15 program or portfolio level recommendations were provide to CenterPoint as
part of the EM&V of their portfolio. The Evaluators reviewed CenterPoint’s response to
recommendations from the 2015 EM&V report and categorized them as follows:
1) Adopted. This applied to recommendations that pertained to the correction of an
issue (such as using an incorrect baseline methodology) or modifications in
program outreach that do not require a filing.
2) Under consideration. This applies most typically to larger recommendations
that would require APSC approval. This included the development of multiple-
measure bonus incentives and adding vendor incentives for boiler controls.
3) Rejected. This applies to recommendations which are reviewed by CenterPoint
and rejected. This included recommendations such as dataset consolidation for
the boiler and food service programs which were not needed due to low
participation.
4) Not applicable. This would apply to recommendations which are no longer
applicable to the CenterPoint portfolio.
5) Incomplete. This applies to recommendations which were included in the 2013
EM&V report but have either not yet been adopted or have been explicitly
rejected by CenterPoint. This included the addition of points of contact for
commercial customers for the Space Heating and Water Heating CIPs.
The responses recommendations are summarized in Figure 1-5
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 1-9
Figure 1-5 Summary of Status of 2015 Recommendations
1.4 Report Organization
This report is organized with one chapter providing the full impact and process summary
of a specified program. The report is organized as follows:
Chapter 3 provides portfolio-level and cross-cutting findings;
Chapter 4 provides results for the Space Heating Equipment CIP;
Chapter 5 provides results for the Water Heating CIP;
Chapter 6 provides results for the Commercial Boiler CIP;
Chapter 7 provides results for the C&I Solutions Program;
Chapter 8 provides results for the Commercial Food Service CIP;
Chapter 9 provides results for the Home Energy Reports Program;
Chapter 10 provides results for the Low Flow Showerheads & Faucet Aerators
CIP;
Chapter 11 provides the results for the HEAL Partnership;
Chapter 12 provides the results for the Saving Homes Program;
Chapter 13 provides a summary of recommendations for TRM updates; and
Appendix A provides the site-level custom reports for the C&I Solutions Program.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
General Methodology 2-1
2. General Methodology
This section details general impact evaluation methodologies by program-type as well
as data collection methods applied. This section will present full descriptions of:
Gross Savings Estimation;
Sampling Methodologies;
Free-Ridership determination;
Process Evaluation Methodologies; and
Data Collection Procedures.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
A first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators provide a glossary
of terms to follow1:
Ex Ante – Forecasted savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes
(from the Latin for “beforehand”
Ex Post – Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact
evaluation has been completed (From the Latin for “From something done
afterward”)
Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings or demand savings
outcome (gross savings) for a single unit of an installed energy efficiency
measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources and analytical
methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are
applicable to the situation being evaluated. (e.g., assuming 17.36 Therms
savings for a low-flow showerhead)
Gross Savings – The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results
directly from program-related actions taken by participants in an efficiency
program, regardless of why they participated
Gross Realization Rate – Ratio of Ex Post Savings / Ex Ante Savings (e.g. If
ADM verifies 15 Therms per showerhead, Gross Realization Rate = 15/17.36 =
86%)
Free-Rider – A program participant who would have implemented the program
measure or practice in the absence of the program. Free riders can be total,
partial, or deferred.
1 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 1, Pg. 86-92
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-2
Spillover – Reductions in energy consumption and/or demand caused by the
presence of the energy efficiency program that exceed the program-related gross
savings of the participants. There can be participant and/or non-participant
spillover rates depending on the rate at which participants (and non-participants)
adopt energy efficiency measures or take other types of efficiency actions on
their own (i.e., without an incentive being offered).
Net Savings – The total change in load that is attributable to an energy efficiency
program. This change in load may include, implicitly or explicitly, the effects of
free drivers, free riders, energy efficiency standards, changes in the level of
energy service, and other causes of changes in energy consumption or demand.
(e.g., if Free-Ridership for low-flow showerheads = 50%, net savings = 15
Therms x 50% = 7.5 Therms)
Net-to-Gross-Ratio (NTGR) = (1 – Free-Ridership % + Spillover %), also defined
as Net Savings / Gross Savings
Ex Ante Net Savings = Ex Ante Gross Savings x Ex Ante Free-Ridership Rate
Ex Post Net Savings = Ex Post Gross Savings x Ex Post Free-Ridership Rate
Net Realization Rate = Ex Post Net Savings / Ex Ante Net Savings
Effective Useful Life (EUL) – An estimate of the median number of years that the
efficiency measures installed under a program are still in place and operable.
Gross Lifetime Therms = Ex Post Gross Savings x EUL
2.2 Overview of Methodology
The proposed methodology for the evaluation of the 2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio is
intended to provide:
Net impact results at the 90% confidence and +/-10% precision level; and
Program feedback and recommendations via process evaluation; and
In doing so, this evaluation will provide the verified net savings results, provide the
recommendations for program improvement, and ensure cost-effective use of ratepayer
funds. By leveraging experience and lessons learned from prior evaluations, the 2016
evaluation is streamlined to focus on areas in needed of research and improvement.
2.3 Sampling
Sampling is necessary to evaluate savings for the CenterPoint DSM portfolio insomuch
as verification of a census of program participants is typically cost-prohibitive. As per
evaluation requirements set forth by the Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM), samples
are drawn in order to ensure 90% confidence at the +/- 10% precision level. Programs
are evaluated on one of three bases:
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-3
Census of all participants
Simple Random Sample
Stratified Random Sample
2.3.1 Census of Participants
A census of participant data was used for select programs where such review is
feasible. For example, the Home Energy Reports program’s savings estimates are
based on a regression model that incorporates billing data for a census of program
recipients. Programs that received analysis of a census of participants include:
Home Energy Reports;
Commercial & Industrial Solutions – Custom Component
2.3.2 Simple Random Sampling
For programs with relatively homogenous measures (largely in the residential portfolio),
ADM conducted a simple random sample of participants. The sample size for
verification surveys is calculated to meet 90% confidence and 10% precision (90/10).
The sample size to meet 90/10 requirements is calculated based on the coefficient of
variation of savings for program participants. Coefficient of Variation (CV) is defined as:
𝐶𝑉(𝑥) = 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑥)
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛(𝑥)
Where x is the average Therms savings per participant. Without data to use as a
basis for a higher value, it is typical to apply a CV of .5 in residential program
evaluations. The resulting sample size is estimated at:
𝑛0 = (1.645 ∗ 𝐶𝑉
𝑅𝑃)
2
Where,
1.645 = Z Score for 90% confidence interval in a normal distribution
CV = Coefficient of Variation
RP = Required Precision, 10% in this evaluation
With 10% required precision (RP), this calls for a sample of 68 for programs with a
sufficiently large population. However, in some instances, programs did not have
sufficient participation to make a sample of this size cost-effective. In instances of low
participation, ADM then applied a finite population correction factor, defined as:
𝑛 =𝑛0
1 +𝑛0
𝑁⁄
Where
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-4
n0 = Sample Required for Large Population
N = Size of Population
n = Corrected Sample
For example, if a program were to have only 100 participants, the finite population
correction would result in a final required sample size of 41. The Evaluators applied
finite population correction factors in instances of low participation in determining
samples required for surveying or onsite verification. Programs subject to Simple
Random Sampling include:
Space Heating CIP – Residential;
Water Heating CIP – Residential;
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP; and
2.3.3 Stratified Random Sampling
For the CenterPoint Commercial & Industrial programs, Simple Random Sampling is not
an effective sampling methodology as the CV values observed in business programs
are typically very high because the distributions of savings are generally positively
skewed. Often, a relatively small number of projects account for a high percentage of
the estimated savings for the program.
To address this situation, we use a sample design for selecting projects for the M&V
sample that takes such skewness into account. With this approach, we select a number
of sites with large savings for the sample with certainty and take a random sample of
the remaining sites. To further improve the precision, non-certainty sites are selected for
the sample through systematic random sampling. That is, a random sample of sites
remaining after the certainty sites have been selected is selected by ordering them
according to the magnitude of their savings and using systematic random sampling.
Sampling systematically from a list that is ordered according to the magnitude of
savings ensures that any sample selected will have some units with high savings, some
with moderate savings, and some with low savings. Samples cannot result that have
concentrations of sites with atypically high savings or atypically low savings. As a result
of this methodology, the required sample for the C&I Industrial Solutions Program was
reduced to 24 with one certainty stratum and five sample strata. Programs that were
evaluated using stratified random sampling include:
Space Heating CIP – Non-Residential;
Water Heating CIP – Non-Residential;
Commercial Boiler CIP;
Commercial Food Service CIP; and
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-5
Commercial & Industrial Solutions – Direct Install Component.
2.3.4 Free-Ridership
In determining ex post net savings for the CenterPoint DSM portfolio, the Evaluators
provide estimates of free-ridership for individual programs. Free-riders are program
participants that would have implemented the same energy efficiency measures at
nearly the same time absent the program. As per TRM guidelines, free-riders are
defined as:
“…program participants who received an incentive but would have installed the same
efficiency measure on their own had the program not been offered. This includes partial
free riders, defined as customers who, at some point, would have installed the measure
anyway, but the program persuaded them to install it sooner or customers who would
have installed the measure anyway but the program persuaded them to install more
efficient equipment and/or more equipment. For the purposes of EM&V activities,
participants who would have installed the equipment within one year will be considered
full free riders; whereas participants who would have installed the equipment later than
one year will not be considered to be free riders (thus no partial free riders will be
allowed).”2
Given this definition, participants are defined as free-riders through a binary scoring
mechanism, in being either 0% or 100% free-riders.
2.3.4.1 Prescriptive Free-Ridership
The general methodology for evaluating free-ridership among prescriptive program
participants involved examination of four factors:
(1) Demonstrated financial ability to purchase high efficiency equipment absent the
rebate
(2) Importance of the rebate in the decision-making process
(3) Prior planning to purchase high efficiency equipment
(4) Importance of the contractor in influencing the decision-making process
In this methodology, Part (1) is essentially a gateway value, in that if a participant does
not have the financial ability to purchase energy efficient equipment absent a rebate, the
other components of free-ridership become moot. As such, if they could not have
afforded the high efficiency equipment absent the rebate, free-ridership is scored at 0%.
If they did have the financial capability, the Evaluators then examine the other three
components. The respondent is determined to be a free-rider based upon a
preponderance of evidence of these three factors; that is, if the respondent’s answers
indicate free-ridership in two or more of these three components, they are considered
2 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Pg. 49.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-6
free-riders. Specific questions and modifications to this general methodology are
presented in the appropriate program chapters.
For residential programs, free-ridership is calculated as the average score determined
for the sample of participants surveyed. This value is then applied to the program-level
savings to discount savings attributable to free-ridership.
2.3.4.2 Custom Free-Ridership
For custom projects from the C&I Solutions program, free-ridership is assessed on a
case-study basis, through which the Evaluators conduct an in-depth interview that
includes a battery of questions addressing:
The timing of learning of the program relative to the timing of the planning of the
retrofit;
The impact the program incentive has on measure payback relative to the stated
payback requirements by the respondent;
Whether the respondent learned of the energy efficiency measure from a
program-funded audit; and
Whether any influence the program had in modifying the project affected savings
by greater than 50%.
In the C&I Solutions chapter, the free-rider “case studies” are provided for every custom
project.
2.4 Process Evaluation
2.4.1 General Approach
The Evaluators’ general approach to process evaluation begins with a review of the
tests for timing and appropriateness of process evaluation as defined in Protocol C of
the TRM V6.0. In this review, the Evaluators determine what aspects of the program
warrant a process evaluation (due to issues identified in the 2016 evaluations). Most
CenterPoint programs over-performed, and as such most of the 2016 process
evaluation activity was focused around identifying CenterPoint and implementer
response to 2016 recommendations.
The 2016 process overviews began with interviews of program staff. These interviews,
along with guidance from IEM protocols, inform the establishment of goals for the
process evaluation, provide background history of programs, and give an introduction to
portfolio-level issues. From this, the Evaluators then develop a list of data collection
activities. The data collection procedures for process evaluations typically included:
Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed statistically significant samples
of participants in each program in order to provide feedback for the program and
provide an assessment of participant satisfaction.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
General Methodology 2-7
In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with high-
level program actors, including CenterPoint program staff, third-party
implementation staff, and program Trade Allies. These interviews are semi-
structured, in having general topics to be covered, without fully prescribed
question and answer frameworks.
Review of Marketing Materials. The Evaluators reviewed marketing materials for
each program, providing feedback as to the appropriateness of the message in
reaching its target audience, the breadth of the audience that the effort is
attempting to reach, and identifying possible cross-promotional opportunities.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-1
3. Portfolio-Level Findings
This chapter provides a summary of the portfolio-level findings and any cross-cutting
evaluation activities that occurred over the course of the 2016 EM&V Effort. Specifically,
this chapter includes:
A summary of program and portfolio performance in 2016;
A summary of EM&V activities and expenditures in 2016;
High-level findings that cut across programs.
3.1 Summary of EM&V Effort
Table 3-1 summarizes the EM&V expenditures by the Evaluators, total EM&V
expenditures by all parties, and total program budgets.
Table 3-1 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio 2016 EM&V Expenditures
Total EM&V
Expenditures
Evaluators’
EM&V
Expenditures
2016 Program
Expenditures
Evaluators’
EM&V as % of
Budget
576,863.60 $183,749.93 $6,357,547 2.32%
All programs received a full process evaluation in 2012 and limited process reviews in
2013 and 2014. Table 3-2 summarizes the data collection efforts for the 2016 EM&V
effort. “Interviews” should be distinguished from “Surveys” in that “Interviews” reflect
semi-structured, in-depth discussions with high-level program actors (such as utility staff
and third-party implementation staff) whereas surveys are fully-structured and typically
conducted with program participants.
Table 3-2 Summary of Data Collection Efforts
Program # Site Visits # Surveys # Interviews
Space Heating CIP 26 87 2
Water Heating CIP 0 82 6
C&I Boiler CIP 0 0 2
C&I Solutions 25 33 4
Commercial Food Service CIP 4 0 2
Home Energy Reports 0 800 1
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 0 0 1
HEAL Partnership 0 0 1
Total 55 1,002 19
3.2 Tests of Portfolio Comprehensiveness
The Arkansas Public Service Commission has in place a set of criteria in order to
determine whether a DSM portfolio qualifies as “Comprehensive”. These criteria are:
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-2
Factor 1: Whether the programs and/or portfolio provide, either directly or
through identification and coordination, the education, training, marketing, or
outreach needed to address market barriers to the adoption of cost-effective
energy efficiency measures;
Factor 2: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, have adequate budgetary,
management, and program delivery resources to plan, design, implement,
oversee and evaluate energy efficiency programs;
Factor 3: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, reasonably address all major
end-uses of electricity or natural gas, or electricity and natural gas, as
appropriate;
Factor 4: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, to the maximum extent
reasonable, comprehensively address the needs of customers at one time, in
order to avoid cream-skimming and lost opportunities
Factor 5: Whether such programs take advantage of opportunities to address
the comprehensive needs of targeted customer sectors (for example, schools,
large retail stores, agricultural users, or restaurants) or to leverage non-utility
program resources (for example, state or federal tax incentive, rebate, or lending
programs)
Factor 6: Whether the programs and/or portfolio enables the delivery of all
achievable, cost-effective energy efficiency within a reasonable period of time
and maximizes net benefits to customers and to the utility system;
Factor 7: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, have evaluation, measurement,
and verification ("EM&V") procedures adequate to support program
management and improvement, calculation of energy, demand and revenue
impacts, and resource planning decisions.
The Evaluators reviewed the CenterPoint programs and portfolio in order to assess
whether it was in compliance with the APSC Comprehensiveness Goals. In assessing
these metrics, the Evaluators score them on numerous subcomponents. The scoring
methodology is as follows:
: Meets all requirements and is in full compliance with this performance indicator
: Meets some requirements and is in partial compliance with this performance indicator
: Is not in compliance with this performance indicator.
NA: Performance indicator is not applicable to this program.
The HEAL Partnership has been changed to “N/A” for all comprehensiveness factors,
due to CCI ceasing implementation in 2015.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-3
3.2.1 Factor 1: Education, Training, Marketing, and Outreach
3.2.1.1 Assessment of Education
The Evaluators assessed the educational components of the CenterPoint programs, in
order to identify whether the programs were providing potential participants with the
needed information to guide their decision-making, and whether the channels used to
reach the target markets are appropriate. The Evaluators found that:
CenterPoint’s programs used a range of channels to provide educational
materials to their programs’ target markets. The educational materials included
brochures, case studies, and presentations to trade & industry groups.
CenterPoint program staff conducts outreach and education through a wide
range of potential program partners, including contractors, retailers, home
builders, and local governments.
The breadth of educational materials by program is summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Assessment of Customer Education by Program
Program Provides
Educational Materials
Outreach Through Multiple Channels
Education Targeted to
Specific Market Barriers
Coordination of Education by Multiple
Entities
Space Heating CIP
Water Heating CIP
Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports NA NA
Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP NA
HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
3.2.1.2 Assessment of Training
The Evaluators reviewed each CenterPoint program to assess whether:
1) Whether the program is trade ally-driven
2) If not, is it a program that could or should be trade ally-driven
3) The program provides training classes to support their program offerings
4) Whether the programs need trade ally certification
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-4
Table 3-4 Assessment of Trade Ally Training by Program
Program Trade Ally Training Offered
Training Requirements
Adhere to Best Practices
Trade Allies Participate in Training
Space Heating CIP
Water Heating CIP
Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP NA
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports NA NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP NA NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
The Commercial Food Service CIP has several categories marked as “NA” in that it is
driven by equipment vendors, but that their training only constituted being informed on
identifying qualifying equipment and instruction on the application process. Technical
training was not provided (and was not needed).
CenterPoint does not require trade ally registration to participate, except for in the
Saving Homes Program. Their approach has been to allow all licensed dealers or
contractors to apply for the appropriate equipment rebates. The Evaluators have
concluded that this has not to-date affected the quality assurance of the programs.
3.2.1.3 Marketing & Outreach
The Evaluators reviewed the marketing and outreach strategies associated with each of
the CenterPoint programs. These strategies were reviewed to assess whether they
adequately addressed the relevant participant barriers, the extent to which trade allies
were actively marketing the program (where appropriate), and whether the materials
were correctly targeted in marketing a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency.
A summary of the Evaluators’ assessment of CenterPoint’s marketing and outreach is
presented in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 Assessment of Marketing & Outreach by Program
Program Marketing Trade Marketing Marketing
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-5
Addresses Specific Barriers
Allies Promote Program
Support Provided to Trade
Allies
Performed Through Diverse
Channels
Space Heating CIP
Water Heating CIP
Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports NA NA NA
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA
HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
After reviewing the marketing and outreach materials, the Evaluators concluded that:
Most programs have marketing materials that address specific barriers
associated with the targeted segments or technologies.
CenterPoint has initiated sector-specific marketing, including fact sheets for
restaurants and food processing plants.
The CenterPoint programs are marketed through a diverse range of channels,
including mass-media advertising, online advertising, meetings and training
sessions with professional organizations and trade groups, and partnered
marketing with municipal governments.
The Saving Homes Program intentionally had limited marketing in 2016 due to its
low first-year budget and concerns that CenterPoint had about too much program
interest at the outset. This will be resolved when the program’s budget is
expanded.
3.2.2 Factor 2: Budgetary, Management, and Program Delivery Resources
Several performance indicators were assessed in reviewing the adequacy of budgetary,
management, and program delivery resources. This included:
Self-reports from program management staff
Cost per Therm saved
Review of trade ally resources dedicated to program promotion.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-6
Table 3-6 Assessment of Budgetary, Management, and Program Delivery Resources by Program
Program
Budget is Sufficient to
Support Program
Goals
Cost per-Therm
Aligns with Program
Plan
Program Has
Sufficient Staffing
Program Has
Sufficient Trade Ally Support
Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports NA NA
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
From this review, the Evaluators concluded that the CenterPoint portfolio overall has the
adequate budget and staff allocations. Programs were credited with full compliance if
acquisition costs exceeded plan values by no more than 10%. Programs were credited
with partial compliance if acquisition costs exceeded program plan values by no more
than 20%. Figure 3-1 summarizes the planned and actual first-year savings acquisition
costs.
Figure 3-1 Planned vs. Actual Acquisition Costs
The portfolio overall had acquisition costs that were 3.0% higher than the
program plan.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-7
Three programs had costs that were at least 10% higher than planned: Water
Heating CIP, Commercial Boiler CIP, and Home Energy Reports.
Some programs had significantly lower acquisition costs than planned; the
Commercial Food Service CIP acquisition costs were 36% lower than planned,
and the new Saving Homes Program had costs that were 27% lower than
planned.
C&I Solutions has historically been among the lowest-cost programs offered by
CenterPoint. In 2016, acquisition costs for the program reached an all-time low of
$1.56/Therm.
3.2.3 Factor 3: Addressing Major End-Uses
The Evaluators identified the end-uses served by each of the CenterPoint programs.
Most CenterPoint programs are designed around a specific technology or end-use.
Table 3-7 summarizes the end-uses addressed by each program.
Table 3-7 End-Uses Addressed by Program
Program HVAC Hot
Water Food
Service Building Envelope
Industrial Process
Behavioral
Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP
HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
Measure targeted Measure offered Measure not offered
Presently, the CenterPoint portfolio covers all end-uses. In past Evaluations, it was
found that CenterPoint was not adequately capturing the emergency replacement
market for water heaters and was not providing an adequate offering for building
envelope improvements. Both of these issues were resolved in 2016 and we have
revised their comprehensiveness score to reflect this.
3.2.4 Factor 4: Comprehensively Addressing Customer Needs
To assess Factor 4, the Evaluators reviewed CenterPoint programs to discern the
extent of:
Program-provided technical assistance;
Incentives of comprehensive projects/measure suites; and
Tiered incentives for higher efficiency levels.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-8
The CenterPoint portfolio has no specific requirements for installation of multiple
measures. Customers can participate to an extent of their choice. This is a program
best-practice in enabling customers to engage in energy efficiency in a manner in
accordance with their budget constraints.
Table 3-8 summarizes the comprehensiveness of offerings for each program.
Table 3-8 Assessment of Project Comprehensiveness by Program
Program
Technical Assistance
and/or Audits
Information Provided
Comprehensive for Efficiency
Bundled Incentives
for Multiple
Measures
Tiered Incentives
for Premium Efficiency
Trade Ally Incentives
for Premium Efficiency
Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP
Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP
C&I Solutions
Home Energy Reports NA NA NA
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA NA
HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA
Saving Home Program
Findings from the assessment of this factor included:
Most CenterPoint prescriptive programs offer incentives to trade allies for
installation of top-tier efficiency measures. This has included incentives for
condensing furnaces, tankless water heaters, and high efficiency food service
equipment. Trade ally incentives are not offered for the Commercial Boiler CIP,
but could be potentially viable for boiler controls.
The CenterPoint portfolio offers tiered incentives for premium efficiency across all
of their rebate programs. This includes:
- The incentives for the Space Heating CIP increase from $400 to $600 for
units with 95% AFUE or greater.
- Incentives in the Water Heating CIP range from $75 for storage tank water
heaters to $500 for tankless water heaters
- High efficiency boiler incentives are $1,400/MMBtuh for units < 92%
efficient and $2,000/MMBtuh for units with 92% efficiency or greater.
- The Commercial Food Service CIP does not differentiate between
efficiency levels. For food service, the range of efficiency levels is not as
wide as for other equipment types. However, this program could
potentially benefit from tiered incentives for different equipment sizes
(such as single vs. double-sized ovens).
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-9
- The C&I Solutions program pays an incentive per verified Therm, and as a
result projects with higher savings are by design paid a higher incentive.
The CenterPoint portfolio has programs that bundle on-site technical assistance
with direct installation.
The range of technical assistance varies by program. The Space Heating, Water
Heating, and Commercial Boiler CIPs offer technical assistance through program
trade allies. The level of on-site technical assistance is lower for the Commercial
Food Service CIP in that the market is driven by in-store contact with vendors
rather than by on-site assessment. C&I Solutions provides on-site technical
assistance that is directly funded by the program.
The programs have procedures for following up with customers after their
participation, which includes thank-you calls or emails and verification inspection.
Marketing materials typically make attempts at cross-promotion of programs.
3.2.5 Factor 5: Targeting Market Sectors & Leveraging Opportunities
The Evaluators reviewed whether the CenterPoint portfolio offered a comprehensive
range of energy efficiency opportunities to all major customer sectors. Table 3-9
summarizes the market sectors and what programs target or allow each sector.
Table 3-9 Assessment of Targeted Customer Sectors by Program
Program
Re
sid
en
tial
Mu
ltif
amily
Mo
bile
Ho
me
Smal
l Co
mm
erc
ial
Larg
e C
om
me
rcia
l
Ind
ust
rial
Agr
icu
ltu
ral
Pu
blic
Se
cto
r
Space Heating CIP
Water Heating CIP
Commercial Boiler CIP
Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program
Program targets this sector Sector is eligible for this program Sector is ineligible for this program
Each sector has several programs for which they are eligible, and at least one program
that targets them. Segments with fewer targeted outreach avenues include:
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-10
Mobile/manufactured housing. This is often not targeted as there is a much
higher prevalence of electric space and water heating. Further, this segment
receives outreach from the Arkansas Weatherization Program.
Agriculture and Industrial sectors are not specifically targeted by the Space
Heating and Water Heating CIPs as the equipment used by these facilities
generally requires custom calculations.
Public Sector facilities are targeted with a wide range of programs. This has
included residential programs that reach out to public housing authorities.
In addition, the Evaluators reviewed the extent of collaboration and leveraging of
available partnership opportunities by CenterPoint.
Examples of cross-utility coordination included:
Through a joint contract, the Evaluators provide EM&V to CenterPoint, Black Hills
Energy, and Arkansas Oklahoma Gas. This allows for sharing of fixed EM&V
costs (such as development of data collection instruments) and more seamless
comparison of program offerings and lessons learned across the natural gas
energy efficiency portfolio. This has reduced the overall cost of EM&V across all
three natural gas utilities.
CenterPoint has brought on a third-party implementer (CLEAResult) for their C&I
Solutions Program. This implementer uses the same program design and
incentive levels for Black Hills Energy and AOG. This has allowed for reduced
program costs for C&I Solutions, which is the largest program in each of the
three gas utility portfolios.
CenterPoint engages in several joint-marketing efforts with the other gas utilities
as well as with Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI). This has included joint-
implementation of education and promotional opportunities when interests with
the other gas utilities or EAI align.
Examples of coordination with non-utility partners included:
CenterPoint’s programs are marketed through industry partners included
professional organizations, trade groups, universities, and homeowners
associations.
CenterPoint works with a local technical college to help provide training
opportunities to trade allies and students interested in careers related to energy
efficiency.
3.2.6 Factor 6: Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency
To assess this factor, the Evaluators reviewed whether:
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-11
Programs met net savings goals;
Whether the NTG ratios were in line with industry norms; and
Whether programs passed cost-effectiveness (TRC) testing.
Table 3-10 Assessment of Cost-Effectiveness
Program NTGR NTGR Within
Industry Norms
Met Net Savings Goal
Program TRC
Space Heating CIP 87.08% Yes No 2.14
Water Heating CIP 82.83% Yes Yes 1.30
Commercial Boiler CIP 80.28% Yes No 2.27
C&I Solutions 102.77% Yes No 4.91
Commercial Food Service CIP 77.20% Yes Yes 1.51
Home Energy Reports 100.00% Yes No .81
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP 99.53% Yes Yes 13.15
HEAL Partnership N/A NA NA .00
Saving Homes Program 95.00% Yes Yes 6.04
The Home Energy Reports Program had a TRC less than 1.00. The Evaluators attribute
this to the aggregate 35% attrition in Wave 1; Wave 1 of the program was developed in
2011 and is comprised of CenterPoint’s highest users, therefore producing the most
savings per-recipient. Subsequent waves in the program have yielded significantly lower
savings per-participant.
3.2.7 Factor 7: Adequacy of EM&V Procedures
The Evaluators conducted a review of EM&V procedures by program as implemented
by several parties:
QA/QC and EM&V procedures by CenterPoint program staff;
QA/QC and EM&V procedures by third-party implementation staff (where
applicable)
QA/QC and EM&V procedures by the Evaluators.
The EM&V of the CenterPoint programs incorporated industry best practices and was
conducted in an iterative process that incorporated feedback from CenterPoint and
implementation contractors as well as the Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM). The
Evaluators developed EM&V plans that corresponded to protocols set out in the
Arkansas TRM V6.0. However, over the course of the EM&V process, some activities
deviated from the EM&V plans:
Evaluation activities for the Space Heating CIP (including vendor interviewing)
needed to be curtailed in order to allow for a furnace metering study.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Portfolio-Level Findings 3-12
Survey samples for the Commercial Boiler and Commercial Food Service CIPs
were scaled down based on lower participation levels.
Finally, the Evaluators reviewed the quality of program tracking data in order to assess
whether the data allowed for complete evaluation. Further, the Evaluators reviewed the
extent to which individual savings calculations were performed using facility-specific
inputs into the TRM V6.0 algorithms versus the use of simplifying assumptions3. The
results of the review are summarized in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11 Assessment of Data & QA/QC Procedures by Program
Program
Tracking Contains
Necessary Fields
Savings Calculations Performed
and Reported
Savings Calculations
Based on Facility Data
QA/QC Inspections by Program Staff
Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA
Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA
Saving Homes Program
Findings of this review included:
The Space Heating and Water Heating CIPs lacked contact names for most
commercial projects. This added a significant amount of difficulty to the EM&V
process.
Home Energy Reports has savings calculations performed at the end of the
program year. This is not tracked mid-year, though that might not be necessary
given the program’s existing verified performance.
C&I Solutions tracking data contained all needed fields for evaluation and
recreation of energy savings calculations.
QA/QC inspections are in place for all programs other than Home Energy
Reports (where it is not needed) and the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet
Aerator CIP. For the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP, post-
inspection of participant residences is not likely to add value, and savings
calculations by CenterPoint already incorporate expected in-service rates.
QA/QC is performed by the Evaluators via telephone survey.
3 Examples of this could include assuming average facility square footage for commercial water heating and using that as an input to the savings calculation, as opposed to collecting facility-specific square footage.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-1
9. Home Energy Reports
The Home Energy Reports Program is an educational program run by Oracle35, a third
party implementer for CenterPoint. The program provides educational materials to a
sample of CenterPoint’s residential customers, in which their usage is compared against
similar households. The program is designed to encourage behavioral change and
program participation on the part of the recipients of the Home Energy Report.
9.1 Program Overview
The Home Energy Reports Program had $879,668 in budget allocated in 2016. Table
9-1 summarizes the Home Energy Reports historical performance against goals.
Table 9-1 Home Energy Reports Program Historical Performance against Goals
Program
Year
# Participants Budget Net Therms
Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal
2011 50,000 50,000 $225,417 $277,364 76,655 108,800
2012 99,846 50,000 $524,839 $524,839 529,715 506,000
2013 99,846 100,000 $860,810 $379,688 1,112,462 887,160
2014 113,856 100,000 $871,505 $879,688 1,102,598 1,000,000
2015 103,995 100,000 $848,588 $879,668 917,376 1,000,000
2016 96,967 100,000 $861,766 $879,668 823,045 1,000,000
9.2 Participation Summary
The Home Energy Reports Program began in September 2011. The program is
designed to generate quantifiable behavioral savings that cannot be feasibly attained
through standard DSM efforts. The comparison against their neighbors is intended to
have a jarring effect; when informed that their usage is above average, the program
theory would assert that they are then driven to engage in conservation behaviors. In
2011, a sample of 50,000 recipients and 50,000 non-recipients was developed. In
November 2012, this was expanded, with a second wave of recipients brought in. In
November 2012, the program added:
52,498 recipients; and
26,248 non-recipients.
In November 2014, CenterPoint added a third wave to the program. This wave includes:
24,732 recipients; and
10,493 non-recipients.
35
Formerly known as Opower, who were acquired by Oracle.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-2
Over time, the population of recipients faces attrition. This occurs mostly due to
members of the recipient group moving to a new residence. Table 9-2 summarizes the
attrition that has occurred in each wave36.
Table 9-2 Home Energy Reports Recipient Attrition
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Inception 50,000 52,498 24,732
Current 34,278 38,697 21,088
Attrition % 31.4% 26.3% 14.7%
9.2.1 Savings Calculation Methodologies
The Evaluators utilized a post-only model with pre-usage controls. Other model
specifications were tested (including fixed effects), but the post-only model was found to
provide the highest precision level in results. The model specification applied uses one
year of pre-treatment data to construct control variables which capture the primary
drivers of a household’s energy use.
The model specification is as follows:
𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑖𝑡 = 𝛼0 + 𝛽 ∗ 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖
+𝛼1 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑖
+𝛼2 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖
+𝛼3 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖
+𝛾 ∗ 𝑚𝑚𝑡
+𝛿1 ∗ 𝑚𝑚𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑖
+𝛿2 ∗ 𝑚𝑚𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖
+𝛿3 ∗ 𝑚𝑚𝑡 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖
+휀𝑖𝑡
Where
i denotes the ith customer
t denotes the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
Usageit is the average daily use for read t for household i during the post-
treatment period
36
The participant total in Table 9-1 is based on average monthly participants. The values in Table 9-2 are based on the end-of-year values for 2016.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-3
PreUsagei is the average daily usage across households i’s available pre-
treatment billing reads.
PreWinteri is the average daily usage over the months of December January,
February, and March over household i’s available pre-treatment meter reads.
PreSummeri is the average daily usage over the months of June, July, August,
and September over household i’s available pre-treatment meter reads.
mmt is a vector of month-year dummies
And parameter definitions are:
𝛼0 is an intercept term
𝛼1, 𝛼2 , 𝛼3 are effects of control variables PreUsagei , PreWinteri , PreSummeri on
Usageit in the reference month.
𝛿1, 𝛿2, 𝛿3 are the effect of the control variables in each month-year (mmt) of the
post period.
휀𝑖𝑡 is an error term.
In this specification, savings are calculated by:
Savings = Treatment_Coeff * #Recipients * 365
Where,
Treatment_Coeff = Coefficient for treatment parameter (daily use is the
dependent variable, a negative value for treatment reflects the difference in
Therms/day used by the recipient group after report delivery)
#Recipients = Total recipients in the Wave, after accounting for attrition
365 = days/year
Home Energy Report Peak Savings
To estimate peak Therms, the Evaluators split savings into two categories:
Weather Sensitive; and
Non-Weather Sensitive
From this Evaluators used the ratio of peak to annual Therms for residential furnaces
and water heaters for weather-sensitive and non-weather sensitive (respectively) from
the TRM V6.0. These multipliers are defined in Table 9-3.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-4
Table 9-3 Home Energy Reports Peak-to-Annual Multipliers
Savings Type Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9
Weather- Sensitive37
.015 .016 .015 .019
Non-Weather-Sensitive38
.0024 .0024 .0024 .0024
Home Energy Report Net Savings
The HER program uses a randomized control trial, comparing recipients to non-
recipients. As a result, the savings estimates from the model are net savings estimates,
and no further deduction of free-ridership is taken.
Model Output Results
9.2.1.1 Wave 1
Table 9-4 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in
the analysis of Wave 1.
Table 9-4 Regression Coefficients & Model Details – Wave 1
Variable Description Regression Coefficient
Standard Error T-Stat PR > |T|
INTERCEPT 0.60633 0.01504 40.32 <0.0001
TREATMENT -0.03694 0.00250 -14.79 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE 0.57440 0.01782 32.24 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER -0.17444 0.01487 -11.73 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER 0.55062 0.00568 96.94 <0.0001
FEB -0.12478 0.02118 -5.89 <0.0001
MAR -0.29312 0.02120 -13.83 <0.0001
APR -0.49048 0.02123 -23.10 <0.0001
MAY -0.56783 0.02126 -26.71 <0.0001
JUN -0.56355 0.02129 -26.47 <0.0001
JUL -0.54844 0.02132 -25.73 <0.0001
AUG -0.56591 0.02135 -26.51 <0.0001
SEP -0.61131 0.02138 -28.59 <0.0001
OCT -0.62288 0.02141 -29.09 <0.0001
NOV -0.61133 0.02143 -28.52 <0.0001
DEC -0.29334 0.02145 -13.67 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB 0.26921 0.02522 10.68 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR 0.55483 0.02525 21.98 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:APR 0.32559 0.02528 12.88 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY -0.19107 0.02533 -7.54 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN -0.46567 0.02539 -18.34 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL -0.54815 0.02544 -21.55 <0.0001
37
Multipliers from Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Page 59. Table 43: Gas Furnace Peak Heating Ratio
38 Multipliers from Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Page 138. Equation 85: Peak Day Therm Savings – Gas Storage Tank Water Heater Replacement
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-5
AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG -0.53736 0.02547 -21.10 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP -0.46290 0.02550 -18.15 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT -0.06951 0.02555 -2.72 0.007
AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV 0.33937 0.02558 13.27 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC 0.14919 0.02559 5.83 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB -0.12209 0.02105 -5.80 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR -0.18410 0.02107 -8.74 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR 0.19540 0.02111 9.26 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY 0.71922 0.02114 34.02 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN 0.84916 0.02119 40.08 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL 0.81297 0.02121 38.34 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG 0.83312 0.02123 39.24 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP 0.84702 0.02126 39.85 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT 0.55096 0.02129 25.88 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV 0.04559 0.02131 2.14 0.032
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC -0.08250 0.02133 -3.87 0.000
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB -0.23834 0.00804 -29.64 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR -0.61537 0.00805 -76.44 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR -0.70449 0.00806 -87.41 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY -0.63296 0.00808 -78.37 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN -0.56881 0.00810 -70.26 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL -0.54729 0.00811 -67.48 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG -0.55065 0.00812 -67.81 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP -0.56853 0.00813 -69.92 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT -0.65451 0.00815 -80.34 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV -0.50462 0.00815 -61.89 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC -0.11154 0.00816 -13.67 <0.0001
Adjusted R-Square: 0.8309
The resulting annual savings are:
Annual Savings = .03694 * 35,684 * 365 = 481,127 Therms
95% Confidence Interval: +/- 63,023 (13.3%)
9.2.1.2 Wave 2
Table 9-5 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in
the analysis of Wave 2.
Table 9-5 Regression Coefficients & Model Details – Wave 2
Variable Description Regression Coefficient
Standard Error T-Stat PR > |T|
INTERCEPT 0.73669 0.00760 96.93 <0.0001
TREATMENT -0.01839 0.00130 -14.10 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE 0.36161 0.02332 15.51 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER -0.27393 0.01793 -15.28 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER 0.76897 0.00758 101.41 <0.0001
FEB -0.12443 0.01069 -11.64 <0.0001
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-6
MAR -0.47776 0.01070 -44.64 <0.0001
APR -0.61824 0.01072 -57.69 <0.0001
MAY -0.64777 0.01073 -60.36 <0.0001
JUN -0.64818 0.01075 -60.27 <0.0001
JUL -0.64389 0.01078 -59.73 <0.0001
AUG -0.64223 0.01080 -59.44 <0.0001
SEP -0.66942 0.01082 -61.87 <0.0001
OCT -0.68950 0.01083 -63.65 <0.0001
NOV -0.53631 0.01085 -49.45 <0.0001
DEC -0.05518 0.01086 -5.08 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB 0.57253 0.03301 17.34 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR 1.12200 0.03306 33.94 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:APR 0.85135 0.03311 25.71 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY 0.34814 0.03317 10.49 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN -0.07089 0.03323 -2.13 0.033
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL -0.17933 0.03328 -5.39 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG -0.15763 0.03333 -4.73 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP -0.02779 0.03337 -0.83 0.405
AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT 0.34280 0.03341 10.26 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV 0.92344 0.03345 27.61 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC 0.36289 0.03347 10.84 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB -0.22501 0.02539 -8.86 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR -0.30932 0.02543 -12.16 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR 0.08125 0.02547 3.19 0.001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY 0.57276 0.02551 22.45 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN 0.82985 0.02555 32.48 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL 0.83265 0.02559 32.54 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG 0.81391 0.02563 31.76 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP 0.74794 0.02567 29.14 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT 0.48394 0.02569 18.84 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV -0.31945 0.02572 -12.42 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC -0.28591 0.02574 -11.11 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB -0.35894 0.01074 -33.43 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR -0.87170 0.01075 -81.10 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR -0.99364 0.01076 -92.31 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY -0.95511 0.01078 -88.57 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN -0.85345 0.01080 -78.99 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL -0.82625 0.01082 -76.35 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG -0.83369 0.01084 -76.92 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP -0.86335 0.01085 -79.56 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT -0.93452 0.01086 -86.04 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV -0.78181 0.01087 -71.90 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC -0.23752 0.01088 -21.83 <0.0001
Adjusted R-Square: 0.8236
The resulting annual savings are:
Annual Savings = .01839 * 39,906 * 365 = 267,833 Therms
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-7
95% Confidence Interval: +/- 37,225 (13.9%)
9.2.1.3 Wave 3
Table 9-6 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in
the analysis of Wave 3.
Table 9-6 Regression Coefficients & Model Details – Wave 3
Variable Description Regression Coefficient
Standard Error T-Stat PR > |T|
INTERCEPT 0.47559 0.01323 35.94 <0.0001
TREATMENT -0.01002 0.00217 -4.62 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE 1.60728 0.01968 81.68 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER -0.85759 0.01615 -53.12 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER 0.20390 0.00610 33.42 <0.0001
FEB -0.07819 0.01860 -4.20 <0.0001
MAR -0.27961 0.01864 -15.00 <0.0001
APR -0.42205 0.01867 -22.60 <0.0001
MAY -0.45706 0.01870 -24.45 <0.0001
JUN -0.41590 0.01872 -22.21 <0.0001
JUL -0.39849 0.01882 -21.17 <0.0001
AUG -0.42805 0.01889 -22.66 <0.0001
SEP -0.47964 0.01893 -25.34 <0.0001
OCT -0.50084 0.01897 -26.40 <0.0001
NOV -0.31303 0.01902 -16.45 <0.0001
DEC -0.04050 0.01900 -2.13 0.033
AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB -0.35067 0.02786 -12.59 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR -0.39831 0.02789 -14.28 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:APR -0.74682 0.02791 -26.75 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY -1.26865 0.02797 -45.36 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN -1.52024 0.02802 -54.26 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL -1.55046 0.02807 -55.23 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG -1.53553 0.02815 -54.54 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP -1.47302 0.02820 -52.23 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT -1.08751 0.02827 -38.47 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV -0.86201 0.02830 -30.46 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC -0.42428 0.02835 -14.97 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB 0.33941 0.02287 14.84 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR 0.52873 0.02289 23.10 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR 0.95221 0.02292 41.55 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY 1.45174 0.02296 63.22 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN 1.55643 0.02302 67.62 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL 1.46882 0.02311 63.55 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG 1.49217 0.02317 64.39 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP 1.52497 0.02321 65.71 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT 1.22808 0.02325 52.83 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV 0.79473 0.02327 34.15 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC 0.29402 0.02330 12.62 <0.0001
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-8
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB -0.05577 0.00864 -6.46 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR -0.29684 0.00865 -34.31 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR -0.34355 0.00866 -39.67 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY -0.27370 0.00868 -31.55 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN -0.22292 0.00869 -25.65 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL -0.21798 0.00871 -25.03 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG -0.21975 0.00873 -25.18 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP -0.23125 0.00874 -26.46 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT -0.31092 0.00876 -35.49 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV -0.15290 0.00877 -17.43 <0.0001
AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC 0.02453 0.00878 2.79 0.005
Adjusted R-Square: 0.8502
The resulting annual savings are:
Annual Savings = .01002 * 21,768 * 365 = 79,615 Therms
95% Confidence Interval: +/- 33,769 (42.4%)
Group Comparison
The difference in consumption between the two groups is observable when presented
graphically. Figure 9-1 presents the monthly differences in consumption between the
two groups. Reports were first delivered in October of 2011, and at that point the
magnitude of difference in consumption increases. Further, the difference in use
between the recipient and control group are shown to increase significantly in 2014
compared to 2012 and 2013.
Similar representations for Wave 2 and Wave 3 are presented in Figure 9-2 and Figure
9-3, respectively. The impact of the reports on Wave 2 and Wave 3 is significantly lower
than Wave 1.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-9
Figure 9-1 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group –
Wave 1
Figure 9-2 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group –
Wave 2
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-10
Figure 9-3 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group – Wave 3
9.2.2 Per-Customer Performance
The change in annual savings per-recipient is summarized in Figure 9-4. Wave 1 shows
a downward trend in per participant savings starting in 2014, while Wave 2 and 3 show
an upward trend, although the differences from year to year are not significant at the
95% level.
Figure 9-4 Savings per Recipient by Year
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442
2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report
Home Energy Reports 9-11
9.2.3 Double Counting Analysis
Protocol J in TRM V6.0 specifies double counting as the difference in per-participant
other-program savings
When comparing all of the other-program-participation, the Evaluators found:
1.012 Therms per participant for the recipient group; and
1.015 Therms per participant for the control group.
The difference was less than .01%, and as a result the Evaluators concluded no double
county penalty was applicable.
9.2.4 Verified Savings
With the model output results and double count analysis, the Home Energy Reports
Program has:
828,576 annual Therms savings; and
12,346 peak Therms.
When aggregating the savings and confidence intervals, the Evaluators found that the
overall 95% confidence interval was ±16.28% of program savings.
9.3 Conclusions & Recommendations
9.3.1 Conclusions
1. The Home Energy Reports Program is providing statistically significant
behavioral change. The evaluators identified quantifiable savings at the 95%
confidence level for the recipients of Home Energy Reports. When asked to
name specific energy conservation behaviors, report recipients displayed
statistically significant differences incidence of identifying thermostat.
2. The program has not generated statistically significant increase in rebate
program participation. The evaluators found the savings to be behavioral-
based. The double counting analysis for this program found little to no increase
in other-program-participation when compared against the control group.
9.3.2 Recommendations
Based on survey data findings, the Evaluators recommend the following:
1. Consider opt-in mechanisms for new higher-use customers. Wave 1
provides 58% of program savings despite being just 36.4% of the total recipients.
Wave 1 is constituted of the highest-using customers in CenterPoint’s service
area. With this wave having reached 31.4% attrition, program staff should
research alternative behavioral mechanisms to target high-use customers that
are not currently involved with the program.
APSC FILED Time: 5/1/2017 12:07:02 PM: Recvd 5/1/2017 11:42:32 AM: Docket 07-081-TF-Doc. 442