STATE OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
*****
In the matter, on the Commission's own motion,
)
regarding the regulatory reviews, revisions,
)
determinations, and/or approvals necessary for
)
the CITY OF EATON RAPIDS to fully
)
comply with Public Act 295 of 2008
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. U-15859
SUBMITTAL OF ENERGY OPTIMIZATION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT
In accordance with the Commission's Order issued March 2, 2010, (Doc. No. 15), the
City of Eaton Rapids hereby submits its energy optimization plan annual report for 2009. A
copy of this annual report, including any attachments, is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Attorneys for the City of Eaton Rapids
Peter H.
Ellsworth
Digitally signed by Peter H. Ellsworth
DN: CN=Peter H. Ellsworth,O=Dickinson
Wright
PLLC,OU=OU,E=pellsworth@dickinsonwright.com,C=US
Date: 2010.05.12 16:05:47 -04:00
By: ____________________________________
Peter H. Ellsworth (P23657)
Michael J. Pattwell (P72419)
Business Address:
215 South Washington Square
Suite 200
Lansing, MI 48933-1816
Telephone: (517) 371-1730
Dated: May 12, 2010
LANSING 33092-11 438558
City of Eaton Rapids
Energy Optimization Annual Report for 2009
MPSC Case No. U-15859
Introduction
Pursuant to 2008 Public Act 295 (PA 295), the City of Eaton Rapids (CER) is
filing this annual energy optimization (EO) report with the Michigan Public
Service Commission (MPSC). This EO annual report consists of three
sections:
Section 1 will address the requirements under PA 295 Section 97,
Subsections 1-3 and Section 71, Subsection 3 (i).
Section 2 will summarize the EO programs implemented in 2009.
Section 3 will provide additional information and goals for 2010
programs.
SECTION 1: PA 295 SECTION 97 SUBSECTIONS 1-3 REQUIREMENTS
Section 97 (1) Each provider shall submit to the commission an annual
report that provides information relating to the actions taken by the
provider to comply with the energy optimization standards.
The CER has taken the following actions to comply with the EO standards:
Filed a 4-year Energy Optimization plan with the MPSC on March 31,
2009 as required by PA 295.
This EO plan was approved by the MPSC on July 1, 2009.
Launched energy optimization programs for all customer classes in
October of 2009.
Overall administration of the EO programs was the responsibility of CER
personnel.
In addition, an implementation contractor, Franklin Energy Inc., was
selected to implement the Residential Lighting, Refrigerator/Freezer
Turn-in and Recycling program, Business Prescriptive and Business
Custom programs.
Education for both Residential and Business was implemented by CER
in-house personnel.
Contracted with KEMA, Inc. for obtaining an independent expert
evaluation for the verification of incremental energy savings for each
energy optimization program.
Page 1 of 8
Section 97 (2) Annual reports under subsection (1) shall include the
following: (a) The number of energy optimization credits that the provider
generated during the reporting period. (b) Expenditures made in the past
year and anticipated future expenditures to comply with this subpart. (c)
Any other information that the commission determines necessary.
In the fall of 2009, the MPSC staff approved an interim report format for all the
municipal utilities in Michigan. That interim report details the energy
optimization credits generated, expenditures and surcharges collected from
customers in the past year. The end of year interim report for 2009 can be
found in Attachment A. Future expenditures for 2010 are expected to follow the
EO Plan filing that was submitted and approved in 2009. Exceptions to that
plan filing will be explained in Section 3 of this report.
Section 97 (3) Concurrent with the submission of each report under
subsection (1), a municipally-owned electric utility shall submit a
summary of the report to its customers in their bills with a bill insert, to its
governing body, at its office and on its website.
The CER will submit a copy of this annual report to the City Council, to it’s
customers through the bill insert, and its office on its website no later than April
30, 2010.
Section 71 (3)(i) Include a process for obtaining an independent expert
evaluation of the actual energy optimization programs to verify the
incremental energy savings from each energy optimization program for
purposes of section 77.
In December the CER as part of the Michigan Public Power Agency’s Energy
Efficiency Work Group issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to verify the
incremental gross energy savings for each EO program for 2009 and 2010.
KEMA, Inc. was chosen as the evaluation contractor for these 24 municipal
utilities. KEMA started collecting data in late December of 2009 and will
complete the evaluation for each municipal under the RFP and that evaluation
is attached to this report as Attachment B.
SECTION 2: SUMMARY OF EO PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED IN 2009
Residential Low Income Services
Due to the timing of our implementation schedule, the CER was unable to
contract with any local agencies in 2009 but will pursue opportunities to partner
with local organizations in 2010. The energy savings goals and the budget
allocations from the 2009 Low Income program will be added to the goals for
the 2010 program.
Page 2 of 8
Low Income Program Summary
2009 Goal
Energy Savings (kWh)
2,892
Budget ($)
1,880
2009 Actual
-0-0-
Difference
2,892
1,880
Residential Solutions
The programs below were made available to all CER residential electric
customers.
Efficient Lighting Program
The CER focused on the distribution of CFL’s to our residential customers with
the distribution to customers done at City Hall service counter with 2 CFLs
provided to two-hundred-fifty (250) of our customers free of charge.
The CER has evaluated partnership opportunities to set up CFL recycling
opportunities for our residential customers in 2010 and have selected to partner
with Michigan Energy Options who received funding from the MPSC to
implement a statewide recycling program.
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In and Recycling Program
The objective of this program was to produce long-term energy savings in the
residential sector by removing operable, inefficient refrigerators and freezers
from the power grid and recycling them in an environmentally safe manner.
Target market is residential customers who have “second” or back-up units in
their garage or basement. All units were required to be operable to participate in
this program and each customer received a $30 incentive for each unit
recycled.
Franklin Energy selected JACO Environmental as the recycling subcontractor to
provide comprehensive turn-key services. JACO was responsible for qualifying
customers, scheduling and tracking unit pick-ups and processing incentive
payments. The number of units that were picked up in 2009 was five (5).
The goal for this program was twenty-six (26) units. It was determined by the
CER that the number of units scheduled through the end of the year would not
meet the goals of the program. The decision was made to carry forward the
budget money from the 2009 Refrigerator/Freezer program budget to 2010.
Residential Education Services
One and a half percent of the EO budget was used on Residential education
programs. These budget expenditures were used to communicate and educate
customers on the benefits of energy efficiency, and load management. Budget
Page 3 of 8
funds for education are deemed to generate a proportional amount of the
required energy savings for each program year in which the money is spent.
The CER Residential Education Program was implemented by in-house
personnel and included posters and informational handouts at the front counter
at City Hall. Through our contractor, print media ads were placed in both local
media outlets and we included information on our website which linked directly
to JACO’s website. Internally, staff received training so they would be able to
respond to customer questions as the CFL’s were being distributed at the
counter.
Residential Program Summary
Overall the 2009 residential programs were successful considering programs
were not launched until late summer and early fall. The tables below
summarize the energy savings achieved and budget expenditures from the
2009 residential programs compared to the 2009 EO Plan goals. The
residential program energy savings goals were bundled together to achieve the
2009 goals. Any net shortages or excess kilowatt hours and budget
expenditures from the 2009 programs will be carried over into the 2010 program
goals.
Residential Energy Savings
Program
Efficient Lighting
Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling
Education Services
Total
Residential Budget Summary
Program
Efficient Lighting
Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling
Education Services
Total
2009 kWh
Goals
19,983
42,867
4,205
67,055
2009
Budget
1,662
5,863
353
7,878
kWh
Installed
Difference
22,050
8,239
4,205
34,494
2,067
-34,628
-0-32,561
2009
Expenditures
Difference
2,422
5,954
354
8,730
760
91
1
852
Business Solutions
The programs below were made available to all CER commercial and industrial
customers.
Page 4 of 8
Commercial and Industrial Prescriptive Incentive Program
The Prescriptive Incentive program provides incentives when replacing
inefficient equipment with high-efficiency electric technologies on a one-for-one
basis. These incentives address the first-cost barrier for customers by
providing financial incentives averaging 20% to 40% of the incremental cost of
purchasing qualifying technologies. The program was marketed by direct
contract through CER and Franklin Energy staff and the City of Eaton Rapids
website. All of the 2009 incentive payments were for lighting upgrades. The
number of customers who participated in the Prescriptive program was two (2)
for 2009.
Commercial and Industrial Custom Incentive Program
The objective of the Custom Incentive Program is to affect the installation of
site-specific and unique energy efficiency technologies and process
improvements (that do not fit the parameters of the Prescriptive Program) by
business customers that would not have done so in the absence of the
program. This program was marketed through the same channels as the
Prescriptive Program. The number of completed applications for the Custom
program was zero (0) in 2009.
Business Education Services
One and a half percent of the EO budget was used on Business education
programs. These budget expenditures communicated and educated customers
on the benefits of energy efficiency, conservation and load management.
Budget funds for education are deemed to generate a proportional amount of
the required energy savings for each program year in which the money is spent.
The CER Business Education program was implemented by in-house personnel
and Franklin Energy by direct customer contact and also on the City of Eaton
Rapids website.
Business Program Summary
The business programs were well received by our customers, however, due to
the short time period to promote programs it was more difficult to achieve the
goals. The business programs often required a significant investment from the
customer and due to the economic conditions in Michigan many business
customers were unable to fund major projects. It is anticipated that the 2010
programs will be more successful.
The tables below details the energy savings and the budget expenditures for
the 2009 business programs compared to the 2009 EO Plan goals. Any net
shortages or excess energy goals or budget expenditures from the 2009
programs will be carried over into the 2010 program goals.
Page 5 of 8
Business Energy Savings Summary
Program
kWh Goals
Prescriptive Incentive
Custom Incentive
Business Education
Totals
(spread sheet data)
Business Budget Summary
Program
Prescriptive Incentive
Custom Incentive
Education Services
Total
58,689
21,391
4,205
84,285
2009
Budget
8,057
3,080
353
11,490
kWh
Installed
22,150
-04,206
26,356
2009
Expenditures
7,526
4,656
354
12,536
Difference
-36,539
-21,391
1
-57,929
Difference
-531
1,576
1
1,046
SECTION 3: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND 2010 EO PROGRAMS
This section provides additional information to 2009 programs and a summary
of the 2010 Energy Optimization programs.
Self-Directed Energy Optimization Plan for Electric Customers;
The CER had one (1) customer that chose the self-directed option and the
respective megawatt hour savings that were estimated was 126 megawatt
hours for 2009 and 210 megawatt hours in 2010.
An update from that customer shows that the savings achieved from their
respective projects for 2009 was 126 megawatt hours.
Recovery of Costs from Customers
The CER started levying surcharges for the Energy Optimization programs in
July 2009. Those surcharges are shown in the table below:
Levelized Surcharges
Residential
Per kWh
Secondary 1
Per meter
Secondary 2
Per meter
Page 6 of 8
2009-2012
$ 00.0008
$ 04.0400
NA
Primary
Per meter
$100.0100
To recover the low income program costs from the self-directed customers the
levelized charges to Primary customers will be $8.56 per meter per month.
Coordination of Energy Optimization Programs;
The CER has and will continue to meet with other utilities and agencies
regarding the coordination of programs. In addition, the CER has participated in
the EO Collaborative meetings hosted by MPSC through our membership in
Michigan Municipal Electric Association (MMEA).
New Energy Optimization Programs for 2010
The CER plans to launch the following new additional programs in 2010. These
programs will be added to the existing portfolio of programs that were launched
in 2009.
Residential Appliances and HVAC (This a combination of the Efficient
Appliances/Electronic, electric water heating kits and HVAC Equipment
program listed in the 2009 Plan filing. Due to limited budgets in both these
programs the energy savings goals and the budgets will be blended together
to ensure savings goals are met. This revision was approved for municipal
utilities by the MPSC staff in the fall of 2009.)
Residential Multi-Family In-Unit Efficiency
Business Pilot/Emerging Technology Programs
Page 7 of 8
Summary of Energy Optimization Programs for 2010
The table below shows: a) applicable revisions/adjustments from the 2009
programs; b) 2010 Plan Filing goals and 3) the revised energy savings and
expenditure goals for 2010 programs.
2010 Energy Optimization Program Portfolio
2009 Revisions
Program Portfolio
kWh
Savings
Revisions
2010 Plan Filing Goals
2010 Revised Goals
Budget
Revisions
Gross
First Year
kWh
Savings
1,880
4,677
3,040
7,569
Program
Budget
Gross
First Year
kWh
Savings
Program
Budget
Low Income Services
2,892
Efficient Lighting
-2,067
-760
24,979
2,077
22,912
1,317
Refrigerator/Freezer Recycling
34,628
5,863
47,154
6,684
81,782
12,547
Efficient Appliances & HVAC
-0-
-0-
2,717
1,343
2,717
1,343
Multi-Family In-Unit Efficiency
-0-
-0-
26,550
2,768
26,550
2,768
Educational Services
-0-
-1
6,947
570
Pilot/Emerging Technology
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Subtotal - Residential Solutions
35,453
6,982
113,024
16,482
148,477
23,464
6,946
569
Multi-Family Common-Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
Prescriptive Incentive Program
36,539
531
78,297
10.974
Custom Incentive Program
21,391
-1,576
32,086
4,620
Educational Services
-1
-1
6,947
570
Pilot/Emerging Technology
NA
NA
23,157
1,900
23,157
1,900
Subtotal - Business Solutions
57,929
-1,046
140,487
18,064
198,416
17,018
5,936
253,511
34,546
346,893
40,482
Total Program Portfolio
93,382
NA
4,920
NA
114,836
11,505
53,477
3,044
6,946
569
CER Program Administration
-1
1,900
Evaluation (EM&V)
-2
1,520
1518
Subtotal - Admin/Evaluation
-3
3,420
3,417
Page 8 of 8
1,899
ATTACHMENT A
City of Eaton Rapids U_15859
Semi-Annual Energy Optimization Report
December-09
Current
Period
All Programs (excluding Low Income)
Low Income Programs
Residential
Secondary
Primary
Un-Metered
0.0008
4.04
100.01
0.89
8.56
Per
Per
Per
Per
Kwh
Meter
Meter
Month
Per Meter
To the best of our knowledge City of Eaton Rapids U_15859
has met the requirements of Public Act 295 regarding the
Energy Optimization Program during the reporting period
::i~ -fej
Date-!1-
2.6. -
Year to
Date
City of Eaton Rapids U_15859
Semi-Annual Energy Optimization Report
Dec-09
EO Credits
Generated
(kWh)
~
Billed Revenue
Less Revenue Tax
Net Revenue
Efficent Lighting
Refregertion Recycling
Education
2,422
5,954
354
2,422
5,954
354
22,050
8,239
4,206
Total Residential Programs
8,730
8,730
34,495
Commercial and Industrial
Prescriptive
Custom
Education
6,171
3,818
290
376
233
18
978
605
46
7,526
4,656
354
22,150
10,280
627
1,630
12,536
26,356
478
383
572
458
35
28
91
73
1,176
942
9,592
11,310
690
1,793
23,384
(3,008)
(5,746)
4,315
(1,631)
Total C&I Programs
Administration
Evaluation
Low Income Programs
Total Expense/EO Credits
Over(Under) Collection
205
(5,865)
4,206
60,851
City of Eaton Rapids U_15859
Budget to Actual Comparison, EO Program Expenditures
December-09
Actual
Year-to-Date
Percentage
of Budget
Budget to
Actual
Budget
Residential
Efficent Lighting
Refregertion Recycling
Education
2,422
5,954
354
1,662
5,863
353
(760)
(91)
(1)
Total Residential
8,730
7,878
(852)
Commercial and Industrial
Prescriptive
Custom
Education
7,526
4,656
354
8,057
3,080
353
531
(1,576)
(1)
93.41%
151.17%
100.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12,536
11,490
(1,046)
109.10%
1,176
942
1,175
940
1,880
(1)
(2)
1,880
100.09%
100.21%
0.00%
23,384
23,363
(21)
100.09%
Total Commercial
and Industrial
Administration
Evaluation
Low Income
Total Program Expenditures
145.73%
101.55%
100.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
110.81%
City of Eaton Rapids U_15859
Budget to Actual Comparison, EO Credits (kWh)
December-09
Actual
Year-to-Date
Budget to
Actual
Budget
Percentage
of Budget
Residential
Efficent Lighting
Refregertion Recycling
Education
22,050
8,239
4,206
19,983
42,867
4,205
(2,067)
34,628
(1)
Total Residential
34,495
67,055
32,560
22,150
4,206
58,689
21,391
4,205
36,539
21,391
(1)
26,356
84,285
57,929
37.74%
0.00%
100.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
31.27%
2,892
2,892
0.00%
154,232
93,381
39.45%
Commercial and Industrial
Prescriptive
Custom
Education
Total Commercial
and Industrial
Low Income
Total EO credits
60,851
110.34%
19.22%
100.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
51.44%
ATTACHMENT B
Attachment B
City of Eaton Rapids
Verification of Savings of 2009 Energy
Optimization Programs
Final Report
Prepared for: City of Eaton Rapids
KEMA Contact:
Timothy Hennessy,
517-529-6277, timothy.hennessy@us.kema.com
Clark Lake, Michigan, Monday, March 15, 2010
Experience you can trust.
Copyright © 2008, KEMA, Inc.
The information contained in this document is the exclusive, confidential and proprietary property of
KEMA, Inc. and is protected under the trade secret and copyright laws of the U.S. and other
international laws, treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be disclosed to any third party or
used, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without first receiving
the express written permission of KEMA, Inc. Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks appearing
herein are proprietary to KEMA, Inc.
Table of Contents
E
1
2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... E-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Verification of Savings Estimates........................................................................................... 1
Appendix A The BWL and MPPA Energy Efficiency Service Committee Utilities..................... 1
Appendix B Program Descriptions ............................................................................................ 2
Residential Programs............................................................................................................. 2
Commercial and Industrial Programs..................................................................................... 2
Self-Directed Customers ........................................................................................................ 3
Appendix C Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................... 4
Residential Efficient Lighting and Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Programs ............................ 4
Sampling Methodology ................................................................................................. 4
Sample Selection.......................................................................................................... 5
Verification Methodology .............................................................................................. 6
Commercial and Industrial Prescriptive and Custom Programs ............................................ 7
Sampling Methodology ................................................................................................. 7
Sample Selection.......................................................................................................... 9
Verification Methodology ............................................................................................ 11
Residential Low Income Services and Education Services Programs and Commercial and
Industrial Education Services Program ................................................................................ 12
Verification Methodology ............................................................................................ 12
Self-Directed Customers ...................................................................................................... 13
Appendix D Verification of Savings Estimates ........................................................................ 13
Residential Efficient Lighting Program Survey ..................................................................... 13
Survey Results ........................................................................................................... 13
Savings Estimates ...................................................................................................... 16
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program Survey ..................................................................... 16
Survey results ............................................................................................................. 16
Savings Estimates ...................................................................................................... 18
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Incentive Program and the Commercial/Industrial
Custom Incentive Program .................................................................................. 18
Appendix E Tracking Data Summary ...................................................................................... 21
C&I Prescriptive Program and C&I Custom Program .......................................................... 21
City of Eaton Rapids
i
March 2010
Table of Contents
Residential Refrigerator Pick-up Program ........................................................................... 23
Residential Lighting Program ............................................................................................... 23
Appendix F Efficient Lighting and Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program Surveys ................ 25
Efficient Lighting Program .................................................................................................... 25
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program ................................................................................. 27
Appendix G On Site Verification Form .................................................................................... 29
Appendix H Utility Manager Interview Guides ......................................................................... 30
Appendix I
C&I Verified Measures ........................................................................................ 34
List of Tables
Table E 1 City of Eaton Rapids Energy Optimization Goal, Actual and Verified Savings (kWh) E1
Table 1 Initial C&I On-Site Verification Sample Designs ............................................................ 10
Table 2 Final C&I On-Site Verification Sample Designs ............................................................. 11
Table 3: Number of CFLs Received ............................................................................................ 14
Table 4: All CFLs Installed .......................................................................................................... 14
Table 5: Where CFLs are Installed ............................................................................................. 15
Table 6: Number of Hours CFLs Operated, Per Day .................................................................. 15
Table 7: Satisfaction Ratings ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 8: No. of Refrigerators/Freezers Owned and Used ........................................................... 17
Table 9: Motives for Program Participation ................................................................................. 17
Table 10: Newly Purchased Refrigerator/Freezer an EnergySTAR Model ................................. 17
Table 11: Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in Program Rating ............................................................. 18
Table 12 C&I Prescriptive and Custom Incentive Program Results ............................................ 20
Table 13 Summary of C&I Program Tracking Data .................................................................... 22
City of Eaton Rapids
ii
March 2010
Table of Contents
List of Equations
Equation 1 Sample Size for a Proportion ...................................................................................... 5
Equation 2 Estimation of a Population Proportion ........................................................................ 7
Equation 3 Estimation of Verified Savings .................................................................................... 7
Equation 4 Primary and Secondary Equations ............................................................................ 8
Equation 5 The Initial Sample Size Calculation ............................................................................ 8
Equation 6 Combined Ratio Estimation ..................................................................................... 12
Equation 7 Calculating the Statistical Precision .......................................................................... 12
City of Eaton Rapids
iii
March 2010
E
Executive Summary
The Lansing Board of Water & Light and the Michigan Public Power Agency Energy Efficiency
Service Committee (BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee) is a group of twenty-four Michigan
municipal electric utilities that was formed to mutually verify the savings of similar 2009 Energy
Optimization (EO) programs as required by the State of Michigan’s 2008 Public Act 295 (PA
295) SEC. 71. (3)(i).
The evaluation of BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee 2009 EO programs was conducted in
January 2010. The evaluation estimated verification rates (i.e., the measures that were installed
and operating as planned) using statistical sampling of participants across participating
municipal utilities. These estimates were than applied to the participation parameters of specific
member utilities.
This report presents the verification of energy savings for the EO programs implemented by City
of Eaton Rapids. Table E 1 recapitulates the verification findings, including the EO savings
goals with the actual (i.e., deemed savings) and the verified savings for the City of Eaton
Rapids.
Program
Residential
Low Income Services Program
Efficient Lighting Program
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program
Education Services Program
Commercial and Industrial
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Incentive
Commercial/Industrial Custom Incentive Program
Business Education Services Program
Self Directed
Goal
Actual
Verified
2,892
19,983
42,867
4,205
22,050
8,239
4,205
NA
27,790
8,239
NA
58,689
80,080
4,205
126,000
22,150
4,205
NA
22,041
NA
NA
Table E 1 City of Eaton Rapids Energy Optimization Goal, Actual and Verified Savings
(kWh)
City of Eaton Rapids
E-1
March 2010
1 Introduction
The Lansing Board of Water & Light and the Michigan Public Power Agency Energy Efficiency
Service Committee (BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee) is a group of twenty-four Michigan
municipal electric utilities (For a list of participating utilities, see Appendix A ) that was formed to
mutually verify the savings of similar 2009 Energy Optimization (EO) programs as required by
the State of Michigan’s 2008 Public Act 295 (PA 295) SEC. 71. (3)(i).
The ultimate goal of the evaluation was specified as the verification of incremental energy (kWh)
savings for the BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee members EO programs. The BWL and
MPPA EE Service Committee have chosen to accept the savings estimates from the Michigan
Energy Measures Database (MEMD). The MEMD contain values that were current at the time
the associated energy optimization plans were approved by the Michigan Public Service
Commission (MPSC or the Commission), or engineering estimates current at the time the
energy optimization plans were approved by the MPSC for measures not included in the MEMD
as the source for gross energy savings.
Accordingly, the objectives of the evaluation are to verify that measures are installed and
operating as planned and to deliver a final annual report that provides the energy savings for
each utility.
This report presents the verification results for the City of Eaton Rapids.
Following this
introductory section, the next section presents a recapitulation of the estimates of savings for
programs implemented by the City of Eaton Rapids. The appendices provide supporting
documentation, analytical approaches as well as generic descriptions of programs that the BWL
and MPPA EE Service Committee members may have implemented.
2 Verification of Savings Estimates
Residential
The City of Eaton Rapids reported that the deemed savings estimate for the Residential Efficient
Lighting Program was 22,050 kWh. The analysis of this Residential Efficient Lighting Program
yields a verified savings estimate of 27,790 kWh. Using the variance of the estimate yields a
confidence interval of ± 3,648 kWh (±13.1%).
City of Eaton Rapids
1
March 2010
The City of Eaton Rapids reported that the deemed savings estimate for the
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program was 8,239 kWh. Based on the analysis of the program
the verified savings estimate is 8,239 kWh. There was no variance associated with this
estimate.
The City of Eaton Rapids is partnering with a community action agency to implement a low
income program. Because of the agencies backlog, this program did not have any participants
in 2009.
The City of Eaton Rapids offered a Residential Education Program in 2009. The City of Eaton
Rapids did not estimate the number of participants.
The City of Eaton Rapids worked with science classes at the local high school to set up
recycling of light bulbs initiative. In addition, the City purchased newspaper advertising.
Based on the assumed savings associated with the Residential Education Program budget, the
City of Eaton Rapids estimated that this program saved 4,205 kWh.
Commercial and Industrial
For the C&I Prescriptive Program, the verification rate was estimated to be 99.5%, with a 90%
confidence interval of ±3.06%. The City of Eaton Rapids reported that the deemed savings
estimate for the C&I Prescriptive Program was 22,150 kWh. Accordingly, the verified savings
estimate is 22,041 kWh, with a confidence interval of ± 676 kWh.
The City of Eaton Rapids did not have any C&I Custom Program participants.
City of Eaton Rapids offered a Business Education Program in 2009. The City of Eaton Rapids
estimates that there were 6 participants
For this program City of Eaton Rapids met with several local commercial business customers for
in-person presentations on prescriptive programs offered for business. These were casual
conversations to explain the utility program, the objectives to help reduce electric consumption,
and rebates available through the lighting program and for HVAC efficiency.
Based on the Business Education Program budget the City of Eaton Rapids estimates that the
Business Education Program saved 4,205 kWh.
City of Eaton Rapids
2
March 2010
Self-Directed Program
For 2009, the City of Eaton Rapids had one self-directed EO Plan customer (Self Directed
Customer). At the City of Eaton Rapids request for documentation, the Self-Directed Customer
submitted support for its program.
The Self-Directed Customer set savings targets of 126 MWh and 210 MWh for the 2009 and
2010 program years respectively. It claimed to have exceeded its 2009 target and achieved
145.7 MWh in savings through “lighting improvements,” “machine capacitor” measures, and
“insulated furnace” projects. Documentation was not provided to indicate the improvements that
were actually made as part of each of these projects or how the savings were calculated.
Therefore, an engineering review of the claimed savings was not performed
City of Eaton Rapids
3
March 2010
The BWL and MPPA Energy Efficiency
Service Committee Utilities
Appendix A
The 24 municipal utilities with EO programs to be evaluated include the following:
• Lansing Board of Water & Light
• Lowell Light & Power
• Bay City Electric Light & Power
• Niles Utility Department
• City of Charlevoix
• City of Paw Paw
• Chelsea Dept. of Electric & Water
• City of Petoskey
• Croswell Light & Power
• City of Portland
• Detroit Public Lighting Department
• City of Sebewaing
• City of Dowagiac
• City of South Haven
• City of Eaton Rapids
• City of St Louis
• Grand Haven Board of Light & Power
• City of Sturgis
• City of Harbor Springs
• Traverse City Light & Power
• City of Hart Hydro
• Wyandotte Dept. of Municipal Service
• Holland Board of Public Works
• Zeeland Board of Public Works
City of Eaton Rapids
1
March 2010
Appendix B
Program Descriptions
The BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee municipal utility members offered a variety of
residential, commercial and industrial EO programs. This appendix briefly and generically
describes the programs that may have been offered by the individual utilities. The individual
utilities determined which of the specific programs were offered to their customers, as well the
appropriate implementation approach.
Residential Programs
Efficient Lighting Program: This program promotes the installation of ENERGY STAR fixtures,
compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), ceiling fan lights, and LED holiday lighting. The
measures were distributed to participants in various methods, according to the utilities
preference. The distribution methods included: in-store promotion; special sales: internet orders;
coupons; over the counter at the utility offices; or at events (i.e. home shows) The Efficient
Lighting Program was marketed in various ways such as through the utility website and through
return cards that were mailed out to customers. The Efficient Lighting Program also provides
opportunities for recycling CFLs.
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program: This program encourages customers to dispose of
“second” refrigerators and encourages the accelerated retirement of older, inefficient “primary”
refrigerators and freezers. The program offers turnkey pick up and recycling services.
Low Income Services Program: This program provides funding to upgrade the energy
efficiency of customers living on limited incomes by subsidizing the installation of cost effective
electric measures. The delivery of the program is coordinated with local weatherization or Low
Income Assistance agencies.
Education Services: This program provides informative and actionable educational materials
to residential customers that communicate to and educate customers on the benefits of energy
efficiency and conservation. Such materials include brochures, fact sheets, workshops, web
sites and online energy audits.
Commercial and Industrial Programs
Prescriptive Incentive Program: This program affects the purchase and installation of high-
City of Eaton Rapids
2
March 2010
efficiency electric technologies in the commercial and industrial sectors through a combination
of market push and pull strategies that stimulate market demand while simultaneously
increasing market provider investment in stocking and promoting high-efficiency products.
Business customers can apply for incentives averaging 20% to 40% of the incremental cost of
purchasing qualifying technologies. The program engages market provider support through a
targeted outreach effort.
Custom Incentive Program: This program helps customers and market providers identify more
complex energy savings projects, analyze the economics of each project and complete a
customized incentive application.
Business Education Services Program: This program provides informative materials and
training opportunities to educate business customers on the benefits of energy efficiency and
conservation. Such materials may include brochures, fact sheets, case studies, web sites, and
training seminars.
Self-Directed Customers
Certain customers that meet specific criteria can opt out of utility sponsored Energy
Optimization Programs, and the attendant rate surcharges. To be eligible to become “selfdirect" a customer must have an annual peak demand in the preceding year of at least two
megawatts at each site or an aggregate of ten megawatts for all of its sites, and notify its electric
provider of its intent to implement a self-directed energy optimization program. The customer
was then required to file a self-directed energy optimization plan with their electric provider by
January, 2009. For administrative efficiency, customers were required to file their self-directed
plans using a Commission-designed standardized template. This template includes projected
energy savings estimates. Once a customer began to implement the self-directed plan at a site
covered by the plan, the site was exempt from the surcharge and not eligible for the provider's
energy optimization activities. A self-directed energy optimization plan was considered
complete, and the customer exempt from the provider's surcharge after the start date of the first
action item of the customer's self-directed energy optimization plan.
City of Eaton Rapids
3
March 2010
Appendix C
Analysis Methodology
For each of the programs, an appropriate evaluation approach was developed. This section
describes the methodologies used for each program, including the sampling methodology, the
sample selection process and the analysis approach
Residential Efficient Lighting and Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In
Programs
Sampling Methodology
The sample design from the verification of the Residential Efficient Lighting Program and
Residential Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Programs is predicted on the assumption that the
verification estimate is a proportion of the measures that were installed and operating as
intended.
The equations to determine required sample size based for a proportion, at a certain level of
confidence and specified confidence interval are shown in Equation 1.
City of Eaton Rapids
4
March 2010
2
z pq
d
n
2
0
n
1
n
1" n
0
0
!1
N
Where,
n0
= the required sample size before adjusting for the size of the population,
z
= a constant based on the desired level of confidence, e.g., 1.645 for the 90% level
of confidence,
p
= the proportion of participants with the attribute.
q
=1-p
d
= the desired confidence interval,
n1
= the required sample size after adjusting for the size of the population using the
finite population correction factor,
N
= the population size, i.e., the number of participants with a particular measure.
Equation 1 Sample Size for a Proportion
At the time the sample was designed it was not known what the expected verification
percentage (p) would ultimately be. Based on experience, it could be assumed that there is a
high rate of compliance (e.g., 90%). However, to be on the conservative side, the sample
should be designed to reach the lowest level of expected compliance.
Assuming a very conservative 75% compliance rate, the sample size to achieve ±10% relative
confidence interval at the 90% confidence level would be 203 for the Residential Lighting
Program and 171 for the Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program.
Sample Selection
The tracking information for the Residential Efficient Lighting Program presented challenges to
the sample selection (see Appendix E ). Eight of the utilities maintained electronic data bases
City of Eaton Rapids
5
March 2010
of participants that could be used in the survey. For the verification, it was assumed the rate
that the bulbs were installed and operating as intended was consistent across all municipals.
The survey was constrained by the schedule, and needed to be implemented over a two week
period. This precluded multiple mailings to increase the response rate. To achieve the most
returns, a very conservative estimate of response rate was used. Accordingly, approximately
1,000 participants were randomly selected. The ultimate confidence interval is dependent by
the estimated compliance rates and the number of surveys returned.
Verification Methodology
Customer verification data were collected for the Residential Efficient Lighting and the
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Programs through the use of a mail survey. A random sample of
387 efficient lighting customers and 767 refrigerator customers were selected from all
participating efficient lighting and refrigerator turn-in customers. The replies from the sampled
customers determined the compliance rate (i.e., the percentage of measures that are installed
and operating as planned) for each programs. KEMA designed separate letters and surveys for
each program (See Appendix F ), and sent three group mailings between January 8, 2010 and
to January 14, 2010 to sampled customers. A total of 195 Efficient Lighting Program and 325
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program responses were returned.
Lighting participants were asked:
#
#
#
#
#
#
To verify they did participate in the program
How many CFLs they received
Are they using all of the CFLs
Where these lamps were installed (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, etc.)
Typical hours per day the CFLs were used
How satisfied were they with the CFLs (on a 1 to 10 ranking)
Refrigerator Turn-In Participants were asked:
#
#
#
#
#
To verify they did participate in the program
How many refrigerators/freezers they still own and use
Reason for participating; either a) no need for an extra one or b) looking to replace with
a new one
If a new refrigerator was purchased, was it Energy STAR rated
How satisfied were they with the program (on a 1 to 10 ranking)
From the returned surveys, proportions of the measures that were installed and operating as
intended were estimated.
City of Eaton Rapids
6
March 2010
pˆ
Estimate:
n /n
o
se( pˆ )
Standard error:
Confidence interval:
) pˆ $1 ! pˆ %
&
n
&
(
&
n pˆ $1 ! pˆ %
& 1!
N
n
'
When N is large
pˆ * z se$ pˆ %
Equation 2 Estimation of a Population Proportion
In Equation 2 n0 represents the number of measures installed and operating as expected, n is
the total number of bulbs. The verified savings were estimated using Equation 3.
s
ˆ St
p*
v
Where:
sv=Verified Savings
St=Reported total savings based on the deemed savings
Equation 3 Estimation of Verified Savings
Commercial and Industrial Prescriptive and Custom Programs
Sampling Methodology
The C&I verification uses model based statistical sampling (MBSS) to guide the sample design.
This technique used a statistical model and its parameters to represent prior information about
the population to be sampled. The model describes the nature of the variation in the
relationship between a key target variable y of the study (called the dependent variable), in this
case the actual amount of program energy savings and an explanatory variable x, in our case
the tracking system estimate of savings. The model is used to help choose the sample size n
and to help formulate a sample design with near-optimal stratification for stratified ratio
estimation. The model describes the trend and the variation around the trend, i.e., the
City of Eaton Rapids
7
March 2010
conditional mean and standard deviation of y given x.
The model is used as a guide to the sample design, but the results of the study itself are not
strongly dependent on the accuracy of the model. Once the sample design is selected, the
subsequent analysis of the data is usually based only on the sample design and not on the
model used to develop the sample design. In particular, conventional stratified-sampling
techniques can be used to analyze the sample data collected from an MBSS sample design.
The resulting estimates will be almost unbiased in repeated sampling and the confidence
intervals will also be valid, provided that the sample design is followed.
yi
.i
, xi " + i
sd $+ i % . 0 xi-
Equation 4 Primary and Secondary Equations
Equation 4 illustrates the primary and secondary equations of the model that is used in the
sample design. Here xk >0 is the tracking system estimate of energy savings, and is known for
each participant, k, in the population. The residuals are considered to be N independent
random variables with zero expected value and standard deviations following the secondary
equation. There are three parameters in the model: (beta), !o(sigma-naught), and " (gamma).
The coefficient beta is a fixed constant apply to the known tracking estimate xk to predict the
actual savings yk . !k is the residual standard deviation of each unit k. Both the expected value
µk and residual standard deviation !k generally varies from one unit to another depending on xk,
following the primary and secondary equations of the model. In statistical jargon, the ratio
model is a (usually) heteroscedastic regression model with zero intercept. Gamma describes
how the standard deviation varies in relationship to the tracking system estimate of savings.
n
n0
1" n0 N
Where:
D is the desired relative precision, and
z corresponds to the desired confidence level.
Equation 5 The Initial Sample Size Calculation
City of Eaton Rapids
8
March 2010
Using MBSS techniques in sample design minimizes the uncertainty of the results by controlling
the variation of the sample. Accordingly, for the C&I verification the initial sample size was
determined using Equation 5. Sample size is based on an assumed “error ratio”1.
The true error ratios were not known. However, based on past experience, a high level of
compliance should be expected. Using the assumptions that there is a fairly strong association
between the actual savings and the tracking savings (error ratio of 0.4) and that there will be a
90% compliance rate, yields preliminary sample sizes of approximately 35 for the Prescriptive
Program and 20 for the Custom Program2.
The next step in the sample design is to choose the number of strata. Typically, in evaluations
such as these three strata are chosen (small medium and large). Next, stratum boundaries are
determined so there is approximately equal amount of variance in each stratum. To do this the
tracking estimates of savings are sorted. The participant savings are raised to the assumed (x")
gamma. This is a proxy for !i = !o x". The relative cumulative sum of the x" is then calculated.
The strata cut points identified as the multiples of the cumulative sum divided by the number of
strata. For the sample design for both C&I program verification, the value of gamma was
assumed to be 0.8.
Sample Selection
Initially, the verification project was provided tracking data for the 21 utilities that implemented
the C&I Prescriptive Program and C&I Custom Program. There were a total of 180 prescriptive
projects and 37 custom projects in the tracking system. The original budget called for 50 on-site
verifications. The sample points were allocated consistent with the preliminary sample design:
33 to the Prescriptive Program and 15 to the Custom Program. The sample designs are shown
in Table 1. The population was randomly sorted, and an initial sample was drawn.
1
The error ratio is defined as the ratio between (a) the sum or average of the residual standard deviations of all
customers in the model, and (b) the sum or average of the expected values of y. The error ratio is similar to the
coefficient of variation
2
With an assumed desired confidence interval of ±10% and at the 90% confidence level.
City of Eaton Rapids
9
March 2010
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Prescriptive Program Sample Design
Min
Max
Mean
Savings Savings Savings
N
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
128
113
55,550
15,567
37
57,036 128,235
85,820
15 133,579 685,180 264,545
180
50,756
Custom Program Sample Design
Min
Max
Mean
Savings Savings Savings
N
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
18
280
31,982
10,486
15
33,262 120,610
64,273
4 182,194 300,009 215,987
37
54,508
Sample
Size
11
11
11
33
Sample
Size
5
5
5
15
Table 1 Initial C&I On-Site Verification Sample Designs
After the initial sample was drawn, the sites were examined. There were two challenges. First,
the measures at many of the sites were still being installed. This was particularly acute in Strata
3. After eliminating the projects that were not complete, there were only ten Prescriptive
participants available for the Prescriptive sample’s strata 3. For the Custom sample, there was
only one participant available in strata 3. After the sample was designed, two of the selfimplemented utilities provided several additional projects. These were added to the Custom
population. These provided a few additional Strata 3 sample points.
City of Eaton Rapids
10
March 2010
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Prescriptive Program Sample Design
Population
Sample
Mean
Max
Min
Savings Savings Savings
(kWh)
n
Mean
(kWh)
(kWh)
N
128
113
55,550
15,567 10
22,261
37
57,036 128,235
85,820 13
85,686
15 133,579 685,180 264,545 10 219,960
180
50,756 33
51,773
Custom Program Sample Design
Population
Sample
Mean
Max
Min
Savings Savings Savings
(kWh)
n
Mean
(kWh)
(kWh)
N
42
23
31,982
7,853
6
18,671
20
2,661 120,610
69,349
7
80,091
6 182,194 685,180 222,689
3 222,030
68
44,896 16
54,679
Table 2 Final C&I On-Site Verification Sample Designs
Table 2 shows the final C&I on site verification sample designs. This table shows that the
samples have good coverage across the strata.
Verification Methodology
For the verification, an energy engineer conducted a quality control inspection of commercial
and industrial participants of the C&I Prescriptive Program and C&I Custom Program. The
engineer physically inspected all measures and commented on both the quality and the
appropriateness for the participant. The inspector noted any problems with measure installation
and recorded any customer comments expressing either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
program, measures, and contractor services. The engineer inspected all of the measures or
activities recorded in the participant’s program file. A copy of the on-site inspection form can be
found in 0.
The information gathered on site was used to verify the savings of the measures that were
installed and operating as intended. The verified estimate of savings and the tracking system
estimate of savings were used to develop a stratified ratio estimate of program savings.
City of Eaton Rapids
11
March 2010
Equation 6 shows the ratio estimator. In this equation y denotes the on site verified estimate of
savings, x denotes the tracking system estimate of savings, and w denotes the case weights.
Ratio Estimate
Mean
n0
Bˆ 0
/w
i
yi
/w
xi
y0
Total
Bˆ 0 0 x 0
Yˆ0
i 1
n0
i
Bˆ 0 X 0
wi
where
N h nh
i 1
Equation 6 Combined Ratio Estimation
In addition to the estimate of the mean demand and the population total of demand, the
statistical precision associated with each variable estimate was also estimated. Equation 7
presents the three steps necessary to calculate the statistical precision associated with our
combined stratified ratio estimator.
ei
1. Calculate the residuals
2. Calculate
6 1 3
4
1
4 Xˆ 1
5 02
$ %
se Bˆ 0
ˆ
with X 0
3. Then se $ y 0 %
yi ! Bˆ 0 xi
n0
/w
i
n0
/ w $w
i
i
%
! 1 ei2
I 1
xi
i 1
$ %
$ %
se Bˆ 0 0 x 0 and se Yˆ0
$ %
se Bˆ 0 X 0
Equation 7 Calculating the Statistical Precision
Residential Low Income Services and Education Services
Programs and Commercial and Industrial Education
Services Program
Verification Methodology
The municipal utilities may have self implemented the Residential Low Income Services and
Education Services Programs and the Business Education Services Program. Accordingly, the
verification of these programs was accomplished by conducting a survey and follow up
interviews with the municipal utilities. The survey was designed to identify the actions that were
City of Eaton Rapids
12
March 2010
taken by the municipal utility, how the programs were implemented, participation levels, and
costs associated with each of these programs. A copy of the interview guide can be found in
Appendix H .
The verification was conducted through a brief 15 to 20 minute interview with the municipal
utility officer responsible for these programs. A contact list of 24 municipal utilities and
corresponding staffs was provided to KEMA. The MPPA initially contacted representatives from
each municipal utility to inform them that KEMA would be contacting them to perform this
interview. Immediately following, KEMA called a representative from each municipality to
arrange a convenient day and time to conduct the interview and the appropriate utility manager
or public official to be interviewed. Each official was also given the option of receiving the
interview questions ahead of time. Interview questions posed to each official explored the
funding of the various programs in 2009 and what the plans would be for each these programs
in 2010. These interviews were conducted by KEMA staff between January 16, 2010 and
January 22, 2010.
Self-Directed Customers
Self-directed customers were asked to submit a report to the municipal utility regarding their EO
activities. A qualified independent energy engineer reviewed the submitted documentation and
developed a short summation that recapitulates the activities, savings methodology, and
savings estimates. The reports included a conclusion as to the veracity of the savings, e.g., the
methods use to determine the savings estimates are commonly accepted, and that the savings
estimates were reasonable.
Appendix D
Verification of Savings Estimates
Residential Efficient Lighting Program Survey
Survey Results
A total of 195 surveys were returned by mail between January 9, 2010 and February 1, 2010.
The tables below show the results of the survey responses. The tabulations per each question
are different from the total survey count where a survey question was accidentally skipped by a
respondent, wrongly answered (i.e. checking off both a “yes” and a “no”), or had a non-specific
City of Eaton Rapids
13
March 2010
reply (ex. a customer wrote an answer below the question in the form of a comment, but did not
check off any boxes).
1. Verification of participation. 190 respondents (97.5%) confirmed they received one or
more CFLs from their municipal utility. However, five respondents (2.5%) said they have not
yet received their CFLs.
2. Number of compact fluorescents received. Table 3 below shows the percentage of
responses for the number of CFLs respondents said they received.
No. of
CFLs
None3
1 to 3
4
GT 4
Percent
3%
30%
58%
9%
Table 3: Number of CFLs Received
3. Installations. Customers were asked if they had used all of the CFLs they received; or if
the response choice was “NO”, how many did they install. Table 4 below shows the
disposition of bulbs received (from the previous question, above) and the number of CFLs
reported to be installed. The total number of CFLs reported to be installed is 439.
Response
%
YES
NO
63%
37%
Table 4: All CFLs Installed
4. Room placements. Customers were asked what room(s) these CFLs were installed (Table
5, below).
3
These customers requested bulbs, but never received them.
City of Eaton Rapids
14
March 2010
Room
%
Living Room (LR)
25%
Kitchen (K)
14%
Bedroom (BD)
18%
Bathroom (BT)
10%
Hallway (H)
13%
Closet/Storage (CS)
3%
Garage (G)
7%
Other (O)
11%
Total
100%
Table 5: Where CFLs are Installed
5. Typical hours. Table 6 below shows the typical hours per day customers reported these
CFLs were kept on during one day. The average number of hours respondents reported
leaving the CFLs turned on was 5.2 hours and the median was 4 hours.
Hours
1 to 2
3 to 4
5 to 7
GT 7
Pct
18%
34%
25%
23%
Table 6: Number of Hours CFLs Operated, Per Day
6. Satisfaction rating. Customers were asked to rate their level of satisfaction, with 1 =
“Poor” to 10 = “Excellent”. Table 7 below shows the frequencies and percentages. The
average was 8.8, and the median was 9.
Rating
1 to 5
6 to 7
8 to 9
10
Pct
17%
14%
24%
45%
Table 7: Satisfaction Ratings
City of Eaton Rapids
15
March 2010
Savings Estimates
Based on the information derived from Table 3 the average participant received 3.54 bulbs.
Table 4 shows that the average participant installed 2.57 bulbs. Accordingly, the installed and
operating as intended percentage of bulbs is 72.5% with ±5% confidence interval. Many of the
municipal lighting programs were not implemented until in the fourth quarter of 2009.
Accordingly, participants may not have had the opportunity to install all of their bulbs. The 2010
verification of this program will include approaches to reduce the uncertainty associated with
this estimate
The MEMD assumes that the bulbs are used 840 hours annually. Based on the responses in
Table 6, the participants indicated that the average annual operating hours of the bulbs was
5.24 hours per day or 1,923 hours ±143 hours annually. Based on the survey responses the
median annual operating hours of the bulbs were four hours per day or 1,460 hours per year.
The BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee recognizes that in some other studies found that
self-reported hours of use are generally more optimistic than metered hour of use estimates.
However, the BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee also recognize that the verified savings
estimate for this evaluation is based on empirical observations derived directly from their actual
program participant survey results. The BWL and MPPA EE Service Committee will incorporate
methods to reduce the uncertainty associated with this estimate for the 2010 evaluation.
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program Survey
Survey results
A total of 325 surveys were returned by mail between January 9, 2010 and January 25, 2010.
The tables below show the results of the survey responses. The tabulations per each question
are different from the total survey count where a survey question was accidentally skipped by a
respondent, wrongly answered (i.e. checking off both a “yes” and a “no”), or had a non-specific
reply (ex. a customer wrote an answer below the question in the form of a comment, but did not
check off any boxes).
1. Verification of participation. 325 respondents (100%) confirmed they participated.
2. Number of refrigerators or freezers still owned and used. Table 8 below shows the
frequency of responses for the number appliances customers said they still own and use.
City of Eaton Rapids
16
March 2010
No. of
Refrigerators/Freezers
Respondents
(n=324)
0
7
1
158
2
128
3
25
more than 3
6
Total
324
Table 8: No. of Refrigerators/Freezers Owned and Used
3. Reasons for participating. Customers were asked if they participated because they had
no or little need for an extra freezer or refrigerator, if they were looking to replace their old
unit with a new unit anyway, or both. Table 9 below shows the distribution of answers.
Reasons
Frequencies
No need for the extra refrigerator/freezer
207
Looking to replace the refrigerator/freezer
132
Table 9: Motives for Program Participation
4. EnergySTAR purchase. Those customers who stated they bought a new refrigerator or
freezer were asked if they had purchased an EnergySTAR model. Table 10 below shows
the frequency and percentage of those who claimed they had.
Response
Frequencies
(n=194)
%
YES
121
62%
NO
73
38%
TOTAL
194
100%
Table 10: Newly Purchased Refrigerator/Freezer an EnergySTAR Model
5. Satisfaction rating.
6. Table 11 below shows the frequencies of the satisfaction rating given by customers with 1 =
“Poor” to 10 = “Excellent”. The average is 9.46 and the median is 10.
City of Eaton Rapids
17
March 2010
Rating
1 to 5
6 to 7
8 to 9
10
Pct
2%
3%
18%
76%
Table 11: Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in Program Rating
Savings Estimates
Based on the survey information all customers participated. Accordingly, the “installed and
operating as intended” (i.e., refrigerator removed) percentage is 100%. There is no variability
associated with this estimate.
Commercial/Industrial Prescriptive Incentive Program and the
Commercial/Industrial Custom Incentive Program
The C&I Prescriptive Incentive and C&I Custom Incentive program savings were verified
through participant on-site inspections. These inspections were performed during January 18,
2010 and January 23, 2010. A total of 49 site visits across the aggregate of the BWL and
MPPA EE Service Committee service territories were performed.
The site visits inspected 63 different types of measures. The tracking system savings and the
verified savings for each of these measures can be found in Appendix I
During the site visits the participants were informally interviewed on their perspectives of the
programs. The comments received indicated that the programs were very successful and
popular with the participants. In general, positive feedback was provided about working with the
programs, and about the benefits of the energy saving measures installed. In multiple cases the
representative indicated that they were so happy with the program measures that they installed
additional measures in other areas of their facilities. In no case, did program participants
indicate dissatisfaction with the program or with the program measures.
Other comments received indicated that the new technology was such an improvement over
their prior equipment that they had noticed productivity gains as a side effect of the new
technology. Among many general statements of satisfaction with the new equipment, several
representatives specifically mentioned that they had reworked production lines to take
advantage of the new lighting and one representative said that efficiencies were realized
City of Eaton Rapids
18
March 2010
because items were no longer getting lost in the warehouse (as they had with prior dim lighting),
leading to reduced times to locate items and less redundancy in inventory.
One area for improvement is to make certain that changes from the original project application
are tracked in the program tracking database (Franklin). In multiple cases, the inspector
completing the post-inspection form indicated that the project had changed its scope, with
different quantities or equipment installed. In each case, the change was noted, and the project
application amended to reflect the changes in measures and energy savings. The rebate check
paid to the program participant reflected this changed application. However the program
tracking database often contained the original entries instead of the amended quantities and
equipment. This lead to inaccuracies in claimed savings that resulted in both under- and overreporting energy saved. Attention should be paid to ensuring that discrepancies and
amendments to the project application uncovered during the post-inspection process flow back
to the program tracking database so that utilities can claim full credit for savings realized by the
program.
Verification rates for each program were estimated using combined ratio estimation techniques.
To minimize the impact of the addition of custom sites after the original sample design, the
Custom Incentive program sample was post stratified. In addition, during the practical
implementation of the on-site inspections, two prescriptive sites needed to be replaced. Table
12 shows a comparison between the population and the final tracking system average savings
by strata. In addition this table shows the verified savings by strata. Based on the information
derived from Table 12, the verification rates were derived.
City of Eaton Rapids
19
March 2010
Prescriptive Program
Sample
Population
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Strata
1
2
3
Total
Tracking
Average
Savings
n
N
128
15,567
10
37
85,820
13
15 264,545
10
180
50,756
33
Custom Program
Population
N
51
12
5
68
Tracking
Average
Savings
15,107
94,046
230,788
44,896
n
6
8
2
16
Tracking Verified
Average Average
Savings Savings
22,261
22,887
85,686
84,389
219,960 214,766
282,399 281,013
Sample
Tracking Verified
Average Average
Savings Savings
29,640
31,049
87,531
87,997
205,167 206,758
52,762
54,019
Table 12 C&I Prescriptive and Custom Incentive Program Results
For the C&I Prescriptive Program, the verification rate was estimated to be 99.5%, with a 90%
confidence interval of ±3.06%. For the C&I Custom Program, the verification rate was
estimated to be 102.3%, with a 90% confidence interval of ±2.51
City of Eaton Rapids
20
March 2010
Appendix E
Tracking Data Summary
The Residential Refrigerator Pick-up, Residential Efficient Lighting, C&I Prescriptive and the C&I
Custom programs implemented by BWL and the MPPA Service Committee program do not
enjoy an integrated tracking system. Tracking data is available from a variety of sources,
depending on the program and utility. Generally, the tracking data available for the verification
of these programs can be considered elementary. The tracking data for specific programs and
utilities ranges from high quality to non-existent.
This section briefly summarizes the tracking data available to the verification contractor, by
program and utility.
C&I Prescriptive Program and C&I Custom Program
The 2009 summary information for the C&I Prescriptive and the C&I Custom Programs
implemented by Franklin Energy was maintained in two files, one for the BWL and another other
MPPA utilities. Table 13 shows a recapitulation of the savings by program found in Franklin
Energy’s tracking system files.4
The BWL data base included a program indicator, project status, customer name, contact
information, kW and kWh savings and incentive paid. The MPPA file contains spread sheets for
each of the 20 MPPA utilities. Each spread sheet has a customer name, status, incentive paid
and kWh savings, by program.
There were three utilities that were self implemented (i.e., did not use Franklin Energy as an
implementation contractor). Two of these utilities provided C&I project information to the
evaluation. The third did not have any C&I program participants. One of the two self directed
utilities did not provide complete information in time to be considered in the primary sample
design.
4
The Franklin Energy tracking system was the basis for the sample design. The savings found in Table 13 were
updated and finalized at the end of 2009. The final savings numbers are shown in the verification calculations and
are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
City of Eaton Rapids
21
March 2010
Utility
Bay City
Charlevoix
Chelsea
Croswell
Eaton Rapids
Grand Haven
Harbor Springs
Hart
Holland
Lansing
Lowell
Niles
Paw Paw
Petoskey
Portland
Sebewaing
South Haven
St. Louis
Sturgis
Traverse City
Wyandotte
Zeeland
Grand Total
Prescriptive
Custom
kWh
kWh
Projects Savings Projects Savings
6
288,373
0
2
15,116
0
2
184,739
1
300,009
3
165,712
1
27,086
2
22,150
0
10
531,601
1
2,648
3
100,549
0
1
73,932
21 2,073,742
7
228,321
85 2,220,118
17 1,273,903
3
176,037
0
2
44,874
0
2
75,115
0
3
763,988
0
4
37,522
0
0
18
237,513
5
215,013
1
72,719
2
64,718
0
5
463,216
1
66,713
12
882,350
2
81,462
7
214,818
6
246,873
0
13
845,834
180 8,613,683
68 3,383,081
Table 13 Summary of C&I Program Tracking Data
For each of the projects, Franklin maintains a project file with detail information about the project
including application and other supporting information. For the sample design, files for all
projects were requested. At the time of the sample design and selection Franklin was unable to
provide all 2009 project files to the verification project, as they are in various locations,
dependent upon the project status. At that time, project files associated with the Primary
Sample were provided. The self implemented utilities did not provide any project files.
City of Eaton Rapids
22
March 2010
After the sample design and an initial sample selection were made, the sites were reviewed.
Only projects that had been through the final inspection stage Franklin could consider
completed, and available for consideration in the verification process.
Residential Refrigerator Pick-up Program
The 2009 summary information for the Residential Refrigerator Program implemented by JACO
was maintained in four files, two for the BWL and two for the MPPA utilities. Two files contained
fairly comprehensive notes regarding the equipment pick-up up, including, type, brand, model,
size, year, and other information. The other two files contained participant contact information.
The two files were linked through an Order ID number. This information was complete for all
utilities that used JACO as an implementation contractor. The self implemented utilities did not
offer a refrigerator pick up program.
Residential Lighting Program
The residential lighting program was implemented in various ways with various contractors:
#
Four utilities, Holland, Grand Haven, Chelsea and Bay City used EFI fulfillment to
distribute lighting measures,
#
BWL used Niagara Conservation to deliver their CFLs by website,
#
Eleven utilities, Charlevoix, Dowagiac, Eaton Rapids, Harbor Springs, Hart, Niles,
Paw Paw, Petoskey, Portland, St. Louis, and South Haven had Franklin purchase
lighting measures and these utilities distributed themselves. These were distributed
in a variety of methods, such as handed them out at their front desk, at community
events, etc.
#
Six utilities did not use Franklin for implementation; they are Croswell Light and
Power Department, Traverse City Light & Power, Lowell Light & Power, Wyandotte
Municipal Services, and the Zeeland Board of Public Works. The measures for
these communities were handled in a variety of ways.
#
Detroit Public Lighting did not implement a lighting program.
The 2009 summary information for the Residential Lighting was maintained according to how
the program was implemented. The information had a range of quality:
City of Eaton Rapids
23
March 2010
#
The five utilities that implemented the program through website fulfillment had
contact information of participants.
#
Of the eleven utilities that were supplied lighting measures by Franklin, three kept an
electronic file of participants and contact information. Five kept hand written logs of
participants, and one kept an electric file of participants that did not include names.
Three of the utilities supplied by Franklin did not provide any lighting documentation.
#
Of the six utilities that did not use Franklin as an implementation contractor, three did
not keep individual participant information. The remaining three did not respond to
the data request for participant information.
City of Eaton Rapids
24
March 2010
Efficient Lighting and Refrigerator/Freezer
Turn-In Program Surveys
Appendix F
Efficient Lighting Program
Participant Name
Address
Re: Evaluation of the Utility Name or KEMA5 Efficient Lighting Program
Dear Participant
,
Utility Name or KEMA is currently conducting a special study to better understand the amount
of energy savings achieved by the Compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) program. Through this
study, we will be able to further improve and continue offering energy efficient programs to
customers such as you. We would like to complete this study by the end of the month. Your
participation is very much appreciated by us.
Utility Name or KEMA has hired a professional energy efficiency research firm, KEMA, to help in
this study. There is a short survey enclosed with this letter. The survey is intended to learn
how the Compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) program has worked for you. Please fill out this survey
as soon as possible and mail it back in the self addressed envelope provided.
If you have any questions about the program, you are welcome to call me at XXX-XXXX. For
questions about this survey, please call Amelia Whitney from KEMA at (866) 904-8027 ext. 306.
Sincerely,
Manager
Utility Name or KEMA
5
Some utilities had the letters set over under their name; others preferred that the letters were set out over the
evaluation contractor’s ( KEMA) name.
City of Eaton Rapids
25
March 2010
Please take a few moments to fill out the survey below at your earliest convenience. We would
like to complete this study by the end of January, 2010. If you have any questions, do not
hesitate to contact Amelia Whitney, from KEMA, at (866) 904-8027 ext. 306.
Survey
1. Just to verify…did you get one or more compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) from
your utility?
___YES ___NO
2. IF YES > How many did you receive? ____
3. Are you using ALL of the CFLs you received?
___YES
___NO – If not, how many CFLs did you put in? _____
4. Where did you decide to put these CFLs? Please check all that apply:
___ Living Room
___ Kitchen
___ Bedroom
___ Bathroom
___ Hallway
___ Closet/storage
___ Garage
___ Other (please specify) ______________
5. What is the typical amount of hours per day that those CFLs are used? _____
6. From 1 to 10 (1 = Poor, 10 = Excellent) how satisfied are you with the CFL bulbs?
_____ (enter number here)
Thank you for your participation! Please use the enclosed envelope to mail your completed
survey back to us.
City of Eaton Rapids
26
March 2010
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In Program
Participant Name
Address
Re: Evaluation of the Utility Name or KEMA Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in program
Dear Participant
,
Utility Name or KEMA is currently conducting a special study to better understand the amount
of energy savings achieved by the Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in program. This study will be able
to further improve and continue offering energy efficient programs to customers such as you.
We would like to complete this study by the end of the month. Your participation is very much
appreciated by us.
Utility Name or KEMA has hired a professional energy efficiency research firm, KEMA, to help in
this study. They have composed a short survey, enclosed with this letter. The survey is
intended to learn how the Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in program has worked for you. Please fill
out this survey as soon as possible and mail it back in the envelope provided.
If you have any questions about the program, you are welcome to call me at XXX-XXXX. For
questions about this survey, please call Amelia Whitney from KEMA at (866) 904-8027 ext. 306.
Sincerely,
Manager
Utility Name or KEMA
Phone
Email
City of Eaton Rapids
27
March 2010
Please take a few moments to fill out the survey below at your earliest convenience. We would
like to complete this study by the end of January, 2010. If you have any questions, do not
hesitate to contact Amelia Whitney, from KEMA Services, at (866) 904-8027 ext. 306.
Survey
1. Just to verify…did you participate in the Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in program?
___YES ___NO
2. How many refrigerator/freezers do you still own and use? _____
3. What were your reasons for participating (check all that applies):
a. ___ No or little need for an extra refrigerator or freezer
b. ___ Looking to replace it with a new refrigerator or freezer anyway
4. IF YOU HAVE BOUGHT A NEW REFRIGERATOR > Is it an EnergySTAR model?
___ YES
___ NO
5. From 1 to 10 (1 = Poor, 10 = Excellent) how satisfied were you with the
Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-in program?
______ (enter number here)
Thank you for your participation! Please use the enclosed envelope to mail your completed
survey back to us.
City of Eaton Rapids
28
March 2010
Appendix G
On Site Verification Form
Auditor AuditorName
Appt Day / Time
Utility UtilityName
Company Company Name
Address 123 Any St.
City Anywhere
Contact
SiteContact
Friday 10:30AM
Phone
123-456-7890
Appointment Notes
Meet SiteContact at the front desk when you get here, you can reach him on his cell phone at
7890.
(123) 456-
Measure or Model Details
Date
Qty Measure
TCP
Elite High Bay T5
10/15/2009 123 T5 HO 6 lamp double fixture
Qty Verified
Qty Operational
Measure Verified YES
NO (comment on difference in Notes)
Notes:
File name
AuditedSiteDetails.pdf
Semaphore 84
10/15/2009 234 T8 F32 4 lamp fixture
Qty Verified
Qty Operational
Measure Verified YES
NO (comment on difference in Notes)
Notes:
File name
WattStopper HB300
10/15/2009 56 Occupancy sensor > 500W
Qty Verified
Qty Operational
Measure Verified YES
NO (comment on difference in Notes)
Notes:
File name
Date:
Auditor Signature
City of Eaton Rapids
29
March 2010
Appendix H
Utility Manager Interview Guides
MUNICIPAL UTILITY NAME
Evaluation of Energy Optimization Programs
Municipal Interview Guide
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview, which is being performed by KEMA on
behalf of the MUNICIPAL NAME. KEMA has been selected by MUNICIPAL NAME to perform
an evaluation of the Energy Optimization Programs for Low Income Services, Residential
Education Services and Business Education Services Programs. Our goal is to gain a better
understanding of the actions taken by municipal utilities to implement these programs, as well
as the program participation levels and costs.
The following questions will be asked during your scheduled interview. Your answers will help
us gather information and insights on the program savings, the steps taken while implementing
the programs, and program recommendations.
Please feel free to contact us prior to your scheduled interview if you have further questions. We
appreciate your time and participation in the Energy Optimization program and this evaluation.
Sincerely,
KEMA, Inc.
City of Eaton Rapids
30
March 2010
Background
1) Just for background, can you please give me a brief description of your professional
position:
a. name of municipal utility b. position title -
2) What was your role with these programs in 2009?
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
Program Implementation
3) Please briefly describe the overall program design, management and delivery. Were there
any materials developed or applications used? For example, did you develop/distribute any
of the following: bill stuffers; "goodie bags" (i.e. giveaway bags at events that might hold a
CFL, brochure, tchotkes, etc.); brochures; giveaways (tchotkes, info wheels, etc.); EE
information packets; CFLs (bought and distributed APART from the residential lighting
program), posters, additional or new web site content?
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
Program Participation
4) From what you know, what has been the actual or estimated number of program participants
since its start:
City of Eaton Rapids
31
March 2010
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
Program Costs
5) What were the final costs per each program? Please include any labor and cost of materials
if that information is available for the Residential and Business Education programs.
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
Program Recommendations
6) Is there anything you would do different or change for each of these programs?
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
7) What are you planning to do for these programs in 2010?
City of Eaton Rapids
32
March 2010
Low Income Services:
Residential Education:
Business Education:
City of Eaton Rapids
33
March 2010
Appendix I
C&I Verified Measures
These measures were observed during the on-site inspections. These savings were verified on behalf of all municipal utilities
in the report.
Measure
15 hp VFD
150W Induction Lights
1-way Directional
25 hp VFD
2-way case signs
3W LED lighting
4-way case signs
4-way Directional
T
4-way Red Flash
5 hp VFD
CFL Fixtures
Digital Controls for Chiller (Trane
Tracer Summit Chiller Plant
Manager)
High bay fluorescent fixtures
HPT8 4ft 3 lamp
HPT8 8ft 4 lamp
LED exit signs
LED recessed cans
LED spotlight in gift shop
LED Street Light retrofit
Pedestrian sign (Hand & Man)
Pulse Start Metal Halide
removal of fourteen 8' 2L VHO x
452W used for 5200 hours/year
Retrofit T-12 3 lamp fix to T-8 2 lamp
fixture
Retrofit T-12 4 lamp fix to T-8 2 lamp
fixture
Retrofit T-12 to T-8 2 lamp
Retrofit T-12 to T-8 2 lamp fixture
Retrofit T-12 to T-8 6 lamp fixture
Retrofit task lighting (custom)
T5 HO 12 Lamp fixture
T5 HO 6 lamp
T5 HO 6 lamp - double fixture
T5 HO 6 lamp fixture
City of Eaton Rapids
Number Tracking Verified
1
15930
15930
1
66713
66713
1
3000
3000
1
26550
26550
1
310
310
1
31982
31983
1
465
465
1
3000
3000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1200
16230
684
1050
16230
0
193901
193901
56672 59654.74
9690
10260
120610
120612
4848.48 5430.298
2390.3
2390.3
3183
3183
9616
0
3600
5700
3870
3870
1
24151
32905.6
1
2110
2110
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11163
328
8673
157604
25268
73440
5837
34944
20685.6
11163
328
13279
238328
25268
73200
5610
34944
20685.6
34
Measure
T5 HO and Occ Sensors
T8 4 lamp fixture
T8 6 lamp fixture
T8 F32 6 lamp fixtures
T8 F32 6 lamp High bay fixture
T8 F32 8 lamp fixture
T8 Utube fixture
Upgrade HID to Induction lights
Number Tracking Verified
1
9337
9337
1 35977.5 35977.5
1
112437
112437
1
40362
40362
1
73036
75919
1
17523
14927
1
3458
3458
1
17637
17637
Wall pack HID upgrade to CFL Bulb
10 hp VFD
HPT8 4ft 2 lamp
1
2
2
HPT8 4ft 2 lamp fixture
HPT8 4ft 4 lamp
HPT8 Retrofit (custom)
T5 HO 6 lamp double fixture
T8 2 lamp fixture
T8 3 lamp fixture
T8 and Occ. Sensors
Central Lighting Control
LED exit sign
Occupancy sensor
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Occupancy sensors
3
20317
20316.9
T8 F32 4 lamp fixture
3
59576
55264
< 50 HP drive
HPT8 4ft 4 lamp fixture
T5 HO 4 lamp
CFL bulbs
Occupancy sensor < 500W
Occupancy sensor > 500W
T5 HO 4 lamp fixture
T8 F32 6 lamp fixture
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8
11600
53700
11446
11600
43080
11446
19828
8774
20973
20973
30994
30994
314496
310128
18271 18937.25
18729 17529.75
65648
65648
46000
46000
11256
11256
23423
25805
216432
216432
58342
59004
358092
352800
165640
139582
59143
74239
35960
71962
541769 520993.2
1315609 1182991
March 2010