2003 California Statewide Multifamily Program Evaluation

1. 2003 California Statewide Multifamily Program Evaluation Wirtshafter Associates, Inc. Energy Market Innovations, Inc. Itron, Inc. Kreitler Research and Consulting

2. Multi-family Rebate Program Features • Rebates for a broad list of energy efficiency measures installed in apartments and in common areas • Contractors reserve incentives on first-come basis. (reservation held 45 days). • Utilities verify installations, (SDG&E 100%, other 35%)

3. PY2003 Multifamily Rebate Participation

4. Evaluation Methodology • Process Evaluation and Summary of Accomplishments. • Contractor Interviews. (22) • Owner/Property Manager Surveys. (150) • On-Site Verification and Tenant Surveys. (102) • Impact Savings Assessment. • Hard-to-ReachAssessment.

5. MFRP 2002 Issues • New Program in 2002 • Serious issue of lamp quality • Large number of uninstalled or removed lamps • Many lamps put in low use applications • Low level of gas measure activity • Funds ran out quickly • MFRP 2003—Managers Used 2002 Recommendations to Modify Program

6. 2002 On-sites and Owner Surveys Revealed Lamp Retention Issues • Lamps not installed, burned out, or removed • Recommendations Made in 2002 Report • Increase utility verification • Hold contractors responsible

7. Lamp Retention Issues 2003-04 • Larger contractors resolved issues by changing lamp manufacturers, revisiting 2002 sites, and supplying additional lamps • Utilities higher verification seems to have eliminated most of the non-install issue • Managers removing poorly performing contractors from program • Problems with some small contractors re-entering under new names remains

8. Lamp Quality Was a Big Issues for Property Managers • In 2002, property managers felt they were receiving free items and did not question quality. • They ended up spending time replacing lamps • Recommendations Made in 2002 Report • Empower owners to hold contractors to provide reliable, quality measures

9. Empowering Owners • Created manual for property owners that explained program and the property owners options and responsibilities • Manual discusses both how to choose a contractor and the equipment

10. Restricting Lamps to High Use Applications • 2003 Program restricted lamps to 8-10 per unit. • 2003-04 Evaluation recommends further restriction of numbers and study of run times.

11. Reaching Gas Markets • There are no gas technologies, except thermostats, that can be given away by contractors. • In 2003, utilities did reach gas activity goals, but largely due to thermostat installations. • Need greater buy-in by owner who must contribute if larger items to be rebated.

12. Program Deserves Greater Funding • If quality issues can be resolved, program dollars should be increased • MFRP is only program reaching residential tenant sector • Market is largely uncaptured, unlimited, and non-free-rider • By definition, they are Hard-to-Reach

13. Hard to Reach Issues • Program Policy that Emphasized Serving Rural Areas was counter-intuitive. • Contractors mined neighbors--Areas served were very concentrated.(4% of Census Block Groups has activity).

14. 2003-04 Recommendations • Maintain close scrutiny of contractor activities. • Make it clear in the application that contractors who are found to not install products for which rebates are claimed will be banned from future participation. • Continue efforts to educate property managers • Dedicate more funds to applications directed by property managers

15. 2003-04 Recommendations (cont) • De-emphasize non-hard-wired solutions. • Reduce the number of lamps per unit even further • Monitor the programmable thermostat settings closely • Determine run-time of lamps. • Expand multifamily reach into geographic areas with high potential but no current activity. • Increase program funding