Empire District Electric Company
Energy Efficiency Program
Portfolio
Prepared by:
Applied Energy Group
1377 Motor Parkway, Suite 401 · Islandia, NY 11749
Tel (631) 434-1414 · Fax (631) 434-1212
www.appliedenergygroup.com
February 2012
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Portfolio Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1
Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................. 1
Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio ..................................................................................................... 4
Residential Programs ............................................................................................................................ 5
4.1
Residential High Efficiency Lighting Program ............................................................................... 6
4.2
ENERGY STAR® Appliance Program............................................................................................... 7
4.3
Refrigerator Recycling Program .................................................................................................. 10
4.4
High Efficiency Cooling Rebate Program..................................................................................... 11
4.5
Home Energy Comparison Reports ............................................................................................. 14
4.6
ENERGY STAR New Homes Program ........................................................................................... 15
4.7
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR...................................................................................... 17
4.8
Low Income Weatherization Program ........................................................................................ 19
4.9
Low Income New Homes Program.............................................................................................. 20
5. Commercial and Industrial Programs ................................................................................................. 22
5.1
C&I Energy Efficiency Rebate Program ....................................................................................... 22
5.1.1
Energy Audit ........................................................................................................................ 22
5.1.2
Prescriptive Rebate ............................................................................................................. 22
5.1.3
Custom Rebate .................................................................................................................... 23
5.2
Building Operator Certification ................................................................................................... 25
5.3
Interruptible Service Rider .......................................................................................................... 27
6. Portfolio Management and Implementation Strategies .................................................................... 28
6.1
Marketing and Customer Recruitment ....................................................................................... 28
6.2
Rebate Processing ....................................................................................................................... 29
6.3
Energy Audits .............................................................................................................................. 29
6.4
Customer/Contractor Feedback ................................................................................................. 29
6.5
Planning, Reporting and Program Tracking ................................................................................ 29
7. Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Activities ........................................................................ 29
7.1
Process Evaluation Approach ...................................................................................................... 29
7.2
Impact Evaluation Approach ....................................................................................................... 30
7.3
Cross-Cutting Evaluation Activities ............................................................................................. 30
7.3.1
Project Initiation Meetings ................................................................................................. 30
7.3.2
Evaluation Plans .................................................................................................................. 31
7.3.3
Program Design and Delivery Review ................................................................................. 31
7.3.4
Evaluation Management and Reporting ............................................................................. 31
7.4
Program Level Work Scope ......................................................................................................... 32
7.4.1
Process Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 32
7.4.2
Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 34
ii | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
1.
2012-2013
Portfolio Overview
The Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act of 2009 (“MEEIA”) encourages the state’s four investorowned electric companies to implement energy efficiency programs. In accordance with MEEIA, Applied
Energy Group (“AEG”) examined Empire District Electric Company’s (“Empire”) existing Missouri energy
efficiency portfolio and incorporated three additional demand-side programs. The new programs
include:



ENERGY STAR® Appliance Program;
Home Energy Comparison Reports Program; and
Refrigerator Recycling Program.
The proposed MEEIA portfolio includes twelve energy efficiency programs.1 Each program targets
multiple end uses and offers residential, commercial and industrial customers an opportunity to achieve
significant energy savings through participation.
PORTFOLIO SUMMARY BY PROGRAM YEAR
Participation
Program Year 1 76,202
Program Year 2 93,464
Program Year 3 103,562
Net kWh Savings
11,191,173
17,523,747
21,917,675
Net kW Savings
7,125
18,253
26,962
Total Budget
$3,952,960
$4,558,587
$6,021,160
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC SAVINGS, PARTICIPATION AND BUDGET, 2010 PROGRAM YEAR
Program
Residential High Efficiency Lighting
Residential High Efficiency A/C Rebate
Energy Star New Homes
Home Performance with Energy Star
Low Income New Homes
Low Income Weatherization
C&I Custom Rebate
C&I Prescriptive Rebate
Building Operator Certificate
Interruptible Service Rider
General Administration & Evaluation
TRC
5.06
2.36
1.53
1.02
2.64
16.27
8.52
5.61
n/a
n/a
Net kWh
Savings
2,250,719
800,119
148,599
28,800
2,536
588,924
4,529,981
280,653
0
0
Total 8,630,330
1
Net kW
Savings
649
761
128
25
7.0
10.3
995
166
0
3,100
Participation
47,540
545
57
24
2
287
30
15
0
3
5,842
48,503
Total Budget
$145,432
$265,955
$86,687
$18,922
$1,322
$251,032
$228,310
$33,908
$1,029
$67,896
$62,123
$1,162,617
The C&I Custom and Prescriptive programs are bundled under the C&I Energy Efficiency Rebate Program.
1|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
PROGRAM -SPECIFIC SAVINGS, PARTICIPATION AND BUDGET BY PROGRAM YEAR
Program
Residential High Efficiency Lighting
ENERGY STAR Appliances
Refrigerator Recycling
High Efficiency Cooling Rebate
Home Energy Comparison Reports
Energy Star New Homes
Home Performance with Energy Star
Low Income Weatherization
Low Income New Homes
C&I Custom Rebate
C&I Prescriptive Rebate
Building Operator Certificate
Interruptible Service Rider
Net kWh
TRC
Savings
4.97
2,637,034
1.25
84,657
4.53
379,776
1.92
1,281,785
1.61
1,800,000
1.01
918,261
1.42
511,840
1.34
718,200
0.66
92,340
1.84
1,251,411
1.63
1,190,310
6.84
325,560
36.20 0
Total 11,191,173
Program Year 1
Net kW
Savings Participation
193
65,000
22
950
61
400
839
1,282
16
7,500
105
300
58
175
82
350
11
45
370
50
303
100
66
40
5,000
10
7,125
76,202
Net kWh
Budget
Savings
$308,490
2,941,307
$35,969
168,566
$84,630
759,552
$442,075
1,883,747
$81,648
4,140,000
$1,360,425 765,217
$188,160
950,560
$511,560
974,700
$42,525
82,080
$472,500
2,502,822
$351,666
1,785,465
$32,361
569,730
$40,950
0
$3,952,960 17,523,747
Program Year 2
Net kW
Savings Participation
215
72,500
40
1,875
121
800
1,218
1,849
33
15,000
87
250
109
325
111
475
9
40
740
100
455
150
115
70
15,000 30
18,253 93,464
Budget
$344,085
$63,336
$166,320
$660,374
$187,790
$403,200
$349,440
$694,260
$37,800
$945,000
$527,499
$56,632
$122,850
$4,558,587
Net kWh
Savings
3,245,580
262,756
1,139,328
2,613,403
4,320,000
612,174
1,462,400
1,231,200
82,080
3,754,233
2,380,620
813,900
0
21,917,675
Program Year 3
Net kW
Savings Participation
237
80,000
56
2,950
182
1,200
1,686
2,577
33
15,000
70
200
167
500
141
600
9
40
1,110
150
607
200
164
100
22,500 45
26,962 103,562
Budget
$379,680
$96,432
$249,480
$938,683
$195,955
$322,560
$537,600
$876,960
$37,800
$1,417,500
$703,332
$80,903
$184,275
$6,021,160
1|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
1.1
2012-2013
Planning Process
The energy efficiency portfolio presented in this report is based upon Empire’s 2010 Demand-Side
Resource Potential Study for 2011-20132 and a review of past demand-side program performance.
Energy efficiency has been an increasing component of Empire’s operations in Missouri, with numerous
programs serving the needs of different customer classes throughout the service territory. The two
tenets that guide the design of Empire’s programs are:


The service territory benefits from energy efficiency programs. As part of the overall strategy
for meeting the needs of its customers, cost-effective energy-efficiency programs offer an
alternative to the construction of infrastructure and purchase of fuel for generation.
Empire customers benefit from energy efficiency programs. Energy efficiency can result in
lower energy bills, immediately reducing program participant’s consumption of electricity.
Furthermore, the programs are designed to be inclusive, giving all customers the opportunity to
benefit from participating in Empire’s energy efficiency programs.
The programs have been designed to maximize participation given best practices. In addition to ensuring
participation while efficiently utilizing budget resources, incentives have been targeted to promote the
adoption of qualifying Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) that maximize savings.3
Empire’s program portfolio uses a combination of education and customer incentives to advance energy
efficiency in Missouri. Customer incentives are the primary mechanism for program delivery. Customers
receive rebates to purchase energy efficient equipment and services through existing market actors,
including equipment dealers and retailers.
To achieve the portfolio’s long-term savings goals, it will be necessary for Empire to engage customers,
retailers, and state and local agencies. Targeting retailers and leveraging Empire’s relationship with its
stakeholders will increase program awareness among consumers and promote the market adoption of
high efficiency equipment. Creative and sustained marketing is important to a successful and robust
energy efficiency program portfolio.
2.
Cost Effectiveness
Empire uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as the primary method of assessing the costeffectiveness of energy efficiency measures and programs. The TRC test is a widely-accepted
methodology that has been used across the United States for over twenty-five years. TRC measures the
net costs and benefits of an energy efficiency program as a resource option based on the total costs of
2
The full details of the potential study can be found in Empire’s Electric Utility Resource Planning Compliance Filing, File No. EO2011-0066 on January 3, 2011.
3 EEMs are more efficient models of end-use appliances, such as central air conditioners or compact fluorescent lighting, or
technological improvements that can make an end-use appliance more efficient in its use of energy (e.g. energy management
systems). Nearly all the programs encourage the adoption of at least one EEM. EEMs that qualify for each program represent a
substantial improvement over the standard efficiency model available on the market.
1|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
the program, including both the participant’s and the utility’s costs. This test represents the combination
of the effects of a program on both participating and non-participating customers.
There are four other tests that analyze cost-effectiveness from different perspectives, the Participant
test, the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test – also known as the Non-Participant test, the Utility Cost
test – also knows as the Program Administrator test and the Societal test.
The Participant test quantifies the benefits and costs to the customer due to participation in a program.
The benefits include reduction in the participant’s bill and incentives received. The costs are out-ofpocket expenses incurred as a result of participation plus any increases to utility bills.
The RIM test measures what happens to a customer’s bill or rates due to changes in utility revenues and
operating costs caused by a program. Benefits are the savings from avoided supply costs. Costs are the
program costs incurred by the utility and/or other entities for creating or administering the program,
incentives paid to the participant and decreased revenues for any periods for which demand decreased.
The Utility Cost test measures the net costs of a program as a resource option based on the costs
incurred by the program administrator, excluding any net costs incurred by the participant. The benefits
are the avoided supply costs of energy and demand (similar to the TRC benefits). The costs are the
program costs incurred by the administrator, the incentives paid to customers, and the increased supply
costs for the periods in which demand is increased.
The Societal test is a variant of the TRC, intended to determine the effects of a program on society as a
whole. The benefits are the avoided supply costs and externalities (including environmental benefits,
etc.). The costs are the program costs paid by the utility and the participants.
A comprehensive benefit-cost analysis was conducted on Empire’s portfolio of energy efficient
measures. The benefit-cost tests were performed using Empire-specific data. The software used to
perform the benefit-cost screening has been adapted from Minnesota Office of Energy Security
“BenCost” software and is consistent with the California Standard Practice Manual. The input data
required for the model includes the following:

General Inputs – Applied to all energy conservation measures/programs, these data describe the
utility avoided costs, economic evaluation conditions [e.g., discount rates], and customer rates.
o Retail Rate – the average cost of energy saved [$/kWh] by the customer, including
demand and energy charges. The customer may be defined as residential or
commercial/industrial/ agricultural if different rate structures exist.
o Commodity Cost – the utility’s avoided cost of energy [$/kWh]. This represents the
amount of money that would be saved by avoiding the generation, transmission and
distribution of one less unit of energy.
o Demand Cost – avoided capacity charge for electric demand [$/kW]. The utility cost
savings achieved by avoiding the delivery of one less unit of demand [kW]. This may
represent avoided generation and/or purchased power depending on the specific utility
generation assets and planned delivery of power.
2|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
o

Variable O&M – the estimated utility cost savings achieved in operations and maintenance
by the avoidance in demand or energy, expressed as savings per unit of energy saved
[$/kWh].
o Environmental Damage Factor (EDF) - the estimated value placed on avoiding
environmental externalities such as emissions and other environmentally harmful effects
of power generation [$/kWh].
o Escalation Rate – economic inflation rate used for utility rates, costs, etc. This escalation
rate is applied to current values of each of the costs above to estimate the value of the
same costs in future dollars.
o Participant Discount Rate – the economic inflation rate applied to participant cash flows
[percent]. This represents the customer’s cost of money for which alternative
investments may be made instead of the investment in energy saving measures. This
value is used to determine net present value of costs and benefits in the Participant Test.
o Utility Discount Rate – the utility’s cost of capital expressed as a percentage. This is
representative of alternate utility investments, used to determine net present value of
costs and benefits in the Utility Cost Test and Ratepayer Impact Measure Test.
o Societal Discount Rate – similar to the other discount rates, this value represents the
overall societal cost of money [percent] and is used in discounting the societal effects of
savings. This value is used to determine net present value of costs and benefits in the
Societal Test and Total Resource Cost Test.
o General Input Data Year – the year from which the source data is taken. In order to
properly discount future costs of money, it is important to know from which year the
input data is derived.
o Project Analysis Year – the first year of project analysis, representative of a mature
program [year, e.g., 2013]. Economic factors in the model are escalated appropriately to
reflect the differences from data collection to program implementation.
Project/Measure Specific Inputs – Applied to each specific energy conservation
measure/program, these data describe the costs, savings, measure life, number of participants
and coincident factor by measure/program.
o Utility Project Costs – the overall annual costs for the utility to implement the program
under evaluation [annual $]. This includes the utility cost for incentives, administration,
delivery, marketing and evaluation. Utility incentives must be provided separately as these
costs are handled differently from other utility costs in certain benefit cost tests.
o Direct Participant Cost – the incremental cost of each energy savings measure
[$/measure] before utility incentives. This represents what the customer would have to
pay to achieve the benefits of the specified energy efficient measure. This is a one-time
cost.
o Other Participant Cost –other costs such as increased annual maintenance [annual $]. It is
assumed that these are recurring costs over the life of the measure.
o Other Energy Savings – other energy savings [non-electric] such as other fuel savings
[annual $]. It is assumed that these are recurring savings over the life of the measure.
3|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
o
o
o
o
o
2012-2013
Project Life – the estimated lifetime that a project/measure will yield energy savings
[years]. Measure life should be consistent with equipment life but in some instances the
utility may choose to limit the savings to a predetermined life [for analysis purposes].
Demand Savings – the amount of demand reduction that the particular measure will yield
[kW]. This represents the rated reduction on power.
Coincident Factor – a factor applied to Demand Savings to determine the value of demand
reduction that will be achieved during the hour of the utility peak [in percent].
Energy Savings – the energy savings component of a particular measure [annual kWh].
Number of Participants – the participation goal for a particular program.
Savings estimates for individual measures or programs have been developed using a variety of sources.
ENERGY STAR data was utilized where available, with regional and national data utilized to fill the
information gaps. This includes calculating impacts using generally accepted engineering algorithms
based on a set of reasonable assumptions. Because of the diversity in equipment and energy
consumption patterns across multiple building types and end-uses, there exists a variability in these
savings estimates as they relate to program design and target markets, particularly at the planning stage
of these programs.
3.
Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
Empire District Electric Company is an investor-owned, regulated utility based in Joplin, Missouri. The
company provides electricity, natural gas and water service, with approximately 215,000 customers in
Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Empire’s energy efficiency portfolio is comprised of nine
residential programs and three commercial and industrial, which provide a variety of efficiency
opportunities for customers.
4|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Residential High Efficiency
Lighting
ENERGY STAR Appliances
Refrigerator Recycling
High Efficiency Cooling Rebate
Home Energy Comparison
Report
ENERGY STAR New Homes
Home Performance with
ENERGY STAR
Low Income Weatherization
Low Income New Homes
C&I Energy Efficiency Rebate
Building Operator Certificate
Interruptible Service Rider
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Distribute CFL lighting kits to customers through mail or at local events,
containing 4 standard screw-in CFLs.
Customers receive a $10-$75 rebate for the purchase of a qualified washing
machine, refrigerator, dehumidifier, room air conditioner, freezer, indoor fixture,
smart power strip or LED bulb.
Customers receive a $50 rebate for recycling an old inefficient refrigerator.
Customers receive $300-$600 rebate for installing efficient cooling systems and
$25 for installing a programmable thermostat.
Educates customers utilizing a comparison of the customer’s energy usage to the
average energy usage of 100 neighbors in similar-sized homes with similar
characteristics. The report includes efficiency recommendations.
Home Energy Raters receive a $400 incentive for each home energy audit.
Builders receive an $800 incentive for each home that achieves the ENERGY
STAR® Qualified Home designation.
Customers receive up to $1,200 for qualifying whole house improvements.
Supplements the federal Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program,
reducing energy costs for eligible low income homeowners and renters through
increased home efficiency.
Customers receive up to $1,200 for qualifying efficiency improvements.
Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs
Customers receive up to $20,000 for prescriptive or custom equipment installed.
Customers receive $575 incentive for building equipment and processes training
and certification.
Customers receive incentives for reducing load during peak periods, upon request
by Empire.
The following sections contain detailed program descriptions of the proposed energy efficiency
programs. Each description contains the following components:







4.
Program description including program goals, high level outline of the program and its target
market.
Eligible measures in the program and the recommended incentive (s).
Program participation targets.
Program marketing strategy.
Energy and demand saving targets on an annualized basis.
Estimated program budgets for incentives, delivery, marketing, administration, and evaluation.
Estimate of program cost-effectiveness, including TRC, Societal, Participant, Ratepayer Impact
Measure (RIM) and Utility Cost.
Residential Programs
Empire’s residential DSM programs serve residential customers, encouraging investment in energy
efficient measures such as lighting, cooling equipment and whole house efficiency.
5|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
4.1
2012-2013
Residential High Efficiency Lighting Program
ENERGY STAR® qualified compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) use up to 75% less energy than typical
incandescent light bulbs as well as offer superior performance, lasting up to 10 times longer than
incandescent bulbs, reducing the need to change hard-to-reach light bulbs. The current generation of
CFLs offer bright and warm light and are available in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. CFL technology
continues to mature, with recess lighting lamps costing little more than incandescent bulbs.
The program distributes CFL lighting kits to residential customers through mail or at local events, at no
cost to the customer. Each kit contains four standard screw-in CFLs, plus educational literature on
proper selection and disposal of CFLs. Customers participating in other Empire energy efficiency
program will be initially targeted for mailings. Empire will track mailings to ensure that customers are
not mailed multiple CFL lighting kits. Local events will be identified via relationships with local
community organizations and government agencies.
This primary program objective is to secure energy savings by encourage the usage of ENERGY STAR®
qualified CFLs. Program goals include:




Help residential customers reduce their electricity bills.
Educate residential customers about the program and the benefits of installing CFLs.
Effectively install efficient lighting through the Empire Program.
Encourage energy saving behavior and awareness through the Empire lighting program.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, Empire distributed approximately 11,900 lighting kits, containing 47,540 CFLs, at a cost of $3.10
per CFL bulb.
Residential High Efficiency Lighting Program Summary, 2010
2010 Program
CFLs Distributed
47,540
Expenditures
$145,432
Energy Savings (kWh)
2,250,719
Demand Savings (kW)
649
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
5.06
PROPOSED PROGRAM
The ENERGY STAR® energy and demand savings4 assume an 18 watt CFL replaces a 75 watt incandescent
bulb, adjusted by a 65 percent net-to-gross factor and an 8 percent coincidence factor.5 An ENERGY
STAR® CFL has an approximate lifetime of 7.3 years, based on an average daily usage of three hours and
a rate lifetime of 8,000 hours.
4
ENERGY STAR. Qualified Product Savings Calculator. www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products
U.S. Department of Energy. (September 2010). ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile: Data Trends and Market Insights; Xcel
Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions.
5
6|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
The budget was developed on the assumption that it costs $4 per CFL bulb to deliver the program,
estimated based on the 2010 program costs. Administration and marketing are 8 percent and 5 percent,
respectively, of total delivery costs while evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
41 2,637,034 2,941,307 3,245,580
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.003 193
215
Year 3
237
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
65,000 72,500 80,000
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $260,000
Admin
$20,800
Marketing
$13,000
Incentives
$0
Evaluation
$14,690
Total Budget
$308,490
Year 2
$290,000
$23,200
$14,500
$0
$16,385
$344,085
Year 3
$320,000
$25,600
$16,000
$0
$18,080
$379,680
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
4.97
5.18
n/a
0.64
4.97
4.2
ENERGY STAR® Appliance Program
ENERGY STAR® qualified appliances are more efficient than standard models and reduce consumer’s
energy consumption. Residential and small business (<40 kW per year) customers will be offered
rebates for the purchase of qualified products. Rebates will be mailed to the customer once the rebate
application and receipt is submitted to Empire for approval.
Eligible Measures and Incentive Levels
Eligible Measure
ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
ENERGY STAR Dehumidifier
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioner
ENERGY STAR Freezer
Smart Power Strip
ENERGY STAR Fixture
LED Bulb
Rebate
$75
$50
$25
$25
$15
$15
$10
$10
7|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Empire will build customer awareness of the ENERGY STAR® brand through advertising and promotions.
The program will be marketed through bill inserts, newspaper advertisements, advertising in community
newsletters, direct mail to Empire customers and partnerships with local appliance retailers.
The purpose of this program is to encourage residential customers to purchase high efficiency
appliances. Program goals include:



Help residential and small business customers reduce their electricity bills.
Develop partnerships with retailers to encourage the sale of ENERGY STAR® appliances.
Effectively market and promote high efficiency products and appliances.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
Empire did not offer an ENERGY STAR® Appliance Program in 2010.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
The energy and demand savings6 were adjusted by an 80 percent net-to-gross factor.7 Product-specific
coincidence factors (CF), lifetime and direct participant costs were estimated as follows:8








Clothes Washer: 4% coincidence factor, 14 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $240.
Refrigerator: 100% coincidence factor, 18 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $93.
Dehumidifier: 100% coincidence factor, 12 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $50.
Room Air Conditioner: 75% coincidence factor, 19 year lifetime and direct participant cost of
$50.
Freezer: 100% coincidence factor, 11 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $33.
Smart Power Strip: 80% coincidence factor, 4 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $26.
Indoor Fixture: 8% coincidence factor, 7 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $32.
LED Bulb: 8% coincidence factor, 27 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $20.
Program delivery and administration are 12 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of total incentives.
Marketing costs are 15 percent in Year 1, reducing to 8 percent in Years 2 and 3, reflecting the costs of
developing program-specific advertising and promotional materials. Evaluation is 5 percent of the total
budget.
6
ENERGY STAR. Qualified Product Savings Calculator; Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency
Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; U.S. Department of Energy. Solid-State
Lighting: LED Basics.
7 Xcel Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions; Idaho Power (2011). DemandSide Management 2010 Annual Report. Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
8 Xcel Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions; Michigan Public Service
Commission (2012). Michigan Energy Measures Database. Prepared by Morgan Marketing Partners; Frontier Associates, LLC
(2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; ENERGY STAR. Qualified Product Savings
Calculator; Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; U.S. Department of Energy. Solid-State Lighting: LED Basics.
8|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
Expected Net Energy Savings
Eligible Measure
Savings per Unit
ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer
115
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
85
ENERGY STAR Dehumidifier
170
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioner
92
ENERGY STAR Freezer
42
Smart Power Strip
82
ENERGY STAR Fixture
82
LED Bulb
88
Total
Year 1
5,751
16,913
12,771
13,776
4,168
12,336
12,352
6,590
84,657
Expected Net Demand Savings
Eligible Measure
Savings per Unit
ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer
0.012
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
0.010
ENERGY STAR Dehumidifier
0.105
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioner
0.058
ENERGY STAR Freezer
0.005
Smart Power Strip
0.008
ENERGY STAR Fixture
0.006
LED Bulb
0.000
Total
Year 1
0.6
1.9
7.9
8.8
0.5
1.2
0.9
0.0
22
Expected Participation
Eligible Measure
ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer
ENERGY STAR Refrigerator
ENERGY STAR Dehumidifier
ENERGY STAR Room Air Conditioner
ENERGY STAR Freezer
Smart Power Strip
ENERGY STAR Fixture
LED Bulb
Total
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $3,045
Admin
$2,030
Marketing
$3,806
Incentives
$25,375
Evaluation
$1,713
Total Budget
$35,969
Year 1
50
200
75
150
100
150
150
75
950
Year 2
$5,655
$3,770
$3,770
$47,125
$3,016
$63,336
Year 2
100
400
150
225
150
400
300
150
1,875
Year 2
11,503
33,826
25,542
20,663
6,252
32,896
24,703
13,181
168,566
Year 2
1.2
3.9
15.8
13.2
0.7
3.1
1.8
0.1
40
2012-2013
Year 3
17,254
50,739
34,056
27,551
8,336
61,680
41,172
21,968
262,756
Year 3
1.8
5.8
21.0
17.5
1.0
5.8
3.0
0.1
56
Year 3
150
600
200
300
200
750
500
250
2,950
Year 3
$8,610
$5,740
$5,740
$71,750
$4,592
$96,432
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
1.25
1.29
0.67
0.69
2.47
9|P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
4.3
2012-2013
Refrigerator Recycling Program
The Refrigerator Recycling Program encourages residential and small business (<40 kW per year)
customers to remove inefficient refrigerators from the electric system and dispose of them in an
environmentally safe and responsible manner. The program provides a $50 rebate to residential or
small business customers that turn-in their old, inefficient refrigerator(s). The refrigerators must be
between 10 and 30 cubic feet in size, at least five years of age and be operable. Customers are limited
to 2 rebates per program year.
Empire will select a third-party program implementer that specializes in appliance recycling and has
access to a recycling facility. The program implementer will handle scheduling, transportation and
disposal. Empire will work with the program implementer to develop innovative and creative
marketing strategies and materials. The program will be marketed through bill inserts, newspaper
advertisements and advertising in community newsletters.
Program goals include:



Educate customers about the energy and environmental benefits of recycling their inefficient
refrigerators.
Reduce household and small commercial energy consumption.
Influence consumer behavior by encouraging residential and small commercial customers to
avoid replacing their second refrigerator after it is recycled.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
Empire did not offer a Refrigerator Recycling Program in 2010.
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
Estimated energy and demand savings were adjusted by a 69 percent net-to-gross factor and a 100
percent coincidence factor. The remaining useful life of the refrigerator was estimated to be 8 years.9
The Refrigerator Recycling Program is a new program within Empire’s energy efficiency portfolio that is
expected to get significant participation. According the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2009
Residential Energy Consumption Survey,



26 percent of Missouri residents have a secondary refrigerator;
35 percent of Missouri residents have a refrigerator that is between 5 and 9 years old;
An additional 26 percent of residents have a primary refrigerator that is at least 10 years old.
Delivery costs were estimated at $140 per appliance.10 Marketing costs are 15 percent in Year 1,
reducing to 8 percent in Years 2 and 3, reflecting the costs of developing program-specific advertising
9
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont
Energy Investment Corporation; NMR Group, Inc. (2011). Massachusetts Appliance Turn-In Program Impact Evaluation.
10 ENERGY STAR. Launching a Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Program.
www.energystar.gov/ia/products/recycle/documents/StartAFridgeFreezerRecyclingProgram_FINAL.pdf
10 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
and promotional materials. Administration is 12 percent of incentive costs while evaluation is 5 percent
of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
949 379,776
Year 2
759,552
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.152 61
121
Year 3
1,139,328
Year 3
182
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
400
800
1,200
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $56,000
Admin
$1,600
Marketing
$3,000
Incentives
$20,000
Evaluation
$4,030
Total Budget
$84,630
Year 2
$112,000
$3,200
$3,200
$40,000
$7,920
$166,320
Year 3
$168,000
$4,800
$4,800
$60,000
$11,880
$249,480
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure
Test
Cost
Test
Cost Test
4.53
4.70
n/a
0.70
3.44
4.4
High Efficiency Cooling Rebate Program
The High Efficiency Cooling Rebate Program encourages residential and small business (<40 kW per year)
customers to purchase and install energy efficient cooling systems and programmable thermostats by
providing financial incentives to offset a portion of the higher initial cost of the efficient equipment.
Eligible Measures and Incentive Levels
Eligible Measure
CAC SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
CAC SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
CAC SEER ≥17
HP SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
HP SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
HP SEER ≥17
Geothermal EER ≥17
Programmable Thermostat
Rebate
$300
$400
$500
$300
$400
$500
$600
$25
Residential and small business customers, including owners of rental properties and home builders, are
eligible to participate in the program. Participating HVAC contractors must provide evidence of Air
Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Manual J training. Empire offers free one-day training
11 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
sessions on ACCA Manual J and Manual D at least twice a year in multiple cities across Empire’s Missouri
service territory.
Empire will continue to develop relationships with local HVAC contractors to promote the program,
through direct mailings to contractors, distributors, dealers and wholesalers, as well as presentations at
Chamber of Commerce meetings. Participating HVAC contractors will distribute program brochures to
potential customers. The program marketing to customers includes bill inserts, bill messaging and
newspaper advertisements.
Empire will conduct inspections utilizing in-house staff or a third-party contractor. Inspections will be
conducted on the first four projects completed by a contractor, then 10 percent of the projects
completed by a contractor thereafter.
The program’s long-range goal is to encourage contractors and distributors to use energy efficiency as a
marketing tool, stocking and selling more efficient units and moving the entire residential cooling
market toward greater energy efficiency. Additional program goals include:



Educate customers about the program and the benefits of installing high efficiency cooling
equipment and programmable thermostats.
Develop partnerships with contractors to bring efficient cooling systems to the market.
Demonstrate persistent energy savings and provide other benefits to end-users such as
improved health, safety and comfort.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
The 2010 program was called the Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioner Rebate Program.
Empire provided incentives to residential customers for equipment that met the following eligibility:




$400 per unit for central air conditioner or air source heat pump system SEER 15 to 15.9
$450 per unit for central air conditioner or air source heat pump system SEER 16 to 16.9
$500 per unit for central air conditioner or air source heat pump system SEER ≥ 17
$500 per unit for geothermal heat pump system SEER ≥ 15
Residential High Efficiency Central Air Conditioner Program Summary
2010 Program
Participants
545
Expenditures
$265,955
Energy Savings (kWh)
800,119
Demand Savings (kW)
761
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
2.36
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
Empire renamed the program to High Efficiency Cooling Rebate Program. The energy and demand
savings were adjusted by an 80 percent net-to-gross factor and a 75 percent coincidence factor.11
11
Empire District Electric (2009). An Evaluation of the Residential Central Air Conditioning Program. Prepared by TecMarket
Works; ENERGY STAR. Qualified Product Savings Calculator; Idaho Power (2011). Demand-Side Management 2010 Annual
Report. Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
12 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Lifetime and direct participant costs were estimated as follows:12




Central Air Conditioner: 14 year lifetime and direct participant cost ranging from $556 to $1,111.
Air Source Heat Pump: 12 year lifetime and direct participant cost ranging from $588 to $1,175.
Geothermal Heat Pump: 15 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $1,464.
Programmable Thermostats: 15 year lifetime and direct participant cost of $35.
Delivery is 12 percent of total incentives while administration and marketing are 8 percent of incentives
and evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Eligible Measure
CAC SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
CAC SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
CAC SEER ≥17
HP SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
HP SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
HP SEER ≥17
Geothermal EER ≥17
Programmable Thermostat
Savings per Unit
814
775
998
1,106
1,308
1,404
1,514
948
Year 1
122,040
155,040
44,928
359,580
130,800
70,200
22,716
376,481
1,281,785
Savings per Unit
0.576
0.571
0.668
0.850
0.810
0.790
0.891
0.499
Year 1
86
114
30
276
81
40
13
198
839
Total
Expected Net Demand Savings
Eligible Measure
CAC SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
CAC SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
CAC SEER ≥17
HP SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
HP SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
HP SEER ≥17
Geothermal EER ≥17
Programmable Thermostat
Total
Expected Participation
Eligible Measure
CAC SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
CAC SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
CAC SEER ≥17
HP SEER 15 ≤ 15.9
HP SEER 16 ≤ 16.9
HP SEER ≥17
Geothermal EER ≥17
Programmable Thermostat
Year 1
150
200
45
325
100
50
15
397
Total 1,282
Year 2
200
275
80
400
175
100
45
574
1,849
Year 2
162,720
213,180
79,872
442,560
228,900
140,400
68,148
547,967
1,883,747
Year 2
115
157
53
340
142
79
40
292
1,218
Year 3
223,740
310,080
124,800
553,200
327,000
203,580
128,724
742,279
2,613,403
Year 3
158
228
83
425
203
115
76
398
1,686
Year 3
275
400
125
500
250
145
85
797
2,577
12Michigan
Public Service Commission (2012). Michigan Energy Measures Database. Prepared by Morgan Marketing Partners;
ENERGY STAR. Qualified Product Savings Calculator; Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency
Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation.
13 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $39,471
Admin
$26,314
Marketing
$26,314
Incentives
$328,925
Evaluation
$21,051
Total Budget
$442,075
Year 2
$58,962
$39,308
$39,308
$491,350
$31,446
$660,374
2012-2013
Year 3
$83,811
$55,874
$55,874
$698,425
$44,699
$938,683
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
1.92
1.99
0.72
0.75
3.40
4.5
Home Energy Comparison Reports
Home Energy Comparison Reports are designed to educate and motivate customers to reduce their
energy consumption by comparing their electricity usage to an average of 100 neighbors in similar-sized
homes with similar characteristics. The reports will include targeted efficiency recommendations based
on an analysis of the household’s energy usage, demographics and housing characteristics.
Empire will choose a vendor that generates Home Energy Comparison Reports using a software platform
that combines energy usage data with customer demographic, housing and Geographic Information
System (GIS) data. The vendor will demonstrate an ability to generate measurable and verifiable savings
from behavior-based programs at scale. The selected vendor will deploy an online tool suite on Empire’s
Smart Energy Solutions webpage that gives customers greater insight into their energy consumption and
simple steps they can take to become more energy efficient. The Home Energy Reporting System is a
proven energy efficiency program that successfully leverages large-scale consumer engagement to drive
measurable, predictable and sustainable energy savings.
Program goals include:






Increase awareness of energy efficiency and energy use in the home.
Educate residential customers about the benefits of energy efficiency and the opportunities to
reduce energy consumption.
Encourage households to change energy usage behavior.
Generate measurable and verifiable energy savings.
Increase awareness of, and participation in, Empire’s energy efficiency programs.
Support the use of the internet as a source of education and resources on energy efficiency.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
Empire did not offer a Home Energy Comparison Report Program in 2010.
14 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The energy and demand savings were adjusted by an 8 percent coincidence factor.13 The program will
target 7,500 participants in Year 1 and 15,000 participants in Years 2 and 3. However, participation will
vary depending on an analysis of Empire’s residential customer base and high use customers. The
budget was developed based on an estimated cost of $0.04 per kWh saved for delivery and marketing.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
240 1,800,000 4,140,000 4,320,000
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.002 16
33
Year 3
33
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
7,500 15,000 15,000
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $72,000
Admin
$5,760
Marketing
$0
Incentives
$0
Evaluation
$3,888
Total Budget
$81,648
Year 2
$165,600
$13,248
$0
$0
$8,942
$187,790
Year 3
$172,800
$13,824
$0
$0
$9,331
$195,955
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
1.61
1.69
n/a
0.44
1.61
4.6
ENERGY STAR New Homes Program
The ENERGY STAR® New Homes Program encourages the construction of homes that meet ENERGY
STAR® New Home guidelines. An ENERGY STAR® new home is 15 to 20 percent more energy efficient
than an average new home. Benefits of owning an ENERGY STAR® home include savings resulting from:





Properly installed and inspected insulation in floors, walls and attics
High performance windows
Tight construction and correctly installed duct system
Efficient heating and cooling equipment
Efficient lighting and appliances
Empire provides incentives for energy audits and achieving ENERGY STAR® Qualified Home designation.
Home Energy Raters that perform the home energy audits must be RESNET certified. Incentives
13
Discussion with Opower. Xcel Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions.
15 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
provided to builders, retailers or dealers for achieving the ENERGY STAR® Qualified Home designation
offset a portion of the additional costs of the enhanced construction techniques.
Empire partnered with the Crowder College Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology
(MARET) Center to provide the required training and assist in certifying RESNET certified auditors.
Empire will explore partnering with additional local colleges and universities.
Empire builds awareness of the ENERGY STAR® brand through advertising and promotions. The program
is marketed through bill inserts to Empire customers as well as representation at community events,
home builder association meetings and Chamber of Commerce meetings.
Program goals include:




Help residential customers reduce their energy bills.
Develop partnerships with home builders and manufactured home retailers/dealers to
encourage the sale of ENERGY STAR® homes to customers.
Demonstrate persistent energy savings and provide other benefits to end-users such as
improved health, safety and comfort.
Encourage energy saving behavior and awareness of the benefits of high efficiency equipment.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, ENERGY STAR® Qualified Homes received incentives of $1,200, $400 for the Home Energy Rater
and $800 for the builder.
ENERGY STAR New Homes Program Summary
2010 Program
Participants
57
Expenditures
$86,687
Energy Savings (kWh)
148,599
Demand Savings (kW)
128
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.53
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
As Joplin and the surroundings areas recover from the tornado that hit in May 2011, Empire will work
with local communities to provide support and encourage the construction of ENERGY STAR® Qualified
Homes. The direct participant cost of an ENERGY STAR® Qualified Home is approximately $3,272 and
the lifetime was estimated at 25 years.14 Year 1 incentives will cover the entire $3,272 direct participant
cost to support Empire’s efforts. Incentives are anticipated to decrease to $1,200 for Years 2 and 3,
based on an assessment of the market.
The net energy and demand savings were adjusted by a 100 percent coincidence factor. Delivery is 12
percent of total incentives while evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget. Administration and
14
ENERGY STAR. ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes, Version 3. Savings & Cost Estimate Summary; Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation.
16 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
marketing are 10 percent of incentives in Year 1 and reduce to 8 percent in Years 2 and 3, reflecting
Empire’s efforts to support the local community.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
3,061 918,261
Year 2
765,217
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.349 105
87
Year 3
612,174
Year 3
70
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
300
250
200
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $117,786
Admin
$98,155
Marketing
$98,155
Incentives
$981,548
Evaluation
$64,782
Total Budget
$1,360,425
Year 2
$36,000
$24,000
$24,000
$300,000
$19,200
$403,200
Year 3
$28,800
$19,200
$19,200
$240,000
$15,360
$322,560
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure
Test
Cost
Test
Cost Test
1.01
1.06
0.43
0.51
1.43
4.7
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® Program encourages whole-house improvements to
existing homes by enhancing home energy audits and promoting comprehensive retrofit services. The
program also aims to address other customer needs, such as comfort, durability, health and safety.
A home energy audit, performed by a Building Performance Institute (BPI) accredited contractor,
identifies potential improvements and the associated cost estimates. To qualify for an incentive,
participants need to implement at least one qualifying improvement in addition to the home energy
audit: The incentives are based on the qualifying improvement(s), which include:



Insulation (attic, walls and floors)
Air and duct sealing
Windows and doors
Empire partnered with the Crowder College Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology
(MARET) Center to provide BPI training and certification for participating contractors. Empire builds
customer awareness of the ENERGY STAR® brand through advertising and promotions. The program is
17 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
marketed through bill inserts to Empire customers. Additionally, Empire hosts information booths at
community events and gives presentations at local contractor and Chamber of Commerce meetings.
Program goals include:



Develop partnerships with contractors to encourage and facilitate whole-house energy
improvements and BPI certification.
Demonstrate persistent energy savings and provide other benefits to end-users such as
improved health, safety and comfort.
Encourage energy saving behavior and awareness of the benefits of high efficiency equipment.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, 24 existing homes received a $400 incentive for participating in the Home Performance with
ENERGY STAR® Program.
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Summary
2010 Program
Participants
24
Expenditures
$18,922
Energy Savings (kWh)
28,800
Demand Savings (kW)
25
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.02
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® Program will offer incentives up to $1,200 based on the
qualifying improvements made to the residence. For the purposes of this analysis, the average incentive
was estimated at $800. According to ENERGY STAR®, the program results in at least 20 percent savings.
The direct participant cost is approximately $2,000, based on the 2010 program, and the lifetime was
estimated at 18 years.15
Delivery is 12 percent of total incentives while administration and marketing are 8 percent of incentives
and evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
2,925 511,840
Year 2
950,560
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.334 58
109
Year 3
1,462,400
Year 3
167
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
175
325
500
15
Energy Star. Home Performance with Energy Star - A Cost-Effective Strategy for Improving Efficiency in Existing Homes.
www.energystar.gov/ia/home_improvement/HPwES_Utility_Intro_FactSheet.pdf?57ca-b606; Frontier Associates, LLC (2010).
Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant.
18 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $16,800
Admin
$11,200
Marketing
$11,200
Incentives
$140,000
Evaluation
$8,960
Total Budget
$188,160
Year 2
$31,200
$20,800
$20,800
$260,000
$16,640
$349,440
2012-2013
Year 3
$48,000
$32,000
$32,000
$400,000
$25,600
$537,600
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
1.42
1.49
0.74
0.61
3.01
4.8
Low Income Weatherization Program
The Low Income Weatherization Program supplements the federal Low Income Weatherization
Assistance Program. The program reduces energy costs for eligible low income homeowners and
renters through increased home efficiency, at no cost to the participant. Home efficiency is improved
through the installation of energy saving measures, such as insulation, caulking, weather stripping and
heating system repair or replacement.
Empire customers work with one of the following Missouri Weatherization Agencies to participate in the
program:



Economic Security Corporation of Southwest Area
Ozarks Area Community Action Corporation
West Central Missouri Community Action Agency
The Missouri Weatherization Agencies offer a cost-effective implementation capability, which allows
most of the funds allocated to this program to go directly to the purchase and installation of energyefficiency equipment. The Agencies have the primary responsibility for promoting the program and
providing the efficiency improvements. Empire supplements marketing efforts, working with other
statewide program staff and utilities to promote the program through community events and
organizations, including schools, churches, and nonprofit organizations within the service territory.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, 287 low income customers received weatherization services.
Residential Low Income Weatherization Summary
2010 Program
Participants
287
Expenditures
$251,032
Energy Savings (kWh)
588,924
Demand Savings (kW)
10
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
16.27
19 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The energy and demand savings were adjusted by a 100 percent coincidence factor. The lifetime of
weatherization services were estimated at 15 years.16 In 2010, the Missouri Weatherization Agencies
anticipated spending an average of $1,200 per home, actually spent an average of $1,631 per home.17
Delivery was estimated at $1,200 per home, administration and marketing are 8 percent of delivery and
evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
2,052 718,200
Year 2
974,700
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.234 82
111
Year 3
1,231,200
Year 3
141
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
350
475
600
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $420,000
Admin
$33,600
Marketing
$33,600
Incentives
$0
Evaluation
$24,360
Total Budget
$511,560
Year 2
$570,000
$45,600
$45,600
$0
$33,060
$694,260
Year 3
$720,000
$57,600
$57,600
$0
$41,760
$876,960
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
1.34
1.40
n/a
0.47
1.34
4.9
Low Income New Homes Program
Empire works with local non-profit organizations to encourage energy efficiency, affordable new
housing for low income customers. Financial incentives, not to exceed $1,100 per home, are available
for the following measures:


Building Insulation, full incremental cost above the baseline.
 Exterior wall insulation with an R value ≥ 19 (baseline R-13).
 Attic insulation with an R value ≥ 38 (baseline R-30).
 Floor insulation with an R value ≥ 19 (baseline R-13).
Central Air Conditioning, full incremental cost up to $400 for a SEER ≥ 14 (baseline SEER 13).
16
Empire District Electric (2009). An Evaluation of the Low-Income Weatherization Program. Prepared by TecMarket Works;
Frontier Associates, LLC (2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; Xcel Energy.
2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions.
17 Empire District Electric (2009). An Evaluation of the Low-Income Weatherization Program. Prepared by TecMarket Works.
20 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio



2012-2013
Heat Pump, full incremental cost up to $400 (baseline SEER 13). The incentive may not exceed
the incentive for a similarly rated central air conditioning unit.
Refrigerator, up to $200 for an ENERGY STAR refrigerator.
Lighting, up to $100 for the installation of ENERGY STAR rated lighting fixtures.
Organizations notify Empire of their intent to participate in the program. Upon acceptance, Empire holds
the maximum available financing per home for up to six months, with payment occurring upon receipt
and review of paid invoices. Empire currently plans to fund five to ten homes in Missouri per year for a
period of five years.
Marketing includes advertising through bill inserts and direct mail to eligible residential customers.
Empire supplements the marketing efforts, via bill inserts, newspaper advertisements and radio
advertisements.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, 2 new low income homes received incentives.
Residential Low Income New Homes Summary
2010 Program
Participants
2
Expenditures
$1,322
Energy Savings (kWh)
2,536
Demand Savings (kW)
7
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
2.64
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The energy and demand savings were adjusted by a 100 percent coincidence factor. The direct
participant cost is approximately $2,750, based on the 2010 program, and the lifetime was estimated at
15 years.18 For the purposes of this analysis, the average incentive was estimated at $750.
The program is delivered by local non-profit organizations. Administration and marketing are 12
percent and 8 percent of incentives, respectively, while evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
2,052 92,340
Year 2
82,080
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
0.234 11
9
Year 3
82,080
Year 3
9
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
45
40
40
18
Empire District Electric (2009). An Evaluation of the Low-Income Weatherization Program. Prepared by TecMarket Works;
Frontier Associates, LLC (2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; Xcel Energy.
2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions.
21 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $0
Admin
$4,050
Marketing
$2,700
Incentives
$33,750
Evaluation
$2,025
Total Budget
$42,525
Year 2
$0
$3,600
$2,400
$30,000
$1,800
$37,800
2012-2013
Year 3
$0
$3,600
$2,400
$30,000
$1,800
$37,800
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
0.66
0.69
0.25
0.53
2.05
5.
Commercial and Industrial Programs
Empire’s commercial and industrial DSM programs serve non-residential customers, encouraging
investment in building operator certification and energy efficient measures such as lighting, cooling
equipment and motors.
5.1
C&I Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
The C&I Energy Efficiency Rebate Program provides incentives to lower the cost of identifying and
purchasing energy efficient equipment for commercial or industrial facilities. The program consists of
three parts, an energy audit, prescriptive rebates and custom rebates. Empire markets this program
through partnerships with contractors and distributors of energy efficient systems and equipment.
Other marketing includes newspaper advertisements, targeted mailings to customers and contractors,
bill inserts and advertising in HVAC trade publications.
Program goals include:



Education about the benefits of installing high efficiency equipment.
Effectively install efficient equipment and systems through the Empire Program.
Help commercial and industrial customers reduce their electricity bills
5.1.1 Energy Audit
Energy audits provide customers with a comprehensive analysis of their building energy use and
recommendations on ways to reduce energy costs and improve energy efficiency. An incentive covers
50% of the audit cost, up to $300 for facilities less than 25,000 square feet and up to $500 for facilities
over 25,000 square feet. Customers with multiple buildings are eligible for multiple audit rebates. To
receive the incentive, the audit must be performed by an Empire certified energy auditor, a copy of the
audit report must be submitted with the rebate application, and the participant must implement at least
one of the recommendations that qualify for an Empire equipment rebate.
5.1.2 Prescriptive Rebate
Pre-qualified prescriptive rebates are available for new construction and retrofits. The rebated
22 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
measures are proven technologies that are readily available with known performance characteristics.
An audit is not required to participate. A $20,000 incentive cap is imposed per facility per program year.
However, if funds are still available in the last three months of the program year, the cap may be
exceeded. Multiple rebate applications for different measures may be submitted. Eligible equipment
categories include lighting, motors, variable frequency drives and HVAC equipment.
Eligible Measures and Incentive Levels 19
LIGHTING
Measure
High Performance T8 Fixtures replace T12 or standard T8 lighting. Must meet
specifications set by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (retrofit only).
Standard T8 Lamps and Ballasts replace T12 systems (lamp and ballast).
Lighting Power Density - must be at least 25% below ASHRAE Std. 90.1.
High Intensity Fluorescent - T5 or T5HO lamps with electronic ballasts.
Pulse Start Metal Halide (retrofit only)
Lighting Controls - switch replacement sensors limited to rooms less than 250 sq.ft.
LED Exit Sign
HVAC
Type and Size
Split System Air Conditioner <65,000 Btu/h
Unitary System Air Conditioner <65,000 Btu/h
Unitary or Split System Air Conditioner ≥65,000 to <135,000 Btu/h
Unitary or Split System Air Conditioner ≥135,000 to <240,000 Btu/h
Unitary or Split System Air Conditioner ≥240,000 to <760,000 Btu/h
Air Cooled Chiller
MOTORS
Horsepower
Open Drip Proof
1
85.50%
1.5
86.50%
2
86.50%
3
89.50%
5
89.50%
7.5
91.00%
10
91.70%
15
93.00%
20
93.00%
25
93.60%
Variable Frequency Drives (VFD)
Horsepower
1.5 to 10 HP
10 to 20 HP
≥ 20 HP
Incentive
$20 for 2- lamp fixtures
$30 for 3- lamp fixtures
$2 per lamp
$10 per ballast
$1 per watt per sq.ft. reduction
$50 per fixture
$50 per fixture
$20 switch replacement sensor
$50 ceiling/remote mounted sensor
$10 per sign
Efficiency
14.0 SEER, 12.0 EER
14.0 SEER, 11.6 EER
11.5 EER
11.5 EER
10.3 EER
1.03 IPLV
Incentive
$92 per ton
$92 per ton
$73 per ton
$79 per ton
$79 per ton
$40 per ton
Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled
85.50%
86.50%
86.50%
89.50%
89.50%
91.70%
91.70%
92.40%
93.00%
93.60%
Incentive
$50
$50
$60
$60
$60
$90
$100
$115
$125
$130
Incentive
$130 per HP
$115 per HP
$95 per HP
5.1.3 Custom Rebate
Non-residential customers that install energy efficient equipment in a new or existing facility that does
not qualify for a prescriptive rebate may receive a custom incentive. An audit is not required to
participate, but applications must be pre-approved by Empire before equipment is purchased and
19
Empire Missouri 2010 incentive levels were utilized for all measures except LED Exit Signs, Air Cooled Chillers and Variable
Frequency Drives.
23 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
installed. Custom projects are reviewed to ensure they produce a Societal Benefit-Cost Test of 1.05 or
higher and have an incremental payback greater than two years.
A $20,000 incentive cap is imposed per facility per program year. However, if funds are still available in
the last three months of the program year, the cap may be exceeded. Multiple rebate applications for
different measures may be submitted.
Incentives are the lesser of the following:



A buy-down to a two year payback;
50% of the incremental cost; or
50% of lifecycle avoided demand and energy costs.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
In 2010, Empire had 30 custom participants and 15 prescriptive participants. Eligible prescriptive rebate
equipment categories included lighting, motor and HVAC equipment.
C&I Energy Efficiency Program Summary
2010 Program
Custom
Prescriptive
Participants
30
15
Expenditures
$228,310
$33,908
Energy Savings (kWh)
4,529,981
280,653
Demand Savings (kW)
995
166
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
8.52
5.61
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The net energy and demand savings were estimated based on a mix of eligible equipment, adjusted by
product-specific net-to-gross factors and an average 85 percent coincidence factor.20 The program
lifetime was estimated at 15 years and the direct participant costs were estimated at $7,800 for
prescriptive projects and $15,000 for customer projects.21
Incentives are capped at $20,000; for the purposes of this analysis, the average incentive was estimated
at $2,800 for prescriptive projects and $7,500 for custom projects. Delivery is 12 percent of total
incentives while administration and marketing are 5 percent and 3 percent of incentives, respectively,
and evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
20Frontier
Associates, LLC (2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; Consortium for
Energy Efficiency. High-Efficiency Commercial and Conditioning and Heat Pump Initiative.
http://www.cee1.org/com/hecac/hecac-main.php3; Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency
Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; Michigan Public Service Commission
(2012). Michigan Energy Measures Database. Prepared by Morgan Marketing Partners; Xcel Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM
(Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical Assumptions.
21 Frontier Associates, LLC (2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; Michigan Public
Service Commission (2012). Michigan Energy Measures Database. Prepared by Morgan Marketing Partners; Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy
Investment Corporation.
24 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Expected Net Energy Savings
Eligible Measure
Custom
Prescriptive
Savings per Unit Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
25,028 1,251,411 2,502,822 3,754,233
11,903 1,190,310 1,785,465 2,380,620
Expected Net Demand Savings
Eligible Measure
Custom
Prescriptive
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
7.40 370
740
3.03 303
455
Expected Participation
Eligible Measure
Custom
Prescriptive
Year 1
50
100
Year 2
100
150
Year 3
1,110
607
Year 3
150
200
Detailed Program Budget
Project Delivery
Admin
Marketing
Incentives
Evaluation
Total Budget
Year 1
$45,000
$18,750
$11,250
$375,000
$22,500
$472,500
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Total Resource
Cost Test
Custom
1.84
Prescriptive
1.63
5.2
Custom
Year 2
$90,000
$37,500
$22,500
$750,000
$45,000
$945,000
Year 3
$135,000
$56,250
$33,750
$1,125,000
$67,500
$1,417,500
Year 1
$33,492
$13,955
$8,373
$279,100
$16,746
$351,666
Prescriptive
Year 2
Year 3
$50,238 $66,984
$20,933 $27,910
$12,560 $16,746
$418,650 $558,200
$25,119 $33,492
$527,499 $703,332
Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Utility
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
1.91
0.77
0.80
3.31
1.70
0.56
0.79
3.97
Building Operator Certification
The Building Operator Certification (BOC) Program is a training and certification program that educates
facility managers and operators in the energy efficiency of their equipment and processes. The training
includes approximately 80 hours of classroom and project work in building systems operation and
maintenance. Each course in the series is completed in a one-day training session, except BOC 103 –
HVAC Systems and Controls, a two-day course.
Empire offers incentives for Level 1 training, topics HVAC Systems and Controls, Efficient Lighting
Fundamentals, Facility Electrical Systems, and Indoor Air Quality. To become certified, participants
must pass an exam at the end of each day of training and complete assigned projects. Rebates of $575,
half of the training tuition, are provided to Empire participants that complete the certification process.
The program is administered by the Missouri Energy Center in partnership with the Midwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (MEEA). The program is targeted towards customers with facilities that employ fulltime building operators.
25 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Empire works with Missouri Energy Center and MEEA to promote and market the certification program.
Marketing activities include targeted mailing to building operators and presentations to the Chamber of
Commerce. Empire will give presentations at Chamber of Commerce meetings and trade conferences.
Program goals include:


Education of non-residential building operators about the benefits of efficiency.
Help commercial and industrial customers reduce their electricity bills.
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
There were no BOC Program participants from January through December 2010. Expenditures totaled
$1,029 during this time.
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
The energy and demand savings were adjusted by a 53 percent coincidence factor.22 The direct
participant costs were estimated at $1,150, the current cost of training, and the estimated useful life
was 15 years.23
Participants receive an incentive of $575 upon completion of the training program. Delivery is 12
percent of total incentives while administration and marketing are 2 percent and 12 percent of
incentives, respectively, and evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Energy Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1
8,139 325,560
Year 2
569,730
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2
1.643 66
115
Year 3
813,900
Year 3
164
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
40
70
100
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $2,760
Admin
$460
Marketing
$4,600
Incentives
$23,000
Evaluation
$1,541
Total Budget
$32,361
Year 2
$4,830
$805
$8,050
$40,250
$2,697
$56,632
Year 3
$6,900
$1,150
$11,500
$57,500
$3,853
$80,903
22
Kansas City Power & Light (2009). Evaluation of Kansas City Power and Light's Building Operator Certificate Program.
Prepared by Opinion Dynamics Corporation; Xcel Energy. 2009/2010 Biennial DSM (Revised February 20, 2009) - Technical
Assumptions.
23 Empire District Electric. Building Operator Certification. www.empiredistrict.com/Dochandler.ashx?id=4019; Frontier
Associates, LLC (2010). Arkansas Comprehensive Programs Deemed Savings. Prepared by Nexant; Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual. Prepared by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation.
26 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
6.84
7.12
2.40
0.90
11.71
5.3
Interruptible Service Rider
The Interruptible Service Rider Program is intended as a load shedding strategy to be used where system
peak demand exceeds available capacity or extreme energy prices are expected. The purpose of load
shedding is to avoid the occurrence of involuntary load curtailments and/or excessive purchased energy
prices
The program is designed to reduce customer load during peak periods, upon request by Empire. The
rider is available to commercial and industrial customers with a minimum monthly billing demand of 200
kW and an anticipated minimum load curtailment capability of 200 kW. The program year runs from
June 1 through May 31.
Customers voluntarily enter into a contract for a term of one to five years for no greater than 50 MW
annually. The contract is automatically renewed for the term of equal length unless termination notice
is given by the customer or Empire. The customer rate for service interruption varies according to the
length of the contract. Curtailments are limited to ten per year, with a maximum interruption of eight
hours per curtailment event.
Empire markets this program through partnerships with contractors and distributors of energy efficient
systems and equipment. Other marketing includes newspaper advertisements, targeted mailings to
customers and contractors, bill inserts and advertising in HVAC trade publications. Empire will give
presentations at Chamber of Commerce meetings and trade conferences.
Program goals include:



Education of non-residential customers about the benefits of reducing load during peak periods.
Effectively install efficient equipment and systems through the Empire Program.
Help commercial and industrial customers reduce their electricity bills
2010 PROGRAM SUMMARY
Beginning June 1, 2010, there were three contracts with total interruptible demand of 3,100 kW for a
monthly credit of $5,758.
Interruptible Service Rider Summary
2010 Program
Participants
3
Expenditures
$67,896
Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Demand Savings (kW)
3100
TRC Benefit-Cost Ratio
n/a
27 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
2012 PROPOSED PROGRAM
Delivery is 20 percent of total incentives while administration and marketing are 5 percent of incentives
and evaluation is 5 percent of the total budget.
Expected Net Demand Savings
Savings per Unit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
500 5,000 15,000 22,500
Expected Participation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
10
30
45
Detailed Program Budget
Year 1
Project Delivery $6,000
Admin
$1,500
Marketing
$1,500
Incentives
$30,000
Evaluation
$1,950
Total Budget
$40,950
Year 2
$18,000
$4,500
$4,500
$90,000
$5,850
$122,850
Year 3
$27,000
$6,750
$6,750
$135,000
$8,775
$184,275
Program Cost-Effectiveness
Utility
Total Resource Societal Participant Ratepayer Impact
Test
Test
Measure Test
Cost Test
Cost Test
36.20
36.20
n/a
9.68
9.68
6.
Portfolio Management and Implementation Strategies
Empire program staff will work with AEG, trade allies and distributors, and a third-party program
implementation contractor to market and deliver Empire’s energy efficiency programs. An evaluation
contractor will be retained to provide an independent evaluation of each program.
6.1
Marketing and Customer Recruitment
Empire staff will be responsible for marketing the efficiency programs and developing marketing
materials for customers, including bill inserts, newspaper advertisements, and direct mail, with input
from the program implementation contractor. Empire will also be responsible for maintaining an up-todate utility website with information on efficiency programs and how to participate.
The third-party implementation contractor will recruit contractors to participate in the residential HVAC
and C&I efficiency programs. The implementation contractor will be responsible for developing and
maintaining relationships with Empire trade allies, providing information on the benefits of energy
efficiency to contractors and training on quality installations and energy audits.
The implementation contractor will send Empire program management staff weekly and monthly
updates on marketing activities, customer and contractor recruitment, and training seminars.
28 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
6.2
2012-2013
Rebate Processing
Empire will maintain a call center with staff that will answer customer questions and process
applications to programs. This call center (including the 800 number) may be managed by a third party
contractor. AEG will provide support to Empire by processing rebates. Empire will mail rebate checks to
program participants, where applicable.
6.3
Energy Audits
Onsite energy audits will be conducted by trained auditors. These auditors will be managed by an
implementation contractor. Information on the number and type of energy audits conducted,
recommendations, and measures installed as a result of the audit will be given to Empire program
management staff on a monthly basis.
6.4
Customer/Contractor Feedback
Empire will gather customer feedback on its programs through its call center, implementation
contractors and program evaluations. Customer complaints will be handled immediately by Empire
program management staff or by the implementation contractor. General customer and contractor
feedback will be gathered during the evaluation through participant surveys or focus groups and
reported to Empire with recommendations on program improvements.
6.5
Planning, Reporting and Program Tracking
Empire will work with the PSC to ensure that programs are tracked and reported in a way that meets the
state’s utility program reporting requirements. AEG will work with Empire to develop a tracking system
that is efficient and effective at recording customer feedback, rebates, energy savings, and other
program process indicators. This tracking system will be maintained by Empire, and will be utilized by
staff and third-party contractors as a central database for program inputs.
7.
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Activities
Empire has designated approximately 5% of its total program budgets for Evaluation, Measurement and
Verification (EM&V) activities, which is the industry standard. To cost-effectively evaluate Empire’s
energy efficiency programs, the evaluation contractor will evaluate each program every two years,
starting with the beginning of the second program year.
This plan provides a high level, multiple year evaluation approach for Empire’s energy efficiency
program portfolio. This plan is the first stage of a two-stage evaluation planning process. The second
stage is annual detailed evaluation plans, which will be prepared by the evaluation contractor for the
programs that will be evaluated.
7.1
Process Evaluation Approach
Process evaluations will be conducted at the end of the first year of each program. The purpose of a
process evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of program processes, evaluate the achievements of
objectives and make recommendations for improvements. A good process evaluation will:
29 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio





2012-2013
Assist program implementers and managers with managing programs to achieve cost effective
savings while maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction.
Determine awareness levels to refine marketing strategies and reduce barriers to participation.
Provide recommendations for changing the program’s structure, management, administration,
design, delivery, operations or targets.
Determine if best practices should be incorporated.
Gather information from a variety of sources to address the issues stated above.
The first year process evaluations will provide recommendations to Empire, program implementers, and
other program stakeholders on program design, delivery, and administration. The evaluation contractor
will meet with Empire’s program managers, review existing programs, and interview Empire staff and
implementation contractors to identify and prioritize important management, policy, and process
issues.
The evaluation contractor will develop individual program plans that identify project objectives, data
resources and collection, key researchable issues, budget and timeline. Once the evaluation plans have
been reviewed by Empire, the evaluation contractor will design the sample plan and data collection
instruments, and collect and analyze the data. The evaluation contractor will synthesize the findings and
present recommendations to Empire in draft and final evaluation reports.
7.2
Impact Evaluation Approach
Impact evaluations estimate gross and net demand, energy savings and the cost effectiveness of
installed systems. They are used to verify measure installations, identify key energy assumptions and
provide the research necessary to calculate defensible and accurate savings attributable to the program.
Impact evaluations are typically conducted one year after the program is implemented because program
results may not be accessible or apparent before then.
The evaluation contractor will adhere to the state evaluation protocols to obtain unbiased reliable
estimates of program-level net energy and demand savings over the life of the expected net impact.
Measurement and Verification (M&V) may be conducted at a higher level of rigor or with greater
precision than the protocols (depending on resources), where more inputs measured or metered, but
M&V may not use a lower level of rigor than is specified in the evaluation protocol.
7.3
Cross-Cutting Evaluation Activities
This section discusses the evaluation tasks that the evaluation contractor will perform each year at the
overall portfolio level.
7.3.1 Project Initiation Meetings
The evaluation contractor will meet with Empire staff (and their contractors, if desired) annually in
person or via teleconference to discuss evaluation objectives, a common set of expectations about what
the evaluation will provide, and an agreement on the methods to be used to evaluate each program.
The meeting will also provide an opportunity to review the data requirements for meeting the study
30 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
objectives, establish the schedule of deliverables, set up a communications protocol and develop a good
working relationship.
7.3.2 Evaluation Plans
Program evaluation supports the need for public accountability, oversight, validation of program
performance and cost-effective program improvements. An evaluation plan provides a roadmap for
program evaluation activities, identifying evaluation objectives, the evaluation approach, data
collection, sampling plans, and work schedule.
In addition to the program plan, the evaluation contractor will develop detailed evaluation plans for
each program. The plans will support a comprehensive approach, designed to be revised and extended
into future years. The evaluation plan will include study strategies and techniques, study objectives, key
researchable issues, data collection and analysis approaches, sampling strategies, timelines, and
deliverables by the programs to be evaluated that year.
7.3.3 Program Design and Delivery Review
A program design and delivery review will be completed as part of the Year 1 process evaluation. This
will include staff interviews and a review of the tracking system.
Staff Interviews
The evaluation contractor will conduct in-depth interviews with Empire design and delivery staff. The
interviews with program managers and staff will discuss the roles and responsibilities of staff and trade
allies; program goals, successes, and challenges in meeting these goals; the effectiveness of the
programs’ operations relative to the defined program goals and objectives; reasons for variance in
program performance by customer class or territory; and areas in need of improvement in program
design and implementation. The evaluation contractor will complete an interim memo summarizing the
results of the program design and delivery review.
Tracking System Review
Quality program tracking systems are integral for effective program planning, implementation and
evaluation. The evaluation contractor will evaluate Empire’s tracking system including initial data
validation (application processing, measure and savings capture and validation, audit trail, and system
location), security, and data granularity (types of data being captured, QA/QC processes, data thresholds
and back-up data capture, refresh rate and automated validations).
7.3.4 Evaluation Management and Reporting
The evaluation contractor will complete three main activities for evaluation management and reporting
through the two-year period. These are discussed below and include progress reporting, interim
reporting and annual reporting.
Progress reporting
The evaluation contractor will meet with Empire in person or via teleconference to summarize tasks
completed for the month, problems encountered and solutions implemented, schedule and budget
issues and updates, and tasks planned in the next month. The evaluation contractor will have ad-hoc
31 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
meetings with Empire staff as needed to resolve issues as they arise and maintain ongoing
communication.
Interim reporting
It is imperative that the evaluation provide and discuss preliminary findings at the end of each data
collection and analysis activity. This type of regular reporting ensures that the findings from each activity
can be used to modify the programs as needed to improve their performance. The evaluation contractor
will provide Empire with interim evaluation memorandum reports that will summarize preliminary
evaluation findings and potential recommendations stemming from those findings.
Annual reporting
The evaluation contractor will compile and synthesize the results of all evaluation activities each year
into an annual comprehensive evaluation report that will identify key findings and recommendations at
the cross-cutting and sector level (residential and commercial) as well as program level. The annual
evaluation reports will be finalized by the end of each calendar year.
7.4
Program Level Work Scope
As discussed above, one comprehensive evaluation combining process and impact studies will be
conducted once for each program, beginning at the end of the first program year. The bulk of the
evaluation scope of work will be data collection and analysis tasks to provide input to the process and
impact evaluation activities.
Impact evaluation activities will include a combination of engineering reviews, customer surveys, and
select on-site visits and metering as appropriate and cost-effective at the program level to provide
reliable estimates of energy savings resulting from program activities. Concentrated process evaluation
efforts will include program staff interviews, customer surveys, trade ally interviews, and
documentation and database review. In general, survey sample sizes will be determined in order to
present results at a 90 percent confidence level +/- 10 percent.
7.4.1 Process Evaluation
Data Collection and Sampling Plan
The data collection plan will define the specific data collection requirements, along with the source of
the information and the use to which that the data will be put, the timing of the data collection, in
relation to the rest of the plan, to assure that it meets the overall needs of the study, and the scheduling
method and plan or coordinating contacts.
The sampling plan will describe the sample design, interview methodology and stratification of each
program. Interviews of the major personnel categories will include Empire staff, program managers,
third party implementers, participating and non-participating customers, and participating and nonparticipating trade allies, in addition to others.
The sample size of each group will be calculated at a 90% confidence interval with an error margin of +/10%. The number of completed interviews will provide a sufficient sample to meet the confidence
32 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
interval requirements. The interview methodology will range depending on the market actor being
interviewed, from on-site interviews, in-depth interviews or computer assisted telephone interviews.
Program Design and Delivery Staff Interviews
Interviews with program staff will be conducted in-person and will focus on the program history and
design, identifying areas for program improvement and the overall effectiveness of the program. The
third party implementer interviews will be conducted at the locations where program files are
maintained. Particular attention will be paid to the contractor’s perception of how the programs
operate, what program data are tracked and captured, how the data are managed and maintained, and
how program subcontractor(s) are managed, if applicable.
Questions will be based on both portfolio and program level activities and achievements. Answers to
these questions will help identify process improvements that can make the program more efficient and
consequently more cost-effective and will be summarized in a chapter of the process evaluation report.
Customer Data Collection
Surveys of participating customers will be conducted via telephone. Participating customers will be
asked about their experiences with the program, including the effectiveness and satisfaction with the
program, the contractor/trade ally, the equipment itself, and marketing outreach. Participants will also
answer a series of questions regarding program awareness, attitudes of energy efficiency and energy
conservation, overall satisfaction, and barriers to participation, spillover and areas of improvement. The
findings from the customer surveys will be summarized in a chapter of the process evaluation and the
data tables from these surveys will be provided in separate appendices.
Contractor Data Collection
Contractors will be asked about clarity of program rules, usefulness of support materials, marketing and
coordination efforts and application processes. These responses will be instrumental in developing
recommendations for improvement that will improve program effectiveness and customer satisfaction
and remove barriers to participation. Interviews will also attempt to gather information that could be
used to assess market effects or other program-related impacts such as free-ridership and spillover.
Nonparticipating Customer and Contractor Data Collection
Where appropriate, interviews with non-participating customers and contractors will be conducted to
better understand the market, free ridership, spillover and how the program can increase participation
and effects in the market. These interviews will also provide insights into removing barriers to
participation and improved marketing methods and messages.
Document Review
In addition to stakeholder interviews, the evaluation contractor will collect program materials, including
process flowcharts, and marketing and outreach materials such as point of purchase (POP) materials,
print and radio advertising copy and any cooperative marketing materials developed. The evaluation
contractor will also request information on actual activities, such as completed marketing campaigns.
Marketing schedules and quantitative data, such as enrollments per month, will be overlaid to
determine the impacts of these campaigns.
33 | P a g e
Empire District · Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio
2012-2013
7.4.2 Impact Evaluation
Program level impact evaluations will be conducted to verify measure installations and identify key
energy assumptions for equipment life, incremental equipment cost, program budget information,
number of participants, free ridership and spillover. The evaluation will also provide the necessary
research to calculate defensible and accurate savings attributable to the program.
The primary data collection methodologies for the impact evaluation will include:






Strategies to measure and verify energy efficiency installation and determine energy impacts for
each program, as appropriate, in kilowatt-hour or kilowatt reductions
o Sample for field verification activities
o Field verification activities and observations
o Adjusted measure savings values based on field activities and data reviews
Program-specific realization rates
Energy savings based on four annual time periods (on-peak and off-peak)
Billing analyses
Applications and supporting documentation provided to Empire from customers, as appropriate
Conclusions and recommendations for more accurately estimating energy savings for each
program
Secondary data sources will be used for assumptions that do not require primary data collection.
The evaluation contractor will use inputs specific to Empire, including avoided costs and discounts rates
to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis and program screening. The program evaluator will evaluate costeffectiveness using the standard California tests including Total Resource Cost, Societal Cost Test,
Participant Test, Utility Test and Rate Impact Measure Test. These tests consider the overall costs and
benefits from various perspectives. All results will be provided with estimates of present value benefits,
cost, net benefits and benefit-cost ratios. The analysis will include both a retrospective look at the
program to date and a prospective analysis of the future of the program.
All work will be designed to meet the appropriate International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocol (IPMVP).
34 | P a g e