national grid’s new york energywise and residential ......prepared by kema, inc. february 2015 ....

National Grid’s New York EnergyWise and

Residential Products Programs

Final Impact Evaluation Activities Report National Grid

Prepared by KEMA, Inc.

February 2015

Table of Contents

National Grid February 2015 i

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1

1.1 2010-2011 Program Activity Summary ............................................................................1

1.2 Key Study Methods .......................................................................................................3

1.3 Results .........................................................................................................................4

1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................9

2. Program Overview................................................................................................................14

2.1 Study Objectives and Summary.....................................................................................17

3. Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................................19

3.1 On-site Sample Design Methodology.............................................................................19

3.1.1 Lighting (Electric) ...........................................................................................21

3.1.2 Thermostats (Gas)............................................................................................23

3.1.3 DHW Flow Limit Measures (Gas and Electric)....................................................24

3.1.4 DHW Pipe and Tank Insulation (Gas and Electric)...............................................24

4. Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................25

4.1 Lighting .....................................................................................................................25

4.1.1 Lighting Technical Manual Savings Assumptions ................................................25

4.1.2 Lighting On-Site Results...................................................................................26

4.2 Thermostats ................................................................................................................31

4.2.1 Thermostat Technical Manual Savings Assumptions ............................................31

4.2.2 Thermostat On-Site Results...............................................................................32

4.3 DHW - Showerheads ...................................................................................................38

4.3.1 Showerhead Technical Manual Savings Assumptions...........................................38

4.3.2 DHW - Showerhead On-Site Results ..................................................................39

4.4 DHW - Faucet Aerators................................................................................................41

4.4.1 Faucet Aerator TRM Savings Assumptions .........................................................41

4.4.2 DHW – Faucet Aerator On-Site Results..............................................................42

4.5 DHW – Pipe and Tank Insulation ..................................................................................43

5. Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................................44

A. On-Site Instrument ............................................................................................................. A-1

B. Energy Star Program Thermostat Phone Survey ..................................................................... B-1

Table of Contents

National Grid February 2015 ii

List of Exhibits

Table 1: Niagara Mohawk EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings, 2010-2011 ............................ 2

Table 2: Gas Savings in Downstate Territories......................................................................................... 3

Table 3: Lighting Savings Input Results Comparison ............................................................................... 5

Table 4: CFL Per Unit Net Program Impacts............................................................................................ 5

Table 5: Lighting Saturation Before and After Program Participation....................................................... 6

Table 6: Average Number of Sockets per Home by Room and Bulb Type................................................ 7

Table 7: DHW – Flow Limit Measure Savings Input Results Comparison................................................ 9

Table 8: Pipe and Tank Insulation Installation Rate Comparison .............................................................. 9

Table 9: EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings Goals versus Achievement (2010-2011)........... 15

Table 10: Niagara Mohawk EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings, 2010-2011......................... 16

Table 11: Gas Savings in Downstate Territories..................................................................................... 17

Table 12: Comparison of Sample Frame and Final Sample .................................................................... 20

Table 13: Final Sample by Sampling Group and Region ........................................................................ 20

Table 14: Final On-site Recruitment Disposition.................................................................................... 21

Table 15: Logger Placement by Room Type .......................................................................................... 22

Table 16: Final Phone Survey Disposition ............................................................................................. 24

Table 17: Lighting Short-Term Persistence Rate Results........................................................................ 27

Table 18: Lighting Delta Watts Results.................................................................................................. 27

Table 19: Lighting Hours of Use Results ............................................................................................... 28

Table 20: CFL Per Unit Net Program Impacts........................................................................................ 29

Table 21: Lighting Saturation Before and After Program Participation................................................... 30

Table 22: Average Number of Lighting Sockets per Home by Room and Bulb Type.............................. 31

Table 23: Thermostat Use by Fuel ......................................................................................................... 33

Table 24: Thermostat Use by Data Collection Method ........................................................................... 34

Table 25: Comparison of Secondary Thermostat Study Results to Technical Manual Assumptions ........ 38

Table 26: Showerhead Persistence Rate ................................................................................................. 40

Table 27: Showerhead Flow Rates and Usage........................................................................................ 41

Table 28: Faucet Aerator Persistence Rate ............................................................................................. 42

Table 29: Faucet Aerator Flow Rates ..................................................................................................... 43

List of Figures

Figure 1: Logger Installation Profile ...................................................................................................... 22

Table of Contents

National Grid February 2015 iii

Figure 2: Thermostat Set-points of All Customers.................................................................................. 34

Figure 3: Thermostat Set-points of Customers with Reported Setback.................................................... 36

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

National Grid 1 February 2015

1. Executive Summary

National Grid commissioned a study to evaluate their EnergyWise Electric and Gas programs, the

Residential ENERGY STAR®

Electric Products and Recycling program (Electric Products), and the

Residential ENERGY STAR®

Gas Products programs (Gas Products). The main objectives of this

evaluation included: a) quantifying and/or providing further documentation to support the savings claims

associated with the measures that generated the most savings, b) provide recommendations on those

measures for forward looking adjustments to the Technical Manual to the extent possible, and c) to

estimate hours of lighting use by room type as part of the concurrent regional hours of use (HOU)1 study

performed in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

1.1 2010-2011 Program Activity Summary

Table 1 summarizes the electric and gas savings acquired by the EnergyWise and Residential Products

programs in the Niagara Mohawk territory. These summaries were developed from the 2010 and 2011

annual reports, which provide energy savings based on the formulas and assumptions in the Technical

Manual. These savings have not been verified through an independent evaluation. The

refrigerator/freezer bounty portion of the Electric Products program had an evaluation finalized in early

2013 and therefore was not examined in this study. The EnergyWise gas savings are comprised of

programmable thermostats and domestic hot water flow limiting devices (faucet aerators and low flow

showerheads) while EnergyWise electric savings are dominated by CFLs and DHW flow limiting devices.

1 The main objective of the HOU study is to estimate hours of use by room type, not lighting type (technology) as many studies have done in the

past. The focus on room types assumes that people are likely to use their lights in a given room the same way regardless of the type of bulbs in

the room. This study is ongoing at this time and is expected to be completed by the end of 2013. The addition of New York brings the number of

states involved in this study to four (also including Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts).



Table 1: Niagara Mohawk EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings, 2010-2011

Niagara Mohawk Savings EnergyWise & Residential Energy Star® Products 2010 - 2011

Electric Gas

kWh % of Savings Therms % of Savings Measure Category

Electric Products Gas Products

Thermostat 15,647 0.1% 40,832 80.9%

Shell measures (Windows) 46,377 0.2% 9,621 19.1%

Refrigerator/Freezer Bounty 23,375,638 99.7% 0 N/A

Total 23,437,662 100.0% 50,453 100.0%

EnergyWise

CFL 4,108,799 43.2% - N/A

Lighting-Other 1,225,201 12.9% - N/A

DHW - Flow Limit 4,022,642 42.3% 236,659 55.8%

DHW - Pipe Insulation 160,763 1.7% 7,503 1.8%

Thermostat - N/A 180,197 42.5%

Total 9,517,405 100.0% 424,359 100.0%

Total

CFL 4,108,799 12.5% - N/A

Lighting-Other 1,225,201 3.7% - N/A %

DHW - Flow Limit 4,022,642 12.2% 236,659 49.8%


Thermostat 15,647 0.05% 221,029 46.6%


Refrigerator/Freezer Bounty 23,375,638 70.9% 0 N/A

Total 32,955,067 100.0% 474,812 100.0%

Table 2 summarizes the Gas Products savings in the KEDNY (Brooklyn Union Gas) and KEDLI

(KeySpan East - Long Island) territories. While there are some shell measure savings, the majority of gas

savings occurs from thermostats.



Table 2: Gas Savings in Downstate Territories

End Use Measure Brooklyn Union

(Therms) KeySpan East

(Therms) Total

Therms % of

Savings

Shell Measures (Windows) 715 1,998 2,713 8%

Thermostats 14,175 18,632 32,807 92%

Program Total 14,890 20,630 35,520 100%

1.2 Key Study Methods

There were three primary activities undertaken as part of this study.

• On-site assessments at the homes of 60 EnergyWise program participants, including the

installation of 320 lighting loggers, to estimate hours of lighting use by room type as part of the

regional hours of use HOU study2 and to provide forward looking adjustments to the Technical

Manual to the extent possible.

• A review of secondary research on programmable thermostats to assist National Grid in ensuring

that the assumptions and savings that flow from the Technical Manual are consistent with the

findings from other studies.

• Phone surveys of 25 Electric and Gas Products participants who received thermostats through the

program to confirm installation and assess thermostat set-points both prior to and after the

installation of the new unit.

National Grid and DNV KEMA discussed the inclusion of net factors (free ridership and spillover) as part

of this study. We decided not explore net-to-gross (NTG) factors as part of this study for the following

reasons:

• We believe that NTG factors for multifamily direct install CFLs, aerators and showerheads are

being examined by ERS as part of their contract with Consolidated Edison and Orange and

Rockland. While this study may not be definitive, it will provide alternative NTG factors for

possible inclusion in the NY TM.

• The largest producer of electric savings in the EnergyWise and Energy Star programs is CFL

lighting. Recent CFL lighting evaluation efforts have identified many challenges to studying and

quantifying NTG that have been difficult to overcome despite extensive examination and funding.

Challenges include the nature and constantly changing dynamics of the CFL market (especially

with the burgeoning LED market), the lack of comparison areas as CFLs have become increasing

2 The HOU study included the installation of 4,642 loggers in 848 homes in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York (excluding Nassau and

Suffolk counties), and Rhode Island.



ubiquitous and the difficulty participants have in providing reliable self-reports around CFL

purchasing decisions and behaviors.

• The largest producers of natural gas savings in the EnergyWise and Energy Star programs are

from aerators, showerheads and thermostats. However, the combined savings from these

measures represent 10% of the total natural gas savings that are being evaluated in other work

scopes that KEMA and National Grid have submitted to the DPS.

We also believe that a statewide study of spillover is being considered at this time. Particularly for non-

participant spillover, we believe a statewide study makes a great deal of sense since it is typically assessed

at the market level. Such an approach would likely be more cost effective due to cost sharing for a study

that could provide market level results.

1.3 Results

This section presents the overall results of the evaluation followed by a summary of recommendations.

The results and recommendations rest upon the findings of this study and DNV KEMA’s vast experience

performing on-site visits and lighting logger studies, secondary research reviews, and telephone surveys.

Lighting Results

Table 3 provides the current Technical Manual lighting inputs and compares them to the evaluation

results based on the performance of 60 on-site visits to EnergyWise participant homes. Although the

evaluation persistence rate was 86.7%, it is important to remember the on-site visits occurred two years

after installation. The pre to post wattage ratio used in the delta watts calculation in the Technical Manual

decreased by 0.19 (or 7.5%) due to program CFLs replacing lower wattage incandescent bulbs than

assumed; based on customer-reported baseline wattages. A contributor to this decrease in delta watts may

be the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). On January 1, 2012, EISA legislation

began phasing out 100-watt incandescent bulbs and on January 1, 2013, 75-watt incandescents were

phased out. While the existing inventory of these bulbs could still be sold in stores, no new shipments

could be made as of these dates. On January 1, 2014, 60-watt incandescents will also be phased out.

The hours of use and coincidence factor results are based on the HOU study findings3, which reported 2.3

hours per day with ±3.7% precision at the 90% confidence interval. The summer coincidence factor was

calculated to be 14% with ±7.1% precision at the 90% confidence interval, while the winter coincidence

factor is 18% with ±5.6% precision at the 90% confidence interval.

3 Northeast Residential Lighting Hours-of-Use Study FINAL, NMR Group, Inc. and DNV GL, May 5, 2014, Hours of use results can be found in

Table ES-1 on page IX and coincidence factor results can be found in Table 4-3 on page 65.



Table 3: Lighting Savings Input Results Comparison

Input Technical Manual/Tracking

System Evaluation Precision at 90%

Confidence Interval

In-Service Rate

Not provided although believed to assume a 100% in-service rate because EnergyWise is a direct-install program.

Short Term Persistence Rate: 86.7% (n=518)

±2.8%

Delta Watts (Pre to Post Wattage Factor)

2.53 2.34 (n=449) ±2.3%

Hours of Use 3.2 hours per day 2.3 hours/day (n=4,642) ±3.7%

Summer Coincidence Factor

0.08 0.14 ±7.1%

Winter Coincidence Factor

0.30 0.18 ±5.6%

We are able to calculate a gross realization rate at the CFL unit level based on the hours of use, installed

average CFL wattage (16.8 watts), and a delta watt factor. In Table 4 we calculate an ex post tracked per

CFL unit annual kWh savings estimate of 33.0 kWh4 with an associated gross realization rate of 66.5%.

We did not address net to gross in this study and as such have reflected the current assumption in the

Technical Manual in this table (0.90). The kW realization rate is calculated using the installed average

CFL wattage and hours of use and the delta watt factor.

Table 4: CFL Per Unit Net Program Impacts

Parameter Electric Energy (kWh/yr/unit)

Electric Demand (W/unit)

Ex Ante Tracked Savings 49.6* 42.5*

Ex Post Tracked Savings 33.0 39.3

Evaluation Realization Rate (RR) 66.5% 92.5%

Evaluation Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTG) 0.90 0.90

Ex Post Net Impact Realization Rate (RR) 59.9% 83.2%

*Weighted average calculated based upon the watts of program installed CFLs from the on-site sample, the current TM CFL to baseline

factor (2.53) and the current TM CFL Hours of Use estimate (3.2 hours/day). Weighted average kW calculated based upon the watts of program installed CFLs from the on-site sample and the current TM CFL to baseline factor (2.53).

Although CFL saturation is not a savings input, it was calculated through the use of the HOU study on-

site protocol. Table 5 shows the lighting saturation in the 60 participating homes before and after they

4 Calculated from the product of the delta watts factor (2.34), annual hours of use (2.3 x 365 = 839.5), and CFL wattage (16.8) and dividing it by

1,000 to convert from kilowatts to watts.



participated in the program based on customer self-reported baseline bulb types. As the table shows, the

EnergyWise Program increased the CFL saturation in the sampled homes from 20.7% to 59.9%.

Before program participation, approximately 70% of the sockets in the sampled homes contained an

incandescent bulb, while only 21% contained a CFL. After participating in the program, almost 60%

contained CFLs, while only 31% contained incandescents. Of the remaining 9% of sockets, 7.6% contain

fluorescent bulbs, 1.0% contains halogen bulbs, 0.3% were empty and 0.2% contained LEDs.

Table 5: Lighting Saturation Before and After Program Participation

Before Program After Program Bulb Type

Quantity % of Total

Quantity % of Total

CFL 234 20.7% 679 59.9%

Incandescent 797 70.3% 352 31.1%

Tube Fluorescent 86 7.6% 86 7.6%

Halogen 11 1.0% 11 1.0%

Empty 3 0.3% 3 0.3%

LED 2 0.2% 2 0.2%

Total 1,133 100.0% 1,133 100.0%

Table 6 presents the average number of bulbs by room and bulb type. The average home visited in the

sample was found to have 18.9 sockets; 18.8 on the interior and 0.1 on the exterior. By bulb type, the

average home in the sample had 11.3 CFLs (7.5 program CFLs and 3.8 non-program CFLs), 5.9

incandescent bulbs, 1.4 fluorescents, 0.2 halogens, and 0.03 LEDs.



Table 6: Average Number of Sockets per Home by Room and Bulb Type

Mean % Program

CFLs % Non-Program

CFLs Location/Type

18.9 39.6% 20.3%

By Area

Interior 18.8 39.7% 20.2%

Exterior 0.1 25.0% 50.0%

By Room

Bathrooms 4.8 71.9% 13.5%

Bedrooms 3.9 14.5% 31.6%

Kitchen 3.1 36.6% 12.6%

Living Room 2.4 13.4% 40.8%

Dining Room 2.0 47.1% 11.6%

Hallway/Foyer 1.8 42.2% 15.6%

Closets 0.4 42.3% 11.5%

Office/Den 0.4 21.7% 0.0%

Other 0.1 66.7% 0.0%

By Bulb Type

Program CFLs 7.5

Incandescent 5.9

Non-Program CFLs 3.8

Tube Fluorescent 1.4

Halogen 0.2

Empty Sockets 0.05

LEDs 0.03

Thermostat Results

Although it is not provided, the Technical Manual likely assumes that the thermostat in-service rate is

100% because EnergyWise is a direct-install program. According to the tracking system, the on-site

sample received 32 program thermostats. All 32 units were found installed and operating at the time of

the on-site visits.

Due to the fact that other studies have often found lower than anticipated savings from programmable

thermostats, this study focused on understanding how people are using their programmable thermostats

and how their behavior has varied from how they used their old thermostats. The following bullets

provide the evaluation results related to customer use of the thermostats that they received through the

program.

• In the phone and on-sites, we were able to gather operating schedules and use of 63 thermostats

(58 controlling gas heat and five controlling electric heat) received through the program. Of these



units, 33 (30 gas and 3 electric) were programmed with a winter schedule and 21 of these (19 gas

and 2 electric) were programmed with a winter schedule that is different from the schedule used

with customers’ previous thermostats.

• Thirty eight programmable thermostats were assessed in the on-site and phone survey samples.

Thirteen of these (34.2%) were programmed with a summer schedule. Eight of the 38 units

(21.1%) were programmed with a summer schedule that is different from the schedule used with

customers’ previous thermostats.

• Secondary Research: “Few households use programmable thermostats in a manner that might be

associated with energy savings.” This study also found that “17.2% (of customers) did not have

their programmable thermostat programmed, 12.4% had a programmable thermostat before the

new one was installed, and 69.1% either overrode their programmable thermostat settings two or

more times per week or had turned their programmable thermostat off. Only nine respondents, or

1.3%, gave responses that might result in savings as a result of the thermostat installation.”5

• Secondary Research: The Massachusetts Wi-Fi study concluded that very few electric-heated

homes use the set-point functionality, which likely accounted for the low savings estimates.6

DHW –Flow Limit Measure Results

Table 7 provides the current Technical Manual showerhead and faucet aerator inputs and compares them

to the evaluation results. To better understand baseline flow rate in this evaluation, the flow rate of

showerheads and faucet aerators not replaced through the program were gathered. The table presents the

averages of these results.

5http://www.calmac.org/publications/1118-04_MultiFamily_Rebate_evaluaton_-_Volume_I.pdf. 6http://www.ma-eeac.org/Docs/8.1_EMV%20Page/2012/2012%20Residential%20Studies/MA%20RRLI%20-

%202011%20NGRID%202011%20Wi-Fi%20Thermostat%20Pilot%20Evaluation_Final_04SEP2012.pdf.



Table 7: DHW – Flow Limit Measure Savings Input Results Comparison

Input Technical Manual/Tracking System Evaluation Precision at 90%

Confidence Interval

Low Flow Showerheads Only

Installation Rate Not provided although believed to

assume a 100% in-service rate because EnergyWise is a direct-install program.

Short Term Persistence: 80.4%

(n=51) ±11.5%

Baseline Flow Rate (gpm)

3.25 gpm Untreated units

observed on-site: 2.51 gpm (n=22)

±0.7%

Installed Flow Rate (gpm)

Follows program tracking data on rebated showerhead flow rate.

1.75 gpm (n=41) ±0.0%

Showers Taken/Day

2.0 1.7 (n=60) ±12.0%

Low Flow Faucet Aerators Only

In-Service Rate Not provided although believed to

assume a 100% in-service rate because EnergyWise is a direct-install program.

Short Term Persistence: 90.4%

(n=114) ±7.1%

Baseline Flow Rate (gpm)

2.2 gpm Untreated units

observed on-site: 2.00 gpm (n=29)

±0.0%

Installed Flow Rate (gpm)

Follows program tracking data on rebated showerhead flow rate.

1.50 gpm (n=103) ±0.0%

Low Flow Showerheads and Low Flow Faucet Aerators

Electric Water Heater Efficiency

0.97 0.98 (n=19) ±0.0%

Gas Water Heater Efficiency

0.75 0.77 (n=5) ±1.6%

DHW – Pipe and Tank Insulation Results

Table 8 compares the assumed Technical Manual pipe and tank insulation installations rates and

compares them to the evaluation results.

Table 8: Pipe and Tank Insulation Installation Rate Comparison

Input Technical Manual/Tracking System Evaluation Precision at 90%

Confidence Interval

Pipe Insulation In-Service Rate


Short Term Persistence: 100.0% (n=18)

±0.0%

Tank Insulation In-Service Rate


Short Term Persistence: 100.0% (n=5)

±0.0%

1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The EnergyWise and Residential Products study was largely designed to focus on assessing Technical

Manual inputs as a piggyback effort to the ongoing regional HOU study. In this manner, while we can



compare and contrast our findings with the current Technical Manual, we are not able to provide a revised

or adjusted impact estimate of gross savings. At this time, we are not sure of the process in which the

DPS and other stakeholders will consider and undertake revisions to the Technical Manual. While we

suggest consideration of Technical Manual input adjustments based upon this study, it is important to

note that we do not recommend any changes to the formulas that National Grid using to calculate their

claimed savings.

In this section, we present some recommendations for consideration with the understanding that there

may be studies from other NY energy program implementers that might or might not support the findings

here and that a possible outcome of this study is that the results are deemed appropriate for a narrow

application as opposed to a general one. In this case, this might mean application to direct install

programs for specific findings with one possibility being application exclusively to the National Grid

EnergyWise and/or Residential Product program savings.

Technical Manual savings input items that are consistent with the findings from this study that do not

warrant consideration for Technical Manual changes include:

• Our findings on lighting measures suggest that the implied EnergyWise Technical Manual in-

service rate of 100% remains appropriate. The EnergyWise Program is a direct-install program,

for which our study observed an 86.7% short term lighting persistence rate upon two years of

installation. The program currently performs QA/QC to ensure measures are installed at the time

of program participation and our findings seem to suggest a natural failure rate, so we believe

100% in-service rate remains appropriate for use in the Technical Manual.

• Water heater efficiencies assumed for DHW Flow Limit Measures in the Technical Manual

appear reasonable. Despite the small sample size, the current assumed DHW system efficiencies

of 0.97 for electric and 0.75 for gas are nearly the same as those observed in this study (0.98 for

electric and 0.77 for gas).

• Pipe and tank insulation installation rates were observed to be 100% in this study, as assumed in

the Technical Manual.

• The installed flow rate for both showerheads and faucet aerators should continue to follow

program tracking data on rebated units, as every program installed showerhead found during the

on-sites had a flow rate of 1.75 gpm and every program installed aerator found during the on-sites

had a flow rate of 1.5 gpm.

• The assumed number of showers taken per day in our study was reported to be 1.7, which

suggests the current assumption of 2.0 remains reasonable.

• All thermostats purchased through the Residential Products channel or received through the

EnergyWise Program were reported or otherwise found to be installed. We suggest that the



currently assumed 100% installation rate in the Technical Manual for this measure continue to be

used.

• The heating ESF7 in the Technical Manual as derived from the Gas Networks study appears

reasonable to continue utilizing in the savings calculations. We do suspect that it is at the high

end of what might be expected as our assessment of this input is based upon self -reported

temperature changes that might be prone to recall issues, overstatement and not reflect override

tendencies.

Technical Manual savings input items that might be considered for adjustment based on the findings from

this study include:

Lighting

• This study calculated a pre to post wattage factor of 2.34 (±2.3% at 90% confidence interval) with

a lower bound of 2.29 and an upper bound of 2.40. Our findings suggest that the 2.53 factor used

in the delta watts calculation in the Technical Manual should be considered for revision as this

study result is statistically different. The study ratio is estimated from the on-sites which were

performed at homes that participated in a direct install program, which may differ from more

general CFL lighting installation applications. Therefore, we suggest assessing this result against

inputs gathered as part of future studies and making adjustments based on collective results that

utilize this studies observation as a part of that assessment. Alternatively, the Technical Manual

might be revised to accommodate pre to post wattage ratios for direct install versus other program

channels.

• Based on the HOU study results and the room distribution of installed EnergyWise Program

CFLs, a weighted daily HOU average of 2.3 (840 hours annually) was calculated (±3.7% at 90%

confidence interval) with a lower bound of 2.2 and an upper bound of 2.4. These results suggest

that the current assumption of 3.2 hours per day (1,168 hours annually) in the Technical Manual

be considered for revision.

Showerheads

• In our site work, we noted that roughly 14% of the showerheads received by the sample were

removed because customers were not happy with their flow rate. While this might be regarded as

a persistence issue, we believe that given the nature of the cause of removal, this result warrants

consideration of an adjustment to the assumed in-service rate from 100.0% to 86%.

7 The ratio of energy savings resulting from the installation of a programmable setback thermostat to the annual heating (or cooling)

energy.



• In our site work, we noted that untreated showerheads in participating homes had an average flow

rate of 2.51 gpm. The Technical Manual assumes a baseline of 3.25 gpm. We are unable to

refute the current TM assumed baseline of 3.25 based on information from this study. However,

there is evidence that the TM assumption may be overstated as it is based upon an outdated study

and recommend that National Grid exercise opportunities to gather residential baseline

showerhead flow rates as part of any future studies to help further the determination of an

appropriate TM baseline rate. In the interim, we recommend that National Grid utilize the actual

flow rates of removed units to calculate showerhead savings. The current federal regulation

mandates that that new showerhead flow rates cannot exceed 2.5 gpm, which is consistent with

our observed untreated showerhead findings. Additional evidence that the marketplace baseline

is evolving in a manner that is consistent with this mandate may warrant a future TM adjustment.

Thermostats

• Our data collection and secondary research suggests that the 3 degree assumption driving the

cooling ESF in the Technical Manual may be overstated. Our findings suggest that the use of a

more moderate 2 degree setback in the modeling performed to support the cooling ESF would be

more reasonable.

Broad Conclusions and Recommendations

In the section above, we provide specific results and recommendations. If we were to interpret the

impacts of the study results in energy savings, our findings suggest some uneven performance among

measures of interest as supported through comparisons of study findings to assumptions and inputs

contained the Technical Manual. Based upon the evidence built up from these study efforts, the

EnergyWise lighting savings flowing from the Technical Manual are likely overstated along with the

cooling savings from programmable thermostats. There is also evidence to suggest that showerhead

savings may be overstated. To alleviate this concern, we recommend that National Grid use site specific

flow rates of removed units in the savings calculation. The measures that we believe are returning

accurate impacts based on the Technical Manual include faucet aerators and heating savings impacts from

thermostats, as the findings from our study are generally aligned with those from the Technical Manual

from which National Grid is currently calculating savings estimates.

This study is different from a traditional impact study in that we have not developed specific realization

rates for the all of measures examined8, but rather applied varying levels of rigor to assessing the inputs

used in the savings calculations. We believe studies of this nature can be valuable in environments with

technical manuals that are collectively derived, exercised and updated in states and regions where similar

8 This study was only able to calculate a realization rate for lighting.



evaluation activities can occur concurrently. This study was built upon a larger regional HOU study

designed to rigorously assess one of the most uncertain inputs to one of the most important residential

measures installed (lighting). As such, this study was able to gather information on other measures of

interest as part of the larger study as well as perform more narrow independent efforts designed to cover

remaining measure gaps. This effort allowed us to efficiently gather data to compare and contrast with

the inputs and assumptions from the Technical Manual. The final result is the ability to maximize

evaluation dollars and build evidence around key inputs that might be considered as part of refining the

Technical Manual and associated prospective savings. We recommend that any future studies in New

York that occur in the residential sector continue the spirit of gathering information available on baseline

or installed conditions for use in building evidence and support for confirmation or disconfirmation of the

Technical Manual inputs and assumptions.


DNV KEMA February 2015

14

2. Program Overview

The EnergyWise Electric and Gas programs operate in the Niagara Mohawk service territory. This

program targets multifamily buildings with five to fifty dwellings and is delivered by two primary

vendors that work in partnership. Program participants are provided comprehensive energy use

assessments and financial incentives for actions that will improve the electric energy efficiency of

multifamily buildings. The Residential Energy Star® Electric and Recycling program targeted customers

who heat or centrally cool their homes with electricity, and offers financial incentives for the installation

of Energy Star® labeled replacement windows and 7-day programmable thermostats. The program also

offered the removal and proper recycling of functioning secondary refrigerators. The Residential Energy

Star® Gas Products program target customers who heat their homes with natural gas, and offers financial

incentives for the installation of Energy Star® labeled replacement windows and 7-day programmable

thermostats.

These programs have been implemented since 2009 and most of them have been authorized to continue

operating it through 2015 by the PSC9. Only the Energy Star® Electric Products and Recycling Program

was not approved past calendar year 2012. These programs are overseen by National Grid and

implemented by vendors selected through a competitive bidding process. These programs can largely be

considered as resource acquisition programs; hence a focus on evaluating direct energy savings as a result

of program installations. Table 9 summarizes each program’s combined goals and achievements as

captured in the 2010 and 2011 annual reports, which provide energy savings based on the formulas and

assumptions in the Technical Manual. These savings have not been verified through an independent

evaluation.

Across 2010 and 2011, the EnergyWise program overachieved on its gas and electric savings goals with

lower cost than budgeted. The Niagara Mohawk Residential Energy Star® Electric Products and

Recycling Program largely met its electric savings goal. The Niagara Mohawk Residential Energy Star®

Gas Products program fell short on the gas goal. Downstate, the combined territories of Brooklyn Union

(BUG) and KeySpan East fell short of the savings and participant goals.

9 Order Authorizing Efficiency Programs, Revising Incentive Mechanism, and Establishing a Surcharge Schedule, Issued and Effective October

25, 2011.



15

Table 9: EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings Goals versus Achievement (2010-2011)

Achieved Goal Parameter

Elec Gas Elec Gas

EnergyWise (Niagara Mohawk)

Participants (n) 5,432 1,189 5,600 3,600

Net first-year annual (MWh/therms) 8,565 381,923 2,606 317,520

Cost w/o shareholder incentive ($) 2,024,681 1,144,764 2,030,692 2,163,848

Residential Energy Star® Electric Products and Recycling and Gas Products

(Niagara Mohawk)

Participants (n) 17,001 1,099 40,451 1,315

Net first-year annual (MWh/therms) 21,097 45,408 22,767 83,588

Cost w/o shareholder incentive ($) 3,039,656 154,450 9,502,500 215,837

Residential Energy Star® Gas Products (BUG, KeySpan East)

Participants (n) N/A 809 N/A 1,788

Net first-year annual (MWh/therms) N/A 31,968 N/A 83,720

Cost w/o shareholder incentive ($) N/A 535,672 N/A 156,500

National Grid’s gas service territory overlaps with approximately one-third of their electric territory in

upstate New York. Table 10 summarizes the electric and gas savings acquired by the EnergyWise,

Residential Energy Star ® Electric Products and Recycling and Residential Energy Star ® Gas Products

programs in the Niagara Mohawk territory. Measures provided through the EnergyWise programs are

contractor installed, while measures provided through the Residential Energy Star Products programs are

customer installed. The refrigerator/freezer bounty program had a recently finalized evaluation and

therefore was not examined in this study. EnergyWise gas savings are comprised of programmable

thermostats and domestic hot water flow limiting devices (faucet aerators and low flow showerheads)

while EnergyWise electric savings are dominated by CFLs and DHW flow limiting devices.



16

Table 10: Niagara Mohawk EnergyWise and Energy Star Products Savings, 2010-2011

Niagara Mohawk Savings EnergyWise & Residential Energy Star® Products 2010 - 2011

Electric Gas

kWh % of Savings Therms % of Savings Measure Category

Electric Products Gas Products

Thermostat 15,647 0.1% 40,832 80.9%


Refrigerator/Freezer Bounty 23,375,638 99.7% - N/A

Total 23,437,662 100.0% 50,453 100.0%

EnergyWise

CFL 4,108,799 43.2% - N/A


DHW - Flow Limit 4,022,642 42.3% 236,659 55.8%


Thermostat - N/A 180,197 42.5%

Total 9,517,405 100.0% 424,359 100.0%

Total

CFL 4,108,799 12.5% - N/A


DHW - Flow Limit 4,022,642 12.2% 225,506 48.4%


Thermostat 15,647 0.05% 221,029 47.4%


Refrigerator/Freezer Bounty 23,375,638 70.9% - N/A

Total 32,955,067 100.0% 474,812 100.0%

Table 11 summarizes the Residential Energy Star gas savings in the KEDNY (Brooklyn Union Gas) and

KEDLI (KeySpan East - Long Island) territories. While there is some shell measure savings, the majority

of gas savings occurs from thermostats.



17

Table 11: Gas Savings in Downstate Territories

End Use Measure Brooklyn Union

(Therms) KeySpan East

(Therms) Total

Therms % of

Savings

Shell Measures (Windows) 715 1,998 2,713 8%

Thermostats 14,175 18,632 32,807 92%

Program Total 14,890 20,630 35,520 100%

2.1 Study Objectives and Summary

In scoping this study, we considered the primary objective to be quantifying and/or providing further

documentation to support the savings claims associated with the measures that generated the most savings

and to provide recommendations on those measures for forward looking adjustments to the Technical

Manual to the extent possible.

As indicated earlier, the three primary measure types that are producing the vast majority of program

savings in these programs are thermostats for gas, lighting for electric, and DHW flow limit measures

(aerators and showerheads) for both fuel types. Therefore, it was decided that the evaluation focus on

these measure types.

During the course of considering possible evaluation approaches, the NY DPS became aware of a

regional hours of use study that DNV KEMA was involved in with the NMR Group. The main objective

of the HOU study was to estimate hours of use by room type, not lighting type (technology) as many

studies have done in the past. The focus on room types assumes that people are likely to use their lights

in a given room the same way regardless of the type of bulbs in the room.

In light of this, National Grid and DNV KEMA revised the work scope to piggyback it upon the Regional

HOU study. The HOU study multifamily sample design was laid out to achieve 90/10 precision by room

type within the non-high rise multifamily sector. This included bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living

rooms, and other rooms. However, given the nature of how multifamily is defined for the study (any

multi-family building with two or more units/apartments - no wall separating units from basement to

roof), we believed it was worthwhile to ensure that sufficient multifamily facilities of interest to Niagara

Mohawk were available for the final analysis (five to fifty dwelling units). In addition, a larger

multifamily sample size provided the Regional HOU Study with increased ability to draw conclusions at

the 90/10 level for additional rooms and/or specific specifically fixtures (dimmable, flood/spot, etc.) as

well as provided added analysis support should the actual coefficients of variation (CVs) prove to be

higher (poorer) than those assumed in the sample design.



18

National Grid and DNV KEMA discussed the inclusion of net factors (free ridership and spillover) as part

of this study. We decided not explore net-to-gross (NTG) factors as part of this study for the following

reasons:

• We believe that NTG factors for multifamily direct install CFLs, aerators and showerheads are

being examined by ERS as part of their contract with Consolidated Edison and Orange and

Rockland. While this study may not be definitive, it will provide alternative NTG factors for

possible inclusion in the NY TM.

• The largest producer of electric savings in the EnergyWise and Energy Star programs is CFL

lighting. Recent CFL lighting evaluation efforts have identified many challenges to studying and

quantifying NTG that have been difficult to overcome despite extensive examination and funding.

Challenges include the nature and constantly changing dynamics of the CFL market (especially

with the burgeoning LED market), the lack of comparison areas as CFLs have become increasing

ubiquitous and the difficulty participants have in providing reliable self reports around CFL

purchasing decisions and behaviors.

• The largest producers of natural gas savings in the EnergyWise and Energy Star programs are

from aerators, showerheads and thermostats. However, the combined savings from these

measures represent 10% of the total natural gas savings that are being evaluated in other work

scopes that KEMA and National Grid have submitted to the DPS.

We also believe that a statewide study of spillover is being considered at this time. Particularly for non-

participant spillover, we believe a statewide study makes a great deal of sense since it is typically assessed

at the market level. Such an approach would likely be more cost effective due to cost sharing for a study

that could provide market level results.



19

3. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation methodology was built around assessing three primary measure types, each with its own

unique attributes, opportunities and challenges. Lighting, DHW, and thermostats all had attributes

assessed as part of the HOU on-site work. This included loggers and baseline data gathering for lighting,

program installed and baseline gpm and water heater efficiencies at both DHW treated and untreated

homes, thermostat set-points and pre-existing occupant thermostat behaviors. Thermostats also had a

supplemental survey performed to assess customer set-points and use. The methods for these study

activities are discussed further below.

3.1 On-site Sample Design Methodology

The HOU on-site sample was selected from EnergyWise participants and was designed to accomplish two

goals. The first was to identify 60 program participants at which the regional HOU logger protocol would

be performed. This protocol was utilized in a total of 848 homes in the regional HOU study. The second

was to gather information on the other key savings measures for purposes of assessing the Technical

Manual assumptions regarding them. These measures include lighting, programmable thermostats, low

flow faucet aerators and low flow showerheads.

Given what we were seeking to accomplish, the most desirable and efficient sample design would have

been one that provided the greatest number of unique measure types of interest to be assessed on-site.

However, targeting only sites that received all four of the measures of interest (lighting, low flow

aerators, low flow showerheads and programmable thermostats) would have greatly narrowed the sample

frame and could have biased the results.

To mitigate this potential bias, we decided to divide the sample of 60 sites so that half (30) of the sample

had all four targeted measures and the other half (30) had lighting and at least one of the other targeted

measures. This approach provided a balance between maximizing exposure to those measure types of

interest while acknowledging and making an accommodation for the possibility of differences among

participants with fewer and/or different measure installation profiles.

Table 12 compares the sample frame and the sample design of 60 homes based on this methodology. As

the table shows, the sample was designed to represent the populations within each of the two sampling

groups.



20

Table 12: Comparison of Sample Frame and Final Sample

Region

Quantity With All Four Targeted

Measures % of All

Four

Quantity With Two or Three Targeted

Measures

% of Two or Three

Total Sample Frame

% of Total

Program Population (N=2,588)

Capital 347 83.6% 1,238 57.0% 1,585 61.2%

Central 46 11.1% 358 16.5% 404 15.6%

Mohawk Valley 8 1.9% 108 5.0% 116 4.5%

Northeast 13 3.1% 184 8.5% 197 7.6%

Northern 1 0.2% 172 7.9% 173 6.7%

Western 0 0.0% 113 5.2% 113 4.4%

Population Total 415 100.0% 2,173 100.0% 2,588 100.0%

Sample Design (n=60) Capital 25 83.3% 17 56.7% 42 70.0%

Central 3 10.0% 5 16.7% 8 13.3%

Mohawk Valley 1 3.3% 1 3.3% 2 3.3%

Northeast 1 3.3% 3 10.0% 4 6.7%

Northern 0 0.0% 2 6.7% 2 3.3%

Western 0 0.0% 2 6.7% 2 3.3%

Sample Total 30 100.0% 30 100.0% 60 100.0%

Table 13 presents the final achieved sample and shows that it does not differ from the sample design by

more than one site in any of the measure/region groups.

Table 13: Final Sample by Sampling Group and Region

Region

Quantity With All Four Targeted

Measures % of All

Four

Quantity With Two or Three Targeted

Measures

% of Two or Three

Total Sample Frame

% of Total

Final Sample (n=60)

Capital 26 86.7% 18 60.0% 44 73.3%

Central 2 6.7% 4 13.3% 6 10.0%

Mohawk Valley 1 3.3% 2 6.7% 3 5.0%

Northeast 1 3.3% 2 6.7% 3 5.0%

Northern 0 0.0% 2 6.7% 2 3.3%

Western 0 0.0% 2 6.7% 2 3.3%

Sample Total 30 100.0% 30 100.0% 60 100.0%

Table 14 presents the final disposition of the recruitment calls made for the 60 on-site visits based on the

disposition codes provided in The American Association for Public Opinion Research’s (AAPOR)

Standard Definitions.10

Based on the algorithms provided in this document we calculate a 12.9% response

rate and a 37.8% refusal rate. These are both less than desirable. However, it is important to keep in

mind that EnergyWise targets multi-family customers; who are typically renters and are more transient

10http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions2&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3156



21

than a typical homeowner. This population may also be more difficult to contact as they are more likely

to have less vested interest in the program and subsequent efforts to improve or gather further information

on it.

Table 14: Final On-site Recruitment Disposition

Disposition Code Disposition Description

All Four

Two or Three Total

1.1 Completion 30 30 60

2.11 Household-Level Refusal 75 101 176

2.21 Respondent Never Available 73 66 139

2.331 Household-Level Language Problem 1 1 2

4.32 Disconnected Number 6 8 14

4.41 Number Changed 33 43 76

4.54 Person Not Household Resident 25 24 49

Total Customers Called 243 273 516

3.1.1 Lighting (Electric)

The NY Technical Manual has CFL savings being calculated from an assumed incandescent to CFL ratio

of 3.53 (delta watts being a factor of 2.53), based upon the 2008 California Database for Energy Efficient

Resources (DEER) update. In reviewing the DEER report, we understand that value rests upon a standard

incandescent baseline. The Technical Manual lighting savings approach also uses an assumed operating

hours of 3.2 hours a day, a value based upon a 2003 extended logger study of coupon and catalog sales in

Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont as well as a 2005-2006 study on coupon lighting from Maine.

The current coincident factors in the Technical Manual are 0.08 for average summer on-peak (1p-5p) and

0.30 for average winter peak (5p-7p).

To assess lighting in this study, we utilized the logger placement protocols developed for the regional

HOU study to install 320 lighting loggers in EnergyWise participant homes, as part of the 4,642 loggers

installed for the HOU study. Table 15 below shows the distribution of the loggers installed in the homes

of EnergyWise participants by room type, while

Figure 1 presents the number of loggers that were installed by month and week for the duration of this

study.



22

Table 15: Logger Placement by Room Type

Room Type Loggers Installed

Bedroom 76

Kitchen 62

Bathroom 58

Living/Family Room 57

Dining Room 33

Hallway 11

Foyer 11

Closet 6

Other 3

Office/Den 3

Total 320

Figure 1: Logger Installation Profile

The time of use results from the loggers were examined and placed into the regional study to ensure

representation of the 5 to 50 unit multifamily complex type in addition to adding greater statistical power

to levels of result disaggregation. As part of these visits, we gathered the location and pre-wattage of the

EnergyWise installed lighting, as well as other information to support the exploration of DHW and

thermostat savings.



23

3.1.2 Thermostats (Gas)

Thermostats have been installed through both the Residential Energy Star® Products and EnergyWise

programs in upstate and through the Residential Energy Star® Products programs down state

applications. Thermostats are the only measure currently offered through the Residential Energy Star®

Products program. Thermostats comprise an estimated 50% of total gas savings from the Residential

Energy Star® Products and EnergyWise Gas Programs for upstate New York, New York City, and Long

Island. This made thermostats a particularly important measure type to examine.

In preliminary scoping efforts, DNV KEMA suggested that a billing analysis be performed to quantify the

savings from this measure. A key parameter of the thermostat savings in the New York Technical

Manual comes from a previously performed billing analysis (Massachusetts, 2007) that provided an

energy savings factor of 6.8% for heating (effectively, meaning that the savings calculated by that study

were estimated to be 6.8% of a home’s annual heating energy consumption.) However, we noted that

there have been many billing analyses performed in other jurisdictions on this technology that have

resulted in indeterminate levels of savings. While the cause of the difficulty in acquiring gas thermostat

savings results from billing analyses are largely speculative, two oft surmised causes are the improper use

of the thermostat’s features and/or the possibility that the user has historically manually adjusted the

thermostat which renders the automated setbacks no more efficient than their previous behavior.

Therefore, we decided to approach this study as a two pronged exercise. The first was to review

secondary research to assist National Grid in ensuring that the assumptions and savings flowing from the

Technical Manual are consistent with findings from other studies. The second was to examine two of the

primary reasons speculated to diminish expected savings in other studies. Specifically, we sought to

confirm installation and gather information on how the thermostat was being used from two independent

efforts. The first was at all on-sites with thermostats installed while the second was for a sample of 25

phone surveys directed at Energy Star® Gas Products and Energy Star

® Electric Products and Recycling

program participants who purchased thermostats. In each case, we assessed thermostat set-points both

prior to and after the installation of the new unit. As part of the on-site visits we were able to assess 32

EnergyWise thermostat installations to supplement the information gathered through the 25 phone

surveys.

Table 16 presents the final disposition of the phone surveys based on the AAPOR document mentioned

above. Using the algorithms provided in this document, we calculated a very reasonable response rate of

43.1% and refusal rate of 6.9%.



24

Table 16: Final Phone Survey Disposition

Disposition Code Disposition Description Total

1.1 Completion 25

2.11 Household-Level Refusal 4

2.21 Respondent Never Available 16

2.331 Household-Level Language Problem 1

4.32 Disconnected Number 2

4.41 Number Changed 11

Total Customers Called 59

The combination of these two items (secondary review and primary data collection), provided a high level

check on the thermostat savings flowing from the Technical Manual.

3.1.3 DHW Flow Limit Measures (Gas and Electric)

In our examination of the Technical Manual, the aerator and showerhead savings have algorithms that are

well established and rely upon multiple inputs to produce both gas and electric savings. We noted that

several inputs in the Technical Manual would be difficult to quantify with greater accuracy than the

assumptions currently in place11

. These assumptions are primarily based on three studies, the oldest

dating back to 1992 and the newest, and least empirical, dating to 2006. However, there were several

savings factors that we sought to update (or verify) as part of this study, including water heater efficiency

and program treated and untreated showerhead and aerator flow rates (in gallons per minute or gpm).

Number of showers per day was asked of customers.

At the 60 sites visited, we were able to assess 51 low-flow showerheads and 114 faucet aerators that were

installed through the program. Using the information gathered on-site we performed a re-engineering

analysis consistent with the Technical Manual approach to estimate overall impacts from these

technologies followed by recommendations on how the Technical Manual might be adjusted to reflect our

findings.

3.1.4 DHW Pipe and Tank Insulation (Gas and Electric)

For homes that met the sample design criteria and also had hot water pipe wrap and/or tank wrap

installed, we sought only to verify installation of these measures.

11 This includes the assumed minutes per shower, shower water temperature and throttle factor for showerheads and duration of use, number of

uses and faucet temperature for aerators.



25

4. Evaluation Results

This section describes the results of the 60 sites and 25 telephone surveys performed in support of this

evaluation. We present these results by technology below, each starting with a discussion of how the

savings are calculated according to the Technical Manual followed by our study findings. The regional

designation needed to apply the proper interactive factors associated with lighting, the full load equivalent

hours associated with thermostats, and the water temperature associated with DHW flow limit measures

were not present in the tracking system. However, even without these factors, we were able to use the

Technical Manual formulas to calculate savings that are close enough to those provided in the tracking

system that we are confident that the Technical Manual formulas are being properly applied.

The on-site survey instrument used for this study is provided in Appendix A. The phone survey

instrument used is provided in Appendix B.

4.1 Lighting

4.1.1 Lighting Technical Manual Savings Assumptions

The NY Technical Manual calculates CFL bulb energy and demand savings using the following formulas:

Annual Energy Savings (kWh)= units x leakage x ∆Watts x Hours x Days-per-Year/1000 x (1 + HVACc)

Demand Savings (kW)= units x leakage x ∆Watts x coincidence factor x (1 + HVACd)

Where,

units = the number of CFLs in service.

leakage = accounts for CFLs installed outside of the service territory which primarily occurs in upstream

programs. Leakage is set to 1 because EnergyWise is a direct install program.

∆Watts = the difference between the bulb that is installed (replacement bulb) and the higher efficiency

CFL bulb. The Technical Manual assumes this to be 2.53 x CFL wattage, which assumes an

“incandescent to CFL” wattage ratio of 3.53 to 1; based on the 2008 DEER update study12

.

12From the 2008 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) update. See www.deeresources.com for more information.



26

Hours = the Technical Manual assumes 3.2 hours per day for CFL bulbs based on the 2003

extended metering study performed in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont13

.

Coincidence Factor = the Technical Manual assumes a summer coincidence factor of 0.08 and a

winter coincidence factor of 0.30 based on the New England State Program Working Group (SPWG)

Coincidence Factor Study14

.

HVACc = the vintage and HVAC type weighted average by city.

HVACd = the vintage and HVAC type weighted average by city.

4.1.2 Lighting On-Site Results

Persistence Rate

Although it is not used when calculating per unit savings as shown in the formulas above, persistence rate

is often a primary consideration when estimating the impacts of a program. The short term persistence

rates and relative precision at the 90% confidence interval are provided in Table 17 below. Almost 87%

(±2.8% at the 90% confidence interval) of the products that were received through the program and

included in the sample, were still installed at the time of the on-site visits. The remaining 13% were not

found installed, not observed in storage or unable to be recalled by the customer as having been installed.

National Grid currently performs QA/QC on 10% of all projects and reports finding little to no evidence

of products that were not installed when they were reported to have been in the tracking system. We

believe the 12-24 month lag time between installation and our evaluation, the relatively high turnover

associated with multi-family residents and the possibility that building managers may have allowed the

installation contractors into the home without the tenant’s knowledge are contributing to the results we

observed. On balance, it seems reasonable to assume 100% installation rates at the time of program

participation, and that 87% represents a short-term persistence estimate.

13http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/publicservice.vermont.gov/ContentPages/10803351.pdf. 14http://webapps.cee1.org/sites/default/files/library/8843/CEE_Eval_NEnglandLightsCoincidenceFactorsxBuildingType_1Jun2007.pdf.



27

Table 17: Lighting Short-Term Persistence Rate Results

Tracking CFL Description

Tracking Quantity

On-Site Quantity

In-Service Rate

20W Spiral CFL 204 188 92.2%

15W Globe CFL 118 110 93.2%

15W Spiral CFL 106 80 75.5%

15W A-shaped CFL 58 48 82.8%

9W Candelabra CFL 30 23 76.7%

26W R40 Flood CFL 2 0 0.0%

Total 518 449 86.7%

Delta Watts

Table 18 presents the on-site observed delta watts (based on customer-reported baseline wattages) as

compared to the delta watts assumed in the Technical Manual. The on-site delta watts are 3.2 watts lower

than the Technical Manual assumption, which results in a 0.19 (or 7.5%) reduction in the delta watts

assumption factor (from 2.53 to 2.34). The evaluation result of 2.34 (±2.3% at 90% confidence interval)

has a lower bound of 2.29 and an upper bound of 2.40, which suggests that the current Technical Manual

assumption be considered for revision for this particular program application as it does not fall within the

error bound of the study result.

Table 18: Lighting Delta Watts Results

Tracking CFL Description

Tracking Delta Watts (CFL W * 2.53)

On-Site Quantity

On-Site Delta Watts

On-Site Inc to CFL Ratio

On-Site Inc to CFL Factor

20W Spiral CFL 50.6 188 39.5 2.98 1.98

15W Globe CFL 38.0 110 37.7 3.52 2.52

15W Spiral CFL 38.0 80 40.4 3.69 2.69

15W A-shaped CFL 38.0 48 36.1 3.41 2.41

9W Candelabra 22.8 23 28.5 4.17 3.17

Weighted Total 42.5 449 39.3 3.34 2.34

In our recent experience with lighting impact evaluations, on-site delta watts have often been found to be

lower than tracking assumptions. This decrease has typically been due to the fact that program bulbs are

no longer exclusively replacing as many incandescent bulbs as many tracking systems had been

assuming.

However, this is not the case with the EnergyWise Program, likely due to the fact that it is a direct install

program. Only four program CFLs were reported by customers to have replaced non-incandescent bulbs



28

(all four replaced other CFLs). The decrease in delta watts was simply due to program bulbs replacing

lower wattage incandescent bulbs than assumed in the Technical Manual.

A contributor to this decrease in delta watts may be the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

(EISA), wherein on January 1, 2012, EISA legislation began phasing out 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

Although less likely to be a driver of these results due to timing, the phasing out of 100-watt

incandescents was followed by a phasing out of 75-watt on January 1, 2013. On January 1, 2014, 60-watt

units will also be phased out.

Hours of Use

As mentioned above, the hours of use portion of this evaluation is based on the results of the regional

HOU study. Table 19 presents the hours of use results by room type from the HOU study. The room

level proportions of all program installations found during the on-site visits were used to calculate a

weighted average of 840 annual hours (2.3 hours per day with ±3.7% Precision at 90% Confidence

Interval).

Table 19: Lighting Hours of Use Results

Room

Number of Program CFLs Found Installed

During On-Sites

Logged Annual Hours of Use from

the HOU Study

Logged Daily Hours of Use from

the HOU Study

Precision at 90%

Confidence Interval

Bathroom 207 621 1.7 ±11.8%

Kitchen 67 1,497 4.1 ±4.9%

Dining Room 57 1,022 2.8 ±10.7%

Hallway 35 621 1.7 ±8.9%

Bedroom 34 767 2.1 ±9.5%

Living Space 19 1,205 3.3 ±7.6%

Foyer 11 621 1.7 ±8.9%

Closet 11 621 1.7 ±8.9%

Office 5 621 1.7 ±8.9%

Other 2 621 1.7 ±8.9%

Exterior 1 2,044 5.6 ±5.4%

Total 449 -- -- --

Weighted Average Daily Hours of Use 840 2.3 ±3.7%

Per Unit Savings and Realization Rates

We are able to calculate a gross realization rate at the CFL unit level based on the hours of use, installed

average CFL wattage (16.8 watts), and a delta watt factor. In Table 20 we calculate an ex post tracked



29

per CFL unit annual kWh savings estimate of 33.0 kWh15 with an associated gross realization rate of

66.5%. We did not address net to gross in this study and as such have reflected the current assumption in

the Technical Manual in this table (0.90). The kW realization rate is calculated using the installed average

CFL wattage and hours of use and the delta watt factor.

Table 20: CFL Per Unit Net Program Impacts

Parameter Electric Energy (kWh/yr/unit)

Electric Demand (W/unit)

Ex Ante Tracked Savings 49.6* 42.5*

Ex Post Tracked Savings 33.0 39.3

Evaluation Realization Rate (RR) 66.5% 92.5%

Evaluation Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTG) 0.90 0.90

Ex Post Net Impact Realization Rate (RR) 59.9% 83.2%

*Weighted average calculated based upon the watts of program installed CFLs from the on-site sample, the current TM CFL to baseline

factor (2.53) and the current TM CFL Hours of Use estimate (3.2 hours/day). Weighted average kW calculated based upon the watts of program installed CFLs from the on-site sample and the current TM CFL to baseline factor (2.53).

Lighting Saturation Results

Although CFL saturation is not a savings input, it was calculated through the use of the HOU study on-

site protocol. In the 60 multi-family homes visited from the sample, a total of 1,133 sockets were counted

for a simple average of approximately 18.9 sockets per home. Table 21 shows the lighting saturation in

the 60 participating homes before and after they participated in the program. The bulb types replaced by

program CFLs are based on customer self-reports collected during the on-site visits. As the table shows,

the EnergyWise Program increased the CFL saturation in the sampled homes from 20.7% to 59.9%.

Before program participation, approximately 70% of the sockets in the sampled homes contained an

incandescent bulb, while only 21% contained a CFL. After participating in the program, almost 60%

contained CFLs, while only 31% contained incandescents. Of the remaining 9% of sockets, 7.6%

contained fluorescent bulbs, 1.0% contained halogen bulbs, 0.3% were empty and 0.2% contained LEDs.

These results suggest that lighting opportunities among EnergyWise customers remain plentiful despite

the growing popularity and maturity of the CFL marketplace, and the program has a significant impact on

the profile of lighting installed among those participating homes.

15 Calculated from the product of the delta watts factor (2.34), annual hours of use (2.3 x 365 = 839.5), and CFL wattage (16.8) and dividing it by

1,000 to convert from kilowatts to watts.



30

Table 21: Lighting Saturation Before and After Program Participation

Before Program After Program Bulb Type

Quantity % of Total

Quantity % of Total

CFL 234 20.7% 679 59.9%

Incandescent 797 70.3% 352 31.1%

Fluorescent 86 7.6% 86 7.6%

Halogen 11 1.0% 11 1.0%

Empty 3 0.3% 3 0.3%

LED 2 0.2% 2 0.2%

Total 1,133 100.0% 1,133 100.0%

Table 22 presents the average number of bulbs by room and bulb type. The average home visited in the

sample was found to have 18.9 sockets; 18.8 on the interior and 0.1 on the exterior. By room type,

bathrooms had the most sockets with an average of 4.8; followed by bedrooms, kitchens, and living

rooms, which averaged 3.9, 3.1, and 2.4, respectively. By bulb type, the average home in the sample had

11.3 CFLs (7.5 program CFLs and 3.8 non-program CFLs), 5.9 incandescent bulbs, 1.4 fluorescents, 0.2

halogens, and 0.03 LEDs. The sample also had an average of 0.3 CFLs and 0.3 incandescents in storage.



31

Table 22: Average Number of Lighting Sockets per Home by Room and Bulb Type

Mean % Program

CFLs % Non-Program

CFLs Location/Type

18.9 39.6% 20.3%

By Area

Interior 18.8 39.7% 20.2%

Exterior 0.1 25.0% 50.0%

By Room

Bathrooms 4.8 71.9% 13.5%

Bedrooms 3.9 14.5% 31.6%

Kitchen 3.1 36.6% 12.6%

Living Room 2.4 13.4% 40.8%

Dining Room 2.0 47.1% 11.6%

Hallway/Foyer 1.8 42.2% 15.6%

Closets 0.4 42.3% 11.5%

Office/Den 0.4 21.7% 0.0%

Other 0.1 66.7% 0.0%

By Bulb Type

Program CFLs 7.5

Incandescent 5.9

Non-Program CFLs

3.8

Fluorescent 1.4

Halogen 0.2

Empty Sockets 0.05

LEDs 0.03

4.2 Thermostats

4.2.1 Thermostat Technical Manual Savings Assumptions

The Technical Manual calculates electric and gas thermostat savings using the following formulas:

Gross Annual Elec Savings (kWh)

=

Gross Annual Gas Savings (therms) =

Where,



32

units = the number of air conditioning units controlled under the program.

tons/unit = tons of air conditioning per unit, based on nameplate data

SEER = seasonal average energy efficiency ratio (Btu/watt-hour); assumed to be 10 in the Technical

Manual.

12 = conversion factor (kBtuh/ton)

ESF = energy savings factor (6.8% for heating and 9% for cooling)

kBtuhout

/unit = the nominal rating of the heating output capacity of the heat pump in

kBtu/hr (including supplemental heaters); assumed to be 70 kBtuh.

kBtuhin

/unit = the nominal rating of the heating input capacity of the heat pump in

kBtu/hr (including supplemental heaters); assumed to be 90 kBtuh for a furnace, 110 kBtuh for a boiler,

and 12 kBtuh (3.5 kW) for electric resistance.

HSPF = heating seasonal performance factor (Btu/watt-hr), a measure of the

seasonal average efficiency of the heat pump in the heating mode; assumed to be 3.413 in the Technical

Manual.

EFLHheat

= heating equivalent full-load hours

EFLHcool

= cooling equivalent full-load hours

4.2.2 Thermostat On-Site Results

In-Service and Persistence Rate

According to the tracking system, thirty-two of the homes in the on-site sample received thermostats

through the program. All 32 of these homes were found to have the program thermostats still installed

and operating at the time of the on-site visits. Similarly, the 25 phone survey respondents reported that all

31 of the thermostats that they received through the program were still installed.



33

Thermostat Operation and Set-points

Table 23 presents the results by fuel type from both the on-site visits and phone surveys with regards to

how the program supported programmable thermostats are being used. In both cases and overall,

somewhat more than half of the thermostats installed through the program were programmed with a

schedule in the winter. These rates of schedule use include those who might have retained the default

program, as it remained appropriate for them. However, only one-third of program thermostats overall

were reported to be programmed with a winter schedule that was different from those of the previous

thermostats. It is important to note that some programmable thermostats in these results might not be

used to their full potential due to its interaction with heating systems that might operate more efficiently

with less setback magnitude (e.g., condensing units).

Based on our combined on-site and phone survey data collection, we also note that approximately 34% of

programmable thermostats were programmed with a summer schedule on their air conditioning system

that would produce electric savings. Just over one-fifth of the thermostats received through the program

were programmed with a summer schedule that was different from those of the thermostats that were

replaced.

Table 23: Thermostat Use by Fuel

Fuel Total Units

No. Programmed

% Programmed

No. Programmed With A Schedule Different

From Baseline

% Programmed With A Schedule Different From

Baseline

Winter

Gas 58 30 51.7% 19 32.8%

Electric 5 3 60.0% 2 40.0%

Total 63 33 52.4% 21 33.3%

Summer

Electric 38 13 34.2% 8 21.1%

Table 24 presents the same results split by data collection method (on-site versus phone). Although the

on-site set points were gathered at the unit and phone set points are self-reported, the identification of

behavior change was self-reported by both groups. The phone sample more often reported that their

thermostats were programmed with a schedule that was different from their baseline schedule.



34

Table 24: Thermostat Use by Data Collection Method

Data Collection

Method Total Units

No. Programmed

% Programmed

No. Programmed With A Schedule Different

From Baseline

% Programmed With A Schedule Different From

Baseline

Winter

On-Site 32 9 28.1% 6 18.8%

Phone 31 24 77.4% 15 48.4%

Total 63 33 52.4% 21 33.3%

Summer

On-Site 26 5 19.2% 5 19.2%

Phone 12 8 66.7% 3 25.0%

Total 38 13 34.2% 8 21.1%

Figure 2 shows the baseline and program thermostat set-point profiles in winter and summer for the on-

site and phone survey samples combined. It includes all thermostats installed regardless of the occupants’

use of the setback features (the figure following this one shows set points for only those who reported a

setback). In the winter, programmable thermostats were used to raise set-points by an average of 0.9

degrees. The aggregated heating results presented make sense as it reflects primary setbacks during the

day hours, more marginal setbacks in the night hours and similar pre and post settings during the morning

and evening hours. In the summer, the average increase was 1.2 degrees.

Figure 2: Thermostat Set-points of All Customers

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

De

gre

es

Fe

hre

nh

eit

Hour Ending

Winter Baseline (n=72) Winter Program (n=55)

Summer Program (n=35) Summer Baseline (n=38)

1.5 oF

1.7 oF



35

The Energy Savings Factors (ESF) present in the Technical Manual for programmable thermostats (6.8%

for heating and 9% for cooling) represent the ratio of energy savings resulting from installation of a

programmable setback thermostat to the annual heating (or cooling) energy. The heating ESF of 6.8% is

derived from a GasNetworks Study that had an approximate one degree difference in set-points noted

between participants and a control group. The Technical Manual notes that the cooling ESF of 9% is

based on the assumption of 3 degrees of setback.

Examining the figure above, the 1 degree heating setback implied in the assumed heating ESF of 6.8%

appears to be consistent with that self-reported (0.9 degree) among all thermostat participants contacted

for this study, although we note that the 0.9 degree setback is self-reported and may have recall error

associated with it. The 1.2 degree cooling setback is less consistent with assumed setback of 3 degrees in

the Technical Manual, but is slightly more consistent with the approximate 2.3 degree average difference

noted between participants and control group behaviors reported in the GasNetworks study. This

suggests that the current 3 degree assumption may be a little high.

The figure below is synonymous with that presented above, with the only difference being that it is

exclusively of those respondents who reported a setback schedule different from their previous thermostat

schedule. This sample size is small for the summer reported changes, but more reasonable for winter.

This figure might be interpreted as the likely setback behavior if all participants were using the

programmable feature differently from their pre-existing thermostat behaviors. Under these conditions,

the average summer is not significantly different from that above, with an average change of 1.3 degrees

among the group, although again we note this is only based on 10 respondents. The winter average

change of 2.8 degrees among this group is more significant and is based on a larger sample (23).



36

Figure 3: Thermostat Set-points of Customers with Reported Setback

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

79

Deg

rees

Fe

hre

nh

eit

Hour Ending

Winter Baseline (n=23) Winter Program (n=23)

Summer Program (n=10) Summer Baseline (n=10)

1.9 oF

4.0 oF

Secondary Research on Programmable Thermostats

As mentioned earlier, we researched the results of other programmable thermostat (P-stat) reports and

white papers to assist National Grid in assessing the assumptions and savings which flow from the

Technical Manual.

The following studies were identified as part of this process:

• GasNetworks, “Validating the Impact of Programmable Thermostats”, prepared by RLW

Analytics, January, 200716

.

• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), “Evaluation of the 2004-2005 Statewide

Multifamily Rebate Program, Volume I”, prepared by KEMA, March 16, 200717

.

• Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL), “Measuring the Usability of Programmable

Thermostats”, March, 201118

.

16http://www.efi.org/docs/cee_thermostats.pdf. 17http://www.calmac.org/publications/1118-04_MultiFamily_Rebate_evaluaton_-_Volume_I.pdf. 18http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/11200/measuring-the-usability-of-programmable-thermostats.



37

• The Electric and Gas Program Administrators of Massachusetts, “Wi-Fi Programmable

Controllable Thermostat Pilot Program Evaluation”, prepared by The Cadmus Group, September,

201219

.

Although few studies were identified for this exercise, Table 25 compares the results from these studies to

the estimates calculated by using the assumptions from the Technical Manual. As the table shows, and as

might be expected, the realization of programmable thermostat savings is dependent on the use of the

setback feature relative to the schedule used with the previous thermostat.

The CPUC multi-family study, which reported extremely low gas and electric savings compared to the

other sources, reported that “few households use programmable thermostats in a manner that might be

associated with energy savings.” This study performed 696 on-site surveys with customers who installed

a programmable thermostat and found that “17.2% did not have their programmable thermostat

programmed, 12.4% had a programmable thermostat before the new one was installed, and 69.1% either

overrode their programmable thermostat settings two or more times per week or had turned their

programmable thermostat off. Only nine respondents, or 1.3%, gave responses that might result in

savings as a result of the thermostat installation.” As these results suggest, many multifamily customers

in the CPUC study sample who purchased programmable thermostats are either not programming them or

typically override the programming; perhaps due to inconsistent daily schedules/lifestyles or difficulty in

understanding how to operate them properly.

The wi-fi study was an evaluation of a pilot program with a sample of 66 gas-heated homes and 12

electric-heated homes. Like the CPUC multi-family study, it concluded that very few electric-heated

homes use the set-point functionality, which likely accounted for the low savings estimates. This finding

is despite the increased convenience to change set-points remotely.

19http://www.ma-eeac.org/Docs/8.1_EMV%20Page/2012/2012%20Residential%20Studies/MA%20RRLI%20-

%202011%20NGRID%202011%20Wi-Fi%20Thermostat%20Pilot%20Evaluation_Final_04SEP2012.pdf.



38

Table 25: Comparison of Secondary Thermostat Study Results to Technical Manual Assumptions

Source Methods Used Electric Savings/Unit

(kWh) Gas Savings/Unit

(therms)

GasNetworks

Study Billing Analysis N/A 76.8

CPUC MF Study On-Site surveys 8.8 0.1

WiFi Study Billing analysis

& on-sites 104 82

Technical Manual

SF Savings* Algorithm

1,963

(1,849 heat, 114 cool) 90.1

Technical Manual

MF Savings* Algorithm

1,618

(1,513 heat, 105 cool) 73.8

* Technical Manual savings assume state-wide average Estimate Full Load Hours for

heating and cooling and average input capacity for furnaces and boilers.

The review of these studies confirms that aside from installation of the unit, two events must occur for

programmable thermostats to generate energy savings. These are the proper use of the setback functions

as well as a change in setback schedule and set-points as compared to their previous use. The results from

this study suggest that one in three participants is programming their thermostat with a schedule that is

different from their previous thermostat in the heating season. This proportion drops to one in five in the

cooling season. These results are still greater than that found in the CPUC multifamily study cited above.

Despite this low incidence in programmable thermostat use as intended, the pre and post temperature

differentials observed in this study remain consistent for the heating season, which accounts for most of

the current Technical Manual thermostat impacts. This suggests that the current Technical Manual heating

ESF is reasonable. The pre and post temperature differentials in the cooling season are significantly lower

than that assumed in the Technical Manual, suggesting that the resulting cooling ESF may be slightly

overstated.

4.3 DHW - Showerheads

4.3.1 Showerhead Technical Manual Savings Assumptions

The Technical Manual calculates electric and gas showerhead savings using the following formulas:

H2O Savings (gallons) = ((GPMbase – GPMee) x (throttle factor) x (min./shower) x (showers/day) x 365 (days/yr.))

Where,



39

GPMbase = flow rate of baseline showerhead in gallons per minute (assumed to be 3.2520

)

GPMee = flow rate of low-flow showerhead in gallons per minute

Throttle Factor = 0.75 (LBNL study)

Min./Shower = 8 minutes (LBNL study)

Showers/Day = 2 (LBNL study)

Elec. Savings (kWh) =((H2O savings x (Tshower-Tmains) x (8.3Btu/gal.) / (3,414 Btu/kWh)) /water heater efficiencyelec

Gas Savings (therms)=((H2O savings x (Tshower-Tmains) x (8.3Btu/gal.) / (100,000 Btu/therm)) /water heater efficiencygas

Where,

Tshower = Shower water temperature (in o

F). Assumed to be 105 o

F.

Tmains = Inlet water temperature (in o

F). Assumed to be 53.3 o

F upstate and 62.5 o

F in NYC21

water heater

efficiencyelec/gas = 0.97 electric, 0.75 gas (standard assumptions according to Technical Manual)

4.3.2 DHW - Showerhead On-Site Results

Persistence Rate

Table 26 shows the observed showerhead persistence rates based on our on-site sample. Over 80%

(±11.5% relative precision at the 90% confidence interval) of the low-flow showerheads received by the

sample were still installed at the time of the on-site visits. Almost 14% were removed by customers who

were unhappy with the weak flow produced by the program showerhead. The remaining six percent were

not found on-site and the customers could not recall if they had ever been installed. There are many

20Lutz, James D., Liu, Xiaomin, McMahon, James E., Dunham, Camilla, Shown, Leslie J.McCure, Quandra T; “Modeling patterns of hot water use in households;” LBL-37805 Rev. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1996.

21Burch, Jay and Craig Christensen; “Towards Development of an Algorithm for Mains Water Temperature.”National Renewable Energy Laboratory.



40

possible explanations for this result including the 12-24 month lag time between installation and

evaluation and the relatively high turnover associated with multi-family residents. It is also possible that

building managers may have allowed the installation contractors into the home without the tenant’s

knowledge.

Table 26: Showerhead Persistence Rate

Disposition Quantity % of total

Installed 41 80.4%

Removed due to weak flow 7 13.7%

Customer didn't recall receiving it 3 5.9%

Total 51 100.0%

Flow Rate (in Gallons per minute) and Shower Use

At all 60 sites in the sample, the visiting technicians recorded the flow rates of all installed showerheads

regardless if they were received through the program. This information was gathered to assess the gpm of

units not replaced when gathered on an untreated unit and to verify the gpm for treated units. We also

asked customers to estimate how many showers were taken per day.

Table 27 shows that nearly two-thirds of the showerheads found in the sampled homes were received

through the program. Observed untreated Sshowerheads had an average flow rate of 2.51 gpm. The

current baseline assumption of 3.25 in the Technical Manual is based on an 1996 LBL study. When we

spoke with program implementers, it was reported that the majority of showerheads replaced had 3.25

gpm. Since 1992, “federal regulations mandate that new showerhead flow rates can’t exceed 2.5 gpm.”22

We suspect the LBL study had an average above the federal standard likely because it occurred only 4

years after the standard change. At this time (17 years after the LBL study and 21 after the federal

standard change), only one untreated showerhead in the sample exceeded the federal standard at 2.75

gpm. Program showerheads averaged 1.75 gpm for a savings of 0.76 gpm. Customers reported taking an

average of 1.7 showers per day, which is slightly lower than the Technical Manual assumption of 2.0

showers per day.

22

http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/reduce-hot-water-use-energy-savings



41

Table 27: Showerhead Flow Rates and Usage

Showerhead Type

Showerhead Quantity

Average Flow Rate (gpm)

Average No. of Showers/Day

Precision at 90% Confidence Interval

Untreated 22 2.51 1.4 ±0.7%

Program 41 1.75 1.9 ±0.0%

Total 63 N/A 1.7 -

Water Heater Efficiency

Hot water efficiency assumptions are used as inputs to estimate savings for DHW measures, including

showerheads and aerators. We sought to gather nameplate hot water efficiencies as part of our site work,

and acquired this information for 24 homes in which they were also able to be found on the Air-

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) online Directory of Certified Product

Performance23

. Nineteen of these homes had electric water heaters which were all 98% efficient

according to the AHRI database. The five gas water heaters averaged 77% efficiency according to AHRI.

4.4 DHW - Faucet Aerators

4.4.1 Faucet Aerator TRM Savings Assumptions

The Technical Manual calculates electric and gas showerhead savings using the following formulas:

H2O Savings (gallons)24

= ((Standard GPM – Low Flow GPM) x (duration/use) x (uses/day) x 365 (days/yr.))

Where,

Standard GPM = flow rate of baseline aerator in gallons per minute (assumed to be 2.2)25

GPMee = flow rate of low-flow aerator in gallons per minute (assumed to be 1.5)

Duration/Use = 0.5 minutes

Uses/Day = 30

23

http://www.ahridirectory.org/AHRIDirectory/pages/rwh/defaultSearch.aspx. 24

The aerator methodology is derived from CL&P and UI Program Savings Documentation for 2008 Program Year, pp. 157-158. 25

All aerator assumptions are based on the Federal Energy Management Program’s “Domestic Water Conservation Technologies”

which can be found at:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/22799.pdf.



42

Elec. Savings (kWh) = ((H2O savings x (Tfaucet-Tmains) x (8.3Btu/gal.) / (3,414 Btu/kWh)) / water heater efficiencyelec

Gas Savings (therms) = ((H2O savings x (Tfaucet-Tmains) x (8.3Btu/gal.) / (100,000 Btu/therm)) / water heater efficiencygas

Where,

Tfaucet = Faucet water temperature (in o

F). Assumed to be 80o

F.

Tmains = Inlet water temperature (in o

F). Assumed to be 53.3 o

F upstate and 62.5 o

F in NYC26

water heater

efficiencyelec/gas = 0.97 electric, 0.75 gas (standard assumptions according to Technical Manual)

4.4.2 DHW – Faucet Aerator On-Site Results

Persistence Rate

Table 28 shows that more than 90% (±7.1% relative precision at the 90% confidence interval) of the low-

flow faucet aerators installed through the program were still installed at the time of the on-site visits.

Seven percent were not found on-site and the customers could not recall if they had been installed. The

remaining three percent were removed due to weak flow. Like the showerhead results discussed above,

the results in this table reflect changes that occurred over up to two years after initial installation among a

transient population that might not have been home at the time of installation.

Table 28: Faucet Aerator Persistence Rate

Disposition Quantity % of total

Installed 103 90.4%

Customer didn't recall receiving it 8 7.0%

Removed due to weak flow 3 2.6%

Total 114 100.0%

Flow Rate (in Gallons per minute)

The technicians also recorded the flow rates of all of the faucet aerators that were installed at the time of

the site visit. Table 29 shows that 78% of the faucet aerators found in the sampled homes were received

26

Burch, Jay and Craig Christensen; “Towards Development of an Algorithm for Mains Water Temperature.”National Renewable Energy Laboratory.



43

through the program. Non-program (untreated) aerators had an average flow rate of 2.0 gpm, which is

slightly lower than the baseline assumption in the Technical Manual (2.2 gpm). Program aerators

averaged 1.5 gpm for an average savings of 0.5 gpm.

Table 29: Faucet Aerator Flow Rates

Faucet Aerator Type

Faucet Aerator Quantity

Average Flow Rate (gpm)

Precision at 90% Confidence Interval

Untreated 29 2.00 ±0.0%

Program 103 1.50 ±0.0%

Total 132 - -

4.5 DHW – Pipe and Tank Insulation

According to the tracking system, 31 customers in the sample received a total of 89 linear feet and hot

water pipe insulation. The hot water pipes were inaccessible at only 13 homes so the technicians were

unable to verify the installation of 42 feet (47.2%) of this insulation. The remaining 47 feet (52.8%) were

all found installed in the homes of 18 of the customers in the sample.

Only five customers in the sample received hot water tank insulation according to the tracking system.

The technicians were able to verify that the tank wrap was properly installed on the hot water tanks at all

five of these homes.



44

5. Findings and Recommendations

The EnergyWise and Energy Star Residential Products study was largely designed to focus on assessing

Technical Manual inputs as a piggyback effort to the ongoing regional HOU study. In this manner, while

we can compare and contrast our findings with the current Technical Manual, we are not able to provide a

revised or adjusted impact estimates of gross savings. At this time, we are not sure of the process in

which the DPS and other stakeholders will consider and undertake revisions to the Technical Manual.

While we suggest consideration of Technical Manual input adjustments based upon this study, it is

important to note that we do not recommend any changes to the formulas that National Grid is using to

calculate their claimed savings.

In this section, we present some recommendations for consideration with the understanding that there

may be studies from other NY energy program implementers that might or might not support the findings

here and that a possible outcome of this study is that the results are deemed appropriate for a narrow

application as opposed to a general one. In this case, this might mean application to direct install

programs for specific findings with one possibility being application exclusively to the National Grid

EnergyWise and/or Residential Product Program savings.

Technical Manual savings input items that are consistent with the findings from this study that do not

warrant consideration for Technical Manual changes include:

• Our findings on lighting measures suggest that the implied EnergyWise Technical Manual in-

service rate of 100% remains appropriate. The EnergyWise Program is a direct-install program,

for which our study observed an 86.7% short term lighting persistence rate after two years of

installation. The program currently performs QA/QC to ensure measures are installed at the time

of program participation and our findings seem to suggest a natural failure rate, so we believe

100% in-service rate remains appropriate for use in the Technical Manual.

• Water heater efficiencies assumed for DHW Flow Limit Measures in the Technical Manual

appear reasonable. Despite the small sample size, the current assumed DHW system efficiencies

of 0.97 for electric and 0.75 for gas are nearly the same as those observed in this study (0.98 for

electric and 0.77 for gas).

• Pipe and tank insulation installation rates were observed to be 100% in this study, as assumed in

the Technical Manual.

• The installed flow rate for both showerheads and faucet aerators should continue to follow

program tracking data on units installed, as every program installed showerhead found during the

on-sites had a flow rate of 1.75 gpm and every program installed aerator found during the on-sites

had a flow rate of 1.5 gpm.



45

• The assumed number of showers taken per day in our study was reported to be 1.7, which

suggests the current assumption of 2.0 remains reasonable.

• All thermostats purchased through the Residential Products channels or received through the

EnergyWise Programs were reported or otherwise found to be installed. We suggest that the

currently assumed 100% installation rate in the Technical Manual for this measure continue to be

used.

• The heating ESF in the Technical Manual as derived from the Gas Networks study appears

reasonable to continue utilizing in the savings calculations. We do suspect that it is at the high

end of what might be expected as our assessment of this input is based upon self-reported

temperature changes that might be prone to recall issues, overstatement and not reflect override

tendencies.

Technical Manual savings input items that might be considered for adjustment based on the findings from

this study include:

Lighting

• This study calculated a pre to post wattage factor of 2.34 (±2.3% at 90% confidence interval) with

a lower bound of 2.29 and an upper bound of 2.40. Our findings suggest that the 2.53 factor used

in the delta watts calculation in the Technical Manual should be considered for revision as this

study result is statistically different. The study factor is estimated from the on-sites which were

performed at homes that participated in a direct install program, which may differ from more

general CFL lighting installation applications. Therefore, we suggest assessing this result against

inputs gathered as part of future studies and making adjustments based on collective results that

utilize this studies observation as a part of that assessment. Alternatively, the Technical Manual

might be revised to accommodate pre to post wattage ratios for direct install versus other program

channels.

• Based on the HOU study results and the room distribution of installed EnergyWise Program

CFLs, a weighted daily HOU average of 2.3 (840 hours annually) was calculated (±3.7% at 90%

confidence interval) with a lower bound of 2.2 and an upper bound of 2.4. These results suggest

that the current assumption of 3.2 hours per day (837 hours annually) in the Technical Manual be

considered for revision.

Showerheads

• In our site work, we noted that roughly 14% of the showerheads received by the sample were

removed because customers were not happy with their flow rate. While this might be regarded as



46

a persistence issue, we believe that given the nature of the cause of removal, this result warrants

consideration of an adjustment to the assumed in-service rate from 100.0% to 86%.

• In our site work, we noted that untreated showerheads in participating homes had an average flow

rate of 2.51 gpm. The Technical Manual assumes a baseline of 3.25 gpm. We are unable to

refute the current TM assumed baseline of 3.25 based on information from this study. However,

there is evidence that the TM assumption may be overstated as it is based upon an outdated study

and recommend that National Grid exercise opportunities to gather residential baseline

showerhead flow rates as part of any future studies to help further the determination of an

appropriate TM baseline rate. In the interim, we recommend that National Grid utilize the actual

flow rates of removed units to calculate showerhead savings. The current federal regulation

mandates that that new showerhead flow rates cannot exceed 2.5 gpm, which is consistent with

our observed untreated showerhead findings. Additional evidence that the marketplace baseline

is evolving in a manner that is consistent with this mandate may warrant a future TM adjustment.

Thermostats

• Our data collection and secondary research suggests that the 3 degree assumption driving the

cooling ESF in the Technical Manual may be overstated. Our findings suggest that the use of a

more moderate 2 degree setback in the modeling performed to support the cooling ESF would be

more reasonable.

Broad Conclusions and Recommendations

In the section above, we provide specific results and recommendations. If we were to interpret the

impacts of the study results in energy savings, our findings suggest some uneven performance among

measures of interest as supported through comparisons of study findings to assumptions and inputs

contained the Technical Manual. Based upon the evidence built up from these study efforts, the

EnergyWise lighting savings flowing from the Technical Manual are likely overstated along with the

cooling savings from programmable thermostats. There is also evidence to suggest that showerhead

savings may be overstated. To alleviate this concern, we recommend that National Grid use site specific

flow rates of removed units in the savings calculation. The measures that we believe are returning

accurate impacts based on the Technical Manual include faucet aerators and heating savings impacts from

thermostats, as the findings from our study are generally aligned with those from the Technical Manual

from which National Grid is currently calculating savings estimates.



47

This study is different from a traditional impact study in that we have not developed specific realization

rates for all of the measures examined27, but rather applied varying levels of rigor to assessing the inputs

used in the savings calculations. We believe studies of this nature can be valuable in environments with

technical manuals that are collectively derived, exercised and updated in states and regions where similar

evaluation activities can occur concurrently. This study was built upon a larger regional HOU study

designed to rigorously assess one of the most uncertain inputs to one of the most important residential

measures installed (lighting). As such, this study was able to gather information on other measures of

interest as part of the larger study as well as perform more narrow independent efforts designed to cover

remaining measure gaps. This effort allowed us to efficiently gather data to compare and contrast with

the inputs and assumptions from the Technical Manual. The final result is the ability to maximize

evaluation dollars and build evidence around key inputs that might be considered as part of refining the

Technical Manual and associated prospective savings. We recommend that any future studies in New

York that occur in the residential sector continue the spirit of gathering information available on baseline

or installed conditions for use in building evidence and support for confirmation or disconfirmation of the

Technical Manual inputs and assumptions.

27

This study was only able to calculate a realization rate for lighting.


A-1

A. On-Site Instrument

EnergyWise Program Evaluation and Regional Hours of Use Study

Onsite Data Collection Form – New York

Customer Name: Customer ID:

Customer Address:

Date: Time: Technician:

Introduction

“Hello, my name is ________, and I am working with DNV KEMA. DNV KEMA is working under

contract with National Grid to evaluate the EnergyWise Program that you participated in.I’m here to

meet with _________ to walk through your home and record the types of lighting fixtures and bulbs

installed in each socket. [Customer should be expecting inspector]. During my visit I’ll also be

installing a few lighting loggers to capture hours of use [show customer a logger]. In six months

another technician will return to collect the loggers that I install. The loggers can only tell when a light

is turned on and off, they do not record anything else. In appreciation for your time, on behalf of

National Grid, we are offering you a $100 gift card today and $50 gift card when we return in six

months to remove the loggers. Do you have any questions regarding my visit?”

Homeowner Verification of Receipt of Gift Card

My signature below is provided only to verify that I did receive a $100gift card from the visiting inspector, as

previously agreed upon, on the date indicated.

Customer Name:

Signature:

Date:

Page _____ of ______ Customer ID: ________


A-2

Data Collection

1. Installed bulbs - Exterior:

→ Walk around the outside of the home in a clockwise direction.

→ Record information on all exterior lighting sockets.

2. Installed bulb - Interior:

→ Next, proceed through the inside of the home in a clockwise direction.

→ Begin with foyer (entry way).

→ Go through each room and part of the home systematically, in a clockwise direction (or as clockwise

as is possible).

3. Stored Bulbs:

→ Ask:“Now, I would like to see all light bulbs and fixtures that are not currently installed. This would

include those you have bought and not yet installed as well as those that were installed and then

removed.”

→ Record information on all bulbs in storage.

4. Logger Installation:

→ Consult logger installation instructions.

→ Install loggers on selected fixtures (with customer’s approval of placement).

5. After Data Collection:

→ Thank the customer for his/her time

→ Give him/her the $100 gift card.

→ Remind the customer that when we return in six months to retrieve the loggers we will provide them

with a gift card for $50.

→ Have the customer sign off on your data collection form to indicate that you visited their home and

provided him/her with a $100 gift card.

→ Leave with the customer the “Logger Participant Frequently Asked Questions” one-page sheet.



A-3

Home Schematic

- Sketch a simple dimensionless diagram of home layout. Circle the floor drawn on this page:

- Label rooms. 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor

- Clearly indicate the locations of the fixtures with a logger. Basement Attic Other:



A-4

List of Program Lighting Products

Manufacturer Model # Wattage Bulb Style Base Type

Earthmate E1552AK 15 Spiral Screw

Earthmate E2052AK 20 Spiral Screw

GE FLE15/2/R30XL827 15 Flood Screw

GE FLE15/2/DV/R30 15 Flood Screw

GE FLE26/2/R40XL827 26 Flood Screw

GE FLE26/2/DV/R40 26 Flood Screw

Maxlite SKB7EAWW 7 A-Bulb Screw




Maxlite SKB13EAPWW 13 A-Bulb Screw

Maxlite SKB13EAPCW 13 A-Bulb Screw

Maxlite SKB13EAPDL 13 A-Bulb Screw

Maxlite SKB13EACW 14 A-Bulb Screw


TCP 8TF03CL 3 Candelabra Screw or Candelabra

TCP 8TF03F 3 Candelabra Screw or Candelabra

TCP 8TF03LV 3 Candelabra Screw or Candelabra

TCP 8TF03WH 3 Candelabra Screw or Candelabra









TCP 1R2004 4 Flood Screw








TCP 1P3016 16 Flood Screw




TCP 1G2504 4 Globe Screw TCP 1G2509 9 Globe Screw TCP 1G2509C 9 Globe Candelabra TCP 2G2514 14 Globe Screw TCP 1G3009 9 Globe Screw TCP 1G3014 14 Globe Screw TCP 1G3019 19 Globe Screw TCP 1G3023 23 Globe Screw TCP 1G4014 14 Globe Screw TCP 1G4019 19 Globe Screw TCP 1G4023 23 Globe Screw



A-5

Onsite Saturation Form – First Page

CFL & LEDs ONLY

Primary

Room?

Fixture

Group Control Type

Wall-Mounted

Control?

Fixture

# Fixture Type Bulb Type Bulb Shape Socket Type Wattage Manufacturer Model #

When

Purchased

What

Replaced

Where

Purchased

Room Y/N #

OF=On-Off

Dim-Dimmable

3W=3-way

MS=Motion sensor

None=None

B=Breaker

O=Other[Specify] Y/N #

R=Recessed

P=Pendant

FM=Flush mount

T=Track

CF=Ceiling Fan

W=Wall mount

N=Night light

PT=Table

PF=Floor

EP=Porch

EPM=Post mount

EW=Walkway

U=Under cabinet

I = In cabinet

O=Other

[Specify]

I=Incandescent

CFL=CFL

F=Fluorescent

LED=LED

H=Halogen

E=Empty Socket

O=Other [Specify]

T=Twist/Spiral

G=Globe

A=A-lamp

B=Bullet/Torpedo

Bug=Bug light

S=Spot/Reflector/Flood

C=Circline

Tub=Tube

Can=Candle

O=Other [Specify]

S=Screw

P=Pin

G=GU

Can=Candelabra

O=Other [Specify] # Name Name/#

1=2013

2=Jul to Dec 2012

3=Jan to Jun 2012

4=Before 2012

(If purchased in

past year)

1=Incandescent

2=Halogen

3=CFL

4=LED

Store Name/

Type

Note if CFL

was received

through the

program.



A-6

Onsite Stored Bulbs Form CFL & LEDs ONLY 100w & 75w ONLY CUSTOMER SURVEY

Package

Group Bulb Type Bulb Shape Base Type Wattage Manufacturer Model # When Purchased

Where

Purchased Why Purchased/ Stored Type of bulb it will replace

# or NA

I=Incandescent

CFL=CFL

F=Fluorescent

LED=LED

H=Halogen

O=Other [Specify]

T=Twist/Spiral

G=Globe

A=A-lamp

B=Bullet/Torpedo

Bug=Bug light


C=Circline

Tub=Tube

Can=Candle

O=Other [Specify]

S=Screw

P=Pin

G=GU

Can=Candelabra

O=Other [Specify] #

Name/#

1=2013

2=Jul to Dec 2012

3=Jan to Jun 2012

4=Before 2012 Store Name/ Type

1= As a back-up/to replace

100w bulbs

2= As a back-up/to replace

75w bulbs

3= To have extras

4= DK/no Reason

5=Other [Specify]

1= CFL

2= Incandescent

3= Both/whichever needs

replacing first

4=Replace same type of bulb as

stored bulb

5= NA

6= Other [Specify]

Note if CFL

was received

through the

program.



A-7

Logger Information and Location Form – MULTI FAMILY HOMES

Fixture

Group Control Type

Wall-

Mounted

Control?

Fixture

# Fixture Type Bulb Type Bulb Shape Socket Type

Logger

Serial # Room #

OF=On-Off

Dim-Dimmable

3W=3-way

MS=Motion Sensor

None=None

B=Breaker

O=Other[Specify] Y/N #

R=Recessed

P=Pendant

FM=Flush mount

T=Track

CF=Ceiling Fan

W=Wall mount

N=Night light

PT=Table

PF=Floor

EP=Porch

EPM=Post mount

EW=Walkway

U=Under cabinet

I = In cabinet

O=Other [Specify]

I=Incandescent

CFL=CFL

F=Fluorescent

LED=LED

H=Halogen

E=Empty Socket

O=Other [Specify]

T=Twist/Spiral

G=Globe

A=A-lamp

B=Bullet/Torpedo

Bug=Bug light


C=Circline

Tub=Tube

Can=Candle

O=Other [Specify]

S=Screw

P=Pin

G=GU

Can=Candelabra

O=Other [Specify]

Note if logger is installed

on a CFL received

through the program.

Logger #1

____________

Living Space

Logger #2

____________

Dining Room (or

Other Room #1):

__________________

Logger #3

____________

Other Room #2:

__________________

Logger #4

____________

Bedroom

Logger #5

____________

Bathroom

Logger #6

____________

Kitchen



A-8

EnergyWiseProgram Products

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFL)

CFL

ID

Trk CFL

Quantity Trk CFL Description

CFL

ID

Trk CFL

Quantity Trk CFL Description

1 4

2 5

3 6

CFL

ID

Installed

Quantity

Pre-

Watts

Pre-

Bulb

Type

CFL

ID

Installed

Quantity

Pre-

Watts

Pre-

Bulb

Type

CFL

ID

Installed

Quantity

Pre-

Watts

Pre-

Bulb

Type



A-9

Setback Thermostats (T-stat)

Trk T-

stat

Quantity Trk T-Stat Description

Program T-

Stats

Installed Notes

Auditor Note: Collect the information below for all thermostats whether or not they were received

through the program. If a thermostat was also received through the program, collect information on

how the old thermostat was used as well.

(P)rogram

or

(B)aseline

T-

Stat

ID

Use

Setback?

Winter or

Summer

Schedule

Sch 1

Days

Sch 1

Start

Sch

1

End

Sch 1

Temp

Sch 2

Days

Sch 2

Start

Sch

2

End

Sch 2

Temp

Sch 3

Days

Sch 3

Start

Sch

3

End

Sch 3

Temp

Low Flow Showerheads (SH)

Trk SH

Quantity Trk SH Description

Program SH

Installed Notes



A-10

Auditor Note: Collect the information below for all showerheads whether or not they were received

through the program. If GPM is not indicated on the showerhead, perform a bucket test to calculate

the GPM.

(P)rogram

or

(B)aseline

SH

ID

Gallons per

Minute

(GPM)

Showers

per day DHW Manufacturer DHW Model # DHW Fuel

Faucet Aerators (FA)

Trk FA

Quantity Trk FA Description

Program FA

Installed Notes



A-11

Auditor Note: Collect the information below for all faucet aerators whether or not they were received

through the program. If GPM is not indicated on the aerator, perform a bucket test to calculate the

GPM.

(P)rogram

or

(B)aseline

FA

ID

Gallons per

Minute

(GPM) DHW Manufacturer DHW Model # DHW Fuel

DHW Pipe Insulation (PI)

Trk PI

Linear

Ft. Trk PI Description

Program PI

Installed

Linear Ft. Notes

DHW Tank Wrap (TW)

Trk TW

Quantity Trk TW Description

Program TW

Installed Notes



A-12

Demographics

1. Indicate unit type: Studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, etc. ____________________

2. Approximately how many square feet of space of living space are in your apartment?

_____________ sf

3. Counting yourself, how many people live in your home for most of the year? _____

4. Depending on how many people live in the home for most of the year, ask customer to describe

their total household income in 2011 before taxes; counting everyone that lives in the home.

a. If One � Less than $31,300 or $31,300 or more

b. If Two � Less than $40,100 or $40,100 or more

c. If Three � Less than $50,600 or $50,600 or more

d. If Four � Less than $60,200 or $60,200 or more

e. If Five � Less than $69,800 or $69,800 or more

f. If Six � Less than $79,400 or $79,400 or more

g. If Seven � Less than $81,200 or $81,200 or more

h. If Eight or more � Less than $83,000 or $83,000 or more

5. (Ask only if customer refuses to answer question 1) Does anyone in your household receive any

of the following?

a. Yes b. No

• Cash assistance from the State Department of Housing and Community Development

• Food stamps

• Medicaid or Medicare

• State Energy bill or weatherization assistance

• State child care assistance

• State food assistance

• Free or reduced school lunches

6. What is the highest level of education that the head of household has completed so far? (Read

choices if necessary)

a. Grade school e. Associates degree

b. High school, No diploma f. Bachelor’s degree

c. High school diploma or GED g. Graduate or Professional degree

d. Some college, No degree h. Don’t know/Refused

7. According to the tracking system this home uses _________ for heat. Is this correct? ________

If not, what type of fuel is used to heat the home? _________

8. Does this home use central air conditioning, room air conditioning, or neither during the

summer? _______



B-1

B. Energy Star Program Thermostat Phone Survey

National Grid ENERGY STAR Program Thermostat Phone Survey

Interviewer note: If any customer wants to speak with someone from National Grid to verify the

legitimacy of this effort, please ask them to call:

Steve Bonanno, National Grid, (781) 907-1561

Hi, my name is __________________ and I’m calling on behalf of National Grid. This call is not

to sell anything. My company, DNV KEMA, has been hired by National Grid to independently

evaluate National Grid’s ENERGY STAR program. We are conducting a short four or five-

minute survey with customers who participated in the ENERGY STAR Program in 2012. Would

you be able to answer eight questions about each of the thermostats that you received through

the program?

According to our records, you received a rebate for programmable thermostat(s) through the

ENERGY STAR Program on <<Pay Date>> for <<Amount>>. I am calling today to ask you a

few questions about the thermostats that you received.

1. According to our records, you received or purchased <<Quantity>> programmable

thermostat(s) through the ENERGY STAR Program. Is that correct?

a) Yes

b) No� Ask to speak with someone else in the home that may be familiar with the

thermostat(s). If there is no such person, thank and terminate call.



B-2

For each thermostat that the customer received according to the tracking system, ask the

following questions:

Q. Thermostat ID 1 2 3 4

2. Did you install the rebated thermostat and

is it still installed?

3. (If removed) When and Why was it

removed?

4. What room is it installed in?

**Note to the respondent that we would like to gather information on their current thermostat set points. If they have the ability, it might be easier for them to provide these straight off the thermostat if they can get to it and access it.*** 5. (For each program thermostat that is still installed) how is the thermostat is used in

the winter?

(Gather days, start and stop times, and temperature settings so that you end up with 24

hours of set points for an entire week.)

Q. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. 5f. 5g. 5h. 5i. 5j. 5k. 5l. 5m. 5n. 5o. 5p.

T-

Stat

ID

Sch

1

Days

Sch

1

Start

Sch

1

End

Sch 1

Temp

Sch

2

Days

Sch

2

Start

Sch

2

End

Sch 2

Temp

Sch

3

Days

Sch

3

Start

Sch

3

End

Sch 3

Temp

Sch

4

Days

Sch

4

Start

Sch

4

End

Sch 4

Temp

1

2

3 Win

ter

Sch

ed

ule

In

sta

lled

Th

erm

osta

t

4

6. How does this differ from how you used your old thermostat in the winter?




T-

Stat

ID

Sch

1

Days

Sch

1

Start

Sch

1

End

Sch 1

Temp

Sch

2

Days

Sch

2

Start

Sch

2

End

Sch 2

Temp

Sch

3

Days

Sch

3

Start

Sch

3

End

Sch 3

Temp

Sch

4

Days

Sch

4

Start

Sch

4

End

Sch 4

Temp

1

2

3 Win

ter

Sch

ed

ule

B

aselin

e T

herm

osta

t

4



B-3

7. (For each program thermostat that is still installed) how is the thermostat is used in

the summer?




T-

Stat

ID

Sch

1

Days

Sch

1

Start

Sch

1

End

Sch 1

Temp

Sch

2

Days

Sch

2

Start

Sch

2

End

Sch 2

Temp

Sch

3

Days

Sch

3

Start

Sch

3

End

Sch 3

Temp

Sch

4

Days

Sch

4

Start

Sch

4

End

Sch 4

Temp

1

2

3 Su

mm

er

Sch

ed

ule

In

sta

lled

Th

erm

osta

t

4

8. How does this differ from how you used your old thermostat in the summer?

(Gather days, start and stop times, and temperature settings so that you end up with 24 hours of

set points for an entire week.)


T-

Stat

ID

Sch

1

Days

Sch

1

Start

Sch

1

End

Sch 1

Temp

Sch

2

Days

Sch

2

Start

Sch

2

End

Sch 2

Temp

Sch

3

Days

Sch

3

Start

Sch

3

End

Sch 3

Temp

Sch

4

Days

Sch

4

Start

Sch

4

End

Sch 4

Temp

1

2

3 Su

mm

er

Sch

ed

ule

B

aselin

e T

herm

osta

t

4

national grid’s new york energywise and residential ......prepared by kema, inc. february 2015 ....

Documents