Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NJ Comfort Partners Evaluation Jackie Berger August 21, 2014.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NJ Comfort Partners Evaluation Jackie Berger August 21, 2014."— Presentation transcript:

1 NJ Comfort Partners Evaluation Jackie Berger August 21, 2014

2 Program Goals And Approach Cost-effective energy savings Improved bill payment Target assistance program participants Improve comfort, health, and safety Goals Joint delivery for electric and gas customers Comprehensive measure installation Comprehensive customer education Approach 2

3 NJ Comfort Partners Utility Partners 3 Electric Utilities Atlantic City Electric Jersey Central Power & Light PSE&G Gas Utilities Elizabethtown Gas New Jersey Natural Gas PSE&G South Jersey Gas

4 Evaluation Questions 1.To what extent does the program achieve its goals? 2.What opportunities are available for increased effectiveness or reduced costs? 3.How can the program be refined to achieve improved outcomes?

5 5 Evaluation Overview TrackingProcess Affordability Impact Energy Saving Protocols

6 6 Tracking System Management Reporting Operations Evaluation Information Needs Program reports Protocol savings calculations Data fields System use Elements to Review Content Quality Sufficiency Accuracy Efficiency Assessment Issues Invoices Messaging Retrieving job data Job file attachments BPU reporting Management reporting Functions Messaging capabilities Ad hoc reports require request No ability to import or export data Balancing accuracy checks and complexity Data timeliness Electronic audit tool Improved attachment feature Challenges and Needs

7 7 Process Research Background and Procedures Review Needs Assessment ManualMarketingStaff TrainingEnergy EducationData Forms Utility Interviews 6 Utilities Managers and Staff Program Design Challenges and Successes Contractor Interviews and On-Site Assessment 5 Prime Contractors Quality Control Contractor Program Procedures Data Management On-Site Observations Audits Installations Final Inspections Inspections of Completed Jobs

8 Needs Assessment 8 Service Type Low-Income Households with Bills Low-Income Households with High Bills Percent of Low-Income Households with High Bills All Meet all Eligibility Criteria Electric Baseload623,382313,33550%41% Electric Heating92,87122,41724%19% Gas Heating462,013255,52355%53% Low-Income Households NumberPercent Income at or below 225%812,370100% Heat with Gas or Electric693,60485% Direct Payment of Electric or Gas Bill730,72590% Eligible Housing Type631,10978% Meet All Eligibility Criteria503,24262%

9 Observe Systematic and consistent approach Use of detailed data collection forms Quality rating scales Experts trained to conduct assessment Quantitatively document findings Observed Audits-80 Installs-41 Final Inspections-13 9 Observation Procedures Purpose: Observe and record process Observers should not train, recommend, correct, or otherwise influence the process Observers should only intervene if they see serious issues

10 Inspect Diagnostics – Tests include blower door, ducts, safety testing, IR, and appliance metering Measures – Inspect all installed measures for quality and completeness Missed Opportunities – Identify any measures that could have been installed, but were not. Client Interview – Discussion of health, comfort, safety issues, and client-related factors Inspected Representative Sample of 288 Jobs Inspection Procedures Selected from customer survey respondents Work completed approximately one year ago $50 incentive offered to participants 10

11 Observation Assessments 11 ActionCompleteness of Inspection 1 Auditor inspected every accessible room 2 Auditor measured and recorded dimensions of building 3 Auditor did outside home walk-around 4 Auditor physically checked insulation levels in the attic(s), walls, and basement/crawl 5 Auditor talked with customer about comfort issues 6 Auditor talked with customer about energy issues 7 Auditor talked with customer about health and safety issues 8 Auditor assessed all accessible attics 9 Auditor assessed all accessible basement/crawl space areas 10 Auditor inspected the garage 11 Auditor conducted blower door test

12 Observation Assessments 12 Action Quality of Air Sealing Full Scale Exclude Safety Issues Impact Usage Scale 1 Fire rated materials used around chimneys, flue pipes, recessed lighting, etc. 2 Materials integrated with existing finishes 3 Used supply-air respirators when using two-part foams 4 Blower door used to target air sealing 5 Blower door and smoke used to verify air sealing effectiveness 6 Caulk not used to seal gaps larger than 1/8” 7 Large holes and gaps covered with rigid materials 8 Area cleaned before caulk or foam applied 9 All material scraps and packaging removed from home 10 Materials installed consistently and are uniform in appearance 11 Gloves and eye protection used when cutting, or using caulk or foam 12 Used hard hats when working in confined spaces

13 13 Affordability Research Understanding Energy Education Impact Satisfaction Customer Survey Bills USF Subsidy Energy Burden Payment Impact Findings Program serves needy households including veterans, customers receiving assistance, and the unemployed Some contractors provide more effective education than others Customers are most interested in reducing bills Small but positive impacts on energy affordability Positive impact on ratepayers, as USF subsidy declined

14 Customer Feedback 14 All Implementation Contractor 12345 Surveys97745920319410120 Provider Reviewed Energy Bill37%43%35%24%34%45% Provide Explained how Energy Use is Measured48%50% 40%47%45% Customer Reported Good Understanding Of Energy Bill78%81%79%74%70%80% Contractor Provided Written Action Plan54%58% 44%46%45% Contractor Provided Estimate of Money Savings from Actions27% 32%18%27%30% Customer Took Energy Saving Actions60%64%60%56%52%70%

15 15 Impact Research Program Data Analysis Customer Characteristics Housing Measure Installation Measure Costs Health and Safety Costs % in Spending Tiers Inspection Pass Rates Inspection Failure Reasons Usage Impact Data from 6 Utilities Weather Normalized Comparison Group Adjusted All Treated Customers with Sufficient Data Savings Realization Rates Cost Effectiveness Protocol Savings Category Treatment Group #% CFL5,10079% Air Sealing4,20165% Hot Water3,92661% HVAC2,99146% Refrigerator2,79743% Thermostat2,43638% Duct Sealing2,06132% Insulation2,02932% PrePostChangeMeasured Treatment Group Year Before Services Year After Services After - Before Program Impact and Other Factors Comparison Group 2 Years Before 1 Year Before 2 Years Before – 1 Year Before Other Factors Treatment - Comparison 2009-20112010-2012 Program Impact

16 16 Energy Saving Protocols Review and Verify Recommended Changes Protocols for Additional Measures Engineering Estimates

Download ppt "NJ Comfort Partners Evaluation Jackie Berger August 21, 2014."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google