Presentation on theme: "Experience you can trust. 2004-2005 Statewide Multifamily Rebate Program: Findings & Recommendations CALMAC Meeting Pacific Energy Center October 17, 2007."— Presentation transcript:
Experience you can trust. 2004-2005 Statewide Multifamily Rebate Program: Findings & Recommendations CALMAC Meeting Pacific Energy Center October 17, 2007 Kathleen Gaffney, KEMA Inc.
2 2004-2005 Program Background Operated in PG&E, SCE, SCG, SDG&E. Property owners/managers with existing MF properties of 5 or more units were eligible. Eligible EE measures included: – Tenant unit measures (CFLs, other EE lighting, fixtures, p-stats, clothes washers, dishwashers, etc.). – Common area measures (interior/exterior EE lighting, exit signs, high performance windows, etc.). – High efficiency heating/cooling equipment (central boilers/WHs). Program primarily delivered by installation contractors who seek out eligible properties.
3 Barriers to Multifamily EE Implementation MF Property Managers/Owners – Have little incentive to invest in EE because most benefits would accrue to tenants (split incentive). – Difficulty identifying EE opportunities. – Lack of capital. – Lack of maintenance staff to install EE measures. – Lack of time to focus on EE options. – Tenant turnover. – Turnover in management & maintenance staff.
4 Program Successes Program’s claimed electric savings greatly exceeded goals. – 104 mill. kWh claimed vs. 55 mill. kWh goal. – 17,535 kW claimed vs. 9,565 kW goal. Program’s claimed gas savings (4.2 million therms) close to goal (4.4 million therms). Relatively inexpensive to run. – Able to reach/exceed goals despite small marketing budgets and relatively few utility program staff. – Turnkey program: Introduce rebates and installation contractors run with them. Property managers received EE measures with little or no out-of-pocket costs.
5 Program Concerns Large proportion of savings in few measures. – CFLs (62%) and p-stats (26%) of claimed kWh. – P-stats (55%) and boiler controls (34%) of therms. Participating installation contractors favored quick, easy, and cheap measures. – Likely due to both property manager preference and lower contractor skill level. Rebate funds would run out quickly. – Last only a few months for some IOUs. Large property management firms not participating. Contractors often avoided smaller MF properties. Quality control concerns for products/installations.
6 Evaluation Methods Impact Evaluation – Focused on CFLs, p-stats and boiler controls which accounted for ~90% of program savings. – On-site surveys for CFLs & p-stats. – Billing analysis for boiler controls. Process Evaluation & Market Assessment – Phone surveys of participating & nonparticipating MF property managers/owners. – Phone surveys of participating and nonparticipating contractors.
7 Impact Evaluation Findings Evaluated gross savings much lower than claimed. – Evaluated kWh 35% of reported. – Evaluated therms 15% of reported. Main reasons for lower evaluated gross savings: – Estimated CFL operating hours (3.5/day) were reduced to (2.3/day) based on new research. – Tenants were not using p-stats in ways that would save energy. P-stats dropped in CA in 2006. – Boiler control savings overestimated for many reasons. NTG ratios: CFLs 76%, p-stats 88%, boiler controls 80%.
8 Impact Evaluation Findings Billing analysis found much lower savings for boiler controls than ex ante assumptions. – Gross realization rates of 12-17%. Analysis found potential problem areas: – Overestimating # of boilers used for space heating. Many just used for water heating. – Base case assumption of no boiler controls. Evidence that boiler controls may replace existing ones 30% of time. – Other problems. Inconsistent monitoring of boiler controls. Missing data on # of units in apartment building.
9 Process Evaluation Findings High levels of participant & contractor satisfaction. Efforts to reach smaller MF properties started to pay off over time. But recruiting larger property management firms remained a challenge. Successful efforts to reduce participant complaints about low quality products & installations. Mixed evidence whether program efforts to recruit “self initiator” property managers would pay off. – No evidence they were more likely than contractor- recruited managers to have diverse measures. – Some evidence they more likely to have plans for future EE projects.
10 Conclusions Program design is well suited to market barriers. – Biggest barriers were inability to I.D. EE opportunities, financial barriers, lack of staff to do installations. – Installation contractors, rebates solve these problems. – Surprisingly split incentive was minor barrier. EE measures for tenant units more popular than for common areas even when tenants pay own energy bills. New lights/p-stats seen as property improvements. Reliance on current pool of dedicated installation contractors is double-edged sword. – Low-cost, turnkey installation is attractive. – But potential lighting/HVAC savings are missed due to lack of higher skill contractors.
11 Recommendations Try to recruit higher-skill lighting & boiler contractors. – Over time low-hanging EE opportunities will diminish. Increase rebates and promotion for EE lighting fixtures. – Higher installation costs require greater subsidy. – Greater savings potential than lamps. Use more up-to-date energy savings assumptions when estimating program impacts. Continue efforts to educate, recruit more self-reliant property managers. Continue quality control efforts.
Experience you can trust. Questions? Contact: Chris Dyson firstname.lastname@example.org or Kathleen Gaffney email@example.com