2003 Statewide Nonresidential Audit Program Evaluation

1. 2003 Statewide Nonresidential Audit Program Evaluation Summary of Final Evaluation Report Prepared by: Rafael Friedmann, PG&E Kris Bradley & Christie Torok, Quantum Consulting

2. Evaluation Objectives • Tracking System Assessment • Verify tracking system accomplishments versus goals and evaluate tracking system content • Small Company Impact and Satisfaction Assessment • Measure first year program impact and customer satisfaction with program components • Large Company Impact Assessment • Measure program-related energy efficiency actions taken over the first two years following the Audit • Best Practices Assessment • Provide an up-to-date, prospective recommendation for the best approach to on-site audits for different sized customers.

3. Program Targets and Accomplishments • Statewide the Audit program delivered audit services to over 29,000 utility customers, with over ½ of the completed audits provided to customers defined as hard-to-reach (HTR)

4. Data Collection Summary • Smaller Customer Surveys (Less Than 100 kW) • 259 Participant / 261 Nonparticipant • Customers with Less Than 100 kW • PY 2003 Participants • Phone, Mail, On-Site, CD-ROM, On-Line • Larger Customer Surveys (More Than 100 kW) • 84 Participant / 86 Nonparticipant • Customers with More Than 100 kW • PY 2002 Participants • On-Site Only • Program Manager and Implementation Staff Interviews

5. Rates of Audit Program Awareness in the General Population • 25% of small and very small nonparticipating customers are aware of the audit program, versus about 40% of medium/large customers

6. Utility Marketing Sources of Program Awareness in the General Population • Awareness of the Audit Program in the general population is driven by the IOUs, who account for 70 percent of overall awareness

7. Satisfaction with Audit Program Elements Among Small and Very Small Participants • Satisfaction levels with the Audit program are reasonably high, but participants desire a more useful audit product (report)

8. Self-Reported Knowledge of Energy Efficiency • Participants show a measurable increase in energy efficiency knowledge resulting from the audit

9. Rebate Program Participation Levels • Audit participants purchase rebated equipment at much higher rates than nonparticipants

10. Participant Suggestions for Program Improvement • Participants want more customization in the audit reports (and recommendations), and want measure costs and rebates for use in ROI calculations

11. Small and Very Small Customer Equipment Adoption Rates • Among smaller customers, participant adoption rates for lighting and cooling, as well as ‘other’ miscellaneous equipment, are considerably higher than for a nonparticipant control group

12. Medium and Large Customer Equipment Adoption Rates • Among larger customers, when comparing participants and a nonparticipant control group, marked differences in adoption rates exist for industrial process, lighting, cooling, and gas equipment

13. Percent of Equipment Adoptions Recommended in the Audit Report • Recommendations in the audit reports clearly leads to equipment adoptions, especially for lighting measures

14. Implementation of Conservation Measures by Customer Size • Counter to PY2002 evaluation results, Audit influence on conservation measure adoptions is substantial

15. Percent of Conservation Measures Begun as a Result of the Audit • Self-reported conservation practices begun as a result of the audit ranges from 46 percent among the very small to about 25 percent for the largest customers

16. Tailor On-Site Audit Delivery by Customer Size • Program outreach – program goals should drive the focus of the outreach effort to obtain the desired mix of small, medium and large customers

17. Tailor On-Site Audit Delivery by Customer Size (Cont’d) • Site Visit – for smaller customers all audit services should seek to maximize energy efficient equipment adoptions and Express Efficiency participation

18. Tailor On-Site Audit Delivery by Customer Size (Cont’d) • Audit Report and Recommendations – tailor audit products to customer wants and needs by customer size

19. Tailor On-Site Audit Delivery by Customer Size (Cont’d) • Audit Follow-up – motivate account representatives to follow-up using job performance incentives for achieving program savings and equitable spending targets

20. Program Implementation for Smaller Customers • Overall, a direct install program may be a preferable delivery channel for bringing energy efficiency to the under 20 kW market • Alternatively, providing a turnkey program that combines Express Efficiency and Audit services may improve program results for very small customers • Outreach efforts to small customers should emphasize remote Audits • Emphasize low-cost and no-cost recommendations in Audits directed at smaller customers

21. Program Implementation for Larger Customers • Continue to direct on-site audits to larger customers • Provide in-depth follow-up services to maximize recommended measure uptake and support for the Express Efficiency and SPC rebate programs • Provide well-documented, detailed return-on-investment (ROI) calculations in the Audit report • Include significant analytic customization and site-specific research in Audit reports for large customers

22. Other Program Implementation Recommendations • Provide Audit program outreach services using previous years’ Express Efficiency participants • With the exception of SoCalGas, all other IOUs should increase Audit emphasis on the gas appliance end-use category • Use outreach or follow-up strategies to improve customer utilization of the CD-ROM Audit tool • Assess program marketing effectiveness and emphasize best practices • Consider tracking goals based on downstream energy efficiency uptake